Attachment 12 - August 24, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Kylie Clark
Kathryn Janoff
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 12
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR HANSSEN: We can move on Item 3 on our
agenda, and Item 3 is review and recommendation of the
Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council.
Just as a reminder for the Commission, we’ll have
a Staff Report, but we did see this item previously and
sent it back for revisions based on comments that we had
and comments from the public, so we’re seeing the revised
draft. I will turn it over to Staff to give us a Staff
Report.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. Before you tonight is
the continued review of the Draft Objective Standards for
recommendation to the Town Council.
On June 22nd the Planning Commission reviewed the
first draft document and provided input to Staff on
recommended modifications. Following that meeting, Staff
and our consultant, M-Group, considered the direction from
the Planning Commission and prepared a revised draft
document.
The revised Draft Objective Standards continues
to be organized into two sections: Site Standards and
Building Design. The revised draft includes a new Key Terms
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
section providing definitions for terms used in the
document. Many of the Objective Standards have been
updated, several new standards have been added, and
diagrams throughout the document have also been updated.
In addition to the revised document, Staff
prepared a redline document showing all of the changes made
to the previous draft.
Staff also prepared a summary of the revisions
made and responses to comments received from the public and
the Planning Commission. These documents are included as
exhibits to your Staff Report this evening.
An Addendum and Desk Item have been distributed,
including input from Planning Commissioners and additional
public comment received after publishing of the Staff
Report.
Staff, along with our consultant, look forward to
the discussion this evening and are available to answer any
questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Just to
recap, we did get comments in both the Addendum and Desk
Item from Vice Chair Barnett, and we also got comments from
Ms. Quintana.
I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have
questions for Staff? Commissioner Clark.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I actually wanted
to set the stage by thanking Staff. I had my original
packet with all my notes alongside the new standards when I
was reviewing it, and it was incredible how well all of it
was reflected in the new standards, so thank you for all of
your hard work.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Any other
questions for Staff from Commissioners? Okay, I think we
should go ahead and take public comments, and then we can
have your Commission discussion about whether or not it’s
good enough to recommend to go forward, so I’d like to see
if any members of the public would like to speak on the
Draft Objective Standards and you have up to three minutes.
If you’d like to speak, please raise your hand.
JENNIFER ARMER: Chair, it does look like we’ve
got at least a couple of people who would like to speak, so
we’re going to start with Rob Moore. Go ahead, you have
three minutes.
ROB MOORE: Thank you. Good evening, Chair
Hanssen and members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Rob Moore and I’m speaking purely in a personal capacity
tonight.
I’m here to voice my support for the Objective
Standards and thank both the Commission and Staff for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
working so hard to put these together. I feel that these
Objective Standards will do a lot to streamline the
planning process while ensuring high-quality projects.
I’ve actually been talking with hundreds of folks
throughout the Town every week, and whenever they bring up
concerns about the building process I tell them that this
document is in the works. It may be hard to believe this,
but without fail this prospect of Objective Standards is
incredibly exciting to them, and these Objective Standards
are exciting to me as well.
Thank you all for your service to the Town and
have a great rest of your meeting.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Mr. Moore. Do
any Commissioners have questions for Mr. Moore? I don’t see
any. All right, it looks like we have another hand up as
well.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I will allow Bess Wiersema
to speak. Go ahead, you have up to three minutes.
BESS WIERSEMA: Good evening, Commissioners, my
name is Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design. I know several of
you from many years past, and some of you are new. Welcome
to the Commission, I guess. I know it’s a big job.
I’m here tonight to represent your local
architects. We have reviewed the document and met on the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
side to help try to figure out how to best support the Town
in streamlining the process for permitting, but also allow
for Design Guidelines and Objective Standards that actually
would provide a positive built environment for the Town.
This group of architects includes Gary Kolhsaat,
Louie Leu, Tom Sloan, Jay Plett, Bill Cross, Terry Martin,
Bob Flury, Jennifer Kretschmer, and Tony Jeans. We’re all
people you have probably seen projects from before and can
recognize both Single-Family and Multi-Family around town.
We do have concerns about what we see in the
draft documents that are relatively significant and we
respectfully request that this be continued, and that you
lean on your local architects and designers to help define
details that are applicable to the Town and community that
we all love, work in, and service.
We feel that this document creates a rule of
thumb that can be used by everyone for essentially design-
by-numbers, like paint-by-numbers, which means you end up
with a picture that looks exactly like what the diagram
defines.
We’re also very concerned that several of the
items within each of the categories are not relative to
actually a positive Town-built environment as well as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reflect local standards for other communities that are
similar to size and scale to ours.
We’re concerned that the diagrams shown in this
become reality, because they are limiting in terms of form
and proportion. We respect the fact that you’re trying to
streamline the process by objectifying subjective and
design standards, however, that’s not the definition of
design, and I’m sure you all know that and that’s part of
what you review constantly on all types of projects.
Trying to objectify guidelines and subjective
rules is ultimately the definition of something that I know
everyone wants to do, because we’re trying to make it
easier for people to understand what to design to get
passed and make it easier for you to support or not support
a proposal, and we respectfully request that you respect
the fact that there are items that are already part of the
permit process that we step through from a design capacity.
We have peer reviews, Larry Cannon, etc., and we have to
take public comment on projects, just as you witnessed
before, and a robust conversation around them.
Many of the architectural features suggested only
reflect traditional detailing and architecture. How will
more modern elements be classified and who judges if a
proposed element meets this definition? The danger being
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that only traditional architecture will meet these
qualifications, and that is not necessarily relevant for
Multi-Family.
According to Item 4.6b, 60% of building façade
facing a street has to have fenestration. In some instances
a contrast of solid versus open, i.e. fenestration…
CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Wiersema, Ms. Armer has her
hand up. I believe your three minutes are up.
BESS WIERSEMA: I guess my final thing would be
we are willing to be available to answer questions, and
have gone through and taken each section, categorized it,
and have some concerns or options we’d be willing to share.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I can ask if
any Commissioners have questions for you at this time?
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you so much for being
here. I know that you very well may not have an answer to
this question, but I think that creating Objective
Standards, as you pointed out, is really tricky, because
you want to be encouraging creativity while also ensuring
consistency in everything, so I was wondering if you know
of any examples of Objective Standards that you think do a
better job at addressing some of your concerns?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BESS WIERSEMA: Specific Objective Standards and
Multi-Family or Single-Family Residential?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, like any other cities,
or anything like that?
BESS WIERSEMA: Yes, I know Gary Kolhsaat has
done an analysis, and for instance in the standards that
you guys are trying to put individual recreation area
requirements are much larger than most typical condo and
apartments built locally. One hundred and twenty square
feet of outdoor area per unit is not consistent with our
neighboring townships and cities, and much larger. That’s
just one example of many.
I think what we have a grave concern about as
architects and designers is that attached diagrams and
quantification based on a point system is really only going
to create a design-by-numbers, and who and how determines
what those points are and what qualifies as those?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Can you provide an estimate
of when the architects could provide some written input to
the Commission along the lines that you’re talking about,
provide all that information for our consideration?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BESS WIERSEMA: Sure. I’m happy to go back to the
group. I was nominated to represent everyone tonight,
because people had different things with back to school,
but I’m happy to collectively put everyone on a group email
to Sean and Ryan and Jennifer and figure out what might
work for you guys as well as us from a timing perspective.
We lamented in our most recent get together that
the special meetings and research sessions that occur often
occur during the middle of the day with a lot of us not
being able to step away from clients and the work that we
do in order to accommodate that, so maybe we could also put
some time suggestions together to present something in a
capacity that is useful to you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think you answered the
question, and so we would definitely encourage you to, as
quickly as possible, because this effort has been going on
for over a year now.
BESS WIERSEMA: No, we understand. We understand.
In the background, and just as a reminder, we are the ones
who actually have to deal with implementing this and
dealing with it alongside continuing to run our businesses
so that we can support the Town. We understand it’s been
going on. We also have been dealing with a shifting and
changing Building Department and process and procedure for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything, and we appreciate your consideration of
everything that we step through as local business owners as
well from a timing and efficiency standpoint.
We also have a concern that perhaps these Multi-
Family ones are going to trickle down into Single-Family
rules of thumb in terms of objectifying subjective
guidelines.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So now you’re not answering my
question and you’re (inaudible) into comments. I’m sorry,
but we do have to limit everyone to three minutes, so we
appreciate that, and we do encourage you to provide
additional comments in writing. Thank you.
Is there anyone else that would like to speak on
this item? It looks like there is one more hand up.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, we have interest from Lee
Quintana. All right, Lee, you should be able to speak.
LEE QUINTANA: I would encourage you to consider
meeting with the architects of the Town.
I like Objective Standards as a good way to speed
up processing of projects, but I think that standards have
to be easily understood by everybody who sees them, and I
would agree with Bess that the illustrations in these
Objective Standards do tend to make one think that all
these buildings are going to be absolutely symmetrical and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
absolutely square and triangular and all face the street,
and that’s going to be pretty damn boring.
But I do think we need Objective Standards, but
I’d also like Staff to explain what these particular
standards apply to and why they’re being developed, because
it’s my understanding they will only apply to very specific
projects, not every project, so I think that’s one of the
failings of the introduction is it’s really not clear what
they apply to.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you have any other additional
comments you wanted to make at this time?
LEE QUINTANA: No, at this time they’re all in my
comments that I submitted.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and we thank you as well, as
always, for submitting a lot of additional comments and
things for us to consider. I’d like to ask if any
Commissioners have questions for you. I don’t see anyone
with their hands up, so thank you for that.
I will see if there’s anyone else that would like
to speak in public comments.
JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone else would like to
speak on this item, please raise you hand. I’m not seeing
any hands raised, Chair.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: So then I’m going to close public
comments on this item, and I will turn to the Commission to
have a discussion.
Our Town Attorney has a comment.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If the Commission would like, I
can address the question from the public as to why the
Objective Design Standards are necessary. As the Commission
probably knows, it’s a requirement of Senate Bill 35 and it
requires cities to establish Objective Design Standards for
Multi-Family Residential development.
The second part of the question was whom would
this apply to? It would apply to Multi-Family Residential
development. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I had a quick follow up
question about that. When we’re talking about Multi-Family
specifically, is that going to be anything larger than one
unit?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The State Housing and Community
Development Department defines it as two or more. There’s a
nuance in the Town’s code, so we’re defining it to mean
three or more.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I wasn’t sure if it was
three or four. So it is anything that is three or more, so
not a duplex, but a tri-plex? Okay, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any more questions
upfront?
So then in terms of Vice Chair Barnett, you
submitted a comment regarding the Palo Alto Objective
Standards and you had subparts 1, 2, and 3 that you wanted
to discuss. What are you hoping to do with the Objective
Standards regarding this? Add things from Palo Alto? Maybe
you could help us.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think that the Palo Alto
municipal code section has very good Objective Standards
that relate to the privacy of neighbors with respect to the
use of balconies in adjacent Multi-Family buildings, and
you saw what they were from the input I gave. It would be
my recommendation that we include that as part of our final
approval of the Objective Standards.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Because at this point in time we
don’t have a specific section on privacy, although there
might be things in the standards that could address some
privacy. So your recommendation would be to include
language similar to that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: There is some language about
protecting privacy, but it’s not specific in terms of the
view angle and the height of balcony enclosure.
CHAIR HANSSEN: It looks like some Commissioners
have comments or questions. Commissioner Janoff, and then
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I was going to
point out that Vice Chair Barnett’s recommendations on
balconies is a deep dive in a way that the other components
of the document don’t do, and we talked the time before
about not wanting to go into that much detail.
I’m not against including some Objective
Standards regarding balconies, but I’m concerned about an
Objective Standard around privacy. Item 2 on our agenda
tonight was all about privacy. We don’t have Objective
Standards regarding that, so I’m curious to hear from Staff
or even the Town Attorney, because privacy isn’t just a
balcony issue. If we go to balcony, then why wouldn’t we go
broader? And if we go broader, are we going to get into
trouble? I’m just curious what Staff would have to say
about privacy. And would those Objective Standards lead us
to Objective Standards for Residential projects and that
sort of thing?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. Specific to the
balconies issue, what Staff can offer here is we certainly
looked at the specific section from Palo Alto following the
direction of the Planning Commission at the last meeting.
We recognized the level of detail that their Objective
Standards, which are incorporated into their municipal
code, that they go to here, and also heard from the
Planning Commission to Commissioner Janoff’s point that
that wasn’t the level of detail that perhaps our document
wanted to go to.
The other piece here depends on how you read
things and on future development. You can inadvertently
restrict future development on neighboring properties by
having Objective Standards like this and providing an
example of a Multi-Family development going in on one
property next to a Residential property, but once that’s
built if the Residential property wants to redevelop in the
future to a different residence, all of a sudden you can
create a conflict with privacy based on these Objective
Standards.
Given all that, and there were long discussions
with the consultant and Staff, we tried to simplify it down
to trying to preserve future development rights and to
create some privacy breaks regarding balconies.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you for that. To my
broader question of balconies, one component on privacy, as
we heard tonight, windows are another, for example. How
would we or could we, or does the Commission want to go to
privacy standards?
SEAN MULLIN: Windows could certainly be
regulated in a similar fashion to the way that Palo Alto is
approaching their balconies. Whether the Commission wants
to do that remains to be seen.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up,
Commissioner Janoff. Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas, and
then Commissioner Clark. Hold on, Ms. Armer has her hand
up.
JENNIFER ARMER: Sorry. I believe that Mr. Safty
had an additional thought to add to that discussion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m sorry, I completely missed
your hand. Go ahead.
RYAN SAFTY: It’s okay; thank you. I was just
going to interject it does seem like there’s a little bit
of confusion about whether or not we did include that. We
do have some privacy standards in 4.11b, but to echo what
Mr. Mullin said, it was a little bit of a struggle, so we
did bring that more as a request to the Commissioners to
see which direction you wanted to go, and the reason we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
didn’t decide to tackle windows is there are certain
requirements on size of windows for different rooms in a
house, so we didn’t want to overly restrict the
development. But again, any comments we’re happy to
receive, so please let us know.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that clarification,
because it has been a long process starting from when we
had the Subcommittee last summer and fall and we went
through every Objective Standard in the Town, and so if
things aren’t in there we probably discussed it and came up
with a reason why we might not want to do that.
Let’s go on and hear what the other Commissioners
have to say. Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner
Clark.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I hesitate to add much more
about privacy specifically because I do think that it has
the possibility of restricting design elements and/or some
types of projects, and as we know, it’s hard to get these
big projects done as it is, and I think that particularly
in areas that we’re looking to build a lot of these Multi-
Family we’re hoping that the Town gets some redevelopment
in these areas. It doesn’t seem like right now we really
need to be restricting things with regard to specifics
about windows or more specific things about balconies.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My other question for the Town Attorney is when
is our deadline really for getting these Objective
Standards approved by the Town Council according to SB 35?
Is there a point at which we get fined, we get in trouble,
or we get told these are our standards now?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If I remember correctly, the
deadline was January of this past year, so I do think we’re
past the deadline. In terms of penalties, I think it will
be difficult if we get an SB 35 planning application that
asks to see the Town’s Objective Standards, because the
Town will need to demonstrate that a proposed project does
not comply with its Objective Standards.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So the longer we drag this
out, if we don’t have Objective Standards then we really
risk projects having local control about project approval,
because if we don’t have the standards and they go through
the SB 35 route and we have nothing to show them,
essentially the project gets approved?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for clarifying
that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’ll go to Commissioner Clark,
and then Commissioner Tavana.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I also am
hesitant to put further restrictions on privacy. Even in
the Staff Report one of their concerns is the requirement
for private recreation space while simultaneously requiring
more privacy, and so I think already it’s becoming a
problem when we are focusing it in too many different
areas, and I do think once we get specific about balconies
and windows, then we have to get specific about other
things related to privacy, and then once we get specific
about privacy, do we have to go more specific with the rest
of our plan?
The Palo Alto standards are a lot more specific,
and I think that makes them more restrictive, which is not
the goal here. I think in general we understand that these
are supposed to allow development while making sure that
they fit with the Town, and so I think that it probably
isn’t a good idea to get more specific about these sorts of
things.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Clark. Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. I would
like to echo Commissioner Clark’s statements about privacy.
I do think privacy is inherently subjective. What is
private to one person could be acceptable to the next, so
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any language regarding this topic I do think should be
general.
Lastly, I think Bess made a number of compelling
comments and I’d like to see a comprehensive list of
suggestions. I don't know why it hasn’t happened yet, but I
wouldn’t feel comfortable making a recommendation to the
Town Council until I hear their complete comments.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Before I go to any other
Commissioners, I’m going to ask a question for Staff and
our consultant who is here. I thought that engaging with
architects was part of the process?
RYAN SAFTY: Feel free to chime in, Mr. Mullin,
if I miss anything, but throughout the process we do have
the list of architects on our email blast, so any time
there were community meetings or drafts of the document
available we were sending that out and strongly encouraging
input, and we do look forward to seeing these comments from
the architects.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. Then I will go
to Commissioner Janoff, Commissioner Clark, and then
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Here’s a
conundrum. We always want to hear from the experts, because
we aren’t the experts compared to what we know of this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
group of amazing, talented architects. Having said that, we
don’t have the input and we don’t have much time, or we’re
out of time.
I’m usually in favor of pressing on with meeting
an objective, and we’ve had quite a bit of time to do that,
but on the other hand, I’m also in favor of hearing
directly from the architects, and we got just a little
tidbit of what they have to say, so here’s my question for
Staff.
I could see myself going either way. I would feel
comfortable approving what we have tonight with some
changes that we are no doubt going to discuss with the
understanding that architects can come in and provide
comments and we can make an amendment; we can make a
change. So the question for Staff is is it more prudent to
get this thing through and then make changes, or vice-
versa?
If the architects are as concerned about some of
the language—and actually I heard more concern about the
visuals than the language—what do you recommend? Do you
recommend that we go forward with approving something so
there are some Objective Standards in place when an SB 35
project comes to the Town, or do you recommend we wait?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SEAN MULLIN: I can weigh in very briefly, and
then I would defer to the Town Attorney on whether it’s
best to get something approved and then amend it later.
I think there is tremendous value in receiving
input from the local architect community, so much so that
that’s why we’ve reached out to them and appreciate that
they’ve gotten together and will be providing us some
information. I suspect that with the Planning Commission’s
direction once that information is understood that there
could be some significant changes to the document.
So there are the two paths that you’re looking
at. It’s not having something on the books for SB 35, or
putting something on the books that’s going to be changed,
or could prospectively be changed pretty significantly in
the future.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Personally, I wouldn’t want
to put something out that’s going to look pretty different
if we have an amendment, so if the architects can come
together and provide us feedback within the next week, then
I would be in favor of continuing this to the next Planning
Commission meeting so we have the benefit of that
information.
One thing I would say is the diagrams that we
have are a marked improvement over the first draft that we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
looked at, so I think we’re heading in the right direction,
but my question for Staff is would there be any downside to
including actual images like the three examples that you
gave at the end of the Staff Report? They were really a
great opportunity to say this is how the evaluation would
work, this is how the points would add up, and those are
real examples in Town, they look different, and they really
provide kind of a range of architectural styles.
So my question is like the Residential Design
Guidelines, for instance, when we have actual images of
properties within Town, can we do something similar so that
we assuage the concern of the architects that this stuff
really does look like brutalist architecture if you go that
direction? I appreciate that concern, and if we can put
more actual graphics in I think that would make a huge
difference in speaking to the range of architecture styles
that would be welcome in the Town.
SEAN MULLIN: We certainly could include images,
and that was a point that was discussed in great detail
with our consultant. The caution that we received from our
consultant, and that I personally agree with, is that
putting an image out there to demonstrate our façade
articulation could have the unintended consequence of
including something else that violates an objective
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standard further down the document, and that’s just
inherent with putting a real world picture in. Because of
that complication we chose to move the diagrams from what
you saw at the last meeting in June to what you see now,
which is closer to the Palo Alto document, which is sort of
being the case study that’s being held up here, and try to
have a more controlled environment to articulate the point.
But if it is the will of the Planning Commission,
we could certainly start to work on sourcing images and
taking photos to demonstrate these points.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see what others think.
Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. First I’ll touch
on the photos. I agree that I had thought it would be good
to see some photos in there. I think that Mr. Mullin makes
a very good point. I have a couple of thoughts on it.
One is that I would hope there are projects out
there that don’t break any of the rules, since
theoretically we’re trying to bring these into existence,
so I think it would be worth looking, and if you are able
to find some and confirm that they fully conform, I do
think that those would be great to see in there. If that’s
not possible, I think creating some more nuanced versions
just showing something and seeing which of the ones it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
incorporates, how many points it gets, and showing that it
can be asymmetrical and look a little different and things
like that, at least having something of that sort in there
would be worth it.
I also am torn about what to do with the
situation with the architects. I think that their input is
really important and it sounds like they’re going to be
putting something together, and I don’t see a world in
which we receive that and just dismiss it, and I do think
that it sounded like there would be some significant
changes. It’s really, really unfortunate that the timing
happened this way and that this wasn’t brought to our
attention sooner, but I don’t feel like it is worth having
a really deep conversation and making a lot of changes if
they might end up not feeling realistic to the people who
are going to be tasked with implementing them.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Fair enough. Thank you for that.
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have multiple comments,
and first I would like to comment on the visuals.
I know that the visuals seem sterile, and I know
that I am not an architect, but I see that as more of an
opportunity. I really do feel like the visuals are a great
improvement and I do feel like in a lot of ways less is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more. I think that our Residential Design Guidelines have
photos of real houses, because residents read those. Not
that residents aren’t going to be looking at these Draft
Objective Standards, but the reality is that these are for
Multi-Family units, these are going to be professionals
that are looking at these standards and interpreting them.
So for me, I would hope that, as an architect, if you
looked at this you would see this more as a blank slate
that you could work with rather than being restricted.
I totally appreciate that the architects have
concerns, and I do think that it’s unfortunate that we’re
hearing about them tonight at this meeting when we’re so
far beyond the deadline, however, I would hope that we
could just get some very specific points about what exactly
is very restrictive and perhaps might result in too much of
a cookie cutter like development.
I see Ms. Armer has her hand up. Do you want to
say something before I keep going?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, why don’t you go ahead, Ms.
Armer, and then we’ll let Commissioner Thomas finish.
JENNIFER ARMER: Sorry, Commissioner, I did not
intend to interrupt you. I just wanted to make sure that as
we do continue with this discussion and consideration as to
whether to try to make a recommendation tonight or continue
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for further discussion in another time to remember that, as
with any recommendation from the Planning Commission, we
will continue to receive public comments through the
process as it goes to Town Council for their consideration,
so while we want the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to be as complete as possible, there still will
be that additional time after this discussion tonight.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Perfect. Thank you for that
reminder, because that was one of my other comments that I
wanted to bring up, that I personally am interested to hear
what other Commissioners think about making minor
recommended changes, but overall hopefully getting to a
place tonight where we can forward this to the Town Council
for recommendation and really, really hope and encourage
that those architects get their public comments in over the
next week, and it will be if make the recommendation Town
Council will know that we feel very strongly that we should
be receiving feedback from the architects and taking that
into consideration.
I just want to know, do any of us feel
comfortable forwarding for approval but then telling Town
Council that we strongly encourage them to consider any
further comments from professionals that they receive?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My last comment and concern, and this is again
unfortunate that we’re just hearing some of these concerns
tonight, but I did also hear that a concern is that these
Objective Standards might trickle down into Single-Family
standards and I wanted to confirm with Staff that that is
not the case, and that is not my interpretation of this
situation whatsoever.
RYAN SAFTY: I can take the first stab at this.
Thank you for the question. You are correct, these
Objective Standards, per direction from the state, are
applicable only to these qualifying projects defined as
Multi-Family and Mixed-Use. If, at a certain time in the
future, there is direction to do this for Single-Family I’m
assuming there will be an (inaudible) with Subcommittee and
community meetings to get input. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I would
also say that if you look at the direction of State law
that it’s not at all focused on Single-Family, because what
they’re trying to encourage is Multi-Family, because that’s
the best way to get more housing. Go ahead, Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m sorry, I just want to
add one more thing related to all that. I really think that
as a town, and I know with a lot of the work we’re doing,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the more towns that get behind on putting up Objective
Standards for things and fall behind on all of this, it
just is encouraging Sacramento to come in and put more and
more restrictions on local control, and I know that having
local control and being able to hold local power and
decision making of what our Town character looks like is
something that’s really important to our residents here in
town. I really don’t want to be responsible for furthering
any hard restrictions coming from Sacramento that would
take away a lot of our local power, and that is a concern
of mine if we continue to continue this.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. There are
several people with their hands up. Let’s go to Vice Chair
Barnett, then Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner
Janoff.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. I share
the dismay of my fellow commissioners about the delay from
the professionals in the community to provide input during
our process, however, we’ve received a number of specific
topics from the speaker about specific comments about
design characteristics and Objective Standards that they
don’t think are practical in real life, and so I would be
in favor of some delay. I wish we had a better sense of how
long it would realistically take the architects and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
engineers to provide us that feedback, but I would
certainly be comfortable with one week.
As to the photos, I may be wrong, but my
recollection is that in the process of developing the
Objective Standards we did see some photographs that were
prepared by the consultant and I thought they were very
helpful, and were certainly helpful in the Residential
Design Guidelines, so I would encourage that change in the
Objective Standards. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Vice Chair.
Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I want to address
two things.
First is on the images. As we’ve said, definitely
an upgrade from what we saw before, and I think from what
we’ve heard from the public tonight it sounds like when
members of the public do go look at the document it doesn’t
really make them feel like the standards are going to allow
for variety, and it sounds like it’s still kind of hard for
them to picture what they look like in real life.
Personally, when I’ve been talking to people about the
ministerial process and addressing their concerns I talk
about the Objective Standards, and so I do think that
people are going to go look at them to see what actually
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
happens when a development is going through this process
and I think it’s important to consider what a lay person
might think when they see the document, so I think having
something a little more real world in there would be worth
it in my opinion.
Second, I agree with Vice Chair Barnett that my
preference would be to defer this to some degree. I think
it sounded like the architects have some serious concerns
and I think that the Planning Commission’s role is to
really look closely at these standards before we’re sending
them over the Town Council and that we’re a trusted source,
and so I’d want to make sure that we’ve looked at them in a
similar form to how they’ll be seen at the Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. If we had any
assurance that what we were looking at in draft form was
90% close according to the architects, then maybe I’d be
comfortable forwarding it the Town Council and then letting
them do the remaining work, but I’m not generally in favor
of having Council do the Planning Commission’s work, and so
I really think it’s important, given Bess’ urgency that we
heard, I think we should give them the opportunity to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
provide input. We need to give them a very short deadline
so that they understand that we can’t keep delaying this.
Staff can confirm whether we do or don’t have SB
35 projects in the pipeline, and if we don’t today we
probably won’t in two weeks, and if we can get this draft
in better shape I think we owe it to Town Council to have
at least done the invite to the architects, give them a
hard deadline, get that input, and be prepared to discuss
it next week, so I’m in favor of continuing for that.
A couple other comments. When we talk about
images, I think it’s important to keep the line drawings in
there. As Commissioner Thomas indicated, it doesn’t tell
you much, it just says this is the basic, and that’s a good
thing for creativity. But if we have a bunch of examples
with good architectural design that incorporate these kinds
of standards, even if the captions say this is showing good
articulation or whatever you want the person to be looking
at, it doesn’t have to be in town. If it is, it’s great,
but it could be within the wider community, or even further
afield if we want to have really quality architectural
images in the standards, so I think that’s a really god
idea.
Last point, I think that the comments from Lee
Quinta on the introductory area are important. While I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thought her recommended changes for specifically talking
about government code and what it intended to cover were
good, I think if we frame the introduction specifically
siting SB 35 and what it covers or what its expectations
are, then we have a much stronger introduction about why
this is happening and why it’s important, and if that
includes the government code, great, include that too. I
don’t think there’s any harm in making the introduction
nicely comprehensive.
But I would be in favor of a short continuance,
and again for Staff, if we’ve got SB 35 projects in the
pipeline, you’ll let us know if we’re really flirting with
any real possibility that we’re going to have some problems
if we delay.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask Commissioner
Thomas to hold on and let Director Paulson speak, and then
I have something I wanted to say as well.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of
comments.
I think what I also heard from Ms. Wiersema was
getting something quickly is probably not going to be
realistic, just so the Commission is prepared. I think at a
minimum we would have to continue it to the second meeting
in September, and so I think that hopefully will give Staff
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time, because I think what would be important in that
exercise is for Staff to meet with the architect’s group as
well so we can walk through stuff together rather than the
back and forth of email or attachment communication, so I
think that would be important.
We’ve talked about the illustrations and photos
throughout a number of different processes, and they’re
always challenging, but I think we can definitely look into
that piece as well.
This is a little broader than just SB 35. There’s
also SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act; those all
have specific references to Objective Standards. We don’t
have any projects currently for any of those. The couple of
Housing Accountability Act projects you did see were the
North Forty utilized that for the first phase, and then the
Mixed-Use projects on Union across from Safeway where they
had the Single-Family detached and they had a Mixed-Use
with three condos above, so they utilized that. They were
willing to make some changes. I think specifically from the
Union project there were some things that they were willing
to do, but they weren’t willing to do all the things that
were more of a subjective nature.
I think it’s important to keep that big picture
of what we’re really talking about. We’re definitely not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going down to Single-Family or duplexes. We’ve had that
conversation as well. If that were something that
ultimately the Town is interested in, that would be a
completely separate standalone document for those two
product types.
I just want to make sure that we have realistic
expectations both for the architects as well as the
Commission to really have a conversation with them, have
them pull their stuff together so the Commission can have
it as well. I think is going to be a little more than a
week; I’m not sure that’s realistic. I don’t want to speak
for the architects group, but I’m fairly confident they
would potentially agree.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff. Ms. Wiersema
has had her hand up for a while, but I did close the public
hearing. Is it possible that I could reopen the public
comments and just get that input?
JENNIFER ARMER: But it should be for a very
specific question, kind of a yes or no type question. If
you were to open it, it should be very specific.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m just going to make a comment,
and then I’d like to hear back from Staff as well. I’m not
comfortable with sending this off to Town Council, but on
the other hand, I’m extremely concerned to hear that we are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this many months behind, so if we’re going to continue it,
it needs to be a fairly short time frame.
Some of the comments I heard from Ms. Wiersema
were around creativity and design and all that stuff, and
these are supposed to be Objective Standards. I don’t think
that there’s anything that’s unclear at all about
articulation and things like that, concepts that are
presented in this document, so any changes that get to be
made, it can’t be we want to have freedom to do whatever we
want, it has to be Objective Standards and we need to give
enough detail so that anyone, including people that don’t
have a lot of experience working with the Town, can look at
those things and say yes, I know how to incorporate those.
I guess I’m trying to figure out how we can
determine what is an appropriate amount of time, because
the other side of this is that if we are this far past
January, a few more weeks might not matter. So Staff, give
me some guidance here.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. I think looking at the
prospective comments from the architect community, as
stated before, I think there could be some significant
changes. We would be looking for the most specific comments
we could get on concerns on existing standards and any
recommendations to additional standards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
From a turnaround standpoint, from Staff’s
perspective, we wouldn’t be making any changes before we
came back to the Planning Commission; I don’t believe we
would. I think we would collect their input and bring it to
the Planning Commission for discussion and could possibly
provide responses as we’ve done before. I can defer to Joel
and Jennifer on that as well.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead, Director Paulson.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Mr. Mullin. I think,
again, another option is we continue it to the first
meeting in September, but if we don’t have the input from
the architects because they haven’t been able to pull that
together, then we could continue it again. I think that
would be a discussion for the Commission, whether or not
the Chair is interested in opening up the public hearing
for a very specific question such as do you think the
architect’s group is going to be able to come up with their
recommendations by next Thursday so that we can get it into
the packet for the meeting on the 14th, or two weeks,
because I think the packet goes out, Ms. Armer, on the 9th?
JENNIFER ARMER: That’s correct. We do have three
weeks until the next meeting.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I also heard an offer from Staff
to meet with these architects versus them having to send
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments back and forth to each other, which to me sounds
much more expedient, because you could take notes on what
sounds reasonable in a meeting versus sending things and
then having to review them and sending them back.
Before I do that, because Commissioner Thomas and
Commissioner Janoff have their hands up, I’m going to ask
them for their input, and then we’ll go from there.
Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I want to
say that I also support Ms. Quintana’s comments regarding
the introduction. I do think that it’s important to be very
specific. It’s called Purpose, and I think that being very
explicit and assuming that people don’t know what the
purpose of this document is before they look at it is
important.
My comment regarding the photos would be I do
appreciate how straightforward and simple this is compared
to our Residential Design Guidelines. I think it’s quick
and easy to look at and easy to interpret, and so I
appreciate Commissioner Clark’s comments about how lay
people are going to look at this, so we should include some
examples, so I’m interested in hearing if people are
thinking those photos should be integrated throughout or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more like used as an index to reference examples at the
end? So that’s one thing.
I have a couple of comments and questions
regarding just Objective Standards and SB 35.
I kind of got the impression from the architects’
comments tonight that Objective Standards in general are
restrictive with regard to design and architecture, and
like Director Paulson just said, not having Objective
Standards isn’t an option at this point, we have to have
them, so I am curious if this group of architects, do we
know what kind of projects they’re doing? Because I think
the projects that are going to come through SB 35 and
through this ministerial process, even though it’s
classified and Town Code is two or more, I would assume
that it’s going to be larger developments and
redevelopments.
So my question for Staff and/or the Town Attorney
is just because this SB 35 Objective Standards pathway
exists, can smaller projects still go through the typical
Town process in a different way and not have to deal with
this point system with regard to Objective Standards and
just meet our other Residential Design Guidelines that
exist, or is this now going to be the only pathway for
development of two or more?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can start. For SB 35 the
project has to invoke it in order to rely on it, however,
as the Director mentioned, there is also though the State
Housing Accountability Act, and that provides that cities
and towns can only deny multi-unit housing if they can
demonstrate that the project doesn’t comply with an
objective standard, and so it’s also a benefit to cities
and towns to have objective standards in place to consider
any Multi-Family housing project.
SEAN MULLIN: I would add that smaller projects,
to the Commissioner’s question, the existing process would
remain and they could choose to not go through the
Objective Standards process, which is a streamlined
process, and choose for whatever reason to go through the
typical existing Architecture and Site process.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So basically if you want to
develop a lot right now and you want to build a smaller
like four-plex on that lot, and it fits with the design,
we’ve looked at all the neighborhood, it doesn’t even look
like a four-plex, it looks like a normal Single-Family
home, there is a pathway to still do that through the
typical Architecture and Site application that exists right
now? I just want to confirm that.
SEAN MULLIN: That is correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, those existing
processes will still be in place for all size projects.
It’s really just when they’re invoking this special
streamlined process that we would then require that they
comply with these Objective Standards.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. Then my
understanding, and please tell me if this is not a good
interpretation, is that SB 35 is mainly going to be used
for larger projects that are invested with large companies,
large developers, contractors, big architecture firms, all
of that most of the time in our situation.
With that, if that is the case, then I am more
comfortable just proceeding on, because we still have this
other pathway that exists if our local architects feel like
these Objective Standards are restrictive, but I am really
curious to hear what other Commissioners think about that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I wouldn’t mind responding
to Commissioner Thomas, but I think we’ve got a question at
hand that really needs to be answered, and that is yes, I
agree, we should open the public meeting back up to ask the
architect, Bess Wiersema, since she’s the named
representative for the architects, whether they can compile
the comments of the architects within the next two weeks?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: That was my thinking as well. I
think a week is too fast, and if it meant that we couldn’t
meet at the next meeting, then so be it. But do others feel
differently about that before I ask Ms. Wiersema?
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’ll have
something after that, but I also think that question needs
to be answered first.
I think it’s important that the architects are
able to meet with Staff, so I also want to make sure that
that’s incorporated into the timeline.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to reopen the public
comments section and I’m to ask Ms. Wiersema a question.
JENNIFER ARMER: She should be able to speak once
you’ve asked the question.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So my question is this: Can you
either send comments or meet with Staff within the next two
weeks to help advance this Objective Standards project
forward, because we are in such a tight time frame?
BESS WIERSEMA: I will make sure that we meet
with Staff and we provide you with comments in two weeks,
100%. We care, we want to help, and we want to make sure
that this is a successful process for what Los Gatos wants
to see in terms of this built environment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I would say that I want to make sure that my two-
week time definition has to do with we have two weeks as
community members, business owners, etc., to get our
information to Staff, and that does not mean that based on
their backup of when they have to submit to you for
documents for the hearing, it doesn’t become a Desk Item,
which is always cumbersome for all of us. So I’m not sure
what that calendar timing is, and maybe you can help define
that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I thought a week was not long
enough, so I’m saying two weeks, and I understand that that
doesn’t include Staff turning this thing around necessarily
for our next meeting unless they could do that after
getting your input in two weeks, so I’m good with that. So
I’m going to close the comments, and I’ll go back.
We have Ms. Armer, and then we have two
Commissioners.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to
clarify that tonight’s meeting, we are August 24th, and two
weeks from today would be September 7th. The full Staff
Report packet for the next Planning Commission meeting goes
out two days later on the 9th, so if written comments were
received from the architects by the 7th, they would be in
your full packet and you would have the normal period of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time to take a look at them, though depending on when they
are received, Staff will have more or less time to provide
responses in writing in advance of the meeting.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. It sounds like we can work
with that, and then if something doesn’t occur as we
expected, there certainly is always the possibility to
continue it to the second meeting in September, correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. So then our date
certain, if it’s the will of the Commission to do this,
would be the first meeting in September.
JENNIFER ARMER: September 14th.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Okay, Commissioner
Clark, and then Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, just a couple of
things about the photos. I know that Commissioner Thomas
asked if we would want them throughout the document or as
an index at the end, and my personal thought would be to
have an image in the sections that are done through
scoring, and it can say that these are the parts that are
in it and this is the score it would receive, because I
feel like that’s where they started to look the most
monotonous to some people and where it gets kind of
confusing to picture multiple being integrated.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Second, I see what you mean, Commissioner Thomas,
about them still having that other option of not going
through the ministerial process and still just using the
normal one, but I think that it’s really important that
these Objective Standards are practical, and we really want
them to be utilized, so I think talking to the architects
is a really good way to make sure that they are as
practical as they can be, and I think we need to focus on
not relying on somebody possibly using the other process
and hoping that people will be able to take advantage of
the Objective Standards.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just quickly, I think that
given where we are with the promise of the architects to
come back with us, then we should suspend our conversation
tonight. We can have longer to look over the comments from
the Desk Item so we can incorporate those. I feel like I
have no idea where the architects’ changes might be, and so
going through the document I think doesn’t make much sense
at this point.
I would agree that we’re just really beating a
dead horse about the images, but images always speak more
strongly when they’re related to what the comments are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking about, so putting them at the end, where you’ve got
to leaf back and forth, whether you do it online or in a
hard copy, it doesn’t make too much sense to me, so I’d
keep those images interwoven with the discussion so that
the examples are clear, or put them, as Commissioner Clark
suggested, with examples of how projects would be scored.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I agree. I was not considering
going through the document, because I feel like there’s
enough support from the Commission to continue the item,
although we haven’t gone through that process yet.
I did want to weigh in about the pictures. While
understanding some of the complexities of doing pictures, I
think we need to have some pictures, especially—I think
Commissioner Clark was spot on—in that section where we’re
scoring a project. If we can get permission from a project
to apply the score to them, it should be in the document,
not at the end, and make it easy for people to understand
how to implement the standards that we have, because the
whole idea is streamlining, so we need to make it easier
for people and not complicated.
I also wanted to comment on Commissioner Janoff’s
thought that we did get some good comments from Ms.
Quintana in the Desk Item. I don't know that everyone had a
chance to totally digest them, but one of the comments that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was raised, and it was raised before, was about having all
of the Objective Standards from every other document
included in this document, and Staff did address that
comment in the packet and said that instead there would be
references to the other documents that it wasn’t going to
be in scope to do that thorough of a document to pull in
everything from every other document and put it in this
document.
I will go to Vice Chair Barnett, and then back
Commissioner Janoff.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m prepared to make a
motion to continue this hearing to September 14th with the
understanding that if we don’t receive the architects’
input within two weeks that it will be denied or not
considered for a further hearing.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Do I have a second for
that? Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I second.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Then
Commissioner Janoff, you had your hand up. Was it to make a
motion?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: No, it was to make a
comment, but we can go ahead.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: So we have a motion and a second
to continue. I did want to ask if any Commissioners would
like to make comments before I call the question? Obviously
we’ll have another chance to see this when it comes back to
us. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, just quickly. In
the interest of transparency, I also wanted to underscore
the importance of actual images to residents. We’re
entering into some uncharted territory with the number and
scale of the housing that we’re looking for under the
Housing Element, and obviously this document is going to
relate to that type of development. Having residents
understand and see what this could look like, and be really
beautiful additions to our community, I think would be
really important.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Thomas, and then Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do just have a question
for Staff. Are we going to get another draft based on the
few comments that we gave to you tonight, or can we assume
the draft we got tonight is what we’ll also see in three
weeks?
RYAN SAFTY: Based on the anticipation of all the
future comments we’re going to get from the architects, it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be my preference and Staff’s preference to probably
not go through an amended document and try to collect all
the feedback at one time.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I was going to say
that I would hope that you would do whatever is going to be
the most productive use of your time since you’re going to
probably have to go back and edit it again after that next
meeting. Okay, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I have a question for the
maker of the motion. If we do not receive comments by two
weeks time, will it still be on the agenda for the meeting
of September 14th?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: If I may respond, that was
certainly my intention, that we would go forward with any
remaining comments on the draft that we received with the
Staff Report.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any other questions or
comments before I call the question? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just to clarify what the
maker of the motion stated in response to Commissioner
Tavana, are you saying that if the architects come back and
say we need another week that we wouldn’t give that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
continuance? I’m not clear what you’re going forward
without the input means.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: If I may respond, we had
assurance that it absolutely could be provided within two
weeks. I should think that after all the delays and failure
to respond to the outreach that that’s reasonable.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I also will weigh in. I heard
from Ms. Wiersema that 100% that two weeks was going to
work, so I think we should just proceed forward with that
assumption. Any other questions? Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I know they said 100%, but
there is always a chance we do not receive comments, so I
just want to make sure in case we do not receive comments
it still is on the agenda for the next meeting regardless
of whether we do or do not receive comments.
JENNIFER ARMER: I just wanted to step in and
clarify. This would be a continuance to the meeting on the
14th regardless of whether any additional input was received
between now and then, and then the Commission would be
considering the item and making a recommendation, or
continuing it again if they so chose at that meeting. Since
we don’t yet have a recommendation on this item to Town
Council, it wouldn’t move forward without further
discussion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that works, and so it’s
going to be on the agenda one way or the other, because we
are recommending a continuance, and you all have seen in
the past where if something strange happens, then there’s
always the possibility of continuing it again, but we
really do need to finish this.
I’m going to call the question, and I will start
with Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so it
passes unanimously, and so there is no recommendation,
we’re just continuing this to the meeting on the 14th.
(END)