Los Gatos City Council
June 20, 2022

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
137
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 housing in the hillsides will not adversely impact the natural environment,” then adding “migration” and
“biological corridors,” so it’s probably redundant to the natural environment, but given what was said and some of the testimony we got from people in the hillsides, would we have to add like a checklist once that wildlife corridor study is done and when people are trying to build and say well you can’t build there? That would basically be
included in the idea of the Least Restrictive Development Area, because it impacts a wildlife corridor. I don’t think we know yet, but I’m just asking the question in terms of where would this go?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’d expect that if we do a
wildlife corridor study that that would result in some
specific recommendations, that we would be looking at how that study then might be implemented and that that would go through discussion with the Planning Commission and Town Council as to what components of that might be, say, added to the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines as a new map or specific restrictions that would be part of the
follow up discussion to doing that study.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. And by the
way, for the rest of the Commission, I’m not opposed to adding those words; I just wanted to make sure I asked some

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
138
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 devil’s advocate questions about it. So what I heard is it’s really premature because we haven’t done the wildlife study, and then there would have to be recommendations that came out of that, and so there’s nothing to be concerned about adding those words.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I was just going to second
Commissioner Clark’s comments that if the public felt like they wanted to add these in and Staff doesn’t oppose it that we should include them, because I do think it creates some consistency in a way that it’s not redundant, but I think that they’re fine to include.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds good. I’m going to
suggest that we don’t need to talk about 35 or 36, because they’re both in the same genre of what we talked about with the North Forty, which are the special planning areas. If it’s just a clarification thing, I would have no problem adding it, but if it’s going to be to modify the General Plan substantially to change anything that the place to do that is in the Specific Plan so that it’s not out of
consistency with the General Plan, so that was my
recommendation.

Just so everyone who wasn’t on the General Plan
Committee knows, we were very specific as we went through

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
139
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 entire process that whenever there were wording changes that didn’t impact the meaning of the General Plan we would have Staff unilaterally accept them and we didn’t need to talk about them, because there was hundreds and hundreds of pages and English and grammar that we don’t have to worry too much about as long as it doesn’t change the intent.

So I’m just going to say we don’t have to talk
about 35 or 36 unless Staff feels differently.

Number 37 is another clarification thing. It’s to
add the Town is facilitating discussions for residents and stakeholders, and someone wanted to add other local
governments input into planning activities early on and through the development process, which seems like an easy add. I would hope we would be talking to local governments anyway. I don’t think it creates any conflict, and Staff was neutral.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I, personally,
when I saw this kind of thought what would this actually look like and how important is it to specifically include local governments at all of these points? Especially I
think the goal really is to reach the general public, and so first I don’t think that we need it, but second, I would

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
140
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 definitely want a better idea of how we would even go about doing this if we were going to add this.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Actually, you raise a really good
issue. If the development wasn’t anywhere near a Town
border, then why would we involve other governments? And stakeholder could be broadly defined to include local
government, especially if it was near a border.

Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’d be interested to hear
from Staff why they’re neutral on this point, because it does seem to be overly broad.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. From Staff’s
standpoint, “stakeholders” is the broad term, so that would be a member of the public and any other local governments if they were in the vicinity. We do that as a matter of course. We have other projects where if it’s over a certain number of units, then we also make sure we reach out to school districts and other groups, so from our standpoint stakeholders covers a broad enough range from a General Plan perspective, but we’re neutral if the Commission
thinks it’s important to add other local governments.

I think what happens with a lot of these, and we
have these discussions at the GPAC, is once you start
adding one group, then do we need to add NGOs, CBOs, all

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
141
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 these other groups potentially? From Staff’s standpoint stakeholders covers it, but if the Commission is interested in adding additional qualifiers it’s not going to be an impact from our perspective.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And number 38 is similar, about
coordinating with public agency stakeholders such as Midpen specifically mentioned in this thing. That probably came from the Midpen, I don't know. What I’m hearing is maybe keep it more general, because if you start naming specific agencies, what if they change, and what if you left out somebody that you shouldn’t have, and we would always want to reach out to everyone that was significantly impacted by any development that we did to make sure that we had a
conversation going on about it.

I would say we haven’t made a recommendation yet,
but we could probably just not make any changes per 37 and 38 and it wouldn’t hurt anyone and it would still be
covered.

Then number 39, I wasn’t sure where that was
going and were we not doing enough to communicate with the public. I wasn’t sure what the change was, because there was nothing underlined. Does Staff know where this comment came from, because there was things that were suggested that was more than what we were doing?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
142
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: If we look at what the existing
language is for policy LU-20.4, it’s talking about variety of public communication methods and it says that, “The Town shall continue to share public information across a variety of media, technology, and traditional platforms based upon the demographics of the community,” and so in looking at this I think it mostly wants to make sure there are
specific examples of what would be included within that policy rather than keeping it general. I’ll also search and see if I can find whom that came from specifically.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Several people have their hands
up. I think Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner
Raspe, and then Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The way I read this is
really traditional methods, like I don’t have a computer and I’m not connected to the Internet, so how am I going to get informed? As we go to the digital means of
communication, those who don’t have access may feel that they’re being left out, so that’s how I read it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s good, because you look at
something and you’re like where did this come from, and so that makes sense.

Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
143
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 read it
the same way as Commissioner Janoff that we were perhaps missing important segments of our population that aren’t exposed to electronic media. Specifically by way of example there were several comments that I think we could put in the no growth category, and I think if perhaps those
individuals had a better understanding of, for instance, SB 35, some of the limitations that are placed upon the Town that really dictate this entire process, I think that would be helpful for the entire community and the Planning
Commission and Town Council as well, so I think any effort that captures more of the community I think only serves to enrich the entire process.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That sounds great. Commissioner
Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I actually have a
couple of problems with number 39.

First, LU-20.4 already does say traditional
platforms, and so it’s not like this is currently excluded.

I think it is just specifying for this one and not the
others, which I also think could be a problem.

Another thought that I definitely have is that
this method is bad for the environment compared to other ones, and if we’re talking about a 20-year General Plan I’d

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
144
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 like to think that we’re able to find more creative ways to engage at some point, and since the language says,
“traditional platforms based upon the demographics of the community,” I think that that does get at the fact that we want to make sure that we’re using outreach methods that will ensure everyone is reached, and maybe in 20 years
everyone has a computer or something, so I don’t think that it’s super wise to include these specifics in the General Plan.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s very good additional input
on the other side of thing, and that’s where this General Plan discussion is sort of like how far do you go? If it says traditional, is it enough, or do you need to have
more?
Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I wanted to agree with
Commissioner Clark on this particular matter. I think that the existing LU-20.4 is broad enough. We keep talking about keeping the General Plan at a high level, and I think this is really getting down into the weeds.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, I think that’s good
for now, and then when we get to the point where we’re
ready to make the recommendation on the entire Land Use

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
145
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 Element someone can make a motion about just leaving out 39 or whether to add it in any form.

Then number 40, I’m going to add it in the same
bucket as the North Forty. Number 40 says to, “Modify the North Forty Specific Plan to allow up to 40 dwelling units per acre to be consistent with the Mixed-Use land use
designation on Los Gatos Boulevard.”
We can certainly include modify the Specific
Plan. I’m going to ask Staff a question though when we get to talking about numbers and specific recommendations. Were you hoping that the Planning Commission would make a
recommendation like that specific about what density?
JENNIFER ARMER: I would start by saying that we
did say neutral for a reason, that really moving forward with additional housing in the North Forty area is going to be a separate process, but as Director Paulson stated, if there is an inclination from the Planning Commission based on your discussions, if that is something that you think would be worthwhile and that you do want to recommend and support, that that is a discussion point that we could
bring forward to Town Council.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So it’s probably worth being
somewhat specific about it, but we don’t have to decide it right now.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
146
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 did get through all of the recommended changes
to the Land Use Element except for number 20, which would be to talk about whether or not we should modify the number of new housing units.

Now it is 10:54. We certainly aren’t going to be
able to finish everything tonight, but we could decide to vote to move forward to 11:30, or we could vote to stop and then take up the discussion of the numbers and the
Community Design Element and then the final recommendations on that EIR, so those are the options that we have right now.

I’m going to ask Staff, I think because of our
agenda we do have to have the report from the Community Development Director and subcommittee reports and the
normal stuff for our meetings, is that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: I don’t believe we need to have
those. I guess I could check and see. It could just have been our standard agenda since those will be taken care of on Wednesday. Mr. Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: I would say yeah, we probably
could have struck those from this agenda since we’re going to be meeting Wednesday anyway. Obviously, you guys have been going at this for just shy of four hours. This next topic is going to probably engender a lot of discussion, so

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
147
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’m not sure if it would be good to start it if you don’t think you’re going to finish it, but that’s my personal opinion, and ultimately it’s up to the Commission.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff, you had a
comment?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I agree, I don’t think that
we’re likely to get finished with the Land Use Element
tonight, but if it’s possible I think it would be very
beneficial for the Commission to have a framework for how you would like to carry the discussion forward, so if it’s a table that you have in mind that we’re going to do number adjustments, help us understand the structure of the logic that you want to go through so that we can be prepared to think through those numbers and the rationale for any
changes or no changes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I can tell
you what I had in mind was I’m going to go to page 14 of the Staff Report that came on April 15th in which discussion they took the 3,738 number that was out in the public
domain and was the subject of a lot of press, mostly
negative, for doubling our RHNA housing numbers, and
although Staff has continued to explain that, that’s still pretty controversial.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
148
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 went further than that on page 6 and talked
about if you adjusted it for the fact that the General Plan is 20 years versus the Housing Element being on an eightyear time cycle, that we were down to 3,038 units because of existing projects and the accessory dwelling units that would built after.

And they said specifically therefore if you
consider the 1,993 times of 15% buffer of 2,292 units,
comparing that to 3,038 in theory we are 746 housing units greater than the expected need for the Housing Element if you took it to the minimum.

That is followed by some potential reductions in
housing development capacity that were suggested by Staff after the result of the meeting that they had with Town Council back in December where they talked about potential directions where to go, and the Town Council is not telling us to reduce the number, they’re just saying that if we thought it was recommended to reduce the number, then these are some ways that could do it.

So my idea about doing that was if you look at
number 20 on Exhibit 7, it says, A) No increase in housing levels. These are possible modifications; B) Reduce the number of new housing units to a lower, less ambitious
target; C) Reduce new housing units to 1,993, which is the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
149
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 exact amount of our RHNA, and remember we’re doing the General Plan, not the Housing Element; and D) Reduce the number of new housing units to 1,993 plus a 15-20% buffer.

The place we have to kind of start is I think
number 20, which is can we rule out a couple of those
options, and there is actually Option E that’s not on here, which would be to leave it exactly as it is.

So that’s where I’d ask you guys to start for
when we do our next meeting and think about what are your responses to A, B, C, D, and E, and then we can talk about if the desire is to modify the housing numbers and make them lower what are the best ways to do that, and I think that will be a good discussion. Does that give you enough structure, Commissioner Janoff, in terms of what I was
thinking of?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: (Thumbs up.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that help you guys in terms
of thinking about it for when we continue the discussion? Okay. Are there questions that you have about how we should go about this, or suggestions that you would like to make before we set the date for continuing the discussion?
Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
150
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just want to quickly make
a motion to extend the meeting to no later than 11:30,
assuming that we’ll end much earlier than that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s right, because we have to
do that. Thank you. Second? Commissioner Thomas has a
second. I will just do a quick roll call vote. 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.

And as Commissioner Clark suggested, we aren’t
going to go nearly that long, but this would be a good time to help kind of frame things and ask questions that would help set us up for success when we continue the meeting so that we can finish the next meeting.

Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
151
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 know that we don’t want
to get into a discussion of everything in detail, but I am just a little bit curious to hear some of the
Commissioner’s general thoughts on these ideas about where they’re coming from so that we could kind of like take that away with us and process it over the next couple of days. I don’t have any new information, but I know that this is an important discussion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Here’s a suggestion I have. Why
don’t we take a read on everyone’s feedback on number 20, and adding in option E that’s not on there, which is not changing the numbers at all, and see where everyone’s
initial read is on it, and then we’ll have a more in depth discussion about whether we go in that direction and to what extent in the follow up meeting.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that would be
helpful to me, because I just have no idea where everyone else is. I don’t mind going first.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: As a member of the GPAC who
already approved this, and understanding the full extent of the entire situation and what Staff has provided with us, I do not support A, B, C, or D. I don’t think we should

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
152
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 modify. I think we should go with the original number in the Draft 2040 Plan.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So my suggestion of adding E,
which is not modifying what’s in the draft right now.

Commissioner Raspe, you had your hand up but you
don’t have it up anymore.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I don’t want to derail the
train of discussion, but I was just going to address a
procedural question. I think it’s clear we’re not going to finish Land Use and/or address the Design Element tonight, and we have a meeting scheduled Wednesday. I was curious— and I think I know the answer to this—can we add this
discussion to that agenda, or is it too late because that agenda has been published, or should we consider our next meeting for this discussion? I don’t mean to interrupt; I wanted to put that out there.

CHAIR HANSSEN: It’s a very good question. I will
hand it over to Staff, but I’m going to guess that because the agenda is already out there we won’t be able to add it to Wednesday’s discussion.

JENNIFER ARMER: Actually, Staff recommendation
was going to be you continue to a date certain of the 27th and we would just add it on as an additional item after the existing items that are already on the agenda, so it would

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
153
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 be continued, and it would be Item 4, I believe. Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: We did consult with the Town
Attorney. We would just do an amended agenda tomorrow,
given the timeframe, and we get that posted.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We can do that after we finish
the question that on the table in terms of recommending the date certain, right? But that is good to know, because as your Chair I would rather do that than go to another
special meeting.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: Chair and Commissioners, the
Brown Act specifically allows you to continue a meeting within five days of the meeting, and you can continue this item to Wednesday. The Brown Act specifically allows you to do that and then (inaudible). And then Staff will change the agenda to reflect that tomorrow, but you’re allowed to do that if you’re within five days of the continuance, so you’re able to do that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That is very, very good to know,
because the other advantage of doing it on Wednesday would be it will be fresh in our minds and we can kind of pick up from where we left off without a lot of interruption.

Would others like to comment on number 20, on
what general direction they’d like to go?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
154
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.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think it’s apparent from
my submission that I would go with D.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. I don't know if you all saw
Vice Chair Barnett’s submission, but he had a spreadsheet with specific recommendations that he was advocating for.

Others? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I haven’t
had a chance to review Vice Chair Barnett’s submission yet, but my thinking is largely similar to his in reducing it to a less ambitious target, so I will look at his figures as well as reducing it to the RHNA numbers plus a reasonable buffer in the 15-20% range. That’s where my thinking is at the moment, but to be fair to the Commission, I’m still processing this information and so open to any discussion.

Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: No, that’s fine. We’re just
weighing where we kind of stand right now, and then we’re going to discuss it more, and then you may still feel the same way or not after we get through it.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I’m of two
minds. I think as Commissioner Thomas said, it was quite a bit of deliberation that went into the numbers. The actual

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
155
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 that was in the General Plan was a surprise to many of us, because that wasn’t a number that we had seen.

Nonetheless, it wasn’t an unreasonable extrapolation from the discussions that we had, and keeping in mind that the General Plan is a 20-year plan and covers three housing cycles.

In the worst case you could envision three
housing cycles that demand you to create 1,993 units in each cycle, which puts you in the neighborhood of 6,000 units. That’s probably not going to happen, who knows? But even if you step back and say we’re not likely to get a zero housing RHNA number, so what we’ve had in the past is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600, so then you have 2,000 from this cycle, 600 from the next cycle, and perhaps another 600 from the next cycle, which gets you to
approximately 3,200 units.

I can understand the concern among the Town
residents that the number is too high, and there’s a
difference between planning for a high number and saying that is the number that is going to be built, so that’s an important distinction in my mind.

Having said that, I would recommend that we do B,
but probably with a more ambitious/less ambitious target certainly than Vice Chair Barnett has proposed in his

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
156
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 table, because I think we do need to be mindful of the future cycles that will be under the umbrella of this
General Plan, should it get recommended and approved.

Having said that, if we’re going to review the
Land Use Element every five years and make adjustments as needed to accommodate the trend of housing development
under the current cycle or what we see in the future cycle, then I can see that we could have a less ambitious number now, but then the Town would need to understand that it could get ambitious later.

It’s kind of a question of managing expectations,
and I want to be sure that the Planning Commission and
whatever we recommended is really dead, dead clear on this is this Housing Element, this is the next Housing Element, and this is the next Housing Element. So we separate out all of those pieces so residents can understand what those numbers are tied to, what are being actionable, what’s
actionable in this cycle versus outlying cycles, and why the General Plan needs to plan for more than just the
current RHNA cycle, so that’s my short explanation of why I’m at a fat B.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that.

Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
157
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. Something that I
would like my fellow commissioners to consider before the next meeting is how many units, not that you want the RHNA number to be or anything like that, but how many units you want to be built, because I think that the reality is that that number is so big, because they’re not going to get built. It is so hard to develop, and now matter how hard we tried that’s not going to happen, especially just because of the amount of time that it does take to build, and so I think that I’m more in favor of keeping it a bigger number, because that way we’re allowing for more opportunities for development in hopes that we might actually meet our RHNA number.

I think in terms of getting our Housing Element
through, we’ve seen the HCD is very, very strict as we
watched the Southern California cities go through review, and I think something that would go a long way with them is seeing that we are prepared for the capacity for more than we were actually required to, because that makes it a lot more likely that we actually reach our number, and that makes it easier to get the Housing Element through as a whole, because that I think will be one of the most highly weighted aspects, and then after that there’s going to be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
158
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 like AF of H and the policies and the outreach and things like that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that.

So I’ll weigh in. This was mentioned a bit
earlier, but when we started this whole process of updating the General Plan I remember sitting down with a couple of Town Council members and I said, “Well, if we’re going to go through this process of trying to manage our growth
kicking and screaming, instead of trying to take the reins and grow in the way that we’d like to grow, and that’s
hopefully in concert with what is expected by the state, I would much prefer to be with that kind of process where we’re not kicking and screaming.

I’ve never been a fan of doing the absolute
minimum and fighting everything every step of the way,
because we have to be thinking that we’re in the role of planning for the future, and it was obvious at the
beginning of the General Plan process that we’re not
building the kind of housing that is going to be right for the kind of population that we’re going to have going
forward.

I’m not even considering talking about a lot of
people that don’t live in Town now, which we do need to think about, but just the seniors that want to go to movePage 958 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
159
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 down housing, of which there’s none. There is senior member care and things like that, but there’s no move-down housing for seniors or for our youth. I have college age kids that are getting out of collage and they can’t afford to live here, and we don’t have the kind of housing that they can do either. Instead, we’re building 6,000 square foot houses with 4,000 square foot faces that cost $4-5 million dollars that they won’t be able to afford for decades, if ever. So I’m definitely of the mind that we need to build a lot more smaller units.

Getting back to the number, when we started the
General Plan process we didn’t know what the RHNA was. We talked about 2,000 units and it was big number, but we were looking at 20 years, and then as it turned out that became our RHNA, and then so when we were doing the General Plan we said since we already are at 2,000 units, do we need to think about planning for even more so we’d be covered, but now that we’re talking about updating the Land Use Element, I don’t feel as big about that.

So getting back to the actual recommendation, I’m
sympathetic to all the concerns, and people are terrified in Town, and I too am a resident of the Town, and I think we have to worry about managing growth and growing in the right way, so I think that it would be prudent to think

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
160
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 about making some kind of reduction from the almost 4,000 number, even though we’re looking at a 20-year timeframe, and bringing it back to something.

But if you consider, I’ll just give D, for
example, reducing the number of new housing units to 1,993 plus a 15-20% buffer, even that number isn’t going to work, because just taking ADUs, for example, we have projected 25 ADUs per year for so many years, and then there’s 300 more ADUs that we expect to get in the decade following the
Housing Element that’s coming up, and so there’s going to be 300 more housing units that we have no control over
whatsoever that are already going to be part of that
process, so I’m definitely thinking it’s going to be a
number higher than 2,292, and then the question is what is the right number?
I’m open to hearing what you guys think, but I’m
not keen on the idea of eliminating entire categories of places where we could add additional housing. So that’s kind of where I came out, but I’ll be interested to see where we go with the discussion, and hopefully we can come up with a good recommendation that will make sense for the Town Council.

That being said, we don’t need to do the rest of
the meeting stuff, because we’re going to have our meeting

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
161
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 on Wednesday, but we do need to make a motion to continue this meeting to a date certain. Would one of you make that motion for me?
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I move to continue this
meeting to April 27th date certain. Should I include the time?
CHAIR HANSSEN: No.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: That’s my motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, second? It looks like
Vice Chair Barnett has his hand up.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, I’d be happy to second
the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Then we will do a roll call vote.

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.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/25/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
162
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so that
passes.

I wanted to take a minute just to thank you all
for all your time and attention. It’s been a long meeting and we’ve gotten through a lot of material, and I think we’re in good shape to continue this and hopefully finish the rest of what we need on Wednesday, but certainly we should be able to finish Land Use and Community Design, and then hopefully the EIR as well. So I thank you all for
that. We will see you in a couple of days, and this meeting is adjourned.

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
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/27/2022
ITEM NO: 4

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 27, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.

REMARKS:

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

On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held a special meeting to continue the review of the Draft 2040 General Plan including the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element; the Environment and Sustainability Element; the Hazards and Safety Element; and began review of the Land Use Element. Shortly before 11:30 p.m. the Planning Commission continued the discussion to the regular Planning Commission meeting on April 27, 2022. At this meeting the Planning Commission will continue their discussion including review of:
• The Land Use Element;
• The Community Design Element; and
• The Final EIR.

Exhibit 17 contains Planning Commissioner comments.

ATTACHMENT 15

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 27, 2022
EXHIBITS:

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

1. Draft 2040 General Plan

2. Draft EIR

3. Revised NOA and Transportation section

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

5. Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles

7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment

8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes

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

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

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

12. Planning Commissioner Comments

13. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 13, 2022
Exhibits 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 previously received with the April 25, 2022 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 received with this Desk Item:

17. Planning Commissioner Comments

EXHIBIT 17
From: Jeffrey Barnett
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:37 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Joel Paulson
Subject: Revised Spreadsheet Regarding Buildout Capacity for Consideration on 4.27.22 Good morning, Jennifer and Joel.

Attached please find my revised spreadsheet which I wish to submit as a desk item. Again, this proposal represents my preliminary thinking, and I am certainly interested in the viewpoints of the other Commissioners.

The changes made are as follows:

1. Deleted Hillside Residential as part of the capacity (166 units).

2. Lowered the deduction for Medium Density to 165, thereby providing for 165 housing units in that designation. This is roughly half of the potential decrease of 327 indicated in bullet point two on Page 6 of the Staff Report of April 7, 2022 (packet Page 184)

3. Increased the reduction figure in the Central Business District to 67 from 56 due to a mathematical error. This reduction is roughly half of the full buildout capacity for downtown which is included in the 2,763 figure provided by Staff as shown on the same Page 6.

Thank you.

Requirements Capacity FIgures Reductions in Capacity Reduction Figures Net New Housing Total Over RHNA % over RHNA With Buffer With Buffer
2480720‐558 1993 New and Redeveloped Under GP 2763 Low Density Residential 279 2469 177.05 0.08 15% buffer 298.95 ADUs: 25/year for 8 years 200 Medium Density Residential 165 Hillside Residential 0 Hillside Residential 0
Total 2291.95 In process 75 High Density Residential 0
SB 9 Developments ?
Total Capacity Excluding SB 9 3038 Neighborhood Commercial 0 Amount over RHNA 746.05 Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial 58 Mixed Use 0
Central Business District 67
Office and Service Commercial 0
Total Reductions 569

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 16

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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: The last item on the agenda is the
continuation of the discussion of the Draft 2040 General Plan as well as the Final EIR that goes along with it.

Staff did an amended agenda.

The Planning Commission met on Monday of this
week to continue its discussion that started in our April 13th meeting, and during the meeting on Monday, as noted in the Staff Report, we did finish several of the elements and got through most of the comments on the Land Use Element, but did not finish our recommendation on the Land Use
Element. In addition we will be discussing the Community Design Element, and then we’ll be discussing the Final EIR, and the goal is for the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation regarding the overall Draft General Plan as well as the Final EIR and whether it should be certified or not.

That being the case, I will ask Staff if you
wanted to make a quick Staff Report covering anything
before we start the discussion?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Good evening,
Commissioners. You actually did cover most of the points that I was going to go over to start us off this evening.

Just making sure that everybody who is watching
is aware that there are materials on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report available in the Planning Commission packets for the April 13th meeting, the April 25th special meeting, and then for tonight’s meeting.

The discussion so far has been focused on going
step-by-step through the summary of potential comments and potential changes proposed by the public and other agencies and Staff, all included in Exhibit 7, and that’s from the Staff Report from April 13th.

As previously stated, we have made it through
most of the chapters, most of the elements of the General Plan, and at the end of the last meeting on Monday we got through a discussion of the Land Use Element. The
discussion of the Land Use Element did go through all of the ideas summarized in Exhibit 7 as well as some other ideas by the Commissioners, though no specific motion was made, because we didn’t get to the end of that discussion.

Staff’s notes include general support from the
Commission for items 21, 33, and 34, but we expect a motion giving specific direction would occur after the conclusion

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
of the discussion of the housing numbers, which is what we will be focusing on next. Once that discussion of the Land Use Element is complete, then as the Chair mentioned, we would move on to the Community Design Element and then on to the Final EIR.

I’m available to provide additional information
on the Final EIR when we do get to that section, since that discussion is slightly different than discussing the Draft 2040 General Plan.

There was a Desk Item today with some additional
Commissioner comments, but this concludes Staff’s
presentation and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much, Ms. Armer.

Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Armer? I don’t see any.

As a reminder to members of the public, we did
take all of the verbal comments relative to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the 2040 General Plan and Final EIR during our April 13th meeting, so we will not be doing public comments during this portion of the meeting, however, we have received hundreds of comments over the last year since the General Plan Update Advisory Committee ceased meeting and completed the Draft General Plan, and we continue to receive a number of written comments and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
received quite a few verbal comments as well during our April 13th meeting, so all of those comments that you have made have been reviewed and considered by the Commission as we discussed the General Plan, and we do incredibly
appreciate all of the public input that we’ve received on the Draft General Plan.

With that in mind, we will turn our discussion
to, as Ms. Armer and I alluded to, where we were in the Land Use Element. The very last thing that we did in our meeting on Monday, which was a special meeting, is we
talked about Exhibit 7 is something that Staff did for us and that was part of the April 13th Staff Report, and it is a summary of all of the comments that have been received since the Draft General Plan was received, and they did categorize them by element, and while we did go through all of the comments we did not complete the discussion of what the build number would be in the recommendation that was going to go to Town Council.

What we did do is we took a poll of the
Commissioners in terms of what their feelings were on the possibility of reductions to the build number that were listed in item 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
In the comments were no increase in housing units
and housing levels whatsoever, which is not recommended, because that would be in violation of state law.

The second one is reducing the number of new
housing units to a lower, less ambitious target than the 3,738 number that was put into the build table of the Draft General Plan.

Item C is reducing the number of new housing
units to 1,993, which is not recommended by Staff, because that is the actual number for the RHNA for the plan and it doesn’t incorporate anything that is naturally going to happen that the Town has no control over, such as growth of ADUs and projects that are already in the pipeline, and also that we are required to do a buffer by HCD.

Then item D is reducing the number of new housing
units to 1,993 plus a 15-20% buffer, and of course while we can look at doing that, we also have to remember that there will be housing units built outside of the timeline of 2031 when the completion of the next Housing Element is done.

I added an additional item, which was item E,
which was to leave the number and the densities in the Land Use section as they were and as are listed currently in the Draft General Plan, and the reason that’s not in item 20 is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
because the whole Exhibit 7 was recommended changes, and leaving it the way it is would not be a change.

I thought it might not be a bad idea before we go
any further, rather than just having a poll of the
Commissioners that we should vote whether or not to reduce the number in the General Plan versus leaving it the same.

I was hoping to get a motion one way or the other and then we could vote on that, and then depending where the
Commission comes out will help guide our discussion in
terms of if the will of the Commission was to recommend to reduce the number, then we would be able to proceed with that, and if the will of the Commission was to leave it the same, then we would proceed with that. Are there any
questions or comments on that?
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I think that I
will repeat what I said when we started this conversation at our last meeting on Monday.

We’re the Planning Commission and our job is to
plan and make sure the plans for the Town are recommended in a prudent and thoughtful manner listening to the public, listening to what we have to do legally, so we’ve got a big decision.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
I understand why the number in the current Draft
General Plan is what is, the total as well as the
breakdown, and I’m also mindful of the amount of feedback we’ve gotten from the public. Let me say that it’s more than feedback, it’s more like uproar, recommending that we reduce those numbers, in some cases to the lowest that we would recommend, which would be the current RHNA housing cycle numbers plus the buffer, or someplace in between that RHNA number and buffer and what is in the current General Plan.

I’m in favor of doing what the Commission through
its deliberation is interested in doing, but I would say, as I did last time, that in our planning capacity we have to remember that the General Plan is covering three housing cycles, two complete housing cycles and the initiation of a third, so I’d like to hear the Commission’s discussion
around whether it’s prudent or not to simply ignore the next two or severely reduce the next targets for the next two housing cycles, which is the general direction that a lot of the public is asking us to take. What impact does that have—maybe is a question for Staff—if we don’t include those numbers greater than the current RHNA cycle in
anticipation of additional numbers coming in the future RHNA cycles?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I’m just interested in what the conversation
around that would be. I personally feel like we have a
responsibility to include those future cycles. Whether we need to do it with specific numbers or not, I’m not sure, but certainly our zoning designations and the changes that we’re making to the zoning designations would facilitate growth in those future housing cycles. I’m just really
struggling with that question and would appreciate
conversation from the Commission and Staff.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Would you like Staff to respond
to what you were saying, if we were to, say, focus only on 1,993 plus the buffer, how would that translate into
possibilities for considering that the General Plan is a 2040 General Plan?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I would.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So if Staff could comment on
that, that would be helpful.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. You
are correct, this is a 20-year plan and the housing numbers associated with the RHNA allocation, that is just for the eight-year RHNA cycle, the next Housing Element update, and so that is one component of what has been discussed through this process, that there will be another cycle-and-a-half that’s included in these 20 years, and so recognizing that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the growth projected in this Draft General Plan is based on a 20-year rather than just an eight-year cycle.

In addition to that, one of things though to keep
in mind in this discussion is that you have recommended that there be a five-year kind of check in on the Land Use Element in particular, and there is an implementation
measure for a ten-year check in on the whole General Plan, so there are options through that timeline to check in, or if we get to the next cycle and find that there isn’t
enough capacity within the General Plan, then it may be that as part of that Housing Element there needs to also be some updates to the land use regulations.

All of that being said, Staff is in support of
the Draft 2040 General Plan as recommended by the GPAC, and if some reductions were proposed as part of the
recommendation from the Planning Commission, we would
recommend that it not be any more than the difference that was noted on page six of the Staff Report for the April 13th meeting where we laid out certain portions of the built-out table, certain portions of those numbers that wouldn’t
count towards the next eight year, for example, 300 ADU units, and we modified some of those numbers to try to make this more of a apples-to-apples comparison and then showed what the different between that and the RHNA plus buffer

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
is, and so a reduction that’s greater than that would not be recommended by Staff.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Commissioner Thomas,
you have your hand up.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. I
do appreciate the reminder that we will be checking in on the Land Use Element at a more frequent cycle than the 20- year General Plan cycle, I just don’t see how we reasonably are not going to get similar RHNA numbers moving forward in the future, and so if that’s the case I feel like this
3,700 number seems very reasonable. I completely understand that that makes a lot of people in Town very scared for very justifiable reasons, but I also am very confident that the rest of the General Plan and the implementation
programs that are being prioritized over the next five and ten years are ones that will improve infrastructure and ensure that the Town can support this housing.

I think that when people voiced concerns to me
prior to when I came I didn’t talk to anyone about it, but when I saw all of our feedback and public comments that were received, I feel like people see this number and have an initial reaction without reading and looking at the
entire General Plan, and I think that a lot of residents would be comforted by understanding more fully the entire

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
General Plan as an entire package instead of just this
small piece of the Land Use Element.

I want to be in agreement with the other
Commissioners tonight and I’ve really been trying to think a lot about this over the past two days since our meeting on Monday, but I am afraid that we’re setting future
Commissions, Housing Element Advisory Boards, and the Town up for many more challenges instead of opportunities to meet our future RHNA numbers if we reduce this number
significantly. So that’s my main concern, and I think that having a goal, and then if we in like five or ten years need to adjust this land use number down, that’s going to be easier to do than getting our RHNA and then having to go back and change our land use, and check in with our Land Use Element as we’re writing a new Housing Element, so I don’t think we should plan on having to change the Land Use Element. I think we should try to hope for it to be
designed to last 20 years and as the backup have it be
available to be updated. So those are my feelings on these things.

I think also something that is really important
is that no matter what the number is in the General Plan, the Town and the plan itself does not have control over how many units are going to be developed. The Town itself is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
not developing those units. Developers have to come in and want to build, and what is much more important to the
number of units that are going to be built is how zoning is going to be changed and densities are going to be changed.

I think that just because this is written into the General Plan as a goal that’s a Guiding Principle it does not
automatically set us up for the addition of 3,700 new units in the next just couple of years at a growth that’s
unsustainable for the Town, because we still have local control. But if we don’t meet our RHNA numbers, then I’m afraid that we’re going to lose control over a lot of
things that are really important to people in Town.

That’s just how I’m feeling about this, but I
really am curious to hear what other Commissioners have to say.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Commissioner Thomas,
for all your comments, and that was very thoughtful and gave us a lot of things to think about as a Commission in terms of making our recommendation.

Director Paulson has his hand up, so I’m going to
ask him to comment before I go to Commissioner Clark.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for
the comments, Commissioner Thomas. Just for the entirety of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the Commission’s understanding, a couple of points of
clarification.

The challenge that has been brought up in public
comments as well, we modify the densities for the General Plan to what is currently proposed. Under current state law there is not an option to draw those back, so we’re not allowed to reduce those densities. I just want the
Commission to understand that component.

It gets a little bit to the point, which I think
we talked about before, if the number is changed, which is definitely under the purview of the Commission and then ultimately the Council, if that number is changed, should we run into an issue, whether it’s five years or as we
start to look at the next seventh cycle Housing Element out in probably 2028 or 2029, if we don’t have capacity for whatever the anticipated number there for that cycle is, then ultimately we would be revisiting the General Plan Land Use Element either while we’re going through the
Housing Element or we would have implementation programs in that Housing Element that would require modification so that we could accommodate our RHNA if we didn’t have the capacity left.

I just wanted to make those two points of
clarification for both.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, thank you for that,
Director Paulson.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I first want to
say that I really, really value the opinions of my fellow commissioners and so I’ll share my thoughts, but I’m really excited to hear what others have to say and I’m very open to everyone’s ideas, comments, and knowledge.

A few of my thoughts are first, I do think just
one problem we’ve had so far is misinformation and the
knee-jerk reaction that people had to that number. I heard people saying that we’re going to build 30,000 units, and so it did get really inflated, and also I think that people did imagine the Town going and building 3,700 units or
something like that, and people not really understanding that this is for three cycles, like we’ve been talking
about.

My thoughts are that I think that one thing that
the entire community can agree on is that we want to get our Housing Element through, and I think that we agree on this whether you’re the biggest CMB ever or whether you really want to avoid state control and to maintain local control that we all want our Housing Element to go through for whatever reason.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
For me, I think that these numbers make it
exponentially more likely that we get our Housing Element through and that we would need to accommodate for this
number of units within the three General Plan cycles
regardless, so my inclination for what’s really best is that I think that we should leave it as is, or very close as is, but I also understand that we need to alleviate
community concerns, and so I think regardless something we’ll have to do after this is some additional education and really making sure that people understand the reasons behind whatever decision we make tonight.

But I also think in terms of keeping a high
number, we need as many opportunities as possible to offer developers, so as many locations and as much density in the appropriate zoning, because there are only so many
developments to go around and I think we don’t want all of them to get built in other communities that were a little more ambitious or did do more to accommodate for
construction, and so I want to make sure that we’re also an appealing location and one where there is opportunity.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Clark.

Vice Chair Barnett.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. I also am
desirous of hearing from all the Commissioners on this
important issue.

I come from the other direction, more of what Mr.

Paulson was saying, that we review the housing capacity on a five-year basis and see where we are, so we’re not
speculating about what the future RHNA requirements would be.

I also am very concerned that if we up-zone 40%
of the land in the Town that we will not be able to downzone despite problems with traffic and greenhouse gases, which are noted already in the EIR as being over the
acceptable margins, and also problems concerning public service demands, school crowding, and water, which have been major sources of concern to the members of the public.

So again, while I’m open minded, I think that a
more appropriate approach would be to start with the RHNA and the buffer and add additional housing opportunities in certain zoning areas as I’ve suggested in my submission.

Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Vice Chair
Barnett. Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. First off,
like all my fellow commissioners I think we’ve collected a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
diverse group of Commissioners with varying ideas and I think that adds to this discussion. I’m looking forward to the discussion that we’re about to have.

As part of that, as I was thinking about it over
the last several days I called into question a little bit what is the roll of a Planning Commissioner? Are we here to just give our own voices, or is it to give voice to all those in the community? We certainly heard a lot of voices on these particular issues, and I think as Commissioner Janoff indicated, maybe upheaval is a better word. Those kind of set the tone for my thinking and my discussion.

I think at the end of our last meeting I
indicated that I was in the camp of the RHNA numbers plus the buffer, 15-20%, and since that time I’ve done a little bit more thinking and I want to actually commend Vice Chair Barnett. I spent time studying your initial proposal and then our revised proposal that I looked at today, and in my view those are good starting points for the discussion. I think they encapsulate well, perhaps not the exact number that I’m at, but certainly my thinking on the subject.

And like Vice Chair Barnett, and as Director
Paulson indicated, the five-year review gives me comfort that if we don’t get it exactly right this first time, it’s not irretrievable, it’s not irreversible. This is going to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
be an ongoing process. I think even if we adopt the GPAC numbers, it probably won’t carry us through all the cycles that will occur in the 20-year General Plan, and so at some point it’s going to have to be revisited.

Those are my thoughts, but again, I look forward
to having this discussion with all my Commissioners.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Before I go
back to Commissioner Janoff and Commissioner Thomas, and Commissioner Thomas was first, I will reiterate some of what I said the other night.

When we started the process of the General Plan
update back in 2018 we didn’t know what our RHNA was, and so we had to imagine what might happen over the next 20 years, and the number we put in during the (inaudible) was 2,000 units, and low and behold, that became our RHNA for eight years.

Getting back to all the concerns that we had in
the public, putting 2,000 units in Town, although we have no responsibility for building them, it will be developers doing that, we do have to plan for them, and it’s a scary thing for everybody.

We’ve had issues, beach traffic and whatnot, so
I’m of the mind that Staff made some recommendations in the Staff Report that we should consider a compromise position

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
in between satisfying the needs of the eight years and
looking somewhat ahead, and being mindful of the fact there are some things over the 20-years that we have no control over, for example, Staff is forecasting that we’ll have 500 ADUs, and that’s based on the rate that we’re getting ADUs right now, and state law makes it a ministerial permit to be able to do ADUs and there’s nothing at all that the
Commission or the Town Council or anyone can do about that.

My feeling is that we ought to consider an
approach that’s balanced, that does not isolate housing into one particular zoning category, but that is something in between what we saw and had put out a year ago and where we need to be in the RHNA numbers, so something in between those two is where I thought we should be, but I also
respect and want to hear from the rest of the Commission.

I’ll go back to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I think that it
is a great idea to be able to come back and review the Land Use Element every five years, but I don’t think my intent of being able to do that and recommend that to Town Council was not so that we can come back and adjust our numbers every five years. That was an emergency because things
might be changing over the next 20 years, and I still do think that it is our responsibility as a Planning

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
Commission to try to get this as good as we can for a 20- year vision and the backup to be that we can review this every five years and make updates if needed.

I also understand, Commissioner Raspe, what
you’re saying with regard to public comments and public outcry and what Commissioner Janoff mentioned, but I feel very strongly that it is also our job as Planning
Commissioners to make sure that we represent underserved populations and their voices and those that can’t
necessarily speak up for themselves.

We’re going to need to build a lot of these units
and that’s going to need to be for like young children who live in Town right now and who are going to grow up and can’t afford to live here, and so I do think that we
shouldn’t just always listen to the loudest voice in the room as Planning Commissioners and it is our role to take a step back and make decisions that are best for the entire community, and that includes people that work here that can’t afford to live here right now.

I do really want to come into agreement, but I
really do feel strongly that we should be trying to plan for the next 20 years, even though I know that we have a backup plan of being able to change things on a five-year time period with the Land Use Element.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Let me just
start by saying I noted in the 2020 General Plan currently in place there is a discussion of land use, but there’s no discussion of numbers whatsoever, so I appreciate the fact that we’ve got a table of numbers in here. It’s really full transparency to the public what is happening and is
anticipated to be happening in terms of the drive by the State of California to increase housing, and the reason that we’re at this 2,000 number now, which is extraordinary in itself, is because Los Gatos as well as—perhaps the
exception is Morgan Hill—has not planned adequately to get to the population that’s most in need.

I especially appreciate Commissioner Thomas’
comment about the underserved in our community. That’s
precisely the sector that we don’t hear from, but that’s precisely the sector that the state is hoping to be better served through these laws and measures. So I just wanted to comment that I truly appreciate that the General Plan is laying it all out there, the draft plan, so that people can understand.

There are two bullets in the list of potential
reductions that are reducing the density from 40 dwellings per acre to 30 in Mixed-Use and High-Density. My question

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
to Staff is if we did reduce that density in the General Plan, can we do incentives in a Land Use Element to provide increased density beyond the 30, if we were to reduce it to 30? Can the Housing Element incentivize over what’s in the General Plan? My suspicion is the answer is no. But
alternatively can we condition what’s in the General Plan in terms of zoning densities that it’s 40 units per acre only if you are providing this type of housing, otherwise it goes down to 30?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question.

I’ll start with one point in terms of the densities and reduction of them and some concerns about reducing those down to, say, a level of 30, and then I would guess that our Community Development Director or Town Manager may have more to add.

The one thing to keep in mind in terms of
reduction of some of those zones that are higher density under the current Draft 2040 General Plan is that if we are going to count those parcels are potential affordable
housing it’s not just that the maximum allowed density
needs to be at least 30, it’s actually that it needs to be a range with the minimum being 30, so it does actually need to be a bit above that, and we can talk more about that to provide additional clarification, but that’s one component.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
Providing incentives for more affordable housing
is more likely to be something that would be part of the Housing Element, a program there, but with that I think I will pass it off Community Development Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I think Jennifer
touched on a couple of important points. For our default density, which in the last cycle was 20 dwelling units per acre, some of you might remember, because the San Jose
metro area is now above two million we are now in a
different category, which our default density is now 30 dwelling units per acre.

Just to go back, the reductions that are outlined
in the Staff Report, those are just examples based on input from Council of what kind of information we should bring for consideration. They’re not necessarily recommendations of Staff.

But ultimately, I think that range, again,
getting back to the point of we’re not going to be able to reduce the density, maybe rather than 30 to 40, it’s an option of 30 to 35. Obviously, those could be reduced in any and all of the zones, so whatever the Commission and ultimately the Council want, but in those conversations I think it’s important to understand that default density opportunity, and the biggest opportunity with that is that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
once we hit that default density we’re going to have better justification even though we’re going to have to provide evidence and additional information to say that those types of sites, because we are increasing the density, are going to be able to accommodate that very low category, which is the most difficult for many jurisdictions, especially
jurisdictions like the Town, to accomplish.

So as you get into those higher densities, that
default density is going to be looked at differently this cycle, frankly, than the last cycle, and I think I might have mentioned that in one of the last two meetings we
heard comments about the North Forty, that they had
promised to do these affordable levels in the Housing
Element and didn’t do that. That wasn’t a promise from the developer. That is part of the Housing Element, and because it was 20 dwelling units per acre the state said yes, you can say all of those are going to be affordable, and so that’s what was done.

Even though we can’t compel developers to build
to those levels, there is not any state law that allows us to compel that, we do have inclusionary housing, which
covers moderate and low, but we don’t have anything that can get down to that very low. It’s really, as you’ve seen with the North Forty, an affordable housing developer

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
teaming up with a market rate developer and them basically providing land and other options so it makes sense for the affordable housing developer to develop that house.

Ultimately, we need to have the density, from my
perspective, and I’m not sure, we’ll see if Ms. Prevetti has additional comments, but I don’t think you can put in our General Plan the density is, let’s say, 30, but if you do X, Y, and Z you can go to 40. That becomes challenging.

There are a lot of opportunities through other state laws, state density bonus law changed recently and is much more generous. Previously the maximum density bonus was 35%
through that law, now it’s all the way up to 80% density bonus.

So those are some of the other factors to
consider as you’re going through this process, but the
answer to your incentivizing, I would say no. We can, again as Ms. Armer mentioned, look for opportunities to
incentivize through the Housing Element, which may lead to implementation programs that look to modify the General Plan; that’s a possibility. Hopefully we can do it kind of as a standalone option, but those are definitely going to be opportunities through the Housing Element that we’re going to have to explore just to try to come up with
realistic opportunities for that very low housing level.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 JANOFF: I did have a second
question, unless the Town Manager wanted to jump in. My second question is would there be any problem with changing the way that the projected number of housing units is in the plan, instead of giving one lump number that separates it out by zoning designation, we have a table that
separates the numbers by Housing Element, so it’s clear that we’ve got Housing Element 1 with 2,292 units as the target, and then an estimate for the next cycle and an
estimate for the third cycle, because that seems to be a way that we can make the numbers more understandable to the public rather than lumping it all together.

At this point I haven’t really heard a compelling
reason to reduce these numbers down to the number that Vice Chair Barnett is suggesting. That may be appropriate for the first eight to ten years, but we’re still looking at a longer duration plan, and if the expectation is that we estimate a number or put a number forward that we think is reasonable for the entire period of the plan, then I think it needs to be a higher number. If what we’re doing is
recognizing what we know as our current RHNA target and then we don’t know for the next two cycles, that’s
different.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
I don’t think that’s as transparent as we should
be with the Town, so at the moment I’m still not convinced that we shouldn’t communicate the numbers much higher than the, I guess, 2,400 or 2,600 that Vice Chair Barnett has offered. But I’m open to understanding why that would make sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I just
want to check in, because the Town Manager has her camera one. Did you want to comment or not?
LAUREL PREVETTI: I just wanted to say I think
what Commissioner Janoff is suggesting is some kind of
phased housing development in the General Plan, maybe 1,993 plus a buffer for the first, I don't know, eight or ten years, and then some other increment of housing for another time period. I just want you to know that from my
experience of having tried to implement a phased housing General Plan, usually the sites that you identify for that first phase just never seem to line up with where the
developers want to build, so you’re still going to be
looking at General Plan amendments and having those policy debates, and quite frankly, we’re so small that I’m not sure a phased approach for Los Gatos would really work. In theory it can work, but the implementation of that is very, very, challenging, so I would recommend that the Commission

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
focus on a total number for the Council’s consideration and then we can work through the implementation once we have an adopted General Plan. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I could just add a
comment. I wasn’t suggesting a phased plan per se, just that these are how the numbers might play out over a period of time, but not phasing. I don’t think I would change the zoning designations that we have to enable the 3,700 or however many numbers, so I wouldn’t recommend a phasing of any of those policies or zoning limits. It was just a
matter of communicating this is the number we know for this cycle, and then there are going to be more without phasing.

JENNIFER ARMER: Commissioner Janoff, what I’m
hearing from you is just ideas of how to share the
information about what this development would be. Since these numbers were estimated based on a 20-year timeline, what is that estimate? If you broke that out into chunks of time over the 20 years, how many numbers would go into each bucket is what I’m hearing.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s exactly what I’m
suggesting, just for clarification for the public so
they’re not saying, oh my goodness, 3,700 units in the next five years; we’ll be overwhelmed. Yes, we would be
overwhelmed, and that’s not what we’re planning for.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, and I’m not sure if that’s
something that with a General Plan, it’s general, it’s long range, and so getting into that kind of detailed prediction is likely a difficult thing and might not be feasible. It looks like Director Paulson may have something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: We have tried through many methods
to communicate the current cycle versus the 20-year plan and that we’re going to have two-plus cycles in there. I would say absolute best-case scenario from an assumption perspective, we know that we have this cycle.

Let’s say by some miraculous stroke of luck the
state in the next cycle says that was too ambitious, we’re going to go back to your fifth cycle number, which was 619, so you can just use that number, again, not knowing what that number is going to be. But if it did go back that far, we still wouldn’t have the capacity in what we’re currently proposing, and I think the reality is—we talked about this a lot in the GPAC also—this is a big leap for the Town in a lot of these areas from a density perspective, so we
understand that.

My thought is going into this we understand that
whether it’s five years from now, ten years from now, 15 years from now, we’re probably going to be reevaluating some other options so that we can accommodate whatever that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
next cycle number is, because we probably aren’t going to have the capacity, and then state laws change relating to Housing Elements.

You’re all aware, there’s much more stringent
guidelines about using sites that were in previous
elements, sites that are not vacant, and with a town like ours, we don’t have a whole lot of vacant land sitting
around, so those are going to be conversations over the next decades, whatever chunk you want to put that in, that we’re going to have to accomplish, and we understand that, but we also appreciate that from the community’s
perspective this is a big leap from a density perspective in a lot of these areas.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for all that. I know
Commissioners Clark and Thomas have had their hands up, but I do have a couple of questions that I think are really important to ask right now.

Supposing that it was the will of the Commission
to be more conservative and know that we will have to
reevaluate this thing at the next Housing Element cycle and that we weren’t going to be tying our hands behind our back to get there, I wanted to ask a couple of specific
questions about the suggestions that were on page six of the April 13th Staff Report.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
One was about the potential reductions. If it was
the will of the Commission to do potential reductions,
Commissioner Janoff brought up about the density for MixedUse or High-Density, even knowing about how affordable housing happens I would be really reluctant to change any of the densities for Mixed-Use or High-Density, because what we really want to encourage is smaller units, and
while there is no guarantee that the smaller units will be smaller prices, they will be but it might not be as small as we’d like, and that’s where the affordable housing
developers come in. The affordable housing developers are not going to get involved in Low-Density Residential,
because it’s simply not going to be enough units for them to make a difference, so I definitely wouldn’t want to
change any of that.

One of the things that occurred to me since I was
on the GPAC, at the very last minute toward the very end of the process to give ourselves more tools we did add in the possibility of housing in Office and Service Commercial, and if you look on page six of the Staff Report, that
translated in terms of modeling into 313 units, but when we were discussing it at the GPAC I don’t think any of us
thought that we would get that many units out of that,
because a lot of the service that we’re talking about are

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
like the auto repair shops. It’s going to be one unit or something like that, so my question for Staff would be if we were take away that particular housing designation to allow housing in Office and Service Commercial, would that prevent us from having Mixed-Use in another area where
there would be Office and Housing.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. Office is an allowed
use in some of our other Commercial zones, for example, Mixed-Use, and so having a Mixed-Use Office and Residential would still be possible in those land use designations.

JOEL PAULSON: In Office it currently is proposed
at 40, and in Service Commercial it’s currently proposed as a maximum of 30, so should those be more aligned with, for instance, the Neighborhood Commercial which has a maximum of 20, or as you suggested, should one or both of those be pulled off the table, I think the challenge you run into is if you still want to have the opportunity for Mixed-Use on those sites, then we need to have a density for those
sites, so that gets to be the conversation. So if you were trying to maybe lessen the impact from a number of units perspective, but also allow the opportunity for a Mixed-Use project, for instance, then we would want to set a density range for that designation. Maybe it’s just a lower density

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
range that incrementally reduces that number but not the entirety of the 313 units.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think I understand. Similar
question for Low-Density Residential. The current proposal in the General Plan is to go up to 12 units per acre.

Twelve units per acre isn’t anywhere close to the minimum density that’s required to consider affordable housing, so I’m not sure what we get by doing that except for that we would be not concentrating as much in other zones, because it would be spreading the housing around more, and also the fact that with Low-Density Residential, and we’re not
planning as such to make ADUs happen, we’re certainly
educating people about it, but ADUs are where I would think would be mostly in Low-Density Residential, and then to the extent that SB 9 actually does take off, we don’t know yet, that will be a Low-Density Residential as well, so would we be hurting ourselves in terms of production of affordable housing by lowering our density somewhat in Low-Density Residential? That’s my question.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for your question. I
think the major impact of reducing the density in the LowDensity Residential zone is the loss of that missing middle housing. That density, you would need to keep it pretty close to where it is really to allow the potential for

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
triplexes and potentially fourplexes on some of the larger lots in the Low-Density. That still would need to be
designed for compatibility with those neighborhoods, but allowing that missing middle, that variety of housing, not just the small affordable housing, but that in between, and so if we do move forward with a recommendation to reduce that density back to the existing level for Low-Density Residential, because the General Plan is no longer
providing a place for the missing middle housing, then that discussion and those policies would be removed along with it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That seemed like such an
appealing thing to everyone in on the General Plan Advisory Committee.

Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you. Ms. Armer is
correct, and as we pointed out in the Staff Report, that would be the impact to the current Draft General Plan.

I think what we’ve seen in public comment and we
hear in public meetings, and you reference as well, is we don’t know what’s going to become of SB 9. SB 9, frankly, provides similar opportunities from a unit count
perspective, and even with the missing middle, unless it was a very large site where you have five or more units

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
that are going to be proposed, which obviously SB 9 doesn’t cover, because currently we’ve been limited to four, but five is our current trigger for our inclusionary housing, so unless it was a large site that would even accommodate five units so you’re getting up to close to a half-acre even at the 12 range, that’s where you lose that
opportunity. The reality is even with missing middle,
that’s not going to get into the moderate or low, and for sure not the very-low, from an income category.

ADUs are a little bit different, because as I’ve
mentioned before, we’re currently able to count those as all moderate units, even though they’re not deed
restricted. We’re going to have that same conversation with HCD. This time there’s actually been some early guidance that in some jurisdictions HCD may be willing to allow
jurisdictions to split their ADUs into three different
categories: moderate, low, and very-low, and one of the ratios that we’ve heard is 30% moderate, 30% low, and 10% very-low. We’re going to have to provide evidence if we’re able to convince HCD to get down to that very-low level, and that could be based on factors such as Junior ADUs, which can’t be more than 500 square feet, so those are
going to be renting for a lower level. Whether it’s the very-low or we’re able to split in some ratio even between

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
moderate and low, those are the opportunities that we see with that.

Ultimately, I think that’s the counter-argument
you’ll hear, that SB 9 creates that capacity already and we’re not allowed to use density to limit that, so you’re going to have a lot of those same opportunities potentially for SB 9, it’s just a matter of how many folks are going to be interested in utilizing that state law.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, thank you for that.

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

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I appreciated
hearing your questions before, actually, so thank you.

Real quick, on that conversation we were just
having about missing middle housing, I do think that it’s pretty important that we don’t reduce the density in LowDensity Residential just because those missing middle opportunities I think are one of the few ways that we have of building housing that’s at least more affordable that doesn’t require a non-profit developer to come in, so I think that’s something that we should keep there. I know that there are some really affordable fourplexes in Los Gatos that aren’t technically affordable housing; they’re

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
just naturally affordable because of the way that they’re built.

Then I have a few thoughts. I agree with what
Commissioner Thomas said earlier. I don’t think that we should use the every five years thing as a fallback. I
think that the conversation we’re having, we shouldn’t keep saying but we can do this in five years or things like
that. I think it’s good to know that it’s there, but we should try to plan for longer term than that, because it really is there more as a safety net.

In terms of the public outcry that we’ve been
receiving, and obviously we’ve heard a lot from the public, I do absolutely think that our role as Planning
Commissioners is to represent the public, not just our own voices and obviously not our own interests and opinions, but I do think we’ve heard more from members of the public who are traditionally engaging in these spaces and who have more access to that and are more affluent and are better off, and so they’re coming more from a place of fear, and we haven’t been hearing as much from the people who really need this housing, because they may are like working two jobs and so they don’t have enough time to write public comment, or they’re completely unaware that this is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
happening, or they’re currently working in Los Gatos but not able to afford to live here.

I, personally, work with those people. The nonprofit I work at serves Los Gatos, and so I think that I personally feel like we need to remember to represent those voices, even if we haven’t received an equal number of
public comments from them.

Also I do think we need to balance the public
comments in opposition with misinformation, so like for schools really we need more students in the schools. Like they’re closing in this area, and statistically the way that the population is going, more children in the schools isn’t going to affect the overall number just because of the way that our population is structured.

Then for water, like only 3% of water is used for
residential, and that’s just for landscaping and
agriculture and things like that.

The last thing I want to say is just that I think
in hindsight community members will be less upset about the higher number and things like that, because I remember when the Town was one of very few in the area not to appeal our RHNA numbers. People were up in arms and were so upset that the Town didn’t do that, and then every single application got denied, and so in the end the Town saved us a lot of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
money and time and resources by not doing that, and I think that the same could happen when the Housing Element review comes around. If ours is one of few that goes through, or we have a lot easier of a time, and other communities who tried to be as strict as they could don’t have that same scenario happen for them.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, well said. Thank you
for that, Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want to thank
Commissioner Clark for bringing up the reminder about
school enrollment and some of the populations that are less likely to engage in public discourse, because I think that that is really important and as a group we need to make sure that we are serving and representing.

I also think that the questions about the changes
about the densities was really helpful, because I had a lot of questions about that, which ones are really open
realistically to change, which ones we can change but
should not, because it won’t allow us for the growth that we need.

I think adding on to some of the comments that
Commissioner Clark just said, I know that traffic is a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
major, major concern in Town, and I know that that is
honestly for a lot of residents one of the top, top reasons that they are opposed to this Residential build-out chart.

And I understand. I grew up in Los Gatos and I still live here and I fully understand that traffic has gotten worse, but I do think when I look at our Pedestrian and Bike
Master Plan, and I look at our Capital Improvement
projects, and I look at the rest of the General Plan, and when we went to the Planning Commissioner Academy last year and we saw some of the really amazing changes for getting people out of cars and onto transit and into bike lanes and walking, all of us were really excited that we were there and got to see some of the amazing changes.

I think that the potential for those changes are
really built into other parts of the General Plan outside of this very small section of the land use, and so I think that the GPAC did so much work before I got to it, and I was just so incredibly impressed with how forward thinking with regard to connectivity the General Plan really is, and I think that that will relieve a lot of the issues with traffic.

And one of the reasons traffic is bad is because
people have to travel so far because people that work in Town can’t affordable to live here, and that is one of the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
reasons why traffic is bad, because people are living so far away from their place of work, and in lower density communities and lower density towns there is a higher cost to getting transit, so the most important part about
getting connected to the rest of Silicon Valley, like
getting our connection with VTA and light rail, is that we need to build higher density so that VTA will actually
bring more service here. We know that Los Gatos has said we want light rail to extend all the way to Vasona, and light rail is like there’s no point, because there’s not enough ridership, because you don’t have housing available there.

I know that some people complain and say that because
there’s too much traffic we can’t build more housing, but really this is like an if you built it, it will come
scenario, and there is a ton of funding available for
connectivity and transit, which makes me super excited for our Town.

It just makes me very excited for the
opportunities, like very genuinely I really do love
transit, but very genuinely it makes me really excited for our towns and for our youth.

I’m not a teacher here in Town, but I was just
talking this week to my students. They’re studying air
pollution and they all are like the number one thing that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the State of California needs to do is get people out of cars and onto transit and other multimodal transportation, and they’re like you need to make it easier to use, you need to build it out, you need to make it free, and they know this, and I’m like comment to this meeting. I feel like these are the people that we’re planning for for the future, and we have to build higher density in some parts of our Town in order for transit to make sense and be
economically feasible, and that will significantly reduce traffic in the entire region.

I just get really excited about transit, so thank
you for letting me talk about it, but it is really
fascinating because a lot of fears about traffic are very counterintuitive to reality, and there are a lot of studies that show that high-density housing reduces traffic because of linkages to transit.

The last thing, I know a lot people are nervous
about this number in combination with SB 9. I agree with Commissioner Clark and I appreciate that Director Paulson has reiterated that we’re going to have opportunities for duplexes and triplexes, etc., through SB 9. I think that it’s nice to have two pathways and two opportunities,
especially because one will be more locally controlled and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
we’ll have a little bit more say on it as a town and as residents.

A lot of people are worried and concerned and
afraid of SB 9, and the reason that SB 9 is here is because towns like Los Gatos, not like us historically, but because towns and cities didn’t make the all out effort to meet their RHNA numbers, and so the state is going further and further with trying to take state control, and I think that we have done a really amazing job with the General Plan and the GPAC did such a great job regarding trying to be a
leader with the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice element, and I really think that this is our responsibility to like be leaders right now.

Like Commissioner Clark just said, like not
appealing, make it as easy as possible to get our Housing Element passed as a way to save time, energy, and money for our Staff and the Town, and try to make the effort to meet the growth that the state is going to demand of us, because I don’t want us to look back and think that we have regrets because we resisted growth and there’s more state-wide
housing laws that come down the pipeline that strip us of local control.

I think that we really have an opportunity to be
a leader in this, and I know that one major fear of Town

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
residents is losing local control, and so I think that
that, even though we’ve heard a lot about the specific
number, I think we need to take that fact and that idea of the potential loss of local control the more we resist
growth and development as something that we need to take into consideration. I mean, there’s even talk that all new housing projects will be exempt of CEQA no matter what, and so I think that I just really want us to be a part of the solution, so I just am very excited about the
possibilities.

Now, I do want to say, and I will be done with my
comments in a moment, I do think what Commissioner Janoff was mentioning earlier about the changing of the numbers, I appreciate that we are too small of a Town to phase things out over the next 20 years, but I do think that just adding a little bit of information to Table 3.3-1 with the buildout, with the explaining before like this is a 20-year thing; this is the expected growth of the entire county; the state is going to make us responsible for absorbing some of this growth over the next 20 years; this is our current RHNA number; we are going to go through two more cycles; etc., as a preface. Having that in there I think would maybe ease some of the public tension, and then also just having that like this number is also linked to all of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 planning in the entire General Plan. So that’s my
suggestion for a recommended change.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and thank you
for all your comments. I think we could make it really
simple in terms of whatever the final number (inaudible) have to be to put it into the current RHNA cycle, and then anything after that. It doesn’t have to be broken down in any more granular detail, but I think that would help at least in terms of communicating what we’re doing.

If you look at what Staff did in the Staff
Report, they essentially did that for our consideration. If you look at page five it has the 3,738 number, and then when they normalized it for the current RHNA cycle it was 3,038, 700 less units. I think something like that is
really essential for everyone. It will help with some level of panic, but it is a big number and it’s a scary thing for everyone.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to
add too that not all of the comments we received were
negative. In fact, there were a number that came in that were in favor of growth, or in favor of the General Plan as it’s drafted. We understand that there is likely to be
infrastructure problems, but don’t make the infrastructure

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
that we don’t have now the barrier to adding housing that we need, because you’ll never get the infrastructure in place before housing. There are great comments and
levelheaded comments that came from a different
perspective, and some of those comments included no, we shouldn’t concentrate development or new housing in one space. This is a Town issue; we should spread housing
throughout the Town and ensure that the burden is shared.

Or you could say ensure that the benefits are shared,
right?
We heard a lot of great testimony during our
meetings with… I’m going to get the topic wrong, but it was engage in the communities so that we could hear the story relative to the low-income housing, and what we heard was such beautiful stories of communities and connectedness among people, increased diversity, and she made me really excited for the dimensions that Los Gatos could grow into, and so those are all really exciting things, and I think if we think about this as a benefit to the Town and try to see it that way and pursue it that way, it makes much more
sense, and everyone can engage in a positive way rather a not in my backyard way.

I also appreciate the comments of Commissioners
Clark and Thomas and I would just underscore the concept of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
leadership. That’s what we are here for. We are in a
position to make a difficult designation or make an easy designation, however you see it, but that’s what we need to do, and we need to make sure that we aren’t just playing a numbers games, because for me the numbers, aside from the current RHNA cycle numbers, don’t really matter.

The point is that we need to plan for growth and
we need to plan for it reasonably, and that’s what we’re doing. I really am not sure that I care about the numbers beyond the current cycle, but it’s still prudent to
estimate for the benefit of the public, for transparency.

I’m still of a mind that the General Plan as
written, maybe pull some of the numbers down a little bit if we are… One of the things that I had a little bit of an issue with was letting ADUs be a standalone number when in fact they may actually be—and Chair Hanssen and I have had this conversation over many months—that those ADUs are more likely to be in a Low-Density and Medium-Density
Residential, and so you’re going to have added housing in all density areas of Town. Acknowledge that and let it be part of the plan.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Some very,
very good comments.

Vice Chair Barnett, go ahead.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I appreciate all the
comments that have been submitted. I have a couple of
thoughts.

First, increased housing is not going to
necessarily bring low-cost housing. What with the land
values in Los Gatos, that’s going to be a struggle. We did hear in the past about some consolidation of interest by nonprofits as well as for-profit developers as being a
possible avenue to increase low-cost housing, but from the speakers that I heard at the presentation of Commissioner Clark’s organization, West Valley Community Services,
that’s going to be a tough road to hoe. We hope it happens.

I’m in favor of low-cost housing and there is a housing crisis throughout the State of California.

Saying that, I do think that we can achieve
significant housing growth in Los Gatos without going up to the 3,738 number. We know there’s going to be SB 9 and ADU developments that are going to go into the R-1 area and will make a reasonable contribution to the growth of
housing in that area, and I think that it would be
important to recognize that there is some value to keeping the traditional character of the neighborhoods in place where possible while still accommodating reasonable growth within the community.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
So those are some of the concerns that I have,
some perspectives on how Los Gatos can continue to be Los Gatos and yet meet the state legal requirements. I think they’re compatible.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Vice Chair
Barnett. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A question related to what
Vice Chair Barnett mentioned. It’s not clear to me, and Staff, hopefully you can clarify how SB 9 units and/or ADUs over the 500 planned might be counted. Well, let’s not talk about 500, let’s talk I guess it’s 200 that are in the
first cycle. If those are not named as items to be counted in our Housing Element, but they come, do we count those as units toward the RHNA goals or do they not count at all? JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for the question. I
think there are two different ways to respond to your
question.

One part of it is what can we count in terms of
the showing that the Housing Element will meet our RHNA requirement and getting it accepted by the state? That has to be based on our past history, and that’s what this
estimate of 200 units over the eight years is based on.

It’s based on our past history, which has been increasing, and so we will do a final study in terms of what that final

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
number is, but what we have right now is an estimate of 200 over that eight years.

The second part of your questions I think is then
do those units, if we actually have more than that number built over those eight years, how are those counted? And they would be counted. Every new housing unit that comes into the Town during that RHNA cycle, that eight-year
reporting period, would be counted. It would be part of the ongoing reporting that we do every year, and so they will be part of reporting out on how we’re doing, our status, but we can’t go beyond what our past studies show as
reasonable; that’s the justification we’d be providing to the state.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So you’re saying that in
the plan in advance of anything being certified or
approved, but that the plan that we put forward needs to have history behind it, but once the plan is certified and we’re moving forward in that period that whatever is built is counted.

But I think it’s also fair to say that we
acknowledge that ADUs and the SB 9 lot splits might not wind up being low-income housing, so if our density and our targets need to be focused on how to develop the low-income

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
housing, that’s kind of a different conversation, but thank you for clarifying how the units are actually counted.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I would add to this, I had
brought this up with Staff earlier. If you look at what the Housing Element Advisory Board is working on right now, we just met last week and talked about the site inventory, and since the beginning of the month the Balancing Act tool is something that was introduced as part of this Housing
Element and the Balancing Act tool actually has the draft site inventory loaded into it, along with a possible
housing production, and the way that the tool works is that you can’t submit anything until you get up to 1,993,
meaning that if you’re any member of the public or anyone using the tool, if you only wanted to grow 200 units, you can’t submit it, because you have to actually get the bar up to 1,993.

However, in that Balancing Act tool, it’s set up
where the 200 expected units of ADUs are actually deducted from the 1,993, so that is where I think Commissioner
Janoff’s question was going and I kind of had the some one.

But with the General Plan, because it’s a 20-year
timeline, Staff has pulled that out because we do expect 500 ADUs over the course of the timeline between now and 2020, but it does beg the question of do we really need to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
plan for 1,993 units plus a buffer, or is it the 2,292 that would include the buffer minus 200 ADUs, meaning we only need to plan for 2,092 units.

So it’s not clear how all that is going to work,
but that is a question that I had as well, and so I don't know if we have the latitude to think about that as a
potential reduction of the overall growth. That’s a
question.

JENNIFER ARMER: What I would say is the way that
we presented it in the April 13th Staff Report was intended to try to narrow down the difference in numbers we’re
looking at, trying to avoid this confusion about how many ADUs are or aren’t counted, so when we adjusted those
numbers to the 3,038 that was trying to adjust how much of the potential development that’s shown in that table in the Land Use Element of the Draft 2040 General Plan, how much of that capacity might potentially we counted toward the Housing Element since 300 of the ADUs could not be counted towards our RHNA requirement.

So then rather than needing to really fully
understand where all those numbers come from and where they go, trying to adjust those numbers then to say if you start from an assumption that for the Housing Element we want enough capacity for the RHNA allocation, the 1,993, plus

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the recommended buffer of at least 15%, then you look at the development capacity as estimated in the Draft General Plan.

What we came to was saying that there is some
additional room within those calculations, because it is a 20-year plan, because the GPAC was trying to provide some additional capacity so that there would be some choices when we got to the point of working out the details, which is what the Housing Element Advisory Board is working on now. That extra capacity, as we laid it out in that Staff Report, is the 746 units.

So we can talk through more and try to understand
how many ADUs you keep in or keep out, but as we laid out in the Staff Report, if the Planning Commission as a whole, the recommendation as a whole, is to reduce below what was recommended by the GPAC, if your desire is to find some way to reduce those numbers somewhat, the reduction factor, the limit of that reduction that Staff would recommend is that it not go for more than a 746 unit reduction.

Because we knew there was that interest for you
to have some numbers to work with, both based on the public comments that were received, but also direction from Town Council to provide you with some nice, clear options, these aren’t the only options, and you could do some kind of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
partial options, but this was intended to allow if the
Planning Commission wishes to reduce, to modify what was recommended by the GPAC, here are some different ways that you could do it.

Just like the Exhibit 7 was put together not as
verbatim of all of the public comments, but a summary in a way that was intended to help in your discussion. For many of those Staff was neutral. It’s really up to the Planning Commission to as to what changes, but we would recommend focusing on if you want to reduce as part of your
recommendation what components, where would those
reductions be, and focusing on a number in the range of that 746 kind of as a limit if you are going to reduce.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for that, and that’s
where I was going with some of my questions earlier. I
believe that we’re well and truly divided right now in
terms of whether or not to reduce the number, and also it is 9:25, so I’m going to suggest that we take a ten minute break, and when we come back see if we can get to a
consensus about whether or not the number needs to be
reduced. It might be a split vote, but I think we need to see if we can get some resolution on that, and if we do decide to reduce it, then we do have to make a specific

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
recommendation on how we would do it. So let’s do that.

It’s 9:25 and then we’ll come back at 9:35.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR HANSSEN: …but we do at some point need to
get to whether or not we want to recommend reducing the number that’s proposed, and Staff has given us some
possible ways to go about that. I’m not sure what the best way to proceed is, but I’m going to make a suggestion that because I think we’re divided on this we could try having someone make a motion, because I’m quite sure that the six of us that are here are not going to vote for one or the other unanimously.

The options on the table would be to leave the
number as is, which I know at least two Commissioners
aren’t there, and then as far as the option of reducing the number, I think there are varying opinions about how much to do. So would anyone want to try to make a motion and see where that goes, or do you want to ask more questions?
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m happy to make a motion.

I think we all know what it would be, and if it passes, then we’re done, and if not, then we’ll need to discuss changes to the numbers.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I guess I shouldn’t include
everything in the Land Use Element in this?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Not yet.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Oh, not yet. So we’re just
voting for number 20?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that would be best. We do
have to go there on the other ones, but let’s take it in two parts, kind of like we did with the Environment and Sustainability Element where we looked at sections of it.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. We were in agreement
from the other night on the other three items that the
Staff mentioned earlier, correct? Or do we need to go back to discuss that more?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I don't know that we need to
discuss it. That was close to my recollection on it, but I didn’t know if Commissioners wanted to relook at it to make sure that that. Now I’m seeing no. Well then, go ahead and make the motion on the entire Land Use Element, including the other changes that…
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Director Paulson says
don’t. I’m not, because then people will have to vote on some and not others, and then they’re split.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I get it. I get it. But I
could make a motion first for those other three, if you want me to try to do them together, two separate motions.

I’m trying to be efficient and now I’m not.

CHAIR HANSSEN: You can make two separate
motions, and that’s fine, but in terms of timing I would just make them serial.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: My first motion is to
recommend the changes in the Land Use Element outlined in 21, 33, and 34. And 40? No.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, yes. Actually, that’s a
very good one to bring up. We had a conversation on Monday about making a recommendation to modify the North Forty Specific Plan.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, so do we want to make
that an implementation program? We do want to make that an implementation program. Okay, so yes, include 40 in that too.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So 40, 34, 33, and 21 as
written in the document.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so then is there a
second? Looks like Commissioner Clark has her hand up.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have a couple of
modifications, a couple of other additions. I think I
didn’t realize at the end of the last meeting that we were done with it, so can I just make two short suggestions? CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: First is to add a definition
of “rafters” to key terms, because they’re referenced in the definition of eave, but there’s no definition of
rafters, and I felt like that could be helpful.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Then the other one was
supposed to be in the Community Design Element, I’m sorry.

I will second Commissioner Thomas’ motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Will the maker of the motion be
willing to add the rafters definition to your motion?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: The rafters was actually in
Community Design Element. My bad
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m sorry, that was for the
Community Design Element, so we don’t have to modify the motion at all.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: (Shakes head no.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: So the motion on the table that
has been seconded is 21, 33, 34, and 40. So motion and a second. Any other comments? And this is on everything other

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
than the discussion we’ve been having about 20. So then we’ll do a roll call vote, yes, no, or abstain.

CHAIR HANSSEN: 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 that one was easy. Then we have the harder
one, which is whether or not to recommend any reductions.

Normally we are only making motions if we were going to recommend a change, but in this particular case I think if the will of the Commissioner would be to keep it, we should vote that way as well.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just had a question before
we attempt to form a motion. I think it’s clear where
Commissioner Clark and Commissioner Thomas are on a
possible motion. It’s not clear to me where Commissioner

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
Raspe and Vice Chair Barnett are. We’ve heard in early
comments that you are recommending something that was about 1,000 units lower than what’s already recommended in the General Plan, and I’m just curious to know whether that’s your current position so you’re really focusing on the
current RHNA with a slight increase, or has the discussion at all modulated your thinking, and are we still so far apart, or had any middle ground been reached on your
behalf? Sorry to put you on the spot, but I just am not sure where we are here.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I actually think that is a fair
question, only because it’s awkward to put motions out
there that are going to fail. It’s better if you know where you stand.

Go ahead, Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I’ll
answer Commissioner Janoff’s question to the extent I
might.

First of all, I think I indicated a general
support for Commissioner Barnett’s proposal as he
circulated on April 27th, and if I read it correctly I think it actually calls for a total reduction of 569 units, and as I read those I supported him and I still support them now.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
I will tell the Commission I feel most strongly
about the Low-Density Residential and slightly less, but also fairly strongly, about the Medium-Density Residential.

Changes to those densities I find the most troubling of the recommendations, and so those are the ones I feel most
strongly about, which I guess results in about 350 units or so, or maybe a little bit more than that.

That’s kind of where my thinking is, and so I
wouldn’t support, if we were to take a vote, which I
suspect we will immediately, not an across the board
acceptance of the GPAC numbers. I would like to see some movement, most specifically in the Low-Density and MediumDensity Residential numbers. So that’s my current thinking.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Through the Chair, may I
ask a question?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Commissioner Raspe, I
wasn’t clear if you were saying you wanted to see LowDensity and Medium-Density revert back to the 2020 numbers? COMMISSIONER RASPE: Correct, yes.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: And did the conversation
about the missing middle give you any pause with respect to how going to the 2020 numbers might eliminate that category and the benefits that that offers?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER RASPE: It absolutely did, and just
in my own mind in response, and I think maybe Vice Chair Barnett or someone else made the comment, to the extent those developments come into play I’m not sure, again, the way those would be priced and built. I suspect those would be high-income developments, if they happened at all, but I’m not sure that it’s just by virtue of the fact that we are bringing the densities up that those developments will come in. I understand your argument; I just don’t know that it’s going to be the natural flow of events that follow from our decisions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see, I’m going to go to
Vice Chair Barnett, because he had his hand up next, but I suspect that Commissioner Thomas had a response to that, but let’s hear from Vice Chair Barnett and then
Commissioner Thomas.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think the reductions that
I proposed in my spreadsheet are reasonable and consider all the factors that have been talked about in realistic terms. How much are we going to be able to reduce traffic by multimodal? That’s certainly the goal, but I think the public raised questions as to how practical that is in real life.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
The other concerns about character of the
neighborhood, of course I’m working off the 3,038 number with my reduction of 569, getting to 2,469, not the 3,738 number.

CHAIR HANSSEN: The 3,738 number as per the Staff
Report on page five versus page six, they parse that out between what’s beyond the current Housing Element and
what’s in the current Housing Element timeline.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think that’s realistic.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Can you reiterate for everybody
that might not have that page open what the components were of the reductions that you were recommending?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes. The Low-Density, I was
proposing all 279; Medium-Density reduction was 165; the Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial was 58; and the Central Business District was 67; so that’s a 50%
reduction in the Medium-Density and the Central Business District and 100% in the Low-Density.

CHAIR HANSSEN: What was the last one? You said
58 in Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, and then what was the last one?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Central Business District.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And how much was that?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Half of the total, 67.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, good. That helps to
not have every page open at the same time.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Through the Chair, can I
ask a clarifying question? Vice Chair Barnett, you’re
recommending a reduction of 165 Medium-Density Residential units over what I’m looking at Table 3-1 in the General Plan, and there’s a total of approximately 570 units in the Medium-Density. You’re proposing to keep the balance of that number but just reduce it a little bit?
And I actually had the same question, again
looking at Table 3-1 in the Draft General Plan. The LowDensity Residential total number is 283 plus 84, which would bring us to about 367. I’m not sure what table you might be looking at, but that’s my reference in terms of the numbers proposed in the current Draft General Plan that we would be reducing from.

JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, if I may?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

JENNIFER ARMER: Commissioner Janoff, I recommend
you also take a look at page six of the Staff Report from April 13th. I believe that some of the numbers that are proposed for reduction are from that list of potential
reductions laid out by Staff in response to previous input.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
One of those, the 279, is the reduction in
housing if the Low-Density housing designation were to
revert back to the density allowed in the current 2020
General Plan, and then it appears that the 165 unit
reduction for the Medium-Density Residential designation that’s proposed by Vice Chair Barnett is half of the
reduction, basically going halfway down to what is
currently allowed in the 2020 General Plan, because bullet number two on page six of that Staff Report talks about reverting the Medium-Density housing designation to the existing 2020 General Plan level, and that that would be a reduction in 327 units. The Director has something to add too.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: That’s correct what you’re
referring to.

JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, I think it’s
important for the Commission to understand that the numbers that are in the Staff Report and that Vice Chair Barnett is using, that’s the delta between the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan, so that’s why it’s not
coming up with the numbers. Commissioner Janoff, you’re looking at the new, and that’s why they’re not jiving.

JENNIFER ARMER: So there would be some
development.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right, the numbers wouldn’t
be zero for Low-Density, or 165. Well, it might be 165, but it wouldn't be zero for Low-Density is what I’m hearing.

JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, because there is still,
even with the current density, some capacity for growth and redevelopment.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Can I ask a question on what was
said though? I’m looking at Table 3-1. Let’s take LowDensity Residential. It talks about the proposed new density range, and then with the assumed redevelopment rate it’s 84 units for Low-Density Residential, but if we
reverted to the existing 2020 levels in the Staff Report as described on page six, it would be 279 units. Why would it be 279 units versus 84?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. The
new housing from the Low-Density Residential is actually 283 on vacant land plus 84 for redevelopment. So those two columns actually get combined to give you how much
additional housing would be estimated within the LowDensity Residential designations.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, of course. I should have had
my glasses on when I was looking at that.

JENNIFER ARMER: It’s a lot of numbers.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: But it’s still not the same,
because 283 plus 84 is well over 300, and then 279 is less than that.

JENNIFER ARMER: Right, and so 279, if we had
Table 3-1 and we put in put in appropriate assumptions
based on the current density for the current 2020 General Plan, those numbers in the columns would not be zero. There would be some redevelopment and there would be some new units on vacant land. It would be less than what is here, because the densities would be lower, the redevelopment assumptions would be lower because of those lower
densities, so what we put in the Staff Report for some of the designations is what’s that delta? We worked with the consultant to figure out what would those numbers be if we kept it at the 2020 General Plan, and we said what’s the change? So if you revert back to the 2020 General Plan you don’t remove all of the 283 plus 84 units; it’s a portion of that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I see. That makes perfect sense.

Thank you for explaining that.

Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: Just another way to think about
it, I think Vice Chair Barnett is looking at roughly half of what is allowed in the proposed General Plan. Currently

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the maximum density in the Medium-Density is 12, the
proposed is 24, so if you split that in half you end up—and we’d have to run the numbers—but the maximum would come down from 24 to 18, because the difference between 12 and 24 is 12, and you cut it in half, so it would probably be around 18, if not 18.7. So that’s how you could think about some of these numbers where it’s half, whether it’s this proposal or some other proposal that might have a different ratio, but this one happens to be half.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. That helps,
because you have to kind of think through the whole
problem.

Vice Chair Barnett and then Commissioner Thomas.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I just wanted to say that I
was looking at the reduction numbers on page 184 and I did play with the Medium-Density Residential figure and figured it 8 to 18 instead of 14 to 24, just as an example.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for the
clarification about the reduction and everything. I think that I understand the argument that higher density does not automatically equal lower income, but it does allow for

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
that possibility, and not including higher density is going to make lower income housing less likely to happen.

I know that there's been a lot of talk with the
GPAC. I know the GPAC, before I joined, talked a lot about how all the Town has to absorb this new growth, like we all have to be responsible for it, and we all have to be
responsible for trying to increase low-income housing
throughout Town and affordable housing throughout Town, and I completely understand that we could do everything in the world and housing is still going to be expensive in Los Gatos, but we’re definitely guaranteeing that we’re not going to improve access to affordable housing if we don’t increase our densities in certain areas, so I personally don’t feel that the argument that higher density doesn’t automatically equal more affordable housing or low-income housing is a reason that we shouldn’t increase densities.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’m just going to quickly
tack onto what Commissioner Thomas just said. I completely agree. I think even though a fourplex existing doesn’t mean that the units will be completely affordable. Naturally, smaller units cost less, and so it will be more affordable than other housing and I think we really can count on that,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
and I really agree with what she said that it’s everyone’s responsibility, it’s every designation’s responsibility.

Just because you live in a single-family
neighborhood shouldn’t mean that you’re completely immune to these changes, and I really feel like the purpose of the kind of housing that this would allow, like fourplexes and triplexes and things like that, is that it blends in with the neighborhood, and I think that once there are a few around people will see that they’re not so scary and that they can make a valuable contribution to a neighborhood, and so I really think that we should reframe how we’re
thinking about them. I think that they kind of guarantee more affordability compared to a large single-family home.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Clark.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I see the appeal
of reducing the Low-Density designation. It seems to be popular among those who are most concerned, and I can
understand that, and there has also been discussion that that designation isn’t likely to generate as much housing, period, let alone affordable housing.

But the reason I’m having trouble with reverting
back to the 2020 numbers is precisely what Staff said, and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
that is that we lose the missing middle. I can’t express to you how long and deeply the GPAC discussed missing middle and how important those concepts are in ensuring that the visual character of the Town is maintained, the transitions between single-story and two-story. The transitions in
different areas between Low-Density and Medium-Density are really accomplished most beautifully by the missing middle concept, and it’s a very, very important concept that I personally would have a lot of trouble just throwing
completely out, and if that’s the effect of reverting back to the 2020 General Plan density for Low-Density, I would not be in favor.

The change in the Medium-Density, maybe, but
again, there are unintended consequences of messing around with the numbers and I think we run the risk of throwing something that’s really important completely out.

I guess relative to Vice Chair Barnett, I would
agree that the Community Commercial or Neighborhood
Commercial could be reduced. The Office and Service
Commercial, which is 313 units, maybe that could be
reduced, but I’m really concerned about losing the
opportunity in High-Density and many units of affordable housing aside, we heard a lot of feedback from the
community about how we didn’t want to ruin the visual look

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
of Los Gatos, and the missing middle really gives us more control over how that is going to be affected than
anything, and if we think about missing middle as being a better for the Town alternative in terms of retaining Town charm and Town character then SB 9 simple lot splits, which could just be ugly boxes and we have no discretion
whatsoever over how those look as long as they meet
building codes, so I think we lose something extremely
valuable in the ability to hold onto or control the
character of our Town when we throw out the missing middle, so I would not be in favor of changing the density in the Low-Density back to 2020 numbers.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Janoff. Back to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I just really wanted to
echo what Commissioner Janoff just said, because I do think that missing middle is the key to maintaining our Town
character, which in addition to the traffic and other
infrastructure concerns I know is a huge concern of
residents in Town and it is something that is really
important to a lot of people that live here, and I do think that if we can build visually appealing structures in Lowand Medium-Residential areas right now to accommodate for our growth, we’re going to avoid having to go back and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
change like the heights so that we’re building a ton of concentrated housing on Los Gatos Boulevard.

And I know other communities have had this
struggle in the past. I know up in San Mateo that they have made decisions to keep their Low-Density Residential
densities lower, and then a lot of their growth has been concentrated in areas and gone really upward, because
that’s the only way that they can build more housing, and then people have been really unhappy with that in the area too.

So I do really think that missing middle, I know
it was discussed a lot before I was on the GPAC, but I do know that it was definitely a priority and there was a lot of thought put into that with the whole entire General
Plan, and I do think that it’s something that is
particularly helpful here in Town that we’re truly missing for our specific residents and future residents.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Before I take
additional comments I wanted to ask Staff a question.

We haven’t completed the process of the objective
standards, but Vice Chair Barnett and I and formerCommissioner Burch had worked on where we could go with the objective standards and the consultants have taken it to the community, but supposing that we stay with the existing

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
proposed densities in the Draft 2040 General Plan, what tools do we have in Town to make sure that the vision we have describing the General Plan doesn’t change the
character of neighborhoods? Because I know people are
really panicked, everyone’s neighborhood, but for instance historic neighborhoods and whatnot. What tools do we have to enforce the idea of the missing middle?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I would say that yes,
we are working on objective standards. We’re going to the community for a community meeting with a list of draft
standards based on the work that you discussed. That’s
going to be on May 12th to get input on that, and once we do get further input, that will be proceeding to Planning
Commission and Town Council. That is really targeted at the Medium-Density Residential and High-Density Residential and Mixed-Use projects rather than these duplex type projects that go through the SB 9 process.

When we do work towards a permanent ordinance for
the SB 9 type projects, that will include, as it did with the interim ordinance, some objective standards there as well, but for a lot of those smaller projects we don’t have a whole lot of objective standards that apply to them.

It does look like Director Paulson has something
else to add as well.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Just briefly to try to
differentiate from a control perspective SB 9 versus
missing middle.

Missing middle, we would be using the controls of
the underlying zone, so setbacks, height, coverage, that’s where you get to what a lot of you have been talking about where you get the potential form of a single-family house but maybe it has three or four units in it, so you still have those controls from a zoning perspective.

Now, there could be some consideration after the
General Plan gets adopted to modify some of those, maybe allow an additional 5’ or a little bit more FAR like we do for ADUs, because we know we’re having more units, whereas SB 9, a lot of those controls are gone, so the side and rear setbacks are 4’. Our lowest side setback for a
residential building, and I’ll use the R-1:D, which is
happens to be Medium-Density Residential, is 5’, so it’s those types of things where a lot of the provisions of SB 9 give way more flexibility to whoever is developing those, and so that’s where that control comes in.

The other is obviously SB 9 is going to be tied
to objective standards, so when we’re doing the ordinance we may want to look at that as a separate document. As Ms.

Armer mentioned, the current objective standards really are

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
Mixed-Use and Multi-Family, so that’s something to use as you’re thinking about this from a control perspective;
that’s the simplest distinction I can make at this point.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that’s fine. And we do
have Residential Design Guidelines, and if you’re really trying to make a duplex in the same form factor as a
single-family home, then the Residential Design Guidelines will apply as well.

Commissioner Clark and then Vice Chair Barnett.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just want to say that I
think we’re seeing that it’s risky when you start to play with the numbers, and I think what this is really all about is opportunities and the number of opportunities that we are providing, and I would hate to see us have to choose what density we’re reducing in order to lower the numbers just because we want to lower the numbers, and then miss out on some opportunities that we could have had otherwise.

I just want to emphasize that we need a bigger
number, because these units can’t all get built. It’s not going to be like we allow for all of this development and developers all come in, but I think that we need to make sure that we’re providing options and that we’re not
limiting ourselves, which I just think that we do start to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
do that when we start moving around the numbers like that and kind of having to choose where that happens.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Clark. Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I just wanted to point out
that in my proposal there would be missing middle in the Medium-Density Residential zone for area in that
designation, and again, I’m harping back on what I’ve said before, but the ADUs and the SB 9 units will add density to the Low-Density Residential designation as well.

One concern I had with the 3,738 number, the
lower number, is how are we achieving that? Is it possible to realistically and reasonably project what the housing is going to be in the seventh and eighth RHNA allocations? I think that the number is somewhat arbitrary and it makes more sense to focus on what we have and then to adjust as we go forward, although I recognize there will be some
small inconvenience in amending the General Plan at
possibly two different cycles downstream, but it seems to me that’s the more responsible approach rather than going into this with some speculative numbers. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Vice Chair
Barnett. Director Paulson has something to say, and then I’ll go to Commissioner Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to
pull back a little on how we started this conversation, which was maybe you should have a conversation or ask the question of does the majority of the Commission think we should reduce the number or not, because if the majority thinks we should reduce the number, then we can get into all the which designations and how much it should be
reduced, so I would say going back to where I think
Commissioner Thomas started, that’s where we’re going to start.

Then we got to the elements outside of 20, but we
were still going to come back to that conversation of
should the numbers be reduced from what’s currently
proposed if there’s a motion to that effect, and see where that does, and then that will help inform this continued conversation and think about what, if any, modifications should be done.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, that’s how I started at the
very beginning, and then I think a lot of the Commissioners had a lot to say and there has been a lot of very good
discussion.

Here’s a suggestion. I think that if I had to
read where everyone was at I’m going to say that we have two Commissioners that are in the same place with Vice

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
Chair Barnett’s suggestion that was submitted in writing, we have two Commissioners that are firmly convinced that we should stay with the numbers already proposed in the 2040 General Plan, and then Commissioner Janoff and I are
somewhere in the middle I think is where I would
characterize us.

Then the question should be whether or not we
reduce it at all, and then we can see if there’s consensus about that if we can get agreement on what the number is, although I suspect that the people who wanted to keep the number the same would not be comfortable with any changes that got made, but nonetheless we have to come to a
decision.

I have comments from Vice Chair Barnett, and then
from Commissioner Thomas.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I just want to say that I
agree with the approach from the Chair.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that it’s really
important for us to try to maintain local say and control over what housing gets developed in Low-Density
Residential, and if we don’t increase the density and the only option is the SB 9 route, and we don’t have any
control over that, I think residents are going to be not

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
happy with our decision, and so that makes me really
nervous about reverting back to the current General Plan’s density, especially for Low-Density Residential, because I think that we want to keep the option open that people have the opportunity to increase density with input from
neighbors and the Town and everything, so I feel that way.

I kind of feel like from Director Paulson, I
don't know if I need to make a motion. I’m fine with my motion failing if it does. I can make a motion, but do we need to continue to discuss options? I’m not entirely sure what to do moving forward.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that the Staff did make
the recommendation that we should see if we can’t get some resolution on reduce yes or reduce no, and then we could talk about how.

I can tell you for me, personally, I would be
very uncomfortable about reverting to the 2020 General Plan densities in any category, honestly, because I think that we’re going to have unintended consequences.

When I looked at the proposed site inventory for
the Housing Element, something like 70-80% of the sites are on Los Gatos Boulevard, and while that makes a lot of sense from so many dimensions, because we can put more HighPage 1047 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
Density and Mixed-Use housing there, it’s close to
Commercial, all those things.

But it has the unintended consequence of if it
all gets built there, if you think the traffic is really bad now, and Los Gatos Boulevard is one of the places where the traffic is the worst, how much worse is it going to get? What if there are several hundred units spread
throughout the Town, through all of our single-family
neighborhoods, that’s going to be incrementally way, way less traffic for everyone and it won’t be felt at all.

So while I’m not in one side or the other in
terms of where I come out, I wouldn’t be comfortable with going to zero change in any zone.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: As the other person who is
sort of in the middle here, I’m going to make a
recommendation that we start with the 2,262, which is the current RHNA cycle, and we add to that two cycles of 600 units which are commensurate with the previous RHNA cycles, so we have some history around why that might be. That gets me to a total of 3,462 units. If I subtract that number from the 3,782, that is the total proposed in the current Draft General Plan, the difference is 320.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
My proposal then would be to remove housing from
Office and Service Commercial designations, which is 313 units. That would be my recommendation. So we’re coming down off the 3,782, we’re recognizing that we’re going to get something in the next two RHNA cycles, possibly not as much as what we’ve had this cycle, and then my question to Staff was are there any unintended consequences of removing housing from Office and Service Commercial that would make that less than a desirable option? But that would be my proposal.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas really wanted
to say something.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You’re saying 3,782, but I
think it’s 3,738, right?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, thank you.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure before you wrote down any firm math.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And the RHNA plus the 15% buffer
I believe is 2,292.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: 2,292. I’ve got a lot of
little errors in my math, but if you guys get the idea
where I’m (inaudible).

CHAIR HANSSEN: We totally get it.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So we need to find a few
more units if this seems like an acceptable approach, but I’d be interested in hearing from Staff. I’m so concerned about the missing middle loss that I don’t want to go
there. These are new housing opportunities for us and in general these were planned, these came up during GPAC. I said what if we added these here? It might be beneficial to the people who work in these sorts of environments, but we also had some concern about then becoming only housing.

CHAIR HANSSEN: It was the last thing that we
added out of everything that we discussed.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And so that’s where I had
started, but go ahead, Staff.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. The only unintended
consequence I see we don’t see it very often. I can’t
recall any in the Office, but technically someone could propose a Mixed-Use Office project, and so that would be the only one, but that obviously also is the largest number between Office… The Service Commercial is kind of light industrial, which was a new one for sure, but that was only 54 units, I think. So that’s the only unintended
consequence I could see. The other is the Office is spread around Town, so you have the option for that disbursement

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
as well, given what everyone has been talking about
tonight.

So off the top of my head those are the couple of
things from a consideration perspective I’d like the
Commission to think about.

CHAIR HANSSEN: But let me go back to what I
asked earlier though. If there are Office properties that are currently in a Mixed-Use General Plan designation, they can add housing, right?
JENNIFER ARMER: That’s correct. For example, the
new office building that’s being constructed that was
approved a few years ago on Alberto Way, that actually is the Highway Commercial designation, and so anything in that zone can be office. It also can be Mixed-Use, Office and Residential, or other Mixed-Use.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Where I was going with that is
that by removing that designation where it’s just Office or just Service Commercial, we’re not eliminating the
possibility of Mixed-Use using Office.

JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: But it would have to already be
in a designation where Mixed-Use with Residential were
permitted along with Office?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. It’s just eliminating
Mixed-Use from those that are actually designated with the Office land use designation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes. Okay, got it. So was that a
proposal, Commissioner Janoff? It was sort of heading
towards a motion.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’d be happy to call that a
motion if somebody has the correct numbers.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can you read the numbers
one more time so that we know them?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right. Let me use the
correct numbers. We’re at 2,292 for the current RHNA cycle, plus 600 for the next RHNA cycle, and 600 for the third RHNA cycle. It adds 1,200 units to that. However, if you want to be really precise, we only have a fraction of the third RHNA cycle. We could change that third 600 down to, I think, 200 if you wanted to do that, so adding, let’s say, 800 units, 600 and 200, then we’re at 3,092. And then we subtract that from the 3,738. So if somebody wants to do that math, that comes out to about 720 units or so.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m just going to have you hold
for a second, because the Town Manager just turned her
camera on, but then I’m going to give you back the floor, Commissioner Janoff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
LAUREL PREVETTI: I just want to make sure that
the motion includes the totality of what you’re
recommendation a few minutes ago was, that in order to get to that reduced number you were proposing that we remove housing from Office and Service Commercial on the order of the 313 units, and that might be a simpler way of
explaining the net effect. Just a suggestion.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Through the Chair for the
Town Manager. Is it reasonable to reduce that third RHNA cycle number from 600 if we only have a partial RHNA cycle to accommodate under this Draft General Plan?
LAUREL PREVETTI: I think the real exercise is
what total capacity would you like to see in the 2040
General Plan, and I think it is useful, as we were talking earlier this evening to explain that we’re trying to not only accommodate the current RHNA but also future RHNA. I think it might be simpler to just really focus on that the idea is that we need capacity for missing middle based on the conversation that the Commission is interested in more Mixed-Use opportunities. However, in the interest of trying to protect Service Commercial and some of these other needs that we have in the Town, that really what we’re talking about is a net decrease of the 313.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
And again, we can provide the context as
discussed earlier, but I think simplifying the motion might be easier as we continue to move forward in the process.

Again, that’s just a suggestion based on the very nice
recommendation you made just a few minutes ago.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I understood all that, so
question for Commissioner Janoff. If I’m going by where the Town Manager is going with this, which is we should really be thinking of what is the overall capacity that we have, and based on the Draft 2040 General Plan we have 3,738 as the reasonable growth during that timeframe given the
densities that are proposed, and if we take 313 off the table, then that only gets us down to 3,400-and-something, right?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Which is where I’m prepared
to stop.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That is actually where you first
stated talking, and if you look at what makes up that
number, 300 units of that is ADUs that are not going to be built until after 2031, so in terms of more current
housing, that number is going to be likely under 3,000.

Let’s see, we have comments or questions from
Commissioner Clark and then Commissioner Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I do just want to clarify,
so now we’re talking about subtracting 313 units from the 3,738 original number, which would give us 3,425 is the number.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. And then Commissioner
Thomas, did you have a question or a comment?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: My question is that I think
we need to follow up with where those numbers would come from, if that’s what I’m hearing from the Town Manager, that we need to make sure that we’re reducing that 300 from a specific place, and I’m only seeing 259 in Office
Professional, so that’s a little bit confusing to me, or I’m not following something.

CHAIR HANSSEN: If you look on page six of the
Staff Report, at the bottom it says, “These are some
options to reduce,” and it says if we remove housing from Office and Service Commercial it equates to 313 units.

What’s behind that is they would be changing the densities, and I think it’s also a permitted use then for that
category.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Oh, because it’s Office and
Service Commercial combined?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Fifty-nine plus 54, got it.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: I don't know if you remember when
we discussed it at GPAC, but we all knew that Service
Commercial is going to be a lot smaller, because we’re
talking about like a unit above an auto repair shop.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I get it. I just was like I
thought you were only referring to Office Professional, and I was like wait, but it’s Office and Service Commercial.

Okay, now I understand that.

My concern with this is that I think that most of
the feedback and input from the community that we have
gotten is that people don’t want growth and development in Low-Density and Medium-Density Residential areas, and so now we’re just taking off the table development in other areas just to appease and make the number seem lower, and I feel like we’re just taking away options for developers. I mean, I truly commend Commissioner Janoff for trying to get us to a consensus, but I just fear that the fear is coming from those other neighborhoods.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Let me elaborate a little
bit. As we look back over the course of the meetings and information that we’ve received from developers in
particular, we’ve heard a lot of input that this particular format is an unlikely format to build, that office builders build office, and home builders build homes, and putting

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the two together may be a laudatory vision, but it’s an unlikely thing to happen.

So realistically, looking at what developers
would be interested in building, I think this is a very unlikely format. I could be wrong, but if that’s the case and removing it doesn’t affect any of the really special things that GPAC wanted to do to incorporate real beautiful change into the community, this doesn’t really impact that vision, so that’s my thinking behind it, and thank you for asking.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I think Town Manager
Prevetti may have some input.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, go ahead, Ms. Prevetti.

LAUREL PREVETTI: Thank you. I just wanted to
clarify, I think we have a motion on the floor and
typically we need a second before discussing it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Actually, you are correct about
that and I was remiss because so many hands came up. So can we get a second for Commissioner Janoff’s motion?
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I second.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so we do have a second, so
we can continue the discussion before voting, and thank you for remind us of that.

Commissioner Clark, did you want to comment?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you. I just want
to jump off of what Commissioner Janoff was saying about the reasoning behind this, and I think something else we’ve discussed a lot tonight is everybody needs to do their
part, and so to me it’s if we do want to be a little less ambitious and build a little less housing, I want to do that in a way that doesn’t alleviate anyone of playing some sort of role in this, because we need to do this as an
entire community, so I think that, along with it not being as realistic of an option for developers, to me makes it the best way that we can reduce our numbers.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that.

I would comment that I like where this is going,
and that my first thought when we were thinking about these exercises is that especially since the GPAC added that at the very end and it didn’t seem essential, and then since we’ve gotten the additional feedback from developers it doesn’t seem like it’s that feasible.

We kind of have a good idea about ADUs, but
because of the uncertainty of where SB 9 will go, it would

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
be my preference. I could get comfortable with where we are. It would be my preference to take something off the table in Low-Density Residential, but not all of it. But that might not be enough for me to not vote…to go with the motion that Commissioner Janoff presented. I don't know if other people have thoughts about that.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Question for Staff. Is it
possible to reduce the density in Low-Density and still get missing middle, and if so, what would that look like?
JENNIFER ARMER: There is probably some room to
reduce it somewhat, but my understanding is if it went
below ten dwelling units per acre, then that really would eliminate the possibility of missing middle housing. I
believe that’s what we’ve discussed previously.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I know we talked about this
earlier, that if we were going to go in this direction that you wouldn’t automatically be able to spew out what would the number be with that change in density, but I’m sure if we took it to ten it would be less than 279.

JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: But we don’t know how much less,
so that’s the uncertainty of this process, but we could go down that path and in theory, I guess, but if we don’t know

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
what numbers it gives us, it kind of makes it hard, but I would be agreeing with Commissioner Janoff that I wouldn't want to do anything that would take away the possibility of missing middle housing, because I think that really is
essential to creating balance in the community, but if it was possible to bring it down a little bit, I think that makes a lot sense, and that would take away some of the uncertainty with where we don’t know where SB 9 is going to go.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Even though I
started the motion by talking about numbers, I think at this point we should depart from that conversation and give Staff the guidance. I’d be willing to modify the motion or add to the motion that we consider reducing the density in Low-Density and Medium-Density to a number that still
supports missing middle but lowers the numbers. It may be a small number, but if that makes sense to do so, I don’t need to know what that number is. Staff can take that into consideration and then run the numbers and include that as part of the illustration of how the numbers come down, but I would be willing to do that. The numbers themselves are kind of general, but if we can get more specific reductions

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
in density without losing the benefits that the GPAC has put forward, I would say that is a reasonable inclusion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Let’s see, I
think it was Commissioner Clark and then Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think it was Commissioner
Thomas first.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, thank you for that. Actually,
Director Paulson has his hand up, so I just want to make sure we capture Staff’s comments before we continue to
deliberate on this.

JOEL PAULSON: Since Commissioner Clark was the
seconder; she would need to accept that amendment.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, I accept that
amendment. Actually, can I ask you a question about it, or do I need to second it before I can ask a question?
JENNIFER ARMER: You can ask a clarifying
question.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yeah, I think you can ask a
question.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I just want to clarify, like
I want to make sure that we’re on the same page about what it would mean to still allow missing middle. I think we need to be really clear about that. For me, it would be all

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
the way up to fourplexes, because I think that those are able to very well fit the structure of a single-family home and that they don’t look very different from triplexes and stuff, but they’re still affordable, and so would that be what we consider?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think missing middle to
me means whatever number of units is proposed. It doesn’t have to be up to a limit, I don’t think, but I would
certainly be in support of fourplexes, or five or sixes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was going to say, Commissioner
Clark, and Staff would probably explain it better than me, but if you’re looking at, let’s just say, the hearing we had earlier to day, the 6,800 square foot lot, you’d have to do the math and figure out if you’re doing ten dwelling units maximum per acre, then what percentage of an acre that is, and so if it’s ten, it depends on the size of the lot whether you could get four units, if that makes sense.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, I do see what you
mean.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And so it wouldn’t unilaterally
be true that… Even with 12 dwelling units per acre, I’m not sure if you could do a fourplex on every single lot, but maybe Staff would a better way to talk through that.

Director Paulson has his hand up.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. I was just going
to comment to Commissioner Clark’s thought on if we’re
trying to get four to allow four units at ten dwelling
units per acre, for instance, you need more than a 15,000 square foot lot, and if you’re talking about, let’s say, eight units as a max, then you’re looking somewhere around approximately 20,000 square feet in lot size to accomplish that.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just want to
make sure we’re providing the right amount of direction, if that makes sense, so understanding what it means to
slightly reduce the number. I don't know if we are being clear enough about that. I also do trust Staff and they have all the context of this conversation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Commissioner Janoff and
Commissioner Clark can correct me if I’m wrong, but I would envision how Staff would carry this forward to Council is that there was a desire to have some reduction of the
maximum density for Low-Density Residential, and so
ultimately we would provide a couple of options or
scenarios like I just mentioned, but we check those numbers to see what the exact number is from a lot size to get to the four units to make sure that what’s the minimum lot

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
size that’s required to allow four units. So that would be one way we would carry it forward to the Council for their consideration.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Then the other question that we
wish we knew the answer to is out of all our Low-Density Residential, how many lots are there at that size? Because we do have a fair number of lots that are like 8,000 square feet. I don’t expect Staff to have the answer to that, and they won’t in tonight’s meeting, but that would be
important information to know to increase the comfort level with making that decision, the recommendation.

I’ll go back to Commissioner Clark, and then I
don't know between Commissioner Janoff and Commissioner Thomas who was first, but they both have their hands up.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, and yes, I see
Commissioner Janoff has her hand up. I’m curious to hear what you’ll think about this, but I feel like reducing the number in Low-Density Residential is not doing what we want it to do, because where the number is only really allows up to missing middle, and so reducing the number will just reduce the number of missing middle housing, so if we do feel like we need to reduce it, I would rather go up one level or something, and especially just because we don’t

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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
know how many lots it would affect, and you do need a
relatively lot to do this.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I hear you. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Commissioner Clark, when
you say you would like to go up one level, do you mean to do Medium-Density?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, like if we felt like
we needed to do that, I’d be more comfortable in MediumDensity, although my preference would be to leave the motion as it originally was.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My hand is up because I
wanted to just clarify with Director Paulson that the
interest is in reducing the density in Low-Density and
Medium-Density as long as that reduction can still
accommodate missing middle, and if it can’t, then I
wouldn’t be in favor of making a reduction.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, it’s Low-Density and Medium-Density. I only gave the example for Low-Density. Medium-Density, right now the
maximum is 24. Like we talked about before, if we cut it in half we’d still be at 18, so that would accommodate missing middle even on smaller lots than our Draft General Plan currently allows in Low-Density.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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: I think it would be fine to
proceed forward with that motion, since there is still some investigation to be done as long as the proviso is that we’re not eliminating missing middle, then the research can be done, and if it turns out that it doesn’t work for LowDensity Residential, then we should stay with the 2040 proposal as is, is kind of where I was thinking that would go.

Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I wanted to ask
whether the seconder had received enough clarification that they could accept the modification or not?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’d like to ask one more
clarifying question, and I think I’m just having a hard time grasping this, but to me it seems like reducing the density in Low-Density Residential only has the possibility of like reducing or eliminating missing middle, because I want to know pretty much at that density level what other types of properties there is the possibility of reducing, if that makes sense.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m not if that’s a
question to me, but the motion would be to reduce density only if it did not eliminate missing middle.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 COMMISSIONER CLARK: And Staff, are you able to
clarify if there are other types of properties that might be like not possible if you go from 12 to ten units per acre, for example?
JENNIFER ARMER: In just taking a lot at some of
the numbers, we have a lot of Low-Density Residential, for example, it’s 8,000 square foot lots, and even at the 12 units per acre, that’s only going to allow a duplex, the two units plus whatever ADUs, for example, so this
modification wouldn’t necessarily change for that size of lot a whole lot of what would be allowed.

It is really going to be on the slightly larger
lots where there might be possibilities for triplexes or fourplexes, and we can provide some of that additional
information, and that Planning Commission’s recommendation was only to do the modification to this Low-Density
Residential designation if it doesn’t reduce or eliminate the possibility to missing middle housing.

I think just based on looking at some of those
numbers preliminarily that the reduction is more likely to be possible in the Medium-Density Residential designation rather than Low-Density Residential, but we can provide the qualitative motion from the Planning Commission and provide them some quantitative numbers that they can then consider

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 in determining whether to accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission or to do something different.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yeah, I think
that that’s where my stipulation was. It feels like in the Low-Density Residential that wouldn’t really happen, but I also think because that’s in the motion then that would be okay, so I’m still comfortable seconding the motion. Thank you, everyone, for clarifying.

CHAIR HANSSEN: No problem. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think that I am much more
comfortable just reducing the overall number by 313 from the Office Professional and Service Commercial areas,
because we know that those were added at the end for GPAC, those were like just bonus extra things that were added on at the end, and we know that that type of a development is going to be the most difficult for the Town to essentially incentivize, because it’s just not appealing to developers, so I would be much more comfortable reducing the number by 313 with those.

I think that the only thing that we achieve with
reducing the density in Low-Density Residential or MediumDensity Residential is making the SB 9 pathway more appealing, which again, doesn’t allow for as much local input and I think could actually upset people in those

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 neighborhoods. I wouldn’t want to reduce any potential housing opportunities that could go through Town. I want to make our options in Town more appealing than going the SB 9 route, if that makes sense, because I do think that that’s in the best interest of the community and neighbors that will be affected by any new development or redevelopment, so I’m not in favor of changing the densities, but I do understand and think that it’s a good compromise to knock those 313 units off from those two places.

I think that that also gives a very clear
recommendation to Town Council, and I’m afraid that if we say we can change the densities a little bit for LowDensity Residential and Medium-Density Residential and we forward that along to Town Council, it’s not quite as
clear, and then that is a concern to me that we’re not
going to really see the final number before we forward
that, so that’s where I’m at with this motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Based on us having a motion and a
second, you would be a no vote. I would go ahead and count it before I go back to Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Clark and I both went to the recent
Planning Commissioner Academy and they did a pretty
extensive thing on SB 9, and what I remember them talking about was that it actually is really hard only with SB 9 to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 get fourplex, because you would have to do it with a lot split, start with a lot split was my understanding of it, and so it would have to be supplemented by ordinances from towns that would help facilitate that, so it isn’t
necessarily the panacea that everyone thought it was, and that’s why they’re not expecting the take up rate to be super high, because not everyone is going to want to do a lot split.

But with that being said, we don’t know for sure,
right? And so I understand your concern, but given that we have this motion on the table we should probably see that through and see if we can get enough votes and go from
there, but Commissioner Clark, you wanted to comment and it’s fine to go ahead.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Can I ask a clarifying
question about that? I mean, that makes me feel better if you think that it is going to not be as appealing to do a fourplex at that level through the SB 9 route. I hope that we’re all on the same page, that we want people to take the local Town route versus the SB 9 route as much as possible.

I’m trying to ask you, Chair Hanssen, you’re not
concerned that reducing the density slightly in these two areas would discourage people from going through Town or only give people options to go through SB 9?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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: Based on what I understand, which
I’m no expert, but based on what I’ve heard about SB 9 so far, and Staff probably knows more than me, I don't know that you could make the statement that slightly reducing the densities in Low-Density Residential for the General Plan would open the door for SB 9, because I think there are enough things about SB 9 that are limiting, that’s all.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: If Staff has anything more to add
on SB 9, because you guys are closer then I am, but that was my impression. But I don’t see them.

Commissioner Clark, and then Vice Chair Barnett.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’ll add
something on SB 9. It doesn’t allow fourplexes, which I think is another reason why these density changes are
really important, because they’ll open up that possibility, because that’s something I’m bummed about with SB 9 is that that wasn’t an option.

Then I want to clarify something. So the
amendment to Commissioner Janoff’s original motion had been made because of Chair Hanssen’s concerns with Low-Density Residential, and so I wasn’t sure how Medium-Density
Residential became part of the motion and if it officially

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 is part of it, because it would be my preference to keep it for just Low-Density Residential.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I would have said both LowDensity Residential and Medium-Density Residential with a slight reduction with the idea that I’m not taking too much off the table for any one particular thing. That was my logic.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: That’s good with me. Thank
you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, Chair. I’m having
trouble understanding how we could give meaningful
direction to the Council if we’re talking about not
impairing the missing middle in the Low-Density Residential and Medium-Density Residential designations. I don’t see how we can, given the variety of types of those kind of housings with duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, I don't know how that can materially be evaluated. Maybe I’m missing something.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff, first of all, we aren’t
going to get any more clarity on this for our meeting
tonight, so then if we were able to get resolution on this and get a majority vote, what could you tell the Council on this particular point?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. What I heard from the
Planning Commission this evening on this item and this
motion is that if this were supported, the recommendation to Town Council is to remove the housing densities from the Office and Service Commercial and to consider lowering the allowed densities in the Low-Density Residential and
Medium-Density Residential zones, but only to a point that would still allow the missing middle.

As I said, it’s more of a qualitative kind of
quality direction rather than a number direction. It’s
indicating that you recognize that there is interest from the community to not increase the densities in those
designations as far as in the Draft General Plan, but
recognizing the importance of missing middle housing, and so that they could then when they have additional numbers consider that recommendation and how to implement it, if they support it. Is that helpful?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett took his hand
down, so I guess he got his answer as much as we have an answer.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: It seems to me that it’s
still pretty ambiguous and doesn’t give a lot of direction.

I would favor going for a number such as proposed, or a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 bigger number than that, but I think we’re moving into a nebulous area.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer has her hand up.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted
to call attention to the fact that it is 10:57, and so we will need a motion if we want to go past 11:00 o’clock.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask someone to make
a motion to continue to 11:30, because I would like to at least finish this part of the discussion. I don’t think we’ll finish the rest of the plan, but would someone make a motion to continue to 11:30? Let’s see, I’ve got
Commissioner Janoff, is that a motion? And then
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Sorry, I had my hand up for
a clarification, but I defer to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move to extend the
meeting until 11:30.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you for that, and do
we have a second? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then a quick roll call vote.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 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. We may
not need to go to 11:30.

So Commissioner Janoff, you had a question, and
then I think Commissioner Thomas does as well.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Actually a clarification.

The purpose of adding the Low-Density and Medium-Density reduction possibilities is to call attention to the Council that if it goes too far they’ll lose missing middle, and so it’s really a notion that the GPAC felt very strongly about missing middle, and we had over the course of time a number of Council members on the GPAC also very much in favor of missing middle, so it’s really not a number per se. I mean, Staff will get it down to a number by the time this goes to Council, so they’ll know what that is, but the notion is the Planning Commission is in favor of retaining missing middle.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 CHAIR HANSSEN: To add onto that, if you look at
it from the number perspective, such as you did, Vice Chair Barnett, it has to translate into a change in density, so if you say all, then it goes back to 2020, but if it’s half and you say I want to reduce the number in half, then the Staff has to do the calculations to determine at what
density level would it actually translate into half of
that, so you wouldn’t know the answer to that if you put the number out there either in terms of the only thing that will change in the actual General Plan is the density,
because we don’t have control over the exact number, we have only a model that translates from the density, if that makes sense.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I understand what you’re
saying, but I do still have the same concerns as Vice Chair Barnett, and so therefore I’d just feel comfortable like knocking off the Office Professional and Service
Commercial, because I feel like that’s just a very specific thing that we can eliminate from this equation and sends a message that we think the missing middle is still
important, which is also what we want to do as a group.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Through the Chair, that
number is already part of the motion.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I know, but I think that
that’s the only part of the motion that I support. I don’t want to change the densities also, because I think that then it does get into a gray area and we’re forwarding
something that we haven’t seen the final numbers of.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, that’s a fair comment. Are
there others that would like to comment on this?
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I agree overall with
Commissioner Thomas. I think that would definitely be my preferred motion, but I don’t think that’s the direction we’re overall going. I also think that Commissioner
Janoff’s motion does kind of acknowledge that Council still very well might reduce these numbers further, and so if we do it this way there’s a very strong message to keep
missing middle housing, and we’ve also created a path in which missing middle housing is retained in the General Plan, and so yeah, I think for those reasons I prefer this motion overall.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I don’t like having an uncertain
situation go along to Council, but I feel like there’s
enough parameters on it with Commissioner Janoff’s motion, and then as I said, we kind of knew when we had a meeting before this meeting to discuss it that we would end up with

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 incomplete information, because you can’t off the top of your head translate densities into numbers necessarily, so we would have ended up in the this situation unless we went with one of the numbers that’s on this page here in the Staff Report, because they’ve already done those
calculations for us for those.

If there are no other comments, I think it would
be worth going ahead and taking a vote and see where we stand, and if we can’t have a majority, that’s fine, we’ll have to come up with another motion and go from there.

So the motion on the table, do we need to go back
over it, or is everyone clear? I think Commissioner Janoff did outline it several times, so I think we’re fine. I will start out with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: No.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: No.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes, so we’re split 3-
3, so the motion fails, and we have to go back and come up with another suggestion.

Commissioner Thomas and then Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Commissioner Janoff can go.

I’m fine.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So we understand the
concern that Commissioner Thomas voiced, and I’d like, if it’s not inconvenient, to ask Commissioner Raspe and Vice Chair Barnett if you’re still with Vice Chair Barnett’s numbers, or is there something else that you have in mind? CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe, you have our
hand up.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Sure. I raised that for a
different reason, but I’ll answer Commissioner Janoff’s question.

As I indicated earlier, my strongest concern is
changing the numbers of the Low-Density housing
designation, and the motion as presented leaves great
ambiguity in that respect. Largely it’s unknown if we vote for that motion what will happen to those designations, whether those numbers will change. It could be the case that none may change, it could be the case that a great many will change.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 And I appreciate the guidance we want to give the
Council, but I think in that formulation it leads to too many questions and too much unknowns, so that hopefully answers your question, Commissioner.

Mine was a question more to Staff. I’m curious;
we are two or three different positions amongst us. Is it necessary that we agree on a point to provide to Council? Would it be adequate that we provide them an advisement that two Commissioners feel this way, three Commissioners feel this way, etc.? Because again, these are
recommendations we’re making to Council, as I understand it, so would that be a way through this? I’m just thinking out loud. I’m sorry. And part of it is it’s 11:00 o’clock.

Thanks so much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Would Staff want to comment on
Commissioner Raspe’s question?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I think we’re typically
looking for a majority motion. There are a lot of different views and ideas across the Commissioners that we have here tonight, and I think that’s pretty obvious through the
discussion. It may be that, as I mentioned before, we’ll send them verbatim minutes.

I’ll defer to Ms. Prevetti after I say what I
probably shouldn’t say, but it is after 11:00, so I’m going

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 to say it anyway. You could get to a point where you can’t reach majority on any reconfiguration of the numbers, and so at that point we’re going to come to an impasse and
we’re just going to have to move it forward without an
actual, explicit motion on any reduction in the number is my thought.

LAUREL PREVETTI: And I would support Director
Paulson with that. You’ve had a very robust conversation over these last two meetings over the numbers, and so there is a lot of really good commentary for the Council to
consider. We do have a little bit of time yet tonight if somebody would like to try another motion, but it’s
perfectly fine for us to express the three-way split that has emerged through the course of these conversations.

Thank you.

JENNIFER ARMER: Just to clarify that, I would
say that if that is where the Commission ends up finding themselves on the numbers, then in the end the motion that the Commission would be considering is a recommendation to forward the Draft 2040 General Plan to Town Council for consideration with the modifications that we have discussed over these three meetings and no specific recommendation on modifications to the housing densities, but Staff would

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 provide a summary, and as Town Manager Prevetti mentioned, they will have access to verbatim minutes as well.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Staff. And just
to be clear, I don’t believe we’re at an impasse yet, I think there are still discussions and ideas to be had. I just wanted to discuss the what-if situation just so we all have that in our heads, so thank you for answering the
question.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We’re going to have to go to
another meeting anyway, because we haven’t gotten to the Community Design Element or the EIR yet, so that isn’t
going to happen tonight.

The other thing that is in play here is
Commissioner Tavana is not here, so we have six votes
instead of seven, and even the last motion couldn’t have been split.

So that being said, I think that where we’re
stuck is kind of where I’m not seeing that anybody has a problem with the motion to remove Office and Service
Commercial housing and therefore the density associated with it from the 2040 General Plan.

The issue is around Low-Density Residential and
Medium-Density Residential and where the split is is
between taking that off the table except for what’s already

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 ministerial by law or something in between, and then we have the let’s not change anything so that we can make the most possible.

Commissioner Janoff and then Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: What I’m thinking is in
order to further assist if we don’t have a majority
decision is to go through the bullets on page 219. We’re talking about potential reductions, and I think for
clarification to Council we should probably indicate which the Planning Commission would be in favor of, kind of a yes or no, and then if we had any conversation… I think it’s clear where we are with the Low-Density and Medium-Density.

We’ve already suggested removing the Office and Service Commercial. “Revert properties in New Community designation back to Neighborhood 58 units,” that could be. But I think we also agree that we don’t want to reduce the density in the Mixed-Use designation or the final bullet.

CHAIR HANSSEN: You’re suggesting we have that
discussion?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s my summary. We’ve
kind of been talking around these bullets, but I was just thinking since these bullets were potential reductions that came I believe from Council, then responding to those
potential reduction areas probably further gives guidance

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 as to the recommendation of the Planning Commission, even if we can’t reach a consensus.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, I think that makes sense.

Commissioner Clark, you have your hand up.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I do feel like we
can reach an at least majority consensus, and I think that to me feels like an important thing to do to really be able to pass a single General Plan on with at least something that we’ve all come together to recommend.

Earlier we were able to have a majority who
agreed to eliminating the 313 from the Office and Service Commercial designations, then beyond that the concern was that they get the strong message about missing middle
housing that they understand that the dissenting
Commissioners’ concerns are related to Low-Density
Residential and Medium-Density Residential.

So I would like to make a motion that is along
the lines of the original one, which is to remove the 313 housing units from Office and Service Commercial
designations.

CHAIR HANSSEN: You mean to just get approval for
that and recognize that the Commission is not comfortable with the balance of it? I’m trying to understand.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
119
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think we were all in a
place where we were ready to agree with that or that we had the majority in agreement with that, and then beyond that our concerns were that the Council receive certain
messages, and so I think that it’s recommending that number and then us having the comfort of knowing that the Council will be aware of this entire conversation and of the
nuances of our conversation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think I understand where you’re
going. I’m not really comfortable with that personally as the Chair, but it is a Commission decision, but feel like we should, and it is our role to try to come to some
resolution on the other issues that are on the table
besides that.

Director Paulson
JOEL PAULSON: I just wanted to say, we have a
motion on the floor, we need to at least see if we have a second, and then we can have a discussion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, fair enough. Thank you for
that. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I second the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So there is a motion and a
second, and the motion is simply about the Office and
Service Commercial. My question is we’re not making a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 recommendation on the overall land use number, we’re only making a recommendation on that one aspect of the land use number, is that correct?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think that my vision of it
is that it’s pretty much Commissioner Janoff’s original motion, so that it is on the overall number with the
reduction of the 313 units. Does that make sense?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes. So there’s a motion and
second, and is there other discussion?
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I think that I would
like to hear from Commissioner Barnett regarding also
adding to this the Community Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Central Business District reductions. Vice Chair Barnett is recommending a 50% reduction in those
numbers and I’m just curious what of those numbers is
actually on the list of bullets from the Council, and I’m just wondering whether there is agreement in adding the reverting the properties in the new Community Commercial back to Neighborhood Commercial for an additional 58 units, and reducing the Central Business District down to 67
units?
CHAIR HANSSEN: So Vice Chair Barnett.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The motion that’s on the
floor, I thought we already voted on it and it was a motion that failed. Yes, in the abstract with looking at specific line items I would agree with the two changes that
Commissioner Janoff just mentioned, but that leaves all the other ones to be discussed.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’d like to amend my motion
to include those two additional changes suggested by
Commissioner Janoff.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And is there a second?
Commissioner Thomas, do you agree to the amendment of the motion?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. Can they be repeated
one more time before I agree? I need clarification.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, and let’s look at the
Town’s bullet number four, “Revert properties in the New Community Commercial designation back to Neighborhood
Commercial, which would have a reduction of 58 units,” and then not on this list, but Vice Chair Barnett has
recommended the Central Business District be reduced, I don't know what from, but to 67. Let me just look.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It’s from 135 total.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right, 135 total down to

67. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Down to 67. Yes, I accept
the second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer, did you have a
comment?
JENNIFER ARMER: In looking at the numbers it
looks like the reduction in the Central Business District, I believe you just reduced the total number half. That
keeps it still slightly above the densities that are
currently allowed in downtown, but gets it pretty close to what the existing is. We have to do some numbers to figure out what the density would actually be.

JOEL PAULSON: I’ll just jump in real quick.

Since the max now is 20 and proposed is 30, he’s cutting it in half, the 135, so it’s probably somewhere in the order of a maximum of 25 (inaudible) that’s greater.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so we do have a motion
from Commissioner Clark and then a second by Commissioner Thomas. Is there more discussion? I’ll weigh in. I’m not super comfortable for a couple of reasons.

One is given the discussion that we had at the
Housing Element Advisory Board about the site inventory, and we did already go through downtown. We had some very

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 passionate comments from the Vice Mayor, who lives
downtown, and a few others about there are some really
wonderful opportunities for Mixed-Use development that
could fit in nicely with downtown, and one of the specific properties that was mentioned was the post office, and
while there is no application on the table at the moment that I know of, I’m not sure that given the things that we’ve been hearing from people about Mixed-Use that that wouldn’t come off the table if we were to take more density off the table. In fact, what I’ve been hearing is we might even need to do more, so I’d be uncomfortable with that part of it alone.

The Community Commercial to Neighborhood
Commercial was fine, but I would further add that I’m not sure that not reducing anything in Low-Density or MediumDensity is going to be acceptable to Commissioner Raspe and Vice Chair Barnett. We can go ahead and try to vote on it, but those are the problems I see.

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

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Chair Hanssen, which part
of the motion are you uncomfortable with?
CHAIR HANSSEN: The Central Business District,
downtown.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just the reducing the
density of that specific space?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But you’re okay with
changing Community Commercial, reverting that back to
Neighborhood Commercial?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes. But I don’t know if it’s
going to work out to not make some reduction in Low-Density or Medium-Density, but I could be okay with that.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see, Commissioner Clark and
then Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Here’s my
thought. Since we’re clearly going to meet again, would it be possible to have Staff explore that loose guidance that had been given about reducing the densities in Low-Density Residential and Medium-Density Residential to a point where they still allow missing middle housing, and then we would be able to use that to guide our discussions since some of the problems were with the ambiguities?
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll jump in. That’s a definite
maybe. We’ll see what we can pull together. It’s almost 11:30. We still have to get through this motion if we ever actually call the question, and then we also are going to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 have to continue this to a date certain, so we need to keep that in mind. We may need another motion to extend past 11:30, but we will work with Staff to see what we can pull up from a numbers perspective to try to get what the
minimum lot size for four units or missing middle is and then see if we can go through our GIS to figure out how many lots of the lots in those designations would still remain viable.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. That’s a lot of
work, so thank you very much, and yeah, I think that’s my preference. I don't know if this is possible, but I don’t think we need to worry about that motion I made previously, and the motion that I would prefer that we make is what I just suggested, to wait and have the Staff explore that possibility.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Can she just withdraw her motion?
JOEL PAULSON: She would need to withdraw her
motion, yes.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I withdraw my motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, and then since we are
running close to our deadline, I don't know that we need to continue past 11:30 as long as we can come up with a date certain and vote on that before, but I’m going to look to Staff for guidance on that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. We have looked
at the Town’s calendars in terms of upcoming meetings and what dates might be possibilities for continuance. Next Monday, May 2nd would be one option. If it were a 7:00
o’clock meeting it would not conflict with other scheduled Town meetings.

Unfortunately we’ve got a lot of evening meetings
coming up, so another option then would be Tuesday the 10th, which is the day before your next regular meeting on the 11th, which would also be an option.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Can I just see a show of hands
from the Commissioners who can make it on Monday, May 2nd? It looks like everybody. And Tuesday, May 10th. Not as much.

Okay.

I’ll go ahead and make the motion to continue
this to a date certain of Monday, May 2nd at 7:00 o’clock.

Can I get a second? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I second the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, great.

Commissioner Raspe, did you have a question.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Quick question. I just want
to confirm with Staff that May 2nd is enough time for them to complete the work that we’ve asked them to do?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. That’s a good
question.

JENNIFER ARMER: Well, as Director Paulson said,
it’s a definite maybe. We will put together what
information we can for a Staff Report this Friday, but that is the day after tomorrow, so we can pull some information, but it would likely be limited.

JOEL PAULSON: I’d just offer that if we can’t
get it for the Friday memo, then we can see what we can pull together on Monday for a Desk Item.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that was a good issue to
raise though. It looked like we had five out six of us for the 10th.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would just like to say
that personally I’m not looking for a precise number, it’s more an order of magnitude. Are we going to get 10%, 20%, just so we know that there’s a meaningful reduction if we go down that route? I know that some Commissioners are keen on having a precise number, but if time does not allow for that analysis, then I think knowing that there’s a
substantial enough number or not would be sufficient for me.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 JENNIFER ARMER: And I would say that I think we
can come up with some numbers as to what minimum lot size would be required for a fourplex based on a couple of
different densities, and then I am hopeful that we would be able, if not Friday then by Monday, to figure out the
number of parcels in our Low-Density designation to meet that. It may be that we would need to do that for MediumDensity as well, so I think we could get you some information. It’s just it is going to be a quick
turnaround, so we don’t want to promise too much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that would be enough. I
hope you guys feel the same way. There’s always going to be more, but I think that would give us, based on the
questions I was hearing, so can I get a second for my
motion for Monday, May 2nd?
Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’ll second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then I will do a quick roll
call vote.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/27/2022
Item #4, 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 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.

Since we’re continuing the meeting we don’t need
to do the concluding things, right Staff? Okay.

I want to thank you all for a really very good
and in depth discussion, and I think that so much good
things have gone on and that’s why there are some people in different directions on this thing, but I think the end result is going to be much, much better because of all the issues that we’re bringing up and vetting through this
process, so we will see you all on Monday, May 2nd, and good night.

This meeting is adjourned.

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: 5/2/2022
ITEM NO: 1
DATE: April 29, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.

REMARKS:

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

On April 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held a special meeting to continue the review of the Draft 2040 General Plan including the: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element; Environment and Sustainability Element; Hazards and Safety Element; and began review of the Land Use Element.

The review included the following unanimous motions:

1. In the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 81 and 84, and remove “provided on a full cost recovery basis” from the first paragraph under Recreational Services on page 7-7 of the Draft 2040 General Plan;

2. In the Environment and Sustainability Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 89, 90, 95, and 96 but with “ensuring” changed to “working towards”;

3. In the Environment and Sustainability Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 98 (with “improve” instead of “improves”), 104, and 105;

4. In the Environment and Sustainability Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 106, 107, 108, 110, and 116 with the language modified to state, “Plant Based Education: Develop and implement a plan Implement programs to educate and ATTACHMENT 17

PAGE 2 OF 5
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 29, 2022
REMARKS (continued):
support residents about the environmental, economic, and social benefits of shifting to a plant-based diet, examples of which may include informational materials, educational programs, community events, coordination with schools and businesses, or guidelines for procurement which includes improved health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water.”

5. In the Environment and Sustainability Element modify Implementation Program M to include linkages between movement corridors;

6. In the Environment and Sustainability Element modify the existing language about the Ohlone on page 8-17 of the Draft 2040 General Plan as suggested by Commissioner Clark:
• Policy ENV-13.8, “Support a community sense of stewardship for historic and cultural resources through supporting talks, tours, and other programs that increase awareness and promote Los Gatos as a destination with historic cultural resources and through including Ohlone people in the conversation and planning.” • Section 8.8, “Los Gatos is in an area once occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people, which extends from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur, with the interior Coastal Ranges most likely constituting the inland boundary. Before colonization outside contact, Ohlone lived in base camps of tulereed houses and seasonal specialized camps. Ohlone ate food gained by hunting, gathering, and fishing. Mussels were particularly important to their diet, as well as sea mammals and acorns.

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

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

7. In the Hazards and Safety Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 119 and 117 subject to review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department or CalFire; and

8. Modify definition of “equity,” in addition to the modifications to that definition agreed upon at the previous meeting, to include a reference to “status and rights.” On April 27, 2022, the Planning Commission continued the review of the Land Use Element of the Draft 2040 General Plan.

The review included the following unanimous motion:

PAGE 3 OF 5
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 29, 2022
REMARKS (continued):

1. In the Land Use Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 21, 33, 34, and 40 (as an implementation program).

In addition, the Planning Commission discussed the options for whether and by how much the residential densities proposed in the Draft 2040 General Plan should be modified. This discussion included the following perspectives expressed by one or more Commissioners:
• There is a need to include sufficient capacity for future residential growth in the 2040 General Plan; and
• There is public concern over whether the growth potential as a result of these changes could be too much, or too little, or not of the desired type.

In addition, there seemed to be general agreement by the Commissioners that it would be acceptable to remove the new housing densities listed for the Office Professional and Service Commercial designations, since these were additions later in the General Plan Update Advisory Committee’s (GPAC) process. The discussion of changes to the densities in the Central Business District and Community Commercial designations were not as clear, as there were concerns that reducing densities in those areas would reduce the potential of some key sites currently under consideration by the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) as part of the Housing Element Update.

As a result of these discussions, Planning Commissioners requested information to provide a more complete understanding of what potential reductions might be made in the allowed densities in the Low and Medium Density Residential designations without eliminating the opportunity for Missing Middle Housing. The following information has been prepared in response to this request:

Maximum
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
Lot Area
Required to
Allow Four
Units (Acres)
Lot Area
Required to
Allow Four Units
(Square Feet)
Properties That Meet Four-Unit Lot Size
Low Density Residential
Designation
Medium Density
Residential Designation
Number
of Parcels
Percent of
Parcels
Number
of Parcels
Percent of
Parcels
5 0.8 34,848 170 3% - -
8 0.5 21,780 462 7% - -
10 0.4 17,424 831 12% - -
12 0.33 14,520 1,145 17% 179 5%
18 0.22 9,680 - - 354 11%
24 0.17 7,260 - - 708 21%
Total Number of Parcels by Designation 6,751 3,294
Number of Parcels in LHP by Designation 25 321

PAGE 4 OF 5
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 29, 2022
REMARKS (continued):

In the table above, the numbers in bold are based on the land use densities in the Draft 2040 General Plan, and those in italics are based on the 2020 General Plan. This chart also includes the number of parcels within the Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (LHP) because those are parcels that would not qualify for projects under Senate Bill 9 (SB 9).

Shortly before 11:30 p.m., the Planning Commission continued the discussion to a Special Meeting on May 2, 2022. At this meeting the Planning Commission will continue their discussion including review of:
• The Land Use Element;
• The Community Design Element; and
• The Final EIR.

Once these discussions are complete, and the Planning Commission makes their recommendation, the process will continue with consideration by Town Council of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR, including consideration of recommendations from the GPAC and Planning Commission, and additional comments from the public.

EXHIBITS:

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

1. Draft 2040 General Plan

2. Draft EIR

3. Revised NOA and Transportation section

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

5. Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles

7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment

8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes

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

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

11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022

PAGE 5 OF 5
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 29, 2022
REMARKS (continued):

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 previously received with the April 25, 2022 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 previously received with the April 27, 2022 Desk Item:

17. Planning Commissioner Comments

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: 5/2/2022
ITEM NO: 1

DESK ITEM
DATE: May 2, 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 18 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 29, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, May 2, 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

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: May 2, 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
REMARKS (continued):

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 previously received with the April 25, 2022 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 previously received with the April 27, 2022 Desk Item:

17. Planning Commissioner Comments
Exhibit received with this Desk Item:

18. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 29, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, May 2, 2022

EXHIBIT 18
From: Lee Fagot
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Planning
Cc: Joel Paulson; Jennifer Armer; Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Please post for Planning Commission to review.

Melanie, Jeff, Kylie, Katheryn, Steve, Reza and Emily,
Thank you, Commissioners and Town Staff, for the commitment to both the process and the final product you are working on for our Community. The long, and LATE, hours you are all putting in is appreciated, as well as the discussions where you each listen to the other’s views on issues and work to find compromise - true democracy.

Following last night’s (5/28) discussion on changes being proposed to the Density Ranges to achieve the Targeted Housing Element numbers, plus the decade following, a few suggestions:
• When considering changes to the Density Range in the proposed numbers, by Land Use Designations (Pg 182, of Draft 2040GP and Final EIR), please also link the Maximum Height because this too will have a significant impact on the sites being considered. For example, with no units in the Public, Open Space or Agriculture, why change the Max Height from 0 to 30 or 35 feet. Leave at 0, please, to demonstrate consistency.
• And, in Low Density, Medium and High Density Residential Designations, the Draft proposal is more than doubling the Density Range. Please continue to review, keep the densities as close to the current Range to realize the goals (more on goals below) and do NOT increase the Heights in those sites, as the Draft indicates, going up by 50% to 45Ft., just in Hight Density, for example. That truly changes the character of these "sights and sites" to change the character of our Town, in a negative way. We do not want tenements or row houses as you see in metro areas of our Eastern US cities. "Row" housing is not a good solution. I lived in one once…NO THANK YOU. I could not tell the difference between my street and the next two on the same block.
• Increasing some housing in Mixed Use makes sense, but not at 45 ft heights. Just 35ft. • Limit Office Professional to 30 unites and Service Professional could move the Density Range to 20 unites per acre from 0, but no more as you pursue the real target for the 20 year plan. • Please stay focused on the goal of 1993 (next RHNA allocation starting next year), plus a 10% buffer and recognize that the number can be adjusted when the 5 year reviews are done in our General Plan. Trying to forecast 20 years of housing and speculating (guessing) what Sacramento and ABAG ( in the next cycle) will demand of us, is far too risky. Remember, too, that developers will then be able to build “by right and without local control” if the Town adopts targets that go beyond reasonable expectations of REAL town growth/demand or to appeal to current reasonable developers. Note that we are seeing declining populations, an aging in place populations and NOT just because of land costs, but folks preference for other lifestyles (less marriages, children, etc), town character and scenery.
• The current average residents per housing unit is 2.4 folks, and the significant population increase projected with the far too aggressive housing unit proposals will have a deleterious effect on VHT, infrastructure, cost to Town Budget, etc. Lets be realistic and focus accordingly.

• Remember why folks moved here, and why they want to stay. This is a pleasant and accommodating community. Lets be accommodating, but do NOT change the real ambiance and character of Los Gatos
Thank you, and keep up your good work for all of us.

Lee Fagot, resident for more than 26 years.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 19

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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: As you might note on the agenda,
this meeting is a special meeting of the Planning
Commission, and what we are trying to accomplish tonight is to hopefully complete our review and recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan as well as the Final EIR that goes with the General Plan.

We had our first meeting to consider the General
Plan and any changes that we wanted to make on Wednesday, April 13th, and then we continued to a second meeting on Monday, April 25th, and now we are at the point where we still have things to cover to complete our review of the General Plan, but hopefully we’ll be able to do that this evening, and I will turn it over to Staff for their Staff Report.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Good evening,
Planning Commissioners. Tonight we will continue
consideration of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report.

As the Chair just stated, on April 13th the
Planning Commission received public comment and began their discussion of the Draft General Plan. They also closed the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
public comment of this item at that time, though we have continued to receive written comments. That discussion and consideration continued at meetings on April 25th and 27th.

The discussion has been using as a primary guide
Exhibit 7 to the April 13th Planning Commission Staff
Report, which provides a summary of some of the recommended changes that were received in all of the public comments.

We’ve made it through most of the elements of the
General Plan thus far, but tonight we will pick up with the Community Design Element, the Final EIR, and potentially final discussion of housing numbers in the Land Use
Element.

There was a Desk Item today with some additional
public comment received after 11:00 o’clock on Friday.

This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be
happy to answer any questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Staff. Do any
Commissioners have questions for Staff at this time? You will have additional opportunities to ask questions of
Staff during our discussion.

And I did want to thank Staff for reminding me
that we actually had a third meeting where we continued the discussion of the General Plan to our regular meeting of last Wednesday, April 27th, and so as stated we do need to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
cover the Community Design Element, the Final EIR, and then complete our discussion of the Land Use Element, and in particular the build numbers for the General Plan.

What I’ve decided to do in the interest of trying
to get things complete is we will start with our review of the Community Design Element, then we will take questions and comments on the Final EIR, and then we will go to the numbers regarding the Land Use Element, because that was what took the most time in our last couple of meetings.

With that in mind, what I’d to do is to start, as
we did with the other elements, with Exhibit 7, and in
Exhibit 7, for the benefit of everyone who is watching as well, is a summary from Staff of all comments received from the time that the Draft General Plan was released until the April 13th meeting, and then Staff weighed in and summarized those comments and stated whether they were neutral to
them, whether they recommended that we include them, or not recommended because it might not have made sense for the General Plan. They’ve done that as well for the Community Design Element and it starts on page 222 of your April 13th packet, and then there are comments from number 41 to
number 55.

What we did in our past discussion of elements
was we’ve asked Commissioners to raise their hand and talk

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
about any changes of any of the items that might be
included that they would like to go along with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to Town Council, and if you had any of your own comments or recommendations as well, that’s fine. So we’ll start with that and see if any Commissioners have items in the recommended changes in Exhibit 7 to
recommend incorporating for the Town Council’s
consideration.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Just to get
things started here I wanted to ask a question of
Commissioner Thomas, or anyone else on the Commission who has knowledge, regarding numbers 43, 48, and 50. These
three ask that we incorporate with native noninvasive or non-fire prone plant species. The topic of plants came up before and I just wanted to seek the opinion of our expert Commissioner as to whether those are acceptable changes? CHAIR HANSSEN: So, Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I do think that
the only problem that I see with these descriptors is that I do think that another completely acceptable type of tree to plant in new developments is fruit trees or other edible tree types, so that’s the only thing. I think that native noninvasive or non-fire prone are all very appropriate, and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
I think that covers enough that it would allow for
sustainability. I do think that we should also be
encouraging planting trees that grow food that people can eat, so that was the only thing when I read through that, how I felt.

Then for number 50, were you just wanting to ask
my opinion about (inaudible)? It doesn’t have to do with the trees, right?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yeah, 53, not 50.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Oh, 53, right, because that
one also had that. Yes, so that is what I have to say, but it looks like Vice Chair Barnett also has something to say about that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you very much. I
wonder if we could have some wisdom from the Public Works Staff about the wisdom of 43, 48, and 53. I had some
questions about whether that would be too limiting.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Unfortunately, Parks
and Public Works Staff has not been able to join us yet, so as we go through the discussion if Mr. Kim is able to join, then I will let you know. The other caveat would at this point, again, we’re just making a recommendation, so even if we don’t have Parks and Public Works Staff, we can

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
always forward that recommendation and they can provide additional input for Council’s consideration if they’re concerned.

JENNIFER ARMER: I will add that at least on one
of these it says, “if feasible,” so that leaves some
flexibility for situations where it is deemed not
appropriate, not feasible.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I may, I was asking for
clarification so I could start down the list, but if
Commissioner Thomas or others have anything to add, that will be good.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I think that
also I agree that we shouldn’t make anything too limiting, but I like the aspiration, and it does say neutral next to two of them and then nothing, so I’m assuming that one was neutral too on number 53 from Staff, so that makes me feel more comfortable that they were neutral on that and not opposed to it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Before you start down that path I
did want to make a comment on a couple of things just in case you didn’t know the background.

Number 41 was a suggestion from one of the
General Plan Update Advisory Committee members to change

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
the name of Community Place Districts to Community Growth Districts, because that really was the intent, to make them into growth districts, but the comment came in late and there wasn’t time for the Housing Element Advisory Board to discuss that particular item, I don’t believe, but that was a recommendation from one of the General Plan Update
Advisory Committee members, but we did vote on using
Community Place District during the process.

Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: I was going to add a bit of my
memory of how that discussion of the proposed change to the Community Place Districts names went. This was a suggestion that was part of the discussion, and I believe in the end the consensus was to not make this change, because some of these places might grow. There might be some initial
redevelopment, but a term like “growth” might not actually apply to the district in the future once it has had that redevelopment, and so using a term like “place” was
something that the GPAC as a whole was supportive of and so decided to stay with it, but that Committee Member was
encouraged to share the idea so that it could be considered by other bodies.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that further
clarification, because we had 35 meetings and I had

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
forgotten exactly what we had decided. But I only wanted to bring it up because a GPAC member brought it up, and my personal opinion was not to include it. Normally we
wouldn’t discuss it, but because that particular GPAC
member felt really strongly about it I wanted to make sure we heard the thoughts on it.

I also wanted to make a comment that there were a
couple of requested additions from the people that have been really advocating for the dark sky, and I just wanted to bring up a point that I thought the Planning Commission should consider, that when the GPAC created the Community Design Element we sat down and talked about the Community Place Districts and trying to create neighborhoods, and so I see a bit of a conflict between the dark sky to protect and also the safety needs of the people in the community.

Some of the recommendations are tending towards
eliminating outdoor lighting, and then there is also the need for safety lighting with the neighborhood, so if
anyone from the Planning Commission wants to recommend
those I would ask you to consider having the language be such that we’re going to be sure to protect safety as well as the needs of the wildlife that we’re protecting with the dark skies. So that was my comment.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
Let’s see, I’ll go back to Commissioner Janoff,
and Commissioner Thomas, did you have more to say? No.

Commissioner Clark, I will go to you.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think it’s Commissioner
Janoff’s turn right now, right?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think Commissioner Janoff is
waiting to make a recommendation, is that correct? If not, then go ahead.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s correct. I was
planning to walk through these.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay. I’ll just make a
couple of comments on what we’ve discussed so far.

I like the idea to add fruit trees to 43, 48, and
53, and I also share that same concern as you, Chair
Hanssen, about the lighting being kind of conflicting with public safety, and I think especially as a woman that’s something that I think is very important. I’m not sure how we could alter it to make sure it still includes safety, because, for example, it says, “Turning off lights after activity hours,” in number 47, and we don’t want all lights off after activity hours, so I would be curious if there are any ideas for how to incorporate that, because people were very in favor of the night skies policies.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see if anyone has comments.

Commissioner Thomas has her hand up.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I did just have one more
comment that I think would be helpful to go over for the group, because I know that we had a lot of discussion as the GPAC about the difference between should and shall, and there was a recommended change for number 44, so
Commissioner Janoff, when you get to that one if you want to discuss that there or whatnot, but just a quick overview of the difference between those for the group so we’re all on the same page I think is important, because that comes up a couple of times in some of the language of these.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up.

Any other comments on that? I don’t see anyone with their hand up. We can see where Commissioner Janoff is going with recommendations, and reminding ourselves that the goal is to identify things that should be included. With the other elements we definitely had items that we didn’t include, because it might already be covered adequately in the
General Plan, but sometimes when the comments come in the people want to put emphasis on it, but it’s usually
addressed in the General Plan somewhere, but the question is how it’s worded.

So, Commissioner Janoff.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was going to just walk
through those that I would recommend including, but I did want to comment on Community Place.

I’m in favor of Community Place, because we
talked long and hard in the GPAC meetings about place
making and the importance of creating that element of
welcome, and so the word “place” took on sort of a new
meaning for me, so I would not make a change to that.

Numbers 43, 48, and 53, which are related as we
discussed, I would advocate that we say yes, and we could add fruit trees.

Number 44, 46, and 50 are all related to
lighting. Forty-four to me got convoluted in the edits. We get the idea, but I would say safety is a definite issue on that one, so I would not be in favor of 44.

I don’t know enough about the dark skies. We did
talk a lot about wanting to reduce the illumination at
night, particularly in the hillsides, so I’m neutral around 46 and 50.

I would say yes to 51, although it might be too
much of a detail, a question for Staff. I’m in favor of the concept, whether they want to put that level of detail in here or not might not be appropriate, especially if things change, if we have a different correlated color temperature

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
chart or something other metric that comes into play in another 20 years.

Number 54, possibly, but I think we’ve got
implementation plans regarding (inaudible) connections; we talked a lot about that at our meeting last time.

And number 55, I don't know how that would impact
the Town, given that there is a fiscal impact, the Mills Act, with regard to tax credits. I don't know whether that will be something the Town could implement or whether that needs to be at a higher level that we don’t really control that property tax.

So that’s what I have. In summary, it’s 43, 48,
and 53, possibly the dark sky lighting, and possibly number

54. CHAIR HANSSEN: And you said 51 as well. I also
wanted to hear what Staff’s thoughts were, because one of the things that we try to do with the GPAC is to keep the General Plan general, and stating that it has to be below 3,000 kelvin is very specific, and as Commissioner Janoff noted, it might be that five or ten years from now what defines low voltage lighting is different than it is now, so I wondered if Staff had a thought? You said you were neutral.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. We are neutral on
this one, but as you said, the General Plan is intended to be general; these are policies. It could be that this sort of consideration of what light level limitations we should have might be more appropriate as part of some guidelines or other documents for implementation.

One concern with something like this that gets
this specific if making sure that the Town has the
appropriate equipment to judge this when somebody complains about lighting and we need to go an verify that the
lighting is appropriate, so those are some initial Staff thoughts. It looks like Director Paulson has some
additional thoughts.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Ms. Armer. I can’t
remember which element, but one of the implementation
programs is to consider a dark sky ordinance, so this is the type of thing that could have something more specific like this, or something a little more specific and then gets translated into another policy document or guideline document, as Ms. Armer mentioned. I think a lot of the dark sky stuff the Commission has talked about we do have an implementation program to address that, so I’m not sure

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
it’s necessary to get to that level of detail, but again, it’s up to the Planning Commission.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I had
forgotten that we had recommended an implementation
program. If we have an implementation program and it
becomes an ordinance, that obviously carries a lot more weight than a policy in the General Plan that doesn’t turn into an ordinance.

Let me see what Commissioner Raspe has to say on
this.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I just
wanted to voice my support. I concur with all of
Commissioner Janoff’s recommendations as modified with
Commissioner Thomas’ language regarding fruit-bearing
trees, and I just wanted to add a little bit more emphasis with respect to number 55 that is the Mills Act.

It’s clear that the Town of Los Gatos generally
and through its General Plan dispersion is placing great emphasis on its historic resources, and while I understand that there could be tax implications, it seems to me that the Mills Act could be ideally suited towards this Town and its stated objectives, preserving those resources, so I would encourage the Planning Commission to forward a
recommendation to Council either through a policy or

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
implementation program to strongly consider adoption of a Mills Act scenario for our town. Thanks.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I would support that
as well, although I would recommend an implementation
program to study adoption of the Mills Act so we understand what it is, how it would impact us, presumably
beneficially, and then implement if that were warranted.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And you got a thumbs up from
Commissioner Raspe, so I think as long as it’s covered.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree about
adding 43, 48, and 53 and including fruit trees, and I like the idea to add 55, as in studying the adoption of the
Mills Act.

Then I wanted to see if anybody has thoughts on
49, because for me I thought that maybe it could be good to add that policy, but then I also felt like the description of the policy as actually just a definition of sensitive natural communities rather than a policy action, and I was curious if any Planning Commissioner had thoughts on that one.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that I like the
idea and intent behind it, but I also then thought is this already covered in the Environmental and Sustainability Element? So I could go either way, and I agree it’s really like a policy, so I don't know. I would like to hear what other people have to say.

I also would say that it’s like I don't know the
technical language, but for 43, 48, and 53 I would like it to be not just fruit producing trees, but like edible or any food producing trees, like nut trees and things like that that are more generic. Just food producing trees,
maybe that’s the term, but Staff I’m sure can figure it out. So yeah, I am interested in what other people have to say about 49.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was hoping Staff might comment
on 49. I would remind all the Commissioners that this is the Community Design Element. It doesn’t talk about how you would incorporate protecting sensitive communities in your community design, and so then I’m not sure that it would be that helpful in this part of the General Plan, but I wanted to ask Staff to what extent… Because we did go over
environmental sustainability before, but I don’t recall what policies we might have had, so Staff, could you help on this?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I can search through
and see what we can find. One difficulty in finding
something that’s exactly this is we might have used a
different term that gets at the same idea of protecting sensitive natural communities, and we definitely do in the Environment section. That element definitely gets into
those types of topics, but it might be in different ways.

I do agree that it seems more connected with that
topic rather than community design. One thought, if the Commission is interested in including this here is that it could be a definition combined with a policy that just
states that we preserve sensitive natural communities.

Rather than having all of that text in the policy, it could be broken into those two.

But I will see if I can find some specific
references in the General Plan under these terms or others, and I’ll let you know if I find something.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I do recall over our 35 meetings
that I did have a conversation with Commissioner Thomas about we wanted to incorporate some concepts of
sustainability to make sure that it was in this Community Design Element, but then as we were going through it there was this push and pull between whether or not it’s too much detail and is it going to be contrary to some things in the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
Environment and Sustainability Element, so we did keep it very, very general in the Community Design Element.

I did want to put that out there that although it
sometimes is good to repeat the things in the different elements, if it is covered in the Environment and
Sustainability Element that probably takes priority and you would want to consider the environment and sustainability in your Community Design anyway, because that’s part of the General Plan.

Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. On 46 and 50
there’s a reference to this model, more ordinance, of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, and
while I couldn’t find that document online it did appear to be 40 pages, and that means to me that it’s far more
detailed than we want in the General Plan.

Then I support 55, as other Commissioners have
said.

As to 49, to me it just seems like it is
commentary; there’s no substance that’s added to the
General Plan, so I would be against that one.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Director
Paulson

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Just to that point on
49, in the Environment and Sustainability Element there are a number of policies and implementation programs related to special status species, retaining natural conditions, and habitat and movement corridors, so there are a lot of other policies in that element that do cover this topic.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Director
Paulson. My personal advice, although it is the
recommendation of this entire Commission, would be to keep it simple in the Community Design Element and have more details on that subject in the Environment and
Sustainability Element.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would agree. I think also
including this here, which is a section of really the
hillside development, clearly we’ve got that interest in the hillside probably throughout the plan, but it also
would apply to other areas in Town, so I would be against including it there.

And if we’ve got enough coverage in the
Environment and Sustainability Element, and I think we’ve got it in spades as written, I agree with Vice Chair
Barnett that it’s a statement without anything under it if

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
it were a policy, and then the balance of the statement that is in quotes is actually a definition.

So we kind of have a mix here. I think we’re in
favor of the general concept, but this isn’t the place for it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just have one
thing to add to these comments, and I had accidently
brought it up during the Land Use Element, but adding the definition of “rafters” to key terms.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Refresh my memory. Did we agree
to do that?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: No, because I immediately
retracted the comment.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, because you were going to
bring it up again in Community Design.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, because rafters are
referenced in the definition of eave, and then there’s not a definition of rafters, so I thought it could be
beneficial to add that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Let’s see if anyone else
had comments on that. Vice Chair Barnett.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I was remiss in not bringing
up 54. I have concerns about whether that’s invading
private property rights. Maybe Mr. Schultz could comment on that. There may be safety or other reasons that the Water District would not want people trespassing on this
property.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’m sorry, can you repeat your
question again?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Number 54.

JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Schultz, this is in Exhibit 7,
and it’s basically asking that, “New trail connections on or open to Valley Water property must be open to the
general public and permitted by Valley Water.”
JENNIFER ARMER: And I’ll add that this was a
suggestion based on a comment from Valley Water. In general I would say that that’s the type of thing that would be part of the project consultation in terms of the conditions that Valley Water would place on that, but the question was directed to the Town Attorney, so I’ll pass it on to him.

ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, I agree, it should be on a
case-by-case basis. There might be times when it might be appropriate to do that type of dedication or require that in a condition of approval, and there might be other times

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
where it might not be appropriate, so I wouldn’t want it to be a shall or a mandatory condition or policy.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff. I feel in the
Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element, without having it open in front of me to look at the policies, that we had plenty of policies that encourage connections of trails and open up private trails. I felt like we covered that in many ways in the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element, but again, I don’t have it open in front of me, so I’m not sure if that would be beneficial in the Community Design
Element, unless it’s just a general statement.

JENNIFER ARMER: So CD-11.6, which is the policy
that this comment is suggesting you modify, states,
“Require development that is adjacent to Los Gatos Creek Trail to provide secondary access to the trail.” Valley Water’s comment is that if there is access being provided to the public trail, that that needs to be public access, because it is access to a public trail, that they don’t want access from private property that is only open to the users of that private property is my understanding of the comment. So the policy is already there to say that there should be additional connections to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The recommendation from Valley Water, as I

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
understand it, is to modify that policy to clarify that any new connections would need to be open to the public.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And further permitted by Valley
Water.

JENNIFER ARMER: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: There was a checkpoint in there.

JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: If you wanted to do that, you had
to get it okayed with them.

JENNIFER ARMER: Right. We might say require, but
there are certain additional permits that would be required to make that possible.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Well then, that sheds a different
light on it.

Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Reading the actual thing,
it does say, “Require development that is adjacent to Los Gatos Creek Trail to provide secondary access to the
trail.” I don't know if we could just add, “to the public,” like if that would satisfy, or if we’re not allowed to say required to the public.

JOEL PAULSON: I’ll just use one example. We have
the Aventino Apartments, for instance. Obviously they don’t have public access from the creek trail into their

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
apartment community, so that did have a gate there. I’m not sure how much development like that we’ll really see along the creek trail, frankly. I think the policy as written in the draft plan provides enough flexibility that we would work through those details. If it happened to be adjacent to Valley Water property with the developer of that site when it came through, then we would have that conversation with them anyhow.

A lot of the creek trail, and depending on where
you’re at, some of that creek trail might be in Valley
Water ownership, and so I think they’re trying to make sure that we at least go through that step, which we could just as a matter of course, so that would be a conversation we would have anyhow.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, that makes sense. Let’s
see, I’m not sure who was first. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: In light of the
conversation perhaps we can modify the existing 11.6, just insert the word “public” between secondary and access, so it’s clear that it’s a public access, not just for the
benefit of the development, should there be one. And then of course as Director Paulson said, Staff will go through the normal checks and permitting should that be warranted.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Commissioner Janoff.

I know it wasn’t suggested by 54, but is perhaps the word “require” too strong? If there are that many checkpoints that we have to consider, it sounds like there’s going to be a feasibility issue. We didn’t discuss it this way
during the GPAC, but thinking about it now, I wonder if “required” might be too strong in 11.6.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m actually comfortable
with the word “require” because it sends a really clear message for the developers that this is an expectation to provide access to nature, so I would have no objections to the way it’s written and insert the word “public” if that’s more clarifying.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, and then leave it to Staff
to deal with Valley Water if it’s accessing their property.

I think that would work for me. I just wanted to ask that question.

Let’s see, are there other comments?
Before Commissioner Janoff turns this into a
motion I did want to say one more thing on 46 and 50, which are essentially saying the same thing. They’re about
referencing the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America’s lighting ordinance. I thought we were going
there, but I just wanted to say that I don’t think we need

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
to add those to the General Plan if we have an
implementation program to look at an ordinance. I don't know if we sealed that off or got there yet, but it wasn’t in your list of things to add, Commissioner Janoff. I just want to make sure we were okay with that.

So do you want to go ahead and make a motion,
Commissioner Janoff?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I will move that we accept
numbers 43, 48, and 53, with the language that adds to the insert edible tree… Staff can find a good way to say that, but we know what Commissioner Thomas is suggesting, and it’s a good suggestion. And we are adding number 55 as an implementation program to evaluate or to study the Mills Act and its impact on the Town.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And on number 54 you wanted to
add the word “public”?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, to the existing…
CHAIR HANSSEN: To the existing 11.6 policy in
the Community Design Element.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just am going through. I
think that’s it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then it looks like
Commissioner Thomas had her hand up. Are you seconding? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I second, yeah.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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: Okay, great. Commissioner Clark,
you had your hand up. Is it about seconding, or did you have comments before we take a vote?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I wanted to ask about adding
the definition of “rafters” to key terms.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, and add the definition
of “rafters” to key terms.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And does the seconder of the
motion agree to that addition?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And thank you, Commissioner
Clark, for reminding us of that so we didn’t forget. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion by Commissioners before we take a vote? Okay, we’re going to do a roll call vote, and please answer yes, no, or
abstain. I will start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well.

As we had done with the other elements, this is a
progress vote. What really has to happen at the end of this process is we have to make a recommendation to vote to
accept the entire General Plan with all of the recommended changes, but this at least puts a stake in the ground for each one of the elements to help us through the process so that it’s not unwieldy when we get to the end of the
process.

That is all of the elements with the exception of
the build numbers for the land use, so we will now turn our attention to the Final EIR, and there are a number of
Commissioners that haven’t been with us while we’ve had to review an EIR, and this is a different kind of EIR than we might hear about from a project, so I wanted to ask Staff to give us some guidance and feedback on how we should be considering the Final EIR in our recommendation.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. The next part
of our discussion is a discussion of the Final EIR, which incorporates the Draft EIR, the modified sections, and all

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
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
of the findings that have been provided to you as part of your packet for the April 13th meeting.

So this is a program EIR, which is a different
kind of analysis than a project-level EIR, which you’ll see more often. Future projects that come in under this are going to need to go through project-level analysis as well.

As with any EIR, this isn’t solving existing problems, it’s looking at baseline and then it looks at what the program might create and proposes mitigation for those items. It’s very common with a program EIR for an update to a General Plan for there to be unavoidable impacts, as we have in this case, and in fact, that’s been true for at least the last few General Plan updates that the Town of Los Gatos has had.

One thing to keep in mind when considering this
document is it is an informational document, so it’s the Town’s document. The Town Staff, including the Town
Attorney as well as the Town’s consultants, environmental consultants, and experts have worked on this document and we do believe that it is legally adequate pursuant to CEQA.

This discussion tonight is not intended for
changing anything in the EIR. It really is more focused on answering questions and providing clarifications. Since this is an informational document, it’s intended to support