Attachment 15 - September 14, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
Steve Raspe
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 15
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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 to the main item on
our agenda for this evening, which is Item 3, which is the
continuance of our review of the Draft Objective Standards,
I will ask Ms. Armer if you would like to make a Staff
Report or if one of the other Staff members would as well?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I will pass
that off to Mr. Safty to make the Staff Report.
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Before you tonight is the
continued review of the Draft Objective Standards
recommendation to the Town Council.
On June 22nd the Planning Commission reviewed the
first 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.
On August 24th the Planning Commission received
public comment on the revised draft, including input from
the local architect community. The discussion was continued
to tonight’s hearing to allow the architect community
additional time to provide written comments to be reviewed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
The written comments from the architects are provided as
Exhibit 16 with the Staff Report. Additional public
comments and Commissioner comments were also included with
that report.
Staff prepared written responses to the
architects’ comments, which were included as Exhibit 19 of
yesterday’s Addendum Report. The Addendum Report also
includes additional public comment provided as Exhibit 20.
Staff, along with our consultant, look forward to
the discussion this evening and are happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have
questions for Staff? I don’t see anyone with any questions.
We have a number of comments that we received
from one of our Board members from the Housing Element
Advisory Board, also from the Vice Chair, from Ms.
Quintana, and then also the response to the architects’
comments. Staff, you had some particular items that you
wanted us to go over first?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would
recommend that we do open the public hearing and hear
comments from the public, since there have been additional
materials provided, and then we can go through.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
We have provided some Staff guidance and feedback
on the items that were provided by the architect community,
and so if there are items there that the Commission wishes
to include in their recommendation to Town Council we could
go through those. We did number them in the attachment that
includes Staff’s responses, plus we did call out a few
particular items in the Addendum Report in addition to what
had been provided in your previous Staff Reports.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion.
This would be the verbal communications section for this
particular item, and I’d like to find out if any members of
the public would like to speak on this item, which is the
Draft Objective Standards?
JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone would like to speak on
this item, we’d invite you to raise your hand now. We’ll
give them just a moment just in case anyone does wish to
speak. I am seeing a hand raised. All right, Ms. Quintana,
you may speak. You have up to three minutes.
LEE QUINTANA: Thank you. I think there are some
items that I may not have read already, but in any case I’d
like to speak on three different items that I did not cover
in my initial submission for the Addendum, and that covers
illustrations, private and common open space and
landscaping, and whether the one size fits all approach is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
appropriate. I’m just going to be very brief, and if you
have any questions you can ask me, or I will submit
additional comments when I see the final draft that goes to
the Council.
As far as illustration goes, I know that the
architects say they’re line drawings, however, the line
drawings provided in the draft standards are at some points
hard to understand by most people who aren’t architects or
planners and they tend to appear to be favoring very boxy
construction.
I understand the difficulty with photos, however,
this is my compromise suggestion: The City of Palo Alto has
used line drawing, but the line drawings are limited to
illustrating only the standard that’s being stated, not an
entire building, so that it’s more neutral towards
architecture and mass and scale.
As far as photos go, I think they are really
helpful for the general public to understand, but I
understand the problem with them, so my suggestion is that
maybe there be a page that just has a collage of various
different buildings, not one for every standard, but a
group of buildings that Staff feels meets the intent of the
standards. So that’s my comments on that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
On the private and public open space, I’m a
little confused there. If landscaping doesn’t count for the
common space and there is landscaping in that space, how
does that work? I’m just confused.
Also, there seems to be a dichotomy of opinion
from the group of architects and the other architect who
commented on the size of private open space as well as
common open space, and it seems to me that maybe they’re
talking about two different things. I think the architects
want more leeway to appeal to the high end of the housing
market, and I think the other architect may be actually
addressing his remarks to smaller units, which is the
intent of this whole process.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Quintana, Ms. Armer has her
hand up and I suspect it’s because your three minutes are
up, but let me see if any Commissioners have questions for
you. I do want to thank you on behalf of the Commission for
submitting all the comments that you have already and
helping to participate in this process to move this
important item along. Do any Commissioners have questions
for Ms. Quintana? I think some of the things you’re
bringing up are going to be discussed in any event, so we
appreciate anything you’ve told us so far, and please
continue to send in your comments to us as well.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
Is there anyone else that would like to speak on
this item?
JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone else would like to
speak on this item, please raise your hand now. I don’t see
any hands raised.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so then I’m going to
close public comments, and this would be the time where the
Commission will discuss the items that have been brought up
so far as comments and try to get some resolution so that
we can make our recommendation to Town Council.
I thought that it might be helpful to start with
the Staff packet. They did provide some items that they
wanted us to discuss, and we did discuss some of these
before, but maybe we can close on them and hopefully use
them as a recommendation to forward this document along.
I’m going by the Staff Report where they list
Staff direction from the Planning Commission on the
following, and the first one is a comprehensive standalone
document. Staff’s recommendation was in the past, and
continues to be, instead of going through the massive
effort that it would take to take all of the Objective
Standards in every document that we have in town and put
them in one, that instead to include a list of applicable
documents, and so that’s what they would like to do. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
wanted to see if any Commissioners had any thoughts or
comments on this. Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. To me the
Town Staff’s position seems eminently logical and I can’t
think of a reason that we would want to attack it any
differently, so unless somebody feels differently I would
recommend to Town Council to follow Staff’s recommendation
on this issue.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for the input. Anyone
else have any thoughts on that? That was my feeling as
well, that we had talked about this before, and also in our
preparatory meeting for this meeting we discussed it again,
and it would be a very long and complex process to do that,
especially with documents getting updated, so it’s probably
best to have references to the other documents.
If no one has any objection to going in that
direction I’m going to say that we follow Staff’s
recommendation on that, and I don’t see anyone saying let’s
not do that.
Item B is removal of the term “design” throughout
the document. The public comment requests that text
throughout be changed from “objective design standards” to
“objective standards,” and no explanation was given. So
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
Staff, I’m going to ask, does that mean that since there is
no explanation you don’t have a recommendation?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. We would
recommend continuing with the document being named and
labeled as it currently is since we don’t have a reason to
change and remove the word “design.”
CHAIR HANSSEN: I personally looked at this, and
without an explanation of why it would make a big
difference in the document, and knowing that it would be a
lot of trouble to change it, my suggestion would be not to
do that. Are there any Commissioners that have any
comments? So then I will assume that that one is okay with
everyone.
Item C was decrease tree spacing. The public
comment requests that the spacing between trees within
parking lots be reduced. Right now the standard reads one
tree between every ten consecutive parking stalls when
there are more than 15 parking stalls, and the public
comment requests to reduce the number of spaces below to
ten, and Staff does not recommend this change. It was
included with consistency for the Town Code, which I assume
to mean that we would need to amend the Town Code as well.
Are there any comments on this item?
Commissioner Raspe.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I would
agree again with Staff on this one for a couple of reasons.
First being consistency throughout the Town documents, but
also for the supplemental reason that I think we’re all
aware that water is becoming a bigger issue in California
as every day goes by, and so to the extent that we call for
less planting of trees perhaps, and maybe that’s an issue
that we should keep in our minds as we plan our town
forward, so keeping the spacing at ten feet rather than
closer together I think makes sense for a variety of
reasons.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that comment. Any
other comments from Commissioners on this item? If there
are no objections, I will just assume that we’re going to
go with Staff’s recommendations.
Let me just stop and ask Staff, do you need us to
vote on these, or is it okay to go with consensus?
JENNIFER ARMER: No, consensus is fine in my
opinion, but I will defer to the Town Attorney if she
thinks otherwise.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I agree, and then the
Commission’s decision will be reflected when you vote on
making your recommendation to the Town Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
JENNIFER ARMER: And in particular, when the
recommendation is for a change that the Commission is not
making, then that’s just fine; you’re just not going to
make that additional change.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for the clarification.
We can move on to Item D, which is a format change for
B.4.3, and the comment requests that the format be changed
so it is consistent with the rest of the document.
The Draft Objective Standards contain a menu of
options of architectural solutions to achieve 16 points. We
discussed this at the Subcommittee level. Vice Chair
Barnett and I were on that Subcommittee and the Planning
Commission previous discussion and it was received with
support, but I believe the architects and maybe others
commented that it might be too confusing.
In the first submission from Staff they did take
some buildings in town and gave an example of how you can
meet the 16-point standard. We should at least decide
whether or not to go to a different approach or leave it
the way it is, and Staff let me just check that I am
characterizing this correctly in terms of the way you want
input.
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct. Thank you for the
question. One thing to clarify: the architect community
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
didn’t have concerns with the format of it; they had more
concerns about the valuation and the different
architectural details listed within that list.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Then was it the public comment
that we got from someone else that said that the 16 point…
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct, yes. Then there
is further discussion of the 4.3 in what we numbered Item
22 where we respond to the architects’ comments.
CHAIR HANSSEN: We can come back to the
specificity of it when we discuss the architects’ comments
then. The question on the table is whether or not we
abandon the 16-point system and try to go for something
else, so I’d like to get comments on that, and keeping in
mind that this was recommended previously by the
Subcommittee. Our previous discussion was that this was
fine to move forward with, but if there is some new
information or something that people would like to bring up
right now, let’s do that.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I’m comfortable
with the format and look forward to discussing the
architects’ concerns when we get to that portion of the
agenda, but I think it’s a very helpful list, and the
illustrations that Staff provided were also very helpful,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
and if those are intended to be continued in the draft that
goes forward, I think that’s a good approach.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. So if there are no
objections the proposal on the table is to leave the 16-
point system as is, and then there might be the potential
of modifying for clarity some of the actual things that are
scored for points, and we’ll discuss that later.
Then we’re going to return to the discussion
about privacy that we had at the last meeting, and Vice
Chair Barnett submitted some information from the Palo Alto
Objective Standards that were included with our August 24th
Addendum Report. The general consensus at the hearing was
not to increase privacy standards, however, Vice Chair
Barnett did submit additional comments to express concerns
that the standard remains subjective, and what it says is,
“Balconies facing Residential uses and abutting parcels are
allowed when the design is proven to prevent views to
Residential use,” and the issue is whether or not this
could really be an Objective Standard, because somebody
would have to determine how it affected views to
Residential use and it’s not a use that everyone would
agree on.
I think this would be a good time to discuss this
and see if we can come up with a direction that’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
comfortable for the Commission for a recommendation, and
Vice Chair Barnett did submit some additional comments. He
has his hand up, so why don’t you go ahead?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I think my
submission is clear, but I did think of one other
possibility for us to handle it, which is to have no
standard at all with respect to privacy from balconies as
to adjacent residences and their lots, but submit that as a
possibility for consideration. Otherwise, I think we have
to not necessarily mirror what Palo Alto did, but follow
something that is an impact objective. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Vice Chair
Barnett recommended that the Town Attorney weigh in as to
an opinion whether this particular standard is objective,
and so I’d like to hear from the Town Attorney.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I do agree with Vice Chair
Barnett’s comment. The State is interpreting the term
“Objective Standard” very, very narrowly. In my former
jurisdiction there was a requirement for step-backs, and
the court held that it was not sufficiently objective
because the city didn’t specify how long the step-back was
supposed to be, so yes, to the extent that we can put
numbers on it or talk about the angle of the balcony, or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
anything that will make it so that there’s no argument that
it’s not an Objective Standard, I think that will make it
more defensible.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I have a follow up, if I
may?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was looking at Vice Chair
Barnett’s recommendations and I thought if in fact what we
have in the current draft is not considered to be
objective, as you state, then it seemed reasonable to me to
include the first couple of his points that within 30 feet
of residential windows, that’s a specific number, and then
Item (i), so I thought those looked like reasonable things
to include.
Then I thought the balance of the parenthetical
items below the first point were a matter of how Staff
would review the data to determine whether the standard had
been met, so I didn’t think that was necessary to include
in this document, but if the other Commissioners would like
to keep this item in the Draft Objectives, I think it’s an
important one to include. We have a lot of discussion
around balconies and visibility, so I personally would like
to see it included, and I think Vice Chair Barnett’s
sentence that talks about the 30 feet, and then the first
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
bullet underneath that, are reasonable to include as
specific objectives that are measurable.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Thank you for that,
Commissioner Janoff. Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. In
reviewing this again, I agree with Vice Chair Barnett’s
point—and I think Staff supports it—that as currently
drafted it interjects a level of subjectiveness into it,
and so I think Commissioner Janoff suggested a reasonable
solution.
As I was looking at it, I had a simpler one, and
again, maybe the Town Attorney can weigh in if it helps,
but I think the problematic phrase seems to be, “The design
is proven to prevent use.” If we maybe simplify that to
say, “When the design prevents use,” doesn’t that suddenly
become objective rather than subjective and solve the
problem, and maybe a simpler way to address the problem? I
just throw it out for consideration by the Commission.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think it would be good for the
Town Attorney to weigh in on whether or not that would make
it more objective.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Given how the State and the
courts are interpreting the term “objective,” I would
recommend that the Town adopt something more specific than
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
“prevents use,” because I do think an argument could be
made that that’s in the eye of the beholder. Something
like, “is not visible from the balcony,” can’t be argued
about, it is not visible; that is objective. A standard
that there’s only one way to apply is what will work in the
end. I hope that helps.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, that helps. Commissioner
Tavana has a comment as well.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. As I
mentioned at the previous meeting discussing this topic, I
do think privacy is a very tricky subject, because I
believe it is inherently subjective in nature. I don’t
think you could put it on paper and say this is privacy,
because to one person that’s not private and to another
person that could be private.
I didn’t think of this possibility, but I do like
Vice Chair Barnett’s comment to maybe just remove the
section altogether. I think that would clarify it and it
could be on a case-by-case basis moving forward just to
keep it simple, because I do think when these projects do
come up it will crop up and be a point of contention in the
process.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Tavana. Commissioner Thomas has a comment as well.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I agree
that it is really difficult to make an Objective Standard
around privacy, because privacy is not inherently
objective. I agree with some of Commissioner Tavana’s
sentiment that it is not something that we can maybe make
an Objective Standard to guarantee privacy, so therefore
should we put one in?
I also recognize that people in the Town value
privacy, and I know that that is something that is
important, and I think that we have been making our best
effort and I am willing to attempt to adopt something, but
I think that even if we adopt something that is specific,
like 30 feet, I guess that gives some sort of standard, but
I do think that there are still going to be people that
argue that that’s not private enough for them, and for me
personally that is a major concern.
I know that in my short time here on the Planning
Commission we have had a lot of people come to us with a
lot of things that are related to privacy and privacy
concerns, and that’s connected back to how safe people
feel, and I don't know if we can make an Objective Standard
that the outcome will be that people feel that they have
privacy and safety and feel safe because of that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
I am interested to hear what other Commissioners
think, but at this point in time I’m not sure that we can
come up with a standard that will be upheld in the courts
and that can guarantee some level of what people will
accept as being privacy.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Thomas. Our consultant, Mr. Ford, has his camera on, so I’m
assuming that you are able to comment on this.
TOM FORD: Yes, thank you, Chair. I read Vice
Chair Barnett’s comments three weeks ago and I also read
them this past weekend at the new submittal, and so I found
it very interesting both times I went and looked at that
specific Palo Alto ordinance. What I would recommend, and I
did this and I think it showed up in the Staff Addendum, is
to keep the standard B.4.1 but delete the sentence that has
the potentially subjective clause in it, so you would
delete “balcony spacing existing” all the way through
“prevent views to residential use.” That’s what I would
recommend.
Then if you wanted to still approach and look
into that Palo Alto ordinance, I found the little number 1
really confusing, trying to draw these different view
angles. One of them was at 45-degrees and one of them was
parallel to the floor of the balcony, I thought that was
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
really confusing. I even tried to draw it, and I went to
architecture school, and I couldn’t figure out how to draw
it in section.
However, little number 3 in that lists a very
specific set of materials that you could demand be put on
the railing of a balcony, which because of the nature of
the material, whether it’s opaque glass or perforated
metal, it would obstruct, or certainly defuse, views from
the balcony outward, so that might be a potential solution
you could consider and I just wanted to throw that in
there.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let me just ask a clarifying
question before I go back to Commissioner Janoff. It sounds
like you’re recommending that it could be more objective
simply by two stages of your recommendation. One was to
delete the sentence that was too subjective and keep the
standard, and then there’s also the possibility of adopting
part of Palo Alto’s that was objective enough.
TOM FORD: Correct, that’s part of what Vice
Chair Barnett recommended three weeks ago and again for
this meeting tonight.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. I’m going to go back to
Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I like the compromise that
Mr. Ford is recommending, because I do think we want
something in here. If an architect says they can’t figure
it out, then I suspect that that’s problematic, although if
it’s in Palo Alto’s Objective Standards, then you would
think that if it weren’t workable that they would have had
feedback and made a change.
So if the Town Attorney recommends that the
suggestion that Mr. Ford made is sufficiently objective,
then I would say fine, let’s leave it in. If we still need
some numbers to support it, then the 30 feet is another
number that’s pretty easily measured, at least from a
diagram of a proposed project, so looking forward to
hearing from the Town Attorney.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: What I would like to do is go
to B.4.11 in the draft, and if the Commission likes, they
could go on to the next topic while I look at how that
standard would read without the last sentence.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think the sentence
recommended for deletion is the middle sentence. I think we
still want, “Balconies shall be without projections beyond
the building footprint.”
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Okay, that is sufficiently
objective then.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I think it’s the
middle sentence.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, that works.
JENNIFER ARMER: If I could jump in a moment, I
believe the reference to, “Balconies shall be without
projections beyond the building footprint” is meant to only
apply to balconies facing existing Residential uses on
abutting parcels, and so it may be if you want to keep that
meaning and have it not apply to the street-facing
balconies, then we would actually keep the first half of
the second sentence and then keep the last sentence.
CHAIR HANSSEN: It sounds like we have a proposal
on the table, and so the fundamental question, we have some
Commissioners on the side of wanting to delete this
entirely, because we could never reach the level of
objectiveness; but I’m hearing that we have kind of a
proposal that would take it to a better place, and so there
are many other Commissioners that also want to keep this
and try to improve it.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to
comment on a portion of Commissioner Tavana’s comment. If
we take this standard out, there won’t be a case-by-case to
be able to be evaluated. This is going to be outside the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
realm of the Town being able to make a decision. This whole
thing is intended for developers to just be able to boom,
this is what we’ve got, so if we take balconies out, we
don’t have any say on balconies going forward if the
developer meets the criteria that puts them into this set
of Objective Standards, so I personally would recommend
keeping this in so we have some Objective Standard to be
able to have designers plan for, but I just wanted to make
that comment.
If we think that any topic, whether it’s
balconies, windows, or anything, can be decided on a case-
by-case basis when a developer is coming through this
process, I think that’s not what’s going to happen, and
Staff could correct me if I’m wrong, but I just wanted to
make that point.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that.
I’m going to weigh in and say that I feel like we
should try to keep it. What I’m hearing is our consultant
has some ideas about how to make this more objective. Our
Town Attorney agrees that we can make it more objective
with a few ideas, and so it may not be perfect, but I also
agree with Commissioner Janoff that if we take it off the
table completely, then we won’t have it, and so I think we
should at least try to move forward and see if we can be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
successful with this, especially since we know how
important views are to so many of our residents with new
construction.
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I completely agree and I
think that removing the part that is subjective is good,
and I do think that people care about this and balconies,
so I’m happy with keeping it in.
I do, however, want to make sure that if we take
out the middle sentence we’re still clarifying that
balconies can’t project beyond building footprints, only
the ones that are facing the existing Residential uses on
abutting parcels, right? We don’t want it to say that we
can’t have any projections beyond the building footprint?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll jump in. If we take out
the middle sentence and it will say, “Balconies are allowed
on facades facing the street and those facades facing
existing non-Residential uses on abutting parcels. Such
balconies shall be without any projections beyond the
building footprint.”
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So we want to change that
“such balconies.” We want to specify that it’s the
abutting…the second…
ATTORNEY WHELAN: (Nods head yes.)
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. That’s what I just
wanted to clarify and make sure that that would be changed.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, that’s a good
clarification. So then it would say, “Balconies on facades
facing existing non-Residential uses on abutting parcels
shall be without any projections beyond the building
footprint.”
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, so the words we’re
actually taking out are “are allowed when,” blah, blah,
blah, “such balconies.” So it’s just going to read
“abutting parcels shall be without.” Okay, cool. I’m happy
with that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I very much like Mr. Ford’s
suggestion that we look into the materials that might be
opaque or somehow screening but not closed as the solution,
and I think the next critical issue would be the height of
the balcony railing together with them.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I am wondering if Staff or
maybe Mr. Ford knows, are there standards for how high or
low the balcony railing has to be? I’m assuming that
there’s like a safety…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. Building Code does have
requirements for how tall a balcony railing needs to be,
but I don’t remember.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And does it have a maximum
too for being able to get out, or no?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. I
think what Ms. Armer was mentioning was there is a minimum.
Depending on what floor it’s on it could be a fire issue if
that is an egress or if they have to get a ladder to it. I
don't know that we have that specificity now, but there is
definitely a minimum, and we can look into whether or not
there’s a maximum if this is something the Commission is
interested in moving forward as part of their
recommendation, and we’ll get together with the building
official and look into that prior to going to Town Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Just as a quick checkpoint, I’m
not sure where Commissioner Tavana is at the moment;
because he said basically take it out. Are there others
that would object to keeping this in if we can improve it
and make it more objective? Okay, so I think we should
start with that. Then we have the suggestion from Mr. Ford,
and Vice Chair Barnett concurred with that, and the Town
Attorney had weighed in as well, so it sounds to me like we
should take the range of suggestions that have been
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
submitted and see what is going to be the most objective
that we can stay with in this document.
I don't know if what I said makes sense, but as
far as moving forward I think we have a number of
suggestions that we can use to make it more objective, so I
would ask Staff, do you need specific direction on what to
look into from here, or can you take the collective input
that we have so far?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Safty,
would you like to take this first?
RYAN SAFTY: We’ll see if we were about to say
the same thing. I was going to say I do think we have
enough information to move forward. We can work with the
Town’s consultant and come up with some sort of additional
screening requirement on those balconies.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, I think that sounds
like a good resolution, and I think that the majority of
the Commission feels that this is worth pursuing but I
think most everyone agrees it needs to be more objective,
so I think that’s a good way to move forward.
Then I will go on to Item 4, which is pictures.
Ms. Quintana did refer to the pictures, and also Housing
Element Board Member Mayer submitted a comment as well on
the subject. The current Draft Objective Standards contain
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
design illustrations to demonstrate the intent of the draft
standards. The general consensus at our last meeting on
August 24th was to include pictures of existing development
within the document for real world examples for some of the
complicated design techniques to make it more user-
friendly, and Staff is looking forward to additional
discussion or recommendation from the Planning Commission.
We did hear from Ms. Quintana tonight a
suggestion to do something similar to what Staff did in our
first Staff Report, which is to give examples of buildings
and whether or not they would meet our standards.
I’d like to see what Commissioners think about
the picture issue and where to go with it. Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. I
would like to say that I know that we said that this
document is for the public and the public is going to be
looking at it, so everyone needs to be able to understand
it, but I think that ultimately the people that are going
to be using this document the most are going to be
architects, and so I was glad that we got the public
comment from Mr. Mayer, because I do think that the line
drawings are more helpful and offer more of a blank slate
with regard to creativity and aren’t as prescriptive, but I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
am curious to see if Staff thinks that they are able to
find examples where enough of the standards are met.
My other compromise would be when we had
examples. Maybe there could be examples at the end saying
like here is an existing building, here are the points that
they meant, and actually have a visual picture, and that
might be like of a real building and include actual photos
there instead of throughout the entire document, and have
it be labeled a little bit in that way. I’m curious to see
what other people think about that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Thomas. Commissioner Janoff has her hand up.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I was an
advocate of including illustrations, not necessarily
throughout but just in general, but having heard from the
architects, the group of architects didn’t say much except
what they did in the initial set of comments last meeting
where they didn’t like the line drawings, but given the
remarks from Mr. Mayer, I think it’s a good point.
I do agree with Commissioner Thomas. This really
is a document that’s for the design team and the architects
more than it is a homeowner; it’s not the Residential
Design Guidelines, for instance.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
Having said that, a question for Staff. I’m in
favor of keeping the line drawings as is, and maybe not
including illustrations throughout. But in our last draft
Section B, that includes the evaluation of existing
developments, and my question is, is that intended to be
included as part of the design standards for illustration,
or is that just for the Planning Commission?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. That was
initially intended just for the Planning Commission. There
were Commissioners that had specific questions on if these
could actually be implemented in the real world, so those
were examples on how they could. That being said, we’re
happy to do whatever the Planning Commission recommends.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I ask because it was a nice
small compilation of some reasonably well designed
buildings in town, and so I think it’s a reasonable thing
to include. It sort of satisfies both itches. It gives you
some illustrations of how structures are meeting the
requirements, but it doesn’t muddy up the document Section
A, so I would be in favor of including B for illustrative
purposes, and keeping line drawings in the balance of the
section.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. My thinking
on this after reading all the comments and hearing the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
additional feedback, although I think that the target
market for this is architects that are going to be
designing these buildings, I also think that our public is
a very close watchdog on a lot of these projects, and since
they’re going to be some of the bigger ones, I think just
for the benefit of public transparency it wouldn’t be a bad
idea to include some generalized pictures as discussed,
versus one on every standard, for the benefit of the people
in the public that might happen to go look at this document
and are like what is the Town doing to make sure that we’re
taken care of? And it would probably be more illustrative
to them to have photos, and I would just keep it fairly
general, as we were discussing.
So that’s what my thoughts are on it, but I’d
like to hear what others think as well. Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I think
I’m of the view largely in accord with Commissioner Janoff
in that it’s my sense, and the architects who opined, that
the line drawings should be the primary reference tool in
the document, but I see that there is some added benefit to
the public and maybe for some clarifying in having pictures
as you indicate, Chair.
So the notion of having the line drawings the
predominant feature throughout the document, and perhaps an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
appendix or closing section that has some prominent
approved features that the Town has signed off on in the
past, and then perhaps some language somewhere in the
document—because we wouldn’t want to muddy the waters—that
essentially says the line drawings are the rule and that
the photos are there for illustrative purpose only, and it
wouldn’t overrule or somehow overwrite our other written
rules. Something along those lines I think maybe satisfies
both camps.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that makes a lot of
sense. Other comments? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I support Commissioner
Raspe’s idea, but I wanted to bounce off the Town Attorney
whether she thinks that inserting photos in the Objective
Standards would create a problem, because the photos are
not in and of themselves objective?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: No, I don’t think that would
pose a problem, because the photos are intended to depict
what is described in the wording, so I think that would be
fine.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I like the comments by
Commissioner Janoff and Commissioner Raspe, and I think we
should proceed in that way and only use photos as a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
generalized thing and be very clear that the line drawings
are the Objective Standard.
Any other thoughts or comments, or any objections
to going in that direction? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would just like some
clarification from Commissioners Janoff and Raspe about—I
know Commissioner Raspe said this—do you feel like this is
an appendix at the end, because that’s how I feel it should
be, like given as different examples. If you need further
details on what this looks like in real life, go to this
appendix at the end. Is that what you’re thinking,
Commissioner Janoff?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, essentially we’ve got
that section which reads as an appendix now as
illustrations of how the standards have been met, and I
think the clarifying language that Commissioner Raspe is
suggesting is a good idea to include just to note that
these are examples and they may or may not meet other
criteria, so we don’t confuse anyone in saying these must
be followed this way, but I agree that this could serve as
a type of appendix that Commissioner Raspe is recommending.
CHAIR HANSSEN: If that answers your question,
Commissioner Thomas, are you good with the proposal? All
right, so I think we’re good to move off of this. That was
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
the generalized questions that were in the Staff Report, so
I was going to go to the Addendum, because the Staff did
comment on Housing Element Advisory Board Member Mayer’s
comments as well as the architects’ comments.
I’m pulling up the Addendum right now, and there
were ten items that Staff wanted the Planning Commission to
discuss further, and I just want to ask a clarifying
question of Staff that you responded to, and I know you
worked very hard on your response.
You responded to everything, and a lot of the
things that were in the architects’ document were in fact
questions that needed clarification as opposed to
recommended changes, so I’m assuming that as long as we
answer the question that you had, like Comment 9, 10, 11,
12 and so on, those are the things that you wanted us to
have further discussion, and then we could ask the
Commission if they felt like the rest of your answers or
suggestions about whether to do or not do were good, and
maybe do that as a group, or do you want us to discuss all
of them?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. Yes,
that’s exactly how we intended this to be. If we could go
through, give recommendations on the individual comments in
the Addendum Report, and then if there was something in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
items that weren’t covered in the Addendum where Staff felt
pretty confident about that any of the Planning
Commissioners disagree with, please let us know.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. I’m going to go
by Comment 9, and just to refresh everyone’s memory, it
relates to the continuous streetscape requirement in
A.11.1, which requires development in a Community Growth
District to place at least 75% of the ground floor within
5’ of street-facing property lines. The comment was about
whether or not it applies to only the building or the
entire length of the property line, and the draft standard
is currently were it to apply only to the proposed
buildings. I’m assuming that the discussion that Staff
wants us to have is whether that is what we intended?
RYAN SAFTY: Exactly
JENNIFER ARMER: Or if additional clarification
is needed.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, since people were asking
the question. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m sorry, can you repeat
which section of the draft it is so I can scroll up to it?
CHAIR HANSSEN: A.11.1.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: I know Commissioner Janoff and I
were on the General Plan Committee, and you were as well,
Commissioner Thomas. I think this got started during the
discussion of the Community Growth Districts that we had
and wanting to not have the parking lot in front and the
building behind, which is kind of the old version of how we
do these kind of developments, and we wanted to basically
bring the street forward to the buildings in place and
stuff, so I guess the question would be whether there’s a
reason to do something else besides the building, or if
there is something else to consider?
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My thought on this is that
the last sentence of the draft standard is currently worded
only applies to the proposed buildings. I think that’s how
it should be written. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I don't know how you would do it
any other way, because what they’re asking to do is build a
building, so I think that’s probably the clearest, most
objective thing that we can do. Any other thoughts? I think
as long as it’s clear that it applies to the proposed
building we can leave it to Staff whether or not you think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
that we should make the language clearer in the standard,
but that is clearly the intent.
Comment 10 questions why Section A.11.2 has a
maximum percentage for site amenities in front of the front
façade. The maximum percentage was originally included to
ensure visibility to the ground floor uses, however, in the
case of restaurant uses it might be overly restrictive, and
so the standard could be modified to include a minimum but
no maximum. So it sounds like that might be the proposal,
which is to take away the maximum.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Agreed. I thought that was
an excellent point.
CHAIR HANSSEN: It made sense to me as well.
Other comments on Comment 10? I’m going to assume that
since there are no other comments that we all agree.
Comment 12 questions how the arcade in B.1.1d and
the recessed building entry B.1.1c standards could be
incorporated into the same building. The Planning
Commission could consider removing the full height of the
façade requirement from B.1.1c or removing the arcade
option from B.1.1d in its entirety to remedy his concern.
Any thoughts?
Vice Chair Barnett.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m interested in whether
the Staff had a position on this, but to me it seems like
the full length of the façade is a standard that we don’t
want to lose.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff, do you have a comment?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes, certainly. Thank you. Staff’s
initial recommendation was that it does seem like that
would be the cleanest resolution, and that way we’re still
holding onto the arcade standard.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so that sounds like the
easiest way to go, and Vice Chair Barnett has made that
recommendation. Other Commissioners have any other thoughts
on that? The proposal is to remove the language “full
height of the façade” from B.1.1c to solve the problem.
Sounds like we’re good to go.
Comment 13, also related to the arcade action in
B.1.1d, states that longer buildings would look monotonous
with the continuous arcade. The arcade option could either
be removed or a limit to the required arcade length could
be added. That’s on Comment 13.
Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. In
general I think a limit would make the most sense to me. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
don't know what that limit would be necessarily, but I
don’t think we should remove it altogether.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I’m
pretty darned sure when we were on the Subcommittee we
spent lots and lots of time on how to make sure that we
didn’t have big blank walls of buildings that were without
architectural detail, so that is why there are so many of
these things in the document right now.
Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I agree
with Commissioner Tavana. I think we should retain the
arcade design feature, and I don’t have a specific figure
in mind either. It seems to me though that the notion
should be that the arcade should predominate the front, it
should be the predominant design feature, and so I’ll just
throw out as a point for discussion, perhaps it should
cover 75% of the frontage, or some percentage greater than
50%, so it becomes the predominant design feature of the
building.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that input. We have
a comment from Mr. Safty.
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Sorry for interjecting. I
just wanted to point out that the architects did provide
specific numbers for that if the Commission is struggling
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
to come up with exactly how to define that; there was a
recommendation made by the architects.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Could you tell it to us, just
because there are so many documents in play?
RYAN SAFTY: Of course. The suggestion was when
over 80’ or 100’ long a two-third arcade approach could
apply, so if we want to go with clean numbers, over 100’,
then two-thirds of that façade needs to have arcades.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And if it were less than 80’ to
100’, what would it be then?
RYAN SAFTY: If it were less, then it would be a
continuous arcade.
CHAIR HANSSEN: It would be continuous across the
entire versus not the whole thing, but two-thirds. Okay.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was going to point to the
same recommendation from the architects, but I wonder, Mr.
Safty, why we would go with the upper number of 100’ when
an 80’ long building might read pretty long and the
architects put that range in there. I’m just thinking over
80’ might be better than over 100’, but I would defer to
Staff and the architects. This is really a design
aesthetic, so I would choose one number, but whatever you
think is the better design number.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I actually would defer to
Mr. Ford, our consultant, since he is more familiar with
these. I just happen to choose the cleaner number as an
example.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And Mr. Ford has his camera on,
so please go ahead.
TOM FORD: Thank you, Chair. I’m also thinking of
specifically the Los Gatos context and maybe the typical
frontage link that you’ll be seeing, so I would go with the
smaller number of 80’, or maybe even less, and put that for
the parameter where you make a jump.
Therefore, if a frontage is longer than 80’, then
two-thirds of that frontage needs to have an arcade in
order to qualify for this point system, and if it’s less
than 80’ you might consider something less than 100’ but
more than two-thirds, because I think if you look at the
architects’ full submittal they discuss the arcade quite a
bit and how imposing it upon the whole frontage could tend
to be kind of cumbersome, so I think we could come up with
one standard for less than 80’ and a different percentage
for over 80’.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Neither of which would be 100’?
TOM FORD: That’s what I’m suggesting, but you
may disagree with me.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: No, I just wanted to make sure I
understood your suggestion. Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. In general I do
think that any continuous arcade would be monotonous
inherently. Maybe we could adopt a two-thirds approach
across the board, because if it’s 50’, 60’, whatever, I
still think it would be monotonous, so I think two-thirds
in general, no matter how long it may be, would be a good
approach to consider.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Other
thoughts on this? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Do we have any buildings
with arcades in town? I can’t think of one. Staff, do we
have any examples? I’m thinking, to Commissioner Tavana’s
point, that that’s an interesting concept, but if it’s a
very small building, if it’s only 40’-50’ wide, then having
an arcade not across the entirety of it might look odd.
I think this is really something that I
personally would defer to the architects on a team and go
with that. But if there’s an example in town that shows
like a truncated arcade across the front of the building,
I’d like to know if we have one.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to go back to Mr. Ford,
and then to Commissioner Thomas.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
TOM FORD: Thank you, and following on what
Commissioner Janoff is talking about, it could be that you
don’t actually see this try to be implemented that often,
because if you think of an infill situation, putting an
arcade on front of a building arcade on front of a
building, it’s really going to be impacted by what is on
either side, because it’s basically an interior sidewalk,
so what’s the point of having an interior sidewalk if you
run into the wall at the adjacent building?
Arcades tend to happen in a situation where it’s
more of a comprehensive development, the way the town
developed, let’s say, Old Sacramento, New Orleans, things
like that, so I don’t think you’re going to be seeing it
that often, but I think by keeping the amount of the façade
that’s covered by the arcade it will help with the infill
situation if it is implemented.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The two examples that I can
think of are one, the King’s Court Shopping Center. Isn’t
there an arcade across in front of the bank and all of
that, and part of that area? It’s not architecturally
beautiful, but that’s an arcade. And then two, the post
office downtown.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
But I do agree that it would be helpful to put a
maximum in just because these are Objective Standards, but
I also agree that we’re not the experts to decide that, so
I’m very happy to defer to Staff to talk to our consultants
and go with whatever maximum visually makes sense,
especially because this is probably not going to be
utilized very often, like Mr. Ford just said.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to say that it sounds
reasonable to have a standard, as recommended by the
consultants, to have less of the façade if it’s of a
certain distance, and then more of the façade in terms of
percentage if it’s less than a certain distance.
I completely agree with the other Commissioners
that we’re not in a position as Planning Commissioners to
really be able to judge that the best way, so I would like
to maybe give direction to Staff that let’s go down the
path of having different standards for different lengths,
but keep it simple and have the number assigned to it and
take the input of the architect community to come up with
the right number. Does that sound reasonable? All right, so
let’s do that.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My understanding is that
we’re trying to finalize this Objective Standards tonight,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
so my idea would be to refer this issue to the Council with
any input that might be provided by Staff after the
meeting.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Right. Maybe my suggestion was
not clear enough, but it was that we would go ahead with
that approach and that the number would be filled in
somewhere in the near future by Staff with input from
people that have more expertise, so I think we’re going to
keep it with that.
Then we can go on to Comment 14, which is
requesting an additional section be added to deal with
corner lots, and although is does not currently exist, this
could be developed in the future, and I think what Staff
was saying in a nice way is it would be a lot of trouble to
add that in, and since we’re so far behind schedule that
that might be a nice add-on at a later point, but it could
hold up the document. Am I characterizing that correctly,
Staff?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, that’s correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So Commissioners, are there
thoughts about whether or not it’s important to have that
in this version of the document? Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. I agree with
Staff. At some point I would like to see this incorporated
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
into the document, but given where we are in the process,
let’s proceed without it for now.
As an additional note, I think corner lot
developments are probably going to be the minority of
developments we see. It will be largely more infill type
projects, and so it probably is going to be the least
impactful section, so let’s proceed without it for now, but
with a notation that we’d like to see it developed on the
next round if possible.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you for that.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I agree. There is a
specific bullet point from the architects that say we
should have a section on corners, but it struck me that it
was a follow-on to the previous bullet where they were
going on about what happens if this and that and the other
and then now that we’re talking about corners, let’s go
there, so I didn’t get the sense that that was the same
level of importance, and so I would agree, let’s stay the
course on what we have, and if it looks like we need more
specificity on corners, if things are going crazy on all of
these great developments that are going to come our way,
then take another look at making something more specific
then.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you for that. So
I think we’re going to go with that recommendation that we
should try to add that in a future version of the document,
but not hold up the progress of this document.
The next one is Comments 18 and 19 that are
related to the belly band option in B.4.1d. Based on the
reasoning provided, Commissioners can consider removing
this option, because there are multiple documents out
there, and maybe not everyone has them all up at the same
time, that wanted us to remove the belly bank option
entirely, or I thought I saw something there about reducing
the size of it. Can you maybe give us some clarification
about what specifically the architects were looking for?
RYAN SAFTY: Certainly. The first one, Comment
18, basically is belly bands don’t always work, especially
not a continuous belly band, especially if you have pop-
outs, recesses, pilasters, and what not.
The second, Comment 19, was specifically about
the width or the height of the belly band, pointing out
that we require ten and Palo Alto requires four.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So that’s about that from the
Commission. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would remove it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: The B.4.1d?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, I agree. I don’t find
the belly band a particularly effective device for breaking
up a façade, and going to a smaller belly band seems to me
to even exacerbate the problem, so I would agree, I would
(inaudible).
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other thoughts, or a
different direction? Otherwise, we are going to recommend
removing it. Sounds like we are agreed.
So then we can move on to Comment 23, which
questions how B.4.3 would be applied. For example, if a
single bay window would be sufficient to qualify for the
points listed. Staff can either add greater specificity for
certain items, or remove this requirement, and they are
looking for direction from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Janoff, and then Vice Chair Barnett.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: This was an interesting
comment. I can’t imagine an architect coming forward with a
mish-mash of balconies and no balconies. That just seemed
to me to be taking the point a little bit too far, but if
Staff has a way to insert language that talks about the—I
can’t remember the exact term—integrity of design or
something, which is completely not objective, so that won’t
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
work, but if there is some language that could be inserted
that would clarify what they’re talking about in terms of a
whole bunch of different elements just to rack up points,
I’m not sure how that could be done, but what they propose
could happen sort of like gaming the point system. I guess
it could happen, but how do we make sure it doesn’t?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Ford, could you comment on
that? You helped us develop this thing, and I think you’ve
had experience with other jurisdictions. What are your
thoughts on this particular issue?
TOM FORD: Thank you, Chair. If the Commission
prefers to keep this B.4.3 I think it’s possible to go in
and add greater specificity. I read the architects’
comments and I thought that’s interesting, somebody put one
Juliet balcony, so therefore they get the points. I don't
know if anyone has packet page 225, you see page B.4.3,
each of those lines would probably get longer, because we
would add some specificity, and I wouldn’t say Juliets on
100% of the windows. Let the designer have a little bit of
flexibility and maybe pull out a massing piece, so you
might say Juliets applied to 40% of the fenestration, or
60% or something, and you might say one chimney is enough,
and you might say a certain number of balconies. So I think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
we can provide greater specificity if you want to keep
B.4.3.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we already discussed that
we wanted to keep B.4.3, but we have several Commissioners
with their hands up. Vice Chair Barnett, and then
Commissioner Tavana, and then Commissioner Clark.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. I share
exactly Mr. Ford’s thinking. I think that the architects
may have overstated the possibility and made it a
ridiculous hypothesis, but nevertheless there’s a lot of
room for clarification that I think should be made before
this is sent to the Council, or in the process of
submitting it to the Council that we have further
specification. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. I agree with
Vice Chair Barnett in the sense that any specificity could
help, but in the examples given there was a single bay
window, but in the Objective Standards—I don't know if this
matters or not—it clearly states bay windows, not just one,
so it is plural and a lot of these are plural, and that
would alleviate some of the issues, but adding specificity
definitely would help.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Sorry I haven’t
been participating more. I’m very under the weather, but
I’ve been appreciating all of the comments and I promised I
would say something if I disagreed with any decisions that
were being made.
For this one I definitely agree that I want to
see it kept in, and I think having the minimum of 16 points
needed would hopefully keep people from going too crazy,
like gaming it and trying to add as many features as
possible and stuff, but I do think that it would be a
problem if someone decided to get their points using like
the three point ones or something, because it would become
pretty clunky, so I agree first that we need more
specificity.
Then I was thinking, I don't know if there’s a
way to say get at least this many points from these ones or
something, like making sure that they use at least one of
the eight point ones or something, but we might want to do
something like that just to make sure that nobody just uses
all of the three pointers and gets some really clunky
looking design.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. I think that’s a good
suggestion. Staff, I think what I’m hearing is that more
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
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
specificity would be good, that we like the system, and
just to maybe try to put a little bit more specificity in
to help avoid gaming the system. I think Commissioner Clark
had an idea about maybe you have to use some of this versus
a bunch of the lower point things, or something like that.
Is that enough for you guys to go on?
RYAN SAFTY: I believe so. I’ll defer to Mr.
Ford, since you’re going to be the one helping us with
this.
TOM FORD: Yes, that’s great input.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, great. Comment 24 suggests
that the illustration of pilasters should be removed. The
illustration was a specific request from a previous
hearing, but it could be removed.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: There are two different
figures that include pilasters, and I think the
illustration that is being objected to is 4.5, which is on
page 26 of 29, and I agree that pilasters in this
particular example would be highly unlikely, so it seems to
be a highly unlikely design element to have in there, and
it doesn’t particularly illustrate the change in materials
concept that this item is speaking to, so I think in this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
53
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
case I would be in favor of removing the pilasters in this
particular illustration.
But on page 16 of 29, whichever section that is,
there’s an illustration that includes them on that line
drawing, and those should be kept, so just to clarify which
drawing we’re talking about.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up.
So there are two illustrations and you’re saying keep the
one and not the other. That sounds like a very good
recommendation. Other comments from Commissioners? Mr.
Ford.
TOM FORD: Thank you. Also, just so you’re not
surprised later by taking out the pilasters from Figure
B.4.5, I think we will also help you by making an edit to
the text of Standard 4.5, “Changes in building materials
shall occur at inside corners.” I think what we’ll do is
we’ll delete the reference in the text standard about
architectural features. I think that’s what led us astray
on this issue.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So it sounds like this problem is
solved. The last one that we were asked for input on was
Comment 27 suggesting that rather than prohibiting rooftop
and upper floor terraces and decks that they could be
allowed, given certain controls.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
54
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.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I strongly agree with this
recommendation. It seems like we might want to be using
rooftops of these buildings for gathering spaces. It’s done
all over, including having green rooftops or green gardens
or green space, or that could be the common space. It could
be used really creatively and beautifully, so I would
recommend looking at this one to change it and include that
as a potential feature perhaps.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s great. Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree Commissioner with
Janoff’s comments, and I also thought that rooftops are an
opportunity to create additional green space, especially
since green space can sometimes be lost when going to
higher density housing, and I know that’s something we
don’t want to do for the Town.
I think that the intent of this is to ensure
privacy, and I think there are ways that we can still make
sure that there is privacy on rooftops, even if they are
accessible to people and used as part of the built space,
and I think that it’s a good opportunity, so I’m supportive
of it too.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. Vice Chair Barnett.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
55
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: I’ve seen rooftop spaces be
used for social gatherings and barbeques and whatnot, and I
think it’s an excellent amenity for people in high-rise
developments that don’t have a lot of space to meet; they
can have parties out there and whatnot.
I’ve also seen it used as private deck space for
the owners who are adjacent. This is a little unusual, but
there was a parapet wall and there were units that faced
the roof, and they were able to divide it into exclusive
use areas, so I think in short the idea of setbacks for
privacy makes sense, but also the utility of using the
space is important to retain in the Objective Standards.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. I think that’s a good
suggestion. Any other comments on this? It sounds like we
should definitely keep this, and there were some
suggestions of how to make it clearer and have more
control. Anything else you need from us on this particular
one, Staff? Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would
suggest if the Planning Commission has any direction on
particular things, for example, setback from the edge of
the building, that you would support as those additional
privacy controls that that discussion would be helpful in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
56
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
guiding Staff in drafting something to take to Town
Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. Looks like we have a
couple hands up. Commissioner Janoff.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. The architects
did recommend a setback, and they also talk about a
daylight plane. I don't know what the daylight plane might
be. I haven’t heard that term, so I don’t know what that
is, but presumably it’s some sort of a sight line, but they
do offer the concept of setback and I think there should be
a setback, unless somehow it’s a completely green space
right at the edge where you could plant the setback, but I
would make sure that the gathering space for individuals
would be inside a setback.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree. I feel like
hopefully we can find a standard setback that exists
somewhere else that we know is appropriate. I also am happy
to say—I think this is still objective—but it either needs
to be a setback or there needs to be some sort of
screening. Like one setback if you can see out, and another
setback if you can’t see out, because I feel like the
setback is only necessary for the privacy or for safety
purposes, but if there is some sort of screening, I don't
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
57
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
know what is considered a rooftop, if there’s a specific
wall, but I’m assuming it’s the top of the building that’s
open to the sky, so I’m curious to know what Commissioners
think of that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Other comments? Commissioner
Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I also thought about
screening, and my concern with that is depending on the
design and style. Unless the screening is also set back it
can add to the massing of the building, especially if it’s
going to be a 6’ barrier, for instance. We’re adding 6’ of
height to our building, so unless it’s set back
significantly from the existing frontage of the building or
it’s somehow distinguished in material, my concern would be
that adding a lot of shielding would overly complicate
things.
That being said, I fully support a rooftop
situation and I think setback is probably the preferred
method of doing it, with maybe a secondary lower shielding
if that’s the only solution possible.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion
as well. Staff, what more can we do to help on this?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I think based
on the direction that we’ve heard from the Commission this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
58
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
evening we will develop a recommendation for a setback from
the edge of the roof for buildings that abut Single-Family
zoning districts on the side of the building that abuts
them, and provide that as a recommendation on your behalf
to Town Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. Vice Chair
Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you. In Item 27
in the architects’ comments when the Staff responds to the
architects they say, “Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to
have a setback to rooftop decks and balconies?” and I
wasn’t sure what rooftop balconies would be. Maybe that
could be clarified or removed.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that in the document now? No,
that’s in the comments for the architects, right?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: You’re correct; it’s in the
comments from the architects.
JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, when we’re
looking at 4.10 it references rooftop and upper floor
terraces and decks, so not balconies.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So then we have the information
we need in terms of controls, because we don’t have a
conflict basically because a rooftop balcony would be kind
of strange. Are we good on Comment 27? Okay.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
59
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’ll just continue to go through the Addendum,
which was very helpful, by the way, Staff, that you went
through all the comments and gave us some feedback on that,
and it helps make our discussion more efficient.
You also brought out your comments on the
submission from Mr. Mayer from the Housing Element Board,
and who is also an architect, and I don’t think we need to
discuss the first one he brought up about real world photo
examples, because we already discussed that earlier.
But he did have some other specific suggestions,
one of which was that the parking structure entry gate
setback be reduced to under 25’, and he did go into detail
about with a dense kind of building trying to create a 25’
setback would be an awfully big ask for them to do that.
Staff, you want us to comment about whether we should
include that or not? You didn’t recommend one way or the
other.
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll start, and then Mr. Safty
may have something to add. With any of these where a change
is being recommended we called out if we had a significant
concern, but would be looking to see if the Commission
supports making the change. In this case we do want to have
some setback so that we avoid queuing in the street, and
often the gate for a parking garage is actually set back
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
60
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
farther within the building façade, so it doesn’t mean that
the front wall of the building needs to be set back. Mr.
Safty, did you have anything else add on that one?
RYAN SAFTY: You basically said what I was about
to. The one thing I would add is the only thing we do have
in the Town Code right now is it requires 18’ from any sort
of vehicle gate to the edge of the street, so if the
Planning Commission does want to reduce below 25’ I would
recommend ensuring that we still do have the 18’.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So that we don’t just remove the
requirement entirely. Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I would
argue against removing this section. I think it is
important for pedestrian safety to avoid a situation where
we have queuing. It seems to me that ideally maybe what you
want is whatever the length of two cars is, because
essentially that’s going to be a most common scenario, I
think, where you would run into problems, so if that’s 18’,
that’s 18’, if it’s 20’, it’s 20’. I don't know what that
number is, but it seems to me whatever the length of two
average cars would be is probably be adequate for our
purposes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff, and Commissioner Thomas.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
61
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. I agree we
shouldn’t remove this section amended to be much less than
25’. I would go back to the architects and ask what much
less looks like. It may be that the 18’ is also untenable.
I don't know, so I would say keep it, but see if you can
get some input from the architects specifically regarding
these kinds of structures.
CHAIR HANSSEN: You mean in addition to Mr.
Mayer?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. Well, go back to Mr.
Mayer. He’s making the comment and he’s asking for a
significant reduction, and he seems to be speaking from
experience. We could guess at this number, we could go with
the 18’, but that might still not be workable, so my
suggestion is to go back to the architects and see if we
can find something, keeping in mind that what we’re trying
to do is keep these things objective, but also we want
these buildings to be built, so if we put too many
constraints that makes just breaking ground not workable,
then we’ve sort of killed something from the outset, so I’d
look to get some input from the experts on this one.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds reasonable, and what
I’m hearing loud and clear though is that we don’t want to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
62
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
remove this, but let’s see what Commissioner Thomas has to
say.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that we do not want
to remove this for the safety concerns, but however I do
want to ensure that we are highly, highly encouraging below
ground parking, because we know that that is a huge
priority for us to achieve some of our higher density
projects that we want. I know that it also makes it more
expensive for developers, but I think that we need to make
sure that we’re not putting a number on here that is not
possible.
When we say a minimum of 25’ between the gate and
the back of the sidewalk, we are saying the length? It’s
not like a bird’s eye view, right? It’s the length of the
actual driveway has to be 25’ so that could curve or turn,
correct, Staff?
JENNIFER ARMER: (Nods head yes.)
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. I do know there are
gates that exist like this out here; most parking garages
with below ground parking have the gate below… I don't
know, I guess my question is 25’ doesn’t seem that
unreasonable to me, but obviously I’m not an architect, but
if I’m thinking about like how far is the distance if we
were to put a gate at the bottom of some of the park… I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
63
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
guess all of our below ground parking in town doesn’t have
a top, I don't know. I was trying to think of in downtown.
We want to encourage below ground parking, so we need to
make sure that the number that is chosen is specific, so
its objective, but it also ensures that we can still get a
lot of below ground parking.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So what I’m hearing is we want to
keep this requirement in here, but we don’t feel like we
have enough expertise to specify. I did hear from Staff
that we have already a requirement for 18’, so can Staff
check with some of the architects to see if this really is
a big problem and that that would necessitate it being less
than even 18’, because I don’t think that any of us have
enough (inaudible) of experience with this particular
requirement. Is that enough direction?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think
we can proceed with that. In order to give the Planning
Commission a little more context, our current standard for
parking, if you have a two-car garage you’re going to be
required to do 20’x20’ clear on the inside, so that’s 20’
deep for each of the two cars. If you’re looking at the
distance from the face of a garage, even if the required
building setback is less, then we require the 18’, but in
many cases the front setback that governs the distance to a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
64
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
garage is actually 25’, so this isn’t inconsistent with a
lot of the other circumstances where you have enough space
for a car to park in the front of a garage and not be
overlapping with the sidewalk.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And also it was my understanding
when we were going through this whole process as the
Subcommittee before the document was drafted that our
consultant’s had substantial experience working with many
jurisdictions on this stuff, so we were relying pretty
heavily on them to work with our Staff to come up with the
right numbers for this step, so I guess what I’m hearing is
it’s probably worth checking with some people, but we don’t
want to wholesale remove things that were recommended.
Mr. Ford.
TOM FORD: Thank you. Yes, you’re correct. We can
look into this further.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, great. So let’s go on.
The next one was similar. It was about vehicular entry
gates, and there’s a 6’ height limit for those, and he
wanted those to be increased, because he was talking about
parking situations and that it wasn’t going to be high
enough.
Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
65
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. He makes a good
point, but I think we can correct the concept by inserting,
“Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates located
in perimeter fencing shall have a maximum of 6’.” I think
that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about
entrances that are in a building face, right?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Right.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: It’s in the fencing or in
some sort of perimeter barrier.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds reasonable.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I certainly wouldn’t want
to increase it to 8’ across the board, because then you
wind up with 8’ fences at the perimeter, right? So I think
that would solve the problem.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I like that suggestion. Any other
thoughts on this one? All right, let’s see, we don’t have
too much more to go through.
Their public comment question whether landscapers
can count toward landscaping requirements in Standard
A.10.1a and whether 20% is too high, 20% being that 20% of
the total square footage has to be landscaped and whether
or not landscapers could count for that, because it might
be too much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
66
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, and then Commissioner
Thomas.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think based on our
previous conversation we should allow landscaped rooftops
to be counted, but not everybody is going to do a
landscaped roof, so if that 20% still seems high then there
should be an if/then term included so it will be such-and-
such a percent unless there’s a rooftop and the rooftop can
count toward that percent, but yes, I think that that
number…
And maybe it should be arranged that the
following point has to do with how large balconies or
common space or community recreation space are, and there’s
a recommendation that it would be a certain size for a
certain size building, and a certain size for certain other
size buildings, so I think maybe this is another one where
there could be a range if the landscaped space at 20% seems
onerous, but definitely count rooftop.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I know his concern was that the
landscaping requirement being that high could defer High-
Density housing.
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that we should
definitely count landscaped roofs toward the 20%, so I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
67
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
think that should be added. I also know that people value
green space in town and are afraid of really High-Density
housing, so I can see maybe why this 20% was initially
chosen as the number, but I’m happy to hear what other
cities have decided to do, because I’m open to reducing.
CHAIR HANSSEN: You started going in the
direction that I wanted to make sure we reminded ourselves
of, that this document is intended to comply with certain
laws that have been handed down by the State of California
and that it’s separate and aside from the discretionary
approval process that we already have, and so there’s
always the possibility where they bring in a project and
they want to take advantage of the streamlined processing
procedure and they decide that it doesn’t work for them
they can still go through the discretionary process that we
have. This is just to take advantage of the streamlined
process.
I know that when we heard the North Forty and the
North Forty Specific Plan had a 30% open space requirement
and 20% had to be green—I think the numbers might be wrong,
off by that—but that was a big deal for everyone, and they
did find a way to meet it, and so I think we’d have to
think long and hard about taking that off the table,
because we’re basically taking away the discretionary
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
68
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
approval process with this document and we want to make
sure that it turns out the way that we’re hoping for.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to make a
clarification that the landscaped rooftop could count
toward the 20% as long as it’s accessible by all residents.
It can’t be like a private rooftop garden for the
penthouses, right?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So make sure that that’s
also included.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Maybe I didn’t read this thing
right, but I thought that the landscaper thing was kind of
like the lesser of the two issues, that 20% was the issue
and that it might be too high and prevent High-Density
housing, but I think we’ve already heard from a couple of
Commissioners that we know that our residents are really
concerned about that, so I think it would be a hard ask to
take it down below 20%.
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I guess I do have a
clarification, but I do agree that this should be
accessible to everyone, but the current way it’s written,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
69
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
is landscaped area considered like all 20% of that has to
be accessible to all residents?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff.
RYAN SAFTY: Give me one second just to triple
check.
JOEL PAULSON: I can go ahead and jump in.
Commissioner Janoff’s comments, I think, were specific to
the rooftop deck and that the residents of that community
had access to that, not just the penthouses, for instance,
so it’s an amenity for those folks, not an amenity for the
entire public, so it’s just for that specific site, and
it’s not specified in there, so that’s something that we’ll
look at adding specificity.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Because it just says right
now, “A minimum of 20% of the site area shall be
landscaped,” but that doesn’t have to be that whole 20%.
The way it’s written right now it does not have to be
accessible to everyone, because this is like a completely
separate thing from the 60% of the community space shall be
open to the sky, etc.? I’m just trying to interpret the
rule.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Safty, you had your hand up.
I’m going to ask you before I go back to the other
Commissioners.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
70
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
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you, I’ll try to take a stab
at answering that. Just a reminder, all of those three
areas, the landscaped area, community open space, and
recreation open space, they’re all calculated separately.
Previously there was mentioned about using, let’s say, a
rooftop deck towards the landscaping requirement, and,
let’s say, a community open space requirement. As the
document is written right now, you would not be able to use
them both. Landscaping is really just intended to add
greenery to the site; that’s how it was drafted.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: I wanted to add the suggestion
that under Key Terms at the beginning of the document we
have a definition of landscaping, and so considering if
there are details that should be added to that definition
of landscaping is probably where this would be, whether
landscaping could potentially include a rooftop deck if
accessible to all residents, or similar language.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That makes a lot of sense, and
I’m glad Commissioner Janoff brought that up, because not
that super High-Density housing could have penthouses, but
you wouldn’t want it to be private, because that kind of
defeats the purpose of what we’re trying to accomplish.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
71
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
Let’s see, several Commissioners have their hands
up. Commissioner Janoff, and then Vice Chair Barnett, and
then Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a quick clarification.
The 20% doesn’t need to be contiguous land, right? They can
count pockets and so on, right? My comment about
residential access to a rooftop would be like let’s make
sure if that’s the only 20% set aside that everybody has
access to it, but if it’s in fact in addition to a bunch of
other little pockets, then it counts as an aggregate, if
that’s clear?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes, the landscaped areas can be in
multiple different locations, for example, shrubbery along
a walkway. The point I want to clarify one more time, the
idea of a rooftop deck with landscaping, let’s say Camino
Garden, the would count towards the community recreation
space, which then would not count towards landscaping
unless we removed the term saying that they are calculated
mutually exclusive from each other.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Through the Chair, if we
could just think about that a little bit more critically as
you go through in your mind how those might be in conflict,
when we could create some really beautiful community space
that is partially land… Just think about whether that is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
72
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
asking too much, and I’d say depending upon the design, and
of course that’s subjective, it should count as the same.
It shouldn’t be counted separately.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do other Commissioners have
thoughts? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you, Chair. Ms.
Armer brought up the landscaping definition under Key
Terms, and I’m happy with the 20%, but I am concerned about
landscaping as it’s described in the Key Terms because of
the drought situation and the need to conserve water, and
it seems to primarily, if not exclusively, require
greenery, so I think that’s something that we ought to look
at as part of the whole picture.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas, and then
Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that we do need to
be conscious about the water use, and I also think that we
need some clarification and need to rethink the differences
between the landscaped private recreation space and
community recreation space. I do think that if something
qualifies separately as landscaped and it also could serve
as a community recreation space, for example, a communal
garden, I would be happy with that being able to be counted
in both spaces.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
73
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 think that being able to double dip in that
area is going to provide for more creativity from an
architecture standpoint and more creativity with the use of
space, so I’m happy with that being able to be double
dipped, and then I think that also allows for more
flexibility with respect to the 20% doesn’t just have to be
like green for looking at, it could be usable space also,
which I think is the more important part, and also like
drought… It can just be more usable space that we benefit
more from then just like existing, so I do think that that
is a change that we should definitely consider.
I also don’t think that the way that we have it
written right now, landscaped space all needs to be
publicly accessible, but again, if it’s counting as both
community recreation space and landscaped space, then it
should be, if that makes sense.
My last thing is that if a rooftop is going to be
used either for community recreation space, or I guess as
landscape space, if we’re counting at 20% minimum, I guess
my question is right now it says 20% of the site area. The
rooftop basically should be like free bonus area? It
shouldn’t be considered in the total area, it’s not
additional area, if that makes sense? I don't know how we
consider that though then in the 20%, because we’re not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
74
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
mandating that anyone put anything on the rooftop. Do other
people understand how we could create conflict? No, okay.
So if we are requiring a minimum 20% of the site
that should be landscaped, and then we say you can use the
rooftop for that, we need to decide if we are counting then
does the rooftop count to the total area that we are
considering? Like is it our denominator, or not? I think it
should be not ever included in the denominator; it’s just
like an optional bonus area that you could use and utilize.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer, and then Commissioner
Janoff.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. Just to help with the
clarification of what Commissioner Thomas was trying to
describe, I think one question is when we talk about 20% of
the site area, whether that is being understood as the open
parts of the site versus the site area as a whole before
it’s been developed. So if you’re saying 20% of the site
area, then that is of the entire property before it is
developed, and so some of that 20% could be on the roof.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My assumption is that the
20% is of the whole site before anything is built, right?
Then build your building as large or as small you can, and
you’ve got 20% remaining on the ground, and then take that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
75
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
amount and apply that to the roof instead. So you
(inaudible) can make a bigger building and use your
rooftop, but it is the whole site and then the developer
gets to decide whether they’re going to keep ground-level
green space community or whatever, or rooftop, or a
combination.
CHAIR HANSSEN: There are a lot of people that
aren’t happy with the North Forty, but I particularly did
like the open space requirement in the North Forty Specific
Plan, and so my thoughts were that I wouldn’t want all that
stuff to be counted separately. I kind of like the North
Forty Specific Plan, because it had the idea that you had a
number of different ways to get at open space and then it
was up to the creativity of those, and then there was a
minimum for green open space, so you knew there would be
some of that, it wouldn’t just all be hardscape pathways or
things like that.
Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. My
concern would be just seeing hardscape, as a person walking
by the property, being developed if we were to count the
20% save for the landscaped roof, so I would like to see it
as written, 20% of the area shall be landscaped with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
76
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
roof not counting toward total percentage, my personal
opinion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m trying to decide where we are
on this one. There is a lot of really good input.
Mr. Ford, and then I’ll go to Commissioner
Janoff.
TOM FORD: Thank you. You could do something
where you still have the 20% of the site needs to be
landscaping, and then allow a certain percentage of the
community recreation space to contribute to that, because
if someone has a really nice roof deck they’ve probably
built a larger footprint to do that, so you wouldn’t want
to penalize them by saying you still have to have your 20%
site coverage of landscaping. You might want to allow them
to use some of that community recreation space up on the
roof towards their landscaping requirement.
Back to an earlier—I think Vice Chair Barnett
might have mentioned this—we can put lawn farther down the
list, but also whether someone comes in a discretionary
process or a ministerial process, they’re still going to
have to meet C-3 requirements for water use and how their
irrigation plan is using water, so there are certain
requirements that they’re going to… They can’t just put in
a lawn over 20% of the site and water it, so that’s already
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
77
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 to be restricted and that’s going to lead them
towards native plantings, drought tolerant plantings and
such for that 20% landscaping.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you, and I think Mr.
Ford’s suggestion in an excellent one. It speaks to being
able to count the rooftop as quality space for residents
without completely losing some form of landscaping or
greenery to Commissioner Tavana’s point, so whatever
percentage that might be, I would say Staff can figure that
out, but at least retain a portion of green space at
pedestrian level.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. Yes, I do really
appreciate Mr. Ford’s comment, so if I were to throw a
percentage out there, I would say no more than 5% to be
counted towards the 20% if they do have a living or a
rooftop landscaped.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that is a good idea to
put out there, and so I’m going to ask Staff if you have
enough to go on with this.
Commissioner Thomas.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
78
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 would like to add,
because I know that I made multiple comments and we went
really in on one of them, but I just wanted to also see if
we agreed that we should be able to double count, like
overlap landscape space with community recreation space,
because I think that those can be counted in the same way,
and Staff, you can clarify if that would create too much
confusion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I had the same question, but that
made a lot of sense to me and that’s where I was going with
my comments.
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you, that was actually
something I was just thinking about as well. It would make
perfect sense, for example, if they put in a grassed
volleyball court, why not be able to count that both
towards landscaping and community recreation space? Mr.
Ford, I don’t see an issue with that in terms of drafting
the standards, but I’ll defer to you if you see any red
flags.
TOM FORD: Yes, thank you. As Commissioner Thomas
was saying that I was putting on my devil’s advocate hat,
and I think you just want to be careful. Most architects
and landscape architects have a really hard job making that
number meet when they’re trying to do their site plan, so a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
79
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
lot of the landscaping tends to look really beautiful, but
it’s 10 square feet there and 20 square feet here and 100
square feet there, so you have to make sure that if you’re
going to double count it that it’s actually usable as a
community recreation space. So again, it might be a maximum
percentage or something that could be double counted, but
I’d be care to allow all of landscaping to be counted,
because it may not be usable in the sense of a recreation
space.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So, Commissioner Thomas, given
what he just said, does that change how you feel about it?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I think that I do
agree that we want to be careful. We don’t want this
community recreation space to be like a little tiny couple
of square feet here and there. I don't know if this is too
specific as far as Objective Standards go, or if we can be
specific enough, but maybe the space has to be designated
for a specific use, like a volleyball court, or a play
area, or a barbequing picnic site, or community garden,
something that I would assume that a Planned Development
would have a specific use for. I don't know if that’s legal
or allowed or we can write that into Objective Standards,
but that would be a way that I would see a way around the
issue of just divving into that everywhere.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
80
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: Mr. Safty, and then Mr. Ford.
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I’d like just to chime
in. We actually are covered on that already. In Section
8.10.1c there is a requirement, the minimum dimensions of
community recreation space, and that’s each individual
community recreation space used to come up with a total has
to be 10’x6’, so there’s not going to be little pockets
that people are using towards that.
Additionally, there are allowances for
landscaping within the community recreation space, so based
on the suggestions I’m hearing I do think that it would be
a fairly simple fix for Staff.
CHAIR HANSSEN: To combine those? Yes. You are
dovetailing into the last comment that you called out from
him, which was the size of the community recreation space
to be reduced or based on the overall size of the property.
But I’ll go to Mr. Ford.
TOM FORD: Thank you. I was just going to follow
on Mr. Safty in responding to Commissioner Thomas. In order
to stay objective I would try to stay away from a laundry
list of what qualifies as community recreation space and
instead try to stick with a metric of a minimum percentage,
maximum percentage, something like that that is just easy
for the developer to put on their drawing and it’s easy for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
81
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 Staff member to verify when they see it and just stay
with the metric, if possible.
CHAIR HANSSEN: To that point, I’m going to ask
the question, because that’s the other comment that we have
to discuss from this. The 60 square feet was “huge,” I
think was the word that was used in the comment, if you’re
talking about certain size properties, so is it better to
do a percent or, say something like 10’x6’?
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that the comment
was about the private space, and we were just discussing
the community recreation space.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Fair enough. But I think even
with that he was just saying what we had in there was too
high.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, for that next part, it
was, yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: But we should close on the
landscaping. What I heard though is that because we already
have protections in there about it being large enough that
we could go down the path of combining the community
recreation space and landscaping in terms of meeting the
overall requirement. Yes? Okay, all right, good.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
82
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 think I heard that most of the Commissioners
think that’s okay and we just don’t want too high of a
percentage of a landscaped roof per Commissioner Tavana’s
comment to be considered meeting that requirement.
But Commissioner Janoff still has another
comment.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Is this horse dead yet? Mr.
Mayer raises a couple of other good points and they’re
related to the private balcony as well as the con space
having to do with it being a percentage. He doesn’t say
this, but it may make sense to do a percentage or a minimum
for certain sizes or certain size of a community.
As I say often, they’re the experts in this area
and we want living space, we want recreational space, we
want landscaping space that makes sense, but if a 6’x10’ is
a gigantic balcony for a Multi-Family unit, then let’s
listen to the architects and bring it down, but maybe we’re
bringing it down only for the smaller units he says, on the
community space just flipping back and forth. Maybe we want
a different standard for a small building unit, say 10-12
units versus one that has 20 or more units, so I think sort
of a sliding scale makes sense, and whether that’s
different sizes or different percentages, I would leave it
up to Staff and Mr. Ford to come up with those numbers, but
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
83
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 think there’s some reasonability in having something
that’s differently sized depending upon the size of the
overall project.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Thomas,
and then Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’ll let Commissioner Raspe
go first, because I agree with Commissioner Janoff’s
comments and my question is to do with something else.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I just
wanted to follow up on Commissioner Janoff’s point, and
specifically on the size of projects and the notion of
community recreation space.
I know during our discussions during the General
Plan we put a lot of emphasis on missing middle housing,
and it seems to me that those are precisely the type of
project where if we force a large either percentage or
square footage requirement of community space we’re going
to lose the opportunity to put adequate housing in those
spaces, so I would encourage Staff to come up with a
minimum number of units before a threshold community space
requirement is implemented. I don't know if it’s 24 units,
I don't know what that number is. Again, as Commissioner
Janoff has indicated several times now, you guys are the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
84
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
experts and we’ll look to you, but I think that notion
makes sense to me.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like some
clarification, because I thought Commissioner Janoff was
just talking about… Are you talking fully about community
recreation space, or were you specifically talking about
the private recreation space?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was speaking to both.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: To both, okay.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: When the architect says
6’x10’ is a gigantic balcony for a Multi-Family unit, you
kind of want to listen to that.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, but then I just heard
Commissioner Raspe mentioning more about community
recreation space, not necessarily the private recreation
space. I understand that you’re raising issues with both,
but I just wanted clarification on that.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My thinking was, through
the Chair, that if we had a notion of smaller for smaller
and larger for larger in both private and community
recreation space, that makes sense to me. But what those
percentages or square footages might be, I’m not even going
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
85
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
to go there, but I think it may make sense to have two
different numbers.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I like your suggestion of a
sliding scale, because I think that when you have higher
density properties you’re not going to have the luxury of
this much space, but you want to make sure there’s a
minimum, but that minimum might not be the same one that
you have for a single-family home of course.
I don't know if Staff is comfortable going with
that kind of feedback, because I don’t think we have the
ability to put numbers out there for this right now. And
how much trouble would it be to have a sliding scale?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I’ll start by
saying just a reminder that this really is going to be
applying to larger developments, not so much the missing
middle developments. In most cases it really is going to be
people who are coming in under one of those special state
laws, and so we do, as Mr. Ford has mentioned, want to try
to keep these straightforward and not too complicated.
We can look at reducing or modifying some of
these numbers if that is the will of the Planning
Commission. We’ve started with these particular
requirements, for example, the private recreation space.
That is based on what we currently have in Town Code, but,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
86
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 example, for some of these larger developments, or if
it was different sized units or more units, if the
Commission felt that having a different threshold based on
one of those criteria, I think we could look into it.
I might check in with Mr. Ford to see if he had
additional questions or clarification that might help us in
that endeavor.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Ford.
TOM FORD: Thank you, Chair. No, I don’t. I would
take my lead from you folks partly because I’m willing to
come up with new numbers, but you guys are the folks that
are going to have to be willing to update your Zoning Code,
because as I understand it, I think your Zoning Ordinance
is already pretty clear about the minimum size of a
balcony, so I don’t have a problem with changing that.
But also, if you have a two-bedroom unit in an
eight-unit building, or two-bedroom unit in a 30-unit
building, what’s the difference? Shouldn’t it be the same
balcony? It’s a two-bedroom unit. So I don't know if the
controlling metric would be the development size, the unit
count, or as the architects pointed out in their letter, a
studio might have a certain size of balcony, a one-bedroom
might have a certain size. I don’t want to create Zoning
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
87
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
Code work for the Town Staff have to go back and have to
back pedal, but I’m perfectly willing to look at it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Gosh, there are a lot of ways you
can look at this. It could be that our Zoning Code is not
thinking about Multi-Family, but on the other hand going in
and modifying the Zoning Code is going to be a whole other
process, and we do have that situation where this is for
specific kinds of projects, so with that in mind hopefully
we can come up with a resolution.
Several Commissioners have comments. Commissioner
Thomas, Commissioner Janoff, and Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with Mr. Ford that
it should be based on the square footage of the unit versus
the number of overall units with regard to a sliding scale.
If we do that I completely defer to Staff about updating
our Zoning Code.
My last comment is really a question, through the
Chair if it’s allowed, to Commissioner Tavana. I’m just
wondering about your feeling about recreation space. Is it
the same with regard to the landscape space or do you feel
like recreation space, all of it, could be on the rooftop
if it’s allowed, if it’s community space for everyone?
CHAIR HANSSEN: You know what? Even though
Commissioner Janoff had her hand up, I’ll go to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
88
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 Tavana just so he can answer your question,
and if he has an additional comment, and then I’ll go back
to Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. To answer
your question, Commissioner Thomas, no, I personally think
it should be separated for a variety of reasons, but just
on this space I don’t see them being the same. I see
landscaping as landscaping, and I do see recreation space
being separated, so that’s my personal point of view.
I want to just chime in here. With all due
respect, I disagree with Mr. Mayer and his approach to his
comments and the section for the private recreation space
and the community recreation space. I have no issue with
the way it’s currently proposed in the Draft Objective
Standards, and I’d be willing to support it tonight if
that’s the direction we want to go.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think someone made a
comment earlier that most of the Town Code is really
written around residential or low-slung buildings of one or
maybe two stories, so we’re talking about a whole different
category of structure than we’re used to planning around,
so I wanted to make a couple of comments.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
89
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
When we talk about private recreation space, in
my mind there’s a difference between ground level
recreation space and balcony recreation space, and there
could be a different size standard for those.
Number two, regarding a different size balcony
for different sized units, if you think about what that
would look like on the outside looking at the building, I
think you’d be disappointed when you had a whole bunch of
tiny little balconies for your small units and then bigger
balconies. It could look visually confusing if you do it
that way, so I don't know that that’s the best approach.
When you look at buildings that are multi-story, the
balconies are all pretty much the same size. That’s just
the way it looks when you’re looking at the building, and I
would let the architects define that, but give a minimum,
and maybe 6’x10’ is too large, maybe it’s smaller; I don't
know what that number is.
Then the same thing for community recreation.
We’ve been thinking pretty conventionally about ground
level gathering spaces, and so these concepts of using the
rooftop and other areas, it could be big, it could be much
larger than 200 square feet if we’re going to the rooftops.
I think the architects have given us a lot to
think about, but given all our comments I think we have to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
90
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
think about making two different kinds of standards. We
don’t say in here that this is limited to structures that
are proposed to be 20 units or more, we don’t say that this
doesn’t apply to a missing middle situation, so if we do
intend to have different standards for different types,
then we should probably define those.
I know that that’s more work than Staff might
want, but the recreational space, the landscape space, the
community gathering space, those are really important
features, but they’re hard to get in if you don’t have the
space and you’re trying to create as many units as
possible. It’s really kind of a tough problem, but again,
thinking about what we can do to encourage architects and
developers to make those possible without too many
encumbrances, and keeping the green space for landscaping,
and counting the private space differently.
There might also be something in here. I hate to
complicate things further, but if a development is within X
number of feet or miles, a half mile, of a community park,
an established park, maybe you can count or deduct some of
your community recreation space if you are next to a park.
There could be some creative ways to make this work for
developers as well as the community that they’re building
for.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
91
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’m going to be the devil’s
advocate though and say that I don’t want to load up Staff
or our consultants with too many things. This is important,
but on the other hand, my understanding, and we had this
discussion with Staff in our pre-meeting, is because the
architects came right out with this only applies to these
kinds of projects and not the kind that we do, and that was
verified to be the case in talking with Staff that this is
for specific projects that come under specific laws from
the State of California, I would be a little bit reluctant
to start to make it more complicated. Maybe the one thing
that might be worth pursuing is deciding if the balcony
size of 10’x6’ is too much, but I think it would be a
slippery slope towards finishing this thing to add in a lot
of complexity.
I’ll go back to you, Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I agree, and I do agree
with Commissioner Tavana. If it were to remain as written I
would personally be comfortable with it, but I’d also
suggest just an easy check might be the Palo Alto code Vice
Chair Barnett has referred many times. Just do a quick
check of communities that are building multi-story or
multi-residential units, look and see what their standards
are and choose that number, and if it’s 6’x10’, yay, we got
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
92
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
it right, and if it’s smaller or a minimum or a percentage,
maybe that’s a better way to go. But I’m sure that there
are specific numbers, and I’m not suggesting we make a
research project out of this, but get a reasonable number
that other municipalities are using. Santa Clara is
building a ton of high-rise buildings. I’m not saying
they’re all beautiful, but they probably have a minimum
balcony standard, for instance, or a minimum private space.
Just see what they have, and if it’s the same as what we
have, leave ours as is.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that sounds like a good
thing, so maybe just a sanity check to make sure that we’re
not overstepping this thing based on having our standards
built around single-family homes.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I need some
clarification. This is on page 209 of the package where it
talks about the size of the private open space. So we know
that the deck dimension is 10’x6’, but then it goes down to
subparagraph (ii) and it says that, “The above dwelling
units above the ground floor shall have 120 square feet,”
so I’m not sure how to compare the 120 and the 160, and I
know I’m missing something here.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Can you take that one, Staff?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
93
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: Sure, thank you. There are
minimum dimensions trying to make sure that the size of the
balcony is a usable space rather than, say, something that
is only 2’ deep and really long. Then you have the overall
size, so if you’re on the ground floor, as Commissioner
Janoff was suggesting, it is a 200 square foot size
requirement, whereas if it’s above it’s a different
requirement, it’s only 120 square feet, but that 120 square
feet needs to be laid out in a way that you have at least a
10’x6’ dimension. It will be bigger than that because
that’s only 60 of the 120 square feet. Did that help to
clarify? You’ve got a certain amount of area that’s
required, and then also the dimensions need to be at least
10’x6’ so that it is a usable space.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that answer your question,
Vice Chair Barnett?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you for the
clarification.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thanks for bringing us to
this particular page, Vice Chair Barnett. Maybe this is
where the problem lies, because an above ground unit with
a, let’s say, 10’x12’ square foot balcony is huge, and
maybe that should be the 6’x10’ rather than 120 square
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
94
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
feet. I’m thinking about what a 6’x10’ balcony, or a 120
square foot balcony, might look like. That’s huge. That’s
really, really big for a balcony, even though you’re only
required to have 10’x6’.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s as big as a lot of
people’s bedrooms in their homes.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, so maybe what we
should do is reduce that 120 square feet and just restate
the 6’x10’, or just say 60 square feet. I like the
dimensions because, you’re right, Ms. Armer, you wouldn’t
want it 2’x20’ long. Well, then you’re looking like a
really fat belly band, so that wouldn’t work. But yes, I
think that could be part of the problem.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Ford has his hand up.
TOM FORD: Another way to look at that and how
(ii) is, basically what you’re seeing there is there are
two balconies, so a unit has two balconies. Maybe it has
one that’s off the living room and one that’s off one of
the bedrooms; that’s a potential way to do it too. You
don’t have to have one big, huge balcony; you could have
two, so long as each of them is a minimum size.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Obviously we’re
hearing a lot of good conversation around a number of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
95
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
topics. I think ultimately what you heard from the
architects was the 200 square feet for a ground floor might
be too big, and so you have this dimension versus square
foot conversation that could be addressed, as Mr. Ford
mentioned, in a number of different ways. We can look at
other opportunities for how that is expressed in the
Objective Standards and come up with two or three different
options for the Council to consider should this move
forward today.
In addition to that, there’s been a lot of
conversation around community space and landscape space.
Can one count for both? Are they exclusive? Should we
exclude rooftop decks? I think we can kind of get our arms
around all those varied topics and see if we can come up
with some other options for consideration, whether that’s,
again, additional consideration from the Commission or
additional consideration from the Town Council, in addition
to reaching out to both architects groups that we heard
from, as well the HEAB member who is also an architect, to
get their further input on what they’ve heard tonight,
because I know at least two of them are in the audience, so
they’ve been hearing a lot of this conversation as well,
and so they will probably have additional thoughts once
this moves forward to Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
96
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 what I’m hearing, and I’m
going to give this direction to the Planning Commission, is
that we don’t want to continue this again. From our last
meeting, we have been working on this for well over a year.
We needed to have this thing done months and months ago and
we don’t, and so I’m reluctant to do anything where the
Staff would have to come back to us.
On the devil’s advocate side of that, we don’t
want to dump a pile of stuff on our Town Council either,
because they expect us to ferret the stuff out and make a
good recommendation to them.
But I do think that it would make sense to at
least have a sanity check on the size of the balconies
relative to other jurisdiction’s standards to make sure
that we’re on target, or check with the architects, because
I think the Commission doesn’t have the right number for
you. That’s got to come from architects and others.
Does that sound like a way we can go forward?
Because what I heard is there are a couple of things we may
need to look into, or think we gave some feedback on the
comments.
Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I just was
going to take what you were saying and clarify how it would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
97
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
likely be presented to Town Council to show that it isn’t
just leaving it up to them, but that it would be providing
the language that is there as well as the different issues
that were considered and discussed by the Planning
Commission as important topics for consideration by the
Town Council. I think it could be presented to them in a
way that this was identified as an issue that the Planning
Commission recommended they consider closely with several
options based on other examples or additional feedback from
the architect community.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds okay with me. How
does the rest of the Commission feel? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I would put an addition to
Ms. Armer’s comments, and that is before it’s presented to
Council that the Staff and consultants be involved in this
process of producing other alternatives for recommendations
so that the same discussion doesn’t occur at the Council
level.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So that we’re not like spinning
our wheels. Let’s go ahead and move on.
Staff had a comment on Exhibit 20, which was
relative to the other public comments, and it says the
public comment in Exhibit 20 also expresses support with
the information provided in Exhibits 16, 17, and 18, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
98
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
additional suggestions through the Purpose and
Applicability section. The bottom line is Staff is
supportive of these recommendations and can incorporate
them when forwarding the revised document to Town Council.
I did look at the additional comments and I
thought that they were reasonable, and since I’m hearing
Staff thinks it’s okay I feel like we don’t need to go
through those comments specifically, but let me throw it
out if any Commissioners want to discuss any of the other
public comments, and I’m going to come back to the
architects’ comments after this question.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m very comfortable with
following Staff’s recommendations for this set of concerns.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. I feel the same way. All
right.
On the architects’ comments, they had quite a
number of comments, and later on in the Addendum Staff did
go through every single one of those comments and gave
feedback. As mentioned earlier, a lot of the architects’
comments were in fact questions asking for clarification
from the document. Staff answered all of those questions.
There were also some recommendations they made that they
didn’t feel like they needed specific feedback from the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
99
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
Planning Commission, so my suggestion would be that unless
any Commissioners have any objection to that approach that
we just adopt Staff’s recommendation and say that yes,
you’ve answered the questions and any of those minor
changes that they didn’t need our feedback on, we don’t
need to discuss them.
But I want to put it out for Commissioners if
there’s anything else in the Addendum that Staff commented
on relative to the architects’ comments since we did
continue this meeting primarily because of their input. Is
there anything else that the Commissioners feel that we
need to discuss? Good, I’m not hearing that. And like I
said, I read through everything that Staff wrote and I
thought it was fine, but I want to make sure that we had a
chance to comment.
But it is almost 10:00 o'clock, so I wanted to
see if we couldn’t wrap this up soon.
The only other comments were the additional ones
that came from Ms. Quintana tonight in public comments, but
I think most of the stuff she covered were things that
we’ve been talking about tonight, so if that’s the case,
then can I get a motion from a Commissioner to recommend
the Draft Objective Standards to Town Council with all of
the changes and recommendations we’ve made tonight?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
100
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.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I move to forward the Draft
Objective Standards to Town Council given the additions and
changes that the Planning Commission has recommended to
Staff this evening.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Is there a second?
Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I second the motion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. I think we had a very
good discussion and I wanted to make a special point of
saying that I appreciate all the great comments and
feedback that have come from every member of this
Commission.
I will go ahead and call the question, and I’ll
start with Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
101
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: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, but I thought Ms.
Quintana had a good point about the organization section
where it said, “The following objective design standards
are organized,” and I think we’re dealing with more than
design standards. I think she has a good point on that.
It’s just a suggestion from me, otherwise I do agree with
the proposed motion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that Staff said that they
concurred with her comments on that front and that’s part
of our recommendation. Did I miss something? That was what
was in Exhibit 20, and Staff said we’re supportive of these
recommendations and can incorporate them when forwarding
the revised document to Town Council. So to me I thought
that was included.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so you’re a Yes then?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so it
passes unanimously, and I will ask Staff for clarification.
There are no appeal rights for this issue, because it’s a
recommendation?
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022
Item #3, Draft Objective Standards
102
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 thank you everyone for the
great discussion on this item.
(END)