Item 2 - Desk Item with Attachment
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 1/30/2020 ITEM: 2 DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
DATE: January 30, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Discuss and Develop a Preferred Land Use Alternative Recommendation.
REMARKS:
Attachment 13 contains an updated summary of the Community Workshop, including all online
input through January 29, 2020.
Attachment 14 contains written comments provided by a Committee Member.
Attachment 15 contains public comments received after the completion of the Addendum
Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with December 12, 2019 Staff Report:
1. Land Use Alternatives Report, dated December 2019, available online here:
www.losgatos2040.com/documents.html
2. GPAC Process Schedule
3. Changes in Housing Element Law
4. Missing Middle Housing Information
5. Public Comment Received before 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 6, 2019
Attachments previously received with December 12, 2019 Desk Item Report:
6. Public Comments
Attachments previously received with January 30, 2020 Staff Report:
7. Community Workshop #2 Summary
8. Master Land Use Alternatives Comparison Table
9. Opportunity Area Dwelling Units by Alternatives Comparison Table
10. Assumptions, Development Standards, and Net New Dwelling Unit Comparison Table
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: Preferred Land Use Alternative January 30, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\01-30-20\Item 2 - Desk Item Report.docx
11. Public Comments received before 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 24, 2020
Attachment previously received with January 30, 2020 Addendum Report:
12. Committee Member comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 24, 2020 and
11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Attachment received with this Desk Item Report:
13. Updated Community Workshop #2 Summary
14. Committee Member comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 28, 2020
and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 30, 2020
15. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 28, 2020 and 11:00 a.m.,
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 1 of 10
Community Workshop #2: Land Use Alternatives
Thursday January 16, 2020
6:30 pm – 8:30 pm
Fisher Middle School Library
Los Gatos, CA
On Thursday, January 16, 2020, the Town hosted the second community workshop on the General Plan
update to inform the community about the General Plan update process and solicit feedback related to
the Land Use Alternatives Report. The Community Workshop included an introductory presentation by
the consultant team on where we are in the General Plan update process, an overview of the Land Use
Alternatives Report, and a discussion of the next steps.
Attendees were provided a similar presentation to that provided to the General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC) on December 12, 2019. The presentation highlighted the importance of the land use
alternatives process in the General Plan update and the steps the GPAC, Town staff, and Consultant
team took to develop the set of alternatives and associated analysis presented in the Alternatives
Report. At the conclusion of the presentation, attendees were able to ask questions on the process and
results of the Land Use Alternatives Report. Attendees were then able to walk through a series of
stations with informative boards and an interactive survey highlighting the process and results of the
Land Use Alternatives Report.
This workshop format was set up as an open house which allowed for more one-on-one interaction and
dialogue between attendees, Town staff, and the consultant team. Following the workshop, the
PowerPoint presentation, informational posters, and the survey were uploaded to the General Plan
website (losgatos2040.com) to allow community members who were not able to attend in person the
ability to participate and provide feedback. The online engagement exercises were active from January
17 – January 29, 2020.
The following is an overview of the public comments and feedback from both the workshop and online
engagement, as of January 29, 2020.
Community Workshop #2 Survey
The survey provided at the community workshop and on the General Plan website consisted of a series
of 10 questions. These questions focused on the identification and selection of Opportunity Areas as
well as input on the range of, allowable density, building height, and housing product types.
ATTACHMENT 13
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 2 of 10
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 3 of 10
Community Workshop #2 Survey Results
The following includes all feedback collected at both the workshop and online related to the Land Use
Alternatives Survey.
The only additional area identified by attendees was inclusion of the Downtown area, highlighted in red
below.
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 4 of 10
The graph above shows the number of persons that thought that Opportunity Area should be removed
from the alternatives considered.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Los Gatos
Boulevard
Hardwood
Road
Pollard Road Lark Avenue Union Avenue North Santa
Cruz Avenue
Winchester
Avenue
2
1
4
1 1
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 5 of 10
SELECTED: 4 times SELECTED: 4 times
SELECTED: 7 times
SELECTED: 7 times
SELECTED: 5 times Townhomes Condominiums Multiple Detached Single-Family Units Duplex/Triplex/Fourplex Apartments
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 6 of 10
The following are the maps that attendees completed at the workshop. At the time of the completion of
the Staff Report for the GPAC Meeting, no maps were completed as part of the online engagement.
SELECTED: 5 times SELECTED: 3 times
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 7 of 10
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 8 of 10
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 9 of 10
The following numbers in the table show how many times the option was selected.
Yes No Not sure/no opinion
Duplex 5 3 0
Triplex 4 4 0
Fourplex 2 6 0
SELECTED:
2 times
SELECTED:
2 times
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
1 time
SELECTED:
4 times
SELECTED:
2 times
SELECTED:
1 time
Community Workshop #2 Summary
January 30, 2020
Page 10 of 10
The following numbers in the table show how many times the option was selected.
Please identify the Elks Lodge properly as High Density Residential (HDR). Currently the map
shows it as Low Density Residential (LDR). What a coincidence it is located directly across
from the “The Bay Club”.
Make the former lot high density residential at the corner of Los Gatos-Almaden at Los
Gatos Blvd.
There are current issues with traffic congestion, and I anticipate more upon the completion
of the project at LG Boulevard and Lark. Parking is constrained at all stores. We do not have
the infrastructure to accommodate large increases to the population. Los Gatos is a town,
not a city with multi-storied buildings.
Alternative A 3
Alternative B 2
Alternative C 1
Alternative D 2
None of the Above 0
To : Melanie Hanssen Chair of GPAC and fellow GPAC members
From:Lee Quintana, GPAC Member
Re: Further comments
Date: January 30, 2020
Attachment: Editorial from the January 29, 2020 Mercury News regarding the housing crisis.
Dear members of the GPAC,
I would like GPAC to consider the following additional comments to the those you received with
the Addendum report dated January 27, 2020.
These additional comments fall primarily into the following categories:
●Revisions to the current General Plan Land Use Designations Map and existing
to existing General Plan Land Use Designations
●Actions minutes, transparency of the GPAC’s deliberation and decision making
process
●Revisions to the Draft Alternatives Report and proposed land use alternatives.
Subsequent to submitting my comments for the Addendum I continued to ponder my reluctance
to identify a preferred alternative and the reasons for that reluctance.
I re-read all the official minutes that constitutes the official record of GPAC meetings to refresh
(or confirm) my memory of the Committee’s deliberative process and actions and to better
understand my reluctance to identify a preferred alternative. The conclusions I reached
regarding the GPAC minutes with respect to transparency are discussed below.
However, first let me tell you a story about a memory which kept resurfacing while I was
re-reading the minutes. .
My husband and I recognized we both had difficulty making decisions when presented with
equally acceptable alternatives. After our son Jason was born our hope was that he would not
experience this same difficulty/ So we often gave him choices, all of which were equally
acceptable to us. This worked fine for a while, but it was not long before our very verbal TWO
YEAR OLD replied, “I DO NOT LIKE ANY OF THOSE CHOICES, PLEASE GIVE ME
ANOTHER ONE”
My husband and I were not prepared any additional alternatives so we resorted to the old trick
of turning the question back on the questioner. We asked Jason if he could suggest any
additional choices. To our dismay not only did,his make, but his suggestions were both
acceptable and well reasoned (We concluded from that experience that we needed to be
prepared for some interesting times ahead!).
ATTACHMENT 14
I recalled this memory several times while re-reading the minutes. I believe the recollection
helped me identify why it was difficult for me to identify a preferred alternative. It is the same
reason Jason’s. I DID NOT LIKE ANY OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE. PLEASE GIVE
ME ANOTHER CHOICE.
I have since identified the following parameters that the preferred alternative should include:
●Increase density and intensity in small increments
●Result in the least impact possible for existing residential uses.
●Be simple and easy to understand
●Be flexible, but not so flexible that approval or denial of proposed project does not have
a high level of predictability
●Be consistent with the intent of new state housing laws
●Anticipate future RHNA numbers
●Have a high probability of being achieved
The Opportunity Areas concept does not meet the above criteria.
I believe it is possible to propose land use alternatives that meet the above objectives which will
result in meeting the increased demand for housing and allow the town to adopt to the
changing economic and physical environments. However, this will require more than minor
changes to the General Plan Land Use Map. Iit will likely require:
●Increasing the number of Land Use Designations the General Plan Map
● Redefining land uses designations
●Identifying defined areas where increased density and intensity is allowed
●Requiring a gradual decreases in both density and intensity with increasing distance
from identified focus areas i.e.it would require establishing a hierarchy of intensity and
density based on distance.
●Establishing density ranges that do not overlap. 1
●Requiring a change to how density and intensity are identified on the General Plan Land
Use map.
One possible approach to identifying a preferred alternative might be to:
●Establish a target number for net new units
●Develop alternative land use combinations that can achieve the chosen target
●Choose the preferred alternative from those identified alternatives
Back to the Minutes.
1 Livermore’s General Plan Map is one example of possible land use designations and how the
General Plan Land Uses can be defined so there are no overlap of density ranges.
My overall conclusion after reading all GPAC’s minutes is that the action minutes do not include
sufficient details of GPAC deliberations and decision making process to provide an
understanding of GPAC’s actions or deliberations that leading to its decisions.
For meeting that attended I found the minutes to be marginally transparent and they provided
little aid to understanding GPAC’s deliberations and actions. “Action minutes” were even less
useful and less transparent if one were toI miss a meeting. I assume the public would also find
that the GPAC minutes lacked transparency, did not provide enough detail and were therefore
confusing. 2
The audio recordings made of all GPAC meetings that could provide the needed transparency.
However, It is also my understanding and experience that those recordings are used primarily
by staff to prepare the action minutes, which are the official record of GPAC meetings. The
recordings are not available to GPAC or the public, and may be destroyed once the minutes are
drafted.
I also found that the official minutes were not always consistent with recollection of GPAC
discussion. For example, the minutes do not include or reflect the GPAC’s discussion of the
Draft Background Report or requests for corrections or modifications to the Draft report. . This
is true for the Draft Land Use Alternative Report as well. I do not think it adequate to include
additional requested information or corrections in subsequent staff reports or even as an
attachment to a report. It is not the same as amending a document to incorporation corrections
and/or additional information. In fact, it often results in increased confusion.
I have run out of time to add final summary of my comments. However, I thank you for your
consideration of these comments.
Lee Quintana
2The minutes include the specific wording only for motions. The only motions adopted by GPAC
were to recommend specific language for the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. While
the minutes include a list of the topics discussed, they do not include a summary of the
discussion itself. The minutes identify topics on which consensus was reached, but it is not clear
whether it was a unanimous or a majority consensus, nor do the minutes include the discussion
leading to the consensus.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 15
From: Phil Koen <pkoen@monteropartners.com>
Date: January 29, 2020 at 11:01:34 AM PST
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: comments for the upcoming GPAC meeting
Dear Members of the GPAC,
I am writing you to share a number of concerns I have, as well as others that I have talked to, with the
draft alternative land use draft report. First I would like to make a of couple of procedural comments
followed by two very specific concerns.
Procedural comments:
1. One of the GPAC goals is to make recommendations that “are informed by” community input. It
strikes me that the current process is suffering from a material lack of community input. I say
this based upon the actual numbers of residents who have participated in the public
engagement process. This lack of broad and diverse input brings significant risk, since a “robust
and inclusive community engagement is a vital component of drafting and updating a general
plan” (General Plan Guidelines – Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). I would ask a
simple “gut check” question – based on the workshops that have been held, does the GPAC
believe that there has been sufficient “robust and inclusive engagement” to properly “inform”
the committee regarding a recommendation? What changes to the draft document are going to
be made as a result of this public engagement? If none, does this concern the committee?
2. The current Staff report states “the purpose of the GPAC meeting is to make a formal
recommendation of a preferred land use alternative”. Before making a recommendation I
believe it would be appropriate for the GPAC committee to vote to either accept or reject the
current draft alternative land use document since this is the foundational document the
committee is relying upon to make a recommendation. Furthermore, it would make clear to the
public that the GPAC committee, whose names are on the cover of the draft report, agree with
the analysis contained in the report. As it stands right now, the public has no knowledge as to
how the GPAC views the accuracy and completeness of this draft report since it was prepared by
the consultant.
Specific Concerns:
1. As currently structured the GPAC first must choose among alternative housing goals. Having
selected that housing target, there is only one land use alternative presented to achieve that
goal. This really isn’t a choice of land use alternatives, it is a choice of housing forecasts. I believe
a more useful approach would be for the GPAC to establish based on their best judgement, the
most reasonable housing addition goal. The draft report clearly states “the GPAC provided
guidance that the Town should develop land use alternatives that could provide space of the
future development of around 2,000 residential units (page 2). Given that target, the draft
report should then present alternative land use scenarios to achieve that specific goal. This did
not happen. Right now the choice being made is on the number of housing additions NOT land
use alternatives. As you can see from the attached exhibit, alternative B is the closest alternative
to the 2,000 goal. But there is no choice in land use alternatives for that goal – there is only one
choice examined by the draft report. Does this make sense?
2. The financial analysis is flawed and the conclusions are wrong as currently presented in the draft
report. The financial impact analysis needs to be for at least 10 years where the impact of cost
inflation vs. the limited growth in property tax revenue can be fully analyzed and understood.
Having done my own analysis, I am convinced that none of the alternatives examined will show
cumulative incremental revenue exceeding cumulative incremental expenses over a 10 year
period. If you did the analysis for a 20 year period, the time horizon of the general plan, the
results would be materially worse. To frame this for the GPAC, the Town has experienced over
the past 4 years a 72% in net governmental expenditures vs. a 21% increase in all governmental
tax revenues. These numbers are taken directly from the Town’s recently approved CAFR.
In closing, the work the GPAC is doing is critical to the development of a thoughtful 2040 General Plan.
The recommendations made by this group will establish the foundation for the preferred land use which
will be used in the 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram. If the GPAC “gets this wrong” the downstream
impacts are material. I would urge the GPAC to go through a deliberate process and make sure that
everything has been done to insure there has been “robust and inclusive” community engagement. I
also hope that my two concerns will be appropriately considered and discussed.
Thank you.
Phil Koen
ATTACHMENT 8
Master Land Use Alternatives Comparison Table
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Population
Total Net New Population 2,834 4,598 5,587 7,682
Total Population 3,974 5,738 6,727 8,822
Total Projected 2040 Population 34,969 36,733 37,722 39,817
Housing
Net New Dwellings 681 1,416 1,828 2,701
Potential Net New Accessory Dwelling Units 500 500 500 500
Total Net New Dwelling Units 1,181 1,916 2,328 3,201
Pending/Approved Dwelling Units 475 475 475 475
Total Future Dwelling Units 1,656 2,391 2,803 3,676
Dwelling Units Per Land Use Designation
Low Density Residential (LDR) - in OA 95 141 180 283
Low Density Residential (LDR) - outside OA 43 160 164 264
Low Density Residential (LDR) - Total Dwelling Units 138 301 344 547
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - in OA 129 166 166 258
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - outside OA 120 315 315 561
Medium Density Residential (MDR) - Total Dwelling Units 249 481 481 819
High Density Residential (HDR) - in OA 104 104 236 322
High Density Residential (HDR) - outside OA 54 81 98 98
High Density Residential (HDR) - Total Dwelling Units 158 185 334 420
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - in OA 30 76 192 194
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - outside OA 2 7 7 25
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) - Total Dwelling Units 32 83 199 219
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - in OA 91 345 21 630
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - outside OA 13 21 449 66
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) - Total Dwelling Units 104 366 470 696
Employment
Employment 1,280 1,280 1,280 1,280
Transportation
Traffic Congestion Increase Levels
Minimal Increase
with 2 studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
congestion
Minimal Increase
with 3 studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
congestion
Moderate
increase with 4
studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
Moderate
increase with 4
studied
intersections
seeing moderate
increase in
Total Daily VMT (lower VMT better)1,245,000 1,259,000 1,267,000 1,284,000
VMT per Service Population (lower VMT better)22.65 22.20 21.95 21.48
Fiscal*
Annual Revenue 4,320,000.00$ 5,796,000.00$ 6,564,000.00$ 8,378,000.00$
Annual Costs 3,710,000.00$ 5,280,000.00$ 6,264,000.00$ 8,413,000.00$
Net Fiscal Impact 610,000.00$ 516,000.00$ 300,000.00$ (35,000.00)$
Residential Net Impact 190,000.00$ 96,000.00$ (121,000.00)$ (455,000.00)$
Non-residential Net Impact 420,000.00$ 420,000.00$ 420,000.00$ 420,000.00$
Urban Form
Range of allowable building heights up to 35 feet up to 40 feet up to 50 feet up to 60 feet
Maximum number of stories 2 stories 3-4 stories 4 stories 5 stories
*There will be increases in property tax revenues associated with redevelopment of commercial space, which is not shown here
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank