Item 1 - Addendum and Attachments
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 11/05/2020
ITEM: 1
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: November 4, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and the Initial
Draft of the Community Design Element.
REMARKS:
Attachment 5 contains comments from Committee Members.
Attachment 6 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 30, 2020
and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 4, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with November 5, 2020 Staff Report:
1. June 11, 2020 Community Workshop and Online Survey Summary
2. Initial Draft of Land Use Element
3. Initial Draft of Community Design Element
4. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 30, 2020
Attachments received with this Addendum:
5. Committee Member Comments
6. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 30, 2020 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, November 4, 2020
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 5
Memo
To: General Plan Update Advisory Committee 2040
Fr: Carol Elias Zolla
Corrections/Comments to the Land Use Element and Community Design Element
Land Use Element
Lu-1.4 The first word -- Projects -- should not have an apostrophe.
Lu-2.1 Is it “infill” or “in-fill”? Be consistent.
Lu-3.14 You need a space between the words “arenecessary”
LU-16. This a run on sentence. Also, you use “land use” too many times. Perhaps “Ensure that land uses
as appropriate and compatible with each other, and guide development in a pattern that will minimize
land use conflicts between adjacent parcels and promote the high quality of life enjoyed in Los Gatos”
LU-18 Take out the word “to” at the end of this goal (“... community and remain consistent…”)
Lu-18.3 What is the “EJ” in the box?
Lu-19.7 What is the “SUS” in the box?
Community Design Element
CD-2.7 Is this a backhanded way of saying that modern, clean-lined projects are discouraged?
CD-2.59 Why?
CD-7.1 Why?
CD-8 This sentence is confusing. Perhaps “Preserve the character of Downtown Los Gatos and the
quality of life for Town citizens through high-quality building design.”
CD-8.5 I am all in favor of the parklets and outdoor dining, but unless you limit the ability of stinky
motorcycles and gross-polluting 50s cars to cruise N. Santa Cruz all Saturday night, eating outside isn’t
very pleasant. (Perhaps more stop signs to discourage cruising?)
Los Gatos Boulevard District. Love it!
Winchester Boulevard District. Fourth sentence beginning “Wider sidewalks”: the end of the sentence is
intended to say “... unlike any other area in town.” (Replace “are” with “area”.)
4.6 Implementation Programs. Letter O has an alignment problem with item “d)”
4.6 Implementation Programs. Letter S needs to separate “itis” to “it is”
2
General Plan Advisory
Committee
Memo
To: Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the Committee
From: Steve Piasecki
Date: November 5, 2020
Re: Comments regarding the Public Review Draft of the Land Use Element and the
Community Design Element
3. Land Use Element
Page 3-1 Introduction
There is a lot of overlap between the Land Use Element and the Land Use and Community Design
Element. So I wonder if they could be combined into one Land Use and Community Design
Element.
The second sentence under paragraph one seems unnecessary. We are “predominately built-out”
and yet it says “land use is dynamic” and “changes …will occur as needs and demands fluctuate over
time.” It is pretty obvious and probably doesn’t need to be said.
Page 3-4
Table 3-1 2n column: Probably should use existing as 2020 instead of 2019.
Page 3-5
Figure 3-1: The yellow for the hillside residential looks like the color for Low Density Residential. We
probably need to better delineate the colors.
Page 3-12
LU-1.1 I don’t know what the term “healthy balance” means when it comes to the mix of land use types.
LU-1.4: Perhaps we could quantify the level of acceptable impact, such as reduce projected impacts
by 75%.
LU-2 is too vague…what is “use land efficiently” and “appropriate infill development.”
LU-2.1 “and do not detract fro the existing quality of life”…as if you could actually quantify what is the
existing quality of life. It is too vague.
3
LU-2.2 same as above…too vague. Projects should blend rather than compete with existing
development. What is an example of projects that blend and those that compete?
Page 3-13
LU-3.4 Perhaps we could quantify a standard for proximity of the necessary services and facilities (such
as grocery markets and pharmacies), such as within one mile of all residences.
LU-3.5 I would substitute grocery stores for convenience markets. Again we could specify a one mile
radius of all residents.
Page 3-14
LU-3.8 The State of California mandates that cities allow congregate care facilities up to a maximum
of so-many residents. Perhaps we should reference “in accordance with State law.”
LU-3.10 neighborhoods are walkable if services are proximate so perhaps we could include a desired
distance of all residences as mentioned in 3.4 above.
LU-3.12 I have noticed several modern style homes approved in otherwise traditional neighborhoods
such as Alpine and Bella Vista. Will this prohibit future mixing of styles?
LU-3.14 I think it is possible to allow flag lots in cases where the lot size is inordinately large relative to
the surrounding lots (perhaps 3 to 4 times larger) and the frontage very limited. This would allow such
properties some sense of fairness.
Page 3-15
LU-4 seems like this is saying the same thing as bullet 6 under LU-4.2
LU-4.2 Who are “community members.” I presume it is the general public instead of only project
residents?
Page 3-16
LU-5 The term “appropriate” is meaningless as used here.
LU-5.1 Another vague term. What does “strong” mean?
LU-5.3 Where, what and how is the Town going to do this? I think it is possible to ask a national chain
to appear small but not to discriminate against a business based on who owns it.
LU-5.6 We should quantify what is considered an adequate buffer. Perhaps 15 feet with a minimum 8
foot wall?
Page 3-17
LU-6.2 What are clearly defined boundaries? Do alleys count?
LU-6.3 Another vague phrase “taking into consideration potential impacts to loss of commercial
opportunities.” Are substituting the Town’s judgment for the free hand of the marketplace?
LU-7 Another use of a vague term “appropriate.”
4
LU-7.1 This is listed as an existing policy. What does the Town do to “encourage” and how has it
worked?
Page 3-19
LU-7.3 What do we do to “retain and enhance” auto dealerships?
LU-8.2 Why discourage conversion. What benefit do we get from office Professional etc? If we allow
residential over retail then why not over office?
Page 3-21
LU-10.2 Why are we concerned about the civic center. It is pretty well buffered now?
Page 3-22
LU-11.2 Do we need to say the obvious?
Page 3-23
LU-11.3 Again, why do we need to state the obvious?
Los Gatos Boulevard Plan
What complements the Downtown but does not compete?
LU-12.1 and LU12.3
Vague terms: “…encourage…where appropriate.” Commercial “shall complement”. What
complements and what doesn’t?
The Downtown is mentioned in the introduction but not mentioned in the polices. Why?
Page 3-24
LU-13: Really how do we provide housing for various income levels within the hillsides? Are we going
to allow high density in the hillsides?
Page 3-27
The districts are identified as “auto-oriented.” We need to change the auto orientation over time if we
want to be a friendly, safe small town.
Page 3-30
The extent of the historic district in the Downtown seems small. Don’t we have other “historic”
properties on Santa Cruz Avenue?
Page 3-31
LU-16.1: I don’t know why this needs to be a policy?
Page 3-33
5
LU-18.1: Who conducts the review and how often? PC every two years?
LU-19.1 and LU-19.2: We don’t need to say “continue.”
Page 3-34
LU-19.7 I know decision makers like this but you run the risk of appearing to endorse a project with
little or no public input.
LU-19.10: Story poles are expensive and don’t really tell neighbors any more than a good 3D drawing
will. I would rather post the site with a drawing and site plan and distribute site plans and elevations to
immediate neighbors.
Page 3-35
LU-20: How do we enhance the educational support system?
Page 3-36
LU-21.6 and LU-21.7: Do these policies need to be elevated to the level of the GP? Remember the
GP is supposed to be high-level.
Page 3-37
LU-22.2: We should mention that incorporating islands promotes logical boundaries and “good
government” by limited the number of agencies providing basic services.
LU-22.3: eliminate the excess words “in order to understand and” and substitute with the word “to.”
Page 3-38
3.12 Implementation Programs: only covers policies up to LU-13.2 leaving out policies on pages 3-27
through 3-37. Why?
4. Community Design Element
General Comments
A lot of the material in this element seems appropriate for design Guidelines and not the General Plan.
Perhaps we could identify the “high points” and combine this with the Land Use Element and
move the remainder into design guidelines.
Page 4-6
CD-1.2: should add (including building massing and height) after the word proportion.
Page 4-7: Add words about the importance of the ground floor being visible and activated along public
streets.
Page 4-19
6
CD-2.49: shrubs and trees don’t lower noise.
CD-2.52: Native planting should probably be a higher percentage such as 75% instead of 60%.
Page 4-22
Designate the north and south approaches on Highway 17 as gateways. The gateway signage could
be mounted on overpasses or adjacent to the freeway right of way as shown in some of the photos.
Page 4-25
CD-4.3: Do we need to say that we are going to provide information?
Page 4-26
CD-5
The goal should not only mention regulating new homes since the policies mention rural atmosphere
and view sheds.
Page 4-30
The Downtown District boundary description doesn’t correspond with the map on page 31.
Page 4-32
The second sentence of the intro seems self promoting and doesn’t add anything to the document.
CD-8.4
The picture of different bollard types here and on page 4-47 is a good example of a detail more
appropriate for design guidelines.
Page 4-44
Policy Overview
Some where in this section we should add a policy to study the feasibility of reducing the number of
lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard to four lanes and devote the recovered space to safe pedestrian and
bicycle circulation and landscaping.
We should also add a policy requiring the interconnection of adjacent commercial parking lots to better
integrate commercial development and reduce the need to re-enter the public right of way when you
simply want to go to the adjoining center. This can be achieved by requiring developers to agree to
provide reciprocal ingress/egress easements at such time in the future when the Town can require the
same of adjacent commercial development.
7
Land Use Element Comments
Kathryn Janoff
Do we have HPC’s input on the Historic Preservation Goal/Policies?
Figures should all be numbered and titled, not just a randomly inserted graphic.
***********************
General Edits
Table 3-2, you say which designations allow mixed-use format, include which do not include
mixed-use format
Why are OS and AG max height at 30? Is this a barn or a house?
LU-1.1: Delete healthy
LU-1.2, LU-2.1: add comma after e.g.,
LU-1.3: What type of a project would this be? Can you be more specific?
LU-1.4: delete apostrophe in Project’s;
and how do you reduce impact on schools when they aren’t in the Town’s jurisdiction? Not the
same category, although of course minimizing negative impact is a good thing.
LU-2.1: Compatibility, meaning functional compatibility I assume. I would add “functional”
because we use neighborhood compatibility as an aesthetic criterion too in other places.
Remove hyphen from in-fill
For the following land use designation sections, don’t list all the sub-designations. We already
have this information in the table referenced, and it’s silly to say the designation is the same as
the designation (mixed use).
LU-3.5: delete “about” one mile. Just say “within one mile”
LU-3.8: delete “and” in front of daycare
LU-3.14: insert space between are necessary
LU-3.14, 3.15: consider combining
LU-5.1: What does “strong” mean? Maybe use viable, vibrant? Or maybe a percent occupied to
start . . .
8
LU-5.3: has this changed with the council’s decision to welcome formula retail? Or will that
experiment be expiring?
LU-5.5: what does “comparative” mean in this context?
LU-6.3 and 7.2: consider combining
LU-7.1: why wouldn’t we encourage replacement of any vacated business anywhere in Town?
LU-7.3: is this a realistic policy?
LU-8.4: Revise: “Enhance the working environment and reduce traffic impact by promoting
small retail and restaurant areas to serve employees in Office Professional . . .”
SPECIFIC PLANS: Delete (at end of paragraph) “that they implement.”
LU-9.1: Fix the sequence: “prepared, implemented, amended and updated”
Delete the word “if”
LU-10 (Goal) revise: “Ensure governmental, utility . . . and services are located and designed to
complement Los Gatos’ neighborhoods and nearby sensitive land uses.”
LU-11.3: why not say 1 acre?
LGB Plan:
(Intro) Complements but does not compete with Downtown versus (goal and LU12.3)
complements the whole town
Hillside Specific Plan:
Intro: second line, Should say in the “southern” portion of town
Last sentence, insert “generally” in front of prohibited and delete last phrase “unless it is
compliant . . .”
GOAL LU-13: do we really want to encourage hillside housing? If we keep this goal, suggest
revising to: “Ensure housing in the hillside area does not adversely affect the mountain
environment or endanger public health and safety.”
For the districts (pages 3-25 through 3-18) use maps for all rather than photographs.
LU-14.2: delete the word “provide” and begin each bullet with a verb
3.6: delete the word “small” And in each of the bullets, give acreage for all or none.
9
Top of page 3-31:
Revise: Los Gatos’ historic districts are defined by . . .” And because there are important
historic structures outside of the historic districts, suggest inserting the following sentence
“There are also many protected structures of historic significance outside the historic districts.”
In front of the sentence that begins “In addition”
LU-15.1: “Maintain maps and an inventory of the Town’s Landmark and Historic Preservation
(LHP) overlay zones.” Delete the remainder of the policy or integrate it into the intro.
LU-15.3: maybe just preserve and use, delete “rehabilitate and continue” and change policy
heading too
LU-16: replace “pattern” with “way”
LU-16.1 (and in LU-18): order should be Implement before maintain
LU-16.2: Move first sentence to intro on p. 3-31
LU-17.3: replace “if needed to assure” with “to ensure”
LU-18.3: replace the words “that will be” with “who are”
LU-19: the goal has little connection to the policies (or vice versa). Suggest revising the goal to:
“Promote meaningful transparency, dialogue and collaboration among members of the town
and decision-makers.”
If you keep the original goal, change it to focus on social and economic equality (although that’s
a huge undertaking . . .) and develop policies that support. And move it to the racial and social
justice element.
LU-20.3: Is this the Town’s responsibility or the schools’? I would think a different focus is
needed (unless the Town is offering the grants).
LU-21, LU-21.1, LU-21.6): need to define “healthy foods” or “healthier foods.” Organic? Locally
sourced?
3.11: Rewrite to tighten it up:
Many local, regional, state and federal agencies have land use planning, permitting or
development review authority in the Los Gatos Planning Area and surrounding region.
Coordination among agencies ensures regulatory compliance, increases efficiency for
development projects and eliminates redundancies among agencies.
10
Community Design Element Comments
Kathryn Janoff
Do we have the Arts Commission input on Public Art)and wasn’t this covered in a previously
review element?)
Do we have HPC’s input on 4.3 Historic Preservation?
Figures should all be numbered and titled, not just a randomly inserted graphic.
Districts Vision statements need rework. Either they are close but need to be in present tense,
or they are mostly a list of to-dos.
***********************
General Edits
Pg 4-4:
Insert comma after “combinations”
Delete the list of categories at the end of first paragraph and insert at the end of the previous
sentence: “ . . .over the next 20 years, as illustrated in Figure 1. The label and title the figure.
Pg 4-5, second paragraph, hyphenate well-defined
Fourth paragraph, after “draw” insert “from”
4.1 Neighborhood Compatibility:
change “a rich history” to “rich history” (there are many and variations)
Goal CD-1: do we need the word “distinct”? it isn’t supported by the policies
CD-1.5: memorable?
4.2 Community Form
First paragraph: replace “lend to each” with “contribute to a”
CD-2.2: hyphenate well-defined
CD-2.7 is quite prescriptive, and doesn’t work on all architectural styles in town (modern,
contemporary)
CD-2.12: this could have a quantifiable standard
11
CD-2.18 and 2.10: combine. And eliminate “strategic”
The “did you know box” refers to examples, but they were not in my packet.
CD-2.23: what does “adjoining street frontage” mean?? Can you simply say they will face the
frontage street?
CD-2.25: delete “realm” two places, also CD-2.34
CD-2.28: maybe combine with 2.23, under a policy title: Street-Oriented Front Entrance
CD-2.31: this is odd. Starts as though it’s a safety concern, but then you’re moving them to a
dark alley . . .
CD-2.38: delete “significant” or quantify the maximum percent impact in a XX-degree view
CD-2.43: does screen include hiding, as on rooftop installations?
CD-2-47: Make sure this is consistent with the newly revised lighting policy
Figure 4.1:
I understand the desire to include Gateway signage at various access points, but where would
you place them at the Harwood/Blossom Hill intersection, the Union Ave/Los Gatos Almaden
intersection, etc, where one side of the street is a different city?
4.3 Intro has a lot of duplication with 3.6. If re-stating the districts, use a map.
CD-3: delete “significant”
Move LU-3.2 to next goal (CD-4)
CD-3.3: delete the clause “including those . . .” it isn’t needed and could be mis-leading as con-
contributors are also protected.
CD-3.5: Sounds as though HPC is the final authority . . .
CD-4.2: This should only apply to exterior renovations. We don’t govern interiors.
4.4: replace “boast” with “have”
CD-5.3 doesn’t seem to belong—all the others are non-structural or more general. Suggest
deleting
12
CD-5.6: Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
Goal CD-6: This is entirely in the HDS&G. No need to repeat here. If you keep some of it,
include “building” as in: “regulating grading, building, landscaping and lighting”
Do we really want as much signage as CD-7.1 recommends for the Community Place areas? I
would think they could be more discretely integrated into existing development.
CD-7.2: hyphen after pedestrian
CD-7.6: change “amongst” to “among”
Random figure . . .
CD-7.7: hyphenate pedestrian
Downtown District (p. 4-30) is called the Central Business District on the maps, but Downtown
District everywhere else. Suggest changing Maps to Downtown District.
Map p. 4-31 is missing Medium density words in key
In all of the vision statements, these should be written as present tense. A vision statement is
what we see, not what we will see.
Here’s a re-write suggestion for Downtown (I’m using DTD as a shortcut, but it should be
spelled out):
Vision 2040: Downtown District
The Downtown District is the gem of the Los Gatos, due more than a century of successful
planning and design. The DTD preserves its unique architectural character and prohibits
conflicting styles from erasing what is quintessentially Downtown. New structures in the DTD
are constructed at a human-scale to maintain the continuity of the historic development
pattern.
Where consistent with the General Plan, the DTD encourages multi-story buildings to include
office and residential uses on floors above the first floor. The DTD provides a truly walkable
environment, where sidewalks are wide and pedestrian-friendly. The expanded sidewalks
include additional space for outdoor dining, public art and street furniture. Enhancing the
visitor experience in the DTD, digital display informational kiosks with establishment directories
provide a 21st century amenity. Updated building signage, A Downtown wayfinding system, and
gateway entrance signs to the DTD mark the Downtown as the core of the community. The DTD
thrives as one of the most beloved areas of the Town, one that has stood the test of time and
continues to do so.
13
CD-8: insert the Downtown District, delete Los Gatos
Throughout this section, be sure to say Downtown District, not just Downtown.
CD-8.3: among
Random figure
CD-8.8: replace Los Gatos with the Downtown District, and delete Downtown at end of
sentence.
CD-8.8 delete “so as” “enough” replace “color that” with “color so, replace “within” with
“with”.
CD-8.9: is this needed when we have a robust sign ordinance?
Harwood (all other boxed intros0, replace “abutting” or “abuts” with “bordering” or “borders”
Last sentence in Box, Delete “Unlike several others in Town,” delete “not only”, replace “but
also” with “and”
Revise the Harwood vision with a vision statement. As-written it’s a list of to-dos. As this
sectonhas no goal or plicies, suggest moving the bulk of the intro to goal and policies.
Goal might be: Update the Harwood District focusing on a contemporary design.
This is a blended community (the schools for instance), so this last sentence is off-putting. If you
can figure out how to put up a gateway sign that doesn’t come off as exclusive (“this side of the
street only . . .”), be sure to get community input.
Lark Disrict: revise as a present tense statement, like Downtown District revision
LGB Disrict: revise as a present tense statement, like Downtown District revision, starting with:
The LGB District reflects a comprehensive transformation from . . . And move last two
sentences, first paragraph, to goals/policies.
End of second paragraph: We don’t know if the N40 SP is to be revised to allow for housing in
the second phase. Hotel may not come . . . so, delete “such as restaurants and hotels will
breathe even more life into” with “gives vibrancy to . . .”
Move last paragraph to goals and policies
14
Pg 4-45
Random figures throughout this section
CD-10.4: ground floors are required to have 12-foot height?
CD-10.7: should this be street-activation rather that structure activation?
Missing goals/policies on all the landscaping, parks and plazas mentioned in the vision
statement
North Santa Cruz:
Revise vision statement to present tense
How do you “not create a juxtaposition between”?? And don’t we want a compatible
juxtaposition?
Move sentence “A continual emphasis . . .” to policies and re-word.
CD-11.1: define live-work space. Is this also a form of mixed use?
Do we want a policy that promotes mixed use and street retail?
Pollard Road District:
Reads like Harwood. Need a vision statement and be sure the items in these aragraph (p. 4-54)
are reflected inpolicies.
Pollard goal/policies could be similar for Harwood
Union Ave same comments as Harwood
Winchester Blvd Element
Reads more like a proper vision, but needs to be present tense.
Dele “Unlike all other Districts in LG”, Now start that sentence with The Winchester
Dele sentence about wider sidewalks. This is not unlike other areas in town.
Last two sentences of second paragraph should be moved and re-worded into policies
Strikes me that as with other lists of policies, some order other than random would be helpful.
Suggest the order as written is: 5, 6, 4, 3, 1, 2. Where 1 should be the first policy, etc.
15
From: Lee Quintana
Comments on the Administrative Draft of the Land Use Element
November 4, 2020
LAND USE ELEMENT
KEY TERMS : Page 3-2”
Format: Start each definition with the word or phase being used. (example Acre, Flag
lot, Missing middle housing.. Etc.
Acre (gross)
Acre (net): Add definition
Density:Delete the last sentence of the definition of density and the second paragraph
with the illustrations.
FAR:
• Why change from the definition in the 2020 GP Glossary which uses net land
area rather than gross area to calculate FAR? Why not base one buildable area
(area after deductions for setbacks and reductions for slope; In hillside areas
calculate FAR on contiguous areas below 30% slope).
• Clarify that a project needs to meet all standards: For example: A project may
have a maximum FAR of 2.0 and the project design choses to place all of the
FAR in one building on half of the site, but by doing this the project exceeds the
height standard or does not meet setbacks or….
• Clarify: “ four feet above existing or proposed grade” is it “ more than four feet
above existing or proposed grade, whichever results in a lower profile?
Intensity: Add definition.
Innovation Center: Add definition
Lot Coverage:
• How does this differ from “lot coverage” used to determine permeable area?
• Is this net or gross area?
Multi-Family Residential:
• Delete and replace with: Multi-Family Residential development is a
development that is more than two dwellings without respect to type or
ownership
• The use of triplex, fourplex, microunits, apartments, townhouses and
condominiums confuses the meaning of multi-family because it mixes building
types with ownership types. The state defines multl-ifamily as more than two
units on a parcel - without consideration of housing type (detached or attached)
or ownership type.
Mixed Use Development: Add maximum height and maximum site coverage standards
for Mixed Use Development both here and in Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use
Designations and Standards.
Planning Area: Shorten and simplify
Sphere of Influence: Add: ….probable future physical boundary….
Urban Service Area: Add definition
Page 3-1:
Second paragraph : Delete
Suggested language:
16
The Land Use Element establishes land use designations and their distribution within the
Los Gatos Planning Area as shown in Figure 3.1),
Table 3-2, General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards includes
sixteen land use designations divided into six groups. Table 3.2 describes the intent of
the allowed uses and sets density and intensity standards for each land use designation.
The Land Use Element, together with the Community Design Element, address a broad
range of topics related to the Town’s physical structure and appearance. These two
elements provide the primary policy guidance to ensure new land uses are logically
organized,and are developed in a way that reinforces and enhances the character and
identity of Los Gatos.
Page 3-4: 3.1 General Plan Buildout:
• Modify title: General Plan Buildout Through 2040
• Delete: Suggested language: The 2040 General Plan development projections are
shown in Table 3-1: General Plan Buildout through 2040. Development projections for
General Plan 2040 were based on the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), potential non-residential market demand, development potential within the
General Plan’s Community Place Districts (See Section 3.5 p.3-24 and Section 4.5 p. 4-
27), as well as infill and redevelopment potential throughout the community.
Page 3-5:
• Add: Label Figure 3.1 Land Use Diagram at the top of the page
• Increase the font size of the Legend.
• Increase the scale of the Diagram: Consider doing a fold out dividing between two
pages
• Divide the legend into the sections paralleling those used in Table 3.2 General Plan
Land Use Designations and Development Standards.
Page 3-7: 3.2 Land Use Diagram, Designations, and Standards
Land Use Diagram
• Delete everything else on this page except the heading 3.2 Land Use Diagram,
Designations and Standards and Land Use Diagram, the sub-heading of Land Use
Diagram, and the information box.
• Suggested replacement language and organization:
Land Use Diagram:
Figure 3-1, the General Plan Land Use Diagram, shows the distribution of the land use
designations allowed within the Town’s Planning Area. The Town’s Land Use Diagram
is largely implemented through the Town’s Zoning Regulation.
A copy of the Land Use Diagram is available from the Town’s Community Development
Department or can be downloaded from the Town’s website.
The information box
Land Use Designations and Standards
• Delete the text under Land Use Designations and Standards.
• Suggested language:
17
Table 3-2 divides the sixteen land use designations identified on the Land Use Diagram
into six groups and provides guidance on the types of uses appropriate for each land
use designation as well as the corresponding standards for density and intensity.
The Land Use Diagram is largely implemented through the Town’s zoning
regulations………...While the Land Use Diagram guides zoning, it is not the same as the
Towns Zoning Map.
Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards
• Move the group designation titles to the top of each section of the table
• Provide a break in the table between each group.
• For HR and LRD list all the zoning designations that are compatible. For example:
HR:1, HR:2 ½ etc.: R-1:8, R-1:10, etc.
Page 3--9:
HR zoning:
• Shorten and modify description, for example: The Hillside Residential (HR)
designation allows very low density single-family residential development on large lots or
as cluster development that are compatible with the generally mountainous terrain and
rural character of the area.
• Standards: Page 35 of the HDS&G states that the maximum height for homes in hillside
areas shall be 25 feet (18 if visible above the ridgeline).
• Suggest: Change the maximum allowed height in the HR designation to 25 feet.
Page 3-12: 3.3 Community Development
3.3 Community Development:
• Additional potential for what?
• Delete everything after…...through the redevelopment of….
• Suggest: The following goals and policies will allow growth while protecting the Town’s
aesthetics and character.
LU-1:
• What does it mean to reflect the existing character of infrastructure?
• Delete. Suggested language: Planned growth will reflect the Town” existing character.
LU-1.1: Without a definition of “a healthy balance” this policy could be interpreted so
broadly as to be meaningless..
LU-2: Modify: Use infill sites to accommodate new development.
LU-2.1 and LU-2.2: These are similar. Is it possible to combine and condense?
Page 3-13: Residential Designations:
• Add after the Residential Designations heading: Hillside Residential, Low Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential
• Delete: The sentence after the Residential Designations heading.
• Note: Do the above for all headings under 3.3 Community Development
• Define Underutilize site.
18
LU3.3: It is not clear what this means. Does the Town have to increase the density on another
site to make up for the loss of units? Subject to neighborhood compatibility and mitigation of
traffic impacts are subjective and therefore they are big hurdles to pass.
LU-3.4: Suggest Deleting: Not sure what the purpose of this Policy is or how it could be
implemented.
LU-3.5: Combine with LU3.4: Suggest: Delete here and combine with LU2.2. But Is the
standard of one mile even feasible?
Page 3-14 - Page 3-15:
LU-3.8: Does the Town have established standards for this? If so what are they? Are they
objective or subjective?
LU-1.14: Does this apply to all flag lots? Or is it intended to apply only to Hillside lots? Clarified
the difference between Lu-1.14 and LU-1.15 . Can these be combined using bullets?
Page 3-16
LU-5.6: Buffers for Non-residential uses: It is not clear whether “buffers” are intended for
visual separation or to reduce noise impacts to adjacent residential or other sensitive uses.
Note: It requires at least 100 feet of dense landscaping to perceive a reduction of sound level.
Page 17:
LU-6.1: Suggest: Create a bullet for the service commercial activities along University.
Page 3-18:
• Increase the font size for street names
• Change the color of the CBD to correspond with the color used on Fig. 3-1 Land Use
Diagram (p. 3-5)
Page 3-19: Define: flex/incubator spaces and research and development
Page 3-20: Figure 3-2: Increase font size of street names.
Page 3-21:
• Add a description of allowed land uses in the North 40.
• Is Figure 3-3 necessary? Can the text just refer to the Land Use Diagram?
Page 3-22: Los Gatos Blvd. Plan:
• Is the Los Gatos Blvd Plan actually a Specific Plan?
• Isn't this Plan largely obsolete? For example:
o The Plan called for the North 40 to be destination retail and limited neighborhood
commercial - no residential)
o Hasn’t the Town’s policy changed to not only complement the town as a whole
but to not compete with the downtown?
o The area along the Boulevard already has a mixed use designation.
• Any concepts, objectives or policies that have not already been incorporated might be
included in the Los Gatos Boulevard District.
19
• Suggest: Review the Plan to ensure all remaining relevant policies and goals have been
incorporated into General Plan 2040, and then retire the Plan, as was done with the
Downtown Development Plan in the past.
Page 3-24 to Page 3-29: 3.5 Community Place Districts
• Suggest: Change the name, it is easily confused with the Community Commercial Land
Use Designation.
• Downtown District: I am having second thoughts on including the area along Santa
Cruz between the plaza and Highway 9, and the historic districts in an area identified for
redevelopment or intensification beyond that is already possible. I think it would be
counter to maintaining the existing character of the Town’s core. Even allowing
additional development in this area up to 45’ in height would affect its existing
character.
• Suggest: identify a limited area on the east, west, and south sides of the Town Plaza
• Figure 3-4: Include the underlying street system and names of major streets
• Replace the pictures with a small map of the various districts as was included for the
Downtown District.
Page 3-28: LU-14.1: Integrated Approach: Simplify the language of this policy.
Page 3-30:
• Figure 3-3: Increase font size of street names.
• Modify: Delete the three parcels north of Lark Ave. The Albright Specific Plan does not
include these parcels.
Pages 3-31 to 3-37: Sections 3.7, Section 3.8 , Section Section 3.9 , Section 3.10), and
Section 3.11 do not comfortably fit in the Land Use Element.
Page 3-39: H Zoning Code Update: Concurrent changes (or immediately following approval of
the General Plan 2040) to zoning districts to be consistent with the Land Use Diagram,
Followed in priority of update to the zoning code for consistency with the direction of the
General Plan and establishing objective standards to implement the GP.
20
Comments from Marcia Jensen
FIRST THINGS FIRST – CALIFORNIA HOUSING LAW
• Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5
o (a)(1)(D): “Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the
economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in
disapproval of housing development projects, reduction of density of
housing projects, and excessive standards for housing projects.”
o (a)(3)(c): “…encourage to the maximum extent possible, in filling existing
urban areas.”
o (h)(8)” “objective means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a
public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external
and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
development applicant or proponent and the public official.”
• SB330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019
o Prohibits “downzoning,” such that jurisdictions may not change existing
General Plan designations in a way that lessen[s] the intensity of housing,
nor may they impose “subjective design standards established after
January 1, 2020.
• AB2345 – Changes to Density Bonus Law
o Decreases ration of required parking to 1.5 spaces per unit in housing
projects containing 2 and 3 bedroom units.
• AB725 – Changes in Land Use Designations
o Requires jurisdictions to designate sites capable of providing 25% of
RHNA-required “moderate”, and 25% RHNA-required “above moderate
housing units
o For these sites, applicable zoning must allow at least 4, but not more than
100 housing units per acre
21
LOS GATOS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) NUMBERS
Proposed RHNA allocations for the next housing cycle have been released, with
comments due on November 24, 2020. The Town’s projected allocation is:
• Very Low: 523
• Low: 301
• Moderate: 311
• Above Moderate: 804
Total: 1,939
COMMENTS ON DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT
Page 3-1, Introductory Paragraph 1:
I disagree that the “priority of this General Plan” is to “maintain overall quality of life.” To
me, that is “code” for maintaining the status quo. With new housing numbers and state
laws, and changing housing/work/school needs as everything moves to a single
location, the Plan needs to emphasize dynamism and flexibility going forward.
Page 3-3: FAR
Shouldn’t the definition reference the Town Codes governing the FAR calculation?
Pages 3-8 – 3-11 (Table 3.2)
As I understand it, this Table is simply illustrative, providing definitions of varieties of
permitted land uses – without mandating the use or application of any particular type. If
this understanding is correct, I don’t object. If my understanding is incorrect, and this
Table is really intended to mandate particular uses in particular areas, then I think it
merits further discussion, as the Committee may wish to recommend Zoning changes.
Page3-12
Introductory Paragraph 3.3:
I recognize that the GPAC disagreed over the continued use of the phrase “small town”
feel/charm/character, and ultimately chose to include it. I continue to register my
opposition to its use, and therefore object to the inclusion and identification of a goal to
“protect the small town feel and aesthetic.” We should be planning for the future.
LU-1.1: What is a “healthy” balance??
22
LU-1.3: What are the “public costs?” Police, fire, etc.?” Or “no traffic?” This needs to be
defined, and there should be no absolute prohibition on approval of any project.
LU-1.4: Not sure schools can be included here, as mitigation for school impacts is
preempted by state law.
LU-2.1: Meeting In-fill Development policies should be sufficient. I continue to register
my objection to all phrases/prohibitions/goals/requirements, etc. that place limitations on
land use based on whether they will “protect” or “detract” from “existing quality of life.”
LU-2.2 – Seems redundant and duplicative of LU-2.1
Page 3-13:
LU-3: Suggest “Maintain and enhance sense of place…”
LU-3.3: Isn’t this mandated by state law?
LU-3.4: Not sure how a “neighborhood characteristic” includes a “sense of personal
safety” – that’s unique to the individual. Design features could enhance safety…
Page 3-14
LU-3.6: This makes no sense. If, in preceding paragraphs, we are mandating a variety
of services, including “neighborhood shopping and services [to] be available within
about one mile of all dwellings,” (LU-3.5) how are we then supposed to “protect existing
residential areas from the impacts of non-residential development?” No area should be
insulated from change.
LU-3.7 and 3.8: Use of residences for business, work, school, etc., all needs to be re-
thought as businesses and schools move to remote functioning.
LU-3.9: What exactly is a use that “may lead to the deterioration of residential
neighborhoods?” This should be deleted.
Page 3-16
LU-5-1: Commercial centers may change over time. Why name any area, e.g. Los
Gatos Boulevard?
LU-5.3: Continuing objection to “consistent with Los Gatos’ small-town character and
scale. Businesses should have the opportunity to locate in Los Gatos if they meet all
Town policies and criteria, period.
Page 3-17
LU-6: How is this section consistent with the newly-adopted Land Use Alternatives,
which include increased mixed-use and housing opportunities in downtown?
23
LU-7.1: Why do we only care about vacated businesses in the named areas? What
about vacated businesses downtown?
Page 3-19
LU-7.3: This should be deleted. Auto dealerships are largely obsolete, and many in Los
Gatos are now standing empty. More importantly, the now defunct auto dealerships
along Los Gatos Boulevard provide a perfect opportunity for mixed use development
and housing. Maintaining this paragraph erects an unnecessary hurdle to reuse.
LU-8.2: I am concerned that maintaining this section as written could prevent
conversion of industrial spaces to live/work areas that can provide needed housing
opportunities.
Page 3-22
Overlay Zones: Why are the Town’s Affordable Housing Overlay Zones not included
here?
Page 3-23
Los Gatos Boulevard Plan
The Plan is now over 20 years old and needs to be rescinded or completely overhauled
to match the goals and policies of this 2040 General Plan. Mixed use and housing
needs to be encouraged, alternative transportation modes need to be planned for and
included, height limits and setbacks need to be rethought. Los Gatos Boulevard
provides one of the best opportunities in Town for new housing, and maintaining the
current Plan is in potential conflict with redevelopment and in-fill changes. See, e.g, “Los
Gatos Boulevard District (“Community Place District” p. 3-27)
Page 3-32
LU-16.3: Consistent with my comments regarding Table 3.2, I wonder where it is
appropriate to advocate for Zoning changes. For example, if I wished to advocate for a
change in Single Family Residential Zoning, I would object to a section, like this one,
that requires consistency with the designations in Figure 3-1.
Pages 3-35 – 3-36
Do “Lifelong Learning” and “Healthy Community” belong in the Land Use Element, or
elsewhere, e.g., Environment????
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 6
November 3, 2020
RE: Los Gatos General Plan Update
Dear Members of the Los Gatos General Plan Update Advisory Committee,
I am the owner of the Los Gatos Post Office located at 101 Santa Cruz Avenue. I am writing to lodge
my overall support for the proposed General Plan changes especially in regard to the Central Business District
encompassing downtown. I am very encouraged that the Town is moving towards the addition of higher
density, mixed-use housing in the downtown area, as I think that change will be crucial in the future success of
our great town.
I would like to offer a couple of suggestions that could strengthen and clarify a couple portions of the
suggested GP changes.
- In regard to density, please consider increasing the du/ac above 30. I know that in my specific
location being limited to only +/- 20 units (based on my acreage) would make the economics of a
project difficult, if not financially unfeasible, to undertake. I believe having the flexibility to
consider higher densities in the downtown area will make projects more likely to be undertaken and
therefor fulfill your goal of more housing being constructed in the CBD. Without increased density
above 30 du/ac, this GP change may fall flat.
- In CD 8.3, referencing that building massing must remain similar counteracts changes to F.A.R and
building heights that would make new development possible. I would ask that please be
reconsidered.
- In CD 8.7, saying that existing density should be preserved counteracts any changes to increased
density in the GP and is counteractive to new mixed-use, residential development in the downtown
area.
Thank you for your proactive consideration of modifying the General Plan. I look forward to the
potential long-term benefits this has to Los Gatos. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or
comments.
Regards,
Mike LaBarbera
November 4, 2020
223 W. Main St. Suite D2 | Los Gatos, CA | 95030
www.pennantproperties.com
Dear Los Gatos General Plan Update Advisory Committee,
First, thank you for your tireless work on the General Plan update. A thankless job for one of the most important
processes in our beloved Town. I reviewed the Staff Report dated October 30th, 2020 regarding the Land Use and
Community Design elements of the Administrative Draft General Plan, and had a couple of comments to provide
for your consideration on behalf of Pennant Properties and a couple of our clients with potential projects on Los
Gatos Boulevard and in the commercial core.
In order to achieve the goal of meeting the State of California housing requirements, you should look to increase
allowable dwelling units per acre and F.A.R. in the eight opportunity areas. You have crafted beautiful language
regarding integrating pedestrian friendly elements, open space, shared roads, bike paths, and setbacks. You have
also provided for very interesting and compatible architectural design and massing. Additionally, you have
encouraged subterranean parking in many circumstances. I fear when you take into consideration the design
constraints that will influence future projects from an aesthetic perspective, you will not be able to achieve the
desired density to meet the State of California housing requirements. Especially when moving parking underground
and replacing it with non-revenue generating square footage to achieve the amenities referenced above, you will
constrain future projects to be cost prohibitive. To make the projects more feasible please consider increasing
densities, F.A.R., and potentially height limit in these areas. Specifically, Los Gatos Boulevard can accommodate
projects with a significant height increase, and in the commercial core there are existing buildings like the Penthouse
Apartments and the Toll House Hotel that are of significant height, so increased heights would be compatible. This
will allow for the successful addition of beautiful projects to be built in the opportunity areas furthering the smart
and responsible growth of our Town, in accordance with the aesthetic guidelines you have crafted. Below are a
couple of other specific references I believe need to be addressed to ensure the plan is not contradictory in and of
itself:
• In CD 8.3, it states that building massing must remain similar which is contradictory to the notion that
increasing height, density, and F.A.R. will allow for new projects that will by definition not be similar
massing to the existing.
• In CD 8.7, it states that existing density should be preserved which is contradictory to the notion that the
revised General Plan is going to encourage mixed-use development of a higher density, specifically in the
eight opportunity areas.
I am excited to see the General Plan update move forward. Los Gatos is in need of these updated guidelines to take
the next steps forward and move through the recovery period resulting from the pandemic.
Jim Foley
Principal
Pennant Properties