01-08-20 Minutes - CDAC
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE REPORT
MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
JANUARY 8, 2020
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a
Regular Meeting on January 8, 2020, at 4:30 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:30 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Mary Badame, Council Member Rob Rennie, Planning Commissioner Melanie
Hanssen, and Planning Commissioner Matthew Hudes
Absent: Council Member Marico Sayoc
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – December 11, 2019
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Matthew Hudes to approve the consent
item. Seconded by Rob Rennie.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. 14915 Shannon Road
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-19-006
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for a General Plan amendment to change
the land use designation of a property from Agriculture to Hillside Residential, a zone
change from RC to HR-1, and a subdivision of one lot into 10 lots on property zoned RC.
APN 537-27-047.
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Ray ‘Bud’ Elam III, Trustee, The Elam Family Trust
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin
PAGE 2 OF 6 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2020\1-8-20 Mins.docx
Sean Mullin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Applicant presented the proposed project.
Questions from committee members:
• Can you provide written materials and statistics?
• Were the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines requirements considered
when configuring the lots?
• Are there other similar lots that directly border Shannon Road?
Open Public Comment.
Letter from Paul Livenburg
• In support of the Elam project.
• Believes documentation on file with Town of Los Gatos is inaccurate.
• Rebuttal to Stop the Shannon Road Development:
o The development is 9 new homes, not 10;
o Only a 3 percent increase to Shannon Road traffic;
o Bike path and strategically placed shared driveway should reduce traffic hazards
o The lots are larger than those currently existing; and
o Santa Rosa Subdivision and Diduca Way houses have both maintained peaceful
and tranquil areas.
• Focus on getting one of the open space agencies to buy the Elam property
Mark Robson
• In support of the proposal due to the housing crisis.
• Traffic, traffic safety, and compatibility can be worked out.
• Should allow ADU’s to add more new affordable housing.
David Weissman
• Requested HR-1 zoning is less than the surrounding properties. HR 2.5 or more was
recently granted to Zahadi property at 15215 Shannon Road.
• According to LRDA couldn’t build on some of these lots due to slope.
• In favor of 6 lots along the road. Other lots can be the scenic easement.
Dr. Mary B. McNabb
• Bought six-acre lot because it was the smallest lot they could afford at 1469 Shannon
Road. When building, the County forbade them to use the existing driveway on Shannon
Road. They had to add an easement and road to Diduca Way.
• Traffic has increased since 1982.
• Project will greatly affect wildlife.
• Against the proposal due to too much traffic and Shannon Road is in bad repair.
PAGE 3 OF 6 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2020\1-8-20 Mins.docx
James A. McDaniel
• There is a dispute on the easement regarding access. There is no road to connect Sky
Lane to Sierra Azule.
Bulent Kurdi
• Opposed to HR-1 zoning. No HR-1 zoned property nearby. He is okay with HR-5 zoning.
• Bought their property because of the natural beauty similar to Tuscany or Provence.
• RC designation should be maintained.
• The road needs repair.
• New bike path does not solve the safety hazard.
• Setting a precedent of HR-1 zoning along Shannon from Los Gatos Boulevard. to Hicks
Road.
Abby Tsang
• Opposed to proposed development based on 4 points:
o Shannon Road is already over capacity;
o Need to consider density and not just volume;
o Potential fire hazard; and
o Has the trustee approached the Open Space organization to purchase the land?
Nilgun Kurdi
• Opposed to proposed project due to traffic. Main concerns are cyclists, hikers, and
traffic.
• The reason to buy there is the beauty which will be ruined.
• The traffic on a narrow road during a fire is a liability.
Dave Dgak
• That is the safest corridor to get from one end of the Town to the other.
• Concerned about traffic safety, impact on wildlife, and fire safety.
Maria Gerst
• Concerned the road is not big enough to handle the traffic from new development.
• She opposes changing the zoning to HR-1 and is in favor of scaling back the project.
Ryan Rosenberg
• RC to HR-1 is a big shift. In favor of trying to limit the number of developments.
Alicia Chevalier
• Notes minor increase in traffic, still sees wildlife, and is not fearful to cycle in that area.
PAGE 4 OF 6 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2020\1-8-20 Mins.docx
Fatima Abuzayyad
• Preserve the natural beauty of the area.
• The proposed site is very narrow.
• Shannon Road and Santa Rosa Road use that road to exit, especially during a fire.
• Wildlife need to be protected.
• In favor of minimum development with a natural beautiful design.
Dana Abuzayyad
• Concerned about gridlock during AM/PM commute times to schools.
• Not fit for HR-1 zoning. Supports Hr-2.5 zone change.
Jon Garliepp
• Disagrees with proposed project.
• When he bought they were zoned HR-5. Five acre lots at the time
• All surrounding properties are HR-5 or a few HR-2.5.
• One house and one driveway
• Traffic speed is 50 mph.
• Who provides the water system or septic lines for the new homes?
• No bikeway into the Town.
• How was the slope average calculated?
Melody Garliepp
• Shannon Road is designated a scenic road.
• New laws about ADU’s would allow the number of houses to be 16, not just eight.
Veronica Talantora
• Lots are very narrow.
• Bought 15 years ago for wilderness, beauty, and rolling hills.
• Supports contacting the Open Space agency to create a preserve.
• Shannon Road between Sky Lane and Sierra Azule needs repair and can’t support more
traffic.
• Daily traffic jam at 5:30 p.m. due to cars using Shannon Road as an alternative to
Camden Avenue.
Applicant
• Daughter explained 2 percent increase in lots and traffic does not include non-resident
cars.
• Road is crumbling so they added bike path to bypass dangerous part of the road.
• Can add speed bumps to slow drivers down.
• Slope calculations were provided in the engineering information.
PAGE 5 OF 6 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2020\1-8-20 Mins.docx
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following questions and
comments:
• Concerned about slope and building area.
• Bike path addresses slow uphill riders.
• Explore options for driveway placements of lots 6 through 9 to Shannon Road.
• House visibility will need to be addressed.
• Explore alternatives so all entrances are not on Shannon Road. Consider putting a road
on the spine in the open space.
• How many lots can this area support?
• Do you anticipate asking for any exceptions to the Hillside Guidelines?
• Like the bike path, but can the bike path be extended?
• Consider extending the bike path but may be limited due to topography.
• Has the Williamson Act expired?
• An EIR and traffic study may be considered when an application is submitted.
• Will the public open space wildlife corridor lot be included in the HR-2.5 zoning
calculation? Slope Density calculation for the whole property under HR-2.5 is 40000 sq.
ft. lot minimum. Six lots possible with HR-2.5.
• Proposal should be compliant with The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines,
including aesthetics.
• Create access to public open space.
• Use new standards for fencing which allows wildlife to travel.
• Include ADU’s in density calculations.
• Provide more information on HR-1 or HR-2.5 zoning.
• Appreciate the smaller lots, larger public lots, and coming to CDAC.
• Need to minimize driveway access.
• Consider screening to preserve the natural setting.
• The number of units is questionable. Technically you can build, but should you build?
• Pursue option for public to purchase property.
• General Plan update is considering zero growth in the hillside.
• For fire safety, do a traffic study.
• HR-2.5 or HR-5 zoning seems more appropriate.
• If putting in residences, screening is recommended.
• Do neighborhood outreach.
OTHER BUSINESS
• None.
PAGE 6 OF 6 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2020\1-8-20 Mins.docx
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
January 8, 2020 meeting as approved by the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee.
/s/Jocelyn Fong, Administrative Assistant