Los Gatos City Council
November 15, 2022

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 <[email protected]>; Ryan Safty <[email protected]> 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-housingprojects-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/agendasminutes/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

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 MultiFamily 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 sideby-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 MixedUse 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 streetfacing 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 bicyclespecific 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 Townwide 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 streetfacing 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 MultiFamily 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 multifamily 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

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 mixeduse 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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 streetfacing 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:

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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

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;

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. Offsite 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 singleand 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 TownA.10.1 A.11.1 wide or only within CGDs. The corresponding figure/diagram will be updated accordingly.

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 streetfacing 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 streetfacing 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 <[email protected]>
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:

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 five feet 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 windows and/or private open space.
(iii) Provide balcony/deck design measure which may include:
a. Minimum 85% solid railing
b. Obscure glass railing
c. 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 <[email protected]>
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 car driveway 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-family deverlopments does not seem to encompass these areas, and the language "other community areas for the use of residents", in my opinion" may not apply to such pathways. Also, I do not see a provision for lighting in parking areas. I don’t believe that these too are community recreation spaces.
(4) 10.1c Page 236: sixty square feet is very small. My pool is almost that large, and is not particularly 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 designby-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 MultiFamily 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 MultiFamily 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 viceversa? 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