Draft Minutes of the October 25, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/13/2023
ITEM NO: 1
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 2023
The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
Wednesday, October 25, 2023, at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Steve Raspe, Commissioner Susan Burnett,
Commissioner Melanie Hanssen, and Commissioner Kathryn Janoff
Absent: Commissioner Emily Thomas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Joseph Enns
-I’m representing Friends of Los Gatos Creek, working with Marico Sayoc, trying to keep the
waterways clean. Jamie is doing great, and I really love the Police Department. I don't
know if any of you know Superior Court, Julie, she said the Town needs a lot of help . I
know a lot of these homeless people, and I’m a disaster awareness response team person.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1.Approval of Minutes – September 13, 2023
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Raspe to approve adoption of the Consent
Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Hanssen.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 2 OF 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2023
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 17200 Los Robles Way
Lot Line Adjustment Application M-23-001
APNs 532-36-075, -076, and -077.
Applicant: Tony Jeans
Appellant: Alison Steer
Property Owners: Daran Goodell, Trustee and Mark Von Kaenel
Project Planner: Ryan Safty
Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision to Approve a Lot Line
Adjustment Application in Accordance with California Government Code Section
66412(d) for Three Adjoining Lots on Property Zoned R-1:20. Statutorily Exempt from
CEQA as a Ministerial Approval in Accordance with Public Resources Code Section
21080(b)(1) (CEQA Statute) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15268. Application is Only for
Ministerial Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment Pursuant to Section 66412(d) of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Babak Naficy, Appellant’s Attorney
- I represent the appellant in this appeal, as well as the ongoing case between the parties.
As has been said, the lot line adjustment before you has been the subject of litigation . The
only purpose for this lot line adjustment is to turn a currently substandard and unbuildable
lot into one that can accommodate a residence. Staff and the applicant insist the project is
not subject to CEQA review because it is a ministerial approval, and also because the
project doesn’t include any plans for a building. As I will explain, your decision tonight will
have substantial impact on how these lots will be developed; is subject to CEQA; is not
ministerial in the sense that it requires discretionary judgment; and it will potentially
impact the environment. Staff previously on this same project concluded that the same lot
line adjustment was discretionary but subject to a specific CEQA exemption, but now staff
says the opposite is true. One of the findings staff is putting before the Planning
Commission is the finding that the intensity of the new development is consistent with the
surrounding development and with the Town at large. You have to look at the intensity of
this project, look at the surrounding neighborhood, and make a decision, and that decision
requires exercise of judgment, which makes it discretionary. The main point is one of the
requirements to ensure the project is consistent with all applicable regulations is to change
the access point to give Lots 2 and 3 frontage. Staff says this would be through an offer of
dedication of an easement for a future cul-de-sac that would provide both access and
frontage for Lots 2 and 3. But for the cul-de-sac to be able to serve as frontage for these
lots, it has to be a street. For it to be a street, it has to provide primary access to these lots.
PAGE 3 OF 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2023
Therefore by accepting the line drawn on the map for the cul -de-sac, you are essentially
approving a new street that must be built; otherwise you can’t make a finding that the lot
line adjustment does comply with the frontage requirement. Even if you buy the argument
that the lot line adjustment approval is itself exempt, approving this street that is a cul -de-
sac and that has potential impacts is not exempt because it is capable of significant
environmental impacts.
Tony Jeans, Applicant
- I wonder why we are here. The DRC approved this a year or so ago. You as the
Commission denied the appeal. The Council then denied the second appeal. Council’s
denial was litigated and during the litigation it was determined that an incorrect approval
process had been used, so we went back to DRC using Section 66412(d) of the Subdivision
Map Act, which is how all lot line adjustments are meant to be addressed. The DRC
approved this a second time a month or so ago, and it has now been appealed to you.
According to 66412(d) this is a ministerial process. When we designed the three-lot layout
we abided by all the rules of Section 66412(d): the lot line adjustment is less then four lots;
there is no increase in the number of parcels; and the lots are legal, because they were
ratified by a Certificate of Compliance by the Town before the lot line adjustment started.
The Appellant did not appeal this process, so they are three legal lots and will remain as
three legal lots after the lot line adjustment. Is the proposed use consistent with the
General Plan? Yes, it is low-density residential and will remain so with no new construction
proposed with this application. Is the proposal consistent with the district zoning? Yes,
and staff analysis shows each lot meets the requirements for an R-1:20 zoning lot. We
chose to offer the dedication in order to make our lots work, and if approved we will be
asked to make that dedication formal so that it ultimately will become a cul-de-sac, the
access to Lots 2 and 3. My only conversation with the Appellant revolved around the view
from their back yard and what would happen to it if a house were built there on Lot 2.
They want to keep the park-like setting they have now, but that is not a reason for
appealing this lot line adjustment; it is unfair to the owners, so I ask the Planning
Commission to deny the appeal yet again and allow the project to proceed. We have met
all the rules for the lot line adjustment.
Shannon Jones, Applicant
- I represent the applicant. The appellant is trying to frame this application or project as a
development project, not as a lot line adjustment, and they are vastly different. By trying
to call it a development project they are trying to wedge it into CEQA, and that is legally
inaccurate. My office has provided a letter providing case law supporting the Town’s
position. It is interesting that the appellant’s attorney’s first comment was the only
purpose of this project was for the construction of a substandard residence. A residence is
not before you today, development is not in front of you today, and in fact he made at
least five or six references to a development and a development application. This is not in
front of you as a development application, it is in front of you as a lot line adjustment , and
as such most if not all of the appellant’s comments are inapplicable, because what is not
PAGE 4 OF 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2023
being applied for is a development as they want to make it; it’s a lot line adjustment. It is
very simple. There are three existing lots, they are asking to move the lot lines, and move
the boundaries of those lots, which is exactly what Government Code Section 66412(d) is
designed for. CEQA legally doesn’t apply, and nothing else that has been raised is
applicable either. The appellant wants to say the staff report changed; that’s not true
when it comes to the access point. In the first report they noted the access point and
wanted to change it, and in the second report they recognized that there was an access
point, so it was not a change in position, as the appellant argues, it was a further review
and clarification.
Babak Naficy, Appellant’s Attorney
- I have not suggested this is a development project or you are being asked to approve
homes, but I am suggesting that you are being asked, as a condition of this lot line
adjustment in order to ensure that it complies with your own regulation as it applies to
frontage, to approve the cul-de-sac, which the applicant was very clear would be the access
point to these lots, and were it not to be the access point to these lots it couldn’t be used
to satisfy the frontage requirement. You know precisely where that access point is going to
be, and by approving this lot line adjustment, including the condition of the dedication of
that easement, you are essentially fixing the entrance, a new entrance that doesn’t exist
now, to Lots 2 and 3, and any future development proposed for these two lots will assume
and will include the access point as its entry point to the two lots, so that’s going to be
fixed. Your staff has not told you how many trees will need to be cut, what the slope is
going to be, or how that will affect the drainage. All of that is being deferred to when the
applicant will come back with plans for these houses, except that you’ve already decided to
allow the easement, to allow the access point, and if you take away nothing else from this
presentation, just please consider that by approving the easement, by appr oving a new cul-
de-sac that will be forever the access for these two lots, you have made the discretionary
decision that is capable of affecting the environment, and as such will require
environmental review under CEQA. As you saw, neither the applicant’s attorney nor staff
had any explanation as to why the Town has changed its legal analysis and conclusions
even though the project hasn’t changed; that’s a classic abuse of discretion.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to deny the appeal and uphold the
decision of the DRC and approve a Lot Line Adjustment Application for
17200 Los Robles Way. Seconded by Commissioner Hanssen.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Burnett dissenting.
PAGE 5 OF 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2023
OTHER BUSINESS:
3. 110 Wood Road
Planned Development Application PD-20-001
Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002
APN 510-47-038
Property Owner: Covia Communities
Applicant: Frank Rockwood
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Study Session to Discuss Revisions to a Previously Considered Project Requesting
Approval of a Planned Development for a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large
Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned
R:PD. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program have been Prepared for this Project.
Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Chris Ichien, Applicant
- I represent Front Porch for Los Gatos Meadows. We’re here today to get feedback from
the Planning Commission and plan to come back with an updated formal submittal. The
most overwhelming feedback we have heard from our neighbors and the Planning
Commission and Town Council is the visual impact of the new Meadows. Why the update
is taking so long is that Covia became affiliated with Front Porch, another nonprofit
organization, with that came interim executive management and that delayed the process
for us. Also, increased construction and insurance costs have us reevaluating our project as
well. Effective April 2023, we have a new CEO, Sean Kelly, who has jump-started this
project.
Frank Rockwood, Applicant
- The concept plan we are putting forth tonight is a work in progress. We are now proposing
186 independent living units and 24 care units. The care units would take the exact same
footprint of the prior proposal, so we’re looking at potentially doubling up some of those
spaces, or making those spaces more efficient to accommodate more residents. We have
worked hard to identify where we might add scale and concluded that anything that goes
off the development pad would be very detrimental in terms of additional impact on tree
removals and grading, so we have stuck to the existing development pad. The tree removal
and tree replacement in our proposal is not because our development pad is getting bigger;
it’s almost entirely due to meeting fire standards. There has been a pattern of concern
about the visual impact of the front portion of the site. We are generally proposing to
move massing from the front of the site to the rear of the site. We are also proposing to
remove the penthouse units, reduce the average square footage of the units, and to
PAGE 6 OF 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2023
modestly decrease the amount of off haul. In addition, we hope to acquire 142 S. Santa
Cruz next week, because we see an opportunity to do a lot of community-facing offerings in
that building. It’s about 4,000 square feet. We think some of our current offerings might
make sense to implement in Los Gatos in this new building.
Julie Southern
- I live at 135 Wood Road and represent my neighbor Andy and myself. The Meadows have
been fantastic neighbors, and we were very sad to see them close down, we are very
supportive of the construction process and look forward to their return. The one item that
comes up is appreciation for the understanding of height, what was proposed a year -and-a-
half ago, and the majority of complaints were that you could see it from downtown. From
Andy’s view it is right out his front window, and from my view the story poles were just
right out my window. If they go up another two stories, as proposed, it’s going to block my
front view.
Frank Rockwood, Applicant
- We are working against the feasibility constraint and are trying to accommodate the view
impacts. We did not make any changes with the intent that it would worsen Julie and
Andy’s view. It is a complicated site and the story poles are difficult to read. We plan to
respond by looking at how our design would affect their view lines. We’re looking forward
to your feedback.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager
• The Town Council considered an appeal of the Winchester assisted living project. The
appeal was denied and the decision to approve that project was upheld.
• The Town Council discussed fire safe regulations process, often referred to as PRC 4290,
and based on the description of the process and the work with the Santa Clara County
Fire Department no changes were made to that process.
• The Town Council approved the Rezoning and General Plan Amendment for the
property at 15810 Los Gatos Boulevard as recommended by the Planning Commission.
• There has been additional progress on the Town’s Housing Element. The Housing
Element Advisory Board met on September 28, 2023. The revised draft of the Housing
Element was submitted to the HCD on October 2, 2023, and comments are expected
from the State by December 1, 2023.
• The Town Council is currently reviewing the Housing Element Overlay Zone that is
associated with the Housing Element and its ongoing consideration will continue at their
next meeting on November 7, 2023.
PAGE 7 OF 7
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2023
• Also at its November 7, 2023, meeting the Town Council will consider the Accessory
Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
• Town Council story pole discussion was started on August 1, 2023, and the discussion is
scheduled to continue on December 5, 2023.
• The Town is currently open for Commission recruitments, including several positions on
the Planning Commission. The deadline for submittals is 4:00 p.m. on Friday, November
10, 2023. Interviews will be December 6, 2023.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
Housing Element Advisory Board
Commissioner Hanssen
- The HEAB reviewed the latest draft of the Housing Element, which was submitted to the
State for review.
General Plan Committee
Commissioner Hanssen
- The Committee met to consider a request to change a Shannon Road property’s land use
designation in the General Plan from Agriculture to Hillside Residential. The consensus was
to not recommend approval to the other deciding bodies, because it was not clear to what
extent housing would be feasible.
Historic Preservation Committee
Commissioner Burnett
- The HPC met October 25, 2023 and considered four applications.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
October 25, 2023 meeting as approved by the
Planning Commission.
_____________________________
/s/ Vicki Blandin
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank