Loading...
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.