Item 4 - Addendum with Attachments
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 05/06/2021
ITEM: 4
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: May 5, 2021
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Forward a Recommendation to the Planning Commission and Town Council for
Adoption of the Draft 2040 General Plan.
REMARKS:
Attachment 4 contains comments from Committee Members.
Attachment 5 contains public comments received after the completion of the Staff Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the May 6, 2021 Staff Report:
1. Draft 2040 General Plan
2. GPAC Revised Vision and Guiding Principles
3. Committee Member Comments
Attachments received with this Addendum:
4. Committee Member Comments
5. Public Comment
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 4
From: Todd Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, May 1, 2021 8:37 AM
To: Alexa Nolder
Cc: Jennifer Armer; Joel Paulson; Sally Zarnowitz; Jocelyn Fong
Subject: RE: Guidance from Chair--finishing the work of the GPAC
Importance: High
Dear Committee:
After careful review of the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, I found the chapter
including all subsections to be consistent with the Vision and Guiding Principles. Element 6 is well done
and complete in my opinion.
Beyond the scope of this review were two small things that I want to note. On page 2 of element six,
the definition of aquifer refers to “a usable supply for people’s uses.” Although technically correct, the
word people may not conform to customary uses of water relating to an aquifer. One other minor thing
is on page 12 of section 6 under Childcare. Los Gatos is actually a city called the Town of Los
Gatos. However in this paragraph “Los Gatos Town” is not a formal name so the word town should not
be capitalized. Town in this instance should not be capitalized because it only describes the noun, Los
Gatos (which is short for the Town of Los Gatos).
In review of the Introduction, I have found this section to be consistent and quite well done to explain
the vision and flow of the structure of the general plan. This section has my approval.
Todd Jarvis
Commissioner GPAC
Memo
To: General Plan Update Advisory Committee 2040
Fr: Carol Elias Zolla
Corrections/Comments to the Public Facilities, et al and Intro/Vision/Guiding Principals
Public Facilities, et al
I know I am not supposed to comment on type-os, but I see a few that should be corrected:
Page 6-5, PFS-1.5 – It looks like words are missing in this description.
Page 6-10, PFS-7.9 – Remove “the prioritization of” as it’s redundant to “giving priority”.
Page 6-31, PFS-25.2 – Change “of the Los Gatos” to “of Los Gatos residents”.
Pages 6-33 and 6-34 – Some of the headers on these implementation programs are not bolded.
Intro/Vision/Guiding Principals
Page 1-10, Table 1-1 – I am confused why in the Public Facilities, et al there are a number of PFS goals
and policies that mention Environmental Justice, but “Environmental Justice” isn’t checked in this table.
GP Draft Full review: edits and comments—Kathryn Janoff
First I’d like to say how much I have enjoyed serving on the GPAC and working with such a great and
dedicated group of individuals. I’ve learned a lot from each of you. Thank you!! I found this draft to be
a very good product. Generally, it reads well, is comprehensive, understandable and reflects guidance
the GPAC has provided.
I did find a few inconsistency or missing items noted below.
Inconsistency/Missing Items:
▪ Review of the general plan: 5-10 years (p. 1-3), 5 years or as needed (pg. 3-30), and every 10
years (implementation program J, pg 3-33). Staff can choose the timeframe hey prefer and make
the sections consistent.
▪ RSEJ, Policy RSEJ-2.9: In light of the work ongoing to change some longstanding policing
approaches, and considering the input from the public, I think what we mean to say is a bit
different. Consider replacing this policy with the following language:
Strengthen the Town’s longstanding commitment to public safety by proactively reaching out to
community members to hear concerns about policing and work collaboratively with police and
community to find viable solutions.
▪ Related to the above comments, Pg. 6-19: Highlighted box: this is only lightly covered in RSEJ.
Recommend deleting this box.
▪ In general: we have not addressed protecting neighbor’s views in residential remodels. CD-2.14
is new development and street layouts, and CD-5.5 applies to hillside development, and
elsewhere we have viewsheds.
Pg, 8-4, ENV-1 focuses on developments and viewsheds, but no word about protecting views
during residential remodel. This seems a good place to include a policy that discourages the
elimination of views due to unnecessary mass and scale.
▪ PFS-4 (or elsewhere in PFS) is lacking a policy encouraging to USE of recycled or recyclable
materials to begin with. Revise PFS-4.1 to include this.
Please note the following pages are editing nits for staff and the consultants.
General Edits
Throughout: Many of the Implementation Programs titles are not in BOLD FONT.
Figure titles should be consistently below the graphic. See Element 3 in particular.
I was confused with the alignment of SUS, EIR and other links under the policies, then I realized that was
intentional. I would have just kept them always left adjusted.
1. Introduction
Pg. 1-7
First paragraph under regional setting: replace semi-colons with commas (two places) and delete the
word “is” before south.
Urban service area: remove the word “in”
Pg. 1-14, Figure 1-3: two typos: in the Goal Statement box, replace “on” with “of” And in the Goal/Policy
box, delete the word “if”
2. RSEJ
Replace semi-colons with commas in the first paragraph
Third paragraph, first sentence, delete the word “compared”
Pg 6-6, PFS-1.5 is incomplete
3. Land Use
Pg. 3-1, first paragraph, second to last sentence, replace “focused” with “prompted”
Pg. 3-4, formatting: move Table 3-1 down to avoid the orphaned sentence.
Pg. 3-5, first paragraph, second sentence, replace semi colon with comma
Pg. 3-18, Policy LU-10.2: change “mixed-uses” to “mixed-use”
Pg. 3-23: Commercial District bullet, shouldn’t it be “Victory Lane to the west”?
Figure 3-9 and 4-10 (same figure in two elements), change the key to “Historic Commercial District”
Pg. 3-26 (and three other places: pgs. 4-2, 4-19), we say Community Place Districts were identified.
Which is passive voice. Recommend (tiny but mighty) change to “are identified”
4. Community Design
Pg. 4-8, CD-2.9, the phrase “incorporate transit” creates awkward phrasing. Suggest removing it. It’s
generally covered with multi-modal, but how would developers incorporate transit?
Pg. 4-15
Spell out GHG (this is the first time we’ve seen the acronym)
Second paragraph, replace semi colons with commas.
CD-3.1 add a SUS link
CD-3.5, should we add “to the HPC for review and recommendation prior to review by the Planning
Commission” (similar to policy 3.4 above)?
Pg. 4-19
First paragraph, last sentence: change “neighborhoods; thus, creating . . .“ to “neighborhoods, thus
creating . . .”
List of bullets should have semi-colons if the standard format is to be followed.
Pg. 4-21, first paragraph, third sentence, delete “this area” before “the Downtown Community”.
Pg. 4-23, should CD-8.2 and 8.5 have a SUS link?
Pg. 4-26, second paragraph, second to last line, change “a place which” to “a place where”
Formatting, pages 4-27 and -28, minimize both figures, and place side by side on 4-27, so this section
stays together without an orphaned figure.
Figure 4-17 not particularly needed. Suggest deleting.
Page 4-35, above the goal, this is the “North Los Gatos” district. Not Lark.
Page 4-42
Sentence above the goal statement should read “Neighborhood-Oriented District” not Union Avenue.
Figure 4-23 should be deleted. It isn’t referenced here (or anywhere), shows Pollard Road, and is not an
attractive image
5. Mobility Element
Middle of first paragraph, replace “impacts from transportation” to “impacts from motor vehicles”
Pg. 5-3
Second paragraph, change to “retain an LOS . . .”
MOB-1.2: insert “vehicle” after employee
Pg. 5-17, MOB-13.5: Should have an implementation program, or maybe the IP should be related to
implementing the Comprehensive Parking Study (I found no IP for implementing the study)
6. Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure
Pg. 6-11: Youth Services. Add the RSJ Commission. This is a critical commission and should include
youth serving in this capacity too.
Pg. 6-14
Delete the Operation CARE program. It’s mentioned on the previous page.
Move Housing and Measure A to follow Public Health (before Youth Services) on page 6-10, and revise
to NOT focus solely on seniors.
Pg. 6-15
The HC icon looks odd to me floating around. At least move it to left adjust under the Goal statement
PFS-9.1 says ½ mile for recreation. Elsewhere we stipulate 1 mile for shopping and amenities. Should
this also be 1 mile?
Pg. 6-16, PFS-12, typo: replace “is safe” with “are safe”
Pg. 6-18, second to last paragraph. Is the School Resource Officer still a PD role, or has this changed in
light of recent complaints?
Pg. 6-19
Highlighted box: this is NOT covered in RSEJ. But I can see adding a policy to make this a true statement.
PFS-18.1: insert “CPTED in” : :Emphasize the use of CPTED principles in physical site planning . . .”
Pg. 6-20: second paragraph, first sentence, insert SCCFD before Administrative
Pg. 6-26
Urgent care facilities: is this likely to remain just 3 facilities for the next 20 years? Suggest” “Los Gatos is
also supported by urgent care facilities located throughout the Town, including CareNow which also
provides . . .”
School districts: is Loma Prieta SD also to be mentioned? The LG hill residents attend and it’s a feeder to
LGHS
Pg. 6-27: Add Noddin Elementary to the map and under the Union School District paragraph on the next
page. Noddin is in SJ, but LG residents in the Belwood neighborhood attend.
Pg. 6-28: Under lifelong learning, last line, change daycare to childcare
Pg. 6-31, PFS-25.4, delete “consistent with the small-town character of LG.” I don’t have any clue what
this would mean. And feels a little elitist or some such.
(Pg. 6-31, 6-32, same issue with the floating EJ and HC links . . .)
Lots of unbolded IP titles in this section
Pg 3-64, IP O, add LEED certification or similar??
Pg. 6-35, IP X is not tied to a specific policy and it’s a not a good fit with PFS-11. Fits better with PFS-10.1
7. Open Space
Pg. 7-5, OSP-1.3 could use SUS Link
Pg. 7-11. IP G is a 10-year program, but the annual box is indicated.
8. Environment and Sustainability
Since this is the sustainability element, do we need all the SUS links??
Pg. 8-1, third paragraph, delete sentence “The discussion of Historic districts. . .” Doesn’t seem to fit
here.
Pg. 8-9, ENV-7.6: add pesticides in the title
Pg. 8-11: insert (GHG) acronym in title. Or, if that’s not Town style guide, spell GHG out in the first
sentence and define the acronym there.
Last paragraph, second sentence: Los Gatos should be a possessive: Los Gatos’
Pg. 8-16, ENV-13.3 add a SUS link
Pg. 8-17
ENV-13.6 add a SUS link
13.7, insert word “museum” between library and private
8.8, first paragraph, replace “traditionally” with “once”
Last paragraph, after the word grading, insert “has occurred or”
Pg. 8-27, ENV-19.2, Figure should be 8-6
Pg. 8-29, IP N, I think the idea is bird collision with windows, not bird collision with anything else . . .
Check this set of IPs for bold font
9. Hazards & Safety
Pg. 9-4
HAZ-1.5: did we agree require is OK?
9.2, first paragraph, second sentence, move the word “increase” to follow impacts:
“ . . . change-related impacts increase, such as . . . , there will be . . .”
Third paragraph in 9.2, remove first sentence. Already stated in first paragraph.
Pg. 9-6, HAZ-3.5: change “control” to “remove”
Pg. 9-7, third paragraph last word, change “largest” to “most severe magnitude” or “highest magnitude”
Pg. 9-15 and 9-16: fix formatting to left-adjust policies under their titles (two places this page and one
place next page)
Melanie Hanssen
Comments on Preliminary Draft General Plan
April 2021
Overall, this is an excellent document that does accomplish the Vision and Guiding Principles.
There are some typos in the document, but I will leave that to others. These are comments of
consistency and clarity. There are a few places that need modifications to policies or goals for clarity and
consistency.
Introduction
Page 1-3 Maintaining the General Plan
There are several places where review and update are mentioned and they all have different timelines.
This is not consistent. Need to clear this up.
I think the intent is to review annually and then do a thorough update every 10 years. That (10-year
update) is what Implementation Program J talks about. Yet policy LU-19.1 mentions “every 5 years or as
needed”.
Just be consistent.
Racial, Social and Environmental Justice Element
RSEJ-1.4
Since we added a policy on affordable housing, need to add a box linking to the Land Use and Housing
Elements for more information. Also, should cross reference from Land Use Element to this. We can
add cross reference from Housing Element when that element is updated.
RSEJ-2.9 and RSEJ-2.10
These two policies are too vague. First of all, a “why” would help for each of these policies and then per
comments in the PFS element, do we have any examples of de-escalation methods and techniques that
we can mention here?
Land Use Element
Key Terms—Is there a reason we do not define ADU in this section? We show ADUs as 500 units in 3.1
General Plan buildout and it is discussed and illustrated in 3.2 Missing Middle Housing.
3.1 General Plan Residential Buildout
This table is vastly improved over the previous version. However, it would be much clearer if we could
state the number of housing units we are starting with so community members can understand the
relative growth.
LU-5.6 Walkable Neighborhoods
Maybe it is just me, but this reads like we are not encouraging walkable neighborhoods in the hillsides. It
certainly is true that we do not desire to add neighborhood commercial to the hillsides, but we certainly
do want walkable neighborhoods in the hillsides where appropriate. I think this could be clarified.
LU-6—Housing in hillsides
Suggest moving policy CD-5.2 to LU-6. The reason is that we are talking about housing growth in this
section and as we have seen repeatedly in the past year, developers are looking at opportunities to
subdivide hillsides parcels to “add needed housing” and we do not want to encourage that. Policy CD-
5.2 talks about limiting housing growth in the hillsides and it is more effective to state this in land use vs.
Community Design. Further, there is Implementation Program D in this element that talks about
studying downzoning in the hillsides.
Community Design
CD-2.33 Landscaped Medians
This talks about drought tolerant plants but is not designated as a SUS policy.
CD-2.34 Sustainable Landscape Design
While the concept of minimizing water use in landscaping is covered elsewhere, this policy suggests that
all we have to do to be sustainable in landscaping is to maximize the use of trees, but we also need to
plant drought tolerant plants and use low water irrigation. Either need to clarify this policy or change
the title to something about Trees vs. Sustainable Landscape Design.
Sustainable Design
Since this was reduced to just two policies and sustainable building design principles are mentioned in
other places, need to add a box cross referencing to other places where sustainable building design is
mentioned (for example Environment and Sustainability Element).
CD-5.2 Hillside Development Limitation
As mentioned in Land Use, move this policy to LU-6.
Page 4-35
CD-11
Goal CD-11 and all policies apply to BOTH the Winchester and Lark Districts, yet the sentence before CD-
11 only says Lark.
CD-11.7 Zero Setbacks
Change title to Reduced Setbacks as we are not specifying zero setbacks.
Cross referencing to Hazards and Safety—please cross reference where appropriate in both Land Use
and Community Design to HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 which pertain to fire safety.
Mobility Element
Key Terms
Complete Streets definition seems like it is missing part of it—trees and bioswales. It is discussed in the
Community Design Element for the LG Boulevard District.
MOB-2 Provide continuous, safe and efficient bikeway and pedestrian facilities
Like that bike and ped policies were combined, however, the policies are heavier towards bikes and less
so for pedestrians. There are detailed descriptions of pedestrian enhancements in the Community
Design Element. Suggest modifying MOB-2.11 to talk about the best practices for pedestrian
enhancements vs. just “adequate width of roadway clearance”. For example, wider sidewalks, mid-block
crossings, etc. Then maybe add cross reference boxes in both elements.
MOB-4.4 Limit widening of all roadways
Realize that this is a forward-looking plan, but right now there is N40 construction adding a third turning
lane from LG Boulevard to Lark. So, can we really say this?
MOB-6 Increase public transit opportunities for all types of trips.
While it is already covered that we want growth in the Winchester District as it is a Community Place
District, is it worth adding a policy here talking about encouraging substantial new housing near the
Vasona Light Rail Extension to help justify the extension?
MOB-7.4 Regional Transportation Needs
This policy would benefit from “why” which I think is “to provide Los Gatos community members greater
connectivity to surrounding communities in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area as a whole”.
MOB-10.2: Level of Service
Has it been decided that the Traffic Impact Policy will be based solely on LOS? Do we need to add a
reference to VMT here as well?
MOB-11 SR 17
I know this has been discussed early in the process, but are MOB-11.1 and MOB-11.3 consistent with
viable and recent options to reduce beach traffic going through Los Gatos?
MOB-12 Hillside streets
Think we need to remove the word “continuous” from the goal. On my street, for example, there are
two fire gates preventing through car traffic from Santa Rosa to Harwood. This was done to reduce cut-
through traffic and speed on my street and on Harwood. Continuous seems to imply “through”.
5.9 Implementation Programs
Do we need a Complete Streets Plan in addition to the Complete Streets Policy? Or is this covered under
Program M Transportation Master Plan?
Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure
Since we moved Health Community from Land Use to this Element, should there be a mention of this in
the intro? It seems like it could be briefly mentioned for consistency.
PFS-4 Recycling and Reuse
PFS-4.1 Recycling of Reusable Materials
I am not sure we can require this. West Valley Collection and Recycling has significant limits on building
materials that can be recycled. Maybe change require to encourage and/or add “when feasible”.
Additional policy? Maybe add a policy or implementation program to help identify ways to procure
recycled or reuse construction/building materials.
6.6 Public Facilities and Services
I think this is too focused on youth and seniors. At a minimum we need cross referencing to the RSEJ
Element and vice versa.
Further, suggest moving Housing and Measure A from page 6-14 as it seems to be focused only on
seniors. Move to the beginning of page 6-11 before Youth Services. Also need to modify the verbiage of
Housing to talk about the range of affordable housing opportunities for all.
Page 6-13 Recreation Locations
Why isn’t the Creekside Sports Park listed here?
PFS-8—need to remove “including youth and seniors” from this goal. It implies a focus on youth and
seniors when we have expanded focus to all vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. This way everyone is
covered.
PFS-17
Box referencing RSEJ talks about policing “de-escalation methods and techniques”, but there are no
details on methods and techniques for this in the RSEJ Element. Either remove this box or edit the box
and/or add more detail to RSEJ.
PFS-23 Educational and Financial Support system
Remove “regardless of age and location”. It implies we are not considering other issues like income,
race, etc.
6.14 Implementation Programs
Implementation Programs T and U are redundant and can be combined. Youth are covered with one of
these.
Environment and Sustainability Element
ENV-1 Viewsheds and Scenic Resources
An issue we face all the time at Planning Commission hearings is people tearing down their one-story
home and building two stories. It invariably blocks views of the mountains or the sun or light.
Do we need a policy here about remodels vs. new development? Or is this better handled in the
Residential Design Guidelines?
ENV-7.9 and 7.10
These policies (Bird Safe and Dark Skies) are good adds to the GP but ENV-7 is about wildlife and does
not discuss anything about building design other than these two policies. Also Dark Skies is not just
about wildlife. Suggest moving these two policies to Community Design 4.2 for consistency/clarity. Dark
Skies can be added to Lighting and Bird Safe could be added to Architectural Elements.
Hazards and Safety
HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 Fire Safety needs to be cross referenced with Land Use/Community Design.
HAZ-4 Geologic hazards
This is a formatting issue, but there are 4 pages of charts separating HAZ 4.4 from HAZ-4.5. Is there a
better way to display?
General Plan Advisory
Committee
Memo
To: Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the Committee
From: Steve Piasecki
Date: May 6, 2021
Re:
Comments regarding the Vision statement, Guiding Principles and the Mobility
Element
1. Introduction
Vision Statement
Generally I think the Introduction is succinct, well written and well illustrated. However, I think the
present tense is confusing when presented in a vision statement. Please refer to my comments in the
memo of April 8, 2021 relating the vision and guiding principles. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution
uses the aspirational statement “in order to form a more perfect union…,” to describe the reason for
forming the United States of America. Similarly, we should be aspiring to be a more perfect community.
A few word changes could modify this from statement from “what is” to be aspirational. Such as:
“Los Gatos aspires to be”…insert any or all of the statements. Perhaps the staff/consultants
could offer an alternative aspiration statement.
Layout
I would move the acknowledgements to the appendix. In 5,10 or 20 years, nobody is going to care who
participated in the development of the plan. Also, the table of contents should include Section 10,
“Glossary and Acronyms.” Perhaps we could consolidate all of the key terms at the beginning of each
chapter into Section 10, then readers would only have to look in one place to find definitions and
acronyms? Just a thought…
Guiding Principles…add the term “Connectivity”
Connectivity should be a guiding principle. We spent a lot of time talking about breaking down barriers
to walking and bicycling and making sure our roads look and feel safe. Local streets should not act like
freeways with drivers barreling along with total disregard for those not encased in a steel cage.
Connectivity is necessary to having a strong sense community. Without connectivity we are just an
assemblage of disconnected homes and neighborhoods.
5. Mobility Element
The Mobility Element starts with the goal of "reducing vehicle Miles traveled.” While this is a worthy
goal that we discussed, I think it would be better to start with the goal MOB-5 of “reducing auto
dependence.” Our society-wide dependence on the automobile has cost us billions of dollars and
destroyed the fabric of our communities. Reducing auto dependence seems to be at the heart of all
that we discussed in terms of protecting neighborhoods, reducing cut-through traffic, and redesigning
our roads into “complete streets” to be safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The goals of managing vehicle congestion (MOD-1) or providing an…efficient…roadway network (MOB-
8) are in conflict with the goal of reducing auto dependence and reducing vehicle miles traveled. I would
accept less efficiency for autos and more congestion in exchange for calmer roads and safety for
pedestrian and bicycle that are necessary for building community and connectivity.
MOB-2.1 We should prioritize pedestrians throughout the Mobility Element. For instance, I would take
out the word “both” and include the word pedestrians in MOB-2.1.
MOB-4.3 states that we should require wide sidewalks of greater than five feet in commercial and
mixed-use areas. I would change the dimension to eight to ten feet.
MOB-4.5 Consider the needs of people with disabilities, etc. The word “consider” could be no more
than a single thought. I think this policy should include action words such “as plan” for and “include
facility improvements for”…etc.
MOB-5.1 Change the word from “encourage” to “prioritize” the use of non-driving transportation
modes.
MOB-6 should include an policy to evaluate extending the Vasona Light Rail into the downtown. If we
don’t dream big nobody is going to dream big for us. Imagine it could serve Vasona and the Downtown,
civic center and LGHS if extended only 2 miles from the planned Vasona Station.
MOB-9.4 is limited to the impacts of new development. I think it should be expanded to include any
existing impacts of non-residential development on residential neighborhoods such as downtown
traffic cutting through the Almond Grove or high school traffic parking and cutting through adjacent
neighborhoods. Our goal should be to eliminate all of the preferential parking areas.
MOB-13 should include a policy to minimize parking overflow from existing uses such as downtown, LG
High School or other schools throughout the community.
9. Hazards and Safety Element
HAZ-2.5 Fire Buffer Zones
The GPAC discussed “fire safety zones” at length. To put the term out there without a definition will
probably be confusing. I suggest we include a definition that talks about areas that are strategically
located in the probable path of future wild fires and the many techniques that should be considered
to preempt or reduce the hazard in these areas such as regularly clearing underbrush and dead
vegetation, installing automatic sprinklers etc. strategically located fire safety zones will enable fire-
fighters to focus their efforts on less protected areas.
From: Ryan Rosenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:17 PM
To: Alexa Nolder
Cc: Jennifer Armer; Melanie Hanssen
Subject: Comments on Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element
Comments on Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element (by Ryan Rosenberg)
Comment #1, page 7-5
The first Goal, COS-1, says "Expand open space areas within the Town of Los Gatos, particularly lands
which provide recreational uses.” But the policies which follow don’t support the second part of the goal
“... particularly lands which provide recreational uses."
I suggest we update OSP-1.2 (my proposed addition is in bold):
OSP-1.2
Promote coordination with all levels of government and non-governmental organizations to identify and
pursue available resources for the acquisition and development of open space areas (especially areas
that provide recreational uses) by both the Town and by other agencies and organizations.
Comment #2, page 7-6
OSP-2.5 says "Dedications should be granted to the Town and MROSD”.
Can grants actually be to both organizations at once? Maybe this should read: “Dedications should be
granted to the Town or MROSD.”
Comment #3, page 7-10
OSP-7.6 Says: "Work with the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High
School District to preserve open space, recreational facilities, and promote reuse of facilities for
community and housing when school facilities are deemed no longer necessary.”
I don’t think it appropriate in this Element to talk about dedicating unused school facilities for
housing. That would be more of a housing element item.
I propose we change OSP-7.6 (my proposed modification is in bold):
OSP-7.6 Says: "Work with the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High
School District to preserve open space, recreational facilities, and promote reuse of facilities for
community park or recreation purposes when school facilities are deemed no longer necessary.”
ATTACHMENT 5
From: Amy Nishide
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 12:56 PM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #4
Dear GPAC members,
Regarding the General Plan, the linkage between the Racial, Social, and Environmental
Justice Element, and the Land Use Element needs to be stronger and more apparent in
the GP. This is because lack of affordable housing is one of the key drivers (if not the
key driver) in lack of diversity, and equal access to top level education.
In the introduction to the Element, this relationship between racial injustice and
affordable housing seems backwards in the following sentence. There is a proposed
edit below
Often, racial injustice also leads to other forms of injustice, including social a nd environmental injustice,
as well as other contributing factors including affordability and access to housing opportunities.
Often, a lack of affordable housing leads to a lack of diversity, unequal
opportunity to top level education, and environmental injustice. In turn, lack of
diversity in a geographical area can lead to a general lack of acceptance
and inclusivity.
Also in the introduction to the Element, the sentence below could be strengthened by
adding:
Increasing diversity and inclusion involves enhancing meaningful community engagement, considering
the implications of Town decisions for all members of the community, encouraging the
development of affordable housing, and requires new approaches to
meet the changing needs of Los Gatos.
RSEJ1.4 Should be strengthened and call out that LG will encourage development
of, as well as access to affordable housing. There should be a note added to refer to
the Land Use Element for details.
Thank you for your consideration,
Amy Nishide
From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 8:49 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: General Plan update Suggestions
Hi Jennifer,
Here are is our input for the General Plan Update.
Best,
Lisa
Updated General plan suggestions.
General Plan comments
Full document at:
Los Gatos 2040 General Plan, Preliminary Draft, April 2021
Section 6: Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Element
6.1: Water
Page 142 Water Conservation
Los Gatos provides online tools and resources for homeowners and business owners on the
town website including information on rebates through Valley Water.
Town provides a water calculator for residents to calculate the water footprint of various foods
on the town website.
Town will add a section on implementing an educational program for residents on the water
saving benefits of a plant-based diet.
2012 - Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) releases a report finding that global diets
will need to be at least 95% vegan by 2050 to avoid catastrophic water shortages caused by
food production. https://scienceillustrated.com.au/blog/culture/will-we-be-restricted-to-a-
vegetarian-diet-by-2050/
2004 - Agricultural scientists with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) issue a
report finding that governments may have to persuade people to eat less meat because of
increasing demands on water supplies. "Western diets, which depend largely on meat, are
already putting great pressures on the environment," requiring 2.5 to 5 times more water than
the largely plant-based diets of developing countries.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/aug/23/water.famine
6.13: Healthy Community
PFS -26: Ensure all residents have access to healthy foods. This should include access to fresh
fruit and vegetables in addition to plant- based alternatives to meat and dairy products.
PFS-26.1 Healthy Food Options Encourage farmer’s markets and healthier food options within
neighborhoods or near child-oriented uses (e.g., schools, day care, and parks).
These should include healthy plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy products.
Plastic bags should no longer be provided at the farmer’s market. The town will publicize and
encourage the use of reusable bags.
PFS-26.3 Healthier Diet Options Support programs that guide healthier diet options within the
community. Provide funds to local support groups such as Plant-Based Advocates to develop
programs and events to educate the community about the benefits and process for moving to a
plant-based diet, and helping local restaurants with information and support to include more
plant-based options on their menus.
PFS-26.4 Support Santa Clara County efforts and public health programs that improve access
to healthy foods, address food inequities, and provide food education to help residents make
healthier food choices.
Improve access to plant-based foods and provide education on the benefits of plant-based
diets. One way to do this is by funding Plant-Based Advocates or a similar non-profit and
tasking that group with achieving these objectives.
PFS-26.6 Healthy Food at Government-sponsored Events The Town shall provide healthy foods
(at least 50% of which shall be plant-based, Default Veg, or all plant-based) at Town-sponsored
meetings and events when food is provided.
Default veg. https://defaultveg.org/
PFS-26.7 Nutritional Vending Machine Options The Town shall encourage nutritional options for
vending machines in Town-owned and leased. These should include plentiful plant-based
options.
Add a section in Healthy Community about the health benefits of a plant-based diet.
For example:
Consumption of meat, dairy, fish, and eggs is linked to killer diseases such as heart disease,
diabetes, stroke, Alzheimer’s, and cancer, conditions that disproportionately impact and kill
people of color and other marginalized populations. Additionally, these diseases increase the
risk for severe and fatal COVID-19 infections. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
Further, viral pandemics have arisen from livestock operations in the past and likely will again.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/4/22/21228158/coronavirus-pandemic-risk-factory-
farming-meat
Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element
P.197 ENV-7 Conserve and Protect Wildlife Populations
The town shall heavily discourage or ban the use of rodent poison, as it harms other wildlife
such as owls, hawks, coyotes, bobcats and other animals that may consume poisoned
flesh. Town will educate residents and businesses about the dangers rodent poison poses to
wildlife including birds of prey and pets.
https://urbanedgewildlife.org/rat-poisons-arent-
selective/#:~:text=Rat%20poisons%20travel%20up%20the,%2C%20skunks%2C%20fishers%2
C%20hawks%2C
P.197 ENV- 7.6 Minimize or Ban Use of Herbicides and Pesticides
Consider alternative methods prior to utilizing herbicides and pesticides on town property to
minimize potential damage to native plants, birds, and other wildlife.
The town shall consider a ban on RoundUp. The town shall mark areas in public parks and
spaces that have recently been sprayed with herbicides or pesticides. This way parents can
keep kids out of those areas and dog walkers can keep dogs away.
P.197 ENV- Ban The Sale and Possession of “Exotic” Pets
The purchase and possession of “exotic” pets shall be banned due to the potential and likely
harm that will occur if these non-endemic animals (birds, reptiles, and wild animals) are
released into our environment, whether through carelessness or intentionally. The problem of
invasive, non-endemic species is already happening to our waterways and could happen in our
rural environment, potentially affecting our Santa Cruz mountains and the native wildlife that
lives here. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-happens-when-people-
release-exotic-animals-into-the-wild/
Section 8.5 Climate Change / Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Page 199 After the 2nd paragraph starting with “GHGs are the result of both natural and human
activities….” A paragraph needs to be added outlining a significant source of greenhouse gas
emissions: animal agriculture.
Here are some ideas:
Livestock production is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and is a leading driver
of climate change. Animal-based food production results in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other planet-warming gases via numerous causes,
including land clearing and deforestation for animal feed crops and grazing, digestion by cattle
and other livestock, emissions from animal manure, production and use of fertilizers. The U.N.
reports that globally, livestock accounts for more greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) than the
entire transportation sector. Compared to CO2, the most common greenhouse gas, the
methane gas from livestock is 86 times more powerful in warming our planet; and nitrous oxide
is 296 times more powerful than CO2.
In a 2018 article, entitled “The Meat Question, By the Numbers” The New York Times climate
team reported: “Worldwide, livestock accounts for between 14.5 percent and 18 percent of
human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.” That parallels a 2006 conclusion by the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) which published a global study entitled
“Livestock’s Long Shadow.” It stated that livestock was contributing 18 percent to the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions.But, later, in 2009, a Worldwatch Institute report concluded that
livestock actually may account for at least 51 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas
emissions.
Animal agriculture is a leading contributor to the climate crisis, deforestation, species
extinction, ocean dead zones, and multiple additional environmental crises. Dozens of
recent peer-reviewed studies conclude that significant reductions in animal food production and
dietary shifts towards more plants are crucial elements of any effective plan for addressing the
climate crisis. An editorial in the journal BioScience, signed by over 11,000 scientists, concludes
that “Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal
products...can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions."
P. 200 ENV-9.3 Support Climate Change Initiatives
Support initiates, legislation, and actions to respond to climate change.
Please include the Green Monday Resolution adopted by the town council in Dec. of 2019 as
one of these initiatives. https://www.losgatosca.gov/2407/Town-Sustainability
ENV 9.7 Employer Incentive Programs
Support employer incentive programs for carpooling and the use of other forms of alternative
transportation.
Incentives for employers to encourage plant- based eating in cafeterias using Google as a
model. Google limits portion sizes for meat, provides many plant based options and promotes
plant- based eating. https://www.fastcompany.com/40443479/googles-quest-to-develop-a-plant-
based-power-dish-more-popular-than-meat
OR encourage employers to implement default veg. in cafeterias (animal products are absent
unless specifically requested.)https://defaultveg.org/
P.200 ENV-10.1 Move Toward Zero Waste
Encourage practices that take the town closer to being a zero-waste municipality through
The town shall make encouraging plant-based diets a priority since tremendous amounts of
food and water are wasted in the production of animal products. In fact, less than 10% of feed
calories or protein ultimately become consumed meat, milk, or egg calories.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002/pdf
Page 216 8.12 Implementation Programs
Add a Plant-Based Eating Education Program to this section.
Promote and support education about the environmental benefits of a plant-based diet.
P.219 Program X Sustainability Plan Update
Update the sustainability plan to reflect recent updates in federal and state law, address zero
waste and recycling, address plant-based eating.
As well as revise GHG targets for the Town. *, recognize a consumption-based GHG emissions
inventory (CBEI), in addition to the traditional production-based GHG inventory. Following the
update to the sustainability plan, revise all planning documents to reflect the changes to targets
and actions to align processes.
Page 219 Program CC Climate Change Education.
Work with local organizations to support educational programs that raise awareness about
climate change and resiliency actions including education on the environmental benefits of
plant-based diets, ways residents and business owners can contribute to GHG reduction
including increased recycling opportunities (hazardous household waste, ewaste, and large
household items.) Town shall maintain a center that receives usable building materials, furniture
and other items. This center will serve as a “clearinghouse” for useful items that would
otherwise be thrown into the landfill, similar to Habitat for Humanity’s ReStore. Alternatively, the
Town can partner with Habitat for Humanity or another non-profit entity to operate this facility.
Town will educate the public through PSAs and mailers about the availability of this resource,
especially ahead of the twice-yearly unlimited garbage pick-up days. Town will also educate and
encourage residents about alternatives to sending usable items to the landfill, such as the Buy
Nothing Los Gatos Facebook page, Freecycle, and Craigslist.
P221 Program LL Zero Waste Education
Provide ongoing education about the environmental benefits of reducing wasteful consumption
and avoiding products with excessive packaging, recycling, refilling empty containers,
seperating food and yard waste for composting, and using rechargeable batteries
Add provide ongoing education about the inefficiency of animal products and how plant-based
diets reduce waste in grain production, water, and land.
2017 - University of Edinburgh researchers find that animal farming is the leading driver of food
waste, responsible for the most losses of all harvested crops on Earth (40%) due to secondary
consumption.
* The Town of Los Gatos shall recognize a consumption-based GHG emissions inventory
(CBEI), in addition to the traditional production-based GHG inventory. The traditional
production-based GHG inventory only counts GHG emissions associated with goods and
services produced within the region of interest (i.e., the city of Los Gatos). A consumption-
based GHG inventory, on the other hand, includes the full life-cycle (cradle-to-grave)
greenhouse gas emissions associated with all goods and services consumed in the city,
regardless of where they are produced. CBEIs account for global emissions which occur
outside of the city boundaries, but which directly result from the consumption choices of the
city’s residents. The CBEI methodology includes emissions which are overlooked in production-
based inventories, such as emissions from food production, manufacture of imported products,
air travel, and waste disposal outside of the city. The CBEI is important because in many U.S.
cities, GHG emissions associated with consumed goods and services significantly exceed
emissions from produced goods and services.
A consumption-based emissions inventory for the San Francisco Bay Area has been developed
by scientists at UC Berkeley in partnership with government agencies, businesses, and NGOs
(non-governmental organizations) and can be found at :
https://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/inventory.
Endorsements from Environmental Organizations (This is a working list more organizations
will be added)
Plant-Based Advocates of Los Gatos http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com/
Center for Biological Diversity https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/
Eat for The Earth http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com/ (Based in Santa Cruz)
SAFE Worldwide https://www.safeworldwide.org/ (Based in Monte Sereno)
Green Monday USA https://greenmondayus.org/
Individual Residents of the Town of Los Gatos Supporting these recommendations. (This
is a working list more residents will be added)
Lisa Wade and Christopher Wade
16363 Lilac Lane
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
Karen and Fred Rubio
264 Calle Marguerita Apt. A
Los Gatos, California 95032
Kathleen and Mark Willey
135 Cardinal Lane
Los Gatos, California
95032
Debbie and James Parsons
16368 Shady View Lane
Los Gatos, California 95032
Sevil Karavelioglu.
16405 Kennedy Road, LG 95032
Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan
119 Cherry Blossom Lane
Los Gatos, 95032
Anita Bora
223 Escobar Ave.
Los Gatos, California
Sue Ann Lorig
132 Loma Alta Ave.
Los Gatos, California
Laura Montonye Reese
84 Bentley Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
Dirk Reese
84 Bentley Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
Tony and Hilary White
115 Casitas Boulevar
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
Charles Wade
136 Mary Way
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
Christine and Michael Goldberg
15100 Fawndale Drive
Los Gatos, California 96032
Caroline Dempsey
125 Stonybrook
Los Gatos, California
95032
From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:41 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Fwd: Survey Results
Hi Jennifer,
Here is a survey that we conducted on interest in plant-based eating. Could you please also include this
as a supporting document for the meeting on Thursday?
Thanks!
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan
Date: Wed, May 5, 2021 at 9:08 AM
Subject: Survey Results
To: Lisa Wade
The residents of Campbell, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and
Cambrian was surveyed in January and February of 2021 to find out
about their dietary habits and inclinations toward eating more plant-
based foods.
[The survey was distributed to the communities via Facebook, Nextdoor,
and the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce newsletter]
Of the 235 respondents, 27% were vegan. Of the rest, roughly a third
were vegetarian and the rest were omnivores.
Of the 173 respondents who identified themselves as being either
omnivore or vegetarian, 73% wished to eat more plant-based foods.
Of interest to local restaurants, a solid 86% of all respondents
wished to see more plant-based choices at local restaurants.
The following questions were posed only to those respondents who identified as
being either omnivores or vegetarians:
\\
From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 10:48 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Plant Based Actions
Hi Jennifer,
Could you also please include the attachment below which is a more detailed proposal for an
educational program to promote plant -based diets based on the City of Mountian View's program (but
adapted for LG.)
Thanks!
Lisa
Plant-Based Diet Promotion in Los Gatos:
Proposed Programs
Date: October 24, 2019
Authors: Mary Mackey, Lisa Wade, Kathleen Willey
The table below provides a list of recommended plant-based diet programs and their estimated costs.
Item # Program Description Estimated Cost
P0
Have Los Gatos be the first city in the US to take the “Cool
Food Pledge.” Encourage businesses in our city to take this
pledge as well.
TBD, small fee per year to participate.
P1
Mandate that meals catered for City Council meetings will be
plant-based, or at least vegetarian. Highlight this in city
communications and media.
Zero.
P2
Create procurement guidelines for all city-purchased foods
and city catered events, mandating plant-based, or Default
Veg. (Default Veg means that animal products are absent
unless specifically requested..)
Minimal. Staff time to craft and
disseminate new procurement guidelines
and assess enforcement methods.
P3 Incorporate plant-based food promotion into all city
sustainability materials and promotions.
Minimal. Staff time to draft and edit
materials.
P4 Creation of steering committee to recommend branding and
advertising strategies.
Minimal. Staff time to participate on
steering committee
P5
Work with local school boards to disseminate education about
plant-based diets. Work with school menu planners to ensure
plant-based options are available.
Minimal. Staff time to liaise with school
groups.
P6 Encourage Los Gatos restaurants to offer plant-based specials
and display promotional materials.
Minimal. Local non-profits can assist
with this effort.
P7
Creation of custom branded marketing materials (brochures
etc.) for residents, explaining the importance of plant-based
diet.
$500 - $5000, depending on quantity and
complexity. Potential for free/donated
graphic design.
P8 Plant-based cooking competition for residents, perhaps a
“Chili Cookoff.” Held once a year. < $500 for venue, prizes, and advertising.
P9
Value / Punch card program. Residents get a punch for each
plant-based special ordered at local restaurants. After 10
punches, they get a free meal (with restaurant agreement) or
entered into city raffle for a gift certificate.
Minimal. < $500 to print punch cards
and < $500 for gift certificates.
P10
Monthly email and online survey program to keep track of
residents who pledge to reduce animal product consumption.
Residents can sign up online, or at any of the other events in
this list (films, cooking classes, etc.). This will allow the City
to quantify GHG reduction resulting from this program.
~$2000 for database setup, $100/month
for IT and maintenance. May be less if
city IT support is available.
P11 Monthly free (or low-cost) plant-based cooking classes,
sponsored by the City. 20 – 40 people per class.
$300 /class. Assume they could be held
at a city venue with kitchen.
P12 Monthly lecture and/or film series on diet, environment and
nutrition. Advertised by the City. Free to the public.
$25 to $250 per event, depending on
speaker and film license costs. Could be
screened at the library, Community
Center, Senior Center, etc. Possible grant
money reimbursement available if City
takes the lead.
P13
Los Gatos restaurant competition, participating restaurants
feature plant-based specials over the course of a month and
residents try the specials and vote for their favorite. The
winning restaurant receives a prize and publicity. Cou ld be
done in conjunction with the VegFest.
$200 - $2000, depending on level of
publicity
P14 Free food-tasting events for the public, held once/month.
<$300 per event. Possible grant money
reimbursement available if City takes the
lead.
P15
Hold a Los Gatos Plant-based food festival, also known as a
“VegFest”. VegFest features local restaurants and
organizations, speakers, food samples, etc.
Similar events have been held in San Francisco, Oakland,
Santa Cruz, Seattle and many other cities.
Ranges from net positive revenue to a
cost of $15,000 depending on the venue,
sponsorships, vendor fees, etc. Local non-
profits can assist with this effort.
P16
Advertising campaign to promote the initiative, including
billboard, print and radio ads. Potential to have donor match
funds for the advertising campaign.
$5000 - $15000, with potential for
donated matching funds if City takes the
lead.
Examples of plant-based programs from other
cities and organizations
While other cities have made statements and resolutions about diet change (such as “Meatless
Monday” proclamations), we do not know of many examples where a city has made a significant
commitment to promote diet sustainability among their residents. The UN has been urging
governments to emphasize this issue for over a decade, yet the message has fallen on deaf ears. We are
proposing for Los Gatos to be a leader and visionary in bringing this urgent issue to the forefront of
the climate change discussion. Los Gatos’s approach could become a model for other cities to follow.
And we could be proud that Los Gatos is leading the charge on one of the most important
environmental issues of our time.
Below is a list of actions and resolutions taken in other cities and organizations related to diet
sustainability.
● Mountain View, CA has signed a 3-year Sustainability Plan which includes an initiative to
dramatically reduce meat & dairy consumption by their residents. Programming will be
determined in December 2019, but will likely include:
○ New guidelines on food procurement for city events (i.e. Default Veg)
○ Educational programming such as speaker series and film presentations
○ Cooking classes
○ Food tasting / food festivals
○ Cookoff competititions for residents
○ Encouraging local restaurants to add plant-based specials
● Berkeley and Emeryville have passed “Green Monday” resolutions, including:
○ Sourcing plant-based meals for city council meetings
○ Encouraging local restaurants to feature plant-based specials on Mondays
○ Featuring educational programming and displays at community centers and libraries
● New York City has implemented a Meatless Monday program for all 1,700 public schools within
the City. This program started in 2019 and mandates that all breakfast and lunch options are
100% vegetarian on Mondays. According to NYC mayor Bill de Blasio: "Cutting back on meat a
little will improve New Yorkers' health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're expanding
Meatless Mondays to all public schools to keep our lunch and planet green for generations to
come." Mayor de Blasio actually intends to cut the city’s purchasing of red meat by 50% as part
of his “Green New Deal” initiative.
● The cities of Santa Barbara and New York City have both banned the sale of processed meat
products (including hot dogs, bacon, salami, etc.) in schools. This is mostly health-related, since
processed meats have been found to significantly increase the risk of certain forms of cancer.
● Germany has banned the serving of meat at all official government functions, due to the
unjustifiably large environmental impact .
● The University of Cambridge in the UK recently removed beef and lamb from their menus, to
reduce their environmental impact. They estimate that this cuts their food-related emissions by
one-third. Goldsmiths University, also in the UK, is removing beef from their menus for the
same reason.
● Many cities and municipalities have passed food procurement policies that stipulate a reduction
in meat and dairy purchasing. Friends of the Earth has a great guide that outlines the process
and highlights cities that have incorporated food purchasing policies into their Climate Action
Plans.
● The group “Scientists for Less Meat” is making an urgent call to all City mayors to enact policies
that will reduce the amount of meat consumed in their city, and increase the proportion of
plant-based foods.
● Harvard University recently committed to reduce their food-related GHG emissions by 25%
before 2030, by emphasizing a shift towards plant-based foods.
o This is based on a UN & World Resources Institute initiative called the "Cool Food
Pledge."
● The city of Philadelphia has a "Vegan Restaurant Week" each year. This event is a collaboration
between non-profits, the city, and restaurants.
● In Los Angeles there is an initiative being considered to mandate at least one plant-based meal
offering at all movie theaters, sports arenas, and LAX airport eateries.
● A bill called AB 479 is currently under consideration in the California Assembly, and looks like it
will pass (it has had unanimous support so far). This bill is called:
"AB-479 School meals: plant-based food and milk options: California School Plant-Based Food
and Beverage Program." This will bill provide financial incentives to school systems which add
more plant-based meal options to their menus.
● Many US cities, including San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and
numerous others have passed “Meatless Monday” resolutions. But these are all passive
resolutions which have no educational or community outreach component, and no financial
backing. As such, they have been largely ineffective.
We especially encourage Los Gatos to consider adopting the "Cool Food Pledge". This is a pledge to
reduce food-related emissions by 25% before 2030. This is a very tangible and realistic target for Los
Gatos and the City could take a climate leadership role as the first city in the U.S. to make this pledge.