TOWN OF LOS GATOS MEETING DATE: 05/06/2021 ITEM: 4 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADDENDUM REPORT REPORT DATE: May 5, 2021 TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Forward a Recommendation to the Planning Commission and Town Council for Adoption of the Draft 2040 General Plan. REMARKS: Attachment 4 contains comments from Committee Members. Attachment 5 contains public comments received after the completion of the Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments previously received with the May 6, 2021 Staff Report: 1. Draft 2040 General Plan 2. GPAC Revised Vision and Guiding Principles 3. Committee Member Comments Attachments received with this Addendum: 4. Committee Member Comments 5. Public Comment PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP Senior Planner 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Todd Jarvis Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 8:37 AM To: Alexa Nolder Cc: Jennifer Armer; Joel Paulson; Sally Zarnowitz; Jocelyn Fong Subject: RE: Guidance from Chair--finishing the work of the GPAC Importance: High Dear Committee: After careful review of the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, I found the chapter including all subsections to be consistent with the Vision and Guiding Principles. Element 6 is well done and complete in my opinion. Beyond the scope of this review were two small things that I want to note. On page 2 of element six, the definition of aquifer refers to “a usable supply for people’s uses.” Although technically correct, the word people may not conform to customary uses of water relating to an aquifer. One other minor thing is on page 12 of section 6 under Childcare. Los Gatos is actually a city called the Town of Los Gatos. However in this paragraph “Los Gatos Town” is not a formal name so the word town should not be capitalized. Town in this instance should not be capitalized because it only describes the noun, Los Gatos (which is short for the Town of Los Gatos). In review of the Introduction, I have found this section to be consistent and quite well done to explain the vision and flow of the structure of the general plan. This section has my approval. Todd Jarvis Commissioner GPAC ATTACHMENT 4 Memo To: General Plan Update Advisory Committee 2040 Fr: Carol Elias Zolla Corrections/Comments to the Public Facilities, et al and Intro/Vision/Guiding Principals Public Facilities, et al I know I am not supposed to comment on type-os, but I see a few that should be corrected: Page 6-5, PFS-1.5 – It looks like words are missing in this description. Page 6-10, PFS-7.9 – Remove “the prioritization of” as it’s redundant to “giving priority”. Page 6-31, PFS-25.2 – Change “of the Los Gatos” to “of Los Gatos residents”. Pages 6-33 and 6-34 – Some of the headers on these implementation programs are not bolded. Intro/Vision/Guiding Principals Page 1-10, Table 1-1 – I am confused why in the Public Facilities, et al there are a number of PFS goals and policies that mention Environmental Justice, but “Environmental Justice” isn’t checked in this table. GP Draft Full review: edits and comments—Kathryn Janoff First I’d like to say how much I have enjoyed serving on the GPAC and working with such a great and dedicated group of individuals. I’ve learned a lot from each of you. Thank you!! I found this draft to be a very good product. Generally, it reads well, is comprehensive, understandable and reflects guidance the GPAC has provided. I did find a few inconsistency or missing items noted below. Inconsistency/Missing Items: ▪ Review of the general plan: 5-10 years (p. 1-3), 5 years or as needed (pg. 3-30), and every 10 years (implementation program J, pg 3-33). Staff can choose the timeframe hey prefer and make the sections consistent. ▪ RSEJ, Policy RSEJ-2.9: In light of the work ongoing to change some longstanding policing approaches, and considering the input from the public, I think what we mean to say is a bit different. Consider replacing this policy with the following language: Strengthen the Town’s longstanding commitment to public safety by proactively reaching out to community members to hear concerns about policing and work collaboratively with police and community to find viable solutions. ▪ Related to the above comments, Pg. 6-19: Highlighted box: this is only lightly covered in RSEJ. Recommend deleting this box. ▪ In general: we have not addressed protecting neighbor’s views in residential remodels. CD-2.14 is new development and street layouts, and CD-5.5 applies to hillside development, and elsewhere we have viewsheds. Pg, 8-4, ENV-1 focuses on developments and viewsheds, but no word about protecting views during residential remodel. This seems a good place to include a policy that discourages the elimination of views due to unnecessary mass and scale. ▪ PFS-4 (or elsewhere in PFS) is lacking a policy encouraging to USE of recycled or recyclable materials to begin with. Revise PFS-4.1 to include this. Please note the following pages are editing nits for staff and the consultants. General Edits Throughout: Many of the Implementation Programs titles are not in BOLD FONT. Figure titles should be consistently below the graphic. See Element 3 in particular. I was confused with the alignment of SUS, EIR and other links under the policies, then I realized that was intentional. I would have just kept them always left adjusted. 1. Introduction Pg. 1-7 First paragraph under regional setting: replace semi-colons with commas (two places) and delete the word “is” before south. Urban service area: remove the word “in” Pg. 1-14, Figure 1-3: two typos: in the Goal Statement box, replace “on” with “of” And in the Goal/Policy box, delete the word “if” 2. RSEJ Replace semi-colons with commas in the first paragraph Third paragraph, first sentence, delete the word “compared” Pg 6-6, PFS-1.5 is incomplete 3. Land Use Pg. 3-1, first paragraph, second to last sentence, replace “focused” with “prompted” Pg. 3-4, formatting: move Table 3-1 down to avoid the orphaned sentence. Pg. 3-5, first paragraph, second sentence, replace semi colon with comma Pg. 3-18, Policy LU-10.2: change “mixed-uses” to “mixed-use” Pg. 3-23: Commercial District bullet, shouldn’t it be “Victory Lane to the west”? Figure 3-9 and 4-10 (same figure in two elements), change the key to “Historic Commercial District” Pg. 3-26 (and three other places: pgs. 4-2, 4-19), we say Community Place Districts were identified. Which is passive voice. Recommend (tiny but mighty) change to “are identified” 4. Community Design Pg. 4-8, CD-2.9, the phrase “incorporate transit” creates awkward phrasing. Suggest removing it. It’s generally covered with multi-modal, but how would developers incorporate transit? Pg. 4-15 Spell out GHG (this is the first time we’ve seen the acronym) Second paragraph, replace semi colons with commas. CD-3.1 add a SUS link CD-3.5, should we add “to the HPC for review and recommendation prior to review by the Planning Commission” (similar to policy 3.4 above)? Pg. 4-19 First paragraph, last sentence: change “neighborhoods; thus, creating . .“ to “neighborhoods, thus creating . .” List of bullets should have semi-colons if the standard format is to be followed. Pg. 4-21, first paragraph, third sentence, delete “this area” before “the Downtown Community”. Pg. 4-23, should CD-8.2 and 8.5 have a SUS link? Pg. 4-26, second paragraph, second to last line, change “a place which” to “a place where” Formatting, pages 4-27 and -28, minimize both figures, and place side by side on 4-27, so this section stays together without an orphaned figure. Figure 4-17 not particularly needed. Suggest deleting. Page 4-35, above the goal, this is the “North Los Gatos” district. Not Lark. Page 4-42 Sentence above the goal statement should read “Neighborhood-Oriented District” not Union Avenue. Figure 4-23 should be deleted. It isn’t referenced here (or anywhere), shows Pollard Road, and is not an attractive image 5. Mobility Element Middle of first paragraph, replace “impacts from transportation” to “impacts from motor vehicles” Pg. 5-3 Second paragraph, change to “retain an LOS . .” MOB-1.2: insert “vehicle” after employee Pg. 5-17, MOB-13.5: Should have an implementation program, or maybe the IP should be related to implementing the Comprehensive Parking Study (I found no IP for implementing the study) 6. Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Pg. 6-11: Youth Services. Add the RSJ Commission. This is a critical commission and should include youth serving in this capacity too. Pg. 6-14 Delete the Operation CARE program. It’s mentioned on the previous page. Move Housing and Measure A to follow Public Health (before Youth Services) on page 6-10, and revise to NOT focus solely on seniors. Pg. 6-15 The HC icon looks odd to me floating around. At least move it to left adjust under the Goal statement PFS-9.1 says ½ mile for recreation. Elsewhere we stipulate 1 mile for shopping and amenities. Should this also be 1 mile? Pg. 6-16, PFS-12, typo: replace “is safe” with “are safe” Pg. 6-18, second to last paragraph. Is the School Resource Officer still a PD role, or has this changed in light of recent complaints? Pg. 6-19 Highlighted box: this is NOT covered in RSEJ.