Agenda — Monte Sereno City Council, April 7, 2026

AGENDA
City of Monte Sereno
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
City Council
7:00 PM
Monte Sereno City Council Chambers - 18041 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, Ca 95030

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN-PERSON

OR UTILIZE THE VIRTUAL OPTION
How to Participate
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access and participate in the meeting as follows: To listen (only) by telephone dial US: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 When prompted by the system enter participation Webinar ID:
810 7548 9681
and Password: 470376.

To attend the meeting webinar with a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81075489681?pwd=O5WCL3MIv56DvIc4xIZVcAtHzfgdwA.1 Passcode: 470376
Or iPhone one-tap (telephone connection) : US:
+16694449171,,81075489681#,,,,*470376# US
+17207072699,,81075489681#,,,,*470376# US
Passcode: 470376.

You will be prompted to install the webinar client appropriate for your device. Attendees are encouraged to install the needed software in advance at the following locations depending on the device being used. If you are unable to participate in real-time, you may email to the City Clerk at [email protected] with the subject line "Public Comment Item #__ " (insert the item number relevant to your comment) or "Verbal Communications - Non Agenda Item."
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the City Manager who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager at 408-498-5285 or [email protected]. If requested of the City Manager, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.

Page

CALL TO ORDER

Page 1 of 163 ends

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

ORDERS OF THE DAY
The Mayor, or a majority of the Council by vote, may change the order of business, except for public hearings on the agenda for a set time.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

PRESENTATIONS

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any matter of City business not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will normally be allotted three minutes, subject to the Mayor or a majority of the Council’s ability to limit the amount of time allocated to speakers based on the number of speakers and the need for expedient administration of City business in light of the number and length of items on the agenda.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting. Council Members desiring to read or discuss any written communication may do so at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council consideration.

CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all items listed below be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is required by a Councilmember. One public comment period will be provided, although speakers speaking on more than one item may be allocated additional time by the Mayor or a majority of the Council.

1. Approve the Minutes of the March 17, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting
Staff recommends approval of the Minutes of the March 17, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting
Staff Report -SR-22-148 - Pdf
6 - 14

2. Approve Warrant List Dated April 7, 2026 in the Amount of $315,862.84 Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.

Staff Report - SR-26-053 - Pdf
15 - 23

PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. Consideration of the Following Documents to Implement Housing Element Program Q on Properties Located at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard:

A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 10, Chapter 10.05 by Amending Section 10.05.010 (Zoning District Designations) and Adding Section 10.05.044 (MultiFamily Residential Overlay Zone) and Chapter 10.06 by Amending Section 10.06.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units; Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; Standards And Requirements) and Chapter 10.08 by 24 - 120

Page 2 of 163 ends

Amending Section 10.08.040 (Site Development Permit Required) and by Amending Section 10.08.050 (Permit Process); and Chapter 10.11 (Amendments, Annexations and Enforcement) By adding Section

10.11.016 (Multi-Family Overlay District Amendment Process); and B. A Resolution to Update the Objective Design Standards Regarding Required Open Space Requirements and Minimum Number of Trees for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone.

Recommendation
The Site and Architectural Commission recommends the following to the City Council:
a. Adopt the draft ordinance and resolution applicable to two parcels at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard with modifications to the windows allowed on the second story to provide more privacy (increase minimum sill height, require privacy glazing, and limit openings); and
b. Increase the side yard setbacks for the second story; and c. Consider any alternatives.

Staff recommends that the City Council accept the recommendation from the Site and Architectural Commission to adopt the draft ordinance to add the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone with amendments to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors, amend existing sections of the zoning code, and to approve the draft resolution to update the Objective Design Standards
Staff Report - SR-26-052 - Pdf
Additional Public Comments Received on 04.07.26
All Public Comments Received on 04.07.26
Additional Public Comments Received 4.06.26
All Public Comments Received on 4.06.26
All Public Comments Received on 4.05.26
All Public Comments Received on 4.03.26
All Public Comments Received on 4.02.26
All Public Comments Received on 4.01.26
All Public Comments Received on 3.31.26
All Public Comments Received on 3.30.26
All Public Comments Received on 3.27.26
All Public Comments Received on 3.24.26

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS

4. Consideration of Four Applications and Appointment to Fill One (1) Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027
Staff recommends the City Council consider the applicants who applied 121 - 133

Page 3 of 163 ends

for the Site and Architectural Commission and appoint one applicant to the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an unexpired term ending December 31, 2027.

Staff Report - SR-26-050 - Pdf

5. Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos for a Joint Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos for a Joint Evacuation Plan
Staff Report - SR-26-054 - Pdf
134 - 157

COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers serving on Council committees or appointed by the City to serve on the boards, commissions or committees of other agencies to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.

Toren
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
Cities Association – Board of Directors
Cities Association – Legislative Action Committee
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee

Mekechuk
West Valley Stormwater Authority
West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority
Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission Craig
Monte Sereno Youth Commission
Santa Clara County Library JPA
Shannon
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
West Valley Sanitation District Board
Cities Association - Cities Selection Committee
Allan
Association of Bay Area Governments
League of California Cities Peninsula Division
West Valley Mayors & Managers
Mayors of Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Mayors Group

Page 4 of 163 ends

COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make brief announcements or reports on the Councilmember’s own activities. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make a specific request for an item to be placed on a future agenda. No discussion or other action may be taken.

6. Council Tentative Council Meeting Calendar 2026 158 - 163

ADJOURN
* All items on the agenda are subject to action/or change by the City Council In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (408) 354-7635. If requested of the City Clerk, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]

Page 5 of 163 ends

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Apr 07 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Approve the Minutes of the March 17, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends approval of the Minutes of the March 17, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting
Fiscal Impact:

There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.

Public Noticing:

The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.

Attachments:
03-17-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT

Page 6 of 163 ends

03-17-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT Page 1

MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m.

March 17, 2026

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At approximately 7:00 p.m., Mayor Allan called the meeting to order.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL
Present – Chambers: Councilmember Toren, Councilmember Craig, Councilmember Mekechuk, Vice Mayor Shannon and Mayor Allan
Present – Remote: None

Absent: None
Staff: City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica, City Attorney Powell, City Manager Perkins
Staff – Remote: None

ORDERS OF THE DAY
None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.

PRESENTATIONS
None.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
May Gee- Expressed concerns and opposition to SB10. A suggestion was made that another item be added to the April 7th Council meeting for discussion alternatives.

Former Mayor Don Perry – Shared there is new information that wasn’t considered a couple of years ago to consider now for the zoning overlay. He shared that he met with the City Manager and discussed 5 parcels that should be looked into and that may be a better choice.

Page 7 of 163 ends

03-17-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT Page 2
Resident Billy Martin – Shared that since the last time Council met to discuss SB10, there have been changes in circumstances since the Winchester properties were proposed. Resident Martin expressed the need to further discuss the SB10 overlay.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CONSENT CALENDAR (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)

1. Approve the Minutes of the March 3, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

2. Approve Warrant List Dated March 17, 2026 in the Amount of $81,357.12

3. 2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report

4. Adoption of Council Goals for Fiscal Year 2026-2027

5. Establishment of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Facilities and Needs
Councilmember Mekechuk requested Item #4 to be pulled.

Mayor Allan opened the Consent Calendar for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Shannon to approve Items #1, #2, #3, and #5 on the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Toren.

VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)

4. Adoption of Council Goals for Fiscal Year 2026-2027
Councilmember Mekechuk recommended that two items be added to the goals.

Mayor Allan opened the Consent Calendar Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

Discussion ensued.

MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Mekechuk to approve Item #4 on the Consent Calendar as presented with the addition of the two goals suggested by Councilmember Mekechuk. Seconded by Councilmember Toren.

VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)

PUBLIC HEARING
None.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

6. Consider Awarding Community Based Organization Grants for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 City Manager Perkins provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.

It was asked that Councilmember Toren recuse himself. This is based on two things. Councilmember Toren’s wife works for KCAT, which is one of the past recipients. He has a financial conflict of interest. However, under the government code section 1090, a separate statutory conflict regulation, there is an exemption for nonprofit employees, which allows the City to potentially grant

Page 8 of 163 ends

03-17-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT Page 3
funding to KCAT, but Councilmember Toren is not able to participate.

Discussion ensued.

Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment.

Public Comment:
• Melissa Toren – Spoke on how past donations have helped KCAT. • Phil Knopf– Spoke on behalf of Los Gatos Youth Park and how a grant this year can help with property improvements.

With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Craig to award the Community Based Organization Grant to the following organizations:

Art Docents of Los Gatos - $2,000
KCAT - $5,000
Los Gatos Community Concert Association - $1,500
Music in the Park - $2,000
Los Gatos Youth Park - $1,500
West Valley Community Services - $5,000
Seconded by Vice Mayor Shannon.

VOTE: Motion passed. (4-0-1 Recused: Torren)

NEW BUSINESS
None.

COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
Councilmember Toren shared he attended Barkfest hosted by Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. Councilmember Toren expressed it was very beautiful and the staff were terrific. The next board meeting is scheduled for March 25th. Councilmember Toren shared he attended his first Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee meeting. He shared that VTA has hired a consultant to build a potential customer experience program at VTA. VTA is trying to accomplish their goal through getting out to the community to understand what their needs are, and their satisfaction with services to help increase productivity and enhance customer experience. VTA also provided an update on some of the things that happened during Super Bowl, such as VTA breaking new ridership records for Super Bowl, breaking the previous all-time high set by Taylor Swift’s concert. Lastly, Councilmember Toren shared he attended the Cities Association meeting, where they had their first study session on ALPR’s.

Vice Mayor Shannon shared he attended the West Valley Sanitation District Board meeting last week. Vice Mayor Shannon shared there has been an implementation of a new dog policy from the West Valley Sanitation District. Lastly, Vice Mayor Shannon shared that she attended the TPAC meeting at the City of San Jose, representing the West Valley Sanitation District.

Mayor Allan shared there was a West Valley Mayors & Managers meeting that Vice Mayor Shannon

Page 9 of 163 ends

03-17-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT Page 4
attended.

Councilmember Craig shared nothing to report.

Councilmember Mekechuk shared he attended the monthly board meeting with Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority last week. Councilmember Mekechuk shared there was discussion on a tour they had of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Extension.

COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Mayor Allan shared he met with Congressman Sam Liccardo, and we will be assisting in coordinating a meeting with him and the Monte Sereno Youth Commission.

Councilmember Mekechuk shared he attended an event with Congressman Liccardo, and he was asked to put him in contact with someone that can be involved in a pilot for insurance, which also dovetails into the removal of household hazardous waste from the extreme fire zone area.

Vice Mayor Shannon shared she, too, attended the event that Councilmember Mekechuk attended that was hosted by one of her neighbors. She commented on the Policeman’s Ball and expressed it was a lovely event and that she enjoyed it very much. Lastly, she commented on the Tyler Finance System, that Council has the ability to view invoices on the warrant list.

Councilmember Toren shared he had the pleasure of coaching the T-ball, single, double, triple baseball for Los Gatos Little League and didn’t realize how much he missed it until Saturday, when he was invited to be one of the dignitaries at the opening day celebration.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Perkins reported that in December of 2025, the City Council approved a resolution for a revised salary schedule to include a part-time City Planner position to replace the full-time position. That recruitment was opened in early February, and interviews were held earlier this month. A job offer was made, and it was accepted last week. We now have a new part-time City Planner starting on April 6, 2026.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.

ADJOURN
Mayor Allan adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:43 p.m.

Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk

Page 10 of 163 ends

March 11, 2026 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board Meeting Follow-Up
Meeting Snapshot
At the March Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) Board of Directors (Board) meeting, the Board approved a $6 million addition to the popular Home Rebates Program for highly efficient electric appliances, approved a Legislative Policy Platform on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Extension, approved the FY 2025-26 Mid-Year Budget, held a discussion on the Financial Levers Modeled Scenario, and received an update on SVCE’s clean power purchasing.

High-Level Item Summaries
1) Board Approves $6 Million Addition to Home Rebates Program SVCE’s popular Home Rebates Program provides rebates for heat pump water heaters, heat pump space heating/cooling systems, dryers, induction cooktops, prewiring circuits, and electrical infrastructure upgrades. To date, the program has been very successful, having served more than 3,000 customers and incentivized more than 1,100 water heaters and 2,300 space heating/cooling systems. The additional approved funding will allow SVCE to further support residents in electrifying their homes and preparing the region for building electrification.
2) SVCE Board Approves Addition to 2026 Legislative Policy Platform Supporting Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Extension and Nuclear Development The Board unanimously approved an addition to its 2026 Legislative Policy Platform directing staff to advocate for extending the operations of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant beyond its current statutory retirement dates of 2029 and 2030. Building on a history in which allocations from the plant saved SVCE $8.3 million between 2020 and 2024, the approval also directs staff to advocate for a fair cost and benefit allocation to ratepayers, the inclusion of Diablo in planning and procurement orders, and maximized market liquidity. The Board also approved adding a policy on support for nuclear investigation and development.
3) Board Approves Midyear Operating Budget and Continues Review of Financial Levers
The Board approved the midyear budget for fiscal year 2025-26, which withdraws $12.5 million from reserves, and evaluated the financial forecast for the next five years. This item was accompanied by a review of the financial levers the Board has at its disposal in response to an expected decline in the power supply market and the resulting impacts to SVCE revenues. Final Board decisions on a preferred approach are expected in May or June with resulting changes incorporated into future budgets, power purchases, and program designs.
4) Clean Power Update & New Long-Term Project Solicitation SVCE launched a solicitation for new long-term energy supply projects on February 5th and received offers on March 4th. The goal of this solicitation is to contract for renewable and carbon-free resources that will contribute toward meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard goals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and address reliability requirements.

SVCE is seeking projects with initial delivery dates in 2026 or later for terms of 10 – 20 years. SVCE is currently reviewing the offers received and anticipates executing agreements by the end of the year.

Page 11 of 163 ends

Item Details
1) Board Approves $6 Million Addition to Home Rebates Program SVCE’s Home Rebates Program has seen strong uptake, highlighting growing demand for rebates as more residents become aware of electrification and choose to transition their homes. With the existing funding allocation, SVCE passed its targets for heat pump water heater and heat pump heating/cooling system installations earlier than expected.

To support this popular program and assist more customers in electrifying their homes, the Board approved $6 million in additional funding.
2) SVCE Board Approves Addition to 2026 Legislative Policy Platform Supporting Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Extension and Nuclear Development In December 2025, the Board approved SVCE’s 2026 Legislative Policy Platform. The Legislative Policy Platform directs staff on the Board’s legislative policies. When approved, it did not include a position on Diablo Canyon and its status. Since the State Legislature is expected to take this issue up in the coming session, staff recommended that the board add a support position to its policy platform that includes a set of affordability provisions and support for nuclear investigation and development more broadly.

Diablo Canyon is a nuclear energy facility in San Luis Obispo County that has been operating since 1985, with its two units producing approximately 18,000 gigawatt hours of power annually. This production represents about 9% of the energy generated in California and 17% of the state’s clean energy resources - enough to power 4 million homes each year. The plant’s current retirement dates — 2029 for Unit 1 and 2030 for Unit 2 — were set by SB 846, signed by Governor Newsom in 2022, which extended operations that had originally been scheduled to end earlier following a 2018 California Public Utilities Commission decision. In 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an interim proposal for a further 20-year extension of Diablo’s operating license through 2045, contingent on PG&E obtaining necessary land use permits — which PG&E has since obtained, securing Coastal Commission permits in December 2025 and Regional Water Quality permits in February 2026.

SVCE’s stake in this question is direct. Since 2020, PG&E has offered carbon-free attributes from its nuclear and hydropower resources to SVCE and other community choice aggregators at no additional cost, and SVCE’s Board has accepted these nuclear allocations each year they were available. (PG&E did not offer these attributes in 2024.) Accepting those allocations saved SVCE $8.3 million between 2020 and 2023, with the Board directing that those savings be used to fund customer-facing programs, including multifamily EV chargers, portable batteries for medical baseline customers in wildfire or outage-prone areas, and grants to member agencies for electrification demonstration and community engagement projects. Prior to 2024, Diablo represented 20% of SVCE’s clean energy mix; in 2025, that share fell to 5% due to how SB 846 restructured the allocation of Diablo’s attributes across all CPUC jurisdictional load-serving entities. Any future state legislation extending the plant would also be an opportunity, staff noted, to revisit the rules around how those allocations are structured. On the affordability side, the CPUC’s Transmission Planning Process analysis found that Diablo saves between $600 million and $1.2 billion annually by avoiding the need to construct replacement power from solar and batteries — a figure that rises to between $2.7 billion and $3.7 billion per year if offshore wind and long-duration storage are also not built.

Page 12 of 163 ends

As part of a Diablo extension, SVCE staff recommend advocating for additional policies to support system affordability. Examples include:
• Reasonable Cost and Fair Cost/Benefit Allocations: The costs from continued Diablo operations should be reasonable and the costs and benefits should be fairly allocated to ratepayers and other interested stakeholders based on historic and future need. • Inclusion in Planning and Procurement Orders: Diablo should be included in statewide planning and procurement orders to mitigate the need for new procurement. If the state is requiring the build out of renewable resources to replace Diablo and Diablo remains operational, the state would be overbuilding renewable resources to the detriment of affordability.
• Maximize Market Liquidity: An extension of Diablo should also maximize market liquidity through mechanisms such as allowing load-serving entities to resell allocations from Diablo. This market liquidity is important for ratepayer affordability.

The Board also approved adding general support for nuclear investigation and development to the 2026 Legislative Policy Platform.
3) Board Approves Midyear Operating Budget and Continues Review of Financial Levers
The approved Fiscal Year 2025-26 midyear budget took into consideration PG&E’s January 2026 rate changes, projected increase/decrease in operating expenses and investment incomes, and other minor adjustments. The midyear budget projects a withdrawal of $12.5 million from reserves – which is a decrease of $48 million from the $60.5 million withdrawal from reserves that was anticipated when the budget was adjusted in December. This positive outcome is due to a $32 million reduction in power supply costs and a $20 million increase in revenues, driven by a favorable regulatory decision that led to higher PG&E generation rates. Since any differences between actual power supply costs and the estimates used to set the 2026 rates will be trued-up during the next rate-setting cycle, SVCE’s future budgets may be further impacted.

In the December 2025 regular Board meeting, staff introduced the concept of optional financial levers the Board could implement in response to financial challenges. These include raising SVCE’s generation rate relative to PG&E, reducing the agency’s voluntary investment in clean supply above compliance minimums, and scaling back spending on local electrification programs.

In February and early March 2026, the discussion continued into SVCE’s committee structure, where staff presented a specific modeled example scenario built from Board feedback. That scenario proposed two customer-facing products: a 100% clean option priced at a 4% premium above PG&E’s generation rate — adding roughly $2 per month to a typical residential bill — and a minimally compliant option priced at a 1% discount, into which customers could choose to opt down. Paired with a 10% reduction in program spending, staff modeled this combination as adding approximately 75 days of cash-onhand to reserves by the end of the forecast period if implemented in 2027. Both the Executive Committee on February 27 and the Finance and Administration Committee on March 6 engaged in substantive discussion of this scenario.

Staff continues to gather information to inform future input: residential customer “willingness to pay” for clean programs and energy, non-residential customer reaction to a premium, and the emissions impacts of customers opting down. Pursuing something like the example scenario could also provide additional information to SVCE’s long-term strategy by understanding how many customers choose to opt down.

Page 13 of 163 ends

This work connects to the new Integrated Decarbonization Roadmap that SVCE’s board has been discussing, which will drive a new understanding of which programs SVCE wants to prioritize and the overall emissions impact of that work. This will include a better understanding of how adjusting the program investments will affect the long-term transition to electric technologies and local emissions. 4) Clean Power Update & New Long-Term Project Solicitation SVCE is on track to end 2025 above its target with a ~107% clean position. While the final values are still to be settled, staff is currently expecting:

Tech Type % of Retail Sales
Geothermal 9%
Small Hydro 1%
Solar 27%
Wind 12%
Large Hydro 33%
Nuclear 25%
Looking forward, 2026 has several projects coming online in the 1st half of the year:
1) SunZia [125MW of wind] is targeting April,
2) Angela [20/10MW solar+storage] is targeting May,
3) Aratina [80/50MW solar+storage] is targeting June, and 4) Tumbleweed [15.9MW long duration storage via CC Power] is also targeting June.

If all these resources meet their expected online dates, SVCE should be at 105.5% clean for the year.

To-date:
• SVCE has brought 10 projects online – the 4 above will bring count to 14 projects online • Total signed long-term power purchase agreements are over $4.1 billion in commitments • 1 GW+ renewables
• 2 GWh+ storage

Page 14 of 163 ends

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Apr 07 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve Warrant List Dated April 7, 2026 in the Amount of $315,862.84 Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.

Background Information:

The Warrant List includes payments to be made to vendors for goods and services procured by the City. The attached report lists each payment to be made by vendor, amount, and by accounting fund.

Also attached is a detail of the charges made to the City’s credit card as well as a listing of payments that were made by automatic bank transfer for utility bills.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

Public Noticing:

The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.

Attachments:

1. Warrant List - April 7, 2026

Page 15 of 163 ends

4/1/2026 4:27:29 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 3 Warrant List 04/07/2026
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00071
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Alana Consulting, LLC
12/24/20252-03/30/2026 04/01/2026 Professional Services 63,454.58 Building Consultant
Alana Consulting, LLC 100-510-6290
Vendor Alana Consulting, LLC Total: 63,454.58
Vendor: BMI Imaging Systems
03/1/2026-03/31/2026 Web 03/31/2026 Web Site Hosting 225.00 Hosting
BMI Imaging Systems 100-230-6322
Vendor BMI Imaging Systems Total: 225.00
Vendor: Casey Construction
Stormwater Program 18,690.00
Expenditures
03/13/2026 Remove and 03/13/2026
Replace Storm
Casey Construction 220-000-6398
Stormwater Program 33,540.00
Expenditures
03/13/2026 15722 Lancaster 03/13/2026
&18880 witney clean up
Casey Construction 220-000-6398
Vendor Casey Construction Total: 52,230.00
Vendor: City Of Saratoga
Stormwater Program 14,403.00
Expenditures
03/23/2026 West Valley 03/23/2026
Stormwater Authority
City Of Saratoga 220-000-6398
Vendor City Of Saratoga Total: 14,403.00
Vendor: CivicPlus
Reference Books, Publications 275.63
and Subscriptions
Municipal Code Admin Support 04/01/2026
Fee 6/1/2026-5/31/202
CivicPlus 100-000-6351
Vendor CivicPlus Total: 275.63
Vendor: CliffordMoss
Jan-Feb 2026 Clifford Strategic 03/30/2026 Professional Services 16,000.00 Services
CliffordMoss 100-000-6290
Vendor CliffordMoss Total: 16,000.00
Vendor: Corodata Records Management, Inc.

Document Storage and 66.52
Shredding
Corodata Records 02/1/2026-02/28/2026 Storage 02/28/2026 Management, Inc.
100-800-6357
Vendor Corodata Records Management, Inc. Total: 66.52
Vendor: Corodata Shredding Inc.

Document Storage and 84.71
Shredding
02/01/2026-02/28/2026 02/28/2026
Storage Bin
Corodata Shredding Inc. 100-800-6357
Vendor Corodata Shredding Inc. Total: 84.71
Vendor: Dicar Networks, Inc.

Monthly IT Services and 04/01/2026 Network Cybersecurity 140.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6325
Monthly IT Services and 04/01/2026 Network Cybersecurity 641.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6325
Monthly IT Services and 04/01/2026 IT Managed Services 1,050.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6337
Monthly IT Services and 04/01/2026 IT Managed Services 2,150.00 Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6337
SBITA – Variable Payments 50.00
Expense
Monthly IT Services and 04/01/2026
Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6681
SBITA – Variable Payments 210.00
Expense
Monthly IT Services and 04/01/2026
Software
Dicar Networks, Inc. 100-230-6681
Vendor Dicar Networks, Inc. Total: 4,241.00
Vendor: Heidi's Commercial Cleaning
City Hall Cleaning Service April 04/01/2026 Cleaning Services 750.00 2026
Heidi's Commercial Cleaning 100-800-6125
Vendor Heidi's Commercial Cleaning Total: 750.00

Page 16 of 163 ends

Warrant List 04/07/2026 Packet: APPKT00071
4/1/2026 4:27:29 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 3 Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Joint Venture Silicon Valley
Joint Venture Silicon Valley Revenue City - Fees 2026-2027 03/20/2026 Memberships and Associations 100-200-6318 5,000.00 Vendor Joint Venture Silicon Valley Total: 5,000.00
Vendor: Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surve
01/26/2026-02/22/2026 SS On 03/25/2026 Professional Services 550.00 call
Kier & Wright Civil Engineers
and Surve
100-600-6290
03/25/2026 15255 Karl avenue 03/25/2026 Professional Services 900.00 Parcel Map
Kier & Wright Civil Engineers
and Surve
100-600-6290
Vendor Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surve Total: 1,450.00 Vendor: Logan & Powell, LLP
Logan & Powell, LLP 03/06/2026 Attorney Fees 03/06/2026 Legal - City Attorney 100-210-6201 7,856.10 Logan & Powell, LLP 03/06/2026 Attorney Services 03/06/2026 Legal - Special Projects 100-210-6205 147.50 Vendor Logan & Powell, LLP Total: 8,003.60
Vendor: Maze & Associates
02/28/2026 Accounting 02/28/2026 Supplemental Services 60.00 Services
Maze & Associates 100-400-6070
Vendor Maze & Associates Total: 60.00
Vendor: M-Group
SB 10 Ordinance - 2/1/26- 03/18/2026 Professional Services 1,028.75 2/28/26
M-Group 100-500-6290
General Plan Update - 2/01/26- 03/18/2026 General Plan Update 7,053.00 2/28/26
M-Group 100-200-6289
Vendor M-Group Total: 8,081.75
Vendor: Municipal Resource Group, LLC
Municipal Resource Group, LLC Finance Consultant - Feb 03/18/2026 Professional Services 100-400-6290 2,813.85 01/09/2026 Human Resources 03/20/2026 Professional Services 5,139.00 Consultant
Municipal Resource Group, LLC 100-410-6290
Vendor Municipal Resource Group, LLC Total: 7,952.85
Vendor: Porter Capital Corporation
03/09/2026-03/15/2026 03/16/2026 Supplemental Services 2,800.00 Accounting Consultant
Porter Capital Corporation 100-400-6070
03/16/2026-03/22/2026 03/23/2026 Supplemental Services 2,800.00 Accounting Consultant
Porter Capital Corporation 100-400-6070
03/23/26-03/29/26 Accounting 03/30/2026 Supplemental Services 3,500.00 Consultant
Porter Capital Corporation 100-400-6070
Vendor Porter Capital Corporation Total: 9,100.00
Vendor: Regenerative Landscaping LLC
03/01/2026 Monthly 03/01/2026 Landscaping Services 255.00 Landscape Services
Regenerative Landscaping LLC 100-800-6124
Vendor Regenerative Landscaping LLC Total: 255.00
Vendor: Ricoh USA, Inc.
03/18/2026 Copier Rental for 03/18/2026 Printing and Copying Expenses 14.87 City Hall
Ricoh USA, Inc. 100-800-6350
Vendor Ricoh USA, Inc. Total: 14.87
Vendor: Ricoh USA, Inc.
04/04/2026-05/03/2026 03/16/2026 Printing and Copying Expenses 480.23 Equipment Rental
Ricoh USA, Inc. 100-800-6350
Vendor Ricoh USA, Inc. Total: 480.23
Vendor: Town of Los Gatos Finance Department
Town of Los Gatos Finance Police Services - March 2026 03/20/2026 Law Enforcement LG-MS Police 121,526.58 Department
200-700-6170
Vendor Town of Los Gatos Finance Department Total: 121,526.58 Vendor: US BANK
03/25/2026 Credit Card 03/25/2026 US Bank Credit Card Liability 2,207.52 Statement
US BANK 950-000-2050
Vendor US BANK Total: 2,207.52
Grand Total: 315,862.84

Page 17 of 163 ends

Warrant List 04/07/2026 Packet: APPKT00071
4/1/2026 4:27:29 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 3 of 3 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 125,495.74
200 - Law Enforcement Fund 121,526.58
220 - Storm Drainage Fund 66,633.00
950 - Pooled Cash Fund 2,207.52
Grand Total: 315,862.84
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-000-6290 Professional Services 16,000.00
100-000-6351 Reference Books, Publica… 275.63
100-200-6289 General Plan Update 7,053.00
100-200-6318 Memberships and Assoc… 5,000.00
100-210-6201 Legal - City Attorney 7,856.10
100-210-6205 Legal - Special Projects 147.50
100-230-6322 Web Site Hosting 225.00
100-230-6325 Network Cybersecurity 781.00
100-230-6337 IT Managed Services 3,200.00
100-230-6681 SBITA – Variable Paymen… 260.00
100-400-6070 Supplemental Services 9,160.00
100-400-6290 Professional Services 2,813.85
100-410-6290 Professional Services 5,139.00
100-500-6290 Professional Services 1,028.75
100-510-6290 Professional Services 63,454.58
100-600-6290 Professional Services 1,450.00
100-800-6124 Landscaping Services 255.00
100-800-6125 Cleaning Services 750.00
100-800-6350 Printing and Copying Ex… 495.10
100-800-6357 Document Storage and … 151.23
200-700-6170 Law Enforcement LG-MS… 121,526.58
220-000-6398 Stormwater Program Ex… 66,633.00
950-000-2050 US Bank Credit Card Liabi… 2,207.52
Grand Total: 315,862.84
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 315,862.84
Grand Total: 315,862.84

Page 18 of 163 ends

4/1/2026 4:35:55 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 3 US Bank Credit Card Charges 03/25/2026
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00072
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: AATRIX Software LLC
03/03/2026 Create Year End 03/04/2026 Supplemental Services 18.99 1099
AATRIX Software LLC 100-400-6070
Vendor AATRIX Software LLC Total: 18.99
Vendor: Amazon
Amazon 03/11/2026 office Supplies 03/11/2026 Office Supplies 100-800-6345 172.95 Vendor Amazon Total: 172.95
Vendor: Aqui Cal Mexican
West Valley Mayors and 215.90
Managers Mtg
Feb 2026 WV Mayor and 02/25/2026
Manager Meeting
Aqui Cal Mexican 100-000-2400
Vendor Aqui Cal Mexican Total: 215.90
Vendor: Brooks San Jose
City Hall Maintenance and 69.00
Repairs
Brooks San Jose 03/2026 Pest Control Services 03/01/2026 100-800-6123 Vendor Brooks San Jose Total: 69.00
Vendor: Constant Contact
02/28/2026 Contant Contact 02/28/2026 Communications 99.00 Monthly Services
Constant Contact 100-000-6181
Vendor Constant Contact Total: 99.00
Vendor: Digium Cloud Services
Digium Cloud Services Digium Cloud Monthly Services 03/18/2026 Utilities, Telecommunications 100-800-6373 318.60 Vendor Digium Cloud Services Total: 318.60
Vendor: Hillview Design Print Media
Engraved Name Badge for a 03/05/2026 Printing and Copying Expenses 77.60 Council Member
Hillview Design Print Media 100-800-6350
Vendor Hillview Design Print Media Total: 77.60
Vendor: Lands End Bus Outfitters
Lands End Bus Outfitters 02/25/2026 City Logo Shirts 02/26/2026 City Logo Wear 100-800-6308 124.95 Lands End Bus Outfitters 03/22/2026 City Logo Shirts 03/22/2026 City Logo Wear 100-800-6308 48.48 Vendor Lands End Bus Outfitters Total: 173.43
Vendor: Lazy Dog
03/11/2026 Clerk Training 03/11/2026 Training and Development 25.30 Lunch
Lazy Dog 100-000-6362
Vendor Lazy Dog Total: 25.30
Vendor: Liquid Web
03/11/2026 Liquid Web 03/11/2026 Web Site Hosting 356.24 Monthly Service
Liquid Web 100-230-6322
Vendor Liquid Web Total: 356.24
Vendor: Paypal
03/24/2026 Smith & 03/24/2026 Office General Expense 245.00 Association
Paypal 100-000-6346
Vendor Paypal Total: 245.00
Vendor: Pizza My Heart
03/05/2026 Office Lunch 03/05/2026 Office General Expense 168.57 Garage Cleanup
Pizza My Heart 100-000-6346
Vendor Pizza My Heart Total: 168.57
Vendor: Safeway
Safeway 02/28/2026 Office Supplies 02/28/2026 Refreshments 100-800-6128 20.55 Vendor Safeway Total: 20.55

Page 19 of 163 ends

US Bank Credit Card Charges 03/25/2026 Packet: APPKT00072 4/1/2026 4:35:55 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 3 Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Speedee Oil Change
03/24/2026 Gas and Car wash 03/24/2026 City Vehicles – Operating Costs 147.42 for City Truck
Speedee Oil Change 100-800-6380
Vendor Speedee Oil Change Total: 147.42
Vendor: Zoom Communications
03/27/2026-04/26/2026 02/27/2026 Communications 98.97
Monthly zoom services
Zoom Communications 100-000-6181
Vendor Zoom Communications Total: 98.97
Grand Total: 2,207.52

Page 20 of 163 ends

US Bank Credit Card Charges 03/25/2026 Packet: APPKT00072 4/1/2026 4:35:55 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 3 of 3 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 2,207.52
Grand Total: 2,207.52
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-000-2400 West Valley Mayors and… 215.90
100-000-6181 Communications 197.97
100-000-6346 Office General Expense 413.57
100-000-6362 Training and Developme… 25.30
100-230-6322 Web Site Hosting 356.24
100-400-6070 Supplemental Services 18.99
100-800-6123 City Hall Maintenance a… 69.00
100-800-6128 Refreshments 20.55
100-800-6308 City Logo Wear 173.43
100-800-6345 Office Supplies 172.95
100-800-6350 Printing and Copying Ex… 77.60
100-800-6373 Utilities, Telecommunica… 318.60
100-800-6380 City Vehicles – Operating… 147.42
Grand Total: 2,207.52
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 2,207.52
Grand Total: 2,207.52

Page 21 of 163 ends

4/1/2026 4:28:51 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 2 Warrant List 04/07/2026 - Automatic Payments
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00074
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Frontier Communications
City Hall Phone Bill 02/18/2026 Utilities, Telecommunications 58.68 02/19/2026-03/18/2026
Frontier Communications 100-800-6373
03/19/26-04/18/26 City Hall 03/19/2026 Utilities, Telecommunications 58.68 Phone Bill
Frontier Communications 100-800-6373
Vendor Frontier Communications Total: 117.36
Vendor: Pacific Gas & Electric
02/09/26-03/10/26 City Hall 03/17/2026 Utilities, Electricity 547.77 Electricity Bill
Pacific Gas & Electric 100-800-6370
02/09/26-03/10/26 City Hall 03/17/2026 Utilities, Electricity 33.32 Electricity Bill
Pacific Gas & Electric 100-800-6370
02/14/26-03/17/26 Loma 03/23/2026 Utilities, Electricity 192.97 Electricity Services
Pacific Gas & Electric 230-710-6370
02/14/26-03/17/26 City Hall 03/23/2026 Utilities, Electricity 209.88 Electricity Services
Pacific Gas & Electric 205-710-6370
02/14/26-03/17/26 Rose 03/23/2026 Utilities, Electricity 50.80 Andrews Lightning Dist
Pacific Gas & Electric 205-710-6370
Vendor Pacific Gas & Electric Total: 1,034.74
Grand Total: 1,152.10

Page 22 of 163 ends

Warrant List 04/07/2026 - Automatic Payments Packet: APPKT00074 4/1/2026 4:28:51 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 2 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 698.45
205 - Public Safety 260.68
230 - Loma Serena Street Lighting Fund 192.97
Grand Total: 1,152.10
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-800-6370 Utilities, Electricity 581.09
100-800-6373 Utilities, Telecommunica… 117.36
205-710-6370 Utilities, Electricity 260.68
230-710-6370 Utilities, Electricity 192.97
Grand Total: 1,152.10
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 1,152.10
Grand Total: 1,152.10

Page 23 of 163 ends

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Apr 07 2026
Agenda Heading: PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consideration of the Following Documents to Implement Housing Element Program Q on Properties Located at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard:

10.06.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units; Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; Standards And Requirements) and Chapter 10.08 by Amending Section

10.08.040 (Site Development Permit Required) and by Amending Section

10.08.050 (Permit Process); and Chapter 10.11 (Amendments, Annexations and Enforcement) By adding Section 10.11.016 (Multi-Family Overlay District Amendment Process); and
B. A Resolution to Update the Objective Design Standards Regarding Required Open Space Requirements and Minimum Number of Trees for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone.

Recommendation(s):

Page 24 of 163 ends

Background Information:
6th Cycle Housing Element
The City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element, adopted in 2024, provides a list of implementation programs to promote and enforce fair housing. As required by the State, all cities shall provide opportunities for a variety of housing types, including multi-family housing. Program Q of the Housing Element identified two parcels at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard to be rezoned pursuant to SB 10 to allow for multi-family residential development.

SB 10
SB 10 legislation was effective in 2022 and authorizes local governments to adopt an ordinance to zone parcels for up to 10 dwelling units per parcel as long as the parcel is located in a transit-rich area or an urban infill site. The California Government Code Section 65913.5 regulating this type of development defines these terms as follows:
“Transit-rich area” means a parcel within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or a parcel on a high-quality bus corridor.
“Urban infill site” means a site that satisfies all of the following:
(A) A site that is a legal parcel or parcels located in a city if, and only if, the city boundaries include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel or parcels wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau. (B) A site in which at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (C) A site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development, or has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses, with at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development designated for residential use.

The location of the two properties on Winchester Boulevard do not meet the standard for a ‘Transit-rich area’ but do meet the definition of an ‘Urban infill site.’ When a local agency adopts an ordinance pursuant to SB 10, it must:
 Declare that it is adopted pursuant to this section;
 Demarcate the areas that are zoned pursuant to SB 10; and

Page 25 of 163 ends

 Make findings that the increased density supports the agency’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code Section 8899.50 Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone
M-Group is working with the City of Monte Sereno to provide amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinances to include a new section for Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone. An overlay zone is a special zoning district that adds an extra layer of development standards and uses while maintaining the underlying zoning district.

The draft ordinance (Attachment 1) would create a new Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone and apply it to the two parcels at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard.

The Sites
A list of four potential sites for rezoning pursuant to SB 10 were presented at a City Council meeting on August 1, 2023. A letter was mailed to each of the property owners to provide them with background information about the Housing Element and about multifamily rezoning. The two parcels at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard were selected to be considered for rezoning during the Council meeting.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement
The project team has publicized the process of adopting SB 10 to the community via the City's website at https://www.montesereno.org/2373/SB10-Rezone. In addition, the project team published a newsletter to interested community members via the General Plan Update website, www.monteserenogpu.com. A notice was also sent out to the property owners at issue as well as nearby residents informing them of the rezoning process and what it might mean for future developments.

This outreach includes:
 September 10, 2025 – Mailed letters to the property owners of the two sites  October 10, 2025 – Posted information on social and emailed the City’s list of interested parties
 October 10, 2025 – Posted an SB10 informational page on the City’s website (https://www.montesereno.org/2373/SB10-Rezone)
 October 15, 2025 - Mailed second letter to the property owners of the two sites  October 15, 2025 – Mailed a letter to all residents within 300 feet of the two sites  November 4, 2025 – Hard copies of the letter were delivered to the two sites  November 13, 2025 – Mailed the notice of public hearing to residents within 300 feet of the two sites (attached)
 November 26, 2025 – Posted General Plan Update newsletter informing public about December 3, 2025, Site and Architectural Commission (SAC) meeting  December 3, 2025 – SAC discussed proposed ordinance and directed modifications.  December 11, 2025 – Posted General Plan Update newsletter informing public of upcoming January 21, 2026, Site and Architectural Commission Meeting.  December 12, 2025 – Email sent to neighbors following up from public hearing

Page 26 of 163 ends

 December 15, 2025 – Mailed a letter to neighbors of the two sites  December 17, 2025 – Mailed third letter to the property owners of the two sites  December 22, 2025 – Mailed the notice of public hearing to residents within 300 feet of the two sites
 January 12, 2026 – Posted General Plan Update newsletter reminding public of upcoming January 21, 2026, Site and Architectural Commission meeting.  January 21, 2026 – SAC discussed proposed ordinance and recommended it for City Council adoption
 March 18, 2026 – Mailed the notice of public hearing to residents within 300 feet of the two sites
 March 20, 2026 – Email sent to the neighbors informing them of the April 7, 2026 City Council Meeting
December 3, 2025 Site and Architectural Commission Meeting The first draft of the proposed multi-family overlay zone requirements were reviewed by the Site and Architectural Commission at their December 3, 2025 meeting. At the meeting, 11 residents provided public comments with concerns about the multi-family overlay zone and there were several more people in the audience. After hearing the public comments, the Commission recommended additional modifications to the draft rezone standards including the following:
 Increasing the required setbacks,
 Prohibiting/limiting second story windows,
 Addressing privacy concerns,
 Requiring non-reflective exterior materials, and
 Reviewing ingress/egress safety.

The Commission also recommended that the City Council explore other alternatives. The vote was 4-0-1 with Chair Connelly absent.

The scope of the Site and Architectural Commission is to review proposed changes to the zoning codes and the Commission is not authorized to direct the work of staff. Therefore, the recommendation that the City Council explore other alterative is being forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.

January 21, 2026 Site and Architectural Commission Meeting The project team made revisions to the draft ordinance and resolution and presented them to the Site and Architectural Commission for a second time at a January 21, 2026 special meeting. At the meeting, ten residents spoke during the public hearing in opposition to the proposed overlay zone primarily due to safety and privacy impact concerns.

The Commission voted to recommend the following to the City Council:

Page 27 of 163 ends

a. Adopt the ordinance and resolution with modifications to the windows allowed on the second story to provide more privacy (increase minimum sill height, require privacy glazing, and limit openings); and
b. Increase the side yard setbacks for the second story; and c. Consider any alternatives.

The vote was 3-1-1 with Commissioner Lapcevic dissenting and Commissioner Srivastava absent.

Analysis:

The draft ordinance would create a new section in the zoning code providing development standards for a Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone as required by SB 10 and would assign this overlay zone to the parcels at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard.

These standards are in addition to the standards and regulations of the primary zoning district, which is R-1-8 for the two subject parcels. Development according to the underlying R-1-8 zoning is permitted and if multi-family housing is proposed, the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone standards are applied. The existing single-family houses on the properties can remain, be improved, and could be re-built in accordance with the underlaying R-1-8 zoning district standards. The proposed Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone standards would provide for additional development opportunity at the sites. If development is proposed in accordance with the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone, the City’s Objective Design Standards would apply to the development.

These regulations are established to ensure that the two parcels identified in 6th Cycle Housing Element Program Q, along with any future parcels that may be rezoned to include the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone, are able to be developed at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre while fitting into Monte Sereno’s existing development context. The two parcels identified in Program Q are 0.4 acres each, which would allow a maximum of eight units on each parcel to achieve the minimum density. Staff has analyzed the sites and determined that this density can be achieved with the revised development standards.

Development Standards for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone The draft ordinance includes development standards for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone. These development standards are aligned with those from the underlying R-1-8 zoning district as much as possible. After receiving input from the Site and Architectural Commission at their January 21, 2026 meeting, several of these standards were updated as noted in italics and in parenthesis below.

Total Number of Units (Revised to reduce the number of units on each lot from 10 to eight)  No more than eight residential units shall be allowed per lot.

Maximum Building Height (Revised to allow one-story building)  The maximum building height at the setback line is set to 14 feet.

Page 28 of 163 ends

The maximum building height stepped back from the setback line is 21 feet. The maximum building height proposed is the same as allowed in the R-1-8 zoning district for a single-story building. Although the underlying R-1-8 zoning district would continue to allow a two-story single-family house, the proposed multifamily overlay would only allow one-story buildings.

SB-10 does not limit the types of objective standards that can be imposed by the City, as long the development standards adopted pursuant does not reduce the density of any parcel subject to the ordinance. It would be possible to fit eight or fewer units in a one-story development on each of the designated parcels.

Required Setbacks
o Front setback. The minimum front setback shall be as follows:
(1) Single-story building: Twenty-five (25) feet.
(2) Accessory buildings or structures are not allowed in the front yard o Side setback. The minimum side setback shall be as follows:
(1) Single-story building: Ten (10) feet.
(3) Accessory building or structures: Six (6) feet.
o Rear setback. The minimum rear setback shall be as follows:
(1) Single-story building: Thirty (30) feet.
(3) Accessory building or structure: Six (6) feet.

The building setbacks proposed are the same as or greater than those required in the R-1-8 zoning district.

Average Unit Size (Reduced from 1,250 square feet to 1,000 square feet)  The average unit size is 1,000 square feet.
 This requirement is consistent with courtyard and other “missing middle” typologies that are promoted by Housing Element Program Q and State law. It is reduced from standard average unit size across multi-family development as specified by state housing laws but is still within the range of standard constructed multi-family unit sizes.

Minimum Pervious Open Space (No changes proposed)
 A new section for minimum pervious open space is added to supersede the maximum impervious coverage requirement in the underlying R-1-8 zone.  The development shall provide pervious open space that is 2,000 square feet or 10% of the developable area of the parcel, whichever is greater.  This requirement is a modified version of the outdoor open area requirement in the City’s Objective Design Standards (Section B.1.3) that removes the requirement for private open space as that may preclude multi-family residential developments from being feasible.

Landscape Screening (No changes proposed)

Page 29 of 163 ends

 A new section for landscape screening is added to reduce the visual impact of multifamily developments in the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone and provide more privacy for adjacent residential uses.
 This requirement is a modified version of the minimum number of trees requirement in the City’s Objective Design Standards (Section B.1.1) to ensure trees in multi-family residential developments provide landscape screening to reduce visual impact.

Exterior building material (No changes proposed)
 Exterior building materials shall comply with requirements set forth in the City’s Objective Design Standards.
 Materials shall not exceed a maximum light reflectance value of 30. This requirement ensures materials blend in with the natural vegetation without much visual impact.

Site Design (No changes proposed)
 A new section for site design is added, citing that the City’s existing Objective Design Standards section 3.1 provides for ingress and egress safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Site Design was considered to ensure ingress and egress safety for vehicular and pedestrian traffic following input from the SAC meeting on December 3, 2025. The Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone refers to the City’s existing Objective Design Standards section 3.1 for site design requirements:

Driveway visibility. All driveways that intersect with a public right-of-way shall maintain a vision triangle delineated by sides of 10 feet along the right-of-way and 10 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way measured from the edges of the driveway. Within this vision triangle, structures, landscaping, and other obstructions shall have a maximum height of 3 feet. Trees are permitted within the vision triangle provided their canopy maintains a clearance of 6 feet above ground level.

Additional traffic requirements concerning traffic signage, signals, and markings will be subject to state statutes, including, but not limited to the California Vehicle Code section 21350.

Additional Code Modifications
Additional code modifications are also provided in the draft ordinanceto ensure that the Zoning Ordinance is consistent with the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone. This includes the following:
 Adding a definition for the overlay zone in the Zoning District Designations (Section

10.05.010)
 Defining accessory dwelling unit sizes (Section 10.06.140)  Requiring site development permits (Section 10.08.040)  Identifying the project review process (Section 10.08.050)

Page 30 of 163 ends

 Adding a rezone application process for the Multi-Family Overlay District (Section

10.11.016)
Objective Design Standards for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone The City Council adopted Objective Design Standards in 2022 as an addendum to the City’s Design Guidelines. The Objective Design Standards apply to development projects where State law limits the City’s review authority to objective standards only, rather than subjective design guidelines. These types of projects include ADUs, SB9 development projects, and any project under the proposed Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone.

A modification to the Objective Design Standards is proposed to modify Section B.1.3 regarding required open space. The required open space in the Objective Design Standards of 500 square feet per dwelling unit plus 50 square feet of private open space may preclude multi-family residential developments in the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone from being feasible. The draft ordinance would require 2,000 square feet of open space or 10% of the area of the parcel for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone.

A modification to the Objective Design Standards is proposed to modify Section B.1.1 regarding the minimum number of trees. The requirement for a minimum of 1 tree per 300 square feet in the side and rear setbacks that abut a residential use does not specifically address landscape screening. The draft ordinance would add a new section on landscape screening for the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone. A resolution (Attachment 3) to adopt the revised Objective Design Standards is attached to this Staff Report (Attachment 4).

California Environmental Quality Act:

Ordinance
An ordinance adopted pursuant to SB 10 along with any consistent amendments to the General Plan or Code of Ordinances does not constitute a “project” for purposes of CEQA as defined in the Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3). As such, the adoption of the MultiFamily Residential Overlay Zone is exempt from CEQA review. SB 131 (2025) also provides a statutory CEQA exemption for rezoning that implements the schedule of actions contained in an approved housing element.

On June 30, 2025, Assembly Bill (AB) 130 was signed into law, which provides CEQA exemptions for infill housing projects on sites of up to 20 acres. Under this state law, multifamily residential developments that are in the Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone are also exempt from CEQA review.

Resolution
The amended Objective Design Standards resolution is exempt from CEQA in that it can seen with certainty that it will not impact the physical environment. CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) Public Noticing:

Page 31 of 163 ends

A public notice was mailed on March 18 2026 to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. A hearing notice was posted at three locations within the City and on the subject property on March 18, 2026. An agenda for this meeting was posted on the City’s webpage on April 2, 2026.

Attachments:

1. Ordinance - Multifamily Overlay Zone

2. Draft Resolution - ODS Update

Page 32 of 163 ends

Page 1 of 9 ends

ORDINANCE NO. ###

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.05 BY AMENDING SECTION 10.05.010 (ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS) AND ADDING SECTION 10.05.044 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ZONE) AND CHAPTER 10.06 BY AMENDING SECTION 10.06.140 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS) AND CHAPTER 10.08 BY AMENDING SECTION 10.08.040 (SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED) AND AMENDING SECTION 10.08.050 (PERMIT PROCESS) AND CHAPTER 10.11 (AMENDMENTS, ANNEXATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT) BY ADDING SECTION 10.11.016 (MULTI-FAMILY OVERLAY DISTRICT AMENDMENT

PROCESS)
WHEREAS, the City of Monte Sereno desires to amend its zoning standards to create a multi-family overlay zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element on May 7, 2024 by Resolution No. 24-3902, which includes Program Q requiring the implementation of multi-family zoning on two identified parcels at 15785 and 15791 Winchester Boulevard (APNs 410-10-045 and 410-10-046) at a minimum density of 20 dwelling unit per acre; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2025, the Site and Architectural Commission considered the proposed ordinance and recommended modifications; and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Site and Architectural Commission considered the proposed ordinance and recommended that the City Council approve the ordinance with modifications; and
WHEREAS, on _____ 2026, the City Council considered the proposed ordinance and a majority of Council introduced and waived further reading of Ordinance No. NS-###; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the increased density supports the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code Section 8899.50, and WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Government Code Section 65913.5(a)(3).

Therefore, no environmental assessment is required.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTE SERENO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The recitals to this Ordinance are hereby incorporated and are expressly made a part hereof.

SECTION 2. Section 10.05.010 of Chapter 10.05 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Page 33 of 163 ends

Page 2 of 9 ends

“10.05.010 – Zoning district designations.

The following zoning districts are hereby established in the City:

R 1-44 Residential District, Forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) sq. ft. or more.

R 1-20 Residential District, Twenty thousand (20,000) sq. ft. lot size or more.

R 1-8 Residential District, Eight thousand (8,000) sq. ft. lot size or more.

RM Residential Multi-Family District, Fourteen thousand five hundred twenty (14,520) sq. ft. lot size or more.

Multi-family Residential Overlay District
P Public District, Eight thousand (8,000) sq. ft. lot size or more.

P/RM Public/Residential Multi-Family District, Eight thousand (8,000) sq. ft. lot size or more.

Cluster development may be conditionally permitted in all R 1-8, RM and P/RM Residential Districts in accordance with Section 10.05.050 of this Chapter. Cluster development regulations do not apply to the Multi-family Residential Overlay District.

PD Planned Development District:

A. The Planned Development District is hereby established as a city zoning district classification in all general plan residential land use designations. It may be referred to as Planned Development Zone, Planned Development District or as PD District or PD Zone
B. Every PD District shall be combined with an alternative residential base zoning district or districts. Any zoning district set forth in Section 10.05.010 may be utilized as a base district. The zone shall be referred to by the symbol for its base district followed by its Planned Development District designation (e.g., RM(PD)).

C. The PD District can only be applied to a site of at least four (4) contiguous gross acres in size.

D. The PD District shall be individually designed to meet the needs of the territory so zoned. It shall be adopted by a zoning ordinance which incorporates by reference a general development plan for the entirety of the subject property. The general development plan shall include drawings and text as specified in Section 10.05.047.

Development of the subject property can hereafter occur only pursuant to an effective PD permit issued in strict conformity with the adopted general development plan or alternatively, in accordance with the requirements for the base district if one exists.

E. Under no circumstances shall the City ever be required to approve a PD Zoning District. The discretion to grant or deny such permit is unrestricted and nothing contained in this Title shall be deemed or construed to limit the discretion in any way whatsoever. Unless and until a PD permit has been issued and becomes effective, the subject territory may be used only as if it were situated in the base district alone.”

Page 34 of 163 ends

Page 3 of 9 ends

SECTION 3. Section 10.05.044 of Chapter 10.05 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
“10.05.044 – Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zone
A. Purpose of section. This chapter provides guidance for development of multi-family residential projects pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.5 in addition to the standards and regulations of the primary zoning district.

B. Applicability of section. The applicability of this overlay zoning district to specific sites is indicated by the overlay zoning map symbol established by Section 10.05.010 (Zoning district designation). The overlay zone is applicable to 15785 Winchester Boulevard (APN 410-10-045) and 15791 Winchester Boulevard (APN 410-10-046). The provisions of this chapter apply to development in addition to all other applicable requirements of this Zoning Code. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this section and any other provisions in this Zoning Code, this section shall control.

C. Characteristics of the overlay zone. The Multi-family Residential Overlay Zone allows multifamily development of up to eight (8) units per lot on parcels zoned for single-family development (R-1-8, R-1-20, R-1-44). To apply the standards within the Multi-family Residential Overlay Zone, a development must include a minimum of five (5) residential units exclusive of accessory dwelling units.

D. Uses permitted by right. In addition to the uses allowed in the underlying zoning district, the following uses are permitted in the Multi-family Residential Overlay Zone:

1. No more than eight (8) residential units per lot

2. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units allowed pursuant to Government Code Sections 66323 and 66333.

E. Development standards. The following development standards shall apply in the Overlay Zone:

1. Front setback. The minimum front setback shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building: Twenty-five (25) feet.
b. Accessory buildings or structures are not allowed in the front yard as defined in Section 10.01.020 AX.

2. Side setback. The minimum side setback shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building: Ten (10) feet.
b. Accessory building or structures: Six (6) feet.

4. Rear setback. The minimum rear setback shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building: Thirty (30) feet.
b. Accessory building or structure: Six (6) feet.

5. Each of the minimum front, side, and rear setbacks shall be increased by two and onehalf (2½) feet for single-story portion for each six thousand (6,000) square feet that the lot exceeds the minimum lot size. In the case of a lot line adjustment, when a lot with an

Page 35 of 163 ends

Page 4 of 9 ends

existing conforming structure increases in size, no increases in setbacks are required for the existing structure. However, if the floor area of the structure is increased at any time after the lot line adjustment, the increased setbacks shall apply.

6. Maximum building height.
a. The maximum building height at the setback line shall be as follows:
(1) Single-story building: Fourteen (14) feet.
b. The maximum height of a building may be increased by an additional one (1) foot for each foot that portion of the structure is further distanced from the minimum applicable setback; provided, however, at no time shall the maximum height exceed the following:
(1) Twenty-one (21) feet for any single-story structure. (2) The height of any main building shall not exceed one (1) story. All other detached buildings or structures, including accessory dwelling units, shall not exceed one (1) story.

7. Maximum accessory building size. The maximum size of an accessory building is six hundred (600) square feet.

8. Average unit size. The average unit size shall be one thousand (1,000) square feet.

9. Maximum impervious coverage. The maximum impervious coverage requirement in the underlying zone shall not apply to parcels that have the Multi-family Residential Overlay.

Parcels with a Multi-family Residential Overlay shall meet the minimum pervious open space requirement as defined in Section 10.05.044(E)(10).

10. Minimum pervious open space. The minimum open space shall be two thousand (2,000) square feet or ten (10) percent of the area of the parcel, whichever is greater.

11. Landscape screening. Developments shall provide landscape screening to reduce the visual impact of structures on neighborhoods and to provide for the maintenance of the individual privacy of homes in a neighborhood to a reasonable degree. All property lines shall provide landscape screening as follows:
a. All front, side, and rear yards shall provide landscape screening. Front yards contiguous to a street shall not require landscape screening. b. Plantings shall be provided by the owners and located to reduce the visual impact of structures. Screening may be provided by existing vegetation or landscaped areas, including berms or planting of suitable shrubs and trees. c. Landscape screening shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) inch box size when planted.
d. Plantings shall reach a minimum height of twelve (12) feet within three years of planting.
e. All trees and shrubs shall be evergreen.
f. If the property line is screened with existing landscaping that is at least twelve (12) feet tall and provides opaque screening, no new landscaping is required. g. Prior to the final inspection of issuance of a certificate of occupancy (unless delay is authorized by the building official) all required landscape screening shall be installed in conformance with the approved plans. In the case of phased building construction, the City’s building official may permit phased installation of landscape screening. No

Page 36 of 163 ends

Page 5 of 9 ends

other exception to this installation requirement shall be allowed, including any in lieu fee or deposit.

12. Exterior building material. The exterior building material requirements shall be as follows:
a. Exterior materials for primary dwelling units and accessory buildings shall comply with requirements set forth in Section 3 of the City’s Objective Design Standards. b. Exterior material colors for homes shall meet the maximum light reflectance value of 30 and shall blend in with the natural vegetation.
c. Roof materials shall not exceed a light reflectance value of 30.

13. Site design. All developments must meet driveway visibility requirements as defined in Monte Sereno’s Objective Design Standards 3.1.

14. Off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be provided at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit.”
SECTION 4. Section 10.06.140.A.3 of Chapter 10.06 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“3. Size. Accessory dwelling units are limited to the following sizes:

Zoning District Maximum ADU Size
R-1-8 850 sq. ft. or 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, with or without parking.

R-1-20 850 sq. ft. or 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, with or without parking.

R-1-44 1,200 square feet for any accessory dwelling unit, with or without parking.

Multi-Family
Residential
Overlay District
Underlying zoning district regulations apply.

RM-Multi-Family
Residential District
850 sq. ft. or 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, with or without parking.

P 850 sq. ft. or 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, with or without parking.

PD 850 sq. ft. or 1,000 square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom, with or without parking.”

Page 37 of 163 ends

Page 6 of 9 ends

SECTION 5. Section 10.08.040 of Chapter 10.08 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Subsection 10.08.040(F) to read as follows:
“F. Residential development in the Multi-Family Overlay District that applies Overlay District standards outlined in Section 10.05.044.”
SECTION 6. Section 10.08.050, of Chapter 10.08 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Subsection 10.08.050(F) to read as follows:
“F. Review by City Planner for Multi-Family Development Projects Under Section 10.05.044. A residential development project meeting the requirements of Section 10.05.044 shall be reviewed ministerial and without public hearing by the City Planner. In considering such application, the City Planner shall approve the project unless the proposed project does not meet the requirements of Section 10.05.044. Any approval, conditional approval or denial by the City Planner of a site development permit under this Subsection shall be final with no further appeal. All permits granted under this Subsection shall be conditioned on: (1) compliance with the objective zoning standards that are applicable to the parcel based on the applicable zoning district as set forth in Chapter 10.05 of this Code, except for as such standards may be modified under Section 10.05.044, and (2) compliance with any objective design standards adopted into the City's design guidelines. The City Planner shall cause notice of the application to be sent to property owners within six hundred (600) feet upon the submission of an application.” SECTION 7. Section 10.11.016 of Chapter 10.11 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
“10.11.016 –Multi-Family Overlay District amendment process.

A. Proceedings to zone certain territory to a Multi-family Overlay District may be initiated by the City Council in response to a petition joined in by all owners of the territory covered by the petition.

B. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the initiation, adoption and amendment of any Multi-family Overlay District. To the extent that any provision of this part conflicts with any other provision of this Chapter, the provision of this part shall apply.

C. General Development Plan Requirements.

1. The Multi-Family Overlay District shall be individually designed to meet the needs of the territory so zoned. The uses and requirements of the Multi-family Overlay District shall be reflected in the general development plan which is adopted as part of the planned development zoning ordinance. The general development plan shall include, when applicable:
a. All public and private use areas appropriately mapped, clearly identified, and shaded, including:
b. All permitted land uses, including unit type (single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, etc.) and size for residential uses.
c. Landscape areas, including a landscape screening plan, common open space, and private open space (if applicable).

Page 38 of 163 ends

Page 7 of 9 ends

d. All public streets, private streets and driveways within the proposed MultiFamily Overlay Zone, labeled "public street". "private street", or "driveway" with total right-of-way width dimensioned.
e. All public and private streets adjacent to the Multi-Family Overlay Zone, labeled "public" or "private" and showing dimension from street centerline to ultimate right-of-way edge.
f. All public and private easements, including parking, access, utility, and pedestrian easements showing purpose and beneficiary of each easement.

2. Zoning regulations which include and specify:
a. Permitted, conditional and special use allowances.
b. Development standards, including:
• (1) All setbacks;
• (2) Building heights (stories and feet);
• (3) Parking (number of spaces and ratios);
• (4) Minimum lot size and dimensions, if applicable;
• (5) Minimum density, if applicable.
• (6) Where landscaping is to serve a particular function, such as a screen or buffer, the particular function and landscape concept shall be identified.

Where landscaping is proposed in the public right-of-way, the maintenance responsibility shall be specified.
• (7) Clear descriptions of any required off-site work, including street and infrastructure improvements.
• (8) Noise attenuation requirements, if any.
• (9) Environmental mitigation as required by the environmental clearance. • (10) Any other appropriate conditions of approval.

3. Additional graphic (i.e., mapped) information as applicable, including:
a. The location of the closest buildings, both existing and approved, on adjacent properties.
b. All existing structures which are to be retained.
c. All significant existing natural features, including:
• (1) Ordinance size trees.
• (2) Creeks and waterways.
• (3) Rock outcroppings.
• (4) The location and required height of sound walls.
• (5) Topography shown, sufficient to describe terrain, including top of bank, where site is adjacent to creek or has an existing overall slope of more than two percent (2%).
• (6) Proposed grading if any cut or fill slope exceeds eighteen (18) inches.

4. Building elevations which illustrate the intended architectural style and character and the size, shape, materials and general detaining of buildings.

Page 39 of 163 ends

Page 8 of 9 ends

5. The Planning Department may recommend and/or the City Council may adopt conditions of approval that include alternative means of compliance for a specific project impact where each alternative adequately addresses the same specific project impact.

6. Nothing herein shall preclude the Planning Department or the City Council from requiring any additional information to be shown on the general development plan.

7. Any change to an adopted general development plan shall require the filing and consideration of an application in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

D. City Council Action.

1. Notice and public hearing.
a. Upon the receipt of a sufficient and proper application for amendment or the adoption by the Council of a resolution to amend, the City Council shall set the time and place for a first reading and public hearing regarding the amendment to a planned development zoning district.
b. The public hearing and action taken shall be conducted in accordance with Section 65801 of the Government Code as it may be amended. Any hearing may be continued from time to time.

2. After a public hearing the City Council may:
a. Approve the proposed zoning to the Multi-Family Overlay Zone. b. Deny the proposed zoning to the Multi-Family Overlay Zone. c. Approve the proposed zoning to the Multi-Family Overlay Zone with modifications.

3. Findings and Action. Any amendment to the zoning code or zoning map shall be consistent with the general plan”
SECTION 8. Environmental Review.

The adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Government Code Section 65913.5(a)(3). Therefore, no environmental assessment is required.

SECTION 9. Effective Date.

This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 10. Severability.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision of such Ordinance and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

SECTION 11. Certification.

Page 40 of 163 ends

Page 9 of 9 ends

The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be posted and/or published in the manner required by law.

This Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council on the ___ day of ________, 2026, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ___ day of ________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk

Approved as to form:

___________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney

Page 41 of 163 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO

AMENDING THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO DESIGN GUIDELINES OBJECTIVE

DESIGN STANDARDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno adopted Design Guidelines to provide guidance for residential development within the City on February 3, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno adopted amendments to the design guidelines to provide guidance for multi-family residential development with the City on August 6, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno adopted Objective Design Standards as an amendment to the design guidelines for ministerially approved projects within the City on January 18, 2022; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Site and Architectural Commission on December 3, 2025, to consider amendments and recommended modifications to the amended Objective Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Site and Architectural Commission on January 21, 2026, to consider amendments and recommended the City Council approve the amended Objective Design Standards; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on April 7, 2026 to consider amendments to the Objective Design Standards; and WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element and state law require that the City provide for a variety of housing types with the City; and WHEREAS, various provisions of state law restricts the application of subjective design guidelines for certain types of residential development; and WHEREAS, to ensure that any new housing developed in the City is compatible with existing development and consistent with the architectural standards of the City, the City desires to amend the design guidelines to include objective design standards for Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zones; and
WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Monte Sereno desires to update the Monte Sereno Design Guidelines objective design standards for multi-family residential development; and
WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Monte Sereno desires to update the Monte Sereno Design Guidelines Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential Overlay Zones.

Page 42 of 163 ends

WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Government Code Section 65913.5(a)(3). Therefore, no environmental assessment is required.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council hereby adopts amendments to the Objective Design Standards, the Addendum to the City of Monte Sereno Design Guidelines, set forth as Exhibit A, amending objective design standards for ministerially approved projects.

REGULARLY APPROVED this ___ day of ________, 2026 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
Attest: ___________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Exhibit A: Revised Addendum to City of Monte Sereno Design Guidelines - Objective Design Standards

Page 43 of 163 ends

OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
An Addendum to the
City of Monte Sereno Design Guidelines
Adopted by the Monte Sereno City Council
January 18, 2022
Resolution No: 22-3841
Revised by the Monte Sereno City Council
____________2026
Resolution No. 26-####

Page 44 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
2 City of Monte Sereno
Purpose
The purpose of the Objective Design Standards is to provide property owners and developers with a clear understanding of the City’s design requirements for development.

Objective design standards, as set forth in this addendum to the Design Guidelines, apply to building design for all proposed residential development subject solely to ministerial review, specifically projects submitted under Monte Sereno Municipal Code section 10.05.080 and Government Code section 65852.21; Monte Sereno Municipal Code chapter 13.06 and Section 66411.7 of the Government Code; projects subject to streamlined, ministerial review under Government Code section 65913.4, and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) projects submitted under Monte Sereno Municipal Code section 10.06.140, except those subject to mandatory approval under Government Code Section 65852.2(e). All proposed projects must also comply with all applicable development requirements in the Municipal Code, including but not limited to building permit requirements, zoning code requirements, grading permit requirements, and development standards such as height and setbacks.

A. Definitions
Articulation - The fragmentation of a building’s form and facade treatment with architectural features, such as changes in materials, patterns, and building mass projections, to prevent monotonous or blank facades.

Corbel - An architectural component that projects from a wall to support an architectural structure or feature above it.

Mullion - A vertical bar between the panes of glass in a window.

Muntin - A bar or rigid separating strip between adjacent panes of glass.

Outdoor Open Area - An area within a parcel designed and intended for the use of all residents of the development.

Private Outdoor Open Area – A ground-floor area or upper-floor balcony that is accessible to an individual dwelling unit.

Retaining Wall - Any fence or wall built or designed to retain soil or other materials.

Vision Triangle - An area of unobstructed vision at street intersections and driveway access points from streets.

Page 45 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
3 City of Monte Sereno
B. Site Design

1. Landscaping

1.1. To facilitate privacy, projects shall have a minimum of 1 tree per 300 square feet in the side and rear setbacks that abut a residential use. Multi-family residential developments in the Multi-Family Overlay District (Municipal Code 10.05.044) are not subject to this requirement.

1.2. On parcels for which sports courts (Municipal Code 10.18), pools, decks, or balconies are constructed, trees, landscape screening, or trellises shall be located between the feature(s) and the adjoining parcel. Landscape screening shall be a minimum 24 inch box size when planted. A trellis or other constructed screening shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height.

1.3. Any multi-family residential development shall provide a minimum of 500 square feet of outdoor open area for each unit, including a minimum of 50 square feet of private outdoor open area that is accessible only to each individual unit. Multi-family residential developments in the Multi-Family Overlay District are not subject to the private outdoor open area requirement.

1.4. A maximum of one ground floor private outdoor open area is allowed in the front yard.

1.5. Projects with more than 4 units shall provide outdoor open areas, including private area(s) accessible to each unit and shared areas that are accessible to multiple units within the development. A minimum of 10 percent of the developable area of the parcel shall be used as outdoor open area that is accessible to all residents of the project and not for the use of vehicle parking. All ground floor private areas shall be delineated by one or more of the solutions contained in B.1.3.

1.6. Landscape material shall be planted along the street-facing side of any fence over three feet high located in the front setback.

2. Fencing and Walls

2.1. Fencing shall be made of non-reflective materials or painted surfaces.

2.2. Chain link, barbed, and razor wire fences are prohibited; chain link material is not prohibited when used specifically as enclosure fencing for sports courts.

Page 46 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
4 City of Monte Sereno

3. Other Site Features

3.1. Driveway visibility. All driveways that intersect with a public right-of-way shall maintain a vision triangle delineated by sides of 10 feet along the right-of-way and 10 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way measured from the edges of the driveway.

Within this vision triangle, structures, landscaping, and other obstructions shall have a maximum height of 3 feet. Trees are permitted within the vision triangle provided their canopy maintains a clearance of 6 feet above ground level.

Page 47 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
5 City of Monte Sereno

3.2. Driveway materials. A minimum of 15 percent of the paved areas of driveways and walkways shall be made of brick, pavers, stone, decomposed granite, or turf block.

3.3. Creek setback. Any proposed construction, alteration or grading within 50 feet from the top of bank of any watercourse (as defined in Municipal Code 10.21.050) or creek shall comply with Santa Clara Valley Water District Design Guidelines.

C. Building Design

1. Height and Scale

1.1. Structures on parcels with a slope, as slope is defined in Municipal Code 13.01.040, greater than 10 percent shall not cantilever more than 20 feet away from the natural slope.

1.2. Two-story building walls that face a public right-of-way or publicly accessible easement shall implement a minimum of 3 of the following components:
a. When the upper floor façade length exceeds 75 percent of the ground floor façade length, a minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall be set back from the ground-floor facade by at least 6 feet.

Page 48 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
6 City of Monte Sereno
b. Changes in the wall plane with a minimum change in depth of 2 feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet.
c. Provide a bay window that protrudes from the building façade a minimum of 2 feet on either the ground floor or upper floor.
d. Provide a balcony on the upper floor; buildings with more than one unit on the upper floor shall provide one balcony per dwelling unit. e. Provide a ground-floor porch that extends a minimum of 8 feet from the façade for a width of 12 feet or greater.

2. Architectural Elements

2.1. Street-facing facades of new buildings or additions greater than 1,200 square feet shall have no more than 25 feet in a horizontal direction without an articulation.

Buildings shall utilize any combination of the following components to achieve a minimum of 15 points:
a. Porch that extends a minimum of 8 feet from the façade for a width of 12 feet or greater – 8 points
b. A recess in the façade plane of at least 2 feet for a minimum of 5 feet and for the full height of the façade – 6 points
c. A column or pilaster that protrudes from the façade a minimum of 8 inches for the full height of the facade – 6 points
d. One-story front entry that is a maximum of 12 feet high, and is recessed at least 3 feet – 5 points
e. Hip roofs with overhangs that are at least 18 inches deep – 5 points f. A bay window or similar pop-out from the building façade that protrudes a minimum of two feet from the building façade – 3 points g. Juliet balcony that protrudes a minimum of two feet from the building façade – 3 points
h. Change in building material or façade color – 3 points

2.2. A porch associated with the primary entrance and constructed outside the primary building mass shall be a minimum of 50 square feet and covered by a roof.

2.3. Stairways to upper-level primary entries shall be incorporated within the building envelope.

Page 49 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
7 City of Monte Sereno

2.4. Vinyl window frames, mullions, and muntins are prohibited.

2.5. For building walls within 15 feet of the side or rear parcel line, upper-level windows that face onto or overlook an adjoining residential property shall maintain a bottom windowsill height of no less than 42 inches above finish floor.

Page 50 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
8 City of Monte Sereno

2.6. For any new building within 20 feet of an existing residential building, the centerline of the proposed upper-floor windows, balconies, and decks shall be offset from the centerlines of the existing building’s upper-floor windows, balconies, and decks by no less than 8 feet. Any window with a minimum sill height of 60 inches above the finished floor is exempt from this standard.

2.7. Balconies and decks located above the ground floor shall not encroach into the parcel setback.

2.8. Chimneys shall incorporate materials and colors that are utilized by the primary structure.

2.9. Rooftop mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view from the public right-of-way by placing equipment in an enclosure or behind a pitched roof or parapet. Rooftop solar energy collection panels are not required to be hidden from public view.

2.10. Mechanical equipment located on the ground plane shall be hidden from view from the public right-of-way by placing equipment in an enclosure or behind opaque screening no less than the height of the equipment.

Page 51 of 163 ends

Objective Design Standards
9 City of Monte Sereno

2.11. Accent elements a maximum of 12 feet in height shall be used to demarcate building entrances by using at least one of the following:
a. Awning
b. Canopy
c. Overhang
d. Trellises
e. Arches
f. Porch
g. Columns
h. Moldings

3. Materials

3.1. The exterior of the building shall include at least two of the following materials. Any one material must comprise at least 20 percent of the total material on each building facade.
a. Wood
b. Wood Composite
c. Stone
d. Slate
e. Cor-ten steel
f. Zinc
g. Stucco
h. Wrought iron

3.2. Corbels, brackets, and any other architectural elements that protrude from a façade to support a roof or eave shall incorporate materials and colors that are utilized by the primary structure. Plastic or vinyl materials are prohibited.

3.3. Exterior material colors for homes shall meet the maximum light reflectance value of 30 and shall blend in with the natural vegetation.

3.4. Roof materials shall not exceed a light reflectance value of 30.

Page 52 of 163 ends

From: Niki Khaitan
To: City Clerk
Subject: x`SB10 Rezone-Multi Family Overlay Zone - opposition to petition for change Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:57:09 PM
Dear Members of the Monte Sereno Council,
As a resident of the Monte Sereno community, I would like to express my strong opposition to relocating the SB10 Multi-Family Overlay from Winchester Boulevard to Austin Way. In my view, the originally proposed Winchester location remains more appropriate due to several factors:
• Traffic Safety : Quito Road already presents challenges due to its narrow and winding layout. Based on firsthand observations, accidents and close calls are not uncommon. Adding higher-density housing—especially alongside the increased traffic expected from the El Paseo de Saratoga development—would significantly heighten these risks. • Infrastructure & Access: Winchester Boulevard is better suited to support this type of development, given its existing mixed-use environment, access to public transportation, bike lanes, and pedestrian access to nearby schools such as Daves Avenue Elementary. In contrast, Austin Way is purely residential and would require greater reliance on cars, potentially impacting traffic flow and emergency response times from the nearby fire station. • Neighborhood Impact: The parcels along Winchester are already surrounded by multistory commercial and medical buildings, making them a natural fit for higher-density housing.

Introducing similar development into Austin Way’s entirely residential setting would represent a substantial and disproportionate change to the neighborhood’s character.

Overall, the Winchester site aligns more effectively with state objectives while minimizing disruption and safety concerns. I respectfully urge the Council to uphold the original plan.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service.

Sincerely,
Niharika Khaitan

Page 53 of 163 ends

From: Ranjana Sivaram
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Proposed reasoning to Austin Way
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:37:13 PM
On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 4:29 PM Ranjana Sivaram <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear City Officers
I am a very long term resident of Monte Sereno. I have lived and owned homes in our city for 32 years.

I have lived off of Winchester on Via Sereno and now close to Austin Way on Twin Creeks Road.

The idea of developing additional higher concentration housing away from a commercial thoroughfare such as Winchester with its full bevy of support infrastructure along with the proximity to both Daves and Fisher seems to make little sense to me. Moving it to right across a fire station near a winding road makes it even worse. I would not want my grandchildren riding bikes to school on Hwy 9 or at the tough Quito and Daves intersections.

I am strongly opposed to such a move and will attend today’s hearing on the matter to express my negative sentiment on such a proposal.

Ranjana Sivaram
18300 Twin Creeks Rd, Monte Sereno, CA 95030

Page 54 of 163 ends

From: Nunzia Vitarelli
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 opposition
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 4:25:42 PM
Dear Council Members,
As relatively new residents of Twin Creeks, currently completing the final stages of building our forever home after a three year process, we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed shift of the SB10 Multi Family Overlay from Winchester Boulevard to Austin Way. We believe the original Winchester location remains the most appropriate option for the following reasons:

Public Safety Concerns: We have personally observed multiple accidents and near collisions along Quito Road. This narrow and winding roadway is not equipped to handle increased density, particularly with the significant rise in traffic expected from the El Paseo de Saratoga development.

Infrastructure and Accessibility: Winchester Boulevard is an established mixed use corridor that already supports bike lanes and offers walkable access to Daves Avenue Elementary. Relocating the project to Austin Way, which is strictly residential, would increase reliance on cars and could negatively impact emergency response times from the nearby fire station.

Minimal Disruption: The Winchester parcels are already surrounded by multi story commercial and medical buildings. In contrast, introducing high density housing into the entirely residential Austin Way neighborhood would create a substantial and disproportionate disruption to the existing character of the area.

The Winchester location satisfies state requirements in a manner that is both safer and more efficient. We respectfully urge you to uphold the city’s original plan.

Sincerely,
Nunzia Vitarelli
Benedetto Nicosia
18389 Twin creeks road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030

Page 55 of 163 ends

From: Meg H
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:08:17 PM
To the Town Council of Monte Sereno,
My name is Megan Heinisch and I grew up in this town at 17527 Via Sereno, Monte Sereno, since I was 5 in 1992. I moved away after my time in college in 2014, but now lived back here since 2021, because of how beautiful and proud I am on this area.

As I can not attend the town council meeting, I am opposing the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties. This will cause serious safety for children going to and from Daves Avenue School which I had close calls when my brother and I walked with my grandma while we attended Daves Avenue Elementary school in the 90's. These streets have always been peaceful otherwise, even after building two houses in that property, although we noticed their cars are overflowing onto a busy street. However, with this SB10 overlay, traffic will be going in and out of Winchester Blvd more choatically because of the high volume of tenats in a small space, which makes it terribly crowded in terms of vehicles and poses significant danger to an area with childen walking / biking on these streets; plus the impact it would have since there is little parking and only one exit onto Winchester, so accidents are more likely to happen.

On a personal note, since growing up here, I am quite attached to the beauty of the redwood trees out back as a setting. Just the thought about cutting these all down would be an outcry and devastation for me, I plead for you not to. I am so glad that when they built the houses, they respected the setting and built around the trees. We are a town at the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. A stunning backdrop for those walking along these paths and these tall redwoods are the perfect echo of where we are, and what naturally grows here. Please leave these homes as they are and their setting.

Along with my neighbors, I have submitted my petition for an alternate and better lot on Austin Way.

We urge that you vote No for this SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties and Yes for Austin Way.

Respectfully yours,
Megan Heinisch

Page 56 of 163 ends

From: Matthew Heinisch
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:01:57 PM
To: Town council of Monte Sereno:

I am Matthew Heinisch and have been residing at 17527 Via Sereno since 2021.

As I cannot attend the town council meeting, I am writing to oppose to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties as this will cause serious safety for young kids going to and from Daves Avenue School as my wife experienced it when she went to school there. With this SB10 overlay, increased traffic going in and out of busy Winchester Blvd., accidents are more likely to happen.

Along with my neighbors, I have submitted my petition for an alternate and better lot on Austin Way.

We urge you to vote No for this SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties and Yes for Austin Way.

Respectfully yours,
Matthew Heinisch

Page 57 of 163 ends

From: Carla Morla-Glembocki
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to SB10 Development on Winchester Properties Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 7:07:01 PM
To Mayor Lon Allan, Vice Mayor: Lisa Shannon, and Council Members Burton Craig, Ken Toren, and Bryan Mekechuk,
I’m a resident on Daves Ave. and am writing to express my opposition to the SB10 development on the Winchester properties. My family and I strongly believe these properties are not suitable for the neighborhood for a variety of reasons, including increased traffic, school/child safety, overall building feasibility, and the negative impact that a multifamily, multistory apartment building would have on the surrounding residential homes and community.

We are in favor of other locations, including the proposed area on Austin Way.

We hope you take the community’s input into strong consideration and do not move forward with this development.

Best,
Carla Morla-Glembocki

Page 58 of 163 ends

From: Diane Elizabeth
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 Multifamily Overlay Zone topic
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:02:28 PM
We believe there is a better alternative and that is to consider a parcel bordered by Austin Way, Quito Rd & hiway 9. Also known as the Austin Triangle.

This is because individual parcels are longer, will allow greater setbacks between residents, have fewer building restrictions and will allow for future growth. There is also safer options on existing high capacity roads.

Diane Urbano
17597 Vineland Ave
Monte Sereno Ca 95030

Page 59 of 163 ends

From: Russell Rutledge
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:03:54 PM
I am Russell Rutledge and have been residing at 17527 Via Sereno for 36 years.

As I can not attend the town council meeting, I am writing to oppose to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties as this will cause serious safety for young children going to and from Daves Avenue School. Both my children attended Daves Avenue and had very close calls when walking to and from school with their grand-mother. With increased traffic going in and out of busy Winchester Blvd., accidents are more likely to happen with this overlay.

Along with my neighbors, I have submitted my petition for an alternate lot on Austin Way.

We urge you to vote No on this SB10 overlay and Yes for Austin Way.

Respectfully yours,
Russell Rutledge

Page 60 of 163 ends

From: Paul Lackovic
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to SB10 Overlay on Winchester Properties Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:06:17 PM
City Clerk, please accept this email as a formal written comment for Siri and Paul Lackovic for the April 7th city council meeting. Also, please deliver this to Mayor Lon Allan, Vice Mayor Lisa Shannon, Council Members Burton Craig, Bryan Mekechuk and Ken Toren.

Regarding the proposed SB10 overlay for the two properties on Winchester Blvd, we are opposed to this action and urge all council members to vote no. We encourage the identification of alternative properties that are better suited for a multi-family overlay such as the Austin Way triangle identified by other members of the community.

Best Regards,
Siri Lackovic
Paul Lackovic
17541 Daves Avenue
Monte Sereno, CA 95030

Page 61 of 163 ends

From: Vijay Krish
To: City Clerk
Subject: Strongly opposing shifting the SB10 Multi-Family Overlay from Winchester Boulevard to Austin Way Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:31:46 PM
Importance: High
Dear Council Members,
My name is Vijay Krish and I am a long time Twin Creeks resident. I am writing to strongly oppose shifting the SB10 Multi-Family Overlay from Winchester Boulevard to Austin Way.

The original Winchester site is the superior logical choice for the following reasons:

1. Public Safety Concerns with Austin Way: I have personally witnessed several accidents and near-collisions on Quito Road. This narrow, winding street cannot safely accommodate increased density, especially with the massive traffic surge already coming from the El Paseo de Saratoga construction.

2. Minimal Disruption at Winchester: The Winchester parcels already sit among multi-story commercial and medical buildings so this is a natural home for the proposed multi-family housing. Introducing high-density housing to the 100% residential Austin Way area would be a radical, disproportionate disruption to our city’s neighborhood character.

3. Superior Infrastructure & Accessibility at Winchester: Winchester Blvd is an established mixed-use corridor with bike lanes and walkability to Daves Ave Elementary. Moving this project to the strictly residential Austin Way would force total car dependency and likely delay emergency response times from the nearby fire station.

The Winchester location meets state requirements in the safest, most efficient way possible. I urge & request you to maintain the city's original plan.

Sincerely,
Vijay Krish
18478 Twin Creeks Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Get Outlook for iOS

Page 62 of 163 ends

From: Krishna Hegde
To: City Clerk
Subject: Rezoning Austin Way
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 12:56:39 AM
Dear Council Members,
As a long time Twin Creeks residents, we are writing to strongly oppose shifting the SB10 Multi-Family Overlay from Winchester Boulevard to Austin Way. The original Winchester site is the only logical choice for the following reasons:
* Public Safety Concerns: we have personally witnessed several accidents and near-collisions on Quito Road. This narrow, winding street cannot safely accommodate increased density, especially with the massive traffic surge already coming from the El Paseo de Saratoga construction (Costco/Whole Foods).
* Infrastructure & Accessibility: Winchester Blvd is an established mixed-use corridor with bike lanes and walkability to Daves Ave Elementary. Moving this project to the strictly residential Austin Way would force total car dependency and likely delay emergency response times from the nearby fire station.
* Minimal Disruption: The Winchester parcels already sit among multi-story commercial and medical buildings. Introducing high-density housing to the 100% residential Austin Way area would be a radical, disproportionate disruption to our city’s neighborhood character.

The Winchester location meets state requirements in the safest, most efficient way possible.

We urge you to maintain the city's original plan.

Sincerely,
Krishna & Ranjini Hegde
18527 Twin Creeks Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030

Page 63 of 163 ends

From: Siva Sivaram
To: City Clerk
Subject: Proposed reasoning to Austin Way
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:43:03 AM
Dear City Officers
I am a very long term resident of Monte Sereno. I have lived and owned homes in our city for 32 years.

I have lived off of Winchester on Via Sereno and now close to Austin Way on Twin Creeks Road.

I would be strongly opposed to such a move and will attend today’s hearing on the matter to express my negative sentiment on such a proposal.

Siva Sivaram and Family
Sent from my iPhone

Page 64 of 163 ends

Page 65 of 163 ends

Page 66 of 163 ends

Page 67 of 163 ends

Page 68 of 163 ends

Page 69 of 163 ends

Page 70 of 163 ends

Page 71 of 163 ends

Page 72 of 163 ends

Page 73 of 163 ends

Page 74 of 163 ends

Page 75 of 163 ends

Page 76 of 163 ends

!" #

!

%&'&(')'*+%,-./*01233/45677/4389167:6;4<4=>1/4=<-5?<1/436@/8/4336<AAB6C452A7/7@/18)3;/-<D61<4=3;/E25/-<D611/*FC8324G <@6C3*@A<4H (&( Page 77 of 163

Page 78 of 163 ends

Page 79 of 163 ends

Page 80 of 163 ends

Page 81 of 163 ends

Page 82 of 163 ends

Page 83 of 163 ends

Page 84 of 163 ends

Page 85 of 163 ends

Page 86 of 163 ends

Page 87 of 163 ends

Page 88 of 163 ends

Page 89 of 163 ends

Page 90 of 163 ends

Page 91 of 163 ends

Page 92 of 163 ends

Page 93 of 163 ends

Page 94 of 163 ends

From: Pam Mitchard
To: City Clerk
Subject: Winchester Area SB10 Multifamily Housing Development Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 8:34:06 AM
Dear Lon Allan, Lisa Shannon, Burton Craig, Ken Toren, Bryan Mekechuk:

Along with many of my neighbors, as well as these two property owners themselves, I am opposed to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties due to 1) increased traffic density, 2) school/child safety, 3) overall building feasibility, and 4) the negative impact that a multifamily apartment building would have on the surrounding residential homes and community.

There are better-suited properties for this development effort. Specifically, we are supporting the Austin Way location that the City Council is now also considering.

Why is this a better option?
1) It’s near an existing and successful high-density development - the old Jack Rose property. 2) There are 3 roads offering ample ingress-egress options and minimal traffic with an existing stoplight nearby.
3) Several VTA lines could be extended to provide a variety of public transit options. 4) Any multifamily housing built here would not impact the already overloaded streets around other parts of the Monte Sereno/Los Gatos schools area. 5) Rather, residents would attend Saratoga schools and traffic would be minimized around the dense Los Gatos /Monte Sereno areas and schools.
6) The Austin Way site would impact few if any adjacent Monte Sereno residents. 7) The closest adjacent few neighbors are on full acre + properties with large existing setbacks, and most of the surrounding properties are in Saratoga or Santa Clara County and not Monte Sereno or Los Gatos, whereas, the Winchester development would directly impact 11 adjacent properties within extremely close building setbacks of 6 to 10 feet. 8) Austin Way has properties that are suited for development now, as well as into the future as there is capacity in the area to support the State’s future housing demands. 9) Choosing Austin Way could also save nearly a dozen large redwood trees, many of which are on land fronting the Winchester properties which was donated and deeded to the city years ago to preserve these trees.

We ask that you as elected members of the Monte Sereno City Council please carefully consider the voice of your constituents and choose Austin Way over Winchester Blvd. for any SB10 multifamily apartment development as this offers a feasible, low-impact option that minimizes impact on the community.

Thank you,

Page 95 of 163 ends

Pam Mitchard
17655 Daves Avenue

Page 96 of 163 ends

From: Romi Mayder
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 Overlay on Winchester
Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 7:09:47 AM
Dear Lon Allen,
We are opposed to SB10 on Winchester due to a variety reasons. there are much better suited properties on Highway 9.

Page 97 of 163 ends

From: LINDA FEE
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10
Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 7:15:12 AM
I am a resident at 15670 Michael Ln in Monte Sereno. I have lived here for 20 years. I am adamantly opposed to the building of 20 housing units on each of the 2 proposed Winchester Ave sites.

The corner of Dave’s Ave and Winchester is already extremely congested with cars and students heading to and from school. It would be dangerous for our kids to have additional cars exiting onto Winchester.

The building of high density housing on those lots will impact many houses and neighbors whose one story homes would be looking directly at these units.

I feel that the parcel of land on Hwy 9, Austin way and Quito would be a far better alternative due to the space there and access to 3 roads instead of one road.

Thank you,
Linda Fee
Sent from my iPhone

Page 98 of 163 ends

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: Winchester Area SB10 Multifamily Housing Development Date: Monday, April 6, 2026 8:26:05 AM
Dear Lon Allan, Lisa Shannon, Burton Craig, Ken Toren, and Bryan Mekechuk:

Along with many of my neighbors, as well as the two property owners themselves, I am opposed to the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties due to 1) increased traffic density, 2) school/child safety, 3) overall building feasibility, and 4) the negative impact that a multifamily apartment building would have on the surrounding residential homes and community.

There are better-suited properties for this development effort. Specifically, I am supporting the Austin Way location that the City Council is now also considering.

I respectfully ask that you as elected members of the Monte Sereno City Council please carefully consider the voice of your constituents and choose Austin Way over Winchester Blvd. for any SB10 multifamily apartment development as this offers a feasible, low-impact option that minimizes impact on the community.

Thank you,

Page 99 of 163 ends

Gordon Mitchard
17655 Daves Avenue

Page 100 of 163 ends

From: CSutcl1200
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 Multifamily Overlay Zone Topic
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026 4:12:10 PM
Attention City Council.

I am writing in opposition to the City changing the zoning on 15785 and 15791 Winchester. I understand the pressure being asserted on cities to increase the number of housing units.

The relatively small number of units added will have no longterm effect on the cost of housing, at the cost of altering the character of neighborhoods. What is worse is this is happening against the wishes of the neighborhood.

What is unbelievable is this is happening against the wishes of the owners of the properties in question.

The realization of this makes me think my 59 years in Monte Sereno is coming to an end. This is a good time to cash out.

Sincerely,
ChipSutcliffe
17741 Vista Ave
Sent from my Galaxy

Page 101 of 163 ends

From: May Gee
To: City Clerk
Subject: Position on SB10 Multifamily Overlay Zone
Date: Friday, April 3, 2026 5:29:32 AM
Hi,
Please forward this email to Mayor Lon Allan, Vice Mayor Lisa Shannon, and Council Members Burton Craig, Ken Toren, and Bryan Mekechuk prior to the April 7th City Council meeting.

My name is May Gee and I live at 17554 Via Sereno, the street immediately south of the proposed Winchester Overlay parcels. I object to the approval of the proposal for the following reasons:
- The lot configuration of the combined properties is inherently flawed. It is long and has a narrow frontage which would have poor ingress and egress characteristics - I think a fire truck would have difficulty accessing the back of the property, and there would be little parking for the residents. Further, no amount of increased setbacks or window restrictions would address the privacy issues to the 9 - 11 properties touching these lots, with a 2 - 3 story building looming on their back or side lots. This is not a neighborhood of large lots where there could be more distance from tall buildings.
- There would be increased safety issues to the children walking or biking to Daves Elementary due to the location of the increased traffic.
- It would be wrong to ignore new developments since the decision was made two years ago to select the Winchester properties for this purpose. The city of Los Gatos is already putting up a three-story memory care unit across the street from Via Sereno, and there is a five story condominium complex one block south on Winchester. Choosing to add one more high-density project to this small neighborhood will make a horrible traffic situation for anyone driving through Winchester near Daves not to mention for anyone living here.

Adding multi-family housing anywhere in Monte Sereno is bound to have pros and cons, so the decision of where to place it will likely be one of lesser evils. However, I find it hard to find a worse option than the Winchester Overlay proposal that you have in front of you for the reasons I have outlined above.

I strongly urge you vote no on the Winchester Overlay proposal and to vigorously investigate alternatives, like the Austin Way - Quito Rd - HIghway 9 triangle, which is now a possibility because it no longer considered to be in a high fire risk zone, or some other property that has more space to accommodate such a development.

Sincerely,
May Gee
Sent from my iPad

Page 102 of 163 ends

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re-Zoning of 15785 and 15791 Winchester Blvd
Date: Thursday, April 2, 2026 12:38:31 PM
I am writing to express my concern for the proposed rezoning of these parcels. I understand the need to meet the state mandates but this proposal has serious impact on the neighborhood. Aside from it looming up in a single home neighborhood, the effect on traffic and parking on Winchester is a worry.

I live on Bruce just west of Winchester and the traffic to and from Daves Ave School already impacts our street and well as the intersection with Winchester on a daily basis. In addition, the additional number of cars seeking a place to park (most people who can afford housing in this area have two cars per household) will have an even greater impact on the local streets.

Cars are already lining University Ave and Bruce Ave in the overnight hours due to the apartments already in place along Winchester. And plans are already underway to build a high rise on the corner of Winchester and Blossom Hill Road where there is no street parking!! There must be a better place to build affordable housing that has less impact on traffic, parking and schools.

Carolyn Kananen
17595 Bruce Ave

Page 103 of 163 ends

March 30, 2026
R 3.7026
Monte Sereno City Council
18041 Saratoga - Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Subject: City meetingof April 7, 2026. S310 Rezone—MultiFamily Overlay Zone. Oppositionto Petition for Change.

Dear Members of the Monte Sereno City Council,
I am a resident of the TwinCreeks neighborhoodand I am sending you this letter to state my oppositionto the change of designationas SB10 Rezone High Housing Developmentfrom two Winchester Blvd parcelsto the Austin Way parcel that some people are proposing(the Petition for change). I would be negatively affected by said changebecause Austin Way is at a very short distance from TwinCreeks and QuitoRd where I drive very frequently. But there are also many other objective and logical reasons for my opposition.

THE PETITION FOR THE CHANGE
Many of the peoplewho have signed a Petitionfor changeto AustinWay seem to have read the many ?yers that the proponents of this change have postedin the Daves Ave area. A picture is enclosed herein. The ?yers invite supporters to attend the meeting, to email the city or visit their web page and sign their online petition.It also includesthe following paragraph::
“MultiFamilyHousingHere? To meet Califomia State requirements for more multi—familydwellings, Monte Sereno is proposingto allow parcels 15785 and 15791WinchesterBlvd to be zoned to allow up to 20 dwellings per parcel”
The part that says “allow up to 20 dwellings Qer garce ’ probablyraised serious concerns among Daves School neighbors and may have led them to support this petition.

However, this information seems to be inaccurateas the City websitementions only 10 housing units per parcel.” It is possible that many supporters would not have signed the onlinePetition or sent emails had they known the true number of dwellingsper parcel at stake.

THE CITY HAS ALREADY CHOSEN THE BEST LOCATION
The Winchester location was well—chosenby the city staff because it is much closer to grocery stores, gas stations,school,banks,pharmacies, many other stores and two freeway entrances than the Austin Way location.

Thusthe Winchesterlocation is much more convenient to the future residents.

This would substantially reduce the number of miles driven in our city by all the new families that would live there and the amount of green gas emissions their cars would produce.

Winchester Blvd. is not a residential area: it is a mixed use commercial street already.

The designated Winchester Blvd. lots are right across the street from the “Pottery Planet” store and a 2-story of?ce building at 15814WinchesterBlvd.There is a 2-story Sutter Health building also across the street at 15720Winchester Blvd. and a Stanford medical facility on the same side of Winchesteron the next block. There are several older apartment buildings also on the same side of Winchesterjust a coupleblocks north at 15265Winchester Blvd. and Millrich Dr.

WinchesterBlvd. already has many tall buildings, both residential and commercial, in Campbell.Winchester‘s continuationin Los Gatos, Santa Cruz Blvd., also has tall buildings. The town of Los Gatos has approved a plan to build 107 assisted living units and 18 memory care units in a 3 story building at 15860Winchester Blvd. and ShelburneWay across the street from the subject parcels (see enclosed picture). This trend towards denser housing and large commercial buildings on WinchesterBlvd. is likelyto continue.

On the other hand, there are no commercialor apartment buildingswithina large radius from Austin Way, which is in a 100%residential area. Therefore the Winchesterlocationis a more logicalsetting for higher density housing than the Austin Way neighborhood.

Page 104 of 163 ends

ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY
QuitoRd. is a must-use road for our area residentsto go to the nearest shopping center and multiple stores at Westgate, in San Jose. This needwillsharplyincrease whenthe new Costco store is built at Westgate—West.

QuitoRd. is a very narrow, winding road that is alreadydangerous to get into and out of from our neighborhood because of the heavy traf?c during commute hours.We can expect this traf?c to get muchworse as the 772 dwellings are completedat QuitoRd. and Prospect Ave. in the next coupleof years. Adding many families at AustinWay and QuitoRd. will substantiallyraise the number of vehicleson that road.It will raise the risks to the future residents of the proposed dwellings,to our neighbors, and to all the drivers that use that road.

The city wants to promote bicycle riding.This is why separated bike lanes have been marked on both sides of Winchester Blvd. But there is no room for bike lanes on the winding, narrow QuitoRd. Biking on QuitoRd is highlydangerous and not recommended.

Thus, increasing population density on Winchestermakes more sense because the new residents willbe able to bike safely there, but much less at the Austin Way location.

The two Winchesterparcels chosen by the city are on the same block as Daves school.This means that the little kids from the new families that will live therewillbe able to walk to and from school either with their parents or alone. Their parents won’t have to drive twice a day to the school as they would if they lived on Austin Way, which istoo far for walking and too dangerousfor biking.

FIRE SAFETY
The nearest fire station is right across Austin Way and Highway 9. High housing density there could produce enough additionaltraf?c during traf?c hoursto impedeand delaythe ?re engines trying to come to our neighborhoodthrough QuitoRd, which isthe shortest and most logical access route. The trucks might have to take the longer Daves St. route instead, losingpreciousminutes when lives are at stake be it from a ?re, a heart attack, an accident or any other mishap. ‘

PRESERVING CITY ZONING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
The proponents of changemight argue that it would affect fewer people in the Austin Way area. But that is not a valid argument because that is what zone planninguniversally means as it was chosen by the residents of our city. The WinchesterBlvd residents knew they were going to live in a highertraf?c, higher housing density, mixed-usezone when they bought their homesthere.

Once a couple apartment buildings are built by Austin Way this may be a powerful magnet for developersto apply for permits and build more apartments in this area. The city couldhave a harder time denyingsaid permit applications since they could have set a precedent. The end resultmight be a completechange in the character of all the surrounding neighborhoods. Building them on WinchesterBlvd would not cause such a problem.

The city is being required by the new laws to changethe zoning rules. But the councilcan do this in the least disruptive way possible.

BelowI have outlined an objectivemethod to quantify and compare the disruptionthat rezoning would cause to the three parcelsin question.The results prove that designating Austin Way as high densityhousing instead of Winchester would cause a disruptionmuch larger to the AustinWay parcel than to the two WinchesterBlvd. parcels.This method quanti?es disruptionrelative to eachparcelsize and its current housing density.

SCENARIO #1: If the city designates AustinWav to have 10 dwellings per parcel. (This scenario might not meet the city’s objective)
a. The proposedAustin location appears lo be [he Iriangle—shape1.05 acre parcel at 18740 Austin Way with a single family home built on it. Its current housing densityis now 1/1.05 = 1 dwellingper acre.

Goingfrom1 house in 1.05 acre to 10 dwellings on this lot wouldmean a density increase at 10 times at this location. b. The 15785 WinchesterBlvd Qarcelis apparently an 18,000 square feetOr .41 acre lot with one single family home built on it. Its current housing density is now 1/41 = 2.4 dwellings per acre.

Thisis already 2.4 times higher densitythan the Austin Way density which is I dwelling per acre.

Page 105 of 163 ends

Goingfrom2.4 dwellings per acre to 10 dwellings on this lot means a densiggincrease of4.2 times at the?rst Winchesterlocation (10dwellings per acre over 2,4dwellings per acre = 4.2) Thus the zoning disruption for this location relative to the Austin Way parcel would be 10/4.2 = 2.4 in scenario #1 c. The 15791 WinchesterBlvdparcel is apparently an 8,000 square feetlot or .18 acre with one singlefamily home built on it also. Its current housing density is now ]/.1 8 = 5.4 dwellingsper acre.

Thisis already 5.4 times higher densitythan the Austin Way density which is I dwelling per acre.

Going from5.4 dwellings per acre to 10 dwellingson thislot means a density increase ot 1.85 times at thissecond Winchesterlocation (10/54 =1.85). Thisis not even doubling its housing density.

The zoning disruption for this location relative to the Austin Wayparcel would be [0/135 = 5.4 in scenario #1 Thus, the amount of the zoning disruption for the Austin Way parcel would be between 2.4 and 5.4 times larger than the disruption caused on the ?rst and second Winchester Blvd. parcels respectivelyin scenario #1.

This scenario would only allow rezoning for 10 dwellings, short of the 20 intended.

SCENARIO #2: The city designates Austin Way to bear the 20 dwellings contemplated for the two Winchester Blvd parcels.

This scenario would allow rezoning for 20 dwellings as intended.

In this caseAustin Way wouldgo from1 house in 1.05 acre to 20 dwellings on this lot. Thiswould mean a densigp increase at 20 timesforthis location.

Simple math per the above shows that the amount of the zoning disruption for the Austin Way parcel would be between 4.8 and 10.8 times larger than the disruption caused on the first and second Winchester Blvd. parcels respectivelyin this scenario,which is the one that wouldgive the city 20 dwellings.

The numbers prove that the petitioned change would lead to an unwarranted and disproportionate disruption of S to 11 times larger to the Austin Way parcel and its neighborhoodin the most likely scenario #2. This could have a serious, detrimentalimpacton the Austin Way area.

It is unfortunate that the new laws require that our city leaderstake this type of decision.My heart goes to the Winchesterarea residents who would prefer not to see big buildings built next to their homes. 1 can understandthem.

However, this is no reason to by to push the probleminto another neighborhoodthat is 100% residential and was designed and built on the basis of much lower densityhousing.

I hope that this considerate councilwill not accept such a large disruptionand will leave the existing plan unchanged.

I thank you for your considerationand I appreciateyour sel?ess service to our city.

John L.
15246Alma Jo Ct.

Monte Serene, CA 95030
Enclosures:

Picture of Petitioners’?yer text.

Picture of Los Gatos Notice in re permit to build 107assisted living units and 18 memory care units across the street from petitioners

Page 106 of 163 ends

Picture of Petitioners’ ?yer text
”MM Km7
ammwwwm Mm
W?W wWW
m: N m: Wm: Km1» M
W??we‘pm mm» W
m
?gmmm 1:2:sz
WMWWN ‘ WW§W?mwa
mmwammm
WWWMWW
“Wktbm?pmm
ADollarAlumni"
WuMaw than) newa My
mommiw , to We para!
60%an by 1mm WmMo Raw
2m Hmuy 9 «vim» mm
1!!!IMWMWI
W» it; aims): W 1W“
Wis areW,mio&owW
“mm Wt! mm m
(was wading immiom. wv?
um:manuregrowth WNW
5:1»: mm» mmW W‘W
mama!) Wmom
“0!.”me
mmwwam
mama mm
WW
mmmnmm . mmwwwa‘w. 3
mwmm?m?m‘?
wwwmm
mmm’wmmww
mmmmm
WJ¢WW ,
Town of Los Gatos postedNotice for extensionof permit to build 107 assisted living units and 18 memory care units

Page 107 of 163 ends

From: Sanjoy Saraff
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 Rezone- Multi Family Overlay Zone” Overlay Zone” Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 11:03:16 PM
Dear Council members, I am a neighbor in the Twin Creeks neighborhood and I am sending you this to communicate my opposition to the change of designation as SB10 Rezone High Housing Development from Winchester Blvd parcels to the Austin Way parcels that some people are proposing (the Change). Austin Way is at a very short distance from Twin Creeks and Quito Rd.

These below are among many objective and logical reasons for my opposition:

THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE CHANGE
· Many of the people who have signed in support of the Change to Austin Way seem to have read a flyer that the proponents of this Change posted in the Daves Ave area which includes the following paragraphs:
(Picture of the flyer; I can’t mix it with text here)
· The flyer information that “Monte Sereno is proposing to allow parcels 15785 and 15791 Winchester Blvd to be zoned to allow up to 20 dwellings per parcel” has likely raised serious concerns among Daves school neighbors and may have lead them to support their proposition.

However, this information seems to be inaccurate as the City Web site mentions only 10 housing units per parcel.”
It is possible that many supporters would not have signed their proposition had they known the true number of dwellings per parcel.

THE CITY HAD CHOSEN THE BEST LOCATION
· The Winchester location was well chosen by the city staff because it is much closer to grocery stores, gas stations, school, banks, pharmacies, many other stores and two freeway entrances than Austin Way. and thus much more convenient to the future residents.

This would substantially reduce the number of miles driven in our city by all the new families that would live there and the amount of green gas emissions their cars would produce. · Winchester Blvd. is not a residential area but a mixed use commercial street already.

The designated Winchester Blvd. lots are right across the street from a large nursery store and there is a Stanford medical facility in the next block.

Page 108 of 163 ends

Winchester Blvd. is already getting filled with tall buildings, residential and commercial, in Campbell and so is its continuation Santa Cruz Blvd. in Los Gatos. This trend is likely to continue.

On the other hand, there are no commercial buildings or anything similar within a big radius from Austin Way.

Therefore the Winchester location is a more logical setting for higher density housing than the Austin Way neighborhood.

ENVIRONMENT & SAFETY
· Quito Rd. is a very narrow, winding road that is already dangerous to get into and out of from our neighborhood because of the heavy traffic during commute hours. We can expect this traffic to get much worse as the 700+ dwellings are completed at Quito Rd. and Prospect Ave. in the next couple of years.

Adding many families at Austin Way and Quito Rd. will substantially raise the number of vehicles on that road. It will raise the risks to the future resident of the proposed dwellings, to our neighbors and to all the drivers that use that road. · The city wants to promote bicycle riding. This is why separated bike lanes have been marked on both sides of Winchester Blvd. But there is no room for bike lanes on the narrow Quito Rd. So biking on Quito Rd is highly dangerous and not recommended.

Thus, increasing population density on Winchester makes more sense because the new residents will be able to bike safely there, but much less at the Austin Way location. · The two Winchester parcels chosen by the city are on the same block as Daves school.

This means that the little kids from the new families that will live there will be able to walk to and from school either with their parents or alone. Their parents won’t have to drive twice a day to the school as they would if they lived on Austin Way, which is too far for walking and too dangerous for biking.

FIRE SAFETY
· The nearest fire station is right across Austin Way and Highway 9. High housing density there could produce enough additional traffic during traffic hours to difficult and delay the fire engines trying to come to our help in our neighborhood through Quito Rd, which is the shortest and most logical access route. The trucks might have to take the longer Daves St. route instead, losing precious minutes when lives are at stake be it from a fire, a heart attack, an accident or any other mishap.

PRESERVING CITY ZONING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE

Page 109 of 163 ends

· The proponents of Change might argue that it would affect fewer people in the Austin Way area. But that is not a valid argument because that is what zone planning universally means as it was chosen by the residents of our city. The Winchester Blvd residents knew they were going to live in a higher housing density zone when they bought their homes there. · Once a couple apartment buildings are built by Austin Way this may be a powerful magnet for developers to apply for permits and build more apartments in this area. The city could have a harder time denying said permit applications since they could have set a precedent. The end result might be a complete change in the character of all the surrounding neighborhoods. Building them on Winchester Blvd would not cause such a problem. · The city is being required by the new laws to change the zoning rules that the citizens had voted for in our city long ago. But the council can do this with the least disruptions possible.

Designating Austin Way instead of Winchester would cause a disruption 2.4 times and 5.4 times larger than leaving the plan unchanged.

This is the analysis of the disruption relative to the parcel sizes and their housing density. a. The proposed Austin location appears to be the triangle-shape 1.05 acre parcel at 18740 Austin Way with a single family home built on it. Its current housing density is now 1/1.05 = 1 dwelling per acre.

Going from 1 house in 1.05 acre to 10 dwellings on this lot means a density increase of 10 times at this location.
b. The 15785 Winchester Blvd parcel is apparently an 18,000 square feet or .41 acre lot with one single family home built on it. Its current housing density is now 1/.41 = 2.4 dwellings per acre.

This is already 2.4 times higher density than the Austin Way density which is 1 dwelling per acre.

Going from 2.4 dwellings per acre to 10 dwellings on this lot means a density increase of 4.2 times at the first Winchester location (10/2.4 = 4.2)
The relative zoning disruption for the Austin Way over this parcel would be 10/4.2 = 2.4 b. The 15791 Winchester Blvd parcel is apparently a 8,000 square feet lot or .18 acre with one single family home built on it also. Its current housing density is now 1/.18 = 5.4 dwellings per acre. This is already 5.4 times higher density than the Austin Way density which is 1 dwelling per acre.

Going from 5.4 dwellings per acre to 10 dwellings on this lot means a density increase of 1.85 times at this second Winchester location (10/5.4 =1.85) The relative zoning disruption for the Austin Way over this parcel would be 10/1.85 = 5.4 Thus, the amount of the zoning disruption for the Austin Way location would be 2.4 times and

Page 110 of 163 ends

5.4 times larger than the disruption caused on the first and second Winchester Blvd. parcels.

I hope that this considerate council will not accept such a large disruption when the existing plan reduces it.

I thank you for your consideration and appreciate your selfless service to our city.

Sincerely ,
Sanjoy Saraff

Page 111 of 163 ends

From: Jeannette Allen
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 multifamily overlay zone topic
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 11:00:26 AM
Please consider the Austin Way property as the best place for the new multifamily buildings.

Jeannette Allen
15610 Palos Verdes Dr.

Monte Sereno, CA
95030

Page 112 of 163 ends

From: Marko Buric
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 Multifamily Overlay Zone Topic - Winchester Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:02:05 AM
Hello!
I'm a relatively new resident of Monte Sereno (last May!) and long-time Los Gatan.

I couldn't happier that my family and I found our ideal location on Vista Ave.

I grew up here enjoying the small town feel, and it's why my wife and I decided to settle here and pay the extreme costs so our children could get the same experience. While I know our city's hand is somewhat forced to deal with the SB10 Shenanigans, I do know we have options.

That's why I'm writing to ask that the city not allow the parcels on Winchester (15785 and 15791) be rezoned for the apartment buildings. The property on Austin Way/Quito makes significantly more sense:
1) the parcels would be larger
2) there are greater setbacks between residents
3) fewer building challenges
4) better future growth
5) it's a much safer ingress/egress option
Finally, Los Gatos, specifically just on Winchester right by our home, is looking at 2 significantly sized apartments--one right across these Winchester parcels mentioned above.

Winchester is already a huge mess from a traffic standpoint -- almost year-round on weekends.

Just adding more housing will only make the traffic that much worse.

I've got severe sadness and discomfort at the current state of the whole SB10 disaster that's forcing our towns to change so drastically. That said, I expect the town to take action to ensure the small town feel remains--this is what residents are paying for, and asking of the leadership that's voted in. Otherwise, I don't know the point of paying such high costs to stay here if the whole experience is eroded due to state mismanagement and town decisions.

Thank you!
Marko Buric
17705 Vista Ave

Page 113 of 163 ends

From: jenmarcum
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 Multifamily Overlay Zone topic
Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 4:30:00 PM
Mayor Lon Allan, Vice Mayor Lisa Shannon, Council Members Burton Craig, Ken Toren, Bryan Mekechuk
HiI am writing to you to voice my opinion that I oppose the SB10 overlay on Winchester Blvd properties as they are not suitable for a variety of reasons, particularly for the traffic and safety aspects of the location. There seems to be a better more appropriate location on Austin Way. I live on Bruce Avenue and we get a lot of school traffic daily on our street already.

Drivers are very inconsiderate of speed and obeying stop signs. I can only imagine how much worse it would be with 20 more dwellings. I strongly oppose this proposal.

Jennifer Marcum
17630 Bruce Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030

Page 114 of 163 ends

From: Sumathi D
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Winchester rezoning objection
Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 6:12:07 PM
Dear Mayor Allan, vice mayor Shannon, council members Craig, Toren, Mekechuk:

Following up on my email below, I will be traveling and won’t be able to make the hearing on April 7 unfortunately. As such, I kindly request my comments below to be read on the record as public comment during the hearing.

Regards,
Sumathi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 6:46 PM Sumathi D <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Allan, vice mayor Shannon, council members Craig, Toren, Mekechuk:

Please accept my objection to the rezoning of the Winchester properties. I live on Daves Ave.

The current proposed site does not adhere to SB10 standards. It’s too small to house 20 dwelling units and the side setbacks of those units would be 6’ from at least 8 neighboring single family homes backyards on Daves Ave and Via Sereno negatively impacting quality of living for a large community.

The owners of both properties have objected to the rezoning as well. One of them has signed a letter and the other has verbally spoken to a few of us who are here and we have her permission to quote her.

Austin way is way more appropriate for this rezoning.

Regards,
Sumathi

Page 115 of 163 ends

From: Dinesh Bala
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re: SB10 overlay on Winchester properties
Date: Monday, March 30, 2026 6:33:53 PM
Dear Mayor: Lon Allan,
Vice Mayor: Lisa Shannon,
Council Members: Burton Craig, Ken Toren, Bryan Mekechuk, Hello again. I won’t be able to make it to the city council hearing on April 7 discussing this proposal but I would like to request that my statement below is read out as public comment in the meeting.
thanks,
dinesh
On Mar 24, 2026, at 3:19 PM, Dinesh B <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor: Lon Allan,
Vice Mayor: Lisa Shannon,
Council Members: Burton Craig, Ken Toren, Bryan Mekechuk, Hope you are well. I'm sending this email to oppose the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties.

They are not the right lots for this type of development and other locations like those proposed on Austin Way are far more appropriate for rezoning and building multiple homes with minimal disruption to the city, safety and overall quality of life to neighbors. Furthermore, the owners of both the Winchester properties don't intend to sell or redevelop their lots and also oppose the proposed overlay.

Best regards,
Dinesh
408-761-2329

Page 116 of 163 ends

From: H Frank
To: City Clerk
Subject: Safety Concerns Regarding Proposed Development Near Austin Way and Quito Road Date: Sunday, March 29, 2026 8:21:02 PM
Dear Monte Sereno City Council members,
I am writing to express concerns about the proposed 20-unit apartment development near Austin Way and Quito Road, with a particular focus on traffic and pedestrian safety.

This intersection and surrounding roadways already experience consistent vehicle flow, particularly during peak commute hours. Adding a multi-unit residential development will increase daily vehicle trips, including ingress and egress movements that introduce additional conflict points for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Of particular concern is the proximity to local schools and the presence of children walking and biking in the area. School drop-off and pick-up periods already create concentrated congestion and unpredictable driving patterns. Additional traffic during these peak times would further elevate the risk of accidents, especially for young pedestrians.

Austin Way and Quito Road are not designed as high-capacity corridors, and additional density at this location may strain their ability to safely accommodate increased traffic.

Existing pedestrian infrastructure—such as continuous sidewalks, safe crossings, and trafficcalming measures—appears limited and may not adequately support a meaningful increase in both vehicle and foot traffic.

Increased density may also lead to additional cut-through traffic on nearby residential streets, as drivers seek to avoid congestion on main roads. These neighborhood streets are not designed for higher traffic volumes and would present additional safety risks for residents, including children.

By contrast, alternative locations such as Winchester Boulevard provide more direct access to established corridors and services. Development in such areas can reduce reliance on short vehicle trips and allow students to walk to school more safely, resulting in fewer vehicle movements and improved overall safety outcomes.

Emergency access is another important consideration. Increased congestion and constrained roadways can delay response times for emergency vehicles, which is critical in residential areas like Monte Sereno.

Thank you for your time and for considering the safety implications associated with this proposal.

Sincerely,
Hong Frank
Twin Creek Neighborhood

Page 117 of 163 ends

From: Martha Berk
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposing high density housing at Quito Rd. and Highway 9 Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 3:54:53 PM
Dear Monte Sereno City Council members,
Please do not allow recently proposed high density housing at Quito Rd. and Highway 9. Quito Rd. has always been an extremely narrow, curvy, dangerous road but is increasingly busier and more crowded with cars and bicyclists.

Also, as I enter Quito Rd. from Austin Way or from Twin Creeks Rd., it is already VERY difficult to see cars coming from both directions beyond the curves in the road, and drivers tend to be going too fast. In a perfect world, people would follow the traffic rules, but one can never count on that.

I worry a great deal about the consequences of greatly increased traffic on Quito Rd. In my opinion this is a huge safety issue.

Thank you for your consideration,
Martha Berk
15235 Janor Ct.

Monte Sereno
Sent from my iPhone

Page 118 of 163 ends

From: Sumathi D
To: City Clerk
Subject: Winchester rezoning objection
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:46:43 PM
Dear Mayor Allan, vice mayor Shannon, council members Craig, Toren, Mekechuk:

Please accept my objection to the rezoning of the Winchester properties. I live on Daves Ave.

Austin way is way more appropriate for this rezoning.

Regards,
Sumathi

Page 119 of 163 ends

From: Dinesh B
To: City Clerk
Subject: SB10 overlay on Winchester properties
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:19:32 PM
Dear Mayor: Lon Allan,
Vice Mayor: Lisa Shannon,
Council Members: Burton Craig, Ken Toren, Bryan Mekechuk, Hope you are well. I'm sending this email to oppose the SB10 overlay on the Winchester properties. They are not the right lots for this type of development and other locations like those proposed on Austin Way are far more appropriate for rezoning and building multiple homes with minimal disruption to the city, safety and overall quality of life to neighbors. Furthermore, the owners of both the Winchester properties don't intend to sell or redevelop their lots and also oppose the proposed overlay.

Best regards,
Dinesh
408-761-2329

Page 120 of 163 ends

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Apr 07 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Consideration of Four Applications and Appointment to Fill One (1) Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends the City Council consider the applicants who applied for the Site and Architectural Commission and appoint one applicant to the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an unexpired term ending December 31, 2027.

Background Information:

On February 20, 2026, the City received the resignation of Liz Lawler on the Site and Architectural Commission. Per California Government Code Section 54974, a Notice of Unscheduled Commission Vacancy (attached) was posted in the cabinet outside of City Hall, on the City's website, and was distributed on the City's various social media outlets. The Notice was posted no later than twenty (20) days after the vacancy occurred as required by law and final appointment to the Commission shall not be made by the City Council for at least ten (10) working days after posting.

The following applications were received :
 Kathryn Martires
 May Gee
 Jennifer Meighen
 Mike Nugent
The City did not receive any additional applications for the vacant position.

Fiscal Impact:

There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this staff report.

Public Noticing:

The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website. In addition, recruitment notices were posted on the City

Page 121 of 163 ends

website, sent to our e-mail distribution list, and posted on the Nextdoor social media website.

Attachments:

Notice of Unscheduled Site & Architectural Commission Vacancy Application - Jennifer Meighen - Site and Architectural Commission Application - Kathryn Martires - Site and Architectural Commission Application - May Gee - Site and Architectural Commission Application - Mike Nugent - Site and Architectural Commission

Page 122 of 163 ends

NOTICE OF UNSCHEDULED COMMISSION VACANCY
Pursuant to Section 54974 of the California Government Code, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that one (1) unscheduled vacancy has occurred on the SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION. The term period is through December 31, 2027. Applicants must be residents of the City of Monte Sereno and registered voters of the City of Monte Sereno and have background, experience, and/or interest in architecture, planning, construction, landscaping and knowledge of the City’s General Plan. Additional information regarding the appointment can be found at https://www.montesereno.org/2192/CityClerk or by contacting the City Clerk at [email protected]. To be considered for this vacancy, please complete a Commission Application and submit to the City Clerk by March 20, 2026.

This NOTICE was duly posted no later than twenty (20) days after the vacancy occurred as required by law. Final appointment to the Commission shall not be made by the City Council for at least ten (10) working days after posting this notice in the City Clerk’s Office.

March 6, 2026
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica
City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: 35015C07-D03E-44C3-99B1-AE1AAFD17FA8

Page 123 of 163 ends

City of Monte Sereno
Commission Application
Date Received: March 20, 2026
Applying for: Site and Architectural Commission
Name: Jennifer Meighen
Previously Held Elected or
Appointed Governmental
Positions:

I worked as legal counsel and head of procurement for the Canadian Tourism Commission. The CTC is the tourism marketing arm of the Canadian government.

Civic or Charitable Organizations
You Have Belonged To:

I have recently committed to acting as the President of the Wildcat Foundation for the Los Gatos High School
Education: Bachelor of Science, Biology from Simon Fraser University Law Degree from University of British Columbia
Why do you want to be on the
selected Commission?:

I would like to use my mind and my skills to support my community.

Tell us about your skills,
experience, or interests that
relate to the Commission that
you feel would assist us in
considering your application:

I have an understanding of how Boards are meant to function. I am trained in understanding legal frameworks and regulatory requirements. I am comfortable with complex issues management.

Please list your current
commitments:

I have two teenage children and a volunteer role at the high school. Otherwise, I am retired from work.

What strengths do you possess
that you believe will make you a
successful commissioner?:

I have plenty of experience understanding complex issues and communicating them to others so that they can be understood. I am told that I am eloquent speaker which helps me gain agreement from others.

What do you see as the
important issues in Monte
Sereno?:

Monte Sereno has a uniquely rural feel in the midst of a highly urban area. We need to support increased density while still supporting current residents who love their community just the way it is.

What strengths do you possess
that you believe will make you a
successful commissioner?:

What is your understanding of
the City's General Plan?:

In the process of advocating for my neighbourhood recently, I have read the City’s General Plan. I generally support the goals contained within it. I also understand that the State has and will continue to impose requirements on the City to increase density and affordable housing through initiatives like SB10.

How do you view the role of the The commission is an advisory body to the Council.

Page 124 of 163 ends

Site and Architectural
Commission?:

Site and Architectural
Commission decisions rarely
involve a black and white issue.

There are usually several shades
of gray in making land use
decisions. Would you be willing
to put aside your personal land
use philosophy and design
preferences in order to reach
consensus, or would you prefer
to press on with your personal
convictions because you believe
that compromise might result in
a less than desirable outcome?:

I’m a problem solver. I have regularly found success in finding solutions to complex problems that meet everyone’s needs. My speciality is keeping a group focused on the issues at hand, distilling the arguments to digestible bites and driving to decision.

Please describe, as concisely as
possible, your basic
philosophical position regarding
past, present, and future growth
within the City of Monte Sereno:

I love Monte Sereno. In general, I am supportive of increased density and affordable housing through common sense solutions that respect our current residents and with a goal of preserving our unique character. I used to live in Vancouver, BC and I have seen many examples of intelligent development that increased value to residents, not took it away. I understand why residents are nervous about development and changes since Monte Sereno is such a lovely place to live. So often, in the Bay Area, development is poorly done. However, I remain confident that Monte Sereno can be a leader in this area. We can demonstrate how development can be done right.

Page 125 of 163 ends

CITYOF MONTESERENO

SITE AND ARCHITECTURALCOMMISSIONAPPLICATION
Term Ending 12/31/2026
Submit to: Of?ce of the City Clerk
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Telephone: (408) 354—7635n Fax: (408) 395-7653 I) Email: cit clerk ZDcit‘ot‘monteserenooru Subinittal Deadline ~ 5:00 pm, July 25, 2025
Please type or print legibly
Last Name: Martires First Name: Kathryn
Address:
‘
_,
7 City: Monte Sereno Zip: 95030
Home Phone: Work Phone:

Email:
_ Fax:

Present Employer: Palo Alto FoundationMedical Group Job Title: physician (dermatologist) Length of Residency in Monte Serene: since 2021
Previously Held Elected or Appointed
Governmental Positions Posltion/Of?ce Held
n/a for governmental; I am the elected Chief of my D partment since 2022 Civic or Charitable Organizations ..
> You Have Beloned To Posrtion/Of?ce Held
Paci?c Free Clinic, San Jose, CA Served as attendinphysician for student—rundermatolog clinic 2016-17 Sunet Free Clinic, Los Angeles, CA Initiatedresident invol\ ement with laser tattoo removal for reh bilitated prisoner 2014 Case Western Resewe University School of Medicine DOCtOl‘OfMedicine Case Western Resewe University I Bachelors
A separate application is required for each Commission. Please list other Commissions you are applyingto:

Site and Architectural
Signature:
‘ Date: 3/18/2026

Page 2 ends

Page 126 of 163 ends

QUESTIONSFOR SITE & ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION APPLICANTS

1. Why do you want to be on the Site & ArchitecturalCommission? I am a pa1t of this community as both a resident and a p1acticingphysician. I w01k at PAMF in an of?ce on Sama1itanand have wo1kedplev1ouslyIn an office on Winchester. I also have an intelest 111residential development, as
the
I
physical
haveWWWMWWW e11vi1onmentas a vital component of community well being. I want to use my analytical skills and my professional background 111development to ensure Monte Sereno grows in a way that respects its histmy wlnle remaining a vibrant, healthy place for families to live,

2. Tell us about your skills, experience or interests that you feel would assist us in considering your application.

I bring a du ' ity of a
physician. My experience in development taught me 110wto research codes, while my medical career has honed my ability to evaluate ceiimrl?glmmmmmimm'mdmmW

3. Please list your current commitments.

I work 4 days a week as a physician.I am off Wednesdays, when the committee meets.

Ihave 2 daughters, ages 5 and 6. My older daughter attends Daves.

4. How many weekday hours per month would you be able to committo the Site & Architectural Commission? Please circle one or ?ll in “other.”
1-3 hours
7—9hours
10+ hours
Other

5. What do you see as importantissuesin Monte Serene?
Maintainingthe delicate balance between p10pe1ty rights and the city 5 "1u1al—residential"character is palamount.Speci?cally, cnsmingthatnew developments 01 1emodelsdo not cause ' WWW
Value.

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 127 of 163 ends

6. What is your understanding of the City’s General Plan? It is being updated for 2026. We want to preserve the character of the city, while also attempting to meet the state—mandateddensity requirements. We also would like to preserve the city's walkabihtyj— the city. We also want to preserve our city against wild?res, given its geography in the Mountains.

7. How do you View the role of the Site & ArchitecturalCommission? I View the Commission as the insurer of the city’s aesthetic and structural health. Its role is to provide an objective, secondary check on projectsto elisuxe they meet city standards, reduce neighborhood friction.and contribute to the overall beauty and safety of the community.

8. Site & ArchitecturalCommission decisions rarely involve a black and white issue.There are usually several shades of gray in making land use decisions.Would you be willing to put aside your personal land use philosophy and design preferences in order to reach consensus, or would you prefer to press on with your personal convictions becauseyou believe that compromise might result in a less than desirableoutcome?
Biology is not black and white. I explain this to my patients everyday, where each person‘s body is unique and has different presentations of a disease and varying reactions to treatment, am fully ,
of the community. I believe in a process~drivenapproach where compromiseis often the "healthiest" outcome tor the eitYSlong—term social rabrie.

9. Please describe, as concisely as possible, your basic philosophical position regarding past, present, and future growth within the City of Monte Sereno.

Growth shouldbe deliberate and high~quality.While we must respect the past and the established character 01 Monte Serene, we must also be pragmatic about the tuture. I support growth that is infrastructure. I am seeing the impact on the school district infrastructure at this time, and am hoping to consuler all consequences or building and tree changes.

10. Why are you interested in serving on this Commission? I have spent my career caring for individuals;I am 110w at a point where I want to care for the community where I am raismg my family. I believe my background in renovating properties and rentals gives me f
' ' .‘ ' - r f -
v
V . ~ ‘ ~
'
c v
l I
‘ ~
l 1. Whatstrengths do you possess that you believe will make you a successful commissioner? Analytical Objectivity: The ability to review and research evidence—basedplans without emotionalbias.

Communication: I spend my days breaking down complex concepts so that every patient can understand.I t
, .
, Hs——.

Technical familiarity: An understanding of the development lifeeycle and property management.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Page 128 of 163 ends

City of Monte Sereno
Commission Application
Date Received: March 19, 2026
Applying for: Site and Architectural Commission
Name: May Gee
Length of Residency: 3 years
Previously Held Elected or
Appointed Governmental
Positions:

Please include organization name, position/office held, and dates.

None
Civic or Charitable Organizations
You Have Belonged To:

Please include organization name, position/office held, and dates.

None
Education: Please include school name, degree obtained, and dates.

BA from UC Berkeley, 1973, in Computer Science.

Why do you want to be on the
selected Commission?:

I interacted with the Site and Architecture Commission for the first time over my neighborhood's concerns with the SB10 Multifamily Overlay plan that affects my neighborhood. The commission made a good faith effort to listen to and address our concerns. I think it is important to continue to have resident participation who will give a fair hearing to desired their changes but to still maintain the atmosphere of Monte Sereno which attracted us to this city in the first place.

Tell us about your skills,
experience, or interests that
relate to the Commission that
you feel would assist us in
considering your application:

I have owned eight houses/townhouses/condominiums, including my current residence, over five decades. Three of these were rentals which I actively managed. I have remodeled two kitchens, several bathrooms, personally built decks, laid concrete, installed landscaping as well as supervised contractors to do all manner of work on my properties.

I think I would have a good understanding of plans submitted.

I am generally interested in residential property improvement and I think my experience would be helpful.

Please list your current
commitments:

I am retired, and pick up my two young grandchildren from school three days a week, and also take them to doctor's appointments. I have been travelling out of the country at least once each year since my retirement in 2013, and anticipate to continuing that for.

What strengths do you possess
that you believe will make you a
successful commissioner?:

I have an engineering mind by so I like facts and data, but I was also a product development manager for IBM for decades. With that experience, I have had to work with many personality types, be able to communicate and lead people, negotiate difficult situations and to try to be fair to all parties.

What do you see as the
important issues in Monte
Sereno?:

One is reconciling the need for high density housing in the midst of primarily single family homes. Demographically, I think there are a lot of seniors in the community. Monte Sereno may need to increase services that will enable people

Page 129 of 163 ends

to stay in place as they age, which I think is generally desired by this population.

But this goes beyond just physical needs, as socialization is also key.

What strengths do you possess
that you believe will make you a
successful commissioner?:

What is your understanding of
the City's General Plan?:

I have read the City's General Plan.

How do you view the role of the
Site and Architectural
Commission?:

I think the Site and Architectural Commission is neither a rubber stamp to approve all applications nor should it be overly doctrinaire in its decisions. I think the City's General Plan expresses the ambiance of the city we are attracted to, and the S&A Architectural Commission's role is to try to maintain that in the decisions it makes while respecting the goals of its residents.

Site and Architectural
Commission decisions rarely
involve a black and white issue.

I know from experience that land use decisions can be fraught with emotions and different philosophies. I try to listen to all sides and prefer to reach consensus with all parties; this may differ from my personal philosophy.

Please describe, as concisely as
possible, your basic
philosophical position regarding
past, present, and future growth
within the City of Monte Sereno:

I think Monte Sereno is the perfect small city in many ways. It is safe and pleasant to walk, but there is easy access to many good restaurants, shops, parks, and medical facilities. It is also close to major transportation corridors. Public transportation is available, but minimal. There is a lot to want to preserve. But I think with an aging population (one statistic I saw was 25% over 65 years old), we need to make it possible to bring young families into the community so that it can retain its vitality.

Page 130 of 163 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

CITY OF MONTE SERENO

SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION APPLICATION
Term Ending 12/31/2027
Submit to: Office of the City Clerk
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Telephone: (408) 354-7635 Fax: (408) 395-7653 Email: [email protected] Submittal Deadline – 5:00 p.m., March 20, 2026
Please type or print legibly
Last Name: _________________________________ First Name: _____________________________ Address: ____________________________________ City: __________________ Zip: __________ Home Phone: ________________________________ Work Phone: _____________________________ Email: _______________________________________ Fax: _____________________________________ Present Employer: _____________________________ Job Title: ________________________________ Length of Residency in Monte Sereno:_____________
Previously Held Elected or Appointed
Governmental Positions Position/Office Held Dates
Civic or Charitable Organizations
You Have Belonged To Position/Office Held Dates
Education Degree Dates
A separate application is required for each Commission. Please list other Commissions you are applying to:
_________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________ Nugent Mike
15549 Kavin Ln Monte Sereno 95030
+1 (408) 483-1621
[email protected]
Retired
29 years
University of Cape Town BSEE 1983
Imperial College, University of London MSEE Control Systems 1985 3/17/26
Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company Board Member 1994-6

Page 131 of 163 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

QUESTIONS FOR SITE & ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION APPLICANTS

1. Why do you want to be on the Site & Architectural Commission?

2. Tell us about your skills, experience or interests that you feel would assist us in considering your application. __________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

3. Please list your current commitments. _____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

4. How many weekday hours per month would you be able to commit to the Site & Architectural Commission? Please circle one or fill in “other.”
1-3 hours
4-6 hours
7-9 hours
10+ hours
Other ____________________

5. What do you see as important issues in Monte Sereno? To give back to the city where I’ve made my home.

I am an engineer. I have had an extensive remodel implemented on my property (2005-2006) and am generally interested in home design and remodeling.

I am retired and have no standing hard commitments. I do travel internationally periodically, both for pleasure and to visit aging family.

Maintaining a pleasant environment. Finding effective ways to meet State mandates for affordable housing.

Page 132 of 163 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

6. What is your understanding of the City’s General Plan?

7. How do you view the role of the Site & Architectural Commission?

9. Please describe, as concisely as possible, your basic philosophical position regarding past, present, and future growth within the City of Monte Sereno.

10. Why are you interested in serving on this Commission?

11. What strengths do you possess that you believe will make you a successful commissioner? I have read some aspects but do not have general familiarity at this point.

To maintain a pleasant environment in our neighborhoods. To address potential impact of an owner’s desire to improve their property on their neighbors. To support good faith efforts to meet State mandates.

I would strive to reach consensus once everyone’s concerns have been heard.

I see Monte Sereno as a group of neighborhoods
and not a rural community. Given the very dire affordability challenges in the Bay Area, I believe Monte Sereno should be promoting good faith efforts to increase affordable housing within the city while not changing the overall character of our environment.

It has been suggested by friends (including Steve
Wade) and I see it as an opportunity to contribute now that I have the time. I expect to enjoy reviewing the proposals put to the commission.

I am a rational thinker, reasonably articulate, non confrontational, and like to help find effective solutions to problems.

Page 133 of 163 ends

STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Apr 07 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos for a Joint Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling
Recommendation(s):

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Town of Los Gatos for a Joint Evacuation Plan Background Information:

At the April 1, 2025 City Council meeting, the Council adopted goals for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026. One of those goals was to “establish evacuation routes, inform the community of these locations, and plan for their maintenance.”
The Town of Los Gatos has also been working towards an evacuation simulation and modeling and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP). After reviewing the proposals received, Los Gatos selected Dudek as the consultant for these services. As Los Gatos and Monte Sereno share wildfire risk, evacuation routes, and operational response considerations, making a combined study the most effective approach for coordinated planning, modeling, and recommendations across both jurisdictions. Los Gatos requested that Dudek provide a combined Los Gatos– Monte Sereno scope and fee proposal for one joint report that captures shared data, analysis, and recommendations for both jurisdictions, while identifying jurisdiction-specific considerations where appropriate. The combined Dudek fee proposal totals $346,930.

Following coordination between the two jurisdictions and Dudek, the parties agreed to pursue a joint project structure under which (1) the Los Gatos would contract directly with Dudek as lead agency and (2) Los Gatos and Monte Sereno would enter into a separate cost recovery and project coordination agreement to address Monte Sereno reimbursement and interagency coordination. Monte Sereno’s share will be $52,039.50 of the Dudek costs as well as $4,000 to reimburse the Town for their staff costs to manage the project for both jurisdictions.

Dudek has confirmed May 1, 2026, as the project start date, and the agreement package now includes the final combined scope of services and fee schedule for Council consideration. The project is anticipated to take 18 months to complete.

Page 134 of 163 ends

Analysis:

The Dudek scope is organized into seven tasks that combine existing conditions documentation, traffic and evacuation simulation modeling, operational strategy development, public and stakeholder engagement, and final grant-ready deliverables. The combined scope will result in one joint report for Los Gatos and Monte Sereno, with Los Gatos administering the consultant agreement and Monte Sereno participating through interagency coordination and cost recovery, while still supporting jurisdiction-specific review, recommendations, and presentation needs where identified in the scope.

The related cost recovery agreement provides a billing structure that supports coordinated evacuation planning across both jurisdictions while giving each agency clarity regarding cost responsibility. Under that agreement, Monte Sereno will reimburse Los Gatos a fixed one-time cost for project management and contract administration of $4,000 with the first quarterly invoice and will reimburse Los Gatos quarterly for an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the Dudek invoices billed to the Los Gatos for the joint project during the preceding quarter.

The interagency agreement also provides cost-control protections and clear billing procedures.

Any change to the Dudek scope or compensation that would increase Monte Sereno’s reimbursement obligation will require Monte Sereno’s prior written approval. Los Gatos will provide supporting Dudek invoice documentation with each quarterly reimbursement invoice and will complete a final reconciliation at project closeout.

California Environmental Quality Act:

Fiscal Impact:

While this study was not specifically budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 budget, savings from the following budgeted items can be used to fund this study:

Category Account Number
(Old Account)
Budgeted Amount Anticipated Year
End Expenses
Street Maintenance TBD
(12-850, 05-845)
$24,000 $0
Traffic Safety 205-710-6396
(05-870, 05-880, 05-
890, 05-905)
$33,500 $0
Total $57,500 $0
Public Noticing:

Page 135 of 163 ends

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution - Evacuation Plan Agreement

Page 136 of 163 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR A JOINT EVACAUTION PLAN WITH SIMULATIONBASED MODELING WHEREAS, the City of Monte Sereno has properties located in the Medium, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monte Sereno is located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz mountains and at risk for wild-fire activity; and
WHEREAS, evacuation simulations can predict how long ti will take to clear neighborhoods, informing emergency managers and law enforcement of how much notices is needed for safe egress; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monte Sereno and the Town of Los Gatos share wildfire risk, evacuation routes, and operational response considerations, making a combined study the most effective approach for coordinated planning, modeling, and recommendations across both jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to enter into an agreement with the Town of Los Gatos for a joint evacuation plan with simulation-based modeling.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Each recital above is hereby adopted as a specific finding of this City Council.

Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement with the Town of Los Gatos attached as Exhibit "A.” REGULARLY APPROVED this 7th day of April 2026 by the following roll call vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
______________________________
BY: Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk

Page 137 of 163 ends

EXHIBIT A
Cost Sharing Agreement Between the Town of Los Gatos and City of Monte Sereno for Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Mod

Page 138 of 163 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agreement for Services
Monte Sereno

COST SHARING AGREEMENT
Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling
Town of Los Gatos and City of Monte Sereno

PREAMBLE
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a California municipal corporation, ("Los Gatos"), and the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a California municipal corporation, ("Monte Sereno"). Los Gatos and Monte Sereno are sometimes referred to in this Agreement individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties."
I. RECITALS
A. Los Gatos intends to enter into a professional services agreement with Dudek for preparation of a joint evacuation plan with simulation-based modeling project for Los Gatos and Monte Sereno (the “Project”).

B. The Dudek scope for the Project is a combined scope that will produce a joint report capturing shared data, analysis, and recommendations for both jurisdictions, with limited distinction between jurisdictions in the final report.

C. Los Gatos will serve as the lead contracting and administrative agency for the Dudek agreement, and Monte Sereno desires to participate in the Project and to reimburse Los Gatos for Monte Sereno’s agreed share of Project costs.

D. The Parties desire to establish the reimbursement, coordination, review, and cost-control terms applicable to Monte Sereno’s participation in the Project.

II. AGREEMENT
A. Purpose and Relationship of Agreements. The purpose of this Agreement is to define how Los Gatos and Monte Sereno will coordinate on the Project and how Monte Sereno will reimburse Los Gatos for Project costs attributable to Monte Sereno’s participation. Los Gatos will contract directly with Dudek as the lead agency for the Project. Monte Sereno will not contract directly with Dudek under this Agreement, but will participate through Los Gatos’ administration of the Dudek agreement.

B. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by both Parties and shall remain in effect until the later of (a) completion of the Project and (b) final payment and reconciliation of all amounts due under this Agreement, unless earlier terminated in accordance with this Agreement.

C. Los Gatos Responsibilities. Los Gatos shall administer the Dudek agreement, including contract execution, consultant coordination, review of consultant invoices and deliverables for consistency with the Dudek agreement, payment of Dudek invoices, coordination of project meetings, and consolidation of comments where appropriate before transmitting direction to Dudek. Los Gatos shall maintain reasonable records supporting reimbursement requests submitted to Monte Sereno.

D. Monte Sereno Responsibilities. Monte Sereno shall designate a primary project contact authorized to coordinate with Los Gatos on Monte Sereno project matters, provide timely review comments and decisions, provide available Monte Sereno data or information reasonably needed for the Project, participate in coordination meetings and review milestones as reasonably requested, and reimburse Los Gatos in accordance with this Agreement.

Page 139 of 163 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agreement for Services
Monte Sereno
E. Compensation. Monte Sereno shall reimburse Los Gatos in the amounts and under the billing structure set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Monte Sereno’s reimbursement obligation consists of (a) a fixed one-time Los Gatos project management and contract administration fee of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00), and (b) quarterly reimbursement equal to fifteen percent (15%) of Dudek invoices billed to Los Gatos for the joint Project during the preceding quarter, subject to Monte Sereno’s prior written approval of any increase in its reimbursement obligation beyond the current approved Dudek agreement amount.

F. Billing. Los Gatos shall issue Monte Sereno quarterly invoices for the applicable reimbursement amounts shown in Exhibit A, together with supporting Dudek invoice documentation for the quarterly Dudek cost share. The first quarterly invoice shall include the fixed one-time Los Gatos project management and contract administration fee of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00). Each invoice shall be due within thirty (30) days after receipt.

Payment shall be net thirty (30) days. Payments to the Town shall be addressed as follows:

Invoices: Town of Los Gatos
Attn: Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 655
Los Gatos, CA 95031-0655
Email (preferred): [email protected]
G. Availability of Records. Each Party shall maintain reasonable records relating to its performance under this Agreement and shall, upon reasonable request, make such records available to the other Party for purposes of verifying compliance with this Agreement.

H. No Unapproved Scope Increase. Los Gatos shall not authorize a change order, amendment, or other increase to the Dudek agreement that would increase Monte Sereno’s reimbursement obligation without first obtaining Monte Sereno’s written approval.

I. Reduction or Early Termination. If the Dudek agreement amount is reduced before full performance, or if the Project is terminated and Los Gatos receives a refund, credit, or other net reduction in Dudek contract cost attributable to services not performed, Los Gatos shall credit or refund to Monte Sereno an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of that net reduction, but only to the extent of amounts actually paid by Monte Sereno to Los Gatos for that reduced or unperformed work. Los Gatos shall have no obligation to credit or refund Monte Sereno for any portion of a Dudek reduction that has not yet been reimbursed by Monte Sereno. The Los Gatos project management and contract administration fee is fixed and shall not be adjusted unless the Parties amend this Agreement in writing.

III. GENERAL TERMS
A. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

B. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara.

Page 140 of 163 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agreement for Services
Monte Sereno
C. Termination of Agreement. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon not less than fifteen (15) days’ written notice to the other Party; provided, however, that Monte Sereno shall remain responsible for all approved reimbursement obligations accrued before the effective date of termination.

D. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the Town and the City.

E. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:

Town of Los Gatos
Attn: Town Clerk
110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Email: [email protected]
City of Monte Sereno
Attn: City Clerk
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Email: [email protected]
or personally delivered to the Parties to such address or such other address as the Parties designates in writing.

F. Order of Precedence. In the event of any conflict, contradiction, or ambiguity between the terms and conditions of this Agreement in respect of the Products or Services and any attachments to this Agreement, then the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail over attachments or other writings.

G. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including all Exhibits, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the Town and Monte Sereno. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party.

Attachments:

A - Exhibit A MS Cost Recovery Schedule
B - Exhibit B - Contractor Scope of Services

Page 141 of 163 ends

TOWN OF LOS GATOS: CITY OF MONTE SERENO
**signature_93105**

SIGNATURE
Chris Constantin

FULL NAME
Town Manager
TITLE
**date_signed_93105**

DATE SIGNED
**signature_93104**

SIGNATURE
Diana Perkins

FULL NAME
City Manager
TITLE
**date_signed_93104**

DATE SIGNED
Approved as to form:
**signature_93108**

SIGNATURE
Gabrielle Whelan

FULL NAME
Town Attorney
TITLE
**date_signed_93108**

DATE SIGNED

Page 142 of 163 ends

Exhibits List
A - Exhibit A MS Cost Recovery Schedule
B - Exhibit B - Contractor Scope of Services

Page 143 of 163 ends

Exhibit A
Exhibit A MS Cost Recovery Schedule

Page 144 of 163 ends

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COST RECOVERY SCHEDULE
Joint Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling
Project. Los Gatos will contract with Dudek for preparation of a joint Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling for the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Monte Sereno. The combined Dudek scope will result in one joint report capturing shared data, analysis, and recommendations for both jurisdictions, with limited distinction between jurisdictions in the final report.

Cost Recovery Structure. Monte Sereno shall reimburse Los Gatos for (a) a fixed, one-time Los Gatos project management and contract administration fee of $4,000.00, which will be included in the first quarterly invoice, and (b) quarterly reimbursement equal to fifteen percent (15%) of Dudek invoices billed to Los Gatos for the joint Project during the preceding quarter. The amounts in the schedule below are estimates based on the current Dudek agreement amount; quarterly Dudek cost share reimbursements will reflect fifteen percent (15%) of actual Dudek invoices billed to Los Gatos, subject to written approval for any increase in Monte Sereno’s reimbursement obligation.

Payment Timing and Adjustments
A. Los Gatos will issue quarterly invoices after commencement of the Dudek agreement. Each quarterly invoice will be due within thirty (30) days after receipt. The first quarterly invoice will include the fixed $4,000.00 Los Gatos project management and contract administration fee.

B. Each quarterly Dudek cost share invoice will equal fifteen percent (15%) of the Dudek invoices billed to Los Gatos for the joint Project during the preceding quarter, with supporting Dudek invoice documentation.

C. If Monte Sereno approves in writing an increase to the Dudek agreement amount, Los Gatos may invoice Monte Sereno a supplemental amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the approved increase.

D. If the Dudek agreement amount is reduced before full performance, or if Los Gatos receives a refund, credit, or other net reduction in Dudek contract cost attributable to services not performed, Los Gatos shall provide Monte Sereno a credit or refund equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the applicable net reduction, less any amounts already properly billed on actual Dudek invoices.

Cost Recovery Schedule
Line Item Basis Amount
Monte Sereno Dudek Cost Share
15% of current Dudek agreement amount
(estimated total $346,930.00; actual billed
quarterly)
$52,039.50
Los Gatos Project Management
and Contract Administration Fee
Fixed, one-time fee billed with first quarterly
invoice $4,000.00
Estimated Total Reimbursement $56,039.50

Page 145 of 163 ends

Exhibit B
Exhibit B - Contractor Scope of Services

Page 146 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 4 Scope of Services
Task 1. Project Management and Coordination
This task includes necessary activities to manage the Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling project, including correspondence, invoicing, oversight, and quality assurance/quality control tasks to be conducted by the Dudek project manager and/or designee over the project period. If requested, Dudek will provide the necessary documentation to the Town of Los Gatos (Town) to support grant reporting. Project invoices will be submitted monthly and will include the supporting documentation required by the Town. Dudek Project Manager Jeremy Cawn will oversee Dudek’s successful completion of all tasks and deliverables for this contract.

Jeremy will direct Dudek’s efforts in accordance with the project schedule and budget. We believe that frequent, responsive communication is the best management practice to keep the project moving forward, and we will apply this approach to this project. As the project manager, Jeremy will do the following:
 Establish a regular reporting and communication process for project status, budget, and schedule updates, and problem/resolution identification
 Hold a kickoff meeting with the project team
 Hold regular project management meetings with key project staff to coordinate work efforts, check on task completion, and review budget conformance
 Update the project scope, schedule, progress reports, and inventories of available data, as necessary, so that all team members are aware of information that may affect their work products and schedules Deliverables
 Project plan (digital Word or PDF)
 Kickoff meeting agenda and minutes (digital Word or PDF)  Monthly progress report and invoice (digital Word or PDF) Assumptions
 The kickoff meeting will be scheduled for 60 minutes
 Weekly meetings will be scheduled for 30 minutes, unless otherwise requested by the Town Task 2. Existing Conditions Report
To support the work in Task 3, Traffic Simulation Modeling, Dudek–CRA will develop an existing conditions report that will provide background and foundational research upon which to build evacuation and resilience strategies.

This report will begin with an introduction, purpose, regulatory review, and relationship to existing plans. This will be followed by a high-level overview of Town-wide information, including socioeconomic characteristics and the natural and built environment. Dudek will utilize census data, land use and parcel data, and the existing safety element to understand community characteristics. Dudek will describe major wildfire events from the last ten years and discuss the impacts of these events on the Town’s transportation network.

Additionally, as part of the existing conditions report, Dudek–CRA will evaluate the Town and City’s existing evacuation zones to identify opportunities to improve zone structures during phased evacuations, in particular considering zones with constrained roadways and parcels and populations with access and functional needs.

After an audit of the evacuation zones, as described in Task 3 below, Dudek–CRA will coordinate updated signal timing plans for the Town along key evacuation corridors. The following describes the regulatory and policy review,

Page 147 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 5 community infrastructure risk assessment, and evacuation zone assessment that will be incorporated into the existing conditions report.

Task 2.1 Regulatory and Policy Review
As part of the overall existing conditions report, Dudek will conduct a literature review of applicable federal, state, regional regulations, and local hazard mitigation and emergency plans and will summarize preparedness documents in the report. Dudek will meet with the Town and City to identify existing programs and initiatives that are successful, as well as gaps in mitigation and emergency management. An analysis of agency emergency functions, communication, and coordination networks will include governance structures, social media, neighborhood watch programs, and federal, state, regional, local, and transit agency roles and responsibilities.

Task 2.2 Community Infrastructure Risk Assessment
Dudek will develop a localized Los Gatos Travel Demand Model to evaluate transportation infrastructure capacity from an organizational and planning perspective. For purposes of the evacuation modeling in Task 4.2 below, the City of Monte Sereno’s streets and land uses will be incorporated into the Town’s model. We will conduct a transportation network identification exercise that includes a description of the roadway network, network capacity (including during contraflow conditions if applicable), bottleneck/pinch points due to roadway capacity, one-way in/out access, poor road conditions, bridges with known increased risk for scour, bridges that serve as the single access point in rural areas, difficult topography (steep grades), and potential points of catastrophic failure during a major evacuation event. To meet the criteria of Senate Bill 99, the existing conditions report will identify residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes, as well as existing subdivisions in the state responsibility areas or very high fire hazard severity zones without secondary egress routes (Public Resource Code Section 4290.5).

Task 2.3 Evacuation Zone Assessment
Dudek–CRA project team will review and incorporate the Town and City’s existing evacuation zones (e.g., Genasys Protect-compatible) into modeling and operational planning, while also evaluating whether alternative or supplemental zone structures may better support phased evacuation strategies and clearance time analysis. This assessment will also consider constrained areas and access and populations with access and functional needs, specifically to identify how to improve evacuation for special and at-risk populations.

Deliverables
 Existing conditions report
 Evacuation plan goals and objectives
Task 3. Signal Timing Plans
Dudek-CRA understands that the Town is currently moving forward with the implementation of the Los Gatos Smart Signal Adaptive Signal Control and Advanced Traffic Management Systems project. This initiative provides Town staff with the capability to operate traffic signals remotely and supports a system that can adapt to emergency conditions. Our team intends to fully utilize the capabilities of the Centracs system to support the development of an effective evacuation plan and corresponding evacuation signal timing strategies.

To begin, Dudek-CRA will coordinate with Town and City staff to gather the most current resources, including as-built plans, existing traffic signal timing sheets, equipment specifications, and the traffic interconnect plan. Following this information gathering, we will conduct a brief interview with key Town and City staff and, if needed,

Page 148 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 6 representatives from law enforcement to better understand the procedures followed during an activation of the Emergency Operations Center.

Building upon this foundation and the results of preliminary evacuation analysis, the project team will prepare up to two evacuation signal timing plans for each intersection. These timing plans will be tested using the evacuation model to evaluate their effectiveness in improving clearance times. Based on the results, adjustments will be made to optimize the timing recommendations as needed. Because emergencies involve multiple unpredictable variables, we will also provide a summary sheet that outlines various signal timing strategies, including operating signals in free mode or implementing green waves along specific corridors. Each strategy will be paired with guidance on when it may be most applicable.

Our intent is not to provide an exhaustive catalog of solutions. Instead, we aim to equip the Town’s Emergency Operations Center with a practical set of tools that support flexible and informed decision-making during emergency situations.

Deliverables
 Signal timing plans
Assumptions
 Up to 2 signal timing plans per signal (66 total)
Task 4. Traffic Simulation Modeling
As detailed previously, by developing the Town’s travel demand model (based on the Valley Transportation Authority’s [VTA] model) and our deep understanding of evacuation analysis, we propose a Town model that will serve dual purposes:
a refined transportation model and a flexible evacuation model. As part of this effort, the GIS analysis tools developed will be designed to function either as a standalone model using Network Analyst or as an integrated add-on to the Town of Los Gatos model. This innovative modeling approach emphasizes reasonable and probable scenarios and leverages AI-supported GIS Network Analyst tools alongside Vissim microsimulation to evaluate the transportation network’s capacity, safety, and emergency response under various wildfire conditions and background traffic scenarios (e.g., typical weekday, weekend, and beach traffic conditions).

Task 4.1 Los Gatos Travel Demand Model
Dudek will develop a localized Los Gatos Travel Demand Model that is consistent with VTA’s Local Transportation Model Consistency Guidelines. For purposes of the evacuation modeling in Task 4.2 below, the City of Monte Sereno’s streets and land uses will also be incorporated into the Town’s model. The following are the tasks needed to complete the work.

Dudek will conduct traffic data collection for various scenarios: weekday, typical weekend, and beach traffic weekend to support the Los Gatos Travel Demand Modeling effort. Daily traffic counts for the various scenarios will be collected at a selection of up to five gateways around the Town and City boundaries to capture a snapshot of typical traffic entering and leaving the Town and City. The traffic counts collected will be used to validate the highway and street network in the model, along with making sure external trips going in and out of the Town and City are validated. If needed, Big Data (Bluetooth data from vehicles) will be used to update trip matrices in the model and to optimize travel patterns within the Town.

For the data processing step, Dudek will use current and proposed land use information from the VTA regional model and review employment and household data within Los Gatos and stratify them by types of employment and household income/size. In addition, Dudek will develop a refined roadway network within Los Gatos to include

Page 149 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 7 additional local streets and roads that are not present in the regional VTA model. To validate the land use information, control totals from the Town and City’s General Plans and the VTA model will be used to establish the existing conditions base year model. For future land use data, Dudek will gather input from local land use plans, the Town and City’s General Plans, and the VTA regional model. If necessary, Dudek will expand the number of traffic analysis zones within the Town in the updated model for increased detail.

Regarding the software used for the Los Gatos Model, Dudek will utilize the CUBE software for its development to stay consistent with the VTA travel demand model. The Los Gatos Model will be validated using guidance from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Travel Model Validation and Reasonability Check Manual, 2nd Edition.

Root mean squared error analysis (RMSE) of selected highway volumes in the model network will be compared to the traffic counts for validation purposes. Land use data will also be validated against general plans, VTA’s land use data, and U.S. Census data.

During the development of the Los Gatos Model, technical memorandums on these steps, including traffic data collection, data processing, model software selection, and calibration/validation, will be created by Dudek and reviewed by Town staff before their implementation and deployment. Upon completion of the travel demand model, Dudek will submit it to VTA for review and for consistency approval.

Task 4.2 Evacuation Simulation Modeling
The Dudek–CRA team understands that the Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan needs to result in the identification of deficiencies in the transportation network and effective strategies to increase resiliency to mitigate the wildfire hazard risk. Effective modeling of wildfire-related hazards requires a tailored approach, as different hazards demand distinct mitigation strategies. Our hybrid approach will build upon existing conditions and model real-world scenarios by integrating an AI-supported GIS Network Analyst with Vissim microsimulation to assess the transportation network’s capacity, safety, and emergency response under various hazard conditions.

Rather than relying on worst-case scenarios, which often overwhelm local networks and lead to inaction, our approach prioritizes reasonable and probable scenarios. By comparing risk factors against historical fire data and catastrophe models, we ensure a more pragmatic analysis. The GIS component will map high-risk zones for wildfires; fire progression using FlamMap based on vegetation (fuels), slope, aspect, elevation, wind speed, wind direction, and fuel moisture; and road network data to identify evacuation bottlenecks and vulnerable infrastructure. Additional layers will include population density, vehicle ownership, and demographic data to estimate evacuee distribution and assess accessibility to community resilience hubs, emergency shelters, and alternative evacuation routes, incorporating real-world terrain and road grade factors.

Vissim microsimulation will complement GIS analysis by dynamically modeling traffic flow under different evacuation scenarios. The simulation will assess congestion, stop-and-go conditions, contraflow operations, and emergency-vehicle prioritization while testing traffic-control strategies, signal-timing adjustments, and phased evacuations based on hazard severity, warning time, and network capacity. The models will operate in a feedback loop — Vissim will identify congestion points, which will then be refined in the GIS analysis, enhancing the accuracy of evacuation planning. Evacuation destinations will be based on various factors, including availability of evacuating spaces, characteristics of the evacuee (i.e., ages, ability, income, as recent historical fires have shown that not all evacuees head toward an evacuation center; those with ability to do so would evacuate toward friends/family outside of the evacuation zones, hotel, temporary lodging, and other options) and identification of those most vulnerable to climate risks. Our team has extensively studied these factors and will factor them into our evacuation modeling.

Page 150 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 8 To ensure compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 747 and AB 1409, multiple hazard-based evacuation scenarios will be developed that are applicable to both the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Monte Sereno. The wildfire model will integrate the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Dudek’s extensive understanding of fire progression to determine evacuation pace/notification, among other factors.

The Dudek team will prepare a report that includes a series of GIS-based wildfire hazard and evacuation vulnerability maps, identification of critical corridors, at-risk road segments, hot spot areas, location for potential improvements, evacuation time, and next steps. Additionally, 3D visualizations of evacuation scenarios will support public outreach and stakeholder engagement, providing decision makers with a clear understanding of evacuation strategies. Figure 1 shows an example of 3D vehicle flow during a Vissim simulation from a regional network and individual intersection perspective. The Dudek team will ensure that the report’s findings are aligned with and build upon the current planning process for the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Page 151 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 9 Figure 1. 3D Vehicle Flow
By integrating GIS for hazard identification and Vissim for real-time traffic modeling, this hybrid approach will result in meaningful, data-driven, adaptable evacuation strategies for recommendation in the Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan. This methodology enhances preparedness and informs long-term infrastructure investments to improve

Page 152 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 10 transportation resiliency, ensuring that emergency response plans align with the Town’s resiliency goals and state-level mandates.

Task 4.3 Fire Progression Modeling
GIS-based fire behavior modeling is a cost-effective means for estimating potential fire behavior and appropriate evacuation trigger points. Modeling fire behavior in a GIS interface through the use of FlamMap fire behavior modeling systems requires various GIS and non-GIS input data files, including vegetation (fuels), slope, aspect, elevation, wind speed, wind direction, and fuel moisture. The following summarizes our approach to fire behavior modeling in the Town.

The initial task when conducting fire behavior modeling in a GIS-based environment, such as FlamMap, is the development of a landscape (.lcp) file that serves as the base for the modeling runs. The base files that ultimately are used to create the landscape file will be generated in the ArcGIS software package and include a minimum of five distinct data sets:
 Elevation: The elevation data set will be derived from the highest-resolution data set available for the Town or from one that will work appropriately given the extent of the analysis area. The resulting elevation grid file will represent units of feet above mean sea level.  Slope: Using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst tools, a slope grid file will be generated from the elevation grid file.

The resulting slope grid file will represent units of percent of inclination from horizontal.  Aspect: Using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst tools, an aspect grid file will be generated from the elevation grid file.

The resulting aspect grid file will represent azimuth degrees.  Fuel Type: Dudek will evaluate the availability of public fuel model data sets. Should a public data set be determined to be unsuitable for inclusion in the modeling runs, Dudek would use vegetation coverage data in the form of a GIS shapefile to create a fuel model file. Vegetation types will be classified into fuel models. Fuel model classifications will be based on field observations and comparison with other available data sets. Once fuel model values are assigned to vegetation types, the vector-based vegetation data file will be converted to a grid file.
 Canopy Cover: Using ArcGIS Spatial Analyst tools, a canopy cover grid file will be generated from the fuel grid file. Canopy cover will be assigned based on fuel type and may vary depending on field observations.

Canopy coverage units will range from 0 to 4 (representing 0%–25% canopy coverage, 25%–50% canopy coverage, and so on).

Following file conversions, the five necessary input grid files will be exported to ASCII format. The FlamMap software package will then be used to create the landscape file (.lcp) from these ASCII files. All files will be created in the following coordinate system: NAD 83, California State Plane, Zone 5, with units in feet.

The other necessary input files for performing fire behavior analysis in FlamMap are fuel moisture (.fms) and custom fuel (.fmd) files. Historic weather data will be derived from local Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) and processed using the FireFamily Plus software package to determine 97th percentile weather values for fuel moisture, 20-foot wind speed, and wind direction. The resulting data will be used to create the necessary fuel moisture files for inclusion in fire behavior modeling efforts. The custom fuel file will be created based on standard fuel model variables. Finally, wind direction and speed data (derived from RAWS analysis) will be noted as these variables are entered directly at the time of modeling analysis.

Following completion of the landscape, weather, and fuel moisture files, Dudek will run up to three fire behavior scenarios near the Town and City.

Page 153 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 11 Modeling results will be used to create project-related recommendations associated with evacuation procedures, trigger points, and firefighter safety zones and escape routes. All modeling results will be graphically presented in maps and exhibits and will be used to develop criteria for determining lead time needed for notification and evacuation of various areas based on historical fires, modeling results, and traffic modeling results.

Deliverables
 Results of the data analysis with maps and charts that identify high-risk zones and show vulnerable areas of the transportation network
 Evacuation route capacity, safety, and viability report and associated analytical tools  All GIS data files (shapefiles, grids, images)
 The completed landscape file (.lcp) and associated weather and fuel moisture files (.fms, .fmd)  Digital copies of all prepared graphics/maps (PDF)
Assumptions
 Asset data will be publicly available or made available by the Town.

Task 5. Evacuation Strategy and Operational Planning
Building upon the findings of Task 4, which identified vulnerabilities in evacuation routes, critical infrastructure, and network capacity under emergency conditions, Task 5 will develop a comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy to improve evacuation effectiveness and overall resilience. Recognizing that infrastructure upgrades alone are insufficient to address the complex challenges posed by climate-related disasters, such as wildfire, this task will integrate technology, emergency response enhancements, and policy-driven solutions to create practical and implementable strategies. Our recommendations will be rooted in real-world experience, drawing from after-action reports of past evacuations to ensure that they are feasible, prioritized, and adaptable based on funding availability and ease of implementation. Rather than relying on a single technological solution, we will propose a toolkit of prioritized strategies (i.e., planning, operational, hardening, and procedural) that can be progressively implemented so that critical improvements are in place before an emergency occurs.

A key focus of Task 5 is enhancing public warning and communication systems to address challenges associated with infrastructure failures during disasters. Traditional wireless-based alert systems are vulnerable to cellular network failures caused by fire damage or congestion from excessive public use. To mitigate this risk, we will explore satellite-integrated mobile alerts, leveraging emerging technologies, such as T-Mobile’s partnership with Starlink, to ensure continued access to emergency notifications even in areas with poor reception. This analysis will include an assessment of the required level of integration, cost, cost-sharing agreements, and implementation feasibility. In addition, a multimodal communication strategy will be developed, incorporating geo-targeted SMS, social media alerts, digital highway signage, and automated calls to ensure broad and inclusive outreach, particularly for non-English speakers and individuals with access and functional needs.

Beyond communication, we will examine multiple strategies to assist the Town in managing evacuations effectively. These strategies will include AI-assisted traffic control, smart cameras for evacuation monitoring, redundant bandwidth to support emergency communications, and strategic road widening that can facilitate emergency traffic flow when needed. Figure 2 provides an example of potential road widening strategies that would support multimodal use, while not inducing additional vehicle demand during day-to-day operations.

Additionally, infrastructure for sheltering in place will be considered, with a focus on establishing community resilience hubs equipped with emergency power, electric vehicle charging stations, and essential supplies in highrisk areas. Some improvements can be simple yet highly effective—for example, well-maintained roadside pull-off areas in rural zones can serve as temporary vehicle holding zones during evacuations, allowing firefighters to

Page 154 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 12 control and coordinate traffic flow more effectively. Pull-off areas, while not the only factor affecting evacuation, were shown to be helpful during the 2020 firestorms. These cost-effective solutions can play a crucial role in improving overall evacuation efficiency.

Figure 2. Road Widening Strategies
To further strengthen emergency response capabilities, in coordination with key Town departments, including and not limited to, law enforcement, fire, parks and public works and utilizing findings from the evacuation simulation and fire progression modeling from Task 4, Task 5 will identify evacuation trigger points and zone-specific phase evacuation strategies for a wildfire evacuation event, to improve overall evacuation safety. As part of this coordination, Dudek-CRA will define primary and secondary evacuation routes, traffic control points, Temporary Evacuation Points (TEPs), and staging areas.

The final deliverables for Task 5 will include a Multi-Pronged Evacuation Strategy Report, to include recommended infrastructure improvements, cutting-edge technology, a response tool-kit, and a robust public communication strategy with supporting graphics. Task 5 will provide a resilient, data-driven, and resource-efficient evacuation framework that ensures preparedness for a range of wildfire scenarios.

Page 155 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 13 Deliverables
 Results and their interpretations that identify evacuation vulnerabilities and recommend physical and operational evacuation improvements (i.e., traffic flow improvements, traffic control points, infrastructure improvements, use of emergency signage, single egress communities, and )  Recommended transportation improvements (Multi-Pronged Evacuation Strategy Report) with maps and decision-supporting tools to guide zone activation.

Assumptions
 Up to three Dudek staff members will attend up to two virtual meetings with key Town departments.

Task 6. Public and Stakeholder Engagement
Dudek–CRA will support the Town and City with public and stakeholder engagement, including coordinating a multi-agency workshop, presenting to the Town Council and Planning Commission, and attending key public outreach events to solicit feedback on evacuation strategies and zone coordination developed in the previous tasks.

Task 6.1 Town and Partner Agency Workshop
Dudek–CRA will coordinate and prepare a two-hour virtual workshop to solicit feedback from Town departments and partner agencies. The workshop will include a presentation on the findings from Task 3 to support final deliverables for Task 4 and Task 5.

Task 6.2 Town Council and Planning Commission Meetings
Dudek–CRA will prepare a presentation to solicit feedback from the Town Council and Planning Commission, with the aim of supporting the final deliverables for Tasks 4 and 5. As part of this task, Dudek–CRA will also present final deliverables to the Town Council.

Task 6.3 Public Outreach
Dudek–CRA will attend key public outreach and engagement activities planned by the Town to hear feedback from the public and support final deliverables for Task 4 and Task 5.

Deliverables
 2-hour virtual multi-agency workshop, with PPT and guided discussions, and an interactive exercise
 1 slide deck for each Town Council presentation
Assumptions
 Up to three Dudek staff in attendance at up to three in person presentations  Up to three Dudek staff in attendance at up to three community outreach presentations Task 7. Final Grant-Ready Deliverables and Formatting
Pulling from the previous tasks, Dudek will assemble all previous deliverables into a high-quality, easy-to-use, and accessible document. Dudek will prepare an Administrative Draft Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan for one round of consolidated review and comment by the Town and City staff. As part of this effort, Dudek will assist the Town staff in preparing and presenting the revised Draft Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan to the Town Council. Upon review and receipt of all public and elected official comments, Dudek will prepare the Final ETRP in an Americans

Page 156 of 163 ends

Town-Wide Evacuation Plan with Simulation-Based Modeling 14 with Disabilities Act compliant format. Similar to that of the Draft Town-Wide Evacuation Plan, Dudek will assist the Town OES staff in preparation of the Final ETRP for approval to the Town Council.

Dudek will prepare grant-ready materials formatted to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and CAL FIRE Wildfire Prevention grant requirements. This includes FEMAand CAL FIRE-compatible narratives, GIS layers, and visual outputs suitable for integration into CalMapper and other grant portals. A summary action matrix will be provided, detailing prioritized actions, estimated costs, and designated responsible parties to support implementation and funding strategies. All outputs will be structured to facilitate seamless inclusion in future grant applications and Town planning initiatives.

Deliverables
 VTA accepted travel demand model
 Updated signal timing plans for key evacuation routes  All project-related GIS shape files (e.g., zone boundaries, evacuation routes)  Simulation model outputs and visualization files
 Administrative draft of the executive summary and maps for public distribution  Administrative draft of the Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan for the Town staff  Revised draft of the Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan for public officials  Final Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan
 Meeting agendas and minutes from the draft and final and City Town-Wide Evacuation Plan presentations
 Summary action matrix
 FEMA HMGP grant compatible project narrative
 CAL FIRE wildfire prevention grant compatible narrative  GIS layers and visual outputs compatible with CalMapper and other grant portals Assumptions
 Up to two Dudek staff members will attend the Draft Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan presentation.
 Up to two Dudek staff members will attend the Final Town and City-Wide Evacuation Plan presentation.

Page 157 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: April 2, 2026

Page 1 of 6 ends

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
January 6, 2026 West Valley Recycles Presentation N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Accept the Annual Approval and Signing of the City Council Code of Ethics GGL N Consent Calendar Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) GGL N Consent Calendar Revisions to City of Monte Sereno Council Ad-Hoc Committees DP N New Business Discuss Selection of Meeting Date for Strategic Goal Setting DP N New Business Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with CliffordMoss, LLC for Consulting Services for a Potential Police Services Parcel Tax Including Public Opinion Polling, Public Outreach, and a Prop 218 Compliant Ballot Measure for an amount not to exceed $84,850 Plus a 10% Contingency for Program Costs.

DP N New Business
January 20, 2026 Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to 2025 STEM Winners from the City of Monte Sereno
GGL N Presentation
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Authorize the City Manager to Establish Automated Payments for City Hall Utility Bills
DP N Consent Calendar
Consider Establishment of an Appointment to the Monte Sereno City Council Financial Implementation Support and Audit Support Ad Hoc Committee DP N Consent Calendar
Application 2025-3089 for a Variance application for reduced rear yard setback of 25 feet where 30 feet is required at 18113 Bancroft Avenue. (CEQA: Exempt, Guidelines sections 15302, 15303)
DP Y Public Hearing
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Consideration and Appointment to Fill One Alternate Representative Vacancy on the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board
GGL N New Business
February 3, 2026 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department Semi-Annual Report Police N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar

Page 158 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: April 2, 2026

Page 2 of 6 ends

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
February 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Hold Public Hearing and Adopt a Reso Overruling Objections and Determining to Proceed with Weed Abatement
GGL Y Public Hearing
Discuss Hosting a City Picnic and Consider a Budget for the City Picnic GGL N New Business Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants Deadline, Selection Dates, and Budget Amount
DP N New Business
Discuss a Potential City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Property
DP N New Business
Discuss the Creation of Leadership Monte Sereno DP N New Business March 3, 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department Semi-Annual Public Safety Report Fire N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to Accept or Not Accept Applications for Annexation to the City of Monte Sereno DP N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution to Extend the Memorandum of Understanding with the Monte Sereno Association of City Employees for One Year with an Expiration Date of June 30, 2027
DP N Consent Calendar
Discuss the Creation of Leadership Monte Sereno DP N New Business Council Goal Setting Session for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 DP N New Business Accept the Resignation of Council Member Mekechuk as Primary Director of the Santa Clara County VTA Policy Advisory Board and Appoint a New Primary Director
DP N New Business
March 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of 2026-2027 City Council Goals DP N Consent Calendar Establishment of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Facilities and Needs
DP N Consent Calendar
Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants DP N Unfinished Business

Page 159 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: April 2, 2026

Page 3 of 6 ends

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
April 7, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Review potential SB10 Multifamily Zoning Overlay DP Y Public Hearing Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027 GGL N New Business
April 21, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
May 5, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Application 2024-3066 for a Site Development Permit for a new approximately 4,915 square foot two-story house, a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree, and a Variance for reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks at 18571 Withey Road.

DP Y Public Hearing
Variance application for a detached ADU in the front yard that is 986 square feet where 800 square feet is allowed at 153941 Winchester Boulevard DP Y Public Hearing
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
General Plan Update Study Session DP N New Business
Receive the report and provide feedback on the West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study and adopt a Resolution of Intent to support participation in a West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force DP N New Business
May 19, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Brush) a Public Nuisance and Set Public Hearing (SCCF)
GGL N Consent Calendar
First Study Session for Review of Proposed FY 25/26 Budget DP N New Business Discuss Monte Sereno Residents Participation in Leadership Los Gatos and DP N New Business

Page 160 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: April 2, 2026

Page 4 of 6 ends

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Provide Direction for Next Year’
June 2, 2026 VTA Local Investment Plan Presentation VTA N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Annual Street Maintenance - Adoption of Projects FY 26/27 DP N Consent Calendar Updated Fee Schedule for User and Regulatory Fees DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of a Resolution Setting Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27 DP N Consent Calendar June 16, 2026 San Jose Water Presentation by John Tang Water N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of Resolution Establishing and Fixing the Amount of Special Real Property Tax Levy for Police Protection Purposes for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 GGL N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution Overruling Protest Regarding Brush Abatement GGL Y Public Hearing Adoption of the FY 26/27 Budget DP N Unfinished
Business
Appointment of 2026-2027 Youth Commissioners GGL N New Business Adoption of Updated General Plan DP N New Business
July 7, 2026
July 21, 2026
Meetings Cancelled
August 4, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution Confirming a Weed Abatement Report and Assessment List to be Entered on the Tax Assessment Roll
GGL Y Public Hearing
Consideration of Nominees Citizen of the Year Award GGL N New Business League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate GGL N New Business City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business

Page 161 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: April 2, 2026

Page 5 of 6 ends

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
August 18, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
FY 25/26 Pavement Improvement Project Acceptance DP N Consent Calendar September 1, 2026 Finance Reports Warrant list DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
September 15, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
October 6, 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department Semi-Annual Public Safety Report Fire N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
October 20, 2026 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department Semi-Annual Report Police N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
November 3, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
November 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar

Page 162 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: April 2, 2026

Page 6 of 6 ends

Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
December 1, 2026 Youth Commission Report GGL N Presentation Finance Reports Warrant list N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Better Street Commission & S&A Applicants GGL N New Business Council Nomination of Mayor and Vice Mayor DP N New Business December 15, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Declaring Weeds a Public Nuisance GGL N Consent Calendar Consider and Set City Council Meeting Dates for 2027 GGL N New Business Recognition of Outgoing Betters Streets Commissioners and Site and Architectural Commissioners
DP N New Business
Consider and Approve City Committee/Commission Assignments for CY2027 DP N New Business Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) DP N New Business

Page 163 of 163 ends

Monte Sereno City CouncilApril 7, 2026

Monte Sereno City Council
April 7, 2026