Attachment 1March 17, 2017
Ms. Sally Zarnowitz
Planning Manager
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: PEER REviEw DEsign sERvicEs PRoPosal
Dear Sally:
intRoDuction
Statement of IntereSt
I am pleased to submit the following proposal to provide peer review services for the Town of Los Gatos. I have a
fifteen year history of continuous service in providing design review services to the Town, and would like to continue in
that role.
Introductory InformatIon
I was retained in February 2002 as the Town Consulting Architect, and have to date provided 724 detailed reviews for
projects including modest additions to single family homes, new single family homes, multifamily developments, retail
stores and shopping centers, and many commercial projects including the two Netfix Campus Complexes. In the course
of that time, I have worked closely with 22 individual staff planners in the Community Development Department.
When I was selected to provide these peer review services, the Town Council believed that the detailed design review
process would benefit from some outside professional design review experience that would streamline the development
review and approval process, and would free up time for the Planning Commission to deal with broader policy issues.
The process I developed and the review letters that I have provided have resulted in clearly identifying significant issues
for planning staff and Planning Commission consideration, and in identifying one or more ways the applicant might
address those issues to allow both staff and the Planning Commission to work with the applicant to achieve a project
suitable to the applicant’s goals and the Town’s Community Expectations.
In providing design review services to the Town, I bring over forty years of active design review services for a great
many Bay Area Communities as well as California Redevelopment Agencies (Pasadena, Los Angeles, Pleasant Hill and
others) and U.S. and Canadian institutions of higher education. That experience has been enriched with the preparation
of many design guidelines documents as well as the active planning of a great many California Downtowns and Transit-
Oriented Developments.
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 2
ExEcutivE summaRy
Larry Cannon has provided design and planning review consultation services to cities, counties, redevelopment agencies
and institutions of higher education for the past forty years. As a registered architect and an active urban planner/de-
signer, he has extensive experience in working with planning staff, developers, and architects to arrive a mutually agree-
able solutions which reflect community goals while respecting developers’ reasonable expectations. CDG design review
experience is enhanced by the firm’s substantial experience in preparing comprehensive design guidelines documents,
including signage guidelines, for the expression of community identity goals. He is currently providing on-going design
review consultation to the following Bay Area communities:
• Town of Los Gatos (15 years)
• City of Brentwood (13 years)
• City of Cupertino (15 years)
• City of Milpitas (11 years)
• City of Redwood City (2 years)
• City of San Mateo (13 years)
• City of Sunnyvale (15 years)
• Town of Woodside (2 years)
Other design review clients have included the following:
• City of Alameda
• City of Albany
• City of Campbell
• City of Dublin
• City of El Cerrito
• City of Lathrop
• City of Mountain View
• City of Napa
• City of Pasadena
• City of Pleasanton
• City of Pleasant Hill
• University of Victoria, BC
• California State University,
Hayward
deSIgn revIew experIence
By category
• Single Family Homes
• Single Family Additions
• Multifamily Complexes
• Small Lot Subdivisions
• Mixed Use Buildings
• Downtown Stores
• Retail Pad Buildings
• Shopping Centers (New)
• Shopping Centers (Remodel)
• Markets and Drug Stores
• Restaurants
• Fast Food Restaurants
• Gas Stations
• Automobile Dealerships
• Small & Large Office Buildings
• Hotels
• Cinemas
• High Technology Campuses
• Home Improvement Centers
• Department Stores
• Large Format Retail Buildings
• Churches and Synagogues
• Libraries and Public Safety
Buildings
• Parking Structures
• Day Care Centers
QualIfIcatIonS
• Register Architect.
• Over 40 years of design review and design guidelines experience.
• Fifteen years of design review services to the Town of Los Gatos.
• Current design review clients have been clients for 11 to 15 years.
• Extensive knowledge of the Town of Los Gatos neighborhoods.
• Long term experience in working with individual Los Gatos planning staff.
• Thousands of digital images of Los Gatos neighborhoods and homes.
• Thousands of example images from other communities for use as examples in review letters.
• Design review experience in all project and building types.
• Experience and history of writing clear and concise review letters.
• Extensive experience in identifying design concerns and preparing specific design solutions for addressing them.
• Preparation of Los Gatos How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook.
• Multi-year work with staff and the General Plan Committee in preparation of Residential, Multifamily and Com-
mercial Design Guidelines. Having worked with staff and the committee over a period of three plus years on the
guidelines, and having written the design guidelines, I have detailed knowledge of each guideline’s intent.
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 3
total numBer of Staff provIdIng ServIceS
Larry Cannon personally has provided all design review services to the Town of Los Gatos as well as to all other design
review clients throughout his long career. This has provided objectivity and consistency to all reviews, with familiarity
and easy access to the thousands of personal digital images of examples to clearly convey recommendations.
aBIlIty to perform on Short notIce and under tIme conStraIntS
I have consistently provided review letters within two to three weeks of receiving drawings and authorization from staff
to proceed. When projects are needed sooner. Los Gatos projects are given priority.
Statement of underStandIng
The Town of Los Gatos is a very special place with residents and elected and appointed officials who are acutely aware
of the Town’s unique scale and character. When I was selected to provide design review services in 2002, I met individu-
ally with each member of the Planning Commission and Town Council. Each told me that the two highest review priori-
ties were in this order:
• Neighborhood Compatibility
• Design Excellence
I have been guided by those two priorities in all reviews since that time.
ServIceS approach
I implement a disciplined and consistent approach for all projects that emphasizes neighborhood compatibility and de-
sign excellence. It is a highly graphic approach that utilizes a review and recommendations letter including the following:
• Neighborhood Context
Aerial photo with identification of the site location and photos of the site and surrounding structures
• Issues and Concerns
Annotated applicant drawings with issues and concerns graphically called out
• Recommendations
Recommended changes over annotated applicant drawings showing recommendations along with photo images illustrating similar solutions
within the Town of Los Gatos and other locations
eStImated hourS and fee eStImateS
$135 per hour for time actually spent plus limited actual expenses at cost plus 15% up to the Town’s authorized maxi-
mum deposit.
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 4
ExPERiEncE
deSIgn revIew
Larry Cannon has provided design and planning review consultation to cities, counties, redevelopment agencies and
institutions of higher education for the past forty years. As a registered architect and an active urban planner/designer,
he has extensive experience in working with planning staff, developers, and architects to arrive a mutually agreeable solu-
tions which reflect community goals while respecting developers’ reasonable expectations. CDG design review experi-
ence is enhanced by the firm’s substantial experience in preparing comprehensive design guidelines documents, including
signage guidelines, for the expression of community identity goals. He is currently providing on-going design review
consultation to the following Bay Area communities:
Current Clients
• Town of Los Gatos (15 years)
• City of Brentwood (13 years)
• City of Cupertino (15 years)
• City of Milpitas (11 years)
• City of Redwood City (2 years)
• City of San Mateo (13 years)
• City of Sunnyvale (15 years)
• Town of Woodside (2 years)
Other design review clients
• City of Alameda
• City of Albany
• City of Campbell
• City of Dublin
• City of El Cerrito
• City of Lathrop
• City of Mountain View
• City of Napa
• City of Pasadena
• City of Pleasanton
• City of Pleasant Hill
• University of Victoria, BC
• California State University,
Hayward
deSIgn guIdelIneS
• Residential Design Guidelines
Town of Los Gatos
• Commercial Design Guidelines
Town of Los Gatos
• AHOZ Design Guidelines
Town of Los Gatos
• Downtown Design Guidelines
Town of Los Altos
• Residential Design Guidelines
City of San Bruno
• Residential Design Guidelines
City of East Palo Alto
• Residential Design Guidelines
City of Sunnyvale
• Taffee-Frances Neighborhood
Design Guidelines
City of Sunnyvale
• Eichler Design Guidelines
City of Sunnyvale
• El Camino Real Design
Guidelines
City of Sunnyvale
• Residential Design Guidelines
City of Brentwood
• Commercial Design Guidelines
City of Brentwood
• Small Projects Design
Guidelines
City of Oakland
deSIgn revIew experIence
By category
• Single Family Homes
• Single Family Home Additions
• Multifamily Complexes
• Small Lot Subdivisions
• Mixed Use Buildings
• Downtown Stores
• Retail Pad Buildings
• Shopping Centers (New)
• Shopping Centers (Remodel)
• Markets and Drug Stores
• Restaurants
• Fast Food Restaurants
• Gas Stations
• Automobile Dealerships
• Small & Large Office Buildings
• Hotels
• Cinemas
• High Technology Campuses
• Home Improvement Centers
• Department Stores
• Large Format Retail Buildings
• Churches and Synagogues
• Libraries and Public Safety
Buildings
• Parking Structures
• Day Care Centers
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 5
• North Camino Ramon
Specific Plan
City of San Ramon
• Bay Point BART Station Area
Specific Plan
City of Pittsburg
• Carlsbad Village Downtown
Design Plan
City of Carlsbad
• Downtown Design Plan
City of Morgan Hill
• Downtown Plan
City of Danville
• Downtown Design Plan
City of Morgan Hill
• South Beach
Redevelopment Plan
City of Miami Beach
• Downtown Historic District
Conser vation Plan
City of Benicia
• Vision Morgan Hill
City of Morgan Hill
• Downtown Specific Plan
City of Oakley
comprehenSIve SpecIfIc and area planS (partIal lISt)
Qualifications
contact perSon
Larry Cannon
Cannon Design Group
700 Larkspur Landing Circle Site 199
Larkspur, CA 94939
(415) 331-3795
QualIfIcatIonS
• Register Architect.
• Over 40 years of design review and design guidelines experience.
• Fifteen years of design review services to the Town of Los Gatos.
• Current design review clients have been clients for 11 to 15 years.
• Extensive knowledge of the Town of Los Gatos neighborhoods.
• Thousands of digital images of Los Gatos neighborhoods and homes.
• Long term experience in working with individual Los Gatos planning staff.
• Thousands of example images from other communities for use as examples in review letters.
• Design review experience in all project and building types.
• Experience and history of writing clear and concise review letters.
• Extensive experience in identifying design concerns and preparing specific design solutions for addressing them.
• Preparation of Los Gatos How to Read Your Neighborhood Workbook.
• Multi-year work with staff and the General Plan Committee in preparation of Residential, Multifamily and Com-
mercial Design Guidelines. Having worked with staff and the committee over a period of three plus years on the
guidelines, and having written the design guidelines, I have detailed knowledge of each guideline’s intent.
REfEREncEs
Ron Munekawa - Planning Chief
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
(650) 222-1388
Ms. Trudi Ryan - CDD
City of Sunnyvale
POB 3707
Sunnyvale, CA 94088
(408) 730-7444
Mr. Aaron Aknin - CDD
City of Redwood City
1017 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA
(650) 780-7293
Ms. Aarti Shrivastava - CDD
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3218
Mr. David Woltering - CDD
City of San Bruno
567 East El Camino Real
City of San Bruno, CA 94066
(650) 616-7039
cuRREnt litigation: None
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 6
laRRy cannon REsumE
PRofEssional mEmbERshiPs
American Planning Association
American Institute of Certified Plan-
ners
Urban Land Institute
PRofEssional lEaDERshiP
Northern Section Board,
California Chapter of the American
Planning Association
Development Regulations Council -
Urban Land Institute
Awards Committee - Urban Land
Institute
San Francisco Arts Commission
San Francisco Landmarks
Preservation Advisory Board
Sausalito Landmarks Preservation
Board
Chair, San Francisco Parapet
Preservation Task Force
American Institute of Architects San
Francisco Board of Directors
American Institute of Architects
California Council Board of
Directors
REPREsEntativE PRojEcts
Town of Los Gatos Commercial
Design Guidelines
Los Gatos, CA
Town of Los Gatos Residential De-
sign Guidelines
Los Gatos, CA
City of Los Altos Downtown Design
Guidelines
Los Altos, CA
Residential Design Guidelines
San Bruno, CA
Residential Design Guidelines
East Palo Alto, CA
Eichler Residential Design Guide-
lines
Sunnyvale, CA
Single-family Residential Design
Guidelines
Sunnyvale, CA
Taaffe-Frances Heritage Neighbor-
hood Design Guidelines
Sunnyvale, CA
El Camino Real Design Guidelines
Sunnyvale, CA
City of Brentwood Commercial,
Industrial and Residential Design
Guidelines
Brentwood, CA
Larry Cannon is an architect, plan-
ner and urban designer with over
forty-years of experience in the fields
of city planning, urban design and
architectural design. His experience
has ranged from revitalization and
historic conservation plans for small
communities to redevelopment plans
for large portions of major cities in
both the United States and Asia.
Special areas of expertise include
design review, design guidelines and
transit-oriented development plan-
ning.
Larry Cannon is a former Com-
missioner on the San Francisco
Arts Commission, San Francisco
Historic Landmarks Board and the
Sausalito Historic Landmarks Board.
He served for over 25 years as the
Consulting Planner and Architect
for the University of Victoria, British
Columbia and as a planning and
design review consultant to over a
dozen San Francisco Bay Area com-
munities.
EDucation
Bachelor of Architecture
University of Illinois, Champaign-
Urbana, Illinois
AIA Scholastic Medal
Masters of Architecture
University of Illinois, Champaign-
Urbana, Illinois
Highest Honors
Edward Probst Fellow
PREvious Positions
Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons -
Architects and Planners
Principal-in-Charge:
Planning and Urban Design 1973-
1990
Carlsbad Village Master Plan and
Design Manual
Carlsbad, CA
Small Projects Design Guidelines
Oakland, CA
Downtown Plan and Design Guide-
lines
Morgan Hill, CA
Bay Point/Pittsburg BART Station
Area Specific Plan
Pittsburg, CA
Downtown Master Plan
Danville, CA
Downtown Specific Plan
Oakley, CA
South Beach Redevelopment Plan
Miami Beach, FL
Riverwalk Concept Plan
The Woodlands, TX
Irvine Barclay Performing Arts
Theatre
Irvine, CA
DEsign guiDElinEs ExPERiEncE
• Brentwood
• Daly City
• East Palo Alto
• Los Altos
• Los Gatos
• Mill Valley
• Oakland
• Oakley Redevelopment Area
• San Bruno
• Sunnyvale
• University of Victoria, BC
DEsign REviEw ExPERiEncE
• Brentwood
• Campbell
• Cupertino
• Dublin
• Los Gatos
• Milpitas
• Mountain View
• Napa
• Pleasanton
• Redwood City
• San Bruno
• San Mateo
• Sunnyvale
• University of Victoria, BC
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 7
oRganization
total numBer of Staff provIdIng ServIceS
Larry Cannon personally has provided all design review services to the Town of Los Gatos as well as to all other design
review clients throughout his long career. This has provided objectivity and consistency to all reviews, with familiarity
and easy access to the thousands of personal digital images of applicable exampleS to clearly convey recommendations.
aBIlIty to perform on Short notIce and under tIme conStraIntS
I have consistently provided review letters within two to three weeks of receiving drawings and authorization from staff
to proceed. When projects are needed sooner. Los Gatos projects are given priority.
PRojEct aPPRoach
Statement of underStandIng
The Town of Los Gatos is a very special place with residents and elected and appointed officials who are acutely aware
of the Town’s unique scale, character and sense of identity. When I was selected to provide design review services in
2002, I met individually with each member of the Planning Commission and Town Council. Each told me that the two
highest review priorities were - in this order:
• Neighborhood Compatibility
• Design Excellence
I have been guided by those two priorities in all reviews since that time.
My sense of the community’s concerns and priorities were deepened through the preparation of the Towns Residen-
tial and Commercial Design Guidelines. I worked with staff and the General Plan Committee on the Residential Design
Guidelines for over two and a half years and with both on the Commercial Design Guidelines for two years. Each
process was started with in depth discussions of community expectations - what did the Town expect in terms of the
scale and character of new construction and in its relationship to the current urban design and architectural fabric of the
Town.
The Residential Design Guidelines were based on a thorough evaluation and discussion of the Town’s existing Neighbor-
hood Patterns, Architectural Inventory and Historic Resources. During the course those guidelines, I prepared a How to
Read Your Neighborhood Workbook although it was not in the project work scope. That was used in working with the Gen-
eral Plan Committee to assist them in seeing the important diverse patterns, styles and details of the Town’s neighbor-
hoods through the eyes of an urban design professional, and later to encourage applicants and their design professionals
in designing with sensitivity to their adjacent neighbors. I also at that time worked with the General Plan Committee in
defining an appropriate definition of Neighborhood for the purpose of design review to discourage applicants from pro-
posing inappropriate and/or out-of-scale development by drawing on built examples at some distance from the project
site.
The Commercial Design Guidelines went through a similar process with the guidelines carefully tailored to the diverse and
unique commercial districts within the Town. An emphasis was placed on maintaining the unique character and small
scale of the community when designing commercial structures.
For both sets of guidelines, as well as the AHOZ Design Guidelines (Multifamily), abundant use was made of example
photographs to clearly express the design guidelines and the level of design and materials quality expected by the com-
munity. Many of the example photos were drawn from the Town of Los Gatos to further emphasize the unique charac-
ter and attention to detail that is part of the Town’s fabric.
All of these experiences as well as fifteen years of visiting pretty much every neighborhood within the Town has, I
believe, given me a good understanding of the fabric of the community and residents’ attitude toward different types of
development.
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 8
ServIceS approach
I implement the following approach for all projects:
1. Download the digital project drawings e-mailed by staff.
2. Sign authorization for m and return it by e-mail to staff.
3. Print copies of the drawings and convert the digital files to JPEG format for use in the visual identification of
concerns and issues and as base drawings for recommendations.
4. Preliminary review of the site context utilizing Google Earth and Google Street View (if I am familiar with the
neighborhood and have previously reviewed nearby projects as part of my previous 700+ reviews). Visit the site
if it appears that there are special issues related to the site or neighborhood.
5. Conduct a preliminary review of the project to identify potential issues or concerns.
6. Request staff to identify any initial staff concerns with the project.
7. Prepare a contact sheet of images depicting the site and surrounding homes to establish the project context.
8. Crop and import site plan, floor plan, elevation and streetscape drawings into a CorelDraw program file.
9. Prepare diagrams over the base drawings to identify significant issues and concerns.
10. Explore potential alternative design approaches to address the identified issues and concerns.
11. Prepare design diagrams to illustrate my recommendations to staff for discussion with the applicant.
12. Search my extensive digital files of Los Gatos examples and others collected over time to find graphic illustra-
tions related to the recommendations. The combination of graphic illustrations over the applicant’s drawings and
the use of photo examples has provided clear communications of reasonable solutions to staff, applicant and the
Planning Commission for addressing identified concerns.
13. Assemble a review and recommendations letter utilizing Adobe InDesign Create Cloud software with three main
sections.
• Neighborhood Context
Aerial photo with identification of the site location and photos of the site and surrounding structures
• Issues and Concerns
Annotated applicant drawings with issues and concer ns graphically called out
• Recommendations
Recommended changes over annotated applicant drawing showing recommendations along with photo images illustrating similar
solutions within the Town of Los Gatos and other locations
14. Conversion of the recommendations to a PDF format for e-mail transmittal to staff.
• As necessary, consult by telephone with the staff planner
• As necessary, meet with staff and applicant.
• As necessary and directed by staff, discuss issues by telephone with the applicant and/or their design pro-
fessional. ***All communication related to the project are channeled through the staff planner.
15. Review a second submittal to review changes made by the applicant, and prepare a follow up review and recom-
mendations letter. Occasionally, more than one follow up review is needed for complex projects.
16. If requested, attend a Planning Commission meeting on the Project.
In the past fifteen years, I have never been asked to attend a Planning Commission meeting.
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 9
antIcIpated conStraIntS,proBlemS and ISSueS
Over the past fifteen years of providing peer design review services for the Town. I have encountered few problems or
issues. I have found that the design professions retained by applicants have often worked in Los Gatos on one or more
occasions and are aware of the Town’s expectations. The Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines are clear, and serve
as a good road map for getting to a successful project approval. And, staff has been very good in working with the ap-
plicants to arrive at a project that they feel will be acceptable.
The only issues that I have encountered have been poor and incomplete drawings prepared by the applicant them-
selves or by builders who have not previously completed a project in the Town and are not familiar with the level of
professionalism that is normal for Los Gatos. A second issue, which has occurred very rarely, has been an applicant or
their design professional who feels that their project is so much better than the norm that they should not be expected
to conform to the Town’s design guidelines. In my experience, those rare occasions have been satisfactorily resolved by
staff planners’ working with the applicant to educate them regarding the Town’s reliance on the adopted guidelines and
insistence on projects fitting within the Town’s existing urban design fabric.
cost
eStImated hourS and fee eStImateS
The Town requires a deposit from applicants for the design review process. When I started in 2002, the deposit for my
review was $1,500. That continued for 10 years until a new contract was issued five years ago, and the deposit was raised
to $2,000.
For multi-unit projects and larger projects, that deposit has been larger.
I have been able to complete most reviews within that deposit framework, but there are some where the development
of reasonable alternatives to address significant issues has taken more time. Usually, I have written off that additional
time.
At staff’s discretion, I would ask that consideration be given to raising the deposit to $2,500 for the normal project. I
would note that the deposit charged by the Town of Los Gatos is smaller than any other jurisdiction for whom I provide
design review services. Typically, deposits in the other jurisdictions are $2,500 to $3,500 with special projects at higher
rates.
Hourly Rate
For all projects, I have billed for the hours actually devoted to the project at an hourly rate of
$135/hour
Expenses
I bill for very few direct expenses. Generally, they are limited to travel mileage and bridge tolls for any site visits and
special meetings. Occasionally, there are special delivery charges, but very seldom. Expenses are billed as follows:
Actual cost plus 15%
Sally, please let me know if you need anything further. I have included only one commercial and one residential review
letter examples since staff is so familiar with them. If you do need additional sample copies, please let me know.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 10
commERcial DEvEloPmEnt
REviEw lEttER ExamPlE
January 21, 2015
Ms. Jennifer Savage
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Dear Jennifer:
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located at the corner of North Santa Cruz Avenue and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (Highway 9), and is at the
northern entry to the Downtown C-2B District as defined by the Town of Los Gatos Commercial Design Guidelines. It is cur-
rently occupied by one-story structures and surface parking which make up a small shopping center. Photographs of the
site and surrounding buildings are shown on the following page.
201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Design Review Comments
January 21, 2015 Page 2
View of the site from Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (Highway 9)
Immediately adjacent commercial structures on
North Santa Cruz Avenue
Small scale structures nearby on North Santa Cruz
Avenue (east side)
Bank across intersection from the site Two-story building - 1 block to the south on
North Santa Cruz Avenue
Commercial structure immediately across North
Santa Cruz Avenue
Small scale structures nearby on North Santa Cruz
Avenue (west side)
201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Design Review Comments
January 21, 2015 Page 3
CONCERNS AND ISSUES
There are specific concerns and issues which I will address later in this letter report. However, I believe that there are at
least two broad issues that need consideration prior to addressing the building design.
Broad Issues
1. Adaptability of the building.
As I currently understand the project, the structures are being designed for an electric vehicle dealership use. This
structure is located at a primary entry corner to Downtown Los Gatos. Should the specialized automotive use
cease business in this location at some point in the future, this will be a very difficult pair of buildings to re-pur-
pose in support of the Downtown. Some difficult elements of the project in this regard include the following:
• The floor levels of both buildings are substantially above the adjacent sidewalk levels making accessible entries
unavailable for almost the entirety of the fronting sidewalks. Along the North Santa Cruz Avenue frontage, the
floor level is approximately 3 feet above the sidewalk, and the height differential varies from a few inches to 3
feet along the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road frontage. Views into the corner building would be blocked from pass-
ing pedestrians and drivers on North Santa Cruz Avenue, as shown on the section diagram below. (Note: The
building sections and the architectural rendering of the project from the corner incorrectly show the sidewalk at the same level as the
first floor. They do not match the grading plan elevations on sheet C-4.)
• The buildings are largely automobile oriented. Currently, there are no entries shown directly from the fronting
sidewalks.
• The second floor parking deck would not be very usable for public parking given its lack of easy circulation to
find parking if all of the spaces were found to be occupied. And, the sixteen tandem parking spaces would not
be publically accessible. The usability of the second floor parking would depend on the attraction of a tenant
who would rely on either valet parking or employee-only parking which would place limitations on the flexibil-
ity of tenanting the two structures should the original automotive use leave.
• The large mezzanine space in the corner building might limit new tenants to users larger than currently are
common in Downtown Los Gatos.
201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Design Review Comments
January 21, 2015 Page 4
2. Consistency with the Town of Los Gatos Commercial Design Guidelines.
The Commercial Design Guidelines were prepared and adopted after a substantial process that tailored them to the
unique conditions and qualities of the Town. Recognizing that the character and buildings within Downtown Los
Gatos varied substantially, the guidelines were prepared to included different provisions for the C-1 zoning district
(area north of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road) and the C-2 zoning district (area south of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road).
The document further recognized that there were substantial differences within the main pedestrian-oriented
Downtown C-2 District, and included the creation of three District Subareas.
This project site is located in the C-2B District Subarea, and is at the northern entry to the main pedestrian-
oriented portion of Downtown Los Gatos. The guidelines recognized that this area of the Downtown generally
had smaller structures within a “village” scale and texture that was different from the more “Main Street” scale and
character to the south. One-story structures were encouraged, but taller buildings were allowed provided that they
included design elements that strongly emphasized the first floor in order to better relate any bigger buildings to
the many smaller scale buildings within the C-2B Subarea.
The proposed building is well designed in a non-site specific context (i.e., it could easily fit comfortably into the
Los Gatos Boulevard Commercial Area). While one might argue that the design fits with the tall, curved facade of
the Chase Bank Building across the street on the northeast corner of the intersection, it is not very consistent with
the design guidelines for the area in which it is located.
The question for staff and the Planning Commission is whether this is a project for which the proposed use
and design are beneficial enough to the Town to set aside the Commercial Design Guidelines for this entry to the
Downtown area, and view the project as a special downtown entry statement which requires design oversight, but
need not conform with the design guidelines document.
The proposed project would seem to be inconsistent with the following elements of the Commercial Design
Guidelines:
General
• Small scale buildings with a strong pedestrian orientation are emphasized.
• The guidelines call for a strong commitment to landscaping.
• Awnings and canopies are emphasized at elevations that relate to the height of pedestrians and provide a sense
of shelter.
C2-B Subarea
• Designs are expected to project a village scale and character.
• Sloped roof forms are encouraged.
• Larger structures are expected to be broken up into smaller modules to resemble a collection of small build-
ings. A width of twenty-five feet is suggested. This small scale character should be carried around to any facade
visible from a public way or nearby property.
• Upper floors should be separated from the first floor with projecting molding or other architectural detail, and
incorporate elements that will reduce their visual scale and bulk.
201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Design Review Comments
January 21, 2015 Page 5
Specific Issues
I do not believe that the proposed design for this project is sympathetic to the Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines
for the C-2B Subarea and the small scale structures in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, as noted in the Broad
Issues commentary above, I recognize that the Town’s decision makers might wish to revisit the guidelines for this site
based on the proposed use and the Downtown Gateway nature of any new structure. Whether the guidelines are largely
followed or whether an alternative approach to reviewing the project is taken, the issues below are important to address.
1. The two buildings do not have entries accessible from the fronting sidewalks. (See commentary in the Broad Issues
above.)
2. The interior circulation in the parking structure is confusing. Vehicular openings to the parking on the Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road frontage allow both ingress and egress, but the main public parking aisle along the south portion of
the site is one-way only.
3. The use of the unmarked portion of the parking area adjacent to the proposed entry is unclear.
4. The laco of pedestrian orientation and scale of the structure, including canopy heights and architectural details, is
not consistent with the Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines for this subarea. Issues include the placement of
the first floor level well above the sidewalk level, the large planter boxes which block views into the corner struc-
ture, and placement of the canopy at the windows along North Santa Cruz Avenue at a height of approximately 19
feet above the sidewalk level. (See additional commentary in the Broad Issues above.)
201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Design Review Comments
January 21, 2015 Page 6
5. The Los Gatos-Saratoga Road elevation would appear as one long building which is not consistent with Commercial
Design Guideline 3.7.1.
6. The large light colored panel shown as a signage location on the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road facade would be very
large and out of scale and character with the remainder of the Downtown.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below are based on using the design guidelines as a basis for modifying the project for better
consistency with those guidelines.
1. Lower the first floor levels to allow direct pedestrian access from the fronting sidewalks.
2. Design the corner structure to allow the potential for future modifications to provide separate access to the mez-
zanine in the event that future tenancies might require a separation of the first floor and mezzanine.
3. Revise the design to relate better to nearby structures south of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. One example of a suc-
cessful approach is shown below of auto dealership structures that have pedestrian scale trellises added, pitched
roofs and modest signage.
201-225 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Design Review Comments
January 21, 2015 Page 7
Another approach would be to use larger awnings to improve the facade scale relative to the pedestrian on the sidewalk
and the smaller height of nearby awnings and entries. A couple of examples are shown in the photos below.
4. Reduce the size of the wall mounted lighting fixtures.
5. Treat the face of the second floor roof parking extension between the two structures differently to separate the
two buildings.
6. Eliminate the large sign board on the Los Gatos-Saratoga Road facade, and integrate the signage into the brick wall
face.
7. Consider another material and/or color for the secondary building to reduce the feeling of a long single building
facade.
Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 12
multifamily family homEs
REsiDEntial DEvEloPmEnt
REviEw lEttER ExamPlE
December 12, 2013
Ms. Suzanne Avila
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 375 Knowles Drive
Dear Suzanne:
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is part of a larger site with abandoned former uses. It is surrounded by a wide range of residential and commer-
cial uses. Photos of the site and surrounding neighborhood are shown on the following page.
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
View north from the site
Nearby structure to the north on Knowles Drive
Single family home across Knowles Drive
Nearby duplex complex on Capri DriveAdjacent abandoned courts complex to the east
Nearby medical complex to the west
Nearby multifamily residential
on West Parr Avenue
Nearby multifamily residential
on West Parr Avenue
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 2
Concerns and Issues
Overview
I initially prepared a review letter on this project in March, met with you and the applicant to discuss the project in July,
and recently provided feedback comments and diagrams prior to your meeting with the applicant.
Some elements of the project have improved since my first review including a reorientation of units to provide entries
facing Knowles Drive and Capri Drive, the elimination of continuous garage door facades along one of the two main
internal streets, and the provision of central common open space. However, much of the design has become less sat-
isfactory, in my estimation. My feeling is that the project would have significant negative community feedback from
the community. The approach to the layout and the design of the units is not all that unusual in some other Bay Area
communities, but it would appear much more bulky and dense than any other recent small lot subdivision in Los Gatos.
Photos of the two most recent Los Gatos subdivisions that I have reviewed and are far enough along in construction to
perceive their visual environment are 371 Los Gatos Blvd. and Laurel Mews, also on Los Gatos Blvd. Photos of those
projects with some features noted in the captions are shown below. By contrast, photos are also shown below of a project
in Dublin provided by the architect as similar to what is proposed for the Knowles Drive site.
LAUREL MEWS
• All home entries face the street frontages
• One and two story masses
• Significant entry elements (e.g., porches)
• Side elevations are articulated
• Visual diversity
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 3
371 LOS GATOS BLVD.
• All home entries face the street frontages
• One and two story masses
• Significant entry elements (e.g., porches)• Side elevations are articulated
• Outdoor private space
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 4
DUBLIN PROJECT
• All street frontages have home entries
• Two stories at street / two and three story behind
• Third story setback appears larger than proposed
for the Los Gatos project
• Vinyl windows close to exterior wall surface
• Limited outdoor private space
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 5
Specific Issues
1. Building Height and Mass
The initial design submittal in March seemed to be a two story project with some limited third story elements, as
shown on the diagram below.
The project has evolved into a project with 65% of the units with a third story, and the second and third stories
are almost as big as the first floor, as shown in the diagram below and the diagram showing a comparison of floor
plan sizes for the three floors of Floor Plan 3.
Current Proposed Plan
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 6
2. Street Frontages
There will be a strong three story tall perception of the project from both Knowles Drive and Capri Drive (See
annotated Capri Drive sketch below) as well as along the L-shaped main internal drives.
Plan 3 Floor Plan Size Comparison
Building Mass and Height perceived from Capri Drive
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 7
Section at entry drive from Capri Drive
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 8
3. Pedestrian Circulation
There are some discontinuities in the pedestrian network (See diagram below), and the submittal materials show
images of Woonerfs - streets designed to slow traffic and allow for combined vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
In the plan and landscape materials, however, I do not see any indication of any special design treatment that
would make the two main internal streets any different from the normal small subdivision. The only textured
paving on the main entry drives is in the guest parking areas, at the project entries, and at one point internally
at a parking court intersection. It does not seem that this is enough to make the streets safe for pedestrian traffic.
Perhaps the only significant problem will be at the entry drive from Knowles Drive (See diagram below).
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 9
4. Building Massing and Materials Changes
Sixty-five percent of the houses, as noted above, are mostly three story masses with some small two story elements
attached at the front and back of the structures. This seems inadequate to mitigate the three story building mass
and height.
Also, there are some awkward material transitions where stone transitions to stucco in the same plane.
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 10
5. Open Space
The project has added more common open space since the original submittal, but one wonders about its adequacy
given the limited size and usability of the private open space related to the individual units. The adjacent Open
Doors multifamily project provides more private and common open space per unit (See diagram and photo be-
low) than this more upscale single family development.
6. Windows
There are two issues. Generally on the residential projects which I have reviewed, applicants have been asked to
provide high quality wood or clad wood windows which have a more substantial appearance that vinyl windows.
The second issue is detailing. Detailed information was not provided for the windows aside from calling for
vinyl windows. However, the project in Dublin referenced above has several conditions where vinyl windows are
set very close to the exterior wall surface. (See photo below) Given the limited articulation provided on some
elevations, this may result in a elevation with little visual depth. Also, the stucco covered foam trim on the photo
below does not project a very high quality appearance.
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 11
Recommendations
Generally, I feel that the extent of three story mass is too great, and the treatment of the masses is too plain given the
extent that those facades will be visible from both the surrounding public streets and the main internal streets.
1. Provide home entries facing the internal streets as well as Knowles Drive and Capri Drive.
Where side walls face streets and entries are not possible, substantially increase facade articulation and detail.
2. Eliminate or substantially reduce the extent of third floor space.
Some space could be accommodated within the roof form to reduce building mass. Also, the reduction in third
floor area should be studied. The project below, designed by the Dahlin Group for a site in San Mateo, seems like
it would provide a better scale for this site. The use of siding, rather that stucco, seems to integrate the overall
structure better than the stucco and stone proposed.
Currently proposed floor plans for Los Gatos
THIRD FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN
San Mateo project floor plans and elevations
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 12
3. Enhance the facades at the auto courts
The tightness of the site plan, and the visibility of the auto courts from the interior streets make it desirable to en-
hance the rear facades of the units. In addition, that would make the outlook from facing units on the auto courts
more pleasant. One example in Mountain View below uses substantial articulate bay windows. The other example
shown below is from the Dahlin Group’s San Mateo project.
Suzanne, please let me know if you have any specific questions or need any other specific issues addressed.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
President
375 Knowles DriveDesign Review Comments
December 12, 2013 Page 13
Peer Review
Design Services Proposal
March 17, 2017 Page 11
singlE family homE
REsiDEntial DEvEloPmEnt
REviEw lEttER ExamPlE
February 23, 2017
Mr. Azhar Khan
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 17050 Wild Way
Dear Azhar:
I reviewed the drawings, and have previously visited the site for the review of a new home immediately across Wild Way
from this site. My comments and recommendations on the submitted design are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is very large and lightly developed with a Pre-1941 guest cottage. Other nearby homes vary in size and architec-
tural style. Photographs of the site and nearby homes are shown on the following page.
17050 Wild Way
Design Review Comments
February 23, 2017 Page 2
The existing house viewed from Wild Way The existing house viewed from Oak Ridge Way
Home immediately adjacent on Oak Ridge WayHome immediately across Oak Ridge Way
Nearby home on Oak Ridge WayNearby Estate-scale home at the terminus of Wild Way
17050 Wild Way
Design Review Comments
February 23, 2017 Page 3
Proposed North Elevation
Design Evaluation and Recommendations
The neighborhood is characterized by a wide variety of parcel and home sizes as well as architectural styles. The pro-
posed expanded house will only occupy a relatively small portion of the lot as shown on the site plan which has been
superimposed over the aerial photo below.
While the addition to the Pre-1941 existing structure is quite large compared to the existing house on the site, the pro-
posed addition is very much in the same Tudor Revival Style as the original, and blends well with the scale and architec-
tural details of the existing house. Improvements to the existing structure to remove inappropriate changes to the home
in the past is very positive. The proposed elevations are shown below and on the following page.
17050 Wild Way
Design Review Comments
February 23, 2017 Page 4
Proposed East Elevation
Proposed South Elevation
Proposed West Elevation
17050 Wild Way
Design Review Comments
February 23, 2017 Page 5
While some communities seek to maintain a distinct difference between older structures such as this Pre-1941 home
and their additions, the Town of Los Gatos has chosen to encourage a full integration of the new and the old so that
the resultant structure looks as though it has always been a seamless design. I believe the addition is well designed and
integrated with the existing house.
Staff did raise some concerns with the south elevation roof pitch. I looked at that issue, and feel that the design
solution is well within the normal range for this rather eclectic architectural style which has a great deal of variation in
the use of rather steep roof pitches - see examples below.
17050 Wild Way
Design Review Comments
February 23, 2017 Page 6
However, I do have one concern:
1. The east wing of the structure seems rather large and out of scale with the remainder of the house, as noted on
the illustration below.
Recommendation:
1. Reduce the east wing building mass by eliminating the attic space above the Master Bedroom.
2. Consider eliminating the roof over the second floor terrace.
The above change could also assist in addressing staff concerns regarding the roof on the south elevation by reducing
the roof peak over the large walk-in closet.
Azhar, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon