05-11-22 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: 10/12/2022 ITEM NO: 1
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
MAY 11, 2022
The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a
Regular Meeting on May 11, 2022, at 4:00 p.m.
This meeting is being 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 4:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Mary Badame, Vice Mayor Maria Ristow, and Planning
Commissioner Kathryn Janoff.
Absent: Planning Commissioner Reza Tavana
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – March 9, 2022
Amendment: Remove “and if positioned too close to the freeway.”
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Badame to approve the consent calendar with the
amendment proposed by Chair Barnett. Seconded by Vice Mayor
Ristow.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 2 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 11, 2022
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2022\05-11-22 Minutes - CDAC DRAFT.docx
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 300 Mountain Laurel Lane
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-22-003.
Requesting Preliminary Review of a Proposal to Amend a Planned Development
Ordinance to Increase the Maximum Residence Size Allowed on Property Zoned
HR-5:PD. APN: 567-24-023.
PROPERTY OWNER: Bright Smile Dental Office Defined Benefit Plan
APPLICANT: Kunling Wu, Trustee of the Bright Smile Dental Office Defined Benefit Plan
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin
Project Planner presented the staff report.
Committee asked questions of the Staff.
Opened Public Comment.
Applicant presented the proposed project.
Tao Ning, Speaker for the Applicant
- They are applying for a single-story home. They want to be allowed to build up to but not
necessarily at 6,000 square feet. The houses on the current lots 1 to 13, range in size from
4,500 to 6,441 square feet in the immediate surroundings. The proposed house will only
have a single-story and hopefully lighting will not be a concern. The lot size is 8.1 acres with
7,500 square feet of buildable area. Current development estimates list a land value of $1.7
million and a building cost of $1 million. If a residential house were to be built, the cost
would be $2.7 million. If restricted to only 2,400 to 3,000 square feet, that would vastly
undervalue what they can develop on this property. SB 9 was passed to promote
development.
Committee asked questions of the Applicant.
Tao Ning, Speaker for the Applicant
- The definition of a big family includes the extended family of cousins, grandparent, parents,
one unmarried son, and any future grandchildren. Currently there are four adults.
- There is a tentative plan for sale to a third-party developer. If the restriction of 2,400 to
3,000 square feet cannot be amended, they would consider selling it to a third party. A
third party has not been defined.
PAGE 3 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 11, 2022
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2022\05-11-22 Minutes - CDAC DRAFT.docx
Kim Willingham, Neighbor
- The driveway for lot 14 is adjacent to their driveway. It is a very long steep way up. They
are concerned about the driveway speed and noise on the right side of their house. The
neighborhood is quiet with mainly retired residents and very few kids. They cannot tell
people how many can live in a home, but it does impact them. Does the 6,000 square feet
include an accessory structure? They are limited to the amount square feet they can have
in the HOA. Lot 14 is a part of the HOA.
Mitch, Secretary of Shannon Valley Ranch HOA
- Some of the house size comps used were part of another subdivision and not part of the
Shannon Valley Ranch HOA. The HOA home sizes are limited to 4,800 square feet. The size
of a lot 14 home was discussed at their board meeting when lot 14 was sold. They did not
object to lot 14 expanding beyond the original 2,500 sf size. But no other home in the HOA
is 6,000 square feet. The structure should stay within with the HOA home size limit. The
CCRs and board thought lot 14 was part of the HOA restrictions.
Tao Ning, Speaker for the Applicant
- The noise and traffic on the driveway should not be a significant burden to the community.
The grandparent will not be driving, just the other three adults. They work consistently
throughout the week and weekend. The traffic level would be nothing equal to a
commercial entity such as a preschool. There would be no young children coming in and
out.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following questions and
comments:
• The title was transferred in October 2020.
• No secondary access is planned at this time. Secondary access was considered from the
bottom of the hill at Mount Laurel Lane.
• CDAC is not here to approve, but to bring up what could be potential issues. What can
be built is regardless of who might or will live there. Projects might change after
approval. People move. Who will be living there, is a secondary consideration.
• How does SB 9 tie into this? With the HOA there are restrictions on how many
structures, how big a development, etc. For example, FAR vs HOA restriction, which
takes precedence?
• According to staff the SB 9 ordinance is not applicable to the PD. The PD is an overlay
zone. If there’s a limitation on FAR in the PD it takes precedence over any underlying
zone.
• This is a recently established development. It has a cohesive spread out look. The lot
should be under the HOA restrictions.
PAGE 4 OF 4 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 11, 2022
N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2022\05-11-22 Minutes - CDAC DRAFT.docx
• The driveway length will probably require an exception for length and grading.
• It’s a recently established planned development. There are advantages and
disadvantages for living in a planned development. It’s hard for a deciding body to
change that.
• Concerned about the lack of secondary access for fire safety. Making an exception is a
tough call. Fire safety and the lives of people should be the number one concern.
• The driveway seems excessively long. Is it possible to gain secondary access from Santa
Rosa or a street closer to the building site?
• According to staff, secondary access from Santa Rosa requires easements from one or
two private parties. Staff would check should an application come forward.
• If the committee allowed a 6,000 square foot expansion, would that open it up to the
other lots? The committee is concerned about creating a problem.
• Lighting would double when expanding from a 3,000 to 6,000 square foot structure.
• This PD was already looked at by DRC, the Planning Commission, and twice by the Town.
The circumstances have not changed. I am reluctant to see that change.
• There is a history of compatibility of the house being at 6,000 square feet to the
remaining lots 1 to 13 at 4,850 square feet. The General Plan policy requires
compatibility with the scale and character of the surrounding structures.
• Placement on the ridge causes concern.
• Concerned about the slope and length of the driveway for fire safety and other reasons.
• According to staff, a formal LRDA analysis was probably not done before this meeting.
It was probably identified by just looking at the topo map for the flattest portion of the
property and where the former home was located. With an Architecture and Site
application, staff would look at the LRDA, etc.
OTHER BUSINESS
- None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
May 11, 2022 meeting as approved by the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee.
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director