Los Gatos City Council
June 20, 2022

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 4:06 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Shelley Neis
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Lee Fagot; Tran Nguyen Subject: Agenda item #3 - Planning Commission
Shelley and Jennifer,
Please include the attached white paper in the Planning Commission package.

Thank you

What is driving the massive increase in Los Gatos’ RHNA allocation? 4th Cycle – 562 units 5th cycle – 619 units 6th Cycle – 1,993 units Background
Each California city is required to plan for new housing to accommodate a share of regional needs. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) is the process established in State law by which housing needs are determined.

Prior to each planning cycle the total new housing need for each region of California is determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) based largely upon economic and demographic trends. HCD is responsible for determining the number of housing units for which each region must plan, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND). The RHND is based on a population forecast for the region from the California Department of Finance (DOF).

Los Gatos is located within the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties. The total housing need for the ABAG region is distributed to cities and counties by ABAG based upon objectives and criteria established in State law.

In 2021 HCD determined that the total new housing need for the entire ABAG region in the 6th Housing Element cycle (2023 – 2031) is 441,176 units. The 6th cycle RHND is significantly larger than the previous 4th cycle and 5th cycles. For comparison the 5th cycle RHND (2015 – 2023) was 187,990 units and the 4th cycle (2006 – 2014) was 214,500. The 6th cycle represents a 2.4x increase over the 5th cycle and 2.1x increase over the 4th cycle.

What’s different in the 6th cycle RHND from the 5th and 4th cycles? For the 6th cycle the State made major modifications to the process for determining RHND. In prior RHND cycles total housing was based primarily only on projected population growth. However, for the 6th cycle the State added existing need to the total RHND calculation. Existing need includes households that are currently overcrowded (defined as more than on person per room) or are overpaying for housing (defined as more than 30% of gross income). Additionally, the 6th cycle made a major modification to the region’s current vacancy percentage to provide healthy market vacancies to facilitate housing availability and resident mobility.

The total 6th cycle RHND for the ABAG region is comprised of the sum of projected growth, existing need, and a vacancy adjustment as follows:

Projected growth 223,550

Existing need 118,827
Vacancy adjustment 98,799
Total 6th Cycle RHND 441,176
The important point to note is the need for additional housing units based on projected population growth is only 50% of the total 6th cycle RHND with the other half coming from first-time adjustments the State has made to address existing needs and to improve regional vacancy rates. As seen from this breakdown, if these adjustments were excluded (as was the case in prior RHND cycles) the total need for the 6th cycle would be 223,550 which is very similar to the 4th cycle RHND of 214,500 and only a 19% increase over the 5th cycle.

Los Gatos 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Explained
Once the RHND has been determined, ABAG must now allocate the 441,176 new housing units to each jurisdiction beginning with a share of the RHND. This allocation process is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The baseline allocation used to begin the assignment is the jurisdiction’s total number of forecasted households for the year 2050, which was determined by the Plan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint.

For Los Gatos, the baseline allocation was .3% of the 223,550 projected growth in regional units. The .3% represents Los Gatos’ share of Bay Area Households in year 2050. The calculation is as follows:
223,550 Projected growth x .00326 = 730 units
This number is 18% above the 5th cycle RHNA of 619 units.

The next step is to allocate the existing need and vacancy adjustment of 217,626 new units to Los Gatos.

Again, using the baseline allocation of .3%, the additional units assigned to the Town is computed as follows:
217,626 existing need and vacancy adjustment x .00326 = 710 units This amount combined with the projected growth increased the RHNA to 1,440 new units.

The ABAG methodology also places greater emphasis on assigning new housing units to those areas which have been determined to be a High Opportunity Area or areas that are in proximity to jobs and public transit rather than vacant deployable land. This methodology shifts the regional growth pattern, with more household growth directed to transit-rich, high resource places to support the Pan Bay Area 2050 Blueprint.

Since Los Gatos has been determined to be a High Opportunity Area, the RHNA methodology allocates more housing than the .3% baseline percentage. This results in an additional 553 units being allocated to Los Gatos. Essentially, Los Gatos is “exporting” this additional housing to other regional areas to balance the regional housing needs.

In summary, the 6th cycle RHNA allocation for Los Gatos is compromised of the following elements:

Projected growth 730
Existing need and vacancy adjustment 710
High Opportunity and Job allocation 553
Total 6th cycle RHNA 1,993
Conclusion
It is important to understand how the 6th cycle RHNA was constructed especially if one is trying to project future RHNA allocations for the Town. First, the 6th cycle has embedded in it a long-term element since the baseline allocation is based on the Town’s projected share of Bay Area households in 2050. Secondly, the number of new units required based on projected population growth is only 730 units, which is close to the 5th cycle RHNA allocation. If one is trying to project future RHNA allocations, it would be prudent to only use the units required to meet the population growth since it is impossible to determine what the State may want to do regarding future adjustments for existing need and access to opportunity areas.

The last point is the adjustments made by the State in the 6th cycle, were done to compel local governments to take immediate action to implement policies, strategies, and zoning changes to accommodate their RHNA allocations. The 6th cycle RHNA allocation will establish a pattern of housing growth in the near term (2023 to 2031) that will anchor the foundation for how the Bay Area jurisdictions move forward on implementing the longer-term vision in Plan Bay Area 2050. The hope is that these adjustments will be made in the near term and that future RHNA will then only reflect the population growth as done in prior cycles.

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 4:35 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Shelley Neis
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Lee Fagot Subject: Comments on general,plan

Please include in the Planning Commission packet these previously submitted comments on the General Pkan that aren’t in the package.

Thank you

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 8:40 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz
Subject: Comments on the Draft General Plan 2040 and the Draft General Plan 2040 EIR Please accept these comments as attached.

Thank you.

Phil Koen
Comments on the Draft General Plan 2040 and the Draft EIR Population and Growth
The Land Use Element of the General Plan 2040 allows for the development of 3,738 new dwelling units, 475 of which are units from existing approved projects, by 2040. This is accomplished by materially increasing all residential zoning densities, mixed use densities, central business district densities, office professional densities and the creation of a new community commercial land use designation.

As documented by the draft General Plan 2040 EIR (page 4.13-6) at full build out, the population of Los Gatos will be approximately 42,021 through the addition of 3,738 dwelling units. This represents a 27% increase in the population over the 2021 estimate of 30,832 and a 27% increase in housing units. The annual growth rate in population would be 1.6% for the period 2021 to 2040.

As documented in the 2007 Housing Element, the population of Los Gatos was 28,813 in 2008. Over the past 13 years the population has increased at an annual rate of .5%.

The Plan Bay Area 2040, which was adopted by ABAG and the MTC, projected the Town’s population to be 33,050 by 2040. This represents an annual growth of .3% which is slightly below the historical 13- year growth rate of .5% but substantially in-line with historical long-term growth rate.

Therefore, the General Plan 2040 would induce substantial unplanned population growth beyond the ABAG population forecast and the 13-year historical growth rate. The General Plan 2040 provides no evidentiary support for the projected 27% increase in population and an annual growth rate that is over 300% greater than the 13-year historical rate.

The projected level of growth is not reasonably expected to occur in the absence of the proposed General Plan 2040. Simply put, the projected population growth in the General Plan 2040 is not

projected to occur under any alternative and fosters growth rather than managing and accommodating the reasonably expected growth forecasted by ABAG.

The proposed General Plan 2040 fosters this growth by implementing material increases in zoning densities Town-wide. For example, under current land use zoning densities, potential low density and medium density residential units would be 328 dwelling units. However, under the proposed densities in the General Plan 2040 the total potential housing production increases to 934 – a 184% increase.

This induced population growth directly conflicts with the Town’s own assessment of housing opportunities and constraints. In the jurisdiction survey submitted to ABAG, the Town identified land suitability, impact of climate change and natural hazards, construction costs, availability of vacant land and funding for affordable housing as constraints for the development of additional housing by 2030.

Additionally, the Town identified that public transit and the lack of a transit hub was a constraint in encouraging more jobs and housing near public transportation. Lastly, the Town stated that residential areas near jobs were largely built out.

Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not constrained or accommodated by land use plans and policies for the area affected. The General Plan 2040 and the General Plan 2040 EIR do not adequately analyze and address the potential impacts of non-orderly expansion of urban development on public services such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer services, solid waste service and police services.

Amazingly the Draft General Plan 2040 after adopting a 27% increase in population as the part of the project definition dismisses this forecast by stating “these projections do not reflect actual growth trends” and therefore concludes “no mitigation measures are required, and impacts would be less than significant without mitigation”. Apparently, the Draft General Plan EIR studied a different project than what was defined in the Draft General Plan 2040 and the NOP of the EIR.

Furthermore, conclusory statements which are unsupported by facts do not equate to a good faith and reasoned analysis. The substantive question that is left unexamined and unanswered is, what are the environment impacts based on the growth in population and dwelling unit development defined in the Draft General Plan 2040.

Jobs/Housing Ratio
The Draft EIR states on page 4.13-7 that “growth under the 2040 General Plan would result in a more balanced jobs-housing ratio in 2040 by increasing housing available in Los Gatos”. The EIR concludes that “such growth would not result in any adverse effects associated with an increased imbalance of jobs and housing in the Town”. Again, this is a conclusory statement which is not supported by any facts or reasoned analysis.

As documented by the 2015 Housing Element, according to ABAG there were approximately 2.1 jobs per household in 2010. The ratio jobs/housing ratio increased from 2005, when it was 1.5 jobs for every household. This increase was attributed to the recovery of the economy and Los Gatos businesses expandeing, creating new jobs to support the immediate community. An increasing jobs/housing ratio indicates the potential for increased demand for more housing to accommodate the growth in new jobs.

As documented in the Background Report, in 2018, there were 19,300 jobs in Los Gatos with 13,299 households. This equates to a jobs/housing ratio of 1.45. This ratio is widely viewed as “in balance” since the assumption is for every household there are 1.5 workers. The ratio improved because more dwelling units added over the eight- year period while jobs remained relatively flat.

The Draft General Plan 2040 assumes that only 1,280 new jobs will be added over the next 20 years.

These new jobs are entirely attributed to the current 475 projects that have been approved. The Draft General Plan 2040 assumes no new jobs will be created from the 3,263 new dwelling units to be added over the next 20 years.

Based on this, in 2040 the jobs/housing index will fall to 1.2, which indicates that the Town is a “net provider” of housing to the surrounding community. This decrease is directly attributable to the growth in housing with no corresponding increase in local jobs. On an incremental basis, the Draft General Plan 2040 calls for only 1,280 jobs for 3,736 new dwelling units, which is a jobs/housing ratio of .34. This shows that the individuals living in these new dwelling units will be driving to jobs located outside of the Town, which will further negatively impact VMT generated in Los Gatos, air quality, and will not achieve the goal of increasing non-vehicle transportation modes. This result is also inconsistent with the statutory objective to promote intraregional job-housing relationships.

The EIR conclusion of a “more balanced ratio” is not supported and in fact suggests just the opposite, that the new dwelling units will be occupied by workers who will be driving to jobs outside of Los Gatos.

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 7:18 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Shelley Neis
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Lee Fagot; Tran Nguyen Subject: Planning Commission - Agenda item #3

Hello Jennifer and Shelley,

Please include the following in the meeting package for the up coming Planning Commission.

Dear Planning Commission,
Below is the housing buildout schedule that was presented to the Town Council at their September 20, 2021 Joint Study Session that is referenced in the Staff memo.

It should be pointed out the projected number of units developed in that schedule included 166 Hillside residential units. The total number of units was 3,904.

The Staff memo references total units of 3,738. This is obviously an error since it does not include Hillside Residential units. This is a failing since the Land Use Element includes zoning for the Hillside Residential area.

For the public to understand the discussion and come to their own conclusion regarding the Land Use Element, it is critical that the project definition and numbers be stable. They aren’t, as shown here by the inconsistency in the treatment of Hillside Residential.

Please make sure that the public understands that the latest buildout schedule was the one presented at the September 20, 2021 Town Council meeting. I do not believe there has been anything published regarding this schedule for the public to review since that meeting.

Thank you,
Phil Koen

PAGE 6 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):

Land Use
Designation
Density Range
(du/ac)
Typical Density
(du/ac) Assumed
Redevelopment
(Redev)
Existing
General Plan
Draft
General Plan
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
New
Housing
(Vacant
Land)
New
Housing
(Redev)
New
Housing
(Vacant
Land)
New
Housing
(Redev)
Hillside
Residential 0 to 1 0 to 1 1 1 0% 116 - 166 -
Low Density
Residential 0 to 5 1 to 12 4 12 5%

75 13

283

84 Medium
Density
Residential 5 to 12 14 to 24 10 20 10%

107

133

224

343
High Density
Residential 12 to 20 30 to 40 18 36 15%

53 111

110

268
Neighborhood
Commercial 10 to 20 10 to 20 16 18 10%

11 39

26 91
Community
Commercial 0 20 to 30 0 26 15% - -

156
Mixed-Use 10 to 20 30 to 40 16 36 20%

55 242

126

605
Central
Business
District 10 to 20 20 to 30 16 26 15%

12 46

21 113
Office
Professional 0 30 to 40 0 36 15%

-

4 255
Service
Commercial 0 20 to 30 0 26 15%

-

10 44
Subtotal

429

584

970

1,959
Housing Units, New and
Redeveloped

1,013

2,929
Housing Units,
ADUs

500

500
Subtotal

1,513

3,429
Housing Units, Existing
Projects

475

475
TOTAL

1,988

3,904

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 7:45 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Shelley Neis
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Lee Fagot; Tran Nguyen Subject: Planning Commission Meeting - Agenda Item #3
Hello Jennifer and Shelley,
Please include the following in the Planning Commission package, Dear Planning Commission,
There has been tremendous confusion regarding the Land Use Element and the rational for the proposed increases in Town wide land use densities which are In the 2040 GP.

Much of the discussion has focused on RHNA 6th cycle number and the need to accommodate enough capacity in the Town’s Land Uses for these units.

What has been totaled ignored is the independent forecast, which was published by the Town, of the likely growth of the Town over the next 20 years. The most likely range of growth is between 1,529 and 1,954. Please see the attached pages from the Alternative Land Uses report.

This range of units should establish the appropriate baseline for informing the Town as to what is required through appropriate Land Use zoning to accommodate growth over the next 20 years. Since the State has mandated a slightly higher number of unit (eg 1,993) above the high end of the range, it would be prudent to plan for an additional number of units to give the Town an appropriate buffer. The Staff has suggested a number of 2,292.

This makes total sense given that number will be sufficient to meet the high end of the growth forecast AND meet the mandated 1,993 units in the 6th cycle.

We should be very clear on this point- there is no objective forecast that supports making the drastic changes in the Land Use densities Town wide as outlined in the 2040 GP which would allow for the development of 3,901 and even more units.

Thank you,
Phil Koen

Housing
Residential
Market Demand
The demand for housing in a particular location is based on a number of factors, including natural increase in the resident population (births over deaths), in-migration due in part to job opportunities, and the relative price of housing in the area. Since 1980, Los Gatos has increased population at the rate of about one-half percent per year. This has generally been about half as fast as the County. Between 2010 and 2019, Los Gatos grew by ǾRGTEGPVYJKNG5CPVC%NCTC%QWPV[ITGYRGTEGPV
The actual pace of growth is also a function of the growth in the supply of housing, which the General Plan will consider. If market demand is higher than the available housing supply, residential prices increase faster than they would otherwise. Home prices in .QU)CVQUJCXGKPETGCUGFUKIPKƒECPVN[KPTGEGPV[GCTUUKOKNCTVQ many communities in the Bay Area and Santa Clara County.

The DOF prepares population projections for counties based on the age and ethnic demographics of the population, and also taking into account regional shifts in population due to migration.

DOF projects Santa Clara County to grow at a rate of about one percent per year between 2020 and 2040. In the early years of this projection, in-migration to the County accounts for just over half of the population growth, but by 2040, in-migration accounts for 64 percent of growth. If Los Gatos were to continue to see growth at about half the County rate, then the total population would increase by approximately 3,478 persons between 2020 and 2040. If the average household size stays at 2.4 persons CPFVJGXCECPE[TCVGTGOCKPUEQPUVCPVCVCDQWVǾRGTEGPV then 1,529 housing units would be needed to accommodate this population growth.

GROWTH
2010-2019
Los Gatos

5.4%
(0.6% annually)
Santa Clara County

9.7%
(1.1% annually)
Units Needed to
Accommodate
Growth:
1,529
at 0.5%
annual growth
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 6 I

However, considering the age demographics of the Los Gatos population, the overall demand for housing could be higher than using DOF populations projects as the base. One of the fastest growing population segments are senior, otherwise known as the “Baby Boomers.” Currently, 19 percent of the Los Gatos population is 65 years or older, compared to 12 percent for the %QWPV[CUCYJQNG#RRN[KPICIGURGEKƒEITQYVJTCVGUVQVJG existing Los Gatos population, based on the DOF demographic projections, shows an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent for Los Gatos, compared to 0.5 percent based only on the countywide growth as discussed on the previous page. This latter projection also accounts for a share of County in-migration being attracted to Los Gatos. Given the income and housing price differentials between the Town and the County, we estimate that housing demand from in-migration to Los Gatos is about one third the rate of the County. Using this combined approach of age demographics and in-migration, we project an increase of 4,446 people and 1,954 housing units between 2020 and 2040.

Therefore, the range of likely market demand for housing in Los Gatos between 2020 and 2040 is 1,529 (DOF Projection) to 1,954 (ADE Projection) units.

Market demand also relates to the anticipated mix of unit types.

With the acceleration of housing costs in the Bay Area, there is increased demand for smaller, less expensive units, that are more affordable to the broad populace. This will likely be reinforced in Los Gatos with additional demand for senior housing. Both of these trends emphasize the need for multi-family housing.

Alternative A (Low Growth) has the lowest share of multi-family housing at 66 percent, while the other alternatives have a greater percentage of multi-family housing ranging from 82-83 percent, which is more likely to meet future market demand.

Units Needed to
Accommodate
Growth:
1,954
at 0.7%
annual growth
December 2019
7 E
O

From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Fwd: My Verbal Comments for Planning Commission Meeting (April 3) My name is Lisa Wade and I am with Plant-based Advocates in Los Gatos. I have lived in Los Gatos for over 30 years.

Thank you for your hard work on the General Plan. We appreciate your efforts.

We also want to thank you for adding the words Plant-based to a couple of sections. When the GPAC added the words plant-based to these 2 sections of the General Plan they also stated that they would do more because of the widespread public support for plant-based eating education in Los Gatos.

Our specific ask is this. We would like to see Plant-Based Eating Education added to section 8.12 Environmental Sustainability Element Implementation Programs. Section 8.12 has several Implementation Programs. We are requesting that you add a Plant-Based Eating Education Program to this section.

We have come up with some wording for an implementation program that could be easily inserted into section 8.12 (Implementation programs) in the General Plan.

Plant-Based Education Implementation Program Description:

Implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of shifting to plant-based diets, which include: curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water.

We have a petition with 265 signatures asking for a plant-based education program in the General Plan. We have the names of 225 residents (including community and business leaders who live in Los Gatos). In addition, we have 40 names of residents living in neighboring towns including Cambell, Monte Sereno, and Cambrian who frequent Los Gatos businesses. .

We also have the support of 11 groups including local groups, Health and Environmental NGOs (including The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and the Center for Biological Diversity.) In addition prominent citizens (both in Los Gatos and neighboring cities) such as Lucas Ramirez vice mayor of Mountian View and Alison Hicks city council member in Mountian View. support our efforts.

Also, the planning commission and council have received numerous emails requesting a plant-based eating education program be added to the General Plan 2040.

It is important to include such a program because numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies agree that plant-based eating is the most effective way for individuals to help the planet. For this reason, any plan to address climate and sustainability should include the promotion of plant-based eating. Please do not leave out this powerful, cost-effective solution and add a Plant-based education program to section

8.12. This section will not be complete without such a program.

According to Project Drawdown, the third- and fourth-best climate change solutions are reducing food waste and eating a plant-rich diet. (The top two solutions aren't things the average person can easily control: refrigerant management and onshore wind turbines.) Making the transition to a plant-based diet may well be the most effective way an individual can stop climate change." page 40 Project Drawdown The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed TO Reverse Global Warming edited by Paul Hawken.

I am attaching our petition below. I've also attached testimony from the Center for Biological Diversity.

Thank you for your consideration!

Supporters of Adding Plant-Based Education to Los Gatos General Plan 2040 Name, Last Name, First Position / Affiliation Address / Town Area Comments Community and Business Leaders of Los Gatos
Albright Karla Together We Will/Indivisible Los Gatos Los Gatos, CA Arroyo Kevin Pinehurst Community Garden organizer Los Gatos, CA Great idea and I support this plan! Brown Elisabeth Educator Los Gatos, CA
I am a teacher in town. I’d love to incorporate any lessons into my curriculum. I also lead student council and would be willing to organize an assembly.

Chan Wendy Business owner: Tai Zhan Plant-Based Microbakery Los Gatos, CA Goetz Alicia Owner, Los Gatos Theatre Los Gatos, CA
Hertan Peter
Vice President, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School
District Board Los Gatos, CA
Iyar Rupar Owner, Pura Wellness; philanthropist Los Gatos, CA Montonye Reese Laura Agriculture Fairness Alliance; Vegan Justice League Los Gatos, CA Moore Rob LG Anti-Racism Coalition; Plant-Based Advocates Los Gatos, CA Owens Heidi Community leader Los Gatos, CA
Preville Bruce CERT Leader, Los Gatos Los Gatos, CA
Romano Andrea Owner, Centonove Restaurant Los Gatos, CA Spargo Alicia Outreach Coordinator, Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition Los Gatos, CA Residents of Los Gatos
Aidi Karen Los Gatos, CA
Anji Roberto Los Gatos, CA
Arienzo Wendy Los Gatos, CA
Arroyo Frank Los Gatos, CA
Arroyo Susie Los Gatos, CA
Bagatelos Mary Ann Los Gatos, CA
Balijepalli Priya Los Gatos, CA
Balakrishnan Jeyendran Los Gatos, CA
Barden Ben Los Gatos, CA
Barden Sue Los Gatos, CA
Barnett Kaitlyn Los Gatos, CA
Bay Juliana Los Gatos, CA
Bayne Daphne Los Gatos, CA
Bernholz Malte Los Gatos, CA
Biller Jason Physician Los Gatos, CA
Bolen JP Los Gatos, CA
Bolen Rachel Los Gatos, CA
Booth Sandra Los Gatos, CA
Bora Anita Los Gatos, CA
Bosworth Mary Ann Los Gatos, CA

Boyd Sandy Los Gatos, CA
Brzak Lukas Los Gatos, CA
Burkhart Chris Los Gatos, CA
Bz Linda Los Gatos, CA
Cao Xuong Los Gatos, CA
Cappon-Javey Maureen Los Gatos, CA
Carol Amy Los Gatos, CA
Carpio Virginia Los Gatos, CA
I support putting into the General Plan a plant based education program.

There are several benefits from such a program, including potentially better general health and a healthier air quality in our community from consuming less meat, i.e., raising fewer animals that contribute to the increase of methane gas.

I think this program would be very good for our community and far beyond it.

Chavez Vana Los Gatos, CA
Christensen Beverly Los Gatos, CA
Christensen John Los Gatos, CA
Cisneroz Diane Larson Los Gatos, CA
Corini Tamara Los Gatos, CA
Dai Biller Jenny Physician Los Gatos, CA
Davies Tiffany Physician Los Gatos, CA
Davies Mark Physician Los Gatos, CA
De Cesare Anne Marie Los Gatos, CA
De Louraille Karen Los Gatos, CA
Czinski Laura Los Gatos, CA
Deak David Los Gatos, CA
Dempsey Caroline Los Gatos, CA
DeMaria Dawn Los Gatos, CA
Dickinson Ilene Los Gatos, CA
Dickinson Roger Los Gatos, CA
Dillehay Kristine Los Gatos, CA
Dreiger Jeannie Los Gatos, CA
Dreher Diane Los Gatos, CA
Erdengiz Sevgi Los Gatos, CA
Evjenth Gail Los Gatos, CA
Evjenth Tim Los Gatos, CA
Fletcher Lisa Los Gatos, CA
Fox Audrey Los Gatos, CA
Fox Larry Owner, Valet Custom Cabients Los Gatos, CA
Frager Bernadette Los Gatos, CA
Freedom Rea Los Gatos, CA
Pollution and waste in Factory Farms;, use of land for meat production, killing of wildlife and use acres of land to support livestock; nets in the ocean killing millions of sea creatures; all contribute to climate change.

Reducing meat consumption is something we all can do. Please place plant based education in the general plan. It is the right thing to so.

Garland Lynette Los Gatos, CA
Gibbons Maria Eugenia Los Gatos, CA

Goldberg Kristine Los Gatos, CA
Goldberg Michael Los Gatos, CA
Griffin Julie Los Gatos, CA
Gupta Reeta Los Gatos, CA
Gummow Todd Los Gatos, CA I support plant based diet education programs Hamilton Georgia Los Gatos, CA
Hamilton Scott Los Gatos, CA
Harrison Julia Los Gatos, CA
Hassoun Joe Los Gatos, CA
Haylock Archna Los Gatos, CA Yes we need more options at school and at local restaurants.

Hemmis Matt Los Gatos, CA
Hendry Dan Los Gatos, CA
Hendry Wendy Los Gatos, CA
Hinsche Danielle Los Gatos, CA
I am a resident of Los Gatos and I support the addition of a plant-based education program in the Town’s 2040 General Plan.

Hiroshima Kevin Los Gatos, CA
Hojjat Sara
District Leader Volunteer- California Congressional
District 18. Member of Plant-Based Advocates Los Gatos, CA Honorio Mia Los Gatos, CA
Houghton John Los Gatos, CA
Howe Chelsea Los Gatos, CA
Hsieh Cynthia Los Gatos, CA I would love to see a vegan, zero waste restaraunt in Los Gatos.

Huang Jenny Los Gatos, CA
Hussey Jacklyn Los Gatos, CA Anything that will help save our planet I will definitely support! Ingle Lori Los Gatos, CA
Isaacs Varily Los Gatos, CA
Iyer Harish Los Gatos, CA
Javey Shahram Los Gatos, CA
Jog Chetan Los Gatos, CA
Johnson Karen Los Gatos, CA
Johnston Jan Los Gatos, CA
Juhl Linda Los Gatos, CA Thank you
Kamali Kristine Los Gatos, CA
Karavelioglu Sevil Los Gatos, CA
Keating Kathleen Los Gatos, CA
I believe it is to the best interest of Los Gatos to establish a plant based education program at the high school and for the general public. I believe many of our children and others need to know that plant based eating is good for their bodies if done right. Please provide funding for an education for plant based eating. Please sponsor cooking classes as well.

Keller Lisa Los Gatos, CA Love it. Yes!!
Koch Charlene Foster Los Gatos, CA I would LOVE to see this happen!! So very needed.

Koke Cynthia Los Gatos, CA
Kollu Badrinath Los Gatos, CA
Kurlin Carolyn Los Gatos, CA
Kurlin Gregg Los Gatos, CA
Kurtz Karen Los Gatos, CA
Lasso Alberto Los Gatos, CA

Lawton Ann Los Gatos, CA YES!
Lazzarino Dominic Los Gatos, CA
Le Denise Los Gatos, CA
I’m not a vegan or vegetarian but I’d love to incorporate more plant based and less meat protein to my diet.

Leeds Felice Los Gatos, CA
Lesko Camille Los Gatos, CA Cooking classes are a great idea! Levine Joshua Los Gatos, CA
Levine Marni Los Gatos, CA
Lewis Jessica Los Gatos, CA
Education is key for this important information. Thanks to all involved in making this happen!
Lammers Victoria Los Gatos, CA Need more vegetarian places/options Li Van Los Gatos, CA
Liu Andre Los Gatos, CA
Liu Calista Los Gatos, CA
Liu Gabriela Los Gatos, CA
Lockman Juliana Los Gatos, CA
Lorig Glenn Los Gatos, CA
Lorig Sue Ann Los Gatos, CA
Lowe Debbie Los Gatos, CA
McKinnon Skyler Los Gatos, CA
Madduri Sandeep Los Gatos, CA
Malhotra Priti Los Gatos, CA
Malhotra Neeraj Los Gatos, CA
Mandurrago Gloria Los Gatos, CA A fantastic idea!
Margolis Sonya Los Gatos, CA
McGill Alex Los Gatos, CA
McInerny Celeste Los Gatos, CA
Menhardt Trixi Los Gatos, CA
Mordaunt Joshua Los Gatos, CA
Newlin Kerry Los Gatos, CA
Mager Nan Los Gatos, CA
Mano Robin Los Gatos, CA
Martins Rosilene Los Gatos, CA
Meinhardt Suzanne Los Gatos, CA
Miramontes Emily Los Gatos, CA
Morley Eric Los Gatos, CA
Nguyen Kim Los Gatos, CA
Niederauer Tricia Los Gatos, CA
North Pamela Los Gatos, CA
O'Connor Rebecca Los Gatos, CA
O'Toole June Los Gatos, CA
Park Monica Los Gatos, CA
Parker Dana Los Gatos, CA
Parsons Daniel Los Gatos, CA
Parsons Debbie Los Gatos, CA

Parsons Jackie Los Gatos, CA
Parsons James Los Gatos, CA
Parsons John Los Gatos, CA
Patel Minal Los Gatos, CA
Rai Vivek Los Gatos, CA Yes, I am in for plant based projects.

Raad Mona Los Gatos, CA
Raad Ellie Los Gatos, CA
Ramaswamy Vinay Los Gatos, CA
Ram Amrith Los Gatos, CA
Ramesh Mythri Los Gatos, CA Made verbal comments at GPAC Reese Dirk Los Gatos, CA
Rennie Isabella Los Gatos, CA
Reyna Melody Los Gatos, CA
Reyna Orlando Los Gatos, CA
Rhine Molly Los Gatos, CA
Richter Jessica Los Gatos, CA
Riley Kate Los Gatos, CA
Rittenhouse Simone Los Gatos, CA
Robinson Kari Los Gatos, CA
Rovin Lynne Los Gatos, CA
Rovin Stuart Los Gatos, CA
Rubio Karen CERT volunteer Los Gatos, CA Made verbal comments at Town council meeting for 2040 General plan Rubio Fred Los Gatos, CA
Rubio Erik Los Gatos, CA
Rude Christina Los Gatos, CA
Ry Regina Los Gatos, CA
Sand Gretchen Los Gatos, CA
Sardana Manan Los Gatos, CA
Sarkar Prasenjit Los Gatos, CA
Sathyamurthy Shreelatha Los Gatos, CA I strongly support this initiative.

Schirmer Lisa Los Gatos, CA
Schwartz Jan Los Gatos, CA
Shah Bhanik Los Gatos, CA
Shah Swati Los Gatos, CA I support the local effort!
Shoff Sue Los Gatos, CA
Seshadri Sruba Los Gatos, CA
Smith Angie Los Gatos, CA
Smith Rucy Climate Reality presenter and activist Los Gatos, CA Sneddon Laura Los Gatos, CA
Snyder Stephen Los Gatos, CA
Srinivasan Kiran Los Gatos, CA
Starov Vladimir Los Gatos, CA I fully support this worthy cause! Stillinger Kelsey Los Gatos, CA
Would love to see more emphasis on plant-based diet - through restaurants, education, community garden, etc.

Stone Helen Los Gatos, CA

Stone Paul Los Gatos, CA
Streicker Robin Los Gatos, CA
Tompkins Liz Los Gatos, CA
Venkatesan Arun Los Gatos, CA
Venkatsubramanyan Shailaja Los Gatos, CA Made verbal comments at GPAC Von Luehrte Missy Los Gatos, CA
Vuckovich Melissa Los Gatos, CA
Waters Michelle Los Gatos, CA
Wade Christopher Los Gatos, CA
Wade Lisa Los Gatos, CA Gave verbal comments at GPAC
Wade Lucas Los Gatos, CA
Wade Stephen Los Gatos, CA
Wade Charles Audobon Society Lifetime Achievement Award Los Gatos, CA Wales Pamela
CERT; Animal search and rescue disaster response
team; animal sanctuary volunteer Los Gatos, CA
Walker Kelsey Los Gatos, CA
Waters Michelle Los Gatos, CA
Wentzien Erin Los Gatos, CA
White Tony Los Gatos, CA
White Hillary Los Gatos, CA
Willey Kathleen Los Gatos, CA Gave verbal comments at GPAC Willey Mark Los Gatos, CA
Willing Lara Los Gatos, CA Plant based eating is part of a long term solution.

Wilson Beth Los Gatos, CA
Yannoni Mike Los Gatos, CA
Yosfee Hanley Los Gatos, CA
Zilka Stephanie Los Gatos, CA
Let’s join the scientific community and educate people about the importance of plant based living!!! It’s vital to the survival of our planet and species!!!
Organizations Endorsing our Proposal
Plant-Based Advocates of Los Gatos http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com/ TWW/Indivisible-Los Gatos https://www.twwlg.org/
Sierrra Club Loma-Prieta https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta Center for Biological Diversity https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ Provided Written testomony on behalf of our proposal Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet https://www.acterra.org/ Eat for the Earth (Based in Santa Cruz)
https://www.eatfortheearth.org/
SAFE Worldwide https://www.safeworldwide.org/ (Based in Monte Sereno)

Green Monday USA https://greenmondayus.org/
Factory Farm Awareness Coalition https://www.ffacoalition.org/ A Well-Fed World https://awellfedworld.org/
Physicians Against Red Meat https://pharm.org/
Other Community and Business Leaders
Hicks Alison City Council Member of Mountain View
Ramirez Lucas Vice Mayor of Mountain View and Council Member Brook Dan Professor at SJSU; author; environmentalist San Jose State University Gurunathan Mohan
Environmentalist; designed Mountain View plant-based
outreach program Mountain View, CA
Love Beth
Environmentalist; Founder of Eat for the Earth, a Santa Cruz-based group promoting plant-based diets for
sustainability Santa Cruz, CA
Mackey Mary
Actress; Model; SAG BookPals program (reading to
children in homeless shelters) and LIFE (Living in
Freedom Everyday) Program, teaching life skills to
inmates San Jose, CA
Middlesworth Linda Owner, V-Dog; health coach Sacramento, CA Sehgal Tony Documentary Filmmaker Saratoga, CA
Support from Neighboring Residents
Adalja Anish San Jose, CA
Anand Monico San Jose, CA
Balachandran Jackie San Jose, CA
As a vegetarian of 17 yrs and a registered nurse, I strongly support this plant-based education program because I believe it will help improve the health of members in our community.

Berlinberg Jacqueline Monte Sereno, CA
Bengt Amanda San Jose, CA
Bevard Mariah Monte Sereno, CA
Castro Jennifer San Jose, CA
I support adding an education component to the Los Gatos 2040 plan which would educate citizens about plant-based foods.

Chaykin Lori Monte Sereno, CA
Chugh Rahul San Jose, CA
Duguma Jemanesh Campbell, CA
East Rowena San Jose, CA
Emerson Ziba San Jose, CA Good job.

Giacomini-McDonald Cathy Monte Sereno, CA
Guh Teresa Monte Sereno, CA

Harrold Kat Campbell, CA
Thank you for this, I frequent Los Gatos so this would be great to see. Also I believe in the power of empowering our local farmers, and the more money we can get them, the better for everybody locally. Back to our roots! Better for the planet and better for everyone
Isis Dawn Campbell, CA
Though I don't live IN Los Gatos, I hope my support will indicate interest in this important issue in the wider area, & that Los Gatos may become a model for addressing it.

Jain Beena San Jose, CA I support the educational program.

Kinger Amit San Jose, CA
Lambert Jennifer Monte Sereno, CA
Lanzl Linda Monte Sereno, CA
Matar Elizabeth Monte Sereno, CA Thank you! Yes!!!
Matar Lisa Monte Sereno, CA Thank you! I’m completely in for this!! Mesler Michelle San Jose, CA
Mulchandani Mukesh Campbell, CA Moving to Los Gatos soon! Petroff Patrice Monte Sereno, CA
Ramirez Gustavo San Jose, CA
We need more plant based food options! The meat industry is cruel and unsustainable.

Renson Kellee Monte Sereno, CA Yes need more veggie places to eat Shearer David San Jose, CA I support this effort
Stolberg Robb Environmental Education: Veggielution, Walden West San Jose, CA Streicker Robin Monte Sereno, CA
Thakur Smita Saratoga, CA
I have been plant based for the last two years. It has made me healthier and it's the best thing for the planet. Would love to have more people join plant based way of life.

Woodhouse Dori San Jose, CA

May 5, 2021
Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner
Community Development Project
Town of Los Gatos
Via [email protected]
Dear Ms. Armer,
On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and our California members, I thank you for considering food sustainability initiatives and emissions strategies in the Los Gatos General Plan. The Center strongly supports these actions.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national conservation nonprofit with nearly 2 million members and supporters. Our expertise is grounded in a staff of scientists and legal experts tackling crucial issues like climate change and effective mitigation strategies. Food emissions are a substantial part of global and national human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Studies show we cannot meet climate mitigation targets without tackling emissions from the food and agriculture sector, and namely by shifting diets toward lower emissions foods. The agriculture sector accounts for as much as 37%1of global greenhouse gas emissions. Food procurement is an important opportunity to reduce consumption-driven emissions.

Most emissions come from only a few types of foods. The foods with the highest emissions are meat and dairy products,
2 which are responsible for approximately half of all food-related emissions and 16%34 of
global greenhouse gases. The overproduction (and consumption) of meat and dairy come with a high cost to the climate,
5 as well as to water6, land7, and biodiversity8. Tracking institutional food purchases and shifting toward climate-friendly foods is a crucial climate solution that also has health and other environmental benefits.

Unfortunately, some sustainability initiatives overlook the need to address overproduction of animalbased foods in their commitments. Instead, municipal plans should build on frameworks of supporting 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019). Special Report on Climate Change and Land Use. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.
2 Our World in Data (2020). Environmental Impacts of Food Production. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local. 3 Calculated using the 2017 online update to the FAO 2013 GLEAM assessment that estimates the livestock sector emitted 8.1 GT CO2eq in 2010 (using 298 and 34 as global warming potentials for N20 and CH4, based on the IPCC 2014 report). The IPCC 2014 report estimates total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 of 49 GT CO2eq. See: FAO, Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) [online], Rome, www.fao.org/gleam/en/ and IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer (eds.)], IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (2014), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. 4 Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., ... & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf. 5 University of Michigan. Center for Sustainable Systems (2017). Carbon Footprint Factsheet. http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Carbon%20Footprint_CSS09-05_e2020_0.pdf. 6 Water Footprint Network (2021). Water Footprint of Crop and Animal Products: A Comparison. https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/. 7 Carbon Brief (2021). Interactive: What is the Climate Footprint of Eating Meat and Dairy? CarbonBrief.org. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/. 8 Center for Biological Diversity (2021). Extinction Facts. TakeExtinctionOffYourPlate.com.

2 environmental goals through procurement, in line with similar efforts regarding recycled and sustainable products and local food. Food procurement has a significant impact9on the environment and overall municipal emissions and can often be addressed by resolution or executive directive requiring government food purchases to meet specific guidelines.

Making a moderate shift toward climate-friendly menus can make a big difference in advancing sustainability goals, particularly emissions targets. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change10 affirmed we have only a decade left to avoid irreversible climate damage. This fact has driven municipalities to include meat and dairy reductions as key factors in emissions reductions and sustainability policies, including the initiatives recommended to add to the Los Gatos General Plan.

For example, Los Angeles, California recently joined the C-40 cities initiative; and Santa Monica, CA integrated food procurement commitments into their Climate Action Plan and committed to a 15% reduction of meat and dairy procurement to meet its emissions targets; Carrboro, North Carolina has set food emissions targets in their Climate Action Plan and set a goal to reduce emissions from consumption by 50% by 2025; Denver, CO found emissions from food procurement accounted for 14% of overall emissions, nearly equal to emissions from residential energy and gasoline-powered vehicles.

Reducing beef procurement – if replaced with plant-based foods - would immediately help reduce the city’s emissions as beef emits more greenhouse gases than any other food.11 Beef is also a particularly water-intensive process that depletes vital watersheds, from the Colorado River to local waterways. 12 Thus, reducing beef procurement also supports water conservation goals. Given California’s drought, wildfires and extreme weather, municipalities must do what they can to support water-saving efforts.

Cities and townships must strive to mitigate the emissions associated with municipal operations.

Increasing support for local produce growers will also improve engagement with farmers markets and local food hubs, bringing economic benefits to your community. Similarly, increasing access to healthy, climate-friendly foods with city-supported neighborhood-based community gardens bring equitable solutions for those who lack access to healthy, sustainable foods.

Sustainable food policies can increase climate resilience, help eradicate poverty13, improve public health and equity, and protect biodiversity.
14 The urgency of these issues and the health of the planet demand action to transform unsustainable food systems.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Molidor, Ph.D.

Senior Food Campaigner
Center for Biological Diversity
BiologicalDiversity.org
[email protected]
9 United Nation System Standing Committee on Nutrition (2017). Sustainable Diets for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet. https://www.unscn.org/uploads/web/news/document/Climate-Nutrition-Paper-EN-WEB.pdf. 10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5c. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. 11 Our World in Data (2020). Environmental Impacts of Food Production. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local. 12 Richter, B. (2020). Water Sustainability and Fish Imperilment Driven by Beef Production. Nature Sustainability. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/59918.
13 Smith, P. (2012). “Climate Change and Sustainable Food Production.” Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/climate-change-and-sustainable-foodproduction/DE02043AE462DF7F91D88FD4349D38E7. 14Food and Agriculture Organization (2010). Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. http://www.fao.org/3/i3004e/i3004e.pdf.

From: Sue Ann Lorig
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 11:21 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Please add a plant-based education program to Section 8 of the Environmental section of the General Plan
Dear Ms. Armer and Town Council:

I am Sue Ann Lorig and a resident of Los Gatos. I am writing you to request that a plant-based education program be added to Section 8 of the Environmental section of the General Plan.

The IPCC has stated that to avoid climate catastrophe, global emissions must be halved by 2030. That means we must do everything we can now to reverse climate change.

Right behind fossil fuels in the causes of climate change is industrial animal agriculture, which we can address as individuals and a community by reducing our consumption of animal products and eating more plants.

Industrial animal agriculture currently occupies more than half of the world’s arable land resources, uses the majority of our freshwater stores, and expels more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transportation sector. Additionally, it causes rampant air and water pollution, land degradation, and deforestation, and is pushing countless species to the brink of extinction.

It takes 160 times more land resources to produce beef than it does to produce vegetables, fruits, and legumes. The rainforests, the planet’s lungs, are being burned as we speak to clear land for more animal agriculture.

But it’s not just beef. It’s also chickens, pigs, dairy cows, and the other farm animals that make up our current farming system. The entire livestock system currently occupies 45% of the planet’s land surface.

In comparison, 95% of the human population occupies 10% of the world’s land.

In addition to using scarce land, we’re using scarce water resources to grow food to feed animals for food. In the U.S., 47% of soy and 60% of corn is consumed by livestock. An average cow will consume around 1,000 pounds of feed every few months. Within a short lifetime, that cow will use about 183,500 gallons of water through feed alone.

When you include the millions of gallons for everything from hydration to washing excrement off concrete floors, cleaning blood and grease from the equipment in the butchering process, etc., it takes about 1,800 gallons of water on average to produce 1 pound of meat.

Dairy cows use tons of water, too, with about 2,000 gallons of water being used to create just one gallon of milk.

In one year, the average American consumes roughly 58 pounds of beef, 50 pounds of pork, and 91 pounds of chicken. The water that it takes to produce just a pound of each one of those meats is approximately 1,800 gallons, 576 gallons, and 468 gallons, respectively. To put this into perspective, it only takes 119 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of potatoes.

Simply stated, if we used all of this water to produce food for direct human consumption, rather than the roundabout process of industrial meat farming, we would have a lot more food and a whole lot more water to go around.

With respect, I implore you to add a plant-based education program to Section 8 of the Environmental section of the General Plan.

Sincerely,
Sue Ann Lorig
Los Gatos, CA

From: Christopher Wade
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 1:14 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Plant-Based Education
To the Planning Commission,
Thank you for your tireless work on the General Plan. I have lived in Los Gatos for more than 40 years.

My family moved here when I was a kid, and I attended Blossom Hill School, Fisher Middle School, and Los Gatos High School.

I'd like to request that you please add a plant-based education program to the implementation programs in Section 8 (Environmental and Sustainability Element) of the General Plan.

Many cities are taking measures to facilitate a shift to plant-based diets, and I'd like to see Los Gatos make more progress in this direction.

Under Mayor Eric Adams, New York City recently introduced Vegan Fridays serving plant-based meals to all students as the default on Fridays. If students want animal products they must request that option. https://gothamist.com/food/nyc-public-schools-will-start-vegan-fridays Mayor Adams is also expanding a Plant-Based Lifestyle Medicine Program (that was piloted in Bellevue) to five new health and hospital locations across the city. https://gothamist.com/food/mayor-adams-expand-plant-based-eating-clinic-all-five-boroughs Adams said that after becoming vegan in 2016, he reversed his Type 2 diabetes, including loss of vision and nerve damage. In fact, he wrote a book on this subject called, “Healthy at Last: A Plant-Based Approach to Preventing and Reversing Diabetes and Other Chronic Illnesses.” I'd like to see Los Gatos follow in the footsteps of cities such as New York. Mountain View, Berkeley and so many more.

Sincerely,
Chris Wade

From: Julie Struthers
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 2:07 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Include Plant Based Education in Town General Plan Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
I have been a Los Gatos Resident since 1999 and I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plantbased diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. kind regards,
Julie Struthers

From: Nick Struthers
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 2:07 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Town General Plan to include Plant Based Education Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
I have been a Los Gatos Resident since 1999 and I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plantbased diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. kind regards,
Nick Struthers

From: roberto anji
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 9:26 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Section 8 the Environmental section of the General Plan.

Dear Jennifer,
My name is Roberto Anji and I am a resident of Los Gatos staying at I wanted to add my support to add Plant Based Nutrition and Education to the towns General Plan.

Just like Climate Change is now a Household word we need to add Veganism as well as it has a multitude of benefits not only for our planet but also our health. There is no need to covert everyone to be Vegan 24x7, just a few days a week can make a tremendous impact and once pople change their habits they will also support the Vegan industry in developing a bigger variety of tasty Vega food. Have you tried Vegan Gouda Cheese available at Whole Foods? It is a pretty good imitation. More like that will arrive if we support the industry and Los Gatos can proudly be at the forefront by adding it to their plan.

Thanking you in advance!
- Roberto

From: Beth Wilson
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 12:07 PM
To: Council; Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant Based Diet Education
Hello,
My name is Beth Wilson and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plantbased education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thank you,
Beth Wilson

From: Dirk Reese
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 1:05 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant-Based Education in the Town General Plan Los Gatos Town Council,
My name is Dirk Reese and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Sincerely,
Dirk Reese
Los Gatos

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/13/2022
ITEM NO: 3

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 13, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.

REMARKS:

In response to a question from a Planning Commissioner, staff has calculated that if the properties in the Central Business District designation were reverted to the housing density allowed in the existing 2020 General Plan, the reduction in housing units from that change would be 76 units.

Exhibit 12 contains Planning Commissioner comments.

Exhibit 13 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, plus one comment that was unintendedly omitted from the Addendum Report.

EXHIBITS:

Exhibits previously provided (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html):

1. Draft 2040 General Plan

2. Draft EIR

3. Revised NOA and Transportation section

4. Final EIR
Exhibits previously received with the April 13, 2022 Staff Report:

5. Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles ATTACHMENT 10 Page 553
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 13, 2022
EXHIBIT (continued):

7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment

8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes

9. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 2021, and 11:00 a.m.

Monday, September 20, 2021

10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2022
Exhibit previously received with the April 13, 2022 Addendum:

11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022
Exhibits received with this Desk Item:

12. Planning Commissioner Comments

13. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2022

Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan
Comments from Commissioner Clark
Below are some changes I would like to see made to the Draft 2040 General Plan in the Planning Commission’s recommendation to Town Council, as well as some comments and topics for conversation. They are sorted as (A) Wording Changes; (B) Broader Changes; and (C) Topics for Discussion.

A. Wording Changes: Below are recommended wording changes. Some are more substantive than others.

1. 1-15 Cross-cutting Topic Icons
Items marked with this icon are designed to identify goals and policies, policies, and policies that affect and promote overall community health.

2. 2-3 Key Terms
Equality. The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. Equal opportunity, levels of support, and allocation of resources, regardless of different circumstances.

Equity. Fairness or justice in the way people are treated. Differing allocation of opportunities, levels of support, and resources based on each person or group’s circumstances and needs, thereby reaching an equal outcome.

3. 2-4 RSEJ-2.7 Cultural Proficiency and Anti-Bias Training for Town Staff Develop and implement engaging, substantive, and interactive cultural proficiency and anti-bias training for all Town employees and support similar training efforts undertaken by the business community.

4. 2-7 RSEJ-6.6 Accessibility to Town Events
Schedule Town events using different days, times, and formats (i.e., virtual and digital accessibility) to encourage and facilitate participation among community members with work, school, and other obligations that conflict with more traditionally scheduling.

5. 2-8 2.4 Implementation Programs. H Career and Job Training Coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, including local nonprofits, to organize an annual career and job fair with local employers to highlight local employment and employment training opportunities for Los Gatos residents.

6. 3-35 LU Implementation Program M (Distribute Neighborhood Meeting Guidelines) Prepare and distribute information describing guidelines for conducting neighborhood meetings and criteria for reporting the results of neighborhood meetings with project applications. A neighborhood meeting can take the form of an informal gathering between neighbors to review and discuss a project, an open house put on by a property owner or developer, or any convening of those who live in proximity to a proposed project with the purpose of discussing the project.

EXHIBIT 12

7. 4-5 CD-1.4 Memorable Places Through Infill Development Promote infill development projects that create memorable places throughout the Town through high-quality architecture, pedestrian oriented streetscapes, and age-friendly designed public spaces. Memorable places, while hard to define, are structures, landscapes, amenities, and other features that stand out compared to sometimes monotonous streets, making these locations more “memorable.”

8. 8-17 ENV-13.8 Increase Historical and Cultural Awareness Support a community sense of stewardship for historic and cultural resources both through supporting talks, tours, and other programs that increase awareness and promote Los Gatos as a destination with historic cultural resources and through including Ohlone people in the conversation and planning.

9. 8-17 8.8 Tribal Cultural Resources
Los Gatos is in an area once occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people, which extends from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur, with the interior Coastal Ranges most likely constituting the inland boundary. Before colonization outside contact, Ohlone lived in base camps of tulereed houses and seasonal specialized camps. Ohlone ate food gained by hunting, gathering, and fishing. Mussels were particularly important to their diet, as well as sea mammals and acorns.

Seven Franciscan missions were built in Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually forced brought into the mission system.

After the establishment of the missions, the Ohlone population dwindled was decimated from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814. In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300 after what is widely cited as a genocide. The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize, maintain, and pass on aspects of their culture.

B. Broader Changes: Below are some changes I recommend that do not warrant specific wording changes at this time or are not wording-related changes.

1. 1-6 1.5 The Los Gatos Community
In the three-paragraph history and context of Los Gatos, the only mention of the Ohlone people is “The Ohlone lived sustainably in the area rich with fertile soils, abundant wildlife, and other natural resources.” Provide direction for staff and Council to include additional information about the Ohlone in relation to the land that the Town of Los Gatos now occupies and the cultural history of the land, rather than only the topographical history.

2. 2-9 Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element Implementation Programs Add an implementation program after Program K (Community Engagement) to Implement Policy RSEJ-4.1 Acceptance of Government Issued Vouchers. The program should be implemented between 2020-2025 and include Cross-cutting Topic Icons EJ and HC.

3. 4-2 Community Design Element Key Terms

Add a definition of “rafters” to the Key Terms. Rafters are referenced in the definition of “Eave” with no definition of rafters the reader can refer to.

4. 4.6 Implementation Programs. B Commercial Design Guidelines Update (and 4-10 CD2.26) Include implementation of CD-2.26 (Climate Considerations in Site Design) to Implementation Program B and consider strengthening the language of CD-2.26. CD2.26 plans to “Encourage applicants to consider the Mediterranean climate in Los Gatos and plan for sustainable site design to address adequate solar access, water conservation and retention, and wind conditions.” This will increase the likelihood that this component of the General Plan is implemented, as the policy will be considered during updates to the Commercial Design Guidelines. Additionally, consider strengthening the language of CD-2.26 by adding a formal incentive to encourage applicants or requiring applicants to take measures to accommodate the Town’s Mediterranean climate.

5. 5-9 Implementation Programs. D Community Shuttle System Change the implementation timeline of Program D Community Shuttle System from 2026-2040 to 2020-2025. While this program may not be fully implemented before 2026, the Town should begin work on this during the period of 2020-2025. A community shuttle system is an important option to consider, particularly given current and upcoming struggles with parking, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.

6. 8-17 8.8 Tribal Cultural Resources
In addition to the recommended wording changes listed above, add a third paragraph focusing on what Ohlone people do today. Many of the cultural practices referenced as historical are still taking place, and Ohlone culture is still very much alive. Additionally, work with Native people to ensure use of the term “Ohlone” is correct (rather than “Tamien,” for example).

C. Topics for Discussion: Below is one topic I think we should consider during our discussion at the meeting.

1. (No page number) Clarification of “Encourage”
a. The word “encourage” is used consistently throughout the document in descriptions of policies and how they will be implemented. While this is necessary because this word can hold many definitions and varies between topics and elements, it is also important to ensure we all understand what “encourage” means in the context of the General Plan. Because a very significant number of policies plan to “encourage” a course of action, we need to ensure this encouragement can/will have an impact and that there are tangible examples of “encouragement.” The Commission should discuss this potential challenge and determine whether there does appear to be a need for clarification.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

EXHIBIT 13
From: Laura Montonye Reese
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 8:54 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: [email protected]
Hello Ms. Armer,
My name is Laura Reese and I live in Los Gatos near the University Avenue fire station.

I'm emailing you with a request: please include a plant-based education program in the Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan (Section 8).

Los Gatos residents need to understand the enormous environmental impact of their food choices. They need to know how choosing plant-based options three times a day can positively impact climate change, water quality, and air quality, not to mention improving the lives of farmed animals.

Here is an excellent resource for exploring the environmental impacts of our food choices: https://www.plantbaseddata.org/
I'll quickly add that education is only the beginning. The more we can make plant-based options the defaults at restaurants and civic gatherings, the more impact we can have. I refer you to the Default Veg website for ideas for nudging a population toward making plant-based choices https://www.defaultveg.org
Thank you,
Laura Reese

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 6:33 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Shelley Neis
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Francois, Matthew Subject: Agenda Item #3 - Planning Commission Meeting
Hello Shelley and Jennifer,
Would you please include the email below in the Planning Commission’s package for the April 13 Planning Commission? Thank you.

Dear Planning Commissioners,
Attached please find a modified Table 3-1 “General Plan Residential Buildout” found in the draft 2040 General Plan. The only change to the table is the addition of the column labeled “Derived Draft GP Total units”.

This column reflects the total new units (redeveloped) allowed by the proposed increases in allowable densities for all land uses. The units shown were derived using the redevelopment percentage and the redeveloped new units found in the table.

For example, given a 15% redevelopment percentage for high density residential and a total of 268 new redeveloped units, the derived total new units at 100% redevelopment would be 1,787 units (e.g., 268 units = 15% x 1,787 units).

It is important to understand that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve increases in zoning densities for all land use categories Town wide which will allow 14,618 additional new housing units. This number is approximately equal to the total number of housing units currently available in Los Gatos today. Stated another way, the changes in zoning densities made by the 2040 General Plan would allow for the doubling of the current size of Los Gatos.

If the high end of the market demand for housing over the next 20 years as forecasted by ADE is 1,954, and the minimum number of units the Town is required to plan based on the 6th cycle RHNA is 1,993,

why is it appropriate to double and triple land use zoning densities to allow for the redevelopment of 14,618 new units?
The answer is obvious – it is not warranted.

Changes to the current land use densities should be made only to the extent necessary to meet the 20- year market demand for new housing in Los Gatos of 1,954 and to comply with the minimum housing required by the 6th cycle RHNA of 1,993 plus 15% buffer (2,292). With that in mind, all the changes outlined on page 6 of the Staff report make sense and should be adopted by the Planning Commission.

Please make these changes.

Thank you.

The Los Gatos Community Alliance

Land Use
Designation
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
Derived
Draft GP
Total Units
Assumed
Redevelp
%
New
Housing
(redev)
New
Housing
(vacant)
Low Density
Residential
0 to 5 1 to 12 4 12 1,680 5% 84 283
Medium Density
Residential
5 to 12 14 to 24 10 20 3,430 10% 343 224
High Density
Residential
12 to 20 30 to 40 18 36 1,787 15% 268 110
Neighborhood
Commercial
10 to 20 10 to 20 16 18 910 10% 91 26
Community
Commercial
0 20 to 30 0 26 1,040 15% 156
Mixed-Use 10 to 20 30 to 40 16 36 3,025 20% 605 126
Central Business
District
10 to 20 20 to 30 16 26 753 15% 113 21
Office
Professional
0 30 to 40 0 36 1,700 15% 255 4
Service
Commercial
0 20 to 30 0 26 293 15% 44 10
Subtotal 14,618 1,959 804
2,763
500
3,263
475
3,738
Draft General
Plan
Housing Units, Existing Projects
Total
Housing Units, New and Redeveloped
Density Range
(du/ac) Typical Density
Redevelopment
Assumptions
Housing Units, ADUs
Subtotal

From: Mendoza, Clarissa
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:56 PM
To: Planning Comment
Cc: Francois, Matthew; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
Subject: Comments Regarding Final EIR For Proposed 2040 General Plan; April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda Item No. 3.

Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:

Attached please find written correspondence from Mr. Francois on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, in regards to the above-referenced matter.

Best,
Clarissa Mendoza
Legal Secretary
455 Market Street, Suite 1870 | San Francisco, CA 94105 O. (650) 263-7900 | D. (650) 320-1500 x7725
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

Matthew D. Francois
Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669
E-mail: [email protected]
April 12, 2022
R u ta n & T uck e r, L L P | 4 5 5 Ma rk e t S tre e t, S u i te 1 8 7 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 05 | 6 5 0 -263 -7 9 0 0 | F a x 6 5 0 -263 -7 901 Ora n g e C o un t y | P a l o A lto | S a n F ra n c i s c o | www.ru ta n .c o m 2696/037011-0001
17701620.3 a04/12/22
VIA E-MAIL [[email protected]]
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Comments Regarding Final EIR For Proposed 2040 General Plan; April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda Item No. 3.

Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:

We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned citizens, in regard to the Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”).1
In previous correspondence to the Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”), LGCA expressed its significant concerns with the Proposed Plan’s major upzoning of every residential and commercial land use district in the Town. We pointed out how such intensification was not studied in the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) as required by CEQA. We also explained that such intensification was entirely unnecessary to accommodate the 1,993 additional housing units needed per the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), which itself was a 222 percent increase over the Town’s last RHNA allocation. We further pointed out that if the Proposed Plan’s upzoning were to be approved, the Town would generally be precluded from denying or reducing the density of any housing project that complied with those new density standards.

As detailed in our previously submitted comments and additional comments below, summarized below, the EIR remains significantly flawed and cannot legally be relied upon to adopt the Proposed Plan as currently proposed. Accordingly, we reiterate our request that the Town focus first on the Housing Element update. Once the Housing Element update has been finalized, the Proposed Plan should be revised to reflect it as well as the other recommended changes detailed in our March 22, 2022 letter, including restoring existing Low Density Residential densities and modifying other allowed densities so that build-out under the Proposed Plan would accommodate approximately 2,300 units, including units that would qualify as affordable. This would meet the Proposed Plan’s dual objectives of satisfying market demand and the Town’s new RHNA number.

1 Members and/or supporters of LGCA include: former Mayor Joanne Benjamin, former Mayor Sandy Decker, former Mayor Tom Ferrito, former Mayor Steve Rice, former Mayor Barbara Spector, former County Superintendent of Schools Colleen Wilcox, Tim Lundell, Phil Koen, Don Livinghouse, Sandra Livinghouse, Lee Fagot, Ann Ravel, Rob Stump, Rick Van Hoesen, and Jak Vannada.

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
April 12, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17701620.3 a04/12/22

1. The EIR Fails To Analyze The Reasonably Foreseeable Consequences Of The Proposed Plan.

The reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Proposed Plan is that growth above and beyond that studied in the EIR will occur in accordance with the increased densities and intensities permitted by the Proposed Plan. The FEIR claims the changed densities and intensities will not result in much added growth because of “assumptions” about the percentages of already improved land that will be redeveloped. The FEIR cites to the small percentage of vacant land (which still totals nearly 700 acres) and assumed redevelopment rates ranging from 5-15 percent for existing developed land. The FEIR claims that these assumed redeveloped percentages are reasonable based on historic growth rates and the need to satisfy and comply with the mandated RHNA number. (FEIR, p. 117.) There are several flaws with this explanation.

First, it appears that the EIR simply studied the RHNA number plus a buffer as well as units in the pipeline and accessory dwelling units. As such, the EIR did not study the actual project—the Proposed Plan—that is up for consideration. There is no acknowledgment whatsoever of the potentially significant impacts associated with the greatly increased densities and intensities in nearly every residential and commercial land use district.

Second, the historic, old growth rates tied to existing allowed densities/intensities are irrelevant in light of the proposed new densities/intensities and the economic demand associated with them. While the Town may have experienced growth of 40 units per year under current densities, the EIR needs to study what growth the Town may experience in light of the significantly higher densities allowed by the Proposed Plan.2 (FEIR, p. 150.) It is unreasonable and unjustified to assume that the existing growth rate is the anticipated growth rate.3 (FEIR, pp. 144.) Even if the historic growth rates were relevant, there is no explanation at all how the redevelopment rates are correlated to the old growth rates. In other words, how does a 0.5 to 0.7 growth rate translate into an assumed redevelopment potential of 5-15 percent for residential lands and 10-15 percent for commercial lands?

2 While the table on page 4 of the Staff Report correctly shows existing and proposed densities for residentially-designated properties, it incorrectly portrays existing densities for commercial and office lands. No residential densities are specified for these lands in the current General Plan. 3 Contrary to the FEIR, the court in San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, did not sanction the approach used by the EIR consultants here. Instead, the court there found that a housing element which did not modify land uses or increase heights or densities properly “compare[d] the changes in the housing element to the existing environment, including existing height limits and densities.” (26 Cal.App.5th at 902, 910.) The difference here is that the Proposed Plan significantly increases densities and intensities in nearly every land use district and the EIR ignores the impact of those changes. The FEIR also cites another baseline case, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, which is not relevant to the FEIR’s failure to consider the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the Proposed Plan.

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
April 12, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17701620.3 a04/12/22
Third, there is no correlation between the assumed redevelopment percentages and the acres of land to be redeveloped. For instance, the DEIR acknowledges that 4,460.93 acres are designated and developed as Low Density Residential. (DEIR, Table 4.11-1.) If five percent of these lands are assumed to be redeveloped at densities of 12 units per acre, this would produce 2,676 units. Yet, the EIR assumes only 84 new units will be produced. (DEIR, p. 4.11-2.) How this number was derived and why it is reasonable to rely on is nowhere explained in the EIR.

Additionally, why are only 804 units assumed to be developed on approximately 700 acres of vacant land.4 (DEIR, p. 4.11-2.) This resulting density of 1.1 units per acre does not match the permitted densities ranging from 12-40 units per acre.

Fourth, the FEIR acknowledges that it did not assume any additional commercial development beyond that which is already approved and pending. (FEIR, p. 118.) This ignores the Proposed Plan’s significant increase in allowed floor area ratios from 0.5 up to 3.0. It also ignores the potential for additional commercial development at these increased intensities on vacant lands.

Fifth, the deflated assumptions regarding redevelopment conflict with various goals and policies cited in the DEIR and FEIR. For instance, the DEIR states that the “Land Use Element promotes and emphasizes infill development and redevelopment of underutilized parcels.” (DEIR, pp. 2-9; accord, DEIR, pp. 2-1, 4.4-12, 4.4-16, 4.17-9 and Proposed Plan, Goal CD-7 and Policies LU-5.1, CD-7.2, and MOB-7.1.) It states that development will occur primarily in already developed areas. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 [“Unlike many communities where growth is primarily on vacant land, Los Gatos would see a higher percentage of change through redevelopment of lands that have development potential.”]; see also DEIR, pp. 4.1-15, 4.4-13, 4.4-18, 4.4-20, 4.1 and FEIR, pp. 119, 122.)
Sixth, the arbitrary nature of the assumptions and complete lack of consideration of the economic pressures caused by upzoning is evident in the Alternatives section where the growth alternatives vary depending on the seemingly random percentages of redevelopment assumed to occur inside and outside Opportunity Areas. (DEIR, pp. 6-4, 6-9, 6-15.) Finally, only in response to comments on the DEIR does the Town explain how the assumed redevelopment rates were derived. Even then, the explanations are flawed and unsupported. There is no explanation whatsoever of the assumptions in the DEIR. An agency cannot wait until a Final EIR to provide critical information so as to immunize itself from public scrutiny and comment.

In short, the EIR still fails to analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project.

Although the Proposed Plan greatly increases densities and intensities in almost every land use designation, including Low Density Residential, the responses are that this growth will not

4 The assumed residential units on vacant land in Tables 4.11-2 (804) and Table 4.11-3 (504) do not match. Contrary to FEIR Response 9.49, Table 4.11-3 does not show acreage, it shows units.

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
April 12, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17701620.3 a04/12/22
materialize based on the “percentages” of vacant land and “assumptions” about the amount of developed land that will be redeveloped. This response is not supported by substantial evidence, as required, and thus is legally inadequate.

2. The FEIR Acknowledges The Use Of Inconsistent And Conflicting Baselines.

The FEIR states that the Town used future conditions as its baseline. “The Draft EIR . . . uses the potential growth the Town is likely to achieve by the year 2040 as its baseline for analysis of potential impacts. This is not a hypothetical number but based on existing conditions and the potential for future development in this time period.” (FEIR, p. 117 [emphasis added].) The FEIR then contradicts itself by saying “[t]he projected 3,738 dwelling units is comprised of multiple parts and focuses on the total buildout for the Town, not just a 20-year horizon.” (Id. [emphasis added].) In reality, the baseline is the existing conditions, normally represented by conditions at the time the notice of preparation was released. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) Here, that would represent the Town’s existing residential and commercial development as of 2020. Reliance on a future conditions baseline, at least without any substantial evidence to justify it, is yet another flaw in the EIR. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Auth. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439.)

At minimum, it raises an issue of shifting and inconsistent baselines. For instance, while the FEIR says the baseline is future growth under 2040 conditions, the DEIR suggests it relied on an existing conditions baseline, at least as to vehicle miles traveled and certain other resource categories. (DEIR, pp. 2-4, fn. 1, 4.9-14, 4.10-9, 4.15-23.) Among other courts, the Sixth Appellate District has overturned an EIR that relied on conflicting baseline information. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99.)

3. The FEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Address Significant Transportation Impacts.

The RDEIR identifies a new significant unavoidable impact. Specifically, Impact T-1 now acknowledges a significant unavoidable impact to transit vehicle operations due to increased delays at intersections. The acknowledgment of this new significant impact requires consideration of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen this impact. The RDEIR does neither.

As to Impact T-1, the RDEIR states that “[t]here are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects related to transit operations and ridership.” (RDEIR, p. 4.15- 25.) An EIR cannot simply declare an impact significant and unavoidable without considering and imposing feasible mitigation measures.5 The RDEIR acknowledges that transit

5 (Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3); California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 982; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.)

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
April 12, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17701620.3 a04/12/22
operational improvements, such as signal coordination and transit vehicle preemption, could potentially improve the overall reliability of transit in congested areas. (RDEIR, p. 4.15-25.) Because these measures are “not likely to fully address” the impact, the RDEIR does not impose them as mitigation. (Id.) The FEIR states the measures are not included because they are a separate project that would be implemented later. (FEIR, p. 198.) The EIR does not impose enforceable mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen a significant impact and defers mitigation to an unspecified future date. The EIR also fails to consider any alternatives to this newly identified significant impact. In all these aspects, the FEIR fails to comply with CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4, 15126.6; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) ********************
In closing, the DEIR fails to analyze the environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan and thus fails to comply with CEQA. As such, the Town cannot legally rely on the EIR to adopt the Proposed Plan. LGCA reiterates its request that the Town focus first on the Housing Element update prior to considering the Proposed Plan or any other General Plan update. If the Town nonetheless continues to proceed with the Proposed Plan, it should be based on Alternative 1 (Low Growth Alternative) and associated modifications made to the designations and densities currently set forth in the Proposed Plan to achieve this lower housing capacity.6 Thank you for your consideration of LGCA’s views on these important matters.

Representatives of LGCA, including the undersigned, will be in attendance at your April 13, 2022 meeting on the Final EIR and Proposed Plan. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence.

Very truly yours,

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Matthew D. Francois
cc (via e-mail):

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor, and Members of the Town Council Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney

6 Combined with the 1,100 units of additional capacity remaining capacity under the current General Plan, Alternative 1 could produce an additional 1,156 units for a total of 2,256 units.

From: Kathy Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:37 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Fwd: General Plan
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Kathy Anderson
Date: April 12, 2022 at 7:03:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: General Plan
Planning Commission
I am asking you to vote no on the General Plan.

The housing element with zoning changes, density and height increases will drastically change Los Gatos in a negative way.

Los Gatos will become another San Jose if the General Plan is approved.

Think about why you and others chose to move to Los Gatos.

I do not understand why Council would approve $50,000. for a study on marijuana dispensaries but would not have a study on the financial impact of the General Plan.

I hope that the future of Los Gatos is not left in the hands of 5 Council members. Think the N40.

Any future dramatic changes to Los Gatos should be decided at the polls.

Once Los Gatos is gone - we can never get it back.

Kathy Anderson
Foster Rd. Los Gatos

On Apr 12, 2022, at 7:39 PM, Campbell Scott wrote:

Hello Marina,
Please pass this along to an appropriate person for consideration at the meeting on April 12th.

I find no mention of Reach Codes in the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan, draft of June 2021.

There is growing recognition in the public sector that local ordinances will play an important role in meeting state and federal goals to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Examples include the elimination of natural gas pipelines in new buildings, and encouraging the installation of electric vehicle charging stations in apartment buildings.

Such measures have been enacted in nearby cities from San Jose to Half Moon Bay. They are an important tool in the toolbox for limiting the worst effects of climate change, and given the urgency stated by the IPCC, they must be enacted and implemented well before 2040.

I hope that you consider this proposal for inclusion in the Los Gatos 2040 Plan.

Sincerely
Campbell Scott

From: Julie Groves
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:08 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: LG general plan
Thank you for your work
Aside from the other issues regarding housing and building, I am most concerned with keeping a view scape. The round tower on the south west corner Los Gatos Blvd and Blossom Hill (the old video store) still offends me every time I pass it.

Why block a view of the hills?
Julie Groves

From: Phil Grasser
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:52 AM
To: GP2040
Cc: Matthew Hudes
Subject: Town Housing
Hello Matthew and Town,
Thanks again for another email update regarding planning and thoughts about it. My two cents… 1) 3,904 housing units; we (and all of California) need more housing units. Both rents and purchases are out of reach for nearly all.
2) Affordable. We need younger people to be able to live here; they will be our future. 3) Spread around; we should not cluster in one area. That simply becomes a ghetto. 4) Walkability of new developments, bike lanes (already well along), small bus vehicles with in-town only routes (like in Dana Point), low impact landscaping, stay out of the mountains. 5) Do not tie-in to infrastructure improvement--that easily becomes the excuse to do nothing. 6) I agree with upzoning. The homes along LG Blvd that Robson built several years ago are beautiful, and I like the North 40 as well.
7) ADUs should be counted.

Phil Grasser

From: Anne Roley
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 7:06 AM
To: GP2040
Subject: RE: Comments for Planning Commission - General Plan 2040 Please include these comments in the Planning Commission Packet - Thank you! Dear Planning Commission
I am hearing around town the discussion of the 2040 General Plan and more specifically the housing elements. From what I have observed, two sides have developed. One side wants a lower number of homes allowed and the other side wants a higher number of homes allowed. How do we come together as a community and make a decision? I suggest putting all the needs on the table from both sides and having a discussion with an openness to listen to each other without a right/wrong mentality and without a desired outcome. From this type of connection and discussion, creative strategies can surface and an outcome attending to all needs can manifest. What are the needs of the citizens that want a lower number of houses approved for the General Plan? I am guessing they value - space, comfort, balance, beauty, ease, peace/tranquility, sustainability, and order. What are the needs of the citizens that want a higher number of houses approved for the General Plan? I am guessing they value - inclusion, diversity, affordability, and growth. These values are Universal. - I can say for myself - I want space, comfort, balance, beauty, ease, peace/tranquility, sustainability, order, inclusion, diversity, affordability, and growth.. How can our values be shared, respected, heard, and considered without jumping to judgement and criticism, which disconnects us, causes tension, resistance and leads to one side against another. I long for a community where people listen to what is important to each other with an open heart and mind and come to decisions that take into account all needs on the table. A win/win outcome. A shared mutual reality. If one wins at the expense of the other, it usually comes at a cost. Come together with an open mind and heart, sit down at the table with the needs and values, listen to each other with empathy, build understanding and connection, be creative and strategize, and allow a solution to surface. If people have a willingness and have the time, this type of compassionate communication called Non Violent Communication or NVC works.

Anne Roley

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Kylie Clark
Kathryn Janoff
Steve Raspe
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 11

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25

P R O C E E D I N G S:

CHAIR HANSSEN: We will move onto Item 3, and that
is review and make a recommendation on the Draft 2040
General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.

I will remind the Commission the our role in this
matter is to carefully consider all the materials received, including the input and recommendations of GPAC over 35 meetings, the Town Council, this Commission from a study session, and a couple of other Town Council meetings, to provide input to the Planning Commission, as well as a
substantial amount of input from the public since 2018 when this process started, including in-person meetings and a workshop for communications at meetings, and multitudes of written communications.

We will be proceeding to make a recommendation to
the Town Council on the General Plan and certification of a Final EIR. The Town Council is the final deciding body on both documents, and we will describe in more detail the procedure we will use to consider the General Plan after the completion of all verbal public comments, which will be taken for this meeting.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
It is entirely possible that we will not finish
our review during this meeting and may need to continue the meeting to complete our review. I will now turn it over to Staff for their report.

JENNIFER ARMER: Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair,
and Commissioners. Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager. The item before you is the consideration of the Draft 2040
General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report. I know we have all been looking forward to getting to this point in the process, but you now have the opportunity to discuss and prepare a recommendation to Town Council.

First, for those in the audience who are joining
us for the first time, this is an update to the existing 2020 General Plan as a document that is updated every 10 to 20 years. Every jurisdiction in California must have a
General Plan, which is a local government’s long-term
framework or constitution for the future growth, services, and resource management.

The document before you is the result of
extensive work over the last four years by the General Plan Update Advisory Committee, also known as the GPAC; the
Planning Commission; Town Council; expert consultants;
Staff from numerous departments; other agencies; and so many members of the public who have shared their questions

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and concerns, praise and passion, in conversations and in writing to keep improving this document and this vision for the future of Los Gatos.

As part of this Staff presentation tonight, I
want to share with you a few important points as a
foundation for the discussion.

First, a reminder that this is a high-level
policy document. It doesn’t always get into the details that we’re looking for, but those can be developed in other code or guideline documents or programs, and sometimes that is recorded in the General Plan as an implementation
program.

While this discussion tonight will likely focus
on a few specific components based on the written public comment that we’ve received, this document includes nine chapters covering a wide variety of topics. It has an
Introduction with a Vision and Guiding Principles. It has a Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element, which is brand new for this Draft 2040 General Plan. It has the Land Use Element; Community Design Element; a reorganized
Mobility Element; Public Facilities, Services, and
Infrastructure Element; Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element; Environment and Sustainability Element; and
Hazards and Safety Element.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
What it does not include is an update to the
Housing Element. That actually goes through a separate
process that’s on a different timeline. Instead of being updated every 10 to 20 years, as the full General Plan
generally is, the Housing Element is on a state-mandated eight-year timeline for updates. We have actually just
started that process and it depends on the capacity that is provided within the Land Use Element regulations.

The most substantial changes in this Draft 2040
General Plan from the 2020 General Plan include the new Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element; the
increase in housing opportunities for mixed-use
developments in some of our commercial areas, as well as missing middle housing in existing neighborhoods with
design requirements; a new Community Commercial land use designation; new Community Place districts that provide more objective design standards and focus on community form or urban design for all development; shifts in focus of transportation policies to street design, connectivity, and mobility; reduction in vehicle miles traveled rather than just road capacity; new goals in the Environment and
Sustainability Element; and expanded policies to prepare for wildfire, climate change, and community health threats.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The Draft General Plan is still a draft, and we
expect that the recommendation to Town Council from the Planning Commission will include modifications based on your review of the documents, the environmental review
information provided, and further public input received since the June 2021 release of the Draft General Plan. We will continue to receive additional input as well. Written input will continue to be received until Town Council makes a final decision.

These modifications can be made based on
suggestions that have already been received, and
recommendations. We do include a list, a summary of that and categorization by chapter in Exhibit 7. That’s based on all public comment that has been received since June 2021, and it also includes some of the comments that were
submitted on the Draft EIR, but actually include changes to the General Plan itself. Your modifications can also be the results of your review and consideration; they do not have to be prompted by public comment.

I’d also like to share specific points about the
environmental review. This is a program Environmental
Impact Report, which is different than a project EIR that’s based on a specific project where you have a specific
amount of development construction, a building that is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
proposed, and so the process and the type of analysis is slightly different than most of the environmental review that you see at projects that come to the Planning
Commission. The purpose of an EIR is to provide
information, and so certification or recommendation to
certify an EIR does not indicate approval of the project.

Unavoidable impacts, as there are for this EIR,
are actually quite common with General Plans. A project plan of this level, especially in a community where we
don’t have any type of high-speed public transit, is likely to have unavoidable impacts in terms of vehicle miles
traveled and greenhouse gases, and so this is actually
something that we have seen on previous environmental
review for previous General Plans as well.

One final point: the final decision on the 2040
General Plan will be made by Town Council and will be the result of their deliberations and considerations,
considering the recommendation from the GPAC, the
recommendation from the Planning Commission, and any
further comments received by the public, including written comments submitted after today’s 11:00am deadline or after the completion of your deliberations.

This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be
happy to answer any questions you have, and we do have

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
consultants as well, so if there are questions that I can’t answer that we want to get into some details, we can ask them.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, and thank you for your
presentation. I would like to take this time to commend Staff for the excellent support that they’ve given the GPAC over the last two-and-a-half years that the GPAC worked, as well as over the last year processing the EIR and
collecting all the public comments and leading up into this time where the Planning Commission will be reviewing the General Plan and the EIR, and spent excessive time
responding to every single letter that was received, which is part of the EIR process, and responding to them in
detail about whether or not it required changes to the EIR or identified additional impacts, and then further went to take all of the hundreds and hundreds of comments which we appreciate and continue to encourage that came in since the GPAC stopped meeting back in May of last year, and was able to compile all of those comments and basically help us
characterize them by element so that when we proceed
through the review of the General Plan after public
comments we can do so in much more of an orderly fashion, so I would like to thank Staff for that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I will ask at this time if Commissioners have any
questions for Staff before we begin our public comments? You will have other opportunities to talk and ask questions of Staff as we review the document. I don’t see any hands raised.

Now we will turn to public comments. This is the
time where we would take public comments on the General Plan as well as the Final EIR, and we ask any members of the public that wish to speak to limit their comments to three minutes, and this will be the only opportunity during the Planning Commission’s review of the General Plan for verbal public comments to be made during the meeting. We will be taking all public comments at this moment in time, even if we have to continue the meeting to another meeting.

We want to hear all public comments up front before we
begin any discussion. So, I would like to see if there are people from the public who would like to speak.

I would like to add just one more comment, which
is we totally appreciate any and all comments on the
General Plan. One thing I did want to say is that as we review the General Plan and consider all of your comments, it’s difficult for us to consider that many people have advocated for a no growth scenario, and while we on the GPAC as well as the Planning Commission all share the same

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
concerns as you as residents of town, we are mandated by state law to adhere to providing and planning for housing.

We don’t actually build it, but we have to plan for housing in our Housing Element, and we have to start that process through the General Plan by having densities and land use standards that make it possible for developers to be able to build those things, so one thing we cannot consider is any scenario where there is zero growth in town, as much as everyone would like that to help things settle from the North Forty, but that being said, you’re welcome to make any comments that you like related to the General Plan at this time.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. The
first speaker will be Giulianna Pendleton.

GIULIANNA PENDLETON: Good evening,
Commissioners. My name is Giulianna Pendleton and I’m a resident of Los Gatos and the Environmental Advocacy
Assistant for Santa Clara Audubon Society. Thank you to Staff, the GPAC, and everyone who has put so much work into this General Plan update.

Last year I advocated for a goal to be added to
the General Plan Environment and Sustainability Element for a dark sky and bird safe design ordinance. I was excited that the GPAC agreed with protecting our natural night sky,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
reducing artificial light at night, and protecting our
birds, hundreds of millions of which die each year due to building or structure collisions related to artificial
light at night. I hope you all support the inclusion of a dark sky and bird safe design ordinance in the General
Plan.

Please also consider removing any goals or
policies within the plan that would lead to over-lighting our town. Already, I have a bright street light outside my window that shines into my room each night, and I often drive by the Creekside Sports Complex that now has
temporary lighting that is bright, unshielded, and on even when I don’t see any players on the field.

Los Gatos can become a leader in responsible
outdoor lighting, but in order to do so we need to include responsible uses of light in all of our planning
guidelines.

Additionally, as you review and make
recommendations on the Draft General Plan, please
strengthen biodiversity protections, native habitat
enhancement, and wildlife connectivity whenever possible.

Right in our back yard the newts of Alma Bridge Road are dying at an alarming rate due to vehicles.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Whenever we think about transportation, from
roads to slow streets to trails, we need to prioritize both human and wildlife safety and include safe wildlife
crossings.

Thank you for your consideration and I look
forward to watching how this General Plan will uplift both the humans of Los Gatos as well as the wildlife and native environment that also call Los Gatos home.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I’ll
ask if any Commissioners have a question for you? I have one, which is we appreciate all the comments that you’ve been making during the General Plan process, including now, and my question for you is, is there anything in your
comments tonight that wasn’t included in the written
comments that you’ve already given us that we have in front of us to consider?
GIULIANNA PENDLETON: I think they are all
consistent. My letters and written comments go into more detail of which goals and policies can be considered, but I think tonight’s comments are more just broad, having to do with habitat connectivity, native plants, protections of our night sky, all the fun stuff. But thank you so much for all the work you’ve done. I’ve really enjoyed engaging in this process.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much. Do any
Commissioners have questions for Ms. Pendleton?
Commissioner Clark has her hand up.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just put it up because I
have a comment that was not a question for the commenter. I just wanted to say I don’t think that we ever explicitly said to raise your hand if you want to make a comment, and I think we’re all familiar enough with that process right now, but I figured that that’s probably important to make sure the audience knows.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, yes. The procedure, if you’re
on Zoom and you’re online, you can click the Raised Hand feature in Zoom and that will let Staff know that you want to speak, and if you are participating by phone, it is *9, is that correct, Staff? Yes, to participate by phone, and so I think those are the options that you need to be able to speak to us, because we certainly want to encourage
anyone and don’t want lack of knowledge of how to do that to be an impediment.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. The next speaker
will be Karen.

KAREN RUBIO: Good evening, and thank you for
your hard work on the General Plan. My name is Karen Rubio and I’ve lived in Los Gatos for 37 years. I’m also a member

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of local nonprofit Plant-Based Advocates, and I’m sure
you’ve been hearing from us.

As a mother and environmentalist, I’m asking the
Planning Commission and Town Council to take action to
ensure a habitable planet for our children by including plant-based diet education into Section 8.12 of the General Plan.

On March 31st the Mercury News published my
opinion piece entitled “It’s Time for Californians to Talk About the Cow in the Room.” In this article I explain how 47% of California’s water goes to meat and dairy production and how the livestock industry plays a key role in climate change. The planet’s seven hottest years on record have happened in the last seven years, and in California the effects of climate change are inescapable.

We now know that raising livestock is a primary
cause not only of global warming, but also land depletion, water scarcity, deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Shifting to a plant-based diet reduces foodsassociated greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 73% and cuts in half the water needed to produce our food.

Therefore, any plan to achieve a sustainable environment must include education about plant-based diets.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The latest report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel
of Climate Change has outlined the dire consequences if we fail to address runaway global warming. UN Secretary
General Antonio Guterres has called the report “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening and the
evidence if irrefutable.”
For elected officials and community leaders, I ask you
to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as this could be the most important thing you’ll ever do in your capacity as town leaders. Therefore, I hope the Planning Commission will support our request for programs to educate residents about the benefits of eating plant-based, and thank you for your time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments and your
continued education of all of us on the benefits of plantbased eating, and your comments, as well as those of your colleagues, are duly noted. Thank you. Are there any
questions for Ms. Rubio from the Commission? Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Just a quick question to Ms.

Rubio. I just wanted to get her opinion on if the General Plan in the draft form is satisfactory to her and achieves her goals?
KAREN RUBIO: Thank you for that question. I know that
the General Plan has incorporated some of our ideas, but

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
what it’s lacking right now is a solid commitment toward educating residents about eating plant-based, and I just feel strongly that it’s necessary, because that’s largely absent today. In general education, kids are not taught it in schools. Doctors go through their entire education with less than seven hours of nutrition training, which is just unbelievable, and we’re bombarded with marketing for meat and dairy companies. People still think dairy is good for you. It’s not. So, yeah, that’s why I feel like a solid education plan is necessary, and thank you for asking.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas has a question for
you as well.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just as a follow up to
Commissioner Tavana’s question, Ms. Rubio. I just want to clarify that you want a plant-based diet education program added as an implementation program attached to Section

8.12?
KAREN RUBIO: Yes, exactly. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett has a question for
you as well.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Ms. Rubio, thank you for your
comments. The question I have is if the General Plan
incorporates a requirement for a plant-based education

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
program, what would that mean in terms of actual
implementation, specifics that you’d be looking for the Town to perform?
KAREN RUBIO: Thank you, that’s a great question. Our
group has been in existence for almost three years, but we became a nonprofit last year. We’ve actually submitted an entire program to the town with separate line items
detailing what education could look like, so we’ve already done that. I guess basically what we’re looking for is a commitment by the Town, and then the process of
implementing it can be another discussion, but we certainly have a lot of great ideas on how to do that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments, and it
sounds like you’ve already made some other presentations, but my question for you is did you know that in addition to the General Plan, which is general and over a 20-year time horizon, you also have the opportunity to go directly to the Town Council? I believe you may have already done, but I wanted to make sure that you knew that might be a more immediate way to ensure in addition to what we’re doing in the General Plan?
KAREN RUBIO: Yeah, thank you, Chair Hanssen. We have
been doing that. In fact, in 2019 in December the Town
Council adopted the Green Monday resolution. It’s a
wonderful, wonderful thing, however we feel that we need

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
more than that. It denotes the Town’s commitment to plantbased, but it doesn’t have, I guess, the necessary means to implement any educational programs.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you for that. Any other
questions for Ms. Rubio? I don’t see any Commissioners’ hands up, so the next speaker.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, and the next speaker will be
Lisa.

LISA WADE: Hello, my name is Lisa Wade. I’m also with
Plant-Based Advocates, and I’ve lived in Los Gatos for over 30 years. I wanted to thank you for your hard work on the General Plan and let you know that we appreciate your
efforts.

I wanted to draw your attention to a petition that we
submitted. This petition has 265 signatures asking for a plant-based education program in the General Plan. We have the names of 225 residents of Los Gatos, including
community and business leaders who live in Los Gatos, and in addition we have the names of 40 residents who live in neighboring towns and cities, including Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and Campbell, who frequent Los Gatos businesses.

We also have the support of 11 groups, including local
groups and health and environmental NGOs, including the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and the Center for
Biological Diversity.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
In addition, prominent citizens both in Los Gatos and
neighboring cities, such as Lucas Ramirez, who is the Vice Mayor of Mountain View, and Alison Hicks, who is a City Council member in Mountain View, support our efforts, and they have a program in Mountain View that we would like to see something similar.

We have written testimony from the Center for
Biological Diversity in support of our request, and we also had some verbal testimony from Dashiell Leeds from the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club who spoke and gave verbal comments at an earlier GPAC meeting last year or the year before in support of our initiative.

In addition, the Planning Commission and the Council
have received numerous emails from Los Gatos residents
requesting a plant-based education program to be added to the Environmental section of the General Plan. Like we
said, we’d like to see this added to Section 8.12, and it could be something simple, just a few sentences. The
verbiage could be something like, “To implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of
shifting to plant-based diets, which include curbing
greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing
pollution of our land, water, and air.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
As Karen said, we did submit suggestions. I’ll just
give a few, like cooking classes, speaker series,
informational brochures, and there are many other examples.

It’s really important that we include such a program,
because numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies agree that plant-based eating is the most effective way for an individual to help the planet. For this reason, any plan to address climate and sustainability should include the
promotion of plant-based eating. We have already provided you with the studies, and we’re happy to provide them
again.

Please do not leave out this powerful, cost-effective
solution and add a plant-based education program to Section

8.12. This section would not be complete without such a program.

I also wanted to say quickly before I leave that
Plant-Based Advocates supports the dark skies and the bird safety, and also the wildlife safety and crossings that were mentioned earlier. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Commissioners might have
questions for you, and I see that Commissioner Raspe has his hand up.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair, and thank you,
Ms. Wade, for your comments. Two quick questions.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The first is you’re asking that the plant-based
education program be added as an element to the General Plan. Are you aware of, or do you have any knowledge of, any other municipalities having similar components of their general plans that we could refer to?
LISA WADE: Yes, I know that Mountain View has such a
component, and I know that other cites have initiatives.

I’m not sure exactly if it’s in their general plans, but I know that Berkeley has a pretty strong initiative. I’m not as familiar with it as Karen is, but I know we can submit information on that. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams has introduced some things like Vegan Fridays where they serve vegan food in the schools, and if kids want something that is not vegan they have to actually request it so that the default is vegan. He’s also opened a bunch of health
centers to provide education to the public about how plantbased diets can help with health. I could send you those articles as well, if you’re interested.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Great. Thank you so much, Ms.

Wade, for answering that question.

My second follow up question is just a favor. You gave
us some language that you thought might be useful for us as an introduction into the General Plan, and if you send
these other materials, just send those to the Town as well

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
so we have that for our records. I would appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

LISA WADE: I definitely will. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Just to address
Commissioner Raspe’s question, yes, we did receive comments and suggestions in a fair amount of detail from the
Advocates, including Ms. Wade, for plant-based eating
education, so I think we’ll have everything we need to
consider in terms of the General Plan review when we get to that.

Are there other members of the public that would like
to speak on the General Plan or the Final EIR for the
General Plan?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair. The next speaker
will be Jack.

JAK VANNADA: Good evening, Honorable Chair and
Planning Commission. Jak Vannada from the Los Gatos
Community Alliance.

The GPAC had been informed that a Town consultant and
the Department of Finance for the State of California don’t believe that the Town of Los Gatos will grow more than
1,954 households in 20 years. My question is why would the GPAC double that number to 3,738? If you subtract the
maximum build-out of 1,954 from 3,738, that’s 1,784
overbuilt homes. I don’t understand that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
We advocate a major effort by the Town to provide
affordable housing. In fact, we have consistency said that the efforts of the HEAB should be focused on the low- and very-low categories that total 847 units. We know that it’s going to be a major challenge in a built-out town with such high land costs. However, at the April 6th study session we heard from two affordable housing developers that though this is a challenge, it could be done.

We encourage you to push forward with Eden, Core, or
like companies to focus on the challenge of getting more affordable housing into Los Gatos. However inclusive we think we are as a town, we do not have many who would be classified in the low- or very-low income levels. To attain more inclusivity the Town and the citizens will have to make monumental efforts to create truly affordable housing for the low- and very-low categories.

If you recall, the panelist’s conversation about a
point system to obtain financing, in addition to mass
transit the buildings need to be tall and located close to shopping and amenities. Affordable housing is possible, but it will require a large creative effort by the Town,
particularly by HEAB, in addition to a mindset change
within our entire community.

Inclusivity will grow positively with the addition of
affordable housing to the community. Remember that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
inclusivity is a Council priority. The HEAB needs to find the locations, but that may be the easiest part of this equation. Financing and mindset changes will be covered, and with the no net loss rule it’s only going to add to the challenge.

We strongly encourage the Planning Commission to stick
with the state RHNA number of 1,993, plus the buffer. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for all of your comments and
all of the written comments that you and the Los Gatos
Community Alliance have submitted. I would like to ask the Commissioners if they have any questions for you at this time? I don’t see any hands raised, but thank you again, and we do have all of your comments included in our Staff Report.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on the
General Plan or the Final EIR?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair. The next speaker
will be Lee Quintana.

LEE QUINTANA: First I’d like to comment that I’m
somewhat surprised that the public is limited to three
minutes for the entire General Plan and the EIR. That’s amazing to me. I think each element should have been
allowed separate comments. The EIR is a separate document

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and a separate vote; that should be also given it’s own time. However, that’s not going to happen.

I would like to say that as a member of GPAC I voted
to recommend that the Draft General Plan go ahead to the Planning Commission, but I want to emphasize that I also placed on the record that I did not agree to the current form of it. I have many, many problems with this General Plan and its format.

One of the problems I have is the manner in which GPAC
was conducted. We had very little leeway in recommending or changing anything. We were given the background documents already written. I could make comments on it, but we
couldn’t make any recommendations of changes to them.

Basically one of the biggest flaws of the whole process, I believe, is that the General Plan base map was never
reviewed for consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning code and those two being brought into consistency with each other. We were not given the ability to recommend new General Plan categories or even…
Let me go back. I’m very emotional about this. The
alternatives that we were given for the preferred
alternative essentially was simply one alternative, which was keep the General Plan categories the way they are and where they are, and then we were given four variations of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that based on the number of units and the intensities and densities being changed uniformly across the whole town.

I firmly believe that we need to first decide what
areas we wish to preserve as they are limited, what areas we consider transitional that we want to see some change in, and we have to identify clearly those areas that we want to see the major changes in. As is currently stated, we have minimums and maximums in a lot of the categories along Los Gatos Boulevard and other places being able to use a mixed-use configuration, minimum/maximum for density, but it’s not clear to me that that minimum density is
required even though the intensities of the development are being increased.

There are no incentives that I can see in this General
Plan to help get the type of housing we want: smaller
units. It’s almost wishful thinking. There are too many terms used in the policies to really give true and clear direction. Very few of them say, “shall” or “should.” To me, we’re creating a Humpty Dumpty where we have this
document, we don’t really know what it says, and when it comes down the line for some changes, maybe down the line to the zoning code, it is going to be the Staff’s
interpretation of what that means. Alison said that, “It means what I say it means,” and sometimes that’s not what the general public thinks.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Quintana, I saw Director Paulson
had his hand up, so I’m going to have to ask you to stop, but I understand your frustration and I would encourage you also to send in written comments that you have, as it will be helpful to everyone on the Planning Commission as well as the Town Council as we’re reviewing the document. I’ll ask if any Commissioners have any questions for you,
because it looks like you had more to say. I don’t see
anyone with their hands raised, so again, thank you for your input.

LEE QUINTANA: We spent 20 minutes talking about
plant-based diet, but we can’t talk about what going on in the General Plan?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I thank you for your input as well in
the process. I’m not sure what we could do to adjust the process in the meeting, but certainly we can talk to Staff after we conclude this meeting if there is some other way that we can proceed going forward that would be more
equitable for everyone.

With that, it looks like there are others that want to
speak, so who will be next, Director Paulson?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. The next speaker will
be Matt.

MATT FRANCOIS: Good evening, Chair Hanssen and
members of the Planning Commission. My name is Matt

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Francois with Rutan & Tucker. My firm is the land use
counsel for Los Gatos Community Alliance.

I wanted to start off by first thanking all of you for
your service to your community. I, too, served on a
planning commission and now serve on a city council and I understand the time commitment and the commitment that you have to your community that it takes to do something like this, so thank you for that.

As you’re aware from some of the correspondence that
we’ve submitted, LGCA has concerns with the proposed plan and the EIR, and to summarize those concerns: The proposal significantly and seemingly indiscriminately up-zones
almost the entire town, including low-density residential neighborhoods and your very charming and unique downtown.

The impacts of the changes are not studied in the EIR,
however, as required by CEQA. The EIR studied only a small fraction of the growth enabled by the land use changes by applying what we believe are unreasonable and unsupported assumptions about the amount of growth that would ensue.

Most of the changes to the residentially designated lands would not even count for the Town’s requirement to plan for affordable housing units.

Also of importance is major intensification is not
needed to satisfy market demand or the Town’s new RHNA
figure. If the proposed plan is approved in its current

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
form, the Town could not legally deny a project that
complied with the new density standards.

We believe that the Town should focus first on the
mandatory changes to its Housing Element, which are due in just a short six months from now, in January 2023. The
Housing Element will provide critical information as to where and at what densities housing should be located. In my experience, that’s what every other agency in the Bay Area is doing.

If the Town nonetheless proceeds with the proposed
plan, the Commission should recommend that it be amended to provide for no more than 2,300 units. This meets the Town’s stated goals of satisfying market demand and the Town’s new RHNA number, plus a reasonable buffer. On page 6 of the Staff Report Staff outlines changes that could be made to achieve this reduction. LGCA supports those changes.

A general plan is a community’s constitution for
development. It deserves careful consideration and
scrutiny. LGCA welcomes your engagement on these important matters, and I would be happy to answer any questions that members of the Commission may have.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for your comments and
your many written comments that you have given to the
Commission so far, and we do have all of them in our Staff

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Report, and so I will ask if any Commissioners have any additional questions at this time? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for your presentation,
Mr. Francois. The question I have is I believe you’re
saying that the Town would not be able to down-zone once it is up-zoned, and I was wondering if that position is based on any particular statute or other (inaudible)?
MATT FRANCOIS: Thank you, Commissioner Barnett. Yes,
it’s based on the Housing Accountability Act, which states essentially once an agency is planned and zoned for a
certain density of units, if a developer comes in with a project that is at that stated density, that law doesn’t entirely prohibit but it greatly restricts the Town’s
ability to deny that project.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that answer your question, Vice
Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, it did, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any other Commissioners that
have questions? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair, and thank you,
Mr. Francois for both your presentation this evening and your correspondence to the Council.

You mentioned that you would appreciate a target of
2,300 units and would accept the six different criteria that appear on page 6 of the Staff Report. With respect to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
those six criteria, do you feel equally strongly about each of those, or are there some that you would prefer or feel more strongly about as opposed to others? Thank you.

MATT FRANCOIS: I appreciate the question,
Commissioner Raspe, and I just want to reiterate that
obviously we’re not in the position of micromanaging your General Plan update. That’s a community update that the Commission and the Council weigh in on, but the one that is very important to LGCA is the increased densities in the low-density residential, to reducing those densities to what they are in the current General Plan, which are up to five units per acre. The new plan would allow for up to 12 units per acre on those lands.

Another important change that was made that we would
wish the Commission to weigh in on is the significant upzoning of your Central Business District, your downtown area where the floor area ratios and housing densities are being increased by 200%.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks for your response.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and do any other
Commissioners have questions for Mr. Francois? Again, we do have all of your comments for consideration when we do our review, but we thank you for your verbal comments as well.

Who else would like to speak on the General Plan or the Final EIR?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. The next speaker will
be Gina.

GINA: Hi, thank you, everyone. I just really wanted
to show my support for some of the other speakers.

I’m really particularly passionate about the wildlife
crossings, if we could get wildlife crossings to protect the newts and the deer and just in general protecting
wildlife in any way possible, as well as protecting our open spaces.

I also agreed with the first speaker on the dark
skies, just in general protecting biodiversity and the bird safety.

In general I wanted to voice my agreement with
protecting the environment and reducing all sorts of
pollution and greenhouse gases.

I agreed with the other speaker on including the
education for plant-based diet. I thought that sounded
great.

I also would much more agree with the approximately
2,000 units versus the 4,000 units. I’m as much as possible against the high-density and up-zoning.

Back to the environment, I don't know if they’re still
doing this, but it seems like at Vasona and different
places were spraying a lot of pesticides, which is really devastating to the monarch butterfly population, which we

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
have a migration through here, so if there is any way that we could reduce or eliminate the pesticides altogether, I think that would be great. So, that’s it. Thank you for listening.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for all of your comments,
and I will ask if any of the Commissioners have questions for you? I don’t see any hands raised, but thank you once again for your comments.

Who else would like to speak on the General Plan or
the Final EIR?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. The next speaker will
be Connie.

CONNIE HAMRAH: Good evening, my name is Connie
Hamrah. I live in Los Gatos, and have been a resident of Monte Sereno and Los Gatos for over 44 years.

I guess one of my concerns is maintaining the
integrity and the beauty, obviously, of the Town of Los Gatos, and with all of the proposed changes and the things that have been mandated from the state, how does water play into all of this?
In other words, we can plan all of these great things,
and we all see all the building and construction going on in our area and throughout Santa Clara Valley, and yet, we don’t have enough water. How are you addressing that in terms of the continued growth of the Town?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for your comments, but
the format of our public hearings is that we can’t answer your questions directly. We can ask you questions. But
certainly there are sections of the General Plan as well as the EIR that do address water, and if you have more direct questions you can send them in to Staff and they can get back to you.

CONNIE HAMRAH: Okay, thank you. And then I would just
agree that to keep the number of units to be added to our community at the lowest level possible I think would be appreciated by most of the people who live in our beautiful community, because we’d like to keep it that way, as I know you want to too, so thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much. Any questions for
the speaker? I don’t see any hands raised. Then who would be the next speaker?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. The next speaker will
be Rosilene.

ROSILENE MARTINS: Hi, I just wanted to voice my
opinion in regard to three of the topics.

First one being the plant-based education, I want to
say that I support the plant-based education program even though I am not a vegan. I have reduced my consumption of meat because I believe also that the plant-based diet helps the planet in many ways, but especially by drastically

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving water, which is really important. So, since we all benefit from it we should all be supporting plant-based diet initiatives
regardless of what we eat.

I also want to support the dark sky petition that was
made earlier. I also have a terribly bright light that
shines into my bedroom, and it is unfortunately really
close to a creek, so it is really terrible I think in
planning expanding so much housing into Los Gatos, because we need to keep this in mind, because we really have a lot of birds, and this wildlife is one of the things that gives Los Gatos its character, its charm, and we should really do as much as possible to preserve that.

In regard to the planning for expansion, I’m a Los
Gatos resident for close to 30 years now and I was very involved in the discussions of the North Forty, and one thing that really puzzles me is that the North Forty was started with a proposal to address the affordable housing, and that was the main sale point of North Forty, and once the project kicked off this was not upheld and I think that this is a terrible thing that happened to the North Forty.

Once the project kicked off the affordable housing quota that they were supposed to satisfy fell through the cracks, and I want to know in moving forward with this proposal, because we need to build more houses and we need to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
increase density in Los Gatos to satisfy the government requirements for affordable housing, who is accountable to make sure that what happened with the North Forty is not going to happen again in the next development that is
proposed under the guise of satisfying affordable housing in Los Gatos?
I see you guys are here to represent the Los Gatos
residents, and I am hoping that these meetings and these discussions will boil down to plans that are advanced by your team that really satisfy what Los Gatos residents want and are asking for. Thank you for listening.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. We truly
appreciate your comments, and as I mentioned earlier, we can’t directly answer your questions, but feel free to
reach out to staff if you want specific answers for your questions. I’m quite sure that the Commission will be
discussing some of this as we do proceed forward with our discussion on the General Plan, and some of what you talked about. The Housing Element Advisory Board is specifically working on locations, and levels of affordability will be addressed in their work as well. Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Martins? I don’t see any, so thank you again for your comments, and who will be our next speaker? JOEL PAULSON: The next speaker will be Catherine.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CATHERINE SOMERS: Good evening, Planning Commission.

My name is Catherine Somers and I’m the Executive Director at the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce. It’s great to be here tonight. I, too, actually support the dark skies, but more importantly, I just wanted to share something with you.

I get criticized a lot actually in my job for not
really looking out for all of the commercial hubs in Los Gatos, and so it’s kind of an interesting conundrum,
because as much as I try to branch out and go out to Kings Court and introduce the Chamber to some of the folks out there, or out to now it’s the North Forty, and to anywhere along the Boulevard, or out the Belgatos neighborhood or Harwood, I’m always having a hard time really bringing
those people into the fold of Los Gatos. I think one of the really important things that you guys have on your plate is—we talk about inclusivity a lot—how to wrap those
communities into the whole and yet make them really special and unique in and of themselves that they serve their
individual neighborhoods.

It’s a huge challenge that I’m throwing at you, but I
would love to see reflected in the General Plan something to that. I think that involves the Land Use Element of
course, or the land use portion of the General Plan. I
think actually Lee Quintana was even kind of talking to this.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
And so it’s a big responsibility for you guys, but I
think it’s also a really unique opportunity that you have right now to look from above, a bird’s eye view looking down, and what will make Los Gatos special 20 years from now when you look at the different neighborhoods and what’s going to be that community hub? Maybe it is mixed-use
housing in those community hubs, or mixed-use developments.

But I hope you’ll take that into consideration when
you look through the plan and at the EIR and everything else that you’re looking at, and think of the Chamber of Commerce when you’re doing it and how we can really all be part of the fabric of this community and all add to it and all benefit our individual neighborhoods. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for all your service to
our community in your capacity, and for your comments as well tonight. Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms.

Somers? I don’t see any hands raised, but I would like to ask a question. Have you had an opportunity to see our
draft Community Design Element where we actually go into a fair amount of detail in the Draft General Plan about
different neighborhoods across town and how we’d like to see them evolve toward 2020? There’s actually a before and after for each one of those. Have you see that part of the plan yet?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CATHERINE SOMERS: Yes, I have, and actually I’m
encouraged by what I’ve been seeing. I get a little
concerned about the potential of up-zoning all throughout town, because I would really like to encourage you and all of us to focus our efforts on developing certain areas, again, to make them unique and special and not just do that to the whole town. So, yes, I really like what I’ve seen so far, what you planned. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Are there others that would
like to speak on the General Plan or the EIR?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, the next speaker is
Jesus.

JESUS: Yes, thank you. Good evening, Commission
Members. I’m a property owner of a property at the crosssection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Farley Road. I don't know if you know where that is, but the property is
actually on Los Gatos Boulevard. This is in regard to the General Plan zoning map, and right now that property is part of Santa Clara County and is zoned for Administrative and Professional Office use.

I was trying to have the building upgraded and updated
into having medical and dental facilities, as it is
currently very old and whatnot and it does serve the
surrounding community in that area, and if we were to get annexed into Los Gatos it would be zoned for residential.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
If you ever look at the zoning map on that area, it just so happens that that one commercial property, if it was part of Los Gatos, would zoned as residential. I think it is just a technicality in terms of how it is, because for all the years that it’s been there it’s been a professional office building and it’s been used as such for over the last 35 years, as I understand it.

So, please consider thinking about the zoning in that
area. It is already in a Commercial area and it is just, in my opinion, a technicality that would stop us from
renovating and updating the facility, the road, that
corner, and providing services for the surrounding area, which includes the Town of Los Gatos. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for your comments.

Could I ask you a favor to write up your specific concern and send it in to Staff? We do actually have in our Staff Report one suggestion from Staff about a particular
property to be rezoned from a General Plan designation
perspective, so please do send that in so we can make sure it’s accounted for, because doing it in verbal comments will not get the result that we need without sending it to Staff. Ms. Armer has her hand up.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I do believe that it is one and
the same property that he is speaking to, which is included in your list of potential changes for consideration.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: So, that’s the address that I saw in
there. Okay, very good, so then I think we’re covered. Do any Commissioners have questions for Jesus? I don’t see any hands up, so are there others that would like to speak on the General Plan or the Final EIR?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair. The next speaker
will be Arvin.

ARVIN: Yes, good evening, and thank you for your
community service. I know it’s late; I just have a very quick comment here.

I would like to suggest that the plan consider turning
the downtown Santa Cruz Avenue into a pedestrian road. I think that would allow for Los Gatos residents and others to come to town, support the downtown businesses, and
socialize. I don't know if it’s in the plan right now, but I just wanted to make that recommendation. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. There is
something to that effect in our comments. Do any
Commissioners have questions for Arvin? Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Hi, yes, I do have a question
for the speaker. I saw this as one of the comments, and Staff did not recommend adopting this, but I was curious if you would be happy with an implementation program that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
asked the question and went into studying the validity and ability to do this? Would you be happy with that?
ARVIN: Yeah, I’d be happy with anything that would
make the Los Gatos downtown a little bit livelier, that instead of people going to other places they actually stay in Town and spend their money locally. I’m not a business owner in the downtown, so it’s not a self-interest issue, but even if just a section of Santa Cruz Avenue could allow for people to enjoy a little bit nicer, rather than having concrete blocks in a way that doesn’t really look very
nice.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you for answering
that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have any
additional questions for the speaker? I don’t see any hands raised, and so are there any others that would like to
speak on this General Plan or the Final EIR?
I wanted to reiterate at this point, since I don’t see
any hands raised at the moment, that all of the public
comments that we’re taking for the verbal part of this— certainly written comments can continue to be made—will be taken this evening.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Yes, the next speaker
will be Tony.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
TONY ALARCON: Hello. Good evening, everyone. This is
Tony Alarcon. I first moved to Los Gatos in 1991. I moved to Los Gatos from Willow Glen specifically for the Town culture, the hillside views, and the trails. I think it’s important in the General Plan moving forward that we
consider the reasons that many of us moved here.

Personally, if I were on the Commission or the Town
Council I would have appealed the RHNA numbers provided by the state to Los Gatos. I do not support exceeding the RHNA numbers, nor the approximately 4,000 units proposed for consideration in the General Plan by the Town Council and Town Manager.

One thing I’d like to point out to the Commission and
to the general public listening is that Los Gatos ranks worse in fire than Paradise did before it had its fire, and as someone who lives close to the hillside I think it’s very important that we protect the hillside for the
residents, for public safety, and also for the wildlife.

I think we have to take into consideration the North
Forty and the results. As someone else mentioned, the North Forty was promised as affordable housing. It’s anything but that. One thing with affordable housing, there is very
little opportunity for people owning those houses to gain equity in them, they can only gain inflation, and so I
think our town, with the leadership that we have and the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Town residents, can come up with other solutions to create more affordable options for housing, perhaps smaller units.

I would like to see the Historic Districts and the
districts where homes were built in the early-1900s remain in that character. With legislation SB 9 and SB 10 that was passed, we’ve yet to see the impacts of that, and I think we should slow down on the General Plan. We’re being too aggressive with the number of housing units that we’re
proposing and I think further study should be done before you make any drastic changes in that direction. Thank you for listening.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your comments.

We definitely appreciate it, and I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for Mr. Alarcon? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you again for your comments, and I would like to invite any other members of the public that would like to speak to us on the General Plan or the Final EIR for the General Plan to do so now.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. As the Chair mentioned, if
anyone else would like to speak on the General Plan or
Final EIR, please use the raised hand feature. The next speaker will be Joanne.

JOE RODGERS: This is Joe Rodgers. I’m going to speak
for Joanne. Maybe she’ll have some comments. Joanne and I have been residents to Los Gatos for 46 years, so we’ve

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
seen some changes in the community. One of the things that I want to do also is thank the members that are on this Commission for the time you devote. I don’t think most of the people in the community realize the time that the group of you devotes to making certain that we maintain the
integrity of our town. Congratulations, and thank you, and keep up the good work.

What I wanted to talk about was actually a request
that is being considered by the Town Council for adding one to three cannabis dispensaries in the Town. Very much
opposed to it. I think it certainly sends the wrong message about the quality and the nature of our Town, but my
concerns also go to the traffic that three dispensaries, or one, would create, and problems with parking.

Another one is requirements for PG&E, for electrical
power. Already we’re trying to focus more on adding more electric cars, but also then water was mentioned. We’ve got things that we have to deal with in our current situation, but add the dispensaries…
Initially they’re saying it would just be for the sale
of cannabis, but that’s the gorilla in the room, because the next step is we’re just going to do a little packaging and processing, and then after we’re going to add growing.

We already know that we suffer power outages from time
to time, and with the requirements on power that are going

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to be generated by these other activities, adding cannabis would be catastrophic, so I’m really requesting that this Commission and the Town Council do an environmental impact study, include this in your study, and make certain that we understand the environmental impact of adding cannabis
sales, processing, and growing. It would have a very
negative impact on the Town, including the image of the Town.

Right now the Town Council turned down the idea some
years ago. What was it? 2016. Said that we would not permit it. Now they’re considering it for generating revenue. I just wanted to touch base on that. I’d like to see a
thorough environmental impact study, because they’re
considering doing this without having done very much
homework on it. Thank you very much.

JOANNE RODGERS: The revenue, other towns have said
for every dollar you take in for a cannabis sale you spend four, and the policing and the trafficking, the crime, etc.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I think
your three minutes are up, but I would also encourage you to send your comments in writing to Staff, because that would be the best way to make sure that they get attention by the appropriate people, because we are talking in terms of the General Plan and we don’t address that at all in the General Plan, so please do send your comments into Staff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JOE RODGERS: When you say Staff, whom do you mean?
Who do we direct written comments to?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff, could you jump in and let them
know how to send in comments to Staff?
JENNIFER ARMER: You can send it in to me and I can
forward it onto the appropriate Staff, or you can send it through the Town Manager’s office, as they are managing the discussion and consideration of cannabis.

JOANNE RODGERS: As relating to what you’re talking
about here, it’s the EIR report that we’re asking for to be included.

JENNIFER ARMER: Comments recommending or asking for
an environmental review in association with the cannabis discussion, I can take those comments and share them with the Town Manager’s office as they continue forward with those discussions with the Town Council, so feel free to send those on into me and I can forward them to the correct Staff.

JOE RODGERS: Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there others that would like to
speak to us on the General Plan or the General Plan EIR? JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair. The next speaker
is John.

JOHN: Good evening. First of all, thank you all for
all the hard work that you do. This is an incredibly

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
difficult process that you go through trying to do the
strategic planning and engagement of the local community, so thank you very much for your time. Just a couple of real quick comments, it won’t take three minutes.

First of all, when I look through the plan I’m
generally supportive of additional housing units in the neighborhood of about 2,000. What popped out at me was the 804 opportunities for land development and maybe 1,200 in the redevelopment section, so that rounds out to just a little bit over 2,000, which I think is the right number for a lot of reasons.

One reason, we all know trying to get into, out of, or
around Los Gatos during the summer is very, very difficult, so if we were to increase population by going for the 3,900 units, another approximate 9,000 residents in Los Gatos, I just don’t see how that works well in terms of traffic.

Secondly, I think as we look at developing housing it
would be great to try to do most of it in the conversion of commercial properties that exist along strong road
corridors today to multi-use, so perhaps in the area of the old auto row in Los Gatos, some of those properties, which are on Los Gatos Boulevard, which has a lot of traffic
capacity, would be smart.

My final comment is we reference wildfire in the
report extensively, but I don’t see a lot of strength in

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the wildfire, fuels, mitigation, and management, and to the previous speaker who mentioned that we’re in worse shape than Paradise was at the time of their fire, that is just an essential area for us to pay attention to. If we were to lose a major portion of the hillside to fire, not only
wildlife, but the visual nature that makes Los Gatos so appealing, and all of the trails and outdoor use that is so appealing to so many of our residents. That sums up the high points for me, and thank you very much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you very much for your
comments, and I will ask if any Commissioners have
questions for you. I don’t see any hands raised, and so thank you for your comments. I see many people in the
attendees. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to us on the General Plan or the General Plan Final EIR? At the point where I close the public hearing, even if you raise your hand, we won’t be able to take your comments during the meeting, although you are always welcome to send in written comments. Would anyone else like to speak?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t see any additional hands up,
Chair. Let’s give it a few more seconds. I don’t see any additional hands.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I do know from the names of some of
the people that are in the participants that many of you have already sent in written comments as well, and you can

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
be assured that we do have all of them, and all of us spent many hours over the last several days reading the hundreds of comments that we’ve had, I think it was about 600 pages, so I thank you all for sending them in.

With that in mind, we will close the public comments
portion of the hearing on the General Plan and the General Plan Final EIR, and given that it is 9:20 we will continue the discussion, but I’m going to have the Planning
Commission and Staff take a ten-minute recess, so we’ll come back at 9:30.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR HANSSEN: …in general Exhibit 7, along with
Staff’s general feedback, whether it’s not recommended or neutral, meaning they don’t have an opinion one way or the other, and then it would be up to us to consider it.

As far as Exhibit 7 goes, at the beginning of Exhibit
7 there are some comments by entity, not by element, so there are comments from the Department of Forestry
regarding wildfire. There are comments from Staff, and then comments from specifically the Parks and Public Works part of Staff, so we will discuss those as a group before we go dig into each element.

In addition to what I just said, I also want to talk
about the order of the elements, because the bulk of the comments that we have received, and especially the negative

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
comments, are related to the numbers in the Land Use
Element. We will discuss all of the other elements first, because they have substantially less comments and we should be able to get through them, and then we will turn our
discussion to the Land Use and Community Design Elements near the end, and then finally we will proceed forward and discuss the EIR and whether or not we should recommend
certification.

As mentioned earlier by Staff, and by myself as well,
our role in this process is only to recommend. We are not the final deciding body as we are for other land use
matters. We will be forwarding a recommendation to Town Council and they will be holding their own hearings.

That being said, I always think that the Planning
Commission, and I know this from the Town Council, that they’re counting on us to do a thorough review of the
General Plan, and so that what they send to us in theory should be something they will agree with and it won’t have to be a complete review of everything going past. So that being the case, if you haven’t already pulled Exhibit 7, I would ask that you pull up Exhibit 7 so that we could go ahead and start the discussion.

The first thing in Exhibit 7 is the recommended
changes to the Introduction, which includes the Vision and Guiding Principles. If you look on page 1 of Exhibit 7,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
which is also on page 217 in your packet, it talks about the GPAC recommended changes to the Vision and Guiding
Principles and it has summarized what some of the points of it are, but I’ll just read it out.

Revised division for added clarity and add a sentence
about racial, social, and environmental justice. Deleting downtown from the Community Vitality Guiding Principle.

Adding a new Guiding Principle titled “Connectivity,” which came from one of the GPAC members, to state the importance of connecting all facets of Town. And then deleting the Towns from the Fiscal Stability Responsibility Guiding
Principles, and replace the word “recognized” with the word “value” in the Inclusivity Guiding Principle.

That was the comments that the GPAC recommended that
we adopt, and the way that the process worked is we had considered the Vision and Guiding Principles and they were voted on by the GPAC, then the Planning Commission, and the Town Council, and since they were adopted that way we
couldn’t modify the draft plan to do that, so this is the time when the Commission would recommend or not recommend those changes that came from the GPAC, so I’ll throw that up for discussion, and if there’s anything else that you want to change in the Introduction as well, we can talk about that. Commissioner Janoff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to
clarify a little bit why these changes are in front of you.

Essentially, we went through such a long period of time that life around us and the world around us changed. We had the pandemic occur, we had the racial voices through the world were speaking to us loudly, and so we felt compelled to go back and look at the Vision, which was crafted before all of these world events were taking place, and thought wow, in light of what we’ve all just lived through we felt that we needed to add some changes, and so it wasn’t taken lightly that we were recommending changes over what Town Council had already approved, but we thought that in light of the two years that had gone by since the Vision
Statement was initially crafted it made sense to reflect back and bring us up to the present. So, just to give you guys an idea of why we wanted to make those changes. They were well thought through.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I can add onto that that when we
crafted the Vision Statement the GPAC spent a whole entire meeting, maybe more than one meeting, on every single word that was in the Vision Statement before we even sent it to the Planning Commission or Town Council, so it wasn’t taken lightly to do all that, and the Guiding Principles actually stemmed from direction from Town Council on how to go about updating the General Plan, and so we took those pretty much

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
as is and then added on and did some modifications before we sent it on for approval.

It wasn’t on this list, but there was one add that was
late in there and that’s currently in there. Ms. Pendleton has spoken previously to the GPAC on many occasions and had wanted to modify the Protect Natural Resources to make sure we address the biotic communities as well, so that has
already been modified, and I don’t see it listed here as a change we need to adapt, because it looked like it was
already in the draft.

Does anyone have any concerns about any of the changes
that were recommended? Commissioner Thomas has her hand up.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I don’t have any concerns, I
just want to say that it’s been a while since we looked at this, and I looked back and I still feel the same about all the changes that we recommended as members of the GPAC.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, cool. The way that I’m hoping
this process will work—I’ll say it now, because we have lots of elements to go through—is that even though we have to vote on the overall plan as a recommendation, Staff and I both thought it would be very helpful to make a motion to approve X element or section with changes as noted in the Staff Report, kind of like we do in a regular hearing. Even though at the very end we’re going to have make a
recommendation on the overall element, if we can kind of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
come to an agreement on each section, it will make it a lot easier to do the thing at the very end. Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I just wanted to offer my
congratulations to the GPAC and to the Staff for the
tremendous work they’ve done on this project. It’s much appreciated, and I know there were many long hours and
numerous meetings to get us to this point, so that’s
appreciated. I certainly support Paragraph 1, Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Great. If there are no other comments
on the Vision and Guiding Principles, would one of the
Commissioners make a motion to approve the changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles as recommended in the Staff Report? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I certainly make that motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then Commissioner Tavana, you had
your hand up, so would you make a second?
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I second that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask Staff, do we need to
do a roll call vote for every single one of these? Can we just do all in favor? I think it would take a lot of time to do roll call vote for everyone of these, so I’m going to ask Staff what you think?
JOEL PAULSON: I’d probably defer to the Town
Attorney. Obviously that being the safest, but if you want

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to just do it by show of hands and I can reflect what the show of hands is, that might go a little faster.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: I would suggest that we do it by
motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We just did the motion, but do I need
to do a full roll call vote, or can we just do by show of hands?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, we have to do a roll call. The
Brown Act requires it, because we’re not in person.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, then I will do that very
quickly. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. Ms. Armer, you
had your hand up.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I thought I would
put forward the suggestion—while this recommendation from the GPAC does kind of stand on its own—that moving forward often those motions can be a group of these items, and so you won’t have to make 123 motions, but it really can be clustered. If there are several points that a Commissioner wants to make a motion that Items 2, 3, and 4 be approved, or something like that, we could do them as groups as well to reduce the votes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That is actually my intent, when we
get to the actual elements, starting with the Racial,
Social, and Environmental Justice Element. There are 11 suggestions and we don’t need to vote on each one. For
instance, I made my own notes and I said yes, no, yes, no, that kind of thing. We should only recommend the things that we’d like to see changed, and so we can do that as a group motion.

I didn’t want to leave the Introduction, because there
was a comment that came in a Desk Item from Commissioner Clark, and I believe it has been suggested by a few others, and it was about modify the section called “Los Gatos
Community” to put more explanation of the origin of the Town lands coming from the Ohlone Indians. I don’t know if I characterized that appropriately from your perspective, Commissioner Clark, but I personally wouldn’t have a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
problem with adding a little bit more definition to that section. Commissioner Thomas, you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I support that change.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Are there any other thoughts about
that, and did I characterize that the way that you wanted it, Commissioner Clark?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Let me take one more look at it,
and Commissioner Janoff can go while I look to make sure.

CHAIR HANSSEN: No, I don’t believe you had suggested
the exact wording, it was more a general comment about
adding a little more depth to that section to explain the lands had originally been Ohlone Indian land.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, I got that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Two things. I’d also like to
lend my support for that addition, but in regard to
Commissioner Clark’s comments, which came in late today and haven’t had the benefit of Staff going through them and categorizing them the way they have all these other
remarks, because there were so many comments I’m concerned about taking the time to go through each of Commissioner Clark’s comments without the benefit of having Staff go through that process, and just am looking for guidance from the Chair on that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, I did want to comment on that as
well, although I called this one out in particular just because it was low hanging fruit. Commissioner Clark, we’re very happy that you’re sending your comments, and they were very thorough and detailed. I don’t know that they will get the attention from all of the Commission that they deserve for what we’re going through right now, so my suggestion about how to handle the balance of your comments would be to ask Staff to take a look at them and make the same
determination about this is an easy one to fix as
recommended, or this required discussion, and then since I don’t think that we’ll finish the entire review tonight that we would have an opportunity to consider the rest of your comments when we have a follow up meeting. Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would say that
with any suggestions, whether Staff has given a
recommendation or not on it, it would be included as part of your recommendation to Town Council; that’s one of the benefits of you making a recommendation rather than making a final decision. If there is wording that’s suggested by one of the Commissioners, whether it’s already provided in writing or it’s part of the discussion this evening, that could be part of your recommendation, and then Staff can provide feedback on that when we take that forward to Town Council if there are any concerns.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, I understand that. What I’m
saying, if I didn’t make it clear, is I don't know that the Commissioners, myself included, have had the time to really process the comments from Commissioner Clark because of all the other comments that we were processing that came in in the addendum and the Desk Item as well as in the Staff
(inaudible), so I’d like to make sure that we gave it the attention before we made a determination, and even though I have a lot of faith in Commissioner Clark, I am
uncomfortable with unilaterally saying just because you submitted this, even though I haven’t had a chance to
really go through it, that I would recommend all your
changes is what I’m saying. Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yeah, I completely
agree, and when I wasn’t able to get them in by Monday I kind of knew that it’s not at all expected of you all to have taken a thorough look at them or anything, and so I think I’m happy during the discussion to highlight any that I’m more passionate about or that are more significant and require discussion, and I think that they could even be sent to Council separate from the Planning Commission, or that since we will probably be continuing our discussion we might be able to get some Staff input before then.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds like a good plan. That
being the case, I did want to put that one item out there,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
because I definitely have also heard it from a Council
Member as well, and so I’d like somebody to make a motion to add some of the language about the Ohlone Indians to the Los Gatos Community section of the Introduction.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I move to add some
language going more in depth on the origin of the lands of Los Gatos, particularly in relation to the Ohlone and the Tamien tribes in the Los Gatos Community Vision section.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, that sounds great, and
Commissioner Thomas, is that a second?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I second the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’ll just go ahead and take the roll
call vote. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so I think
we’re covered for the Introduction. Did anyone else have anything substantive that they wanted to change in the
Introduction?
Then we can move on to the other comments that are in
the front of Exhibit 7. If you look under Item 2 on page 217, it’s revisions as a result of review by the State
Department of Forestry, and Staff says included in Exhibit 8 and listed here there are quite a number of bullet
points, recommendations to change. In talking with Staff the recommendation was that we do have to make these
changes, because we have to have the State Department of Forestry and Cal Fire review our General Plan, and so we pretty much need to accept all those. Director Paulson, you had your hand up. Did you want to say anything more about that? Okay, no. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’d like to just say that
sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, taking us to a modification suggested in the public comments, these are comments that are coming from experts in their field. They may be
mandated, they may be otherwise informed, but to me these are people who we should be taking guidance from, and so I would be prepared to move that we accept those comments, which go through the top of page 4, as recommended by
Staff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s an even better
suggestion, because I have the same feeling that I wouldn’t want to part ways and opinion on this, especially our
Staff’s recommendation but also from the outside experts, so I agree that we should do that, and so I’ll second the motion actually. Are there any comments?
I only wanted to say one thing though, just because
we’re not going to go over these in detail, that on Item 3 as suggested by Staff, which was referenced in the Staff Report, is to add an implementation program for a five-year Land Use Element review. We aren’t going to discuss the Land Use Element until the end of the process, but given the amount of concern in the community about the build-out numbers, I think it’s really prudent to have a five-year land use review because of the uncertainty that we have about what’s going to happen going forward. It’s already in the motion and seconded to accept all of that, but I wanted to make sure that you guys had seen that so that when we do get to land use you’ll know that we have, assuming that everyone votes for recommending it and it goes through
Council, that we’ll have some way to help manage the risk.

So, I will go to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then I vote yes as well. We’re
going to go to page 220, the modifications suggested in public comments, and I had missed this, but I mentioned it earlier. In the Introduction there was the protect the
natural resources Guiding Principle to adopt the concept of biotic communities waterways. So, Staff, do we need to vote on that in addition to what we did? I thought that was
already in there.

JENNIFER ARMER: I believe that is an additional
change to what was drafted by the GPAC to have that done and track changes, but you actually in previous pages have… CHAIR HANSSEN: I was looking for it when we went over
Item 1, and so that’s why I thought it was already adopted, but then when I went to page 220 it’s listed as a separate item from what the GPAC recommended, and so that’s why I was confused, because I thought the GPAC recommended to do that change to the Introduction as well.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: As I’m reading through side-by-side
what is in the GPAC recommendation and what is listed here, it does appear to be the same language, so it looks like we just pulled that out of a separate comment, not recognizing that it was already in the GPAC recommendations, so no, you do not need to make any further motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so then we should go on to
the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element.

Commissioner Janoff talked a little bit about it, but for those of you that are relatively new to the process, the origin of the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element was recognition during the pandemic.

As we were meeting in 2020 we had the pandemic, and
then we had all the protests from Black Lives Matter, and then Vice Chair Janoff and I said, and we brought up to the GPAC and Staff, that we had concern that we were not really addressing the full array of issues that were happening in the Town in planning for the General Plan, so we held a special meeting in July 2020 where we invited members of the public to speak to us on issues that they might have encountered related to racial and social injustice, or
environmental justice for that matter, and we did have
quite a number of people testify.

At the same time the Town Council was also doing
things. They were interviewing and doing workshops, but

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
everyone on the GPAC felt that it was important to address the racial, social, and environmental justice in the
General Plan at least at a high General Plan level, and when we did that we recognized that there would be people that thought it didn’t go far enough, which we’ve gotten testimony to from the public, and that we could always do more, and there are comments in here relating to doing
more, but everyone on the GPAC felt it was important to do it as an element. Even though our consultants said you
could also do this as incorporating that into other
sections and address it throughout the plan, we felt it was more important to call it out as a separate item.

So there is on Item 9 in here the possibility of
deleting the entire section or moving the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element to a later section in the document. The GPAC did vote to keep it up front in the
document, and obviously since we recommended doing it we wouldn’t recommend deleting it. I just wanted to give you guys the background on that element in case you hadn’t
heard that when you read it, but that’s where it came from.

In general we’ve gotten very good feedback from everyone in the public that this is the right direction to go.

That being the case, there are also 10 through 19 that
are suggestions, and what we need to get to is whether or not we want to recommend any of those specific changes as

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
part of the recommendation to Town Council. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just have a clarifying
question. For the rest of these, now that experts, etc. are not necessarily suggesting these, and we are kind of going to be going through them number-by-number, do we just want to discuss the ones that we would like to adopt to
recommend, and just not even mention the ones that we don’t support essentially?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’ll tell you the direction Staff
gave. They said if we try to discuss every single one of them it’s going to take a really, really long time, and so maybe the thing to do would be to call out ones that we thought… I could go through each one of these and tell you that no, I didn’t want to include this because it was
confusing and I don’t think that the Town has control over it, so maybe the better thing would be to focus on the ones that we thought we could add and tee those up for
discussion.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, I just wanted to confirm,
because I went through all of them and it’s like some I felt strongly one way or another and then some, just like the Town said, I’m neutral on, so okay.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Why don’t you start and say which ones
you think were worth including?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that number 11 is worth
including, that additional language. I think that number 13, I like the use of the word “increase” instead of
promote. And I like 15, the “implement and require,” I like that language change. Number 18, I also support. For
numbers 17 and number 19, I had some kind of questions
around those. For number 17, I recommended maybe the
language should be changed to “marginalized” or
“historically marginalized groups” or “minority groups” to be more specific. Then number 19, I don’t think the end of that is appropriate, but I do like part of that one and I feel like it needs some discussion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: People have their hands up, but on
number 19 I’ll just weigh in right away and say I wrote a comment about the last sentence. I don’t know that we need to go into a lot of detail about what kind of trees in the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element when we have other elements that pertain to the environment and what kind of trees that we should be putting in there, so I thought that was too specific.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I liked the part about the
habitat valuation and tree selection for the Town’s
planting, but then not including the disallowing of
planting of invasive species. Well, invasive species I
guess is fine, but yeah.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, let’s see what other
Commissioners have to say. Commissioner Janoff, I think you were first, and then Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I generally agree with the
recommendations from Commissioner Thomas, except that on 14 and 15, rather than make those policies I think they have better language to be implementation programs, so I’d
recommend that we act on that but we move them into the IPs. Seventeen, I wouldn’t agree with, because I think that the changes over time, unless there is some very, very
broad wording that would make sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: On 15, I have a question. On 14, I had
a question for you. If you read the thing it talks about working with colleges, and both private and public colleges and schools and trade schools. I didn’t see the sense in calling out a specific college being San Jose State, nor did I think that it belonged in the implementation
programs, only because it was already a policy. I just
think it was fine as it was. I don’t know what the reason was for mentioning San Jose State.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If this person is really keen on
developing a relationship that is a recruiting mechanism for San Jose State, maybe there is some link there, because it’s a major university in our community, so I didn’t have

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
70 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
an issue with it, but I didn’t think we needed to go into the detail here.

CHAIR HANSSEN: As it stands now, it’s a policy that
talks about working with different universities. Are you saying to remove it then and move the entire policy to the implementation program, or just working with San Jose
State?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If we’re going to mention San
Jose State specifically, we should put it in an
implementation program. If we leave it at university level, which is consistent with broad topics for the General Plan, then that’s where I would go.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, fair enough. Then 15 is
already a policy. It’s a question of whether it says,
“develop and implement” or “implement and require.” It’s already a policy. Are you saying that we should move it to an implementation program?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: On 15, I think that if you’re
going to require, if you’re going to go beyond developing, then there’s some more action that needs to be done around that. That felt more like it needed a little bit more of a plan-around if we’re going to go for it, otherwise I’d say don’t go that direction.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. I wrote down that
since we’re developing and implementing it for all time and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
71 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
place I didn’t think it was necessary to add (inaudible), but I don’t care that much about it. Let’s see,
Commissioner Clark had some comments.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think Commissioner Thomas had
one on the one that was just mentioned, if you want to say that right now.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, let me go back to Commissioner
Thomas then.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I was looking at the
implementation programs, because there is Implementation Program C that says it is requiring all Staff to undergo ongoing diversity and implicit bias training, but then it says that it’s supporting 2.6, which is… I’m just trying to look back and forth. They were promoting hiring procedures.

I feel like 2.7 needs to be added to the list for
Implementation Program C. It might have been one of those like we added a thing and it got bumped and it never got cross-checked again.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I see what you’re saying. Because
Implementation Program C is about Town Staff, diversity, and other training, and so to not link it to 2.7 seems like an oversight.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yeah, C should be 2.6, 2.7, and

1.3.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
72 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, I agree. I think what I’m saying
is that I agree with what Commissioner Janoff said, but I also think that it already is an implementation program, so I think that changing the language is okay, because we’re already going to be doing an implementation program
associated with it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. I don’t see a whole
lot of difference between “develop” and “implement,” or “implement” and “require” as long as we have an
implementation program that supports it. Commissioner
Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I completely agree on
that. Another comment that I have for number 15 is that I think that something else that often happens with these diversity trainings is they become very passive and
something that people just click through in order to meet the requirement, and that’s something that I’d like to make sure doesn’t happen with the Town. I don't know if this goes far enough to really make sure that happens, but I thought adding a description saying like, “Require an
engaging, substantive, and interactive cultural proficiency training,” or something like that could help make that
clearer, and that’s in the language that I provided if you want to look at that; it’s number 3 under A, Wording
Changes. But for the other ones, I agree with the others

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
73 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that Commissioners have been in favor of. Another that I was curious about what others think is number 12, because I wasn’t really sure, and I didn’t have a problem with it, but I wanted to know what others think.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff did not recommend it. Maybe
Staff could comment on why they didn’t recommend 12. I
think I know, but I want to hear it from Staff.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: And I didn’t catch that, so thank
you.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. The reason that we
did mark that one as not recommended, and I think related to some of the discussion you’ve been having here as well, is I’ll remind the Commission that this is a high-level document, and so when these do start to get that specific where it’s talking about a specific score, that’s not the type of thing that would be appropriate to track a policy in the General Plan. Recognizing that having quantifiable ways of measuring some of these things is definitely
important, but specifying exactly how that’s going to be done through one of the policies in the General Plan is not something that Staff would recommend. That’s how some of these policies could be implemented through programs
through the Town as the Town Council prioritizes those
types of programs and development, including details of Staff training and such that you were mentioning, which are

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
very important, but really are part of the development of what those trainings should be. Some of those details can be included at this level, but for this particular one we chose to not recommend approval, because of how specific it was getting.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I will also go as far as to say that
Implementation Program E, Social and Racial Justice
Equality Survey, which is an annual survey on the
successfulness of advancing social equity and diversity, I don’t think we need to have policy specifying that we need to do that, since we already have it as in implementation program. I don't know if anyone else sees it that way, but to me that is very much of an action step, assuming that gets added to the list of things that Staff is going to work on.

I had a question about the one about a quality living
wage, it’s 13, and my question for Staff is it says it
promotes in the current policy the draft, and then someone suggested to change it to “increase or improve,” which is definitely more specific, but my question is the Town
doesn’t actually have control over a quality living wage for all community members. That is in the hands of the
employers, of which the Town could be one of them, but I’m not sure from Staff’s perspective if that’s something that we could really commit to and stand behind.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll start, and the Community
Development Director may have something to add as well.

I agree that while that change in language we did mark
as neutral, it is true that there is only so much that we’d be able to do in terms of actually increasing. It really would be more in the character of trying to have programs that promote it and support the increase in the ways that we have. It looks like we also have Town Manager Prevetti with us this evening, and she may have something to add to this question as well.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, of course, Town Manager.

LAUREL PREVETTI: Thank you so much. In the past the
Council has been asked to consider increasing minimum wage above what the state requires, and through its strategic priorities the Town Council has decided not to go in that direction. We typically just follow what the state is
doing, but promoting these opportunities is something that is more in line with what smaller jurisdictions are able to do. The larger cities tend to be really the big leaders on this, and we typically don’t have the resources to actually implement our own living wage ordinances. That would have to be implemented by other businesses.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s really helpful. Thank you for
that. For me, I would say not change 13, just leave it
where it is and (inaudible) promote. That’s my feeling on

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
it. Commissioners Thomas and Janoff, you still have your hands up, so I don't know which one was first.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My comment is only that I think
I misspoke when I said I supported number 13. I have
written in my notes that I do not. We don’t really have enough control over this, so I would say no to 13.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree after hearing about
local jurisdiction, so I don’t support that change. But going back to number 17, perhaps the language could be
changed to “socially disadvantaged and historically
marginalized groups.” I think “historically marginalized” is a large enough term that can be used that is dynamic and will change over the next 20 years, and so I think that that is more specific, but also still broad enough.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes, thank you. I just want to
make sure that we link from the policy in number 12 to the implementation programs that you mentioned, Chair Hanssen, to Implementation Program E. I think that’s what we were referencing, so if we’re going to use that as a metric, it should be listed probably under that section there.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s not a bad idea. Would that not
be true about every policy though? That’s the only thing.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
77 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I’m not one way or another, but
I did notice that it does (inaudible) so if you want to use that as a way to make sure it is accounted for in the
future. Then, also in number 14 I wouldn’t support adding San Jose State University and leaving the language as is.

Everything else I’m rather neutral on.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That makes sense. I’m just going to go
back to that thing you brought up, and I didn’t want to belabor it, but it’s in a list of policies under RSEJ-1, which is, “Support equity inclusion and access to
opportunities for all community members, employees,
businesses, and visitors.” There’s service delivery,
community budgeting, institutional bias, housing
affordability, Town diversity, welcoming town, and quality of living wage, so I think where I was going with it is that if we’re going to have a survey, it would be covering a lot of these issues, not just whether we’re a welcoming town or not. If we’re going to do a survey, we should be addressing more than that issue.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: That makes sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Then under one of these things that
we’re trying to promote, to say we’re only going to survey on that one didn’t make any sense to me. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: No, it does. It does.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: I just think we don’t need to do
number 12 at all, unless we want to put somewhere else in the policies as a general thing, make sure we have an
implementation program, but we already do, so I think we would be covered by the fact that we already have that.

Are there any other ones we need to discuss?
Commissioner Thomas, since you started this discussion, let’s maybe go back and recap the ones that we’re still thinking that we should recommend for changes and see if we can get to a conclusion.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Do you want me to do this in a
motion?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, why don’t you do a motion?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Commissioner Clark has her hand
raised, so I think she maybe wants to add something before I summarize.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just have a quick
question. Before we did this, if I had a couple of changes that I would like to see that are not in these public
comment summaries, would I want to make sure that this is included, or would we want to do that separately?
CHAIR HANSSEN: The issue that I had when I started
with this is that you could tell us about it, but I’m not sure if everyone would have given it the thought that we

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
79 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
need to be able to process it, that’s all. But we can try that if you had specific language that you wanted to put in. We can try and see if that resonates with the
Commission.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Could I do that right now?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, why don’t you go ahead?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you. There are two
things.

One is I think, like Commissioner Janoff said, we’ve
learned a lot since this was created and then also past that amount of time, especially about equity and equality, and I didn’t think that the definitions of equality and equity in the key terms accurately described these
concepts. I talked to some diversity experts who I get to work with too and came up with some alternative
definitions. For equality, instead of saying, “The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and
opportunities,” it would say, “Equal opportunity levels of support and allocation of resources regardless of different circumstances.” For equity, instead of stating, “Fairness or justice in the way people are treated,” it would state, “Differing allocation of opportunities, levels of support, and resources based on each person or group’s circumstances or needs, thereby reaching an equal outcome.” And if that makes sense to people, then maybe we could do it now, but

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
80 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
if not, I completely understand if people need to stay with that for longer.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I can speak for myself. I reviewed the
definitions and what you suggested I thought was reasonable and was in line with… I don't know how many of you were able to attend the community meeting on March 31st on Zoom that was related to the Housing Element. They had a woman come and speak and she did a slide on equity versus
equality and what the difference was, and it was a cartoon graphic that I thought was pretty clear to explain the
differences and she talked about that, and so I thought your explanation was right in line with that, but I don't know if others had a chance to read through it. I will go to Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I had a chance to read through
Commissioner Clark’s comments fully, and I do support the change to these definitions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I also support, so I can include
that in my motion. Was there anything else that
Commissioner Clark wanted to say in addition?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, yes. I have one other,
and it’s an implementation program that I think we should add. If you go to the policy RSEJ-4.1, it’s a policy for acceptance of government-issued vouchers. I’ve worked very

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
81 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
closely with the unhoused community and with people who are on these vouchers and one of the biggest challenges that people encounter is not being able to use them, and so I was really, really happy to see this policy and excited about, but it is such an action-oriented one that I felt like it needed an implementation program to actually
happen. I think it’s one that would have a really big
impact, and so I think it should be added as an
implementation program for RSEJ after Program K, which is Community Engagement, and I think that the program should be implemented between 2020-2025, and I think it should also include the EJ icon for the cross-cutting icons under it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s reasonable. I’m just
going to ask Staff about it. We had a long discussion at the GPAC about the huge volume of implementation programs that we have and whether or not they would ever really
happen, so I’m just going to ask Staff. I don’t have any problem adding it in, and then ultimately the way this will work is the Town Council is the one that will prioritize what gets worked on in what year because of their strategic priorities session, and so it comes from the General Plan and other sources what gets onto the plate. So I don’t have a problem with adding it, but I just want to make sure with Staff it is that something reasonable that we can add?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
82 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I think you’re on
point in terms of being cautious about adding additional implementation measures, because really to make those
happen it will have to be prioritized by Town Council at their annual priority setting. I will also share the
microphone with Town Manager Prevetti, because she has
turned on her camera again.

LAUREL PREVETTI: Thank you. I just wanted to note
that voucher programs are already in effect, Section 8, and obviously there’s not enough vouchers to meet the need, and so I don't know if the Town can actually effect this very important program, because it’s ultimately up to the
individual landlords whether or not they accept it. We
could certainly add it and then do some more Staff
analysis. I think our Council might be a little bit
cautious about adding things that we really can’t impact, so it’s going to take a little bit more work, and I don't know if our housing consultant would be able to really help do anything more than what’s already being done. But we’re happy to add it if that’s the will of the Planning
Commission, and then we can do some more research so by the time we get to Council we can answer their questions. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead, Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
83 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Can I make a
clarification for it? I should have further described this policy so you can immediately flip to it, but it’s
government-issued food vouchers, and so this would be
things like accepting electronic benefits transfer or EBT and SNAP vouchers at farmers market and local food venders.

I’d be curious to hear if that changes the answer or if you have any more comments.

LAUREL PREVETTI: I think our farmers market already
accepts the cards, but that’s something we can certainly look at, because I think that is consistent with our
current practice of really supporting those who are trying to feed people in need, so we’ll look at that a little bit more. Thank you for the clarification.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Other comments? Commissioner Thomas,
are we going back to making a motion?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. I would also like to add
that I do think that making an implementation program for this does make sense, specifically because the Town
provides business licenses, and so I don't know if that could be like changed within an ordinance that new vendors have to… I don't know if that’s legal or something, but looking into the fact that new vendors can be required to accept certain forms of SNAP or EBT or whatever.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
84 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: I would suggest that if we’re going to
add it as an implementation we word it as like a researchoriented program. Not like a commitment to do it, but rather we research the viability of what we can do to
increase support for acceptance of these vouchers.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Exactly, exactly. Thank you. So,
I will start with that. I move to approve or forward the following modifications suggested for the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element: to add an implementation program for RSEJ-4.1 to do some research on coordinating and promoting the acceptance of government-issued food
vouchers. I also move to make the changes to the
definitions that Commissioner Clark submitted earlier for the key terms of “equality” and “equity.” I also move to approve Policy Change 17 with the addition of adding
“historically marginalized” as language to Policy RSEJ-6.2, and then also approve numbers 11, 15, and 18. I believe that summarized everything.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you want to do anything more on
19?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I don’t think so, because it’s
an implementation program, unless someone feels really
strongly.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. I didn’t. I thought it was fine
the way it was, and like I said, I don’t necessarily think

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
85 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
we need to go there in terms of lots of detail about what kind of trees when we’re in the Racial, Social, and
Environmental Justice Element as long as we have policies about what kind of trees we put in Town. Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’ll second that motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other comments before we vote?
What we will be voting on after we finish taking comments would be recommending approval of the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element with the changes incorporated and suggested by Commissioner Thomas. Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I support the motion except for
the wording of the key terms of “equality” and “equity,” and on those topics I haven’t had an opportunity to see how those terms are used throughout the General Plan, and I’m reluctant to approve those changes without having done so.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. That’s a valid
comment. Staff, when we were talking about this earlier today in terms of process and procedure, if there’s a
Commissioner that has an issue like that should they vote no or vote yes, not feeling comfortable with that comment, or maybe abstaining? What would be your suggestion on how to handle it?
JOEL PAULSON: I’m happy to start, and if Ms. Armer
has anything to add, that’s fine as well. I think probably

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
86 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
for this type of motion that Vice Chair Barnett could vote yes, but note the objection to the definitions at this
point, and that way we could move forward. There will be verbatim minutes of all of these meetings provided as well, and then ultimately if this moves to the next meeting, if there are some additional comments after his review of
those terms throughout the General Plan, if he had
different thoughts he can always provide those in writing and those would be part of the public record.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds like a plan. Does that
sound agreeable to you, Vice Chair?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, that’s acceptable. I’d make
a point that I request my comments be considered by the Council.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, that’s fine. Do we have a
second?
JOEL PAULSON: Commissioner Janoff already seconded
the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, yeah. Sorry, I got distracted on
the second. So, we have a motion and a second, and then I’ll keep going in the same order. I’ll start with
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
87 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And then Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, with a recommendation that
the Council consider the terms “equality” and “equity”
after further review by members of the Commission, and that I will be happy to supply further comment by written
response after my review.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds great. And then I vote yes
as well. I did have a chance to review the definitions, so I’m okay with that whole thing. So, we’ve gotten through the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element.

The next element in order of the plan is actually the
Land Use Element, so we’re going to skip that, and we’re going to skip the Community Design Element as well, because Land Use and Community Design go hand-in-hand. The next element will be the Mobility Element.

Just for background on the Mobility Element, Staff,
correct me if I’m wrong, I think the Mobility Element was one of the ones we might have reviewed five times.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
88 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: That was definitely one that had
multiple reviews and total reorganization as well to really show the new priorities that the GPAC felt were important, and emphasizing certain topics and their importance by
bringing them up to the front.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Then we also had quite a number of
comments from Parks and Public Works pertaining to mobility in particular, because that’s right in their wheelhouse that we already agreed to take on.

There are about 10-15 comments on the Mobility
Element, and Staff did say: the first one was recommended; the second one, outside of the purview of the Los Gatos General Plan; the third one, not recommended; and the
fourth one, not recommended. We could go through the same process, which is maybe if one of you felt comfortable
enough about saying what you would recommend and
incorporating those changes we could go from there and then not have to talk about the other ones. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was going to piggyback on that
comment by saying there was no recommended change to the General Plan with the exception of three items in my
reading, 62 and 63. We don’t want to get this level of
detail in a goal or a policy, but if it seemed reasonable to study VTA, I’m not sure what queue jumping is, but if these are fine points that need to be studied in order to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
89 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
improve VTA transportation, then I would recommend that they be added to or become an implementation program. I don’t feel strongly about them one way or the other, but those look like they could take some action.

Then the only other one that is recommended is number
67, which is to add a definition of traffic impact policy to the glossary, so my recommendation would be maybe two implementation programs, or one for 62 and 63, and yes to number 67.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Just to comment on 62 and 63, if you
read the comments from the EIR, VTA wrote a pretty
extensive thing when it was related to traffic. Obviously, their priority is making sure that the buses get through, and so they had a number of suggestions on how we could prioritize bus traffic, so I would completely agree with you. I actually wrote in my comments that 62 and 63 could be implementation programs, because it’s not even clear that they’re feasible for the Town, and so we would have to study them to see if that was possible, and so I agree with you on that.

In addition to the not recommended ones, 64 and 65
were clearly designated by Staff as being part of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, not in the General
Plan. So while we could certainly do these things, it may

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
90 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
or may not make sense to change the draft of the Mobility Element.

Let’s see, I also have Commissioner Thomas and
Commissioner Clark that have comments, so go ahead,
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I agree with the
comments so far about 62 and 63 being added as one
implementation program. I looked over the implementation programs, but I’m happy to know if Staff thinks that those are already covered somewhere, but I don’t believe that they are, so I’m happy to add that. Then the second thing was I also support number 67.

I did have question for Staff about when the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Master Plan would be updated, because that was recommended for 64 and 65.

JENNIFER ARMER: I believe the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan was just updated in the last few years, but we do have WooJae Kim from Parks and Public Works here and he may be able to give you a specific date.

WOOJAE KIM: Good evening, Commissioners. WooJae Kim,
Town Engineer. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was updated in 2020, so we would have to further investigate when the next round of updates would need to be, and we could definitely work with our Complete Streets and
Transportation Commission and the Town Manager’s Office and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
91 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CBD to figure when the next update needs to be, but I
suspect it won’t be for another two or three years, so I hope that answers your question.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, that does. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Just to the question you’re asking,
Commissioner Thomas, I would say that since you sat on the GPAC with us, although I think it’s really important that those particular corridors for Complete Streets are some of the most important ones and they would be talked about in the Community Design Elements in terms of they’re like the main street in a couple of our Community Place Districts, I think it would be too much detail to put in the General Plan to call out specific streets for Complete Streets, and it might already be in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, because there is a Complete Streets policy that the Town has, it may already be in there, but I wouldn’t add it into the General Plan, so that’s my opinion on that.

Commissioner Clark, did you have comments or questions? COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, I agree. I think I’d like to
see 62 and 63 as implementation programs. I hear a lot
about VTA and I think collaboration with the VTA is really important, and I’m involved with them separately, and it feels like there needs to be more merging of the worlds and like it’s really possible, so I think that would be great.

I think that 67 looks good.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
92 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I had one thing I wanted to bring up about
Implementation Program D, the community shuttle system. I felt like the focus on parking mostly focused on
accommodating more cars and making sure that there’s more parking, and Staff and I think that there wasn’t as much focus as I would theoretically like to see on reducing the need for parking, and I think that the community shuttle system could be a really interesting way to do this. The only thing I wanted to bring up for this is I definitely would not expect it to be implemented before 2026, but I would like to see work on it happen before then because of how long this program might take, and so I wanted to
include for Staff and Council to consider moving the
timeline up for the community shuttle system.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a reasonable request to
consider moving up the timeline, especially when we see that there’s going to be big, huge impacts from greenhouse gas from a transportation perspective, irrespective of the fact that it happens in every General Plan. With planning for 2,000 units, it’s going to be an issue, so I don’t have a problem with recommending moving up the priority of it.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Could I just ask a clarifying
question? The implementation program is already 2020-2025, and I was just confused by your comments, Commissioner
Clark, because you’re saying, if I’m reading it correctly,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
93 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
you want the implementation timeline to change from 2026 to 2025, but it already is, I think.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, on mine it shows it under
2026-2040, and if it isn’t, if it’s on the earlier one, then I think that’s great.

JOEL PAULSON: Just for clarification, it is currently
marked in the 2026-2040 timeframe.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay, so I have an older
version.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so then your recommendation
would stand to move it into the 2020-2025 priority.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Good catch, Commissioner Janoff.

Thank you for bringing that up.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I do have a couple of questions to
ask. One was on 58, which was brought up by one of the
speakers, make downtown streets bike and pedestrian only, and while you guys said not recommended, is there any merit to studying to make it less car dependent, or do we have that covered in another implementation program?
LAUREL PREVETTI: I’ll start, and I’m sure Staff will
add on. We have in our Capital Improvement Program a
downtown streetscape project that is a placeholder really for after the pandemic ends and as we start getting more revenue from different sources, so that’s really part of a comprehensive evaluation of our streetscape and looking at

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
94 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
redesign, and that’s already in our program. I don’t think we need to add it, because I think there’s already interest in making sure that we can widen sidewalks and make that major street more accessible for all modes of travel, so it’s something that’s actually already in more a short-term work plan; we’re just waiting to get enough resources to hire a landscape architect and help us design it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I kind of thought that from the
General Plan Advisory Committee discussions that we had clearly identified things in that realm as what we needed to do, not just for downtown but for some other places, to raise the safety and usability for all modes of
transportation, not just cars, so I thought we were
covered. I only wanted to bring it up, because we had one of our commenters bring it up and it was on this list here even though it wasn’t recommended, and so I understand that now.

I had another question about number 60, and Staff did
respond that adding off-ramps from Highway 85 to Winchester was outside of the purview of the Los Gatos General Plan, but in the past I have seen where we did say we would
coordinate with regional agencies if we thought it was our priority, and I’m not saying it is, I’m just asking the question. Is that something we should consider to lobby for?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
95 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
LAUREL PREVETTI: The needs of the highway system in
Silicon Valley are so great that it’s just not going to happen, quite honestly. There’s already a study going on about Highway 85 and how to improve efficiencies, and I think we’re even having difficulty coming to agreement
about how to make that artery more effective and perhaps introducing a transit. There’s so much that we have that’s needed. This would be one of those action items that we just would not be able to implement.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. It’s not even clear how much
difference it would make anyway, but I wanted to at least ask the question so that we can say that we asked the
question.

One last question I had was about the paid parking. We
are silent in the General Plan about paid parking, and
there was a parking study done and I understand we’re
implementing on that, and my only question for Staff is by being silent about paying for parking are we putting
ourselves in conflict with current policies, or is it
better to just stay silent about it?
LAUREL PREVETTI: The Town Council is already moving
forward on paid parking, and that’s actually on the agenda for next Tuesday, so there’s no reason for the 2040 plan to get into that level of detail.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
96 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: So there won’t be any conflict,
because we’re not saying that you shouldn’t charge for
parking either, we’re just silent about it, so there’s no conflict. Okay, good then. I’m good.

That was all my questions, so then I think we had a
motion from Commissioner Janoff to adopt 67 and 62 and 63 as implementation programs, is that correct?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: As one program.

CHAIR HANSSEN: As one program, yeah.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to note that
Commissioner Raspe had his hand up a little bit ago.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m sorry; I missed that, so
Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Actually you
asked the question I had with respect to the parking
studies, so thank you for asking, and my question has been answered. Thank you much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So we have a motion from Commissioner
Janoff, but Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Clark have their hands up. Did you have more comments before we do the second? We can do that. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do. I also wanted to, if
Commissioner Janoff is okay with it, change Implementation Program D to 2020-2025, to that timeframe, and include that in the motion.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
97 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, that’s acceptable to the
maker of the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So is that a second, Commissioner
Thomas?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, and then Commissioner
Clark, did you have anything else now that that was added? COMMISSIONER CLARK: That’s exactly what I was going
to say, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So then let’s go ahead, unless anyone
has any other comments on mobility or anything else that they recommend changing, and take our roll call vote, and I’ll start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
98 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
So we’ve gotten through the Mobility Element. Let’s at
least start on the next one. It is 10:47, and so we’ll see where we are at 11:00 and decide whether we should keep going or we should adjourn to another meeting. I think that is the point where I had thought that we would at least decide whether we would keep going, but I don’t see any scenario where we’re going to finish all of the elements tonight, but I think we could probably get the next
element. Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: I just wanted to clarify that if the
discussion is going beyond 11:00p.m. we will need a motion, specifically to continue the meeting past that time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: There weren’t an incredible amount of
changes. Well, there actually were quite a few, but let’s start on it and then at 11:00 o’clock I’ll stop if we’re not finished with the Public Facilities, Services, and
Infrastructure Element. I’ll stop there and then we’ll
decide if we continue to finish that or defer to the next meeting.

The Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure
Element, there are quite a number of changes in my review, but I thought most of them were pretty reasonable, but we ought to discuss what we wanted to add. I had a question on 69, which was considering the following additions. I don’t know that I even knew what MWENDO is. I tried looking for

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
99 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
it and I didn’t see it in the General Plan, but maybe I missed it.

JENNIFER ARMER: I believe that may be indicating
Water Efficient Ordinance. Maybe it was a typo in their letter.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So it came from Valley Water?
JENNIFER ARMER: I can look up what the wording of
that policy is and see if that makes sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Because they had four different
suggestions. It was consider adopting the MWENDO; encourage non-potable reuse of water, like gray water and rain water, which we don’t have in there now; require dedicated
landscape meters where applicable; and require installation of separate sub-meters in each unit of multi-family
developments within commercial buildings, and you guys had said on the lot of those that you were neutral.

JENNIFER ARMER: This is adding a lot of detail to a
goal. The goal is kind of the highest level when you’ve got goals, policies, and implementation measures, but if that additional detail is something that the Planning Commission feels is important to recommend, it could be part of that.

I do think they may have intended that to be water
efficient landscape, but we could look into that. Clearly they are talking about water efficiency.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
100
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: You made a good point that that goal
is about water efficiency overall and how far in the weeds are we going to get in terms of policies. The Town Manager has her camera on.

LAUREL PREVETTI: Thanks to the teamwork of the
participants that are watching the meeting, it is the Model Water Efficient New Development Ordinance.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That makes sense to me, because of
what else is covered in there, but like I said, I didn’t see it. I tried flipping through them and it wasn’t in the General Plan right now, so I thought it was probably in something else that I hadn’t seen or had missed.

Commissioner Janoff and then Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I didn’t have an issue with
including these, but I wouldn’t modify the goal EFS-1 if they should be incorporated under some of the policies
without substantially changing what the GPAC worked really hard on refining. I could keep them or leave them out,
either way. I thought number 70 was a good recommendation.

I agree with all those that are not recommended.

The question that I had with the two or three items
that refer to the connection between Los Gatos-Saratoga Rec, we didn’t really get into that level of detail
specifically saying who is providing child care, so I would think that those kind of comments, that would be 72,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
101
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 possibly 73, possibly 74, is too far into the weeds and things might change over 20 years and who knows if LGS is going to still be around. We don’t want this to be dated at any point if we can help it, so I would not recommend
those, even though Staff is recommending… Well, you’re
recommending something else with regard to the figure;
that’s fine. Number 75, we had a lot of input from the
Senior Services Commission, anything related to senior, so as with many things, the GPAC deferred to those who were experts in their area. If we didn’t get this comment from the Senior Services Commission, I’m not sure, so I put no against that one.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think you have a good point on that.

I mean, we had them come to our meeting, they sent in
written comments, and this sounds like it came from LGS Recreation saying we’re doing all this stuff and we’re not being recognized in the General Plan is what I am getting out of the comments.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s how I read these several
comments and I don’t think the General Plan is the place for that, so I’m just cautioning against that. Number 76, once again we’ve got an acronym that hasn’t been spelled out, or at least I don't know what CPTED means.

CHAIR HANSSEN: It’s in the General Plan right now, by
the way. Is that in their definitions?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
102
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, it’s Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design, but it is defined.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would say no on 77, “Encourage
the private facility or community center to host performing arts events.” I don’t think we need to add “or community center,” especially since we don’t have one, I don’t think, at the moment. Number 79, if we want to do more for the plant-based diet contingent in Town, then maybe, but how would we implement that is my question. Who is adding the trees, and if it’s routing trees to Town property, what Staff is going to maintain and what do you have to do to keep the trees working? That seemed like a very specific thing and a great idea, but not so easily implemented.

That’s all I have.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you have a comment on 80? They
wanted to add dark sky conservation and healthy ecosystems to the existing implementation program for outdoor
lighting.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was okay with adding that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was as well. Let’s see, I’m not sure
between Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Clark who had their hand up first. Let’s go with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. In general I agree
with Commissioner Janoff’s comments, so thank you for that.

For number 69, I believe that we need to add a definition

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
103
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 of “recycled water” to the list of definitions, because when I read the goals I felt like gray water, rainwater, and storm water collection were covered in it already, but I don't know, so I feel like we just need to add that
definition. What do we mean by recycled water? Gray water is typically what we mean by recycled water, so if that could be added to clarify, I think that would address some of the issues with number 69. I also very much support
number 80, but I don’t feel super strongly about the other parts.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark, and then
Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yes, I also generally
agree. I think for number 69 that these can be fit under some of those policies under the goal. For example, for “encourage non-potable reuse of water,” I think that could fit under Policy 1.5, Sustainable Water Use, and so I think that that’s probably something to explore with that one, but I don’t think that they should be added as their own policies. I agree with the stand the Commissioners have taken on the other ones. For number 76 I think definitely no for that one. I think that that wording was there for a reason and I wouldn’t support taking that out.

Then for number 79, the fruit trees, I want to ask
Staff, because they were neutral on it, if that is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
104
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 possible? I agree it’s a great idea, but I also have a hard time seeing how that would be implemented and maintained.

I have a second question for Staff. I was wondering
for number 80 where it adds dark sky conservation, is this the only place in the General Plan where this would be
implemented? It would also go in like Open Space and Parks or something, right?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, dark sky is included in some of
the other sections. In Design of New Buildings, for
example, we’ve got at least one policy that does include reference to dark sky.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think Community Design for sure.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yeah, there definitely we added it to
a policy specifically in response to those public comments.

In response to the question about the fruit trees, the idea of having additional fruit trees in Town, we’re neutral on that. It was one of the less specific recommendations or comments, so how exactly I think the implementation of that is, it’s something that’s added to an existing policy. They talk about possibly under Section 6.13, so a little bit of a question there as to how you might see implementing that, but I could see it being part of if there were some local farms activities. We definitely like to support the Town’s history of the orchards in Town.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
105
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 It looks like Community Development Director Paulson has something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: The first thing I’ll add is it is 11:00
o’clock. The second thing I’ll add is that we’ll look into that more. Ultimately, that’s going to be a resource issue.

We’re not going to be looking to create orchard facilities or some of the farming activities like they’re proposing to do on the North Forty where they’re going to have someone actively monitor that. That would be problematic, but we’ll get some more information before we come back for the next meeting. We will need a motion to extend past 11:00 to a specific time, and then we can see where that goes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Should I make the motion or should I
ask someone to make the motion? What I’d like to suggest to the Commission is that we try to finish this particular element, and then adjourn to another meeting. Do we need to do the date certain right now?
JOEL PAULSON: You don’t need to do the date certain
now, but we need to do it before you close this evening.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, got it.

JOEL PAULSON: First motion is to extend it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And it has to be a specific time?
JENNIFER ARMER: And you then would have the
opportunity when we get to that time to extend it further, if you so wish.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
106
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to just suggest 11:30, but
if we finish this element before that I would want to stop and get to the next meeting, so that’s my proposal.

Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I move to extend the meeting
till 11:30.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Commissioner Raspe, it looks like you’re seconding?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, I’ll second that motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, and then we will take our
roll call vote. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. So then we
also had the hands up from our Staff. Mr. Kim, did you have something you wanted to say?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
107
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 WOOJAE KIM: Yes, thank you, Chair. Regarding the goal for the fruit trees and so forth, I definitely believe more evaluation analysis might be needed, getting our Town
Arborist involved. This element is under Public Facilities and Services, so I think if we’re talking about planting fruit trees on public lands we would definitely need to evaluate that further to see if we could maintain such
trees and if those would be ideal in public spaces.

Also, a separate comment about gray water. Again, in
public facilities and maybe parks we do have to evaluate if that’s even feasible or not, because I know there are
purple pipes of recycled water, that’s a possibility, but that is not even a feasible option at this time because of lack of quantities of recycled water available out there in the county.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s very helpful. So some of the
things that are suggested in 69, what I’m hearing, are not really practical. Let’s see, I have a few hands up. I’ll go with Commissioner Raspe, because he’s waving at me, and then we also have Commissioner Tavana, who had his hand up before, and then Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. First of all, I
agree generally with all comments made, especially with respect to some comments noting that some of these

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
108
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 notations may be dated, so we should be a little careful in the language that we include.

Specifically I want to talk about the last bullet
point in Section 69 requiring installation of separate submeters in multi-family developments. I think it’s inferred but not stated that that should be applicable to new
developments. I don’t think we want to create a retrofit obligation to our existing units, so I think we’ll need some clarifying language in that bullet.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And that’s only if we choose to
recommend it, period. It is a choice to decide not to
recommend it, so I appreciate that.

I would add on that the one before it requiring
dedicated landscape meters where applicable, the applicable would be the big question, because to take on having to retrofit the entire Town with dedicated landscape meters, I can’t speak for everyone, but we have a San Jose water
meter at the street and if I want to see what our water usage is I just open the thing up and I can see what our water usage is. To do that seems like a lot to take on, and I’m not sure where it would take us. Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. Just a quick
two comments actually.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
109
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Speaking to comment 69, I wouldn’t recommend any list changes. I’d like to keep the language as is currently
written.

Secondly, in terms of the implementation programs,
this is a new comment I wanted to throw out there and that I would like to see personally move up the implementation timeline for Program C to 2025. There’s a lot of talk in Town right now about this notion of artificial turf being somehow more environmentally friendly than real grass. I think we should have this study happen sooner rather than later, in my opinion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: To decide if that’s the case? I don't
know if you saw that there were multiple comments in the Staff Report totally advocating for stopping any more
artificial turf in Town, period, and including maybe taking out the stuff that’s at the Los Gatos Creekside Park.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: That’s great news. I can tell
you the windfall from the North Forty, there is budget, and all the local schools, Van Meter, Daves, they’re going to put in artificial turf for some reason at these elementary schools, so needless to say, I would like to see this study happen sooner rather than later.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So you’re adding in a recommendation
that isn’t on the list that we have here to move up the priority of studying the artificial turf?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
110
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Right.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so duly noted, and we can decide
if we can move forward with that, but that makes sense.

Were there other comments that you had?
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: That was it. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I lost track of who was next, so let’s
go with Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Commissioner Tavana,
for that comment. I do agree that Implementation Program C needs to be moved up, and maybe within that we need to have alternatives to just regular sod essentially also, because that is not going to be the good solution moving forward water-wise either, so maybe this implementation program needs to be changed to just studying what the appropriate ground cover needs to be in places where turf is needed, then that would cover the use of artificial turf but also hopefully cover some more sustainable and environmental and (inaudible) alternatives.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, that’s related to the water.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, and people. I think that
that’s some of the concern of artificial turf.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Completely in agreement with
what was just discussed on Implementation Program C, and I

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 am also in agreement with Commissioner Tavana that we should not incorporate any of the changes recommended in

69. It seems like the more people from the Town speak, the less likely these are viable recommendations to implement, so my recommendation would be to not incorporate any of 69 to follow on Commissioner Tavana’s recommendation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: The good news is that by keeping it
general it doesn’t preclude the Town from pursuing any of these avenues under the guise of water efficiency, because that is our goal. How we go about doing it is still open.

That makes sense, so I like that as a resolution. Let’s see, Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, I agree about Implementation
Program C moving up the timeline. I also like Commissioner Thomas’ change to also studying what the appropriate ground cover needs to be, and I agree on number 69. For number 79, the fruit trees, I would like to include a recommendation to Council to explore including this in the plan. I don’t think that we should even actually include it, but I think that that might be something worth looking into in the time between now and their review.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Would you want to have an added
implementation program to study the feasibility of doing it, or just send it off to Council saying that it sounds like a good idea but we’re not sure where to put it?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
112
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I definitely don’t think we
should add it as another implementation program.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Because we have a hundred and some.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, it seems like we have
enough work to do. I think since we don’t even know if it’s feasible, that’s another reason not to put it as one, but I think it is something worth looking into and then
considering including in the General Plan if it does turn out to be completely feasible.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Great, got it. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think one thing we want to
keep in mind is that the Housing Element gives us an
opportunity to get more detailed about how we want to
construct neighborhoods and affordable housing that
supports the residents. We had a great piece during our study session last week. What was it called, agri-hood? It was a low-income neighborhood built by Core, and it
included a whole agricultural garden and whatnot to support the residents. I think this would be a great idea to
include in the Housing Element when we get there to
incentivize sort of the holistic affordable housing, lowincome housing concept, so don’t loose it. I don’t think this is the right place for it. Put it someplace where it can actually do what I think they’re getting at, which is we’ve got this opportunity to grow food for our community.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
113
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Let’s put it where it makes more sense to do that, and maybe it winds up being a public/private partnership or something that’s a requirement for developers, I don't
know, but don’t loose it, but not in this section.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, sounds good. Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree, and I think that it can
even be expanded to not just fruit trees, but in general just everything edible.

I feel like I’m ready to make a motion if people don’t
have a ton of other comments.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we’re fine. I just wanted to
double check, because Commissioner Janoff might have
mentioned it earlier, but number 70, since Staff was
recommending it, would that be part of your motion to
include it?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: (Nods yes.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, go ahead.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move to forward the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element with the following changes: add a definition of recycled and
reclaimed water; change Implementation Program C up to the 2025-2025 timeline and expand it to looking at artificial turf alternatives and groundcover alternatives; accept

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
114
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 number 70; accept number 80; and I believe Commissioner Janoff also said number 73.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, that’s your motion, and do we
have a second? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we’ve made a ton of comments,
so I will go ahead and take the roll call vote, and I’ll start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. So we’ve
gotten through several elements, and I’m suggesting that we will stop here and pick up with Open Space, Parks, and
Recreation at our next meeting, which will be a date
certain. Staff had polled all of us to determine a couple of possible date certains. One date certain was tomorrow.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
115
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 That is absolutely a non-starter for me, and I don't know if there are other Commissioners that can’t do tomorrow.

The other date that they have told us about was the 20th, which is a week from today, and we would definitely not have, I believe, two Commissioners for that. When talking with Staff today they surfaced a couple of other
possibilities. Remind me, Ms. Armer. I think you said the 18th, which is a Monday, and the 25th.

JENNIFER ARMER: The other two options, it’s correct,
it looks like we would likely have five Commissioners join us if we did it tomorrow night, but also a slightly
different five if we went for Wednesday the 20th. The other two options would be 7:00 o’clock Monday, April 18th. The Senior Services Commission has a special meeting at 5:00 o’clock, but we expect they would be done by 7:00. Or
Monday, April 25th. The Finance Commission has a special meeting at 5:00 o’clock, but again, it’s likely they would be done by 7:00, so that is also viable, but we don’t know whether the Commissioners are available for those. Another point is that it wouldn’t necessarily have to be a 7:00 o’clock in the evening meeting now that we have completed the comments from the public, if there is another time of day that works for a majority of the Commissioners, that is also an option.

CHAIR HANSSEN: You mean like meeting earlier?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
116
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Although we have several Commissioners
that are working Commissioners, so I’m not sure if that would be feasible. I’m not clear on the best way to proceed on this. Should we list the number of dates and have people vote which ones they could make? I’m not comfortable based on the polling of those original two dates that we had
enough alternatives that we’d get enough of us here to make sense.

JOEL PAULSON: I’ll just interject. Obviously, we’re
going to make the motion. I’m not sure we’re going to find a date that’s going to work for everyone, frankly, but
ultimately just do a quick raise of hands of folks who
would be available on the 18th, and do a quick raise of hands of people who are going to be available on the 25th, and if everyone raised their hand, then we’ll look for a motion. It looks like Commissioner Tavana has a comment.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead, Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I was just going to say the best
day that would work for me is the 20th. I was going to start there and you can see what else works for everybody else.

JENNIFER ARMER: I will add that if the 20th does work
for Commissioner Tavana, I think that does bring us up to six. Then it would be Commissioner Thomas is the only one unavailable on the 20th.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
117
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Can we get a quick show of hands on
who would be available on the 18th to see if we could get to seven? I don't know if we can or not. I can do it.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I ask a question very
quickly?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What time again was proposed?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s do a starting of 7:00 o’clock
like our normal meeting, but we have done special meetings where we start at 6:00 before. Given what they said about the special meeting on the 18th of the Senior Services
Commission, probably starting at 6:00 wouldn’t be as easy of an option as starting at 7:00, so I would just probably say 7:00.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m out of town next week, so
I’m just looking at my calendar for what time on Wednesday, because I might be able to make that work, but let’s see what works for everyone.

CHAIR HANSSEN: If it’s Wednesday the 20th, it’s
certainly possible that we could start at 6:00 instead of 7:00. I didn’t hear from Staff that there’s another
conflicting meeting that day that they have to support.

Wednesday is the day we normally meet, so I don’t think there are other meetings that day.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
118
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Let me go back to the 18th and a show of hands on who could make it on the 18th. So we’ve got six of us for the 18th, and we wouldn’t have Commissioner Tavana, so it comes down to either the 18th or the 20th, and we could check on the 25th. A show of hands on who could make it on the 25th.

We still have it looks like six. We have six. Oh, seven.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I’ll be in a different time
zone, but I would chime in.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I have the same issue on the 25th. I’m
going to be out of town, but I can get on Zoom, it’s not a problem. I’m going to make a proposal that we make the date certain the 25th since we could have all seven of us
available. I’m proposing a date certain of Monday, April 25th, and we would start at 7:00 Pacific time. Do I have a second? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I second that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see, I will just take the roll
call vote. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/13/2022
Item #3, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
119
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, but I have a question. If
people are out of town on a different time zone and the Senior Services Commission is probably not meeting on the 25th and the 18th, is somebody else meeting on the 18th? CHAIR HANSSEN: The Finance Commission is meeting on
the 25th.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Do you think that would allow a
6:00 o’clock start? No. I’m available for a yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. What we
proposed was a 7:00 o’clock start time, but if Staff let’s us know that we can start an hour earlier, I don’t think it will be a problem, so let’s put the thing that we voted on out there now. It would make it late for any of us on the East Coast. I’ll be in the Central time zone, so it will be 9:00 o’clock that we start, but that’s okay. To me, it’s more important to have everyone there so that we can finish our discussion.

I want to thank everyone for all their time and effort
that they put in tonight, and we did make some decent
progress on the General Plan. We hopefully can finish up at our next meeting that’s scheduled for Monday April 25th.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/25/2022
ITEM NO: 1
DATE: April 22, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.

REMARKS:

On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission received public comments on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and began the review of the Draft 2040 General Plan including the Introduction; Racial, Social and Environmental Justice Element; Mobility Element; and Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.

The review included the following unanimous motions:

1. In the Introduction, recommend approval of the GPAC recommendations for the Vision and Guiding Principles (Exhibit 7, Item 1);

2. In the Introduction, modify Section 1.5 “The Los Gatos Community” to include additional information about the Ohlone in relation to the land that the Town of Los Gatos now occupies and the cultural history of the land, rather than only the topographical history;

3. Adopt modifications recommended by staff in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 2 through 7;

4. In the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element, add a new Implementation Program, “Research the viability of increasing support for the acceptance of food vouchers at local food retailers and farmers markets” to implement Policy RSEJ-4.1;

5. In the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element, modify definitions for equality and equity, to state “Equality. The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. Equal opportunity, levels of support, and allocation of resources, regardless of different circumstances.” and “Equity. Fairness or justice in the way people are treated.

Differing allocation of opportunities, levels of support, and resources based on each person or group’s circumstances and needs, thereby reaching an equal outcome.” (Commissioner Barnett expressed concerned about change of these definitions, and has provided additional input in Exhibit 14);
ATTACHMENT 12

PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 22, 2022
REMARKS (continued):

6. In the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element, modify Policy RSEJ-6.2 to state, “Support leadership development programs for historically marginalized and socially disadvantaged individuals and groups to enhance effective engagement in Town processes.” (Exhibit 7, Item 17);

7. In the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 11, 15, and 18;

8. In the Mobility Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 62 and 63 as a single Implementation Program;

9. In the Mobility Element, recommend the modification in Exhibit 7 listed as Item 67;

10. In the Mobility Element, recommend a change to the timeframe of Implementation Program D to 2020-2025;

11. In the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, recommend a new definition of recycled and reclaimed water; and

12. In the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, recommend modified language of Implementation Program C to include consideration of alternative ground covers and a change to the timeframe to 2020-2025; and

13. In the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 70, 73, and 80.

Shortly before 11:30 p.m. the Planning Commission continued the discussion to a Special Meeting on April 25, 2022. At this meeting the Planning Commission will continue their discussion including review of:
• The Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element;
• The Environment and Sustainability Element;
• The Hazards and Safety Element;
• The Land Use Element;
• The Community Design Element; and
• The Final EIR.

Exhibit 14 contains Planning Commissioner comments.

Exhibit 15 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 2022.

PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 22, 2022
EXHIBITS:

Exhibits previously provided: (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html)

1. Draft 2040 General Plan

2. Draft EIR

3. Revised NOA and Transportation section

4. Final EIR
Exhibits previously received with the April 13, 2022 Staff Report:

5. Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles

7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment

8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes

9. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 2021, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021

10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022
Exhibit previously received with the April 13, 2022 Addendum:

11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022
Exhibits previously received with the April 13, 2022 Desk Item:

12. Planning Commissioner Comments

13. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2022
Exhibits received with this Staff Report:

14. Planning Commissioner Comments

15. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 22, 2022

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

EXHIBIT 14
From: Jeffrey Barnett
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: General Plan Review - Revised Definitions of Equity and Equality Good afternoon, Jennifer.

At the April 13th meeting of the Planning Commission I requested an opportunity to review the changed definitions of the terms "equality" and "equity" proposed by Commissioner Clark in her written comments.

Having considered those terms as presently used in the Draft General Plan, I am in agreement with the change to the definition of "equity".

However, I do think it appropriate to include in the definition of "equality" a reference to equivalent "status and rights" in addition to the new language describing equal opportunity, levels of support and allocation of resources. The additional terms in the current draft emphasize nondiscrimination in the actions of the Town.

Thank you.

Jeffrey

From: Jeffrey Barnett
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Jennifer Armer <[email protected]> Subject: PC Meeting 4.26.22 - Buildout Capacity
Dear Ms. Armer,
Thank you for your call yesterday.

I have some preliminary thoughts to add to the forthcoming discussion of the Land Use Element in the General Plan. Would you kindly present this email as a desk item in the Staff Report? The attached spreadsheet presents an alternative of 2,484 units compared to the Town's revised total of 3,038 as that figure appears on Page 184 of the Staff Report. I have added to the Town's residential buildout of 3,038 an additional 166 hillside residential units. I believe that the Town may not have been consistent in the consideration of homes in these locations. This brings the capacity to 3,204 units.

From this number, I made reductions based on bullet points 1, 2 and 4 in the Staff Report. They are more particularly described on the spreadsheet at Columns E and F. I further reduced the buildout by 56, being half of the projected Central Business District housing of 113. The total of the reductions is 720. The buildout of 3204 less the deductions of 720 yields 2,484. This figure exceeds the RHNA number including the 15% buffer by 192 units. SB 9 contributions to the capacity are foreseeable but are not projected. The RHNA plus buffer figure would still be exceeded if the hillside units were removed.

The reduction of densities will somewhat ameliorate the problems of greenhouse gases, traffic, school crowding, water use and demands on public services.

Certainly the Land Use Element should be reviewed at least every five years and revised as necessary.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jeffrey A. Barnett

Requirements Capacity FIgures Reductions in Capacity Reduction Figures Net New Housing Total Over RHNA % over RHNA With Buffer With Buffer
RHNA 1993 New and Redeveloped Under GP 2763 Low Density Residential 279 2484 192.05 0.075 15% buffer 298.95 ADUs: 25/year for 8 years 200 Medium Density Residential 327 Hillside Residential 166 Hillside Residential 0
Total 2291.95 In process 75 High Density Residential 0
SB 9 Developments ?
Total Capacity Excluding SB 9 3204 Neighborhood Commercial 0 Amount over RHNA 912.05 Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial 58 Mixed Use 0
Central Business District 56
Office and Service Commercial 0
Total Reductions 720

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

EXHIBIT 15
From: Carrie Callaway
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 11:18 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant Based Education in Los Gatos
To the Town Council,
My name is Carrie Callaway and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thank you for your attention to this important topic for all Los Gatos residents.

Sincerely,
Carrie Callaway

From: Tony White
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1:46 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Zoning changes
I am asking you to vote no on the General Plan.

The housing element with zoning changes, density and height increases will drastically change Los Gatos in a negative way.

Los Gatos will become another San Jose if the General Plan is approved.

Think about why you and others chose to move to Los Gatos.

I do not understand why Council would approve $50,000. for a study on marijuana dispensaries but would not have a study on the financial impact of the General Plan.

I hope that the future of Los Gatos is not left in the hands of 5 Council members. Think the N40.

Any future dramatic changes to Los Gatos should be decided at the polls.

Once Los Gatos is gone - we can never get it back.

Tony White