Staff Report
PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY, Associate Planner, and JENNIFER ARMER, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development Department Director, and
Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/17/2018
ITEM NO: 10
DATE: APRIL 12, 2018
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: TOWN CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-17-006 AND GP-17-003.
PROJECT LOCATION: TOWN WIDE. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF
THE TOWN CODE AND THE GENERAL PLAN, REGARDING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TABLE.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation and introduce the draft Ordinance
(Attachment 6) by title only to amend Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code
regarding Planned Development Ordinances and the Conditional Use Table and adopt a
resolution (Attachment 7) approving a General Plan Amendment regarding non-residential land
use designations.
BACKGROUND:
A Planned Development (PD) overlay zone provides property owners and developers an option
for permitting uses that would not ordinarily be approved under the strict regulations of the
underlining zoning designation. As provided in the General Plan (page LU -16), “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 existing PD
Ordinance (Attachment 1, Exhibit 2) states, “The purpose of the PD or planned development
overlay zone is to provide for alternative uses and developments more consistent with site
characteristics than are allowed in other zones, and so create an optimum quantity and use of
open space and encourage good design.”
In 2013, Town Council began discussions on the use of PD overlay zoning designations within
the Town’s land use development process.
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REGARDING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-006/GP-17-003
APRIL 12, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\04-17-18\PD Ord and CUP Table\10 Staff Report FINAL.docx
BACKGROUND (Continued):
On November 4, 2013, a Town Council PD Ad Hoc Committee was established, consisting of two
Council Members. The Committee worked on the issue with staff for six months, which
resulted in proposed modifications to the Town’s PD Ordinance from the Town Council Ad Hoc
Committee (Attachment 1, Exhibit 3). Following subsequent review and consideration by the
Town Council, Planning Commission, and members of the public, the Planning Commission
recommended that the Town Council consider the formation of a committee to further
research the subject.
On February 17, 2015, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2015-008 (Attachment 1, Exhibit 4)
establishing the Planned Development Study Committee (PDSC). The PDSC consisted of 12
members: two Council Members, three Planning Commissioners, three General Plan Committee
members, a member of the public with land development experience, a member of the public
with business experience, and two Town residents.
On September 30, 2015, the PDSC began their review. Over the next six and one-half months
the PDSC received a large amount of information and considered potential modifications to the
PD Ordinance and the residential portion of the Table of Conditional Uses. Agendas, minutes,
and information provided during the PDSC review can be found online at:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/AgendaCenter/Planned-Development-Study-Committee-15/
On August 2, 2016, the recommendations of the PDSC were presented to the Town Council.
The Town Council directed staff to prepare proposed amendments to the Town Code, General
Plan, and other policy documents, incorporating the recommendations from the PDSC, and to
forward them to the Planning Commission for consideration.
On February 14, 2018, the recommendations of the PDSC and results of staff research were
considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission continued the item with a
request for additional information from neighboring jurisdictions. On March 28, 2018, staff
provided the Planning Commission with the additional information requested.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this PD Ordinance update process was to conduct further research regarding
the history and use of the PD overlay zone designation and to formulate recommendations for
the Town Council’s consideration. The Town Council also directed the PDSC to examine the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, which currently allows residential uses in commercial
zones, to determine if the Town should consider amendments to the Town Code to address this
topic.
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REGARDING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-006/GP-17-003
APRIL 12, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\04-17-18\PD Ord and CUP Table\10 Staff Report FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (Continued):
The PDSC and Planning Commission meetings resulted in draft PD Ordinance (Attachment 6),
amendments to the Table of Conditional Uses related to residential uses in non-residential
zones (Attachment 6), General Plan Amendments (Attachment 7) to maintain consistency with
the revised Table of Conditional Uses, and a list of “Other Important Issues to be Addressed by
the Planning Commission and Town Council” (Attachment 1, Exhibit 7). A summary of the
Planning Commission discussion on each of these items is provided below.
A. Draft Planned Development Ordinance
The Planning Commission appreciated the work done by the PDSC and supported the
PDSC’s recommended draft PD Ordinance, acknowledging that the draft PD Ordinance was
a substantial improvement to the existing PD Ordinance. Minor grammatical edits to the
PDSC’s recommended draft PD ordinance, recommended by the Planning Commission, have
been indicated in red font in the draft PD Ordinance (Attachment 6).
B. Draft Table of Conditional Uses
The Planning Commission supported the recommended PDSC modification s to the Table of
Conditional Uses regarding residential uses in commercial zones and did not recommend
any additional modifications (Attachment 6).
C. General Plan Amendment
The Planning Commission also supported the PDSC’s draft revisions to the Non-Residential
Land Use Designation section of the General Plan and did not recommend any modifications
(Attachment 7).
D. Other Important Issues
The PDSC recommendation also included a list of “Other Important Issues to be Addressed
by the Planning Commission and Town Council.” See Attachment 1, pages five through nine,
for information from staff regarding these issues. Although the Planning Commission’s
motion contained no specific consensus on the questions, Commission responses are
included for items with support from three or more of the six Commissioners present at the
March 28, 2018 hearing. Staff has also provided recommendations, or references to
additional information, for those questions not discussed by Planning Commission. The
issues are listed below for Council consideration.
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REGARDING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-006/GP-17-003
APRIL 12, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\04-17-18\PD Ord and CUP Table\10 Staff Report FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (Continued):
1. Should a minimum percentage of open space be required for commercial zones?
o During Planning Commission discussions, three of the Commissioners expressed
that they did not want to require a minimum percentage of open space in the PD
Ordinance. The Commissioners stated a preference for not allowing hardscape,
such as sidewalks and patios, to apply towards an open space requirement, and
recommended that this stipulation be discussed by the Town Council. The draft
Ordinance in Attachment 6 does not contain an open space minimum for
commercial zones.
2. Should the definitions of apartment hotel, boardinghouse, and residential
condominium be removed from Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town
Code?
o The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on this question;
however, staff recommends that these outdated terms be deleted. This
amendment is included in Attachment 6.
3. Should PD applications be required for subdivisions of five or more lots in the
Hillside Residential Zone?
o The draft PD Ordinance does not require subdivisions of five or more lots in the
Hillside Residential (HR) zone to be processed as a PD. However, the HR zone
requirements of the Town Code does. The Planning Commission did not make a
recommendation on this question; however, staff recommends that this
requirement in the HR zone (Section 29.40.255 of the Town Code) be removed.
This amendment is included in Attachment 6.
4. Should there be a minimum lot size requirement for PD applications?
o During Planning Commission discussions, four of the six Commissioners stated
that there should be no minimum lot size requirement for PD applications.
Additionally, the PDSC recommendation does not include a minimum lot size.
The draft Ordinance in Attachment 6 does not contain a minimum lot size
requirement for PD applications.
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REGARDING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-006/GP-17-003
APRIL 12, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\04-17-18\PD Ord and CUP Table\10 Staff Report FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (Continued):
5. Should Architecture and Site and PD applications be allowed to be processed at the
same time?
o During Planning Commission discussions, three of the Commissioners were
opposed to allowing the processing of both Architecture and Site and PD
applications concurrently because of recent state law changes. The draft
Ordinance in Attachment 6 does not contain amendments related to this
question.
6. Should public benefit be defined? If so, is the PDSC’s recommended definition
appropriate?
o The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on this question;
however, one Commissioner recommended providing examples of potential
public benefits. During their research, the PDSC drafted the following definition
of public benefit for Planning Commission and Town Council consideration: “A
project that makes a substantial contribution to the public infrastructure that is
consistent with the vision and objectives of the General Plan. Mere compliance
with the existing zoning shall not be considered a substantial community benefit.
Substantial benefits must be actions that are substantially above and beyond
what an applicant would be required to make in order to comply with the
underlying zoning.” The draft Ordinance in Attachment 6 does not contain a
definition or examples of public benefits.
7. Should minimum/maximum density be defined for residential units in commercial
zones? If so, are density findings necessary?
o The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on this question. See
page eight of Attachment 1 for information from staff on this issue.
8. Should mixed-use be defined in the Zoning Code? If so, should the Town use the
existing General Plan definition, the Commercial Design Guidelines definition, a
definition from a neighboring jurisdiction, or another definition?
o The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on this question. See
pages eight and nine of Attachment 1 for information from staff on this issue.
9. Should one or more General Plan Land Use and/or Zoning Designations be added?
o The Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on this question.
Staff does not recommend additional General Plan Land Use or Zoning
Designations.
PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REGARDING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-006/GP-17-003
APRIL 12, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\04-17-18\PD Ord and CUP Table\10 Staff Report FINAL.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At the March 28, 2018 hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the issues and forwarded a
recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the proposed amendments to the PD
Ordinance (Attachment 6), Table of Conditional Uses (Attachment 6), and General Plan
(Attachment 7) with minor modifications and discussions of Other Important Issues as outlined
above.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council:
1. Make the finding that there is no possibility that this project will have significant impact
on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act [Section 15061(b)(3)] (Attachments 6 and 7);
2. Make the required finding that the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) amendments are
consistent with the General Plan (Attachment 6);
3. Make the required finding that the General Plan (Land Use) amendments are internally
consistent with the General Plan (Attachment 7);
4. Adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment regarding non-residential land
use designations GP-17-003 (Attachment 7); and
5. Introduce the Ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos affecting the amendments of Town
Code regarding Planned Development Ordinances and the Conditional Use Table
A-17-006 (Attachment 6), by title only, with any specific changes identified and agreed
upon by the majority of the Town Council.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Continue this item to a date certain with specific direction to staff;
2. Refer the item back to the Planning Commission with specific direction; or
3. Take no action, leaving the Town Code and General Plan unchanged.
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE AND GENERAL PLAN REGARDING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-006/GP-17-003
APRIL 12, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\04-17-18\PD Ord and CUP Table\10 Staff Report FINAL.docx
CEQA DETERMINATION:
There is no possibility that the project would have a significant impact on the environment;
therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act [Section
15061(b)(3)].
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comments have been received by the publishing of this report.
Attachments:
1. February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 1-14)
2. February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibit 15)
3. February 14, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (36 pages)
4. March 28, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 16-33)
5. March 28, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (38 pages)
6. Draft Ordinance Amending Town Code Chapter 29 (12 pages)
7. Draft Resolution for General Plan Amendment (six pages)