Item 1 - Desk Item with Attachments
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 11/19/2020
ITEM: 1
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: November 19, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Working Session to Review and Discuss Additional Information Regarding the
Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and the Initial Draft of the Community
Design Element.
REMARKS:
At their November 17, 2020 meeting, the Town Council discussed the translation of the
Preferred Alternatives into the Land Use Designations and other parameters contained in the
Land Use and Community Design Elements. The General Plan Update Advisory Committee
(GPAC) may wish to watch the Town Council discuss this agenda item, which is available online
here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFh35XRBWer1DPx-F7vvhcg.
Below is a summary of the Town Council members’ comments. The Council did not vote on any
motions and therefore, these are individual comments not necessarily representing consensus.
• The General Plan should encourage production of Missing Middle housing, especially
when it can provide housing for middle and lower income households.
• The production of Missing Middle housing should be focused in areas that are within
walking distance to commercial uses, such as the Opportunity Areas/Community Place
Districts.
• The massing and design of Missing Middle housing should be compatible with existing
neighborhoods.
• The General Plan should include policies that support low, very low, and extremely low
income housing, possibly through increased minimum densities or smaller units.
• If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without
increasing the allowed density in Low Density Residential areas, that would be
preferred.
• If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without
changing the downtown/central business district, that would be preferred.
PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
November 19, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\11-19-20\Item 1 - Desk Item with Attachments.docx
• The Elements need to do a better job of telling the story of how the 2040 General Plan
reflects the Preferred Alternative and the adopted vision. The existing charts and maps
are not enough. What exhibits could tell this story so the reader can understand it at a
glance?
The Town Council did express consensus on two items:
• All references to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and other obsolete policies should be
eliminated.
• The 2040 General Plan should be forward looking as Los Gatos implements policies and
actions to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and facilitates housing production for
all income levels in the right places. In other words, the Council is not expecting the
2040 Plan to be the same as the 2020 Plan.
Attachment 10 contains additional comments from Committee Members received after the
finalization of the staff report.
NEXT STEPS:
The next element scheduled for review by the GPAC on December 3, 2020, is the Racial, Social,
and Environmental Justice Element. Alternatively, the GPAC could continue its discussion of the
Land Use and Community Design Elements.
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 previously received with November 5, 2020 Desk Item:
7. Committee Member Comments
PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
November 19, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2020\11-19-20\Item 1 - Desk Item with Attachments.docx
Attachments previously received with November 19, 2020 Staff Report:
8. November 17, 2020 Town Council Staff Report with Attachments 1-7
9. Committee Member Comments
Attachment received with this Desk Item Report:
10. Committee Member Comments
11. Public Comment
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
.
Date: Nov.17, 2020
From: Lee Quintana
To:Town Council
Re:Council Discussion on the Draft Land Use and Community Design Element.
Introduction:
It appears to me that the concept of Missing Middle Housing is somewhat of a paradox in that it
looks both forwards and backwards.
It looks to development patterns that evolved organically into compact walkable neighborhoods
prior to the development of zoning becoming the norm, which resulted in the separation of uses.
It looks forward by incorporating the patterns and characteristics of pre-1940 development into
current planning and development concepts that will result in compact, walkable neighborhoods
that encourage social interaction, provide a variety of housing types and unity sizes to help meet
the need for additional housing and that is within a 5 to 10 minute walk of retail centers
Missing Middle Housing in more detail:
The following statements are from Missing Middle Housing, Thinking Big and Building Small to
Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis” by Daniel Parolek. Daniel Parolek developed the concept
of “Missing Middle Housing” and the diagram in tonight’s Agenda Packet which illustrates the
concept.
The term middle has two meanings.
●First, and most important, it represents the middle scale of buildings between single
family and large apartment/condo buildings.
●Second, middle relates to affordability or attainability level. Form and scale of building is
what matters not the number of units.
Simple definition of Missing Middle Housing is a range of multi units or cluster housing types
compatible in scale with single family homes, that help meet the growing demand for walkable
urban living, responding to shifting neighborhood demographics and the need for more housing
choices and price points. Many of these types accommodate 4-8 units in a building or lot… At
the upper end of the spectrum they can be up to 19 units per building.(emphasis added)
Characteristics of Missing Middle Housing
●Work best in existing or newly built walkable neighborhoods. Walkable does not mean
recreation walking on trails or paths, but walkability to a destination.
●Lower perceived density but enough density to support services and amenities but in
forms that are not perceived as high density; multiple units within a structure that is the
ATTACHHMENT 10
scale and mass of a single family structure, i.e. a structure that is perceived as a single
family unit even if the structure contains more than one unit.
●Small building footprint
●Smaller homes which are well designed, comfortable and livable.
●Attached units with a private door directly off a stoop or off a porch rather than an
entrance through a long interior hallway
●Thoughtful approach to parking (i.e. reduced off site parking requirements)
●May be either rental or ownership
●Simple construction: type V construction, which is comparatively less expensive to build,
is less risky and often easier to finance than type I or II construction. Simple form, small
size, higher yields, V type of construction help developers to maximize affordability and
returns without compromising quality.
●Two/ two and a half stories with a limited number of 4-5 stories in specific areas.
Unfortunately, the solution is not as simple as building more multifamily or single-family housing
using conventional housing models, making minor adjustments to our planning and zoning
(such as simply increasing density) or making simple refinements to other systems related to
building, financing, and selling homes. Rather we need a complete paradigm shift in all these
systems and the way we think about and communicate about housing - no small task. “
(Introduction - page 3)
Zoning is too blunt an instrument to implement the concept of Missing MIddle Housing.
Not all areas are candidates for increasing density using the concept of missing middle housing.
It is necessary to identify specific areas that fall into the following categories:
●Maintain”
●Evolve
●Transform
“Understanding the role and characteristics of Missing Middle Housing types, the barriers to
building them that need to be overcome, and how to effectively communicate about these
housing choices will enable you to be part of the solution to the growing housing crisis whether
you are a planner, architect, politician, developer/builder, city leader, or community member.”
(Introduction - page 4)
“After a century of development and planning focused on delivering single-family homes to the
detriment of our cities and the earth, and at prices that are less and less attainable to all but the
wealthy we all need to act to respond to the housing issues in our communities and deliver
housing choices in walkable urban environments at a variety of price points and that deliver
more sustainable development patterns. Delivering homes is the goal. ….I hope this book
plays a role in people working together to define a new equitable, attainable, and sustainable
American Dream.” (Preface xix:)
“If you walk down any tree lined street in a pre-1940’s neighborhood in any city across the
country and look very closely you will notice that some of the buildings are not quite like the
others. Some buildings will look and are the scale of single family houses but have two doors or
four gas meters, which means they are multiple units. These buildings are often a seamless
part of a street and block with mostly single family homes. These housing types, such as
duplex, fourplex, cottage courts and courtyard buildings are examples of missing middle
housing. .. .They provide some housing choices and can help people stay in the neighborhood
as their lifestyle changes. They can provide a broad range of affordability as well. They often
consist of smaller but well designed units and are within walking distance to amenities such as
restaurants, coffee shops, small grocery stores, transit and more.
“Due to shifting demographics and market interest there is a tremendous mismatch between the
available housing stock in the United States and the type of housing people want and need. The
post World War II auto-centric, single family developer model no longer meets the needs of a
large percentage of the United States population. The household and cultural demographics
have shifted dramatically - nearly 30 percent of all households are now single persons. By 2035
one in five Americans will be over the age of 65 and households without children will make over
84% if change in households between 2015 and 2025. Baby boomers and millennials are
increasingly saying no to the suburbs and choosing a walkable urban lifestyle.”
(Introduction-pages 1 &2)
“In addition, cities across the country are struggling with the lack of affordable housing, while
development pressures are delivering McMansions or other inappropriately scaled housing,and
NIMBYs … are pushing back strongly against any housing that is not single family detached. It
is difficult for developers to deliver homes at attainable prices due to rising costs and
increasingly complex entitlement processes.
“The reality in most cities is that their planning and regulatory systems are barriers to delivering
the housing choices that communities need. Density - and use based planning and zoning were
established to separate uses and create suburban environments, which makes it difficult, or
impossible, to mix forms, uses and types that result in walkable mixed-use neighborhoods
similar to the ones that formed organically before zoning was common place in the United
States before the 1940’s (Introduction - page 2)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
General Plan Advisory Committee
Memo
To: Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the Committee
From: Steve Piasecki
Date: November 18, 2020
Re:
Comments regarding the Public Review Draft of the Land Use Element and the
Community Design Element for the meeting of November 19th
Overview Comments:
• I assume the comments received for the November 5th GPAC meeting will be reviewed
at this meeting.
• While we are not discussing the Housing Element we are deciding the amount, type
and location of new housing development.
• The preferred alternative is relying on vertical and horizontal mixed-use to achieve the
RHNA housing goals.
• Our goal must be to provide high-quality cohesive and attractive neighborhoods, so we
need to ensure that the new development enhances existing adjacent neighborhoods.
• Does the Town have a map of existing accessory dwelling units (ADUs)? I would like
to know where and how evenly they are distributed.
• I support the concept of allowing so called “missing middle” housing types but I would
like to see an exemplary example that we could visit in any of the adjacent
communities. The examples that I am aware of are spotted and small.
1. Land Use Element
1. New housing next to existing neighborhoods should be designed to integrate and
buffer the ill effects of the adjacent commercial (e.g. noise, massing). It should face off
back alleys and loading areas with housing that is stepped down to be reasonably
compatible in height and scale with the adjacent neighborhood. The housing should
be designed with street level front porches and homes that face the neighborhood.
This will require the front-loading of deliveries to the business component.
2. We should not advocate large building forms such as parking garages adjacent to
single-family homes as illustrated in attachment 4. The first floor commercial/office
2
should extend along the commercial street frontage instead of having residential
frontages along major streets as shown in attachment 4.
3. Town policy should leverage density for adjacent open space (publicly accessible,
privately maintained visible small parks) and the affordability of the housing in the form
of higher density smaller units.
4. I think we need to expand the eligible sites for vertical and horizontal mixed use to
include office and service commercial to spread out the impact and treat all uses fairly.
5. The vertical mixed-use housing must be rental housing while horizontal back street
housing may be subdivided for sale housing.
6. While ADUs are allowed, I would like to ensure they adhere to a reasonable parking
standard. My experience is that many, if not most residents, treat their garages as
storage units and office space and park their cars all day every day on the street
(usually in front of my house). I would like to see a requirement that existing garage
space must be kept available for the parking of personal vehicles and that new ADUs
provide at least one enclosed parking space per unit. This can be achieved through
recorded CC&Rs naming the town as a third party beneficiary on the properties
seeking building permits.
2. Level of Service
1. I think I heard at Tuesday’s Town Council meeting that the LOS projections did not
include cut-through traffic calculations. Given the Town’s position as “gateway” to
many other places I believe that we need to include the cut-through component.
2. I think we can design our major arterials to reflect a “small-town” character (maximum
of four lanes with vehicle traveling at slower speeds) while accommodating traffic from
existing and new development.
To achieve this I would like the Town policy to explore reducing the number of lanes on
Los Gatos Blvd. to four lanes with interconnected signal timing. This will cause some
congestion during peak periods which will have the effect of discouraging cut-through
traffic while platooning traffic at slower speeds. Obviously this needs to be modeled to
ensure that we can reasonably achieve the desired goals.
Six lane arterials are simply not “small-town.”
November 19, 2020
223 W. Main St. Suite D2 | Los Gatos, CA | 95030
www.pennantproperties.com
Dear Los Gatos General Plan Update Advisory Committee,
Thank you for your work at the last meeting regarding your continued review of the development parameters
(DU/AC, height, coverage, and F.A.R.) for the land use chapter of the General Plan Update. I reviewed the recent
staff report and updated documentation regarding direction that was given to the consultant and while in the
direction section on page 3 of the staff report bullet point 5 it states “Increase density for Mixed-Use and
Central Business District to the range listed as “Inside Opportunity Areas” because most of the Mixed-
Use is located inside the Opportunity Areas,” it does not appear the parameters for the MU and CBD
designations have been adjusted in any way. Perhaps this has not been done yet, but it indicates Attachment 5
has been revised. Further, pursuant to my last letter, I still recommend increasing the development parameters to
allow for denser development in these areas due to the other physical constraints outlined in the plan. Pursuant
to the Planned Development zoning ordinance, PDs have to comply with the underlying zoning. Perhaps densities
beyond a certain threshold would be allowed but would require a PD such that the project has to contribute a
community benefit as well as give the deciding body some additional discretion for project approval, but in the
end the underlying zoning needs to have an upper limit that can accommodate the project. There is a lot of
discretion when it comes to approval of these projects so I would not worry too much about having an out of place
development occurring. Please continue to consider increases in development parameters in these zoning
districts.
Thank you,
Jim Foley
Principal
Pennant Properties
ATTACHMENT 11
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank