Item 1 - Desk Item with Exhibit 31.178 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
DESK ITEM
DATE: December 17, 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 -033 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.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 28 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, December 16,
2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the December 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through E
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059
4. Location Map
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Final Arborist Report
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review
PAGE 2 OF 2
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 17, 2025
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
Received with the December 15, 2025, Addendum Report:
28. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Monday, December 15, 2025
Received with the December 16, 2025, Addendum Report:
29. Responses to the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter
30. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025, and 11:00
a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025
Received with this Desk Item Report:
31. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025, and 11:00
a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025
From: Jill Fordyce <
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 10:11 AM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>; Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Craig Fordyce ; Bill Meleyco <;
Jon Witkin <
Subject: 178 Twin Oaks Drive
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Chair and Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission,
We are supplementing our previous letter dated October 8, 2025, to provide updated
information with regard to three speciflc arguments in opposition to the proposed
development: (1) The IS/MND is inadequate and an EIR is required; (2) The proposed
project creates a speciflc, adverse impact upon the public health and safety of our
community; (3) The proposed project does not abide by the Los Gatos Below Market Price
regulations.
An EIR is Required
The fate of an undeveloped rural Los Gatos hillside—home to protected trees, species, and
a riparian corridor—requires, at a minimum, a detailed understanding of the environmental
impact of the proposed development. In this case, we have not been given the information
necessary to have such an understanding. Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA
review. Compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of zoning or housing
authorization. “The IS/MND’s approach suggests environmental review is secondary to
entitlement, which is legally incorrect.” (Letter dated October 17, 2025 from the Santa
Clara Valley Bird Alliance (“SCVBA”) and the Sierra Club at p. 11).
First, instead of conducting new studies commensurate with both the current project and
the current state of the environment, the IS/MND relies on an outdated, uncertifled EIR
from 2017. Natural environments change over the course of years; species appear and
disappear and are not flxed in time. Furthermore, the proposal for development before the
Planning Commission is not the same proposal as the one considered in 2018. One key
difference is the scope of the development. The current application asks to develop
approximately 62,000 square feet. The previous proposal was for 55,000 square feet (a 13%
increase). The lots are different; the number of homes is different; the homesites are
different; the ingress and egress are different.
EXHIBIT 31
Under CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration can only be adopted if the lead agency
determines that all potential signiflcant environmental impacts can be reduced to a less-
than-signiflcant level through mitigation measures. If there is a “fair argument,” supported
by substantial evidence, that the project may have a signiflcant environmental impact, then
the agency is required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) instead.
The Sierra Club, the SCVBA, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (“RQWCB”) have submitted letters in opposition to this project. The SCVBA and the
Sierra Club note that, because the project is located within an ecologically sensitive
transition zone between existing development and natural hillside habitat, a preparation of
an EIR is essential. The Sierra Club and SCVBA found “substantial evidence that the project
may result in signiflcant hydrological and biological impacts that are not adequately
disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated.” The RWQCB notes that the IS/MND fails to address the
jurisdictional status of an on-site ephemeral drainage, potential dewatering of riparian
habitat, habitat fragmentation for wildlife, impacts from lighting and collision hazards to
birds, and procedural confiicts with CEQA’s fair argument standard. (Letter dated October
17, 2025, from the SCVBA and the Sierra Club; Letter dated October 6, 2025, from the
RWQCB). The SCVBA and the Sierra Club also note that long-term maintenance is deferred
to a future HOA without identifying responsibility for inspection and repair of stormwater
infrastructure, funding mechanisms for hydrologic mitigation, or standards for
performance over time. Deferred mitigation violates CEQA guidelines, which prohibits
mitigation dependent on undeflned future actions.
The Sierra Club/SCVBA have supplied a “fair argument” that the project may have a
signiflcant environmental impact, including the following issues:
-The IS/MND fails to adequately assess signiflcant and irreversible impacts to biological
resources, including native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors, nesting birds,
and special-status pollinators, and the Ross Creek watershed, an area known to support
raptors, migratory songbirds, and oak-associated wildlife.
-The IS/MND removes a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated
understory vegetation. It does not quantify total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or
evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor functionality across the Ross Creek drainage interface.
Fragmentation of woodland habitat at this location “poses long-term ecological
consequences.” (SCVBA/Sierra Club at p. 8).
-The IS/MND incorrectly concludes that there will be no biological impact on the ephemeral
drainage. “As documented by the RWQCB, the project’s stormwater design would redirect
runoff away from the drainage, depriving the riparian system of seasonal hydrology:
‘Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation…would be diverted…. This
could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the vegetation. The
biological effects of hydrologic alteration, loss of vegetative cover, reduced insect prey
availability, and increased temperature exposed were not analyzed.” (Id.)
-The IS/MND “repeatedly defers mitigation to future plans, HOA oversight, or permitting
processes, without deflned performance standards or enforceable obligations. This
violates CEQA, which prohibits reliance on unspecifled or future mitigation, particularly
where long-term resource impacts are involved, (e.g., habitat loss, hydrology
modiflcation.)” (Id. at p. 9). Examples of impermissible deferral include the following:
stormwater operation and maintenance left to an undeflned HOA; lack of binding
commitments to preserve riparian fiow or tree canopy; and absence of deflned mitigation
ratios for habitat or tree removal.
The SCVBA/Sierra Club letter concludes that compliance with CEQA requires withdrawal of
the IS/MND, recirculation of the environmental document to incorporate agency concerns
and hydrologic and biological analysis, and preparation of a full EIR that evaluates project
alternatives, hydrologic modiflcations, biological resource impacts, lighting effects, and
cumulative conditions within the Ross Creek watershed. The EIR must also include a
reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce impacts to hydrology, wildlife corridors,
and hillside habitat.
The RQWCB raises a number of concerns, including:
-The topographic map of the Project site indicates that the ephemeral creek channel
appears to extend upstream from the uppermost cluster of vegetation. Based on the map,
the footprint of the access road may flll the upper portion of the ephemeral creek. (RQWCB
letter at p. 2).
-The proposed stormwater treatment infrastructure appears to divert the runoff that
currently sustains the ephemeral creek into the bioretention areas and pervious pavement,
depriving the ephemeral creek of the hydrology necessary to sustain the preserved
vegetation along the creek. (Id.)
-The proposed use of pervious pavement may not be appropriate at the Project site due to
steep topography portions of the site.
-The IS/MND does not identify responsible party for the operation and maintenance of the
stormwater treatment infrastructure of the treatment proposed to mitigate the impact of
hydrography modiflcation.
-The bioretention areas should be visible from public roadways.
-The proposed stormwater treatment measures will dewater the preserved ephemeral
creek channel, causing signiflcant impact to the creek. (Id. at p. 12).
-The IS/MND does not acknowledge the potential need to obtain approvals from the Water
Board and the CDFW.
-As there is no documentation that State has assessed the jurisdictional status of the
ephemeral creek, the Project should assume that the ephemeral creek is a water of the
State.
The RQWCB disagrees with the conclusion of the IS/MND that the proposed project would
not have a substantial adverse effect on the riparian habitat and other sensitive natural
community. (Id.)
Patrick Kobernus, Principal Biologist of Coast Ridge Ecology, Inc., concluded that the
IS/MND is deflcient under CEQA for a variety of reasons, including reliance on an outdated
fioristic survey (over 14 years old); failure to address sensitive plant communities in
accordance with CDFW protocols; inadequate mitigation to protect Burrowing Owls; failure
to identify potential impacts to special status amphibian and reptile species and mitigate
for those impacts; failure to include habitat assessment to address impact on bats; failure
to include a detailed survey and mapping of active woodrat middens and a woodrat
relocation plan; failure to identify impacts on the western bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble
bee and mitigate for those impacts; and concluding without factual support that there
would be no impact to wildlife corridors. (See Exhibit C to Letter dated December 15, 2025,
from Camus J. Steinmetz.)
In addition to the deflciencies noted above, the environmental conclusions in the IS/MND
are expressly or implicitly derived from an earlier EIR that was never certifled and therefore
has no legal force. (“…although the EIR was never certifled by the Town, the setting of the
site has remained the same, and thus, a number of the technical reports associated with
the former project and 2017 EIR remain applicable to the proposed project.”) (IS/MND at p.
6). Under CEQA, an uncertifled EIR is legally equivalent to no EIR at all and may not be
relied upon to negate the possibility of signiflcant environmental impacts or to support
adoption of an MND. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070, 15090; Communities for a Better
Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92–94.)
Here, the record refiects that potentially signiflcant impacts were previously identifled and
analyzed in the 2017 EIR. The applicant may not now bootstrap that uncertifled analysis to
conclude that impacts are less than signiflcant or mitigable through an MND. Where
substantial evidence in the record—including prior environmental analysis prepared for the
project site—supports a fair argument that the project may have signiflcant environmental
effects, CEQA mandates preparation of an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21151; Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306–307.) The decision to proceed with
an IS/MND violates CEQA as a matter of law. Additionally, the land, the project, and
housing laws (e.g., allowance of split lots and ADUs) have all changed since this uncertifled
EIR.
Finally, in order for an MND to be sufficient, it must contain speciflc mitigation to
anticipated environmental harms. The IS/MND for this project contains vague, unspecifled,
and deferred mitigation. This is discussed below in conjunction with the health and safety
risks inherent in this project.
The Health & Safety of Our Community is at Risk
In addition to the grave effects on the land and natural resources, the development of this
hillside presents a risk to the health and safety of the community, and particularly, the
adjacent neighbors, which include long-established residential neighborhoods and a
school. Speciflcally, we have noted the risks to health and safety caused by impeding the
surrounding neighborhood’s evacuation in the event of a wildflre or other emergency; the
possibility for erosion, mudslide, and landslide on the project site; and exposing the
surrounding area to risk of fiooding, water quality degradation, water pollution, harms
associated with the proposed bioretention pond. (Fordyce letter dated October 8, 2025, at
pp. 21-33).
Despite the existence of all these risks, the proposed mitigation measures are uncertain,
vague, deferred, and potentially unenforceable. For example, while the project is in a
Hydrologic Hazard Zone, an erosion and sediment control plan has not even been
prepared. The risk is identifled, but the mitigation is deferred. The IS/MND states: “Because
a flnal erosion and sediment control plan has not yet been prepared for the proposed
project, proper compliance with the aforementioned regulations cannot be ensured at the
time and the proposed project could discharge sediment or urban pollutants through soil
erosion violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction.” (IS/MND p. 72).
The IS/MND concludes that the proposed project “could result in the violation of water
quality standards or degradation of water during construction, and a potentially signiflcant
impact would occur.” (IS/MND p. 73) The mitigation measure is to prepare the flnal erosion
and sediment control plan. This is a future, vague, uncertain mitigation measure.
Based on the scope of the construction, grading, flll, and watering, it is conceivable that all
of us who reside below the hillside will end up with homes and yards signiflcantly
impacted. According to the IS/MND, “Without incorporating the recommendations
included within the GGHI, new flll placed for the planned structures and streets on existing
slopes could cause a signiflcant impact related to slope instability.” (IS/MND, p. 61). The
proposed project could result in potential hazards or risks related to landslides, lateral
spreading, subsidence, and/or soil expansion, and a potentially signiflcant impact could
occur. The mitigation measure is: “prior to approval of any grading or improvement plans, a
licensed engineer shall review the plans to ensure the engineering recommendations are
adequately incorporated to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.” (IS/MND p. 63). This is a
deferred, potentially unenforceable mitigation that does nothing to assure that the risk will
be diminished.
We anticipate that yards will be unusable due to the dirt, dust, pollution, and water; that
the dirt and dust will seep into our homes; the noise will be constant. It is not difficult to
imagine the bioretention pond fiooding our yards and creating other health hazards. There
is also a risk of more harmful impacts, such as mudslides and landslides. Importantly, we
do not know who is responsible if and when any of these impacts occur. It appears that will
be a future, as yet undetermined HOA, which is insufficient to protect the health and safety
of the neighborhood.
The HDS&G, CEQA, the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance all exist to protect and
promote the health and safety of our community and the objective standards provided
therein must be followed.
State law and flre hazard mapping require that new subdivisions in High Fire Zones have
multiple evacuation routes, adequate water infrastructure, fuel breaks, defensible space. It
is unclear whether the SCCFD has approved site access or water supply and the mitigation
relies upon both exceptions, and “roadway and other improvements, for flre safety that will
be required as a result of this coordination with SCCFD.)” (Staff report at p. 27). According
to the staff report, PRC 4290 requires modiflcations to the “width of existing roads, existing
road surfaces, flre truck turnarounds, and the lengths of dead-end roads. An Alternative
Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modiflcation of Code was approved by the SCCFD
for Lot 10 to meet the PRC 4290 requirements to mitigate deflciencies of the 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 flre safety that will be
required as a result of this coordination with SCCFD.” (Staff Report at p. 27). What is the
mitigation for the other lots? What speciflc plan is there for evacuation, turnaround, water
supply, ingress and egress in the event of an emergency? This is deferred mitigation of a
critical health and safety issue—the potential for wildflre in a high flre hazard zone—and it
will impact us all.
The Project Belies the Legislative Intent of the Below Market Housing Law
Finally, it must be noted that much of the leeway given legislatively to the developer comes
from the notion that it is providing affordable housing. This proposed development does
not comply with the Los Gatos BMP regulations, which require the BMPs to be similar in
size and spread throughout the development.
Pursuant to the Los Gatos Below Market Price (BMP) Housing Program Guidelines: “BMP
dwelling units should… be consistent with the market rate units in the project” and “should
be provided proportionately in the same unit type mix (number of bedrooms) as the market
rate units” with the goal being “seamless integration.” The “BMP units shall be dispersed
throughout the development, to the extent feasible, in all buildings, on each fioor, and in
each project phase,” and that concentrating them “will generally not be allowed.”
The applicant’s justiflcation letter for 178 Twin Oaks admits a deviation from the BMP
Guidelines “section III A regarding unit size,” and states the market-rate homes are 5,775–
6,170 square feet while the BMP “townhomes” are 1,630 square feet. The three proposed
BMP units are all three-bedroom homes, whereas the market-rate units range from four to
six bedrooms — so they are not proportionate in mix or size under the BMP Guidelines. All
three BMP units are shown on the site plan as being grouped together (on Lots 1, 11, and
12) with a shared private driveway and turnaround, rather than distributed among the other
market-rate lots.
This provision of BMP housing is being utilized to obtain exceptions to regulations and laws
in existence to protect the land, biological resources, and neighborhoods. The facts are
that this is a large luxury home development. The provision of three small units placed at
the bottom of the development with a shared driveway, is not what was intended by the
BMP law.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this project based on an
insufficient environmental review, noncompliance with applicable regulations, and the risk
to the health and safety of our community.
Very truly yours,
Jill & Craig Fordyce
Longmeadow Drive
December 17, 2025
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank