ITEM NO. 11.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
QUALIFYING MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Updated June 17, 2026January 31, 2023
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 highquality living environment.
California Government Code Section 65559.5 identifies Qualifying Housing Development Projects to include:
Multi-family housing developments;
Residential Mixed-Use Housing developments with a minimum of two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or
Supportive and transitional housing development.
A Qualifying Housing Development Project shall be approved through a streamlined, ministerial review process when the project complies with these Objective Design Standards as well as complying with all existing objective development regulations in the Town, including but not limited to the following:
General Plan;
Town Code;
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams;
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan;
Parks and Public Works Standards; and
Santa Clara County Fire Department Requirements.
These standards are only to be used for review of qualifying projects where Town review, approval, and/or denial is limited to only objective design standards. Many projects will proceed through the standard review process, in which case the objective design standards included herein would not apply.
ORGANIZATION
The Objective Design Standards are organized into two primary sections: Site Standards; and Building Design. The Site Standards section includes objective design standards for pedestrian and vehicle access; site layout and building placement; vehicular access and bicycle parking; EXHIBIT 2
ITEM NO. 11.
utilities design; and outdoor areas and amenities. The Building Design section includes objective design standards for building form and massing; façade articulation; materials; and roof design; entrance design; and windows and doors.
PREPARATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Development plans will require additional dimensions and exhibits to demonstrate compliance with the Objective Design Standards. It is the applicant’s responsibility to adequately demonstrate how each applicable standard is addressed.
KEY TERMS
Community recreation space in Residential Mixed-Use developments means public gathering spaces, such as: plazas, outdoor dining areas, squares, pocket parks, or other community areas for the use of all residents and the business patrons and tenants.
Community recreation space in multi-family developments means gathering spaces, such as: play areas, pool areas, patios, rooftop decks, or other community areas for the use of all residents.
Façade articulation means the division of a building façade into distinct sections; including the materials, patterns, textures, and colors that add visual interest to a building or façade.
Fenestration means the design, construction, and presence of any openings in a building, such as: windows, doors, vents, wall panels, skylights, curtain walls, and louvers.
Landscaping means an area devoted to plantings, lawn, ground cover, gardens, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; excluding driveways, parking, loading, or storage areas.
Multi-family use means the use of a site for three or more dwelling units on the same site.
Objective Design Standards means development regulations that are measurable, verifiable, and knowable to all parties prior to submittal of a qualifying project. A planning review process based on objective design standards involves streamlined ministerial review with no personal or subjective judgement by a public official.
Primary building means a building within which the principal or main use on a lot or parcel is conducted. Where a permissible use involves more than one building designed or used for the primary purpose on the subject property, each such building on the parcel shall be construed as constituting a primary building.
Private recreation space at ground level means an outdoor enclosed patio or deck accessible from a single dwelling unit.
Private recreation space above ground level means an outdoor balcony, terrace, or rooftop deck, accessible from a single dwelling unit.
Residential Mixed-Use means a development project where a variety of uses such as office, commercial, and institutional, are combined with residential use(s) in a single building or on a
ITEM NO. 11.
single site in an integrated project. Two thirds of the project square footage must be residential uses.
Transitional and supportive housing means a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of people experiencing homelessness into permanent housing and independent living.
A. SITE STANDARDS
A.1. Pedestrian Access
1.1 All on-site buildings, entries, facilities, amenities, and vehicular and bicycle parking areas mustshall be internally connected with a minimum four-foot-wide pedestrian pathway or pathway network. Where that may include use of the most direct connection between two buildings or amenities is a public sidewalk, the sidewalk may serve as the required pedestrian pathway.. The pedestrian pathway network shall connect to the public sidewalk along all abutting streetseach street.
1.2 Pedestrian pathways within internal parking areas shall be separated from vehicular circulation by a physical barrier, such as a grade separation or a raised planting strip, of at least six inches in height and at least six feet in width. A pedestrian pathway is exempt from this standard where it crosses a parking vehicular drive aisle and in parking garages, where pedestrian circulation occurs in the drive aisle..
Figure A.1.2a
A.2. Short-Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)
Short-term bicycle parking (Class II bicycle parking facility) consists of racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a Ulock.
2.1 Short-term bicycle parking space shall be located within 50 feet of the primary pedestrian building entrance.
2.2 Short-term bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of one space per 10dwelling unit and one space per 2,000 square feet of residential floor area, with a minimum of two spaces. For nonresidential floor area, short-term bicycle parking must be provided at a minimum rate of five percent of new car parking spaces, with a minimum of two spaces.
2.3 Each short-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length and two feet in width.
ITEM NO. 11.
2.4 If more than 20 short-term bicycle spaces are provided, at least 50 percent of the spaces shall be covered by a permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure.
A.3. Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I)
Long-term bicycle parking facilities (Class I bicycle parking facility) consistconsists of bicycle lockers or bicycle rooms with key access for use by residents.
3.1 Long-term bicycle parking facilities shall be located in below-grade levels of parking structures or on the ground floor, and shall not be located between the building and the street.
3.2 Multi-family residential and residential mixed-use buildings shall provide one long-term bicycle parking space per dwelling unit. Developments such as townhomes that include individual garages for each unit shall not be required to provide long-term bicycle parking.
3.3 Long-term bicycle parking must be provided in one or more of the following facilities:
3.3a. An enclosed Bicycle bicycle locker; minimum requirements:
b. A fenced, covered, locked or guarded bicycle storage area; or c. A rack or stand inside a building.
a. Dimensions of 42 inches wide, 75 inches deep, and 54 inches high. b. Must withstand a load of 200 pounds per square foot. c. Opened door must withstand 500-pound vertical load.
3.4 Bicycle rooms with key access minimum requirements:
a. Bicycle rooms shall have a minimum ceiling height of seven feet. b. Bicycle rooms shall contain racks that support the bicycle frame at two points and allow for the bicycle frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack with a U-lock. c. Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be served by an aisle with a minimum width of six feet.
d. Maneuverability space of at least two feet shall be provided between the aisle and longterm bicycle parking spaces e. Each horizontal long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of seven feet in length, two feet in width, four-and one-half feet in height. Each vertical long-term bicycle parking space shall be a minimum of three-and one-half feet in length, two feet in width, and seven feet in height.
A.4. Vehicular Access
4.1 Off-street parking lots shall have vehicular circulation using an internal vehicular network that precludes the use of a public street for aisle-to-aisle internal circulation.
ITEM NO. 11.
Figure A.4.1a
4.2 A maximum of one curb cut is allowed along every 100 feet of primary street frontage.
A.5. Surface Parking Location and Design
5.1 Surface parking lots and carports shall not be located between the primary building frontage and the street.
5.2 Uncovered parking rows with at least 15 consecutive parking spaces shall include a landscape area of six feet minimum width at intervals of no more than 10 consecutive parking stalls. One tree shall be provided in each landscape area.
Figure A.5.2
A.6. Parking Structure Access
ITEM NO. 11.
6.1 Any vehicular entry gate to a parking structure shall be located to allow a minimum of 18 feet between the gate and the back of the sidewalk to minimize conflicts between sidewalks and vehicle queuing.
6.2 A parking structure shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the building width of any streetfacing façade, and it shall be recessed a minimum of five feet from the street-facing façade of the building.
6.36.2 For projects with five or more residential units and that have a vehicle access gate to the parking structure, a pedestrian gate shall also be provided.
A.7. Utilities
7.1 Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided to illuminate along all pedestrian paths in community openrecreation 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 or on adjacent buildings at a spacing of no more than 30 linear feet unless constrained by the requirements of traffic visibility areas or utilities.
7.2 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.7.2
7.3 Street-level views of ground level and wall-mounted utility cabinets, mechanical equipment, trash, and service areas shall be screened from sight with landscape planting, fencing, or a wall, providedas allowed by the Town Code. The screening does not conflict with applicable sight visibility requirements such Town Code Section 29.40.0315. Where not prohibited, screening shall be at least the same height as the item being screened and screening that is not landscape material shall be constructed with one or more of the materials used on the primary building.
7.4 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street. Solar equipment is exempt from this requirement.
A.8. Landscaping and Screening
8.1 At least 50 percent of the required front setback area as established in the base zone standards shall be landscaped.
ITEM NO. 11.
8.2 A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape buffer shall be provided along the full length of the shared property line between multi-family or Residential Mixed-Use development and abutting residential properties. The buffer shall include the following:
a. A solid masonry wall with a six-foot height, except within a street-facing setback where walls are not permitted; and
Figure A.8.2
b. Trees must be 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.
8.3 Surface parking lots shall be screened from view of the street with landscaping or a wall with a minimum three-foot height to screen the parking lot when not already screened by a primary building. When located in a street-facing setback, screening may not exceed a height of three feet.
A.9. Fencing
9.1 Fences, walls, and gates within required setbacks along all street frontages are prohibited unless used to screen on-site parking spaces from view from the street.
9.29.1 Chain link fencing is prohibited.
9.39.2 Perimeter barrier gates for vehicles and pedestrian entry gates shall have a maximum height of six feet.
9.49.3 Solid vehicular and pedestrian entry gates are prohibited. Entry gates shall be a minimum 50 percent open view.
A.10.Retaining Walls
10.1 Retaining walls mayshall not exceed five feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary, multiple-terraced walls shall be used. Terraced walls shall be set back at least three feet from the lower segment.
ITEM NO. 11.
10.2 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.11. Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces
11.1 The landscaped, private, and community recreation spaces listed below are required for all qualifying projects. Community recreation spaces and private recreation spaces are calculated independent of each other. Landscaped areas within community recreation spaces can contribute to required minimums for both landscaped area and community recreation space. a. Landscaped space: A minimum of 20 percent of all projectthe site areasarea shall be landscaped.
b. Private recreation space: The minimum horizontal dimension is six feet in any direction and a minimum area of 60 square feet. The minimum vertical clearance required is eight feet. Private recreation space shall be directly accessible from the residential unit.
Landscaped sections of private recreation space shall not count towards required landscaping requirements.
i. Each ground floor dwelling unit shall provide have a minimum of 120 square feet of usable private recreation space in accordance with the development standards of the underlying zoning district.
ii. Each dwelling unit above the ground floor shall have a minimum of 60 square feet of usable private recreation space. Where multiple balconies are provided for a single unit, the 60 square-foot minimum usable private recreation space for each dwelling unit above the ground floor can be an aggregate of all balconies, providedprovide each balcony meets the requirements for minimum horizontal dimensions. c. Community recreation space: The minimum dimension isdimensions 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 overheadother built structures shall be calculated by using the surface area of the horizontaloverhead feature.
ITEM NO. 11.
i. Community recreation space shall be provided in Residential Mixed-Use developments at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit plus a minimum of two percent of the non-residential square footage.
ii.i. Community recreation space shall be provided in multi-family and mixed-use residential development projects at a minimum of 100 square feet per residential unit. iii.ii.A project with four eight or fewerless residential units is exempt from community recreation space requirements.
iv.iii. RooftopLandscaped roof space can satisfy both required landscaping requirements and community recreation space requirements. Rooftop space (not including improved areas on top of a parking podium) Landscaped roof space may not be used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the required landscaping for the site. iv. Community recreation space must include a community recreation building or multipurpose room at least 750 square feet for projects with 50 or more dwelling units.
Figure A.11.1
11.2 Elevated Open Space
a. A minimum of 40 percent of the area resulting from required upper-story building stepback must be designed to be usable open space. This space may take the form of a deck, terrace, or roof garden and may be either private open space or community recreation space.
b. All upper-story step-back areas space must comply with subsection B.1.3 Adjacency Requirements.
A.12.Building Placement
12.1 To ensure buildings provide a continuous frontage along sidewalks, at minimum development in commercial zones shall place at least 75 percent of all any ground floor street-facing
ITEM NO. 11.
elevations in commercial zones shall be locatedfaçade on or within five feet of the setback line designated in the Town Code. For the remaining street-facing frontage, which may be up to 25 percent of the building width, the front yard area (required setback plus additional yard area) must:
a. Be at least 10 feet in depth as measured from the setback line and either landscaped, designed as usable space, or a combination of the two; or b. Be a usable open space, designed in accordance with the standards of A.11.
Figure A.12.1
12.2 Residential Mixed-Use projectsproject with a ground-floor non-residential usesuse shall provide site amenities or landscaping overon a minimum of 3015 percent of the areaground 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. LandscapingLandscape 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.
Figure A.12.2
12.3 In a multi-family residential project, all primary building entrances must face a public right-ofway, a private roadway, or a community open space that complies with the standards of A.11.
ITEM NO. 11.
B. BUILDING STANDARDS
B.1. Building Massing and Scale
1.1 Multiple-story building façades that face a street shall incorporate breaks in the building mass by implementing a minimum of three of the following solutions along the combined façade area of all primary buildings facing the street: Multi-family buildings. All multi-family buildings must incorporate a minimum of one of the following massing changes along all street-facing elevations:
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; A minimum of 40 percent of the length of upper stories is stepped-back from the ground floor or building base by at least five feet.
Upper stories are stories above the ground floor.
Figure B.1.1a
a.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; The front of the building incorporates ground level or podium-level community recreation space that is a minimum of 900 square feet, has a minimum dimension of 30 feet, is enclosed by a minimum of two walls, and is designed with landscaping elements visible from the right-ofway.
Figure B.1.1b
ITEM NO. 11.
b.c. Recessed façade plane to accommodate a building entry with a minimum ground plane area of 24 square feet. Where an awning or entry covering is provided, it can extend beyond the wall plane; The front of the building does not exceed 65 feet in width.
Figure B.1.1c
c.d. An exterior arcade that provides a sheltered walkway within the building footprint with a minimum depth of eight feet. For a façade 50 feet or greater, the arcade must be a minimum length of 65 percent of the full building façade; for a facade less than 50 feet, the arcade must be a minimum of 80 percent of the full building façade. d.e. Ground floor open area abutting street-facing façade with a minimum area of 60 square feet; or
f. Vertical elements, such as pilasters or columns, that protrude a minimum of one foot from the façade and extend the full height of the building base or ground floor, whichever is greater.
1.2 Upper floors above two stories shall be set back by a minimum of five feet from the groundfloor façade.
1.2 Townhomes must provide wall plane shifts of two feet minimum between each townhome for the entire height of the building.
Figure B.1.2a
1.3 Adjacency Requirements. Where a multi-family building or townhome development abuts a single-family residential district:
ITEM NO. 11.
a. The building height is limited to 25 feet or two stories within 40 feet of the property line shared with the single-family district.
b. At 40 feet away from the shared property line, the building may increase to the maximum height allowed per zone.
Figure B.1.3a
1.31.4 No part of a rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck shall be closer than five feet from the plane of the lower floor facing the shared property line, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses.For buildings abutting a single-family zoning district or existing single-family use, no part of a rooftop or upper floor terrace or deck shall be closer than five feet from the facade plane of the lower floor, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses.
Figure B.1.3b
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. Where structured parking is provided in mixed-use buildings, the parking must be “lined” with ground-floor non-residential uses at least 30 feet deep as measured from the front elevation.
2.2 Façade openings on upper levels of a parking structure shall be screened at a minimum 10 percent and up to 30 percent of the opening to prevent full transparency into the structure. The portion of the above-ground parking structure visible from any abutting public right-of-way, including entrances, may not exceed 50 percent of the length of the building elevation at the setback line or 60 feet, whichever is greater.
ITEM NO. 11.
.
Figure B.2.1
2.1 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.
2.3 Above-ground parking structures must be designed with:
a. Punched openings in width-to-height proportions the same as those of the primary structure. Ribbon openings are not allowed.
b. At least one of the following architectural features: cut metal screens, railings, trellises, vertical plantings, louvers, or decorative security grills.
B.3. Roof Design
3.1 At intervals of no more than 7540 feet along the building façade, horizontal eaves shall be broken using at least one of the following strategies:
a. Gables;
b. Building projection with a depth of a minimum of two feet; c. Change in façade or roof height of a minimum of two feet; d. Change in roof pitch or form; or
e. Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices.
3.2 Skylights shall have a flat profile rather than domed.
3.3 The total width of a single dormer or multiple dormers shall not exceed 50 percent of the total roof length at the street-facing façade. The dormer width shall be measured at dormer roof fascia, or widest part of the dormer.
3.4 Carport roof materials shall be the same as the primary building.
3.5 All sloped roofs must include eaves at the roof line and fascia/bargeboard at gable ends.
3.6 Flat roofs must include either a parapet with a cornice or an overhang.
ITEM NO. 11.
3.7 Where used, applied pitched roofs must be applied along all street-facing sides of the building.
Applied pitched roofs refer to a non-structural pitched roof form at the building perimeter that obscures the flat portion of the roof, or mechanical well, from view from the right-of-way.
Applied pitched roofs may not exceed a slope of 6:12.
B.4. Façade Design and Articulation
4.1 Buildings greater than two stories shall be designed to with a differentiated the base, middle, and top of the building on any street-facing elevationfaçade by incorporating a minimum of.
Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another using at least two of the following design strategiessolutions:
a. The first floor is distinguished by a material change between the first floor and upper floors along at least 70 percent of the total of all street-facing elevations.
Figure B.4.1a
b. 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;For all stories except the first story, street-facing elevation design incorporates a projection or a recess a minimum of five feet in depth every 35 linear feet.
Figure B.4.1b
ITEM NO. 11.
c. Balconies or habitable projections with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 20 percent length of the street-facing façade;For all stories except the first story, street-facing elevations incorporate balconies or habitable projections a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum of 25 percent of the length of any street-facing façade.
Figure B.4.1c
d. Two-foot deep eaves with regularly spaced supporting corbels or brackets.
Figure B.4.1d
e. Window boxes or plant shelves under least 60 percent of all upper-story fenestration.
Figure B.4.1e
ITEM NO. 11.
a. 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 streetfacing façade; b. The use of at least two different façade materials, each covering a minimum of 20 percent of the street-facing façade, or
c. The upper floor shall implement a façade height that is a minimum of two feet greater than the façade height of the floor immediately below. The greater façade height shall be made evident by taller windows or arrangement of combined windows.
4.2 All buildingfaçade materials, such as siding, window types, and materials in architectural details, must be incorporatedused on the street-facing façade shall be used on all other building elevationsfaçades.
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:
a. Architectural features, such as:
i. Arcade or gallery along the ground floor;
ii. Awnings or canopies on all ground floor windows of commercial space; iii. Building cornice;
iv. Façade sconce lighting at a minimum of one light fixture per 15 linear feet. b. Bay or box windows projecting a minimum of 18 inches from the façade plane and comprising a minimum of 20 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; c. Balconies or Juliet balconies provided on a minimum of 40 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade;
d. Landscaped trellises or lattices extending across a minimum of 65 percent of any level of the facade;
e. Materials and color changes;
f. Eaves that overhang a minimum of two feet from the facade with supporting brackets; g. Window boxes or plant shelves under a minimum of 60 percent of the fenestration on the upper floors of the facade; or
h. Decorative elements such as molding, brackets, or corbels.
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.
4.54.3 Changes in building materials shall occur at inside corners.
4.4 Balcony locations.
a. Balconies facing single-family residential zones must be recessed and no part of the balcony may project more than one foot from the façade. b. Balconies may not be located above shared residential entries.
ITEM NO. 11.
4.5 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.
4.6 Continuous blank façades.
a. The maximum street-facing ground floor elevation without a window or door is 12 feet. b. The maximum street-facing upper level elevation without a window or door is 24 feet.
Figure B.4.4
4.64.7 Awnings shall be subject to the following requirements:
a. A minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway; Shall not cover transom windows or architectural elements such as belt courses, decorative trim, and similar features;
a.b. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and b.c. Shall not be patterned or striped; and
d. Shall have a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet measured from the pedestrian pathway.
B.5. Entrance Design and Ground Floor Design
5.1 Residential Entries.
a. All residential entrances, individual or shared, must have a roofed projection or recess or combination thereof with a minimum depth of five feet (e.g. two-foot recess and three-foot projection).
b. Residential entries must be a minimum five feet in width for individual entrances and eight feet in width for shared entrances.
c. Projections covering building entrances must be designed with columns or other structural supports. Entries with shed-roof or flat overhangs without supports at the outer edge are prohibited.
ITEM NO. 11.
Figure B.5.2
5.2 Non-residential Entries and Storefront Bays. 4.6 A primary building entrance shall be provided facing a street or community recreation space. Additionally, all development shall meet the following requirements:
c.a. Pedestrian entries to ground-floor and upper-floor non-residential uses shall meet at least one of the following standards:
i. The entrance shall be recessed in the façade plan at least three feet in depth and six feet in width; or
ii. The entrance shall be covered by an awning, portico, or other architectural element projecting from the façade a minimum of three feet.
d.b. Entrances and storefront bays must be framed by architectural elements. This may include columns, pilasters, belt courses, an articulated building base, transom windows, a trellis with climbing plants, and/or plant boxes.
4.7 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. Moved to B.4.5 and B.4.6
4.8 Pedestrian entries to buildings shall meet minimum dimensions to ensure adequate access based on use and development intensity. Building entries inclusive of the doorway and the facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions:
a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width
b. Single entry to multiple residential unit building, including Residential Mixed-Use buildings:
eight feet in width
c. Storefront entry: six feet in width
ITEM NO. 11.
Figure B.5.3
B.6. Windows and Doors
6.1 Fenestration size. Upper floor fenestrations may not exceed 18 square feet without framing or division into smaller panes.
6.2 All windows must be designed with one of the following:
a. Trim around entire window;
b. Recessed window frame; or
c. Lintels.
Figure B.6.2
6.3 Materials
a. Window materials, color, and style shall be consistent on all elevations. b. Prohibited Materials.
ITEM NO. 11.
4.9i. Mirrored windows are prohibited.
i. Flat window frames, or window frames flush with the building façade, are prohibited. ii. Stucco window trims are prohibited.
6.4 Upper-story window glazing must wrap building corners or be a minimum of 30 inches from a corner.
Figure B.6.4
a. Shall not extend beyond individual storefront bays; and b. Shall not be patterned or striped.
4.10 Balconies are allowed on facades facing the street and those facades facing existing nonresidential uses on abutting parcels. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint. Moved to B.1.3.c
4.11 Residential Mixed-Use buildings shall provide at least one of the following features along streetfacing 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.
4.12 Continuous blank façades on any floor level shall not exceed 25 percent of the entire façade length along any street.
B.7. Materials and Architectural Details
7.1 Primary, secondary, and accent building materials. All buildings must incorporate a primary building material and a secondary building material. Any number of tertiary/accent materials may be used.
a. Primary materials. Primary materials must be applied to 50 percent or more of a façade surface area, excluding transparent surfaces.
b. Secondary materials. Secondary materials must be applied to less than 45 percent of a façade surface area, excluding transparent surfaces. Secondary materials must be different from primary materials.
ITEM NO. 11.
c. Accent materials. All additional materials are limited to 25 percent of a façade surface area.
Trim for windows, doors, and openings do not count towards the maximum 25 percent area.
7.2 Material durability/protection.
a. All materials must be fire resistant. Wood, engineered wood, or other wood-based products, even those labeled “ignition-resistant,” are prohibited as primary building materials.
b. Exterior finish materials shall have an expected lifespan of no less than 30 years per manufacturer’s specifications.
c. Exterior ferrous metals shall be protected from corrosion either through the use of galvanized, stainless, or weathering steel.
ITEM NO. 11.
Memorandum
DATE September 25, 2025
TO
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Town of Los Gatos
[email protected]
FROM
Urban Planning Partners:
Curtis Banks, Project Director
Carla Violet, Project Manager
Claire Mei, Project Planner
Lisa Wise Consulting:
Monica Szydlik, AICP, Senior Associate
David Bergman, Director
Jessica Chilingerian, Associate
RE: Los Gatos Objective Design Standards (ODS) Update Focus Groups Summary This memo describes our findings from the Los Gatos ODS Update Focus Groups held on September 9, 10, and 11, 2025. Across eight virtual meetings, we engaged three participant groups—architects (1 session), developers (1 session), and residents (6 sessions). The feedback presented here includes responses to two icebreaker questions and perspectives on three key topics: high-quality building design, architectural style, and height transitions. Insights are organized by participant type, with a brief summary of participant feedback included at the top of each topic.
ARCHITECT ATTENDEES
1. Bess Wiersema, Principal + Owner at Studio 3 Design, Inc., residential and interiors
2. Jaclyn Greenmyer, Kohlsaat & Associates, single-family residential, some multi-family and mixed use
3. Jessie Delucchi, Kohlsaat & Associates
4. Jennifer Kretschmer from Kretschmer Architects
DEVELOPER ATTENDEES
1. Annette Seaborn, real estate agent/developer, owns 8 rentals and a 4-unit cottage in Los Gatos
2. Leumas (left the call early)
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
RESIDENT ATTENDEES
1. David Fradin, Los Gatos resident, has experience in environmental design.
2. Mary Pope-Handy has been a realtor for 20 years. She is concerned about fires and dense housing near the exits; she thinks Los Gatos needs more multi family.
3. Edgardo Laber is a resident of Los Gatos. He doesn’t want to see unnecessary requirements that prevent quick building. He wants the Town to be a place where his kids can afford to live.
4. Mitzi Anderson is a resident of Los Gatos. She is somewhat familiar with the guidelines.
5. Linda, resident, multigenerational household with a young person’s perspective and a disabled person’s perspective.
6. Susan, resident, HPC and Planning Commission member
7. Ryan Rosenberg, GP and HEU advisory committee member.
8. Jeffrey Barnett, Planning Commission member, participated in developing original ODS.
9. Julie Southern, resident, house burned down in 1997 wildfire.
10. Joya Chatterjee, resident, involved in Chamber of Commerce.
11. Reva Cuthbertson, resident.
12. Daniel Snyder, advisory group to North 40
13. Dan Ross, North 40 advisory committee, General Plan advisory committee
14. Ricardo Avila, priest at St. Luke’s Church
15. Lee Ann Wade, residential construction company owner
16. Peter Hertan, involved in various commissions
17. Katherine Schmidt, interested in urban design and planning
18. Kathryn, resident, remodeled an 1887 building
19. Carl, resident, lives in a neoclassical revival mansion home
20. Lee, resident, Historic Preservation Committee
21. Kevin Riley, professional planner
22. Bent Jensen, resident, from Denmark
23. Kevin, resident, lives in the historic district overlay WHAT ARE YOUR FAVORITE BUILDINGS IN LOS GATOS?
• La Cañada
• Buildings at the NE corner of Highway 9 and University • Former funeral parlor/current Gardenia restaurant
• Beckwith Block on East Main St (built ca.1893)
• Fretwell building
• Condos near Forbes Mill across pedestrian bridge from town. Blends in with the woods, lots of trees.
• Old Victorian homes
• Eichler homes
• Brick building on main street - southern kitchen location. Historic building, maintained well • St. Lukes Church
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
• The new Whole Foods at Los Gatos Blvd and Amaden;
• The library
• Former funeral home, current Gardenia restaurant (great Victorian character) • Corner N Santa Cruz and Main (distinctive roofline)
• Residential development along Grant Bishop Lane (good design, nice attic windows, and good diversity of design)
• Theatre
• Park side restaurant at 145 W Main Street (has the “Old California adobe” look) • Robson project off Los Gatos Blvd
• Templeton Lane by Kennedy (Craftsman style, exterior articulation, finishes, colors) • Los Gatos High School (classical design that doesn’t get old) WHAT ARE YOUR LEAST FAVORITE BUILDINGS IN LOS GATOS?
• Market Hall
• High rise apartment on college avenue - ugly
• North 40
o Materials: poor quality
o Architecture: Tiny little blocks everywhere, looks like a bunch of shoe boxes, low pitched roofs
o Not cohesive, not enough articulation, poor quality materials, design exhibits a “coldness,” units seem dark, no yard, should’ve been a 20-story building with open windows and a dog park
GENERAL COMMENTS - SUMMARY
Architects: Found 5-ft frontage rule unworkable; ODS assume single buildings instead of clusters; interpretation inconsistent; planners struggle with drawings; point system encourages low-quality, repetitive design.
Developers: Historic Preservation Committee slows projects; historic rules make buildings unusable.
Residents: Want ODS to be recommendations, not requirements; concerned about costs; standards should vary by neighborhood; need interim solutions for displaced businesses; want designs that create warmth and community.
GENERAL COMMENTS - DETAILED NOTES
Architects
• It’s hard to do anything within 5 feet; it doesn’t allow for people, decent trees, a bike zone, it’s a weird number. (Note, this refers to the required building placement at max. 5 ft from the front setback line for 75% of building frontage.)
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
• The ODS assume development assume single buildings only. What about when development consists of several small buildings. How do the standards apply, or differ? A few buildings are better than one massive one.
• There are issues with how planners review projects (the writing, the rules, the interpretation). Planners (and Planning Commission) themselves often cannot read drawings.
• Interpreting the standards has been challenging.
• We need different standards for the Downtown proper and the other downtown. • The current point structure is problematic. Some boxes (e.g., crown molding) are the easiest boxes to check, so those start to dictate the overall style, and that ends up being very limiting. And everyone does it. If everyone is picking the 3 same things, then everyone kind of getting the same style. Plus, some of these “easy points” are not very friendly to smaller buildings, are more tailored to large buildings. o Sometimes designers just need the points and end up sacrificing quality. o Let the architects explain how they can achieve same goal without the checklist. o Attendees are hoping to see the standards become more user friendly and flexible so applicants can actually check the boxes instead of going after waivers.
Developers
• Old and historic things have so many rules, HPC is difficult and if you can’t make meeting it takes 3 more months, need their approval they think they know everything. • Things that make Los Gatos quaint also make them old and unusable.
Residents
• The ODS shouldn’t be requirements, only recommendations. • The ODS should not be cost-prohibitive, require expensive design measures. • The ODS should require trees between buildings if sidewalks are too small. • The ODS should create warmth and a feeling of community. • Need interim solutions for businesses that have to vacate/relocate during construction (e.g., Ace Hardware)
• The standards are not appropriate for all neighborhoods in town. • There should be a distinction between standards for Los Gatos Blvd vs. the Downtown. • Consider access. In the new plan for the Lodge site, there is an access issue for route 9.
Needs better access, way in/out.
• Should allow developers to develop multiple buildings to make more uniform but different (think of places like Paris, Santana Row, Santa Barbara as good examples)
HIGH QUALITY DESIGN - SUMMARY
Architects: No specific comments.
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
Developers: Mahogany windows required by the Town were a failure — costly, leaky, impractical; want more durable alternatives.
Residents: Value sustainability, durability, solar access; like traditional styles (Spanish, Victorian, farmhouse) with some modern; want variety in materials/colors, articulation, and porches; dislike boxy, cheap, monotonous designs.
HIGH QUALITY DESIGN - DETAILED NOTES
Architects
NA
Developers
• The Town required mahogany windows, and they leak constantly. It has been 25 years, and the FG participant has redone them 10-15 times and they still leak, are cracked, don’t open, and need to be replaced again. Iron clad on the outside and wood on the inside would work better.
Residents
• Likes:
o Sustainable design
Energy efficient materials - high ceilings are luxurious but a waste of energy Durability/longevity
No leaking
Attention paid to sunlight access for solar
o Design
Timeless designs: a mix of Spanish styles, Victorian, brick/stone buildings, farmhouse style.
There is room for some modern design.
Window, door, and porch design are important
o Materials and Colors
Fire safe materials
Varied use of materials.
• High-quality stucco
• Different colored stucco, brick, wood
• Don’t like buildings made of steel and glass
• Materials like wood siding or hardie board, shingles
• Don’t object to siding materials other than wood
Sturdy railings
o Muted, natural colors, earth tones
o Articulation
Exterior articulation – not just boxes
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
Tall windows, especially on the 2nd and 3rd stories, creates a welcoming feel.
Buildings over 3 stories should provide more articulation and variety, considering how they relate to the buildings next to them Porches and other projections are important
Heights building to building should vary
o Several people enjoy the glass and openness of the library o Support for the open space and use of stone on the corner of Santa Cruz and Main o Support for use of decals and other details
o Underground parking or parking in the back
• Dislikes:
o Design
Dislike anything boxy, plain, or with weird shapes/curves. No cheap-looking design
• design that lacks detail, that is not distinctive
• Corrugated steel, like on North 40, looks cheap
Small windows as they create a closed-off feeling
Monotony
Flat fenestration
o Materials and Colors
T-1 11 – looks cheap, impermanent, low quality
Mismatched colors
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE - SUMMARY
Architects: Dislike prescriptive rules (continuous roof pitch, plate heights); want variation and flexibility; question “fake” frontages when parking is hidden.
Developers: Favor taller, larger, more modern mixed-use projects; appreciate Los Gatos’ eclectic, mixed style.
Residents: Support broad variety of styles if high-quality and compatible; dislike post-modern 70s designs and flat, monotonous facades; mixed feelings about glass/modern buildings; prefer good articulation and authentic details; okay with well-integrated small multiplexes.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE – DETAILED NOTES
Architects
• If all of the parking is in the back, then what use is the frontage? It is fake, a movie storefront.
• There are challenges with buildings of 400 – 500 units being pedestrian-friendly. Where can you even put a building that massive? Should it be close to road like in downtown San Jose where they have a walkable downtown? Or should we push it back, so the height is not so intimidating?
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
• Dislike for the ODS that require continuous plate height and continuous roof pitch. We need more variation!
• The ODS are too specific about ways to conform to rules. They don’t represent enough variety in ways to comply so that different styles can work. The Town wants variety and interesting architecture, but this pigeonholes us too much. • Current ODS not friendly to middle housing.
• Some items in the checklist are too traditional (e.g., 8 ft arcade) and no one is doing that anymore.
• There is a need for more contemporary and modern design.
Developers
• There was a time when you could build the house you wanted and be creative with little bit of everything. The beauty of this Town is that it is a mix of everything. • Need higher stories and to develop bigger and more mixed-use, likes modern and glass designs
Residents
• Setbacks
o Architectural compatibility means similar setbacks, similar footprints to some of the classic neighborhoods
o Do not like buildings with a solid flat wall up against the sidewalk in a neighborhood with a 20 ft setback
• Articulation
o Windows should have some articulation – flat windows, or windows with minimal trim, look cheap
o Windows and facades need depth, should not be just flat o Defining a better roof is more important than the roofing materials. Overhangs under 1’ look visually cheap.
• Support for a variety of architectural styles
o Los Gatos Blvd has lots of different types of buildings. It’s different from El Camino Real, and we should keep it that way. Let’s prevent development like we see on El Camino Real in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.
o Accepting variety. Avoiding monotony.
o Monolithic styles that lack articulation are not good o There is a feeling that people want to preserve what makes Los Gatos what it is. o Almost every style/design is appropriate: Eichler/mid-cent modern, Victorians, Pueblo style, Craftsman, Spanish, Victorian, Modern farmhouse, Contemporary o Architectural style is not as important
Compatibility comes down to how it presents at the street and how it relates to the neighbors behind
Don’t want fake-looking imitations of historic styles
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
Buildings should use details and features appropriate and authentic to the architectural
Compatibility is more about quality of a style than if it looks like your neighbors. Like variety of architectural styles – no need to look like neighbors. Similar massing is good, but style can be varied. o Do not like post-modern design from the 70s.
o Example addition: Miles & University, raised an old Victorian up and brought it closer to the sidewalk – so now it’s visually dominating. o Some are not bothered by modern buildings with glass and stone in a setting with a lot of trees while others do not like glass buildings in their town o House along Alta a few doors in from Los Gatos Blvd that is modern, doesn't fit. But we like the library, so should an applicant be able to build something more modern. o Main Street project is a great example of beautiful design that is compatible with the neighborhood and takes cues from the Los Gatos High School design. The Robson homes on Los Gatos Blvd are also more compatible with a variety of materials.
• Small MF
o 2, 3, and -4-plexes – When done well, they look nice. When they look nice, with appropriate roofs, courtyards, doorways, etc., as opposed to a motel with a flat roof, they are good.
o Fourplex Example: south on University Ave before bridal shop, before getting Old town on eastern side of the street. May have been a motel. It’s ugly and horrible.
Small, older cheap homes. 20 feet wide, u-shaped, poor use of space. One parking space, very tight spaces, added parking issues on the street. o Townhouses and small multiplexes should be well integrated into the neighborhood they go into
• Don't want to be too prescriptive because that will limit new development • 6 story condo buildings in San Francisco - all look awful. Something more classic. • Support tall mixed-use buildings to enable more walkable environment (residential above commercial)
• Balconies big enough to be usable
• Like in Detroit, tall buildings on corridors with single family behind • Commercial and restaurant usage on ground floor
• Design garages so they can convert to housing in the future • Specific Design Ideas (Green Building Focused):
o Energy Efficiency
Lighting with motion detectors
Reflective paint for roofs
Passive cooling; specifically, thicker walls and circulating water through somewhat permeable materials (walls that “sweat” and dispense heat) o Water Efficiency
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
Rain guards (Big Basin Way and Cupertino have these). Silicon Valley is sinking because of over-pumping of aquifer.
Water barrels and plumbing from laundry room for water recycling o Mechanical Equipment
Solar
• Covered parking should have solar panels.
• Solar electricity-producing windows, locally manufactured Require EV charging
Heat pumps
o Landscaping
Vertical gardens on side of the building
Planting more trees
Edible landscaping/herb gardens (like in Northeast)
HEIGHT TRANSITIONS – SUMMARY
Architects: Concern about new multi-family on commercial lots “sticking out” due to mismatched setbacks with neighbors.
Developers: No specific comments.
Residents: Support for step-backs (e.g., 5 ft per story), especially near neighborhoods; landscaping and trees soften tall buildings; want gradual height increases in neighborhoods but accept taller buildings on boulevards/corridors; concerned about looming walls; some examples (Los Gatos Hotel positive, ACE/Whole Foods negative).
HEIGHT TRANSITIONS – DETAILED NOTES
Architects
• If a multi-family or mixed-use building develops on a commercial lot, then you’ll have commercial uses abutting the residential, where the setback is generally deeper. With the building placement standards, the new building will stick out. Especially when there is parking in the front setback of the neighboring commercial buildings.
Developers
NA
Residents
• Step-backs
o Building should step-back so they don’t appear massive. The building across from Los Gatos high school is huge, it should fit in better. o Support for upper-story step-backs
o Support for 5 feet step-back per story
ITEM NO. 11.
Sean Mullin
September 25, 2025
o Feeling that step-backs create good design and would not limit number of units.
Units may get smaller, but developers will still be motivated to get their desired number of units, regardless of the step-back
o There are locations where no set back or step-back is needed – existing context has no setback
o The Los Gatos hotel was controversial, but they nestled it in and transitioned well, with setbacks and green space. But the new ACE development has no transition to the surrounding neighborhood.
o The Whole Foods is too close to the Boulevard – it’s a looming building and very modern that would have benefited from greater setbacks. o Preference to have building setback away from the lower density home. o Los Gatos Blvd, where more density is needed – shouldn’t require transitions. Along major boulevards and freeways, no need for rear step-backs. Maximize density there.
• Landscaping
o Having tall buildings near single family areas or in general should be accompanied by trees, especially evergreen
o Example: Chase Bank on Santa Cruz Ave – already have tall trees, so it doesn’t matter how tall the building is.
• Concentration
o Los Gatos Blvd, where more density is needed – shouldn’t require transitions. Along major boulevards and freeways, no need for rear step-backs. Maximize density there.
o Support for slowly going up in height
o A story beyond what is existing in a neighborhood is fine. If the area is two stories, then new buildings at 3 stories are fine. But going up to 4 or 5 stories in a two-story neighborhood is too much
o Need transitions for larger homes to smaller homes, as well as taller buildings to shorter buildings
o Preference to have taller buildings on main corridors • Visual impact of what you see from those roads doesn’t matter. • Solid walls could feel imposing. Important to break it up. • Support for varying the roof types allowed by the height of the roof
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 MEMO
To: Sean Mullin, Town of Los Gatos
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: October 22, 2025
Re: Technical Analysis and Evaluation, Town of Los Gatos Updated/Additional Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development The Town of Los Gatos launched an update to its objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use development. The revisions to the standards will focus on codifying the perspective of the community on the elements of high-quality building design, architectural style, and height transitions, as well as edits for clarity and usability. This Memo includes the following sections:
• Section 1: Regulatory Framework documents relevant policy and regulatory framework; • Section 2: Input to Date documents Staff feedback on the objective design standards and community input related to design, gathered from the Town’s previous public outreach events; • Section 3: Example Projects explores how five current development proposals may inform the revised standards; and
• Section 4: Initial Analysis indicates how the existing standards may be revised in light of current regulations, staff and community feedback, and recent project designs.
Together with staff and community input gathered over the course of this Project, the analysis presented in this Memo will set the direction for the development of the updated objective design standards.
1 Regulatory Framework
This section provides an overview of the Town’s existing regulatory framework, including General Plan policies, development standards from Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Code of the Town of Los Gatos, and the North 40 Specific Plan which includes standards and guidelines for multi-family residential and mixed-use development.
2040 General Plan
Adopted in 2022, the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan provides the long-term vision for the Town’s physical form and development. The General Plan consists of policies that govern and guide Town actions on development regulations and decisions. This section documents existing guiding principles and policies related to the design of multi-family residential and mixed-use development.
In April 2024, the Los Gatos Town Council voted to rescind the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the 2040 General Plan. The 2020 Land Use and Community Design Elements, adopted in 2011, are referenced below.
EXHIBIT 4
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 Land Use Element (2020 General Plan)
The Land Use Element guides the location, form, pattern, and character of new development in the Town.
• Goal LU-1: To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town character and quality of life within Los Gatos.
o Policy LU-1.2: Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image. • Goal LU-6: To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods.
o Policy LU-6.7: Continue to encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that is balanced throughout the Town and within neighborhoods, and that is also compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
o Policy LU-6.8: New construction, remodels, and additions shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood.
• Goal LU-10: To preserve Downtown Los Gatos as the historic center of the Town, with goods and services for local residents, while maintaining the existing Town identity, environment, and commercial viability.
o Policy LU-10.4: Encourage mixed uses to increase residential opportunities in commercial zones Downtown, taking into consideration potential impacts to loss of commercial opportunities.
• Goal LU-13: To promote appropriate and compatible development along Los Gatos Boulevard that complements the whole Town and serves residents and families. o Policy LU-13.4: New development along Los Gatos Boulevard shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent residential areas.
Community Design Element (2020 General Plan)
The Community Design Element aims to preserve the small-town character of Los Gatos through physical design elements.
Town-Wide Design Principles
• Goal CD-1: Preserve and enhance Los Gatos’s character through exceptional community design. o Policy CD-1.1: Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood.
o Policy CD-1.2: New structures, remodels, landscapes, and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area.
o Policy CD-1.3: Buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes shall follow the natural contours of the property.
o Policy CD-1.4: Development on all elevations shall be of high quality design and construction, a positive addition to and compatible with the Town’s ambiance. Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing commercial and/or residential neighborhoods.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 • Goal CD-3: To require utilities, landscaping and streetscapes to contribute to Los Gatos’s highquality character. o Policy CD-3.4: Encourage the use of landscaping such as trees, large shrubs, and trellised vines to mitigate the effects of building mass, lower noise, and reduce heat generation. o Policy CD-3.5: All landscaping shall be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing, compatible with its neighborhood and natural environment, and water conserving. o Policy CD-3.6: Utility connections and meters shall be visually unobtrusive from the street. o Policy CD-3.7: Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened and such screening shall be considered as part of the structure for height limitations. o Policy CD-3.8: Solid fencing over 3 feet high shall be designed such that it does not isolate the structures from the street, or shall be set back and landscaped. o Policy CD-3.9: Parking structures and facilities shall have a low profile, be screened from view, and be aesthetically pleasing.
• Goal CD-4: To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments.
o Policy CD-4.5: New development shall promote visual continuity through tree planting, consistent use of low shrubs, and ground cover.
o Policy CD-4.6: Encourage mixtures of tree species, both deciduous and evergreen, to screen projects, add variety, create a more natural environment, and avoid future problems of insect infestation or other blights that might destroy the desired tree cover.
Residential Neighborhoods
• Goal CD-6: To promote and protect the physical and other distinctive qualities of residential neighborhoods.
o Policy CD-6.1: Reduce the visual impact of new construction and/or remodels on the Town and its neighborhoods.
o Policy CD-6.4: New homes shall be sited to maximize privacy, livability, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and adequate solar access and wind conditions. Siting should take advantage of scenic views but should not create significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public places, or other properties. • Goal CD-7: To preserve the quality of the private open space throughout Los Gatos. o Policy CD-7.1: Maximize quality usable open space in all new developments. o Policy CD-7.2: Multi-family residential developments shall include common open space suitable for group gathering.
o Policy CD-7.3: All residential developments shall include private open space in proportion to the building size.
Historic Preservation
• Goal CD-12: To preserve significant historic and architectural features within the Town. o Policy CD-12.6: New structures within historic districts shall be designed to blend and harmonize with the neighborhood.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4 Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element The Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element describes the provision and maintenance of public facilities, services, and infrastructure.
Utilities and Alternative Energy
• Goal PFS-7: Promote green buildings that minimize consumption of energy and natural resources.
o Policy PFS-7.4: Green Roofs and Community Gardens. Encourage new multi-family construction to include green roofs and common space for community gardens.
Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element
The Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element addresses open space for outdoor recreation facilities and preservation.
Parks and Recreation
• Goal OSPR-7: Create and maintain open space areas and parks that complement and enhance natural habitats and neighborhoods.
o Policy OSPR-7.7: Recreation Space for Young Children. Encourage new multi-family residential development of eight units or more to include tot lots or similar shared off-street recreation space for young children.
Zoning Code Regulations
Development standards for zoning districts that support multi-family residential and mixed-use development in the Code are summarized below. Table 1 summarizes standards for districts within the Housing Element Overlay Zone (HEOZ), and Table 2 summarizes standards for districts outside of the HEOZ.
Table 1: Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-sFamily and Mixed-Use Development (HEOZ Zones) District R-1:8:HEOZ R-M:HEOZ C-1:HEOZ C-2:HEOZ CH:HEOZ CM:HEOZ NF-SP: HEOZ Density
0-5 du/ac
Where GPLU is
HDR, 30-40
du/ac; where
GPLU is MRD,
14-22, 5-12
du/ac in VHFSZ
10-20 20-30 30-40 du/ac - 30-40 du/ac
FAR n/a n/a 1.0 2.0 3.0 - -
Lot
Coverage 50% 75% n/a n/a n/a 50%
Mixed-use:
50%;
Residentialonly: None
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5 Table 1: Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-sFamily and Mixed-Use Development (HEOZ Zones) District R-1:8:HEOZ R-M:HEOZ C-1:HEOZ C-2:HEOZ CH:HEOZ CM:HEOZ NF-SP: HEOZ Height 30 ft
Where GPLU is
HDR: 45 ft
Where GPLU is
MRD: 35 ft
35 ft 45 ft 45 ft 35 ft
35 ft; 45 ft for
mixed-use w/
min. 40%
affordable; 25
ft w/in 50 ft of
Los Gatos Blvd
or Lark Ave
Yard,
Front 25 ft1 25 ft
15 ft; 25 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone; +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft.
10 ft; 15 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone; +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
15 ft; 25 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone; +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
25 ft, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft.
Varies by rightof-way2
Yard,
Street
Side
15 ft 20 ft
15 ft, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
15 ft, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
Yard,
Interior
Side
8 ft
Two-family: 8
ft; Multi-family:
10 ft, 12 ft w/
bedroom
windows, 20 ft
w/ living room
windows
None; 20 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
None; 20 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone; +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
None; 15 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
25 ft
Mixed-use on
interior streets:
none
Elsewhere: not
specified
Yard,
Rear 20 ft 20 ft
None; 20 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
None; 20 ft
abutting or
facing an R
zone, +1 ft for
each foot over
20 ft
Mixed-use on
interior streets:
none;
Elsewhere: not
specified
Private
Open
Space
-
120 sf/unit for
ground-floor
units; 60 sf/unit
for upper-story
units
- - - -
some form of
useful private
open space is
required
Common
Rec.
Space
-
100 sf/unit +
2% of nonresidential sf
- - - -
100 sf/du
(condos)
200 sf/du
(other multifamily)
Notes:
1 Where an entire side of a block is being developed at one time, the minimum front yard requirements may be reduced by 5 feet to create a staggered building line, provided the average of the front yards equals the requirements of this section.
2 40 ft (Lark Ave); 20 ft (Los Gatos Blvd with Market Hall at edge); 30 ft (Los Gatos Blvd in all other areas); 12 ft (North A St, Noddin Ave, Burton Rd, C2 Street); 24 ft (South A Street, Lark District); 15 ft (Neighborhood Street); 25 ft (South A Street, Transition District); per Architecture and Site Review (residential on interior streets)
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6 Table 2: Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development (Outside the HEOZ) District R-M C-1 C-2 CH O
Density
5-12 du/ac (R-M:5-
12 zone); 5-20 du/ac
(R-M:5-20 zone)
- - - -
FAR -
0.6 when in a
parking assessment
district
0.6 -
0.6 when in a
parking assessment
district
Lot
Coverage 40% 50% - 50% 40%
Height 30 ft 35 ft 45 ft 35 ft 35 ft
Yard, Front 25 ft
15 ft; 25 ft abutting
or facing an R zone;
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft.
10 ft; 15 ft abutting
or facing an R zone;
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft
15 ft; 25 ft abutting
or facing an R zone;
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft
25 ft
Yard, Street
Side 20 ft 15 ft, +1 ft for each
foot over 20 ft
15 ft, +1 ft for each
foot over 20 ft 15 ft
Yard,
Interior
Side
Two-family: 8 ft;
Multi-family: 10 ft, 12
ft w/ bedroom
windows, 20 ft w/
living room windows
None; 20 ft abutting
or facing an R zone,
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft
None; 20 ft abutting
or facing an R zone;
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft
None; 15 ft abutting
or facing an R zone,
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft
10 ft
Yard, Rear 20 ft
None; 20 ft abutting
or facing an R zone,
+1 ft for each foot
over 20 ft
20 ft
Private
Open Space
120 sf/unit for
ground-floor units;
60 sf/unit for upperstory units
- - - -
Common
Rec. Space
100 sf/unit + 2% of
non-residential sf - - - -
North 40 Specific Plan
The North 40 Specific Plan, adopted in 2015, establishes a comprehensive framework for a 44-acre neighborhood that offers a mix of residential, commercial, and open space uses. The Specific Plan is an opportunity to address the community’s needs and preferences in housing, retail, outdoor amenities, and the natural environment while maintaining a small-town feel. The document includes design guidelines that address all residential and mixed-use development in the Specific Plan area.
The following is a summary of design guidelines related to high-quality building design, architectural style, and height transitions.
Mixed-Use Design
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 7 • Building Form. Exterior wall planes should be varied in depth and direction with minimized blank walls and visual bulk. Retail linkages along retail-oriented side streets shall be achieved through corner entries and adjacent display windows.
• Building Elements and Articulation.
o Architectural Details. Buildings should include details and elements that add visual interests and alleviate the look of blank walls with unified design around all sides of buildings. o Entrance Design. Building entries should be well defined and incorporate vestibules. o Window Design and Transparency. Display windows should provide sufficient transparency.
Windows should complement the architectural style of the building and avoid dark or reflective glazing.
o Protection. Install awnings and trellises when weather and sun exposure protection are desired.
o Colors and Materials. Wood window frames are encouraged. Avoid strong colors.
Residential Design
• Building Elements and Articulation.
o Building and Roof Forms. Avoid boxy forms with large massing by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes with variations in height, setback, shape, and roof lines. o Entrance Design. Emphasize entries via projecting porches or other entry elements. o Façade Articulation. Buildings should include horizontal and vertical offsets and well-defined base, middle, and top to prevent bulk. Avoid repetition of identical façades and roof lines. o Architectural Materials and Details. All materials and details should be carried around all sides of the building. Architectural features such as bay windows and cornices are encouraged.
Provide pedestrian-oriented elements and details on facades facing sidewalks. o Window Design. The size and proportion of the windows should be appropriate to the building.
Window articulation such as sills and trim should be applied. 2 Community Input to Date
This section documents public input and takeaways related to community design from the Town’s previous community engagement efforts and subsequent public meetings regarding the need to update the standards.
Community Design Workshop (2020)
In 2020, the Town hosted an online community workshop as part of the 2040 General Plan Update.
The objective of the workshop was to collect community input on the topic of community design to inform the Community Design Element of the General Plan. The workshop included a visual preference survey on participants’ design priorities. The planning team collected the following observations about multi-family residential and mixed-use project examples:
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 8 • Larger buildings need upper-story step-backs that break up the massing and serve as open space. However, certain participants worried that step-backs might waste floor space and create more underutilized decks and patios.
• New construction should incorporate a mix of high-quality materials and colors and avoid a cheap and overly uniform look.
• Building façades should be well articulated to achieve a balanced look without looking too “chopped up.”
• New buildings need sufficient transparency and high-quality window design. • Participants were divided over architectural styles. While some believed that new developments should feature historic-inspired styles compatible with the existing built environment, especially in and near downtown, others preferred more contemporary styles with clean and simple lines.
Objective Design Standards Community Meetings (2022)
In 2022, the Town held two community meetings to discuss the Town’s current objective design standards. At these meetings, the community articulated the following priorities related to design:
• Buildings need to provide shading and weather protection. • There needs to be different standards for various roof types. Standards should allow for diverse roof forms to avoid the uniform look.
Town Council Meeting (2024)
On September 6, 2024, the Town Council discussed the effectiveness and shortcoming of the Town’s existing objective sign standards. Key input gathered at that meeting included the following:
• Many of the nine projects that have been subject to the objective standards (SB 330 projects) have requested waivers. This has included waivers for public bike parking, some specific design features, and dimensions of required open space/balconies. • The standards document does not include specific standards for small multi-family projects.
Most Housing Element sites are anticipated to support small multi-family, so this is an oversight. • The Council is concerned about protecting the character of Los Gatos and is interested in additional standards focused on
o Height transitions/massing: make sure tall residential buildings are not located too close to single-family homes
o Architectural style: make sure things don't look out of place o High-quality design: ensure that façade materials reflect existing character o Small multifamily housing (on the scale of 3 to 8 units). Since the standards seem written for larger developments, there is concern about creating loopholes for smaller projects. • We need to make sure there attention is paid to details, and that the standards don’t take a "one size fits all” approach.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 9 Staff Input on 2023 Objective Design Standards
Last updated in 2023, the Town of Los Gatos Objective Design Standards are the Town’s guiding framework for new multi-family and mixed-use residential development projects. The standards aim to preserve the Town’s unique character through high-quality architectural and environmental design that integrates with the surrounding built environment. The document includes Purpose and Applicability statements; a glossary of key terms; two sections of design standards; and two appendices.
Below is a summary of the two sections of design standards along with needed revisions and additions as indicated by Town planning staff.
Site Design
• A.1 Pedestrian Access – Pedestrian connectivity throughout site plan and within parking areas. o Clarify the standard to recognize that pedestrian circulation in parking garages typically utilizes the drive aisle.
o Add standards that require pedestrian pathway, as opposed to regulating design for a pathway when implemented.
• A.2 Short Term Bicycle Parking (Class II) – Short-term bicycle rack design and dimensions, location and weather coverage requirements, and ratio.
o Ratio is too high. Suggest revising to one short-term bike space per four units. Cite rates from other cities to justify.
o Permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure is frequently waived for applicants. • A.3 Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I) – Long-term bicycle parking facility design, location requirements, and ratio.
o Add flexibility on location requirement – consider revising to allow the facilities to be located in below-grade parking garages.
o Applicants are finding difficulty in sourcing a locker that meets these specific dimensions.
Revise to increase flexibility based in products on the market. o This additional space between aisle and long-term bicycle parking spaces has proven onerous.
Reconsider, and revise diagrams as needed.
• A.4 Vehicular Access – Internal circulation requirements for off-street parking lots. • A.5 Parking Location and Design – Location and design requirements for parking sites. • A.6 Parking Structure Access – Design criteria to minimize conflicts (access and congestion) between drivers and pedestrians.
• A.7 Utilities – Pedestrian-scale lighting; screening of utilities and mechanical equipment. o Revise to increase flexibility to allow integrated fixtures such as lights embedded in walls. o Revise to recognize the constraints of traffic view areas, and location and clearance requirements dictated by utilities.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 10 • A.8 Landscaping and Screening – Measures to buffer residential properties and reduce visibility of surface parking lots.
o Clarify standard’s reference to setback
o Hyperlink to Master Street Tree List.
• A.9 Fencing – Location, height, materials, and transparency of fences and gates. • A.10 Retaining Walls – Height, configuration, and visual treatment of retaining walls. • A.11 Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces – Size, dimensions, and distribution of landscaped areas, private recreation spaces, and community recreation spaces for qualifying projects.
o Add graphic/example.
o Note that any changes to the standard will require a Code change as well. • A.12 Building Placement – Placement of buildings relative to property lines and site amenities in front setback areas for mixed-use developments.
o Provide internal clarification on the required “build-to zone” (requirement for building to be located within a specified distance of the minimum setback line). o Graphic A.11.1 should be A.12.1.
o Add graphic/examples showing site amenity elements.
Building Standards
• B.1 Massing and Scale – Form and layout of street-facing building façades to break up massing and reduce the visual scale of multi-story buildings. This standard requires compliance with at least three out of a menu of six design options.
o Reduce to two solutions to incorporate breaks in building mass. o Edit to, “A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length of the floors above the ground floor shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet.” o Revise [b.] to state that the depth changes need to be applied to the full vertical extent of the façade.
o Delete (d) and figures. Generally, arcades are a poor design choice that hides storefronts or ground floor facades.
o The standard € should emphasize that the intent is to introduce articulation to the massing.
Clarify if each “open area” must be 60 sq ft. Clarify that the open areas can be landscaped. o Add graphic for 1.2.
• B.2 Parking Structure Design – Façade treatment, transparency, and street-facing design of parking structures.
o Clarify if 2.2 applies to each opening or across the entire façade. Is it limited to each elevation? Add graphic.
o Remove, “landscaping between the building façade and the street, or” (2.3). • B.3 Roof Design – Roof form, features, and materials to create variation and consistency with primary structures.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 11 o Add graphic for 3.1.
• B.4 Façade Design and Articulation – Building façade composition, material transitions, entry design, and architectural features for all sides of a building, with specific standards for streetfacing façades and adjacent residential uses. Standard 4.1, which regulates differentiation of the base, middle and top, requires compliance with at least two out of a menu of five design options.
Standards 4.3, which regulates variation in street-facing façade planes, requires a total of 16 points, which may be achieved through a combination of a range of design options with a value of 3 to 8 points each.
o For 4.1a-d, clarify whether/how standards apply to the base, middle, and/or top. Add dimensions to the exhibits.
o Remove “arcade or gallery along the ground floor” in 4.3. o Add dimensions to the diagram 4.6b.
o Add diagram for 4.7.
o For 4.9b, revise language to mirror Commercial Design Guideline 3.3.8(e). o The intent of standard 4.11 was to try and eliminate privacy intrusions created by balconies.
Develop approach on how best to protect privacy while requiring private recreation space and using balconies as an element of articulation.
o Reconsider 4.12. Is this redundant? Most of it is addressed elsewhere. 3 Example Projects
This section provides information on several recent multi-family residential and mixed-use projects.
All but one are located on sites included in the site inventory of the Town’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The profile for each project is summarized in Table 3 below, followed by a brief summary of design features and elements that may inform the revised design standards.
Table 3: Select Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development Projects 151 E. Main St
(Café Dio) 14789 Oka Road
15367 Los Gatos
Blvd (Los Gatos
Green, Genuine
Automotive)
50 Los GatosSaratoga Rd (The
Lodge)
16492 Los Gatos
Blvd (Happy
Cleaners)
Type Mixed-Use Multi-family Multi-family Multi-family Mixed-use Zone C-2 R-1 CH: HEOZ CH C-1
HE Site
Inventory Area n/a Lark Avenue Los Gatos
Boulevard Los Gatos Lodge Los Gatos Boulevard
Lot Area (ac) 0.43 6.71 1.56 8.8 0.60 (over 5 lots)
Units 30 138 55 155 14
Residential
Density (du/ac) 71 20.6 35 17.6 16.6
Commercial
FAR
0.13 (2,416 sq ft) - - - 0.06
(1,695 sq ft)
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 12 Table 3: Select Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development Projects 151 E. Main St
(Café Dio) 14789 Oka Road
15367 Los Gatos
Blvd (Los Gatos
Green, Genuine
Automotive)
50 Los GatosSaratoga Rd (The
Lodge)
16492 Los Gatos
Blvd (Happy
Cleaners)
Height 52’ / 4 stories 40’-9” / 3 stories 45’ / 3 stories 37’-3.5” / 3 stories 35’-11” / 3 stories Residential
Parking Ratio
(spaces/du)
1.6 (opt 1) or 1.3
(opt 2)
2.1/unit
(2.0/unit + 20
guest)
1.2/unit
(1.0/unit + 9 guest)
2.1/unit 2.0/unit
151 E. Main St (currently Café Dio)
This project at 151 E Main Street may help inform the following design standards, among others:
• Street-facing elevations: how standards may (or may not) vary for facades and other streetfacing elevations. This may include design and quality of windows, horizontal articulation, architectural details, and other building elements.
• Upper story step-backs: street wall height, symmetry of step-backs, usability of rooftop space. • Roof form: incorporating multiple roof forms in one building (e.g., cornice and hip). • Entry features: dimensions with respect to the rest of the building façade. 151 E. Main Street,
perspective rendering
151 E. Main Street,
siteplan
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 13 • Architectural style: whether particular choices must accompany others (e.g., design integrity/adherence to a recognized style).
14789 Oka Rd
This project at 14789 Oka Road may help inform the following design standards, among others:
• Materials and colors: allowed and prohibited for primary, secondary and accent. • Ground floor design: required separation between sidewalk elevation and entrance elevation. • Ground floor vs. upper-story design: height (whether ground floor height must exceed that of upper stories) and articulation specific to the ground floor (building base elements). • Townhome design: standards for rows of units with identical or similar floor plans. May include variation of units; staggering of units in plan; design of “end” units; vehicular approach/access; entrance design, spacing, and width with respect to façade width; garage door design, spacing, and cumulative width with respect to façade width.
14789 Oka Road,
perspective rendering
14789 Oka Road,
siteplan
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 14 15349 - 15367 Los Gatos Blvd (Los Gatos Green, currently Genuine Automotive) This project at 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard may help inform the following design standards, among others:
• Transitions in height: step-backs in height adjacent to and/or facing lower-density residential zones.
• Building length: maximum length adjacent to and/or facing lower-density residential zones. • Materials, textures, and colors: allowed and prohibited for primary, secondary and accent. • Site design: building separation.
• Townhome design: standards for rows of units with identical or similar floor plans. May include variation of units; staggering of units in plan; design of “end” units; vehicular approach/access; entrance design, spacing, and width with respect to façade width; garage door design, spacing, and cumulative width with respect to façade width.
• Open space design: amenities, dimensions, landscaping. 15349-15367 Los Gatos
Boulevard, perspective
rendering
15349-15367 Los Gatos
Boulevard, siteplan
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 15 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd (currently The Lodge)
This project at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road may help inform the following design standards, among others:
• Architectural style: whether particular choices must accompany others (e.g., design integrity/adherence to a recognized style).
• Site design: building separation.
• Entry design: shared units and individual units.
• Open space design: amenities, dimensions, and landscaping in private open space and common open space.
50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road,
perspective rendering
50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road,
siteplan
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 16 16492 Los Gatos Blvd (currently Happy Cleaners)
This project at 14692 Los Gatos Boulevard may help inform the following design standards, among others:
• Garage design: visibility from the right-of-way, garage width with respect to façade width. • Building articulation: vertical and horizontal.
• Entry design: shared units and individual units.
• Materials, textures, and colors: allowed and prohibited for primary, secondary and accent. • Window design: size, shape, consistency across one or more elevations. 4 Initial Analysis
High-Quality Building Design
The following existing direction and guidance related to building design quality can be expanded upon and illustrated to become objective in nature:
• Colors and Materials. Wood window frames are encouraged. Avoid strong colors. 16492 Los Gatos Boulevard,
perspective rendering
16492 Los Gatos Boulevard,
siteplan
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 17 • Architectural Materials and Details. All materials and details should be carried around all sides of the building. Architectural features such as bay windows and cornices are encouraged. Provide pedestrian-oriented elements and details on facades facing sidewalks. • New construction should incorporate a mix of high-quality materials and colors and avoid a cheap and overly uniform look.
Existing standards can be updated, and new standards can be introduced, to become specific in terms of allowed and prohibited material and color palettes for primary, secondary and accent materials and colors, and architectural details (e.g., eave depth, trim, brackets, windows details, columns/pilasters, etc.). Standards may also vary based on zone, location, scale, architectural style, or other features of the development. Specific revisions will reflect community and decision-maker input gathered during the Project’s community outreach efforts.
Architectural Character and Details
The following existing direction and guidance related to architectural details and overall character can be expanded upon and illustrated to become objective in nature:
• Window Design and Transparency. Display windows should provide sufficient transparency.
Windows should complement the architectural style of the building and avoid dark or reflective glazing.
• Design workshop participants were divided over architectural styles. While some believed that new developments should feature historic-inspired styles compatible with the existing built environment, especially in and near downtown, others preferred more contemporary styles with clean and simple lines.
Existing standards can be updated, and new standards can be introduced, to speak to building character, whether or not the building reflects any particular recognizable architectural style. This may involve defining the character-defining features of, and illustrating, design elements that are traditionally found in and appropriate for Los Gatos. Standards may also vary based on zone, location, scale, or other features of the development. Specific revisions will reflect community and decisionmaker input gathered during the Project’s community outreach efforts.
Height Transitions
Existing direction and guidance related to height transitions is limited to the following:
• Building and Roof Forms. Avoid boxy forms with large massing by using a variety of building forms and roof shapes with variations in height, setback, shape, and roof lines. • Height Step-back standards. Step-back requirements in the C-1, CH and CM zones abutting or across from lower-intensity uses or zones.
Existing standards can be updated, and new standards can be introduced, to address all adjacency conditions, anticipating where sites are likely to support development that uses density bonus and exceeds applicable building height limits. Height transition standards may address building length and bulk, sunlight access, and privacy, among other transition concerns. Standards will vary based on zone, location, and specific adjacency. Specific revisions will reflect community and decision-maker input gathered during the Project’s community outreach efforts.
Small-Scale Multi-Family Development
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 18 Existing direction and guidance related to height transitions is limited to the following:
• Policy LU-1.2: Ensure that new development preserves and promotes existing commercial centers consistent with the maintenance of a small-scale, small-town atmosphere and image.
The standards can be updated to small projects that are on the sale of a large single-family house and small apartment building, as well as various configurations of townhomes, cottage court development and other medium-density models that are appropriate in Los Gatos neighborhoods. Design elements may include the location and design of shared vs. individual entries; the location and design of private open space and common open space; vehicular access and circulation; and variation of units.
Standards may vary based on zone, location, and specific adjacency. Specific revisions will reflect community and decision-maker input gathered during the Project’s community outreach efforts.
Other
Other limitations of the current objective design standards and related requirements include:
• Clarity and usability for the applicant. There is a need for graphics that reflect typical Los Gatos development forms and configurations. This may involve updating, replacing, or adding to existing graphics.
• Clarity and usability for the Town staff. There is a need for applicants to prepare and submit a drawing that specifically demonstrates compliance with the required standards, wherever compliance can be shown graphically. The Appendix checklist may be modified to note which standards must be shown graphically on the required drawing.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 MEMO
To: Sean Mullin, Town of Los Gatos
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: October 22, 2025
Re: Town of Los Gatos Updated/Additional Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development: DRAFT Recommendations Below are Recommendations for the Updated/Additional Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development for the Town of Los Gatos. These recommendations, which will guide the development of the Draft Standards, stem from and are informed by:
• The October 2025 Technical Analysis and Evaluation Memo • Direction provided by Town Staff on needed updates to the 2023 Objective Design Standards • The body of Community input gathered to date on the 2023 Objective Design Standards, including:
o Community Design Workshop, conducted as part of the 20240 General Update (2020) o Objective Design Standards Community Meetings (2022)
o Town Council Meeting (2024)
o September 2025 Focus Groups
Text Updates
Section A: Site Design
• A.1 Pedestrian Access
o Clarify the standard to recognize that pedestrian circulation in parking garages typically utilizes the drive aisle.
o Add standards that require pedestrian pathway, as opposed to regulating design for a pathway when implemented.
• A.2 Short Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)
o Reduce ratio to one short-term bike space per four units. o Remove requirements for permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure. • A.3 Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I)
o Add flexibility on location requirement and allow in below-grade parking garages. o Increase flexibility of bike locker standards and spatial requirements. • A.4 Vehicular Access
EXHIBIT 5
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 o Add standard to limit number of curb cuts along primary frontage. • A.5 Parking Location and Design
o Rename to Surface Parking Location and Design.
• A.6 Parking Structure Access
o Rename to Parking Structures Access and Visibility.
o Confirm the requirements for parking structure placement and visibility based on recent project examples.
• A.7 Utilities
o Revise to allow wall-mounted fixtures.
o Revise to recognize the constraints of traffic view areas, and location and clearance requirements dictated by utilities.
• A.8 Landscaping and Screening
o Clarify reference to building setback established by zone. o Ensure that tall buildings are “softened: by enhanced trees and landscaping o Add hyperlink to Master Street Tree List.
• A.9 Fencing – No change
• A.10 Retaining Walls – No change
• A.11 Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces o Add text to clarify that changes to the standards will require a Code change as well. o Add a standard to ensure that required upper-story building step-backs are designed to be usable open space (decks, patios, etc.).
o Add flexibility to required dimensions for required shared and private open spaces, including balconies.
• A.12 Building Placement
o Revise standards related to the “build-to zone.” Specifically:
Reflect site plans that include multiple buildings located at the frontage of the property Reconsider the “75 percent at within 5 feet” standard to ensure that the standard enforces front street-acing setbacks that are comfortable and usable. Require buildings to “match” the setback of adjacent lower-intensity uses for a specified distance from the abutting lot.
Section B: Building Standards
• B.1 Massing and Scale
o Require compliance with two instead of three building mass strategies. o Edit strategy B.1.1.a to “A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length of the floors above the ground floor shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet.”
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 o Revise strategy B.1.1.b to require depth changes be applied to the full vertical extent of the façade.
o Delete strategy B.1.1.d and figures.
o Revise strategy B.1.1.e to emphasize that the intent is to introduce articulation to the massing and clarify requirements for “open area” (size, landscaping, other). o Re-visit standard B.1.1 to:
Clarify its relationship with the existing upper-story setback standards applicable in the C-1:HEOZ, C-2:HEOZ, CH:HEOZ, and CM:HEOZ zones.
Clarify the story or height in feet at which a step-back is required. Establish upper-story step-backs options that are sensitive to zone and/or abutting right-of-way, as appropriate.
Consider an additional step-back at a specified height for buildings above three stories.
Reflect small multi-family development, such as triplexes, quadplexes, small apartment buildings, and a range of townhome configurations. Add standards to address height transitions (e.g., where a multi-family or mixed-use zone abuts a single-family zone).
• B.2 Parking Structure Design
o Revisit screening standard for parking garages (strategies for screening; degree of transparency; linear percent of street-facing elevations requiring screening; linear percent of other elevations requiring screening).
o Address building configurations where a parking structure is lined with habitable uses. o Remove requirements for landscaping between the building façade and the street. • B.3 Roof Design
o Consider reducing the 40-foot maximum linear dimension allowed without a change in roof form or height.
• B.4 Façade Design and Articulation
o For standards B.4.1.a through B.4.1.d, clarify whether/how standards apply to the base, middle, and/or top.
o Remove arcade or gallery as design options for standard B.4.3. o For B.4.9.b, revise language to mirror Commercial Design Guideline 3.3.8(e). o Revise standard B.4.11 to eliminate privacy intrusions created by balconies while protecting privacy, allowing for private recreation space, and using balconies as an element of articulation.
o Consider revising standard B.4.13 (blank walls on any floor) to be a maximum number of linear feet instead of a percentage of the street-facing elevation. o Revise, delete, and/or move standards in this section to avoid redundancy other standards.
This includes B.4.8 (windows), B.4.12 (redundant with other standards), and B.4.6.a and B.4.7 (entrance design).
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4 • Add Section B.5 Entrance Design
o Move standards B.4.1.c, B.4.6.a, and B.4.7 to this new section. o Add dimensions to ensure spaces are appropriately scaled and usable. • Add Section B.6 Windows and Doors
o Move standard B.4.8 to this new section and elaborate. o Add standards for window glazing and window and door frame materials. This may be a list of permitted materials, or a list of prohibited materials. o Regulate glazing for residential uses and for ground floor non-residential uses. • Add Section B.7 Materials, Colors, and Architectural Details (e.g., corrugated metal). o Add standards for building materials. This may be a list of permitted materials, or a list of prohibited materials (e.g. corrugated metal). Develop the palette based on historic buildings in the Town and materials currently available to builders. Ensure that allowed materials are durable and high-quality.
o Add standards for primary, secondary, and accent building colors. Colors to be identified by saturation value, or a combination of saturation value and light reflecting value. This may be a list of permitted colors, or a list of prohibited colors. o Establish limits on the number of materials and colors used on any one structure.
Graphics Updates
• Update graphics to reflect typical Los Gatos forms and configurations. This will involve updating existing graphics to be more reflective of Los Gatos project design, replacing graphics, and adding to the set of graphics.
• Add graphics to Section A.11: Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces to illustrate standards.
• Fix numbering of graphics and add graphics to standard A.12,2 to show amenities. • Add graphic to standard B.1.2 (upper story step-back). • Add graphics for standard B.3.1 (roof design) to illustrate design options. • Add dimensions to the diagram for standard B.4.1.a through B.4.1.e (façade articulation). • Add dimensions to the diagram for standard B.4.6.b (ground-floor commercial transparency). • Add diagram for B.4.7 (building entrance design) and move to Section B.5 Entrance Design. • Add diagram for B.4.11 (balcony placement and privacy) to illustrate revised standard.
Implementation Updates
• Discuss with the Town and community the effectiveness of the point system for standard B.4.3, consider eliminating.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5 • Require a drawing that specifically demonstrates compliance with the Objective Design Standards, wherever compliance can be shown graphically. The Appendix checklist may be modified to note which standards must be shown graphically on the required drawing.
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 MEMO
To: Sean Mullin, Town of Los Gatos
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) and Urban Planning Partners (UPP) Date: December 18, 2025
Re: Community Open House Summary Memo
As part of the community outreach effort for the Update to the Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards, the Town of Los Gatos held a Community Open House on December 4, 2025 at the Adult Recreation Center, located at 208 E. Main Street. The Open House took place prior to the drafting of the updated standards, with the objective of gathering community input to help inform the upcoming standards. Town staff conducted outreach to publicize the event through a posting on the project webpage; an email sent to a group of local architects, designers, and members of the public that have signed up for notifications from the Town; and through various media and social media resources. A total of seven community members participated.
Shortly after 6:00 pm, the Town and Consultant Team gave a brief presentation to describe the project, objectives, and progress as well as to introduce the format of the Open House. At about 6:30, the group began to circulate at four topical “stations” set up around the around the room by the Town and the Consultant Team. Each station included two to three detailed presentation boards to focus the conversation and provide graphic context for the topics at hand. Attendees were urged to share their thoughts in a casual, informal style. The four stations were:
• Station 1: Project Overview. The boards prompted participants to review project objectives and design topics and to record initial visual preferences. • Station 2: High Quality Building and Site Design. The boards prompted participants to consider exactly what “high-quality design” means in Los Gatos. The presentation boards focused on a range of topics in site design, roof form and articulation, and windows. • Station 3: Building Massing and Height Transitions. The boards prompted participants to identify their priorities for regulating building massing. The presentation boards focused on building length, upper-story step-backs, and options for transitions to lower-intensity residential areas. • Station 4: Architectural Character and Details. The boards prompted participants to consider the details of design—specifically, four different “detail palettes,” details of façade articulation, building entry design, and ranges of building materials and colors—and lend input into which options are the best fit for new development in Los Gatos.
In addition, at each station was a blank flip-chart for recording discussion notes and community feedback. Community participants and planning team members alike noted thoughts and ideas directly on the boards (see p. 5) as well as on flip charts (see p. 9). Below is a summary of the community input.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 Summary of Open House Input
Building Placement
• A maximum setback is not seen as critical because it’s unlikely a developer would waste that space.
Massing and Articulation
• More articulation is preferred. We should avoid long, straight, unbroken lines, particularly along roof lines and facades.
• Avoid boxy, “chock-a-block” design.
• Building “modules” should break up bulky facades. Modules should be used in combination with step-backs.
• Step-backs for second and third stories are supported, but not with balconies occupying the stepped-back space.
• Support for street-facing step-backs starting at the second story, similar to 1001 Oak Hill in Lafayette.
• Strong preference for courtyards that break up the massing of larger buildings. • Of the different step-back options presented, there was a preference for a height limit imposed within a certain distance of an abutting residential property line. • Usable balconies are preferred over Juliet balconies, except on Spanish-style buildings. • Recessed balconies are preferred over projecting balconies. • Balconies should consider the safety of pedestrians and passers-by below. • Preference for an emphasized building base with a material change and a cornice marking the top of the base.
• Privacy should be considered for all new development.
Roof Design
• False mansard roofs are acceptable if they wrap around all sides of the building and do not have a steep slope.
• All sloped roofs should have eaves.
• Flat roofs without a parapet are discouraged.
• Preference for a well-articulated cornice and overhangs.
Windows
• Windows should have charm. This includes details, trim, lintels, porticos, and awnings. Avoid windows that are flush with the building.
• Flat window frames should not be allowed.
• Trim, recessed windows, or lintels are preferred.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 • Support for arched windows.
• Window trim should not be stucco.
• Preference for windows with sills.
Entry Design
• Individual Residential Entries
o Preference for entries that are emphasized with a recess or projection; however, thin shedroof overhangs without columns are insufficient and look cheap. o Support for two-story porches.
o Entries should be no more than three steps up from the sidewalk. • Shared Entry Residential
o Shared entries below a floating balcony are not supported. o Preference for entries that are articulated with gable-end roofs and columns. • Commercial Frontages
o Preference for seating and planter boxes to define ground floor commercial frontages. o Preference for awnings, recessed entries, and terraces.
Building Materials
• Materials should be mixed; should be used to break up facades and prevent monotony • Too much variation without any rhyme or reason can look chaotic. For example, townhouses should have material and color changes that correspond to the different units. • Preference for siding, shakes, brick, and stone.
• Board-form concrete should be used only on a small portion of the building. • There should be a maximum percentage of stucco allowed on any one façade; too much stucco can create boring facades.
• Metal panels, reflective materials, glass curtain walls, and corrugated metal should not be allowed.
Building Colors
• Muted, earthy, natural colors are preferred. Color palettes should cohere with those of neighboring buildings.
• Bright, saturated colors are not a good fit in Los Gatos. • No blinding white.
Style and Character
• New development should be consistent with the small-town, cottage-style, Craftsman vibe of Los Gatos.
• Avoid any new development that is “too Modern.”
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4 • Preference for Neoclassical and Italianate styles. Spanish and modern Craftsman/Farmhouse also liked. When Spanish style is used, there shouldn’t be repeating bays. • Contemporary style and agricultural-looking buildings (corrugated siding, minimal windows, shallow eaves) are not liked/not appropriate.
• Support for courtyard-style buildings.
• Avoid big buildings; strong preference for “compact design.” • Developers are often willing to listen to neighbors and refine proposals accordingly.
Parking
• Although we’re a small town, people do drive and need parking. • Parking should be underground, hidden from view, and/or located to the rear of buildings.
Safeway is good example.
• Surface parking should be screened from view from the right-of-way with landscaping and two access driveways should be provided where possible.
Landscaping
• More trees and shrubbery.
• Preferences for an expanded sidewalk, and not just in the Downtown.
Public Art
• Murals and public art is a priority. The new Whole Foods is a good example.
Open Space
• Small open spaces, parklets, and shared public spaces should be encouraged/required. Consider seating, barbeque areas, etc. The Newton building is a good example. • Common open spaces should not be allowed where they can overlook a single-family yard.
Safety/Evacuation
• The Town should consider evacuation strategies when approving any new development.
Infrastructure
• Los Gatos does not have the civil infrastructure to support much/any new residential development.
Affordability
• The project should consider that additional design requirements may impact affordability. • The Town should be able to negotiate to reduce the burden on developers to produce more affordable housing.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5 Presentation Boards with Feedback (11 total)
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6 Page 326 Page 239 ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 7 Page 327 Page 240 ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 8 Page 328 Page 241 ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 9 Flip Chart Pages
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 10 Page 330 Page 243 ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 Objective Design Standards
Town of Los Gatos, CA
Joint Town Council/Planning Commission Study Session
A Joint Study Session on the Revised Los Gatos Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and MixedUse Objective Design Standards (ODS) was held at the Los Gatos Town Hall on Tuesday, March 17, 2026. The objective of the Study Session was for the Town Council, Planning Commission, and community to provide the consultant, Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc., with input and direction prior to the preparation of the Administrative Draft Revised Objective Standards. Below is a summary of the takeaways from the Study Session discussion.
1. General
a. Some preference for point system, but a menu of options is OK as alternative. The most important thing is that requirements are clear and can be verified by staff-level, ministerial review.
b. Regulating views may become a later phase or a separate project c. Health and safety: Town Attorney clarifies that evidence is needed before a design standard can be considered a threat to public health and safety
2. Site Design
a. Open space and landscaping
i. Open spaces should be meaningful and usable
ii. Elevated open space is OK
iii. Forecourts are appropriate for larger sites. But for smaller buildings and sites, they detract.
iv. Genuine Automotive is a good example of a bioswale becoming usable space; Los Gatos Lodge is not
b. Require community/common buildings
3. Height Transitions
a. Stepping when adjacent to smaller buildings – but be careful how b. Step-backs aren’t needed on public-facing elevations; only along shared property line c. Strong preference for requiring a maximum height within a set distance of a singlefamily residence. i. Support for a step-back in height at 40 ft from an interior property line. This is similar to the Palo Alto strategy (limits above X ft within 50 feet of property line.)
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 ii. Consider a 2-story differential:
1. Limit to 3 story height when abutting 1 story
2. Limit to 4 story height when abutting 2 story
3. Limit to 5 story height when abutting 3 story
4. Apartments/Stacked Flats
a. Massing
i. Privacy, bulk, and mass are most important – see Palo Alto for privacy reference ii. Massing break-ups shouldn’t be random.
1. Forecourt is good because of the rest of the building. Yes to forecourts on large properties only
2. Façade breakups “every X feet” is too much/too prescriptive
3. Too much change/articulation is chaotic.
iii. Along major rights-of-way
1. Elevations facing major rights-of-way (especially Los Gatos Blvd) should not be subject to additional standards
2. It is important to prohibit long blank walls –need deliberate, clear standards to prevent this
3. Need interaction and permeability between sidewalk and building
4. The primary entrance, or at least a primary entrance, must be located along Los Gatos Blvd
5. Café Dio on E Main, however, has the primary entry on Church St, which is the secondary street. Because it’s Downtown, this feels appropriate, but is not advised elsewhere.
iv. Massing facing all rights-of-way are the priority. Support for the three massing options provided (forecourt; max façade width; upper story step-back for X%) b. Materials
i. Too many different materials is chaotic
ii. Don’t prohibit materials, as this limits imagination iii. Materials should be required to be fire-resistant (we’re in the WUI) iv. Regulate quality over type – quality, durability, fireproofing, etc.
5. Townhomes
a. Massing
i. Too much change is chaotic.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 ii. Townhomes mostly look okay, the concern is more about large multi-family projects
b. Materials
i. Colors could change each townhouse if they’re the same form, or form could change each townhouse if they’re the same color, but not both
6. Roof Design
a. Yes, require eaves, but don’t be too prescriptive
b. Yes, require cornice or overhang on flat roofs
7. Windows
a. Yes, require trim, recesses, or lintels, but there’s no need to provide specific measurements
8. Entry Design
a. Be flexible, not prescriptive
9. Colors
a. Color should not be regulated, as doing so can become a slippery slope b. Defer to designers’ creativity
c. Support for primary, secondary, and accent colors
10. Parking
a. Vehicular access: no streets that are so short that you have to back out of it b. As few curb cuts as possible on major rights-of-way
c. Preference for alleys
d. GP2040 envisions connectivity in the back, connecting parking lots in the rear e. Boulevard Specific Plan calls for walkability
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 MEMO
To: Sean Mullin, Town of Los Gatos
From: LWC
Date: June 18, 2026
Re: Los Gatos Updated/Additional Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development: Revised Recommendations Below are Recommendations for the Updated/Additional Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development for the Town of Los Gatos. These recommendations, which guide the Updated draft ODS, stem from and are informed by:
• The October 2025 Technical Analysis and Evaluation Memo • Direction provided by Town staff on needed updates to the 2023 Objective Design Standards (issues received at the beginning of the project and in a February 20 follow-up email) • Community input, including:
o Community Design Workshop conducted as part of the 20240 General Update (2020) o Objective Design Standards Community Meetings (2022)
o Town Council Meeting (2024)
o September 2025 Focus Groups
o December 4, 2025 Open House
o March 17, 2026 Joint TC/CC Study Session
Text Updates
Section A: Site Design
• A.1 Pedestrian Access
o Clarify the standard to recognize that pedestrian circulation in parking garages typically utilizes the drive aisle.
o Add standards that require pedestrian pathway, as opposed to regulating design for a pathway when implemented.
• A.2 Short Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)
o Reduce ratio to one short-term bike space per four units. (Modified A.2.2, consistent with current CalGreen.)
o Remove requirements for permanent solid-roofed weather protection structure. • A.3 Long-Term Bicycle Parking (Class I)
o Add flexibility on location requirement and allow in below-grade parking garages.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 o Increase flexibility of bike locker standards and spatial requirements. • A.4 Vehicular Access
o Add standard to limit number of curb cuts along primary frontage. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Driveways should be limited. • A.5 Parking Location and Design
o Rename to Surface Parking Location and Design.
• A.6 Parking Structure Access
o Confirm the requirements for parking structure placement and visibility based on recent project examples.
o 12/4 Open House: Parking should be screened. (Screening is already required in A.8.3; no edits made.)
• A.7 Utilities
o Revise to allow wall-mounted fixtures.
o Revise to recognize the constraints of traffic view areas, and location and clearance requirements dictated by utilities.
o Removed requirement that screening uses the same material as the primary building. • A.8 Landscaping and Screening
o Clarify reference to building setback established by zone. o Add hyperlink to Master Street Tree List.
• A.9 Fencing – No change
o Town staff 2/20 Comments: Fences over 3’ tall in the front setback are prohibited by the ODS but are allowed by the zoning code. (LWC removed existing A.9.1.) • A.10 Retaining Walls – No change
• A.11 Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces o Add a standard to ensure that required upper-story building step-backs are designed to be usable open space (decks, patios, etc.).
o Elevated Open Space:
12/4 Open House: Common open space should not be allowed where it can overlook single-family yards.
3/17 Joint Study Session: Elevated open space is okay.
o Update applicability of community recreation space to be required for all projects with 9 or more units.
o Add flexibility to required dimensions for required shared and private open spaces, including balconies.
o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Require community recreation buildings.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 • A.12 Building Placement
o Revise standards related to the “build-to zone.” Specifically:
Reflect site plans that include multiple buildings located at the frontage of the property.
Reconsider the “75 percent at within 5 feet” standard to ensure that the standard enforces front street-acing setbacks that are comfortable and usable.
Section B: Building Standards
• B.1 Massing and Scale
o Require compliance with two instead of three building mass strategies. 3/17 Joint Study Session: Supported the reduction of options and menu of options. o Edit strategy B.1.1.a to “A minimum of 40 percent of the upper floor façade length of the floors above the ground floor shall step back from the plane of the ground-floor façade by at least five feet.”
o Revise strategy B.1.1.b to require depth changes be applied to the full vertical extent of the façade.
o Delete strategy B.1.1.d and figures.
o Revise strategy B.1.1.e to emphasize that the intent is to introduce articulation to the massing and clarify requirements for “open area” (size, landscaping, other). o Town staff 2/20 Comments: Modify B.1.1.c and/or B.1.1.e to reduce repetition. Consider allowing the recessed façade plane to count towards the open area abutting a street. o Town staff 2/20 Comments: Specify whether the open area needs to be within a recessed façade plane.
o Re-visit standard B.1.1 to:
Remain consistent with existing upper-story setback standards of the C-1:HEOZ, C2:HEOZ, CH:HEOZ, and CM:HEOZ zones. Clarify the story or height in feet at which a step-back is required. Establish upper-story step-backs options that are sensitive to zone and/or abutting right-of-way, as appropriate.
3/17 Joint Study Session: Step-backs are not needed along public-facing elevations and elevations facing major rights-of-way should not be subject to additional standards. Consider an additional step-back at a specified height for buildings above three stories.
Reflect small multi-family development, such as triplexes, quadplexes, small apartment buildings, and a range of townhome configurations. 3/17 Joint Study Session: Not concerned about townhome massing as much as multifamily massing. Add standards to address height transitions (e.g., where a multi-family or mixed-use zone abuts a single-family zone).
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4 o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Limit allowed building height based on heights of adjacent buildings. (LWC does not recommend regulating buildings based on characteristics of adjacent buildings; no edits made.
• B.2 Parking Structure Design
o Revisit screening standard for parking garages (strategies for screening; degree of transparency; linear percent of street-facing elevations requiring screening; linear percent of other elevations requiring screening).
o Address building configurations where a parking structure is lined with habitable uses. o Remove requirements for landscaping between the building façade and the street. o Moved existing Standard A6.2 to this section.
• B.3 Roof Design
o Consider reducing the 40-foot maximum linear dimension allowed without a change in roof form or height.
o 12/4 Open House: Require eaves, cornices, or overhangs. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Require eaves, cornices, or overhangs, but do not be too prescriptive.
• B.4 Façade Design and Articulation
o For standards B.4.1.a through B.4.1.d, clarify whether/how standards apply to the base, middle, and/or top.
o Remove arcade or gallery as design options for standard B.4.3. o Town staff 2/20 Comments: Specify that B.4.6 only applies to mixed-use or larger, single buildings with primary entrances. (LWC did not make edits as we consider townhome entrances to be primary entrances.)
o For B.4.9.b, revise language to mirror Commercial Design Guideline 3.3.8(e). o Revise standard B.4.11 to eliminate privacy intrusions created by balconies while protecting privacy, allowing for private recreation space, and using balconies as an element of articulation. (LWC condensed existing B.4.11 into B.1.) o Consider revising standard B.4.13 (blank walls on any floor) to be a maximum number of linear feet instead of a percentage of the street-facing elevation. o Revise, delete, and/or move standards in this section to avoid redundancy other standards. This includes B.4.8 (windows), B.4.12 (redundant with other standards), and B.4.6.a and B.4.7 (entrance design). (LWC: Removed existing B.4.12 and moved existing B.4.8, B.4.6.a, and B.4.7 to the new B.5 and B.6.)
• Add Section B.5 Entrance Design
o Move standards B.4.1.c, B.4.6.a, and B.4.7 to this new section. (LWC moved existing B.4.1.c, B.4.6.a, and B.4.7 into the new B.5.)
o Add dimensions to ensure spaces are appropriately scaled and usable. o 12/4 Open House: Entries should be emphasized with a recess or projection. Roof overhangs without columns should be discouraged. Entries should be no more than three steps from the sidewalk.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5 o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Ensure standards are flexible and not too prescriptive. o Removed requirement that all primary building entrances face a public or private right-ofway, or a public open space. • Add Section B.6 Windows and Doors
o Move standard B.4.8 to this new section and elaborate. o Add standards for window glazing and window and door frame materials. This may be a list of permitted materials, or a list of prohibited materials. o Regulate glazing for residential uses and for ground floor non-residential uses. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Be less prescriptive above window regulations. (LWC: Did not include window glazing regulations.)
o 12/4 Open House: Require trim, recesses, or lintels on windows. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Require trim, recesses, or lintels, but do not be too prescriptive. • Add Section B.7 Materials, Colors, and Architectural Details (e.g., corrugated metal). o Add standards for building materials. This may be a list of permitted materials, or a list of prohibited materials (e.g. corrugated metal). Develop the palette based on historic buildings in the Town and materials currently available to builders. Ensure that allowed materials are durable and high-quality.
o 12/4 Open House: Metal panels, reflective materials, glass curtain walls, and corrugated metal should not be allowed.
o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Do not prohibit any materials. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Require that all materials are fire resistant. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Regulate material quality rather than material type. o Add standards for primary, secondary, and accent building colors. Colors to be identified by saturation value, or a combination of saturation value and light reflecting value. This may be a list of permitted colors, or a list of prohibited colors. o 12/4 Open House: Muted colors are preferred and bright, saturated colors should be discouraged.
o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Do not regulate color saturation or light reflecting values. o Establish limits on the number of materials and colors used on any one structure. o 3/17 Joint Study Session: Regulate primary, secondary, and accent materials.
Graphics Updates
• Update graphics to reflect typical Los Gatos forms and configurations. This involves updating existing graphics to be more reflective of Los Gatos project design, replacing and adding to the set of graphics as needed.
• Add graphics to Section A.11: Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces to illustrate standards.
• Fix numbering of graphics and add graphics to standard A.12.2 to show amenities.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 6 • Add graphic to standard B.1.2 (upper story step-back). • Add graphic to standard B.1.3 (upper story terrace or deck step-back). • Add graphic to standard B.2.1 (parking structure visibility). • Add dimensions to the diagram for standard B.4.1.a through B.4.1.e (façade articulation). • Add dimensions to the diagram for standard B.4.6.b (ground-floor commercial transparency). • Add diagram for B.4.7 (building entrance design) and move to Section B.5 Entrance Design. • Add diagram for B.4.11 (balcony placement and privacy) to illustrate revised standard. • Add diagram for B.6.4 (upper story window glazing) to illustrate the standard.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 1 MEMO
To: Sean Mullin, Town of Los Gatos
From: Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
Date: June 18, 2026
Re: Town of Los Gatos Updated/Additional Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development - Public Review Draft The Town of Los Gatos is leading an update to its 2023 Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development. The proposed revisions to the standards focus on codifying the priorities of the community and implementing direction from the Town staff, Planning Commission, and Town Council. This Memo includes the following sections:
• Section 1: High Quality Building Design identifies how the proposed revisions ensure highquality building design that reflects the existing character of the Town. • Section 2: Architectural Style identifies how the proposed revisions ensure that architectural design is consistent with and appropriate to the neighborhood. • Section 3: Height Transitions identifies how the proposed revisions employ strategies for appropriate massing transitions between different zones and densities. • Section 4: Small, Multi-Family Housing Considerations identifies how the proposed revisions address housing at different sizes and densities.
1 High Quality Building Design
This section provides an overview of standards in the updated draft ODS regulate façade materials to ensure high-quality building design, reflecting the existing character of the Town.
B.7 Materials and Architectural Details
This new section introduces standards for:
• Primary, Secondary, and Accent Materials. All buildings must incorporate a primary building material and a secondary building material. Any number of tertiary/accent materials may be used.
o Primary: 50 percent or more of a façade surface area; o Secondary: Less than 45 percent of a façade surface area and must be different from primary materials; and
o Accent: Limited to 25 percent of a façade surface area and does not include trim for windows, doors, and openings.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 2 By requiring specific percentages of primary and secondary materials, these standards prevent chaotic facades with too much variation in material.
• Material Durability/Protection: Requirements that materials used are:
o Fire resistant. Wood, engineered wood, or other wood-based products are not allowed as primary materials;
o Durable, with a minimum lifespan of 30 years, per the manufacturers’ specification; and o Protected from corrosion either through the use of galvanized, stainless, or weathering steel, as applicable.
Other Sections
New standards in other sections that regulate high-quality building design include:
• B.2 Parking Garage Design:
o Must include one of the following architectural features: cut metal screens, railings, trellises, vertical plantings, louvers, or decorative security grills. • B.4 Façade Design and Articulation: All materials must be incorporated on all building elevations.
• B.6 Windows and Doors:
o Window materials must be consistent on all elevations. o Mirrored, flat framed, and stucco windows are prohibited. o Upper-story window glazing must wrap around building corners if within 30 inches of a corner. 2 Architectural Style
This section documents updated draft ODS regulations that ensure architecture styles consistent with and appropriate for the surrounding neighborhoods. Town Council and Planning Commission direction, community feedback, staff input, and review of existing residential and non-residential buildings in the Town all helped establish the architectural styles that the standards ensure consistency with.
B.1 Building Massing and Scale
All multi-family buildings must include one of the following massing solutions:
• At least 40 percent of the upper story is stepped back by at least 5 feet; • The front of the building includes a ground/podium level community recreation space at least 900 square feet in size; or
• A maximum building width of 65 feet.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 3 Additionally, townhomes must include wall plane shifts of two feet minimum between each townhome for the entire height of the building.
B.4 Façade Design and Articulation
All buildings taller than two stories must include strategies to break up facades including at least two of the following:
• A material change between the first floor and upper floors for at least 70 percent of the total street facing-elevations;
• An upper-floor projection or recess at least 5 feet deep every 35 feet; • Habitable balconies at least two feet deep on at least 25 percent of the street-facing elevations; • Two-foot deep eaves with regularly spaced supporting corbels or brackets; or • Window boxes or plant shelves under least 60 percent of all upper-story fenestration.
Other Sections
Standards in other sections that regulate architectural style include:
• B.2 Parking Structure Design:
o Parking structures in mixed-use developments must be lined with non-residential ground floor uses at least 30 feet deep.
o Parking structures visible from rights-of-way may not exceed 50 percent of the building elevation length or 60 feet.
• B.3 Roof Design:
o At least one of the following strategies must be used to break up the eave every 75 feet:
Gables;
Building projection;
Change in façade or roof height;
Change in roof pitch or form; or
Inclusion of dormers, parapets, and/or varying cornices. o Requirement that sloped roofs include eaves at the roof line and fascia/bargeboard at gable ends.
o Requirement that flat roofs include a parapet with a cornice or an overhang. o Application of pitched roofs along all street-facing sides of the building.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 4 3 Height Transitions
This section provides updated draft ODS regulations that provide strategies for massing transitions between different zones and densities including transitions between multi-story buildings and singlefamily zones. These height transitions protect privacy, livability, and solar access.
B.1 Building Massing and Scale:
When a multi-family building or townhome development abuts a single-family residential district, it must include the following transitions to reduce impact to the adjacent single-family district:
• Height Limitations. Limited the building height to 25 feet or 2 stories within 40 feet of the property line shared with the single-family district; and • Upper Story Terrace and Deck Step-Back. Provide a minimum 5-foot step-back from the plane of the lower floor facing the shared property line, to prevent views into adjacent residential uses and any upper story terraces or decks.
4 Small, Multi-Family Housing
Considerations
This section highlights how the updated draft ODS considers different sizes of multi-family housing, including smaller multi-family housing projects. In addition to reviewing smaller multi-family housing projects within the Town when developing the standards, additional exemptions and regulations were developed for different multi-family building sizes and types.
B.1 Building Massing and Scale
All multi-family buildings must include one of the following massing solutions:
• At least 40 percent of the upper-story is stepped back by at least 5 feet; • The front of the building includes a ground/podium level community recreation space at least 900 square feet in size; or
• A maximum building width of 65 feet.
The third option, the maximum building width of 65 feet, accounts for smaller-scale multi-family building types, such as triplexes, fourplexes, and other multiplexes (3 to 8 units).
Additionally, townhomes must include wall plane shifts of two feet minimum between each townhome for the entire height of the building. This standard requires each townhome to be visually differentiated from its neighboring townhomes. This emphasis on each unit will enable a row of townhomes to read as individual units, rather than as a larger multi-family building.
ITEM NO. 11.
983 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | (805) 595 1345 | lisawiseconsulting.com | 5 B.4 Façade Design and Articulation
All buildings taller than two stories must include strategies to break up facades including at least two of the following:
• A material change between the first floor and upper floors for at least 70 percent of the total street facing-elevations;
• An upper-floor projection or recess at least 5 feet deep every 35 feet; • Habitable balconies at least two feet deep on at least 25 percent of the street-facing elevations; • Two-foot deep eaves with regularly spaced supporting corbels or brackets; or • Window boxes or plant shelves under least 60 percent of all upper-story fenestration.
Requiring a minimum of two articulation strategies, coupled with the standards in Section B.1 Building Massing and Scale, will mandate that smaller buildings (3 to 8 units) will be well-articulated, preventing flat, monolithic facades.
A.11 Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces Community Recreation Space
• Projects with eight or fewer residential units are exempt from the community recreation space requirement.
Community Recreation Building
• Larger multi-family developments (50+ units) must provide a community recreation building or multi-purpose room. Smaller multi-family developments are exempt from this requirement.
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
Multi-Family and MixedUse Objective Design
Standards Update
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Commission Hearing
Wednesday, June 24, 2026
7:00 p.m.
Los Gatos Town Hall
EXHIBIT 10
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 2 Town Staff
o Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
o Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
o Monica Szydlik, AICP, Senior Associate
o Cal Kurtz, AIA, Lead Associate
Introductions
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 3 Project Objectives
• Update the Town’s existing 2023 Objective Design Standards for MultiFamily and Mixed-Use Residential Development by refining design standards to respond to Town Council and community feedback and priorities. • Implement the Town’s General Plan goals
• Ensure compliance with State law (SB 330)
• Focus on:
High-Quality Building Design
Height Transitions
Architectural Character and Details
Small-scale Multi-family Buildings
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 4 What are Objective Standards?
• Involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.
• Set clear expectations for approval.
• Streamline the review process.
Subjective
Development must be compatible with
the character of the neighborhood.
Objective
Blank walls (without doors and windows) of
more than 20 linear feet are prohibited
along any street-facing elevation.
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 5 Project Process and Schedule
Documents:
• Zoning Code development standards
• 2040 General Plan relevant policy direction
• North 40 Specific Plan
• Record of community and Council input
• Staff input and issues
• Analysis of example projects
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 6 Project Process and Schedule
• Residents, architects, developers
• Discussed:
o Existing ODS
o The architectural character of Los Gatos and
o Recommendations for the updated ODS
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 7 Project Process and Schedule
Draws on findings from:
• Site Analysis and
Evaluation Memo
• Focus Groups
• Staff input
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 8 Project Process and Schedule
• Focus on:
o Building placement
o Design of street-facing setbacks and site perimeter
o Building massing and articulation
o Roof types and details
o Height transitions
o Window design and entrance design
o Building materials and colors
o Architectural character
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 9 Project Process and Schedule
March 27 Joint PC/CC Study Session:
• Reviewed working design ideas
informed by input from all outreach
• Gathered PC feedback on specific
questions
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 10 Project Process and Schedule
• Submitted to staff for review;
received comments and
discussed with staff
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 11 Project Process and Schedule
Released on
June 17, 2026
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 12 Source of
Updates
• Community Design Workshop, part of the 2040 General
Update (2020):
o Consider upper-story step-backs
o Require high-quality materials
o Achieve balanced facades
• ODS Community Meeting (2022):
o Consider shade, weather protection
o Support diverse roof types
• Town Council Meeting (2024):
o Height transitions/massing
o Architectural style that reflects existing character
o High-quality design that reflects existing character
o Standards for an array of building types and sizes, including small multi-family
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 13 Source of
Updates,
Cont’d
• Staff list of changes needed (spring 2025)
• Focus Groups (September 2025):
o Support diverse architectural styles
o Height transitions adjacent to single-family residential • Open House (December 2025):
o Preference for more articulation
o Focus on single-family residential privacy
o Consider projections/recesses for entries
o Mix of quality building materials
• Joint TC/PC Study Session (March 2025):
o Preference for reduced height within 40 ft of a single-family district
o Consider requiring community space/common buildings
o Prevent excessive/chaotic material changes and articulation
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 14 Updates Section A: Site Standards
A.1 Pedestrian Access
A.2 Short-Term Bicycle Parking
A.3 Long-Term Bicycle Parking
A.4 Vehicular Access
A.5 Surface Parking Location and Design
A.6 Parking Structure Access
A.7 Utilities
A.8 Landscaping and Screening
A.9 Fencing
A.10 Retaining Walls
A.11 Landscaped, Private, and Community
Recreation Spaces
A.12 Building Placement
Section B: Building Standards
B.1 Building Massing and Scale
B.2 Parking Structure Design
B.3 Roof Design
B.4 Façade Design and Articulation
B.5 Entrance Design and Ground Floor Design
B.6 Windows and Doors
B.7 Materials and Architectural Details
New sections
More substantive edits
Minor edits
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 15 Building Massing Options
• Must choose at least one of the following:
o 40% of upper-story stepped back
o Ground/podium-level community recreation
space enclosed by walls
o Maximum 65 ft building frontage
• Townhomes
must provide
a wall plane
shift between
units
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 16 Adjacency to Single-Family Districts
• Reduced height (25 ft/2
stories) when within 40 ft
of a single-family district
• 5 ft step-back for upperfloor terraces/decks
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 17 Architectural Articulation
• Differentiate base, middle, and top
with at least two of the following:
Material change
between first and
upper floors
Recesses or projections
every 35 ft
Balconies or habitable
projections on streetfacing elevations
Eaves with
corbels/brackets
Window boxes
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 18 Architectural Articulation
• 360-degree design
o All materials/details must be
incorporated on all building
elevations
o Material changes must occur at
inside corners
• Break up blank facades with
windows or doors
o Upper floors: max. 24 ft without
a window or door
o Ground floor: max. 12 ft without
a window or door
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 19 Entrance Design
• Residential and non-residential entries must be under a roof supported by columns or a recess
• Must be framed by architectural elements
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 20 High Quality Design
• Windows
o Break up large window panes
o Require trim, recesses, or lintels
o Glazing wraps or is min. 30in from corner
• Materials
o Primary (max 50%), secondary (max 45%), accent
(max 25%)
o All materials must be fire resistant, protected from
corrosion, and have a lifespan of at least 30 years
• Roofs
o Require eaves and overhangs
o Gable, projection, change in height, dormer,
parapet, or cornice every 75 ft
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 21 Landscaped and Recreation Space
• Landscaped Space: 20% of site
• Private Recreation Space: 60 sq ft per unit, 6 ft
in any horizontal direction
• Community Recreation Space:
o 100 sq ft per unit (developments with >8 units)
o 60% open to sky, 15% shaded
o ≤50% may be on a rooftop
o Community recreation/multi-purpose room required
for all buildings with 50+ units
• 40% of upper-story step-backs must be open
space and stepped back for neighbors’ privacy
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 22 Building Placement
• 75% of frontage within 5 ft of the
setback line
• Remaining space must be at least 10 ft
deep and usable
• Ground-floor non-residential uses must
include site amenities/landscaping on
min. 30% of area between the building
and the street-facing property line
• Multi-family residential primary
entrances must face a public right-ofway or a community open space
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 23 Vehicle/Bicycle Parking/Access
• Vehicle/bicycle parking and access
o Updated bicycle parking consistent with CalGreen
o Limited number of curb cuts: 1 per 100 ft of frontage • Above-ground parking structures
o Lined with 30 ft-deep ground floor non-residential
o Visibility limited to 50% street-facing facade/60 ft
o Required architectural features: cut metal screens,
railings, trellises, vertical plantings, louvers, or
decorative security grills
ITEM NO. 11.
June 24, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 24 Thank you!
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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:
Kendra Burch, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Susan Burnett
Adam Mayer
Joseph Sordi
Rob Stump
Emily Thomas
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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 BURCH: We are now going to move into other
Business, Item 4, forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed changes and additions to the Town’s Objective Design Standards for multi-family and mixed-use projects.
This is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to
CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the
changes and additions to the Town’s Objective Design
Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Projects would have a significant effect on the environment. All projects for which the Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Projects will undergo separate CEQA review and approval.
The location is Town Wide, and our project
planner is Mr. Mullin.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, once again, and I will
start, and then we have our consultant team on board to provide a visual presentation.
For your consideration tonight, Staff presents
the changes and additions to the Town’s Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Projects, or ODS.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design Standards
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The existing ODS were adopted by the Town Council
in November 2022 and have been used in the review of
numerous applications. In August 2024 the Council directed Staff to issue an RFP for the development of additional standards addressing high-quality building design,
architectural style, height transitions, and consideration of small, multi-family housing.
The Town selected Lisa Wise for service and has
worked with their team through the project. We went through project initiation, six consultant-led focus groups, a
community open house, a Town Council/Planning Commission joint study session, and an administrative draft review.
These efforts culminated in the Draft ODS before you
tonight.
The draft continues to be organized into two
sections: Site Standards as Section A, and Building
Standards as Section B. Updates and additions have been made throughout the document in response to Council
direction and community feedback. The document is used in the review of qualifying Multi-Family Residential and
Mixed-Use Residential projects throughout the Town.
Staff recommends that the Commission review the
Draft ODS, consider public feedback, and forward a
recommendation to the Town Council with any modifications.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
With that, I’d like to turn it over to our
consultant, who will walk you through the changes in more detail.
MONICA SZYDLIK: Thank you, Sean. Good evening,
Planning Commissioners. I’m Monica Szydlik, Project
Manager, and I’m joined by my colleagues here who I’ll
introduce in a moment. We’ll be presenting the hearing
Draft Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards Update.
CHAIR BURCH: I’m sorry, I’m actually going to
have to step in here. Ma’am, are you able to turn up the volume of your microphone?
SEAN MULLIN: And/or KCAT may be able to boost
her mic.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, whichever one. We’re having a
bit of difficulty hearing you.
MONICA SZYDLIK: I think I can do this. How does
that sound? Does that sound better?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes.
MONICA SZYDLIK: Great, okay. Thank you for that
reminder. Thank you, Sean. I’m Monica Szydlik. I’m here to present to you the hearing Draft Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards Update for your review and
recommendation to the Town Council.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
A brief introduction about the project team. I am
the project manager from the lead consultant LWC. I’m
joined by my colleagues Cal Kurtz and Po Johnson. Also, on the team as consultants, but not here tonight, are Urban Planning Partners, and throughout the process we worked very closely with Sean Mullin and Joel Paulson.
As you know, this project is an update to the
2023 Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and MixedUse Residential Development. The project implements all established policy and makes sure that the standards are compliant with State law, most notably SB 330, which was effective January 2020.
That’s true of all ODS across the State to
implement established policy and ensure compliance with State law, but locally the focus of this particular project is to ensure that projects reflect high-quality building design, address height transitions between projects of
different scale, acknowledge architecture character and details, ensure that projects express the character and the details desired by the community, and that they apply
equality to small scale as well as large scale multi-family buildings.
Of course, we know that you all in the Los Gatos
community are aware of what Objective Design Standards are
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
and the difference between objective and subjective. In short, they are measurable and they support the ministerial process that is required by State law.
I’ll go through very quickly our process so far.
We kicked off the project in April of last year. We
conducted a Site Analysis and Evaluation Memo which looked at everything on the books that would impact the design standards and that we should be cognizant of going forward, in addition to proposals and recent projects that would inform the standards.
We initiated our community outreach. We held a
number of focus groups where we discussed everything at hand.
We then developed a set of recommendations based
on all of the input that we received.
Then in December we held a community open house
where we focused on some key design elements, and we had a series of boards that described some options for the
community to consider, and we got a whole lot of great
feedback.
We came before you and the Town Council in March
of this year to review some working design ideas and get some key input that we needed to develop the Admin Draft Standards, which we submitted in April and Staff reviewed.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
Staff reviewed those. The consulting team worked on the draft standards with Staff, and then we just now released the public draft, and we are here tonight to discuss them with you.
Let’s talk just for a moment about we want to
point out the sources of the recommendations before you, meaning specific direction that we gathered from the
community about this particular effort.
We looked closely at the takeaways from a
workshop about community design back during the GP update.
We looked closely at the takeaways from a community meeting for the initial ODS project, and from the Council meeting where it was determined that an update to the ODS was
warranted.
We looked at the list of changes that the
Planning Staff suggested, and then from the outreach that we conducted, which included the focus groups, the open house, and the joint session in March. All of this together was essentially our marching orders.
So, what changed, really? This is the existing
Table of Contents of the current ODS that was adopted in January 2023. This slide shows in a nutshell what we have suggested that we do to it. The next handful of slides will talk about the recommendations themselves that are in your
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
packet. The slides summarize major additions and changes, but there is a lot that went into it, and as you know, you have the clean version of the ODS, and then there is also a version that shows in track changes, so everything we did.
One topic that really warranted a fresh look, and
also graphics that more closely reflect the forms and kinds of sites that we see in Los Gatos and the sites that
support multi-family and mixed-use, is options for building massing. It was important to us that the options we present would work for the range of densities that the multifamily, mixed-use zones support. You may recall we discussed this at the joint session in March, and we
arrived at the three options you see on the right side of the slide. We also included a requirement that attached townhomes must appear as separate volumes through a change in plane. We found that these options would work for the range of scales and densities that we expect.
We looked closely at sensitive interior and side
and rear adjacencies, and after some discussion at the open house and at the joint session we recommended a reduced height within 40’ of a single-family district, and a 5’ separation step-back for elevated outdoor open space at that adjacency, and then we added some graphics to describe that.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
Then we explored with Staff and the community
some ways of ensuring that architectural articulation
reflects Los Gatos character, the character of Los Gatos neighborhoods. It was important to us that when applicants are presented with options, the options are commensurate in terms of contribution to the neighborhood, and also burden on the applicants, so that they truly are options.
We started with the concepts that are presented
in the current draft, and then we worked from there to
refine and enhance that section to ensure that they would apply to small multi-family housing as well as larger scale developments, and add to the character as we understood was desired by the community.
We added standards for what we called “360-degree
design,” so that all building elevations are treated the same and changes in materials reflect high-quality design.
You can see what we mean on the upper-right here. And we introduced limits on blank walls, also an effort to require high-quality design and to enhance walkability and
pedestrian comfort.
We enhanced and refined the standards for
residential entries and also for non-residential entries, essentially assuring that building access is visible and comfortable and enhances the streetscape.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
A little bit more on high-quality design. Some
specific standards for windows, window design, materials, palettes, and durability and fire resistance. And options for roof design, all which ensure depth, variation, and visual interest of the top of the building.
Looking at site design, we updated the existing
design standards to address specific concerns about the amount and design and usability of required open space. We introduced a requirement for community open space, and it’s designed for all multi-family and mixed-use projects, and we introduced requirements that upper-story step-backs be improved as usable open space.
Looking at the building placement and the design
of the front setback area, this really is the streetscape area. Again, we started with the standards in the current draft, and then we created models that reflect actual site conditions, dimensions, and development standards. Then we refined the design standards based on what we found in the model, what we heard from the community, and what worked with the standards for the building design, the development standards and design standards both.
Then parking, of course, drives the form of any
residential building and all the residential building
types, so we looked at the parking configurations that we
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
see and those that we anticipate in multi-family and mixeduse in the future in Los Gatos, and we updated the standards to address bicycle parking, access to vehicular parking, visibility, and the design of visible structured parking areas.
That’s our quick summary of the standards before
you and how they have been updated from the January 2023 draft. Thank you, and we welcome questions.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
of the consultant about the presentation? I would like to say as we go into this and discuss the revisions, I’d like to go through the sections. That ways it’s orderly and good notes can be taken. I think right now would be if you’ve got questions of Staff about the process or about the
presentation we just saw.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a quick one. What we’re
looking at, the red lines that we’re looking at, I’m
presuming are the changes made since the January 2023
version, which I think was a different consultant; I think that was M-Group. It’s not reflective of the changes made since the last time we saw this when we were in the joint study session.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
SEAN MULLIN: That correct. It’s reflective of
changes to the existing document. This is the first time a draft has been put out there of the revised…
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: And I assume that while there were
revisions that we’re talking about, really can
conversations be made about any of the standards that are in here, or do you want us just to focus on the revisions? SEAN MULLIN: I think feedback across the board
is welcomed.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, so then I’m going to say
Section 1 is Purpose and Applicability, which I am going to say is also going to include Organization and Key Terms.
Are there any notes that anyone (inaudible)? Yes, please.
I didn’t have a card, so I didn’t think anybody
was. Do we have anybody on Zoom that wants to speak? There is no public testimony so far tonight, so I’m going to go ahead and jump on into it.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just have a question. Are
we all going to be looking at Exhibit 1 or Exhibit 2? I know they’re the same, but one has the tracked changes
highlighted and one doesn’t.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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 BURCH: I would prefer we look at Exhibit
2, so everybody is very clear on what changes have been made since January 2023.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just wanted to make sure
that we were all looking at the same document.
CHAIR BURCH: Good clarification. All right, so
Purpose and Applicability, Organization, and Key Terms.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Before that, I recommend
that we change Objective Design Standards in the title to Objective Design and Building Standards, since there are two parts to the document.
CHAIR BURCH: Any discussion among Commissioners?
Is there anybody that has anything, comments, like I said, on Purpose and Applicability, Organization, or Key Terms? COMMISSIONER MAYER: Sorry, Vice Chair, can you
explain your thinking behind the title, because it looks like if there are site standards and then there is building standards, so Objective Design Standards.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m looking at Exhibit 2.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Town of Los Gatos Objective
Design Standards. It doesn’t say Objective Design in… I
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
know it’s in the document; I just wanted to change the
title.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, the document (inaudible), so
do you actually want this to say, “Objective Design Site and Building Standards”?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Okay.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Most of the document is
really detailed, but yes, starting on page 1, at the bottom where it says, “Preparation of Development Plans,” I don’t understand that sentence. It says, “Development plans will require additional dimensions to demonstrate compliance…” blah, blah, blah. I mean, dimensions are just like a note that identifies a distance from this to this, so I don't know where that comes from. It doesn’t really make sense to me.
CHAIR BURCH: Mr. Mullin.
SEAN MULLIN: I can respond. This is born of
direct experience in working with developers and their
resistance to providing additional dimensions to show…
Let’s just take dormers, for example. Dormers are limited to a maximum width of 50% of the primary roofline.
Oftentimes they don’t provide enough dimensions to
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
demonstrate that, so we’re disclaiming it, essentially
saying it’s your responsibility to prove that you comply, and sometimes that means more dimensions than you’re used to adding to plans, or even specialized exhibits showing that the community recreation space is in fact meeting the design requirements. So, we wanted to put that up front and say it’s the developer’s responsibility and there is going to be more required of you.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay. What if we added the
words “additional plan dimensions in specialized exhibits,” those two words? I don’t want to make things too
complicated; it reads better to me that way.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: I don't know how real estate
developers might respond to the language here, but from the architectural profession, we prefer the word “diagram” when describing this kind of drawing. If I saw this and it said, “diagrams and exhibits with dimensions,” that would make the most sense to me professionally as an architect.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Anything else in these sections?
Key Terms? Vice Chair.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The term “townhouses” is
used in the document, and I would recommend that there be an addition of a definition for that term.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: In the Civil Code they
differentiate condominiums and townhomes, for example.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, correct. Is there anything
else?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: But is condominium in there?
Are you suggesting adding both?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: No, I’m just suggesting a
definition be provided so that we know what townhomes
means. How inclusive?
CHAIR BURCH: He’s asking do you think there
should be a definition of condominiums and townhomes to differentiate them?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: There are other types too,
so I just think I would leave it to the Council to provide some expansion of what that term means.
CHAIR BURCH: My thought would be if that housing
type is mentioned in this document, there should be a
definition. Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: My understanding is that
“condominium” is more of a legal term referring to the type
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
of legal framework around a housing unit, whereas
“townhome” is a building type. Yes, I think that probably makes sense maybe to clarify.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, I’m going to move into
Site Standards and talk about Pedestrian Access, and Shortand Long-Term Bicycle Parking. Does anyone have any comments on these? Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have a couple of
questions about pedestrian access. One, just the change from the “shall” to the “must,” can we quickly go over the shall, should, the legal… What is our preferred, and why are we trying to be consistent with…
SEAN MULLIN: I can start, and maybe Monica can
jump in, but they both carry the same weight. You have to do it. It’s not a should. Shall, you must. I don’t recall exactly why we would change this one in particular from shall to must.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I mean, I know that legally
shall… I think that must is clearer to the general public that is reading this, so I am happy to change other shalls to must in the document if it holds the same weight
legally, because I do think that that is clearer. Must does definitely seem to the public that that must happen, and has to happen, versus shall.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, I think
either way, whichever way the Planning Commission decides on the recommendation, we’ll just make sure that it’s
consistent throughout the document.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. Do we want to talk
about that now, or no?
CHAIR BURCH: Well, I think if we’re going to say
for what purpose and organization, yes.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just try to be consistent.
We want it to be consistent throughout the document,
obviously, but if people have a strong preference for must versus shall.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: The Town Attorney is not
here tonight, but I would defer to them for the
recommendation.
CHAIR BURCH: I, personally, hear a lot of people
say that when they come to some of these meetings and they read these that people can interpret these differently. If I had a preference, I would actually prefer must.
Obviously, I’ll defer to the Town Attorney, but having
listened to this for like, I don't know, 14 years, I do know that to a resident reading these, or even somebody that doesn’t do this all the time, it gets brought up a
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
lot, so I don’t think that’s bad. Obviously, the Town
Attorney can weigh in, but I would prefer that.
SEAN MULLIN: We can take a look at it, and we’ll
check in with the Town Attorney, and then if this is
included as part of the recommendation, then we’ll respond when we get to Council.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Then I had a question. When
it says, “A pedestrian pathway network shall connect to…” Hold on, it says must. It should say must, maybe, but “…the public sidewalk along all abutting streets.” Will there always be sidewalks on abutting streets I guess is my
question?
SEAN MULLIN: Not necessarily. That’s based on
the built environment.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right, so is there
something in here that we need to include that developers make sure to add, provide sidewalks? How does that all
connect? Thank you.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’ll just jump in. In thinking
of some of the projects that we have, if they don’t already have sidewalks on a public street, then Parks and Public Works is going to require them to add sidewalks, so I think we get there either way. But, again, feel free to have the
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
conversation. You guys can make whatever recommendations you like, and we’ll take those forward and vet them with the Council.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Yes, I
knew that that was what we tried to do, but didn’t know how that was incorporated in here.
I do have a recommendation about the bicycle
parking, and it is that the… I took my notes on the other document, so let me just go back just confirm that I’m… The first is that for 2.1, what happens if there are multiple entrances? I don't know if that’s a question for Staff.
SEAN MULLIN: Most of these buildings, when you
get above a certain number of units and you get out of the townhome product, you’re going to have multiple entrances.
I would say they all have a primary entrance, and whether that’s defined architecturally, it’s defined, it’s more announced. I have not seen of our projects so far something that would be questionable as to whether it’s a primary or a secondary entrance. This is just noting that they should be within X feet of that primary entrance.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. The goal of it is to
require bicycle parking close to the entrance to the
buildings, and maybe I’m interpreting it incorrectly, but I feel like this restricts, like on larger developments it
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
will force bicycles in one location that might not actually make it convenient for most residents or all residents.
SEAN MULLIN: As some feedback I can provide,
this is short-term bike parking. This is not for residents per se. There is a separate category of long-term, and
that’s where I live in the building and I’m storing my
bicycle either in the townhome, in the garage, or in a bike room. This is for someone who is coming to visit me, and they’re going to be accessing the building through the
primary entrance and want to park near the primary
entrance, so that they’re not out in the rain for a long period of time or out in the weather.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you for
clarifying. That makes more sense. I didn’t want it to be restrictive.
I do think that for 2.2 though that we should
eliminate any requirements related to car parking spaces, because one, often that is going to be asked to get waived, and so I think that it is going to be a moot point, and I think that in the future coming down the pipeline from
Sacramento it’s likely that parking minimums are going to go away, and then we’re going to have to back through or this is not going to be relevant, so I recommend that we
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
base it on something else, or that we remove any bicycle parking that’s connected to any number of car spaces.
SEAN MULLIN: To be clear on that one, the
requirement that is related to car parking here is for nonresidential space, and I’m not too aware of the State going after reductions in commercial space parking requirements as aggressively as they are for residential. So, we have two categories here saying per number of units you should provide this number of short-term bike parking spaces, and per commercial. I’ll make sure to note that, because maybe we go back to basing it on square footage of nonresidential space rather than the parking requirement of the non-residential space.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I don’t
want to overdo that, but I do think that you’ve heard my concern that the parking is always contentious. Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a question about
protocol. Since we’re making Planning Commission
recommendations to the Council, should we be voting
separately on each proposed change, would Staff be willing to just somehow take note of our concerns?
CHAIR BURCH: To clarify, I would prefer not to
do that.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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 THOMAS: I have a suggestion that we
make our comments, and if someone else doesn’t fully
support that, that we just speak up at that point, and then have a discussion on it and decide to include it or not.
CHAIR BURCH: I think that would be my
preference. I think we would be here for days if we did this otherwise. So, I will ask, if somebody mentions
something and you don’t agree with it, not to be shy and just talk about it now. Does anyone have anything else as far as pedestrian short-term bike and long-term bike? Okay.
Now let’s talk about Vehicular Access and Parking
Structure Access. Any comments on these? No, okay.
Utilities? Landscaping and Screening? I’m going to get
there. I thought that’s going to be a bigger topic for most people, so I saved it.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Can I ask one question about
curb cut?
CHAIR BURCH: Of course.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: I don’t want to go
backwards. I don’t mean to go backwards.
CHAIR BURCH: Yeah, I know, I need you to keep up
with me, Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a very quick question.
The 4.2, “A maximum of one curb cut is allowed along every
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
100’ of primary street frontage,” is that something,
because it’s in the public right-of-way, that a developer could waive out of using like a density bonus concession? I’m just curious.
SEAN MULLIN: I’m sorry, I just want to clarify
the question. As it’s written here, are you asking if the developer could waive out of that?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes.
SEAN MULLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay.
SEAN MULLIN: All of these the developers can
waive out of. In fact, some of these are being eliminated because they’re constantly waived out of because they’re hard to achieve.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thanks.
CHAIR BURCH: On Utilities? Landscaping and
Screening? Actually, I’m going to go back up. Well, 7.4, “Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the street.” Do we want to put anything in this about materials? I think we’ve all seen people put in materials that get shredded in a year, and they look worse than the mechanical equipment. Then, I’m also going to ask why Whole Foods doesn’t have mechanical screening?
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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: I’ll jump in on Whole Foods. We’re
still working with them on that, so we’re not done there.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
SEAN MULLIN: And you could certainly specify
durable materials that are consistent with the materials used on the building.
CHAIR BURCH: I think we should do something like
that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve honestly been on projects where we put material that you know is going to look horrible on a relatively new building within a year, so if we could put some form of language about the
durability.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Well, you can definitely
recommend…
CHAIR BURCH: I’m recommending.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I mean, durable I would say is
not objective, but you can just make that statement that you want…
CHAIR BURCH: Well, no, I think I was going to
say I’m not the expert on this. There is somebody who
should be probably better at this than me out there. I
think perhaps materials that match the building exterior is a very good way to go.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, some sort of material
that’s already existing on the building exterior I think would be…
CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, and I think that’s a good
recommendation from a practical perspective. What we end up running into is we require them to show mechanical
screening, then they get into the building drawings and they haven’t really thought it through, and then oh, we forgot to put this up, and so now we’ve got all these
penetrations in the roof that we forgot about last minute.
CHAIR BURCH: That sounds like you need to hire a
better architect.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Well, that’s a different
conversation, but from an implementation perspective, I think the notion is noted and we definitely can work on some language around that.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, but I honestly would say my
stance would be that is a you problem to them; figure it out. I’m sorry it’s costly, but it’s required. Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, I agree with you.
Mechanical equipment on the roof is pretty unsightly
without screening, but there are often times when the
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
equipment is far enough away from the parapet or the
perimeter where you don’t really see it at the street, so in those cases you don’t need it.
CHAIR BURCH: That’s what it says. It “shall be
screened from view from the street.”
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Gotcha.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, I’m not making a blanket
statement. I agree, you can oftentimes place it in a way that’s fine, but then you do have the lengths that it
can’t, so I think we should think of those.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Right, when you’re too close
to the edge.
CHAIR BURCH: Like Whole Foods?
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes. I just don’t want to
get in a situation where, let’s say, you have a big stucco wall, right? And then the developer decides just to extend that parapet up to screen it, because in that case then you’re stuck with a huge wall instead of…
CHAIR BURCH: I have a lot of faith that Town
Staff would not let that happen.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Okay. I’m just bringing that
up.
CHAIR BURCH: No, we’ve all seen bad examples,
but I have faith.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
SEAN MULLIN: And to that point, this is one of
the examples where we would ask for a diagram showing
whether you can see it or not, and we’ve enforced this as a guideline for 100 years for rooftop equipment, and when folks come in and show that it’s not tall enough or it just won’t give us that sightline study, we don’t require extra screening.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I was going to make a
recommendation about 8.3. Are we there? Yes, we’re in
Landscaping. 8.3 with regard to the “Surface parking lots shall be screened from view…with landscaping or a wall…” I think that a solid fence or something. I don’t know what the definition of a wall is, but I don’t think it… I think there is something between landscaping and a solid wall that exists that maybe needs to be included in that.
CHAIR BURCH: I’m also going to ask why it’s only
at 3’, because 3’ doesn’t really screen much (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Because that’s consistent
with our Fence Ordinance.
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, we run into sightline issues
and traffic safety issues.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And it blocks it a little
bit.
CHAIR BURCH: No, no, I was just curious. It just
felt like a random number to me. All right, anything else on those before we move to Fencing? All right, Fencing.
Vice Chair.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Mr. Mullin and I had some
discussion about this before the meeting, and I understand that—correct me if I’m wrong, and I’m probably wrong—this relates to, or has its origin in, commercial rather than multi-family, is that correct?
SEAN MULLIN: In reading it with a little bit
more detail, it also starts to conflict with the
aforementioned parking lot screening as well, so in one standard we’re saying you’ve got to screen your parking lots if they’re along the street, and then a standard-anda-half later we’re saying you can’t do that in a front setback. That just clicked into my head. I can look a
little bit more into one of the documents about where we got this.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The larger concern is
whether that should be removed or not.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: 9.1, you mean?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The original?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The original.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay.
CHAIR BURCH: Is there anything else on Fencing?
Then I want to do—because these go together to me-Retaining Walls and Landscape Spaces. Comments on these? I’m sorry, Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m sorry, are you down to
Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces?
CHAIR BURCH: I’m at Retaining walls, and then
Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces, yes.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just want to say that
there are specific numbers in here, which is great, because that makes it objective, and I just trust that Staff and the consultants were able to work through this, and these numbers and stuff are what makes sense, so I’m happy with this portion.
SEAN MULLIN: A lot of these numbers already came
out of Town Code.
CHAIR BURCH: Anything else on these sections?
All right, let’s go all the way over to the Building
Placement, unless you have something.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m sorry, did I miss my
famous Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation
Spaces?
CHAIR BURCH: You did. I was there.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I woke up.
CHAIR BURCH: We are so happy you could join us,
Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you. I guess I was
eating at the time. 11.1c, can I get clarification? It says community recreation space, the minimum dimension is 10’.
SEAN MULLIN: That’s a good question, and this is
often something we have to explain to folks.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.
SEAN MULLIN: For community recreation space, the
regulation and the standard is that you have to provide a certain area; so, let’s call that 100 square feet for the sake of argument. We don’t want that area to be
accommodated as a 1’ deep by 100 square-foot stretch. We want it to be usable, so the minimum dimension is 10’ in any direction, so that at least if it’s 10’x10’, then
you’ve got 10’x10’ and it’s somewhat usable.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Is there any way to clarify
that more? I don't know, I may not be the only person with that question wondering.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
SEAN MULLIN: I’ll note that and see if we can
come up with some language that clarifies that it’s a
linear dimension of width or length.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, at least one dimension
as minimum of 10’, I guess.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I’m ready to move on.
CHAIR BURCH: Is there anything else on that
section? No? Okay. I would like to move on to Building
Placement.
I found it a little odd that we were going at a
“minimum of 75% of all street-facing elevations…shall be located on or within 5’ of the setback…” When you are that close to the setback, or to the sidewalk right where people walk, 5’ for like a large, large building is not a large articulation. I don’t want to make this too difficult. A long time ago we had a project that came up, it was on the Boulevard, and it had an extremely long expanse that was right at the setback for the entire way, and it was just a wall; and I think they did do these little articulations in it, but it didn’t change the impression just because of the overall sheer size, so if there’s a way to clarify like 75% if the vertical space is this size or this size. I don’t want to make it too difficult, but having seen that one
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
application, that’s exactly what I thought of when I saw this.
SEAN MULLIN: I think there are some other
standards in the Building Design section that would push back against someone just trying to do a 75% long blank wall, so there is required articulation, required
fenestration that is going to activate that and make it more human-scale friendly.
The concept of bringing the buildings to the
street is obviously a pretty basic urban design principle, and rather than having a parking lot fronting the street like old urban design thinking, the practice is to bring buildings closer to the street. This is still allowing that you’re saying that you should meet your setback and that at least the primary chunk of the building should be within 75% of the setback.
We’ve got site design standards that require
setbacks to be landscaped and activated. We’ve got other standards that, like I said, would require articulation, breaking up of that long, blank mass so that hopefully when you put the whole document together and apply it, you don’t end up with that situation.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, so I, as a developer, come in
with a property like that location of the old Whole Foods,
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
and it was running that length, and I argued that I was meeting this and I wanted to keep it that way because it’s more expensive for me to create all these articulations that you guys would be referring them back to, however, you have to go back to these articulation standards.
SEAN MULLIN: So, we would apply the standards
and hopefully they work with us on that.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Then that’s fine. That was
just my worry. Vice Chair.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: On page 274(3)(iii) I wanted
to just have the word “however” inserted before “Rooftop,” because it would make it smoother and clearer, I think.
CHAIR BURCH: To be clear for the consultant
that’s listening, you went back up into the Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces to a section up here? Where are you?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Page 274, sub iii.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, so it is in Section A.11c,
iii.
SEAN MULLIN: I have it, and to clarify, you
would want “However” before the second sentence, because both sentences begin with “Rooftop.”
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Correct.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. I want to make sure we roll
on the same page. Anything else, everybody, on Building Placement?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: I had a quick follow-up on
the extended frontage that the Chair was just talking
about. Are there exceptions if you’ve got a bus stop? For example, if you’re in a situation where you’ve got a bus stop, and then it’s an enclosure that encompasses a portion of the sidewalk, and then all you have between the sidewalk and the building is this tiny little setback, and then
you’ve got kind of like a tunnel. I think in the Design Guidelines in San Jose we have places where if you have a condition like that and VTA won’t let you move your bus stop, that you accept out of it.
SEAN MULLIN: When we receive these applications
we route them to VTA if there is a bus stop in close
proximity, so if VTA makes a comment about you’re not going to be allowed to move this, we try to work with the
developer to avoid that. We don’t have a standard to that point saying that if there is a bus shelter that constrains the passage along the sidewalk to X feet, then you shall do Y, but we do have setback requirements, and we’re not
talking about building at a zero setback with this
standard, we’re talking about that the building be within
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
5’ of the required setback, so even if there is a required setback of zero, it would be within 5’.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay.
MONICA SZYDLIK: If I may?
SEAN MULLIN: Go ahead, Monica, please.
MONICA SZYDLIK: To add onto Sean’s comment, in
the initial analysis memo that I mentioned, we documented all the development standards for the zones that support multi-family and mixed-use, and so just looking at that table, and it’s also really to the Commissioner’s comment a moment ago about if the building is at the back of
sidewalk. So, the required front setback in these zones is between 15’-25’, so there is an ample setback, it’s not right at the back of sidewalk, and then we have standards for the landscaping design of that required front setback.
I hope that provides a little bit of background into that building to street relationship for this placement
standard.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, that helps. So, we have
more breathing room, basically, to work with there.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you for that. Are there any
other comments about Building Placement? I want to clarify that that does take us to the end of the Site section, so
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
if anybody wants to fall back, thought of something in the site… No. Joel says no, you’ve said your piece.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do have a question about
the bus stops in general, because I did notice this the other day with actually Whole Foods. I don’t think this is a place that it can be really added, but it felt like there was a missed opportunity, because there is a bus stop along there and then the bench doesn’t line up with it. I think it’s along the Whole Foods, because I was looking at it the other day and I was like, “Huh, this is weird.” Anyway, there was no original bench of sheltered bus stop, so is it appropriate to add in… I mean, it’s an improvement along the sidewalk, so maybe this is a Parks and Public Works thing that needs to go into another part of the Town Code, but when those areas are being redeveloped or developed for a first time to require an upgrade to a type of bus stop if VTA supports that.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Typically, VTA dictates that,
so we generally take their recommendations, and as Mr.
Mullin mentioned before, these projects generally all go through the VTA.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, it’s their fault.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: We’ll take a look at that
specific scenario and see if there might be some room for
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
improvement in the future, but we’ll definitely let our colleagues at Parks and Public Works know as well.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That’s good to know that
that’s a VTA thing. I can go to their meeting and bug them about that.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: The parking lot situation,
and I don't know where that comes in in our Design
Guidelines, but I know Whole Foods, there has been quite a controversy because the parking spaces are not the
dimension they were supposed to be; a lot of people are not going there because their doors are being dinged. So, is there a place in the Objective Design Standards of how the width of a parking space should be?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s addressed in Town Code.
We are reviewing the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of the
placement of the striping for Whole Foods, but the Town does have a standard, and so we require that standard
outside of the Objective Standards.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: It’s not in the Objective
Standards?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: It’s in the Town Code.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
CHAIR BURCH: But, someone is actually looking at
that, because I do really agree with that. I don't know if they did them all compact. Anything else on Site? Okay, we’re going to move into Building Standards, and Building Massing and Scale. Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: I just want to ask a
clarifying question about View 1.1c, “The front of the
building does not exceed 65’ in width.” So, that’s saying that if the building is not wider than 65’, you don’t need to do any sort of step-back?
SEAN MULLIN: I’ll defer to Monica. She will be
better at articulating this than I.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Okay. You hear that, Monica?
MONICA SZYDLIK: Yes, absolutely. These are the
overall building massing options. So, yes, you comply with one of these three, and this is the first step at making sure the buildings aren’t too imposing and really massive.
And then on top of these, there are articulation standards later on, but that is true, if it’s no wider than 65’, then upper story step-back is not required.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Okay, thanks. And then can
you explain b, “Elements visible from the right-of-way”? MONICA SZYDLIK: Okay, so this is where the track
changes. When you have a lot of changes, it doesn’t work
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
all that great. I would recommend figuring out what that means, glance at the version that doesn’t show track
changes. What it’s doing is picking up on words that we kept, and it actually goes with the text above.
SEAN MULLIN: If you look at page 258 of your
packet, so we’re going to get back into Exhibit 1 that
reads, “The front of the building incorporates ground level of podium level community recreation space that is a
minimum of 900 square feet, has a minimum dimension of 30’, is enclosed by a minimum of two walls, and is designed with landscape elements visible from the right-of-way.” So, the track changes just failed there. There are some issues when you do large documents.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Sure, understood. I just
wanted to understand the intent of that point.
MONICA SZYDLIK: It’s another strategy for
breaking up building massing and ensuring that it does so in a way that introduces good design, and it’s usable and landscaped.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Back to c, how did you
arrive at the 65’ width? I’m most concerned because I
understand the intent of this standard of breaking up the massing, and for sure if there are big developments coming along that have big, long walls, we want to break those up,
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
but there would probably be instances where there are
smaller scale infill buildings, and I would hate for it to be a situation where it’s 70’ wide, it’s 5’ over the 65’, but now it has to push back the second floor or something, or do one of these other options, so I’m just wondering how you arrived at the 65’?
MONICA SZYDLIK: Yes, absolutely. We basically
looked at a lot of buildings in the Town and in the region, and we looked at typical lot sizes, and that was where we felt a solid dimension that could support mid-scale, multifamily buildings. It’s always the case when we introduce objective numerical standards that there should be some wiggle room, so I would defer to Sean. He would know better if there is a path for minor modifications that can be
approved easily.
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, I think a couple of ways that
I’d react to this is that if you’re building 70’ wide and this doesn’t work for you, then don’t implement c, because one of the things that we heard through our focus groups and community feedback was to give developers more
flexibility and options for good design rather than just painting them into a corner and saying, “You have to do this one thing to fix this one problem or this one
concern,” and so in this standard, B.1.1, the developer is
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
welcome to implement any of these strategies to satisfy.
You only have to do one, and if, honestly, it doesn’t work for them and they’re under the right application, they’re just going to waive it.
That’s the reality of the situation. We’re
approaching this not as, “Oh, they’re just going to waive it,” we’re approaching it more with the carrot of let’s write realistic standards that are approachable, easily understood, and do allow for flexibility; and to increase the flexibility that was allowed from the previous version to help entice developers to continue to work with us, and we’ve had some success, even with the existing document.
Obviously, it’s not going to be perfect, and maybe 65’ is not the right number; that certainly could be up for
debate.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: I just want to say as a
general comment that I think these are a huge improvement over the current ones. I mean, it’s clear, and I think it’s more well thought out. I think it was this particular one I’m a little bit on the fence about, but I think your
explanation makes sense, Mr. Mullin. Thanks.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think the change Mr. Mullin
and Ms. Szydlik commented on, any time you’re putting a number on some of these things it’s not going to be perfect
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
for every scenario. Here, as was mentioned, we’re trying to provide some other options, if you don’t get boxed in that corner, and also as Mr. Mullin mentioned, depending on the type of product, there may be other opportunities for
creativity to address some of these things.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. I just saw Commissioner
Stump first, then Vice Chair.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: This is a question about
Fig. B.1.1c. I don’t quite understand the scale here,
because they both say max building width of 65’, but the one on the left, if I’m thinking of scale, looks a lot
wider than the one on the right, so what does the scale mean?
CHAIR BURCH: I would rather the consultant
answer that; they put this together. Monica?
MONICA SZYDLIK: Right, so were you referring to
Figure B.1.1.c?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Correct.
CHAIR BURCH: Correct. When you look at the
scale, both say max of 65’, but if you look at the scale of each building, it’s quite different. I think there’s just some explanation on that on figure.
MONICA SZYDLIK: Yes, it’s not intended to be a
scale, really, it’s an illustrative only as here are some
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
buildings that would comply with the standard. I should also mention, the 65’, we did think about it in terms of missing middle types and kind of like a unit and a
staircase and a unit, and so thinking about that kind of configuration, here’s one way it could play out.
Alternatively, a single unit-wide building might look like the one on the right. So, these are illustrative only to show if you take this option, it could end up looking
something like this.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Could we maybe make them
the same width so that it’s less confusing?
SEAN MULLIN: I’ve noted that the way this is
drawn has caused some confusion, so I think that’s the
feedback we’ve received, so we’ll look at rather than you all trying to come up with a solution on the fly, we’ll sit down and look at improvements to that figure to make it less confusing.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Perfect.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, Vice Chair.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Continuing with my hypertechnical corrections, if we look at page 276, in the middle there is the word “building” that’s in bold, and it
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
connects to the “front of building,” so I think we need “the front of the building.”
CHAIR BURCH: On page 276b, is that (inaudible)?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, it only shows the front
of, and then it skips to “building.”
CHAIR BURCH: Right here, lower case b, if you
look at that, the revision is it just says, “The front of the…” Everything else is lined out, and if you go down to c, the next little area, the first part of that is lined out and then it just goes to “building incorporates.” So, basically what it reads is “The front of the building
incorporates.”
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I guess that’s correct.
Okay, I withdraw that. Sorry for the waste of your time.
CHAIR BURCH: Nope. Anything else in this
section, everyone? All right. I’m moving on to Parking
Structure Design, so if somebody still has something about the previous section, please say so now. Commissioner
Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: I really like this townhome
wall shift, so thanks for including that.
CHAIR BURCH: That’s a good comment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: We’ll take that.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
CHAIR BURCH: Parking Structure Design.
Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Figure B.2.3, which is
entitled “Above-ground parking structures must be designed with,” I just want to say that A confuses the heck out of me. Well, I don’t know what a punched opening versus a
ribbon opening is. I’ll just read the whole thing: “Punched openings in width-to-height proportions the same as those of the primary structure.” I don't know what the primary structure is referring to.
SEAN MULLIN: I can jump in a little bit, and
Monica can help support, and in the end, maybe we need to reword this. What we’re trying to avoid are the—I’m going to pick on my hometown of San Jose—old parking structures that just have long, uninterrupted chasms of openings, so they’re not traditionally fenestrated like a building would be. What this is saying is the punched openings are
fenestration; they’re proportional openings that are
mimicking the same proportions of the building that it is attached to. And there are other strategies here for
mitigating that that we see with the metal screens and
other things to help dress up a parking structure.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, I think I get that.
So, what is a ribbon opening?
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
SEAN MULLIN: Ribbon opening is kind of the same
thing. It’s just a long, linear stretch with the only thing interrupting it are the columns holding up the building.
So, what you see now, and I see a lot of it, a parking
structure design is they’re fenestrating it more
traditionally, or a lot of times because they need so much ventilation, they’re putting up metal screens with orate cut-outs. The Kaiser Santa Teresa Hospital just did one that’s done pretty well. The airport has one that has the big sculpture on the side with the hands. Those are just hiding the reality behind it that these things have to
breath, and so this gives the option of if you’re going to put openings in and not dress them up, then they need to have the proportions more like windows, otherwise, you can implement some of these other designs.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Good, thanks.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Maybe a diagram would be
helpful for that part, honestly.
CHAIR BURCH: For that one.
SEAN MULLIN: I’ve noted a diagram and
potentially improving the language to reduce confusion.
CHAIR BURCH: Perfect. Anything else on Parking
Structure Design?
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design Standards
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a quick note on the
screen, like it might be good to include examples of those screened parking structures as try to do this.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, I agree. I’ve been trying to
work through some of this with a couple of different
cities, and they do tend to send us to some places like that as examples. If there is a way so that we get
something that actually looks nice.
SEAN MULLIN: I think we’re leaning towards
diagrams to be consistent with the document, so I’ll work with the consultant to see if there is a way to put it in the diagram form. If not, then maybe some photo examples would be helpful.
CHAIR BURCH: Exactly. That would be nice. But
model screens can be interpreted a lot of different ways.
Vice Chair.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: In 2.1 I had a discussion
with Mr. Mullin about what the word “lined” means, and he invited me to come up with some alternative language. Would “setback” work, or not?
SEAN MULLIN: Setback really is a loaded word and
implies a no-build zone, where what we’re trying to do here is hide the parking structure with an activated like a
retail storefront, so that the street isn’t lined with just
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
parking; there’s storefront, and then behind it that you can’t even see, is the parking garage. I know Commissioner Mayer has his hand up; maybe he’s got a suggestion.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Architecturally, I
understand it and I understood immediately what is meant by “lined” here, so there is no confusion for me there.
I just want to say these Parking Structure Design
Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are really, really good,
really thoughtful; I’m glad these are here. I think
diagrams would definitely help illustrate what is intended here, but I think the intention is, as you said, Mr.
Mullin, to not have this parking garage right at street level, and I know there are projects in the pipeline here that are proposing at-grade parking garages in areas of town which I don’t think they should belong, so I think this is really important here, and thank you for having that.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: And the architect understands
it, but for maybe the general public, I think I’ve seen “wrapped” or “surrounded by.”
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, I was just going to
suggest wrapped.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
COMMISSIONER SORDI: But wrapped implies you go
around the sides.
SEAN MULLIN: And again, we can work on improving
this, because there’s a balance. They have to have access; they have to have ventilation.
CHAIR BURCH: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: I think a diagram would
probably help clear things up.
SEAN MULLIN: Yes.
CHAIR BURCH: Well, they’re kind of is one, but
maybe…
SEAN MULLIN: More than elevation or something.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, and maybe just an example like
within that 30’, like you just said, could be retail. I don't know, I think there’s a few of us that knows what this means, but I think most people would not. Okay,
Parking Structure Design. No, I’m not there yet. I was
really trying to stick with that one section, but if nobody has anything else, yes, let’s go to Roof Design and the Façade Design and Articulation.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I had one concern again, and
I discussed with Mr. Mullin, which is 3.3, which would
allow a single dormer up to 50% of the total roofline at
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
street-facing façade. To me, that just seems odd. Neither of us were able to find an example.
CHAIR BURCH: It does seem excessive.
SEAN MULLIN: This is one of the existing
standards from the original document. Maybe 50% is not the right number. I struggle to find an example of multi-family showing a shed dormer, but I could definitely see farmhouse high-pitched roofs with the dormer popping out so that
you’re using that roof volume that far exceeds the 50%, and found plenty of examples of what we’re trying to not do, which is maybe a repetitive cookie-cutter peak dormer gable facing all the way across, just repetitive.
CHAIR BURCH: Agreed.
SEAN MULLIN: Honestly, this one hasn’t been a
challenge to implement, and hasn’t been a challenge from the developer side to design to, but maybe 50% is not the right number; happy to entertain that.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Maybe I need to clarify. I’m
fine with multiple dormers, my concern is with a single dormer, which would be allowed up to 50%.
SEAN MULLIN: This is saying single dormer or the
collective, multiple dormers, so if someone wanted to do one long shed dormer, you’re going to be limited to 50%. If you wanted to do five dormers, we’d add up the width of
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
those five dormers and see if that’s at the 50% threshold or not across that roof length.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, that makes a lot of
sense to me. Maybe I’m beating a dead horse here, but a single dormer in a multi-family building that covered 50% of the total roofline, I don’t think a developer would do that, but it would allow it.
SEAN MULLIN: It would allow it. I agree, we
haven’t seen it in the multitude of applications that we have. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but typically we’re not seeing that.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I understand what you’re
saying and what your concern is, and that would be an odd choice, but I do think that just like some of the other things we’ve brought up, that there are other aspects of the Design Guidelines that would prevent just one really, really long dormer. Like if the building is really, really big and long, it would have to be broken up in another way, right? Okay.
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, there are other standards in
here that would require articulating the roof form, but this is specific to dormers and gets back to you’re going
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
to have a primary roof form and dormers are typically
subordinate, and you don’t want something that’s competing.
CHAIR BURCH: It wouldn’t be practical in any
way, shape, or form.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Like a unibrow.
CHAIR BURCH: Exactly. Anything else on roof
design, guys? No? Then I’m going to move on to Façade
Design and Articulation. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would just like to say
that I think that the changes that were made and what has been incorporated is more specific and provides better
guidance, but also better options in a way that we know that that was the intent of this, and again, some of these numbers, I don't know if 70% from my experience, but again, trust consultants and Staff.
CHAIR BURCH: I had a question on page 280b.
Maybe I just read this wrong or I’m getting tired, but this sounds like it’s reading that the habitable projection
could be 2’ out, and I just found that to be an odd
definition of a habitable projection. Like a 2’ balcony basically, is that what that means?
SEAN MULLIN: I can jump in on this. I believe
there was an original standard that would not allow
balconies to project out from the main body of the
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
building, which then when you’re trying to articulate and build a shadow line, all you’re getting is just this flat pasted thing, so we worked to try to find the right number to allow some of that balcony to project out. That doesn’t mean that the balcony is 2’ deep. The balcony could be 8’ feet deep, it just means 6’ of it is within the body of the building. The other extreme is we don’t want the balcony just completely hanging off the end of the building, so it allows, again, more flexibility here.
CHAIR BURCH: That makes good sense. Thank you.
Anybody have anything else? I honestly thought you guys would have more say about this section. Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: So, 4.1, “Buildings greater
than two stories shall be designed with a differentiated base, middle, and top on any street-facing elevation…”—I agree with that intent—“…by incorporating a minimum of two of the following design strategies:” Maybe I’m not
following the track changes properly here, but I’m trying to figure out which one are the…
SEAN MULLIN: The track changes failed here
again. Immediately underneath where it says 4.2, it should be an a, and it’s a, b, c, d, and e, so it’s providing five options; it’s just the track changes skipped here.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
COMMISSIONER MAYER: (Inaudible) sixty-one has
the not track changes.
SEAN MULLIN: And this is helpful, because we’ll
try to clean the track changes document up before we head to Council.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Just give me a second to
look at it. Okay, and it’s just minimum of two of the
following… Okay. The five options, need to pick two, is that correct?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes. And through our outreach,
those types of strategies were found to be preferred by the developers rather than like point systems of just giving them one solution.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, I think this is better.
Thanks.
CHAIR BURCH: I have a comment on 4.6, the
continuous length facades. I think it’s great to say you’ve got to put windows on there, but much like my favorite
project in town, I think a bunch of windows that just have white sheeting behind them and there’s zero anything else to them, looks actually worse.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’m not sure how successful…
We have a few projects that have that scenario where
they’re facing Main Street, and so what we try to do is
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
have them have some sort of display or something in those areas.
CHAIR BURCH: You can get those blinds with
imagery on them, like put some produce on it. Commissioner Mayer.
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Would these Objective
Standards actually apply to a project like the one you’re referring to, since it’s just a big box retail?
CHAIR BURCH: No, I was just using it as an
example.
SEAN MULLIN: No. Although if they put three
units of housing on the roof, yes.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, it would.
SEAN MULLIN: Because it would be mixed-use,
multi-family at that point, but no, that’s a good point.
CHAIR BURCH: My point is pretty much all of the
Boulevard is mixed-use, it’s all mixed-use, so those are properties that have a much longer street-facing. I think when you’ve just two windows somewhere it doesn’t have the same impact as just a wall of closed looking windows, so I don’t know if there’s a way to… And I’m not even going to try to wordsmith this, and you might just say no, but
something to say blank stupid window.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
SEAN MULLIN: We’ve noted it and we can explore.
It’s hard to, because sometimes you’re building a building without… If it’s retail space, you don’t know what the use is going to be, you don’t know what the tenant is going to be. The example we keep using is a single tenant, purposebuilt building… CHAIR BURCH: Yes, if you’ve got multiple.
SEAN MULLIN: …but if you’re building a mixed-use
building with multiple retail spaces, you don’t know who is going to be in there, but we’ll talk about that with the consultant.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I don't know if something
like a permanent art display could be used instead of a window, like a mural not just painted on a wall, but like a mosaic or something else that…an alternative.
SEAN MULLIN: We’ll look at it.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you. Anything else on
this section? I like the additions about the residential entrance, spelling out what it needs to look like so that there’s a bit of a presence to it. If everybody stays
quiet, I am going to move to the next section.
Windows and Doors. All right, am I missing
anything? Did I not get a last page or something? This one
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
has the Materials and Architectural Details on Exhibit 1.
Maybe I just didn’t get it in Exhibit 2.
SEAN MULLIN: It’s on page 285 of the packet, in
Exhibit 2.
CHAIR BURCH: Oh, sorry, it printed really light.
My apologies. Materials and Architectural Details. Vice Chair.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: In 7.1a, should we require
the street-facing façade to definitely include those, or am I missing something?
CHAIR BURCH: So, in a way you’re trying to say
the main façade, the front-facing façade, should include 50% or more of the primary materials?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, I guess just by adding
main and potentially others, that’s the concept I’m trying to capture.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I don't know if Monica has any
input on this, but this seems to be, you know, you kind of have a material palette. You’ve got a primary, which is going to be the predominant material, you’ve got the
secondary, and you’ve got the accent stuff, so I think by default, theoretically that would happen. We could
definitely explore adding some more specific language as it
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
relates to street-facing facades or something along those lines.
CHAIR BURCH: By default, the fact that it is the
primary material means it is usually predominantly on the front-facing façade.
SEAN MULLIN: And there are other standards that
would require the 360 design that all these materials need to be on all elevations, not just the front.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I interpreted it
differently, that “to 50% or more of a façade,” I assumed that meant like of all facades, even though it doesn’t say all.
SEAN MULLIN: We would calculate each façade.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, so every façade would
require 50% minimum. Okay.
SEAN MULLIN: And then in concert with the other
requirements that you put all the materials on all sides of the building; we would look at all these things together.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, so maybe that
language should be changed, because I think that the Vice Chair interpreted it as one of the facades required 50%. Is that correct, or no?
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, maybe it should be
“all” instead of “a.”
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
SEAN MULLIN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Anything else on this section?
MONICA SZYDLIK: If I may, I would agree that
changing the word “façade” to “elevation” might clear that up.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, agreed. I like elevations
better anyway. Anything else on this section? If we didn’t pick something up, speak now or forever hold your peace for another few months or so.
Does anybody want to make a motion on this item?
Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just going to ask some
guidance on a motion, because obviously we’ve gone and made numerous, you could say, edits, suggested changes,
recommendations, so if we’re now going to say let’s forward this to the Council, the motion is to recommend forwarding this to the Council, does that need to be included noting these edits, changes, suggestions?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, if you could just walk
back through each one. Hopefully, you’re keeping track.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: I can. Right here.
ITEM NO. 11.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/24/2026, Item #4,
Changes and Additions to Objective Design 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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: So, no, I think it’s as simple
as forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council with the direction provided by the Planning Commission this evening.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Okay, then I move to forward
a recommendation to the Town Council on proposed changes and additions to the Town’s Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use, not subject to CEQA review
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibly that the
changes and additions to the Town’s Objective Design
Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Projects would have a significant effect on the environment or projects for which the Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Projects will apply will undergo separate CEQA review and approval.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, great. Is there a second?
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I second the motion.
CHAIR BURCH: Is there discussion or an optional
motion on the table? Seeing none, I’ll call the question.
All in favor? Passes unanimously, and as this is a
recommendation, there are no appeal rights.
SEAN MULLIN: Correct, and thank you for all the
valuable feedback. (END)
ITEM NO. 11.
Town of Los Gatos - Objective Design Standards Update
Public Hearing Draft - September 2026
ERRATA September 2026
Item
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsectio
n Name Description of Needed Edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the ODS Edit made in final document General
1 6/24/2026 PC General
Consult the Town Attorney on how/when to use
‘shall’ and ‘must.’ Ensure consistent application in
the document.
This was specifically about the phrase in
A.1.1 "All on-site buildings, entries,
facilities, amenities, and vehicular and
bicycle parking areas must be internally
connected…" Updated globally for
consistency.
All uses of 'must' replaced with 'shall.'
Purpose, Applicability, Organization, Key Terms
2 6/24/2026 PC Title Change the name of the document to “Objective Design and Building Standards”
The design standards are holistic and
regulations for both the site and buildings.
Recommend keeping the title as "Objective
Design Standards…"
Edit not made. Section A (Site
Standards) and Section B (Building
Standards) together comprise the
Design Standards
3 6/24/2026 PC Preparation of
Development Plans
Change the sentence “Development plans will
require additional dimensions and exhibits to
demonstrate compliance with the Objective
Design Standards” to “Development plans will
require additional dimensions diagrams and
exhibits to demonstrate compliance with the
Objective Design Standards” or “Development
plans will require additional plan dimensions and
exhibits to demonstrate compliance with the
Objective Design Standards.”
Agree with the recommendation to clarify
that additional dimensions are requested in
submitted materials to prove and ensure
compliance with the standards.
Updated the sentence to be
“Development plans will require
additional diagrams and exhibits that
demonstrate compliance with the
Objective Design Standards.”
4 6/24/2026 PC Key Terms Add a definition for "townhomes" Agree with the recommendation that clarity
on the building type is needed. Added a
definition mirroring what is currently used
in Section 29.10.020 (Definitions).
Added definition of "Townhome."
Short Term Bicycle Parking (Class II)
5 6/24/2026 PC
A.2 (Short-Term
Bicycle Parking
(Class II))
Modify calculation of required bicycle parking for
non-residential components to be based off of
non-residential square footage instead of vehicle
parking requirements.
Agree with the recommendation that
bicycle parking should be calculated using a
different method rather than relying on the
number of provided vehicle spaces.
Updated the calculation to be based
on non-residential floor area and used
a ratio from other jurisdictions (1 per
3,000 square feet of non-residential
floor area).
ITEM NO. 11.
Item
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsectio
n Name Description of Needed Edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the ODS Edit made in final document Utilities
6 6/24/2026 PC A.7.4
Add that screening of rooftop mechanical
equipment must be durable and consistent with
the exterior materials of the building.
Agree that screening materials should be
durable and consistent with other exterior
materials used in the building.
Added a standard that rooftop
screening materials must be
consistent with the exterior materials
used in the building and consistent
with the durability requirements of
Subsection B.7.2.
Landscaping and Screening
7 6/24/2026 PC A.8.3
Modify “Surface parking lots shall be screened
from view of the street with landscaping or a wall
with a minimum three-foot height to screen the
parking lot when not already screened by a
primary building” to say “Surface parking lots shall
be screened from view of the street with
landscaping, or a wall, or a solid fence with a
minimum three-foot height to screen the parking
lot when not already screened by a primary
building.”
Agree with the proposed edit that fences
should also be included as an option for
parking lot screening.
Added "solid fence" to the list of
allowed surface parking lot screening
measures.
Fencing
8 6/24/2026 PC A.9 (Fences)
Generally check the fencing standards against the
screening standards and residential fencing
standards to reduce conflicts.
Checked the standards against Section
29.40.030 (Fences, Walls, Gates, Gateways,
Entry Arbors, and Hedges).
See item 9 below.
9 6/24/2026 PC A.9.1 Consider removing this subsection
Agree that this standard is inconsistent with
the fencing standards of Section 29.40.030
(Fences, Walls, Gates, Gateways, Entry
Arbors, and Hedges).
Removed A.9.1.
Landscaped, Private, and Community Recreation Spaces
10 6/24/2026 PC A.11.1.c
Reword the standard “The minimum dimension is
10 feet” to say “At least one dimension must be at
least 10 feet in length or width” to clarify the
intent.
Agree that clarity is needed to note that the
standard is referring to minimum length and
width of community recreation space.
Edited to clarify that "The community
recreation space shall be at least 10
feet in length and 10 feet in width."
ITEM NO. 11.
Item
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsectio
n Name Description of Needed Edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the ODS Edit made in final document 11 6/24/2026 PC A.11.1.c.iii
Reword “Rooftop space (not including improved
areas on top of a parking podium) may not be
used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the
required landscaping for the site” to read
“However, rooftop space (not including improved
areas on top of a parking podium) may not be
used to satisfy more than 50 percent of the
required landscaping for the site.”
Agree that the sentence should be edited to
clarify the intent in relation to the first
sentence.
Edited to add "However," to the start
of the second sentence in the
subparagraph.
Building Placement
12 6/24/2026 PC A.12.1
Consider revising to discourage long blank walls
near sidewalks and make sure the standard can
provide space for bus stops, when present.
Subsection B.4.6 already requires a window
or door every 12 feet to discourage
continuous blank facades. Provisions of bus
stops is to be decided by the Public Works
Department and is not needed in the zoning
code.
Edit not made.
Building Massing and Scale
13 6/24/2026 PC Figure B.1.1c Update the figure to clarify the standard. Consider making the buildings the same width.
Graphic modified to remove notation
for building on the right. This way, the
floor area of the development show
in options a, b and c all stay about the
same.
Parking Structure Design
14 6/24/2026 PC B.2.1 Consider replacing the word “lined” with “wrapped”. Add a diagram.
Agree that the sentence should be edited to
better align with the intent. Replaced "lined" with "wrapped." 15 6/24/2026 PC B.2.3 Add a figure and potential text edits to clarify the standards. Graphic added.
Façade Design and Articulation
16 8/4/2026 LWC B.4.3 Add back in existing Figure B.4.5, since the standard hasn't changed.
Re-numbered to B.4.3 Existing Figure B.4.5 (material change at inside corners only) added back in.
17 6/24/2026 PC B.4.6 (Continuous
blank facades)
Consider clarifying that curtains/sheeting behind
windows include a design or require a permanent
art display.
This recommended edit is not under the
purvue of the zoning code. Edit not made.
ITEM NO. 11.
Item
Date of
Comment
Name of
commenter
Section/Subsectio
n Name Description of Needed Edit Notes/Proposed Edit to the ODS Edit made in final document Materials and Architectural Details
18 6/24/2026 PC B.7.1.a
Replace “Primary materials must be applied to 50
percent or more of a façade surface area,
excluding transparent surfaces” with “Primary
materials must be applied to 50 percent or more
of an elevation façade surface area, excluding
transparent surfaces.”
Agree that the sentence should be edited to
clarify the standards apply to all elevations
rather than just the façade.
Edited to replace the use of "façade"
with "elevation" in the paragraph.
ITEM NO. 11.
Multi-Family and MixedUse Objective Design
Standards Update
Town of Los Gatos
Town Council Hearing
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
7:00 p.m.
Los Gatos Town Hall
ATTACHMENT 7
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 2 Town Staff
o Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
o Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC)
o Monica Szydlik, AICP, Senior Associate
o Cal Kurtz, AIA, Lead Associate
o Po Johnson, Associate
Introductions
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 3 Project Objectives
• Update the Town’s existing 2023 Objective Design Standards for MultiFamily and Mixed-Use Residential Development by refining design standards to respond to Town Council and community feedback and priorities. • Implement the Town’s General Plan goals
• Ensure compliance with State law (SB 330)
• Focus on:
High-Quality Building Design
Height Transitions
Architectural Character and Details
Small-scale Multi-family Buildings
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 4 What are Objective Standards?
• Involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.
• Set clear expectations for approval.
• Streamline the review process.
Subjective
Development must be compatible with
the character of the neighborhood.
Objective
Blank walls (without doors and windows) of
more than 20 linear feet are prohibited
along any street-facing elevation.
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 5 Project Process and Schedule
Documents:
• Zoning Code development standards
• 2040 General Plan relevant policy direction
• North 40 Specific Plan
• Record of community and Council input
• Staff input and issues
• Analysis of example projects
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 6 Project Process and Schedule
• Residents, architects, developers
• Discussed:
o Existing ODS
o The architectural character of Los Gatos and
o Recommendations for the updated ODS
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 7 Project Process and Schedule
Draws on findings from:
• Site Analysis and
Evaluation Memo
• Focus Groups
• Staff input
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 8 Project Process and Schedule
• Focus on:
o Building placement
o Design of street-facing setbacks and site perimeter
o Building massing and articulation
o Roof types and details
o Height transitions
o Window design and entrance design
o Building materials and colors
o Architectural character
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 9 Project Process and Schedule
March 27 Joint PC/TC Study Session:
• Reviewed working design ideas
informed by input from all outreach
• Gathered PC feedback on specific
questions
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 10 Project Process and Schedule
• Submitted to Staff for review;
received comments and
discussed with Staff
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 11 Project Process and Schedule
Released on
June 17, 2026
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 12 Project Process and Schedule
June 24 PC Hearing:
• Reviewed Public Draft
• Gathered PC feedback
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 13 Source of
Updates
• Community Design Workshop, part of the 2040 General
Update (2020):
o Consider upper-story step-backs
o Require high-quality materials
o Achieve balanced facades
• ODS Community Meeting (2022):
o Consider shade, weather protection
o Support diverse roof types
• Town Council Meeting (2024):
o Height transitions/massing
o Architectural style that reflects existing character
o High-quality design that reflects existing character
o Standards for an array of building types and sizes, including small multi-family
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 14 Source of
Updates,
Cont’d
• Staff list of changes needed (spring 2025)
• Focus Groups (September 2025):
o Support diverse architectural styles
o Height transitions adjacent to single-family residential • Open House (December 2025):
o Preference for more articulation
o Focus on single-family residential privacy
o Consider projections/recesses for entries
o Mix of quality building materials
• Joint TC/PC Study Session (March 2025):
o Preference for reduced height within 40 ft of a single-family district
o Consider requiring community space/common buildings
o Prevent excessive/chaotic material changes and articulation
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 15 Source of
Updates,
Cont’d
• Planning Commission Hearing (June 24, 2026):
o Add definition for “townhomes,” consistent with the definition used in the Code
o Modify the calculation of bicycle parking requirements for non-residential components to be based off square footage rather than vehicle parking requirements
o Added solid fencing as a screening option for surface parking lots
o Require rooftop mechanical equipment screening be
durable materials, consistent with the exterior of the building o Text and graphic edits for legibility, consistency, and to clarify intent of select standards
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 16 Updates Section A: Site Standards
A.1 Pedestrian Access
A.2 Short-Term Bicycle Parking
A.3 Long-Term Bicycle Parking
A.4 Vehicular Access
A.5 Surface Parking Location and Design
A.6 Parking Structure Access
A.7 Utilities
A.8 Landscaping and Screening
A.9 Fencing
A.10 Retaining Walls
A.11 Landscaped, Private, and Community
Recreation Spaces
A.12 Building Placement
Section B: Building Standards
B.1 Building Massing and Scale
B.2 Parking Structure Design
B.3 Roof Design
B.4 Façade Design and Articulation
B.5 Entrance Design and Ground Floor Design
B.6 Windows and Doors
B.7 Materials and Architectural Details
New sections
More substantive edits
Minor edits
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 17 Building Massing Options
• Must choose at least one of the following:
o 40% of upper-story stepped back
o Ground/podium-level community recreation
space enclosed by walls
o Maximum 65 ft building frontage
• Townhomes
must provide
a wall plane
shift between
units
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 18 Adjacency to Single-Family Districts
• Reduced height (25 ft/2
stories) when within 40 ft
of a single-family district
• 5 ft step-back for upperfloor terraces/decks
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 19 Architectural Articulation
• Differentiate base, middle, and top
with at least two of the following:
Material change
between first and
upper floors
Recesses or projections
every 35 ft
Balconies or habitable
projections on streetfacing elevations
Eaves with
corbels/brackets
Window boxes
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 20 Architectural Articulation
• 360-degree design
o All materials/details must be
incorporated on all building
elevations
o Material changes must occur at
inside corners
• Break up blank facades with
windows or doors
o Upper floors: max. 24 ft without
a window or door
o Ground floor: max. 12 ft without
a window or door
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 21 Entrance Design
• Residential and non-residential entries must be under a roof supported by columns or a recess
• Must be framed by architectural elements
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 22 High Quality Design
• Windows
o Break up large window panes
o Require trim, recesses, or lintels
o Glazing wraps or is min. 30in from corner
• Materials
o Primary (max 50%), secondary (max 45%), accent
(max 25%)
o All materials must be fire resistant, protected from
corrosion, and have a lifespan of at least 30 years
• Roofs
o Require eaves and overhangs
o Gable, projection, change in height, dormer,
parapet, or cornice every 75 ft
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 23 Landscaped and Recreation Space
• Landscaped Space: 20% of site
• Private Recreation Space: 60 sq ft per unit, 6 ft
in any horizontal direction
• Community Recreation Space:
o 100 sq ft per unit (developments with >8 units)
o 60% open to sky, 15% shaded
o ≤50% may be on a rooftop
o Community recreation/multi-purpose room required
for all buildings with 50+ units
• 40% of upper-story step-backs must be open
space and stepped back for neighbors’ privacy
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 24 Building Placement
• 75% of frontage within 5 ft of the
setback line
• Remaining space must be at least 10 ft
deep and usable
• Ground-floor non-residential uses must
include site amenities/landscaping on
min. 30% of area between the building
and the street-facing property line
• Multi-family residential primary
entrances must face a public right-ofway or a community open space
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 25 Vehicle/Bicycle Parking/Access
• Vehicle/bicycle parking and access
o Updated bicycle parking consistent with
CalGreen
o Max. 1 curb cut per 100 ft of frontage
• Above-ground parking structures
o Wrapped with 30 ft-deep ground floor nonresidential
o Visibility limited to 50% street-facing
facade/60 ft
o Punched openings required; no ribbon
openings
o Required architectural features: cut metal
screens, railings, trellises, vertical plantings,
louvers, or decorative security grills
ITEM NO. 11.
September 1, 2026 Town of Los Gatos, Objective Design Standards | 26 Thank you!
ITEM NO. 11.