Desk Item.Objective Standards
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development
Director, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/15/2022 ITEM NO: 11 DESK ITEM
DATE: November 15, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Objective Standards for
Qualifying Multi-Family and Residential Mixed-Use Developments.
Location: Town-wide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.
REMARKS:
One Councilmember asked a couple of questions. Responses to each question are provided
below in italics:
• Page 4 of 33 - Bicycle Access: Was there much discussion about how bike parking
will be accommodated and is there any flexibility on how it looks or how it can be
“broken up”?
The Planning Commission did not discuss specifics of how bicycle parking would be
provided, except to include the requirement that it be located within 50 feet of one of
the primary building entrances. Given that the number of parking spaces is only
other aspect that was addressed, there would be flexibility on how it looks or where
it would be provided.
• Page 9 of 33 - Private recreation space versus community recreation space: I noticed
in the redlined version that the private recreation space was decreased from 200 to
120 and the community recreation space from 200 to 100. Is 120 what is required
for the N40? I need a visual example of how much space that is for a unit.
The Planning Commission provided direction that the requirements for both of these
should be reduced, in response to public comments received from the local
Architects. The requirements in the N40 Specific Plan include 100 square feet of
common open space per condominium, and 200 square feet per unit for other types
of multi-family residential. Town Code Sections 29.10.065 includes the following for
PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 – Senate Bill 9 DATE: November 10, 2022
REMARKS (continued):
residential condominiums: 200 square feet of private open space for ground floor units
and 120 square feet for above the ground floor, plus at least 100 square feet of
community recreation space per dwelling unit.
• Page 16 of 27 - Townhomes or rowhouses shall have no more than six contiguous
units in any single building: Was the intent of this standard to limit the actual
number of units or to minimize mass? There may be instances where you have 2
separate units - one upstairs and one downstairs In what may be the mass of 1 single
townhome and I would have to prevent that from being built if massing is the
primary concern.
This standard was developed from an existing standard in the Affordable Housing
Design Guidelines for Townhouses. During the subcommittee review of existing
standards and guidelines, this guideline was identified as one that should be made
objective and included in the draft Objective Standards. The intent is to address
massing and articulation.
An excerpt from the Affordable Housing Design Guidelines is on the next page.
PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 – Senate Bill 9 DATE: November 10, 2022
REMARKS (continued):
Attachment 17 includes additional Councilmember comments. Attachment 18 includes
additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, November 10, 2022, and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 15, 2022.
PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 – Senate Bill 9 DATE: November 10, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously with November 15, 2022 Staff Report:
1. Draft Objective Standards
2. Draft Objective Standards with Changes Red-Lined
3. Appendix for Draft Objective Standards – Evaluation of Existing Developments
4. Draft Resolution with Exhibit 1
5. June 22, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits 1-4
6. June 22, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report with Exhibits 5-7
7. June 22, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report with Exhibit 8
8. June 22, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
9. August 24, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits 9-12
10. August 24, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report with Exhibit 13
11. August 24, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report with Exhibits 14-15
12. August 24, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
13. September 14, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits 16-18
14. September 14, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report with Exhibits 19-20
15. September 14, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
16. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September 14, 2022, and 11:00
a.m., Thursday, November 10, 2022
Attachments with this Desk Item:
17. Councilmember Comments
18. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, November 10, 2022, and 11:00
a.m., Tuesday, November 15, 2022
From: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 4:36 PM
To: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Nicolle
Burnham <NBurnham@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Objective standards and bike parking
Good afternoon,
First of all, I am hugely appreciative of the strong collaboration between the consultants, staff, planning
commission, residents and architects to produce the objective standards we are preparing to review
tomorrow night. So many different areas have been discussed, refined and improved. I think the extra
time taken by the planning commission to get more input has been worth it.
That said, there is one area I think was left open and could lead to unintended consequences.
Bike parking is too vague and could possibly lead to large areas of empty bike racks.
Without specifying high-quality bike racks and protected bike parking, we could end up with a tract of 50
mostly empty bike racks for a 50-unit building.
Looking at the bike parking for new multifamily construction, both Santa Cruz and Palo Alto have similar
requirements, and spell out the type of bike parking that will lead to safe, secure, usable bike
parking. Allowing a builder to just put in front-wheel bike racks will force residents to keep their bikes in
their condos or apartments, defeating the point of the mandated bike parking.
I really like the Santa Cruz requirements below.
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/82030/637383695642570000
From Santa Cruz:
24.12.250 BIKE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
1.Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided for any new building, addition or enlargement of an existing
building, or for any change in the occupancy, except when the project property is located within the
Parking District Number 1.
2.Bike Spaces and Type Required.
Bicycle parking facilities’ quantity and type shall be provided in accordance with the following schedule,
with fractional quantity requirements for bike parking over one-half to be rounded up.
Each bicycle parking space shall be no less than six feet long by two feet wide and shall have a bicycle
rack system in compliance with the bike rack classifications listed in subsection (3). Fractional amounts
of the type of parking facilities may be shifted as desired: Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required
Classification
Multifamily residential (3 or more units)
•1 space per unit 100% Class 1 garages or secure accessible indoor areas count
•One space per four units Class 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2020-21 9
ATTACHMENT 17
• a. “Class 1 bicycle facility” means a locker, individually locked enclosure or supervised area
within a building providing protection for each bicycle therein from theft, vandalism and
weather.
• b. “Class 2 bicycle facility” means a stand or other device constructed so as to enable the user
to secure by locking the frame and one wheel of each bicycle parked therein.
• Racks must be easily usable with both U-locks and cable locks. Racks should support the bikes in
a stable upright position so that a bike, if bumped, will not fall or roll down. Racks that support a
bike primarily by a wheel, such as standard “wire racks,” are damaging to wheels and thus are
not acceptable. (See Bikes are Good Business design guidelines.)
4. Location and Design of Facilities.
• a. Bicycle parking should be located in close proximity to the building’s entrance and clustered in
lots not to exceed sixteen spaces each.
• b. Bicycle parking facilities shall support bicycles in a stable position without damage to wheels,
frame or other components.
• c. Bicycle parking facilities should be located in highly visible, well-lighted areas to minimize
theft and vandalism.
• d. Bicycle parking facilities shall be securely anchored to the lot surface so they cannot be easily
removed and shall be of sufficient strength to resist vandalism and theft.
• e. Bicycle parking facilities shall not impede pedestrian or vehicular circulation, and should be
harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Parking facilities should be
incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture.
• f. Racks must not be placed close enough to a wall or other obstruction so as to make use
difficult. There must be sufficient space (at least twenty-four inches) beside each parked bike
that allows access. This access may be shared by adjacent bicycles. An aisle or other space shall
be provided to bicycles to enter and leave the facility. This aisle shall have a width of at least six
feet to the front or rear of a bike parked in the facility.
• g. Paving is not required, but the outside ground surface shall be finished or planted in a way
that avoids mud and dust.
• h. Bike parking facilities within auto parking areas shall be separated by a physical barrier to
protect bicycles from damage by cars, such as curbs, wheel stops, poles or other similar
features.
Thank you,
Maria
Maria Ristow
Vice Mayor, Los Gatos Town Council
November 14, 2022
From: Lee Quintana
To: Mayor Rennie and Town Councilmembers
Re: Desk Item for Agenda Item #11: Draft Objective Standards
Mayor and Town Council.
The following are my comments on the much improved version of the Draft Objective Standards
Comments:
Why is SB 9 Ordinance codified into the Town Code, but the Objective Standards are not? Both
the Town’s Draft Objective Standards and theTown’s SB 9 Ordinance are on the Council
Agenda tonight. Agenda Item #5, the SB 9 Ordinance will be codified into the Town Code;
however, Agenda Item #11, the Draft Objective Standards which implement SB 167, SB 35,
and SB 330, will be adopted by Resolution.
Modify the Title to read:: Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and
Residential Mixed Use Projects.
Page 1: Incorporate by reference: Add links to the additional relevant objective standards
contained the listed documents that apply to the Draft Objective Standards
Last paragraph: Replace with a statement similar to the language used in the SB 9 Ordinance
such as: Applications for a multifamily housing development or a mixed use residential
development may be processed either using:
○These objective standards through a ministerial review and approval process, or
○The Town’s discretionary approval process, in which case the objective
standards contained within would not apply.
Page 2: Key Terms: Suggest deleting the terms Community recreation space, and Private
recreation space and replacing them with Community Outdoor Space and Private Outdoor
Space in Key Terms and through the Objective Standards
A.5.1: Add language to allow for additional and greater setbacks that might be required to
accommodate a sloped entry into an underground parking garage.
A.7.2b: Add a requirement for landscaping between the trees
A.10.1: Is there a minimum square footage required for a space to be counted towards
landscaping?
Page 2 Comments on Objective Standards from Lee Quintana
ATTACHMENT 18
A.1.b: Last sentence cannot shall not
A.10.b.ii: Why doesn't this also apply to ground floor space?
A.1.ci: Should a minimum area of common open space in a mixed use residential development
be reserved solely for the use of the residents?
Figure B.1.c and Figure 3.1e Delete the duplicate figure and the figure of courtyard
Figure B.3.1: Add legend for Figure B.3.1 or is the intent to delete this figure?
Figure B 3.2: Is this figure missing?
Page 27: Add numbers for these figures
B.4.3: Should items that are easily removed such as window boxes, lattice, sconce lighting and
change in paint color should be included in this list. Is including awnings encouraging
architecture by awnings?
Page 29: Delete figure with columns
B4.9.b: What is a storefront bay?
B4.12.c: What is the a minimum square footage requirement for the common open space
Thank you for your consideration.