Study Session - Role of Architectural ConsultantMEETING DATE: 04/21/14
STUDY SESSION
iu
Boa s�ios COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 17, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL /
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER�O _
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL
CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss and provide direction regarding the role of the Town's Architectural Consultant.
BACKGROUND:
In January 2014, two members of the Town Council requested Council consideration of the role and
designation of the Town's Consulting Architect. In February 2014, the Town Council discussed the
Council members' request and unanimously added "Review role of Consulting Architect" to the Town's
2014 — 16 Strategic Goals.
This Study Session is intended to provide:
1. Background information on the creation and use of the Consulting Architect, actually designated
as the Architectural Consultant in most prior Town documents; and
2. An opportunity for the Town Council to request additional information or potential changes for
subsequent Council consideration and action.
Staff has no recommended changes at this time as the Architectural Consultant process appears to be
largely functioning as previously directed by the Town Council.
PREPARED BY:
Reviewed by:
GREG LARSON,0
Town Manager
Town Manager
\ \teona \users \glarsonVNy Documents \4 -21 -14 Consulting Architect Study Session Report.doc
Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE ROLE OF THE CONSULTING
ARCHITECT
April 15, 2014
ANALYSIS:
During a Council Study Session with Boards and Commissions on February 26, 2000, the Town Council
and Planning Commission raised the issue of the "effectiveness and efficiency of design review being
performed by the Planning Commission." Staff was directed to prepare a report discussing design
review alternatives for the April 3, 2000 Council meeting (Attachment 1). At that meeting, the matter
was tabled for future discussion with the Planning Commission.
In early 2001, the Town's design review process was again discussed during a joint Town Council and
Planning Commission Study Session. Staff was directed to look at alternatives and bring a
recommendation to the Town Council for consideration.
In August 2001, the Town Council unanimously directed staff "to institute a pilot program utilizing an
architectural firm to critique and evaluate the architectural design of the proposed projects as part of the
Development Review Committee process." The relevant minutes and staff report for the August 20,
2001 meeting are attached (Attachment 2).
Staff distributed an architectural consultant Request for Proposals (RFP) to 40 architectural and urban
design firms throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Seven firms responded to the RFP and submitted
proposals. Following a review of the proposals, staff conducted a panel interview of all seven
respondents and then had the top three respondents complete a practical exercise.
On January 7, 2002, the Town Council unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the Town
Manager to enter into agreements with Cannon Design Group as architectural consultant to the Town
and Mark Srebnik as secondary (or back -up) architectural consultant to the Town. In addition, the Town
Council directed staff to return to Council with a separate resolution governing the design review
process. The relevant approved resolution, minutes and staff report for the January 7, 2002 meeting are
attached (Attachment 3).
On March 4, 2002, the Town Council unanimously approved a resolution governing the design process
and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Town Planning Commission and Architectural
Consultant. The relevant approved resolution, minutes and staff report for the March 4, 2002 meeting
are attached (Attachment 4). The adopted policy specifies:
The Planning Commission must make one of the following findings to modify the
consulting architect's recommendations:
• That the recommendations of the consulting architect were made based on erroneous
information provided by the applicant.
• That the consulting architect made a mistake offact.
• That there is compelling evidence, received through public testimony that there is a
privacy or other neighborhood impact to warrant plan modification.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE ROLE OF THE CONSULTING
ARCHITECT
April 15,2014
On November 12, 2002, the Town Council accepted staff's evaluation of the architectural review
process pilot which concluded that the process should continue. The minutes and staff report for the
November 12, 2002 meeting are attached (Attachment 5).
Larry Cannon has served as the Town's primary Architectural Consultant since 2002. After multiple
contract amendments and extensions, the Town conducted a new RFP process in November 2011 and
received nine proposals. On March 19, 2012, the Town Council unanimously approved on the Consent
Calendar a new contract with Larry Cannon which expires in April 2017 (plus three optional one year
extensions). The selected secondary architectural consultant is RRM Design Group. The March 19,
2012 staff report, desk item and executed contract for Larry Cannon are attached (Attachment 6).
Most of the Architectural Consultants' services are paid on a time and materials basis directly by project
applicants through deposits on pass - through accounts. Nonetheless, the work is managed and reported
through staff, as the Architectural Consultants serve as "an extension of staff' as noted in the January
2002 and March 2012 staff reports. In addition, Larry Cannon has provided direct services to the Town
itself, such as development of the Residential Design Guidelines and the Affordable Housing Overlay
Zone Design Guidelines, and other Town matters requiring architectural review.
Total payments to Larry Cannon were $52,391 in 2011, $56,453 in 2012, and $109,642 in 2013, with
the latter year higher than prior years due primarily to the Albright development proposal and the AHOZ
Design Guidelines. Potential future Town services for the Architectural Consultant, pending Council
direction, include updating the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and development of Multi- Family Residential
Design Guidelines.
Staff works directly with project applicants and the Architectural Consultant for architectural review of
proposed projects, and occasionally the applicant and Architectural Consultant interact directly under
staff s purview. In general, the Architectural Consultant tries to be responsive to concerns or requests of
the applicant and staff while maintaining the Consulting Architect's independent assessment of
architectural integrity and conformance to Town standards. Attached is Architectural Consultant Larry
Cannon's description of his design review process from his prior contract approvals (Attachment 7)
Pursuant to Section B of Council resolution 2002 -25 (Attachment 4 and excerpted above), the Planning
Commission must make one of the three findings to modify a Consulting Architect recommendation.
There have been project applications for which the Planning Commission has modified the Architectural
Consultant's recommendation with findings regarding neighborhood compatibility based on evidence
and /or public testimony provided through the public hearing process. Recently the Planning
Commission has also modified the Architectural Consultants' recommendations regarding architectural
elements (i.e. dormers) and building materials (i.e. metal roof) without providing specified findings.
Planning Commission discretion regarding architectural design review could be expanded or further
limited through Council requested and approved changes to Section B of Council resolution 2002 -25.
Concerns have been raised by Council members that the existing Council resolution and /or past practice
may cede too much independent authority to the Architectural Consultant without public Town review
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE ROLE OF THE CONSULTING
ARCHITECT
April 15, 2014
of design alternatives. Modifications to the last sentence of Section A of Council resolution 2002 -25
could be considered to modify or clarify past practice.
CONCLUSION:
The role of the Architectural Consultant dates back to 2000 and was based on Planning Commission and
Council discussion as well as Council direction and action. Staff will report back to Council on
whatever additional information or changes that the Town Council directs (e.g., survey of municipal best
practices for design review, modifications to Council resolution 2002 -25).
Attachments:
1. April 3, 2000 Staff Report
2. August 20, 2001 Minutes and Staff Report
3. January 7, 2002 Approved Resolution, Minutes and Staff Report
4. March 4, 2002 Approved Resolution, Minutes and Staff Report
5. November 12, 2002 Minutes and Staff Report
6. March 19, 2012 Staff Report, Desk Item and Executed Contract
7. Larry Cannon Proposal Description of Project Approach
T
t NX F
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
!ps Rj, \O
DATE: March 29, 2000
TO: MAYOR AND TO CO CIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUS - ��
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss Design Review alternatives.
BACKGROUND:
MEETING DATE: 4(03/00
ITEM NO.
During the February 26, 2000, Town Council Study Session with the Planning Commission, there was discussion
regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of design review (i.e. Architecture and Site review) being performed by the
Planning Commission. Alternative processes used by other agencies were discussed. Staff was directed to prepare a
report discussing design review alternatives for the April 3, 2000 Town Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Section 29.20.140(d) of the Los Gatos Municipal Code states that "The purpose of architecture and site approval is to
regulate the height, width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings to insure that they are
architecturally compatible with their surroundings, ...:. The City of Claremont in southern California uses the
Architectural Commission process discussed below. Claremont's Municipal Code states the purpose of architectural
review is "...to support the policies of the Community Design Element of the General Plan; to guide the design and
redesign of the City's physical environment to encourage excellence in architectural design; to protect and enhance the
community's character, sense of place, and the identities of Claremont's unique neighborhoods; and to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community."
Cities and towns use various processes to meet their obligation of design or architectural review. The following discusses
some of those alternative methods. Irrespective of the method of design or architectural review used, cities and town
have determined that the review is a necessary part of the approval process for the agency.
Town Architect: A licensed architect serves as a reviewing official and has the authority to approve certain applications
or make recommendations to an approving body. This process is similar to a Zoning Administrator/Hearing Officer used
extensively for planning and zoning applications where decisions are made by an individual in a public hearing format
and are appealable to the Planning Commission or Town Council. This process necessitates an extensive Design Manual
which provides the basis of review. In effect, there is minimal discretion in that the project is "measured" against the
manual. However, no manual can effectively cover everyone's design preferences.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: PAUL L. CURTIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Attorney
Reformatted: 7/14199
Revised: 3/29/00 2:51
ATTACHMENT 1
( r r
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES
March 29, 2000
Architectural Committee: This is typically a subcommittee of the Planning Commission whose members rotate onto
the committee. For example, of a seven member Commission, three members serve on the AC for a staggered period
oftime. Meetings are held separate from regular Planning Commission meetings thereby freeing Commission meetings
for more general land use discussions. Full Planning Commission member meetings may be reduced (e.g. one meeting
per month) because the general land dse items are fewer. Appeals of AC decisions are typically made directly to the
Town Council because of the Commissioner membership on the AC. An advantage of this process is that sitting Planning
Commissioners provide a continuity of policy from Planning Commission to design review. In some ways, this would
be similar to Planning Commissioners serving on the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC).
Architectural Commission: This process requires a separately Council appointed Commission. Attached is information
from the City of Claremont in southern California who has used the Commission process since 1958. Claremont is
similar to Los Gatos in many ways including its historical buildings and neighborhoods, community character and
extensive citizen involvement. Membership consists of design professionals (e.g. an architect, designers, historic
preservation expertise) and citizen representatives. Appeals are made directly to the City Council. This process requires
appropriate staffing, both planner and clerical, specific meeting schedules and a coordination of decision - making with
other city commissions and committees. For example, the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit for
a particular use generally approving the site plan. The Architectural Commission then approves the specific design of
the buildings, colors, lighting, etc. Occasionally, there can be conflict between the two groups in that the Planning
Commission may approve the CUP only if certain design features are required ( "we wouldn't have approved the use
had we known that was what the final building was going to look like "). However, the series of reviews in Los Gatos
(e.g.'DRC, Historic Preservation Committee, etc.) is similar in that each group makes a recommendation based on its
particular area of review responsibility. For example, the Historic Preservation Committee may "approve" a second story
addition from the individual house's historic point of view but may not take into consideration the overall land use issues
of neighborhood compatibility that is in the purview of the Planning Commission. What is typically heard from
applicants at Planning Commission meetings is that the DRC or Historic Preservation Committee has "approved" the
project irrespective of the applicant being told in writing that the DRC or HP decisions are subject to the overall review
of the Planning Commission. The Architectural Commission process has the same opportunities for misunderstandings.
Design Review by Planning Commission: This is currently used by Los Gatos and others (e.g. Saratoga). This process
provides maximum continuity in applying land use policy to design review. With the committee assignments of
Commissioners, the design review process (i.e. Architecture and Site) provides Commissioner input as members of
Historic Preservation, CDAC, Architecture and Hillside Standards subcommittees. This report will not attempt to
evaluate the current process as it should be well - known.
Planning Commission Study Sessions: The Los Gatos Planning Commission can now schedule study sessions with
applicants at its discretion to discuss details of a project. A primary objective of the meeting is to open discussion in an
informal setting with the neighborhood, staff, applicant and commissioners. However, the study session process can also
be used when details of design review need to be worked out and alternatives discussed in a more informal setting than
can be accomplished at a formal public hearing. If it is determined at the public hearing that more time is needed, the
item can be continued to a study session, details worked out in an informal, but PUBLIC setting, then continued to a
regular Planning Commission meeting. These study sessions are regularly scheduled meeting dates since it is assumed
that items will be referred. This requires more meetings for the Commissioners and staff but typically shortens the
meetings (e.g. more shorter meetings, fewer long meetings, fewer continued items).
CONCLUSION:
All of the above processes work. Which one works best depends upon the agency and the extent of detail, availability
of staff and commission/committee volunteers. With the pending adoption of the General Plan and the anticipated
workload of Implementing Strategies (i.e. action items) requiring special studies to implement the revised policies, the
Planning Commission agendas and time will be filled with general land use planning items. In situations where the
Planning Commission is extremely busy, the Architectural Commission process seems to work well. However, it does
remove a major role from the Planning Commission and requires additional staff resources.
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SU13JFCT: DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES
March 29, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
None. This is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
L City of Claremont Architectural Commission Information
2. City of Claremont Architectural Review Process
PLC:mdc
N: \DEV\CNCLRPTS \DSNREV
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
August 20, 2001
Los Gatos, California
V PLAZA RENOVATION /PROJECT 0107 /PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONTINUED
Speakers continued:
Spaur, 1913 Los Gatos - Almaden Road, Architect for the Plaza Bell, asked to be incl d in the
proce d decision making especially since he has a commitment to and special inte in the bell.
Ray Dav► , sident, spoke against the use of fountains in the park due to health haz s associated with
recycled wate . e also requested restroom facilities in the park.
Council Commen
Mr. Glickman he wou 'ke to see a people park that can be used, and enjoyed by all. He does
not want the park to seem usionary. He would like seats t on and not necessarily boulders
unless they invite people to sit o em. He would like to se ore children using the park rather than
efforts to exclude the children. The tain should be a interactive fountain and not like the one
that is there now which is slippery, has s gro g on it and children climbing all over it. He
believes the clock could be moved somewhere and he would prefer not to have any more meetings.
Mr. Attaway asked for a site visitation wo like the people who had been active on this
committee before to be included in th' resent'planm
Joe Pirzynski would like more ti o work through this 'ect and be able to include all the major
stakeholders. He would like enscape emphasized and hards a deemphasized. He would like to
see an interactive fountai
Mrs. Decker wante see a great park that would invite people to ga She would like to see a
cohesive whole not a piecemeal project. She feels the fountain must go, the bell tower could
be settled at orbes Museum as an historic piece of the Town's past.
Consensus that staff will follow up with the comments from Council and supply
materials and an on site meeting. Staff report was accepted for filing.
RAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION WORK PROGRAM FOR YEAR 20 2 (23.31)
rtz, Community Development Director, gave an overview of 1400vMrk that has been done and
noted the s which are planned for consideration this ye
Ray Davis, residen , nded Council that he believed ee Ordinance needed to be modified.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded3rS fir, to accept the work program for the implementation
strategies that are in progress or will to wear. Carried unanimously.
Mr. Glickman would li nsideration and work done on tlM`fe, wing items: L1.2.4 and L1.8.5.
He believes house uld be a size that is appropriate to the lots and thine' borhood in which they
exist. He d of think it is wise to support having a maximum town house siz oes he believe
thatpmerwenty acre parcel the homes should be limited to a particular size although the o ness
definitely be considered.
" Bud Lortz, Community Development Director, gave an overview of the pilot program. The consulting
firm will need to understand the basis and background of Los Gatos and be able to assist applicants and
staff through the planning process to meet our Zoning regulations and General Plan.
Ray Davis, resident, spoke against this proposal believing that the consultants will be working for
themselves rather than for the town.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Glickman, to institute a pilot program utilizing an
architectural firm to critique and evaluate the architectural design of the proposed projects as part of the
Development Review Committee process. Carried unanimously.
TC013:MM082001 o
ATTACHMENT 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE &SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
some communities only require that the Town Architect review or critique plans and provide written
comments to staff that are then forwarded to the decision - making body (Zoning Administrator,
Architectural Committee, Design Review Committee etc). The town architect has little involvement
in discussions or meetings with the applicant or project architect or presentations to decision making
bodies. Others see the Town Architect as an extension of staff and involve him/her in all aspects of
the design review, including meetings with applicants and attending public hearings, as deemed
appropriate by the Community Development Director. Communities that use peer review by an
architect (Dublin, Pleasanton and Sunnyvale) typically require a deposit fee for design/architectural
critique to cover the costs associated with this type of review. Additional costs may be incurred
depending on the complexity of the project. Alternatively, there maybe a tiered fee structure where
small residential projects require a lesser fee and larger, more complex project require a larger fee
to ensure all design review costs are recovered by the jurisdiction. Currently, the Town ofLos Gatos
does not have a development fee cover the cost of architectural review by an outside consultant.
Staff's preference would be to have a firm with several architects on board to provide
architectural /design review for projects in Los Gatos. In this way no one architect would be
responsible for all projects thus potentially eliminating any one design bias by an individual that may
not necessarily respect the Town's expectations ofdesign excellence. This level ofreview could also
be provided by an urban design firm with professionals schooled in principles of urban design. A
way to determine if there are firms that can provide this type of service as well as the actual cost of
peer review by more than one architect or urban designer in a firm is through the Request For
Proposal's (RFP) process. This process would also help determine the cost recovery fee for
architectural review by an outside consultant or firm.
One of the benefits of this process is that it has a design professional, with greater understanding of
design relationships and opportunities, providing suggestions and input to staff, the
applicant/architect and the decision makers. With an architectural professional under contract, there
is always assurance that there will be someone with the professional background and experience to
provide design review. This is not always available with Town staff or commissions or committees
where membership is dependent on volunteers in the community. This process would also help
remove the discussion of architectural details from the Planning Commission meeting and provide
a more appropriate forum for discussion and evaluation of design alternatives for a project with the
project architect. Once architectural and design issues are fully evaluated, the project can proceed
to the DRC with a recommendation by the Town Architect and staff. The Planning Commission will
continue to review Commission -level projects, but will focus more on issues of consistency with the
General Plan and neighborhood concerns rather than issues of design articulation. This process
would remove a major role from the Planning Commission. However, it would help shorten
meetings and would allow the Commission to focus on land use decisions and policy and legislative
issues. In addition, all projects may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or could be
referred to the Commission at the discretion of the Director of Community Development where
issues of privacy or visual impacts are identified by DRC or raised by the public.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FORARCHITECTURE &SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
2. Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
This is typically a subcommittee of the Planning Commission whose members rotate onto the
committee. For example, in a seven member Commission, three members serve on the ARC for a
staggered period of time. Meetings are held separately from regular Planning Commission meetings
thereby freeing the Commission meeting for more general land use discussions. The full Planning
Commission member meetings may be reduced in frequency (e.g. one meeting per month) or
meetings may be shortened because the discussion is focused on general land use issues. Appeals
of the ARC decisions are typically made directly to the Town Council because of the Commissioner
membership on the ARC. The City of Los Altos uses this method of design review.
The City of Cupertino recently amended its Municipal Code to create a design review subcommittee
of the Planning Commission. The City uses the services of a contract architect to provide input
related to design issues which are then forwarded to the subcommittee. These evaluations are passed
on to the Planning Commission, as appropriate. This process is intended to allow preliminary
feedback to applicants which allows staff to work out design issues before forwarding
recommendations to the Planning Commission subcommittee. It also stresses the importance of
having a design professional available to provide input on matters of design review. Attachment
2 is a sample report by the contract architect to the subcommittee.
An advantage of the ARC process is that sitting Planning Commissioners provide a continuity of
policy from Planning Commission to design review. In some ways, this would be similar to
Planning Commissioners serving on the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC).
A disadvantage of this process is that it requires a detailed set of design standards and guidelines or
a design manual and adds an additional layer to the process which can potentially lead to some
confusion. A design manual is required to provide specific criteria for evaluation of projects by the
ARC. What is typically heard from the applicants at Planning Commission meetings is that the ARC
has "approved" the project irrespective of the applicant being told in writing that the ARC decisions
are subject to the overall review of the Planning Commission. In addition, this process requires
additional staff support for meetings including preparation of agendas and staff reports.
3. Design Review Commission (DRC)
This process requires a separately appointed DRC. Among the communities that use this method
is Claremont, in southern California. Attached is information from the City of Claremont that has
used the Commission process since 1958. Claremont is similar to Los Gatos in many ways including
its historical buildings and neighborhoods, community character and extensive citizen involvement.
Membership consists of design professionals (e.g. architects, designers, historic preservation
expertise) and citizen representatives. Appeals are made directly to the City Council. This process
requires greater staff support, both from planners and clerical staff, specific meeting schedules and
a coordination of decision - making with other city commissions and committees. For example, the
Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a particular use, generally
approving the site plan. The DRC then approves the specific design of the buildings, colors,
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE &SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
lighting, etc. Occasionally, there is a conflict between the two groups. For exam Planni
ple, the
Commission may approve the CUP only if certain design features are required yet the project design ng
has already been approved by the DRC. However, the series of reviews in Los Gatos (e.g. DRC,
Historic Preservation Committee, etc.) is similar in that each group makes a recommendation based
on its particular area of review responsibility. For example, the Historic Preservation Committee
may "approve" a second story addition but may not take into consideration the overall land use
issues of neighborhood compatibility that is within the purview of the Planning Commission. This
process has the same opportunities for misunderstanding as described in the discussion above
regarding the ARC. The primary disadvantages of a DRC is the staff support that is required and
the additional layer of review process.
4. Design Review by Planning Commission:
This method is currently used by Los Gatos and other communities (e.g. Saratoga and Belmont).
This process provides maximum continuity in applying land use policy to design review. With the
committee assignments ofthe Commissioners, the design reviewprocess (e.g. Architecture and Site)
provides Commissioner input as members of Historic Preservation, CDAC, and Architectural
Standards/IlillsideComrmttees. Decisions by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Town
Council. Some of the disadvantages of having the Planning Commission involved in design review
is that it increases the number of projects reviewed and number and/or length of meetings.
Additionally, it calls for the need to have design professionals on the Planning Commission where
such volunteers may not always be available to serve. It also eliminates two -way conversations
about the design of the project since the public hearing format of the meeting precludes the
possibility of a "dialogue" between the project architect and the Commission.
5. Planning Commission Study Sessions (PCSS)
Many communities use Planning Commission study sessions to allow a focused discussion about
a specific project. The Los Gatos Planning Commission occasionally schedules a special study
session with an applicant to discuss details of a project. A primary objective of the study session is
to have an open discussion in an informal setting with the neighborhood, staff, applicant and.
commissioners. However, the study session process can also be used when details of design review
need to be worked out and alternatives discussed in a more informal setting than can be
accomplished at a formal public hearing. If it is determined at the public hearing that more time is
needed, the item can be continued to a study session, details worked out in an informal, but public
setting, then return to a regular Planning Commission meeting. This requires more meetings for
Planning Commissioners and staff and requires the public and applicant to attend yet another
meeting. With the anticipated workload of implementing General Plan Strategies requiring special
studies to implement the revised policies, it is anticipated that study sessions will need to be used
to work on general plan planning items. Additionally, members of the Commission will be more
involved in subcommittee (General Plan, Architectural Standards/Hillside, Historic Preservation)
meetings thus increasing the amount of overall meetings with limited resources to staff them.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERDESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR
ARCHITECTURE &SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
CONCLUSION:
All of the processes discussed have advantages and disadvantages. Which one works best depends
upon the agency, the detail that is involved and the availability of staff and commission/committee
volunteers. Given the anticipated workload related to General Plan implementation in addition to
ongoing development applications, Alternative 1, the contract Town Architect, appears to be a more
efficient and effective alternative for design review that allows for better front end work with staff
and the applicant before a project is deemed complete by DRC. The DRC can then take action on
the project or forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission, as it currently does. Design
review issues would be discussed by the Planning Commission only if the design is "fatally flawed"
(i.e. the design does not take into account issues of privacy, views, etc.) or if an application is being
appealed on the basis of its architecture. This will lessen the workload of the Planning Commission
thereby allowing it to focus more on land use related issues and general plan implementation
programs.
As a next step, staff suggests that the Town Council authorize the preparation of Request For
Proposals (RFP) to be forwarded to architectural and urban design firms. The RFP process will also
serve to determine the availability and cost of contract architect/urban design firm to provide
services as town architect and will provide specific information as needed for establishing a cost
recovery fee. Staff will return to the Council with a report identifying the preferred
architectural/urban design firm and any revisions to the ordinance required to revise the existing
process and the fee structure to cover architectural review costs.
It is anticipated that once selected, as an initial step in the contract, the selected architect would meet
with members of the Town Council and Planning Commission to discuss the design review process
and the members expectations of the architect. In addition, the town architect would meet with
design professionals that do business in Los Gatos and DRC members to receive input from them
in order to gain greater insight into community design issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Not applicable: this is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The revised process would involve a revision of the fee structure to require a deposit for
Architectural Review and this fee would be cost recovery. An administrative fee would be structured
to cover staff time reviewing and coordinating the work of the Town architectural consultant.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
August 16, 2001
Attachments:
1. Town Council minutes - April 3, 2000 (one page)
2. City of Cupertino architectural evaluation sample (two pages)
3. City of Claremont Architectural Commission Powers & Duties (two pages)
4. City of Claremont Architectural Review process (17 pages)
BNL:DUMc /SD
N.\ EV UZANNE \CD=CiMepomTY2WI1 O2\Dmign eview.wpd
goo
DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION /ARCHITECTURE & SITE
REVIEW (14.47)
Mayor Blanton stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider the
effectiveness and efficiency of design review during the Architecture and Site Review
process.
Council Comments: There are opportunities for Council and staff education in planning
issues and historic review. Planning Commission annually attends conferences for
education and members are required to take architectural classes if they serve on the
commission. A Town architect can serve as aresource for the Commission and Council
for discussions of mass and scale. Staff can address ways of including interested parties
in the preliminary concepts before the final designs arrive at Council.
Greg Moss, 16788 Littlefield Lane, asked for neighborhoods to be included in the
beginning stages of projects and processes . The sooner the issues are discussed, the
sooner they can be addressed and the sooner the project can be completed.
Ray Davis, resident, spoke about the need to follow the Town Codes and to be
consistent.
Mayor Blanton asked that this item return to Council at the same time Council and
Planning Commission are holding their study session. He also requested that Council
study sessions occur 1/2 hour before the regular scheduled Council meetings, especially
on nights when a Closed Session is not agendized.
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 2002 - 5
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH
CANNON DESIGN GROUP AS THE PRIMARY AND
MARK SREBNIK ARCHITECT -AIA, AS THE SECONDARY (BACK -UP)
FOR SERVICES AS ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS TO THE TOWN
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos Town Council has determined that there is a need for
an architectural consultant; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan 2000 includes policies and implementing strategies supporting
this action; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos sent Requests for Proposals to over 40 Bay Area
architectural and urban design firms including the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the AIA; and
WHEREAS, the Town received seven proposals for architectural consulting services; and
WHEREAS, the most qualified consultants based on the proposals, interviews conducted
by Town staff and a evaluation of sites proposed for development are Cannon Design Group and
Mark Srebnik Architect -AIA; and
WHEREAS, project managers, Larry Cannon of Cannon Design Group and Mark Srebnik
of Mark Srebnik Architect -AIA have applicable experience with peer review, preparation and
interpretation of design guidelines, working with small communities, and are able to provide
architectural review services to the Town on an as needed basis,
RESOLVED, by the Town Council that the Town Manager is authorized and directed to
execute the agreements, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, for services as the primary and
secondary architectural consultants on behalf of the TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
ATTACHMENT
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 7th day
of January, 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Randy Attaway
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
2
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
County Referrals. Carried unanimously.
January 7, 2002
Los Gatos, California
ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT /CANNON DESIGN GROUP (16.00)
Mr. Lortz gave an overview of the process, the selected consultants credentials, and the Town's need
for the services to be provided. He explained how the consultants would assist the Town in the
technical design review process and relieve the Planning Commission of the responsibility of
functioning as a design review commission which would allow the Commission to focus on higher
level planning issues such as refinement to the Town's design standards as well as General Plan
implementation.
Council comments:
Mr. Glickman clarified that the intent was to move the architectural portion of the oversight process
to the Consultant as opposed to adding another step in the process. He feels that the Town has to he
very clear on what they are doing and that the process has teeth to it. Mr. Glickman would like to
see the language strengthened regarding the role of the Commission and the role of the Consultants.
Mr. Pirzynski clarified that the three months limit was not firm and could be extended if the Town
does not have enough projects over the next three months to evaluate the process adequately. He
wants to be certain that this is not just another level to contend with. Mr. Pirzynski feels that the
Council has to make certain that they are directing to move the architectural component to the staff
liaison position with the Planning Commission acting in the appellant roll.
Mrs. Decker is concerned that Hillside and Commercial projects will have already been through the
architectural process prior to appearing before the Planning Commission and therefore the
Commission will only address zoning and General Plan issues. Mrs. Decker is concerned about how
to mitigate other issues which may relate to design matters. She would also like to see some
percentage allotted to the two Consultants so that any absences would be at a minimum. Mrs. Decker
would also like to see the time frame left open for a six month review.
Mayor Attaway wants to be certain that both the Planning Commission and the Consultants
understand their roles. He is concerned about the language in the last paragraph ofthe resolution and
wants to be sure that the Planning Commission has the ability to make changes should the
circumstances require it.
Mr. Blanton suggested that Staff readdress the concerns that have been raised.
Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group, 180 Harbor Drive, Sausalito, Consultant, reviewed his
qualifications and credentials. He stated that he is comfortable with the full range of responsibilities
as well as the philosophy and goals of the Town. Mr. Cannon explained that he plans to spend as
much time as possible in the Los Gatos community to acquaint himself with the Town's image,
character, and goals.
Ray Davis, resident, does not feel that the Planning Commission has seen this and thinks this is being
dumped on them Mr. Davis feels this is a tool to control the Planning Commission.
Motion by Mayor Attaway, seconded by Mrs. Decker to modify by deleting the last paragraph and
adopt Resolution 2002 -5 entitled; RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS
WITH CANNON DESIGN GROUP AS THE PRIMARY AND MARK SREBNIK
ARCHITECT -AL4, AS THE SECONDARY (BACK -UP) FOR SERVICES AS
ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS TO THE TOWN. Carried unanimously.
2
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
January 7, 2002
Los Gatos, California
ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT /CANNON DESIGN GROUP /CONT.
Staff to return with a separate Resolution outlining the specific roles and responsibilities of the
Planning Commission and the Architectural Consultants.
CESPEARE IN THE PARK (17.00)
peakers in favor:
Tomasi- Dubois, 121 Altura Vista, stated that it has been the goal of Friends of Los G
Co Theater to bring live theater back to Los Gatos. She explained that there is tual
need that s for a community and maintaining the character of Los Gatos shou clude five
theater. Ms. To Dubois explained the process the group has been through e response thev
have received.
Bruce De Les Dernier, Hillview Avenue, San Jose, Artistic
gave an overview of his artiste up and their credentials. He exp
venue and Oak Meadow Park, with
type of art.
Richard Konrad,86 Fairview Plaza, rer
found this to be an excellent use of Oak
invasive use of the park.
eTor for the Theater group,
d that Los Gatos is an ideal
an excellent location for this
Lrks Commission, stated that the Commission
and have determined that this will not he an
Paul Dubois, 121 Altura Vista, r senting the Los Gatos unity Foundation stated that the
Foundation had found that t was a great interest in bringing hakespeare to Los Gatos. He
explained the Foundatio ' role as an "umbrella" organization for the ter group and stated that
additional benefit come from outreach into local schools and f grams that will be
presented. ubois reiterated that the marrying of the theater and the bands are something
that Los os can be very proud of.
Ra vis, resident, stated that this is a "win -win" situation. He spoke ofa similar theater rinds
Wo ch was very popular and stated that this looked like a terrific deal for Los Gatos.
Attaway called a recess at 8:45 p.m. to allow Council to view the stage replica which has
►iq, he foyer. Meeting resumed at 8:55 p.m. /
Council commence
Mayor Attaway stated t clearly be an asset and som that Los Gatos can be very
proud of. He is pleased with the t d effort that has b pended and the professional results.
Mr. Pircynski feels this is an extraordinal to e the process of evolving more community
events which allow the entire Town to co and the
things of a cultural nature.
Mr. Glickman thanked everyone f effort and feels own will derive enormous benefit from
the productions as we revis' classical education.
Mrs. Decker stated e project is very exciting and she looks
her tickets.
Mayor Attaway, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski to approve the Parks
tion to proceed with the Shakespeare in the Park Program and to direct staff to
gQwx pF MEETING DATE: 01/07/02
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
!ps GAtQS
DATE: January 3, 2002
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
PROM: TOWN MANAG` r
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CANNON DESIGN
GROUP TO SERVE AS AN ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT TO THE
TOWN AND TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MARK SREBNIK
ARCI- IITECT -AIA TO SERVE AS A SECONDARY ARCHITECTURAL
CONSULTANT TO THE TOWN.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Cannon Design
Group to serve as an architectural consultant to the Town, and with Mark Srebmk Architect- AIA,
to serve as a secondary or back -up architectural consultant to the Town.
BACKGROUND:
On August 20, 2001, the Town Council authorized the preparation of Request For Proposals (RFP)
to be forwarded to architectural and urban design firms. The RFP process served to determine the
availability and cost of a contract urban design firm to provide services as all architectural consultant
and provided information for establishment of a cost recovery fee. The recommended consultant,
Cannon Design Group, was chosen from a field of seven qualified architectural /urban design firms.
Staff recommends that a second architect, Mark Srebnik, AIA, be used as a back -up in the event that
the principal consultant cannot handle projects due to time constraints, is on vacation, or has a
conflict of interest. The selection process involved review of submitted proposals, a panel interview
of the seven firms that submitted proposals, and a practical exercise for the top three candidates.
(Continued on Page 2)
�e
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ �
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: %Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development
Revised: 1/3/02 4:31 pm
Reformatted: 523/01
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
January 3, 2002
DISCUSSION:
The architectural consultant will serve as an extension of staff through the Town's application
review process. All applications requiring contract design review will be forwarded to the architect
or back -up architectural consultant for review /critique of projects. The reviewing architect will
provide evaluations and recommendations on the projects to the Planning staff. These
recommendations will be presented to the applicant through meetings with staff and can be
incorporated as conditions of approval or through plan revisions depending on the complexity of the
recommendations. The Development Review Committee (DRC) has final approval authority on
some architecture and site applications such as new residences in R -1 zones. Final decisions by the
DRC may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Other site and architecture applications, such
as new hillside homes and new commercial buildings, are reviewed by the Planning Commission.
In these cases, the goal of having the consulting architect review the plans is to refine the architecture
prior to the public hearing so the Commission can focus on issues of consistency with the General
Plan and neighborhood concerns rather than design details. The architectural consultant's comments
will be included in the staff report as appropriate, and any recommended conditions of approval will
be included.
The consulting architects will need to become highly familiar with all applicable Town guidelines,
policies and standards related to architectural and site design. The level of involvement will vary
depending on the complexity of a project. It is anticipated that the consultant will only be involved
in discussions or meetings with the applicant or project architect in the event of a conflict that isn't
able to be resolved at the staff level. The consultant will attend public meetings and make
presentations to decision making bodies as needed.
Staff will arrange meetings with the consultants and members of the Council and Planning
Commission to discuss the design review process and the members expectations of the consultant.
In addition, the consultants will meet with design professionals that do business in Los Gatos and
DRC members in order to gain greater insight into community design issues.
Applicants will be required to pay a deposit fee for architectural critique to cover the costs associated
with this type of review. Additional costs may be incurred depending on the complexity of the
project. Generally, the cost of architectural review for a hillside home will cost approximately
$ 1,500.
Cannon Design Group was determined to be the best candidate to serve as the Town's architecture
consultant for the following reasons:
® CDG has extensive experience providing architectural review and preparing design guidelines.
CDG specializes in the above two disciplines.
CDG's analysis of two sets of plans provided by the Town (practical exercise) were the most
detailed and. best organized.
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAI, APPLICATIONS
.January 3, 2002
® Good use of graphics slakes consultant's reports user friendly and easy to understand.
• Larry Cannon, principal, is both a registered architect and a certified planner.
CDC is successfully providing architectural peer review services to the cities of Cupertino,
Sunnyvale, Dublin, Albany and Pleasanton.
CGD has experience with historic preservation.
Mark Srebnik, AIA was also determined to be a highly qualified candidate. He has over 23 years
of architecture and urban design experience and has provided architectural and design services to a
number of Bay Area cities including Cupertino, Campbell, Los Altos, Santa Clara and Santa Clara
County. Mr. Srebnik was a team leader for the 1994 Los Gatos Boulevard Design Charrette and has
prepared design guidelines for several local communities includnng Los Altos, Cupertino and
Campbell.
Larry Cannon of Cannon Design Group will make a presentation to the Council at the January 7,
2002 meeting and will be available to answer questions. Mark Srebnik will also be in attendance
at the meeting.
PARALLEL PROCESS
There will be a parallel process for approximately three months following institution of the new
architectural review process. Projects that are already in progress will continue under the current
process. Applications submitted after the architectural consultant is hired will proceed under the new
process. Staff will return to the Council with necessary Zoning Ordinance amendments to support
the new design review process. The process will be refined after it is put into place and staff and the
Commission and Council are able to see what is working well and where changes would be
beneficial. The architectural consultant will also make recommendations on procedural changes that
will improve the process.
ZONING ORDINANCE:
Section 29.20.750 of the Zoning Ordinance surmnarizes the duties of the Planning Commission. In
adopting the attached resolution, the Council is providing direction to the Planning Commission that
its purview of architecture and site is limited to those areas such as privacy concerns that were not
apparent during the initial review or other matters that are brought up by the public. The resolution
also directs the Commission that it is preferable to develop conditions of approval to address issues
that surface during the public hearing rather than continuing a project and requiring an applicant to
return to the Commission with revised plans.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER DESIGN REVIEW ALTERNATIVES FOR ARCHITECTURE & SITE
APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
January 3, 2002
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing the Town
Manager to enter into agreements with Cannon design Group as the primary consultant and Mark
Srebnik, AIA, as the back -up or secondary consultant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Not applicable: this is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The intent of the deposit and fee is cost recovery. The administrative fee is to cover staff time
reviewing and coordinating the work with the architectural consultant. The recommended deposit
for projects with new commercial buildings and hillside homes is $1,500. For smaller residential
projects, the deposit would range from $500 to $1,000 depending on the complexity of the design
issues that must be addressed. These deposits are based on the estimated costs to review a single
family home in an R -I neighborhood and a new hillside residence. If the entire deposit is not used,
the balance will be refunded to the applicant.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution with contracts attached
2. Proposal from Cannon Design Group
3. Proposal from Mark Srebnik, AIA
Distribution:
Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group, 180 Harbor Drive, Suite 219, Sausalito, CA 94965
Mark Srebnik, AIA, 1644 Dallas Court, Los Altos, CA 94024
BNL:SD:mdc
N: \DEV\SNZANNE\ Council\ Report s1 FY2001- 02 \COnsultingArchdectw d
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos Town Council has determined that there is a need for
an architectural consultant; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan 2000 includes policies and implementing strategies supporting
this action; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos sent Requests for Proposals to over 40 Bay Area
architectural and urban design firms including the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the AIA; and
WHEREAS, the Town received seven proposals for architectural consulting services; and
WHEREAS, the most qualified consultants based on the proposals, interviews conducted
by Town staff and a evaluation of sites proposed for development are Cannon Design Group and
Mark Srebnik Architect -AIA; and
WHEREAS, project managers, Larry Cannon of Cannon Design Group and Mark Srebnik
of Mark Srebnik Architect -AIA have applicable experience with peer review, preparation and
interpretation of design guidelines, working with small communities, and are able to provide
architectural review services to the Town on an as needed basis,
RESOLVED, by the Town Council that the Town Manager is authorized and directed to
execute the agreements, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, for services as the primary and
secondary architectural consultants on behalf of the TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
A'T'TACHMENT I
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission is directed to defer to the
recommendations of the consulting architect when reviewing Architecture & Site applications and
to address through conditions of approval issues that are raised by the public, such as privacy
concerns or other matters that were not apparent during the initial review.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the __ day
of , 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: /s/ Randy Attaway
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N1DEV \RESOSVAr chi tect.wpd
2
21110161W •04'*" 1 1. ' 1
f 1 f i 1 . s TW7111 tLANNING COMNUSSION
1 ARCHITECTURAL
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos Town Council has determined that there is a need to
modify the Town's design review process; and
WHEREAS, a goal of the Town is to streamline the planning process; and
WHEREAS, the use of an architectural consultant will improve customer service while
evolving projects to achieve architectural excellence; and
WHEREAS, Cannon Design Group (herein referred to as the "architectural consultant") has
been lured to review the architecture for development proposals;
WHEREAS, the architectural consultant is highly qualified to review and critique
architecture and will work with applicants to design projects that are compatible with their site and
surroundings; and
RESOLVED, by the Town Council that the following policies shall govern the architectural
review process:
A. The architectural consultant will review plans and provide guidance to applicants to
ensure plans are in compliance with applicable design standards and guidelines,
specific plans and the General Plan. Reports on projects that are reviewed by the
Planning Commission will include the recommendations of the architectural
consultant and plans that have been revised to incorporate those recommendations.
B. The Planning Commission must make one of the following findings to modify the
consulting architect's recommendations:
ATTACHMENT
• That the recommendations of the consulting architect were made based on
erroneous information provided by the applicant.
• That the consulting architect made a mistake of fact.
• That there is compelling evidence, received through public testimony that
there is a privacy or other neighborhood impact to warrant plan modification.
C. The Planning Commission should give courteous regard and respect to the
professional expertise of the consulting architect. Rather than focus on the design
detail of proposed projects, the Planning Commission should look for trends in the
design of proposed projects that reflect the need for changes to the design standards.
When changes to design standards are needed, the Planning Commission should
request that staff initiate changes as appropriate and return to the Planning
Commission with revised design standards that address the areas of concern.
D. Whenever possible, the Planning Commission should develop conditions of approval
to address issues that surface during a public hearing rather than continuing an
application and requiring an applicant to return with revised plans.
0
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 4h day
Of March, 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
AT rP.CT-
Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Firzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway,
None
None
None
SIGNED:
w
NO �
tiE
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
AD 17101& SHANNON ROAD 14045 /GREENBRIER
Mr. a a e, keagainst the actions taken by Coun .i1
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, s r. cr
siea'PlTnutes regarding a Planned
Carried unanimously.
March 4, 2002
Los Gatos, California
in the form of
Goad & 14045
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS /CLARIFYING ROLES/RESOLUTION 2002 -25 (12.29 &31)
Mr. Davis, resident, spoke against the adoption of the resolution and the changes suggested. He
would prefer to see more public input.
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mrs. Decker, that Council adopt Resolution 2002 -25
_�L:LI -1 TTLt/li iTTi��• �r m--� .-.�-
NER PROGRAM DOWNTOWN (23.39 &31)
Council Comments:
r. Glickman would like both the Downtown and the Boulevard to be part of the bann
p am.
Mrs. ecker agreed, and believes that both locations should be exposed to the program.
M. Pi ski would like both areas studied and that the banners should be in both loc
Mr. Atta spoke of putting the working group together and letting it evolve, whi t the same
time being co conscious and expecting :a professionally executed program.
Council accepte d filed report on the Current Banner Program and provide rection for staff.
VIDEO PRODUCTION S EM/TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS (24.42
Mayor Attaway announ that.-this was the time and place so d to consider report on
selection of a basic, up -gra e'video production system, and au 'zation to advertise for bids
for the purchase and installatio f a video production system.
Jenny Haruyama, gave a brief repo egarding off -site on -site up- gradable video production
systems for the town.
George Sampson, KCAT manager, explai the di ences and costs between the two options.
Ray Davis requested; this system be put in pl soon as possible so that the public could have
more immediate access to the public affairs of ' wn.
Motion by Mr.:GlicZf b r. Pirzynsk1, at Council authorize the selection of an
on -site basic tip- gra ti system for e in the Town Council Chambers.
Carried unanimously
Motion by Mr. Glicd by Mr. Pirzynski, that Coun ' authorize staff to advertise
for bids for the purclation of video production syste equipment to broadcast
Town'Council meetin animously.
ail Conse s that the microphones and sound s ystem be replaced as on as possible,
then w ' ng for the acquisition of the video production equipment. The s d system to
ipati with the video equipment. Council willing to fund this request.
TTERS (25.28)
Attaway thanked everyone for their hard work on the reception for the New
Mayor Attaway closed this evening's meeting at 10:54 p.m.
C \USEU\5NE1S\DESKT0P\M OM-0 02.WPD 8
OWN �F
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 03/04/02
ITEM NO.
1 �Z
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 28, 2002
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER I
CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION GOVERNING THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS AND CLARIFYING THE ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE TOWN PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the resolution governing the design review process and clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of the Town Planning Commission and Architectural Consultant (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION:
On January 7, 2002, the Town Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter
into an agreement with Cannon Design Group to serve as the primary architectural consultant and
with Mark Srebnik, AIA, to serve as the secondary architectural consultant. The Council directed
staff to return with a separate resolution governing the design review process. The draft resolution
is Attaclmtent 1. The Planning Commission members all received a copy of the draft resolution and
had the opportunity to provide input. That input was incorporated into the resolution.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution (Attachment 1)
FISCAL IMPACT: None
BNL:SD:mdc
cc: Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group, 180 Harbor Drive, Suite 219, Sausalito, CA 94965
Mark Srebnik, AIA, 1644 Dallas Court, Los Altos, CA 94024
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: _� Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development
Revised: 2/28/02 10:45 am
Refomiatted: 5/23/0I
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CALIFORNIA
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
November 12, 2002 /Minutes
TOWN COUNCIL
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos met in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, 110
East Main Street, at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 12, 2002, in special joint session.
ROLL CALL
Present: Sandy Decker,
Joe Pirzynski,
Absent: Steven Blanton.
RLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
%n by all in attendance.
Steve Glickman,
and Mayor /Chairman Randy Attaway.
CLOSED SESSION 8j 11 V'�\
Town Attorney, Ony oI
meeting, pursuant to Governmei
Evaluation concerning the Town
future public agenda.
Pursuant to Government Code
Existing Litigation copcmve
that Council had met in Closed Session prior to this
f56.9 on 54957, regarding Public Em erformance
uncil concluded this ' will take action on a
regarding Conferenc ' Legal Counsel regarding
W. Dubray, et al. vs. City of Dublin, a erior Court of
2002057128. Council gave direction and there was no repo action
STATUS REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL - REVIEW PROCESS (01.31)
Council Comments:
Council commended the work involved with this program and supported the efforts to work with the
f applicants needs and the community's issues noting that the Planning Department was continuing to
work on improvements throughout its development review processes. Council requested updates on
the progress of these improvements to be reviewed at its next retreat with the Planning Commission.
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, to accept the status report on the
Architectural Review Process. - Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Blanton absent.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were no speakers this evening.
ATTACHMENT 5
N.-W A MARIAM RLEWMI11202- Spedal- ArcWteMmi REVIEW Process end Housing B1=MLwpd
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
F
war
1
!ps GA�Gf'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 11/12/02
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
November 8, 2002
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
CONSIDER STATUS REPORT ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PROCESS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report on the Town's architectural review process.
BACKGROUND:
On August 20, 2001 the Town Council instituted a pilot program utilizing an architectural fine to
critique and evaluate the architectural design of the proposed projects as part of the Development
Review Committee (DRC) process. Following a selection process, on January 7, 2002 the Town
Council authorized the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Cannon Design Group as the
primary architectural consultant, and Mark Srebnik, AIA, as the secondary or back -up architectural
consultant. The Council requested that staff report back on the process after a six month period.
After orientation meetings with staff and members of the Planning Commission and Council, the
architectural process commenced in March 2002.
DISCUSSION:
Larry Cannon of Cannon Design Group conducted his first review for the Town in March 2001
Since the architectural review process began, Mr. Cannon has completed review of 29 projects for
the Town, and is currently working on several projects currently in the planning process. Types of
development proposals evaluated include second story additions, new residences, commercial
addition and/or remodels, multi-family and three Planned Developments. The following table breaks
the completed architectural reviews into categories:
PREPARED BY: Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development
N:\naNSUZA�\coumflV eporo\fr2W2-o3wrcnnectuMRenm Wpd
Reviewed by: 5 ssistant Town Manager —Town Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 11/8/02 2:27 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER STATUS REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS
November 8, 2002
of Project
Number of Reviews
Approving Body
new residence (RI)
4
DRC* or Commission
new hillside residence
14
Planning Commission
second story addition
4
DRC* or Commission
Planned Developments
3
Commission/Council
multi - family (not a PD)
1
Planning Commission
commercial remodels
3
DRC*
TOTAL
29
*included notice to neighbors
The architectural consultant prepares written reports that are provided to applicants and their design
professionals, and to the Planning Commission when applicable. On occasion, meetings are held
with staff, the architectural consultant and an applicant and/or their architect to discuss
recommendations and work out solutions to design issues. The architectural review process has been
working very well, and staff does not have any recommendations for changes at this time. Feedback
on the process has been received from design professionals, residents and Planning Commissioners,
and has all been positive. The architectural review process has achieved the main objectives of
reducing the number of public hearings and freeing up the Commission's time to allow for review
of legislative actions and policy issues and conducting study sessions. The backlog of applications
waiting to be forwarded to the Planning Commission has been eliminated, and applicants no longer
have to wait three to four months to be placed on an agenda.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Council accept the report on architectural review, and that the process
continue as established.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None (architectural review is cost recovery and is paid for by applicants).
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER STATUS REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS
November 8, 2002
Attachments:
None
Distribution:
Larry Cannon, Cannon Design Group, 180 Harbor Drive, Suite 219, Sausalito, CA 94965
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
p X MEETING DATE: 3119/12
ITEM NO.
l CONSENT ITEM
s sA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 6, 2012
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
000,
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER X *, r`
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CANNON DESIGN GROUP AND RRM DESIGN GROUP TO SERVE
AS ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS TO THE TOWN.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Cannon Design Group to serve as an
architectural consultant to the Town and with RRM Design Group to serve as a secondary
architectural consultant to the Town.
BACKGROUND:
In January 2002 the Town Council approved a contract with Larry Cannon of Cannon Design Group
to serve as Consulting Architect to the Town. Since that time, the architectural review process has
become a successful component of the planning process. The architectural consultant serves as an
extension of staff through the Town's development review process. All applications requiring
contract design review are forwarded to the Consulting Architect for review and critique of projects.
The architect provides evaluations and recommendations on projects to Planning staff. These
recommendations are then presented to the applicant through meetings with staff and can be
incorporated as conditions of approval or through plan revisions, depending on the complexity and
significance of the recommendations.
The Town distributed a Request for Proposal in November 2011 and received nine proposals. Staff
conducted interviews with five qualified candidates in December 2011 and determined that Cannon
Design Group and RRM Design Group are the most qualified to serve as architectural consultants to
the Town.
PREPARED BY: 4endie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: 163 Assistant Town Manager Ow Town Attorney Finance
14ADMIXTC REPORTS' 2012t ComultingAmhitectConllnets .D31912.doe Reformatted: 6 /30/02ReAsed: 3 /6/12 9:16 AM
ATTACHMENT
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSULTING ARCI =CT CONTRACTS
March G, 2012
DISCUSSION:
The Consulting Architect serves in a similar capacity to other Town development review consultants
such as the consulting arborist, geotechnical and environmental consultants. Typical tasks that the
Consulting Architect may provide include the following:
• Site design review, and review and critique the architecture for development applications,
including addition, remodels, and new buildings
• Evaluation of plans and site for neighborhood compatibility and compliance with applicable
design standards and guidelines, specific plans and the General Plan
• Development of design recommendations and preparation of reports summarizing findings and
recommendations
• Consultation with staff and/or applicants to discuss recommendations or project specific issues
• Special studies or projects, including, but not limited to: preparation of a checklist for content
of architectural plans for application packets
• Attendance at public meetings as needed
QUALIFICATIONS:
Cannon Design Group was determined to be the best candidate to continue serving as the Town's
architecture consultant for the following reasons:
• Extensive experience providing architectural review and preparing design guidelines
• Specializes in architectural review and preparation of design guidelines
• Successful provision of architectural review services to the Town since 2002
• Good use of graphics makes consultant's reports user friendly and easy to understand
• Larry Cannon, principal, is both a registered architect and a certified planner
• Good understanding of Town's codes, policies and design guidelines (helped author the
Commercial Design Guidelines and Residential Design Guidelines)
• Experience with historic preservation
RRM Design Group was also determined to be a highly qualified candidate. RRM has been in
business for 36 years and is a multi - disciplinary firm that includes planning, design, and engineering
professionals. RRM's qualifications include the following:
• Extensive experience in the preparation of design guidelines
• Variety of design review experience
• Familiarity with the Town of Los Gatos (consultant for North 40 Specific Plan and Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan updates)
• Provision of quality reports and graphics
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSULTING ARCHITECT CONTRACTS
March 6, 2012
FISCAL IMPACT:
Architectural review for development proposals are paid for by the project applicant. The consultant
review deposit is $1,500. The actual cost is based on the scope of work and the consultant's fee
schedule (see Attachments 1 and 2). An administrative fee of 10% is also charged by the Town. The
purpose of the administrative fees is to reimburse the Town's cost of administering the peer review.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Town Manager to execute agreements with Cannon
Design Group and RRM Design Group to serve as consulting architects under the supervision of the
Director of Community Development.
Attachments:
1. Cannon Design contract
2. RRM Design Group contract
Distribution:
Larry L. Cannon, Cannon Design Group, 700 Larkspur Landing Cr., Ste. 199, Larkspur, CA 94939
Jami Williams, RRM Design Group, 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
WRR:SD:ct
DATE:
TO:
Ie&
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 19, 2012
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 3/19(12
ITEM NO.
DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WITH CANNON DESIGN GROUP AND RRM DESIGN GROUP TO SERVE
AS ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS TO THE TOWN.
DISCUSSION:
With regard to the pending agreements for consulting architect services, the existing Consulting
Architect, Larry Cannon, will continue to be the primary service provider. RRM Design Group will
be a secondary or back -up consultant to fill -in during times when Mr. Cannon is on vacation or
unable to conduct a requested review due to work load. Most of the Town's development review
contract positions include a primary and back -up firm, including environmental review, arborist and
traffic consultants.
Attachments:
None
WRR:SD:ct
tj
PREPARED BY: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town
Attorney Finance
N:1DEV\TC REPORTS12012\CmsWti gAmhitedCo nLU -031912dsk.dm Reformatted: 5130102Revised 3119112 10:40 AM
ru r, i>* r' PATMENT
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is dated for identification this'%-0{'�" day of April 2012 and is made by and
between TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a California municipal corporation, ( "Town ") and Larry
Cannon, CANNON DESIGN GROUP, ("Consultant"), whose address is 700 Larkspur Landing
Circle, Suite 199, Larkspur, CA 94939. This Agreement is made with reference to the following
facts.
I. RECITALS
1.1 Town has a need for architectural consulting services for evaluation of development
proposals within the Town of Los Gatos.
1.2 Town desires to engage a qualified architect to review architectural and site design for
development applications; revise design standards and guidelines as needed; consult with
and meet with staff, applicants and decision makers; and attend public meetings as needed.
1.3 Consultant represents and affirms that he is qualified and willing to perform the desired
work pursuant to this Agreement.
iT. AGREEMENTS
2.1 Scone of Services. Consultant shall provide the services listed below.
Administrative Duties
When needed by Town, provide architectural and site design review for development
applications and make recommended changes as needed based on the Town's approved
design standards and guidelines. This shall include evaluating plans for development
proposals, reviewing site layout and architectural plans, conducting site visits, and/or
identifying design recommendations and conditions of approval.
a. When needed by Town, conduct site design review and review and critique the
architecture for development applications, including addition and remodels and new
buildings.
b. When needed by Town, conduct field investigations and develop recommendations
for compliance with applicable design standards and guidelines, specific plans and
General Plan, and prepare reports summarizing findings and recommendations
(typically with a 10 to 15 day turnaround).
C. When needed by Town, consult with staff and /or applicants to discuss
recommendations or project specific issues.
Page 1 of 7
d. When needed by Town, conduct special studies or projects including but not limited
to: updating the Town's design standards and guidelines and preparation of a
checklist for content of architectural plans for application packets.
e. When needed by Town, attend meetings with Town staff, public officials,
community leaders, developers, contractors, and the general public.
f. When needed by Town, advise, support, and assist Town departments, committees,
commissions, and Town Council. In addition, act as a liaison between Town and
Federal, State, and Regional agencies.
g. When needed by Town, attend Town Council, Planning Commission, and special
study session meetings when project applications with architectural or design issues
are being considered; architectural review processes or a design related document is
being discussed,
h. As requested by Town, provide copies of draft and final draft work products of
reports and studies prepared for Town. Consultant shall provide electronic file
copies of these documents as needed.
Other Miscellaneous Services
The Town may occasionally have the need for other services not specifically listed in this
document that the consultant has the necessary experience and capabilities to provide.
Town may authorize consultant to perform such selected services on an as- needed basis.
2.2 Time of Performance. Consultant shall perform the services described in this agreement as
follows: The services of Consultant are for a five year period that will commence upon the
execution of the contract. Town retains the option with the mutual consent of Town
Manager and Consultant to renew the contract for a maximum of three optional years.
Should Town not renew a contract, the award and authorization of the contract shall
automatically expire. Town shall give Consultant at least 30 days' notice, prior to the
cancellation or expiration of the contract.
2.3 Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes,
ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant
represents and warrants to Town that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and
approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its
profession. Consultant shall maintain a Town of Los Gatos business license pursuant to
Chapter 14 of the Code of the Town of Los Gatos.
2.4 Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons
necessary to perform the services under this Agreement.
Page 2 of 7
2.5 Informationaeport Handling. All documents fiunished to Consultant by the Town and all
reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the
Town's property and shall be delivered to the Town upon the completion of Consultant's
services or at the Town's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits
prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services
pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the Town to the public, and the
Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any
individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the Town without the written
consent of the Town before such release. The Town acknowledges that the reports to be
prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a
defined project, and Town's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the
Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at Town's risk, unless
Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. Town further agrees that it will not
appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed
in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.
2.6 Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed the
established hourly rates, as set forth in the Fee Schedule (Exhibit A), which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Payment shall be based upon Town approval
of each task.
2.7 Billine. Billing shall be monthly by invoice within thirty (30) days of the rendering of the
service and shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom
at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent
materials shall be submitted for Town review, even if only in partial or draft form.
Payment shall be net thirty (30) days. All invoices and statements to the Town shall be
addressed as follows:
Invoices:
Town of Los Gatos
Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 655
Los Gatos, CA 95031 -0655
2.8 Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for
not less than three years following completion of the work under this Agreement.
Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the Town at the
Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the Town.
2.9 Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are
unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or
subcontracted without the written consent of the Town.
Page 3 of 7
2.10 Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the
work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and
not an agent or employee of the Town. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain
any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to Town employee(s). With
prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement
by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or
transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought
regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall
be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in
such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is
brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or
wrongdoing.
2.11 Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities are solely
to the Town. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the
Town of Los Gatos. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual
member of the Staff or management of the Town or its representatives nor shall it enter into
any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently
and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the Town in the
subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest,
should it discover it has done so and shall, at the Town's sole discretion, divest itself of such
interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it
does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If
after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct
or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant
shall promptly notify Town of this employment relationship, and shall, at the Town's sole
discretion, sever any such employment relationship.
2.12 Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity
employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment
opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate
against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color,
race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national
origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
M. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
3.1 Minimum Scope of hisurance:
L Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract,
General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an
amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit
per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
Page 4 of 7
ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an
Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to
an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single
limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
iii. Consultant shall provide to the Town all certificates of insurance, with
original endorsements effecting coverage. Consultant agrees that all
certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Town
before work commences.
General Liability:
i. The Town, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered
as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on
behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant,
premises owned or used by the Consultant.
ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects
the Town, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or
self- insurances maintained by the Town, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not
contribute with it.
iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not
affect coverage provided to the Town, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers.
iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of
the insurer's liability.
3.2 All Coverages. Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that
coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, reduced in coverage or in limits except
after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has
been given to the Town. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all
times during the term of this agreement with the Town Clerk.
3.3 Workers' Compensation. It is understood that Consultant currently has no employees. If
employees are hired in the future, Consultant shall obtain and maintain Workers'
Compensation insurance as required by California law and shall provide evidence of such
policy to the Town. Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant
provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees.
Page 5 of 7
3.4 Indemnification. The Consultant shall save, keep, hold harmless and indemnify and defend
the Town its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities,
penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise or be set up because
of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of
performing work which may be occasioned by a willful or negligent act or omissions of the
Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant.
IV. GENERAL TERMS
4.1 Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder
shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that parry may have hereunder, nor
does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a
subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
4.2 Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and
construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this
Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara.
4.3 Termination of Agreement. The Town and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate
this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen days (15) written notice
of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the Town all
plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such
termination, Town shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the
maximum contract price as the work delivered to the Town bears to completed services
contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which
event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and
circumstances involved in such termination.
4.4 Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this
Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the Town and the Consultant.
4.5 Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, including costs of appeal.
4.6 Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if
mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To Town:
Wendie Rooney
Community Development Director
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Fax: (408) 354 -7593
Phone: (408) 354 -6874
E -mail: wrooney @losgatosca.gov
To Consultant:
Larry Cannon
Cannon Design Group
700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 199
Larkspur, CA 94939
Fax: (415) 331 -3797
Phone: (415) 331 -3795
E -mail: cdgplan@pacbetl.net
Page 6 of 7
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as
Consultant designates in writing to Town.
4.7 Order of Precedence. In the event of any conflict, contradiction, or ambiguity between the
terms and conditions of this Agreement in respect to the Products or Services and any
attachments to this Agreement, then the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall
prevail over attachments or other writings.
4.8 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibit A, constitutes the complete and
exclusive statement of the Agreement between the Town and Consultant, No terms,
conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement,
unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on
either party.
In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town and Consultant have executed this Agreement.
Town of Los Gatos
Greg Larson, Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
Department Approval:
—(L241n "PP,��nQ� —
)Vendie Rooney
Community Development Director
ATTEST:
Town of Los Gatos
ff 0 F1 N YFFREIR,
Clerk Administrator
Consultant:
Approved as to Form:
•U
Judith •opp
Town orney
Page 7 of 7
ARCHITECTURE . PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
FEE SC14EDULE
(Effective May 1, 2012)
personnel
Larry Caanon $135 per hour
Reimbursable Ex_peases
Direct Cost plus 15%
tYI'� lm9t Fxptum
$0.80 per aille
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGP.AN@PACBELLNET
Proposal
ATTACHMENT 7
Cannon Design Group 180 Harbor Drive Suite 219 Sausalito, California 415.331 -3795
PROJECT APPROACH
Peer review can be a sensitive undertaking. jokingly, I have
Suggested Approach
often likened the process to that often seen on the bumper
The following approach is one that has seemed to work
sticker.
well.
Never try to teach apig how to sing - it is a mane of your time and
1. An initial meeting including the architectural consult-
it annoys the pig.
ant, Town staff, the applicant and their design pro -
While design review can often be challenging, it is, of
fessionals to discuss the site, program and initial de-
course, never a waste of time. It does, however, have the po-
sign concepts.
tennal to annoy a number of people including applicants, their
This is an optional step and depends on the compkxi of Ybe
design professionals, and neighbors of projects who are un-
pr ject and the sennkvity of the pryiect in its neighborhood
able to achieve all of the mitigation measures or design changes
context.
they might desire. In addition, applicants are frequently re-
2. A reconnaissance of the site and, where appropriate,
spected members of the community with a long history in the
assembly of contextual photographs.
Town's growth and change.
This may also be an aptional task In Cupertino, I wit the
The challenge is in working in a respectful and non - judge -
site only for very sensitive pr jedr, orfor sites that bane unique
mental way on each project to achieve the best result possible
cbaractenskcs .
for the Town while accommodating as much as possible the
3. A discussion between staff and the architectural con -
applicant's reasonable goals. This requires some careful listen-
sultant to identify any special issues or concerns.
ing, mutual respect for a variety of opinions, and a commit-
meat to seek fresh solutions.
4. Preliminary review of the project with a summary
The problems that show up most frequently include the
letter to staff identifying planning and design issues.
following:
When appropriate, I prepare overlay diagrams to sug-
• Land prices that require more development on a par-
gest one or more alternative approaches to resolving
individual concerns. I try to limit these to conceptual
cel than is consistent with the scale of the surround-
ideas, but in some cases, my city clients have asked
ing area.
for more specific recommendations when there is
° Residential applicants determined to build as large a
doubt concerning the architect's ability or commit -
home as possible for resale value.
ment to deliver a satisfactory solution.
° Applicants who put a lot of time, emotional energy,
Some examples of these review letters follow this page.
and dollars into a project design before getting ad-
5. The next step is variable. Normally, staff forwards
equate feedback from the staff and from the review
the letter along with any additional comments to the
and approval bodies,
applicant for review and revisions to the design.
Developers who do not allow their design profes-
Sometimes it has been appropriate to have a meet -
sionals an opportunity to explore an adequate num-
mg /work session with the applicant to discuss the
ber of planning and design approaches to difficult
concerns and perhaps reach some preliminary agree-
sites.
ment as to direction.
Design professionals who lock into a design very early,
6. In many cases, my clients have instructed the
and have a difficult time in putting any fresh thought
applicant's architect, with the applicant's concurrence,
into potential alternative solutions.
to work directly with me to resolve design issues and
° Planning and design approaches that optimize inter -
find acceptable solutions. This has been done through
nal function, economic return, or owner desires, but
fax exchange of drawings, telephone conversations
that fail to adequately take into account the context
and direct meetings where necessary. In all cases, I
of the site and the expectations of the immediate
have kept the city staff informed. This is up to the
neighbors and the community at large.
Town, and is obviously a matter of city staff and
The approach to peer review differs in each community
their planning commissions developing a level of trust
in my judgement, but when it has been utilized it has
in which CDG provides those services. In some, reviews are
substantially reduced the number of meetings and
made and advice given to staff with infrequent or no contact
design iterations.
with the applicant. In others, CDG is charged with the
responsiblity of resolving all design issues before the project
will be scheduled for hearing.
ATTACHMENT 7
Cannon Design Group 180 Harbor Drive Suite 219 Sausalito, California 415.331 -3795
I ` i Proposal
Cnn..nn ilamon (:�n„n 1 Rfl Ha.h.,r T7rive Spite 91 9 Saucalitn. California 415.331 -3795
7. Once revisions are made to the design and it is re-
submitted, I generally review the project again. Of-
ten this is enough. However, on some complex
projects or in cases where the applicant or their de-
sign professionals are unable or unwilling to make
satisfactory modifications, the process can go through
additional cycles.
8. In the case of Pleasanton, I generally attend the Plan-
ning Commission public hearing for all projects that
I review. In the other jurisdictions, such as Cupertino
and Sunnyvale, I do not attend unless there is a feel-
ing that the Commission may wish some additional
input at the hearing.
Cnn..nn ilamon (:�n„n 1 Rfl Ha.h.,r T7rive Spite 91 9 Saucalitn. California 415.331 -3795