Los Gatos City Council
June 20, 2022

From: Lisa Brancatelli
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1:48 PM
To: GP2040
Cc: Colleen Haggerty
Subject: RE: Final Environmental Impact Report Available and Draft 2040 General Plan Scheduled for Review
Hello Jennifer,
Valley Water submitted a letter to the Town on September 13, 2021 with 28 comments and suggestions on the draft General Plan and draft EIR. Minor modifications have been incorporated into the Final EIR, but no changes have been made to the General Plan. The overall goal of the CEQA process is to avoid or minimize environmental impacts associated with new development. Although comments submitted by Valley Water did not raise to level of significant impacts under CEQA they still provide suggestions to minimize impacts of future development through the strengthening and clarification of policy language in the General Plan. Valley Water reiterates its previously submitted comments and requests the Planning Commission and Town Council update policy language in the draft General Plan to further expand water conservation efforts, protect water supplies, minimize the risk of flooding, and support the protection of riparian corridors.

Thank you,

LISA BRANCATELLI

ASSISTANT ENGINEER II (CIVIL)
Community Projects Review Unit
Santa Clara Valley Water District is now known as:

Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection
5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose CA 95118
www.valleywater.org

From: Hilary White
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Planning
Subject: 2040 General Plan
The draft 2040 General Plan is opening Los Gatos to uncontrolled housing and population growth by up zoning the entire town by 2x to 3x. The redesign ,by a small group of people, of new zoning areas, increased density and height requirements eliminates the safeguards that have kept Los Gatos a special town in the sprawl of Silicon Valley. The resulting increase of traffic and population along with the drain on financial resources and infrastructure is not realistically projected or studied by the draft 2040 GP or EIR. The creators of the 2040 GP do not fully understand the magnitude of what they are unleashing or they wish to fundamentally change Los Gatos.

In any event, a small group of people are rewriting the vision of Los Gatos without any concern for the resident’s viewpoint. As a resident I say no to mini-North 40’s springing up all over town. No to Middle Housing that changes the zoning and increases traffic in our neighborhoods and overcrowds our schools. No to the draft 2040 General Plan.

As a community we can work together to produce a more sustainable model for growth. Five Town Council Members should not decide the fate of our town when the change is so monumental and everlasting. A decision to transform the zoning and very town itself should be decided by the residents. I ask you to reject the proposed 2040 GP. It’s time to start over and do better for Los Gatos.

Thank you,
Hilary White

From: Karyn Meadows
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 2:37 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: Remarks, suggestions, and thoughts on General Plan Hello, thank you for including us in the planning meetings and commentary. I was able to personally attend the meeting due to covid concerns and immunity issues, but I wanted to ask a lot of questions.

For reference, we live in the Belwood community of Los Gatos. Thank you!! In terms of your bullet points:
-- We would support 1,993 units instead of 3,904 units. Due to water issues and fire risk, the lower number would be much easier to support.
-- Affordable housing vs high end dense housing - a balance is likely needed here. If affordable housing can be placed in the North 40 area, that would be ideal. But placing ADU's everywhere is likely not going to keep the small town feel that we all love and bought into when we purchased our homes. It will push out long-time homeowners that bought their homes to have privacy and quiet.
-- Protecting the environment in the face of growth is a key concern. Fire, water, and climate change issues all need to be considered. If you add 3904 units instead of 1993 units, these issues will be inherently more difficult to solve.
--How to phase-in new development - this one should be tracked along with infrastructure improvements. As infrastructure is planned and authorized, that would be the time to plan new development in those areas.
--Up-zoning single family lots - there are many single family areas that will be negatively impacted by up-zoning/lot splitting. It will take the small town feel away and cause a lot of longtime homeowners to move. If you add up-zoned planning in the North Forty or where density is already happening, that would make sense. In a quiet, suburban single-family area, not so much. CERTAINLY, it will drastically affect our community if you plan up-zoning on TOP of SB9.

We do not support it.
-- How to count housing for SB9 - There is not enough information on how you would support applications for ADUs in the plan, other than the illustrations you showed. If a single family home is on a 10K lot with neighbors home 10" from the lot line, how would that work? We look at our neighborhood, which we've been in for 28 years and cannot imagine the loss of privacy if a neighbor wanted to add an exterior ADU. Serious concerns about noise, parking, water, privacy. We would love to see way more information on how this would be enacted and counted.

--Would you mix middle housing in established single family residential areas? --What about water issues? There is not enough water now. Some of the plan includes parkways with trees, using trees as screening, and creating open spaces. All need to have water and any additional housing needs both potable water and a wastewater plan. How do you reconcile this? --The fire risk in Los Gatos proper and also the hillsides/close to the hillsides needs to be considered with additional growth of both SB9 and middle housing. (https://liveinlosgatosblog.com/los-gatos-fire-risk/) --How would you factor in ADUs to existing single family residential areas? What would be the requirements for space around an ADU?
--What about traffic impacts? Specifically on Blossom Hill as traffic enters from San Jose in the am and reverses in the pm?
--What about parking (in the ADU/existing single family residential areas)? --There are a lot of figures that seem to show areas of hillside residential that are NOT hillside at all. For instance, Fig 4-18, Winchester Boulevard District, shows the area of Oka Lane/Mozart Dr as hillside residential. It is not a hillside, so why does it have that designation? --How would it work specifically in areas of single family homes designated as Low Density Residential? If a home is sold, would you redo it with a missing middle housing, multi-family residential, duplexes, and/or small lot single-family homes?
--Your Mobility Element, specifically Multi-Use Trails, does not address maintaining wildlife protections as you open to multiple uses including bicycles and pedestrians. Please include it. Wildlife is a large part of why a lot of us continue to live here and we want to protect it. --WRT the proposed Class III bikeways, you have drawn two at Belgatos Road and Belvue Road. There are a lot of people walking these streets so adding bikeways must be safe and not compete with people walking.
--On 6.14, Implementation Programs, you have a category under C for determining the appropriate use of artificial turf. This turf doesn't belong anywhere other than a dog park. It's made out of plastic that degrades and increases temperatures around it by as much as 10 degrees. It is NOT environmentally responsible to use at all.
--On 8.5 Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, you might consider residential composting. best, Karyn

From: MITZI ANDERSON
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Planning Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda 2040 GP
Los Gatos Planning Commissioners,
> The draft 2040 General Plan is opening Los Gatos to uncontrolled housing and population growth by up zoning the entire town by 2x to 3x. The redesign, by a small group of people, of new zoning areas, increased density and height requirements eliminates the safeguards that have kept Los Gatos a special town in the sprawl of Silicon Valley. The resulting increase of population and traffic along with the drain on financial resources, schools and basic infrastructure is not realistically projected or studied by the draft 2040 GP or EIR. The creators of the 2040 GP do not fully understand the magnitude of what they are unleashing or they wish to fundamentally change Los Gatos. >
> In any event, a small group of people should not rewrite the vision of Los Gatos without any concern for the residents viewpoint. As a resident I say no to mini North 40’s springing up all over town. No to Middle Housing that changes the zoning and increases traffic in our neighborhoods and overcrowds our schools. No to the draft 2040 General Plan.
>
> As a community we can work together to come up with a more sustainable model for growth. Five Town Council Members should not decide the fate of our town when the change is so monumental and everlasting. A decision to transform the zoning and very town itself should be decided by the residents. I ask you to reject the proposed 2040 GP. It’s time to start over and do better for Los Gatos.

Sincerely,
Mitzi Anderson
Foster Road, Los Gatos
Sent from my iPhone

From: Kathleen Barry
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 5:05 PM
To: Planning Comment
Subject: General Plan 2040
Hello All,
Please find my attached letter.

Thank you,
Kathleen Barry

April 12, 2022
Subject: 2040 General Plan Residential Feedback
Attn: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners:

I am writing in regards to the 2040 General Plan. As a concerned resident, it seems as though this plan opens Los Gatos to uncontrolled housing population growth. I am not a fan of the increased density and height requirements. Los Gatos is special as a town and has been for years. We have been able to maintain it’s charm and character it’s always had-at least since I was born and raised here.

The shopping center with Jamba Juice was built with its dome-shaped corner, obstructing the mountain views. Now, there is the North 40, also with obstructing view of the mountains. The traffic is terrible, yet the North 40 isn’t even completed and open yet. I drive down Los Gatos Boulevard every day to work. It is backed up both directions. I had an ambulance behind myself and several other cars trying to go south on Los Gatos Boulevard. The only place to go for them to get through was to turn into one of the office buildings on Los Gatos Boulevard. I am hoping I never need an ambulance with them coming south on Los Gatos Boulevard and an island in the middle and no where to turn. And, what will happen to our beautiful downtown shops and restaurants with the North 40? It seems as community, there should be more input from the citizens. I don’t see how the Council should have the capability of deciding what our town becomes over the next couple of decades. I would think they would welcome and encourage the citizens who live here and encourage they help build the plan for the future of the town we live in.

So far, I am saddened about the possibility of what the future of our town will look like.

Equally, disappointed in our Council.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Barry

From: Catherine Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 9:48 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: Leigh High School
Please note, Leigh High School also serves Los Gatos residents. This is not acknowledged in the Draft 2040 plan, section 6-30 under Campbell Union High School District. Only Westmont and Prospect are mentioned. This is an oversight and should be fixed.

Thank you,
Catherine Roberts

Plant-Based Diet Promotion in Mountain View:

A Proposal by Residents and Advocates
Date: October 9, 2019
Authors: Mohan Gurunathan, Mary Rubin, Amy Halpern-Laff, Katie Cantrell Overview
Mountain View is preparing its Sustainability Action Plan (SAP-4) for the period 2019-2022. As encouraged by concerned residents, the plan includes the following initiative: “Develop a resolution and outreach in support of a plant-based diet. (item S4.7)” A total of $10,000 was proposed by the city for a supporting program, to be spent over the course of two fiscal years (FY 20-21 and FY 21- 22).

We applaud the inclusion of this action in SAP-4. However we do not feel this initiative is funded adequately in light of its high carbon-footprint reduction potential. As discussed below, plant based diet promotion is the most cost ef ective action we can take to reduce our community’s carbon emissions. Therefore we believe it deserves a larger proportion of the overall sustainability plan budget.

This document explains the urgency of this issue, presents a rationale for increasing funding, and provides concrete recommendations on implementing for a plant-based diet promotion initiative in Mountain View.

Urgency of Issue
The high consumption of animal products in the American diet is a leading contributor to climate change and many serious forms of environmental destruction, including: deforestation, wildlife extinction, ocean dead zones, water scarcity, methane emissions, etc. According to a comprehensive 2018 study published in the journal Science, avoiding meat and dairy is the ‘single biggest way’ to reduce our impact on the planet. According to that same report, in order to keep climate change under 2 degrees, US citizens need to eat 90% less beef, 90% less pork, 60% less milk, and 50% less eggs, while eating 4-6 times more beans and pulses. The UN has repeatedly urged world governments to advocate for meat reduction in order to save the environment. However, this message is completely ignored in many sustainability and carbon-footprint reduction programs.

Why? Sometimes food emissions are considered “consumption” based, meaning that they are generated outside the geographic area of interest. But to ignore “consumption based” emissions makes little sense, since climate change is a global problem that knows no borders. Emissions generated anywhere will eventually cause our planet’s overall climate to warm. Ignoring consumption based emissions is analogous to being on a sinking ship, and bailing the water in your compartment to your neighbor’s compartment. It makes little difference when the entire ship is sinking.

Mountain View’s draft of SAP-4 states the following high-level goals: (yellow highlights added) Figure 1: Stated direction from SAP-4
Direction from the City Council was to enact the programs which result in the greatest reduction of carbon emissions per dollar spent, or “biggest bang for the buck.” Accordingly, Table 1 below shows the list of new proposed actions in SAP-4, sorted by most cost-effective (top) to least cost effective (bottom):

Table 1: List of new actions from SAP-4, sorted by cost effectiveness The City’s data analysis clearly indicates that promotion of a plant-based diet is the most cost effective action for reducing GHG emissions, in terms of dollars-per-megaton CO2e reduced.

As engaged and concerned citizens we must then ask: why is it the least funded item on the list? A rational approach would be to identify the most cost ef ective programs and prioritize these programs in the budget allocation. However, the prioritization of programs in SAP-4 seems to run counter to this. Costly programs such as a Citywide Pilot Bicycle Program (at $205/MTCO2e!) are heavily funded, while the most cost effective programs are insufficiently funded. This goes directly against the guidance from the City Council.

Council comments from September 16 meeting
In the Sustainability Committee meeting on Sept 16, 2019, Council members Hicks and Abe-Koga both recommended for staff to “take another look” at increasing the funding for plant-based promotion programs. Furthermore, Council member Hicks emphasized several times that consumption-based emissions should not be ignored. These statements are all consistent with the proposal for increased funds.

Staffing Proposal
We propose the inclusion of 1 Full Time Employee (FTE) or Contract Employee to manage the Plant-based diet initiative and outreach programs. The scope of this position would include:

∙ Plan, manage and execute plant-based diet outreach programs (see proposed program list below)
∙ Seek grant-money and donor-matching funds where possible to offset City’s costs ∙ Work with local non-profits to leverage their resources and expertise, where possible ∙ Monitor effectiveness of the initiative and estimate the carbon emissions reduction due to the programs
The City might also consider having this person manage food-waste reduction programs, since this is a related topic and also an action discussed in SAP-4 (item Z1.9).

Note that it is entirely possible to measure the effectiveness of a plant-based diet program and the resulting GHG savings. This can be done by enrolling residents to sign up for the program, and sending regular email surveys to track their progress in reducing animal product consumption.

Therefore, the idea that the impact of this program is “not easily measurable” is not a valid one.

Proposed Programs
The table below provides a list of recommended plant-based diet programs and their estimated costs.

Proposed
Item # Program Description Estimated Cost
Annual Budget
(each FY)
Mandate that meals catered for City Council
meetings will be plant-based, or at least
P1

Zero. $0
vegetarian. Highlight this in city communications
and media.

Create procurement guidelines for all city
Minimal. Staff time to craft
purchased foods and city catered events,
and disseminate new
$0
P2
mandating plant-based, or Default Veg. (Default
procurement guidelines and
(staff time only)
Veg means that animal products are absent unless
assess enforcement methods.
specifically requested..)
P3
Incorporate plant-based food promotion into all
Minimal. Staff time to draft
$0
city sustainability materials and promotions.
and edit materials.
(staff time only)
Minimal. Staff time to
P4
Creation of steering committee to recommend
$0
participate on steering
branding and advertising strategies.
(staff time only)
committee
Work with local school boards to disseminate
education about plant-based diets. Work with
Minimal. Staff time to liaise
$0
P5
school menu planners to ensure plant-based
with school groups.
(staff time only)
options are available.

Encourage Mountain View restaurants to offer
Minimal. Local non-profits
$0
P6
plant-based specials and display promotional
can assist with this effort.
(staff time only)
materials.

$500 - $5000, depending on
Creation of custom branded marketing materials
quantity and complexity.
$5000
P7
(brochures etc.) for residents, explaining the
Potential for free/donated
(first year only)
importance of plant-based diet.
graphic design.

P8
Plant-based cooking competition for residents,
< $500 for venue, prizes, and
advertising. $500
perhaps a “Chili Cookoff.” Held once a year.

Value / Punch card program. Residents get a
punch for each plant-based special ordered at local
Minimal. < $500 to print
P9
restaurants. After 10 punches, they get a free meal
punch cards and < $500 for
$1000
(with restaurant agreement) or entered into city
gift certificates.
raffle for a gift certificate.

Monthly email and online survey program to keep
$3200
track of residents who pledge to reduce animal
~$2000 for database setup,
first year
product consumption. Residents can sign up
$100/month for IT and
P10
online, or at any of the other events in this list
maintenance. May be less if
$1200
(films, cooking classes, etc.). This will allow the
city IT support is available.
subsequent
City to quantify GHG reduction resulting from
years
this program.
$300 /class. Assume they
Monthly free (or low-cost) plant-based cooking
could be held at Rengstorff
P11
classes, sponsored by the City. 20 – 40 people per
$3600
Community Center in the
class.

kitchen or other city venue.

$25 to $250 per event,
depending on speaker and
film license costs. Could be
Monthly lecture and/or film series on diet,
screened at the library,
P12
environment and nutrition. Advertised by the City.
$1500
Community Center, Senior
Free to the public.

Center, etc. Possible grant
money reimbursement
available if City takes the lead.

Mountain View restaurant competition,
participating restaurants feature plant-based
specials over the course of a month and residents
$200 - $2000, depending on
P13
level of publicity $1500
try the specials and vote for their favorite. The
winning restaurant receives a prize and publicity.

Could be done in conjunction with the VegFest.
<$300 per event. Possible
P14
Free food-tasting events for the public, held
grant money reimbursement
$3600
once/month.
available if City takes the lead.

Hold a Mountain View Plant-based food festival,
Ranges from net positive
also known as a “VegFest”. VegFest features local
revenue to a cost of $15,000
restaurants and organizations, speakers, food
depending on the venue,
P15
samples, etc.
$5000
sponsorships, vendor fees,
etc. Local non-profits can
Similar events have been held in San Francisco,
assist with this effort.

Oakland, Santa Cruz, Seattle and many other cities.

Advertising campaign to promote the initiative,
$5000 - $15000, with
including billboard, print and radio ads. Potential
potential for donated
P16
to have donor match funds for the advertising
$10,000
matching funds if City takes
campaign.
the lead.
$34,900
first year
Total Proposed Budget for all programs
(per Fiscal Year)
$27,900
subsequent
years
The total requested funding over 3 years (in addition to staff time) is:
$34,900 + $27,900 + $27,900 = $90,700.

This is approximately 1.2% of the entire $7.5MM budget allocated for SAP-4. Considering that plant-based diet promotion is the most cost ef ective action in the list, allocating 1.2% of the total budget should not be an unreasonable request. Especially considering that $420,000 of the budget is still unallocated at this time.

Availability of grants and matching funds
The authors are connected with several non-profits and individual donors who could offer grants and matching funds if the City were to take the lead on some of the actions stated above. These additional sources of funding could be used to offset some of the City’s costs, or to expand the initiative.

Examples from other cities and organizations
While other cities have made statements and resolutions about diet change (such as “Meatless Monday” proclamations), we do not know of many examples where a city has made a significant commitment to promote diet sustainability among their residents. The UN has been urging governments to emphasize this issue for over a decade, yet the message has fallen on deaf ears. We are proposing for Mountain View to be a leader and visionary in bringing this urgent issue to the forefront of the climate change discussion. Our City’s approach could become a model for other cities to follow. And we could be proud that our City is leading the charge on one of the most important environmental issues of our time.

Below is a list of actions and resolutions taken in other cities and organizations related to diet

sustainability. While these are all great examples, what we are proposing for Mountain View is more comprehensive.
● Berkeley and Emeryville have passed “Green Monday” resolutions, including:
○ Sourcing plant-based meals for city council meetings
○ Encouraging local restaurants to feature plant-based specials on Mondays ○ Featuring educational programming and displays at community centers and libraries
● New York City has implemented a Meatless Monday program for all 1,700 public schools within the City. This program started in 2019 and mandates that all breakfast and lunch options are 100% vegetarian on Mondays. According to NYC mayor Bill de Blasio: "Cutting back on meat a little will improve New Yorkers' health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We're expanding Meatless Mondays to all public schools to keep our lunch and planet green for generations to come." Mayor de Blasio actually intends to cut the city’s purchasing of red meat by 50% as part of his “Green New Deal” initiative. ● The cities of Santa Barbara and New York City have both banned the sale of processed meat products (including hot dogs, bacon, salami, etc.) in schools. This is mostly health-related, since processed meats have been found to significantly increase the risk of certain forms of cancer.
● Germany has banned the serving of meat at all official government functions, due to the unjustifiably large environmental impact .
● The University of Cambridge in the UK recently removed beef and lamb from their menus, to reduce their environmental impact. They estimate that this cuts their food-related emissions by one-third. Goldsmiths University, also in the UK, is removing beef from their menus for the same reason.
● Many cities and municipalities have passed food procurement policies that stipulate a reduction in meat and dairy purchasing. Friends of the Earth has a great guide that outlines the process and highlights cities that have incorporated food purchasing policies into their Climate Action Plans.

● The group “Scientists for Less Meat” is making an urgent call to all City mayors to enact policies that will reduce the amount of meat consumed in their city, and increase the proportion of plant-based foods.
● Harvard University recently committed to reduce their food-related GHG emissions by 25% before 2030, by emphasizing a shift towards plant-based foods. o This is based on a UN & World Resources Institute initiative called the "Cool Food Pledge."

● The city of Philadelphia has a "Vegan Restaurant Week" each year. This event is a collaboration between non-profits, the city, and restaurants. ● In Los Angeles there is an initiative being considered to mandate at least one plant-based meal offering at all movie theaters, sports arenas, and LAX airport eateries. ● A bill called AB 479 is currently under consideration in the California Assembly, and looks like it will pass (it has had unanimous support so far). This bill is called:
"AB-479 School meals: plant-based food and milk options: California School Plant Based Food and Beverage Program." This will bill provide financial incentives to school systems which add more plant-based meal options to their menus. ● Many US cities, including San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and numerous others have passed “Meatless Monday” resolutions. But these are all passive resolutions which have no educational or community outreach component, and no financial backing. As such, they have been largely ineffective.

We especially encourage Mountain View to consider adopting the "Cool Food Pledge". This is a pledge to reduce food-related emissions by 25% before 2030. This is a very tangible and realistic target for Mountain View and our City could take a climate leadership role as the first city in the U.S. to make this pledge.

Proposed Programs for the Town of Los Gatos
The table below provides a list of recommended plant-based diet programs to implement in the town of Los Gatos.

Item # Program Description Estimated Cost
Proposed
Annual Budget
(each FY)
P1
Create procurement guidelines for all
town-purchased foods and city catered events,
mandating plant-based, or Default Veg. (Default
Veg means that animal products are absent unless
specifically requested.) Have a plant-based vendor.

Minimal. Staff time to craft and
disseminate new
procurement guidelines and
assess enforcement methods.
$0
(staff time only)
P2
Incorporate plant-based food promotion into all
town sustainability materials and promotions.

Minimal. Staff time to draft
and edit materials.
$0
(staff time only)
P3
Creation of steering committee to recommend
branding and advertising strategies.

Minimal. Staff time to
participate on steering
committee
$0
(staff time only)
P4
Work with local school boards to disseminate
education about plant-based diets. Work with
school menu planners to ensure plant-based
options are available.

Minimal. Staff time to liaise
with school groups.
$0
(staff time only)
P5
Encourage Los Gatos restaurants to offer
plant-based specials and display promotional
materials.

Minimal. Local non-profits can
assist with this effort.
$0
(staff time only)
P6
Creation of custom branded marketing materials
(brochures, etc.) for residents, explaining the
importance of plant-based diet. Ask them to display
at Chamber of Commerce. Get flyers/ brochures from
non profits.

Free if we get flyers from non
profits.

P7
Plant-based cooking competition for residents,
perhaps a “Chili Cookoff.” Held once a year. Part of
other climate events. Connect with Sur La Table.

P8
Find an app residents can use to track how many plant
based meals they eat in LG restaurants. After 10
visits, they get a free meal (with restaurant
agreement) or entered into city raffle for a gift
certificate.

P9
Monthly email and online survey program to keep
track of residents who pledge to reduce animal
product consumption. Residents can sign up
online, or at any of the other events in this list
(films, cooking classes, etc.). This will allow the
Town to quantify GHG reduction resulting from
this program.

Non profit lists? VO? Green
Monday?

P10 Monthly free (or low-cost) plant-based cooking
classes, sponsored by the City. 20 – 40 people per
class. We can ask Mary Ellen as well as rotate and
each of us, that wants to, can teach a class. We all
have recipes we’re excited to share.
$300 /class? Assume they
could be held at the
Community Center in the
kitchen or other city venue.

Free or lowcost
Just cost for
food.

P11
Monthly lecture and/or film series on diet,
environment and nutrition. Advertised by the
Town. Free to the public. Vidisha, doctors, etc.
*But there is cost for film license. Prices do vary.
$25 to $250 per event,
depending on speaker and
film license costs. Could be
screened at the library,
Community Center, Senior
Center, etc. Possible grant
money reimbursement
available if City takes the lead.
$1500
P12
Restaurant competition, participating restaurants
feature plant-based specials over the course of a
month and residents try the specials and vote for
their favorite. The winning restaurant receives a
prize and publicity. Could be done in conjunction
with the VegFest.

Hopefully no cost. Contact LG
marketing group Polygon
Marketing. Derek Thomas.

Free?
P13
Free food-tasting events for the public, held twice a
year. Held at Farmers market? *Not sure of expense.
<$300 per event. Possible
grant money reimbursement
available if City takes the lead.
$600
P14
Hold a Los Gatos Plant-based food festival, also
known as a “VegFest”. VegFest features local
restaurants and organizations, speakers, food
samples, etc.

Similar events have been held in San Francisco,
Oakland, Santa Cruz, Seattle and many other cities.

Ranges from net positive
revenue to a cost of $15,000
depending on the venue,
sponsorships, vendor fees, etc.

Local non-profits can assist
with this effort.
*Mountain Views price quote.

Would it be the same for LG?
$5000
●

From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:57 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Karen Rubio
Subject: Fwd: Planning Commission Info for General plan.

Dear planning commission,
Many cities and municipalities have passed food procurement policies that stipulate a reduction in meat and dairy purchasing. Friends of the Earth has a great guide that outlines the process and highlights cities that have incorporated food purchasing policies into their Climate Action Plans. I have included some attachments outlining some of the implementation programs other cities have adopted including San Francisco, New York City, and Mountain View. This is by no means an extensive list as other many cities and municipalities are taking steps to promote plant-based eating.

Many institutions also have policies for example Harvard University recently committed to reduce their food-related GHG emissions by 25% before 2030, by emphasizing a shift towards plant-based foods. This is based on a UN & World Resources Institute initiative called the "Cool Food Pledge."
Thank you!
Lisa Wade and Karen Rubio

Berkeley,California is working to reduce the city's intake ofmeatCredit:Adobe.Do not use without permission.

PlantBased News

LAW&POLITICS
BerkeleyBecomes FirstUS City
ToPhase OutAllAnimalProducts
ItServes
Berkeley has acknowledged meat and dairy’s impact on public health and the climate crisis
by JemimaWebber
28th July 2021 Updated 2ndAugust 2021
Reading Time: 2 minutes

B
erkeley City Council has announced plans to decrease the animalbased food products it serves by 50 percent, and replace them with plant-based options by 2024.

It’s part of the Californian’s city’s long-term goal of completely phasing out animal products, The Daily Californian reported.

Berkeley’s shiftto plant-based
The move makes Berkeley the first city in the US to pivot to a completely plantbased food purchasing program. The Californian city supplies meals to summer camps, senior centers, public events, and the jail, among others.

A 16-month campaign by animal rights organization Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) motivated the decision. DxE staged protests and sent letters to the City Council highlighting the environmental impact of animal agriculture. The group is pushing for similar policies in other cities like Chicago and San Francisco.

According to Berkeley’s July 27 meeting agenda, the council believes the goal will ‘accelerate the City’s transition to plant-based diets’.

The agenda report pointed out meat and dairy’s negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions, water scarcity, and ‘catastrophic natural disasters’.

It also noted issues surrounding food waste and diseases like diabetes and cancer.

Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Councilmember Sophie Hahn authored the resolution.
“Streamlining the City of Berkeley’s transition to plant-forward and plant-based meals advances the City’s Strategic Plan Priority of being a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment and supports the Climate Action Plan goal that a majority of food consumed in Berkeley be produced locally,” the resolution says.

In the recent meeting, Arreguín said the initiative will further Berkeley’s ‘long tradition of promoting the humane treatment of animals’.

Berkeley and animalrights
Berkeley made headlines in 2017 when it became the second city in the US (after West Hollywood) to ban the sale of fur.

Councilmember Kriss Worthington proposed the fur ban to ‘foster a consciousness about the way we live in the world and create a more humane environment in [Berkeley]’.

The proposal noted that fur producers kill more than 30 million animals a year for their coats.

Quoting the Free Fur Berkeley’s website, the proposal reads: “These animals are often victims of cruel conditions that include ‘intense stress, distressed and repetitive movement, self-mutilation, and even cannibalism.’ e InVeganism AndSustainability

Jemima Webber
Jemima is the deputy editor at PlantBasedNews.After going vegetarian in 2014 and vegan in 2017, she dived into the plant-based and sustainability scene, working as a writer and editor across leading veganmedia platforms.Hailing from Newcastle,Australia, Jemima previously lived at a farmanimal sanctuary during an eight-month volunteering stint.Now living in the Netherlands (with her dog Levi, of course), she is now studying aBachelor of Psychological Science. Jemima is also a singer-songwriter, whose debut EP reached #1 onAustralia's singer-songwriter chart on iTunes. More by JemimaWebber
Previous
GreggsVeganizes Its ‘Legendary’Sausage,Bean,And Cheese Melts Next
Pollution From Fish FactoryTurns Lake InArgentina NeonPink “With the availability of countless varieties of adequate fabrics, there is no need for this brutal industry.”
Councilmember Sophie Hahn introduced exemptions to the ban. She pushed for the sale of cowhide with hair, and sheep or lambskin with fleece to be permitted. She alleged that these items are by-products of the meat industry.

In 2019, Berkeley became the first city in the US to launch a Green Monday campaign. The weekly initiative aims to encourage plant-based eating.

© 2022 PlantBasedNews is aUK-based digitalmedia outlet publishing content about veganismand plant-based living, including news and current events, health, personal transformation stories, features, and recipes. | PlantBasedNews Ltd, PO Box 71173, London, SE20 9DQ,UnitedKingdom.

Proudly powered byNewspack byAutomattic

Home  Animal Rights 

ANIMAL RIGHTS CLIMATE CHANGE VEGAN
Berkeley Becomes The First U.S. City To
Commit to Going Vegan
By Tanuvi Joe Published on Aug 1, 2021
Last updated Jul 31, 2021
4 Mins Read

The Berkeley City Council in California has voted to divert half of the city’s spending money from animal-based foods to plant-based foods by 2024.

Going forward, the Council will look to convert that spending into 100% pledging its commitment to plant-based foods and addressing the issue of climate change.

Activists-driven change
The new decision by the Council was driven by a 16-month advocacy campaign by the Berkeleybased grassroots animal rights organization Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). Other groups including Extinction Rebellion Oakland, The Animal Save Movement, East Bay Animal PAC, PETA, and The Suitcase Clinic joined the DxE in its efforts.

The DxE called for the move to ditch animal-based foods citing concerns like the industry being responsible for releasing massive amounts of GHGs and a leading cause for deforestation. A study showed that if animal agriculture were to come to an end, it would stabilize GHGs for 30 years, meaning 70% of carbon emissions would be offset by 2100.

In addition, the industry inflicts tremendous cruelty on animals and by confining them in small facilities, these places are becoming breeding grounds for future pandemics.

Source: Direct Action Everywhere
Plant-Based for the win
Taking these reasons into account, the Berkeley City Council passed a resolution to take 50% of the city’s spending on animal-based foods like meat, dairy, and eggs and use it for plant-based foods, a commitment it hopes to achieve by 2024.

In addition, in the future, it plans to use 100% of these funds on plant-based foods, a goal it will review on June 30, 2022.

The resolution states: “A wealth of scientific research underscores the urgency of substantially reducing meat and dairy consumption, which accounts for more than half of all food-related GHG emissions. It is clear that the world cannot meet global greenhouse gas reduction targets without significantly curbing the consumption of animal products. High-meat-eating nations like the United States, which consumes 2.6 times more meat than the global per capita average, must help shoulder this responsibility.”

Source: Direct Action Everywhere
The decision aims to reinforce the city’s commitment to mitigating the effects of climate change and helps Berkeley establish itself as a climate action leader.

In a statement, Mayor Jesse Arreguín said: “This is a very important step for the city to take as part of our broader climate efforts, as well as building on our long tradition promoting the humane treatment of animals here in the city of Berkeley.”
This is a very important step for the city to take as part of our broader climate efforts, as well as building on our long tradition promoting the humane treatment of animals here in the city of Berkeley
Jesse Arreguín, mayor of Berkeley


 vegan meat
According to recent data, consumers in the U.S. are increasingly favouring plant-based foods as the sector’s retail sales have skyrocketed to double-digits reaching US$7 billion in 2020 alone.

Consistent climate action
In the past, the city was among the first few to take the lead in recycling initiatives and in 2013, became the first U.S. city to pledge to divest from fossil fuel companies. “The public is rising up and taking action against the destructiveness of animal agriculture,” said Almira Tanner, a Berkeley resident and DxE’s lead organizer. “We’re hopeful this historic step can spur a wave of legislation to protect all life on Earth while we still have time.” The DxE activists have been advocating for change in Chicago as well and in San Francisco last year, was instrumental in passing a law that called for a 50% cut in plant-based food purchasing in jails and public hospitals. It was even behind the ban on the sale of fur in Berkeley and San Francisco along with a statewide ban signed by Gavin Newsom, the governor of California.

Recently, Hawai became the first U.S. state to declare a climate emergency. U.S. president Joe Biden also showed his commitment to tackling climate change by pledging to slash carbon emissions in the country by half by 2030.

Elsewhere, similar actions are being undertaken for the benefit of animals like France and Germany banning the use of inhumane methods to kill unwanted male chicks, E.U. committing to remove all animal cages by 2027 and Israel became the first country to ban the sale of fur in the fashion sector.

Read: U.S. Animal Agriculture Subsidies Soared In 2020 Despite Climate & Health Damage Lead image courtesy of Direct Action Everywhere.

Tanuvi Joe - 496 Posts

Born and bred in India and dedicated to the cause of sustainability, Tanuvi Joe believes in the power of storytelling. Through her travels and conversations with people, she raises awareness and provides her readers with innovative ways to align themselves towards a kinder way of living that does more good than harm to the planet. Tanuvi has a background in Journalism, Tourism, and Sustainability, and in her free time, this plant parent surrounds herself with books and rants away on her blog Ruffling Wings.

Copyright Ekowarehouse Limited 2022. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms Of Use.

December 10, 2018
I
Animal Law Update
California Enacts Law Requiring
Plant-Based Options in State
Facilities
By Nicole Pallotta, Academic Outreach Manager
n September 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1138 , a law that makes California the rst state in the nation to require prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, and other state-operated facilities to oer plant-based meals. The law denes plant-based meals as “entire meals that contain no animal products or byproducts, including meat, poultry, sh, dairy, or eggs.” Menu

According to Senator Nancy Brown , the bill’s author,
“Americans have shown a
growing interest in low-meat and no-meat diets… But people who are conned to prisons, hospitals or other healthcare facilities aren’t always given the opportunity to choose non-meat options.”
In addition to the importance of access to plant-based meals for individuals in these facilities,“offering plant-based options in these institutions gives California a chance to further its climate protection and water conservation goals.” The Los Angeles City Council is also considering legislation that, if approved, would require all movie theaters and large-scale entertainment venues that sell food to provide at least one vegan protein entrée option on their menus. This law would include concessions at city-operated venues, parks, the Los Angeles Zoo, Meals on Wheels programs, and Los Angeles International Airport restaurants.

Councilman Paul Koretz, who introduced this proposal on December 5, 2018, said combating climate change is his chief motivation, and cited several studies linking the meat and dairy industries and the environment.

Further Reading:
● Rosengard, David B.“ Three Hots and a Cot and a Lot of Talk’: Discussing Federal Rights-Based Avenues for Prisoner Access to Vegan Meals .” (23 Animal L. [i] (2016-2017)
Donate to Protect Animals
Help animals win the legal protections they so desperately need and deserve, and ensure they have an advocate in courtrooms and legislatures across the country.

TAKE ACTION NOW

FOCUS AREA
Farmed Animals

HOW WE WORK
Legislation
Tags: Pig Location: California

RESOURCES
Farmed Animals
Laws that Protect Animals
Animal Cruelty-Free Guide

RELATED CONTENT
Wins for Animals in the 2018 Midterm Election
Animal Advocacy Groups and Food Law Center Urge FDA Not to Bow to Industry Pressure to Restrict Plant-Based Dairy Labels
Animal Advocates Urge USDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to Incorporate Plant-Based Diets
Animal Law Update
Press Release
Press Release
Chicken Cow

RELATED
Court Strikes Down Second Iowa Ag-Gag Law
Public interest coalition celebrates another win against unconstitutional statute barring undercover investigations at factory farms
Short Film Released Following Three Appellate
Court Decisions Concerning Ag-Gag Challenges
Edie Falco narrates the Animal Legal Defense Fund lm demanding transparency in factory farming
Appeals Court Sends Hormel “Natural Choice”
Deceptive Advertising Case to Trial
D.C. Court of Appeals rules Animal Legal Defense Fund can pursue its claims
March 15, 2022 Press Release
September 14, 2021 Press Release
September 2, 2021 Press Release
Join Us. Sign up for our newsletter
[email protected] SUBMIT

DONATE
Follow Us.

Back to Top
The Animal Legal Defense Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Our EIN number is 94-2681680. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is rated four-stars by Charity Navigator, is a Platinum Level GuideStar Exchange participant, a Better Business Bureau Accredited Charity, and an Independent Charity Seal of Excellence awardee, ensuring that we meet the highest standards of accountability, efficiency, and impact. For intellectual property information and terms of use, visit our Intellectual Property Terms of Use page. For privacy policy and ad & cookie policy information, visit our Privacy Policy pages.

Animal Legal Defense Fund, National Headquarters
525 East Cotati Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 795-2533 | [email protected]
To update your payment information, visit our Member Center.

MEATLESS CITIES
A Workshop on How Cities Can Help Lead the
Transition to a Plant-Forward Food System
Session 3
Procurement Policies
June 16, 2021 | 12:00 – 1:00 PM
1 POLICY OPTIONS
Numerous cities have adopted policies to reduce the amount of meat products that they purchase, as well as pushed for facilities to explore and provide alternative, plant-based offerings.

Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP). The GFPP is aimed at changing the way public institutions purchase food, including by incorporating animal welfare and environmental sustainability standards into their procurement policies. A number of cities have pledged to adhere to the GFPP, including Berkeley (CA), Los Angeles (CA), Oakland (CA), San Francisco (CA), Washington, DC, Chicago (IL), Boston (MA), Cincinnati (OH), and Austin (TX), in addition to numerous institutions within these cities. Though the program is voluntary, participating cities have collectively shifted millions of dollars towards suppliers aligned with the program’s values.

Procurement Commitments. Various cities have adopted commitments to reduce the amount of animalbased food products they purchase. For example:
• Berkeley (CA) was the first city to adopt a progressive new food purchasing policy committing to replace 50% of the city’s animal-based food purchasing with plant-based alternatives (Vision 2025 for Sustainable Food Policies).
• New York (NY) has committed to reducing the city’s beef purchases by 50% and phasing out all purchase of processed meat by 2030 (NYC Green New Deal). • San Francisco (CA) passed a resolution committing to reduce purchases of animal products in jails by 50% in 2024 and in hospitals by 15% in 2023.

Meatless Mondays. School districts in several cities have adopted Meatless Mondays, including Baltimore City Public Schools (MD), Buffalo Public School District (NY), and New York City Public Schools (NY).

Vegetarian & Vegan Food Options. Various cities have pushed for greater availability of plant-based food options. For example:
• The school districts in Berkeley (CA) and New York (NY) now offer plant-based option at every meal, and four schools in New York (NY) are fully vegetarian. • Berkeley (CA) also requires vegan-only food to be served at city events and meetings on Mondays.
• Looking beyond city facilities, Los Angeles has introduced legislation that would require entertainment and travel venues to put at least one vegan dish on their menus.

Notably, states appear to be responding positively to these local procurement initiatives with plantforward policies of their own. In 2018, California passed a law requiring hospitals, prisons, nursing homes, and other state facilities to provide at least one vegan meal option. In 2019, New York State passed similar legislation requiring hospitals to make plant-based meals and snacks available to patients and to list the vegan options on all written materials and menus.

MEATLESS CITIES: A Workshop on How Cities Can
Help Lead the Transition to a Plant-Forward Food System Session 3
Procurement Policies
2 POTENTIAL CHALLENGES
Despite potential political opposition, none of the above-mentioned examples of procurement policies enacted by cities appear to have been challenged in the courts as unlawful.

However, the source of procurement funding could pose legal challenges. Food purchased by local agencies using federal dollars must follow federal procurement guidelines, and food purchased using state funds must follow state procurement guidelines. To the extent that cities are relying on state or federal funding to purchase food, these guidelines could potentially limit their ability to reduce their procurement of animal-based food products.

Moreover, geographically preferential laws have been challenged under the Dormant Commerce Clause on the basis that they discriminate against commerce from other states. If procurement policies favoring plant-based products over meat products were implemented, parties in states that rely heavily on the meat industry might bring these challenges.

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION

1. How effective are procurement policies in helping cities reduce their consumption of meat? Can they be effective in influencing consumer behavior?

2. How might procurement policies be designed to overcome or otherwise minimize the risk of potential legal challenges?

3. City policies aimed at reducing the procurement of animal-based food appear to have been largely focused on city facilities. To what extent can cities require non-public institutions and businesses to reduce their procurement of meat and other animal-based foods or otherwise require them to offer plant-based options? What challenges would cities face?

4. What are the political challenges to changes in procurement policies? How might political opposition to procurement policies be overcome?

Home  Vegan 

VEGAN KIDS VEGAN DINING
NYC’s Plant-Based Mayor Initiates Vegan
Fridays At All City’s Public Schools
By Amy Buxton Published on Feb 7, 2022 Last updated Feb 9, 2022 3 Mins Read
Photo by Eric Adams' campaign.

History was made last week in New York. For the first time, all public schools will be required to serve only vegan food in their cafeterias once a week. The move follows the successful implementation of Meatless Mondays and Fridays throughout the district. Vegan Fridays will be a permanent change to school menus designed to expose the 930,000 public school children to healthy meals.

The plant-based protocol was brought in by Mayor Eric Adams, fresh after being sworn in last month. A vegan himself, the official has pledged to work with the Department for Education (DOE) to make schools healthier. Menus will be available to view on the DOE website a month in advance.

Adams credits his own veganism with reversing his diabetes diagnosis.

Photo by Katerina Holmes from Pexels.

Building on a good foundation
Vegan meals have already been available to New York students. Milk is still required by law to be served with all meals. Children can choose to not drink it, but the USDA has made its availability compulsory. The same applies to Vegan Fridays.

“DOE is committed to the health and well-being of all children, and it is imperative to have a consistent nutrition and full diet every day to enable students to succeed both in and out of the classroom,” Associated Press secretary-general, Jenna Lyle, said in a statement. “We are pleased that New York students will be able to expand their healthy and nutritious dietary options by gradually introducing a vegan-focused menu on Friday following the success of Meatless Monday and Friday.” Lyle added that “Menu items other than vegan are available upon request.” NY schools’ Meatless Mondays were initiated in 2019. They provided a good infrastructure base for adding Vegan Fridays into the mix and removing all animal products. “Plant-based options at school mean a healthy diet and a healthy life, and improve the quality of life for thousands of students in New York City,” Adams said in a statement. “All students have access to healthy foods that prevent debilitating health. I’m excited to see that I can do it. “ Photo by Anastasia Shuraeva from Pexels.

Teaching the younger generations
As parents become less wary about plant-based nutrition and increasingly health orientated, eating meat-free at home is becoming more widespread. However, when implementing change in schools, there can be backlash.

 kids food school lunches vegan food
When the Mayor of Lyon, France, decided to take meat off the menu of all the schools under his purview, both the French government and public described the move as an outrage. It was cited as an insult to French farmers and butchers and parents joined the outcry as well. The public anger did not sway Mayor Doucet, who stuck to his initiative, which he cited as being entirely driven by health concerns.

France has a contentious relationship with meat alternatives. Last year it was reported that the government made its feelings known about cultivated meat, with declarations that it was not natural and would never be served in schools.

The U.K. appears to be fairing a little better. It has just seen the first launch of the first Plant Based School Kitchen partnership. It came about after the headteacher of the school in question decided to switch up the menu to reflect planetary health, as well as solid nutrition for all students.

Lead Photo by the Eric Adams Campaign.

Amy Buxton 443 Posts
A long-term committed ethical vegan and Green Queen's resident plant-based reporter, Amy juggles raising a family and maintaining her editorial career, while also campaigning for increased mental health awareness in the professional world. Known for her love of searing honesty, in addition to recipe developing, animal welfare and (often lacklustre) attempts at handicrafts, she’s hands-on and guided by her veganism in all aspects of life. She’s also extremely proud to be raising a next-generation vegan baby. -

Copyright Ekowarehouse Limited 2022. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms Of Use.

Select Language
Powered by Translate
Home
About Collaborate Mountain View
What Can I Do?
Sustainability Planning
Cool Block
Zero Waste & Recycling
Search
Sign in
Register

Home Plant-Based Eating
   
Plant-Based Eating
Want to learn more about the many benefits of plant-based eating? Want to support Mountain View’s amazing restaurants? The City’s sustainability team launched a plant-based eating program that will focus on promoting healthy and ethical food choices, supporting equitable access to healthy food, and spreading awareness of the positive health and environmental impacts of a plant-based diet.

We will be hosting quarterly public events, featuring cooking demonstrations, film screenings, and community speakers. Local restaurants will also be invited to promote plant-based eating »

opportunities here in Mountain View. Finally, the City Council is expected to consider a resolution in support of plant-based eating by the end of the year.

Looking for ways to get started?
Recipes:

Vegan baking recipes from Minimalist Baker
Meatless Alphabet from Acterra
Zero Waste Chef recipe index
Veggie burger recipe from Love and Lemons
10 African inspired vegan recipes from Afro Eats
Resources:

Meatless Monday
Green Monday
Forks Over Knives beginner's guide
Acterra's plant-forward eating resources
Acterra's Healthy Plate, Healthy Planet fact sheet
What science says about the benefits of a plant-based diet (Discover, June 2020)
Emissions from the livestock sector (FFAC)
10 weeks to vegan challenge & resources
10 million black vegan women movement
News and Events Your Ideas
Plant-Based Eating Fall Challenge

Past Event: Community Garden Workshop -
Sunday March 6th
   
15 Dec 2021
As part of our plant-based eating series, the City of Mountain View was proud to host our first community gardening event.

This in-person workshop instructed participants on how to start their own garden, no matter their gardening experience or the size of their space. Home gardens allow you to take full advantage of Mountain View’s unique climate, where you can grow your own fruits, vegetables, and herbs year-round! The workshop covered planting seasons, water-conscious
gardening, how to make the most of your space from container pots to garden beds, and a hands-on planting activity. The event took place at the Soil & Water Garden, a learning-focused community garden at Heritage Park.

Learn more about the Soil & Water Garden.

Past Event: The Positive Environmental Impacts
of a Plant-Based Diet
   
24 Sep 2021
For the third event in our plant-based eating series, Monica Chen, Executive Director of the Factory Farming Awareness Coalition, shared about the environmental impacts of our food choices. Through an engaging and informative presentation, Monica shared how to make a big difference for the
environment and your own health by including more plant-based foods in your diet.

The Factory Farming Awareness Coalition is an educational nonprofit that contributes to the eradication of factory farming through a range of educational programs. Every year they educate and empower thousands of people about the social justice, health, and environmental impacts of our food system.

You can watch a recording of the event here.

Past Event: Plant-Based Eating Cooking
Demonstration
   
24 Sep 2021
As part of our Plant-Based Eating program, the City of Mountain View hosted our first plant-based eating cooking demonstration on September 7th. You can find recipes from the event here.

We were grateful to be joined by chef Alex Bury. Alex was trained as a classical (non-vegetarian) chef at the worldrenowned Culinary Institute of America. In 2001, she opened a restaurant in California called Sparks with an entirely plantbased menu. Sparks quickly became well-known for its outstanding food, even among non-vegans. Alex is now a
professional fundraiser and serves as Vice President of Development for the international organization Vegan Outreach.

When she’s not raising money to change how animals are
treated she jumps back into the kitchen: She has taught healthy cooking techniques and recipes at Whole Foods Market, for the McDougall Program (a nationally renowned preventative health program), and for local groups and companies since 2000. Alex

is now based in Anchorage, Alaska, where she enjoys pancakes with wild Alaska blueberries and searching for the best soy cappuccino in the 49th state!
Past Event: City of Mountain View x Food
Empowerment Project
   
04 Nov 2021

Page last updated: 13 Apr 2022, 01:37 PM
The City of Mountain View kicked off our new Plant-Based Eating initiative with the founder of the Food Empowerment Project, Lauren Ornelas. The Food Empowerment Project seeks to create a more just and sustainable world by recognizing the power of one’s food choices. They encourage healthy food choices that reflect a more compassionate society by
spotlighting the abuse of animals on farms, the depletion of natural resources, unfair working conditions for produce workers, and the unavailability of healthy foods in low-income areas.

By making informed choices, we can prevent injustices against animals, people, and the environment. Food Empowerment
Project also works to discourage negligent corporations from pushing unhealthy foods into low-income areas and empower people to make healthier choices by growing their own fruits and vegetables. In all of their work, Food Empowerment Project seeks specifically to empower those with the fewest resources.

You can watch a recording of the event here.

STAY INFORMED
Subscribe for project updates
Your email address...

SUBSCRIBE

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Moderation Policy
Accessibility
Technical Support
Site Map
Cookie Policy
2 members of your community are following this project

Proposed Programs for the Town of Los Gatos
The table below provides a list of recommended plant-based diet programs to implement in the town of Los Gatos.

Item # Program Description Estimated Cost
Proposed
Annual Budget
(each FY)
P1
Create procurement guidelines for all
town-purchased foods and city catered events,
mandating plant-based, or Default Veg. (Default
Veg means that animal products are absent unless
specifically requested.) Have a plant-based vendor.

Minimal. Staff time to craft and
disseminate new
procurement guidelines and
assess enforcement methods.
$0
(staff time only)
P2
Incorporate plant-based food promotion into all
town sustainability materials and promotions.

Minimal. Staff time to draft
and edit materials.
$0
(staff time only)
P3
Creation of steering committee to recommend
branding and advertising strategies.

Minimal. Staff time to
participate on steering
committee
$0
(staff time only)
P4
Work with local school boards to disseminate
education about plant-based diets. Work with
school menu planners to ensure plant-based
options are available.

Minimal. Staff time to liaise
with school groups.
$0
(staff time only)
P5
Encourage Los Gatos restaurants to offer
plant-based specials and display promotional
materials.

Minimal. Local non-profits can
assist with this effort.
$0
(staff time only)
P6
Creation of custom branded marketing materials
(brochures, etc.) for residents, explaining the
importance of plant-based diet. Ask them to display
at Chamber of Commerce. Get flyers/ brochures from
non profits.

Free if we get flyers from non
profits.

P7
Plant-based cooking competition for residents,
perhaps a “Chili Cookoff.” Held once a year. Part of
other climate events. Connect with Sur La Table.

P8
Find an app residents can use to track how many plant
based meals they eat in LG restaurants. After 10
visits, they get a free meal (with restaurant
agreement) or entered into city raffle for a gift
certificate.

P9
Monthly email and online survey program to keep
track of residents who pledge to reduce animal
product consumption. Residents can sign up
online, or at any of the other events in this list
(films, cooking classes, etc.). This will allow the
Town to quantify GHG reduction resulting from
this program.

Non profit lists? VO? Green
Monday?

P10 Monthly free (or low-cost) plant-based cooking
classes, sponsored by the City. 20 – 40 people per
class. We can ask Mary Ellen as well as rotate and
each of us, that wants to, can teach a class. We all
have recipes we’re excited to share.
$300 /class? Assume they
could be held at the
Community Center in the
kitchen or other city venue.

Free or lowcost
Just cost for
food.

P11
Monthly lecture and/or film series on diet,
environment and nutrition. Advertised by the
Town. Free to the public. Vidisha, doctors, etc.
*But there is cost for film license. Prices do vary.
$25 to $250 per event,
depending on speaker and
film license costs. Could be
screened at the library,
Community Center, Senior
Center, etc. Possible grant
money reimbursement
available if City takes the lead.
$1500
P12
Restaurant competition, participating restaurants
feature plant-based specials over the course of a
month and residents try the specials and vote for
their favorite. The winning restaurant receives a
prize and publicity. Could be done in conjunction
with the VegFest.

Hopefully no cost. Contact LG
marketing group Polygon
Marketing. Derek Thomas.

Free?
P13
Free food-tasting events for the public, held twice a
year. Held at Farmers market? *Not sure of expense.
<$300 per event. Possible
grant money reimbursement
available if City takes the lead.
$600
P14
Hold a Los Gatos Plant-based food festival, also
known as a “VegFest”. VegFest features local
restaurants and organizations, speakers, food
samples, etc.

Similar events have been held in San Francisco,
Oakland, Santa Cruz, Seattle and many other cities.

Ranges from net positive
revenue to a cost of $15,000
depending on the venue,
sponsorships, vendor fees, etc.

Local non-profits can assist
with this effort.
*Mountain Views price quote.

Would it be the same for LG?
$5000
●

From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 5:45 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Karen Rubio
Subject: Correction Plant-Based Environmental Talk is on Friday Dear Planning Commission Members,
I realized that the talk is actually on Friday, April 22 (not Thursday as stated in my earlier email.) I apologize for any confusion.
https://losgatosca.libcal.com/event/8998488
This is a zoom talk hosted by Los Gatos Library and Plant-Based Advocates. We have an excellent speaker Mohan Gurunathan who will explain the scientific basis for eating plant-based as a powerful solution to climate change.

Mohan is a popular environmental speaker. He has presented to silicon valley companies and environmental events such as the Santa Clara University's tURN climate event https://www.scu.edu/turn/
The talk will be on April 22 at 5 pm
Hope to see you there!
You can register here:
https://losgatosca.libcal.com/event/8998488

From: Pat Sharp
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:55 AM
To: GP2040
Subject: Housing Element
To the Planning Commission
I do not want to see the housing element of almost 4000 units in our plan. Given the drought, congested streets and schools, we cannot afford to exceed the state mandated 1900 or so required.

And the city should work with the developers so that affordable housing is in fact delivered. The North 40 did not deliver affordable housing except for the senior leasing facility.

I have lived here for more than 30 years and hope we can be thoughtful in our city planning. Thank you for your efforts.

Pat Sharp
Harding Avenue
Sent from my iPhone

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

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 25, 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:

Exhibit 16 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 22, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, April 25, 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
ATTACHMENT 13

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 25, 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 previously received with the April 25, 2022 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
Exhibit received with this Desk Item:

16. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 22, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, April 25, 2022

EXHIBIT 16
From: Jak Van Nada
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 5:05 AM
To: Shelley Neis; Town Manager; Joel Paulson
Subject: Please Include for the Planning Commission Meeting of 4/25/22 The Los Gatos Community Alliance (LGCA) continues to advocate that a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) of the 2040 General Plan be completed before the Planning Commission or Town Council take any action. The FIA presented in the Alternative Land Use study did not evaluate the development in the 2040 General Plan. We have attached a recent presentation that we gave at the Democracy Tent meeting on 4-18- 22, which outlines our concerns.

Of special note:
• Using the actual historical growth rates in Salaries, Pension and Benefit costs would add nearly $34 million to the cumulative deficit of the General Fund Balance over the next 5 years
• The General Fund would be completely wiped out by 2026 and have a deficit balance greater than -$23 million at the end of 2027
• The potential for driving the deficit even higher with more development than necessary to meet the RHNA requirement is very high. Without an FIA, the Town cannot accurately forecast our Financial Future.
• The Town Has Refused To Do A Thoughtful Fiscal Impact Analysis, Yet They Have Agreed To A “High-Level” Report Based On Faulty Data • The General Plan is the primary tool for guiding future development in the Town of Los Gatos for the next 20 years
• The General Plan is the framework of making CHOICES about growth, housing, transportation, neighborhood improvement and service delivery. • A Fiscal Impact Analysis documents the General Fund revenues and costs and capital investment that are attributable to alternative land use scenarios considered by the General Plan Update process.

• Just like an Environmental Impact report documents the environmental impacts, a FIA documents the fiscal impacts.

For more information, please review our presentation attached. If you would like more information, please contact me at the address below, or, have the Town's Finance Commission do an analysis for you. A three minute speech would not adequately explain the problems.
--
Jak Van Nada -
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

Why A Fiscal Impact Analysis? A F
Looking Backwards To See Forward n B kw S r r
Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 1

It’s Not So Much What You See ’ N S u W a Y u
But What You Don’t See W Y u o t
Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 2

This Presentation Is To Show You What T i e t o h
Y u n e You Aren’t Seeing
Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 3

Data Used For This Report D se o h R p
• 2021 ACFR - 20 AC Annual Comprehensive Financial Report l o i n i • Draft 2040 General Plan 0 r P•
Mid- e u t -Year Budget Report e u t - J y ul1Jy- e Dcember 31, 2021 e • Five Year Forecast Fi e t
Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers
4

5 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
Calculations 2016 2018 2021
Actual
CAGR 2016-
2021
Actual
CAGR 2018-
2021
Total
Growth
2016-2021
Salaries & Wages 14.5 16.1 20.3 6.9% 8.1% 40%
Retirement Benefits 3.6 4.3 6.4 12.2% 14.2% 78%
Other employee benefits 3.2 3.3 5.6 12.0% 19.5% 76%
Total Salaries, Wages, Benefits 21.3 23.7 32.3 8.7% 11.0% 52% Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Headcount 144 148 150 0.8% 0.4% 4% Salaries, Wages & Benefits per FTE Head 148 160 203 6.5% 8.2% 37% Actuals (A) & Town Staff Forecast (F) - Base Case
with 2% COLA 2016A 2017A 2018A 2019A 2020A 2021A 2022F 2023F 2024F 2025F 2026F 2027F Salaries & Wages 14.5 14.8 16.1 17.9 19.3 20.3 20.6 20.6 21.2 21.8 22.3 22.8 Retirement Benefits 3.6 3.9 4.3 5.3 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.9 7.3 7.7 7.6 7.9 Other employee benefits 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Total Salaries, Wages, Benefits 21.3 21.9 23.7 26.8 29.0 30.4 31.0 31.5 32.6 33.7 34.2 35.1 FTE Headcount 144 146 148 149 150 150 150
Salaries, Wages & Benefits per FTE head ($k) 148 150 160 180 193 203 207 General Fund Inrease (decrease) 3.3 7.5 -8.6 -7.1 -1.5 -1.6 -2.0 -2.4 -2.1 -2.3 General Fund Balance 27.2 30.4 37.9 29.3 22.2 20.8 19.2 17.2 14.8 12.7 10.4 Revised Forecast ($ million) 2023F* 2024F* 2025F* 2026F* 2027F* Salaries & Wages - actuals and forecast using 6.9% 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 22.0 23.6 25.2 26.9 28.8 Pension - actuals and forecast using 12.2% 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 7.4 8.3 9.3 10.5 11.7
All Other Benefits - actuals and forecast using 6.9% 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 4.3 4.8 5.3 6.0 6.7
Total Salaries, Pension & Wages - actuals and forecast using 5- year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 33.7 36.6 39.9 43.4 47.2 Difference from Town staff forecast (2.2) (4.0) (6.2) (9.2) (12.1) Cumulative difference from Town staff forecast (2.2) (6.2) (12.4) (21.6) (33.7) Revised General Fund Balance 17.0 10.9 2.4 (8.9) (23.3)

The Town Is Forecasting Deficits he To F a ing e
• In The Next 5 Years The Town Staff Is Forecasting That The General Fund Balance t s h T af t e e l d l e Will Decrease by 50% - l c e From $20.8M At The End Of 2022 To $10.4M At The End Of 8M t n T 2027 • The Town Staff Forecast Assumed An Annual Growth Rate Of Just 2% For Salaries, ow t f cas As An ow h s 2% For S l , Pension and Benefits. n i d e i
Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 6

• However, over the last 5 years salaries, wages and benefit costs have v r r s 5 s a i s ge b n t h v actually grown at 8.7% annually at8 n l
• That is more than 4 times han4 i sthe growth rate the Town Staff is forecasting. h g r h af s e t ng.• Over the last 3 years the actual growth rate has accelerated to 11% e he l y e a u r t c l r d 11• We Are Entering An Inflationary Period Ar nt r n at ary e od • What Happens If We Change The Forecast Assumption From 2% To 8.7%? h p n a T s u i o Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 7

Modified Forecast Using Historical odif ed ec st i t a
Growth Rates
• Using the actual historical growth rates in Salaries, Pension and Benefit costs would i t ow h e r , n d e i co s d add nearly $34 million to the cumulative i i add nearly $34 million to the cumulative d e r y on t m at e deficit e x y idefcit over the next 5 years e y • The General Fund would be completely wiped out by 2026 and have a deficit F d l d c balance greater than - a nc g e t n $23 million at the end of 2027 i h e d Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 8

Town Spending on Headcount Has Increased w i g o ea u a I c Dramatically in the Last 5 Years c l e ea
• Salaries Have Grown 6.9% per Year (up 40% in 5 years) a i r p r 40% i • Pension Expense has grown 12.1% per year (up 78% in 5 years) E pe h ow 1 78% i y• Benefits have grown 12.0 % per year (up 76% in 5 years) e i r n 0 y y a )• Total of the 3 costs have grown 11% per year (up 52% in 5 years) o o e 3 t h 11% p a (u e r• While headcount has grown by only 0.4% per year (up 4% in 5 years) n y y Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 9

The Numbers
Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 10
Revised Forecast ($ million) 2023F* 2024F* 2025F* 2026F* 2027F* Salaries & Wages - actuals and forecast using 6.9% 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 22.0 23.6 25.2 26.9 28.8 Pension - actuals and forecast using 12.2% 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 7.4 8.3 9.3 10.5 11.7 All Other Benefits - actuals and forecast using 6.9% 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 4.3 4.8 5.3 6.0 6.7 Total Salaries, Pension & Wages - actuals and forecast using 5-year actual historical CAGR for 2023 forward 33.7 36.6 39.9 43.4 47.2 Difference from Town staff forecast -2.2 -4.0 -6.2 -9.2 -12.1Cumulative difference from Town staff forecast -2.2 -6.2 -12.4 -21.6 -33.7Revised General Fund Balance 17.0 10.9 2.4 -8.9 -23.3

Some Concerns o n
• The ACFR of 2021 Said There Was A Salary Increase of 1% Plus A Bonus of 2%. e f h A S r I a f P o s f . • Salaries, Wages and Benefits Actually Increased By 8.7% Over 5 Years, But Accelerated To a rie a d B tu c % v e , c l d T 1 I t 11% In The Last 3 Years.
• Unfortunately, You Won’t See That Noted Anywhere In The ACFR. tu u ’ S e t o d Anyw I F • The Town Has Refused To Do A Thoughtful Fiscal Impact Analysis. Yet They Have Agreed To e w R f htf a a e re A “High- Level” Report Based On e ” R t Faulty Data r l r lty. Mr. Koen will tell you more shortly. o l y u m tly • The Council Pushed The Mute Button When Brought To A Council Meeting e n e e t u t n W n B u tin Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 11

Concerns, Cont’dr C t
• T o $4.8 a 64% O P The 2016 Council Rejected A $4.8M Annual Sales Tax That 64% Of Those Polled o $4.8 a 64% O P By The Town Was Approved B T n a Ap e – – That Would Total $29M For Los Gatos Today. T u l For L s • In 2016, we found the OPEB buried in Footnote 10 - I 6, w u h OPE b n no 10 $12.5 M • The Town Council Is In Charge, Not The Staff. n o h ge ot h f • We Gave The Town Council A Finance Commission Available a T u l e m s o l e to Them At o h m t Any Time.

Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 12

Facts MaFer ; Transparency MaFers ; Honesty MaFers Fa M F T ns n F ; M r 13

Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 14

What If The General Plan Costs More $$ ? W he G a l ost $ Facts Maer ; Transparency Maers ; Honesty Maers 15

Fiscal Impact Analysis
APRIL 2022

17 ● The General Plan is the primary tool for guiding future development in the Town of Los Gatos for the next 20 years
● The General Plan is the framework of making CHOICES about growth, housing, transportation, neighborhood improvement and service delivery. ● A Fiscal Impact Analysis documents the General Fund revenues and costs and capital investment that are attributable to alternative land use scenarios considered by the General Plan Update process. ● Just like an Environmental Impact report documents the environmental impacts, a FIA documents the fiscal impacts.

General Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis

18 ● The Town provides services and infrastructure to residents and workers as reflected in the Town’s budget
● Residents and workers consume services, and pay for those services through taxes and fees
● Therefore, new growth will consume additional services and pay additional taxes and fees
● Big Question – What is the balance of new costs and revenues from new growth?
● A Fiscal Impact Analysis will provide the answer
Does Growth Impact Operations?

19 Alternative Population Growth Scenarios
The Draft General Plan contains by far the highest Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) assumption

21 ● Identifies projected changes to local services and revenues ● Helps define achievable levels of service● Projects capital facility needs● Clarifies development policy impacts● Calculates revenues and helps in the development of revenue strategies● Encourages “what if” questions● Promotes public education of the connection between land use and fiscal conditions.

A FIA Provides Support To Decision Makers and Community Stakeholders

22 What Will The Findings Tell Us?
marginally fiscal
-$$$ +$$$
. f a r outweigh the new revenues from growth
-$ $0 +$
.roughly equal the new revenues
The costs that will be required to scale operations and/or provide newinfrastructure to accommodate growth projected in the General Plan. . f a r exceed the new revenues from growth
•There are many potential interpretations for the range of fiscal results
•The fiscal results do not provide a projection of future budget levels

23 Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D General Plan
Net New Dwellings 681 1,416 1,828 2,700 2,763
Pending/Approved Dwelling Units 475 475 475 475 475
Subtotal 1,156 1,891 2,303 3,175 3,238
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) - - - - 500
Total Residential Units 1,156 1,891 2,303 3,175 3,738
Single Family 391 328 371 550 550
Multi-Family 765 1,563 1,932 2,625 3,188
Below-Market Purchase
(BMP) Units 149 238 293 464 847BMP Units: % of Total Residential 13% 13% 13% 15% 23% Alternative Mix of Housing Analyzed

24 FIA Development Assumptions
● Redevelopment percentage is the percentage of the total area under each land use designation assumed to be redeveloped within the 2040 planning period

26 ● Alternative C – 2,303 units – annual revenues exceed annual costs by $300,000 ● Alternative D – 3,175 units – annual costs exceed annual revenues by $35,000 ● General Plan – Unknown but must be worse than Alt D given higher growth and housing mix shift
Comparison of Alternatives – Net Fiscal Impact
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D General Plan
Annual Revenues $ 4,320,000 $ 5,796,000 $ 6,564,000 $ 8,378,000 ??? Annual Costs $ (3,710,000) $ (5,280,000) $ (6,264,000) $ (8,413,000) ??? Net Fiscal Impact $ 610,000 $ 516,000 $ 300,000 $ (35,000) ??? Residential Net Impact $ 190,000 $ 96,000 $ (120,000) $ (455,000) ??? Non-residential Net Impact $ 420,000 $ 420,000 $ 420,000 $ 420,000 $ 420,000

28 ● The fiscal analysis did not study the 2040 Draft General Plan – ○ Studied the impact of adding 3,175 total units including 464 BMP units and 0 ADU’s
○ 2040 GP consists of 3,738 total units including 847 BMP units and 500 ADU’s
● No base case or downside case scenarios were presented – consultants stated “consider a best-case scenario over the long run”
● Amount of property tax revenues and sales tax is extremely dependent on the mix of units in each land use alternative
● The revenue generating potential of development will decline as Prop 13 limits the escalation of assessed values compared to inflation of municipal service costs Major Shortcomings of The Town’s FIA

29 ● The analysis is for full buildout at one point in time and does not consider effects of inflation over 20-year period, which will affect the Town’s revenues and costs differently ○ From FY 2018 -21 total salaries, wages and benefits increased at a 11% CAGR VS Total General Fund Revenues increased at 1.8% CAGR ○ A 20 year build out of cost/revenue trends by year is required to determine fiscal impacts of inflation and growth
● The analysis is based on pre-pandemic financial information and does not reflect the Town’s current budget and most recent five- year outlook ○ Five-year outlook is projecting annual operative deficits each year and a cumulative deficit of $10.4m
Major Shortcomings of The Town’s FIA

30 ● Analysis did not evaluate current departmental capacity nor additional staff or facilities needed to support planned growth ○ Police and Fire safety costs are highly variable with growth ● Analysis did not evaluate the Town’s ability to maintain service standards
○ A negative fiscal impact would suggest the Town would must reduce service standards
Major Shortcomings of The Town’s FIA

31 ● The analysis did not expand beyond the General Fund to the Appropriated Reserves Fund (GFAR) which is used to fund capital projects ○ Money transferred from the General Fund to GFAR
■ FY 19 - $2.8m, FY 20 - $8.1m, FY 21 - $3.4m
○ Ability to fund $80.0m of unfunded capital projects
● The analysis did not address cost of increasing facilities and infrastructure capabilities resulting from 2040 GP growth
○ A 25% growth in VMT will require more street and road maintenance expenditures
○ Storm water system is outdated, shallow and undersized Major Shortcomings of The Town’s FIA

32 ● Less residential growth is better – limit to RHNA 1,993 plus required buffer ● Land use mix should be planned to generate a fiscally neutral outcome – will be challenging given mix of BMP to total units
● Residential growth focused in Opportunity Areas will have a different fiscal impact than growth Town wide
● Commercial growth such as work/live units would appear to have a net positive fiscal impact
● Given the difference in historical growth rates in salary, wages and benefits vs total revenues, impact of inflation and large unfunded capital needs, substantial new sources of revenues will need to be found ○ How much and how quickly can be answered by a proper FIA.

But….not all is lost…..some obvious conclusions

33 ● How do we really know if the 2040 draft General Plan is Fiscally Stable and Responsible?
● Who benefits from NOT doing a FIA of the 2040 General Plan ? In Closing – two key questions that need to be asked

Thank you

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 14

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 can go ahead with the agenda
item for tonight, which is the continuation of discussion of the Draft 2040 General Plan as well as the Final EIR.

Just to recap for people that might not have been
able to attend the last meeting, what we have decided to do in terms of reviewing the documents is to start out
reviewing element-by-element and save the Land Use and
Community Design elements, which have the bulk of the
public comments that we’ve received in terms of volume, until the end so that we can put a lot of focus on that. We wanted to make sure that we addressed any comments that came in on the other elements.

In our last meeting we got through the Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, and so we will begin the discussion tonight on the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element. I would like to ask Staff, since you did do another Staff Report, if you would like to make any Staff Report before we begin our discussion this
evening?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. You covered most of
what I was going to say, Chair, but I do want to go over

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
just to make sure everybody is clear exactly where we are in going through the review.

So good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Planning
Commission. We are continuing the discussion of the General Plan, and we have received verbal public comment and closed the public comment period. We were going through Exhibit 7 and made it through the Introduction; the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element; the Mobility Element; and the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element.

That means that the next one that we will be
proceeding to is Open Space, Parks, and Recreation.

Depending on how much we get through this evening, the
order as we go through that document includes the
Environment Sustainability Element, the Hazards and Safety Element, then the Land Use Element, and Community Design Element, and finally, the Final EIR.

We did publish a brief Staff Report on Friday, as
well as a Desk Item today, for your consideration, but this does conclude Staff’s presentation, but we’re available to answer any questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for that, Ms.

Armer. Do any Commissioners have questions for Staff at this time? I don’t see anyone hands raised.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
When we get to Land Use and Community Design,
Land Use in particular, I will talk a little bit more about what I would like to do in terms of proceeding forward on that, but to recap what Staff had said, we were going
through Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 7 from the Staff Report from the April
13th meeting did contain a wonderful summation by Staff of all the public comments that have been received over the course of the last year since the Draft General Plan was released, and we’ve been using that in terms of making our comments, and what we had been doing in our last meeting is for every element there are a number of comments.

Staff has given their recommendation as to
whether they’re neutral, meaning they don’t have a feeling one way or another about whether or not it needed to be included or not; whether they did recommend it and
suggesting that we would include that as a comment, that we would make it a recommendation to Town Council; or not
recommended. Staff has done that for every single comment, and what we were doing in the last meeting is we were
looking at the comments and making a note of the ones that we wanted to be sure that we included in our recommendation to include. However, it’s fine if you want to bring up

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
other ones and discuss it and see if we know where the
Commission comes out on it; that is fine as well.

We’ll be on page 10 of Exhibit 7, which is also
page 226 of the Staff Report from the April 13th meeting, so why don’t we start on the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element? There were about seven or eight comments that came in.

Would any Commissioners want to highlight items
that we should consider for adding to our recommendation for modifying the General Plan? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I’ll just
begin. I thought that recommendations numbers 81 and 84 should be considered as part of our recommendation sent to Town Council.

With respect to Item 86, while I thought the
notion of additional play fields is a worthy goal, I think limiting it to soccer fields as opposed to any other kinds of fields felt inappropriate, and so if you want to
consider that, I would make that a more generic
recommendation.

Finally, with respect to Recommendation 88,
working with schools to make school fields available for community sports, I think that’s already covered in OSPR6.3.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I thought so
as well. I made a note about 86 and 88, and there was
already a reference in the Open Space element about working with local schools, so if anything was going to be
modified. And I agree that sports fields should be not just restricted to soccer fields and we should try to increase that, but I thought it might have been covered in the
policies that were already in there, so I’m agreeing with your suggestions.

I’d like to hear what the other Commissioners
think. Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas, and then
Commissioner Janoff, and Commissioner Clark, and then Vice Chair Barnett.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I will be quick. I just
want to say that I agreed with 81 and 84, the two that I would want to recommend to include.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s great. Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was just going to say I’m
in agreement as well, with a note that on item number 83 regarding the state Quimby Act, I don't know what that is, but if Staff thought that it was appropriate to add that, if that makes sense to connect it, but I don't know what it is to say yes or no.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: I actually am glad you brought
that up, Commissioner Janoff. I was wondering if Staff
could comment on the state Quimby Act requirements, because when I read through the implementation program and policies it was fairly generic. The goal is to try to encourage more open space dedication, but how to go about doing that isn’t as clear and if there was a Quimby Act that was more
definitive about how to do that, so could Staff maybe
comment on that? Is that something that seems reasonable to add?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I’ll jump in, and if
Ms. Armer has anything additional. Generally the Quimby Act looks at the amount of open space, park space, that a
jurisdiction has based on population. We actually exceed the number here currently in the Town, so that’s why we don’t have any Quimby Act implementation measures.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So that really wouldn’t help us
unless we were below that, so we should be covered.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I am not sure if there’s a
reason we haven’t discussed number 87, like if it’s already being incorporated, because I know that there has been
discussion around turf happening, but if it’s not already

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
being implemented I would be supportive of the inclusion of number 87 as well.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m actually glad you brought
that up. I made a note thinking it might merit an
implementation program, because I’ve seen very vocal
arguments on both sides of this to not have artificial
turf, and then also to not have grass, for example, that requires a lot of water and is not environmentally friendly either, so to me it seemed like an ideal thing for an
implementation program, but I would like to know what other people thought. I thought it might be worth at least
discussing, and it looks like the Town Manager has
something to say before I ask anyone else.

LAUREL PREVETTI: I just wanted to say that this
might be one of those areas of level of detail that might be best determined on a project basis with the Town Council as opposed to having it legislated here in the General
Plan, and I defer to Ms. Armer, who might already be able to point us to some direction in the draft. Thank you.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I wanted to share that when
you are looking at the Public Facilities and Services
Element there is an Implementation Program C, which is
specifically about determining the appropriate use of
artificial turf.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. We went through that
in the last meeting and I had forgotten about that, so at least it’s already covered, and then there’s also the
thought that there are other ways to tackle the issue in terms of on an individual project basis as well.

Are there other Commissioners? Vice Chair Barnett
had his hand up before for general comments about this
section, so go ahead, Vice Chair.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I agree with the comments
that have been made so far; I had noted to that effect. But I wanted to bring up comment 85. I’m not sure what that means. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems to be kind of
obscure.

CHAIR HANSSEN: My read on this was I made a note
connecting 82 and 85. The first comment in 82, it sounds like it came from the Parks and Recreation Department
themselves, and that statement was made that their services are provided on a full cost recovery model, and prior to that statement it was that they received Town facilities at a discounted rate, or something like that, so I think they were reacting to they don’t agree with the description of the business model. My recommendation was actually to take out the full cost recovery basis, because I don’t think that’s a necessary detail in the General Plan.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Then there is reference to continuing to work
with Parks and Recreation to do services, and as part of that discussion they might want to renegotiate their
business model in terms of working with the Town, but I don’t think that needs to be in the General Plan. That was my thought on it, so what do others think? Vice Chair
Janoff has thumbs up. So my proposal was to delete the
words “provided on a full cost recovery model,” and leave that as a detail in terms of how they work with the Town that can be worked outside of the General Plan, so if
nobody has any objections to that, we’ll go ahead and do that. Thumbs up, okay.

Does anyone else have anything that they want to
discuss with the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation? I think we ended up talking about every recommended bullet point.

Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: Just wanted to remind the Chair
that last time we did do a motion for each of the chapters as to what the Commission was interested in moving forward with.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and I would ask that we
continue to do that for the rest of the elements that we’ll be discussing, and then at the very end we will have to do one on the overall General Plan as well as the overall

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Final EIR. So would someone like to make a motion to accept the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element with the
changes that we’ve recommended in this discussion?
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Commissioner Janoff would
move to incorporate the changes as recommended by the
Commission so far on Open Space, Parks, and Recreation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Is there a second? Commissioner
Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. And then
we’ll go ahead and do our roll call vote, and I will start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: 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 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
So now we can move on, and Staff, you did have a
record of what we discussed, and you had a nice recap of what we discussed last time in the Staff Report for this meeting.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, thank you. I’ve got items
81 and 84, and removing the phrase, “provided on a full cost recovery model.”
CHAIR HANSSEN: Perfect. So then the
Environmental Sustainability Element is the next element we will discuss, and there are actually quite a few more
comments.

Before I ask any Commissioners for comments, I
wanted to ask Staff a question. In looking at numbers 104 and 105 it looked like it came from Valley Water, and so what we had done in our previous meeting is since they are the experts of course on their subject matter we had just accepted those comments at face value without discussing them, so I’m going to ask Staff what their thoughts were about 104 and 105?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. As stated in
the Staff Report, Staff’s response to those was neutral.

That revised wording, if that is the will of the
Commission, we could make those changes. They could either be considered first or could be part of your motion.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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: I’m happy enough to go with
having the Commissioners recommend that, but I’m going to give the guidance that since we had done this previously with some of the other entities, that might be worth
considering to do that, but I’m happy to have a discussion about it if someone wants to bring it up, but since we’re doing this thing where we’re going to accept certain
comments, then hopefully it will be recommended by one of the Commissioners.

That being said, like I said, it’s on the bottom
of page 10 as well as page 11 and goes onto page 12 and to page 13, so it looks like there are about at least 20
comments that we should be considering or not considering.

I would also say that although we’ve been proceeding this way anyway, if Staff is recommending not to include them, they generally have a very good and well thought out reason for that, so unless we feel like we should discuss it, that there’s no need to bring those up.

I’ll start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. I
was just going to say because there are so many for this one, do we want to like chunk it out by ten or so, just so that we’re not talking about all of them all over the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
place, or do like 89 through 96 first, and then the second page, page-by-page.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s do it page-by-page. Let’s
do the comments on page 10, which are 89 to 96. Of those, which ones would you want to include?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like to include 89,
90, and 91. I think that they are Staff recommended. The other two are just making things more thorough, which I think is good.

I think that I also feel strongly about 95 being
recommended, and it would definitely require a list of key terms of integrated pest management, but that is something that should be used. That should be the model that we
should be using. That’s like the best model out there for managing pests and reducing the use of pesticides in
particular.

I do not think that we should include 93 or 96,
because for 96 I don’t think we can actually ensure,
“minimize potential damage to public health, native plants, birds, and other wildlife,” if that makes sense. And then for 93, I do not think that we should include, “while
reserving some open space preserved for underserved
habitat,” because I believe that has the potential to be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
used like in a NIMBY way, and I think that it’s covered.

What we need for Town is covered in that policy already.

I did have a question about 94, maybe for
Commissioner Raspe for the Town Attorney. Just adding, “and natural communities,” is that helpful in informing policy, or does that make this too big or too grand?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m glad you asked that, because
I also had a question. I was like how do you define
“natural community”?
Commissioner Raspe, you had your hand up, and
then Commissioner Clark does as well.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I agree with Commissioner
Thomas’ comments. A couple of points.

With respect to 94, I also had a question. I
think “natural communities,” as currently drafted, I’m not sure what it means and I would be concerned that it would be interpreted too broadly to be really useful, and so I would either not include that language or I would make
natural communities somehow defined.

Then with respect to 96, I also share
Commissioner Thomas’ concern regarding the word “ensuring,” because I don’t think we can ensure, but I think it’s a noble goal and perhaps we could substitute the phrase,
“working towards,” so we’re working towards minimized

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
potential damage to public health, so it doesn’t put an obligation on us, but it certainly espouses our desire to achieve what I think is a noble effort. Thanks.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I thank you for that, because you
have to read between the lines in terms of what we mean. So your recommendation would be to either delete it or to
modify it to change ensuring to working towards that goal, because that’s the result of changing the approach and not using harmful pesticides, but we couldn’t ensure it.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Agreed, that’s my thought.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was just trying to make sure I
captured in my mind what you were saying. Thank you for that.

Commissioner Clark, you had a comment as well?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you. I’m in
agreement with all of the ones the other Commissioners have voiced approval for.

I had liked 92, just because it makes it a little
more specific that the species would be locally native, but I’d also be curious to hear if other people feel like
that’s productive or unnecessary.

I had been in support of 93, but I think I
understand what Commissioner Thomas is saying about it
potentially being used as a way to like maybe justify lack

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
of public access or something, and so yeah, I think that sounds good.

For number 96, I like Commissioner Raspe’s idea
of changing the verbiage to “working toward,” because I think that clarifies that reasoning behind the task without actually trying to ensure something that we’re not able to.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So your recommendation would be
rather than take it out, to leave it in and modify the
ensuring to something more reflective of why we’re doing it?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, got it. On 92, I’ll see
what other people have to say. I circled that, and my
reaction was how do you define local? Is local Los Gatos? Is it Santa Clara County? Is it California? So I thought maybe the species was enough. That was me, but if others have a different thought on it, I would want to hear that.

Let’s see, Commissioner Janoff, and then
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m in agreement with
everything that’s been said, including the modification of 96, and I do like the idea of incorporating the word
“locally.” More and more you hear people talk about you should be eating local honey, you should be burning local

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
firewood, it’s a real thing to keep materials within the local environment. If local is unclear, we could say
“regional,” and that might be clearer. That obviously gives more of a geographical boundary than local, and I would be comfortable with that, but I think including something that is specific to our region is a great add.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Just to clarify my comment, as
long as it was clear what local is I had no problem with that, because what’s good for Southern California might not be good for us, and so I heard everything that you said.

Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I did not
mention this one and I do not support it for multiple
reasons. I would say that there are definitely official resources and documentation of what species are local to the Town, to Los Gatos, and there are many maps of that.

Many of those are old, and since then climate change has significantly changed the region and will over the next 20 years, and so I strongly disagree with including locally native species, because what was local and native or what is local today is not actually going to thrive here, and ecosystems are constantly changing, and so making policies based on what is a locally native species today is not good for conservation of biodiversity, but that’s because things

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
are moving and ecosystems are shifting and ecotones are moving, so I strongly disagree with that one.

I’m sorry, just because I know that it sounds
good, and I do agree with eating local food and burning local firewood. I do think that that is a totally different use of the term and I agree that that’s really important, but I do kind of feel strongly about this one as an
environmental scientist.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was going to say well said by
our environmental science teacher.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I was going to
also make a comment on 92 that was different before I heard what Commissioner Thomas had to say, but I think a way to actually get what we’re trying to get at would like maybe saying, “species that are adapted for the Mediterranean climate,” or, “that would naturally exist in this area at the time,” or something like that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So it would be your idea to try
to change the wording so it was clearer and more reflective of changing conditions?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes. And the other thing
I’ll say is we might be getting a little nit-picky here.

It’s probably okay to leave it as is also.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Fair enough. Let’s just take two
more comments on this and then we’ll move on.

Commissioner Raspe, and then back to Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Two things
very quickly.

First, I think Commissioner Clark made a comment
with respect to 91, the especially native species in
habitat language, adding that. I’m of two minds with this one. When I first read it, it almost seemed to me like it created a binary choice, for instance, we were going to maintain and enhance (inaudible) significant natural
features, giving preference to native species and habitat as opposed to preserving all that exists. I just don’t want that inference to ever filter down to the language, but again, I’m not overly concerned, I just wanted to throw the issue up.

Then I think Commissioner Thomas indicated her
support of 89, and my questions for the Chair or Staff is who is going to define “designated creek” and how is that handled? Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So Staff, could you start with
89, because that actually is a good question, and you did

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
recommend it, so could you start with 89 and then if you had anything to add onto 91.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. If including a
definition of the term “designated creek” is something that the Planning Commission is in support of, then we would work with the consultants and our Public Works Department to find an appropriate definition to be consistent with the work that we currently do with creeks and include that as part of a set of potential definitions, so similar to some of what was requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. There was at least one term, I believe
“recycled water,” where a definition was requested, and we would provide some specific recommended language for that before going to Town Council.

It looks like Director Paulson has something to
add.

JOEL PAULSON: Just a minor addition. We also
would work with our other partners, Valley Water, San Jose Water, and some of the other folks who have regulations related to the creeks to make sure that that was
consistent.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And Staff, you did recommend this
one versus being neutral on it, so I assume that you
thought it was a good idea?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: Defining terms, if somebody
thinks it’s a good idea, we’re in support of that. If
somebody’s asking for a definition of it, then that
probably means there are a number of people who want to know what it means.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, great. Did you have
anything to comment on? You were neutral on 91 and 92, so I’m assuming that we should just work out what we’re going to recommend, but if you had anything to add, let me know.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I would say on those two
that the language as it was pretty clear to Staff as
recommended by the GPAC, and so those additional terms
could be included, but I think we stand behind GPAC but we’re open to making those changes if that is what the
Planning Commission feels is improving.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I understand now why you were
neutral. Before I go back to Commissioner Thomas, I’m going to make a more general comment that as I was going through this section, and I know exactly where some of the comments came from, that different people with different interests came in and they were putting like the word “biological” in something that was more generic, and I was having the same reaction as Commissioner Raspe, which is if we’re
specifying biological resources, are we not taking care of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
other kinds of resources? So I was having that reaction, which is to kind of keep it more general, since this is the General Plan, as long as we are not excluding something that needs to be taken care of.

I’ll go back to Commissioner Thomas, and then
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I’m glad that
these comments about 91 are brought up, because I did not read it in that way. I read that it was emphasizing that we especially need to protect native habitats and species, but I do understand how maybe it’s not necessary.

Going back to 92, I would not recommend including
Mediterranean plants, because a lot of those are actually invasive species, like all the grasses that we have here from the Mediterranean, they’re particularly invasive,
because they adapted alongside human disturbance.

I think that native species really does cover
what we want it to cover, because I do think that in the world of landscape design guidelines native species has a very specific definition and there are very specific lists across the state. There’s a county-wide list that already exists for rebates and things like that, so I do think that keeping it just at native specific is going to achieve the goal that we want basically.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. We are so
fortunate to have our environmental expert on the
Commission, so thank you. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, thank you,
Commissioner Thomas. It’s great to have expertise that
augments our conversation, and in light of the comments I would say that we keep 91 and 92 as written by GPAC, and if the Chair is ready I’m prepared to make a motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: On this page, yes.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: On this page to include the
changes in number 89, number 95, and then 96 with the
modification of “ensuring” to “working toward.”
CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you not think 90? Because it
was recommended in the beginning to do 89 and 90.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, 89 and 90.

CHAIR HANSSEN: 89 and 90, but not 91 or 92, and
then you said 95, right?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, 95, and then the
modification to 96.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. For my own sake I was
trying to capture everything you said. So there is a motion from Commissioner Janoff. Is there a second? Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I second
the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So we will take the roll call
vote, and I will start again with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: 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.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well.

So we got through page 10 of the Environmental
and Sustainability Element comments, and now we will go on to page 11, and that includes numbers 97 through 104.

Actually, just for the sake of argument, let’s include 105, because 104 goes onto the next page, and we’ll go up to 105, because 104 and 105 both came from Valley Water, so we’ll cover from 97 to 105 under this discussion, so
comments on 97 through 105.

Vice Chair Barnett.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a couple of technical
issues starting with 98; the word “improves” should be
“improve.”
Then on 100, the way I read it, it’s talking
about a decrease in the mitigation measures.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So you’re saying the way you’re
reading it is that we should decrease mitigation measures, is that correct?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think it’s saying to
decrease mitigation measures, but I don’t think that’s the intent.

JENNIFER ARMER: My memory of this comment was
that they wanted to clarify that reducing vehicle miles traveled is not the only way to reduce noise and air
quality impacts, and so it might be that slightly modified language would get at that point more appropriately and more clearly.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I read it the same way that you
described it, Ms. Armer, but maybe others read it the same way that Vice Chair Barnett did, but we should be clear.

I lost track of who raised their hand and is
next, so I’ll just go with Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. For numbers 100
and 101, I felt like if we’re going to do that we need to at least provide an example or two of what those things are, because for me it made them a lot more unclear when I was reading them, and so I think if people feel like there is an understanding of what that would mean and we don’t need that, then that’s great, but for me as a reader I felt like it was a little too ambiguous.

CHAIR HANSSEN: In that same one it does explain
with an example of something that would decrease VMT. So you’re saying we’re not being clear about other mitigation measures from the noise and that would help improve noise and air quality?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: You mean where it says TDM
Programs?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, that’s a good point. It
would just say that and kind of be referring to it, even though that was already there in a way.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So you think it could be clear if
we added examples.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: But I’m good with that
change, like the theory of it.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas,
and then Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I also felt for
100 and 101 that made them too broad. I know this is
supposed to be a big and broad document, but for 100,
because VMT is the gold standard for mitigating air
pollution, I’m not sure if including other options is
appropriate, and I would actually like to hear from Staff or maybe the Town Attorney on that, because I don’t want us to get in a situation, but I’m pretty sure VMT is
traditionally most often used.

Then the same with 101, “requiring developments
to incorporate site planning techniques.” Is site planning techniques just like the standard that it’s people that are doing this know exactly what that means, and including
other is just making it more confusing and actually not legal, if that makes sense?
So those are my two comments about 100 and 101,
and I see some people are popping up and their hands are up.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Kim must be Staff, because
he’s not a Commissioner, and (inaudible) as a panelist, so yes, if you could help us with this, that would be great.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
WOOJAE KIM: Yes, good evening, Commissioners.

WooJae Kim, the Town Engineer.

Regarding item 100, I would just be cautious
about adding that additional phrase in there, because it is related to CEQA requirements. I’m talking about VMT. If anything, maybe changing that word “or” to “and” might
help, but again, I would just be cautious about
substituting VMT requirements with other elements. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s a very good point, but we
are treading on CEQA in this comment, and we don’t want to have something that’s in conflict with CEQA law.

Let’s see, Director Paulson, did you have
something to add?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you. Just for some big
picture context, kind of the intent of this is if VMT is going to create air and noise impacts, those are all
impacts that are going to be reviewed. VMT will have
impacts. Air pollution and noise, they’ll each have their own sections, they’ll each have mitigation measures, and so that’s what I think this was originally trying to capture is that there are reductions to the VMT, which also might reduce impacts to both air quality and noise impacts.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Then the other techniques, again, from a noise
perspective, if you have, for instance, residential uses near a freeway there are usually a handful of mitigation measures, whether that’s a sound wall of some height,
whether that’s having a high-efficiency HVAC system so that folks don’t necessarily have to open their windows and be subject to those. Obviously, that’s a choice if folks want to do that, but those are the types of things that
typically are in those categories as mitigation measures in the document. Just for big picture information for the
Commission.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s helps. Thank you for that.

Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. First of
all, I agree with Commissioner Barnett’s comments with
respect to 98.

Then I think he’s correct in 100 that as
currently drafted it would require a decrease in mitigation measures, which is actually the opposite of what we want.

Then taking Staff’s comments into account, I think maybe if we are going to insert a phrase into 100, perhaps a better phrase might be, “and related noise and air quality
impacts.” That way it’s supplemental to the VMT and it’s still we are interested in managing noise and air quality

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
impacts that are related to vehicle miles, so rather than casting the net too broadly, so I would suggest that change to 100 if we want to include language.

With respect to other recommended changes, I
would also recommend changes 103 and 104 and 105 as well.

Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, 103 and 104 and 105,
because I was asking you guys (inaudible) those came from Valley Water. Let’s see what the other Commissioners think.

Commissioner Janoff, then Commissioner Clark, and then
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: On 100, I guess after
hearing discussion, Commissioner Raspe’s recommendation is a good one, although I think if we just take out, and we’ll leave the language as GPAC recommended, I think that’s the simplest.

Same with 101. Rather than trying to get nuanced
about these things, it’s pretty broadly traffic generated and I think that’s clear enough.

With regard to 103, I wasn’t thinking that we
want to include “composting green waste and chipping
programs” if the Town is not prepared to do that. That’s more of an implementation program if we want to go there,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
but that’s also already provided by other agencies, so I’m not sure that that’s a necessary add.

Then I’d be in favor of incorporating 104 and 105
per Valley Water recommendations.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. No one
brought up 103, except for you. I had the same comment. The way it was before, it says “extended producer
responsibility and innovative strategies,” which could
cover any number of things. Then I thought about 20 years in the future, I don’t know that it won’t be the case, but maybe there is something else besides composting and
chipping programs that might be helping them mitigate
environmental effects, so I thought it would be better to just leave it the way it was.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: We might have waste
vaporization.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I have faith, especially here in
Silicon Valley, for people to come up with really new and innovative ways to deal with waste.

Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’ll start just with 100 and
101. I think that we should leave them as recommended by GPAC. I think if we don’t say, “and these other things,” it’s not like we’re limited to only vehicle miles traveled.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
We’re not saying only that, and so I don’t see a problem with leaving that language as is.

I’m very in favor of 97. I think that if there’s
a remodel or retrofit happening, then that’s also a great opportunity for that bird-safe lighting.

Also, number 98, I liked those changes as well.

I agree about numbers 104 and 105; I’m in favor
of those two as well.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Can I ask you and maybe Staff
about 97, because I had a big question mark by that. What was in there before said, “require new development to
increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building and architectural elements and including bird safe lighting design,” and the proposal was to add in addition to new development, which I would take to be where there was
vacant land or a teardown, but it says, “remodels and
retrofit.” In the past when we’ve had these kind of things come up we’ve tended to leave these things to new
development versus remodels, but I’m going to ask Staff what kind of issues that might create to add remodels and retrofits to that statement?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would start
by saying that there is generally concern about imposing some of these sorts of requirements on something that’s a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
remodel or a retrofit. It really depends on the scale of the project, whether there is kind of that nexus that
they’re putting enough money into the project that we’re not overburdening them with these types of requirements.

It’s also a little more difficult to implement in
terms of a policy, whereas a remodel or retrofit very well may just be a building permit and so doesn’t go through as extensive review as a new building would. So new
development, I agree, we would consider that to include development of vacant land or significant replacement of existing buildings and redevelopment at the site.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, that was pretty much
exactly what was going through my head on that one, and you said it very well. For me, I would be happier to leave it as it was versus adding on remodels or retrofits, but let’s see what others think, and you’re welcome to comment on any of these.

Commissioner Thomas, and then I’ll go back to
Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for clarifying
all of that and bringing that up, because I did also have that question about 97. One thing that we could possibly do to encourage this inclusion of bird safe design in remodels and retrofits is just add, “and when appropriate in

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
remodels and retrofits.” Is that a language change that would kind of cover the bases, like encouraging and be a possibility for when policy is being made for it to be
looked into? That is my one suggestion with that change.

Then for 100 and 101, I agree with Commissioner
Clark that I’m in support of how the GPAC originally had it. If we do want to incorporate any changes, such as the one that Commissioner Raspe suggested, I think that we just need to add a verb like, “require decreases to vehicle
miles traveled,” and something like, “other noise and air quality impacts,” because that’s what is missing from that phrase. Those are my comments.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask you a question
back, Commissioner Thomas. Considering what Staff said, what I heard Staff say is that when impacts are identified as significant in the EIR, you have to go back and mitigate them, and you would have to mitigate any impacts, so if the impact generated by traffic happened to affect air quality, it would have to be mitigated, so I’m not sure what it
adds, because in the EIR perspective if noise or air
quality was triggered, then they would have to go mitigate anyway. So do you still feel strongly about leaving it in there?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No, I don’t feel strongly.

I’m fine with not leaving it in, but I was saying if we were going to leave it in I think that we need to add a verb, that’s my only thing that I feel strongly about. But no, I agree.

I do think that 100 and 101 become redundant in
the way that they’re written, and we’ve covered the bases with how they were originally written and professionals originally wrote them.

But for 97, I am interested if people think that
“and when appropriate” would be helpful for adding in
including remodels and retrofit? Staff, I don't know if you want to comment on it, or other Commissioners.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson has had his hand
up for a couple of minutes.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Just to let the
Commission and public know, there actually is an
implementation program to adopt a bird safe ordinance,
which is Implementation Program N. Those are the types of details that we can consider, and then as it goes through that process through the Planning Commission and Council, they can make the decision on when those would be required versus encouraged, for instance, if it ended up being new development only, that doesn’t reduce Staff’s opportunity

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
when we’re speaking with folks who are just doing building permits to ask them if they’ve considered bird safe
options, so I think we’re generally covered there, but I just wanted to make sure the Commission knew that as
they’re going through this discussion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I had
forgotten that we had put that as an implementation
program, so that helps.

Let’s see, I’m going to go to Commissioner Clark,
and then Commissioner Raspe, and then back to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Now that we know
that it’s in an implementation program my only concern
would be like limiting it by just saying new development, so I think I’d like to say require that new developments increase bird safety and encourage remodels and retrofits to do the same, just to at least have the idea in there that we would like for remodels and retrofits to do that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So that’s a compromise statement
that could be modified. Item 97 could be modified.

Let’s see, Commissioner Raspe, you had your hand
up for a while, and then Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. With
respect to 97, as I’ve been sitting here listening, I think

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
my mind has kind of shifted a little bit. Initially I
thought we were going to create a line drawing problem with including remodels and retrofits. As currently stated, any ADU, any re-siding of a property, could potentially trigger a whole study of the project to make sure that there is no endangering of the birds, and I’m not sure that’s really the scenario that we want to create, and so the notion of maybe encouraging, as Commissioner Clark says, with respect to remodels as opposed to making it mandatory, that might solve that problem, but any requirement that remodels be required to take into account additional bird safety I
think would be problematic.

Then jumping down to 100, I had earlier suggested
some changes, but as we discuss it I agree with my fellow commissioners that we adopt the GPAC language for 100 and 101. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Before I go
to Commissioner Thomas, I did want to make a point, and this happened a while ago, but a personal experience that I had as a resident. When we went to remodel our kitchen, when the inspector came in they wanted to check all the smoke detectors in the house, which I didn’t think was a bad idea, but it was unrelated to the actual matter at
hand, which was the kitchen. So as I was thinking through

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
this I remembered that experience, and that would be my concern about doing something with this and not just
leaving it to the implementation program to get more
thoroughly vetted, which is that this thing could kind of create, even with the word “encourage,” some expectation that if you’re making a very small change like changing something that’s just a couple thousand dollars, that you might be having to look at issues in other parts of your house, so that would be my only concern, but I’m okay with leaving it in there with the knowledge that it’s going to get better vetted in the implementation program.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I could go either way on
that one, so I’m happy to do whatever the majority of
Commissioners would like.

I do want to point out for number 103 that there
are essentially like three different implementation
programs that cover how to become a zero waste town, and they include things like composting green waste, chipping programs, all of that, and so I do think that that’s too specific to include in this goal, because we have them as implementation programs and they’re probably going to be part of the solution.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Commissioner Janoff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m prepared to make a
motion at this time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: In light of all the great
discussion, I think where we are landing is that 97 could create problems unforeseen, and that’s not what we want to do, and so I’m seeing only number 98 with the modification that the Vice Chair Barnett recommended, I guess as well as landscape and biological resource; I didn’t have a problem with that. And 104 and 105, those are the changes that we would agree to modify.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Is there a second? I saw a thumbs
up from Commissioner Raspe, so I assume that’s a second as well.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: That is a second. Thank you,
Chair.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, let’s go ahead and
vote on that, and I will go again to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
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 up to 105, and so then
let’s just take the rest of them. It’s 106 through 116, and that’s like ten of them. I think that seems (inaudible). So 106 through 116 would take us to the bottom half of page 12 and the top of page 13 of Exhibit 7. All right, Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have an easy one to start
with. On number 112, I think we should say, “encourage
waste water recycling,” so there’s no implication about a mandatory program.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I like that. So that’s an easy
one. So you would say yes, add 112 as long as it’s reworded to say, “encourage waste water recycling.”
On that point, before I take any other comments I
had a question for Staff. I thought, at least when I looked into it a few years ago, that it was really hard and really expensive to get gray water recycling for landscaping, get the infrastructure put in, and it maybe has moved since then, but I’m offering that in support of Vice Chair
Barnett’s thing. Certainly it’s something that it would be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
motherhood and apple pie to want to encourage, but I don't know how practical it is in the current environment, so I’m asking Staff if they have any knowledge of that?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, thank you, Chair. We don’t
currently have facilities in Town for that, but I will pass it off to WooJae Kim to add more. It looks like he’s turned on his camera.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Mr. Kim.

WOOJAE KIM: This is WooJae Kim, Town Engineer
again.

Yes, for Town facilities, we don’t have such
infrastructure set up, but we could definitely look into it further. The waste water for landscaping, the way I read this policy is that for both private and public to
investigate a separate piping system that could be used for landscaping, and there are certain gray waters that you could re-pipe so that it could be used for landscaping, and that’s how I’m reading it.

It is something, as Vice Chair Barnett has spoke,
to investigate the feasibility of waste water and
encouraging such improvements, and that could definitely be done for private developments, and maybe they choose to do that for water conservation and so forth, so yes, there are

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
possibilities out there, but definitely adding the term “encourage” might make some sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, thank you for that.

Director Paulson, you have your hand up, and then I’ll go to the Commissioners.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Just to step back, this
is a public comment to add a new policy to this effect.

I’ll just draw the attention of the Commission to
the Implementation Program UU and DV, which are water reuse and rainwater. UU is, “Develop an ordinance and guidelines to provide for the installation of gray water reuse in
residential and business uses, particularly for landscape irrigation,” so there is a program to look into that.

Then rainwater is, “Implement rainwater
harvesting in municipal facilities throughout Town and
encourage residents and businesses to use rain barrels or other rainwater reuse systems and offer incentives where possible.”
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that helps a lot, because
I think that the general policy and direction in the plan is clear, and then with those implementation programs that add some more definition to how we would do it, but we’ll see what others think.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Let’s see, I thought Vice Chair Barnett was right
after Staff, and then Commissioner Clark, Commissioner
Raspe, and Commissioner Thomas. And we’re talking about the entirety of 106 through 116.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I didn’t mean to have my
hand up. I’m sorry.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, then I’ll go to
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’ll just say
some of the ones that I am interested in. I was good with 106, 107, 108, and 110, and then I am particularly
passionate about 113 and 116.

I thought that those should both definitely be
included, especially 116. There were so many public
comments about the plant-based eating education program, and so it’s nice to finally be able to discuss that after all of those comments. I think that conducing a wildlife corridor study would be really good thing and that is
something that I’ve been hearing more and more about, and if we’re going to being doing anything about that, it’s probably important to understand where our Town is with those at the moment.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask you a question
back on 113, since Commissioner Janoff and I were on the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Commission when we did the Fence Ordinance. Here’s what we kind of came up when we did the Fence Ordinance. We had two groups of people. We had the land advocates and the
environment, and all comments were very much appreciated.

And then we had the land owners, and the land owners were saying things like, “Well, I spent $3 million dollars on my home, and it’s my home, and I don’t want deer laying
underneath my kids’ swing set, because they have fleas and ticks, and I should be able to have a fence to prevent them from being in my yard.”
So my first reaction when I read this is I
remembered that, and I wrote down the comment, “We can do this, but what would the outcome of it be?” Supposing that the outcome was peoples’ homes that were already built and fences that were already built were impeding wildlife, what would we ask them to do? Tear it out? That was my reaction to that, so my reaction would be to not do that, but I
would like to hear what other Commissioners think, so I’ll just throw that out there.

So you’ve basically said you had several that you
wanted to include, and including 113 and 116.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, and I think for 113,
that’s really good context to have, so thank you for that.

I don’t think that that’s actually how I was thinking about

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
the corridors, and so maybe if we did choose to incorporate 113, like if we do feel that that’s still a direction that things are going, it could be a study that takes into
account the views and interests of land owners, because that could actually be a way to find a solution to that problem.

CHAIR HANSSEN: As long as it went both ways, so
that’s an idea about how to do that. Let’s see, I think it was Commissioner Raspe, then Commissioner Thomas, then
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Starting
with 113, Chair, you’ve stolen my thunder. Those were
exactly my thoughts. My concern with this one is we’ve
created a policy that is going to apparently study
structures that are already infringing on habitats. If we create a policy, we then have to create a remedy in the event of infringement, or is it going to be enough for us to say yes, the structure is infringing and we’re content to leave (inaudible). It seems to me a difficult discussion to have, and I’m afraid I don’t have an answer for it, but I just spotted the same issue that I think you did.

I also support Commissioner Clark. The 116, I
think this was if not the leading public comment, the
second most leading comment about having the plant-based

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
diet initiative in our programs. My only question is it’s currently phrased as in implementation program. I don’t recall how it was presented to us. Was it in different
formats? I see Staff nodding, so I think it was as an
implementation program then?
JENNIFER ARMER: I can provide clarification that
the GPAC did accept language from them for inserting into some policies, and so as a result of that they said in
addition we also want an implementation program, and that’s what this is.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, I appreciate
that, Ms. Armer. So then I’m fine with 116.

As long as I have the microphone for one second,
given Director Paulson’s comments, I think we don’t need 112. Although I’m in favor of wastewater recycling, it
sounds like we have that already kind of under the umbrella of what we’ve got existing.

Then the only other thing I would add, I would
include 107. Thank you a bunch.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That was already mentioned by
Commissioner Clark, I believe. All right, let’s see.

Director Paulson, you had your hand up, so before I go to any other Commissioners, I wanted to let you comment.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to
add a little more information regarding 113. That probably would not be a good policy. We do have an Implementation Program M, which is Movement Corridor Plan, which does look at that potential for linkages for wildlife, so I think that would be covered sufficiently in that, should the
Commission agree.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So what you’re saying is that we
do have an implementation program that sort of gets at
that. I also had that thought about 113, which is that if we were to go in that direction I would want it to be
important without too much structure to it until it had more discussion, because we want to avoid unintended
consequences.

Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner
Janoff, and then I’ll go back to Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that numbers 112
and 113 are really covered in implementation programs, but I did have a couple of questions about that.

With regard to number 113 and Implementation
Program M, do we need to add to the implementation program not just standards and ordinances designed to conserve
these movement corridors, but should we also be looking into possibilities of building infrastructure that can link

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
corridors? Because I think that, from my experience and understanding, we’ve already disrupted the corridors, so at this point moving forward if we really want to achieve
protecting our local biodiversity and ecosystems we need to relink corridors that we’ve disrupted, for example,
over/under Highway 17. I know that’s a huge project and it’s not something necessarily that the Town would be able to just like willy-nilly decide to do and pay for, but I do know that there is grant money and funding out there for that, so could we possibly add to Implementation Program M looking into that possibility instead of just putting
ordinances in? I think it’s more about reestablishing
corridors versus stopping the disruption of them moving forward.

Then I do feel like we’ve totally covered 112,
except I did have a question also for Staff about that one.

When we say develop an ordinance and guidelines to provide the installation of gray water reuse in residential and business uses, does that also include looking into building the actual infrastructure to residential neighborhoods? I know that, for example, my school right now,
we’re building a new building. We tore down an old building and are building a new building in the City of Mountain View, and the City of Mountain View requires gray water

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
installation even though our school doesn’t have the
infrastructure to do that through the City, but it’s part of their long-term plans, so they’re requiring all new
development and redevelopment to include a gray water
system, like purple pipes. Is that what this is covering? Is UU covering that where we would develop ordinances that would require the installation of a purple pipe system so that then in the future if there is a possibility we can actually hook up everyone?
CHAIR HANSSEN: So you had some questions you
want Staff to answer about 112, and 113 as well as far as what more structure to have the implementation program
would (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. We need to add
something related to the Town actually investigating the infrastructure part. Okay, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Mr. Kim has his camera on, so I
would go ahead and ask him. I’m sorry, Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: I wanted to start off by
pointing out a couple of policies that are already in the Public Facilities and Services Element. PFS-1.5 says,
“Encourage the use of recycled and reclaimed water,” and PFS-1.6 says, “Ensure proper provisions and conditions are in place for the use of recycled water in areas when this

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
water becomes available.” Since that’s in the Public
Facilities section of that element, that may help support that, but WooJae Kim has something more to add. I’ll pass it off to him.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead, Mr. Kim.

WOOJAE KIM: Yes, I think there are two sides.

There could be a Town-wide network of purple pipe system that could be considered, but from my understanding at
least a couple of years back there wasn’t a sufficient
amount of recycled or reclaimed water to be distributed, so I might have to check back to see what the availability of that type of water system is. And obviously there is all that piping system that needs to be installed as well, but I think a lot of the policies being discussed here is like at the point source, kind of putting the pipe system as needed to divert… It’s still wastewater, but maybe from the kitchen sink and so forth. There could be systems
investigated for that and checking on the feasibility,
working with the Building Department, so there are two
different sides to approach this issue, but we could
investigate it both ways.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I’m going
to ask Staff for some clarification on Commissioner Thomas’ question about an implementation program that was about the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
wildlife corridors. Most of the implementation programs I remember us putting in, and I don’t have that page open to me right now in my General Plan draft, the purpose of the implementation program was kind of to explore the options, and so I’m going to ask Staff if there is anything
preventing us from looking at more than one way to attack the problem in the implementation program?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. I’ll start. The
short answer is no. I think before we would develop any ordinances or standards we would want to do a wildlife
movement corridor plan, and then that would have
recommendations, which would touch on all of the various options that could be done. I know down in Southern
California they just are kicking off a big program, and then there is some Highway 17 stuff that’s been in the
works, and some of it may even be completed. So those are all things that would come out of that, and the plan may lead to further ordinances and standards related to private development and/or public projects.

Similarly, from a purple pipe reuse, I think
Engineer Kim spoke about it. I think a lot of it is kind of site specific where you’re reusing your own water. The most public infrastructure with public pipe and things like
that, those would be significant Capital Improvement

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Program projects, whether or not that’s the Town or whether that is another organization, or the Town in concert with another organization, those would be things that would be considered a little farther down the road.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So my interpretation of that is
that Implementation Program M is predecessor to what
Commissioner Thomas was asking for, and an outcome of that study might be recommendations including having an
ordinance.

JOEL PAULSON: We could do some simple
modification to M and just conduct a wildlife corridor
study and then it goes on to say the rest of it, and to continue to support wildlife movement and things like that.

I think that’s a simple modification so that it’s more
explicit that that study would happen first, and then we would get into the standards and ordinances.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer, did you have something
else you wanted to say on that?
JENNIFER ARMER: I was just going to add the
thought that when we do look at the language and it’s
talking about conserving these movement corridors, I think if we get into more detailed discussions of that one of the components of conserving them is making sure that they are connected in a way that they’re actually usable for the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
wildlife that is using them. I think that is integral to that kind of discussion regardless of whether we add
additional language, but a few additional words there, or adding, as Director Paulson suggested, a suggestion that a wildlife corridor study might be the first step in that. I think any of those could work just fine.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I’m going to
go back to Commissioner Thomas, since she had asked the question, and see where you’re at, and then Commissioner Janoff, Commissioner Clark, and Vice Chair Barnett.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for clarifying
all of my questions, especially about the Implementation Program M, because how I was interpreting it was more
restricted, so I’m glad that Staff and the Town would be interpreting it as like including possible buildings and infrastructure, etc. So I do think that that means that 113 is covered.

I also do strongly support 116, as everyone has
discussed.

I also would just want to say that I support 107
and 108, unless there’s anything that the Town Engineer actually has to say about 108, but I think that including ground water is good, because ground water is an important resource in our community, in 107.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
In 108, I know Director Paulson knows this,
because I have been asking him. I’m trying to redo my
driveway and I originally wanted to do gravel, because it is a permeable surface and allows for recharging, as
opposed to concrete, and it’s not allowed in Town, so I’m not doing gravel, but I was just wondering if this could cause some conflict with our current ordinances related to surfaces that we can use for things like driveways?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a good question to
ask Staff, so if you could comment on that one, and then we’ll go onto the other Commissioners.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. As Commissioner Thomas
mentioned, that’s correct, we don’t allow folks to just have gravel driveways. It becomes a maintenance issue as people track that stuff into the public right-of-way. There are other alternatives. People in the past have used
grasscrete. There are the Hollywood ribbon strips that you see in some places where you have a smaller impervious
surface, and then you have some other areas where that can infiltrate. The challenge is really in the installation. A lot of folks use impervious pavers, but unfortunately they compact the subsurface so much they really might as well be concrete, so a lot of that is really the installation
aspect.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
But ultimately, if there are conflicts, the
General Plan is going to require a lot of modifications to the Zoning Code and potentially other policy and standard documents, and so those will be things that we can revisit moving forward. There may be newer techniques that might allow for some other impervious surface. We would just need to investigate that further following, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about putting us in a position where we’re going to have a conflict with the Zoning Code. We’re going to have to evaluate a number of things and that can just be added to the list.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m prepared to make a
motion based on the discussion so far, but will defer if Commissioner Clark and Vice Chair Barnett have other
clarifying comments.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Why don’t I ask them to add any
more comments they have, and then I’ll go back to you for a motion? Vice Chair Barnett, and then Commissioner Clark.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I certainly support 116, but
my only concern is what does it mean that we’ll have an educational program for implementation? And without
overburdening the matter I thought we might consider some

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
language to trap what we really mean by that, and I could suggest something like periodic speakers, classes, and
materials. Otherwise, I’m not sure what we’re committing ourselves to.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s certainly a
reasonable suggestion. I’m going to make a comment on the plant-based eating thing before I go on to the other
Commissioners.

I certainly think it’s a great idea to add this
implementation program, but I’m going to go back to the comment that I made to the advocates that brought this up, which is that we have more than a hundred implementation programs in the General Plan and we don’t have a process, and the GPAC actually decided not to have a process,
because we felt that this is really the domain of the Town Council in terms of allocating resources towards programs in the General Plan, and so it doesn’t mean it’s
necessarily going to happen is what I’m going to say, but I have no problem at all putting that in there. I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that it’s going to become one of well over a hundred implementation programs, and then they’ll have to get prioritized to get it done, and if it helps to make it clear about what it might be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
when it happens, then I’m fine with adding what the Vice Chair recommended.

I’ll go to Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. A couple of
things.

First just back on Implementation Program M, I
think I would like to add just some sort of phrase about also connecting fragmented habitats, because that is
different from preserving the ones that exist. I minored in environmental science, so I studied that to some degree and I think that would be worth including, just to clarify
that.

Then I am really sorry that I didn’t remember to
bring this up before, but in the document I shared with you all with some of my recommended changes I had a couple for this section, and they were on 8.17 and they’re related to clarifying the accuracy of the history with colonization and the Ohlone and everything, and then also just more
including like them in the process of this. So I don't know if you want to pull up the wording or if you had a chance to look at the changes or anything, but I realized I should bring that up.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for reminding us of
that. Rather than having people have to dig out that, could

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
you maybe read what your proposed changes were to us from the comments that you submitted in writing? I apologize for making you do that, only that I was like having six people go dig through it when… I have a lot of paper here.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, I have a horrifying
amount of paper in front of me, so that’s very
understandable.

So for ENV-13.8, Increase Historical and Cultural
Awareness, it says, “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 I want to add on, “and through including Ohlone people in the conversation and planning,” because I feel like if we’re going to talk about our cultural resources, we should be sure to include the origins of that culture.

Then there is A-17, 8.8, Tribal Cultural
Resources, and says, “Before outside contact, Ohlone lived in base camps,” but I think it should say, “Before
colonization.” Then further down it says, “The Ohlone group were brought into the mission system,” and I think it
should say, “forced into the mission system.” I just felt like a lot of the language was too gentle around what

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
actually happened. Then later in the paragraph it says, “The Ohlone population dwindled,” and I think it should say it was “decimated.” And then it says, “In 1973, the
population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300,” and I wanted to add, “after what is widely cited as a genocide.” Then the last sentence says, “The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political and cultural organizations to revitalize aspects of their culture,” and I wanted to alter that to say, “and cultural organizations to revitalize, maintain, and pass on their culture.”
A lot of these changes came from a meeting that I
recently had with the Chairwoman of the Tamien Nation, and so I do want to just clarify that that was largely what led me to these changes and that…yeah, pretty much that I had that conversation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Before I go to Commissioner
Thomas, let me ask Commissioner Janoff, did you have any comments on what Commissioner Clark just brought up, or was this related to your motion? Then I would know whether to ask Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My only comment with regard
to Commissioner Clark’s recommendations is that I would agree, and they’re coming from a place of historical truth

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
and specific knowledge. I think the more we can create an accurate document, the better it will stand. We’ve been really striving for racial justice, and if that goes
forward then it also goes back in history, so that I think that those are good adds, and presuming that would be
approved by the Commission, I would only recommend that the changes between Planning Commission’s recommendation to Town Council and Town Council actually having something, that those individuals that Commissioner Clark mentioned as having some expertise would be consulted and just give a stamp of approval on the changes that are recommended. But I wouldn’t shy away from a distasteful history; that’s ours to own.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, thank you for that.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with all those
changes, and thank you, Commissioner Clark, for bringing them up, because I do think that when I read them I feel like the same, and so I do agree with Commissioner Janoff that we should own them. So I guess Commissioner Janoff was going to make a motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’ll go back to Commissioner
Janoff. Would you like to make a motion on 106 through 116 as well as Commissioner Clark’s suggested additions to page

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
8-17? I think they were all on page 8-17, or maybe 8-16 as well.

Hold on, Commissioner Thomas had wanted to say
one more thing.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m so sorry, I was going
to say that based on Vice Chair Barnett’s comments, I do think that the implementation program for the plant-based education, the beginning should be changed to “Develop and implement a plan to educate and support,” instead of just, “Implement programs to educate,” because I think that that encompasses like we need to do a little research. What’s going to be effective? What are we capable of doing? And then implement it. So that was just going to be my
suggestion with regard to that. It might actually happen, I don't know.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Before you make your motion,
Commissioner Janoff, I also wanted to make one comment
about 116 in addition to what I already said, which is I like Vice Chair Barnett’s suggestion about giving examples of what kind of programs. I also wondered if, when I looked at some of the other implementation programs we had, the latter part of the sentence about the benefits and listing what all the benefits are, I’m not sure if the goal is to implement a program that listing what all the benefits are

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
in the implementation program itself is going to be that helpful to creating it. I think it would be more helpful to delineate what kinds of things might go into a plant-based education program, and then clearly in the education
program itself all those benefits are going to be
articulated versus saying it all in that sentence, but that was just me.

Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas, you wanted to
respond, and then Commissioner Clark had something to say, and then we’ll go back to Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that it is very
lengthy and I think that we can just simplify it by
changing it to say, “The environmental, social, and
economic benefits of shifting to a plant-based diet.” Those are like the three underlying components of sustainability, and so I think that that incorporates the message and the importance, but it simplifies things a little bit and is more direct, so again, “environmental, economic, and social benefits.”
CHAIR HANSSEN: I like that, and then I’m
assuming you agree also with what Vice Chair Barnett
suggested, which is examples which would include blah,
blah, blah. It wouldn’t be comprehensive, but it would give some structure to what might happen.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That is more helpful than
defining the benefits in here.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yes, for 116 I
completely agree with saying, “environmental, social, and economic benefits.” In the same way maybe it even allows for more benefits to be included, and I just wanted to
remind everyone, you might recall from public comment at our last meeting the folks advocating for the plant-based diet told us that they have a really big document that is a very comprehensive example of what this could look like, and so it might be just good to direct Staff or Council to connect with them between this to see what examples they might want to include, but given that they were the ones advocating for this and creating all of that, I would trust their judgment for what examples they might want to include in the implementation program.

CHAIR HANSSEN: In fact, in the comments for this
meeting there was quite extensive examples of things that they wanted to include, so yes, I think that makes a lot of sense.

Okay, Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The motion is to
incorporate the changes for number 106, 107, 108, 110, and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
116, with the caveat that we have a tremendous amount of information coming from the Plant-Based Advocates that
Staff should use to modify any policies or implementation programs that would identify, and yes, to include the
develop and implement language that Vice Chair Barnett is recommending.

One thing I’d like to also acknowledge with this,
and part of the comments that Commissioner Thomas made
regarding the three legs that the plant-based diet stands on, we’ll be talking later about adding to the greenhouse gas emissions problem, and this is advocating for a plantbased diet to help ameliorate the greenhouse gas. It’s a good balance if we have those things that create more and those that lessen it. I think it’s a really smart thing for us to include this and to emphasize to Council it may be that there are a hundred or more implementation programs, but this one happens to rise pretty high up for me and I think the depth of information that the Plant-Based
Advocates have provided us, particularly in the most recent Staff Report, are very interesting and compelling, so I would definitely want to do that.

The motion also includes the changes that
Commissioner Clark has recommended, and as we said before, to seek guidance or validation from the experts who could

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
create the language that would really resonate for the Town and for tribal representatives.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Just a clarifying question on
your motion as far a Implementation Program M, the
additional clarification that was suggested by Commissioner Clark and as well as I think Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think that’s fine that
the implementation program as written does call out
linkages, so that the notion of that is in there, but if it’s the case that conserve doesn’t really cover
everything, then examining linkages or recreating linkages, clarifying that language does make sense. It makes it more complete.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So that is Commissioner Janoff’s
motion, and is there a second? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I second, and I’d like to
echo that consulting the Ohlone is a great thing to add, and then also emphasis on 116 as priority when they’re
actually sorting out the implementation programs.

CHAIR HANSSEN: When we first had the
Sustainability Plan that was introduced in 2012 there was a quest to identify low hanging fruit, so I think what I’m hearing is this would a low hanging fruit to help reduce

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
greenhouse gases, so we would hope that it would be sooner rather than later.

All right, so then we have a motion and a second,
so I will start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And 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 that was a lot of suggestions for
environmental sustainability and a very robust discussion.

Let’s go ahead and tackle the Hazards and Safety Element, because there are only three suggested changes, and then I’m going to suggest that we take a ten-minute break before we tackle Land Use.

Before I go into Hazards and Safety, I did want
to ask a clarifying question of Staff. We kind of talked about this a week or two ago, but on the additional
actions, suggestions, and public comments, since some of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
those are really what I would perceive more as Town Council decisions, I wasn’t going to cover them, but I’m looking for Staff’s recommendation.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. I think if
Commissioners have specific comments on any of those, I believe, four topics, I think it’s appropriate to put that in the record so the Council has the information as they’re reviewing these items.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds like a good way to
handle it, so we will at least ask if you want to comment on any of the items that are suggested in 120 through 123? Let’s go to the Hazards and Safety Element. There
are only three suggested comments, of which 118 is not
recommended by Staff, because it’s covered in other Town policies and we don’t want to be having things be
inconsistent in the General Plan versus other policies. So how do Commissioners feel about 117 and 119?
Vice Chair Janoff, and then Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My thinking around 117 is
that we’ve had County Fire input on our language. If they feel it’s important to include emphasis on Wildland Urban Interface, this is really outside of my area of expertise, except I happen to live in a WUI environment, so it’s not

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
so far out of my expertise, but whether we need this kind of detail isn’t clear to me and I defer to County Fire.

Number 118 is not recommended.

Then 119 looks like a technical clarification,
and I would say that’s probably a good clarification to include.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Can I ask Staff a clarifying
question? Do we know where comment 117 came from? It did not come from CAL FIRE per se. It sounds like it came from a resident or another comment based on stuff they had read from CAL FIRE, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: Unfortunately, I don’t remember
exactly where that one did come from, but the recommended changes from CAL FIRE were those changes at the beginning of this exhibit, so this was not part of what was
recommended as part of their review. Also, we did have
Santa Clara County Fire taking a look at the relevant
sections of this document, so it would have been from a public comment that we received, but I don’t have it front of me where exactly that one came from. It looks like
Director Paulson may be looking to see what he can find, but he’s shaking his head, so I don’t think we’ve got a direct link to whom that came from.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: It also doesn’t read like a
comment that would have come from CAL FIRE. I don’t think I can explain why that is, but just looking at their other comments, it looked like others wrote it.

Let’s see, Commissioner Clark and then
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. So for 117, I
didn’t really when reading it know how important that was or how accurate, and so I feel like I would defer to the experts. So I think if we don’t know where it came from, it might be worth just saying like, “Subject to the approval of CAL FIRE,” or if the Fire Department already read over it and hadn’t seen any problems with the General Plan,
maybe we do just leave it out.

Number 118, obviously no.

Then for 119, reading the Section 9.4 I wasn’t
sure exactly where this would go or anything, but I agree with what Commissioner Janoff said, that this seems like a technical clarification, and so I would be in favor of that one.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. Ms. Armer had
her hand up, so before I go to Commissioner Thomas, Ms.

Armer.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I was able to locate
where that comment came from. It was a comment made in a Midpeninsula Regional Open Space letter. If you’re looking at your packet from the meeting of the 13th, it is on page 319 of that packet, and it is revised language that they were recommending.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So Midpen Open Space in my mind
would be a reasonably credible source, so there are a
couple of ways that we could go with this from my point of view and those would be as suggested. Maybe run it past CAL FIRE and see if they think that was a good add. I don't know how much trouble that would be. Or we could just
accept it. Or we could just say that there is enough in there and it wouldn’t change things and the policies that much. So those are the three options I see.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: This is really two comments
in mind.

The first one I feel less strongly about
including because I did not actually look up if the
statistic is true, although we know that fires in the WUI are more of a hazard for humans, but the second part of the comment is like a totally separate issue and I do think that requires clarification.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
It says that, “High fire hazard severity zone
does not describe the risk of a fire start, but rather
describes the potential impacts to natural ecosystems known as fire severity.” So like the fire ignition triangle is what determines if the fire is going to start, and then CAL FIRE has the fire hazard severity zones that are based on the severity, which is how damaging it is based on the
intensity, so I do think that we should make sure that that is all clarified in the description.

I noticed with some of the other comments, I
don't know if CAL FIRE and Santa Clara Valley Water and all these other groups that look at our document specifically look at a lot of our descriptions more of the introduction pieces, or if they just look more specifically at the
policies and implementation programs, so I’m just saying that that’s maybe why 117 might have been missed, but I’m not entirely sure.

So I think that there’s two parts of this and I
don’t really have opinions on the first part, but the
second part should be clarified.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Clarified as to the validity?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The second part, it just
says, “It’s also important to note that a high fire hazard severity zone does not describe the risk of a fire start,”

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
and then it says that somewhere in the introduction, which is not true. The fire severity zone maps indicate the
severity of the fire, like how damaging it’s going to be, not the likelihood of a fire starting. There is some
discrepancy in the wordings and someone needs to comb
through it and make sure that that gets clarified.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. All right, Commissioner
Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I don’t
see any other hands raised, and so my sense of this Hazard and Safety Element is that we’re all in agreement that 118 should not be recommended, 119 should be recommended, and perhaps 117 should be recommended subject to review and appropriate modification by CAL FIRE, and if my Commission members agree with that, I’d be happy to make a motion in that respect.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that sounds fine, and
that sounds like a motion, so I’ll take that as a motion and see if there’s a second.

Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Any other
discussion before we vote? I’ll go with Commissioner
Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: 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.

Okay, that covers the Hazards and Safety Element,
and I’m going to take a stab at talking about 122 through 123, hoping that it’s not going to be a super long
discussion, but if it does turn out that way, then we might have to take a break.

There were additional suggestions, and you’ve all
seen them in the public comments, and they’re more
generically about the timing of the General Plan, the first one being a vote or poll of residents on the proposed
changes in the General Plan; the second one being
requesting an exception to the RHNA requirement, which
comment from Staff was the deadline has passed; and the third comment updating the Housing Element within the same timeline as General Plan use and Community Design Element,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
which would mean delaying the approval of this document until the Housing Element was complete; and the fourth one is conducing a fiscal analysis relative to the fiscal
impacts of the full build-out of the 2040 General Plan, in which the Town Council actually voted on this at their
April 5th meeting and decided against it.

So are there any comments that Commissioners
would like to make on these in terms of direction that we’d like to give to Town Council?
I think Commissioner Raspe was first, and then
Commissioner Thomas, and then Vice Chair Barnett.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. Only with
respect to one, that’s 122, the Housing Element and the timing of it with respect to the General Plan generally.

Currently the posture that we find ourselves in is we are moving forward with the General Plan before our Housing Element is complete, and I know several commentators raised that as an issue and I thought maybe it might be useful if we could have Staff discuss that a little bit, maybe how common is that in this process? Is it something that we see as part of the General Plan process? Is this an anomaly, and how is it impacting the rest of our housing discussion? Maybe some discussion of that would help ally some of those concerns. Thank you, Chair.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s a great way to go
at it, and I’ve already heard Staff’s comments on this, but I think it’s beneficial for the public to hear as well from Staff.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner Raspe, I
think that’s a great opportunity for us to share a little bit of context with these questions.

I’m going to start by pointing out that a lot of
these comments are concerned about one particular component of one of the elements of the General Plan. A lot of these are focused really on the potential development based on the housing densities and other development regulations that are included in the Land Use Element.

As we’ve seen already in the multiple hours of
discussion that the Planning Commission has already had going through the General Plan, there are a lot of elements to this document, a lot of topics covered, and so we would strongly recommend that the General Plan continue to move forward with a recommendation from the Planning Commission with modifications as have been discussed so that it can move forward and complete its process.

I would say that if those concerns about the
housing numbers and moving forward with those changes
before the Housing Element process is complete, then there

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
are ways to reduce those, which will be part of our next discussion, to modify those and pull them back, but it
doesn’t necessarily need to hold back the rest of the
process.

The next thing that I would share is that the
General Plan was started, when we started this process four years ago, with the specific idea that it would actually be fully completed prior to even starting the Housing Element.

One of the goals was to make sure that we had regulations in place, and potentially even the required changes to the Zoning Code, before we started on the Housing Element
update so that the rules would be in place that the Housing Element could clearly show that it would be possible to allow the construction of housing as required by our RHNA allocation.

Because of numerous delays for different reasons,
the COVID pandemic not the least of those, we’re still
working through that process, but we still really do want to strongly encourage that this process continue to move forward.

Then the last point that I will add, and then I
would expect that Director Paulson might have some
additional points, is that our Housing Element update is relying on the fact that the environmental impact review

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
for the General Plan gets completed and that the EIR gets certified, because if we do not have that environmental review completed, then the Housing Element actually has the extra burden of doing its own environmental review.

So I will pass that off to Director Paulson in
case he has any other points he’d like to add to clarify or add context.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Ms. Armer. I think you
covered all of the points well. Typically we would have a General Plan in place, as Ms. Armer mentioned, and then we would be using that for the Housing Element and relying on the General Plan that’s adopted.

A lot of the jurisdictions in the Bay Area either
have existing General Plans or they were not going through that process, and so what ends up happening in that case is that most of them, as Ms. Armer mentioned, need to do
environmental review, and then they end up with a bunch of implementation programs that say okay, we all got far more numbers than we had expected and then we may be able to accommodate by our General Plan, and so then they end up with implementation programs to modify the General Plan.

So from a planning perspective and Staff’s
perspective, having the base of the General Plan that can then inform the Housing Element is appropriate. Ultimately,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
I think the Planning Commission can continue to do their work and forward a recommendation, and then ultimately the Town Council will have those same conversations, and should they choose to go down a different path, then we’ll look for other options moving forward from that standpoint.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Ms. Armer and Mr.

Paulson for your very thorough responses, and also to each of you and all Staff for your amazing efforts on this
entire process.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I just would add a little bit
more since I’m one of the three people from this Commission that sits on the Housing Element Advisory Board, and I was actually on the previous Housing Element Advisory Board as well as the General Plan Update Advisory Committee back 2008 to 2010, and one thing that I heard from Staff and that I didn’t hear mentioned tonight, but I know they know this and they’ve talked about it many times, is that it is not expected or common or even typical that you would have the General Plan of any jurisdiction on the same timeline as the Housing Element, because the Housing Element is a fixed thing. It’s always an eight-year timeline, and it’s not that every jurisdiction in California has the same
eight-year timeline; they do not.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
When we did the previous update of the General
Plan, it was from 2010 to 2020, and then we did the Housing Element and we completed that and it’s a 2015 to 2023
timeframe, so it is already a precedent for our town to do it this way.

As a member of the Housing Element Advisory
Board, I would say that everything that I’ve heard in the meetings that we’ve had with affordable housing developers and whatnot, it’s not that we couldn’t proceed forward
without updating the General Plan, but it would be like doing so with our arm tied behind our back, especially with the expectation from HCD that we have all these (inaudible) in place to make sure that we’re successful in making this housing happen, so if we didn’t have the densities that we asked for it would be problematic.

We even had a proposal in the last year at the
CDAC where they were looking at the possible draft
densities in the General Plan and they couldn’t even get any very good discussion going because the General Plan wasn’t approved, and it was for a 41-unit housing complex.

So for all those reasons, I totally support
everything that Staff said.

And Ms. Armer has more to say.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: I just had one additional
thought that I did want to share in terms of the processes we’re going through and these discussions about housing density and housing numbers and the difficulty of having the different types of conversations and how they’re
interrelated.

One of the benefits, I think, to having a General
Plan update that’s occurring just prior to a Housing
Element update is that we did at the beginning of the
process have a sense that the RHNA allocation that the
Housing Element update would be required to meet would be approximately 2,000 units. We didn’t know the exact number, but we had that sense.

And so when we were looking at the General Plan
town-wide, policy-wide, topic-wide, we were able to keep that in mind, and so rather than going through the process to try and show that the Town had capacity for 2,000 units, in this case 1,993 plus a buffer, just looking at the
Housing Element itself we were able to have those
discussions with the GPAC looking town-wide, looking
strategically on multiple topics in the hope that this
whole document would be set up with Vision and Guiding
Principles and policies throughout that would support that potential future development in a way that really works for

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
the Town, and the vision for the Town, for the next 20
years, rather than just the Housing Element topic and the eight year timeline.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Let’s see,
Vice Chair Barnett, and then Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Janoff.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. Item 123,
I’m going to echo what the Chair said that in the Council meeting there was an understanding that the preliminary fiscal report showed that there was going to be negative fiscal consequences of the General Plan, and it seems to be although the Community Alliance has done tremendous work in detailing further work that could be done, the likely
bottom line is that the fiscal impact would just be more negative, so I’m of a mind not to conduct a further fiscal impact analysis.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that comment.

We haven’t discussed the EIR either, but there
were several letters from the Alliance regarding why the EIR wasn’t studied to the full possible build-out of every maximum density on every single property in the Town, which would be something in the order of, I believe, 70,000
units. We’ll talk about that more with the EIR, but that isn’t the way that any jurisdiction would do their EIRs.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
They would be more on a reasonable thing, because it isn’t reasonable to think that anyone would build out every
single property in town, so that is part of where there is just a difference of opinion about the way to go about
this.

The Council has already weighed in on this, so
all we would be doing is making a recommendation to Council anyway for something they’ve already just visited.

Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas, and then
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like to echo what
all other Commissioners have mentioned so far, and as a member of the Housing Element Advisory Board, it’s been very difficult for us to actually get started on the
process without having an updated General Plan, so I think that it is really important for everyone in Town to
understand that the Housing Element cycle is on a totally different cycle in number of years, an eight year cycle versus the General Plan is a 20-year document. I think that that is really important for everyone to understand and that what Ms. Armer said about the guess of what our RHNA allocation number was going to be really helped inform the General Plan in a way.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
But now as a member of the Housing Element
Advisory Board we really need the General Plan to be
finalized so we can get to work, and there are serious
consequences from the state if we don’t get our Housing Element done and certified and turned in, so I don’t want us to be responsible for that.

So that being said, I do not support any of these
suggested actions because of those reasons.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I agree with
everything that’s been said by my fellow commissioners, but I would like to add that one of the provisions of the Draft General Plan is that it be reviewed on a five-year basis, so that means if we go forward in the execution of the
Housing Element and we need to make any adjustments to the General Plan, there are provisions for that. So even though the General Plan some may think is casting too far into the future without knowing what that future might look like, these five-year incremental reviews help make sure that we’re staying in synch with what is expected of the Town, how we need to plan, and whether any changes to the General Plan need to be made in order to accommodate housing or any other consideration that we may have.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
I’d also like to say the way that I think about
the General Plan and the Housing Element is that the
General Plan provides a framework within which all of the elements hang and inform how the Town of Los Gatos does business. The Housing Element doesn’t stand on its own. The Housing Element can’t go forward if we don’t have the
zoning and the heights and the densities that we are
providing in the General Plan.

It might have been in the past that that was
possible because the changes that we might have considered under how much housing we’re going to build were much
smaller numbers, but we’re talking about the numbers that we have now, the 1,993 from RHNA plus buffer. That’s a big number and we can’t get there with 2020 plan zone, height, and density ordinances; we just can’t do it. So we need to have something in place in order for us to reasonably
recommend a Housing Element that has a chance of being
certified.

So I would also say that I’m not in favor of
these four actions from the public for all the other
reasons that Commissioners have voiced. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Commissioner Janoff. I
just wanted to make one little correction to what you said, and maybe I misheard you, but we did approve at our last

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
meeting as an add to the implementation programs to have a five-year review of the Land Use Element, not the entire General Plan, and so maybe I misheard you.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: (Inaudible) apply to the
Housing Element.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, yeah, and my understanding
of that from Staff and the discussion that we had was that the whole reason for that was to help mitigate the risk of if it turned out in 2031 when we have our next Housing
Element that the number is much lower, then we can make adjustments at that point in time, so that will kind of bring us more in line in terms of those two discussions without having to dramatically alter the timeline of the two documents.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree. I am not
in favor of any those four, and I was wondering if this is a good place to include anything that goes back to one of the other elements, so for example, Vice Chair Barnett’s edits to the equity and equality definitions?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Actually, that’s a good point. I
had that on my list and I was going to bring it up at the beginning.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
Just for everyone’s benefit, since we’re
straddling over two meetings so far, Commissioner Clark suggested modifying the definitions of equality and equity, and then there was a discussion about that at the community meeting that was a few weeks ago, and Vice Chair Barnett wanted some more clarification on equality, not equity, right?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So I read the comments. I wanted
to just see where the Commissioners came out on that,
because I’m going to ask Staff, I think we need to vote on it if we’re going to change it, because we had decided in the last meeting and then the comment came in from Vice Chair Barnett. So I’ll start with that.

Commissioner Clark, you still have your hand up.

Is that because you had already brought it up and you
forgot to take it down, or you wanted to make a comment on the issue?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: No, I’d like to make a
comment. I thought that he was spot on. I think that’s
great to add a reference to equivalent status and rights. I think that that will make it a lot more well rounded.

Something else I wanted to bring up is actually a
broader change that I had suggested in the document, but it

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
was 8-17 where we made those changes regarding the
historical origins of the land, and something that I
noticed is the Ohlone were pretty much only talked about in the past tense, and so I want to add a third paragraph that talks about today the Ohlone are doing this and doing that, because otherwise I think that it made it sound kind of like they aren’t currently doing stuff. Even a lot of the things that were discussed as past tense are things that I learned that they’re still doing, like collecting mussels and stuff like that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So you’re talking about adding a
more descriptive statement about where the Ohlone currently stand at the time of the writing of the General Plan.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: So it would be a third
paragraph under 8.8, Tribal Cultural Resources, and talking about what they are doing today.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, perfect. So there are two
things that are on the table. One is whether or not to
accept Vice Chair Barnett’s revision to the definition of equality, and also Commissioner Clark’s suggestion to add the section to 8-17. Any comments on that, or a motion? Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The motion would be yes and
yes to changes suggested.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Sounds good, and do we have a
second? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. All right, I will go with
the roll call vote, and Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: 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 I think we’ve covered everything except for
the Land Use and Community Design Elements, and there is of course the EIR as well.

It’s almost 9:20. Why don’t we take a break till
9:30, and then we can go for an hour-and-a-half and see where we are. I think if we go past 11:00 o’clock we have to vote to continue, and then we would have to vote again to go past 11:30, so we can see how far we get, but I do suggest in the interest of trying to get this completed,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
even if we have to go to another meeting, let’s try to get as far as we can by 11:00. Does that sound good? Okay, so let’s take a break till 9:30 and we’ll be back.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, everyone is back. Thank you
for that. I hope you enjoyed your break. We will go ahead and start on the Land Use Element.

What I’d like to do with the Land Use Element,
unlike what we did with the other elements, because of the high level of controversy we’ve had over the land use
build-out numbers I think that it’s really important that we discuss all of the comments and have the Commission
weigh in on them, but I want to defer comment number 20, which is modifying the number of new housing units, until we’re done discussing the things that will kind of go
around that, which is all the other comments. I’d like to take each comment one at a time, and it’s actually in total numbers not even as much as we had on the Environmental Sustainability Element, but I suspect that there might be more to discuss on them.

When we do get to the point where we’re talking
about the numbers, we’ve gotten all kinds of feedback from the community, and also Vice Chair Barnett had submitted his suggestions, and Staff has in their Staff Report on

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
page 6 some possible recommendations that came from Council if we were to want to modify the numbers.

With that in mind, I’d like to just start out
with number 21, and I think it’s a pretty easy one. “Modify the land use designation of the property at 15810 Los Gatos Boulevard from Low-Density Residential to Mixed-Use
Commercial to be more in line with the existing use,” and Staff is recommending it.

We don’t have to vote on each one at the moment.

What we’ll do is we’ll go to the end on the ones that we think are worthy. So generally speaking, we don’t need to discuss that. That makes a lot of sense.

Number 22, “Building a high-rise condo on the
corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Almaden.”
Construction is not within the purview of the General Plan, per Staff, but increased height limits in Mixed-Use
Commercial and land use designations could be considered.

I’m going to ask Staff to comment on that one,
which is that we did propose in the existing Draft 2040 General Plan to increase the height as well as the
densities on Los Gatos Boulevard. Do we think the intent was to go further than that? Would that prevent us from building a high-rise condo complex? I was hoping Staff
could comment on that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. This comment
is suggesting construction of a high-rise, which isn’t what the General Plan is doing, but as noted by Staff it is the kind of thing that if consideration of modified height
limits was something that the Planning Commission wanted to consider, that’s more where this document would lead.

In terms of that location, the changes to the
designation on the Boulevard in terms of height limit are 45’. That’s been raised to 45’ to match the existing limits in downtown. Generally I would say that in most places it’s not considered high enough for a high-rise, but the
Community Development Director may have something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, just a couple things.

Ms. Armer touched on the changes. The height is proposed to increase from 35’ to 45’, and the maximum density is
proposed to increase from 20 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre. I believe the site that this
commenter is referencing is what we refer to as the former CVS application site. We actually have an application in for a one-story commercial building there, and we’re
processing that under the current General Plan, so that site probably isn’t going to be viable. I would say that if you go down to comment 30, it gets to a similar comment of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
increase over the 45’, so maybe it’s best to have the
conversation when we get there.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I had the same thought as we were
discussing it that this is more about construction, and there was already another comment in number 30, so we can just skip 22 and go on to that, because we know that the issues surrounding that are there.

I will also note for everyone that’s not on the
Housing Element Advisory Board, we just started going
through the site inventory and a very large number of the potential sites for housing that are on the table right now for the Housing Element are on Los Gatos Boulevard, but one of them is not, this particular site, because CVS owns the property and they’ve already submitted an application for something that isn’t related to housing.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I wanted to add
that in the discussions with the Housing Element Advisory Board one of the things that I think we’ll be talking about is the incentives to builders for building higher density housing units, so my advice, whether we get to it now or when I get to number 30 is that we don’t increase the
maximum heights that we have currently in the General Plan

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
in the Land Use Element, but we reserve the right to have incentives in the Housing Element if that’s possible.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s great, and we’ll
get to that when we get to the next one, but I think it’s a good time to bring that up since someone else brought that up in the context of this comment.

Number 23 is, “Including opportunity areas in the
General Plan as outlined in the land use alternatives
report,” and Staff said not recommended to previous GPAC direction, and even though I was the chair of the GPAC I don’t remember back in our 35 meetings when we discussed that or why we said that, but I suspect it’s because we did the General Plan after the Land Use Alternatives Report.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I can provide
a little clarification on that.

As the GPAC discussed the Land Use Alternatives
Report and made a recommendation to the Planning
Commission, who then made a recommendation to Town Council, that really was a framework that that was going to be
implemented in the Land Use Element and other elements of the General Plan.

So in the discussion of that land use
alternative, one of the concerns that came up is how does that actually get implemented? And a concern about if you

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
have something called an opportunity area that covers
properties that are in different zones or different land use designations, and then there are some properties that are outside those opportunity areas, and so you have some portions of, for example, a Low-Density or Medium-Density Residential designated property, some that are within the opportunity areas, others aren’t, and it gets very complex and confusing as to which are in and which are out and
you’ve got different rules even within the same
designation.

So as Staff worked with the consultants to look
at how to implement the framework that was approved by Town Council one of the things that was discovered through that was that most of those opportunity areas, the areas that had high potential for redevelopment and a lot of potential for doing it in a way that supported of the community, were our Commercial and High-Density Residential areas, and so by shifting those changes in maximum allowed density just to the designations themselves rather than having a
separate overlay zone or district, you simplified how the rules would work, clarified them, but really had very much the same effect.

So then the areas that were noted in that
framework as opportunity areas then got concentrated

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
attention in the Community Design Element of the General Plan saying these are the areas where we think there is opportunity for redevelopment, and so it’s really important to have some specific vision for each of these areas for what they look like now and what they could look like in the future, that that development is done consistent with the General Plan’s Vision and Guiding Principles.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I did
understand that and I hope it made sense to everyone. If you look at the proposed modifications to the densities and the heights in the Land Use section of the draft of the General Plan, they’re not specific to what geographic area of Town they’re in, it’s more we have like Low-Density
Residential, we have Community Commercial, blah, blah,
blah, we have these thing.

And we haven’t discussed the Community Design
Element yet, but when we created the Community Place
Districts they’re intended to be a vision for what the
neighborhood would look like, but when we went through the General Plan discussion no one wanted to create specific zoning for those areas. Instead we wanted to say it was going to be either Mixed-Use Commercial or Community
Commercial or something like that, but we weren’t going to have different zones for that, so that was kind of my

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
interpretation of what you said. You said it better than I did, but I think that there was really no reason to change all the things that we did in the General Plan after all the time we spent on it, and I think we have a framework that is going to be just fine for moving forward. I’m not sure who suggested that. Was that from the public?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, that was in a number of
different public comments that were received suggesting going back to that as approved by Town Council, though I will point out that the implementation of that framework in the form of the Land Use Element and Community Design
Element, we did go for a kind of check back with the Town Council in November of that same year for them to take a look at how that was going to be implemented.

CHAIR HANSSEN: But since this went to Town
Council multiple times and the GPAC had already sent
direction, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of benefit to revisiting it.

JENNIFER ARMER: Staff does not recommend it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And that’s why you didn’t
recommend it.

I’m going to go on to number 24, which we
probably need to discuss more when we talk about the
numbers, but I’ll put it out there anyway.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
A lot of people are very worried about increasing
densities in Low-Density Residential, and so the proposed General Plan does have us raising the densities as high as 12 dwelling units per acre, and a big part of that is to facilitate missing middle housing. That’s intertwined with the things that we have no control over, which are ADUs, which are ministerial permits and everyone anywhere is
allowed to build a Junior ADU as well as a detached ADU, and that’s state law.

Then we also have SB 9, which is just new this
year and we don’t know the full impact of that, so a lot of people have advocated to not increase densities in LowDensity Residential, because they’re afraid there’s going to be big, huge high-rises in their neighborhood, and so I thought it was worth having the discussion now even before we start talking about numbers to see what Commissioners thought about that, because the approach that the General Plan Advisory Committee took in recommending the whole
framework, and I think it was a direct quote from then
Mayor Jensen, which is basically no area should not have to help support the growth that’s expected of the Town, and it could be in varying degrees, but that was the direction that was taken. So I open that up for comments.

Commissioner Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that the changes to
the densities were very well thought out and discussed and analyzed, and I think that the ones that exist in the Draft 2040 General Plan are what we should go with if we have any chance of getting the Housing Element certified and then meeting our RHNA requirements, so that’s how I feel about it.

The changes that are proposed to height and
density, especially in Low-Density Residential areas I do not think are going to allow for high-rises to be built in areas, but if we don’t get a Housing Element approved, then a lot of things could change and a lot of stuff could get built in places that people don’t want it, so that’s how I viewed this one, and I think that we should go with the densities that are in the 2040 General Plan.

Related to SB 9, I think that this kind of
connects to number 26. I’m just curious about if
establishing a new Low-Medium Density Residential land use category, is that even necessary because of SB 9? Because duplexes are going to be happening anyway, so I feel like it’s kind of related. This is another density question
that’s kind of related, so if we felt so (inaudible) 26 (inaudible) might be helpful.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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: Let’s talk about both of those at
the same time.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And 25, even honestly. It’s
kind of more specific, but they’re all related to density.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Number 25, I’ll table that one
for the second, but I’m going to make a generalized
comment, because I know the origin of the Low-Medium
Density Residential.

We have Low-Density Residential, we have MediumDensity Residential, so the proposal, as I understand it— and Staff, correct me I got it wrong—is that there are some community members who are afraid of what the impact of LowDensity Residential increase in possible densities would be in their neighborhoods have said if we created a new
designation called Low-Medium Density Residential we could basically put the missing middle housing kinds of things in that.

My question to Staff when I first heard of it was
where would we put this, because every geographical
location in Town does have a General Plan zoning
designation? The response I heard was then we would have to decide where it would be, so then it would well be your neighborhood is going to be Low-Medium Density Residential even though you have primarily single-family homes now, and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 maybe someone else would stay Low-Density Residential. I see that personally as very problematic, if I understood that correctly, but I would like to hear what you all
think.

I think Commissioner Janoff was first, then
Commissioner Raspe, Vice Chair Barnett, Commissioner Clark, and Commissioner Thomas again.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. The notion that
we could create a separate area for duplexes and triplexes doesn’t make sense given SB 9, which allows for lot splits and for duplexes and fourplexes to be created on lots
virtually any size, but it’s more likely to be in LowDensity or Medium-Density, because that’s where you’ve got the space to do that kind of development, so I agree that number 26 presents more complications than it seems to add benefit.

The rules of the state are going to allow for the
Higher-Density and Low-Density anyway, which is why when you look at maintaining the level of Low-Density and if you say let’s go back to the 2020 plan, you could do that, but you’re still likely to see ADUs in this area. The 200 ADUs that we’ve got planned for currently in the RHNA numbers, they’re more than likely going to be in Low-Density. So you

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 could say I’m not going to add density, but the state is going to allow you to do it anyway.

I just don’t think it makes sense for us to put
our heads in the sand and pretend that we can create
isolated neighborhoods where we can prohibit a development when we simply can’t, so my position on both 24 and 26 are, as Commissioner Thomas said, go with the recommended
densities that the draft plan advises.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Which would mean not creating a
new Low-Medium Density Residential, because it basically doesn’t change the issue; it doesn’t accomplish anything.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: It doesn’t accomplish
anything.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, got it. Commissioner Raspe,
then Vice Chair Barnett, and Commissioner Clark, and then back to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Revisiting
24, and it’s only because several commentators raised this comment, maintaining the existing 2020 General Plan
densities for Low-Density Residential, given SB 9, and it’s a little bit unfair to Staff, because I’m asking you to project when we’re still in the infancy of this entire
discussion, but given SB 9, if we were to theoretically maintain the 2020 densities in those areas, is it likely,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 unlikely, unfathomable that we would hit our RHNA numbers, or do we just simply not know?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Commissioner Raspe. The
short answer is we don’t know. SB 9 is the big unknown. As it has been mentioned, anyone in a residentially zoned
property can go through the SB 9 process and have up to four units. Currently on any residential property you can have up to three units, even if you just do ADUs. Density is not a factor when considering ADUs or SB 9, so we
already have consideration in the General Plan and then also in the Housing Element with the eight-year cycle
approximately 25 units per year. We don’t have guidance and we don’t have a good track record to rely on like we do for ADUs to tell the state that this is how many SB 9s we think we’re going to get. I think we have three so far, but those aren’t even for units; those are just subdivisions so far.

We’ll get more information as the year goes on,
so if we do have the ability we’ll probably at least ask that question. We’ll definitely ask that question of HCD, letting them know here’s how many SB 9 projects we have, whether it’s units or subdivisions, and see if there’s any possibility to include those.

There have been a number of suggestions and I
think ultimately the low-density, if that is maintained as

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 it is and Staff says we’re neutral on that, yes, it reduces the number, which is something that a lot of folks want.

But ultimately something that also has the impact that we mentioned in the Staff Report is the work that was
contemplated in the missing middle, which now some folks say is kind of superseded by the SB 9; that just gets
pulled out of the General Plan.

Staff is comfortable with it either way. The big
push and the big potential unit counts really are more in the commercial areas, so that’s really where we’re kind of interested in doing that. The challenge that was mentioned before is most of those sites are on Los Gatos Boulevard, so then you run into the issue of we’re going to
concentrate them all on the Boulevard or the predominant number of them on the Boulevard and that gets to be
challenging from a number of aspects, but Staff is neutral.

We envisioned that numbers were going to change going
through this process, so we’re comfortable either way, and so I think this is a good discussion to hear different
perspectives of different Commissioners as you ultimately get to the point where you formulate a recommendation on specific densities.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Director Paulson.

That answers my question.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 CHAIR HANSSEN: And I wanted have this discussion
without the numbers on the table, because I think the issue is important to discuss.

I do want to ask a question back to Staff on your
comment, and you brought this up before and I believe that you answered it, but I wanted to make sure we really
understood the answer.

Since people can build up to four units on any
property I think regardless of even the size of the land underneath it, why would it make it necessary to take the missing middle housing discussion out of the General Plan? Because the people could do it anyway, even if we were to potentially reduce the densities, why would be need to take missing middle housing out of the General Plan?
JOEL PAULSON: I can start, and then if Ms. Armer
has anything to add.

The missing middle is really a different
opportunity. You wouldn’t be going through SB 9 for a
missing middle housing project, because we would be
increasing the density, which would allow more units
outside of that. So you really would have two different paths; you’d have two options. You either use SB 9, which has a lot of advantages, or you could go through the
missing middle housing component, which would allow more

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 units on a site. So there really are two different paths, two different options, and so that’s something the
Commission and ultimately the Council will have to consider as well.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, that helps. Vice Chair
Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you. I support
maintaining the existing 2020 General Plan densities with a Low-Density Residential, and I’d like to reserve comment when we get to my submission to the Commission, but I would note that there is sufficient density in the High-Density Mixed-Use Office, Service Commercial, and Neighborhood
Commercial designations to achieve that accomplishment, to achieve that goal, in the RHNA requirements, so I think that we can do it, especially in view of the SB 9 and the ADU requirements by state law.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Let’s see,
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I am not in favor
of the changes recommended in 24 and 26, and I just want to say that I think creating a Low- to Medium-Residential
category would be a really bad idea. I think that it would lead to some ugly arguments about what zoning goes where, and I don't know how those kinds of decisions would be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 made, and the purpose of missing middle housing is that it blends in with the single-family homes, not that it gets its own designation in its own neighborhood, and so I also think that it would be kind of circumventing the benefits that we can get from missing middle housing.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you for that.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with Commissioner
Clark’s comments, and I just wanted to say that I feel like it’s really important that we have as many pathways as
possible for people to develop housing, so including having the missing middle pathway option, as Director Paulson was saying, and SB 9 option. Having both of those moving
forward I think is important for developers and
individuals.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that.

I just wanted to make a note for the entire
Commission that we’re not making a decision on anything right now, we’re discussing, and then when we do talk about the numbers that would kind of go hand-in-hand and we’ll do like we did with the other elements and take a vote on the entire list of recommended changes to the element. So if you find later on in the discussion that something swayed you in a little bit different direction, it’s not an issue

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 at the moment, but I think this is a very good discussion to have.

Commissioner Thomas, you just spoke. Do you still
have more to add? Okay. Anyone else that wanted to comment on 24 or 26? Okay.

So number 25 is somewhat related. I should say as
a matter of background for those of you that are not on the Housing Element Advisory Board, there were some letters that were submitted to the Housing Element Advisory Board last week, and Staff would be more able to comment on it and it’s probably more of a Town Council issue at this
point, but the gist of it was that some people were upset about the SB 9 Urgency Ordinance, which would prevent
people from doing lot splits in the hillsides, and in the same letter—and these comments probably predate that—they were talking about they wanted to be able to take their existing hillside property, split it, and basically be able to have two lots and be able to stay in their home.

Along with that we’ve gotten comments about there
are some areas that aren’t truly in the hillsides in the sense of big, huge slope and small roads and all the things that the General Plan Advisory Committee worried about in terms of increasing any density in the hillsides, so the proposal was to look at certain areas on the fringes of the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 hillsides that don’t have as much slope in the lots that could be possible candidates for additional density.

So I wanted to share what peoples’ comments were
in that area, but there are kind of a lot of things flying in the air right now around this topic.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: It’s unclear what fringe
areas adjacent to San Jose might actually be, but we do have two of them included in our areas of opportunity, the Union Avenue areas as well as the Harwood Area, so those are two that border San Jose that are kind of the fringe areas of the hillside. Well, Harwood for sure, maybe not Union so much. I’m not really sure what the fringe areas of Los Gatos would be, so not really understanding this I
wouldn’t be in favor of making those changes. The other communities that border, Campbell and Saratoga, I can’t see those fringe areas not being truly hillside and being
susceptible to the wildfire dangers, which drove the GPAC to saying no development in the hillsides, so I’m not in favor of 25.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson, you had a
comment?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you. Commissioner
Janoff just mentioned one of them, which is this was

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 discussed and there wasn’t an interest at the time with the GPAC to modify the density in the hillsides.

I’ll give one instance of what could be fringe. I
think this gets to the same conversation as creating a new category of this Low-Medium. I think the more potentially appropriate option would be, and you mentioned Harwood, so as you go up Harwood past that shopping center that’s in the Community Place District there are some Hillside
Residential that come down, and they’re flat lots, they’re not sloped.

If that was something that either the Commission
or the Council were interested in, that would probably be a modification to the land use designation, because most of those abut Low-Density Residential, so it would be changing it from Hillside to Low-Density Residential, which would probably be more appropriate. I don't know that we have a whole lot of those areas. That’s the one that comes to
mind, because we did have a very large lot adjacent to an R-1:8 subdivision, but they’re designated HR-1, and so that would probably be that fringe. That’s not adjacent to San Jose.

The only areas in our hillsides that are adjacent
to San Jose is really probably over by Hicks Road. We’ve got a subdivision out there that was done through a Planned

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 Development, but we don’t really have a whole lot of areas that abut San Jose and that are zoned Hillside that
probably are appropriate from that standpoint.

I will say some of the ones on Harwood do back
up, they abut San Jose at the rear of their properties, up Alerche, some of those properties, and probably even some of the Harwood ones, but that’s probably a very limited opportunity and I’m not sure if ultimately it’s worth the consideration to increase just for a handful of sites
rather than potentially modifying the land use designation to the Low-Density Residential adjacent to it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. That helps to
clarify kind of where it would be. The properties that you were just talking about off of Hicks Road, I forget the name of the community, but those are very, very, very large houses. I mean, I’m having a hard time visualizing how you would go with those houses that are on pretty large lots and then add a lot of density, and it’s already fully built out is my understanding, so this sounds problematic to me how you would make that work.

Any other comments on this one? Vice Chair
Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I apologize for not reading
all the Staff Reports on GPAC, but I wonder if Mr. Paulson

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 could describe the basis for eliminating Hillside from the density increases? Is it the roads?
JOEL PAULSON: I’m sure Chair Hanssen and
Commissioner Janoff and potentially Commissioner Thomas could add some additional, but generally it’s wildfire
access. Those are the typical issues, so to look at
increasing the density in those areas, even though they are a lot of large lots, it was really some of those safety issues that were a big concern.

JENNIFER ARMER: I would add that while I think
that was the primary element, also an important component of the character of the Town is the views of the hillsides, and so additional housing in the hillsides makes it more and more visible and changes that character, so I think the fire danger was the primary component, but there were also discussions about visual impacts with more density in that sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and I will agree that that
was a secondary discussion, and I’ll have Commissioner
Janoff comment as well when I finish.

I can tell you that when we initially started the
General Plan we had community meetings, and in one of those community meetings people were supposed to identify the things that were most important to them and most endeared

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 them to living in Los Gatos, and by far and away the number one thing was safety, and as we were talking through it— this was in 2018 when some of the worst wildfires had
happened—a lot of people in the hillsides are in
neighborhoods where they have private roads, and those
private roads are really skinny roads, basically one-lane roads, and people are terrified of this scenario where
there’s a fire and there might be enough room for the fire truck to get up, but there might not be room for anyone to get out. That is actually a very common thing that we see in the hillsides, and so when we were talking through
everything it was really a unanimous decision of
recommendation of everyone on the GPAC that not only would we not encourage growth in the hillsides, but there is an implementation program in the General Plan to study the possibility of downzoning, which has it’s own set of
implications because people own the land and they do have a right to build to a certain extent.

The whole idea of what the General Plan Advisory
Committee recommended is we can’t stop people from building on their land, but we’re not going to encourage a lot of additional density, because we don’t have anywhere close to the infrastructure to provide for the safety that everyone in Town desires.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: What I wanted to emphasize
is that we’re working through the General Plan element-byelement, but when the General Plan Advisory Committee considered the General Plan it was as a whole. We’re
looking at land use in isolation, but in this particular case, this is where it crosses over to the Hazards and
Safety, or as Ms. Armer suggested, it crosses over to the visual character of the Town, so we’re looking at these in isolation, but it’s important for us to remember as we go through this process that the General Plan is a really much larger picture, and the decisions we’re making, or the
recommendations we’re making, regarding any one of these elements need to hang together with the other elements, and so this is one that was really a very robust discussion over wildland safety, wildfire, and so on, and that was really the predominant element when it came to discussing this particular piece of the Land Use Element. So I just wanted to point out that we want to make this document as internally consistent as we possibly can, and this is one of the examples where it really is.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And that was another good thing
to bring up too about the open space. The open spaces that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 the Town is responsible for are all in the hillsides, and so when everything added up it didn’t make sense.

Now, I did want to add one thing before we get to
the numbers. There was a lot of discussion in the public domain about the difference between the 3,738 number and the 3,904 number. I might be off a little on the numbers, but the difference being the hillsides, and there is a
number in there that says there could be up to 166 hillside units, but it’s not as a result of any policy that’s
recommended in the General Plan.

That’s simply the fact that people do own land
there and we consistently are still getting proposals from people that want to subdivide their 22 acres and build ten new homes, and when they come to the CDAC unilaterally
every response has always been that’s not a great idea, and a hundred neighbors come out and say that’s not a good
idea, but nonetheless there will be some growth in the
hillsides whether we encourage it or not simply by the
virtue of people that own land that have a right to build on it and the zoning says HR-1 or 2.5 or whatever the case may be.

Anyone else have comments on that? Like I said,
we’re not making a decision at this point. I just wanted to make sure that we put these things on the table, and I

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 think it will help when we are talking about any
adjustments we want to make to the build-out option.

So then 27, “Utilize maximum FAR only for nonresidential components of Mixed-Use project, because housing will be limited by maximum density.”
I wanted to ask Staff a question about this. For
all my years on the Planning Commission we’ve always used FAR, so this would be a departure from anything that we’ve done in the past.

JENNIFER ARMER: I will start with we have
treated Commercial in a couple of different ways, depending on the land use designation or zoning.

For example, downtown there has been a floor area
ratio that’s been consistently used for the entire building for Commercial, and that’s been in place for many years.

In other Commercial zones, rather than an FAR,
which is the floor area ratio, ratio of the floor area of the building to the property size, there was a combination of a height limit and a lot coverage. So if you have a
height limit of 35’ and you’re talking about an office
building, it’s really only going to be two stories, and if you have a 50% lot coverage, then that is actually
effectively the same as an FAR of 1.0, because you could do

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 levels at 50% and you get 100% of the lot area in terms of floor area.

It’s a little bit of kind of playing around with
how to implement these, and one of the reasons to consider floor area rather than just lot coverage and height is that it does really look a little more at the massing of the building and gives some flexibility of how that building might be designed, depending on the layout of the site and the proposed uses, but there are different ways of using these different tools handled by different communities, and it looks like Director Paulson has something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Ms. Armer. She
explained kind of the existing rules. Typically we’re
looking at density, and if you have three or more units FAR generally doesn’t apply, but because we were increasing FAR—and the GPAC members will remember this fondly—we had conversations constantly about density versus intensity, so this was intended to capture that intensity component from a total square footage standpoint.

So if someone was proposing a Mixed-Use building,
not only would we be counting the Commercial on the ground floor, but we’d be limiting to some effects the Residential up above, which for instance, one hypothetical is they want to go to the maximum density, which generally is going to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 mean smaller units, so it’s kind of balancing the density versus intensity, and that’s why it’s written as it is
currently.

To Ms. Armer’s point, that really gets to also I
think ultimately trying to deal with if we only use it for the Commercial component someone could just develop
Commercial and not have Residential. They’re not required to be Residential in many of the designations, so then you end up with potentially a much larger, much more square footage for a Commercial building not having the
Residential component.

So that’s kind of another way to hopefully, as we
implement it through zoning code or other mechanisms,
again, incentivizing the development of Mixed-Use, which is a big component of the General Plan, so that we do get some of these sites containing Residential and Commercial. I think Ms. Armer might have some additional comment.

JENNIFER ARMER: I just did want to add one
additional thought in response to the comment that Director Paulson shared about density versus intensity, and a
comment earlier from Commissioner Janoff about how
increases in height, or also increases in floor area for example here, might be a component of some incentive
programs that might be discussed by the Housing Element

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, 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 that if you build additional housing that additional floor area might be a possibility, and I think that is a
component of some of the public comment that we’ve received related to this discussion of intensity versus density, that if you’re going to allow additional intensity that it really should be tied to building more housing, since
that’s our goal. So I think that’s another component to consider, whether those might be tied in future discussions of how to incentivize and encourage additional housing.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff recommended neutral on this,
so my response as a member of the Housing Element Advisory Board would be I would only want to go in that direction if it was going to be an inhibiting factor for developers to want to build Mixed-Use. As long as the FAR is high enough I’m not sure that… And it seems like from our perspective FAR is a useful tool for controlling intensity, and then we have density and the interplay of those two things. So I didn’t hear any reason to not use FAR unless developers were telling us we can’t live using FAR at all when we’re building a Mixed-Use Commercial. I don't know what other people think, but that was kind of what I heard.

No comments, so I guess you all agree. Okay,
we’ll go on.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
120
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 28 was, “Change development rules to
increase construction of diverse housing types, including greater density, higher height limits, lower parking
requirements, more transit and connection to light rail.” I’m not sure what that means in terms of
modifying the General Plan. Does Staff have any thoughts about this?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I would say that we
are doing some of that with the policies and changes that are proposed in the Draft 2040 General Plan. I would say that this comment is probably encouraging the Planning
Commission and Town Council to consider going farther in some of those areas. Without specific recommendations, we shared that general comment just to make sure that there was that voice, since that is part of the public comment that was received.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And you did make a comment
earlier on one of the other points that we could consider higher this or that than what is already proposed in the General Plan.

I’m going to take Commissioner Thomas’ comment,
but it seems like number 20 doesn’t really give us any
direction in terms of how we should modify the plan unless someone is saying I wish the FAR was 4 instead of 3.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
121
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 They’re not saying what form it would take beyond what we’ve already recommended.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: In general I support these
ideas, because I think that they are important for covering a lot of the policies in the General Plan, like a lot of the goals that we’re trying to reach for our community, but I wasn’t really sure where it would be put or how it would change, so that’s really what my comment was.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we can kind of save 28
for when we actually talk about the numbers and then see if people… They know Commissioners have a reaction to is
number enough? Do we need to do more based on what we know today, which might not be everything?
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Again, I think 28, 29, and
30 all speak to the kind of detail that we need to get to in the Housing Element. They’re all about housing. We’ve provided the framework in the General Plan to allow for, and I would just advocate that we allow the Housing Element to provide the exceptions or the incentives for high or higher density.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
122
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 Commissioner Thomas said, and I completely
agree with, these are great ideas but it’s not in this part of the General Plan where they belong, in my opinion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So you’re saying you wouldn’t
even address this in the General Plan, you’d save it for the Housing Element.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, it’s a real detailed
and housing-specific kind of comment on 28. Number 29 is, “Allow Mixed-Use in High-Density.” Well, we’ve talked a lot about Mixed-Use and how feasible that is in High-Density, whether it’s buildable, whether builders build it, that kind of thing. What it all boils down to, as other
Commissioners have said, is how are we going to get the housing that we need, and to me these three items, as well as others, are great incentives, but those details could be fleshed out in the… Keep this, but move it to the Housing Element.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was only wondering about 29.

I’m going to ask Staff. Because there is a permitted uses table for every land use designation in the General Plan. I thought we allowed Mixed-Use in High-Density Residential, but maybe we don’t.

JENNIFER ARMER: No, the Residential designations
do not allow any Commercial.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
123
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: Okay, and we made a conscious
decision not to do that, so that might be worth discussing either as part of our recommendation or deferring it to the Housing Element, but if we didn’t allow it in the General Plan it would be hard to do it in the Housing Element.

We can think more about that, but I’m going to
take Commissioner Clark’s comment.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yeah, Chair
Hanssen, your comment that you just made kind of gets at my question, which is I completely agree with what
Commissioner Janoff said. I think that these conversations really are best held in the Housing Element Advisory Board where there is a large group of experts and they’re having those conversations, but then what is the rule of the
General Plan when we understand that that’s where these conversations will exist? Is it really important that make sure all of these ideas that we think are good will be
possible, or do we understand that they might need to go in and make some changes to the decisions that will be made on the General Plan?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask Staff to comment
on that one as well so that I know we’re looking the right way about it. Director Paulson.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
124
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. Ultimately, as
we go through the Housing Element we’re going to hopefully get a General Plan adopted, then we’re going to look at the Housing Element for those land use designations and see what number we can get to. There is a chance for one or more sites, or even designations. If we’re not getting to the numbers, or HCD is not agreeing with all the sites that we selected, so we have to come up with other ideas, there may be implementation programs that have to be added. The hope is that that will be a minimal number of modifications that would be subsequent changes to the General Plan.

I think specifically 29; in rereading it I
probably should have said this in the beginning. We’re all interpreting the public’s comments, which we may or may not be getting 100% right, so if any of these we’re getting wrong, please feel free to submit additional written
comments.

Looking at 29, we have very limited High-Density
Residential land use designations, and so I actually in hindsight would say Staff would not recommend 29. Those are traditional High-Density—from the Town’s perspective—multifamily apartment buildings and things like that. We do have High-Density Residential built into some of our Commercial,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
125
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 Mixed-Use specifically, so I just want to provide some of that context as well.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think what you’re saying is if
we want to have High-Density Mixed-Use we should have that Mixed-Use designation, not modify High-Density Residential.

JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So you’re going to change your
recommendation on 29 to not recommend it for the reasons we just discussed. Okay, got it. That helps, and that
clarifies kind of what we were discussing when we went
through the General Plan.

I think we’ve covered actually 28, 29, and 30
unless people have other comments.

On number 30, I’m going to go with what
Commissioner Janoff was saying, which is that it might be a good tool for the Housing Element, but we may not want to go and create like artificially high General Plan limits when we could use it as a technique to motivate people to do affordable housing. We can have that discussion more when we’re talking about the land use build-out table and the standards, but right now we’ve gone up to 45’, as Ms.

Armer noted, to match downtown. It might be necessary to go higher, but we probably don’t need to decide that just yet,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
126
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 we can decide what form it will take when we make our actual recommendation.

But if people have comments about it, I would
like to hear anyone’s thoughts about it. Okay, I don’t hear anything else. No hands are raised.

I did want to talk about number 31 in spite of
the fact that maybe it is more of a Housing Element
discussion, but 31 is, “Reducing the maximum allowed floor area ratio in the Central Business District from 2 to

1.25.” Staff, is it 1.25 in the 2020 General Plan?
JENNIFER ARMER: No, at the moment I believe the
current regulations are .6 for downtown.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, so it’s even less than that.

So putting more housing in downtown, as you’ve seen from the comments, has been fairly controversial, but I will share this, that the GPAC, in talking through the thing, it was a combination of no area should be immune, and
especially we can for the most part rely on our objective standards to make sure that things fit in the neighborhood.

Then we also had the discussion on Thursday at
the Housing Element Advisory Board as we started going
through the proposed site inventory that there are several potential sites that housing could be build in downtown.

One, for example, is the post office, and there was a very

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
127
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 long comment made by Vice Mayor Ristow about how the post office is really not the best use for downtown and that it could turn into a really beautiful property with a smaller post office, you could get more housing, it would fit right in, so there are definitely people on very polarized sides of the issue. The Town Council did vote, when we went over the land use alternatives, to incorporate the Central
Business District having additional housing. Then the only question would be how much?
But that’s part of this thing with the floor area
ratios, where that all came from, so I would be interested if people had thoughts, and we’ll have to end up having the discussion, when we talk about numbers, about whether and how much there should be in the downtown. No comments.

Okay, I’ll defer to when we talk about the numbers.

Let’s see, there were several comments about the
North Forty, and the general response that was given, and some of this was in the EIR, some of it was in other
places, but the developers of the North Forty, it’s my
understanding the Specific Plan that governs the North
Forty is separate from the General Plan, but it’s not in conflict with it, and it has standards for how much can be built, and because there’s the potential of additional
housing—and Staff, jump in if I’m getting it wrong—that the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
128
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 developers can enter into a development agreement with the Town to build more housing, which would supersede the
limited amount of housing that they’re able to in the North

20. Did I get that right?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I think you got that pretty
right. One of the things that I would add is that because the two Specific Plans that we have in Town are included in the General Plan, both as the zoning designation and the General Plan designation, it’s there in place of another designation that might have been there previously, and so it does kind of defer to the rules that are in that plan.

It looks like Director Paulson has something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Ms. Armer, Chair.

Ultimately, yes, I think most folks are aware
there are a very limited number of units left from what’s currently allocated in the North Forty Specific Plan, 33 units. There’s been a lot of talk about the potential for additional units out there. There are multiple paths.

You mentioned one, which the development
agreement, which would probably have to be coupled with a Planned Development, which is also the other minor change that was made in the Specific Plan.

The other probably more appropriate option would
be to do a Specific Plan Amendment to increase that number.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
129
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 current General Plan looked at far more units
and they were ultimately approved out there. I believe the number in the EIR was 750 units for the North Forty, so there’s some capacity there from an environmental clearance perspective potentially, but should the Commission think that more units should go out there, those of you on CDAC saw a CDAC application that would have more units, which Staff at that time said would require a Specific Plan, but as you mentioned, there is the Planned Development
development agreement option that may also be possible, but if it’s the interest of the Planning Commission from a
recommendation standpoint that that number should be
increased in the Specific Plan or through another
mechanism, I think that would be great input for Council.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Then I think that is something
that we should discuss. What I understand from Staff’s
perspective is that the modification wouldn't happen in the General Plan, it would happen in the Specific Plan, because the Specific Plan has all the objective standards of how we would do the North Forty, and so the right way to go about adding more housing would be to modify the Specific Plan.

JOEL PAULSON: I think what we probably would
recommend would be ultimately an implementation program that says modify the Specific Plan to increase the number

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
130
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 housing units. For instance, on the Boulevard, which is a Mixed-Use designation, the current Draft General Plan is going up to 40 units per acre. The current Specific Plan is at 20 units per acre, which is the existing General Plan designation for Mixed-Use, so that could be part of the conversation as well.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so probably an
important thing that we should resolve before we finish recommending any changes to the Land Use Element is whether or not we would recommend to modify the Specific Plan to add more housing.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, thank you. I’m in
favor of modifying the Specific Plan to include more
housing (inaudible) since the EIR for the North Forty would accommodate additional housing, and it’s also one of the areas that’s probably on the Housing Element Advisory
Board’s site selection list, so we’re already thinking of it in terms of providing additional housing, so it makes sense to me that we open it up to that possibility. It may not go there, but at least it gives us the option, and I think that makes sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s good. Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
131
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 RASPE: Just to air the contrary
view, my only concern is those units are just coming online now, and so we really don’t have a full sense of their
impact on this community, and so I’d like to have a further discussion of what the impact of those additional units might be to infrastructure, all those areas that various commentators raised as part of that discussion. I think that would be valuable. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That was a good thing to bring
up. I would just point out what Director Paulson said, when the North Forty phase one application was approved the EIR was studied for the capacity of 750 units, a much bigger number than the 320 units that we have.

The Environmental Impact Report looks at
transportation, air quality, all those impacts, and
although I remember that there was significant unavoidable impacts primarily in transportation, there was something in the order of $10-12 million dollars of mitigation that was paid for by the developers to alleviate and that reduce the impact somewhat, although it was still significant. Did I get that right, Staff? So I’m not sure if studying the
thing further would have any impact if we already studied it for 750 units.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
132
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, and then Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I understand Commissioner
Raspe’s concerns and I think that we should be very
thorough, but I assume that if there were any major changes to the plan and then there was actually development that would happen, we would have to do a very thorough analysis of the impacts, so I don't know if that’s kind of doing an analysis now before changing, if that’s putting the cart before the horse or not, but I might not be fully
understanding the situation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to put that back to
Staff. Supposing that we modify the Specific Plan to allow what was proposed in the CDAC hearing, I don’t remember, was it 300 more units or something? Right now they’re only allowed to do about I think 30 more units, because the
whole idea of the original Specific Plan was most of the housing would be in the southern part and then as you move north you would have more Commercial, and so in the
original Specific Plan they were only allowed to do
Residential over Commercial and not on a standalone basis, but it’s been moving in the direction of more. Do we need to redo the EIR if the Town ends up going in that
direction?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
133
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. The answer to that
question is maybe. We would evaluate that when we received an application and look at whether or not we would have the ability to rely on the Specific Plan EIR or whether
additional environmental review would be required. The big picture question at the General Plan level is do we think we should consider more units at this stage for the
Planning Commission, and then we would go through the
appropriate processes should we get applications for the site.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So it depends. All right,
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I wanted to add
that as we go through the process through the Housing
Element Advisory Board we’re mindful of the big concern that too much development occurs in an areas that’s already overloaded, and that’s a consideration at the element
level. We’re at the General Plan level, which says where might development possibly happen? We’re not saying it
will, and certainly it wouldn’t be North Forty, Los Gatos Boulevard. We just couldn’t support that and HCD probably wouldn’t certify that.

So again, we’re at a high level here with the
General Plan thinking we’ve got areas in Town that could be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
134
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 developed and it could be beneficial for the Town, we just need to be able to have the ability to look at those areas or consider development or not, and I think because our numbers are so high, it’s beneficial to have more areas to consider than not to help us hopefully get to where we need to be. I just wanted to remind everyone that we’re not
saying it’s going to happen, we’re just providing for these are potential areas that could work if we loosen some of the bounds that are in place right now.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I would also note, some of you
guys are on the CDAC, I’ve listened in to the CDAC hearing where Harmony and Park Development and those guys were
presenting their ideas for developing the North Forty, and the Los Gatos Community Alliance has been very vocal about limiting the amount of housing in Town and being
conservative. They were all for putting more housing in the North Forty. You can ask what are all the reasons for that, but the fact was that that was a big thing, and I’m going to concur with what Commissioner Janoff said, which is that we probably shouldn’t eliminate any options unless there’s a really good reason for doing it, especially when we had to come up with that much housing.

In the Balancing Act tool that’s out in the
public right now the North Forty is a place where housing

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
135
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 could be put in terms of the draft site inventory, so we don’t have to make a recommendation right now, but there are definitely reasons to consider it.

Let’s see, let’s keep going and see if we can at
least get through the recommended changes.

Number 33 and number 34 are just wording changes
to the existing policies.

Number 33 is adding the word “environment” to
having to evaluate projects that have mitigation measures with things on the list, which they’re adding the
environment to this. It says, “Urban services, wildfire risk, including utilities, police, and fire.”
Then the second one, 34, is to add the words
“migration” and “biological corridors” when we’re trying to, “Ensure that housing in the hillside will not adversely impact the natural environment.”
So the question for Staff is you said you were
neutral to adding the word “environment” to that policy statement in LU-3.2. Since we already have CEQA, what would be the benefit of adding the word “environment” to that policy?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I would say that we
labeled this one and the next as neutral because that is covered elsewhere and through CEQA, that it’s not a problem

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
136
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 add that additional language to those two policies. We haven’t identified a significant problem with that, but generally the sense is that it is covered either here in other locations in the document or CEQA.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So that’s why you’re neutral, it
doesn’t really materially change anything one way or the other to have it in there. Then I assume that “migration” and “biological corridors” as in adding that to number 34 is in the same category from Staff’s perspective?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Does anyone have a feeling
about is it important to add it or is it worth it?
Commissioner Clark, and then Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I would be in favor of both
of the additions for number 33. I feel like the public
feels like that is important to have in there and I’m
perfectly happy to put it in.

And for number 34, I actually think that that
increases consistent within the General Plan just because we’ve discussed some other areas that talk about wildlife corridors.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I hate to belabor this point, but
since I heard all the people testify in the hillsides when we did the Fence Ordinance, in 34 it says, “Ensure the