Item 3 - Desk Item and Attachments
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 10/15/2020
ITEM: 3
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: October 15, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Revised Initial Draft of the Environment and
Sustainability Element.
REMARKS:
Attachment 6 contains comments from Committee Members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with October 15, 2020 Staff Report:
1. Revised Initial Draft of Environment and Sustainability Element
2. Comment Response Summary Table
3. Comments from the Historic Preservation Committee
4. Committee Member Comments
Attachment previously received with October 15, 2020 Addendum:
5. Committee Member Comments
Attachment received with this Desk Item:
6. Committee Member Comments
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 6
To: GPAC
From: Barbara Spector
Re: Environment and Sustainability
Date: October 14, 2020
Page 7-2 final paragraph: “after adding the….”
ENV-8-2 Reword. We are not increasing miles traveled
ENV-9.15 Confirm that we are using “the 2012 Sustainability Plan.”
Page 7-33/34 I assume GPAC to select an option. Absent committee input, I am
inclined toward Option 2.
ENV-18 “Consider” too weak a very. I prefer “Ensure” or comparable
ENV-19.1 Why delete? Absent statutory mandate, I would include.
ENV-20.3 Absent statutory mandate, I would maintain “Require”
Page 7-41 A – D: Why delete?
Page 7-44 T: Maintain parallel grammar structure: “Update Town….”
Page 7-45 Y: Preferable to avoid redundancy: “Update….updates….”
7-49 BBB: Deleted? Moved? I would keep.
7-50 JJJ: Deleted? Moved? Seems important
Page 5 of 7: Historic District Commission suggestions should be considered by
GPAC.
Attachment 3: Historic Preservation Committee Comments should be considered
by GPAC.
2
Environment and Sustainability Comments – Ryan Rosenberg
Env 1.4 Corridor Protection (page 7-4)
What is a Corridor or a Thoroughfare in the context of this policy? I don’t really
understand what this one means.
The Map on page 7-8
Shows the north 40 as farmland but that is not the case any more; I imagine the map
should be updated.
The Map on page 7-10
Does this also show the north 40 as farmland?
ENV-7 (page 7-13)
This section is pretty long and there is some duplication.
ENV 7.1 says that development may not damage wildlife. But then 7.10 says that
existing wildlife habitats may not be damaged by development. These are saying the
same thing.
Then you have 7.3 which talks about movement corridors and 7.10 which also mentions
migration corridors. Probably can combine these.
Env 7.11 is seems like a duplicate of INV 5-1. Or at least it need to move into section
ENV5 because ENV7 is about wildlife and this is about plants.
ENV 9.14 (page 7-19)
Is the requirement to exceed the Title 24 goal by 10 percent based on anything in
particular? Why would we have a different goal that the state on just this one thing?
Figure 7-7 (page 7-33)
I don’t understand the difference between Option 1 and Option 2. Is the GPAC
supposed to pick one? Also I don’t understand why in Option two some of the squares
have numbers in them, either 45 or 50. They might mean but they do not line up with
the numbers at the top. What do they mean?
3
ENV 19 (page 7-38)
How is ENV 19 different than ENV 18? They seem the same. Maybe they should be
merged.
ENV 19.2 (page 7-39)
Isn’t this the same thing as ENV 18.2? How does it differ?
Implementation Program N (page 7-43)
Not sure I understand what this is. This does not read like a plan. What does “require
careful lighting mean”? Does it mean develop regulations?
Implementation Program 0 (page 7-44)
What is the point of this one? Why do we need it? When we pulled out the “to one
side” phrase (which was a good thing to pull) it meant the rest of this has no meaning. I
think we should eliminate this plan.
Implementation Programs - all of them
We have GGG programs in just this one document. And the majority are in 2021-
2025? I would like staff to make a comment on the general plan “in general” - can we
as a town really execute all the implementation programs we have slated for 2021 -
2025?
I think it might be a good idea to copy and paste ALL the implementation programs into
one document. List all the 2021-2025 programs first. And then we can look at that
document and consider: are we being practical here?
4
Memo
To: General Plan Update Advisory Committee 2040
Fr: Carol Elias Zolla
Corrections/Comments to the Environment and Sustainability Element
The “adaptation” definition is too wordy. Needs to be re-written:
Adaptation. Adaptation is preparing for the impact of expected future climate change by
making adjustments to natural or human systems to minimize harm and/or take advantage of
beneficial opportunities.
Carbon Dioxide. Take out “as well as” and reorganize the second sentence. “C02 is also a by-
product of burning fossil fuels and biomass, other industrial process, and land -use changes.”
Climate Change. The last clause should say “and change to the land surface…” (it’s missing a
verb)
Noise-Sensitive Land Use. Nursing homes should be grouped with hospitals and care facilities.
First sentence of the Aesthetics paragraph should be re -written: “Community aesthetics refer
to the appearance of a community and are an important component to the way residents feel
about the relationship between community members and the natural environment.”
Scenic Views paragraph. On the first line, there should be a comma after 7.1. In the next
sentence there should be a change to “sense of place specific to Los Gatos and its community
identity.”
Second paragraph on page 7-4. This sentence is circular. I would say: “Wooded terrain
provides a distinctive sense of place in Los Gatos, where development and vegetation
commingle to support its distinctive Town character.”
ENV-1.1. Replace “massing” with “mass”.
ENV-1.3 should switch with ENV-1.4.
Last sentence in ENV-2.3 “Landscape design in hillside areas and future developments should
emphasize native species, drought tolerant species, and fire-wise plants and design.”
ENV-3.1 Re-write. “Mitigate potential adverse health and safety impacts in new residential and
sensitive commercial properties that are located near agricultural operations th at spray
pesticides.”
ENV-4.2. Missing a period after “animals”
5
ENV-4.3. This sentence is very unclear. I don’t know how to fix it.
ENV-5.3. Can we say anything about encouraging the removal of invasive plants? E.G. Why
does the town charge such high permit fees (and a replacement tree) for removal of invasive
eucalyptus?
ENV-8.2. I am confused by this paragraph. You want to require additional vehicle miles
traveled?
7.5 Second paragraph re Greenhouse Gasses. The description of the “primary sources” of GHG
emissions seems to conflict with the definition of Greenhouse Gasses on the first page of this
section.
ENV-11.1 Take out the “the” before “SCVE”
ENV-13.8 If we are supporting a “community sense of stewardship:, shouldn’t the word in the
last line be “location” instead of “destination”, which constitutes a place to visit?
7.8 First paragraph, last sentence. Shouldn’t the word be “obtained” instead of “gained”?
ENV-15.1. The second sentence should remove the “s” on “control plans”.
(I only made it as far as page 7-28)
6
GPAC Chair Comments on Environment and Sustainability Element
General question—I can’t remember if we discussed before, but a lot of
these policies overlap with CEQA. Do we need to reference CEQA in any
way in the GP? Granted, CEQA does not apply except for in larger projects
but maybe we need to be consistent?
INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS
Key Terms
Should we add a definition of ecosystem or habitat? It is referred to as
something to be complied with so it should be clear what it is.
7.1 Aesthetics
ENV-1—Scenic resources
Should we add a policy encouraging Open Space dedication for aesthetic
resources? There is a policy encouraging open space dedication in 7.9 for
wildlife. ENV 1.2 does include scenic easement but we are getting many
new proposals in hillsides to add housing and subdivide—seems to be an
opportunity to increase open space.
ENV-1.1—Not a complete sentence. Also, why did we get rid of shall? All it
says is there will be checks, not mitigation or no development.
ENV 2 —Trees
ENV 2.1 reads like an implementation program. Maybe change it to Ensure
there continue to be strong ordinances to ensure tree conservation and
preserve the Town’s Arbor Day Foundation status as Tree City USA. Then
have an implementation program to update the Tree Ordinance regularly.
7.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
ENV 3.3—If the goal is to keep land under Williamson Act contracts
whenever possible, we should say that. I am not sure but 3.3 seems to be
vague other than to have a process to track.
7
7.3 Biological Resources
Same comment about habitat and ecosystem—what do we mean and how
are they different?
ENV 4.3—Do we have an open space management plan? If not, should we
make one?
ENV 5.1—is there a list of plants that are indigenous to the Los Gatos
area? Since we are requiring this, how many plants are specifically
indigenous to the Los Gatos area and what does “area” mean? ENV 5.3
refers to a specific list when talking about invasive.
7.4 Air Quality
ENV 8.2—needs to be reworded. Talks about requiring increases to VMT?
Should be reduction. This also might be a place to mention TDM as TDM
would not only reduce VMT but by doing so, improve air quality.
Question about the leaf blower ordinance? I thought it was in part to
improve air quality. No gas powered? Maybe I missed something that has
changed. It was mentioned in the noise section.
7.5 Climate Change
LEED—Should this be mentioned here?
ENV 9.2 Wording is awkward and vague. What is incorporating what?
ENV 9.14—Love the standard but is 10% improvement achievable for
most?
7.7 Cultural and Historic
Are the 8/26 comments from Historic Preservation incorporated or do we
need to discuss them tonight?
7.10 Water
Should there be a standard for water conservation?
ENV 16.6—not sure why C-2 zone wouldn’t look at alternative pavement?
Pervious is usually desired wherever possible.
8
ENV 16.8—Is that realistic if the land is owned by private individuals?
7.11 Noise
ENV 18.1—is there a size for which this is required. Sounds expensive for
small developments.
Implementation Plans
Generally—lots and lots of programs. Is there an opportunity for
consolidation?
FD—should we try to roll Williamson contracts over to most conservative
standard (e.g. HR-5 vs. HR 2.5)
QM—should be created and then be ongoing