Item 1 - Addendum with Attachment
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 02/04/2021
ITEM: 1
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: February 3, 2021
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Revised Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and
the Revised Initial Draft of the Community Design Element.
REMARKS:
Attachment 25 contains comments from a Committee Member.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the 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 the November 5, 2020 Desk Item:
7. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the November 19, 2020 Staff Report:
8. November 17, 2020 Town Council Staff Report with Attachments 1-7
9. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the November 19, 2020 Desk Item Report:
10. Committee Member Comments
11. Public Comment
ATTACHMENTS (continued):
Attachments previously received with the January 7, 2021 Staff Report:
12. Revised Initial Draft of Land Use Element
13. Comment Response Summary Table – Land Use
14. Revised Initial Draft of Community Design Element
15. Comment Response Summary Table – Community Design
16. Updated Potential Housing Production Table
Attachments previously received with the January 7, 2021 Addendum Report:
17. Committee Member Comments
18. Public Comment
Attachments previously received with the January 21, 2021 Staff Report:
19. Maps of the Area Described in a Public Comment
20. Committee Member Comments
Attachment previously received with the January 21, 2021 Addendum Report:
21. Historic Preservation Committee Comments
Attachment previously received with the January 21, 2021 Desk Item Report:
22. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the February 4, 2021 Staff Report:
23. Updated Comment Response Summary Table – Community Design Element
24. Committee Member Comments
Attachment received with this Addendum Report:
25. Committee Member Comments
1
To: Chairperson Hansen and Members of the Committee
From:Lee Quintana
Date:January 31, 2021
LAND USE: Additional Comments previously addressed by GPAC.
RESPONSE to COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Nick Gera, January 4, 202
●This request is to consider changing the General Plan for 16492-16498 Los Gatos
Blvd.from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial.
●The GPAC recommended including this change to the GP Land Use Diagram at our last
meeting. I was the sole dissenting vote. The following are the reasons behind my vote:
○There should be consistency between GP Designations and corresponding
Zoning Districts. However, based on Attachment #19, I believe this change is too
narrowly focused.
○Attachment #19 shows the existing GP for these parcels as LDR and the Zoning
as C-1,zoning.
○However, just within the area of Attachment 19 there are nine (9) other examples
of mismatched GP and Zoning. Other transportation corridors located within
Community Place Districts also have areas of inconsistency. 1
○Suggest Instead: Provide consistency between GP and Zoning - in order of
preference:
■1st: Include in Update: Review all corridors within the Community Place
Districts for consistency and make appropriate changes to the 2040 Land
Use Diagram also taking into consideration existing land use.
■2nd: Include in Update: Review area within Attachment 19 and the area
within the Los Gatos Blvd Community Place District and make appropriate
changes to the 2040 GP Land Use Diagram.
■Last: Implementation after adoption of GP2040: Update the 2040 GP
Diagram and Zoning map for consistency between them 2040 Land Use
Diagram and Zoning Map
Page 3-5 Land Use Diagram: Specific Plan Designations
●Suggest: Outlining the area of the Albright and North 40 Specific Plans on the General
and show the underlying General Plan Designation. As is stated on Page 3-23 “A
specific plan is a planning tool …..for the systematic implementation of the General Plan
for a defined portion of a community planning area”
1 A few areas that I am aware of: Laurel Mews, the area of the former County Courthouse, the area north
of 85 and east of Winchester Blvd.
ATTACHMENT 25
2
Page 3-14 Specific Plan Designations (Albright and North 40):
●Suggest: Move Specific Plan Designations to the end of Table 3-2 (after Public & Open
Space) to be consistent with the order they appear on the General Plan Land Use
Diagram.
●Suggest: Add a general description of the allowed uses for the Specific Plans in Table
3-2, and indicate density, height and FAR, consistent with other GP Designations.
Page 3-15: Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards
Suggest: Consider changing the maximum height for the Open Space and Agricultural
land use designations to 25 feet. This change would provide height consistency for all
three designations located within the Town’s identified hillside area (OP, AG and HR).
While some parks and riparian areas are located outside of hillside areas the 25
maximum height limit still seems appropriate for those areas as well.
From Page 3-16 to end Organization is confusing:!!!!!!
Page 3-18 Public and Institutional Uses in Residential Neighborhoods
●LU-5.4 Adjacent Non-Residential Development: Does this refer to development in a
non-residential GP or zone that is adjacent to a residential GP/zone? Or does it mean
non-residential development within an area with a residential GP/zone? Clarify
connection to LU-12 policies (page 3-25)
●LU-5-6 This needs clarification. What standards are these? Is this referring to requiring a
CUP? Is this a “shall” or a “may”
Page 3-23 Specific Plan
●Suggest moving the discussion of Specific Plans as the first item under 3.6 Special
Planning Areas (page 3-26)
Page 3-26 Special Planning Areas:
●Suggest: Consider Providing a Table for Special Planning Area. A table may be a
better way to organize the information for readers.
Page 3-26 Special Planning Areas - Overlay zones:
●Add: AHOZ overlay (unless the plan is to delete this overlay).
Page 3-27 Hillside Specific Plan : Delete
●I believe there was GPAC consensus to remove the Hillside Specific Plan.
●Review the HSP - and identify any relevant sections that have not already been
incorporated into the GP, Zoning Code or Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines and Incorporate those sections into other documents as appropriate
●Suggest: Look for more appropriate locations within the General Plan.
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
3
Page 3-28: 3.7 Community Place Districts
●Clarify: Are the Community Place Districts a form of Area Plans or are they a first step
towards developing Area Plans? Should the Community Place Districts or Area Plans be
included under Special Planning Areas?
●Suggest: Include a location map for the eight districts, and a general definition of
Community Place District under 3.6 Special Planning Areas and move all discussion of
individual Districts to the Community Design Element.
NOTE: Historic Preservation:
● Except for the Downtown Historic Districts the Historic Districts have a GP Designation
of Medium Density, which would increase their density range to 14-24 from the existing
5-12.
●Should the Historic Preservation Districts be identified as areas needing additional
regulation to ensure preservation of their historic character?
Page 3-33: Preserving Our History.
●Currently the discussion of preserving the Town’s history is fragmented between the
Land Use Element, the Community Design Element (where it is further fragmented) and
the Environmental and Sustainability Ellement.
●Suggest:
○On Page 3-26, List the 5 Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP) Overlay
Zones under the first bullet, reference the Historic District Figure (currently Fig
3-11 on Page 3-34,) and move the figure closer to Page 3-26.
○Combine the discussion of Historic Preservation in one area, either in the Land
Use Element or the Community Design Element.
○Note: CD-3.1, CD-3.2, CD-3-3, CD3.6, CD4.1, CD-4.2, CD-8.7, CD-8.3 all either
overlap or are repetitive. Consider a re-organization that is less relative and less
overlapping.
●Also see comments on Page 4-24.
COMMENTS ON LAND USE ELEMENT: From where GPAC left off at the 1/27/2021
Meeting:
Page 3-35, 3.9 General Plan Use and Maintenance
Page 3-37, 3.10 Civil Engagement; Page 3.11, Lifelong Learning and 3.12 Healthy
Community
Page 3-35, 3.9 General Plan Use and Maintenance
General
●Move the discussion of State regulation for amending the General Plan to Chapter 1.
Introduction
●Move section that relate to implementation to Table 3.14 Implementation Programs
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
4
Specific Comments:
●Goal 17 - the Goals and Policies within the Land Use Element and the Community
Design Element should ensure this goal.
●LU-17.1: General Plan Land Use Diagram - Move to Table 3.14 Implementation
Programs
●LU-17.2: General Plan Consistency - How does this ensure General Plan Consistency?
●LU-17.3: Zoning Consistency: Move to Table 3.14 as implementation.
Note: Zoning is not included on the GP Land Use Diagram for HR or LDR.
Note: Zoning Consistency as used here does not include the regulatiojns of the zoning
code being consistent with the text of the General Plan.
●Goal 18 - See Goal 17
●LU-18.1 - Delete in entirety: Replace with: Amendments to the General Plan land use
designation, General Plan Land Use or General Plan Text shall be consistent with the
General Plan Vision, Guiding Principles and relevant goals and policies.
●Ensure consistency between the General Plan, and the regulations and planning
documents that implement the General Plan.
●Ensure internal consistency within implementing documents
●This involves more than updating the Zoning Map to be consistent with the GP Land Use
Diagram or updating the GP Designation and zoning definitions.
COMMENTS ON 4. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Restate thoughts on combining GP and Community Design
General:
●Consider combining Land Use and Community Design Elements
●Keep Goals and Policies general. Relegate details to design guidelines or area plans
●It is not always clear which illustrations are intended to apply generally or to specific
areas - just a few examples.
○CD-2.1 (Building Setback) and CD-2.10 appear in conflict.
○The intent of CD2.4 Multi-story Setbacks and CD2-9 (Roof Design) are clear
when considered individually, but considered together they appear to conflict.
○CD-2.2, CD-2.6, and CD-2.6: These concepts are connected but might take
different forms depending on the architectural style of the building.
●Community Place Districts have been identified as growth areas.
●Should the Historic Districts be identified as areas designed to experience the least
growth? If so does the density/intensity in these areas need to be differentiated from
other Medium Density General Plan Designations?
Page 4-6: Neighborhood Connectivity
I do not see a strong connection between 4.1 Neighborhood Compatibility, CD-1 or the policies
that follow.
●Suggest: Consider deleting 4.1.
●If 4.1 is not deleted then:
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
5
○Delete CD-1.1 It is already addressed in Land Use Element and in
Transportation Element.
○Delete: CD-1.3 How does a gated community add to neighborhood connectivity?
■Modify heading: Avoid Gated Communities.
■Modify policy: Discourage Prohibit the creation of gated communities.
Delete the rest of the sentence. Note: Driveway gates would not be
prohibited.
○Delete CD1.5: This may apply to larger infill projects in Community Place
Districts, but is it consistent with other policies and design guidelines for
established neighborhoods?
Page 4-7: 4.2 Community Form: Page 4-7 to 4-23
●Delete first paragraph of 4.2 introduction
●CD-2: This goal is too broad
●CD-2.1
○Heading - modify: Building Setbacks Increases.
○Policy - Delete and replace: For each foot a building more than 20 feet in height
building setback line will increase one foot (i.e. a 1:1 ration of increased height to
increased setback)
●CD-2.3 Multi-Story Step Back
○Suggest: Move up after CD-2.1
●CD-2.5, Human Scale
○Consider deleting - very broad and very subjective.
Page 4-13 and Page 4-23, Did You Know
●Suggest: Delete - Concept already Included in Goal and Policy
●If not deleted: Seriously condense the text, Include only one photo, and combine iinto
one box.
Page 4-18, Solid Fencing
●CD2-44. Suggest delete: This is not consistent with the updated fence ordinance. See
Zoning Code Sec. 29.40.0315(a)(3).
.
Page 4-22 Figure 4-1 Gateways
●Too many gateway signs.
Page 4-24, Historic Preservation: Comments from the Historic Preservation Committee
●Agree with suggested changes received from the Historic Preservation Committee (see
Attachment 21 to 1/21/2021 GPAC)
●Also see Page 3- 33 for my comments in the Land Use Element
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
6
Page 4-27 4.5 Community Place Districts,
General Comments:
●Opportunity Areas: I still prefer Opportunity Areas rather than Community Place
Districts. Using “Opportunity Areas” might also lessen confusion between “Downtown
District and Downtown Area and Central Business District (See comments under Page
4-30, Downtown District).
●Comments on Figures, Illustrations etc. Refer to the comments regarding Page 4-32
and Page 4-33 in my November 5, 2020 letter to GPAC on the Community Design
Element.
●Order of Districts: What is the basis of the order of the Districts?
○Suggest: Reorganize the Districts in one of the two following ways:
■Organize from south to north: (Downtown District, North Santa Cruz
District, Los Gatos Blvd. District, Lark Ave District); and then west to east
i.e.,( Pollard Road District, Union Ave District and Harwood District.), or
■Organized by least to most potential for growth.
●Focus: Keep the focus of the Community Place Districts on the future.
○Delete the discussions of existing conditions of Districts
○Modify the 2040 Vision for each District to present tense.
●Keep General :Keep the Goals and Policies general. Develop more detailed goals and
policies as part of Area Plans.
Page 4-30, Page 4-34, Page 4-37-38, Page 4-41-42, Page 4-48, Page 4-52, Page 4-56, Page
4-60, Location and existing conditions
●Keep Location Descriptions.
●Delete the description of existing conditions.
●Ambivalent about keeping photos of existing conditions.
Page 4-27 Introduction
●Delete and replace:There are eight Community Place Districts within the Town’s
Planning Area. All are located along the Town’s major transportation corridors. Each
District has the ability to accommodate additional growth given its access to
transportation and utility infrastructure. Because these areas are anticipated to
experience the most growth and change during the timeframe of GP2040 they warrant
specific community design policies to ensure each has a unique character and individual
sense of place.
Page 4-29 CD7
●CD7.2, and 7.4: Clarify whether apply to development in GP Residential Designations
as well as Commercial Designations.
●CD-7.1: District Signage: Suggest moving down before CD-7.5
●CD-7.2: Neighborhood/Pedestrian-Friendly Design. ( add pedestrian)
○Clarify: Does sitting buildings close to the street apply to both residential and
non-residential GP designations within the District, to any development located
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
7
adjacent to a corridor or only to Commercial or mixed use development adjacent
to a major corridor.
●CD-7.4: Wider Sidewalks and CD-7.7: Enhanced Landscaping
○Clarify: Do these apply to all GP designations?
Page 4-30 Downtown District:
●Correct information to correspond to new boundaries of the Downtown District. Delete all
but the last sentence of the first paragraph
Page 4-32 and 4-33, Comments from Mike Labarbera, Terracommercial Real Estate
Corporation, November 3, 2020 and Jim Foley, Pennant Properties, November 4, 2020.
●Both or these letters raise similar concerns regarding the intent of CD 8.3 and CD 8.7.
●Suggest the following to clarify: Delete CD-8 and Policies CD-8.1 to CD-8.10 and
replace with the following:
○CD-8 : Incorporate new development while maintaining a unique sense of place
of the Downtown District..
○CD-8.1 Downtown District Identity: (combines CD-8.1 and CD-8.6) Maintain the
Downtown District as the cultural, social and historic core of Los Gatos.
○CD-8.2 Preservation (Previous CD-8.7 modified)
Preserve, restore, rehabilitate and reuse existing historic buildings (pre-1941 ?.)
●CD-8.3 Mass and Scale (Previous CD-8.3 modified)
Ensure there are no abrupt changes of scale and mass between new
development and historic structures in the Downtown District.
○CD-8.4- Street Environment (combine previous CD-8.8, 8.9 and 8.10)
Elements of the street environment, such as parklets and street furniture and
equipment (including but not limited to lights, street, bus shelters, refuse
receptacles, planters, signs both public and private) shall be designed to be
cohesive, human scale, pedestrian friendly and to reinforce the architectural
history of the Downtown District.
●Suggest: Consider Identifying specific areas within the CBD where a height of 45’ could
be appropriate. (for example where there is a high concentration of buildings built after
1941.,for example along Santa Cruz Ave. south of Main Street. Or the area along Santa
Cruz Ave
Page 4-32: Vision 2040 Downtown District
●Suggest: Delete the first paragraph, it reads like a chamber of commerce commercial.
●Suggest: Condense the vision statement as follows: The Downtown District preserves its
unique architectural character and continue as the social and historic core of Los Gatos.
The Downtown District emphasizes first floor retail, and encourages office and
residential units above the first floor. The Downtown District has a walkability and
pedestrian friendly environment. Widened sidewalks provide space for outdoor dining,
public art, street furniture, information kiosks, updated building and wayfinding signage
all of which enhance visitors' experiences.
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
8
Page 4-39 Figure 4-5 Lark District.
● Varify that the Albright Specific Plan extends as far south as Lark Ave.
Page 4-48 North Santa Cruz District:
●Modify the first sentences: …..adjacent to but not including the Downtown District.
Page 4-50, Vision North Santa Cruz Avenue District
First Sentence: Why extension of Downtown, why not unique characters? Does Downtown
mean Downtown District or Downtown Area?
Third Sentence: Us thus accurate? The Downtown District contains a variety of architectural
styles
Fifth Sentence: What does “true mixed use” mean? As opposed to not “true” mixed use’?
.
January 31, 2021 Comments on the Land Use and Community Design Elements for February 4,
2021 GPAC
To: Chair Melanie Hanssen and GPAC Members
From: Lee Quintana
Re: Comments for February 4, 2021 GPAC
Council Direction:
I recommend the GPAC discuss whether the current draft of the 2040 GP Land Use and
Community Design Elements is consistent with the direction Council gave to GPAC at Town
Council Meeting of November 17, 2020 (Agenda Item ) My summary note of that meeting are
included as Attachment 1
Comments on Key Terms Land Use Element
Acre. (ADD) An acre is a measurement of land area equal to 43,560 square feet.
Acreage, gross. (ADD)
Gross acreage includes all land within the boundaries of a lot; including, but not limited to ,
easements, streets, and rights-of-way).
Acreage, net. (ADD)
Net Acreage is the portion of a site that can be built upon after dedications for rights-of-way for
streets, flood ways,, and public parks and other open space as required to meet the minimum
standards required by Town Code, and after deducting required utility easements and
rights-of-way.
Below Grade Area. (ADD)
Dwelling Units (ADD definitions for)
DwellingUnit
Dwelling Unit - ADU
Dwelling Unit - Group…...
Dwelling Unit - Multi-family…..
Dwelling Unit - Single Family….
Dwelling Unt - Two family….
Note: Given the changes in state laws it may be more accurate to use these terms than
to use Single Family Attached, Single Family Detached, etc.
Community Place District. (Delete and suggested replacement)
A Community Place District is a type of Special Panning Area. There are eight (8) Community
Place Districts within the Town’s Planning Area. (See Land Use Element 3.5 and Community
Design Element 4.5 for more detailed information). These Districts have the greatest potential to
experience change during the timeframe of GP2040. These Districts are label to support
additional development based on close proximity to commercial services and employment
centers, easy access to transportation systems, access to the infrastructure needed to support
additional development.
Density. (Delete and suggested replacement)
Note: GP2020 defines density using net acreage. The 2040GP uses gross acreage.
Why the change? What is the effect of the difference?
Density is calculated by dividing the number of housing units on a site (excluding accessory
dwelling units) by the gross acreage of the site. Density is one way to describe the intensity of
residential development.
Density Range. (ADD) A density range identifies the minimum density required as well as the
maximum density allowed for residential development. When a Land Use Designation
Designation includes more than one compatible Zoning District, the actual density range is
determined by the Zoning Code.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR.) DELETE AND REPLACE)
Floor Area Ratio is a ratio calculated by taking the gross floor area for all buildings on a zoning
parcel and dividing by the area of the parcel. Residential square footage is included in the gross
floor area when developed in conjunction with non-residential use.
Note Is the area gross or net?
Floor Area, Gross. (ADD)
Floor area, grossis he entire enclosed area of all floors that are more than four (4) feet above the
proposed grade,(See Sec. 29.40.075 of zoning ordinance).
Question:
● Does “more than four (4) feet above grade this apply to non-residential
development as well?
●Are garage structures included in gross floor area?
Floor area ratio (FAR) maximum. (ADD)
Non-residential: For non-residential land use designations the maximum FAR standards are
shown in Table 3-2 of the GP2040. However, the actual maximum FAR for each zoning District
is determined by the Zoning Code, and may be less than the maximum shown in Table 3-2.
Note: Currently, for non-residential General Plan Designations, with the exception of the
CBD, FAR only applies to single family and two family (See Sec. 29. .50.060).
Residential: The maximum FAR for Residential Zoning Districts are established in the Zoning
Code.
Question: Why isn’t a maximum Far included in Table 3-2 for residential
designations?residential uses in Table 3-2?
Intensity: Intensity refers to the total amount of development on a site. It is determined by a
combination of factors including, height, lot coverage, building setbacks, amount of open space,
FAR, and the form and mass of structures. Density also plays a role, depending on the size of
the units. Density is also a common way to describe intensity, however how density is depends
not only on the number of units but the size of the units.
Note: This language still needs work.
ATTACHMENT 1 - My notes
November 17, 2020 Council Meeting
My summary of Town Council direction to GPAC.
●The General Plan should be forward looking,
●There will be change, but keep change to a minimum.
●Keep change to the minimum necessary to meet RHNA)
●Interested in the concept of missing middle housing but question if it should be applied
evenly over the entire LRD designation - generally ok if within easy walk of commercial
or designated OP or “community design districts” and how it will be regulated.
●Concerned about where OA will be counted as designated RHNA areas, because if not
redeveloped within the RHNA cycle it may not be reused in future?
●Concern whether 4-plex examples on combined lots would be compatible with LDR
neighborhoods.
From Staff report:
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 goals, policies, and
implementation measures, as well as to the descriptive and introductory language of the
document.
Questions put to Council in TC Meeting November 17, 2020 and my summary notes of
responses by Council Members.
Do the attachments adequately explain the transition of the selected Alternative
into the Land Use Designations and their development parameters? If not, what
additional information would be useful.
●Jensen: Adamantly no. Don’t see how the preferred Land Use Alternative is
directly translated into the General Plan charts or statements. Need explanation.
If they need explanation they are of no help.
Does the Council Support Missing Middle housing in low density residential? Yes
with conditions.
●Jensen: Yes. But income does not result in production type, but production type
does affect price. GP policy - create opportunity to allow Missing Middle to
happen. Need to accept that will result in change.
●Reni: Yes
●Barbara: ?
●Sayoc: Potential along Los Gatos Blvd (?)
How much change should the GPAC make in the update of the General Plan?
●Spector: GP should be forward looking; meet RHNA numbers in the OA as much
as possible, remove Los Gatos Blvd. Plan. Support OA but not into LDR unless
needed to meet RHNA, would not go above three stories, Would not modify CBD,
unless needed to meet RHNA.
●Reni: Forward looking.
●Sayac: Forward looking, remove Los Gatos Blvd Plan,
●Jensen: Forward looking, not obsolete (one example Los Gatos Blvd Plan), get
increased units in ways that make sense even though it may require some
changes, eliminate all things obsolete. Acknowledge that things may “a bit” ?
●Forward looking = meeting RHNA numbers ??
Additional thoughts and comments by TC:
Reni:
●How can it be ensured that increased density will not result in increased mass changing
the character of LRD? Especially in by-right development.
●Joel responded: Through future zoning code changes - may need to modify FAR, height,
or setbacks down the road.
●Identifying areas to maintain, evolve and transform is a good idea but would be difficult
and subjective.1
●Increase density in LRD outside (adjacent) OA- expand OA to include more LRD and
leave the rest of the area outside OA at current density - would still have the opportunity
to have primary structure plus up to 2 ADU’s.
●Clarified not opposed to missing middle housing.
Spector: Agrees with the concept that increased density of LDR should occur within easy
walking distance of commercial areas. Expand OA into those areas.
Sayoc, Spector and Reni: Expressed concerns about how to achieve RHNA numbers for low
and extremely low and concern that identified housing sites cannot be reused in the next RHNA
1
cycle. Staff clarified that to be considered as a RHNA site by state requires densities higher
than 20/acre. Staff clarified that OA are not housing sites
●GP should be forward looking, policies that are obsolete should be removed
(example given was Los Gatos Blvd. Plan) and new ones added
Consensus votes taken on two items:
●The 2040 General Plan should be forward looking as Los Gatos implements
policies and actions to reduce VMT and facilitates housing production for all
income levels in the right places. In other words, the Council is not expectating
the 2040 to be the same as the 2020 General Plan.
●Policies and items that are obsolete should be removed (example Los Gatos Blvd
Plan)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank