Agenda packet, special meeting — Los Gatos City Council, August 18, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

ITEM NO. 1.
3 STEPS 3 STEPS 3 STEPS 3 STEPS 3 STEPS
1 STEP
1 STEP
1 STEP
NO

PARKING VAN ACCESSIBLE EVCS ADA EVCS EVC EVC EVC EVC EVC

EVC EVC EVC
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP

FLP FLP
FLP

FLP FLP FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP FLP

FLP FLP

FLP FLP FLP

FLP FLP FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP
FLP

FLP FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP
FLP

FLP FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP FLP

FLP FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP FLP

FLP FLP

FLP FLP FLP FLP

FLP FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLPFLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP
FLP

FLP FLP

FLP FLP
FLP
FLP

HYDROZONE PLAN

AND WATER USE

CALCULATIONS

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR PLANTING

AREAS, BUBBLERS FOR TREES

HYDROZONE LEGEND

DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
NOTES:

1. FINAL DESIGN SHALL CONFORM TO AB1881 OR TOWN ADOPTED WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.

2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN WILL BE COMMONLY MAINTAINED BY

THE OWNER AND IRRIGATED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION
SYSTEM.

3. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE PERMANENT BELOW GROUND

AUTOMATED SYSTEMS ADEQUATE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL. THESE SYSTEMS WILL BE

INSTALLED AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER GRADING AND PRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND HYDROSEEDING.

4. ALL TREE, SHRUB, AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED

BY A PERMANENT, AUTOMATIC, UNDERGROUND IRRIGATION
SYSTEM. TREE, SHRUB, AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS SHALL BE ON

SEPARATE VALVES ACCORDING TO PLANT WATER REQUIREMENTS
AND EXPOSURE.

5. ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED, MAINTAINED AND MANAGED TO MEET OR EXCEED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY.

6. ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED APPROPRIATELY FROM VIEW IN PUBLIC AREAS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.

7. THE FINAL IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL ACCURATELY AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY:

A. LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF WATER POINTS OF CONNECTION.

B. LOCATION, TYPE, AND SIZE OF ALL COMPONENTS OF THE

IRRIGATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS,

MAIN AND LATERAL LINES, VALVES, SPRINKLER HEADS, RAIN
SWITCHES, AND QUICK COUPLERS.

C. STATIC WATER PRESSURE AT THE POINTS OF CONNECTION.

D. FLOW RATE (GALLONS PER MINUTE), REMOTE CONTROL

VALVE SIZE, AND DESIGN OPERATING PRESSURE (PSI) FOR
EACH STATION.

E. HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE.

F. WATER USE CALCULATIONS.

8. TWO NEW IRRIGATION WATER METER SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS.

9. THIS PROJECT IS NOT PART OF A RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM.

POTABLE WATER WILL BE USED FOR IRRIGATION.

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR BIOTREATMENT
AREAS

OKA ROAD
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CAD DWG FILE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

HMHC
NO DATE DESCRIPTION 14789 OKA ROAD ARCHITECTURE & SITE REVIEW AND TENTATIVE MAP S-24-052, U-24-016, M-24-017
S:\PROJECTS\684300\LA\PLANNING\684300LPD.DWG
684300LPD.DWG
L7
6843.00
SEPTEMBER 13, 2024
PLOTTED: 4/29/2025 4:19 PM
Land Use Entitlements
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Civil Engineering
Utility Design
Land Surveying
Stormwater Compliance
1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200
San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com
1 10/25/24 PER CITY COMMENTS
2 1/15/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
3 5/2/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
1" = 40'
TC
JH
JH
( In Feet )
1 inch = 40 feet

GRAPHIC SCALE
40 0 20 40 80 160

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR PLANTING AREAS,
BUBBLERS FOR TREES: 65,688 SF
DRIP IRRIGATION FOR BIOTREATMENT AREAS: 8,813 SF
TOTAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA: 74,501 SF
AGGREGATE IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA:

TOTAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA: 74,501 SF
TOTAL SITE AREA: 295,266 SF
PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA: 25%
PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE AREA:

LOS GATOS CREEK
M

PROPERTY LINE, TYPICAL

IRRIGATION POINT OF

CONNECTION

GREENMAN LANE

OGILVIE LANE

MENNE LANE
HAYDEN
LANE

BURROUGHS
LANE

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR PUBLIC

BIOTREATMENT AREAS

Page 423 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

IRRIGATION PLAN
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CAD DWG FILE:

CHECKED BY:

DATE:

SCALE:

HMHC
NO DATE DESCRIPTION 14789 OKA ROAD ARCHITECTURE & SITE REVIEW AND TENTATIVE MAP S-24-052, U-24-016, M-24-017
S:\PROJECTS\684300\LA\PLANNING\684300LPD.DWG
684300LPD.DWG
L8
6843.00
SEPTEMBER 13, 2024
PLOTTED: 4/29/2025 4:19 PM
Land Use Entitlements
Land Planning
Landscape Architecture
Civil Engineering
Utility Design
Land Surveying
Stormwater Compliance
1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200
San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com
1 10/25/24 PER CITY COMMENTS
2 1/15/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
3 5/2/25 PER CITY COMMENTS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
SCALE: N.T.S.

NOTES:

1. NIPPLES AND FITTINGS TO BE SAME IPT
SIZE AS BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY.

2. INSTALL GREEN WEATHER GUARD

BACKFLOW BLANKET OR APPROVED
EQUAL.

3. DISSIMILAR METALS SHALL BE

SEPARATED BY AN APPROVED
DIELECTRIC FITTING.

4. ENCLOSURE SHALL BE STRONG BOX

LOW PROFILE SMOOTH TOUCH
SBBC-30CR OR SBBC-45CR, COLOR
DARK GREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL.

ENCLOSURE SHALL BE SIZED BASED
ON BACKFLOW DEVICE SIZE. CONTACT
MANUFACTUER V.I.T. PRODUCTS
1-800-729-1314.

SCH. 80 PVC COUPLING- 2 TOTAL
SCH. 80 PVC 90° ELBOW-2 TOTAL (TxT

CONNECTION) PVC MAIN LINE TO POINT OF CONNECTION

BUSH AS NECESSARY FOR SIZE TRANSITION

PVC MAIN LINE TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM
SCH. 80 PVC NIPPLE-2 TOTAL

FINISHED GRADE
POURED CONCRETE BASE-6" MIN.

THICKNESS-EXTEND 4" BEYOND OUTSIDE

DIMENSIONS OF ENCLOSURE

CONCRETE SUPPORT BLOCK
SCH. 80 PVC MALE ADAPTER-2 TOTAL
SCH.40 GALVANIZED STEEL NIPPLES-2 TOTAL

REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE

ENCLOSURE AND BLANKET
BACKFLOW ENCLOSURE-SEE NOTE 4.

ANCHOR ROD (TYPICAL)

ENCLOSURE
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 10 9
14 15
9 10
11 12
13 14
13 REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY

PER IRRIGATION LEGEND
1 15 BACKFLOW BLANKET
1 FLOW
SEE

IRRIGATION
LEGEND

BACKFLOW DEVICE
13 2
3 4
6 8 12
10 9
5 7
1 15
11 8"
MIN.

PER
CODE
SCALE: N.T.S.
24 VOLT CONTROL WIRING

FINISHED GRADE

PEDESTAL MOUNT CONTROLLER
2-1" PVC CONDUITS FOR 120
VOLT A.C. AND SIGNAL WIRE
CONCRETE PAD-6" THICK (MIN.)
EXTEND 6" BEYOND EACH SIDE
AND BACK AND 24" IN FRONT

PLASTIC VALVE BOX SEE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE
8' LONG COPPER GROUND ROD
4" PVC SWEEP ELL ROUND

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER-SEE

IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR

SPECIFICATION

GROUND WIRE
24"
1 1
2 "
NOTE:

1. VERIFY POWER SOURCE WITH PROJECT
ELECTRICIAN.

2. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK MUST CONFORM TO
LOCAL CODES. REFER TO PRODUCT

LITERATURE FOR ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION
REQUIREMENTS. THIS DRAWING IS PROVIDED
FOR REFERENCE ONLY. INDIVIDUAL PROJECT

REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL CODES MAY

DICTATE DIFFERENCES IN INSTALLATION

PROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ON
THIS DETAIL.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 3
4 6
5 8
9 2
1 7
SCALE: 2" = 1'-0"

BALL VALVE

SECTION
NOTES:

1. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND

FOR EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATIONS.

2. INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE

WITH MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.
1 NATIVE SOIL
2 IRRIGATION MAINLINE,
MINIMUM 18" DEEP
3 PVC ELBOW, 45
DEGREES, SCH 40
4 PVC, SCH 40
5 PVC, SCH 40, MINIMUM
8" LONG BOTH SIDE OF

BALL VALVE
6 BALL VALVE
7 8

PEA GRAVEL SUMP,
6" WIDE, 6" DEEP

BRICK SUPPORTS
9 PLASTIC VALVE BOX, 6"
ROUND, LID SHALL BE 1"

ABOVE FINISHED

GRADE, HEAT BRAND
"BV" ON LID IN 1"

LETTERS
8 7 6 9 5 1 4 3 2
SCALE: N.T.S.

NOTES:

1. BUBBLER DISTANCE TO ROOT

BALL WILL VARY DEPENDING ON

THE CONTAINER SIZE OF THE
PLANT. ALLOW 6" BETWEEN
TRUNK AND BUBBLER.

2. PLACE ALL BUBBLERS ON

UPHILL SIDE OF SLOPE IF
APPLICABLE. CONCEAL ALL
EQUIPMENT UNDER MULCH.

3. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR
SPECIFICATION.

4. INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE

WITH MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.

FINISHED GRADE

TUBING STAKES PVC
COATED 12 GAUGE WIRE

U STAKES QUANTITY AS

NEEDED TO SECURE
TUBING (2 MIN.) SALCO

OR EQUAL

MULCH PER

SPECIFICATIONS

POSITION BUBBLER

OVER ROOT BALL

PRESSURE

COMPENSATING DRIP

BUBBLER (SEE LEGEND

FOR MODEL)

SUPER FUNNY PIPE
850-35 ADAPTER

PVC LATERAL PIPE
PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL
1/2" (SLIP XSLIP X FIPT)
1/2" PVC SCH 40 (MIPT X

SLIP) MALE ADAPTER UV

RADIATION RESISTANT

ROOT BALL

PLANT CROWN
SUPER FUNNY PIPE 850

SOIL RING (SEE

PLANTING DETAILS)

ON GRADE TREE BUBBLER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
13 12
11 3
SCALE: N.T.S.

QUICK COUPLING VALVE
10" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE

BOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID
1 1/4" x 1 1/4" x 3/16" ANGLE
IRON 30" LONG, 2 STAINLESS

STEEL STRAPS
3" LONG SCHEDULE 80 PVC

THREADED NIPPLE
NOTE:

1. NIPPLES AND FITTINGS

TO BE SAME SIZE AS

VALVE IPT INLET

THREAD SIZE

2. SEE IRRIGATION

LEGEND FOR

SPECIFICATION

3. INSTALL ALL IN

ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S

RECOMMENDATIONS
10" LONG SCH 80 PVC

THREADED NIPPLE
SCH 80 PVC THREADED 90

DEGREE ELL

QUICK COUPLING VALVE

FINISHED GRADE
SEE

IRRIGATION
LEGEND

SIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW
1 11
4 10
2 9
5 1
2 3
PEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN. 6"
DEPTH
3 4
5 6
7 MAINLINE FITTING
7 9
10 11
2" MAX.
5 11
12 12 BRICK SUPPORTS, 2 TOTAL
6 PVC MAINLINE
SCALE: N.T.S.

REMOTE CONTROL VALVE
NOTES:

1. DO NOT LOCATE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE IN LAWN

2. COMPACT SOIL AROUND BOX TO SAME DENSITY AS

ADJACENT UNDISTURBED SOIL BUNDLE AND TAPE
CONTROL WIRE TO MAINLINE EVERY 10'

3. SPLICES IN CONTROL WIRE ARE NOT ALLOWED BETWEEN

CONTROLLER AND VALVE

4. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION

5. INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S

RECOMMENDATIONS
SCOTCH LOK #3577

CONNECTOR SEALING

PACK OR EQUAL
VALVE BOX: CARSON

SPECIFICATION GRADE,

NDS PRO SERIES, OR
EQUAL
REMOTE CONTROL VALVE:

SEE IRRIG. LEGEND
PEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN. 6"
DEEP

ID TAG FOR VALVE

STATION NUMBER
PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE
(CLOSE)

TOP OF MULCH

LATERAL LINE
18" LENGTH EXPANSION
LOOP
PVC SCH 40 MIN 8" LONG
PVC 45 FITTING SCH 40
PVC SCH 40

S X S FITTING

PVC MAINLINE PIPE
BRICK SUPPORT-1 PER
CORNER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 9
10 11
12 13
14 8
7 6
5 1 3
15 2 4 6" 3" MIN.

DRIPLINE CENTER-FEED LAYOUT
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
NOTES:

1. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND

FOR EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATIONS.

2. INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE

WITH MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.

3. SPACE DRIPLINE PER
IRRIGATION LEGEND.

PLACE PERIMETER
DRIPLINE 2" TO 4" FROM

PLANTING AREA
PERIMETER.
1 PLANTING AREA

PERIMETER
2 DRIP CONTROL VALVE
3 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD
4 PVC CONNECTION,

MANIFOLD TO DRIPLINE
5 DRIPLINE
6 PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD
8 DRIPLINE OPERATION

INDICATOR
9 AIR / VACCUUM RELIEF

LATERAL, BLANK

DRIPLINE TUBING,

PLACED ON MOUND OR
BERM
10 AIR / VACUUM RELIEF

VALVE, PLACED AT

HIGH POINT, PLUMBED

TO BLANK DRIPLINE
TUBING 7 DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE
9 PLAN
7 8
10 1
5 7
2 4 4
3 6 6
4 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"

DRIPLINE END-FEED LAYOUT
NOTES:

1. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND

FOR EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATIONS.

2. INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE

WITH MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.

3. SPACE DRIPLINE PER
IRRIGATION LEGEND.

PLACE PERIMETER
DRIPLINE 2" TO 4" FROM

PLANTING AREA
PERIMETER.
1 PLANTING AREA

PERIMETER
2 DRIP CONTROL VALVE
3 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD
4 PVC CONNECTION,

MANIFOLD TO DRIPLINE
5 DRIPLINE
6 PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD
8 DRIPLINE OPERATION

INDICATOR
9 AIR / VACCUUM RELIEF

LATERAL, BLANK

DRIPLINE TUBING,

PLACED ON MOUND OR
BERM
10 AIR / VACUUM RELIEF

VALVE, PLACED AT

HIGH POINT, PLUMBED

TO BLANK DRIPLINE
TUBING 7 DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE
9 PLAN
7 8
3 2
10 1
5 4
6 4

SECTION/ELEVATION
1''
SCALE: N.T.S.

DRIPLINE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE,

PRESSURE REGULATOR AND FILTER

PVC MAINLINE
PLASTIC VALVE BOX. HEAT

BRAND STATION NUMBER
ON LID IN 2" CHARACTERS.

FINISHED GRADE

VALVE, SEE LEGEND
CONTROL WIRES WITH 36"

SERVICE COIL AND

WATERPROOF WIRE
CONNECTIONS, SEE LEGEND.

PRESSURE REGULATOR,

SEE LEGEND
SCHEDULE 80 UNION

PVC LATERAL

FILTER, SEE LEGEND
1 CU. FT. PEA GRAVEL SUMP

BRICK SUPPORTS
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 10
NOTES:

1. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATION.

2. INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
12 NATIVE GRADE

BARK MULCH / PLANTING
(1" BELOW VALVE LID) 13
13 2 5 3
6 4
7 9
1 11
8 12

SECTION/ELEVATION

FINISHED GRADE
SCALE: N.T.S.

DRIPLINE OPERATION INDICATOR
NOTES:

1. USE ONE OPERATION
INDICATOR PER ZONE.

2. PLACE AT FLUSH END
OF ZONE.

3. SEE IRRIGATION

LEGEND FOR PIPE

SCHEDULE AND

EQUIPMENT
SPECIFICATION.

4. INSTALL ALL IN

ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S
RECOMMENDATIONS.

5. LOCATE INDICATORS IN

ADJACENT PLANTING

AREAS OUTSIDE TURF

AREAS WITH SUB-DRIP

SYSTEMS (OUTSIDE
TURF).

DRIPLINE OPERATION
INDICATOR. USE ONE PER

ZONE AND LOCATED AT

FLUSH END OF ZONE
DRIPLINE. USE ONE PER

ZONE AND LOCATED AT

FLUSH END OF ZONE
1"
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4

NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL

PER SPECIFICATIONS

DEPTH PER

SPECIFICATIONS
5 MULCH LAYER
5 3" THICK LAYER BARK MULCH

DRIPLINE PER DRIPLINE TRENCH DETAIL
PLANTING BEYOND. SEE PLANTING
DETAILS.

SOIL (SEE PLANTING DETAIL FOR

SPECIFICATIONS)
SCALE: N.T.S.

DRIPLINE INSTALLED ON GRADE
NOTES:

1. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND SPECIFICATION

2. INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS

STEEL SOIL STAPLES PER

MANUFACTURERS' RECOMMENDATIONS
1 2
3 4
5 6 FINISHED GRADE
1 6
4 2
3 5

AS NOTED
TC
JH
JH

Page 424 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

GIACALONE

Page 425 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W GIACALONE

Page 426 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

W W W GIACALONE

Page 427 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

OKA ROAD
(8 PLEX)
BUILDING 1
(7 PLEX)
BUILDING 12
(6 PLEX) BUILDING 13
(6 PLEX) BUILDING 14
(6 PLEX)
BUILDING 15
(6 PLEX)
BUILDING 16
(6 PLEX)
BUILDING 17
(6 PLEX)
BUILDING 18
(7 PLEX)
BUILDING 11
(7 PLEX)
BUILDING 10
(7 PLEX)
BUILDING 9
(7 PLEX)
BUILDING 8
(7 PLEX)
BUILDING 7
(8 PLEX)
BUILDING 2
(8 PLEX)
BUILDING 3
(8 PLEX)
BUILDING 4
(8 PLEX)
BUILDING 5
(8 PLEX)
BUILDING 6
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
CC
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
CC
CC
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB
BB

0.3 2.8

0.6 0.1

1.0 0.2

0.7 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.4

0.1 0.6

0.1 0.4

2.5 0.2

0.6 1.1

1.0 0.3

0.1 0.2

2.4 0.9

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

2.3 0.4

0.1 0.3

0.2 0.4

0.1 0.9

0.3 0.2

0.2 0.4

3.4 0.6

0.1 0.2

0.8 0.7

0.2 0.1

0.7 3.7

0.7 0.4

0.3 0.9

1.3 0.5

0.2 0.4

0.1 0.3

0.3 0.2

0.2 3.8

1.0 0.2

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.2

0.9 1.7

0.3 1.6

0.6 0.2

0.1 0.7

3.7 0.8

0.2 0.1

2.1 0.3

0.3 0.8

0.1 0.1

0.2 2.3

0.4 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.4 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.5

3.4 0.1

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.3

1.4 0.1

0.2 0.3

2.1 0.8

0.2 0.1

0.3 0.6

0.1 0.4

2.2 0.3

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.1

0.3 2.3

0.4 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.8 2.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.6

0.2 0.2

0.4 0.1

0.2 0.9

3.2 0.9

0.2 0.1

0.2 1.3

1.8 0.3

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.7

2.6 1.1

0.3 0.2

1.8 0.9

0.2 0.2

0.5 0.5

0.8 0.8

0.4 3.3

0.5 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 1.6

0.3 0.6

0.1 0.1

0.4 0.1

0.1 0.3

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.3

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.3

0.7 0.4

0.2 1.5

0.5 0.1

0.1 0.6

2.1 0.4

0.1 1.3

0.2 0.1

0.4 2.4

0.7 0.1

1.4 0.2

0.1 0.2

0.6 1.2

0.5 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.5

0.1 0.1

0.3 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.4

2.4 0.1

0.4 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.2 0.7

1.6 0.1

0.4 2.3

0.8 0.3

0.2 0.3

0.3 0.2

0.6 3.7

0.7 0.1

0.4 0.9

0.1 0.2

0.3 1.0

0.2 0.1

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.5

0.1 0.1

0.7 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 2.7

0.4 0.1

0.1 0.2

1.2 0.5

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

1.6 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.7 2.4

0.1 0.2

0.7 0.2

0.4 0.1

0.8 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.4 1.5

0.1 0.3

0.4 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.5

0.3 0.1

1.5 0.4

0.7 0.1

0.7 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.5 2.6

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.6 0.7

0.1 0.1

0.4 0.9

1.6 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.5

1.3 2.0

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.5 1.0

0.9 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.5

1.2 2.7

1.8 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.4

0.8 0.7

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.6 1.2

2.0 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.7 0.1

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.9

0.1 0.1

0.3 0.5

0.9 1.7

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.7

1.0 1.2

1.9 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.5 0.9

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.3

0.6 1.7

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.4

0.6 0.4

0.3 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.6

1.2 1.7

0.1 0.1

0.3 0.4

0.5 1.1

2.6 0.1

0.2 0.4

0.7 0.5

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.4

1.0 1.9

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.2 0.5

1.1 1.6

0.1 0.6

0.7 0.3

1.1 0.1

1.4 1.6

0.6 0.2

2.5 0.1

0.8 0.3

0.1 0.9

0.6 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.9 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

1.6 0.6

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

1.2 0.6

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 1.2

0.4 0.2

0.1 0.2

0.1 1.7

0.9 0.4

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.8

0.6 0.3

0.2 0.1

1.3 0.5

0.2 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.1 1.0

0.4 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.6

0.4 0.8

0.7 0.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 2.6

1.3 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.1 0.1

1.4 0.7

0.4 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.6 0.5

0.3 0.1

0.1 0.6

0.2 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.1 1.6

0.7 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.8

1.1 0.6

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.3

0.3 0.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 1.7

0.8 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.6

1.1 0.6

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.0

0.0 0.0

1.32.2 1.9

2.3 1.9

1.20.7 0.2

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.3

0.5 0.8

0.4 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.1 0.1

0.20.2 0.3

0.4 0.2

0.10.1 0.1

0.1 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.4 0.7

0.7 0.5

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.7

1.1 2.0

2.6 2.3

2.3 1.3

0.7 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.40.6

1.1 1.8

2.8 2.2

2.4 1.4

0.8 0.5

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.4 0.5

0.7 0.9

1.1 1.1

2.7 1.4

2.5 2.3

2.3 1.3

0.8 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.7 1.3

2.1 2.7

2.0 2.4

1.4 0.8

0.6 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.4

0.6 1.0

1.3 1.4

1.4 1.3

0.9 0.6

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.4

0.7 1.2

2.0 2.4

1.9 2.8

1.8 1.0

0.6 0.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.5

0.6 0.9

1.0 1.1

1.0 0.8

0.7 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.1 0.4

0.2 1.2

0.7 2.5

2.1 1.3

2.3 2.4

0.4 0.7

0.2 0.3

0.1 0.1

0.3 0.2

1.3 0.7

0.4 2.5

2.2 1.2 2.1

2.6 0.6

0.7 1.0 0.6

1.1 0.2

0.3 0.3 0.3

0.5 0.8

1.4 2.3

2.1 2.6

1.8 1.1

0.6 0.4

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.2

0.4 0.7

1.2 2.1

2.6 2.5

2.2 1.3

0.7 0.5

0.7 1.2

2.1 2.7

2.1 0.6

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.5 0.8

1.5 2.6

2.4 2.7

1.8 1.0

0.6 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.4

0.7 1.1

2.0 2.6

2.2 2.6

1.4 0.6 0.4

0.4 0.3

0.4 0.6

0.7 0.60.4

0.2 0.10.1

0.1 0.10.10.1

0.1 0.2

0.2 0.4

0.7 1.1

2.1 2.7

2.42.3 1.3

0.70.4 0.3

0.20.1 0.1

0.10.20.41.6 0.5

2.1 2.5

1.9 1.1

0.6 0.1

0.20.3 0.5

0.8 1.32.3

0.60.6 0.5

0.40.3 0.2

0.20.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.5

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.7

1.3 2.2

2.2 2.5

2.0 1.1

0.7 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.4 0.7

1.1 2.0

2.6 2.4

2.3 1.3

0.8 0.4

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.5

0.9 1.6

2.7 2.4

2.8 1.6

0.9 0.5

0.3 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.5

0.8 1.4

2.4 2.3

2.8 1.9

1.1 0.6

0.4 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 Luminaire Schedule - LED
Project: OKO ROAD - LOS GATOS
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Luminaire
Lumens
Luminaire
Watts
Description Filename
15 BB Single 0.900 1558 14.34 LUMEC S-OSPxHx-15W40LED-740-G1-4F-HS @ 11' LC S-OSPxHx-15W40LED-740-G1-4F-HS.ies 22 CC Single 0.900 1519 14.34 LUMEC S-OSPxHx-15W40LED-740-G1-2F-HS @ 11' LC S-OSPxHx-15W40LED-740-G1-2F-HS.ies 24 WP Single 0.900 2118 20.9 GARDCO PWS-196L-450-NW-G3-2-UNV @ 8' PWS-196L-450-NW-G2-2-UNV.ies Calculation Summary
Project: OKO ROAD - LOS GATOS
Description CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
GARAGE ALLEY DRIVES Illuminance Fc 0.55 3.8 0.1 5.50 38.00 MAIN DRIVES AND PARKING AREAS Illuminance Fc 0.47 2.7 0.1 4.70 27.00 TYPICAL PATHWAYS Illuminance Fc 0.73 2.8 0.1 7.30 28.00 PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONS IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IESNA TESTING PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHED LAMP RATINGS. FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS.

Calculations have been performed according to IESNA standards and good practice.

Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due totolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance,measurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperaturevariations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as roomdimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect thelighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data, differences will occur between measured values and calculated values. SCALE SHEET DATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE REV REPORT FOR : SALES REPRESENTATIVE : ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC. APPLICATION ENGINEERING : RAMON ZAPATA Associated Lighting Representatives, Inc.

PLAN LIGHTING - PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS - LAYOUT RECOMMENDATION

PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
( ALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT FINISHED GRADE, U.O.N. ) Note: Unless otherwise specified - the lamp lumen depreciation (LLD) for legacy sources used in these calculations is based on published mean lumen ratings by major lamp manufacturers; 0.80 LLD for pulse start metal halide; 0.90 LLD for high pressure sodium; 0.95 LLD for linear T8 and T5 fluorescent; 0.86 LLD for compact fluorescent and induction; 0.88 LLD for Cosmo and Elite lamps. 0.94 LDD for all LED sources. Unless otherwise noted - 0.90 luminaire dirt depreciation (LDD) is commonly applied. In cases where appropriate - ballast factor (BF) is applied. Additional user defind factors (UDF) may be applied if necessary to represent luminaire performance to a higher degree of accruracy. Total light loss factor (LLF) is the product of all multiplied loss factors.

ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC.

NOT FOR QUOTING PURPOSES
8800 BAYMEADOWS WAY WEST, SUITE 500, JACKSONVILLE, FL 32256 AGi32 VERSION 22.1 AGi (C) 2024 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC. From REVALIZE SOFTWARE Oakland, CA 7777 Pardee Lane 94621 510-638-3800 Fresno, CA 2720 North Grove 93727 559-453-0444 Sacramento, CA 1912 Del Paso Rd. 95834 916-383-4545 Reno, NV 9070 Double Diamond Pkwy. 89521 775-849-9770 Oregon / SW Washington 800 C Street Vancouver, WA 98660 503-894-7500 GIACALONE DESIGN SERVICES KRISTIAN REYES OKA ROAD CITY OF LOS GATOS 23246REY-R2DWG / 23246REY-R2.A32 1 : 40 08.13.2025 1 OF 1 2

Page 428 ends

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: 05/27/2026
ITEM NO: 2

ADDENDUM
DATE: May 26, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development (138 units), a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Remove Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit Under Senate Bill 330 (SB330) on Vacant Properties Zoned R-1:8:HEOZ and R1:8. Located at 14789 Oka Road. APN’s 424-08-074 and -035. Architecture and Site Application S-24-052, Subdivision Application M-24-017, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-26-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner:

Edward Morimoto, Yuki Farms, LLC. Applicant: Erik Hayden, Urban Catalyst.

Project Planner: Erin Walters.

REMARKS:

Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Friday, May 22, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2026, are included as Exhibit 21.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the May 27, 2026, Staff Report

1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through K (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/14789Oka)

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval - S-24-052 and M-24-017

4. Location Map

5. Project Description

6. Letter of Justification

7. Site Photographs

8. Consulting Architect’s Report

9. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report ATTACHMENT 3

Page 469 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 14789 Oka Road/S-24-052, M-24-017 and ND-26-001 DATE: May 26, 2026

10. Final Arborist Report

11. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review

12. Visual Renderings

13. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

14. Public comments received by 3:00 p.m., Friday, May 22, 2026

15. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

16. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration

17. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Sheet

18. North Entrance Exhibit

19. Objective Design Standards Checklist

20. Development Plans
Received with this Addendum Report:

21. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, May 22, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 26,2026

Page 470 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Jackson Louie < >
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 8:16 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: 14789 Oka Road Development Project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Ms Walters,
We reside in the quiet cul-de-sac of Mozart Ave. We are concerned about the additional traffic that the new development will add with the additional 138 units. Oka Road is quite narrow and the traffic on Lark Ave. is already very heavy. We are also concerned about the traffic impact during construction as there will be big construction equipment rolling through the narrow Oka Road.

With the new additional units, what are the planned escape routes in case of emergency and how would that impact the Mozart neighborhood? We are at the "end" of the neighborhood and Oka is the ONLY way out.

Did the town perform any traffic studies? I did not see an y in the project site:

Pending Planning Projects | The Los Gatos CA Official Site! Best Regards,
Jackson Louie

Page 471 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Calvin T
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 3:26 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: PETITION TO THE LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION OPPOSITION TO THE 14789 OKA ROAD PROJECT
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To: Erin Walters, Senior Planner,

PETITION TO THE LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION
OPPOSITION TO THE 14789 OKA ROAD PROJECT
Application Numbers: Architecture and Site Application S-24-052 & Subdivision Application M-24-017
To the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission:

I, the undersigned resident and stakeholder of Los Gatos, formally petition against the approval of the 138-unit multi-family development proposed at 14789 Oka Road. While I recognize the state housing requirements, I urge the Planning Commission to heavily scrutinize or deny this proposal based on critical compliance, safety, and environmental failures, including:
• Environmental and Canopy Destruction: The removal of established orchards and numerous large protected trees violates the environmental stewardship values of our community.
• Traffic Hazards and Congestion: Adding 138 units right at the volatile SR-17 and SR-85 freeway interchange presents extreme, unmitigated traffic safety hazards for Oka Road.
• Inadequate Infrastructure Integrity: The proposed density creates an intense localized infrastructure demand that directly challenges local neighborhood safety and emergency evacuation capacities.
***I request that the Planning Commission hold the developer to the absolute strictest interpretation of the Town’s Objective Design Standards*** Regards,
May Lee

Page 472 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Divya Prasad < >
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 3:13 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: PETITION TO THE LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION OPPOSITION TO THE 14789 OKA ROAD PROJECT
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Ms Walters,
Application Numbers: Architecture and Site Application S-24-052 & Subdivision Application M-24-017
To the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission:

We reside in the Mozart Ave cul de sac, and would like to formally petition against the approval of the 138-unit multi-family development proposed at 14789 Oka Road.

While we recognize the state housing requirements, we urge the Planning Commission to heavily scrutinize or deny this proposal based on critical compliance, safety, and environmental failures, including:
- Traffic Hazards and Congestion: Adding 138 units right at the volatile SR-17 and SR-85 freeway interchange presents extreme, unmitigated traffic safety hazards for Oka Road.

Oka Rd is quite narrow with heavy traffic already, with two health clubs, schools, community center etc. In an emergency event such as fire or earthquake, residents will be trapped with no way out (the gridlock that was created in the recent apartment fire is a good example). Additionally, the construction equipment on the narrow lane will obstruct traffic even further.
- Environmental and Canopy Destruction: The removal of established orchards and numerous large protected trees violates the environmental stewardship values of our community.
- Inadequate Infrastructure Integrity: The proposed density creates an intense localized infrastructure demand that directly challenges local neighborhood safety and emergency evacuation capacities.

We request that the Planning Commission hold the developer to the absolute strictest interpretation of the Town’s Objective Design Standards.

Cheers
Divya

Page 473 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 8:06 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #17585 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Jackson
Last Name Louie
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
14789 Oka Road
Message (Required) We reside in the quiet neighborhood of Mozart Ave. We are concerned about the additional traffic that the new development will add as Oka Road is quite narrow and
traffic on Lark Ave. is already very heavy. Also, we are concerned about escape routes in case of emergency.

Did the town perform any traffic studies?
Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.

Page 474 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2026 6:35 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #17591 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Ed
Last Name w
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number Field not completed.

Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
14789 Oka Road
Message (Required) As long term resident have witnessed and struggle what is happening on our city. It would be very
irresponsible for this counsel to approve such project
without making enough research how this project will
impact on the current environment of our city and their institutions.
surely I can point out the most obvious ones but it is

Page 475 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
the job of our leaders to decide better with a accurate data.
transportation.

As a family we have a continuous traffic situation every day, we need to solve this situation before proceeding
with the project.

Planing.
the greed has to stop and make the land to better use
for our community. Even when most of Los Gatos is fill
with many trees still we need parks for our kids. There are few places on Los Gatos where kids can play or do
sports. We need more parks and this space location is
a perfect place because is flat since most of the city
has some slope. Having so many units on the planing
says so much the greed of the builders to profit from
this land since housing on the city is above than others cities on the valley. Even, there are mandates created
for greedy politician from Sacramento to solve the
problem of housing that mandate can not be used if
that decision is affecting and will affect more residents on the future. I would assume as usual corporate
environment tent to sue the city if that comes to it is the job of the leaders of the city to strongly reject that kind of behavior and have strong consequences . This
is our city and we must protect and decide the best to
keep our city with less problems and we must fix the
ones we have before deciding to get more problems.
parking.
it has been proof that more units will bring more
families to the location on consequence more forms of
transportation if the planing is building units with two parkings and there is not parking on the street that
would create another problem it is better the project
address this issue but as mentioned previously they
won't because that would be less money for them so
before it starts please make sure what is the solution.

Page 476 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
community overload.
we have great school environment compared to other
places that makes our community desired but this is
the work of previous generations and the current
leaders must fallow that example to keep it our city
proud of it and not bend to the power of money or
politicians with agenda.

Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 477 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 478 ends

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: 05/27/2026
ITEM NO: 2

DESK ITEM
DATE: May 27, 2026
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development (138 units), a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Remove Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit Under Senate Bill 330 (SB330) on Vacant Properties Zoned R-1:8:HEOZ and R1:8. Located at 14789 Oka Road. APN’s 424-08-074 and -035. Architecture and Site Application S-24-052, Subdivision Application M-24-017, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-26-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner:

Edward Morimoto, Yuki Farms, LLC. Applicant: Erik Hayden, Urban Catalyst.

Project Planner: Erin Walters.

REMARKS:

Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 27,2026 are included as Exhibit 22.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the May 27, 2026, Staff Report

1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through K (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/14789Oka)

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval - S-24-052 and M-24-017

4. Location Map

5. Project Description

6. Letter of Justification

7. Site Photographs

8. Consulting Architect’s Report

9. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report ATTACHMENT 4

Page 479 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 14789 Oka Road/S-24-052, M-24-017 and ND-26-001 DATE: May 27, 2026

10. Final Arborist Report

11. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review

12. Visual Renderings

13. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

14. Public comments received by 3:00 p.m., Friday, May 22, 2026

15. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

16. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration

17. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Sheet

18. North Entrance Exhibit

19. Objective Design Standards Checklist

20. Development Plans
Previously Received the May 26, 2026, Addendum Report:

21. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Friday, May 22, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 26,2026
Received with this Desk Item Report:

22. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, May 26, 2026, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 27,2026

Page 480 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Alyse Okumura < >
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:42 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments in Opposition – 14789 Oka Road, 138-Unit Residential Development | May 27, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Erin Walters and Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am writing as a resident of the Oka Road neighborhood to formally submit my opposition to the proposed 138-unit multi-family residential development at 14789 Oka Road, scheduled for consideration at your May 27, 2026 meeting. While I appreciate the Town's efforts to expand housing, my husband and I have serious concerns regarding public safety, traffic, and infrastructure capacity that I respectfully urge the Commission to weigh carefully before rendering a decision.
1) Emergency Access & fire safety – Critical single-point of failure Oka Road is the sole vehicular access point into and out of our neighborhood. Adding 138 residential units (with approx 200–300+ additional residents) to this corridor without a secondary access route creates a dangerous single point of failure in any emergency scenario.

In the event of a structure fire, earthquake, gas leak, or medical emergency at the new complex itself, emergency vehicles (fire trucks/ambulances) would need to navigate the same narrow, congested Oka road that panicked residents are fleeing on. This mutual blocking of ingress and egress could cost lives.

We respectfully request that the Commission require the developer to demonstrate a credible secondary emergency egress plan before any approval is granted, and that the Fire Department's formal review be made part of the public record. 2) Permanent Traffic Congestion Impacts
At standard occupancy rates, 138 new residential units can conservatively be expected to generate 800++ additional vehicle trips per day on Oka Road leading to Lark Ave. Our neighborhood currently relies on Oka Road as its primary. As well as the businesses of two EXHIBIT 22 Page 481
ITEM NO. 1.
heathclubs, schools, and community center are located on Oka Road with the only access point.

This increase will result in:
• Significantly longer wait times entering & exiting the neighborhood during peak morning and evening hours.
• Increased risk of accidents at the insections on Oka Road. • Pedestrian and cyclist safety degradation as vehicle volume grows. • Spillover parking pressure into existing residential streets.

We urge the Commission to require a full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) specific to Oka Road, not merely the project site and to condition any approval on demonstrated mitigation measures.
3) Construction Traffic
The construction of a 138-unit complex is a multi-year endeavor. During that period, existing residents will face daily disruption from:
• Heavy construction vehicles (concrete trucks, cranes, delivery semis) navigating a road not designed for that load.
• Road damage and potential structural degradation to Oka Road's surface and shoulders. • Noise, dust, and vibration affecting neighboring properties. • Restricted lane access and construction staging potentially blocking emergency vehicle passage.
4) Infrastructure Capacity
The proposed density creates an intense localized infrastructure demand that directly challenges local neighborhood safety and emergency evacuation capacities. 5) Environmental and Canopy Destruction

Page 482 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

The removal of established orchards and numerous large protected trees violates the environmental stewardship values of our community (under Senate Bill 330). These trees provide important canopy, stormwater absorption, and habitat value to the neighborhood.

We urge the Commission to require a thorough arborist report and genuine mitigation, not merely token replacement plantings before any removal is permitted.

We not opposed to housing growth in Los Gatos, but deeply opposed to approving a development of this scale on a single-access road without rigorous safety and infrastructure analysis. The residents of Oka Road deserve the same standard of emergency access and quality of life that any Los Gatos neighborhood is entitled to.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Respectfully submitted,
Alyse Okumura & Michael Grossman
Residents of
--
Alyse Okumura

Page 483 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 484 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Emily Thomas, Acting Chair
Susan Burnett
Adam Mayer
Rob Stump
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 485 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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:

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Now we will move on to our
public hearings, starting with Item 2, which is to consider a request for approval to construct a multi-family
residential development of 138 units, Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, remove large protected trees, and site
improvements requiring a Grading Permit under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on vacant property zoned R-1:8HEOZ and R-1:8.

Located at 14789 Oka Road, APNs 424-08-074 and -035,
Architecture and Site Application S-24-052, Subdivision Application M-24-017, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-26-001. An Initial Study and MND have been prepared. Property owners are Edward Morimoto, Yuki Farms, LLC, and Applicant is Erik Hayden, Urban Catalyst.

Before the Staff Report, may I have a show of
hands from Commissioners who have visited the property? And are there any disclosures that need to be made? Yes,
Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, I just want to disclose
that I have worked with HMH, the civil engineer and
landscape architect, on the project in the past in a
professional capacity, but I haven’t spoken with anyone there about this particular item.

Page 486 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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 THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Okay, Ms.

Walters, do you have a Staff Report for us? Thank you.

ERIN WALTERS: Yes, good evening, Planning
Commissioner. Erin Walters, Senior Planner.

This Applicant is requesting approval to remove
an existing orchard and construct a multi-family
residential development on the subject site. The
applications are being processed under State Bill 330, and this is a Builder's Remedy project.

The 6.7-acre site is included in the Housing
Element Sites Inventory. The project proposes 138
residential units distributed among 18 three-story townhome style buildings. Twenty-eight of the units will be
designated as low-income, below market rate units
consistent with State laws and Town requirements. The units will include two- to three-bedroom floor plans with private garages, porches, and balconies.

The site would be served by two private driveways
located off of Oka Road, and would include internal private roads, 20 guest parking spaces, and frontage improvements along Oka Road, including a 5’ right-of-way dedication.

In response to concerns raised by the residents
of the adjacent mobile home park, the Applicant has
proposed shifting the northern entrance of the road

Page 487 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
approximately 15’ farther away from the shared property line. This modification is illustrated in Exhibit 18, and then is also included as a Condition of Approval in Exhibit

3. The project includes landscape open space
throughout the site, including pedestrian pathways, seating areas, and a recreational space located at the rear of the property. This can be seen in the conceptual landscape
plan, which includes replacement trees, in Exhibit 20.

Staff would like to note that the maximum
building height of the buildings will range from
approximately 42’ to 44’, so that is a different note than what was in the Staff Report. They are not all at the same height, they range in height, and that does exceed the 30’ permitted for the zone. The project does propose imported fill, which ranges from 0-3’ across the property, and
that’s to accommodate elevating the site to address the 100-year floodplain.

The Applicant requests Builder's Remedy
exceptions to increased density, increased height, reduced front and rear setbacks, reduced parking, reduced guest parking, and reduced BMP size requirements, and then in several other Objective Design Standards. The Applicant has

Page 488 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
provided this in their Letter of Justification, which is in Attachment 6.

The project has been evaluated pursuant to the No
Net Loss Law and Staff has determined that the remaining Housing Element sites maintain adequate capacity to
accommodate the Town’s remaining RHNA allocation.

An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration were prepared for this project, and then
technical studies were prepared and are included in the attachments, including a transportation analysis. These were reviewed by the Town or prepared by the Town’s
consultants.

The environmental analysis concluded that all
potential impacts for the mitigated to less than
significant level through the implementation of the
Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program, which can be found in Exhibit 15. There was a CEQA public review period between March and April for this environmental document, and responses to comment have been included in Exhibit 16, and an errata sheet has been included in Exhibit 17. Again, this did not identify any new significant impacts or
increase to the severity of the previously identified
impacts.

Page 489 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Staff does recommend that Planning Commission
consider the request, and if merit is found, to forward this recommendation to the Town Council to approve the
Architecture and Site Application and Vesting Tentative Map, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as
described in the Staff Report.

The Commission has received an addendum and a
Desk Item that has public comments included, and in
addition to Planning Staff, the Town’s environmental
consultant and the Public Works Staff are available for questions.

Next, I’d like to hand it over to the Town
Attorney. She’ll be providing information about the
regulatory framework for the project.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Good evening, Commissioners.

Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney, and I’ve prepared a
PowerPoint to review the applicable State laws to this
project. There are four applicable State laws, only three of which are being utilized.

The first is Senate Bill 330. The next is the
State Housing Accountability Act. The third is State
Density Bonus Law, which this project qualifies for but is not utilizing, and the fourth is the California
Environmental Quality Act.

Page 490 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
With regard to Senate Bill 330, it authorizes
applicants to submit a preliminary application, and once the preliminary application has been submitted an applicant vests to the development standards that were in place at the time that the preliminary application was submitted to the Town.

With Senate Bill 330 projects the Town is limited
to holding five public hearings on a project. Tonight will be the first public hearing.

Because this project is a Senate Bill 330
project, it has vested to the development standards that were in place when it’s preliminary application was
submitted, and as I mentioned earlier, the project
Applicant is using the Builder's Remedy and not State
Density Bonus Law.

The Builder's Remedy is a colloquialism for a
provision of the Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act is codified in the State Government Code and it precludes local agencies from denying, reducing the density of, or imposing conditions that render a housing project infeasible if that housing project contains units that are affordable to low- or moderate-income households.

There are several questions that the Town asks in order to

Page 491 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
determine whether a project is eligible for the benefits of the Housing Accountability Act.

The first question is: is it an eligible housing
development project? The Act defines eligible housing
development projects to include projects that are 100%
residential. This project is 100% residential, so it’s an eligible housing development project.

The next question is: is it a project that is
providing housing affordable to lower or moderate-income households? The Act provides that a project that provides at least 20% of its total units to be affordable to lower income households qualifies as a project that is affordable to low-income households.

The Act does authorize the Town to apply its
Objective Development Standards that will not render the project infeasible, and so an important question to ask is what is an Objective Development Standard? Pursuant to the Act, it’s any standard that’s consistent with the Town
meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, also known as RHNA, and it’s a standard that’s applied to facilitate development at the permitted density and as proposed by the development.

In order to be objective, it has to involve no
personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and

Page 492 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
it has to be uniformly verifiable by reference to an
external benchmark.

The Act does contain a section that discusses
what constitutes disapproval of the eligible housing
development project, and the definition includes a vote to disapprove, but it also includes a public agency’s failure to comply with statutory deadlines in order to make a
decision. It also includes imposing a Condition of Approval that would render an eligible project infeasible.

With regard to infeasibility, the Town bears the
burden to establish that the Condition of Approval will not render the project infeasible, and when the Town makes this determination the Town needs to use the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard, meaning that the Town weighs all of the evidence and concludes that all of the evidence on the side of not rendering a project infeasible outweighs the other evidence.

The Housing Accountability Act also includes a
list of permissible findings for denial of the project, including imposition of a condition that would render a project infeasible.

The first grounds would be that the Town has an
adopted Housing Element and has met its Regional Housing

Page 493 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Needs Allocation in all income categories that are proposed in the project.

The second is that the project would have a
specific adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated.

The third grounds would be that denial is
required in order to comply with a specific State or
Federal law.

The fourth is that the project is located on
agricultural land and does not have adequate water or
wastewater.

The fifth grounds would be that the housing
development is inconsistent with the Town’s Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan land use designation. However, this grounds is only available if the Town or any public agency has a Housing Element that had been certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development at the time that the SB 330 preliminary application was
submitted.

Then the sixth grounds would be for a project
that does not quality as a Builder's Remedy project. This particular project does qualify as a Builder's Remedy
project.

Page 494 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Then, finally, with regard to CEQA, CEQA requires
that public agencies analyze the environmental impacts of proposed projects. For this project, the Town’s CEQA
consultant conducted an Initial Study. Based on that
Initial Study, the Town determined that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was appropriate. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is used when a project does have potentially significant environmental impacts, but those impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significance.

I’m here if you have questions now or throughout
the hearing.

Before I end, I wanted to note for the record
that Commissioner Barnett is recused specifically because his residence is located in proximity to tonight’s project, and that concludes my presentation.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
of Staff at this time? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. Yes, I had a
question about the below market rate homes of the
affordable housing. Could you relate that to the AMI,
because I think that question always comes up on that?
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, I’ll defer that to Director
Paulson.

Page 495 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you. Yes, there are
different levels. This one is going to be all of the units will be low-income, which is 80% AMI or below, so that’s how that’s defined based on State law.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: I have a follow-up to that one. Is
it at the time when the application goes in? Like that
version of the AMI, or years later when the project is
going through?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: We probably haven’t tackled
that hurdle yet.

CHAIR THOMAS: Just curious.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: We would be in close
consultation with the Town Attorney. Because it is a Senate Bill 330 preliminary application, then we’ll have to weigh some of those issues, because obviously the AMI does
change.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Yes, follow-up.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Follow-up question. So,
how does the Town keep track of these deed restricted below market rate units?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Keep track in what way?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Inventory-wise. When
they’re resold or… Just get an idea of how they’re handled

Page 496 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
in the future. Say it’s sold, and does the deed reflect what it was purchased for originally? I think questions like that are asked.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Ultimately, there will be an
Affordable Housing Agreement. There will be deed
restriction placed on the individual properties. Those will have first right of refusal. We have an outside program administrator who when someone intends to sell any of the for-sale BMPs they contact the Town and/or the
administrator, and there is a process that that goes
through.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Ms. Walters, just a quick
clarification. I think you said up front that the project had a parcel size of 6.7 acres, and the report says 6.41, so I just wanted to ask if that was an error, or which one is correct.

ERIN WALTERS: Hold on, let me double check one
item.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Sorry, can you repeat that
question?

Page 497 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: The question was in the
Staff Report. Ms. Walters, if I heard it correctly,
reported the parcel size as 6.7 acres. The Staff Report states it’s 6.41 acres.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay.

ERIN WALTERS: I’m ready to answer. I checked,
and it was an error in the Staff Report. So, it is 6.71 acres.

CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any additional questions
for Staff at this time?
We will now open the public portion of this
public hearing on Item 2 and ask the Applicant team to
please come forward. Are you Lisa Ring?
LISA RING: Yes.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, perfect. You will have five
minutes to speak, and then we’ll take other public
comments. If anyone is here in the audience and wishes to speak on this item, please fill out a yellow card and you can give it to Staff now, and then you’ll speak, and you’ll have another three minutes. And if you’re on Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Thank you.

LISA RING: Great, thank you. Good evening,
Commissioners. My name is Lisa Ring, and I’m a planning consultant here speaking on behalf of Urban Catalyst, the

Page 498 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
project sponsor. We’re excited to be here tonight to speak on the project and look forward to your review this
evening.

Our team would like to thank the Town Staff for
their time and efforts on review of the project,
specifically Erin Walters and the Public Works Staff for their assistance in refining the project to address
community concerns as well as giving us direction on Town expectations.

Although we are using Builder's Remedy for this
project, we worked diligently to meet or exceed most of the Town’s design standards, including the Town Objective
Development Standard. Our plan was to create a project that provides much needed housing, but that also fits into the character of the neighborhood and is appropriate for the site.

We have worked collaboratively with the Town
Staff, Valley Water District, and other agencies and have also made a maximum effort to work within the existing
process. We have also met with many of the neighbors
surrounding the property, and we have attempted to be good neighbors. We have made concessions and changes to our
plan, as outlined earlier by Staff, based upon the feedback of our neighbors.

Page 499 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
The Urban Catalyst team is here tonight, which
includes the Applicant, architect, landscape architect, civil engineer, and land use counsel, as well as a
hydrologist and traffic engineer who worked on the project should you have any specific questions regarding these
topics. Thank you so much.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Before you go, are
there any questions for the Applicant team at this time? We’ll have another opportunity at the end, unless there is something that would be helpful to be clarified now for the public. Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I did want to ask—you
mentioned working with the Town Architect—I noticed that all of his suggestions, none of them were really accepted for followed through. Is that what you said, that they did? LISA RING: We worked with the Town Staff on
meeting the Objective Development Standards, even though it is a Builder's Remedy project, and there were many that the project is consistent with, and so even though that may not have been a requirement, we aimed to work to make the
project as consistent with current Town standards.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, but some of the
suggestions by the Town Architect, you didn’t feel
you…because none of those were really accepted, like the

Page 500 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
vinyl windows and a few others that sort of stood out that would be an important change.

LISA RING: We could speak further to that. We
have the architect here, so there would be decisions made on that. I’m happy to get into the details for the
reasoning for that, and we could ask our architect to
elaborate on that further.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do you want to do that now? Is it
okay if the architect or someone on the Applicant team
would be able to respond to the communications on the
Residential Design Guidelines, which again, I understand that you’re not obliged to follow, but just some of the justification or response to that, I think, is what
Commissioner Burnett is looking for.

RITU RAJ SHARMA: Ritu Raj with the Dahlin Group.

We did look at both the objective standards and the
subjective standards. The comments we received from, I
think, the Town Architect and Cannon Design was subjective.

I mean, it is a little bit difficult to (inaudible) because it is subjective, right?
I mean, you step down at the corners. How much do
you step down? I was trying to find a fine balance between making the project viable and also trying to work with

Page 501 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
still trying to keep the character. It’s (inaudible) you understand that the three-story (inaudible) for what you can do.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And I understand you are
under no obligation, because this is Builder's Remedy you do not have to take any suggestions from our Town
Architect. I’m just saying some of our projects in town have, and they’ve made the projects a little bit more
similar to Los Gatos in general character, so your answers from the Town Architect, none of them really were responded to in a positive way. They were noted, but that’s about it.

Some of the questions that I would have would be like the vinyl windows, or the air conditioner on the front steps, so just small things. I was just wondering why there wasn’t a little bit more…
Because you get so many concessions, and
Builder's Remedy you can do anything, and so when you ask for just a few little changes here and there, like the step back on the third story, although you say that would reduce the number of units you’d have, I was just wondering why there wouldn’t be a little bit more back and forth with our Town Architect.

RITU RAJ SHARMA: The ground floor air
conditioning I can (inaudible) I’d have to put it on the

Page 502 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
roof, (inaudible) it’s a flat roof and we are trying to keep the… There is (inaudible) access requirements as you know for fire if you go over 20’. If you have a flat roof, it will create a much higher building than even what it is now, so the idea was trying to find a balance between where you keep it. And it’s also a row of townhomes, so I do have to provide AC units in a certain location.

I think the other question was about… The stepback was, I think, we are trying to find a balance between you’ve got the ground floor…we’re trying to find a balance between trying to get enough bedrooms, because (inaudible) not just like it’s not the bedroom, it’s actually the room that really matters. We are starting to see two-story
townhomes being less prevalent and I think people
preferring a three-bedroom townhome, because they like that extra room, so we’re just trying to find a fine balance between (inaudible) and reducing it on the upper level. If you look at a townhome, that’s where your bedrooms are
(inaudible) considerably reduce all your bedrooms and it would make it unmarketable, to be honest.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

I have a question about the vinyl windows. Would there be any…

Page 503 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
RITU RAJ SHARMA: That I’ll have to look into.

CEQA took a long time, so it’s really been (inaudible)
since we’ve looked at the project (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, and maybe that air
conditioner on the front porch. I don't know if I’d want that if wanted to do a unit. Anyway, thank you for that and I appreciate it, and I think the plan in general is a nice plan. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just one question. I think
it fits here because we’re about to hear potentially some comments from neighbors, and my question would be your
neighborhood outreach. Could you please summarize your
neighborhood outreach? Did it go beyond neighbors that are on the properly line, and if so, who was contacted on Oka Road?
ERIK HAYDEN: I’m Erik Hayden, I’m the project
Applicant; I’m with Urban Catalyst. We received lots of different letters from neighbors. We primarily met with neighbors that own the mobile home park next door, we met with the JCC, we met with the Swim and Raquet Club, and we met with the property owner that owns the property across the street, who is also the property owner that owns the site. So, we did meet with all of our adjacent neighbors.

Page 504 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
We did not have a lot of outreach with other
neighbors farther down the street, but overall, we did make some pretty decent concessions trying to be good neighbors, especially with the mobile home folks, and we plan to make all of the outreach that the JCC folks have requested in their long letter.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you for that.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Going back to the consulting
architect comments, if the architect wants to come back. I understand some of the suggestions would maybe lose some units or even potentially make the project infeasible, but I think there are some comments that are little tweaks that perhaps could be implemented that wouldn’t kill the
project.

One, Area G, Residential Building Design 3, the
consulting architect said, “There are a number of locations on the façade where material and color changes are made in the same plane, which would not be consistent with
community expectations as reflected in the Town’s
Residential Design Guidelines.” Can you speak to if there are any areas of the façade where the material changes in the same plane?

Page 505 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
RITU RAJ SHARMA: I don’t think so. I think it
would be always on the internal (inaudible) there would at least be a little bit of changes (inaudible) plane. So, generally we put the (inaudible) under that. You don’t slap one color next to the other color (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Right. Maybe we can talk
about this later, but I looked at some of the elevations where you have windows, especially on the top floor there’s like a band that unites the window, but it looks like it’s in the same plane as the cladding.

RITU RAJ SHARMA: Yes, within the window frame I
think it would be the same plane, but the change in
materials, because it kind of blocks out the whole window (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes. I’m looking at your
Sheet A-22, A-23. Let’s just look at A-22, for instance.

ERIN WALTERS: Director Paulson, are you able to
pull the up?
COMMISSIONER MAYER: I can tell you which number
page of the package it is. It’s page 374 of the package.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: That wouldn’t help me, but
I’ll see if I can pull it up another way.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: There you go. The top
elevation there, what I’m referring to is if you look on

Page 506 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
the top floor you have two windows, and then you have a grey band in between. Is that grey square in the same plane as the brown cladding around it, or is that a different plane?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: That would be the same plane
(inaudible) have a different wall face, that would kind of change (inaudible) because that’s kind of an accent. That is on (inaudible) it’s like an access panel.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes. My suggestion or
critique would be I just feel like… I know you’re following the objective standard of having two different materials with the stucco and then the siding, but to me the facades are reading as a little bit busy. That’s just my read of it. So, if you could find any way to simplify that, and perhaps even consider what the consulting architect said about not having at least… It might be the same material, but even like color changes within the same plane, I think that might make the buildings read a little bit less
visually chaotic.

CHAIR THOMAS: I just have a follow-up question
to that, because it does seem that the grey below on the second that goes down to the first floor also, that looks like it’s the same material, which it’s labeled as the
cement panel siding with the smooth finish, but then it is

Page 507 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
labeled on the actual diagram as D, which is the stucco, but it’s not the correct color, so is the labeling the
discrepancy, or the visual is what it’s supposed to look like? I guess that’s what I’m asking, right? Correct, so I think it’s just mislabeled.

Any other questions? No. Thank you very much. We
will now open the public portion of the public hearing on Item 2, and I have one speaker card. If anyone else wants to speak on this item, now is the time to submit your
speaker cards to Staff. The first I have is Alex Haimes (phonetic), and you will have three minutes to speak. Thank you.

ALEX HAIMES: Good evening. My name is Alex
Haimes; I’m a resident of Los Gatos. I live less than three quarters of a mile from the proposed development. I’m here to share my enthusiastic support for this project.

There are many reasons which make this an ideal
location for more homes, including its proximity to a major job center and important community resources such as two religious institutions, a community center, an exercise club, and the Los Gatos Creek Trail.

If these homes are built, imagine a family
walking together to worship and exercise, or a teenager biking down the Creek Trail to get to school. Moreover,

Page 508 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
these homes would give more families access to the
excellent schools in our town.

We’ve seen the serious impacts school closures
can have on a community, and building more homes, and
increasing the number of students attending our
neighborhood schools is one of the most important ways we can help mitigate that.

If you don’t believe that our schools have an
enrollment problem, just look at how the number of enrolled students has changed in the last decade. In 2015-2016,
Blossom Hill Elementary School, where students on Oka Road would go, had 668 students. This year it has 547, a decline of nearly 20% in ten years. Meanwhile, Los Gatos High
School has dropped 14%.

I’m a teacher, and I’ve seen enrollment
projections from the County, and they’re not encouraging.

We’re already seen school closures in Cambrian, San Jose Unified, Alam Rock, and a few years ago, Cupertino and
Evergreen. If we want our community schools to remain open, we need more families who can afford to live here and
attend these schools. The decisions of this Commission do not happen in a vacuum.

Regarding concerns about parking, which I saw
brought up a lot in public comment online, people who

Page 509 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
choose to live here will understand the number of spaces available to their home before moving in. In fact, these homes have more parking than needed for families like mine.

My partner and I have one car; that is a choice that we make.

I hope the Planning Commission sees the value in
approving projects like this one, not only to help Los
Gatos meet its housing goals, but because communities like these give families like mine the opportunity to plant
roots here at home. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Thank you. The next speaker card I have is for Gus Who.

GUS WHO: Hi. I guess that guy’s a plant, because
I’ve seen him around.

A lot of these high rises, we already have
traffic problems. I’m not for it or against it, but as a builder and as somebody that grew up in the area—my dad was a civil engineer who worked for Caltrans and did bridges and roads—I know that an acre was designed for five houses, and this town that had small roads already wasn’t even
considered; it was supposed to be a town, it wasn’t
supposed to be a city, and so you have to take that into consideration.

Page 510 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Another thing is the ten-day rule. I don’t think
this is the… The public at large is not informed that
you’re throwing up another… Anything over 50 units should be out in the paper. It’s unfair to the Town.

Again, as a builder, I like the projects. I don’t
know, 138… I think is it Nob Hill that doesn’t have
parking? I don't know how much parking spaces here, but all the high rises don’t have enough parking. You’ve got to make sure there’s enough parking, and that the community a little bit farther away, if they’re going shopping and
stuff like that, people are already complaining. You guys are already in trouble; the Town is already in trouble.

It’s traffic, traffic, traffic. You hear it all
the time, and you have to take that into consideration. You don’t, “Oh, we’re going to keep in building. I like this,” you know?
I know there would be more people here if you put
a ten-day rule. Again, I don’t mind the three stories, it’s more like the high rises, but anything over 50 units,
please tell the public. Thanks.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? The last speaker card I have for Lee
Fagot.

Page 511 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
LEE FAGOT: Good evening, and I appreciate the
work you’re doing, Staff, the Commission, and the
developer, in working in the community to try to come up with some good solutions on the challenge of this site.

Why that site was chosen, I’m just not quite
sure, because Oka Road is a one-way in and out, which
precludes a lot of emergency issues that have to be
remedied before any development goes further. There are already a number of business units, religious units, and residential units on Oka Road, including north of Highway 85, all in the area up there, and they all have to enter and exit on Oka Road onto Lark Avenue, which itself is
another very busy street.

The concern that I have is that safety issue.

Yes, they’re on a water plain, watershed. They are on a faultline, and so I think being limited to only three
stories high is moving in the right direction, but you’re still building on very unstable soil.

The concern back to the issue of going in and out
on Oka Road, Santa Clara County Fire, who provides a
service to our town, has indicated that they are not going to go onto a road if people are evacuating the road. They don’t want their equipment to block the people exiting, and if there is some emergency, fire, earthquake, whatever,

Page 512 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
those people are trying to exit, and so Santa Clara County Fire is not going to try to go in. Their equipment is too big, too wide, too heavy to go off of Oka Road to try to get around. I understand the developer proposed a 15-foot modification to part of Oka Road, but is that to make it wider? That would help solve the problem. Or is it just moving it over a bit, 15’? I didn’t understand; I couldn’t figure out what was meant by that.

It’s really nice to have a new development. This
was not in an area that was part of the Housing Element, and the reason is those safety issues. Even though
Builder's Remedy is in place, I understand that, but let’s use common sense, logic, and a sense of community to try to preserve the safety for our residents and the new residents to come, and somehow have the developer make a new exit in the development. Along the Creek Trail there could be some building there, a street, a pathway, or not a pathway; it has to be for motorized vehicles along there. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? I don’t have any more speaker cards from the audience. Are there any hands raised on Zoom?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: There are no hands raised on
Zoom.

Page 513 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: I now invite the Applicant team to
come back up, and you have an additional three minutes to make a closing statement, and then I’m sure that we will have more questions for you also. Thank you.

LISA RING: Thank you, Commissioners. The only
thing that I would like to add is regarding the one way in, one way out. That was evaluated by Staff and looked at in the traffic study, as well as by Santa Clara County Fire, and they determined that the development was appropriate for the site and the roadway use, and so there is quite a bit of information in the record about that evaluation.

Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Let’s just stay on the topic
of fire safety that was brought up by the last public
comment and that you just spoke to.

With Santa Clara County Fire, you just indicated
that the project met their requirements. Can you speak to what other fire safety measures the project has taken
beside complying with road widths? Like, obviously, the buildings are probably sprinklered. Is there extra water capacity at the site in the case of a fire? Are there any other fire safety measures that you can speak to?

Page 514 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
LISA RING: I can also defer to the architect on
this, but I believe that it meets all of the required
codes. I don't know that there is anything additionally that was needed, but it is in meeting with the siting
requirements, sprinklers, and the California Building Code.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, I mean there is the
code compliance, and then oftentimes the Santa Clara County Fire Department will have additional comments about that.

Maybe Staff or someone else can speak to that later, but I was just curious how those conversations went.

LISA RING: My understanding is that they felt
that it met the necessary requirements to provide safety at this site.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Thanks.

CHAIR THOMAS: Are there questions? Commissioner
Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m going to have some
questions on setback building height, and also guest
parking, so let me just queue that up for you if you need to bring somebody else up. In fact, I’ll go ahead and start the question.

If one setback is 8’-6”, obviously versus the
required minimum of 25’ would also put front porches on the street. Obviously, your project is requesting exceptions

Page 515 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
for both front and rear setbacks where they are, again, 8’- 6” in the front yard and 15’-2” in the back. During your design process, knowing that you would probably be
requesting these exceptions under Builder's Remedy, did you consider any design where the front setback would be
increased and maybe decrease the rear setback to provide greater front setback versus greater rear setback?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: Yes and no, because if you look
at the site plan, the rear of the building actually is an alley, so you’d take a rear setback from the building
itself as to the center line of the alley, and on the top (inaudible) you have the units fronting onto the creek
side, so it’s, again, a front setback from a building
standpoint (inaudible) so it’s like we had two fronts. If it was just a single building, then you would say the Oka side would be the front and the back would be the… But you kind of are looking at multiple buildings just trying to find a fine balance between (inaudible), because the rear of every building is the alley, that’s kind of regulated as to where the cars are, and we were determined to put the garages in the back and not have the garages front onto the streets to at least create a visually…
And the way the townhomes live is they live on
the upper floors as you have seen, so having it as a

Page 516 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
slightly urban feel of like trying to have the sidewalk, the planting, and then kind of a porch, and then you live on the upper floor, that does create a public space, semiprivate space above the public space, and then the transition into a private space.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Follow-up on the setback
question. Have you developed other projects of this size and scale with a front setback comparable to the proposed front setback in this project?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: Yes, sometimes it’s even closer
(inaudible) in an urban setting, it just depends on how you transition the space, and like I said, the ground floor, it’s not a living… If there is a ground floor living space where you directly look into it, that’s a little bit of a privacy issue. You live on the second floor and the
bedrooms are on the top floor, so the ground floor space is most likely a secondary room or an office, so it does
create a nice kind of transition.

CHAIR THOMAS: Could we just get the visual of
like maybe page 355? I think it would just help.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: I don’t have numbers. What’s
the sheet number?
CHAIR THOMAS: The sheet is A-3, because I think
that it would just like help with the…

Page 517 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess while he’s getting
that, I think I can ask the follow-up. It sounds like
you’ve identified sometimes there are issues and concerns with a front setback that is that small. Have you run into any other issues or concerns on an 8’-6” setback in other projects?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: Not that I’m aware of.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, so this is the… Commissioner
Stump, I’m sorry, I know that you’re referring to the front setback, but technically the front setback is where the streets are internally. Yes, because it’s where the
driveways are. It’s like where the driveway…
COMMISSIONER STUMP: The driveways are in the
back.

CHAIR THOMAS: Oh, they’re all in the back?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Yes, they’re all in the
back.

CHAIR THOMAS: It’s like an alley, but
technically it’s considered a street, because it has to be large enough for emergency vehicles.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Sure, as I understand it is
26’ feet wide, those driveways.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.

Page 518 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Is that correct? The
individual streets, or are they narrower than that?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: I think they’re 20’ wide
(inaudible).

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Twenty feet, the ones on
each side are 26’ on the larger streets.

CHAIR THOMAS: The ones on the outside are the
larger, and then the inner…
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I was just concerned, again,
an 8’-6” front setback is kind of almost stepping out into the street from a homeowner perspective.

CHAIR THOMAS: But that’s like the back side of
the house.

ERIN WALTERS: Could Staff provide a
clarification?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.

ERIN WALTERS: The front setback we’re talking
about is along Oka Road, so there are the units that are facing Oka Road; the minimum dimension along there is 8’- 6”.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, I see. I was not sure if you
were referring to all on the internal parts of those roads… COMMISSIONER STUMP: No.

Page 519 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: …because his answer is about… I
mean, you were responding with regard to the back side of it, so we’re…
RITU RAJ SHARMA: The front of it.

CHAIR THOMAS: You’re specifically just talking
about what it’s like along Oka Road.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Correct.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. If you need to follow-up to
clarify something, yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’d like to just get a
question in on building height. Obviously, we got a
clarification in the Staff Report that building height is going to vary from somewhere between 42’…
RITU RAJ SHARMA: I do want to clarify on that
one. The Town measures building height as from existing grade, so that is not exactly how tall the building would be. You would view the building from the proposed grade, and I think there is (inaudible) fill on the site.

So, the way the Town measures height, or defines
height, is from existing grade, and there is actually quite a lot of fill on the site, so when we say 42’ to 44’ as the range, that’s actually from the existing grade. When the building is actually built you’d be experiencing the
building from the proposed, not what the site was before as

Page 520 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
in construction, so I think there might be places where it’s around 2’ of fill or something like that, depending on the grading, so the building would be more closer to 29’ to 40’ as you’d experience it, not 42’ to 44’.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: You’ve kind of anticipated
one of my questions, because I was going to ask you how many feet or inches have been added to the building height to address the modeled 100-year floodplain?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: Three-and-a-half.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Three-and-a-half feet?
RITU RAJ SHARMA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Is that consistently across
the property, or does that vary?
ERIK HAYDEN: It varies. It’s 3.5’ towards the
back right portion (inaudible) this. It tapers down about halfway through to no fill. It kind of varies throughout the site.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m sorry, from what to

3.5’?
ERIK HAYDEN: Zero. Half the site is about zero,
and then it kind of gradually goes up to 3.5’ as the
maximum.

CHAIR THOMAS: Just to follow-up with that, the
Oka Road elevation is not like that…that grading area is

Page 521 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
not changing, so when we say 40’, it ranges from 40’… But you said it ranges from 42’ to 44’, but I thought the
maximum was 40’.

ERIN WALTERS: The maximum for an R-1:8 zone is
30’, so they’re proposing over that.

CHAIR THOMAS: I’m sorry, I thought I saw in the
plans that the building heights were 40’. Maybe it’s 42’ and I just missaw that. Okay, thank you for clarifying
that. Are there any other questions about grading? Now
would be time to ask anything about grading, the building heights, or the front setback along Oka Road.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Can I ask a question about
the recreational space in the back? Could you give an idea of what we’re talking about visually when we talk about the space that’s going to be in the far right? What size is that, about?
ERIK HAYDEN: It’s about .44 acres. The majority
of the site is taken up by a retention pond for C.3 runoff.

There is a pathway around that and some landscaping.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Four acres?
ERIK HAYDEN: Point 44.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Oh, .44. I was so excited.

Okay, .44 acres. Okay, thank you.

Page 522 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Did you want to go to your next
question?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Again, I want to say thank
you for your parking for the homes, basically have the
equivalent, even though we don’t recognize tandem parking, you’re providing two spaces per home; that’s very, very helpful. What’s a bit concerning, of course, is the guest parking where we would require 138 spaces and 20 spaces will be provided, and it’s always a concern in these
neighborhoods, where do all those cars go? Could you go over what road improvements are going to take place right in front of your development, either one side of the road or both sides of the road?
ERIK HAYDEN: Sure. Along the street frontage on
Oka Road, we’re doing a 5’ dedication of right-of-way. We will be rebuilding curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as well as 14 new street trees. There will a new bike lane striped, and there will be parking spaces all along Oka Road where currently there is no parking.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Probably not your
responsibility, but…
ERIK HAYDEN: I think we also are going to be
repaving the other side of the road.

Page 523 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, it would be paved, but
no curb and gutter?
ERIK HAYDEN: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Do you know what the street
width is at that point and what the effective street width will be?
ERIK HAYDEN: I don’t know the exact number. The
sidewalk is going to match pretty much exactly what is in front of the JCC. If you take the full finished road in front of the JCC from the JCC to the apartments, it’s about 44’ from curb to curb.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: What amount of parking would
actually be available, understanding that it’s a free for all? Anybody in the public can park in front of those
units. Any idea of how many parking spaces would be out in front of your development, and would parking be allowed on the other side of the street?
ERIK HAYDEN: As far as the other side of the
street, that’s per the Town. Our side, I don't know the exact number of spaces. Staff, do you remember?
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, there are approximately 45
parking spaces that could be parked in front along Oka
Road.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

Page 524 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Just right in front of the
property? That doesn’t include like all the way up to Lark Avenue from in front of the JCC or the other side, correct? ERIN WALTERS: I can confirm that with Public
Works once (inaudible).

CHAIR THOMAS: They’re shaking their head no.

MIKE VROMAN: Mike Vroman, Traffic Engineer.

Parks and Public Works said yes, it does include just in front of the property. It’s a little over 1,000’ and we deducted from the driveways, but approximately 45 parking spaces will be available.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess since we have you
here, then maybe I can ask Public Works the question will parking be permissible on the other side of the street, even though there is no curb and there is no gutter?
MIKE VROMAN: Actually, parking is permissible on
the other side of the street at this time. It’s banned from 3am to 5am. We haven’t had complaints or concerns about where people park, but it is pretty tight. I was a little surprised when I went out there to do an investigation and found that, but currently you can. On the project side
there are No Parking signs along that, and there will be parking, as was noted.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you very much.

Page 525 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
MIKE VROMAN: You’re welcome.

CHAIR THOMAS: Just as a follow-up question to
that, when we’re talking about road improvements, if the road is going to be paved and a bike lane is going to be striped on your side of the road, if Parks and Public Works feels it could be helpful, would you be willing to add bike lane striping on the opposite side, since the residents will be going down that direction also to get into their units?
ERIK HAYDEN: You know, for us striping isn’t
really that expensive, but we’re also not required with Builder's Remedy to even do the striping for the bike lane on our side of the road. We offered that as a concession, because we thought it was the right thing to do, kind of figure eventually the other side of the road will be
developed and they can do what they need on that side.

CHAIR THOMAS: I know. I mean, I understand. This
is not my first rodeo with these types of projects, but the stuff that is not that expensive, typically we have made asks, and sometimes people have been like, “Yeah, sure, that’s something that’s easy that we can do,” but if you aren’t willing to do it, then that’s totally fine. But I am aware that you’re not required to do any of it.

Commissioner Mayer, is this more about roads?

Page 526 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, on the same general
topics of parking and bicycles. One Objective Design
Standard that wasn’t complied with was A-2.1, which is
providing short-term bicycle parking, and I understand that the residents will be able to keep their bikes in their garages, which is totally fine, but given the proximity to the Creek Trail here, and I just thought of it when the public commenter was talking about the families and future residents of this development.

I could see a world where they get visitors
coming to visit them on the Creek Trail, so even though I think maybe providing one short-term bike parking per every unit is excessive, given the site constraints, has there been any consideration of providing any at all, even just a few, maybe?
ERIK HAYDEN: The Town of Los Gatos has
interesting design standards when it comes to this density of a project, that it’s almost like you have design
standards for single-family and you have design standards for apartments, and so because we’re a higher density we’re really fitting into that apartment design standard, and a lot of the design standards that are called out, like
provide a bike room with lots of bike parking, it’s really more for an apartment type of development. Having people

Page 527 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
hang their bicycles in their garages is very appropriate for this type of development, so we did not consider
creating a separate area for bike parking.

CHAIR THOMAS: I think that the question was
really about if people had guests. So, you wouldn’t think that with this type of development anyone would possibly have a guest that could come on a bike, that they’re not going to have guest bike hanging racks in their garages? So, there are no plans for having like one bike rack
anywhere on the site?
ERIK HAYDEN: That’s correct.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: A follow-up. Director
Paulson, can you bring the site plan back up, please? I just want to get clarity here. Where is the access point to the Creek Trail from your property?
ERIK HAYDEN: The closest access to the Creek
Trail is going out to Lark Avenue, turning right and going to the bridge, and right at the bridge.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: So, striping the new bike
lane will help get access from the trail entry point there.

Okay, understood. Thanks.

CHAIR THOMAS: I have a question about access to
the Creek Trail, and I think first that it would be helpful

Page 528 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
if Staff just clarify for Fremont Court, who owns and is responsible for maintaining that “road” behind the
property.

ERIN WALTERS: I would defer to Public Works.

JAMES WATSON: James Watson, Senior Engineer,
Parking and Public Works. Are you asking about the trail that’s along the creek on the property side of the creek? That’s just an access trail.

CHAIR THOMAS: It’s labeled online as “Fremont
Court,” on maps and everything, but I understand that it’s not publicly accessible and I believe Valley Water… I don't know, there are different owners of it and how it’s
maintained, and so I was just curious about who is
responsible for what portion of it.

JAMES WATSON: That quasi-road is actually owned
by the Town of Los Gatos.

CHAIR THOMAS: The part that is behind the
property?
JAMES WATSON: Yes, I’m sure there is some
variation in ownership, but I know the Town of Los Gatos owns the parcel that is directly adjacent to this project site, that’s just to the west of the project.

ERIN WALTERS: If Staff could add, there is an
easement that Valley Water has through all the lands behind

Page 529 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
that property and beyond, and so that’s maintenance for them and access for them only.

CHAIR THOMAS: I guess, one, did you guys think
at all about trying to work with the Town and/or Valley Water with adjusting the easement so that your potential property and residence could get access to the Creek Trail from the back side of the property?
JAMES WATSON: The Creek Trail along the creek
here is on the other side of the creek.

CHAIR THOMAS: I understand. I get it, but it
connects at the end of that Fremont Road.

JAMES WATSON: We did not make outreach, mainly
because we were under the impression that Valley Water
doesn’t want anyone to have access to it. It is completely fenced and gated on both sides.

CHAIR THOMAS: So, now that you know that the
Town of Los Gatos owns that, and although there is an
easement and Valley Water does have access through that, I don't know what modifications could possibly be made, but is there potential in the future from the perspective of Staff that anything could be adjusted so that there could be a pedestrian and bike connection through that back side, or in conjunction with maybe even the JCC or something just to provide access in that way, because of the concerns

Page 530 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
about being able to get offsite quickly for evacuations, etc.?
NICOLLE BURNHAM: Nicolle Burnham, Director of
Parks and Public Works. That was not considered as part of the project. There is nothing in any Town Master Plan or the General Plan that I’m aware of that proposes trail
connection here, and when we evaluate projects that’s
generally what we refer back to, so it wasn’t discussed or considered.

CHAIR THOMAS: Does that mean that it could not
be considered in the future? I think that obviously when we wrote… Well, the most recent part of the General Plan was repealed anyway with part of, well, I guess, some of the land use and everything, but I understand that it’s not currently in the Master Plan because this was not a site that had 138 multi-gen units in it, but now that it is, is that something in the future that the Town could possibly be interested in doing, or not?
NICOLLE BURNHAM: I think if we were, we would
evaluate that idea against all of the other myriad ideas that may come around during the development of a Parks and Trails Master Plan for the Town, which we currently don’t have, but is on our list of things to do.

Page 531 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: You have a long list of many
things to do. I was just wondering, because I do think that it would be a huge advantage to have access for residents to be able to not have to go all the way out to Lark Avenue and then turn right, get on the bridge, go off the bridge, and be able to connect directly, especially because you can get towards downtown Los Gatos and to Campbell really
easily along that trail, and so I think that it would be a large advantage for residents that lived in this area.

Obviously, it’s not something that is really
being considered at the time, but I do know that there been other projects and things where we’ve seen that applicants have planned for maybe a future connection or been willing to support or pay for some improvements to the area so that they could have those connections and things, even if it’s not, again, a requirement or in a current plan at the
moment, so is that something that you guys would be
interested in maybe considering with the design along that back part of your property so that there is a connection there?
ERIK HAYDEN: I can give you the short answer and
say we don’t plan on considering it at this time, but I can also say that this is a levy, it’s 4’-6’ above grade of where the project site is. It is a dead end; it dead ends

Page 532 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
into the neighborhood that is on the other side of the
Highway 85 freeway. It has a gate in that neighborhood.

There’s a gate right at the properly line.

CHAIR THOMAS: Sorry, I understand where… I
understand all of it.

ERIK HAYDEN: And then there’s a gate at the end
as well.

CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, I know, but it also is the
connection to the trail is right there, so you’re not…
ERIK HAYDEN: I think you’d also have some issues
with Los Gatos Police Department as far as access to that trail and where people would go. You’d probably find that people going down the Los Gatos Creek Trail would get
distracted and go the wrong way to a dead end and have to backtrack. There are a lot of reasons why it probably
hasn’t been considered.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: On that point—this is not so
much for the Applicant, but for the Town—I feel like it is kind of a missed opportunity to not think more
holistically, especially when you have projects of this magnitude coming to town, like once in a generation
projects that are going to change certain areas of the Town for a long time.

Page 533 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
On the one hand, I’m really glad we’re getting
these housing units, especially the affordable housing. I think we need more housing in Los Gatos, but just to think of this as a self-contained island and not think more
holistically about the Town, I think, is a missed
opportunity.

CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions about the road
situations or concerning anything like that? No.

Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. Just to
address your CC&Rs, which go with the property and of
course are in our Conditions of Approval. Could you just go over what that covers? Does that cover all the maintenance of the property in general, or trees, to just sort of get an idea.

ERIK HAYDEN: In the Conditions of Approval, it
says we have to write CC&Rs to get Building Permits, so we have not written the CC&Rs yet. The CC&Rs will be pretty standard, and they will cover all of the usual things like property maintenance and HOA issues and things like that.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: The HOA issues as well?
ERIK HAYDEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And just thinking, I know
there are 997 trips related to this property in and out

Page 534 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
during the day, and I didn’t go over the peak hours, but because you have two roads it would probably be divided up.

I know the mobile area on that side is especially impacted, and it’s nice that you made a change in the degree, you changed the alignment there by 15’, which was helpful.

I’m just saying that we also should think about
that there are two roads, and so probably the property, the people who live there, will be divided up. One side will be going out one side, and one out the other; it won’t be
concentrated on the one north driveway, which is the hidden lane. I just wanted to bring that up that there would be two exits and entrances. Thank you. No, my question was about the CC&Rs, what they were covering. Thank you.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I think you had
another question about something. No? You Commissioner
Mayer, did you want to ask specifically about the change, if they were willing to accept your recommendation on the color that you were talking about with the architect
earlier?
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes. Is the Applicant
willing to accept the consulting architect’s recommendation to not have change of material in the same plane?
ERIK HAYDEN: Not at this time, no. Thank you.

Page 535 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Is there a reason for that?
That particular standard wouldn’t impact the form or the floorplan at all.

ERIK HAYDEN: You know, I answered the question.

We don’t plan on making changes at this time.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: It’s just a color change;
it’s not a material change.

ERIK HAYDEN: And if you want me to answer and
say there are a million things that we do when we design these projects, and the Town has continued to ask us to change, and change, and change, and change. If you keep changing things, you end up with architecture that doesn’t look very good, as with several past Los Gatos projects that the neighbors comment on quite a bit. We are very
happy with our design and how it has been designed. We’ve received a lot of positive comments from the neighbors and the community on it, and we like how it is and we want to keep it how it is.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Okay.

CHAIR THOMAS: Did you have a follow-up to that?
I do have a couple of questions about the landscaping, so is your landscape architect here to answer any questions? ERIK HAYDEN: Our landscape architect is on Zoom.

His name is Brian.

Page 536 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, perfect.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Well, I see a Shawn with his
hand raised.

ERIK HAYDEN: Oh, it’s Shawn.

CHAIR THOMAS: Hi, Shawn. Thank you for being
here to answer questions. I did want to say that when I looked at your planting list and notes and the legend I was happy to see a lot of native species on there, but I did want to ask why basically almost every tree species is
native, except for the Maidenhair tree or the Ginkgos, and that’s the tree that you’ll be planting the most.

Then a lot of the other landscaping like shrubs
and grasses are also almost all natives, and so I just was wondering if you could explain why you chose the one nonnative tree to plant the most, even though most of the landscaping is native species?
SHAWN TAYLOR: Good evening, can you guys hear me
okay?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, we can.

SHAWN TAYLOR: It’s a pleasure to be here from
HMH, so good evening, Commissioners and guests. Happy to answer any questions about the landscape.

Your particular question, what we try to do is a
balance between adaptive plants and our native species. In

Page 537 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
a density like this, I think we wanted to look for a
balance for plant success and diversity. We like the Ginkgo because of its color, it complements the palette, and it’s going to do very well in this little bit tighter urban type setting, so it’s diversified like that. Then we’re
sprinkling in all of the other native species on our plant palette, our shrubs, our ground cover, and our trees
dispersed through the site for that native habitat and
benefit, so in the event something native doesn’t do so great, we still have a proven winner of our adaptive trees, such as the Ginkgo, that we’ve observed doing very well on similar projects with this density.

CHAIR THOMAS: I understand that there’s not
really a great native alternative to the Ginkgo with regard to color. Well, with regard to the color, plus the size of them, the Ginkgo does provide good color, like I said, but it does drop… You know, it is deciduous, so was that
intentional to pick something that is deciduous that
requires cleanup and more landscaping fees and HOA fees and/or provides less canopy coverage and privacy overall? SHAWN TAYLOR: No, I think it was mostly leaf
color. The size of the tree works well in the paseo. It does drop leaves, but not for very long; it’s dormancy
period is very short. We know there will be an active HOA

Page 538 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
maintaining this project, and then we’re going to not spec the female that drops all the fruits and makes sticky
walkways and all of that, so we still think it’s a really good paseo tree, down the garden paseos, just works well with the design and the architecture.

ERIK HAYDEN: One other note, the Ginkgo tree was
changed after our original plan, mainly in response to
comments from both the mobile home park and the JCC, based on the size of root balls along the property line off of Hayden Lane where the mobile home is. Their sewer line runs 2’ off of our properly line, and having a tree species with large root balls could interfere with their sewer lines, so we changed out those trees intentionally to be Ginkgos, because of the size of their root balls, because they’re on the Los Gatos list of approved trees, and because they
match the rest of the site, as the landscape architect has mentioned.

CHAIR THOMAS: Do you know what they were before,
what the proposed trees were before?
ERIK HAYDEN: I can’t remember what the proposed
trees were. Redwoods.

CHAIR THOMAS: Oh, Redwoods are not… Yes, that
was a definite good change from there. Did you consider something like a Laurel instead, because it is green all

Page 539 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
year round? It’s not quite the same color green as the
Ginkgo, but it still provides a little bit more of a
contrast than some of our other natives, and it’s not
deciduous, so it would provide more shade and privacy on the JCC side and the other side?
ERIK HAYDEN: We considered Ginkgo, and that’s
what we went with.

CHAIR THOMAS: I was asking the architect.

SHAWN TAYLOR: We did. We thought of several
different trees and settled on the Ginkgo just for
architectural shape, the size, and we liked the leaf color.

CHAIR THOMAS: Did you consider Laurels at all,
and if you did, why didn’t you decide on them?
SHAWN TAYLOR: No particular reason. We just
looked at the list of approved trees and felt the Ginkgo had the best fit. Nothing against the Laurel. I don’t think it’s a wrong answer either.

CHAIR THOMAS: From your opinion, do you feel
like that would be a… I mean, there are 110 Ginkgos being planted, which is a lot of the same tree. I mean, that’s like almost 55% of all the trees that will be planted will be Ginkgos, which are not native, and also will all be the same and all dropping leaves at the same time, so from your professional opinion as a landscape architect, would you

Page 540 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
consider mixing in some Laurels or swapping some of those would be something that would be appropriate and meet
everyone’s needs?
SHAWN TAYLOR: I think doing an alternate pattern
with a different species could work well.

CHAIR THOMAS: So, considering that, do you think
that… I guess I’m just asking the Applicant team in general now, is that something that you would be willing to do? ERIK HAYDEN: We don’t plan on changing our
architecture or our landscape architecture. I know you guys keep asking, but the answer is we don’t plan on changing at this time.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Well, then, I guess I will
also just ask a question of the landscape architect about the other plant species that are being planted. There were not numbers, like in quantities, obviously, given of some of the smaller shrubs, because you don’t know specifically how many need to go in wherever, and I think the variety is going to be really nice. I mean, again, almost all of these are natives except for the Catmint and the Jerusalem Sage, I believe, so can you just elaborate on why those two were included in the original plans?
SHAWN TAYLOR: Yes, absolutely. It just goes back
to success on similar projects. We really like this plant

Page 541 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
palette. It will work in the different hydrozones and sun exposure. I think it’s kind of dangerous to use only all natives everywhere, just based on time of year that plants go dormant and their requirements. We also try to mix in a little bit of Mediterranean adaptive species to complement and work with the palette, so taking all those things into consideration is why you’ll see adaptive species mixed in throughout the plant palette.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Looking at the
list, there are a lot of different species on here that are going to really highlight some of the most beautiful native plants that we have in this area, and they do typically grow well in some of the adjacent more wilder areas,
especially if some of the invasive species are kept out and the landscaping is maintained, which it will be. I think that it’s a really cool opportunity, and I appreciate that the list is pretty extensive to provide some variety, and some of these species do well in sun and shade, so I think that that’s going to be really great for the future
residents of this property, if it goes forward.

My last question regarding the landscaping is
that Valley Water did provide a letter commenting on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and everything, and I was just wondering if… I understand that this property and the

Page 542 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
development is farther away from the technical riparian area, etc., but was there any consideration in… They did recommend that on the back side of the property that the riparian habitat and the riparian species be included
there, and so was that considered at all in the plans?
SHAWN TAYLOR: Yes, I think so with our planting
selection. It does offer the opportunity when we go in and plant this shrub by shrub and ground cover by ground cover that the back side of the property that is more organic in nature, as we have the trail system back there around
biotreatment planters and all of that, that we will
definitely use that as an opportunity to transition from the more rectilinear design into an organic design, and the plant palette will reflect that, and we will focus the
native, beneficial planting toward that side of the site.

CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Thank you for
answering those questions about that. I know that on the other side of the creek there are some older native plants that have done really well on that other side, other than the Redwoods that are over there, but some of those other native plants have done really well over there, so I would just hope that the same is going to happen on this side also, so thank you very much.

Page 543 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Are there any other questions for the Applicant
team? I’m going to officially close the public comment
period for this item, and I ask that if we have questions for Staff, we can do that. We should not discuss until
there is a motion on the table, but if there are any
questions for Staff that are important for forming a
motion, now is the time to do that. Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I want to just ask a
question about what we are being asked to approve here, because obviously this must go to the Town Council for the Vesting Tentative Map. Are we submitting a recommendation for approval? I see a head nod, so we’ll go with a
recommendation for approval.

CHAIR THOMAS: I did have a question about the
Conditions of Approval with regard to the construction, during construction. I know that for all of these projects, this one included, some of the neighbors have some concerns about construction vehicles on Oka Road, and I know in the past we have adjusted some of the Conditions of Approval to make sure they meet the site-specific requirements, so can we just make sure that everything is covered with regard to idling and making sure that… Yes, thank you.

JAMES WATSON: James Watson, Parks and Public
Works. Our standard Conditions of Approval do include all

Page 544 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
those construction-related no idling, dust control
measures, making sure that we’re not seeing vehicles travel through the graded area and creating a bunch of dust. We have conditions about construction parking and where they can park. We have conditions about haul routes and where they can haul material on and off the site. Those are the ones that come to mind right away. Is there any particular one that is concerning?
CHAIR THOMAS: No, I think it was just confirming
about the idling and make sure that they have space onsite for all the loading and offloading and everything.

JAMES WATSON: They did propose a construction
management plan which shows the construction entrance, and they’ll do most of their work onsite. They’ll pull onto the site, so I don’t anticipate a lot of vehicles offsite
idling. We could revisit the conditions and make sure if you see something missing that we can potentially amend.

CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just a point of
clarification before we go into further questions related to Staff. Since we’re operating under Rosenberg’s Rules, do we need to have a motion on the table before we continue questions of Staff?

Page 545 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
ATTORNEY WHELAN: No, you do not for questions of
Staff, just prior to discussion amongst the Commissioners.

CHAIR THOMAS: I’ll just confirm that the current
Conditions of Approval for the offroad (inaudible),
everything like that aligns specifically for this project while Commissioner Stump is asking his other questions.

Thank you.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just to queue it up here,
I’m going to have a question on CEQA, the General Plan, and traffic, and so I just wanted to let you know that in case you want to have other people respond if we have CEQA
questions, etc. I’ll begin with CEQA.

In the Mitigated Negative Declaration report, it
states that obviously the State legislature back in 2013 did away with Level of Service as the basis for
environmental analysis under CEQA. Can you briefly explain how the change to Vehicle Miles Traveled has either
benefited or disadvantaged suburban areas? By the way, I realize I may be asking for your professional opinion on that versus something that is statutory, but again, my
question is can you explain how the change to Vehicle Miles Traveled has either benefited or disadvantaged suburban areas like Los Gatos?

Page 546 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
ANGELA DaROSA: That’s a big question. Angela
DaRosa with Raney Planning and Management. We’re the CEQA consultants for the Town; we prepared the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.

It’s definitely been a change. The shift from
Level of Service, which is really focused on traffic
congestion and intersection control, to Vehicle Miles
Traveled means that under CEQA we’re not looking at LOS and traffic congestion, which a lot of the comment letters that we got were related to. Under CEQA we are focused on
whether the project would increase Vehicle Miles Traveled within an area.

Based on my professional opinion, it is difficult
for smaller, rural areas, particularly for single-family residential developments, to meet State Vehicle Miles
Traveled standards.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, I’ll offer
something really quick that the traffic engineer, Mr.

Vroman, can correct me at any second on. Some jurisdictions also when they went to VMT, it’s my understanding that they got rid of LOS. For us, we felt it was necessary for the Town to keep both, so while it’s not a CEQA issue, it still is addressed through the Town’s traffic impact analysis process.

Page 547 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: As I recall in the report,
that was information in there on LOS.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: And basically, indicated
that even on an LOS basis, we were not going to see
significant impacts.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s my recollection.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I realize there was one
intersection in particular that was impacted.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, I think it remained in
the same Level of Service, I want to say B, but I will
defer to the traffic engineer if that is incorrect.

MIKE VROMAN: Mike Vroman, the Senior Traffic
Engineer of Parks and Public Works. But, yes, the
unsignalized intersection at Mill Road and Arroyo Grand Way was currently Level of Service E, and with the project will remain at Level of Service E, so it was no impact from the project, but it is an unsignalized intersection; they have a little different way of measuring the Level of Service at those.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Do we have the
representative from Hexagon with us tonight as well?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I believe we do. Daniel Choi.

You can unmute yourself, Daniel, to answer the question.

Page 548 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m going to fire away here.

A little bit of background. I went through and looked at over 30 responses from the public, and your statement about a lot of questions and concerns about traffic congestion were obviously raised, because what people see is what they feel, and Vehicle Miles Traveled is a very difficult thing for people to understand. Out of those 30-plus public
comments, traffic congestion and emergency response access were mentioned 14 times, so you can see a significant
concern. They believe it’s bad now, and based on their dayto-day experiences, intuition and logic would say it’s probably going to get worse, whether that’s what the
studies really tell us or not.

As you know, these transportation studies are
very hard to understand. Pages and pages of appendix, and certainly the summaries are greatly appreciated.

The question that I have, I guess probably for
our traffic consultant, the conclusion of your CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled analysis for this project, as shown on page 16 of your report, your conclusions, two of them were tied to project impact and project effect. Project impact read, “Since the VMT service population for the project TAZ is

22.6, which is less than 26.1, the project would not have a significant impact.” Can you perhaps, preferably not using

Page 549 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
math, explain this conclusion? What does this mean in
simple terms?
DANIEL CHOI: Under a project impact that
evaluated against the Town’s VMT project impact threshold, so the Vehicle Miles Traveled per service population for the project is less than the Town’s impact threshold.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Then I guess I would have
the same question for project effect, because it’s
different math, it’s a different look. It says, “Since the increase in VMT is less than 6.5% of baseline conditions, the project would not have a significant impact.” Again, could you explain that in simple terms? What does not
having a significant impact to project effect mean?
DANIEL CHOI: Similar to my last response, we
calculate the Vehicle Miles Traveled per the entire project under project effect, and it would not exceed the Town’s VMT impact guidelines.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, to broadly
overview, the Town has adopted thresholds.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I understand.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: If you are above those, it’s
an impact and you will have to do some mitigation. If it’s below that, from a CEQA perspective there is no impact, which is what the traffic engineer was referring to.

Page 550 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: So, then you’re saying we do
have to do the math.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Well, you don’t have to do the
math other than the numbers less than the threshold, so it’s not an impact.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, thanks. Then, a final
question about traffic. As you are well aware, Los Gatos deals with beach traffic that on many Saturdays and Sundays from June through September either snarls or cripples
traffic on Los Gatos surface streets, and obviously Lark Avenue is a major feeder to this traffic situation with cars getting off of Highway 17, heading east to Los Gatos Boulevard, and heading west to University Avenue and
Winchester Boulevard. The eastbound traffic obviously all passes by Oka Road.

Are these kinds of known challenges at all
factored into my response if you were to ask me the
question is probably not, but I’ve got to ask the question, because this is a problem we live with for months out of the year that impact all of those intersections along Lark Avenue, both east and west.

DANIEL CHOI: We complete a Level of Service
analysis for the AM and PM weekday peak hours, which is when residential, such as this project, would generate the

Page 551 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
most peak hour trips. We did not take a look at weekend traffic.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Again, through the Chair, the
Town has a traffic impact policy that speaks to, I believe, what is analyzed, so beach traffic or if there is an
accident on Highway 17, those are not included in that
policy, and therefore they’re not included in those kinds of worse case scenarios as you are referencing.

CHAIR THOMAS: I will ask a follow-up question
about some of the traffic issues not specifically related to the project. I understand that a lot of the public
comment that has come is because there is currently
congestion in this area, in this intersection of Lark
Avenue and Oka Road.

What route would the residents of the Town need
to take to make some adjustments to traffic flow in that area? As in right now there is currently parking on either side. One of the huge concerns is also getting emergency vehicles in and out, so from my very limited understanding of urban planning, getting rid of parking to allow for some better access along there would contradict what some of the citizens… Some residents want more parking, but are there ways that the traffic flow could be improved at that Lark and Oka Road intersection during times that there is a lot

Page 552 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
of congestion there, and if so, how do residents in town go about getting some movement on something like that?
MIKE VROMAN: Mike Vroman, Senior Traffic
Engineer, Parks and Public Works. Some of the concerns were congestion at Lark and Oka, however, the traffic studies and the Level of Service analysis shows that the Level of Service existing with the project, with the approved and pending projects and cumulatively, were all Level of
Service B. There was a slight degradation, but it didn’t go down to Level of Service C.

The Town minimum acceptable standard is Level of
Service D, which B standard is about 10-20 seconds delay, average controlled delay per vehicle, which it’s more
weighted if there is queueing in the morning on Oka,
however, that intersection works in tandem with the
Caltrans intersection where you get onto southbound Highway 17, which is also timed with the next intersection to the east, which is another Caltrans intersection.

We’ll take a look and see if there are some
things that we can do, because I know one of the concerns was queueing when you’re exiting, when you’re trying to get on Lark Avenue from Oka Road, so the southbound movement on Lark. Currently, there is red curb all along the Legacy Church to provide a de facto right turn lane. It’s where

Page 553 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
parking is allowed along the rest of the street. In this area there is no parking allowed, which creates a right turn lane, and that was used in determining the Level of Service was the assumption that it functions as a right turn lane.

The other side there is some parking. We have
painted a little red curb. We can take a look at that, but the main is the southbound thing, and there is red curb. We can also take a look and see what the time is and work with Caltrans to see if we can provide a little more southbound green, especially in the morning when people are departing, and coming back in the movements we favor Lark, both
eastbound and westbound, because that’s the heaviest
traffic flow, but we can take a look at those other options and see if there are some improvements that can be made.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you for answering that,
because it does seem like if perhaps the light for turning left onto Lark is not long enough, or it’s not coordinated with those two next lights, like you said, with Caltrans, so thank you for clarifying that, and hopefully, residents, if that is a problem, you can feel free to follow-up with the Town about that, not related to this project, but in general. Thank you very much.

Page 554 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Well, does anyone else have any questions about
traffic congestion, how VMT and all of it is calculated? I did have a question about clarifying the 6’
retaining wall/wall that is on the right side of the
property. Now that I understand more of the grading
situation, I’m assuming at the front it is 6’, but then towards the back of the property it will be 6’ on the side of the adjacent property, but then not 6’ from the grade on the… Or is it going to change in height because of how it’s calculated?
ERIN WALTERS: On the project side it will be 6’,
and we could get clarification from the Applicant’s team on how that would read on the other side, but as far as I
understand, it’s 6’.

CHAIR THOMAS: It’s 6’ on the property? On the
plans it says 6’…
ERIN WALTERS: Oh, sorry, as we go closer to Oka
Road it has to go down to 3’ when it’s in the vision
triangle.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’m sorry, could you invite the
Applicant up to mic to answer the question?
CHAIR THOMAS: Well, hold on. I don't know if we
actually need to open the public comment again if I can just get clarification from Ms. Walters. Yes, the sight

Page 555 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
triangle at the front of the property where it was the
angle of entrance or whatever, all of that was adjusted, and then that area will be 3’, because of safety issues, and then it moves to 6’. I guess I was just asking if the 6’ measurement is from the property side of the grade or the… Which side is it measured from?
ERIN WALTERS: I’m going to have to look.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any other
questions of Staff while… Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I have one final question.

The Jewish Community Center submitted significant five
pages of feedback on the MND back on April 6th. Many of the items in the feedback are more likely tied to Conditions of Approval, which I think was actually cited in the response by the consultant. Have any of their requests or concerns been included in the Conditions of Approval?
ERIN WALTERS: I can jump in and answer that. One
of the conditions that have been changed is there will be a noise and dust wall put onto the side where the JCC is, similar to the residential side on the mobile home side, through construction to address their concerns adjacent to their preschool.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

Page 556 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
NICOLLE BURNHAM: Ms. Walters, I have the grading
plan if you want me to help you.

ERIN WALTERS: Oh, yes, sure.

NICOLLE BURNHAM: Nicolle Burnham, Director of
Parks and Public Works. Looking at the grading plans, the wall on the north properly line closest to the mobile home park is generally 3’-3.5’ in height. I don’t see any
locations. There is a series of measurements that give us the elevation of the bottom of the wall and the top of the wall, and if you’re in the mobile home park you will be looking at like a 3’ high wall. I don’t see anywhere that it’s 6’.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, there are
two separate components. We know they’re raising the site, so there is going to be a retaining wall. I think you’re referencing a 6’ masonry fence wall…
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: …that will be on top of that.

We measure height from the higher grade, so it will appear higher on the mobile home park side is my understanding.

CHAIR THOMAS: So, it will appear higher than the
3’? There will be retaining wall plus the… Sorry, which page were you…

Page 557 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
JAMES WATSON: Let me jump in. James Watson,
Senior Engineer, Parks and Public Works. If you go to your packet, page 338 of 428, you’ll find some sections that are… I’m sorry, a couple pages up. Sheet 334, you’ll find Section B, Section C, and that was on the north side, and then if you go down one more page to 335. You’ll see those two sections, and you’ll see the 3.5’ retaining wall to the mobile home side, and then the developer is proposing a 6’ masonry wall on top of that to provide a 6’ wall on the development side. So, if you’re on the mobile home side, you’ll be looking at what appears to be a 9.5’ wall.

CHAIR THOMAS: That’s what I was trying to
confirm and understand. So, it will be that high, but
except for in the front where it impedes the sight
triangle.

Any other questions, or does someone want to
propose a motion? Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I will move to submit a
request for approval to construct a multi-family
residential development, 138 units, Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, remove large, protected trees, and site
improvement requiring a Grading Permit under Senate Bill 330 on vacant properties zoned R-1:8HEOZ and R-1:8, APNs 424-08-074 and -035. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative

Page 558 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Declaration have been prepared. Property owner Edward
Morimotio. Applicant Erik Hayden, Urban Catalyst. Project planner Erin Walters.

I can make these findings. I can make the
required finding for CEQA. I can make the required finding for consistency with the Town’s General Plan. I cannot make the required finding to deny a Subdivision Application, because none of the findings could be made to deny the
application with granting of the exceptions to Town
standards requested pursuant to the Builder's Remedy
provision of the Housing Accountability Act. I can make the finding for required compliance with zoning regulations. I can make the finding for required compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Objective Design Standards for qualifying
multi-family and mixed-use residential development. I
cannot make the required finding to deny a project under State Builder's Remedy Law. None of the findings could be made to deny the application. I can make the finding for consistency with California Government Code 65863 regarding State Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements, the Town’s Housing Element sites inventory, and No Net Loss Law. Under Consideration, I can make the required finding in the required considerations in review of Architecture and Site Applications.

Page 559 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Do we have a second? Commissioner
Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Second.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any discussion?
Commissioner Burnett, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I don’t have a question,
but I have comments. Since this is the first really big project, aside from the North Forty, coming before the
Planning Commission under a Builder's Remedy provision, I need to make the following comments in regard to the
project and the role of the Planning Commission.

Builder's Remedy has been around for a long time,
and developers love to use it when local governments do not pass a timely Housing Element. We cannot fault the
developer. Our town missed a mandatory deadline by 461
days. We need affordable housing, but now with Builder's Remedy, many of our Town’s character defining parts can be cast aside unless a developer works closely with the Town’s concerns.

On this point, the fallout from the Builder's
Remedy provisions allows noncompliance in the following areas: height, Objective Design Standards, Town zoning, density limits, setbacks, parking, lighting, our Town’s own below market rates, recreation space, Residential Design

Page 560 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
Guidelines, landscape buffers, upper floor setbacks if
you’re at the third story, and ground floor private space.

Given all this, the Planning Commission does not
have a lot of options, so I just want to make the comment that there is something that has driven this, and now we’re in this situation, and I just wanted to highlight that, and that’s my comment.

CHAIR THOMAS: Does anyone else have any
comments? Commissioner Mayer?
COMMISSIONER MAYER: No comments.

CHAIR THOMAS: I would just like to say that I
will be supporting this motion, and I know that a lot of work—from Staff, and not just the Planning Department,
which we normally deal with, but many other departments, and the Applicant team—has gone into getting this
application to where it is today.

I think we do need more housing in town and we
are in this situation because we haven’t been able to
address the housing needs in the Bay Area for decades now, and so this is why we can’t have nice things, and now we’re in situations where local residents are upset at how the State has been changing housing policy. However, I know that we need more housing and more dense development in

Page 561 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/27/2026
Item #2, 14789 Oka Road
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
areas that do connect to hopefully more future transit and some of the freeways in town.

I know that the Applicant team did not want to
make any changes, but hopefully maybe you’ll consider a couple of them moving forward, because I think that some of the changes would actually improve the potential project in a way that future residents would appreciate.

That being said, I would like to call the
question. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. The motion passes unanimously, and it is just a recommendation, so obviously there are no appeal rights, but it will be moving on to Town Council?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s correct.

CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you.
(END)

Page 562 ends

We represent Urban Catalyst (the “Applicant”) in connection with the proposed 138-unit multifamily residential development (the “Project”) located at 14789 Oka Road (the “Project site”) in Los Gatos, California (the “Town”). We write in advance of the Town Council’s hearing on August 18, 2026 to formally object to the suggestion of Town staff that in approving the Project, the Town Council impose a requirement for the Project to comply with Objective Design Standard (“ODS”) Section B.4.5. As set forth below, this Builder’s Remedy project cannot lawfully be compelled to comply with the Town’s ODS framework, and the Town has failed to satisfy its burden of proof to overcome the Housing Accountability Act’s (“HAA”) statutory protections.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Town Council reject the suggestion to impose ODS Section B.4.5 and approve this Project as proposed in a manner consistent with State housing law requirements.

I. The Builder’s Remedy Shields This Project from Zoning Standards and Any Other Requirements That Do Not Impact Public Health or Safety.

Pursuant to Senate Bill (“SB”) 330, the Applicant submitted a complete preliminary application for the Project on May 2, 2024. Accordingly, the Project is vested to the applicable Town “ordinances, policies, and standards” adopted and in effect as of May 2, 2024, 1 and the Applicant’s
vested rights under SB 330 and the HAA include the right to proceed under the Town’s Housing Element compliance status in effect at the time of submission. Because the Town did not possess a valid Housing Element when the preliminary application was submitted, the Applicant is vested to the Town’s non-compliant housing element status and is proceeding under the “Builder’s 1 Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).

ATTACHMENT 6

Page 563 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos Town Council
August 14, 2026

Page 2 ends

#541811225_v1
Remedy.”
2 Accordingly, the Project cannot be denied for noncompliance with, nor conditioned to ensure compliance with, General Plan land use or Zoning Code requirements. 3 It is our
understanding that the ODS have been adopted pursuant to the Zoning Code and they function as zoning in that they impose specific design standards on development proposals. Accordingly, the Project is not required to comply with ODS requirements due to the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA.
4 Even if the ODS was not considered zoning for the purposes of the Builder’s Remedy, the Town is likewise prohibited from applying ODS B.4.5 (either by denying the Project for noncompliance or by conditioning it upon compliance, which are functionally the same thing) because it does not relate to any “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.”5 For these purposes, “a ‘specific, adverse impact’ means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” The HAA also specifies that inconsistencies with a general plan designation or zoning ordinance do not constitute qualifying grounds for a finding of a public health or safety impact.6 The Town’s ODS B.4.5 – which requires material changes at inside corners of building facades – is, by its nature and purpose, an aesthetic design regulation governing the visual articulation and exterior appearance of structures. It does not derive from, nor is it grounded in, any “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” within the meaning of Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2)(A). A requirement that building facades incorporate material variation at corners bears no rational nexus to the prevention of significant, quantifiable, direct harm to the health or physical safety of the community. It establishes no threshold tied to structural integrity, fire protection, seismic safety, hazardous materials, traffic safety, or any other cognizable category of public health or safety impact. Because ODS B.4.5 cannot possibly form the basis of findings that satisfy the HAA’s statutory definition – a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” – it is legally insufficient to support denial or conditional approval of the Project under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2).
2 The Town’s Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on July 10, 2024. See Housing Element Review and Compliance Report | California Department of Housing and Community Development.
3 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(5).
4 As a “Builder’s Remedy 1.0” project that was in process prior to the adoption of AB 1893. 5 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2). Because the Town lacked a substantially compliant Housing Element when the Project submitted an SB 330 preliminary application, the Town is precluded from disapproving this Project on the basis of Government Code section 65589.5 subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(5). Subdivisions (d)(3) and (d)(4) are similarly unavailable because disapproval is not required by any state or federal laws, and because the Project site is not zoned for agriculture or resource preservation, nor surrounded by properties used for those purposes. Only subdivision (d)(2) may serve as a potential basis for denial.
6 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)(A).

Page 564 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos Town Council
August 14, 2026

Page 3 ends

#541811225_v1
II. The Housing Accountability Act Broadly Protects Projects from Infeasible Conditions.

The HAA independently prohibits local agencies from “condition[ing] approval in a manner that renders [the Project] infeasible,”7 and expansively defines the term “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.”8 Critically, the HAA places the burden of proof of demonstrating that a particular condition is in-fact feasible upon the Town. 9 The Council Agenda Report prepared for this action states in conclusory fashion:

Staff has evaluated the project relative to Objective Design Standard B.4.5 and determined that compliance can be achieved through minor revisions to the building elevations without rendering the project infeasible. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Town Council add a condition of approval requiring the applicant to revise the architectural elevations prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that changes in building materials occur at inside corners in compliance with Objective Design Standard B.4.5.

Staff’s conclusion is legally insufficient to satisfy the Town’s burden under the HAA – the Council Agenda Report offers a single sentence unaccompanied by any analysis, evidence, cost estimate, schedule impact, market study, or other findings addressing the economic, environmental, social, or technological factors that the Legislature expressly incorporated into the definition of “feasible.” This deficiency is fatal because the HAA does not permit the Town to shift its evidentiary burden onto the Applicant, nor does it permit the Town to rely on unsubstantiated staff opinion in lieu of a reasoned, evidence-based determination. It is the position of the Applicant that being required to change its design to comply with B.4.5 is infeasible, and the Town cannot lawfully impose the proposed condition. The Council must reject Staff's recommendation and approve the Project without the unsubstantiated condition.

III. In the Alternative, The Project Applies for a State Density Bonus Law Concession.

The Project also independently qualifies for various benefits under the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) because it proposes to set aside 20 percent of units for low-income households.10 Among these benefits, the Project will be entitled to receive up to two concessions.11 The SDBL defines “concessions” to include:
7 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d).
8 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(1).
9 Gov. Code § 65589.5(i).
10 Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(A).
11 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(B).

Page 565 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos Town Council
August 14, 2026

Page 4 ends

#541811225_v1

1. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission . . .

2. Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.

3. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).12
The Applicant hereby invokes its statutory authority to request, as one of its two concessions, the removal of this standard.
13 Because compliance with ODS B.4.5 would require the Applicant to redesign the building elevations and incorporate various additional materials, removal of the requirement produces actual and identifiable cost reductions in design labor and materials.

Under the SDBL, the Town's discretion to deny a requested concession is narrowly circumscribed:
the Town must grant the concession unless it makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the concession (i) does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, (ii) would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate, or (iii) would be contrary to state or federal law.14
None of these findings can be sustained on this record. As discussed above, Staff's conclusory statement – that compliance with Objective Design Standard B.4.5 “can be achieved through minor revisions to the building elevations” – fails to establish that the Project’s present proposal of exterior materials would impose a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment that cannot be feasibly mitigated, and the Town has never asserted that failure to adopt ODS B.4.5 would result in a violation of state or federal law. But the Town also bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the requested concession would not yield actual, 12 Gov. Code § 65915(k). Emphasis added.
13 Throughout the entitlement process for this Project, the Applicant has maintained that it qualifies for and may make requests for State Density Bonus Law benefits including concessions, even where it is not taking a “density bonus” pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law because it is independently permitted to propose 138 units in excess of the density the State Density Bonus Law would allow by the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the HAA. It has been made exceedingly clear in the last few years that the HAA and State Density Bonus Law can be used in combination, inclusive of the Builder’s Remedy provision. The prerequisite to access concessions is the provision of affordable housing, not applying for a density bonus.
14 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).

Page 566 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos Town Council
August 14, 2026

Page 5 ends

#541811225_v1
identifiable cost-savings: “[t]he city . . . shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.”15
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant demands that the Town Council approve the Project without requiring compliance with ODS B.4.5. The requirement functions as “zoning” with which the Project cannot be required to comply because of the Builder’s Remedy; the Town cannot meet its burden under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2) to demonstrate that an aesthetic façade standard would prevent a specific, adverse impact to public health or safety; it has wholly failed to carry its burden under section 65589.5(i) to show that the proposed condition is feasible; and, in the alternative, the Applicant is entitled as a matter of law to an SDBL concession that eliminates ODS B.4.5, which the Town lacks any lawful basis to deny.

Sincerely,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Genna Yarkin
Luca Trumbull
15 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(4). See also Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 549, 555-56 (“By requiring the city to grant incentives unless it makes particular findings, the statute places the burden of proof on the city to overcome the presumption that incentives will result in cost reductions.”). Emphasis in original.

Page 567 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Pat Blair <
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:02 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Town Council Meeting
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Council Members,
I am a long time Los Gatos resident and love our town. I live just off the Lark Ave.

Winchester Blvd. intersection in the Wimbledon Place development. Traffic has increased to close to an unsustainable level during certain times of the day. It may take a couple of light cycles to move through that intersection. Lark Ave. is also a parking lot at times and it now takes a long long time to move from Winchester Blvd. to Los Gatos Blvd. I truly shutter to think of emergency vehicles inability to get to emergencies during these gridlock periods.

Because of this, I strongly oppose the development proposed on Oka near the JCC. It would have a tremendous impact on an already traffic clogged area. Please don't approve more housing along this corridor.

Thank you,
Pat Blair
Los Gatos
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 568 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Witt Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 7:09 AM
To: Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Ali Sapirman <[email protected]>
Subject: 14789 Oka Road | Housing Action Coalition Letter of Support [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Ristow, and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council, Please find attached the Housing Action Coalition's formal letter of support for the 14789 Oka Road townhome project proposed by Urban Catalyst, and will be heard for approval tomorrow evening.

HAC's Project Review Committee reviewed this project and supports its approval. The proposal delivers 138 for-sale townhomes, including 28 affordable units at 80% AMI, on a site the Town's own Housing Element identifies for residential development. This is exactly the kind of housing Los Gatos needs.

As a reminder, this project has been submitted under the Builder's Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act. Under state law, the Town is required to approve housing projects that comply with applicable objective standards and may not deny or unreasonably condition such projects. The project received unanimous approval from the Planning Commission, and we urge the Town Council to do the same.

We greatly appreciate your leadership and are happy to answer any questions.

Sincerely,
Witt Turner
Housing Action Coalition
--
Witt Turner
He/Him/His
Office: (415)-300-0967

Page 569 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Cell: 510-421-9401
Advocacy and Operations Associate | Housing Action Coalition 555 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
housingactioncoalition.org

Page 570 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

June 15, 2026
Los Gatos Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for creating more housing at all income levels to help alleviate California's housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis. Following a presentation to our Project Review Committee, HAC is pleased to support Urban Catalyst's proposed 138-townhome development at 14789 Oka Road in Los Gatos.

Land Use and Affordability. The project delivers 138 new for-sale townhomes on an infill site identified in the Town's own Housing Element for residential development. With 28 units designated affordable at 80% AMI, the project meets both the Town's inclusionary requirements and Builder's Remedy standards.

In a community where homeownership is increasingly out of reach, a for-sale project with dedicated on-site affordable units is a meaningful opportunity for families to build equity and put down roots in Los Gatos.

Density and Design. The project proposes 20.57 units per acre on a site zoned for just 8 units per acre, utilizing the State Density Bonus and Builder's Remedy to deliver housing at a density the site should have been planned for in the first place. The Dahlin Group, one of the Bay Area's most respected architects for townhome and single-family design, has produced a thoughtful plan with three-story homes, varied architectural articulation, and interior courtyards that received positive feedback from the Los Gatos Planning Commission.

Community Benefits. The project voluntarily improves the Oka Road frontage with new sidewalks, a new bike lane, and striped on-street parking. The site also includes community open space with a meandering pathway around a stormwater bioretention basin, adding walkable green space to the area.

Overall, the 14789 Oka Road project will deliver 138 new for-sale homes, including 28 affordable units, on a Housing Element site in one of the Bay Area's highest-resource communities. We urge the Town Council to approve this project consistent with its obligations under the Housing Accountability Act and Builder's Remedy.

Sincerely,
Corey Smith, Executive Director

Page 571 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: cat wei
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 5:55 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> Subject: Formal Opposition: 14789 Oka Road Project (S-24-052 / M-24-017) [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Date: 6/15/2026
Dear Senior Planner Walters and Members of the Town Council I am writing as a resident of Los Gatos to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed 138-unit multifamily residential development at 14789 Oka Road.

While I recognize the Town's obligation to address state-mandated housing requirements, I believe this particular proposal would impose significant and inadequately mitigated impacts on the surrounding community. Accordingly, I respectfully urge the Town Council to carefully scrutinize, and ultimately consider denying, this application based on the following concerns: [1, 2, 3]
Public Safety and Traffic Impacts: The proposed high-density development is located near the already heavily congested SR-17 and SR-85 interchange. The resulting increase in vehicle traffic would further burden Oka Road and could adversely affect emergency access, evacuation routes, and overall traffic circulation in the area.

Environmental Impacts: The removal of hundreds of mature orchard trees would substantially reduce the area's tree canopy, diminish environmental benefits provided by these trees, and negatively affect local wildlife habitat.

Infrastructure Limitations: Existing public utilities and neighborhood roadways were not designed to accommodate a significant increase in residential density of this magnitude.

The proposal raises concerns regarding the capacity of local infrastructure to support additional demand without adverse effects on current residents.

Because this application relies on Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), I request that the Town Council hold this project to the absolute strictest interpretation of the town’s Objective Design Standards to protect public health and safety. Please include my formal letter in the official supplemental desk packet items for the record. [1, 3]
Thank you for your time, attention, and service to the Los Gatos community.

Respectfully submitted,

Page 572 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Catherine Wei
Printed Full Name: Catherine Wei
Physical Residential address: Los Gatos, CA 95032

Page 573 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Nauman >
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 7:06 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 138 Units proposal on Oka Road Los Gatos
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I live in the town homes behind Courtside off Wimbleton. This unit would be a disaster! The only entrance/exit is out Oka to Lark. There is already a bottle neck on Lark. There are 4 lights on Lark between Winchester and Los Gatos Blvd. Now consider 138 cars x’s 2 coming in and out of Oka road not to mention the traffic from the JCC and its School as well as traffic from Los Gatos Swim And Racket! It already can take 10 minutes to get from Winchester to Los Gatos Blvd to access southbound 85 because the powers that be didn’t want access to Southbound 85 from Winchester because it would cause too much traffic congestion!!! This is a totally inappropriate use of this property. Please consider rejecting because of traffic’s congestion! Thank you, Linda Nauman Sent from my iPhone

Page 574 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: C. W. TRIPP
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 7:37 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: condo oaka rd
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I am opposed to the condo dev on Oka Road. Think of the traffic

Page 575 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 576 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

You have already impacted Los Gatos Blvd with the new Whole Foods.

Highway 9 Los Gatos Lodge site to Summerhill?
WHAT IS THIS Town Council thinking???????????
Your approval of the new residential multi story project next to Rotten Robbie’s will cause TREMENDOUS traffic issues.

DO NOT APPROVE THESE MONSTROSITIES by allowing the sites to be over built.

DO NOT APPROVE THE ACE HARDWARE site either.

TOWNS need to stay “Towns”
NOT turn into Cities………
ESPECIALLY Los Gatos
STOP ALL THE APPROVALS of these vertical residential jails.

Josh Gispan
Sent from my iPhone
Please excuse any typos

Page 577 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: John Fox
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 10:45 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Oka Road apartment proposal
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
If you are going to increase the density of inhabitants on Oka Road, the Town will need increase the capacity of Oka Road by adding a new lane in and a new lane out on Oka. The Town might also consider adding a second exit route out of Oka by going around the back of the church facing Lark. Alternatively, run a road down the south edge of the JCC and then dog leg south to Lark.

Please do not make the mistake the Town of Palo Alto made by increasing office occupancy density on Paige Mill Road without widening Page Mill or the El Camino Real. Hence,, the one-hour parking lot in the morning and again in the afternoon. The lesson is that you must scale up all urban systems in proportion. Urban Planning 101. Thanks...John Fox

Page 578 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 579 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Richard Sellen
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 11:07 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Oka Proposal
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Los Gatos. I recently learned of the proposal to build 138 townhomes/condos on the site of the vacant orchard on Oka Road. I can not express enough how much this would be a disaster for that region. Frankly, Oka road and the surrounding intersections on Lark can not handle this large of an increase in traffic.

Lark, as it is, is a parking lot heading to Los Gatos Boulevard. With many people getting frustrated and illegally turning right from lark onto LG boulevard from one of the center lanes. The sheer number of developments is absolutely mind boggling considering there is very little attention being paid to the existing infrastructure and eventual impact to our schools.

Richard Sellen

Page 580 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Jason Heimann
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 7:28 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: Development at 14789 Oka Road
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi!
I'm a Campbell resident that lives just one mile from the proposed development at 14789 Oka Road. I'm writing in support of the development. Our neighborhood businesses could use more support, as could our local schools. We'd love to have more new neighbors! The location on Oka road seems ideal for a large multi-family development. Close to Hwys 17 and 85, close to grocers and gas stations and restaurants. And Oka road sees so little traffic compared to the other two-lane roads in our area...

Let me know how I can support further development in our area! Thanks,
Jason Heimann

Page 581 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 8:41 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Neighborhood Feedback: S-24-052 / M-24-017 (14789 Oka Road) [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Members of the Town Council and Planning Commission, As a local resident residing in the immediate vicinity of 14789 Oka Road, I am submitting this public comment regarding the pending Architecture and Site Application (S-24-052) and Subdivision Application (M-24-017).

While I recognize the importance of regional housing growth, I have serious reservations about the current scale of this 138-unit development and its unmitigated neighborhood impacts. Please review the following specific issues prior to making a final decision:

Cumulative Traffic Impacts: The intersection capacities and narrow corridors around Oka Road are already operating under stress. Introducing a high-density complex will inevitably create bottleneck conditions during morning and evening commutes. A comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis must be strictly vetted to ensure pedestrian and driver safety is not compromised.

Loss of Mature Canopy: The requested grading permits and the removal of "Large Protected Trees" will permanently alter the green character of our neighborhood. These trees are irreplaceable community assets. I urge the commission to mandate a redesigned site layout that prioritizes the preservation of the existing mature growth over maximum unit density.

Infrastructure Sustainability: Our local public amenities, drainage systems, and neighborhood spaces are not currently scaled for an overnight influx of hundreds of new residents. The town must ensure that full infrastructure mitigation fees and actual upgrades are locked in before any vesting tentative maps are approved.

Thank you for your dedication to maintaining the balance and livability of Los Gatos. I respectfully request that the town deny or significantly scale down this proposal until these community concerns are thoroughly resolved.

Sincerely,
A Local Neighborhood Resident(Oka Road Area, Los Gatos)

Page 582 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Tommy Mei < >
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2026 1:07 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Request to Defer Approval and Not Adopt the MND at This Time – 14789 Oka Road (S-24-052 / M-24-017 / ND-26-001)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mayor, Town Council Members, and Planning Staff,
Please accept these comments into the official public record for the August 18, 2026 Town Council hearing regarding the proposed 138-unit residential development at 14789 Oka Road (Architecture and Site Application S-24-052, Subdivision Application M-24-017, and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-26-001).

I understand that this project is being processed under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, including the applicant’s Builder’s Remedy claims. My comments are therefore not based simply on opposition to housing density. Instead, I respectfully ask the Town Council to address several specific public safety, environmental, and neighborhoodimpact issues that remain concerning in the current record.

1. Emergency evacuation and emergency vehicle access at Oka Road and Lark Avenue The most significant concern is whether the surrounding road network can safely accommodate both evacuation traffic and incoming emergency vehicles during a foreseeable emergency.

At the May 27, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, there was substantial discussion regarding congestion on Oka Road, Lark Avenue, and the surrounding Highway 17/85 area.

The traffic consultant also acknowledged that weekend traffic conditions were not analyzed.

This is important because conditions in this area can be substantially different during summer weekend beach traffic, Highway 17 incidents, major accidents, wildfires, earthquakes, or other emergencies. Under these circumstances, ordinary weekday peakhour traffic assumptions may not accurately represent the conditions under which residents and emergency responders would actually need to use the roadway.

I respectfully request that, before final approval, the Town require a specific emergencyaccess and evacuation analysis addressing:
• simultaneous resident evacuation and emergency vehicle access;

Page 583 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
• Highway 17 incident-related congestion;
• summer weekend traffic conditions;
• the cumulative effect of existing development together with the additional 138 residential units; and
• whether any additional emergency access, traffic-control measures, or other improvements are necessary.

A conclusion that the project does not create a significant VMT impact under CEQA should not by itself be treated as a conclusion that emergency evacuation and emergency response conditions are adequate.

2. Flooding, grading, stormwater, and impacts on neighboring properties The project involves substantial grading and raising portions of the site in an area affected by 100-year flood considerations.

Raising the project site may reduce flood exposure for the new homes, but the Town should also ensure that the project does not increase flood elevation, redirect stormwater, reduce flood-storage capacity, or otherwise transfer drainage or flooding impacts onto lower neighboring properties.

I respectfully request that the Town confirm, based on appropriate hydrologic and civil engineering analysis, that the proposed grading and stormwater system will not result in increased off-site flooding, runoff, ponding, or drainage impacts during major storm events.

The Town should consider requiring clear post-construction monitoring, maintenance responsibilities for stormwater facilities, and enforceable corrective measures if unanticipated off-site drainage impacts occur.

3. Retaining-wall and grade-difference impacts along neighboring properties The proposed grading also creates a substantial elevation difference along portions of the project boundary.

During the Planning Commission discussion, the combination of approximately 3.5 feet of retaining wall and an approximately 6-foot masonry wall was discussed. From the lower neighboring side, the combined visual height may approach approximately 9.5 feet.

This is a substantial physical and visual impact on adjoining residents, particularly those in the neighboring mobile home community.

I respectfully request that the Town require the applicant to evaluate alternatives that reduce this impact, including changes in grading, stepped retaining walls, greater

Page 584 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
setbacks, landscape screening, reduced wall height where feasible, and other design measures.

The final Conditions of Approval should address the wall as it will actually be experienced from neighboring properties, rather than evaluating only the nominal fence height measured from the raised project side.

4. Removal of approximately 374 existing orchard trees and long-term tree-canopy replacement
The development plans indicate the removal of approximately 374 orchard trees, including protected trees.

Although replacement landscaping is proposed, newly planted trees will not immediately replace the mature canopy, shade, habitat, visual buffering, and environmental benefits provided by the existing orchard.

I respectfully request that the Town require a measurable long-term tree-canopy replacement plan rather than relying only on the number of newly planted trees.

Such a plan should include:
• projected canopy coverage at approximately 10 and 20 years; • preference for appropriate native or climate-adapted species; • minimum planting sizes where feasible;
• long-term irrigation and maintenance requirements;
• replacement of trees that die during an established monitoring period; and • clear responsibility for maintaining the required tree canopy after construction.

5. Weekend and incident-related traffic conditions should be distinguished from the CEQA VMT analysis
The public record indicates that the traffic analysis did not examine weekend traffic.

I recognize that current CEQA transportation analysis focuses primarily on Vehicle Miles Traveled rather than traditional congestion or Level of Service. However, a determination that the project falls below a VMT significance threshold does not mean that the project will have no meaningful effect on local congestion, emergency access, or neighborhood circulation.

I therefore ask the Council to distinguish between the legal CEQA VMT determination and the separate question of whether the local road network is adequately designed for this particular project's real-world traffic and emergency conditions.

Page 585 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

If the Town cannot reasonably evaluate those conditions before approval, an appropriate Condition of Approval should require additional analysis and any necessary mitigation before issuance of building or grading permits.

6. Request for enforceable Conditions of Approval
I recognize that state housing law may limit the Town's ability to reduce the number of residential units or deny the project based solely on inconsistency with local zoning standards.

However, state housing law should not prevent the Town from imposing lawful, objective, feasible, and necessary conditions addressing legitimate public health, safety, infrastructure, drainage, environmental, and neighboring-property impacts.

Accordingly, I respectfully ask the Town Council not to treat approval of 138 units as requiring unconditional acceptance of every aspect of the current design.

Before final approval, the Council should ensure that the Conditions of Approval adequately and enforceably address:

1. emergency evacuation and fire/emergency access;

2. weekend and incident-related traffic conditions;

3. flood, grading, and off-site drainage impacts;

4. retaining-wall and grade-transition impacts on adjoining properties; and

5. long-term replacement of the existing tree canopy.

If the existing environmental record does not contain sufficient evidence to resolve these issues, I respectfully request that the Town obtain the necessary additional technical information before taking final action.

Please include this correspondence in the administrative record for the 14789 Oka Road project and provide it to all Town Council members before the August 18, 2026 hearing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Cenkai Mei & Ming Dai
Los Gatos, CA 95032

Page 586 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Adam Sweeney <
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 5:19 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please support new homes at 14789 Oka Road
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Town Clerk Wendy Wood,
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Ristow, and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council, I am a Los Gatos-area resident writing in support of the 14789 Oka Road project, and I urge you to approve it at your August 18 hearing. We all need to play our part in providing more housing in our area. I'd like my kids and my friends' kids to be able to live here, too.

This project would bring 138 new for-sale homes to Los Gatos - including 28 homes reserved for low-income households. For families trying to put down roots here, homeownership is nearly out of reach. A project this size, built for buyers rather than renters, is a rare and meaningful opportunity.

The Planning Commission reviewed this project carefully and recommended its approval unanimously. The applicant has also voluntarily committed to real improvements along Oka Road - new sidewalks, a bike lane, and on-street parking - along with new public open space on the site.

Los Gatos is required to plan for nearly 2,000 new homes by 2031, and this site was identified in the Town's own Housing Element for exactly this kind of development. I understand neighbors have raised legitimate questions about traffic and safety on Oka Road, and I hope the Town and applicant keep working through those. But those concerns shouldn't stand in the way of 138 homes the Town needs. And, frankly, has there ever been a new development where the neighbors didn't complain about traffic and safety concerns?
I urge the Council to vote yes on 14789 Oka Road on August 18.

Sincerely,

Page 587 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Adam Sweeney
Saratoga, California 95070

Page 588 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Filip Buca >
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 6:32 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support new homes at 14789 Oka Road!
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Town Clerk Wendy Wood,
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Ristow, and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council, I am a Los Gatos-area resident writing in support of the 14789 Oka Road project, and I urge you to approve it at your August 18 hearing.

This project would bring 138 new for-sale homes to Los Gatos - including 28 homes reserved for low-income households. For families like mine trying to put down roots here, homeownership is nearly out of reach. A project this size, built for buyers rather than renters, is a rare and meaningful opportunity.

I urge the Council to vote yes on 14789 Oka Road on August 18.

Sincerely,
Filip Buca
Filip Buca
San Jose, California 95124

Page 589 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Seth Barberee
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 7:07 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support new homes at 14789 Oka Road!
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Town Clerk Wendy Wood,
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Ristow, and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I am a Los Gatos-area resident writing in support of the 14789 Oka Road project, and I urge you to approve it at your August 18 hearing.

I urge the Council to vote yes on 14789 Oka Road on August 18.

Sincerely,

Page 590 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 591 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Diana Foss <
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 4:55 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support new homes at 14789 Oka Road!
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Town Clerk Wendy Wood,
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Ristow, and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
I am a Los Gatos-area resident writing in support of the 14789 Oka Road project, and I urge you to approve it at your August 18 hearing.

Page 592 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
applicant keep working through those. But those concerns shouldn't stand in the way of 138 homes the Town needs.

I urge the Council to vote yes on 14789 Oka Road on August 18.

Sincerely,
Diana Foss
San Jose, California 95128

Page 593 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos City CouncilAugust 18, 2026

Los Gatos City Council
August 18, 2026