Loading...
Item 1 - Desk Item and Attachments PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Senior Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov MEETING DATE: 11/05/2020 ITEM: 1 DESK ITEM TOWN OF LOS GATOS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT REPORT DATE: November 5, 2020 TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and the Initial Draft of the Community Design Element. REMARKS: Attachment 7 contains comments from Committee Members. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments previously received with November 5, 2020 Staff Report: 1. June 11, 2020 Community Workshop and Online Survey Summary 2. Initial Draft of Land Use Element 3. Initial Draft of Community Design Element 4. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 30, 2020 Attachments previously received with November 5, 2020 Addendum: 5. Committee Member Comments 6. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, October 30, 2020 and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Attachment received with this Desk Item: 7. Committee Member Comments This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT 7 To: Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the GPAC From:Lee Quintana Date:November 5, 2020 Re:Comments on the Public Review Draft of the Community Design Element General Comments on the Community Design Element and comments received as attachments to the Staff Report for the November 5, 2020 GPAC meeting. Generally, I agree with most of the things contained in the attachments to the Staff Report. In particular, I agree that: • General Plan needs to reflect the reality of recent legislation, with the caveat that the Land Use Categories need to be more specific and the Zoning Code (and Town Code) needs to be amended concurrently with, or immediately after, to reflect the different standards to reflect the differences in allowed development. • Statements referring to “small town character” or “maintaining small town character” should be removed for many reasons. One being that the terms are ambiguous and misleading. The reality of “small town character” forty years ago, when I move here, is very different from the “town character” that I see today. • Part of the discussion of the Community Design Element with respect to the Community Place District is repetitive of information in the Land Use Element, and is information more appropriate in guidelines. I prefer “Opportunity Areas” or “Opportunity Districts” to “Community Place Districts” because those titles come closer to conveying that these are the areas in Town are likely to change over the next twenty years and have the greatest opportunity for accommodating redevelopment (re: intensification) with less impact to the Town as a whole than other areas within the Town. I would prefer each of the “Community Place Areas” to either have individual General Plan Designations be identified as individual overlay areas with more detailed descriptions of how each will be unique from the others and how each will create the “missing middle housing” mentioned in the Land Use Element. Lastly, going back to the Land Use Element and missing middle housing. The Land Use Element needs to incorporate a better definition of what missing middle housing means and how it can be integrated into Los Gatos. My comments on the Community Design Element follow. 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. Specific Comments: Page 4-6 CD-1: Too many ideas combined in this Goal CD-1.3: Discourage Prohibit gated communities. Gated communities are the opposite of “interconnected communities” CD 1.4: If this is required for all “neighborhoods” there will be no change, as projected by the Land Use Diagram and Land Use Element. CD 1.5 Memorable Places Page 4-7 CD-2.1: Require building setbacks from the property line to increase in a 1:1 ratio as mass and height increases above 20 feet. Comment: Not clear what this means. For height I assume it means that for each foot in height above 20’ the building setback line is increased by one foot. How does the 1:1 ratio work for mass. This policy appears to set objective standards but its meaning needs clarification. CD-2.3: and CD-2.4: Both these individual policies are clear given the illustrations provided. However they are not consistent with each other. CD-2.4: Intent is good but needs to have objective standards. Page 4-9 Require all new and remodeled structures emphasize 360 Architecture by continuing consistent architectural design and application of the structure on all sides of the viewing angles while acknowledging that different programmatic and design considerations for private sides. Comment: It is not clear what “and application of the structure” means. The exception for programmatic design is too broad - every design can be claimed to be programmatic.I assume “private sides” private use areas that are not visible, but a break in the architectural style may be visible from a street or adjacent back yard. Page 4-11 CD-2.9: Roof Design: Again the diagram illustrates the policy well, but appears to be inconsistent with CD-2.4 Page 4-14 The illustration does not achieve CD-2.6 Nor does the figure meet CD-2-27 transitions. Page 4-17 40 sq feet? Is 40 sq feet even big enough for a small table and a bar-b-que? Is this in conflict with the zoning code? Page 4-19 CD-2.48: Landscape Buffering: delete lower noise. Landscaping does not provide a noticeable reduction in noise if there is less than 100 feet of dense vegetation. CD-2.50: Who provides median landscaping? 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 native plants and other drought resistant plants. Comment: This could also be changed to require a specific percent of California native drought resistant plants, with the rest being either California natives or other drought resistant plants.. Pages 4-24 and Page 4-25 CD-3.1: No feasible means is too open ended. CD-3.3: Needs clarifying language: Historic structures? Meaning pre-1941? Historic structures that have been designated? Meaning designated as Landmarks (California or Federal), And areas that have been designated as historic districts. CD-3.7 and CD-3.8: What are historic features, what is an historic site? CD 3.9: Integrate into 3.8? CD-4.3 and CD-4.4: Delete? Page 4-26 4.4 Hillside Development: See my previous comments in the Land Use Element regarding the Hillside Specific Plan - i.e. it is largely obsolete - it should be retired. CD-5.4: Isn’t environmental analysis required of all projects with potential impacts? Does this need to be included here? CD-5.5: This could be more specific. I.e. protecting the viewshed of the mountains from specific areas on the valley floor - these areas are identified in the HDS&G CD-5.6: Keep: Encourage annexations….. Delete the rest: When was the last time the Town coordinated with the County on this. CD-6.2: Change the to a. Page 4-27 4.5 Community Place Districts: Suggest deleting this paragraph and replacing with the following suggested language: Eight areas within the Town were identified that as areas that are anticipated to experience the most change during the time period of the 2040 General Plan. These eight areas have been designated as Community Place Districts. This Section includes an overview of existing uses in each District and a vision what the District is intended to become over the time frame of the 2040 General Plan. Page 4-28 Figure 4-2: Community Place Districts: Add the names of the districts on the figure. The colors on the legend are hard to identify in the figure itself. Page 4-29 Delete the figure - its relevance here is not clear Page 4-30- Page 4-31 Add Figure 4-3 and Downtown District at the top. The area covered by the Downtown District is not the same on the map on page 3-25 of the Land Use Element. The colors in the legend do not match the colors on the map Correct Me in the legend to read medium density residential Page 4-32 and Page 4-33 Vision 2040 sounds like a chamber of commerce commercial. This whole section reads like design guidelines but does not establish any specific standards to ensure that the character of the Downtown District will stay in tack. While the figure on page 4-33 is an example of parklets which would be consistent with the vision, the rest of the figure does not reinforce the historic character of the Downtown. I am beginning to rethink this area as being designated for increases in intensity of development. While there are currently two structures in the Downtown area that are in the range of 40 feet neither of them are within the area between Main Street and Highway 9. I would like to reconsider the Downtown District and specifically identify those area within it that would be most compatible for greater height than the typical maximum height buildings along Santa Cruz. The District should not include the Historic Residential districts that are adjacent to the CBD. I have three specific suggestion: -Limit the height of structures along Santa Cruz between Main and Highway 9 to 35 feet, -Allow greater heights south of Main Street around the Plaza and limit greater diversity of architectural style to this area, and possible for a small area on Main to the west of Santa Cruz. -Clarify that the historic districts adjacent to the commercial areas are not included Rather than continue to go through the Community Design Element page by page I will end here as my comments on the remainder of the Districts will likely be similar to those above. One last general comment: I am not sure that the photos included are helpful Melanie Hanssen Comments on 1st Draft Land Use Element November 5, 2020 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, senio rs, lower income) and make it possible for them to live here or remain here if that is there desire. 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. o • Wondering if we shouldn’t add a general objective standard for minimum open space in new development. 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. 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. 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. 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. LU 1.2—we should delete this. Not appropriate for the current housing laws. LU 1.3—We should delete this. Not appropriate for the current housing laws LU 1.4—we should be careful on this one—not sure we can reduce all of these impacts under HAA and other rules or even in CEQA. 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. LU 2.1—Not sure this makes sense anymore. Can we realistically do this? LU-3: Need to adapt goal to say why. Meet the needs of …. Required growth, more diverse population, etc. LU 3.2—this is a good policy LU 3.3 Not sure this is strong enough and not sure it is in line with HAA. 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. LU 3.6—Not sure what we are trying to prevent here. LU 3.7 and 3.8—possible to combine these? Maybe we should encourage this? LU 3.14 and 3.15—Should we revisit this policy of discouraging flag lots? 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. 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. 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? Do we still want to make it possible to get a decent sized hotel here? LU -7.1 Why not encourage replacement of all vacated businesses vs. specific neighborhoods and maybe replace with mixed use? LU 7.3—Not sure we can or should retain and enhance auto dealerships. Specific Plans Do we need to mention Albright? Isn’t it complete? North 40—need to consider updating the plan for a different type of Phase 2. Why not update the LG Blvd Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan as well? Why is LG Boulevard in a separate section—shouldn’t we combine all the specific plans? LU-10—Why not have a policy encouraging or requiring minimum open space for all new development? Hillside Specific Plan Should we add a goal to discourage new residential in the hillsides? How can we do this? 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.