Item 1 - September 9, 2020 Minutes
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/14/2020
ITEM NO: 1
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a
Regular Meeting on September 9, 2020, at 4:30 p.m.
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19
pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from
remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. In accordance with Executive
Order N-29-20, the public could only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Rob Rennie, Vice Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Council Member Marico Sayoc, Planning
Commissioner Mary Badame, and Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen.
Absent: None
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.
CONSENT ITEM (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – August 12, 2020
MOTION: Motion by Committee Member Marico Sayoc to approve the consent
item. Seconded by Chair Rob Rennie.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 212 College Avenue
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-20-004
PAGE 2 OF 4
MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Reports and Attachments\2020\10-14-20\09-09-20 Draft Mins.docx
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for subdivision of one lot into three lots on
property zoned R-1:8. APN 529-31-084.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Brian Royston and Juliana Scalise
PROJECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Question from Committee members of staff:
• Why would the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines apply but the slope
density would not apply?
A: The property is not zoned Hillside, however it is located in the Hillside Planning Area,
so future projects would be subject to that document.
Applicant presented the proposed project.
Committee members asked the following questions of the applicant:
• Does the concept include ADUs?
Applicant: Lot 3 with a smaller LRDA, would have an ADU and a Junior ADU outside of
the LRDA.
• Explain why Lot 1 is so much larger than Lots 2 and 3?
Applicant: To maintain the Lot 1 frontage.
• Because this property is in a high fire area, will the development be able to meet fire
access requirements?
Applicant: We would improve the access coming off College Avenue to improve fire
access with a turnaround. There is an existing hydrant within 200 feet of this access.
• Where is the seasonal waterway on the property?
Applicant: It is adjacent to College Avenue.
• Do you understand the FARs with the reduction for average slope are fairly modest?
Applicant: Yes.
• Is the dedicated area the waterway? Are you planning for stormwater runoff?
Applicant: It includes the waterway, yes, and is the limit of the existing right of way. The
upper section would be similar to the existing grade, the lower section would be
adjusted to raise the edge of the road to provide access for Lot 3. We are planning for
stormwater runoff mitigation, potentially with bio retention or groundwater infiltration.
PAGE 3 OF 4
MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Reports and Attachments\2020\10-14-20\09-09-20 Draft Mins.docx
• Would the existing small building be removed?
Applicant: Yes.
• Would one of the ADUs be where the small building is?
Applicant: My understanding is no.
• How much would you cut?
Applicant: Maybe 10-12 feet at the rear of Lot 3.
• Would the hazardous Eucalyptus trees be removed?
Applicant: My understanding is yes. They are marked for removal.
• Will the waterway be within the public right of way?
Applicant: Yes.
• Have restricted covenants related to potential slope failure been considered?
Applicant: The first step would be a soils engineering investigation. Then something
could be considered.
• Should WUI defensible distribution areas be included?
Applicant: It could be considered.
Applicant
David Dauphin, made closing comments on behalf of the request.
Opened and closed Public Comment.
Committee members provided the following questions of staff:
• How will the waterway be evaluated?
Staff: The status of the waterway and adjacent development would be reviewed during
the environmental and development review processes for compliance with guidelines
and agency permit requirements.
Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following comments:
• Concerned about geotechnical issues with the proposed cuts, and about
appropriateness of this density at this location given public safety and building into the
hillside that may not be suitable for residences.
• On the one hand more housing is needed, however, concerned about safety. The
General Plan update Advisory Committee is not encouraging housing development in
the hillsides, given the wildfire risk. There might be a different way to add housing
without subdivision.
PAGE 4 OF 4
MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 2020
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Reports and Attachments\2020\10-14-20\09-09-20 Draft Mins.docx
• The ADUs would need to be on the same property as a main residence. Consider how
the three properties would work together on common problems.
• This has many technical complications with geotech and slopes. As long as expectations
are clear that we are not looking for exceptions or waivers, and that the limitations of
the development potential are understood.
• Hesitant as to whether three houses are appropriate here given the waterway and other
technical issues. Two may be more appropriate and cuts into hillsides should be limited.
Agree with zero growth in the hillside area per the General Plan Update Advisory
Committee, so consider the proposal carefully and perhaps consider two lots rather
than three.
OTHER BUSINESS
- None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
September 9, 2020 meeting as approved by the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee.
Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager