Los Gatos City Council
June 20, 2022

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
your consideration of the proposed project, the proposed program, and so once we’ve talked through and answered any questions that the Planning Commission might have, the next step in terms of the EIR is going to be part of your motion on the Draft 2040 General Plan. It would be a combined
motion on the Draft 2040 General Plan along with a
recommendation on the certification of the Final EIR, so there’s no need to worry about the findings of fact; that’s all part of that motion. That would all be included in your recommendation on the Final EIR, since that includes all of those documents.

That’s my presentation, but we are here and happy
to answer any questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Before I go to the Commissioners,
it also includes, does it not, the Statement of Overriding Considerations?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, and the final decision
of course is made by Town Council, but your recommendation to Town Council on the Final EIR does not need to be any more detailed than that. It really can just be a
recommendation on the Final EIR. It includes all of those components.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Just playing devil’s advocate, a
question for Staff before I go to the Commissioners. If

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
there were a reason to not certify the EIR, what would it be?
JENNIFER ARMER: If there was a concern that it
was done adequately, that it didn’t meet the requirements of CEQA, that there was some recirculation. In this case, as we were working through the review after the circulation of the Draft EIR we actually did determine that there was some additional information that was mislabeled and some things that needed to be clarified and decided that because of those it was prudent and required, based on the CEQA regulations, that we put the notice out again and
recirculate the appropriate sections, and so that’s the sort of thing that might trigger the Planning Commission to not recommend certification.

But hopefully at this point Staff and our
consultant, our experts, do believe that this is in
compliance with CEQA and so we are recommending
certification.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that excellent
Staff Report; we appreciate that. And to remind the
Commission that at this point in time we’re not going to be making a motion on the EIR, we’re going to just take
comments and questions that you might have before we get to the motion on the entire General Plan at the very end, but

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
this would be the time to ask those questions so that we don’t have a prolonged discussion when we’re trying to make the final motion.

Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. First of
all, thank you to Staff for your efforts in providing this exhaustive review and document. It’s impressive to go
through it, the various iterations and all the work that went into it.

Generalized discussion or thoughts. I noticed
that in our EIR both greenhouse gas emissions and traffic are identified as significant, unavoidable impacts for
which there is no mitigation, and I just wanted to get
Staff or our consultant’s thoughts if that’s typical for a General Plan. I understand a General Plan by definition in generalizing; we can’t foresee everything. I just wanted to hear their thoughts on these two impacts and how we’re
dealing with it in the EIR. Thank you.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner, a very
good and helpful question for this discussion.

So yes, there are significant unavoidable impacts
for vehicle miles traveled, for greenhouse gases, and
traffic or transportation impacts and greenhouse gas
impacts. That’s pretty common for a community like Los

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Gatos, so because this project does involve additional
housing it also means that you’re going to have increased trips, because we don’t have the transit facilities that you could, say, cluster housing around and therefore reduce trips.

However, I will point out as is discussed in the
Final EIR, the proposed locations for housing, the
greenhouse gas impacts, and the vehicle miles traveled
impacts are actually lower than the current rates for the community overall. So while there is an overall increase and there isn’t a way without high-speed transit for the Town to fully mitigate those increases, it’s actually
increasing at a lower rate than previous development in Town.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: If I could ask one follow up
question. Thank you.

It’s also my understanding that while both VMTs
and gas emissions are dealt with generally in this, to the extent there are specific projects that come into Town, those may also require additional different CEQA analysis as well and we may as a Town deal with those projects
individually both with respect to gas emissions and
traffic, that’s correct?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: So yes, there would be
environmental review for those. One of the goals of this General Plan and its EIR is to do a community-wide analysis of things like greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled, which is a very difficult thing to address at the project level when you have a single project. It’s really much more a community-wide or even region-wide type of issue, and so being able to do this analysis at this level and include in it these mitigation measures that then would be applied at the project level is generally the direction that we were working towards with this analysis.

So in terms of vehicle miles traveled impacts it
may be that if something is compliant with the General
Plan, as long as they are following the mitigation measures that are included in the EIR, that it may be a project
level to a certain extent would actually be covered by this analysis.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks for your response.

It’s very helpful.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That was a very good question. Do
other Commissioners have questions or comments on the EIR? For those of you that are relatively new to EIRs, in the Final EIR there is opportunity for public comment, and as Ms. Armer stated, this was circulated twice, so there have

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
been multiple opportunities for public comment. Then when the public comments come in Staff does respond to each and every comment as to whether there is any resolution needed for that comment, so if questions came up during that
process Staff has answered them all and those responses are noted in the Final EIR. However, if you have questions
about any of that, this would be a good time to bring that up.

Let’s see, Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, thank you. Since you
invited comments rather than questions, I have a couple to make.

First, I wanted to thank Staff for an incredible
job on that project, which is a tremendous piece of work to undertake and to revise over the years. I appreciate the comments from Mr. Schultz today regarding the sufficiency of the General Plan in response to the public comment about the CEQA requirements not being met, and I also understand that an attorney retained by the consultant came to the same conclusion. I also found that the Staff’s responses to the public comments were well founded and convincing. Thank you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Thank you for those
comments. Do other Commissioners have questions or comments on the EIR?
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’d just like to echo what
Vice Chair Barnett said, and in summary would be supportive of certifying this Final EIR.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. And I would echo,
especially in the case of there have been some very vocal comments and critical comments on the whole General Plan process that came in over time, which is everyone’s right, but Staff did an excellent job of responding to all of the questions and what action could or couldn’t be taken, so I feel comfortable with being able to recommend certification of the Draft EIR.

I think Staff’s comments were particularly
helpful in the area of talking about program level EIRs versus specific project EIRs, so that when supposing
there’s a 100-unit building that comes down the road after the General Plan is adopted, then if it meets the
requirements for a CEQA analysis, then a CEQA analysis will be conducted on that project, so it’s not the only time that the traffic and greenhouse gases will be looked at as

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
we go through the process of living through the General Plan.

Let’s see, does anyone else have questions or
comments? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: And again, I join in my
fellow commissioners’ comments. I don’t think we’re making a motion, but are we making a recommendation to Town
Council to certify the EIR?
CHAIR HANSSEN: What we’re going to do is we’re
going to hold off on making any motion on the Final EIR until we’re done discussing the General Plan, which we
haven’t done yet.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Very good. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So we have covered all of the
elements and we took comments on the Final EIR as well. The thing that we have not finished is what we discussed during our last two meetings, which was what kind of
recommendation that the Planning Commission would want to make to Town Council regarding the land use build numbers that are covered in the beginning of the Land Use section.

To refresh everyone’s memory, Staff had a
discussion that starts around page three or four about the Land Use Element and goes through the proposed density
ranges that are in the Draft General Plan looking at the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
20-year timeline versus the more immediate timeline of the Housing Element and what falls in those two categories.

Then further on, on page six of this original
April 13th Staff Report there was a list of possible
reductions that we could consider if we wanted to.

To recap where we were at our last meeting, we
had a motion to make some reductions, but the motion failed because there were people on both sides of the argument about it. It wasn’t enough, or it was too much, and so it was a 3-3 vote.

In thinking about this since our last meeting on
April 27th, one thing that I thought might be helpful would be to try to identify things that we are in agreement with and maybe talk about the specific reductions that Staff presented and see if there is consensus from the Commission to do that before trying to take a motion on the overall number, because I think everyone might have different ideas on some of the elements of that.

I’m looking at the bottom of page six from the
original Staff Report, which says, “Potential reductions in housing development capacity,” and I did want to give
credit to at least one Commissioner who was recommending that we not make any reductions in the capacity to make sure we get the best possible chance of meeting our

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
numbers. With that being said, if it is the will of the Commission to make reductions, we should talk about which ones of these might be acceptable to the Commission.

I want to start out with the one that I thought
we had agreement with, and Staff felt that we did too and it was noted in the Staff Report, which was the third
bullet, which was, “Removing housing from Office and
Service Commercial designations,” and if we were to do
that, according to the modeling that was done, that would reduce the potential increase in housing units by 313
units.

I just want to put that out there. We had talked
about it was a late addition during the GPAC process, and doing more research on it the general feeling was we
weren’t going to get a very big take up on it, and we can also do Mixed-Use. As long as the land use designation is Mixed-Use it is possible to do Office and Residential
together, it just has to be under that land use designation versus Office Commercial.

Does anyone have any concerns about leaving that
change out of the General Plan and not increasing density there? I think everyone is okay with that.

Let’s talk about Low-Density Residential and
Medium-Density Residential. Where the discussion was going

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
on Low-Density Residential and Medium-Density Residential was that there are many people in the community that are very concerned about the potential of SB 9 and ADUs and this General Plan update on increasing densities
significantly in the Low-Density Residential and MediumDensity Residential, and so there are varying opinions about in order to have this missing middle housing we
really need to be able to have some increase in density, and then there are others that don’t want to increase
density at all.

Staff did an analysis for us, and it’s in the
Staff Report for this meeting, in which they talked about if you wanted to be able to have a fourplex and the density level was X for Medium-Density Residential and Low-Density Residential, how many properties would be able to do a
fourplex there? So I hope you all got to see that in the Staff Report, but I thought we ought to maybe have a
discussion about that and see what people are thinking
about reducing the densities that are proposed from what’s in the current Draft General Plan or leaving them the same.

I’ll start with Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you, and thank you,
Staff, for putting together this data; it was very helpful.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I just want to confirm, my takeaway from this
table is that we will not lose missing middle if we were to reduce the density in Low-Density from 12 down to 10 or 8 units per acre, is that a correct interpretation?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner. As we
stated last time, a reduction to 10 would still retain
enough that the missing middle could still be included as a portion. Our main concern is that if you get to the point where it’s less than 10% of the parcels are actually large enough for the fourplex, then that’s getting to be a pretty small amount and it’s not going to be through most of those neighborhoods. It would be in the neighborhoods that have the larger parcels rather than throughout, so it’s
potential, but I think we still would recommend that if we’re going to keep the missing middle in there that a 10 dwelling unit per acre would be the appropriate threshold.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Just a clarifying question on the
table. The way that this is presented, it’s cumulative, so if you start from 5 it’s 3% of parcels, then 7% is 8, and then 12% at 10.

Just to refresh everyone’s memory, including
people who are watching, where the discussion was going was that several Commissioners and the GPAC in having this

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
discussion during that whole process, the missing middle housing was identified as a way to help transition slightly more dense housing into the same neighborhood and still having the same look and feel, and having a very seamless transition, the alternative being doing very High-Density Mixed-Use or just High-Density Residential, which would be many stories, and so this would be a way to create some balance in the community.

Several of the Commissioners were concerned that
if we reduced proposed densities too much in the land use tables that we might not be able to have the discussion of missing middle housing at all, which most of the GPAC felt was essential to the vision of what we were trying to
create going forward with having to add quite a few
additional units.

With that in mind, it comes down to, I guess,
from what I’m hearing in this discussion, that as far as missing middle housing it’s going to be impacted in the Low-Density Residential, and I’m going to ask Staff a
clarifying question. There is really no issue with any of the densities in Medium-Density Residential that would
cause us to take out missing middle housing, is that
correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, that’s correct.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Other comments on if we were to
recommend reducing densities for Low-Density Residential or Medium-Density Residential? What would you recommend and why?
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’d just like to get
clarification on that last question you asked about MediumDensity Residential. You were saying that no density changes would impact the amount of missing middle in the Medium-Density Residential?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I asked the question.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I was assuming because it was
denser to start with that you could still… But on the other hand it does say at the current density only 5% of parcels would be able to do a fourplex, is that correct, Staff? JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct, because a lot
of the Medium-Density Residential properties are small lot properties, so you don’t have as many that are of the size that’s required for that number of units on the property.

It’s actually a lot of these parcels get the increased
density because the lot size is smaller.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. So we really do need
to consider for both Low Density Residential and Medium

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Density Residential if we were not to increase the
densities, then doing missing middle housing in either
would be below the 10% mark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. If it’s okay, can
I make a comment?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’ll just say for
the Medium-Density Residential, I think that it definitely seems like it needs to be increased considering it’s only 5% of lots as is in the 2020 General Plan, and I also think it’s important that we take into account that this is the number of lots for us to be able to build up to four units in the Medium-Density Residential, which I think feels like a pretty palatable number for Medium-Density.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And you didn’t say there’s also
the possibility of triplexes or something more than
fourplexes, but I thought that was a good benchmark that you suggested for us to consider. So the numbers would be different if we looked at different sizes of units, if we were going to have five or six units or three.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen.

When I originally looked at this I thought that although it doesn’t change the number of parcels… Well, I guess it cuts

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
it in half, right? So for Medium-Density Residential I did also think about what just has been said and what we spoke about last time, how it doesn’t mean that necessarily all these parcels will be developed, but giving the Town and individual owners and residents the option in having it spread out through more areas I think is something that I want to make sure that we’re not getting too close to that less than 10% number, because I do think that that just is more limiting and not as flexible for residents in town. So I just wanted to say that when I initially looked at all of these figures, that was my initial reaction.

CHAIR HANSSEN: While the rest of you are
thinking, I would also point out that one of the things that we came to in the last meeting was trying to translate between density and numbers of units, and while this table that is in the Staff Report today gives us an idea of the numbers of units that would qualify for a fourplex, that’s not the same as how many units of reduction if we were to, say, go from maximum of 12 density dwelling units per acre to 10 or to 8 in Low-Density Residential, it’s not going to tell us how many units less of a potential build-out we would have, because it models on to assume how many units would actually convert over, and so even if we pick the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
densities we’re not going to know for sure how many units it will be.

Likewise when we were talking at our previous
meeting and we were talking about trying to reduce a
certain number of units we don’t know what the density
would be until all the calculations get made, so we have to kind of deal with imperfect information regardless of what we do, but my thought in thinking about this since last week is that we should think more about the density,
because we can kind of visualize where and how many we
could do of that kind of housing, and then Staff will have to come up with a number, because if we come up with a
number we don’t know if we’ll be able to have missing
middle housing.

Commissioner Thomas is nodding her head, but do
you have more comments?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I just wanted to add
onto that, I think that that is really important to be
thinking about and it has made this conversation I feel like harder for us to have, because we don’t know what some of the outcomes of the changes will be.

I did actually have a question for Staff. I was
wondering what other Commissioners thought about this. If we decide to change some of the densities or any of the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
numbers essentially in this Land Use Element, does that delay the process of it being forwarded to the Town
Council? Because I feel like we’ve had a really robust
discussion, and I know that our Town Council members listen to what we say and they will get verbatim minutes, so I just don’t want to waste anyone’s time by saying let’s make all these changes and then they’re going to make changes again or revert back in some areas, so I was just wondering how it would affect the timeline or if it doesn’t affect the timeline at all?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner. What I
would say is that this is actually very similar to the
recommendation you received from Town Council on the types of options they wanted to make sure we provided to you for your discussion. You can give Town Staff direction on the types of changes that you’d like to recommend to Town
Council, and then we can provide additional details for Town Council when they consider your recommendation. They will have a summary both of the resulting numbers, but also of the comments that were shared by the Planning Commission for their consideration. I don’t expect that that would delay us getting to Town Council. There are certain
logistical things like public noticing that need to be
done, and so within that time we expect we should be able

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to pull together that additional information to fully
describe what your recommendation is and the implications in terms of numbers.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I just
wanted to make sure that we were not unintentionally
delaying something further, because I know that we’ve been trying very hard to get this to Town Council so that we can get it finalized and really start working on the Housing Element, so thank you. I appreciate that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Before I call on Commissioner
Janoff I was going to state that I didn’t specifically go there when I made my introductory comments, but that it would be our intent, even if we are still divided on some of the issues surrounding the numbers, that we will not continue this to another meeting, that we’ll leave it at that, but it is my hope, and with the additional
information we got in the Staff Report, that we can get closer, because I think there was consensus on a number of things when we had the discussions previously, so we’ll see where we are.

I will go to Commissioner Janoff now.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. In light of this
discussion I would like to offer a recommendation on
bullets one and two with some rationale, because again, I

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
think it’s not a good idea for the Planning Commission to just throw out numbers without having a reason why we want to change those numbers.

We already talked about the Office and
Commercial. In Low-Density I would recommend that we reduce the density from 12 dwelling units per acre to 10. This gets us above the 10% number that Staff is recommending where the missing middle is still a robust part of the
solution set, and that’s of great interest to the GPAC and to me personally, so I would recommend going to 10. In
addition, I would recommend that we go from 24 in MediumDensity down to 18 for similar rationale.

One of the reasons why I’m making this
recommendation for reduction is related to what the Town Attorney provided as guidance, and that is with regard to SB 330 we don’t want to up-zone so far that we don’t have room afterward to say oh no, and we’re stuck. So if we upzone a little bit without going to the maximum, we still have room to grow and we have the five-year review of the Land Use Element, so if we feel that we’re not making the necessary headway, we have the opportunity to bump that up to 12.

I know that Commissioners were eager to see the
General Plan with numbers that didn’t need to change at

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that five-year mark, but I think in light of the comments that we received today, it’s prudent that we have a buffer that we could work from, so those would be my
recommendations for bullets one and two.

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

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I did have a question
actually for Commissioner Janoff. I do agree that I think that changing the Low-Density housing from 12 to 10 seems like that is still a significant increase from where we’re at today in the current General Plan, and I think that it’s good and allows for opportunity and is still above that 10%, but I do think that Medium-Density Residential is
closer to areas where we can end up building more transit and I think that that’s going to end up being places where we would like some more redevelopment and more
walkable/bikeable neighborhoods
I know that Town Staff just put 24, 18, and 12 in
here to show a halfway point, but would you be interested in changing it to like 20 instead of all the way down to 18? Because I feel like decreasing this whole area percent of parcels by half seems like we’re just going to be losing out on a lot of opportunities possibly for redevelopment

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
jumping from 21 to 11, but I am open to hear what people think about that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that comment. I
will go to Vice Chair Barnett, and then Commissioner Clark, and then back to Commissioner Janoff.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’m in support of
Commissioner Janoff’s recommendation. If I could refer to some notes that I made, I can explain my position.

Since our last meeting I’ve given considerable
thought to the comments of my fellow commissioners
regarding the build-out capacity, and I’ve spent a lot of time looking at the numbers and I agree that the reduction from 24 to 18 and 12 to 10 makes a lot of sense. Although we don’t have the precise numbers of the units that will yield from that at this time, I think we can generally find that those are reasonable.

My willingness to include a larger figure at this
time is based on a number of factors, including the
consideration that the RHNA goals include increasing
affordable housing, promoting socio-economic equity, and furthering fair housing, and I think that the ADUs and SB 9s will provide additional housing in the Low-Density
Residential designation.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Finally, it’s just been referred to before, we’re
planning for capacity and not controlling the building, and so for better or worse the actual housing construction
likely will go to very much smaller than the capacity due to the economics of development.

I’d like to give an example. In the 2019
ordinance in the City of Minneapolis that allows duplexes and triplexes on all residential lots, which was cited in the article recommended by Council Member Ristow, only
three triplexes were built in 2020 according to a later article in the same publication.

So I think for all those reasons it makes sense
to come to a reasonable compromise. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for those
comments, and what Vice Chair Barnett was referring to is Vice Mayor Ristow referred an article to us that was
talking about trying to come up with affordable housing and what are some of the dynamics about that, and it was a very helpful article, I think, for all of us in terms of this discussion, so thank you so much for that, Vice Chair.

Then I will go to Commissioner Clark, and then
Commissioner Raspe, and if anyone else wants to speak.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I will just say I
personally would not be in favor of reducing any of these.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
This is how I would feel, but I’m perfectly willing to
compromise and I’m not going to just vote no because I
wouldn’t...

This isn’t my perfect scenario, obviously, but to
me this missing middle housing and these fourplexes are exactly what we are talking about in terms of what can
satisfy our housing needs without dramatically increasing traffic and without changing the character of our Town, and so to me it doesn’t feel like it makes a lot of sense to reduce these opportunities, especially things like if these are able to be spread throughout Town in these areas, then that would ease traffic a lot rather than just us putting all of our housing on Los Gatos Boulevard or something like that.

Then also segregation is very real, and a lot of
times affordable housing ends up in the same area and towns can become very segregated. We’ve seen this in other
communities in our area and so I think that this housing is also a really good solution for dispersing it.

I completely understand the wanting to appease
some of the community members and make it clear that we’ve been hearing their concerns, but I especially think in the Medium-Density Residential cutting that number in half
doesn’t make sense to me. I think that in particular, like

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Commissioner Thomas said, that is probably closer to
transportation and where we could build more transportation and I would prefer to leave that where it is, because
fourplexes in Medium-Density Residential I think make
particular sense to me.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for your
comments, Commissioner Clark. Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. First I
wanted to thank Staff for preparing these numbers. They’re extraordinarily helpful, and I know we gave them very
little time to prepare them, so thank you again for
hopefully not working on the weekend, but pulling all these together. Random thoughts in no particular order.

First, I join Commissioner Clark in her comments.

I was surprised that the current allocation of parcels in Medium-Density areas that were able to handle fourplexes was only 5%. In my mind’s eye it seems to me that missing middle and fourplexes specifically are a perfect fit for Medium-Density, so I was really surprised that it is only currently 5%, and so I support an increase in those areas, and I can be discussed either way as to whether that should go to the entire GPAC number or some lower number thereof.

On lower-density housing, I think my previous
position was I was hoping to hold close to the bottom on

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
those, but again, this report is very helpful. Currently only 3% of our parcels would support missing middle, and it seems to me that that’s a number that can be raised and we can still maintain the integrity of the look and feel of Los Gatos that so many of our residents voiced during their comments, and so I would be willing to come up from that 3% number.

Commissioner Janoff proposes 10%. I’m a little
bit more comfortable with 8% as the figure just because of the SB 9 situation. I think that there is a potential for lot splitting. I think there may be more development in that area than we’re currently aware of.

Then taking into account the SB 330 discussion,
I’m leaning towards keeping that at the lower number, but it seems to me that Commissioners are coming towards a
consensus, and if there’s a consensus in that discretion I remain flexible and my mind is opened, so I’m happy for this discussion.

Again, thank you, Staff, for providing this
material for us. I think it really has helped us move the ball forward on this one.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Raspe. That was very helpful. Commissioner Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I get clarification
from Commissioner Raspe? When you say the lower number, what numbers were you specifically referring to that you are most comfortable with?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: With respect to Low-Density
or Medium-Density?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, I feel like for LowDensity you referred to 10.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: For Low-Density my
inclination before the meeting tonight was for 8, and I still feel that that would be a useful number, again
considering that we have SB 9 to also add numbers in those areas, and SB 330 is kind of a backdrop that there could be problems in up-zoning as opposed to down-zoning and we’ll revisit every five years.

On the Medium-Density, I think I like your
suggestion. It seems like there’s a large chasm between the percentage of parcels, 11% and 21%. I wouldn’t mind seeing a discussion maybe in between those two ranges, because again, in my mind’s eye Medium-Density is the perfect fit for missing middle.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree. Thank you for
clarifying. I think also what has helped me is looking at the land use diagram, figure 36 in the Draft General Plan,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but looking at it, that Medium-Density Residential is
concentrated along Los Gatos Boulevard near the Highway 9 intersection into downtown and then downtown, and actually a lot of that is some historic overlay zones, which I think a lot of those parcels look small, but I think that that also offers additional protection in the sense of
maintaining the character of the Town, and I think that it’s also in areas that have very strong neighborhood feels already, and so I really think that it does provide us with a lot of opportunities to retrofit and change things into duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes but really maintain the integrity and Town character that is really important to people, so that’s one of the reasons why I felt like reducing all the way down to 18% seemed like a really big jump, like we might be missing some opportunities there.

I just again want to emphasize what Vice Chair
Barnett just said, that just because the number of parcels are available, only a small fraction of those are actually going to get developed, so for me personally, like
Commissioner Clark said, I want to come to a consensus and I want to vote with the group and be supportive as a
Commission with a recommendation moving forward, but my gut is still telling me that we be able to provide property owners with the opportunities to be able to do this.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I know that the down-zoning is not an option in
the future, but it just still seems like we need to be
providing options instead of limiting options, so that’s my main concern.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Thomas.

I was just going to make a few comments. I love
where this discussion is going, because it sounds like
we’re kind of gelling on some sort of consensus.

After thinking it over since last week and
listening to the discussion tonight, during last week’s discussion I was in the camp of making some reductions but not eliminating any categories, and the reason I gave for it, and I’ll give again, is that I think as we were talking during the whole GPAC process that we don’t want to
concentrate affordable housing in just one part of town, and the early things we’ve been seeing with the Housing Element with our inventory, for many, many reasons it turns out that a very large number of the sites that have
potential for affordable housing are going to be on Los Gatos Boulevard.

However, those are not Low-Density Residential
converting to a four-unit fourplex. We’re talking about bigger numbers, because when we’re trying to put together

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the Housing Element we’re only going to be able to have so much room to put Low-Density Residential as unit counts into meeting our RHNA, so going back to the numbers I was of the mind of making a reduction but not going all the way back to the 2020 levels, and in looking at the table, which I also thought was very, very helpful.

I actually started out in the same camp as
Commissioner Raspe, which is 8 dwelling units per acre for Low-Density Residential, because I thought we could
increase it later, but if we’re not going to even make it possible to do missing middle housing, then what is the purpose of even changing the density at all? And we also want to be mindful of trying to spread some of the housing across Town, so I am comfortable with the 10 dwelling units per acre. We will have the opportunity to relook at it in five years, and if it turns out that the housing production isn’t what we want, we can revise it, but we obviously
can’t go backwards.

On the Medium-Density Residential I initially
thought the 18 dwelling units per acre, but in looking at it again and hearing the comments tonight, I think we ought to consider maybe splitting the difference and doing 20, and that way we can assure the production of missing middle housing in some of the areas to help spread out the growth.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I’ll go back to Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you, and what Chair
Hanssen just finished saying was just about verbatim what I was going to say, and thank you so much for the perspective on the Medium-Density. I do still recommend a reduction, so that gives us a little bit of room under the SB 330, and I would certainly support a recommendation that splits the difference at 20, but I would still recommend 10 on LowDensity.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes, thank you, Chair. I
wasn’t here the last two meetings and I want to say that in a general sense I’m in support of lowering the density
across the Board, but using the rationale of up-zoning
right now and the revisiting in five years. I would think it would be wiser to be conservative and just go not as high as I would say 8 or 10, so I would err on the
conservative side personally.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Everyone has their
thinking behind this and we want to hear what everyone
thinks.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Just a quick
comment on Medium-Density Residential for splitting the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
difference to 20. So 20 is only two over 18 and 4 below 24, and my concern is we don’t know how much more or less we’re getting when we do that. Like we might only get 50 more units or something, and so I don’t know if this is
possible, but I was wondering if there’s a way to do that one by number of parcels, and so like 500 parcels, which would actually be kind of splitting the difference between 350 and 708 or something like that?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think I see where you’re going
on it. I’m going to ask Staff a question. If we were to make that as a recommendation that we want to make a
reduction, but since we don’t know what the table would be, if it were 20 dwelling units per acre could we do it by the number of parcels that would be eligible for a fourplex? JOEL PAULSON: I’ll start, and then Ms. Armer can
jump in. That’s not really a direct correlation, because it would be a different lot size, so then we have to rerun the GIS to figure out how many parcels that is. It’s not a
linear if you change it to 20 it’s going to be halfway
between or something like that, so that would be my
caution, but Ms. Armer might have some additional comments on it.

JENNIFER ARMER: I would say that we could do the
research to find out approximately what density would bring

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
us up to 500 parcels. It’s a little more complex, since we have to run multiple numbers until we get kind of close to that to figure out what level of density captures and
includes 500 parcels, so I think that’s something that we could do. We might end up with a very odd density, like

20.5 or something odd like that, so I don’t think that’s what Staff would recommend in terms of a way of moving
forward with his. Round numbers generally are a good plan in terms of implementation of this.

But I think there’s clearly an understanding that
you’re looking for something that’s a bit more than some of the numbers there. I think we can include that as part of the description of the discussion that the Planning
Commission had. If it’s the will of the Planning
Commission, I think we could try to come up with a number based on the number of parcels that should be large enough to allow a fourplex, but it does become a much more
complicated calculation, and it looks like Director Paulson might have something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: Just for further clarification, we
would probably run 20 and 22, so you have kind of every increase of two units per acre; we’d get you those numbers and we can provide that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I think bigger picture, stepping back, it sounds
like the Commission is having another great conversation.

It really is what’s that comfort level from a Commission perspective? Is it on, as Commissioner Tavana spoke about, the more conservative side, or is it the more aggressive side, or somewhere in between that? I think these are
helpful conversations.

We wouldn’t come up with a 20.5 density
obviously, so again, we’d probably provide information on 20 and 22, see how many parcels that is, and see if that helps inform a decision, unless there’s an opportunity
tonight where the Commission agrees to a number moving
forward, and then as Ms. Armer mentioned, we’ll carry
forward. There were some other thoughts obviously.

Many Council members, if not all of them, have
been watching all of these meetings, so I think that’s
helpful that they also will, as has been mentioned tonight, get verbatim minutes as well. The videos are all available.

So it’s helpful to have these dialogues and see if we can come to a conclusion, but if the Commission can’t get there this evening we can always continue it and provide whatever additional information within reason that the Commission is interested in.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: Or I would say that the Planning
Commission could make a recommendation for, say, 20 with an indication that the desire is to get the number of units close to 500, and if it’s not close to 500 then we could include in the Staff Report to Town Council an alternative that is closer to that number.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Staff. Before
I go back to Commissioner Thomas and Commissioner Clark, just listening to this, I think for the sake of simplicity it would be cleaner to… Because we know for sure that if it was 20 it would be somewhere in between 354 and 708 parcels that would be eligible, so we know it would be more or less if you’re looking to reduce the amount of units of growth.

I would be comfortable more with choosing the density in between and then having Staff run the numbers, but let me see what others think.

Commissioner Thomas was first, and then
Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. I
think that for me personally, having a conversation about percentage versus number of parcels would be helpful to see where people are at. I understand, Staff, that that still creates the same issue for you, but I think that that
really is the key piece of data here considering that some

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of us really strongly feel that we need to definitely stay above 10%, but I think that I would feel comfortable saying that we want to move forward with keeping the 24 units per acre to the Town Council with the note that if they get additional information ensuring that they have our
“blessing,” for lack of a better term, to definitely change it downwards as long as it stays above X percent of
parcels, something like that. I don't know if that would be easier for us to discuss or not and come to a conclusion on, but that is my maybe a suggestion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Several Commissioners have their
hand up, so Commissioner Clark is next, and then
Commissioner Raspe, and then Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I really like Ms.

Armer’s suggestion of changing the density to 20 with the indication that we want to keep it above a certain number of units, and I think that 500 is a good number for that, because technically the perfect middle between 354 and 708 is 531, and so I think adding the indication to keep it over 500 would be a good way to ensure that we’re still meeting our intended purpose when lowering the density to

20. CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Clark. Commissioner Raspe.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Again,
just with respect to Medium-Density, I would encourage us to have more specificity rather than less. I think the last meeting we had, and the reason we had this chart, was
because we started getting into fields of discussion that were less precise and I think Commissioners, at least
myself, weren’t comfortable in that direction, and so I would like to stick to the numbers that I think have been presented to us.

While I would have loved to have seen figures
between 18 and 24, which yield percentages between 11-20%, since we don’t have that this evening my present
inclination would be to proceed with 18, as Commissioner Janoff suggested, again with the understanding this is
subject to the five-year reviews and is subject to SB 330.

I think as Commissioner Tavana indicated, it’s a more
conservative approach but still gets us over the 10%
threshold, which it would allow missing middle to, I think, at least begin to flourish in Medium-Density. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Raspe. Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. Just a
couple of general comments from a high level here. Looking at these numbers they do kind of scare me; I’m going to be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
honest. 1,993 units is a lot for our Town in my opinion, so talking about going up to 3,700-and-some-change from a high level was scary, and then digging a little bit deeper into this and trying to take a more conservative approach, and also knowing that this is a General Plan. I know we
emphasize this throughout all of the elements, that the General Plan is general, and there are a lot of unknowns in my opinion about moving forward with this many housing
units, how it’s going to be implemented, so personally, for me, I would be comfortable with the RHNA allocation plus 15%, and then delineate it down there below.

That’s a conservative approach based on the
rationale we discussed and I was watching at previous
meetings. We’re going to revisit this in five years, so I don't know why we take a more aggressive approach. The
control is with us at the Town level, but if we over-zone or add too many units, we can’t backtrack and then we lose all that control, so I think we would have the most control by being the most conservative right now and then adding down the road.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, thank you for that,
Commissioner Tavana. If you notice in the Staff Report, there are some elements of this discussion that while we’re talking about reducing the number and we’re primarily

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
talking about what’s going to happen in the next eight
years for this current RHNA cycle, there are some things that are going to change the numbers, and I see some other people with their hands up.

For instance, the ADU count, there are 200 units
of ADUs in the current eight-year time cycle, and then
there’s going to be another 300, and this is a number that we feel pretty good about because we have experience with ADUs, and regardless of any changes that we make in
densities here, ADUs are completely out of our control. So there’s going to be another 300 units of growth from ADUs regardless of the RHNA, because we can’t count the 300 ADUs that will happen in the future in the RHNA, if that makes any sense.

So I’ll see what the other Commissioners say, but
when we had the discussion at the last meeting about
whether or not in number 20 in the Land Use section the recommendation to stick to only exactly 1,993 plus a 15% buffer, that technically isn’t possible in the General Plan because of some things that are outside of that timeline that we have no control over.

So I think it was Commissioner Janoff, and then
Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
70 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to
emphasize that what we’re working on, as Commissioner
Tavana says, it is a General Plan, but it has to be a plan.

If we’re expecting to reach anything close to what the
expectation is for housing it’s got to have a lot more
units than just the RHNA, and as Chair Hanssen said, we are planning for 12 additional years beyond just the RHNA
numbers, so it has to be more, because you couldn’t
possibly anticipate that the next couple of RHNA cycles would be zero, so we are planning. We’re not building, but we have to have a plan that makes sense to the Town, we have to have a plan that makes sense to developers, we have to have a plan, in my opinion, that continues to enable Staff to have more local control than not, and so providing these mechanisms I think for growth, and height, and
density, do all of those things.

We’ve heard from many, many developers what
doesn’t make sense and how the Town’s codes are in some ways limiting what they can do, and I think the article from Vice Mayor Ristow was very informative in underscoring those points, so I don’t think this is the time to be
conservative. I completely understand that position. We all are sensitive to growth uncontrolled, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about planned growth.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
71 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I could support any number of versions of LowDensity and High-Density, but they can’t be back to the 2020 numbers. We can’t get there from those, and I’m not sure that it makes sense overall.

And again, I’ve spoken before about how the
General Plan is intended to be an internally cohesive
document. We can’t get to the sustainability of work, we can’t get to racial and social justice, if we don’t take this as a whole. This part is just one piece that creates that last arc that we need to have the General Plan as a whole, and I think it’s really important for us to be able to be more forward looking than not, and I just really
appreciate the comments of the Commissioners. This has been a great conversation. I’ve learned a lot and I like the path that this is going down.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Janoff. Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Thank you so much
for that, Commissioner Janoff. That was very well worded and I completely agree. I just have a couple of comments.

I think in terms of why do we take a more
aggressive approach if we’re going to be looking at this again in five years, I think to me my answer would be five years is actually pretty far away and there are new state

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
72 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
bills coming every single year, and I think that there’s a very real possibility that if we waited five years to make these changes we could have a lot less control by than, and I think it’s better to keep it in our own hands and that’s a strong argument for being a little more forward thinking, because I think five years is becoming a longer and longer amount of time in this state with the way that housing is moving.

Also, just in terms of getting our Housing
Element through, we have to do that now. We’re not going to do that in five years, and the bigger the number the more likely it will be that we get it approved.

I also think in terms of reducing the MediumDensity Residential to something like 20 and saying keep it over a threshold of 500 parcels is way less ambiguous than what we were doing last meeting, which was pretty much just saying change the density but don’t lose missing middle housing, so I think that it’s not ambiguous. I think if we have a very strong understanding that it will be pretty much between 20-22 and it will be like a threshold of 500, that that is specific enough for me to feel comfortable with it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for that,
Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
73 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I concur completely. I think that that is a very
specific recommendation, and I think that although there are people at different degrees of this, I think we have a general consensus from the Commission to reduce the total build number somewhat to be more conservative, because we don’t know what the RHNAs will be after the 2031 timeframe.

So I would go back to where I was when I made my
comments earlier, that I would be very comfortable with making some reduction in Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential, and we already agreed to take Office and Service Commercial off the table, and so I think that the 10 number is the one that makes sense for the LowDensity Residential so that we can facilitate missing middle housing.

Then I like Commissioner Clark’s suggestion about
the 20 with the proviso of it being in the range of 500 so that it’s specific what we are trying to accomplish, and that’s still a reduction from the maximum of 24 that is currently proposed in the plan, so it does get the number down some and reduces risk some, but it still doesn’t
preempt missing middle housing.

Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner
Thomas.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I’m summarizing, I would
say that the proposal is Low-Density Residential at 10; and Medium-Density Residential at either 20 or 22, whichever gets us to the 500 or close to the 500 number, 500 or
above. So we have a specific number and a specific goal, and I think that’s pretty clear.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And are you comfortable with it?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: (Nods head yes.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. My
recommendation is that we, like I said, go with a
percentage, because I think that gives Staff more
flexibility. Instead of being like it has to be at 500 we say like… I mean, splitting the difference between the 21 and 11 would be 16%, but that’s like it’s more about the overall percent than the number of parcels, so then
whatever number… The number of parcels is always like an odd number. I mean, not necessarily odd, but a random not even or round number, so that would be my recommendation. I feel like that might be easier for Staff to go in that
direction to say a percent. I don't know if that makes
sense.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer has a comment for you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: I just thought I’d clarify what
I heard in the most recent comments from Commissioner
Janoff, which is that if she were to, say, turn her summary into a motion it would be that the Medium-Density
Residential would be 20 units per acre, unless that doesn’t include 500 parcels, in which case it would be bumped up to

22. And so it isn’t that it needs to be exactly 500, it’s just that if the 20 isn’t getting you to 500 parcels that you would be recommending it go up to a density of 22 units per acre.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I think
that the 500 was a number that Commissioner Clark threw out and it’s actually like closer to 550 than 500, so that was my recommendation of like choosing a percent, then it is kind of a little bit more. I don't know, anyway, if it
doesn’t make sense to everyone else, then that’s fine.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was just going to comment
that I do agree that we want to do what is easiest for
Staff to get us to a solid number. I think in either case it isn’t a linear projection, so you could say 15% and you might still only be at 400. We don’t know, because we don’t know how those numbers work out. I would defer to Staff. If

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Staff says they can get us to an increase over the 18 with 20% or 22%, then I would say that that’s probably a simpler way for Staff to go than try to hit a percentage.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I guess that my problem
with this whole discussion is that I don’t really care
about the number of parcels, it’s about the percent of
parcels that qualify. So like yes, 500 is somewhere between 708 and 354, which is great, but at the end of the day if we’re being told 10% is the marker, I don’t understand why we can’t have the conversation… Or I think that, I don't know, I just feel like it isn’t easier like as 15%... Like thinking about 15% of parcels around Los Gatos is a much easier number to understand and acknowledge and recognize, I think, than, say, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700 parcels,
because we don’t… I just want to know what people I guess are comfortable with percent-wise, because I think that that’s the key part.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Director
Paulson, you had your hand up, and so why don’t we go back to you?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I’m not sure it’s
necessary to get to a percentage. This is the third meeting we’ve talked about this and talked about different metrics,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
77 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but maybe to alleviate some of the concerns of Commissioner Thomas, 500 units is 15% of the total parcels in the
Medium-Density Residential, so that number actually is the number, and so whatever that density is, we’d have to
determine that by doing the GIS on the parcel size that equates to that density, but just from your percentage
conversation, 500 is actually 15%.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yeah, and I understand
that. I just want to know what other Commissioners think about what percent is like the cutoff, because one of us just threw out 500 units and no one else like I don’t
really think went into that math right then, so is 15%
something that we’re all comfortable with? Because I think at the end of the day that’s the important part.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark, and then
Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. The reason I had
thrown out the 500 number was that 531 is the middle
between 354 and 708, so I didn’t just like say 500 for no reason, but I think that it’s pretty much just being used to then decide the density number. Like 500 is not going to be a number that goes out and is used in the General Plan or that is talked about a lot, but it will be the threshold for deciding whether it’s 20 or 22, and so to me I don’t

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
see a difference between the percent of parcels and the number of parcels, because I think as you get to that area it will at least very closely correspond to the percent, like 500 ended up being 15%.

My main point would be that I think we should do
it however Staff is most comfortable doing it and whatever makes it the easiest on them, which to me it sounds like is just giving a number.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Clark. Commissioner Janoff, and then Commissioner Raspe, and then back to Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: To answer the specific
question of what percentage are we comfortable with, I’m comfortable with following Staff’s guidance, which is
greater than 10%. We’re already at 11% at the 18 dwelling units per acre, so without needing a very specific number I’m comfortable saying an increase will be an increase over that 11%.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair, and to answer
Commissioner Thomas’ question, again, we’re all kind of thinking out loud and rolling with it as we go. Fifteenpercent seems not an unreasonable number. Again, this is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
79 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Medium-Density housing allocation and we’re talking about missing middle housing and fourplexes. Again, I said it earlier, to me those two go together splendidly, and so the notion that we would allocate 15% of those structures to this very purpose seems to me appropriate, so whether we fashion it as 15% or 500 units, the result seems to be the same for me. I feel very comfortable in that allocation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Before I go
back to Commissioner Thomas we have to remember what our goal is. Nothing other than the dwelling units per acre is going to be in the General Plan. Well, there’s height too, but nothing is going to be in the General Plan other than that number, so we’re all saying that same thing, that we want to ensure the production of missing middle housing and that makes especially good sense in Medium-Density
Residential.

I think the consensus of the Commission, although
there are people on both sides, is to do something more than 18 and less than 24, so I think the end number is
going to end up being around 20, but as Commissioner Clark said, and also you, Commissioner Thomas with the 15%, it might be a little bit different than that, but we’re trying to ensure the production and still be more conservative than the current Draft 2040 General Plan. So I think we’re

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
80 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
all saying the same thing, it’s just a question of how it’s worded.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you for answering
that question. I’m hearing from Commissioner Janoff that really anything above 11 is what she supports, and
Commissioner Raspe is saying that 15% seems reasonable, it’s a halfway point in between, so I am just curious what the other Commissioners think, because I think that we’re coming towards a consensus about what percent. Sixteenpercent is the halfway, 15% is a little bit less, the 500 versus like 530.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My position is a bit of
Commissioner Janoff. I think 500 is a good target.

Then I wanted to harken back to a lot of the
public comments about restricting our analysis for the
build-out to the first RHNA cycle, the sixth cycle.

Initially that was part of my thinking as well. I now look back at the government code and see that we’re supposed to be looking at a long-term plan for housing, and so my
thinking has changed on that, but I didn’t know if Staff or Mr. Schultz wanted to weigh in. I would be interested in

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
81 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
their thoughts about why we should be looking at 20 years rather than the first RHNA cycle, eight years.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner. I can
start with giving some context to that.

So yes, a General Plan is on a longer timeline
than the Housing Element. There isn’t a requirement from the state as to what timeframe is required or how
frequently a General Plan has to be updated, but generally it is done every 10 to 20, or in some cases 30 years, but it is intended to be a long-range plan. It is supposed to be looking out.

Generally most of them are 20-year plans, and so
that is really the goal in terms of the goals and policies.

We’ve got a lot of implementation measures. In fact, we don’t expect we’ll be able to do all of them, but having that time period over which to work towards this vision is very essential to the purpose of a General Plan.

Whereas the Housing Element is something that,
while it’s a component of the General Plan, it is specified by state law that it needs to be updated every eight years, and so we have several Housing Element update cycles within that 20-year timeframe for the General Plan, and as we’re working on this General Plan at the same time that we’re starting the update of the Housing Element, it does confuse

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
82 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
things a little bit, because we’re tying these discussions of the Land Use Element very closely with the discussions that the Housing Element Advisory Board is also having
right now as to how to meet that RHNA requirement, the
Regional Housing Allocation, and so those do get tied
together.

One of the things that we pointed out in the
Staff Report for the meeting on the 13th is that there are certain things, as the Chair pointed out, certain amounts of the accessory dwelling units, for example, that if you want an apples-to-apples comparison with these numbers you need to remove 300 of those, because the number 500 ADUs that’s included in that build-out is based on that 20-year timeframe, and so it’s based on a certain number of ADUs per year since we don’t know exactly where those are going to develop.

There are certain things that we did pull out,
for example, the current projects that we know are getting their building permits before the beginning of the next RHNA cycle; we pulled those out of the calculation as well to try to get this closer to a comparison that’s more of an apples-to-apples.

But it’s true that some of these redevelopment
assumptions in the General Plan are based on that 20-year

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
83 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
timeline, and so the reasonableness of assuming that that development would all occur during the eight-year cycle is a little bit difficult in terms of how we relate these
numbers in terms of the requirement for the Housing Element to these projections for the 20-year General Plan.

Hopefully that gives a little bit of context. If
I can clarify specific additional questions, please let me know.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Ms. Armer.

I think we’re relatively close to a consensus on
this particular issue; it’s only a question of how we state it. So if you stay away from a very specific number I think that the desire is there to be a bit more conservative, but without hampering the production of missing middle housing, so then the number is somewhere in the range of 15%, or 500 units, or 20 dwelling units per acre; they’re all almost the same thing. I think that we should try to put a stake in the ground and remember that the thing that we have to put on the table is the dwelling units per acre and we have to make sure we’re comfortable with that, with whatever number we put behind it.

Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
84 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I’d like to try a
motion. I think I have a good understanding of where we are.

I move to recommend number 20 under the Land Use
Element with the following changes: Remove housing from Office and Service Commercial designations, so that would reduce it by 313 units, and then reduce Low-Density
Residential to 10 maximum units per acre, and reduce
Medium-Density Residential to either 20 or 22 units per acre, whichever gets us more than 500 parcels.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, I like that, and is there a
second? I do have a comment after we get a second.

Commissioner Janoff, is that a second?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: It’s actually a question.

There are three more bullets on the list that we were
marching through. Do we want to take a partial motion and vote now? Because it looks like we’re in a good place to conclude bullets 1-3, but we haven’t yet addressed 4, 5, and 6. Just a question for the Chair on how you want to do that.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That was actually my comment, so
the maker of the motion, before I call for the second, we ultimately have to decide on all of the bullets, but it is okay with me if we take a partial motion. I want you to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
85 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
modify your motion to say these three bullets, this is my motion, and then know that we’re going to discuss the other three.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Sorry, which bullets are you
referring to?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m looking at page six of the
April 13th Staff Report, at the bottom where it says,
“Revert Low-Density housing designation,” and then second one, “Reduce Medium-Density housing designation,” and third one, “Remove housing from Office and Service Commercial,” and then there are three more after that.

What we were trying to do is avoid the thing that
we got into at the last meeting, which was trying to
swallow the whole thing at one time, and then it was making people uncomfortable and people were voting no because one part of it was not suiting them, so I’m fine with
proceeding with your motion, just as you say that this is just for those three categories, and then we’ll probably take a break and then talk about the other three and
anything else that you want to bring up before we finish, because we’re not that far.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Yeah, I didn’t
think we were discussing those other three bullets, and that’s my bad. I personally think that I’d prefer to wait,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
86 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but what happens with the other three could definitely
influence how I feel about the first three.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That is a very good point. So
you’re going to withdraw your motion?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, sorry about that. Thank
you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I would also remind the
Commission that where we started was Staff, between pages five and six of this report, talked about the difference between the 3,738 number and normalizing it to a more
current timeframe, it was 3,038 units, and gave us the
guidance that if you wanted to be ultimately conservative and not plan for growth any more than the RHNA plus the buffer or versus where the General Plan is right now, there is margin of I believe it is 746 units, is that correct, Ms. Armer? Yes, she’s nodding her head.

So if you think about these bullets, it might not
be necessary to change all of them to get to a number
that’s more conservative, so that would my guidance, to wait until we talked about the other three and see if you want to make the changes that I think we have consensus on.

But it is 9:12, so I was going to suggest that we
take a ten-minute break and come back at 9:22, and then we’ll finish up the other three bullets and hopefully get

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
87 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to a final recommendation on this plan. Sound okay to
everyone?
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. I think we’ve made
really, really good progress so far in terms of finishing, and so I did want to give some thought to the other three bullet points that were on page six of the April 13th Staff Report, which were possible options for reduction in the total build number, and see where the Commissioners are on those as other potential options besides the three that we’ve already talked about.

We did talk about the fourth one at our last
meeting, and we started to get toward some consensus, but I don’t know if we moved any further on that, but it is
reverting properties in the new Community Commercial
designation that we created, and Staff, correct me if I’m wrong, it was part of the GPAC and the Community Place
Districts. We created a new land use category called
Community Commercial, and maybe that’s not right, because we’re changing the densities, but changing the Community Commercial densities back to the same level as Neighborhood Commercial, and that would give a 58 unit reduction. Staff, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe it’s going from 30 to 20?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
88 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JENNIFER ARMER: All of the properties that are
currently shown as Community Commercial in the land use map for the 2040 General Plan were previously designated as Neighborhood Commercial, and so these are areas like the Union Shopping Center or the shopping center over on
Winchester, and adjacent to downtown the North Santa Cruz area. Those were areas of Commercial where in implementing the increased growth that was discussed in the land use options the thought was that those could be slightly higher than some of the other shopping centers, like Pollard Road, for example, where it would be kept at the Neighborhood Commercial. I can pull up what those densities were.

JOEL PAULSON: The existing Neighborhood
Commercial is a maximum of 20 dwelling units to the acre and the Community Commercial was moving up to a maximum of 30, so the question is whether or not we revert back to the 20 for those areas that were previously Neighborhood
Commercial.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I know that the GPAC’s vision for
those neighborhood centers was to basically convert them into ground floor Commercial, bring it closer to the
street, having parking behind, and then have Residential above, and basically everything that the Commission had been hearing in some of the meetings with affordable

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
89 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
housing developers and whatnot is that more density, not less, is needed if you want to go with any meaningful
production for Mixed-Use, so it sounds to me like if we were to go back to 20 it could hamper the production of Mixed-Use, but then it’s not known if there is a
willingness to redevelop those centers either, so I throw that out there and see what you all think.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. It sounds to me
like those are places that were very specifically chosen as places that should have higher density, and so I don’t
think that we should lower them, and I also think that even if there isn’t a willingness to redevelop there, we should at least provide the opportunity for someone to do so.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We definitely learned it’s not if
you build it they will come, but if you create the land use standards we will get more interest from developers, so it’s a balancing act, but yes, I agree with that.

Thoughts from others about whether or not to
reduce Community Commercial to the same (inaudible) as
Neighborhood Commercial?
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with Commissioner
Clark, and I think that they are very small and very

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
90 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
specifically chosen places in Town where we could really use some redevelopment, so I would be in favor of keeping them, especially after hearing from developers about how hard it is to actually develop with our height limitations and everything, so I think that in order to hope for any of these areas that are really strip malls and not efficient and really not meeting the needs of the community right now, I think that we should keep them at 30.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Other
thoughts?
I would definitely say for myself, having been
part of the GPAC for two-and-a-half years, that that is really one of the essential areas for growth that we
thought of, and I don’t want to hamper the possibility of redevelopment in those areas by making the density too low, and 30 is not even that high.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: In agreement with keeping
it at the 30, and you probably want to hear from other
Commissioners, but the same argument is true for reducing the density in Mixed-Use, which is the next bullet.

We talked long and hard about increasing that,
because of remarks that we heard from developers, and so I

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
91 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
would also be in favor of not reducing the allowed density in Mixed-Use.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Actually, I think that’s
worthwhile. Let’s add Mixed-Use to the discussion for
people to comment on, because it might be a bit different only because there are way more Mixed-Use designations, but if you go by where the Housing Element Advisory Board is right now, the vast majority of numbers of properties are on Los Gatos Boulevard, and a lot of those are already
Mixed-Use designation, and that’s where the hope is for production of affordable housing, and it would only be by having height and lots of units that we could get the
smaller units and be more affordable housing.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I agree with Commissioner
Janoff. I think that it’s important to keep those Mixed-Use increases to help us build them, and I especially think Mixed-Use satisfies a lot of our concerns, like that if there was already going to be buildings where that is, and the closer people live to businesses and services, the less that they have to drive and the more they’re able to walk, and so environmentally and also traffic-wise it eases a lot of concerns, and then when they do need to go further
they’re more likely to be near public transportation.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
92 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair Hanssen. I
agree with everything that has been said, and if we look at this land use map a majority of this area is concentrated on Los Gatos Boulevard, and I think that that is one of the easiest places for us if higher density housing gets built along Los Gatos Boulevard in a Mixed-Use way. Like
Commissioner Clark said, people will be close to a lot of amenities and I think that that’s a really easy route to connect more to VTA, because a lot of VTA buses run down Samaritan Drive right now and turn right on Bascom and head towards Campbell, and I think that if we had the number of people that would actually be taking transit, it would be an easy way to connect to the VTA bus routes that already exist in this area, so I do think that I feel strongly
about keeping this at 40 dwelling units per acre.

I think that, once again, like what we said
before, I think that it’s going to be really expensive and we’re going to be really lucky if we get any redevelopment essentially according to the developers that we’ve talked to recently, and so I think that keeping these numbers a little bit more dense in some of these areas is really
going to be important for helping us reach our RHNA.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
93 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Other
thoughts on either the Community Commercial going back to the density of Neighborhood Commercial, or reducing the Mixed-Use density from 40 to 30?
Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I’ll just
reiterate, I think I’m in support of what my prior
Commissioners have said, keeping the Community Commercial designation at the higher density together with the MixedUse designation. I think it makes a lot of sense where those areas are located, as Commissioner Thomas has
indicated, for both traffic and environmental reasons,
locating those in a denser scenario makes a lot of sense, and helps us with our RHNA numbers.

I’m hopeful again that it will also help us
achieve some affordable housing. That’s a difficult concept to do in Los Gatos, but I think in those areas maybe there is some room for those, so I think higher densities in
those areas check a lot of boxes and makes a lot of sense to me and I would support those.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. It was said,
I think, very well by Commissioner Clark the other day. We can’t control the market forces, but there is no question if you build a 1,000 square foot unit or an 800 square foot

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
94 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
unit versus a 6,000 square foot house, the first unit is going to be costing less than the others, so that’s what the whole GPAC effort was about and that’s why we went to Mixed-Use as a primary methodology for achieving growth to help along the affordability, because we knew that
(inaudible) would be coming.

Any other comments on this? All right, so then
the only one left of these bullet points is the last one.

Oh, Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: Like you say, Chair Hanssen, there
should be a seventh bullet, which would be whether or not we want to change the Central Business District for
downtown. Currently the max is 20. The proposed General Plan goes up to 30 like Community Commercial, but we have received comments on that, so I make sure we touch on that one.

JENNIFER ARMER: And that was additional
information provided either in the Addendum or Desk Item for that same meeting, and so that reduction from the
proposed density in the Draft 2040 General Plan to the
existing density would bring that number down by 76 units.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So we will talk about that. I did
make a note that it wasn’t on there and I remember we

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
95 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
talked about it last time, so yes, we need to talk about that as well.

The one after Mixed-Use is High-Density
Residential, which is proposed to go from 30 to 40, and were we to change it back to 30 it would give us a
reduction in unit growth given the redevelopment
assumptions of 111 units.

From my perspective I think High-Density
Residential and Mixed-Use are kind of intertwined only with the exception of with Mixed-Use you’re requiring there to be another use in the complex, so I think it would be hard to achieve the goals of much smaller housing without
raising the density.

Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. Looking
at the land use map again, there’s very little High-Density Residential in Town, and I think that some of it, like one is a retirement community senior center, which I think that we would be happy if they redevelop and fit more units into that space, because we know that a really high need area of housing is for older populations.

So I’m in support of keeping it as it is, the
Draft 2040 Plan, because I do think there are very few
places that it would be impacted by, and so I think that it

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
96 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
makes sense for us to keep it at the higher density to
allow for any possible redevelopment in those areas.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Other
comments? Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would concur with
Commissioner Thomas and add that part of the reason why we are looking for higher density is because we’re also hoping for smaller units, which translates to affordability, so I think keeping the density high is an important component to reaching that objective.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Well said. Thank you. Other
comments on this High-Density Residential?
Okay, then let’s talk about the last one, which
is Central Business District. I believe it was brought up in the comments that we went through in a previous meeting going through all the other comments about land use and we did go ahead and make the recommendation, for example, for an implementation program to up the density in the North Forty, to make a recommendation to modify the Specific Plan to allow for more density in the northern portion of the North Forty. I think this was either a Desk Item or it was in the comments, but in case we talked about it a little bit last time.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
97 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I know when we talked about the site inventory at
the last Housing Element Advisory Board meeting—this is one of the benefits of having the process run concurrently, I suppose—the Vice Mayor spoke very eloquently about the
possibility of redeveloping the post office site into more housing opportunities, and the post office being a very high traffic but low use kind of facility, but it requires a lot of cars in and out for the short trips, so it could be scaled back, and she talked about how it could turn into a really nice thing.

Then we had also heard in the affordable housing
discussion about agri-hoods in San Jose, and there is also some property over there by the parking lot near the post office where that could be redeveloped, so the discussion of the Housing Element Advisory Board was to not take
anything off the table. Well, actually that’s true for many parts of Town, because we didn’t have all the numbers yet, but in particular downtown.

While people are scared about the idea of adding
housing downtown, there are definitely some sites where you would want to make that happen, and so it could be down to the site inventory about which ones could happen, but if you don’t have the density available to make that housing production, then it would be hard to make that happen and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
98 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
developers want to redevelop it. The Housing Element
Advisory Board was definitely about making sure we kept our options open in downtown.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I just wanted to
add that the Housing Element Advisory Board was interested in keeping the density higher on the height side. There was actually a lot of excitement around doing that, because the downtown is a wonderful place to be.

This might not be the place where you’ll have the
affordable housing. It would be great if we could find a site for affordable housing. In the downtown area also, if I’m not mistaken, there are a couple of lots that are owned by the Town, which makes them potentially more feasible for affordable housing, low-income housing, so there are some possible opportunities there that really should be
explored. What are we doing? Is it recommendation to remove it, to change?
CHAIR HANSSEN: To not change it. Yeah, these are
all possibilities of how to make the number lower, and so whether we would take that off the table.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would not take it off the
table.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
99 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And we are talking about going
from 20 to 30, it’s not 20 to 40, because we were just
talking about Mixed-Use, and so we’re not talking about going to 40, we’re talking about going to 30, and so this would be about not going back to 20, if that makes sense.

Other comments on the Central Business District?
Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. This is
actually one of the areas that, I think like Commissioner Janoff I’m most excited about. It creates an opportunity, I think, to really revitalize our downtown, make it
extraordinarily walkable to the extent it already is, but I think if we were having exciting, interesting livable units in proximity to our shops, it gives us the opportunity to even increase our foot traffic in those shops. It will
support our merchants, maybe introduce new concepts,
restaurants, clothes, all of it, into our downtown. I think it provides a great stimulation. This is, I think, an
investment in our community, and so I would be excited and I would not support reducing our density allocation in the Community Commercial District.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Thank you. Any other
comments? All right, I want to ask Staff a question before we proceed.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
100
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 There were no comments except for in the Desk
Item today about height, however, the General Plan does talk about density as well as height, and if you look at the table in the Draft General Plan there are a bunch of changes to height, so I’m asking Staff if we should at
least have a quick discussion about height just for the sake of completeness, because there were very few comments listed in Exhibit 7 regarding height. We did get one in the Desk Item today.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I would
recommend that if there are any Commissioners that feel there should be some change to the heights that are listed in the Draft General Plan that that is definitely something that should be talked about now, but if there aren’t any Commissioners who feel a need to change what’s currently in the 2040 General Plan, then there isn’t any need to
discuss.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good.

JENNIFER ARMER: And Director Paulson has
something to add.

JOEL PAULSON: I was just going to say if there
is interest, then Ms. Armer can pull up page four, which has the side-by-side comparison of height, what’s changing

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
101
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 and what’s not, if that’s something that the Commission is interested in looking at.

CHAIR HANSSEN: You’re probably sorry I brought
it up, but I wanted to make sure we didn’t forget about that in case there was somebody that felt we should change something.

I will say this, if you read the Desk Item there
was a suggestion to not go above 35’. I believe it was on Los Gatos Boulevard, and I don’t have it in front of me right now, but the thing is that I think most of us were in that affordable housing discussion where 45’ is probably not enough to get five stories, so I for one would be
reluctant to go to 35’. I mean, we’re at 35’ now and we’re not getting any interest in affordable housing and MixedUse housing, so it’s not going to help to keep the height down.

That being said, there was also the discussion
about whether or not the General Plan should have even
higher limits, and I know some of the discussion at the Housing Element and around that were we haven’t gotten very far, but that you can also offer incentives to developers, so the question remains though should we change anything, reduce anything, that’s in the Draft General Plan?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
102
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 I think that the GPAC was all for the changes
that were recommended to help facilitate the housing
production from the feedback that we’ve gotten from
developers, and we had meetings with developers during the process as well. I know you weren’t expected to review the heights, but it is part of the General Plan.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just to start a brief
conversation if you’re inclined. GPAC really did go into depth on heights and these were well considered. I feel comfortable with the heights that are here. I know we did hear from developers that even the 45’ might be too low, and as Chair Hanssen has already commented, the Housing Element Advisory Board is already talking about what sort of incentives could be offered should developers be willing to add smaller units, and so higher density, higher height, in order to achieve specifically our low-income goal, so I think we’ve got good numbers here, but I would be
interested if other Commissioners have other points of
view.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree. I know that before
I joined the GPAC there was a lot of time and energy put into this, and I do think that even with these densities

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
103
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 and height restrictions developers are going to have to be really innovative to get stuff done in the Mixed-Use area along Los Gatos Boulevard, so I’m in support of keeping the heights at what they are at.

I also appreciated that height was reduced in the
hillside areas to protect those views, and stayed the same in Low-Density Residential. So with those in mind I think that I would not support changing any of those numbers.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Before I go to
Commissioner Tavana, quick question. It did come up in the comment in the Desk Item as well, and I had forgotten about this. In that table that you just had up, the reason for having height for Open Space and Agriculture was what?
Because we don’t allow building in open space, and there’s nothing in the existing General Plan for the last three, the public Open Space and Agriculture. Why did we put the height in there for those three?
JENNIFER ARMER: Those structures are all
allowed, and so I believe those numbers were based on the height limits that are within the zoning, just so that
we’ve got those numbers provided consistently in the
General Plan for all zones.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So it was an omission from the
2020 General Plan?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
104
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 JENNIFER ARMER: Yeah. So there are certain
elements, for example, height, that wasn’t specified in the 2020 General Plan consistently across all districts, it was specified for some and not for others, and so we were
trying to get that consistently shown for all designations.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. I didn’t need you to
(inaudible) discussion, but I remember someone had asked that, and when I saw it was an A for the existing General Plan I wanted to make sure we asked about that, so I
understand.

Let’s see, Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. Just a
quick comment really, since we’re talking about heights. I did make note of the Public and Open Space designation
height only being 35’. I thought that might be higher to match that of Mixed-Use and High-Density heights at 45’, just to support parking potentially. So that was my only comment as I was looking through this. Just thought I would throw that out there.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Actually, that’s an interesting
thought. Does Staff have any feedback? Would other
jurisdictions have a 45’ height limit for public?
JOEL PAULSON: We don’t have that information.

They may. I think one thing we look at is a lot of our

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
105
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 public is schools, and so we actually don’t really regulate the height for schools, because they go through the state, as you can see from many of the structures around our
school campuses, especially the high school. If that’s
something the Commission is interested in, that can always be included in the recommendation.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Does any other Commissioner have
any comments on the height, because I’m going to then turn to hopefully us making a motion.

Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I don’t have an issue about
the height recommendations in the plan, or the provisions, but I am curious about what type of structures would be allowed in Open Space and Agriculture?
JENNIFER ARMER: Generally a single-family home
would be allowed, one house per large parcel, or other
agricultural buildings like barns, etc.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thirty-five seems to be a
pretty big number for a single-family home.

JENNIFER ARMER: It is consistent with the
maximum height limit in our Single-Family Residential
zones, so that’s why we were using that as a height limit, because that was consistently in our Zoning Code based on that.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
106
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: There are any number of other
controls that are in our other land use documents besides the General Plan that would govern what could be built and how it could be built in those types of areas, right?
JENNIFER ARMER: (Nods head yes.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, any other questions
about height?
So then, what I’m hoping for is that we can start
out with a recommendation on any reductions to the build number and/or the height numbers in the General Plan, which in this case of the build number it would be related to densities.

Then, having done that, if we can get through
that we should go to overall recommendation on the General Plan and the Final EIR.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I’ll defer to Commissioner
Raspe first, because I was going to make the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, both Commissioner
Clark and Chair Hanssen. I had one question.

It feels like we’re largely in accordance here,
but before you go to motion, a question or clarification from Staff. Revisiting Low-Density Residential and the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
107
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 difference between maximum dwelling units per acre, 8 versus 10, could you explain once more the impact of that on missing middle? How does having 10 improve the changes of missing middle over having 8. Thank you so much.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Commissioner. I would
say that based on the discussion at the last meeting there was an interest in knowing how many parcels in the LowDensity Residential designation would be large enough to allow four units, so a fourplex, as a way of determining kind of a threshold for missing middle housing.

So at the 10 units per acre level, 12% of the
parcels within Low-Density Residential designation would be large enough to allow four units, and so they would be over that 17,424 square foot size.

At the 8 dwelling units per acre, that lowers it
down to only 7%, and the thinking there, it’s not an
absolute number threshold of one allows missing middle and one doesn’t, but the thinking there is that when you lower that, then those properties that are large enough for a fourplex end up being just those that are in the largest zones, so it’s not distributed through the others, so when you look at the zoning designations that are included under the Low-Density Residential that includes a number of
different R-1 zones.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
108
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 We’ve got R-1:8, which is a minimum lot size of
8,000, and then it goes up. You’ve got R-1:10, R-1:20, and so when you change this density and you get to the point where only 7% of the lots would allow that fourplex, then you’re most likely talking about those that are in the
larger lot size requirement, so it’s not going to be
integrated as much through all of that Low-Density
Residential.

We didn’t get to the point of making maps of
where those different levels are; that would have been
another level that (inaudible), but that’s kind of the
assumption that we’re making to get to this recommendation, that using a 10% threshold is a reasonable one to have a result where it is more integrated through more of the LowDensity Residential areas.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much. That’s
extraordinarily helpful. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, very good. I will go
back to Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I believe I can
actually make the same motion that I did before, so I move to recommend number 20 under Land Use with the following changes: Remove the additional housing from Office and
Service Commercial designations, reduce Low-Density

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
109
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 Residential to 10 maximum units per acre, and reduce Medium-Density Residential to either 20 or 22 units per acre, which ever gets us more than 500 parcels.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And then no other changes?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: No other changes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Is there a second? Vice Chair
Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’ll second the motion.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Is there any further
discussion? I think we had quite a bit of discussion on everything, but there’s always room for more questions. I don’t see anyone with their hand raised.

And this is a predecessor vote to voting on the
entire… Director Paulson has his hand up. We might have missing something.

JOEL PAULSON: Just one point of clarity. There
have been a couple of motions, some of them included the no change to Office and the removal of Service Commercial, so I don’t know if that was included in your motion,
Commissioner Clark, or whether that was not something you were interested in.

JENNIFER ARMER: She did include the removal of
those two designations, the housing.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
110
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: It was the no changes to those
designations from the current 2020 General Plan.

Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: I did want to make sure that I
got that down correctly. In your motion, Commissioner
Clark, are you recommending that Office and Service
Commercial be reverted to the 2020 General Plan density levels?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

JENNIFER ARMER: Not what’s in the 2040 General
Plan?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, like doing the third
bullet point.

JENNIFER ARMER: The lower. Okay, thank you.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson, is there more
clarity needed?
JENNIFER ARMER: (Shakes head no.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, he took his hand down.

All right, so we have a motion and we have a
second. We will do a roll call vote, and I will start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
111
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. Very
good, so we did it, we got consensus.

We have covered all parts of the General Plan as
well as the EIR, and so Staff, help me if I’m not saying this correctly about how we need to make a motion on… What we want to do is make a recommendation to the Town Council to approve the Draft 2040 General Plan with the changes that we discussed in our last four meetings, which are
noted in the record and then there will be a further record of tonight’s meeting, and then also recommending
certification of the Final EIR and all its accordant
documents, including the Statement of Overriding
Consideration. You don’t have to say the latter part, but certification of the Final EIR implies certification of all the relevant documents that go along with it.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
112
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: That covers it? Okay.

Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would be pleased to make
a motion to forward the Draft 2040 General Plan and Draft EIR to Town Council with a recommendation for approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan with the changes that the
Planning Commission has documented over the last several meetings, and to certify the Final EIR.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And a second? It looks like
Commissioner Thomas has her hand up first.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Any other further
discussion before I call the question? I will go ahead and call the question and start with Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
113
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well.

Staff, are there any appeal rights for this
action/recommendation by the Commission?
JOEL PAULSON: There are not, Chair, as it’s a
recommendation. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you.

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) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov
To: Town Council
From: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report
Date: May 19, 2022
BACKGROUND:

On Monday, May 2, 2022, the Planning Commission completed their deliberations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The recommendation was to adopt the Draft 2040 General Plan with modifications and certify the Final EIR. This memorandum summarizes the Commission’s recommendations to allow the Town Council and public an opportunity to begin to prepare for the upcoming Council meeting on June 20, 2022, regarding the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR. A staff report to the Town Council with additional information will be prepared for the June 20, 2022 meeting.

The Planning Commission’s deliberations occurred on April 13, April 25, April 27, and May 2, 2022, and were based on the materials provided in the staff reports, particularly Exhibit 7 to the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report. All staff report materials are available online:
https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com. Verbatim Minutes will be posted once completed on the General Plan update website: www.losgatos2040.com.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission’s final unanimous recommendation was to adopt the Draft 2040 General Plan with modifications and certify the Final EIR. The recommended modifications included:

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM

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

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

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

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

5. In the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element, modify definitions for equality and equity, to state “Equality. The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. Equal opportunity, levels of support, and allocation of resources, regardless of different circumstances.” and “Equity. Fairness or justice in the way people are treated. Differing allocation of opportunities, levels of support, and resources based on each person or group’s circumstances and needs, thereby reaching an equal outcome.” (Commissioner Barnett expressed concerned about change of these definitions, and has provided additional input in Exhibit 14);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. 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;

15. 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”; 1 References to Exhibits are from staff report materials provided to the Planning Commission at one of the four meetings listed above.

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

17. 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 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.”

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

19. In the Environment and Sustainability Element modify the existing language about the indigenous peoples 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 tule reed 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.”

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

21. 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.”

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

23. In the Community Design Element, recommend the modifications in Exhibit 7 listed as Items 43, 48, 53 (including edible food producing trees), 54 (with the addition of the word “public” between “secondary” and “access” in Policy CD-11.6), 55 (as an

4 implementation program to study implementation of the Mills Act), and add a definition of “rafters.”

24. In the Land Use Element, modify the maximum allowed residential densities in the following ways:
• Remove residential density from the Office Professional and Service Commercial designations;
• Reduce maximum allowed residential density in the Low Density Residential designation from 12 to 10 dwelling units per acre; and
• Reduce maximum allowed residential density in the Medium Density Residential designation from 24 to 22 dwelling units per acre.

POTENTIAL HOUSING BUILDOUT:

As a result of the recommended modifications to the residential densities in the Land Use Element, the General Plan Residential Buildout table (Table 3-1 on page 3-4 of the Draft 2040 General Plan, available: www.losgatos2040.com) would be modified as follows:

Land Use Designation
Density
Range
(du/ac)
Typical
Density
(du/ac)
Assumed
Redevelopment
New Housing
(Vacant Land)
New Housing
(Redevelopment)
LDR Low Density
Residential 1 to 10 10 5% 230 56
MDR Medium Density
Residential 14 to 22 18 10% 201 302
HDR High Density
Residential 30 to 40 36 15% 110 268
NC Neighborhood
Commercial 10 to 20 18 10% 26 91
CC Community
Commercial 20 to 30 26 15% 0 156
MU Mixed-Use 30 to 40 36 20% 126 605
CBD Central Business
District 20 to 30 26 15% 21 113
Subtotal 714 1,591
Housing Units, New and Redeveloped 2,305
Housing Units, ADUs 500
Housing Units, Existing Projects 475
TOTAL NEW THROUGH 2040 3,280
As noted in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission staff report, the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 1,993 dwelling units plus a recommended 15 percent buffer, resulting in 2,292 units for the eight-year Housing Element need. If one were interested to understand the contribution of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and existing projects towards the eight-year RHNA, then at a minimum, 300 ADUs and 400 units of Existing Projects should be removed prior to making a comparison. As a result, the potential residential buildout for the eight-year period based on the Planning Commission recommendation would be 2,580 units,

5 which is 288 housing units above the RHNA plus buffer, instead of the 746 excess units noted in the April 13, 2022 staff report for the Draft 2040 General Plan recommended by the GPAC. This reduces the excess units by more than half.

Please note that the table does not include the potential for growth through new homes on properties in the Hillside Residential designation because the 116 units noted in previous documents is based on acreage of undeveloped lots, with no consideration of land slope or other constraints, and the Draft 2040 General Plan does not include any changes to the current regulations in this designation.

Please note the calculations have not taken into consideration that the Town’s zoning regulations do currently allow housing as part of a mixed-use project in the Office zone through a Conditional Use Permit, even though the Office Professional General Plan designation does not specify if housing is allowed or not. It is therefore not yet been determined whether residential could now be prohibited in these zones, due to constraints imposed by Senate Bill 330. If residential has to continue to be allowed in the Office zone, an additional 114 units would be added back based on an existing typical density of 18 dwelling units per acre.

N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\TC Memos\2022\General Plan PC Recommendation_TC.docx

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Below is a summary of questions received at the September 20, 2021 Joint Study Session of the Town Council and Planning Commission, and the December 7, 2021 Study Session of the Town Council. Some questions have been reworded for clarity or combined to avoid repetition.

Responses are provided below each in italics. This information is provided in addition to the written public comments and information from staff that have been published with past staff reports.
 How many Los Gatos residents engaged with the 2040 General Plan update process? As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, the four-year 2040 General Plan update included extensive outreach and numerous engagement activities throughout process and while there is no count of the number of people or residents who have been engaged, 29,343 unique visitors to the Los Gatos General Update website since June 2021, and of the unique visitors, 92 percent originated in the United States.
 Is there a mid-level document that can highlight what has changed and the degree of impact from the Draft 2040 General Plan in a form that is more approachable than the giant document?
Newsletter #4 was prepared, posted online, and distributed at in-person events starting in June 2021. In addition, a series of one-page posts were created and distributed through the website and the Town’s social media accounts as a “Breaking it Down” series to provide information that is more approachable.  Can the definition of Missing Middle Housing be expanded, or modified to address affordability? Will the Housing Element include more specific guidelines for where affordable housing is developed?
As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, Town Council could consider a modified definition, and several examples are provided. Affordability levels for housing is addressed in the Housing Element, both for Missing Middle Housing and other housing development.
 How does Senate Bill (SB) 9 change the development numbers listed in the plan? As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, housing units produced through the processes established under SB 9 will be counted to the extent possible in the Housing Element. However, because these are regulations that went into effect at the beginning of 2022, there is not enough of a record on which to develop projections for the number of housing units that will be developed through these new processes.

ATTACHMENT 21

 How did the estimated number of housing units provided in the Preferred Land Use Alternative increase to the number shown in the Draft 2040 General Plan? And why did it not return for Town Council consideration after the changes were made? As detailed further in the September 20, 2021 Town Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session Staff Report (and shown below), the Preferred Land Use Framework was implemented in a Draft Land Use Element produced in the fall of 2020 and reviewed by both Town Council and the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) in November 2020. Following that review the GPAC recommended additional changes, including the addition of additional housing units to the Office Professional and Service Commercial designations:
o Land Use Alternative C in the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here:
http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html): 2,303 housing units including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
o GPAC Recommended Preferred Alternative: 2,464 housing units including ADUs and downtown.
o Town Council adopted Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework: 2,464 housing units including ADUs and downtown.
o Staff and the consultant developed an implementation of the Framework: 2,950 housing units. This approximately 400-unit increase is primarily a result of an increase in the assumed typical density for the Mixed-Use Designation (previously 26 dwelling units per acre, currently proposed 36 dwelling units per acre), and inclusion of a new Community Commercial land use designation so that Neighborhood Commercial designated shopping centers like Pollard and Harwood could remain at a lower height and density.
o GPAC added 313 housing units to Office Professional and Service Commercial: 3,263 housing units.
o With the 475 existing/previously approved projects included: 3,738 housing units as shown in the General Plan Buildout table in the Draft 2040 General Plan.

The Planning Commission recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan includes reductions to several land use designations, including Office Professional and Service Commercial. The Town Council will make the final decision whether to make these or other modifications prior to approval of the 2040 General Plan.  Could we keep the 0-5 dwelling units per acre density for high fire danger and historic areas, and then higher density in other areas?
Alternative densities could be considered, however this would likely require creation of a new land use designation. Most of the areas in Town that are in the high fire danger areas are already at a lower density because of their hillside residential designation, which is not proposed to be changed from the existing levels.

 How much of housing is near facilities (schools, freeways, etc) to reduce impacts on infrastructure?
As shown in the Draft 2040 General Plan Residential Building Table, and discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the majority of the estimated housing units are within the Mixed-Use designation along Los Gatos Boulevard and other existing commercial districts which would be located near essential services.  Is there a way to use the additional units in office to bring down the number of units elsewhere?
As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, there are numerous areas where the Draft 2040 General Plan could be modified to adjust the projected development including:
o Revert Low Density Housing designation housing density back to the existing 2020 General Plan level: 279 units;
o Revert Medium Density Housing designation housing density back to the existing 2020 General Plan level: 327 units;
o Remove housing from Office and Service Commercial designations: 313 units; o Revert properties in the new Community Commercial designation back to Neighborhood Commercial: 58 units;
o Reduce the allowed density in the Mixed-Use designation from 40 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre: 255 units;
o Reduce the allowed density in the High Density Residential designation from 40 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre: 111 units; or o Revert properties in the new Central Business District designation back to housing density allowed in the existing 2020 General Plan: 76 units.  Why does the 2040 General Plan include more than the RHNA? As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, a direct comparison between the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the estimated residential buildout in the Draft 2040 General Plan can lead to confusion because of the following factors:
o The General Plan Residential Buildout Table is an estimate based on a 20-year timeline;
o The General Plan Residential Buildout Table includes 475 residential units from existing projects, where most will have building permits issued prior to the start of the next Housing Element cycle, and therefore won’t be counted toward the 1,993 unit requirement;
o The General Plan Residential Buildout Table includes 25 ADUs per year, which resulted in 500 units for the 20-year timeline, but only 200 over the eight-year RHNA cycle; and

o The Housing Element will likely need to include capacity for at least a 15 percent buffer, above the 1,993 housing units, for a total of 2,292 housing units, in order to be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

When modified to accommodate some of these elements the difference between the required 1,993 housing units plus 15 percent buffer (2,292 dwelling units) and the portion of the development from the 20-year General Plan that might be developed within the 8-year Housing Element cycle (3,038 dwelling units) is 746 dwelling units. The reductions included in the recommendation from the May 2, 2022 Planning Commission motion reduces that difference to 288 dwelling units. Town Council can consider this recommendation and/or additional reductions in residential density.  Why was the RHNA allocation not appealed?
As described further in the September 20, 2021 Joint Study Session Staff Report, many jurisdictions did appealed their RHNA allocations. The Town did not choose to file an appeal, and there was no indication from the public or Town Council during the appeal period that an appeal was desired. Appeals are nearly always unsuccessful absent unique extenuating circumstances. Appeals also often provide false hope to residents that there will be a significant reduction in their RHNA as evidenced by the SCAG and ABAG appeal processes.
 How does the plan ensure adequate water, electricity, sewer, schools, police, and fire protection capacity for the new development?
As detailed further in the EIR, the impacts of the projected development are not considered significant impacts under CEQA.
 Are we doing/could we do a fiscal analysis report to estimate fiscal impacts of the development?
As detailed further in the April 4, 2022 Town Council Staff Report, additional information was provided to Town Council about the possibility of conducting additional fiscal analysis. As a result of that meeting the Town Council voted to not conduct any additional analysis for the Draft 2040 General Plan update. Planning Commission recommendation includes a suggestion made by staff that an additional implementation program be included in the Draft 2040 General Plan to review fiscal impacts related to the Land Use Element every five years.
 Do we know if the RHNA numbers are going to continue to go up, when the California population is going down?
Additional information on recent California and Santa Clara County population numbers are included in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report. There is no current

information on what future RHNA requirements might be.
 Could the development allowed under the 2040 General Plan be divided into quarters? As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, the Draft 2040 General Plan and HCD reporting requirements result in tracking of development numbers on an annual, five-year, and 10-year basis. While specific thresholds could be implemented they are not recommended.
 When it comes to supporting Vasona Light Rail, there is language “if/when”, what does that mean?
While there is a plan for Vasona Light Rail to be developed in the future, there is currently no funding for implementation, and so any policies related to that potential future light rail stop are contingent on the VTA to move forward with those plans.  When will the Planning Commission and Town Council consider additional comments/changes that came in after the GPAC finished their work? All written comments received by the Town were included in the staff report materials when the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR were presented to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. All of those written comments, along with any received after 11:00 a.m., Monday, May 2, 2022, will be provided to Town Council with their staff report materials.
 Do other communities do General Plan and Housing Element updates simultaneously? Because of the required eight-year update cycle for Housing Elements, and the standard 10- to 20-year cycle for General Plans they are not often updated simultaneously.

However, it is not uncommon for a Housing Element update to include implementation programs that require certain specific updates to the existing General Plan in order to comply with housing number requirements.
 Why is the 2040 General Plan a 20-year plan?
As detailed further in the April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, the development of the Draft 2040 General Plan was based on a 20-year timeframe as stated in the consultant contract, approved by Town Council in June, 2018. This is a common timeframe for a long range plan. However, the Draft 2040 General Plan also includes Land Use Implementation Program J which requires a 10-year review of the General Plan.
 How does the plan address community concerns about traffic? As detailed further in the EIR, the impacts of the projected development are considered

significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA. However, when a long-range plan includes development without transit to support that development, there are rarely feasible methods for reducing or mitigating those impacts. The EIR does describe that the proposed locations for increases in housing in commercial areas will reduce the per unit Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) below development under the current General Plan.

In addition, the Mobility Element of the General Plan has been completely reorganized to emphasize alternative modes of transportation, reduce VMT, and provide facilities so that residents have options other than single-occupancy vehicles.  How does the plan address community concerns about wildfire? The Hazards and Safety Element has been updated to enhance the Town’s preparedness for wildfires and comply with State law. The California Department of Forestry has reviewed and recommended approval of the draft element.  Why is the 2040 General Plan approved by Town Council, why not by voters? Land use decisions are the purview of the Town Council, however, the Town Council appointed a committee of 12 residents (the GPAC) to direct the modifications to be made to the General Plan, and extensive outreach was a critical component of the update process.
 What is the status of the Town’s creation of objective standards? Will it align with the adoption of the 2040 General Plan?
Planning Commission is scheduled to consider draft objective standards for mixed-use and multi-family development at their meeting on June 22, 2022.  If housing is not income restricted can it still count toward the required RHNA number? Yes, all housing produced will be reported to HCD, and the Housing Element projections will include unrestricted housing, including ADUs and Junior ADUs.  What is the Housing Element update based on, since the 2040 General Plan not yet adopted?
As detailed further in information provided to the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) and Town Council, the Housing Element analysis will start with the existing General Plan, but will consider what increases in residential density may be needed either through the adoption of the 2040 General Plan, or through implementation programs included in the Housing Element.

 What happens if HCD doesn’t approve the Housing Element? Do we immediately go into a mode where infrastructure dollars are being withheld in the State takes over our process, or is there a period where we can remedy what we do? The Town will have multiple opportunities to submit the draft Housing Element for review by HCD and respond to comments in order to develop a Housing Element that can be approved by HCD.
 Where does the 74,000 number from Community Alliance come from? It appears that the development calculations included in the Los Gatos Community Alliance comment letters is based on a calculation of what could potentially be built if all land in Los Gatos were vacant and were developed to its maximum possible capacity.

This is not the appropriate method for providing a realistic analysis of potential impacts of a program, which is different from when you have a specific development project analysis. The program EIR for the General Plan includes additional information in response to these comments.
 If we don’t meet our current RHNA allocation, do those housing units get added to our next Housing Element cycle? And do the existing projects listed in the residential buildout table count toward the current cycle or the next cycle.

No, the requirements for the next Housing Element update is 1,993 plus the recommended buffer. No additional units are required, even if production underperformed in the last cycle. Staff estimates that 400 of the 475 existing units listed in the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Element would be issued building permits during the current Housing Element cycle.
 If development exceeds the assumptions in the 2040 General Plan and EIR, at what point would we need to do further environmental review? Development will be tracked every year, so staff would be alerted if actual development numbers are trending above what is permitted by the General Plan, and would initiate additional environmental review if needed.
 Is the plant-based diet language appropriate for the General Plan, or is it government overreach?
The proposal from public comment to include additional language in the General Plan about plant-based diets is focused on educational programs, not mandating diets.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

The following images were presented as a series of social media posts published across the Town’s social media accounts between July 30, 2021, and March 11, 2022, and then posted as a collection on the 2040 General Plan Update website to share information about the Draft 2040 General Plan, the update process, and respond to specific comments and questions received.

ATTACHMENT 22

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

To Planning Commission
May 2, 2022 Continued Hearing on the Draft 2040 General Plan From Lee Quintana
These comments focus on:
● Land Use Element and Community Development Element1
● Missing Middle Housing - definition of and how it might be implemented ● Figures, Illustrations, Tables, Glossary and Acronyms , Key words GENERAL COMMENTS:2
Staff Report to Town Council. Please include the following:
● Provide a redline copy of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission ● Provide a separate list of changes not recommended by the Planning Commission.

A Few Comments on Land Ue
P. 3-5 Key Terms: Missing MIddle Housing. The following is my attempt at a better definition/explanation of Missing Middle Housing. I would prefer the term small unit housing.

Quote from Missing Middle Housing - Big Ideas for Small Buildings to Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis not by providing “affordable” housing but by providing housing over a greater price range. It is just one piece of the puzzle to respond to today's need for housing. The “missing middle” concept, to me, appears also to be related to the concept of “placemaking”, a concept which is more closely tied to economic sustainability and stability. Missing Middle Housing:
● Provides a way to increase density without increasing perceived increase in intensity of development, (invisible density or hidden density) i.e invisible density by regulating the lot size setbacks, % open space, height (to eaves), dimension of structure footprint (depth and width), number of stories and the relationship of structures to each other. While “Missing Middle Housing” does not regulate density it allows for higher density that fits into traditional single family zoning districts.
● Provide a range of affordability (though not necessarily “affordable housing” as defined by the state). Its objectives are many: including walkability to daily needs, reduced use of motor vehicles, reduced consumption of non-renewable resources, an enhanced sense of “community” and providing a greater range of housing opportunities with respect to both size and type. 2 1 And hopefully clarify the essence of the meaning of Missing Middle Housing and the need to develop out of the box ideas for how to implement it.

ATTACHMENT 23

● This concept is very similar to the communities that developed in the late 1880’ and early 1900’s prior to with a variety of housing types and sizes in close proximity commercial and retail uses. and retail areas developed before the introduction of zoning single family home, by providing smaller units parcels accessible to people and families over a price range, in walkable location. It provides a way to increase density without increasing the perceived intensity of development on a parcel.

Missing Middle House is intended to be built on parcels with a General Plan Designation and zoning that allows single family houses in areas with a General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Designation of R-1, R-1D and R-D.
that allow single family housing in a manner that does not increase the perception of increased development on a site.3 Missing Middle Housing is the name given to a range of multi-unit buildings or a group or clustered of detached housing units located on a single parcel that are compatible in scale, form and mass with existing single-family homes.

The intent is to encourage the development of greater density The intent is to provide an additional opportunity or pathway to provide a diverse range of housing options which will additional smaller units on parcels that allow single family housing When well-designed the units fit into existing neighborhoods as invisible density, i.e density while maintaining the greater density) without appearing to increase intensity . The forms feel familiar. Most older American cities contain many examples of aesthetically pleasing, small unit buildings such as duplexes, fourplexes, or as detached units granny flats, cottage clusters and bungalow courts, and single family homes that have been divided into multiple units,
A Few Comments on Community Design.
● Most of this Element fits better into the Land Use Element, for example the Community Place Districts which are a type of Special Planning Area. ● The discussion on Community Form is to general to be useful and does not establish standards
● I would recommend going back to the format used in the Community Design Element of the 2020 General Plan.

Figures
● All Figures:
○ Change the color of the Figure Titles and increase the font size so it is immediately clear what the figure is attempting to portray. The subject of a figure should be immediately obvious.
○ Where boundary lines overlap separate the lines so they are easily visible 3 .See the Hillside Area Map included in the Hillside Development Standard and Guidelines.

○ Add major roadways to all figures.. For example for Figure 2-7 add Main Street and Highway 9. Enlarge the fonts so they are readable in the printed 8 by 11 format
● Figure 1-1: Change title to Regional and Local Context and add Campbell, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno
● Figure 1-2: In the legend and on the figure differentiate between areas within the Town Limits and within the County so it is easier to understand the relationships between areas. Also see comment Los Gatos Planning Boundaries ● Figure 3-6 Land Use Diagram:
○ Move the title (and increase font) either to the center of the page above the box or to the upper right corner within the box.
○ Divide and label the legend for Figure 3-6 to match the divisions used in Table 3-2. At a minimum provide visual space between the land use divisions - this helps the reader immediately to understand what information the figure wants to convey.
● Figure 3-7:
○ I am not sure what this figure is trying to convey.
○ Add all General Plan Land Use Designations within the Downtown Area If that is what this figure is trying to convey. If not then clarify the purpose of the figure.
○ It is not clear what the boundary is based on. I think most residents would include the area to the west (to the Town Limits) as part of the Downtown Area.
● Figure 3-8:
○ Include the underlying Land Use for the Specific Plans: Mixed Use of the North 40 and Light Industrial for Albright.
○ Why not add the district names directly on the Figure and eliminate in the legend,, as was done for Figure 3-10. It makes the intent of the figure immediately apparent.
○ Also see comments under 3.6 Special Planning Areas
● Figure 4-10:
○ This is a duplicate of Figure 3-9
○ Suggest deleting one of the figures and referring to it where needed. ● Figure 4-44:
○ This is essentially a duplicate of Figure 3-10 are both needed? ● Figure 4-12, 4-13, 14-16, and 4-18 through 4-22:
○ It is not clear what information these figures are trying to convey. ○ If they are trying to convey the relationships of the land uses within the districts to those adjacent to the districts then the areas around districts should not be half-toned - Of the two choices I think it is important to understand the land use relationships of the Land Use Designations. ○ If the intent is just to highlight the uses within the districts rather than the relationships with the area outside the districts then the area outside the

district should be grayed.should be grayed and the land use designations outside the district should be deleted from the legends. At least in the printed version the half-toned open space appear similar to Agriculture, it is difficult to distinguish between the area of Vasona (Open Space), Albright Specific Plan is hard to differentiate from Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential is more similar to Hillside Residential.
● Figure 4-16: Again, on the printed copy, the North Santa Cruz District matches Community Commercial rather than Neighborhood Commercial. Is that the intent? ○ Where two districts are within the same Figure both should be labeled on the map itself.
● Figures 4-18 (Winchester District) and Figure 4-19 (Lark District):
○ On the General Plan Land Use Map the area to the east of the Albright Specific Plan is shown as Open Space but on Figure 16 it appears to be either agricultural or the North r0 Specific Plan (again in the print copy of the 2040 Draft GP).
○ Figure 4-18 extends the Albright Specific Plan beyond its boundary and splits it between the Specific Plan between Winchester Boulevard District and the Lark District. The 85 Freeway splits the North and South parts of the Winchester Blvd. District. The configuration of the Winchester District if questionable given that during the approval process for the Albright PD (turned Specific Plan) it was determined that it would be extremely difficult to provide a safe pedestrian/bike connection on the east side of Winchester over the 85 Freeway
○ In addition Figure 4-18 incorrectly shows the Albright Specific Plan extending beyond the Plans Boundary. The area at the bottom of this figure should be shown as Light Industrial. This is correctly shown in Figure 4-19 Lark Avenue District.
● Figure 7-1 Open Space, Parks and Recreation Facilities within Town Limits:
○ For ease of use suggest numbering Kennedy Loop Trail and the Open Space Preserves.
○ Delete “....within the Town Limits from the Title. Areas of the Open Space Preserves are within the Town Limits.
● Figure 8-4: Planning Watershed and Figure 8-3: Wellands and Water Habitats:
○ Both identify Lexington and Vasona as Lakes rather than as reservoirs ○ It is hard to see the red lines of the Riverine areas and it is not clear that the light green lines are Freshwater Forested Shrub Wetlands or something else.
● Figure 8-5 Future Noise Contours:
○ The scale of this make hard to read. Is it possible to increase the scale by turning it on its side even if it did not include the total Planning Area? ○ Add Highway 17 and Highway 85
● Figure 9-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zone:
○ Move the Note up and increase the font size.

○ This is a truly scary map!
● Add a figure showing the Dam Inundation Zone for Lexington and Vasona Illustrations and Photos:
● Re label as Illustrations rather than figures. Figure 4-1, through Figure 4-9, , 4-14 to 4-15, 4-17 and 4-23
● Identify the photos within Community Design Element
● The Community Design Element is the only Element that contains illustrations and photos and they are significantly different from Figures.

Tables
● Table 3.1 General Plan Residential Buildout. Update and move to Appendix in Final Approved GP
● Table 3.2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards:
○ Provide more information regarding allowed use in the description of each Designation.
○ For Designations that allow ADU’s move the information regarding ADU’s to the end of the description and indicate that ADU’s do not count towards density.
○ Delete mention of Missing Middle Housing (See comments under Implementing Missing Middle Housing.

Chapter 12 Glossary and Acronyms
● I came across numerous differences in definitions between Key Terms and the definitions in the Glossary. Please verify that definitions are the same. ● Verify that all Acronyms are included in Chapter 12.
● Gross Ace and Net Acre: There is an inconsistency between the definitions of Net and Gross Acres.
● Archaeological Resources: Differentiate between historic and prehistoric archeological resources
● Add :Below Market Price (BMP)
● Add: Below Grade Square Footage
● Building Coverage: Is this based on net or gross lot:
● Add CPTED and define
● California Points of Historical Interest: What criteria is used to identify these for Los Gatos? This appears to go beyond pre 1941 homes.
● Add: Capital Improvement Program
● Community Place District: What is the relationship between Community Place District (CPD?) and Placemaking?
Comments on Chapter 3 Land Use Element:

Section 3.2 Implementing Missing Middle Housing

● This whole section needs revision. It talks about Missing Middle Housing but there is little in it that relates to how to implement it. It is not until the last sentence that one of the essential points of Missing Middle Housing as intended by Daniel Parolek is even mentioned, i.e. the development of smaller units. It is interesting to note that the title of his book Missing MIddle Housing is subtitled “Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today's Housing Crisis. ● Consider that the term Missing Middle Housing has become almost a buzzword or jargon that no longer clearly represents the meaning given to it by Daniel Parolelk who popularized the term.
● The concept of Missing Middle Housing is only one aspect of the solution to today’s housing crisis.
● Missing MIddle Housing does not promise housing at a density defined as “affordable housing'' by the state, rather it is intended to ○ Provides an opportunity for greater range of unit size and price, both rental and for purchase, therefore making housing more accessible to a greater number of people and provides the basis for creating a more inclusive community. For example:
■ seniors looking to “downsize” or because their income “downsized” and they may no longer be able to afford their larger homes.
■ professionals, teachers, police, fire fighters, young adults (including our children) and people employed by local businesses who may not qualify for “affordable housing” but who may not be able to afford the cost of larger market rate housing.
○ It means greater walkability, reduced reliance on cars, an opportunity to increase interaction with neighbors and build “community” The following comments focus on:
● Introduction.
● Land Use Element and Community Development Element
4 ● Missing Middle Housing - definition of and how it might be implemented ● Figures, Illustrations, Tables, Glossary and Acronyms , Key words ● A better understanding of the interconnectedness of the entire General Plan ● What I don’t cover here I will follow up with comments to the TC. 4 And hopefully clarify the essence of the meaning of Missing Middle Housing and the need to develop out of the box ideas for how to implement it.

GENERAL COMMENTS:
5 Staff Report to Town Council. Please include the following:
● Provide a redline copy of the changes recommended by the Planning Commission ● Provide a separate list of changes not recommended by the Planning Commission. https://www.mml.org/pdf/resources/publications/decade_of_placemaking_in_Michigan_book_fin al_2017.pdf
Figures
● All Figures:
○ Change the color of the Figure Titles and increase the font size so it is immediately clear what the figure is attempting to portray. The subject of a figure should be immediately obvious.
○ Where boundary lines overlap separate the lines so they are easily visible ○ Add major roadways to all figures.. For example for Figure 2-7 add Main Street and Highway 9. Enlarge the fonts so they are readable in the printed 8 by 11 format
● Figure 1-1: Change title to Regional and Local Context and add Campbell, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno
● Figure 1-2: In the legend and on the figure differentiate between areas within the Town Limits and within the County so it is easier to understand the relationships between areas. Also see comment Los Gatos Planning Boundaries ● Figure 3-6 Land Use Diagram:
○ Move the title (and increase font) either to the center of the page above the box or to the upper right corner within the box.
○ Divide and label the legend for Figure 3-6 to match the divisions used in Table 3-2. At a minimum provide visual space between the land use divisions - this helps the reader immediately to understand what information the figure wants to convey.
● Figure 3-7:
○ I am not sure what this figure is trying to convey.
○ Add all General Plan Land Use Designations within the Downtown Area If that is what this figure is trying to convey. If not then clarify the purpose of the figure.
○ It is not clear what the boundary is based on. I think most residents would include the area to the west (to the Town Limits) as part of the Downtown Area.
● Figure 3-8:
5 I have tried to organize my comments, unsuccessfully, to avoid overlap but in the end after many tries I gave up on that approach given that the GP Draft itself has many overlaps without providing links between them.

○ Include the underlying Land Use for the Specific Plans: Mixed Use of the North 40 and Light Industrial for Albright.
○ Why not add the district names directly on the Figure and eliminate in the legend,, as was done for Figure 3-10. It makes the intent of the figure immediately apparent.
○ Also see comments under 3.6 Special Planning Areas
● Figure 4-10:
○ This is a duplicate of Figure 3-9
○ Suggest deleting one of the figures and referring to it where needed. ● Figure 4-44:
○ This is essentially a duplicate of Figure 3-10 are both needed? ● Figure 4-12, 4-13, 14-16, and 4-18 through 4-22:
○ It is not clear what information these figures are trying to convey. ○ If they are trying to convey the relationships of the land uses within the districts to those adjacent to the districts then the areas around districts should not be half-toned - Of the two choices I think it is important to understand the land use relationships of the Land Use Designations. ○ If the intent is just to highlight the uses within the districts rather than the relationships with the area outside the districts then the area outside the district should be grayed.should be grayed and the land use designations outside the district should be deleted from the legends. At least in the printed version the half-toned open space appear similar to Agriculture, it is difficult to distinguish between the area of Vasona (Open Space), Albright Specific Plan is hard to differentiate from Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential is more similar to Hillside Residential.
● Figure 4-16: Again, on the printed copy, the North Santa Cruz District matches Community Commercial rather than Neighborhood Commercial. Is that the intent? ○ Where two districts are within the same Figure both should be labeled on the map itself.
● Figures 4-18 (Winchester District) and Figure 4-19 (Lark District):
○ On the General Plan Land Use Map the area to the east of the Albright Specific Plan is shown as Open Space but on Figure 16 it appears to be either agricultural or the North r0 Specific Plan (again in the print copy of the 2040 Draft GP).
○ Figure 4-18 extends the Albright Specific Plan beyond its boundary and splits it between the Specific Plan between Winchester Boulevard District and the Lark District. The 85 Freeway splits the North and South parts of the Winchester Blvd. District. The configuration of the Winchester District if questionable given that during the approval process for the Albright PD (turned Specific Plan) it was determined that it would be extremely difficult to provide a safe pedestrian/bike connection on the east side of Winchester over the 85 Freeway

○ In addition Figure 4-18 incorrectly shows the Albright Specific Plan extending beyond the Plans Boundary. The area at the bottom of this figure should be shown as Light Industrial. This is correctly shown in Figure 4-19 Lark Avenue District.
● Figure 7-1 Open Space, Parks and Recreation Facilities within Town Limits:
○ For ease of use suggest numbering Kennedy Loop Trail and the Open Space Preserves.
○ Delete “....within the Town Limits from the Title. Areas of the Open Space Preserves are within the Town Limits.
● Figure 8-4: Planning Watershed and Figure 8-3: Wellands and Water Habitats:
○ Both identify Lexington and Vasona as Lakes rather than as reservoirs ○ It is hard to see the red lines of the Riverine areas and it is not clear that the light green lines are Freshwater Forested Shrub Wetlands or something else.
● Figure 8-5 Future Noise Contours:
○ The scale of this make hard to read. Is it possible to increase the scale by turning it on its side even if it did not include the total Planning Area? ○ Add Highway 17 and Highway 85
● Figure 9-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zone:
○ Move the Note up and increase the font size.
○ This is a truly scary map!
● Add a figure showing the Dam Inundation Zone for Lexington and Vasona Illustrations and Photos:
● Re label as Illustrations rather than figures. Figure 4-1, through Figure 4-9, , 4-14 to 4-15, 4-17 and 4-23
● Identify the photos within Community Design Element
● The Community Design Element is the only Element that contains illustrations and photos and they are significantly different from Figures.

Tables
● Table 3.1 General Plan Residential Buildout. Update and move to Appendix in Final Approved GP
● Table 3.2 General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards:
○ Provide more information regarding allowed use in the description of each Designation.
○ For Designations that allow ADU’s move the information regarding ADU’s to the end of the description and indicate that ADU’s do not count towards density.
○ Delete mention of Missing Middle Housing (See comments under Implementing Missing Middle Housing.

Chapter 12 Glossary and Acronyms

● I came across numerous differences in definitions between Key Terms and the definitions in the Glossary. Please verify that definitions are the same. ● Verify that all Acronyms are included in Chapter 12.
● Gross Ace and Net Acre: There is an inconsistency between the definitions of Net and Gross Acres.
● Archaeological Resources: Differentiate between historic and prehistoric archeological resources
● Add :Below Market Price (BMP)
● Add: Below Grade Square Footage
● Building Coverage: Is this based on net or gross lot:
● Add CPTED and define
● California Points of Historical Interest: What criteria is used to identify these for Los Gatos? This appears to go beyond pre 1941 homes.
● Add: Capital Improvement Program
● Community Place District: What is the relationship between Community Place District (CPD?) and Placemaking?

From: Jean-Marc F. Blanchard
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 6:25 PM
To: GP2040
Cc: Planning Comment
Subject: Draft 2040 General Plan comments
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission:

I am writing to share some thoughts about the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan (“2040 GP”). I wanted to do so many months ago, but work commitments precluded me from doing so. First, I want to thank all of you for volunteering for this major undertaking. Your public service is appreciated. Second, the 2040 GP is quite impressive in its breadth of coverage and policy recommendations. In any event, I would like to make some suggestions as well as note various concerns about the 2040 GP. I apologize for sending this to two separate emails, but it was not clear from the Town of Los Gatos newsletter which would be appropriate.

As for writing issues, the 2040 GP could be far more concise. While I realize there is much to cover, there should be a serious effort to remove repetition. For example, in the Community Design section, the discussion for almost all the Districts ranging from Los Gatos Boulevard (p. 4-24) to Union Avenue (p. 4-42) repeatedly discusses the need for mixed-use developments, setbacks, pedestrian activation, parking relocation, connectivity, better landscaping, and mid-block crossings. All these common recommendations could be consolidated on to 1-2 pages with District-specific goals, policies, and programs highlighted separately. In addition, definitions could be moved into footnotes. Finally, the report should have active hyperlinks throughout (especially the Table of Contents) to allow readers to easily shift to other relevant sections of the report and to locate other materials (e.g., the Background Report and the EIR) mentioned in various places. A more succinct, fluid, and easily used 2040 GP is essential to facilitate community participation and encourage a thorough reading.

It seems to me that the 2040 GP could be more focused. It is not clear, for instance, why the Town of Los Gatos should be working on promoting safe and clean water (RSEJ 5.2 on p. 2-6), promoting the acceptance of EBT in order to facilitate the use of SNAP/WIC food programs (RSEJ 4.1 on p. 2-5), or running climate change, zero waste, low water landscaping, and limited pesticide application education programs (see the sections on Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure and Environmental and Sustainability). The point is not that these are undesirable goals or programs. The point is that it may be better for other government bodies or non-government organizations to run such programs/undertake such initiatives. A 2040 GP that has too many goals, policies, and programs risks stretching Town staffing and financial resources too thin to the detriment of accomplishing other more pressing and realistic goals.

The 2040 GP mentions many of the ways that the Town encourages participation with respect to the 2040 GP. These include hearings, booths, online and print reports, and standing and ad hoc commissions. More may not be better. The Town should seriously consider if the length of hearings, the form and length of reports (the 2040 GP is a vivid example of the length problem), and terms associated with being a commissioner discourage participation by a diverse set of Los Gatos community members in shaping the 2040 GP and associated materials.

The 2040 GP has very little to say about how the Town will get developers to advance all the goals and policies enumerated in the 2040 GP. The Town certainly can implement new zoning requirements,

require Planning Commission approvals, and the like, but it is entirely possible that developers will go elsewhere where they deem it less burdensome and/or more profitable to build. As part of its arsenal of policies and programs, the Town needs to consider more incentive schemes that can motivate developers to build in Los Gatos on 2040 GP terms.

The role of the Police Department in facilitating the realization of the 2040 GP’s Mobility element receives scant attention. As a regular walker and biker around our Town, I am always struck by how many people speed or drive dangerously on many Town streets including the usual suspects such as Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Boulevard, and Highway 9, but also unlikely candidates like Santa Cruz Avenue between Highway 9 and Main Street, Main Street between Santa Cruz and Los Gatos High, and so on. Enforcement, of course, is not the only answer, but it has to be part of the answer. Many so-called traffic calming measures like signs indicating car speed are not working. I see this weekly on Lark Avenue.

The discussion in the Land Use and Community Design sections emphasizes setbacks, step backs, and so on as ways to make bigger buildings conform to the look and feel of Los Gatos. These are not the only ways. Buildings that integrate clever architectural (non-box) designs, have balconies, and/or embedded greenery throughout can be taller while having a reduced effect on views, climate change, and water runoff. These possibilities do not appear to be discussed in the 2040 GP. On a related matter, encouraging solar power is recognized in various places in the 2040 GP, but the report does not seem to incorporate an accompanying set of specific policies and program to drive increased solar usage.

Lastly, none of the policies or programs listed in the 2040 GP mention requirements for any new expenditures or staffing or an awareness of the possibility that the 2040 GP policies and programs may require one or both. If new expenditures or staffing will be needed, then this should be mentioned in the 2040 GP in the interest of full disclosure. If they will not require new staffing or expenditures, then this is worth highlighting, too. If such discussion is outside the scope of conventional General Plans, then it should be made clear at what stage such expenditures or staffing would be considered so readers are aware of potential tradeoffs.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jean-Marc F. Blanchard, Ph.D.

PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 06/20/2022
ITEM NO: 1

DESK ITEM
DATE: June 20, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Conduct a Public Hearing, Review the Planning Commission Recommendations, Determine Any Additional Modifications, Adopt the Draft 2040 General Plan, and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

REMARKS:

Attachment 24 includes Council Member comments. Staff is prepared to support the Council in its discussion of these and other comments at tonight’s meeting.

Attachment 25 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, June 20, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachments previously received under separate cover:
(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
Attachments previously with June 20, 2022 Staff Report:

5. Draft Resolution Certifying the EIR for the 2040 General Plan, with Exhibit A Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6. Draft Resolution Approving the 2040 General Plan

7. Planning Commission Recommendation

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: June 20, 2022
ATTACHMENTS (continued):

8. April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 5-10

9. April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report, with Exhibit 11

10. April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report, with Exhibits 12-13

11. April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

12. April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 14-15

13. April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report, with Exhibits 16

14. April 25, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

15. April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report, with Exhibits 17

16. April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

17. May 2, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report

18. May 2, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report, with Exhibits 18

19. May 2, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

20. Planning Commission Recommendation Informational Memo

21. Study Session Questions and Responses

22. Breaking it Down Series

23. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, May 2, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, 2022
Attachments with this Desk Item:

24. Council Member Comments

25. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, June 15, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, June 20, 2022

From: Rob Rennie <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 1:33 PM
To: Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]> Subject: General plan questions
Laurel,
I think there is a couple mistakes and I have a question or 2.

Possible errors:

1. recommendation 1 protect natural environment. It says biotic communities. Should this be symbiotic communities?

2. recommendation 3 bullet 9 new policy HAZ2-9 "...infrastructure are ubiquitous through out its town..." Should it be "the town"

3. recommendation 5 bullet 1. Says class 1 to class II. Aren't we building a class 4? My questions:

1. The LDR category says 230 units from vacant land. Where do we have vacant land that is zone LDR. How much of it will still be LDR after housing element site selection? I think maybe we want to discourage LDR on bare land unless it is a small lot.

2. In the recommendation 1. I do not like the removal of the last line about mixed business serving residents. For a long time los gatos has focused on being a full service community where residents did not have to leave los gatos for most needs. I believe this has been lost in the vision statement with the changes. Could you suggest wording I can propose to get this idea back in the vision?

3. It is not complete clear to me the zoning in the community place districts?

4. I am interested in promoting the idea of the higher density LDR only with in 1/4 mile of the community place districts. Is it possible for staff to create a zone map of what the would look like? Anything that is already zone MDR or HDR should stay as is.

Thank You,
Rob Rennie
Los Gatos Town Mayor
Help me prevent brown act violations. Please do not forward this email ATTACHMENT 24

From: Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2022 4:26 PM
To: Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>
Subject: Questions about Item 1
Hi Laurel,
I believe that you correctly instructed the Planning Commission on April 27 when you said, “I think the real exercise is what total capacity would you like to see in the 2040 General Plan.” Unfortunately, the Planning Commission was not presented with an analysis showing that total capacity before they voted their recommendation. (As was the case with the GPAC.) Zoning and density changes are a means to achieve an end that results in a total capacity that must meet population growth and be accompanied by an EIR that can be certified. The Council must see the total capacity before it approves the General Plan.

When the Council last approved total capacity on April 7, 2020, the Council approved Option C and there was an accompanying table showing total capacity. When the Draft 2040 General Plan was released, Table 3-1 showed 3,738 units and there were additional 166 Hillside units, for a total capacity of 3,904. In May 2022, the Planning Commission made recommendations to change zoning densities without the benefit of a staff report showing the total capacity of their actions. Subsequent to their vote, Table 3-1 has been produced to reflect the Planning Commission’s total capacity of 3,280 units plus 116 Hillside, for a total of 3,396 units.

On October 19, 2021, a majority of the Council requested that the Council consider whether to perform an analysis of the total capacity representing the current RHNA allocation of 1,993 units plus a buffer. To date, this has not happened, and I cannot find a document that analyzes the 1,993 option and states what changes to the General Plan would need to be made to achieve that. It is important for that option be provided to the Council for consideration of the 2040 Draft General Plan, as a majority of residents with whom I have communicated have expressed a strong preference for 1,993 total capacity. Could staff please provide a version of Table 3-1 that totals to 1,993 plus a buffer of 15%, or approximately 2,292 total capacity? I’m still working through the new information presented in our packet, but I wanted to give you a head’s up about this.

Thanks,
Matthew
In compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, please do not forward my email.

Councilmember Matthew Hudes
Town of Los Gatos
[email protected]

From: Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 9:31 AM
To: Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Item 1
Here are some formatting and minor edits.

In compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, please do not forward my email.

Councilmember Matthew Hudes
Town of Los Gatos
[email protected]

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Matthew D. Francois
June 17, 2022
R u ta n & T uck e r, L L P |
S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 05 | |
Ora n g e C o un ty | P a l o Alto | S a n F ra n c i s c o | 2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
VIA E-MAIL [[email protected]]
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor
and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan; June 20, 2022 Town Council Hearing, Agenda Item No. 1
Dear Mayor Rennie and Members of the Town Council:

We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned citizens, in regard to the Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”) and associated Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). The Proposed Plan significantly upzones the entire Town for no apparent purpose. The EIR does not study the significant environmental impacts associated with that upzoning. The EIR is legally inadequate and cannot be relied on to adopt the Proposed Plan. We urge the Town Council to revise the Proposed Plan in the manner outlined in Section II below, which would help to address some of the EIR’s key shortcomings.

I. The EIR Is Flawed And Cannot Legally Be Relied On To Approve the Proposed Plan.

In our September 13, 2021, January 5, 2022 and April 12, 2022 letters to the Town, we detailed the myriad inadequacies in the EIR. The Final EIR (“FEIR”) does not adequately or sufficiently respond to or address those concerns. We summarize some of the key issues below.

A. The EIR Fails To Analyze The Impacts Of The “Whole Of The Project,” As Required By CEQA.

The EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the buildout potential allowed under the Proposed and thus fails to comply with CEQA. Instead of the tens of thousands of additional housing units and tens of millions square feet of new commercial development allowed by the changes to the land use densities under the Proposed Plan, the EIR analyzes only a small fraction of this development.

This undermines the EIR’s analysis of every single environmental resource from Aesthetics to Wildlife. CEQA does not allow or authorize an agency to greatly upzone every single residential and commercial land use designation and then fail to consider the environmental impacts associated with it. There is also no reason for such upzoning given the 1,993 units needed to satisfy the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), which can readily be accommodated in the mixeduse corridors designated as Community Place Districts.

ATTACHMENT 25

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022

2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
At the Town Council’s December 7, 2021 study session, Town Staff claimed that it was “standard” practice to assume only a fraction of the growth enabled by changes to a plan. In reality, such an approach is directly contrary to the law, which mandates that an EIR analyze the “whole of an action” that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15146(b), 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376 [EIR found inadequate for studying only a portion of a proposed laboratory/office development project]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 307 [in upholding the cumulative impact analysis of a project EIR that relied upon plan EIRs, the court reasoned that the plan EIRs “necessarily addressed the cumulative impacts of buildout to the maximum possible densities allowed by those plans” with mitigation measures proposed and any overriding benefits of development noted]; accord, Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1228-1229 [upheld project EIR that relied on general plan EIR because plan EIR assumed “worst case” conditions for development on, and access to, the project site].)
At the December 7th study session, Staff also indicated that the Town would monitor growth, and if it reached the maximum amount studied, the Town would conduct additional environmental review. This too fundamentally and irreconcilably conflicts with CEQA. Courts have routinely rejected similar claims to study environmental impacts after a project has been approved. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., supra, 47 Cal.3d at 394 [“If postapproval environmental review were allowed, EIR’s would likely become nothing more than post hoc rationalizations to support action already taken.”]; accord, Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 138; see also City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 533 [EIR should be prepared as early in the planning process as possible to enable environmental considerations to influence project, program, or design especially since general plan EIRs are used as foundation documents for specific project EIRs].)
It is also important to keep in mind that if the densities under the Proposed Plan were to be enacted, the Town would generally be prohibited from denying or reducing the density of any housing project that complied with those new density standards under the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). (See Gov. Code § 65589.5; see also California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820 [First Appellate District ruled that city violated HAA by denying a 10-unit project based on a non-objective design guideline].)
B. The Final EIR Acknowledges The Use Of Inconsistent And Conflicting Baselines.

The FEIR states that the EIR used future conditions as its baseline. For instance, on page 117, the FEIR states that the EIR “uses the potential growth the Town is likely to achieve by the year 2040 as its baseline for analysis of potential impacts. This is not a hypothetical number but based

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022

2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
on existing conditions and the potential for future development in this time period.” The FEIR then contradicts itself by saying “[t]he projected 3,738 dwelling units is comprised of multiple parts and focuses on the total buildout for the Town, not just a 20-year horizon.” (Id.) In reality, the baseline is the existing conditions, normally represented by conditions at the time the notice of preparation was released. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) Here, that would represent the Town’s existing residential and commercial development as of 2020. Reliance on a future conditions baseline, at least without any substantial evidence to justify it, is yet another flaw in the EIR. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Auth. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439.) Additionally, doing a plan-to-plan comparison is also invalid under CEQA. (Environmental Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350.) At minimum, the FEIR raises an issue of shifting and inconsistent baselines. For instance, while the FEIR says the baseline is future growth under 2040 conditions, the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) suggests it relied on an existing conditions baseline, at least as to vehicle miles traveled and certain other resource categories. (Draft EIR, pp. 2-4, fn. 1, 4.9-14, 4.10-9, 4.15-23.) Among other courts, the Sixth Appellate District has overturned an EIR that relied on conflicting baseline information. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99.) C. The EIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Address Significant Transportation Impacts.

The Recirculated Draft EIR (“RDEIR”) identifies a new significant unavoidable impact.

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

As to Impact T-1, the RDEIR states that “[t]here are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects related to transit operations and ridership.” (RDEIR, p. 4.15- 25.) An EIR cannot simply declare an impact significant and unavoidable without considering and imposing feasible mitigation measures.1 The RDEIR acknowledges that transit operational improvements, such as signal coordination and transit vehicle preemption, could potentially improve the overall reliability of transit in congested areas. (RDEIR, p. 4.15-25.) Because these measures are “not likely to fully address” the impact, the RDEIR does not impose them as mitigation. (Id.) The FEIR states the measures are not included because they are a separate project that would be implemented later. (FEIR, p. 198.) As such, the EIR does not impose enforceable mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen a significant impact and defers 1 (Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3); California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 982; City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.)

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022

2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
mitigation to an unspecified future date. The EIR also fails to consider any alternatives to this newly identified significant impact. In all these aspects, the FEIR fails to comply with CEQA. (Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4, 15126.6; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) II. To Rectify The CEQA Infirmities, The Proposed Plan Must Be Revised.

The Proposed Plan must be revised to, at minimum, include the following revisions. If such changes were to be made, they would go a long ways towards satisfying LGCA’s fundamental concern that the Proposed Plan includes excessive density increases that have not been analyzed in the EIR.

A. Restore Existing Low Density Residential Development Standards.

For lands designated Low Density Residential, the current General Plan allows for singlefamily development at densities of up to 5 units per acre. The Proposed Plan would more than double the permitted densities, allowing for development of up to 12 units per acre.2 No change in land use designation or densities should be made to the Low Density Residential land use category.

First, no such changes are needed to meet the Town’s RHNA figure. Higher density development is already provided for in other areas, such as Community Place Districts. Further, the densities proposed in Low Density Residential areas (up to 12 units per acre) would not count toward the Town’s fair share of affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B) [requiring densities of at least 20 units per acre to be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households].)
Second, state law has already added density to low density residential areas. Senate Bill 9, which took effect on January 1, 2022, allows for up to four units per single family residential lot.

The Town has enacted an urgency ordinance to implement Senate Bill 9. Adding further density to single-family neighborhoods would not be appropriate as such areas are generally not in close proximity to public transit, employment, or commercial services. Local upzoning on top of state upzoning would also be contrary to policies in the Proposed Plan that emphasize maintaining and enhancing a sense of place in residential neighborhoods and requiring new construction to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. (See, e.g., Proposed Plan, Goals LU-5 and LU-17 and Policies LU-2.1, LU-4.1, and LU-5.8.)

Third, given the relatively high land costs, much higher development densities are required to achieve the unit development economics to incentivize the production of duplexes and triplexes in Low Density Residential areas. As such, the desired development would not likely ever 2 We understand that the Planning Commission recommended that the maximum density be reduced slightly to 10 units per acre. This is still double the current allowed maximum density.

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022

2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
materialize given the high land cost. The resulting housing would instead likely consist of denser, single-family detached housing that is market rate and not affordable.

B. Add Low-Medium Density Residential in Appropriate Locations.

The Proposed Plan contains policies that encourage development of “missing middle” housing. (Cf. Proposed Plan, Policies LU-1.2, LU-3.5, and LU-5.1; see also Proposed Plan, pp. 3-5 to 3-6.) The Proposed Plan describes missing middle housing as “multiple units on a single parcel (whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes.” (Proposed Plan, p. 3-3.) The plan goes on to state that common missing middle housing types include, among others, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. (Id.) To actually encourage the development of this type of housing, the Town should establish a new Low-Medium Density Residential land use category that allows for the development of duplexes and triplexes at a density range of between 6 and 13 dwelling units per acre. The City of Campbell has a similar land use designation in its General Plan, which it describes as consisting generally of duplexes, small apartment buildings, and small lot, single-family detached homes. This new land use designation would be between Low Density Residential, designed for single-family residential development, and Medium Density Residential, designed for multiple-family residential development. Staff could identify appropriate sites in Community Place Districts for this new land use designation.

C. Amend Permitted Intensities Allowed in Central Business District.

As currently written, the Proposed Plan would change the permitted floor area ratio (“FAR”) in the Central Business District (“CBD”) from 0.6 to 2.0 and allow for residential densities of 20-30 units per acre. This change would increase allowed intensities in Los Gatos’s unique and charming Downtown by over 200 percent. Such a change would conflict with policies emphasizing the smallscale retail development envisioned in the CBD district that is consistent with the Town’s identity, character, and style. (Cf. Proposed Plan, Policies LU-8.2, LU-8.3, LU-9.1, and LU-9.4.) Such high density development could threaten the commercial viability of the Downtown area.

The City of Campbell limits FAR in its Central Commercial (“CC”) district to 1.25. Similar to Los Gatos’s CBD district, Campbell’s CC district is intended to promote retail commercial uses on the ground floor with office or other uses on upper floors. The Town should likewise limit FAR in the CBD to 1.25.

D. Make Other Changes As Needed to Accommodate The Town’s Assigned RHNA.

In addition to the above changes, the Town should modify land use designations and densities so that build-out under the Proposed Plan would accommodate no more than approximately 2,300

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022

2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
units. This figure reflects the Town’s RHNA of 1,993 units, plus a 15 percent buffer. It also reflects the economic demand and the City Council’s preferred land use alternative. By proceeding with this reasonable growth figure, the Town could ensure that development is phased and does not outpace necessary infrastructure and service improvements.

The current Proposed Plan allows for the development potential of nearly 75,000 housing units at maximum allowable densities. Even using the Town’s deflated figures and assuming a less than worst case scenario, the Proposed Plan may still result in the development of over 14,600 units.

The EIR wrongly assumes and studies only 25 percent of this growth. There is no need to maximize densities in each and every residential and commercial land use category to achieve the Town’s RHNA and doing so would fundamentally change the nature and character of the Town. ********************
In closing, the EIR fails to analyze the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan. As such, the Town cannot legally rely on the EIR to adopt the Proposed Plan in its current form. At minimum, the changes requested by LGCA in Section II are needed to rectify the significant legal infirmities associated with the EIR.

Thank you for your consideration of LGCA’s views on these important matters.

Representatives of LGCA, including the undersigned, will be in attendance at your June 20th hearing on this item. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this correspondence.

Very truly yours,

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

Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney

From: James Lyon
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 4:51 AM
To: Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]> Cc: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 2040 General Plan - DO NOT ADOPT Planning Commission Recommendation

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Distinguished Council Members,
I write you with concerns of the recommendations from the Planning Commission on the Housing Element and the 2040 General Plan.

1. The Housing Element as submitted is an “up zoning” of almost the entire Town – this is not acceptable. The Town is already dealing with the State SB9 mandate – to add more housing on top of this mandate is not realistic.
a. How do we deal with services – fire, police, schools, roads, parking, and traffic with this increased density? These questions have not been adequately addressed – and need to be mitigated PRIOR to adoption of such a General Plan.
b. We live as the Wildlife-Urban interface – where wildfires will devastate the community. More density exacerbates this issue due to limited access, narrow roads and higher density.
c. Do we have enough water supply or sewage capacity for the Town? We are already in a drought situation again – it is now perpetual. What is the plan to have enough water to support a 28% increase in Town population by 2040 based on the Plan?

2. The 2040 General Plan as drafted has population growth of 28% - three times higher than historic growth. This is unreasonable to expect the Town to grow this fast (or to absorb this many new residents).
a. How will safety and quality of life be maintained? Has the fiscal and physical infrastructure impact been analyzed? The answer is “no”. It would be irresponsible to adopt a Plan without understanding the impact and mitigations.

3. The Housing Element has nearly DOUBLE the State’s mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) – WHY? There is no rational reasoning – Santa Clara County population has been on the decline in recent years. I implore you to cut the 2040 Housing Element to the RHNA level of 1993 units as mandated by the State – or better yet, appeal the State mandate. a. SB9 growth should be within the Town’s RHNA target – recalculate the SB9 projections to be included in the RHNA target.
b. Growth allowed should be phased so that services and infrastructure can keep pace and be put in place ahead of growth. Meaning no more than 500 units every 5 years to 2040.
c. Reduce densities as follows:

4. Affordable Housing – certainly with will be expected with the growth of housing. But as we all know, affordable housing is an oxymoron. There is no affordable housing in the Bay Area – so let’s stop the charade.
a. Any affordable housing needs to preserve the character of the Town – just look to the North 40 development – this was to have affordable housing – but the lowest prices are more than $1.2MM – not affordable. This development Is massive and NOT in keeping with the Town character. This uncontrolled massive development CANNOT happen in the future.
b. Every affordable housing program in the Town for the last 25 years has failed – BMP units, in-lieu fees, etc – none of these programs has achieved “affordable housing” in Los Gatos – again, stop kidding ourselves.
c. There needs to be principles and values to select locations and design for affordable housing to fit Town character. Without these, we will end of with another abomination like the North 40.

As a former Planning Commissioner (1996 – 2002), I request that you take action to revamp and correct the errors of the Planning Commission and NOT enact this General Plan as-is. It needs to be returned to the Planning Commission and Staff with specific direction to:

1. Reduce housing to the State mandated levels, inclusive of SB9 and ADU created housing.

2. All services to be analyzed for impact (financial, physical) and mitigation measures defined, with growth only allowed in stages IF services have scaled to meet in the increased demand.

3. Affordable housing guidelines to be developed that preserve the character of the Town. Clearly define affordable housing as well principles and values for site selection and allocation to the community.

4. Align the GP to the State’s and County’s actions – not promises. The County has never implemented the Vasona Extension of Light Rail – at the time, this was used as a traffic mitigation for the Netflix campus – it never happened. We need to have the infrastructure PRIOR to growth, not a promise by the County or State that it will come. History shows that the Town gets burned.

Thank you for your considerations and I urge you to return the 2040 General Plan to the Planning Commission.

Regards,
Jim Lyon

From:

Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Arn Andrews <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Shelley Neis <[email protected]> Subject: A Request to limit RHNA to 2292 homes

EXTERNAL SENDER
Tomorrow night you will hear the reasons given by the GPAC, PC and Staff as to why ~14,600 (or 12,065) additional homes is a good idea. We don't think the vast majority of Los Gatans agree as expressed in our survey and confirmed again in the Town's survey. Please listen to your residents.

Attached you will find what we think is a very simple solution to approve of the 2292. We do realize the number of hours put into the study by the GPAC, PC and Staff will be very hard for them to let go. But the number of hours may have been spent missing the forest because of the trees.

As we always try to do, we have found the data in the Town's publications so as to remove our personal bias. You can vote for 2292 now, and up that number later. You can't vote for 12,065 now and go back to anything less in the future.

We look forward to your meeting tomorrow evening.
-
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

Up zone the Entire Town or Simply Rezone for 877 Units? When the 2040 General Plan first started, the Town Council (TC) told the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) that they were happy with the 2020 General Plan and that it only needed tweaking. We agreed with that comment and like most of you, we were aghast when the GPAC recommended at least doubling all residential land use densities Town wide (aka, up zoning) which increased the maximum potential housing units allowed by more than 14,600 homes. This new zoning standard would double the allowed homes in a town that is largely built out. While the Town is not responsible for what ultimately gets built, the Town absolutely controls what is allowed to be built. And this is the core issue.

The State of California Dept Of Finance (DOF) projected the most likely market demand for housing in Los Gatos between 2020 and 2040 is 1,529 units. The Town’s own consultant, ADE Projection, concluded a market demand of 1,954 units. And lastly, the GPAC initially provided guidance that the Town should develop land use alternatives that could provide space for the future development over the next 20 years for 2,000 residential units. This strongly indicates that the Town should make only those targeted land use changes which will allow for the development of 2,292.

The Town is required by the State to properly zone enough residential land which would enable the development of 1,993 units plus a 15% buffer over the next 8 years for a total number of 2,292 units at various income levels. That is all that is required for the 6th cycle.

By our calculations, and backed up by the Town’s own documents, after deducting from 2,292 units the projected 200 ADU’s and the 202 allowable units currently in the pipeline (see Exhibit B, pg 289), the Town needs to properly zone enough sites that will allow for the development of only 1,890 units. Under existing residential land use density, the Town has estimated there is land capacity to build an additional 1,013 units, with no zoning changes; see Exhibit A. This leaves the Town short a total of only 877 units (1890-1013= 877).
877 units is the total number of additional units that must be planned to meet the 6th cycle allocation. This would require increasing densities for a limited number of targeted sites (less than 35 acres of land in all) to accommodate this incremental growth.

However, for some reason, the solution by the GPAC was to double the residential land use density Town wide, which impacts over 2,465 acres and will allow, based on new zoning laws, the development of over 14,600 units in the GPAC version or 12,065 as modified by the PC (see Exhibit C as to how we speculated they did their calculations since the Town never explained it).

Of the 877 units, we need 847 that qualify as low and very low housing. It is our feeling, that most of that can and should be planned in the "opportunity” zones that are most likely to be served by some form of mass-transit in the future. We also advocate having

some of the low/very low placed in the North Forty which is the single largest piece of developable property in Los Gatos.

We cannot possibly speculate why the GPAC and the PC feel up zoning to a minimum of 12,065 units is a good idea. It will increase development, traffic, green house gases, water usage, and students in our schools. We and 64% of the population in two different surveys disagree with the GPAC, the PC and the Town Manager. We respectfully ask the Council to reject up zoning 2645 acres when we may only need 35 to meet our RHNA numbers. ABAG does not set RHNA numbers for 20 years, but it’s likely that to speed development, they compressed 20 to 8. Los Gatos Commissions should not be forecasting how many houses we’ll need for 20 years. It’s been done for us by two independent entities who forecast 20 year growth at less than 1993. The second paragraph above will show you that we do not need more than 2292 homes.

Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

From:

Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 11:52 AM
To: Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Vote Against Building Plan on 6/20

EXTERNAL SENDER
June 19, 2022
Dear Town Council members,
I am writing in great concern for the safe livability of our town, especially in regards to fire danger.

In the June 20th Town Council meeting, please do not:
• Approve the recommendation for up-zoning our entire town, which would allow for almost double the residential units we have (approximately 14,600 additional homes). • Approve planning for almost 4,000 units, far in excess of the RHNA numbers required by the State of CA.

Please do:
--Reject this proposal and plan to adopt the recommendation/requirements from the state ONLY, which requires the town to zone enough residential land to enable the development of 1,993 units plus a 15% buffer over the next 8 years for the 6th RHNA cycle. Los Gatos can then evaluate appropriately for the next RHNA cycle later, a logical course that every other town is taking.

Please remember that what you do on 6/20 will change our town forever, and the repercussions of what you do will affect your own political career and prospects for the future. As you well know, numerous surveys have proven that the township does not agree with your “no-plan” (no plan for fire, no plan for schools, no plan for greenhouse gasses, no plan for financial impact) ambitious building fiasco.

In closing, a final request:
• Please make every letter you have received from town residents on this matter PUBLIC as you should have done long ago.

Best,
Sandra Livinghouse, ., Los Gatos

From: Cathleen Bannon
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 3:48 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: General plan 2040

EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m writing to voice my concerns regarding the general plan. After reviewing, while I see the need for growth, I do not support the idea of building beyond the 1,993 required units (NOT the proposed 70- 90% above). Our town does not have the infrastructure needed to absorb current traffic needs. The south side of town has limited narrow roads that cannot absorb converting older lots to multi unit lots. The town must limit development to areas that have more space for increased traffic/parking/etc. the town must find a way to preserve the look of the town, the ease of living, the community focus.

Not every every residential area in Town be "upzoned" into more dense neighborhoods?
Services and infrastructure can not keep pace with the safety and quality of life that our residents expect.

We must do a better job of preserving the character of our community while guiding the Town into the future.

Cathleen & Grant Bannon

From:

Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 5:07 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: housing

EXTERNAL SENDER
Sirs,
Before the town increase numbers I want a look at safety. Evacuation routes for fire primarily. We sit at the interface of a massive potential fire as the heat and lack of rain increases danger. I would like to hear from our fire department on the topic.

Parking? Where will each of the 4,000 new homes park their cars...that's 8,000 cars needing parking. Don't fool yourself that public transit will solve that problem. WE are not Europe.

Water? Where will we get the water for that many homes, gardens, etc? Next. Street safety. Already cars can barely move on weekends...there is no way I could evacuate from Central Avenue. I doubt an ambulance could get in and out.

School: The high school traffic is an accident waiting to happen....increasing cars and walkers only increases the likelihood of accident. Already, I have been told there is no money for a traffic light or a crossing guard!!
Schools: New ones will be needed. Who will pay?
Why does the town want to double the already high number of housing we are expected to accommodate? Who is benefiting? Profiting?
My neighbors are already so close, I can hear the toilet flush's and smell the dryer perfume blowing over my deck and in my windows. I can hear their conversations and there are hard feelings over size of trees, etc. (In fact, they are leaving Los Gatos for more space) If the town counsel care about the quality of life and the residents at all, they must answer these problems.

Sandy Moeckel

From:

Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 8:13 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Pls vote to keep state's required housing allotment and no more

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi. Thank you for voting to stay at the estimated 1900 new housing units the state is requiring and no more.

We also need the housing to be allotted as the Town grows to accommodate the density, not allow the units to be built Day 1.

Thank you
Babette Ito
--
Yours,
Babette Ito

From:

Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:09 AM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item #1

EXTERNAL SENDER
Attached is input the Town Council must consider as it prepares to adopt the Draft 2040 General Plan including Land Use Designations and Development Standards for the Town.

Thank you for distributing my comments/input to the Council ahead of the meeting tomorrow evening.

Rob Stump

1 June 19, 2022
Town Councilmembers
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
Dear Councilmembers,
As a long-time Los Gatos resident, I am very concerned about the proposal to increase housing density (Low, Medium, & High Density Residential) in a blanket manner across the Town of Los Gatos. First, I do not believe there is any need to increase housing density across Los Gatos to achieve whatever housing numbers the Town Council or the citizens of Los Gatos approve. I think most community members would agree that applying a blanket and perhaps arbitrary approach to housing density that cannot be reversed in the future is not a prudent action.

Second, a blanket approach to housing density is not prudent from a public safety standpoint.

Almost 3,100 homes in Los Gatos are located in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) designated as the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). This entire area and even neighborhoods outside of the WUI live with the real threat of wildfire. Who can forget the devastation of the Tubbs Fire that decimated Coffey Park in Santa Rosa? Coffey Park was outside of the WUI. Fire blew into this neighborhood, four dead and 1,200 homes destroyed.

So, how should Los Gatos think about or rethink housing density in our WUI? We should not make any changes to housing density for any residential designation in the WUI. Residential designations as documented in the 2020 General Plan should remain in-place in the WUI.

Residential Designations Standards, 2020 General Plan
LDR – Low Density Residential 0-5/acre
MDR – Medium Density Residential 5-12/acre
HDR – High Density Residential 12-20/acre
The Los Gatos WUI Map with identified parcels is attached for reference.1 If increased housing densities are approved in the WUI, there could be catastrophic impacts to residents. Increasing housing density in the WUI flies in the face of public safety which is the top strategic priority for the Town of Los Gatos.

One final point, I think many in Los Gatos believe that wildfire will never happen in this community. Those that have been devastated by wildfire over the past several years know better. One fact that needs to be driven home, the Town of Los Gatos is at risk for catastrophic wildfire in our community. A well-known wildfire study, published by the The Arizona Republic, rated Los Gatos a higher risk for wildfire prior to the wildfire that destroyed the Town of Paradise. 1 - Also attaching the “Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment” issued by the Town of Los Gatos on October 10, 2019 as an additional reference.

2 Countless numbers of homes were destroyed in and around Paradise and dozens of lives were lost.

Please ensure the real threat of wildfire in the Town of Los Gatos is carefully considered before making housing density changes that we as a community may later regret. Wildfire is a significant threat to Los Gatos. Let’s not move more people into harm’s way.

Best regards,
Rob Stump

53223046
53223047
53223048
53223049
53223050
53223051
53223052
53223053
53223055
53223057
53223066
53223069
53223072
53223073
53223076
53223077
53223080
53223082
53223089
53223092
53223093
53223094
53223095
53223098
53223104
53223105
53223106
53223107
53223108
53223109
53223114
53223115
53224002
53224003
53224004
53224011
53224012
53224013
53224015
53224016
53224019
53224020
53224021
53224022
53224026
53224027
53224028
53224029
53225004
53225009
53225010
53225023
53225025
53225027
53225029
53225033
53225038
53225041
53225048
53225049
53225050
53225051
53225054
53225055
53226003
53226007
53226027
53226045
53226049
53226055
53226057
53226084
53226085
53226090
53226091
53226099
53229008
53229009
53229010
53229011
53229012
53229013
53229014
53229016
53229017
53229018
53229019
53229020
53229021
53229022
53229023
53229024
53229025
53229026
53229027
53229028
53229029
53229030
53229031
53229032
53229033
53229034
53229035
53229036
53229037
53229038
53229039
53229040
53229041
53229042
53229043
53229044
53229045
53229046
53229047
53229048
53229049
53229055
53229056
53229057
53229058
53229059
53229060
53229061
53229062
53229063
53229066
53229068
53229069
53229070
53229071
53229072
53229073
53229080
53229081
53229082
53229083
53229084
53229085
53229086
53229087
53229089
53229090
53229091
53229092
53229093
53229094
53229096
53229097
53229098
53229099
53229100
53226100
53226109
53226110
53226111
53226112
53226113
53227009
53227010
53227013
53228001
53228002
53228003
53228004
53228005
53228006
53228008
53228009
53228010
53228011
53228012
53228013
53228014
53228015
53228016
53228017
53228018
53228019
53228020
53228021
53228022
53228023
53228024
53228025
53228028
53228029
53228030
53228031
53228032
53228033
53228035
53228036
53228037
53228038
53228040
53228041
53228044
53228048
53228049
53228050
53228051
53228052
53228053
53228054
53228055
53228056
53228057
53228062
53228063
53228064
53228065
53228066
53228067
53228068
53228069
53228070
53228071
53228072
53228075
53228076
53229001
53229002
53229003
53229004
53229005
53229006
53229007
53229103
53229104
53230007
53230008
53230009
53230010
53230011
53230012
53230013
53230014
53230015
53230016
53230021
53230022
53230026
53230027
53230030
53230031
53230032
53230034
53230036
53230037
53230038
53230039
53230040
53230041
53230042
53230044
53230046
53230047
53230048
53230049
53230050
53230051
53230052
53230053
53230054
53230055
53230056
53230057
53230058
53230059
53230060
53230061
53230062
53230063
53230064
53231014
53231018
53231019
53231020
53231022
53231024
53231025
53231026
53231027
53232009
53232010
53232011
53232012
53232013
53232014
53232015
53232016
53232017
53232018
53232019
53232020
53232021
53232022
53232023
53232024
53232025
53232026
53232027
53232028
53232029
53232030
53232031
53232032
53232033
53232034
53232035
53232036
53233001
53233002
53233003
53233004
53233005
53233006
53233007
53233008
53233009
53233010
53233011
53233012
53233013
53233014
53233015
53233016
53233017
53233018
53233019
53233020
53233021
53233022
53233023
53233039
53233040
53233041
53233042
53233043
53233044
53233045
53233046
53233047
53233048
53233049
53233050
53233051
53233052
53233053
53233054
53233055
53233056
53233057
53233058
53233069
53234004
53234005
53234006
53234007
53234008
53234009
53234010
53234020
53234021
53234022
53234023
53234024
53234025
53234026
53234027
53234028
53234029
53234030
53234031
53234032
53234033
53234034
53234035
53234041
53234042
53234043
53234044
53234045
53234046
53234047
53234048
53234049
53234050
53234051
53234052
53234053
53234054
53234055
53234056
53234057
53234058
53234059
53234061
53234062
53234063
53234064
53234065
53234069
53234070
53234071
53234072
53236001
53236002
53236003
53236004
53236008
53236009
53236010
53236011
53236012
53236013
53236014
53236016
53236017
53236042
53236049
53236053
53236055
53236057
53236058
53236059
53236061
53236067
53236068
53236069
53236070
53236071
53236072
53236073
53236074
53236075
53236076
53236077
53236078
53236080
53236081
53237001
53237002
53237022
53237023
53237024
53237025
53237026
53237029
53237030
53237031
53237032
53237033
53237034
53237035
53237036
53237037
53237038
53237039
53237040
53237041
53237042
53237043
53237049
53237050
53237051
53237052
53237057
53237058
53237065
53237066
53237068
53237072
53237073
53237074
53237076
53237077
53237078
53237082
53237083
53237084
53237085
53238001
53238003
53238005
53238006
53238008
53238009
53238010
53238011
53239004
53239006
53239009
53239010
53239012
53239013
53239014
53239015
53240001
53240004
53240005
53240006
53240007
53240008
53240009
53240010
53240011
53240012
53240013
53240014
53240015
53240017
53240018
53240022
53240023
53240024
53240025
53240026
53240027
53240028
53240029
53240030
53240031
53240032
53240033
53240035
53240037
53240038
53240039
53240042
53240043
53240044
53240045
53241001
53241002
53241003
53241004
53241005
53241006
53241007
53241008
53241009
53241010
53241011
53241012
53241013
53241014
53241015
53241016
53241017
53241018
53241019
53241020
53242028
53242029
53242030
53242031
53701004
53702006
53702009
53702010
53702013
53703007
53703012
53703015
53703018
53703030
53703031
53703032
53703033
53703036
53703037
53703040
53703043
53703044
53703045
53703047
53703051
53703055
53703057
53703058
53703060
53703063
53703064
53703072
53703073
53703076
53703077
53703078
53703079
53703080
53704012
53704013
53704019
53704023
53704025
53704027
53704028
53704029
53704030
53704031
53704032
53704043
53704044
53704054
53704055
53705002
53705016
53708026
53711008
53711009
53711011
53711015
53711017
53711032
53711033
53711034
53711036
53711037
53712004
53712009
53712010
53713001
53713005
53713009
53713010
53713011
53714001
53714004
53714005
53714008
53714009
53715001
53715004
53715005
53715006
53715007
53715008
53715024
53715025
53715026
53715027
53715028
53715029
53716029
53717018
53717020
53717021
53717024
53717027
53717032
53717033
53717034
53717035
53718003
53718005
53719022
53720004
53720021
53720025
53720031
53720032
53720033
53720035
53720036
53721001
53721002
53721004
53721008
53721010
53721011
53721012
53721014
53721015
53721017
53721018
53721019
53721020
53721021
53721024
53722002
53722011
53722012
52347027
52347028
52347029
52347030
52347031
52347032
52347033
52347034
52347035
52347036
52347037
52347038
52347039
52347040
52347041
52347042
52347043
52347044
52347045
52347046
52347047
52347049
52347050
52347051
52347053
52347054
52347055
52347056
52347057
52347058
52347059
52347060
52701001
52701002
52701003
52701004
52701005
52701006
52701007
52701008
52701009
52701011
52701012
52701013
52701014
52702001
52702002
52702005
52702006
52702007
52702008
52702009
52702010
52702011
52702012
52703001
52703002
52703003
52703004
52703005
52703006
52703007
52703008
52703009
52703010
52703012
52704002
52704003
52704004
52704008
52704009
52704010
52704011
52704012
52705001
52705005
52712004
52712005
52712006
52712007
52712008
52712009
52712010
52712011
52713003
52713004
52713005
52713006
52713007
52713008
52713009
52713010
52714001
52714002
52714003
52714004
52714005
52714006
52714007
52714008
52714009
52714010
52714011
52715001
52715002
52715005
52715006
52715008
52715009
52715010
52715011
52716001
52716002
52716003
52716004
52716005
52716006
52716007
52716008
52716009
52716010
52716013
52716014
52716015
52716016
52716019
52716020
52717003
52717006
52717008
52717009
52717010
52718001
52718002
52718003
52718004
52718005
52718007
52718008
52718009
52718010
52719014
52719015
52719016
52719017
52719018
52719027
52719028
52719029
52719030
52719031
52719032
52705006
52706009
52706010
52706011
52706012
52706013
52706014
52706016
52707003
52707004
52707005
52707006
52707007
52707009
52707010
52707011
52707012
52707013
52707014
52708001
52708002
52708003
52708004
52708005
52708006
52708007
52708008
52708009
52708010
52708011
52708012
52708013
52708015
52708016
52708017
52708018
52708019
52708020
52708021
52709006
52709010
52709011
52709012
52709013
52709014
52709015
52709020
52709021
52709022
52709023
52709024
52709029
52709030
52709031
52709032
52709033
52709034
52709035
52709036
52709037
52710001
52710002
52710003
52710004
52710005
52710006
52710010
52710011
52710012
52711003
52711004
52711006
52711007
52711008
52711009
52712003
52719033
52719052
52719053
52720002
52720003
52721019
52721020
52722015
52726003
52726004
52726005
52726010
52726011
52742070
52742071
52742072
52742073
52742074
52742075
52742076
52742077
52755001
52755002
52755003
52755004
52755005
52755006
52755007
52755008
52755009
52755010
52755011
52755012
52755013
52755014
52755015
52755016
52755017
52755018
52755019
52755020
52755021
52755022
52755023
52755024
52755025
52755026
52755027
52755034
52755035
52755036
52755037
52755038
52755039
52755040
52755041
52755042
52755043
52755044
52755045
52756001
52756002
52756003
52756004
52756005
52756006
52756007
52756008
52756009
52756010
52756011
52756012
52756013
52756014
52756019
52756020
52756021
52756025
52756026
52756027
52756028
52756029
52756030
52756031
52756032
52756033
52756034
52757001
52757002
52757003
52757004
52757005
52757006
52757007
52757008
52757009
52757010
52757011
52758001
52758003
52901002
52901006
52901013
52901015
52901016
52901017
52901018
52901020
52901021
52901022
52901025
52901026
52901027
52901028
52901032
52901033
52901034
52901035
52901036
52901037
52901038
52901040
52901041
52901043
52901044
52901045
52901046
52926010
52926011
52926013
52926014
52926015
52926016
52926027
52927017
52928023
52928024
52928025
52928037
52929001
52929005
52929007
52929009
52929012
52929015
52929019
52929020
52929021
52929033
52929035
52929049
52929052
52929053
52929054
52929055
52929056
52929057
52929059
52929060
52929062
52929063
52929064
52929065
52929066
52929067
52929068
52929069
52929070
52930002
52930004
52930006
52930007
52930008
52930009
52930012
52930013
52930014
52930015
52930016
52930017
52930018
52930019
52930020
52930021
52930022
52930023
52930025
52930026
52930027
52930028
52930029
52930030
52930031
52930032
52930033
52930034
52930035
52930036
52930037
52930038
52930039
52930040
52930041
52930042
52930043
52930044
52930045
52930046
52930047
52930048
52930049
52930050
52930051
52930052
52930053
52930054
52930055
52930056
52930057
52930062
52930063
52930064
52930065
52930069
52930070
52930071
52930072
52930073
52931001
52931002
52931003
52931004
52931005
52931022
52931023
52931037
52931038
52931039
52931043
52931048
52931049
52931050
52931051
52931052
52931053
52931054
52931055
52931056
52931058
52931060
52931062
52931064
52931065
52931072
52931077
52931079
52931083
52931084
52931085
52931086
52931087
52931088
52931089
52931090
52931091
52931092
52931093
52931094
52931095
52931096
52931097
52931098
52931099
52931100
52931101
52931102
52932001
52932002
52932003
52932004
52932005
52932006
52932007
52932008
52932009
52932010
52932011
52932012
52932016
52932017
52932018
52932019
52932020
52932022
52932023
52932024
52932025
52932026
52932027
52932030
52932031
52932032
52932033
52932036
52932037
52932038
52932039
52932040
52932041
52932042
52932043
52932044
52932045
52932046
52932047
52932048
52932049
52932050
52933001
52933004
52933005
52933008
52933011
52933012
52933013
52933014
52933015
52933016
52933017
52933022
52933024
52933025
52933026
52933027
52933028
52933029
52933030
52933031
52933032
52933033
52933034
52933035
52933037
52933040
52933041
52933042
52933043
52933044
52933045
52933049
52933050
52933051
52933052
52933053
52933054
52933055
52933056
52933057
52933058
52934018
52934020
52934021
52934040
52934043
52934045
52934046
52934047
52934048
52934049
52934051
52934052
52934053
52934057
52934058
52934062
52934063
52934065
52934066
52934076
52934079
52934080
52934092
52934095
52934098
52934099
52934100
52934101
52934102
52934103
52934104
52934106
52934107
52934108
52934109
52935001
52935002
52935003
52935004
52935005
52935006
52935009
52935010
52935011
52935012
52935014
52935015
52935017
52935018
52935023
52935024
52935025
52935026
52935028
52935029
52935030
52935031
52935032
52935033
52935034
52935035
52935036
52935038
52935039
52935040
52935043
52935045
52935046
52935047
52935048
52935049
52935050
52935051
52935052
52935053
52935054
52935055
52935056
52935057
52935058
52935059
52935060
52935061
52935062
52935063
52935064
52935065
52935066
52935067
52935068
52936002
52936003
52936004
52936005
52936006
52936007
52936008
52936009
52936010
52936011
52936012
52936013
52936018
52936019
52936024
52936025
52936026
52936027
52936029
52936030
52936031
52936032
52936033
52936034
52936036
52936037
52936038
52936039
52936040
52936041
52936042
52936043
52936044
52936045
52936046
52936047
52937002
52937006
52937007
52937008
52937012
52937013
52937015
52937016
52937024
52937025
52937027
52937028
52937029
52937030
52937031
52937032
52937033
52937034
52937035
52937036
52937037
52937038
52937039
52937041
52937042
52937043
52937044
52938001
52938002
52938003
52938004
52938005
52938006
52938007
52938008
52938009
52938010
52938014
52938015
52938016
52938017
52938018
52938019
52938020
52938021
52938023
52938026
52938028
52938029
52938030
52938031
52938033
52938035
52938036
52938038
52938039
52938040
52938047
52938048
52938049
52938050
52938051
52939001
52939003
52939004
52939005
52939006
52939009
52939011
52939012
52939013
52939014
52939023
52939024
52939040
52939041
52939042
52939043
52939044
52939045
52939046
52939047
52939048
52939049
52939053
52939054
52939055
52939056
52939057
52939058
52939059
52939060
52939061
52939062
52939063
52939067
52939068
52939069
52939070
52939071
52939072
52941001
52941002
52941003
52941004
52941005
52941006
52941007
52941008
52941009
52941010
52941011
52941012
52944003
52944004
52944007
52944008
52944009
52944010
52944011
52944012
52944013
52944014
52944015
52944016
52944017
52944018
52944019
52944020
52944021
52944022
52944023
52944024
52944026
52951001
52951002
52951003
52951004
52951005
52959002
52959003
52959004
52959005
52959006
52959007
52959008
53201009
53201010
53201011
53201012
53201013
53201014
53201015
53201016
53201017
53201018
53201019
53201020
53201021
53201022
53201023
53201024
53201025
53201026
53201027
53201028
53201029
53201030
53201032
53201033
53201035
53201036
53201037
53201038
53201040
53201041
53201042
53201043
53202014
53202015
53202025
53202026
53202027
53202029
53202030
53202031
53202032
53202033
53202051
53202053
53202054
53202069
53202070
53202071
53202072
53202073
53202074
53208018
53208019
53208020
53208021
53208022
53208023
53208024
53208025
53208026
53208027
53208028
53208029
53208030
53208031
53208032
53208033
53208034
53208049
53208050
53208059
53208060
53208061
53208062
53208064
53208065
53210001
53210012
53210013
53210014
53210015
53210016
53210017
53210018
53210019
53211011
53212001
53212002
53212003
53212004
53212005
53212006
53212007
53212008
53212009
53212010
53212011
53212012
53212013
53212014
53212015
53212016
53212017
53212018
53213001
53213002
53213003
53213011
53213012
53213013
53213014
53213015
53213016
53213017
53213018
53213020
53213021
53213023
53213024
53213025
53213026
53213027
53213028
53213029
53213030
53213031
53213032
53213033
53213034
53213035
53213036
53213037
53213038
53213039
53213040
53213041
53213042
53213043
53213044
53213045
53213046
53213049
53213051
53213052
53213057
53213058
53213059
53213060
53213061
53213062
53213063
53213064
53213065
53213066
53213067
53213068
53213069
53214001
53214002
53214003
53214004
53214005
53214006
53214007
53214008
53214009
53214010
53214011
53214012
53214013
53214014
53214015
53214016
53214017
53214018
53214019
53214020
53214021
53214022
53214023
53214024
53214025
53214026
53214027
53214028
53214029
53214030
53214031
53214032
53214033
53214034
53214035
53214036
53214037
53214038
53215002
53215004
53215005
53215006
53215007
53215008
53215009
53215010
53215011
53215012
53215013
53215016
53215017
53215018
53215019
53215020
53215021
53215022
53215023
53215024
53215025
53215026
53215027
53215028
53215032
53215033
53215034
53216002
53216003
53216005
53216006
53216007
53216008
53216009
53216010
53217001
53217010
53217011
53217012
53217013
53217014
53217015
53217016
53217017
53217018
53217020
53217021
53217022
53217023
53217024
53217025
53217026
53217027
53217028
53217031
53217032
53217033
53217034
53217035
53217037
53218006
53218013
53218015
53218021
53218022
53218023
53218024
53218026
53218027
53218029
53218034
53218036
53218037
53218038
53218039
53218040
53218041
53218043
53218044
53218045
53218046
53218047
53218048
53218049
53218050
53218051
53218052
53218053
53218054
53218055
53218056
53218057
53218058
53218059
53218060
53218061
53218062
53218063
53219003
53219005
53219008
53219009
53219010
53219013
53219014
53219015
53219016
53219017
53219018
53219022
53219023
53219028
53219029
53219030
53219031
53219032
53220001
53220002
53220004
53220007
53220008
53220010
53220011
53220012
53220013
53220014
53221001
53221002
53221004
53221007
53221012
53221013
53221014
53221015
53221016
53221017
53221018
53221019
53222001
53222003
53222011
53222012
53222013
53222014
53222015
53222016
53222017
53222018
53223004
53223024
53223025
53223029
53223030
53223031
53223032
53223034
53223035
53223036
53223037
53223043
53223044
53223045
53722015
53722016
53722017
53722018
53722019
53723005
53723007
53723010
53723011
53723012
53723013
53723014
53723015
53723017
53723019
53723021
53723022
53723024
53723025
53723026
53723027
53723028
53723029
53723031
53723037
53723038
53723040
53723042
53723045
53723046
53723049
53723054
53723055
53723057
53723058
53723061
53723062
53723063
53723064
53723065
53723066
53723067
53724013
53724014
53724015
53724022
53724023
53724024
53724025
53724029
53724030
53724031
53724032
53725005
53725009
53725018
53725021
53725022
53725024
53725026
53725027
53725029
53725030
53725031
53725032
53725033
53725034
53725035
53725036
53726001
53726004
53726009
53726012
53726013
53726015
53726016
LGA 100 / LRA Very High FHSZ

LGA 100 / LRA Very High FHSZ
53726017
53726018
53726019
53726020
53726021
53726022
53726026
53726027
53726030
53726033
53726034
53726035
53726038
53726039
53726040
53726045
53726046
53726053
53726054
53726061
53726062
53726065
53726066
53726067
53726068
53726069
53726070
53726071
53726072
53726073
53726074
53727009
53727025
53727047
53727065
53727066
53728001
53728002
53728003
53728004
53728005
53728006
53728007
53728008
53728009
53729001
53729002
53729003
53729004
53729005
53729006
53729007
53729008
53730002
53730003
53730004
53730005
53730006
53730007
53730008
53730010
53730011
53730013
53730014
53730015
53730016
53730017
53730018
53730021
53731001
53731002
53731003
53731006
53731007
53731008
53731009
53731010
53731011
53731012
53731013
53731014
53731015
53731017
53731018
53731019
53731020
53731021
53731022
53731023
53733001
53733002
53733003
53733004
53733005
53733006
53733007
53733008
53733009
53733010
54401014
56719016
56719027
56719028
56719029
56719030
56719031
56719032
56719033
56719036
56719037
56723007
56723008
56723010
56723012
56723013
56723022
56723025
56723029
56723037
56723038
56723039
56723040
56723043
56723044
56723045
56723046
56724010
56724011
56724012
56724013
56724014
56724015
56724016
56724017
56724018
56724019
56724020
56724021
56724022
56724023
56724024
56724025
56724027

PREPARED BY: Arn Andrews
Assistant Town Manager
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Director of Parks and Public Works, Chief of Police and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/15/2019
ITEM NO: 7
DATE: October 9, 2019
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Accept Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment Report RECOMMENDATION:

Accept Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment Report.

BACKGROUND:

Los Gatos is identified as a Community at Risk from wildfires on the Federal and the California Fire Alliance list of Communities at Risk in Santa Clara County. The Los Gatos Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) planning area includes primarily Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas on the southern side of Los Gatos. The WUI area is best described as an area that transitions from a natural condition (wildland) to human settlements. Homes and other development in the WUI are at risk of catastrophic wildfire due to the presence of vegetation that could fuel a wildfire. The WUI encompasses a wide variety of terrain, ranging from flat topography at the edge of the valley floor to densely wooded hillsides. While the sharp contrast between the valley floor and the hillsides is what makes the Town so picturesque, it also creates an extremely difficult operational area in the event of a wildfire.

The intent of the Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment is to create a common point of reference for Town residents, public safety officials, Town Council and staff, and other regional emergency preparedness partners. The Assessment will help inform future regulatory recommendations, advance the wildfire preparedness education of our hillside residents, inform fuel reduction priorities, facilitate grant opportunities, and provide a baseline for the ultimate development of an evacuation plan.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Accept Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment DATE: October 10, 2019
DISCUSSION:

Safe and proper evacuation of people (residents, workers, and visitors), pets, and livestock is often a very critical component of WUI fires. Confusing hillside road networks, narrow roads that could inhibit two-way traffic, and dead-end roads all contribute to the complexities faced by the public and responders during WUI fires. In addition, WUI fires often require immediate “No Notice” evacuations, meaning little or no warning time exists between fire origin and the need for evacuation. The situational awareness associated with the Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment will help illustrate the critical shared responsibility of successful wildfire mitigation and response. The Assessment reaffirmed the critical importance of enhanced vegetation management along major ingress/egress road networks and Town-owned open spaces, and the maintenance of defensible space around residences and other buildings.

CONCLUSION:

The Assessment will help inform future regulatory recommendations, advance the wildfire preparedness education of our hillside residents, inform fuel reduction priorities, facilitate grant opportunities, and provide a baseline for future Town emergency preparedness and response activities.

COORDINATION:

This report has been coordinated with the County Office of Emergency Management, County Fire, Town Attorney, Director of Parks and Public Works, Chief of Police, and other Town Offices.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact with this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.

Attachment:

1. Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment

From:

Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>; Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Shelley Neis <[email protected]> Cc: Rick Van Hoesen ;
Lee Fagot ; Laurel Prevetti <[email protected]>; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Catherine Somers ; 'Jim Foley' Subject: Agenda Item #1 - Special Town Council Meeting June 20, 2022

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members,
The Staff report (which is 1,278 pages) for the upcoming Town Council meeting contains a tremendous amount of documentation as the Town Council begins to deliberate the draft 2040 General Plan and FEIR. However, there are two documents that were not included that are critical to understanding how the current draft of the Land Use Element came to be.

I have attached the two documents for the Council’s review and to provide complete transparency. The two documents are : 1) minutes from the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020, where the Council provided direction on the Draft Land Use and Community Design Elements, and 2) minutes from the GPAC Meeting of November 19, 2020, where the GPAC formally acted on the direction provided by the Town Council.

Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
At this meeting, agenda item #7 was devoted to the Town Council providing direction to the GPAC as they discussed the Land Use Element and the Community Design Element. This agenda item came about at the request of the GPAC, since they sought additional direction on drafting these two critical elements of the 2040 General Plan. The minutes speak for themselves.

What needs to be emphasized is the Town Council gave clear feedback on the following points:
• If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without increasing the allowed density in Low Density Residential areas, that would be preferred. • If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without changing the downtown/central business district, that would be preferred. • The General Plan should include policies that support low, very low and extremely low-income housing, possible through increased minimum densities or smaller units • The General Plan should encourage production of Missing Middle housing, especially when it can provide housing for middle- and lower-income households. (Note: For a family of 4 these income levels range from $84,250 to $168,500. See attached State Income limits) • Production of Missing Middle housing should be focused in areas that are within walking distance to commercial uses, such as the Opportunity Areas/Community Place Districts.

The minutes further reflect these were individual comments and there was no resolution or formal action taken since the agenda item limited the Council to only a discussion and providing feedback.

GPAC Meeting of November 19, 2020
After the Town Council meeting of November 17, the GPAC held a working session on November 19 to review and discuss the initial drafts of the Land Use Element and Community Design Element and to discuss the direction provided by the Town Council. It is important to point out that the GPAC meeting had a quorum of 8 members present, with 3 members absent, out of the 11-person committee.

Again, the minutes of the meeting speak for themselves. At the meeting, the Committee Chair called for a formal vote of the GPAC on the following question – Does the Committee agree with the statement, “if the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without increasing the allowed density in Low Density Residential areas, that would be preferred”.

A “yes” vote would result in a Land Use Element that would not increase the allowed density in Low Density Residential Areas and a “no” vote would result in the allowed density in the Low-Density Residential Area being increased from 1 – 5 DU per acre to 1 – 12 DU per acre.

A vote of the 8 members present resulted in 3 “yes” votes, 4 “no” votes and 1 abstention. The 4 “no” votes resulted in an increase in density in Low Density Residential areas and the draft of the Land Use Element was unchanged. To be clear only 4 people out of a committee of 11 voted for this question, which is less than a majority of the Committee. It should also be pointed out that the Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, who attended the November 17 Council meeting voted “yes”, supporting the Council’s guidance given two days earlier. How this vote was allowed to stand is a complete mystery since a majority of the GPAC did not vote “no”. Such an important vote should never have been taken without the full committee being present and furthermore it is questionable whether the committee had the authority to disregard the clear direction of the Council on such a consequential issue and draft the Land Use Element based on the views of 4 committee members, 2 of whom were also current members of the Planning Commission.

As a result, the GPAC rejected the guidance the Town Council had just provided and went on their own path. Worse, based on the vote of only 4 people, the current draft of the land use element still reflects a massive up zoning of 1,891 acres of low-density residential land which is not required to meet the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. Only now, over 18 months later, is this issue finally back in front of the Town Council for discussion. The LGCA believes the GPAC overstepped their authority and have drafted and approved a Land Use Element that does not reflect the Council’s feedback, nor is it supported by a majority of the residents of the Town and would urge the Council to restore the low-density residential land use to the current 1-5 DU per acre.

Analysis of Land Use Changes required to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation

The Staff report has a schedule that reflects one “potential housing” build- out scenario out of an infinite number of possible outcomes. Based on one set of assumed redevelopment percentages (there are an infinite number of potential housing build-out percentages for each land use) and the proposed new density standards for the land uses, the analysis indicates that a total of 3,280 units could potentially be developed over the next 20 years.

To place too much precision on the accuracy of one potential outcome of 3,280 units would be an error.

The Town cannot control what gets developed, but the Town absolutely does control what is legally allowed to be built and the land uses through zoning laws. Based on staff data and using the adjusted land use densities proposed by the Planning Commission, the LGCA has computed the increased densities will allow a maximum development of approximately 12,000 units. This amount of development was not evaluated by the EIR and reflects an almost doubling of the number of housing units that currently exist today.

The Staff report also states that the Town must adequately plan for the potential development of 2,292 units over the next 8 years to comply with the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. This raises the obvious question, assuming no changes in the existing land use densities, how many of the 2,292 units could potentially be developed based on the 2020 General Plan? Here is how we have calculated the answer:

Units required by 6th cycle RHNA 2,292
Less:

ADU’s developed over next 8 years 200
Eligible Pipeline Projects from HE Site inventory 202
Remaining balance RHNA 1,890
Units available for development under existing GP 1,013 “Gap units” 877
This analysis shows the Town only needs to identify land sites that can be properly zoned to accommodate 877 additional units. The critical data element in this calculation is the available development capacity based on current zoning and the 2020 General Plan. The 1,013 units was reported in a September 16, 2021, staff report to the Town Council. We have attached the schedule (3904-unit land use) for the reader’s review.

Since the Town also has the requirement to plan development of units for very low- and low-income levels, the Town would zone these sites at a density of at least 30 DU per acre (the new default density) to allow the units to count against the 847 very low and low-income units RHNA allocation. At 30 DU per

acre density, the Town would need to increase the density on approximately only 37 acres after taking into consideration most likely achievable building density.

Instead, the 2040 General Plan up zones all residential land use Town wide, totaling over 2,465 acres, by doubling the allowable density for low, medium, and high-density residential land uses. Clearly it makes no sense to up zone 2,465 acres of residential land if only approximately 37 acres need to be properly zoned to meet the 6th cycle RHNA allocation.

Relationship between the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 2,292 and the Proposed Potential Development Scenario of 2,305 units
The Staff report also discusses the relationship of the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 2,292 (1,993 plus a 15% buffer) to one possible potential build out scenario of 2,305 units. This is done by starting with 2,305 units from the development scenario, and then adding units associated with the production of ADU’s over the next 8 years, approved allowable development projects in the pipeline and units potentially developed in Hillside Residential.

Here is the analysis comparing the 6th cycle RHNA allocation to an 8-year development cycle for ADU’s and eligible pipeline projects:

Housing units potential development 2,305
Plus:

ADU’s built over 8 years 200
Eligible Pipeline projects 202
Hillside Residential 116
Total Units adjusted for ADU and Pipeline 2,823
Less:
6 th Cycle RHNA and buffer 2,292
Excess units available 531
The Staff report also states in appendix 8, if the low-density housing designation reverted back to the existing 2020 General Plan level, 279 units would be deducted from the excess units. If this was done, there would be 252 excess units available (or an additional 12% buffer over RHNA) for potential development during the 8-year cycle.

Since the original direction provided by the Town Council was, “If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without increasing the allowed density in Low Density Residential areas, that would be preferred” we urge the Council to keep the land use density for Low Density Residential

land use at the existing 2020 General Plan level. There is simply no reason to up zone 1,891 acres of Low-Density Residential Land Use if it is not required, coupled with the fact that SB 9 provides additional development capacity for Low Density Residential land use that has not been included in any of the above analysis.

Relationship of 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 2,292 units to market demand for housing over the next 20 years
The last point we would like to address concerns the mistaken argument we have heard a number of Planning Commissioners and Members of the Town Council make regarding the need to plan for multiple RHNA Allocation cycles beyond the 6th cycle allocation. This argument has been used to justify up zoning all residential land uses Town wide in an effort to massively increase the maximum allowable development potential under new land use rules. As stated above, based on the latest data provided by Staff, the LGCA computes this maximum development potential to be approximately 12,000 units.

The Town published in the Land Use Alternative report two independent forecasts of the likely market demand for housing in Los Gatos between 2020 and 2040. The first forecast prepared by the State’s Department of Finance projected 1,529 units and the second forecast prepared by the Town’s Consultants (ADE) projected 1,954. The Land Use Alternative Report concluded “we project an increase of 4,446 people and 1,954 housing units between 2020 and 2040”.

Based on this, the GPAC provided guidance that the Town should develop land use alternatives that could provide space for future development around 2,000 residential units. Since the State is requiring the Town to have sufficient land zoned to allow for the potential development of 2,292 units, the State requirement trumps the market demand forecasts. Therefore, the Town must plan for 2,292 units even though this level exceeds all independent market demand forecasts. The important point is that there is no legal requirement or any independent forecast that requires the Town to plan land use beyond the development potential of 2,292 units.

We have heard a number of Planning Commissioners and Town Council members multiplying the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 1,993 by 2 and stating that this would indicate that the Town must plan for the development potential of 3,904 units (see attached schedule) since the General Plan is for a 20- year cycle and the RHNA allocations are on an eight- year cycle.

This approach is fundamentally flawed first and foremost because there are no market demand studies that support this excessive level of growth and more importantly the RHNA allocation process was never intended to be a forecasting tool for future market demand. To prove the latter point, the 4th cycle (562 units) and 5th cycle RHNA (619 units) allocations totaled 1,181 units covering which covered a 16- year period. The 6th cycle allocation of 1,993 is almost 70% greater for only an 8 -year period. So why is this? The answer is that the methodology to develop the 6th cycle RHNA allocation was built based on a state policy decision to accelerate housing production. Stated another way, the State is requiring local jurisdictions to properly zone enough residential land to allow for the development of housing that

normally would be developed over a 20- year period over an accelerated 8- year period. This was intentionally done to address the acute housing shortage that exists today and to address chronic overcrowding and improve vacancy rates to a healthier level.

Doubling the 6th cycle RHNA allocation as an indicator of future housing needs is deeply flawed and has no merit in planning for smart growth in the Town.

Conclusion
The Town Council has received another letter for our attorney’s at Rutan and Tucker. The letter clearly outlines the LGCA concerns and proposes a number of very sensible solutions. We urge the Council to review the correspondence and embrace our recommendations. Given the limited time available during the public comment period at tonight’s Special Council meeting, please accept this email and other correspondence from our attorney and other LGCA members as our public comment on agenda item #1.

We will not be speaking during the meeting since our concerns and suggestions have been adequately conveyed in writing to the Town Council.

Thank you.

Phil Koen
Los Gatos Community Alliance.

110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/01/2020
ITEM NO: 3
Minutes of the Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting via Teleconference via COVID-19 Shelter in Place Guidelines on November 17, 2020, at 7:00 p.m.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Marcia Jensen, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Council Member Rob Rennie, Council Member Marico Sayoc. (All participating remotely).

Absent: None

BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
The Town Council appointed applicants for the vacant positions on Town Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
 Arts and Culture Commission
o Richard Capatoso was not appointed.
o Jeffrey Janoff was not appointed.
o Michael Miller was appointed to a 3-year term.
o Pamela Murphy was appointed to a 2-year term.
o Heidi Owens was not appointed.
o Ellis Weeker was re-appointed for a 3-year term.
 Building Board of Appeals
o Charles Holcomb was appointed to a 4-year term.
 Community Health and Senior Services Commission
o Richard Konrad was appointed to a 3-year term.
 Complete Streets and Transportation Committee
o Doug Brent withdrew his application and did not interview. o Bill Ehlers was re-appointed to a 3-year term.
o Cheryl Ryan did not interview and was not appointed.
o Gillian Verga was re-appointed to a 3-year term.

PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020 DATE: November 24, 2020
Appointments - continued
 General Plan Committee
o Gerard Abraham was not appointed.
o Joseph Mannina was appointed to a 4-year term.
o Heidi Owens was not appointed.
o Steve Piasecki was appointed to a 3-year term.
 Historic Preservation Committee
o Barry Cheskin was appointed to a 4-year term.
o Timothy Lundell was appointed to a 2-year term.
o Jeffrey Siegel was not appointed.
 Library Board
o Susan Buxton was appointed to a 2-year term.
o Richard Capatoso was appointed to a 3-year term.
o Sabiha Chunawala was re-appointed to a 3-year term.
o David Read did not interview and was not appointed.
o Cheryl Ryan did not interview and was not appointed.
 Parks Commission
o Adriana Alves was appointed for a 2-year term.
o Richard Capatoso was not appointed.
o Alicia Shah did not interview and was not appointed.
 Personnel Board
o Steven Bakota was appointed to a 5-year term.
 Planning Commission
o Gerard Abraham was not appointed.
o Kathryn Janoff was re-appointed to a 4-year term.
o Anil Patel was not appointed.
o Jeffrey Siegel was not appointed.

COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Council Matters
- Council Member Rennie stated he attended Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Governance and Audit Committee and Board meetings, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority (SVCEA) Board and Risk Oversight Committee meetings, Emergency Operating Area Council meeting, and the Santa Clara County Cities Association Selection Committee meeting with Council Member Sayoc.

PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020 DATE: November 24, 2020
Council Matters - continued
- Vice Mayor Spector stated she attended the West Valley Clean Water Authority (WVCWA) Board meeting, West Valley Solid Waste Authority (WVSW) Board meeting, and two meetings of the Town’s Wildfire Ad Hoc Committee.
- Council Member Sayoc stated she attended the Santa Clara County Cities Association Selection Committee with Council Member Rennie and the League of California Cities (LOCC) meeting.
- Mayor Jensen stated she attended the two meetings of the Town’s Wildfire Ad Hoc Committee, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, and a VTA Policy Advisory Committee meeting.

Manager Matters
- Announced free COVID-19 testing will be held on Monday November 30, 2020 at the Adult Recreation Center. Walk-ins welcome and appointments are strongly encouraged. - Announced that the tree in Plaza Park will be lit after Thanksgiving and that the Town is installing the Chamber’s light exhibits for the holidays. No tree lighting ceremony will be held due to COVID-19.

CLOSED SESSION REPORT
- Robert Shultz, Town Attorney, stated Council met in closed session as duly noted on the agenda and that there is no reportable action.

CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)

1. Approve Draft Minutes of the November 3, 2020 Town Council Meeting.

2. Receive the First Quarter Investment Report (July through September 2020) for Fiscal Year 2020/21.)

3. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a First Amendment Agreement for Consultant Services with Walter Levison for Arborist services.

4. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute Agreements for Environmental Consultant Services with EMC Planning Group, Inc. and Raney Planning and Management, Inc.

5. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute an Agreement with Hello Housing for Administration of the Town’s Below Market Price Affordable Housing Program.

Item #3 was pulled by David Weissman.

MOTION: Motion by Council Member Sayoc to approve Consent Items 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Seconded by Council Member Rennie.

VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.

PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020 DATE: November 24, 2020

VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alex Hult
- Thanked the Town for responding to COVID-19 with the parklet program; commented in support of prioritizing the local business community through the winter months.

Jeff Suzuki
- Commented in support of independent Police oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers and a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department.

Ali Miano
- Commented in support of independent Police oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers, a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department, and additional public transportation to the Town including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).

Lynel Gardner
- Read correspondence from Barak Obama, commented in support of a hiring freeze of sworn officers and a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department.

Russ
- Commented in support of BART and diversity within the Town.

Catherine Somers
- Thanked the Town for responding to COVID-19 with the parklet program and suggested the Town consider the formation of a task force to continue to address COVID-19 concerns.

Matt Hemis
- Inquired what the next steps are for Police reform; commented in support of independent oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers, and a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department; and requested the Town consider utilizing Police Department funding to train Officers in de-escalation techniques.

Alicia Spargo (Cinema Stereo)
- Commented in support of independent oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers, and a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department; and requested the Town consider utilizing Police Department funding to train Officers in de-escalation techniques and that the Town consider additional avenues to assist the business community during the winter months.

Kareem Syed
- Commented in support of additional oversight of Police funds, community engagement Officers, and a task force to continue to address COVID-19 concerns. -

PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020 DATE: November 24, 2020

OTHER BUSINESS

3. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a First Amendment Agreement for Consultant Services with Walter Levison for Arborist services.

Joel Paulson, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.

Opened public comment.

David Weissman
- Commented in opposition of the first amendment agreement, unless staff revises the consulting arborists report guidelines with uniform standards.

Closed public comment.

Council discussed the item.

MOTION: Motion by Mayor Jensen to authorize the Town Manager to execute a first amendment agreement for consultant services with Walter Levison for arborist services for arborist services as contained in Attachment 1 of the staff report.

Seconded by Council Member Rennie.

VOTE: Motion passed 3/1. Vice Mayor Spector voting no.

6. Adopt A Resolution Designating the Use of Vehicle Miles Traveled as the Metric for Conducting Transportation Analyses Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Establishing the Thresholds of Significance to Comply with California Senate Bill 743.

RESOLUTION 2020-045
Ying Smith, Transportation and Mobility Manager, presented the staff report with Dan Rubins, Consultant.

Opened public comment.

No one spoke.

Closed public comment.

Council discussed the item.

PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020 DATE: November 24, 2020
Other Business Item #7 - continued
The Town Council did express consensus on two items:
 All references to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and other obsolete policies should be eliminated.
 The 2040 General Plan should be forward looking as Los Gatos implements policies and actions to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and facilitates housing production for all income levels in the right places. In other words, the Council is not expecting the 2040 Plan to be the same as the 2020 Plan.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.

Submitted by:
_____________________________________
/s/ Jenna De Long, Deputy Clerk

110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/07/2020
ITEM: 2
DRAFT

MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 19, 2020
The General Plan Update Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on November 19, 2020, at 7:00 p.m., via teleconference.

This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20, the public could only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber.

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Melanie Hanssen, Vice Chair Kathryn Janoff, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Committee Member Kendra Burch, Committee Member Steven Piasecki, Committee Member Ryan Rosenberg, Committee Member Lee Quintana, and Committee Member Carol Elias Zolla.

Absent: Mayor Marcia Jensen, Committee Member Susan Moore Brown, Committee Member Todd Jarvis.

Staff present: Jennifer Armer, Joel Paulson, Laurel Prevetti, Sally Zarnowitz, and Lynne Lampros.

VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.

CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
None.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Working Session to Review and Discuss Additional Information Regarding the Initial Draft of the Land Use Element and the Initial Draft of the Community Design Element.

Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.

PAGE 4 OF 4
MINUTES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 19, 2020 N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Minutes\2020\11-19-20 DRAFT_ready for review.docx passed unanimously. As a result, a maximum density of 30-40 dwelling units per acre, to match the Mixed-Use designation will be added to the development standards for the Office Professional designation.

Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree that residential should be allowed over service commercial uses, with controls. The majority was in favor, 6-0-1 with Committee Member Zolla abstaining. As a result, the Service Commercial designation will allow residential in mixed use development, with certain restrictions to protect service commercial uses.

The next GPAC meeting will be on Thursday, December 3, 2020.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
November 19, 2020 meeting as approved by the
General Plan Update Advisory Committee.

Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 13, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested parties

FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: State Income Limits for 2022
Attached are briefing materials and Revised State Income Limits for 2022 that are now in effect, replacing the previous 2021 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income and household income levels for acutely low -, extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderateincome households for California’s 58 counties. The 2022 State Income Limits are on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml.

State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility (based on the level of household income), and may be used to calculate affordable housing costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other income limits.

The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2022 Income Limits and were updated based on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released on April 19, 2022, for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202 and Section 811 programs and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy. Since 2013, HCD’s HH Policy has held State Income Limits harmless from any decreases in household income limits and median income levels that HUD may apply to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits. HUD determined its HH Policy was no longer necessary due to federal law changes in 2008 (Public Law 110-98) prohibiting rent decreases in federal or private activity bond funded projects.

For questions concerning State Income Limits, please see the Questions and Answers on page

5. You can also contact HCD staff at (916) 263-2911.

2022 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932

Overview
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 50093(c), must file updates to its State Income Limits with the Office of Administrative Law.

HCD annually updates these income limits based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) revisions to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits that HUD most recently released on April 19, 2022.

HUD annually updates its Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits to reflect changes in median family income levels for different size households and income limits for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. HCD, pursuant to statutory provisions, makes the following additional revisions:
(1) if necessary, increase a county’s area median income to equal California’s non-metropolitan median income, (2) adjusts area median income and household income category levels to not result in any decrease for any year after 2009 pursuant to HCD’s February 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy (HCD’s HH Policy was implemented to replace HUD’s HH Policy, discontinued in 2009, to not decrease income limits and area median income levels below a prior year’s highest level), and (3) determines income limits for California’s acutely low-income and moderate-income category.

Following are brief summaries of technical methodologies used by HUD and HCD in updating income limits for different household income categories. For additional information, please refer to HUD’s briefing materials at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il//il22/IncomeLimitsMethodologyFY22.pdf HUD Methodology
HUD Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits begin with the production of median family incomes.

HUD uses the Section 8 program’s Fair Market Rent (FMR) area definitions in developing median incomes, which means developing median incomes for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county. The 2022 FMR area definitions for California are unchanged from last year. HUD calculates Income Limits for every FMR area with adjustments for family size and for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing-cost-to-income relationships.

Extremely Low-Income
In determining the extremely low-income limit, HUD uses the Federal Poverty Guidelines, published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines are a simplified version of the federal poverty thresholds used for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for certain federal programs. HUD compares the appropriate poverty guideline with 60% of the very low-income limit and chooses the greater of the two as the extremely low-income limit. The value may not exceed the very low-income level.

Very Low-Income
The very low-income limits are the basis for the extremely low- and low-income limits. The very lowincome limit typically reflects 50 percent of median family income (MFI), and HUD's MFI figure generally equals two times HUD's 4-person very low-income limit. However, HUD may adjust the very low-income limit for an area or county to account for conditions that warrant special considerations. As such, the very low-income limit may not always equal 50% MFI.

Low-Income
In general, most low-income limits represent the higher level of: (1) 80 percent of MFI or, (2) 80 percent of state non-metropolitan median family income. However, due to adjustments that HUD sometimes makes to the very low-income limit, strictly calculating low-income limits as 80 percent of MFI could produce unintended anomalies inconsistent with statutory intent (e.g., very low-income limits being