10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC Draft
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: 03/09/2022 ITEM NO: 1
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
OCTOBER 13, 2021
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a
Regular Meeting on October 13, 2021, at 4:30 p.m.
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
Government Code Section 54953, as Amended by Assembly Bill 361, in response to the state
of emergency relating to COVID-19 and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by
suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §
54950 et seq.). Consistent with AB 361 and Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2021-044 this
meeting will not be physically open to the public and the Council and/or Commissioners will
be teleconferencing from remote locations. Members of the public can only participate in the
meeting by joining the Zoom webinar.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:32 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Vice Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Council Member Mary Badame, Council Member Matthew
Hudes, Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Reza Tavana.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – June 9, 2021
MOTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen to approve the
consent calendar. Seconded by Council Member Mary Badame.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 4-0
PAGE 2 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2021
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC Draft.docx
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 15171 Los Gatos Boulevard
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-002
Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for a Specific Plan amendment to the North
Forty Specific Plan for construction of a commercial building on property zoned North
Forty Specific Plan. APN 424-07-060.
PROPERTY OWNER: MBK Enterprise/Bahram Najafzade
APPLICANT: FNZ Architects Inc.
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the proposed project.
Committee members asked the following questions of the applicant and owner:
• Why are you asking for so many exemptions now?
Applicant: The existing gas station must remain until their ten-year lease expires. The
owner would like to demolish the current one-story minimart, mechanic shops, and
surrounding fence to build a two-story building with a convenience store on the ground
floor and office space on the second floor.
• You mentioned a verbal agreement with the planner. The planners couldn’t promise
anything since they are not the deciding body. What did you mean?
Applicant: I mis-used the phrase: “verbal agreement.” There was no verbal agreement.
It was a discussion of options to develop the site and possible amendments.
• What did the owner request of the North Forty Specific Plan Advisory Committee at the
North Forty Specific Plan meetings? Or was this a different owner?
Owner: The same owner was present at the meetings. He didn’t realize their property
was affected by the North Forty Specific Plan. No formal request was made. Surprised
to learn of a twenty foot setback requirement once the construction began. He has not
read the Environmental Impact Report.
• Why discontinue the gas station?
Owner: The gas station contract with Conoco Philips runs until 2034. There will a huge
penalty if the contract is broken. In the future, gas stations may not be a viable
business.
• Any thought of transitioning to alternative energy services?
PAGE 3 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2021
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC Draft.docx
Owner: They are considering alternative energy use such as a hydrogen power or fast
charge site. If anything is added, the gas portion would need to be removed to make
room.
• Have you received any offers for alternative energy facilities? Are there other similar
facilities offered in the North Forty?
Owner: Have not received any offers. There are no other facilities to his knowledge.
• At first, we thought the gas station was going to remain. But now, it seems the building
will be removed.
Owner: We will tear down the minimart and mechanic shops. There will be a new
building moved further back with just a convenience store.
• What is the purpose of the circular portion in the design?
Applicant: It is for aesthetic reasons and it houses portions of the office space and
convenience store.
• Why include office space since the market for office space is slow now?
Owner: It is for personal use for their employees. They are currently renting various
office space elsewhere.
• How does this architectural concept fit in with the surrounding property at North Forty?
Owner: Nothing is decided yet. Trying to first determine placement, setbacks, and
parking.
• Owner: The owner is a resident of Monte Sereno and drives daily by the property. He
hopes to improve the look of the property and provide a financially viable function.
Visually and architecturally representative of where the whole neighborhood is going.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following questions and
comments:
• This is an important corner that merits redevelopment. It should mirror the North Forty
architecture.
• Neighborhood compatibility is important. However, the project does not have to just
match the architecture nearby. It can be superior and very attractive.
• This visible corner is the gateway to a modern architectural development.
• It should mirror the design intentions of the North Forty Specific Plan to make the area
more pedestrian and bicycle friendly with added sidewalks.
• The number of requested exceptions is high: a height limit that is 36 percent in excess
from allowed twenty-five feet, a four feet setback versus the required 20 feet, a likely
lot coverage that exceeds the maximum of 50 percent, non-compliance with the open
space requirement of 30 percent, failure to provide for the orchard planting landscape,
and a 47 percent discrepancy from the required number of parking spaces.
• There are many constraints due to the lot size and shape. The project may have to be
scaled back to avoid the multiple exceptions requested.
PAGE 4 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2021
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\10-13-21 Minutes - CDAC Draft.docx
OTHER BUSINESS
- None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
October 13, 2021 meeting as approved by the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee.
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director