04-13-22 Minutes - PC
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408 -354 -6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 13, 20 2 2
The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
Wednesday , April 13 , 20 22 , at 7:00 p.m .
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
Government Code Section 54953, as Amended by Assembly Bill 361, in response to the state
of emergency relating to COVID -19 and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by
suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §
54950 et seq.). Consistent with AB 361 and Town of Los Gatos Resolution 2021 -044 , a ll
planning commissioners and staff participated from remote locations and all voting was
con ducted via roll call vote.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Melanie Hanss en, Vice Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Commissioner Kylie Clark,
Commissioner Kathryn Janoff , Commissioner Steve Raspe, Commissioner Reza Tavana , and
Commissioner Emily Thomas
Absent: None.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Minutes – March 23 , 20 2 2
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Barnett to approve adoption of the Consent
Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Clark .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously .
PAGE 2 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 33 Walnut Avenue
APN 510-41-007
Property Owner /Applicant/Appellant : Jeffrey Siegel
Project Planner : Erin Walters
Consider an Appeal of the Historic Preservation Committee Decision to Deny the
Removal of a Presumptive Historic Property (Pre -1941) from the Historic Resources
Inventory on Property Zoned R -1:8.
Erin Walters, Associate Planner , presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Jeffrey Siegel (Applicant/Appellant)
- Attachment 7 provides an in -depth assessment of whether there is historic integrity
remaining on the property. In the e xpert opinion of Jay Correia of the California Office of
Historic Preservation this house would not be eligible for the California Register because:
too much modern intervention, new construction ; new materials instead of an in -kind
restoration ; footprint has been dramatically expanded ; and an altered roofline. The next -
door neighbor of 62 years has st ated the house looks nothing like it did in 1961.
“Presumptive ” means the house is pre -1941, not that there was ever a determination of
any historic significance. The key question is whether or not there is historic integrity
remaining after massive alterations over 60 years by multipl e homeowners, and the
answer, as verified by profess ional historic preservationists, is there is no historic integrity.
David Hernandez, Architect, 1150 Pedro Street, San Jose
- I concur with Jay Correia of the California O ffice of Historic Preservation that the current
house does not resemble anything that would be considered historic given the number of
changes structurally and aesthetically. The front porch expansion allowed us to maintain
some of the character of the bu ilding front, but beyond that there is not much that rem ains
of the original residence; the character of the building was lost long ago with the many
changes made over time. I also concur with Mr. Correia and the applicant that this
residence should be re moved from the historical registry.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to deny an a ppeal of a Historic
Preservation Committee decision for 33 Walnut Avenue . Seconded by
Commissioner Clark .
PAGE 3 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
Commissioners discussed the matter.
VOTE: Motion passed 5-2 with Vice Chair Barnett and Commissioner Tavana
dissenting .
3. Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report
Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.
Jennifer Armer , Planning Manager , presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Guilianna Pendleton, Environmental Advocacy Assistant, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
- I hope the Planning Commission will support the inclusion of a Dark Sky and Bird Safe
Design Ordinance in the General Plan to r educe artificial light at night and protect our
birds, hundreds of millions of which die each year due to building or structure collisions
related to artificial light at night. Please also consider removing any goals or policies within
the plan that would lead t o over -lighting Los Gatos . Also, please strengthen biodiversity
protections, native habitat enhancement, and wildlife connectivity as you review and make
recommendations on the Draft General Plan.
Karen Rubio, Los Gatos Plant -B ased Advocates
- I’m asking t he Planning Commission and Town Council to take action to ensure a habitable
planet for our children by including plant -based diet education into Section 8.12 of the
General Plan . 47 percent of California’s water goes to meat and diary production and the
livestock industry plays a key role in climate change. Any plan to achieve a sustainable
environment must include education about plant -based diets.
Lisa Wade, Los Gatos Plant -Based Advocates
- Plant -Based Advocate s has submitted a petition with 265 signatures requesting a plant -
based education program be added to the Environmental section of the General Plan,
Section 8.12 . Mountain View has such a program and we would like to see Los Gatos have
something similar. O ur initiative has the support of health and environmental NGOs,
prominent citizens of Los Gatos and neighboring cities, the Center for Biological Diversity,
and the Sierra Club.
PAGE 4 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
Ja k Van Nada, Los Gatos Community Alliance
- The Department of Finance for the State of California believe s that Los Gatos will not grow
more than 1,954 households in 20 years , so why would the GPAC double that number to
3,738? We advocate a major effort by the Town to provide affordable housing and believe
the Housing Element Ad visory Board should be focused on low - and very -low income
categories. I t will be a major challenge in a built -out town with high land costs, but two
successful housing develo pers have said it can be done and we e ncourage the Planning
Commission to focus on the challenge of getting more affordable housing into Los Gatos.
Lee Quintana
- As a member of GPAC I voted to recommend the Draft General Plan go to the Planning
Commission, but put it on the record that I did not agree to it’s current form because it has
many problems, including: 1) The m anner in which GPAC was conducted, with very little
leewa y in recommendations or changes; 2) One of the biggest flaws of the process is that
the General Plan base map was never rev iewed for consistency between the General Plan
and the Zoning C ode ; 3) There are no incentives in this General Plan to help get the type of
housing we want, which are smaller units ; and 4) Policies do not give true and clear
direction.
Matt Francois , Rutan & Tucker
- I am the land use counsel for Los Gatos Community Alliance, who has concerns with the
proposed General Plan and EIR. The proposed plan significantly and indiscriminately
upzones almost the entire town, including low -density residential neighbo rhoods and the
downtown , but the EIR does not study those changes, as required by CEQA. If the Draft
General Plan is approved in its current form, the Town could not legally deny a project that
complied with the new density standards. The Town should first focus on the mandatory
changes to its Housing Element, due in January 2023, because the Housing Element will
provide critical information as to where housing should be located and at what density. If
the General Plan goes ahead in its current form, the Commission should recommend it be
amended to provide for no more than 2,300 units, which would satisfy market demand and
the Town’s new RHNA number, plus a reasonable buffer.
Gina
- I’m particularly passionate about our need for wildlife crossings. I agree with the other
speakers about the dark skies, bird safety, protecting biodiversity, protecting the
environment and reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, and including education on a
plant -based d iet to the General Plan . I agree with approximately 2,000 units versus 4,000
units. I am, as much as possible, against the high -density and upzoning. I support
eliminating pesticides that are devastating to the Monarch butterfly population, which
migrates through Los Gatos.
PAGE 5 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
Connie Hamra
- One of my concerns is maintaining the integrity and beauty of the Town of Los Gatos. We
do not have enough water for all the development planned throughout Santa Clara Valley.
How is Los Gatos addressing that in terms of the Town’s continued growth? I agree with
keeping the number of units to be added to Los Gatos at the lowest level possible, because
we want to keep our community the way it is.
Rosalee
- I support a plant -based diet education program in the General Plan . I also support the dark
sky petition. W ith plans for so much expansion in Los Gatos we have to keep in mind that
wildlife is one of the things that gives Los Gatos its character and charm. T he main sale
point of the North Forty was to address the affordable housing crisis, but once the project
w as started , this was not upheld. Who is accountable to ensure that what happened with
the North Forty will not happen again in the next development proposed under the guise of
satisfying afforda ble housing in Los Gatos?
Catherine Som ers, Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
- I also support the dark skies. I get criticized a lot in my job for not looking out for all of the
commercial hubs in Los Gatos. One very important thing the Commission has on its plate is
to wrap those hub communities into the whole, and yet make them very special and
unique so that they serve their individual neighborhoods , and I w ould love to see that
reflected in the Land Use portion of the General Plan. The Commission has a unique
opportunity when looking at these different neighborhoods to look at what would make
Los Gatos special and what would be community hub s 20 years from now.
Jesus
- With respect to the General Plan Zoning Map, I own a property on Los Gatos Boulevard and
Farley Road that has been a professional office building for all of its 35 years, is part of
Santa Clara County, and is zoned for administrative and professional office use. If the
property were annexed into Los Gatos it would be z oned for residential . Please c onsider
the zoning in that area, because my property is already in a commercial area, but a
technicality could stop me from renovating and updating the facility.
Arvin
- I would like to suggest that the General Plan consider t urning downtown Santa Cruz
Avenue into a pedestrian street that would allow Los Gatos residents and visitors to come
to downtown and support the businesses and socialize.
Tony Ala rcon
- The RHNA numbers provided by the state to Los Gatos should be appeale d. I do not
support exceeding the RHNA numbers or the approximately 4,000 units proposed in the
General Plan. I agree with a prior speaker that the North Forty was promised as affordable
housing and it is anything but that. Other solutions to create affordable options, such as
PAGE 6 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
smaller units, are needed. I would like to see the historic districts retain their character. We
have yet to see the impac ts of SB 9 and SB 10. We should slow down on the General Plan
and not be too aggressive with the n umber of proposed housing units, and further study
should be done before making drastic changes in that direction.
Joe Ro d gers
- I am very much opposed to a r equest being considered by the Town Counc il to add one to
three cannabis dispensaries in the Town. It sends the wrong message about the quality and
nature of Los Gatos, but my concerns also go to traffic and parking problems . The first step
is a dispensary , then packaging and processing, and then growing cannabis with the
accompanying w ater and electrical power needs . I request the Planning Commission and
Town Council do an environmental impact study and include it in the General Plan.
Joanne Ro d gers
- For every dollar taken in for a cannabis sale, four dollars is spent on policing, traffic
management, crime, etc. We are asking for the environmental review to be included in the
General Plan.
John
- I am generally supportive of additional housing units. W h at pops out in the plan are the
804 opportunities in L and D evelopment , and maybe 1,200 opportunities in the
R edevelopment section. The 3,900 new units and another approximate ly 9,000 residents in
Los Gatos would not work well in terms of traffic , especiall y Los Gatos’ summer traffic . I t
would great if most housing development were converting commercial properties along
strong road corridors to multi -use. Wildfire is referenced extensively in the plan, but the re
is not much strength in the Wildfire F uels, M itigation, and Management; this is an essential
area to pay attention to.
Closed Public Comment.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Barnett to approve changes to the Vision and
Guiding Principles section of the Intr oduction , as recommended in Exhibit
7 to the staff report . Seconded by Commissioner Tavana .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
PAGE 7 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Clark to add language regarding the O h lone
and Tamien Indians to the Los Gatos Community section of the
Introduction . Seconded by Commissioner Thomas .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to accept the suggested changes listed
as Items 2 through 7 in Exhibit 7 to the staff report . Seconded by Chair
Hanssen .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Thomas to recommend Town Council approval
of the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element , subject to the
following modifications: 1) Add an impl ementation program for Policy
RSEJ -4.1 to do researc h on coordinating and promoting acceptance of
government -issued food vouchers; 2) M ake the changes to reflect the
definitions submitted by Commissioner Clark for key terms of equality
and equity; 3) Approve Item 17 in Exhibit 7 of the staff report with the
addition of “historically marginalized” to the language in Policy RSEJ -6.2;
and 4) Approve Items 11, 15, and 18 from Exhibit 7 to the staff report .
Seconded by Commissioner Janoff .
Commissioners discussed the matter.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously , with Vice Chair Barnett recommending the
Town Council consider the terms “equality” and “equity” after further
review by members of the Planning Commission of their use in the
document . Vice Chair Barnett will provide further comment in writing
after his review.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
PAGE 8 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Janoff to recommend Item 67 from Exhibit 7 ,
and add Items 62 and 63 from Exhibit 7 as a single implementation
program in the Mobility Element .
Commissioner Thomas requested th e motion be amended to change “Implementation
P rogram D” t o the 2020-2025 timeframe .
The maker of the motion accepted the amendment to the motion.
Seconded by Commissioner Thomas .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Tavana to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m .
to 11:30 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Raspe .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Thomas to recommend Town Council approval
of the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element subject to the
following modifications: 1) Add a definition of recycled and reclaimed
water; 2) Cha nge Implementation Program C to the 2020 -2025 time frame
and expand it to looking at artificial turf and other ground cov er
alternatives; and 3) Accept Items 70, 73, and 80 of Exhibit 7 to the staff
report . Seconded by Commissioner Clark .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Motion by Chair Hanssen to continue the public hearing for the Draft
2024 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to a date
certain of April 25, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Vice Chair Barnett .
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 9 OF 9
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 13, 2022
OTHER BUSINESS
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development
• Town Council met April 5, 2022 :
o D iscussed whether or not additional fiscal analysis should be performed for the
General Plan and determined no additional analysis was necessary.
o Considered an appeal of 118 Olive Street, which was approved with
modifications.
o Considered 110 Wood Road, which was remanded back to the Planning
Commission.
• A S tudy S ession on affordable housing was held on April 6, 2022 . A video is available for
viewing on the Town’s Housing Element website.
• The next Housing Element Advisory Board meeting will be April 2 1, 2022 , via Zoom. The
public is encouraged to attend.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:29 p.m.
T hi s i s t o c ertify tha t the fore g o in g i s a t r u e
a n d c orre ct co p y o f the minut e s o f the
April 13, 2022 m eetin g as a pprov e d b y t h e
Planning Commission .
_____________________________
/s/ Vicki Blandin