Attachment 4 - April 26, 2023 Planning Commission Addendum Report with Exhibit 3PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/26/2023
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: April 25, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Forward a Recommendation to the Town Council on Modifications to the
Town Height Pole and Netting Policy for Additions and New Construction.
The Proposed Amendments to Town Policy are Not Considered a Project
Under the California Environmental Quality Act. Project Location: Town
Wide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 3 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 21, 2023, and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 25, 2023.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the April 26, 2023, Staff Report:
1.Current Story Pole Policy
2.Story Pole Installer Input
Received with this Addendum Report:
3.Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 21, 2023, and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, April 25, 2023
ATTACHMENT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Bess Wiersema
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 1:06 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Joel Paulson
Cc: Gary Kohlsaat; Tony Jeans; Tom Sloan; Jennifer Kretschmer; Louie Leu; Noel Cross; JAY PLETT
ARCHITECT
Subject: Feedback from Local Architects RE: Story Poles
Importance: High
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Jennifer - thanks for reaching out to us, below you will find a summary of our thoughts and
concerns. I believe you are sending over info in some sort of staff report today, and we hope
this can be included. We are doing our best to get you feedback in a timely fashion- no small
task for a group of busy folks - and I am sure you and your team feel the same! Via emails, calls,
and some meetings, we (those attached to this email in the CC line) concur on the talking points
below. There may also be individuals that have additionally reached out separately or met with
Planning to air other concerns, or provide greater detail on certain topics. It is our intent to cull
our professional experience and logic around matters Town reaches out on in a concise format
so you are not bombarded with Indvidual notes, emails, and meetings. Hopefully this will help
you from a timing standpoint - and we hope that PC understands that is a united and thoughtful
response by all of us together.
Local architects have a concern about WHY the story pole plan is being revised, especially as we
understand that Town is understaffed, and looking to streamline the permit process. While we
all are resolved to producing and dealing with this portion of the Planning process, we agree
that the policy should be revised - to simplify it, creating less work and cost for both our team
and yours, not create more work and excessive costs to our mutual clients, the residents of our
Town. It's odd to us that this is a focus over other, more pertinent and far-reaching items we
summarize at the end.
We would argue that:
•story poles are more often hurtful rather than helpful, as they are unsightly, lacking
character, and often to not accurately define the finished product as related to bulk and
mass (nor grading, site retaining walls, other built elements that are architectural
features such as stairs, raised planters, terraces, etc. are not represented - this is
especially egregious in Hillside projects
•the current story pole process is an overreach: no other local township requires a drawn
out process of having a pole plan reviewed and approved prior to install - why not trust
the professionals that they are doing there jobs accurately - requiring certification of the
poles is plenty to guarantee they are complete and accurate
•the requirement that pole plans and signage are reviewed and approved prior to being
able to install creates further timeline issues - the industry is impacted, and pole plans
are not reviewed by planners until the project is complete, from a planning process
standpoint, therefor further delaying the overall process
EXHIBIT 3
• we estimate the creating pole plans and story poles install / certification often adds
approximately $20K (even more if they have to be adjusted, redone, etc. due to
weather, modifications requested at PC, by planners, etc.) to the permit processing
portion of the process, not to mention months of time
• story pole plans have too much detail in them, and become more confusing to the
layperson when houses have more architectural detail in roof design such as nested
hips, dormers, etc., further creating confusion about what the real, final design is all
about
• ironically the orange netting has an LRV of approximately 44 (and higher with the neon
construction orange color required), which is in direct conflict to Hillside requirements,
creating even more issues related to actual visibility
• story poles can damage existing structures when placed for an addition over an existing
home, especially with tiled roofs
• no single story new home should be story poled, regardless of location
• no single story addition should be story poled
• no story poles should be required if there are added roof elements to a single or two
story home that sit within the overall massing the existing roof (such as new dormers)
• story pole plans should be simplified, showing the overall main ridges only
• there should be an option to not require story poles if immediate neighbors agree that
they are not necessary - often neighbors do not what these unsightly poles flopping
around, creating an ugly nuisance in their neighborhood - well designed and managed
projects should have an opt-out
• an option to create accurate 3D images that are keyed to simple main ridgeline datum
points should be available, and would more accurately represent the final product to all
parties
We believe it is all of our goal to streamline the permit process and create well designed homes
that enhance our community. Story poles only create an unsightly nuisance, that more often
creates fear around a project than accurately represents it. They are time consuming and
expensive. The current approval process, and the suggestion that almost every portion of the
roof must be shown creates more confusing lines for everyone to look at.
There are far more important tasks we believe the Town needs to address related
development, and we are happy to help mobilize as a group to provide support for this:
• Most importantly PRC 4290 continues to have a significant negative impact to
residential housing and lots, and its interpretation is inconsistent with most of the rest
of the state, creating extreme hardship and often destroying entire projects, even on
lots deemed legal, buildable lots, that sit within normal neighborhoods that have been
annexed into the Town from County not to mention the even more impacted Hillside
neighborhoods
• the visibility discussion in Hillside remains unaddressed and is inconsistent with what we
believe the intent is, also requiring an excessive amount of work and time like Story
Poles
• the recent overturn of the gas ban in the 9th Circuit Court, and the Town's unnecessary
(and out of sync with other local jurisdictions, even SC County) full ban rather than a
stepped process that allows for gas to remain for a limited number of appliances / use
will only continue to create more unsafe and uninspected "after permit" work related to
re-installing gas, or adding freestanding propane tanks; we also anticipate more appeals
which will take more time and energy for all of us, creating further inconsistency and a
culture of haves/ have-nots
Thank you!
Bess Wiersema
principal + owner
From: Adam Mayer
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2023 10:18 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #3 (4/26/23)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Director Paulson, Planning Staff & Planning Commission,
As an architectural professional, I do not see the point of story poles, especially if a
proposed development meets all the local zoning and height limit requirements. I agree with the
assessment Los Altos made in recently removing their story pole requirement during their Housing
Element process:
"...they found that the story pole requirement added subjectivity, extended the review process of all
development, and added additional cost for a project whereas their other requirements for renderings
and 3D Modeling could effectively provide the relationship of the proposed building heights."
Instead of story poles, I envision requiring a proposed development site to feature signage with 3D
renderings within the context of neighboring buildings (perhaps with heights called out) so that the
public can get a more accurate visual.
In the future, proposed developments could even offer the ability for curious neighbors to use
augmented reality headsets to see what the actual building would look like on its site (as opposed to a
collection of rods and netting, which don't do a great job of representing what a building will ultimately
look like, and in some cases cause safety hazards as noted in the staff report).
At the very least, I suggest removing the story pole requirement for single-family residential projects
within the height limit. However, if a project asks for a height variance, then story poles could be
required to understand how tall the proposed home will be beyond the height limit.
On a professional level, story poles are generally an added burden to the design process. The time and
financial resources developing story pole plans could be better used to design a better building and
make more accurate 3D renderings for visual representation.
Thanks,
Adam Mayer
--
Adam N. Mayer AIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP
95129
studio-ama.com