Los Gatos City Council
June 20, 2022

From: Susan Burnett
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 6:07 PM
To: Clerk; Town Manager; Council
Cc: Susan Burnett
Subject: Housing unit increase
Greetings,
Based on all my readings, on the subject for reasons to double the housing numbers for Los Gatos, I find there are NO REASONS! Please tell me what are you are basing this increase in housing on? ABAG’s projection does not support the need, we have a lack of mass transportation, and how about the town’s Greenhouse Gas ratio?? No one from the GPAC knew how our town manager arrived at 3904 units, there were no votes! I am against this, the general plan should be amended every 8 years when new information and future RHNA allocations become known.

Thank-you,
Susan Burnett

From: hwhite
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant- Based Initiative
Hi Jennifer,
My name is Hilary White, and I am a resident of the town of Los Gatos. I have lived here for 35 years. My address is 115 Casitas Boulevar, Los Gatos, 95032.

I would like to express my enthusiastic support for plant-based community education. Many people are becoming aware of the problems with raising animals for food, and they are eager to make changes. However, they don't always know how to even begin. Programs that teach people how to incorporate more plants into their diets and encourage them to take steps in this direction would go a long way in helping them eat more sustainable diets.

I enthusiastically support including a dedicated plant-based education program in the Environmental and Sustainability section of the general plan.

Meat and dairy reduction is an easy, cost-effective, and very powerful way to help the environment.

Thank you for your efforts!
Sincerely,
Hilary B. White

Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 12:29 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211004192905] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211004192905]
Name: Jeff Benjamin
Comments:

I STRONGLY disagree with this radical change to our town's long standing building policies . This change to our community will dramatically change LG as we know it! I strongly encourage the delay of acceptance of this proposed general plan to later in 2022, not November 2021, for full evaluation and consideration by community members.

Page title: Home

Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 12:58 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211004195827] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211004195827]
Name: David Lombardi
Comments:

This is a radical change to long standing building policies in our community and will dramatically change LG as we know it! I would like to demand delay of acceptance of this proposed general plan to later in 2022, not November 2021, for full evaluation. Announcing the details of this plan publicly through SJ Spotlight in mid-July 2021 with a plan to have it accepted by November 2021 is unacceptable and unfair to the citizens of this town.

Page title: Home

From: Marco Rolandi
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 5:40 PM
To: Matthew Hudes; GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Update on the Future
Dear Matthew,
I am not sure whether I will be available to attend, my answers below.

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 5:22 PM Matthew Hudes <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Marco
A few weeks ago, I sent you a note about an opportunity to help shape the future of Los Gatos though our 2040 General Plan. There is another Community Meeting this Wednesday at 6:00PM.

During the last meeting on September 20, it became apparent that many folks were not aware of the process or the recommendations of the Draft 2040 General Plan. (Can be viewed here: YouTube)
As a Councilmember, I’d like to encourage you to participate in the process because this plan will set the direction of the Town for the next 20 years. And whether you agree or disagree with the recommendations, it is important that your voice is heard.

Some of the points that were raised in that meeting and in conversations I’ve had around Town, include:
• 1,993 or 3,904 units: Whether to meet the State-mandated housing requirement of 1,993 units or whether to plan for 3,904 units, including Hillside Residential (as is in the current draft of the General Plan) Even 1993 units are too many for Los Gatos. The issue is traffic, school, and fire danger. Every other town in the peninsula has pushed back on the mandate. Los Gatos should do the same. I grew up in a small coastal town

in Italy whose beauty and nature was destroyed by developers in the 1970s.

I would not want the same to happen to Los Gatos. Building more units in Los Gatos now will only result in three things: (1) quality of life of current residents will be negatively affected, (2) quality of life of new residents will be much worse than other areas in the Bay with more room to grow, and (3) will end up attracting same demographics w/o increase in diversity. We have geographical constraints, the hills and reservoir on one side and 85 on the other, there is simply no room to expand w/o causing more traffic jams and dangerous situations in case of fire or earthquake. If you increase density in the hillsides, people leaving in high fire dangers areas will not be able to evacuate.
• SB9: If/how we should include in the count any housing that would be created under SB9, the recently enacted State law which made it easier to convert single-family homes into multi-family.

Any additional unit should count with the goal of increasing the number of housing as little as possible.
• Affordable Housing: How to get developers to commit to building affordable housing in Los Gatos
Build better infrastructure first and fix the traffic issues, then you can build houses. Developers should be fined if housing is not affordable, I have yet to see a real affordable development in Los Gatos or Saratoga. All the new high density housing is selling for multiple of millions, affordable to whom? • Phase-in: Whether new development should be phased-in when improvements in infrastructure are completed, addressing issues such as traffic, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, wildfire prevention, water shortages, and public safety

No new developments until more schools and parks are built, roads are fixed, appropriate evacuation plans are studied for hillside residential, and high fire danger areas, and the 17 traffic jam over the weekend is taken care of.
• Guide: State the principles and values that the Town will use to identify areas around Town for increased housing
Ensure that the quality of life of the residents and their kids improves.

This sounds like a lot of discussion about housing and development, which is not surprising in a community such as Los Gatos, but the Draft General Plan 2040 is more than that—it is a "constitution” for all future growth and development. The General Plan is made up of a collection of “elements,” or chapters, of which nine are mandatory. They are: Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Environmental Justice, Circulation, Noise, Air Quality and Safety
In addition to the State-mandated elements, the Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan includes elements that address Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice, Mobility, Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure, Environment and Sustainability.

We also received ideas about encouraging plant-based diets that could be incorporated into the Environment and Sustainability element.

The documents can be found at: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html Becoming Part of the Conversation
Your thoughts are vitally important as the 2040 General Plan emerges from a “Draft” to becoming the “Law of the Town,” and I (as well as all of your Town Council and Commissions) want to hear from you. Here are some opportunities:

• Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:00PM: Community Meeting
https://losgatoscagov.zoom.us/j/82084075418?pwd=aENDOG5icmNlRU93S0diTm1QVVNqZz09 Password: 289135
• Fall 2021: Planning Commission meeting to review and approve the Draft 2040 General Plan as well as the Draft Environment Impact Report which covers the General Plan.
• Later in 2021: Town Council meeting to review and approve the 2040 General Plan as well as the Final Environment Impact Report which covers the General Plan.
• Late 2021 and throughout 2022: Ongoing public meetings of the Housing Element Advisory Board
• Late 2022 and early 2023: Public meetings of the Planning Commission and Town Council to review the recommendations for the Housing Element.

And for that matter, at any Council Meeting during “Verbal Communications.” Our next one is Tomorrow, Tuesday October 5, 2021 at 7:00PM
Of course, if you would like to discuss the General Plan, or anything about the Town, I am always available. You can reach me by email at [email protected]. The Town is accepting comments on the General Plan at [email protected].

Thanks for reading my lengthy email.

Matthew

Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 6:18 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211005011741] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211005011741]
Name: Julia Lombardi
Comments:

This is a radical change to our long standing building policies in our community and will dramatically change Los Gatos as we know it. I would highly request to deny the plan because our public resources will not be enough to sustain all the newly added living units. The traffic is already horrible and the public schools will not be able to handle all the new students. We need to have a detailed and reasonable plan to ask citizens who live in Los Gatos for approval. It is not fair to ask current Citizens to approve the plan in such a short notice.

Page title: Home

From: Dirk Reese
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:20 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>; Jennifer Armer
Subject: Dedicated plant-based education program
Dear Los Gatos Town Council:

I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. I support adding this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040.

Best regards,
Dirk Reese

From: Babette Ito
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:25 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - Oct 6, 2021 - Pls consider lowering town's housing requirement
-The Town Manager decided to increase the number of homes LG has to plan for by doubling the number from 1993 to 3854. She did this without consulting the Council nor getting a vote by her General Plan Advisory Committee. Does that make sense? - Los Gatos is a commuter community with some business, but is essentially a job exporter. The VTA will focus on transit in high density areas such as San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. Los Gatos has no mass transit in the 20 year VTA pipeline, yet we are expected to build out 3854 homes over the next 20 years? Does it make sense to double our housing with no expected literail in Los Gatos at all in the next 20 or more years? Doesn’t look good where-in the 2040 VTA Plan, it already states they are “financially constrained” for the next 28 years. - Based on ABAG’s own forecast, the Town’s population is forecasted to increase from 30,836 (current DOF forecast) to 33,050 (ABAG’s forecast). Based on the 2.4 people per housing unit ratio, that means the Town only needs 923 new housing units to house the growth in population.

But the latest number from the Town is 3,854 new units! Pls consider lowering the town's housing requirement. The state isn't requiring it and I feel it is unnecessary. I'm all for being all inclusive, but can't we walk before we run? Our infrastructure isn't set up for it.

Babette Ito
Los Gatos Resident

From: gristconstruction
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:43 PM
To: Town Manager; Arn Andrews ; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow
Cc: [email protected].

Subject: Comments regarding the General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 October 4, 2021
To: Los Gatos Town Mayor, Council Members, Town Manager and Town Clerk Re: General Plan Community Meeting – October 6, 2021
The projected housing unit increases as proposed by the Town Manager, Laurel Prevetti, are completely out of line and impractical. How does a town manager, un-elected, get to make decisions as to the future of the town? Is there no oversight by the mayor and council? Who is listening to the citizens, residents, and taxpayers of Los Gatos?
More dense population means more traffic, of which we have more than our share due to our location at the base of the mountains and along the highway 17 corridor. More traffic means more pollution and more congestion, and more delays.

We already do not have enough water in the Santa Clara Valley to support the existing population, and more housing will put a bigger burden on what is available.

The State mandates that all new housing must be 100% electric. The electric grid is already challenged to keep up with the demand. More housing will mean more PG&E rolling blackouts and higher electric costs.

There is no mass transit available in Los Gatos except for a few VTA buses, and no plan for a mass transit hub in Los Gatos to help relieve the increase in traffic congestion caused by more housing development that will be caused by Ms. Prevetti’s plan.

I have been a homeowner and resident of Los Gatos since 1978 (43 years) and a resident of Santa Clara County since 1956. I have seen Los Gatos grow and merge with other nearby areas (Campbell, Saratoga, and San Jose), and now there is no separation. Putting people on top of each other for the sake of the Town Manager’s “goal” is to ruin the quality of life in Los Gatos for longtime residents and newcomers alike. Endless growth is not the answer.

Please reject the proposed 1993 new housing units, as other Town Managers have, and especially the 3954 that Ms. Prevetti has taken upon herself to propose before the Town of Los Gatos becomes the City of Los Gatos.

Thank you,
Dennis Grist

From: Sutton Roley/USA
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:46 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Town Clerk,

As a 40 year resident of the Town, I want to share my opinion regarding the Town Manager’s proposal to increase the planned housing over and above the State’s requirement. The Town Manager must be completely out of touch with our community. We love this town and it’s low density rural feel. None of us want to live in San Jose and we certainly do not want to change our Town to be like San Jose.

All we hear about is the traffic congestion through town and the North 40 is not even occupied yet. This increase in population that will result from this proposal is too much too soon. It should happen organically and naturally over time.

The State mandated requirement of 1,993 units is hard enough to accept without the Town volunteering to almost double that number. Please bring this to the Town residents’ attention, and you will hear a loud and clear message that this ill conceived proposal is unacceptable.

Thank you!

Sutton L. Roley
Senior Director

Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:48 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211005034811] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211005034811]
Name: Joey Cheng
Comments:

The medium density zones in the downtown area of los gatos does seem like a recipe for traffic congestion. I would rather take a safer approach like having higher density near the 85 such as the north 40 project. See where that goes then bring the density down towards down town.

While there probably should be some high density housing to house people that work in the service industry there I don't think it require as much as indicated by the plan. I do strongly believe that people working there should be able to live near by.

Since I have some characters left let me add this. I am not as worried about the character of the town since from what I see character is imparted by someone caring enough to do something unique to their property. What I would start to worry is when apartments and other managed rental properties start spreading.

Page title: Documents

Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:53 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211005035249] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211005035249]
Name: Joey Cheng
Comments:

The Vasona light rail station seems to be on an indefinite hold? I wonder if it is really a good idea to increase housing density given this. Don't get me wrong, I am not against higher density housing, just not very happy with it if there is no good way for people to move around.

Page title: Documents

Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:15 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211005041451] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211005041451]
Name: Joey Cheng
Comments:

Recycling waste water even if it is just for landscaping use is probably going to be needed in the near future. I mean seriously I think we just barely got out of one drought to be thrown in another one. Is there a plan to create the infrastructure to have purple pipes supplying recycled water for landscaping of our commercial and other higher density areas?
Pulling dedicated recycled water pipes to single family home is probably too expensive. Though if someone would build all this to my home I won't be opposed to using recycled water.

Page title: Documents

From: Anne Roley
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:27 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> Subject: RE: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Dear Town of Los Gatos
The impact of additional housing from 1993 to 3854 is not in alignment with the small town character that sets apart Los Gatos from the higher density Silicon Valley. The residents live in Los Gatos for the quaint family like atmosphere with more space, less traffic, good schools, and a safe environment. Adding housing above the 1993 required amount by the state will negatively effect the community feel we all love in Los Gatos. Traffic will increase, density will increase, which most likely will increase crime, school are already at capacity and growing from the new housing on the North 40. The North 40, a huge development, is not finished and occupied by residents and businesses, so we haven’t seen the impact yet. Medical office complexes, which results in the largest traffic outcomes, continue to be built around Good Samaritan Hospital.

Do Not Allow The Additional Housing Over The State Required Amount Of 1993 In The General Plan 2040!!! Thank you,
Anne Robinson Roley

From: Cathleen Bannon
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:17 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>
Cc: Grant Bannon
Subject: General Plan Community Mtg 10/6
We are writing to share our outrage at practically doubling of the states required housing numbers from 1993 to 3854 in the proposed general plan.

That can mean additional costs to administer; more cars on the road on limited roads; more Green House Gases; More students in school; about 9300 more residents; etc. We were ok doing our fair share of adding affordable homes in Los Gatos - but the town does not have the infrastructure to support doubling the number required by the state.

Based on ABAG’s own forecast, the Town’s population is forecasted to increase from 30,836 (current DOF forecast) to 33,050 (ABAG’s forecast). Based on the 2.4 people per housing unit ratio, that means the Town only needs 923 new housing units to house the growth in population. But the latest number from the Town is 3,854 new units! That suggests a population growth of 9,250 which is 4.2x ABAG’s own forecast of population growth. The Town’s projections are not based on any supporting population forecast and need to be revised downward.

We need to bring the 2040 General Plan housing number back to1993 and ensure that housing is zoned to make sure to flow with infrastructure limitations to promote ease of movement throughout town.

Thank you for listening to your residents.

Cathleen Bannon
Grant Bannon

From: John Mittelstet
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:31 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Regarding: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 I am concerned about the following:

1. The Town Manager has evidently decided not to appeal the 1993 housing units assigned to Los Gatos. Far more than needed for the forecasted growth anticipated by 2040. 27 other Town Managers or County managers did appeal. Los Gatos is the only Town that increased the planned number of homes that we can find. Under what authority was the Town Manager not appealing? Is the Town Council asleep at the wheel?

2. The Town Manager decided to increase the number of homes LG has to plan for by doubling the number from 1993 to 3854. She did this without consulting the Council nor getting a vote by her General Plan Advisory Committee. Why was the Town Manager allowed to make this unilateral decision? If this is true, the Town Council should immediately, without hesitation, release the Town Manger from her duties, and find a someone who is more in tune with the population of Los Gatos.

3. Los Gatos is a commuter community with some business, but is essentially a job exporter. The VTA will focus on transit in high density areas such as San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. for years to come. Los Gatos has no mass transit in the 20 year VTA pipeline, yet we are expected to build out 3854 homes over the next 20 years? Does it make sense to double our housing with no expected lite-rail in Los Gatos at all in the next 20 or more years? How about 40 years? Doesn’t look good where-in the 2040 VTA Plan, it already states they are “financially constrained” for the next 28 years. This is just one more instance, among many, where the town is allowing for more traffic growth without thinking about how it is going to be handled. Our city streets are already too frequently congested to the point that someone who needs to get to a doctor must start a half hour earlier than normal driving time to not miss an appointment. It’s ridiculous to subject ourselves to this kind of unthinking planning.

4. Based on ABAG’s own forecast, the Town’s population is forecasted to increase from 30,836 (current DOF forecast) to 33,050 (ABAG’s forecast). Based on the 2.4 people per housing unit ratio, that means the Town only needs 923 new housing units to house the growth in population. But the latest number from the Town is 3,854 new units! That suggests a population growth of 9,250 which is 4.2x ABAG’s own forecast of population growth. The Town’s projections are not based on any supporting population forecast and need to be revised downward. Amen. Los Gatos proper is constrained by its geography at the base of the foothills from being able to support more housing than is necessary for the forecasted growth of population.

5. Are you aware that the Town’s Green House Gas (GHG) ratio goes from bad to worse? How will adding more housing improve our GHG? It will be bad enough with just the 1993 homes. How will they improve the ratio by doubling the number of houses without the support of mass transit?
It appears we have a woke Town Manager taking unilateral action that certainly would not be supported at the polls by the citizens of our town. If our elected Town Council members cannot control this individual-on-a-mission by releasing her immediately from her duties, then they should expect to find themselves without a seat at the table come the next election.

Sincerely,
John Mittelstet
Concerned Los Gatos Citizen of forty-three years

From: Jamie Fumia
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:47 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021.

I am writing to you in regards to the general plan meeting scheduled for October 6th.

I was born and raised in Los Gatos and moved back here in 2013 to raise my family. I never expected life for my kids to be exactly the same as the one I was given growing up here because let’s face it times have changed BUT I did move back here for many reasons. I love Los Gatos. I love the community, the schools and the beauty of the town. I love the people and the parks and the little downtown where you always run into people you know. But lately I’m concerned about the direction the town is heading. The North 40 was a tough pill to swallow but I listened and tried to understand the reasons it was needed and accepted that there was no way around it.

I do not, however, agree or accept this new idea that the town is adopting to add double the housing requirement in the next 20 years. Why? When is enough enough??? Have you tried to go downtown on a sunny Saturday? We live off of college and cannot leave our house on these days because our town doesn’t even have the Infrastructure to handle beach traffic let alone overcrowding it with more housing. I have heard that we are the only town okaying these numbers…why? We’ve lost a lot of people in this community in the past year who have just had enough and moved away. Enough of the traffic and enough of the overcrowding.

Plan smart and plan accordingly, because obviously i get the need for new housing but please do not ruin the wonderful thing that is Los Gatos by pushing for more housing than we can possibly provide without exhausting all of the resources it takes to make this a wonderful place to live.

Thank you
Jamie fumia

From: Kathy Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:21 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: General Plan. Letter Council Meeting October 6, 2021 Begin forwarded message:

From Kathy Anderson
Subject: General Plan
Council,
Please do not rush to pass this flawed General Plan in November. Please care about the future of our town. Use common sense when viewing the Plan.

Much of the work on the General Plan was done during a pandemic. Most people were concerned about survival and were unaware of the work being done on the Plan. The LG citizens are just now beginning to read and understand what is in the Plan and the detrimental impact it will have on them and the town. So please do not rush to pass.

The Plan is flawed in so many ways. It does not address items mentioned in the EIR. It does not provide for the needed infrastructure for - traffic, water, safety, emergencies, etc . It is like building a house without a foundation.

Increasing density and height allowance, the zoning is just for developers not for the citizens who live here and who elected you.

We have always protected the view of our hills. Increasing the height allowance threatens that.

To provide increased density you ruin neighborhoods. You will need to tear down established shopping centers for high rise apartment buildings. Thus forcing citizens to drive further distances to do their daily shopping. This just adds more fumes, more traffic. What about climate change? Just think in an emergency such as an evacuation more density means more cars trying to evacuate.

More density means more students attending the schools. It over crowds and provides an inferior education just by sheer numbers .

Increased density allows a single family home to be torn down and perhaps a 4 plex built .

There are so many features in this General Plan that need to be addressed in order to save Los Gatos. I would like a town wide vote on the Plan. If that doesn’t happen it will be up to Council to use common sense, not political views, to address this General Plan.

Think first of what this town stands for, the citizens who live here, to preserve not destroy a very special town. It will be up to you to decide what the future of our town is like.

I hope you care !

Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:46 AM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211005154551] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211005154551]
Name: Fernanda Tran
Comments:

Good morning,
I am totally again the project of building more and more houses at Los Gatos.

Traffic is already terrible. It will make the city lose the charme of Los Gatos!! We want the same Los Gatos! No a city w double if people.

It sounds like the city just wants more taxes!!
Let's make sure homeless are out of the city and our kids are save! No crating more homes and have a over population and making Los Gatos to a Los Gatos anymore.

I love my Los Gatos!!!
No for the project that wants to create an absurd number of houses in our beautiful town! Page title: Home

From: roberto anji
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:55 AM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>
Cc: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Suggestion for the General Plan
Hi Jennifer,
My name is Roberto Anji living at 120 Hill Top Dr., Los Gatos since 2011.

I would like to add my voice to recommend a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program be added to Section 8 Environmental section of the General Plan. I travel around the world and notice that Veganism is growing in many places especially progressive locations like Berlin, London, Copenhagen etc and I also noticed that places like Bali and Chang Mai have many Vegan restaurants and tourists are flocking to them. I think Los Gatos can put itself on this map as well by encouraging and promoting Vegan options. I think you have already been made aware of the many benefits of switching fully or partially to a Vegan diet by some of my like minded friends :-)
Thank you in advance for considering this proposal.
- Roberto Anji

From: Eric Fox
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:38 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: over-densification
Dear Town Council, Clerk and Manager -
Your efforts to ram more housing down the throats of the town's citizens is despicable. You have no plan to accommodate the people who live here or the people who would move here. I oppose your densification scheme on every level. You are accountable to the voters and citizens of the town. Your tenure in leadership in this community will come to a swift end if you continue to pursue this thoughtless goal and ignore the voices of the people.

Best regards,
Eric Fox

From: Mark Jamieson
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to raise in housing numbers
As a 20 year citizen of Los Gatos, I disagree with the decision the Town Manager made to practically double the states required housing numbers from 1993 to 3854 in Los Gatos. That will mean additional costs to administer; more cars on the road; more Green House Gases; More students in school; about 9300 more residents; etc !
Please be more forthright in explaining your decision on this issue.

I am fine with doing our fair share of adding affordable homes in Los Gatos - but I am not in alignment with doubling the number required by the state.

Mark Jamieson, MD
G2 Anesthesia
Pediatric and Adult Anesthesiologist
Medical Director
Forest Surgery Center

From: Tedd W
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:45 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Gatos Housing
We are totally against your proposal of increasing the number of new houses in Los Gatos from 1993 to 3854. Isn't developing the North 40 enough. A person can hardly get home on HW17 in the afternoon as it is now. I distress to even think of the disaster waiting for us when that projects gets completed.

Please do not add more to this increasing problem.

From: Nancy Rollett
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:01 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Amendments to GP2040
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for our productive conversation last week. As suggested, I’ve summarized my recommendations to how the Agency is reflected in the GP2040 in the attached letter.

Please advise next steps.

Regards,
Nancy
Nancy Rollett
Executive Director
208 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408) 207-4900
Building a Healthy Community Through Enrichment, Innovation and Fun!

From: Sandra Livinghouse
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021.

October 5, 2021
Dear Town Council,
I recognize that the town planning job is extremely complicated and at times a no win, as there is no way to make everyone happy. Nonetheless, the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 is an extreme miss and needs to be radically revised as it stands. I am also highly concerned about how transparent and ethical town operations are in the planning/town management department, which should also concern you as elected officials.

Los Gatos needs to be preserved as well as developed. You have an obligation as elected officials to improve the livability for the citizens who live and pay taxes here, as well as to manage responsible growth and development.

My asks:
• There is no need for you to approve a General Plan by the end of the year that is not due to the State until January 2023. Please allow for community involvement and plan to finalize by mid next year timeframe, 2022.
• Please reduce the housing element to the state’s request of 1993 units, not the almost 4,000 you have planned.
• Please eliminate the new zoning proposals for the entire town and stick to our current zoning.
• Please evaluate whether the current Town staff is truly representing our town.

Los Gatos cannot accommodate your ambitious growth plans for the following reasons:
• Traffic/Roads: Los Gatos long ago made the decision not to allow Caltrans to widen 17 or to allow a south-bound exit onto highway 85 at Winchester. Both of these factors contribute to making traffic in LG intolerable. Until you have the funds to pay for these improvements (since CalTrans now won’t), you cannot advocate for massive building of almost 4,000 units. In addition, VTA has no plans to extend light rail to LG-they are focusing on more centrally located commuter areas such as San Jose and Sunnyvale.
• Schools: Young families move here for Los Gatos schools, and they are extremely important to our community. If you impact our school quality with too many residents, the entire community and town suffer. And if a new school is needed, who is going to pay for it? • Environmental: The environmental impacts of this plan are unconscionable. Where is the water and electricity coming from to accommodate all these new residents? The projected greenhouse gas emissions from additional vehicles will increase tremendously under your proposed plan. And why do you not make sure that new developments such as the North 40 are

done in an environmentally sound way, with solar, grey water recycling and other needed green building practices?
• Fire Safety: Los Gatos is a lower mountain town and largely in a high fire zone. And, our neighbors up 17 are also at high risk of fire. How will we evacuate safely if you overbuild the town and impact road access? On a safety basis alone, the LG General Plan 2040 is completely irresponsible.
• Ongoing Costs to Service Residents: More residential buildings cost money, and the property taxes received do not cover the costs of fire, police, schools and other services. Who is going to pay for all these additional costs? Where is the fiscal plan that justifies all this building from a financial perspective?
I am also highly concerned about your town management operations, and here are a few examples:
• Non-transparency: LG residents were hunkered down during the Covid public health crisis and were not at all aware of the town’s plans for radically revising the town’s buildings policies. Having lived in the town for a long time, there is a precedent of slower growth and preservation I had come to assume. I personally was not aware of the town’s plans until the July 2021 SJ Spotlight interview appeared (after the deadline for appealing the State’s housing units demands). Although you keep pointing to meetings you had, around 11 people attended those meetings, including the developer it seems. That is hardly representative of LG’s 30K population. And, the town made no effort except for one mailing two years ago to alert citizens to the LG General Plan 2040. Where’s the communication and transparency? • Randomly Increasing Housing Numbers: How is it that the Town Manager randomly keeps increasing the housing numbers without the Town Council’s approval or even knowledge of the GPAC? Who is driving this change in numbers and under whose direction? And, was the Town Council aware that Los Gatos was not challenging the state's requested housing numbers in July 2021?
• Insufficient Reporting for Public Meetings: Why are letters from the public that are prepared for town council and other meetings not being included in the public packets and posted on the website?
I hope you find my observations useful and that you will change your transparency and operational approach for the LG General Plan 2040. Los Gatos growth and development for the next 20 years should not be decided by just a few people on the town council and staff. Please make citizen input, safety and livability a priority.

Regards,
Sandra Livinghouse

From: Diane Dreher
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 1:50 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Diane Dreher
Subject: for the October 6 General Plan Community Meeting:

Please include this email in the packet for the October 6 General Plan Community Meeting:

As a longtime Los Gatos resident, I’m concerned and confused about the proposed increase in housing in the General Plan from the original 1993 to 3854.

My questions are: 1) What is the rationale for this increase? 2) We know that all of California needs to respond to the current housing crisis, but why is Los Gatos the only town that has exceeded its original housing allotment? And 3) how was this decision made without appropriate input from the Town Council?
I strongly support returning to the original 1993 housing allotment. Our small town cannot handle the proposed increase without exceeding its carrying capacity. The proposed increase would exceed:

1. Our limited water resources. We are experiencing a record drought and asked to conserve water. Where would there be enough water for the additional population?

2. Our transportation system. How will people commute to work? Los Gatos has no mass transit planned in the 20-year VTA pipeline

3. Our limited sewage system, designed decades ago,

4. Our limited fire department and other services.

For the future of our community, please return to the original 1993 housing allotment.

Diane Dreher
--
Diane Dreher, PhD
Professor Emerita of English
Associate Director, Applied Spirituality Institute
Santa Clara University

From: Lori Ingle
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 1:53 PM
To: Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes ; Maria Ristow Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
First, thank you for what you do! I greatly appreciate all your efforts. I have been a lifelong citizen of Los Gatos and love our town. I am usually up to speed with what is going on in Los Gatos. Somehow I think that I have been late to the party and missed the news about the Los Gatos Town General Plan outlining development through 2040. I strongly feel like the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 is an extreme miss and needs to be radically revised as it stands. I am also highly concerned about how transparent and ethical town operations are in the planning/town management department, which should also concern you as elected officials.

My specific concerns are:
· There is no need for you to approve a General Plan by the end of the year that is not due to the State until January 2023. Please allow for community involvement and plan to finalize by mid next year timeframe, 2022.
· Please reduce the housing element to the state’s request of 1993 units, not the almost 4,000 you have planned.
• No one has been able to clearly articulate why Los Gatos did not ask for an exemption like many other towns and cities around us did, and why Los Gatos proposed increasing the # of units. How is it that the Town Manager randomly keeps increasing the housing numbers without the Town Council’s approval or even knowledge of the GPAC? Who is driving this change in numbers and under whose direction? And, was the Town Council aware that Los Gatos was not challenging the state's requested housing numbers in July 2021? These are all questions we need answered.
· Please eliminate the new zoning proposals for the entire town and stick to our current zoning. · Please evaluate whether the current Town staff is truly representing our town.

The LG citizens are just now beginning to read and understand what is in the Plan and the detrimental impact it will have on them and the town. So please do not rush to pass.

The Plan is flawed in so many ways. It does not address items mentioned in the EIR. It does not provide for the needed infrastructure for - traffic, water, safety, emergencies, etc...

There are so many features in this General Plan that need to be addressed in order to save Los Gatos. I would like a town wide vote on the Plan.

Please make citizen input, safety and livability a priority.

Regards, Lori Ingle

From: Molly Fumia
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 2:08 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: housing and soccer
We would like to voice an objection to the housing numbers decided on by the town manager. Low cost housing is important, but the environmental footprint is equally important. Half that number seems doable, sensible and responsible.

We would also like to ask about soccer fields. Do you all realize that Los Gatos United Soccer Club now has 900 players, doubled from 2 years ago when Shaun Tsakiris took over. The games bring out of towners every weekend, who eat at our restaurants and visit our shops.

LG United has been widely praised for the coaches' work ethic, knowledge of soccer, complex training and most of all, positive relationships with the players. Their biggest problem is fields.

Los Gatos High School fields are used by Liverpool, a shrinking soccer club. For Los Gatos United to be able to have just one space at the high school several days a week would be a wonderful benefit to the kids.

One soccer field, Creekside, is not enough for a club with 900 players. Please find a space and build at least one more soccer field. Many communities now have soccer complexes to serve their soccer families and visiting players. Los Gatos United, easily one of the best youth soccer organizations in California, could not host a tournament--which fill hotels and restaurants, because they don't have the fields.

Please put this concern, which is on the minds of many others, on one of your front burners. Los Gatos deserves better.

Thank you, Chuck and Molly Fumia

From: Susan Shyu Pinkel
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:55 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: Meeting on General Plan
Dear Los Gatos Town Clerk,
We have lived in Los Gatos Main since 2012. We own three houses and an apartment complex. We have visited and/or owned a home in Los Gatos since 1992. When we first moved to Ellenwood Ave, our youngest son was not able to enrol in any of the elementary schools closest to our home (Daves, Van Meter or Blossom Hill). We were told that Daves, Van Meter and Blossom Hill were ALL impacted and that we had to send him up Highway 17 to Lexington Elementary. This, we found, was outrageous considering Daves and Van Meter were only about one mile away from where we live. In the end we had no choice but to send our sons to private schools.

With this background, we would like to voice our strong objection to the General Plan that will increase the number of new homes in Los Gatos from 1993 to 3854. If back in 2012, when we couldn't enrol our son into the local elementary school, and when the housing stock in Los Gatos had not even been increased yet, why would increasing the housing from 1993 to 3854 now be a good idea? Further, Los Gatos already has huge traffic issues and without access to decent public transportation, how does the Town Manager envisage traffic to flow? Or does the Town Manager think that traffic will sort itself out or that the public will just get use to it? To sum up, we strongly object to Los Gatos Town's General Plan for the increased housing stock. We do not agree with the original housing increase let alone the new number of 3854. We objected to North 40 and the Town took no notice. We now object to the new housing stock number and respectfully ask that the Town Council do not accept the new General Plan regarding the increase in housing stock.

Best regards,
Susan Pinkel

From: Amir Segev
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 3:28 PM
To: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Town Clerk,
It came to my attention that the Town Manager is proposing to increase the planned housing density way above the state’s requirement and as a long time Los Gatos resident I would like to express my dismay and confusion about this. First, I just cannot understand how can a Town Manager be so out of touch and completely oblivious to the will, the needs, and the very basic priorities of the community it serves. No other town in the Bay Area found it necessary to accept, not to mention exceed, the state mandates. No other town in the Bay Area showed such a blatant dismissal of the community interests.

Increasing the housing density in Los Gatos the way it is being proposed by the Town Manager will change its character, the quality of living, and the entire meaning of being a Los Gatos resident. Our roads are already standing still, our air is already more polluted than ever, our infrastructure is already having hard time supporting the town’s needs, and our schools are already bursting at the seams. The proposed 2040 plan is not only irresponsible and unwarranted but also contradicting the Town Manager’s very clear mission, which is to “enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos…. and seek to meet the needs of the community”. Moving forward with the 2040 plan as stated will not meet the needs of the community, it will betray them. It will not enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos, it will jeopardize it.

I cannot even begin to say how many people in the community are outraged and their voice will be heard as they send a very clear message – we came to Los Gatos for a very good reason and the ones who are entrusted with protecting this town cannot be those who end up undermining it.

Thank you,
Amir Segev

From: Bill Walker
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:44 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Hudes
Subject: 2040 General Plan
Council Members and Town Manager:

Do not continue to further destroy our small town environment by planning for more than the statemandated housing requirements. Over the past 26 years we have lived in LG we have seen extremely worsening traffic exacerbated by out-of-control housing and population growth yet to be further exemplified by Phase 1 of the North 40 with Phase 2 yet to come.

Secondly, while we accept minimal state-mandated low-income housing, it should be kept to the absolute minimal amount that is mandated not to be increased by those in the minority professing something more. We don’t need more crime and homelessness both of which receive minimal attention from our police force or town management.

Thank you for listening.

Bill Walker

From: Mark Regoli
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 3:49 PM
To: jak; Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]> Cc: Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc
Subject: General Plan 2040
Town Council, clerk and Manager,
Your efforts to increase the housing in Los Gatos above the state mandated amount is very disappointing.

There is no plan to accommodate the people who live here or the people who would move here. This will have a tremendous impact on everything from schools to water consumption. A change like this needs to be studied with an EIR and CEQA impacts.

I oppose this densification on every level. You need to address the impact on the citizens and get their approval prior to launching a program of such magnitude.

Mark

MARK REGOLI

From: Jeff Loughridge
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 5:49 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Date: October 5, 2021
To: Los Gatos Town Clerk, Los Gatos Town Manager, and Los Gatos Town Council
From: Jeff Loughridge
I recently heard some very distressing news regarding our towns new ABAG numbers and how the town staff is handling them. I have previously been a member of the Town of Los Gatos Affordable Housing Advisory committee as well as the Housing Element Advisory Commission.

What I heard was that our town manager, Laurel Prevetti, has suggested INCREASING the number of affordable housing units that Los Gatos is required to plan for, from 1993, up to 3854. This in no way representative of the what the Los Gatos residents want. This was also done without any input from either town residents or even the current Town Council.

Laurel Prevetti needs to be reminded that she REPRESENTS Los Gatos and its residents and needs to stop her irresponsible reaction to the State of California’s new ABAG numbers.

Its NOT OKAY for her ignore appealing the original requested numbers to lower the required housing units.

Its NOT OKAY to increase these numbers without input from the town.

AND… Its NOT OKAY for her to disregard the detrimental effect of the consequences of the possible increase in population and traffic.

Believe me, having been on the two committees that had to deal with this exact problem for the previous Housing Element, this should not be happening. Laurel Prevetti sat in on most, if not all of those meetings and should have gotten the message LOUD AND CLEAR that the town has always wanted lower numbers, not higher ones.

As Los Gatos residents, we cannot let this stand. Stop Laurel Prevetti from raising our towns ABAG numbers. Get input from Town Council and the public on this issue. If 1993 is the number from the state and we have already past the opportunity for an appeal of that number to lower it, then stop this insanity of increasing it.

Jeff Loughridge

From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 5:59 PM
To: Jennifer Armer <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]> Cc: Karen Rubio
Subject: Plant- Based Implementation Program for General Plan Hi Jennifer,
We have come up with some wording for a Plant-Based Education Implementatoin Program that could be easily inserted into section 8.12 Implementation programs in the General Plan.

Plant-Based Education
Implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of shifting to a plant-based diet, which includes improved health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water.

I will add this to my comments for the meeting tomorrow.

Best,
Lisa

From: Kjirste Morrell
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 6:08 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Dear General Plan Committee,
I would like to request that that the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 reflect a commitment to grow as a walkable and bike-friendly community. The walkable nature of the town and public access to outdoor space were part of the reason that my family moved here. I know, from observation of so many of us walking and riding around town, that our town values:
• the ability to walk to businesses, services, and schools from many residential areas • streets and paths which encourage riding bikes both as transportation and for exercise • outdoor public spaces including paths and trails that can be used for exercise Considering these factors during future development would help our community grow in a way that we could enjoy every day.

Thank you,
Kjirste Morrell

From: Sasha Braude
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:00 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Hello, I received an e-mail and postcard about the General Community meeting on Tuesday. I will attend via Zoom, but given the high interest, may not have the opportunity to speak.

I wanted to voice my strong objection to the proposed housing portion of the 2040 General Plan. I understand that we need new housing, but to build up to 3853 units is extremely excessive. We already have terrible traffic not just on the main streets such as LG Blvd, Winchester, Santa Cruz, University, etc, but it's now spilling over to residential streets as people try to go around the traffic. And when it's school drop-off and pick up time, it's impossible to make it in or out of our neighborhood. Building double the number of homes that is required by the state is ridiculous, we simply do not have the infrastructure to support it. We already have a massive development at South 40, and are at a breaking point without those units being filled.

As residents of the town, I know you care about our future, and I strongly urge you to reconsider the current proposal.

Thank you,
Sasha Braude
Los Gatos, CA 95030

From: Susan Ward
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:34 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: The Town was never meant to become a Megatropolis The people who live in a Town shouldn’t need to fight our elected officials to maintain our status. The other neighboring cities have kept their charm and relative size as the constituents prefer. Who is making money while destroying Los Gatos’ charm? You know that Los Gatans do not want this change. It is not a necessity per the State. No other towns or cities are quadrupling. What’s up Leaders? Sent from my iPhon
Sorry I omitted my name
Susan Ward

From: Susan Ward
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:48 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting Oct 6, 2021
I do not want my Town to grow much larger. I do not agree with the General Plan.

Susan Ward
Los Gatos
Sent from my iPhone

From: erafia
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:33 AM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Comments
I am writing about the 2040 General Plan update. I disagree with the inclusion of this entire section into the general plan. First and foremost, this entire section does nothing to bring people together and is instead being pushed by those with an agenda to divide the community. It is filled with all the keywords meant to make it seem like it is well intentioned, but it will undoubtedly be weaponized against the town and cited in lawsuits, leading the town to waste valuable time and resources in the future.

In addition to what it will be used for in the future, take a look at the long list of administrative overhead it creates for staff. It is completely unnecessary, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Lastly, it is an overreach of the government's purpose. Take for example the provision RSEJ4, calling for town involvement in the coordination of allowing for acceptance of EBT cards at the local farmers market. First of all, why does an EBT card need to be used at a farmers market? That in and of itself is absurd. Secondly, what does this lead to - that no business license will be granted to any vendor not willing to adhere to this provision?
I strongly encourage you to eliminate this section of the general plan in its entirety except for any provisions that may be required under any applicable California law, if any. In fact, most of what is referenced in here is already covered under California and Federal laws against discrimination, and a duty of fair dealing. I would also be curious if you questioned those who pushed for it, to better understand where they actually live and who they are funded by before even considering including any elements of this section in the town's general plan.

Eric Rafia

From: CHRISTINA JANSSON
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:54 AM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: GENERAL PLAN COMMUNITY MEETING 10/6/2021
I have three questions, I would like answers to:
1) 3,500+ homes would be built, “if/when the infrastructure is improved on”. How? Light Rail? More roads? The latter seems unrealistic.
2) 1993 homes. That is still 1993 cars! Does that not require “improvement of the infrastructure”? Or, is it the usual “act first and think later”?
3) What dollar number constitutes affordable housing in Los Gatos? Pleas point out to me, where, and how many there are.

Do I have to speak at the meeting, to have these questions answered? Or, can you answer them during the meeting?
Regards,
Christina J

From: kay maurer
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:55 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Town Manager <[email protected]>; Council <[email protected]>
Subject: general plan
Hello,
I am writing to address an issue with the new proposed 2040 general plan. Specifically the below item, which if this is true, it is definitely way out of line.

The Town Manager decided not to appeal the 1993 housing units assigned to Los Gatos. 27 other Town Managers or County managers did appeal. Los Gatos is the only Town that increased the planned number of homes that we can find.

Why would our gridlocked town want more housing than is absolutely necessary? We don't have the infrastructure to support more homes, and have not even yet seen the impact of the housing in the north 40. Los Gatos officials need to work to improve the quality of life in our town, not pack it with cars and more people that it cannot adequately support. Things are out of control.

We have no solution to the summer traffic issues, little to no improvement to infrastructure, and no viable plan to address overhead power wires that have started devastating fires in other areas of northern California.

Please do not move forward with this unforgiving plan to overpopulate the town at this point in time. Perhaps it can be revisited in 2040 if other issues have been resolved, but definitely not now.

Thank you for taking time to read my views.

Sincerely
Kay Maurer
Los Gatos, cA

From: Katie Hingle
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:25 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Feedback before General Plan review on Oct 7 In reference to the General Plan Community Meeting - I would like to provide this feedback. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Katie Hingle
Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:15 AM
Subject: Feedback before General Plan review on Oct 7
Dear Town Council,
I appreciate the outreach that the Town of Los Gatos has provided to ensure the community’s voice is heard in the process of finalizing our current General Plan. I have read much (not all) of the proposed General Plan for 2040, and there are many components I believe will add value to the Town and some that are of concern.

The goal to make the Town more diverse by building more accessible housing that is also centrally located to walking/biking/alternative-to-car is a huge win. I am very excited by the points of the Plan that discuss increasing cycling and alternatives to cars, and maintaining expansion while managing our environmental impacts.

My concerns center on the fact that the Town’s General Plan calls for practically doubling the amount of homes (3,738 new homes) required by the RHNA plan for Los Gatos (1,993). Although there are many good points in the General Plan to ensure that employers offer shuttles, and that we increase kids walking/cycling to schools, our Town is not set up for the population increase we would experience.

From https://www.demos.org/research/move-thrive-public-transit-and-economicopportunity-people-color “If we want everyone to participate fully in the American economy, we have to make sure that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity or class, has an efficient and affordable way to get to work, school, health care, and recreation.”
Could the Town also do something to incent the workers to stay here in Los Gatos vs. commute far away? Not likely as we don’t have sizeable businesses here. The new residents will commute, like the vast majority of residents here do today, then we will need more buses and other public transportation. The fact that the Future Vasona Light Rail Extension is on hold indefinitely until there is funding from the VTA means that adding 1,000’s of more commuters will add 1,000’s of more cars on the road.

And if we have more kids in our schools, and the parents are lower income and would need to commute by bus to get to their jobs, they will not be able to drop their kids off at school. We need school busses and/or other incentives for kids to walk/ride to schools, especially in bad weather or on days of bad air quality.

Last, I see the point about requiring employers with 100 + employees to provide shuttle services. Does that mean companies like Adobe, Salesforce, Google, Apple will be required to shuttle their Los Gatos employees? If yes, how does the Town have any leverage over these companies? Or does that mean that companies in Los Gatos who have 100+ employees must provide shuttle service. Is that even a thing here in Los Gatos besides Netflix?
I would suggest that the Town’s General Plan focuses on building housing to meet realistic population growth goals vs. overdoing it with development close to downtown, get cars off the road by focusing with continued focus and development of ways to cycle, walk, etc, and get the VTA and other public transportation to increase.

Katie

From: Sue Ann Lorig
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Comments to Los Gatos Planning Commission
Hello Ms. Armer,
As a heads up, these are the comments I will make by Zoom at the Planning Commission meeting this evening.

Best,
Sue Ann
Comments to Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 6, 2021
Hello. I’m Sue Ann Lorig. I’ve been a resident of Los Gatos for eight years.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak and thank you to all the members of the Planning Commission for the work you do for our beautiful town.

My request to you is this:

Will you please add a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program to Section 8.12 of the Environmental and Sustainability element of the General Plan? I am asking this because I sincerely believe that we need to reduce our consumption of animal products if we are to have a real chance at reversing climate change.

As noted in Forbes, “In what the Guardian called "the biggest analysis to date," researchers concluded that shifting away from meat and dairy is the single most effective way to regenerate our ecosystems and prevent its destruction. “ Additionally noted in the Forbes article: “Since livestock production is the single largest contributor of emissions around the globe (more than planes, trains and cars combined), removing it from our food system could allow the planet to regenerate.” Huge additional benefits from eating more plants and less meat include saving vast amounts of water, plus improving our health and reducing the strain on the the health care system.

There are so many things a Plant-Based Education Implementation Program could do, such as having cooking classes to teach people how to easily prepare delicious, nutritious plant-based meals. We could have speakers on a range of topics including how to improve your health with whole food plant-based eating, how eating less meat and dairy benefits the planet and is necessary if we want to halt and reverse climate change, how to plan plant-based meals, and more. I would love it if we could have a VegFest with plant-based vendors, socialization, and fun activities. Film screenings would be wonderful, too.

Thank you again for all you do. I urge you to help Los Gatos be part of the solution to climate change by adding a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program to Section 8.12 of the Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/06/12/save-the-planet/?sh=2a23f9bf3c81

From: Jared Ajlouny
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:41 PM
To: Clerk; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow Cc: Town Manager
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Hello Town Council,
Los Gatos is a very special place. It has been developed and planned over the years to keep it a special place. While traveling I meet many people that have been to downtown Los Gatos and remark how beautiful it is. That is pretty remarkable for a small town. The reason for this is because of the town's special character. This includes the zoning rules that maintain the density of development in certain areas. While high density housing makes sense in certain areas (close to economical public transportation, work hubs, etc), downtown Los Gatos is none of that.

I wanted to address some of the 2040 general plan items that are keeping me up at night. My wife and I live on College Ave. College Ave is arguably one of the most known residential streets in Los Gatos due to the proximity to the park and the winery. It is visited by thousands of people every week. On weekends it is almost impossible to find parking. If high density housing is allowed in this area it would make the traffic and parking a larger mess than it already is.

During the summer beach traffic it takes about 30 minutes to get from highway 9 to College Ave.

Imagine if there was a fire on a large multi family building that was newly built in a fire hazard zone. Per the towns own "Fire Hazard Map" https://losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64/General-Plan--- Fire-Hazards-Map?bidId= , College Ave and the entire hillside is a fire hazard zone. Why would anyone consider high density housing in a fire hazard zone? Especially with what has been going on with the fires the last few years.

Our parcel on College Ave has a shared driveway with three houses. The driveway is also very difficult to access from College Ave. If that driveway suddenly had 4 times the amount of vehicles on it, it would completely ruin the traffic up and down College Ave. It would also be a hazard with the pedestrians walking and biking up and down the road.

Please put reasonable thought into this terrible plan. California is already losing more of its standard of living every year. Please don't add to that.

Thank you.
__________________________________
Jared Ajlouny

From: Jeff Rippin
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 1:17 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 - bring the 2040 General Plan housing number back to 1993
Hi,
I understand that the state requires Los Gatos to increase housing units by 1993 by the year 2040.

But, the Los Gatos Town Manager wants to increase the states required housing numbers from 1993 to 3854?
Please keep the number at 1993. I feel the city is busy enough with cars.

Why do we need more than the state requires? Maybe I'm missing something? Take care,
Jeff Rippin

From: MARY PATTERSON
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 6:03 PM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: 2040 General Plan
Dear Council,
I am totally against adding another 3,000+ homes to Los Gatos. Let's consider that proposal.....we have no water
we've had to buy generators because we lose electricity the town traffic is congested and stressful
we've had to add an area code when calling due to no lines there is no room in our schools and no land or money to build AND no one lives in the North Forty yet.

Does this proposal make any sense???? NO!!
Please leave Los Gatos the quaint little town that we know and love!!! Thank you,
Mary M. Patterson

From: KENNETH ARENDT
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:29 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Hudes; Neuner, Gary
Subject: GP 2040 - ideologies that are not to be placed in the GP Hello,
All of this plant based stuff is fine, on a personal basis. It has NO PLACE in the general plan for LG.

If you were to allow this, it opens the door and sets a precedent for other ideologies of ANY nature, to burden the GP process.

Ken Arendt
NOTE: this email is being sent to thousands of Los Gatos residents

From: KENNETH ARENDT
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:41 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Trouble here in Town - the General Plan and more To the GP2040 Planning Committee
The below email and attachment was sent to the Town Council. Please do read my concerns. Thank you.

Ken Arendt
---------- Original Message ----------
From: KENNETH ARENDT
To: Marico Sayoc <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: 10/04/2021 8:25 PM
Subject: Trouble here in Town - the General Plan and more Hello TC members. This is a very difficult email for me to send, as I never thought that I would have to do this. I know most of you, and vice versa, and have been supportive of all you have done for the Town in the past. Several of you have had gone through a gauntlet of issues over the years, and it hasn't been easy.

But now, the real issues facing us are at least two-fold, most likely more. One is definitely the growth and how to accomplish it without damaging the Town, its residents and character. The other issue is perhaps more serious. It is the blatant actions of the Town Manager to get us in this trouble in the first place. I know that some of you might be friendly towards her and her staff. And you rely on the Town employees to support you and not ignore you. So this is probably distasteful. But you must do your jobs and honor the oath of office that you took.

Please read my attached paper to you. I do trust that you will take the right actions to bring us back on track.

Thanks for all that you do.

Ken Arendt
LG 95032

October 4, 2021
LG Town Manager and Staff
Topic: MIS-BEHAVIOR and BAD JUDGEMENT
REFERENCE: TOWN COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL , 2-04, PAGE 8
Town Study Session of September 20, 2021
General Plan for 2040
After reading many of the Town Documents regarding Town code, RHNA requirements, General Plan, I am very concerned about the recent behavior of the Town Manager and staff. How did the Town land use element and Town’s housing needs get de-railed? Specifically, I am addressing not so much the resulting numbers that are being floated around, but the inappropriate process of getting to where we are.

According to the TC Policy Manual referenced above, and other documents of the Town, it is clear that the Town Council establishes policy and direction for the Town and the TM and her staff are responsible for carrying out the directions set forth. It is NOT within the preview of the TM to establish policy and take actions that ignore TC approved directions. Nor is it proper for the TM to go public with local media about Town housing element numbers that have not been approved by the TC. That is called insubordination.

I refer specifically to the TM’s specific change of General Plan Preferred Alternative numbers that were approved initially by the TC, at about 2800 units. In fact the TM set forth and disseminated to the public new arbitrary numbers which were made PRIOR to the State mandated RHNA numbers, which were substantially lower, at 1993 units. The TM created numbers almost doubled those RHNA numbers without TC approval. This action negatively impacts the charter of the Town as to the authority placed within the Town Council. Why wasn’t the TC notified and involved, especially along the way? As such, the following points are made:
• The TM stepped outside her bounds of authority
• Failure to properly notify the TC and/or the Mayor of dramatic changes to housing numbers • Did not notify the TC when appropriate as to when any appeals to the State could be made by the Town
• Published newly created housing element numbers without TC authorization • When asked “why” she did this at the most recent study session, her answers were without merit; ie, lots of work, we were all busy, etc
• It appears that her own personal agenda overrides decisions that are supposed to be in the best interests for the Town
• Housing numbers that she proposes may have significant negative impacts on the Town – o Exceeding RHNA numbers opens the door to developers to do most anything they want o Water – we are in a drought; what is the plan to address this? o Traffic – we are already complaining about traffic all over; what is the plan? o Schools – what are the metrics regarding teacher/student acuity ratios? New schools? What is the plan?

o Character of the Town as to what the residents bought into and what we want; we have all worked very hard to get here and be what we are! We do not want to change into something we are not!
o Housing values and neighborhood impacts
o Other unforeseen impacts
• Impacts of this nature need to be studied, analyzed and voted upon and NOT arbitrarily set into place by the TM who has no authority to do so. Arbitrary action beyond authority levels in the TM’s position weakens the TC and its authorities.
• Town Attorney – he should have advised the TM of her actions, but apparently did not, or did not know about it, or was ignored. Either way, the TA should have advised the TC as to this action as well as advised the TC about potential appeal dates and requirements. This did not happen.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

The Mayor and the TC should take actions to address these bad judgment actions, review both the TM and TA performance and set forth consequences as appropriate. In regular corporate situations, a board of directors might even fire the position. Please do your job and take whatever actions are necessary to correct the problem.

DESIRED OUTCOMES:
• The TC needs to formally accept the State mandated RHNA numbers with further study done as to density issues and how to address them without damaging the Town further. • The TC needs to address the TM and her staff as to their limits of authority and determine why the TC was essentially ignored in the process.
• The TC should evaluate these actions of the TM and determine if the job has grown beyond her level of competency to continue.
• The TC needs to set forth its mandates to itself, the citizens of the Town and the Town management and staff, that although we see the need for diversity, inclusion, public safety, etc, we can and will do so while retaining the nature and character of the Town. We have many many citizens, current and long standing, who have worked very hard and have sacrificed much to reside here. Some were lucky, others worked two jobs. But we did what we did to be here and become part of this community. We do not want it changed. • Create studies to understand what impacts SB 9 and 10 will have on our community and create ways to accommodate those laws without damaging our Town.

Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:22 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211007032212] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update
Ticket: [#20211007032212]
Name: Cameron Tulee
Comments:

Regarding Fire safety:

One way to help reduce the fire risk it to have the utilities buried. Overhead utilities have been the cause of multiple devastating CA state fires in recent years. I didn't see this mentioned in the general plan - Is this something we can push for as a Town government and in the general plan? Especially in the hillside areas which are much less accessible and could cause an out-of-control fire situation.

Thanks,
Cameron Tulee
Page title: Home

Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:56 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211007045548] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211007045548]
Name: Cameron Tulee
Comments:

Regarding the housing target confusion:

Perhaps it's worth updating the actual plan with the breakdown - the state's mandated target (for the first 8 years) + some buffer, then the next 12 years target is the difference, etc, etc.. Then with it all outlined in the plan folks wouldn't have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the numbers and it should reduce the confusion with this issue.

With regards to the proposal to add vegan diet education: It's a good initiative but I feel it's missplaced and that the Town general plan is not where this should be. An education campaign like this should start in the schools and the Town shouldn't be expected to be an educator for the residence for such issues as this. It's outside it's scope.

Thanks, Cameron Tulee
Page title: Home

Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:07 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211007060704] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211007060704]
Name: J R
Comments:

I'm a Los Gatos resident for years and listened to tonight's meeting, good to hear many voices from different perspectives. Thanks for organizing it! Here are my comments:

1. Overall I oppose the 2040 general plan. Fire safety issue, negative financial impacts in terms of residential housing price and town's budget, worse traffic, etc. They're valid concerns and real problems! I hope political interests should not be put over Los Gatos people's benefits.

2. Please make writing comments available to public. If privacy is the concern, can be anonymous and have an option to let people choose to opt out. Moreover, I suggest to have a survey/voting on this site. Those can help transparency of the process.

3. If I heard correctly, a lady suggested "if you like small town feel, go to Yosemite (or 17miles?)".

How ironic and how dare she! Most exclusive words I've heard tonight! People live here have every right to preserve the small town image they like.

Page title: Home

From: Nick Struthers
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 3:51 PM
To: Council; Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant - based Education Program for Los Gatos
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
As a Los Gatos resident since 1999, I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated Plant Based Education Program. I support adding this to the environmental section of The General Plan 2040.
sincerely
Nicolas Struthers

From: Julie Struthers
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 3:54 PM
To: Council; Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant - based Education Program for Los Gatos
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
As a Los Gatos resident since 1999, I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated Plant Based Education Program. I support adding this to the environmental section of The General Plan 2040.
sincerely
Julie Struthers

From: Kavin Kankeshwar <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 9:06 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for consideration for Los Gatos 2040 Plan Hi,
I am a Los Gatos resident in University-Edelen Historic District, I have few comments for the Town Council/Planning commission to consider as we work on the Los Gatos 2040 plan.

1. It's great to see in Los Gatos 2040 Plan sections LU-9.4, LU-15 and CD-3 to protect historic neighborhoods which everyone in the city benefits. But the City of Los Gatos has not adopted Mills Act, By not providing any financial incentives and having additional regulations for historic districts, it places an additional often unfair burden on owners of structures contributing to the historic district, Even though all residents of Los Gatos benefit from and enjoy how the historic neighborhoods looks and feels. Also more often historic properties go into a state of disrepair which reduces the desirability for dilapidated houses and its order of magnitude more expensive to fix those. I would strongly urge the City council to adopt Mills act and any other measures which can provide incentives to preserve Historic property or loosen the regulatory burden in historic districts.

2. Traffic on 17, This topic I'm sure has come up before. But I would really like the Town Council to raise the priority and make it the top of agenda item to work with County and State officials to escalate and make it priority #1. It is critical and urgent we solve this ASAP. Traffic on 17 will reduce the desirability of the area if the commute is horrible. We need to improve the Quality of life for the residents of Los gatos to move around without being stuck in traffic.

3. I support the Los Gatos 2040 plan for more houses, so it's critical to address the traffic which comes with existing and newer residents. Reducing the regulatory burden for developers or owners of property to build more housing is a good thing and a healthy sign for a growing community. But planning for growth is critical. I would encourage the City to do whatever to help reduce regulations, fast track applications and allow more construction. Anyways, construction in the bay area is very expensive because of the high cost of living for workers plus the amount of building regulations and long delays in permit applications/sign off. So whatever the city can do to reduce red tape on construction is a good thing, Because if any project takes years to get off the ground that delay costs will be passed on to consumers which just means the new houses won't be affordable for the middle class which won't benefit because their income is more than median income so they still cannot buy houses because it's expensive to build new houses. It is very important for the City to go into high gear to fix the traffic issue to support this growth.

4. Dedicated bike and pedestrian only streets in Downtown Los Gatos. I would recommend making Downtown Los Gatos and adjacent streets pedestrian only and also have a Class 4 dedicated bike lane on University Ave from Main street to Vasona lake and taking other measures to reduce/discourage traffic on collector roads like University ave, and promote bike/walking and other environmentally friendly way to get around town. It might also be a good idea to plan for parking structures so people can park there and walk downtown. Also if

University Ave does have a Class 4 dedicated bike lane, there has to be some plan for permit parking for residents in the parking lots in between University and N Santa Cruz ave.

Thanks for your time and consideration of these comments! I really appreciate the effort which everyone is taking to draft and plan the Los Gatos 2040 future.

Regards,
--
Kavin Kankeshwar

From: karen
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 2:02 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Cc: 'Lisa Wade'
Subject: Education Programs for Plant-Based Diets in General Plan Hi Jennifer and council members,
I am grateful I was able to speak on October 6 at the General Planning meeting about our objective of including education about plant-based diets in Section 8.12 of the general plan.

As I stated, the reduction of animal foods (meat, dairy and eggs) holds the promise of addressing the widespread problems we face today. Briefly:
- Greenhouse gas emissions: Animal ag is a major source of greenhouse gases methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, that are rapidly warming our climate. This is making extreme weather, such as drought, fires, hurricanes, etc more frequent and more intense. - Pollution of air, water and land by enormous CAFOS (concentrated animal feeding operations); 80 billion land animals are killed worldwide every year - Deforestation: 90% of the Amazon that has been cut down is due to cattle and their feed crops - Water consumption: People who eat no animal foods require HALF the amount of water (National Geographic)
- Inequality and suffering caused by our food system: converting plants to animal foods is inefficient; we can feed the world population plus more, on less land, by shifting to plant foods - Social injustice: Farm and slaughterhouse workers are often immigrants who are subject to dangerous workplace conditions. Many died from Covid because slaughterhouses continued operations under the Defense Procurement Act.
- Health: Eating a plant-based diet is proven to help avoid illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, some types of cancers, and more These and the many other reasons for shifting to plant-based are the reason we feel that education is necessary. I’d like to address some of the concerns raised by other speakers at the General Plan meeting.

1. “I don’t want anyone forcing me to eat a plant-based diet.” No one is forcing any diet. We want to provide education so people can make informed choices.

2. “This isn’t the domain of local government.”
We disagree. The Town already has programs and education for reducing water usage, implementing native landscaping, etc. Our plan follows the same guidelines, and in fact greatly helps with other efforts, such as saving water.

3. “This is a frill. We need basic services such as fire safety.” In fact, shifting to plant-based diets helps with issues such as fire safety. Animal agriculture is a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions, which is warming our climate and turning forests into tinder boxes – as evidenced by the major fires of the last few years. Switching to a plant-based diet is the single most impactful thing we can do to reduce GHG and start curbing global warming.

Thank you for taking our ideas into consideration. As we stated, we have a very active group that is ready to help implement these programs, and we have widespread community support. Thank you for all your hard work on this Plan.

Best regards,
Karen Rubio
Plant-Based Advocates

From: ILENE DICKINSON
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 10:41 PM
To: Council; Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant-Based Education Program for Los Gatos
Dear Los Gatos Town Council:

I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. Reducing consumption of meat and dairy is the single most impactful thing individuals can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change. Please add this very important item to the Environmental Section of the General Plan 2040.

Best regards,
Ilene Dickinson

From: Laura Douglas
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 10:58 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: voicing objection to the housing development plans for the Town of Los Gatos.

To Whom It May Concern,
I object to adding additional housing units to Los Gatos. Many towns have appealed the addition of the minimum number of housing units assigned. Los Gatos should do the same or at least only meet the minimum number mandated rather than adding even more.

Also, I strongly object to the development of multi-unit housing in areas that are zoned for singlefamily housing. This will destroy what makes Los Gatos unique and desirable. So while the multi-unit housing in the North 40 is unfortunately ugly, cheap-looking, and does not even attempt to match the character of the homes found in Los Gatos overall, at least it is out of established neighborhoods and on the edge of town thankfully where the impact is minimized.

The addition of high-density housing should be done in large city centers next to large employers and centrally located mass transit lines, such as what Google is doing in downtown San Jose and in other cities bordering high tech clusters (like Sunnyvale).

Overburdening Los Gatos with more housing units will further overburden our schools and services and bring even more traffic to a town that is paralyzed during school start/end and beach traffic times and highway 17/880 which is already at gridlock during commuter hours and is the corridor for the beach towns. There is also a shortage of sports fields for our kids. It would have been great to develop at least one full-sized sports field on the North 40 but that isn't in the plan last I looked.

And please do not develop more of the hillsides as again that will destroy the charm of Los Gatos.

Los Gatos is an exceptional place with families and retirees who actively take part in communities, beautiful homes and yards that are well-maintained and radiate pride in ownership, and people who generously support our downtown and schools. There is a community and relaxed vibe of a bedroom community rather than an urban center. Plopping down multi-unit housing in quaint neighborhoods or adding a large number anywhere will destroy all of that.

Thank you for your consideration.

Laura Douglas
Los Gatos, CA 95030

From: Nancy Neipp
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:26 AM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan Community Meeting - Thank You! - NEIPP FEEDBACK ON

GENERAL PLAN
Hi Jennifer
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

I am very concerned about the aggressive housing goals being proposed by the Town Manager. My concerns are related to the lack of a plan to deal with several issues - - Roads/transportation/parking – as a resident of Los Gatos for nearly 40 years, I am deeply concerned by the current traffic situation. I’ve experienced many days during the summer where we can’t run errands on the weekends without getting stuck in beach traffic. What is being done to mitigate the current situation, let alone the future impact of more residents? Is there a plan for alternative forms of transportation to address the parking problem around town?
- Fire danger – after being a customer of Nationwide Insurance for 20+ years, I was cancelled this year due to the extreme fire hazard around my home. I live on Harding Ave, so I am not a mountain resident. How can we add more density when we can’t safely protect the existing homes?
- Schools – our schools are already at capacity. What’s the plan to accommodate more students? Our award-winning school status will diminish with over-crowded classrooms.
- Property values – adding high density housing alongside SFRs will diminish the character of our neighborhoods and thus, the value of our properties. HDH should be built along transportation corridors, not in existing neighborhoods.

I fail to understand the logic of nearly doubling the minimum housing requirement, especially without any plans to deal with the consequences. This has caused many in the community to question the motivation of the town.

Thanks
Nancy and James Neipp

From: Jak Van Nada
Date: October 11, 2021 at 1:39:09 PM PDT
To: Jak Van Nada
Subject: Conflating the Allocation of up to 3904 Housing Units in the 2040 General Plan is the Wrong Decision

The LGCA has received the question below from several concerned residents about the number of houses the Town wants in the General Plan. We thought we should share our reply with you. After reading this, if you agree that the Town needs to maintain the RHNA number of 1993, please email Sandra and ask her to put you on our list of supporters. We want the Town to grow incrementally, fully knowing that we can amend the number higher if needed when the “unknowns” become “knowns”.

Question:

The Town has stated that 3,904 units are necessary because the RHNA allocation cycle is every 8 years and the General Plan is a 20-year planning horizon. When comparing the current RHNA allocation of 1,993 units to the Town’s proposed 3,904 units, aren’t we just talking about different time horizons? Wouldn’t it make sense to plan for the most likely total RHNA allocations over 20 years? To just plan for one 8-year cycle would seem to ensure failure over the longer 20-year timeframe. Go here to see the Executive Summary and the Detail.
11OCT 2021
Allocation up to 3904 Housing Units
in the 2040 General Plan is the
Wrong Decision
by Jak | posted in: 2040 Draft General Plan, 2040 General Plan DEIR, Finance Commission, Financial Impact Report, Financial Impact Report, General News That Affects Us, Housing Element, latest news, Our Town | 0

Executive Summary:

Why does LGCA want the town to reduce the number of housing units in the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 to 1993, per State requirements, rather than up zone to the 3,904 units the town wants?
• There is no need for the housing element of our general plan to exceed the 8- year housing planning cycle as directed by the State. This portion of the plan can be updated in 8 years as demand and State requirements become known. People are leaving California and remote work is growing. Let’s digest the State-required housing demand which is already sizeable at 1993 units. Let’s grow incrementally. The General Plan can easily be amended at any time. • In fact, our population forecast justifies only 619 units, so to assume a need for almost 4K units at this juncture is fatally flawed.
• And most importantly: The town proposes to rezone the entire town to dramatically increase density by 2 or 3x for all residential land uses! Los Gatos will have to up zone to accommodate building almost 4K units. And worst of all, up zoning is permanent. Once the Town up-zones, California law will not permit it to down-zone. In short, if the LG 2040 General Plan is approved as proposed, our town will be permanently rezoned for massive development.

LGCA Response:

The Town is legally required to adopt a 2040 General Plan that includes an internally consistent Housing Element which designates and maintains an adequate supply of land for the development of housing. It also must be sufficient to meet the Town’s 6th cycle RHNA allocation for all income levels. The 6th cycle RHNA allocation is 1,993 units as proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

It is possible to approach long-range planning in the manner proposed by the Town, which is to double using the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. But we believe the far superior method is to plan on an incremental approach that includes only the current RHNA allocation. Later, the General Plan can be amended at any time as more information becomes known, such as the actual 7th cycle RHNA allocation.

To put the 3,904 units in perspective, ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission have forecasted that over the next 20 years the Town needs to add only 619 units based on ABAG’s 2040 population forecast of 33,050. Using the 2040 General Plan’s planned housing number of 3,904 and the current 2.4 people per housing unit, the Town’s population could increase by nearly 9,300 people to more than 42,000 residents. This is 27% higher than the ABAG’s forecast! It is the State’s view that more of the regional housing needs should be allocated to the town because the Town is a “high opportunity area”. Therefore the State established the RHNA allocation from 619 to 1993. There are no population forecasts that provide underlying support for the development of 3904 housing units.

It is also important to understand that the 3,904 new units is a “manufactured” number. It is based on an assumed redevelopment rate of lots (ranging from 5% to 20%) for all residential land uses designations Town-wide (excluding the

Hillside.) Because an unreasonable number of new units are being planned, the development of 3,904 units can only be accomplished by radically increasing building densities for all residential land uses Town-wide. In the Town’s proposed plan, residential land uses have been “up-zoned” to allow increases in housing densities that are two to three times the current allowable land use densities.

The “cost” of adopting an aggressive growth plan is the up-zoning of 100% of the residential land use densities. That is a massive change from the current 2020 General Plan and the implications of this change cannot be fully projected. Once the Town upzones, California law will not permit it to down-zone. It is a one-way ratchet. So, there are massive ramifications to this action.

If the actual redevelopment rates turn out to be higher than the currently assumed rates, the number of new units developed could be two to three times, or even more, than the 3,904 units. There is no objective evidence to support 3,904 units over the next 20 years to be correct as opposed to 6,000 or even 9,000. The number is simply the result of a redevelopment assumption without any objective evidence to support it.

And who is to say that the 7th cycle will be anything close to 6th cycle since it hasn’t been developed? Interestingly the Town’s 5th cycle was 619 and at that time the 2020 General Plan was adopted, the Town only planned for 621 new units, 2 units above the RHNA allocation. Factor in that the populations of California and Los Gatos recently declined, SB9 and SB 10 were just signed into law, VTA is financially challenged for the next 28 years; cars are switching from gas to electric; Los Gatos has increased fire risks greater than Paradise and the State is facing extraordinary water shortages. It will be very hard to predict the 7th cycle RHNA allocation, so why “assume” it will be the same as the 6th cycle?
Given this, why would the Town adopt such an aggressive growth strategy in housing that is clearly unsupported by ANY data? There is no objective evidence that supports planning for 3,906 units over the next 20 years.

A more prudent approach, which LGCA is promoting, is to plan only for the “knowns” and amend the General Plan when new information becomes “known”. The 2040 General Plan specifically sets forth a policy to “implement and maintain the 2040 General Plan to reflect the changing needs of the community and remain consistent with State law”. This policy supports our proposed incremental approach to make only the required changes now and then review and update the General Plan every 8 to 10 years. It’s an approach based on data rather than an assumption as to future growth.

No other City in the State that LGCA can find has adopted the Town’s approach. What is so wrong with planning for 1,993 units plus a slight buffer and then amend the General Plan in eight years when the 7th cycle RHNA allocation is known? If this incremental approach is used, the Town would not be forced to up-zone 100% of the Town’s land uses. A more focused approach to land redevelopment would be sufficient to deliver the affordable housing mandated by RHNA allocation. By concentrating on only those areas that can be appropriately developed at higher densities, affordable housing can be developed as opposed to $2m condos such as the ones recently developed in the North 40.

This gets to the final point, which is, who should decide between the two planning approaches? Is it 3 people on the Council or should it be the citizens of Los Gatos by a vote?
Given the massive impact of up-zoning to all residential land uses (excluding the Hillside) and the shift in the Council’s message from “we like the 2020 General Plan” and we only need to “fine tune it” to a massive and radical overhaul in the Land Use Element of 2040 GP, we believe the residents should decide.

It is our elected official’s responsibility to make the compelling case to all residents to adopt their planning strategy and then let the voters decide. It should not be decided by 3 people on the Council. Based on what we now know, the current planning approach is not widely supported.

Hopefully this explains why the LGCA believes an incremental approach to planning for growth for the next 20 years is the appropriate strategy for the Town.

Contact Sandra and join our protest of this completely unreasonable increase of our housing over the next 20 years.

LOS GATOS COMMUNITY ALLIANCE
www.lgca.town

From: Carleen
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:52 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: General plan
Planning committee members,
As a 3rd generation Los Gatos resident, I have to say that I have witnessed a steady and very sad decline in the quality of life for the residents of our town. Those who haven't lived here for the past 50+ years probably can't understand what I'm talking about. All our beautiful orchards are gone, as is most of our open space. Housing has become very dense and with that comes serious traffic congestion. It is more dangerous than ever, traffic wise, for children going to and from school. Now there is talk of further development in the hills, endangering animal species and views. Chain stores and greedy landlords are driving small business owners and unique shops from town.

All in all, the beautiful, friendly town I grew up in has been handed over to the wealthy and powerful. Had I not bought my home in the 70's, I would have been forced to leave the town I love. I fervently hope decisions about the future can be made with consideration of the environment and the welfare of those of us who already live here and not about selling off the town for millionaire estates or to the highest bidding developers.

Thank you for considering what i have said.

Carleen Ambrosini Schomberg

From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:46 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Specific Ask Plant - Based Education General Plan Dear Jennifer and Planning Commission,
Thank you for all your hard work on the General plan. I wanted to send a quick note with our specific ask.

We would like you to please consider adding a Plant-Based Education Program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element. Specifically Section 8.12 Implementation Programs.

Section 8.12 Implementation Programs
Plant-Based Education
Implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of shifting to a plantbased diet, which includes improved health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water.

Thank you for your consideration!
Lisa Wade

From: Karyn Meadows
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:38 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on the plan
Hello, thank you for including me in this proposal. I will review all of the documents but my immediate concern is SB9 and what that will do to single family homes. We are against any planning that will convert a single family home to a multi-family home in our neighborhood since our lots are already small, 10K or less square foot ones. If homeowners or developers are allowed to convert the homes, privacy will be completely lost. And we will have to move. Out of LG which we have lived in for over 30 years.
best, Karyn Meadows

From: Barbara McInerney
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:34 AM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan Community Meeting - Thank You! Hello Town and Planning Committee,
I have spoken my concerns at the meetings but would like to submit them in writing.

My concern with the 2040 plan is that the population increase has not been well thought out with respect to our safety and our schools.

The EIR states that the population increase with the amounts of new housing proposed will require and increase in police, fire personnel as well as either new schools or expanding our existing schools due to the increase in students (a conservative estimate of 2,617 new students).

Even thought the EIR makes this statement, I have not seen any information to address the details of fulfilling these requirements. It seems to take a "wait-and-see" approach which is not good planning.

Questions I have are
• Where will we put the new schools in town (especially after we add more housing). Will we have the space?
• Where will we add a new fire station?
• How will we hire more police and where will we find them when older police are retiring early and younger folks are choosing not to go into policing due to a lack of support.

These questions should be fully addressed and answered before moving forward with any new building.

Additionally the EIR considers the town as a "low crime" area, however, based on recent events I don't believe this is true anymore and it seemed like most residents on the last zoom meeting agreed. So I believe we really need to think through addressing the requirement for an increase of our police staff before we start building any more housing.

Thank you,
Barbara McInerney

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:22 AM
To: Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti; jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; Sandra Livinghouse ; Joanne Benjamin Subject: Letter from Mountain View
Council Members,
While MV did not appeal their RHNA allocation, they did submit this thoughtful letter which outlines a number of critical issues. It is unfortunate and questionable that Los Gatos did nothing to respond to our allocation.

I thought you should be aware of these points, especially given the Town’s current direction of embracing policies to add housing which is 2x the RHNA allocation.

Thank you.

Los Gatos Community Alliance
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 07/Mountain_View_RHNA_Comment_Letter.pdf

Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 9:45 AM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211016164434] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211016164434]
Name: Lon Fenchel
Comments:

Please leave my beautiful Town of Los Gatos with the now population. We do not need to expand with more building sites upon building sites.

The State mandate is still too high.

Page title: Home

Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 1:20 PM
To: GP2040 <[email protected]>
Subject: [#20211016201930] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update

Ticket: [#20211016201930]
Name: Leela Hann-Soden
Comments:

Hi!
I am a resident of Los Gatos due to give birth to a new resident in November. I would like there to be more fruit trees throughout Los Gatos to secure our supply of locally grown fresh, healthy food.

Los Gatos is in growing zone 10, so it can grow a wide variety of substantial fruit, such as: avocado, cherimoya, dragonfruit, durian, jackfruit, lychee, persimmons, plums, rambutan, sapote, etc. Growers in San Jose and the broader Bay Area, have experienced success growing these fruits.

By growing locally, we can provide Los Gatos citizens resilient, environmentally-friendly resources.

Thank you ����
Page title: Home

From: Karl Shultz
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 9:25 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Ban Kathleen
Subject: General plan zoning map update. and 15810 Los Gatos Blvd.

Jennifer,
Regarding the above-mentioned address, APN# 523-01-001, The lot, currently in the County of Santa Clara, is adjacent to The town of Los Gatos and borders Los Gatos Blvd. & Farely Road.

The county of Santa Clara has this site zoned in the OA Administrative/Professional Office district classification which is appropriate as it is on a major commercial street and surrounded by like uses located in the town of Los Gatos.

In the general plan for the Town of Los Gatos, I understand that the proposed zoning for this site is residential use as it is adjacent to other existing residential uses on the side and rear property lines.

With the upcoming general plan update we would like the review board to consider changing the general plan zoning classification for this site to a classification that would be more in line with the existing use and able to accommodate our proposed project which is a 2 story building that will accommodate dental office and similar office type uses.

We understand that we will be required to accommodate the existing adjacent residential uses as part of the approval process for our commercial office project.

Please let me know it there's any additional information that you may need from us for this consideration.

Regards,
Karl Shultz
Shultz & Associates
39111 Paseo Padre Pkwy.

Suite 309
Fremont, CA 94538
Office: 510.796.7801
Cell: 510.326.4112

From: Phil Koen
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:51 AM
To: Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson
Cc: Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; jvannada, Rick Van Hoesen; Robert Schultz
Subject: Land Use Alternative C and 2040 GP
Hello Laurel and Joel,
In reviewing the 2040 General Plan supporting documents, I am having difficulty reconciling the number of new units to be added for Land Use Alternative C.

On page 8 of the attached September 20, 2021 staff memo for the joint TC and Planning Commission study session, it was stated that 2,303 additional housing units, including accessory dwelling units, were the total additional units for Alternative C. I have also attached the Preferred Land Use Alternative C and the Capacity at Buildout schedules taken from the Preferred Land Use Alternative report.

If you look at the footnote on the Capacity Buildout schedule, it is noted that the 2,303 includes 475 pending and approved projects. There is no mention of ADU’s, but the assumption is they are included in the 2,303 number. Can you please confirm that the 2,303 does include 475 pending units AND the 500 ADU’s. Excluding the 475 pending units, but including the 500 ADU’s, the adjusted Alternative C would be 1,828 additional units. Since the Town will not get credit for pending projects, the analysis should exclude the 475 pending units.

It should also be noted that the 2,303 number does not include any units from the CBD. Those units have been identified to be 136 units. If we add the 136 CBD units to the adjusted Alternative C 1,828 units, the total number of new units would be 1,964 which is very close to the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 1,993.

In summary, the current draft of 2040 GP has gone from an adjusted Alternative C of 1,964 additional new units (including ADU’s and the CBD) , to the Adopted Preferred Land Use of 2,464 additional new units, to finally 3,429 additional new units as shown in the schedule on page 9 of the Staff memo. These increases reflect the changes made in land use densities as the 2040 General Plan moved away from targeted rezoning in Opportunity Areas to Town-wide rezoning for all land uses. The impact of these changes is to increase the number of new units by 75% or 1,465 units over the adjusted Alternative C Land use. I don’t believe that the Town Council or the Planning Commission is aware of the magnitude of the increase over the adjusted Land Use Alternative C when measured on a fully comparable basis.

The more troubling issue is the draft 2040 GP does not disclose how many BMP units will be developed if the Town adds 3,429 additional units (which excludes 450 pending units). To determine that number I reviewed the housing affordability section of the Alternative Land Use report. Table 5-3 (which is attached) shows a comparison of housing types per Alternative. Under Alternative C the report estimates that out of the 2,303 new units (which includes the 475 pending units) a total of 293 BMP units would be developed. Under Alternative D, the number of BMP units increases to 464 units, which is 14.6% of all new units.

The analysis states that “the average percentage of BMP units would be 15%, which is the mid-point between the high and low requirements depending on project size”. If we assume 20%, which is the requirement under the Town’s BMP program, the current draft of the 2040 GP would generate only 686 BMP units. The critical assumption here is that ALL new units would be part of a development project with more than 5 units. This obviously is a max case assumption, and extremely unlikely to occur. If it were to occur, the number of additional BMP units developed would be 689 units which is only 59% of the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for BMP units. That allocation is 1,167 units out of the total 1,993 RHNA allocation.

Stated another way, the 2040 GP will develop 1,465 (3,429-1,964) incremental units over the adjusted Alternative Land Use C. Of these, only 440 units will be BMP units and the remaining 1,025 units will be MP. How is this consistent with the overall goal of developing affordable housing as mandated by ABAG and the State? This plan appears to strongly favor the development of MP housing over affordable housing, something developers will certainly cheer.

Can you please confirm that the assumptions regarding BMP are consistent with the supporting documents? You may want to confirm with the TC that my analysis is correct.

Thank you.

Phil Koen
LGCA

Alternative C:

Medium-High Growth
C
Land Use
Designation
Redevelopment Percent
Outside OA Inside OA
LDR 5% 10%
MDR 10% 10%
HDR 15% 15%
NC 10% 15%
MU 10% 20%
Net New
Acreage
Net New
Housing Units
Net New
Population
0 2,303 5,527
Density and Intensity
Alternative C is a medium-high growth alternative that includes modest increases in density ranges outside Opportunity Areas and larger increases inside Opportunity Areas, particularly in High-Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and MixedUse Commercial. Typical densities are assumed to vary from ƺƹɲüçɲƻƿ
Àþȴ°¼
çþü÷ÑÀÄ
8ññçôüþãÑüē
ôÄ°÷
°ãÀ
ƺƽ
üç
Ƽƿ
Àþȴ°¼
Ñã÷ÑÀÄ
Opportunity Areas. Intensity varies from 0.5 FAR in LDR to 1.25 FAR in HDR.

Redevelopment
Under Alternative C, redevelopment is projected to be between ķĐÄ
°ãÀ
ƺƾ
ñÄô¼Äãü
çþü÷ÑÀÄ
8ññçôüþãÑüē
ôÄ°÷
°ãÀ
ƺƹ
°ãÀ
ƻƹ
percent inside Opportunity Areas.

Capacity
At build-out of this Alternative, the Town could accommodate an additional 2,303 housing units and 5,527 residents.

Capacity
Redevelopment
Land Use
Designation
Existing
Density
(du/ac)
Density Range (du/ac) Typical Density (du/ac) Intensity Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA (FAR)
LDR 0 to 5 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5
MDR 5 to 12 12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 12 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25
NC 0 to 20 0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
MU 0 to 20 0 to 20 30 to 40 18 26 1.0
Density and Intensity
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 18

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

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

STUDY SESSION AGENDA
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/20/2021
ITEM NO: 1
DATE: September 16, 2021
TO: Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Commission
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Study Session regarding the Draft 2040 General Plan
RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss the Draft 2040 General Plan.

BACKGROUND:

On February 6, 2018, Town Council began the process of updating the 2020 General Plan with a discussion of the scope and process for the General Plan update. At that meeting, the Town Council indicated that the General Plan is serving the community well, and an update provides the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues.

Over the following three and a half years, the General Plan update process has included multiple community engagement opportunities, meetings with the Planning Commission and Town Council, and the following key milestones:
 On April 17, 2018, the Town Council established the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) and identified initial guiding principles to support their work.  On July 9, 2018, after approval by the Town Council, the Town Manager executed an agreement with Mintier Harnish Planning consultants for preparation of the General Plan update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
 On October 30, 2018, the GPAC held its first meeting.  On March 15, 2019, the Background Report (available online here:
http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released.
 On June 20, 2019, the GPAC reviewed the Issues, Opportunities, and Constraints Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).

PAGE 2 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
BACKGROUND (continued):
 On August 20, 2019, the Town Council adopted the General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).  In December 2019, the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here:
http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released.
 On March 3, 2020, the GPAC started review and discussion of the initial drafts of individual elements of the General Plan.
 On April 7, 2020, the Town Council approved the Preferred Land Use Alternatives Framework (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).  On May 6, 2021, the GPAC recommended approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).
 On June 18, 2021, the Draft 2040 General Plan was released for public review.  On July 31, 2021, the Draft EIR (available online here:
http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released for public review. The public comment period ended on September 13, 2021.

Over the course of two and a half years and 35 meetings, the GPAC has worked with staff and the consultant to create an updated General Plan. The GPAC reviewed each General Plan Element to ensure a forward-looking document that is consistent and accessible. Each Element was considered over multiple meetings (between two and five GPAC meetings per Element) with the GPAC providing comments to staff and the consultant, and then further review and direction on the implementation of those comments in a revised draft of each Element. The Draft 2040 General Plan (Attachment 1, previously provided) is the result of this extensive work and outreach.

Additional outreach activities conducted throughout the process have included social media posts, online engagement activities, newsletters, two in-person community workshops, numerous in-person and online community meetings, informational booths at the farmers market, the library, Spring into Green, and Music in the Park.

DISCUSSION:

The joint study session is intended for a discussion by the Town Council and Planning Commission before the formal hearings for consideration, recommendation, and final decision on the 2040 General Plan and EIR.

A. GPAC Recommendation
After the thorough work described above, on May 6, 2021, the GPAC recommended approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan. The discussion at this meeting also included a recommendation for some modifications to the Vision and Guiding Principles to better

PAGE 3 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
reflect the direction developed over the previous years’ work. These changes are shown in Attachment 2 and summarized here:
 Revise the Vision for added clarity and add a sentence about racial, social, and environmental justice;
 Delete “downtown” from the Community Vitality Guiding Principle so that it applies throughout Town;
 Add a new Guiding Principle titled “Connectivity” to state the importance of connecting all facets of the Town to build a strong sense of community through building design, walkability, and safe streets;
 Delete “the Town’s” from the Fiscal Stability/Responsibility Guiding Principles; and  Replace the word “Recognize” with the word “Value” in the Inclusivity Guiding Principle.

B. Summary of Proposed Changes
Through the General Plan update process, the GPAC has refined the goals of the update based on direction from Town Council at the start and at key points throughout the process.

The initial direction from Town Council was that the 2020 General Plan was serving the Town well, and this update provides the opportunity for the Town to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues. The work that was done to fulfill this direction and provide opportunities for the approximately 2,000 residential units that were expected to be required by Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and the need for inclusivity that came to the forefront in 2020, lead to updates within every Element of the General Plan. The most substantial changes are:
• A new Racial, Social and Environmental Justice Element; • Increased housing opportunities for mixed-use developments in commercial areas and missing middle housing in neighborhoods with design requirements; • New Community Commercial land use designation;
• New Community Place Districts to provide more objective design standards and focus on community form for all development;
• Shift in focus of transportation policies to street design, connectivity, and mobility for all users (bicycles, pedestrians, vehicles, etc.) to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled; • New goals in the Environment and Sustainability Element; and • Expanded policies to prepare for wildfire, climate change, and community health threats.

The increased housing opportunities are provided through changes in the maximum allowed densities and heights. The increases to the maximum allowed residential density are seen in most areas, excluding the hillsides, with a focus on the commercial, mixed-use,

PAGE 4 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
and medium/high density residential designations. This coincides with the location of the Community Place Districts, where the Plan also includes new design standards. The next section discusses the housing numbers in greater detail. The following table depicts the changes in density and height for all land use designations:

Density Range (du/ac) Maximum Height
Land Use Designations
Existing
General Plan
Draft
General Plan
Existing
General Plan
Draft
General Plan
Hillside Residential 0 to 1 0 to 1 30 25
Low Density Residential 0 to 5 1 to 12 30 30
Medium Density Residential 5 to 12 14 to 24 30 35
High Density Residential 12 to 20 30 to 40 30 45
Mixed-Use NA 30 to 40 35 45
Neighborhood Commercial NA 10 to 20 35 35
Community Commercial NA 20 to 30 35 45
Central Business District NA 20 to 30 45 45
Office Professional NA 30 to 40 35 35
Service Commercial NA 20 to 30 35 35
Light Industrial NA None 35 35
Public NA None NA 35
Open Space NA None NA 30
Agriculture NA 0 to 1 NA 30
Albright Specific Plan
See
Specific Plan
No
Change
See
Specific Plan
No
Change
North Forty Specific Plan
See
Specific Plan
No
Change
See
Specific Plan
No
Change
C. Housing Units
As described above, the modifications included in the Draft 2040 General Plan include increases to the maximum allowed residential density in most areas, excluding the hillsides, and with a focus on the commercial, mixed-use, and medium/high density residential designations. Throughout the process there has been an understanding that the updated General Plan would need to have sufficient capacity to allow, at a minimum, the Housing Element update to provide at least 2,000 dwelling units through vacant parcels, redevelopment capacity, and new programs. While the Housing Element update is conducted in a separate process from the General Plan update, and on an 8-year cycle rather than the General Plan’s 20-year cycle, the regulations and policies in the General Plan

PAGE 5 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
need to be consistent with the changes that will be needed to complete the Housing Element to accommodate the Town’s RHNA.

The Town anticipated a high RHNA number of approximately 2,000 units for the next Housing Element cycle and the Town Council approved a Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework to accommodate the RHNA for the next Housing Element cycle. The following list lays out how the housing numbers evolved through the General Plan update process:
 Land Use Alternative C in the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here:
http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html): 2,303 housing units including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
 GPAC Recommended Preferred Alternative: 2,464 housing units including ADUs and downtown.
 Town Council adopted Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework: 2,464 housing units including ADUs and downtown.
 Staff and the consultant developed an implementation of the Framework: 2,950 housing units. This approximately 400-unit increase is primarily a result of an increase in the assumed typical density for the Mixed-Use Designation (previously 26 dwelling units per acre, currently proposed 36 dwelling units per acre), and inclusion of a new Community Commercial land use designation so that Neighborhood Commercial designated shopping centers like Pollard and Harwood could remain at a lower height and density.  GPAC added 313 housing units to Office Professional and Service Commercial: 3,263 housing units.
 With the 475 existing/previously approved projects included: 3,738 housing units as shown in the General Plan Buildout table in the Draft 2040 General Plan.

Staff has prepared the following table to present the information from the General Plan Buildout Table (Table 3-1 in the Land Use Element of the Draft 2040 General Plan) along with comparable information from the existing 2020 General Plan. Please note that Table 3-1 in the Draft 2040 General Plan represented changes to density and did not include the Hillside Residential units on vacant land. The table below includes those units and staff will be working with the consultants to clarify this in the Draft 2040 General Plan.

PAGE 6 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):

Land Use
Designation
Density Range
(du/ac)
Typical Density
(du/ac) Assumed
Redevelopment
(Redev)
Existing
General Plan
Draft
General Plan
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
New
Housing
(Vacant
Land)
New
Housing
(Redev)
New
Housing
(Vacant
Land)
New
Housing
(Redev)
Hillside
Residential 0 to 1 0 to 1 1 1 0% 116 - 166 -
Low Density
Residential 0 to 5 1 to 12 4 12 5%

75 13

283

84 Medium
Density
Residential 5 to 12 14 to 24 10 20 10%

107

133

224

343
High Density
Residential 12 to 20 30 to 40 18 36 15%

53 111

110

268
Neighborhood
Commercial 10 to 20 10 to 20 16 18 10%

11 39

26 91
Community
Commercial 0 20 to 30 0 26 15% - -

156
Mixed-Use 10 to 20 30 to 40 16 36 20%

55 242

126

605
Central
Business
District 10 to 20 20 to 30 16 26 15%

12 46

21 113
Office
Professional 0 30 to 40 0 36 15%

-

4 255
Service
Commercial 0 20 to 30 0 26 15%

-

10 44
Subtotal

429

584

970

1,959
Housing Units, New and
Redeveloped

1,013

2,929
Housing Units,
ADUs

500

500
Subtotal

1,513

3,429
Housing Units, Existing
Projects

475

475
TOTAL

1,988

3,904

PAGE 7 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):

The State is requiring jurisdictions to plan for housing and the GPAC, Planning Commission, and Town Council have chosen to do so on our terms through Goals and Policies in the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Additionally, the Town has begun an effort to create Objective Standards to provide additional requirements for new development to address the character of the Town. Planning for these State mandates provides the Town more control than if the General Plan did not to plan for them. However, as can be seen in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Attachment 3), the planned housing units do not always get built. A table showing the full RHNA allocation for all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County is available as Attachment 4.

Many jurisdictions have appealed their RHNA allocations. The Town did not choose to file an appeal. Appeals are nearly always unsuccessful absent unique extenuating circumstances. For example, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is on a slightly different Housing Element cycle than the Bay Area and they have already concluded their appeals process which resulted in two jurisdictions receiving reductions in their RHNA of the 47 jurisdictions that filed appeals. Appeals also often provide false hope to residents that there will be a significant reduction in their RHNA as evidenced by the SCAG appeal process.

D. Public Outreach
As described in the background section of this report, in addition to the 35 public meetings held by the GPAC, the General Plan update process also included extensive public outreach.

Since the GPAC’s final meeting on May 6, 2021, the Town has received public comments on the Draft 2040 General Plan, which are included as Attachment 5. Many of the public comments include concerns about the potential impact of the new housing that would be allowed under the Draft 2040 General Plan. As described under Environmental Assessment Section below, the Draft EIR has been prepared and includes analysis of many of the subjects of concern mentioned in the public comments including utilities, wildfires, and transportation.

COORDINATION:

This report has been coordinated with the Town Manager’s Office and Town Attorney’s Office.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed the Draft 2040 General Plan as required under State law. The Draft EIR evaluated a wide range of topics as listed on the next page.

PAGE 8 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (continued):
 Aesthetics;
 Agriculture and Forest Resources;
 Air Quality;
 Biological Resources;
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources;
 Energy;
 Geology and Soils;
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
 Hydrology and Water Quality;
 Land Use and Planning;
 Noise;
 Population and Housing;
 Public Services and Recreation;
 Transportation;
 Utilities and Service Systems; and
 Wildfire.

The Draft EIR found that the Draft 2040 General Plan would have the potential to cause significant and unavoidable impacts with Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. For a community without high quality public transit, it is common for there to be significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. The Draft EIR does show that while these emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would increase under the proposed Plan, the focus on infill development helps reduce the per person emission and VMT.

The public, government agencies, and other organizations were given 45 days to comment on the environmental document. A Final EIR is currently being prepared with responses to comments received on the Draft EIR.

CONCLUSION:

The GPAC recommended Draft 2040 General Plan includes changes and updates, including increases in housing capacity to meet State requirements. To ensure that this is accomplished, there are multiple factors beyond the 1,993 housing units required by RHNA. These factors include a State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) recommendation for an additional 20 to 30 percent buffer in the number of housing units. It is also a best practice that a General Plan should have capacity for multiple different methods for meeting the Town’s RHNA in recognition of the fact that HCD may not certify a Housing Element if it disagrees with the assumptions, housing sites, or programs. A certified Housing Element is essential for the

PAGE 9 OF 9
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan
DATE: September 16, 2021
CONCLUSION (continued):

Town to receive State infrastructure dollars. The GPAC completed its work on the Draft 2040 General Plan by listening to the community and Town Council and by identifying goals, policies, and action items to protect the special character of Los Gatos, meet emerging needs, and plan proactively for State requirements.

Staff looks forward to additional public input and the Town Council and Planning Commission discussion regarding the Draft 2040 General Plan.

NEXT STEPS:

The next steps in the General Plan update process include:
 Community Meeting via teleconference at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 6, 2021.  Planning Commission review and recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR, pending completion of the responses to the EIR comments.  Town Council consideration of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachments previously provided:

1. Draft 2040 General Plan (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) Attachments received with this report:

2. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles

3. Housing Element Annual Progress Report

4. Santa Clara County RHNA Allocations

5. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m. on September 16, 2021

Figure 4-1:

Capacity at Buildout
by Alternative
Category 2018 Alternative
A*
Alternative
B*
Alternative
C*
Alternative
D*
Population 30,250 33,024 34,788 35,777 37,872
Jobs 20,650 21,930 21,930 21,930 21,930
Housing Units 13,069 14,225 14,960 15,372 16,245
Net New
Housing Units - 1,156 1,891 2,303 3,176
Capacity at Buildout

#NVGTPCVKXGVQVCNUKPENWFGTGUKFGPVULQDUCPFJQWUKPI WPKVUCUUWOGFVQDGETGCVGFD[RGPFKPICPFCRRTQXGFRTQLGEVU Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 20

Housing Units
According to DOF, Los Gatos had a total inventory of about 13,300 housing units in 2018, which represented an increase of less than 300 housing units (0.2 percent CAGR) since 2010. The four land use alternatives project DGVYGGPCDQWV
#NVGTPCVKXG#
CPF
#NVGTPCVKXGǾ&
CFFKVKQPCN
housing units, with the projected growth rates ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 percent annually.

The General Plan land use alternatives would produce between 1,156 and 3,175 units. Out of all four land use alternatives, only Alternative B (Medium Growth) falls within the projected demand range with 1,891 units (Figure 5-2).

Housing Affordability
The mix of housing units in the land use alternatives affects the overall affordability of housing. As discussed in the market demand section (page 6), multi-family units are typically more affordable than single-family units.

Market rate prices and rents are currently unaffordable to many households in Los Gatos and throughout the Bay Area. The Town has established a program to require Below Market Price (BMP) units to be included in JQWUKPIRTQLGEVUYKVJOQTGVJCPƒXGWPKVUKPQTFGTVQKPETGCUGVJGUWRRN[ of affordable units in Los Gatos. The requirement for BMP units ranges from 10 percent for small housing projects and up to 20 percent for larger housing projects. The housing units must be provided at two affordable KPEQOGNGXGNU
/QFGTCVG+PEQOGYJKEJKUVQRGTEGPVQHVJGOGFKCP income, and Low Income, which is 50 to 80 percent of median income. For 2019, the household income levels that meet these thresholds are shown in Table 5-2.

In the land use alternatives analysis, the average household size is assumed to be 2.4 persons. At the three-person household level, the estimated allowable housing sales prices would be approximately $390,000 for those meeting the Low-Income eligibility requirements and BMP rent would be approximately $2,300 per month. At the Moderate-Income level for a three-person household, the allowable housing sales price would be approximately $500,000. For comparison, the median sales price for homes in Los Gatos this past year exceeded $1.7 million.

Figure 5-2: Market Demand Projections
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

DOF PROJECTION

0.5% GROWTH
1,529 UNITS NEEDED

ADE PROJECTION

0.7% GROWTH
1,954 UNITS NEEDED
ALT. A:
1,156 UNITS
ALT. B:
1,891 UNITS ALT. C:
2,303 UNITS
ALT. D:
3,175 UNITS
UNITS
Table 5-2: Income Thresholds
Household Size
Low-Income Limit at
(80% AMI)
Median-Income Limit at
(100% AMI)
1 person Not eligible Not eligible
2 people $75,600 $100,150
3 people $85,050 $112,700
4 people $94,450 $125,200
5 people $102,050 $135,200
6 people $109,600 $145,250
7 people $117,150 $155,250
December 2019
23

Table 5-2 shows the number of single-family and multi-family housing units in each alternative and the estimated number of BMP units that may be provided using the Town’s BMP requirements. The land use projections for the land use alternatives are PQVFGVCKNGFGPQWIJVQMPQYRTGEKUGN[JQYOCP[RTQLGEVUQHƒXGQTOQTGWPKVUOC[DG subject to the BMP ordinance. However, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all housing units developed at a density of 16 DU/AC or greater would be in projects large enough to be subject to providing BMPs. This would include most MediumDensity Residential (MDR) units which may be either single-family or multi-family housing units, but generally not Low Density single-family housing units. Furthermore, the analysis assumes the average percentage of BMP units would be 15 percent, which is the mid-point between the high and the low requirements depending on project size.

On this basis, Alternative D provides not only the highest number of BMP units but also the highest percentage of BMP units. Alternative B provides the lowest percentage, but VJGFKHHGTGPEGKUPQVNCTIGDGVYGGPVJGƒTUVVJTGGCNVGTPCVKXGUCUUJQYPKP6CDNG Table 5-3: Comparison of Housing Units Type per Alternative Residential Units Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D
Total 1,156 1,891 2,303 3,175
Single Family 391 328 371 550
Multi-family 765 1,563 1,932 2,625
BMP Units 149 238 293 464
Percent of Total 12.9% 12.6% 12.7% 14.6%
Jobs
All four land use alternatives assume no additional jobs beyond those created within the pending and approved development projects currently in the pipeline (see Section 2). 6JG6QYPJCUUGXGTCNQVJGTNCPFWUGFGUKIPCVKQPU
KG1HƒEG2TQHGUUKQPCN%GPVTCN$WUKPGUU&KUVTKEV
.KIJV+PFWUVTKCN2WDNKE5GTXKEG%QOOGTEKCNGVE
VJCVJCXGVJGRQVGPVKCNHQTCFFKVKQPCNGORNQ[OGPV
capacity. These additional land use designations will be analyzed for additional employment as part of the Environmental Impact Report after the selection of a Preferred Land Use Alternative.

Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 24 12Egat
a

From: karen
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:27 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Cc: 'Lisa Wade' <[email protected]>
Subject: Education about Plant-Based Diets
Hello Jennifer and Town Council,
Thank you so much for your hard work on getting the General Plan done. I appreciate the professional way you’ve handled collaboration and input from the community! As a Los Gatos resident of 36 years and member of Plant-Based Advocates, I’d like to ask you once again to include our Plant-Based Education Program in the 2040 General Plan so we can work together to provide education about the environmental benefits of eating more plants.

Specifically, we are asking for:
- A dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program added to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. This could go into Section

8.12. - This program could include things like cooking classes, speaker series, a Vegfest, film screenings, etc.
- Our group has already been working together for two years (funded solely by our members) to accomplish actions such as meal outreach to homeless people, cooking classes, outreach to restaurants, and more. So we already have much of the work done, and we’re ready to hit the ground running!
It’s absolutely essential that the human race work together to start abating greenhouse gas emissions. According to the United Nations, if meat consumption continues on its current trajectory, we cannot limit global warming to 2°C, the level necessary to avoid the potential collapse of human society.

Oxford University study published in Science says, "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987
Together, we can change the trajectory we are on and ensure a habitable planet for our children. Thank you for your leadership and consideration!

Plan can be found here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1plEi8kQh1DIjSv79RfgqeK4Bb50cUZ-qK9qY0dZj_jY/edit Best,
Karen Rubio
Plant-Based Advocates
CFO

From: Sue Shoff
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:33 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant-Based Education Implementation Program
Dear Ms. Jarmer,
I am a Los Gatos resident and have lived in Los Gatos for over 30 years. I am writing in support of the proposal that a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program be added to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. Specifically, I would like such a program to be added to Section 8.12. This program could include things like cooking classes, speaker series, a Vegfest, film screenings, etc.

While there are many health and environmental benefits to a plant based diet, the overriding issue is that according to the United Nations, if meat consumption continues on its current trajectory, global warming will exceed the level necessary to avoid the potential collapse of human society.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Please forward this email to the town Council.

Sincerely,
Susan Shoff

From: vacarpio
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 7:00 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Please add a dedicated plant based education to the General Plan.

Dear Jennifer,
I have lived in Los Gatos since 1974 and have always taken an interest in the future of our great small town. One of the most important signals of our future is climate change, which does not purport well for the kind of future I want for Los Gatos.

A plant based education program added to the General Plan, specifically to Section 8.12, would promote nutrition, speakers, and classes to educate the citizenry of how to depend less on meat in our diets and more on minimal to zero methane gas sources, i.e., plants.

Thank you and may I request that you cc my message to each member of the Town Council? Sincerely,
Virginia Carpio

From: Sutton Roley/USA
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:50 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: 2040 General Plan Housing Elements
Town Council,
As a concerned citizen of the Town, I am against the 3,904 affordable units. 1,993 are more than enough as a goal. I would like to know what the definition of affordable is when a single room studio ADU in my neighborhood rents for $2,000 per month? With land and construction costs so high today, it seems very unlikely that true affordable housing ca be built and delivered in our town. SB9 should be included in the number of units. The General Plan needs to be a plan with designated geographic areas close to services and public transportation. The Plan needs to identify how utilities like water will be delivered and how our schools will accommodate additional students. Only once additional infrastructure has been completed should these units be approved. The EIR should examine traffic and air quality. This General Plan should provide for additional affordable housing units gradually and organically to maintain our small town character. That is the reason many of us choose to live here.

There is so much to be accomplished, the idea of doubling our affordable housing units is irresponsible.

Thank you,
Sutton L. Roley
Senior Director
CA License 00793235
300 Santana Row, Fifth Floor
San Jose, CA 95128 | USA
cushmanwakefield.com

From: Anne Roley
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:54 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: RE: Comments on the 2040 General Plan
Please include my comments regarding the 2040 general plan.

Thank you,
Anne Roley
Los Gatos, CA 95032

12/8/2021
RE: Comments on the 2040 General Plan
The discussion on whether to increase the number of homes over the state required number of 1993 homes in the 2040 General Plan is perplexing and debatable. I would like my kids as well as workers, who support our infrastructure like teachers and town staff to be able to afford to live in Los Gatos. I also wish there was more diversity. But before we start deciding to increase housing numbers - let’s talk about what affordable means and ask some developers how realistic it is to build housing that is “affordable” for people who support our infrastructure. Land is very expensive in Los Gatos, construction costs have gone up in price as well as many other living expenses.

What’s the goal by increasing our housing numbers past the 1993 state required number? Is the goal to provide Affordable housing? What’s does “affordable” mean - what is realistic? You can’t find a home for under a million dollars and rents are over $2,000 a month. What do developers say about developing affordable housing in LG? What does the most affordable housing look like? Where will you put the high density housing? What is the plan? Also, many residents moved to Los Gatos for its small town character, low density, quiet neighborhoods, and safe schools. How will you take the needs of those residents into consideration when making a decision? How will you alleviate the concerns of increased traffic, crowded schools, less safety, and more stress that comes with an increase in density? Do we have the resources and infrastructure in place to accommodate housing over the 1993 homes required by the state. I feel it is irresponsible to increase the number of homes over the 1993 required by the state before we have a clear plan and answer the above questions.

Warmly,
Anne Roley
Los Gatos, CA 95032

From: Pam Bond
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:12 PM
To: Planning Comment
Subject: verbal communications - non agenda item
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I don't think my comment fits with the EIR review for the General Plan but it is in reference to page 6-34 of the General Plan related to artificial turf. I would like to implore you to consider moving artificial turf up in the discussion to the soonest possible time frame in the plan.

A group of concerned parents have been gathering evidence which we have been sending to LGUSD district staff and board cautioning against the use of artificial turf. LGUSD staff have recommended that artificial turf be installed in three elementary school courtyards (Van Meter, Daves and Blossom Hill) as well as a kindergarten yard (at Daves elementary) - decision to be made Dec. 14. The board will also decide whether Van Meter and Daves' fields will be converted to artificial turf, a decision to be made in the Spring. The courtyards will be installed this summer and the fields will be installed over the following two summers.

We first became concerned when we saw Valley Water's recommendation against the use of artificial turf ( see attached pdf). This led us to organizations who have been fighting the installation of turf all over the country. We also learned about Millbrae's recent moratorium on installations in their city until more can be learned. There are so many issues with this material and so many unknown and known human and environmental concerns that it does not seem prudent to allow unrestricted use of this material in our town, particularly with our proximity to an important waterway or two.

I am particularly worried about Creekside Sports Park which has crumb rubber. Two studies, by the EPA and by CalEPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are looking into toxicity and other concerns related to crumb rubber fields. It has already been shown that one chemical found in tire crumb is responsible for massive Coho Salmon decline in Puget Sound which doesn't bode well for the salmon in Los Gatos Creek. I read the MND for Creekside from 9 or 10 years ago and it looks like it was seriously lacking in runoff mitigation and concerns about tire and plastic blades getting into the environment and the creek.

I wanted to just send a message to get this on your radar if it isn't already. I would like to share more if there is an avenue to do so. We also have many expert letters and other information in a website that we cobbled together for the purposes of compiling what we've learned or what has been shared with us about artificial turf. www.questionfakegrass.org

I want to share with you this article linked below that has some big news in the artificial turf debate related to the presence of PFAS chemicals in the plastic blades and a great example of industry efforts at denial. Various experts including Dr. Graham Peaslee and The Ecology Center have tested artificial turf for the presence of PFAS chemicals using a testing method that has not been employed by the turf industry or its experts (like Dr. Green highlighted in the article for her false reporting and lies). The PFAS experts have found PFAS but the industry denied its presence, then admitted recently to a PFAS chemical called PVDF which they asserted to be inert. This article describes much more but reveals that Kristen Mello discovered a research paper wherein PVDF was shown to break apart in sunlight from its inert form into PFAS chemicals that are available to the environment and can wash off into our water supply.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-linked-consultant-undercuts-agencys-pfas-concerns/ This alone should be a huge cause for concern. We have video testimony from Dr. Peaslee, Dr. Bennett and Kristen Mello on our website.

There is so much I could share but what I'd like to mention is that UCSF's Pediatric Children's Health Department echoes concerns of Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health in saying that they do not recommend the use of artificial turf and they cannot say that it is safe, particularly for schools and children. The long term health effects are unknown and testing of the materials is imperfect. A recent report shows that there there is huge cause for concern related to the use of plastic. "There are thousands more chemicals in plastic than we thought" (link ot research paper in this article) https://www.fastcompany.com/90649480/there-are-thousands-more-toxic-chemicals-in-plastic-thanwe-thought Thank you for considering and if you have time, we have a lot of information compiled on our website.

Sincerely,
Pam Bond
Los Gatos, CA
Louise Van Meter Elementary Parent
Girl Scout Leader
Home and School Club garden program lead

Water Conservation Fact Sheet
Artificial Turf
Through the Landscape Rebate Program, the
Santa Clara Valley Water District is helping to
promote water conservation while at the same time
encouraging the installation of healthy, sustainable
landscapes that will enhance our local environment.

The district is not only responsible for safe, clean
drinking water, we are also stewards of our entire
watershed and have designed our program to go
beyond simply saving water.

While artificial turf requires less water than a natural turf lawn, there are healthier and more ecologically
sound alternatives that we would like to promote
with our Landscape Rebate Program. For the
following reasons, artificial turf is not included in our Landscape Rebate Program.

Artificial turf is not a living landscape
and does not:
• Increase biodiversity of plant, animal and
insect populations;
• Provide habitat for local fauna;
• Foster healthy soils (healthy soils increase moisture holding capacity, support healthy microbes and
insects, filter pollutants and improve
water quality);
• Cool surrounding air temperatures (artificial turf
can get significantly hotter than surrounding air
temperatures, contributing to the heat island effect
by increasing air temperatures in urban settings);
• Sequester carbon or produce oxygen like living
plant material can.

Artificial turf is not water free
• For sanitation purposes, water is needed to
periodically clean the turf. Chemicals may also
be needed occasionally.
• Because artificial turf can get very hot in direct
sunlight, water is sometimes needed to cool the
turf before it can be used comfortably.

Artificial turf has potential
environmental concerns
• Runoff from artificial turf may contain
pollutants like heavy metals and chemicals
that can reach surface water or groundwater.

Results may vary for different artificial turf
products, but more scientific research is needed
(See report from Environmental and Human
Health, Inc: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/
and the district’s report on artificial turf fields at:
http://valleywater.org/Programs/
conservationannualreports.aspx).
• Artificial turf is a synthetic material with a
relatively short lifespan ranging from 10-20
years that may eventually end up in landfills.

Fortunately, the Landscape Rebate Program allows
many beautiful, low water using options that result
in more sustainable and beneficial landscapes. For
additional information about the Landscape Rebate
Program or our extensive Qualifying Plant List, please
call the Water Conservation Hotline at 408-630-2554
or visit www.valleywater.org.

An example of a front yard lawn conversion that reduces water use while also creating a sustainable landscape.

For more information, contact the Water Conservation Hotline at (408) 630-2554, email [email protected],
or visit our website at valleywater.org and use our Access Valley Water customer request and information system. With three easy steps, you can use this service to find out the latest information on district projects or to submit questions, complaints or compliments directly to a district staff person.

CONTACT US
Follow us on:
/scvwd /valleywater /valleywater
To get eNews, email
[email protected]
For water
saving tips,
go to:

SAVE WATER. SAVE WATER.

IT’S TIME. IT’S TIME.

Save Water.

Save Money.

Save Water.

Save Money.

For water
saving rebate
programs, go to:
© 2014 Santa Clara Valley Water District • PUB 503 • 03/06/14 BA

From: Defeo Home
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:02 PM
To: Maria Ristow
Subject: Town General Plan
Hi Maria!
I hope this message finds you well! First, thanks for your careful consideration regarding the 17200 Los Robles Way lot line discussion. Although it didn’t go the way we were hoping, I was impressed by the seriousness and attention which you and your colleagues took in making your decision, thanks! I am sending you a message today regarding the 2040 Town General Plan. I was not able to attend yesterday’s zoom call regarding the plan so I thought I would send you my thoughts here (feel free to share it with others collecting feedback on the plan).

I (and my family) support the draft plan. Generally we are pleased with some of the aggressive growth targets specifically addressing the ‘missing middle housing’, and the increased emphasis on non-auto related mobility in town, as well as the racial equity components of the plan. We would love to see an even greater emphasis on affordable housing and racial equity but this is a great step in the right direction.

Feel free to contact me in case you would like to discuss further. Good luck in your efforts to drive the adoption of the plan!
Respectfully,
The de Feo family (Gianfranco, Eileen, Arianna and Francesco)

From: William Walker
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:32 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: General Plan Feedback
I strongly disagree with section MOB11 in the draft general plan. Instead, the town should insist that the state increase the capacity of SR17 at least to Bear Creek Road. This is required for both safety and quality of life. Cut-thru traffic and gridlock will only increase unless this is done. Nobody takes public transportation to the beach on Sunday. The town government is tone-deaf if they don’t understand how frustrated residents are with cut-thru induced gridlock. It is already a crisis, and will only get worse as the population increases.

SR17 near the Cats is a disaster waiting to happen. A strong earthquake or a heavy winter storm could bring down the hillside killing motorists and isolating residents living above the town. Currently, chain link fences are holding back the hillside!
In addition, the Town should insist that the state rebuild the route 9 to SR 17 intersection to address both capacity issues and safety of pedestrians and bicycles. A flyover overpass isolating pedestrians and bicycles
from cars would be ideal. My wife and I have almost been struck by cars more than once while attempting
to walk across the overpass because cars exiting the freeway apparently don’t realize that pedestrians have
the right-of-way. In one case, we counted ten cars that refused to yield the right-of-way to us before we
finally found a gap large enough for us to scramble across. The town should not have to pay for any of this.

Make Sacramento pay, it’s their obsolete infrastucture! William Walker

From: Terry Rinehart
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:42 PM
To: Council
Subject: General Plan
I am against the General Plan doubling the number of homes to be built in LG. I think we should definitely stick to the number of 1993. I would also like to see the requirement of all new homes/duplexes/ADU’s to provide off street parking. If my neighbor decides to put 2 duplexes and 2 ADU’s on their property that could be 12 or more cars parked on the street and 12 or more trash cans that need to be put on the street. The duplexes should also be limited to 2 stories.

I really hope that the town adopts a zoning area for these additional dwellings and not be mixed into the single family home areas.

How about taking that huge lot on the corner of LG Blvd and LG Almaden Rd and build a high rise condo? It is close to transit and across from a grocery store. I know you have to find a buyer and builder, but can the town look into that?
Thank you for your time,
TL Rinehart

From: William Walker
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:45 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: General Plan Feedback
I strongly disagree with section CD9.2.

Reducing lanes and speed limits on Los Gatos Blvd. will reduce its capacity, consequently pushing traffic onto neighboring residential streets. I know this is already a problem as I have to admit that when I am in a hurry, I often take shortcuts through residential neighborhoods to get to my destination faster.

Shame on me, but shame on LG for making LGB slower.

A basic principle of main arterial roads design is they must be faster than secondary roads. CD9.2 contradicts this principle.

Instead of reducing capacity of Los Gatos Blvd, the plan should increase capacity by, for example, eliminating unnecessary traffic lights such as the ill-advised one at the Trader Joes strip mall. In addition, eliminating street parking will improve flow and make LGB safer for bicycles. Currently, even with the recent improvements, LGB is not safe for bicycles — too many curb cut access points with bicycles hidden from view by parallel parked cars.

From: William Walker
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:23 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: General Plan Feedbavck
Section MOB-9.5 is self-contradictory. Keeping traffic on SR 85 and SR 17 requires increasing capacity.

My wife and I live in the Alta Vista neighborhood between Blossom Hill Rd. (BHR) and Los GatosAlmaden Rd. (LGAR). Before SR 85 opened, both BHR and LGAR were grid-locked during rush hour. The day SR 85 opened, in spite of inadequate capacity from day 1, we felt like we could breathe again. We could actually access BHR during rush hour.

Fast forward 25 years later, and BHR is beginning to look the way it did before SR 85 opened. The lack of capacity on SR-85 has caught up with population growth. When I need to get to South San Jose, I used to take SR 85 at all hours, now I need to take BHR or LGAR during rush hour.

The solution is to add more capacity to SR-85. This will reduce LG cut-thru traffic, which improves the quality of life for our residents.

The general plan should insist that the state increase capacity on both SR-85 and SR-17.

From: William Walker
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:35 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: General Plan Feedback - Mobility
I couldn’t find any section addressing a fundamental error in the design of SR-85 access to Los Gatos, namely, the lack of on/off ramps from SR-85 south to Winchester Blvd. The result is gridlock on Lark Avenue. Netflix campus expansion and the north 40 build-out make this problem worse.

The town should insist that the state correct the SR-85/Winchester access deficiency. It would greatly improve the quality of life for our residents by reducing gridlock on our streets.

From: Pam Bond
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 8:43 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: Draft EIR/green space input for General Plan
To whom it may concern,
I would like to highly recommend that the Town become a partner with the school districts to support school fields remaining green space for community sports use as well as for the school day uses.

LGUSD is poised to convert 2 2-acre fields on elementary campuses to artificial turf (decision this Spring 2022) siting maintenance as one concern. Why can't the Town assist with maintenance since these fields are used the hardest by community sports teams? Support the community and keep this town green.

Artificial turf off-gases methane and ethylene and creates heat islands. There are viable drought tolerant options for sports fields. The Sports Turf Managers Association is just one national organization with information on how to achieve sustainable grass fields.

These fields have the potential to afford green space for students who are and will be coming from high density housing as Los Gatos Blvd area and other lands get built up. The school fields may be their only green space 160 days a year. This is an equity issue as well as an environmental health and justice issue.

Sincerely,
Pam Bond
Louise Van Meter parent
Garden program lead
Green team member
Girl Scout leader
www.questionfakegrass.org

From: Sylvie Hurat
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:43 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Support for Inclusive General Plan
I support the creation of an inclusive General Plan focused on creating affordability, by increasing density, height, and mixed used developments.

Keep on the good work and thank you for your service.
--
Sylvie Hurat

From: Jan Schwartz
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:46 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Housing
Dear Town Council and Planning Commission,
We need to make sure that Los Gatos offers affordable housing to create an inclusive community and make sure that the people who work here can afford to live here.

I support efforts to get us close to meeting the state-wide housing requirements.

Thank you,
Jan Schwartz

From: Joy Tani
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:47 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Housing
Please, please, please, create an inclusive General Plan Focus on creating affordability
Achieve this through greater density and below market rate housing SB9 does not address affordability- the Town Council should work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9
Fourplexes and mixed-used develops fit within the character of our Town Thank you,
Joy

From: Karla Albright
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Housing
Dear wonderful council members,
Thank you for your work supporting LG.

I am writing in regards to the General plan and hope that we create an inclusive general plan which means increasing a broad range of housing types aimed at different people, single people, elderly, low income, multi generational etc.

It is critical that we focus on affordability. Which means that we need greater density, higher height restrictions, less space saved for parking, more intra LG mass transit, connection with light rail.

We need more mixed use plus duplexes, four-plexes, apartments I hope the Town Council will work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9.

Best,
Karla Albright

From: Stephanie Brown
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:48 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Housing in Los Gatos - General Plan, Affordability Dear Town Council and Planning Commision:

I request that Los Gatos:

Create an inclusive General Plan
Focus on creating affordability
Achieve this through greater density and below market rate housing Also, SB9 does not address affordability - the Town Council should work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9. Fourplexes and mixed-used developments fit within the character of our Town. We want them.

We need to provide housing for all the people who want to work and teach and police and fight fires here.

My regards,
Stephanie Brown

From: Shannon Edwards
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:51 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Create an inclusive General Plan- housing matters! Dear Town Council members and Planning commission,
Thank you for your service!
I am writing tonight to let you know that it will be important for you to focus on creating affordable housing for Los Gatos.

We can do this through greater density and below market rate housing.

SB9 does not address affordability- the Town Council should work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9.

Fourplexes and mixed-used developments fit within the character of the Town of Los Gatos. $2,459 per month as an average rental cost is out of range for the working class who will be working in the town.

Many thanks, Shannon Edwards, Los Gatos

From: Bernadette Frager
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:54 PM
To: Council; Planning
Subject: Affordable Housing
Dear All,
I am writing to you after having been brought up to date on affordable housing requirements.

I am aware the town of Los Gatos is quite behind in housing.

I am in support of looking for solutions for housing as it raises the value of our community for everyone.

I’m also hoping we can add some urgency to getting housing projects going that will improve our percentage of compliance in the different housing categories. SB9 does not address affordability.

Part of the issue must include community engagement so that we can address the common NIMBY issues (Not In My Back Yard).

And please, don’t only consider that areas of Los Gatos that are outside of the LGSD. There’s a tendency to keep low income housing away from Los Gatos school district.

Thank you for all you do and the many challenges you have before you, Bernadette
Bernadette Frager
We spend
precious hours
fearing the inevitable.

It would be wise
to use that time
adoring our families,
cherishing
our friends,
and living our lives.
—MAYA ANGELOU

From: Rob Moore
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:57 PM
To: Council
Cc: Planning
Subject: Housing Affordability
Hello Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Staff,
I hope you are all well and had some much-deserved R&R over the holidays.

I am writing to you after having a great discussion with dozens of Los Gatans on housing in town. We discussed housing affordability, increasing density, and how excited we are for the future of the Town.

While you all know my opinion on this, I want to emphasize how important I feel it is to create a General Plan that builds more housing and, additionally, incentivizes the construction of more Affordable housing.

State laws like SB9 will continue heavy-handedly building housing that is not ideal for our town.

The only way to keep the state from passing more SB9 type laws is to actually build the housing mandated from ABAG via RHNA.

I live in a lovely fourplex on Carlton Avenue, right behind Trader Joe's. I am so very excited for more housing like this. My partner, Kylie Clark, and I will be hosting a "missing middle housing tour" of our fourplex and our neighborhood. This sort of housing allows for the creation of a beautiful little community.

Thank you all for everything you do.

In solidarity,
Rob Moore
(Town resident, not writing in any official capacity)

From: rude tina
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:51 PM
To: Council
Subject: housing
Dear LG Town Council and Planning Department:

I am in favor of increasing affordable housing in our town. In order to convert our traditional single house neighborhoods, my suggestion is to allow/promote ADU, and then duplexes first, as people become accustomed to more "infill".

Thank you,
Christina Rude

From: Rob Stump
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:41 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: General Plan Considerations In and Around the Wildland Urban Interface 2040 General Plan Team,
As the General Plan moves toward finalization, the Town Staff in particular cannot lose sight of the threat that Wildfire poses to the Town of Los Gatos. In one Wildfire study, the Town of Los Gatos was rated a higher threat for wildfire prior to the Camp Fire that destroyed the community of Paradise resulting in 89 deaths and billions of dollars in economic losses. The Town of Los Gatos is not exempt from the threat of wildfire so those working on the General Plan need to take this into account. Here is the link for "The Republic" study/article: https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizonawildfires/2019/07/22/wildfire-risks-more-than-500-spots-have-greater-hazard-than-paradise/1434502001/ The top strategic priority for the Town of Los Gatos is Public Safety. So, in the fall of 2020, the Town Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee to make specific recommendations to the Town Council to expedite our efforts surrounding preparation and prevention of wildfire. The Ad Hoc Committee members were:
• Mayor Marcia Jensen
• Vice Mayor Barbara Spector
• Assistant Town Manager Arn Andrews
• Director of Parks and Public Works Matt Morley
• Assistant Santa Clara County Fire Chief Brian Glass
• Resident member Rob Stump (Served as Chair)
• Resident member Brad Gordon
This Committee determined, the top priority for our work was to focus on saving lives. As a result, the top two priorities were emergency communication and evacuation. The final report is attached for your reference.

From an emergency communications standpoint, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended installation of a siren system (more likely a Long Range Acoustical speaker system including sirens). This system will include installations throughout the WUI and surrounding areas. The goal of this system is to offer one more layer of emergency communication that can provide clear direction, not rely on the cellular network and SAVE lives.

From an evacuation standpoint, the Town of Los Gatos has two major challenges. First, many streets that provide ingress/egress into the WUI, not including roadways within the WUI, do not meet California Vehicle Code or State Fire Code for street width. Streets are required to be 36 feet wide to accommodate parking on both sides of a street, and at least 28 feet wide to accommodate parking on one-side of the street. So any street that is less than 28 feet should not have on-street parking period! Anyone familiar with the roadways throughout the foothills of Los Gatos knows that we have many substandard streets from the standpoint of width. Proper street width/clearance in an emergency will save lives.

The second evacuation issue is seasonal traffic impacts due to beach traffic. And as we have seen, this problem is not easily solved.

What do the General Planners need to keep in mind regarding our General Plan?

1. Los Gatos is under serious threat of wildfire. Similar to the Tunnel Fire in the Oakland Hills in 1991 that resulted in the loss of over 3,000 homes in less than 48 hours, the Town of Los Gatos has eerie comparisons. We have just over 3,000 homes in the WUI with about the same amount of square mileage as the Oakland Hills. We live under the threat of wildfire from April thru December and our WUI has never had the massive amount of vegetation and forest in our history as a Town as it does today.

2. Before allowing additional development in the WUI or even outside of the WUI where residential streets are critical to evacuation, the Town needs to ensure our streets meet California Vehicle and State Fire Codes street width standards. To allow additional development along key evacuation routes out of the WUI would be irresponsible. The Town cannot overlook these requirements and still claim that Public Safety/Fire Protection is a top strategic priority.

Serious wildfire mitigation measures, specifically those measures recommended by the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee need to be incorporated into the Town's General Plan in specific and tangible ways. We need to ensure our community is as safe as possible from the threat of wildfire.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Rob Stump

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

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/01/2020
ITEM NO: 11
DATE: November 20, 2020
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Accept the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report and Direct Staff to Return to Council in One Year with an Action Item Progress Update RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report and direct staff to return to Council in one year with an action item progress report.

BACKGROUND:

On October 6, 2020, the Town Council approved the creation of a Town Council Ad Hoc Committee to study wildfire mitigation in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The Council confirmed that the Committee should study a broad variety of wildfire mitigation policy and project options to improve the Town’s wildfire resiliency and return to Council with a report of their findings. The Committee examined best practices of similar WUI communities, lessons learned from recent fires, and other relevant areas of wildfire science. The Committee was directed to complete the report in time for Council consideration on December 1, 2020 to align with the annual Strategic Priority and budget development process.

The Committee was comprised of the following members:
• Mayor Marcia Jensen
• Vice Mayor Barbara Spector
• Assistant Town Manager Arn Andrews
• Director of Parks and Public Works Matt Morley
• Assistant Santa Clara County Fire Chief Brian Glass
• Resident member Rob Stump
• Resident member Brad Gordon

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report
DATE: November 19, 2020
BACKGROUND (Continued):

The Ad Hoc Committee met on October 21, 2020, October 29, 2020, November 9, 2020, and November 16, 2020. The elements and findings of the report are described in the Discussion section below.

DISCUSSION:

The Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report (Attachment 1) is the culmination of peer reviewed best practices, lessons learned from recent statewide fires, mitigation characteristics unique to Los Gatos, and significant input from the Santa Clara County Assistant Fire Chief. The Committee Report is structured around five primary strategic goals accompanied by relevant action items.

The identified goals in the report appear sequentially in their order of initial priority focus. Goal sequencing is not intended to reflect attainment of one goal prior to initiating another but rather a function of prioritizing protection of life followed by property and the environment. It should be noted that goals and many action items are anticipated to often be addressed concurrently. Following are the identified goals of the Committee:
• Emergency Communication
• Emergency Evacuation
• Roadside Fuel Reduction
• Open Space and Residential Land Management
• Emergency Partnerships
In addition to the sequencing of goals, action items have been individually ranked into either Priority 1 (within 2 years) or Priority 2 (within 3 to 5 years). The priority ranking of action items is a byproduct of establishing reasonable and attainable actions as opposed to signifying certain action items are less important then others. The report also establishes quantifiable metrics for each goal to measure progress of goal/action item attainment.

And lastly, the report identifies additional action items for consideration which include potential for legislative engagement and potential mitigation funding strategies.

CONCLUSION:

The Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report establishes a roadmap for concrete action items that mitigate the risks associated with wildfire in the WUI and the community consequences associated with those risks.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report
DATE: November 19, 2020
COORDINATION:

This staff report was coordinated with the Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Director of Parks and Public Works.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact with acceptance of report
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

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

Attachment:

1. Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

1 Town of Los Gatos Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee
Report
December 1, 2020
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Prepared by
Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee
Coordinated with
Santa Clara County Fire Department
ATTACHMENT 1

2 Table of Contents
Topic Page
Title Page 1
Table of Contents 2
Committee Introduction and Goals 3
Key Terms 3
Los Gatos Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 4
Emergency Communication 6
Emergency Evacuation 7
Roadside Fuel Reduction 8
Open Space and Residential Land Management 10
Emergency Partnerships 12
Additional Action Items 14
Appendices - Maps 15
Los Gatos CERT Geographic Designations 16
Almond Grove/Downtown CERT 17
Civic Center CERT 18
Vista Del Monte CERT 19
Kennedy North CERT 20
Kennedy East CERT 21
Blossom Hill/Shannon CERT 22
Santa Rosa/Hicks CERT 23
Mid Pen El Sereno/St Joseph’s Hill Properties 24
Mid Pen Sierra Azul Properties 25
Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones 26

3 Committee Introduction and Goals
Los Gatos is listed as a Community at Risk from wildfires on the Federal and the California Fire Alliance list of Communities at Risk in Santa Clara County. Wildfires occur in the vicinity of Los Gatos and present a significant danger to people and property within the Town. The Town of Los Gatos considers wildfire mitigation to be a top tier priority for the safety of its citizens and an economic imperative.

Recognizing this significant risk, the Los Gatos Town Council convened an Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee to study a broad variety of wildfire mitigation policy and project options to improve the Town’s wildfire resiliency. The Committee consisted of Mayor Marcia Jensen, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Assistant Fire Chief Brian Glass, Community Member Rob Stump, Community Member Brad Gordon, Assistant Town Manager Arn Andrews, and Parks and Public Works Director Matt Morley. Mr. Stump chaired the Committee.

The Committee’s goal was to identify a variety of mitigation strategies that could be implemented within the next two years and three to five-year timeframes, and collectively identify strategies that may assist in reducing wildfire risk while improving community preparedness in response to wildfire. The Committee examined best practices of similar communities within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), lessons learned from recent fires, and other relevant areas of wildfire science. The following report identifies areas for emphasis of future Council wildfire mitigation efforts.

This report describes the Los Gatos WUI and then identifies specific mitigation topics.

For each topic, goals, action items, and metrics are identified.

Key Terms
Defensible Space An area around the perimeter of structures in which vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels are treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the rate and intensity of potentially approaching wildfire or fire escaping from structures.

Hillside Collector Streets A low-to-moderate-capacity road which serves to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads. Unlike arterials, collector streets are designed to provide access to residential properties.

Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) A concept of the home ignition zone was developed by a retired USDA Forest Service fire scientist in the late 1990s, following some breakthrough experimental research into how homes ignite due to the effects of radiant heat. The HIZ is divided into three zones; immediate (0 to 5 feet), intermediate zone (5 to 30 feet), extended zone (30 to 100 feet).

4 Temporary Refuge Areas (TRAs) Pre-identified area(s) where firefighters and members of the public can immediately take refuge for temporary shelter and short-term relief in the event that access to an established safety zone is compromised.

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) State law requires that all local jurisdictions identify Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within their jurisdictions.

Inclusion within these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity.

Wildland Fire Specialist Conducts inspections for residents living in the high fire hazard areas, providing information, advice, and assistance to property owners. Initiates defensible space surveys and develops and maintains a positive and productive dialog with the community. Identifies and coordinates hazard abatement projects to mitigate the effects of wildfire within the District.

Los Gatos Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area is best described as an area that transitions from a natural condition (wildland) to a developed area (urban). Homes and other development in the WUI are at risk of catastrophic wildfire due to the presence of vegetation that could fuel a wildfire. The WUI creates an environment in which fire can move readily between structural and vegetative fuels, increasing the potential for wildland fire ignitions and the corresponding potential loss of life and property.

The Los Gatos WUI planning area includes primarily Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas on the southern side of Los Gatos. The areas shaded in red in Figure 1 illustrate the extent of WUI lands within the Town. Approximately a quarter of the Town’s total residences are located within the WUI. Of an estimated 2018 Town total of 13,299 residences, the WUI contains approximately 3,091. In addition, at an estimated

2.2 residents per household the WUI is home to approximately 6,800 residents among a Town total of 30,250.

The majority of the northern perimeter of the WUI tends be flatter terrain with higher concentrations of residences. To illustrate this residential concentration, 1,784 of the 3,091 residences in the WUI are located within a quarter mile of the northern boundary.

Town currently utilizes preestablished areas for the maintenance and execution of its Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program. The CERT maps contained in the Appendix also provide a detailed mapping of the Town WUI area, as well as routes of ingress/egress within CERT boundaries.

5 Figure 1

6 Emergency Communication
In the event of an emergency, it is an inherent responsibility of local government organizations to keep the public informed about natural, human-caused, and technological disasters. Studies show that people rarely act on a single warning message alone. To be effective, warnings should be delivered in various formats across multiple media platforms. The use of multiple platforms helps to increase the reliability of warning delivery, while also providing a sense of corroboration that will encourage recipients to take protective actions. In addition, many emergency subscription platforms are opt-in systems which leave non-adopters out of the information loop. In Los Gatos approximately only 23% of residents (6,942) have opted into the cell notification systems of Alert SCC and Nixle.

As illustrated below many notification systems are dependent on functioning internet and cell service. As evidenced by conditions created by recent fires, neither cell service nor internet service may be relied upon during large scale events, particularly when such an event coincides with a planned Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS).

GOAL:

All residents should receive emergency communications in a timely manner.

ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
Maximize the use of Nixle/AlertSCC and ensure that existing communication systems are fully utilized.

Priority 1 – within 2 years

7 Emergency Evacuation
The majority of the Town’s WUI neighborhoods are served by Hillside Collector Streets which serve properties located in hillside areas, carrying traffic to arterial streets and additional neighborhood collectors. Many of these roadways are designed as one-way routes. During emergency events, both emergency responders and evacuees will be attempting to use the same roadways, thereby hindering access for both groups. Due to the critical importance of providing ingress for emergency vehicles and equipment to the fire area while simultaneously allowing egress to residents attempting to evacuate, the Town will evaluate the existing width, grade, and turning radius on these critical routes in order to improve access.

GOAL:

To the greatest extent feasible, create and maintain conditions necessary for efficient and effective evacuations.

Increase resident adoption of Town social media platforms and SCCFD Twitter feed
Priority 1 – within 2 years
Explore additional non-cell/internet reliant emergency
communication systems e.g. siren system. Priority 1 – within 2 years Increase SCCFD Ready, Set, Go Programs in Town Priority 1 – within 2 years Explore adding electronic message boards in front of fire stations and possibly police station
Priority 1 – within 2 years

METRICS
• Percentage of residents opting into Alert SCC and Nixle • Percentage of residents signing up for Town/SCCFD social media platforms • Number of Alert SCC/Nixle promotions per year
• Percentage of residents with secondary means of receiving communications • Number of residents receiving Ready, Set, Go trainings in Town per year

ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
Identify and explore the development of roadside and other Temporary Refuge Areas (TRAs) throughout the WUI.

Priority 1 – within 2 years

8 Roadside Fuel Reduction
Generally, roads are maintained to serve the transportation needs of the public; however, because roadsides are frequently the site of ignition for wildfires and evacuees may need to use the roadways to leave the area even if the vegetation on both sides of the road is on fire. Routes may also be blocked due to consequences associated with an incident including; fallen trees, spot fires, smoke, intense heat, long flame lengths, downed power lines, or vehicle accidents. The following map illustrates

31.09 miles of roadways of highest concern (colored red) for vegetation management.

Assess and address evacuation feeder routes leading out of the WUI throughout Los Gatos.

Examine elimination of on-street parking where appropriate Priority 1 – within 2 years
Priority 2 – within 3 to 5
years
Implement reflective home address signage throughout the WUI.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5
years
Study/identify and develop alternate evacuation routes
throughout the WUI.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5
years
Identify potential road widening, turnout projects throughout the WUI. Develop a multi-year project to implement needed
improvements.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5
years
Develop plan to practice annually simulated evacuations in WUI neighborhoods.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5
years
Leverage SCCFD Zone Haven GIS platform for the
planning/implementation of evacuations.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5
years

METRICS
• TRAs developed within each of the 7 CERT zones in the WUI • Percentage of WUI roadways with 20 ft of clear width
• Percentage of identified WUI roadway improvement projects completed • Number of reflective home signs deployed per year
• Number of residents participating in simulated evacuations per year

9 Figure 2

10 GOAL:

Vegetation along primary hillside roadways should be maintained to achieve a clearance of 20 feet horizontally and 13 feet six inches vertically above roadways, as well as clearance of non-fire-resistant vegetation within 10 feet of the roads.

Open Space and Residential Land Management
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4291 mandates 100 feet of defensible space around structures in high fire severity zones, within which vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels are treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the rate and intensity of potentially approaching wildfire or fire escaping from structures.

The creation of reasonable and adequate Defensible Space focuses on measures to modify and break up hazards created by continuity of available fire fuels, both horizontal (across the ground) and vertical (from the ground up into the crowns of brush and trees). Fuels that exhibit a large degree of both vertical and horizontal continuity are the most hazardous; in particular, when they are on slopes. Thus, mitigation of these fuel sources through clearing and treatment, while simultaneously addressing environmental concerns such as protection of native habitats and the potential for erosion, is

ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
Complete current 11-mile Fuel Reduction project by
February 28, 2021.

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Develop a plan to ensure that the 31.09 miles of highest roadway concern identified in Exhibit 2 achieve a 6-year management cycle (5 miles per year).

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Identify/map all private roadways in the WUI. Priority 1 – within 2 years Work with residents to educate and implement vegetation management practices for these private properties.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years

METRICS
• Number of miles of new vegetation management performed per year • Number of continuous miles of vegetation management maintenance per year • Percentage of private roadways mapped
• Percentage of private roadway residents contacted per year • Percentage of private roadway residents implementing vegetation management

11 particularly important. In addition to the Defensible Space requirements around structures in the WUI, the Town and other public/private agencies are stewards of large open spaces and undeveloped parkland.

GOAL:

Ensure that all public and private property owners are maintaining the mandated defensible spaces.

ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
Conduct annual defensible space inspections and enforce compliance with state and local fire codes.
• Develop strong neighborhood relationships to
educate all property owners of their defensible
space obligation.
• Partner on a pilot Wildland Fire Specialist
program to develop relationships with VHFHZ
homeowners and drive compliance through
education and inspection.
• Educate residents about Home Ignition Zone
(HIZ) inspection program.
• Explore region partnership with SCCFD fuels
crews (once developed) and defensible space
inspectors.

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Priority 1 – within 2 years
Priority 1 – within 2 years
Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years
Explore SCCFD performing defensible space citation
function.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years
Develop private driveway fuel reduction initiative Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Develop Eucalyptus eradication plan for Town property
within the WUI.

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Develop incentive program (cost share) for residential
Eucalyptus removal possibly utilizing tree replacement fund.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years
Develop policy for prohibition of highly flammable plants for new construction within the WUI.

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Develop Community chipping program Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years

12 Emergency Partnerships
The nature of wildfire spread requires a regional approach to wildfire mitigation. A partial list of governmental and private entities with vegetation management responsibilities appears below. Additional regional partners which provide educational and other assistance in creating community resilience to wildfire are also listed.

Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD): Santa Clara County Fire Department is an all-risk fire department and provides fire suppression inclusive of structure and vegetation/wildland fire mitigation, technical rescue operations, emergency medical services (EMS), hazardous materials (HazMat) mitigation, fire prevention, community education and risk reduction services (CERRS), disaster preparedness, community emergency preparedness and service responses.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E): PG&E provides electricity to the Town of Los Gatos, and controls rights-of-way necessary to maintain overhead transmission and distribution lines, many of which run through the WUI areas. The Town collaborates with PG&E to treat vegetation in the WUI along PG&E’s electric transmission line right-of-way to increase power reliability and reduce ignition potential and resulting wildland fire hazard.

Santa Clara County Firesafe Council: The Town of Los Gatos supports and collaborates with the Santa Clara Firesafe Council. The Firesafe Council is a non-profit organization that provides resources to coordinate public and private landowners in Santa Clara County to reduce the threat of wildfire.

Santa Clara County Parks: Periodically, the Parks Department makes use of prescribed burns to manage non-native vegetation, reduce fuel loading, promote

METRICS
• Number of residential contacts performed by WFS per year • Number of residential defensible space inspections coordinated by WFS per year • Percentage of vegetation on Town owned Open Space maintained • Percentage of WUI residents participating in HIZ trainings per year • Number of SCCFD fuel crews (once developed) deployed in LG per year • Number of SCCFD defensible space inspections conducted in LG per year • Number of private driveways implementing vegetation management per year • Number of Town Eucalyptus trees removed per year
• Number of residential eucalyptus trees removed per year • Dollar amount of residential eucalyptus grants per year • Number of tons community chipping removed per year

13 biodiversity and native vegetation. The Department also provides training in conducting managed burns and in wildfire fighting techniques and principles.

West Valley Cities: The West Valley cities of Monte Sereno and Saratoga share with Los Gatos a large number of Very High Fire Severity Zones within their borders (see appendices). Because wildfire extends across community borders, an incident in one jurisdiction can be expected to spread to neighboring jurisdictions. Communication between West Valley cities and coordination of wildfire prevention strategies is therefore critical to the prevention of wildfire.

Mid-Peninsula Open Space District (Midpen): Midpen is an independent Special District that manages 26 Open Space Preserves, containing nearly 65,000 acres of public land. In Los Gatos, Midpen manages and maintains significant land holdings along the Town’s southern border (see Appendix). Wildland fire prevention, preparedness, and response are all critical components of Midpen’s ongoing land stewardship which is largely accomplished through the management of vegetation within its preserves in order to reduce the risk and severity of wildfire, with a focus on ecological health and wildland fire resilience.

County Roads, Valley Water, and CalTrans: These regional governmental partners each have properties and rights-of-way within and/or adjacent to the Town of Los Gatos. These agencies must meet a shared specification for roadside fuel reduction and support safety in general.

San Jose Water Company (SJW): San Jose Water is an investor-owned public utility, and is one of the largest urban water systems in the United States, serving over 1 million people in the greater San Jose metropolitan area. It maintains critical infrastructure in Town essential to fire suppression and manages watershed lands near Los Gatos.

GOAL:

Ensure all regional partners are implementing consistent land management practices to reduce wildfire risk on their properties and right-of ways.

ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME
Work with neighboring cities of Monte Sereno and
Saratoga to coordinate mitigation efforts and jointly
advocate for the continuation and increased vegetation
management among Town partners.

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Ensure timely communications between the Town and
these entities regarding activities that may affect another partner’s land management.

Priority 1 – within 2 years

14 Additional Action Items
Explore regional projects outlined in CWPP for possible grant funding.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years

METRICS
• Number of coordination meetings per year
• $ amount of grants issued/received
• Number of veg mgt miles performed by partner organizations per year ACTION ITEMS Priority Timeframe
Homeowners Insurance Availability
• Advocate for legislative efforts toward the
continuation of homeowner’s insurance in the
WUI.
• Pursue Firewise Community status for WUI
hillside neighborhoods to satisfy homeowners
Insurance requirements.

Priority 1 – within 2 years
Priority 1 – within 2 years
Address areas within the hillside that do not have public fire hydrant systems.

Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years
Explore additional funding sources
• Parcel Tax
• Assessment Districts
Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years
Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years

15 APPENDICES

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-wildfires/2019/07/22/wildfire-risks-more-than-500-spots-have-greater-hazard-thanparadise/1434502001/

From: Michelle Waters Art
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 5:27 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant-based education program
Dear Ms. Armer,
I'm a resident of Los Gatos, and am writing to ask the town to add a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the town's General Plan.

I think it's quite important for the public to understand the great environmental benefits of foregoing meat, dairy and eggs in favor of a plant-based diet, as much as possible. Animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the number one user of freshwater in California, with 47% of freshwater in the state used by the meat, dairy and egg industries. With our state in a climate-induced drought, one crucial step we can all take to help our water situation is to eat a plant-based diet, but most people are unaware of this as there hasn't been much education on these issues.

Thank you for your time, and for considering my request.

Best regards,
Michelle Waters
Animal and Environmental Artist

From: Debbie Parsons
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:52 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant - based education
Dear Town Council,
Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I have lived in Los Gatos for 24 years.

I would like to see a Plant-Based Education program included in the Environmental section of the Town's 2040 General Plan in the Environmental section.

I grew up eating a meat-heavy diet like most Americans. However, when I learned about the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet I drastically shifted my eating patterns and I am now mostly plant-based. I know that a lot of people are not yet aware of the advantages such a diet can provide. A town-sponsored program to educate residents about the powerful health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet would be a very valuable and cost-effective step for the Town.

Sincerely,
James Parsons

From: Mendoza, Clarissa
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 3:19 PM
To: Planning Comment
Cc: Francois, Matthew; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
Subject: Comments Regarding Proposed 2040 General Plan
Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:

Attached please find written correspondence from Mr. Francois on behalf of Los Gatos Community Alliance, in regards to the above-referenced matter.

Best,
Clarissa Mendoza
Legal Secretary
455 Market Street, Suite 1870 | San Francisco, CA 94105 O. (650) 263-7900 | D. (650) 320-1500 x7725
[email protected] | www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.

This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.

Matthew D. Francois
Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669
E-mail: [email protected]
March 22, 2022
R u ta n & T uck e r, L L P | 4 5 5 Ma rk e t S tre e t, S u i te 1 8 7 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 05 | 6 5 0 -263 -7 9 0 0 | F a x 6 5 0 -263 -7 901 Ora n g e C o un t y | P a l o A lto | S a n F ra n c i s c o | www.ru ta n .c o m 2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
VIA E-MAIL [[email protected]]
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Comments Regarding Proposed 2040 General Plan
Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:

We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned citizens, in regard to the Proposed 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”). 1 In previous
correspondence to the Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”), LGCA expressed its significant concerns with the Proposed Plan’s major upzoning of every residential and commercial land use district in the Town, potentially resulting in up to 75,000 new housing units and 45 million square feet of new commercial development.
2 We pointed out how such intensification violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as it was not studied in the environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared by the Town for the Proposed Plan. We also explained that such intensification was entirely unnecessary to accommodate the 1,993 additional housing units needed per the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”).

By January 2023, the Town Council must adopt a Housing Element which includes an inventory of sites suitable and available for residential development to meet the Town’s RHNA.

Given the pending statutory deadline and in light of LGCA’s substantial concerns with the Proposed Plan, the Town should focus first on updating its Housing Element. The housing sites inventory will provide critical information to determine what area(s) of the Town, if any, need to be re-designated in the General Plan to meet the RHNA. Updating the General Plan prior to and apart from updating the Housing Element is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

1 Members and/or supporters of LGCA include: former Mayor Joanne Benjamin, former Mayor Sandy Decker, former Mayor Tom Ferrito, former Mayor Steve Rice, former Mayor Barbara Spector, former County Superintendent of Schools Colleen Wilcox, Tim Lundell, Phil Koen, Don Livinghouse, Sandra Livinghouse, Lee Fagot, Ann Ravel, Rob Stump, Rick Van Hoesen, and Jak Vannada.
2 See September 13, 2021 and January 5, 2022 letters from Matthew Francois to Jennifer Armer.

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22

1. Background.

In terms of background, the current 2020 General Plan planned for 1,600 additional units to be constructed between 2009 and 2020. The majority of these units—some 1,423 units—were projected to be developed on the Housing Element opportunity sites and the North Forty Specific Plan area. We understand that of the 1,600 additional units projected, only approximately 500 have been built thus far. This leaves capacity for approximately 1,100 additional units with no changes whatsoever to existing residential densities.

When the Town began the process of updating the 2020 General Plan, Staff acknowledged that “the existing General Plan is serving the community well,” and that the Proposed Plan “provides the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues.” (Staff Report to the Town Council, November 17, 2020, p. 5; see also General Plan Update, September 2019 [further noting that the General Plan update effort was “intended to be a fine-tuning of the existing General Plan, rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the document.”].)
A December 2019 Land Use Alternatives Report prepared by Town Staff presented four growth alternatives (labeled A-D) with net new housing ranging from 1,156 to 3,176 units. 3 At its
April 7, 2020 meeting, the Town Council approved Land Use Alternative C. That alternative called for 2,303 additional housing units. At the November 17, 2020 Town Council meeting, Councilmembers indicated that new housing should be focused in Community Place Districts without increasing the allowed densities in Low Density Residential areas or changing the Downtown/Central Business District.

The Draft EIR (“DEIR”) for the Proposed Plan states that one of the Proposed Plan’s “central objectives” is to achieve the RHNA figure assigned to the Town. (DEIR, pp. 2-7, 6-1.) The RHNA figure assigned to the Town is 1,993 units. Yet, the DEIR then proceeds to analyze 3,738 dwelling units—nearly double the assumed RHNA figure. In reality, the Proposed Plan, with its increased densities across almost all land use designations, could enable development of tens of thousands of new housing units. This growth was not acknowledged let alone factored into the DEIR, as legally required.

In its December 2, 2021 report to the Town Council on the Proposed Plan, Staff noted that the Planning Commission had the authority to recommend a lower housing number than that studied and assumed in the DEIR, with commensurate changes to the Proposed Plan. Staff also indicated that the report to the Planning Commission would include an option for approximately 2,000 units with associated modifications needed to the Proposed Plan to achieve this lower housing capacity.

3 The Land Use Alternatives report also identified the range of likely market demand for new housing between 2020 and 2040 to be approximately 1,500-2,000 dwelling units.

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
In December 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) approved its final RHNA Plan for Bay Area cities. Under that Plan, the Town will need to identify housing sites for 1,993 units. As is typical, the Town’s allocation is separated into four income categories: Very Low:
537 units, Low: 310 units, Moderate: 320 units, and Above Moderate: 826 units. ABAG’s RHNA Plan was approved by the State Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) on January 12, 2022.

2. The Town Should Focus First On Updating Its Housing Element, Which Will Guide And Shape Any Other Updates To The General Plan.

Unlike the General Plan update, the Town is under a statutory deadline to submit the updated Housing Element to HCD by January 2023. On June 15, 2021, the Town Council retained EMC Planning Group to prepare the Housing Element update. In its Scope of Services, EMC states that it will rely on the Town Council’s Preferred Land Use Alternative C, which proposes residential development of 2,303 additional units to be located primarily in Community Place Districts.

By law, the Housing Element update must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the Town’s regional housing need by income level. (Gov. Code §§ 65583, 65583.2.) “Suitable” means the parcel is zoned appropriately for residential development and has available infrastructure and is not environmentally constrained. (Id.) “Available” means that the site has a likelihood for development during the Housing Element planning period. (Id.) If the housing sites inventory demonstrates that there are insufficient sites to accommodate the housing allocation for each income category, the inventory must identify potential sites for rezoning and a program to effectuate such rezoning early in the 2023-2031 planning period. Per the schedule included in its Scope of Services, EMC stated that the housing sites inventory would be completed by Winter 2021-2022.

The Town must update the Housing Element by January 31, 2023 and submit it to HCD for certification. If the Town does not secure HCD certification of its Housing Element within that required timeframe, it could become ineligible for state and regional funding programs, be placed on an accelerated Housing Element cycle, and/or face legal challenges. (Gov. Code §§ 65585, 65588, and 65889.11.)
The Town’s website devoted to the Housing Element update refers simply to the formation of the Housing Element Advisory Board, with no documents, information on meetings, or updates concerning a critical statutory deadline that is less than 12 months away.4 Other Bay Area cities have been laser-focused on updating their Housing Elements. For instance, since May 2021, the City of Palo Alto held over a dozen meetings on its Housing Element update, and the Palo Alto City Council recently provided feedback on the housing sites inventory.

4 https://www.losgatosca.gov/2711/Housing-Element-Advisory-Board

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
The Town should follow both common sense and the lead of other cities and focus now on updating its Housing Element. Doing so will guide and provide critical information for the Proposed Plan. Updating the General Plan prior to and apart from updating the Housing Element is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

3. When Resumed, the Proposed Plan Should Be Modified to Reflect the Housing Element Update and Other Changes.

Once the Housing Element update has been adopted by the Town Council and certified by the State, the Proposed Plan should be updated to reflect it. Other recommended changes to the Proposed Plan are detailed below.

A. Restore Existing Low Density Residential Development Standards.

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

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

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

Third, given the relatively high land costs, much higher development densities are required to achieve the unit development economics to incentivize the production of duplexes and triplexes.

The desired development would not likely ever materialize given the high land cost. The resulting housing would instead likely consist of denser, single-family detached housing that is market rate and not affordable.

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
B. Add Low-Medium Density Residential in Appropriate Locations.

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

C. Amend Permitted Intensities Allowed in Central Business District.

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

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

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

In addition to the above changes, the Town should modify land use designations and densities so that build-out under the Proposed Plan would accommodate no more than approximately 2,300 units. This figure reflects the Town’s RHNA of 1,993 units, plus a 15 percent buffer. It also reflects the economic demand and the City Council’s preferred land use alternative. By proceeding with

Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission
March 22, 2022

2696/037011-0001
17552494.5 a03/22/22
this reasonable growth figure, the Town could ensure that development is phased and does not outpace necessary infrastructure and service improvements.

The current Proposed Plan allows for the development potential of nearly 75,000 housing units at maximum allowable densities. There is no need to maximize densities in each and every residential and commercial land use category to achieve the Town’s RHNA and doing so would fundamentally change the nature and character of the entire Town. This underscores why the Housing Element update and its critical housing sites inventory should precede any further work on the Proposed Plan.
********************
We respectfully ask the Town to focus first on the Housing Element update prior to considering the Proposed Plan or any other General Plan update. The Housing Element update will provide critical information on what area(s), if any, need to be re-designated in the General Plan to accommodate the Town’s projected housing growth. Once the Housing Element update has been finalized, the Proposed Plan should be revised to reflect it as well as the other recommended changes detailed above.

Thank you for your consideration of LGCA’s views on these important matters. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions concerning this correspondence.

Very truly yours,

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

Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor, and Members of the Town Council Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney

From: Sonny Stearns
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 4:58 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: Housing!
Sent from my iPad. This whole WOKE, PC nonsense is sickening. Build the least amount of houses.

People moved to Los Gatos to be in housing that IS NOT DENSE. Look at the mess you allowed on the Yuki property across from Lark Ave Carwash. It looks like a giant scoop of Daily City was plopped into Los Gatos——— what an eyesore, non- Los Gatos abomination! Town Council discussed this issue for years ,and, left us with this !!?!?! Also , Town Council, thanks for destroying traffic flow on Blossom Hill Road, Winchester , Los Gatos Blvd. if you are going to jam in houses we don’t want, can’t you see they will be ,for the most part in cars, not bikes! The town should fight for Los Gatos residents, and fight against the state mandates, but, you won’t! Fellow Stearns, DDS

From: Mike Verga
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 7:36 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: Housing
I absolutely do not believe in “low income housing”. You can buy a house in Akron Ohio for less than 100K
What right does anybody have to living in one of the most desirable places on the planet if you can’t afford it??? Move!
We are ruining the make up of Los Gatos
with absolutely no infrastructure to support (new roads, public transport etc…)the increase in population. Just more housing, more housing.

Traffic thru town on a warm day, even during the week now is an absolute nightmare, yet we are going to pack in more people. It is absolute insanity!
I am being taxed to death in California with ZERO improvement to my standard of living. The roads here are embarrassing, homeless (they are actually drug addicts and mentally ill, read San Fransicko if you want to know the truth) everywhere, and now we are going to pack even more into the area? Insane!! Air quality, traffic, water and safety will obviously be negatively affected by more housing, yet here we are trying to push thru more housing while I can only water my lawn twice a week. Insanity is winning.

Mike Verga
LG

From: Joseph Gemignani
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:56 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: Housing
Hi, I prefer the least amount of housing as possible. I guess that means 1993 units.

I would like to see traditional architecture such as Mediterranean or Craftsman. Anyway s pitched roof.

Not modern, boxy buildings.

Maybe areas of Los Gatos boulevard and/ or Winchester area.

Thanks,
Joseph (amateur weatherman)

From: Varily Isaacs
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:51 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Please add Plant-based Education Program to General Plan My name is Varily Isaacs and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plantbased education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse has emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more.

Varily Isaacs
Los Gatos, CA 95032

From: John Parsons
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:51 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant Based Education
Dear Jennifer,
My name is John Parsons. I am a Junior at San Jose State and a Los Gatos resident. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,
John Parsons

From: Cynthia K
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:59 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: General Plan request
Hello,
My name is Cyndi and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plantbased education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Appreciate your time.

Best,
Cyndi

From: Kristine Goldberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 2:17 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant Based Education
Hi Jennifer,
My name is Kristine Goldberg and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thank you,
Kristine

From: Bhanik Shah
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:35 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Vegan food options in Los Gatos restaurants
Hello Jennifer / Council of Los Gatos
My name is Bhanik Shah and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thanks
Bhanik

From: Karen Aidi
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:48 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant-based Education component
Hi Jennifer,
My name is Karen Aidi and I’ve talked to you before at the Los Gatos Farmer’s Market about the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan. I have lived in Los Gatos since 1992.

I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to the Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability in the 2040 General Plan. I think that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

In the past five years I’ve gone completely plant-based (no meat, dairy, or fish). As a result, I lost 40 pounds and have been able to keep the weight off as well as getting off of blood pressure medication.

Along the way, I’ve also learned that a plant-based diet is the best thing I can do as an individual to mitigate the effects of climate change, deforestation, habitat loss, animal extinction, and so on. But, I can’t do this all on my own. And, I despair of the way we are leaving our planet for the next generations.

As you know, in our area, we are in a terrible drought, and suffering from constant wildfires. It’s not enough to just refuse a glass of water at a local restaurant. It’s not enough to drive an electrical car, either. We have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at the local level. We can do this by reducing meat consumption or going meatless.

We need to do more as a town to educate our residents on what a shift to plant-based diet can do for our environment.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best Regards,
Karen Aidi

From: Suzanne Meinhardt
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant Based Diet Awareness
My name is Suzanne Meinhardt and I live in the Almond Grove of Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that a plant-based education program be added to the Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan.

It is important that residents of Los Gatos are aware of the huge environmental/personal benefits of a plant-based diet. Town funding of education on this topic is key to success.

Respectfully,
Suzanne Meinhardt
Los Gatos, 95030
Sent from my iPhone

From: Kevin Arroyo
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 8:20 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant Based Education - Draft Plan
Hello Jennifer,
My name is Kevin and I live in Los Gatos, on Anne Way. Please include a plant-based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. It's important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thank you,
Kevin Arroyo

From: Cindy Walker
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 7:39 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Cc: Kevin Arroyo; Maria Ristow
Subject: Plant Based Education Program for Los Gatos
Hello:

I am working w/ Kevin Arroyo on the Los Gatos Alamden Pollinator Garden. This is such an amazing project and I have had such a great experience working w/ Kevin.

Please consider adding a Plant Based Education Program for Los Gatos – Section 8 - Environmental and Sustainability section to the Town General Plan – April 13th Meeting.

The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more.

Thank you for all that you do to make our town the great place it is to live! Namaste,
Cindy Walker B.A. eRYT CLC
Mindful Movement Yoga & Life Coaching
(408) 234-6430
www.mindfulmovementylc.com

From: Kathleen Willey
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Support for Plant Based education in General Plan Hello my name is Kathleen Willey and I have lived in Los Gatos with my family for 10 years. Around 5 1/2 years ago our family became vegan for many reasons but mainly because of the devastating impact animal agriculture has on our environment. It saddens me how few people know this and how little effort our local schools make to educate the kids on this topic. We often dine outside of Los Gatos because there are very few options here.

I am asking the Town to please include a plant based education program along with funding to section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section in the General Plan.

Climate change is here, we need to face it and do something about it. Cutting back on fossil fuels is important but even if everyone drove an electric car, if we do not address our food system we will not avoid catastrophic rising temperatures on this planet. Shifting towards a plant based diet is one of the most impactful thing an individual can do to help.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html Please make the Town of Los Gatos a leader in the fight against climate change.

Thank you!
Kathleen Willey

From: Tara Moseley
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan Hello Ms. Armer and Council Members;
I’m writing to request that you consider including a plant-based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions.

Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more.

It would be wonderful if Los Gatos restaurants were required to include some plant based options on their menus, including deserts. We should be encouraging a plant based diet in our restaurant options in downtown Los Gatos. It is better for us and our planet.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Tara Moseley
Los Gatos Resident 95032

From: Karla Albright
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 1:12 PM
To: Council; Jennifer Armer
Subject: plant based education
To whom it may concern,
I am a proud long term resident of LG for the past 27 years. I am writing to express my support for plant based education. I understand there is the option for town support in the general plan.

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but I admire such people and aspire to embrace their values. A plant based diet is hugely beneficial for ones personal health and the health of our plant. Education is the key to making changes. We need to make support education for the general public to help make the cultural shift that is needed to help burb global warming and its negative repercussions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karla Albright

From:

Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:16 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: To: Jennifer Armer and Town Council re General Plan To: Jennifer Armer and Town Council
Please include a plant based education program in the Town's general plan. Anything you and the residents of Los Gatos can do to help mitigate greenhouse gases is important. The photosynthetic activity of plants sequesters CO2 . Locally grown produce in our yards and community areas helps sequester carbon dioxide and reduces the need to transport food from long distances in trucks that produce greenhouse gas.

Respectfully
Les an Susan Kishler
50 year residents and taxpayers Los Gatos

From: Ilene
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Council; Jennifer Armer
Subject: Re: support plant based education program
My name is Ilene Dickinson and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plantbased education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.” I wish I was educated on Plant base diets when I was younger! Thank you,
Ilene Dickinson

From: Smita Jain
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 1:38 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Plant Based food system education program
Hi Jennifer,
I live in Los Gatos and fully support efforts to combat climate change and a more eco friendly society.

Please include a plant-based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plantbased food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more.

Thanks,
Smita Kanungo
Los Gatos resident

From: Mythri Ramesh
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:21 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: My support for Plant Based advocates
Hi Jennifer,
I am Mythri Ramesh and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic
Thanks,
Mythri

From: Gretchen Sand
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:38 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant-Based Eductation on Los Gatos
Greetings Jennifer,
My name is Gretchen Sand, I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that our Los Gatos town leaders include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. It is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

There are benefits to our health as well as to the environment in plant-based eating. Our long term wellbeing and that of our planet depends on awareness of our diet's impact on not only ourselves but our planet. Just as I would not advocate use of pesticides to eliminate unwanted pests in my garden, I need to be aware of what I purchase for feeding myself and my family and of the impact of animal products and by-products has on the atmosphere, the waterways, the soil, and my personal health.

I appreciate your support on this critical need. The well-being of generations to come depends on the actions we take today.

Thank you,
Gretchen
Gretchen Sand

From: Anna Lonyai Harbison
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Plant based education to Section 8
My name is Dr. Anna Harbison and I live in Monte Sereno. I am a pediatrician and pediatric cardiologist. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. In addition there are enormous health benefits of incorporating more plants into our diets.

Thank you for your support,
Dr. Harbison

From: Peter Harbison
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:12 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Plant based education to Section 8
My name is Peter Harbison and I live in Monte Sereno. I work at Google & have seen the huge impact of going plant based over the past 3 years personally.

I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. In addition there are enormous health benefits of incorporating more plants into our diets.

Thank you for your support,
Peter Harbison

From: Tony White
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:16 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Plant based foods
Dear Jennifer and planning commission members,
This is to let you know how appreciative I and many of our fellow citizens are for the steps that the town has taken to encourage the adoption of plant-based foods. I understand that the town is considering including a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan to support the promotion of meat and dairy reduction. I would like to add my support to this proposal as an important step forward in promoting this important goal.

I have personally been involved in a program that will use technology to protect rhinos from poaching and certain extinction if the situation is not addressed. A major issue in achieving our goal as well as protecting multiple other threatened species is the encroachment of land on wilderness areas by cattle and other ranching activities. The only solution is to reduce or eliminate meat consumption and every small step helps.

We have been residents of Los Gatos for 35 years and our address is:

Sincerely,
Antony G White

From: H White
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:19 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Reduction of meat and dairy products
Dear Jennifer,
I understand that the town is considering including a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan to support the promotion of meat and dairy reduction. I would like to add my support to this proposal as an important step forward in promoting this worthy goal.

We have been residents of Los Gatos for 35 years and our address is:

Sincerely,
Hilary B White

From: Laura Sneddon
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:53 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Adding a plant-based education program to Section 8 Dear Planning Commission,
My name is Laura Sneddon and I’m a resident of Los Gatos.

I am writing to ask that Los Gatos include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

As a vegan, Iwould frequent restaurants in LG more often if I knew they had vegan options on their menus. Serving vegan food is a win/win- it helps the environment and animals AND creates a business opportunity for local restaurants.

Thanks for your consideration.
best,
Laura

From: Karen Rubio
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:26 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Cc: Lisa Wade; Karen Rubio
Subject: Please support plant-based education in Los Gatos Hello Jennifer, Los Gatos Town Council:

My name is Karen Rubio and I live in Los Gatos. I am a co-founder of Plant-Based Advocates.

I am writing to ask for your support to include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. We feel that it is crucial for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse has emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more.

The number one cause of biodiversity loss is our food system that is heavily dependent on animal agriculture. Shifting to a plant-based diet reduces food’s associated greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 73 percent and cuts in half the water needed to produce our food.

These are critical facts that need to be shared with our residents so they can contribute toward ensuring our planet remains livable for us and future generations! I recently had an op-ed published in the Mercury News and East Bay Times that addresses the need for a shift to plant-based eating. In case the link doesn’t work, I’ve also attached it. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/31/opinion-its-time-for-californians-to-talk-aboutthe-cow-in-the-room/ Finally, many thanks to you all for your hard work in guiding the planning process for our Town’s future. Los Gatos is an amazing place to live, and I appreciate your work in preserving the beauty and viability of our precious Town.

Sincerely,
Karen Rubio
Plant-Based Advocates

By KAREN RUBIO |
PUBLISHED: March 31, 2022 at 5:15 a.m. | UPDATED: March 31, 2022 at 5:26 a.m.

A rancher’’s cattle relax at the new La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in La Honda, California, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017. On Friday, the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, which purchased the land in 2006, will open six miles of trails for hikers and horse riders through the former Driscoll Ranch, which it now calls the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. (Patrick Tehan/Bay Area News Group) OPINIONCOMMENTARY
Opinion: It’s time for Californians
to talk about the cow in the room
Few realize that meat and dairy production devour a full 47% of the state's water
• News

NNoo oonnee ccaann ddeennyy tthhaatt wwee’’rree iinn tthhee mmootthheerr ooff aallll mmeeggaaddrroouugghhttss..

TThhee sseevveenn hhootttteesstt yyeeaarrss oonn rreeccoorrdd hhaavvee hhaappppeenneedd iinn tthhee llaasstt sseevveenn yyeeaarrss.. TThhee UU..SS..DDrroouugghhtt MMoonniittoorrjjuussttrreeppoorrtteedd tthhaatt 9933%% ooff CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa,, iinncclluuddiinngg tthhee BBaayy AArreeaa,, iiss iinn sseevveerree ddrroouugghhtt aanndd 3355%% iiss iinn eexxttrreemmee ddrroouugghhtt.. LLaasstt yyeeaarr,, ddaannggeerroouuss hheeaatt kkiilllleedd hhuunnddrreeddss ooff ppeeooppllee iinn OOrreeggoonn aanndd WWaasshhiinnggttoonn aanndd nneeaarrllyy bbuucckklleedd CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa’’ss ppoowweerr ggrriidd.. FFeeddeerraall ffoorreeccaasstteerrss ssaayy tthhaatt tthhiiss yyeeaarr ccoonnddiittiioonnss wwiillll wwoorrsseenn iinn CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa aanndd tthhee WWeesstt wwiitthh hhootttteerr--tthhaann--nnoorrmmaall tteemmppeerraattuurreess aanndd lliittttllee cchhaannccee ooffrraaiinn..

GGoovv..GGaavviinn NNeewwssoomm iiss uurrggiinngg CCaalliiffoorrnniiaannss ttoo ccuutt wwaatteerr ccoonnssuummppttiioonn,, bbuutt iiss rreedduucciinngg rreessiiddeennttiiaall uussaaggee —— ttaakkiinngg sshhoorrtteerr sshhoowweerrss,, ppuulllliinngg oouutt llaawwnnss —— rreeaallllyy aann eeffffeeccttiivvee ssoolluuttiioonn?? AAss iitt ttuurrnnss oouutt,, nnoott ssoo mmuucchh.. AAccccoorrddiinngg ttoo PPaacciiffiicc IInnssttiittuuttee,, aa lleeaaddiinngg nnoonnpprrooffiittrreesseeaarrcchh aanndd ppoolliiccyy ggrroouupp bbaasseedd iinn OOaakkllaanndd,, oonnllyy 44%% ooff CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa’’ss wwaatteerrffoooottpprriinntt ggooeess ttoo ddiirreecctt hhoouusseehhoolldd wwaatteerr ccoonnssuummppttiioonn..

SSoo,, wwhheerree iiss oouurr wwaatteerr ggooiinngg?? IInn tthhee mmiiddsstt oofftthhee ttuurrmmooiill oovveerr oouurr ddiimmiinniisshhiinngg wwaatteerr ssuuppppllyy,, aann oofftteenn--oovveerrllooookkeedd iinndduussttrryy ooppeerraatteess wwiitthhoouutt ssccrruuttiinnyy —— ccoonnssuummiinngg tthhee lliioonn’’ss sshhaarree ooff CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa’’ss ddiimmiinniisshhiinngg wwaatteerr,, cchhuurrnniinngg oouutt mmaassssiivvee aammoouunnttss ooff ggrreeeennhhoouussee ggaass eemmiissssiioonnss aanndd ppoolllluuttiinngg oouurr eennvviirroonnmmeenntt wwiitthh iimmppuunniittyy..

FFeeww rreeaalliizzee tthhaatt mmeeaatt aanndd ddaaiirryy pprroodduuccttiioonn ddeevvoouurr aa ffuullll 4477%% ooff CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa’’ss wwaatteerr,,tthheeiirr hhuuggee wwaatteerrffoooottpprriinnttss dduuee ttoo tthhee aammoouunntt ooff wwaatteerr--iinntteennssiivvee ffeeeedd rreeqquuiirreedd ttoo rraaiissee tthhee aanniimmaallss..IInn ffaacctt,,tthhee llaarrggeesstt wwaatteerr--ccoonnssuummiinngg ccrroopp iinn CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa iiss tthhee aallffaallffaa ggrroowwnn ttoo ffeeeedd aanniimmaallss.. TThhee tthhiirrdd llaarrggeesstt?? IIrrrriiggaatteedd ppaassttuurree —— aaggaaiinn,, ffoorr aanniimmaallss..
““AAllmmoonnddss aarree mmaaddee oouutt ttoo bbee tthhee vviillllaaiinn iinn oouurr ddrroouugghhtt ssttoorryy,, bbuutt bbllaammiinngg eexxcceessssiivvee wwaatteerr uussee oonn tthhiiss ccrroopp iiss ssiimmppllyy nnoott ttrruuee,,”” ssaayyss MMoohhaannGGuurruunnaatthhaann,, aa llooccaall eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall aaccttiivviisstt..““IInn ffaacctt,,tthhee wwaatteerr uusseedd ttoo ggrrooww jjuusstt aanniimmaall ffeeeedd —— nnoott iinncclluuddiinngg wwaatteerrttoo ggrrooww aanndd ssllaauugghhtteerrtthheemm —— uusseess mmoorree tthhaann ddoouubbllee tthhee wwaatteerr uusseedd ttoo ggrrooww aallmmoonnddss aanndd ppiissttaacchhiiooss..”” AAss CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa ggrraapppplleess wwiitthh ddrroouugghhtt aanndd aa yyeeaarr--rroouunndd ffiirree sseeaassoonn ssppaarrkkeedd bbyy aa rraappiiddllyy--wwaarrmmiinngg cclliimmaattee,,tthhee hheeffttyy ccoossttss ooff wwaatteerr uussaaggee,, eennvviirroonnmmeennttaall hhaarrmm aanndd gglloobbaall wwaarrmmiinngg ffrroomm mmeeaatt aanndd ddaaiirryy pprroodduuccttiioonn hhaavvee bbeeeenn llaarrggeellyy iiggnnoorreedd —— uunnttiill nnooww..

AA nneeww bbiillll,, AABB--22776644,, ssppoonnssoorreedd bbyy AAsssseemmbbllyy mmeemmbbeerrss AAddrriinn NNaazzaarriiaann,,DD--VVaann NNuuyyss,, aanndd AAlleexx LLeeee,,DD--MMiillppiittaass,, wwoouulldd hhaalltt ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn aanndd eexxppaannssiioonn ooff ffaaccttoorryy ffaarrmmss aanndd ssllaauugghhtteerrhhoouusseess iinn CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa..

WWhhyy ssoo lloonngg ttoo ttaakkee aaccttiioonn?? TThhee mmeeaatt aanndd ddaaiirryy iinndduussttrriieess ttyyppiiccaallllyy ffllyy uunnddeerrtthhee rraaddaarr,, aanndd rreegguullaattiioonnss aarree oofftteenn llaaxx,, ssaayyss ffiillmmmmaakkeerr RRaavveennDDeeeerrbbrrooookk.. HHeerrrreecceenntt iinnvveessttiiggaattiioonn ooff““OOnnee WWoorrlldd BBeeeeff”” ((aa mmaajjoorr CCoossttccoo ssuupppplliieerr)) iinn BBrraawwllyy aanndd rreessuullttiinngg sshhoorrtt ddooccuummeennttaarryy,,““IImmppeerriiaallDDuusstt,,””ffoouunndd nnuummeerroouuss vviioollaattiioonnss oofftthhee HHuummaannee MMeetthhooddss ooff SSllaauugghhtteerr AAcctt,, iinncclluuddiinngg rroouuttiinnee mmiissuussee ooff eelleeccttrriicc pprrooddss oonn ““ddoowwnneedd””((nnoonn--aammbbuullaattoorryy)) ccoowwss..

MMeeaatt aanndd ddaaiirryy pprroodduucceerrss hhaabbiittuuaallllyy ddiissrreeggaarrdd rreegguullaattiioonnss iinn tthheeiirr qquueesstt ffoorr pprrooffiittss..IInn ffaacctt,, 9966%% ooff ssllaauugghhtteerrhhoouusseess iinn tthheeUUnniitteedd SSttaatteess aarree iinn vviioollaattiioonn ooff wwaassttee wwaatteerrrreegguullaattiioonnss;;tthhee EEPPAA hhaass bbeeeenn ssuueedd ffoorrffaaiilliinngg ttoo eennffoorrccee eefffflluueenntt ssttaannddaarrddss..

TThhee lliivveessttoocckk iinndduussttrryy pprroodduucceess 3355--4400%% ooff aallll hhuummaann--ccaauusseedd mmeetthhaannee eemmiissssiioonnss..

BBeeccaauussee tthhiiss kkeeyy ggrreeeennhhoouussee ggaass aaccccoouunnttss ffoorr 2255%% ooff gglloobbaall eemmiissssiioonnss aanndd iiss 8866 ttiimmeess mmoorree ppoowweerrffuull tthhaann ccaarrbboonn ddiiooxxiiddee aatt ttrraappppiinngg hheeaatt oovveerr aa 2200--yyeeaarr ppeerriioodd,, rreedduuccttiioonn iiss eesssseennttiiaall.. NNAASSAA hhaass iiddeennttiiffiieedd aa llaarrggee mmeetthhaannee ““hhoott ssppoott”” oovveerr CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa’’ss CCeennttrraall VVaalllleeyy,,tthhee sseeccoonndd llaarrggeesstt oonnee iinn tthheeUUnniitteedd SSttaatteess..

SShhiiffttiinngg ttoo aa ppllaanntt--bbaasseedd ddiieettrreedduucceess ffoooodd’’ss aassssoocciiaatteedd ggrreeeennhhoouussee ggaass eemmiissssiioonnss bbyy aass mmuucchh aass 7733%% aanndd ccuuttss iinn hhaallfftthhee wwaatteerr nneeeeddeedd ttoo pprroodduuccee oouurr food..

WWee uurrggeennttllyy nneeeedd ttoo mmaakkee ssmmaarrtt cchhooiicceess ttoo eennssuurree tthhee hhaabbiittaabbiilliittyy ooff oouurr ppllaanneett..

SSoo,, bbyy aallll mmeeaannss,,tteeaarr oouutt yyoouurrllaawwnn aanndd ttaakkee sshhoorrtteerr sshhoowweerrss.. BBuutt iiff wwee rreeaallllyy wwaanntt ttoo mmaakkee aann iimmppaacctt,, wwee nneeeedd ttoo ppuutt ppllaannttss oonn oouurr ppllaatteess..

KKaarreennRRuubbiioo iiss aa ccoo--ffoouunnddeerr ooff PPllaanntt--BBaasseeddAAddvvooccaatteess,, aa LLoossGGaattooss ggrroouupp tthhaattiiss wwoorrkkiinngg ttoo aaddddrreessss cclliimmaattee cchhaannggee,, iinnccrreeaasseehhuummaann hheeaalltthh aanndd aalllleevviiaattee aanniimmaall ssuuffffeerriinnggbbyy aacccceelleerraattiinngg tthhee sshhiiffttttooppllaanntt--bbaasseedd ddiieettss..

RReeppoorrtt aann eerrrroorr
PPoolliicciieess aanndd SSttaannddaarrddss
CCoonnttaaccttUUss
T A i lt lif i l i l t G i N

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
ALL ACCESS DIGITAL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENT AL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENTS! Join the Conversation
We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

Karen Rubio

SSPOPONNSSOOREREDD CCOONNTTEENNTT
Let insights reveal
new opportunities 
By KPMG
Tags:  Agriculture, california-legislature, Gavin Newsom, Water

From: Rosilene Martins
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Request for a Plant-Based Education Program
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Representatives:

My name is Rosilene Martins and I have been a Los Gatos resident since 1994.

I very much appreciate the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I would like a Plant-Based Education Program added to Section 8 of the Environmental section of the General Plan.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, Rosilene Martins
Los Gatos, CA 95032

From: Georgia Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 5:05 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: Plant Based Solutions
Dear Town Council members,
II live in the Town of Los Gatos and I'm writing to ask you to please include a dedicated Plant-Based education program in the Environmental section of the 2040 General Plan.

It would be great to have programs such as cooking classes, talks, and events to teach people how to incorporate more plants into their diets. This would be healthy for people and the planet.

Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely.

Georgia Hamilton

PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/13/2022
ITEM NO: 3

ADDENDUM
DATE: April 11, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 11 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022.

EXHIBITS:

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

1. Draft 2040 General Plan

2. Draft EIR

3. Revised NOA and Transportation section

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

5. Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles

7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment

8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes

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

Monday, September 20, 2021

10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2022
ATTACHMENT 9

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR
DATE: April 11, 2022
EXHIBIT (continued):

Exhibit received with this Addendum:

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

EXHIBIT 11
From: Levine, Joshua
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 1:13 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Council
Subject: plant based education
Dear Jennifer,
My name is Joshua Levine and I am a resident in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plantbased education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.

Thank you for your consideration

Best
Josh

_________________________________________________
Joshua Levine | Senior Vice President – Financial Advisor RBC Wealth Management
City National Bank NMLS ID 1594861

From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 7:43 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Council
Subject: Fwd: Petition for Plant-Based Education in Los Gatos Hi Jennifer,
We would like to see Plant-Based Eating Education added to section 8.12 Environmental Sustainability Element Implementation Programs. Section 8.12 has several Implementation Programs. We are requesting that you add a Plant-Based Eating Education Program to this section.

I am submitting our petition with 265 names and 11 organizations asking for a plant-based education program in the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan. We have the names of 225 residents (including community and business leaders who live in Los Gatos). In addition, we have 40 names of residents living in neighboring towns including Cambell, Monte Sereno, and Cambrian who frequent Los Gatos businesses.

We also have the support of 11 local groups, Health and Environmental NGOs including The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and the Center for Biological Diversity. We also have the support of prominent citizens both in Los Gatos and neighboring cities such as Lucas Ramirez vice mayor of Mountian View and Alison Hicks city council member in Mountian View.

In addition, we have written testimony from the Center for Biological Diversity attached below.

Dashiel Leeds from the Sierra club gave verbal testimony at an earlier planning commission meeting expressing the support of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter for our initiative.

We want to thank you and the planning commission for all your hard work on the General Plan.

Our petition is attached below.

Supporters of Adding Plant-Based Education to Los Gatos General Plan 2040 Name, Last Name, First Position / Affiliation Address / Town Area Comments Community and Business Leaders of Los Gatos
Albright Karla Together We Will/Indivisible Los Gatos Los Gatos, CA Arroyo Kevin Pinehurst Community Garden organizer Los Gatos, CA Great idea and I support this plan! Brown Elisabeth Educator Los Gatos, CA
I am a teacher in town. I’d love to incorporate any lessons into my curriculum. I also lead student council and would be willing to organize an assembly.

Chan Wendy Business owner: Tai Zhan Plant-Based Microbakery Los Gatos, CA Goetz Alicia Owner, Los Gatos Theatre Los Gatos, CA
Hertan Peter
Vice President, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School
District Board Los Gatos, CA
Iyar Rupar Owner, Pura Wellness; philanthropist Los Gatos, CA Montonye Reese Laura Agriculture Fairness Alliance; Vegan Justice League Los Gatos, CA Moore Rob LG Anti-Racism Coalition; Plant-Based Advocates Los Gatos, CA Owens Heidi Community leader Los Gatos, CA
Preville Bruce CERT Leader, Los Gatos Los Gatos, CA
Romano Andrea Owner, Centonove Restaurant Los Gatos, CA Spargo Alicia Outreach Coordinator, Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition Los Gatos, CA Residents of Los Gatos
Aidi Karen Los Gatos, CA
Anji Roberto Los Gatos, CA
Arienzo Wendy Los Gatos, CA
Arroyo Frank Los Gatos, CA
Arroyo Susie Los Gatos, CA
Bagatelos Mary Ann Los Gatos, CA
Balijepalli Priya Los Gatos, CA
Balakrishnan Jeyendran Los Gatos, CA
Barden Ben Los Gatos, CA
Barden Sue Los Gatos, CA
Barnett Kaitlyn Los Gatos, CA
Bay Juliana Los Gatos, CA
Bayne Daphne Los Gatos, CA
Bernholz Malte Los Gatos, CA
Biller Jason Physician Los Gatos, CA
Bolen JP Los Gatos, CA
Bolen Rachel Los Gatos, CA
Booth Sandra Los Gatos, CA
Bora Anita Los Gatos, CA
Bosworth Mary Ann Los Gatos, CA

Boyd Sandy Los Gatos, CA
Brzak Lukas Los Gatos, CA
Burkhart Chris Los Gatos, CA
Bz Linda Los Gatos, CA
Cao Xuong Los Gatos, CA
Cappon-Javey Maureen Los Gatos, CA
Carol Amy Los Gatos, CA
Carpio Virginia Los Gatos, CA
I support putting into the General Plan a plant based education program.

There are several benefits from such a program, including potentially better general health and a healthier air quality in our community from consuming less meat, i.e., raising fewer animals that contribute to the increase of methane gas.

I think this program would be very good for our community and far beyond it.

Chavez Vana Los Gatos, CA
Christensen Beverly Los Gatos, CA
Christensen John Los Gatos, CA
Cisneroz Diane Larson Los Gatos, CA
Corini Tamara Los Gatos, CA
Dai Biller Jenny Physician Los Gatos, CA
Davies Tiffany Physician Los Gatos, CA
Davies Mark Physician Los Gatos, CA
De Cesare Anne Marie Los Gatos, CA
De Louraille Karen Los Gatos, CA
Czinski Laura Los Gatos, CA
Deak David Los Gatos, CA
Dempsey Caroline Los Gatos, CA
DeMaria Dawn Los Gatos, CA
Dickinson Ilene Los Gatos, CA
Dickinson Roger Los Gatos, CA
Dillehay Kristine Los Gatos, CA
Dreiger Jeannie Los Gatos, CA
Dreher Diane Los Gatos, CA
Erdengiz Sevgi Los Gatos, CA
Evjenth Gail Los Gatos, CA
Evjenth Tim Los Gatos, CA
Fletcher Lisa Los Gatos, CA
Fox Audrey Los Gatos, CA
Fox Larry Owner, Valet Custom Cabients Los Gatos, CA
Frager Bernadette Los Gatos, CA
Freedom Rea Los Gatos, CA
Pollution and waste in Factory Farms;, use of land for meat production, killing of wildlife and use acres of land to support livestock; nets in the ocean killing millions of sea creatures; all contribute to climate change.

Reducing meat consumption is something we all can do. Please place plant based education in the general plan. It is the right thing to so.

Garland Lynette Los Gatos, CA
Gibbons Maria Eugenia Los Gatos, CA

Goldberg Kristine Los Gatos, CA
Goldberg Michael Los Gatos, CA
Griffin Julie Los Gatos, CA
Gupta Reeta Los Gatos, CA
Gummow Todd Los Gatos, CA I support plant based diet education programs Hamilton Georgia Los Gatos, CA
Hamilton Scott Los Gatos, CA
Harrison Julia Los Gatos, CA
Hassoun Joe Los Gatos, CA
Haylock Archna Los Gatos, CA Yes we need more options at school and at local restaurants.

Hemmis Matt Los Gatos, CA
Hendry Dan Los Gatos, CA
Hendry Wendy Los Gatos, CA
Hinsche Danielle Los Gatos, CA
I am a resident of Los Gatos and I support the addition of a plant-based education program in the Town’s 2040 General Plan.

Hiroshima Kevin Los Gatos, CA
Hojjat Sara
District Leader Volunteer- California Congressional
District 18. Member of Plant-Based Advocates Los Gatos, CA Honorio Mia Los Gatos, CA
Houghton John Los Gatos, CA
Howe Chelsea Los Gatos, CA
Hsieh Cynthia Los Gatos, CA I would love to see a vegan, zero waste restaraunt in Los Gatos.

Huang Jenny Los Gatos, CA
Hussey Jacklyn Los Gatos, CA Anything that will help save our planet I will definitely support! Ingle Lori Los Gatos, CA
Isaacs Varily Los Gatos, CA
Iyer Harish Los Gatos, CA
Javey Shahram Los Gatos, CA
Jog Chetan Los Gatos, CA
Johnson Karen Los Gatos, CA
Johnston Jan Los Gatos, CA
Juhl Linda Los Gatos, CA Thank you
Kamali Kristine Los Gatos, CA
Karavelioglu Sevil Los Gatos, CA
Keating Kathleen Los Gatos, CA
I believe it is to the best interest of Los Gatos to establish a plant based education program at the high school and for the general public. I believe many of our children and others need to know that plant based eating is good for their bodies if done right. Please provide funding for an education for plant based eating. Please sponsor cooking classes as well.

Keller Lisa Los Gatos, CA Love it. Yes!!
Koch Charlene Foster Los Gatos, CA I would LOVE to see this happen!! So very needed.

Koke Cynthia Los Gatos, CA
Kollu Badrinath Los Gatos, CA
Kurlin Carolyn Los Gatos, CA
Kurlin Gregg Los Gatos, CA
Kurtz Karen Los Gatos, CA
Lasso Alberto Los Gatos, CA

Lawton Ann Los Gatos, CA YES!
Lazzarino Dominic Los Gatos, CA
Le Denise Los Gatos, CA
I’m not a vegan or vegetarian but I’d love to incorporate more plant based and less meat protein to my diet.

Leeds Felice Los Gatos, CA
Lesko Camille Los Gatos, CA Cooking classes are a great idea! Levine Joshua Los Gatos, CA
Levine Marni Los Gatos, CA
Lewis Jessica Los Gatos, CA
Education is key for this important information. Thanks to all involved in making this happen!
Lammers Victoria Los Gatos, CA Need more vegetarian places/options Li Van Los Gatos, CA
Liu Andre Los Gatos, CA
Liu Calista Los Gatos, CA
Liu Gabriela Los Gatos, CA
Lockman Juliana Los Gatos, CA
Lorig Glenn Los Gatos, CA
Lorig Sue Ann Los Gatos, CA
Lowe Debbie Los Gatos, CA
McKinnon Skyler Los Gatos, CA
Madduri Sandeep Los Gatos, CA
Malhotra Priti Los Gatos, CA
Malhotra Neeraj Los Gatos, CA
Mandurrago Gloria Los Gatos, CA A fantastic idea!
Margolis Sonya Los Gatos, CA
McGill Alex Los Gatos, CA
McInerny Celeste Los Gatos, CA
Menhardt Trixi Los Gatos, CA
Mordaunt Joshua Los Gatos, CA
Newlin Kerry Los Gatos, CA
Mager Nan Los Gatos, CA
Mano Robin Los Gatos, CA
Martins Rosilene Los Gatos, CA
Meinhardt Suzanne Los Gatos, CA
Miramontes Emily Los Gatos, CA
Morley Eric Los Gatos, CA
Nguyen Kim Los Gatos, CA
Niederauer Tricia Los Gatos, CA
North Pamela Los Gatos, CA
O'Connor Rebecca Los Gatos, CA
O'Toole June Los Gatos, CA
Park Monica Los Gatos, CA
Parker Dana Los Gatos, CA
Parsons Daniel Los Gatos, CA
Parsons Debbie Los Gatos, CA

Parsons Jackie Los Gatos, CA
Parsons James Los Gatos, CA
Parsons John Los Gatos, CA
Patel Minal Los Gatos, CA
Rai Vivek Los Gatos, CA Yes, I am in for plant based projects.

Raad Mona Los Gatos, CA
Raad Ellie Los Gatos, CA
Ramaswamy Vinay Los Gatos, CA
Ram Amrith Los Gatos, CA
Ramesh Mythri Los Gatos, CA Made verbal comments at GPAC Reese Dirk Los Gatos, CA
Rennie Isabella Los Gatos, CA
Reyna Melody Los Gatos, CA
Reyna Orlando Los Gatos, CA
Rhine Molly Los Gatos, CA
Richter Jessica Los Gatos, CA
Riley Kate Los Gatos, CA
Rittenhouse Simone Los Gatos, CA
Robinson Kari Los Gatos, CA
Rovin Lynne Los Gatos, CA
Rovin Stuart Los Gatos, CA
Rubio Karen CERT volunteer Los Gatos, CA Made verbal comments at Town council meeting for 2040 General plan Rubio Fred Los Gatos, CA
Rubio Erik Los Gatos, CA
Rude Christina Los Gatos, CA
Ry Regina Los Gatos, CA
Sand Gretchen Los Gatos, CA
Sardana Manan Los Gatos, CA
Sarkar Prasenjit Los Gatos, CA
Sathyamurthy Shreelatha Los Gatos, CA I strongly support this initiative.

Schirmer Lisa Los Gatos, CA
Schwartz Jan Los Gatos, CA
Shah Bhanik Los Gatos, CA
Shah Swati Los Gatos, CA I support the local effort!
Shoff Sue Los Gatos, CA
Seshadri Sruba Los Gatos, CA
Smith Angie Los Gatos, CA
Smith Rucy Climate Reality presenter and activist Los Gatos, CA Sneddon Laura Los Gatos, CA
Snyder Stephen Los Gatos, CA
Srinivasan Kiran Los Gatos, CA
Starov Vladimir Los Gatos, CA I fully support this worthy cause! Stillinger Kelsey Los Gatos, CA
Would love to see more emphasis on plant-based diet - through restaurants, education, community garden, etc.

Stone Helen Los Gatos, CA

Stone Paul Los Gatos, CA
Streicker Robin Los Gatos, CA
Tompkins Liz Los Gatos, CA
Venkatesan Arun Los Gatos, CA
Venkatsubramanyan Shailaja Los Gatos, CA Made verbal comments at GPAC Von Luehrte Missy Los Gatos, CA
Vuckovich Melissa Los Gatos, CA
Waters Michelle Los Gatos, CA
Wade Christopher Los Gatos, CA
Wade Lisa Los Gatos, CA Gave verbal comments at GPAC
Wade Lucas Los Gatos, CA
Wade Stephen Los Gatos, CA
Wade Charles Audobon Society Lifetime Achievement Award Los Gatos, CA Wales Pamela
CERT; Animal search and rescue disaster response
team; animal sanctuary volunteer Los Gatos, CA
Walker Kelsey Los Gatos, CA
Waters Michelle Los Gatos, CA
Wentzien Erin Los Gatos, CA
White Tony Los Gatos, CA
White Hillary Los Gatos, CA
Willey Kathleen Los Gatos, CA Gave verbal comments at GPAC Willey Mark Los Gatos, CA
Willing Lara Los Gatos, CA Plant based eating is part of a long term solution.

Wilson Beth Los Gatos, CA
Yannoni Mike Los Gatos, CA
Yosfee Hanley Los Gatos, CA
Zilka Stephanie Los Gatos, CA
Let’s join the scientific community and educate people about the importance of plant based living!!! It’s vital to the survival of our planet and species!!!
Organizations Endorsing our Proposal
Plant-Based Advocates of Los Gatos http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com/ TWW/Indivisible-Los Gatos https://www.twwlg.org/
Sierrra Club Loma-Prieta https://www.sierraclub.org/loma-prieta Center for Biological Diversity https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ Provided Written testomony on behalf of our proposal Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet https://www.acterra.org/ Eat for the Earth (Based in Santa Cruz)
https://www.eatfortheearth.org/
SAFE Worldwide https://www.safeworldwide.org/ (Based in Monte Sereno)

Green Monday USA https://greenmondayus.org/
Factory Farm Awareness Coalition https://www.ffacoalition.org/ A Well-Fed World https://awellfedworld.org/
Physicians Against Red Meat https://pharm.org/
Other Community and Business Leaders
Hicks Alison City Council Member of Mountain View
Ramirez Lucas Vice Mayor of Mountain View and Council Member Brook Dan Professor at SJSU; author; environmentalist San Jose State University Gurunathan Mohan
Environmentalist; designed Mountain View plant-based
outreach program Mountain View, CA
Love Beth
Environmentalist; Founder of Eat for the Earth, a Santa Cruz-based group promoting plant-based diets for
sustainability Santa Cruz, CA
Mackey Mary
Actress; Model; SAG BookPals program (reading to
children in homeless shelters) and LIFE (Living in
Freedom Everyday) Program, teaching life skills to
inmates San Jose, CA
Middlesworth Linda Owner, V-Dog; health coach Sacramento, CA Sehgal Tony Documentary Filmmaker Saratoga, CA
Support from Neighboring Residents
Adalja Anish San Jose, CA
Anand Monico San Jose, CA
Balachandran Jackie San Jose, CA
As a vegetarian of 17 yrs and a registered nurse, I strongly support this plant-based education program because I believe it will help improve the health of members in our community.

Berlinberg Jacqueline Monte Sereno, CA
Bengt Amanda San Jose, CA
Bevard Mariah Monte Sereno, CA
Castro Jennifer San Jose, CA
I support adding an education component to the Los Gatos 2040 plan which would educate citizens about plant-based foods.

Chaykin Lori Monte Sereno, CA
Chugh Rahul San Jose, CA
Duguma Jemanesh Campbell, CA
East Rowena San Jose, CA
Emerson Ziba San Jose, CA Good job.

Giacomini-McDonald Cathy Monte Sereno, CA
Guh Teresa Monte Sereno, CA

Harrold Kat Campbell, CA
Thank you for this, I frequent Los Gatos so this would be great to see. Also I believe in the power of empowering our local farmers, and the more money we can get them, the better for everybody locally. Back to our roots! Better for the planet and better for everyone
Isis Dawn Campbell, CA
Though I don't live IN Los Gatos, I hope my support will indicate interest in this important issue in the wider area, & that Los Gatos may become a model for addressing it.

Jain Beena San Jose, CA I support the educational program.

Kinger Amit San Jose, CA
Lambert Jennifer Monte Sereno, CA
Lanzl Linda Monte Sereno, CA
Matar Elizabeth Monte Sereno, CA Thank you! Yes!!!
Matar Lisa Monte Sereno, CA Thank you! I’m completely in for this!! Mesler Michelle San Jose, CA
Mulchandani Mukesh Campbell, CA Moving to Los Gatos soon! Petroff Patrice Monte Sereno, CA
Ramirez Gustavo San Jose, CA
We need more plant based food options! The meat industry is cruel and unsustainable.

Renson Kellee Monte Sereno, CA Yes need more veggie places to eat Shearer David San Jose, CA I support this effort
Stolberg Robb Environmental Education: Veggielution, Walden West San Jose, CA Streicker Robin Monte Sereno, CA
Thakur Smita Saratoga, CA
I have been plant based for the last two years. It has made me healthier and it's the best thing for the planet. Would love to have more people join plant based way of life.

Woodhouse Dori San Jose, CA

May 5, 2021
Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner
Community Development Project
Town of Los Gatos
Via [email protected]
Dear Ms. Armer,
On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and our California members, I thank you for considering food sustainability initiatives and emissions strategies in the Los Gatos General Plan. The Center strongly supports these actions.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national conservation nonprofit with nearly 2 million members and supporters. Our expertise is grounded in a staff of scientists and legal experts tackling crucial issues like climate change and effective mitigation strategies. Food emissions are a substantial part of global and national human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Studies show we cannot meet climate mitigation targets without tackling emissions from the food and agriculture sector, and namely by shifting diets toward lower emissions foods. The agriculture sector accounts for as much as 37%1of global greenhouse gas emissions. Food procurement is an important opportunity to reduce consumption-driven emissions.

Most emissions come from only a few types of foods. The foods with the highest emissions are meat and dairy products,
2 which are responsible for approximately half of all food-related emissions and 16%34 of
global greenhouse gases. The overproduction (and consumption) of meat and dairy come with a high cost to the climate,
5 as well as to water6, land7, and biodiversity8. Tracking institutional food purchases and shifting toward climate-friendly foods is a crucial climate solution that also has health and other environmental benefits.

Unfortunately, some sustainability initiatives overlook the need to address overproduction of animalbased foods in their commitments. Instead, municipal plans should build on frameworks of supporting 1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019). Special Report on Climate Change and Land Use. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.
2 Our World in Data (2020). Environmental Impacts of Food Production. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local. 3 Calculated using the 2017 online update to the FAO 2013 GLEAM assessment that estimates the livestock sector emitted 8.1 GT CO2eq in 2010 (using 298 and 34 as global warming potentials for N20 and CH4, based on the IPCC 2014 report). The IPCC 2014 report estimates total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 of 49 GT CO2eq. See: FAO, Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) [online], Rome, www.fao.org/gleam/en/ and IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer (eds.)], IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (2014), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf. 4 Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., ... & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e.pdf. 5 University of Michigan. Center for Sustainable Systems (2017). Carbon Footprint Factsheet. http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Carbon%20Footprint_CSS09-05_e2020_0.pdf. 6 Water Footprint Network (2021). Water Footprint of Crop and Animal Products: A Comparison. https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/. 7 Carbon Brief (2021). Interactive: What is the Climate Footprint of Eating Meat and Dairy? CarbonBrief.org. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/what-is-the-climate-impact-of-eating-meat-and-dairy/. 8 Center for Biological Diversity (2021). Extinction Facts. TakeExtinctionOffYourPlate.com.

2 environmental goals through procurement, in line with similar efforts regarding recycled and sustainable products and local food. Food procurement has a significant impact9on the environment and overall municipal emissions and can often be addressed by resolution or executive directive requiring government food purchases to meet specific guidelines.

Making a moderate shift toward climate-friendly menus can make a big difference in advancing sustainability goals, particularly emissions targets. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change10 affirmed we have only a decade left to avoid irreversible climate damage. This fact has driven municipalities to include meat and dairy reductions as key factors in emissions reductions and sustainability policies, including the initiatives recommended to add to the Los Gatos General Plan.

For example, Los Angeles, California recently joined the C-40 cities initiative; and Santa Monica, CA integrated food procurement commitments into their Climate Action Plan and committed to a 15% reduction of meat and dairy procurement to meet its emissions targets; Carrboro, North Carolina has set food emissions targets in their Climate Action Plan and set a goal to reduce emissions from consumption by 50% by 2025; Denver, CO found emissions from food procurement accounted for 14% of overall emissions, nearly equal to emissions from residential energy and gasoline-powered vehicles.

Reducing beef procurement – if replaced with plant-based foods - would immediately help reduce the city’s emissions as beef emits more greenhouse gases than any other food.11 Beef is also a particularly water-intensive process that depletes vital watersheds, from the Colorado River to local waterways. 12 Thus, reducing beef procurement also supports water conservation goals. Given California’s drought, wildfires and extreme weather, municipalities must do what they can to support water-saving efforts.

Cities and townships must strive to mitigate the emissions associated with municipal operations.

Increasing support for local produce growers will also improve engagement with farmers markets and local food hubs, bringing economic benefits to your community. Similarly, increasing access to healthy, climate-friendly foods with city-supported neighborhood-based community gardens bring equitable solutions for those who lack access to healthy, sustainable foods.

Sustainable food policies can increase climate resilience, help eradicate poverty13, improve public health and equity, and protect biodiversity.
14 The urgency of these issues and the health of the planet demand action to transform unsustainable food systems.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Molidor, Ph.D.

Senior Food Campaigner
Center for Biological Diversity
BiologicalDiversity.org
[email protected]
9 United Nation System Standing Committee on Nutrition (2017). Sustainable Diets for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet. https://www.unscn.org/uploads/web/news/document/Climate-Nutrition-Paper-EN-WEB.pdf. 10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018). Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5c. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. 11 Our World in Data (2020). Environmental Impacts of Food Production. https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local. 12 Richter, B. (2020). Water Sustainability and Fish Imperilment Driven by Beef Production. Nature Sustainability. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/59918.
13 Smith, P. (2012). “Climate Change and Sustainable Food Production.” Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/climate-change-and-sustainable-foodproduction/DE02043AE462DF7F91D88FD4349D38E7. 14Food and Agriculture Organization (2010). Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. http://www.fao.org/3/i3004e/i3004e.pdf.