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: 02/04/2021
ITEM: 1
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: January 29, 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:
The General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) began the review and discussion of the
initial drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements at their November 5, 2020
meeting, and continued the item for further discussion. The Town Council held an initial
discussion of the Land Use and Community Design Elements at their November 17, 2020
meeting, which was followed by a working session with the GPAC on November 19, 2020.
Based on the feedback received at these meetings, updated versions of the initial drafts of the
Land Use and Community Design Elements were provided to the GPAC for the January 7, 2021,
meeting. These revised Elements only contain a few changes to the policies contained in the
initial drafts, and do not yet implement most of the written comments received, as the GPAC
has not conducted their detailed review of the policies. The detailed review of the Land Use
Element began on January 7, 2021, and continued on January 21, 2021. The matter was
continued for further discussion to February 4, 2021.
In the meeting of February 4, 2021, the GPAC is expected to complete the review of the Land
Use Element and start the review of the Community Design Element. In prepar ing this Initial
Draft of the Community Design Element, the consultant’s intent was to provide an expansive
array of community design options for GPAC consideration , with the thought that the GPAC will
determine which goals, policies, and implementation programs will serve the community well,
and provide direction on what should not be included in the Element. This method provides an
array or “menu” of options and allows the GPAC flexibility when considering which urban
design policies, principles, and architectural guidance are best suited for the Town. The
concepts represented in the Community Design Element are a first step in creating a
comprehensive set of objective standards that will pave the way for future obj ective design and
development standards that will be incorporated into the zoning code and design guidelines.
PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
January 29, 2021
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2021\02-04-21\Item 1 - Staff Report.docx
REMARKS (continued):
In response to a request from a Committee Member during the January 21, 2021 meeting, an
updated table of comments has been provided as Attachment 23. Attachment 24 contains
comments from a Committee Member. Additional comments, whether from Committee
Members or the public, that are received by 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 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.
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 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
PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
January 29, 2021
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2021\02-04-21\Item 1 - Staff Report.docx
ATTACHMENTS (continued):
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
Attachment received with this Staff Report:
23. Updated Comment Response Summary Table – Community Design Element
24. Committee Member Comments
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 1 of 20
Community Design Element
The following are comments received by the GPAC and corresponding changes in the Revised Public
Review Draft Element.
*NO REVISIONS MADE PER PENDING REVIEW FROM GPAC. BASED ON GPAC DIRECTION ON THE LAND
USE ELEMENT, ALL POLICIES THAT INCLUDE THE LOS GATOS BOULEVARD PLAN AND REFERENCES TO
AUTP DEALERSHIPS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.*
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 11/5 Meeting
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.
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.
ATTACHMENT 23
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 2 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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?
Yes this would including screening equipment,
regardless if it is located on ground level or on the
roof.
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.
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,
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 3 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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”.
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
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 4 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
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 intros, 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
section has no goal or policies, 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 District: Revise as a present tense
statement, like Downtown District revision.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 5 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
LGB District: 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.
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 paragraph (p. 4-
54) are reflected in policies.
Pollard goal/policies could be similar for Harwood
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 6 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Union Ave same comments as Harwood.
Winchester Blvd Element
Reads more like a proper vision, but needs to be
present tense.
Delete “Unlike all other Districts in LG”, Now start
that sentence with The Winchester
Delete 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.
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”
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 7 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
●General Plan needs to reflect the reality of
recent legislation, with the caveat that the
Land Use Categories need to be more specific and
the Zoning Code (and Town Code)
needs to be amended concurrently with, or
immediately after, to reflect the different
standards to reflect the differences in allowed
development.
●Statements referring to “small town character”
or “maintaining small town character”
should be removed for many reasons. One being
that the terms are ambiguous and
misleading. The reality of “small town character”
forty years ago, when I move here, is
very different from the “town character” that I
see today.
●Part of the discussion of the Community Design
Element with respect to the Community Place
District is repetitive of information in the Land
Use Element, and is information more
appropriate in guidelines.
I prefer “Opportunity Areas” or “Opportunity
Districts” to “Community Place Districts”
because those titles come closer to conveying
that these are the areas in Town are likely to
change over the next twenty years and have the
greatest opportunity for accommodating
redevelopment (re: intensification) with less
impact to the Town as a whole than other areas
within the Town. I would prefer each of the
“Community Place Areas” to either have
individual General Plan Designations be identified
as individual overlay areas with more detailed
descriptions of how each will be unique from the
others and how each will create the “missing
middle housing” mentioned in the Land Use
Element.
Lastly, going back to the Land Use Element and
missing middle housing. The Land Use Element
needs to incorporate a better definition of what
missing middle housing means and how it can be
integrated into Los Gatos.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 8 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
General Comments
Decrease size of illustrations and photos and
number and label them and make sure the colors
in the legends match the colors in the maps.
CD-1: Too many ideas combined in this Goal
CD-1.3: Discourage Prohibit gated communities.
Gated communities are the opposite of
“interconnected communities”.
CD 1.4: If this is required for all “neighborhoods”
there will be no change, as projected by the Land
Use Diagram and Land Use Element.
CD 1.5 Memorable Places
CD-2.1: Require building setbacks from the
property line to increase in a 1:1 ratio as mass
and height increases above 20 feet.
Comment: Not clear what this means. For height I
assume it means that for each foot in height
above 20’ the building setback line is increased
by one foot. How does the 1:1 ratio work for
mass. This policy appears to set objective
standards but its meaning needs clarification.
CD-2.3: and CD-2.4: Both these individual policies
are clear given the illustrations provided.
However they are not consistent with each other.
CD-2.4: Intent is good but needs to have
objective standards.
Page 4-9
Require all new and remodeled structures
emphasize 360 Architecture by continuing
consistent architectural design and application of
the structure on all sides of the viewing angles
while acknowledging that different programmatic
and design considerations for private sides.
Comment: It is not clear what “and application of
the structure” means. The exception for
programmatic design is too broad - every design
can be claimed to be programmatic. I assume
“private sides” private use areas that are not
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 9 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
visible, but a break in the architectural style may
be visible from a street or adjacent back yard.
CD-2.9: Roof Design: Again the diagram
illustrates the policy well, but appears to be
inconsistent with CD-2.4.
Page 4-14
The illustration does not achieve CD-2.6 Nor does
the figure meet CD-2-27 transitions.
Page 4-17
40 sq feet? Is 40 sq feet even big enough for a
small table and a bar-b-que?
Is this in conflict with the zoning code?
CD-2.48: Landscape Buffering: delete lower
noise. Landscaping does not provide a noticeable
reduction in noise if there is less than 100 feet of
dense vegetation.
CD-2.50: Who provides median landscaping? The Town would be responsible for median
landscaping.
CD-2.52: Should there be a minimum percent for
native plants vs drought tolerant plants? Define,
local native plants. There are a relatively limited
number of native plants native to Santa Clara
County. Suggest: ...local native plants and/or
drought resistant plants. Drought resistant
California native plants and other drought
resistant plants.
Comment: This could also be changed to require
a specific percent of California native drought
resistant plants, with the rest being either
California natives or other drought resistant
plants..
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.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 10 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
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.
CD-4.3: Do we need to say that we are going to
provide information?
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
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 11 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
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
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 12 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
General:
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 13 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
CD-1
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 14 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Overall observation – Los Gatos already has
Residential Design Guidelines (which
should be updated). I wonder how this adds
anything, 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.
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?
CD-2.16: The Town actually has a list of approved
street trees – why not reference
here? (same comment CD-2.20)
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 stricken
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.
CD-2.63: How many “gateway” signs and art are
we going to have? Is each supposed
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 15 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
to emphasize some feature or another? This
seems excessive.
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?
CD-4.5: Last line in introductory paragraph should
be “as well as…” not and well as…”
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….
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 16 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-8.2: Why not allow innovation???
CD-8.3: If we are truly encouraging change, why
are we insisting on “compatibility” and
“consistency?”
CD-8.6: Absolutely disagree! Nothing should be
“prohibited.” Often, modern architecture
is the best means to enhance and set off the
historic?
CD-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.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 17 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
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.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 18 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Include the following policy in CD from the PFS
Element.
PFS-14.5 Intergenerational Spaces
Encourage new development to include
intergenerational spaces, such as cafés or family-
oriented outdoor spaces. [Source: Existing Policy
HS-8.5]
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 1/7/2021 Meeting
Connectivity is essential to enhancing a sense of
community. The Land Use Element (page 3-9)
references connectivity in terms of proximity of
services and the Community Character Element
(page4-6) reference the importance of
connectivity in the form of several policies
dealing with building proportions, multi-modal
connections etc.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 19 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
I think we need to discuss connectivity in terms of
building orientation (face the public street) avoid
windows that obscure the inside of the building
(so-called Darth Vader buildings) and create
visible entries/doors so people know where to
enter the building. Also building designers should
avoid windowless walls that face public streets.
There is a policy that limits blank walls to no
more than 50% of the wall expanse. Allowing
50% of a wall expanse to be blank is too much.
The ground floor of commercial buildings facing
public streets need to be activated.
Both elements need stronger policies relating to
building orientation, blank walls, visible entries.
Page 4-33, CD-8.6. I remain opposed to this
statement. The Apple store looks fine
downtown, and it’s modern. There are other
modern buildings on N. Santa Cruz that help the
older properties stand out.
Submitted HPC Comments prior to 1/21/2021 Meeting
CD-2.24 Outdoor Dining
This Policy may appear to conflict with the
current program for semi-permanent parklets in
the public right-of-way. (page 4-14)
CD-3.1 Avoid Demolition of Historic Buildings
The policy should be revised to replace
“substantial evidence” with “required findings.”
(page 4-24)
CD-3.2 Reuse of Existing Buildings
Consider moving this Policy under Goal CD-4 to
support and encourage thoughtful rehabilitation
or reuse of historic structures. (page 4-24)
CD-3.3 Historic Structure Preservation
Include noncontributors in the list of buildings
that the Town will use special care in reviewing.
(page 4-24)
CD-3.4 Historic Preservation Programs
Revise the Policy to state the following: Continue
the Town’s careful and proactive historic
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
January 2021
Page 20 of 20
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
preservation programs “recognizing the changing
needs of the community.” (page 4-24)
CD-3.7 Potential Impacts to Historic Landmarks
and Features Replace the term “consider” with
the term “identify” and consider combining this
Policy with Policy CD-3.8 Historic Site Impact
Mitigation. (page 4-25)
CD-3.9 Historic Structure Use or Donation
Consider moving this Policy under Goal CD-4
Support and encourage thoughtful rehabilitation
or reuse of historic structures. (page 4-25)
CD-4.2 Historic Structure Renovations
Revise the Policy to state the following: Require
“exterior” renovations or remodels of historic
structures to be architecturally “compatible” with
the original structure. (page 4-25)
CD-4.4 Financial Benefit Information
Revise the Policy to remove the phrase “and the
vibrant historic downtown” because vibrancy is
not a financial benefit. (page 4-25)
CD-8.6 Historic Architectural “Downtown” Core
Include “Downtown” in the title and revise the
Policy language to state the following: Reinforce
the historic architectural “downtown” core of Los
Gatos by “encouraging compatible” architecture
Downtown. (page 4-33)
1
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Memo
To:Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the General Plan Advisory Committee
From:Lee Quintana
Date:January 26, 2021
Re:Comments regarding Figures (maps) Illustrations, Photos
and Tables
____________________________________________________________________________
ALL ELEMENTS Figures, Illustrations, Photos and Tables
●Differentiate Illustrations, figures (maps), tables, and photos; provide titles and numberI
●Keep Present visual information accurately and neutrality, including “illustrative”
examples. Whether intentional or not how written information and data are visually
presented influences how they are interpreted. For example: The scale of a map, the
information (or left out) the organization and presentation of both the map and legend
can influence how the information presented is interpreted.
COMMENTS 3 LAND USE ELEMENT (Figures, Illustrations, Photo and Tables)
Page 3-2, Figure 3-1; Page 3-3, Figure 3-2; and Page 3-28, Figure 3-7
●Fig. 3-1 and 3.2: Apply the same scale for all the areas shown as acre.
●Fig.3-7: Apply the same scale for all parcels shown
●Changing scale between rows in these illustrations distorts the perception of
intensity/density.
Page 3-5: Figure 3-4: Land Use Diagram: Suggestions:
●Title: Modify the title: General Plan Land Use Diagram (or General Plan Land Use
Diagram Map).
●Scale, Font size and Organization: (decrease visual clutter)
○Scale: Use the same scale as used for Figure 3-1 of the Land Use Alternatives
Report. The information is easier to read at that scale.
○Font size: Increase the font size of the diagram and legend titles, so they are
clearly distinguished from the rest of the figure; even if it requires moving the title
within the frame of the figure. See Land Use Alternatives Report (Figure 3-1,
Page 11). This draws attention to map and legend titles
○Organization: Divide land uses designations into general use and color groups
(See Figure 2-1, Page L-1 of GP200
ATTACHMENT 24
Memo from Lee Quintana to GPAC Jan, 26, 2021
2
○NOTE: The format of Figure 2 GP2000 was intended to be incorporated into
subsequent updates of the large General Plan maps located in the Planning
Department and the Council Chambers, however that did not happen.
Page 3-7, Figure 3-5: Missing Middle Concept Illustrated: Modify
●The “Fourplex” does not represent “residential” scale
●The “Townhouse/rowhouse” is ambiguous, it could also fit the definition of an attached
duplex. Three or four townhouses/rowhouses could also fit the definition of attached
triples or fourplex.
●Suggestion: Find a better example.
●NOTE: The illustration on Page 4-14 is a better example of transition in scale
Page 3-8, Figure 3-7
●See comments on Page 3-2 above and additional comments below.
●A and F: Both could be interpreted as either a duplex/detached or as ADU’s
●Add an example of “housing adaptation”
Page 3-13: Commercial Designations, CBD:
●The description for the CBD does not clearly define and distinguish between the
following:
○CBD General Plan Land Use Designation,
○Downtown Area
○ Downtown Community Place District.
● Suggest the following language that distinguishes between these three terms: The
purpose of the CBD designation is to encourage a mixture of community-oriented goods
and services. There is only one area in Town with the Central Business District
designation ( as shown in Figure 3-4, Page 3-5). The CBD is located within the larger
Downtown Area (as shown in Figure 3-8 Page 3-22). The CBD and the Downtown
Community Change District (as shown in Figure 4-1, Page 4-31) share the same
boundaries.
●NOTE: Please check: I think elsewhere in the GP the CBD is described as either
attracting visitors or as regional - the description should be consistent throughout.
Page 3-22,, Downtown Area Map Figure 3-8 Modify
●Suggest: For consistency use the same color to define the CBD in the Downtown Area
Map as used for CBD in the Land Use Diagram (Page 3-5)
Page 3-24, Figure 3-9 Specific Plan Locations and Page 4-39, Figure 4-5 Lark Avenue
District.
●Please verify the location of the Albright Specific Plan. I do not think it extends as far
south to the corner of Winchester and Lark. I think the area south of the Specific Plan
has a Light Industrial Designation.
Page 3-28 - Page 3-33, 3.7 Community Place District Figures
24
Memo from Lee Quintana to GPAC Jan, 26, 2021
3
●Suggest: Keep the text on page 3-28 and Page 3-31. Figure 3-10 (Community Place
Districts)
●Suggest: Either delete the text and photos on page 3-31 and 3-32 or integrate them into
Community Place Districts in the Community Design Element (starting on Page 4-27).
●Suggest:Correct the description and map for the Downtown District.
Page 3-34, Figure 3-11, Historic Districts
●Suggest: Use a different color to outline the University-Edelen District; it is too close to
the color used for the Planning Area boundary.
●Suggest: Add the underlying General Plan Designations.
COMMENTS 3 COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT (Figures, Illustrations, Photos & Tables)
General - various pages
●Number and label all illustrations, diagrams and photos.
●Reduce the size of illustrations (smaller but still easily readable)
All Community Place Districts Figures in the Community Element :
●Figures 4.1,Downtown District; 4-5, Lark Avenue District; 4-6, Los Gatos Boulevard
District; 4-7, North Santa Cruz Avenue District; and 4-10 Winchester Boulevard District)
outline more than one district,
○Suggest: Outline only one district in each figure
●The colors used for land use outside a District’s boundaries are not consistent with their
legends. This may result from trying to focus on the Community Place District.
●Two suggestions, depending on the intent of these Figures.
○Suggest: If the intent is to delineate a District’s location and highlight the General
Plan land uses within the District, then use a neutral background for areas
outside a District,
○Suggest: If the intent is to show the District's location as well as the relationship
of land uses in a District with the land uses in the surrounding area, then apply
the land use colors from the legend across the entire figure.
○Suggest: To reduce “visual clutter” only include the GP Land Use Designations
located within the District in the legend.
Page 4-28, Figure 4-2 Community Place Districts and Page 3-30, Figure 3-10
Both Figure 3-10 and Figure 4-2 show the distribution of the Community Place Districts ,
however the scale of Figure 4-2 makes it difficult to distinguish individual uses.
●Suggest:Keep only one of the figures and reference to it when appropriate.
●Suggest: If Figure 4-2 is kept:
○Delete land use details
○Label the Town’s major street and corridors
○Add District names
Page 4-31,
34
Memo from Lee Quintana to GPAC Jan, 26, 2021
4
●Suggest: Add “Downtown District and Figure 4-1)
Page 4-60, Winchester Boulevard District.
●I think the street system shown within the Albright Specific Plan area was vacated as
part of the Specific Plan approval..
44