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: 4/15/2021
ITEM: 1
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: April 9, 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.
BACKGROUND:
As described in the staff report for the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC)
meeting on March 18, 2021, the GPAC has met to review and discuss the initial drafts of the
Land Use and Community Design Elements in eight meetings between November 5, 2020 and
March 18, 2021.
DISCUSSION:
Based on the discussion at these meetings, the consultants have revised the initial drafts of the
Land Use Element (Attachment 1) and the Community Design Element (Attachment 3). In
addition to the formal meeting minutes for these GPAC meetings, the consultants have
prepared a table summarizing the comments received, and how they have been implemented
(Attachments 2 and 4).
At the February 4, 2021 GPAC meeting, the members discussed alternatives to the use of the
term Community Place Districts. The decision was deferred until a complete discussion of the
Community Design Element could be completed. The following is a list of suggestions:
• Focus Areas
• Opportunity Areas
• Community Places
• Placemaking Districts
• Shopping Districts
• Core Areas
• Urban Form Districts
• Community Design Districts
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
April 9, 2021
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2021\04-15-21\Item 1 - Staff Report.docx
Please submit your preferred name to staff via email prior to 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 15,
2021.
At the March 18, 2021 GPAC meeting, members discussed placement of goals and policies that
overlap in different topic areas. The determination of where to place each goal and policy is
particularly difficult when concepts overlap between Land Use (use designation, density, floor
area, lot coverage, and height), Housing (provision of opportunities for housing units as
required by the State), Mobility (roadway design, pedestrian facilities, and bike facilities), and
Community Design (design of buildings and the spaces between them). A General Plan is a
complex document with Elements covering all of these topics. This General Plan is designed
with an overarching vision statement and guiding principles, as well as cross references
between Elements, to clearly show the larger 20-year vision for the community and avoid
duplication and excessive length.
All suggestions for changes to the text of these Elements, whether from committee members or
the public, that are received by 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 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 provid ed in a Desk Item.
NEXT STEPS:
The final GPAC meeting is scheduled for the first week of May for review and recommendation
of the full Preliminary Draft General Plan to the Planning Commission and Town Council.
Because the GPAC has already reviewed each Element at least two times, this will be a “fatal
flaws” review. Any comments should be submitted in writing prior to the meeting to help
facilitate an efficient meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments:
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
3
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 3-1
ATTACHMENT 1
Los Gatos is a mature, predominantly built-out community, but changes are expected over the planning period to
reflect changing 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 ne w 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 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. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The Land Use Element includes two key components that provide a framework to guide and shape the future
physical development of Los Gatos. First, this Element includes policies establishing land use designations that
identify the type and density/intensity of uses permissible in the Planning Area. These designations are shown on
the Land Use Diagram (Figure 3-6), which graphically illustrates the locations for these land use designations.
The intent of these land use designations is also described throug h text and a table of accompanying
development standards in this Element. Second, this Element includes a series of goals and policies identifying
the Town’s philosophy for future change and development. Combined with the Community Design Element,
these two Elements address a broad range of topics related to the physical structure and appearance of the
Town’s built environment and establish the image and character of the Town. These two Elements serve as the
primary policy guidance for ensuring that new land uses are logically organized and developed in a way that is
sustainable and enhances Los Gatos’ unique identity. [Source: New Text]
The Land Use Element is divided into the following sections:
Contents
Section Title Page
Key Terms .............................................................................................................................................. 2
3.1 General Plan Buildout ............................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Implementing Missing Middle Housing .................................................................................. 5
3.3 A Plan for Neighborhood Connectivity ................................................................................... 8
3.4 Land Use Diagram, Designations, and Standards ................................................................ 9
3.5 Community Development .................................................................................................... 17
3.6 Special Planning Areas ........................................................................................................ 24
3.7 Community Place Districts ................................................................................................... 31
3.8 General Plan Use and Maintenance .................................................................................... 34
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-2 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
3.9 Civic Engagement ................................................................................................................ 35
3.10 Interagency Coordination ..................................................................................................... 37
3.11 Implementation Programs .................................................................................................... 38
Key Terms
Acre (Gross). An acre is a measurement of land area equal to 43,560 square feet. The gross acreage of a lot
includes all land within the boundaries of the lot. The gross acreage is defined as the total area, measured on a
horizontal plane, and is the measure, after adjustment for average slope, used for determination of density and
intensity calculations.
Cluster Development. This is the grouping of residential structures in one portion of a development site, with the
intent to maintain larger areas of the overall site for open space, recreation, or agriculture uses.
Community Place District. Within the Los Gatos Planning Area, eight Community Place Districts were identified
based on the proximity of commercial services or employment to support additional development, easy ac cess to
transportation systems, and having access to infrastructure needed to support future development. These
locations have the potential to facilitate mixed-use development and redevelopment at a variety of densities and
intensities. See Sections 3.7 (Land Use Element) and 4.5 (Community Design Element) for more information.
Density. Residential developments are regulated by an allowed density range (minimum and maximum)
measured in “dwelling units per acre.” Residential density is calculated by dividing the number of housings units
on the site (excluding accessory dwelling units) by the gross acreage of the site.
Figure 3-1 shows prototypical examples of different residential densities for
one-acre properties.
State planning law requires general plans to include standards for measuring
population density. Population density is determined by multiplying the
maximum number of units allowed within a
land use designation by
the average number of
persons per household
(as determined by the
California
Department of
Finance).
Figure 3-1 Density Examples
Flag Lot. A flag lot (also called a Corridor Lot) is a lot with access to a street by means of a strip of land having
less frontage or width than that required for the parcel and which expands into a larger area.
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 3-3
Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Total building
size is regulated by a maximum FAR
standard. FAR means the gross floor area
of a building or buildings on a zoning plot
divided by the area of such zoning plot.
Floor area means the entire enclosed area
of all floors that are more than four (4) feet
above the existing or proposed grade,
measured from the outer face of exterior
walls or in the case of shared walls from the
centerline. The maximum FAR standard
limits the overall size of development on a
property. As an example, a maximum FAR
of 0.75 would allow 75,000 square feet of
building floor area on a 100,000-square foot
lot. The 75,000 square feet could be
provided in one building or divided between
multiple buildings. (Los Gatos Code,
Section 29.10.020, Definitions)
Figure 3-2 illustrates various building
configurations representing FARs of 0.5,
1.0, and 2.0. As shown in the diagram,
different interpretations of the same FAR
standard can result in very different building
forms, and site characteristics.
Figure 3-2 FAR Examples
Incubator Space. Retail, office, or industrial space that is affordable to and dedicated to the start-up and growth
of small businesses. Facility support systems are often provided, including copy machines and other office and
electronic equipment.
Intensity. Intensity is a measure of the extent to which a land parcel is developed in conformity with the zoning
ordinance.
Lot Coverage. Lot coverage is the percentage of a lot that is covered by all buildings compared to the total area
of the lot.
Missing Middle Housing. Missing middle housing is a term used to
describe a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units that are
compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes
(Figure 3-3). Common housing types include: duplexes; triplexes;
fourplexes; courtyard apartments; cottage courts; townhomes; triplex
stacked (vertical); and live-work spaces.
Figure 3-3 Missing Middle Housing
Mixed-Use Development. Development projects where a variety of uses such as office, commercial,
institutional, and residential are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated project. These
developments are regulated by both the maximum residential density (units per acre) and maximum FAR
standard that incorporates both the residential and non-residential building floor areas. As an example, a one-
acre site with a maximum FAR of 2.0 and an allowed density range of 16 to 32 units per acre could be developed
with 87,120 square feet of total building space (commercial and residential, combined). The 87,120 square feet
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-4 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
could be divided into a combination of commercial space and residential space. Up to 32 residential units would
be allowed within the 87,120 square feet.
Multi-Family Residential. Land with multiple dwelling units without respect to type or ownership. Accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) are not considered multi-family residential.
Planning Area. State planning law requires that the General Plan cover all territory within the boundaries of the
Town as well as “any land outside its boundary which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its
planning.” (Government Code Section 65300) This larger area is referred to as the Town’s “Planning Area.” The
Planning Area for the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan encompasses the entire area within the Town Limits and
unincorporated areas within the Town’s Sphere of Influence.
Sensitive Land Uses. Relative to issues of land use compatibility and adjacency, sensitive land uses typically
include residences; schools; nursing homes; historic sites; open space areas; hospitals and care facilities; places
of worship; and libraries.
Single-Family Residential. Land with detached dwelling units for residential uses, such as single-family homes,
townhomes, and condominiums.
Sphere of Influence. The Sphere of Influence is the area determined by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County to represent the probable future physical boundary of the Town.
The adoption of Spheres of Influence is required by Government Code Section 56425.
Urban Service Area. The Los Gatos Urban Service Area (USA) is established by Santa Clara County LAFCO.
The USA delineates areas outside Town limits that are currently provided with urban services, facilities, and
utilities; or areas proposed to be annexed into a Town within the next five years.
Vacant/Underutilized Sites. Vacant/underutilized sites includes undeveloped and underdeveloped parcels. A
majority of a parcel must be undeveloped for a parcel to be considered underutilized.
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 3-5
3.1 General Plan Buildout
The 2040 General Plan development projections are shown in Table 3-1. Development projections for the
General Plan for the total buildout were based on the Town’s RHNA, potential non-residential market demand, as
well as infill and redevelopment potential throughout the community. All General Plan land use designations are
shown on the 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram in Figure 3-6. [Source: New Text]
Table 3-1 General Plan Buildout
Land Use Existing Buildout (2018) Development Difference Total Buildout
Residential (units)1 1,872 1,866 3,738
Residential (acres)2 6,722.16
Population3 30,2504 - 39,221
Commercial/Office (acres)2 299.91 0 299.91
Industrial (acres) 39.91 0 39.91
Public and Open Space
(acres)
3,535.84 0 3,535.84
Specific Plan (acres)5 68.69 0 68.69
Source: Mintier Harnish, 2021.
1Existing buildout, additional development, and total development by 2040 include 475 units from pending and approved projects and
500 accessory dwelling units.
2Residential acres account for parcels that are allowed only to have residential (e.g., LDR, MDR, HDR, HR, MHP). Commercial/Office
total acres also allow residential in the form of vertical or horizontal mixed-use.
3Population is calculated by multiplying 2.4 persons per household by the number of projected dwelling units.
4Existing population of the Town of Los Gatos in 2018. Existing buildout, additional development, and total development by 204 0
include 475 units from pending and approved projects and 500 accessory dwelling units.
5The Specific Plan acreage category includes both the Albright and North 40 Specific Plans.
3.2 Implementing Missing Middle Housing
How to Meet the Housing Needs of Los Gatos
While housing and residential neighborhoods form the fabric that makes the Town a cohesive community, finding
a place to call home in Los Gatos has been unattainable for many. The Town is not affordable for many
prospective residents, and there are a lack of unit types and sizes to accommodate varied households. The aging
population has also faced issues with the shortage of smaller dwelling units to allow aging in place within the
community. The domination of single-family neighborhoods and the trend towards building larger and larger
homes has further contributed to the housing issues in the Town. [Source: New Text]
These housing issues are not unique to Los Gatos and are seen throughout the Bay Area and many communities
in California. The State of California has been working with communities to help meet the number and affordability
of housing units needed in the State. As part of the Housing Element process, the State dictates the number of
units, at a variety of income levels, that a jurisdiction must plan for. For Los Gatos, this is expected to be
approximately 2,000 dwelling units of various affordability levels over the next eight year cycle (2023-2031).
[Source: New Text]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-6 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
To address the diversity of housing needed in Los Gatos and meet the requirements of State law, the Town
needs to look beyond the current process used to plan for housing. The Los Gatos planning process has typically
focused on two categories of housing: detached single-family homes; and attached high-density multi-family
apartments. To meet the diverse needs of the community, Los Gatos, like other communities nationwide, needs
to strive for communities that are a heterogeneous mix of housing types and price point s. This housing, which
lies between single-family homes and multi-family apartments is often referred to as “Missing Middle” housing and
can include a mix of housing types including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts/clusters, and
townhomes (illustrated on Figure 3-4, below). Through design, these units can be compatible in form and
appearance with detached single-family homes. [Source: New Text]
Figure 3-4 Missing Middle Concept Illustrated
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 3-7
As part of the 2040 General Plan, a goal, policies, and implementation programs are included to support the
development of Missing Middle Housing within existing Los Gatos neighborhoods. Figure 3-5 illustrates this
concept using a variety of Missing Middle Housing types. In the graphic below, the two blocks were laid out to be
identical relative to lot lines and existing structures, with the dwelling units shaded in white being existing dwelling
units in a variety of sizes, but all being single-family detached homes. The portion of the graphic on the bottom
(labeled “With Missing Middle Housing”) shows that same block with future development. The white shaded
structures are those current units remaining and the gold shaded structures are new Missing Middle Housing
types. Some are in addition to existing structures (“A” and “F”), one is a replacement structure on an existing lot
(“C”), and two show the consolidation of two lots to create one larger lot (“B” and “D”). [Source: New Text]
On a typical block in Town, the number of Missing Middle Housing units would likely be fewer. This illustration is
designed to show potential ideas for how to incorporate a range of housing types and sizes into an existing
neighborhood. In addition to different types, the Missing Middle Housing concepts would also support the
production of a variety of unit sizes in the 500 to 1,000 square -foot range. [Source: New Text]
Figure 3-5 Missing Middle Housing Types Illustrated (Sample Concepts)
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-8 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
The following goal and policies will provide guidance on creation of missing middle housing .
Provide opportunities for housing that can accommodate the needs, preferences,
and financial capabilities of current and future residents in terms of different
housing types, tenures, density, sizes, and costs. [Source: New Goal]
LU-1.1 Mixed Residential Neighborhoods
Encourage creation of mixed residential neighborhoods through new and innovative housing
types that meet the changing needs of Los Gatos households and expand housing choices in all
neighborhoods. These housing types include, but are not limited to, single dwelling units, multi-
family dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, small and micro units, use of pre-fabricated
homes, and clustered housing/cottage housing. [Source: New Policy]
LU-1.2 Missing Middle Housing
Support housing types and designs that increase density while maintaining consistency with
building scale and character in existing neighborhoods. This includes multi-family units or
clustered residential buildings that provide relatively smaller, less ex pensive units within existing
neighborhoods. [Source: New Policy]
LU-1.3 Housing Adaptation
Encourage the adaptation of existing residential units to support multi -family use.
[Source: New Policy]
3.3 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: [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.
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 3-9
Provide for an urban fabric that supports a robust housing mix and convenient
access to goods and services that meet daily needs. [Source: New Goal]
LU-2.1 Mixed Uses and Convenience
Promote a mix of compatible uses in and adjacent to residential neighborhoods to serve the
basic, daily needs of nearby residents. This should include neighborhood shopping and services
available within a 20-minute walk or bike ride of all non-hillside residential areas in the following
categories:
▪ Convenience retail;
▪ Access to healthy food choices;
▪ Health services;
▪ Schools;
▪ Parks and open space;
▪ Access to transit; and
▪ Employment opportunities.
[Source: New Policy]
3.4 Land Use Diagram, Designations, and Standards
The core of the Land Use Element is the description of land use designations to classify and distinguish the
various land uses needed within the Town and corresponding levels of intensity, density, and allowable uses as
required by Government Code Section 65302(a). [Source: New Text]
Land Use Diagram
Figure 3-6, the General Plan Land Use Diagram, shows the distribution of the land use designations allowed
within the Town’s Planning Area. [Source: New Text]
It is common for the Land Use Diagram to be updated over time. Please check with the Los Gatos
Community Development Department to ensure you have the current version.
The General Plan Land Use Diagram includes residential, commercial, employment center (office and industrial),
specific plan, and public and open space designations that depict the types of land uses that will be allowed within
the Planning Area. Table 3-2 describes all of the land use designations along with their corresponding
development standards using the following columns:
▪ Group. The land use designations in the General Plan are categorized into six groups. These groups
contain designations with similar land use types and purposes.
▪ Designation. This column provides the name of each designation and the acronym used when referring
to the designation.
▪ Color. To the right of each designation name is the color that is assigned to this designation on the
Town’s Land Use Diagram (Figure 3-6).
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-10 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
▪ Description. This column contains a description of the purpose and application of each designation. The
Town’s Zoning Regulations provide further refinement and expansion of the list of uses allowed on any
given property. Not all allowed land uses may be appropriate for specific properties due to location,
adjacent uses, site-specific constraints, and other applicable General Plan policies.
▪ Standards. Designations allowing residential uses provide a minimum and maximum density, expressed
as dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Designations in the Residential Group also provide a maximum lot
coverage. For non-residential designations, a maximum FAR is provided for non-residential components.
All designations include a maximum height.
▪ Compatible Zoning. This column lists the Town’s zoning designations that are consistent with each
General Plan designation (as required by Policy LU-17.3).
A copy of the Land Use Diagram is available from the Town’s Community Development Department or can be
downloaded from the Town’s website. [Source: New Text]
Land Use Designations and Standards
Table 3-2 divides the land use designations identified on the Land Use Diagram (Figure 3-6) into six designation
groups and provides guidance on types of uses appropriate for each land use designation as well as standards on
density. All standards listed in Table 3-2 must be applied to all projects. [Source: New Text]
The Land Use Diagram is largely implemented through the Town’s Zoning Regulations. As shown on Table 3-2,
each land use designation has one or more compatible zoning districts. Whereas the General Plan land use
designations are intentionally broad, the zoning districts are more detailed and provide a variety of specific
development standards, including permitted and conditional uses, building heights, setbacks, lot coverage, and
parking requirements. While the Land Use Diagram guides zoning, it is not the same as the Town’s Zoning Map.
[Source: New Text]
For non-residential land uses, the specific uses mentioned are illustrative, and other compatible uses, including
those authorized in any other zoning district within the Town, may be permitted where authorized by a Conditional
Use Permit or Planned Development Overlay Zone. [Existing General Plan]
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 3-11
Figure 3-6 Land Use Diagram
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-12 Public Review Draft December 2020
This page left intentionally blank (back side of Figure 3 -6)
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-13
Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards
Designation Color Description Standards
Compatible
Zoning
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
HR
Hillside
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
very low density accessory dwelling units and
single-family residential on large single lots or as
part of a cluster development. This designation
allows for development that is compatible with the
unique mountainous terrain and rural character of
the hillside areas. Mixed-use developments are
not permitted in this designation.
Density:
0 – 1 du/ac
Max. Height:
30 feet
HR
LDR
Low Density
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
accessory dwelling units, missing middle housing,
and single-family residential properties. It
encourages single-family residential development
in either the standard development established by
standard zoning or by innovative forms obtained
through a planned development. Mixed-use
developments are not permitted in this designation.
Density:
1 – 12 du/ac
Lot Coverage:
Up to 50%
Max. Height:
30 feet
R-1
MDR
Medium
Density
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
accessory dwelling units, missing middle housing,
multi-family residential, duplexes, and/or small lot
single-family homes. Mixed-use developments are
not permitted in this designation.
Density:
14 – 24 du/ac
Lot Coverage:
Up to 75%
Max. Height:
35 feet
R-1D
R-D
R-M
HDR
High Density
Residential
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
accessory dwelling units, and more dense multi-
family residential development. Its objective is to
provide quality housing in proximity to transit and/or
commercial and business areas. Mixed-use
developments are not permitted in this designation.
Density:
30 – 40 du/ac
Lot Coverage:
Up to 75%
Max. Height:
45 feet
R-M
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-14 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
MIXED USE DESIGNATION
MU
Mixed-Use
The purpose of this designation is to provide a
mixture of retail, office, hotel/lodging, and
residential in either a vertical or horizontal mixed-
use project, along with lodging, service,
recreational uses, and restaurants. Projects
developed under this designation shall maintain
primary orientation to arterial street frontages and
proper transitions and buffers to adjacent
residential properties.
Density:
30 – 40 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 3.0
Max. Height:
45 feet
CH
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS
NC
Neighborhood
Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
necessary day-to-day commercial goods and
services required by the residents of the adjacent
neighborhoods. This designation encourages
concentrated and coordinated commercial
development at easily accessible locations.
Residential uses, developed using either a vertical
or horizontal mixed-use format, are allowed in the
designation.
Density:
10 – 20 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
C-1
CC
Community
Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
commercial goods and services to support
residents, businesses, and visitors, and located to
serve the entire community. Residential uses,
developed using either a vertical or horizontal
mixed-use format, are allowed in the designation.
Density:
20 – 30 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 3.0
Max. Height:
45 feet
C-1
CBD
Central
Business
District
The purpose of this designation is to encourage a
mixture of community-orientated commercial goods
and services within the Downtown. This
designation applies exclusively to the Downtown,
with the goal to accommodate and retain small-
town merchants and preserve the Town’s
character. The District shall maintain and expand
open spaces and mature tree growth without
increasing setbacks, as well as integrate new
construction with existing structures of
archeological and historical significance.
Residential uses, developed using either a vertical
or horizontal mixed-use format, are allowed in the
designation.
Density:
20 – 30 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 2.0
Max. Height:
45 feet
C-2
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-15
EMPLOYMENT CENTER DESIGNATIONS
OP
Office
Professional
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
professional and general business offices,
incubator spaces, and innovation centers. This
designation applies to various locations throughout
the Town, often in proximity to neighborhood- or
community-oriented commercial facilities, or as a
buffer between commercial and residential uses.
The intent of this designation is to satisfy the
community’s need for general business and
professional services, and local employment.
Residential uses, developed using either a vertical
or horizontal mixed-use format, are allowed in the
designation.
Density:
30 – 40 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
O
SC
Service
Commercial
The purpose of this designation is to provide for
service businesses. These businesses include
automobile repair, building materials sales, paint
suppliers, janitorial services, towing businesses,
contractor offices and yards, laundries and dry
cleaners, as well as wholesaling and warehousing
activities. Residential uses, developed using either
a vertical or horizontal mixed-use format, are
allowed in the designation.
Density:
20 – 30 du/ac
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
LM
LI
Light
Industrial
The purpose of this designation is to allow for
large-scale office developments, well-controlled
research and development facilities, innovation
centers, industrial parks and service-oriented uses
subject to rigid development standards. These
uses shall respond to the community and region-
wide needs. Residential uses are not permitted in
this designation.
Density:
none
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
CM
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-16 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONS
PUB
Public
This designation identifies public and institutional
facilities in the Town such as the Civic Center,
schools, parking structures, parks, libraries,
hospitals, churches, and fire stations.
Density:
none
FAR:
Up to 1.0
Max. Height:
35 feet
All zones
OS
Open Space
This designation identifies the location of public
parks, open space preserves, private preserves,
and stream corridors.
Density:
none
Max. Height:
30 feet
RC
AG
Agriculture
This designation identifies areas for commercial
agricultural crop production and properties under a
Williamson Act contract.
Density:
1 du/20 ac
Max. Height:
30 feet
RC
SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS
A-SP
Albright
Specific Plan
The purpose of this designation is to provide land
for the Albright Specific Plan, which includes the
designation of office/research and development
space (including office serving amenities), one
parking garage, surface parking areas, new access
driveways, landscaping, and open space uses.
As defined in
Specific Plan
A-SP
NF-SP
North Forty
Specific Plan
The purpose of this designation is to provide land
for the North 40 Specific Plan, which includes the
designation of mixed-use development (residential
and commercial, open space amenities, and space
for a hotel).
As defined in
Specific Plan
NF-SP
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-17
3.5 Community Development
Over the course of this General Plan, the community will continue to develop and grow to meet the needs of
current and future residents, businesses, and visitors. Unlike many communities where growth is primarily on
vacant land, Los Gatos will see a higher percentage of change through redevelopment of lands that have
additional development potential. [Source: New Text]
The following goals and policies will allow growth while enhancing the Town’s aesthetics and character. [Source:
New Text]
GENERAL
Provide for a more diverse Town through the incorporation of balanced
development that meets the needs of a changing population. [Source: New
Goal]
LU-3.1 Balance of Land Uses
Promote and support a balance of residential, commercial, office, open space, institutional, and
industrial businesses within the Town. [Source: New Policy]
LU-3.2 Reducing Project Impacts
Projects shall be evaluated and the Town shall apply appropiate mitigation measures and/or
conditions of approval to reduce impacts on urban services and wildfire risk, including utilities,
police, and fire. [Source: Existing Policy LU-4.4, modified]
LU-3.3 Smaller Dwelling Units
Encourage developers to include developments with small and micro-dwelling units, 1,000 square
feet or less, that provide increased affordable housing options for the community. [Source: New
Policy]
LU-3.4 Hotel and Conference Center Development
Advocate for additional lodging, hotel, and conference center development in Los Gatos to bolster
tourism and the local economy. [Source: New Policy]
LU-3.5 Shift in Housing
Discourage the development of new single-family development. [Source: New Policy]
Use infill sites to accommodate new development. [Source: New Goal]
LU-4.1 Infill Projects in Context
Require that infill projects are functionally compatibile with the surrounding neighborhoods,
demonstrate that the development meets the criteria contained in the Town’s Development Policy
for Infill Projects, and enhance the surrounding neighborhoods when possible (e.g. improve
circulation). [Source: Existing Policies LU-7.2 and LU-7.3, modified]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-18 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
For land use designations under the Residential Designations Group on Table 3-2, the following apply.
Maintain and enhance a sense of place in residential neighborhoods to meet the
required housing needs, while expanding housing opportunities for a diverse
population. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal: LU-6, modified]
LU-5.1 Infill and Reuse of Underutilized Sites for Housing
Promote infill residential development and redevelopment of underutilized parcels while
maintaining or enhancing the positive qualities of the surrounding neighborhoods.
[Source: New Policy]
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 ;
▪ 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 landscaping;
▪ Design features that enhance safety;
▪ Convenient access to public transportation; and
▪ Well-maintained housing and public facilities.
[Source: New Policy]
LU-5.3 Adjacent Non-residential Development
Protect existing residential areas from the impacts of non-residential development. This could
include, but is not limited to, limitations on operations, placement of structures, height, and
placement of loading docks. [Source: Existing Policy LU-6.1, LU-6.3, modified]
For specifics on community design requirements, please refer to Chapter 4, Community Design.
LU-5.4 Home-Based Businesses
Allow small scale home-based businesses in residential designations, subject to regulations that
reduce potential negative impacts and ensure that the business won’t adversely impact the
character and overall quality of the neighborhood. [Source: Existing Policies LU-2.2 and LU-6.2,
modified]
LU-5.5 Public and Institutional Uses in Residential Neighborhoods
The Town shall permit non-commercial recreational uses, educational uses, faith organizations,
daycare, and congregate living facilities in residentially -designated areas in accordance with
State law. [Source: New Policy]
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-19
LU-5.6 Walkable Neighborhoods
Encourage walkable neighborhoods by managing vehicle speeds, providing bike lanes,
encouraging connectivity between adjacent properties, maintaining sidewalks and street tree
canopies, and ensuring services are provided within one mile of all dwellings, except in the
hillsides. [Source: New Policy]
LU-5.7 Retrofit Neighborhoods to Improve Connectivity
Encourage existing developments to be retrofitted over time, as appropriate, to reduce
unnecessary walls and barriers to improve connectivity between residential neighborhoods.
[Source: New Policy]
LU-5.8 New Construction Compatibility
Encourage new construction, remodels, and additions that are compatible and blend with the
existing neighborhood. [Source: Existing Policy LU-6.8]
LU-5.9 Neighborhood Maintenance
Support the maintainance and improvement of neighborhoods through the use of systematic code
enforcement, regulatory measures, cooperative neighborhood improvement programs, and other
measures. [Source: New Policy]
LU-5.10 Flag Lots – Low Density and Medium Density Residential
Flag lots shall only be allowed in LDR and MDR residential designations if their use would allow
division of existing lots for residential infill development, and if the resulting lots meet designation
standards for minimum lot size and setbacks, are in context with the existing scale and
established character of the neighborhood, and are deemed safe for fire access and protection.
Lot frontage requirements can be waived if access is found to be safe. [Source: Existing Policy
LU-4.5, modified]
Ensure housing in the hillsides will not adversely affect the natural environment or
endanger public health and safety. [Source: Hillside Specific Plan Goal 2]
LU-6.1 Preservation of Open Space
Open space easements shall be required by the deciding body for hillside subdivisions in
accordance with the topographical, ecological, aesthetic, and other conditions pertinent to the
making of such easements. [Source: Hillside Specific Plan, Policy 4.3.1]
LU-6.2 Clustering of Dwelling Units
Clustering of dwelling units should be encouraged to preserve the scenic nature of the hillsides
and to allow for economies in the construction of required public and private facilities. [Source:
Hillside Specific Plan, Policy 1.3.3]
MIXED -USE DESIGNATION
For the land use designation under the Mixed-use Designation Group on Table 3-2, the following apply.
Encourage a mix of development types that integrates a mix of residential,
commercial, and/or office uses to meet the Town’s housing goals for growth, while
enabling residents to live close to businesses and services. [Source: New Goal]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-20 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
LU-7.1 Encourage Mixed-use Development
Implement and promote a land use pattern that facilitates the development of projects that mix
residential, commercial, and/or employment uses to enable residents to live within one mile of
businesses and employment; promotes walking, biking, and transit use; and increases
opportunities for community gathering and social interaction. [Source: New Policy]
LU-7.2 Mixed-use Objectives
The Town shall require mixed-use projects to comply with the following objectives:
▪ Include a mix of residential uses as a significant component of the project;
▪ Provide a blend of uses that are physically and functionally integrated through site layout,
architectural design, and landscaping to create a synergy between different uses and a
unique sense of place;
▪ Feature compact design;
▪ Increase economic vitality;
▪ Feature a pedestrian-oriented design; and
▪ Include an attractive and accessible public realm that encourages community members to
gather and socialize. [Source: New Policy]
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION S
For land use designations under the Commercial Designations Group on Table 3-2, the following apply.
Provide residents, businesses, and visitors with a range of commercial activities and
services. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal: LU-9, modified]
LU-8.1 Strong Neighborhood Commercial Centers
Maintain a variety of commercial uses Townwide that meet the needs of residents.
[Source: Existing Policy LU-9.2, modified]
LU-8.2 Commercial Use Mix
Encourage a mix of retail and office uses in commercial areas, except in the Central Business
District designation, where retail should be emphasized and office should be limited to upper
floors and other areas as defined by the Town Code. [Source: Existing Policy LU-9.3]
LU-8.3 Locally Owned Businesses
Encourage the retention of locally owned businesses and independent stores and shops that are
consistent with Los Gatos’ small-town character and scale. [Source: Existing Policy LU-9.5 and
LU-10.1, modified]
LU-8.4 Resident-oriented Services and Employment Opportunities
Encourage development that maintains and expands resident-oriented services and/or creates
employment opportunities for local residents. [Source: Existing Policy LU-9.6]
LU-8.5 Retail Sales Tax Leakage
Retail sales tax “leakage” should be kept to a minimum by encouraging the development of in-
town convenience shopping opportunities. [Source: Existing Policy LU-9.8, modified]
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-21
LU-8.6 Buffers for Non-residential Uses
Buffers shall be required as conditions of approval for non-residential projects that are adjacent to
residential areas to reduce visual impacts, and may consist of landscaping, sound barriers,
building setbacks, or open space. [Source: Existing Policy LU-9.9, modified]
LU-8.7 Transition of Commercial and Retail Spaces
Encourage the re-use of commercial and retail spaces to allow additional compatible uses
reflecting the shifting in market changes and shopping habits. [Source: New Policy]
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. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal: LU-10, modified]
LU-9.1 Commercial Areas within Downtown
Recognize and encourage the different functions, land use patterns, and use mixes of the various
commercial areas within the Downtown (area defined on Figure 3-7). These include:
▪ The pedestrian scale and orientation of the Central Business District;
▪ The service commercial uses along University Avenue;
▪ The neighborhood-serving commercial land use pattern of areas north of Los Gatos-Saratoga
Road to Blossom Hill Road; and
▪ The mixed-use commercial activities along Santa Cruz Avenue and the service commercial
activities along University Avenue between Andrews Street and Blossom Hill Road.
[Source: Existing Policy LU-10.2, modified]
LU-9.2 Central Business District Boundaries
Establish and maintain clearly defined boundaries between the Central Business District
designation and adjacent residential neighborhoods. [Source: Existing Policy LU-10.3, modified]
LU-9.3 Mixed-uses in Commercial Areas Downtown
Encourage mixed-uses to increase residential opportunities in commercial areas Downtown.
[Source: Existing Policy LU-10.4, modified]
Ensure a mix of commercial land use types to maintain the economic vitality of the
community and continue to serve the needs of Town residents. [Source: Existing
General Plan, Goal: LU-12, modified]
LU-10.1 Vacated Businesses
Encourage replacement of vacated business Townwide with neighborhood commercial, multi-
family, or office uses. [Source: Existing Policy LU-12.9]
LU-10.2 Mixed-Use Opportunities in Commercial Zones
Encourage mixed-uses to increase residential opportunities in commercial designations
Townwide . [Source: Existing Policy LU-12.4, modified]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-22 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
Figure 3-7 Downtown Area Map
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-23
EMPLOYMENT CENTER DESIGNATIONS
For land use designations under the Employment Centers Designations Group on Table 3-2, the following apply.
Encourage Employment Center designations to provide space for light industrial,
office, and research and development to increase access to local jobs. [Source:
New Goal]
LU-11.1 Industrial Compatibility
Require that industrial projects be designed to limit the impact of truck traffic, air, and noise
pollution on adjacent sensitive land uses. [Source: New Policy]
LU-11.2 Protect Industrially Designated Sites
Protect the conversion of land designated as Light Industrial to other commercial, residential, or
institutional designations. [Source: Existing Policy LU-9.4]
LU-11.3 Support Conversion of Warehouses
The Town shall support the conversion of existing warehousing and distribution facilities into
more employment intensive uses, such as light industrial, flex/incubator spaces, research and
development, and collaborative work spaces. [Source: New Policy]
LU-11.4 Employee Services
Enhance the working environment and reduce traffic impacts by promoting small retail areas and
restaurants to serve employees in Office Professional, Service Commercial, or Light Industrial
designations. [Source: New Policy]
LU-11.5 Incubator Spaces
Encourage innnovative and flexible employment spaces such as inc ubator spaces within service
commercial, office, and mixed-use developments. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-24 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONS
For land use designations under the Public and Open Space Designations Group on Table 3-2, the following
apply.
Ensure governmental, utility, institutional, educational, cultural, faith-based, and
social facilities and services are located and designed to complement Los Gatos’
neighborhoods and nearby sensitive land uses. [Source: New Goal]
LU-12.1 Compatible Civic and Institutional Uses
Ensure that Town-owned buildings, sites, and infrastructure as well as those of other public
agencies and non-profit organizations and institutions are designed to be compatible in scale,
mass, character, and architecture with the neighborhood in which they are located or are
adjacent. [Source: New Policy]
LU-12.2 Compatibility with Los Gatos Civic Center Complex
Ensure that development (including new construction and remodeled and rehabilitated structures)
surrounding the Civic Center complex is compatible with the Civic Center. [Source: New Policy]
Policy direction on open space can be found in Chapter 6, Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
Element, in Section 6.1, Open Space.
3.6 Special Planning Areas
Development in Los Gatos is focused to achieve more specific outcomes by designating specific overlay zones
and special planning areas. These special planning areas have more detailed development guidelines while
remaining consistent with the overall direction of the General Plan. Los Gatos has four Overlay Zones (discussed
below), five Historic Districts, and two Specific Plans. [Source: New Text]
SPECIFIC PLANS
A specific plan is a planning tool authorized by Government Code Section 65450, et seq., for the systematic
implementation of the General Plan for a defined portion of a community’s planning area. A specific plan must
specify in detail the land uses planned; public and private facilities needed to support the planned land uses;
phasing of development; planned infrastructure; standards for the conservation, development, and use of natural
resources; and a program of implementation measures, including financing measures. Specific plans and the
Town Zoning Regulations are key implementation mechanisms for the General Plan. All provisions of specific
plans adopted by the Town must be consistent with the General Plan.
The Town’s two Specific Plans also have associated General Plan land use designations, which are listed under
the Specific Plans Group on Table 3-2 and shown on Figure 3-8. For the Albright Specific Plan (A-SP) and North
Forty Specific Plan (NF-SP) designations, the following apply: [Source: New Text]
▪ Albright Specific Plan. Approved by voter initiative on June 3, 2014 (Measure A), the Albright Specific
Plan established a 21.6-acre special planning area located at 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester
Boulevard. The Specific Plan included development of up to 485,000 square feet of new office/research
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-25
and development space (including office serving amenities), one parking garage, surface parking areas,
new access driveways, and new landscaping and open space. [Source: Background Report]
▪ North Forty Specific Plan. The North 40 Specific Plan was adopted by the Los Gatos Town Council on
June 17, 2015. The Specific Plan area is approximately 42 acres. The vision statement for the plan states
that “The North 40 Specific Plan is designed to reflect the special nature of our hometown. It celebrates our
history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small-town character. The North 40 is seamlessly woven
into the fabric of our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods.
It is respectful of precious community resources and offers unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of
all of our residents.” [Source: Background Report]
Support the use specific plans for strategic new growth areas with complex land
use programs. [Source: New Goal]
LU-13.1 Using Specific Plans
Require that specific plans are prepared, implemented, amended, and updated consistent with
this General Plan. Following adoption, specific plans should be considered for update over time to
better reflect and serve the changing needs of the community. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-26 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
Figure 3-8 Specific Plan Locations
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-27
OVERLAY ZONES
There are four overlay zones in the Town Code, Affordable Housing, Landmark and Historic Preservation,
Planned Development, and Public School Overlay Zones.
▪ Affordable Housing (AHOZ) Overlay Zone. This zone is intended to increase the supply and the mix of
housing types, tenure, and affordability within the Town of Los Gatos. Through appropriate densities,
concessions, and fee deferrals or waivers, the affordable housing overlay zone encourages the
development of housing affordable to all income levels on property within the Town that was deemed to be
most appropriate for such uses. The 2015-2023 Housing Element lists the one property within the Town of
Los Gatos as a key housing opportunity site for a mixed income affordable housing project. The
designation of this site will assist the Town in meeting its fair share of the regional housing needs required
by the State. [Source: Background Report]
▪ Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP) Overlay Zone. This zone is designated by Town Council
and is applied to individual sites and structures in areas deemed to have architectural and/or historical
significance. The structure(s) in LHP overlays are subject to special standards regarding their
appearance, use, and maintenance. The Town has established five historic districts with LHP overlay
zones (see Figure 3-9). All of Los Gatos’s historic districts are defined by structures that contribute to the
district. In every district, the transformation of these structures is tightly regulated, and the demolition of
contributing structures is strictly restricted. In addition, all restoration, rehabilitation, and new construction
of principal units must adhere to a series of guidelines for preserving architectural heritage and conforming
to existing styles within the district. Any modifications to the original design are either restricted or
prohibited. These are districts and individual sites deemed to be of architectural and/or historical
significance. The properties or buildings may be those that provide significant examples of architectural
styles of the past, are landmarks in the history of architecture in the Town, are unique and irreplaceable
assets to the Town, or provide for future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past
generations lived. [Source: Background Report, modified and New Text]
▪ Almond Grove Historic District. The Almond Grove Historic District was the first established
district. The approximately 40-acre area of land was originally an almond orchard. Many
important contributors to the development of the Town lived in the Almond Grove area. Fenilen
Massol, Los Gatos mayor from 1894-97; George McMurty, the first treasurer of incorporated Los
Gatos; and W.H.B. Trantham, who in 1885 became the first owner of the Los Gatos News; are a
few of the district’s notable historic figures. The district was established by ordinance in 1980.
[Source: Background Report]
▪ Broadway Historic District. The Broadway Historic District is the site of the first residential
subdivision and first residential street in Los Gatos. The District is approximately 100 acres and
was established by ordinance in 1985. [Source: Background Report]
▪ Los Gatos Historic Commercial District. The Los Gatos Historic Commercial District, listed on
the National Register of Historic Places and established by ordinance in 1991, is the home of the
Town’s earliest commercial intersection and surviving intact historic commercial b uildings. The
District is bounded by Elm Street to the north, Main Street to the south, Los Gatos Creek to the
east, and North Santa Cruz Avenue to the west. [Source: Background Report]
▪ Fairview Plaza Historic District. The Fairview Plaza Historic District, established by ordinance
in 1992, retains some of the same configurations mapped in 1885, as part of the “Fairview
Addition.” It is also home to a rare collection of Victorian and Craftsman homes, unique in their
compact scale and proximity to one another. [Source: Background Report]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-28 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
▪ University/Edelen Historic District. The University/Edelen Historic District, established by
ordinance in 1991, is composed of five subdivisions that predate 1900 and contain a number of
residential and commercial structures of mixed architectural styles. The District is bounded by
Los Gatos-Saratoga Road to the north, the Historic Commercial District boundary near Main
Street to the south, Los Gatos Creek to the east, and the former Southern Pacific Railroad right -
of-way to the west. [Source: Background Report]
▪ Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. The PD overlay zone is intended to ensure orderly planning
and quality design that will be in harmony with the existing or potential development of the surrounding
neighborhood. The Planned Development Overlay is a specially tailored development plan and ordinance
which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying project, sets specific development
standards, and ensures that the zoning and the General Plan are consistent. Commercial, residential, or
industrial property or a mixture of these uses may be considered for a Planned Development Overlay.
▪ Public School (PS) Overlay Zone. The PS overlay zone permits a variety of community-related and
education-related uses, including, but not limited to, museums, community centers, playgrounds, and
nursery schools. Any land owned by a public school district (regardless of underlying zone) may be
designated PS. [Source: Existing GP]
Implement overlay zones for specific areas requiring additional zoning protections.
[Source: New Goal]
LU-14.1 Using Overlay Zones
Apply an overlay zone on properties requiring additional direction relative to the use and
development of properties within each zone, consistent with this General Plan. [Source: New
Policy]
LU-14.2 Planned Development Overlays
Development proposals that meet the requirements of the Planned Development Overlay Zone
may be processed as a planned development. [Source: Existing Policy CD-17.4, modified]
LU-14.3 Public School Overlay
Use the Public School Overlay Zone to keep closed school sites in public ownership and to
preserve the playing fields as developed recreation spaces. [Source: Existing Policy OSP-5.7]
LU-14.4 School Site Reuse
Allow redevelopment of unused school sites commensurate with the surrounding residential
neighborhood and availability of services. [Source: Existing Policy LU-7.1]
Provide for the protection of Los Gatos’ cultural heritage through the protection
and maintenance of historic resources. [Source: New Goal]
LU-15.1 Historic Districts and Landmarks
Maintain maps and an inventory on the Town’s website of Landmark and Historic Preservation
(LHP) overlay zones (districts are shown on Figure 3-9) and landmarks. [Source: New Policy]
LU-15.2 Preserve Public Landmarks
Actively work to preserve public landmarks. [Source: New Policy]
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-29
LU-15.3 Support the Preservation of Historical Resources
Support public and private efforts to preserve the use of historic sites and structures. [Source:
New Policy]
For specifics on design requirements within a historic district, please refer to the Community Design
Element, Section 4.3, Historic Preservation.
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-30 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
Figure 3-9 Historic Districts
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-31
3.7 Community Place District s
Within the Planning Area, eight Community Place Districts (individually referred to as “Districts”) were identified as
having the capacity to accommodate additional mixed-use development that would combine residential
development with new and existing commercial services and offices (Figure 3-10). Each of the eight Community
Place Districts are centered on a major intersection or corridor and extend generally a quarter-mile in all
directions. Although there are development opportunities in locations throughout Town, these eight locations
have been selected because they have the existing infrastructure necessary to support new mixes of land use
and additional housing. Each location has unique opportunities and challenges that are addressed in the General
Plan to create vibrant new community places. [Source: New Text]
The policies in this section are supported by the design vision, policies, and programs provided in
Chapter 4, Community Design Element, Section 4.5, Community Place Districts. This section also
contains more detailed maps of each of the Community Place Districts.
▪ Downtown District. The Downtown District is defined by the Downtown CBD land use designation. The
core area of the Downtown District is anchored by the Los Gatos Town Plaza Park, the main square at the
intersection of Santa Cruz Avenue and Main Street and includes several distinct subareas: the historic
residential neighborhoods on the west; North Santa Cruz Avenue corridor in the middle; the Towne
Terrace subarea on the east; and the Old Town/Main Street subarea to the south. The Downtown District
is composed of an abundant collection of retail shops, boutiques, coffee shops, restaurants, and other
hospitality-oriented uses. Being that the Downtown is the original historic center of the Town, it is naturally
home to some of the iconic architectural styles that makes Los Gatos unique.
▪ Harwood Road District. The Harwood Road District is focused on the intersection of Harwood Road and
Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. This District includes the Blossom Hill Square Shopping Center which
anchors the intersection. This area abuts the City of San Jose and beyond the commercial center it
primarily includes low-density residential, with a few medium-density residential intermixed.
▪ Lark Avenue District. The Lark Avenue District extends from Winchester Boulevard, down a segment of
University Avenue, east to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The area includes most of the Town’s industrial
uses and office complexes, a mix of low- and medium-density residential, as well as primary frontage on
Los Gatos Creek.
▪ Los Gatos Boulevard District. The Los Gatos Boulevard District extends from Louis Van Meter
Elementary School north to the Town border along Los Gatos Boulevard. Currently, this area is primarily
an automobile-oriented corridor with a mixture of stand-alone retail and offices as well commercial centers,
such as Blossom Hill Pavilion, King’s Court, Cornerstone, El Gato Village, and Los Gatos Village Square.
Residential neighborhoods backing the commercial corridor are primarily low-density residential, but
include some medium-density.
▪ North Santa Cruz Avenue District. The North Santa Cruz Avenue District extends along North Santa
Cruz Avenue between Blossom Hill Road and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. This area includes a mix of
medium- and high-density housing, as well as a strip of commercial uses along North Santa Cruz Avenue.
Uses along North Santa Cruz Avenue vary from office and professional, retail, light industrial, and
hospitality. Intermingled along North Santa Cruz Avenue the area includes national retail chains, as well
as infill high-density residential
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-32 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
Figure 3-10 Community Place Districts
Chapter 4, Community Design Element, Section 4.5, Community Place Districts, contains more detailed maps of
each of the Community Place Districts.
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-33
▪ Pollard Road District. The Pollard Road District is focused on the intersection of Pollard Road and More
Avenue, abutting the City of Campbell. The District includes the Rinconada Shopping Center which
anchors the intersection of Pollard Road and More Avenue. The layout of the center, like many
commercial centers in Los Gatos, is automobile-oriented with street fronting surface parking with access
points on either side of the intersection. The area surrounding the shopping center is low-density and
medium-density residential.
▪ Union Avenue District. The Union Avenue District is focused on the intersection of Union Avenue and
Los Gatos-Almaden Road southwest of Blossom Hill Road and Union Avenue in Los Gatos. Similar to the
Harwood District, this area abuts the City of San Jose. This District includes the Downing Center
(commercial shopping center) which anchors the intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos -Almaden
Road. Other than the shopping center, this area primarily includes low-density and medium-density
residential.
▪ Winchester Boulevard District. The Winchester Boulevard District is focused on the intersection of
Winchester Boulevard and Knowles Drive, abutting the City of Campbell. Unlike other areas in Town, this
District also includes designated office and medical uses adjacent to Netflix and El Camino Hospital.
Mixed in with these uses are pockets of medium-density and high-density residential.
Create well-defined nodes of activity containing an integrated mix of commercial,
office, and residential uses that enable Los Gatos residents to live close to
businesses and services, reduce automobile use, and increase bike and pedestrian
activity. [Source: New Goal]
LU-16.1 Integrated Approach
Require Community Place Districts to include integrated site planning techniques that emphasize
connectivity, shared access, bike and pedestrian facilities, and protection of adjacent uses .
[Source: New Policy]
LU-16.2 Mixed-se Design Requirements
Require new mixed-use development in designated Community Place Districts to provide:
▪ Active uses behind sidewalks;
▪ Limit the number of access driveways;
▪ Use build-to lines when placing buildings on the site to minimize street -facing building
setbacks; and
▪ Provide public ground floor spaces adjacent to sidewalks.
[Source: New Policy]
LU-16.3 Variability within Mixed-use Designations
Require mixed-use developments in designated Community Place Districts along an arterial
street-frontage to include vertical mixed-use unless a project proponent can demonstrate that a
vertical mixed-use frontage is not contextually appropriate given the location, scale, size, shape,
or other characteristic of the site and its surroundings. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-34 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
3.8 General Plan Use and Maintenance
The Los Gatos General Plan is designed to be a living document that reflects the Town’s needs and desires,
which will evolve over time. The effectiveness of the General Plan ultimately depends on how the Town
implements and maintains the General Plan over its lifetime. This section is designed to ensure that the Town
provides for regular review and updating of this General Plan to ensure that it reflects the community’s needs and
aspirations, as well as consistency with changes in State law. [Source: New Text]
Ensure that land uses are appropriate and compatible with each other, guide
development in a way that will minimize land use conflicts between adjacent
parcels, and promote the high quality of life enjoyed in Los Gatos. [Source: New
Goal]
LU-17.1 General Plan Land Use Diagram
Maintain and implement a Land Use Diagram describing the types of allowed land uses by
geographic location and the density of allowed uses within each designation. [Source: New
Policy]
LU-17.2 General Plan Consistency
The land use designation applied to a specific parcel of land shall be as designated on the
General Land Use Diagram (Figure 3-6), whether or not such parcel meets all of the applicable
criteria. [Source: New Policy]
LU-17.3 Zoning Consistency
Ensure that zoning designations are consistent with the General Land Use Diagram (Figure 3-6)
and the districts shown in the Compatibile Zoning column on Table 3-2. [Source: New Policy]
Promote the effective use and implementation of the General Plan Land Use
Diagram. [Source: New Goal]
LU-18.1 General Plan Land Use Amendments
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. [Source: New Policy]
LU-18.2 Land Use Boundary Interpretation
The Community Development Director shall determine, subject to appeal to the Planning
Commission and Town Council, the alignment of all land use boundaries depicted on the General
Plan Land Use Diagram, consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. To the extent
feasible, the boundaries on the Land Use Diagram should follow natural or human-made
boundaries, such as:
▪ Parcel lines;
▪ Roads;
▪ Water courses; and
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-35
▪ Utility corridors.
[Source: New Policy]
LU-18.3 Concurrent Zoning Change Processing
To ensure zoning consistency, zoning changes will be made concurrently with a General Plan
amendment. [Source: New Policy]
For an expanded discussion on the General Plan Amendment process, please refer to the
Introduction chapter of the General Plan.
Implement and maintain the 2040 General Plan to reflect the changing needs of the
community and remain consistent with State law. [Source: New Goal]
LU-19.1 Maintain Currency of the 2040 General Plan
Conduct a thorough review and update of the 2040 General Plan as needed to reflect changing
community needs and changes in State law. [Source: New Policy]
LU-19.2 Update Zoning and Other Plans and Programs for General Plan Consistency
Prepare and adopt timely updates to the Town’s Zoning Regulations and other applicable plans
and programs to implement the 2040 General Plan. [Source: New Policy]
LU-19.3 Housing Element Updates
As directed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the
Town will update and implement a Housing Element that provides policies and programs to
encourage the provision of safe, well-designed, accessible, sanitary, and affordable residential
areas where people of all ages, races, and social backgrounds can live, work, and play.
[Source: New Policy]
3.9 Civic Engagement
While technical analysis can provide insight into the needs of an area, these practices fall short without full
participation by the individuals and groups who are most affected by a decision. These individuals and groups
must have a seat at the table to engage in meaningful dialogue and collaboration , not only at the adoption phase,
but during the evaluation and development processes. [Source: New Text]
A key component of environmental justice pursuant to SB 1000 is identifying objectives and policies to
promote increased access to the public decision-making processes. In addition to the policies below,
policies specific to meeting the needs of traditionally underrepresented populations are included in
Chapter 2, Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element.
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-36 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
Promote meaningful transparency, dialogue, and collaboration among members of
the Town and decision-makers. [Source: Existing General Plan Goal: LU-5, modified]
LU-20.1 Community Input
The Town shall facilitate opportunities for all residents and stakeholders to provide meaningful
and effective input on proposed planning activities early on and continuously throughout
development review and the public review process. [Source: New Policy]
LU-20.2 Communication Channels
The Town shall improve communication channels and methods for meaningful dialogue between
community members and decision-makers. [Source: New Policy]
LU-20.3 Times and Locations of Public Engagement Opportunities
The Town shall aim to hold meetings, workshops, and other public engagement opportunities at
times and locations that make it convenient for community members to attend, particularly
stakeholders who are the most likely to be directly affected by the outcome. [Source: New Policy]
LU-20.4 Variety of Public Communication Methods
The Town shall continue to share public information across a variety of media, technological, and
traditional platforms, and in languages based upon the demographics of the community. [Source:
Existing Action Item LU-5.1]
LU-20.5 Language Services
The Town will continue to evaluate the need for the provision of translation services, to the extent
feasible, in conveying important information to the community. [Source: New Policy]
LU-20.6 Leadership Development
Support existing leadership development programs for youth and adults to enhance the
understanding of the government’s role in the development of their community and to empower
residents to engage and influence planning and policy decisions. [Source: New Policy]
LU-20.7 Early Developer Contact
Encourage developers to engage the public as early as possible in discussions regarding the
nature and scope of development projects and possible impacts and mitigation requirements.
[Source: Existing Policy LU-1.1, CD-17.6, modified]
LU-20.8 Involvement with the Town
Use task forces, ad hoc committees, and other means , as appropriate, to involve residential and
commercial interests in Town matters. [Source: Existing Policy LU-1.7and LU-5.1]
LU-20.9 Commercial Development Review
Require full public review for new commercial development to ensure compatibility with adjacent
neighborhoods and the Town. [Source: Existing Policy CD-17.7]
LU-20.10 Story Pole Requirement
Require the erection of story poles prior to the approval of new development. [Source: Existing
Policy CD-17.8]
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-37
LU-20.11 Assumptions
When the deciding body’s decision on a zoning approval is based on assumptions derived from
the applicant’s proposal, those assumptions shall become conditions of the approval. [Source:
Existing Policy CD-17.9]
3.10 Interagency Coordination
Many local, regional, State, and Federal agencies have land use planning, permitting or development review
authority in the Los Gatos Planning Area and surrounding region. Coordination among agencies ensures
regulatory compliance, increases efficiency for development projects and eliminates redundancies among
agencies. [Source: New Text]
Enhance interagency coordination to achieve mutually beneficial land use
development and conservation. [Source: Existing General Plan Goal: LU-3,
modified]
LU-21.1 Regional Planning
Continue and expand Town participation in planning processes in neighboring jurisdictions, Santa
Clara County, and regional agencies and organizations to develop innovative, effective, and
coordinated land use, transportation, and hillside development plans and standards that will help
preserve the Town’s small-town character. [Source: Existing Policy LU-1.6, modified]
LU-21.2 Unincorporated Islands
Cooperate with the County of Santa Clara to encourage the annexation of unincorporated islands
within the Town’s Planning Area into the incorporated Town limits. Incorporating islands
promotes logical boundaries and good governance by limiting the number of agencies providing
basic services. The Town will not require the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or street
lights as a condition of annexation nor will these improvements be imposed on annexed areas
unless the residents of the area request such improvements and are willing to establish an
assessment district or other mechanism to fund such improvements. This does not prevent the
Town from requiring such improvements as a condition of approval of any zoning or subdivision
approval if such conditions are normally made on those items and the improvements would be in
keeping with the neighborhood. [Source: Existing Policy LU-3.1, modified]
LU-21.3 Consultation with State and Federal Agencies
Continue to consult with applicable State and Federal regulatory agencies during project review
and permitting to understand and mitigate potential impacts. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-38 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
3.11 Implementation Programs
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing A Zoning Update for Missing Middle
Housing
The Town shall update the Zoning
Regulations to allow for all housing types
considered for the provision of Missing
Middle Housing types as part of Low
Density Residential and Medium Density
Residential designations. [Source: New
Implementation Program]
LU-1.1
LU-1.2
LU-1.3
Community
Development
◼
B Expansion of Allowed Housing Types
The Town shall research existing regulatory
impediments to the creation of new housing
types that have the potential to fulfill unmet
housing needs (e.g., tiny homes, co-
housing developments) and if necessary,
shall amend applicable ordinances to allow
for their development. [Source: New
Implementation Program]
LU-1.1
LU-1.2
LU-1.3
LU-1.4
Community
Development
◼
C Code Enforcement
The Town shall actively enforce the State
Housing Code to ensure that unsafe,
dilapidated residential structures are
rehabilitated or demolished. [Source: New
Implementation Program]
LU-5.9 Code
Compliance
◼
D Study Hillside Density
Conduct a study to determine whether
hillside properties should be downzoned to
lower densities. [Source: Existing Action
CD-14.2]
LU-6
LU-6.1
LU-6.2
Community
Development
◼
E Identify Needed Businesses
The Town will work to retain current
businesses and provide business liaison
services to assist prospective businesses
[Source: Existing Action LU-9.1, modified]
LU-7.1
LU-7.2
LU-7.3
Town Manager
Community
Development
◼
F Inspect Commercial Landscaping
Periodically inspect all commercial
landscaping to ensure that approved
landscaping is maintained. [Source:
Existing Action CD-8.1]
LU-7.2
LU-8.6
Parks and
Public Works
◼
3. Land Use Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Review Draft 3-39
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing G Rescind Outdated Plans
The Town shall rescind both the Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan and Hillside Specific Plan
for consistency with the 2040 General Plan.
[Source: New Implementation Program]
LU-13
LU-13.1
Community
Development
Town Council
◼
H Historic Resource Inventory
Evaluate conducting an updated Historic
Resource Inventory (HRI) survey, reviewing
Historic District and neighborhood
boundaries, and reconsidering the
construction date for presumptive historic
resources. [Source: New Implementation
Program]
LU-15
LU-15.1
LU-15.3
Community
Development
◼
I Study Historic Review Expansion
Conduct a study and amend the Town Code
to require proposed developments that are
otherwise exempt from historic review, but
that might have an impact on sites of
designated or suspected historic
significance to be referred to the Historic
Preservation Committee for review and
recommendation. [Source: Existing Action
CD-12.3]
LU-15.1
LU-15.3
Community
Development
◼
J Ten-year General Plan Review
The Town shall conduct a thorough review
of the General Plan every ten years from
the date of final approval, and revise and
update as necessary. This review can
include the following:
▪ Modify, add, or delete goals, policies,
or programs to reflect notable
changes in the Town over the
previous period;
▪ Remove or modify programs that
have been completed or require
additional time;
▪ Modify or add new goals, policies, or
programs to reflect changing needs
within the Town; and
▪ Modify to reflect applicable changes
in State law.
[Source: New Implementation Program]
LU-17.1
LU-19.1
Community
Development
◼
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
3-40 Revised GPAC Review Draft April 2021
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing K Zoning Regulations Update
The Town shall update the Town Zoning
Regulations to:
▪ Implement the 2040 General Plan;
▪ Be consistent with the direction in
the 2040 General Plan vision and
guiding principles, land use diagram,
goals, and policies;
▪ Provide for objective design
standards; and
▪ Remove Conditional Use Permits for
residential uses, to the extent
feasible.
[Source: New Implementation Program]
LU-17.3
LU-18.3
LU-19.2
Community
Development
◼
L Develop Informative Outreach Program
Develop an education and outreach
program to inform neighborhoods, realtors,
developers, architects, and designers about
the Town’s design guidelines and
standards. Project application packages
should include the relevant guidelines and
standards. [Source: Existing Action
CD-17.3]
LU-20.1
LU-20.7
LU-20.8
Community
Development
Town Manager
◼
M Distribute Neighborhood Meeting
Guidelines
Prepare and distribute information
describing guidelines for conducting
neighborhood meetings and criteria for
reporting the results of neighborhood
meetings with project applications. [Source:
Existing Action CD-17.4]
LU-20.1
LU-20.7
LU-20.8
Community
Development
Town Manager
◼
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 1 of 32
Land Use Element
The following are comments received by the GPAC and corresponding changes in the Revised Public
Review Draft Element.
Land Use Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 11/5 Meeting
Figures should all be numbered and titled, not
just a randomly inserted graphic.
Figures on density and FAR have been numbered.
General Comments (not specific to a section):
◼Now that we know our next RHNA is
nearly 2000 units by 2030, do we need to
revisit the Land Use Alternatives?
◼This reads like the 2020 plan where we
are all about protecting our Town and
minimizing growth when in fact, we have
to grow A LOT in housing.
◼Suggest re-writing the preamble/intro to
cover:
o State requirements for growth which we
now know are more than 3X current
RHNA for just the next 8-year cycle.
o Need to change housing mix to
accommodate a more diverse population
and include much more (smaller)
affordable units—this aligns with our
vision statement.
o Acknowledging the challenges this
present for a Town that is very invested
in keeping things the way they have
been. Things are going to change and we
must do our best to turn this into an
opportunity to grow the best way we can
to preserve the reason we moved here.
o Recognizing that we have an opportunity
to grow sensibly as the addition of much
smaller units will serve our residents (e.g.
youth, seniors, lower income) and make
it possible for them to live here or remain
here if that is there desire.
The Town will need to reevaluate land uses for
the next RHNA cycle.
Substantial edits have been made to have a more
forward-focused plan through the introductory
language, goals, and policies.
The following suggestions in the comment have
been incorporated into the Land Use Element
introduction.
Quantifiable open space requirements are better
suited for incorporation into the Town Zoning
Code and not the General Plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 2 of 32
o Focusing growth primarily on residential
with growth in commercial to be
neighborhood serving commercial.
o Focusing on growth in higher density
housing in opportunity areas.
o Stepping up and encouraging mixed use
as a vehicle to achieve growth and
neighborhood commercial.
◼Wondering if we shouldn’t add a general
objective standard for minimum open
space in new development.
On Section D Existing Land Uses Page LU5:
◼Residential Single Family: Since we are trying
to encourage additional ADUs for single
family to meet state mandate for new
housing units, I thought we should emphasize
homeowner’s ability to add ADUs and garage
conversions whereby each home has the
possibility of having up to 3 residential units.
This option is not well known to homeowners
so I would recommend that we highlight it in
this section.
◼Residential Multi-Family: Consider adding
language here to accommodate seniors
housing, mobile/manufactured homes and
affordable housing.
◼Commercial: Since the term commercial
implies all commercial real estate, I would
recommend that we change this section to
Retail Commercial with the following first
sentence (underlined terms are new). ...such
as shopping centers, grocery/convenience
stores, restaurants/food related, drug stores,
gyms/fitness related, theatres, bank
branches, spas/salons, dry cleaners,
nurseries, gas stations/auto repair/car
washes, car dealerships and other general
retail uses.
◼Light Industrial: I would recommend
changing title to Industrial since Light
The discussion of ADUs were added to Table 3-2
to reflect this comment.
There is no need to call these out since the State
does not see a distinction in these uses.
This level of detail is more appropriate for listing
in the Town Zoning Code.
The current title for this designation will remain.
The term “Light Industrial” most closely describes
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 3 of 32
Industrial is typically a sub-type of Industrial.
I would recommend adding
warehouse/storage to first sentence and we
should consider removing self-storage and
auto related as those also can appear in retail
use cases depending upon their locations.
◼ Public/Quasi Public: Consider adding parking
structures to this category.
◼ Not sure where Hotel (Hospitality) is but it
might warrant a separate category, or we can
add to Retail/Commercial section.
the type of industrial uses allowed in this
designation, as it does not include heavy
industrial uses.
This comment has been reflected.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-1, Introductory Paragraph 1:
I disagree that the “priority of this General Plan”
is to “maintain overall quality of life.” To me, that
is “code” for maintaining the status quo. With
new housing numbers and state laws and
changing housing/work/school needs as
everything moves to a single location, the Plan
needs to emphasize dynamism and flexibility
going forward.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-1 Introduction:
There is a lot of overlap between the Land Use
Element and the Land Use and Community
Design Element. So, I wonder if they could be
combined into one Land Use and Community
Design Element.
No change. Town direction was to have two
elements.
Page 3-1, Introductory Paragraph 1:
The second sentence under paragraph one seems
unnecessary. We are “predominately built-out”
and yet it says, “land use is dynamic” and
“changes …will occur as needs and demands
fluctuate over time.” It is pretty obvious and
probably doesn’t need to be said.
First sentence modified to provide some
transition. Second sentence deleted.
Page 3-3: FAR.
Shouldn’t the definition reference the Town
Codes governing the FAR calculation?
Reference added.
FAR:
● Why change from the definition in the 2020 GP
Glossary which uses net land area rather than
gross area to calculate FAR? Why not base one
buildable area (area after deductions for setbacks
and reductions for slope; In hillside areas
No change. The definition provided here is
consistent with the definition in the Town Code.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 4 of 32
calculate FAR on contiguous areas below 30%
slope).
● Clarify that a project needs to meet all
standards: For example: A project may have a
maximum FAR of 2.0 and the project design
choses to place all of the FAR in one building on
half of the site, but by doing this the project
exceeds the height standard or does not meet
setbacks or…
Added text to this effect on page 3-8.
● Clarify: “four feet above existing or proposed
grade” is it “ more than four feet above existing
or proposed grade, whichever results in a lower
profile?
No change.
Definition is as stated in the existing Town Code.
Intensity: Add definition. Added to page 3-3.
Lot Coverage:
● How does this differ from “lot coverage” used
to determine permeable area?
● Is this net or gross area?
Lot coverage here refers to area covered by
structures. Non-permeable areas are typically
larger as they would include paved areas.
General Plan uses gross area.
Multi-Family Residential:
● Delete and replace with: Multi-Family
Residential development is a development that is
more than two dwellings without respect to type
or ownership
The use of triplex, fourplex, microunits,
apartments, townhouses and condominiums
confuse the meaning of multi-family because it
mixes building types with ownership types. The
state defines multi-family as more than two units
on a parcel - without consideration of housing
type (detached or attached) or ownership type.
Definition updated.
Mixed Use Development:
Add maximum height and maximum site
coverage standards for Mixed Use Development
both here and in Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use
Designations and Standards.
No change. This definition provides an example
to help describe the use type. Standards are
provided for all uses on Table 3-2.
Standards for Mixed Use are already included on
Table 3-2.
Planning Area: Shorten and simplify. No change.
Definition provides needed information.
Sphere of Influence: Add: probable future
physical boundary…
The word “future” was added.
Urban Service Area: Add definition. Added to page 3-4.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 5 of 32
Page 3-4: 3.1 General Plan Buildout:
● Modify title: General Plan Buildout Through
2040.
● Delete: Suggested language: The 2040 General
Plan development projections are shown in Table
3-1: General Plan Buildout through 2040.
Development projections for General Plan 2040
were based on the Town’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), potential non-
residential market demand, development
potential within the General Plan’s Community
Place Districts (See Section 3.5 p.3-24 and Section
4.5 p. 4-27), as well as infill and redevelopment
potential throughout the community.
Table 3-1 represents a potential buildout and is
not related to a specific year.
Edits made to first paragraph in keeping with this
comment.
Page 3-4
Table 3-1 2n column: Probably should use
existing as 2020 instead of 2019.
No change. The data is used is from 2019 and is
the latest data available.
3.1 General plan Buildout
We should repeat the message here about
significantly greater growth and the opportunity
to provide housing for diverse groups using
smaller units and new housing types including
multi-family and mixed use which means we will
have to add height and increase density in certain
parts of Town.
I think it is hard to evaluate this without having
Table 3-1 complete.
No change. Note is out of context with
information being presented.
Page 3-5:
● Add: Label Figure 3.1 Land Use Diagram at the
top of the page.
● Increase the font size of the Legend.
● Increase the scale of the Diagram: Consider
doing a fold out dividing between two pages.
● Divide the legend into the sections paralleling
those used in Table 3.2 General Plan Land Use
Designations and Development Standards.
No change. On 11x17 format, the location used
provides the best location.
No change. The font size is in keeping with the
fonts used throughout the document.
No change. This map is already on an 11x17
sheet.
Page 3-5
Figure 3-1: The yellow for the hillside residential
looks like the color for Low Density Residential.
We probably need to better delineate the colors.
No change. The two yellows are notably
different.
Page 3-7: 3.2 Land Use Diagram, Designations,
and Standards
Land Use Diagram
The underlined text was used as a replacement
with exception to information no zoning, which is
already provided on the following page. Other
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 6 of 32
● Delete everything else on this page except the
heading 3.2 Land Use Diagram, Designations and
Standards and Land Use Diagram, the sub-
heading of Land Use Diagram, and the
information box.
● Suggested replacement language and
organization:
Land Use Diagram:
Figure 3-1, the General Plan Land Use Diagram,
shows the distribution of the land use
designations allowed within the Town’s Planning
Area. The Town’s Land Use Diagram is largely
implemented through the Town’s Zoning
Regulation.
A copy of the Land Use Diagram is available from
the Town’s Community Development
Department or can be downloaded from the
Town’s website.
components on the page were maintained to
provide explanation to readers, which would not
be clear otherwise.
3.2 Land Use Designations and Standards
Page 3-8 to 3-11
I think we really need to walk people through the
changes we are going to have to make in our land
use designations to accommodate this growth.
Maybe a side-by-side comparison of 2020 and
2040 or at least summarize the process we went
through doing the Land Use Alternatives to get to
that growth.
No change. The General Plan provides guidance
on future plan. A comparison can be developed as
part of staff reports or other supplemental
information.
Page 3-8: Land Use Designations and Standards.
● Delete the text under Land Use Designations
and Standards.
● Suggested language:
Table 3-2 divides the sixteen land use
designations identified on the Land Use Diagram
into six groups and provides guidance on the
types of uses appropriate for each land use
designation as well as the corresponding
standards for density and intensity.
The Land Use Diagram is largely implemented
through the Town’s zoning regulations…While
the Land Use Diagram guides zoning, it is not the
same as the Towns Zoning Map.
Changes made to content to reflect comments.
Middle portions of the paragraph were
maintained to better explain the General Plan and
Zoning relationship.
Multiple GPAC comments on content of this
section. Change reflects a balance to all
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 7 of 32
Second paragraph: Delete.
Suggested language:
The Land Use Element establishes land use
designations and their distribution within the Los
Gatos Planning Area as shown in Figure 3.1),
Table 3-2, General Plan Land Use Designations
and Development Standards includes
sixteen land use designations divided into six
groups. Table 3.2 describes the intent of the
allowed uses and sets density and intensity
standards for each land use designation.
The Land Use Element, together with the
Community Design Element, address a broad
range of topics related to the Town’s physical
structure and appearance. These two elements
provide the primary policy guidance to ensure
new land uses are logically organized, and are
developed in a way that reinforces and enhances
the character and identity of Los Gatos.
Multiple GPAC comments on content of this
section. Change reflects a balance to all
comments.
Last insert is about the element in general, and
was added.
Table 3-2 General Plan Land Use Designations
and Development Standards .
● Move the group designation titles to the top of
each section of the table.
● Provide a break in the table between each
group.
● For HR and LRD list all the zoning designations
that are compatible. For example:
HR:1, HR:2 ½ etc.: R-1:8, R-1:10, etc.
The comment provided have been reflected. The
exiting order of the listings will remain as
directed by Town staff.
Pages 3-8 – 3-11 (Table 3.2):
As I understand it, this Table is simply illustrative,
providing definitions of varieties of permitted
land uses – without mandating the use or
application of any particular type. If this
understanding is correct, I don’t object. If my
understanding is incorrect, and this Table is really
intended to mandate particular uses in particular
areas, then I think it merits further discussion, as
the Committee may wish to recommend Zoning
changes.
No change.
The table is illustrative. Zoning provides the
specific uses. Text before the table provides this
clarification.
Table 3-2: You say which designations allow
mixed-use format, include which do not include
mixed-use format.
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 8 of 32
Why are OS and AG max height at 30? Is this a
barn or a house?
Height would apply to any allowed use.
30 feet was based on the height limit of 30 feet in
the Town’s Resource Conservation zoning district.
Page 3-12: 3.3 Community Development
3.3 Community Development:
● Additional potential for what?
● Delete everything after…through the
redevelopment of….
● Suggest: The following goals and policies will
allow growth while protecting the Town’s
aesthetics and character.
Added the term “development”. The suggested
language was implemented.
3.3 Community Development:
This section needs a new policy that talks about
minimizing new single family detached housing
and shifting growth to smaller units.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-1:
● What does it mean to reflect the existing
character of infrastructure?
● Delete. Suggested language: Planned growth
will reflect the Town” existing character.
A new goal has been provided to reflect this
comment.
LU-1: Seems really out of place for where we are
going in general. Maybe restate goal that we
must growth at a dramatically higher rate (which
is a fact) and say we have an opportunity to serve
a more diverse population and meet our legal
responsibility to provide more housing.
A new goal has been provided to reflect this
comment.
LU-1.1: Without a definition of “a healthy
balance” this policy could be interpreted so
broadly as to be meaningless.
The term healthy has been removed from the
policy.
LU-1.1: Delete healthy. The term healthy has been removed from the
policy.
LU-1.1: What is a “healthy” balance?? The term healthy has been removed from the
policy.
LU-1.1: I don’t know what the term “healthy
balance” means when it comes to the mix of land
use types.
The term healthy has been removed from the
policy.
LU-1.2, LU-2.1: add comma after e.g., This policy has been removed per prior GPAC
comments.
LU 1.2: We should delete this. Not appropriate
for the current housing laws.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-1.3: What type of a project would this be? Can
you be more specific?
This policy has been removed per prior GPAC
comments.
LU-1.3: What are the “public costs?” Police, fire,
etc.?” Or “no traffic?” This needs to be defined,
This policy has been removed per prior GPAC
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 9 of 32
and there should be no absolute prohibition on
approval of any project.
LU 1.3: We should delete this. Not appropriate
for the current housing laws
This comment has been reflected.
LU-1.4: Delete apostrophe in Project’s and how
do you reduce impact on schools when they
aren’t in the Town’s jurisdiction? Not the same
category, although of course minimizing negative
impact is a good thing.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-1.4: Not sure schools can be included here, as
mitigation for school impacts is preempted by
state law.
Schools has been removed from the policy.
LU-1.4: The first word -- Projects -- should not
have an apostrophe.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-1.4: Perhaps we could quantify the level of
acceptable impact, such as reduce projected
impacts by 75%.
Environmental review will determine the
necessary mitigation reduction. This policy will be
retained as is.
LU-2: Modify: Use infill sites to accommodate
new development.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-2—Not sure what appropriate means here.
We need to grow dramatically and because the
Town is really built out, we can only do infill or
redevelopment. Maybe talk more here about
how mixed use (with required residential as part
of it) and taller buildings strategically placed can
help us reach that goal.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-2: Is too vague…what is “use land efficiently”
and “appropriate infill development.”
This comment has been reflected.
LU-2.1 and LU-2.2: These are similar. Is it
possible to combine and condense?
Policy LU-2.2 has been removed due to
redundancy.
LU-2.1: Meeting In-fill Development policies
should be sufficient. I continue to register my
objection to all
phrases/prohibitions/goals/requirements, etc.
that place limitations on land use based on
whether they will “protect” or “detract” from
“existing quality of life.”
Comment noted.
LU-2.1: Compatibility, meaning functional
compatibility I assume. I would add “functional”
because we use neighborhood compatibility as
an aesthetic criterion too in other places.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-2.1: Is it “infill” or “in-fill”? Be consistent. This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 10 of 32
LU-2.1: “and do not detract from the existing
quality of life” …as if you could actually quantify
what is the existing quality of life. It is too vague.
This comment has been reflected.
LU 2.1: Not sure this makes sense anymore. Can
we realistically do this?
This policy has bene revised based on previous
GPAC comments.
Remove hyphen from in-fill. This comment has been reflected.
LU-2.2: Seems redundant and duplicative of LU-
2.1
This policy has been removed.
LU-2.2: Same as above…too vague. Projects
should blend rather than compete with existing
development. What is an example of projects
that blend and those that compete?
This policy has been removed.
Page 3-12, Introductory Paragraph 3.3:
I recognize that the GPAC disagreed over the
continued use of the phrase “small town”
feel/charm/character, and ultimately chose to
include it. I continue to register my opposition to
its use, and therefore object to the inclusion and
identification of a goal to “protect the small town
feel and aesthetic.” We should be planning for
the future.
Comment noted.
For the following land use designation sections,
don’t list all the sub-designations. We already
have this information in the table referenced,
and it’s silly to say the designation is the same as
the designation (mixed use).
This comment has been reflected.
LU-3: Need to adapt goal to say why. Meet the
needs of…Required growth, more diverse
population, etc.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-3: Suggest “Maintain and enhance sense of
place…”
This policy has been removed.
LU 3.2: This is a good policy. This policy has bene removed and replaced with a
comprehensive section on Missing Middle
Housing.
LU3.3: It is not clear what this means. Does the
Town have to increase the density on another
site to make up for the loss of units? Subject to
neighborhood compatibility and mitigation of
traffic impacts are subjective and therefore they
are big hurdles to pass.
This policy has been removed.
LU-3.3: Isn’t this mandated by state law? This policy has been removed.
LU 3.3: Not sure this is strong enough and not
sure it is in line with HAA.
This policy has been removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 11 of 32
LU-3.4: Suggest Deleting: Not sure what the
purpose of this Policy is or how it could be
implemented.
This policy has been retained per previous GPAC
comments.
LU-3.4: Not sure how a “neighborhood
characteristic” includes a “sense of personal
safety” – that’s unique to the individual. Design
features could enhance safety…
This comment has been reflected.
LU-3.4: Perhaps we could quantify a standard for
proximity of the necessary services and facilities
(such as grocery markets and pharmacies), such
as within one mile of all residences.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-3.5: Combine with LU3.4: Suggest: Delete here
and combine with LU2.2. But Is the standard of
one mile even feasible?
Concerns listed have been addressed per previous
GPAC comments.
LU-3.5: Delete “about” one mile. Just say “within
one mile”.
This policy has been removed.
LU-3.5: I would substitute grocery stores for
convenience markets. Again we could specify a
one mile radius of all residents.
This policy has been removed.
LU 3.5: Last sentence should say one mile, not
about one mile and add whenever possible. This
is absolutely not possible or desirable in the
hillsides. Maybe this should be added.
This policy has been removed.
Page 3-13: Residential Designations:
● Add after the Residential Designations heading:
Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential and High Density
Residential.
● Delete: The sentence after the Residential
Designations heading.
● Note: Do the above for all headings under 3.3
Community Development.
● Define Underutilize site.
This comment has been reflected.
This comment has been reflected
This comment has been reflected.
This comment has been reflected in the Key
Terms.
LU-3.6: This makes no sense. If, in preceding
paragraphs, we are mandating a variety of
services, including “neighborhood shopping and
services [to] be available within about one mile of
all dwellings,” (LU-3.5) how are we then
supposed to “protect existing residential areas
from the impacts of non-residential
development?” No area should be insulated from
change.
This policy has been removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 12 of 32
LU 3.6: Not sure what we are trying to prevent
here.
This policy has been removed.
LU-3.7 and 3.8: Use of residences for business,
work, school, etc., all needs to be re-thought as
businesses and schools move to remote
functioning.
Comment noted.
LU 3.7 and 3.8—possible to combine these?
Maybe we should encourage this?
These are addressing two different topics and will
remain as separate policies.
LU-3.8: Delete “and” in front of daycare. This comment has been reflected.
LU-3.8: The State of California mandates that
cities allow congregate care facilities up to a
maximum of so-many residents. Perhaps we
should reference “in accordance with State law.”
This comment has been reflected.
LU-3.9: What exactly is a use that “may lead to
the deterioration of residential neighborhoods?”
This should be deleted.
This has been removed.
LU-3.10: Neighborhoods are walkable if services
are proximate so perhaps, we could include a
desired distance of all residences as mentioned in
3.4 above.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-3.12: I have noticed several modern style
homes approved in otherwise traditional
neighborhoods such as Alpine and Bella Vista.
Will this prohibit future mixing of styles?
The front-end verb has been softened on this
policy.
LU-3.14: Insert space between are necessary. Policy LU-3.14 per previous GPAC comments.
LU-3.14, 3.15: Consider combining. Policy LU-3.14 was removed and LU-3.15 was
retained per previous GPAC comments.
Page 3-14 - Page 3-15:
LU-3.8: Does the Town have established
standards for this? If so, what are they? Are they
objective or subjective?
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will
provide additional guidance for integrated
walkable neighborhoods.
LU-1.14: Does this apply to all flag lots? Or is it
intended to apply only to Hillside lots? Clarified
the difference between Lu-1.14 and LU-1.15. Can
these be combined using bullets?
Policy LU-3.14 was removed and LU-3.15 was
retained per previous GPAC comments.
LU-3.14 I think it is possible to allow flag lots in
cases where the lot size is inordinately large
relative to the surrounding lots (perhaps 3 to 4
times larger) and the frontage very limited. This
would allow such properties some sense of
fairness.
Policy LU-3.14 was removed and LU-3.15 was
retained per previous GPAC comments.
LU 3.14 and 3.15—Should we revisit this policy of
discouraging flag lots?
Policy LU-3.14 was removed and LU-3.15 was
retained per previous GPAC comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 13 of 32
LU-4 Mixed Use: Like this as new goal. Maybe be
more specific about why—to provide more dense
housing to meet goals for growth.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-4.2: Who are “community members.” I
presume it is the general public instead of only
project residents?
Yes, your observation is correct.
LU-5: The term “appropriate” is meaningless as
used here
The term “appropriate” has been removed from
the goal per previous GPAC comments.
LU-5 Commercial.
Not sure we can realistically preserve retail given
the projections for “death” of retail as we know
it. Maybe we should rewrite some of these
policies to talk about adapting to the transition of
retail which at the moment includes things like
exercise facilities. I know we would all like to
keep Downtown the way it is but that doesn’t
seem realistic.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-5.1: What does “strong” mean? Maybe use
viable, vibrant? Or maybe a percent occupied to
start…
The policy has been updated and the term
“strong” has been removed.
LU-5-1: Commercial centers may change over
time. Why name any area, e.g. Los Gatos
Boulevard?
This comment has been reflected.
LU-5.1 Another vague term. What does “strong”
mean?
The policy has been updated and the term
“strong” has been removed.
LU 5.2 and 5.5—Is it realistic to continue to
emphasize retail for the next 20 years? Can we
realistically stop retail sales tax leakage? Is there
a way to tax the newer types of facilities instead?
Yes, it is not uncommon to focus on sales tax
leakage. Even with the shift in retail it is still vital
for the Town to retain and entice retail and
commercial businesses to relocate or maintain in
the community.
Do we still want to make it possible to get a
decent sized hotel here?
A new policy has been added to reflect this
comment.
LU-5.3: Has this changed with the council’s
decision to welcome formula retail? Or will that
experiment be expiring?
This policy will be retained since locally owned
businesses are still valued and encouraged in
Town, and some formula retail businesses are
locally owned.
LU-5.3: Continuing objection to “consistent with
Los Gatos’ small-town character and scale.
Businesses should have the opportunity to locate
in Los Gatos if they meet all Town policies and
criteria, period.
Comment noted. This policy will be retained.
LU-5.3 Where, what and how is the Town going
to do this? I think it is possible to ask a national
This can be done by discouraging or prohibiting
retail chain or formula stores in specific zoning
districts.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 14 of 32
chain to appear small but not to discriminate
against a business based on who owns it.
LU-5.5: What does “comparative” mean in this
context?
Comparative was removed due to vagueness.
LU-5.6 We should quantify what is considered an
adequate buffer. Perhaps 15 feet with a
minimum 8 foot wall?
Quantifiable standards are better suited for
inclusion in the Town Zoning Code.
Page 3-16
LU-5.6: Buffers for Non-residential uses: It is not
clear whether “buffers” are intended for visual
separation or to reduce noise impacts to adjacent
residential or other sensitive uses.
Note: It requires at least 100 feet of dense
landscaping to perceive a reduction of sound
level.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-6: How is this section consistent with the
newly-adopted Land Use Alternatives, which
include increased mixed-use and housing
opportunities in downtown?
This goal was updated to reflect the comment by
changing the verb from preserve to enhance.
Page 17:
LU-6.1: Suggest: Create a bullet for the service
commercial activities along University.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-6.2 What are clearly defined boundaries? Do
alleys count?
This could be a physical distinction, yes via alley’s,
or could be a distinction shown on a map
highlighting which parcels are located within the
defined boundary areas.
LU-6.3 and 7.2: Consider combining. These will be retained as is. The first policy is
directly linked to commercial, while the second is
explicitly related to residential.
LU-6.3: Another vague phrase “taking into
consideration potential impacts to loss of
commercial opportunities.” Are substituting the
Town’s judgment for the free hand of the
marketplace?
The last portion of this policy was removed to
reflect the comment.
LU-7: Another use of a vague term “appropriate.” The term “appropriate” has been removed per
previous GPAC comments.
LU-7.1: Why wouldn’t we encourage replacement
of any vacated business anywhere in Town?
This policy has been updated to reflect the
comment, by broadening its relevance Townwide.
LU-7.1: Why do we only care about vacated
businesses in the named areas? What about
vacated businesses downtown?
This policy has been updated to reflect the
comment, by broadening its relevance Townwide.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 15 of 32
LU-7.1: This is listed as an existing policy. What
does the Town do to “encourage” and how has it
worked?
This can be encouraged by development
incentives, zoning reductions, or the allowance of
additional allowable uses in the Town’s Zoning
Code.
LU -7.1: Why not encourage replacement of all
vacated businesses vs. specific neighborhoods
and maybe replace with mixed use?
This policy has been updated to reflect the
comment, by broadening its relevance Townwide.
Page 3-18: Change the color of the CBD to
correspond with the color used on Fig. 3-1 Land
Use Diagram (p. 3-5)
This comment has been reflected.
LU-7.3: This should be deleted. Auto dealerships
are largely obsolete, and many in Los Gatos are
now standing empty. More importantly, the now
defunct auto dealerships along Los Gatos
Boulevard provide a perfect opportunity for
mixed use development and housing.
Maintaining this paragraph erects an unnecessary
hurdle to reuse.
This policy has been removed.
LU 7.3: Not sure we can or should retain and
enhance auto dealerships.
This policy has been removed.
LU-7.3: What do we do to “retain and enhance”
auto dealerships?
This policy has been removed.
Page 3-19: Define: flex/incubator spaces and
research and development
This comment has been reflected.
LU-8.2: I am concerned that maintaining this
section as written could prevent conversion of
industrial spaces to live/work areas that can
provide needed housing opportunities.
This policy has been revised per prior GPAC
comments.
LU-8.2: Why discourage conversion. What
benefit do we get from office Professional etc.?
If we allow residential over retail, then why not
over office?
This policy has been revised per prior GPAC
comments.
LU-8.4: Revise: “Enhance the working
environment and reduce traffic impact by
promoting small retail and restaurant areas to
serve employees in Office Professional…”
This comment has been reflected.
SPECIFIC PLANS: Delete (at end of paragraph)
“that they implement.”
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-21:
● Add a description of allowed land uses in the
North 40.
● Is Figure 3-3 necessary? Can the text just refer
to the Land Use Diagram?
These comments have been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 16 of 32
LU-9.1: Fix the sequence: “prepared,
implemented, amended and updated”
Delete the word “if”.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-10 (Goal) revise: “Ensure governmental,
utility…and services are located and designed to
complement Los Gatos’ neighborhoods and
nearby sensitive land uses.”
This comment has been reflected.
LU-10: Why not have a policy encouraging or
requiring minimum open space for all new
development?
Open space as described in this section is not
common recreation space for development, but
undisturbed areas. Open space requirements
relating to developments are located in the Open
Space, Parks and Recreation and Community
Design elements.
LU-10.2: Why are we concerned about the civic
center. It is pretty well buffered now?
No change. This policy reflects prior GPAC
comments.
Overlay Zones: Why are the Town’s Affordable
Housing Overlay Zones not included here?
The AHOZ has been added.
Page 3-22: Los Gatos Blvd. Plan:
● Is the Los Gatos Blvd Plan actually a Specific
Plan?
● Isn’t this Plan largely obsolete? For example:
○ The Plan called for the North 40 to be
destination retail and limited neighborhood
commercial - no residential)
○Hasn’t the Town’s policy changed to not
only complement the town as a whole but
to not compete with the downtown?
○The area along the Boulevard already has a
mixed-use designation.
● Any concepts, objectives or policies that have
not already been incorporated might be included
in the Los Gatos Boulevard District.
● Suggest: Review the Plan to ensure all
remaining relevant policies and goals have been
incorporated into General Plan 2040, and then
retire the Plan, as was done with the Downtown
Development Plan in the past.
The Los Gatos Boulevard section has been
removed per GPAC and staff direction.
LU-11.2: Do we need to say the obvious? This policy has been removed.
LU-11.3: Why not say 1 acre? This comment has been reflected.
LU-11.3: Again, why do we need to state the
obvious?
This policy has been removed.
LGB Plan: This section has been removed as requested by
the GPAC and Town staff.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 17 of 32
(Intro) Complements but does not compete with
Downtown versus (goal and LU12.3)
complements the whole town.
Page 3-23, Los Gatos Boulevard Plan:
The Plan is now over 20 years old and needs to be
rescinded or completely overhauled to match the
goals and policies of this 2040 General Plan.
Mixed use and housing needs to be encouraged,
alternative transportation modes need to be
planned for and included, height limits and
setbacks need to be rethought. Los Gatos
Boulevard provides one of the best opportunities
in Town for new housing, and maintaining the
current Plan is in potential conflict with
redevelopment and in-fill changes. See, e.g, “Los
Gatos Boulevard District (“Community Place
District” p. 3-27)
Comment noted. As new program has been
added to rescind the LGB and HSP.
Los Gatos Boulevard Plan.
What complements the Downtown but does not
compete?
The LGP section has been removed. As new
program has been added to rescind the LGB and
HSP.
LU-12.1 and LU12.3.
Vague terms: “…encourage…where appropriate.”
Commercial “shall complement”. What
complements and what doesn’t?
The Downtown is mentioned in the introduction
but not mentioned in the polices. Why?
The LGP section has been removed. As new
program has been added to rescind the LGB and
HSP.
Page 3-24 to Page 3-29: 3.5 Community Place
Districts
● Suggest: Change the name, it is easily confused
with the Community Commercial Land Use
Designation.
● Downtown District: I am having second
thoughts on including the area along Santa Cruz
between the plaza and Highway 9, and the
historic districts in an area identified for
redevelopment or intensification beyond that is
already possible. I think it would be counter to
maintaining the existing character of the Town’s
core. Even allowing additional development in
this area up to 45’ in height would affect its
existing character.
● Suggest: Identify a limited area on the east,
west, and south sides of the Town Plaza
These comments have been addressed as part of
the review by the GPAC on the Community Design
Element in February and March 2021.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 18 of 32
● Figure 3-4: Include the underlying street system
and names of major streets
● Replace the pictures with a small map of the
various districts as was included for the
Downtown District.
Hillside Specific Plan:
Intro: second line, should say in the “southern”
portion of town.
Last sentence, insert “generally” in front of
prohibited and delete last phrase “unless it is
compliant…”
This section has been removed at the request of
GPAC and Town staff.
GOAL LU-13: Do we really want to encourage
hillside housing? If we keep this goal, suggest
revising to: “Ensure housing in the hillside area
does not adversely affect the mountain
environment or endanger public health and
safety.”
This comment has been reflected.
LU-13: Really how do we provide housing for
various income levels within the hillsides? Are
we going to allow high density in the hillsides?
The reference to various income levels was
removed per previous GPAC Comments.
For the districts (pages 3-25 through 3-18) use
maps for all rather than photographs.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-27: The districts are identified as “auto-
oriented.” We need to change the auto
orientation over time if we want to be a friendly,
safe small town.
Comment noted. The Community Design Element
will focus on narratives that emphasize that.
Page 3-28: LU-14.1: Integrated Approach:
Simplify the language of this policy.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-14.2: Delete the word “provide” and begin
each bullet with a verb.
This comment has been reflected with the use of
the terms “require”.
LU-3.14 You need a space between the words
“are necessary”.
This policy has been removed per prior GPAC
comments.
Do we have HPC’s input on the Historic
Preservation Goal/Policies?
Yes.
3.6: Delete the word “small” and in each of the
bullets, give acreage for all or none.
This comment has been reflected.
3.6 Preserving our History.
Has the HPC reviewed this?
Did not have time to write comments on the rest
of this Element including implementation
programs before the desk item deadline but have
verbal comments for the meeting.
HPC did review and provide comments. No
change.
Page 3-30: This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 19 of 32
● Modify: Delete the three parcels north of Lark
Ave. The Albright Specific Plan does not include
these parcels.
Page 3-30
The extent of the historic district in the
Downtown seems small. Don’t we have other
“historic” properties on Santa Cruz Avenue?
Yes, there are other historic properties outside
the historic district, but the official boundaries
will not be changing as part of this General Plan
process.
Pages 3-31 to 3-37: Sections 3.7, Section 3.8,
Section 3.9 , Section 3.10), and Section 3.11 do
not comfortably fit in the Land Use Element.
Several of these sections will remain, while other
have been moved into other elements per
previous GPAC direction.
Top of page 3-31:
Revise: Los Gatos’ historic districts are defined
by…” And because there are important historic
structures outside of the historic districts, suggest
inserting the following sentence “There are also
many protected structures of historic significance
outside the historic districts.” In front of the
sentence that begins “In addition”.
This text has been updated and moved per
previous GPAC comments.
LU-15.1: “Maintain maps and an inventory of the
Town’s Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP)
overlay zones.” Delete the remainder of the
policy or integrate it into the intro.
This comment has been reflected. This policy and
subsequent goal have been moved to the Overlay
Zones section per previous GPAC requests.
LU-15.3: Maybe just preserve and use, delete
“rehabilitate and continue” and change policy
heading too.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-16. This a run-on sentence. Also, you use
“land use” too many times. Perhaps “Ensure that
land uses as appropriate and compatible with
each other, and guide development in a pattern
that will minimize land use conflicts between
adjacent parcels and promote the high quality of
life enjoyed in Los Gatos”.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-16: Replace “pattern” with “way”. This comment has been reflected.
LU-16.1 (and in LU-18): Order should be
Implement before maintain.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-16.1: I don’t know why this needs to be a
policy?
This is a standards General plan policy that
communities regularly use to tie the maintenance
and updating of the land use diagram to the
overall element. This policy will be retained.
LU-16.2: Move first sentence to intro on p. 3-31. This comment has been reflected. The sentence
has been removed and the policy has been
streamlined.
LU-17.3: Replace “if needed to assure” with “to
ensure”.
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 20 of 32
Page 3-32
LU-16.3: Consistent with my comments regarding
Table 3.2, I wonder where it is appropriate to
advocate for Zoning changes. For example, if I
wished to advocate for a change in Single Family
Residential Zoning, I would object to a section,
like this one, that requires consistency with the
designations in Figure 3-1.
Comment noted.
LU-18.3: Replace the words “that will be” with
“who are”.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-19: the goal has little connection to the
policies (or vice versa). Suggest revising the goal
to:
“Promote meaningful transparency, dialogue and
collaboration among members of the town and
decision-makers.”
This comment has been reflected.
If you keep the original goal, change it to focus on
social and economic equality (although that’s a
huge undertaking…) and develop policies that
support. And move it to the racial and social
justice element.
The goal has been updated per previous GPAC
comments.
LU-18: Take out the word “to” at the end of this
goal (“... community and remain consistent…”)
This comment has been reflected.
LU-18.1: Who conducts the review and how
often? PC every two years?
This will be up to the Town Council. There is a
program that requires the Town to undertake a
comprehensive review of the GP every 10 years.
Lu-18.3 What is the “EJ” in the box? The EJ tag means environmental justice. This will
be the explained in the Introduction.
LU-19.1 and LU-19.2: We don’t need to say
“continue.”
This comment has been reflected.
LU-19.7: What is the “SUS” in the box? The SUS tag means sustainability. This will be the
explained in the Introduction.
LU-19.7 I know decision makers like this, but you
run the risk of appearing to endorse a project
with little or no public input.
This policy will be retained but modified to clarify
that developers should engage the public as early
as possible.
LU-19.10: Story poles are expensive and don’t
really tell neighbors any more than a good 3D
drawing will. I would rather post the site with a
drawing and site plan and distribute site plans
and elevations to immediate neighbors.
This policy will be retained as directed by Town
staff.
LU-20.3: Is this the Town’s responsibility or the
schools? I would think a different focus is needed
(unless the Town is offering the grants).
Lifelong Learning has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 21 of 32
LU-20: How do we enhance the educational
support system?
Lifelong Learning has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
Pages 3-35 – 3-36
Do “Lifelong Learning” and “Healthy Community”
belong in the Land Use Element, or elsewhere,
e.g., Environment????
Healthy Community and Lifelong Learning has
been moved to the Public Facilities, Services, and
Infrastructure Element.
LU-21, LU-21.1, LU-21.6): need to define “healthy
foods” or “healthier foods.” Organic? Locally
sourced?
Healthy Community has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
LU-21.6 and LU-21.7: Do these policies need to
be elevated to the level of the GP? Remember
the GP is supposed to be high-level.
Healthy Community has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
3.11: Rewrite to tighten it up:
Many local, regional, state and federal agencies
have land use planning, permitting or
development review authority in the Los Gatos
Planning Area and surrounding region.
Coordination among agencies ensures regulatory
compliance, increases efficiency for development
projects and eliminates redundancies among
agencies.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-22.2: We should mention that incorporating
islands promotes logical boundaries and “good
government” by limited the number of agencies
providing basic services.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-22.3: eliminate the excess words “in order to
understand and” and substitute with the word
“to.”
This comment has been reflected.
3.12 Implementation Programs: Only covers
policies up to LU-13.2 leaving out policies on
pages 3-27 through 3-37. Why?
Not all policies require an implementation
program. We have streamlined and eliminated
programs at the direction of the GPAC.
Page 3-39: H Zoning Code Update: Concurrent
changes (or immediately following approval of
the General Plan 2040) to zoning districts to be
consistent with the Land Use Diagram, followed
in priority of update to the zoning code for
consistency with the direction of the General Plan
and establishing objective standards to
implement the GP.
The existing program will be retained as is.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 1/7/21 Meeting
Page 3-7, Section 3.2. First Paragraph. First
sentence. What does “makes a community a
home” mean? How about “makes a Town a
cohesive community”?
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 22 of 32
Second and third sentence could be changed to:
“The Town is not affordable for many prospective
residences, and there are a lack of unit types and
sizes to accommodate varied households.” (The
word is “prospective” not “perspective”.)
Second Paragraph. Third Sentence. How about
changing “plan to help achieve” to “must plan
for.”?
Third Paragraph. In one sentence you say that
the “past” had two types of housing. And, then in
the next sentence you say the “lessons of the
past” had heterogeneous housing types. Change
the second sentence. “The Los Gatos planning
process has typically focused on two categories of
housing: detached… apartments.” Change the
third sentence. “... nationwide, needs to strive for
communities that are a heterogeneous mix of
housing types and price points.”
This comment has been reflected.
This comment has been reflected.
These comments have been reflected.
Page 3-11, Land use Designations and Standards.
Perhaps instead of “Table 3-2 divides the 16-land
use…” say “Table 3-2 allocates the 16 land use…”.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-11, Table 3-2. “RESIDENTIAL
DESIGNATIONS” is spelled incorrectly.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-18, LU-5.12. After the semicolon, you
need a space between “are” and “necessary”.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-19, LU-5.13. Why do you use commas to
separate these requirements but semicolons in
the previous paragraph?
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-29. There’s a bullet missing before
“Harwood Road District.”
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-32, LU 15.2. I feel like most of these
bulleted lists are combined with semicolons, why
is this one combined with commas?
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-35, LU-16.2. Why are “Landmarks”
capitalized?
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-35 General Plan Use and Maintenance:
When the GP is adopted, I think the Town is going
to find minor errors or needed technical updates
that do not alter the intent of the goals or
policies. I believe the town needs a policy that
allows minor technical changes without going
through a full general plan amendment.
We will add a line in the introduction chapter that
addresses the comment raised.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 23 of 32
This could be accomplished with a policy that
allows the Town Council to review such
“corrections” and adopt the altered wording or
data with a finding that the alteration does not
alter the intent of the affected section or policy.
It could be placed in this section or another GP
overview section.
Page 3-36, LU-18.2. Third bullet point should be
“Water courses, and”.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 3-36, LU-18.3. This is a very confusing
sentence. Perhaps: “To ensure zoning
consistency, zoning changes will be made
concurrently with a General Plan amendment.”
Policy LU-18.3 has been updated to reflect the
comment.
Submitted Public Comments prior to 1/7/21 Meeti ng
I would like to request that the advisory board
consider changing the general plan in the area of
16492-16498 Los Gatos Blvd from Low Density
Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. This
would better align with the existing zoning in the
immediate area.
This comment has been reflected in all mapping.
GPAC Comments from the 1/7/21 Meeting
Take a look at the definition for FAR and intensity
again.
Comment noted.
Figure 3-2, shapes should not be different.
Doesn't like perspective, they are smaller as they
go back.
This comment has been reflected.
Figures 3-5 and 3-7, building should be the same. This comment has been reflected.
Should we remove "affordable" from this
element.?
The term “affordable” will be retained in the
element.
Table of potential housing, Table 3-2, and LU
Diagram be put together.
This comment has been reflected.
Figure 3-5 and 3-7. Fourplex too massive. This comment has been reflected.
Like the graphics but show smaller units in Figures
3-5 and 3-7.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 3.2: "Encourage the conversion of existing
residential units into multi-family use."
The GPAC discussed and agree the use of the
term adaption was acceptable. No change.
Incentivize smaller units. A new policy has been included to reflect this
comment.
Section 3.3: Revised the distance statement to
reflect a 1-mile distance regardless of mode used.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 3.4: Page 3-10. Six groups, not five. This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 24 of 32
Update the land use description to explicitly state
which ones allow residential.
Section 3.4: LDR. Change this beyond SF
residential.
Comment noted.
Table 3-2. "Residential" heading misspelled. This comment has been reflected.
Section 3.5: LU-3.1. Remove "healthy". This comment has been reflected.
Section 3.5: LU-3.4. Remove "schools". This comment has been reflected.
Section 3.5: LU-3.4. LU-3.4. Add in "wildfire risk". This comment has been reflected.
Section 3.5: LU-3.4. LU-3.4. Change "needed" to
"appropriate".
This comment has been reflected.
Refine the MU to state explicitly that vertical and
horizontal mixed use is acceptable.
This comment has been reflected.
Don't see SC as either commercial or residential.
Must have commercial component.
Submitted HPC Comments prior to 1/21/21 Meeting
Key Terms.
Intensity:
There is a typo in the definition of intensity,
where a period should replace a comma. (page 3-
3)
Multi-family Residential:
The definition should be revised to clarify that
Accessory Dwelling Units are not included. (page
3-4)
These comments have been reflected.
3.8 Preserving Our History.
LU-16 Provide for the protection of Los Gatos’
cultural heritage through the protection and
maintenance of historic resources. LU-16.1
Historic Districts and Landmarks. Revise the first
sentence to state that both maps and the Historic
Resources Inventory list will be
maintained on the website. Everything after the
first sentience in this Policy is a general
description and should be moved to the
introductory description of historic districts at the
top of page 3-33. (page 3-35)
This comment has been reflected.
3.14 Implementation Programs.
The language in Implementation Program F is
appropriate. An Implementation Program should
also be added, reiterating comments provided by
the HPC on the Initial Draft of the Environment
and Sustainability Element, to state the following:
“Consider conducting an updated Historic
Resource Inventory (HRI) survey, reviewing
There is already direction from HPC to study
modifications to what is considered historic and
what is within the HPC purview.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 25 of 32
Historic District and neighborhood boundaries,
and reconsidering the construction date for
presumptive historic resources,” under Goals LU-
13 and LU-16. (page 3-42)
General comments were made that there are
many small neighborhoods that may have some
level of historic significance, where individual
properties may not have historic significance.
When properties are found by the HPC not to
have historic significance, the HPC may have
comments regarding certain historic elements
that could be considered in the review of the new
design by the decision makers. A process to
forward those comments could be considered.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 1/21/21 Meeting
I suggest we consider adding a general objective
standard for minimum open space for all new and
redevelopment projects. This is especially
important given the growth and changes in
housing types we will experience. We have this in
the North 40 specific plan.
Quantifiable objective standards will be included
in your Zoning Code and were determined by
GPAC to not go into the General Plan.
Suggest adding a policy to encourage developers
to build much smaller and affordable units
(including <1,000 sq ft) and utilizing innovative
multifamily residential product types.
This comment has been reflected in a new policy.
LU 5.2: I am not sure we need this in the Land Use
Element since this is required in the Housing
Element anyway.
This policy has been removed based on prior
GPAC comments.
LU 5.3: Suggest modifying the third bullet point to
explain nearby since we created a standard in the
Connectivity section anyway.
This comment has been reflected.
LU 5.12 and LU 5.13: It sounds like we don’t want
Flag lots unless they meet a, b, c and x,y,z.
What do we think about flag lots? In one way,
they are a way to increase housing density (aka
missing middle) by subdividing a lot. I think the
GPAC should discuss what we think about flag
lots and reduce this to one policy that says that.
Policy LU-3.14 was removed and LU-3.15 was
retained per previous GPAC comments.
LU-6 Mixed use.
Like this as new goal. Maybe be more specific
about why—to provide more dense, affordable
housing to meet goals for enabling people to live
here or stay here.
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 26 of 32
LU-7 Commercial, General comment:
Do we still want to make it possible to get a
decent sized hotel here? This came up in Planned
Development, North 40 discussions, etc. but
apparently, we do not have the land use
standards that are sufficient for a good-sized
hotel. Also, Councilmember Hudes has been
advocating for incubator projects that have
specific requirements. Should we consider adding
a policy to encourage development of incubator
space. Maybe this belongs under LU-10
Employment Centers but not sure.
These comments have been reflected in two new
policies.
LU 7.1: Suggest adding a tie-in to the connectivity
by adding something like walkable/proximity.
This goal has been modified per previous GPAC
comments.
LU-8 Downtown Commercial.
Do we need to add something about no
residential on 1st floor in Central Business District
since mixed use is allowed?
The Zoning Code will further designated the
additional regulations addressing the comment.
LU-10 Employment Centers.
Not sure what the goal is for LU-10—reads like a
description.
This goal has been modified per previous GPAC
comments.
Not sure if LU 10.2 is the kind of policy we want.
What about mixed use?
Policy 10.2 has been update to solely focus on
industrial parcels, since the GPAC voted to allow
residential mixed-use in the OP and SC land use
designations.
I will repeat here about the incubators—if this is
desired, then we should say this and have an
implementation program to make it happen.
A program is not necessary to create incubator
spaces. Allowing incubator uses I your future
Zoning Code update and connecting the desire to
have these uses in your GP goals and policies is
sufficient.
Specific Plans.
Do we need to mention Albright? Isn’t it
complete?
It was previously determined by the GPAC to
maintain the description of the Albright Specific
Plan in this section.
LU-11: Specific Plans goal and LU11.1 Policy
• North 40—need to consider updating the plan
for a different type of Phase 2. Should this be an
implementation program?
• Should we have specific plans for the
opportunity areas/community place districts?
No new implementation program is needed since
the North 40 is a separate standalone plan.
The GPAC previously discussed to handle
implementation of the Community Place Districts
as part of the Town’s new Multi-Family Objective
Standards, updates to both the Residential and
Commercial Design Guidelines, and future town
Zoning Code Update.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 27 of 32
Special Planning Areas: Do we still have the
affordable housing overlay zones in use? If so,
they should be mentioned here.
This comment has been reflected.
Why is the Hillside Specific Plan here and not
under LU-11? This plan needs to be updated and
should be an implementation program.
The HSP has been removed and the policies
relating to this topic area were moved under the
residential section. A new program has been
added to rescind the HSP.
LU-14: Hillside Specific Plan Goal.
The hillsides are not a place to provide housing
for people of various income levels given that
min. lot size is 1 acre in most places. The only
exception would be ADUs. This goal needs to be
revised to simply reflect the preservation of the
hillsides.
This goal has been modified per previous GPAC
comments.
3.7: Community Place Districts.
I still think we should call these Opportunity
Areas.
Comment noted.
3.8: Preserving our History.
There is a comment from the definitions section
3-4 that the multi-family residential definition
should clarify that Accessory Dwelling Units are
not included. Is this the right thing to do?
Yes, because an ADU is not multi-family as
defined by State law.
LU-16.1: I concur with the HPC’s
recommendation to revise the policy and move
the remaining language to the description.
This comment has been reflected based on HPC
comments.
3.14 Implementation programs: The HPC
suggested adding an additional implementation
program that would help identify small
neighborhoods with some historic significance,
where individual properties may not have
historical significance. I agree this is fine.
There is already direction from HPC to study
modifications to what is considered historic and
what is within the HPC purview.
3.10: Civic Engagement.
Is this (civic engagement) goal in this General
Plan for all aspects of Town government or is it
specific to this General Plan? If it is specific to the
General Plan, then some of the policies are too
general.
No change. This is meant to apply to all aspects of
Town government.
3.11: Lifelong Learning.
Fine with this but does not belong in Land Use,
move elsewhere.
Lifelong Learning has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
LU 21.3: Is it appropriate for the Town to drive
grant funding for the school districts?
Lifelong Learning has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
3.12: Healthy Community
Healthy Community has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 28 of 32
Fine with this but does not belong in Land Use,
move elsewhere. Additionally, is this a place to
have a policy or goal related to plant-based
eating and should it be added?
How to define healthy food or is this generally
understood?
LU 22.3: Change Support to Encourage Healthy Community has been moved to the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.
Add implementation programs for encouraging
mixed use and identifying ways to incent smaller
units.
A program is not necessary to incentivize smaller
units. This can be achieved through an update of
your Zoning Code.
Also see earlier comment about updating the
specific plans and possible new specific plans or
at least some more detailed guidance and tools
to help make the Community Place Districts
become what is described in the Community
Design Element. If desired, then add
implementation program.
Comment noted.
3.6 Preserving our History: Has the HPC reviewed
this?
Yes. Comment noted.
GPAC Comments from the 1/21/21 Meeting
Review map changes in requested to be changed
from LDR to NC. 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.
This comment has been reflected in all mapping.
Emphasize connections between neighborhoods.
This could include modifying LU-5.8 a bit to cover
new development).
This comment has been reflected.
Encourage smaller units (<1,000 SF). This comment has been reflected in a new policy.
Delete 5-12 and keep 5-13. This comment has been reflected.
Add program also to encourage small units. A program is not necessary to incentivize smaller
units. This can be achieved through an update of
your Zoning Code.
What about "one" for 5.3? The text has been modified to state,” include
several…”.
Add "sense of place" to list. This comment has been reflected.
LU-6: Include we are looking for a mix of unit
sizes and types.
This comment has been reflected.
6.2, 3rd bullet. Change "compact design". This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 29 of 32
6.2, 1st bullet. Add the mix of units here? This comment has been reflected.
Leave as policies are. Comment noted.
LU-7, Do we need "appropriate"? The term “appropriate” has been removed to
reflect the comment.
Innovation center and incubator spaces (has
seen). Need to add incubators to key terms.
Keep definition broad/flexible.
This comment has been reflected.
Add a policy to encourage hotel development. This comment has been reflected.
9.1. Why just this area? Expand to all Town.
Keep but delete the geographic location.
This comment has been reflected.
LU-10: Reword to sound more like a goal. This comment has been reflected.
10.2. Is this what we want? This comment has been reflected.
10.2. Change to positive - what we are looking
for. Say "Protect"
This comment has been reflected.
Add policy on incubator space. This comment has been reflected.
LU-11: Add program to resend the two SPs (Blvd
and Hillside).
This comment has been reflected.
LU-13: Include the affordable housing overlay
zone.
The AHOZ was added in the overall description
for the overlay zones.
LU-14: Protect natural environment, protect
public safety.
This comment has been reflected.
14.1. Delete. Policy 14.1 was deleted to reflect the comment.
Certain look and feel, build with natural contours,
etc. Change goal to provide housing that does
not damage the natural environment, etc.
This comment has been reflected.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 2/4/21 Meeting
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 too…for the systematic
implementation of the General Plan for a defined
portion of a community planning area”.
The maps as shown will be retained. When each
of these Specific Plans was implemented the
same area was also given a corresponding
General Plan Designation, with the same name
and boundary as the applicable specific plan.
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
The Specific Plan designations have been moved
to reflect the comments. The description of each
plan has been updated, although it was
determined to not include the overall
development standards and to rely on each
Specific Plan for the information.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 30 of 32
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.
This comment has been reflected in Table 3-2.
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”?
See below:
This is referring to computability of uses adjacent
to residential. To protect residential, existing non-
residential uses will have to include performance
measures for sound, hours of operation, etc., to
limit the compatibility issues. These measures will
be included as part of a Zoning Code update
following the approval of the GP.
This policy was updated based on previous
comments from the GPAC.
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).
This comment has been reflected.
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.
The Special Planning Area section was
reorganized based on previous GPAC comments.
Page 3-26 Special Planning Areas - Overlay zones:
● Add: AHOZ overlay (unless the plan is to delete
this overlay).
The AHOZ description was added to the Overlay
Zones to reflect the comment.
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
The HSP has been removed per previous GPAC
comments. The policies have been streamlined
and moved under the residential subsection since
all the remaining policies dealt with hillside
residential development.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 31 of 32
Incorporate those sections into other documents
as appropriate.
● Suggest: Look for more appropriate locations
within the General Plan.
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.
The Community Place Districts are strictly tied to
urban form and not the designation of allowable
uses. The descriptions of the Community Place
Districts will be retained in their current location
and will provide a crossreference 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?
The GPAC decided to maintain the proposed
density range for the MDR in the 2040 General
Plan.
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 Element.
● 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
First bullet, comment noted. Second bullet, the
LHP overlay zones were moved into the overlay
zone section as the comment is requesting. The
remaining sections will be retained in their
current location.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
April 2021
Page 32 of 32
repetitive. Consider a re-organization that is less
relative and less overlapping.
● Also see comments on Page 4-24.
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
This section will be retained as shown. A
crossreference box has been included to
reference an expanded discussion on the topic in
the Introduction chapter.
LU-17.1: General Plan Land Use Diagram - Move
to Table 3.14 Implementation Programs.
This policy has been retained based on previous
GPAC comments.
LU-17.2: General Plan Consistency - How does
this ensure General Plan Consistency?
This policy has been retained based on previous
GPAC comments.
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 regulations of the zoning
code being consistent with the text of the
General Plan.
Policy LU-17.3 will be retained since in order to
have an implementation program you must have
a policy it is implementing. A new
implementation program has already been
included to update the Town Zoning Code.
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.
This policy has been updated to reflect this
comment.
4
4.Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-1
Los Gatos has maintained the small-town charm that dates to its origins as an old railroad Town. Tree-lined
streets and sidewalks give the Los Gatos Downtown a strong pedestrian character, and picturesque views of the
Santa Cruz Mountains offer potent but, subtle reminders of the Town’s unique setting. [Source: 2040 Background
Report]
A key factor in the charm of Los Gatos is its physical environment. The Community Design Element looks at the
key components of this environment and describes the features that, together, create Los Gatos’ distinct
community character. This Element provides a local context and anticipated urban design enhancements for the
next 20 years relating to the urban form, architectural styles, landscape, lighting, and pedestrian -oriented
environment. In addition, this Element highlights a series of Community Place Districts which have specific
community design policies designed to create unique, one-of-a-kind districts in Town. Lastly, the Element covers
the overall preservation of historic areas and the surrounding hillsides to ensure these areas are respected over
time, even as development proceeds. [Source: New Text]
The Community Design Element is divided into the following sections:
Contents
Section Title Page
Key Terms .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Urban Design Fundamentals ................................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Neighborhood Cohesiveness ................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Community Form ................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Historic Preservation ............................................................................................................ 17
4.4 Hillside Development ........................................................................................................... 20
4.5 Community Place Districts ................................................................................................... 21
4.6 Implementation Programs .................................................................................................... 49
ATTACHMENT 3
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-2 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Key Terms
360 Architecture. The intentional incorporation of architectural design style and elements around the entirety of
a building regardless if portions of the building are not facing public view.
Age-Friendly. Age-friendly or livable communities have walkable streets, housing and transportation options,
access to key services, and opportunities for residents at all life stages to participate in community activities.
Articulation. The division of a building facade into distinct sections; including the materials, patterns, textures,
and colors that add visual interest to a building or facade.
Community Place District. Within the Los Gatos Planning Area, eight Community Place Districts were identified
based on the proximity of commercial services or employment to support additional development, easy access to
transportation systems, and having access to infrastructure needed to support future development. These
locations have the potential to facilitate mixed-use development and redevelopment at a variety of densities and
intensities. See Sections 3.5 in the Land Use Element and 4.5 in this Element for more information.
Corridor. Transportation pathway allowing movement between activity centers. A corridor may encompass
single or multiple transportation routes and facilities, adjacent land uses, and the connecting street network.
Eave. The edge of the roof that overhangs the exterior walls, sometimes with exposed rafters .
Facade. An exterior wall or face, of a building.
Fenestration. The design, construction, and presence of any openings in a building, including windows, doors,
vents, wall panels, skylights, curtain walls, or louvers.
Gable. The wall that encloses the end of a roof or the triangular end below a roof overhang.
Gateway. A defining element, type of development, or signage that creates the clear distinction of entering a
community or place. Primary gateways are located at main entry points into the community such as freeway off-
ramps and major arterials from adjacent communities. Secondary gateways are those located internally within
the community leading to neighborhoods and points of interest.
Human-Scale. Is the effort to create an appropriate relationship between human beings and the size/function of
surrounding buildings. Human-scale emphasizes building features and characteristics which can be observed in
close proximity, at the speed a pedestrian would travel.
Live-Work Unit. An integrated dwelling unit and working space, occupied, and used by a single household,
designed or structurally modified to accommodate both residential occupancy and work activity.
Massing. The general shape or shapes of a building, as well as its form and size.
Median. A raised barrier used to separate opposing traffic flow and control access and vehicle turning
movements. A median can also provide a pedestrian crossing refuge and streetscape enhancement.
Parklet. A small seating area or green space created as a public amenity on or alongside a sidewalk, especially
in a former roadside parking space.
Pedestrian-Oriented. An approach to architectural design intended to facilitate movement on foot in an area, a s
opposed to design that primarily serves automobile movement. Examples of pedestrian-oriented design include
pathways following the most direct route from sidewalk to front door, continuous building street -walls with shop
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-3
windows, outdoor cafes, street trees and benches, and architectural enhancement in the first two floors that are at
human-scale.
Projection. A side wing, tower, or window bay that protrudes from a building.
Scale. Refers to how the sizes of different architectural elements relate to on e another.
Screening. Elements used to visually screen or separate detrimental elements of a site. Screening is commonly
used to obscure parking areas, utilities, dumpsters, etc.
Setback. The distance between a building and the property line or other buildings.
Step Back. A step-like recession in the profile of a multi-story building. A step back requires the building to take
a step back from the street for every increase in height of the structure. Step backs can also be a design
technique to reduce the visual impact of tall buildings.
Stoop. The uncovered wide step leading into the front or main door of a unit or building.
Streetscape. The elements within and along the street right-of-way that define its appearance, identity, and
functionality. These can include, but are not limited to, adjacent buildings and land uses, street furniture,
landscaping, trees, sidewalks, and pavement treatments.
Street Furniture. Fixtures installed along the roadway, at or above grade level, including lamp po sts, pedestrian
lighting, street signs, benches, trash cans, bike racks, news racks, water fountains, and planters.
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-4 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Urban Design Fundamentals
Throughout this Element, certain urban design terms and concepts will be used to describe a desired effect for
what fits in with Los Gatos. These fundamentals, in various combinations, will be applied to project designs
through the policies in this Element, either to all projects or to projects within designated Community Place
Districts, as described in Section 4.5. The Community Design Element will focus on the following categories that
will ultimately drive community form over the next 20 years. [Source: New Text]
Figure 4-1 Urban Design Fundamental Categories
Massing and Articulation
The massing of a building is its overall three-dimensional shape. Massing is a combination of three-dimensional
forms, the simplest of which are cubes, pyramids, spheres, and cones. Large masses are used to emphasize
elements while small masses are used to subdue elements. A way to influence overall massing is to design a
project that is focused on human-scale, which means that overall design is relatable in height to the average
human. For example, limiting entrance and floor-to-floor heights to avoid building forms that feel monumental and
grand.
Another technique to reduce the overall massing of a project is to include articulation. Articulation can be in the
form of step backs on multi-story structures which are meant to provide relatable scale to the street and not a
towering monolithic facade; which can create a “canyon” like effect on large arterials. Step backs also allow
greater opportunity for daylight exposure and reduce shadowing on smaller adjacent structures . This further
reduces the incompatibility with adjacent structures. [Source: New Text]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-5
Architectural Style and Elements
In the development of a shopping center, mixed-use project, residential area, or extension of the Downtown, an
overall “theme” and consistent use of architectural style and elements can be implemented to ensure cohesive
design. Varying styles used within an integrated architectural framework for a development or area can help in
establishing a strong community identity, as well as consistent pattern of image and character. Design elements
are diverse and can range from roof style and form, use of eaves, dormers, supportive columns, glazing, color
palettes, as well as the incorporation of stoops, porches, and balconies. [Source: New Text]
In Los Gatos, and the Bay Area at large, the early twentieth century Victorian and Arts and Crafts Movements
made a lasting impression on architectural style and design that has become synonymous with the area. As
design practices have shifted over the last century, additional styles, such as Mediterranean and California
Modern, have become prevalent as well. Well-defined community design guidance allows the community to
embrace its past and also acknowledge the future, by determining appropriate places for new design styles to be
located and relate to traditional styles. [Source: New Text]
Site Development
Site development is a crucial component to community design and the application of urban design techniques.
So much of site development hinges on the characteristics and natural features of the site itself. The terrain of
the site will dictate the type of development, placement of the structures, placement of supportive utilities, overall
site access, and environmental considerations related to solar exposure and prevailing winds for cooling
purposes. In Los Gatos it is also imperative to ensure the site development takes into account unique aspects of
the subject property in the form of tree preservation and topography, compatibility and connectivity with
surrounding and adjacent parcels, and recognition of open space and viewsheds. A cohesive approach to site
development will allow new or remodeled development to become fully integrated into the existing community
fabric. Other approaches to cohesive site development include the incorporation of Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques, such as use of private and common open space, landscaping, and
lighting. Specifically, CPTED focuses on overall site design techniques to increase public safety and minimize
and reduce the potential for crime. [Source: New Text]
Streetscape and Street Activation
The overall design of a structure and the integration of structures into a site is not the only design consideration.
How that structure engages with the streetscape and adjacent pedestrian areas is equally as important.
Streetscapes and street activation draw from the energy and vibrancy of a building and blend that environment
with the bustling activity at the street level. One way to incorporate street activation is to ensure that the building
has primary access to and from the sidewalk or that portions of the sidewalk become an extension of the building
and its use. This can be achieved through the formation of park lets and outdoor dining spaces. Creating lively
streetscapes through the incorporation of upgraded landscaped areas, and cohesive street furniture and
furnishings, will enhance the pedestrian environment. The marrying of the built environment with the street can
create a sense of compatibility. [Source: New Text]
Community Identity
Community identity can be difficult to design and address holistically. It is critical that a community defines its
boundaries and creates a unique environment that is recognizable and memorable. Los Gatos shares common
borders with other communities including San Jose, Campbell, and Saratoga, where the defining line between
communities is blurred. To create a clear transition into Los Gatos, identification methods such as gateway signs,
landscape styles, use of public art and imagery, consistent lighting, street furnishings, and even unique freeway
exit designs could be implemented. The intent of community identity is for instant recognition upon arrival into the
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-6 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Town, and cohesive design principles focusing on entrances can further establish the unique qualities of the
community. [Source: New Text]
4.1 Neighborhood Cohesiveness
Neighborhood compatibility is essential to maintain and enhance neighborhoods. In order to ensure that the
continuity of neighborhoods is not disrupted, all new or remodeled development must be able to adapt and co-
exist with established areas. Los Gatos is home to vibrant areas with rich history and this section aims to
maintain that vibrancy, respecting existing development, while providing direction for how new developmen t can
fully integrate into these areas. [Source: New Text]
The following goal and policies will ensure that neighborhoods remain consistent and new uses and style s remain
compatible.
Maintain a Town of diverse, and well-structured neighborhoods that meet the
community’s needs for interconnected, high-quality, and inclusive living
environments. [Source: New Goal]
Building Element Proportion
Require building elements to be in proportion, including building massing and height, with
existing development in the neighborhood. [Source: Existing Policy CD-1.1, modified]
Gated Communities
Prohibit the creation of gated communities in an effort to promote social cohesiveness and
inclusivity and maintain street network efficiency, adequate emergency response times, and
convenient travel routes for all street users. [Source: New Policy]
Enhance Neighborhood Character
Enhance established neighborhoods by requiring new development to respect and respond to
those existing physical characteristics of buildings, streetscapes, open spaces, and urban form
that contribute to the overall age-friendly aspects and character of the neighborhood. [Source:
New Policy]
Memorable Places Through Infill Development
Promote infill development projects that create memorable places throughout the Town through
high-quality architecture, pedestrian oriented streetscapes, and age-friendly designed public
spaces. [Source: New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-7
4.2 Community Form
Community form includes the visual, contextual, and architectural design that creates a cohesive community. Los
Gatos includes a rich and diverse array of architectural styles, historical landmarks, and bustling corridors which
contribute to a distinct and unique urban fabric. These community form applications have been refined over the
years through the Commercial and Residential Design Guidelines. [Source: New Text]
The following goal and policies seek to build upon the Town’s existing design guidelines and will drive the future
community form and urban design characteristics that shape Los Gatos over the next 20 years . While all policies
in this section are under a single goal, they are divided into sub-categories for added clarity.
Encourage all development in Town to be designed holistically and sustainably,
towards creating or evolving welcoming and human-scale neighborhood
communities. [Source: New Goal]
Massing and Articulation
Building Setbacks
Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height increase. [Source: Existing Policy CD-2.1]
Multi-Story Step Backs
Require multi-story buildings to incorporate step backs on upper floors to create a more human-
scale and comfortable pedestrian environment. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-2 Multi-Story Step Backs
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-8 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Architectural Style
Promote high quality architecture through the use of massing, façade articulation, fenestration,
and parapets that reflect a human scale environment. [Source: New Policy]
Architecture Style and Elements
360 Architecture
Require that all new and remodeled structures emphasize 360 Architecture and include wh ere
feasible architectural design elements such as molding and cornices as well as roof forms and
materials consistent with the structure’s architecture . [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-3 360 Architecture
Roof Design
Encourage horizontal eaves to be broken up by gables, building projections, or other forms of
articulation. [Source: New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-9
Figure 4-4 Roof Articluation and Design
Parking Structure Design
Require all parking structures to include design or screening methods to minimize the visual
impact on surrounding neighborhoods. [Source: New Policy]
Multi-Story Structures
Require that multi-story structures incorporate a change in materials (i.e., brick, stucco, tile,
concrete, wood siding, shingles) on the third story and higher to provide distinction in
architectural features. [Source: New Policy]
Below Grade Square Footage
Encourage below grade square footage and underground parking to provide “hidden” square
footage and/or parking in order to reduce visible mass. [Source: Existing Policy CD-6.3,
modified]
Streetscape
Multi-Modal Streetscapes
Require new development to create multi-modal streetscapes that that are walkable,
pedestrian-oriented, bike-friendly, incorporate transit, and which are human scaled. [Source:
New Policy]
Well-Defined Street Fronts
Require new buildings to maintain a consistent setback from the public right-of-way in order to
create a well-defined streetscape. [Source: New Policy]
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, the narrowing of streets,
and street improvements (i.e., street trees, planting strips). [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-10 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Street Trees in New Development
If feasible, require street trees to be installed for all new developments , to enhance
neighborhood character and identity and to maximize shade coverage when mature. [Source:
Existing Policy CD-4.4, modified]
Tree Preservation
Preserve and protect trees designated under the Town’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, as well
as existing native and heritage trees as a part of any development proposal. [Source: Existing
Policy CD-4.3, modified]
Protecting Hillside Views
Encourage the layout of streets, blocks, and pedestrian corridors in new development to
provide views of hillsides. [Source: New Policy]
SR 17 On-Ramps and Overpasses
Coordinate with Caltrans to maintain and beautify overpasses, and create and maintain distinct
entrances into Los Gatos from SR 17 offramps, especially at Lark Avenue and SR 9, including
themed landscaped areas, use of natural terrain and elements, and public art. [Source: New
Policy]
Did you
know?
Landscaping of freeway off-ramps and on-ramps is a way to create a unique
urban design feel for a community. Freeways typically are monolithic concrete
and asphalt canyons and have limited landscaping and natural features. Unlike
many urban communities, Los Gatos is situated on a section of SR 17 that
includes dense natural vegetation that emulates the hillsides and forest land
that surrounds the community. One way to enhance this unique experience
along the freeway is to coordinate with Caltrans to land scape off-ramps which
lead into Town. Caltrans has an extensive history of working with communities
to create a unique sense of place through landscaping.
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-11
Street Activation
Buildings that Engage the Street
Require new development to be oriented to complement and actively engage the public realm.
through such features as building orientation, setbacks, facade articulations, window glazing,
and location of parking. [Source: New Policy]
Structure Entrances
Require that building facades and entrances directly face the street frontage. [Source: New
Policy]
Parklets and Outdoor Dining
Enhance the street experience with parklets and outdoor dining opportunities where feasible.
[Source: New Policy]
Development Transitions
Transition in Scale
Require that the scale and massing of new developments provide transitions in building height
and massing to the physical and visual character of adjoining neighborhoods.
[Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-5 Transition in Scale
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
Eyes on the Street
To increase safety for residents, new development with a street frontage shall incorporate a
street oriented front entrance and windows facing the frontage. Units not facing the street shall
be oriented to provide visual access to entryways, pedestrian pathways, recreation areas, and
public spaces. [Source: New Policy]
Adequate Pedestrian Lighting
Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided in active pedestrian areas and common areas for
safety and security. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-12 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Glazing Visibility
Minimize obstructed viewing into street facing windows of commercial buildings in the form of
glazing, signage, advertisements and interior furnishings that can obstruct such views.
[Source: New Policy]
Common Open Space
Community Gathering Spaces
Encourage new developments to include common open space areas in the form of public
gathering spaces (i.e., plazas, squares, pocket parks ) that are designed to stimulate pedestrian
activity and complement the appearance and form of adjoining buildings. [Source: New Policy]
Public Realm Improvements
Encourage improvements to the public realm, including street trees, street furniture, paving,
landscaping, and lighting. [Source: New Policy]
Private Open Space
Incorporation of Balconies and Patios
Encourage multi-family developments to provide each unit with private open space in the form
of a patio or balcony. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-6 Private Open Space Applications
Site Development
Climate Considerations in Site Design
Encourage applicants to consider the Mediterranean climate in Los Gatos and plan for
sustainable site design to address adequate solar access, water conservation and retention,
and wind conditions. [Source: New Policy]
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 take advantage of scenic views, but
should not create ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public places, or other
properties. [Source: Existing Policy CD-6.4, modified]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-13
Linking with Existing Developments
Encourage linking new developments to existing developments, parks, and trails through the
creation of internal street systems that allow travel by foot, bicycles, and vehicles. [Source:
New Policy]
Natural Contours
Require where feasible, that buildings, landscapes, and hardscapes follow the natural contours
of the subject parcel to protect the natural aspects of the property. [Source: Existing Policy CD-
1.3, modified]
Lighting
Street and Structure Lighting
Require street and structure lighting to minimize its visual impacts by 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]
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]
Landscaping
Landscape Buffering
Encourage the use of landscaping such as trees, shrubs, and trellised vines to mitigate the
effects of building mass and provide benefits to the environment. [Source: Existing Policy CD-
3.4, modified]
Landscaped Medians
Provide landscaped medians with drought tolerant and native landscaping where there is
sufficient right of way to beautify the streetscape and benefit the environment. [Source: New
Policy]
Figure 4-7 Landscaped Medians
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-14 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Sustainable Landscape Design
Encourage landscaping plans to maximize the use of trees for energy efficiency, climate
control, screening, shading (especially of parking lots), and aesthetics. [Source: Existing Policy
CD-4.7]
Public Art
Encourage Public Art
Support new commercial and mixed-use development public art installation to beautify the
community and create unique spaces. [Source: New Policy]
Placement of Public Art
Public art shall be placed in highly visible and high traffic areas, such as along major
thoroughfares or in public gathering spaces. [Source: New Policy]
Highlight Public Art
Promote public art in the Town. [Source: New Policy]
Community Identity and Gateways
Town Identification
Support the incorporation of unifying Town identifiers on community signage, streetlamp
banners, Town gateways, and street furnishings as appropriate. [Source: New Policy]
Wayfinding Program
Encourage a robust, Town-wide wayfinding program that highlights important cultural centers
and landmarks, municipal buildings, parks and recreation facilities, tourist attractions, and
commercial centers. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-8 Example Wayfinding Applications
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-15
Freeway Identification
Coordinate with Caltrans on permitting public art, Town identification signage, and street names
on overpasses on SR 17 to delineate Los Gatos from adjacent communities. [Source: New
Policy]
Landscaped Gateways
Ensure that public improvements and private development provide landscaped Town gateways
that create visual connections between the importance of the natural hillsides and open space
areas and the community of Los Gatos. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-9 Landscaped Gateways
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-16 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Community identification is key to distinguishing one community from
another. This perhaps is most difficult along expressway and freeway
corridors where there is minimal distinction between adjacent
jurisdictions. Los Gatos has a unique opportunity to use SR 17 to
emphasize Town boundaries, community history, and capture the
attention of travelers and motorists. The ability to enhance
community identity beyond the traditional Town limits is becoming
more common. Over the last few decades several Bay Area
communities have partnered with Caltrans to improve and enhance
sound attenuation walls, provide the opportunity for murals and public
art, as well as provide identification and signage along overpasses.
Below are some examples of how other communities in California and
around the country have enhanced identification of their community
through signage, public art, and landscaping.
Did you
know?
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-17
4.3 Historic Preservation
The Town of Los Gatos prides itself on a commitment to preserve and maintain historic structures in the
community. The Town’s commitment to historic preservation also furthers the community’s goal to be a
sustainable leader. The removal and demolition of structures is an overall contributor to localized GHG emissions
which has the potential to cause environmental degradation. Advocating for preservation reduces the Town’s
carbon footprint and creates a more environmentally -friendly community. Through the adoption of designated
sites and Historic Districts by the Town Council, historic preservation has become a dedicated service revered by
the community, which has led to the preservation and rehabilitation of historic landmarks and structures. The five
Historic Districts regulated by the adopted Historic Preservation Ordinance, include: Downtown Commercial;
Almond Grove; Broadway; Fairview Plaza; and University-Edelen as shown in Figure 4-10.
The overall intent of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is to preserve historic and architectural resources in Los
Gatos. The Ordinance established a Historic Preservation Committee and a Historic Preservation Program that
includes a comprehensive series of standards and guidelines concerning the preservation and demolition of
historic structures, design guidelines for rehabilitation and new construction, and guidance in the application of
historic preservation standards. The Town continues to recognize historic resources as follows: any structure/site
that is located within an historic district; any structure/site that is historically designated; or any primary structure
constructed prior to 1941 unless the Town has determined that the structure has no historic significance or
architectural merit. [Source: Existing General Plan, modified]
The following goals and policies support the preservation of historical structures and landmarks in Los Gatos for
the enjoyment of future generations.
Preserve historic and architectural features within the Town. [Source: Existing
General Plan, Goal: CD-12, modified]
Avoid Demolition of Historic Buildings
Avoid demolishing historic buildings, unless the Historic Preservation Committee finds, based
on required findings, that there is no feasible means to ensure the preservation of the structure.
[Source: Existing Policy CD-12.1, modified]
Historic Structure Preservation
Preserve and protect historic structures, including those that have been individually designated
or are located within historic districts. Use special care in reviewing new buildings or remodels
in the vicinity of historic structures to address compatibility issues and potential impacts.
[Source: Existing Policy CD-12.3, modified]
Historic Preservation Programs
Continue the Town’s careful and proactive historic preservation programs recognizing the
changing needs of the community. [Source: Existing Policy CD-12.4, modified]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-18 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Figure 4-10 Historic Districts
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-19
Historic Preservation Committee Review
Require the referral of zone changes, planned development applications, and zoning approvals
that may result in the demolition of historic structures to the Historic Preservation Committee for
review and recommendation prior to review by the Planning Commission. [Source: Existing
Policy CD-12.5, modified]
New Structures within Historic Districts
Require new structures within historic districts to be designed to complement structures within
the existing neighborhood. [Source: Existing Policy CD-12.6, modified]
Potential Impacts to Historic Landmarks and Features
Require all projects to identify any adverse effect to historic landmarks and features on or in the
vicinity of the proposed project. Require that any development having potential adverse
impacts:
• Accommodate the historical structure or feature;
• Mitigate potential adverse impacts to a level acceptable to the Town; or
• Relocate the historical feature to an appropriate site. [Source: Existing Policy CD-12.7,
modified and CD-12.8]
Support and encourage thoughtful rehabilitation or reuse of historic structures.
[Source: Existing General Plan, Goal: CD-13, modified]
Historic Structure Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation of damaged historic structures shall be consistent with the policies of the Safety
Element and the State Historic Building Code. [Source: Existing Policy CD-13.1]
Historic Structure Renovations
Require exterior renovations or remodels of historic structures to be architecturally compatible
with the original structure. [Source: Existing Policy CD-13.2, modified]
Restoration Project Assistance
Provide applicants and developers with information and staff time to assist in restoration
projects. [Source: Existing Policy CD-13.3]
Financial Benefit Information
Provide information about financial benefits including tax law benefits for rehabilitation of
historic structures. [Source: Existing Policy CD-13.4, modified]
Reuse of Existing Buildings
Encourage the preservation, maintenance, and adaptive reuse of existing residential,
commercial, or public buildings. [Source: Existing Policy CD-12.2]
Historic Structure Use or Donation
Encourage property owners to use historic structures or, if not feasible, encourage their
donation to the Town. [Source: Existing Policy CD-12.9]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-20 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
4.4 Hillside Development
The Hillsides comprise most of the southern portion of Los Gatos. Rural in character, hillside areas have larger,
wooded lots and private access roads. In January 2004, the Town adopted the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines, which apply to all new hillside development and major hillside additions and renovations. The
intent of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines is to regulate development and preserve the
hillsides. [Source: New Text]
The following goals and policies support the preservation of hillside areas.
Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains
and surrounding hillsides. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal: CD-14, modified]
Rural Atmosphere Preservation
Minimize development and preserve and enhance the rural atmosphere and natural plant and
wildlife habitats in the hillsides. [Source: Existing Policy CD-14.1]
Hillside Development Limitation
Limit hillside development to mitigate wildfire risk. [Source: Existing Policy CD-14.2, modified]
Effective Visible Mass
Reduce effective visible mass through such means as stepping structures up and down the
hillside, following topographical contours, and limiting the height and mass of wall planes.
[Source: Existing Policy CD-14.3, modified]
Hillside Area Environmental Analysis Requirement
Require adequate environmental analysis for projects in hillside areas to ensure appropriate
consideration of potential environmental impacts associated with projects. [Source: Existing
Policy CD-14.5, modified]
Mountain and Hillside Viewshed Preservation
Preserve and protect the natural state of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides
by discouraging development on and near the hillsides that significantly impacts viewsheds.
[Source: Existing Policy CD-14.6, modified]
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Update
Continue to coordinate with the County in updating the County’s Hillside Development
Standards and encourage annexations within the Urban Service Boundary. [Source: Existing
Policy CD-14.7, modified]
Preserve the natural topography and ecosystems within the hillside area by
regulating grading, site placement, fencing, landscaping, and lighting. [Source:
Existing General Plan, Goal: CD-15]
Least Restrictive Development Areas
All development is required to adhere to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDA) to
ensure that there is the least disturbance of the natural environment and so that hazards are
avoided. [Source: New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-21
Ridge Line Grading Prohibition
Protect the natural ridge lines as defined in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
by prohibiting any grading that would alter the natural ridge line. [Source: Existing Policy CD-
15.1 and 15.2]
Natural Land Contours
New construction shall be designed to follow natural land contours and avoid mass grading.
When possible, flat pads should be avoided, and houses should be designed to conform to or
step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. Grading large, flat yard areas
should be avoided. [Source: Existing Policy CD-15.3]
Hillside Landscaping Design
Hillside landscaping shall be designed to minimize and site formal landscaping and hardscapes
close to the residence, follow the natural topography, and preserve native trees, native plant
and wildlife habitats, and migration corridors. [Source: Existing Policy CD-15.4, modified]
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]
Hillside Fencing Design
Fences in the hillsides should be of open design to allow passage of native wildlife. [Source:
New Policy]
For goals and policies relating to wildfire safety and planning for high fire hazard areas, including the
hillsides, please refer to Section 9.2, the Hazards and Safety Element.
4.5 Community Place District s
Within the Town, eight Community Place Districts (Figure 4-11) were identified for having the most potential for
future multi-family and/or mixed-use development, because of the residential densities specified in the Land Use
Element. These Districts align with the overall General Plan effort to provide opportunities for a more diverse
range of housing types meant to fulfill the State’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation in the future update of the
Town’s Housing Element. The boundaries of the Districts are primarily focused on areas that have commercial
and mixed-use land use designations where there is an increase in the maximum allowed residential densities
and the potential to support higher intensity uses, but they also include adjacent medium and low -density
residential areas that should be considered in the design of any future red evelopment. The boundaries of these
Districts were placed to capture retail nodes as well as surrounding residential areas to create more walkable,
integrated neighborhoods; thus, creating a more sustainable urban fabric that focuses on alternative modes of
travel to access amenities rather than the sole use of vehicles.
The intent of the Community Place Districts within the Community Design Element is to continue the tradition in
Los Gatos of creating unique and identifiable areas of Town that provide div ersity in both development and
community gathering spaces. Rather than focusing on specific uses or densities in these areas, which are
addressed in the Land Use Element, the Community Design Element focuses on the integration of design, overall
urban form, design driven connectivity, and compatibility between varying development types. Each Community
Place District includes an overview of existing uses on the ground today (2021) and an aspirational 2040 Vision
for what the Community Place is intended to become over the next 20 years. [Source: New Text]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-22 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Figure 4-11 Community Place Districts
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-23
Applicable to All Community Place Districts
Enhance specific districts and areas to guide redevelopment of unique places in
the community to promote sustainable growth of livable, walkable neighborhoods.
[Source: New Goal]
Neighborhood-Friendly Design
Encourage buildings and sites within all Community Place Districts regardless of designation,
including shopping centers undergoing redevelopment, to integrate design features that create
a pedestrian- and neighborhood-friendly environment (i.e., siting buildings close to the
sidewalks, providing space for small plazas, and including public art). [Source: New Policy]
Encourage Mixed-Use Development
Encourage redevelopment of commercial properties to incorporate mixed -use to provide
additional housing in close proximity to neighborhood serving commercial. [Source: New
Policy]
Open Space
Require open space including green open space such as planters and park strips in all
commercial and mixed-use areas to enhance livability as well as the pedestrian experience.
[Source: New Policy]
Linkage
Require all new or remodeled developments to include connections and linkages in the for m of
walkways or paseos between adjacent developments to reduce automobile use and promote
walking and biking. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-24 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Downtown District
The Downtown District is the historic heart of Los Gatos. It encompasses much of the southwest section of Town.
To many, the Downtown in generalities is larger, but for the purposes of the General Plan, this area has been
provided with specific boundaries as seen in Figure 4-12. This area includes what is designated currently as the
Central Business District as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map.
The Downtown District is composed of many retail shops, boutiques, coffee shops, restaurants, and severa l
hotels. Being that the Downtown is the original historic center of the Town, it is naturally home to some of the
iconic architectural styles that make Los Gatos unique and has a rich history of architectural excellence. Located
within and adjacent to this District, are the Town’s Historic Districts which are meant to honor and preserve Los
Gatos’ roots as a rural foothill community. This District is home to many outdoor public spaces including the
Town Plaza Park and Los Gatos Town Hall and library outdoor promenade, which hosts several popular
community events that draw visitors throughout the region. [Source: New Text]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-25
Figure 4-12 Downtown District
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-26 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Vision 2040 Downtown District
The Downtown District treasures its unique architectural character and continues as the social and
historic core of Los Gatos. After more than a century of successful planning and design, the District
values its unique architectural character and discourages conflicting styles from erasing what is
quintessentially Downtown. New structures are constructed at a human-scale to maintain the continuity
of the historic development pattern.
The Downtown District emphasizes first floor retail and restaurant uses and encourages office and
residential units above the first floor. It is through mixed-use development above first floor
retail/restaurants that residential growth is accommodated. Multi-story mixed-use transitions in scale
seamlessly with nearby residential which includes growth through missing middle housing while
maintaining the charm and character of these neighborhoods. The Downtown District provides a truly
walkable environment, where sidewalks are wide and pedestrian friendly. The expanded sidewalks
accommodate additional space for outdoor dining, public art, and street furniture. Enhancing the visitor
experience in the Downtown District, digital display informational kiosks with establishment directories
provide a 21st century amenity. Updated building signage, a Downtown wayfinding system, and
gateway entrance signs mark the Downtown as the core of the community. The Downtown District
thrives as one of the most beloved areas of the Town, one that has stood the test of time and continues
to do so. [Source: New Text]
Enhance the character of the Downtown District and the quality of life for its
citizens through high-quality building design. [Source: Existing General Plan, Goal:
CD-9, modified]
Downtown District Identity
Maintain the Downtown District as the cultural, social, and historic core of Los Gatos. [Source:
New Policy]
Preservation
Preserve, restore, rehabilitate, and reuse existing historic buildings whenever possible.
[Source: Existing Policy CD-9.1, modified]
Mass and Scale
Ensure there are no abrupt changes of scale and mass between new development and historic
structures in the Downtown District. [Source: New Policy]
Street Environment
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. [Source: New Policy]
Incorporation of Sustainable Building Practices
Encourage the use of sustainable building materials that complime nt surrounding buildings.
[Source: New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-27
Los Gatos Boulevard District
The Los Gatos Boulevard District (Figure 4-13) extends along Los Gatos Boulevard from Louise Van Meter
Elementary School north to the Town boundary with San Jose. This area was developed as an automobile-
oriented corridor with a mix of stand-alone retail and office, car dealerships, and several neighborhood-serving
shopping centers, such as Blossom Hill Pavilion, Kings Court, Cornerstone, El Gato Village , and Los Gatos
Village Square. These centers are set back far from the street with expansive surface parking lots fronting the
Boulevard. This type of development largely focused on retail centers with limited ability to incorporate other uses,
such as office and residential. Residential neighborhoods backing the commercial corridor are primarily low -
density residential, with some medium- and high-density parcels. Transition in scale as part of the original plan
includes stepping down height and intensity moving south. [Source: New Text]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-28 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Figure 4-13 Los Gatos Boulevard District
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-29
Vision 2040 Los Gatos Boulevard District
The Los Gatos Boulevard District reflects a comprehensive transformation from a 1950s automobile -
oriented corridor to a multi-modal District with 21st century amenities. The Los Gatos Boulevard District
vision reflects high-density residential living over retail and commercial offices. It is a pedestrian-
oriented district with clearly defined bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Increased landscaping provides visual consistency between the Boulevard and the scenic backdrop of
the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The numerous shopping centers are now abutting the street with human -scale enhancements and
parking relocated to the rear. Housing in the form of lofts, live-work units, apartments, condominiums,
and townhomes are above and adjacent to commercial development in a mixed-use design, allowing
residents to easily walk from home to shopping and services. Street activation is accomplished by
moving parking to the rear, which has enabled valuable land to be repurposed for increased outdoor
amenities in the form of parks, plazas, and other common open space areas. The revitalized mixed -use
buildings transition seamlessly to nearby residential neighborhoods which in turn are revitalized and
grow through the addition of missing middle housing. Going from north to south, the time-honored
practice of stepping down development height and intensity continues towards the southern end of the
district where three public schools are located. The integration of office space and hospitality us es
including restaurants and hotels adds to a vibrant district, a place that residents desire to live, work , and
play. Not only a destination to congregate, but the Los Gatos Boulevard District also attracts visitors
from across the Bay Area to experience the uniqueness of the community. [Source: New Text]
Emphasize housing opportunities and redevelopment, through multiple methods,
including encouraging redevelopment to provide higher density mixed-use
housing with a diverse range of neighborhood commercial uses, complemented
by extensive street activation and gathering opportunities. [Source: New Goal]
Setbacks and Step Backs of Massing
Require medium density, high density, and mixed-use parcels in the Los Gatos Boulevard
District adjacent to Single-family parcels to include increased site setbacks and multi-story step
backs to minimize the impact and increase compatibility with smaller a djacent structures.
[Source: New Policy]
Boulevard Complete Street
Support the Boulevard as a complete street through a reduction in both travel lanes and
maximum speed limit, increased sidewalk widths, and additional bike lanes. [Source: New
Policy]
Housing Diversity
Encourage a diverse range of housing types through the redevelopment of commercial
properties to include lofts, live-work units, apartments, condominiums, and townhomes.
[Source: New Policy]
Aesthetic Shopping Improvements
Encourage aesthetic upgrades to commercial centers including paint, materials, and structural
enhancements. [Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-30 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Pedestrian Activation
Encourage pedestrian activation for all new developments and redevelopment by fronting
buildings along the Boulevard. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-14 Street Activation
Parking Re-location
Encourage parking structures or subterranean parking in lieu of surface par king to free land for
outdoor amenities. [Source: New Policy]
Interconnectivity
Encourage all new development and redevelopment to incorporate safe pedestrian linkages
and connections between commercial centers and surrounding neighborhoods via paseos and
pathways. [Source: New Policy]
Pedestrian and Bike Infrastructure
Encourage the expansion of pedestrian and bike improvements including wider sidewalks, mid-
block crossings, buffered bike lanes, and bollards at primary intersections. [Source: New
Policy]
Landscaping
To soften the appearance of hardscape, encourage the incorporation of landscaped medians
using drought tolerant plants, landscape buffers, and street trees. [Source: New Policy]
Mid-Block Crossings
Encourage the installation of mid-block crossings to reduce vehicle speed and transform Los
Gatos Boulevard from an auto-centric environment to a multi-modal environment. [Source:
New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-31
Corner Fronting Entrances
Support corner fronting entrances on Los Gatos Boulevard with additional architectural
elements (i.e., tower, spire, clock, turret). [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-15 Private Open Space Applications
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-32 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
North Santa Cruz Avenue District
The North Santa Cruz Avenue District (Figure 4-16) extends along North Santa Cruz Avenue between Blossom
Hill Road and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, adjacent to the Downtown Los Gatos District. Uses along North Santa
Cruz Avenue vary from office and professional, retail, light industrial, and hospitality. Various commercial uses
are intermingled along North Santa Cruz Avenue, including a national chain grocery store. Medium -density and
infill high-density housing developments are also present within the North Santa Cruz Avenue District. The
District’s eclectic mix of building types and styles sets it apart from the more cohesive and historic architecture of
the Downtown District. [Source: New Text]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-33
Figure 4-16 North Santa Cruz Avenue District
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-34 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Vision 2040 North Santa Cruz Avenue District
The North Santa Cruz Avenue District is a vibrant mixed-use area that features an eclectic range of
architecture and public amenities. Growth in residential living opportunities include the introduction of
mixed-use with smaller residential units placed over ground floor retail/restaurants/services along with
missing middle housing incorporated into nearby residential. The overall building massing and form is
consistent with and connects well with the Downtown District, but incorporates varying architectural
styles that evoke different and more contemporary periods in the Town’s rich history. Use of rooftop
decks and parklets provide unique vibrancy to the area. Parklets and other public open space provide
opportunities for community members to gather. Landscaping further connects this District to Vasona
County Park located at the northern end of this District. [Source: New Text]
Encourage new and innovative housing opportunities to create a unique place.
[Source: New Goal]
Innovative Housing Opportunities
Encourage innovative housing opportunities including live-work spaces and mixed-use
developments to create a vibrant and diverse district. [Source: New Policy]
Multi-Story Residential
Encourage incorporation of second and third story lofts and apartments above existing
businesses to provide additional housing types for community members, creating a truly mixed -
use corridor. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-17 Multi-Story Residential
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-35
Transitions
Ensure the transition between new development and historical buildings respects scale and
architectural cohesiveness. [Source: New Policy]
Commercial Center Redevelopment
Encourage commercial centers to relocate surface parking to the rear of the property and
incorporate landscape buffers to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment. [Source: New
Policy]
Street-Level Activation
Encourage street-level activation using parklets as well as other forms of public open space to
create welcoming places for outdoor gathering. [Source: New Policy]
Pedestrian Enhancements
Incorporate a variety of pedestrian safety enhancements including wider sidewalks, landscape
buffers, and mid-block crossings to ensure a safe and vibrant living environment. [Source: New
Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-36 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
North Los Gatos Districts
The North Los Gatos Community Place Districts are comprised of the Winchester Boulevard District and Lark
Avenue District. Both districts are located along the northern periphery of the community adjacent to the cit y of
Campbell. Both districts are distinct in nature since they include the bulk of light industrial and office related uses
and businesses within in Town. These areas also provide vastly different urban forms and architecture compared
to the other locations in Town which are predominantly focused around the historic Downtown and the transition
between hillside development.
Winchester Boulevard District
The Winchester Boulevard District (Figure 4-18) is focused on the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and
Knowles Drive, bordering the City of Campbell. This district also includes office and medical uses adjacent to
Netflix and El Camino Hospital. This area is home to a complex and eclectic mix of architectural styles and
development types. Existing commercial at Vasona Junction, office, medical, and residential developments are
compartmentalized and disconnected from each other. Winchester Boulevard, the primary arterial in the District,
is a wide thoroughfare with moderate traffic speeds which impede a more pedestrian-oriented environment. The
commercial shopping centers in the area have been updated, but are single story and offer primarily
neighborhood-serving hospitality. [Source: New Text]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-37
Figure 4-18 Winchester Boulevard District
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-38 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Vision 2040 Winchester Boulevard District
The Winchester Boulevard District is a community hub for innovation, technology, and contemporary
design. The District is situated with easy access to the adjacent communities as well as a direct link to
SR 85. The Winchester Boulevard District includes modern amenities, a variety of entertainment
venues, and hospitality-oriented businesses geared toward multiple generations calling Los Gatos
home. Wide sidewalks and expansive outdoor dining and retail creates a unique atmosphere unlike
other areas of the Town. Mixed-use configurations seamlessly integrate additional smaller housing
options with shopping, dining, work, and play. An emphasis on dense, urban style housing in the form
of live-work units, lofts, flats, apartments, micro-units, and condominiums provide ample housing
opportunities supported by access to the Vasona and Winchester Light Rail stations. [Source: New
Text]
Lark Avenue District
The Lark District (Figure 4-19) includes a portion of Winchester Boulevard, Lark Avenue from Winchester
Boulevard to University Avenue, and a segment of University Avenue including a portion of the Los Gatos Creek
Trail. The area includes most of the Town’s industrial uses and office c omplexes, as well as primary frontage to
the enormously popular Los Gatos Creek Trail. Office parks in this area are reminiscent of the technology boom
in the early 1980s, containing single-story buildings and an abundance of parking. The district is currently
surrounded by a mix of low and medium density residential. [Source: New Text]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-39
Figure 4-19 Lark Avenue District
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-40 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Vision 2040 Lark Avenue District
The Lark Avenue District encapsulates modern office park planning and development by integrating the
District’s natural features and encouraging outdoor recreation. This District includes multi-story
buildings and subterranean parking. Residential growth and sustainability are accomplished by adding
live-work buildings and neighborhood-serving commercial. Removing surface lots increases outdoor
gathering spaces for residents and employees. Developments include entrances along University
Avenue and along the Los Gatos Creek Trail, allowing bike commuters to get to work without relying on
heavily-used streets and corridors and promoting use of the nearby Creekside Sports Park.
Development is open to the natural terrain of Los Gatos Creek and the trail and al lows a seamless
transition between the natural and built environments. [Source: New Text]
Encourage the development or redevelopment of an architecturally modern
district center that includes innovative higher density housing opportunities, a
diverse range of businesses, and maximized recreation opportunities. [Source:
New Goal]
Multi-Story Office Development
Encourage all new or remodeled office developments to consider compact multi -story massing
while providing articulation and consistency along major corridors. [Source: New Policy]
Subterranean Parking
Encourage developments to provide subterranean parking in lieu of surface parking to provide
opportunity for the development of common open space. [Source: New Policy]
Innovative Work Environments
Encourage innovation centers and other creative models of live-work development. [Source:
New Policy]
New Housing Opportunities
Encourage a diverse range of small-unit housing opportunities in a live-work, mixed-use, or
other innovative configuration to accommodate working professionals. [Source: New Policy]
Linking Employment and Housing
Provide clear linkages between residential developments, commercial centers, and places of
employment in the form of walkways, paseos, and paved trails. [Source: New Policy]
Connection to Los Gatos Creek Trail
Encourage development that is adjacent to the Los Gatos Creek Trail to provide secondary
access to the trail. [Source: New Policy]
Zero Setbacks
Allow reduced setbacks to foster a more urban environment focused on corporate centers,
commercial shopping areas, medical services, and hospitality uses. [Source: New Policy]
Modern Influences
Encourage the use of contemporary styles of architecture to distinguish these districts as
unique and vibrant urban centers in Town. [Source: New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-41
Neighborhood Commercial
Support additional neighborhood commercial mixed-use development to service a variety of
residents. [Source: New Policy]
Neighborhood-Oriented Districts
The Neighborhood-Oriented Community Place Districts are comprised of the Harwood Road, Pollard Road, and
Union Avenue districts. Unlike the other five community place districts, these three are true neighborhood centers
focused on neighborhood-serving commercial which serves residents of Los Gatos and surrounding communities.
The neighborhood-oriented districts play a distinct role of providing a transition between more heavily developed
areas of Town and established neighborhoods. The intent of these districts is to encourage a gradual increase in
development intensity and density, while establishing walkable mixed-use neighborhood serving centers.
Harwood Road District
The Harwood Road District (Figure 4-20) is focused on the intersection of Harwood Road and Blossom Hill Road,
bordering the City of San Jose and anchored by the Blossom Hill Square Shopping Center. This commercial
center is home to several national chains. The layout of the center, like most in Los Gatos, is auto-oriented with a
street fronting parking lot with access points on both side of the intersection. This commercial center serves
residents of Los Gatos and San Jose. The district is surrounded primarily by low-density residential, intermixed
with a few medium-density residential parcels. Nearby residents utilize the center for convenient shopping.
Nearby Noddin Elementary School in San Jose educates the neighborhood youth of both Los Gatos and San
Jose and adds to the sense of community.
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-42 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Figure 4-20 Harwood Road District
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-43
Vision 2040 Harwood Road District
The Harwood Road District is a primary commercial hub for the east end of Los Gatos and serves as a
vibrant gathering place for community members to mingle and enjoy local amenities. Successful street
activation of the shopping center area is evident with parking relocated to the rear of property, shielded
from the public view. Residential growth is accommodated by the addition of mixed-use design
incorporating neighborhood commercial on the first floor and smaller residential units above.
Contemporary design and dense landscaping buffers revitalize and complement surrounding
neighborhoods, creating a welcoming and inclusive destination. [Source: New Text]
Pollard Road District
The Pollard Road District (Figure 4-21) at the intersection of Pollard Road and More Avenue borders the City of
Campbell. This District is anchored by the Rinconada Shopping Center. The shopping center is anchored by a
national chain grocery store, pharmacy, and other local dining and neighborhood services. The center is
neighborhood-serving, surrounded by largely residential neighborhoods that rely on the center for daily needs,
and families whose children attend nearby Rolling Hills Middle School. Pollard Road is less travelled than other
Los Gatos arterials, which emphasizes the neighborhood focus. [Source: New Text]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-44 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Figure 4-21 Pollard Road District
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-45
Vision 2040 Pollard Road District
The Pollard Road District is a welcoming and vibrant neighborhood gathering space and commercial
center for community members to mingle and enjoy local amenities. Successful street activation is
evident with parking relocated to the rear of the property, shielded from the public view. Additional
residential living opportunities are accommodated by the addition of smaller residential units above
retail or office in a mixed-use configuration. A dense landscape buffer at the rear of the center provides
a thoughtful transition obscuring the commercial structures from neighboring residential areas which in
turn have been revitalized with the introduction of missing middle housing in some areas. Wide
sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities ensure a safe and c onnected community. Office space
intermingled with commercial uses and higher density residential units reveals an attractive and efficient
mixed-use district. [Source: New Text]
Union Avenue District
The Union Avenue District (Figure 4-22) is focused on the intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos-Almaden
Road, bordering the City of San Jose. This District is anchored by the Downing Center, which is designed as an
automobile-oriented shopping center with street-fronting parking and access points on either side of the center.
This commercial center is anchored by a national chain grocery store and serves the daily needs of Los Gatos
and San Jose residents. Nearby Union Middle School and Alta Vista Elementary School enhance the sense of
community, serving the youth of both Los Gatos and nearby San Jose neighborhoods. [Source: New Text]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-46 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Figure 4-22 Union Avenue District
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-47
Vision 2040 Union Avenue District
The Union Avenue District is a welcoming and vibrant neighborhood gathering space and commercial
center for community members to mingle and enjoy local amenities. Successful street activation is
evident with parking relocated to the rear of property, shie lded from the public view. The relocation of
parking has provided new opportunities for street activation including parklets and outdoor dining. New
and wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities provide for safe and connected living conditions.
Additional new residential living opportunities include smaller units placed in a mixed-use configuration
over retail and office. A dense landscape buffer at the rear of the center provides a thoughtful transition
obscuring the commercial structures from neighboring residential areas. Office space intermingled with
commercial uses and higher density residential units reveals an attractive and efficient mixed -use
district. Missing middle housing offers an attractive medium- and high-density transition to surrounding
single-family residential neighborhoods. [Source: New Text]
Encourage the evolution of neighborhood-oriented districts that provide mixed-use
development complimented by street-level amenities and safe connections to
surrounding residences. [Source: New Goal]
Street Activated Commercial Centers
Foster redevelopment of the commercial center in each district to encourage street-level
activation and minimize the effects of surface parking by relocating it to the rear of the property
and providing landscape buffering. [Source: New Policy]
Figure 4-23 Shielded Parking
Human-Scale Mixed-Use Developments
Support human-scale mixed-use developments that incorporate small-unit housing types.
[Source: New Policy]
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-48 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Public Realm Enhancements
Encourage safe pedestrian linkages and connections from the commercial centers to
surrounding neighborhoods via paseos and pathways. [Source: New Policy]
Seamless Transitions
Ensure a seamless transition both in mass, scale, and architectural style, occurs between new
development and existing development. [Source: New Policy]
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-49
4.6 Implementation Programs
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing A Multi-Family Objective Design Standards
Amend the Town Code to include a
comprehensive set of Objective Design
Standards for incorporation into the Zoning
Ordinance. The Objective Design
Standards at a minimum shall be consistent
with the Community Design Element and
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), include quantifiable
design standards, and apply to all multi-
family and mixed-use zones. [Source: New
Implementation Program]
Goal CD-2 Community
Development
◼
B Commercial Design Guidelines Update
Update the Commercial Design Guidelines
to reflect the updated General Plan and to
ensure that new and remodeled buildings
strengthen the form and image of the Town
and Community Place Districts. [Source:
Existing Action CD-9.1, modified]
CD-2
CD-7
CD-8
CD-9
CD-10
CD-11
CD-12
Community
Development
◼
C Study Expanding Setback Regulations
Conduct a study to research increasing yard
setback regulations to include
considerations for building height and
update the Town Code as necessary.
[Source: Existing Action CD-7.1]
CD-2.1
CD-2.2
CD-2.17
CD-2.31
CD-8.2
CD-10.4
Community
Development
◼
D Freeway Beautification
Study the feasibility of partnering with
Caltrans on including public art and themed
landscaping along freeway off- and on-
ramps, and along overpasses on SR 17.
[Source: New Implementation Program]
CD-2.15
CD-2.40
Town Manager
Parks and
Public Works
◼
E Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design Parameters
Adopt a Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) Ordinance
that establishes design parameters for
buildings, streetscapes, and lighting which
help prevent crime. [Source: New
Implementation Program]
CD-2.20
CD-2.21
CD-2.22
Community
Development
Parks and
Public Works
Police
Department
◼
Revised GPAC Draft 2040 General Plan
4-50 Revised GPAC Draft April 2021
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing F Public Art Ordinance
Study the feasibility of creating a Public Art
Ordinance that provides direction for
placement of public art and when public art
is required. [Source: New Implementation
Program]
CD-2.35
CD-2.36
CD-2.37
Town Manager
◼
G Gateway Identification Program
Create a gateway sign program that
addresses gateways into the community
and provides a clear distinction of being in
Los Gatos. [Source: New Implementation
Program]
CD-2.38
CD-2.39
Town Manager
Parks and
Public Works
Community
Development
◼
H Review Historic Landmark Preservation
Legislation
Periodically review historic landmark and
preservation legislation and update the
Town Code as necessary. [Source:
Existing Action CD-12.2]
Goal CD-3 Community
Development
◼
I Conduct a Historic Resources Survey
Review the historic resources survey every
five years to identify valuable and historical
architectural styles and features within the
Central Business District, and residential
historic districts, as well as the potential to
add additional resources to the list.
[Source: Existing Action CD-10.1, modified]
CD-3.3
CD-3.4
Community
Development
◼ ◼
J Establish Public Information Programs
Establish public information programs
designed to make owners of historic
structures and the general public aware of
the value of historic buildings and to
encourage their maintenance. [Source:
Existing Action CD-12.1]
CD-3.4 Community
Development
Town Manager
◼
K Revise Buildable Slope Standards
Determine maximum buildable slope and
revise the Town Code accordingly.
[Source: Existing Action CD-15.1]
CD-5.1
CD-5.3
Community
Development
Parks and
Public Works
◼
4. Community Design Element
April 2021 Revised GPAC Draft 4-51
Programs
Implements
Which
Policy(ies)
Responsible
Supporting
Department(s) 2021 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing L Update Hillside Development Plans
Update the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines, including the standards and
guidelines pertaining to below grade square
footage and above ground massing.
[Source: Existing Action CD-14.3, modified]
CD-5.2
CD-5.3
CD-5.5
CD-5.6
CD-6.3
Community
Development
◼
M Study Scenic Easements Program
Study the feasibility of establishing a
program to acquire scenic easements
through dedication. [Source: Existing
Action CD-16.1]
CD-5.5
Community
Development
Parks and
Public Works
◼
N Adopt Guidelines to Protect the
Environment
Adopt guidelines for development review
that protect:
a) Rare plants and wildlife and their
habitats;
b) Natural watersheds;
c) Historic sites; and
d) Aesthetically significant sites.
[Source: Existing Action CD-17.6]
CD-6 Community
Development
Parks and
Public Works
◼
O Revise the Grading Ordinance
Revise the Town’s grading ordinance to be
consistent with the General Plan, Hillside
Specific Plan, and Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines. [Source:
Existing Action CD-15.2]
CD-6.2
CD-6.3
Parks and
Public Works
Community
Development
◼
P Maintain Signage Design Controls
Maintain sign design standards and
guidelines to enhance the Town and
Downtown District. [Source: Existing Action
CD-11.2, modified]
CD-8.1
CD-8.4
Community
Development
◼
Q Develop a Downtown Landscaping Plan
Develop and adopt a landscaping plan that
heightens user understanding of the
Downtown District. [Source: Existing Action
CD-11.3, modified]
CD-8.4
Community
Development
◼
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 1 of 57
Community Design Element
The following are comments received by the GPAC and corresponding changes in the Revised Public
Review Draft Element.
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 11/5/2020 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.
This comment has been reflected.
This comment has been reflected.
Pg 4-5: Second paragraph, hyphenate well-
defined.
Fourth paragraph, after “draw” insert “from”.
This comment has been reflected.
This comment has been reflected.
4.1 Neighborhood Compatibility: Change “a rich
history” to “rich history” (there are many and
variations).
This comment has been reflected.
Goal CD-1: Do we need the word “distinct”? It
isn’t supported by the policies?
Distinct was removed from the Goal to reflect the
comment.
CD-1.5: Memorable?The term “memorable” will remain based on
GPAC discussion during the review of the CD
Element.
4.2 Community Form: First paragraph: replace
“lend to each” with “contribute to a”.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.2: Hyphenate well-defined.The term well-defined was removed from the
policy, no change.
CD-2.7 Is quite prescriptive and doesn’t work on
all architectural styles in town (modern,
contemporary).
Policy 2.7 was removed based on GPAC discussion
during the review of the CD Element. It was
determined these types of policies would be best
part of the objective standards, residential or
commercial design guidelines, or zoning code.
CD-2.12: This could have a quantifiable standard.This policy was updated based on GPAC
discussion during the review of the CD Element
and was determined to not include a quantifiable
objective standard.
ATTACHMENT 4
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 2 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2.18 and 2.10: Combine. And eliminate
“strategic”.
Both policies will remain with edits approved by
the GPAC and Town staff. The term “strategic”
was removed.
The “did you know box” refers to examples, but
they were not in my packet.
CD-2.23: What does “adjoining street frontage”
mean?? Can you simply say they will face the
frontage street?
Policy 2.23 was removed and merged with Policy
2.28 (Eyes on the Street).
CD-2.25: Delete “realm” two places, also CD-2.34. Policy 2.25 was restructured to remove the term
“realm” which was used twice. The term “realm”
was maintained in Policy 2.34.
CD-2.28: Maybe combine with 2.23, under a
policy title: Street-Oriented Front Entrance.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.31: This is odd. Starts as though it’s a safety
concern, but then you’re moving them to a dark
alley…?
This policy was removed per GPAC direction.
CD-2.38: Delete “significant” or quantify the
maximum percent impact in a XX-degree view.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.43: Does screen include hiding, as on
rooftop installations?
This policy was removed per GPAC direction.
CD-2-47: Make sure this is consistent with the
newly revised lighting policy.
This policy will remain and was reviewed for
consistency by Town staff.
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?
This figure will be removed per GPAC direction.
4.3 Intro has a lot of duplication with 3.6. If re-
stating the districts, use a map.
The introduction text was modified to include
additional language regarding sustainability as
requested by the GPAC. To reflect the comment,
the Historic Districts map was included.
CD-3: Delete “significant”. This comment has been reflected.
Move LU-3.2 to next goal (CD-4). This comment has been reflected.
CD-3.3: Delete the clause “including those…” it
isn’t needed and could be mis-leading as con-
contributors are also protected.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-3.5: Sounds as though HPC is the final
authority.
The policy was updated for clarity to address the
comment.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 3 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-4.2: This should only apply to exterior
renovations. We don’t govern interiors.
This policy as been updated to clarify that it
applies to only exterior renovations and not
interiors.
4.4: Replace “boast” with “have”. This comment has been reflected.
CD-5.3 Doesn’t seem to belong—all the others
are non-structural or more general. Suggest
deleting.
This policy will remain based on GPAC discussion.
The GPAC recommended the removal of the last
sentence of the policy and the inclusion of a
program that requires the updating of the Hillside
Design Guidelines.
CD-5.6: Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines
This comment has been reflected.
Goal CD-6: This is entirely in the HDS&G. No
need to repeat here. If you keep some of it,
include “building” as in: “regulating grading,
building, landscaping and lighting”.
This comment has been reflected.
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.
This policy has been removed.
CD-7.2: Hyphen after pedestrian. This comment has been reflected.
CD-7.6: Change “amongst” to “among”. This policy was removed.
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.
Central Business District is the name of the
General Plan designation and will be retained on
all maps.
Map p. 4-31 is missing Medium density words in
key.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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.
Comment noted.
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
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 4 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
conflicting styles from erasing what is
quintessentially Downtown. New structures in
the DTD are constructed at a human-scale to
maintain the continuity of the historic
development pattern.
Where consistent with the General Plan, the DTD
encourages multi-story buildings to include office
and residential uses on floors above the first
floor. The DTD provides a truly walkable
environment, where sidewalks are wide and
pedestrian-friendly. The expanded sidewalks
include additional space for outdoor dining,
public art and street furniture. Enhancing the
visitor experience in the DTD, digital display
informational kiosks with establishment
directories provide a 21st century amenity.
Updated building signage, A Downtown
wayfinding system, and gateway entrance signs
to the DTD mark the Downtown as the core of
the community. The DTD thrives as one of the
most beloved areas of the Town, one that has
stood the test of time and continues to do so.
CD-8: insert the Downtown District, delete Los
Gatos.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Throughout this section, be sure to say
Downtown District, not just Downtown.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.3: Among. This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.8: Replace Los Gatos with the Downtown
District and delete Downtown at end of sentence.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.8 Delete “so as” “enough” replace “color
that” with “color so, replace “within” with “with”.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.9: Is this needed when we have a robust
sign ordinance?
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Harwood (all other boxed intros, replace
“abutting” or “abuts” with “bordering” or
“borders”.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Revise the Harwood vision with a vision
statement. As-written it’s a list of to-dos. As this
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 5 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Comment noted.
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.
The signage and gateway signage policies,
including Figure 4-1 has been removed.
Lark District: Revise as a present tense
statement, like Downtown District revision.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Pg 4-45: Random figures throughout this section. Figures have been labeled to reflect the
comment.
CD-10.4: Ground floors are required to have 12-
foot height?
This policy was removed.
CD-10.7: Should this be street-activation rather
that structure activation?
This comment has been reflected.
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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 6 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-11.1: Define live-work space. This comment has been reflected in the key
terms.
Pollard Road District:
Reads like Harwood. Need a vision statement
and be sure the items in these paragraphs (p. 4-
54) are reflected in policies.
Pollard goal/policies could be similar for Harwood
Union Ave same comments as Harwood.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Winchester Blvd Element
Reads more like a proper vision but needs to be
present tense.
Delete “Unlike all other Districts in LG”, Now
starts 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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-2.7: Is this a backhanded way of saying that
modern, clean-lined projects are discouraged?
This policy has been removed.
CD-2.59: Why? This policy has been retained and updated based
on previous GPAC comments.
CD-7.1: Why? This policy has been removed.
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.”
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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?)
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 7 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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”.)
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
4.6 Implementation Programs. Letter O has an
alignment problem with item “d)”
This comment has been reflected.
4.6 Implementation Programs. Letter S needs to
separate “itis” to “it is”
This comment has been reflected.
●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.
This language is in the Land Use Element.
The GPAC has requested the small-town
character be retained in specific circumstances.
Elsewhere in this element, terms like “enhance”
have replace “preserve” and “protect” to
recognize anticipated change.
Comment noted. The GPAC has decided to
remove a majority of the urban form policies
which will be better suited for the Residential and
Commercial Design Guidelines or Town Zoning
Code.
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
Comment noted.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 8 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
The Land Use Element includes a new section on
Missing Middle Housing and ways to incorporate
this development type in Town.
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.
Comment noted.
CD-1: Too many ideas combined in this Goal This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-1.3: Discourage Prohibit gated communities.
Gated communities are the opposite of
“interconnected communities”.
This comment has been reflected.
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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments. The emphasis has been shifted from
preserve to enhance.
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.
This policy has been revised to reflect the original
policy in the existing Los Gatos General Plan.
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.
These has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments. Policy 2.3 was removed.
CD-2.4: Intent is good but needs to have
objective standards.
It was decided by the GPAC to remove objective
standards that should belong in the Zoning Code
or other Town regulatory documents.
Page 4-9
Require all new and remodeled structures
emphasize 360 Architecture by continuing
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 9 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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
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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Page 4-14
The illustration does not achieve CD-2.6 Nor does
the figure meet CD-2-27 transitions.
The transition in scale graphic has been retained
and updated to show stepbacks.
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?
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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.
This comment has been reflected.
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
This policy was removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 10 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Comment noted. A majority of the policies with
quantifiable standards have been removed
reflecting this comment.
CD-1.2: should add (including building massing
and height) after the word proportion.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 4-7: Add words about the importance of
the ground floor being visible and activated along
public streets.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.49: Shrubs and trees don’t lower noise. Comment noted.
CD-2.52: Native planting should probably be a
higher percentage such as 75% instead of 60%.
Quantifiable standards were discussed and
deemed better suited for the Town Zoning Code.
CD-4.3: Do we need to say that we are going to
provide information?
Providing information is one way to encourage
restauration projects.
CD-5: The goal should not only mention
regulating new homes since the policies mention
rural atmosphere and view sheds.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 4-32
The second sentence of the intro seems self-
promoting and doesn’t add anything to the
document.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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.
The policy and associated graphic were removed.
Page 4-44
Policy Overview
Somewhere in this section we should add a policy
to study the feasibility of reducing the number of
lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard to four lanes and
devote the recovered space to safe pedestrian
and bicycle circulation and landscaping.
We should also add a policy requiring the
interconnection of adjacent commercial parking
lots to better integrate commercial development
and reduce the need to re-enter the public right
This comment has been reflected in a new policy.
Interconnectivity has been reflected in a new
policy.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 11 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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?
This policy was removed. Physical meaning the
actual infrastructure, visual meaning applicable
sight lines and site placement of the
infrastructure as well as making the multi-modal
opportunities more apparent and not obscured
by development.
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).
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Page 4-8: CD 2.4
How much step back is required? If not defined
here maybe this should point to a different
document.
The quantifiable standards will be located in the
Town’s residential or commercial design
guidelines and Zoning Code. The graphic will be
updated.
Page 4-11: CD 2.9
Why is there a range here “40 to 50 feet”? We
should just have a single number.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments and the technical dimension
requirements have been removed.
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?
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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”.
The policies in this section were condensed.
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.
This policy was removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 12 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Page 4-13
The “Did you know” section says “here are some
examples if the successful implementation of
freeway landscaping” but then there are no
examples given.
Comment noted.
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
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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 types of
guidelines and can be referenced?
Policy CD-2.44
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?
This policy was removed.
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?
The 1941 date will be retained based on previous
GPAC comments.
Page 4-31
This map is missing a title.
This comment has been reflected.
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 does the
allowed coverage amount documented? Let’s
point to that.
This would be designated by standards in the
Town Zoning Code and could be included the
subsequent update.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 13 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
General:
Throughout, (and also with respect to the Land
Use Element, though I didn’t find a place
there where this argument would logically be
made) I would like to advocate a move
from traditional zoning and design elements to
“form-based zoning,” which emphasizes
building forms, setbacks, height, etc., over
separation of uses
https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/
Different form-based zoning rules could be used
in, e.g., the “Community Places” to
define a District and to streamline the review
process and procedural hurdles. The
predictability of form-based zoning can provide
“objective standards” while also
shortening the entitlement process, thereby
aiding in the production of, e.g., housing.
Comment noted.
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.
Comment noted.
Site Development
Why call out Crime Prevention design features for
special emphasis?
Because CPTED is a critical component of holistic
site planning and development.
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.
Communities can partner with Caltrans to
beautify freeway onramps and offramps as well
as overpasses.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 14 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-1
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.
Comment noted.
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.
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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.
Comment noted.
CD-2-12: Have we finally resolved the
“basement” v. “cellar” issue, such that this
section is clear??
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
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?
This comment has been reflected and the text
has been updated.
CD-2.16: The Town actually has a list of approved
street trees – why not reference
here?
Policy 2.16 is general policy that is not tied to the
Town’s approved tree list. It is an aspirational
policy to continue tree planting on both private
and public property and continue tree
maintenance. This policy will remain as written.
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.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 15 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2.58: I object to the inclusion of this section.
We should have variety – this policy
encourages a town full of cat banners.
This section after further discussion will remain.
All policies in this section have been edited and
streamlined based on previous GPAC comments.
CD-2.63: How many “gateway” signs and art are
we going to have? Is each supposed
to emphasize some feature or another? This
seems excessive.
Policy 2.63 has been retained as its is discussing
landscaped gateways. Policy 2.60 on a gateway
sign program and figure 4-1 which denotes
primary and secondary gateways has been
removed.
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.”
This has been retained and updated based on
previous GPAC comments.
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?
The policies in this section have been modified
and updated based on previous GPAC comments.
CD-4.5: Last line in introductory paragraph should
be “as well as…” not and well as…”
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-7.1: Why? Instead of creating silos of
“districts,” we should be striving for a whole
community
This policy has been removed.
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.
This policy has been updated and the text
mentioned in the comment has been removed.
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
This policy has been removed.
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?
The reference to the specific streets were
removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 16 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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….
All introductory paragraphs discussing existing
conditions and the vision districts have been
updated based on previous GPAC comments.
CD-8.2: Why not allow innovation??? This policy was removed based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.3: If we are truly encouraging change, why
are we insisting on “compatibility” and
“consistency?”
This policy was removed based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.6: Absolutely disagree! Nothing should be
“prohibited.” Often, modern architecture
is the best means to enhance and set off the
historic?
This policy was removed based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.9: How do signs and graphics “maintain the
Town’s small-scale appearance?”
This policy was removed based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-8.10: This is all covered in the Commercial
Design Guidelines – which should be
updated. The GP and Guidelines need to be
consistent.
This policy was removed based on previous GPAC
comments.
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?”
All introductory paragraphs discussing existing
conditions and the vision districts have been
updated based on previous GPAC comments.
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?”
All introductory paragraphs discussing existing
conditions and the vision districts have been
updated based on previous GPAC comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 17 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Comment noted. All introductory paragraphs
discussing existing conditions and the vision
districts have been updated based on previous
GPAC comments.
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.
The Los Gatos Blvd has been removed from this
element and new program has been added to
rescind the Plan.
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?
This policy has been removed.
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.
Comment noted.
Page 4-46
CD-10.5: I would strongly discourage policies that
seek to create corner elements –
remember, for example, “The Dome.”
This policy has been retained after further GPAC
discussion.
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.
The term extension has been removed.
Page 4-51
CD-11: Why an “extension?” Why not just
“Encourage the establishment of the North
The term extension has been removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 18 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Santa Cruz Avenue District as a vibrant mixed-use
area featuring an eclectic range of
architecture and public amenities?”
Page 4-52 – 4-54:
Again, why include description of existing
conditions?
Continuing objection to “revamp.”
Continuing objection to the emphasis on paint
rather than the transformation of the
character of the neighborhood to mixed use, etc.
Objection to the restriction of density to
similarity with existing single-family residences
to “reduce compatibility issues.” If this document
really does seek to promote change,
then it needs to back up its “visions” which allow
for the creation of new “District”
character.
The existing conditions sections will be retained
per GPAC and Town staff direction.
Page 4-55
CD-12.1: Why limit building height? The wider
streets in the area can support taller
buildings and denser housing.
This policy and other policies in the Pollard
District have been removed and placed in a
broader neighborhood centered district.
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.
Comment noted.
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.
Comment noted. All introductory paragraphs
discussing existing conditions and the vision
districts have been updated based on previous
GPAC comments.
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
Comment noted.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 19 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
dealing with building proportions, multi-modal
connections etc.
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.
This policy was removed based on previous GPAC
comments.
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)
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
CD-3.1 Avoid Demolition of Historic Buildings
The policy should be revised to replace
“substantial evidence” with “required findings.”
(page 4-24)
This comment has been reflected.
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)
This comment has been reflected.
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)
This comment has been reflected.
CD-3.4 Historic Preservation Programs This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 20 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Revise the Policy to state the following: Continue
the Town’s careful and proactive historic
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)
This comment has been reflected.
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)
This comment has been reflected.
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)
This comment has been reflected.
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)
This comment has been reflected.
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)
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 2/4/2021 Meeting
● 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
Illustrations have been removed, updated or
streamlined for clarity throughout the element.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 21 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
different forms depending on the architectural
style of the building.
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: Delete CD-1.1 It is
already addressed in Land Use Element and in
Transportation Element.
Section 4.1 has been retained and policy 1.1 has
been removed.
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.
Comment noted.
This comment has been reflected.
This policy has been retained based on Town staff
direction and previous GPAC comments.
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?
This policy will be retained based on previous
GPAC comments.
Delete first paragraph of 4.2 introduction. The text will be retained based on Town staff
direction and previous GPAC comments.
CD-2: This goal is too broad. This goal has been updated based on pre
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)
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.3 Multi-Story Step Back
○ Suggest: Move up after CD-2.1
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.5, Human Scale
○ Consider deleting - very broad and very
subjective.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
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 into
one box.
The GPAC decided to retain the “Did you know?”
box. We will look at streamlining the text.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 22 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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).
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
Page 4-22 Figure 4-1 Gateways
● Too many gateway signs.
This comment has been reflected and the figure
and associated policy have been removed.
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
All comments from the HPC have been
implemented into the Community Design
Element.
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.
○ 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.
Comment noted.
Illustration and maps have been updated.
The Districts have been re-ordered as following
reflecting previous GPAC comments.
• Downtown
• Los Gatos Blvd.
• North Los Gatos Districts
o Winchester
o Lark
• North Santa Cruz
• Neighborhood-Oriented Districts
o Union
o Harwood
o Pollard
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 23 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
○ 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.
The existing condition’s introductions are being
retained as discussed and approved by Town staff
and the GPAC. The visions for each district have
been updated based on previous GPAC
comments. The subsequent policies for the
districts have been streamlined based on
previous GPAC comments.
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.
The existing condition’s introductions and photos
are being retained as discussed and approved by
Town staff and the GPAC. The visions for each
district have been updated based on previous
GPAC comments. The subsequent policies for the
districts have been streamlined based on
previous GPAC comments.
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.
This introduction text has been updated and
approved by Town staff and the GPAC at the 3/18
GPAC meeting.
CD7.2, and 7.4: Clarify whether apply to
development in GP Residential Designations
as well as Commercial Designations.
The policy has been updated to reflect the
comment.
CD-7.1: District Signage: Suggest moving down
before CD-7.5.
This policy has been removed.
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 adjacent to a corridor or
only to Commercial or mixed-use development
adjacent to a major corridor.
The policy has been updated to reflect the
comment.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 24 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-7.4: Wider Sidewalks and CD-7.7: Enhanced
Landscaping
○ Clarify: Do these apply to all GP designations?
This applies to major roadways and arterials in
the Community Place Districts. Policy 7.7 has
been removed and replaced with a new policy
relating to open space.
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
The introductory text has been updated based on
previous GPAC comments.
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.
These comments have been reflected.
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
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 25 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
The Downtown District Vision has been updated
to reflect the comments approved by the GPAC at
the 3/18 GPAC Meeting.
Page 4-39 Figure 4-5 Lark District.
● Verify that the Albright Specific Plan extends as
far south as Lark Ave.
This comment has been reflected.
Page 4-48 North Santa Cruz District:
● Modify the first sentences: ….adjacent to but
not including the Downtown District.
The North Santa Cruz District introduction has
been updated to reflect the comments approved
by the GPAC at the 3/18 GPAC Meeting.
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’?
The North Santa Cruz District Vision has been
updated to reflect the comments approved by the
GPAC at the 3/18 GPAC Meeting.
GPAC Comments Received after 2/18/2021
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
Introduction: Remove Hillside Specific Plan from
last sentence. Hillside Specific Plan is very
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 26 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
outdated and will not likely be updated as we
have the HDSG.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
CD-5: Edit goal to remove the phrase “by
regulating new homes”.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
CD-5.2: Edit policy to explain why—fire safety.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
CD-6: Edit goal to add “site placement” and
“fencing” to the list of items regulated.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
New CD- 6.1 LRDA (spell out): Add policy stating
that building to the Least Restrictive
Development Area (LRDA) is required to ensure
that there is the least disturbance of the natural
environment and so that hazards are avoided.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
New CD-6.3 Natural Ridge Line Protection: Please
combine the current CD-6.1 Natural Ridge Line
Protection with CD-6.2 Ridge Line Grading
Prohibition.
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
New CD-6.2 Natural Land Contours: Move current
CD-6.3 Natural Land Contours to become CD-6.2
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
CD-6.5 Fence Design: Modify policy to say,
“Fences should be of open design to allow
passage of native wildlife”.
This comment has been reflected in a new policy.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
CD-6.4 Landscaping Design: Hillside Landscaping
Design should be modified to remove bullets and
keep only the content from current (a) and (d).
This comment has been reflected.
Section 4.4 Hillside Development
CD-6.6 Lighting Design: Remove first sentence
and item d) and the last sentence on indoor
lighting. Also change from bullet format to text.
For example, “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.”
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 27 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2, Re-write to reflect Vision Statement and
Guiding Principles. Encourage all development in
Town to be designed holistically and sustainably,
towards creating or evolving welcoming and
human-scale neighborhood communities.
Goal CD-2 has been updated based on previous
GPAC comments.
CD-2.1 Building Setbacks Increase. Move to
Zoning Code, RDG and/or CDG—rewrite for
greater clarity.
Based on direction from Town staff this policy has
been reverted back to the original policy direction
in the existing General Plan.
CD-2.2 Architectural Style. Keep with edits for
clarity—move to 2.1. Promote high quality
architecture architectural styles through the use
of minimized building massing, façade
articulation, fenestration, varied parapets and
other human-scaled features.
The following is the new policy language.
Promote high quality architecture through the use
of massing, façade articulation, fenestration, and
parapets that reflect a human scale environment.
CD-2.3 Blank Walls. Move to Zoning Code, RDG
and/or CDG and consider increasing percentages.
Too prescriptive for General Plan. Secondary
street frontages with 50% blank walls seems like
too much.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.4 Multi-story Step Backs. Keep but see
explanation. Is this realistic with Mixed Use? May
need to revise for clarity regarding use. Suggest
having objective standard in CDG, RDG or Zoning
Code.
Comment noted.
CD-2.5 Human-Scale. Delete policy—repetitive
with goal and other policies.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.6 360 Architecture . Keep with edits the
following edits: Require that all new and
remodeled structures emphasize 360
Architecture and include where feasible
architectural design elements such as molding
and cornices as well as roof forms and materials
consistent with the structure’s architecture.
The following is the new policy language.
Require that all new and remodeled structures
emphasize 360 architecture and include where
feasible architectural design elements such as
molding and cornices as well as roof forms and
materials consistent with the structure’s
architecture.
CD-2.7 Architectural Design Elements. Move to
Zoning Code, RDG and/or CDG. Too
prescriptive—but see additions to 2.6.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.8 Roof Forms. Move to Zoning Code, RDG
and/or CDG. Too prescriptive—but see addition
to 2.6.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 28 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2.9 Roof Design. Move to Zoning Code, RDG
and/or CDG. Too prescriptive—also graphic is not
consistent with current 2.4 setback policy.
The following is the new policy language.
Encourage horizontal eaves to be broken up by
gables, building projections, or other forms of
articulation.
CD-2.10 Parking Structure Design. Covered under
landscaping—delete from GP. If needed place in
CDG. Too specific and possibly redundant for
General Plan.
The following is the new policy language.
Require all parking structures to include design or
screening methods to minimize the visual impact
on surrounding neighborhoods.
CD-2.11 Multi-Story Structures. Keep this policy. Comment noted.
CD 2.12 Cellars. Change policy name to Hidden
Square Footage/Parking.
The following is the new policy language.
Encourage below grade square footage and
underground parking to provide “hidden” square
footage and/or parking in order to reduce visible
mass.
CD-2.13 Pedestrian-Oriented Streetscapes.
Change title and edit policy. May want to
consider combining with CD 2.15.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.14 Well-defined Street Fronts. Keep policy. Comment noted.
CD-2.15 Enhanced Walking and Biking. See
comments on CD-2.13. May wish to combine with
CD-2.13 or at least group together.
This comment has been retained after further
discussion with Town staff.
CD-2.16 to CD-2.20. Way too many tree policies.
Combine into 2 policies at most: 2.16
could/should be combined with 2.17 and 2.18—
encouraging the planting of new trees and
maintenance of mature trees to enhance
neighborhood character and shade coverage
- 2.19 to 2.20 could/should be combined into one
policy about tree selection and preservation in
accordance with our Tree Ordinance.
These policies have been condensed to reflect the
comment.
CD-2.21 Protecting Hillside Views. Keep this
policy.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.22 SR 17 On-Ramps and Overpasses. Keep
this policy. Keep “Did you know” box below on
page 4-13 and add an image so people know
what might work conceptually.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.23 Structure Entrances. Move to second
policy in this grouping.
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 29 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2.24 Outdoor Dining. Replace or delete this
policy as appears to be in conflict with
permanent parklets. If replacing, move to third
policy in this category.
The following is the new policy language.
Enhance the street experience with parklets and
outdoor dining opportunities where feasible.
CD-2.25 Buildings that Engage the Street. Keep
this policy and move to 1st in this section.
This comment has been reflected.
Adjacent Compatibility NOTE: please replace
Compatibility with something that does not imply
things will not change.
This title has been updated to reflect the
comment.
CD-2.26 Compatibility and Consistency. Suggest
deleting this policy for reasons mentioned
regarding title.
This policy has been removed to reflect the
comment.
CD-2.27 Transition in Scale. Keep this policy—
check to see if there is a better image to reflect
this—maybe something like the Missing Middle
Housing?
The graphic has been updated for this policy.
CD-2.28 Eyes on the Street. Please change the
title of this policy—does not seem to reflect the
intent and also state the why—see explanation.
The following is the new policy language.
To increase safety for residents, new development
with a street frontage shall incorporate a street
oriented front entrance. Where not possible to
face the street, units shall be oriented to provide
visual access to entryways, pedestrian pathways,
recreation areas, and public spaces.
CD-2.29 Reducing Vegetation Overgrowth.
Suggest moving this to RDG and/or CDG.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.30 Adequate Pedestrian Lighting. Keep this
policy.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.31 Accessible Structural Elements. Seems
more appropriate for Design Guidelines—move
this.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.32 Glazing Visibility. Change title and edit
policy to reflect intent. Move standard to Zoning
code and/or CDG/RDG. Suggest something like:
“Minimize obstructed viewing into street facing
windows of commercial buildings in the form of
glazing, signage, advertisements and interior
furnishings that can obstruct such views.”
The following is the new policy language.
Minimize obstructed viewing into street facing
windows of commercial buildings in the form of
glazing, signage, advertisements and interior
furnishings that can obstruct such views.
Common Open Space—please note that a
minimum standard is desirable here. Ideally
Quantifiable standards are better suited in the
Zoning Code and not in the General Plan.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 30 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
something similar to the North 40 with green
open space and total open space.
CD-2.33 Community Gathering Spaces. Keep this
policy.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.34 Public Realm Improvements. Keep this
policy.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.35 and -2.36 Balconies/ground floor private
open space. Combine into one policy. Too much
detail although ok to leave images. Move the
standard to Zoning Code and/or CDG/RDG.
Suggest: Encourage multi-family developments to
provide each unit with private open space in the
form of a patio or balcony.
The following is the new policy language.
Encourage multi-family developments to provide
each unit with private open space in the form of a
patio or balcony.
CD-2.37 Climate considerations in Site Design.
Keep this policy.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.38 New Home Siting. Keep this policy but
please clarify “significant” if possible—how to
measure?
This policy will be retained as is per Town staff
direction.
CD-2.39 and -2.40. Linking within development
and park and trail connections. Seems like an
opportunity to consolidate these two policies into
one emphasize the need for systems that enable
multi-modal movement especially pedestrian and
bike.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.41 Natural Contours. Policy is Ok but
missing the “why”. To protect the natural aspects
of the property.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.42 and 2.43. Seems like way too much detail
for the General Plan—move to CDG or code.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.44 Solid Fencing. Seems out of context for
intent. The Fence Ordinance suggests minimal
fencing and where required that it be open or
lower especially in front yards. At a minimum
change title and policy and possibly delete. If
keeping this, suggest a new policy called,
strategic fencing or limited fencing or similar and
refer to concepts in the fence ordinance.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.45 Signage. Perhaps change title to reflect
the Town’s intent to have subtle or sophisticated
signage, and then refer to Sign Ordinance.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 31 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2.46 Street and Structural Lighting. Keep
policy.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.47 Specialty Lighting. Suggest changing title
to “Strategic Lighting”. Do we not have a lighting
ordinance? Need to refer to that here.
This policy will be retained as is per Town staff
direction.
CD-2.48 Landscape Buffering. Keep policy and
edit as there is disagreement about the lower
noise and reduction in heat generations. Suggest
this: Encourage the use of landscaping such as
trees, shrubs, and trellised vines to mitigate the
effects of building mass and provide benefits to
the environment.
The following is the new policy language.
Encourage the use of landscaping such as trees,
shrubs, and trellised vines to mitigate the effects
of building mass and provide benefits to the
environment.
CD-2.49 Visual Continuity through Landscaping.
This seems like something for the CDG and/or
RDG. Remove from GP.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.50 Landscaped Medians. This policy seems
to lack the intent. There are other policies for
drought tolerant plants. Need to edit. Suggest,
“Provide landscaped medians where there is
sufficient right of way to beautify the streetscape
and benefit the environment.”
The following is the new policy language.
Provide landscaped medians where there is
sufficient right of way to beautify the streetscape
and benefit the environment.
CD-2.51 Sustainable Landscape Design. Move to
before CD-2.50 and edit to add after “trees” the
phrase “and drought tolerant plants”.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.52 Plant Selection. This seems to be more
appropriate for CDG/RDG and/or code. Remove
from GP. Also, would suggest increasing the
percentage of drought-tolerant plants. Maybe
there should be separate percentages for native
vs. drought-tolerant. There are local websites
with guidelines.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.53 Highlight Existing Public Art. Remove the
word “existing” and move to policy 3 in this
section.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.54 Accessible and Functional Public Art.
Delete this policy.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.55 Require Public Art. Change to
“Encourage Public Art” and remove language
about “in lieu contribution” and then add a why.
Also move this to policy 1 in this section.
This comment has been incorporated into a new
policy.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 32 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
CD-2.56 Placement of Public Art Keep this and
move to policy 2 in this section.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.57 Murals. Delete this as it is a subset of
public art.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed.
CD-2.58 Town Identification. Keep but edit to be
more generic.
This policy has been updated per the GPAC
request and to reflect the comment. The new
policy read as the following:
Support the incorporation of unifying Town
identifiers on community signage, streetlamp
banners, Town gateways and street furnishings as
appropriate.
CD-2.60 Gateway Sign Program. Delete this—it
might be decided to do this but not needed in GP.
Also delete Figure 4-1.
This comment has been reflected and the policy
has been removed along with the figure.
CD-2.61 Enhanced Town Gateways. Combine
with CD-2.63 Landscaped Gateways. See also
comments below on CD-2.63.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.62 Freeway Identification. Keep this policy.
Please delete second image in first row on page
4-23. Not in line with image of Los Gatos. Find
something more appropriate or just delete.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-2.63 Landscaped Gateways. Combine with
2.61 and eliminate language about emphasizing
the importance of natural hillsides and open
space as it is mentioned multiple times
elsewhere.
This comment has been reflected.
4.5 Community Place Districts pages 4-27 through
4-29:
Introduction: Need to rewrite the introduction to
reflect what we are hoping to accomplish by
creating these districts. It is fine to include the
description of what is in the section but start out
with the why. Some committee members
suggested on March 4 that we are trying to
create “destinations” or “desirable places to
live”.
The introduction was rewritten and approved by
GPAC at the 3/18 meeting.
CD-7: As suggested by Committee Member
Rosenberg—add the why to the goal. “Enhance
specific districts and areas to guide
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 33 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
redevelopment of unique places that ….why
added here per Mr. Rosenberg’s comments.
CD-7.1: Delete this policy. This comment has been reflected.
New CD-7.1: Neighborhood-Friendly Design. Add
“especially including shopping centers”.
Also, should add the phrase “undergo
redevelopment” before “to integrate design
features”. Most important concept should be
first policy. By emphasizing this along with our
desire for redevelopment, we can also eliminate
the current CD-7.5.
This comment has been reflected.
New CD-7.2 is additional policy/ Encourage mixed
use: Encourage redevelopment of commercial
properties to incorporate mixed use to provide
additional housing in close proximity to
neighborhood serving commercial.
This comment has been reflected.
New CD-7.3 is additional policy
Transition in scale and connectivity. Ensure that
redeveloped commercial and mixed-use
properties provide transition in scale and
pedestrian connectivity to existing residential
neighborhoods.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-7.4 Outdoor Seating/Parklets. Move existing
CD 7.3 to 7.4 and modify. “Encourage parklets
and outdoor seating in commercial and mixed-
use areas to provide street activation for these
districts.”
This comment has been reflected.
Current CD-7.4 Wider Sidewalks. Keep and move
to 7.5.
This comment has been reflected.
Current CD-7.5. Encourage Aesthetic
Improvements to shopping centers. Delete this.
By adding “shopping centers” to new CD-7.1
Neighborhood-Friendly Design along with the
encouragement to “undergo redevelopment”,
this is covered.
This comment has been reflected.
Current CD-7.6 Encourage active residential
fronts. This can be likely deleted as we are trying
to evolve the commercial areas in all of these
districts. Also, this may be in conflict with mixed
use which will be on upper floors.
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 34 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Current CD-7.7 Enhanced landscaping. This will
be new CD-7.6. Not sure this is needed in the
form it is in as it is covered elsewhere. Suggest
changing this to “Open Space” and changing
policy to something like, “Require open space
including green open space such as planters and
park strips in all commercial and mixed-use areas
to enhance livability as well as the pedestrian
experience”
This comment has been reflected.
Suggest reordering the districts by expected
growth but start with Downtown. For example:
1-Downtown
2-Los Gatos Boulevard
3-Winchester
4-Lark
5-North Santa Cruz
6-Union
7-Harwood
8-Pollard
This has been updated based on previous GPAC
comments.
Vision 2040: Downtown District
This section has been re-written by the Chairs as
a suggestion, using comments from GPAC
members.
The Downtown District treasures its unique
architectural character and continues as the
social and historic core of Los Gatos. After more
than a century of successful planning and design,
the District values its unique architectural
character and discourages conflicting styles from
erasing what is quintessentially Downtown. New
structures are constructed at a human-scale to
maintain the continuity of the historic
development pattern.
The Downtown District emphasizes first floor
retail and restaurant uses and encourages office
and residential units above the first floor. It is
through mixed use development above first floor
retail/restaurants that residential growth is
accommodated. Multi-story mixed use transitions
These changes have been incorporated into the
revised draft element.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 35 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
in scale seamlessly with nearby residential which
includes growth through missing middle
housing while maintaining the charm and
character of these neighborhoods. The DTD
provides a truly walkable environment, where
sidewalks are wide and pedestrian-friendly. The
expanded sidewalks accommodate additional
space for outdoor dining, public art and street
furniture. Enhancing the visitor experience in the
DTD, digital display informational kiosks with
establishment directories provide a 21stt century
amenity. Updated building signage, a
Downtown wayfinding system, and gateway
entrance signs 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.
NOTE: mostly includes the content of the original
draft. Eliminated detailed discussion of
boundaries, as it is shown on the map. Shortened
the second paragraph—too detailed.
The Downtown Business District is the historic
heart of Los Gatos. It encompasses much of the
southwest section of Town. To many, the
Downtown in generalities is larger, but for the
purposes of the General Plan, this area has been
provided with specific boundaries as seen in
Figure xxx. This area includes what is designated
currently as the Central Business District as
shown on the General Plan Land Use Map.
The Downtown Business District is composed of
many retail shops, boutiques, coffee shops,
restaurants, and other hospitality-oriented uses
including several hotels. Being that the
Downton is the original historic center of the
Town, it is naturally home to some of the iconic
architectural styles that make Los Gatos unique
and has a rich history of architectural
excellence. Located within and adjacent to this
District, are the Town’s Historic Districts which
These comments have been reflected and merged
with previous GPAC comments.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 36 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
are meant to honor and preserve Los Gatos’s
roots as a rural foothill community built along a
rail line. This District is home to many outdoor
public spaces including the Town Plaza Park, Los
Gatos’s civic space, which hosts several popular
community events that draw visitors regionally.
NOTE: no edits but maybe put the last two
sentences in a NOTE or highlight box vs. part of
the existing conditions discussion.
For a discussion on the Historic Districts as it
relates to land use, see Goal LU-14 in the Land
Use Element. For goals and policies relating to
Historic Preservation as it relates to Design,
reference Section 4.3 of this Element.
Too much design detail here. Suggest
incorporating Committee member Quintana’s
suggestions for the goals and policies:
CD-8 Goal
Incorporate new development and growth 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 from original draft)
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 whenever possible (deleted
pre-1941 suggest leaving to other documents to
define what is historic).
CD-8.3 Mass and Scale (Previous 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)
These comments have been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 37 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
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.
Harwood Road District
The Harwood Road District is focused at the
intersection of Harwood Road and Blossom Hill
Road, bordering the City of San Jose and
anchored by the Blossom Hill Square Shopping
Center. This commercial center is home to
national chains, including Walgreens, Starbucks
and Subway. The layout of the center, like most
in Los Gatos, is auto-oriented with a street
fronting parking lot with access points on both
side of the intersection. This commercial center
serves residents of Los Gatos and San Jose. The
district is surrounded by low-density residential,
with a few medium density residential designated
parcels intermixed that use the center for
primary daily needs. Nearby Noddin Elementary
School in San Jose educates the neighborhood
youth of both Los Gatos and San Jose and adds to
the sense of community.
This comment has been reflected.
Vision 2040: Harwood Road District
The Harwood Road District is a primary
commercial hub for the east end of Los Gatos and
serves as a vibrant gathering place for community
members to mingle and enjoy local
amenities. Successful street activation of the
shopping center area is evident with parking
relocated to the rear of property, shielded from
the public view. Residential growth is
accommodated by the addition of mixed- use
design incorporating neighborhood commercial
on the first floor and smaller residential units
above. Contemporary design and dense
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 38 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
landscaping buffers revitalize and compliments
surrounding neighborhoods, creating a
welcoming and inclusive destination.
Harwood Suggested Policies:
Update the commercial center as a mixed zone
designation, reflecting contemporary design
through changes in paint, materials and structure
placement.
Enhance transition to neighboring low and
medium density neighborhoods through missing
middle development and welcoming landscape
buffers.
Ensure commercial structure lighting is shielded
to prevent light pollution and glare in
neighboring residential areas.
Create a walkable, pedestrian-friendly
environment by siting structures and future retail
pads to abut the sidewalks.
Shift parking inward with development wrapping
around it, shielding parking from public view.
These comments have been reflected based on
previous GPAC comments.
Lark Avenue District
The Lark District includes a portion of Winchester
Boulevard, Lark Avenue from Winchester Blvd
to University Avenue, and a segment of
University Avenue including a portion of the Los
Gatos Creek Trail. The area includes most of the
Town’s industrial uses and office complexes, as
well as primary frontage to the enormously
popular Los Gatos Creek Trail. Office parks in this
area are reminiscent of the technology boom in
the early 1980s, which included the development
of vast single-story office parks and campuses,
with an abundance of parking. The district is
currently surrounded by a mix of low and
medium density residential.
This comment has been reflected.
Vision 2040: Lark Avenue District This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 39 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
The Lark Avenue District encapsulates modern
office park planning and development that
integrates the District’s natural features and
recreation opportunities. This District includes
integrated office styles that support multi-story
development and subterranean parking.
Growth and sustainability are accomplished by
adding residential growth in the form of mixed
use live/work environments including some new
neighborhood-serving commercial. Removing
surface lots increases space for private open
space areas for residents and employees to
recreate. Developments include entrances along
University Avenue and along the Los Gatos
Creek Trail, allowing cyclist commuters to get to
work without relying on heavily-used streets
and corridors. Development is open to the
natural terrain of Los Gatos Creek and the trail
and allows a seamless transition between the
natural and built environments.
Los Gatos Boulevard District
The Los Gatos Boulevard District extends along
Los Gatos Boulevard from Louise Van Meter
Elementary School north to the Town boundary
with San Jose (Campbell?). This area was
developed (under a now decades-old Specific
Plan) as an auto-oriented corridor with a mix of
stand-alone retail and office, car dealerships and
several neighborhood-serving shopping
centers, such as Blossom Hill Pavilion, Kings
Court, Cornerstone, El Gato Village and Los Gatos
Village Square. These centers are set back far
from the street with expansive surface parking
lots fronting the Boulevard. This type of
development largely focused on retail centers
with limited ability to incorporate other uses,
such as office and residential. Residential
neighborhoods backing the commercial corridor
are primarily low-density residential, with
some medium- and high-density parcels.
Transition in scale as part of the original plan
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 40 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
includes stepping down height and intensity
moving south of Blossom Hill and especially south
of Shannon Road.
Vision 2040: Los Gatos Boulevard District
The Los Gatos Boulevard District reflects a
comprehensive transformation from a 1950s
auto-oriented corridor to a multi-modal District
with 21st century amenities. The LGBD reflects
high-density residential living over retail and
commercial offices. It is a pedestrian-oriented
district with clearly defined bike lanes and wider
sidewalks and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Increased landscaping provides visual consistency
between the Boulevard and the scenic
backdrop of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
The numerous shopping centers are now abutting
the street with human-scale enhancements
and parking relocated to the rear. Housing in the
form of lofts, live/work units, apartments,
condominiums and townhomes are above and
adjacent to commercial development in a
mixed-use design, allowing residents to easily
walk from home to shopping and services. Street
activation is accomplished by moving parking to
the rear, which has enabled valuable land to be
repurposed for increased outdoor amenities in
the form of parks, plazas and other common
open space areas. The revitalized mixed-use
buildings transition seamlessly to nearby
residential neighborhoods which in turn are
revitalized and grow through the addition of
missing middle housing. Going from north to
south, the time-honored practice of stepping
down development height and intensity
continues towards the southern end of the
district where three public schools are located.
The integration of office space and hospitality
uses including restaurants and hotels adds to a
vibrant district, a place that residents desire to
live, work and play. Not only a destination to
congregate, the Los Gatos Boulevard District
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 41 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
attracts visitors from across the Bay Area to
experience the uniqueness of the community.
Policies (pulled from the old vision):
Pedestrian emphasis rather than auto.
Parking placed at rear of developments or in
structures or underground.
Parks, plazas and other common open space
areas will be provided.
Provide an increased amount of mid-block
pedestrian crossings and bollards.
Increase median plantings, drought tolerant
plants, reduce concrete monolith.
Aesthetic upgrades include plant, materials,
paint, structure placement.
All commercial areas are linked throughout a
series of walkways and paseos connecting to
wider sidewalks and reducing the need to rely on
vehicles to travel between centers (is this
realistic?)
Vibrant mix of housing styles, such as lofts,
live/work units, apartments, condominiums, and
townhomes are incorporated adjacent to or
above commercial development.
Integration of office space and hospitality gives
the area vibrancy and creates a pace residents
desire to live work and play.
These comments have been reflected based on
previous GPAC comments.
North Santa Cruz District
The North Santa Cruz Avenue District extends
along North Santa Cruz Avenue between Blossom
Hill Road and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, adjacent
to the Downtown Los Gatos District. Uses
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 42 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
along North Santa Cruz Avenue vary from office
and professional, retail, light industrial, and
hospitality. Various commercial uses are
intermingled along North Santa Cruz Avenue,
including Safeway, a national retail chain store.
Medium-density and infill high-density housing
developments are also present along North Santa
Cruz Avenue. The District’s eclectic mix of
building types and styles sets it apart from the
more cohesive and historic architecture of the
Downtown District.
Vision 2040: North Santa Cruz District
The Santa Cruz Avenue District is a vibrant mixed-
use area that features an eclectic range of
architecture and public amenities. Growth in
residential living opportunities include the
introduction of mixed-use with smaller
residential units placed over ground floor
retail/restaurants/services along with missing
middle housing incorporated into nearby
residential. The overall building massing and form
is consistent with and connects well with the
Downtown District, but incorporates varying
architectural styles that evoke different and more
contemporary periods in the Town’s rich history.
Use of rooftop decks and parklets provide
unique vibrancy to the area. Parklets and other
public open space provide opportunities for
community members to gather. Landscaping
further connects this District to Vasona County
Park located at the northern end of this District.
This comment has been reflected.
Suggested additional Policies (from vision
statement):
A continual emphasis on a pedestrian-oriented
environment includes expansion of sidewalks
and increased street activation amenities such as
outdoor dining and street retail.
Encourage incorporation of second and third
story lofts and apartments above existing
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 43 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
businesses to provide additional housing types
for community members, creating a truly mixed-
use corridor.
Pollard Road District
The Pollard Road District at the intersection of
Pollard Road and More Avenue borders the City
of Campbell. This district is anchored by the
Rinconada Shopping Center. This shopping center
is anchored by a grocery store and other retail
and hospitality businesses. The layout of the
center is automobile-oriented with a street-
fronting surface parking with access points on
either side of the intersection. The center is
neighborhood-serving, surrounded by largely
residential neighborhoods that rely on the center
for daily needs. Nearby Rolling Hill Middle
School in Campbell across Pollard Road adds to
the sense of community here. Pollard Road is
less travelled than other Los Gatos arterials,
which emphasizes the neighborhood focus.
This comment has been reflected.
Vision 2040: Pollard Road District
The Pollard Road District is a welcoming and
vibrant neighborhood gathering space and
commercial center for community members to
mingle and enjoy local amenities. Successful
street activation is evident with parking relocated
to the rear of property, shielded from the
public view. Additional residential living
opportunities are accommodated by addition of
smaller residential units above retail or office in a
mixed-use configuration. A dense landscape
buffer also at the rear of the center provides a
thoughtful transition obscuring the commercial
structures from neighboring residential areas
which in turn have been revitalized with the
introduction of missing middle housing in some
areas. Wide sidewalks and other pedestrian
amenities ensure a safe and connected
community. Office space intermingled with
commercial uses and higher density residential
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 44 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
units reveals an attractive and efficient mixed-use
district.
Note: Above includes Mixed use, landscaped
transitions. Missing middle added.
Policies (pulled from the vision statement):
Upgrades to commercial center focusing on
paint, materials structure placement.
Parking relocated to rear of center.
Dense landscape buffer obscuring commercial
from surrounding residential.
Wider sidewalks to accommodate outdoor dining
and seating, more street trees and
landscaped park strips.
Residence over office or commercial .
These comments have been reflected based on
previous GPAC comments.
Union Avenue District
The Union Avenue District is focused on the
intersection of Union Avenue and Los Gatos-
Almaden Road, northwest of Blossom Hill Road
and Union Avenue, bordering the City of San
Jose. This district is anchored by the Downing
Center, which is designed as automobile-oriented
shopping center with street-fronting parking and
access points on either side of the
center. This commercial center is anchored by
Safeway, a national chain grocery store, and
serves the daily needs of Los Gatos and San Jose
residents. Nearby Union Middle School and
Alta Vista Elementary schools enhance the sense
of community, serving the youth of both Los
Gatos and nearby San Jose neighborhoods.
This comment has been reflected.
Vision 2040: Union Avenue District
The Union Avenue District is a welcoming and
vibrant neighborhood gathering space and
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 45 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
commercial center for community members to
mingle and enjoy local amenities. Successful
street activation is evident with parking relocated
to the rear of property, shielded from the
public view. The relocation of parking has
provided new opportunities for street activation
including parklets and outdoor dining. New and
wider sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities
provide for safe and connected living conditions.
Additional new residential living opportunities
include smaller units placed in a mixed-use
configuration over retail and office. A dense
landscape buffer also at the rear of the center
provides a thoughtful transition obscuring the
commercial structures from neighboring
residential areas. Office space intermingled with
commercial uses and higher density residential
units reveals an attractive and efficient mixed-use
district. Missing middle housing offers attractive
medium- and high-density transition to
surrounding single occupancy residential
neighborhoods.
Winchester Boulevard District
The Winchester Boulevard District is focused on
the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and
Knowles Drive, bordering the City of Campbell.
This district also includes office and medical
uses adjacent to Netflix and El Camino Hospital.
This area is home to a complex and eclectic
mix of architectural styles and development
types. Existing commercial, office, medical and
residential developments are compartmentalized
and disconnected from each other.
Winchester Boulevard, the primary arterial in the
district, is a wide thoroughfare with moderate
traffic speeds which impede a more pedestrian-
oriented environment. The commercial
shopping centers in the area have been updated,
but are single story and offer primarily
offering neighborhood-serving hospitality.
This comment has been reflected.
Vision 2040: Winchester Boulevard District This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 46 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
The Winchester Boulevard District is a
community hub for innovation, technology and
contemporary design. The District is situated with
easy access to the adjacent communities as
well as a direct link to Hwy 85. The Winchester
Blvd District includes modern amenities, a
variety of entertainment venues, and hospitality-
oriented businesses geared toward multiple
generations calling Los Gatos home. Wide
sidewalks and expansive outdoor dining and
retail creates a unique atmosphere unlike other
areas of the Town. Mixed-use configurations
seamless integrate additional smaller housing
options with shopping, dining, work and play. An
emphasis on dense, urban style housing in the
form of live/work units, lofts, flats, apartments,
micro-units, and condominiums provide ample
housing opportunities supported by access to
the Vasona and Winchester Light Rail stations.
Policies (from the vision statement):
Housing to serve employees will lessen
dependence on automobile use.
As a counterpoint to Historic Downtown and as a
means to create a unique regional
attractiveness to this area, encourage
contemporary and modern design, using
extensive glazing, exposed metals, natural
woods, simple and geometric building forms,
bold colors, shed and flat style roof forms.
Provide cohesive connection to the community
and incentivize alternate modes of
transportation, capitalizing on its connection to
the Los Gatos Creek Trail and Downtown.
Developments are encouraged to provide
secondary entrances, paseos, walkways and
other linkages to connect to the Los Gatos Creek
Trail.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-7 Goal This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 47 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Enhance specific districts and areas to guide
redevelopment of unique places in the
community to promote sustainable growth of
livable, walkable neighborhoods.
Add policy specific to promote sustainable
residential growth through the use of mixed-use
and plexes.
Downtown District, CD-8 Goal: Change preserve
to another verb - see notes from Chair.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-8.2 Exterior Building Materials - Encourage
the use of sustainable building materials that
compliment and blend with surrounding
buildings.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-8.4 Decorative Bollards - Downtown District -
Encourage the use of decorative bollards at all
pedestrian crossings at street intersections to
improve pedestrian and bike safety in the
Downtown District.
This policy was removed.
CD-8.5 Add picture of one of our parklets in
Downtown.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-8.7 Maintain Existing Downtown Buildings -
Can we require consideration of
restoration/rehabilitation/reuse before approval
of demolition?
This policy was revised based on previous GPAC
comments.
Lark Avenue District, CD-9 Goal: Encourage the
development of a diverse lark Avenue District
that supports updated office and industrial
complexes and buildings, access to multimodal
transportation, and creates a connection to the
Los Gatos Creek Trail.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-9.2 Subterranean Parking - change from
encourage to require.
The term “require” was not carried over since the
costs associated with subterranean parking are
very costly and be cost prohibitive to projects.
CD-9.3 Connection to Los Gatos Creek Trail -
change language to specifically require planning
for support of multimodal transportation in
conjunction with the use of the Creek Trail.
This comment has been reflected.
CD-9.4 Linkage - add to reduce vehicle use and
promote walking and biking.
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 48 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Second Paragraph in introduction to Downtown
Business District:
The Downtown Business District is composed of
many retail shops, boutiques, coffee shops,
restaurants, and hotels. [ Note, what do you
mean by “hospitality-oriented uses”? If you mean
a movie theater, say that… otherwise, one could
infer bars (we have many), live theater (we have
none), and unsavory uses that we don’t want in
Town that are euphemistically referred to as
“hospitality”.] Being that the Downtown [check
spelling] is the original historic center of the
Town, it is naturally home to some of the iconic
architectural styles that make Los Gatos unique
and showcase architectural excellence. Located
within and adjacent to this District, are the
Town’s Historic Districts which are meant to
honor and preserve Los Gatos’s roots as a rural
foothill community. [ How does the rail line fit i n
here?] T his District is home to many outdoor
public spaces including the Town Plaza Park, Los
Gatos’s civic space [ I would argue that the
grassy area in front of the Town hall/library i s
the “civic space”. Is that its designation?], which
hosts several popular community events that
draw visitors throughout the region.
These comments have been reflected.
Harwood Road District:
Starbucks is gone. Perhaps include the gas station
instead. Second to last sentence in introductory
paragraph: The district is surrounded by l ow-
density residential, with a few medium density
residential designated parcels intermixed that
use the center for primary daily needs. What
does this sentence mean? The parcels don’t use
the center, the residents who live in the
properties on the parcels use the center. They
also can’t possibly use the center for “primary
daily needs” as there’s no supermarket. Perhaps
a better sentence: The district is surrounded
primarily by low-density residential, intermixed
with a few medium density residential parcels.
The images have been updated and the text has
been revised to reflect this comment.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 49 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Nearby residents utilize the center for convenient
shopping.
Lark Avenue District
Second to last sentence in introductory
paragraph. Please change to:
Office parks in this area are reminiscent of the
technology boom in the early 1980s, containing
single-story buildings and an abundance of
parking.
This comment has been reflected.
Lark Vision paragraph. Suggested re-work:
The Lark Avenue District encapsulates modern
office park planning and development by
integrating the District’s natural features and
encouraging outdoor recreation. This District
includes multi-story buildings and subterranean
parking. Residential growth and sustainability
are accomplished by adding live/work buildings
and neighborhood-serving commercial.
Removing surface lots increases outdoor
gathering spaces for residents and employees.
Developments include entrances along University
Avenue and along the Los Gatos Creek Trail,
allowing cyclist commuters to get to work
without relying on heavily-used streets and
corridors and promoting use of the nearby
Creekside Sports Park. Development is open to
the natural terrain of Los Gatos Creek and the
trail and allows a seamless transition between
the natural and built environments.
This comment has been reflected.
North Santa Cruz
I noticed Safeway is called “a national retail chain
store” in this section but a “national chain
grocery store” in the Union Avenue District. The
term grocery store or supermarket should be
consistent throughout.
This comment has been reflected.
Why do you mention Safeway in the North Santa
Cruz section but use “grocery store” here?
This has been changed for consistency.
Pollard Suggested re-work of introductory
paragraph:
The Pollard Road District at the intersection of
Pollard Road and More Avenue borders the City
This comment has been reflected.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 50 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
of Campbell. This district is anchored by the
Rinconada Shopping Center, which contains
Safeway and CVS pharmacy, along with local
dining and neighborhood services. The layout of
the center is automobile-oriented with street-
fronting surface parking and access points on
either side of the intersection. The center is
neighborhood-serving, surrounded by largely
residential neighborhoods that rely on the center
for daily needs, and the families whose
children attend nearby Rolling Hills Middle
School. Pollard Road is less travelled than other
Los Gatos arterials, which emphasizes the
neighborhood focus.
Winchester Boulevard District
What do you mean by “variety of entertainment
venues”? The nearby movie theater is in
Campbell. The word “seamless” should be
changed to “seamlessly”.
The mentioned terminology has been removed
through several revisions based on previous GPAC
comments.
The General Plan should include policies or
programs on dark sky and bird safe design, like
Cupertino is considering.
The following policies and implementation
programs will be added to the Environment and
Substantiality Element.
Policy: Bird Safe Design
Require new development to increase bird safety
by reducing hazardous building and architectural
elements, and including bird safe lighting design.
Program: Bird Safety Ordinance
Adopt a Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce bird
collisions and provides development standards
and performance measures that regulate building
design and lighting implementation.
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.
Program: Dark Skies Ordinance
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 51 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Adopt a Dark Skies Ordinance that addresses light
pollution, building lighting design, and impacts to
wildlife.
Submitted GPAC Comments prior to 4/15/2021 Meeting
Harwood/Pollard/Union Districts. GOAL CD-12
Revised: As discussed in the meeting on March
18, combine the goals and policies of the current
CD-12 (Pollard) to apply as well to Harwood and
Union. Note that this goal and policies as well as
the existing conditions and Vision 2040
statements should be re-ordered as suggested in
the previous comments. However, we will refer
to CD-12 and its policies for now.
Here is suggested verbiage for the new goal:
Encourage the evolution of these neighborhood-
focused districts to provide additional smaller unit
mixed use housing opportunities complimented
by street-activated local amenities and safe
connections to surrounding residences.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Harwood/Pollard/Union Districts. CD-12.1
Revised: (Incorporates current 12.2 and 12.4).
Common theme of all three districts is
introduction of mixed use with redevelopment of
main local shopping centers. Suggested wording:
Encourage redevelopment of the main local
shopping center in each district to create street
activation, relocate parking in the rear of the
property shielded from public view and to include
parking lot landscape buffering of dense
plantings. Additionally, please incorporate a
graphic image of what we are looking for.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Harwood/Pollard/Union Districts. CD-12.2 New
(replace): New Policy
Human Scale Mixed Use (replaces current CD
12.1).
Suggest revising negative tone of existing 12.1 to:
Encourage the introduction of mixed use and
smaller unit housing opportunities at a human
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 52 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
scale (lower height). Here too, an image of what
we are looking for would help.
Harwood/Pollard/Union Districts. CD-12.3
Revised: Revised policy 12.3 Public Realm
Enhancements.
As we are trying to encourage safe connections
through and gathering amongst these
neighborhoods, revise the policy: Encourage
linkages and connections from local
amenities/shopping to existing neighborhoods via
paseos and pathways to provide for safe
pedestrian travel and gathering opportunities. If
we could put a graphic in for this, that would be
great.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Harwood/Pollard/Union Districts. New policy CD
12.4 (replace): Seamless transitions.
Ensure there are no abrupt changes in mass and
scale as well as architectural style between new
development and existing development. Graphic
would be helpful here.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
North Santa Cruz District. CD-11, The goal/policy
numbering will likely change as the order of the
presentation of the districts changes. Revised
goal:
Suggested verbiage: Encourage the North Santa
Cruz District to add new and creative housing
opportunities incorporating additional
architectural styles and streetscape
enhancements to create a unique place.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
North Santa Cruz District. CD-11.1 Live-Work
Spaces and Other Mixed Use. Revised policy
incorporating previous 11.1.
Encourage innovative new housing opportunities
including live-work spaces and other residential
over neighborhood commercial to create a
vibrant district. Image/graphic of live-work would
be helpful here.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 53 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
North Santa Cruz District. CD-11.2 Transitions,
New Policy:
Ensure the transition between new development
and historical buildings respects scale and
architectural cohesiveness. Is there a graphic for
this?
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
North Santa Cruz District. CD-11.3
Redevelopment of shopping centers. New policy:
Encourage larger shopping centers on North
Santa Cruz to relocate parking to the rear and
add landscaping buffers to create a more
pedestrian friendly environment.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
North Santa Cruz District. CD-11.4 Street
Activation, Revision of current 11.3:
Encourage the use of parklets as well as other
forms of public open space in underutilized street
parking spaces to create welcoming places for
outdoor gathering. If possible, change graphic to
show the parklets with no more than 3 stories.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
North Santa Cruz District. CD-11.5 Pedestrian
enhancements, New policy:
Throughout the district, add a variety of
pedestrian safety enhancements including wider
sidewalks, landscape buffers to streets, mid-block
crosswalks to ensure a safe as well as vibrant
living environment.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD-10, Revised
Goal:
Need to emphasize housing opportunities and
redevelopment, for example: Encourage
redevelopment on Los Gatos Boulevard to provide
new higher density housing with a diverse range
of neighborhood commercial use and urban
design methods, complimented by extensive
street activation and gathering opportunities.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 54 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.1, Lane
reduction. New policy:
Strongly encourage a minimum of a one lane
road reduction along with a reduction in speed
limit, wider sidewalks, additional bike lanes and
landscaping buffers to help provide for a safe and
human-scale district for new and existing
residents as well as visitors. (See examples from
Livermore before and after).
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.2
Redevelopment housing opportunities. New
policy:
Encourage redevelopment of commercial and
underutilized properties to be converted into
higher density, smaller unit and mixed-use living
opportunities such as lofts, live/work units,
apartments, condominiums and townhomes.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.3 Aesthetic
shopping improvements. New policy:
Encourage aesthetic upgrades to the numerous
shopping centers on the Boulevard including
paint, materials and structure placement as well
as new paseos and walkways, connecting to the
wider sidewalks on the Boulevard.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.4, Street
activation. New policy:
New development and redevelopment should
front the Boulevard, placing emphasis on the
pedestrian and not the automobile.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.5, Parking
relocation. New policy:
Parking should be placed in the rear of
developments in the form of surface lots, parking
structures or subterranean parking to free land
for outdoor amenities.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 55 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.6,
Interconnectivity. New policy:
Development and redevelopment should provide
for interconnectivity in the form of walkways or
pathways connecting adjacent shopping areas
and developments and connecting to/from
existing residential neighborhoods to provide for
additional pedestrian comfort and safety.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.7 Focus on
pedestrians and cyclists. New policy:
In conjunction with lane and speed reductions,
implement a variety of pedestrian and cyclist
improvements to provide a safer environment for
residents and visitors including wider sidewalks,
mid-block crosswalks, buffered bike lanes and
bollards at primary intersection.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Los Gatos Boulevard District. CD 10.8,
Landscaping. New policy:
To reduce the concrete and asphalt appearance
of the Boulevard and provide visual consistency
with the scenic backdrop of the Santa Cruz
mountains, implement landscaped medians using
regional drought tolerant plants and add
landscaping buffers between sidewalks and the
streets including trees.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13 Goal,
Combined and revised goal incorporating CD-9
and CD-13:
Encourage the development or redevelopment of
an architecturally modern district centered
around a variety of new and innovative higher
density housing opportunities, a diverse range of
businesses and maximized recreation
opportunities associated with the adjacent Los
Gatos Creek Trail.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.1, Modern
Influences. Revised 13.5:
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 56 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Encourage the use of contemporary styles of
architecture to distinguish these districts as
unique and vibrant urban centers in Town.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.2
New Housing Opportunities. New policy:
Encourage a wide variety of new and smaller unit
housing opportunities in a live/work, mixed use or
other configuration to accommodate working
professionals that desire to live close to their
employment.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.3
Neighborhood Commercial. New policy:
Encourage the development of additional
neighborhood commercial to service the new
residents in these districts, ideally deployed in a
mixed-use configuration.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.4
Multi-Story Office Development. Revised CD-9.1:
Encourage all new or remodeled office
developments to consider higher elevations vs. at-
ground massing, while providing for articulation
consistency along major corridors.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.5
Linking Employment and Housing. Formerly CD-
13.1:
Provide clear linkages between residential
developments and commercial and employment
center, in the form of walkways, paseos, and
paved trails.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.6
New business center innovations. New policy:
Encourage the implementation of innovations
centers and other creative models of work and/or
live and work development.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
General Plan Policy Document Edit Tracking
Revised April 2021
Page 57 of 57
Community Design Element
GPAC/Town Comments Corresponding Change
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.7
Connection to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. No
revisions—combination of CD-13.2 and CD-9.3:
Encourage development that is adjacent to the
Los Gatos Creek Trail to provide secondary access
to the trail.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.8
Subterranean Parking. Formerly CD-9.2:
Encourage developments to provide subterranean
parking in lieu of surface parking to provide
opportunity for the development of common
open space.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
Winchester and Lark Districts. CD-13.9
Zero setbacks. Formerly CD-13.4 revised:
Allow reduced setbacks to foster a more urban
environment focused on corporate centers,
commercial shopping areas, medical services and
hospitality uses.
This comment has been reflected with minor
modifications.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 5
4. Community Design Element
Chair and Vice Chair New/Additional Edits for:
4.5 Community Place Districts
In order to expedite the editing process, the Chair and Vice Chair took into consideration comments
from the March 18 meeting and are making more detailed suggestions on the goals and policies for the
7 other districts besides Downtown.
Please review the pictures at the end of this document for ideas on how to revitalize Los Gatos
Boulevard through lane reductions. Note the images show a reduction from four with parallel parking
down to two with angled parking. LGB would probably be a reduction of 6 lanes to 4, from Lark to
Blossom Hill Road. Style of on-street parking to be studied.
Goal or Policy Number Suggested Direction Explanation
Harwood, Pollard and Union Districts
GOAL CD-12
Revised
As discussed in the meeting
on March 18, combine the
goals and policies of the
current CD-12 (Pollard) to
apply as well to Harwood
and Union. Note that this
goal and policies as well as
the existing conditions and
Vision 2040 statements
should be re-ordered as
suggested in the previous
comments. However, we
will refer to CD-12 and its
policies for now.
Here is suggested verbiage for the new goal:
Encourage the evolution of these
neighborhood-focused districts to provide
additional smaller unit mixed use housing
opportunities complimented by street-
activated local amenities and safe connections
to surrounding residences.
CD-12.1 Revised. New Policy
Street Activated Shopping
Centers
(Incorporates current 12.2
and 12.4)
Common theme of all three districts is
introduction of mixed use with redevelopment
of main local shopping centers. Suggested
wording: Encourage redevelopment of the
main local shopping center in each district to
create street activation, relocate parking in the
rear of the property shielded from public view
and to include parking lot landscape buffering
of dense plantings. Additionally, please
incorporate a graphic image of what we are
looking for.
CD-12.2 New (replace) New Policy Suggest revising negative tone of existing 12.1
to: Encourage the introduction of mixed use
Human Scale Mixed Use
(replaces current CD 12.1)
and smaller unit housing opportunities at a
human scale (lower height). Here too, an
image of what we are looking for would help.
CD-12.3 Revised Revised policy 12.3 Public
Realm Enhancements
As we are trying to encourage safe
connections through and gathering amongst
these neighborhoods, revise the policy:
Encourage linkages and connections from local
amenities/shopping to existing neighborhoods
via paseos and pathways to provide for safe
pedestrian travel and gathering opportunities.
If we could put a graphic in for this, that would
be great.
New policy CD 12.4
(replace)
Seamless transitions Ensure there are no abrupt changes in mass
and scale as well as architectural style
between new development and existing
development. Graphic would be helpful here.
North Santa Cruz Avenue District
CD-11
The goal/policy
numbering will likely
change as the order of
the presentation of the
districts changes
Revised goal Suggested verbiage: Encourage the North
Santa Cruz District to add new and creative
housing opportunities incorporating additional
architectural styles and streetscape
enhancements to create a unique place.
CD-11.1
Live-Work Spaces and
Other Mixed Use
Revised policy incorporating
previous 11.1
Encourage innovative new housing
opportunities including live-work spaces and
other residential over neighborhood
commercial to create a vibrant district.
Image/graphic of live-work would be helpful
here.
CD-11.2
Transitions
New Policy Ensure the transition between new
development and historical buildings respects
scale and architectural cohesiveness. Is there a
graphic for this?
CD-11.3
Redevelopment of
shopping centers
New policy Encourage larger shopping centers on North
Santa Cruz to relocate parking to the rear and
add landscaping buffers to create a more
pedestrian friendly environment.
CD-11.4
Street Activation
Revision of current 11.3 Encourage the use of parklets as well as other
forms of public open space in underutilized
street parking spaces to create welcoming
places for outdoor gathering. If possible,
change graphic to show the parklets with no
more than 3 stories.
CD-11.5
Pedestrian
enhancements
New policy Throughout the district, add a variety of
pedestrian safety enhancements including
wider sidewalks, landscape buffers to streets,
mid-block crosswalks to ensure a safe as well
as vibrant living environment.
Los Gatos Boulevard
CD-10 Revised Goal Need to emphasize housing opportunities and
redevelopment, for example: Encourage
redevelopment on Los Gatos Boulevard to
provide new higher density housing with a
diverse range of neighborhood commercial use
and urban design methods, complimented by
extensive street activation and gathering
opportunities.
CD 10.1
Lane reduction
New policy Strongly encourage a minimum of a one lane
road reduction along with a reduction in speed
limit, wider sidewalks, additional bike lanes
and landscaping buffers to help provide for a
safe and human-scale district for new and
existing residents as well as visitors. (See
examples from Livermore before and after).
CD 10.2
Redevelopment
housing opportunities
New policy Encourage redevelopment of commercial and
underutilized properties to be converted into
higher density, smaller unit and mixed-use
living opportunities such as lofts, live/work
units, apartments, condominiums and
townhomes.
CD 10.3
Aesthetic shopping
improvements
New policy Encourage aesthetic upgrades to the
numerous shopping centers on the Boulevard
including paint, materials and structure
placement as well as new paseos and
walkways, connecting to the wider sidewalks
on the Boulevard.
CD 10.4
Street activation
New policy New development and redevelopment should
front the Boulevard, placing emphasis on the
pedestrian and not the automobile.
CD 10.5
Parking relocation
New policy Parking should be placed in the rear of
developments in the form of surface lots,
parking structures or subterranean parking to
free land for outdoor amenities.
CD 10.6
Interconnectivity
New policy Development and redevelopment should
provide for interconnectivity in the form of
walkways or pathways connecting adjacent
shopping areas and developments and
connecting to/from existing residential
neighborhoods to provide for additional
pedestrian comfort and safety.
CD 10.7
Focus on pedestrians
and cyclists
New policy In conjunction with lane and speed reductions,
implement a variety of pedestrian and cyclist
improvements to provide a safer environment
for residents and visitors including wider
sidewalks, mid-block crosswalks, buffered bike
lanes and bollards at primary intersection.
CD 10.8
Landscaping
New policy To reduce the concrete and asphalt
appearance of the Boulevard and provide
visual consistency with the scenic backdrop of
the Santa Cruz mountains, implement
landscaped medians using regional drought
tolerant plants and add landscaping buffers
between sidewalks and the streets including
trees.
Winchester and Lark Districts
CD-13
Goal
May be renumbered
but will
Combined and revised goal
incorporating CD-9 and CD-
13
Encourage the development or redevelopment
of an architecturally modern district centered
around a variety of new and innovative higher
density housing opportunities, a diverse range
of businesses and maximized recreation
opportunities associated with the adjacent Los
Gatos Creek Trail.
CD-13.1
Modern Influences
Revised 13.5 Encourage the use of contemporary styles of
architecture to distinguish these districts as
unique and vibrant urban centers in Town.
CD-13.2
New Housing
Opportunities
New policy Encourage a wide variety of new and smaller
unit housing opportunities in a live/work,
mixed use or other configuration to
accommodate working professionals that
desire to live close to their employment.
CD-13.3
Neighborhood
Commercial
New policy Encourage the development of additional
neighborhood commercial to service the new
residents in these districts, ideally deployed in
a mixed-use configuration.
CD-13.4
Multi-Story Office
Development
Revised CD-9.1 Encourage all new or remodeled office
developments to consider higher elevations vs.
at-ground massing, while providing for
articulation consistency along major corridors.
CD-13.5
Linking Employment
and Housing
Formerly CD-13.1 Provide clear linkages between residential
developments and commercial and
employment center, in the form of walkways,
paseos, and paved trails.
CD-13.6
New business center
innovations
New policy Encourage the implementation of innovations
centers and other creative models of work
and/or live and work development.
CD-13.7
Connection to the Los
Gatos Creek Trail
No revisions—combination
of CD-13.2 and CD-9.3
Encourage development that is adjacent to the
Los Gatos Creek Trail to provide secondary
access to the trail.
CD-13.8
Subterranean Parking
Formerly CD-9.2 Encourage developments to provide
subterranean parking in lieu of surface parking
to provide opportunity for the development of
common open space.
CD-13.9
Zero setbacks
Formerly CD-13.4 revised Allow reduced setbacks to foster a more urban
environment focused on corporate centers,
commercial shopping areas, medical services
and hospitality uses.
IMAGES for LG BLVD LANE REDUCTION
Additional section for Community Design 4.2
Sustainable Design principles
- Optimize site potential (includes minimizing land and habitat disturbance,
erosion control and passive solar site orientation)
- Minimize non-renewable energy consumption
- Use environmentally preferable products/materials
- Protect and conserve water
- Enhance indoor environmental quality
- Minimize waste by reusing and remodeling whenever feasible vs. tear down
and rebuild
- Minimize need for automobile transportation (build close to work,
neighborhood commercial)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank