Attachment 19 - May 2, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Kylie Clark
Kathryn Janoff
Steve Raspe
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR HANSSEN: As you might note on the agenda,
this meeting is a special meeting of the Planning
Commission, and what we are trying to accomplish tonight is
to hopefully complete our review and recommendation on the
Draft 2040 General Plan as well as the Final EIR that goes
with the General Plan.
We had our first meeting to consider the General
Plan and any changes that we wanted to make on Wednesday,
April 13th, and then we continued to a second meeting on
Monday, April 25th, and now we are at the point where we
still have things to cover to complete our review of the
General Plan, but hopefully we’ll be able to do that this
evening, and I will turn it over to Staff for their Staff
Report.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. Good evening,
Planning Commissioners. Tonight we will continue
consideration of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report.
As the Chair just stated, on April 13th the
Planning Commission received public comment and began their
discussion of the Draft General Plan. They also closed the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public comment of this item at that time, though we have
continued to receive written comments. That discussion and
consideration continued at meetings on April 25th and 27th.
The discussion has been using as a primary guide
Exhibit 7 to the April 13th Planning Commission Staff
Report, which provides a summary of some of the recommended
changes that were received in all of the public comments.
We’ve made it through most of the elements of the
General Plan thus far, but tonight we will pick up with the
Community Design Element, the Final EIR, and potentially
final discussion of housing numbers in the Land Use
Element.
There was a Desk Item today with some additional
public comment received after 11:00 o’clock on Friday.
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Staff. Do any
Commissioners have questions for Staff at this time? You
will have additional opportunities to ask questions of
Staff during our discussion.
And I did want to thank Staff for reminding me
that we actually had a third meeting where we continued the
discussion of the General Plan to our regular meeting of
last Wednesday, April 27th, and so as stated we do need to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cover the Community Design Element, the Final EIR, and then
complete our discussion of the Land Use Element, and in
particular the build numbers for the General Plan.
What I’ve decided to do in the interest of trying
to get things complete is we will start with our review of
the Community Design Element, then we will take questions
and comments on the Final EIR, and then we will go to the
numbers regarding the Land Use Element, because that was
what took the most time in our last couple of meetings.
With that in mind, what I’d to do is to start, as
we did with the other elements, with Exhibit 7, and in
Exhibit 7, for the benefit of everyone who is watching as
well, is a summary from Staff of all comments received from
the time that the Draft General Plan was released until the
April 13th meeting, and then Staff weighed in and summarized
those comments and stated whether they were neutral to
them, whether they recommended that we include them, or not
recommended because it might not have made sense for the
General Plan. They’ve done that as well for the Community
Design Element and it starts on page 222 of your April 13th
packet, and then there are comments from number 41 to
number 55.
What we did in our past discussion of elements
was we’ve asked Commissioners to raise their hand and talk
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about any changes of any of the items that might be
included that they would like to go along with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to Town Council, and if you had
any of your own comments or recommendations as well, that’s
fine. So we’ll start with that and see if any Commissioners
have items in the recommended changes in Exhibit 7 to
recommend incorporating for the Town Council’s
consideration.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Just to get
things started here I wanted to ask a question of
Commissioner Thomas, or anyone else on the Commission who
has knowledge, regarding numbers 43, 48, and 50. These
three ask that we incorporate with native noninvasive or
non-fire prone plant species. The topic of plants came up
before and I just wanted to seek the opinion of our expert
Commissioner as to whether those are acceptable changes?
CHAIR HANSSEN: So, Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I do think that
the only problem that I see with these descriptors is that
I do think that another completely acceptable type of tree
to plant in new developments is fruit trees or other edible
tree types, so that’s the only thing. I think that native
noninvasive or non-fire prone are all very appropriate, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think that covers enough that it would allow for
sustainability. I do think that we should also be
encouraging planting trees that grow food that people can
eat, so that was the only thing when I read through that,
how I felt.
Then for number 50, were you just wanting to ask
my opinion about (inaudible)? It doesn’t have to do with
the trees, right?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yeah, 53, not 50.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Oh, 53, right, because that
one also had that. Yes, so that is what I have to say, but
it looks like Vice Chair Barnett also has something to say
about that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you very much. I
wonder if we could have some wisdom from the Public Works
Staff about the wisdom of 43, 48, and 53. I had some
questions about whether that would be too limiting.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Unfortunately, Parks
and Public Works Staff has not been able to join us yet, so
as we go through the discussion if Mr. Kim is able to join,
then I will let you know. The other caveat would at this
point, again, we’re just making a recommendation, so even
if we don’t have Parks and Public Works Staff, we can
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
always forward that recommendation and they can provide
additional input for Council’s consideration if they’re
concerned.
JENNIFER ARMER: I will add that at least on one
of these it says, “if feasible,” so that leaves some
flexibility for situations where it is deemed not
appropriate, not feasible.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I may, I was asking for
clarification so I could start down the list, but if
Commissioner Thomas or others have anything to add, that
will be good.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I think that
also I agree that we shouldn’t make anything too limiting,
but I like the aspiration, and it does say neutral next to
two of them and then nothing, so I’m assuming that one was
neutral too on number 53 from Staff, so that makes me feel
more comfortable that they were neutral on that and not
opposed to it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Before you start down that path I
did want to make a comment on a couple of things just in
case you didn’t know the background.
Number 41 was a suggestion from one of the
General Plan Update Advisory Committee members to change
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the name of Community Place Districts to Community Growth
Districts, because that really was the intent, to make them
into growth districts, but the comment came in late and
there wasn’t time for the Housing Element Advisory Board to
discuss that particular item, I don’t believe, but that was
a recommendation from one of the General Plan Update
Advisory Committee members, but we did vote on using
Community Place District during the process.
Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: I was going to add a bit of my
memory of how that discussion of the proposed change to the
Community Place Districts names went. This was a suggestion
that was part of the discussion, and I believe in the end
the consensus was to not make this change, because some of
these places might grow. There might be some initial
redevelopment, but a term like “growth” might not actually
apply to the district in the future once it has had that
redevelopment, and so using a term like “place” was
something that the GPAC as a whole was supportive of and so
decided to stay with it, but that Committee Member was
encouraged to share the idea so that it could be considered
by other bodies.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that further
clarification, because we had 35 meetings and I had
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forgotten exactly what we had decided. But I only wanted to
bring it up because a GPAC member brought it up, and my
personal opinion was not to include it. Normally we
wouldn’t discuss it, but because that particular GPAC
member felt really strongly about it I wanted to make sure
we heard the thoughts on it.
I also wanted to make a comment that there were a
couple of requested additions from the people that have
been really advocating for the dark sky, and I just wanted
to bring up a point that I thought the Planning Commission
should consider, that when the GPAC created the Community
Design Element we sat down and talked about the Community
Place Districts and trying to create neighborhoods, and so
I see a bit of a conflict between the dark sky to protect
and also the safety needs of the people in the community.
Some of the recommendations are tending towards
eliminating outdoor lighting, and then there is also the
need for safety lighting with the neighborhood, so if
anyone from the Planning Commission wants to recommend
those I would ask you to consider having the language be
such that we’re going to be sure to protect safety as well
as the needs of the wildlife that we’re protecting with the
dark skies. So that was my comment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Let’s see, I’ll go back to Commissioner Janoff,
and Commissioner Thomas, did you have more to say? No.
Commissioner Clark, I will go to you.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I think it’s Commissioner
Janoff’s turn right now, right?
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think Commissioner Janoff is
waiting to make a recommendation, is that correct? If not,
then go ahead.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s correct. I was
planning to walk through these.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay. I’ll just make a
couple of comments on what we’ve discussed so far.
I like the idea to add fruit trees to 43, 48, and
53, and I also share that same concern as you, Chair
Hanssen, about the lighting being kind of conflicting with
public safety, and I think especially as a woman that’s
something that I think is very important. I’m not sure how
we could alter it to make sure it still includes safety,
because, for example, it says, “Turning off lights after
activity hours,” in number 47, and we don’t want all lights
off after activity hours, so I would be curious if there
are any ideas for how to incorporate that, because people
were very in favor of the night skies policies.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let’s see if anyone has comments.
Commissioner Thomas has her hand up.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I did just have one more
comment that I think would be helpful to go over for the
group, because I know that we had a lot of discussion as
the GPAC about the difference between should and shall, and
there was a recommended change for number 44, so
Commissioner Janoff, when you get to that one if you want
to discuss that there or whatnot, but just a quick overview
of the difference between those for the group so we’re all
on the same page I think is important, because that comes
up a couple of times in some of the language of these.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up.
Any other comments on that? I don’t see anyone with their
hand up. We can see where Commissioner Janoff is going with
recommendations, and reminding ourselves that the goal is
to identify things that should be included. With the other
elements we definitely had items that we didn’t include,
because it might already be covered adequately in the
General Plan, but sometimes when the comments come in the
people want to put emphasis on it, but it’s usually
addressed in the General Plan somewhere, but the question
is how it’s worded.
So, Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I was going to just walk
through those that I would recommend including, but I did
want to comment on Community Place.
I’m in favor of Community Place, because we
talked long and hard in the GPAC meetings about place
making and the importance of creating that element of
welcome, and so the word “place” took on sort of a new
meaning for me, so I would not make a change to that.
Numbers 43, 48, and 53, which are related as we
discussed, I would advocate that we say yes, and we could
add fruit trees.
Number 44, 46, and 50 are all related to
lighting. Forty-four to me got convoluted in the edits. We
get the idea, but I would say safety is a definite issue on
that one, so I would not be in favor of 44.
I don’t know enough about the dark skies. We did
talk a lot about wanting to reduce the illumination at
night, particularly in the hillsides, so I’m neutral around
46 and 50.
I would say yes to 51, although it might be too
much of a detail, a question for Staff. I’m in favor of the
concept, whether they want to put that level of detail in
here or not might not be appropriate, especially if things
change, if we have a different correlated color temperature
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
chart or something other metric that comes into play in
another 20 years.
Number 54, possibly, but I think we’ve got
implementation plans regarding (inaudible) connections; we
talked a lot about that at our meeting last time.
And number 55, I don't know how that would impact
the Town, given that there is a fiscal impact, the Mills
Act, with regard to tax credits. I don't know whether that
will be something the Town could implement or whether that
needs to be at a higher level that we don’t really control
that property tax.
So that’s what I have. In summary, it’s 43, 48,
and 53, possibly the dark sky lighting, and possibly number
54.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And you said 51 as well. I also
wanted to hear what Staff’s thoughts were, because one of
the things that we try to do with the GPAC is to keep the
General Plan general, and stating that it has to be below
3,000 kelvin is very specific, and as Commissioner Janoff
noted, it might be that five or ten years from now what
defines low voltage lighting is different than it is now,
so I wondered if Staff had a thought? You said you were
neutral.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. We are neutral on
this one, but as you said, the General Plan is intended to
be general; these are policies. It could be that this sort
of consideration of what light level limitations we should
have might be more appropriate as part of some guidelines
or other documents for implementation.
One concern with something like this that gets
this specific if making sure that the Town has the
appropriate equipment to judge this when somebody complains
about lighting and we need to go an verify that the
lighting is appropriate, so those are some initial Staff
thoughts. It looks like Director Paulson has some
additional thoughts.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Ms. Armer. I can’t
remember which element, but one of the implementation
programs is to consider a dark sky ordinance, so this is
the type of thing that could have something more specific
like this, or something a little more specific and then
gets translated into another policy document or guideline
document, as Ms. Armer mentioned. I think a lot of the dark
sky stuff the Commission has talked about we do have an
implementation program to address that, so I’m not sure
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it’s necessary to get to that level of detail, but again,
it’s up to the Planning Commission.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I had
forgotten that we had recommended an implementation
program. If we have an implementation program and it
becomes an ordinance, that obviously carries a lot more
weight than a policy in the General Plan that doesn’t turn
into an ordinance.
Let me see what Commissioner Raspe has to say on
this.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I just
wanted to voice my support. I concur with all of
Commissioner Janoff’s recommendations as modified with
Commissioner Thomas’ language regarding fruit-bearing
trees, and I just wanted to add a little bit more emphasis
with respect to number 55 that is the Mills Act.
It’s clear that the Town of Los Gatos generally
and through its General Plan dispersion is placing great
emphasis on its historic resources, and while I understand
that there could be tax implications, it seems to me that
the Mills Act could be ideally suited towards this Town and
its stated objectives, preserving those resources, so I
would encourage the Planning Commission to forward a
recommendation to Council either through a policy or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
implementation program to strongly consider adoption of a
Mills Act scenario for our town. Thanks.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I would support that
as well, although I would recommend an implementation
program to study adoption of the Mills Act so we understand
what it is, how it would impact us, presumably
beneficially, and then implement if that were warranted.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And you got a thumbs up from
Commissioner Raspe, so I think as long as it’s covered.
Commissioner Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree about
adding 43, 48, and 53 and including fruit trees, and I like
the idea to add 55, as in studying the adoption of the
Mills Act.
Then I wanted to see if anybody has thoughts on
49, because for me I thought that maybe it could be good to
add that policy, but then I also felt like the description
of the policy as actually just a definition of sensitive
natural communities rather than a policy action, and I was
curious if any Planning Commissioner had thoughts on that
one.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Thomas.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree that I like the
idea and intent behind it, but I also then thought is this
already covered in the Environmental and Sustainability
Element? So I could go either way, and I agree it’s really
like a policy, so I don't know. I would like to hear what
other people have to say.
I also would say that it’s like I don't know the
technical language, but for 43, 48, and 53 I would like it
to be not just fruit producing trees, but like edible or
any food producing trees, like nut trees and things like
that that are more generic. Just food producing trees,
maybe that’s the term, but Staff I’m sure can figure it
out. So yeah, I am interested in what other people have to
say about 49.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I was hoping Staff might comment
on 49. I would remind all the Commissioners that this is
the Community Design Element. It doesn’t talk about how you
would incorporate protecting sensitive communities in your
community design, and so then I’m not sure that it would be
that helpful in this part of the General Plan, but I wanted
to ask Staff to what extent… Because we did go over
environmental sustainability before, but I don’t recall
what policies we might have had, so Staff, could you help
on this?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you. I can search through
and see what we can find. One difficulty in finding
something that’s exactly this is we might have used a
different term that gets at the same idea of protecting
sensitive natural communities, and we definitely do in the
Environment section. That element definitely gets into
those types of topics, but it might be in different ways.
I do agree that it seems more connected with that
topic rather than community design. One thought, if the
Commission is interested in including this here is that it
could be a definition combined with a policy that just
states that we preserve sensitive natural communities.
Rather than having all of that text in the policy, it could
be broken into those two.
But I will see if I can find some specific
references in the General Plan under these terms or others,
and I’ll let you know if I find something.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I do recall over our 35 meetings
that I did have a conversation with Commissioner Thomas
about we wanted to incorporate some concepts of
sustainability to make sure that it was in this Community
Design Element, but then as we were going through it there
was this push and pull between whether or not it’s too much
detail and is it going to be contrary to some things in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Environment and Sustainability Element, so we did keep it
very, very general in the Community Design Element.
I did want to put that out there that although it
sometimes is good to repeat the things in the different
elements, if it is covered in the Environment and
Sustainability Element that probably takes priority and you
would want to consider the environment and sustainability
in your Community Design anyway, because that’s part of the
General Plan.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. On 46 and 50
there’s a reference to this model, more ordinance, of the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, and
while I couldn’t find that document online it did appear to
be 40 pages, and that means to me that it’s far more
detailed than we want in the General Plan.
Then I support 55, as other Commissioners have
said.
As to 49, to me it just seems like it is
commentary; there’s no substance that’s added to the
General Plan, so I would be against that one.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Director
Paulson
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Just to that point on
49, in the Environment and Sustainability Element there are
a number of policies and implementation programs related to
special status species, retaining natural conditions, and
habitat and movement corridors, so there are a lot of other
policies in that element that do cover this topic.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Director
Paulson. My personal advice, although it is the
recommendation of this entire Commission, would be to keep
it simple in the Community Design Element and have more
details on that subject in the Environment and
Sustainability Element.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would agree. I think also
including this here, which is a section of really the
hillside development, clearly we’ve got that interest in
the hillside probably throughout the plan, but it also
would apply to other areas in Town, so I would be against
including it there.
And if we’ve got enough coverage in the
Environment and Sustainability Element, and I think we’ve
got it in spades as written, I agree with Vice Chair
Barnett that it’s a statement without anything under it if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it were a policy, and then the balance of the statement
that is in quotes is actually a definition.
So we kind of have a mix here. I think we’re in
favor of the general concept, but this isn’t the place for
it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Clark.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I just have one
thing to add to these comments, and I had accidently
brought it up during the Land Use Element, but adding the
definition of “rafters” to key terms.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Refresh my memory. Did we agree
to do that?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: No, because I immediately
retracted the comment.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Oh, because you were going to
bring it up again in Community Design.
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yeah, because rafters are
referenced in the definition of eave, and then there’s not
a definition of rafters, so I thought it could be
beneficial to add that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Let’s see if anyone else
had comments on that. Vice Chair Barnett.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I was remiss in not bringing
up 54. I have concerns about whether that’s invading
private property rights. Maybe Mr. Schultz could comment on
that. There may be safety or other reasons that the Water
District would not want people trespassing on this
property.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’m sorry, can you repeat your
question again?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Number 54.
JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Schultz, this is in Exhibit 7,
and it’s basically asking that, “New trail connections on
or open to Valley Water property must be open to the
general public and permitted by Valley Water.”
JENNIFER ARMER: And I’ll add that this was a
suggestion based on a comment from Valley Water. In general
I would say that that’s the type of thing that would be
part of the project consultation in terms of the conditions
that Valley Water would place on that, but the question was
directed to the Town Attorney, so I’ll pass it on to him.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, I agree, it should be on a
case-by-case basis. There might be times when it might be
appropriate to do that type of dedication or require that
in a condition of approval, and there might be other times
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where it might not be appropriate, so I wouldn’t want it to
be a shall or a mandatory condition or policy.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff. I feel in the
Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element, without having
it open in front of me to look at the policies, that we had
plenty of policies that encourage connections of trails and
open up private trails. I felt like we covered that in many
ways in the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element, but
again, I don’t have it open in front of me, so I’m not sure
if that would be beneficial in the Community Design
Element, unless it’s just a general statement.
JENNIFER ARMER: So CD-11.6, which is the policy
that this comment is suggesting you modify, states,
“Require development that is adjacent to Los Gatos Creek
Trail to provide secondary access to the trail.” Valley
Water’s comment is that if there is access being provided
to the public trail, that that needs to be public access,
because it is access to a public trail, that they don’t
want access from private property that is only open to the
users of that private property is my understanding of the
comment. So the policy is already there to say that there
should be additional connections to the Los Gatos Creek
Trail. The recommendation from Valley Water, as I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understand it, is to modify that policy to clarify that any
new connections would need to be open to the public.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And further permitted by Valley
Water.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: There was a checkpoint in there.
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: If you wanted to do that, you had
to get it okayed with them.
JENNIFER ARMER: Right. We might say require, but
there are certain additional permits that would be required
to make that possible.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Well then, that sheds a different
light on it.
Let’s see, Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Reading the actual thing,
it does say, “Require development that is adjacent to Los
Gatos Creek Trail to provide secondary access to the
trail.” I don't know if we could just add, “to the public,”
like if that would satisfy, or if we’re not allowed to say
required to the public.
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll just use one example. We have
the Aventino Apartments, for instance. Obviously they don’t
have public access from the creek trail into their
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apartment community, so that did have a gate there. I’m not
sure how much development like that we’ll really see along
the creek trail, frankly. I think the policy as written in
the draft plan provides enough flexibility that we would
work through those details. If it happened to be adjacent
to Valley Water property with the developer of that site
when it came through, then we would have that conversation
with them anyhow.
A lot of the creek trail, and depending on where
you’re at, some of that creek trail might be in Valley
Water ownership, and so I think they’re trying to make sure
that we at least go through that step, which we could just
as a matter of course, so that would be a conversation we
would have anyhow.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, that makes sense. Let’s
see, I’m not sure who was first. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: In light of the
conversation perhaps we can modify the existing 11.6, just
insert the word “public” between secondary and access, so
it’s clear that it’s a public access, not just for the
benefit of the development, should there be one. And then
of course as Director Paulson said, Staff will go through
the normal checks and permitting should that be warranted.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Commissioner Janoff.
I know it wasn’t suggested by 54, but is perhaps the word
“require” too strong? If there are that many checkpoints
that we have to consider, it sounds like there’s going to
be a feasibility issue. We didn’t discuss it this way
during the GPAC, but thinking about it now, I wonder if
“required” might be too strong in 11.6.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m actually comfortable
with the word “require” because it sends a really clear
message for the developers that this is an expectation to
provide access to nature, so I would have no objections to
the way it’s written and insert the word “public” if that’s
more clarifying.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, and then leave it to Staff
to deal with Valley Water if it’s accessing their property.
I think that would work for me. I just wanted to ask that
question.
Let’s see, are there other comments?
Before Commissioner Janoff turns this into a
motion I did want to say one more thing on 46 and 50, which
are essentially saying the same thing. They’re about
referencing the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America’s lighting ordinance. I thought we were going
there, but I just wanted to say that I don’t think we need
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to add those to the General Plan if we have an
implementation program to look at an ordinance. I don't
know if we sealed that off or got there yet, but it wasn’t
in your list of things to add, Commissioner Janoff. I just
want to make sure we were okay with that.
So do you want to go ahead and make a motion,
Commissioner Janoff?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I will move that we accept
numbers 43, 48, and 53, with the language that adds to the
insert edible tree… Staff can find a good way to say that,
but we know what Commissioner Thomas is suggesting, and
it’s a good suggestion. And we are adding number 55 as an
implementation program to evaluate or to study the Mills
Act and its impact on the Town.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And on number 54 you wanted to
add the word “public”?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, to the existing…
CHAIR HANSSEN: To the existing 11.6 policy in
the Community Design Element.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just am going through. I
think that’s it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And then it looks like
Commissioner Thomas had her hand up. Are you seconding?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I second, yeah.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, great. Commissioner Clark,
you had your hand up. Is it about seconding, or did you
have comments before we take a vote?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: I wanted to ask about adding
the definition of “rafters” to key terms.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, and add the definition
of “rafters” to key terms.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And does the seconder of the
motion agree to that addition?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And thank you, Commissioner
Clark, for reminding us of that so we didn’t forget. So we
have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion
by Commissioners before we take a vote? Okay, we’re going
to do a roll call vote, and please answer yes, no, or
abstain. I will start with Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Clark.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well.
As we had done with the other elements, this is a
progress vote. What really has to happen at the end of this
process is we have to make a recommendation to vote to
accept the entire General Plan with all of the recommended
changes, but this at least puts a stake in the ground for
each one of the elements to help us through the process so
that it’s not unwieldy when we get to the end of the
process.
That is all of the elements with the exception of
the build numbers for the land use, so we will now turn our
attention to the Final EIR, and there are a number of
Commissioners that haven’t been with us while we’ve had to
review an EIR, and this is a different kind of EIR than we
might hear about from a project, so I wanted to ask Staff
to give us some guidance and feedback on how we should be
considering the Final EIR in our recommendation.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. The next part
of our discussion is a discussion of the Final EIR, which
incorporates the Draft EIR, the modified sections, and all
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2022
Item #1, Draft 2040 General Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Report
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the findings that have been provided to you as part of
your packet for the April 13th meeting.
So this is a program EIR, which is a different
kind of analysis than a project-level EIR, which you’ll see
more often. Future projects that come in under this are
going to need to go through project-level analysis as well.
As with any EIR, this isn’t solving existing problems, it’s
looking at baseline and then it looks at what the program
might create and proposes mitigation for those items. It’s
very common with a program EIR for an update to a General
Plan for there to be unavoidable impacts, as we have in
this case, and in fact, that’s been true for at least the
last few General Plan updates that the Town of Los Gatos
has had.
One thing to keep in mind when considering this
document is it is an informational document, so it’s the
Town’s document. The Town Staff, including the Town
Attorney as well as the Town’s consultants, environmental
consultants, and experts have worked on this document and
we do believe that it is legally adequate pursuant to CEQA.
This discussion tonight is not intended for
changing anything in the EIR. It really is more focused on
answering questions and providing clarifications. Since
this is an informational document, it’s intended to support
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 Medium-
Density 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 Medium-
Density 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 Medium-
Density 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 up-
zone 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 Low-
Density 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 Low-
Density.
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 Low-
Density 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 Medium-
Density 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 Low-
Density 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. Fifteen-
percent 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. Sixteen-
percent 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 Mixed-
Use 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 Mixed-
Use 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 Low-
Density 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 Low-
Density 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