Los Gatos planning commission pauses 12‑lot Twin Oaks subdivision after public objections over trees, drainage and CEQA

The Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission on Dec. 17 heard more than three hours of testimony and technical questioning about a proposed 12‑lot subdivision at 178 Twin Oaks Drive and voted to continue the item so staff and the applicant can provide additional information.

Senior Planner Erin Walters summarized the application as a request to subdivide a 17.5‑acre vacant lot into 12 single‑family home lots with associated architecture and site applications, grading, and removal of protected trees. "Of the 12 single family homes, 3 are designated to be affordable, representing 25% of the total units," Walters told commissioners, and she said an initial study and proposed mitigated negative declaration (MND) had been prepared and peer‑reviewed by town consultants.

Town Attorney Gabrielle Whelan told the commission the project was being considered under several state laws, including Senate Bill 330, the state density bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act (the so‑called builder’s remedy). "Pursuant to Senate Bill 330, the town is limited to five public hearings on any SB‑330 project," Whelan said, and explained that applicants who vested before the town’s housing element certification may be eligible to use the builder’s remedy and certain density‑bonus incentives, concessions and waivers.

The bulk of the meeting was public comment and a technical question‑and‑answer session. Neighbors and environmental groups raised three recurring concerns: tree loss and wildlife habitat, stormwater/drainage impacts to Ross Creek and adjacent yards, and whether the MND adequately addresses potential significant impacts or whether a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

Cindy Clark, who identified herself as a Los Gatos resident and Midpeninsula Open Space docent, urged preservation of the mature oaks that she described as "keystone species." "These are mostly oaks — they're large trees, they're old, and they're not replaceable at all," Clark said. Multiple neighbors described wildlife (owls, coyotes, hawks and turkeys), and warned that removal of mature trees would destroy habitat.

Several speakers with professional backgrounds questioned the adequacy of the environmental review. Craig Fordyce, citing letters from the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon (Bird Alliance), said the MND relies on an uncertified 2017 EIR and omitted evidence of potential hydrological and biological impacts. "Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA review," Fordyce said, and recommended preparing an EIR.

Neighbors and commenters also focused on drainage and planned bioretention ponds. Chris Bayoric said the proposed bioretention basins raise public‑health questions about standing water and mosquitoes, especially near a school. The applicant’s civil engineer (HMH) responded that bioretention cells would be sized to drain and treat runoff per local and county standards, would include overflows and maintenance plans, and that an orifice control would limit post‑development discharge so existing downstream facilities are not overwhelmed.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and consultants for specifics. Commissioner Sordi asked whether the ephemeral swale and riparian vegetation had been delineated and whether soils surveys identified hydrophytic soils; the town’s environmental consultant said biological surveys were conducted in December 2024 and May 2025 and found no seasonal wetland plants in the ephemeral drainage, although the consultants did identify a small wetland in the northwestern corner of the site that the project avoids.

Tree‑retention and defensible‑space rules complicated mitigation proposals. The applicant's landscape architect said the team maximized planting consistent with Cal Fire Hillside Wildland‑Urban‑Interface defensible‑space rules and said the project would preserve many trees while selectively removing others per arborist reports. The applicant’s arborist and landscape architect said replacement and screening plantings were proposed where feasible but that Cal Fire defensible‑space rules limit how dense plantings can be in some zones.

The developer, represented by Jim Foley of Pennant Properties, described the Dodge family’s long history in Los Gatos and said the proposal included three below‑market, for‑sale units. "This project is gonna bring some of the first new affordable units for sale in town since I think Bella Terra at the North 40," Foley said, and the applicant asked commissioners to recommend approval to the Town Council.

Commissioners debated several legal and policy issues: whether the record contains a "fair argument" that the project may have significant environmental impacts (the legal test that triggers an EIR), whether staff reasonably relied on technical reports, and how to evaluate state density‑bonus requests for incentives, concessions and waivers (for example, exemptions from sidewalks or trails) under state law requiring an identifiable cost reduction to the project. Staff said the town could ask the applicant for a written explanation of cost impacts but could not require confidential pro formas.

After extensive questioning, commissioners agreed they needed more detailed information before making findings. Items the commission asked staff and the applicant to return with included clearer maps and staking or delineation for a site visit, a more detailed presentation of hydrology/erosion/runoff pre‑ and post‑project (particularly flow to Ross Creek), sizing and maintenance details for bioretention cells and pervious pavement, clarification of the 10‑foot buffer along the ephemeral drainage where the plan appears inconsistent, the tree replacement plan and species palette (with more native species where feasible), and cost/feasibility analysis for trail or open‑space easement options.

Vice Chair Birch moved to continue the item ("not to date certain") so staff and the applicant could gather the additional information discussed; the motion passed unanimously. Chair closed the special meeting and thanked the commission, staff and public. The Planning Commission did not make a final recommendation on the project; the hearing will resume after staff and the applicant provide the requested follow‑up materials.

What’s next: staff and the applicant will prepare additional technical clarifications and possibly arrange a better‑marked site visit for commissioners; the item will be scheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting once the requested materials are available.