Planning commission recommends approval of 138‑unit Ochre Road housing project under state builder’s‑remedy rules

The Los Gatos Town Planning Commission on May 27 unanimously voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for a 138‑unit multifamily development at 14789 Ochre Road, a project proposed by Urban Catalyst.

Senior planner Aaron Walters summarized the project as a 138‑unit residential development on a 6.71‑acre site processed under Senate Bill 330 (a "builder’s remedy" application). The proposal calls for 18 three‑story townhome‑style buildings, 28 below‑market‑rate units (approximately 20% of total units), private driveways and internal private streets, reduced front and rear setbacks, reduced parking and a request for other objective‑standards exceptions. Staff reported an initial study led to a mitigated negative declaration and recommended the commission forward the project and the CEQA document to the council.

Town attorney Gabrielle Wen told commissioners that, because the project qualifies as a builder’s‑remedy SB 330 application and meets the state Housing Accountability Act’s affordability threshold, the town’s discretion to deny or condition the project is limited by state law. Wen reviewed permissible grounds for disapproval under state law and explained that the town must apply objective standards that do not render the project infeasible.

The applicant team, represented by planning consultant Lisa Ring and applicant Eric Hayden of Urban Catalyst, described outreach with adjacent neighbors including the nearby mobile home park, a community center and a swim/ racket club. The team said it had adjusted the site plan—moving a northern driveway roughly 15 feet away from the shared property line—and offered on‑site and frontage improvements, including curb, gutter and sidewalk reconstruction and striped bike lanes on the project side of Oka/Ochre Road.

Public comment reflected a mix of support and concern. A nearby resident and teacher (Alex) urged approval, saying new homes would help local school enrollment and provide more housing options close to jobs and community facilities. Other speakers raised traffic and parking worries, emergency access on Oka Road (a one‑way connection for some nearby properties), the adequacy of guest parking (the project proposes 20 on‑site guest spaces versus a commonly cited 138‑space standard), and site‑specific safety considerations related to floodplain grading and soil conditions.

Applicant and staff responses

The applicant and town staff repeatedly pointed to technical studies in the record: a traffic analysis reviewed by town staff and Santa Clara County Fire, geotechnical and grading plans showing imported fill ranging from zero to a maximum of about 3.5 feet on portions of the site to address the modeled 100‑year floodplain, and an environmental analysis recommending mitigation measures. Staff clarified that building heights cited in the record (about 42–44 feet) are calculated from existing grade; because the plan includes fill, perceived heights from finished grade would be lower in most locations.

On parking, the project would supply two spaces per home (some configured as tandem) and 20 labeled guest spaces on site; staff estimated roughly 45 legal on‑street spaces could be created along the project frontage after improvements, but commissioners and commenters flagged where guest parking demand could spill into surrounding streets.

Design, landscaping and buffers

Commissioners pressed the applicant about design details raised by the town’s consulting architect—material plane changes, window and trim treatments, vinyl windows, and third‑floor stepbacks. The applicant explained some consulting comments related to subjective design guidelines and said the project, as a builder’s‑remedy application, is relying on objective standards; the applicant declined to make some of the consulting architect’s suggested changes at this time.

The landscape plan includes a high proportion of native species and a substantial number of ginkgo trees called out as a design choice; the applicant said ginkgos were selected for size, color and smaller root balls near a shared sewer line with the mobile home park. Commissioners asked about species diversity and asked the applicant to consider mixing additional evergreen screening where privacy is a concern. The applicant declined to revise the landscape palette at this hearing.

Public safety and emergency access

Commissioners asked whether the project meets Santa Clara County Fire requirements and whether additional water capacity, sprinklers or other measures were required. Staff and the applicant reported that County Fire and public works reviewed the site and concluded the project meets necessary standards for emergency access; the traffic study and design assumptions were in the record. Several commenters remained concerned about one‑way ingress/egress constraints on Oka Road and urged further study or a second vehicular access in later review stages.

CEQA and traffic analysis

The town’s CEQA consultant explained the vehicle‑miles‑traveled (VMT) approach used under current law and the town’s adopted thresholds. The project’s VMT metrics were below town thresholds and the modeled increase in VMT was under the town’s project‑effect threshold (reported as less than 6.5% of baseline), so staff concluded there is no significant CEQA VMT impact under town guidance. The commission and members of the public raised questions about weekend and special‑event congestion (so‑called "beach traffic"); staff confirmed weekend congestion was not part of the weekday AM/PM peak analyses in the traffic study.

Retaining walls, fences and neighbor impacts

Engineering staff clarified a north property‑line treatment that includes a ~3–3.5‑ft retaining wall on the mobile home park side plus a proposed 6‑ft masonry wall on top of that on the development side; from the mobile home park this combination could visually read as roughly a 9.5‑ft vertical separation. Sight‑triangle adjustments at driveways and related frontage conditions were discussed and included in recommended conditions of approval.

Commission action

Commissioner Stump moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council, making findings on CEQA (the mitigated negative declaration), general plan consistency and noting the limitations imposed by SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act. Commissioner Mayor seconded. After discussion and comments about the constraints of builder’s‑remedy projects on local standards, the commission voted unanimously to forward the recommendation to the Town Council.

What happens next

The commission’s action is a recommendation; the project and the associated environmental document will be considered by the Town Council in a future hearing. The project record includes technical studies, public comments, mitigation measures and recommended conditions of approval; the applicant will be required to prepare CC&Rs, affordable housing agreements and construction management plans as part of later permitting steps.

Reporting note: Names, titles and technical claims above are taken from the hearing transcript. Variants in spelled place names and speaker name spellings appeared in the transcript and are standardized in this report for clarity.