01-11-2023 Minutes - PC
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 11, 2023
The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
Wednesday, January 11, 2023, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
Government Code Section 54953, as Amended by Assembly Bill 361, in response to the state
of emergency relating to COVID-19 and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by
suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §
54950 et seq.). Consistent with AB 361 and Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2021-044, all
planning commissioners and staff participated from remote locations and all voting was
conducted via roll call vote.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Steve Raspe, Commissioner Susan Burnett,
Commissioner Kylie Clark, Commissioner Melanie Hanssen, Commissioner Kathryn Janoff, and
Commissioner Emily Thomas.
Absent: None.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – December 14, 2022
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Clark to approve adoption of the Consent
Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Thomas.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 2 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 400 Surmont Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-21-004 and S-21-023
APN 527-20-003
Applicant: Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design
Property Owner: Sandra K. Anderson, TTE
Project Planner: Ryan Safty
Requesting approval for construction of a shared driveway, two new single-family
residences to exceed the maximum height for visible homes in the hillsides, and site
work requiring a Grading Permit on vacant property zoned HR-2½. Continued from the
November 21, 2022 Planning Commission hearing.
Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design, Architect/Applicant
- Whatever is built on this hillside would be visible, as there are no trees. This is designated
Level 1 for lowest sensitivity in hillsides. We have followed the Hillside Design Guidelines
with a winding or shared driveway, building parallel to the contours, stepping the building
foundation with the natural slope, and detaching the garage. At the November 2022
Planning Commission hearing, it was somewhat agreed upon that no modifications were
needed for the grading exceptions, and if we were required to strictly adhere to a lot of the
grading components we would not comply with Fire or driveway turnarounds, nor would
we be able to provide more extensive landscaping to shield the driveways and cuts along
the hillside. We listened to the Planning Commission and made significant changes: Parcel
1. We brought down plate heights, eaves, ridge heights, and roof pitches, and suppressed
some plate heights down to 7.5 feet, and from grade everything is at or under 18 feet. The
area we are projecting into the 18-foot height limitation is in the middle of the mass and
occupies only 11 percent of the entire roof mass. We provided significant additional
landscape screening at the rear and downhill sides of both properties. Materials have been
chosen to blend in with the exposed hillside, meet the LRV, and are designated to meet or
shade into natural conditions. Parcel 2. There was more extensive work to entire portions
of the roof plan to significantly reduce the mass, especially on the downhill side, and
modifications took about 200 square feet of the FAR because of reduced attic space.
Rooflines follow the topography. From 1 to 1.5-foot reduction in plates, and reduction in
the overall pitch height to bring the ridge points down. The exception we ask for is only 12
percent of the overall roof mass. From grade we are at or under the 18-foot limit.
Additional landscape screening is added. The color palette is meant to blend into the
hillside.
PAGE 3 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
Diane Michaelis
- Our three-acre parcel is close to the subject site, of which 1.75 acres is designated open
space easement, and the newly proposed development is contiguous with that open space
easement. When viewed from the valley these two houses will abruptly end the open rural
hillside views. These two parcels should have been preserved as open space, as was
mandated for us, and if the Town allows development on them it should at least enforce its
own rules consistently and no exceptions should be made to allow for noncompliance with
the Hillside Standards and Design Guidelines. We can see the story pole netting clearly
from our back yard.
Paul Cosentino
- My family owns the property directly adjacent to this proposed development and asks the
Planning Commission to deny this application. The sheer size and proximity of these homes
along the hillside is causing disharmony throughout the neighborhood. The developers
have misinformed the neighbors and submitted disingenuous facts and forms. The
Planning Commission asked the applicants bring the house heights down to 18 feet, and
they have not. The house on Parcel 1 would not have a generous setback with complete
absence of nestling into the hillside terrain, and is 21 feet from our property. We can’t ask
for privacy screening because of the fire defensible space regulations making it impossible
to plant any trees or bushes between Parcel 1 and our home. We are asking for the house
on Parcel 1 to be moved at least 30 feet from our property line so trees and shrubs can be
planted to protect our privacy.
Tina Cosentino
- Our driveway is only 12-15 feet away, and a 15-foot private driveway going up to the two
parcels is proposed. If the property to the right is also developed there is potential for
congestion in that area and I ask that it be looked into in terms of the intersection and the
impact to safety and traffic flow. A storm drain is located in the middle of all that, and we
request it be moved back to allow for more access for the roadways, with emergency
vehicle access in mind. It is troubling that there were things submitted just today,
especially on a sensitive subject such as the height of these buildings, because it doesn’t
give the public time to review.
Chris Tanimoto
- Just because the applicant did not receive responses back to their neighborhood outreach
letter last December does not mean we accept what they propose. That letter did not say
specifically how much the height was reduced, and I believe there is a problem with
transparency here. The story poles should be installed again after the storm damage to
designate which height so the neighbors can see it again.
Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design, Architect/Applicant
PAGE 4 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
- The building site is over 500 feet from the back end of our parcel to the downhill neighbors
at 303 Belgatos Road. With respect to Mr. Cosentino’s comments, our house is at 20 feet
on an angle at the tiniest point and that is the closest point, otherwise it sits anywhere
from 63 feet to 94 feet from his property. If Mr. Cosentino would like more landscaping in
this area we can work with our landscape architect to find something that works with the
defensible space requirements to provide him additional screening. These houses were
designed to not stare down on neighbors by being angled along the topography and
staggered so that they do not loom over any neighbor below, as 200 Surmont does on its
neighbors below. We have been very transparent, made extensive neighborhood
outreach, and taken input into consideration and reduced both mass and height. The
reason the Planning Commission received desk items today was not an effort to withhold
information, rather it was additional clarification information, because the staff report
issued last week contained errors and Mr. Safty was concerned that our project was being
presented as larger than it actually is. We have stepped this single level home down on the
hillside by staggering floor plans, changing roof plates, and adding additional layered
retaining walls. Great efforts were made to bring both houses into conformance with the
intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to approve Architecture and Site
Applications for 400 Surmont Drive, with added conditions that the
houses do not exceed 18 feet; non-reflective coating be added to the
standing seam metal roofs if glare to the neighbors becomes a problem;
landscape screening is incorporated to the north of Parcel 1 to the
maximum extent possible; and that all trees used for screening purposes
be non-deciduous species.
The Town Attorney Whelan requested the motion be amended to add language stating that a
member of staff, perhaps the Planning Manager, would determine whether sufficient
landscaping had been proposed.
The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment to the motion, and added that the
Planning Manager would also be the arbiter on the 18-foot height.
Seconded by Commissioner Clark.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
Vice Chair Barnett requested the motion be amended to include language stating that non-
deciduous trees be used for the privacy screening landscape.
PAGE 5 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
The maker and seconder of the motion accepted the amendment to the motion.
VOTE: Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Burnett opposing.
3. 301-307 N. Santa Cruz Avenue
Request for Review PHST-22-020
APN 510-14-048
Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Mike Millen
Project Planner: Ryan Safty
Consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation Committee decision to deny the removal
of a presumptive historic property (Pre-1941) from the Historic Resources Inventory on
property zoned C-2.
Town Attorney Whelan recommended that Planning Commissioners who participated in a
decision regarding the subject property as members of the Historic Preservation Committee
recuse themselves from this appeal of those decisions, based on due process concerns to
ensure the Appellants get a fair hearing.
Commissioners Raspe, Clark, and Burnett recused themselves and left the meeting, as they are
members of the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) and had participated in the decision
being appealed.
Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Mike Millen, Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant
- Exhibit 7, page 1 shows that in 1928 there is a 301, 305, and 307 North Santa Cruz Avenue,
but 303 did not exist. Then 301, the tearoom and the corner building, was torn down and a
huge structure with windows was built in 1952, and the HPC has excluded it from the
Historic Resources Inventory. That took care of the space between the old tearoom at 301
and 305. At some unknown point the old 305 was renamed to 303, so when I talk about
303 I mean the old 305. There is a 20-foot space between the old buildings at 307 and the
old 305, now called 303. That is where they built what today is called 305. HPC’s comment
that this does not have historic integrity was correct, because it didn’t exist and was built
far later. 303 no longer has left and right walls or the overhang, and has been raised up
with a table and chairs where there used to be just sidewalk. The changes that have
happened to 303 are so significant that it no longer has any structural integrity. 307 no
longer has a left wall and the right wall was completely boarded up during or after the
1960s, so overall there is no or little historic integrity. If the Commission makes Finding 5
PAGE 6 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
that the integrity has been so compromised the structure no longer has the potential to
convey significance, it doesn’t matter what else it finds, and I think both 303 and 307 fulfill
that. If the Commission cannot make Finding 5, I believe Findings 1-4 are met. The site is
not associated with any events or significant persons, and what is distinctive about this
particular building and the structure does not yield any Town history information. I ask the
Planning Commission to find that the entire property, 303, 305, 307, and 301 should be
removed from the Historic Resources Inventory.
Lee Quintana
- I disagree with the Town Attorney’s recommendation that those who served on the HPC
and made the decision to deny the property’s removal from the Historic Resources
Inventory are required to recuse themselves, because this is a de novo hearing, a totally
new hearing. Applying that reasoning, should members of the Planning Commission who
also serve on the Housing Element Advisory Board recuse themselves when that item
comes up later on in this meeting? I request the Planning Commission consider continuing
the item until it is possible for the Town Attorney to check with the State attorney general
on recusal of previous reviewing body members. This site is significant enough that there
should be a professional, historical architect looking at it, not just the applicant’s own
research.
Catherine Somers
- I am the Executive Director of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce. I encourage the
Planning Commission to allow the property owner some leeway as to what he can do with
this very valuable piece of property. Merchants and restaurants at that end of the
boulevard continually ask me how to make that end of town more vibrant. That whole
corner could completely change the vibrancy at that end of Town, and I do not think the
Town can continue to restrict a property owner to stay within the realm of keeping it
historic, because he can’t rent that property because of the restrictions placed on it. When
changing the landscape of the street that corner has to be considered, because it could set
the stage for what Los Gatos could and should look like in five to ten years.
Mike Millen, Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant
- Some people believe neighboring municipalities like Campbell are moving ahead of Los
Gatos because their rules are different than ours. This is an area that is open to a lot of
discretion. Ms. Somers’ comments put the Planning Commission in a perfect position to
say that these structures don’t have the potential to convey significance so we can make
Los Gatos vibrant on this particular corner.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
PAGE 7 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Thomas to grant an appeal of an Historic
Preservation Committee for 301-307 North Santa Cruz Avenue and
approve the removal of the presumptive historic property (Pre-1941)
from the Historic Resources Inventory. Seconded by Commissioner
Janoff.
VOTE: Motion passed 4-0.
Commissioners Raspe and Clark returned to the meeting. Commissioner Burnett recused
herself from participating in Item 4 as she is a member of the HPC and participated in the
decision being appealed.
4. 253 W. Main Street
Minor Development in a Historic District Application HS-22-051
APN 510-45-006
Applicant: Bess Wiersema, Studio Three Design
Property Owner/Appellant: Mike and Kim Wasserman
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Consider an appeal of a Historic Preservation Committee decision to deny a request to
modify the previously approved front door on a new single-family residence located in
the Broadway Historic District on property zoned R-1D:LHP.
Sean Mullin, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Mike Wasserman, Property Owner/Appellant
- There are two-dozen letters of support for our door, and 65 neighbors have signed a
petition in support, including everyone on our street. What is more appropriate in an
historic district, an historic wooden door that goes well with the design, or a new
aluminum-clad glass door? We are in the Historic District, so why should we be forced to
use a new door that provides no safety or privacy, and certainly adds no historical
significance to the property? Upon review of the HPC meeting, three erroneous statements
were made that likely resulted in the decision of the two members who voted against our
request in a 2-1 vote. On page 2 of 8 of the staff report, under Findings, staff says our
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines, and there are none of the adverse
effects listed in Section 29.80.290, which means our appeal should been granted. Both the
home to our left and the one across the street have solid wood front doors, as do 50 other
homes of various styles in our neighborhood. Our door adds interest and history to our
home. A glass door provides little to no privacy or safety, which is a great concern given
our proximity to the commercial district.
PAGE 8 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
Jonathan Knowles
- I’m here tonight to ask the Planning Commission’s consideration in allowing the Appellants
to have this very special, beautiful piece of history and allow it to be a part of our Town.
Steve McGrath
- I live directly adjacent to the Appellants and I can think of no better way to have this brand
new building complement the historic surroundings than to allow the Appellants to use
their historic door on their new property as opposed to the ultra-modern, aluminum-clad
standard door.
Kira Fields
- I am speaking to ask that you approve the appeal for the Appellants’ antique wood door.
The door is not offensive, fits in well with the style of their new home, and adds value to
the surrounding neighborhood.
Erin O’Brien
- I am in strong support of the Appellants being able to use their wooden front doors. I have
seen these doors and they are spectacular and completely in keeping with the integrity and
beauty of the Historic District, and they have multi-generational importance to the
Appellants’ family.
Robert McCartney
- Having looked at these doors and spoken with the Appellants, it seems these doors evoke a
number of historical aspects of Los Gatos, and they bring a historical context to the building
that simply wouldn’t be addressed by generic doors. I support the appeal and I hope the
Planning Commission will also.
Ray Robidoux
- My wife and I fully appreciate and enjoy the historical character of Los Gatos and many
homes in the Town. We have seen this beautiful door and think it goes very well with the
design of the home, and believe it is compatible and complementary to the historical
nature of the neighborhood and the homes in the area.
Claire LeClair
- I am in favor of the Appellants using the hand-carved, historic wooden door as their front
door in the Town’s Historic District. There are a lot of memories attached to that door, and
it is absolutely beautiful.
Joanne Talesfore
- I chaired the Planning Commission in 2008 and my colleagues and I, along with Staff,
crafted and edited the Residential Design Guidelines, which included the Historic Design
Guidelines, and it is important to note that we crafted guidelines, not directives. The
guidelines allow residents room for creative expression, open to uniqueness in design
PAGE 9 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
features, while staying within the neighborhood compatibility. I have read all materials
related to this project and I support the appeal by the Appellants to keep a 300-year-old
family door as the front door of their designated non-historic house. This heritage door
builds on the owner’s history and imparts a unique and diverse character to the home,
which is encouraged by the historic guidelines. This family door is a contributing feature to
a non-historic house in an historic overlay zone, again, something the guidelines
encourage. In my opinion, and following the design guidelines, the door neither detracts or
adversely affects the character, architecture, or aesthetic interest in Los Gatos, and in fact
brings a diversity, visual richness, and individual character to this historic neighborhood
overlay zone and strengthens the Town’s historic, Hispanic components. I strongly
encourage the Planning Commission to approve the addition of the door as it adds history,
diversity, and falls under the freedom of creative expression intent in keeping with the
design guidelines.
Margaret Smith
- I served on the Historic Preservation Committee under Len Pacheco and his 600-page
books of architectural styles. I was surprised when I learned the Appellants’ application to
install this historic front door on their new home had been denied by a sparsely attended
HPC. I’ve seen the door and wonder if in one of Len’s architectural books we wouldn’t
learn that a solid wood door is common in a stucco modified Tudor, which is the style of
home the Appellants have built. We in Los Gatos pride ourselves on our efforts to reuse
and recycle, yet these appellants have been told that a door with a half-century
provenance of gracing the entrance of another Los Gatos home does not deserve to be
reused in their home in the Broadway Historic District. The door is in compliance with
Section 29.80.290 of the Residential Design Guidelines. The door enhances not only the
property, but also the historic district within which the property is located.
Kat Battaglia
- My husband and I live across the street from the Appellants’ new home. We have viewed
and considered their hand carved hardwood entry door, and feel it’s congruent to the
house design and the neighborhood. The front entry is set back from the street and the
door is not immediately visible to passersby. Solid wood doors provide more security and
safety, as well as sound and weather insulation. The door is agreeable to us as the
immediate neighbors.
Susan Burnett, Historic Preservation Committee Member
- A letter from the Appellant characterizes my comment as an HPC member as incorrect, but
I was correct in my findings. The door is visible coming down Tait Avenue. Design
Guidelines page 29, section 3.6.2, clearly states most architectural styles have a distinct
unique entry type and to avoid using an entry type that is not part of the style. The Design
Guidelines, page 47, section 4.8, describes construction of a historic resource in a historic
location, namely the Broadway Historic District, as at a higher standard for building and
design sensitivity to a surrounding neighborhood. The quote by the Appellant was
PAGE 10 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
misquoted. Clearly on page 55, not 54, 4.10 applies to new construction in one of the
Town’s designated historic districts where six or more of the 15 design guidelines would
apply and were ignored. This project is not a remodel; it is a new construction. The
findings in Section 29.80.290, number 2, of the Town’s Historic Preservation Overlay Zone
would definitely not allow this appeal to be granted. The recommendation of the
Community Development Director to deny the appeal and uphold the HPC decision should
be honored.
Marilyn
- This takes me back to “Talbot’s Door,” which you are all too young to remember. This is
ridiculous. We love that door, and it should be here, and it should be in the Historic
District. I recommend that the HPC rewrite their guide to our district and have it available
for the many people who walk through Broadway, Almond Grove, and the historic districts
that this Town has.
Joanne
- The Planning Commission’s job is to uphold the integrity and beauty of Los Gatos as it
grows, and when I heard about the door debate, I checked it out myself and discovered a
stunning example of architectural woodwork, and original pieces with a rich history and
personal legacy that is attached to the homeowners. Those doors hold a pedigree and a
provenance that you will not find elsewhere, exactly what makes our town special, unique,
and beautiful, and the Planning Commission is here tonight to ensure that these values and
aesthetics are upheld and encouraged.
Ed Stall
- It seems ridiculous to me that we’re spending this time telling the Appellants that they
can’t install a door that suits their house, when we ought to approve it and move on.
Marc Dubresson
- We moved here for the character of Los Gatos and the Broadway neighborhood. One
reason we love the neighborhood is every house has a particularity; ours is French. We
saw the door and found it adds character to the house and could be a real talking point to
those walking around the neighborhood.
Cameron Hunter
- We are neighbors to the Appellants. Recently the Appellant talked about the history of this
door with my children and me, and I don’t see anything more historic than passing along a
story to the next generation. The wood door provides better safety and privacy, and simply
looks more aesthetically pleasing that what was on the original plans.
Frank Dealobos
- I’m speaking in support of the Appellants’ appeal to have this front door approved. I
frequently drive by the subject site and have seen and learned about the history of the
PAGE 11 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
door, being imported from Mexico and having so much personal meaning to them. One of
my first impressions was that the door without a doubt complements the historic character
of the neighborhood but looking deeper I welcome it as a symbol of diversity and
connection, and approving this door would be a reflection of our values of liberty and
tolerance.
Phil Knopf
- It’s wonderful that the Appellants were able to salvage and repurpose these doors in their
new home. The building across the street from the Appellants, the old firehouse that
became the museum, has a rustic wood door on it, so this door does fit the neighborhood
and is much more energy efficient.
Tom Rizol
- When I saw the Appellants’ new door a few weeks ago I thought it looked really nice. It’s
the artwork, it’s solid wood, it absolutely fits with the trim, color, and stucco of the house.
As I was leaving a woman on the street commented that it is a nice door, and isn’t that
what we want, people walking around the neighborhood and seeing something they like.
Nancy Pearson
- I state my support for the approval of the Appellants’ front door upgrade. I have seen the
door in person; it is a beautiful, hand-carved, antique door that happens to be a family
heirloom. I can see no rational reason for this to not be approved.
Howard and Jill Labe
- We walk down Main Street multiple times a week and have walked by the Appellants’
house many times and did not notice the door, because it is set back and doesn’t stand out.
But on one occasion we did notice and commented to each other how cool the door is, and
the Appellant was in the yard and told us the history of the door and let us see it up close.
In my opinion the door fits with the house, and it’s a great looking door. The Almond
Grove has a crime problem, and having a solid wood door makes sense, and we both are in
favor of the Appellants’ appeal.
Ed Reginelli
- My wife and I live next door to the Appellants, and the improvements they have made to
that plot of land is amazing and appropriate for the historic community. The door they are
proposing to use is a beautiful, historic wood door and in our opinion would be very
appropriate to use in this neighborhood.
Jim Fuller
- My wife and I have been neighbors of the Appellants for 22 years. I believe HPC Member
Burnett’s comments were a bit disingenuous when she implied that anyone could see the
door driving down Tait, because the door itself is perpendicular to the direction of traffic,
so all anyone driving down Tait would see is the edge of the door. I was a student of Frank
PAGE 12 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
Lloyd Wright and his main philosophy was using natural elements, and this door is exactly
that, and it is handcrafted and awesome. The fact that we’re spending all this time and the
Town’s resources on this subject is ludicrous.
David Cox
- I fully support the Appellants’ appeal to have this beautiful, unique door put in. Los Gatos
promotes the identity of uniqueness, and that is what this door provides. It will add beauty
and significance to the community and neighborhood and will not detract from anything.
Nora Comee
- I live a few doors down from the Appellants. With everything said tonight I think the
Planning Commission understands how much we support this incredible family heirloom
that adds nothing but quality and safety and is a unique addition to a beautiful
neighborhood and an incredible home.
Chris Morgan
- I am third generation professional woodworker of 20 years. It brings me great joy to see
their historic art piece when I walk my dog. This door is likely one of the most locally
historic artifacts currently existing in this Town. While the preservationist in me feels it
should be in a glass case in a museum, I feel that the art and fine craftsmanship should be
shared with the public. This door absolutely belongs proudly displayed with a family that
loves it and shares its history. The fact that so many neighbors are awake at almost
11:00pm on a Wednesday speaking in support of this door says all you need to know.
Lee Quintana
- When I look at this door, it is a beautiful, historic door in the sense that it came from
Mexico, is 300 years old, and was installed in another house not in the Historic District.
What we are looking at tonight is not whether this door is better than the door originally
approved. The door approved in the original proposal was not consistent with the Tudor
architecture, however, that doesn’t mean the only other option is to approve this door.
The door is not historic to the neighborhood, and it is not being preserved in the house
where it was originally built. There are many similar wood doors in the Broadway
neighborhood, but there is no door like this one. There are many doors that would be
consistent with the Tudor style of the home, and that needs to be considered. My
conclusion is based on the criteria in the Residential Design Guidelines for Homes in
Historic Districts.
Shah
- My wife and I walk on Main Street frequently and I appreciate the door. Los Gatos is a
historic and gorgeous town. What does historic mean? Is it technical data or guidelines in
books? People like me love it when we walk around the historic downtown, and this door
adds to it.
PAGE 13 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
Mike Wasserman, Property Owner/Appellant
- I respectfully disagree with HPC Member Burnett’s comments; everything I said was
recorded. I ask the Commissioners to look at code section 29.80.290, of which the door
meets all the qualifications and doesn’t do anything adverse to the neighborhood or the
house or style. Also see 29.80.215 as a second section to quote. I respectfully ask the
Planning Commission to grant our appeal based on these facts and information.
Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design, Architect/Applicant
- I wanted to address comments that the door does not specifically meet a Tudor or Tudor
Revival style. While the door does have a Mexican heritage, so does Los Gatos. I wanted to
address the overall character and aesthetic material, and hand carved quality of the door.
All of those points absolutely meet the requirements of being harmonious with the Tudor
door style. When we go to HPC and work on designs, nothing becomes so expressly
specific, especially on a new build in a historic district, because there isn’t anything on a
house that we’re trying to actually preserve, mimic, or rebuild. The home’s rafter tails,
gutter detail, window mullions, all are in keeping with the intent of the desired
architectural style while not specific historically to perfection of the style. We have to look
at intent and understand that we have to be able, as a community and as a Commission, to
be able to move architecture forward in the spirit of the intent rather than whether it is
actually from the Tudor era of Great Britain.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Thomas to grant an appeal of a Historic
Preservation Committee decision and grant the request to modify the
previously approved front door on a new single-family residence located
in the Broadway Historic District at 253 W. Main Street. Seconded by
Commissioner Clark.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to continue the meeting past 11:30pm
until the agenda is complete. Seconded by Commissioner Burnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 14 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
5. Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element
General Plan Amendment Application GP-22-003
Location: Town-wide
Consider and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the Draft 2023-2031
Housing Element.
Erin Walters, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Rigo Gallardo
- I am a representative from Carpenters Local #405 for Santa Clara County and am here to
speak on area labor standards that include a livable wage, healthcare, apprenticeships, and
local hire. A livable wage, along with local hiring, allows workers to live in the communities
they work in. Apprenticeships guarantee continued trained and skilled workers.
Healthcare is a necessity for families. What is being done to implement these area labor
standards in upcoming projects?
Lee Quintana
- The Implementation section has over 60 implementation programs. At least eight items
are subject to the use of BMP funds, five items have to do with rehabilitation and repair,
and other items have to do with outreach to the public and development community. I
advise revising the organization of the Implementation section to focus on areas of
common concern rather than having rehabilitation issues spread throughout the
document. I also advise that before the Town Council specifically mention Habitat for
Humanity (HFH) that they verify that HFH is willing to participate in rehabilitation and
repair programs in Los Gatos, because my understanding is they will not do any projects in
Los Gatos as a result of their participation in the Dittos Lane project.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to recommend Town Council adopt the
Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, with revised Sites Inventory Analysis
and revised Sites Inventory Form. Seconded by Commissioner Janoff.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 15 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
OTHER BUSINESS
6. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
MOTION: Motion by Chair Hanssen to nominate Vice Chair Barnett for Chair of the
Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Janoff.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Barnett to nominate Commissioner Raspe for Vice Chair
of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Burnett.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager
• The Town Council will hold special meeting on January 24, 2023 to discuss strategic
priorities for the next two years.
• The Town Council will hold a special meeting on January 30, 2023 to discuss the Housing
Element.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
Commission Matters
Chair Barnett
- The Chair thanked former Chair Hanssen for her service to the Planning Commission for
eight years, and congratulated her on her appointment to another four-year term.
- The Chair welcomed Commissioner Burnett to the Planning Commission.
- The Chair thanked returning Planning Commissioners for their contributions to the Planning
Commission.
- The Chair thanked members of staff for their hard work and professionalism.
- The Chair announced committee assignments for 2023:
o Commissioners Raspe and Burnett to the Historic Preservation Committee.
o Commissioners Hanssen, Janoff, and Thomas to the Housing Element Advisory
Board and General Plan Committee.
o Commissioners Janoff and Clark and Chair Barnett to the Conceptual Development
Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Hanssen
- Commissioner Hanssen thanked her fellow Planning Commission members and members of
staff.
PAGE 16 OF 16 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2023
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:17 a.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
January 11, 2023 meeting as approved by the
Planning Commission.
_____________________________
/s/ Vicki Blandin