Loading...
Staff Report.Objective Standards with attachments and Desk Item PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty Associate Planner Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Public Works 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 DATE: November 10, 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. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adoption of a resolution establishing Objective Standards for qualifying multi-family and residential mixed-use developments. BACKGROUND: The Town of Los Gatos has developed Draft Objective Standards (Attachment 1) for the review of qualifying multi-family and mixed-use development applications. This effort is in response to State legislation [Senate Bill (SB) 167, SB 35, and SB 330] requiring jurisdictions to adopt objective standards and to implement them in a streamlined review of qualifying housing projects such as multi-family and residential mixed-use developments. Objective standards are defined under State law as, “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal” (California Government Code, Section 65913.4). The purpose of adopting objective standards is to: • Comply with recent State housing legislation; • Implement streamlined and ministerial review processes for qualifying housing projects; • Ensure that these qualifying projects align with the Town’s expectations and vision to maintain and support the character of the Town; • Provide a set of clear criteria to guide development; and • Establish an objective framework by which a qualifying project will be evaluated. PAGE 2 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): On November 5, 2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2019-053 (Exhibit 1 of Attachment 5) to authorize application for, and receipt of, SB 2 Planning Grant Program funds, including execution of an agreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by the Town Manager. Planning staff submitted an application with a proposal to develop objective standards for the review of qualifying housing development applications. The Town received approval of the application and entered into an agreement with HCD to receive reimbursable grant funding for the proposed scope of work. On November 20, 2020, staff released a request for qualifications (RFQ) to provide services for preparation of objective standards for the review of qualifying housing development applications as provided in the Town of Los Gatos SB 2 Planning Grant Program application. Staff received proposals from four firms. After reviewing the submittals and conducting interviews, staff concluded that M-Group planning consultants provided the best fit, capacity, and professional expertise for the proposed scope of work. On March 16, 2021, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute an agreement with M-Group for the proposed scope of work. The project initiation phase included review of State legislation and existing Town guidelines and standards, and collation of feedback received during five meetings with the Planning Commission subcommittee between July and December 2021. On February 22, 2022, staff conducted the first of two community engagement meetings to gather feedback from residents and stakeholders. On May 12, 2022, a preliminary draft of the objective standards was presented and discussed at a second community engagement meeting. A summary of the feedback received at the community engagement meetings is included as Exhibit 2 of Attachment 5. Based on the feedback from the Planning Commission subcommittee and the community, staff and M-Group developed Draft Objective Standards for consideration by the Planning Commission (Exhibit 3 of Attachment 5). On June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the Draft Objective Standards, reviewed the document, and provided input to staff on recommended modifications (see Verbatim Minutes in Attachment 8). The item was continued to a future meeting to allow staff time to prepare responses to the input received and to prepare a revised Draft Objective Standards document. PAGE 3 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): On August 24, 2022, the Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the revised Draft Objective Standards (Exhibit 9 of Attachment 9). A representative from the local architect community was present and provided verbal comments on the Draft Objective Standards. The item was continued to a future meeting to allow the architect community time to prepare written comments on the Draft Objective Standards document for Planning Commission consideration (see Verbatim Minutes in Attachment 12). Staff met with the group of local architects on September 1, 2022, to answer questions and facilitate input. On September 14, 2022, the Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the latest Draft Objective Standards, as well as written comments from the local architect community (Exhibit 16 of Attachment 13). Staff provided written responses to the public comments and architect comments within and attached to the Addendum Report for Planning Commission’s consideration (Exhibit 19 of Attachment 14). Planning Commission discussed the written comments and staff’s responses, and suggested edits in their recommendation of approval to Town Council (see Verbatim Minutes in Attachment 15). DISCUSSION: On September 14, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, listened to testimony, and reviewed and discussed each of the public comments, architect comments, and previous Commissioner comments received throughout this process. The Planning Commission made several recommendations based on these comments, which are summarized below and incorporated into the revised Draft Objective Standards document (Attachment 1). The drafted edits based on Planning Commission direction are shown in track changes in Attachment 2. The recommendations are summarized in the order that they appear in the document. A. Introduction The Introduction section of the Draft Objective Standards document includes the Purpose and Applicability, Organization, and Key Terms sections. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation, staff incorporated each of these within the revised Draft Objective Standards document as described below: Purpose and Applicability. Comments were received from the public regarding the organization of the Purpose and Applicability section and the reference to the California Government Code Section 65559.5 definition of qualifying housing development projects. Staff incorporated the suggested edit in the revised document. Additionally, the local architect community requested that clarification be added, specifying that these objective standards are only to be used for review of qualifying projects, and not all discretionary applications. Staff incorporated this at the end of the Purpose and Applicability section. PAGE 4 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): Key Terms. Comments were received regarding several of the definitions provided in the Key Terms section of the document. The Draft Objective Standards document was amended as follows: • Addition of a definition of Objective Design Standards; • Separation of Community Recreation Space into two sections to better differentiate the requirements for mixed-use developments and multi-family developments; • Separation of Private Recreation Space into two sections to better differentiate the requirements for mixed-use developments and multi-family developments; • Amendment of the Private Recreation Space definitions, requiring that they be accessible from the dwelling unit; and • Amendment of Mixed-Use to specify that residential uses need to be included in at least two thirds of the building square footage. B. Site Standards The Site Standards section of the Draft Objective Standards document includes objective standards for: site layout and building placement; vehicular access and parking; and outdoor areas and amenities. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation, staff incorporated each of these within the revised Draft Objective Standards document as described below: A.1 – Pedestrian Access. Comments were received from the public regarding the minimum width of pedestrian pathways, as well as the minimum six-inch grade separation requirement for pedestrian pathways that intersect vehicular drive aisles. Draft Standard A.1.1 was amended to specify that pedestrian pathways must be a minimum of four feet in width. Draft Objective Standard A.1.2 was amended to exempt the six-inch grade separation of pedestrian pathways when they intersect drive aisles. A.3 – Vehicular Access. Comments were received from the public questioning the difference between the vehicular access standards in A.3.1 and A.4.2. The intent of the two standards is the same: to require parking lots to be internally connected: and prohibiting use of a public street to access two different parking areas. Standard A.3.1 was amended to incorporate A.4.2, and A.4.2 was deleted. A.4 – Parking Location and Design. Public comment was received requesting that previous standard A.4.4 (carport location) be moved under A.4.1 (parking lot location). Draft Objective Standard A.4.1 was amended to include A.4.4, specifying that parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street, and A.4.4 was deleted. PAGE 5 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): A.5 – Parking Structure Access. Public comment was received regarding the parking structure automobile entry gate setback requirement of 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk in A.5.1. Planning Commission recommended that this standard be reduced to 18 feet, similar to Town Code standard 29.40.0315(c)(3), which requires 18 feet from the edge of the adjacent street. This was incorporated in the Draft Objective Standard document. A.6 – Utilities. Public comment was received requesting that the utility screening requirements for rooftop and ground utilities in A.6.3 be separated. This was incorporated in the Draft Objective Standard document with a new A.6.4 for rooftop equipment. Additionally, further clarification was added, specifying that wall and fence heights within the front and street-side setbacks must comply with Town Code. A.10 – Landscape, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces. Several public comments were received regarding the landscaping, private recreation space, and community recreation space requirements. Specifically, there were requests to allow landscaping within community recreation areas to count towards both requirements, to reduce the size of both private and community recreation spaces, and to eliminate the community recreation space requirement for smaller developments. Based on Planning Commission’s recommendation and staff’s analysis of other jurisdiction requirements, Draft Objective Standard A.10 was amended as follows: • Allowance of landscaped areas within community recreation spaces to contribute to the required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space; • Reduction of the private recreation space size requirement for a ground floor unit from 200 square feet to 120 square feet; • Reduction of the private recreation space size requirement for above ground floor units from 120 square feet to 60 square feet; • Reduction of the minimum dimensions for private recreation space from 10 feet by six feet to six feet in both directions; • Reduction of the community recreation space requirement from 200 square feet for each unit to 100 square feet; and • Addition of a provision that if the development includes four or less residential units, the community recreation space requirement is waived. A.11 – Building Placement. Public comment was received questioning if the setback standard in A.11.1 applies to the entire site or just building footprints, and a request that the maximum percentage of ground-floor site amenities be removed in A.11.2. Planning Commission supported these requests, and the Draft Objective Standards document was amended as follows: PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • Amendment of Draft Objective Standard A.11.1 to clarify that the 75 percent continuous frontage requirement applies to the amount of the ground floor street- facing façade; • Replacement of the term “Community Growth District” with “commercial zones” based on the current status of the General Plan Land Use Element; and • Amendment of Draft Objective Standard A.11.2 to remove the maximum percentage that site amenities can occupy within the area between the building and the street. C. Building Standards The Building Standards section of the Draft Objective Standards document includes objective standards for: building form and massing; façade articulation; materials; and roof design. Based on the Planning Commission recommendation, staff incorporated each of these suggestions within the revised Draft Objective Standards document as described below: B.1 – Massing and Scale. Comments were received from the public regarding Standard B.1: questioning if B.1.1 applies to each individual primary building fronting the street, or the combined façade area; questioning if B.1.1.c applies to the façade plane or the front door and requesting clarification on whether awnings can project beyond this plane; requesting that a sliding scale for arcade requirements be implemented in B.1.1.d; and questioning the drawing of a “courtyard” in Figure B.1.1.e. The Draft Objectives Standards document was amended to incorporate each of these comments, as follows: • Clarification to B.1.1 was provided, specifying that the standard applies to the combined façade area of all primary buildings; • Clarification to B.1.1.c was provided, specifying that the standard applies to the façade plane of an entry and that a covered entry can extend beyond this façade plane; • Amendment of B.1.1.d, with a sliding scale added with different requirements on the amount of arcade depending on the length of the building; and • Replacement of the term “courtyard” with “open area” in standard B.1.1.e. B.2 – Parking Structure Design. A public comment was received regarding Standard B.2.2, regulating the façade openings on upper levels of parking structures. The previous standard included a maximum screening percentage of 30 percent, but no minimum. Standard B.2.2 was revised to include a minimum 10 percent standard. PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): B.3 – Roof Design. Public comment was received regarding Figures B.3.1 and B.3.3. There were concerns that the alternative roof forms shown in B.3.1 would lead to confusion; and therefore, this figure was removed. There was also concern that the dormers shown in Figure B.3.3 read more as gables; and therefore, this figure was revised to show dormers within the roof form. B.4 – Façade Design and Articulation. Comments were received regarding the: individual design options (a-f) for buildings greater than two-stories contained in Standard B.4.1; the specificity of the architectural solutions listed in Standard B.4.3; and the privacy requirements for balconies and rooftop decks in B.4.10 and B.4.11. Based on the public comment and Commissioner recommendations, Standard B.4.1 was amended as follows: • Deletion of B.4.1.d (belly bands and horizontal architecture elements); • Amendment of B.4.1.f (B.4.1.e in the updated document), to specify that the exterior façade height of the upper floor must be a minimum of two-feet taller than the floor immediately below, and not the internal floor-to-ceiling height; • Amendment of B.4.3, clarifying the amount and type of each architectural solution required; • Amendment of B.4.10, to allow rooftop and upper floor terraces when abutting single-family when no part of the rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck is closer than five feet from the façade plane below to prevent views into adjacent residential uses; and • Amendment of B.4.11, to no longer allow balconies facing existing residential uses. D. Appendix – Evaluation of Existing Developments The Planning Commission discussed the idea of including example design images throughout the document to make these standards easier to understand. The Planning Commission recommended that an appendix be included at the end of the document with example images of developments in Town that comply with the more complex standards in Section B – Building Standards. Staff has incorporated this appendix in Attachment 3, with an analysis of three different developments in the Town in relation to Standards B.1.1, B.4.1, and B.4.3. PAGE 8 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 PUBLIC OUTREACH: Public input has been requested through the following media and social media resources: • An eighth-page public notice in the newspaper; • A poster at the Planning counter at Town Hall and the Los Gatos Library; • Email to interested parties; • Community Meetings; • In-person meeting with local architect community; • The Town’s website home page, What’s New; • The Town’s Facebook page; • The Town’s Twitter account; • The Town’s Instagram account; and • The Town’s NextDoor page. Issues raised by the public are identified in the Discussion section of this report. PUBLIC COMMENT: Attachment 16 includes additional public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September 14, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, November 10, 2022. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt a resolution to approve and adopt the Objective Standards document (Attachment 4), with findings that the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act [Section 15061(b)(3)] and is consistent with the General Plan; and includes any specific changes agreed upon by the majority of the Town Council. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Council may: 1. Continue this item to a date certain with specific direction to staff; 2. Refer the item back to the Planning Commission with specific direction; or 3. Take no action, and proceed without Objective Standards to regulate qualifying projects. PAGE 9 OF 9 SUBJECT: Objective Standards DATE: November 10, 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed objective standards will have a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: 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 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 1 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DRAFT OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS November 15, 2022 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure that new qualifying projects in Los Gatos provide high-quality architecture, integrate with surrounding development, and include well-designed amenities and outdoor areas to enhance community character. These standards are intended to guide property owners, applicants, developers, and design professionals by providing clear design direction that enhances the Town’s unique character and ensures a high-quality living environment. California Government Code Section 65559.5 identifies Qualifying Housing Development Projects to include: • Multi-family housing developments; • Residential Mixed-Use Housing developments with a minimum of two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; • Supportive and transitional housing development. A Qualifying Housing Development Project shall be approved through a streamlined, ministerial review process when the project complies with these Objective Design Standards as well as complying with all existing objective development regulations in the Town, including but not limited to the following: • General Plan • Town Code • Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • Parks and Public Works Standards • Santa Clara County Fire Department Requirements These standards are only to be used for review of qualifying projects where Town review, approval, and/or denial is limited to only objective standards. Many projects will proceed through the standard review process, in which case the objective standards included herein would not apply. ORGANIZATION The Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Standards; and Building Standards. The Site Standards section includes objective standards for site layout and building placement; vehicular access and parking; and outdoor areas and amenities. The Building Standards section includes objective standards for building form and massing; façade articulation; materials; and roof design. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 KEY TERMS Community recreation space in Residential Mixed-Use developments means public gathering spaces, such as: plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of all residents and the business patrons and tenants. Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces, such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of all residents. Façade articulation means the division of a building façade into distinct sections; including the materials, patterns, textures, and colors that add visual interest to a building or façade. Fenestration means the design, construction, and presence of any openings in a building, such as: windows, doors, vents, wall panels, skylights, curtain walls, and louvers. Landscaping means an area devoted to plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas. Multi-family use means the use of a site for three or more dwelling units on the same site. Objective Design Standards means development regulations that are measurable, verifiable, and knowable to all parties prior to submittal of a qualifying project. A planning review process based on objective standards involves streamlined ministerial review with no personal or subjective judgement by a public official. Primary building means a building within which the principal or main use on a lot or parcel is conducted. Where a permissible use involves more than one building designed or used for the primary purpose on the subject property, each such building on the parcel shall be construed as constituting a primary building. Private recreation space at ground level means an outdoor enclosed patio or deck accessible from a single dwelling unit. Private recreation space above ground level means an outdoor balcony, terrace, or rooftop deck, accessible from a single dwelling unit. Residential Mixed-Use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, and institutional, are combined with residential use(s) in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. Two thirds of the project square footage must be residential uses. Transitional and supportive housing means a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing and independent living. Page 3 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A. SITE STANDARDS A.1. Pedestrian Access 1.1 All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and vehicular and bicycle parking areas shall be internally connected with a minimum four-foot-wide pedestrian pathway or pathway network that may include use of the public sidewalk. The pedestrian pathway network shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street. 1.2 Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. A pedestrian pathway is exempt from this standard where it crosses a parking vehicular drive aisle. Figure A.1.2 Page 4 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A.2. Bicycle Access 2.1 Bicycle parking shall be located within 50 feet of at least one primary building entrance. 2.2 Multi-family residential buildings shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. 2.3 Residential Mixed-Use projects shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit and one bicycle parking space per 2,000 square feet of non- residential space. A.3. Vehicular Access 3.1 Off-street parking lots shall have vehicular circulation using an internal vehicular network that preclude the use of a public street for aisle-to-aisle internal circulation. Figure A.3.1 Page 5 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A.4. Parking Location and Design 4.1 Surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street. 4.2 Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area. Figure A.4.2 A.5. Parking Structure Access 5.1 Any vehicular entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 18 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. 5.2 A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade, and it shall be recessed a minimum of five feet from the street-facing façade of the building. 5.3 For projects with five or more residential units and that have a vehicle access gate to the parking structure, a pedestrian gate shall also be provided. Page 6 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A.6. Utilities 6.1 Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet. 6.2 Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited. Figure A.6.2 6.3 Street level views of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from sight with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall, as allowed by the Town Code. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and screening that is not landscape material shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building. 6.4 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement. Page 7 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A.7. Landscaping and Screening 7.1 At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. 7.2 A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or Residential Mixed-Use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following: a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; and Figure A.7.2a b. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. 7.3 Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot when not already screened by a primary building. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet. Page 8 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A.8. Fencing 8.1 Fences, walls, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages are prohibited unless used to screen on-site parking spaces from view from the street. 8.2 Chain link fencing is prohibited. 8.3 Perimeter barrier gates for vehicles and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. 8.4 Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view. A.9. Retaining Walls 9.1 Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment. 9.2 Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following: a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; and b. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall. A.10. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces 10.1 The landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces listed below are required for all qualifying projects. Community recreation spaces and private recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other. Landscaped areas within community recreation spaces can contribute to required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space. a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimension is six feet in any direction and a minimum area of 60 square feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Landscaped sections of private recreation space cannot count towards required landscaping requirements. i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space. Page 9 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of usable private recreation space. Where multiple balconies are provided for a single unit, the 60-square-foot minimum can be an aggregate of all balconies, provide each balcony meets the requirements for minimum horizontal dimensions. c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature. i. Community recreation space shall be provided in Residential Mixed-Use developments at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the non-residential square footage. ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit. iii. A project with four or less residential units is exempt from community recreation space requirements. iv. Landscaped roof space can satisfy both required landscaping requirements and community recreation space requirements. Landscaped roof space may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the required landscaping for the site. Page 10 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 A.11. Building Placement 11.1 To ensure buildings provide a continuous frontage along sidewalks, development in commercial zones shall place at least 75 percent of any ground floor street-facing façade on or within five feet of the setback line designated in the Town Code. Figure A.11.1 11.2 A Residential Mixed-Use project with a ground-floor non-residential use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements: a. Landscape materials or raised planters; b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches; c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use. Page 11 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 B. BUILDING STANDARDS B.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; Figure B.1.1a Page 12 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; Figure B.1.1b Page 13 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane; Figure B.1.1c d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade. Page 14 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 Figure B.1.1d (1) Figure B.1.1d (2) Page 15 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or Figure B.1.1e Page 16 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. Figure B.1.1f 1.2 Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade. 1.3 Townhomes or rowhouses shall have no more than six contiguous units in any single building. Page 17 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 B.2. Parking Structure Design 2.1 The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade. 2.2 Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened at a minimum 10 percent and up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure. 2.3 Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions: a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or b. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation. B.3. Roof Design 3.1 At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies: a. Gables; b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices. 3.2 Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed. Page 18 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 3.3 The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the total roof length at the street-facing façade. The dormer width shall be measured at dormer roof fascia, or widest part of the dormer. Figure B.3.3 3.4 Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building. Page 19 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; Figure B.4.1a Page 20 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1b Page 21 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1c Page 22 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or e. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows. Figure B.4.1e 4.2 All façade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building façades. Page 23 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points:  Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light fixture per 15 linear feet. 3 points  Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 6 points  Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 5 points  Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade; 5 points  Materials and color changes; 3 points  Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points  Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or 3 points  Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels. 3 points 4.4 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade. Page 24 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 4.5 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners. Figure B.4.5 Page 25 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 4.6 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements: a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor non-residential uses shall meet at least one of the following standards: i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet. Figure B.4.6a Page 26 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk. Figure B.4.6b 4.7 Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including Residential Mixed- Use buildings: eight feet in width c. Storefront entry: six feet in width Page 27 of 27 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Design Standards November 15, 2022 4.8 Mirrored windows are prohibited. 4.9 Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements: a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway; b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and c. Shall not be patterned or striped. 4.10 For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district or existing single-family use, no part of a rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck shall be closer than five feet from the facade plane of the lower floor, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses. 4.11 Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing non-residential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint. 4.12 Residential Mixed-Use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length: a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet; b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces. 4.13 Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Appendix A - Evaluation of Existing Developments The following developments in the Town of Los Gatos were analyzed to see if they would meet the three following standards that offer multiple design solutions (B.1.1, B.4.1, and B.4.3). These projects were designed and built without requirements to adhere to specific objective design standards. While some of the projects would not comply with all of the standards below, incorporating additional design solutions would be easily accomplished during the design phase. B. BUILDING STANDARDS B.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane; d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade. e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. ATTACHMENT 3 B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: g. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; h. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; i. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing façade; j. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or k. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows. 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points:  Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light fixture per 15 linear feet. 3 points  Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 6 points  Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 5 points  Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade; 5 points  Materials and color changes; 3 points  Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points  Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or 3 points  Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels. 3 points University Avenue at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road B.1.1 - (Minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet. c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet. B.4.1 – Not applicable, only two stories. B.4.3 – (16 points minimum) Arcade (8 points) Building cornice (5 points) Sconce lighting (3 points) Balconies (5 points) Decorative elements (3 points) TOTAL = 24 points Aventino – Winchester Boulevard B1.1 - (Minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet. c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. B4.1 – (Minimum 2) a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street- facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; B4.3 – (16 points minimum) Material and color changes (3 points) Balconies or Juliet balconies (5 points) Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the façade with supporting brackets (3 points) Window boxes or plant shelves (3 points) Decorative elements such as molding, ornamentation, or corbels (3 points): TOTAL = 17 points North 40 - Market Hall B1.1 – (minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or B4.1 – (Minimum 2) a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street- facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade; B4.3 – (16 points minimum) Awnings or canopies (6 points) Material and color changes (3 points) Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the façade with supporting brackets (3 points) Decorate elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels (3 points) TOTAL = 15 points This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 1 of 37 Draft Resolution Date DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEW OF QUALIFYING MULTI-FAMILY AND RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS WHEREAS, the State of California (State) adopted Senate Bills (SB) SB 167, SB 35, and SB 330, limiting local jurisdiction reviews on certain housing projects to standards that are objective, involving no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal; WHEREAS, in response to SB 167, SB 35, and SB 330, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos (Town) adopted Resolution 2019-053 authorizing application for, and receipt of, SB 2 Planning Grants Program Funds, including execution of an agreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development by the Town Manager for the preparation of objective standards; WHEREAS, the purpose of adopting objective standards is to comply with recent State legislation, implement streamlined and ministerial review processes for qualifying housing projects, ensure that these qualifying projects align with the Town’s expectations and vision to maintain and support the character of the Town, provide a set of clear criteria to guide development, and establish an objective framework by which a qualifying project will be evaluated; WHEREAS, this matter was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law and came before the Planning Commission for public hearings on June 22, 2022, August 24, 2022, and September 14, 2022; ATTACHMENT 4 Page 2 of 37 Draft Resolution Date WHEREAS, on June 22, 2022, August 24, 2022, and September 14, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Draft Objective Standards. The Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the Draft Objective Standards, reviewed the document, and provided input to staff on recommended modifications. WHEREAS, on September 14, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended that the Town Council adopt the Draft Objective Standards with specific recommended modifications; and WHEREAS, this matter was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law and came before the Town Council for public hearing on November 15, 2022. NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL FINDS AND RESOLVES: 1. The Objective Standards are consistent with the Town’s General Plan. 2. The Objective Standards are exempt from CEQA in that it can be seen with certainty that they will not impact the physical environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).) 3. The Objective Standards attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are adopted. Page 3 of 37 Draft Resolution Date PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 15th day of November, 2022, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA DATE: __________________ ATTEST: TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA DATE: __________________ Page 4 of 37 Draft Resolution Date EXHIBIT 1 – OBJECTIVE STANDARDS PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure that new qualifying projects in Los Gatos provide high-quality architecture, integrate with surrounding development, and include well-designed amenities and outdoor areas to enhance community character. These standards are intended to guide property owners, applicants, developers, and design professionals by providing clear design direction that enhances the Town’s unique character and ensures a high-quality living environment. California Government Code Section 65559.5 identifies Qualifying Housing Development Projects to include: • Multi-family housing developments; • Residential Mixed-Use Housing developments with a minimum of two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; • Supportive and transitional housing development. A Qualifying Housing Development Project shall be approved through a streamlined, ministerial review process when the project complies with these Objective Design Standards as well as complying with all existing objective development regulations in the Town, including but not limited to the following: • General Plan • Town Code • Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • Parks and Public Works Standards • Santa Clara County Fire Department Requirements These standards are only to be used for review of qualifying projects where Town review, approval, and/or denial is limited to only objective standards. Many projects will proceed through the standard review process, in which case the objective standards included herein would not apply. ORGANIZATION The Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Standards; and Building Standards. The Site Standards section includes objective standards for site layout and building placement; vehicular access and parking; and outdoor areas and amenities. The Building Standards section includes objective standards for building form and massing; façade articulation; materials; and roof design. Page 5 of 37 Draft Resolution Date KEY TERMS Community recreation space in Residential Mixed-Use developments means public gathering spaces, such as: plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of all residents and the business patrons and tenants. Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces, such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of all residents. Façade articulation means the division of a building façade into distinct sections; including the materials, patterns, textures, and colors that add visual interest to a building or façade. Fenestration means the design, construction, and presence of any openings in a building, such as: windows, doors, vents, wall panels, skylights, curtain walls, and louvers. Landscaping means an area devoted to plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas. Multi-family use means the use of a site for three or more dwelling units on the same site. Objective Design Standards means development regulations that are measurable, verifiable, and knowable to all parties prior to submittal of a qualifying project. A planning review process based on objective standards involves streamlined ministerial review with no personal or subjective judgement by a public official. Primary building means a building within which the principal or main use on a lot or parcel is conducted. Where a permissible use involves more than one building designed or used for the primary purpose on the subject property, each such building on the parcel shall be construed as constituting a primary building. Private recreation space at ground level means an outdoor enclosed patio or deck accessible from a single dwelling unit. Private recreation space above ground level means an outdoor balcony, terrace, or rooftop deck, accessible from a single dwelling unit. Residential Mixed-Use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, and institutional, are combined with residential use(s) in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. Two thirds of the project square footage must be residential uses. Transitional and supportive housing means a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing and independent living. Page 6 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A. SITE STANDARDS A.1. Pedestrian Access 1.1 All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and vehicular and bicycle parking areas shall be internally connected with a minimum four-foot-wide pedestrian pathway or pathway network that may include use of the public sidewalk. The pedestrian pathway network shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street. 1.2 Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. A pedestrian pathway is exempt from this standard where it crosses a parking vehicular drive aisle. Figure A.1.2 Page 7 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A.2. Bicycle Access 2.1 Bicycle parking shall be located within 50 feet of at least one primary building entrance. 2.2 Multi-family residential buildings shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. 2.3 Residential Mixed-Use projects shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit and one bicycle parking space per 2,000 square feet of non- residential space. A.3. Vehicular Access 3.1 Off-street parking lots shall have vehicular circulation using an internal vehicular network that preclude the use of a public street for aisle-to-aisle internal circulation. Figure A.3.1 Page 8 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A.4. Parking Location and Design 4.1 Surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street. 4.2 Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area. Figure A.4.2 A.5. Parking Structure Access 5.1 Any vehicular entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 18 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. 5.2 A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade, and it shall be recessed a minimum of five feet from the street-facing façade of the building. 5.3 For projects with five or more residential units and that have a vehicle access gate to the parking structure, a pedestrian gate shall also be provided. Page 9 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A.6. Utilities 6.1 Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet. 6.2 Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited. Figure A.6.2 6.3 Street level views of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from sight with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall, as allowed by the Town Code. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and screening that is not landscape material shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building. 6.4 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement. Page 10 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A.7. Landscaping and Screening 7.1 At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. 7.2 A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or Residential Mixed-Use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following: a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; and Figure A.7.2a b. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. 7.3 Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot when not already screened by a primary building. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet. Page 11 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A.8. Fencing 8.1 Fences, walls, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages are prohibited unless used to screen on-site parking spaces from view from the street. 8.2 Chain link fencing is prohibited. 8.3 Perimeter barrier gates for vehicles and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. 8.4 Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view. A.9. Retaining Walls 9.1 Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment. 9.2 Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following: a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; and b. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall. A.10. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces 10.1 The landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces listed below are required for all qualifying projects. Community recreation spaces and private recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other. Landscaped areas within community recreation spaces can contribute to required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space. a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimension is six feet in any direction and a minimum area of 60 square feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Landscaped sections of private recreation space cannot count towards required landscaping requirements. i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space. Page 12 of 37 Draft Resolution Date ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of usable private recreation space. Where multiple balconies are provided for a single unit, the 60-square-foot minimum can be an aggregate of all balconies, provide each balcony meets the requirements for minimum horizontal dimensions. c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature. i. Community recreation space shall be provided in Residential Mixed-Use developments at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the non-residential square footage. ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit. iii. A project with four or less residential units is exempt from community recreation space requirements. iv. Landscaped roof space can satisfy both required landscaping requirements and community recreation space requirements. Landscaped roof space may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the required landscaping for the site. Page 13 of 37 Draft Resolution Date A.11. Building Placement 11.1 To ensure buildings provide a continuous frontage along sidewalks, development in commercial zones shall place at least 75 percent of any ground floor street-facing façade on or within five feet of the setback line designated in the Town Code. Figure A.11.1 11.2 A Residential Mixed-Use project with a ground-floor non-residential use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements: a. Landscape materials or raised planters; b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches; c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use. Page 14 of 37 Draft Resolution Date B. BUILDING STANDARDS B.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; Figure B.1.1a Page 15 of 37 Draft Resolution Date b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; Figure B.1.1b Page 16 of 37 Draft Resolution Date c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane; Figure B.1.1c d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade. Page 17 of 37 Draft Resolution Date Figure B.1.1d (1) Figure B.1.1d (2) Page 18 of 37 Draft Resolution Date e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or Figure B.1.1e Page 19 of 37 Draft Resolution Date f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. Figure B.1.1f 1.2 Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade. 1.3 Townhomes or rowhouses shall have no more than six contiguous units in any single building. Page 20 of 37 Draft Resolution Date B.2. Parking Structure Design 2.1 The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade. 2.2 Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened at a minimum 10 percent and up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure. 2.3 Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions: a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or b. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation. B.3. Roof Design 3.1 At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies: a. Gables; b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices. 3.2 Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed. Page 21 of 37 Draft Resolution Date 3.3 The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the total roof length at the street-facing façade. The dormer width shall be measured at dormer roof fascia, or widest part of the dormer. Figure B.3.3 3.4 Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building. Page 22 of 37 Draft Resolution Date B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; Figure B.4.1a Page 23 of 37 Draft Resolution Date b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1b Page 24 of 37 Draft Resolution Date c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1c Page 25 of 37 Draft Resolution Date d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or e. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows. Figure B.4.1e 4.2 All façade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building façades. Page 26 of 37 Draft Resolution Date 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points:  Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light fixture per 15 linear feet. 3 points  Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 6 points  Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 5 points  Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade; 5 points  Materials and color changes; 3 points  Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points  Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or 3 points  Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels. 3 points 4.4 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade. Page 27 of 37 Draft Resolution Date 4.5 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners. Figure B.4.5 Page 28 of 37 Draft Resolution Date 4.6 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements: a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor non-residential uses shall meet at least one of the following standards: i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet. Figure B.4.6a Page 29 of 37 Draft Resolution Date b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk. Figure B.4.6b 4.7 Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including Residential Mixed- Use buildings: eight feet in width c. Storefront entry: six feet in width Page 30 of 37 Draft Resolution Date 4.8 Mirrored windows are prohibited. 4.9 Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements: a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway; b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and c. Shall not be patterned or striped. 4.10 For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district or existing single-family use, no part of a rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck shall be closer than five feet from the facade plane of the lower floor, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses. 4.11 Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing non-residential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint. 4.12 Residential Mixed-Use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length: a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet; b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces. 4.13 Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street. Page 31 of 37 Draft Resolution Date Appendix A - Evaluation of Existing Developments The following developments in the Town of Los Gatos were analyzed to see if they would meet the three following standards that offer multiple design solutions (B.1.1, B.4.1, and B.4.3). These projects were designed and built without requirements to adhere to specific objective design standards. While some of the projects would not comply with all of the standards below, incorporating additional design solutions would be easily accomplished during the design phase. C. BUILDING STANDARDS C.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane; d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade. e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. Page 32 of 37 Draft Resolution Date B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: g. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; h. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; i. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing façade; j. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or k. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows. Page 33 of 37 Draft Resolution Date 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points:  Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light fixture per 15 linear feet. 3 points  Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 6 points  Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; 5 points  Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade; 5 points  Materials and color changes; 3 points  Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points  Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or 3 points  Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels. 3 points Page 34 of 37 Draft Resolution Date University Avenue at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road B.1.1 - (Minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet. c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet. B.4.1 – Not applicable, only two stories. B.4.3 – (16 points minimum) Arcade (8 points) Building cornice (5 points) Sconce lighting (3 points) Balconies (5 points) Decorative elements (3 points) TOTAL = 24 points Page 35 of 37 Draft Resolution Date Aventino – Winchester Boulevard B1.1 - (Minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet. c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. B4.1 – (Minimum 2) a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street- facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; B4.3 – (16 points minimum) Material and color changes (3 points) Balconies or Juliet balconies (5 points) Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the façade with supporting brackets (3 points) Window boxes or plant shelves (3 points) Decorative elements such as molding, ornamentation, or corbels (3 points): TOTAL = 17 points Page 36 of 37 Draft Resolution Date North 40 - Market Hall B1.1 – (minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or Page 37 of 37 Draft Resolution Date B4.1 – (Minimum 2) a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street- facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; d. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade; B4.3 – (16 points minimum) Awnings or canopies (6 points) Material and color changes (3 points) Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the façade with supporting brackets (3 points) Decorate elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels (3 points) TOTAL = 15 points This Page Intentionally Left Blank PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP and RYAN SAFTY Senior Planner Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 6/22/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: June 17, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION: Review and recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. BACKGROUND: The Town of Los Gatos has developed Draft Objective Standards for the review of multi-family and mixed-use development applications. This effort is in response to State legislation (Senate Bill (SB) 167, SB 35, and SB 330) requiring jurisdictions to adopt objective standards and to implement them in a streamlined review of qualifying housing projects. Objective standards are defined under State law as, “standards that involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal” (California Government Code, Section 65913.4). The purpose of adopting objective standards is to: •Comply with recent State housing legislation; •Implement streamlined and ministerial review processes for qualifying housing projects; •Ensure that these qualifying projects align with the Town’s expectations and vision to maintain and support the character of the Town; •Provide a set of clear criteria to guide development; and •Establish an objective framework by which a qualifying project will be evaluated. ATTACHMENT 5 PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: June 17, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): On November 5, 2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2019-053 (Exhibit 1) to authorize application for, and receipt of, SB 2 Planning Grant Program funds, including execution of an agreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by the Town Manager. Planning staff submitted an application with a proposal to develop objective standards and by-right findings for the review of qualifying housing development applications, and to identify amendments to the Town Code necessary to add the objective standards and findings to Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations). The Town received approval of the application and entered into an agreement with HCD to receive reimbursable grant funding for the proposed scope of work. On November 20, 2020, staff released a request for qualifications (RFQ) to provide services for preparation of objective standards and by-right findings for the review of qualifying housing development applications as provided in the Town of Los Gatos SB 2 Planning Grant Program application. Staff received proposals from four firms. After reviewing the submittals and conducting interviews, staff concluded that M-Group planning consultants provided the best fit, capacity, and professional expertise for the proposed scope of work. On March 16, 2021, the Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute an agreement with M-Group for the proposed scope of work. To date, the project initiation phase has been completed, including review of State legislation and existing Town guidelines and standards, and collation of feedback received during five meetings with the Planning Commission subcommittee between July and December 2021. On February 22, 2022, staff conducted the first of two community engagement meetings to gather feedback from residents and stakeholders. On May 12, 2022, a preliminary draft of the objective standards was presented and discussed at a second community engagement meeting. A summary of the feedback received at the community engagement meetings is included as Exhibit 2. Based on the feedback from the Planning Commission subcommittee and the community, staff and M-Group developed Draft Objective Standards for consideration by the Planning Commission (Exhibit 3). DISCUSSION: The Draft Objective Standards document is organized into two sections: Site Standards (Section A) and Building Design (Section B). The Site Standards section includes objective standards for site layout and building placement; vehicular access and parking; and outdoor spaces and amenities. The Building Design section includes objective standards for building form and massing; façade articulation; materials; and roof design. Many of the objective standards have corresponding figures to help visualize the standards. PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: June 17, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): In addition to the objective standards listed in this document, qualifying multi-family and mixed-use projects would also be required to comply with all existing development requirements in the Town Code, including but not limited to building code requirements, existing Town standards, adopted specific plans, and development standards such as height and setbacks. If there is any conflict between these standards and those in another adopted document, the more restrictive standard shall apply. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Throughout the process and prior to the June 22, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, staff contacted several professional organizations, design professionals, developers, and residents to inform them about the meeting and encourage participation and written comment on the Draft Objective Standards. In addition to the direct contact summarized above, staff requested public input through the following media and social media resources: • A poster posted at the Planning counter at Town Hall and at the Library; • On the Town’s website home page, What’s New; • On the Town’s webpage dedicated to objective standards; and • On the Town’s social media accounts. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022, are included as Exhibit 4. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The Town of Los Gatos has developed Draft Objective Standards for the review of multi- family and mixed-use development applications as required by State legislation. The Draft Objective Standards were developed following research by staff and the Town’s consultant, five meetings with the Planning Commission subcommittee, and two community engagement meetings. B. Recommendation The Draft Objective Standards have been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Receive and consider public comments; • Complete the review of the Draft Objective Standards; • Provide input on any recommended modifications to the Draft Objective Standards; and PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: June 17, 2022 CONCLUSION (continued): • Forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the Draft Objective Standards. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council with additional and/or modified objective standards; or 2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction to staff. NEXT STEPS: Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Town Council will consider the Draft Objective Standards, the Planning Commission recommendation, and any additional public comments. Once the Town Council adopts objective standards, staff will return to the Planning Commission for consideration of a Town Code amendment to incorporate by-right findings for qualifying housing projects meeting the adopted objective standards into the Town Code. Additionally, staff will develop streamlined review procedures for applications proposing qualifying housing projects. EXHIBITS: 1. Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2. Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3. Draft Objective Standards 4. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 RESOLUTION 2019-053 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR, AND RECEIPT OF, SB 2 PLANNING GRANTS PROGRAM FUNDS WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development Department) has issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) dated March 28, 2019, for its Planning Grants Program (PGP); and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos desires to submit a project application for the PGP program to accelerate the production of housing and will submit a 2019 PGP grant application as described in the Planning Grants Program NOFA and SB 2 Planning Grants Program Guidelines released by the Department for the PGP Program; and WHEREAS, the Department is authorized to provide up to $123 million under the SB 2 Planning Grants Program from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for assistance to Counties (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2)) related to the PGP Program. NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Town Council hereby authorizes and directs the Town Manager to apply for and submit to the Department the 2019 Planning Grants Program application in the amount of $160,000. SECTION 2. In connection with the PGP grant, if the application is approved by the Department, the Town Manager is authorized to enter into, execute, and deliver a State of California Agreement (Standard Agreement) for the amount of $ 160,000, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence and secure the PGP grant, the Town of Los Gatos's obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto collectively, the "PGP Grant Documents'). SECTION 3. The Town of Los Gatos shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, the SB 2 Planning Grants Program Guidelines, and any applicable PGP guidelines published by the Department. Funds are to be used for allowable 1of2 Resolution 2019-053 November 5, 2019 EXHIBIT 1 expenditures as specifically identified in the Standard Agreement. The application in full is incorporated as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the application will be enforceable through the executed Standard Agreement. The Town Council hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible uses in the manner presented in the application as approved by the Department and in accordance with the Planning Grants NOFA, the Planning Grants Program Guidelines, and 2019 Planning Grants Program Application. SECTION 4. The Town Manager is authorized to execute the Town of Los Gatos Planning Grants Program application, the PGP Grant Documents, and any amendments thereto, on behalf of the Town of Los Gatos, as required by the Department for receipt of the PGP Grant. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 5t^ day of November 2019 by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Marcia Jensen, Rob Rennie, Marico NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: cbk\sl'-Vl TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. DATE: " Barbara SpNctor, Mayor Steven Leonardis SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATO , CAL)FORNIA i- C DATE: (d,bll 1. 2of2 Resolution 2019-053 November 5, 2019 February 22, 2022, Community Meeting Feedback Below is a listing of the comments and questions received. Response(s) from the consultant and/or staff are provided below each comment in italics. 1. Questioned the “score card” measurement approach to allow developers to surpass some of the specific objective standard requirements yet still “pass”. The “score card” approach is just one option to implement objective standards and would only be used if the Town feels it is appropriate. The “score card” wouldn’t be drafted to allow developers to surpass important standards. It would be used in a way that gives the developer flexibility by offering several different approaches to achieve one of the Town’s underlining goals. Developers still need to meet the Town’s required threshold, but they would be given a variety of tools, each with different weighted values, to meet that threshold. 2. Questioned how long the development of the Objective Standards document will take and asked when will the document be ready. We anticipate getting a drafted document to the community in spring of this year, collecting additional feedback from the community, and taking the document to the Planning Commission for review in early Summer. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Town Council, and hopefully be completed by late summer or early fall of 2022. 3. When this is adopted, will the Town have to go through and adopt revisions to existing Town documents? What happens after the Objective Standards document is adopted? Are there additional steps? This will be a standalone policy document. The Town’s strategy is to adopt objective standards and then develop a program for implementation. 4. How would these standards work with the different range of housing projects, such as market rate and affordable housing? There should be a consistent look for all types of housing projects. These standards would apply to all multi-family and mixed-use projects: affordable and market rate. The Town would not have specific below-market rate design requirements; everything would be consistent. EXHIBIT 2 5. Questioned why objective standards aren’t being developed for all housing types, as opposed to just multi-family and mixed-use projects. Many of the Town’s design documents are just guidelines. How would the objective standards effect single-family development? This is an opportunity to apply objective standards to all projects so they can be processed faster. This current effort is to create a ministerial process for multi-family and mixed-use in compliance with State law and utilizing grant funds specifically for multi-family and mixed- use objective standards. 6. Concern was also expressed regarding the exception process since current Town Code and policy documents have exception processes. Can we leave exception and exemptions in the guideline documents and require Planning Commission review for any exception or exemption? If the application requires any sort of exception or variance, they would not be eligible for the streamlined ministerial review and would be subject to a discretionary review process. 7. Sometimes when standards are established, all development starts to look alike. Is there a possibility of having alternative standards? For example, height – to avoid flat roofs, is there the ability to have maximum roof height for flat roof and different maximum height for gabled roofs to promote a variation in roof massing? Yes, there are ways, but we need to be careful to make sure the zoning ordinance height requirements are still complied with. The Draft Objective Standards document includes a number of items that offer a list of different standards related to a single goal and requiring the developer to incorporate a minimum number of the standards, but not all. 8. Why would the standards need to be consistent with the Zoning code? Couldn’t we amend the Zoning code? Yes, the Zoning Code could be amended; however, this is intended to be a standalone policy document that works in concert with the Town Code. May 12, 2022, Community Meeting Feedback Below is a listing of the comments and questions received. Response(s) from the consultant and/or staff are provided below each comment in italics. 1. Questioned the quantity of housing required by the State. Today’s presentation is about the development of objective standards for multi-family and mixed-use projects, not the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers, which is being reviewed by the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) as a part of the Housing Element Update process. 2. Questioned if these objectives standards are new and different than the Town’s current objective standards for these types of housing. These Draft Objective Standards are new. The Town Code has existing objective standards. Town staff and the consultant compiled a list of all existing Town standards, whether objective or subjective, for review. The Planning Commission subcommittee discussed each standard to determine which subjective standards should be modified to be objective and included in this document. The existing objective standards from Town Code and other policy documents are still applicable. The Town is reviewing which existing subjective standards should become objective for the review of qualifying multi-family and mixed-use projects. The goal is to not duplicate existing objective standards as they are still applicable. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 1 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DRAFT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS June 22, 2022 PURPOSE The purpose of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure that new qualifying multi-family and mixed-use projects in Los Gatos provide high-quality architecture, integrate with surrounding development, and include well-designed amenities and open spaces to enhance community character. These standards are intended to guide property owners, applicants, developers, and design professionals by providing clear design direction that enhances the Town’s unique character and ensures a high-quality living environment. ORGANIZATION AND APPLICABILITY The following Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Standards; and Building Design. The Site Standards section includes objective standards for site layout and building placement, vehicular access and parking, and outdoor spaces and amenities. The Building Design section includes objective standards for building form and massing, façade articulation, materials, and roof design. Qualifying multi-family and mixed-use projects must also comply with all existing development requirements in the Town Code, including but not limited to building code requirements, existing Town standards, adopted specific plans, and development standards such as height and setbacks. If there is any conflict between these standards and those in another adopted document, the more restrictive standard shall apply. EXHIBIT 3 Page 2 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 A. SITE STANDARDS A.1. Pedestrian Access 1.1 All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and parking areas shall be internally connected with pedestrian pathways and may include use of the public sidewalk. Pedestrian pathways shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street. 1.2 Pedestrian walkways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip of at least six inches. Figure A.1.2 Page 3 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 A.2. Vehicular Access 2.1 Off-street parking shall have internal vehicular circulation that precludes the use of a street for aisle-to-aisle circulation. Figure A.2.1 A.3. Parking Location and Design 3.1 Driveways and surface parking lots shall not be located between the building frontage and the street. 3.2 Multiple parking areas located on a common property shall be internally connected and shall use shared driveways to access the street. Page 4 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 3.3 Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area. Figure A.3.3 3.4 Carports shall not be located between a building and a street. A.4. Parking Structure Access 4.1 Any automobile entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 25 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. 4.2 A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade and shall be recessed a minimum five feet from street- facing façades of the building. A.5. Utilities 5.1 Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 15 feet in height. Page 5 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 5.2 Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Uplighting is prohibited. Figure A.5.2 5.3 Rooftop and ground-mounted utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from view from the street with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement. A.6. Landscaping and Screening 6.1 At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. 6.2 A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided between multi-family or mixed-use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following: Page 6 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback, where the maximum permitted height is three feet; Figure A.6.2a b. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size; and 6.3 Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot. A.7. Fencing 7.1 Fences, walls, hedges, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages shall have a maximum height of three feet. 7.2 Chain link fencing is prohibited. 7.3 Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. 7.4 Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view. Page 7 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 A.8. Retaining Walls 8.1 Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment. 8.2 Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following: a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; and b. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall. A.9. Open Space 9.1 A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall consist of landscaped open space. Landscaped open space may be in the form of trees, hedgerows, flowerbeds, or ground cover vegetation, such as grass. 9.2 Common open space shall be provided in mixed-use developments in the form of public gathering spaces, such as plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, or pocket parks. The space required is a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the commercial square footage. 9.3 Common open space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects in the form of gathering spaces, such as play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of residents. The minimum space required is 100 square feet per residential unit. 9.4 Common open spaces shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of each open space area by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature. Page 8 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 A.10. Building Placement 10.1 To create a continuous streetscape appearance, development in a Community Place District shall place at least 75 percent of the ground floor of a building within five feet of the front and street-side setback (where applicable) requirement of the Town Code. Figure A.10.1 10.2 A mixed-use residential project with a ground-floor commercial use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent and maximum of 30 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements: a. Landscape materials or raised planters; b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches; c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use. Page 9 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 B. BUILDING DESIGNS B.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the façades facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least six feet; Figure B.1.1a Page 10 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; Figure B.1.1b c. Recessed or projected covered entries with a minimum area of 24 square feet; Figure B.1.1c Page 11 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet, extending the full length of the façade; Figure B.1.1d e. Ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 48 square feet; or Figure B.1.1e Page 12 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. Figure B.1.1f 1.2 Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade. 1.3 Townhomes or rowhouses shall have no more than six contiguous units in any single building. B.2. Parking Structure Design 2.1 The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade. 2.2 Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure. 2.3 Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions: a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or b. A different building material covering the entire articulation change of 25 percent of the façade length. Page 13 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 B.3. Roof Design 3.1 At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies: a. Gables; b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of four feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices. Figure B.3.1 3.2 Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed. Page 14 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 3.3 The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the length of the roof. Figure B.3.3 3.4 Eave depths shall not exceed 24 inches from the façade plane. 3.5 Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building. B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: Page 15 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 70 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; Figure B.4.1a b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1b Page 16 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; Figure B.4.1c d. Use of a belly band or horizontal architectural element with a minimum height of 10 inches between the first and second floor; or Figure B.4.1d Page 17 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 e. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade. 4.2 Buildings shall incorporate the same materials on all façades. 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 12 points: ▪ Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Belly band, or horizontal architectural element, between the first and second floor; or 5 points o Façade sconce lighting. 3 points ▪ Bay windows; 6 points ▪ Façade plane of upper floors steps back a minimum of five feet from the ground floor façade; 6 points ▪ Material and color changes; 5 points ▪ Balconies or Juliet balconies; 5 points ▪ Landscaped trellises or lattices; 5 points ▪ Chimneys; 3 points ▪ Wide overhangs with projecting brackets; 3 points ▪ Window boxes or plant shelves; or 3 points ▪ Decorative elements such as molding, ornamentation, or corbels. 3 points 4.4 Mixed-use buildings shall provide the following architectural elements along the ground floor: a. A minimum of 60 percent of the street-facing façade between two and 10 feet above the adjacent grade shall consist of transparent windows; and b. A form of weather protection above storefront entries that extends from the façade a minimum of three feet. 4.5 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade. Page 18 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 4.6 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners or at architectural features that break up the façade plane such as columns. Figure B.4.6 Page 19 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 4.7 Mixed-use development shall meet the following requirements: a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor commercial uses shall meet at least one of the following standards: i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet. Figure B.4.7a Page 20 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk. Figure B.4.7b 4.8 Mirrored windows are prohibited. 4.9 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or common open space. All building entrances shall be recessed from the façade plane or covered by a building projection of at least three feet in depth measured from the wall plane. 4.10 Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements: a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway; b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and c. Shall not be patterned or striped. 4.11 For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district, rooftop and upper floor terraces and decks are prohibited. Page 21 of 21 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards June 2022 4.12 For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district, balconies shall only be permitted on the street-facing building façade. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint. 4.13 Mixed-use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length: a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet; b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces. 4.14 Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street. This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: William Walker <> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:17 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Objective Standards Draft Comments EXTERNAL SENDER Thank you for providing the draft for review by the citizens of Los Gatos. Here are my comments. 1)Parking California is shutting down fossil fuel and nuclear power plants leading to inadequate capacity when the sun goes down and people need to charge their electric cars at home. In the future, car charging will need to happen during the day. To facilitate Daytime charging, parking lots should be roofed with solar arrays, with chargers in the parking lot under the arrays. We already see this happening, for example in the AMD parking lots on Union Avenue. The draft doesn’t mention solar panels over parking lots, it should. In fact, it should be a strong recommendation, instead of tree planting. Tall trees will shade solar panels. 2)Excessive regulation of Architectural styles As I read the regulations pertaining to Architecture, I can’t help but feel they will hamstring Architects, leading to bland architecture. Figure B.4.6 is an example of excessive regulation (IMHO, the suggested change of building materials is ugly as shown in the figure.) One has to ask, would the proposed regulations prevent another North 40, which has been almost universally panned as resembling a stack of shipping containers, or worse? Perhaps a better approach to architecture is to assemble a panel of architects to review and critique design proposals before they are built. William Walker Sent from my iPad EXHIBIT 4 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP and RYAN SAFTY Senior Planner Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 6/22/2022 ITEM NO: 3 ADDENDUM DATE: June 21, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. DISCUSSION: The following information is provided in response to Planning Commissioner questions regarding examples of subcommittee recommendations that were not included in the Draft Objective Standards. Staff has prepared Exhibit 5 addressing the specific examples provided. The Planning Commission objective standards subcommittee held five meetings between July and December 2021. The subcommittee reviewed more than 500 existing subjective guidelines collated from Town documents to provide recommendations to staff on which subjective guidelines should be rewritten as objective standards. The subjective guidelines identified and included in the subcommittee’s recommendations are summarized in Exhibit 6 with references to the preliminary objective standards created in response to the subcommittee’s recommendations. Some items identified by the subcommittee were not included in the Draft Objective Standards. The reasons for exclusions varied but included: duplication of existing Town Code requirements; creation of unreasonable barriers to development; difficulties in enforcement; and not being appropriate when applied to multi-family and mixed-use projects. In collaboration with the Town’s consultant, these recommendations were used to help create the Draft Objective Standards included as Exhibit 3 to the June 22, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report. Please note that many subjective guidelines identified by the subcommittee look different when converted into a draft standard. In writing the Draft Objective Standards, it was often necessary to identify the concept that a subjective guideline was attempting to address in order to create a standard that addresses the same concept. For example, one of the issues identified by the subcommittee was to “provide a foot candle limit for parking lot lights.” While it is possible to write a standard limiting the foot candle power of a parking lot light fixture, the standard may not completely address the overarching concept, which is to limit light spillage ATTACHMENT 6 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: June 21, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): from exterior light fixtures onto neighboring properties. With this in mind, the draft objective standard developed from this subjective guideline is: Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Uplighting is prohibited. (A.5.2). A Planning Commissioner also emailed links to the City of Palo Alto objective standards, which is included as Exhibit 7. Staff looks forward to the discussion and will be available to answer any questions. EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1. Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2. Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3. Draft Objective Standards 4. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Received with this Addendum Report: 5. Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6. Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7. Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Below are several examples of subjective guidelines that do not appear in the Draft Objective Standards followed by a response from staff in italics: November 3, 2021 Meeting: ACCESS a. Pedestrian Access 7. Encourage the use of decorative bollards at all pedestrian crossings at street intersections to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety in the Downtown District. 16. Provide special textured and/or colored paving at pedestrian crossings of project entries. Response: These types of improvements are typically in the right-of-way and subject to Town Engineering standards. November 17, 2021 Meeting: LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING a. Street Trees and Streetscape Landscaping Streetscape Landscaping 11. Landscaping adjacent to street rights-of-way, driveway entrances, or trails should be avoided when it might restrict sight distance or interfere with already established native plants. Response: This is included in A.7.1 and Town Code Section 29.40.0315(a)(3) EXHIBIT 5 November 17, 2021 Meeting (continued): LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING c. Fencing and Retaining Walls Fencing 4. The use of fences and walls shall be minimized and located so that natural landforms appear to flow together and are not disconnected. The primary emphasis shall be on maintaining open views, protecting wildlife corridors, and maintaining the rural, open, and natural character of the hillsides. Response: This is very specific to the hillside area, and it is doubtful these properties would be allow for mixed-use or multi-family development. Additionally, these fencing types may not suit the needs of mixed-use or multi-family development when located in the commercial areas. November 23, 2021 Meeting: 2. Building Height; 1. Buildings over two stories are discouraged in areas covered by these guidelines unless special circumstances warrant additional building height (Commercial Design Guidelines). BUILDING HEIGHT General 1. Buildings over two stories are discouraged in areas covered by these guidelines unless special circumstances warrant additional building height. Commercial Design Guidelines Response: This is potentially overly restrictive. The Draft Objective Standards include strategies to mitigate the mass of buildings greater than two stories in B.1.1, B.1.2, B.4.1, B.4.3, and B.4.13. ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE These issues were identified by the Objective Standards Subcommittee. Where applicable, a corresponding Draft Objective Standard is identified. Issue Number Issue Identified in Subcommittee Meetings Draft OS Response S.1.Pursue pedestrian connections to adjacent development.None Impractical due to potential private property issues. S.2. Define a minimum sidewalk width.None In Town Code and Engineering stadards. S.3. Determine if new development can be required to provide pedestrian connections to the Los Gatos Trail unless another agency would prohibit these connections. None Impractical due to potential private property issues. S.4.Consider requiring driveways to be located to the rear of the lot.A.3.1 S.5.Limit the number of surface parking spaces along street frontages or in front of a building.A.3.1 S.6. Require pedestrian circulation on parking lots exceeding a certain size.A.1.1, A.1.2 Created requirment and standards for circulation without tying them to a certain size parking lot. S.7.Consider increasing the parking lot landscaping requirement from 5%.None Five percent is included in Town Code Section 29.10.155(g)(6). Stricter requirements may not be consistent with State law. S.8.Provide pedestrian access from the parking lot to the building entrance.A.1.1 S.9.Require off street maneuvering areas to eliminate aisle-to-aisle circulation via the street A.2.1, A.3.2 S.10.Provide objective criteria to require an “active” ground floor. Perhaps a minimum fenestration requirement. A.4.2, A.9, A.10.2, B.1.1.d, B.1.1.e, B.2.1, B.4.4.a, B.4.7.b, B.4.13 S.11.Limit blank facades facing a public street. Perhaps no more than 50% maximum or step back the façade a certain distance. A.4.2, B.1, B.2, B.4 S.12.Provide architectural articulation of garages facing streets.B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.13.Provide parking structure setbacks.A.4.2 S.14.Provide gate setback distance for parking garages.A.4.1 S.15.Consider providing a minimum setback for parking structures.A.4.2 S.16.Require all pedestrian walkways to have lighting for safety.A.5.1 S.17.Consider providing different standards for interior lights not facing neighboring properties.None The Town Code requires all exterior light fixtures to be downward directed and shielded. Not pursued to maintain consistency with A.5.2 and Town Code. S.18.Provide a foot candle limit for parking lot lights.A.5.2 S.19.Provide a minimum screening standard (lattice or plants) for utilities. Make a distinction between ground and roof equipment.A.5.3 S.20.Screen trash and service collection from the street.A.5.3 S.21.Provide and define pedestrian amenities with objective criteria.A.9 S.22.Street trees should come from the Town’s list.A.6.2.b S.23. There should be a minimum open space requirement similar to the North 40 Specific Plan Requirement. Provide a minimum percentage. A.6.1, A.9 The inner edge of front setbacks (i.e., away from the street edge) should be treated as a positive edge with one or more of the following: § Low wall § Hedge § Trellis structure § Buildings S.25. Provide a standard for front setback edge treatments at least three feet in height to screen the front of automobile grilles in the parking lot from street view. A.6.3 S.26.Require shrubs used to promote privacy to be fifteen gallon in size and six feet minimum height at planting.A.6.2.b S.27.Provide greater landscape buffering adjacent to residential parcels.A.6.2.b S.28. Provide landscaping between commercial structures and neighboring residents to screen, break up, and soften views of the structures. A.6.2.b S.29.Require roof screens to be constructed from the same materials as the building walls.A.5.3 S.30.Visually screen all trash and outdoor storage areas from view. A.5.3 Pedestrian Access Vehicular Access Parking Location and Design Parking Structure Design Utilities Landscaping and Screening S.24.A.10 EXHIBIT 6 Issue Number Issue Identified in Subcommittee Meetings Draft OS Response S.31.Make utility screening objective and note that the utilities shall not be able to be viewed from the right-of-way.A.5.3 S.32.Provide standards on the type/size of landscape screening for surface parking lots.A.6.3 S.33.Prohibit fences over three feet tall along public street frontages for mixed-use and multifamily development. A.7.1 S.34.Prohibit solid fencing along streets.A.7.1, A.7.4 Conflicts with need to screen parking lots. S.35.Prohibit chain link fences. A.7.2 S.36.Require entryway gates and fencing to have an open design. Limit the size or appearance of monumental entry gates.A.7.4 S.37.Require retaining walls that are visible from a public street to have a veneer of natural stone, stained concrete, or textured surface. None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.38.Require terraced retaining walls to be separated by at least three feet and including landscaping. A.8.1 S.39.Require a break, offset, or planting pocket to breakup retaining walls for every 50-foot continuous length of a retaining wall. A.8.2 S.40.List prohibited solid wall materials that separate commercial uses from adjacent residential parcels. None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.41.Require brick banding along with concrete for commercial street sidewalks. None This is an engineering standard (Villa Hermosa) and the focus of the the objective standards is on building design and building placement. S.42.Require a maximum amount of hardscape percentage. A.6.1, A.9.1 S.43. Require new developments to include common open space areas in the form of public gathering spaces (i.e., plazas, squares, pocket parks) that are designed to stimulate pedestrian activity and complement the appearance and form of adjoining buildings. A.9 S.44.Require shade trees in common outdoor spaces. A.9.4 S.45.Determine if viewsheds into the surrounding hills can be made objective. None Very difficult to make objective and specific to development in the hillside area. S.46.For Community Place Districts, relate buildings to the street and locate them on site to reinforce street frontages.A.10.1 S.47.For Community Place Districts, require buildings to be placed close to, and oriented toward the street.A.10.1 S.48. If possible, limit the height of buildings located on corners to one story in height and preserve views into the surrounding hills. Restrict unnecessary massing at street corners (i.e., domes and uninhabitable spaces). None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.49. Require new homes to maximize privacy, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats, and minimize ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public spaces, or other properties. A.6.2, B.1.2, B.4.11, B.4.12 S.50.Require improvements along outer gateways to the Town. Map gateways where these requirements would apply. None The locations of Town gateways have not been deterined. S.51.Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to living spaces, outdoor areas on adjacent homes, and solar panel sun access.None Very difficult to make objective and very restrictive to apply to every project in commercial zones. S.52. For Community Place Districts, if there is no conflict with Town Code, require front setbacks to be similar to those of structures on adjacent parcels, but not less than ten feet unless those of adjacent structures are less. A.10.1 S.53. For Community Place Districts, require side setbacks to be provided to set the structures off from their neighbors unless the building is part of a continues storefront within the same parcel. If no side setback is provided, the building design should blend with the adjacent buildings to create a continuous storefront. A.10.1 S.54.For Community Place Districts, provide setbacks from street property lines to match those currently existing in the subdistrict. A.10.1 S.55. For Community Place Districts, require new buildings to maintain a consistent setback from the public right-of-way in order to create a well-defined streetscape. A.10.1 S.56.Require a minimum percentage of garages to be set back from the front façade. B.4.5 S.57.Prohibit new setbacks on North Santa Cruz Avenue or West Main Street None Setbacks are established in theTown Code. S.58.Require larger setbacks for parcels fronting on Santa Cruz Avenue and Saratoga/Los Gatos Road North of Highway 9.None Setbacks are established in theTown Code. Building Placement Issue Number Issue Identified in Subcommittee Meetings Draft OS Response S.59. Require accessory buildings and ADUs to be compatible with other buildings with forms, colors, and materials. Provide objective criteria for compatibility. B.3.5 B.3.5 is written to address detached carport. ADUs are reviewd/approved under a separate process pursuant to State law. S.60.Set a limit on height exception for towers, spires, cupolas, and similar structures not used for human activity or storage. Zoning Code Sec. 29.10.090 S.61.Require garages to be subservient to entries and ground floor living spaces. B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.62. Require new outbuildings, such as garages, to be clearly subordinate to the main structure in massing, and utilize forms, materials, and details which are used on the main structure. A.4.2, B.3.5, B.4.5 S.63.Require buildings to be designed at a pedestrian scale. B.1.1, B.2.1, B.4.1, B.4.3, B.4.4, B.4.7, B.4.8, B.4.9, B.4.10, B.4.13, B.4.14 S.64. Require the scale and massing of new developments to provide transitions in building height and massing to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods. Projects backing up to residential neighborhoods should be sensitive to their potential impacts on the residents. A.6.2, B.1.1, B.1.2, B.3.1, B.4.3, B.4.11, B.4.12 S.65.Step buildings down as they get close to neighbors that are smaller/single-story.B.4.3 Town Code requires increased setbacks for nonresidential properties adjacent or across from residential. 29.60.225(5); 29.60.335(4); 29.60.435(5); 29.70.125(5); 29.70.235(3) S.66. Require medium density, high density, and mixed-use parcels in the Los Gatos Boulevard District adjacent to Single-Family parcels to include increased site setbacks and multi-story step backs to minimize the impact and increase compatibility with smaller adjacent structures. B.4.3 Town Code requires increased setbacks for nonresidential properties adjacent or across from residential. 29.60.225(5); 29.60.335(4); 29.60.435(5); 29.70.125(5); 29.70.235(3) For projects located on corner parcels of streets leading into residential neighborhoods, special attention should be given to the following: § Breaking building forms into modules that are similar to those in residential neighborhoods. § Providing landscaping and landscape elements that would be consistent with those used in residential areas. § Screening any parking areas with low walls and landscaping. S.68.Require buildings taller than two stories to have floors above the second floor set back from the walls below. B.1.1, B.1.2 S.69.Provide size transitions between larger and smaller buildings.None There was concern that applying this would inhibit best use of a property based on a neighboring building that could eventually be redeveloped itself. S.70. Require new structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes to be designed to be architecturally consistent and similar in mass and scale with adjacent development to minimize compatibility issues. None Difficult to make objective. S.71.Avoid structures with height and bulk at front and side setback lines which are significantly greater than those of the adjacent homes. B.1.1, B.1.2 S.72. Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless the architectural style traditionally has the second-floor front wall at or near the first-floor wall, set the second floor back from the front façade a minimum of 5 feet. B.1.1, B.1.2, B.4.3 Building Height Massing and Scale S.67.A.6.2, A.6.3, B.1.2 Issue Number Issue Identified in Subcommittee Meetings Draft OS Response The design of two-story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include techniques to minimize their visual impact and provide transitions in scale. Some techniques include: § Step down to one story elements near the side setbacks § Provide substantial side setbacks for the entire house § Provide substantial second floor side setbacks § Use hip roofs at the sides rather than gables S.74.Try to protect views of hills. None Very difficult to make objective especially without a Town view protection ordinance. S.75. Eliminate box-like forms with large, unvaried roofs by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes with cluster units, variations in height, setback, and roof shape. B.1.3, B.3.1, B.4.1, B.4.3 S.76.Construct a maximum of 6 attached units in a row.B.1.3 S.77.Elevations shall be mixed within a development to avoid repetition of identical facades and rooflines. B.3.1 S.78.Require varied building and parapet heights except in locations where flat parapets are common.B.3.1 S.79.Limit the depth of eaves to relate roof overhangs to the architectural style of the surrounding neighborhood.B.3.4 S.80.Avoid the use of dome buildings. None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.81.Require flat profile skylights. B.3.2 S.82. Require roof forms to include materials, elevations, and finishes that are consistent with the architectural style and design of the structure. The subjective nature of architectural styles prevents this from being made objective. S.83. Encourage horizontal eaves longer than 40 to 50 feet in length to be broken up by gables, building projections, or other forms of articulation. B.3.1, B.3.3 S.84. Require skylight glazing material that reduces glare at night, especially for bird safety. Large skylights with dome-style glazing should be prohibited. B.3.2 Difficult to make first sentence objective. S.85. Try to incorporate a Light Reflective Value (LRV) similar to those in Hillside Design Guidelines for roof tones that blend with the environment. None Impractical and too limiting. Eliminates architectural styles. S.86.Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences.A.6.2, B.1.2, B.4.11, B.4.12 S.87. Minimize contrast between manmade buildings and the environment. Try to incorporate a Light Reflective Value (LRV) similar to those in Hillside Design Guidelines. None Impractical and too limiting. Eliminates architectural styles. S.88. Encourage buildings and sites within all Community Place Districts to integrate design features that create a pedestrian and neighborhood-friendly environment, including siting buildings close to the sidewalks, providing space for small plazas, and including public art. A.10.1 S.89. Promote community design which is human-scaled, comfortable, safe, and conducive to pedestrian use. Strategies for standards include height of floor plates and width of building face. B.1.1, B.2.1, B.4.1, B.4.3, B.4.4, B.4.7, B.4.8, B.4.9, B.4.10, B.4.13, B.4.14 S.90.Provide pedestrian arcades and/or other one-story architectural elements to reduce the visual height of tall walls. B.1.1 S.91. Promote well defined architectural styles through the use of building massing, setbacks, façade articulation, fenestration, varied parapets, and other human-scaled architectural features. B.4.1 S.92. Require multi-story buildings to incorporate step backs on upper floors to create a more human-scale and comfortable pedestrian environment. B.1.1, B.1.2, B.4.3 Encourage all new and remodeled structures use at a minimum one of the following architectural design elements to enhance the uniqueness of the structure: § Molding § Ornamentation § Corbels § Cornices § Colonnades S.73.A.6.2 Town Code requires increased setbacks for nonresidential properties adjacent or across from residential. 29.60.225(5); 29.60.335(4); 29.60.435(5); 29.70.125(5); 29.70.235(3) Roof Design Façade Design and Articulation S.93.B.4.3 Issue Number Issue Identified in Subcommittee Meetings Draft OS Response S.94. Break up the façade of horizontal buildings into smaller components by utilizing vertical adjacent building masses. Add a maximum amount of linear frontage for each required massing component. B.4.1 S.95. Exterior wall planes should be varied in depth and/or direction. Desirable massing includes: variation in the wall plane; variation in wall height; roofs containing different forms and located at different levels. B.4.1 S.96. Eliminate box-like forms with large, unvaried roofs by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes with clusters of units, variations in height, setback, and roof shape. Make the building visually and architecturally pleasing by varying the height, color, setback, materials, texture, landscaping, trim, roof shapes, and ridge orientation for all elevations. B.4.1 S.97.Design with architectural integrity on all sides of the structure.B.4.2 S.98.Maintain a strong street presence and design with consistency on all sides of the structure.B.4.2 Provide visual relief for two story walls. Some techniques include: § Belly bands § Pop outs and bay windows § Material and color changes § Chimneys § Wide overhangs with projecting brackets § Juliet balconies § Window boxes and pot shelves § Landscaped trellises and lattices S.100. Maintain continuity of design, materials, color, form and architectural detail for all elevations of a building that are visible from public areas or adjacent residences. B.4.2 S.101.Orient buildings to avoid blank walls and service areas which are visible. B.4.1 S.102. Treat commercial street-facing facades which exceed fifty feet in length as though they were constructed on individual parcels no wider than fifty feet. B.4.13 S.103. Provide horizontal wall plane changes along street frontages and areas easily viewed from adjacent properties. Wall plane changes should have some portions that are at least two feet to provide building articulation. B.4.1 S.104.The size and height of all detail elements shall be sympathetic to the major elements of adjacent structures. None Impractical and difficult to make objective. S.105. Avoid blank walls over ten feet long on primary frontages, and from the first fifty feet from Santa Cruz Avenue or Main Street. Break up larger blank walls with pilasters and landscaping. B.4.14 Require some architectural elements of mixed-use buildings to include: § Shaped parapets or projecting cornices at street wall tops § Large display windows framed by high quality materials. § Projecting columns and pilasters § Column/pilaster bases and bulkheads below display windows § Projecting belt courses and other moldings § Decorative details For mixed-use buildings, structures taller than one story should have design elements that emphasize the first floor. Elements might include: § Awnings § Planters § Projecting signs § Divided light windows § Small scale materials (e.g., brick, board, and batten wood) S.108. Require the design, form, roof pitch, materials, and color of new accessory dwelling units to be compatible with the primary dwelling. Entrances serving the accessory dwelling unit shall not be constructed on any elevation facing a public street. None ADUs are reviewd/approved under a separate process pursuant to State law. S.107.B.4.4 S.99.B.4.3 S.106.B.4.4 Issue Number Issue Identified in Subcommittee Meetings Draft OS Response S.109.Consider limiting second-story balconies in single-family scaled development (detached condos)A.3.11 S.110.Be specific about the minimum/maximum balcony allowed per product type.None Impractical and not responsive to varying lot sizes S.111. Gable dormers, single or an aggregate of multiple dormers, should rarely exceed 50 percent of the width of the roof. Shed dorms can be wider. B.3.3 Relate awning placement to the major architectural elements of the façade. § Add a maximum height § Add maximum percentage of fabric awning § Avoid covering transom windows or architectural elements such as bel courses, decorative trim, and similar features § Use separate awnings over individual storefront bays defined by the columns or pilasters rather than placing a continuous awning across the building frontage § Patterned and striped awnings are discouraged. § Operable awnings are encouraged when appropriate for the style of the building S.113.Create a list of prohibited building materials. Consider using maximum LRV. No copper. None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.114.Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted-on look.B.4.6 S.115.Match wall materials to that of the building. None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.116. Ensure that all buildings have well designed and visible entries. Distinctive projecting or recessed entries shall be provided for each living unit. B.4.9 S.117.Orient unit entries to streets and common open spaces rather than parking courtyards. B.4.9 S.118.Create a minimum fenestration percentage for ground-floor commercial in mixed-use development.B.4.7.b S.119.Apply a window style consistency if possible. None Too restrictive, may create a style conflict with chosen architecutral style of building. S.120.Maintain a high degree of fenestration and transparency on the ground floor of commercial buildings. B.4.4, B.4.7.b, B.4.8 S.121.Encourage window box planters below display windows. B.4.3 S.122.Prohibit mirror-like window tinting. B.4.8 S.123.Establish a maximum percentage of garage facing along a street, or garage door articulation.B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.124.Carport roof materials need to be the same as the building and needs to be behind the building.B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.125. Recess garages from unit fronts along streets. Recesses from the building face of 18 feet or more are desirable to minimize the prominence of the garages and to allow guest parking on driveway aprons. B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.126.Front-facing garages should be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the front façade of the living space.B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.127. Avoid designs that allow the garage to dominate the street façade. Garage doors should feature windows, recesses, and moldings to help blend the garages with the character of the unit. B.2.1, B.2.3, B.4.5 S.112.B.4.7, B.4.10 From: Jeffrey Barnett <> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 11:33 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 2022; Item 3. Objective Standards EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Sean and Ryan, The City of Palo Alto adopted its objective standards on June 1st.. Here is a link to an article about the project:: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/02/new-design-rules-for-palo-alto-housing-projects-govern-everything-from-window-sizes-to-architecture-styles Here is the link to the City Council's agenda packet for the June first meeting where the standards were considered. The Staff Report starts at page 32, and the draft ordinances start at page 51 and extend to Page 211.. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220601/20220601pccsm.pdf The draft minutes of the City Council's June 1st meeting show that the Council approved the objective standards without change. I kindly request that you distribute this email to the members of the Planning Commission for consideration prior to our Wednesday meeting. Thank you in advance. Jeffrey EXHIBIT 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP and RYAN SAFTY Senior Planner Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 6/22/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DESK ITEM DATE: June 22, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. DISCUSSION: Exhibit 8 includes suggestions from a Planning Commissioner for additions and modifications to the Draft Objective Standards based on the Palo Alto Objective Standards, which were included as Exhibit 7 to the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report. EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1.Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2.Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3.Draft Objective Standards 4.Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report: 5.Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6.Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7.Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Received with this Desk Item Report: 8.Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner ATTACHMENT 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank JAB Proposed Considerations Regarding Town of Los Gatos based on City of Palo Alto Objective Standards 1.Page 52 – Possible Introduction: Housing development Development projects Projects are required to comply with objective standards in order to take advantage of streamlined review pursuant to Section 18.77.073; . However, applicants may choose to forgo one or more objective standards, in which case the housing development project no longer meets the definition of a Housing Development Project and will be evaluated to the spirit of the relevant intent statements based on Context‐Based Design Criteria for the zoning district. 2.Page 55 – Hierarchy in Site Circulation and Access 18.24.030 Site Access (a)Contextual Design Criteria Intent Statement To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements: (1)Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. This hierarchy should prioritize pedestrians, bikes, vehicles, and utility/loading access in the order listed. This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points. (2)Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos (3)Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also provided convenient access to building entries. (3)(4) Shared access agreements among property owners, where feasible, to reduce 3. Page 56 - Loading Docks (4)Loading Docks and Service Areas. Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: EXHIBIT 8 (A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on facades other than the primary building frontage: on alleys, from parking areas, and/or at the rear or side of building if building includes these frontages. When only primary building frontage is available, loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet from the primary façade and shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050. (B) Loading dock and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement and safety. 4. Pages 56-57 – Corner Buildings Less Than 40 Feet (b) Objective Design Standards (1) Treatment of Corner Buildings (less than 40 feet) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other attached housing products that face the street shall include the following features on their secondary building frontage: (A) A height to width ratio greater than 1.2:1 (B) A minimum of 15 percent fenestration area. 5. Pages 57-59 – Corner Buildings More Than 40 Feet (2) Treatment of Corner Buildings (40 feet and higher) Corner buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: (A) Street wall shall be located at the minimum front yard setback or build‐to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet in length on both facades meeting at the corner and shall include one or more of the following building features: (continued) 6. Page 76 – Entry Dimensions (A) Building Entries Within Façade Design (i) Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor‐area or number of units accessed). Building entries inclusive of doorway and facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed‐use buildings: 8 feet in width c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width d. Storefront entry: six feet in width (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: a. A recess or projection from the primary façade plane with a minimum depth of two feet. 7. Pages 78-81 – More detailed objective standards for entries 8. Page 82 – Private Open Space b) Objective Design Standards (1) Private Open Space If Private Open Spaces is provided, it shall meet the following standards: (A) Floor area shall include a clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six‐foot diameter. (B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’‐6” feet (C) Be accessed directly from a residential unit (D) Balconies shall not be located within the daylight plane (E) Notwithstanding subsection (a), ground floor patios shall meet the following minimum requirements: (i) RM‐20 and RM‐30 districts: Minimum 100 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is eight feet for at least 75% of the area (ii) RM‐40 districts: Minimum 80 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is six feet for at least 75% of the area (iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) (2) If Common Open Space is provided, it shall meet the following standards: (A) Minimum size of 200 square feet (B) Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10‐foot diameter. (C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open‐air features are permitted. (D) Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 9. Pages 120-122 - Streamlined Processing 18.77.073 Streamlined Housing Development Project Review Process (a) Applicability This section shall apply to applications for residential mixed‐use and multifamily housing development projects, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2), that comply with all objective standards in this code and thereby qualify for streamlining under Government Code sections 65589.5 or 65905.5. (b) Preliminary Board Review Applicants are encouraged to seek preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to Section 18.76.020(c) prior to submitting a formal application. (c) Public Study Session (1) Prior to preparing a written decision, the Director may, in his or her sole discretion, refer the application to the Architectural Review Board or to other advisory boards or committees for the purpose of determining whether minor adjustments to the application would result in closer adherence to the contextual design criteria and/or objective design standards contained in Chapter 18.24. An application should normally not be considered at more than one meeting of the Architectural Review Board. (2) Notice of a public meeting to consider the application shall be given at least 7 days prior to the meeting by mailing to the applicant and all residents and owners of property 2.b Packet Pg. 120 *NOT YET ADOPTED* 35 0160074_20220505_ay16 within 600 feet of the project. Notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, and the date and time of the hearing. (d) Decision by the Director (1) The Director shall prepare a written decision to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it. (2) Neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall approve an application unless it is found that: (A) The application complies with all applicable and objective standards in the Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and other City plans or policies. (B) Approving the application will not result in a specific, adverse, impact upon the public health or safety, which cannot feasibly be mitigated or avoided in a satisfactory manner. As used in this Section, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (3) Notice of the proposed director’s decision shall be given by mail to owners and residents of property within 600 feet of the property, and by posting in a public place. The notice shall include the address of the property, a brief description of the proposed project, a brief description of the proposed director’s decision, the date the decision will be final if it is not appealed, and a description of how to file an appeal. (4) The Director’s decision shall become final 10 days after the date notice is mailed unless an appeal is filed. (e) Appeals (1) Any party, including the applicant, may file an appeal of the Director’s decision in written form in a manner prescribed by the director. (2) An appeal seeking disapproval of a project or a reduction in density shall be limited to the grounds that both of the following exist: (A) The project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. And (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(B)(i), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (f) Decision by the City Council At the Director’s discretion, an appeal may be set for hearing before the City Council or may be placed on the Council's consent calendar, within 45 days. The city council may: (1) Adopt the findings and decision of the director; or (2) If the item is on the consent calendar, city council may remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and direct that the appeal be set for a new noticed hearing before the city council, following which the city council shall adopt findings and take action on the application. (g) Final Decision by the Council The decision of the council on the appeal is final. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Melanie Hanssen, Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Kylie Clark Kathryn Janoff Steve Raspe Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405 ATTACHMENT 8 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR HANSSEN: We will move on to the second public hearing, which is to review and make a recommendation on the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. We did receive a draft of the Draft Objective Standards as well as a Desk Item from Vice Chair Barnett with some comments that came along with the forwarding of the actual document that Palo Alto has published for itself. I will turn it over to Staff and have you take it from there. SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, Chair. Before you tonight is a review of the Draft Objective Standards for recommendation to the Town Council. The Town of Los Gatos has developed Objective Standards for the review of Multi- Family and Mixed-Use development applications in order to comply with recent State housing legislation, implement streamlined and ministerial review processes for qualifying housing projects, ensure that these qualifying projects align with the Town’s expectations and visions to maintain and support the character of the Town, provide a set of clear criteria to guide development, and establish an LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objective framework for which qualifying projects may be evaluated. In collaboration with our consultant, M-Group, the Draft Objective Standards were developed following a review of State legislation and existing Town documents, consideration of recommendations received during five Planning Commission Subcommittee meetings, and consideration of feedback received during two community engagement meetings. An Addendum and Desk Item have been distributed, including input from Planning Commissioners and a summary of the issues considered by the Subcommittee. Tom Ford, a principal at M-Group, will now provide more detail on the development of the Draft Objective Standards, as well as present the structure and the content of the draft document. Staff, along with Tom and his team, is available to answer any questions and aid in tonight’s discussion. TOM FORD: Thank you, Sean. It’s great to be here tonight to talk about this great document that I’m sure you’ll have lots of comments on. Sean already went over a little bit of this, but I have a very, very brief presentation to cover these four LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 items and then allow you folks to discuss what you see and give us some feedback. First, I want to make sure everybody is on the same page about why we’re doing this, and a lot of it is reacting to recent State legislation, particularly regarding housing and affordable housing. I want to go over a little bit of the process that we used to develop the document that you’ve had now for a few days to review. We’ll discuss the development topics, how we organized the document, and then allow you to have time for discussion. As the Staff Report noted, we started a while ago. We first started gathering background information and started having that series of meetings with the Subcommittee at the Planning Commission—three people, two of which I think are here with us tonight—and went through a lot of discussion really examining a lot of the subjective design guidelines and existing and present Town documents, and I’ll get into that in just a moment. Following those Subcommittee meetings we basically had sort of a to-do list, and so what we did was we boiled into different kinds of groups of development or design typologies, if you will, and took that to a community meeting. We didn’t even have a draft document yet, we had “preliminary ideas,” I think it was called, and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it was just ideas that we had heard from the Subcommittee and how we might develop them for projects that were applicable. Following that meeting we started to develop a draft, and right before your Spring into Green event we released it to the public, and at that event, at a booth that the Planning Staff had, people could start to see it. About ten days after that event we had the second community meeting and continued to take comments, but now people were reacting to an actual draft document as opposed to the development concepts that we thought we would tinker with. Then we get into the second day of summer tonight, and here we are. As we predicted, in summer 2022 we’re before the Planning Commission, so we’re going to start to let you guys give us some ideas, some reactions, and eventually we’ll end up in front of the Town Council where we hope they will consider it for adoption. Sean went through some of these five bullet points. A lot of this is coming from State housing legislation that I’m sure you’ve discussed in various contexts over the last couple or three years. Our way of doing it at M-Group is we really try to dig down into the existing planning documents that a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community has already adopted and developed for itself, because those speak to really how the community thinks about itself and it’s the documents that you folks in your review process rely on to give ideas to Applicants, such as the one earlier tonight to push that second floor back. Then we need to provide object criteria to match some of that State legislation, and one of the most known is SB 35. There’s a lot of legislation. There is new legislation right now pending that they’re still discussing, anything from raising the maximum height of an ADU from the current limit, where is parking allowed, and parking around transit. There are a lot of new laws that are going to continue to come down, we think, and they’re going to have a stipulation that the only thing that a community can use to regulate the development proposal will be Objective Standards. However, on the other side of that, it provides a lot of certainty to the developers, because they then really know what are the rules, how do I achieve them, and here’s my application. Then, of course, all of this is about the State’s goal to increase multiple-family housing. So what are Objective Standards? This is taken directly from SB 35. It’s the definition the State uses, it’s the definition we’ve seen in communities who are doing LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this, they rely on this, because what the Objective Standard has to remove any kind of personal judgment so that when the development proposal is in front of the Staff member at the counter and there’s an Objective Standard, it’s clear to tell if they meet the standard or not, because those two people with potentially different viewpoints have to agree on something, so everything has to be an objective judgment rather than a subjective response. What that sets up is the ability for Town Staff to do ministerial review of projects that come in and meet the requirements of an affordable project, or some other kind of project, that State law has said these are only subject to Objective Standards, so that ministerial review on the right column is going to be happening. What we’re trying to do with the document is find ways to get all of the other stuff in the left column, discretionary review. For instance, my impression of what happened on your first item tonight is at some previous meeting you folks as a body asked the Applicant to go away and push the second floor back. Well, what we’ve been trying to do is to see if there is a way to write an Objective Standard that does that. The difference is you had the benefit of looking at one design on one property. We have to write the standard that would apply across the entire R-2 or R-4 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 zone, or what have you, so we can’t be as specific as a discretionary review would be, but we can still try to find ways with the appropriate metrics to put those kinds of rules in place. So again, just discretionary on the left, ministerial on the right, and this is what happens. Design guidelines tend to be very subjective. I think the Subcommittee went through probably 400 different subjective design guidelines from various town documents; many of them were duplicated, but they tended to be subjective, and sometimes a subjective guideline is impossible to objectify, such as “eyes on the street.” How would you do that? But maybe there’s a way to measure how much windows there should be, and you have one of those before you tonight in one of the standards towards the end of the document. Design guidelines tend to have recommendations, they’re just not necessarily enforceable, and they don’t necessarily have a measurable aspect to them. The Objective Standards, as I spoke about earlier, have a metric. There needs to be a way that it’s clearly objective. These are some of the Town documents that we reviewed, and it’s really important that you know that these documents are still your Town documents, because LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you’re going to need them for discretionary review, so these documents aren’t going anywhere; they were just the starting point for us to take subjective information, subjective guidelines in all of these various documents, not so much in the Town Code, but all of these documents, and start to bring it together. We sorted it into the likeminded groups: setbacks, building mass, roofs, things like that, and then started to have those discussions. There’s one thing that’s not really a document, and that’s GPAC referrals. We started our project probably about six months after the GPAC finished going through looking at some drafts of the General Plan, and so what had happened is the Community Character Element had a lot of information in it that the GPAC decided to pull out, but then the GPAC chair and vice chair referred that information to us, and so even that got put into that big list of 400-odd things that we looked at for possibilities for how to objectify. I have three sides here that will talk about the process we went through, because it kind of breaks into three different areas. There’s the preliminary stage where we took those Town documents and we, the consultant team, got our hands around them and tried to understand what they were, worked with Staff to get that material ready to have LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those Subcommittee discussions that stretched across a couple of months, and then that’s what delivered the preliminary topics that we took to that first community meeting. The preliminary topics were made available on the Town website page specifically dedicated to this project. Then we had the community meeting on Zoom, took some comments, answered questions, and then went away and started drafting that document. The first draft, that very preliminary draft, was a combination of information we received from the Subcommittee and then supplemented by questions and comments that we heard from the community. Once we had that draft, it had started out as an admin draft, Staff picked through it and looked at it and had a lot of comments, and we cleaned it up and we got comfortable with publishing a public review draft, and that’s the one that came out right around Spring into Green and in advance of community meeting #2. Following community meeting #2 we took some comments and then revised that draft document together with Staff; we revised some of the graphics and got the draft together that’s before you tonight, so that’s here for your review. We’ll hopefully have a great discussion with you about it tonight, or suggestions or ideas you have, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions, and at some point get in it front of the Town Council for them to consider it for the option. The way the document that you have before you tonight is lined up, there’s a lot in the first section, Site Design, but then there’s quite a bit in the second section too, Building Design, particularly in the fourth part, Façade Design and Articulation. All of these different pieces, they’ve changed a little bit in the process of how we broke it out, how we’ve divided the document. Parking Structure Design in the Building Design part used to be just a subset of parking structure access, and when we talked about it all with Staff we started talking about let’s talk about the access part in the Site Design and let’s talk about the building, and the Subcommittee actually talked a lot about the facades of parking structures and such, and let’s put the building part in the Building Design part, so that’s one of the ways this changed as the process rolled along. It’s obviously your decision, but what I suggest is I can minimize this PowerPoint and I can pull up the document and scroll through it if you’d like to go to a specific place that you folks might want to have a conversation about, or you can do whatever you want to do. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Then I wanted to let you know, you’re probably aware that the document has a lot of images in it like this. We specifically tried to draw them very plain, because we really just wanted to illustrate the text that’s in the standard, so we’re not trying to provide architectural design with these, we’re just trying to say what it means when you say that you can’t have more than a 3o-foot interval before you have this intervention of the façade plane moving two feet. We realized some of you, or some of us, or a member of the public, all of us might have difficulty understanding what that really looks like, so for almost every time you see an image like this in the document we’ve gone forward and tried to find a totally atmospheric image. We’re not saying this is what Los Gatos needs, we’re just trying to illustrate that concept, and like any photograph, there’s always going to be something that’s wrong. For instance, I think in your town it’s not legal to build a fence this high out in the front setback, but what we were trying to illustrate was that modulating of the front façade and how that happens here and how it happens in the real world; here’s a two-story townhouse version and here’s a four-story stacked flat version. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So again, just trying to show that real architects, particularly talented ones, can take an idea like this and move with it and create something with the help of these Objective Standards hopefully that the Town can be proud of when the building is done and up and occupied. I have these for any issue that has a diagram in with the little yellow pieces, and we’ve credited all the architects where we found these photographs, and we’ve generally relied on pretty good Multi-Family designers and architects such as Pya Tok and David Baker. So again, I’m not saying this is an image you want to see in Los Gatos, I’m just saying how do you actually illustrate and how would an architect build that concept? With that, I’ll hand it back to the Chair and I’ll let you see if you like my idea of me pulling up the standards to spin through. I’m available to do whatever you’d like. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Mr. Ford. I think that there might be some big picture questions from the Commission. Before I take questions, suggestions, or comments from the Commission I did want to let the Commission know that the three people that were on the Objective Standards LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Subcommittee were myself, Vice Chair Barnett, and former Commissioner Burch, and we did, as noted, make the five meetings where we went through all of the standards that basically had been pulled out by the consultants for us to look at, and what we tried to do is determine if it was possible to make them more objective; there were obviously some things that weren’t possible and we pulled those out. Before I ask Commissioners for other questions though, I did not know what the ultimate format of the document would be, so what I wanted to ask was from a developer’s perspective. We obviously already had some Objective Standards and still do have Objective Standards that are in the resident documents that you mentioned, and then we have this standalone document for Objective Standards, and so how is that going to be clear to developers? I know our Staff will always work with the developers, but you’re going to use these documents side- by-side because we already have the Objective Standards in the General Plan, the zoning code, and so on. How does that process get rolling? SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. It’s alluded to in the Introduction Statement on the front page, and this is a draft document, so we expect that introduction could change as we move through it, but LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ultimately a qualifying project would need to meet these Objective Standards and other existing Objective Standards. If there were a case where one standard in this document, for instance, is stricter than a standard in the Town Code, then the standard in the draft document would rule. CHAIR HANSSEN: That partly answers my question. I did read the introduction, but basically this is going to be something that’s going to give us more tools but that’s not going to change the process that we already have, which is we’re going to be pulling out our Zoning Code, our General Plan, and other things in addition to this document, and this might make it easier for them to get a ministerial review because we have more parts of the Architecture and Site that would be objectified, is that correct? SEAN MULLIN: Correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any other larger picture questions versus comments of specific standards in the document? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to clarify that this is a set of Objective Standard that really is for qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use projects? In other words, we wouldn’t be applying these Objective Standards, for example, to the application that we heard in Item #2? I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just wanted to clarify that this is for a different nature of building altogether, is that correct? SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct. It’s applicable to very specific product types. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Then I just wanted to comment back to what Mr. Ford described as the process gleaning from the Town documents and why using the Town documents to pull forward to Objective Standards. It makes really good sense to me when you describe it as leaning on the information that the Town already uses, so it’s familiar information and we’re not going too far afield in terms of what might be used in the past, and it just really tightens up what the Town has already used. I appreciated that as a clarifying point. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Commissioner Raspe, and then Vice Chair Barnett. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. For Staff, I just want to confirm, so we have the Objective Standards, which leads to a ministerial administration of applications. It’s my understanding that there also will still exist discretionary review if an Applicant so elects to go that route if they want to come outside of the Objective Standards, is that correct? SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RASPE: And it may or may not be a related question, but you’ve used the language “qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use projects” in the introduction and I think it appears throughout the Objective Standards. What does qualifying mean in that sense? SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. Tom, you may be able to add more to this, but it has to do with the number of Residential units involved in a Multi-Family or Mixed-Use development. I believe the minimum is three, but it’s been a day of looking at a lot of different things, so I think a minimum of three. TOM FORD: Right, and it’s also like the levels of affordability that are offered in the project that’s being put forth, and that will differ from town to town depending on where you are in your annual report to HCD about how you’re doing with providing affordable housing, so different towns and cities will meet different standards, so when I see that language it just means anybody who is eligible with an affordable project to come forward and only be judged in a ministerial process by Objective Standards. These would be the Objective Standards. And Sean, just to put a fine point on what you said, I believe because of the Housing Crisis Act, or SB LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 330, it’s actually any project that’s two units and above. It can still go through a discretionary process, but it can’t be denied if it meets all of the Objective Standards, so it would need to meet all of the Objective Standards also, but it doesn’t have to go through a 60-day ministerial process. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, that’s very helpful. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Also for Staff, I believe in Subcommittee meetings there was some discussion about amending the Town Code, the Residential Design Guidelines, and Commercial Design Guidelines following adoption of the Objective Standards. Am I right in that regard? SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. You’re right, that was discussed. The intent at this point is that this would be a standalone policy document, and the intent at this point is not to amend any other documents unless it’s just a reference that this document does exist. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Janoff again. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’m not exactly sure how to ask this, but I’m wondering what happens with something that is not mentioned in the Objective Standards if a project meets all of them. For example, one of the things LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that made me think of this was Vice Chair Barnett’s document talked about loading docs, which our Objective Standards hadn’t talked about, and so how would that have been handled, say, if we don’t incorporate it? SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. To take that specific example, if a loading doc came up there is some guidance in the Town Code about, I think, locations of those types of things. I would mention that this is a living document and over time as these projects roll through the Town, if items that had not been identified in this document at this point come up, Staff will continue to make note of those, and as we do every so often with the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines or Residential Design Guidelines, we could return to amend the document and correct anything that was unintended or omitted. COMMISSIONER CLARK: So one of our goals is also to try to think of everything that we can to have it in there ahead of time on those? SEAN MULLIN: That’s part of the goal tonight, and also to use your example again, if the majority of the Commission wants loading docs addressed, that can be part of the recommendation to the Town Council and Staff can work on that as we forward the document to the Town Council. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A couple of comments. One I wanted to loop back to Mr. Ford’s illustrations of the different plain forms and actual lifestyle photographs. I think it’s a really good idea to include that. We had some comments in our Addendum, I think, that indicated that these forms look pretty bleak, they don’t have any imagination to them, and are we forcing developers to design all the beautiful features out of building space? I think part of that comment is driven by the simplicity of the diagrams, and so having illustrations, even if they aren’t perfectly fitting Los Gatos’ standards, is a really good idea. People need to see that visual, because it’s sometimes challenging without that, so I would like to see that included. Back to the question of what isn’t in this document, and something that the Planning Commission hears a lot—I won’t say every project, but many, many projects—is with respect of the protection of views. I know this is an extremely difficult topic to create an Objective Standard around, because the views are so subjective. My question is was that considered, and are there any jurisdictions that you know of, like Tahoe, Woodside, some of the more bucolic settings, in addition to Los Gatos, that do have an LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Objective Standard regarding views or view protection, whether it’s building height, which is something we probably wouldn’t want in this document, because we don’t want to further limit what the developers can do, especially from Mixed-Use and affordable housing, so we don’t want to add government regulations there, but can you just comment on views and how possible or not possible it is to create a standard objective around that? SEAN MULLIN: I can briefly respond to that and then pass it on to Tom. I’m not aware of other cities or jurisdictions that have pursued views in the Objective Standards, but I surely haven’t read as many of these documents as Tom has, so I would default to him. One other thing to note, the intent of the images that Tom has provided today to run parallel with the diagrammatic illustrations was not to be put into the document necessarily, but to illustrate the purpose and how those sort of plain images can be realized in real life. That could be part of your recommendation moving forward, that images be sourced moving forward for inclusion in the document, but we would have to source royalty-free or hire someone to create those images. With that, Tom, I’m not sure if you have any response about the view piece. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: We did discuss it during at least two meetings of the Subcommittee. I think, first of all, you have to separate are you talking about a view from the property out, or are you talking about a view from different parts of Town onto the hillside and the slope? Generally, one of the reasons we stayed away from it with the Subcommittee was because since you don’t have a viewshed protection ordinance, or any kind of a view ordinance, it would be hard for us to start making regulations against a moving target, if you will. Because our office is doing a number of these Objective Standards throughout the Bay Area, I’ve also been tracking other communities. I know in Sausalito, as they were trying to develop their Objective Standards they wanted to have some sort of view protection ordinance, and it became just a really hard nightmare for them because the view changes from property to property, and as I said in my presentation, we’re trying to make a standard that applies to all our four properties, or all Downtown Commercial properties, or whatever, so it’s kind of hard. They did a lot of studying of different moving parts, and it’s really difficult because it is so subjective, and so trying to establish an objective rule gets very, very difficult. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I appreciate those responses. CHAIR HANSSEN: Following up on Commissioner Janoff’s question, you did mention one jurisdiction that was going in this direction. Are there other jurisdictions in California that are also very scenic that have been successful in doing this? You didn’t refer to a view ordinance, so do we know of other communities that have a view ordinance and have been successful with it? TOM FORD: First let me correct myself. Sausalito started down the road, but they didn’t finish. They finished their Objective Standards document without tackling that issue, but they tried. I can’t name communities offhand but I know there are communities—I want to say Chico—where view protection ordinances exist. Again, I can’t think of a jurisdiction right offhand, but starting with that ordinance, that’s where I would start before trying to write Objective Standards for something that’s moveable. CHAIR HANSSEN: For the rest of the Commission, we did discuss this during the Subcommittee and I do recall the guidance we were given of a view ordinance, so if we do want to go there in terms of our recommendation to Council, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 probably the thing to do is recommend that the Council look into trying to put together a view ordinance. On the devil’s advocate side of that, since I’m chairing the Housing Element Advisory Board, and the Town Council is getting ready to finalize the General Plan, we are relying very heavily on Mixed-Use in both the Housing Element and the General Plan for success in terms of meeting our RHNA allocation, and the only way that Mixed- Use can be successful is through additional height and sometimes additional FAR, and sometimes some other things on top of that, and those might directly impact views, so I would say if we’re going to recommend that to Town Council we have to understand that it might be complicated by the fact that when we’re building four stories, and maybe even five, that it would be hard to protect those views. Let me see if there are other questions. Since Vice Chair Barnett had submitted his comments I did want to at least bring up that we were forwarded a copy of Palo Alto’s Objective Standards, and also the Vice Chair had submitted some comments on top of that that he thought were important after reviewing that. Since Palo Alto’s standards are so much longer than ours, how should we think about that? I’m going to ask Staff that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. I would attribute part of the length of Palo Alto’s ordinance that they created around Objective Standards to it tries to capture two things, and you might recognize some of the language in there. The first is they have their Objective Standards for these same types of qualifying projects. The second piece is they’ll have an Objective Standard in what’s called a context-based design criteria, which they’re usually similar concepts. The Objective Standard is just that, it’s objective and it can be applied to those projects that qualify. The context-based design criteria are for projects that don’t meet the Objective Standards or choose not to utilize that process, and they did a much more robust overhaul and drafting of a document and an overhaul of their city ordinance and incorporated it into a new chapter, and I think that having the two running parallel creates a much longer document. A through line to what they’ve set up to the Town of Los Gatos is that we are developing an Objective Standards process as a standalone policy document that would not live within the Town Ordinance, and to Commissioner Raspe’s question, to those projects that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wouldn’t meet those Objective Standards or choose not to, they would pursue the typical Architecture and Site process similar Palo Alto’s context-based design criteria. And to your question, Chair, if there are items, concepts, particular Objective Standards, or even the design criteria, if there are particular items in that document or in their ordinance that you would like to pursue, you can include those as recommendations, even if they’re not objective at this point. We can attempt to make something objective, we can look at whether it would create a conflict within the document, and we can redraft language; it could be additive or it could revise existing language. I think some of the examples that Vice Chair Barnett provided tonight, we have a draft in our document, but maybe not the same way. We have gone about it a different way, but we have addressing something like pedestrian access, for instance. But you could certainly pull from Palo Alto or any other document, or any other concept in general, and include that in your recommendation as we move forward. CHAIR HANSSEN: So with that in mind, Vice Chair Barnett, you did submit your recommendations and it sounds LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like Staff has gone through those. How would you like us to consider those in tonight’s hearing? Ms. Armer has her hand up. JENNIFER ARMER: Sorry, Chair, but just wanted to remind you that we do have some members of the public, so once you are done with overarching questions, we might see if they’ve got comments to share. CHAIR HANSSEN: I was planning to do that. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to go over the overarching comments. The other reason is that if it’s not in the document now, then this would be a time to bring those up versus going through the document and saying I wish it said this instead of this. If you think something is missing, it’s probably good to bring those up now. That was the reason for my questioning, but after that I will go to public comments. My question was for Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The document from Palo Alto is rather daunting, and there’s some sentiment that we shouldn’t continue tonight’s hearing for the purpose of further examination of that document. Community Development Director Paulson had an excellent suggestion, which is that we forward that as a recommendation for review by the Town Council and not try to make any decisions tonight in the short amount of time that’s available. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: That might be a way to do that. Relative to the finding of the Palo Alto document, I do imaging a scenario where any number of jurisdictions will come out with their document and we might wish ours looked like that, and so I do have that concern about trying to spend too much time tracking other documents, but since this one is in front of us I think it would be helpful if any Commissioners have specific things that they want our Staff to consider as we move forward, that we should try to get those on the table as soon as possible. Let’s go to public comments. This would be a time for any members of the public to speak about the Draft Objective Standards that is on the agenda and that we are discussing currently. JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone is interested in speaking on this item, please raise your hand. Lee Quintana. You should be able to unmute. You have three minutes. LEE QUINTANA: Number one that I would like to speak to is the fact that at previous meetings on this it was stated that there would be one unified document that included all the objectives that applied to qualifying projects, and that seems to have gone by the wayside. I do think that if you don’t do that it is going to be totally LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 confusing to the public; they’re not going to understand what exactly is included for these standards. I do believe, as has been suggested, that you need to define in the document what a qualifying project is. As for photos, I think for the public to understand the concepts—and this document should not be just for the developers—that you need to include either a photograph or probably even better, a graphic figure of what you’re trying to present. I think from what’s being said it sounds like this is going to go the Town Council fairly rapidly, and that doesn’t seem like giving either the public or the Commission adequate opportunity to really digest what is being proposed and what could be proposed. Myself, I have not had a chance to look at the Palo Alto example, but the one thing I really believe is that it has to be an integrated document that all the objectives that apply are listed. You many not have to actually quote them, but you would at least have to give the direction as to where they could be found specifically by section, document page, or whatever. Otherwise, the document is not user-friendly and it is not transparent to the public. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I guess that is basically going to be my statement right now. I think we need to pay more attention to how the documents are understood and perceived by the public so that they can understand the process and what is actually being proposed. My other comment is that this document, my understanding anyway, can cover Multi-Family projects that contain duplexes on up to large Multi-Family structures, so there are a whole bunch of different types of buildings that are being covered, and yet the objectives don’t break that down as to what applies to what building type, so again, I think that it needs better clarification for that, both for understanding by the public and even by developers themselves. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. They’re always very helpful and we really appreciate you talking to us. Any questions for Ms. Quintana? Seeing none, I’d like to ask if there is anyone else that would like to speak on the Draft Objective Standards? JENNIFER ARMER: If you’d like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, then I will close public comment and go back to the Commission. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Quintana brought up a more specific version of what was on my mind when I asked the question earlier about how does this process work, and so I would like to say that I appreciated her comment. I don’t know where the rest of the Commission is on this, but I do think there would be some merit to having a more comprehensive thing even if we’re pulling things out of code or whatever, so that people would know what all the Objective Standards were. I think that’s not a bad thing to consider, so I’ll just put that out there from my point of view. Are there other things that the Commission would want to bring up in terms of the things that are missing, or structural issues, or other things? We could also go through the document itself, but I wanted to see if anyone had any specific concerns about the overall structure and the direction that this is going. I think there were a couple of comments about having pictures, and I don't know what Staff wants us to do. Should we vote on if there are specific recommendations, or just if it seems like we have consensus from the Commission we can forward that on as a recommendation? How does Staff want us to do that? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I can jump in. I would say that there are a couple of different ways that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you could proceed. If, as you’re talking through, there are certain recommendations that you want to make individual motions about to see if there is consensus and support, you could do it that way; or you could keep track as the discussion goes on and have a list of additional changes, modifications, or additional material that you think should be provided to Town Council, and consolidate that in a single motion at the end of the discussion. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. Commissioner Janoff, you had your hand up and you don’t anymore, so your question is answered? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was just going to say if we’re going to walk through the document, then there are opportunities for recommendation, but I think Ms. Quintana’s point about having a… It could be a drawing, it doesn’t need to be a photograph, but something that better illustrates different types of design standards would be helpful. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, then I’m okay with going ahead and looking at the document if you want to put that on the screen. TOM FORD: Do you literally want to scroll through the entire document, or does somebody want to raise a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specific standard that they’d like to discuss and I can flip to it? CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m presuming that everyone on the Commission has read the draft document, so I don't know that we need to go over things, but what we did with the General Plan, and what we’ve done with the Housing Element so far, is go by section and see if there are things; and we did this is the Subcommittee as well. I think we didn’t talk about every last thing, but we went through sections and said are there things that caught our attention that we want to talk about? So I will ask Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Mine are comments throughout that I’ll just offer. On 1.2 on this page we talk about a height, but we don’t mention depth, and I’m wondering whether there might be an addition so it’s a height of 6”, and a depth of I don't know if it’s 2’, or what it might be? TOM FORD: Okay. CHAIR HANSSEN: It seems like a good suggestion. I don’t have my whole document open in front of me, but is this everything under Pedestrian Access, or is that just the first page? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: Yes, that’s it for Pedestrian Access. The next page will start into the second section, Vehicular Access. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff, did you have another comment? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I don’t. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett, did you have a question about the Pedestrian Access or Vehicular Access? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Pedestrian Access. I wanted to point out in my suggestions of possible modifications based on the Palo Alto Objective Standards, Item 2, there’s a hierarchy of access issues for prioritizing pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles in that order, and I wonder if we could consider that as a possible modification? CHAIR HANSSEN: Just to make sure that it’s clear what you’re asking, the Palo Alto document, they were saying that you would prioritize certain modes of transportation over like, say, cars for example? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, it talks specifically about pedestrians and bikes before it gets to vehicles. CHAIR HANSSEN: What do other Commissioners think about that? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: The hierarchy was one of the things I liked the most from the Palo Alto Objective LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Standards. I think that is something I would want to exist in any project anyway, so if it’s feasible I would support incorporating it, but I’d definitely be curious to hear Staff opinions and if that seems to restrictive or anything like that. CHAIR HANSSEN: What is Staff’s reaction to the suggestion? SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. My initial reaction is this is one of those examples that come out of Palo Alto’s contextual design criteria, and it may be difficult to objectify the hierarchy of priority between different modes of travel. We certainly will take your suggestion and look into it. This is one of the examples where it may be a little difficult, but we’ll see if there’s a way to do it that is objective. In the end, going back to the definition of these Objective Standards, it can’t allow anyone to really think about it, if you will, or make a decision on whether they’ve adequately addressed the hierarchy. It needs to be something like—this is out of left field—all Mixed-Use projects shall include a Class 1 bike lane on the street- facing façade. It would need to be at that level versus all Mixed-Use projects shall prioritize pedestrian to bike to cars in that order, because there’s no way to quantify that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as did the developer meet that standard or not? But it’s something we can look into. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s fine, and I think there are a couple of Commissioners that think that it would be good to go in that direction if we could, but we understand there might be some concerns about whether or not you can make it objective. Any other comments on the Pedestrian Access section? Then I think we can go on. TOM FORD: Vehicular Access. CHAIR HANSSEN: So we just have the one standard for Vehicular Access? TOM FORD: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: This is going to bring up like what’s left out. If I recall, we didn’t have anything for bicycles in here, we only have pedestrian and vehicle, and then we’re going right into parking, is that correct? TOM FORD: Correct, we don’t have any bicycle- specific standards. CHAIR HANSSEN: So question for Staff. I’ve seen for LEED standards, for example, if you want to get LEED certification you have to have like bike lockers or things like that, bike parking in parking lots and parking garages and so on, or is there another place that we would have LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standards for how projects are supposed to accommodate bicyclists? JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Joel Paulson, Community Development Director. A couple of things. For the bike, we have a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that Parks and Public Works deals with, which has different right-of-way improvements depending on the street and what kind of improvements they’re looking for moving forward. Those bicycle storage components are required in other documents by other agencies as well as far as whether it’s LEED or things that you need to do to show that you’re providing X number of bike parking spaces per either square foot or per vehicular parking spot, and so there are actual specifics, and I can’t recall off the top of my head, but there may actually be some of those in the Building Code as well, so those are the types of things that, again, from an objective versus aspirational criteria, those are kind of two different topics. We definitely can, as Sean mentioned on the previous item, look into options for creating those. I think the challenge is once you start—which is what we tried not to do—to capture every Objective Standard from the Zoning Code, every Objective Standard from every other document, and pull it into one document, then every time we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make a change in one we have to make a change in all of them. So that’s definitely something that we can look at, but I think the important component is it sounds like there’s an interest to make sure that we’re either capturing here or it’s captured somewhere else, kind of two topics on this relating to bikes; I think it’s the bicycle infrastructure from a public right-of-way standpoint as well bike storage mechanisms. CHAIR HANSSEN: From my perspective, and then I’m happy to hear from other Commissioners as well, if it’s of interest to the Commission and it’s in the Palo Alto standard to prioritize the bikes and pedestrians over other forms of vehicles, one of the ways that you’re not doing that is by not calling out things that are in our Objective Standards that pertain to bicyclists. That being said, I understand that there is stuff in other documents, but I feel like that might be a miss that we should try to put something in here, even if it’s about bike parking, something like that, especially when we’re talking about parking cars. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A couple of comments. I think that the introduction could more clearly describe that this is a standalone document, but there are other complementary documents that should be referred to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that also contain Objective Standards, and you could name the various documents that exist. I would list them; there are a dozen of so, or a half a dozen. That way, to anyone’s concern that we’re silent on it and that we don’t address it because it’s not in this document, we’ve said go look for it in the appropriate document elsewhere, and I would feel comfortable doing that rather than duplicating the items that are already Objective Standards in other documents for the reason just mentioned. Having said that, I haven’t thoroughly read the Palo Alto guidelines. I was confused about the contextual guidelines and the Objective Standards, so I kind of got mixed up in that a little bit. I’m not clear what prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle over vehicles, or pedestrian over bike, etc., I’m not sure what that means, but I would say in this instance that something about accommodating bicycles, just putting some objective language in here just so we cover all the modes of transportation, so that at least it’s complete. I don’t see that that’s going to be needed going through this document, but I think it makes sense here; it’s sort of an obvious omission, even though, as you say, we’ve got it covered in other documents. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I kind of have a feeling our Vice Mayor, who is an avid bicyclist, will be bringing up something similar when the Town Council sees it. As far as Vehicular Access, I think what we have is fine. It’s intended to keep circulating in the parking garage from going out into the street, so that makes sense. Any other thoughts about Vehicular Access? Is there more Parking Location and Design on the next page? TOM FORD: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: It looks to me like most of the things as far as parking vehicles were there. Then I thought about bikes, so I already brought that point up. TOM FORD: So move on? CHAIR HANSSEN: Does anyone have any comments so far on the Parking Location and Design standards? Then there’s Parking Structure Access. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: When we get there, just a comment on Utilities. CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other Commissioners that have comments on Parking Location and Design standards or Parking Structure Access? Okay, Utilities. And then it goes on to the next page. So Commissioner Janoff. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: When I read 5.1 I thought those are really huge light fixtures, so I think you’re missing a word. “Light fixtures shall be located at a minimum of 3’ and a maximum of 15’.” I think that’s what was intended, but correct me if I’m wrong. CHAIR HANSSEN: Could Staff answer that question? SEAN MULLIN: I’m sorry, I was just rereading it very carefully. Yes, I think the intent here is actually for pedestrian lighting along pedestrian paths, that the 3’ is a minimum height and then a maximum height of 15’. This wasn’t speaking to the distance between or the placement of the actual fixtures, so you could imagine path lighting that’s incorporated into a bollard versus like the light fixture shown in the figure on the next page. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I understand what you’re saying; I’m just reading this literally. It says, “The lighting fixture shall be a minimum of 3’ and a maximum of 15’ in height.” That describes the light fixture, not its location. SEAN MULLIN: I understand the recommendation. I’m going to make sure to note that. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: I actually think there’s some merit to thinking about adding or tweaking one of the standards, especially with all the dark skies advocates LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we’ve had during the General Plan hearings, because there’s nothing in here that would prohibit someone from putting like, say, path lighting every foot, so the height is only one aspect of it. We just landscaped our own yard and put some path lighting in, and we put it like 15’ apart from each other, so I would recommend maybe adding onto 5.1 something like that just to make sure that they’re not doing access lighting in height or in volume. I don't know if it’s possible to make that objective. He had some other ones in there about when the parking lot is so long you do a landscape strip or something. It seems to me you could make that objective. SEAN MULLIN: We’ve noted that and we certainly could look into that. JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, we can look into it. Of course the spacing will depend somewhat on the style and height of the lighting itself and the brightness of it, so we can look to see if there’s something to be included. CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other comments? So that’s everything on Utilities through 5.3. I remember talking about the screening, so then the next thing is Landscape and Screening. Any comments on Landscape and Screening? Commissioner Raspe. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair, just a couple of comments. Under A.6 and I think again at A.9 we talked about plantings, and I know we spent a lot of time in our General Plan discussion talking about using native plantings and all that, and I just wanted to confirm, we don’t have to reinsert that language into this document, is that correct? Because the General Plan is a more restrictive document in that sense, and then those standards were carried into this document, is that right? SEAN MULLIN: It would depend on how it’s written in the General Plan. If the General Plan—and I’m sorry, but I don’t have the language in front of me—says something similar to native planting is highly preferred by the Town versus native species shall be incorporated in all landscape plans, the first is a subjective criteria and couldn’t be applied, and wouldn’t be applied, under a project like this. The second statement would be objective and you’d have to meet that in addition to the Landscape and Screening requirements here. So if there were a wish to be more restrictive or to create something objective that doesn’t exist, or only exists in the subjective form in another document, that’s the type of recommendation we would certainly entertain. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RASPE: Perfect. Then my thought—and I would welcome the thoughts of my fellow commissioners— would be wherever landscaping is discussed—and again, my notes indicates at least Sections A.6 and A.9—that there would be either a requirement or a preference for native and drought tolerant plantings where possible. Then as long as we’re in the same section, Section 6.2a, when we’re talking about screening it calls for a solid masonry wall, and we’re talking about in the buffer between a Multi-Family and a Single-Family Residential building, and I’m just curious why a masonry wall is called for. It seems to me maybe regular fencing in certain circumstances might work and might fit in better aesthetically in some neighborhoods than a solid masonry wall. I suspect a masonry wall probably has some sound attenuation benefit to it, but aside from that is there a reason to use masonry as opposed to allowing some other forms and materials? SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. This is an example of an Objective Standard that was created from language that already existed, and I can’t remember the exact language— I’d have to look up the source, and we can certainly do that—but there is a current requirement for a masonry wall LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when you are interfacing between, I think it might be, Commercial and Residential. JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. SEAN MULLIN: So this is where that was born from, and the caveat here would be if we created an Objective Standard that was less restrictive than an existing Objective Standard, because that could be problematic and in conflict between the two documents. We’re looking a little bit farther forward as we consider this. So we’ve tried to maintain it at at least the level that existed somewhere else, if not more restrictive, within this document. COMMISSIONER RASPE: That’s a fair comment and thank you for explaining it. I’ll withdraw my recommendation then with respect to the masonry wall and just preserve my comments with respect to the plantings. TOM FORD: I want to go back to what Commissioner Raspe was saying about landscaping. We actually can’t write sentences that say things like “where feasible,” because that just opens up to opinions; that’s not objective. But I think we can still investigate the whole idea of native and drought tolerant, and I think one of the ways into it might be the C.3 guidelines, which are already in effect Town- wide on certain kinds of projects. I think there are a lot LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of ways to look at it, but I just wanted to make sure everybody knows that we can’t use sentences that say things like, “if feasible” or, “as necessary” and things like that. CHAIR HANSSEN: The Town Council was just going over the General Plan on Monday, and I don’t have the General Plan in front of me, but I want to say that we actually had that the plantings have to be in a category or this, or this, or this, and if it is, then I would say that Commissioner Raspe’s suggestion we ought to make this a bit more robust. Then as far as the comment about the masonry wall, if that came from an existing document where it’s between Residential and Commercial, is there a way to make sure that it’s clear, or is this going to apply if there are two Residential buildings that are next to each other that they’re going to have to put a masonry wall? JENNIFER ARMER: Because this is a sub-point underneath the previous policy that does specify that it’s between Multi-Family or Mixed-Use development abutting a Residential property, any of these higher-intensity projects that abut a Residential property would have this requirement. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: So it is clear that we know what the context would be, because I had the same reaction, because especially in the Planning Commission we are always hearing about fences, or screening trees, but if we already have that in another standard, then we don’t want to be inconsistent. Commissioner Clark has her hand up. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have two comments under Landscaping and Screening. First, to jump off of what Ms. Armer was just saying, so in that case if it’s between a Multi-Family Residential and then a like Single-Family, does that mean that theoretically a duplex next to a Single-Family home would need a masonry wall, or where does the line exist for that? JENNIFER ARMER: Based on the earlier discussion I think one of the things that we would work on developing is a more specific definition of qualifying projects so that we could make sure that it is clear maybe that there will be some references to State regulations, but make it clear as to which projects are considered Multi-Family for this type of policy. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yes, I’d like to make sure that we flag to not have a wall between a duplex or a four-plex in the Single-Family home, because our goal LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this whole time with missing middle has been to have it kind of blend in with the neighborhood, so that might be for a different conversation, but just to raise that. And then, Chair, may I ask another question? CHAIR HANSSEN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CLARK: My other question is on 6.1. It says that the area shall be landscaped and I was wondering if there is a definition of landscaped sitting anywhere? I felt like that could be up to interpretation. TOM FORD: It could be left up to interpretation, however, I don't know if it’s defined in the code, if it’s one of the definitions that’s already given. SEAN MULLIN: I was going to say that it’s something that we did discuss and this is where we landed. We could certainly look at it a little bit more carefully and see if it needs to be a defined term. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, great. CHAIR HANSSEN: I actually had the same reaction. I was like it could be a pile of gravel, a bunch of mulch, or it could be all hardscape. Maybe those are all in the desirable category, but to me I think that would be worth looking into if it’s clear enough what it would be. Commissioner Raspe. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. One more comment with respect to landscaping, and that’s in Section 6.3. The language provides for a minimum height of 3’ with landscaping between parking lots and street to serve as kind of an official buffer. I’m wondering if we wanted to create or insert a maximum height as well? There could be aesthetic and safety reasons to create maximum heights, but it occurs to me there also are security reasons. Creating hiding places or little dark corners in parking lots is certainly something we want to avoid, I think, so for security reasons, if no other, so you may want to insert a height limitation on the buffers around parking lots. SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. I would just quickly respond that part of what you’ll see is duplicated this document and the Town Code is some of the regulations for fencing, because those were just updated back in 2019. That included a maximum height in basically the setback areas that are adjacent to streets, so that’s the street side or up front setback area and areas as you get closer to corners or driveways. So now it’s codified with a maximum height of 3’ and that’s where we started here, but that is something that we could clarify and duplicate so that we’re calling LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out that you’ve got to be at least 3’, but if you’re in the setbacks abutting a street, then no higher than 3’. COMMISSIONER RASPE: I think that would be helpful. Thanks so much. CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s a very good suggestion. I did want to make one more comment about the wall thing. I think that Commissioner Clark’s comments were right on and I know we can do something about it, but the other thing that I thought of is since we’re trying to promote affordable housing it might be onerous, especially if you’re looking at a two-unit next to another two-unit, to have to build a wall, because it would be more expensive than planking and things like that, so I just want to make sure that we’re really careful about under what circumstances a wall is required. Anyone else have questions or comments on the Landscaping and Screening? So then we can go to Fencing. Staff, you did mention that most of this is taken directly out of our Fence Ordinance? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. SEAN MULLIN: Correct. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: So there won’t be any conflict between this and our Fence Ordinance? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: Should I move on? CHAIR HANSSEN: I don’t think anyone has any comments on Fencing. Retaining Walls? JENNIFER ARMER: Chair, I would add also that this does come almost directly from the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines for retaining walls. SEAN MULLIN: That’s correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: Going back to Ms. Quintana’s questions, I know we’ve already made this as a recommendation, but since we’re taking this stuff out of other documents and putting it in here, it does beg the question of why we’re not taking other things out of other documents and putting them in here that are clearly Objective Standards? I know you guys are going to look into that. Do any Commissioners have any questions about the Retaining Walls? Okay, then Open Space? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I have a question about the relationship between 9.1 and 9.2. If a Mixed-Use development has to have at least 20% of the site area be landscaped open space, and then also has to have a minimum of 100 square feet per Residential unit of public gathering spaces, do you think that this becomes burdensome on them, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or Staff? From your experiences, do you not see this as a problem? JENNIFER ARMER: I can start, and I would say that as we look at this wording it might be that in some cases these two policies would actually overlap in terms of space that’s required. For common open space, it could be some landscaped open space, and so it may not be additive, but it would overlap. Mr. Ford I don't know if you have any additional thoughts on those two. TOM FORD: No. I think the primary thing we were trying to do was cover two different development typologies, one being a 100% Residential project and another that would have that Mixed-Use component, probably on the ground floor. We were trying to separate them so that it got handled first in 9.1 as just an overall standard, but then 9.2 augments it in terms of talking about when you have these two uses occupying the same site. And then we were also trying not to conflict with anything that the code already specifies in terms of open space requirements. CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff, do we have anything in our code on minimum open space? JENNIFER ARMER: We do. The code does have specifics for Multi-Family developments in terms of the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amount of space for each unit, private open space as well as common open space, and so those would apply. This is looking more at the project as a whole, rather than individual spaces. CHAIR HANSSEN: 9.1 is? JENNIFER ARMER: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: I want to tell you, I was really happy to see this, because one of the really nice things in the North Forty Specific Plan is the requirement for 30% open space, of which 20% has to be green open space, and I’m glad to see that we have something in here. Before I go onto any other questions, I wanted to ask the question though about 9.1. It says, “Landscaped open space may be…” Is that objective, or does it have to be one of those, or what could it be if it’s one of those? JENNIFER ARMER: The 20% of the site area is the objective part. Landscaping may be in these other forms, and gives examples of what it might be, but does, you’re right, leave it open. We were talking earlier about the possibility of defining what landscaped means, and so it may be that that would actually increase objectivity of the second part of this, but it is still an Objective Standard because it is saying 20% of the site must be landscaped open space. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: And now that we’re in this drought crisis, having grass in here is not a good thing, so I think that if you’re going there that we should work on this one a little bit. Commissioner Clark, did you have more comments than what you already asked about? I want to just make sure we covered everything. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, I want to quickly respond to Staff’s response. I think something that I’d recommend is just making the potential for overlap between those two a little clearer, because when I saw them it felt like they had to exist separate, so that’s something I’d recommend just exploring. CHAIR HANSSEN: Good comment. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Yes, I want to echo your concern about grass. Whatever is appropriate in this drought-tolerant foreseeable future, I think we need to be respectful of. Also, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4, I noted in the Palo Alto document some areas where they speak to the common area being open to sky, and in some areas it’s 60% open to sky, so I would recommend looking for those objective criteria and speak to the open sky. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: So are you suggesting adding something? It talks about a minimum of shading. You’re talking about some percentage of open sky? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I just refer you back to the Palo Alto Objective Standards on open space, they do speak to an open sky concept in addition to coverings. CHAIR HANSSEN: And you’re recommending that Staff look into adding that here? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: In the recommendations I made concerning the Palo Alto Objective Standards, Objective Standard #8 addresses private open space, and it appears that the draft that we have only refers to public or common open space, and I noted that Ms. Armer said that there is code language that addresses private open space. I haven’t had a chance to look at that, but I thought that there were some good suggestions in there in terms of size and location. SEAN MULLIN: And I would offer and remind that the code requirements for private open space would still apply in those circumstances. You’re correct; this is speaking more towards public or common open space. The open space requirements for second-story units usually exist in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the form of a balcony or a private balcony, which is not defined here, but we can look into including it or making sure that we have enough here. We still want to be a little bit careful with duplicating items that are in the Town Code per Director Paulson’s caveat earlier. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think just to make sure that anything that Palo Alto had might not be in our current code since we’re not looking at it right now. I think it would be a useful thing to check on that. SEAN MULLIN: Chair, you’re speaking specifically to Objective Standard #8 in Vice Chair Barnett’s attachment? CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes. Then actually when you talked about the balconies it made me think of something. When we had the Draft 2040 General Plan and Community Design Element, we did have—and I know Vice Chair Janoff and I had recommended taking it out—a requirement for when it was multi-story to have a balcony, and that could be included in the common open space, and you needed to offer it because they were stories above the ground. That was an Objective Standard that we had in the General Plan that we kind of referred out, and I don’t remember what we decided about that or what happened to that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: I believe that was part of the list of topics that were considered by the Subcommittee, because all of the things that we removed from the General Plan as too specific at that point, or inconsistent with code, were at least considered initially as part of this process. SEAN MULLIN: That would have been part of the GPAC referrals. CHAIR HANSSEN: I don’t remember what we decided, but I’m asking the question why am I not seeing it here? TOM FORD: I don’t recall why it’s not here. I would say though that if somebody has a balcony on an upper floor, that’s only private. You would not be able to count that as common open space, because the unit is the only person that has access to it. CHAIR HANSSEN: No, I totally understand that, but I think the issue was that if you’re going to create a Multi-family building that you want to give the residents an opportunity to have some private open space. JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. I’ll just offer that right now we’re looking at the site standards. That definitely is something we should probably consider, if it’s not in there, for the building standards, which is Section B. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, maybe I missed that and maybe it’s in the building section. All right, any other comments on Open Space? Okay, Building Placement? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Just keeping it short here. I was curious why 10.1 only referred to development in a Community Place District when we look at the site inventory that the Housing Element Advisory Board has prepared? There are a number of developments that are outside of the Community Place District, so just curious whether this really is intended for only that, or whether it’s for more than just Community Place Districts? TOM FORD: I don’t recall why exactly we did that, other than it could be that the Community Place Districts were the only places where we were envisioning ground floor Commercial in a Mixed-Use context. That’s the only thing I could think of offhand. JOEL PAULSON: And to Commissioner Janoff’s point, I think maybe that’s too limiting, so we should probably just strike that so that it would apply to any Multi-Family or Mixed-Use. I think that’s a good comment and I think you’ll probably see that in a couple places, so we’ll strike that wherever that occurs in this document. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion. Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Just to give another perspective, I have only liked this one knowing that it was in Community Place Districts, but I think normally I don’t want to see everything, especially not 75% of everything, coming right up to the setback. This one is hard, because if that is mostly what another neighborhood is like, then I think that makes sense to do there, but if that doesn’t exist in some places and you start doing it, I think that could make them look out of place, and so I don’t personally think that’s one that makes sense as an Objective Standard for everywhere. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask a question on top of Commissioner Clark’s question and comment. Could we make this like just specific to Mixed-Use? Because I know where this came from. It was when we were talking during the General Plan about creating communities, and we also talked about this during the redesign of our Planned Development Ordinance. We have a Mixed-Use development on the northwest corner of Blossom Hill Road and Los Gatos Boulevard and that is kind of a non-vertical Mixed-Use, and the first thing you see in a lot of parts of it is parking lot, and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so when we were talking about re-envisioning what might happen, having Community Place Districts be Mixed-Use where it’s close to the sidewalk and it’s accessible and everything made sense. Would it make sense to just change this to a standard for Mixed-Use? Because any place there would be Mixed-Use would have ground floor Commercial. JENNIFER ARMER: I was going to say that yes, we could. As with some of the previous standards where it referenced Mixed-Use projects in particular, one caveat I would say in our recent discussions about the Housing Element and housing developments and whether there is a possibility that for certain affordability levels, say it’s 100% affordable housing, that could then be allowed without a Mixed-Use component in one of these Commercial zones. So if it didn’t have this requirement, then it could be (inaudible) on the street if we’re trying to create this continuous streetscape, so those are some of the things to consider. We can’t think of all possible situations when we’re doing Objective Standards, but something to consider. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe, do you want to comment on this, or did you have something else? COMMISSIONER RASPE: No, this one. Thank you, Chair. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I join in Commissioner Clark’s comment. The notion of a requirement of 75% for the frontage seems to me maybe not ideal in all situations, and so we may want to consider our limitation on that. It also seems to me that it perhaps creates a conflict of some of the designs that are possible. I’m skipping ahead, unfortunately, a little bit to the Building Design section, but the building design in B.1d where it has the sheltered walkway within the building, I think that wouldn’t be permitted if we have a requirement of 75% ground floor use on the setback, so I just want to make sure internally we’re not precluding certain building design with this requirement. TOM FORD: If I might interject, it’s just saying a minimum of 75%, so in the case of the arcade, what we’ve drawn there is 100%, which is more than 75%. COMMISSIONER RASPE: On the arcade you have zero, don’t you, because there’s no ground floor in the setback? It’s all removed from the street. TOM FORD: Well, I consider the build to the front of the arcade, the one that establishes sort of the street frontage. COMMISSIONER RASPE: In my mind’s eye I see the posts as not part of it. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: Oh, okay, that’s a good point. SEAN MULLIN: I would jump in and say that typically those posts would be considered part of the structure and would have to meet setback, so in the case of the arcade, if that were built to the setback line that would qualify or comply with A.10.1. It’s a little bit of a nuance. If you look at a Single-Family Residential, when they have a porch projecting off the front and you have those posts, those posts are the edge of the building and would be required to meet the setback, and that would be similarly applied here. We could look at another way to revise A.10.1 if there’s still the concern about the 75%, but I just wanted to add that. COMMISSIONER RASPE: I appreciate the clarification. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’ll go back to Commissioner Janoff in just a second. I do think that some clarification is needed to address the concerns of Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Raspe and to make sure there’s no conflict. Maybe we take out Community Place District, but we should be specific about what kinds of sites we’re thinking of. Commissioner Janoff. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to add that when thinking about modifying 10.1 a big focus in the General Plan was street activation, and so these concepts of bringing the building to the street, creating a pedestrian access, was a highlight. So as you think about ways to modify it, just keep that in mind that that was an objective throughout the portions of the General Plan that spoke to these sorts of developments. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good comment, and that is exactly what the intent is. I was actually really glad to see this in here, but we just have to make sure we don’t have unintended consequences. Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Just to kind of hop off of that, I think that there’s a chance it could make sense to just say Mixed-Use for this, because, for example, if there were an affordable housing non-Mixed-Use development, maybe it should have a front yard or things like that, so I don't know if that’s taken into consideration already for this, but I think that kind of is an example of what concerns me about it. CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, if it was 100% affordable and it was on Los Gatos Boulevard, for example, and it was next to a Mixed-Use development, then… But that’s the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concern. Let’s just leave it with Staff to try to figure out a way to either limit it to Mixed-Use, or whatever the context we could have, to make sure that we’re not creating unintended consequences, but I definitely think we should keep this. It’s just a question of making sure that it isn’t creating anything that we don’t want. Ms. Armer. JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I was going to say that at this point, because of the number of comments, suggestions, and requests for additional information, it may be that it makes sense for us to continue this discussion, and once we get through the document then to continue to a date certain and have Staff come back with some of this so that you don’t feel that you need to be working out the specifics tonight, as much as giving direction to Staff so that we can come back with some specifics for you to consider. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion. Do you want us to go through the rest of the document and just take comments and then not try to bring it to closure because we know we’re going to continue it? JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, that would be my recommendation. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, I think that’s a good way to handle it. We’re on page 8, so let’s keep going. There LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is Site Amenities for Mixed-Use, and then that’s the last thing on Site Design, right? So this is taking us to Building Design. Any comments? Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have a question for this one. In terms of it having to implement a minimum of three of these solutions, I know that these are objective standards and that this might not be possible to work in, but I still wanted to voice my concern that I think that there’s a chance that some of them could look a lot worse with three of them than with two of them, and I’m not sure how to reconcile that, but I felt like looking at each of these three could be a lot, and that might also be something where we could request some pictures of examples of things that incorporate all three, or something like that. SEAN MULLIN: Tom, you may be able to pull up a couple of the parallel pictures if that’s helpful to look at these concepts in particular. Admittedly, the first few times scrolling through this document it’s hard to tie to what Tom has brought up here, Standard B.1.1a, but when you see it actualized, done in good architecture, it’s a little bit easier. It may even be something to look at a concept image like this to see if of these six items, are three of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them present on just this image? Maybe there are two, maybe there are three, but some examples may be helpful. TOM FORD: Right. For instance, on this example they’ve got two different materials, one of which is at least 30%, which I think is one of our standards. They have a setback on the upper level of part of the building. They have ground floor awnings, which is another piece. So there are a number of different things that get implemented here, but we were trying to talk about just this one specific thing. Here’s another version. The front massing steps back quite a bit and they’ve used that step back to have an upper level deck. I think Commissioner Clark brings up a good point about maybe three is not the right number, but maybe two, but as you can see, really good architects are able to do multiple standards in one building. CHAIR HANSSEN: Then a couple of other Commissioners have their hands up, and they may want to comment on this or something else. I’ll go to Commissioner Raspe, and then Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I’ve actually got the same comment as Commissioner Clark. It seems to me that mandating a minimum of three different setbacks or massing requirements didn’t necessarily work in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all situations. For instance, you had 50’ of frontage, and three different articulation methods could be distracting, so I would encourage Staff to look at that. The thought off the top of my head is perhaps anchor it to how much street- facing there is. For instance, for 50’ you would have two different requirements, and if you went to 100’, maybe three different requirements, something so it wouldn’t be so disjointed in a crammed area that it becomes more problematic, it doesn’t solve the problem that we’re looking to solve that is deemphasizing the building. So just a thought, but again, same general concern as Commissioner Clark voiced. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I actually didn’t have a concern at all, and I’m thinking of Mr. Ford’s comment that good architects know how to incorporate these. I’m just glancing at the Palo Alto document. They’re requiring three or more, so this may be something standard with developers, and I would defer to Staff if this were sort of common to have a set of objectives like that. Having said that, if it becomes overly burdensome to a developer because they’ve got to have all these more LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expensive design features and that deters them from the project, then I would say that that’s an issue. Personally, before changing it I would want to hear from Eden Housing. I would want to hear from the people who are trying to do the hard work of the affordable housing and see whether these are unreasonable expectations, because that could fall into the category of government being too onerous in their standards. CHAIR HANSSEN: That is a good point, and I think from what I can remember of the affordable housing complex at the North Forty, they would have at least three of those. But let me go back to Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I completely agree with what Commissioner Janoff was saying, and so I first wonder if you had talked to any developers in the creation of these Objective Standards? Than also I wanted to say that I think regardless, something I’d like to see as we move forward with these is actually hearing from the developers if these are too stringent. Would this deter you from developing in Los Gatos and maybe make you go somewhere else? Does this make sense? That sort of thing. SEAN MULL IN: Thank you, and I would say in response that we reached out. Staff maintains a list of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 architects that do a lot of work in the Town, and we included them in our outreach efforts for our community meetings. We didn’t get much participation from them. And then we also included them in the notice for this meeting tonight, and I only heard from one of them that they planned to attend. We will continue to reach out to the design community and look for opportunities to increase their involvement. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yes, maybe going to them with a few specific questions like this that they can just send a reply to or something could be a good way to increase engagement. I know that’s very difficult. CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s a good suggestion, and since we’re continuing this to a future meeting, I don't know how much time there will be for doing that. Director Paulson has his hand up, and then I’ll go to Commissioner Raspe. JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I just want to remind folks too that we’ve got the Objective Standards for the streamlined process for the qualifying projects, but if you have an architect or a site, for instance, that maybe one or more of these ultimately become insurmountable from a design perspective, they also have the opportunity to go through our standard process. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, the whole point of some of these Objective Standards, especially when we’re talking about affordable housing projects, what we want to do is to help streamline those. But for standard Mixed-Use projects, if it’s on a constrained site, to Commissioner Raspe’s point before, if you’ve only got 50’ of frontage on this building because the lot is so small, then if they’re not able to come up with solutions to these, then there is always an option. So I want to make sure to just remind everyone that if they can’t meet this it doesn’t mean that they can’t do a project in town, it just precludes them from going through the streamlined process, just as kind of a high-level comment. CHAIR HANSSEN: Would it be too much to ask to use the example of the North Forty, the affordable housing project that is being built over the Market Hall, and see if they’ve already done that, or how hard it would be, because that would be an example in our town? JOEL PAULSON: Yes, we can definitely take a look at that. We’ll work with Tom and with Staff and see how many of these A through F, or whatever it is, how many of those characteristics were they able to incorporate. CHAIR HANSSEN: Without having the standard in place, but chances are they probably already did stuff like LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that to make it not look like a big box. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. Harking back to one of our earlier discussions, this would be a good section of the document where we could have examples of maybe finished renderings of buildings that incorporate two or three, or even four, of these different elements together. I think it would be helpful to have a good visualization of combined elements in single structures as we go through the process. CHAIR HANSSEN: Good suggestion. Why don’t we go on, because we are going to see this again? TOM FORD: Just go on to B.2? CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, because those are just individual examples of those six things, but I think the point about seeing them in single structure examples would be helpful. Then we’re on B.2, Parking Structure Design. Any comments on Parking Structure Design, B.2? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I wanted to ask about 2.3b talking about the entire articulation change of 25%. I just felt like that’s a very specific number and I wasn’t sure if that is intentional or if that’s something that is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pretty normal or anything, but I wanted to flag that and ask about it. TOM FORD: If you look at the body of 2.3 we stipulate the 25%, and the way we originally wrote 2.3b, we didn’t say it down there and Staff brought to my attention somebody could read this in a way and not cover the entire articulation, so what we’re trying to say is that 25% of a façade, if it’s greater than 40’ in length, needs to have one of those two things, and it’s not enough just to introduce a second material, but you have to do it over that entire 25% articulation. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay. And does it make more sense to say 25% than to say like 25-50%, for example, or anything like that? TOM FORD: The way the 2.3 body is written, it says, “at least 25%,” so it wouldn’t prohibit you from doing it for 50%. We could either introduce that same language here, or we could just make it known that so long as you make the 25%, you’re there. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, I think adding “at least” would be perfect. TOM FORD: Okay. CHAIR HANSSEN: Other Commissioners have comments on B.2, Parking Structure Design? Then we can go on to B.3, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Roof Design. Any comments on Roof Design? It looks like everyone is okay with that. TOM FORD: Still in Roof Design, but a different page. CHAIR HANSSEN: Any comments on this second part of Roof Design? It looks like that’s okay. TOM FORD: So this is the last section, but it’s a pretty long section and there’s a lot of illustrations, but B.4, Façade Design and Articulation, comes out of a lot of discussion by the Subcommittee. CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, we spent a lot of time on this. TOM FORD: Here’s another one where 4.1 sets the general rule and then there’s four options, at least two of which you need to accomplish. Actually, there are five options, but only four of them are illustrated; the fifth one is pretty obvious. CHAIR HANSSEN: But they actually use at least two out of five? TOM FORD: Correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to guess that since no one brought it up that it would probably be helpful, because of the discussion we just had, to have an example LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 picture where at least two of these are combined on an actual building that we can see. TOM FORD: Okay, let me just take a moment to see if we’ve done that. This one is doing it in that it’s got that modulation both lower and upper, and it also has a balcony, so in a sense maybe they don’t have enough balconies, but they’ve done three. Here they’ve got a varying roofline, they’ve got modulating the mass out, they’ve made more of a top to the building, they’ve articulated the base, and they’ve accentuated a corner. Here they’ve not only put balconies, but they’ve also modulated the upper level massing, and they’ve also introduced a second material at I can’t say what the percentage is, but it’s a pretty significant percentage of the entire façade. This is a pretty long façade, and so they’ve broken it up, and it’s done by a very, very good architect, but again, it’s a number of things: taller ground floor and glass. Anyway, we do have some images and I think we can find a way to bring those forward into a document. CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. My question has to do with varied plate heights. I think in some of the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examples you showed and commented on they were different heights. I’m curious why varied plate heights aren’t one of the criteria? TOM FORD: I don't know, it could be. I don't know if that’s what I meant when I said that. I think I was trying to say that they didn’t just have a 12’ ground floor, they had a 20’; it looks more like probably at least 18-20’ ground floor height. That’s what I meant, I’m sorry. And I don't think there’s any place in our document where we specify a minimum ground floor height. We might have left that to the Zoning Ordinance, particularly in a Mixed-Use context. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The reason I mentioned it is because several of these examples illustrate different plate heights. Even the Palo Alto example is showing a slightly higher plate height from the first floor and then shorter going up, which is the reverse of one of the examples you provided where you’ve got the taller plate height, or the illusion of a taller plate height, on the third story of that first illustration you showed. Personally think that the variation of the plate heights is really interesting and it makes for dynamic architecture, so I’d be in favor of including that if that made sense to Staff. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: The only thing I would say, if you don’t mind my interjecting, Chair, is a developer needs to make the building as inexpensively as possible, and I think if there’s a lot of different… You know, you’re on the third floor and then suddenly it goes up 5’ and then it changes, it could just make the floor plan a little bit more expensive to execute, but we can look into it. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would just say if this is one of several options that they have, then you’re not forcing them to go that route. As an example, the senior community that my mom lives in, the top floor, the third floor apartments have interior 11’ ceilings, and you can see that from the exterior of the building as well; it looks interesting and elegant. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I had a question going to Section 4.2; again we’re in the Building Design and Articulation. The language says, “Buildings shall incorporate the same materials on all facades,” and then if you look at, for instance, the language directly above it in 4.1e, one of the articulation and design methods is use of at least two different façade materials, so it seemed to me there’s some inconsistency internally in the document. I’m not sure exactly what 4.2 is trying to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 say. Is it trying to say that the building will use the same façade materials all the way around its face on all corners, or on all (inaudible)? TOM FORD: Correct. It could be that we’ve not written this clearly enough, because really what 4.2 is trying to achieve is what they call 360-degree architecture, so you don’t treat your front façade with all the good stuff and then the other three you don’t care about. It’s probably not written well enough to do this, but I would read that if you had two materials on your front façade, then you need to have those same two materials show up on the other three facades as well; that’s the goal here. It’s not to conflict with each other, to have 4.1e specifying two materials and then 4.2 just saying one material. COMMISSIONER RASPE: I actually agree with your point that you don’t want the stick-on brick, for instance, on the front façade and then plaster on the other three faces, but I’m not sure we want to also limit our builders to say you have to use the exact same materials on all four exterior walls. There may be some design reasons why you want one side looking slightly different than the other sides. That’s just my thought; maybe we should give a little bit more thought to 4.2. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: Okay. CHAIR HANSSEN: I will say that we have the idea of 360-degree architecture in the Community Design Element of the General Plan Draft that’s being reviewed, so I think that there’s merit to that, but maybe there’s a better way to say this so that it isn’t in conflict with other things. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was just going to echo the same thought. In many of the projects that come before us one of the issues is they haven’t carried that design element 360 degrees on all surfaces of the house, and so that is part of our standard. This hung me up a little bit too, and then I realized that’s not what they mean, they mean whatever you do on face 1 you do on faces 2, 3, and 4, or however many, so I didn’t have a problem with it, but it probably could be clarified. Maybe it makes sense to have some duplication of the materials, but not all of the materials, I don't know. I think it’s an interesting question and I put that back to Staff. CHAIR HANSSEN: I had the same thought, that maybe that if you had to use the same material on all four sides it didn’t have to be 100% in the same way on all four sides or something like that, but I’m sure Staff and our LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consultants can figure this out since we’re going to see this again. Any other questions on this section? We have a community comment on the point system. This is the first time we’ve seen the point system. Everything else was choosing from a menu. This one is choose from a menu, but certain things have more points than others. And I assume that this kind of thing has been used other places successfully? TOM FORD: Yes. It’s also sort of the way some of the LEED standards work. The goal for us was to leave as much flexibility as possible to an architect, so instead of coming in here saying your façade has to have an arcade, your façade has to have a belly band, or bay windows, we tried to establish there are two parts of building the standard. One is what is the right minimum point threshold that they need to meet? And so we chose 12 points, and then you generally sort of weight the improvements, or the articulation pieces, as to how difficult they are to achieve or how much affect they have. So what we tried to do is certainly weight it in such a way that you couldn’t just do one and get to 12 points, you had to do at least two, and if you only did two, they were probably at the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 top, because those are the most points, so that’s kind of how we went about constructing this. CHAIR HANSSEN: I actually like this, assuming that it would be reasonable to architects, which has been brought up before, but I like the idea of this and it looks like it gives you a lot of options about how to go about creating variations in the facades, which is something we would all worry about, especially with bigger and Multi- Family and Mixed-Use developments. TOM FORD: Right. If you think back to that first photo I showed of the Mark Steele building in San Diego, he probably has about 40 points, because he had balconies, he had a change of color, he had a change of upper level floor, he probably had a belly band, and he had awnings and canopies. He had a lot of different things going on. He would have had no problem with 4.3 on that building. CHAIR HANSSEN: Any Commissioners have any concerns about 4.3? Then on this page there’s also 4.4 and 4.5. I don’t see anyone with their hands raised, so we can go ahead. We’re getting close to the end. Can you stop at 4.6? I thought this one was kind of confusing. It was the columns part that messed me up. In the picture it has the example of the materials changing at the inside corner, but how would you do that with a column? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: That’s just saying, for instance, if you want to call these columns that you could change your material here, but not like here, but you could use the column to make a change, because the column would be a significant enough piece on the façade that it’s a logical place to break. CHAIR HANSSEN: And it’s talking about a corner. Yes, I was confused where the column would be. TOM FORD: Inside corners or at architectural features that break up the façade plane. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so it’s either/or. TOM FORD: But maybe we’ve overwritten this and made it more confusing than it needs to be. CHAIR HANSSEN: It might have just been me. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: An illustration would help. CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, an illustration of the “or” of the columns, because I totally got the inside corner material change, but I was trying to visualize the column and it just wasn’t happening for me. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Going back to 4.3 if I might, it addresses only the street-facing façade planes, and it occurred to me that if you had two large buildings adjacent that you would be looking at sort of a bare façade LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 except for the fenestration, and I wonder if consideration should be given to the other sides of the building? CHAIR HANSSEN: Does Staff want to comment on that? Would we be covered by 4.2 as rewritten? TOM FORD: That was our thinking, because we did discuss this quite a bit in the context of the 360 concept, and what we didn’t want to do was start requiring all of this sort of architectural embellishment on every façade, so this was just supposed to be street-facing façade with this point system one, but we were hoping that 4.2 would carry enough of the idea around to the other sides of the buildings, but you certainly wouldn’t have a chimney on all four sides of your building, you wouldn’t necessarily want bay windows on all four sides, so it could be that we need to do more thinking about 4.2 rather than trying to establish 4.3 as something that happens on multiple facades. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: That would be appreciated. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that would be fine to think about 4.2, because that already came up. Any other comments going through 4.6? Then we’ve got 4.7. I didn’t have any issues with this one. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: 4.7 has two parts. It also has a minimum amount of glazing, and I think I looked really quickly at that long Palo Alto document last night. I think they were using a 60% minimum as well for glass. CHAIR HANSSEN: I thought this was all fine. Do any Commissioners have any concerns about what is written so far? We’re on the second to last page. And then there’s 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Going back to page 19, I just noted that the Palo Alto Objective Standards spent quite a bit of time talking about entry dimensions, and I wonder if that would be worth considering? TOM FORD: Sure. This dimension right here, how deep and how wide? I think I saw that. SEAN MULLIN: It’s tied to, I think, the number of units and the use, like the intensity of the use essentially. The more units the wider the entry. TOM FORD: The only problem with that, just to play devil’s advocate, I don’t have a problem looking at it, but the door is either going to be 3’ or 6’. It’s not like you have a 3’ door, but then if you have 12 units more you’re going to have a 4.5’ wide door, unless we’re talking about the vestibule. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SEAN MULLIN: I think it’s talking about the vestibule, so the door and the side lights and things like that. It’s more about the defined entry and the importance of a more defined entry on a building that serves more folks. TOM FORD: Okay, I see. CHAIR HANSSEN: It sounds like there might be some stuff from the Palo Alto standards that you’ve already looked at that could be helpful to make it more robust. TOM FORD: Right. We actually were tracking their progress, and so we actually used some of their earlier draft of their Objective Standards as some of the case study materials, so what you saw of those massing articulation standards that we had, we were keying into some of the things they were doing. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair, did you have more on the earlier pages? I didn’t want to go through it quicker than you guys were ready for. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m good now, thanks. CHAIR HANSSEN: Anything on 4.12, 4.13, or 4.14? I’m not seeing any hands raised. I think this has been a very good discussion. Staff, do we need to make a motion for a continuance? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, and we would recommend a date certain of July 27th. If we need more time we could continue it again at that point. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, that sounds like a good plan. Would one of the Commissioners make a motion to continue this to a date certain of July 27th? Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. I move that we continue the discussion regarding the Town of Los Gatos Draft Objective Standards to our meeting of July 27th. CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good, and is there a second? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Second the motion. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Then we’ll just go ahead and call the question, since we’ve already had lots of comments. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/22/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I’d like to thank Staff and all the Commissioners for their excellent comments. I will look forward to the next meeting when we get to follow up on some of these items that we’ve discussed and come up with an even better result. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I was wondering if we could be presented with a redline for the changes before the meeting? That would be appreciated. CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that feasible, Staff? SEAN MULLIN: I believe so, yes. We’ll take a look at the changes that we end up making and try to provide a redline and a clean copy. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, very good. (END) PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP and RYAN SAFTY Senior Planner Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 08/24/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: August 19, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION: Review and recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the Draft Objective Standards, completed the review of the document, and provided input to staff on recommended modifications. The item was continued to a future meeting to allow staff time to prepare responses to the input received and to prepare a revised Draft Objective Standards document (Exhibit 9). DISCUSSION: The revised Draft Objective Standards document (Exhibit 9) continues to be organized into two sections: Site Standards (Section A); and Building Design (Section B). The Site Standards section includes objective standards for: site layout and building placement; vehicular access and parking; and outdoor spaces and amenities. The Building Design section includes objective standards for: building form and massing; façade articulation; materials; and roof design. Many of the objective standards in the revised document have been updated and several new standards have been added. Diagrams throughout the document have also been updated. The revised draft includes a new Key Terms section providing definitions for many terms used in the document. A redline version of the revised Draft Objective Standards showing the changes made throughout the document is included as Exhibit 10. Staff has also prepared a summary of the revisions made and responses to comments received from the Planning Commission on ATTACHMENT 9 PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: August 19, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): June 22, 2022 (Exhibit 11). Lastly, staff conducted an evaluation of three existing developments in the Town using several of the revised Draft Objective Standards for the purpose of illustrating how these objective standards would not prevent projects from being designed to the quality level required by the current subjective process (Exhibit 12). As the Planning Commission reviews the revised Draft Objective Standards and other supporting materials, staff requests direction on several specific items summarized below and highlighted in Exhibit 11: New A.11.1 (Line 41): The Community Design Element of the 2040 General Plan encourages consistent setbacks Town-wide and reduced setbacks in Community Growth Districts (CGD). For this reason, Standard A.11.1 was written to be specific to CGDs. Given the polices in the Community Design Element and the comments made by the Planning Commission during discussion of this item, staff requests direction on whether this standard should apply Town-wide or only within CGDs. New B.4.11 (Line 68): The standard relating to reducing privacy intrusions created by balconies was revised to provide more opportunity for developments to achieve the private recreation space requirements while protecting existing residential uses at all scales. Even with this change, staff is concerned with the requirement for private recreation space while simultaneously restricting its location to protect privacy. Staff looks to the Planning Commission for discussion of this potential conflict and welcomes direction on the matter. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Throughout the process and prior to the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2022, staff contacted several professional organizations, design professionals, developers, and residents to inform them about the meeting and encourage participation and written comments on the Draft Objective Standards. In addition to the direct contact summarized above, staff requested public input through the following media and social media resources: •On the Town’s website home page, What’s New; •On the Town’s webpage dedicated to objective standards; and •On the Town’s social media accounts. At this time, no public comments have been received. PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: August 19, 2022 CONCLUSION: A. Summary The Town of Los Gatos has prepared Draft Objective Standards for the review of multi- family and mixed-use development applications as required by State legislation. The Draft Objective Standards were developed following research by staff and the Town’s consultant, five meetings with the Planning Commission subcommittee, and two community engagement meetings. Following input received from the Planning Commission on June 22, 2022, staff prepared revised Draft Objective Standards and other supporting materials for consideration by the Planning Commission. B. Recommendation The revised Draft Objective Standards have been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Receive and consider public comments; • Complete the review of the revised Draft Objective Standards; and • Forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the revised Draft Objective Standards. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council with additional and/or modified objective standards; or 2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction to staff. NEXT STEPS: Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Town Council will consider the revised Draft Objective Standards, the Planning Commission recommendation, and any additional public comments. Once the Town Council adopts objective standards, staff will develop streamlined review procedures for applications proposing qualifying housing projects. PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: August 19, 2022 EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1. Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2. Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3. Draft Objective Standards 4. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report: 5. Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6. Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7. Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Received with the June 22, 2022, Desk Item Report: 8. Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner Received with this Staff Report: 9. Revised Draft Objective Standards 10. Revised Draft Objective Standards with Redlines 11. Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 12. Evaluation of Existing Developments Page 1 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DRAFT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS August 24, 2022 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure that new qualifying projects in Los Gatos provide high-quality architecture, integrate with surrounding development, and include well-designed amenities and outdoor areas to enhance community character. These standards are intended to guide property owners, applicants, developers, and design professionals by providing clear design direction that enhances the Town’s unique character and ensures a high-quality living environment. A qualifying project is a Housing Development Project as defined in Gov. Code 65589.5 in zones where the use is principally permitted. Housing Development Projects shall comply with the Objective Design Standards, and include multi-family housing, residential mixed- use projects with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or supportive and transitional housing. Qualifying projects must also comply with all existing development requirements in the Town, including but not limited: •General Plan •Town Code •Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams •Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan •Parks and Public Works Standards •Santa Clara County Fire Department Requirements ORGANIZATION The following Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Standards; and Building Design. The Site Standards section includes objective standards for site layout and building placement, vehicular access and parking, and outdoor areas and amenities. The Building Design section includes objective standards for building form and massing, façade articulation, materials, and roof design. EXHIBIT 9 Page 2 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 KEY TERMS Community recreation space in mixed-use developments means public gathering spaces, such as: plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of the public. Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces, such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of residents. Façade articulation means the division of a building façade into distinct sections; including the materials, patterns, textures, and colors that add visual interest to a building or façade. Fenestration means the design, construction, and presence of any openings in a building, such as: windows, doors, vents, wall panels, skylights, curtain walls, and louvers. Mixed-use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. Multi-family use means the use of a site for three or more dwelling units on the same site. Landscaping means an area devoted to plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas. Primary building means a building within which the principal or main use on a lot or parcel is conducted. Where a permissible use involves more than one building designed or used for the primary purpose on the subject property, each such building on the parcel shall be construed as constituting a primary building. Private recreation space at the ground level means a single outdoor enclosed patio or deck. Private recreation space above the ground level means an outdoor balcony, rooftop deck, or similar. Transitional and supportive housing means a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing and independent living. Page 3 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A. SITE STANDARDS A.1. Pedestrian Access 1.1 All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and parking areas shall be internally connected with pedestrian pathways and may include use of the public sidewalk. Pedestrian pathways shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street. 1.2 Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. Figure A.1.2 Page 4 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.2. Bicycle Access 2.1 Bicycle parking shall be located within 50 feet of at least one primary building entrance. 2.2 Multi-family residential buildings shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. 2.3 Mixed-use projects shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit and one bicycle parking space per 2,000 square feet of commercial space. 2.4 A minimum five-foot-wide walkway shall be provided connecting the bicycle parking area(s) and the street-facing sidewalk. A.3. Vehicular Access 3.1 Off-street parking shall have internal vehicular circulation that precludes the use of a street for aisle-to-aisle circulation. Figure A.3.1 Page 5 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.4. Parking Location and Design 4.1 Driveways and surface parking lots shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street. 4.2 Multiple parking areas located on a common property shall be internally connected and shall use shared driveways to access the street. 4.3 Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area. Figure A.4.3 4.4 Carports shall not be located between a primary building and a street. A.5. Parking Structure Access 5.1 Any automobile entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 25 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. 5.2 A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade and shall be recessed a minimum five feet from street-facing façades of the building. Page 6 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.6. Utilities 6.1 Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet. 6.2 Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited. Figure A.6.2 6.3 Rooftop and ground-mounted utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from view from the street with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement. Page 7 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.7. Landscaping and Screening 7.1 At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. 7.2 A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or mixed-use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following: a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; and Figure A.7.2a b. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. 7.3 Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet. Page 8 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.8. Fencing 8.1 Fences, walls, hedges, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages shall have a maximum height of three feet. 8.2 Chain link fencing is prohibited. 8.3 Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. 8.4 Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view. A.9. Retaining Walls 9.1 Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment. 9.2 Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following: a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; and b. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall. Page 9 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.10. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces 10.1 The following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces are required for all qualifying projects and are calculated independent of each other: a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private recreation space. ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have 120 square feet of usable private recreation space. c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature. i. Community recreation space shall be provided in mixed-use developments at a minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the commercial square footage. ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit. Page 10 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A.11. Building Placement 11.1 To create a continuous streetscape appearance, development in a Community Place Growth shall place at least 75 percent of the ground floor of a building within five feet of the front and street-side setback (where applicable) requirement of the Town Code. Figure A.11.1 11.2 A mixed-use residential project with a ground-floor commercial use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent and maximum of 30 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements: a. Landscape materials or raised planters; b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches; c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use. Page 11 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 B. BUILDING DESIGNS B.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the façades facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; Figure B.1.1a Page 12 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; Figure B.1.1b Page 13 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 c. Recessed building entry for the full height of the facade with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet; Figure B.1.1c Page 14 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet, extending the full length of the façade; Figure B.1.1d Page 15 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 e. Ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or Figure B.1.1e Page 16 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. Figure B.1.1f 1.2 Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade. 1.3 Townhomes or rowhouses shall have no more than six contiguous units in any single building. Page 17 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 B.2. Parking Structure Design 2.1 The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade. 2.2 Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure. 2.3 Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions: a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or b. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation. Page 18 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 B.3. Roof Design 3.1 At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies: a. Gables; b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices. Figure B.3.1 Page 19 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 3.2 Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed. 3.3 The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the length of the roof. Figure B.3.3 3.4 Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building. Page 20 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; Figure B.4.1a Page 21 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1b Page 22 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; Figure B.4.1c Page 23 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 d. Use of a belly band or horizontal architectural element with a minimum height of 10 inches between the first and second floor; Figure B.4.1d e. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or Page 24 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 f. The upper floor shall utilize a higher floor-to-ceiling height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the floor-to-ceiling height of the floor immediately below. Figure B.4.1f Page 25 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 4.2 All façade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building façades. 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points: ▪ Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Belly band, or horizontal architectural element, between the first and second floor; or 5 points o Façade sconce lighting. 3 points ▪ Bay windows; 6 points ▪ Balconies or Juliet balconies; 5 points ▪ Landscaped trellises or lattices; 5 points ▪ Materials and color changes; 3 points ▪ Chimneys; 3 points ▪ Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points ▪ Window boxes or plant shelves; or 3 points ▪ Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels. 3 points 4.4 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade. Page 26 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 4.5 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners or at architectural features that break up the façade plane such as columns. Figure B.4.5 Page 27 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 4.6 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements: a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor commercial uses shall meet at least one of the following standards: i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet. Figure B.4.6a Page 28 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk. Figure B.4.6b 4.7 Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including mixed-use buildings: eight feet in width c. Storefront entry: six feet in width Page 29 of 29 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 4.8 Mirrored windows are prohibited. 4.9 Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements: a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway; b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and c. Shall not be patterned or striped. 4.10 For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district, rooftop and upper floor terraces and decks are prohibited. 4.11 Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing non-residential uses on abutting parcels. Balconies facing existing residential uses on abutting parcels are allowed when the design is proven to prevent views to the residential use. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint. 4.12 Mixed-use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length: a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet; b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces. 4.13 Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 1 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 TOWN OF LOS GATOS DRAFT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS August 24, 2022 PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY The purpose of the Objective Design Standards is to ensure that new qualifying multi-family and mixed-use projects in Los Gatos provide high-quality architecture, integrate with surrounding development, and include well-designed amenities and open spaces outdoor areas to enhance community character. These standards are intended to guide property owners, applicants, developers, and design professionals by providing clear design direction that enhances the Town’s unique character and ensures a high-quality living environment. A qualifying project is a Housing Development Project as defined in Gov. Code 65589.5 in zones where the use is principally permitted. Housing Development Projects shall comply with the Objective Design Standards, and include multi-family housing, residential mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or supportive and transitional housing. Qualifying projects must also comply with all existing development requirements in the Town, including but not limited: •General Plan •Town Code •Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams •Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan •Parks and Public Works Standards •Santa Clara County Fire Department Requirements ORGANIZATION AND APPLICABILITY The following Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Standards; and Building Design. The Site Standards section includes objective standards for site layout and building placement, vehicular access and parking, and outdoor spaces areas and amenities. The Building Design section includes objective standards for building form and massing, façade articulation, materials, and roof design. Qualifying multi-family and mixed-use projects must also comply with all existing development requirements in the Town Code, including but not limited to building code requirements, existing Town standards, adopted specific plans, and development standards such as height and setbacks. If there is any conflict between these standards and those in another adopted document, the more restrictive standard shall apply. EXHIBIT 10 Page 2 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 KEY TERMS Community recreation space in mixed-use developments means public gathering spaces, such as: plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of the public. Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces, such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of residents. Façade articulation means the division of a building façade into distinct sections; including the materials, patterns, textures, and colors that add visual interest to a building or façade. Fenestration means the design, construction, and presence of any openings in a building, such as: windows, doors, vents, wall panels, skylights, curtain walls, and louvers. Mixed-use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. Multi-family use means the use of a site for three or more dwelling units on the same site. Landscaping means an area devoted to plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas. Primary building means a building within which the principal or main use on a lot or parcel is conducted. Where a permissible use involves more than one building designed or used for the primary purpose on the subject property, each such building on the parcel shall be construed as constituting a primary building. Private recreation space at the ground level means a single outdoor enclosed patio or deck. Private recreation space above the ground level means an outdoor balcony, rooftop deck, or similar. Transitional and supportive housing means a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing and independent living. Page 3 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 A. SITE STANDARDS A.1. Pedestrian Access 1.1 All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and parking areas shall be internally connected with pedestrian pathways and may include use of the public sidewalk. Pedestrian pathways shall connect to the public sidewalk along each street. 1.2 Pedestrian walkways pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in lengwidth. Figure A.1.2 A.2. Bicycle Access 2.1 Bicycle parking shall be located within 50 feet of at least one primary building entrance. 2.2 Multi-family residential buildings shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. 2.3 Mixed-use projects shall provide one bicycle parking space per dwelling unit and one bicycle parking space per 2,000 square feet of commercial space. 2.4 A minimum five-foot-wide walkway shall be provided connecting the bicycle parking area(s) and the street-facing sidewalk. A.2.A.3. Vehicular Access 2.13.1 Off-street parking shall have internal vehicular circulation that precludes the use of a street for aisle-to-aisle circulation. Figure A.23.1 A.3.A.4. Parking Location and Design 3.14.1 Driveways and surface parking lots shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street. 3.24.2 Multiple parking areas located on a common property shall be internally connected and shall use shared driveways to access the street. Page 4 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 3.34.3 Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area. Figure A.34.3 3.44.4 Carports shall not be located between a primary building and a street. A.4.A.5. Parking Structure Access 4.15.1 Any automobile entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 25 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. 4.25.2 A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any street-facing façade and shall be recessed a minimum five feet from street- facing façades of the building. A.5.A.6. Utilities 5.16.1 Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided along all pedestrian paths in community recreation spaces. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be a minimum of three feet and a maximum of 15 12 feet in height. Light fixtures shall be placed along the pedestrian path at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet. 5.26.2 Exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and restrain light to a minimum 30 degrees below the horizontal plane of the light source. Lighting shall be arranged so that the light will not shine directly on lands of adjacent residential zoned properties. Uplighting is prohibited. Figure A.6.2 5.36.3 Rooftop and ground-mounted utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from view from the street with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall. The screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement. A.6.A.7. Landscaping and Screening 6.17.1 At least 50 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. 6.27.2 A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or mixed-use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following: Page 5 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted, where the maximum permitted height is three feet; and Figure A.76.2a b. Trees planted at a rate of at least one tree per 30 linear feet along the shared property line. Tree species shall be selected from the Town of Los Gatos Master Street Tree List and shall be a minimum 15-gallon size.; and 6.37.3 Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet. A.7.A.8. Fencing 7.18.1 Fences, walls, hedges, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages shall have a maximum height of three feet. 7.28.2 Chain link fencing is prohibited. 7.38.3 Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. 7.48.4 Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view. A.8.A.9. Retaining Walls 8.19.1 Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall set back at least three feet from the lower segment. 8.29.2 Retaining walls shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without including the following: a. A break, offset, or landscape pocket in the wall plane of at least three feet in length and two feet in depth; and b. Landscaping at a minimum height of three feet at the time of installation along a minimum of 60 percent of the total length of the retaining wall. A.9.A.10. Open Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces Page 6 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 9.1 A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall consist of landscaped open space. Landscaped open space may be in the form of trees, hedgerows, flowerbeds, or ground cover vegetation, such as grass. 9.2 Common open space shall be provided in mixed-use developments in the form of public gathering spaces, such as plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, or pocket parks. The space required is a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the commercial square footage. 9.3 Common open space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects in the form of gathering spaces, such as play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of residents. The minimum space required is 100 square feet per residential unit. 9.4 Common open spaces shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of each open space area by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature. 10.1 The following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces are required for all qualifying projects and are calculated independent of each other: a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 200 square feet of usable private recreation space. ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have 120 square feet of usable private recreation space. c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. A minimum of 60 percent of the community recreation space shall be open to the sky and free of permanent solid-roofed weather protection structures. Community recreation space shall provide shading for a minimum 15 percent of the community recreation space by either trees or structures, such as awnings, canopies, umbrellas, or a trellis. Tree shading shall be calculated by using the diameter of the tree crown at 15 years maturity. Shading from other built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the overhead feature. Page 7 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 i. Community recreation space shall be provided in mixed-use developments at a minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the commercial square footage. ii. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit. A.10.A.11. Building Placement 10.111.1 To create a continuous streetscape appearance, development in a Community Place Growth District shall place at least 75 percent of the ground floor of a building within five feet of the front and street-side setback (where applicable) requirement of the Town Code. Figure A.1011.1 10.211.2 A mixed-use residential project with a ground-floor commercial use shall provide site amenities on a minimum of 15 percent and maximum of 30 percent of the ground plane between the building and the front or street-side property line. The site amenities shall be comprised of any of the following elements: a. Landscape materials or raised planters; b. Walls designed to accommodate pedestrian seating, no higher than 36 inches; c. Site furnishings, including fountains, sculptures, and other public art; or d. Tables and chairs associated with the ground floor use. B. BUILDING DESIGNS B.1. Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the façades facing the street: a. A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least six five feet; Figure B.1.1a Page 8 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; Figure B.1.1b c. Recessed or projected coveredbuilding entries entry for the full height of the facade with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet; Figure B.1.1c d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet, extending the full length of the façade; Figure B.1.1d e. Ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 48 60 square feet; or Figure B.1.1e f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. Figure B.1.1f 1.2 Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the ground-floor façade. 1.3 Townhomes or rowhouses shall have no more than six contiguous units in any single building. B.2. Parking Structure Design 2.1 The ground-floor façade of a parking structure facing a street or pedestrian walkway shall be fenestrated on a minimum of 40 percent of the façade. 2.2 Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure. Page 9 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 2.3 Parking structures facing a street and greater than 40 feet in length shall include landscaping between the building façade and the street, or façade articulation of at least 25 percent of the façade length. The façade articulation shall be implemented by one of the following solutions: a. An offset of the façade plane with a depth of at least 18 inches for a minimum of eight feet in horizontal length; or b. A different building material covering the entire façade articulation change of 25 percent of the façade length. B.3. Roof Design 3.1 At intervals of no more than 40 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies: a. Gables; b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of four two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices. Figure B.3.1 3.2 Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed. 3.3 The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the length of the roof. Figure B.3.3 3.4 Eave depths shall not exceed 24 inches from the façade plane. 3.53.4 Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building. B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: Page 10 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 70 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; Figure B.4.1a b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; Figure B.4.1b c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; Figure B.4.1c d. Use of a belly band or horizontal architectural element with a minimum height of 10 inches between the first and second floor; or Figure B.4.1d e. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade., or f. The upper floor shall utilize a higher floor-to-ceiling height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the floor-to-ceiling height of the floor immediately below. Figure B.4.1f (new Figure) 4.2 Buildings shall incorporate the same materials on all façades.All building materialsfaçade materials, such as siding, window types, and architectural details, used on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building façades. 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 12 16 points: ▪ Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points Page 11 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 o Belly band, or horizontal architectural element, between the first and second floor; or 5 points o Façade sconce lighting. 3 points ▪ Bay windows; 6 points ▪ Façade plane of upper floors steps back a minimum of five feet from the ground floor façade; 6 points ▪ Material and color changes; 5 points ▪ Balconies or Juliet balconies; 5 points ▪ Landscaped trellises or lattices; 5 points ▪ Materials and color changes; 3 points ▪ Chimneys; 3 points ▪ Wide Eaves that overhangs a minimum of two feet from the facade with supportingprojecting brackets; 3 points ▪ Window boxes or plant shelves; or 3 points ▪ Decorative elements such as molding, ornamentation brackets, or corbels. 3 points 4.4 Mixed-use buildings shall provide the following architectural elements along the ground floor: a. A minimum of 60 percent of the street-facing façade between two and 10 feet above the adjacent grade shall consist of transparent windows; and b. A form of weather protection above storefront entries that extends from the façade a minimum of three feet. 4.54.4 Garage doors shall be recessed a minimum of 12 inches from the façade plane and along the street-facing façade shall not exceed 40 percent of the length of the building façade. 4.64.5 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners or at architectural features that break up the façade plane such as columns. Figure B.4.65 Page 12 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 4.74.6 Mixed-use A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements: a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor commercial uses shall meet at least one of the following standards: i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plane at least three feet in depth; or ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet. Figure B.4.76a b. For ground-floor commercial uses, façades facing a street shall include windows, doors, or openings for at least 60 percent of the building façade that is between two and 10 feet above the level of the sidewalk. Figure B.4.76b 4.7 Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including mixed-use buildings: eight feet in width c. Storefront entry: six feet in width 4.8 Mirrored windows are prohibited. 4.9 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or common opencommunity recreation space. All building entrances shall be recessed from the façade plane or covered by a building projection of at least three feet in depth measured from the wall plane. [if this edit works for you, I think we should move this Standard up to become B.4.7] 4.104.9 Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements: a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway; Page 13 of 13 Los Gatos DRAFT Objective Standards August 2022 b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and c. Shall not be patterned or striped. 4.114.10 For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district, rooftop and upper floor terraces and decks are prohibited. 4.124.11 Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing non-residential uses on abutting parcels. Balconies facing existing residential uses on abutting parcels are allowed when the design is proven to prevent views to the residential use. For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district, balconies shall only be permitted on the street-facing building façade. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint. 4.134.12 Mixed-use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along street-facing façades where the façade exceeds 50 feet in length: a. A minimum five-foot offset from the façade plane for a length of at least 10 feet; b. Multiple pilasters or columns, each with a minimum width of two feet; or c. Common open space, such as a plaza, outdoor dining area, or other spaces. 4.144.13 Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street. This Page Intentionally Left Blank Line #OLD #NEW #Comments Received Staff Response 1 ---- In previous meetings, it was stated that there would be one unifying document of all objective standards. If we don't do this, it will be confusing for the public to understand. Document should be integrated. Other applicable development requirements in the Town are now listed in the "Purpose and Applicability" section. 2 ----Define qualifying project."Qualifying Project" are now outlined in the "Purpose and Applicability" section. 3 ----Photos or graphics would be helpful for the public to understand the concepts.Diagrams have been updated throughout the document. 4 ---- The document covers many building types and the concepts should be broken up for each building type. The document has not be modified to cover different building types. Staff does not recommend this approach as it will over-complicate the document. 5 ---- How will the objective standards document be viewed from a developer perspective? The final formatting and application process for qualifying projects will be developed by staff after adoption of the final document. Staff will determine the best approach based on the final adopted document. All documents and applications will be made available on the Town's website. 6 ----Is this applicable to single-family?No. "Qualifying Projects" is now outlined in the "Purpose and Applicability" section. 7 ---- Will there still be discretionary review if an applicant does not want to follow these standards?Yes. 8 ----What does "qualifying" mean in this sense?"Qualifying Projects" are now outlined in the "Purpose and Applicability" section. 9 ----Discussion on amending Town Code and guideline documents. The intent is that the document would be a stand-alone policy document without requiring any other amendments to existing Town documents. A stand-alone document, similar to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, allows for increased flexibility through periodic updates that are more difficult to accomplish within the structure of the Town Code. 10 ----What happens if an element was not included in the objective standards? The goal of the document is to include all relevant standards. Being a stand-alone policy document, staff can return with updates periodically as needed. 11 ----Likes the idea of real-world examples instead of simplistic diagrams. Photographic examples of the concepts have the potential to communicate unintended values or design guidance. Diagrams have been updated throughout the document to better illustrate the concepts in a more realistic style. Staff does not recommend the use of photos in the document. 12 ---- Is protection of views covered and considered? Do any other jurisdictions have objective standards for view protection? Protection of views is not covered in the document. The concept was discussed in previous meetings and researched by the consultant. Staff is not aware of other jurisdictions having objective view standards. The Town would first need to adopt a view shed protection ordinance in order to include standards in the document to protect views. This would be a Council-level priority decision and is not appropriate for this policy document. 13 ---- Since Palo Alto's standards are much more comprehensive, how should we move forward? Palo Alto's ordinance includes both objective standards and context based design criteria formatted in line with one another. The context based criteria lines up with the Town's discretionary review application process. If there are specific pieces of objective standards from other jurisdictions that the Planning Commission thinks should be included in the Town's document, please let staff know. 14 ---- There would be merit to having a more comprehensive document even if we are duplicating code. From the onset, the goal was to avoid duplication of the Town Code. Staff has revised the document to eliminate unnecessary duplication of the Town Code. 15 ---- Clearly describe that there are objective standards in other areas - we should list them in this document.Other applicable development requirements in the Town are now listed in the "Purpose and Applicability" section. 16 ---- We should be consistent about when we duplicate existing Town Code requirements. From the onset, the goal was to avoid duplication of the Town Code. Staff has revised the document to eliminate unnecessary duplication of the Town Code. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION EXHIBIT 11 Line #OLD #NEW #Comments Received Staff Response Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 17 ----Staff addition/revision. "Purpose and Applicability" section now includes an outline of Qualifying Projects and lists other applicable development requirements in the Town. Other revisions made for document consistency. 18 ----Staff addition/revision.A "Key Terms" section has been added to clarify several terms used throughout the document. 19 A.1 A.1 Regarding Pedestrian Access, Palo Alto has a hierarchy prioritizing different modes of transportation. Palo Alto's modal hierarchy is included in their contextual design criteria, which is not objective. Through research, staff determined that a modal hierarchy would be very difficult to objectify. Such a hierarchy should be determined at the Council level and included in a more appropriate policy document. 20 A.1 A.1 Why don't we have bicycle standards? We should prioritize bicycles. Bicycle standards have been added (new A.2). The standards included are those that can be required on-site. Off- site improvements (such as the addition of bike lanes) are not appropriate in this document and may be required on a case-by-case basis through the Parks and Public Works Department. 21 A.1 A.1 This document should cover all modes of transportation in some way. In addition to the pedestrian access and vehicular access/parking standards, bicycle standards have been added (new A.2). 22 A.1.2 A.1.2 Why don't we mention depth? We only specify height.A width dimension of six feet has been added. 23 A.3.4 A.4.4 Staff addition/revision.Clarified that the standard is applicable to the "primary" building. 24 A.5.1 A.6.1 Is this related to height or location? 15' is very tall. There should be location standards. The original standard was related to height. The maximum height allowed has been revised from 15 feet to 12 feet. A maximum spacing between lighting has been added (30 feet). 25 A.5.1 A.6.1 Staff addition/revision."in community recreation spaces" added to align with new A.10. 26 A.5.2 A.6.2 Staff addition/revision. Added language requiring exterior lighting be directed to not shine on neighboring residential properties to be consistent with Town Code. 27 A.6 A.9 A.7 A.10 Landscaping should be required to be native and drought tolerant The terms "native" and "Drought tolerant" are not objective without very specific definitions and/or lists of allowed species. This level of specificity may limit the variety of landscaping in the Town. Additionally, the Town and the State already have rules addressing water use. Chapter 26 of the Town Code and the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) promote efficient water use in landscape areas. These ordinances recognize that large water savings can be gained by efficient landscape design, installation, management, and maintenance. This is accomplished by choosing climate adapted plants, improving soil conditions, using and maintaining high efficiency irrigation equipment, and managing the irrigation schedule to fit the plants water needs as they are influenced by local climates. 28 A.6 A.7 Do we define "landscape"?"Landscaping" has been added to the Key Terms. 29 A.6.2 A.7.2 Staff addition/revision.Clarified that the landscape buffer must stretch the full length of the shared property line. Why is a masonry wall is required over regular fencing? Is there a way to be clear that this doesn't apply to residential facing residential? Would a duplex need a multi-family wall? We should be clear when this is required. 31 A.6.2.a A.7.2.a Staff addition/revision. Added clarification that a six-foot tall masonry wall is not allowed within a street-facing setback, consistent with Town Code Section 29.50.035 32 A.6.3 A.7.3 Should we create a maximum height as well for parking lot buffers?Added a maximum height allowance for screening located within a street-facing setback. 30 A.6.2.a A.7.2.a The requirement in the document for a masonry wall reflects the Town Code, which requires a masonry wall between residential zoned properties and commercial/office/manufacturing zoned properties. The intent of the wall is to provide robust separation between more intense uses (commercial, mixed-use, multiple-family) and less intense single- and two-family uses. As written, the standard would not require a masonry wall separating single- and two-family residential uses from neighboring single- and two-family residential uses. Line #OLD #NEW #Comments Received Staff Response Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 33 A.7 A.8 Consider deleting this sections as it duplicates Town Code. This standard duplicates elements of the fence regulations application to residential properties. The residential fence regulations contained in Sections 29.40.030 through 29.40.0330 would not apply to qualifying projects outside of residential zones. Therefore, this standards was not deleted as it does not duplicate Town Code regulations. 34 A.9 A.10 Are these two standards combined to burdensome? Do these two standards overlap? Can we clarify that these do overlap? The entire A.9 section has been replaced with new A.10 to align with the Town Code, eliminate overlap, specify the types of "open areas", and clarify applicability between multi-family and mixed use projects. 35 A.9 A.10 Use of the word "may" - is this objective? Conflict eliminated. The entire A.9 section has been replaced with new A.10. 36 A.9 A.10 Perhaps we remove the allowance of grass due to the drought. Landscaping is now defined in the "Key Terms" section. The definition includes lawns allowing developers flexibility to meet their project goals while recognizing the Town regulates water use through Chapter 26 of the Town Code and the MWELO. 37 A.9 A.10 Palo Alto has an "open to sky" requirement. Recommends we look into this. "Community recreation space" includes a requirement that 60 percent of the space remain open to the sky (A.10.1.c). 38 A.9 A.10 Look at private open space that is used in Palo Alto's code.Revised A.10 addresses this comment. 39 A.9 A.10 Requirement for multi-story to have a balcony as discussed during the General Plan update. "Private recreation space" added as a "Key Term" that includes balconies. Private recreation space above the ground floor is required in multi-story qualifying projects. 40 A.10.1 A.11.1 Staff addition/revision.Changed "Community Place District" to "Community Growth District". Why does this only include Community Growth Districts (CGDs)? Likes that it only applies to Community Growth Districts otherwise it could make them look out of place. It might also limit design related to arcade setback standards in Section B. Can we apply this just to mixed-use? It should apply to ground-floor commercial. Big focus during GP discussions was street-activation and should be kept in mind during revisions. Perhaps replace "Community Growth District" with "Mixed-Use". B.1.1 B.1.1 There is chance that using three of these approaches may result in poor design. Maybe two would be better. Perhaps anchor it to the amount of street facing façade that exists. If under 50 feet, only require two. B.1.1 B.1.1 Palo Alto requires three or more. Good architects should be able to make it work. B.1.1 B.1.1 Would the mixed use building at N40 meet this standard? This Standards continues to require implementation of at least three solutions. Staff evaluated several projects in the Town to see if they would meet this Standards (Exhibit X). A quality design should not have a problem implementing at least three solutions. 41 42 The following polices discussing setbacks are included in the Community Design Element of the 2040 General Plan: CD-2.10 (Town-wide): Well-Defined Street Fronts - Require new buildings to maintain a consistent setback from the public right-of-way in order to create a well-defined streetscape. Require new buildings throughout Town to use consistent setbacks. CD-7.1 (All CGDs): Neighborhood-Friendly Design - Encourage buildings and sites within all Community Growth Districts regardless of designation, including shopping centers undergoing redevelopment, to integrate design features that create a pedestrian- and neighborhood-friendly environment, such as by siting buildings close to the sidewalks, providing space for small plazas, and including public art. CD-9.1: (LGB CGD): Setbacks and Step Backs of Massing - Require medium density, high density, and mixed-use parcels in the Los Gatos Boulevard District adjacent to single-family parcels to include increased site setbacks and multi-story step backs to minimize the impact and increase compatibility with smaller adjacent structures. CDP-11.7: (Lark CGD): Reduced Setbacks - Allow reduced setbacks to foster a more urban environment focused on corporate centers, commercial shopping areas, medical services, and hospitality uses. Consistent setbacks are encouraged by CD-2.10, while reduced setbacks are encouraged in CGDs. For this reason, Standard A.11.1 was written specific to CGDs. Given the above polices and the comments made by the Commission during discussion of this item, staff requests direction on whether this standard should apply Town- wide or only within CGDs. The corresponding figure/diagram will be updated accordingly.A.10.1 A.11.1 Line #OLD #NEW #Comments Received Staff Response Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 43 B.1.1 B.1.1 Detailed images or renderings would be helpful for this section. Photographic examples of the concepts have the potential to communicate unintended values or design guidance. Diagrams have been updated throughout the document to better illustrate the concepts in a more realistic style. Staff does not recommend the use of photos in the document. 44 B.1.1.a B.1.1.a Staff addition/revision.Revised required step back from six feet to five feet for consistency within the document. 45 B.1.1.e B.1.1.e Staff addition/revision.Changed 48 to 60 square feet to align with new A.10. 46 B.2.3 B.2.3 Staff addition/revision.Added "façade" to align with key term "façade articulation". 47 B.2.3.b B.2.3.b Where did the 25% number come from? This metric is included in B.2.3 above. Staff simplified language by removing "25 percent of the façade length" since this minimum is required in B.2.3 above. Also added "façade" to align with key term "façade articulation". 48 B.3.1.c B.3.1.c Staff addition/revision. Revised the change in façade or roof height from four feet to two feet to align with the height limitations of the Town Code. 49 B.3.4 B.3.4 Staff addition/revision.Deleted to eliminate potential conflict with architectural styles. 50 B.4.1 B.4.1 Example pictures would be helpful. Photographic examples of the concepts have the potential to communicate unintended values or design guidance. Diagrams have been updated throughout the document to better illustrate the concepts in a more realistic style. Staff does not recommend the use of photos in the document. 51 B.4.1.a B.4.1.a Staff addition/revision. Revised the minimum percent from 70 to 60 percent following case study of buildings with similar heights to those allowed in the Town. 52 B.4.1 B.4.1 Why not include varied plate heights in this section? It would make for dynamic architecture. Added B.4.1.f, offering a solution that the upper floor utilize a higher floor-to-ceiling height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the floor-to-ceiling height of the floor immediately below. New figure B.2.1.f added. 53 B.4.2 B.4.2 Inconsistency with 4.1.e regarding the use of different building materials. What is 4.2 trying to say? Revised to clarify that the building elements that need to be repeated on all elevations are the façade materials (such as siding, window types, trim) and not forms (such as chimneys, arcades, etc.). Revised standard does not conflict with B.4.1.e and does not require that materials be distributed consistently between elevations; (i.e.; if a second material is used on 30 percent of the front elevation, it does not need to be included at 30 percent of each of the other elevations). 54 B.4.2 B.4.2 The 360 degree architecture might limit design. This requirement has been applied for designs of residences and structures throughout the Town for some time without any significant impacts to quality architecture. 55 B.4.2 B.4.2 360 degree architecture is in the draft General Plan. Perhaps there is a better way to say this. Please look into this further.B.4.2 revised as discussed above. 56 B.4.3 B.4.3 Staff addition/revision. Increased the point requirement from 12 to 16 points to require incorporation of more than two architectural solutions. 57 B.4.3 B.4.3 Has this menu been used successfully in other places? Likes the idea.Yes. This leaves flexibility for the architect/designer. 58 B.4.3 B.4.3 This only addresses street-façade planes. Should consideration be given to other sides of the building? B.4.2 addresses carrying architectural detailing around all sides of a building. The purpose of B.4.3 is to require more articulation on the most visible facades. 59 B.4.3 B.4.3 Staff addition/revision. Removed upper floor step back as it is required elsewhere for buildings greater than two floors and could result in an awkward design if used on a two-story building 60 B.4.3 B.4.3 Staff addition/revision.Reduce point value for materials and color changes from five points to three points 61 B.4.3 B.4.3 Staff addition/revision.Removed "ornamentation" for specifics of decorative elements since it is a general term. 62 B.4.3 B.4.3 Staff addition/revision.Revised "overhang" language to increase objectivity. 63 B.4.4 B.4.4 Staff addition/revision.Deleted individual standard due to repetition in following new B.4.6. 64 B.4.7 B.4.6 Staff addition/revision.Added elements of old B.4.9 to reduce repetition in new B.4.6. 65 B.4.6 B.4.5 How would you do this with a column? An illustration of the columns or projection would help Revised illustration added. Line #OLD #NEW #Comments Received Staff Response Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 66 B.4.7 B.4.7 Palo Alto document details entry (not just door width) dimensions. Perhaps we should consider.New B.4.7 includes entry width requirements based on use. 67 B.4.9 --Staff addition/revision.Deleted and incorporated concept into ne B.4.6. 68 B.4.12 B.4.11 Staff addition/revision. Revised standard to allow balconies on street-facing facades and on facades that face existing non-residential uses on abutting parcels. Additionally, balconies are allowed when facing residential uses when proven that it will not create a privacy issue with the neighboring residential use. The applicant would be required to submit additional drawings (site line study, section, screening, etc.) to prove compliance with this standard. This provides more opportunity for developments to achieve the private recreation space requirements while protecting existing residential uses at all scales. Even with this change, staff is concerned with the requirement for private recreation space while simultaneously restricting its location in an attempt to protect privacy. Staff looks forward to the discussion with the Planning Commission. Evaluation of Existing Developments Staff evaluated several existing developments in the Town to see if they would meet three standards that offer multiple design solutions. These projects were designed and built without requirements to adhere to specific objective design standards. While some of the projects would not comply with all of the standards below, incorporating additional design solutions would be easily accomplished during the design phase. B.BUILDING DESIGNS B.1.Massing and Scale 1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the façades facing the street: a.A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet; b.Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; c.Recessed building entry for the full height of the facade with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet; d.An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet, extending the full length of the façade; e.Ground floor courtyards within the building footprint with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or f.Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. EXHIBIT 12 B.4. Façade Design and Articulation 4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to differentiate the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing façade. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following solutions: a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street-facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; d. Use of a belly band or horizontal architectural element with a minimum height of 10 inches between the first and second floor; e. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade; or f. The upper floor shall utilize a higher floor-to-ceiling height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the floor-to-ceiling height of the floor immediately below. 4.3 Variation in the street-facing façade planes shall be provided for buildings greater than one story by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solutions to achieve a minimum of 16 points: ▪ Architectural features, such as: o Arcade or gallery along the ground floor; 8 points o Awnings or canopies; 6 points o Building cornice; 5 points o Belly band, or horizontal architectural element, between the first and second floor; or 5 points o Façade sconce lighting. 3 points ▪ Bay windows; 6 points ▪ Balconies or Juliet balconies; 5 points ▪ Landscaped trellises or lattices; 5 points ▪ Materials and color changes 3 points ▪ Chimneys; 3 points ▪ Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; 3 points ▪ Window boxes or plant shelves; or 3 points ▪ Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels. 3 points University Avenue at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road B.1.1 - (Minimum 3) a. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet. b. Recessed building entry for the full height of the facade with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. B.4.1 – Not applicable, only two stories. B.4.3 – (16 points minimum) Arcade (8 points) Belly Band (5 points) Sconce lighting (3 points) Balconies (5 points) Decorative elements (3 points) Building cornice (5 points) Belly band (5 points) TOTAL = 34 points Aventino – Winchester Boulevard B1.1 - (Minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet. c. Recessed building entry for the full height of the facade with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. B4.1 – (Minimum 2) a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street- facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; B4.3 – (16 points minimum) Material and color changes (3 points) Balconies or Juliet balconies (5 points) Landscaped trellises or lattices (5 points) Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the façade with supporting brackets (3 points) Window boxes or plant shelves (3 points) Decorative elements such as molding, ornamentation, or corbels (3 points): TOTAL = 22 points North 40 - Market Hall (previously approved plans from A&S) B1.1 – (minimum 3) b. Changes in the façade plane with a minimum change in depth of two feet for a minimum length along the façade of two feet at intervals of no more than 30 feet; c. Recessed building entry for the full height of the facade with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet; f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater. B4.1 – (Minimum 2) a. Variation in building mass for a minimum of 60 percent of the length of the street- facing façade through changes in the façade plane that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet; b. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade; c. Variation in façade articulation, using shade and weather protection components, projecting a minimum of three feet for a minimum of 20 percent length from the street-facing-façade; e. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade; or f. The upper floor shall utilize a higher floor-to-ceiling height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the floor-to-ceiling height of the floor immediately below. B4.3 – (16 points minimum) Awnings or canopies (6 points) Belly band, or horizontal architectural element, between the first and second floor (5 points) Material and color changes (3 points) Balconies or Juliet balconies (5 points) TOTAL = 19 points PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP and RYAN SAFTY Senior Planner Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 8/24/2022 ITEM NO: 3 ADDENDUM DATE: August 23, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. REMARKS: Exhibit 13 includes Planning Commissioner comments. EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1.Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2.Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3.Draft Objective Standards 4.Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report: 5.Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6.Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7.Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Desk Item Report: 8.Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Staff Report: 9.Revised Draft Objective Standards 10.Revised Draft Objective Standards with Redlines 11.Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 12.Evaluation of Existing Developments ATTACHMENT 10 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: August 23, 2022 Received with this Addendum Report: 13. Planning Commissioner Comments From: Jeffrey Barnett Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 9:38:09 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: PC Meeting 8.24.22 - Balconies EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, Sean. Reference is made to the following language in the Staff Report and Draft Objective Standards: Page 198 of the Staff Report concerning balconies and privacy; Section B.4.11 on Page 243; and the Staff comment on Page 249 concerning B.4.11. It has come to my attention that the Palo Alto Municipal Code includes language concerning privacy with respect to balconies adjacent to residential properties. It is found at Section 18.24.050(C)(2) and provides: Balconies: Within 30 feet of residential windows (except garage or common space windows) or private open space on an adjacent residential building, balconies and decks on the subject site shall be designed to prevent views: (i)No sight lines to the adjacent property window or open space are permitted within fivefeet above the balcony or deck flooring and a 45-degree angle downward from balcony railing. (ii) Submit section view of proposed balcony/deck and abutting residential windowsand/or private open space.(iii)Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include: a.Minimum 85% solid railingb.Obscure glass railingc.Barrier with min. 18" horizontal depth from railing (e.g., landscape planter). Subsections (i) - (iii) would be appropriate for discussion at the meeting tomorrow. Thank you. Jeffrey EXHIBIT 13 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP and RYAN SAFTY Senior Planner Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 08/24/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DESK ITEM DATE: August 24, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. REMARKS: Exhibit 14 includes Planning Commissioner comments. Exhibit 15 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., August 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., August 24, 2022. EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1.Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2.Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3.Draft Objective Standards 4.Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report: 5.Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6.Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7.Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Desk Item Report: 8.Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Staff Report: 9.Revised Draft Objective Standards 10.Revised Draft Objective Standards with Redlines 11.Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 12.Evaluation of Existing Developments ATTACHMENT 11 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: AUGUST 24, 2022 Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Addendum Report: 13. Planning Commissioner Comments Received with this Desk Item Report: 14. Planning Commissioner Comments 15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., August 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., August 24, 2022 From: Jeffrey Barnett Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:33:24 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: PC Hearing 8.24.22 - Objective Standards EXTERNAL SENDER Good morning, Sean. I have a few questions that I would like to discuss with you in advance of tomorrow's meeting. (1)A.1.2 Page 233: Explain how this standard applies where pedestrians must cross a cardriveway in the parking lot. (2) 4.1 on Page 233: Would a standard preferring a rear parking structure be objective? (3)A.6 on Page 234: This lighting rule does not include pathways adjacent to buildings. The"key term" definition of "community recreation space" for mixed-use projects and multi-familydeverlopments does not seem to encompass these areas, and the language "other communityareas for the use of residents", in my opinion" may not apply to such pathways. Also, I do notsee a provision for lighting in parking areas. I don’t believe that these too are communityrecreation spaces. (4) 10.1c Page 236: sixty square feet is very small. My pool is almost that large, and is notparticularly big. (5)Figure B.1.1(b) on Page 238: should this only apply to staircases that are open to view? Is there a convenient time for us to talk about these questions? I am free from 1 to 3:30 today and all day tomorrow. Thanks in advance, Sean. EXHIBIT 14 This Page Intentionally Left Blank To Planning Commission Item 2 August 24th Planning Commission Meeting From: Lee Quintana COMMENTS ON TOWN OF LOS GATOS DRAFT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, AUGUST 24, 2022 GENERAL COMMENTS: Comprehensive stand alone document: It is my understanding, from previous public discussions of the Objective Guidelines, that the Objective Standards would be a comprehensive “stand alone” document containing the objective standards from all relevant documents and regulations. It is difficult to assess the Draft Objective Standards without knowing what other objective standards also apply to “qualified projects”. At a minimum, please consider adding a list of all objective standards contained . Consider adding a Table of all other objective standards that would apply to multi-family and mixed-use residential projects and include hyper-links to the individual standards. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY This section defines “qualifying project” and where the definition can be found in the California Government Code. However it does not define “Objective Standards” as defined by the Government Code. Most importantly, it does not explain how these apply to the approval process for “qualifying projects”. Please delete and revise the first paragraph to better define the purpose of Objective Standards, (streamlining approval process? . Delete and receive the second paragraph and include the following as part of that paragraph: Gov. Code 65559.5 identifies Qualifying Housing Development Projects: ● Multi-family housing developments, ● Residential Mixed Use Housing developments with a minimum of two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, ● Supportive and transitional housing development Delete and revise the last paragraph as follows: A Qualifying project shall be approved through a ministerial review process when the project complies with these Objective Site Standards as well as complying with all existing objective development regulations in the Town,:, including but not limited to the following: ● General Plan ● Town Code EXHIBIT 15 ●Guideline and Standards Near Streams ●Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ●Parks and Public Works Standards ●Santa Clara County Fire Department Regulations. ORGANIZATION The Following Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections:..... KEY TERMS Community recreation space Delete and replace with: Community recreation space in a mixed use residential development means public gathering spaces such as: plazas, outdoor dining, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of the public. -Please clarify whether this applies to non-residential and residential parts of a mixed use residential project or just to the non-residential part. - -Should the Community space require a public access easement. Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, and other community areas available for the use of all residents. Please clarify whether this applies to projects just with MF zoning designation or applies to the multi-family part of a Mixed Use Residential Project Mixed Use Residential means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, or institutional,and residential are combined with residential use(s)in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. Private recreation space above ground level means an outdoor balcony,or rooftop deck, or similar,accessible from a single dwelling unit. similar” = subjective. Delete or replace with more specific language Private recreation space at ground level means a single an outdoor enclosed patio or deck accessible from a single dwelling unit. Objective Standard means………………………………(add language) A .SITE STANDARDS A.1 Pedestrian Access 1.2 & Figure A.1.1:Is there a minimum width for the sidewalk? Or for the planting strip A.2 Bicycle Access 2.4. 1.2 was “modified from walkway” to “pathway”. Should 2.4 also be changed to “pathway as well? A.3 Vehicular Access and A.4 Parking Location and Design Figure A.3.1, A.3.1 and A4.3 need clarification :What is the difference between aisle to aisle circulation (A3.1) and parking areas (Figure A3.1)? Does Figure A.3.1 represent multiple parking areas (see A.4.2) or aisle-to-aisle circulation of A.3.1. 4.3 Comment:Consider decreasing spacing between trees. Aside from aesthetic value, the shading trees decrease radiation from the parking lot surfaces 4.4 Move 4.4 up under 4.1 A.5 Parking Structure Access Add a standard for pedestrian access to a parking garage A.6 Utilities 6.3 Delete and separate ground and rooftop: 6.3 Views from the street of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures shall be screened from view. a.Screening shall be provided by landscaping, fencing or a wall. b.The screening shall be at least the same height as the utility being screened, Comment:Should they also be screened from within a site? Or at a minimum from common areas? 6.4 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street a.Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement Consider a height exemption of the area required for an elevator shaft. A.7 Landscaping and Landscape Screening A.7.2.c Comment:Is there a requirement for planting between the trees? A.10. Landscaping, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces A10.1. The following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces shall be are required for all qualifying projects and are shall be calculated independent of each other: A.11 Building Placement 11.1.c. How shade is calculated needs to be more specific. B.4 Facade Design and Articulation 4.3 Change format consistent with the rest of the document B. BUILDING DESIGN B.1.3.e and Figure B.1.3..e Comment:I don’t understand this one. The illustration does not fit my understanding of a courtyard. Is this intended to be private the private use of the dwelling units? Is this an illustration of B.1.3 (Townhouse) B.2.2 If the intent is to prevent full transparency into the structure, should there be a minimum as well as a maximum? B.3 Roof Design Figure B.3.3 Comment: This figure looks more like the gable ilustrated in Figure.3.1 than it looks like a dormer B.4 Facade Design and Articulation B.4.3 Why change in format? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Melanie Hanssen, Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Kylie Clark Kathryn Janoff Reza Tavana Emily Thomas Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405 ATTACHMENT 12 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR HANSSEN: We can move on Item 3 on our agenda, and Item 3 is review and recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. Just as a reminder for the Commission, we’ll have a Staff Report, but we did see this item previously and sent it back for revisions based on comments that we had and comments from the public, so we’re seeing the revised draft. I will turn it over to Staff to give us a Staff Report. SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. Before you tonight is the continued review of the Draft Objective Standards for recommendation to the Town Council. On June 22nd the Planning Commission reviewed the first draft document and provided input to Staff on recommended modifications. Following that meeting, Staff and our consultant, M-Group, considered the direction from the Planning Commission and prepared a revised draft document. The revised Draft Objective Standards continues to be organized into two sections: Site Standards and Building Design. The revised draft includes a new Key Terms LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 section providing definitions for terms used in the document. Many of the Objective Standards have been updated, several new standards have been added, and diagrams throughout the document have also been updated. In addition to the revised document, Staff prepared a redline document showing all of the changes made to the previous draft. Staff also prepared a summary of the revisions made and responses to comments received from the public and the Planning Commission. These documents are included as exhibits to your Staff Report this evening. An Addendum and Desk Item have been distributed, including input from Planning Commissioners and additional public comment received after publishing of the Staff Report. Staff, along with our consultant, look forward to the discussion this evening and are available to answer any questions. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Just to recap, we did get comments in both the Addendum and Desk Item from Vice Chair Barnett, and we also got comments from Ms. Quintana. I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for Staff? Commissioner Clark. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I actually wanted to set the stage by thanking Staff. I had my original packet with all my notes alongside the new standards when I was reviewing it, and it was incredible how well all of it was reflected in the new standards, so thank you for all of your hard work. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Any other questions for Staff from Commissioners? Okay, I think we should go ahead and take public comments, and then we can have your Commission discussion about whether or not it’s good enough to recommend to go forward, so I’d like to see if any members of the public would like to speak on the Draft Objective Standards and you have up to three minutes. If you’d like to speak, please raise your hand. JENNIFER ARMER: Chair, it does look like we’ve got at least a couple of people who would like to speak, so we’re going to start with Rob Moore. Go ahead, you have three minutes. ROB MOORE: Thank you. Good evening, Chair Hanssen and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Rob Moore and I’m speaking purely in a personal capacity tonight. I’m here to voice my support for the Objective Standards and thank both the Commission and Staff for LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 working so hard to put these together. I feel that these Objective Standards will do a lot to streamline the planning process while ensuring high-quality projects. I’ve actually been talking with hundreds of folks throughout the Town every week, and whenever they bring up concerns about the building process I tell them that this document is in the works. It may be hard to believe this, but without fail this prospect of Objective Standards is incredibly exciting to them, and these Objective Standards are exciting to me as well. Thank you all for your service to the Town and have a great rest of your meeting. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Mr. Moore. Do any Commissioners have questions for Mr. Moore? I don’t see any. All right, it looks like we have another hand up as well. JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I will allow Bess Wiersema to speak. Go ahead, you have up to three minutes. BESS WIERSEMA: Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design. I know several of you from many years past, and some of you are new. Welcome to the Commission, I guess. I know it’s a big job. I’m here tonight to represent your local architects. We have reviewed the document and met on the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 side to help try to figure out how to best support the Town in streamlining the process for permitting, but also allow for Design Guidelines and Objective Standards that actually would provide a positive built environment for the Town. This group of architects includes Gary Kolhsaat, Louie Leu, Tom Sloan, Jay Plett, Bill Cross, Terry Martin, Bob Flury, Jennifer Kretschmer, and Tony Jeans. We’re all people you have probably seen projects from before and can recognize both Single-Family and Multi-Family around town. We do have concerns about what we see in the draft documents that are relatively significant and we respectfully request that this be continued, and that you lean on your local architects and designers to help define details that are applicable to the Town and community that we all love, work in, and service. We feel that this document creates a rule of thumb that can be used by everyone for essentially design- by-numbers, like paint-by-numbers, which means you end up with a picture that looks exactly like what the diagram defines. We’re also very concerned that several of the items within each of the categories are not relative to actually a positive Town-built environment as well as LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reflect local standards for other communities that are similar to size and scale to ours. We’re concerned that the diagrams shown in this become reality, because they are limiting in terms of form and proportion. We respect the fact that you’re trying to streamline the process by objectifying subjective and design standards, however, that’s not the definition of design, and I’m sure you all know that and that’s part of what you review constantly on all types of projects. Trying to objectify guidelines and subjective rules is ultimately the definition of something that I know everyone wants to do, because we’re trying to make it easier for people to understand what to design to get passed and make it easier for you to support or not support a proposal, and we respectfully request that you respect the fact that there are items that are already part of the permit process that we step through from a design capacity. We have peer reviews, Larry Cannon, etc., and we have to take public comment on projects, just as you witnessed before, and a robust conversation around them. Many of the architectural features suggested only reflect traditional detailing and architecture. How will more modern elements be classified and who judges if a proposed element meets this definition? The danger being LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that only traditional architecture will meet these qualifications, and that is not necessarily relevant for Multi-Family. According to Item 4.6b, 60% of building façade facing a street has to have fenestration. In some instances a contrast of solid versus open, i.e. fenestration… CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Wiersema, Ms. Armer has her hand up. I believe your three minutes are up. BESS WIERSEMA: I guess my final thing would be we are willing to be available to answer questions, and have gone through and taken each section, categorized it, and have some concerns or options we’d be willing to share. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I can ask if any Commissioners have questions for you at this time? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you so much for being here. I know that you very well may not have an answer to this question, but I think that creating Objective Standards, as you pointed out, is really tricky, because you want to be encouraging creativity while also ensuring consistency in everything, so I was wondering if you know of any examples of Objective Standards that you think do a better job at addressing some of your concerns? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BESS WIERSEMA: Specific Objective Standards and Multi-Family or Single-Family Residential? COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, like any other cities, or anything like that? BESS WIERSEMA: Yes, I know Gary Kolhsaat has done an analysis, and for instance in the standards that you guys are trying to put individual recreation area requirements are much larger than most typical condo and apartments built locally. One hundred and twenty square feet of outdoor area per unit is not consistent with our neighboring townships and cities, and much larger. That’s just one example of many. I think what we have a grave concern about as architects and designers is that attached diagrams and quantification based on a point system is really only going to create a design-by-numbers, and who and how determines what those points are and what qualifies as those? COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Can you provide an estimate of when the architects could provide some written input to the Commission along the lines that you’re talking about, provide all that information for our consideration? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BESS WIERSEMA: Sure. I’m happy to go back to the group. I was nominated to represent everyone tonight, because people had different things with back to school, but I’m happy to collectively put everyone on a group email to Sean and Ryan and Jennifer and figure out what might work for you guys as well as us from a timing perspective. We lamented in our most recent get together that the special meetings and research sessions that occur often occur during the middle of the day with a lot of us not being able to step away from clients and the work that we do in order to accommodate that, so maybe we could also put some time suggestions together to present something in a capacity that is useful to you. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think you answered the question, and so we would definitely encourage you to, as quickly as possible, because this effort has been going on for over a year now. BESS WIERSEMA: No, we understand. We understand. In the background, and just as a reminder, we are the ones who actually have to deal with implementing this and dealing with it alongside continuing to run our businesses so that we can support the Town. We understand it’s been going on. We also have been dealing with a shifting and changing Building Department and process and procedure for LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 everything, and we appreciate your consideration of everything that we step through as local business owners as well from a timing and efficiency standpoint. We also have a concern that perhaps these Multi- Family ones are going to trickle down into Single-Family rules of thumb in terms of objectifying subjective guidelines. CHAIR HANSSEN: So now you’re not answering my question and you’re (inaudible) into comments. I’m sorry, but we do have to limit everyone to three minutes, so we appreciate that, and we do encourage you to provide additional comments in writing. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? It looks like there is one more hand up. JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, we have interest from Lee Quintana. All right, Lee, you should be able to speak. LEE QUINTANA: I would encourage you to consider meeting with the architects of the Town. I like Objective Standards as a good way to speed up processing of projects, but I think that standards have to be easily understood by everybody who sees them, and I would agree with Bess that the illustrations in these Objective Standards do tend to make one think that all these buildings are going to be absolutely symmetrical and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 absolutely square and triangular and all face the street, and that’s going to be pretty damn boring. But I do think we need Objective Standards, but I’d also like Staff to explain what these particular standards apply to and why they’re being developed, because it’s my understanding they will only apply to very specific projects, not every project, so I think that’s one of the failings of the introduction is it’s really not clear what they apply to. CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you have any other additional comments you wanted to make at this time? LEE QUINTANA: No, at this time they’re all in my comments that I submitted. CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and we thank you as well, as always, for submitting a lot of additional comments and things for us to consider. I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for you. I don’t see anyone with their hands up, so thank you for that. I will see if there’s anyone else that would like to speak in public comments. JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone else would like to speak on this item, please raise you hand. I’m not seeing any hands raised, Chair. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: So then I’m going to close public comments on this item, and I will turn to the Commission to have a discussion. Our Town Attorney has a comment. ATTORNEY WHELAN: If the Commission would like, I can address the question from the public as to why the Objective Design Standards are necessary. As the Commission probably knows, it’s a requirement of Senate Bill 35 and it requires cities to establish Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential development. The second part of the question was whom would this apply to? It would apply to Multi-Family Residential development. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I had a quick follow up question about that. When we’re talking about Multi-Family specifically, is that going to be anything larger than one unit? ATTORNEY WHELAN: The State Housing and Community Development Department defines it as two or more. There’s a nuance in the Town’s code, so we’re defining it to mean three or more. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I wasn’t sure if it was three or four. So it is anything that is three or more, so not a duplex, but a tri-plex? Okay, thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any more questions upfront? So then in terms of Vice Chair Barnett, you submitted a comment regarding the Palo Alto Objective Standards and you had subparts 1, 2, and 3 that you wanted to discuss. What are you hoping to do with the Objective Standards regarding this? Add things from Palo Alto? Maybe you could help us. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think that the Palo Alto municipal code section has very good Objective Standards that relate to the privacy of neighbors with respect to the use of balconies in adjacent Multi-Family buildings, and you saw what they were from the input I gave. It would be my recommendation that we include that as part of our final approval of the Objective Standards. CHAIR HANSSEN: Because at this point in time we don’t have a specific section on privacy, although there might be things in the standards that could address some privacy. So your recommendation would be to include language similar to that? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR BARNETT: There is some language about protecting privacy, but it’s not specific in terms of the view angle and the height of balcony enclosure. CHAIR HANSSEN: It looks like some Commissioners have comments or questions. Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I was going to point out that Vice Chair Barnett’s recommendations on balconies is a deep dive in a way that the other components of the document don’t do, and we talked the time before about not wanting to go into that much detail. I’m not against including some Objective Standards regarding balconies, but I’m concerned about an Objective Standard around privacy. Item 2 on our agenda tonight was all about privacy. We don’t have Objective Standards regarding that, so I’m curious to hear from Staff or even the Town Attorney, because privacy isn’t just a balcony issue. If we go to balcony, then why wouldn’t we go broader? And if we go broader, are we going to get into trouble? I’m just curious what Staff would have to say about privacy. And would those Objective Standards lead us to Objective Standards for Residential projects and that sort of thing? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. Specific to the balconies issue, what Staff can offer here is we certainly looked at the specific section from Palo Alto following the direction of the Planning Commission at the last meeting. We recognized the level of detail that their Objective Standards, which are incorporated into their municipal code, that they go to here, and also heard from the Planning Commission to Commissioner Janoff’s point that that wasn’t the level of detail that perhaps our document wanted to go to. The other piece here depends on how you read things and on future development. You can inadvertently restrict future development on neighboring properties by having Objective Standards like this and providing an example of a Multi-Family development going in on one property next to a Residential property, but once that’s built if the Residential property wants to redevelop in the future to a different residence, all of a sudden you can create a conflict with privacy based on these Objective Standards. Given all that, and there were long discussions with the consultant and Staff, we tried to simplify it down to trying to preserve future development rights and to create some privacy breaks regarding balconies. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you for that. To my broader question of balconies, one component on privacy, as we heard tonight, windows are another, for example. How would we or could we, or does the Commission want to go to privacy standards? SEAN MULLIN: Windows could certainly be regulated in a similar fashion to the way that Palo Alto is approaching their balconies. Whether the Commission wants to do that remains to be seen. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Janoff. Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Clark. Hold on, Ms. Armer has her hand up. JENNIFER ARMER: Sorry. I believe that Mr. Safty had an additional thought to add to that discussion. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m sorry, I completely missed your hand. Go ahead. RYAN SAFTY: It’s okay; thank you. I was just going to interject it does seem like there’s a little bit of confusion about whether or not we did include that. We do have some privacy standards in 4.11b, but to echo what Mr. Mullin said, it was a little bit of a struggle, so we did bring that more as a request to the Commissioners to see which direction you wanted to go, and the reason we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn’t decide to tackle windows is there are certain requirements on size of windows for different rooms in a house, so we didn’t want to overly restrict the development. But again, any comments we’re happy to receive, so please let us know. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that clarification, because it has been a long process starting from when we had the Subcommittee last summer and fall and we went through every Objective Standard in the Town, and so if things aren’t in there we probably discussed it and came up with a reason why we might not want to do that. Let’s go on and hear what the other Commissioners have to say. Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I hesitate to add much more about privacy specifically because I do think that it has the possibility of restricting design elements and/or some types of projects, and as we know, it’s hard to get these big projects done as it is, and I think that particularly in areas that we’re looking to build a lot of these Multi- Family we’re hoping that the Town gets some redevelopment in these areas. It doesn’t seem like right now we really need to be restricting things with regard to specifics about windows or more specific things about balconies. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 My other question for the Town Attorney is when is our deadline really for getting these Objective Standards approved by the Town Council according to SB 35? Is there a point at which we get fined, we get in trouble, or we get told these are our standards now? ATTORNEY WHELAN: If I remember correctly, the deadline was January of this past year, so I do think we’re past the deadline. In terms of penalties, I think it will be difficult if we get an SB 35 planning application that asks to see the Town’s Objective Standards, because the Town will need to demonstrate that a proposed project does not comply with its Objective Standards. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So the longer we drag this out, if we don’t have Objective Standards then we really risk projects having local control about project approval, because if we don’t have the standards and they go through the SB 35 route and we have nothing to show them, essentially the project gets approved? ATTORNEY WHELAN: Right. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for clarifying that. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’ll go to Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Tavana. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I also am hesitant to put further restrictions on privacy. Even in the Staff Report one of their concerns is the requirement for private recreation space while simultaneously requiring more privacy, and so I think already it’s becoming a problem when we are focusing it in too many different areas, and I do think once we get specific about balconies and windows, then we have to get specific about other things related to privacy, and then once we get specific about privacy, do we have to go more specific with the rest of our plan? The Palo Alto standards are a lot more specific, and I think that makes them more restrictive, which is not the goal here. I think in general we understand that these are supposed to allow development while making sure that they fit with the Town, and so I think that it probably isn’t a good idea to get more specific about these sorts of things. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner Clark. Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. I would like to echo Commissioner Clark’s statements about privacy. I do think privacy is inherently subjective. What is private to one person could be acceptable to the next, so LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any language regarding this topic I do think should be general. Lastly, I think Bess made a number of compelling comments and I’d like to see a comprehensive list of suggestions. I don't know why it hasn’t happened yet, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable making a recommendation to the Town Council until I hear their complete comments. CHAIR HANSSEN: Before I go to any other Commissioners, I’m going to ask a question for Staff and our consultant who is here. I thought that engaging with architects was part of the process? RYAN SAFTY: Feel free to chime in, Mr. Mullin, if I miss anything, but throughout the process we do have the list of architects on our email blast, so any time there were community meetings or drafts of the document available we were sending that out and strongly encouraging input, and we do look forward to seeing these comments from the architects. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. Then I will go to Commissioner Janoff, Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Here’s a conundrum. We always want to hear from the experts, because we aren’t the experts compared to what we know of this LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 group of amazing, talented architects. Having said that, we don’t have the input and we don’t have much time, or we’re out of time. I’m usually in favor of pressing on with meeting an objective, and we’ve had quite a bit of time to do that, but on the other hand, I’m also in favor of hearing directly from the architects, and we got just a little tidbit of what they have to say, so here’s my question for Staff. I could see myself going either way. I would feel comfortable approving what we have tonight with some changes that we are no doubt going to discuss with the understanding that architects can come in and provide comments and we can make an amendment; we can make a change. So the question for Staff is is it more prudent to get this thing through and then make changes, or vice- versa? If the architects are as concerned about some of the language—and actually I heard more concern about the visuals than the language—what do you recommend? Do you recommend that we go forward with approving something so there are some Objective Standards in place when an SB 35 project comes to the Town, or do you recommend we wait? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SEAN MULLIN: I can weigh in very briefly, and then I would defer to the Town Attorney on whether it’s best to get something approved and then amend it later. I think there is tremendous value in receiving input from the local architect community, so much so that that’s why we’ve reached out to them and appreciate that they’ve gotten together and will be providing us some information. I suspect that with the Planning Commission’s direction once that information is understood that there could be some significant changes to the document. So there are the two paths that you’re looking at. It’s not having something on the books for SB 35, or putting something on the books that’s going to be changed, or could prospectively be changed pretty significantly in the future. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Personally, I wouldn’t want to put something out that’s going to look pretty different if we have an amendment, so if the architects can come together and provide us feedback within the next week, then I would be in favor of continuing this to the next Planning Commission meeting so we have the benefit of that information. One thing I would say is the diagrams that we have are a marked improvement over the first draft that we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 looked at, so I think we’re heading in the right direction, but my question for Staff is would there be any downside to including actual images like the three examples that you gave at the end of the Staff Report? They were really a great opportunity to say this is how the evaluation would work, this is how the points would add up, and those are real examples in Town, they look different, and they really provide kind of a range of architectural styles. So my question is like the Residential Design Guidelines, for instance, when we have actual images of properties within Town, can we do something similar so that we assuage the concern of the architects that this stuff really does look like brutalist architecture if you go that direction? I appreciate that concern, and if we can put more actual graphics in I think that would make a huge difference in speaking to the range of architecture styles that would be welcome in the Town. SEAN MULLIN: We certainly could include images, and that was a point that was discussed in great detail with our consultant. The caution that we received from our consultant, and that I personally agree with, is that putting an image out there to demonstrate our façade articulation could have the unintended consequence of including something else that violates an objective LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard further down the document, and that’s just inherent with putting a real world picture in. Because of that complication we chose to move the diagrams from what you saw at the last meeting in June to what you see now, which is closer to the Palo Alto document, which is sort of being the case study that’s being held up here, and try to have a more controlled environment to articulate the point. But if it is the will of the Planning Commission, we could certainly start to work on sourcing images and taking photos to demonstrate these points. CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see what others think. Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. First I’ll touch on the photos. I agree that I had thought it would be good to see some photos in there. I think that Mr. Mullin makes a very good point. I have a couple of thoughts on it. One is that I would hope there are projects out there that don’t break any of the rules, since theoretically we’re trying to bring these into existence, so I think it would be worth looking, and if you are able to find some and confirm that they fully conform, I do think that those would be great to see in there. If that’s not possible, I think creating some more nuanced versions just showing something and seeing which of the ones it LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 incorporates, how many points it gets, and showing that it can be asymmetrical and look a little different and things like that, at least having something of that sort in there would be worth it. I also am torn about what to do with the situation with the architects. I think that their input is really important and it sounds like they’re going to be putting something together, and I don’t see a world in which we receive that and just dismiss it, and I do think that it sounded like there would be some significant changes. It’s really, really unfortunate that the timing happened this way and that this wasn’t brought to our attention sooner, but I don’t feel like it is worth having a really deep conversation and making a lot of changes if they might end up not feeling realistic to the people who are going to be tasked with implementing them. CHAIR HANSSEN: Fair enough. Thank you for that. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have multiple comments, and first I would like to comment on the visuals. I know that the visuals seem sterile, and I know that I am not an architect, but I see that as more of an opportunity. I really do feel like the visuals are a great improvement and I do feel like in a lot of ways less is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more. I think that our Residential Design Guidelines have photos of real houses, because residents read those. Not that residents aren’t going to be looking at these Draft Objective Standards, but the reality is that these are for Multi-Family units, these are going to be professionals that are looking at these standards and interpreting them. So for me, I would hope that, as an architect, if you looked at this you would see this more as a blank slate that you could work with rather than being restricted. I totally appreciate that the architects have concerns, and I do think that it’s unfortunate that we’re hearing about them tonight at this meeting when we’re so far beyond the deadline, however, I would hope that we could just get some very specific points about what exactly is very restrictive and perhaps might result in too much of a cookie cutter like development. I see Ms. Armer has her hand up. Do you want to say something before I keep going? CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, why don’t you go ahead, Ms. Armer, and then we’ll let Commissioner Thomas finish. JENNIFER ARMER: Sorry, Commissioner, I did not intend to interrupt you. I just wanted to make sure that as we do continue with this discussion and consideration as to whether to try to make a recommendation tonight or continue LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for further discussion in another time to remember that, as with any recommendation from the Planning Commission, we will continue to receive public comments through the process as it goes to Town Council for their consideration, so while we want the recommendation of the Planning Commission to be as complete as possible, there still will be that additional time after this discussion tonight. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Perfect. Thank you for that reminder, because that was one of my other comments that I wanted to bring up, that I personally am interested to hear what other Commissioners think about making minor recommended changes, but overall hopefully getting to a place tonight where we can forward this to the Town Council for recommendation and really, really hope and encourage that those architects get their public comments in over the next week, and it will be if make the recommendation Town Council will know that we feel very strongly that we should be receiving feedback from the architects and taking that into consideration. I just want to know, do any of us feel comfortable forwarding for approval but then telling Town Council that we strongly encourage them to consider any further comments from professionals that they receive? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 My last comment and concern, and this is again unfortunate that we’re just hearing some of these concerns tonight, but I did also hear that a concern is that these Objective Standards might trickle down into Single-Family standards and I wanted to confirm with Staff that that is not the case, and that is not my interpretation of this situation whatsoever. RYAN SAFTY: I can take the first stab at this. Thank you for the question. You are correct, these Objective Standards, per direction from the state, are applicable only to these qualifying projects defined as Multi-Family and Mixed-Use. If, at a certain time in the future, there is direction to do this for Single-Family I’m assuming there will be an (inaudible) with Subcommittee and community meetings to get input. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I would also say that if you look at the direction of State law that it’s not at all focused on Single-Family, because what they’re trying to encourage is Multi-Family, because that’s the best way to get more housing. Go ahead, Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m sorry, I just want to add one more thing related to all that. I really think that as a town, and I know with a lot of the work we’re doing, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the more towns that get behind on putting up Objective Standards for things and fall behind on all of this, it just is encouraging Sacramento to come in and put more and more restrictions on local control, and I know that having local control and being able to hold local power and decision making of what our Town character looks like is something that’s really important to our residents here in town. I really don’t want to be responsible for furthering any hard restrictions coming from Sacramento that would take away a lot of our local power, and that is a concern of mine if we continue to continue this. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. There are several people with their hands up. Let’s go to Vice Chair Barnett, then Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Janoff. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. I share the dismay of my fellow commissioners about the delay from the professionals in the community to provide input during our process, however, we’ve received a number of specific topics from the speaker about specific comments about design characteristics and Objective Standards that they don’t think are practical in real life, and so I would be in favor of some delay. I wish we had a better sense of how long it would realistically take the architects and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 engineers to provide us that feedback, but I would certainly be comfortable with one week. As to the photos, I may be wrong, but my recollection is that in the process of developing the Objective Standards we did see some photographs that were prepared by the consultant and I thought they were very helpful, and were certainly helpful in the Residential Design Guidelines, so I would encourage that change in the Objective Standards. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I want to address two things. First is on the images. As we’ve said, definitely an upgrade from what we saw before, and I think from what we’ve heard from the public tonight it sounds like when members of the public do go look at the document it doesn’t really make them feel like the standards are going to allow for variety, and it sounds like it’s still kind of hard for them to picture what they look like in real life. Personally, when I’ve been talking to people about the ministerial process and addressing their concerns I talk about the Objective Standards, and so I do think that people are going to go look at them to see what actually LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 happens when a development is going through this process and I think it’s important to consider what a lay person might think when they see the document, so I think having something a little more real world in there would be worth it in my opinion. Second, I agree with Vice Chair Barnett that my preference would be to defer this to some degree. I think it sounded like the architects have some serious concerns and I think that the Planning Commission’s role is to really look closely at these standards before we’re sending them over the Town Council and that we’re a trusted source, and so I’d want to make sure that we’ve looked at them in a similar form to how they’ll be seen at the Council. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. If we had any assurance that what we were looking at in draft form was 90% close according to the architects, then maybe I’d be comfortable forwarding it the Town Council and then letting them do the remaining work, but I’m not generally in favor of having Council do the Planning Commission’s work, and so I really think it’s important, given Bess’ urgency that we heard, I think we should give them the opportunity to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provide input. We need to give them a very short deadline so that they understand that we can’t keep delaying this. Staff can confirm whether we do or don’t have SB 35 projects in the pipeline, and if we don’t today we probably won’t in two weeks, and if we can get this draft in better shape I think we owe it to Town Council to have at least done the invite to the architects, give them a hard deadline, get that input, and be prepared to discuss it next week, so I’m in favor of continuing for that. A couple other comments. When we talk about images, I think it’s important to keep the line drawings in there. As Commissioner Thomas indicated, it doesn’t tell you much, it just says this is the basic, and that’s a good thing for creativity. But if we have a bunch of examples with good architectural design that incorporate these kinds of standards, even if the captions say this is showing good articulation or whatever you want the person to be looking at, it doesn’t have to be in town. If it is, it’s great, but it could be within the wider community, or even further afield if we want to have really quality architectural images in the standards, so I think that’s a really god idea. Last point, I think that the comments from Lee Quinta on the introductory area are important. While I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thought her recommended changes for specifically talking about government code and what it intended to cover were good, I think if we frame the introduction specifically siting SB 35 and what it covers or what its expectations are, then we have a much stronger introduction about why this is happening and why it’s important, and if that includes the government code, great, include that too. I don’t think there’s any harm in making the introduction nicely comprehensive. But I would be in favor of a short continuance, and again for Staff, if we’ve got SB 35 projects in the pipeline, you’ll let us know if we’re really flirting with any real possibility that we’re going to have some problems if we delay. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask Commissioner Thomas to hold on and let Director Paulson speak, and then I have something I wanted to say as well. JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of comments. I think what I also heard from Ms. Wiersema was getting something quickly is probably not going to be realistic, just so the Commission is prepared. I think at a minimum we would have to continue it to the second meeting in September, and so I think that hopefully will give Staff LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time, because I think what would be important in that exercise is for Staff to meet with the architect’s group as well so we can walk through stuff together rather than the back and forth of email or attachment communication, so I think that would be important. We’ve talked about the illustrations and photos throughout a number of different processes, and they’re always challenging, but I think we can definitely look into that piece as well. This is a little broader than just SB 35. There’s also SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act; those all have specific references to Objective Standards. We don’t have any projects currently for any of those. The couple of Housing Accountability Act projects you did see were the North Forty utilized that for the first phase, and then the Mixed-Use projects on Union across from Safeway where they had the Single-Family detached and they had a Mixed-Use with three condos above, so they utilized that. They were willing to make some changes. I think specifically from the Union project there were some things that they were willing to do, but they weren’t willing to do all the things that were more of a subjective nature. I think it’s important to keep that big picture of what we’re really talking about. We’re definitely not LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going down to Single-Family or duplexes. We’ve had that conversation as well. If that were something that ultimately the Town is interested in, that would be a completely separate standalone document for those two product types. I just want to make sure that we have realistic expectations both for the architects as well as the Commission to really have a conversation with them, have them pull their stuff together so the Commission can have it as well. I think is going to be a little more than a week; I’m not sure that’s realistic. I don’t want to speak for the architects group, but I’m fairly confident they would potentially agree. CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff. Ms. Wiersema has had her hand up for a while, but I did close the public hearing. Is it possible that I could reopen the public comments and just get that input? JENNIFER ARMER: But it should be for a very specific question, kind of a yes or no type question. If you were to open it, it should be very specific. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m just going to make a comment, and then I’d like to hear back from Staff as well. I’m not comfortable with sending this off to Town Council, but on the other hand, I’m extremely concerned to hear that we are LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 this many months behind, so if we’re going to continue it, it needs to be a fairly short time frame. Some of the comments I heard from Ms. Wiersema were around creativity and design and all that stuff, and these are supposed to be Objective Standards. I don’t think that there’s anything that’s unclear at all about articulation and things like that, concepts that are presented in this document, so any changes that get to be made, it can’t be we want to have freedom to do whatever we want, it has to be Objective Standards and we need to give enough detail so that anyone, including people that don’t have a lot of experience working with the Town, can look at those things and say yes, I know how to incorporate those. I guess I’m trying to figure out how we can determine what is an appropriate amount of time, because the other side of this is that if we are this far past January, a few more weeks might not matter. So Staff, give me some guidance here. SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. I think looking at the prospective comments from the architect community, as stated before, I think there could be some significant changes. We would be looking for the most specific comments we could get on concerns on existing standards and any recommendations to additional standards. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 From a turnaround standpoint, from Staff’s perspective, we wouldn’t be making any changes before we came back to the Planning Commission; I don’t believe we would. I think we would collect their input and bring it to the Planning Commission for discussion and could possibly provide responses as we’ve done before. I can defer to Joel and Jennifer on that as well. CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead, Director Paulson. JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Mr. Mullin. I think, again, another option is we continue it to the first meeting in September, but if we don’t have the input from the architects because they haven’t been able to pull that together, then we could continue it again. I think that would be a discussion for the Commission, whether or not the Chair is interested in opening up the public hearing for a very specific question such as do you think the architect’s group is going to be able to come up with their recommendations by next Thursday so that we can get it into the packet for the meeting on the 14th, or two weeks, because I think the packet goes out, Ms. Armer, on the 9th? JENNIFER ARMER: That’s correct. We do have three weeks until the next meeting. CHAIR HANSSEN: I also heard an offer from Staff to meet with these architects versus them having to send LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comments back and forth to each other, which to me sounds much more expedient, because you could take notes on what sounds reasonable in a meeting versus sending things and then having to review them and sending them back. Before I do that, because Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Janoff have their hands up, I’m going to ask them for their input, and then we’ll go from there. Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I want to say that I also support Ms. Quintana’s comments regarding the introduction. I do think that it’s important to be very specific. It’s called Purpose, and I think that being very explicit and assuming that people don’t know what the purpose of this document is before they look at it is important. My comment regarding the photos would be I do appreciate how straightforward and simple this is compared to our Residential Design Guidelines. I think it’s quick and easy to look at and easy to interpret, and so I appreciate Commissioner Clark’s comments about how lay people are going to look at this, so we should include some examples, so I’m interested in hearing if people are thinking those photos should be integrated throughout or LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more like used as an index to reference examples at the end? So that’s one thing. I have a couple of comments and questions regarding just Objective Standards and SB 35. I kind of got the impression from the architects’ comments tonight that Objective Standards in general are restrictive with regard to design and architecture, and like Director Paulson just said, not having Objective Standards isn’t an option at this point, we have to have them, so I am curious if this group of architects, do we know what kind of projects they’re doing? Because I think the projects that are going to come through SB 35 and through this ministerial process, even though it’s classified and Town Code is two or more, I would assume that it’s going to be larger developments and redevelopments. So my question for Staff and/or the Town Attorney is just because this SB 35 Objective Standards pathway exists, can smaller projects still go through the typical Town process in a different way and not have to deal with this point system with regard to Objective Standards and just meet our other Residential Design Guidelines that exist, or is this now going to be the only pathway for development of two or more? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can start. For SB 35 the project has to invoke it in order to rely on it, however, as the Director mentioned, there is also though the State Housing Accountability Act, and that provides that cities and towns can only deny multi-unit housing if they can demonstrate that the project doesn’t comply with an objective standard, and so it’s also a benefit to cities and towns to have objective standards in place to consider any Multi-Family housing project. SEAN MULLIN: I would add that smaller projects, to the Commissioner’s question, the existing process would remain and they could choose to not go through the Objective Standards process, which is a streamlined process, and choose for whatever reason to go through the typical existing Architecture and Site process. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So basically if you want to develop a lot right now and you want to build a smaller like four-plex on that lot, and it fits with the design, we’ve looked at all the neighborhood, it doesn’t even look like a four-plex, it looks like a normal Single-Family home, there is a pathway to still do that through the typical Architecture and Site application that exists right now? I just want to confirm that. SEAN MULLIN: That is correct. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, those existing processes will still be in place for all size projects. It’s really just when they’re invoking this special streamlined process that we would then require that they comply with these Objective Standards. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. Then my understanding, and please tell me if this is not a good interpretation, is that SB 35 is mainly going to be used for larger projects that are invested with large companies, large developers, contractors, big architecture firms, all of that most of the time in our situation. With that, if that is the case, then I am more comfortable just proceeding on, because we still have this other pathway that exists if our local architects feel like these Objective Standards are restrictive, but I am really curious to hear what other Commissioners think about that. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I wouldn’t mind responding to Commissioner Thomas, but I think we’ve got a question at hand that really needs to be answered, and that is yes, I agree, we should open the public meeting back up to ask the architect, Bess Wiersema, since she’s the named representative for the architects, whether they can compile the comments of the architects within the next two weeks? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: That was my thinking as well. I think a week is too fast, and if it meant that we couldn’t meet at the next meeting, then so be it. But do others feel differently about that before I ask Ms. Wiersema? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’ll have something after that, but I also think that question needs to be answered first. I think it’s important that the architects are able to meet with Staff, so I also want to make sure that that’s incorporated into the timeline. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to reopen the public comments section and I’m to ask Ms. Wiersema a question. JENNIFER ARMER: She should be able to speak once you’ve asked the question. CHAIR HANSSEN: So my question is this: Can you either send comments or meet with Staff within the next two weeks to help advance this Objective Standards project forward, because we are in such a tight time frame? BESS WIERSEMA: I will make sure that we meet with Staff and we provide you with comments in two weeks, 100%. We care, we want to help, and we want to make sure that this is a successful process for what Los Gatos wants to see in terms of this built environment. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I would say that I want to make sure that my two- week time definition has to do with we have two weeks as community members, business owners, etc., to get our information to Staff, and that does not mean that based on their backup of when they have to submit to you for documents for the hearing, it doesn’t become a Desk Item, which is always cumbersome for all of us. So I’m not sure what that calendar timing is, and maybe you can help define that. CHAIR HANSSEN: I thought a week was not long enough, so I’m saying two weeks, and I understand that that doesn’t include Staff turning this thing around necessarily for our next meeting unless they could do that after getting your input in two weeks, so I’m good with that. So I’m going to close the comments, and I’ll go back. We have Ms. Armer, and then we have two Commissioners. JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to clarify that tonight’s meeting, we are August 24th, and two weeks from today would be September 7th. The full Staff Report packet for the next Planning Commission meeting goes out two days later on the 9th, so if written comments were received from the architects by the 7th, they would be in your full packet and you would have the normal period of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time to take a look at them, though depending on when they are received, Staff will have more or less time to provide responses in writing in advance of the meeting. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. It sounds like we can work with that, and then if something doesn’t occur as we expected, there certainly is always the possibility to continue it to the second meeting in September, correct? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. So then our date certain, if it’s the will of the Commission to do this, would be the first meeting in September. JENNIFER ARMER: September 14th. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, just a couple of things about the photos. I know that Commissioner Thomas asked if we would want them throughout the document or as an index at the end, and my personal thought would be to have an image in the sections that are done through scoring, and it can say that these are the parts that are in it and this is the score it would receive, because I feel like that’s where they started to look the most monotonous to some people and where it gets kind of confusing to picture multiple being integrated. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Second, I see what you mean, Commissioner Thomas, about them still having that other option of not going through the ministerial process and still just using the normal one, but I think that it’s really important that these Objective Standards are practical, and we really want them to be utilized, so I think talking to the architects is a really good way to make sure that they are as practical as they can be, and I think we need to focus on not relying on somebody possibly using the other process and hoping that people will be able to take advantage of the Objective Standards. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just quickly, I think that given where we are with the promise of the architects to come back with us, then we should suspend our conversation tonight. We can have longer to look over the comments from the Desk Item so we can incorporate those. I feel like I have no idea where the architects’ changes might be, and so going through the document I think doesn’t make much sense at this point. I would agree that we’re just really beating a dead horse about the images, but images always speak more strongly when they’re related to what the comments are LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talking about, so putting them at the end, where you’ve got to leaf back and forth, whether you do it online or in a hard copy, it doesn’t make too much sense to me, so I’d keep those images interwoven with the discussion so that the examples are clear, or put them, as Commissioner Clark suggested, with examples of how projects would be scored. CHAIR HANSSEN: I agree. I was not considering going through the document, because I feel like there’s enough support from the Commission to continue the item, although we haven’t gone through that process yet. I did want to weigh in about the pictures. While understanding some of the complexities of doing pictures, I think we need to have some pictures, especially—I think Commissioner Clark was spot on—in that section where we’re scoring a project. If we can get permission from a project to apply the score to them, it should be in the document, not at the end, and make it easy for people to understand how to implement the standards that we have, because the whole idea is streamlining, so we need to make it easier for people and not complicated. I also wanted to comment on Commissioner Janoff’s thought that we did get some good comments from Ms. Quintana in the Desk Item. I don't know that everyone had a chance to totally digest them, but one of the comments that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was raised, and it was raised before, was about having all of the Objective Standards from every other document included in this document, and Staff did address that comment in the packet and said that instead there would be references to the other documents that it wasn’t going to be in scope to do that thorough of a document to pull in everything from every other document and put it in this document. I will go to Vice Chair Barnett, and then back Commissioner Janoff. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m prepared to make a motion to continue this hearing to September 14th with the understanding that if we don’t receive the architects’ input within two weeks that it will be denied or not considered for a further hearing. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Do I have a second for that? Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: I second. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Then Commissioner Janoff, you had your hand up. Was it to make a motion? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: No, it was to make a comment, but we can go ahead. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: So we have a motion and a second to continue. I did want to ask if any Commissioners would like to make comments before I call the question? Obviously we’ll have another chance to see this when it comes back to us. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, just quickly. In the interest of transparency, I also wanted to underscore the importance of actual images to residents. We’re entering into some uncharted territory with the number and scale of the housing that we’re looking for under the Housing Element, and obviously this document is going to relate to that type of development. Having residents understand and see what this could look like, and be really beautiful additions to our community, I think would be really important. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do just have a question for Staff. Are we going to get another draft based on the few comments that we gave to you tonight, or can we assume the draft we got tonight is what we’ll also see in three weeks? RYAN SAFTY: Based on the anticipation of all the future comments we’re going to get from the architects, it LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would be my preference and Staff’s preference to probably not go through an amended document and try to collect all the feedback at one time. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I was going to say that I would hope that you would do whatever is going to be the most productive use of your time since you’re going to probably have to go back and edit it again after that next meeting. Okay, thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I have a question for the maker of the motion. If we do not receive comments by two weeks time, will it still be on the agenda for the meeting of September 14th? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: If I may respond, that was certainly my intention, that we would go forward with any remaining comments on the draft that we received with the Staff Report. CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any other questions or comments before I call the question? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just to clarify what the maker of the motion stated in response to Commissioner Tavana, are you saying that if the architects come back and say we need another week that we wouldn’t give that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continuance? I’m not clear what you’re going forward without the input means. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: If I may respond, we had assurance that it absolutely could be provided within two weeks. I should think that after all the delays and failure to respond to the outreach that that’s reasonable. CHAIR HANSSEN: I also will weigh in. I heard from Ms. Wiersema that 100% that two weeks was going to work, so I think we should just proceed forward with that assumption. Any other questions? Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I know they said 100%, but there is always a chance we do not receive comments, so I just want to make sure in case we do not receive comments it still is on the agenda for the next meeting regardless of whether we do or do not receive comments. JENNIFER ARMER: I just wanted to step in and clarify. This would be a continuance to the meeting on the 14th regardless of whether any additional input was received between now and then, and then the Commission would be considering the item and making a recommendation, or continuing it again if they so chose at that meeting. Since we don’t yet have a recommendation on this item to Town Council, it wouldn’t move forward without further discussion. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/24/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that works, and so it’s going to be on the agenda one way or the other, because we are recommending a continuance, and you all have seen in the past where if something strange happens, then there’s always the possibility of continuing it again, but we really do need to finish this. I’m going to call the question, and I will start with Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so it passes unanimously, and so there is no recommendation, we’re just continuing this to the meeting on the 14th. (END) PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 09/14/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: September 9, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION: Review and recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the Draft Objective Standards, completed the review of the document, and provided input to staff on recommended modifications. The item was continued to a future meeting to allow staff time to prepare responses to the input received and to prepare a revised Draft Objective Standards document. On August 24, 2022, the Planning Commission received and considered public comments on the revised Draft Objective Standards (previously provided as Exhibit 9). A representative from the local architect community was present and provided verbal comments on the Draft Objective Standards. The item was continued to a future meeting to allow the architect community time to prepare written comments on the Draft Objective Standards document for Planning Commission consideration. DISCUSSION: At the August 24, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, the Commissioners discussed four topics: architect community input, public comment, privacy, and pictures. Staff’s understanding of the discussion items is summarized below. ATTACHMENT 13 PAGE 2 OF 5 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: September 9, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): 1. Architect Community Input: The community of local architects met prior to the August 24, 2022 Planning Commission hearing to discuss the Draft Objective Standards document. A representative from the architect community was present at the August 24, 2022 Planning Commission hearing and raised concerns regarding the draft design standards and the ability of the document to be used to facilitate “good architecture.” The Planning Commission continued the item to the September 14, 2022 hearing to give the architects time to provide written comments on the document. Town staff met with the group of architects on September 1, 2022, to answer questions and facilitate input. On September 7, 2022, the architects submitted written comments, which are provided in Exhibit 16. 2. Public Comment: Written public comment was received on August 24, 2022, and was forwarded to the Commissioners via a Desk Item. Based on the general support expressed by Planning Commissioners at the meeting of the changes included in the public comment, staff has reviewed the 27 individual suggestions. The majority of the suggestions are simple changes that could be implemented if supported by the Planning Commission. The following suggestions have either already been discussed or are not consistent with past direction. Staff requests direction from the Planning Commission on the following: a. Comprehensive stand-alone document. The public comment requests that all existing Town-wide objective standards be listed in this document. Staff and the Planning Commission have discussed this topic in the past, with the conclusion that the Town include a list of other applicable documents that must be followed within the Purpose and Applicability section. b. Removal of the term “Design” throughout the document. The public comment requests that text throughout the document be changed from “Objective Design Standards” to “Objective Standards.” No explanation was given. c. Decrease tree spacing. The public comment requests that the spacing between trees within parking lots be reduced. Draft Objective Standard A.4.3 requires that a landscape area with at least one tree be located between every 10 consecutive parking stalls when the parking row exceeds 15 consecutive spaces. The public comment requests that the number of spaces be reduced below 10. Staff does not recommend this change as it was included for consistency with Town Code Section 29.10.155(g)(7). d. Format change for B.4.3. The public comment requests that the format for B.4.3 be changed so that it is consistent with the rest of the document. Draft Objective Standard B.4.3 contains the menu options of architectural solutions to achieve 16 points. This was discussed by the Planning Commission Subcommittee and Planning Commission and was received with support. PAGE 3 OF 5 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: September 9, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): 3. Privacy: A Commissioner submitted excerpts from the City of Palo Alto Objective Standards that were included as Exhibit 13 with the August 24, 2022 Addendum Report, which led to the discussion on whether to increase privacy standards. The general consensus expressed at the hearing was to not increase privacy standards. Additional Commissioner comment was received on September 6, 2022 (Exhibit 17), to further discuss the privacy standards and to express concerns regarding the subjective nature of drafted standard B.4.11. Draft Objective Standard B.4.11 states, “[…] Balconies facing existing residential uses on abutting parcels are allowed when the design is proven to prevent views to the residential use.” Staff agrees that this standard may not be objective with the “proven to prevent views” statement and looks forward to further discussion and recommendation from the Planning Commission. 4. Pictures: The current Draft Objective Standards contains design illustrations to demonstrate the intent of some of the drafted standards; however, the general consensus at the August 24, 2022 Planning Commission hearing was to include pictures of existing development within the document for real-world examples of some of the complicated design techniques to make the document more user-friendly. Staff looks forward to further discussion and recommendation from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Throughout the process, and prior to the Planning Commission meeting of September 14, 2022, staff contacted several professional organizations, design professionals, developers, and residents to inform them about the meeting and encourage participation and written comments on the Draft Objective Standards. Staff also met with a group of local architects on September 1, 2022, to answer questions and facilitate input. The comments from the architect community are provided in Exhibit 16. In addition to the direct contact summarized above, staff requested public input through the following media and social media resources: • On the Town’s website home page, What’s New; • On the Town’s webpage dedicated to objective standards; and • On the Town’s social media accounts. Additional public comment has been received and is included as Exhibit 18. PAGE 4 OF 5 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: September 9, 2022 CONCLUSION: A. Summary The Town of Los Gatos has prepared Draft Objective Standards for the review of multi- family and mixed-use development applications as required by State legislation. The Draft Objective Standards were developed following research by staff and the Town’s consultant, five meetings with the Planning Commission subcommittee, and two community engagement meetings. Following input received from the Planning Commission on June 22, 2022, staff prepared revised Draft Objective Standards and other supporting materials for consideration by the Planning Commission on August 24, 2022, and the matter was continued to September 14, 2022. B. Recommendation The revised Draft Objective Standards have been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Receive and consider public comments; • Complete the review of the revised Draft Objective Standards; and • Forward a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the revised Draft Objective Standards. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council with additional and/or modified objective standards; or 2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction to staff. NEXT STEPS: Following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the Town Council will consider the revised Draft Objective Standards, the Planning Commission recommendation, and any additional public comments. Once the Town Council adopts objective standards, staff will develop streamlined review procedures for applications proposing qualifying housing projects. PAGE 5 OF 5 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: September 9, 2022 EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1. Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2. Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3. Draft Objective Standards 4. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report: 5. Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6. Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7. Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Desk Item Report: 8. Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Staff Report: 9. Revised Draft Objective Standards 10. Revised Draft Objective Standards with Redlines 11. Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 12. Evaluation of Existing Developments Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Addendum Report: 13. Planning Commissioner Comments Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Desk Item Report: 14. Planning Commissioner Comments 15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., August 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., August 24, 2022 Received with this Staff Report: 16. Architect Comments, received September 7, 2022 17. Planning Commissioner Comments 18. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 9, 2022 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Honorary Planning Commissioners of the Town of Los Gatos, Sep 7, 2022 We, a cooperative of Architects and Designers of Los Gatos, have reviewed the Draft Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use residential projects. We respectfully request that our concerns be heard and addressed where ever possible. Our review is based on our experience with not only designing quality architecture, but also how codes, guidelines and standards can be misinterpreted by different designers but also staff. We also take great pride in carefully crafted design and how less experienced designers might use these standards as a crutch, instead of finding more appropriate and elegant and site/project specific design solutions. In many cases, we are playing devils advocate, in order to highlight where we see holes or weaknesses in specific standards. We have made specific suggestions where we see an opportunity to do so. We also understand that this is an onerous task that has been put upon you but the state and that there can be no perfect set of standards. Design is inherently complicated and subjective. We are here to help with any further discussions if requested. GENERAL •The Planning Dept needs to make sure the Planning Commissioners understand that these design guidelines/standards are not to be referred to or used at all when evaluating Discretionary Review projects that go through the normal DRC/ PC approval process. The two processes are mutually exclusive, and Discretionary projects should be reviewed on their own merits. It must be understood and clearly stated that these “Standards” are not to be considered a standard that is compared to projects that do not apply for this stream lined process. These standards are not standards of excellence and should never be considered as such. •Could there be a tiered system for some of these requirements? Projects that are 3 units or 50 units or 500 units shouldn’t necessarily have the same standards. KEY TERMS •Are community recreation space and landscaped areas mutually exclusive? •In community areas, is there a minimum size of such a space? How big must it be to have it considered community space? Example: could a widened, paved node at a pathway intersection be considered community space? Like with a bench? •Does landscape area include pathways? EXHIBIT 16 A.10 LANDSCAPE, PRIVATE, AND COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACES •Does landscape area mean any and all planted areas, including planters and pots on every floor? •Private recreation space should be proportionally based on the size of the unit. The Palo Alto standards require just 50 SF for each unit regardless of which floor or unit size. We propose a requirement of 10% of the living area. A 500 SF studio should not be required to have a 10’x15’ balcony. There could be a minimum as well, 50 SF, so that it must still be able to hold a couple of people comfortably. •Can the required recreation space be broken down into many smaller community spaces? If so, what are the minimum dimensions? (Refer back to key terms comment.) A.11 BUILDING PLACEMENT •Requirement 11.1 states that 75% of the ground floor of a building shall be placed within 5 feet of the front & street side setbacks. Does this mean all the buildings on site? Does this mean 75% of the entire street frontage must have a building on its frontage? Or only the buildings that abut the street when multiple buildings are on site? Will buildings be calculated individually? What about corner lots and corner open plazas? •Requirement 11.2 states that there must be between 15-30% of the street frontage area shall have site amenities. If a restaurant is at this ground floor, and they would like the whole frontage to be tables & chairs and landscaping, how can they meet the 30% max. Why is a maximum necessary? B.1 BUILDING DESIGN - Massing & Scale •Do these options apply to each individual building that abuts the street separately? Does this apply to buildings on site that do not abut the street? •Some of these options seem mutually exclusive. How would a continuous arcade, continuously vertical recessed entries and recessed courtyards all exist on the same building facade? How would any of these options work with the arcade? •Longer buildings and corner buildings will look monotonous with a continuous arcade. And architecturally speaking not attractive unless in a very particular setting. Shouldn’t this option be contingent on the length of the building? When over 80 or 100 ft long, a 2/3 arcade approach could apply? And special treatment for corner lots. What about open corner plazas? •There should be an entire section that deals with corner lots, with points awarded for an open plaza/public amenity at the corner, or a tower at a corner (with a height increase exception for the tower), or another creative way to highlight/ celebrate a corner, etc. although maybe too complex for this cookie cutter approach document. •B.1.1c suggests entries should be recessed all the way up the entire building height, but it is not good practice to have uncovered entries. How will this option be beneficial? Would a roof/covered porch at these entries be allowed for this option? Especially when this conflicts directly with the recommendation for a 3’ recessed entry per diagram B.4.6a. If any fenestration element needs an awning it’s the entrance. •Option B.1.1f offers pilasters as an option, but pilasters are much less about massing as they are about facade articulation. Shouldn't this be in section B.4? B.3 ROOF DESIGN •B.3 illustration has all pitched roofs This is not exemplary of most modern architecture and seems to show favor for sloped pitches. Offer more examples of flat roofs with eaves or parapets. B.4 FACADE DESIGN & ARTICULATION •B.4.1d & f shows a continuous belly band and cornice. Do these bands have to be continuous and unbroken? The pop outs, recesses, and continuous pilasters suggested in the other options would not be very harmonious with these options. These also seem to conflict with the recessed courtyards and entries and recessed upper floors if the bands must be continuous. What about different roof heights? This option is not very compatible with many other design elements suggested. •B.4.1d - A 10” tall belly band is quite thick for a modern line. This suggests only a traditional style building will be allowed. Palo Alto objectives require 4” min, not 10” min. •B.4.1f - Requiring a “floor to ceiling height” is a structural dimension that is measured in a cross section and cannot be perceived from the outside. The height between the top of the top windows and the top of the parapet is what is perceived. Is this what is supposed to be 24” + lower floor framing/ceiling assembly height? Interior finishes, such as dropped ceilings should not be part of this calculation as they are not perceived from the outside. How does a sloped interior ceiling height get calculated? Tt’s really the facade height, parapet height, etc that should be controlled. •B4.2 - When a building side facade is on the property line or within 5' of it, how can this requirement be fulfilled? Windows are not allowed. Further, expensive accent materials, that can enhance a street side facade will be wasted money on a side no one can see. This will prohibit small amounts of high end exterior materials from being used at all. •B.4.3 - Almost all of the first listed architectural features are found in the previous section under B.4.1. These are redundant. •B.4.3 - Who will determine if a particular architectural “solution”, aka decorative feature, will constitute points? Will one juliet balcony, or planter box mean the points are achieved? One chimney, one bay window? This points system lacks specificity and at the same time is entirely too specific about traditional style architectural features. Most of these features are entirely inappropriate on modern architecture. When we say "Bay Window", can we add in “or Box Window”, and “angled Box Window”? The term Bay Window is too specific/ limiting. And what about the unfortunate designer that decides "hey maybe I’ll take one of each thing on the menu?" One bay window, one planter, one awning, one pilaster, one arcade - oh wait maybe two, one balcony, one trellis, one braced overhang, one corbel, one scoop with sprinkles, and why don’t you just throw in a 10” thick caramel flavored belly band just for fun”. Are we making an ice cream sundae here? In my absurd example, the Town would have no choice but to approve it as long they scored the minimum 16 points” To quote their own language: “ . . . by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solution to achieve a minimum of 16 points” with no mention of any cohesive design theme, scale, proportion, repetition, cadence, architectural nuance, color, materials, etc. •B.4.5 - This illustration should be stricken of the “Architectural Features” pilasters. Not Good •B.4.6a - This requirement seems to conflict with the vertically continuously recessed entry option from section B.1.1c •B.4.6b - How about adding in another drawing that shows glass extending to the floor? Why say between 2 and 10 feet above the sidewalk? Why can’t the glass extend to the sidewalk? •B.4.10 - Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a setback to roof top decks and balconies, rather than prohibiting them entirely from a building? The building could be very large and deep. What about a daylight plane? •B.4.11 - Why can’t the balconies extend beyond the footprint if you can prove that views to residential uses are prevented? •B.4.12 - Why is this even a section? Isn’t this all covered in great detail in the previous sections? Respectfully, Gary Kohlsaat Jaclyn Greenmyer Bess Weirsema Jay Plett Noel Cross Jennifer Kretschmer Louie Leu Tom Sloan Terry Martin Bob Flury Tony Jeans From: Jeffrey Barnett Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:14 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Attorney <Attorney@losgatosca.gov> Subject: PC Hearing on 9.14.22 - Objective Standards EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Ms. Armer and Mr. Paulson, Please include the following comments in the Staff Report for our next meeting. Thanks in advance. I wish to amplify upon the comments made in my Desk Item dated August 23rd as well as during the Planning Commission meeting of August 24th concerning Agenda Item 3, wherein I objected to draft Standard B11.4 related to privacy for neighbors from balcony views. Five of my fellow Commissioners voted to not make the proposed standard concerning such balcony views more specific. This draft standard provides that balconies facing existing residential uses on abutting parcels are allowed “when the design is proven to prevent views to the residential use.” SB 35, creating the streamlined approval process, and SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, require “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies” to retain local control of multifamily housing and, in the case of SB 330, certain mixed-use developments as well. The Government Code changes effected by these Bills specify that the term “objective standards” means standards that involve “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official,” and are “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official before submittal of an application.” See Government Code Sections § 65913.4(a)(5) (part of SB 35) and 66300(a)(7) (part of SB 330). I submit that keeping the standards “general”, as was proposed by certain Commissioners at our last hearing, is not consistent with these requirements of the Government Code. Standard B.4.11 should be made more specific, along the lines of Palo Alto Municipal Code18.24.050(c)(2) which is cited in my prior Desk Item. The draft standard providing that balconies facing existing residential uses on abutting parcels are allowed “when the design is proven to prevent views to the residential use.” is clearly subjective. There is no way that an applicant can determine the meaning of the language without conferring with the Community Development Department. Indeed, the proposed standard imposes a burden of proof on the applicant, which is completely antithetical to the objective standard requirements in the Government Code. Some Commissioners expressed concern that making the balcony privacy requirement more specific would call into question the adequacy of the window standards. If window views onto adjacent residential lots and homes is concerning to the Commission, objective standards should be adopted for them too. For the above reasons, I submit that Standard B 4-11 is not enforceable, and that the Commission’s prior approval of it as an objective standard should be reconsidered. I further EXHIBIT 17 request that our Town Attorney provide a legal opinion concerning compliance of B 4-11 with SB 35 and 330. Finally, I withdraw my other Desk Item, also dated August 23rd, which contained five points. My questions and comments were resolved satisfactorily through a discussion with Ms. Armer and Mr. Paulson. Thank you. Jeffrey Barnett From: Adam Mayer Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 11:53 PM To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comments on Objective Standards EXTERNAL SENDER Hello Los Gatos Planning Staff, This is Adam Mayer, local architect and current member of the Housing Element Advisory Board. I just wanted to make a few comments piggybacking on the issues brought up by the group of architects represented by Ms. Bess Wiersema at the last Planning Commission meeting. Although I am not part of that group, I too have some overlapping concerns about the Objective Standards as they are currently drafted. Generally I agree with the intent of the Objective Standards and think that the State is doing the right thing by trying to streamline housing development. The potential downside, as was noted by the group of architects in the previous meeting, is that these standards could end up stifling the architect's creativity by being overly prescriptive, resulting in mediocre cookie-cutter design. To be sure, this is a delicate balance to walk and I think Town Staff has done a fairly good job of walking this tight-rope so far. For instance, one point of discussion in the last Planning Commission meeting was about including pictures of real-life examples, but my personal opinion here is that I prefer the more abstract line drawings that are currently used in the Draft document. For Design Guidelines, real world photo examples might make sense but I think the abstract line drawings are better (and potentially less restricting from a design point-of-view) for the Objective Standards. Now onto the specific parts of the Draft Objective Standards where I have some comments (primarily on the Site Standards, the Building Design Standards look fine for the most part): Section A5.1 Any automobile entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 25 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. Comment: Imagine a scenario where there is a new multi-story, multi-family residential building on a tight lot with an underground parking garage. There is no way you are going to fit a ramp on the site that starts 25' away from the sidewalk that has enough run to get a full story below grade. Furthermore, on a project where you have only residential (no commercial) you are very unlikely to ever have a scenario where vehicles are going to be backed up in a queue. I'd remove this section or amend it to be much less than 25' Section A8.3 Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. Comment: Does this include entry gates that enter into a below-grade parking garage? Typically these are full height (because the retract up into the ceiling) with a minimum height clearance of 6'-8" EXHIBIT 18 Section A10.1a Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. Comment: 20% seem unnecessarily high for an infill building. Can a landscaped roof count toward the 20%? Section A10.1b Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Comment: 6 ft. x 10 ft. is a gigantic balcony for a multi-family unit, even for luxury condos. 120 square feet is absurd. Section A10.1c Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit. Comment: Like the private recreation space, this is way too much. For smaller multi-family residential buildings under a certain size (say 10-12 units) I would say that "community recreation space" is unnecessary and would be a huge obstacle in getting these sort of mid-tier boutique multi-family projects built. "Community Recreation Space" makes more sense in larger multi-family developments (like 20 - 100 units) Thanks for considering my comments and happy to answer any questions. Best, Adam Adam N. Mayer AIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and 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: 9/14/2022 ITEM NO: 3 ADDENDUM DATE: September 13, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Recommendation of the Draft Objective Standards to the Town Council. REMARKS: Per the request of the Planning Commission at the August 24, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, the community of local architects submitted written comments related to their concerns with the drafted Objective Standards document (Exhibit 16). Staff has prepared a numbered list of the 29 bulleted items presented in the architect community input (Exhibit 19) including staff responses to suggestions and questions. There were several recommendations in the comment letter that staff supports if Planning Commission choses to incorporate them in their recommendation to Town Council. There were also 10 items which staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss further; these are summarized below: •Comment 9 relates to the continuous streetscape requirement in A.11.1, which requires development in a Community Growth District to place at least 75 percent of the ground floor within five feet of the street-facing property lines. The comment suggests that it is not clear whether it applies to the proposed buildings, or the entire length of the property line. This draft standard is currently worded to apply only to proposed buildings. •Comment 10 questions why section A.11.2 has a maximum percentage for site amenities in front of the front façade. The maximum percentage was originally included to ensure visibility to ground floor commercial uses; however, in the case of restaurant uses, it may be overly restrictive, and therefore the standard could be modified to include a minimum, but no maximum. •Comment 12 questions how the arcade (B.1.1.d) and the recessed building entry (B.1.1.c) standards could be incorporated in the same building. The Planning Commission could consider removing the “full height of the façade” requirement from B.1.1.c or removing the arcade option (B.1.1.d) in its entirety to remedy this concern. ATTACHMENT 14 PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: September 13, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • Comment 13 also related to the arcade option in B.1.1.d, stating that longer buildings would look monotonous with a continuous arcade. The arcade option could either be removed, or a limit to the required arcade length could be added. • Comment 14 requests that an additional section be added to deal with corner lots. Although this does not currently exist, these could be developed in the future. • Comment 18 and 19 are related to the belly band option in B.4.1.d. Based on the reasoning provided, Planning Commission can consider removing this option. • Comment 23 questions how B.4.3 would be applied, for example if a single bay window would be sufficient to qualify for the points listed. Staff can either add greater specificity for certain items or remove this requirement. Staff looks for direction from the Planning Commission. • Comment 24 suggests that the illustration of pilasters should be removed. This illustration was a specific request from a previous hearing, but it could be removed. • Comment 27 suggests that rather than prohibiting rooftop and upper floor terraces and decks that they could be allowed given certain controls. In addition to the comments received from the community of local architects in Exhibit 16, additional public comment was received from a local architect and are included in Exhibit 18. The public comment expresses concern with using “real world photo examples” within the document and makes recommendations for specific sections of the draft document. First, the public comment requests that parking structure entry gate setback be reduced to under 25 feet in standard A.5.1. Second, the public comment requests that the six-foot height limit for vehicular entry gates be increased in standard A.8.3. Third, the public comment questions whether landscaped roofs can count towards the landscaping requirement in standard A.10.1.a, and whether 20 percent is too high. Last, the public comment requests that the private and community recreation spaces be reduced in size in standard A.10.1. Exhibit 20 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., September 9, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., September 13, 2022. These comments are meant to update the comments provided in Exhibit 15 with the August 24, 2022 Desk Item report. The public comment in Exhibit 20 also expresses support with the information provided in Exhibits 16, 17, and 18, and provided additional suggestions throughout the Purpose and Applicability section of the document. Staff is supportive of these recommendations and can incorporate the recommendations when forwarding the revised document to the Town Council. PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: Draft Objective Standards DATE: September 13, 2022 EXHIBITS: Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Staff Report: 1. Town Council Resolution 2019-053 2. Summary of feedback received during community engagement meetings 3. Draft Objective Standards 4. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 17, 2022 Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Addendum Report: 5. Staff response to Commissioner’s questions 6. Issues considered by the Objective Standards Subcommittee 7. Commissioner email regarding City of Palo Alto Objective Standards Previously received with the June 22, 2022, Desk Item Report: 8. Suggested additions and modifications provided by a Planning Commissioner Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Staff Report: 9. Revised Draft Objective Standards 10. Revised Draft Objective Standards with Redlines 11. Summary of Revisions Made and Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing of June 22, 2022 12. Evaluation of Existing Developments Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Addendum Report: 13. Planning Commissioner Comments Previously received with the August 24, 2022 Desk Item Report: 14. Planning Commissioner Comments 15. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., August 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., August 24, 2022 Previously received with the September 14, 2022 Staff Report: 16. Architect Comments, received September 7, 2022 17. Planning Commissioner Comments 18. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 9, 2022 Received with this Addendum Report: 19. Staff’s responses to architect comments in Exhibit 16. 20. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., September 9, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., September 13, 2022. This Page Intentionally Left Blank To:Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Lee Quintanta Re :September 14, 2022, Agenda Item 3 Planning Commission: 1. Attached as Attachment 1 are my comments submitted for the August 24th Planning Commission on the Draft Objective Standards. I have added additional comments in red. 2. I concur with Exhibit 17 attached to the Staff Report. 3. I agree with most of the comments contained in Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17. The following are my Comments on Draft Objective Standards and to the included Exhibits 16, 17, and 18. Both Exibits 16 and 18 raise indicate that further work is needed for clarity in the areas of landscaping, private and community recreation space and the question of line drawings/photos. 4. Below are a few additional suggestions to increase the understanding of these Objectives. Many of the suggestions are based on Section 18.24 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Project Contextual Design Criteria and Objective Standards. While I understand that it is not the intent of the Town’s Objective Standards to include Contextual Design Criteria, I none the less suggest considering the following ideas taken from of the Palo Alto Code be incorporated into the Town’s Objective Standards Document. ●Purpose:Purpose of the Objectives: ○ The purpose of these Objective Design Standards is to establish the intent of and objective design criteria and their intent for project that qualify for the streamlined approval review of Housing Development Projects eligible as defined ty the Housing Development Act., ie eligible for ministerial approval (as defined by Cal. Gov. Code 65589.5) ○ Include an statement of intent prior to each section of the Objectives b (before A.1, A.2 etc) to provide guidance as to what the objectives are intended to achieve. (18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability) ○ Include a statement that diagrams are illustrative only, that They are not intended to convey a required architectural style. Rather the objective standards aim to accommodate a variety of styles, construction types. ●Applicability: Suggestions: ○ Include a list of the zoning districts in which Housing Development Projects (as identified in California Gov. Code) and add a statement that the Objective Standards applies to both new construction and renervations. ○ EXHIBIT 19 Page 2 ○Include a statement to the effect that the streamlined approval process applies only if all objective standards are met, both those in these Objective Design Standards, and those in all other Town Regulation etc. (i.e. as listed on page one of the Objective Standards. 5.In order to submit this by 11:00 my additional comments on landscaping, private and common space and illustration/photos will follow tomorrow. Thank you for your consideration. Lee Quintana To Planning Commission Item 2 August 24th Planning Commission Meeting From: Lee Quintana COMMENTS ON TOWN OF LOS GATOS DRAFT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, AUGUST 24, 2022 GENERAL COMMENTS: Comprehensive stand alone document:It is my understanding,from previous public discussions of the Objective Guidelines, that the Objective Standards would be a comprehensive “stand alone” document containing the objective standards from all relevant documents and regulations. It is difficult to assess the Draft Objective Standards without knowing what other objective standards also apply to “qualified projects”. At a minimum, please consider adding a list of all objective standards contained . Consider adding a Table of all other objective standards that would apply to multi-family and mixed-use residential projects and include hyper-links to the individual standards. PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY This section defines “qualifying project” and where the definition can be found in the California Government Code. However it does not define “Objective Standards” as defined by the Government Code. Most importantly, it does not explain how these apply to the approval process for “qualifying projects”. Please delete and revise the first paragraph to better define the purpose of Objective Standards, (streamlining approval process? . Delete and receive revise the second paragraph and to include the following as part of that paragraph: Gov. Code 65559.5 identifies Qualifying Housing Development Projects: ●Multi-family housing developments, ●Residential Mixed Use Housing developments with a minimum of two-thirds of the square footage is designated for residential use, ●Supportive and transitional housing development Delete and revise the last paragraph as follows: A Qualifying project shall be approved through a ministerial review process when the project complies with these Objective Site Standards as well as complying with all existing objective development regulations in the Town,:, including but not limited to the following: ●General Plan ●Town Code ●Guideline and Standards Near Streams ●Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ●Parks and Public Works Standards ●Santa Clara County Fire Department Regulations. ORGANIZATION The Following Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections:..... KEY TERMS Community recreation space Delete and replace with:Note:Separate the definitions for Community Recreation space in mixed use developments and multi-family developments as individual definitions. Community recreation space in a mixed use residential development means public gathering spaces such as: plazas, outdoor dining, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of the general public. -Please clarify whether this applies to non-residential and residential parts of a mixed use residential project or just to the non-residential part. -Note:Residential uses in a mixed use development should have some opportunity for gathering space as do residents in a MF only development. - please modify here and in objective standards to include this. -Should the Community space require a public access easement.? - Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, and other community areas available for the use of all residents. -Please clarify whether this applies to projects just with MF zoning designation or applies to the multi-family part of a Mixed Use Residential Project See Note above. Mixed Use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, or institutional,and residential are combined with residential use(s)in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. Private recreation space above ground level means an outdoor balcony,or rooftop deck, or similar,accessible from a single dwelling unit. similar” = subjective. Delete or replace with more specific language Note:Add a space to separate above and at ground private recreation space Private recreation space at ground level means a single an outdoor enclosed patio or deck accessible from a single dwelling unit. Objective Standard means………………………………(add language) A .SITE STANDARDS A.1 Pedestrian Access 1.2 & Figure A.1.1:Is there a minimum width for the sidewalk? Or for the planting strip A.2 Bicycle Access 2.4. 1.2 was “modified from walkway” to “pathway”. Should 2.4 also be changed to “pathway as well? A.3 Vehicular Access and A.4 Parking Location and Design Figure A.3.1, A.3.1 and A4.3 need clarification What is the difference between aisle to aisle circulation (A3.1) and parking areas (Figure A3.1)? Does Figure A.3.1 represent multiple parking areas (see A.4.2) or aisle-to-aisle circulation of A.3.1. 4.3 Comment:Consider decreasing spacing between trees. Aside from aesthetic value, the shading trees decrease radiation from the parking lot surfaces Note: Shading from trees also lowers the temperature in cars. Consider adding a standard to ensure X% of parking spaces are shaded, or that addresses of trees to optimize shading (relates to Climate Change, eneray, resiliency etc)n 4.4 Move 4.4 up under 4.1 Note: I still suggest moving 4.4 up under 4.1 or combining the two as follows: Except for driveways to access surface parking lots or carports, surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the a primary building frontage and the street. A.5 Parking Structure Access Add a standard for pedestrian access to a parking garage A.6 Utilities 6.3 Delete and separate ground and rooftop: 6.3 Views from the street of ground level utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures shall be screened from view. a.Screening shall be provided by landscaping, fencing or a wall. b.The screening shall be at least the same height as the utility being screened, Comment:Should they also be screened from within a site? Or at a minimum from common areas? 6.4 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street a. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement Consider a height exemption of the area required for an elevator shaft. Note: I still think my comments under A.6, including screening utilities from within the site, are valid and should be incorporated. A.7 Landscaping and Landscape Screening A.7.2.c Comment:Is there a requirement for planting between the trees? Note: Suggest requiring shrubs between the trees X high at planting A.10. Landscaping, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces A10.1. The following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces shall be are required for all qualifying projects and are shall be calculated independent of each other: A.11 Building Placement 11.1. 10.c. How shade is calculated needs to be more specific. Note: Break this paragraph up into: - Minimum dimensions……. - % of to sky - % shading B.4 Facade Design and Articulation 4.3 Change format consistent with the rest of the document B. BUILDING DESIGN B.1.3.e and Figure B.1.3..e Comment:I don’t understand this one. The illustration does not fit my understanding of a courtyard. Is this intended to be private the private use of the dwelling units? Is this an illustration of B.1.3 (Townhouse) B.2.2 If the intent is to prevent full transparency into the structure, should there be a minimum as well as a maximum? B.3 Roof Design Figure B.3.3 Comment: This figure looks more like the gable ilustrated in Figure.3.1 than it looks like a dormer B.4 Facade Design and Articulation B.4.3 Why change in format? 1 Architect Comments with Staff Responses (in italic font) GENERAL 1. The Planning Dept needs to make sure the Planning Commissioners understand that these design guidelines/standards are not to be referred to or used at all when evaluating Discretionary Review projects that go through the normal DRC/PC approval process. The two processes are mutually exclusive, and Discretionary projects should be reviewed on their own merits. It must be understood and clearly stated that these “Standards” are not to be considered a standard that is compared to projects that do not apply for this streamlined process. These standards are not standards of excellence and should never be considered as such. • Staff supports this recommendation and can include an additional statement when forwarding do Town Council. 2. Could there be a tiered system for some of these requirements? Projects that are 3 units or 50 units or 500 units shouldn’t necessarily have the same standards. • Although Objective Standards could be developed to differ depending on project size, the metric for most Standards has generally been applied to the street-facing façade. They have also been developed under the assumption that most projects will be 3-stories or less based on current height limits, and therefore significant differentiation may not be warranted. KEY TERMS 3. Are community recreation space and landscaped areas mutually exclusive? • Yes, per A.10.1, “the following landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces are required for all qualifying projects and are calculated independent of each other.” 4. In community areas, is there a minimum size of such ap space? How big must it be to have it considered community space? Example: could a widened, paved node at a pathway intersection be considered community space? Like with a bench? • Yes, minimum horizontal dimensions are 10’ by 6’ for each area. 5. Does landscape area include pathways? A pathway is not included in the list of elements that are considered to not be a part of “Landscaping.” (additional site open space and/or maximum lot coverage standards exist in the Municipal Code.) • If landscaping is proposed along the walkway, it would count towards the landscaped space requirement. A pathway/walkway without landscaping would not count. A.10 LANDSCAPE, PRIVATE, AND COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACES 6. Does landscape area mean any and all planted areas, including planters and pots on every floor? • Area used for landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other with no area counted twice, additional clarity could be added. EXHIBIT 20 2 7. Private recreation space should be proportionally based on the size of the unit. The Palo Alto standards require just 50 SF for each unit regardless of which floor or unit size. We propose a requirement of 10% of the living area. A 500 SF studio should not be required to have a 10’x15’ balcony. There could be a minimum as well, 50 SF, so that it must still be able to hold a couple of people comfortably. • The private recreation space standard was included for consistency with Town Code Section 29.10.065. Section A.10.1 requires each new dwelling unit to have private recreation space: 200 square feet on the ground floor, and 120 square feet above the ground floor. If the Planning Commission recommends an adjustment to this requirement, staff recommends ensuring there are still minimum dimension requirements. 8. Can the required recreation space be broken down into many smaller community spaces? If so, what are the minimum dimensions? (Refer back to key terms comment.) • Yes, if each area is a minimum of 6’ by 10’ for both community and private recreation spaces (A.10.1). A.11 BUILDING PLACEMENT 9. Requirement 11.1 states that 75% of the ground floor of a building shall be placed within 5 feet of the front & street side setbacks. Does this mean all the buildings on site? Does this mean 75% of the entire street frontage must have a building on its frontage? Or only the buildings that abut the street when multiple buildings are on site? Will buildings be calculated individually? What about corner lots and corner open plazas? • This draft standard is currently worded to apply only to proposed buildings. The requirement applies to the buildings, not the street frontage. This does not mean that 75 percent of the street frontage needs buildings along the front; instead, it means that 75 percent of the area of the primary building(s) proposed must be on the street frontage (see Figure A.11.1). 10. Requirement 11.2 states that there must be between 15-30% of the street frontage area shall have site amenities. If a restaurant is at this ground floor, and they would like the whole frontage to be tables & chairs and landscaping, how can they meet the 30% max. Why is a maximum necessary? • Staff agrees that the maximum percentage could be deleted. The maximum percentage was initially included to ensure visibility to ground floor commercial uses. B.1 BUILDING DESIGN - Massing & Scale 11. Do these options apply to each individual building that abuts the street separately? Does this apply to buildings on site that do not abut the street? • Staff can clarify that this requirement applies to the combined area of all primary buildings that face and abut the street. 12. Some of these options seem mutually exclusive. How would a continuous arcade, continuously vertical recessed entries and recessed courtyards all exist on the same building facade? How would any of these options work with the arcade? • Staff agrees that the arcade (B.1.1.d) and recessed building entry (B.1.1.c) options could not be used together unless the “full height of the façade” requirement is removed from B.1.1.c. An additional option would be to remove the arcade option. Staff looks for direction from the Planning Commission. 3 13. Longer buildings and corner buildings will look monotonous with a continuous arcade. And architecturally speaking not attractive unless in a very particular setting. Shouldn’t this option be contingent on the length of the building? When over 80 or 100 ft long, a 2/3 arcade approach could apply? And special treatment for corner lots. What about open corner plazas? • If the Planning Commission agrees, staff can remove the arcade option (B.1.1.d) or include a limit when the building façade is over a certain length. 14. There should be an entire section that deals with corner lots, with points awarded for an open plaza/public amenity at the corner, or a tower at a corner (with a height increase exception for the tower), or another creative way to highlight/celebrate a corner, etc. although maybe too complex for this cookie cutter approach document. • Though not currently included, these could be developed in the future. 15. B.1.1c suggests entries should be recessed all the way up the entire building height, but it is not good practice to have uncovered entries. How will this option be beneficial? Would a roof/covered porch at these entries be allowed for this option? Especially when this conflicts directly with the recommendation for a 3’ recessed entry per diagram B.4.6a. If any fenestration element needs an awning it’s the entrance. • A covered awning or eave would be allowed as long as the wall plane for the entry is recessed. Staff can clarify that this requirement applies to the wall plane, and projections such as awnings beyond the wall plane would be allowed. 16. Option B.1.1f offers pilasters as an option, but pilasters are much less about massing as they are about facade articulation. Shouldn't this be in section B.4? • The pilaster option was added here as it would break up massing, but could be relocated. B.3 ROOF DESIGN 17. B.3 illustration has all pitched roofs This is not exemplary of most modern architecture and seems to show favor for sloped pitches. Offer more examples of flat roofs with eaves or parapets. • Staff recommends keeping the text of this standard, but deleting the graphic. B.4 FACADE DESIGN & ARTICULATION 18. B.4.1d & f shows a continuous belly band and cornice. Do these bands have to be continuous and unbroken? The pop outs, recesses, and continuous pilasters suggested in the other options would not be very harmonious with these options. These also seem to conflict with the recessed courtyards and entries and recessed upper floors if the bands must be continuous. What about different roof heights? This option is not very compatible with many other design elements suggested. • Staff can remove the belly band option (B.4.1.d). 19. B.4.1d - A 10” tall belly band is quite thick for a modern line. This suggests only a traditional style building will be allowed. Palo Alto objectives require 4” min, not 10” min. • Staff can remove the belly band option (B.4.1.d), or the standard can be revised to reflect Palo Alto’s four-inch requirement. 4 20. B.4.1f - Requiring a “floor to ceiling height” is a structural dimension that is measured in a cross section and cannot be perceived from the outside. The height between the top of the top windows and the top of the parapet is what is perceived. Is this what is supposed to be 24” + lower floor framing/ceiling assembly height? Interior finishes, such as dropped ceilings should not be part of this calculation as they are not perceived from the outside. How does a sloped interior ceiling height get calculated? It’s really the facade height, parapet height, etc that should be controlled. • Staff agrees and can work with the Consultant to update the standard to apply to the exterior façade height. 21. B4.2 - When a building side facade is on the property line or within 5' of it, how can this requirement be fulfilled? Windows are not allowed. Further, expensive accent materials, that can enhance a street side facade will be wasted money on a side no one can see. This will prohibit small amounts of high end exterior materials from being used at all. • This section refers to window types, not windows in general. The Commission directed staff to include a 360-degree architecture requirement. 22. B.4.3 - Almost all of the first listed architectural features are found in the previous section under B.4.1. These are redundant. • Section B.4.1 includes four items that are listed under B.4.3 (awnings, belly bands, balconies, and material changes); however, B.4.1 only applies to buildings greater than two stories, while B.4.1 applies to buildings greater than one-story. Due to the requirements in Section B.4.1, buildings greater than two-stories will already have implemented some of the requirements in B.4.3. Section B.4.3 is to ensure that buildings greater than one-story also include façade variations. 23. B.4.3 - Who will determine if a particular architectural “solution”, aka decorative feature, will constitute points? Will one juliet balcony, or planter box mean the points are achieved? One chimney, one bay window? This points system lacks specificity and at the same time is entirely too specific about traditional style architectural features. Most of these features are entirely inappropriate on modern architecture. When we say "Bay Window", can we add in “or Box Window”, and “angled Box Window”? The term Bay Window is too specific/limiting. And what about the unfortunate designer that decides "hey maybe I’ll take one of each thing on the menu?" One bay window, one planter, one awning, one pilaster, one arcade - oh wait maybe two, one balcony, one trellis, one braced overhang, one corbel, one scoop with sprinkles, and why don’t you just throw in a 10” thick caramel flavored belly band just for fun”. Are we making an ice cream sundae here? In my absurd example, the Town would have no choice but to approve it as long they scored the minimum 16 points” To quote their own language: “ . . . by incorporating any combination of the following architectural solution to achieve a minimum of 16 points” with no mention of any cohesive design theme, scale, proportion, repetition, cadence, architectural nuance, color, materials, etc. • Staff can either add greater specificity for certain items or remove this requirement. Staff looks for direction from the Planning Commission. 24. B.4.5 - This illustration should be stricken of the “Architectural Features” pilasters. Not Good • The illustration showing the column or “architectural feature” was a specific request from a previous Planning Commission hearing, but it could be removed. 5 25. B.4.6a - This requirement seems to conflict with the vertically continuously recessed entry option from section B.1.1c. • This section requires recessed entries or covered entries. Additionally, Section B.1.1.C refers to the wall plane, not an awning projection. Staff can clarify that B.1.1.c applies to the wall plane. 26. B.4.6b - How about adding in another drawing that shows glass extending to the floor? Why say between 2 and 10 feet above the sidewalk? Why can’t the glass extend to the sidewalk? • Glass can extend down to the grade, but it wouldn’t count towards the 60 percent requirement between two and 10 feet. 27. B.4.10 - Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a setback to roof top decks and balconies, rather than prohibiting them entirely from a building? The building could be very large and deep. What about a daylight plane? • This change could be made if recommended by Planning Commission. 28. B.4.11 - Why can’t the balconies extend beyond the footprint if you can prove that views to residential uses are prevented? • As previously discussed, this is included as one method for objectively reducing privacy impacts. 29. B.4.12 - Why is this even a section? Isn’t this all covered in great detail in the previous sections? • This standard was developed from Planning Commission Subcommittee direction to restrict long, unarticulated buildings fronting the street. This Page Intentionally Left Blank LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Melanie Hanssen, Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair Kylie Clark Kathryn Janoff Steve Raspe Reza Tavana Emily Thomas Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405 ATTACHMENT 15 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR HANSSEN: We can move on to the main item on our agenda for this evening, which is Item 3, which is the continuance of our review of the Draft Objective Standards, I will ask Ms. Armer if you would like to make a Staff Report or if one of the other Staff members would as well? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I will pass that off to Mr. Safty to make the Staff Report. RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Before you tonight is the continued review of the Draft Objective Standards recommendation to the Town Council. On June 22nd the Planning Commission reviewed the first document and provided input to Staff on recommended modifications. Following that meeting, Staff and our consultant, M-Group, considered the direction from the Planning Commission and prepared a revised draft document. On August 24th the Planning Commission received public comment on the revised draft, including input from the local architect community. The discussion was continued to tonight’s hearing to allow the architect community additional time to provide written comments to be reviewed. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The written comments from the architects are provided as Exhibit 16 with the Staff Report. Additional public comments and Commissioner comments were also included with that report. Staff prepared written responses to the architects’ comments, which were included as Exhibit 19 of yesterday’s Addendum Report. The Addendum Report also includes additional public comment provided as Exhibit 20. Staff, along with our consultant, look forward to the discussion this evening and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have questions for Staff? I don’t see anyone with any questions. We have a number of comments that we received from one of our Board members from the Housing Element Advisory Board, also from the Vice Chair, from Ms. Quintana, and then also the response to the architects’ comments. Staff, you had some particular items that you wanted us to go over first? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would recommend that we do open the public hearing and hear comments from the public, since there have been additional materials provided, and then we can go through. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We have provided some Staff guidance and feedback on the items that were provided by the architect community, and so if there are items there that the Commission wishes to include in their recommendation to Town Council we could go through those. We did number them in the attachment that includes Staff’s responses, plus we did call out a few particular items in the Addendum Report in addition to what had been provided in your previous Staff Reports. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion. This would be the verbal communications section for this particular item, and I’d like to find out if any members of the public would like to speak on this item, which is the Draft Objective Standards? JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone would like to speak on this item, we’d invite you to raise your hand now. We’ll give them just a moment just in case anyone does wish to speak. I am seeing a hand raised. All right, Ms. Quintana, you may speak. You have up to three minutes. LEE QUINTANA: Thank you. I think there are some items that I may not have read already, but in any case I’d like to speak on three different items that I did not cover in my initial submission for the Addendum, and that covers illustrations, private and common open space and landscaping, and whether the one size fits all approach is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appropriate. I’m just going to be very brief, and if you have any questions you can ask me, or I will submit additional comments when I see the final draft that goes to the Council. As far as illustration goes, I know that the architects say they’re line drawings, however, the line drawings provided in the draft standards are at some points hard to understand by most people who aren’t architects or planners and they tend to appear to be favoring very boxy construction. I understand the difficulty with photos, however, this is my compromise suggestion: The City of Palo Alto has used line drawing, but the line drawings are limited to illustrating only the standard that’s being stated, not an entire building, so that it’s more neutral towards architecture and mass and scale. As far as photos go, I think they are really helpful for the general public to understand, but I understand the problem with them, so my suggestion is that maybe there be a page that just has a collage of various different buildings, not one for every standard, but a group of buildings that Staff feels meets the intent of the standards. So that’s my comments on that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On the private and public open space, I’m a little confused there. If landscaping doesn’t count for the common space and there is landscaping in that space, how does that work? I’m just confused. Also, there seems to be a dichotomy of opinion from the group of architects and the other architect who commented on the size of private open space as well as common open space, and it seems to me that maybe they’re talking about two different things. I think the architects want more leeway to appeal to the high end of the housing market, and I think the other architect may be actually addressing his remarks to smaller units, which is the intent of this whole process. CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Quintana, Ms. Armer has her hand up and I suspect it’s because your three minutes are up, but let me see if any Commissioners have questions for you. I do want to thank you on behalf of the Commission for submitting all the comments that you have already and helping to participate in this process to move this important item along. Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Quintana? I think some of the things you’re bringing up are going to be discussed in any event, so we appreciate anything you’ve told us so far, and please continue to send in your comments to us as well. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone else would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand now. I don’t see any hands raised. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so then I’m going to close public comments, and this would be the time where the Commission will discuss the items that have been brought up so far as comments and try to get some resolution so that we can make our recommendation to Town Council. I thought that it might be helpful to start with the Staff packet. They did provide some items that they wanted us to discuss, and we did discuss some of these before, but maybe we can close on them and hopefully use them as a recommendation to forward this document along. I’m going by the Staff Report where they list Staff direction from the Planning Commission on the following, and the first one is a comprehensive standalone document. Staff’s recommendation was in the past, and continues to be, instead of going through the massive effort that it would take to take all of the Objective Standards in every document that we have in town and put them in one, that instead to include a list of applicable documents, and so that’s what they would like to do. I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wanted to see if any Commissioners had any thoughts or comments on this. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. To me the Town Staff’s position seems eminently logical and I can’t think of a reason that we would want to attack it any differently, so unless somebody feels differently I would recommend to Town Council to follow Staff’s recommendation on this issue. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for the input. Anyone else have any thoughts on that? That was my feeling as well, that we had talked about this before, and also in our preparatory meeting for this meeting we discussed it again, and it would be a very long and complex process to do that, especially with documents getting updated, so it’s probably best to have references to the other documents. If no one has any objection to going in that direction I’m going to say that we follow Staff’s recommendation on that, and I don’t see anyone saying let’s not do that. Item B is removal of the term “design” throughout the document. The public comment requests that text throughout be changed from “objective design standards” to “objective standards,” and no explanation was given. So LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Staff, I’m going to ask, does that mean that since there is no explanation you don’t have a recommendation? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. We would recommend continuing with the document being named and labeled as it currently is since we don’t have a reason to change and remove the word “design.” CHAIR HANSSEN: I personally looked at this, and without an explanation of why it would make a big difference in the document, and knowing that it would be a lot of trouble to change it, my suggestion would be not to do that. Are there any Commissioners that have any comments? So then I will assume that that one is okay with everyone. Item C was decrease tree spacing. The public comment requests that the spacing between trees within parking lots be reduced. Right now the standard reads one tree between every ten consecutive parking stalls when there are more than 15 parking stalls, and the public comment requests to reduce the number of spaces below to ten, and Staff does not recommend this change. It was included with consistency for the Town Code, which I assume to mean that we would need to amend the Town Code as well. Are there any comments on this item? Commissioner Raspe. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I would agree again with Staff on this one for a couple of reasons. First being consistency throughout the Town documents, but also for the supplemental reason that I think we’re all aware that water is becoming a bigger issue in California as every day goes by, and so to the extent that we call for less planting of trees perhaps, and maybe that’s an issue that we should keep in our minds as we plan our town forward, so keeping the spacing at ten feet rather than closer together I think makes sense for a variety of reasons. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that comment. Any other comments from Commissioners on this item? If there are no objections, I will just assume that we’re going to go with Staff’s recommendations. Let me just stop and ask Staff, do you need us to vote on these, or is it okay to go with consensus? JENNIFER ARMER: No, consensus is fine in my opinion, but I will defer to the Town Attorney if she thinks otherwise. ATTORNEY WHELAN: I agree, and then the Commission’s decision will be reflected when you vote on making your recommendation to the Town Council. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: And in particular, when the recommendation is for a change that the Commission is not making, then that’s just fine; you’re just not going to make that additional change. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for the clarification. We can move on to Item D, which is a format change for B.4.3, and the comment requests that the format be changed so it is consistent with the rest of the document. The Draft Objective Standards contain a menu of options of architectural solutions to achieve 16 points. We discussed this at the Subcommittee level. Vice Chair Barnett and I were on that Subcommittee and the Planning Commission previous discussion and it was received with support, but I believe the architects and maybe others commented that it might be too confusing. In the first submission from Staff they did take some buildings in town and gave an example of how you can meet the 16-point standard. We should at least decide whether or not to go to a different approach or leave it the way it is, and Staff let me just check that I am characterizing this correctly in terms of the way you want input. RYAN SAFTY: That is correct. Thank you for the question. One thing to clarify: the architect community LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 didn’t have concerns with the format of it; they had more concerns about the valuation and the different architectural details listed within that list. CHAIR HANSSEN: Then was it the public comment that we got from someone else that said that the 16 point… JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct, yes. Then there is further discussion of the 4.3 in what we numbered Item 22 where we respond to the architects’ comments. CHAIR HANSSEN: We can come back to the specificity of it when we discuss the architects’ comments then. The question on the table is whether or not we abandon the 16-point system and try to go for something else, so I’d like to get comments on that, and keeping in mind that this was recommended previously by the Subcommittee. Our previous discussion was that this was fine to move forward with, but if there is some new information or something that people would like to bring up right now, let’s do that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I’m comfortable with the format and look forward to discussing the architects’ concerns when we get to that portion of the agenda, but I think it’s a very helpful list, and the illustrations that Staff provided were also very helpful, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and if those are intended to be continued in the draft that goes forward, I think that’s a good approach. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. So if there are no objections the proposal on the table is to leave the 16- point system as is, and then there might be the potential of modifying for clarity some of the actual things that are scored for points, and we’ll discuss that later. Then we’re going to return to the discussion about privacy that we had at the last meeting, and Vice Chair Barnett submitted some information from the Palo Alto Objective Standards that were included with our August 24th Addendum Report. The general consensus at the hearing was not to increase privacy standards, however, Vice Chair Barnett did submit additional comments to express concerns that the standard remains subjective, and what it says is, “Balconies facing Residential uses and abutting parcels are allowed when the design is proven to prevent views to Residential use,” and the issue is whether or not this could really be an Objective Standard, because somebody would have to determine how it affected views to Residential use and it’s not a use that everyone would agree on. I think this would be a good time to discuss this and see if we can come up with a direction that’s LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comfortable for the Commission for a recommendation, and Vice Chair Barnett did submit some additional comments. He has his hand up, so why don’t you go ahead? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I think my submission is clear, but I did think of one other possibility for us to handle it, which is to have no standard at all with respect to privacy from balconies as to adjacent residences and their lots, but submit that as a possibility for consideration. Otherwise, I think we have to not necessarily mirror what Palo Alto did, but follow something that is an impact objective. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Vice Chair Barnett recommended that the Town Attorney weigh in as to an opinion whether this particular standard is objective, and so I’d like to hear from the Town Attorney. ATTORNEY WHELAN: I do agree with Vice Chair Barnett’s comment. The State is interpreting the term “Objective Standard” very, very narrowly. In my former jurisdiction there was a requirement for step-backs, and the court held that it was not sufficiently objective because the city didn’t specify how long the step-back was supposed to be, so yes, to the extent that we can put numbers on it or talk about the angle of the balcony, or LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anything that will make it so that there’s no argument that it’s not an Objective Standard, I think that will make it more defensible. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I have a follow up, if I may? CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was looking at Vice Chair Barnett’s recommendations and I thought if in fact what we have in the current draft is not considered to be objective, as you state, then it seemed reasonable to me to include the first couple of his points that within 30 feet of residential windows, that’s a specific number, and then Item (i), so I thought those looked like reasonable things to include. Then I thought the balance of the parenthetical items below the first point were a matter of how Staff would review the data to determine whether the standard had been met, so I didn’t think that was necessary to include in this document, but if the other Commissioners would like to keep this item in the Draft Objectives, I think it’s an important one to include. We have a lot of discussion around balconies and visibility, so I personally would like to see it included, and I think Vice Chair Barnett’s sentence that talks about the 30 feet, and then the first LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bullet underneath that, are reasonable to include as specific objectives that are measurable. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Thank you for that, Commissioner Janoff. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. In reviewing this again, I agree with Vice Chair Barnett’s point—and I think Staff supports it—that as currently drafted it interjects a level of subjectiveness into it, and so I think Commissioner Janoff suggested a reasonable solution. As I was looking at it, I had a simpler one, and again, maybe the Town Attorney can weigh in if it helps, but I think the problematic phrase seems to be, “The design is proven to prevent use.” If we maybe simplify that to say, “When the design prevents use,” doesn’t that suddenly become objective rather than subjective and solve the problem, and maybe a simpler way to address the problem? I just throw it out for consideration by the Commission. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think it would be good for the Town Attorney to weigh in on whether or not that would make it more objective. ATTORNEY WHELAN: Given how the State and the courts are interpreting the term “objective,” I would recommend that the Town adopt something more specific than LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “prevents use,” because I do think an argument could be made that that’s in the eye of the beholder. Something like, “is not visible from the balcony,” can’t be argued about, it is not visible; that is objective. A standard that there’s only one way to apply is what will work in the end. I hope that helps. CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, that helps. Commissioner Tavana has a comment as well. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. As I mentioned at the previous meeting discussing this topic, I do think privacy is a very tricky subject, because I believe it is inherently subjective in nature. I don’t think you could put it on paper and say this is privacy, because to one person that’s not private and to another person that could be private. I didn’t think of this possibility, but I do like Vice Chair Barnett’s comment to maybe just remove the section altogether. I think that would clarify it and it could be on a case-by-case basis moving forward just to keep it simple, because I do think when these projects do come up it will crop up and be a point of contention in the process. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner Tavana. Commissioner Thomas has a comment as well. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I agree that it is really difficult to make an Objective Standard around privacy, because privacy is not inherently objective. I agree with some of Commissioner Tavana’s sentiment that it is not something that we can maybe make an Objective Standard to guarantee privacy, so therefore should we put one in? I also recognize that people in the Town value privacy, and I know that that is something that is important, and I think that we have been making our best effort and I am willing to attempt to adopt something, but I think that even if we adopt something that is specific, like 30 feet, I guess that gives some sort of standard, but I do think that there are still going to be people that argue that that’s not private enough for them, and for me personally that is a major concern. I know that in my short time here on the Planning Commission we have had a lot of people come to us with a lot of things that are related to privacy and privacy concerns, and that’s connected back to how safe people feel, and I don't know if we can make an Objective Standard that the outcome will be that people feel that they have privacy and safety and feel safe because of that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I am interested to hear what other Commissioners think, but at this point in time I’m not sure that we can come up with a standard that will be upheld in the courts and that can guarantee some level of what people will accept as being privacy. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner Thomas. Our consultant, Mr. Ford, has his camera on, so I’m assuming that you are able to comment on this. TOM FORD: Yes, thank you, Chair. I read Vice Chair Barnett’s comments three weeks ago and I also read them this past weekend at the new submittal, and so I found it very interesting both times I went and looked at that specific Palo Alto ordinance. What I would recommend, and I did this and I think it showed up in the Staff Addendum, is to keep the standard B.4.1 but delete the sentence that has the potentially subjective clause in it, so you would delete “balcony spacing existing” all the way through “prevent views to residential use.” That’s what I would recommend. Then if you wanted to still approach and look into that Palo Alto ordinance, I found the little number 1 really confusing, trying to draw these different view angles. One of them was at 45-degrees and one of them was parallel to the floor of the balcony, I thought that was LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 really confusing. I even tried to draw it, and I went to architecture school, and I couldn’t figure out how to draw it in section. However, little number 3 in that lists a very specific set of materials that you could demand be put on the railing of a balcony, which because of the nature of the material, whether it’s opaque glass or perforated metal, it would obstruct, or certainly defuse, views from the balcony outward, so that might be a potential solution you could consider and I just wanted to throw that in there. CHAIR HANSSEN: Let me just ask a clarifying question before I go back to Commissioner Janoff. It sounds like you’re recommending that it could be more objective simply by two stages of your recommendation. One was to delete the sentence that was too subjective and keep the standard, and then there’s also the possibility of adopting part of Palo Alto’s that was objective enough. TOM FORD: Correct, that’s part of what Vice Chair Barnett recommended three weeks ago and again for this meeting tonight. CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. I’m going to go back to Commissioner Janoff. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I like the compromise that Mr. Ford is recommending, because I do think we want something in here. If an architect says they can’t figure it out, then I suspect that that’s problematic, although if it’s in Palo Alto’s Objective Standards, then you would think that if it weren’t workable that they would have had feedback and made a change. So if the Town Attorney recommends that the suggestion that Mr. Ford made is sufficiently objective, then I would say fine, let’s leave it in. If we still need some numbers to support it, then the 30 feet is another number that’s pretty easily measured, at least from a diagram of a proposed project, so looking forward to hearing from the Town Attorney. ATTORNEY WHELAN: What I would like to do is go to B.4.11 in the draft, and if the Commission likes, they could go on to the next topic while I look at how that standard would read without the last sentence. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think the sentence recommended for deletion is the middle sentence. I think we still want, “Balconies shall be without projections beyond the building footprint.” ATTORNEY WHELAN: Okay, that is sufficiently objective then. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I think it’s the middle sentence. ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, that works. JENNIFER ARMER: If I could jump in a moment, I believe the reference to, “Balconies shall be without projections beyond the building footprint” is meant to only apply to balconies facing existing Residential uses on abutting parcels, and so it may be if you want to keep that meaning and have it not apply to the street-facing balconies, then we would actually keep the first half of the second sentence and then keep the last sentence. CHAIR HANSSEN: It sounds like we have a proposal on the table, and so the fundamental question, we have some Commissioners on the side of wanting to delete this entirely, because we could never reach the level of objectiveness; but I’m hearing that we have kind of a proposal that would take it to a better place, and so there are many other Commissioners that also want to keep this and try to improve it. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on a portion of Commissioner Tavana’s comment. If we take this standard out, there won’t be a case-by-case to be able to be evaluated. This is going to be outside the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 realm of the Town being able to make a decision. This whole thing is intended for developers to just be able to boom, this is what we’ve got, so if we take balconies out, we don’t have any say on balconies going forward if the developer meets the criteria that puts them into this set of Objective Standards, so I personally would recommend keeping this in so we have some Objective Standard to be able to have designers plan for, but I just wanted to make that comment. If we think that any topic, whether it’s balconies, windows, or anything, can be decided on a case- by-case basis when a developer is coming through this process, I think that’s not what’s going to happen, and Staff could correct me if I’m wrong, but I just wanted to make that point. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I’m going to weigh in and say that I feel like we should try to keep it. What I’m hearing is our consultant has some ideas about how to make this more objective. Our Town Attorney agrees that we can make it more objective with a few ideas, and so it may not be perfect, but I also agree with Commissioner Janoff that if we take it off the table completely, then we won’t have it, and so I think we should at least try to move forward and see if we can be LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 successful with this, especially since we know how important views are to so many of our residents with new construction. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I completely agree and I think that removing the part that is subjective is good, and I do think that people care about this and balconies, so I’m happy with keeping it in. I do, however, want to make sure that if we take out the middle sentence we’re still clarifying that balconies can’t project beyond building footprints, only the ones that are facing the existing Residential uses on abutting parcels, right? We don’t want it to say that we can’t have any projections beyond the building footprint? ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll jump in. If we take out the middle sentence and it will say, “Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing non-Residential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint.” COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So we want to change that “such balconies.” We want to specify that it’s the abutting…the second… ATTORNEY WHELAN: (Nods head yes.) LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. That’s what I just wanted to clarify and make sure that that would be changed. ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, that’s a good clarification. So then it would say, “Balconies on facades facing existing non-Residential uses on abutting parcels shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint.” COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, so the words we’re actually taking out are “are allowed when,” blah, blah, blah, “such balconies.” So it’s just going to read “abutting parcels shall be without.” Okay, cool. I’m happy with that. CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I very much like Mr. Ford’s suggestion that we look into the materials that might be opaque or somehow screening but not closed as the solution, and I think the next critical issue would be the height of the balcony railing together with them. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I am wondering if Staff or maybe Mr. Ford knows, are there standards for how high or low the balcony railing has to be? I’m assuming that there’s like a safety… LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. Building Code does have requirements for how tall a balcony railing needs to be, but I don’t remember. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And does it have a maximum too for being able to get out, or no? JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Commissioner Thomas. I think what Ms. Armer was mentioning was there is a minimum. Depending on what floor it’s on it could be a fire issue if that is an egress or if they have to get a ladder to it. I don't know that we have that specificity now, but there is definitely a minimum, and we can look into whether or not there’s a maximum if this is something the Commission is interested in moving forward as part of their recommendation, and we’ll get together with the building official and look into that prior to going to Town Council. CHAIR HANSSEN: Just as a quick checkpoint, I’m not sure where Commissioner Tavana is at the moment; because he said basically take it out. Are there others that would object to keeping this in if we can improve it and make it more objective? Okay, so I think we should start with that. Then we have the suggestion from Mr. Ford, and Vice Chair Barnett concurred with that, and the Town Attorney had weighed in as well, so it sounds to me like we should take the range of suggestions that have been LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submitted and see what is going to be the most objective that we can stay with in this document. I don't know if what I said makes sense, but as far as moving forward I think we have a number of suggestions that we can use to make it more objective, so I would ask Staff, do you need specific direction on what to look into from here, or can you take the collective input that we have so far? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Mr. Safty, would you like to take this first? RYAN SAFTY: We’ll see if we were about to say the same thing. I was going to say I do think we have enough information to move forward. We can work with the Town’s consultant and come up with some sort of additional screening requirement on those balconies. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, I think that sounds like a good resolution, and I think that the majority of the Commission feels that this is worth pursuing but I think most everyone agrees it needs to be more objective, so I think that’s a good way to move forward. Then I will go on to Item 4, which is pictures. Ms. Quintana did refer to the pictures, and also Housing Element Board Member Mayer submitted a comment as well on the subject. The current Draft Objective Standards contain LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 design illustrations to demonstrate the intent of the draft standards. The general consensus at our last meeting on August 24th was to include pictures of existing development within the document for real world examples for some of the complicated design techniques to make it more user- friendly, and Staff is looking forward to additional discussion or recommendation from the Planning Commission. We did hear from Ms. Quintana tonight a suggestion to do something similar to what Staff did in our first Staff Report, which is to give examples of buildings and whether or not they would meet our standards. I’d like to see what Commissioners think about the picture issue and where to go with it. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. I would like to say that I know that we said that this document is for the public and the public is going to be looking at it, so everyone needs to be able to understand it, but I think that ultimately the people that are going to be using this document the most are going to be architects, and so I was glad that we got the public comment from Mr. Mayer, because I do think that the line drawings are more helpful and offer more of a blank slate with regard to creativity and aren’t as prescriptive, but I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 am curious to see if Staff thinks that they are able to find examples where enough of the standards are met. My other compromise would be when we had examples. Maybe there could be examples at the end saying like here is an existing building, here are the points that they meant, and actually have a visual picture, and that might be like of a real building and include actual photos there instead of throughout the entire document, and have it be labeled a little bit in that way. I’m curious to see what other people think about that. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner Thomas. Commissioner Janoff has her hand up. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I was an advocate of including illustrations, not necessarily throughout but just in general, but having heard from the architects, the group of architects didn’t say much except what they did in the initial set of comments last meeting where they didn’t like the line drawings, but given the remarks from Mr. Mayer, I think it’s a good point. I do agree with Commissioner Thomas. This really is a document that’s for the design team and the architects more than it is a homeowner; it’s not the Residential Design Guidelines, for instance. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Having said that, a question for Staff. I’m in favor of keeping the line drawings as is, and maybe not including illustrations throughout. But in our last draft Section B, that includes the evaluation of existing developments, and my question is, is that intended to be included as part of the design standards for illustration, or is that just for the Planning Commission? RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. That was initially intended just for the Planning Commission. There were Commissioners that had specific questions on if these could actually be implemented in the real world, so those were examples on how they could. That being said, we’re happy to do whatever the Planning Commission recommends. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I ask because it was a nice small compilation of some reasonably well designed buildings in town, and so I think it’s a reasonable thing to include. It sort of satisfies both itches. It gives you some illustrations of how structures are meeting the requirements, but it doesn’t muddy up the document Section A, so I would be in favor of including B for illustrative purposes, and keeping line drawings in the balance of the section. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. My thinking on this after reading all the comments and hearing the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional feedback, although I think that the target market for this is architects that are going to be designing these buildings, I also think that our public is a very close watchdog on a lot of these projects, and since they’re going to be some of the bigger ones, I think just for the benefit of public transparency it wouldn’t be a bad idea to include some generalized pictures as discussed, versus one on every standard, for the benefit of the people in the public that might happen to go look at this document and are like what is the Town doing to make sure that we’re taken care of? And it would probably be more illustrative to them to have photos, and I would just keep it fairly general, as we were discussing. So that’s what my thoughts are on it, but I’d like to hear what others think as well. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I think I’m of the view largely in accord with Commissioner Janoff in that it’s my sense, and the architects who opined, that the line drawings should be the primary reference tool in the document, but I see that there is some added benefit to the public and maybe for some clarifying in having pictures as you indicate, Chair. So the notion of having the line drawings the predominant feature throughout the document, and perhaps an LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appendix or closing section that has some prominent approved features that the Town has signed off on in the past, and then perhaps some language somewhere in the document—because we wouldn’t want to muddy the waters—that essentially says the line drawings are the rule and that the photos are there for illustrative purpose only, and it wouldn’t overrule or somehow overwrite our other written rules. Something along those lines I think maybe satisfies both camps. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that makes a lot of sense. Other comments? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I support Commissioner Raspe’s idea, but I wanted to bounce off the Town Attorney whether she thinks that inserting photos in the Objective Standards would create a problem, because the photos are not in and of themselves objective? ATTORNEY WHELAN: No, I don’t think that would pose a problem, because the photos are intended to depict what is described in the wording, so I think that would be fine. CHAIR HANSSEN: I like the comments by Commissioner Janoff and Commissioner Raspe, and I think we should proceed in that way and only use photos as a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 generalized thing and be very clear that the line drawings are the Objective Standard. Any other thoughts or comments, or any objections to going in that direction? Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would just like some clarification from Commissioners Janoff and Raspe about—I know Commissioner Raspe said this—do you feel like this is an appendix at the end, because that’s how I feel it should be, like given as different examples. If you need further details on what this looks like in real life, go to this appendix at the end. Is that what you’re thinking, Commissioner Janoff? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, essentially we’ve got that section which reads as an appendix now as illustrations of how the standards have been met, and I think the clarifying language that Commissioner Raspe is suggesting is a good idea to include just to note that these are examples and they may or may not meet other criteria, so we don’t confuse anyone in saying these must be followed this way, but I agree that this could serve as a type of appendix that Commissioner Raspe is recommending. CHAIR HANSSEN: If that answers your question, Commissioner Thomas, are you good with the proposal? All right, so I think we’re good to move off of this. That was LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the generalized questions that were in the Staff Report, so I was going to go to the Addendum, because the Staff did comment on Housing Element Advisory Board Member Mayer’s comments as well as the architects’ comments. I’m pulling up the Addendum right now, and there were ten items that Staff wanted the Planning Commission to discuss further, and I just want to ask a clarifying question of Staff that you responded to, and I know you worked very hard on your response. You responded to everything, and a lot of the things that were in the architects’ document were in fact questions that needed clarification as opposed to recommended changes, so I’m assuming that as long as we answer the question that you had, like Comment 9, 10, 11, 12 and so on, those are the things that you wanted us to have further discussion, and then we could ask the Commission if they felt like the rest of your answers or suggestions about whether to do or not do were good, and maybe do that as a group, or do you want us to discuss all of them? RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. Yes, that’s exactly how we intended this to be. If we could go through, give recommendations on the individual comments in the Addendum Report, and then if there was something in the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 items that weren’t covered in the Addendum where Staff felt pretty confident about that any of the Planning Commissioners disagree with, please let us know. CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. I’m going to go by Comment 9, and just to refresh everyone’s memory, it relates to the continuous streetscape requirement in A.11.1, which requires development in a Community Growth District to place at least 75% of the ground floor within 5’ of street-facing property lines. The comment was about whether or not it applies to only the building or the entire length of the property line, and the draft standard is currently were it to apply only to the proposed buildings. I’m assuming that the discussion that Staff wants us to have is whether that is what we intended? RYAN SAFTY: Exactly JENNIFER ARMER: Or if additional clarification is needed. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, since people were asking the question. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m sorry, can you repeat which section of the draft it is so I can scroll up to it? CHAIR HANSSEN: A.11.1. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I know Commissioner Janoff and I were on the General Plan Committee, and you were as well, Commissioner Thomas. I think this got started during the discussion of the Community Growth Districts that we had and wanting to not have the parking lot in front and the building behind, which is kind of the old version of how we do these kind of developments, and we wanted to basically bring the street forward to the buildings in place and stuff, so I guess the question would be whether there’s a reason to do something else besides the building, or if there is something else to consider? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My thought on this is that the last sentence of the draft standard is currently worded only applies to the proposed buildings. I think that’s how it should be written. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree. CHAIR HANSSEN: I don't know how you would do it any other way, because what they’re asking to do is build a building, so I think that’s probably the clearest, most objective thing that we can do. Any other thoughts? I think as long as it’s clear that it applies to the proposed building we can leave it to Staff whether or not you think LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that we should make the language clearer in the standard, but that is clearly the intent. Comment 10 questions why Section A.11.2 has a maximum percentage for site amenities in front of the front façade. The maximum percentage was originally included to ensure visibility to the ground floor uses, however, in the case of restaurant uses it might be overly restrictive, and so the standard could be modified to include a minimum but no maximum. So it sounds like that might be the proposal, which is to take away the maximum. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Agreed. I thought that was an excellent point. CHAIR HANSSEN: It made sense to me as well. Other comments on Comment 10? I’m going to assume that since there are no other comments that we all agree. Comment 12 questions how the arcade in B.1.1d and the recessed building entry B.1.1c standards could be incorporated into the same building. The Planning Commission could consider removing the full height of the façade requirement from B.1.1c or removing the arcade option from B.1.1d in its entirety to remedy his concern. Any thoughts? Vice Chair Barnett. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m interested in whether the Staff had a position on this, but to me it seems like the full length of the façade is a standard that we don’t want to lose. CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff, do you have a comment? RYAN SAFTY: Yes, certainly. Thank you. Staff’s initial recommendation was that it does seem like that would be the cleanest resolution, and that way we’re still holding onto the arcade standard. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so that sounds like the easiest way to go, and Vice Chair Barnett has made that recommendation. Other Commissioners have any other thoughts on that? The proposal is to remove the language “full height of the façade” from B.1.1c to solve the problem. Sounds like we’re good to go. Comment 13, also related to the arcade action in B.1.1d, states that longer buildings would look monotonous with the continuous arcade. The arcade option could either be removed or a limit to the required arcade length could be added. That’s on Comment 13. Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. In general I think a limit would make the most sense to me. I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't know what that limit would be necessarily, but I don’t think we should remove it altogether. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I’m pretty darned sure when we were on the Subcommittee we spent lots and lots of time on how to make sure that we didn’t have big blank walls of buildings that were without architectural detail, so that is why there are so many of these things in the document right now. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I agree with Commissioner Tavana. I think we should retain the arcade design feature, and I don’t have a specific figure in mind either. It seems to me though that the notion should be that the arcade should predominate the front, it should be the predominant design feature, and so I’ll just throw out as a point for discussion, perhaps it should cover 75% of the frontage, or some percentage greater than 50%, so it becomes the predominant design feature of the building. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that input. We have a comment from Mr. Safty. RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Sorry for interjecting. I just wanted to point out that the architects did provide specific numbers for that if the Commission is struggling LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to come up with exactly how to define that; there was a recommendation made by the architects. CHAIR HANSSEN: Could you tell it to us, just because there are so many documents in play? RYAN SAFTY: Of course. The suggestion was when over 80’ or 100’ long a two-third arcade approach could apply, so if we want to go with clean numbers, over 100’, then two-thirds of that façade needs to have arcades. CHAIR HANSSEN: And if it were less than 80’ to 100’, what would it be then? RYAN SAFTY: If it were less, then it would be a continuous arcade. CHAIR HANSSEN: It would be continuous across the entire versus not the whole thing, but two-thirds. Okay. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was going to point to the same recommendation from the architects, but I wonder, Mr. Safty, why we would go with the upper number of 100’ when an 80’ long building might read pretty long and the architects put that range in there. I’m just thinking over 80’ might be better than over 100’, but I would defer to Staff and the architects. This is really a design aesthetic, so I would choose one number, but whatever you think is the better design number. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I actually would defer to Mr. Ford, our consultant, since he is more familiar with these. I just happen to choose the cleaner number as an example. CHAIR HANSSEN: And Mr. Ford has his camera on, so please go ahead. TOM FORD: Thank you, Chair. I’m also thinking of specifically the Los Gatos context and maybe the typical frontage link that you’ll be seeing, so I would go with the smaller number of 80’, or maybe even less, and put that for the parameter where you make a jump. Therefore, if a frontage is longer than 80’, then two-thirds of that frontage needs to have an arcade in order to qualify for this point system, and if it’s less than 80’ you might consider something less than 100’ but more than two-thirds, because I think if you look at the architects’ full submittal they discuss the arcade quite a bit and how imposing it upon the whole frontage could tend to be kind of cumbersome, so I think we could come up with one standard for less than 80’ and a different percentage for over 80’. CHAIR HANSSEN: Neither of which would be 100’? TOM FORD: That’s what I’m suggesting, but you may disagree with me. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: No, I just wanted to make sure I understood your suggestion. Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. In general I do think that any continuous arcade would be monotonous inherently. Maybe we could adopt a two-thirds approach across the board, because if it’s 50’, 60’, whatever, I still think it would be monotonous, so I think two-thirds in general, no matter how long it may be, would be a good approach to consider. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Other thoughts on this? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Do we have any buildings with arcades in town? I can’t think of one. Staff, do we have any examples? I’m thinking, to Commissioner Tavana’s point, that that’s an interesting concept, but if it’s a very small building, if it’s only 40’-50’ wide, then having an arcade not across the entirety of it might look odd. I think this is really something that I personally would defer to the architects on a team and go with that. But if there’s an example in town that shows like a truncated arcade across the front of the building, I’d like to know if we have one. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to go back to Mr. Ford, and then to Commissioner Thomas. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM FORD: Thank you, and following on what Commissioner Janoff is talking about, it could be that you don’t actually see this try to be implemented that often, because if you think of an infill situation, putting an arcade on front of a building arcade on front of a building, it’s really going to be impacted by what is on either side, because it’s basically an interior sidewalk, so what’s the point of having an interior sidewalk if you run into the wall at the adjacent building? Arcades tend to happen in a situation where it’s more of a comprehensive development, the way the town developed, let’s say, Old Sacramento, New Orleans, things like that, so I don’t think you’re going to be seeing it that often, but I think by keeping the amount of the façade that’s covered by the arcade it will help with the infill situation if it is implemented. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The two examples that I can think of are one, the King’s Court Shopping Center. Isn’t there an arcade across in front of the bank and all of that, and part of that area? It’s not architecturally beautiful, but that’s an arcade. And then two, the post office downtown. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But I do agree that it would be helpful to put a maximum in just because these are Objective Standards, but I also agree that we’re not the experts to decide that, so I’m very happy to defer to Staff to talk to our consultants and go with whatever maximum visually makes sense, especially because this is probably not going to be utilized very often, like Mr. Ford just said. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to say that it sounds reasonable to have a standard, as recommended by the consultants, to have less of the façade if it’s of a certain distance, and then more of the façade in terms of percentage if it’s less than a certain distance. I completely agree with the other Commissioners that we’re not in a position as Planning Commissioners to really be able to judge that the best way, so I would like to maybe give direction to Staff that let’s go down the path of having different standards for different lengths, but keep it simple and have the number assigned to it and take the input of the architect community to come up with the right number. Does that sound reasonable? All right, so let’s do that. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My understanding is that we’re trying to finalize this Objective Standards tonight, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so my idea would be to refer this issue to the Council with any input that might be provided by Staff after the meeting. CHAIR HANSSEN: Right. Maybe my suggestion was not clear enough, but it was that we would go ahead with that approach and that the number would be filled in somewhere in the near future by Staff with input from people that have more expertise, so I think we’re going to keep it with that. Then we can go on to Comment 14, which is requesting an additional section be added to deal with corner lots, and although is does not currently exist, this could be developed in the future, and I think what Staff was saying in a nice way is it would be a lot of trouble to add that in, and since we’re so far behind schedule that that might be a nice add-on at a later point, but it could hold up the document. Am I characterizing that correctly, Staff? JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, that’s correct. CHAIR HANSSEN: So Commissioners, are there thoughts about whether or not it’s important to have that in this version of the document? Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. I agree with Staff. At some point I would like to see this incorporated LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into the document, but given where we are in the process, let’s proceed without it for now. As an additional note, I think corner lot developments are probably going to be the minority of developments we see. It will be largely more infill type projects, and so it probably is going to be the least impactful section, so let’s proceed without it for now, but with a notation that we’d like to see it developed on the next round if possible. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I agree. There is a specific bullet point from the architects that say we should have a section on corners, but it struck me that it was a follow-on to the previous bullet where they were going on about what happens if this and that and the other and then now that we’re talking about corners, let’s go there, so I didn’t get the sense that that was the same level of importance, and so I would agree, let’s stay the course on what we have, and if it looks like we need more specificity on corners, if things are going crazy on all of these great developments that are going to come our way, then take another look at making something more specific then. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you for that. So I think we’re going to go with that recommendation that we should try to add that in a future version of the document, but not hold up the progress of this document. The next one is Comments 18 and 19 that are related to the belly band option in B.4.1d. Based on the reasoning provided, Commissioners can consider removing this option, because there are multiple documents out there, and maybe not everyone has them all up at the same time, that wanted us to remove the belly bank option entirely, or I thought I saw something there about reducing the size of it. Can you maybe give us some clarification about what specifically the architects were looking for? RYAN SAFTY: Certainly. The first one, Comment 18, basically is belly bands don’t always work, especially not a continuous belly band, especially if you have pop- outs, recesses, pilasters, and what not. The second, Comment 19, was specifically about the width or the height of the belly band, pointing out that we require ten and Palo Alto requires four. CHAIR HANSSEN: So that’s about that from the Commission. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would remove it. CHAIR HANSSEN: The B.4.1d? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, I agree. I don’t find the belly band a particularly effective device for breaking up a façade, and going to a smaller belly band seems to me to even exacerbate the problem, so I would agree, I would (inaudible). CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other thoughts, or a different direction? Otherwise, we are going to recommend removing it. Sounds like we are agreed. So then we can move on to Comment 23, which questions how B.4.3 would be applied. For example, if a single bay window would be sufficient to qualify for the points listed. Staff can either add greater specificity for certain items, or remove this requirement, and they are looking for direction from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Janoff, and then Vice Chair Barnett. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: This was an interesting comment. I can’t imagine an architect coming forward with a mish-mash of balconies and no balconies. That just seemed to me to be taking the point a little bit too far, but if Staff has a way to insert language that talks about the—I can’t remember the exact term—integrity of design or something, which is completely not objective, so that won’t LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 work, but if there is some language that could be inserted that would clarify what they’re talking about in terms of a whole bunch of different elements just to rack up points, I’m not sure how that could be done, but what they propose could happen sort of like gaming the point system. I guess it could happen, but how do we make sure it doesn’t? CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Ford, could you comment on that? You helped us develop this thing, and I think you’ve had experience with other jurisdictions. What are your thoughts on this particular issue? TOM FORD: Thank you, Chair. If the Commission prefers to keep this B.4.3 I think it’s possible to go in and add greater specificity. I read the architects’ comments and I thought that’s interesting, somebody put one Juliet balcony, so therefore they get the points. I don't know if anyone has packet page 225, you see page B.4.3, each of those lines would probably get longer, because we would add some specificity, and I wouldn’t say Juliets on 100% of the windows. Let the designer have a little bit of flexibility and maybe pull out a massing piece, so you might say Juliets applied to 40% of the fenestration, or 60% or something, and you might say one chimney is enough, and you might say a certain number of balconies. So I think LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we can provide greater specificity if you want to keep B.4.3. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we already discussed that we wanted to keep B.4.3, but we have several Commissioners with their hands up. Vice Chair Barnett, and then Commissioner Tavana, and then Commissioner Clark. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. I share exactly Mr. Ford’s thinking. I think that the architects may have overstated the possibility and made it a ridiculous hypothesis, but nevertheless there’s a lot of room for clarification that I think should be made before this is sent to the Council, or in the process of submitting it to the Council that we have further specification. Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. I agree with Vice Chair Barnett in the sense that any specificity could help, but in the examples given there was a single bay window, but in the Objective Standards—I don't know if this matters or not—it clearly states bay windows, not just one, so it is plural and a lot of these are plural, and that would alleviate some of the issues, but adding specificity definitely would help. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Sorry I haven’t been participating more. I’m very under the weather, but I’ve been appreciating all of the comments and I promised I would say something if I disagreed with any decisions that were being made. For this one I definitely agree that I want to see it kept in, and I think having the minimum of 16 points needed would hopefully keep people from going too crazy, like gaming it and trying to add as many features as possible and stuff, but I do think that it would be a problem if someone decided to get their points using like the three point ones or something, because it would become pretty clunky, so I agree first that we need more specificity. Then I was thinking, I don't know if there’s a way to say get at least this many points from these ones or something, like making sure that they use at least one of the eight point ones or something, but we might want to do something like that just to make sure that nobody just uses all of the three pointers and gets some really clunky looking design. CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. I think that’s a good suggestion. Staff, I think what I’m hearing is that more LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specificity would be good, that we like the system, and just to maybe try to put a little bit more specificity in to help avoid gaming the system. I think Commissioner Clark had an idea about maybe you have to use some of this versus a bunch of the lower point things, or something like that. Is that enough for you guys to go on? RYAN SAFTY: I believe so. I’ll defer to Mr. Ford, since you’re going to be the one helping us with this. TOM FORD: Yes, that’s great input. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, great. Comment 24 suggests that the illustration of pilasters should be removed. The illustration was a specific request from a previous hearing, but it could be removed. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: There are two different figures that include pilasters, and I think the illustration that is being objected to is 4.5, which is on page 26 of 29, and I agree that pilasters in this particular example would be highly unlikely, so it seems to be a highly unlikely design element to have in there, and it doesn’t particularly illustrate the change in materials concept that this item is speaking to, so I think in this LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case I would be in favor of removing the pilasters in this particular illustration. But on page 16 of 29, whichever section that is, there’s an illustration that includes them on that line drawing, and those should be kept, so just to clarify which drawing we’re talking about. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up. So there are two illustrations and you’re saying keep the one and not the other. That sounds like a very good recommendation. Other comments from Commissioners? Mr. Ford. TOM FORD: Thank you. Also, just so you’re not surprised later by taking out the pilasters from Figure B.4.5, I think we will also help you by making an edit to the text of Standard 4.5, “Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners.” I think what we’ll do is we’ll delete the reference in the text standard about architectural features. I think that’s what led us astray on this issue. CHAIR HANSSEN: So it sounds like this problem is solved. The last one that we were asked for input on was Comment 27 suggesting that rather than prohibiting rooftop and upper floor terraces and decks that they could be allowed, given certain controls. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I strongly agree with this recommendation. It seems like we might want to be using rooftops of these buildings for gathering spaces. It’s done all over, including having green rooftops or green gardens or green space, or that could be the common space. It could be used really creatively and beautifully, so I would recommend looking at this one to change it and include that as a potential feature perhaps. CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s great. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree Commissioner with Janoff’s comments, and I also thought that rooftops are an opportunity to create additional green space, especially since green space can sometimes be lost when going to higher density housing, and I know that’s something we don’t want to do for the Town. I think that the intent of this is to ensure privacy, and I think there are ways that we can still make sure that there is privacy on rooftops, even if they are accessible to people and used as part of the built space, and I think that it’s a good opportunity, so I’m supportive of it too. CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. Vice Chair Barnett. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’ve seen rooftop spaces be used for social gatherings and barbeques and whatnot, and I think it’s an excellent amenity for people in high-rise developments that don’t have a lot of space to meet; they can have parties out there and whatnot. I’ve also seen it used as private deck space for the owners who are adjacent. This is a little unusual, but there was a parapet wall and there were units that faced the roof, and they were able to divide it into exclusive use areas, so I think in short the idea of setbacks for privacy makes sense, but also the utility of using the space is important to retain in the Objective Standards. CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. I think that’s a good suggestion. Any other comments on this? It sounds like we should definitely keep this, and there were some suggestions of how to make it clearer and have more control. Anything else you need from us on this particular one, Staff? Ms. Armer. JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would suggest if the Planning Commission has any direction on particular things, for example, setback from the edge of the building, that you would support as those additional privacy controls that that discussion would be helpful in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guiding Staff in drafting something to take to Town Council. CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. Looks like we have a couple hands up. Commissioner Janoff. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. The architects did recommend a setback, and they also talk about a daylight plane. I don't know what the daylight plane might be. I haven’t heard that term, so I don’t know what that is, but presumably it’s some sort of a sight line, but they do offer the concept of setback and I think there should be a setback, unless somehow it’s a completely green space right at the edge where you could plant the setback, but I would make sure that the gathering space for individuals would be inside a setback. CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree. I feel like hopefully we can find a standard setback that exists somewhere else that we know is appropriate. I also am happy to say—I think this is still objective—but it either needs to be a setback or there needs to be some sort of screening. Like one setback if you can see out, and another setback if you can’t see out, because I feel like the setback is only necessary for the privacy or for safety purposes, but if there is some sort of screening, I don't LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know what is considered a rooftop, if there’s a specific wall, but I’m assuming it’s the top of the building that’s open to the sky, so I’m curious to know what Commissioners think of that. CHAIR HANSSEN: Other comments? Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: I also thought about screening, and my concern with that is depending on the design and style. Unless the screening is also set back it can add to the massing of the building, especially if it’s going to be a 6’ barrier, for instance. We’re adding 6’ of height to our building, so unless it’s set back significantly from the existing frontage of the building or it’s somehow distinguished in material, my concern would be that adding a lot of shielding would overly complicate things. That being said, I fully support a rooftop situation and I think setback is probably the preferred method of doing it, with maybe a secondary lower shielding if that’s the only solution possible. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good suggestion as well. Staff, what more can we do to help on this? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I think based on the direction that we’ve heard from the Commission this LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evening we will develop a recommendation for a setback from the edge of the roof for buildings that abut Single-Family zoning districts on the side of the building that abuts them, and provide that as a recommendation on your behalf to Town Council. CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you. In Item 27 in the architects’ comments when the Staff responds to the architects they say, “Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to have a setback to rooftop decks and balconies?” and I wasn’t sure what rooftop balconies would be. Maybe that could be clarified or removed. CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that in the document now? No, that’s in the comments for the architects, right? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: You’re correct; it’s in the comments from the architects. JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, when we’re looking at 4.10 it references rooftop and upper floor terraces and decks, so not balconies. CHAIR HANSSEN: So then we have the information we need in terms of controls, because we don’t have a conflict basically because a rooftop balcony would be kind of strange. Are we good on Comment 27? Okay. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I’ll just continue to go through the Addendum, which was very helpful, by the way, Staff, that you went through all the comments and gave us some feedback on that, and it helps make our discussion more efficient. You also brought out your comments on the submission from Mr. Mayer from the Housing Element Board, and who is also an architect, and I don’t think we need to discuss the first one he brought up about real world photo examples, because we already discussed that earlier. But he did have some other specific suggestions, one of which was that the parking structure entry gate setback be reduced to under 25’, and he did go into detail about with a dense kind of building trying to create a 25’ setback would be an awfully big ask for them to do that. Staff, you want us to comment about whether we should include that or not? You didn’t recommend one way or the other. JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll start, and then Mr. Safty may have something to add. With any of these where a change is being recommended we called out if we had a significant concern, but would be looking to see if the Commission supports making the change. In this case we do want to have some setback so that we avoid queuing in the street, and often the gate for a parking garage is actually set back LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 farther within the building façade, so it doesn’t mean that the front wall of the building needs to be set back. Mr. Safty, did you have anything else add on that one? RYAN SAFTY: You basically said what I was about to. The one thing I would add is the only thing we do have in the Town Code right now is it requires 18’ from any sort of vehicle gate to the edge of the street, so if the Planning Commission does want to reduce below 25’ I would recommend ensuring that we still do have the 18’. CHAIR HANSSEN: So that we don’t just remove the requirement entirely. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I would argue against removing this section. I think it is important for pedestrian safety to avoid a situation where we have queuing. It seems to me that ideally maybe what you want is whatever the length of two cars is, because essentially that’s going to be a most common scenario, I think, where you would run into problems, so if that’s 18’, that’s 18’, if it’s 20’, it’s 20’. I don't know what that number is, but it seems to me whatever the length of two average cars would be is probably be adequate for our purposes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff, and Commissioner Thomas. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I agree we shouldn’t remove this section amended to be much less than 25’. I would go back to the architects and ask what much less looks like. It may be that the 18’ is also untenable. I don't know, so I would say keep it, but see if you can get some input from the architects specifically regarding these kinds of structures. CHAIR HANSSEN: You mean in addition to Mr. Mayer? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. Well, go back to Mr. Mayer. He’s making the comment and he’s asking for a significant reduction, and he seems to be speaking from experience. We could guess at this number, we could go with the 18’, but that might still not be workable, so my suggestion is to go back to the architects and see if we can find something, keeping in mind that what we’re trying to do is keep these things objective, but also we want these buildings to be built, so if we put too many constraints that makes just breaking ground not workable, then we’ve sort of killed something from the outset, so I’d look to get some input from the experts on this one. CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds reasonable, and what I’m hearing loud and clear though is that we don’t want to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 remove this, but let’s see what Commissioner Thomas has to say. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that we do not want to remove this for the safety concerns, but however I do want to ensure that we are highly, highly encouraging below ground parking, because we know that that is a huge priority for us to achieve some of our higher density projects that we want. I know that it also makes it more expensive for developers, but I think that we need to make sure that we’re not putting a number on here that is not possible. When we say a minimum of 25’ between the gate and the back of the sidewalk, we are saying the length? It’s not like a bird’s eye view, right? It’s the length of the actual driveway has to be 25’ so that could curve or turn, correct, Staff? JENNIFER ARMER: (Nods head yes.) COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. I do know there are gates that exist like this out here; most parking garages with below ground parking have the gate below… I don't know, I guess my question is 25’ doesn’t seem that unreasonable to me, but obviously I’m not an architect, but if I’m thinking about like how far is the distance if we were to put a gate at the bottom of some of the park… I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guess all of our below ground parking in town doesn’t have a top, I don't know. I was trying to think of in downtown. We want to encourage below ground parking, so we need to make sure that the number that is chosen is specific, so its objective, but it also ensures that we can still get a lot of below ground parking. CHAIR HANSSEN: So what I’m hearing is we want to keep this requirement in here, but we don’t feel like we have enough expertise to specify. I did hear from Staff that we have already a requirement for 18’, so can Staff check with some of the architects to see if this really is a big problem and that that would necessitate it being less than even 18’, because I don’t think that any of us have enough (inaudible) of experience with this particular requirement. Is that enough direction? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I think we can proceed with that. In order to give the Planning Commission a little more context, our current standard for parking, if you have a two-car garage you’re going to be required to do 20’x20’ clear on the inside, so that’s 20’ deep for each of the two cars. If you’re looking at the distance from the face of a garage, even if the required building setback is less, then we require the 18’, but in many cases the front setback that governs the distance to a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 garage is actually 25’, so this isn’t inconsistent with a lot of the other circumstances where you have enough space for a car to park in the front of a garage and not be overlapping with the sidewalk. CHAIR HANSSEN: And also it was my understanding when we were going through this whole process as the Subcommittee before the document was drafted that our consultant’s had substantial experience working with many jurisdictions on this stuff, so we were relying pretty heavily on them to work with our Staff to come up with the right numbers for this step, so I guess what I’m hearing is it’s probably worth checking with some people, but we don’t want to wholesale remove things that were recommended. Mr. Ford. TOM FORD: Thank you. Yes, you’re correct. We can look into this further. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, great. So let’s go on. The next one was similar. It was about vehicular entry gates, and there’s a 6’ height limit for those, and he wanted those to be increased, because he was talking about parking situations and that it wasn’t going to be high enough. Commissioner Janoff. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. He makes a good point, but I think we can correct the concept by inserting, “Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates located in perimeter fencing shall have a maximum of 6’.” I think that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about entrances that are in a building face, right? CHAIR HANSSEN: Right. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: It’s in the fencing or in some sort of perimeter barrier. CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds reasonable. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I certainly wouldn’t want to increase it to 8’ across the board, because then you wind up with 8’ fences at the perimeter, right? So I think that would solve the problem. CHAIR HANSSEN: I like that suggestion. Any other thoughts on this one? All right, let’s see, we don’t have too much more to go through. Their public comment question whether landscapers can count toward landscaping requirements in Standard A.10.1a and whether 20% is too high, 20% being that 20% of the total square footage has to be landscaped and whether or not landscapers could count for that, because it might be too much. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think based on our previous conversation we should allow landscaped rooftops to be counted, but not everybody is going to do a landscaped roof, so if that 20% still seems high then there should be an if/then term included so it will be such-and- such a percent unless there’s a rooftop and the rooftop can count toward that percent, but yes, I think that that number… And maybe it should be arranged that the following point has to do with how large balconies or common space or community recreation space are, and there’s a recommendation that it would be a certain size for a certain size building, and a certain size for certain other size buildings, so I think maybe this is another one where there could be a range if the landscaped space at 20% seems onerous, but definitely count rooftop. CHAIR HANSSEN: I know his concern was that the landscaping requirement being that high could defer High- Density housing. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that we should definitely count landscaped roofs toward the 20%, so I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think that should be added. I also know that people value green space in town and are afraid of really High-Density housing, so I can see maybe why this 20% was initially chosen as the number, but I’m happy to hear what other cities have decided to do, because I’m open to reducing. CHAIR HANSSEN: You started going in the direction that I wanted to make sure we reminded ourselves of, that this document is intended to comply with certain laws that have been handed down by the State of California and that it’s separate and aside from the discretionary approval process that we already have, and so there’s always the possibility where they bring in a project and they want to take advantage of the streamlined processing procedure and they decide that it doesn’t work for them they can still go through the discretionary process that we have. This is just to take advantage of the streamlined process. I know that when we heard the North Forty and the North Forty Specific Plan had a 30% open space requirement and 20% had to be green—I think the numbers might be wrong, off by that—but that was a big deal for everyone, and they did find a way to meet it, and so I think we’d have to think long and hard about taking that off the table, because we’re basically taking away the discretionary LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 approval process with this document and we want to make sure that it turns out the way that we’re hoping for. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to make a clarification that the landscaped rooftop could count toward the 20% as long as it’s accessible by all residents. It can’t be like a private rooftop garden for the penthouses, right? CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So make sure that that’s also included. CHAIR HANSSEN: Maybe I didn’t read this thing right, but I thought that the landscaper thing was kind of like the lesser of the two issues, that 20% was the issue and that it might be too high and prevent High-Density housing, but I think we’ve already heard from a couple of Commissioners that we know that our residents are really concerned about that, so I think it would be a hard ask to take it down below 20%. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I guess I do have a clarification, but I do agree that this should be accessible to everyone, but the current way it’s written, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is landscaped area considered like all 20% of that has to be accessible to all residents? CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff. RYAN SAFTY: Give me one second just to triple check. JOEL PAULSON: I can go ahead and jump in. Commissioner Janoff’s comments, I think, were specific to the rooftop deck and that the residents of that community had access to that, not just the penthouses, for instance, so it’s an amenity for those folks, not an amenity for the entire public, so it’s just for that specific site, and it’s not specified in there, so that’s something that we’ll look at adding specificity. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Because it just says right now, “A minimum of 20% of the site area shall be landscaped,” but that doesn’t have to be that whole 20%. The way it’s written right now it does not have to be accessible to everyone, because this is like a completely separate thing from the 60% of the community space shall be open to the sky, etc.? I’m just trying to interpret the rule. CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Safty, you had your hand up. I’m going to ask you before I go back to the other Commissioners. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RYAN SAFTY: Thank you, I’ll try to take a stab at answering that. Just a reminder, all of those three areas, the landscaped area, community open space, and recreation open space, they’re all calculated separately. Previously there was mentioned about using, let’s say, a rooftop deck towards the landscaping requirement, and, let’s say, a community open space requirement. As the document is written right now, you would not be able to use them both. Landscaping is really just intended to add greenery to the site; that’s how it was drafted. CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer. JENNIFER ARMER: I wanted to add the suggestion that under Key Terms at the beginning of the document we have a definition of landscaping, and so considering if there are details that should be added to that definition of landscaping is probably where this would be, whether landscaping could potentially include a rooftop deck if accessible to all residents, or similar language. CHAIR HANSSEN: That makes a lot of sense, and I’m glad Commissioner Janoff brought that up, because not that super High-Density housing could have penthouses, but you wouldn’t want it to be private, because that kind of defeats the purpose of what we’re trying to accomplish. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let’s see, several Commissioners have their hands up. Commissioner Janoff, and then Vice Chair Barnett, and then Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a quick clarification. The 20% doesn’t need to be contiguous land, right? They can count pockets and so on, right? My comment about residential access to a rooftop would be like let’s make sure if that’s the only 20% set aside that everybody has access to it, but if it’s in fact in addition to a bunch of other little pockets, then it counts as an aggregate, if that’s clear? RYAN SAFTY: Yes, the landscaped areas can be in multiple different locations, for example, shrubbery along a walkway. The point I want to clarify one more time, the idea of a rooftop deck with landscaping, let’s say Camino Garden, the would count towards the community recreation space, which then would not count towards landscaping unless we removed the term saying that they are calculated mutually exclusive from each other. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Through the Chair, if we could just think about that a little bit more critically as you go through in your mind how those might be in conflict, when we could create some really beautiful community space that is partially land… Just think about whether that is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asking too much, and I’d say depending upon the design, and of course that’s subjective, it should count as the same. It shouldn’t be counted separately. CHAIR HANSSEN: Do other Commissioners have thoughts? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you, Chair. Ms. Armer brought up the landscaping definition under Key Terms, and I’m happy with the 20%, but I am concerned about landscaping as it’s described in the Key Terms because of the drought situation and the need to conserve water, and it seems to primarily, if not exclusively, require greenery, so I think that’s something that we ought to look at as part of the whole picture. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that we do need to be conscious about the water use, and I also think that we need some clarification and need to rethink the differences between the landscaped private recreation space and community recreation space. I do think that if something qualifies separately as landscaped and it also could serve as a community recreation space, for example, a communal garden, I would be happy with that being able to be counted in both spaces. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think that being able to double dip in that area is going to provide for more creativity from an architecture standpoint and more creativity with the use of space, so I’m happy with that being able to be double dipped, and then I think that also allows for more flexibility with respect to the 20% doesn’t just have to be like green for looking at, it could be usable space also, which I think is the more important part, and also like drought… It can just be more usable space that we benefit more from then just like existing, so I do think that that is a change that we should definitely consider. I also don’t think that the way that we have it written right now, landscaped space all needs to be publicly accessible, but again, if it’s counting as both community recreation space and landscaped space, then it should be, if that makes sense. My last thing is that if a rooftop is going to be used either for community recreation space, or I guess as landscape space, if we’re counting at 20% minimum, I guess my question is right now it says 20% of the site area. The rooftop basically should be like free bonus area? It shouldn’t be considered in the total area, it’s not additional area, if that makes sense? I don't know how we consider that though then in the 20%, because we’re not LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mandating that anyone put anything on the rooftop. Do other people understand how we could create conflict? No, okay. So if we are requiring a minimum 20% of the site that should be landscaped, and then we say you can use the rooftop for that, we need to decide if we are counting then does the rooftop count to the total area that we are considering? Like is it our denominator, or not? I think it should be not ever included in the denominator; it’s just like an optional bonus area that you could use and utilize. CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer, and then Commissioner Janoff. JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. Just to help with the clarification of what Commissioner Thomas was trying to describe, I think one question is when we talk about 20% of the site area, whether that is being understood as the open parts of the site versus the site area as a whole before it’s been developed. So if you’re saying 20% of the site area, then that is of the entire property before it is developed, and so some of that 20% could be on the roof. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My assumption is that the 20% is of the whole site before anything is built, right? Then build your building as large or as small you can, and you’ve got 20% remaining on the ground, and then take that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amount and apply that to the roof instead. So you (inaudible) can make a bigger building and use your rooftop, but it is the whole site and then the developer gets to decide whether they’re going to keep ground-level green space community or whatever, or rooftop, or a combination. CHAIR HANSSEN: There are a lot of people that aren’t happy with the North Forty, but I particularly did like the open space requirement in the North Forty Specific Plan, and so my thoughts were that I wouldn’t want all that stuff to be counted separately. I kind of like the North Forty Specific Plan, because it had the idea that you had a number of different ways to get at open space and then it was up to the creativity of those, and then there was a minimum for green open space, so you knew there would be some of that, it wouldn’t just all be hardscape pathways or things like that. Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. My concern would be just seeing hardscape, as a person walking by the property, being developed if we were to count the 20% save for the landscaped roof, so I would like to see it as written, 20% of the area shall be landscaped with the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 roof not counting toward total percentage, my personal opinion. CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m trying to decide where we are on this one. There is a lot of really good input. Mr. Ford, and then I’ll go to Commissioner Janoff. TOM FORD: Thank you. You could do something where you still have the 20% of the site needs to be landscaping, and then allow a certain percentage of the community recreation space to contribute to that, because if someone has a really nice roof deck they’ve probably built a larger footprint to do that, so you wouldn’t want to penalize them by saying you still have to have your 20% site coverage of landscaping. You might want to allow them to use some of that community recreation space up on the roof towards their landscaping requirement. Back to an earlier—I think Vice Chair Barnett might have mentioned this—we can put lawn farther down the list, but also whether someone comes in a discretionary process or a ministerial process, they’re still going to have to meet C-3 requirements for water use and how their irrigation plan is using water, so there are certain requirements that they’re going to… They can’t just put in a lawn over 20% of the site and water it, so that’s already LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be restricted and that’s going to lead them towards native plantings, drought tolerant plantings and such for that 20% landscaping. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you, and I think Mr. Ford’s suggestion in an excellent one. It speaks to being able to count the rooftop as quality space for residents without completely losing some form of landscaping or greenery to Commissioner Tavana’s point, so whatever percentage that might be, I would say Staff can figure that out, but at least retain a portion of green space at pedestrian level. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. Yes, I do really appreciate Mr. Ford’s comment, so if I were to throw a percentage out there, I would say no more than 5% to be counted towards the 20% if they do have a living or a rooftop landscaped. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that is a good idea to put out there, and so I’m going to ask Staff if you have enough to go on with this. Commissioner Thomas. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like to add, because I know that I made multiple comments and we went really in on one of them, but I just wanted to also see if we agreed that we should be able to double count, like overlap landscape space with community recreation space, because I think that those can be counted in the same way, and Staff, you can clarify if that would create too much confusion. CHAIR HANSSEN: I had the same question, but that made a lot of sense to me and that’s where I was going with my comments. RYAN SAFTY: Thank you, that was actually something I was just thinking about as well. It would make perfect sense, for example, if they put in a grassed volleyball court, why not be able to count that both towards landscaping and community recreation space? Mr. Ford, I don’t see an issue with that in terms of drafting the standards, but I’ll defer to you if you see any red flags. TOM FORD: Yes, thank you. As Commissioner Thomas was saying that I was putting on my devil’s advocate hat, and I think you just want to be careful. Most architects and landscape architects have a really hard job making that number meet when they’re trying to do their site plan, so a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lot of the landscaping tends to look really beautiful, but it’s 10 square feet there and 20 square feet here and 100 square feet there, so you have to make sure that if you’re going to double count it that it’s actually usable as a community recreation space. So again, it might be a maximum percentage or something that could be double counted, but I’d be care to allow all of landscaping to be counted, because it may not be usable in the sense of a recreation space. CHAIR HANSSEN: So, Commissioner Thomas, given what he just said, does that change how you feel about it? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I think that I do agree that we want to be careful. We don’t want this community recreation space to be like a little tiny couple of square feet here and there. I don't know if this is too specific as far as Objective Standards go, or if we can be specific enough, but maybe the space has to be designated for a specific use, like a volleyball court, or a play area, or a barbequing picnic site, or community garden, something that I would assume that a Planned Development would have a specific use for. I don't know if that’s legal or allowed or we can write that into Objective Standards, but that would be a way that I would see a way around the issue of just divving into that everywhere. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Safty, and then Mr. Ford. RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I’d like just to chime in. We actually are covered on that already. In Section 8.10.1c there is a requirement, the minimum dimensions of community recreation space, and that’s each individual community recreation space used to come up with a total has to be 10’x6’, so there’s not going to be little pockets that people are using towards that. Additionally, there are allowances for landscaping within the community recreation space, so based on the suggestions I’m hearing I do think that it would be a fairly simple fix for Staff. CHAIR HANSSEN: To combine those? Yes. You are dovetailing into the last comment that you called out from him, which was the size of the community recreation space to be reduced or based on the overall size of the property. But I’ll go to Mr. Ford. TOM FORD: Thank you. I was just going to follow on Mr. Safty in responding to Commissioner Thomas. In order to stay objective I would try to stay away from a laundry list of what qualifies as community recreation space and instead try to stick with a metric of a minimum percentage, maximum percentage, something like that that is just easy for the developer to put on their drawing and it’s easy for LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Staff member to verify when they see it and just stay with the metric, if possible. CHAIR HANSSEN: To that point, I’m going to ask the question, because that’s the other comment that we have to discuss from this. The 60 square feet was “huge,” I think was the word that was used in the comment, if you’re talking about certain size properties, so is it better to do a percent or, say something like 10’x6’? Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that the comment was about the private space, and we were just discussing the community recreation space. CHAIR HANSSEN: Fair enough. But I think even with that he was just saying what we had in there was too high. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, for that next part, it was, yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: But we should close on the landscaping. What I heard though is that because we already have protections in there about it being large enough that we could go down the path of combining the community recreation space and landscaping in terms of meeting the overall requirement. Yes? Okay, all right, good. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think I heard that most of the Commissioners think that’s okay and we just don’t want too high of a percentage of a landscaped roof per Commissioner Tavana’s comment to be considered meeting that requirement. But Commissioner Janoff still has another comment. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Is this horse dead yet? Mr. Mayer raises a couple of other good points and they’re related to the private balcony as well as the con space having to do with it being a percentage. He doesn’t say this, but it may make sense to do a percentage or a minimum for certain sizes or certain size of a community. As I say often, they’re the experts in this area and we want living space, we want recreational space, we want landscaping space that makes sense, but if a 6’x10’ is a gigantic balcony for a Multi-Family unit, then let’s listen to the architects and bring it down, but maybe we’re bringing it down only for the smaller units he says, on the community space just flipping back and forth. Maybe we want a different standard for a small building unit, say 10-12 units versus one that has 20 or more units, so I think sort of a sliding scale makes sense, and whether that’s different sizes or different percentages, I would leave it up to Staff and Mr. Ford to come up with those numbers, but LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think there’s some reasonability in having something that’s differently sized depending upon the size of the overall project. CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’ll let Commissioner Raspe go first, because I agree with Commissioner Janoff’s comments and my question is to do with something else. CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to follow up on Commissioner Janoff’s point, and specifically on the size of projects and the notion of community recreation space. I know during our discussions during the General Plan we put a lot of emphasis on missing middle housing, and it seems to me that those are precisely the type of project where if we force a large either percentage or square footage requirement of community space we’re going to lose the opportunity to put adequate housing in those spaces, so I would encourage Staff to come up with a minimum number of units before a threshold community space requirement is implemented. I don't know if it’s 24 units, I don't know what that number is. Again, as Commissioner Janoff has indicated several times now, you guys are the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 experts and we’ll look to you, but I think that notion makes sense to me. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like some clarification, because I thought Commissioner Janoff was just talking about… Are you talking fully about community recreation space, or were you specifically talking about the private recreation space? COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was speaking to both. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: To both, okay. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: When the architect says 6’x10’ is a gigantic balcony for a Multi-Family unit, you kind of want to listen to that. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, but then I just heard Commissioner Raspe mentioning more about community recreation space, not necessarily the private recreation space. I understand that you’re raising issues with both, but I just wanted clarification on that. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My thinking was, through the Chair, that if we had a notion of smaller for smaller and larger for larger in both private and community recreation space, that makes sense to me. But what those percentages or square footages might be, I’m not even going LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to go there, but I think it may make sense to have two different numbers. CHAIR HANSSEN: I like your suggestion of a sliding scale, because I think that when you have higher density properties you’re not going to have the luxury of this much space, but you want to make sure there’s a minimum, but that minimum might not be the same one that you have for a single-family home of course. I don't know if Staff is comfortable going with that kind of feedback, because I don’t think we have the ability to put numbers out there for this right now. And how much trouble would it be to have a sliding scale? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I’ll start by saying just a reminder that this really is going to be applying to larger developments, not so much the missing middle developments. In most cases it really is going to be people who are coming in under one of those special state laws, and so we do, as Mr. Ford has mentioned, want to try to keep these straightforward and not too complicated. We can look at reducing or modifying some of these numbers if that is the will of the Planning Commission. We’ve started with these particular requirements, for example, the private recreation space. That is based on what we currently have in Town Code, but, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for example, for some of these larger developments, or if it was different sized units or more units, if the Commission felt that having a different threshold based on one of those criteria, I think we could look into it. I might check in with Mr. Ford to see if he had additional questions or clarification that might help us in that endeavor. CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Ford. TOM FORD: Thank you, Chair. No, I don’t. I would take my lead from you folks partly because I’m willing to come up with new numbers, but you guys are the folks that are going to have to be willing to update your Zoning Code, because as I understand it, I think your Zoning Ordinance is already pretty clear about the minimum size of a balcony, so I don’t have a problem with changing that. But also, if you have a two-bedroom unit in an eight-unit building, or two-bedroom unit in a 30-unit building, what’s the difference? Shouldn’t it be the same balcony? It’s a two-bedroom unit. So I don't know if the controlling metric would be the development size, the unit count, or as the architects pointed out in their letter, a studio might have a certain size of balcony, a one-bedroom might have a certain size. I don’t want to create Zoning LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Code work for the Town Staff have to go back and have to back pedal, but I’m perfectly willing to look at it. CHAIR HANSSEN: Gosh, there are a lot of ways you can look at this. It could be that our Zoning Code is not thinking about Multi-Family, but on the other hand going in and modifying the Zoning Code is going to be a whole other process, and we do have that situation where this is for specific kinds of projects, so with that in mind hopefully we can come up with a resolution. Several Commissioners have comments. Commissioner Thomas, Commissioner Janoff, and Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with Mr. Ford that it should be based on the square footage of the unit versus the number of overall units with regard to a sliding scale. If we do that I completely defer to Staff about updating our Zoning Code. My last comment is really a question, through the Chair if it’s allowed, to Commissioner Tavana. I’m just wondering about your feeling about recreation space. Is it the same with regard to the landscape space or do you feel like recreation space, all of it, could be on the rooftop if it’s allowed, if it’s community space for everyone? CHAIR HANSSEN: You know what? Even though Commissioner Janoff had her hand up, I’ll go to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Tavana just so he can answer your question, and if he has an additional comment, and then I’ll go back to Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. To answer your question, Commissioner Thomas, no, I personally think it should be separated for a variety of reasons, but just on this space I don’t see them being the same. I see landscaping as landscaping, and I do see recreation space being separated, so that’s my personal point of view. I want to just chime in here. With all due respect, I disagree with Mr. Mayer and his approach to his comments and the section for the private recreation space and the community recreation space. I have no issue with the way it’s currently proposed in the Draft Objective Standards, and I’d be willing to support it tonight if that’s the direction we want to go. CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think someone made a comment earlier that most of the Town Code is really written around residential or low-slung buildings of one or maybe two stories, so we’re talking about a whole different category of structure than we’re used to planning around, so I wanted to make a couple of comments. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 When we talk about private recreation space, in my mind there’s a difference between ground level recreation space and balcony recreation space, and there could be a different size standard for those. Number two, regarding a different size balcony for different sized units, if you think about what that would look like on the outside looking at the building, I think you’d be disappointed when you had a whole bunch of tiny little balconies for your small units and then bigger balconies. It could look visually confusing if you do it that way, so I don't know that that’s the best approach. When you look at buildings that are multi-story, the balconies are all pretty much the same size. That’s just the way it looks when you’re looking at the building, and I would let the architects define that, but give a minimum, and maybe 6’x10’ is too large, maybe it’s smaller; I don't know what that number is. Then the same thing for community recreation. We’ve been thinking pretty conventionally about ground level gathering spaces, and so these concepts of using the rooftop and other areas, it could be big, it could be much larger than 200 square feet if we’re going to the rooftops. I think the architects have given us a lot to think about, but given all our comments I think we have to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think about making two different kinds of standards. We don’t say in here that this is limited to structures that are proposed to be 20 units or more, we don’t say that this doesn’t apply to a missing middle situation, so if we do intend to have different standards for different types, then we should probably define those. I know that that’s more work than Staff might want, but the recreational space, the landscape space, the community gathering space, those are really important features, but they’re hard to get in if you don’t have the space and you’re trying to create as many units as possible. It’s really kind of a tough problem, but again, thinking about what we can do to encourage architects and developers to make those possible without too many encumbrances, and keeping the green space for landscaping, and counting the private space differently. There might also be something in here. I hate to complicate things further, but if a development is within X number of feet or miles, a half mile, of a community park, an established park, maybe you can count or deduct some of your community recreation space if you are next to a park. There could be some creative ways to make this work for developers as well as the community that they’re building for. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to be the devil’s advocate though and say that I don’t want to load up Staff or our consultants with too many things. This is important, but on the other hand, my understanding, and we had this discussion with Staff in our pre-meeting, is because the architects came right out with this only applies to these kinds of projects and not the kind that we do, and that was verified to be the case in talking with Staff that this is for specific projects that come under specific laws from the State of California, I would be a little bit reluctant to start to make it more complicated. Maybe the one thing that might be worth pursuing is deciding if the balcony size of 10’x6’ is too much, but I think it would be a slippery slope towards finishing this thing to add in a lot of complexity. I’ll go back to you, Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I agree, and I do agree with Commissioner Tavana. If it were to remain as written I would personally be comfortable with it, but I’d also suggest just an easy check might be the Palo Alto code Vice Chair Barnett has referred many times. Just do a quick check of communities that are building multi-story or multi-residential units, look and see what their standards are and choose that number, and if it’s 6’x10’, yay, we got LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it right, and if it’s smaller or a minimum or a percentage, maybe that’s a better way to go. But I’m sure that there are specific numbers, and I’m not suggesting we make a research project out of this, but get a reasonable number that other municipalities are using. Santa Clara is building a ton of high-rise buildings. I’m not saying they’re all beautiful, but they probably have a minimum balcony standard, for instance, or a minimum private space. Just see what they have, and if it’s the same as what we have, leave ours as is. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that sounds like a good thing, so maybe just a sanity check to make sure that we’re not overstepping this thing based on having our standards built around single-family homes. Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I need some clarification. This is on page 209 of the package where it talks about the size of the private open space. So we know that the deck dimension is 10’x6’, but then it goes down to subparagraph (ii) and it says that, “The above dwelling units above the ground floor shall have 120 square feet,” so I’m not sure how to compare the 120 and the 160, and I know I’m missing something here. CHAIR HANSSEN: Can you take that one, Staff? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JENNIFER ARMER: Sure, thank you. There are minimum dimensions trying to make sure that the size of the balcony is a usable space rather than, say, something that is only 2’ deep and really long. Then you have the overall size, so if you’re on the ground floor, as Commissioner Janoff was suggesting, it is a 200 square foot size requirement, whereas if it’s above it’s a different requirement, it’s only 120 square feet, but that 120 square feet needs to be laid out in a way that you have at least a 10’x6’ dimension. It will be bigger than that because that’s only 60 of the 120 square feet. Did that help to clarify? You’ve got a certain amount of area that’s required, and then also the dimensions need to be at least 10’x6’ so that it is a usable space. CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that answer your question, Vice Chair Barnett? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you for the clarification. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thanks for bringing us to this particular page, Vice Chair Barnett. Maybe this is where the problem lies, because an above ground unit with a, let’s say, 10’x12’ square foot balcony is huge, and maybe that should be the 6’x10’ rather than 120 square LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feet. I’m thinking about what a 6’x10’ balcony, or a 120 square foot balcony, might look like. That’s huge. That’s really, really big for a balcony, even though you’re only required to have 10’x6’. CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s as big as a lot of people’s bedrooms in their homes. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, so maybe what we should do is reduce that 120 square feet and just restate the 6’x10’, or just say 60 square feet. I like the dimensions because, you’re right, Ms. Armer, you wouldn’t want it 2’x20’ long. Well, then you’re looking like a really fat belly band, so that wouldn’t work. But yes, I think that could be part of the problem. CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Ford has his hand up. TOM FORD: Another way to look at that and how (ii) is, basically what you’re seeing there is there are two balconies, so a unit has two balconies. Maybe it has one that’s off the living room and one that’s off one of the bedrooms; that’s a potential way to do it too. You don’t have to have one big, huge balcony; you could have two, so long as each of them is a minimum size. CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson. JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Obviously we’re hearing a lot of good conversation around a number of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 topics. I think ultimately what you heard from the architects was the 200 square feet for a ground floor might be too big, and so you have this dimension versus square foot conversation that could be addressed, as Mr. Ford mentioned, in a number of different ways. We can look at other opportunities for how that is expressed in the Objective Standards and come up with two or three different options for the Council to consider should this move forward today. In addition to that, there’s been a lot of conversation around community space and landscape space. Can one count for both? Are they exclusive? Should we exclude rooftop decks? I think we can kind of get our arms around all those varied topics and see if we can come up with some other options for consideration, whether that’s, again, additional consideration from the Commission or additional consideration from the Town Council, in addition to reaching out to both architects groups that we heard from, as well the HEAB member who is also an architect, to get their further input on what they’ve heard tonight, because I know at least two of them are in the audience, so they’ve been hearing a lot of this conversation as well, and so they will probably have additional thoughts once this moves forward to Council. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I think what I’m hearing, and I’m going to give this direction to the Planning Commission, is that we don’t want to continue this again. From our last meeting, we have been working on this for well over a year. We needed to have this thing done months and months ago and we don’t, and so I’m reluctant to do anything where the Staff would have to come back to us. On the devil’s advocate side of that, we don’t want to dump a pile of stuff on our Town Council either, because they expect us to ferret the stuff out and make a good recommendation to them. But I do think that it would make sense to at least have a sanity check on the size of the balconies relative to other jurisdiction’s standards to make sure that we’re on target, or check with the architects, because I think the Commission doesn’t have the right number for you. That’s got to come from architects and others. Does that sound like a way we can go forward? Because what I heard is there are a couple of things we may need to look into, or think we gave some feedback on the comments. Ms. Armer. JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I just was going to take what you were saying and clarify how it would LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 likely be presented to Town Council to show that it isn’t just leaving it up to them, but that it would be providing the language that is there as well as the different issues that were considered and discussed by the Planning Commission as important topics for consideration by the Town Council. I think it could be presented to them in a way that this was identified as an issue that the Planning Commission recommended they consider closely with several options based on other examples or additional feedback from the architect community. CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds okay with me. How does the rest of the Commission feel? Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I would put an addition to Ms. Armer’s comments, and that is before it’s presented to Council that the Staff and consultants be involved in this process of producing other alternatives for recommendations so that the same discussion doesn’t occur at the Council level. CHAIR HANSSEN: So that we’re not like spinning our wheels. Let’s go ahead and move on. Staff had a comment on Exhibit 20, which was relative to the other public comments, and it says the public comment in Exhibit 20 also expresses support with the information provided in Exhibits 16, 17, and 18, and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional suggestions through the Purpose and Applicability section. The bottom line is Staff is supportive of these recommendations and can incorporate them when forwarding the revised document to Town Council. I did look at the additional comments and I thought that they were reasonable, and since I’m hearing Staff thinks it’s okay I feel like we don’t need to go through those comments specifically, but let me throw it out if any Commissioners want to discuss any of the other public comments, and I’m going to come back to the architects’ comments after this question. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m very comfortable with following Staff’s recommendations for this set of concerns. CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. I feel the same way. All right. On the architects’ comments, they had quite a number of comments, and later on in the Addendum Staff did go through every single one of those comments and gave feedback. As mentioned earlier, a lot of the architects’ comments were in fact questions asking for clarification from the document. Staff answered all of those questions. There were also some recommendations they made that they didn’t feel like they needed specific feedback from the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Planning Commission, so my suggestion would be that unless any Commissioners have any objection to that approach that we just adopt Staff’s recommendation and say that yes, you’ve answered the questions and any of those minor changes that they didn’t need our feedback on, we don’t need to discuss them. But I want to put it out for Commissioners if there’s anything else in the Addendum that Staff commented on relative to the architects’ comments since we did continue this meeting primarily because of their input. Is there anything else that the Commissioners feel that we need to discuss? Good, I’m not hearing that. And like I said, I read through everything that Staff wrote and I thought it was fine, but I want to make sure that we had a chance to comment. But it is almost 10:00 o'clock, so I wanted to see if we couldn’t wrap this up soon. The only other comments were the additional ones that came from Ms. Quintana tonight in public comments, but I think most of the stuff she covered were things that we’ve been talking about tonight, so if that’s the case, then can I get a motion from a Commissioner to recommend the Draft Objective Standards to Town Council with all of the changes and recommendations we’ve made tonight? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I move to forward the Draft Objective Standards to Town Council given the additions and changes that the Planning Commission has recommended to Staff this evening. CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good. Is there a second? Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I second the motion. CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. I think we had a very good discussion and I wanted to make a special point of saying that I appreciate all the great comments and feedback that have come from every member of this Commission. I will go ahead and call the question, and I’ll start with Commissioner Tavana. COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe. COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, but I thought Ms. Quintana had a good point about the organization section where it said, “The following objective design standards are organized,” and I think we’re dealing with more than design standards. I think she has a good point on that. It’s just a suggestion from me, otherwise I do agree with the proposed motion. CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that Staff said that they concurred with her comments on that front and that’s part of our recommendation. Did I miss something? That was what was in Exhibit 20, and Staff said we’re supportive of these recommendations and can incorporate them when forwarding the revised document to Town Council. So to me I thought that was included. VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so you’re a Yes then? VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes. CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so it passes unanimously, and I will ask Staff for clarification. There are no appeal rights for this issue, because it’s a recommendation? JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2022 Item #3, Draft Objective Standards 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR HANSSEN: So thank you everyone for the great discussion on this item. (END) Hi Planning Staff, Thanks for the thoughtful discussion this evening with the Planning Commission. I caught most of the discussion about my comments and just wanted to make a few subsequent comments on the Commission discussion First of all, my intent was not to hold up the process or create more work for you guys. I think underlying most of my comments below is a concern that the Site Standards of the Draft Objective Standards seem to be written as geared toward larger multi-family and mixed-use developments (like the North 40 or some of the sites on Los Gatos Boulevard that are in the Housing Element Site Inventory) and could potentially hinder smaller infill and "missing middle" type of multi-family housing. This runs the risk of Los Gatos having a "barbell" distribution of housing types in the future - either detached single-family houses or apartment/condo units in large (20+ units) multi-family developments and nothing in-between. With that said, see my comments based on the Planning Commission discussion below in red On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 11:53 PM Adam Mayer <> wrote: Hello Los Gatos Planning Staff, This is Adam Mayer, local architect and current member of the Housing Element Advisory Board. I just wanted to make a few comments piggybacking on the issues brought up by the group of architects represented by Ms. Bess Wiersema at the last Planning Commission meeting. Although I am not part of that group, I too have some overlapping concerns about the Objective Standards as they are currently drafted. Generally I agree with the intent of the Objective Standards and think that the State is doing the right thing by trying to streamline housing development. The potential downside, as was noted by the group of architects in the previous meeting, is that these standards could end up stifling the architect's creativity by being overly prescriptive, resulting in mediocre cookie-cutter design. To be sure, this is a delicate balance to walk and I think Town Staff has done a fairly good job of walking this tight-rope so far. For instance, one point of discussion in the last Planning Commission meeting was about including pictures of real-life examples, but my personal opinion here is that I prefer the more abstract line drawings that are currently used in the Draft document. For Design Guidelines, real world photo examples might make sense but I think the abstract line drawings are better (and potentially less restricting from a design point-of-view) for the Objective Standards. Now onto the specific parts of the Draft Objective Standards where I have some comments (primarily on the Site Standards, the Building Design Standards look fine for the most part): Section A5.1 Any automobile entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 25 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing. ATTACHMENT 16 Comment: Imagine a scenario where there is a new multi-story, multi-family residential building on a tight lot with an underground parking garage. There is no way you are going to fit a ramp on the site that starts 25' away from the sidewalk that has enough run to get a full story below grade. Furthermore, on a project where you have only residential (no commercial) you are very unlikely to ever have a scenario where vehicles are going to be backed up in a queue. I'd remove this section or amend it to be much less than 25' I would be ok with changing this to the current zoning requirement of 18'-0" rather than 25'-0" Section A8.3 Vehicular entry gates and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet. Comment: Does this include entry gates that enter into a below-grade parking garage? Typically these are full height (because the retract up into the ceiling) with a minimum height clearance of 6'-8" Section A10.1a Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. Comment: 20% seem unnecessarily high for an infill building. Can a landscaped roof count toward the 20%? I think if landscaped roof space and landscape within the setbacks can count toward the 20% then it is reasonable. Section A10.1b Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimensions are 10 feet by six feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit. Comment: 6 ft. x 10 ft. is a gigantic balcony for a multi-family unit, even for luxury condos. 120 square feet is absurd. Perhpas there is a sliding scale here. Maybe a smaller requriement for units under 500 sq. ft., another slighty larger for units that are 500 sq. ft. - 800 sq. ft., another slightly larger for 800 sq. ft. - 1,200 sq. ft and then one for units above 1,200 sq. ft. Section A10.1c Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family residential development projects at a minimum of 200 square feet per residential unit. Comment: Like the private recreation space, this is way too much. For smaller multi-family residential buildings under a certain size (say 10-12 units) I would say that "community recreation space" is unnecessary and would be a huge obstacle in getting these sort of mid-tier boutique multi-family projects built. "Community Recreation Space" makes more sense in larger multi-family developments (like 20 - 100 units) I do think there should be a minimum unit count for a project to be required to provide Community Recreation space. It really doesn't make sense for a development that is 10-12 units or under and especially doesn't make sense for missing middle. Thanks for considering my comments and happy to answer any questions. Best, Adam Joel, I wanted to follow up with you regarding a particular item that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. It was late and towards the end of the meeting when commissioners were discussing community, private and landscape areas. I appreciated the discussion as I think it yielded some necessary clarification. We would like to see where we are with the standards and if there is an updated version. Just to clarify, our letter from our architects group objects to the 120SF & 200SF of required private space. We do not object to the 6’ or 10’ dimensions. If more units and density is what the Town is looking for, than the 120/200SF is far, far too much. Palo Alto code required only 50SF (5’ x 10’), that’s it. We realize that this is something that is written into town code right now, but this should be changed and is completely out of step from other jurisdictions and just about every example of currently built apartment buildings. Has anyone ever lived in an apartment with a private balcony that big? We are happy to participate in any further conversations, and help Mr. Barnett with flushing out the last items left to be refined per planning commission’s recommendation. Jaclyn Greenmyer KOHLSAAT & ASSOCIATES A R C H I T E C T U R E This Page Intentionally Left Blank 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. 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.