Staff Report.Objective Standards with attachments
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