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: 1/21/2021
ITEM: 2
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: January 21, 2021
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Revised Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and
the Revised Initial Draft of the Community Design Element.
REMARKS:
Attachment 22 contains comments from a Committee Member.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the 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 the November 5, 2020 Desk Item:
7. Committee Member Comments
Attachments previously received with the November 19, 2020 Staff Report:
8. November 17, 2020 Town Council Staff Report with Attachments 1-7
9. Committee Member Comments
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Revised Initial Drafts of the Land Use and Community Design Elements
January 21, 2021
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Staff Reports\2021\01-21-21\Item 2\Item 2 - Desk Item.docx
ATTACHMENTS (continued):
Attachments previously received with the November 19, 2020 Desk Item Report:
10. Committee Member Comments
11. Public Comment
Attachments previously received with the January 7, 2021 Staff Report:
12. Revised Initial Draft of Land Use Element
13. Comment Response Summary Table – Land Use
14. Revised Initial Draft of Community Design Element
15. Comment Response Summary Table – Community Design
16. Updated Potential Housing Production Table
Attachments previously received with the January 7, 2021 Addendum Report:
17. Committee Member Comments
18. Public Comment
Attachments previously received with the January 21, 2021 Staff Report:
19. Maps of the Area Described in a Public Comment
20. Committee Member Comments
Attachment previously received with the January 21, 2021 Addendum Report:
21. Historic Preservation Committee Comments
Attachment received with this Desk Item Report:
22. Committee Member Comments
Melanie Hanssen
Comments on Draft Land Use Element
January 20, 2021
These comments begin with the place the GPAC finished at during the meeting on
January 7, 2021 which begins at page 3-17 Residential Designations
General
• I suggest we consider adding a general objective standard for minimum open
space for all new and redevelopment projects. This is especially important given
the growth and changes in housing types we will experience. We have this in the
North 40 specific plan.
Goal LU-5--Residential
Comments on policies:
--Suggest adding a policy to encourage developers to build much smaller and affordable
units (including <1,000 sq ft) and utilizing innovative multifamily residential product types
LU 5.2—I am not sure we need this in the Land Use Element since this is required in the
Housing Element anyway.
LU 5.3---Suggest modifying the third bullet point to explain nearby since we created a
standard in the Connectivity section anyway.
LU 5.7—Would like to understand examples that this policy is trying to prevent but fine
with having it.
LU 5.12 and LU 5.13---It sounds like we don’t want Flag lots unless they meet a, b, c and
x,y,z. What do we think about flag lots? In one way, they are a way to increase housin g
density (aka missing middle) by subdividing a lot. I think the GPAC should discuss what
we think about flag lots and reduce this to one policy that says that.
LU-6 Mixed use
Like this as new goal. Maybe be more specific about why—to provide more dense,
affordable housing to meet goals for enabling people to live here or stay here.
LU 6.1—since we think this is a way to provide new housing opportunities, should we add
an implementation program to be sure we have the right incentives to encourage
developers to build mixed use? Also, in this policy add something that aligns with goal
which includes being integrated with or close to neighborhood serving commercial.
LU-7 Commercial
General comment:
• Do we still want to make it possible to get a decent sized hotel here?
This came up in Planned Development, North 40 discussions, etc. but apparently, we do
not have the land use standards that are sufficient for a good-sized hotel.
Also Councilmember Hudes has been advocating for incubator projects that have
specific requirements. Should we consider adding a policy to encourage development
of incubator space. Maybe this belongs under LU-10 Employment Centers but not
sure.
ATTACHMENT 22
LU 7.1—suggest adding a tie-in to the connectivity by adding something like
walkable/proximity.
LU-8 Downtown Commercial
Do we need to add something about no residential on 1st floor in Central Business District
since mixed use is allowed?
LU-9 Mix of Commercial business
No comments
LU-10 Employment Centers
Not sure what the goal is for LU-10—reads like a description.
Not sure if LU 10.2 is the kind of policy we want. What about mixed use?
I will repeat here about the incubators—if this is desired, then we should say this and
have an implementation program to make it happen.
Specific Plans
Do we need to mention Albright? Isn’t it complete?
LU-11 Specific Plans goal and LU11.1 Policy
• North 40—need to consider updating the plan for a different type of Phase 2.
Should this be an implementation program?
• Should we have specific plans for the opportunity areas/community place districts?
Special Planning Areas
Do we still have the affordable housing overlay zones in use? If so, they should be
mentioned here.
Why is the Hillside Specific Plan here and not under LU-11?
This plan needs to be updated and should be an implem entation program.
LU-14 Hillside Specific Plan Goal
The hillsides are not a place to provide housing for people of various income levels given
that min. lot size is 1 acre in most places. The only exception would be ADUs. This goal
needs to be revised to simply reflect the preservation of the hillsides.
3.7 Community Place Districts
I still think we should call these Opportunity Areas.
LU-15—Community Place District goal
Should there be a policy encouraging mixed use in Community place districts? There are
design requirements but not a goal for mixed use. These are all places identified for more
housing.
3.8 Preserving our History
There is a comment from the definitions section 3 -4 that the multi-family residential
definition should clarify that Accessory Dwelling Units are not included? Is this the right
thing to do?
LU-16.1 –I concur with the HPC’s recommendation to revise the policy and move the
remaining language to the description.
3.14 Implementation programs----The HPC suggested adding an additional
implementation program that would help identify small neighborhoods with some historic
significance, where individual properties may not have historical significance. I agree this
is fine.
3.9 General Plan Use and Maintenance
No comments here.
3.10 Civic Engagement
Is this (civic engagement) goal in this General Plan for all aspects of Town government or
is it specific to this General Plan? If it is specific to the General Plan, then some of the
policies are too general.
3.11 Lifelong Learning
Fine with this but does not belong in Land Use—move elsewhere.
LU 21.3—Is it appropriate for the Town to drive grant funding for the school districts?
3.12—Healthy Community
Fine with this but does not belong in Land Use—move elsewhere.
Additionally, is this a place to have a policy or goal related to plant -based eating and
should it be added?
How to define healthy food or is this generally understood?
LU 22.3—Change Support to Encourage
3.13 Interagency Coordination
No comments
Implementation Programs
Add implementation programs for encouraging mixed use and identifying ways to incent
smaller units.
Also see earlier comment about updating the specific plans and possible new specific
plans or at least some more detailed guidance and tools to help make the Community
Place Districts become what is described in the Community Design Element. If desired,
then add implementation program.
If hotel is desired, add implementation program.
If incubator is desired, add implementation program.
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.