Attachment 5LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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:
D. Michael Kane, Chair
Matthew Hudes, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Kendra Burch
Melanie Hanssen
Tom O'Donnell
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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 KANE: We’ll now move into the public
hearing portion of our agenda and consider Item 3, which is
Town Code Amendment A-17-006 and GP-17-003. Project
location is town wide. The Applicant is the Town of Los
Gatos. Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning
Regulations) of the Town Code, the General Plan, and other
policy documents regarding Planned Development ordinances
and the Conditional Use Permit Table.
Ms. Armer will present the Staff Report.
Afterwards, given that the public portion of the public
hearing was closed, we should ask questions of Staff and
begin a review of the amendment application. Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair,
and Commissioners. The item in front of you is the
consideration based on your discussion from February 14th of
the new Planned Development Ordinance. It was proposed by
the Planned Development Study Committee, developed over the
last few years, and forwarded to you from Town Council for
your recommendation.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
As a reminder, the recommendation from the
Planned Development Study Committee is presented in three
parts: A draft Planned Development Ordinance; draft changes
to the table of conditional uses, primarily addressing
residential as mixed-use in commercial zones; and edits to
the General Plan. A list of other important issues was also
developed by the Planned Development Study Committee with a
recommendation that eight topics be considered.
At the February 14th meeting Staff provided
additional background information for each of these
articulated, with one or two questions to be considered.
In your Staff Report packet for this evening you
have additional information provided to you based on your
questions. This information includes research, for
examples, within the codes of Saratoga, Los Altos,
Campbell, and Mountain View—Attachments 16-33—on six
different topics. Planned Development ordinances, other
examples, whether there are minimum lot sizes for Planned
Development zones, residential density limitations in
commercial zones in these other cities, minimum open space
in commercial zones, definition of mixed-use, and
definition of public benefit.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR KANE: Questions for Ms. Armer?
Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: The culmination of the work of
the Planned Development Study Committee resulted in some
draft changes to ordinances and tables and things like
that. Just from a process perspective, those
recommendations went to Council, and Council has then
referred this to the Planning Commission, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Did Council make any
significant changes to those recommendations from the
Planned Development Study Committee?
JENNIFER ARMER: Council forwarded the
recommendations from the study committee directly to the
Planning Commission as it had been presented to them.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Thank you, Ms.
Armer.
I watched the tape of our last meeting on
February 14th, and one of the things that came out at me was
Mr. Paulson’s pointing out that there was no magic number
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
for our meetings, and that a third meeting could be held if
necessary, so I don’t think that we should unnecessarily
panic and try to push this through tonight; it’s a very
broad application.
And given the significant scope of the
application, what I’d like to do initially is go down the
row of Commissioners to get overall thoughts on the
application, possibly get a consensus, and then we can
individually go to specifics. So if that’s okay, let’s
begin with Vice Chair Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. I’m sure we’ll get
to specific items, but I just want to share a few thoughts
on the recommendations. The backdrop for this was sort of
perceived and real abuses of the current Planned
Development Ordinance, and yet at the same time it didn’t
address some of the needs for flexibility I think that were
presented by certain properties that came about.
So, remember, when this got started we had
experienced several major projects that really engaged the
whole community. Albright Way and some others have engaged
hundreds, if not thousands, of folks, and so I think there
was a need to get these comments into some direction and to
tighten up the regulations at the same time as allow for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
flexibility. So the Policy Committee of the Council kind of
got the ball rolling, the Planned Development Study
Committee was created, and there was a very long process of
community engagement in a real democratic process, and I
want to make sure that we respect that and that it reflects
a lot of the will of the community over six to eight months
of work of the PDSC, 12 committee members, some of who were
opposed to some of the projects that came about. The
Committee I believe was chaired by Commissioner Joanne
Talesfore, and Jak Van Nada was the vice chair, and they
pulled together some very disparate points of view.
So while I participated in that, I didn’t agree
with everything that was resolved along the way, but at the
end of the day I did, and do, support the recommendations
of the PDSC, because I think it does embody a lot of the
will of the community, so I don’t see the need to reopen a
lot of things that were presented or recommended by that
group. In fact, I think that respecting the will of the
community is really important, so for once I’m going to be
kind of quiet when it comes to some of the specific
suggestions, because I think that a lot of it is already
reflected. Unless there is some new information or new
regulatory requirements I fully support the work of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
PDSC and think we should take that as sort of the
foundation.
CHAIR KANE: Did the Town Attorney have a
comment?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Just real quick. Hearing you
speak about the real and perceived abuses of our PD
Ordinance, I remember that also and the reason why and sat
in all those meetings with Joel, but what I wanted to bring
up was Monday night I’m in Campbell for a workshop on
housing bills that are coming forth, but at the end it
really turned into their PD ordinance, and they were
complaining about the abuses, whether real or perceived,
with the PD ordinances, and so they are going to be
undertaking to restrict further their PD ordinance in the
next year, so we are ahead of the game here and have done a
lot of work already that now they’re going to have to do.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen, your overview?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes and I
both sat on the Planned Development Study Committee, and
just to recap, the Planned Development Study Committee
included the entire General Plan Committee as well as some
additional members, such as Jak Van Nada, and the General
Plan Committee also included a couple of Council members.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
As Commissioner Hudes said, the driver for this
was really the Planned Developments that had not turned out
the way that the Town wanted, and one of the things we did
in this process—I think I mentioned it in our last hearing,
but I wanted to repeat it—is that one of the things we
asked Staff to do is put together a list of all the Planned
Developments that had happened in the recent years, and we
kind of went through each and every one of them and said
was this one that turned out the way we wanted or it was
not the way we wanted, and so it became really clear that
there were definitely some Planned Developments that had
been approved that had pushed the edge of the envelope and
perceived that the Planned Development was an opportunity
for relaxation of the standards, which is why I think that
word came in and it’s now been changed to “deviation,”
which is fine.
Then there were others where it turned out just
like the Town wanted, and there was the particular
development that’s off Regent Drive, and Council Member
Jensen talked about how we were able to get back open space
for the Town, and this is a really positive thing, so
Planned Development can be a really positive thing for the
Town if we kind of look at it like an opportunity to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
achieve some of the Town goals while the developer gets to
meet some of their goals as well.
Like Commissioner Hudes, I feel like this thing
was pretty well vetted. We met over many, many months and
we went through all these issues, and we went through the
document multiple times. And yes, there are some things
that have changed. I know we talked at our hearing about
all the laws that are coming out in California to push more
housing, but I think when you look at where we are now and
where we want to be, the ordinance that we have now, it was
not found to be something that was working for us, and so
what we have now is a document that may not be perfect, but
it’s much, much closer to achieving the goals that the
Planned Development Study Committee thought were
necessarily for Planned Developments, and I think it will
be a good tool and useful thing to get into place, because
we will be seeing at any point in time more Planned
Developments, and so having something that had more teeth
in it, that had more guidelines that we could use to
evaluate these things and what findings we should be
looking at I think can only help the whole process, so I’m
hoping that we can get through some of these issues.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
I wanted to just comment on one more thing. I
appreciate very, very much… I don't know that we had all
this information that you collected for today’s Staff
Report when we did the Planned Development Study Committee,
but it’s very helpful to see what the other jurisdictions
are doing and everything.
But I did want to caution on one point. I noticed
Mountain View has—and we heard this in the Desk Item that
came in in February—that Mountain View and some other
jurisdictions have really gone far and taken a townhomes
thing where you basically define what a public benefit is,
and then exactly what kind of concessions you would give
for a certain amount of public benefit, and while I think
that process is really useful I wanted to say that I
wouldn’t want to tie that to this particular document,
because I think that needs some baking and it needs to
happen, but I wouldn’t want that to delay this document,
because we would have so much more of a tool with what is
in front of us now. Then hopefully in the coming months,
especially with the General Plan Update—and I know that the
Town Council is looking at objective standards—maybe that
kind of stuff can get addressed, but I didn’t want it to
stand in the way of getting this approved.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m glad I’m third,
because I happen to agree with the prior two speakers, and
that’s all I want to say.
CHAIR KANE: I was going to do it anyway.
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I agree, I’m not going to
repeat everything that was said, but I do have a question
about in the last meeting there was a list of items for us
to consider, and we asked you guys to go back and do work,
and you did a lot; this is really helpful.
As far as our feedback tonight, now that we have
all this, are you looking from us to say on these topics I
have specific questions; minimum size, public benefit. Are
you looking for a recommendation from us on those items and
how we feel, like no, we shouldn’t define public benefit;
it should be on a case-by-case basis? Do you want us to
address each of those in the recommendation so that as we
pass this to Council they understand what we feel about
each of these items? I want to be really clear I address
this properly and don’t go too in the weeds if you don’t
need me to.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
JENNIFER ARMER: There were nine questions that
were developed by Staff in the previous Staff Report, and
those were based on the other important items that were
developed by the study committee, so the study committee
had this recommendation for the Planned Development
Ordinance. But there were other items that came up as part
of their discussion, and so they did include those in their
kind of recommendations to Town Council and to you, and so
if any of these items are of importance in your
consideration to be part of this as it moves forward, then
Staff would ask for a specific recommendation. If you feel
that they are not important to be considered at this time,
then that’s fine as well.
JOEL PAULSON: And I think, as you mentioned as
well, it would be beneficial when this hopefully gets to
the Council, that they have the benefit of your
deliberations on some of these questions, because they’re
going to be answering the same questions as they go through
that exercise.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: May I go on? Good, because
that how I approached studying this, because this can be a
lot of information to digest, and there were a few things
that I felt were kind of important.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
One item was talking about the inconsistencies
with the zoning and the General Plan, and in our last
meeting we highlighted a few things. I don't know, it’s
highlighted in these piles of paper somewhere, and I think
we all felt the same, that we really felt like the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan needed to be aligned. I know
that that came up in our last, we talked about a few
things, but it was one of the items that I flagged as
important.
I also looked at defining public benefit, and I
felt like keeping that broad and on a case-by-case basis
was very important, because depending on where the property
is located within the town the benefits could differ, and I
did see that other cities linked those two things, and
while I could see a benefit if we didn’t have so many
variations on neighborhoods and everything, I think leaving
it relatively open to determination by the deciding body is
important.
I was hoping maybe there would be a little bit of
feedback within the conversation that we have tonight.
There were a lot of differentials in the paperwork on the
other cites on the minimum size and the density, so I was
kind of hoping that maybe I could get a little bit of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
dialogue. I definitely hear you guys say that you feel like
it was a good document and everything, but these were the
questions that came up, and I want this not to stall. I
would like to see us go through these points, make our
recommendations, and then see it move forward, so if that
takes a little bit of extra time, I think it’s worth it. I
think this is important, and like our attorney said, we are
getting in front of other jurisdictions with this, and I
can just tell you from my personal career experience, it’s
becoming an issue, and I would like to see us move forward
sooner than later.
CHAIR KANE: As I mentioned earlier, we if need
it we can schedule another meeting. We need to get it
right. Commissioner Badame, overview.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: This was vetted over a long
period of time with several meetings and with some very
brilliant minds, so for me we can either take action, move
forward, or just keep stalling and talking. With due
respect to what Commissioner Burch said, she did bring up
some excellent points, however, I don’t see members of the
community flooding the chambers right now in opposition or
providing further input, so I’d be more inclined to move
this forward.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. I agree with everything
that was said. I’d like to move on to specifics.
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to say that
in spite of my comments I didn’t mean to imply that we
shouldn’t discuss the issues that were flagged, because
there were those open items when we finished the Planned
Development Study Committee discussion, and we knew that
that those were open items, so I would have no problem with
having that discussion, as long as it doesn’t drag the
thing out for many more meetings. But I think it would be
useful for the Town Council to hear our input on those
issues as well as they deliberate on this.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I agree completely, and my
remarks were to support the work that had been done, but
also to acknowledge that there were these open items, so
I’d actually like to start with a question of Staff on
number one, and to maybe summarize the percentage of open
space for commercial zones and whether some options that
were put on the table by this pretty comprehensive review
that you did of other municipalities.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
JENNIFER ARMER: If you do take a look in your
Staff Report, for the question of open space requirements
in commercial zones there was one of the cities—I believe
it was Los Altos—that did have some requirement, but it was
actually for residential in commercial zones, and I believe
this question was intended to focus on requirements for
commercial in commercial zones, or in general.
CHAIR KANE: Vice Chair Hudes, did the PDSC
address this one?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Well, I think this was one
where there was not a lot of consensus, if I remember, and
some of these, there was discussion and maybe not quite
consensus, but some direction, where this particular one I
think we were not able to make a recommendation, and I
don’t believe there was a strong debate about different
options for this particular one.
CHAIR KANE: Mr. Paulson.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I think this really
came up as a result of the specific plan for the North 40
and the comment that maybe there wasn’t enough open space
in that development and the fact that that’s the only
development in town that requires open space for a
commercial property. So I think that’s what started that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
conversation, and as Vice Chair Hudes mentioned, we never
kind of closed that item, so I think we have a local
example, which is our current specific plan, which requires
30% open space; 20% of that has to be grade, and then the
rest can be some form of hardscape. There were also
discussions about definitions of green open space versus
other open space, and so some of those things can be
captured.
The other jurisdictions that we have, as Ms.
Armer mentioned, they don’t really have an open space
requirement for commercial. It’s not typical, but that
doesn’t stop the Planning Commission from making a
recommendation if they think that that is appropriate.
CHAIR KANE: I read that one of the towns had 50%
open space. Did I miss it? Was that residential?
JOEL PAULSON: Most of those are generally
coverage.
CHAIR KANE: I thought it was an office building.
Okay.
JOEL PAULSON: Coverage is what that covers.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Just to clarify, the numbers
that you cited, that’s for the North 40 Specific Plan only,
correct?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
JOEL PAULSON: That is correct.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And so we have virtually none
or no other properties that are going to be of that scale
that we would just naturally apply those numbers to,
correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s a fair statement, I would
say.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I thought about this, and
had the experience of the Planned Development Study
Committee, and my general thinking on this is even though
that was a really controversial topic with the North 40, I
agree with Mr. Paulson that that was really the main issue,
and that’s fairly well resolved at this point.
I wouldn’t want to put the stick on this thing. I
think it would be much better to not have a minimum open
space requirement as an automatic thing for Planned
Developments, but rather make it a carrot and that as a
public benefit, and that there might be some development
concessions that could be made because they would give open
space in the commercial zones, because coming up with the
right number is an issue, and then wouldn’t we be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
uncompetitive potentially to other towns was my concern as
well?
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I agree. I don’t think we
should put a number. Again, I think there are so many
unique properties in this town it should be on a case-by-
case basis, but I do think it should be noted that it is
the desire of the Town that there be open space, and I
don't know exactly how to word this, that’s your expertise,
but I don’t want that to be all hardscape. A lot of times
people take open space and they utilize their numbers for
hardscape patios and things. I’m taking that a step further
and saying there should be some softscape permeable
surfaces, not just hardscape.
Green, well yeah. I mean every town and city
seems to define that differently, so I’m trying to be
really specific. I don’t want the sidewalks to be the open
space. Does that make sense, Ms. Armer?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I think there was also
testimony a number of times on the North 40, but also I
believe in this committee on other definitions of open
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
space, and potentially adopting a definition from the
federal government that talks about public access to open
space, and so I would suggest that that be considered as
well if we go further into defining open space, but I don’t
see the need to come up with a number on a town wide basis.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I would just put out one
more thing for Commissioner Burch. We spent a long time on
the purpose and intent, and if you look at the four items
that are in the proposed ordinance, the purpose and intent,
number three is the maximization of open space. But I’m not
in disagreement that we should be more specific about what
open space means, and that could be added, I think, to
green open space or whatever the case might be, and I think
that would be great.
CHAIR KANE: Other comments? I have a couple.
I watched the tape of the last meeting, as I
said, and Commissioner Hanssen gave a persuasive speech
about the PDSC and the work that they have done, and that
the documents before us are superior to what we have.
That’s a message I’d like to leave with Council.
But two other considerations. Public benefit has
been a moving target; some allegations of abuse and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
twisting the words. I’m not going to read this letter, but
I want to put it into the record. It’s dated January 14,
2016, concerns about the definition of a public benefit,
and it’s written by Mr. Jak Van Nada, and it is marvelous;
I think it nails it. To prevent it being taken advantage
of, I want to put this in the record and make sure that
Council gives it a special note.
And also a consideration from Ms. Quintana. We
regrettably did not get her bullets; I was looking forward
to them. Commissioner Hanssen did the best to get her to
promise, and she didn’t; she said she would try. But if
those bullets are available, I’m sure Council could profit
from them if you want to recontinue your appeal.
One thing she said was that in a project or an
application consideration be given to the A&S taking place
at the same time that the PD is being evaluated. I think
there’s some merit to that. I’ll offer that Commissioner
Hudes doesn’t agree, but I’ve seen a couple come through
where I wished I had the A&S at the same time as a PD.
Other comments? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Maybe I’ll take them one at a
time. On that last point on the simultaneous A&S
application, does Staff have perspective on that? Because I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
think this was a debate. If I remember, it was one of the
issues that was put before us that I don’t think we
resolved, and really to me this is a process question that
calls in efficiency and use of Town resources, and so I
wonder if Staff has a perspective on whether they should be
simultaneous or sequential?
JENNIFER ARMER: In the original Staff Report
Staff did talk a little bit about this issue, but primarily
our consideration is the question that is listed as
question #5, which is should Architecture and Site and
Planned Development applications be allowed to be processed
at the same time? Because we definitely have seen proposals
where the Applicants are not ready to get into the fine
detail of what the buildings would look like. There are
others where they do come forward with that level of
detail, and therefore having the Architecture and Site
application as a part of that package would help expedite
the process.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: However, couldn’t we look at
that from the flipside? Let’s say I was looking at
property, I wanted to do this, but financially I’m not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
going to invest on a full design until I know if I could
get the PD? The Town Attorney has a comment to me?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’ll give you one more anecdotal
information is that if the project comes in just as a PD in
a subdivision, it’s a legislative action, so it’s not
subject to the Housing Accountability Act. If they come
with the subdivision and the PD with the Architecture and
Site, then it could very well be under the Housing
Accountability Act and you only have to apply your
objective standards.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Right.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: So there is a reasoning why it
benefits the Town, because then usually they come in one at
a time, and you would have that subjective criteria. We
definitely are going to be improving our objective
standards, but it’s always good to have the ones that we
have about the character of the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Can I (inaudible)?
CHAIR KANE: Yes, continue.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I would just like to know in
Staff’s point of view. To me, it doesn’t make sense to make
that be something we would ask people to do. Obviously they
could do it if they want to, if they feel extremely
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
confident and they want to put that kind of money and
resources and have us be subject to further rules, but
what’s your opinion?
JENNIFER ARMER: The current process, as you’ve
seen with, for instance, 105 Newell, the PD at that site
was for them to come forward with the Planned Development
Ordinance, which was then followed by subsequent
applications for the subdivision and the four proposed
houses. If you were to allow it to go through in parallel,
then that is one example where those applications might
have come in at the same time rather than having to go
further process at this point.
JOEL PAULSON: And I think it’s really just a
question of currently we don’t really allow folks to do
that. The code isn’t really clear. We’ve done one, but it
was a very specific circumstance. Working through at the
same time, I don’t think we should force it, but allowing
the option is reasonable from Staff’s perspective, and then
they can choose whether or not they want to take that
additional risk that’s involved.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I agree. That’s how I would
approach it.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Just to get back to Mr.
Schultz’s discussion, it sounds like if we made it optional
and did allow it, it could very well put the Town in the
position of having to take that development on a by-right
basis, is that correct?
It seems as though there are three options here
with regard to this question. The first option would be to
require that A&S and PD be coupled; the second would be to
allow it to be coupled optionally; and the third would be
to not allow it, and for the reasons that Mr. Schultz
suggested, I would prefer that last option of not leaving
that as an option, because I think the Town could very well
be put in the position of having to take a by-right
development that isn’t in the best interest of the town.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: May I have a follow up?
Yeah, just a follow up to that, and then back to the
attorney.
Is there anything then that you could see,
knowing that some of the laws are going to change, that if
we said you cannot do those, you don’t have the option,
that anyone had any legal stance against us, because it
does eliminate the ability to do the by-right?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It’s certainly possible, because
the bills are changing constantly, so there may be certain
bills that don’t allow that type, but if we put it in our
ordinance and it turns out that it violates state law, we’d
just come back with a quick amendment and take it out or
not enforce that. That certainly is an option of forward it
on to Council, and then I can look at it more.
At this point in time you’re looking at just the
opposite of that, which was to make it happen as opposed to
now allow it, and as Joel says, that’s really what we tell
applicants, that they should first get their PD or their
subdivision and then come back for their A&S, but if it’s a
recommendation that you think Council should really look at
so that we’re able to continue with subjective findings in
our A&Ss, for single-family homes, that is, there’s nothing
that would prevent this being a PD in a subdivision of 20
homes, and then three or four coming in at a time to get
around the ability that we’d only be able to use objective
standards.
JOEL PAULSON: I would also just offer along this
discussion, it has a lot of different options. I think the
other reality is the Town in general has a nearly
unquenchable thirst for information, so you end up in a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
situation where you may end up with an applicant that just
says I want to change it from this zone to this zone PD,
and I’m going to ask for these exceptions, and I’m not
going to show you which ones I’m going to put them on, and
then I’m going to draw some lines on a piece of paper, and
then you're going to make that decision. We’ve seen one of
those recently, which actually wasn’t asking for those
exceptions, but again, it’s just lines on a paper and a
zone change, so that’s the one kind of challenge that we
could run into absent the fact that the reality is that the
next bill may say if you’re doing a subdivision or Planned
Development then this applies as well, which is kind of out
of our hands.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was going to say I’m
pretty clear that what I remember when we discussed this in
the Planned Development Study Committee is that because we
had several Planning Commissioners and Town Council members
on the committee that what had happened with some of the
Planned Developments is what Mr. Paulson described, that
you get all these terms and conditions resolved in the
Planned Development Ordinance, and then they come back for
the A&S.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
We actually have seen a couple of these at our
Planning Commission meeting where we don’t have a lot of
jurisdiction to make changes, because all the I’s are
dotted and T’s are crossed in the PD, and then what is the
point of even reviewing the A&S. But this housing
accountability thing wasn’t nearly as hot as it is right
now, so I’m kind of with Commissioner Hudes on this thing.
I’m like we may have to change it, but anything we can do
to not obligate the Town to have to make decisions that we
might not be ready to make, I would think that we shouldn’t
do that right now.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame, you had your
hand up?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I did. I don’t want Staff
to do more work than we already asked them, because we had
you fetch all this information from all these other
jurisdictions, but to your knowledge do you know of any
other jurisdictions that make that requirement that the A&S
be coupled with the PD application?
JENNIFER ARMER: I don't know. I’m not aware of
any.
CHAIR KANE: The Town Attorney has a comment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’ve certainly worked in a lot
more jurisdictions probably than my colleagues, but I can’t
remember ever seeing a PD where it coupled those two
together.
CHAIR KANE: A&S?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yeah, with an A&S.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: With that being said, I’m
kind of along the camp with Commissioner Hanssen and Vice
Chair Hudes with no. I’ve got that concern with the by-
right development.
CHAIR KANE: Other comments? Are we at the point
of making a motion with considerations, or do you want to
continue this? Give me an answer to those two questions.
Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I don't know that all the
questions are equally important, but I do think the
discussion about public benefit maybe warrants a little bit
more conversation, if people would take the time on that.
And I know Commissioner Hanssen had some initial comments
on that. I don't know if she’d like to expand on it, but I
have some other comments on that topic.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
CHAIR KANE: On public benefit I’ve submitted
Jack Van Nada’s letter in which he starts to address those
points.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Right. I wanted to come back
to that (inaudible).
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: We saw Jak Van Nada’s
public benefit, and I actually think that that definition
is fine, and I don’t honestly recall why we didn’t end up
doing it, but as I was reading through all of the other
jurisdictions that we had, pretty much all of them had
examples of public benefits, and it dawned on me, and I
reread the draft ordinance, it is really wide open and
there’s no meat whatsoever to public benefits, so my
personal recommendation would be rather than define public
benefit, unless it’s really general like Jak Van Nada had
it, that we should just give some examples of what we
consider a public benefit.
It’s not that that’s going to apply in every
situation, but it would be examples of things that we know…
For example, the Town wants to have hotels, and I saw that
in one of the examples, and we want to have more open
space, we want to have more affordable housing over and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
above what we’re required to do by law if possible, because
we’re always looking to meet RHNA and stuff.
So I actually made a list of the stuff that made
sense to me, and we could give examples of things that
would be… I know Vice Chair Hudes had mentioned in many,
many meetings, and still does, about a startup incubator.
And these are just examples, they’re not definitions of
public benefit, but it would at least give people that are
considering doing a PD something to chew on, to think
about, before they put their application in so that we’re
not sitting here going that’s not a public benefit. I mean
so they would have some examples.
CHAIR KANE: Well, then, I’ll read into the
record Jak’s definition. “ A public benefit will be defined
as a project that makes a substantial contribution to the
public infrastructure that is consistent with the vision
and objectives of the General Plan. Mere compliance with
the existing zoning shall not be considered a substantial
community benefit. Substantial benefit must be actions that
are substantively above and beyond what an applicant would
be required to make in order to comply with the underlying
zoning.” So that’s my thought and definition on public
benefit. Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I would agree with that
and would suggest that we include that for consideration by
the Council, but I would also agree with Commissioner
Hanssen that I think examples are helpful. It seems from
the Staff’s table most of the jurisdictions did list
examples, and I found in particular the one from Tampa,
Florida on page 15 of 15 has another good list, and I think
it’s helpful, because I think you can look someone in the
eye and say, “How is what you’re proposing in any way like
these examples?” and at least have a starting of a
discussion on that topic.
CHAIR KANE: Excellent. Do you want to read them?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I don’t think I need to; it’s
in page 15 of 15.
CHAIR KANE: All right. Other comments?
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: This isn’t about public
benefit.
CHAIR KANE: Fine.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I just want to look at some
of these, for example, Item 3. Yes, I know we talk a lot
about out hillsides and I don’t…
CHAIR KANE: Can you read it?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Sure. “Should PD
applications be required for subdivisions of five or more
lots in a Hillside Residential zone?” My feeling is yes.
On number four, “Should there be a minimum lot
size?” You know, the examples we got were all over the
place. I’m going to go with the recommendation. We already
talked about five, and then we just talked about six. So I
just wanted to make sure that we looked at each one of
those; they were identified as important.
CHAIR KANE: What was the recommendation on
number four? Forty?
JOEL PAULSON: There’s no minimum lot size is the
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah.
CHAIR KANE: Is that what you want?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, because again, we’re
looking at a town with a lot of variations, and I think
when we start putting arms around those and saying this has
to be this minimum, we could potentially lose an
opportunity.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: This is one where I supported
the final report that said no minimum lot size. I did have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
an argument on the other side of it, but I really wanted to
ask Staff’s opinion on this one again, because I think the
reason for having a minimum lot size is to improve
administrative efficiency so that we’re not considering PDs
for tiny projects, and also not proliferating requests for
PDs, which may have led to some abuses, so I’d be
interested to hear Staff’s opinion on the minimum lot size
one as well.
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if Ms. Armer has
anything additional, but if she does. I think given the
requirements and findings in the recommended PD Ordinance,
I don’t see that being a large issue. I can’t remember if I
said this out loud in the PDSC or I just think I did, but
the example is you have a smaller, maybe 10,000 square foot
lot that someone wants to come in and put affordable
housing on, but they need to go 31’ instead of 30’, and so
variances is one option, but the other is let’s go through
a PD. they have this great site plan and design and the
Town is really interested in having that project, but we’ve
kind of shot ourselves in the foot when we have this
basically virtually an acre minimum lot size. I think if we
found that people started coming in at a rapid clip for
that type of project, then we might reevaluate that, but
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
ultimately it’s providing flexibility so in case that type
of project comes in, we have that opportunity.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you. Now I remember why
I supported the recommendation.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had a question on
that. I mean I realize that the PD could create its own
standards, but there’s a lot of cross language between our
zoning codes, so unless it was explicitly said in the PD
Ordinance, wouldn’t they still as a starting point to have,
say, like the hillsides a minimum one-acre lot, and I think
wasn’t it 8,000 downtown? I mean wouldn’t they still have
to use that as a starting point before the PD Ordinance was
crafted?
JENNIFER ARMER: Anything that is an exception
from the underlying zone, because the underlying zone, this
is an overlay, would be considered among the list of
exceptions, but that is the purpose of the PD zone, to
allow those exceptions.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So when it would come to
us and/or Town Council, that would be flagged as an
exception from the Zoning Code, and we’re supposed to try
to not allow those deviations unless the Town is getting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
something for it is kind of the spirit of this thing, so I
feel like I guess hearing that that we’re covered, because
it’s going to come up to be flagged as a discussion item
when the PD Ordinance is crafted, and so you could look at
it holistically with whatever benefits the Town is going to
get from it, and what goals it accomplishes relative to the
PD, so I wouldn’t be that worried about it.
And as Mr. Paulson said, if for some reason we
got a huge rush of people trying to build 35’ buildings on
5,000 square foot lots with 80 units, not that it could
happen, but if that did happen we could certainly
reevaluate it.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And I just want to emphasize,
I think that’s one of the important recommendations in the
new ordinance, that, “The PD Overlay is not an intended
deviation of standards applicable to similar types of
development.” So in other words, it’s not a way to get
around zoning or direction that’s otherwise called for in
the zoning or in the General Plan.
CHAIR KANE: Other comments? I’m going to try
something. I’m going to make a motion that we forward the
draft or PD Ordinance, modifications to the Conditional Use
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
Table, and General Plan amendments to the Town Council with
recommendation for adoption. I’m including comments made or
that may be offered right now, but that have been made on
the transcripts of the February 14th meeting and March 28th
meeting, tonight.
I make the finding that there’s no possibility
that this project will have significant impact on the
environment, therefore the project is not subject to CEQA.
I make the required finding that the proposed amendments to
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) regarding PD Overlay
Zones and residential uses in non-residential zones must be
consistent with the General Plan. I make the finding that
the proposed General Plan amendments are internally
consistent with the General Plan, and that we indeed
forward a recommendation to Town Council for approval of
the proposed amendments to the Town Code and General Plan,
giving consideration to the comments we’ve made at our
meetings and comments that may be now added to this motion.
Can I get a second? Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR KANE: Second.
CHAIR KANE: Discussion? Seeing no discussion,
I’ll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Passes
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/28/2018
Item #3, Town Code Amendments A-17-006 and GP-17-003
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
unanimously, 6-0. Mr. Paulson, in a matter like this there
are no appeal rights, is that correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct. This matter will
be forwarded to the Council, where they will begin their
deliberations.