08-23-2023 Minutes - PC (PDF)
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2023
The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
Wednesday, August 23, 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, Commissioner Kathryn Janoff, and Commissioner Emily
Thomas
Absent: Commissioner Kylie Clark.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – August 9, 2023
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Raspe to approve adoption of the Consent
Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 232 Danville Drive
APN 523-43-035
Applicant: D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
Property Owner: Cung Pham and Bien Vo
Project Planner: Savannah Van Akin
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and
Construction of a New Single-Family Residence Requiring a Grading Permit on Property
PAGE 2 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
Zoned R-1:8. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Savannah Van Akin, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Michael Davis, D&Z Design Associates
- The property owners are looking for a bigger house to accommodate their growing family.
There are 17 split-level homes, 4 two-story homes, and 21 single-story homes in the
neighborhood. The original submittal was modern Italian style home, but that design
provided privacy concerns for the neighbors, Town staff, and Consulting Architect.
Revisions based off the neighborhood feedback, the Consulting Architect report, and staff
comments include: a change in roof materials from metal to a composition shingle that are
prevalent in 95 percent of the neighborhood homes; a reduction in square footage from
2,860 square feet to 2,637 square feet; a reduction in building height; a simplification of
roof forms; a reduction of upper level massing; the removal of all arched windows; a
reduction in the front entry porch height to be in line with the roof eave; a removal of
upper level rear balcony and spiral stairs; a reduction in the lower level covered patio size;
a reduction in size of the upper level windows at the great room; a removal of slide glass
door to the balcony; and addition of two additional trees to the rear property line to the
rear neighbors.
Denise Martin, Neighbor
- I live next to the subject site. We met with Michael Davis, who has not mentioned our
biggest concern, which is the side yard between the two houses. We have two bedrooms
on that side yard, and both of those side yards have locked gates and storage units, but on
the plans they call for a path with a gate that leads to the ADU that is inside the house on
the back right corner. We were promised a quiet gate located closer to the back yard, but I
do not see that anywhere.
Michael Davis, D&Z Design Associates
- We did meet with Denise and her husband. We’re going to work with them on where that
gate to the ADU goes and will put it wherever they want it on the right side of the property.
The gate will close automatically to reduce noise because they have bedrooms on that side
yard.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Raspe to approve demolition of an existing single-
family residence and construction of a new single-family residence
PAGE 3 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
requiring a Grading Permit on property zoned R-1:8 with the condition
that 36-inch box screening trees be planted four feet from the rear
property line, and reduced gate noise on the left side of the property be
implemented through coordination between the applicant and adjacent
neighbor. Seconded by Commissioner Janoff.
VOTE: Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Burnett dissenting.
3. 16220 Harwood Road, Lot B
Architecture and Site Application S-22-036
APN 567-18-076
Applicant: Cherine Bassal
Appellant: Douglas McCracken, Appellant
Property Owner: Majid Mohazzab
Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman
Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision to Approve
Construction of a New Single-Family Residence for Lot B on Property Zoned R-1:10.
Categorically Exempt Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15303: New Construction.
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Douglas McCracken, Appellant
- I share a property line with the subject site. We are not opposed to development in the
neighborhood but oppose the overall mass and bulk of the structures proposed for lots A,
B, and C. The Development Review Committee (DRC) treated the three properties as one,
and the neighbors did not understand that most of the work was already approved by the
time it got to the DRC and a decision would be made. This appeal focuses on lot B, because
as a flag lot it is the most concerning to the neighbors. The biggest issue is the mass and
bulk of the second story and its impact on the neighbor’s privacy. We ask the Planning
Commission and applicant to consider: increasing the square footage on the first floor to
reduce the profile of the second floor; removing the second story balcony; specifying a
clerestory window in place of the large front window at the turn of the stairs, a raised
windowsill, or opaque glass; amend the conditions of approval to require an increase in the
height of the fence between the existing properties to the maximum permitted height of
eight feet; relocating the heavy equipment entrance to a more central location on the
property; and sharing updated design plans incorporating the added conditions of
approval.
PAGE 4 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
Athena Niayesh, representing the applicant
- The proposed new home for lot B is fully compliant with California housing laws and the
Los Gatos Town Code and Residential Design Guidelines. The concerns of some individuals
are just opinions and are not based on the housing codes or design guidelines. This house
is not too big for the neighborhood or larger than the average home, as it is within the
guidelines and there are eight houses in the neighborhood of similar size. The Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) cannot be calculated in the total square footage of the house per
California housing law. Any privacy concerns could be resolved by adding trees, and the
applicants propose to plant several trees. The proposed balcony would not face the
appellant’s home, and additional privacy could be achieved by adding a lattice. The
second-floor windows of the proposed house are to the left of the appellant’s house and
there is no direct view. The second-floor windows are 60 feet away from the back yard and
90 feet away from the house. There was much more traffic when there was a school with
80 students instead of the new homes being built in its place. The Appellants suggest a
one-story home even though their own home is two stories and built with the maximum
height and size, is the tallest home in the neighborhood, their windows overlook lot B and
neighboring residences. The proposed house is within the average size of other homes in
the neighborhood and is shorter than the Appellant’s house.
Nancy Durrett, Neighbor
- Appellant Douglas McCracken is my son-in-law who lives in my home along with my
daughter and grandchildren. I have met Mr. Mohazzab three times, and about a year ago
he called and asked us to sign a form that we had been informed that he is developing the
parcel next door. Now the story poles have gone up and it is the first time we have seen
anything regarding the development; we have never seen a plan of this house. Other
neighbors have said they have spoken with the applicant and had a neighborhood meeting,
but we were not involved in that. The applicant’s representative said the proposed home is
a little off centered in the back. It is a little to the left but still behind my home. Cars will
be going up and down the driveway and I am concerned for my grandchildren’s safety. The
home does not fit the neighborhood in the way other homes in the neighborhood do, and
this is the first house that is representative of being a house behind a house. Yes, my
house is just less than 3,000 square feet, but I’m not behind a house as this house is; I urge
the Planning Commission to consider that.
Pantella Saban
- I strongly support this project. I live on Belblossom Way, a few minutes’ walk from this
location. I am glad to see the proposed development, because the lot has been empty.
The project presents an opportunity to enhance the beauty and character of our Belwood
community while maintaining the aesthetics that define it, ensuring it fits well into the
existing fabric of our neighborhood by following the design principles that contribute to the
charm of Belwood. The proposed house’s design aligns well with the existing architectural
style of the neighborhood. Another compelling aspect of the proposal is the potential to
contribute positively to property values by developing this empty lot. The size of the
PAGE 5 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
proposed home at 3,100 square feet and two stories is similar to the types of houses in that
neighborhood. I urge the Planning Commission to support the construction of this
proposed house.
Nina Saade
- I am the owner’s daughter and live in Santa Clara with my husband and daughter. With
home prices in this area being so high my father’s proposed project could be an
opportunity for my brother and I to stay in the area where we were raised. My father is
acting in good faith and I’m sure he’s willing to work with the neighbors to make everyone
happy. We just want to raise our children here.
George Saade
- I am the owner’s son-in-law. Majid Mohazzab really took the Town’s feedback into
consideration through multiple iterations of the project. He is building to conform to the
neighborhood and designed with intention for his family. He’s thinking of his family’s
privacy through the use of trees and fencing. Informing the neighbors is something he
takes seriously, and he followed all the guidelines and got all the signatures.
Armin Ebrahimi
- I live off Belgatos Lane. The traffic from the former school on the subject site goes away
when three homes are built on the site. The square footage of the proposed home does
not change the number of occupants and traffic impact of the three homes. I walk on
Harwood Road and love the neighborhood and the many large homes there in that area.
This home is not out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr.
Mohazzab is a friend of mine, and a very shy person who does not talk to the neighbors all
the time, but he is the type of person who wants to work with people and is open to
adjusting things as needed to accommodate the neighbors. I am looking forward to the
empty lot being cleaned up.
Julie
- It is very unfair that the members of the family that belong to this project are the ones who
speak the loudest when they do not live in this neighborhood and have no idea what it
comes down to. It is not appropriate at all for a bunch of family members to speak up and
have opinions because of their dad or brother or uncle running this project. I hope the
Town takes into consideration that it is not fair to recruit family members to speak on their
behalf.
Linda Higgins
- I live on Belridge Drive at the top of Harwood Road. I am a concerned neighbor who has
passed this property for 37 years. I hope the applicants plan to install larger trees than the
24-inch twigs the arborist recommends. I heard the neighbors were informed, but when
the house plans were posted for the last meeting, they were literally placed for one day
and removed, so the lack of transparency is concerning. Would it be possible to move the
PAGE 6 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
entrance of the house to another portion of this lot, perhaps between the other two homes
to allow the McCrackens and Mrs. Durrett additional safety and privacy? This would have
the added benefit of providing another access for the heavy equipment so the children
living there would be safer. I am also concerned about the unpleasantries with the
neighbor disputing Mr. McCracken’s informed comments and Mrs. Durrett’s comments
regarding privacy.
Molly Rhine
- I live on Belcrest Drive, which intersects Harwood Road. What Mrs. McCracken is saying
about the flag lot and her loss of privacy should be taken into serious consideration.
Belwood is a considerate and flexible community with neighbors who respect each other,
listen to each other, don’t sneak things by, and don’t just go by the code. We do what is
best for all of us, which is represented in our lovely international neighborhood. I would
like the owner to this lot to reconsider the position of the home, perhaps reduce it,
definitely eliminate the balcony that looks out on the home on 16226 Harwood, and be a
good prospective neighbor and not just get family members who live a few blocks away to
speak highly, but take the high road and consider the long legacy that the McCracken
family has had on one of the major roads of Belwood.
Sam Mohazzab
- I am the applicant’s son and support this project. My dad has worked with more than
three different architects to come up with a final design and collaborated for more than a
year with the Planning, Engineering, and Building Departments and consulting architect,
and incorporated all their comments. The proposed house is designed to be compatible
with the neighborhood as described in the consulting architect’s comments. Regarding the
appellant’s privacy concerns, our presentation showed there is no direct view from any
second story window or balcony to the appellant’s home and any privacy issues could be
easily resolved with trees. A new two-story home would enhance the neighborhood
aesthetically and economically.
Majid Mohazzab, Applicant
- I am the property owner. Several people said we did not work with the community. I met
with Mr. McCracken more than nine months ago and informed him and other adjacent
neighbors about the project and told them where they could go to look at it. Mr.
McCracken has my phone number and could call me, but he didn’t tell me anything. As my
son mentioned, we worked for two years with three different architects to ensure the
design fits in with the neighborhood. We also worked more than a year with the Planning
Department to address the comments and feedback and implemented them. The
Appellant has had ample time to look at the designs and give their feedback. It is not true
that all of a sudden the story poles went up and they are surprised. The proposed home on
lot B is the smallest house compared to the other houses. Privacy could be taken care of
with adding more trees. The consulting architect has said the home would fit nicely within
PAGE 7 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
the neighborhood. The flag lot definition is you don’t have access to the public street, so
the house next to them is a flag lot and that is the only one in the neighborhood.
Pamela McCracken, Appellant
- Our main concern is that the proposed house would be looking into our back yard where
minor children play. Today is the first time we had seen the revised landscape plan, and we
agree it is starting to meet the conditions. I had also never seen the town architect’s report
with the concerns that Commissioner Burnett mentioned. The applicant’s presentation
spoke about the orange line of the height of the proposed house and showed it near the
bottom of our second story, and this is not completely accurate; I think it is higher, but I
recognize we have a high house and it would be lower than ours, so we don’t dispute that.
When we filed the appeal, we filed on behalf of the neighbors. We are not surprised three
houses were proposed for the empty lot, and I agree that it has fallen into disrepair, but
that is because the applicant has not maintained the lot and it has become an eyesore to
the neighborhood. We don’t dispute lots A and C, which are on the main road. Lot B is
really the problem addressing six houses that neighbor this lot that is set back behind
others. We are not disputing development, we just think there should be consideration
into what is being developed, especially when it is a new build, and we wish we had been
informed more and involved in the communication throughout the process.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Hanssen to deny an appeal of a Development
Review Committee Decision to approve construction of a new single-
family residence on Lot B on property zoned R-1:8, and to uphold the
decision of the DRC to uphold the application with an added conditions to
modify the plans to remove the second-floor balcony, install an eight-foot
fence which is no closer than 25 feet to Harwood Road, continuing
around all sides of the property, and to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, the applicant shall plant evergreen trees at a
minimum box size of 24-inches per the tree planting locations provided in
Exhibit 12 of the staff report.
Commissioner Janoff requested the motion be amended to specify that the number and
placement of the trees is per the presentation that the applicant provided to the Planning
Commission representing a total of eight new trees.
The maker of the motion accepted the amendment to the motion.
Seconded by Commissioner Janoff.
PAGE 8 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
4. Town Wide – 2023-2031 Housing Element
Zoning Code Amendment Application Z-23-002
General Plan Amendment Application GP-23-002
Applicant: Town of Los Gatos
Forward a Recommendation to the Town Council for a Request to Amend the General
Plan to Include a Description of the Housing Element Overlay Zone and Amend the Town
Code to Modify the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Division 5 of Article VIII Overlay
Zones and Historic Preservation to be the Housing Element Overlay Zone as Division 5 of
Article VIII Overlay Zones and Historic Preservation. An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) was Prepared and Certified for the 2040 General Plan Update on June 30, 2022,
Which Included the Proposed General Plan Amendments. No Further Environmental
Analysis is Required. Zoning Code Amendment Application Z-23-002 and General Plan
Amendment Application GP-23-002.
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Rosemary Harper
- I live on Alberto Way at the Los Gatos Commons. We are very concerned about
development of the property on the corner of Alberto Way and Highway 9. I’m concerned
about the height of the property; four stories are overwhelming to the surrounding area
where nothing is over two stories. The volume of the increased traffic on a dead-end street
with one way in and one way out means in an emergency it would be impossible for all the
residents to evacuate. The construction of this proposed property would greatly impact
the residents on the street, and the air quality is also a concern.
Lee Quintana
- I believe there is such an interrelationship between Item 4 and Item 5 that they should
both be considered at the same time and at the same meeting, and since it is
recommended that Item 5 be continued, I suggest this item be continued as well. The two
items are complicated and hard to understand, and I think they need to be addressed
together.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
PAGE 9 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to forward a recommendation to the
Town Council for a request to amend the General Plan to include a
description of the Housing Element Overlay Zone and amend the Town
Code to modify the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone Division 5 of Article
VIII Overlay Zones and Historic Preservation to be the Housing Element
Overlay Zone as Division 5 of Article VIII Overlay zones and Historic
Preservation. Seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
5. Town Wide – 2023-2031 Housing Element
Zoning Code Amendment Application 2-23-003
General Plan Amendment Application GP-23-003
Applicant – Town of Los Gatos
Forward a Recommendation to the Town Council on a Request to Amend the General
Plan Land Use Designation of 16492 Los Gatos Boulevard and Assessor Parcel Number
(APN) 532-07-086 from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; Amend
the General Plan Land Use Designation of Caltrans Right-of-Way Adjacent to 14685 Oka
Road from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and from R:1-8 to R-
M:14-22, and Apply the Housing Element Overlay Zone to Allow for Increases to the
Allowable Density, Height, Floor Area Ratio, and Lot Coverage to the Sites Included in
the Sites Inventory Analysis of the 2023-2031 Housing Element: APNs 424-06-116, 424-
07-116, 424-08-029, 424-08-058, 424-08-059, 424-08-060, 424-08-074, 529-24-001, 529-
24-003, and 532-07-085; 401 Through 409 Alberto Way; 620 and 14000 Blossom Hill
Road; 16210, 16240, 16245, 16250, 16260, and 16270 Burton Road; Caltrans Right-of-
Way Adjacent to 14685 Oka Road; 110 and 206 Knowles Drive; 445 Leigh Avenue; 440
Los Gatos Almaden Road; 16603 Lark Avenue; 14823, 14831, 14849, 14859, 14917,
14925, 15300, 15349, 15367, 15405, 15425, 15480, 15500, 15795, 16151, 16203, 16392,
and 16492 Los Gatos Boulevard; 50 and 165 Los Gatos Saratoga Road; 61 Montebello
Way; 14800 and 14840 Oka Road; 50 Park Avenue; 101 South Santa Cruz Avenue. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Prepared and Certified for the 2040 General
Plan Update on June 30, 2022, Which Included the Proposed General Plan Amendments.
No Further Environmental Analysis is Required.
Jocelyn Shoopman, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Mark Rosenfeld
PAGE 10 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
- I live at 449 Alberto Way and want to speak on the proposal to build at 405 Alberto Way.
The proposal is for two three-story, 50-foot tall buildings with a total of 60 units plus a 114-
space garage on the ground level with only 12 guest spaces for the 60 units. Our
community consists of two-story condos and townhomes. The proposal is extremely out of
character with our neighborhood. Parking on Alberto Way is already bumper-to-bumper in
the evening with no parking spaces to be found, and now there are only 12 parking spaces
planned for guests of 60 units. The most important thing is that Alberto Way is a dead-end
street and in the event of an evacuation there is only one exit for everyone. We have 110
units in our development in addition to the all the townhouses and other condos on that
street. The Town needs to provide the residents of Alberto Way with a viable evacuation
plan before even considering anything additional to be built there.
Lee Quintana
- There is such an interconnection between Item 4, which you already passed, and Item 5
and what is going on at the Housing Element Advisory Board, and each one is going along a
different path at a different time and not considering what is happening at each one.
There has been a lot of progress made in certain areas, but there are still sections of the
site inventory that may be a problem and will probably result in need for changes in
numbers, so we’re getting ahead of ourselves in what is actually happening or will end up
happening being recommended for approval. There are still so many ifs. One thing I
noticed in the addendum on this item is that one of the applications for SB 330 discusses
the fact that the recommended approval of the overlay densities and standards will not be
able to accommodate the required 30 units per acre density. So again, are we making a
mistake by approving that and not considering what standards need to be to accommodate
those densities and the other requirements?
Declan
- I don’t think anyone is being told about what the State mandated housing project and
overlay and all that stuff really is; it’s like a vague fog that nobody is telling us. We’ve been
fighting to keep property owners across the street from developing their projects over the
years, and now we’re onto something else, and it keeps changing, and the place is a major
eyesore. Can the Town please come down and talk to the people who live right here on
Alberto Way and explain to them what is going on? Why are we not being listened to or
explained to on what’s going on with these State mandates?
Closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to continue the public hearing for Item 5
to a date certain of September 13, 2023. Seconded by Commissioner
Hanssen.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 11 OF 11 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2023
OTHER BUSINESS
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager
• The Town Council met August 15, 2023, and received a status update on the Housing
Element process.
• The Housing Element Advisory Board will hold a special meeting on August 24, 2023, to
continue their work of updating the Housing Element.
• A joint study session of the Planning Commission and Town Council will be held in
person and via Zoom on September 12th at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the new State laws,
including SB 330 and others, and how they will potentially impact development to the
Town.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
Historic Preservation Committee
Commissioner Burnett
- The HPC met August 23, 2023 to discuss seven agenda items and reviewed plans before the
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
August 23, 2023 meeting as approved by the
Planning Commission.
_____________________________
/s/ Vicki Blandin