Item 2 - 11-19-20 DRAFT
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/07/2020
ITEM: 2
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 19, 2020
The General Plan Update Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular
Meeting on November 19, 2020, at 7:00 p.m., via teleconference.
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19
pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from
remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. In accordance with Execut ive
Order N-29-20, the public could only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Melanie Hanssen, Vice Chair Kathryn Janoff, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector,
Committee Member Kendra Burch, Committee Member Steven Piasecki, Committee Member
Ryan Rosenberg, Committee Member Lee Quintana, and Committee Member Carol Elias Zolla.
Absent: Mayor Marcia Jensen, Committee Member Susan Moore Brown, Committee Member
Todd Jarvis.
Staff present: Jennifer Armer, Joel Paulson, Laurel Prevetti, Sally Zarnowitz, and Lynne Lampros.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. 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 .
Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
PAGE 2 OF 4
MINUTES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 19, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Minutes\2020\11-19-20 DRAFT_ready for review.docx
Open Public Comment.
Don Capobres
- Commercial developer, currently working on the North 40 project. Commented that
phase 2 focuses on commercial, but are now looking at the possibility of using the
PD option to do more housing. Viability of financing certain types of buildings, more
density does not necessarily make a building more viable. Suggested getting an
economic consultant to advise on the viability. Having to build parking makes it
difficult to make it work (surface parking is cheaper to build). Rowhouse and
townhouse are the appealing product type right now because they don’t require
separate parking, until you get to a 20-story building.
Brian Toy
- Comment that he has concern about the lack of open space in North 40, it was good
when it was orchards. Values open space and downtown.
Catherine Somers
- Commented that Don Capobres is a very knowledgeable developer, so the fact that
he doesn’t know about Missing Middle housing, means we need to really look into
how it can be used in the General Plan. Commented that we don’t have good
stepdown housing for seniors to live in before they go to assisted living.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee further discussed the matter and provided the following comments and
direction:
- The downtown was included in the preferred land use alternative, but based on the
Town Council comments, we should confirm that it should still include increases in
density and floor area.
- The General Plan should ensure that the character of the downtown is protected.
- Increased density in all areas should be compatible with existing neighborhoods.
- Don’t increase the density in low density residential areas.
- Changes in density can be done with current design review guidelines and processes
to ensure compatibility.
- Not concerned about changes to downtown, and additional housing downtown
could be a good thing.
- Housing should be allowed over office, so we need to add maximum density to the
Office Professional designation and calculate how many additional units that might
produce.
- Housing over service commercial isn’t a good idea.
PAGE 3 OF 4
MINUTES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 19, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Minutes\2020\11-19-20 DRAFT_ready for review.docx
- Need to be open to duplexes or even fourplexes on a typical 10,000 sq. ft. lot. To
allow for 1,500 sq. ft. duplex. ADUs don’t have to have parking, where the duplex
would be required to have parking.
- Should add policies in support of low, very low, and extremely low income housing
through rental housing.
- Consider only increasing low density residential densities within walking distance of
commercial.
- Concerned about changing the rules only within ¼ mile of commercial, because it
creates issues with the neighbors, and may not actually be walking distance because
of street layout.
- Density in Office designation should be same as Mixed Use.
- Prevent residential-only development in Service Commercial.
Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree with the statement,
“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.” The majority voted against the statement, 3-4-1. Chair Hanssen, Vice
Chair Janoff, Committee Member Burch, and Committee Member Zolla voting no, and
Committee Member Quintana abstaining. As a result , the increased density in Low
Density Residential designation will remain in the draft 2040 General Plan.
Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree with the statement,
“The General Plan should include policies that support low, very low, and extremely low
income housing, possibly through increased minimum densities or smaller units.” The
majority was in favor, if done through incentives like increased allowed density when
affordable units are included, by a vote 6-2-0. Committee Member Quintana and
Committee Member Zolla voting no. As a result, the revised initial draft of the Land
Use Element will include policies as stated.
Committee Member Burch left the meeting and was unable to participate in the
remaining votes due to connection issues.
Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree with the statement,
“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 .” The
majority was against, by a vote 1-5-1. Chair Hanssen, Vice Chair Janoff, Committee
Member Piasecki, Committee Member Quintana, and Committee Member Zolla voting
no, and Committee Member Rosenburg abstaining. As a result, the increased density
and floor area ratio in the Central Business District designation will remain in the draft
2040 General Plan.
Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree that residential
should be allowed over office uses in the Office Professional designation. This item
PAGE 4 OF 4
MINUTES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 19, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Minutes\2020\11-19-20 DRAFT_ready for review.docx
passed unanimously. As a result, a maximum density of 30-40 dwelling units per acre,
to match the Mixed-Use designation will be added to the development standards for
the Office Professional designation.
Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree that residential
should be allowed over service commercial uses, with controls. The majority was in
favor, 6-0-1 with Committee Member Zolla abstaining. As a result, the Service
Commercial designation will allow residential in mixed use development, with certain
restrictions to protect service commercial uses.
The next GPAC meeting will be on Thursday, December 3, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
November 19, 2020 meeting as approved by the
General Plan Update Advisory Committee.
Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development