Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, I call to order tonight's Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission of August 12th. I will now call the roll. Commissioner Stump?

Here.

Commissioner Sorty?

Here.

Vice Chair Barnett?

Here.

Commissioner Mayer?

Here.

Commissioner Thomas? Here. I'm here as well, and Commissioner Burnett is absent today. Please stand if you're able as Commissioner Sorty leads us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As the Planning Commission conducts the meeting this evening, we encourage active participation by the public, which is essential to democracy and the important work of the Planning Commission. Public input is very much welcomed and is always considered. The public can participate in several ways. Prior to a meeting, written comments about agenda items may be submitted to staff, and during the meeting, there are two opportunities for members of the public to participate. First, during the verbal communications period, an individual may speak on any topic that is not on the agenda. And second, during the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, any member of the public may speak about an agenda item. If you do wish to address the commission tonight during verbal communications portion or a public hearing agenda item, you can either raise your hand on Zoom or for those here in person, please fill out one of the speaker cards and hand that to a staff member. Please print your name with phonetic spelling, or if you're speaking anonymous, just your initials. When you are called to speak, please come up to the podium, speak directly into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded. You will have three minutes to speak. We now will begin the verbal communications portion of the meeting, during which members of the public are invited to address the Commission on an issue that is not on the agenda for tonight's meeting. I would like to add that we take no action about items discussed during the verbal communications portion of the hearing. And I have one speaker card, Bobcats.

Okay, two things that I wanted to bring up. The soccer field, the sports complex, I don't know if you guys know this, but it's closed, and I've been pushing it, pushing, trying to get, you know, all the soccer, you know, I've talked to you about it, and I wanted to try to tried to get that before it closed and uh there's a lot going on in in the fifa and stuff like that you probably nobody follows that stuff but there's big uh they tried to privatize it and stuff so uh you know i'm just letting you know that uh i'm i am investigating it's still going on i i've stated stuff i've talked to you know um Just earlier, Commissioner Joe asked about this party. It's still in the works. And then the other item, I'm just trying to be transparent. I did receive back a class action lawsuit, because I file class actions. And it was about the appeal, what my appeal writes to the town council from this thing. And it's something that I'm not serving anybody right now. I'm going to wait until after or, you know, adjust it or do whatever. But it's already filed. It's been filed in San Francisco because I actually had to put the San Jose U.S. District Court. It's in federal court. You know, there's a lot going on in there, too. So I'm just letting you know, just being trying to be transparent. And, you know, I'd show you. It's under my alias name, Gus Hu. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? No? Thank you. Oh, actually, I'm so sorry. Could you please come back? There is a question.

Commissioner Thomas. Thank you. I'm sorry. Can you just clarify what your concerns are about the field, the sports field being closed?

I'm investigating that. Because I've... It just doesn't, you know, it got closed in between, and I did, you know, it doubled, I was saying it's a million dollars to replace it, and I had a sister that works in plastics and stuff like that. Now it's doubled, almost tripled the thing, and even at the Finance Commission, I brought it up, and they were talking about that, so. Okay, so that it's, okay. And what I would want, if that could be agendized here so we can, you know, people that are looking for the sports, because two sports play that field, and 3,500 kids are out, and 200 for lacrosse are out. And so if we can have it agendized on that. So that's my concerns.

Okay, thank you. Just wanted to clarify, you know, that a lot of people in the community are, you know, concerned with the... Yeah, and I was just trying to put out the word. Yes, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Paulson, is there anyone on Zoom?

There are people on Zoom, and we have two hands raised. One is the appellant for an item on the agenda. As a reminder, this is the time to speak on items not on the agenda. The first speaker will be Rebecca.

Rebecca, can you hear us?

Yes, I can.

Great. Go ahead.

Honestly, I just wanted to point out, I think there are some technical issues. I'm afraid I couldn't hear a word he said. There were a couple moments of added noise that like, oh, it's working for half a second. But I wanted to bring that to your attention before we move forward with the meeting.

Are you hearing us? Okay. yes i can hear all of you perfectly well it was just the uh whatever was uh was being said at that particular microphone it wasn't being recorded thank you we're checking with uh avio could you hear when uh commissioner sortie led the pledge yes okay so it might be that microphone okay we've got somebody running to check on that right now thank you in the meantime mr paulson are there any other hands

So the next hand that is raised is Sherrod, but Sherrod, this is for items not on the agenda. So if you wanna speak on an item that's not on the agenda, you can speak now. Otherwise, when the item comes before the commission, then you'll have a chance to speak then. I'm gonna allow you to talk to see if you have another item.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Oh, I have the same comment as Rebecca. I could hear all of you, but not the whoever was speaking at the podium mic. So I would appreciate if you guys fix that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Do we want to test this really quickly? Could somebody please come up to the microphone? You want me to do it?

Testing, testing.

Rod, can you raise your hand if you could hear that?

Testing, testing.

Anybody raise their hand? Yeah, I still cannot hear them, sorry.

Okay. Can we switch microphones then? The other one worked, so let's just swap.

Oh, okay.

Testing, testing.

Sherrod, are you able to hear that?

Yes, I can hear that.

Okay.

Can you repeat it again, just to be sure?

Yeah, try again. He said we do try one.

Testing, testing. No, I cannot hear the person at the podium.

Do you hear somebody saying testing, testing, or do you just hear nothing?

I just hear you speaking, like, I guess the commissioners. I hear all of you okay, but I can't hear the person at the podium.

Testing testing.

Yes, I could hear that.

All right, thank you for letting us know. We will now move on to tonight's consent calendar. Tonight we have two items on the consent calendar. The first is to approve the draft minutes of the June 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting. And the second is to consider an appeal of a community development director decision to approve a request to construct a new second story addition to an existing single family residence on property zoned R-18. located at 16717 Churco Drive, APN 424-20-014, minor residential development application MR-24-018, I believe this is actually just to move this to a date certain as the applicant has requested some more time, correct?

That's correct.

All right. Are there any commissioners that wish to pull any of the items? Commissioner Sordy?

I wanted to clarify something in the minutes.

Please do.

So at the end of our hearings, typically we do subcommittee and commission reports, and This is a little tricky because the CDAC met on June 10th and we considered a project at Bachman and Santa Cruz Avenue and only three of the five members of the committee were able to make it that day. And two of the members of the committee thought the project had major problems and that's what's characterized in the minutes here. I was actually the third member of the committee who really liked the project. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A REALLY POSITIVE PROJECT, POTENTIAL GAME CHANGER FOR DOWNTOWN AND HAD A LOT OF MERIT AND I ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO KEEP WORKING WITH STAFF AND BASICALLY TO RUN THE RIGHT TRACK AND I DON'T THINK MY COMMENTS ARE REFLECTED HERE AND I KNOW THIS IS JUST A REALLY QUICK check in with the chair of the committee and the minutes of CDAC don't come out until the next CDAC committee which could happen anywhere between now and who knows four months from now. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. I don't know how we do that exactly but I thought I'd bring it up.

Thank you. Would you like the minutes to be adjusted or did you just want to state that on the record?

I'd like them to be adjusted to just show that perhaps the committee was split on the project. And since there was only three of the five members present, I don't know if it might be worth encouraging the applicant to come back again and hear what the others have to say as well. Interesting project.

The town does action minutes. And so one way to address that would be to say there was a split of opinion about the project or two didn't like it and one did.

That would be great. Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments? Commissioner Stock?

Just a quick comment. I won't be voting on the meeting minutes tonight as I was not here for the meeting. Thank you.

That's right. Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.

I also was not present for the meeting and I would be recusing myself for the future second item because I live around the corner. So I will be abstaining from this vote.

Any other comments or would anyone like to make a motion regarding the consent calendar this evening?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar, items one and two, noting that the minutes will be revised as indicated by Mr. Shorty and the town attorney.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I was going to say that I could vote on the second item if there's separate motions, but...

I was just going to ask that. Should I do that? Should we break it up if he's only able to vote on one? Yeah, that's a good idea. Okay. Do you mind revising your motion?

Yeah, so I'll move to approve consent item number one with the corrections proposed by Mr. Sordy and the town attorney.

I will second that. Is there any discussion? Otherwise, all in favor? There are four... Yays and two abstains. Any other conversation about item number one? If not, would you like to make a motion on that? Second.

So I moved to approve item two on the consent calendar related to the continuance of 16-717 Chirico Drive.

Commissioner Strachan? Second. All right. All in favor? All right. Passes five with one abstention. All right, we will now move on to the public hearings, starting with item number three. Consider an appeal of the Community Development Director decision to approve construction of a second story addition exceeding 100 square feet on property zoned R-110, located at 127 Belhaven Drive, APN 527-29-031, minor residential application MR-26-005, categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act section 15301, existing facilities. The property owner is Jeremy Butcher, the applicant is Greg Stowers, the appellant is Sharad Gandhi, and the project planner is Suri Nathan. Before we begin the staff report, can I have a show of hands of the commissioners who have visited the property? Or is there anything to declare or discuss? All right. Mr. Nathan will be giving us our staff report.

I WILL THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU, MINOR RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION FOR PROJECT LOCATED AT 127 BELHAVEN DRIVE, ZONED R110. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND AN EXISTING 2,451 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH 188 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION. THE PROPOSED PROJECT MEETS ALL THE ZONING STANDARDS, INCLUDING HEIGHT, SETBACK, FLOW AREA, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING. The project was approved on May 22nd of this year with an appeal deadline of 4 p.m. on June 1st. On May 29th, 2026, a neighbor residing east of the subject property appealed the Community Development Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The applicant asserts that the submitted shadow study contains analytical inaccuracies, and the proposed clear story window on the front elevation will adversely impact the privacy of the front patio. Exhibit eight details the applicant's concerns, and exhibit nine contains the applicant's response to the applicant's concerns. And this concludes staff's presentation, so I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Nathan. Are there any questions of staff at this time? All right, seeing none, I will now open the public portion of the public hearing and give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission.

Through the chair, since this is an appeal, the appellant would go first.

Rusty, it's been a month. Exactly. Yes, okay. So it is Sharad Gandhi, who I believe we had on Zoom, correct?

Yep.

All right. Mr. Gandhi, you have three minutes, please.

All right. Good evening.

I'm really rough. You have five minutes. I'm so sorry.

All right. Noted. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Sharad Gandhi. I am the owner of 123 Belhaven Drive and the appellant on this item. First, I would like to thank the town staff and the project architect for engaging with me throughout this process. I have submitted a detailed written record, and so tonight I'll focus only on the two issues that I believe remain unresolved. First, the window labeled Window 2 The staff report concludes that a formal privacy impact analysis was not warranted for the street facing clear story window because it serves a bathroom and has a cell height of five feet, four inches. The staff concludes that these characteristics naturally mitigate sight lines and preserve privacy. My concern is narrower and site specific. The question is not simply whether this is a high bathroom window. The question is where the outward view from that window goes. The applicant characterizes window two as facing towards a public street rather than towards the neighboring residence. I respectfully disagree. The applicant's own materials establish that the window is intended to provide outward views. And because of the physical relationship between our properties and the proposed window, Those views would include portions of my front patio, which is one of the primary outdoor living spaces at my home. The staff report provides a useful comparison here. When evaluating potential privacy impact from the deck on the opposite side of the project, the staff requested a cross-section and sightline analysis to evaluate potential privacy impacts on the adjacent property to the west. I'm not suggesting that these situations are identical, but I believe the same underlying principle applies here. Privacy impact should be evaluated based on the actual physical relationship between the project and the neighboring property. The homeowners have offered window coverings, and I appreciate their proposal. But window coverings are occupant controlled, can be opened, removed, and replaced over time. permanently obscured or frosted glazing would preserve natural light and ventilation while providing a permanent architectural privacy solution. For that reason, I respectfully request permanently obscured or frosted glazing for Window 2. Second, the supporting project information. The staff report acknowledges that I identified inaccuracies in the initial shadow study and that the analysis was subsequently revised multiple times. The staff ultimately concludes that the proposed addition will not significantly impact solar access to the adjacent property. I'm not asking the Commission to determine that the final shadow study is wrong. My concern is that after multiple revisions, the underlying site geometry still is not presented with sufficient objective dimension information for the final analysis to be independently understood and evaluated. The architect's own response acknowledges errors in the earlier studies and states that he ultimately rebuilt the computer model, verified dimensions, and regenerated the sun's studies. Given this history, I believe requesting basic dimension 2D information supporting the final analysis is reasonable. The staff report itself explains that the purpose of the town shadow study requirement is to identify and disclose potential shadow impacts for the benefits of the neighbors and decision makers. Providing the underlying dimensions would further that purpose by allowing the final analysis to be objectively understood and evaluated. In closing, I recognize that the staff has concluded that the project complies with the town code and residential design guidelines. I am not asking the commission to deny the homeowners their project. I'm asking that these two remaining issues be considered in light of an important purpose of the underlying design review, meaningfully considering impacts on neighboring properties based on clear and objective information. My requests are limited. First, permanently obscured or frosted glazing for window two. Second, dimension 2D drawings sufficient to independently understand and evaluate the revised supporting analysis. Neither requires redesigning the addition or preventing the homeowners from moving forward. I respectfully ask the commission to require these two measures as part of its decision on the appeal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Mr. Gandhi, are there any questions for the appellant? Commissioner Thomas?

I just have a quick clarification question for staff before I ask this question. So the applicant will have a chance to speak and then will we have a chance to ask questions of the appellant again after that or no?

So yes, the applicant will get five minutes next, then we'll open it up to anybody else that wants to speak for up to three minutes. And then the appellant, the applicant will get three minutes and the appellant will get three minutes to close. Okay. And you can ask questions at any time.

Okay, great, thank you. I did just have one clarifying question right now and that was about the window that was mentioned at the beginning. You mentioned that it was, CAN YOU JUST REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT WINDOW 2 AND THEN YOU MENTIONED THE DIMENSION? CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT PART?

Oh, sure. So my one concern is around the new sight lines created from window two. And my second concern is around dimensions for the shadow study, the final shadow study, which was submitted.

Yes. So sorry, it was about the window. Did you say something about the window being four feet or five feet four? What was your comment about the window being five feet four inches?

Oh, the windowsill is that five feet four inches height from the ground? Okay, floor.

Okay. No, the bottom of the cell. Okay, thank you. That clarifies. Thank you very much.

Any other questions for the speaker? Vice Chair.

I have two questions, sir. The first one is, if it was possible, I don't know if it is, but if it was impossible to increase the sill height of the clear story window, would that solve your problem? And if so, how much additional height would you think is reasonable?

Yes, so I think if the height of the windows and could be raised further, I think, yes, that will help address it. I don't remember the dimensions of you know the wall overall to suggest, you know what may be reasonable, but yes, that could be. One possible solution.

OKAY, SO THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS WHEN YOU HAD YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, DID HE PROVIDE YOU WITH SPECIFICS AS TO THE DRAPERIES THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO PROVIDE IN LIEU OF FROSTED GLASS SUCH AS WOULD THEY BE CONTINUOUSLY CLOSED, WOULD THERE BE LACE OR Could they be open to you know to view with hold backs or tie backs?

The only way I've heard it described is as window coverings no further Clarification in terms of you know, whether there would be draperies or blinds or so on Okay, thank you very much There any other Commissioner sortie

Yeah, question for the appellant. So just in looking at the materials you submitted, it looks to me like the window in question, the clear store window faces the front of the property and your deck faces the side. And I know this is part of the challenge of you not being here is if you were here, I'd probably ask you to put your presentation up on the screen and show us. But it looks to me like the front facing window And well, I'm actually going to refer to page 52 in the report. It's a window two is forward facing. It looks like to me not side facing. And so the view from your deck appears to be side on or something in the realm of 45 degree angle or even sharper. And I'm wondering maybe you can articulate what the privacy issue is with that. If there's a clear story window facing this front and you're at a side angle.

Sure. So one, you know, the window is not at the front of the house with the other existing windows up front. It's set back, I would say, somewhere towards the ridge of the current houses. And when I look at how close the houses are over there, looking from there, it would be looking into my front patio today, which is private and does not have any sight lines from that angle.

It's a little bit hard to imagine, and I don't think I caught all your answer, but I'm still not convinced that the angle is as straight on as the material in your appeal characterizes it. So I'll just leave it at that for now.

Sure. And I'll just make one comment on it. In there, if you see, there is a diagram which I'd added in my detailed response. And that diagram was actually provided by the planner, right? When they did an initial analysis based off, assuming that the window is all the way in the front, you know, they came back and said, hey, there is no privacy impact. But when I pointed out the location of the window.

I can't understand what you're saying. I'm not picking up a lot of this. Sorry.

Could you perhaps reference what page you're looking at as part of your response?

Sure. Give me a second. I'll just open it up over here.

Through the chair, I believe it's page 52 of your staff report packet.

okay 52. there's a diagram at the top of that page with some red lines from that window and a labeled front patty on the neighbor's property thank you mr mullen okay commissioner shorty does that help in your response yes that is the exact page i'm talking about thanks all right

did you have any follow-up commission questions commissioner sortie or did that give you what you needed could you just repeat the last part that you said and again my question is i'm just looking at in plan view the you know in relation to the width of the whole structure it's kind of a small exposure of a clear story window in the front of this edition and then i see a pretty sharp angle heading back to your deck, your front patio, which appears in blue. So maybe you can articulate a little bit more or just rearticulate what it was you just said, how that is a privacy issue. Sure. Go ahead.

Yeah, I can take a second. Go at it. So one, I would say is, you know, when you look at the diagram alone, right, it appears the houses are significantly away from each other. But when you actually look at it in person from my patio, that window is a lot closer. Second, it's also elevated and the front patio is open. So when you're at the window looking down, so I guess there is two aspects to it. One, you know, you're looking down into the patio, so you have the elevation. And second, it looks into an area, the front patio, where which is one of the primary places where my family spends their outdoor time.

Okay. I think I caught most of it and you did bring up something I wanted to follow up on. Um, cause I noticed this when I went out to the site, it appears that your property is above grade, um, a number of feet. So what we're talking about is a view from your patio down to this window, not vice versa, right?

No, the window would be higher than my patio, right? Yes, my property is at elevation.

The elevation of the sill and the window view itself would actually be higher than your front patio?

Yes, and also I think the difference in height is also why the view into my patio increases, right? Okay, thank you. If the houses were at the same level, they would probably be much higher.

Thanks.

Are there any other questions? Vice Chair? Yeah, Vice Chair, then Commissioner Thomas.

Yeah, sorry, I overlooked one question. One of the reasons that the staff was standing on its position was that there was no expectation of privacy in that your patio faces the street, so it's visible from cars and pedestrians. What's your response to that?

I would say, you know, the relationship between this proposed window and my patio is different than the relationship from the road to my patio. And I believe that, you know, when considering a new construction, we should keep in mind any new sight lines which get added and also If you look at the property from the street, because of the hedge in front, because of the fence on the side between 127 and 123, that area of the patio today is very private. And this window adds sight lines into that portion of it.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Thomas.

My... So right now you have it, you know, you have some privacy screening with some of the vegetation that is in front of your house to screen you from the street, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And then are you aware of the use of the room that this window is in? Yes. Okay, so you are aware that it's a toilet room?

Yes, I'm aware it's the toilet room in the proposed new bathroom area. And that's why I believe my request for permanently frosted window makes even more sense because one, it permanently solves any new privacy sightlines. And second, it does not in any way hinder ventilation or light into the toilet area of the proposed addition.

Okay. All right, are there any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Gonde. You'll be called back at the end for an additional three minutes. At this time, we will ask the applicant if they would like to come and speak, and you have five minutes.

Can everybody hear me?

Just making sure, including on the- Yeah, you just might want to make sure it's close. Okay. Yeah.

All right.

Well, forgive me for reading, but I want to make sure I get this right.

So good evening, Chair Burch and commissioners. My name is Jeremy Butcher. My wife, Jamie, and I own 127 Belhaven Drive. Thank you very much for hearing us tonight. I want you to know that we care deeply about this neighborhood, and throughout this process, we've tried to be responsive, to listen carefully, and to work constructively with our neighbor, our architect, and town staff. Our project is modest. It adds 188 square feet to our existing two-story home, primarily for a more functional primary bathroom and walk-in closet. It does not increase the overall height of the house. It does not expand the building footprint. It does not reduce any existing setbacks. And the finished home remains well below the maximum floor area allowed for our property. The appeal really centers, as you heard, around two issues, the shadows and privacy. First, the shadow study. Earlier versions contained errors and we understand why that raised concern. Rather than defend those earlier versions, our architect rebuilt the model, rechecked the dimensions, and generated a corrected study. Town staff reviewed the revised analysis and concluded that the addition will not significantly impact solar access to the neighboring property. I think that distinction is important. The commission is not asked to rely on an earlier version that contain mistakes. You have the corrected information before you and the staff has evaluated it. Second privacy. The window at issue is a small clear story window, as has been described in an enclosed toilet room. It still is approximately as you heard 5 feet, 4 inches above the floor. It faces towards Bell Haven drive rather than towards the neighbors home. Staff evaluated that condition and concluded that a formal privacy impact analysis was not warranted. Because the windows height and orientation naturally limit sight lines. Even so, we wanted to be responsive, as was discussed, to the concern, so we offered to install window covering as an additional good faith measure. We also reached out to surrounding neighbors. Several expressed support for the project. One neighbor who lives directly across Belhaven Drive specifically wrote that the proposed window covering was more than sufficient to address any possible privacy or visual concern. At the end of the day, as I mentioned, this is a modest project that complies with the town's zoning standards and residential design guidelines. Concerns were raised, they were taken seriously, errors were corrected, and the town staff has reviewed the final information and recommends denying the appeal. Jamie and I respectfully ask that you uphold the approval and allow us to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? Vice Chair?

But the same question for you concerning the draperies or other window coverings that you've committed to installing. Can you provide more detail about what that would be?

We haven't picked anything out. Obviously, part of this is the reason for that. But I would just say that, as sort of been alluded to, this is a toilet room, and so we would want privacy kind of looking in more than anything, as you can imagine.

um so definitely something that would be blocking out anybody being able to view uh in or out but we haven't picked anything specifically just at this point we're happy to hear recommendations on it if that is helpful so my my follow-up question is if you're willing say potentially for the planning commission to impose a condition that you have draperies what's the difference between obscuring the window with draperies and having frosted glass

One of the things that I've been thinking about with that regard is, as it is a bathroom, one thing that I think will be important related to that is allowance for fresh air. And so a frosted glass that's open is not frosted glass anymore, it's a screen. Whereas a window covering would be something that would be there that would still allow air to pass through, but would not necessarily change the view in or out.

Do you know if it's possible to increase the sill height of the clear story window?

The height?

the sill height so that there's...

I don't, but our architect could definitely answer that question.

That would be appreciated.

So my name is Greg Stowers, Stowers Associates. So the window head height right now is six foot eight, which is matching the door heights throughout the entire home and the existing window height. So we wanted to maintain that elevation for the architectural character. And then as a five foot four sill, again, It's not a primary view window of standing at the toilet and admiring the view. It is really more ventilation and some natural light into the space. And so it could be raised higher. It's an eight foot wall plate, so it could be, but that would push it out of character with all the other windows in the home.

Understood, thank you.

All right, are there any further questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you. I do not have any other speaker cards if there was anyone Please do you mind giving that you just hand that to staff and then when you come up just state your name for me, please You will have three minutes Being here you please pull that down towards your mouth so we know that they can hear you that better

Thank you for being here. Good evening. My name is Dorothy Smith. I live directly across the street. My address is 124 Belhaven Drive. And my visual is directly onto the Butcher home. They've been extremely responsible neighbors with every project they have had. and i don't see any problem with this project in terms of visually or being able to see in or out windows and i would totally support that you project save this project for them and support them thank you thank you are there any questions for the speaker seeing none um are there any hands raised on zoom mr paulson there are no hands raised

Okay. So just to make sure I clarify this properly, am I asking the appellant or the applicant up?

The applicant.

All right. Applicant has three minutes, I believe, if you have any final closing statements you'd like to make or information you'd like to share or if there's any questions from commissioners.

Okay. The only one thing that came to my mind while some of the questions were coming that I hadn't sort of prepared in advance is if you refer to the page that Commissioner Sordy was referring to, which is I think page 52 of the remarks. I just argue that the view angle is pretty generous for a window when you consider that there's going to be a wall in front of it. And so what I'm just kind of envisioning is there's a windowsill that's probably six inches. I don't know exactly what the dimension of that is going to be. And so the idea that you would have the actual sight line, as though you were outside of the window. Seems unlikely to me when we speak about the height, I'm the only person in the family that will be able to see out of the window. Um, without a stepping stool, which would also be possible if the cell was raised, somebody was really determined to do this. Um, and like I said, obviously, for us, this is a restroom. So, privacy is going to be incredibly important for us just as is for our neighbor. So. Really, I think that was about the only other piece of information other than to thank you all again for considering this.

Thank you. Are there any final questions of the applicant? No? Thank you. We will now give the appellant an additional three minutes if there's any further that you would like to say, Mr. Gandhi.

Thank you. Once again, thank you, Chair and Commissioners. I appreciate this discussion. The one thing I would like to comment on is I respect the views of neighbors who support the project. My concerns are specific to the physical relationship between the project and my immediately adjacent property, particularly window two and my front patio. And while I respect the neighbor's opinions and support in this matter, I think my concerns still hold. I think we have discussed this a lot, and so I'll keep my closing brief as well. And one, you know, window two, Once again, I appreciate the window coverings that have been suggested by the homeowners. And my only concern there is permanency. I think Jeremy spoke earlier that he may be the only person who is tall enough to look out of it. But these are long-term architecture changes. while I completely respect my neighbors today, it's possible in the future there may be others and where this privacy may be a larger concern. On the shadow study again, my request is additional data so that I can independently evaluate the study is accurate. If you look at the project history, you can see I feel equipped enough to do this analysis on my own. And you can see all the revisions we have gone through as a result of my previous analysis of the shadow study. And so that's why I request that information, so that I am able to independently verify that the shadow study is correct. And on a closing note, I'm going to reiterate, these are limited requests. Neither requires redesigning the project or preventing the homeowners from moving forward with their proposed addition to their house. And so I respectfully ask the Commission to require permanently obscured or frosted glazing on Window 2 and dimension 2D drawings supporting the revised analysis as part of its decision on the appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions of the appellant? No? All right. We will then close the public portion of this item, and I will invite my fellow commissioners to make a motion, and then we can have discussion. Is there anyone that would like to venture a motion? Commissioner Sordy?

Can I ask another question of staff before?

Sorry, yes, you can. I'm out of practice today, aren't I? Sorry, guys.

Yeah, it's about shadow. I just wanted to get staff to comment on the nature of shadow studies. And I guess my specific question is, you know, is this really more of a disclosure issue and an aspect of studying a project? Or are there any development standards tied to shadows?

TOWN ORDINANCE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT SHADOW STUDIES TO BE USED IN TERMS OF ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT THE DESIGN GUIDELINE, IT DOES ON 3.11.1 DOES SAY THAT TO LOCATE STRUCTURES TO MINIMIZE BLOCKING SUN EXCESS. SPACES OR ACTIVELY USED OUTDOOR AREAS ON HOMES. SO IT DOES PROVIDE SOME IN TERMS OF ANALYSIS OF SHADOWS BUT GENERALLY THERE'S NO ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT BUILD SOMETHING BECAUSE OF SHADOW IMPACT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF VICE CHAIR AND THEN COMMISSIONER THOMAS?

I wonder if the town attorney could comment on what we've heard before from you that there's no California easement for light or air in relation to the residential guideline that we just spoke about.

Can you repeat the residential guideline that you were speaking of?

Yeah, Mr. Nathan just mentioned that.

It's 3.11.1. And it says minimizing shadow impact on adjacent properties. Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to living spaces actively used by outdoor areas or on the adjacent homes.

So to me, that doesn't implicate the window. Is it?

Yeah. Well, what I was trying to get is, I understand from prior positions that we've discussed from you that there's no easement in California for light or air. So we're not dealing with California law, just the residential guideline is my understanding.

That's correct. The findings that the commission needs to make are in the packet. And... They are that the CEQA exemption applies, that the project meets all the objective standards of the zoning code, and that the project complies with the residential design guidelines.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Thomas, did you have a question of staff?

Yes, well, my question was, yeah. EXACT SAME THING THAT DO PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SUNLIGHT AND SO THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN CLARIFIED. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT THE UPDATED SHADOW STUDY THAT WE ARE SEEING WITH THESE PLANS MEETS TOWN AND STAFF GUIDELINES FOR BEING ACCURATE AND COVERING EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT DOES.

THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST TO REVIEW FOR EVERYONE HERE IN GENERAL, THOSE ARE WHAT ARE THE GENERIC GUIDELINES FOR THE SHADOW STUDY THAT THE TOWN REQUIRES?

I'm going to ask the planning manager to respond. Sorry.

All right. So thank you for the question. So the requirements for a shadow study, my eyes are failing me, but they would look at six different times and dates throughout the year. The solstice Uh, the, the summer winter and summer solstice, um, and it looks at 9 0 AM noon and 3 PM and we require shadow studies for a 2nd store, new 2nd stories, new 2 story houses or 2nd story additions.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. Um, it is. A, a little bit interesting, but I just want to. Well, I guess we're not, we're not discussing yet, but it is a. We do these shadow studies, but then we also, neighbors don't have the right to specific sunlight. So this is something that has come up before. And so just wanted to make note of that for all of us.

Thank you. Are there any further questions of staff or does anybody want to venture a motion?

The sheriff's office. Please. I move to deny the appeal of a community development director decision to approve construction of a second story addition exceeding 100 square feet on property zoned R 110 APN 52729031 categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act section 15301 existing facilities. Property owners, Jeremy Butcher applicant, Greg Stowers. Appellant is Sharad Gandhi. Project Planner is Nathan Serret. I can make the required finding for CEQA that this project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted guidelines for the implementation of CEQA Section 15301. I can make the required finding that this project complies with the zoning regulations. I can make the required finding that this project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the town code zoning regulations. I can make the required finding this project is in compliance with the residential design guidelines for single family residents, not located in hillside areas.

Well, is there a second? Commissioner Sordy? Is there any discussion, commissioners, or does anyone want to venture a second motion? Commissioner Mayer.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN PRETTY MUCH CENTERED AROUND THE CLEAR STORY WINDOW AND THE TOILET ROOM AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE RECOMMEND GENERALLY TO APPLICANTS TO ESTABLISH PRIVACY. SO I FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT AND THE ARCHITECT ALREADY DID THEIR JOB OF TRYING TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBOR BY DOING THIS CLEAR STORY WINDOW. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE AN INSTANCE WHERE SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE standing there tippy toes staring out that window um toward the street which is where it faces so um just for clarification everyone here and everyone tuning in i want um to make the point that the clear story window in the bathroom for privacy is usually what we recommend so um that's my comment thank you commissioner mayor are there any other comments vice chair

I propose a friendly amendment to the motion that we make certain findings, one being that the revised shadow study is accurate to the best of our information after its revision, and also that there's de minimis or minor impact on the privacy of the applicant.

Can I ask a question really quickly before I pose to the maker of the motion? Commissioner Thomas did ask staff if the revised shadow study was accurate based on all the requirements for the shadow study, and that staff had reviewed and approved that, and they confirmed. So do you still want to make that addition after we've already had confirmation that staff has reviewed the revised shadow study?

I think it makes sense to include it as a finding.

I will ask the maker of the motion.

Can I ask for clarification on your second amendment?

It's simply that there's a minor, if any, impact on the privacy of the neighbor, the appellant, with respect to the porch.

I mean, Commissioner Barnett, I don't really feel the need to argue it, but it just does not seem all that relevant to me, especially after what Commissioner Mayer spoke about, you know, this window and it's a typical install and got to be up on your tippy toes and so forth. And typically you're looking straight out a window, not at an oblique angle. So I'm a little bit hesitant about the second one, but I certainly would accept the first statement you made as an amendment, if that's okay with you.

I'm only suggesting that we have findings that support our motions as recommended in the standards for the Planning Commission, but if you don't want to accept that, that's acceptable to me.

Well, the findings are set forth in the staff report. Are you proposing that the motion include a because statement along the lines of what you were saying, that it satisfies the residential design guidelines because?

Yeah, because since we have two specific grounds of appeal.

Okay. Sorry, can we then, can we just get clarification then one more time for all of us?

I'm sorry, Vice Chair Burnett, about the... Or one option would be for Commissioner Burnett to propose an alternative motion for the commission to vote on.

Can I comment on the second?

Yes, you can.

I like what he said. So accepting the first part of the amendment to the motion, but not the second.

Can I ask a clarifying question of staff? Of course. BECAUSE THIS ORDER OF OPERATIONS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FOR US NOW, I DO FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO, NOT DIFFICULT, BUT BECAUSE WE PUT THE MOTION FIRST AND THEN WE HAVE DISCUSSION. SOMETIMES OUR REASONING BEHIND THAT SUPPORTS SOME OF THE FINDINGS, THE BECAUSE PART IS NOT ALWAYS SAID AT THE START AND SO WHEN WE, IF WE, YOU KNOW, THIS MOTION IS ON THE TABLE AND WE DISCUSS AND COMMISSIONERS SUCH AS COMMISSIONER MAYER MENTIONED REASONS TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS AND WHY HE MIGHT BE VOTING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IS THAT CONSIDERED SUPPORTING IN TERMS OF WHEN THEN WE TAKE THE FINAL VOTE WITH REGARDS TO LIKE THE RECORD AND WHAT GETS PASSED ON OR WHAT IS PUT IN THE RECORD, I GUESS.

IN A PERFECT WORLD THE FINDINGS WOULD INCLUDE THE BECAUSE STATEMENT BUT AS YOU MENTIONED THAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO DO WHEN THE MOTION IS BEING MADE BEFORE THE DISCUSSION. So we can talk about that internally. And then for tonight, I think an option is to either make a friendly, propose a friendly amendment to the motion that's on the table right now, or for a commissioner to propose an alternative amendment. I mean, an alternative motion.

Okay, so I think that, yeah, because this is kind of like a new way of us going about this part, and so maybe we do just have a little bit of discussion and conversation because I think that... WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AND I THINK WE ARE JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER AT THE MOMENT.

CHAIR, I PROPOSED TO AMEND MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO BE INCLUDING ONLY ITEM ONE AT THIS POINT. I DON'T THINK IT REQUIRES FURTHER DISCUSSION.

all right great to the maker of the motion is that an acceptable amendment yeah and in the spirit of i was getting come back to you commissioner barnett and say let's not you know go too far overboard here and i'd be happy to accept your second but if you're withdrawing i accept that as well so let's move forward with uh the motion with uh the one amendment okay into the second of the motion

I SUPPORT THE MAKER'S MOTION.

OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FOR THOMAS?

YEAH, I THINK THAT WE, I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO GO OVER EACH OF THE FINDINGS TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON HOW WE FEEL LIKE THIS PROJECT MEETS THESE THREE REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT GENERIC WHEN IT JUST IS LIKE THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, CHAPTER 29 OF THE TOWN CODE, ZONING REGULATIONS, ET CETERA. SO I THINK THAT THE REQUIRED FINDING FOR CEQA IS RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A MINOR ADDITION AND THERE'S A LOT OF COURT DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT CONSIDERED EXEMPT FROM CEQA SO I THINK THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT AND WE DON'T NEED TO REALLY ADD ADDITIONAL BECAUSE STATEMENT FOR THAT. I DO THINK THAT FOR THE REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING REGULATION, THE PROJECT DOES MEET THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 29 OF THE TOWN CODE. IT IS A MODEST AND REASONABLE ADDITION OF A SECOND STORY TO A HOME THAT ALREADY IS A SECOND STORY THAT HAS MANY SECOND STORIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WITH REGARDS TO THE THE RESIDENTIAL AND, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY EXPLICIT EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES. SO IT MEETS ALL OF THOSE REQUIRED FINDINGS, I BELIEVE, FOR THE TOWN, CHAPTER 29 OF THE TOWN CODE. AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT QUITE AS BLACK AND WHITE AS THE TOWN CODE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE THE PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES NOT LOCATED IN HILLSIDE AREAS BECAUSE THERE WAS CARE TAKEN IN ANY DESIGN OF THE ADDITION TO ENSURE PRIVACY AS WELL AS IT COULD BE FOR THE NEIGHBORS. THERE CAN'T BE NO WINDOWS FACING, I MEAN, THERE HAVE TO BE WINDOWS. IN AN ADDITION, THERE ARE NO windows and not even any like clear story windows or anything, even in a, in the closet, um, which is, you know, that is a design choice. Um, it's a kind of like a nice little like L shaped closet area that I'm sure that that at some point possibly even came up as an option. Um, and so I think that this is the best, I, I, I do believe that, um, IT MEETS THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES WITH REGARDS TO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FITTING IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE I SAID, IT IS A MODEST EDITION AND IS NOT GOING TO COMPLETELY ALTER OR CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE IT FITS IN WELL. AND LASTLY, I THINK THAT THE I don't know what else I was going to say. That's it.

Thank you. I'm just going to say one last thing. I'm going to support the motion because on the subject of privacy, as we all drove on the street, to be honest, the neighbor's front porch is visible also from the street. So the privacy issue here, I think, has been solved by the neighbor to the greatest ability they possibly could. Saying that, is there any further conversation, discussion, questions? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna call the motion. Question, all in favor? Passes unanimously. Mr. Paulson, are there appeal, Mr. Mullin, is there appeal rights?

Thank you. The decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the Town Council by any interested person as defined by Town Code within 10 days on forms available online with fees paid. The appeal is due by 1 p.m. if the final day is on a Friday.

Right. Thank you so much. We will now move on to item number four, forward a recommendation to the town council on an ordinance amending chapter 29 zoning regulations of the town code regarding objective design standards for single family and two family residential dwelling units and second story additions. The proposed amendments to the Town Code are not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Section 15061, Section B, Section 3, because it can be seen with certainty that they do not significantly affect the physical environment and that they make minor changes to the regulations and design review process applicable to new single-family and two-family residential dwelling units and second-story additions. Town code amendment application A-26-003. The project location is town wide. The applicant is the town of Los Gatos. Mr. Safdie, will you be giving us the staff report this evening?

I sure will. Thank you and good evening commissioners. Before you this evening is a proposed new ordinance amending chapter 29 of town code regarding new objective design standards for single and two family residential projects and second story additions. A little background to why we're here. Back in 2021, Senate Bill 9 was first adopted, which requires ministerial approval of two-unit housing developments and urban lot splits on single-family zone properties. Previously, SB 9 allowed jurisdictions to adopt objective design standards specific to these SB 9 applications, so long as they would not preclude the construction of two 800 square foot units. As SB 9 allowed reduced side and rear setbacks of four feet and no discretionary review, the town previously had adopted a fair amount of objective design standards specific to SB 9 units in an attempt to protect neighbor privacy and somewhat control neighborhood massing and enforce some of the town's design guidelines. However, in 2025, Senate Bill 450 was adopted, which updated the allowances of SB9. The most impactful is that the town is now prohibited from applying specific objective design standards for SB9 projects that do not already apply uniformly to the development in the underlining zoning district for all application types. Essentially, if that rule doesn't exist for an Arkansas application, it can't exist for an SB9 application. As a result, many of the town's existing SB9 design standards are no longer enforceable, and I provided a strikeout of our current ordinance in exhibit two. You'll see essentially every design standard's gone right now. So based on research done on other neighboring jurisdictions, along with some feedback from the design community via a meeting we held, as well as the public just during these last five years, staffers were recommending the creation of new objective design standards to be applicable across the board for all new single family and two family projects, as well as second story additions. The majority of these new design standards stem from the town's existing SB9 ordinance as well as our existing design guidelines. As noted in the staff report and the draft ordinance in exhibit five, the ministerial SB9 applications would be required to comply with all of these new requirements with no exception process. So essentially you meet everything listed here via SB9, you can build via SB9. um the applicants proposing a new house via arkansas application can simply request an exception to any of these new standards and essentially the exception process would be tied to the findings to be made would be whether or not the project's compatible with our residential design guidelines so what we're used to seeing so essentially the thought is not to really change the arkansas process So as with any new ordinance, Town Council approval is required. Tonight Planning Commission simply reviewing and forwarding a recommendation onto the Town Council. This concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Let me know how I can help.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stump. I just want to ask about process. I realize we may be doing a page turn. I've got some specific questions that dive back into the staff report, but may overlap into the page turn. So I just wanted to ask you, Chair, how you would like to handle that.

okay great question thank you so my intent had been yes questions of staff now staff report if they overlap they overlap mr commissioner stump and then yeah i was going to just recommend that uh maybe we go section by section or page by page and just see if there are some specifics in here um but if you've got questions staff report and they overlap We'll just deal with it. Go ahead.

First, I just want to compliment you on great work. This is very tedious and yet it's something that is really needed. So, and I realize it's somewhat mandatory and we need to make sure that we're clear with our objective standards and that we can stand behind them. On page three of the staff report, it states that staff met with local architect and the design community TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE STATE LAW. I'M JUST INTERESTED HOW MUCH OF THEIR FEEDBACK, IT MAY BE A DIFFICULT THING FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S GREAT THAT WE TALKED TO THEM. WHAT OF THEIR FEEDBACK MADE IT INTO SOME OF THESE CHANGES?

Thank you for that question. And I will admit this is probably going to be an evolving process. We did actually get some public comment right after the cutoff from one of the members of the architect community that we met with. Essentially the feedback was, as you would expect, don't create new standards. So we can't not do that. But then it was, You know, they're giving us kind of their overview of how they've seen other jurisdictions work with these standards, and it's that, less is more you know the the jurisdictions are trying to really limit design architectural style porch depths gable widths those are just really getting super tedious and it's really challenging for the architects and they also made it very clear that if there's going to be a new standard they love the options for compliance versus the one the one standard so we did On both of the new quote unquote new standards we created, it's really tied to the second story windows and the decks. Those both have compliance options. So we tried to at least give them those options that they asked for. But like you mentioned, we have a need to create some standards. So this felt like a nice middle ground where, um, you know, unlike some of the other jurisdictions, we didn't go and. Recreate the wheel, but we're still trying to. To protect privacy that the community and is used to seeing.

I have 2 more questions, but feel free to cycle me in and cycle me out if others have questions.

Did anyone else have a question really quick? I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT PROCESS AND THAT WAS WITH THE DO WE NEED TO LIKE MAKE A MOTION WHEN WE'RE READY JUST HOW TO CLARIFY HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

I RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION ASK ALL ITS QUESTIONS AND THEN ONCE THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED THEN SOMEONE MAKE A MOTION AND THEN DISCUSSION CAN FOLLOW THE MOTION.

I go vice chair. I'll go vice chair, Commissioner Sordy, and then back to Commissioner Stauff.

Okay, so I only had one question, and it relates to page 137. If I could drill you to go there. So section 2940.095, 1B offers two options for screening, which to me seem inconsistent. So B, I, or Roman one, allows a six foot solid or opaque privacy wall. But item two requires a six foot fence plus one foot lattice, so seven feet total, and landscape screening, including trees at least six foot high at the time of planting and screening and additional shrubs. So my question is, why is it so onerous as an option, the second option?

Thank you for that question. So the first option, option little i, is actually imagine a railing on a deck that's solid and six feet tall, while the other one is a property line fence. Does that make sense? So a second story deck where you've got a six foot wall and there's no way you can look through that neighbor's property. The other one is down on the property line.

I see. Okay. I didn't see that distinction, but now it's clear. Thank you.

Sure, sorry.

Yeah, back to general type questions. Um, the, I know our residential design guidelines are a little on the old side and. In many instances subjective, and I guess my question is, um. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE THE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE AN ORDINANCE AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE GUIDELINES. BUT A SPECIFIC QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OR ANY CHANGE HAPPENING TO THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES? IS IT AFFECTED IN ANY WAY FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES?

NOT A PART OF THIS PROCESS, NO. NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER reason to why we're amending these design guidelines. And then quick follow-up on that.

I noticed, if I read the staff report right, that there are some residential design guidelines and maybe even hillside standard design guidelines that are being copied into this ordinance. 311.2, 38.4, and 3.3.3 are the ones I picked up on. Is that true? And is that because they're just really good objective standards?

Well, so currently they're design guidelines. And so currently they cannot be enforced on these SB 9 projects unless they are objectified into town code. unless we, there's kind of two options. We could take our design guidelines and put everything into town code, but that didn't seem appropriate if you look at everything in our design guidelines. So we took the ones that we felt were important and that we wanted to apply to all of these ministerial projects. Thank you.

Commissioner Stump.

ON PAGE 4 THERE IS A DISCUSSION ON NEIGHBORHOOD PRIVACY AND DO WE GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIVACY, RIGHT? SO MY GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT THIS AND THIS IS RELATED TO PORCHES, PATIOS, DECKS AND BALCONIES AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS. IN GENERAL HOW WILL THE NEW OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARD BETTER PROTECT PRIVACY? WHAT ARE WE BUILDING IN?

I'M ALMOST HESITANT TO SAY THIS RIGHT NOW. But to let you know what SB 9 currently allows is a two-story building right at the four-foot side and rear property line with a deck as big as you want, with as many windows as big as you want, and we've got neighbors coming in crying foul and we have to tell them sorry. So this is, we need to get something in place to protect them. So to answer the question is there's nothing currently, this is something.

but what is being put into the new ordinance will yeah so this the quote unquote something that we're proposing these all these new standards would be applicable to sb9 projects yeah thank you commissioner thomas and just to clarify follow up with that they are also they're applicable to any project that is a single family

As part of the challenge with SB 450 is we can only make a rule for SB 9 if that rule applies to everybody else, every application type. So that is why we have that exception process so that the current people going through the Arkansas process aren't having to change everything they're doing.

Uh-huh. Okay. So then just a, which, you know, right now we do have these guidelines, right? And sometimes, I mean, just as an example right now, like our earlier, we were going by our, I mean, there was some zoning stuff too, but mainly it was about residential design guidelines with regards to privacy. So this actually codifies some privacy for everyone, correct? Yeah.

Correct, and again, we would still use all the residential design guidelines and all the hillside design guidelines for the discretionary applications in addition to these codified objective design standards.

Yes, okay, and then just a question about process. So if your application, if someone has a current application that is being processed and changes are made to town code, is it when they put in their application or is it when... Or where are they locked in, I guess, is my question.

From my perspective, it depends when they vested. And so it would depend if they were an SB 330 or if they were seeking a vesting tentative map. And if they haven't vested to existing standards, then they'll be subject to new standards as they come online.

And what about just generic ARC INSIGHT applications?

IN MY OPINION THEY HAVE INVESTED UNTIL THEY HAVE OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT AND PERFORM SUBSTANTIAL WORK IN RELIANCE ON THAT BUILDING PERMIT.

OKAY. SO THEN I GUESS I JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE, YOU KNOW, JUST MAKE A STATEMENT THAT KNOWING THAT SOME CHANGES ARE LIKELY TO COME ONLINE IN THE MIDDLE OF SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORTS IN THE PROCESS IF PEOPLE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO AVOID ALL OF A SUDDEN TRIGGERING A BUNCH OF NEW PROJECTS COMING TO PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE OF A COUPLE EXCEPTIONS THEY'RE ALREADY SO FAR IN THE PROCESS AND THEY'VE BEEN PROCESSED WITH STAFF SO JUST YEAH AND JUST TO CLARIFY ONE THING NOT ALL ARKANSAS SITE APPLICATIONS COME TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN FACT I THINK MOST GO TO DRC SO IT

staff is not anticipating an influx of Planning Commission staff reports based on this.

And in addition to the chair, I mean, we're still have our standard architecture and site process. So anyone who's in that process, we look at all the subjective standards, they'll have these new objective standards, but as was stated previously, you know, there'll be an exception process, but they're already in the ANS process. This is really going to be something we'll have to look at with SB9 applications that are submitted or in process prior to any new code going into effect.

Thank you. I just didn't want all of a sudden you guys to be having to do a bunch of additional staff reports for something that, and, you know, have a bunch of additional meetings or something just because of, for a minor. But if there's the discretion to, to be able to push those along that are farther in the process, it's good news. Commissioner Sorty.

Yeah, just another clarifying question about process. So it just occurred to me we never see SB 9 applications, right, because they're ministerial. I guess my first question is do they automatically go through the same, like do they get sent out to a Canon design group or comment letters or anything like that? They don't. They don't go through that process at all. Okay. So the process is going to continue to be Like for example, for single family homes that make it to us, we almost always see a letter from Cannon. Is this changing that process in any way? It's still gonna be the same?

That it continue happening, and in fact, you essentially rely more on Cannon's letter, right, if the findings for an exception is compliance with the residential design guidelines. There's no plan in changing what we do with our consultant for these discretionary applications.

Okay, so the way we process a single family residence is not always going to be the same exact way we process SB9. It just so happens that we're tightening up the objective standards and that's it. The process is still kind of very different.

It really depends on the process the applicant chooses to go through.

Yeah, okay. And through the chair, I mean, think about it. as the SB9s are basically a building permit, right? So we don't go through CAN and we don't go through all of the other external stuff we do for our protection site. We just have a planning process before you go, because many other jurisdictions, if it's SB9, you just go straight to building permits. So we're trying to build in some standards that need to apply now to other single family homes that still will have the option to go through discretionary review. So SB9 is kind of its own animal and we're trying to create some opportunity to address impacts that we're hearing about often, such as privacy.

Mr. Stone. Thank you. This is a follow up to Commissioner Barnett's inquiry about section twenty nine dot four zero dot zero nine five at the bottom of page six of the staff report. My question is in exactly what he was talking about. There's this solid or opaque privacy wall of at least six feet and I understand that's attached to a deck. And then the other is a six foot solid fence with a one foot lattice on top. How does this apply in the hillside? How does this particular portion of the code apply in the hillside?

So that is the thing with options at the end of the day, right? Not all options are going to work for every single project. Planning manager correct me if I'm wrong, but yeah, I don't believe every hillside project would be able to meet this. There's rules on if you're over an acre, I believe you have to do wildlife friendly fencing. So then option double I wouldn't work for you and you'd have to do the other option or you'd have to submit an Arkansas application.

I would even say with privacy screening, because you may live in a bloody forest up on the hillside and then they're being told now you have to plant all these trees. And so I'm assuming there's going to be some amount of just discretion used as it relates to hillside.

So you make a good point. The catch here is that if they choose to take advantage of the privileges that the state's provided through SB 9, then they would need to comply with the town's objective code. If they were vehemently against that, they can choose to go through the architecture and site process. So we're not saying no. We're not putting up a barrier to anything. We're just being consistent across the board. If they want the town's staff and potentially hearing body to have the ability to operate with some discretion and consider site-specific unique situations where this doesn't make sense, then the architecture and site process would allow them that opportunity. Whereas if you're taking advantage of SB 9, you have to do this.

By the way, that explanation was very helpful. Thank you.

Any further questions of staff, Vice Chair Barnett?

Can you remind me what the second floor setback is? I thought I saw eight feet.

We're proposing eight feet, correct, from the side and rear.

And that would apply to second stories on SB 9 units?

Across the board. So that would mean if you're trying to build a two-story SB 9 unit, you're either kicking the whole building out eight feet from the side and rear property line, or you have that four-foot substantial setback of your second story.

Okay, I think I understand that.

Any further questions of staff? Okay, so then I'm gonna ask, last time we went through an ordinance, I just went section by section. I just wanna double check knowing that that's then internal discussion on this. Does somebody need to make a motion and then we launch into that?

Through the chair before you get that far, maybe we should see if anyone wants to speak on the item.

I will, I will. I just was organizing myself here just a little bit before we jump on into that. Am I planning that though accurately?

Yes, and so the motion could be to introduce or to recommend that the Town Council introduce the ordinance And then as you go through it, you may want to you know note changes that you would recommend.

Okay, okay Just making notes for myself as we get there. All right, so Opening the public portion of the hearing do I do not have any speaker cards for this item. Is there anyone on zoom?

Mr. Paulson There is but no hands are raised

to the person on Zoom. If you are interested in speaking on this topic, could you please raise your hand? They may just be listening. All right, then if we have- Chair, we do have a hand raised now.

Okay. Rebecca?

Rebecca, thank you. Rebecca, can you hear us?

Yes, yes, I can hear you. All right. Thank you. Yeah, Rebecca Pollard here, representing Terry Martin Architects. I just wanted to say I really appreciate the efforts that Los Gatos and the Planning Department have gone to to loop in the local design community. Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but I do feel very heard. The summary set of our general plan objections and points was well made. And I am very interested to see how smoothly this transition goes. And I wanted to thank you for going through this process and excited to see where it goes.

All right. Thank you. Are there any questions for the speaker? Seeing none. Thank you. Do not believe that there are any other speakers on this topic. So I will close the public part of this particular item. And if I understood properly, someone needs to venture a motion.

Commissioner Stump. I move that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Council on an ordinance amending Chapter 29 zoning regulations of the Town Code regarding objective design standards for single family and two family residential dwelling units and second story additions. The proposed amendments to the Town Code are not subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061, Subsection B, Paragraph 3. because it can be seen with certainty that they will not significantly affect the physical environment in that they make minor changes to the regulations and design review process applicable to new single family and two family residential dwelling units and second story additions. Project location, town wide applicant, town of Los Gatos. Findings, I can make the required finding. The proposed amendments are not subject to CEQA review pursuant to CEQA section 15061, subsection B, paragraph three. Because it can be seen with certainty, they will not significantly affect the physical environment. They make minor changes to the regulations and design review process applicable to new single family and two family residential dwelling units in second story addition. I can also make the required findings, the amendments to chapter 29 of the town code regarding these new objective design standards applicable to new single family and two family residential dwelling units and second story additions are consistent with the general plan.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Thomas, go ahead.

I'll second the motion.

All right, so let's move into discussion. My intention, as I said earlier, is to go through this section by section, as we've done on previous similar topics. I would ask, I guess, as we go in the section, anyone that has comments or questions in that section, raise your hand, and then I will just go down the row. That way I want to make this orderly for staff, unless there's a way that you would rather we do this.

Just to clarify, are we going through Exhibit 5 or the staff report? Staff's preference would probably be Exhibit 5, if you don't mind.

I was going through Exhibit 5? Yeah. Sorry, I should have said that. I guess I was going to quickly ask, obviously there's a section that a number of items have been lined out, as Mr. Safdie had said before. Are there any questions about that particular section before I jump into part of Exhibit 4, before I jump into Exhibit 5? Okay, I didn't think so. All right, so I will jump into exhibit five, section 29.40070, projections allowed into yards. Right? Oh, I'm so sorry, yeah.

It's really been a long day.

Section 29.10.020, definitions. Does anyone have any comments or questions on this particular section? None? All right. 29.40.070 projections allowed into yards. Are there any questions or comments on this section? All right. 29.40.170 development standards. Are there any questions or comments on this section?

Through the chair, I think he skipped a few sections. I think the next section would be point zero eight zero objective design standards for new single family. Yada yada.

Okay, then I'm going to take a second because I'm going to hope I didn't accidentally print the wrong. I kind of feel like I should get like a do-over tonight. Okay, you're right. So 29.40.080.

objective design standards for new single-family and two-family residential dwelling units and then the subsection 0.85 purpose and applicability are there any comments commissioner stop not a comment but a question maybe i was having a bad day but under ministerial applications i just did not understand this section completely especially when it says except to the extent that state law requires minimum unit sizes of 800 square feet Um, so I don't even know how to begin to ask my question about not understanding it.

Why don't I offer to summarize kind of what the intent is what it's saying? Um. So, again, it's it's stating that for the minister applications, you have to comply with every single 1 of these standards. That's kind of 2nd line of the sentence that caveat is. ESSENTIALLY JUST WHAT SB 9 SAYS IS THAT IF ANY OF THESE STANDARDS ARE GOING TO SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD TWO 800 SQUARE FOOT UNITS, WE HAVE TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THESE STANDARDS. THANK YOU. JUST TO MAKE SURE WE COMPLY WITH SB 9.

ALL RIGHT. POINT 090, OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, SITE PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION? COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

Thank you. Okay, so my, I'm so sorry, where are we? Okay, the, so this is, applied to all new residential dwelling units and like second story additions but okay i'm sorry i originally read it and i thought it was only to like second two-story things the way it was originally written and i was like very confused why it would be that but never mind it's also been a long day i i do have a quick question on the mechanical equipment screening is there another section somewhere that talks about what those materials would be

There isn't, but that can be part of your recommendation. And just for clarity, that standard, it's been in our ordinance for a little bit now. It came out of a town council request.

I've brought it up before, actually.

Yeah, so if you wanted to recommend some specifications, staff's happy to take those.

Yeah, I guess I would. So I think we've all seen where they've used like the green construction fencing or something, a material like that around mechanical screens, which breaks down through weather and wind. I would advise against a material that is subject to that kind of breakdown through weather. And I would perhaps write something that the materials used are sensitive to the materials on the base building because I've also seen where somebody just put a sheet metal, bright, shiny thing around it and called it a mechanical screen and it looked worse than the equipment.

And just for clarification, you're looking at number five here. Correct. So it says it has to be either out of view behind a building or with a solid fence. I think it's also, and I don't think you're trying to mix up the two, but we run into this issue more often on the commercial side where we're talking about rooftop. Typically in the residential setting, we're not seeing that for single family and two family homes. So I'd be interested.

I guess I'm bringing it because I actually... I spend a lot of time working in a city on the East Bay. And recently I saw a few things.

Well, let's not bring those ideas to the town.

So I don't know. I guess I was just trying to put in like a safety guard that if you're going to go an inexpensive way of adding a unit, sometimes they do like a subset, like a sunken roof or something that we just make sure it's not a material that's going to be broken down by materials, materials broken down by weather. Commissioner Thomas.

I propose that we change because this is specifically for residential that we just propose that behind a building or solid fence of material already in like on that plane or I don't know something more specific but like a material that is already being used on that property.

And through the chair, the comment's taken and we'll take a look at what, we also have to be careful about making sure that it's objective. So we'll take a look at that and draft something appropriate.

Okay. Anything else on that section? Then let's go to point 095, massing and privacy. Any questions, Commissioner Stump?

I do have a question on 1B, and it talks about property line, rear property line, 10 feet from any other and 10 feet from any other property lines. I'm assuming is that side setbacks to 10 feet?

Yeah, so it's going to be 20 feet from the rear, 10 from any other. There's going to be certain instances with SB 9 flag lots where your front setback is four feet. And so every time you see essentially a provision saying in no case shall it be closer than six feet from a proper line, 10 feet from a proper line, a lot of times those are for these flag lots being created via SB 9.

Do we expect to get more exemptions requested because of this, particularly in R18? I mean, I'm thinking about Loma Alta, you know, and they're trying to build literally on the fence line just about with four foot setbacks and that sort of thing. So we're really now going to say that's a 10 foot setback. By the way, I'm just looking for the yes or no. I don't need to.

This is specific to porches, patios, decks, platforms, balconies. Oh, it still is. Okay, I'm sorry. And this specific section is when they're four feet or above, right? So it's not the actual house. The house is going to be four feet. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Missed that one.

Are there any other questions or comments for the section massing and privacy? All right. I will move to point 100, exceptions, findings, and considerations. Any questions or comments? So then I will move on to 29. Oh, go ahead. Yeah, can we share?

Thomas, do you have a question?

i'm sorry i missed the part before though not we're going backwards you were just um the two for just the last part the two-story articulation there's obviously like a through h and um not to put commissioner mayor on the spot but i feel like is i feel like this is like an architectural detail thing that when i was like reading through i was like DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS COVERS APPROPRIATELY?

JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S VERBATIM FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES. STAFF DIDN'T MAKE THIS ONE UP BUT I'M STILL HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT MR. MAYOR HAS TO SAY. YES.

OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS PERFECT. I'M GLAD YOU DID PULL FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES BECAUSE I THINK THOSE ARE EFFECTIVE AND GOOD FOR THE TOWN AND I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN AROUND A WHILE BUT mean they're not they're more subjective i guess than objective and so trying to merge the two in some way i know i know it's a challenge so um it's good we're going through this right now agreed thank you um anything else on these sections if not i will go to development standards height questions or comments on height mr stump

Excuse me, were you taking it for Division 2, Division 3, and Division 4 at the same time?

No, actually, thank you for clarifying. I wasn't. I was going to go section by section just in case. So .170. Right 0.275. all right.

That would be me. The question that I just have, and again, it's just out of interest. The height. In the hillside has been reduced from 30 to 25 feet while in residential zoning areas. It remains. I'm assuming it remains at 30. What's the reason for bringing it down to 25 feet in the hillside? I can guess, but what's the rationale?

Yeah, so the hillside design guidelines actually limit buildings in any property within that purview to 25 feet in height. It actually makes it a pretty, it's been a challenge for staff for some time to explain to somebody that even though the zone says 30 feet, you're limited to 25 and have to get an exception for it. So essentially everything in all of these divisions are saying if you're in the hillside overlay, you still gotta meet this visibility analysis and these height restrictions, which is what we already do to these properties. The problem is it's not objectified, so SB9 has been getting around it.

So this is somewhat cleaning that up, cleaning that issue up.

This is more of a cleanup than a new standard. Thank you.

And I'll just add that technically it's a cleanup because we're aligning the hillside guidelines for the hillside area. It's been helpful in a handful of cases where an existing home is 30 feet and they want to do an addition. And so they come through for an exception rather than now with these changes, they are likely to have to go through a variance application.

That's good to know, okay. 410 Height, Single Family Residential Zone. And the last section is 745 Height, Downtown Zone. Are there any questions or comments? Are there any discussion points over anything that we did not already touch on by anyone? All right, well, we have a motion and a second on the table. Is there anyone that wishes to make

second motion all right yeah go ahead commissioner thomas i do just have a question about for the these last two like for the division in three and division four it uh it's repetitive obvious a little bit you know because or redundant i guess i should say but there it's like worded um The opposite is that, is there a reason for that or was that, did that just happen?

So every single HR property is in the Hillside Design Guidelines. Not every single R1 property is in that Hillside area. I believe that was. Yes. Yeah, so that was why. So we had to say in the properties like R1 and R1D, it's four properties located in the Hillside area, then you meet this. All RC and HR properties are in the Hillside Design Guidelines, so we didn't have to put that caveat of if you're in the Hillside area.

yeah so i just i meant thank you for that clarification i meant oh my god no i read it wrong i'm sorry i thought that the first one said that it's 25 feet unless you're visit but and then the other way it was written the other way but it's not i'm sorry thank you vice chair barnett

I understand staff has taken note of the recommendation regarding the mechanical equipment material being durable, but is that appropriate for us to include in the motion?

yes i mean i think you could amend the motion just to recognize that was the one recommendation we got out of out of this and we would um forward that uh to the town council and then we would suggest staff would suggest some language because something like durable that's where that's where the caution comes in right we can't that's not objective uh so we'll come up with a measure that addresses that okay okay so i'd like to propose that as an amendment

the maker of the motion it's certainly acceptable right and obviously the seconder yes okay um i'm really sorry though i am i understand it was my first day of school and thank you for bearing with me i so for the height for the second one it says in which case the height is 30 feet but Should it be 25 feet because those are properties within the hillside area? Or am I really confused about this?

You're right. Yeah, thank you so much for making that catch. Yeah, no problem.

I was like, I thought I was, okay, thank you. No, good catch. Not crazy.

Nope, not on this one.

Were there more?

All right, is there any further discussion?

The last one also says 32, but it should be 25.

Just ask staff to check the numbers.

Okay.

Okay, perfect. We've got both those noted. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And I obviously, it's a friendly amendment, and then I said...

And again, just to confirm, so I'll just call it .410 and .745 are being changed from 30 to 25 feet in both cases. Correct. Thank you.

Anything else? All right. I think he's got the philosophy. OK. All right. Great. I'm going to call the question. All in favor?

All right. Sorry. I think that we should make sure. Well, we're just forwarding a recommendation. I was just going to say, I didn't know if we needed to go back to the findings and make sure that they go with that.

Yeah. The findings really only are important for the quasi-adjudicatory decisions, like the appeals.

OK. Thank you for clarifying that. OK. Perfect. So I'm going to do it again. Call the question.

All in favor? All right. Passes unanimously. Thank you. And since this is a recommendation, there are no appeals. Do we have a report from the Director of Community Development this evening?

Thank you, Chair. I only have a couple items. As you may be aware, Council had a special meeting last night for the Twin Oaks Drive property, and it was ultimately continued with some direction to bring back some additional information. So we will continue with that. And then just for your awareness and the public's awareness, next Tuesday, the 18th, there'll be a special meeting for the Oka Road SB 330 project that was forwarded from the Planning Commission, and that will start at 5 p.m.

Thank you. I don't believe there were, but are there any subcommittee reports? I think we were all off. And are there any commission matters to discuss? All right, thank you. Meeting adjourned.