Item 1 - Desk Item 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: 4/15/2021
ITEM: 1
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: April 15, 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:
As requested in the staff report, Committee Members submitted their preferences for whether
to use an alternative term to replace “Community Place Districts.” Staff received three votes to
use “Community Place Districts,” one vote of no preference , one vote for “Urban Form
Districts,” and two Committee Members with suggestions for other terms: “Community Growth
Zones,” “Community Growth Districts,” “Community Growth Nodes,” or “Live Work Play
Community Areas.”
Attachment 8 contains comments from Committee Members.
Attachment 9 contains public comment received after the completion of the Addendum Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the April 15, 2021 Staff Report:
1. Revised Initial Draft of Land Use Element
2. Comment Response Summary Table – Land Use
3. Revised Initial Draft of Community Design Element
4. Comment Response Summary Table – Community Design
5. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the April 15, 2021 Addendum Report:
6. Committee Member Comments
7. Public Comment
PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
April 15, 2021
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2021\04-15-21\Item 1 - Desk Item.docx
Attachments received with this Desk Item:
8. Committee Member Comments
9. Public Comment
ATTACHMENT 8
From: Ryan Rosenberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:02 PM
To: Alexa Nolder
Cc: Melanie Hanssen
Subject: Comment on Land Use Element
Alexa,
I have a comment on the Land Use Element.
LU-9 (page 3-21) reads:
Enhance Downtown Los Gatos as the historic center of the Town, with goods and services
for residents, while maintaining the existing Town identity, environment, and commercial
viability.
A key part of this goal is “Maintaining the existing Town identity”.
But the policies for LU-9 don’t mention anything about maintaining the town identity; none of
the policies support that part of the goal.
I propose we add a policy:
LU-9.4 Maintain the existing town identity
Ensure that any new downtown development compliments the existing identity, from
both a historical and a design perspective.
All the best,
Ryan
Memo
To: General Plan Update Advisory Committee 2040
Fr: Carol Elias Zolla
Corrections/Comments to the Land Use Element and Community Design Element
Land Use Element
Page 3-27, First paragraph. There should be a colon, not a comma between “code” and
“Affordable”.
Page 3-33, LU-16.2 The header should say “Mixed-Use” not “Mixed-se”.
Page 3-36, I suggest you swap LU-20.7 with LU-20.8 for continuity.
Page 3-37, Your use of the Oxford comma is inconsistent. In 3.10 first paragraph, there should
be a comma between “development projects” and “and”.
Community Design Element
Page 4-1, First paragraph, second sentence should not have a comma after the wo rd “but”.
Page 4-5, First paragraph, second sentence: should be “consistent patterns” not “pattern”.
Second paragraph, first sentence: after “style” should be “and such design has become
synonymous…”
Page 4-6, CD-1. There should not be a comma between “diverse” and “and”.
Page 4-9, CD-2.9. Sentence should read: “Require new developments to create multi -modal
streetscapes that are walkable, pedestrian-oriented, bike-friendly, incorporate transit, and are
human scaled.” (3 changes “developments”, removal of a “that”, and removal of a “which”)
Page 4-11, CD-2.19 and CD-2.2 (Page 4-7) appear to be the same.
Page 4-13, CD-2.29. There should not be a comma between “feasible” and “that”.
Page 4-15, CD-2.41. Take out “importance of the”.
Page 4-16, “Did you know”, third sentence. Take out “community history”. Question: how
could the community history be displayed in a freeway overpass?
Page 4-17, Section 4.3, first paragraph, last sentence: Take out comma between “Ordinance”
and “include”.
CD-3.1, change to “Avoid demolishing historic buildings unless the Historic Preservation
Committee determines, based on required findings, that there is no feasible means to ensure
the preservation of the structure.” (removes a comma and changes “finds” to “determines” to
avoid redundancies)
Page 4-20, CD-6.1. This sentence is awkward. What type of “hazards” are you talking about?
Page 4-21, CD-6.5. Remove “any permitted lighting”.
Page 4-26, CD-8.4. Add a comma between “friendly” and “and”.
Page 4-29, Vision 2040, last sentence. Take out the word “but”.
CD-9, change to “Emphasize housing opportunities and redevelopment through multiple
methods, such as encouraging higher density mixed-use housing with a diverse range of
neighborhood commercial uses, complemented by extensive street activation and gathering
opportunities.”
Page 4-30, CD-9.8 and CD-9.10 appear redundant.
Page 4-31, the label on Figure 4-15 should read “Corner Fronting Entrances”
General Plan Update Edits, Maria Ristow
3. Land Use Elements
p. 3-1, First paragraph
Los Gatos is a mature, predominantly built-out community, but changes are expected over the planning
period to reflect changing evolving community needs, especially the development of housing to meet all
income needs. As California continues to experience a housing crisis and overall shortage, the State has
introduced new legislation that requires communities to plan for increased housing including the Town’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The emphasis on expanded housing opportunities required
mandated by the State is requiring the Town to reevaluate and plan for a more diverse housing mix for a
changing population. Managing the anticipated land use changes and ensuring growth is sustainable
over the next 20 years is a priority of this General Plan and the community.
p. 3-5, Table 3-1
This table is meaningless to me without listing the total number of units existing in all of Town as of a
specific year, like 2020. What does the first entry, Residential (units), Existing Buildout (2018) of 1,872
mean? Looking at the table it appears we have a population of 30,250 people living in 1,872 units. Is this
an error?
p. 3-8 A Plan for Neighborhood Connectivity
Recent community design in California has been heavily influenced by the automobile. Instead of looking
at providing easy access to goods and services near our homes, we have focused on moving in the larger
region as our priority, where travel over significant distances in a short period of time was the primary
design factor. This has led to an increased use of land for transportation systems and parking, the
isolation of neighborhoods by placement of wide arterial streets, and the concentration of essential
services and shopping in a more distant, regional context. This differs significantly from the earlier
designs of communities that focused on a more complete neighborhood with easy access and close
proximity to goods and services. [Source: New Text]
This concept, first formulated by Carlos Moreno of Pantheon Sorbonne University in Paris, was designed
to look at creating a “15-minute city,” although in the United States, this has also been framed using a
20-minute distance. In either case, this design has three defining features to ensure most needs can be
met with a short walk or bicycle ride from home: [Source: New Text]
▪ Proximity. Uses must be in close proximity to each other.
▪ Diversity. Land uses need to provide a mix of residential and commercial services.
▪ Density. Success requires a density of residential uses to support the commercial services. As part of
the Town’s future, the 2040 General Plan will shift focus to reestablishing more complete
neighborhood areas that meet the daily needs of residents to be located within a one-mile distance.
Somehow active transportation needs to be spelled out. We’re not talking about a 20-minute city by car,
so that needs to be clarified.
From: Ryan Rosenberg
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 10:01 AM
To: Alexa Nolder ; Jennifer Armer
Cc: Melanie Hanssen
Subject: Additional (and final) comments on Land Use Element and Community Design Element
Alexa and Jennifer,
I had only a couple of additional comments. Overall I thought the Land Use Element and Community
Design Elements looked good.
Ryan
Land Use Element
3.1 General Plan Buildout
Page 3-5
There is an extra space in the second sentence after the words “General Plan”
I don’t know what the term RHNA means. Can you define it here or in the key terms.
Also what does the term “buildout” mean? Does it mean the number of new units being built? Maybe
you can say that.
I found the table confusing. What is the date of the Total Buildout column? If it means at the end of the
general plan period then let's make it say “Total Buildout (2040)”?
be clearer.
Also why are there blank spaces next to residential (acres) for Existing Building (2018) and Development
difference?
LU-16.2
Page 3-33
I don’t know what “Mixed-se” means in the title “Mixed-se Design Requirements”. Is that an error?
There is an extra space in the first sentence after the words “Community Place Districts”.
There is another extra space before the words “Provide public ground floor spaces…"
Community Design Element
Implementation Programs
Page 5-40
Implementation Program “I” has dots for both 2026-2040 and Ongoing. I assume it should just have a
dot for Ongoing.
Melanie Hanssen
Comments on Revised drafts of Land Use and Community Design Elements
April 2021
General Comments
- Overall, it is clear what our intent is and how we plan to get there. Great job staff and
consultants to get those substantive revisions incorporated!
- Still concerned whether or not our mixed-use objective standards are appropriate to
encourage mixed use development
- Also wanted to verify that there is going to be an implementation program to look at
not just GP land use standards but all of the things we need to do to
encourage/facilitate mixed use as that is critical to growth in residential
COMMENTS on LAND USE ELEMENT
Introduction
Like the way this reads overall, but the sentence “The emphasis on expanded housing
opportunities required by the state is requiring the Town to reevaluate and plan for a more
diverse housing mix for a changing population.” This still reads a bit like we are being dragged
into this. Would like to rephrase the second part of this sentence and state the Town’s actions
as an opportunity that we recognize that will allow for a more diverse population to live here
and for aging seniors that want to stay in place.
In the second paragraph, consider changing the word “philosophy” to “direction”.
Key Terms
Community Place Districts
Suggest adding “to provide needed housing for an expanding and diverse population” to the
end of this definition.
3.1 General Plan Buildout
In table 3.1, having trouble reconciling “Development Difference” with our RHNA (almost 2000
units by 2030) or Preferred Land Use Alternative (approx. 2300 units). Think we need to explain
this more clearly. The footnotes are somewhat helpful but maybe add some text explaining.
3.2 Implementing Missing Middle Housing
Overall, this is great. On Page 3-7, the drawing is a bit confusing for A Duplex. Looks like two
individual single-family homes with a detached garage, not a duplex, but maybe I am missing
something.
3.3 A Plan for Neighborhood Connectivity
In the introduction page 3-8, suggest adding “of their residences” to the last sentence “meet
the daily needs of residents to be located within a one-mile distance…”of their residences”. It
seems like the sentence wasn’t complete.
Page 3-9
LU-2.1 suggest changing “within a 20-minute walk or bike ride” to “one mile” for consistency.
As discussed in a GPAC meeting previously a 20-minute bike ride could be several miles away.
3.5 Community Development
LU-4.1 page 3-17
Not sure what “functionally compatible” means and also compatible is spelled wrong.
Residential Designations
LU-5 and policies
This section on Residential seems a bit too much like “preserve and protect”. The goal does
mention “required housing needs” and “expanding housing opportunities” but the po licies
seem to be more focused on maintain/protect/enhance. It does not seem consistent with other
parts of Land Use and Community Design in terms of growth. We should say our intent and be
transparent.
This could be fixed by modifying LU-5.1 to talk more about growth, smaller units and shift away
from predominantly single-family housing. However, the current Lu-5.1 is still saying
“maintaining”. Perhaps even better, add a policy saying that it is our intent to do just that —
significantly increase housing opportunities for a more diverse population by focusing on
smaller units and shifting the balance from predominantly single-family homes to a broader mix
of housing types.
LU-5.4—generally Ok, but what are we worried about? Signage, traffic, what? Isn’t it more
sustainable to have home-based businesses?
LU-5.8—this seems too focused on maintain and protect and perhaps is redundant with LU-5.1
but maybe I am missing something. 5.1 is about infill and 5.8 is about all new construction
including remodels and additions. What are we trying to encourage/discourage?
LU-6 Hillsides
Suggest adding a policy here to be consistent with Community Design which says something like
“limit new housing in the hillsides to that which can be safely accommodated due to fi re risk”.
LU-7 Mixed Use
Goal—suggest changing “mix” to “variety”
LU-8 Commercial
Question—since our population is growing by about 25% over the planning period, should we
consider adding a policy to encourage addition of additional neighborhood serving commercial
business to support our expanding population?
LU-9 Downtown
Have we resolved that we can rename Central Business District to Downtown?
If so, modify LU-9.1 and LU-9.2
Also, there may be some inconsistencies with the growth that is being encouraged in
Community Design as this is a Community Place District. LU-9.3 does talk about increasing
residential opportunities so perhaps that is enough but it should be consistent.
LU-11 Employment Centers
This doesn’t read like our intent in the Community Design. Simply reordering the policies would
help a lot.
11.1 (formerly 11.3)—Support conversion of warehouses
11.2 (formerly 11.4)—Employee services
11.3 (formerly 11.5)—Incubator spaces
11.4 (formerly 11.2)—Protect industrially designated sites
11.5 (formerly 11.1)—Industrial compatitibility
LU-12 Public and Open Space
Question—do we need a land use policy on Open Space or is it adequately covered in Ch. 6?
Obviously, the policy would be preserve Open Space.
LU-12.1 Suggest adding the word “to” to the end of the sentence. Maybe it is grammatically
correct the way it is, but it seemed a bit off.
LU-13 Specific Plans
Add the word “of” to the goal.
This goal would benefit from a policy to be added that talks about creating specific plans to help
guide development tailored to individual parcels or areas. The alternative being that we rely on
the general land use standards, zoning and guidelines. We ma y wish to have specific plans for
the most important Community Place districts. We don’t have to commit to that, but adding a
policy encouraging specific plans when they can help seems like a good idea.
Overlay Zones
AHOZ—I know we suggested adding this, but it seems to be missing some explanation as to
why we only have one AHOZ. Suggest adding some explanation here.
3.7 Community Place Districts
LU-16
Typo in LU-16.2 title
LU-16.3---Suggest changing the title to “Vertical Mixed Use”.
3.8 General Plan Use and Maintenance
LU-19.3—Since growth is the number one issue in the Housing Element update, suggest
modifying this policy to reflect that.
3.9 Civic Engagement
LU-20.8—Suggest changing the title of this to Special Committees which is what it is about.
LU-20.11—Suggest changing the title of this to “Conditions of Approval”.
3.11 Implementation Programs
See introductory comment about Mixed Use—this is going to require some effort to make it
happen, not just changing zoning codes or land use standards. Suggest adding implementation
program around this.
COMMENTS ON COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
4.2 Community Form
Suggest modifying the intro second paragraph to say “The following goals and policies build
upon and “work together” with the Town’s existing design guidelines and will drive….
Streetscape
CD-2.11 This policy talks about enhanced walking and biking but the examples are more about
biking. Perhaps split this into two policies or add examples like mid-block crossings and wider
sidewalks?
Street Activation
CD-2.17—Can we require that building facades and entrances directly face the street frontage?
Private Open Space
CD-2.25—Can we require vs. encourage patios or balconies?
Site Development
CD-2.27—Think this policy can be flagged as SUS
Lighting
CD-2.31 --perhaps add why to this “for safety and community”
Potential additional section on Sustainable Design
Since the goal for 4.2 talks about sustainability, do we need to have a few general policies
encouraging sustainable building design (of course to be detailed as is done today in the zoning
code)?
Some suggestions were provided as an attachment to the agenda.
Does the committee think this would be beneficial or is it covered adequately in other sections?
4.4 Hillside Development
CD-6.1—this could be flagged as SUS as it is a principle of sustainable building design/site
development.
4.5 Community Place Districts
CD-9.2—Essentially road diet—does the committee think this is the right direction for Los Gatos
Boulevard?
Page 4-31—Not sure that the label for Figure 4-15 is consistent with policy CD-9.11
Page 4-43—Should we add missing middle housing to the Harwood Road District vision? It is
mentioned in the other neighborhood districts.
4.6 Implementation Programs
Same comment as in Land Use except there is Program A Multi-family Objective Design
Standards and it references mixed use.
Still, there is more to making mixed use happen than just changing the standards. Suggest a
dedicated implementation program either in Community Design or Land Use to identify the
ways to encourage mixed use redevelopment.
April 15, 2021
Los Gatos General Plan Advisory Commission
110 E Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Public Comment Item #1
Dear Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the General Plan Advisory Committee:
My name is Giulianna Pendleton, a life-long resident of Los Gatos and recent graduate of
Gonzaga University (Environmental Studies and Political Science). I am appreciative of how
supportive and open to ideas the GPAC has been throughout this process. I read the materials for
the April 15th GPAC meeting item #1, Review and Discussion of the Land Use and Community
Design Elements and have some concerns and suggestions.
Page 20:
LU-5.2 Neighborhood Characteristics
Promote livability, enjoyment, and safety for all residents through quality neighborhoods.
Characteristics of quality neighborhoods vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but include
several of the following characteristics: ▪ A mix of housing types, styles, density, and
affordability; ▪ Design and circulation features that create and maintain a pedestrian scale; ▪ add
green street networks1; ▪ Location within one mile of services and facilities including schools,
parks, retail (e.g., grocery store, drug store), restaurants and cafes, and community centers or
other public facilities; ▪ A sense of place; ▪ A tree canopy and well-maintained, native
landscaping; ▪ Design features that enhance safety; ▪ Convenient access to public transportation;
and ▪ Well-maintained housing and public facilities; ▪ Pleasant, warm lighting. [Source: New
Policy]
Page 25:
LU-11.1 Industrial Compatibility
Require that industrial projects be designed to limit the impact of truck traffic, air, light, and
noise pollution on adjacent sensitive land uses. [Source: New Policy]
1 Sierra Club Green Street Network, moving from vision to practice:
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce-authors/u4142/Gita%20Dev-
Green%20Streets%20policy%20-Sept%2010%202020-2.pptx.pdf
Neighborhood Greenways programs in Portland: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/554110
ATTACHMENT 9
Page 35:
LU-16.1 Integrated Approach
Require Community Place Districts to include integrated site planning techniques that emphasize
connectivity, shared access, bike and pedestrian facilities, green street networks, and protection
of adjacent uses. [Source: New Policy]
Page 81:
CD-2 Encourage all development in Town to be designed holistically, eco-friendly, and
sustainably, towards creating or evolving welcoming and human-scale neighborhood
communities. [Source: New Goal]
Page 83:
CD-2.6 Parking Structure Design
Require all parking structures to include design or screening methods to minimize the visual and
lighting impact on surrounding neighborhoods and the environment. [Source: New Policy]
CD-2.9 Multi-Modal Streetscapes
Require new development to create multi-modal streetscapes that are walkable, pedestrian-
oriented, tree-shaded, bike-friendly, incorporate transit, enhance native ecology, and which are
human scaled. [Source: New Policy]
CD-2.11 Enhanced Walking and Biking
Pursue opportunities to promote walking and biking in new and existing neighborhoods through
traffic-calming measures, bike route signage, designated bike lanes, tree canopy, the narrowing
of streets, and street improvements (i.e., street trees, planting strips). When conflicts arise,
prioritize existing trees over street improvements. [Source: New Policy]
Page 84:
CD-2.12 Street Trees in New Development
If feasible, require Require native street trees to be installed for all new developments to enhance
neighborhood character and identity, enhance our local biotic environment, and to maximize
shade coverage when mature. [Source: Existing Policy CD-4.4, modified]
Page 86:
CD-2.24 Public Realm Improvements
Encourage improvements to the public realm, including street trees tree canopy, street furniture,
and paving, landscaping,. and lighting. [Source: New Policy]
CD-2.27 New Structures Siting
Require new structures to be sited to maximize privacy, and protection of natural plant and
wildlife habitats and migration corridors. Siting should could take advantage of scenic views, but
should not create ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, wildlife, public places, or
other properties. [Source: Existing Policy CD-6.4, modified]
CD-2.31 Lighting
Encourage lighting for mixed-use and commercial developments such as string lighting, pole
mounted lighting, and tree-hanging lighting, to further illuminate the site during nighttime hours.
[Source: New Policy]
Page 87:
CD-2.30 Street and Structure Lighting
Require street and structure lighting to minimize its visual, human-health, and ecological impacts
by requiring warm lighting of 2700 Kelvin or less, preventing glare, limiting the amount of light
that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky. [Source:
Existing Policy CD-3.2, modified]
Page 95:
CD-6.5 Lighting Design in Hillside Areas
Outdoor lighting shall be limited, shall be shielded so as not to be viewable from non-hillside
areas, and any permitted lighting shall be of low intensity. [Source: Existing Policy CD-15.7,
modified]
Review all new development proposals and ensure that: a. Outdoor lighting shall be limited. b.
Permitted lighting shall be of low intensity and for safety purposes only. c. Lighting shall be
shielded so as not to be viewable from non-hillside areas and to avoid light trespass, d. Outdoor
lighting should emit no light at wavelengths shorter than 520 nanometers, and the correlated
color temperature should not exceed 2200K.2
e. Lighted sports courts shall be prohibited
f. The effects of indoor lights should be studied and reduced if found to be excessive
CD-6.6 Hillside Fencing Design
2 A value centered approach to nighttime conservation https://www.darksky.org/values-centered-lighting-resolution/
Fences in the hillsides shall not intrude on or obstruct the passage of native wildlife in any way.
should be of open design to allow passage of native wildlife. [Source: New Policy]
Page 103:
CD-9.2 Boulevard Complete Street
Support the Boulevard as a complete street through a reduction in both travel lanes and
maximum speed limit, increased sidewalk widths, additional trees and additional bike lanes. The
increased sidewalk widths and additional bike lanes shall use already paved, lane areas and not
intrude on natural or unpaved space. [Source: New Policy]
Page 104:
CD-9.8 Pedestrian and Bike Infrastructure
Encourage Implement the expansion of pedestrian and bike improvements including tree canopy,
wider sidewalks, midblock crossings, buffered bike lanes, and bollards at primary intersections
that do not remove trees or take away from natural space, but rather use already developed street-
space. [Source: New Policy]
Page 109:
CD-10.6 Pedestrian Enhancements
Incorporate a variety of pedestrian safety enhancements including wider sidewalks, landscape
buffers, and mid-block crossings that do not take away from natural space, but rather use already
developed street-space to ensure and ensure a safe and vibrant living environment. [Source: New
Policy]
Page 176:
Policy: Bird Safe Design Require new development to increase bird safety by reducing
hazardous structures, buildings building and architectural elements, ensure that glazing is treated
to provide visual cues to birds and include and includingbird safe lighting design.
Policy: Dark Skies Require the design of building, street, and parking area lighting to improve
safety, energy efficiency, protection of the night skies (dark sky protections), and environmental
soundness ecosystem and human health.
Program: Dark Skies Ordinance Adopt a Dark Skies Ordinance that addresses light pollution,
building lighting design, and impacts to wildlife and human health.
I am concerned about our town’s lighting as well as the potential unintended consequences of
losing trees and natural space to increase sidewalks and bike lanes. There is more information
being published every day about the adverse effects of light on both human and ecological
health. We must only use warm light, no more than 2700K in urban areas and 2200K in fragile
ecosystems, and intentionally use LEDs to protect our dark skies. Moreover, I am in full support
of increasing bike lanes and walkways, but I think this should be intentionally done to use
already in place street-space, rather than intruding unpaved areas or tree canopy. For instance, if
presented the circumstance where increasing a bike lane would either require adapting car lanes
or taking down trees and invading unpaved areas, the trees should be prioritized. We must
prioritize our biotic communities and riparian corridors if we wish to have a viable and vibrant
town in twenty years. Thank you for your time and consideration while reading this comment
letter.
Sincerely,
Giulianna Pendleton
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank