Item 1 - 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: 11/19/2020
ITEM: 1
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: November 13, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Working Session to Review and Discuss Additional Information Regarding the
Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and the Initial Draft of the Community
Design Element.
REMARKS:
The General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) began the review and discussion of the
initial draft of the Land Use and Community Design Elements at their November 5, 2020
meeting, and continued the item for further discussion on November 19, 2020 .
The Town Council has scheduled an initial discussion of the Land Use and Community Design
Elements at their November 17, 2020 meeting. The Town Council staff report and attachments
are included as Attachment 8. The staff report and attachments include additional information
to help the Town Council and GPAC visualize the translation of the Preferred Land Use
Alternative Framework into the General Plan update. Staff recommends that the GPAC watch
the Town Council meeting on November 17, 2020. Additionally, staff will prepare a brief
summary of the Town Council’s discussion for inclusion in an Addendum or Desk Item Report.
Attachment 9 contains additional comments from Committee Members received after the
finalization of the November 5, 2020 Desk Item. All additional comments, that are received by
11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 18, 2020, will be provided to the GPAC in an Addendum
Report that afternoon so that text changes can be considered by all committee members prior
to the meeting. Any comments received after that time, but before 11:00 a.m. on the day of
the meeting will be provided in a Desk Item.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
November 13, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\11-19-20\Item 1 - Staff Report.docx
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 previously received with November 5, 2020 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
Attachment previously received with November 5, 2020 Desk Item:
7. Committee Member Comments
Attachment received with this Staff Report:
8. November 17, 2020 Town Council Staff Report with Attachments 1-7
9. Committee Member Comments
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/17/2020 ITEM NO: 7
DATE: November 12, 2020
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Provide Direction for the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the
General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction for the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The Town of Los Gatos is in the process of updating its long range, comprehensive General Plan
that looks forward to the year 2040. The Town Council appointed a General Plan Update
Advisory Committee (GPAC) consisting of two Council Members, three Planning Commissioners,
members of the General Plan Committee, and other residents. The GPAC is an advisory body to
the Planning Commission and Town Council. All GPAC agendas, minutes, staff reports and
associated materials are available online: www.losgatosca.gov/13/Agendas-Minutes
Key milestones are brought to the Town Council for consideration, direction, and approval. The
last milestone was the Council’s selection of the Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
(Attachment 1) on April 7, 2020.
The GPAC is currently in the process of reviewing the initial drafts of the Land Use and
Community Design Elements (available in the November 5, 2020 GPAC agenda packet:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11052020-1759). These
Elements contain most of the goals, policies, and implementation measures that directly
implement the Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework.
ATTACHMENT 8
PAGE 2 OF 6 SUBJECT: Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan DATE: November 12, 2020
BACKGROUND (continued):
At its meeting on November 5, 2020, the GPAC expressed that the Land Use Element did not
demonstrate the full vision of the selected Alternative. Among other items, individual GPAC
members requested (i.e., no votes were taken on these items):
•Clear depiction of how the Land Use Diagram translated the Preferred Land Use
Alternative Framework through the appropriate distribution of the Land Use
designations;
•Explanation of how the Missing Middle housing would be facilitated with the new
density range for the Low Density Residential designation and conversely, an
understanding of how housing targets could be achieved without further increasing the
density in the Low Density Residential designation;
•The removal of obsolete language pertaining to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan; and
•Clear policies directing the evolution of existing commercial tax generating uses (i.e.,
auto dealers on the Boulevard) to mixed use.
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Town Council to provide direction on the translation
of the Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework into the Land Use designation development
parameters. This is intended to assist the GPAC in its review of the Land Use and Community
Design Elements which is continued to its meeting on November 19. In addition, the GPAC
requested that the Council clarify the extent of the revisions expected as part of this update of
the General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed modifications to the existing Land Use and Community Design Elements are
intended to address emergent trends and changes to State Laws and implement the Preferred
Land Use Alternative Framework. The primary focus of the selected Alternative was to plan for
at least 2,000 new housing units, especially in mixed-use and medium/high density
developments.
The total net new dwelling units listed in the Preferred Land Use Alterative Framework,
including accessory dwelling units, was 2,464. To accomplish this increase in potential new
housing units, certain assumptions were made about maximum allowed densities (expressed as
dwelling units per acre) which are laid out in Attachment 1, Table 1.
The development of the Land Use and Community Design Elements was based on the following
direction from Town Council, Planning Commission, and GPAC:
•Target 2,464 net new dwelling units of the Preferred Land Use Alterative Framework
(excluding pending/approved dwelling units);
PAGE 3 OF 6 SUBJECT: Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan DATE: November 12, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
•Facilitate the increase in allowable densities mostly within the areas identified as
Opportunity Areas;
•Ensure that the increase in density in Opportunity Areas steps down when adjacent to lower
density development;
•Keep the implementation as simple and clear as possible;
•Do not increase density in the hillside areas; and
•Delete or modify existing goals, policies, and action items (now implementation measures)
as needed because of changes to State law, completion of items, or potential for
consolidation with other items.
Based on this direction, the following modifications were made to the Land Use Designations
and Development Standards Table (Attachment 5) and Land Use Diagram (Attachment 6):
•Maintain the allowable density in Hillside Residential designation;
•Increase density for Low Density Residential to the range listed as “Outside Opportunity
Areas” because most Low Density Residential is located outside the Opportunity Areas and
to accommodate Missing Middle housing (see Attachment 2);
•Increase density for Medium Density Residential to the range listed as “Inside Opportunity
Areas” because much of the Medium Density Residential is located inside the Opportunity
Areas;
•Increase density for High Density Residential to the range listed as “Inside Opportunity
Areas” because much of the High Density Residential is located inside the Opportunity
Areas;
•Increase density for Mixed-Use and Central Business District to the range listed as “Inside
Opportunity Areas” because most of the Mixed-Use is located inside the Opportunity Areas;
•Divide the areas currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial into two designations.
For those that retain the Neighborhood Commercial designation, increase density to the
range listed as “Outside Opportunity Areas,” and for those that are now designated
Community Commercial, increase density to the range listed as “Inside Opportunity Areas.”
Though most of these areas are located inside the Opportunity Areas, some are more
neighborhood focused, and some have a larger community service area; and
•Increase density for Central Business District to the range listed as “Inside Opportunity
Areas” because most of the Central Business District is located inside the Opportunity
Areas;
These changes result in 2,950 net new dwelling units (excluding pending/approved dwelling
units) (see Attachment 3). In addition, the revised Community Design Element includes specific
goals, policies, and implementation measures focused on the Opportunity Areas (now called
Community Place Districts) to address compatibility and other issues.
PAGE 4 OF 6 SUBJECT: Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan DATE: November 12, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
To assist the Council and GPAC visualize the translation of the Alternative into the General Plan
update, the consultant has prepared the following attachments:
•Attachment 2 describes how the Land Use Element is intended to meet the housing
needs of Los Gatos, not just through mixed used developments, but also through
Missing Middle housing. While the Land Use Element does not specifically address the
affordability of housing, the incorporation of regulations that support Missing Middle
housing provides for a wider variety of housing types that would be part of meeting the
Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The illustration compares a one-acre block in the Low Density Residential designation
under the current maximum density of five dwelling units per acre versus the proposed
new density of 12 dwelling units per acre. It shows how the introduction of new
housing types can occur within existing single-family neighborhoods.
•Attachment 3 includes a description of the housing capacity estimated under the refined
Land Use designations for the 2040 General Plan.
•Attachment 4 includes a pair of illustrations that provide a visualization of the massing
(though not specific design) of different maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) for
commercial sites. They show the potential massing for development of the property on
the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Almaden Road under two different
FARs, 1.5 and 2.5. If the ground floor of the buildings shown would be retail or office
and all other floors are residential, then a density of 40 residential units per acre would
result with an average unit size of approximately 1,200 square feet (sq. ft.) for a FAR of
1.5, and approximately 1,700 sq. ft. for an FAR of 2.5.
These numbers are rough gross floor area, and do not account for the need for hallways,
lobbies, community spaces, mechanical rooms, stairwells, and elevators, which would
result in further reduction of the average unit size. In addition, the unit sizes would be
smaller if more of the floor area were used for more office or other non-residential uses.
The initial draft Community Design Element includes new objective design policies that are
intended to allow the expected new growth in the commercial and mixed-use areas to develop
in a way that will be compatible with the existing fabric of the Town. The Opportunity Areas in
the selected Alternative have been replaced with Community Places Districts and are located
where the greatest land use modifications are proposed (see Attachment 7).
If these Elements are approved with the draft designations, diagrams, goals, and policies,
updates to the Zoning Code, design guidelines, and other documents will be necessary to
PAGE 5 OF 6 SUBJECT: Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan DATE: November 12, 2020
DISCUSSION (continued):
ensure consistency with the new General Plan. It is not possible to update all planning
documents simultaneously. Implementation programs are proposed for this purpose.
CONCLUSION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Town Council with an opportunity to provide
direction to the GPAC, staff, and the consultant on the translation of the approved Alternative
in the new Land Use Designation table and Diagram (Attachments 5 and 6).
The following questions may help guide the Council discussion:
1. Do the attachments adequately explain the translation of the selected Alternative into the
Land Use Designations and their development parameters? If not, what additional
information would be useful?
2. Does the Council support the inclusion of Missing Middle housing in the Low Density
Residential Designation?
3. How much change should the GPAC make in the update of the General Plan?
The initial direction from Town Council was that the existing General Plan is serving the
community well, and this update provides the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address
emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues. However, the discussions of
the GPAC have evolved over the last two years, so they have asked for some clarification from
Town Council on how proactive and forward-looking these revisions should be, both in respect
to the goals, policies, and implementation measures, as well as to the descriptive and
introductory language of the document.
Staff looks forward to the Town Council’s review, discussion, and direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
A final decision on the Land Use and Community Design Elements will be considered as part of
the approval of the 2040 General Plan. An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared as
part of the General Plan update process.
Attachments:
1. Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
2. How to Meet the Housing Needs of Los Gatos
3. Housing Production Estimated Under 2040 General Plan
PAGE 6 OF 6 SUBJECT: Land Use and Community Design Elements of the General Plan DATE: November 12, 2020
Attachments (continued):
4. FAR Comparison Graphics
5. Land Use Designations and Development Standards Table
6. Land Use Diagram
7. Land Use Diagrams for Community Place Districts
Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
May 2020
Page 1 of 4
Summary of the Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020, the Town Council met to consider the recommendation from the Planning
Commission and General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC)of a Draft Land Use Alternative
Framework for the 2040 Los Gatos General Plan. Review by the Planning Commission and GPAC
included community feedback from Community Workshop #2, which was held on January 16, 2020, as
well as additional feedback collected through online engagement.
Town Council Discussion of the Land Use Alternative Framework
At the April 7, 2020 meeting, the Town Council approved the Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
that will be used to develop the 2040 General Plan. The Town Council deliberated on the options
presented for consideration and asked questions about the details associated with the Framework,
including but not limited to building heights, density, the role of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and
specific development parameters within and adjacent to Opportunity Areas.
Following discussion, the Town Council agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and GPAC and approved Alternative C (including the downtown area as an eighth Opportunity Area).
Alternative C provides for a more diverse housing stock to meet the needs of a diversifying community,
while exceeding the 2,000 net new housing unit goal. Alternative C also allows for the ability of
development within specific areas in Town to have a maximum height of 50 feet or four stories but does
not mandate development to reach that maximum. This increase in allowable height would potentially
encourage the development of smaller multi-family units, which are expected to be needed to meet the
Town’s identified Regional Housing Needs Allocation consistent with State law every eight years.
As part of its adoption of the 2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework, the Town Council
requested specific policies in the Land Use Element to refine where the maximum height is most
appropriate and where it is not, expand on placemaking and enhancing community spaces, consider
impacts of development adjacent to existing neighborhoods, and create vibrant, walkable areas
throughout Town.
2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
The following documents the 2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework approved by Town
Council on April 7, 2020. Table 1 presents the development parameters (density and FAR) to be
assumed both inside and outside of Opportunity Areas. For the assumptions, densities for residential
uses were expressed as dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and non-residential uses have an intensity level
that is expressed as a floor area ratio (FAR). A FAR is the ratio of allowable building space per land area
of a development site (see Table 1: 2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework Development
ATTACHMENT 1
Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
May 2020
Page 2 of 4
Assumptions). These assumptions fluctuate and increase depending on if a parcel is located within one
of the eight designated Opportunity Areas (OA).
Table 1: 2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework Development Assumptions
Table 2 presents a breakdown of the population, housing, and employment that could result with the
selected Alternative. Population is based on the standard number of persons per unit (2.4) found in Los
Gatos. The housing section of the table provides the number of housing units calculated to be
developed under the selected Alternative for each land use designation and whether the land is inside
or outside of an Opportunity Area. The bottom of the table provides an employment number. This
number is assumed to be understated, as the alternatives process focused on housing production, and
will be updated as the 2040 General Plan is developed.
Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 0 to 5 5%10% 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5 164 180
MDR 5 to 12 10%10%12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75 315 166
HDR 12 to 20 15%15%20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25 98 236
NC 0 to 20 10%15%0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75 7 192
MU 0 to 20 10%20%0 to 20 30 to 40 18 26 1 21 449
CBD 0 to 20 N/A 15%N/A 20 to 30 N/A 26 0.75 0 136
Dwelling UnitsExisting Density
Range (DU/AC)
2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative FrameworkLand Use
Designation Redevelopment Density Range (DU/AC)Typical Density (DU/AC)FAR
Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
May 2020
Page 3 of 4
Table 2: 2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework Projections
2040
Preferred Land
Use
Alternative
Framework
Population
Total Net New Population 5,914
Total Population 7,054
Total Projected 2040 Population 38,049
Housing
Net New Dwellings 1,964
Potential Net New Accessory Dwelling Units 500
Total Net New Dwelling Units 2,464
Pending/Approved Dwelling Units 475
Total Future Dwelling Units 2,939
Dwelling Units Per Land Use Designation
Low Density Residential (LDR) - in OA 180
Low Density Residential (LDR) - outside OA 164
Low Density Residential (LDR) - Total Dwelling Units 344
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - in OA 166
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - outside OA 315
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - Total Dwelling Units 481
High Density Residential (HDR) - in OA 236
High Density Residential (HDR) - outside OA 98
High Density Residential (HDR) - Total Dwelling Units 334
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - in OA 192
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - outside OA 7
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - Total Dwelling Units 199
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - in OA 21
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - outside OA 449
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - Total Dwelling Units 470
Central Business District (CBD) - Total Dwelling Units 136
Employment
Employment 1,280
Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework
May 2020
Page 4 of 4
2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework Figure 1: 2040 Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework and General Land Use Designations
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 1 of 2
How to Meet the Housing Needs of Los Gatos
While Los Gatos is a desirable location to live, finding a place to call home in Los Gatos has been unattainable for
many. The Town’s housing issues come from many factors, the primary of which is affordability (high purchase
and rental prices). Other related factors include a lack of unit types and sizes to meet the needs of prospective
residents. The aging population in Town may wish to downsize; however, there is a the shortage of smaller
dwelling units. The prevalence of single-family homes and the trend towards building larger and larger homes
has further limited the supply of new housing.
These housing issues are not unique to Los Gatos and are seen throughout the Bay Area and many communities
in California. As part of the Housing Element process, the State dictates the number of units at a variety of
income levels for which a jurisdiction must plan and remove barriers to construction. For Los Gatos, this is
expected to be approximately 2,000 dwelling units of various income levels over the next eight years.
To address the diversity of housing needed in Los Gatos and meet the requirements of State law, the Town
needs innovative strategies to plan for housing. One strategy is to help evolve existing neighborhoods into a
heterogeneous mix of housing types and affordabilities, as was done in past in cities throughout the nation.
Housing types that lie between detached single-family and apartment buildings is often referred to as “Missing
Middle” housing, and can include a mix of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts/clusters, and
townhomes (illustrated in the graphic, below). Through design, these units can be compatible in form and
appearance with detached single-family homes.
Future Housing – Providing for the Missing Middle
As part of the 2040 General Plan, a goal, supporting policies, and action items (now called implementation
programs) are proposed to support the development of Missing Middle housing within existing Los Gatos
neighborhoods. The graphic below illustrates this concept using a variety of Missing Middle housing types.
ATTACHMENT 2
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 2 of 2
In the graphic below, two blocks were laid out to be identical relative to lot lines and existing structures, with
the housing units shaded in white being existing single-family detached homes of a variety of sizes (square
footages). The graphic labeled “Existing” depicts a density of 5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
The graphic labeled “With Missing Middle Housing” shows that same block with future development and how
the individual lots of different sizes could be redeveloped with a 12 du/ac density. The white shaded structures
are the remaining existing single-family homes and the gold shaded structures are new Missing Middle housing
types. Some are in addition to existing structures (“A” and “F”), one is a replacement structure on an existing lot
(“C”), and two show the consolidation of two lots to create one larger lot (“B” and “D”).
On a typical block in Town, the number of Missing Middle units would likely be fewer. Not all properties would
be redeveloped, and some would just have an ADU added in the back, while others could be duplexes. The
larger lots might be able to get up to four units because they are over one-third of an acre. This illustration
shows how a range of housing types and sizes could potentially be incorporated into an existing neighborhood.
In addition to different types, the Missing Middle concepts would also support the production of a variety of unit
sizes in the 500 to 1,000 square foot range.
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 1 of 2
New Housing Capacity Estimated Under 2040 General Plan
In 2019, as part of the General Plan Update, the Town completed the Land Use Alternatives Report. This Report
looked at four land use alternative concepts for Los Gatos, each with a different mix of housing densities and
commercial and industrial intensities. Following recommendations by the General Plan Update Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission, the Town Council selected Alternative C Medium High Growth as the
Preferred Alternative that would be used to guide the development of the General Plan. Under this Alternative,
the Downtown was also identified as an area for focused development.
During incorporation of this alternative into the General Plan and to assist in making the alternative easier to
implement, the concept of Opportunity Areas was dropped. A single set of land use designations which are
similar in name to the existing designations were established.
The Alternatives Report defined each alternative’s effect on population, housing, employment, fiscal health, and
transportation. As the analysis was focused on comparing change, housing capacity was only evaluated for the
following five land use designations:
Low-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Mixed-Use Commercial
As part of the General Plan, the Community Commercial and Central Business District designations also allow
residential development and are included in the capacity numbers provided on the next page.
The table on the next page provides an estimate of residential growth that can happen under the 2040 General
Plan. These estimates are based on the following parameters (as listed on the table):
Land Use Designation. This column lists the designations that produce residential. As growth in the
hillside areas is not promoted, no new units are estimated for the Hillside Residential designation.
Density Range (du/ac). Each designation has a minimum and maximum density range, listed as dwelling
units per acre (du/ac).
Typical Density Assumed (du/ac). To estimate potential new housing, an assumption was made as to
the typical density that would occur in each designation. This factor was used to calculate total units.
Assumed Redevelopment. For properties that are currently developed, it was assumed that some
percent of those properties would redevelop over the course of the next 20 years.
New Housing (Vacant). Based on the vacant acreage under each land use designation, the potential
number of housing units was calculated.
New Housing (Redevelop). Based on the developed acreage under each land use designation and the
assumed redevelopment percentage, the potential number of housing units was calculated.
ATTACHMENT 3
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 2 of 2
Added to the total units produced from vacant land and redeveloped land are the following:
Housing Units, ADUs. This figure provides the estimated number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
that would be produced over the 20-year planning period (25 ADUs per year).
Housing Units, Existing Projects. Town-approved and pending projects that include new housing units
are also included with the preferred alternative.
The following table provides an estimate of housing unit capacity under the Preferred Alternative compared
with the existing General Plan. It should be noted that while the redevelopment percent (the amount of land
that will redevelop during the next 20 years) has been kept the same for both calculations (existing and
proposed General Plan), it is expected that the percentage would be lower under the existing General Plan as
there would not be as much of an incentive for change. Hillside Residential is not included because this
designation is not intended to produce significant housing.
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 4
Development Representations of Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development
FAR: 1.5
Development Representations of Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development
FAR: 2.5 plus parking garage
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 5
Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards
Group Designation Color Description Standards
Compatible
Zoning RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS HR
Hillside
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for very low density, rural, and single-family
residential development types that can be
done on large single lots or as part of a
cluster development. This designation
allows for development that is compatible
with the unique mountainous terrain and
vegetation of parts of Los Gatos.
Density:
0 – 1 du/ac
Max. Height:
30 feet
HR
LDR
Low Density
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for single-family residential properties. It
encourages single-family residential
development in either the standard
development established by standard
zoning or by innovative forms obtained
through a planned development.
Density:
1 – 12 du/ac
Lot Coverage:
Up to 50%
Max. Height:
30 feet
R-1
MDR
Medium
Density
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for multi-family residential, duplexes, and/or
small lot single-family homes.
Density:
14 – 24 du/ac
Lot Coverage:
Up to 75%
Max. Height:
35 feet
R-1D
R-D
R-M
HDR
High Density
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for more dense multi-family residential
development. Its objective is to provide
quality housing in proximity to transit and/or
commercial and business areas.
Density:
30 – 40 du/ac
Lot Coverage:
Up to 75%
Max. Height:
45 feet
R-M MIXED-USE DESIGNATION MU
Mixed-Use
The purpose of this designation is to provide
a mixture of retail, office, and residential in a
mixed-use project, along with lodging,
service, recreational uses, and restaurants.
Projects developed under this designation
shall maintain primary orientation to arterial
street frontages and proper transitions and
buffers to adjacent residential properties.
Density:
30 – 40 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 3.0
Lot Coverage:
Up to 75%
Max. Height:
45 feet
CH
Group Designation Color Description Standards
Compatible
Zoning COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS NC
Neighborhood
Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for necessary day-to-day commercial goods
and services required by the residents of
the adjacent neighborhoods. This
designation encourages concentrated and
coordinated commercial development at
easily accessible locations. Residential
uses, developed using a mixed-use format,
are allowed in the designation.
Density:
10 – 20 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
C-1
CC
Community
Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for commercial goods and services to
support residents, businesses, and visitors,
and are located to serve the entire
community. Residential uses, developed
using a mixed-use format, are allowed in the
designation.
Density:
20 – 30 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 3.0
Max. Height:
45 feet
C-1
CBD
Central
Business
District
The purpose of this designation is to
encourage a mixture of community-
orientated commercial goods and services
within the Downtown. This designation
applies exclusively to the Downtown, with
the goal to accommodate and retain small-
town merchants and preserve the Town’s
character. The District shall maintain and
expand open spaces and mature tree
growth without increasing setbacks, as well
as integrate new construction with existing
structures of archeological and historical
significance. Residential uses, developed
using a mixed-use format, are allowed in the
designation.
Density:
20 – 30 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 2.0
Max. Height:
45 feet
C-2
EMPLOYMENT CENTER DESIGNATIONS OP
Office
Professional
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for professional and general business
offices and innovation centers. This
designation applies to various locations
throughout the Town, often in proximity to
neighborhood- or community-oriented
commercial facilities, or as a buffer between
commercial and residential uses. The intent
of this designation is to satisfy the
community’s need for general business and
professional services, local employment,
and residential uses.
Density:
none
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
O
Group Designation Color Description Standards
Compatible
Zoning
SC
Service
Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to provide
for service businesses. These businesses
include auto repair, building materials sales,
paint suppliers, janitorial services, towing
businesses, contractors offices and yards,
laundries and dry cleaners, as well as
wholesaling, and warehousing activities.
Density:
none
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
LM
LI
Light
Industrial
The purpose of this designation is to allow
for large-scale office developments, well-
controlled research and development
facilities, innovation centers, industrial parks
and service-oriented uses subject to rigid
development standards. These uses shall
respond to the community and regional-
wide needs.
Density:
none
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
CM SPECIFIC PLANS A-SP
Albright
Specific Plan
The purpose of this designation is to provide
land for the Albright Specific Plan.
As defined in
Specific Plan
A-SP
NF-SP
North Forty
Specific Plan
The purpose of this designation is to provide
land for the North 40 Specific Plan.
As defined in
Specific Plan
NF-SP PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONS PUB
Public
This designation identifies public and
institutional facilities in the Town such as
the Civic Center, schools, parks, libraries,
hospitals, churches, and fire stations.
Density:
none
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
All zones
OS
Open Space
This designation identifies the location of
public parks, open space preserves, private
preserves, and stream corridors.
Density:
none
Max. Height:
30 feet
RC
AG
Agriculture
This designation identifies areas for
commercial agricultural crop production and
properties under a Williamson Act contract.
Density:
1 du/20 ac
Max. Height:
30 feet
RC
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
ATTACHMENT 7
Figure 1: Community Place Districts
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 2 of 9
Figure 2: Downtown District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 3 of 9
Figure 3: Harwood Road District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 4 of 9
Figure 4: Lark Avenue District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 5 of 9
Figure 5: Los Gatos Boulevard District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 6 of 9
Figure 6: North Santa Cruz Avenue District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 7 of 9
Figure 7: Pollard Road District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 8 of 9
Figure 8: Union Avenue District
Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
Page 9 of 9
Figure 9: Winchester Boulevard District
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 9
Community Design Element Comments - Ryan Rosenberg
Page 4-6
CD-1.1
What does “visual and physical multi-modal connection” mean?
Page 4-7
CD 2.2
This is very vague. What are “well defined architectural styles”? And where do we talk about
those styles fitting in with the surrounding buildings (which I think is the main objective).
Page 4-8
CD 2.4
How much step back is required? If not defined here maybe this should point to a different
document.
Page 4-11
CD 2.9
Why is there a range here “40 to 50 feet”? We should just have a single number.
Page 4-12
CD 2.12
Should we encourage the use of “hidden” square footage by discounting it or not counting it in
the overall footage for the site?
Page 4-12 and 4-13
CD 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20
There seems to be a lot of duplication here. For example, 2.16 says “encourage preservation
and planting of trees” and then 2.19 is titled “tree preservation”. 2.18 says “encourage strategic
selection of tree street species”, while 2.20 says “Require street trees and plants to be approved
by the superintendent of parks”.
Also 2.18 title “tree lines streets” does not really fit the content which is all about selecting
appropriate species.
We should try and rework these to streamline, clarify, and combine.
Page 4-13
The “Did you know” section says “here are some examples if the successful implementation of
freeway landscaping” but then there are no examples given.
Page 4-14
CD 2.24
But we are building parklets that are permanent. Does this mean restaurants can’t secure their
outdoor furniture? I’m not sure this one makes sense to me. Needs more clarification.
Page 4-15
CD 2.28
This appears to duplicate CD 2.23 which also requires building facades and entrances directly
face the street.
It is not exactly clear how the title “Eyes on the street” mates the content; sounds more like
windows when this is about doors.
Page 4-18
CD 2.44
What does it mean to “isolate” the structures from the street? This is not clear at all. Is there a
document somewhere that has these type of guidelines and can be referenced?
Do you mean the fencing must be set back or the structures must be set back? Assuming
fencing, is there a document somewhere that explains how far back it must be set from the
street?
Page 4-24
4.3
The intro says “any primary structure constructed” prior to 1941. Didn’t we decide to change
this to reflect 50 years instead of a specific date?
Page 4-31
This map is missing a title.
Page 4-47
CD 10.8
What does it mean to “reduce the allowed coverage amount”? Reduce it by how much? Even if
it not here the amount should be documented somewhere — where is the allowed coverage
amount documented? Let’s point to that.
Community Design Element Comments – Marcia Jensen
General:
Throughout, (and also with respect to the Land Use Element, though I didn’t find a place
there where this argument would logically be made) I would like to advocate a move
from traditional zoning and design elements to “form-based zoning,” which emphasizes
building forms, setbacks, height, etc., over separation of uses
https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/
Different form-based zoning rules could be used in, e.g., the “Community Places” to
define a District and to streamline the review process and procedural hurdles. The
predictability of form-based zoning can provide “objective standards” while also
shortening the entitlement process, thereby aiding in the production of, e.g., housing.
Page 4-5
Architectural Style and Elements
While I agree that a cohesive “theme” may enhance a particular area (which can be
achieved through form-based zoning), I disagree with the specification here of particular
style. At a certain time period in Los Gatos, the only thing allowed to be built were Arts
and Crafts designs – this brought us what is now the Artisan Wine Depot at Los Gatos
Boulevard and Shannon – an outsized, awkward, commercial building that is supposed
to echo the Craftsman style. We need variety, not uniformity – in our community as well
as in our built spaces.
Site Development
Why call out Crime Prevention design features for special emphasis?
Community Identity
I don’t thing Los Gatos can design and erect “unique freeway exit designs” – I believe
signage and property around freeways is controlled by Caltrans.
Page 4-6
CD-1
Overall observation – Los Gatos already has Residential Design Guidelines (which
should be updated). I wonder how this adds a nything, unless the two documents
complement each other.
CD-1.4: Again, “preserve, protect, and enhance established neighborhoods” stifles any
opportunity for change and encourages opposition to new types and styles of
development. In addition, this is covered by the Residential Design Guidelines.
Page 4.2
Here is where form-based zoning can be adopted and incorporated. I think the
individual goals within are fine, but ought to be specific to particular areas.
Page 4-12
CD-2-12: Have we finally resolved the “basement” v. “cellar” issue, such that this
section is clear??
CD-2.17: Do we want street tree installation required in every new development? What
if the development is a single family home? What if the setbacks for a mixed use project
that incorporates affordable housing don’t work for “street trees,” but may work for trees
within the development?
Page 4-13
CD-2.16: The Town actually has a list of approved street trees – why not reference
here? (same comment CD-2.20)
Page 4-20
CD-2.55: Title says “require” and text says “support.” There is a proposal to create an
ordinance requiring art installation or payment of a fee to be considered by the Council
– is this section intending to require lobbying for that effort? I think it should be stricke n
pending Council action.
CD-2.58: I object to the inclusion of this section. We should have variety – this policy
encourages a town full of cat banners.
Page 4-21
CD-2.63: How many “gateway” signs and art are we going to have? Is each supposed
to emphasize some feature or another? This seems excessive.
Page 4-26
CD-5.3: The Policy Committee, Planning Commission, and Town Council have spent an
inordinate amount of time over the last several years amending the Visual element of
the Hillside Development Guidelines – this section should be deleted or be amended to
a single sentence that says “Conform with the Hillside Development Guidelines.”
Page 4-27: Everything here is covered extensively in the Hillside Development
Standards – and the Town has a new Hillside Fence ordinance – why include all of this?
Page 4-27
4.5: Last line in introductory paragraph should be “as well as…” not and well as…”
Page 4-29
CD-7.1: Why? Instead of creating silos of “districts,” we should be striving for a whole
community
CD-7.3: Strike “when the quality of adjacent neighborhoods can be maintained.” This
should be encouraged, period – particularly as we have no idea when
businesses/restaurants will be able to operate fully indoors again.
CD-7.6: This makes sense for single family residences, but may be inappropriate for
mixed use projects or other types of denser housing options.
Page 4-30
Downtown District, Introductory paragraphs:
Why include Pine Avenue and Cleland? These are not generally thought of as
downtown borders – how about just the C-2 Zone?
Page 4-32
Introductory Paragraphs
“the gem of the Town?” Why special treatment?
“will preserve” and “will prohibit” these are in direct conflict with the identification of
Community Places as areas primed for change.
I don’t know about widened sidewalks if parklets become permanent….
CD-8.2: Why not allow innovation???
CD-8.3: If we are truly encouraging change, why are we insisting on “compatibility” and
“consistency?”
Page 4-33
CD-8.6: Absolutely disagree! Nothing should be “prohibited.” Often, modern architecture
is the best means to enhance and set off the historic.
CE-8.9: How do signs and graphics “maintain the Town’s small-scale appearance?”
CD-8.10: This is all covered in the Commercial Design Guidelines – which should be
updated. The GP and Guidelines need to be consistent.
Page 4-36
Introductory Paragraph: This needs a better word than “revamp.” Redesign?
Renovation? Retrofit? Reimagining?
Why do we want to “limit the blending of communities between Los Gatos and San
Jose? What about “welcoming and inclusive?”
Page 4-37
Introductory Paragraph:
1st Sentence: I think it is supposed to say “The area includes most of the …”
Next sentences: Why trash the existing? Why not actually state a vision, e.g. “…
contemporary, mixed use designs incorporating public amenities, open space, and
providing opportunities for multi-modal transportation?”
Page 4-41
Introductory Paragraph
As in my previous comment, I wonder why we present a description and introduction
which describes the present state of affairs (usually in derogatory terms – which may
sound funny in 20 years when the design described is revered as archetypal) rather
than simply present the vision. After all, this is a forward-looking plan.
Page 4-44
Los Gatos Boulevard District
This is all fine – but none of it can be accomplished until the current Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan is rescinded…
In my opinion, mixed use development and opportunities for higher density housing
should be front and center, not landscaping and paint.
Page 4-45
CD-10.1: The current Plan needs to be rescinded! Once that happens, why a new,
separate document? Why not simply be guided by the standards in the GP for the
District?
CD-10.3: Balconies seem like a good idea, but could be incompatible with architectural
choices, and may also add an expense that could discourage the development of
affordable housing.
Page 4-46
CD-10.5: I would strongly discourage policies that seek to create corner elements –
remember, for example, “The Dome.”
Page 4-50
North Santa Cruz Avenue District
Why an “extension of downtown?” Why not its own “eclectic mix?”
As observed previously, architectural diversity in the Downtown should not be
prohibited.
Page 4-51
CD-11: Why an “extension?” Why not just “Encourage the establishment of the North
Santa Cruz Avenue District as a vibrant mixed use area featuring an eclectic range of
architecture and public amenities?”
Page 4-52 – 4-54:
Again, why include description of existing conditions?
Continuing objection to “revamp.”
Continuing objection to the emphasis on paint rather than the transformation of the
character of the neighborhood to mixed use, etc.
Objection to the restriction of density to similarity with existing single family residences
to “reduce compatibility issues.” If this document really does seek to promote change,
then it needs to back up its “visions” which allow for the creation of new “District”
character.
Page 4-55
CD-12.1: Why limit building height? The wider streets in the area can support taller
buildings and denser housing.
Page 4-58
Union Avenue District
Continued objection to “revamp” and emphasis on paint.
Continued objection to the statement that “blending of communities” is to be avoided.
Page 4-61
Winchester Boulevard District
I agree with the goals stated, but these paragraphs are in need of editing.
Just as I don’t believe the downtown should be restricted to historic design, I don’t
believe the Winchester District should be restricted to modern design.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank