Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission meeting of May 27th, 2026 is now called to order. I will now call the roll. Commissioners, please stay here when your name is called. Commissioner Mayer?

Here.

Commissioner Burnett? Here. Commissioner Stump?

Here.

And I am here as well, acting as chair, because, and please note for the record, that Chair Birch and Commissioner Sorty are absent, and Vice Chair Barnett is recused this evening. Please stand, if you are able, as I lead us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As the Planning Commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage active participation by the public, which is essential to the work of the Commission. Public input is very much welcomed and is always considered. The public can participate in several ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to staff. And during the meeting, there are two opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during verbal communications, an individual may speak on any item that is not on the agenda. And second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. You will be advised of the times of when to speak on each of these items. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT DURING THE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS PORTION OR PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ON ZOOM OR IF YOU ARE HERE IN PERSON, PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AND GIVE IT TO A MEMBER OF STAFF. PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND WHEN YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD OR IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ANONYMOUSLY. You can write your initials and then state that you're speaking anonymously when you come up to the podium. And please speak into the microphone because this meeting is being recorded. We will now begin with verbal communications. And during this portion is when members of the public are invited to address the commission on any issue or item that is not on the agenda tonight. And staff will announce when your three minutes are up. So I have one speaker card for Gus Hu.

Okay, like normal, the World Cup's coming and I named Toto after a basket, because it's kind of basket taste. I have to bring it up, you guys aren't ready for it. There's to be a lot of people. Again, I wish that you'd have a special meeting and realize that there's, you know, what happened in 94 is it'll be coming back and you gotta plan for something. You gotta, because there's to be crowd. That's, you know, The other thing is I did file appeal with the town attorney for the Muslim and you guys, because it was just, I'm not a public speaker, but I can file ANONYMOUSLY I'VE DONE THIS BEFORE IN FEDERAL COURT AND I'M CAPABLE OF FILING IT AND JUST PUTTING OUT THE WORD AND JUST GETTING THE THING BECAUSE IT WILL SAVE THE TOWN I BELIEVE IN THE LONG RUN BECAUSE it went sideways fast. And I'm just letting you know that there's appeal coming and I want the town council to hear it instead of you guys. It should have been pushed to that. And I hope that, because I gave it to the town attorney yesterday and we spoke about it a little bit. So hopefully the town council will take it up. Thank you. Any questions? No.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Okay, thank you very much. I don't have any other cards. Are there any hands raised on Zoom for verbal communications?

There are no hands raised.

Okay, thank you. We will now be moving on to our consent calendar tonight. We have one item on the consent calendar, which is the draft minutes of the May 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. And Before the Planning Commission acts on the consent calendar, any member of the Commission or public may request that the item be removed. Are there any requests?

Yes.

Yeah, I would just like to make a correction to page 10, 11, and 12 of the minutes. My name is misspelled, M-E-Y-E-R. It should be M-A-Y-E-R. Thank you.

So that's a motion, I guess, to... Or we don't have to motion that. We can just make a note for that. Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner stump.

Potentially another correction, unless it's already been corrected under item five, 16, seven, six, nine Farley road. The sub heading under reads minor development, historic district application, and it should read something like modify existing CUP. That's in the, on page five of the May 13th meeting minutes.

um okay sorry you said it's on page oh under the yeah okay item five page five

Since that's a more substantive change, I do recommend a motion.

I just recommended, I'm sorry.

No, yeah. No, that's, I think that it is just the description got, like, was held over. It's just not. It's incorrect. It's the, but I also know that we're not supposed to direct staff to CHANGE.

YOUR OFFER IS TO MAKE CORRECTIONS. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE SO IT NEEDS A SECOND AND A VOTE.

BEFORE WE GET TO A MOTION, I BELIEVE THERE'S A SPEAKER FOR THIS ITEM. THERE IS.

OKAY. SO BEFORE WE HAVE, IF YOU COULD JUST HOLD THAT MOTION AND WE WILL, THERE IS ONE SPEAKER. SO BROWN ACT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I need to pass out some of these. Okay, I sent in an article, I mean, an email. And again, I just sent you some pictures. And I got into this, you know, watching the budget because I was worried about the soccer field and, you know, because we need to replace it. And it was being saying 2.5, and I was a contractor, and it was around a million. And it was on the budget and stuff like that, and I didn't know that you guys were looking at the budget. AND I ALSO LIVED BY LOMA STREET AT A PERIOD OF TIME AND THIS FIRST C-40, THIS PICTURE WITH THE FLOOD IN IT, THAT WAS TAKEN LIKE TWO YEARS AGO.

THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO PERHAPS THE SPEAKER COULD ELABORATE ON HOW THIS RELATES TO THE WORK OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOU ONLY SPENT, YOU BROUGHT UP THE BUDGET AND HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT IT, IT WAS item number six i believe you took it out of order and it was late in the evening and there's 40.9 million dollars and 5.9 million dollars in the budget and you guys were in and uh uh mr stump took 27 seconds he said he thumbed through it you know it's it's down here um you you didn't really You know, it's a budget, and you're supposed to... You said that... Let me see. You said that you're supposed to approve this budget and look at it in... You should look at it in depth. You know, you took less than 12 and a half minutes to hear the whole... About a minute for you guys I spoke for two minutes So the whole thing took things and I was and I had you know two issues Which was the soccer field in Loma and what I was just saying is this picture here that's on the yellow It was staged. It was like you know that this guy went to the the drove by it again and They took it down so It's like the the shooting that Butler you know it with the president that was also the ear shot That was all staged the same thing. This is you know it was a two-year picture You know I was a general contractor. It was a backed-up storm dream. I talked to the neighbors You know that day I tried we only get three minutes to do this and it takes longer than three minutes but these pictures are ones with with the yellow stuff and then two months later the next big storm came through, I took pictures and I gave the commission there and I showed the photos of the storm going over. And so, you know, that was it. So, but this is the picture of the storm going over and there was no, uh, the yellow line. So I wish that you reconsider that. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, and so, and you're, um, there was also some comment, like, submitted public comment, written comment about the minutes. So that has been included in. I think maybe not, but yeah, it just, I'm just confirming that all of this has been recorded and confirmed. So thank you.

Yeah. Just reconsider please.

Thank you. Um, okay. So now we do, are there any, I don't have any other cards. Is there any hand raised on zoom about the consent calendar?

There are no hands raised.

Okay. Then I actually do need some clarification or guidance from staff, just because the last time we did this, I was told not to do it. So please don't, I'm gonna be frank. I was told not to make, that we were not allowed to tell the staff how to adjust the minutes.

Well you know you're not required to approve minutes that have errors in them and so if there's an error it should be corrected and so it sounds like there's a motion on the table for one of the subheadings to be changed and so it just needs a second and a vote.

Okay.

Um, so can you just repeat the motion since we know the question I would have, I know Mr mayor mentioned his name, his spelling of his name is, is that something to just be noted going further and we don't need to worry about a Monday or correcting the minutes. We'll note that. Okay. Uh, so the motion that I will make is I will move to, um, correct the subheading under item five on page five of the May 13 meeting minutes. Item five being 16769 Farley Road currently reads minor development and historic district application HS22051 with an APN number. It should just simply read modify existing CUP as a replacement for that subtitle.

And then just to clarify that, is the APN, I think that the application number, the application number is incorrect also, but the, yeah, because it should start with a U for a CUP, right?

The APN number is actually correct.

The APN is correct. It's just that one line. Okay. And then is there a second?

Commissioner Burnett?

I'll second that. OK. So is that clear to staff with the motion? OK. Thank you. Then any discussion? OK. All those in favor, please raise your hand. The motion passes unanimously to approve the minutes with that minor adjustment. OK, so now we will move on to our public hearing, starting with item number two, which is to consider a request for approval to construct a multifamily residential development of 138 units. Condominium vesting tentative map remove large protected trees and site improvements requiring a grading permit under Senate Bill 330 SB 330 on vacant properties zoned R-18 housing element overlay zone and R-18 located at 14789 Ochre Road. APN's 424-08-074 and 035. Architecture and site application S-24-052. Subdivision application M-24-017. And MND application ND-26-001, an initial study. And MND have been prepared. Property owners are Edward, morimoto yuki farms llc and um that applicant is eric hayden urban catalyst and before the staff report may i have a show of hands from commissioners who have visited the property looks like great and um are there any disclosures that need to be made yes commissioner mayor

Yes, I just want to disclose that I've worked with HMH, the civil engineer and landscape architect on the project in the past in a professional capacity. But I haven't spoken with anyone there about this particular item.

Okay, thank you. Any additional disclosures? Nope. Okay, Ms. Walters, you have the staff report for us. Thank you.

Yes, good evening, Planning Commissioners. Erin Walters, Senior Planner. This applicant is requesting approval to remove an existing orchard and construct a multifamily residential development on the subject site. The applications are being processed under State Bill 330, and this is a builder's remedy project. The 6.7 acre site is included in the housing element sites inventory. The project proposes 138 residential units distributed among 18 three-story townhome styled buildings. 28 of the units will be designated as low income, below market rate units consistent with state laws and town requirements. The units will include two to three bedroom floor plans with private garages, porches, and balconies. The site would be served by two private driveways located off of Oka Road and would include internal private roads, 20 guest parking spaces, and frontage improvements along Oka Road, including a five foot right of way dedication. In response to concerns raised by the residents of the adjacent mobile home park, the applicant has proposed shifting the northern entrance of the road approximately 15 feet farther away from the shared property line. This modification is illustrated in Exhibit 18 and then is also included as a condition of approval in Exhibit 3. The project includes landscape open space throughout the site, including pedestrian pathways, seating areas, and a recreational space located to the rear of the property. This can be seen in the conceptual landscape plan, which includes replacement trees in exhibit 20. Staff would like to note that the maximum building height of the buildings will range from approximately 42 feet to 44 feet. So that is a different note than what was in the staff report. So they're not, they all aren't at the same height, they range in height. And that does exceed the 30-foot height permitted for the zone. The project does propose imported fill, which ranges from zero to three feet across the property. And that's to accommodate elevating the site to address the 100-year floodplain. The applicant requests builder's remedy exceptions to increased density, increased height, reduced front and rear setbacks, reduced parking, reduced guest parking, and reduced BMP size requirements, and then several other objective design standards. The applicant has provided this in their letter of justification, which is in attachment six. The project has been evaluated pursuant to the no net loss law and staff has determined that the remaining housing element sites maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the town's remaining arena allocation. An initial study and mitigated neck deck were prepared for this project and then technical studies were prepared and are included in the attachments including a transportation analysis. These were reviewed by the town or prepared by the town's consultants. The environmental analysis concluded that all potential impacts for the mitigated to less than significant level through the implementation of the mitigation monitoring and reporting program which can be found in exhibit 15. There was a secret public review period between March and April for this environmental document and responses to comment have been included in exhibit 16 and an errata sheet has been included in exhibit 17. again this did not identify any new significant impacts or increase to the severity of the identified impacts previously identified impacts and so staff does recommend that planning commission consider the request and if merit is found to forward this recommendation to town council to approve the architecture and site application investing tentative map and adopt the mitigated knick-knack as described in the staff report The commission has received an addendum and a desk item that has public comments included. And in addition to planning staff, the town's environmental consultant and the public works staff are available with questions. And the next, I'd like to hand it over to the town attorney. She'll be providing information about the regulatory framework for the project.

Good evening, commissioners. Gabrielle Whelan, town attorney, and I've prepared a PowerPoint to review the applicable state laws to this project. There are four applicable state laws, only three of which are being utilized. The first is Senate Bill 330. The next is the State Housing Accountability Act. The third is State Density Bonus Law, which this project qualifies for but is not utilizing. And the fourth is the California Environmental Quality Act. With regard to Senate Bill 330, it authorizes applicants to submit a preliminary application. And once the preliminary application has been submitted, an applicant vests to the development standards that were in place at the time that the preliminary application was submitted to the town.

Next slide.

WITH SENATE BILL 330 PROJECTS, THE TOWN IS LIMITED TO HOLDING FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON A PROJECT. TONIGHT WILL BE THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. BECAUSE THIS PROJECT IS A SENATE BILL 330 PROJECT, IT HAS VESTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE IN PLACE WHEN ITS PRELIMINARY APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PROJECT APPLICANT IS USING THE BUILDER'S REMEDY AND NOT STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. The builder's remedy is a colloquialism for a provision of the Housing Accountability Act, and the Housing Accountability Act is codified in the state government code, and it precludes local agencies from denying, reducing the density of, or imposing conditions that render a housing project infeasible if that housing project contains units that are affordable to low or moderate income households. And so there are several questions that the town asks in order to determine whether a project is eligible for the benefits of the Housing Accountability Act. The first question is, is it an eligible housing development project? And the act defines eligible housing development projects to include projects that are 100% residential. This project is 100% residential, so it's an eligible housing development project. Next slide. The next question is, is it a project that's providing housing affordable to lower or moderate income households? And the act provides that a project that provides at least 20% of its total units to be affordable to lower income households qualifies as a project that's affordable to low income households. Next slide, please. And the act does authorize the town to apply its objective development standards that will not render the project infeasible. And so an important question to ask is what is an objective development standard? And pursuant to the act, it's any standard that's consistent with the town meeting its regional housing needs allocation. also known as RHNA, and it's a standard that's applied to facilitate development at the permitted density and as proposed by the development. Next slide, please. In order to be objective, it has to involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official, and it has to be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external benchmark. Next slide, please. The Act does contain a section that discusses what constitutes disapproval of an eligible housing development project. And the definition includes a vote to disapprove, but it also includes a public agency's failure to comply with statutory deadlines in order to make a decision. It also includes imposing a condition of approval that would render an eligible project infeasible. With regard to infeasibility the town bears the burden to establish that the condition of approval will not render the project infeasible and When the town makes this determination the town needs to use the preponderance of the evidence standard meaning that the town weighs all of the evidence and concludes that the evidence on the side of not rendering the project infeasible outweighs the other evidence and The Housing Accountability Act also includes a list of permissible findings for denial of a project, including imposition of a condition that would render a project infeasible. The first grounds would be that the town has an adopted housing element and has met its regional housing needs allocation in all income categories that are proposed in the project. The second is that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated. The third grounds would be that denial is required in order to comply with a specific state or federal law. The fourth is that the project is located on agricultural land and does not have adequate water or wastewater. The fifth grounds would be that the housing development is inconsistent with the town zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation. However, this ground is only available if the town or any public agency has a housing element that had been certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development at the time that the SB 330 preliminary application was submitted. And then the sixth ground would be for a project that does not qualify as a builder's remedy project. This particular project does qualify as a builder's remedy project. And then finally, with regard to CEQA, CEQA requires that public agencies analyze the environmental impacts of proposed projects. For this project, the town's CEQA consultant conducted an initial study. Based on that initial study, the town determined that a mitigated negative declaration was appropriate. A mitigated negative declaration is used when a project does have potentially significant environmental impacts, but those impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significance. And I'm here if you have questions now or throughout the hearing. And then before I end, I wanted to note for the record that Commissioner Barnett is recused specifically because his residence is located in proximity to tonight's project. And that concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Yes, Commissioner Burnett.

Thank you. Yes, I had a question about the below market rate homes, the affordable housing. Could you sort of relate that to the AMI? Because I think that questions always come up on that.

Yes, and I'll defer that to Director Paulson.

Thank you. So yes, there's different levels. This one is going to be, all of the units will be low income, which is 80% AMI or below. So that's how that's defined based on state law.

Okay, thank you.

And I have a follow-up to that one. Is it at the time of that when the application goes in? Like that version of the AMI or years later when the project is going through?

We probably haven't tackled that hurdle yet. I think we would be in close consultation with the town attorney because it is an SB 330 preliminary application. We'll have to weigh some of those issues because obviously the AMI does change.

Okay, thank you. And yes, follow up.

Okay, follow up question. So how does the town keep track of these deed restricted below market rate units?

Keep track in what way?

inventory wise when they're resold or I just just get an idea of how they're handled in the future say it's sold and as the deed reflect what it was purchased for originally and then I mean I think questions like that are asked.

So ultimately, there'll be an affordable housing agreement. There'll be deed restriction placed on the individual properties. Those will have first right of refusal. We have an outside program administrator who, when someone intends to sell any of the for sale BMPs, they contact the town and or the administrator and there's a process that that goes through.

Okay, thank you.

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

Hold on. Let me double check one item.

Thank you.

Sorry, can you repeat that question?

The question was in the staff report, Ms. Walters, if I heard it correctly, reported the parcel size is 6.7 acres. The staff report states it's 6.41 acres.

So I'm ready to answer. Thank you. I checked. And it was an error in the staff report. So it's 6.71 acres.

There any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay, we will now open the public hearing portion of this or the Yeah, the public hearing public portion of the public hearing on item number two and ask the applicant team please to come forward. Are you Lisa Ring? Yes. Okay, perfect. So this is, you will have five minutes to speak and then we'll take other public comments. So if anyone is here in the audience and wishes to speak on this item, please fill out a yellow card and you can give it to staff. NOW, AND THEN YOU'LL SPEAK AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER THREE MINUTES. AND IF YOU'RE ON ZOOM NOW IS THE TIME TO RAISE YOUR HAND. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LISA RING AND I'M A PLANNING CONSULTANT HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT SPONSOR. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON THE PROJECT AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR REVIEW THIS EVENING. OUR TEAM WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE TOWN STAFF FOR THEIR TIME AND EFFORTS ON REVIEW OF THE PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY AARON WALTERS AND THE PUBLIC WORKS STAFF FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE IN REFINING THE PROJECT TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS AS WELL AS GIVING US DIRECTION ON TOWN EXPECTATIONS. Although we are using Builder's Remedy for this project, we work diligently to meet or exceed most of the town design standards, including the town objective design standards. Our plan was to create a project that provides much needed housing, but that also fits into the character of the neighborhood and is appropriate for the site. We have worked collaboratively with the town staff, Valley Water District and other agencies, and have also made a maximum effort to work within the existing process. We have also met with many of the neighbors surrounding the property, and we have attempted to be good neighbors. We have made concessions and changes to our plan, as outlined earlier by staff, based upon the feedback of our neighbors. The urban catalyst team is here tonight, which includes the applicant, architect, landscape architect, and civil engineer, land use council, as well as a hydrologist and traffic engineer who worked on the project, should you have any specific questions regarding these topics. Thank you so much.

And thank you. Sorry, before you go, are there any questions for the applicant team at this time? Well, I mean, we'll have another opportunity at the end.

Okay.

Unless, yeah, unless there's something that needs to be clear, you know, that would be helpful to be clarified now for the public.

Yeah, I did want to ask, you mentioned that I think working with the town architect, I noticed that all of his suggestions, none of them were really accepted or followed through on it. Is that what you said, that they did? I mean, there was...

We worked with the town staff on meeting the objective design standards, even though it is a builder's remedy project. And there were many that the project is consistent with. And so even though that may not have been a requirement, we aimed to work to make the project as consistent with current town standards.

Okay so but some of the suggestions by the town architect you didn't feel you because none of those were really accepted like the vinyl windows and there was a few others that you know sort of stood out at you stood out that would be an important change or maybe

We could speak further to that. We have the architect here. So there were decisions made on that. I'm happy to get into the details for the reasoning for that. And we could ask our architect to elaborate on that further. OK.

Thank you. Do you want to do that now before the Yeah. Do you want to ask that? I mean, is that okay if the architect can, or if someone on the applicant team would be able to respond to the, you know, it's the comments on the residential design guidelines, which, again, we understand that you're not, you know. Right.

obliged to like follow but just some of the justification or response to that i think is what commissioner burnett is looking for um with roger with darling group uh we did look at both at the objective standards and the subjective standards the comments we received from i think the town architect and canon design was subjective it results it's i mean it is a little bit difficult to interpret because it's subjective right i mean you step down at the corners and how much do you step down so who was trying to find a fine balance between making the project viable and also trying to work with, still trying to keep the character. It's also, as you understand, with a three-story town, you kind of are limited to what you can do.

And I understand you are under no obligation because this is builder's remedy. You do not have to take any suggestions from our town architect. I'm just saying some of our projects in town have, and they've made the projects a little bit more Oh, similar to Los Gatos in general character. So because your answers from the town architect, none of them really were responded to in a positive way. They were noted, but that was about it. Some of the questions I would have would be like the vinyl windows or the air conditioner on the front steps. So I mean, just small things. I was just wondering why there wasn't a little bit more because you get so many concessions and you know builder's remedy you could do anything and so when you ask just for a few little changes here and there and like the step back on the third story although you say that would reduce the amount of units you'd have um i'm just saying i was just wondering why there would be a little bit more back and forth with our town architect

I mean, the ground floor air conditioning, I can relate. I mean, you either have to put it on the roof, as in if it's a flat roof, and we are trying to keep a lot of, there is aerial access requirements, as you know, for fire if you go over 20 feet. And if you have a flat roof, it would create a much more higher building than even what's now. So as in the idea was trying to bind a balance between where do you keep it, and it's also a row of townhomes, right? You have to provide your AC units in a certain location. So that, and I think the other question was,

No.

The step back was, I think, we are trying to find a balance between you've got the ground floor. We're trying to find a balance between trying to get enough bedrooms because, as you know, post-COVID, not just like, I mean, it's not the bedroom. It's actually the room that really matters. We are starting to see two-story townhomes being less prevalent and people preferring a three-bedroom townhome because they like that extra room. So just trying to find a fine balance between what you Reducing it on the upper level, if you look at a townhome, that's where your bedrooms are. So it would considerably reduce all your bedrooms, and it would make it unmarketable, to be honest.

Okay, thank you for that. I just have one question. I did. I did have a question about the vinyl windows. I mean, would there be any?

That I'll have to look into it. It's been, I mean, the secret took a long time, so it's really been, you know, I mean, since we've looked at the project, I don't like any details.

Okay, and maybe that air conditioner on the front porch. I don't know if I'd want that if I had bought a new unit. Anyway, thank you for that. And I appreciate it. And I think the plan in general is a nice plan. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STUBS.

JUST ONE QUESTION. I THINK IT FITS HERE BECAUSE WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR POTENTIALLY SOME COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS. MY QUESTION WOULD BE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH. COULD YOU PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH? DID IT GO BEYOND NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY LINE? AND IF SO, WHO WAS CONTACTED ON OCA ROAD?

I'M ERIC HAYDEN. I'M THE PROJECT APPLICANT. With urban catalyst, we received lots of different letters from neighbors. We primarily met with neighbors that own the mobile home park next door. We met with the, we met with the swim and racket club, and we met with the property owner that owns the property across the street who is also the property owner that owns the site. So we did meet with all of our adjacent neighbors. We did not have a lot of outreach with other neighbors further down the street. But overall, we did make some pretty decent concessions trying to be good neighbors, especially with the mobile home folks. And we plan to make all of the outreach that the JCC folks kind of requested in their long letter.

Thank you for that.

Uh, going back to the, uh, consulting architect comments if the architect wants to come back. Um. Yeah, I understand some of the suggestions would, you know, maybe lose some units or even potentially make the project infeasible. But I think there are some comments. That are little tweaks that perhaps could be implemented that wouldn't kill the project. Um. One, area G, residential building design number three. The consulting architect said, there are a number of locations on the facade where material and color changes are made in the same plane, which would not be consistent with community expectations as reflected in the town's residential design guidelines. Can you speak to, are there any areas of the facade where the material changes in the same plane?

I don't think so. I think it would be always on the internal corner if need be, or there would at least be a little bit of change in the plane. So generally we put a trim or something like that. You don't kind of slap one color next to the other color.

Right. Maybe we can talk about this later, but I looked at some of the elevations where you have windows, especially on the top floor, there's like a band that unites the window, but it looks like it's in the same plane as the cladding. I don't know if...

It's within the window frame. I think it would be in the same plane, but it's a change in material because it kind of blocks out the whole window.

Yeah. So I'm looking at your sheet, A22, A23. So this is like an A22, for instance. I'm speaking, let's say, let's look at the seven, sorry.

Can you bring it up on the screen?

Director Paulson, are you able to pull that?

Yeah, I can tell you which page of the package it is. It's page 374 of the package.

That wouldn't help me, but I'll see if I can pull it up another way.

There you go. Yeah, so the top elevation there, what I'm referring to is if you look at the top floor, you have two windows and then you have a gray band in between. Is that gray square in the same plane as the brown cladding around it, or is that a different plane?

That would be the same plane. You have a different wall face that would kind of change you not because that's kind of an accent. That is all the same point. It's like an insert panel.

Yeah, my suggestion or critique would be, I just feel like. I know you're following the objective standard of having 2 different materials. Um, with the stucco and then the siding, but. To me, the facades reading is a little bit busy. That's just my read of it. So if you could find any way to simplify that and perhaps maybe even consider what the consulting architect said about not having at least, it might be the same material, but even like color changes within the same plane. I think that might make the buildings read a little bit less visually chaotic.

I think that I just have a follow-up question to that because it does seem that the like the gray below on the second that goes down to the first floor also that looks like it's the same material which it's labeled as like the cement panel siding with the smooth finish um but then it is labeled on the actual like diagram as D, which is like the stucco, but it's not the correct color. So is the labeling the discrepancy? The visual is what it's supposed to look like. I guess that's what I'm asking, right? Correct. Okay. So I think that it's just mislabeled. Okay. Any other questions? No, not right now. Um, okay. The okey doke.

Okay, well, thank you very much.

We will now open the public portion of the public hearing on item number two. And I have one speaker card. So if anyone else wants to speak on this item, now is the time to submit your speaker cards to staff. And the first I have is Alex Camus. And you will have three minutes to speak. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Alex Hamas. I'm a resident of Los Gatos. I live less than three quarters of a mile from the proposed development. I'm here to share my enthusiastic support for this project. There are many reasons which make this an ideal location for more homes, including its proximity to a major job center and important community resources such as two religious institutions, a community center, an exercise club, and the Los Gatos Creek Trail. If these homes are built, imagine a family walking together to worship and exercise, or a teenager biking down the creek trail to get to school. Moreover, these homes would give more families access to the excellent schools in our town. We've seen the serious impact school closures can have on a community, and building more homes and increasing the number of students attending our neighborhood schools is one of the most important ways we can help mitigate that. If you don't believe that our schools have an enrollment problem, just look at how the number of enrolled students has changed in the last decade. In 2015-2016, Blossom Hill Elementary School, where students on Oco Road would go, had 668 students. This year it has 547, a decline of nearly 20% in 10 years. Meanwhile, Los Gatos High School has dropped 14%. I'm a teacher, and I've seen enrollment projections from the county, and they're not encouraging. We've already seen school closures in Cambrian, San Jose Unified, Alum Rock, and a few years ago, Cupertino and Evergreen. If we want our community schools to remain open, we need more families who can afford to live here and attend these schools. The decisions of this commission do not happen in a vacuum. Regarding concerns about parking, which I saw brought up a lot in public comment online, people who choose to live here will understand the number of spaces available to their home before moving in. In fact, these homes have more parking than needed for families like mine. My partner and I have one car. I hope that is a choice that we make. I hope the Planning Commission sees the value in approving projects like this one, not only to help Los Gatos meet its housing goals, but because communities like these give families like mine the opportunity to plant roots here at home. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Thank you. The next speaker card I have is for Gus Hu.

I guess that guy's a plant because I've seen him around in a lot of these high-rises. We already have traffic problems. I'm not for it or against it, but as a builder and as somebody that grew up in the area, and my dad was a civil engineer, worked for the Caltrans and did bridges and roads, and I know that... it was designed, an acre was designed for five houses. And this town had small roads already, it wasn't even considered, it was supposed to be a town, it wasn't supposed to be a city. And so you have to take that into consideration. Another thing is the 10-day rule. I don't think this is, the public at large is not informed that you're throwing up another, you know, anything over 50 units should be, the town should be out in the paper. You know, it's unfair to the town. Again, as a builder, I like the projects. I don't know, 138, I think is it Nob Hill, doesn't have parking. I don't know how much parking space is here, but all the high rises don't have enough parking. You gotta make sure there's enough parking, and that the community, a little bit farther away, if they're going shopping and stuff like that, people are already complaining. You guys are already in trouble, the town's already in trouble. It's traffic, traffic, traffic. You hear it all the time, and you have to take that into consideration. You don't, oh, we're gonna keep on building, oh, I like this, you know? I know if there'd be more people here if you put a 10-day rule. So just, again, I don't mind the three stories. It's more like the higher rates, but anything over 50 units, please tell the public, thanks.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? The last speaker card I have is for Lee Fago.

Good evening and appreciate the work you're doing, staff, the commission, and the developer in working in the community to try to come up with some good solutions on a challenge of this site. And why that site was chosen, I'm just not quite sure, because Oka Road is a one-way in and out, which precludes a lot of emergency issues that have to be remedied before any development goes further. There are already a number of business units, religious units, and residential units on Oka Road, including north of Highway 85, all in that area up there. And they all have to enter and exit on Oka Road onto Lark Avenue, which itself is another very busy street. The concern that I have is that safety issue. Yes, they're on a water, plain watershed. They are on a fault line. And so I think being limited to only three stories high is movement in the right direction, but you're still building on very unstable soil. The concern back to the issue of going in and out on Oka Road, Santa Clara County Fire, who provides a service to our town, has indicated that they are not going to go onto a road if people are evacuating the road. They don't want their equipment to block the people exiting. And if there is some emergency, fire, earthquake, whatever, those people are trying to exit. And so Santa Clara County Fire is not going to try to go in. Their equipment is too big, too wide, too heavy. to go off of Oka Road to try and get around. I understand the developer proposed a 15-foot modification to part of Oka Road, but is that to make it wider? That would help solve the problem. Or is it just moving it over a bit of 15 feet? I didn't understand. I couldn't figure out what was meant by that. And it's really nice to have a new development. This was not in an area that was part of the housing element. And the reason is those safety issues. EVEN THOUGH BUILDER'S REMEDY IS IN PLACE, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT LET'S USE COMMON SENSE, LOGIC AND A SENSE OF COMMUNITY TO TRY TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND THE NEW RESIDENTS TO COME. somehow have the developer make a new exit on that road, or I'm sorry, in the development along the creek trail. There could be some building there that, of streets, pathway, or not a pathway, it has to be for motorized vehicles along there. Thank you.

Thank you, are there any questions for the speaker? Okay, I don't have any more speaker cards from the audience. Are there any hands raised on Zoom?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, so I now invite the applicant team to come back up and you have an additional three minutes to make a closing statement and then we will, I'm sure that we will have more questions for you all, so thank you.

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

Mr. Mayor.

Yeah, let's just stay on the topic of fire safety that was brought up by the last public comment that you just spoke to. With Santa Clara County fire, you just indicated that the project met their requirements. Can you speak to what other fire safety measures that the project has taken besides, you know, complying with road widths? Like, obviously the buildings are probably sprinklered. Is there extra, you know, WATER CAPACITY AT THE SITE IN THE CASE OF A FIRE? ARE THERE ANY OTHER FIRE SAFETY MEASURES THAT YOU CAN SPEAK TO?

I COULD ALSO DEFER TO THE ARCHITECT ON THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIRED CODES. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS ANYTHING ADDITIONALLY THAT WAS NEEDED, BUT IT IS IN MEETING WITH THE SITING REQUIREMENTS, SPRINKLERS, AND MEETING THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE.

Yeah, I mean, there's a code compliance, and then oftentimes the Santa Clara County Fire Department will have additional comments about that. Maybe staff or someone else can speak to that later, but I was just curious how those conversations went.

Yeah, my understanding is that they felt that it met the necessary requirements to provide safety at this site.

Thanks.

Other questions? Commissioner Stump.

I'M GOING TO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON SETBACK, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND ALSO GUEST PARKING, SO LET ME JUST KIND OF CUE THAT UP FOR YOU IF YOU NEED TO BRING SOMEBODY ELSE UP. IN FACT, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START THE QUESTION. THE FRONT SETBACK IS 8 FEET 6 INCHES, OBVIOUSLY, VERSUS THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 25 FEET WOULD ALMOST PUT FRONT PORCHES ON THE STREET. Obviously your project is requesting exceptions for both front and rear setbacks where they are again eight foot six in the front yard and 15 feet two inches in the back. During your design process, knowing that you would probably be requesting these exceptions under builder's remedy, did you consider any design where the front setback would be increased and maybe decrease the rear setback to

Provide greater front setback versus greater rear setback Yes, no because as an eye if you look at the site plan the rear of the buildings actually is the alley so you I It's like your rear side back from a building itself is to the center line of the alley. And on the top, you have the units fronting onto the creek side. So it's, again, a front side back from a building standpoint as in how you live, right? So it's like we had two fronts. If it was just a single building, then you'd see as in the Oka side would be the front and the back would be the... But you kind of are looking at multiple buildings. It's just trying to find a fine balance between kind of... Because the rear of every building is the alley. That's kind of regulated as to where the cars are. And we were determined to put the... garages in the back and not have the garages front onto the streets to at least create a visually you know and the way the town homes live is they live on the upper floors if you kind of have seen so as in having it as a slightly urban feel of like trying to have a the sidewalk the planting and then kind of a porch and then you live on the upper floor that does create a public space semi-private space in my public space and then the transition into a private space

Mayor Mrakas, yeah follow up on the setback question, have you developed other projects of this size and scale, with a front setback comparable to the proposed front setback in this project is sometimes it's even closer to an urban setting like it's just depends on how you transition the space.

And like I said, the ground floor, it's not a living, if it was a ground floor living space where you directly look into it, that's a little bit of a privacy issue. You live on the second floor and the bedrooms are on the third floor. So kind of the ground floor space is mostly, most likely a secondary room or an office or something like that. So it does create a nice kind of transition.

When you answer part of my other follow-up, which was- Sorry, can I just ask, could we just get the visual like of maybe page, I think that it would just help maybe, Page 355, I don't know. Is that it?

I don't have numbers. What's the sheet number?

The sheet is A3. A3. Because I think that it would just like help with the, it's, you know.

guess while he's getting that just i think i can ask the follow-up it sounds like you you know you've identified sometimes there are issues and concerns with a setback a front setback that is that small have you run into other any issues or concerns on a eight foot six inch setback in other projects

so okay so this is the all right so when you're commissioner stump sorry i know that you're referring to like the front the front setback but technically like the front setback is the where the driveway where the streets are inter internally yeah because it's where the driveways are it's like where the driveways are all in the back like it's like it's like an alley so but technically IT'S CONSIDERED A STREET BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

I THINK IT'S 26 FEET WIDE. IS THAT CORRECT? THE INDIVIDUAL STREETS OR ARE THEY NARROWER THAN THAT? 20 FEET WIDE. THE ONES ON THE OUTSIDE ARE THE LARGER STREETS. BUT I WAS JUST CONCERNED, AGAIN, AN EIGHT FOOT, SIX INCH FRONT SETBACK IS KIND OF ALMOST STEPPING OUT INTO THE STREET FROM A HOMEOWNER PERSPECTIVE.

BUT THAT'S LIKE THE BACK SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

COULD STRATH PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION? YEAH. SO THE FRONT SETBACK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ALONG OCA ROAD. SO THEY'RE THE UNITS FACING OCA ROAD. THAT'S THE MINIMUM DIMENSION ALONG THERE IS EIGHT FEET, SIX INCHES.

Okay, so that's, okay, I see. I was not sure if you were referring to like all of the, all on the internal parts of those roads or because his answer is about, I mean, you were responding with regards to the backside of it. So you're specifically just talking about what it's like along Oka Road. Correct. Correct.

And do you want to yeah, if you need to follow up to get a question in on building height, obviously, we got a clarification in the staff report that building height is going to vary from somewhere between 42 feet.

And I, I do want to clarify on that 1, the way the building height, the town measures building height is from existing. So that is not exactly how the how tall the building would be. the building would be built from. You'd feel the building from the proposed grade. And I think there's considerable fill on the site.

Sorry, you can move the microphone if you need to. Sorry, thank you.

So the way town measures height or defines height is from existing grade. And there's actually quite a lot of fill on the site. So when we say 42 to 44 as the range, that's actually from the existing grade. So when the building's actually built, you'd be EXPERIENCING THE BUILDING FROM THE PROPOSED GATE, NOT WHAT THE SITE WAS BEFORE AS IN CONSTRUCTION. SO I THINK IT'S AROUND, THERE MIGHT BE PLACES WHERE IT'S AROUND TWO FEET OF FILL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, DEPENDING ON THE GRADING. SO AS IN THE BUILDING WOULD BE AS IN MORE CLOSER TO 39 TO 40 FEET AS YOU'D EXPERIENCE IT, NOT 42 TO 44.

SO THEN YOU KIND OF ANTICIPATED ONE OF MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU HOW MANY FEET OR INCHES HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE BUILDING HIGH TO ADDRESS THE MODELED 100-YEAR FLOOD PLANE.

Three and a half. Three and a half.

I'm sorry.

Three and a half.

Three and a half feet. Is that consistently across the property or does that vary?

It varies. It's three and a half feet towards the back right portion. Okay. This tapers down about halfway through to no fill. So it kind of varies throughout the site.

I'm sorry. From what to three and a half feet? Zero. Okay.

Yeah. Half the site is about zero. Okay. And then it kind of gradually goes up to three and a half feet is the maximum.

SO THE OCA ROAD, JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT, THE OCA ROAD ELEVATION IS NOT LIKE THAT, THAT GRADING AREA IS NOT CHANGING. SO WHEN WE SAY LIKE 40, IT RANGES FROM 40, BUT YOU SAID IT RANGES FROM 42 TO 44, BUT I THOUGHT THE MAXIMUM WAS 40. yeah thank you um the maximum for an r18 zone is 30 feet so that's they're proposing over that no i i'm sorry i thought i saw in the plans that it was for that the building heights were 40 maybe i'd miss maybe it's 42 and i just miss saw that okay thank you for clarifying that Are there any other questions, I guess, about grading? Now would be the time to ask anything, I guess, about grading or the building heights or the front setback along OCRA.

Can I ask a question about the recreational space in the back? Yeah. Could you sort of give an idea of what we're talking about? You know, visually, when we talk about the space that's going to be in the far right,

Sure.

What size is that about?

Can you? It's about 0.44 acres. The majority of the site is taken up by a retention pond for C3 runoff. There is a pathway around that and some landscaping.

Four acres?

0.44. Oh, 0.4.

I was so excited. Okay, 0.4 acres. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Okay, did you wanna go to your next? Okay.

I wanted to, again, I wanna say thank you for your parking for the homes. Basically having the equivalent, even though we don't recognize tandem parking, you're providing two spaces per home. That's very, very helpful. What's a bit concerning, of course, is the guest parking where we would require 138 spaces and 20 spaces will be provided. And it's always a concern in these neighborhoods. Where do all those cars go? Could you go over what road improvements are going to take place right in front of your development, either one side of the road or both sides of the road?

Sure. So along the street frontage on Oka Road, we're doing a five-foot dedication of right-of-way. We will be rebuilding curb, gutter, and sidewalk, as well as 14 new street trees. There will be a new bike lane striped, and there will be parking spaces all along Oka Road, where currently there is no parking.

PROBABLY NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

I THINK WE ALSO ARE GOING TO BE REPAVING THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.

SO IT WOULD BE PAVED BUT NO CURB AND GUTTER.

THAT'S CORRECT.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE STREET WIDTH IS AT THAT POINT AND WHAT THE EFFECTIVE STREET WIDTH WILL BE?

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER. THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO MATCH PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE JCC. IF YOU TAKE THE FULL FINISHED ROAD IN FRONT OF THE JCC FROM THE JCC TO THE APARTMENTS, IT'S ABOUT 44 FEET FROM CURB TO CURB.

WHAT AMOUNT OF PARKING WOULD ACTUALLY BE AVAILABLE? UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S A FREE-FOR-ALL, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC CAN PARK IN FRONT OF THOSE UNITS, ANY IDEA OF HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WOULD BE OUT IN FRONT OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD PARKING BE ALLOWED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET?

AS FAR AS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, THAT'S PER THE CITY, SORRY, PER THE TOWN. OUR SITE, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OF SPACES, STAFF, DO YOU REMEMBER?

Yes, there's approximately 45 parking spaces that can be parked in front along Oka Road.

Thank you.

Just right in front of the property? That doesn't include like all the way up to Lark from in front of the JCC or the other side, correct? I can confirm that with public work once. They're shaking their head now, so.

Yes, it's just Mike Vroman, town engineer, traffic engineer, Parks and Public Works, and yes, it does include just in front of the property. It's a little over 1,000 feet, and we deducted for the driveways, but there's approximately 45 parking spaces will be available.

Okay. Okay.

I guess since we have you here, then maybe I can ask Public Works the question, will parking be permissible on the other side of the street, even though there's no curb, there's no gutter?

Actually, parking is permissible on the other side of the street at this time. It's banned from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m. And we haven't had complaints or concerns about where people park, but it is pretty tight. I was a little surprised when I went out there to do an investigation and found that. But currently you can. On the project side, there is no parking signs along that, and there will be parking as was noted.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

So just as a follow-up question to that when we're talking about road improvements if the road is going to be paved and a bike lane is going to be like striped on the you know your side of the road is there would you guys be willing to do the bike if it's if Parks and Public Works Feels that it could be helpful. Would you be willing to add a bike lane striping on the opposite side since THE RESIDENTS WILL BE GOING DOWN THAT DIRECTION ALSO TO GET INTO YOUR?

YOU KNOW, FOR US, STRIPING ISN'T REALLY THAT EXPENSIVE, BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT REQUIRED WITH BUILDER'S REMEDY TO EVEN DO THE STRIPING FOR THE BIKE LANES ON OUR SIDE OF THE ROAD. WE OFFER THAT AS A CONCESSION BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. KIND OF FIGURE EVENTUALLY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD WILL BE DEVELOPED AND THEY CAN

So that's a, I know, I mean, I understand, you know, I've, this is not my first rodeo with these types of projects, but other, you know, stuff that is not that expensive, typically like, you know, we have made asks and sometimes people have been like, yeah, sure. That's something that's easy that we can do. But if you're not, if you don't, aren't willing to do it, then that's totally fine. But I, I'm aware that you're not required to do any of it. So. I'LL LET COMMISSIONER OR IS THIS MORE ABOUT ROAD? OKAY.

STILL ON THE SAME GENERAL TOPICS OF PARKING AND BICYCLES. ONE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD THAT WASN'T COMPLIED WITH WAS A 2.1 WHICH IS PROVIDING SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RESIDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR BIKES IN THEIR GARAGES WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE. GIVEN THE PROXIMITY TO THE CREEK TRAIL HERE, AND I JUST THOUGHT OF IT WHEN THE PUBLIC COMMENTER WAS TALKING ABOUT THE FAMILIES AND FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. You know, I could see a world where they get visitors coming to visit them on the Creek Trail, right? So even though I think, you know, maybe providing one bike, short-term bike parking per every unit might be excessive given the site constraints, has there been any consideration of providing any at all? You know, even just a few? Maybe.

So the town of Los Gatos has interesting design standards when it comes to this density of a project. It's almost like you have design standards for single family and you have design standards for like apartments. And so because we're a higher density, we're really fitting into that apartment design standard. And so a lot of the design standards that are called out, like provide a bike room with lots of bike parking, it's really more for an apartment type of development. having people hang their bicycles in their garages is very appropriate for this type of development, so we did not consider creating a separate area for bike parking.

So I think that the question was really about if people had guests, so you're not, you wouldn't think that this type of development, anyone would possibly have a guest that could come on a bike, that they're not going to have guest bike hanging racks? in their garages for, so no plans for having one bike rack anywhere on the site?

That's correct.

OK. Director Paulson, can you bring the site plan back up, please? Okay, I just want to get clarity here. Where is the access point to the Creek Trail from your property?

The closest access to the Creek Trail is going out to Lark, turning right and going to the bridge and right at the bridge.

Okay, so striping the new bike lane will help get access from the trail entry point there. Only that way. Okay, understood, thanks.

I have a question about access to the Creek Trail, and I think first that it would be helpful if staff just clarify, what is it, Fremont Court, which is not, I mean it technically is a court, but who owns and is responsible for maintaining that road, quote unquote, behind the property? I WOULD DEFER TO PUBLIC WORKS.

JAMES WATSON, SENIOR ENGINEER, PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS. ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE TRAIL ALONG THE CREEK ON THE PROPERTY SIDE OF THE CREEK?

YEAH, IT'S LABELED ONLINE AS QUOTE, UNQUOTE FREMONT COURT ON MAPS AND EVERYTHING BUT I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND IT'S LIKE I BELIEVE VALLEY, I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT owners of it and how it's maintained and so i was just curious about who's responsible for what portions of it that that road no quasi road is actually owned by the town of los gatos um okay part the part that's behind the property some of it i know that it connects all the way to they're different

Yeah, I'm sure there's some variation in ownership, but I know the town of Los Gatos owns the parcel that's directly adjacent to this project site. It's just to the west of the project.

Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Walters.

And if staff could add, there's an easement that Valley Water has throughout that whole, through all the lands behind that property and beyond. And so that's maintenance for them and access for them only.

Okay, so I guess one, did you guys think at all about trying to work with the town and or Valley Water with adjusting the easement so that your potential property and residents could get access through to the Creek Trail from the backside of the property?

So the creek trail along the creek here is on the other side.

No, I understand. I get it. But it's right. It connects at the end of that Fremont road.

We did not make outreach mainly because we're under the impression that Valley water doesn't want anyone to have access to it. It is completely fenced and gated on both sides.

Okay. So, um. Now that you know that the town of Los Gatos owns that, and although there is an easement and Valley Water does have access to it, or I mean, you know, through that, I don't know what modifications could possibly be made, but is there potential in the future from the perspective of staff that... Anything could be adjusted so that there could be a ped and bike connection like through that Backside or through in conjunction with maybe even the JCC or something just to provide access in that way, especially because of The concerns about being able to you know get off-site quickly for evacuations, etc. I

Yeah, Nicole Burnham director of parks and public works that was not considered as part of the project. There's nothing in any town master plan or the general plan that I'm aware of that proposes trail connection here. And when we evaluate projects, that's generally what we refer back to. So it wasn't it wasn't discussed or considered.

So. Does that mean that it could not be considered in the future? I mean, I think that obviously when we wrote, well, the most recent part of the general plan was repealed anyway with part of, well, I guess, yeah, some of the land use and everything. But I understand that it's like, you know, not currently in the master plan because this was not a site that had a bunch of, you know, 138. multi-gen units in it, but now that it is, is that something in the future that the town would possibly be interested in doing or not?

I think if we were, we would evaluate that idea against all of the other myriad ideas that may come around during the development of a parks and trails master plan for the town, which we currently don't have, but is on our list of things to do.

your long list of many things to do okay I was just wondering because I do think that it would be like a huge advantage to have access to for residents to be able to get not have to go all the way out to Lark and then turn right get on the bridge you know go off the bridge and be able to connect directly especially because you can get like in you know towards downtown Los Gatos and to Campbell REALLY, YOU KNOW, EASILY ALONG THAT TRAIL, AND SO I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A LARGE ADVANTAGE FOR RESIDENTS THAT LIVED IN THIS AREA, AND SO I OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY BEING CONSIDERED AT THE TIME, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER PROJECTS AND THINGS WHERE WE'VE SEEN THAT APPLICANTS HAVE, YOU planned for maybe a future connection or been willing to you know support or you know pay for some improvements to the area so that they're so that they could have those those connections and things even if it's not again a requirement or in a current plan at the moment so is that something that you guys would be interested in maybe considering with the design and the the along that back part of your property so that there's a connection there?

I can give you the short answer and say we don't plan on considering it this time. But I can also say that this is a levee. It's four to six feet above grade of where the project site is. It is a dead end. It dead ends into the neighborhood that is on the other side of the 85 freeway. It has a gate in that neighborhood. There's a gate right at the property line. Sorry.

I understand all of it. Yeah, I know. But it also is like the connection to the trail is right there.

I think you also have some issues with Los Gatos Police Department as far as access to that trail and where people would go. You probably find that people going down the Los Gatos Creek Trail would get distracted and go the wrong way to a dead end and have to backtrack. So there's a lot of reasons why it probably hasn't been considered.

Okay. Okay. So, yeah. Okay.

ON THAT POINT, SORRY, THIS IS MORE JUST NOT SO MUCH FOR THE APPLICANT BUT FOR THE TOWN. I FEEL LIKE IT IS KIND OF A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO NOT THINK MORE HOLISTICALLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE PROJECTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE COMING TO TOWN, LIKE ONCE IN A GENERATION PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE CERTAIN AREAS OF THE TOWN. FOR A LONG TIME. AND, YOU KNOW, ON THE ONE HAND I'M REALLY GLAD WE'RE GETTING THESE HOUSING UNITS AND ESPECIALLY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I THINK WE NEED MORE HOUSING IN LOS GATOS BUT JUST TO THINK OF THIS AS A SELF-CONTAINED ISLAND AND NOT THINK MORE HOLISTICALLY ABOUT THE TOWN I THINK IS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY.

Okay, so other questions, any other questions about the road situations or improvements or anything like that? No.

Commissioner Burnett. Yes, thank you. So just to address your CC and ours, which go with the property and of course, are in our conditions of approval. Could you just go over what it what that covers? Does that cover all the maintenance of the property in general or the trees and just sort of get an idea?

In the conditions of approval, it says we have to write CC&Rs to get building permits. So we have not written the CC&Rs yet. The CC&Rs will be pretty standard and they'll cover all of the usual things like property maintenance and HOA issues and things like that.

And the HOA issues as well. And just thinking, you know, I know we've been discussing all the, I know there's 997 trips related to this property in and out during the day. And I didn't go over the peak hours, but because you have two roads, it would probably be divided up. I know that where the mobile home area on that side is especially impacted by, and it's nice that you made a change in the, ALIGNMENT THERE WHICH WAS HELPFUL BY 15 FEET. SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE ALSO SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT. THERE ARE TWO ROADS AND SO PROBABLY THE PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WILL BE DIVIDED UP. ONE SIDE WILL BE GOING OUT ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER WON'T BE CONCENTRATED ON THE ONE NORTH DRIVEWAY WHICH IS HADEN LANE. I just wanted to bring that up, that there would be, you know, two exits and entrances. Thank you. No, my question was about the CC&Rs, what they were covering. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I think you had another question about something. No? You covered your... Commissioner Mayer, did you want to ask specifically about the change they were willing to accept your recommendation on the color that you were talking about with the architect earlier?

Yes. Is the applicant willing to accept the consulting architect's recommendation to not have change in material in the same plane?

Not at this time, no. Thank you.

Uh, is there a reason for that? It's, um, that that particular standard wouldn't. Impact the form or the floor plan at all.

You know, I, I answer the question we don't plan on making changes at this time.

Okay, it's just a color change. It's not a material change.

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

Okay, or sorry, did you have a follow-up to that? Okay, so I do have a couple of questions about The landscaping, so is your landscape architect here to answer any questions?

Ah, our landscape architect is on Zoom.

Okay.

His name's Brian.

Okay, perfect.

Well, I see a Sean with his hand raised.

Oh, it's Sean. Oh, maybe it's Sean, okay. Hi, Sean. Thank you for being here to answer questions. I did have a couple. I did want to say that when I looked at your planting list and notes and legend, I was happily, you know, happy to see a lot of native species on there. But I did want to ask why. why there were um well basically almost every tree species is native except for the um the maidenhair tree or the the ginkgos and that's the tree that you'll be planting the most and then a lot of the uh other landscaping uh that like shrubs and grasses are also almost all natives, and so I just was wondering if you could explain why you chose the one non-native tree to plant most, even though most of the landscaping is native species.

Yeah, good evening. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Awesome. Yeah, so it's a pleasure to be here from HMH, and so good evening, Commission, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the landscape. Your particular question, what we try to do is a balance between adaptive plants and our native species. In a density like this, I think we wanted to look for a balance for plant success and diversity. um so we like the ginkgo because of its color it complements the palette and it's going to do very well in this a little bit tighter urban urban type setting so it's it's diversified like that and then we're sprinkling in all of the other native species on our plant palette our shrubs our ground cover and our trees dispersed through the site for that native habitat and benefit So in the event something native doesn't do so great, we still have a proven winner of our adaptive trees, such as the ginkgo, that we've observed doing very well on similar projects with this density.

Okay, so there's... Okay, I understand that there's not really a great native alternative to the Ginkgo with regards to color. Well, I mean, with regards to the color plus the size of them. But we're, I mean, a lot of times... I was, the Ginkgo does provide good color, like I said, but it does drop, you know, it is deciduous. So was that intentional to pick something that's deciduous that requires, you know, cleanup and more landscaping fees and HOA fees? And or, you know, provides less canopy coverage and privacy overall?

No, I think it was mostly, you know, leaf color. The size of the tree works well in the Paseo. It does drop leaves, but not for very long. Its dormancy period is very short. We know there will be an active HOA maintaining this project, and then we're going to, you know, not spec the female that drops all the fruit and makes sticky walkways and all of that. We still think it's a really good Paseo tree. Down the garden Paseos just works well with the design and the architecture.

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

Okay, and then what were the, do you know what they were before, what the proposed trees were before?

I can't remember what the proposed trees were. REDWOOD.

THAT WAS A GOOD CHANGE FROM THERE. DID YOU CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE A LAUREL INSTEAD BECAUSE IT IS GREEN ALL YEAR ROUND AND IT IS NOT QUITE THE SAME COLOR GREEN AS THE GINKO BUT IT STILL PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CONTRAST THAN SOME OF OUR OTHER NATIVES BUT IT IS NOT DECIDUOUS SO IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE SHADE AND PRIVACY ON THE JCC SIDE AND THE OTHER SIDE.

We considered Ginkgo and that's what we went with.

OK, the I was asking the architect.

Yeah, we we did. We looked at. We thought of a several different trees and just settled on the Ginkgo. Just for architectural shape, the size and we like the leaf color.

So did you consider laurels at all? And if you did, why didn't you decide on them?

No particular reason. We just looked at the list of approved trees and felt that Ginkgo had the best fit. Nothing against the laurel. I don't think it's a wrong answer either.

So from your opinion, do you feel like that would be a, like, I mean, there's 110 ginkgos being planted, which is a lot of the same tree considering, I mean, that's like 40, 50. like almost 55% of all the trees that will be planted will be Ginkgos, which are not native and also will all be the same and all dropping leaves at the same time. So from your professional opinion as the landscape architect, would you consider that mixing in some laurels or swapping some of those out would be something that would be appropriate and meet the needs, everyone's needs?

I think doing an alternate pattern with a different species could work well.

Okay, so considering that, do you think that the app, I guess I'm just asking the applicant team in general now, is that something that you would be willing to do?

We don't plan on changing our architecture or our landscape architecture. I know you guys keep asking, but the answer is we don't plan on changing it this time.

OK. OK. Well, then I guess I will also just ask a question of the landscape architect about the plant species that are being planted the the there were not numbers like in quantities obviously given of some of the smaller um shrubs because you know you don't know specifically how many need to go in wherever um and i think the variety is um going to be like really really nice is there um a reason that the i mean again almost all of these are natives except for the catmint and the jerusalem sage i believe um So can you just elaborate on why those two were included in the original plans?

Yeah, absolutely. It just goes back to success on similar projects. We kind of really like this plant palette. It will work in the different hydro zones and sun exposure. I think it's kind of dangerous to use only all natives everywhere just based on... time of year that plants go dormant, their requirements. We always try to mix in a little bit of Mediterranean adaptive species to complement and work with the palette. So kind of taking all those things into consideration is why you'll see adaptive species mixed in throughout the plant palette.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think that, I mean, looking at the list, there's a lot of different species on here that will be really interesting that are going to really highlight some of the most beautiful native plants that we have in this area. And they do kind of typically grow well in some of the adjacent more wild areas, especially if some of the invasive species are kept out and the landscaping is maintained, which it will be. So I think that it's a really cool opportunity and i appreciate that there are the list is pretty extensive to provide some variety and some of these species do well in sun and shade so i think that that's going to be really great for the future residents of this property if it goes forward my last question regarding the uh landscaping is that valley water did provide um a letter um you know commenting kind of like on the mnd and everything and um we were i was just wondering if um you know that i understand that THIS PROPERTY AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS FARTHER AWAY FROM THE TECHNICAL RIPARIAN AREA, ET CETERA, BUT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION IN, YOU KNOW, THEY DID RECOMMEND THAT ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE RIPARIAN HABITAT AND THE RIPARIAN SPECIES BE INCLUDED THERE, AND SO WAS THAT CONSIDERED AT ALL IN THE PLANS?

Yeah, I think so with our plant planting selection, it does offer the opportunity when we go in and plant this shrub by shrub and ground cover by ground cover that the backside of the property that is more organic in nature, as we have the trail system back there around our biotreatment planters and all of that, that we will definitely use that as an opportunity to transition from the more rectilinear design into an organic design. And we will, the plant palette will reflect that and we will focus the native beneficial planting toward that side of the site.

okay thank you um okay so i think that um thank you for answering those questions about that and i know that there's some on the other side of the uh on the other side of the creek there um are some older Native plants that have done really well on that other side other than the redwoods that are over there But some of those other native plants have done really well over there So I would just like you know hope that the same is gonna happen on on this side also So thank you very much. Are there any other questions for the applicant team?

Okay Sure okey-doke

We will, I'm gonna officially close the public comment period for this item, and I ask that if we have questions for staff, we can do that. We can't, we should not discuss until there's a motion on the table. But if there's any questions for staff that are important for forming a motion, now is the time to do that. You want me to, or yeah, sorry, yes, Commissioner Stone.

I want to just ask a question about what we are being asked to approve here, because obviously this must go to the town council for the vesting tentative map. So are we submitting a recommendation for approval? I see a head nod, so we'll go with the recommendation for approval.

I did have a question about the conditions, sorry, the conditions of approval. Let me, just with regards to the construction and like during construction, I know that for all of these projects, this one included, some of the neighbors have you know, some concerns about during construction traffic on construction vehicles on Ochre Road. And I know in the past we've, you know, kind of adjusted some of the conditions of approval to make sure they meet the site-specific requirements. So can we just make sure that everything's covered with regards to idling and making sure that, okay. Yeah, thank you.

James Watson parks and public works, our standard conditions of approval do include all of those sort of construction related. No idling max dust control measures. Make sure that we're not seeing vehicles travel through the graded area and create a bunch of dust. We have conditions about construction parking and where they can park. We have conditions about haul routes that define where they can haul material off and off on and off the site. Those are the ones that just come to mind right away. Is there any particular one that's concerning?

No, I think it was just the confirming about the like idling and the making sure that they're they have space like on site for all the loading and offloading and everything.

So, they did propose a construction management plan, which shows a construction entrance, and they'll do most of their work on site. And so they'll pull onto the site. And so I don't anticipate a lot of vehicles off site idling. We could revisit the conditions and make sure if you see something missing that we can potentially amend.

Commissioner so yeah, it's just a point of clarification before we go into further questions related to staff since we're operating under Rosenberg's rules Do we need to have a motion on the table before we continue questions of staff?

No, you do not for questions of staff just prior to discussion amongst the commissioners. I

Okay, I'll just confirm that the conditions, the current conditions of approval for the off-site, you know, or the off-road being installing, everything like that aligns specifically for this project while Commissioner Stump is asking his other questions. Thank you.

Just to queue it up here, I'm going to have a question on CEQA, the general plan, and traffic. And so I just wanted to let you know that in case you want to have other people respond if they have CEQA questions, et cetera. So I'll begin with CEQA. Um, in the mitigated negative declaration report, it states that obviously the state legislature back in 2013 did away with level of service as the basis for environmental analysis under sequel. Can you briefly explain how the change to vehicle miles traveled has either benefited or disadvantaged suburban areas? And by the way, I realize I may be asking for your professional opinion on that versus something that is statutory. But again, my question is, can you explain how the change to vehicle miles traveled has either benefited or disadvantaged suburban areas like Los Gatos?

That's a big question. Angela DeRosa with Rainy Planning and Management. We're the CEQA consultants for the town. We prepared the mitigated negative declaration. It's definitely been a change. So the shift from level of service, which is really focused on congestion, traffic congestion and intersection control, TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MEANS THAT UNDER CEQA WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT LOS AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION WHICH A LOT OF THE COMMENT LETTERS THAT WE GOT WERE RELATED TO. SO UNDER CEQA WE ARE FOCUSED ON WHETHER THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITHIN AN AREA. based on my professional opinion, it is difficult for smaller rural areas, particularly for single family residential developments to meet state vehicle miles traveled standards.

And through the chair, I'll offer something real quick that The traffic engineer, Mr. Roman, can correct me at any second on. But some jurisdictions also, when they went to VMT, it's my understanding they got rid of LOS. For us, we felt it was necessary for the town to keep both, so while it's not a CEQA issue, it still is addressed through the town's traffic impact analysis process.

AND AS I RECALL IN THE REPORT, THERE WAS INFORMATION IN THERE ON LOS.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND BASICALLY INDICATED THAT EVEN ON AN LOS BASIS, WE WERE NOT GOING TO SEE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.

THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

I REALIZE THERE WAS ONE INTERSECTION IN PARTICULAR THAT WAS IMPACTED.

I THINK IT REMAINED IN THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE. I WANT TO SAY B. BUT I WILL DEFER TO THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER IF THAT'S INCORRECT.

Yes, Mike Froman, Senior Traffic Engineer, Parks and Public Works. Yes, the unsignalized intersection and all, it's at Mill Road and Arroyo Grande Way, was currently level of service E, and with the project will remain at the level of service E. So that was, it was no impact from the project, but it is an unsignalized intersection. They have a little different way of measuring the level of service at those.

Yeah, hang on a minute. Do we have the, a representative from Hexagon with us tonight as well?

I believe we do. Daniel Choi. You can unmute yourself, Daniel, if you want to answer the question.

I'm gonna fire away here. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. I WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT OVER 30 RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC AND YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC CONGESTION WERE OBVIOUSLY RAISED BECAUSE what people see is what they feel. And vehicle miles traveled is a very difficult thing for people to understand. Out of those 30 plus public comments, traffic congestion and emergency response access were mentioned 14 times. So you can see a significant concern. They believe it's bad now, and based on their day-to-day experiences, intuition, logic would say it's probably going to get worse, whether that's what the studies really tell us or not. And as you know, transportation studies are very hard to understand. Pages and pages of appendix and certainly the summaries are greatly appreciated. um the question that um i have i guess probably for our traffic consultant the conclusion of your sequoia vehicle miles traveled analysis for this project is shown on page 16 of your report your conclusions two of them were tied to project impact and project effect project impact red since the vmt service population for the project has Is 22.6, which is less than 26.1. The project would not have a significant impact. Can you perhaps preferably not using math? Explain this conclusion what what does this mean in kind of simple terms?

Yeah, so under project impact that's evaluated against the, the towns project impact. Threshold. So the vehicle mile travel per service population for the project is less than the town's impact threshold

Okay, then I guess I would have the same question for project effect because it's different math. It's a different look. It says since the increased in VMT is less than 6.5% of baseline conditions, the project would not have a significant impact. Again, could you explain that in simple terms? What does not having a significant impact to project effect mean?

Yeah, so my last response. This, uh, we calculate the vehicle model proper for the entire project under project effect. And it would not exceed the, uh, the town's impact guidelines.

And through the chair. So to kind of broadly overview, the town has adopted thresholds. If you are above those, it's an impact and you will have to do some mitigation. If it's below that from a CEQA perspective, there's no impact, which is what the traffic engineer was referring to.

So then you're saying is we do have to do the math.

Well, you don't have to do the math other than the numbers less than the threshold. So it's not an impact.

Okay, thanks. And then a final question about traffic. As you are well aware, Los Gatos deals with beach traffic than on many Saturdays and Sundays from June through September, either snarls or cripples traffic on Los Gatos surface streets. And obviously Lark Avenue is a major feeder TO THIS TRAFFIC SITUATION WITH CARS GETTING OFF OF HIGHWAY 17 HEADING EAST TO LAS GATES BOULEVARD, HEADING WEST TO UNIVERSITY AVENUE AND WINCHESTER BOULEVARD. THE EASTBOUND TRAFFIC OBVIOUSLY ALL PASSES BY OCA ROAD. Are these kinds of known challenges at all factored in? And my response, if you were to ask me the question, is probably not. But I got to ask the question because this is a problem we live with for months out of the year that impact all of those intersections along Lark Avenue, both east and west.

Yeah. We completed a level of service analysis for the AM and PM weekday peak hours, which is when a residential generator, such as this project would generate the most peak hour trips. We did not take a look at weekend traffic.

And again, through the chair, the town has a traffic impact policy that speaks to, I believe what is analyzed. So beach traffic, or if there's an accident on 17, those are not included in that policy and therefore they're not included in those kind of worst case scenarios as you're referencing.

I will ask a follow-up question about some of the traffic issues, not specifically related to the project. You know, I understand that a lot of the public comment that has come is because there's currently, you know, congestion in this area, in this intersection of Lark and Oka Road. So what... um what route is would the you know citizen you know residents of the town need to take to to uh make some adjustments to traffic flow in that area um as in like right now there's currently parking on either side i mean one of the huge concerns is also like getting you know emergency vehicles in and out so you know from my VERY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF URBAN PLANNING, YOU KNOW, GETTING RID OF PARKING TO, YOU KNOW, ALLOW FOR SOME BETTER ACCESS ALONG THERE WOULD CONTRADICT WHAT SOME OF THE CITIZENS, YOU KNOW, SOME RESIDENTS WANT MORE PARKING, BUT ARE THERE WAYS THAT THE TRAFFIC FLOW COULD BE IMPROVED LIKE AT THAT LARK AND OCA ROAD INTERSECTION DURING LIKE times that there's a lot of congestion there and if so like how do residents in town like go about kind of getting some some movement on that on something like that sorry mike's not on let me try that again

Mike Vroman, senior traffic engineer, Parks and Public Works. Yes, some of the concerns were congestion at Larkinoka. However, the traffic studies and the level of service analysis showed that the level of service existing with the project, with the approved and pending projects and cumulatively were all level of service B. There was a slight degradation, but it didn't go down to level of service C. The town minimum acceptable standard is level of service D, which is, B standard is about 10 to 20 seconds delay, average control delay per vehicle, which it's more weighted if there is queuing in the morning on OCA. However, that intersection, it works in tandem with the Caltrans intersection where you get onto southbound 17. which is also timed with the next intersection to the east, which is another Caltrans intersection. So we'll take a look and see if there's some things we can do, because I know one of the quick concerns was queuing when you're exiting, when you're trying to get on OCA. Currently there is red, if you're coming, or excuse me, trying to get onto LARC from OCA. So the southbound movement on Lark, currently there is red curb all along the Legacy Church to provide a de facto right turn lane. It's where parking is allowed along the rest of the street. But in this area, there's no parking allowed, which creates a right turn lane. And that was used in determining the level of service was the assumption that it functions as a right turn lane. So the other side, there is some parking. We have painted a little red curb. We can take a look at that, but the main is the southbound thing, and there is red curb. We can also take a look and see what the timing is and work with Caltrans, see if we can provide a little more southbound green, especially in the morning when people are departing. And coming back in, the movements, we favor Lark Road, both eastbound and westbound, because that's the heaviest traffic flow. But we can take a look at those other options and see if there's some improvements that can be made.

Okay, yeah, so thank you for answering that because it does seem like if the light, perhaps the light for turning left onto Lark is not, you know, long enough or it's not coordinated with the other, you know, those two next lights like you said with Caltrans. So thank you for... for clarifying that and hopefully residents, if that is a problem, you can feel free to follow up with the town, not related to this project, but in general about that. So thank you very much. And there was one more question about the, Oh, well, does anyone else have any questions about traffic, congestion, how the MT and all of it is calculated? Okay. I did have a question just about clarifying the six-foot retaining wall slash... wall that's on the right side of the property. Now that I understand more of the grading situation, I'm assuming at the front it is six feet, but then towards the back of the property, it will be six feet on the side of the adjacent property, but then not six feet from the grade on the, or is it going to change?

height because of how it's calculated so on the side the project side it'll be six feet and so we could get clarification from the applicants team on how that would read on the other side but as far as i understand it's six feet it's six feet on the property okay in the plans it says six feet oh sorry as we go closer to oka it has to go down to three feet when it's in the vision triangle is that

The vision triangle?

Oh, sorry.

I'm sorry. Could you invite the applicant up to the mic to answer the question?

Well, hold on. I don't know if we actually need to open the public comment again, if I can just get clarification from Ms. Walters. So, yeah, the site triangle at the front of the property where it was, you know, the angle of entrance or whatever, all of that was kind of adjusted to... adjusted and then that part will that area will be three feet because of you know safety issues and then it moves to six feet and then in the but i guess i was just asking if like the six foot measurement is from the property side of the grade or the you know which grade which side of is it measured from i'm gonna have to look okay thank you thank you are there any other questions of staff well

I HAVE ONE FINAL QUESTION. THE JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER SUBMITTED SIGNIFICANT FIVE PAGES OF WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON THE MND BACK ON APRIL 6TH. MANY OF THE ITEMS IN THE FEEDBACK ARE MORE LIKELY TIED TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WHICH I THINK WAS ACTUALLY CITED IN THE RESPONSE BY THE CONSULTANT. HAVE ANY OF THEIR REQUESTS OR CONCERNS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL?

I can jump in and answer that. One of the conditions that have been changed is there will be a noise and dust wall put onto the side where the JCC is similar to the residential side on the mobile home side through construction to address their concerns adjacent to their preschool.

Thank you.

Erin, I have the grading plan if you want me to help you. Oh yeah, sure.

Uh, Nicole Burnham, director of parks and public works.

So looking at the grading plans, um, the wall on the north property line closest to the mobile home park, um, is generally three to three and a half feet in height. I don't see any locations. There's a series of, of measurements that give us the elevation of the bottom of the wall and the top of the wall. Um, If you're in the mobile home park, you will be looking at like a three-foot high wall. I don't see anywhere that it's six feet. Okay. I think...

Through the chair. I think there's two separate components.

Okay.

We know they're raising the site.

Yeah.

So there's going to be a retaining wall. Yeah. I think you're referencing a six-foot masonry fence wall. Yeah. That will be on top of that. Okay. We measure height from the... Higher grade, so there will be, it will appear higher on the mobile home park side is my understanding.

Okay, but then, so it will appear higher than the three feet. There will be retaining wall plus the, sorry, which page were you?

Let me jump in. James Watson, senior engineer, Parks and Public Works. If you go to your packet, page 338 of 428, you'll find some sections that are, I'm sorry, a couple pages up. Uh, sheet 334, you'll find section B section C, and those on the north side. And then if you go down 1 more page to 335, you'll see those 2 sections and you'll see the 3 and a half foot retaining wall to the trailer park side. And then the developers proposing a 6 foot masonry wall on top of that to provide a 6 foot wall on the development side. So, if you're on the trailer park side, you'll be looking at what appears to be a 9 and a half foot wall.

Okay, so, and okay, that's what I was. trying to confirm and understand so there will it will be that high but except for in the front where there it impedes the site triangle then that is okay okay OK. Any other questions, or should we move on? Does someone want to propose a motion? Commissioner Stump?

I WILL MOVE TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 138 UNITS, CONDOMINIUM VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRING GRADING PERMIT UNDER SENATE BILL 330 ON A VACANT PROPERTIES ZONED R18 HEOZ and R18 APNs 424-08-074 and 035. Initial study and mitigated negative declaration have been prepared. Property owner, Edward Morimoto. Applicant, Eric Hayden. Urban catalyst project planner, Aaron Walters. I can make these findings. I can make the required finding for CEQA. I can make the required finding for consistency with the town's general plan. I cannot make the required finding to deny a subdivision application because none of the findings could be made to deny the application with granting of the exceptions to town standards requested pursuant to the builder's remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act. I can make the finding of required compliance with zoning regulations. I can make the finding for required compliance with the town of Los Gatos subjective design standards for qualifying multifamily and mixed-use residential development. I cannot make the required finding to deny a project under state builder's remedy law. None of the findings could be made to deny the application. I CAN MAKE THE FINDING FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE 65863 REGARDING STATE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS, THE TOWN'S HOUSING ELEMENT SITES INVENTORY AND NO NET LOSS LAW. UNDER CONSIDERATIONS, I CAN MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDING IN THE REQUIRED CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS.

Okay, and do we have a second? Mr. Mayor? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? Yes, Commissioner Burnett, do you have a question?

I don't have a question, but I have comments in regards to it. Okay.

Okay.

So since this is the first really big project aside from the North 40 coming before the Planning Commission under a builder's remedy provision, I need to make the following comments in regards to the project and roll the Planning Commission. The Builder's Remedy has been around for a long time and developers love to use it when local governments did not pass a timely housing element. We cannot fault the developer. Our town missed a mandatory date line by 461 days. We need affordable housing, but now with Builder's Remedy, many projects in our town's community With builders drilling projects, many of our town's character-defining parts can be cast aside unless the developer works closely with the town's concerns. On this point, the fallout from the builder's remedy provisions allows noncompliance in the following areas. Height, objective design standards, town zoning, density limits, setbacks, parking, lighting, our town owned below market rates, recreation space, residential design guidelines, landscape buffers, upper floor setbacks if you're at the third story, ground floor private space, giving all this, the Planning Commission does not have a lot of options. So I just want to make the comment that there's something that has driven this, and now we're in this situation, and I just wanted to bring, highlight that, and that's my comment.

Does anyone else have any comments? Mr. Mayor, no? NO COMMENTS. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION AND I KNOW THAT A LOT OF WORK FROM LIKE STAFF AND NOT JUST LIKE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH WE NORMALLY DEAL WITH BUT MANY OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND THE APPLICANT TEAM LIKE A LOT OF WORK HAS GONE INTO GETTING THIS, YOU KNOW, application to where it is today but I would still and I think that you know we do need more housing in town and we are in this situation because the you know we haven't been able to address the housing needs you know in the Bay Area for for decades now and so this is why we're you know this is why we can't have nice things and now we're in situations with where local residents are upset at how the state has been changing housing policy. However, you know, I know that we need more housing and more dense development in areas that do connect to hopefully more future transit and some of the freeways in town. and i hope that i know that the applicant team did not want to um make any changes but um hopefully maybe you'll consider a couple of them moving moving forward because i think that some of the the changes would actually you know improve the Potential project in a way that future residents would appreciate so that being said I Would like to call the question all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and The motion passes unanimously and it is just a recommendation. So obviously there's no appeal rights, but it will be moving on to Town Council That's correct, okay. Thank you. I We will now be moving on to, we don't have any other business I guess tonight, a report from the Community Development Director.

Thank you, I have nothing to report this evening.

Okay, and then we also serve on, all of us up here serve on subcommittees, so we do have I think a couple of subcommittee reports. The HPC met today and we had a couple of items. One was a unanimous approval of some window modifications for a pre 1941 single family residence. ON PARALTA AVENUE AND IT WAS AN EASY YES AND THEN THE ITEM THE NEXT ITEM WAS A UNANIMOUS DENIAL TO REMOVE A PROPERTY ON CALLED WELL FROM THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY AND THEN WE ALSO HAD AN ITEM ON WHEELER AVENUE THAT WE SAW FOR THE SECOND REQUEST TO REMOVE AND IT WAS A SPLIT 2-2 VOTE SO IT WAS NOT THE REQUEST WAS NOT GRANTED. THE RECOMMENDATION. moving forward was to not grant the request. And then a preliminary review of a historic home on, um, Hernandez Avenue and that we provided a tiny bit of additional details on but overall that review had already happened earlier this year and that item got our blessing and will not be seen at HPC or in front of us here so that's good news good news for us I guess in the future and then I know that CDAC also met and since the vice chair was not here, he did forward the report. And so I will just read that aloud just to provide that with everyone for everyone. And it is that the CDAC met on May 15th to discuss a developer's preliminary plan for construction of a 100% affordable multifamily residential development of 100 units on property located at 16601 to 16605 Lark Avenue. The property is located on the island, it's right around the corner from the property that we were discussing tonight, of land in the vicinity of Lark Avenue, Highway 17 on, like, Southbound on-ramp. It says northbound, but I believe it's the southbound on-ramp and north off-ramp. Anyway, or no, south, yeah, south off-ramp and on-ramp. Anyway, it would include a single-family home and an apartment complex. And the CDAC members enthusiastically supported the concept of affordable housing, but had some questions about... this darkness of the architecture and the need for a secondary access and protection of the common area, which would be located on the roof of a parking structure adjacent to Lark Avenue and noted on some other issues. So that, I guess, they'll be going back and, you know, CDAC. goes they they go back and then they make adjustments if they want and then submit the application in the future so those are the subcommittee updates and nothing from mr paulson so i think that if there's no other business then um i just want to thank staff for everything tonight and answering all of our questions and this meeting is adjourned