Item 2 - Staff Report with Attachments
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 1/30/2020
ITEM: 2
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: January 24, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss and Develop a Preferred Land Use Alternative Recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
On December 12, 2019, the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) met to discuss
the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here:
www.losgatos2040.com/documents.html).
On January 16, 2020, the Town hosted the second Community Workshop of the General Plan
update process. The Community Workshop was held to inform the community about the
General Plan update process and solicit feedback regarding the Land Use Alternatives. A
summary of the Community Workshop is included as Attachment 7.
DISCUSSION:
The goal of the land use alternatives process is to determine the appropriate location, density,
and intensity of residential, commercial, mixed residential/commer cial, and industrial uses that
reflect the vision of Los Gatos in the General Plan.
The GPAC plays an important role in the land use alternatives process which is to recommend a
preferred land use alternative to the Planning Commission and Town Council that is informed
by community input and will form the foundation for the General Plan update. The
recommended land use alternative could be one of the four presented in the Land Use
Alternatives Report, or it could be a combination of parts of multiple alternatives. Additional
informational tables comparing the four land use alternatives are included as Attachments 8, 9,
and 10. It is also possible to consider other options.
The preferred land use alternative will be used in the 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram, land
use designations, and associated land use goals, policies, and action items. Once the land use
alternative is determined, other General Plan Elements can be reviewed. The preferred
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Preferred Land Use Alternative
January 24, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\01-30-20\Item 2 - Staff Report FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
alternative is also the foundation for the analysis that will be completed in the 2040 General
Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The purpose of this GPAC meeting is to make a formal recommendation of a preferred land use
alternative to the Planning Commission and Town Council. The following questions have been
provided to help guide the GPAC’s discussion.
A. Of the four alternatives (A, B, C, and D), which is preferred on its own, or as a base
alternative with modifications?
B. Are there items that should be added to a potential preferred alternative?
• For example, are there areas of the land use map where the land use designation(s)
should be changed?
C. Are there components of a potential preferred alternative that should be modified?
• For example, are there opportunity areas that should be added or deleted ?
NEXT STEPS:
The GPAC’s preferred land use alternative recommendation is tentatively scheduled to be
considered by the Planning Commission and Town Council in February and March 2020,
respectively.
OTHER INFORMATION:
The following information is provided in response to requests by GPAC members and/or the
public. Committee members may find that some of this information is useful in consideration
of the land use alternatives. For those items that are not directly related to this meeting’s
discussion, there will be opportunities to discuss these matters at future GPAC meetings.
• The discussion on December 12, 2019 included a request for more detailed figures on
household size, possibly differentiating between different housing types. Unfortunately,
that information is not available at that detailed level for the Town of Los Gatos.
• The discussion on December 12, 2019, included a request for a master evaluation table
laying out the differences between the four alternatives. This additional information is
included in Attachment 8.
PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Preferred Land Use Alternative
January 24, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\01-30-20\Item 2 - Staff Report FINAL.docx
OTHER INFORMATION (continued):
• The discussion on December 12, 2019 included a request for additional fiscal
information to support creating an alternative that is net positive. The Land Use
Alternatives Report is not meant to include a full financial analysis, but present s the
relative merits and impacts of the alternatives being considered. Additional fiscal
analysis will be completed for the final preferred alternative.
• The discussion on December 12, 2019 included a request for more detailed information
about the number of units produced under each alternative, specifically providing the
number of units projected for the land under each land use designation. This additional
information is included in the Alternatives Comparison Table, Attachment 9.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 24, 2020 are included as Attachment
11.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with December 12, 2019 Staff Report:
1. Land Use Alternatives Report, dated December 2019, available online here:
www.losgatos2040.com/documents.html
2. GPAC Process Schedule
3. Changes in Housing Element Law
4. Missing Middle Housing Information
5. Public Comment Received before 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 6, 2019
Attachments previously received with December 12, 2019 Desk Item Report:
6. Public Comments
Attachments received with this Staff Report:
7. Community Workshop #2 Summary
8. Master Land Use Alternatives Comparison Table
9. Opportunity Area Dwelling Units by Alternatives Comparison Table
10. Assumptions, Development Standards, and Net New Dwelling Unit Comparison Table
11. Public Comments received before 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 24, 2020
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 1 of 10
Community Workshop #2: Land Use Alternatives
Thursday January 16, 2020
6:30 pm – 8:30 pm
Fisher Middle School Library
Los Gatos, CA
On Thursday, January 16, 2020, the Town hosted the second community workshop on the General Plan
update to inform the community about the General Plan update process and solicit feedback related to
the Land Use Alternatives Report. The Community Workshop included an introductory presentation by
the consultant team on where we are in the General Plan update process, an overview of the Land Use
Alternatives Report, and a discussion of the next steps.
Attendees were provided a similar presentation to that provided to the General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC) on December 12, 2019. The presentation highlighted the importance of the land use
alternatives process in the General Plan update and the steps the GPAC, Town staff, and Consultant
team took to develop the set of alternatives and associated analysis presented in the Alternatives
Report. At the conclusion of the presentation, attendees were able to ask questions on the process and
results of the Land Use Alternatives Report. Attendees were then able to walk through a series of
stations with informative boards and an interactive survey highlighting the process and results of the
Land Use Alternatives Report.
This workshop format was set up as an open house which allowed for more one-on-one interaction and
dialogue between attendees, Town staff, and the consultant team. Following the workshop, the
PowerPoint presentation, informational posters, and the survey were uploaded to the General Plan
website (losgatos2040.com) to allow community members who were not able to attend in person the
ability to participate and provide feedback. The online engagement exercises will be active from January
17 – January 28, 2020.
The following is an overview of the public comments and feedback from both the workshop and online
engagement, as of January 23, 2020.
Community Workshop #2 Survey
The survey provided at the community workshop and on the General Plan website consisted of a series
of 10 questions. These questions focused on the identification and selection of Opportunity Areas as
well as input on the range of, allowable density, building height, and housing product types.
ATTACHMENT 7
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 2 of 10
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 3 of 10
Community Workshop #2 Survey Results
The following includes all feedback collected at both the workshop and online related to the Land Use
Alternatives Survey.
The only additional area identified by attendees was inclusion of the Downtown area, highlighted in red
below.
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 4 of 10
The graph above shows the number of persons that thought that Opportunity Area should be removed
from the alternatives considered.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Los Gatos
Boulevard
Hardwood
Road
Pollard Road Lark Avenue Union Avenue North Santa
Cruz Avenue
Winchester
Avenue
2
1
4
1 1
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 5 of 10
SELECTED: 3 times SELECTED: 4 times
SELECTED: 6 times
SELECTED: 6 times
SELECTED: 5 times Townhomes Condominiums Multiple Detached Single-Family Units Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex Apartments
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 6 of 10
The following are the maps that attendees completed at the workshop. At the time of the completion of
the Staff Report for the GPAC Meeting, no maps were completed as part of the online engagement.
SELECTED: 4 times SELECTED: 3 times
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 7 of 10
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 8 of 10
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 9 of 10
The following numbers in the table show how many times the option was selected.
Yes No Not sure/no opinion
Duplex 5 2 0
Triplex 4 3 0
Fourplex 2 5 0
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
2 times
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
4 times
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
Community Workshop #2
January 16, 2020
Page 10 of 10
The following numbers in the table show how many times the option was selected.
Please identify the Elks Lodge properly as High Density Residential (HDR). Currently the map
shows it as Low Density Residential (LDR). What a coincidence it is located directly across
from the “The Bay Club”.
Make the former lot high density residential at the corner of Los Gatos-Almaden at Los
Gatos Blvd.
There are current issues with traffic congestion, and I anticipate more upon the completion
of the project at LG Boulevard and Lark. Parking is constrained at all stores. We do not have
the infrastructure to accommodate large increases to the population. Los Gatos is a town,
not a city with multi-storied buildings.
Alternative A 3
Alternative B 1
Alternative C 1
Alternative D 2
None of the Above 0
ATTACHMENT 8
Master Land Use Alternatives Comparison Table
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Population
Total Net New Population 2,834 4,598 5,587 7,682
Total Population 3,974 5,738 6,727 8,822
Total Projected 2040 Population 34,969 36,733 37,722 39,817
Housing
Net New Dwellings 681 1,416 1,828 2,701
Potential Net New Accessory Dwelling Units 500 500 500 500
Total Net New Dwelling Units 1,181 1,916 2,328 3,201
Pending/Approved Dwelling Units 475 475 475 475
Total Future Dwelling Units 1,656 2,391 2,803 3,676
Dwelling Units Per Land Use Designation
Low Density Residential (LDR) - in OA 95 141 180 283
Low Density Residential (LDR) - outside OA 43 160 164 264
Low Density Residential (LDR) - Total Dwelling Units 138 301 344 547
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - in OA 129 166 166 258
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - outside OA 120 315 315 561
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - Total Dwelling Units 249 481 481 819
High Density Residential (HDR) - in OA 104 104 236 322
High Density Residential (HDR) - outside OA 54 81 98 98
High Density Residential (HDR) - Total Dwelling Units 158 185 334 420
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - in OA 30 76 192 194
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - outside OA 2 7 7 25
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - Total Dwelling Units 32 83 199 219
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - in OA 91 345 21 630
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - outside OA 13 21 449 66
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - Total Dwelling Units 104 366 470 696
Employment
Employment 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280
Transportation
Traffic Congestion Increase Levels
Minimal Increase
with 2 studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
congestion
Minimal Increase
with 3 studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
congestion
Moderate
increase with 4
studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
Moderate
increase with 4
studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
Total Daily VMT (lower VMT better)1,245,000 1,259,000 1,267,000 1,284,000
VMT per Service Population (lower VMT better)22.65 22.20 21.95 21.48
Fiscal*
Annual Revenue 4,320,000.00$ 5,796,000.00$ 6,564,000.00$ 8,378,000.00$
Annual Costs 3,710,000.00$ 5,280,000.00$ 6,264,000.00$ 8,413,000.00$
Net Fiscal Impact 610,000.00$ 516,000.00$ 300,000.00$ (35,000.00)$
Residential Net Impact 190,000.00$ 96,000.00$ (121,000.00)$ (455,000.00)$
Non-residential Net Impact 420,000.00$ 420,000.00$ 420,000.00$ 420,000.00$
Urban Form
Range of allowable building heights up to 35 feet up to 40 feet up to 50 feet up to 60 feet
Maximum number of stories 2 stories 3-4 stories 4 stories 5 stories
*There will be increases in property tax revenues associated with redevelopment of commercial space, which is not shown here
Opportunity Area Dwelling Units by Alternative Comparison Table*
*The following net new dwelling units include only those new units produced under each land use
alternative. The totals exclude assumed accessory dwelling units (500 units) and pending/approved Town
projects (475 units).
ATTACHMENT 9
HDR MDR MU NC LDR HDR MDR MU NC LDR
Outside OA 0 54 120 13 2 43 81 315 21 7 160
Pollard Road OA 1 0 8 0 4 2 0 10 0 9 5
North Santa Cruz Avenue OA 2 39 14 0 4 0 39 17 0 19 0
Winchester Boulevard OA 3 42 16 0 7 3 42 19 0 20 5
Lark Avenue OA 4 0 46 0 0 69 0 61 0 0 98
Los Gatos Boulevard OA 5 23 42 91 0 21 23 55 345 0 33
Union Avenue OA 6 0 1 0 11 0 0 2 0 17 0
Harwood Road OA 7 0 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 11 0
158 249 104 32 138 185 481 366 83 301
Total 681 Total 1,416
HDR MDR MU NC LDR HDR MDR MU NC LDR
Outside OA 0 98 315 21 7 164 98 561 66 25 264
Pollard Road OA 1 0 10 0 21 13 0 17 0 21 25
North Santa Cruz Avenue OA 2 100 17 0 63 1 141 26 0 63 3
Winchester Boulevard OA 3 88 19 0 50 10 117 30 0 50 17
Lark Avenue OA 4 0 61 0 0 101 0 92 0 0 123
Los Gatos Boulevard OA 5 48 55 449 0 53 64 87 630 0 111
Union Avenue OA 6 0 2 0 32 1 0 3 0 34 3
Harwood Road OA 7 0 2 0 26 1 0 3 0 26 1
334 481 470 199 344 420 819 696 219 547
Total 1,828 Total 2,701
Alternative DAlternative C
Alternative BAlternative A
Assumptions, Development Standards, and Net New Dwelling Unit Comparisons*
*The following net new dwelling units include only those new units produced under each land use
alternative. The totals exclude assumed accessory dwelling units (500 units) and pending/approved Town
projects (475 units).
ATTACHMENT 10
Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%5%0 to 5 5 to 12 4 10 0.25 43 95
MDR 5%10%5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.5 120 129
HDR 10%10%12 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75 54 104
NC 5%5%0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5 2 30
MU 5%5%0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5 13 91
Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%5%5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.25 160 141
MDR 10%10%12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75 315 166
HDR 10%10%20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1 81 104
NC 10%10%0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.75 7 76
MU 10%15%0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75 21 345
Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5%10% 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5 164 180
MDR 10%10%12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75 315 166
HDR 15%15%20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25 98 236
NC 10%15%0 to 20 *20 to 30 *18 26 0.75 7 192
MU 10%20%0 to 20 *30 to 40 *18 26 1 21 449
Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 10%15% 5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.75 264 283
MDR 15%15%14 to 24 14 to 24 20 20 1 561 258
HDR 15%20%20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.5 98 322
NC 15%15%20 to 30 *20 to 30 *26 26 1 25 194
MU 15%20%30 to 40 *30 to 40 *36 36 1.5 66 630
Dwelling Units
Alternative D: High Growth
Dwelling Units
Dwelling Units
Alternative A: Base Case - Low Growth
Alternative B: Medium Growth
Dwelling Units
Alternative C: Medium-High Growth
Land Use
Designation Redevelopment Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAR
Land Use
Designation Redevelopment Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAR
Land Use
Designation Redevelopment Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAR
Land Use
Designation Redevelopment Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAR
From: Nicholas Gera <ngera@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:30 PM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: 16492 Los Gatos Blvd
Hi Joel, Just following up on our conversation about the general plan update. I would like to request that
the advisory board consider changing the general plan on 16492 Los Gatos Blvd from Low Density
residential to Neighborhood Commercial . Please let me know if you need any additional information
from me at this time. Thanks for your help. Nick Gera (408) 391-9081
ATTACHMENT 11
From: Phil Koen <pkoen@monteropartners.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:26 PM
To: melaniehanssen@yahoo.com
Cc: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Update on Meeting with Joel
Hi Melanie,
I met with Joel today and discussed my concerns with the draft alternative land use report. While it was
a constructive meeting and Joel was very open and helpful, frankly, I am not sure if anything will be
done as a result of my comments. I left with the sense there was little room for any changes to this draft
report. The Town clearly has a “process to run” and they are driving that process.
Just how open is the GPAC to divergent thinking at this point? The land use report states that the goal of
the land use alternatives process is to enable community input to help the Council identify “preferred
land use alternative”. Is that the really the case?
Let me quickly summarize my major points of concern:
• The alternative land use document appears to be written with a specific goal, namely to create a
pathway for the Town to build an additional 2,000 housing units between now and 2040. This
appears to be a “predetermined” outcome, set by the GPAC vs. arriving at this conclusion based on a
studied analysis of most likely population and job growth requirements. The 2,000 number seems to
be based on a belief that the current RHNA requirement of 619 (1,547 converted to a 20 year
period) for the 8 year planning period from 2015 – 2023 will be materially increased in the next
cycle. A 2,000 number would equate to a new RHNA number of 800 which would represent a 30%
increase from 619. To frame this, the current 619 target represented a 10% increase from the prior
RHNA planning cycle for 2007- 2014. Who knows if the 2,000 is correct or not, but it will definitely
drive the recommendations regarding land use density and height. It is worth noting that San Diego
County just received their new RHNA target and it increased approximately 6% from the prior cycle.
• It is clear that there was a “heavy hand on the scale” in drafting the population growth forecast for
Alternatives C and D. There is no historical data that remotely supports the population growth
shown in Table 5-1. ABAG, which is the government body that determines the RHNA requirement
based on DOF forecasts, has their own population growth forecast that is 20% of Alternative D and
28% of Alternative C! Frankly, this feels “rigged” to me with regard to Alternative C and D forecasts
and a radical departure from what has been forecast by DOF or ABAG. I have no idea why these
alternatives are even in this report given they are so out of line.
• It is surprising that the report assumes no job growth. I understand that this is because the land use
alternatives only assume new housing units. This results in total jobs remaining constant over the
next 20 years as shown in Table 5-6. EMSI has forecast 9,403 new jobs in Los Gatos over the next 20
year period. If this is correct, how do you square this with the no job growth assumption? This no
job growth assumption “tilts” the alternative land use squarely toward new housing units and away
from commercial units. I am not sure why the GPAC did this.
• The distribution of new housing by subarea strikes me as not being fairly distributed. For example,
subarea 5 which has the most land area is slated to get only 8 (1%) new units out of a total 681
under alternative A vs subarea 1 getting 211 (31%) and subarea 4 getting 216 (32%). I understand
that this outcome resulted from the GPAC making the recommendation that there should be no
hillside development. That direction obviously “tilted” the scale away from subarea 5 which strikes
me as not being balanced or fair. I’m wondering how the residents in subarea 1 and 4 would feel
about that decision.
• Lastly we discussed the fiscal analysis section of the report. I believe this section has the most issues.
I pointed out to Joel that the proper approach is to produce a 10 year forecast of the financial
impact for each land use alternative. The core problem is that incremental property tax revenue
(which is the main revenue source) is capped at a 2% per year increase while the cost to deliver
town services have been inflating at over 5% per year over the past 5 years, largely driven by salary
and pension expense increases. Given the differential in growth rates, within a very short number of
years, the incremental expenditures will materially exceed the incremental revenues. There is no
land use alternative presented that won’t have a material adverse financial impact on the Town.
Additionally the basic set of financial statements used for this analysis should be the town wide
statement of activities and not the general fund statement. The town wide statement of activities
captures the cost of delivering services for the entire town in addition to properly recording pension
expense, capital expenditures and internal service revenues/expenses. You do not get the same
level of information by solely looking at a general fund budget.
Melanie, I hope the GPAC will view these comments as constructive. I believe there are real problems
with the report as it is currently drafted. I hope there is a willingness to take a step back and view the
existing draft and make corrections. I am not sure there is anything else I can do at this point.
All the best,
Phil