Staff Report.178 Twin Oaks Dr
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/17/2025
ITEM NO: 1
DATE: December 12, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval for the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve
Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family
Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of
Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Vacant Property
Zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture
and Site Applications S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative
Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application
ND-25-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been
Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin
Walters.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request for approval for the subdivision of one lot into twelve lots with a Vesting
Tentative Map, construction of a new single-family residence on each lot, site work requiring a
grading permit, and removal of large protected trees under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on a vacant
property zoned RC, located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Agriculture
Zoning Designation: RC, Resource Conservation Zone
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines,
and Hillside Specific Plan
Parcel Size: 17.55 acres
PAGE 2 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Surrounding Area:
CEQA:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Response to Comments, and MND Errata Sheet have
been prepared for this project (Exhibit 1, 13 and 14). It has been determined that this project
will not have a significant impact on the environment with adoption of the MND and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit 12, to mitigate potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
FINDINGS:
▪ As required by CEQA for adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program;
▪ As required that the project is consistent with the General Plan with the incentives and
waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and granting of the requested
exceptions to the maximum allowed density pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of
the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d);
▪ As required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act with granting of the requested
exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing
Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d);
▪ As required for tentative or parcel maps approved in state responsibility areas (SRA) or very
high fire hazard severity zones (VH), findings are required to be made to the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to 14 CCR Section 1266.02;
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations) with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus
Law (CA Gov. Code § 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards
pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code
§ 65589.5 (d);
▪ The project meets the objective standards of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State
Density Bonus Law (CA Gov. Code § 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to
Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential/School Hillside Residential HR-1
South Residential Hillside Residential HR-1 and
HR-2-1/2
East Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
West Residential Single-Family Residential R-1:10 and
R:1:12
PAGE 3 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d);
▪ The project meets the objective standards of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan
with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov.
Code § 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the
Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d);
▪ As required by State Density Bonus Law for granting a concession or an incentive pursuant
to CA Gov. Code § 65915 (d) and for granting waivers pursuant to CA Gov. Code § 65915
(a)(2); and
▪ As required by the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act for
granting exceptions pursuant to CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d).
CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture
and Site application.
ACTION:
The application includes a Vesting Tentative Map, requiring approval by the Town Council,
pursuant to Town Code Section 29.10.020. The Planning Commission will provide a
recommendation to the Town Council who will render the final decision on the proposal.
BACKGROUND:
A. Project Site
The subject hillside property is approximately 17.55 acres of vacant land that takes access
from Twin Oaks Drive (Exhibit 4). The hillside project site contains scattered oak woodlands,
and a small portion of East Ross Creek crosses the project’s farthest southwestern corner
through a buried culvert. The site is surrounded by low density or hillside residential
properties on all sides, with a partially shared property line with Hillbrook School to the
north. The property generally sits east of Twin Oaks Drive, north of Brooke Acres Drive, and
southwest of Cerro Vista Court and Cerro Vista Drive. The property has a General Plan
designation of Agriculture and is zoned RC, or Resource Conservation.
The property was enrolled in a Williamson Act agricultural preserve contract established in
1975. Following the owner’s April 28, 2015, notice of non-renewal, the standard 10-year
non-renewal period commenced. The contract has since expired, and the property is no
longer subject to an active Williamson Act contract.
The Preliminary Application under SB 330 was deemed submitted on December 19, 2023,
establishing the vesting date for the application. Therefore, the applicant vested to the
PAGE 4 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Town’s development standards that were in effect on December 19, 2023. On June 13,
2024, the applicant submitted a formal application, within 180-days of the established
vesting date as required by state law. Through the Town’s technical review process, the
application was deemed complete on February 5, 2025, within the timelines prescribed by
state law.
The applicant seeks approval for the proposed residential project utilizing both the State
Density Bonus Law (SDBL) (CA Gov. Code § 65915) and the Builder’s Remedy provisions
under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)].
The application includes a Vesting Tentative Map, requiring approval by the Town Council,
pursuant to Town Code Section 29.10.020. The applicant seeks a recommendation on the
development proposal from the Planning Commission to the Town Council, who will render
the final decision on the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject hillside property is approximately 17.55 acres of vacant land that takes access
from Twin Oaks Drive (Exhibit 4). The site is surrounded by low-density or hillside residential
single-family properties on all sides, with a partially shared property line with Hillbrook
School to the north. The property generally sits east of Twin Oaks Drive, north of Brooke
Acres Drive, and southwest of Cerro Vista Court and Cerro Vista Drive.
B. Project Summary
The applicant proposes to subdivide the site into twelve lots ranging from 0.10 to 5.48 acres
(Sheet 2.0 of Exhibit 15). The western slope would be developed with 11 two-story single-
family residences (eight market-rate and three below-market-rate units), while the eastern
portion would remain undeveloped. One additional two-story residence is proposed on the
northeastern slope (Lot 10). Access would be provided by a new private cul-de-sac from
Twin Oaks Drive, an EVA connection to Brooke Acres Drive, and a separate driveway from
Cerra Vista Court for Lot 10. Three of the 12 units (25 percent) would be designated as low-
income Below Market Price (BMP) units, exceeding the minimum affordability requirement
under the Builder’s Remedy provisions (Lots 1, 11 and 12).
The applicant submitted a Project Description Letter and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5)
discussing the project. Proposed development plans are included in Exhibits 15 through 27.
PAGE 5 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
C. Zoning Compliance
The project site’s underlying zoning is RC (Resource Conservation). However, the Housing
Accountability Act provides that, if a Builder’s Remedy project is proposed in a General Plan
land use designation or zoning district that would not permit the density and unit type
proposed by the applicant, the local agency is required to use a General Plan designation
and zoning classification that would allow the density and unit count proposed by the
applicant. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(A).) Here, because the applicant is utilizing
Builder’s Remedy and not the underlying zoning, the Town has applied the Low Density
Residential General Plan land use designation and R-1:10 zoning standards to the project
and may only require the project to comply with the objective standards that would have
applied in the Low Density Residential General Plan land use designation and R-1:10 zoning
district. The R-1:10 zone supports the density proposed by the applicant and is consistent
with the existing R-1:10 zoning of the properties located to the west of the subject site.
In addition to one concession requested through SDBL, the applicant requests a number of
waivers to Town standards through SDBL. The requested concession and waivers are
discussed below. As described above, the Builder's Remedy provision of the HAA specifically
prohibits a local agency from relying on inconsistency with zoning and general plan
standards as a basis for denial of a qualifying housing development project, and there is no
limit on the amount of exceptions requested as a part of a Builder’s Remedy project.
As noted in the Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5), there are
exceptions to Town Code requirements requested with this application, including not
meeting minimum lot size, exceeding the maximum gross floor area, exceeding the
maximum building height, and not meeting the minimum required setbacks. Details on the
Town Code requirements, requested exceptions, and justification are provided in Exhibit 5.
APPLICABLE LAWS
A. Senate Bill 330
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), became effective on January 1,
2020, and will remain in effect until it sunsets on January 1, 2030. SB 330 provides an
expedited review process for housing development projects and offers greater certainty for
applicants by allowing an optional vesting opportunity through the Preliminary Application
process. Submittal of a Preliminary Application allows an applicant to provide a specific
subset of information on the proposed housing development ahead of providing the full
amount of information required by the Town for a housing development application. Once
the Preliminary Application is “deemed submitted” and payment of the permit processing
fee is made, a vesting date is established, freezing the applicable fees and development
standards that apply to the project while the applicant assembles the rest of the materials
PAGE 6 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
necessary for a full application submittal. Eligible projects are exempt from discretionary
review and must be consistent with objective zoning and design standards. The statute
requires that a final decision be made in no more than five public hearings, including
appeals. The SB 330 Preliminary Application for this project achieved a vesting date of
December 19, 2023.
B. Housing Accountability Act
The HAA is codified at CA Gov. Code § 65589.5. Per Section 65589.5, a local agency can
impose objective development standards so long as those standards meet the following
criteria:
1) Are appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the local agency’s share of its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation;
2) Are applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the
site and proposed by the applicant;
3) Meet the definition of “objective” in that they involve no personal or subjective
judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and
uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the applicant and the
public official.
In addition, no objective standard can be applied if it will render the project “infeasible”
(unless the project will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and there is
no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact.) The statute defines “feasible” as
capable of being accomplished successfully within a reasonable period, considering
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
A local agency may not deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing
development projects that are affordable to low- or moderate-income households and are
consistent with local objective development standards.
In order for a development to qualify for the protections under the HAA it must meet the
definition of a “housing development project.” Furthermore, for a project to qualify for the
affordable housing protections, it must also meet the definition of “Housing for very low-,
low-, or moderate-income households.”
1) What is an eligible housing development project?
Pursuant to CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (h)(2), a “housing development project” is a use
consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential
and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for
residential use, or transitional or supportive housing. Because the term “units” is plural,
PAGE 7 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
a development must consist of more than one unit to qualify under the HAA. The
development can consist of attached or detached units and may occupy more than one
parcel, so long as the development is included in the same development application.
Pursuant to CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (h)(3), “a housing development affordable to
lower- or moderate- income households” means a project that provides either of the
following:
• At least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income
households. Lower-income households are those persons and families whose
income does not exceed that specified by Health and Safety Code § 50079.5, which
is 80 percent of area median income; or
• 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate
income, or persons and families of middle income. Moderate-income households
are those persons and families whose incomes are 80 percent to 120 percent of area
median income (Health and Safety Code, § 50093.). Middle-income households are
those persons and families whose income does not exceed 150 percent of area
median income [CA Gov. Code § 65008 subd. (c)].
In addition, the rent or sales prices of the affordable housing that is provided cannot
exceed the following:
• For lower-income units, the monthly housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of 60
percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in
accordance with the adjustment factors on which the lower income-eligibility limits
are based; or
• For moderate-income units, the monthly housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of
100 percent of area median income with adjustments for household size made in
accordance with the adjustment factors on which the moderate-income eligibility limits
are based.
2) What are Objective Development Standards?
Pursuant to CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (f), local agencies are not prohibited from requiring
a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written
development standards, conditions, and policies that were in effect at the time of
project vesting. Those standards, conditions, and policies must meet the following
criteria:
• Be appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the local agency’s share of its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation;
PAGE 8 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
• Be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on
the site and proposed by the development; and
• Meet the definition of “objective.” Objective standards are those that involve no
personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable
by both the development applicant and the public official.
3) HAA Provisions Addressing Disapproval of Housing Development Projects
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, the HAA limits, but does not prohibit a
local agency from disapproving a housing development project. The HAA defines
“disapproval” to include the following:
• A vote to disapprove a housing development project application.
• Failure to comply with statutory deadlines for a decision, including, but not limited
to:
o 90 days after certification of an environmental impact report pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
o 60 days from the date of adoption of a negative declaration pursuant to CEQA;
or
o 60 days from a determination by the local agency that the project is exempt
from CEQA.
The foregoing is a non-exhaustive list of the local agency actions that constitute
“disapproval” of a housing development project under the HAA.
4) Ability to Impose Development Conditions
The HAA does not prohibit a local agency from imposing conditions of approval on
housing development projects. However, the HAA limits the application of conditions
that lower the residential density of the project and, for housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income households, would render the project economically infeasible or
would have a substantial adverse effect on the viability of the proposed housing, unless
specific findings are made and supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record.
The “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires that local agencies weigh the
evidence and conclude that the evidence on one side outweighs the evidence on the
other side (i.e. 51 percent to 49 percent).
5) Determination of Consistency with Applicable Standards is Based on “Reasonable
Person” Standard
PAGE 9 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
In most cases, courts will uphold an agency’s determination if there is “substantial
evidence” to support that determination. “Substantial evidence” means that there is
reasonable, adequate evidence in the administrative record to support of the agency’s
findings. However, when a project is subject to the HAA, a housing development project
will be deemed consistent with local standards if there is substantial evidence that could
allow a “reasonable person” to conclude that it is consistent.
6) Application of State Density Bonus Law
The use of a density bonus pursuant to state density bonus law does not constitute a
valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent with
local standards. Here, with the use of incentives, concessions, and waivers that are
available pursuant to state density bonus law, the project is consistent with Town
standards. However, in order to be eligible for these incentives, concessions, and
waivers, the applicant must “seek and agree” to build affordable housing.
7) Denial of a Housing Project that is Consistent with Local Standards
When a proposed housing development complies with applicable local standards, but
the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the
project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall adopt written findings
supported by a preponderance of the evidence that both of the following conditions
exist:
• The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the
public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density; and
• There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact,
other than the disapproval of the housing project or the approval of the project
upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. “Feasible” means
capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
8) Denial or Conditioning of Affordable Housing Affordable to Low- and Moderate-Income
Households
The HAA specifies findings that local agencies must make if they wish to deny a housing
development project that provides housing affordable to low-or moderate-income
households, or condition such a project so as to render it infeasible or have a substantial
adverse effect on the viability or affordability of the project. These findings are in
addition to the findings described above. Under the version of the HAA that was in
effect at the time that the Preliminary Application for this project was submitted, the
PAGE 10 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
local agency must make one of the following specific findings based upon a
preponderance of the evidence:
• The local government has an adopted Housing Element and has met its share of the
RHNA in all income categories proposed in the housing development project.
• The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public
health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact
without rendering the project unaffordable or financially infeasible.
• Denial of the housing project or the imposition of conditions is required to comply
with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without
rendering the project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
• The housing development project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or
resource preservation that is either 1) surrounded on two sides by land being used
for agriculture or resource preservation; or 2) does not have adequate water or
wastewater facilities to serve the housing development project.
• The housing development project meets both of the following conditions:
o Is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and general plan land use
designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the
date the application was deemed complete. This finding cannot be used when
the project is inconsistent with one, but is consistent with the other; and
o The local government has an adopted Housing Element in substantial compliance
with state housing element law. This finding cannot be used when:
▪ The project is proposed for a site identified as suitable or available for very
low-, low-, or moderate-income households within the Housing Element and
the project is consistent with the specified density identified in the Housing
Element; or
▪ The local agency has failed to identify sufficient adequate sites in its
inventory to accommodate its RHNA, and the project is proposed on a site
identified in any Element of its General Plan for residential use or in a
commercial zone where residential uses are permitted or conditionally
permitted.
In September 2024, the California State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed
into law, Assembly Bill 1893 (AB 1893), which went into effect on January 1, 2025. AB
1893 made revisions to the findings in subsection (d) of Government Code Section
65589.5. However, the applicant for this project has not chosen to invoke the provisions
of AB 1893. Therefore, the findings enumerated above are the ones that remain
relevant to this project.
PAGE 11 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
9) Violations of the HAA
If a plaintiff alleges an HAA violation and prevails, the court must issue an order
compelling compliance with the HAA in 60 days. The court may also issue an order
directing the local agency to approve the project. If the plaintiff prevails, the court
awards attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff. If the local agency fails to comply with
the order, the court must impose a minimum fine of $10,000 per housing unit.
C. State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) - Explanation of Concessions/Incentives and Waivers
The applicant is seeking to use SDBL, which is codified at Government Code Sections 65915
through 65918.
The intent of SDBL is to encourage builders and local governments to include low- and
moderate-income housing units in proposed developments. Under the statutes, the local
authority must grant a density bonus or other specified incentives or concessions to a
developer who “seeks and agrees” to build affordable housing.
Concessions and Incentives
So long as the required percentage of affordable housing is provided, a developer may opt
to request “concessions and incentives” without seeking the density bonus. A local agency
may decline to grant the concessions or incentives only under certain limited circumstances
set forth in CA Gov. Code § 65915 (d). Those circumstances are:
1) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to
provide for affordable housing;
2) The concession or incentive would result in a “specific adverse impact . . . upon public
health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in
the California Register of Historical Resources,” which cannot be feasibly mitigated
without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income
households; or
3) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law [CA Gov. Code
§ 65915 (d)(1)(A)-(C)].
Concessions and incentives include the following:
1) Reduction in site development standards;
2) Modifications of zoning or architectural design requirements that exceed state
standards;
PAGE 12 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
3) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the project if commercial, office,
industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of, and are compatible with the
development; and
4) Any other regulatory incentive or concession proposed by either party that results in
“identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs” or to
provide for affordable rents [CA Gov. Code 65915 (k)].
Under the SDBL, three incentives or concessions are permitted for projects that include at
least 25 percent of the total units for lower income households and pursuant to AB 1893, a
Builder’s Remedy project that is also a density bonus project qualifies for two additional
incentives or concessions. This applicant is proposing a project with 25 percent of the
residential units affordable for lower income households and this is a Builder’s Remedy
project, therefore the project is entitled to a total of five incentives or concessions.
The applicant is seeking four incentives, as described below:
Requested Incentives
Not Installing Story Poles and Netting per the Visibility Analysis
requirements of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
Project wide
Not Providing Sidewalks Project wide
Not Providing Trails Project wide
Not Providing Open Space Easements Project wide
The applicant states that this will result in a cost reduction. Therefore, eliminating this
development standard will result in cost savings to help provide the level of affordability
proposed.
Waivers of Development Standards
Applicants are eligible for unlimited waivers of development standards when they “seek and
agree” to construct affordable housing. This applicant is requesting waivers from the Town’s
development standards. A local agency may not apply any development standard that will
have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development “as proposed” so
long as it meets the criteria for density bonuses set forth in CA Gov. Code § 65915 (b).
PAGE 13 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
The applicant is requesting 58 waivers, including the following:
Requested Waivers
Reduced Lot Area Lots 11 and 12
Reduced Setbacks Lots 1, 3, 6, 11, and 12
Exceeding the Maximum Gross Floor Area Lots 4 and 12
Lots 2,3,7,8,9, and 10
Building Outside the Least Restrictive Development
Area (LRDA)
Lots 3,6, and 7
Exceeding Maximum Building Height All Lots
Exceeding Maximum Graded Cut and Fill Depths All Lots
Swimming Pools on Slopes greater than 30 percent Lots 7 and 8
Reduced Guest Parking All Lots
Location of BMP Project wide
Comparable Bed/Bath Size of BMPs Project wide
The waivers are described in greater detail in the sections that follow.
D. Housing Accountability Act - Builder’s Remedy
The California Legislature adopted the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) to "significantly
increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of
California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local
governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development
projects" [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (a)(2)(K)]. It is the policy of the state that the HAA "be
interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the
interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing" [Gov. Code § 65589.5 (a)(2)(L)]. The
"Builder's Remedy" provision of the HAA specifically prohibits a local agency from relying on
inconsistency with zoning and general plan standards as a basis for denial of a qualifying
housing development project unless the agency has adopted a sixth cycle housing element
in substantial compliance with state law by January 31, 2023. The Town’s sixth cycle housing
element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) on July 10, 2024. The Preliminary Application for this project achieved a
vesting date of December 19, 2023, prior to certification of the Town’s Housing Element.
Therefore, the project qualifies as a Builder's Remedy project and the applicant has invoked
the provisions of Builder’s Remedy with this proposed project.
PAGE 14 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
The applicant is invoking the following through Builder’s Remedy:
Requested Exceptions through Builder’s Remedy
General Plan Designation Project wide
Zoning Designation Project wide
Density Project wide
The applicant seeks to invoke the Builder’s Remedy provisions, thereby permitting the
project to move forward despite non-conformance with the existing General Plan
designation, zoning regulations, and established density thresholds, as discussed in greater
detail in the sections that follow.
DISCUSSION:
A. General Plan and Zoning Consistency
The proposed twelve-lot single-family residential subdivision is not consistent with the site’s
current General Plan land use designation of Agriculture. The Agriculture designation does
not permit the type or intensity of residential development proposed. Additionally, the
proposed twelve-lot single-family residential subdivision is not consistent with the site’s
current zoning designation of RC, or Resource Conservation. Residential development in the
RC zone is limited to s single-family dwelling, provide that there is not more than one (1)
principal residential structure on a lot.
The project is being processed under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA. Under
these provisions, local agencies are prohibited from denying a qualifying housing
development project solely on the basis of inconsistency with zoning or General Plan
standards. Additionally, the HAA does not establish a limit on the number or extent of
exceptions that may be requested for a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project. However,
because the applicant is utilizing Builder’s Remedy and not the underlying zoning, the Town
has applied the R-1:10 zoning standards to the project.
B. Hillside Overlay Zone and Hillside Specific Plan
The site is located within the Hillside Overlay Zone and is subject to the objective standards
of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). Approximately
10.40 acres of the 17.55-acre project site are located in Sub-Area 2 (Shannon-Kennedy
Roads) of the Town’s Hillside Specific Plan (Sheet 2.2 of Exhibit 12).
PAGE 15 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
C. Subdivision and Site Design
The applicant requests approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the project site
into 12 residential hillside lots ranging in size from approximately 0.10 acres to 5.48 acres
(Sheet 2 of Exhibit 15). The eastern portion of the site would remain undeveloped to
preserve existing topography and natural features, while the western slope would be
developed with eleven two-story single-family residences. A two-story single-family
residence is proposed on the northeastern slope of the hillside (Lot 10) (Exhibit 25).
Lot Size
Under the Town’s applied R-1:10 zone, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 29.40.395, the
minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet. The proposed gross lot size for each lot is provided
in the table below.
Proposed Lot Sizes
Min. Lot Size s.f. per Applied R-1:10 Zone Gross Lot Size s.f.
Lot 1 (BMP) 10,000 21,659
Lot 2 10,000 34,485
Lot 3 10,000 23,931
Lot 4 10,000 25,686
Lot 5 10,000 36,842
Lot 6 10,000 33,979
Lot 7 10,000 51,367
Lot 8 10,000 213,486
Lot 9 10,000 74,265
Lot 10 10,000 238,899
Lot 11 (BMP) 10,000 4,785
Lot 12 (BMP) 10,000 4,785
The proposed Lots 11 and 12, do not meet the 10,000-square foot minimum lot size for the
R-1:10 zone pursuant to Town Code. The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot
size standard through a waiver under the SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows
modifications of development standards that would otherwise physically preclude
construction of the project. The applicant further asserts that the project may utilize an
exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5
(d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this request are provided in the
applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
PAGE 16 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Access and Circulation
Primary access to the subdivision would be provided by a 24-foot-wide private street with a
cul-de-sac connecting to Twin Oaks Drive and linking to the internal roadway system serving
the development. The cul-de-sac would follow the slope transition between the western
portion of the site and the steeper eastern hillside. A 20-foot-wide Emergency Vehicle
Access (EVA) would extend south from the site to Brooke Acres Drive, providing secondary
emergency access consistent with Fire Department standards (Sheet 2 of Exhibit 15). A
separate private driveway extending from Cerro Vista Court would provide individual access
to Lot 10.
Sidewalks
The proposed subdivision does not provide sidewalks, a walkway, or a path with the
proposed private cul-de-sac street.
Pursuant to Town Code Sections 24.50.065 and 29.10.06712, sidewalks shall be constructed
on all streets and highways within a subdivision; except, that in land being subdivided into
lots twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more in size, sidewalks may be omitted. In
hillside subdivisions, a walkway or path shall be constructed on one (1) side of the street or
highway, subject to the approval of the Town Engineer and the advisory agency.
The applicant has requested an incentive under SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915) to waive the
requirement. The applicant must demonstrate that the requested incentive provides a
specific benefit to the project and results in measurable cost savings or facilitates
development of affordable units. Additional justification for this request is provided in the
applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
Trails
The proposed subdivision does not provide trail easement dedication or the construction of
trails as required by the HDS&G, Chapter VII. Subdivisions and Planned Development
Projects, E. Development Standards and Guidelines, 5. Trails. Standard a, and the Hillside
Specific Plan, Chapter 4.0, Open Space, Section 4. Implementation, 6. Trails. The project site
is located in the County and Los Gatos Trails Plan.
The applicant has requested an incentive under SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915) to waive the
requirement. The applicant must demonstrate that the requested incentive provides a
specific benefit to the project and results in measurable cost savings or facilitates
development of affordable units. Additional justification for this request is provided in the
applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
PAGE 17 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Open Space Easement
The proposed subdivision does not provide open space easements as required by the 2040
General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan.
Pursuant to the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element of the 2040 General Plan,
OSPR- 2.3, Hillside Open Space Dedication: In all hillside subdivisions, the dedication of open
space in fee or as an easement shall be required to protect unique natural features,
habitats, and movement corridors.
Pursuant to the Hillside Specific Plan, Chapter 4.0, Open Space, Policies 4.3, 1. Open Space
Easements: Open space easements shall be required by the deciding body for hillside
subdivisions in accordance with the topographical, ecological, aesthetic, and other
conditions pertinent to the making of such easements.
Pursuant to the Hillside Specific Plan, Chapter 4.0, Open Space, Section 4.4 Implementation,
1. Open Space Easements: Open space easement policies shall be implemented for each
subdivision or Planned Development application to protect creeks, ridgelines, stands of
trees, scenic views, hazardous areas, and to provide for trails.
The applicant has requested an incentive under SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915) to waive the
requirement. The applicant must demonstrate that the requested incentive provides a
specific benefit to the project and results in measurable cost savings or facilitates
development of affordable units. Additional justification for this request is provided in the
applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
Staff is unable to make the findings necessary to grant the incentive, as providing open
space easements on the proposed properties would not result in a specific project benefit,
measurable cost savings, or facilitate the development of affordable units. A Condition of
Approval has been included for Lots 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10 requiring that, prior to recordation of
the vesting map, open space easements shall be established to protect unique natural
features, habitats, and movement corridors on the property (Exhibit 3).
D. Architecture and Site Analysis
The project proposes the construction of twelve two-story single-family residences on
twelve individual lots. Lots 1, 11, and 12 are BMP units and the remaining residences are
market-rate units (Exhibits 16 through 27). The unit types include three, five, and six
bedrooms with multiple-floor plans. A Project Description Letter and Letter of Justification
discussing the project are included as Exhibit 5. The residences range in size from 1,614
square feet to 6,156 square feet. The BMP units propose two-car garages, and the market
rate units propose a three-car garage. The table on the following page summarizes the
PAGE 18 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
proposed floor area; maximum allowable floor area for the residence and garage per the
applied R-1:10 zone and Hillside Overlay Area; total number of bedrooms and bathrooms;
and floor plan type.
Floor Area
Gross
Lot Size
s.f.
Average
Slope %
Net
Lot Size
s.f.
Max FAR
Residence
s.f.
Proposed
Residence
s.f.
Max FAR
Garage
s.f.
Proposed
Garage
s.f.
Bed/Bath Plan
Type
Lot 1* 21,659 6.25 21,659 4,700 1,614 1,157 467 3/2½ D
Lot 2 34,485 4.24 34,485 6,000 6,574 400 653 5/5½ B
Lot 3 23,931 15.22 19,039 4,531 6,574 1,156 653 5/5½ B
Lot 4 25,686 13.13 21,509 4,689 5,593 1,157 694 6/6½ A
Lot 5 36,842 8.2 36,842 6,000 5,593 400 694 6/6½ A
Lot 6 33,979 14.98 27,196 6,000 5,593 400 694 6/6½ A
Lot 7 51,367 25.72 27,142 6,000 6,156 400 775 5/5 and 2
half baths
C
Lot 8 213,486 33.84 85,394 6,000 6,156 400 775 5/5 and 2
half baths
C
Lot 9 74,265 21.40 48,866 6,000 6,156 400 775 5/5 and 2
half baths
C
Lot 10 238,899 29.36 100,146 6,000 6,156 400 775 5/5 and 2
half baths
C
Lot 11* 4,785 8.21 4,785 1,694 1,614 400 467 3/2½ D
Lot 12* 4,959 11.18 4,346 1,569 1,614 400 467 3/2½ D
* BMP Units
The proposed project would exceed the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
residences on Lots 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 per the applied R-1:10 zoning standards.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.40.075 for lots less than 30,000 square feet, Lots 4 and
12 exceed the maximum allowable FAR. Pursuant to the HDS&G, Chapter IV. Development
Intensity, A. Maximum Allowable Development, Lots 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 exceed the
maximum allowable FAR. Lots 1, 5, and 6 would meet the maximum allowable FAR.
The applicant requests to exceed the maximum allowable FAR through a waiver under SDBL
(CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards that would
otherwise physically preclude construction of the project. The applicant further asserts that
the project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA [CA
Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this request are
provided in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
PAGE 19 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
E. Building Design
The project proposes four different building models. The proposed two-story BMP homes
located on Lots 1, 11, and 12 are modest in scale and designed in a traditional architectural
style consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. All three BMP homes, Building Type D,
are similar in scale and appearance (Sheet A2.1 of Exhibits 16, 26, and 27).
The proposed two-story market-rate homes on Lots 2 and 3 are located along the southern
edge of the existing neighborhood. These two-story homes have smaller footprints
compared to the homes on Lots 4 through 10 and have articulated massing with varied roof
forms. The two homes, Building Type B, are similar in scale and appearance (Sheets A2.1
and A2.2 of Exhibits 17 and 18).
The proposed two-story market-rate homes on Lots 4, 5, and 6 are adjacent to the R-1:10
zoned residential properties to the west. These homes are primarily one story with a limited
second-story element. Colors and materials reflect natural tones consistent with the
California Ranch and Mediterranean styles in the neighborhood. The three homes, Building
Type A, are similar in scale and appearance (Sheets A2.1 and A2.2 of Exhibits 19, 20, and
21).
The proposed two-story market-rate homes on Lots 7 and 10 are sited on slopes of
approximately 20 percent, the homes are sited on terraced graded pads that follow the
existing contours and avoid ridgelines, major trees, and natural features. A riparian corridor
with an ephemeral drainage and swale separate Lots 8 and 9. Building forms and rooflines
parallel the hillside, with stone bases and darker natural materials that blend with the
hillside and meet the requirements of the HDS&G color and light reflectivity value (LRV)
requirements. The four homes, Building Type C and D, are similar in scale and appearance
(Sheets A2.1 and A2.2 Exhibits 22, 23, 24, and 25).
Exterior materials of the homes include weathered and stained cedar vertical siding, sand
stucco with stone veneer accents, concrete flat tile roof, painted metal railings, fiberglass
windows, and metal garage doors. A condition of approval has been included in Exhibit 3
requiring each home to record a Deed Restriction regarding meeting the HDS&G LRV and
color requirements.
Review by the Town’s Consulting Architect is typically required for Architecture and Site
applications. For this application, it should be noted that the feedback provided by the
Consulting Architect is subjective in nature and should not be used as the basis for a
decision since the Town’s review is limited to objective standards only, pursuant to SB 330
and Builder’s Remedy.
PAGE 20 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed project and provided feedback and
recommendations for each of the twelve homes (Exhibit 6). The applicant submitted a letter
responding to these recommendations and summarizing design changes that were made
(Exhibit 7).
F. Height
Pursuant to Town Code, building height is measured from the natural or finished grade,
whichever is lower and creates a lower profile. The project proposes the addition of fill to
create building pads which increases the overall height of the buildings per Town Code. The
proposed two-story building heights for the single-family homes range from 27 feet, four-
inches to 40 feet, 10-inches. The maximum allowable building height for residences located
within the Hillside Overlay Zone is of 18 feet if the building is visible per the HDS&G or 25
feet the building is not visible. See Visibility discussion below. The proposed building heights
are summarized in the table on the following page.
Building Height
Proposed Height
Lot 1* 27 ft. – 7 in.
Lot 2 32 ft. – 6 in.
Lot 3 38 ft. – 0 in.
Lot 4 37 ft. – 3 in.
Lot 5 40 ft. – 10 in.
Lot 6 33 ft. – 10 in.
Lot 7 27 ft. – 6 in.
Lot 8 27 ft. – 6 in.
Lot 9 27 ft. – 6 in.
Lot 10 27 ft. – 6 in.
Lot 11* 27 ft. – 8 in.
Lot 12* 27 ft. – 4 in.
* BMP Units
All twelve of the two-story homes exceed the maximum allowable building height of 25 feet
pursuant to the HDS&G, E. Building Height, Standards 1 and 2.
The applicant requests to exceed the maximum allowable height through a waiver under
SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards that
would otherwise physically preclude construction of the project as proposed. The applicant
further asserts that the project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy
provisions of the HAA [Government Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and
PAGE 21 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
justification for this request is provided in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of
Justification (Exhibit 5).
G. Visibility Analysis
The HDS&G require that residential projects located within the Hillside Overlay Zone
prepare a Visibility Analysis to determine whether a residence is visible from any of the
Town’s established viewing areas. A residence is considered visible if 24.5 percent or more
of an elevation can be seen from any of the established viewing areas. Section B. of Chapter
II of the HDS&G outlines the required methodology, including the use of story poles and
netting to conduct the analysis. The applicant submitted an informal visibility analysis
(Sheet G6 of Exhibit 15) concluding that the proposed homes would not be visible, allowing
a maximum building height of 25 feet. However, the applicant’s analysis did not follow the
HDS&G methodology, as story poles and netting were not installed.
The applicant has requested an incentive under SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915) to waive the
requirement. The applicant must demonstrate that the requested incentive provides a
specific benefit to the project and results in measurable cost savings or facilitates
development of affordable units. Additional justification for this request is provided in the
applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
H. Lot Coverage
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.10.415, the maximum building coverage on a lot in the
R-1 or single-family residential zone, including any type of accessory building, is 40 percent.
All twelve lots comply with the lot coverage requirements of the R-1:10 zone.
I. Setbacks
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.40.405, the minimum front yard setback is 25 feet, the
minimum side yard setback is 10 feet, and the minimum rear yard setback is 20 feet for the
R-1:10 zone. The proposed setbacks are summarized on the following page.
PAGE 22 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Proposed Setbacks
Applicant
Applied
Zone
Front
(Min. 25 ft.)
Side
(Min. 10 ft.)
Side
(Min. 10 ft.)
Rear
(Min. 20 ft.)
Lot 1* R-1:10 37.21 5 122 39.4
Lot 2 R-1:10 46.2 100 25.9 23.8
Lot 3 R-1:10 39.36 8.48 54.8 44.1
Lot 4 R-1:10 36.57 15 33.4 41.7
Lot 5 R-1:10 32.33 56.75 26.7 32.7
Lot 6 R-1:10 40.42 29.17 41.6 19.8
Lot 7 R-1:10 113.09 123.19 38.92 96.18
Lot 8 R-1:10 99.18 47.7 36.25 400
Lot 9 R-1:10 70.66 20.2 79.5 118.7
Lot 10 R-1:10 77.92 32.04 345.6 116.4
Lot 11* R-1:10 52.24 5 5 39.7
Lot 12* R-1:10 56.27 5 5 44.6
* BMP Units
All twelve lots meet the front setback requirement; however, Lots 1, 3, 11, and 12 do not
meet the side setback requirement, and Lot 6 does not meet the rear setback requirement.
The applicant requests to exceed the minimum setback requirements through a waiver
under the State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of
development standards that would otherwise physically preclude construction of the
project. The applicant further asserts that the project may utilize an exception under the
Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional
information and justification for this request are provided in the applicant’s Project
Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
J. Parking
The proposed project complies with the Town Code Section 29.10.150 (c)(1) by providing
two parking spaces per single family residence. However, the project does not comply with
the Hillside Specific Plan, Chapter 3.0, Circulation, Section 3.4 Implementation, Item 15,
which requires not less than four additional on-site guest parking spaces where roadways
are not designated to permit parking. The proposed parking is summarized on the following
page.
PAGE 23 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Proposed Parking Spaces
Garage Guest Total
Provided
Total
Required
Lot 1* 2 0 2 6
Lot 2 2 2 4 6
Lot 3 2 2 4 6
Lot 4 2 1 (garage) 3 6
Lot 5 2 1 (garage) 3 6
Lot 6 2 2 4 6
Lot 7 2 2 4 6
Lot 8 2 2 4 6
Lot 9 2 2 4 6
Lot 10 2 0 2 6
Lot 11* 2 0 2 6
Lot 12* 2 0 2 6
* BMP Units
All twelve lots do not meet the Hillside Specific Plan requirement for on-site guest parking.
The applicant requests relief from the guest parking requirements through a waiver under
SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards that
would otherwise physically preclude construction of the project. The applicant further
asserts that the project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of
the HAA [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this
request is provided in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit
5).
K. Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA)
Each development application subject to the HDS&G shall be accompanied by a constraints
analysis when it is deemed necessary by the Town to identify the most appropriate area or
areas on the lot for locating buildings given the existing constraints of the lot. When all
constrained areas have been identified and mapped, the remaining area(s) will be
designated as the LRDA. These are the areas most appropriate for development, including
topography, with emphasis on slopes over 30 percent. Pursuant to the HDS&G, Chapter II,
Constraints Analysis and Site Selection, A. Prior to Selecting a Building Site, Standard 1.
Constraints Analysis, the buildings proposed on Lots 3, 6, 7, and 9 are located on slopes over
30 percent, outside of the LRDA.
The applicant requests to build outside the LRDA requirement through a waiver under SDBL
(CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards that would
otherwise physically preclude construction of the project. The applicant further asserts that
PAGE 24 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
the project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA [CA
Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this request are
provided in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
L. Swimming Pools
The swimming pools proposed on Lots 7 and 8 are located on slopes greater than 30
percent, which is prohibited per the HDS&G. The HDS&G, Chapter VI. Site Elements, Pools,
Standard 3 states, “due to topographic constraints, not every lot will be able to
accommodate a pool or sport court. Swimming pools and sport courts are prohibited on
slopes greater than 30 percent.”
The applicant requests relief from this requirement through a waiver under SDBL (CA Gov.
Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards that would otherwise
physically preclude construction of the project. The applicant further asserts that the
project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA [CA Gov.
Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this request are provided
in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
Staff is unable to make the findings to grant the waiver as the location of the pools would
not physically preclude the construction of the project. A Condition of Approval has been
included for Lots 7 and 8 requiring that, prior to issuance of a building permit, the proposed
location of the swimming pools be modified to ensure that the pool locations are located on
slopes less than 30 percent (Exhibit 3).
M. Grading and Drainage
The project proposes 10,878 cubic yards (CY) of soil to be exported and 21,082 CY to be
imported to construct the twelve house pads, private cul-de-sac road, private driveways,
Emergency Vehicle Access Road (EVA), and associated landscaping.
Maximum Graded Cut and Fill
The proposed subdivision improvements and each of the 12 lot improvements exceed the
maximum allowable graded cut and/or fill depth standard of the HDS&G, Chapter III. Site
Planning, A. Grading, Standards 1. The maximum graded cut and fill tables are located
grading sheets of each plan set (Sheet 3.0 of Exhibit 16 through 27). The applicant requests
relief from the maximum graded cut and fill requirements through a waiver under SDBL (CA
Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards that would
otherwise physically preclude construction of the project. The applicant further asserts that
the project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the HAA [CA
PAGE 25 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this request are
provided in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 5).
Drainage
A majority of the proposed lots would function as individual drainage management areas
(DMAs) (Sheet 5.0 of Exhibits 16-27). Lots 1, 11, and 12 would combine into one DMA, while
the undeveloped area and roadways would form additional DMAs. Stormwater runoff from
each DMA would be directed to an associated bioretention area for treatment. Lots 1
through 4 and Lots 7 through 10 have individual bioretention areas and Lots 5 and 6 have
shared bioretention areas. Biorientation basins would be sized and designed to meet the
Town’s C.3 Stormwater Standards, and internal roadways would use pervious pavement to
promote infiltration. Treated stormwater would be discharged to the existing 27- and 36-
inch storm drains located north and west of the site.
N. Fire Access
The subject parcel is located in the High Fire Hazard Zone per the adopted June 2025 Fire
Hazard Severity Zones Map. However, the project was vested per SB 330 prior to the
adoption of the June 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map. The site was previously located
in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) of the Local Responsibility Area (LRA)
and is therefore subject to the July 1, 2021, California Public Resource Code 4290 (PRC
4290) requirements. PRC 4290 requirements require modifications to the width of existing
roads, existing road surfaces, fire truck turnarounds, and the lengths of dead-end roads. An
Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code (AMMR) was
approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) for Lot 10 to meet the PRC
4290 requirements to mitigate deficiencies of the required 20-foot roadway width on a 10-
foot in length segment of roadway on Cerro Vista Drive. In order to mitigate the
noncompliant roadway width, the approved AMMR requires an upgraded sprinkler system
for the proposed residence at Lot 10. The recommended Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3)
include roadway and other improvements for fire safety that will be required as a result of
this coordination with the SCCFD.
O. Tree Impacts
The project site is composed of a mixed oak woodland, portions of which would be
impacted by the proposed development. To determine whether trees proposed for removal
qualify for protection under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, an Arborist Report was
prepared by the applicant’s arborist, McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services (Exhibit
8). Through the site tree survey, the Arborist Report identified 673 on-site trees measuring
four inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH), representing 26 species. Of these,
630 trees were determined to be protected under the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance.
PAGE 26 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
The Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project denotes a total
of 223 protected trees to be removed, which includes 12 large protected trees.
To comply with the Town’s tree replacement requirements, a total of 551 replacement
trees would need to be planted on-site. The schematic planting plan proposes planting 85
replacement trees, which does not satisfy the on-site replacement requirements (Sheet T-1
of Exhibit 15). The applicant has the option to request in-lieu payment for any required
replacement trees that cannot be accommodated on site.
The applicant submitted an arborist report for peer review by the Town’s Consulting
Arborist. Following the review, the revised arborist report from the applicant was confirmed
to meet the Town’s requirements by the Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 9). If the project is
approved, tree protection measures would be implemented prior to construction and
maintained for the duration of construction activity. Arborist recommendations for tree
protection, as well as compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, are included
in the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3).
P. Public Health and Safety Standards
During the Town’s review process, the Town’s Planning, Building, and Parks and Public
Works staff, as well as the Santa Clara County Fire Department, reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable objective standards. Although exceptions pursuant to Builder’s
Remedy and SDBL incentives and waivers are requested for some of the design and density
standards, the proposed application was reviewed and deemed consistent with applicable
public health and safety standards with the inclusion of the recommended conditions of
approval in Exhibit 3, if approved by the Town Council.
As a part of the Initial Study and MND prepared for this application (Exhibit 1), the project
was reviewed for CEQA compliance on a number of required topics, including the following
which are related to public health and safety: Air Quality; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse
Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise;
Public Services; Transportation, including review on whether the project would result in
inadequate emergency access; Utilities and Service Systems; and Wildfire. As described in
the CEQA Determination section of this report below, it was determined that the project
would not result in a significant impact in any of the categories either as proposed or with
the inclusion of mitigation measures. Each of these mitigation measures are included in the
Conditions of Approval in Exhibit 3.
Specifically for transportation, a Transportation Assessment was prepared by TJKM
Transportation Consultants (Exhibit 1, Appendix H) for the proposed project. As noted in the
memorandum, the assessment replaces LOS with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the
metric for conducting transportation analyses pursuant to CEQA and establishing the
thresholds of significance to comply with Senate Bill 743 (Resolution 2020-045). Consistent
PAGE 27 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the Town of Los Gatos has adopted the
following thresholds of significance to guide in determining when a land use project will
have a significant transportation impact. First, Total Project Generated VMT, where a
significant impact would occur if the total VMT per service population for the project would
exceed a level of 11.3 percent below the total VMT per service population for the Town of
Los Gatos baseline conditions. Second, Project’s Effect on VMT/Boundary VMT, where a
significant impact would occur if the project increases the total (boundary) County-wide
VMT by 6.5 percent compared to baseline conditions.
Using the VTA Model and based on the inputs of 12 single-family dwelling units and a
population of 31, the VMT with project is slightly over the threshold. As a result, the project
would need to mitigate roughly 2.83 percent of its VMT to be considered insignificant. To
achieve this, the following mitigation measures were selected:
Measure 1: Construct sidewalk along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between
Regent Drive and Union Avenue.
Measure 2: Construct sidewalk along the north side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell
Avenue and Roberts Road.
These measures are consistent with the Town’s 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
and are expected to achieve the required VMT reduction of 2.83 percent and reduce the
project's VMT impact to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure is included in
the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit 3.
Q. Density
The site’s underlying RC zoning allows a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 20 acres
(0.05 du/acre), while the proposed project would provide 12 units, or approximately 0.68
du/acre. The applicant has invoked the Builder’s Remedy and does not intend to rezone the
site; therefore, the Town has applied R-1:10 standards. The General Plan Land Use
designation corresponding to the R-1:10 zoning is Low-Density Residential (0–5 du/acre),
which would allow the site to accommodate up to 87 units.
R. Below Market Price (BMP) Units
The proposed project proposes a total of 12 units, three of which would be designated as
affordable units (25 percent). The BMP units will be restricted to those low-income
households whose income is above 50 percent, but no greater than 80 percent, of the
median area income. Conditions of Approval are included in Exhibit 3 pertaining to the
construction phasing, provision, and sale of the BMP units.
PAGE 28 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
BMP Size and Location
Pursuant to Section III. A. of the Town’s BMP Program Guidelines, A. Size of Units, BMP
units should be provided proportionately in the same unit type mix (number of bedrooms)
as the market rate units. The three proposed BMP units are three bedroom units whereas
the proposed market rate units range in bedroom count from four to six bedrooms.
Pursuant to Section III. B. of the Town’s BMP Program Guidelines, BMP units shall be
dispersed throughout the development, to the extent feasible, in all buildings, on each
floor, and in each project phase. A concentration of BMP units in one location is not
desirable and will not be allowed. The proposed site plan illustrates the location of the
three BMP units on the project site (Sheet 2.0 of Exhibit 15). The BMP units, located on Lots
1, 11, and 12, are grouped together and share a private driveway and turnaround area,
rather than being distributed throughout the subdivision.
The applicant requests relief from the BMP location and size requirements through a waiver
under SDBL (CA Gov. Code § 65915), which allows modifications of development standards
that would otherwise physically preclude construction of the project. The applicant further
asserts that the project may utilize an exception under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of
the HAA [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d)(5)]. Additional information and justification for this
request are provided in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification
(Exhibit 5).
S. No Net Loss Law
Pursuant to CA Gov. Code § 65863 (No Net Loss Law), the Town must maintain adequate
capacity in the Housing Element to accommodate its remaining unmet Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) by each income category at all times throughout the entire
planning period. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, as the Town makes decisions
regarding zoning and land use, or development occurs, the Town must assess its ability to
accommodate new housing within the remaining capacity of the Housing Element. If the
Town approves a development of a parcel identified in the Housing Element with fewer
units than anticipated, the Town must either make findings that the remaining capacity of
the Housing Element is sufficient to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each
income level, or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining
unmet RHNA for each income category. The Town may not disapprove a housing project on
the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of
additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.
The subject property was not identified in the Sites Inventory of the Housing Element, and
therefore, the findings related to the Not Net Loss are not applicable for this project.
However, the proposed housing units would count towards fulfilling the Town’s RHNA
PAGE 29 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
requirements. The Town is not required to identify additional sites to accommodate the
remaining RHNA as a result of this project.
T. CEQA Determination
An Initial Study was prepared for the project, which included a number of project-level
technical studies, including: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling; Biological
Evaluation; Arborist Report; Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation; and Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) Technical Memorandum (Exhibit 1). All technical reports were peer
reviewed by the Town or prepared by the Town’s consultants. The Initial Study concluded
that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment with adoption of the
MND and MMRP to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Each of the 18 mitigation measures identified in the MND and Errata Sheet (III-1, IV-1, IV-2,
IV-3, IV-4, IV-5, IV-6, IV-7, IV-8, IV-9, IV-10, V-1, V-2, V11-1, X-1, X111-1, X111-2, and XVII-1)
are included in the MMRP (Exhibit 12) and as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit 3.
The CEQA mandated 20-day public review period began on September 19, 2025, and ended
on October 9, 2025. Exhibit 13 includes responses to comments received during the public
review period.
An Errata Sheet is included in Exhibit 14 that includes revisions to the IS/MND. The revisions
to the IS/MND reflected in the Errata do not affect the adequacy of the previous
environmental analysis contained in the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project IS/MND.
Because the changes presented in the Errata would not result in any new significant impacts
or increase in impact significance from what was identified in the IS/MND, recirculation of
the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project IS/MND is not required.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Project identification signage was installed on the Twin Oaks Drive, Brooke Acres Drive, and
Cerro Vista Court frontages by September 17, 2024, consistent with Town policy. Visual
simulations were completed by the Town’s consultant and posted to the Town’s website by
September 1, 2025 (Exhibit 10). Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within
1,000 feet of the subject property and notice of public hearing signage was installed on the
street frontages by November 21, 2025, in anticipation of the December 17, 2025, Planning
Commission hearing.
Staff conducted outreach through the following media and social media resources, for the
availability of the visual simulations; public review of the Initial Study and MND; and notice of
the public hearing:
PAGE 30 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
• The Town’s website home page, What’s New;
• The Town’s Facebook page;
• The Town’s Twitter account;
• The Town’s Instagram account; and
• The Town’s NextDoor page.
Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025, are included as Exhibit 11.
Public comments included concerns regarding drainage, flooding, groundwater saturation,
grading, traffic, impacts on wildlife, removal of trees, loss of views, privacy, fire safety, building
height, size of homes, and construction impacts.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval for the subdivision of one lot into 12 lots with a Vesting
Tentative map, construction of a new single-family residence on each lot, site work
requiring a grading permit, and removal of large protected trees under SB 330 on a vacant
property zoned RC, located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive.
As detailed above, the application was submitted and is being processed under SB 330. The
applicant seeks approval for the proposed residential project utilizing both SDBL (CA Gov.
Code § 65915) and the Builder’s Remedy provisions under the HAA [CA Gov. Code § 65589.5
(d)(5)]. The project qualifies for three incentives and unlimited waivers under SDBL. The
application meets the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project and the applicant has
requested a number of exceptions to Town standards pursuant to Builder’s Remedy. The
deviations from the Town’s standards included in the project are requested through both
SDBL and Builder’s Remedy for which the applicant has provided justification (Exhibit 5).
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the request and, if merit is found
with the proposed project, forward a recommendation that the Town Council approve the
Architecture and Site applications, Subdivision, and Mitigated Negative Declaration
applications by taking the following actions:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-25-001) and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Exhibit 12) and make the finding that the project, with adoption of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
will not have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA;
2. Make the finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan with the incentives,
and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and granting of the
PAGE 31 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
requested exceptions to the maximum allowed density pursuant to the Builder’s
Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the proposed project complies with Section 66474 of the State
Subdivision Map Act with granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards
pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act and make
affirmative findings to approve the subdivision (Exhibit 2);
4. As required for tentative or parcel maps approved in state responsibility areas (SRA) or
very high fire hazard severity zones (VH), findings are required to be made to the State
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) pursuant to 14 CCR Section 1266.02
(Exhibit 2);
5. Make the finding that the project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the
Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to
State Density Bonus Law and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards
pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act (Exhibit 2);
6. Make the finding that the project in compliance with the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines with granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards
pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act (Exhibit 2);
7. Make the finding that the project in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan with the
incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and granting of
the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision
of the Housing Accountability Act (Exhibit 2);
8. Make the affirmative findings as required by State Density Bonus Law for granting an
incentive pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 (d) and for granting
waivers pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 (a)(2) (Exhibit 2);
9. Make the finding that, as required by California Government Code Section 65589.5 (d)
of the California Housing Accountability Act, none of the findings for denial of a Builder’s
Remedy project can be made (Exhibit 2);
10. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
11. Approve Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through S-24-033 and S-24-059,
Subdivision Application M-24-023, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-
25-001 with the recommended conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development
plans in Exhibits 15 through 27.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Planning Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the applications.
PAGE 32 OF 32
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and
ND-24-001
DATE: December 12, 2025
EXHIBITS:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through E
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059
4. Location Map
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Final Arborist Report
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review
10. Visual Renderings
11. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
14. Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Sheet
15. Development Plans – Subdivision
16. Development Plans – Lot 1
17. Development Plans – Lot 2
18. Development Plans – Lot 3
19. Development Plans – Lot 4
20. Development Plans – Lot 5
21. Development Plans – Lot 6
22. Development Plans – Lot 7
23. Development Plans – Lot 8
24. Development Plans – Lot 9
25. Development Plans – Lot 10
26. Development Plans – Lot 11
27. Development Plans – Lot 12