Loading...
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.