Item 4 - Desk Item 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
DESK ITEM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: May 6, 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 6 contains comments from Committee Members.
Attachment 7 contains public comments received after the completion of the Addendum
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 previously received with the May 6, 2021 Addendum:
4. Committee Member Comments
5. Public Comment
Attachments received with this Desk Item:
6. Committee Member Comments
7. Public Comment
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 6
From: Joe Mannina
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 1:54 PM
To: Alexa Nolder; Jennifer Armer; Joel Paulson; Emily Thomas; Melanie Hanssen
Subject: Mannina Comments on Environment and Sustainability Element
Here are few comments/edits for consideration after final review:
1) Consider highlighting or designating "key terms" within document to indicate that more information
is available about them as defined in key terms. Maybe bold print, italics, or underlined would suffice
for this? If agreed upon, it would apply to all elements with key terms.
2) Figure 8-1 on Page 8-6, If goal is to communicate where Williamson Act parcels are located, consider
eliminating areas of town which do not have Williamson Act parcels in hopes of making map larger
which should be able to accommodate street names as reference points. Suggest using different color to
highlight Williamson Act Properties since yellow really does not stand out. Might suffice if online version
of map can be zoomed into to allow for easier viewing.
3) Section 9.12 on Page 8-13. Typo remove the word "reduction" from end of sentence.
4) Section 8.6 on Page 8-14. 4th bullet point should indicate that $29k in cash payments are from PG&E
and not from the Town of Los Gatos.
5) Section 8.12 Implementation Programs: For ease of viewing, blue squares on right side of page should
have 4 boundaries or lines running down the page to more easily identify which category they are in,
especially those at the bottom of the page. If agreed upon, this would apply to all elements.
6) Section 8.12 a) Items G and H: Remove ENV 5.5 from "Implements which policy" as 5.5 no longer
exists b) Item OO: Remove ENV 12.7 and 12.8 from "Implements which policy" as they no longer exist. c)
Items MM, NN and XX: subject lines for these should be bold like all others.
Hope these help and look forward to discussing as appropriate tomorrow.
Joe Mannina
Emily Thomas comments for 4/15 General Plan Update Advisory Committee meeting
8. Environment and Sustainability Element
Introduction and table of contents
• Reorder 8.1-8.12 to be alphabetical to avoid confusion about importance of goals and
policies
Key Terms
• Add watershed as a key term because Fig 8-4 interpretation requires understanding of
the term - or just delete Fig. 8-4
• Bold or italicize key terms throughout the document to allow for quick and easy
reference
8.1 Aesthetics
• ENV-1.1: Delete this policy as it may deter development and conflicts with re-
development along LG Blvd. The goal can be achieved with the remaining policies
(ENV-1.2, 1.3, & 1.4)
8.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Figure 8-1 is difficult to interpret without context of roadways. Is the digital version
interactive? Or easier to interpret?
8.3 Biological Resources
• ENV-4: change “beauty” to “resources” because beauty is subjective and resources
more closely align to the outcomes of the policies ENV-4.1, 4.2, & 4.3.
8.4 Air Quality
• Introduction: correct chemical formulas for criteria pollutants for nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
8.5 Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• ENV-9, ENV-10, & ENV-11
o Implementation Program FF refers to Policy ENV-9.9 but I think it is meant to
reference ENV-9.10
o ENV-9.11 - should this policy also include public buildings?
o ENV-10.2 - the first half of this policy is out of place and needs to be moved to
either ENV-9 (preferred) or ENV-11. Keep the second part as a stand alone
policy: “Town operations should pursue and model waste reduction and recycling
methodologies in Town facilities for the community”
8.12 Implementation Programs
• A - State Scenic Highways: Is there a benefit other than signage? If yes, keep it! If no,
then remove?
• Some implementation programs do not reference the correct policies. Example: G
references ENV-5.5 which no longer exists
• P - Air Quality Standards: expand program to include looking into establishing standards
for other criteria pollutants
• FF - Upgrade Town’s Vehicle Fleet: As mentioned above, this references ENV-9.9 but
should (I think?) reference ENV-9.10
• MM, NN, & XX: program titles need to be bolded
4. Community Design Element
4.2 Community Form
• Sustainable Design: The two added policies (CD-2.41 & 2.42) are not completely
reflective of the suggestions made by the Chair - recommend adding and/or editing
policies to make this section more robust to reflect the Chairs original suggestions:
o Optimize site potential to reduce energy consumption through passive solar site
orientation & minimize need for automobile transportation (build close to work,
neighborhood commercial)
o Enhance indoor environmental quality
o NOTE: maybe these are incorporated somewhere else and I didn’t see it!
From Lee Quintana
Comments on Preliminary Draft of 2040 General Plan
Date May 6, 2021
General Comments on the Preliminary Draft by Element
●Integrated and comprehensive document:Without the benefit of hyperlinks I find it difficult to assess how
well the General Plan is an integrated and comprehensive document.
●Clear and unambiguous direction: My overall impression of the Preliminary Draft is that it does not provide
“clear and unambiguous” direction to decision makers (or the public) that will result in a high degree of
consistency of future land use decisions. Rather,it is general and flexible enough to allow decisions made
on a“case by case” basis which may result in inconsistency between decisions. Whether or not this occurs
will to a large extent, (unknown at this point) )depend on how the 2040 General Plan will be implemented
through the Zoning Ordinance.
●The General Plan Integration:The General Plan does not clearly make the connections between the Social,
Racial, Environmental Justice and Inclusivity (JEDI)with affordable housing, climate change or preservation
of natural resources. The integration is there but it is too subtle.
General Edits:
●Hyper-links: What happened to the hyper-links in the (digital copy of the draft?
●Key Terms:Any change made to a Key Term in individual Element needs to be reflected in changes to the
Glossary.
●Key Terms Alternative:: List Key Terms at the beginning of each Element and refer to the Glossary for
definitions.
●Figure/Table Titles: Enlarge titles of Figure and Table and suggest using a bolder color, and moving the title
to the area at the bottom of “boxed in” maps.
●Combine Land Use Element and Community Design Elements:These Elements are closely related.
Combining the two would eliminate some duplication in the GP
For Example: Historic resources are addressed in the Land Use Element, the Community Design Element
and the Environment and Sustainability Element. -Locating the discussion of all aspects of historic
resources in the Land Use Element would provide a more coherent and comprehensive discussion. The
use of hyper-links in related Elements would retain the integration and internal consistency of the General
Plan.
Specific Edits:
●Page 1-5: For consistency delete Promote and Protect from Public Safety and Natural Resources Guiding
Principles
●Figure 3-10 (Page 3-27): Include the North 40 in the Los Gatos Blvd. Community Place District (for
consistency with Figure 4-13 (Page 4-25) in the Community Design Element.
●Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19 (Page 4-32 and Page 4-33)and Figure 4-11 Community Place Districts: The
boundary line between Winchester Blvd. District and the Lark District do not coincide with the boundary of
the Albright Specific Plan nor does the Winchester District include the riparian/trail area adjacent to the
Albright Specific Plan. Was this intentional?
1. INTRODUCTION
Page 1-2: Set of assumptions. Provide a concise set of the assumptions used, either in an appendix to the GP, or
provide a hyperlink specific location where they are summarized..
Page 1-2: Vision/Guiding Principles
●Add a discussion of the GP’s Major Strategies or themes;
●Provide an expanded discussion of each principle;
●Integrate JEDI into Vision, Major Themes/Strategies and Principles (I think Element 1 was added after TC’s
review of Vision and Principles.)
●Revise the Vision to read as a future vision or “ end point” of where the Town would like to be in 2040
rather than as a statement of the Town’s present state, which is implied by the use of “is” in the Vision1
●One attempt to revise the Vision to read as a vision of the future:
Los Gatos’ residents envision a welcoming, family-oriented and safe community that takes pride in its
location at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains,small town character, lively downtown, historic
neighborhoods, local culture and arts, wide range of housing and affordability, excellent schools,superior
public services and facilities, and its open and responsive government. , ….etc.
Alternative: Use a graphic format - which clearly focuses attention on the various components of the Vision
Welcoming, Family Oriented, Safe
Small Town Character 2 Lively Downtown, Historic Neighborhood,
Local Culture and the Arts,
Wide Range of Housing opportunities and Affordability
Excellent Schools, Superior Public Services and Facilities
Open and Responsive Government
More specific reference to JEDI
ETC.
Introduction: Other Suggested Edits:
Page 1-7
●Los Gatos Boundaries General Plan Planning Areas:
●Move the Planning Area bullet up to use as the introduction and move the current introduction down under
the Town Limits bullet.
●Add Connectivity: Mobility/Connectivity:
●There are several places within the Draft GP where the term “linkage” is used. Suggest using “connectivity”
rather than “linkage” for consistency. I suggest using “connectivity” rather than “linkage” if “linkage is meant
to convey “connectivity”
Page 1-11
●After Element 5 the numbers of the Elements do not correspond to the Element numbers used in the
Preliminary the numbers used in the Preliminary Draft.
●Suggest: Delete the last sentence under 6. Housing Element and instead Insert a page before Public
Facilities….with a hyperlink to the current Housing Element, and reorder the remainder of the Elements.
Page 1-13 Cross-cutting Icons
●Move to after Figure 1-4 so it does not interrupt the discussion of Goals, Policies and Implementation
●Add a section on proposed Hyper-links.
3 .LAND USE ELEMENT
●If my memory serves, the Council's direction to GPAC regarding a change in the preferred land use
alternative was “to do what is needed or necessary”,but try to minimize density or intensity increases in the
Low Density Residential Land Use Designation.. It is not clear how this direction factored into the modified
density and intensity shown in Table 3-2.
●Need new language to reflect changing state law to enable discussion with everybody on the same page.
With the changing laws it seems important that the terms used have a consistent definition to ensure that
housing conversations are not taking place at cross purposes, using terms that may not have the same
definition for all participants. Does it matter whether a dwelling unit is attached or detached, or is the density
of units the primary consideration? Should we continue to refer to townhouse and Row Houses as “single
family attached”
●Include a list of changes to the Land Use Diagram included in the GP2040.
Key Terms:(p. 3-2 to 3-3)
2
1 Include examples from OPR GP Guideline of Goals
Add definitions for the following:
●Acreage, net (see Glossary)
●ADU:Note: Clarify comment under the Key Term “Multi-Family Residential that ADU’s are not considered
multi-family housing? It is my understanding that ADU’s do not count towards density but they do count as
living units for RHNA. This is another example of how our current vocabulary for land use has not been
modified to fit with current state laws - Add ADU to Glossary.
●Dwelling Unit:
●Gross Floor Area :
●Infill sites:Add and refer to Vacant/underutilized sites
Modify the following definitions:
●Density: Add language regarding ADU’s and provide the average number of persons per household in Los
Gatos so it is possible to calculate population density (as required by state law).
●Floor Area Ratio: Delete and modify as follows:
○Create a separate definition for Gross Floor Area
○Floor Area Ratio (FAR) means the gross floor area of a building or buildings on a zoning parcel
divided by the gross area (?) of the parcel. The maximum FAR standard limits the overall size of
development on a property.
○For example: A maximum FAR of .75 would allow 75,000 square feet of floor area on a 100,000
square foot lot. The 75,000 square feet could be provided in one building or divided between
multiple buildings (Zoning Code Section 29.10.020 Definitions). Figure 3-2 illustrates various
building configurations representing FAR’s of .05,1.0, and 2.0. As shown in the Fig. 3.2 different
interpretations of the same FAR standard can result in very different building forms and site
characteristics.
○The FAR does not account for additional policies or development constraints that would also apply
to the property that would prevent a property being developed at the maximum allowed FAR.
●Multi-Family Housing: Should the comment regarding ADU’s be deleted here and moved up and clarified
under ADU?
●Single Family Residential: Does the principal residential structure still apply?
Tables:
●Add a table listing listing changes between to the Land Use Diagram between GP2020 and GP2040
including changes in land use designation, creation of new land use designations and any changes in
density and intensity of land uses
●Table 3-1:This table is still only addressed residential units but is still mute on potential increases of
non-residential development. See example from City of Santa Clara General Plan. Table 5.2-1 Summary of
General Plan Development Potential.
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/13934/635729106120730000
Figure 3-4: Clarify the difference between a Townhouse or Row House differ and a duplex or triplex or fourplex?
Table 3-2:
●Mixed Use Designation(MU) - Compatible Zoning: CH (Highway Commercial) The use of this term is
inconsistent with the GP’s emphasis on reducing VMT and reliance on the automobile.
●Suggest Using another name here and changing the Zoning Code as it is updated to be consistent with the
approved 2040 GP
●Open Space (OS): Should trails be included here as well? (See more detailed comments on the Open
Space Element below)
●Specific Plans: The General Plan does not include a comprehensive description of either of these Plans.
Both Albrigh and North 40 Specific Plans serve as General Plan Designations and a zoning district that
specify detailed development regulations that apply to large areas of land. Yet neither Table 3-2 General
Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards)or in section 3.6 (Special Planning Areas p. 3-21)
provide a detailed description and development standards for either specific plan. The General Plan lacks a
comprehensive discussion of these plans and less information of the standards that apply than the other
more general GP designations.
Figure 3. 7 (Page 3-19) To give more context and to help differentiate the Downtown Area from the Downtown
District consider the following:
●Suggest Including the historic districts, the Downtown District and the North Santa Cruz District in this figure
to help differentiate the Downtown Area from the Downtown (Community Place) District.
●Change “Downtown Area ”to “Greater Downtown Area ”or “Greater Downtown”
●Change “Downtown District”to “Downtown Core District”.
3.7 Community Place Districts (Page 3-26)
●List the Community Place Districts in the same order as in 4. Community Design
●Modify the description of the Downtown District on page 3-26, it is no longer accurate. The Downtown
District no longer includes the historic districts to the west and does not include Town Terrace to the east.
Figure 3-9: and Figure 4-10 are the same: Delete one (also see comments on combining discussion of historic
resources in one Element)
LU-16.2: Clarify “ground floor space”. How does this differ from Active uses behind sidewalks?
LU-9: Clarify this goal: Thuis goal appears to be referring to the Downtown Area (Fig 3-7) but refers to it as the
historic center of the Town, which is similar language used to describe the Downtown District under 3.7 Community
Place Districts.
Page 3-21 Specific Plans: Include more detailed descriptions of uses allowed in the North 40 similar to that
provided for Albright Specific Plan. (also see comment under Table 3-2).
Page 3-23 Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP)Overlay Zone Add a Table of Los Gatos’ Designated
Landmarks structures (as opposed to an Historic District)Identified as public or private.
Page 3-23 Add Landmark and Historic Preservation (LPH)Overlay Zones. This also covers individually designated
sites. Add a list of individual landmarked sites and a figure showing their locations.
LU-14: This is essentially a repeat of OVERLAY ZONES on page 3-23.
Suggest deleting this Goal and adding language on page 3-23 that the purpose of overlay zones is to provide
additional zoning protections to sites that need additional protection.
Figure 3-10: Figure 2-9 is not consistent with Figure 4-11 Community Place Districts. The North 40 has been left out
of Figure 3-9.
LU15.3: Is “support” a strong enough word?
Figures 3-9 and 4-10: These are duplicate figures.Suggest deleting one of them. (also see comments re; combining
all discussion of Historic Preservation in a single place
4. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Given that the 85 Freeway is a major obstacle to pedestrian connectivity why does the Winchester Community Place
District span the freeway?
Figure 4-18: Why is the Albright Specific Plan area located in two different Community Place Districts.
The Vision for the Winchester District to include residential development is consistent with the Zoning Code for the
CM but is not consistent with the Density Standard for the Light Industrial Land Use Designation in Table 3-2.
7. OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION.
General Comment: In general, the discussion of open space is not well integrated throughout the General Plan nor
are terms referring to open space used consistently throughout the General Plan.
Common Open Space (public vs private):
In this Element and throughout the entire General Plan it is difficult to know whether references to open space refer to
publicly owned land, privately owned land that is accessible for public use, or privately owned land for the use of the
privately owned development. The General Plan would benefit from a vocabulary for open space that is used
consistently through the document. For example: The term “common open space” has a different meaning when
applied to residential development than when applied to, commercial development, In one case the common space is
available for the residents, in the other the open space is intended to be available for public use.These differences
should be clear in the text.
I would also suggest that a policy be added that requires a public access easement when the “column space”or
“gathering space” on private land is intended to be available to the public.
Policies for the protection of scenic view or viewsheds need to distinguish between:
●Protection of viewsheds from the valley floor by hillside development and
●Protection of hillside views being blocked by development on the valley floor.
Key Terms:
Add: Open Space Preserve (OSP). Note: OPS is in the List of Acronyms but it is not defined in the Glossary
Add: Active Recreational Open Space
Open Space Goals are denoted by “COS”. What does COS stand for?
I suggest renaming this Element Parks, Recreation Services and Open Space, and then reversing the order of the
sections in the text. However, for clarity I will use the current order for my comments below.
Figure 7-1: (page 7-4) Open Space, Parks, and Recreational Facilities within the Town Limits.
●Either add a heading above the list of open space preserve or add “Preserve” to the individual preserves
(Heintz, Santa Rosa, Sierra Azul and St. Joseph's Hill)
Page 7-5: Open Space and Existing Neighborhoods:It is not clear whether this is referring 1) to access open space
areas through existing neighborhoods or 2) to access open space (parks?) within existing neighborhoods.
If 1) edit for clarity:
●Open Space Access and Through Existing Neighborhoods.
●Delete first sentence and replace with:Where access to public open spaces pass through an existing
neighborhood, or where trails within public open space are in close proximity to existing development,the
Town endeavors to provide access without creating a burden on the neighborhood. This approach….
OSP-2.1: Clarify whether this applies to both public and private lands.
OSP-2-2: Not sure I understand the intent of this policy
OPS 2.3: Change migration corridors to movement corridors
OPS-2.4: Uninterrupted Wildlife and Recreation Corridors:Adjacent parcels in the hillsides shall provide an
uninterrupted band of usable segments for wildlife corridors and recreational use, if applicable.
OPS-2.3 and OPS 2.5 are somewhat repetitive
Due to submittal deadline I will end my open space comments here.
10.GLOSSARY and ACRONYMS
●Edit: Add 10. Glossary and Acronyms to the Table of Contents
●Edit: Page 10-17:9.10.Glossary and Acronyms
Acres, net: Clarify this definition.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): See comments in Land Use Section
Open Space Preserve (OSP): OPS is listed in thj
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 7
From: Don Capobres
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 3:50 PM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Joel Paulson; Steve Buster; Whitney Christopoulos
Subject: May 6 2021 GPUAC Meeting Public Comment Item 4
Dear Chairperson Hanssen and Members of the General Plan Update Advisory Committee,
Congratulations on reaching this important milestone after over 2 years of tireless work. We
respectfully submit the attached comments related to the DRAFT 2040 General Plan Update. We will be
available at the hearing to answer any questions that you may have.
Don
A. Don Capobres
Principal
Harmonie Park Development
Los Gatos: 408.355.9920 | Plymouth: 734.335.0922
Mobile: 415.710.7640
www.harmoniepark.com
This email, sent from don@harmoniepark.com is confidential and may contain privileged or copyright information. If you are
not the intended recipient please delete this email and you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any
action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This email is not a binding agreement and does not
conclude an agreement. The Company does not consent to its employees sending non-solicited emails which contravene the
law.
Harmonie Park Development | 221 Bachman Avenue | Los Gatos, CA 95030
May 5, 2021
Town of Los Gatos General Plan Via Email: GP2040@losgatosca.gov
Update Advisory Committee
c/o Mr. Joel Paulson
Director, Community Development Department
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
SUBJECT: Public Comment Item #4, GPUAC Meeting of May 6, 2021
Dear Chairperson Hanssen and Members of General Plan Update Advisory Committee:
Congratulations on reaching this important milestone. After over two years, you have completed the
Draft 2040 General Plan Update. The Town of Los Gatos (Town) should be very thankful to have such a
dedicated group of volunteer citizens who spent countless hours preparing for and attending meetings
over this period. We watched as you weaved multiple challenging topics together to create a blueprint
for the Town for the next two decades. These topics included racial and social justice, environmental
concerns including the reduction of vehicle miles traveled to reduce our carbon footprint, and the ever-
present housing crisis. This was done largely during a pandemic. Amazing. We thank you for your vision
and your leadership in crafting this document.
Harmonie Park Development is based in Los Gatos and is developing the retail portion of the first phase
of development within the North 40 Specific Plan (North 40). In addition to our work on Phase I, we
represent Grosvenor Americas in its endeavor to re-imagine what will be built on a large portion of the
remainder of the North 40, commonly referred to as Phase II. We have recently embarked on a community
discussion about options for the Phase II. It is important to stress that we will not put any development
plans together until we complete this collaborative process. Our current time frame for completing this is
the Fall of this year. Based on our observation of your Committee’s work over the past two years and
with instruction to stay within the vision for Los Gatos in the next couple of decades that you have
provided, we have asked our design team to explore optionality that can help better inform this
conversation about Phase II. We are sharing this thinking with Town stakeholders to help us formulate an
eventual application.
With this background and with much respect for the work that you have done, we submit the following
comments on the Draft 2040 General Plan Update (GPU).
Comments Specifically Related to the North 40
1. 3.6 Special Planning Areas. North 40 Specific Plan Area. It should be noted in the GPU that the
North 40 Specific Plan was amended on September 4, 2018 after nearly 2 years of deliberation
(starting on September 27, 2016 with a special meeting of Town Council). The Amendment was to Section 6.4.1 of the Specific Plan and it now allows that proposed developments within the Specific
Plan "may request to enter into a Development Agreement reviewed pursuant to the established Architecture and Site Review approval process or the Planned Development Overlay process”.
2040 LOS GATOS DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2
With this amendment and based on a new view of Phase II, which is informed by over a decade’s worth of conversations in Town and this Committee’s work over the past two-and-one-half years,
it is reasonably foreseeable that the vision for the North 40 may look different than it does today. This fact should be reflected in the GPU, as any future plans for the North 40 should be consistent with the long-range projections of the GPU.
2. 3.1 General Plan Residential Buildout. Table 3-1. Related to the first comment above, this table
should reflect an opportunity for additional new residential development on the North 40, if so desired by the Town. With density of up to 40 dwelling units per acre in the GPU and between 15 and 20 acres remaining on the North 40, there is opportunity for significant new residential
development. Again, if so desired by the Town. We also believe that a footnote should be added to the “existing projects” line item that identifies which projects are providing units that reflect that
475-unit total.
3. Figure 3-10, Figure 4-11 and text on page 60. On figure 4-11, the entire North 40 is included in the Los Gatos Boulevard Community Place District (CPD) and it is not included on Figure 3-10 and text on page 60. Overlapping the North 40 area with a CPD could lead to confusion about which
standards or rules apply between the CPD and the North 40. To avoid this, we recommend that the North 40 area be removed entirely from the Los Gatos Boulevard CPD, as the North 40’s objective development standards will govern development in that area. If the North 40 is to remain in the Los Gatos Boulevard CPD, it would be helpful to us to understand the rationale and the GPU should
provide clarity as to the hierarchy of competing rules (which should be the North 40 as stated in that plan).
a. CD 9.6. If North 40 is to remain in the Los Gatos Boulevard CPD, what incentives can be provided to encourage structured or subterranean parking? b. CD 9.11 If North 40 is to remain in the Los Gatos Boulevard CPD, forcing additional
architectural elements on corner fronting entrances on Los Gatos Boulevard could result in architecture that feels forced. Rather, we would like to submit a comprehensive vision for the North 40 portion of Los Gatos Boulevard that fits the entire street frontage through the PD or Architecture and Site Plan process as allowed by the North 40.
4. 4.6 Implementation Programs. Again, related to North 40 being included in a CPD. There is potential for overlap of these Design Standards and those objective standards found in the North
40. It should be made clear what governs—the North 40 or the GPU standards.
5. MOB 10.1. The definition for Traffic Impact Policy should be included in the Glossary.
6. General comment regarding VMT and LOS. There appears to be opportunity for conflict in
reaching goals with both Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) metrics being used at the same time. As an example, mixed use development will reduce VMT but increase trips which would decrease LOS in some cases.
7. MOB 10.4. How will nexus be derived for fair share costs of future traffic signals or future traffic
signal modifications.
2040 LOS GATOS DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3
8. MOB 13.1. Provide specifics on standards for shared parking that will be allowed in Town. Shared parking will be critical in achieving goals/policies such as CD 9.6—structured or subterranean parking.
9. MOB 13.7. Need definition of Traffic Impact Policy and this policy should strive to coordinate various goals contained in the General Plan with prioritization given to goals that have sometimes
conflicting components, such as VMT reduction vs. LOS standards.
10. 5.9 Implementation Programs. All programs such as Traffic Impact Policy, TDM programs, Traffic Impact Fees, etc. should provide clear direction to the development community as to what to expect and they should all be coordinated to strive to achieve a common goal. Duplicative programs or
programs that are not effective should be avoided as this is a major cost to development and can significantly impact the implementation of many of the land use policies and desires contained in the GPU.
11. OSP 4.6. and 7.3 (C) Implementation Programs. Provide objective criteria such as State Quimby Act guidelines or equivalent. Private open space requirements should be prescribed in accordance
with State Law.
12. ENV 8.3. There are other ways that noise and air quality can be mitigated in addition to TDM programs, so the requirement to decrease VMT needs to consider these other forms of mitigation. This is purely a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) item, and the GPU should not limit the
potential for other typical mitigations under CEQA.
13. ENV 8.7. There are other ways in addition to site planning to reduce exposure to mitigate air quality
from air pollutants from adjacent roadways. This is purely a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) item, and the General Plan may not be the proper place for this.
14. ENV 9.14. Consider the impact that this may have on the feasibility of constructing new affordable housing.
15. ENV 18.5. Need more clarity on this. It seems to run counter to the encouragement of mixed use neighborhoods. Why are the Noise Ordinance threshold not sufficient? A 10% further reduction could be difficult and unnecessary.
16. Environmental and Sustainability Element Program Y. Where will these standards be documented?
17. Environmental and Sustainability Element Program MM. What kind of incentives will be provided?
2040 LOS GATOS DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 4
Comments Not Directly Related to North 40
1. Page 3-8 Standards. Maximum FAR for both residential and non-residential is not common
practice. It is more common to have FAR for only non-residential portion of mixed-use projects.
2. Table 3-2. Why aren’t mixed use development allowed in the HDR designation? The height limitation of 45 feet throughout the GPU will not allow the Town to implement building types and density envisioned or described by GPUAC during its deliberations. The 4 over 1 product type (four
stories of residential over one floor or retail or parking structure) envisioned on Los Gatos Boulevard, as an example, will require at least 55 feet. The most feasible and popular building type for multifamily housing is 5-over-1 or 2 and would require 65 feet in height. If there is desire to place development density in strategic locations in Town, optionality should be provided that would encourage these types of development to occur.
3. CD 2.2. Requiring multi-story buildings to incorporate step backs on upper floors seems to overly
prescribe architectural style. Some of the Town’s most iconic and loved buildings do not have step backs on upper floors.
These comments are offered with the intent of trying to help the Town achieve the vision that this Committee has so carefully laid out in the Draft 2040 General Plan Update. We will be attending the
meeting on May 6 and subsequent hearings and we are available to answer any questions that you may
have. Congratulations again.
Sincerely,
Don Capobres
cc: Steve Buster, Grosvenor
Whitney Sylvester, Grosvenor
May 5, 2021
Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner
Community Development Project
Town of Los Gatos
Via JArmer@losgatosca.gov
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%1 of 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 animal-
based 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 impact9 on 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
jmolidor@biologicaldiversity.org
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-food-
production/DE02043AE462DF7F91D88FD4349D38E7.
14Food and Agriculture Organization (2010). Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. http://www.fao.org/3/i3004e/i3004e.pdf.
From: Mythri Ramesh
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 8:26 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: I want to share my speech for tomorrow's Town Council meeting
Hi Jennifer,
I am Mythri Ramesh, I live in Los Gatos. I am a part of Los Gatos plant-based advocates. Here
is the speech I have prepared for Today.
Topic - Include plant-based diet in General Plan to help Water conservation
Start with some Facts -
• California is on the edge of another drought, which will trigger major water restrictions
in cities, rural communities without well water, and fueling devastating mega fires
• what is the role of animal agriculture affecting water?
• A single person drinks about 6-8 ounce of water, according to north dakota state
university research, a cow may consume 20 gallons/day on a hot day, this is direct
consumption
• Indirect consumption including water used to grow crops to livestock, cleaning and
slaughtering
• According to animalsmatter.org, every day 25 million farm animals are slaughtered. So,
you can guess how much water has been utilized per day then?
• Stockholm International water institute released a report that global diets will need to be
at least 95% vegan by 2050 to avoid catastrophic water shortages caused by food
production.
• Meat-free diet can reduce the water footprint by half (almost 55%)
What actions to take:
• Water conservation is a very important reason to feature plant-based diet in the General
plan.
• Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Denver and many other cities are already taking actions
towards sustainability through food plans, and Los Gatos can be one of them too.
• But during this drought, we know that there will be some remainders coming from City
Councils through newsletters, magazines, papers, display boards, etc, and we are sure
to see points like check your water leaks, take shorter showers, use less water to your
lawns, plant drought resistant plants.. This is all good, but it would be nice to add a
point to encourage people to choose a more plant-based diet.
• Plant based advocates can help in any way possible. Please let us know, we look
forward to this initiative coming to reality.
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to talk and express my thoughts.
Thanks,
Mythri
From: Jeffrey Suzuki
Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 9:14 PM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #4
Dear GPAC members,
In the Racial, Social, and Environmental justice element, I believe there are two things that are
missing: (1) a cross-reference to the Land Use Element and vice versa and (2) a proper
acknowledgement of how our history as a town, state, and nation has led to modern-day housing
segregation.
Regarding the cross-reference, I see no drawbacks to including an explicit connection between
both elements in the introductory paragraphs. After all, they are deeply intertwined and connecting the
two will ensure that there are teeth to the town’s efforts on its efforts for racial, social, and environmental
justice. There are deep and inherent political and economic interests regarding land ownership in and
outside of Los Gatos. If we are striving toward justice, we’ll need to make that connection clear for future
readers and policymakers.
Secondly, properly acknowledging our history and the importance of improving housing in Los
Gatos is a must in a significant document like this. Acknowledgement provides a lot of the necessary
“why”s behind the “what”s. Acknowledgement means stating some facts that encompass a substantive
and often inconvenient truth. A reader should be left with at least a basic understanding of what history
we are trying to confront.
Here are a few concrete facts that can be included in the document:
• Like many other towns and cities, Los Gatos had White-only covenants for the purchase and sale
of property.
• FHA-backed loans were only available in White neighborhoods. One could not receive a loan in a
mixed-race neighborhood.
• Up until the Fair Housing Act of 1968, redlining was common practice in California.
Lastly, I think Golden Gates by Conor Dougherty summarizes why housing today must be discussed in
the context of justice initiatives: “Rising housing costs are a main driver —arguably the main driver—of
segregation, income inequality, and racial and generational wealth gaps. You can’t talk about educat ional
inequities or the shrinking middle class without talking about how much it costs to live near good schools
and high-paying jobs. Transportation accounts for about a third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions,
so there’s no serious plan for climate change that doesn’t begin with a conversation about how to alter the
urban landscape so that people can live closer to work.”
Thank you and see you at the meeting,
Jeff
From: Rob Moore
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 8:55 AM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #4
Dear GPAC members,
First, thank you for taking the time to serve the Town of Los Gatos on this commission.
You all have been incredibly engaged and responsive throughout this process, so th ank
you.
Like others, I am writing to express my thoughts regarding the Racial, Social, and
Environmental Justice Element. For this element to be legitimate and hold power in the
overall document, it needs to be connected to and woven into the framework of other
elements.
For this reason, I hope you will consider adding language in this document that connects
it further to the Land Use Element and adding language in the Land Use Element
connecting it to the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element. The Land Use
Element guides all land use policy and historically, land use planning and zoning have
been used to segregate and hurt communities of color. To stand firmly against this
tainted history, I feel it is important to connect the aforementioned documents. I also
see it as important to explicitly mention and acknowledge this history of our town. The
effects of racist zoning are still felt today, as evidenced by our largely white population
and lack of affordability.
Please consider adding language connected the two documents and acknowledging our
town’s history of racism.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Take care,
Rob Moore
From: Alice A Miano
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:30 AM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #4
To whom it may concern:
While I applaud the Town's efforts at DEI, the current General Plan Draft does not go nearly far
enough. It offers only the most general language with no specific references to the Town's
history or to future specific steps it is seeking to take.
In the coming weeks, I will have time to annotate and offer specific suggestions. However, in its
current state it appears to be an excercise in lip service.
Thank you very much,
Alice A. Miano
Town resident since 1965
_________________________________
Alice A. Miano, Ph.D.
Coordinator, Spanish Language Program
Stanford University
#BlackLivesMatter #FreedomForImmigrants
Pronombres: ella/la, she/her
From: Kathleen Willey
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:45 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie
Cc: Kathleen Willey
Subject: Desk item for General Plan 2040 meeting tonight- Plant Based Diets and Pandemics
“Plant Based diets should be written into the General Plan 2040 to help prevent future pandemics”
Hello Council members, thank you for taking the time to read this.
As we slowly come out of sheltering in place, I often hear people say “ I can’t wait for everything to go
back to normal”
Well “normal” was the problem. We can no longer ignore the fact that our world is overpopulated and
that our appetite for meat has wiped out the majority of our natural wildlife habitats and rainforests.
The biomass of our planet 10,000 years ago was 1% humans and 99% wildlife. Today humans are 36%,
wildlife is a mere 4% and a whopping 60% is livestock! (And that number is growing)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-
destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
It is ironic that we are being told to stay socially distant yet there is no mention to do the same for the
animals people are eating. 99% of the animals people eat here is the US exist in extreme, overcrowded,
filthy confined facilities. And wet markets? That is not just a problem in other countries, they exist here.
With over 80 wet markets in New York City alone where you can pick the animal you want to eat, and
they will kill it right there for you. Animals from various different species are kept in crowded filthy cages
in stressed conditions with bacteria and feces being shared amongst them.
https://abc7ny.com/nyc-slaughterhouses-live-markets-coronavirus-update/6105833/
According to the CDC and the World Health Organization 3 out of 4 new infectious diseases in humans
are zoonotic - meaning coming from animals. SARS, Mad Cow disease, Avian/Bird Flu, Swine Flu, HIV,
MERS, Smallpox, Measles and Ebola are examples. Animal agriculture provides an ideal breeding ground
for zoonotic diseases to flourish, mutate, and as we’ve seen with Covid 19, infect a human host. Across
the globe we raise over 70 billion animals in factory farms for food. Whether small and family-run or
large industrial operations, keeping animals in confined spaces where diseases can spread easily, creates
a threat of infections that can spread to humans.
The Spanish Flu (H1N1 influenza A virus) pandemic originated on a farm in the USA and infected 500
million people across the planet, about one third of the world’s population at the time, with death toll
estimates ranging from 17 million to 100 million.
Every time we buy animal products, we directly support a system that will continue to produce
pandemics. Therefore, I would like to kindly ask the Town to please promote Plant Based Diets in the
General Plan 2040. Thank you.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/foodanddrink/foodnews/the-meat-we-eat-is-a-pandemic-risk-too/ar-
BB132rDx?ocid=spartanntp
https://sentientmedia.org/u-s-farmed-animals-live-on-factory-farms/
Warmly,
Kathleen Willey
135 Cardinal Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Lisa Wade
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 10:48 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Speech for General Plan Meeting
My name is Lisa Wade. I am a resident of the town of Los Gatos and a member of Plant-Based
Advocates of Los Gatos.
We have submitted some recommended changes to the 2040 General Plan for your
consideration. So far we have the support of over 20 residents of the town whose names and
addresses I have sent you. We expect this list of supporters to grow in the coming weeks. In
addition, so far we have the support of 5 environmental organizations including the Center for
Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ an organization with about 2 million
members and supporters. We just added Acterra to our list this morning https://www.acterra.org/
These organizations urge you to adopt our recommendations. The Center for Biological
Diversity has submitted written testimony to you in support of our suggestions.
In December of 2019, the town council adopted the Green Monday Resolution to promote plant-
based eating for climate mitigation and health. We do not yet see this resolution reflected in the
General Plan
We would like to see Green Monday programs featured prominently in the 2040 General Plan.
We have submitted a list of recommendations including funding of programs to educate the
public about the environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and providing all residents with
access to healthy plant-based meals.
We would like to see the promotion of plant-based diets especially in the Healthy Community
and Environmental & Sustainability Sections of the General Plan. Our recommendations include
things like employer Incentive programs (we'd like employers to be encouraged to adopt
programs like those of Google to encourage plant-based eating.)
https://www.fastcompany.com/40443479/googles-quest-to-develop-a-plant-based-power-dish-
more-popular-than-meat
We also encourage the town to recognize a consumption-based GHG emissions inventory
(CBEI), in addition to the traditional production-based inventory so that important emissions are
not overlooked.
We ask Los Gatos to feature the promotion of plant-based diets prominently in the General Plan
and provide adequate funding for these programs. Mountain View has allocated substantial
funds to promote plant-based eating. We have already sent the town some detailed action plans
based on Mountain View. I am attaching them again here for your convenience.
We’d like Los Gatos to join the growing list of cities around the country including Mountain View,
Emeryville, Berkley, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Denver, and others that have made big
commitments in promoting plant-based eating.
diets.https://vegnews.com/2019/10/californias-tech-capital-signs-citywide-plan-to-slash-meat-
consumption
Here is a list of some of the cities that have such programs:
• Los Angeles, California is part of the C-40 cities and are doing this:
https://www.c40.org/other/good-food-cities and here is a snapshot:
https://www.c40.org/cities/los-angeles and Climate/Food data
https://www.c40.org/research
• Carrboro, North Carolina is doing this: https://townofcarrboro.org/262/Sustainability-
Energy-Climate-Change set a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for
consumption at 50% by 2025
• Santa Monica, CA is doing this:
https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Climate/CAAP_SantaMonica
.PDF
• Denver, CO is doing this:
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/CH/Food%
20Action%20Plan/DenverFoodActionPlan.pdf. In Denver, lifecycle emissions from
food procurement accounted for 14% of overall emissions, nearly equal to emissions
from residential energy and gasoline-powered vehicles.
Other Cities with Green Monday Resolutions or Formal Green Monday Programs: Emeryville,
Berkeley, and Mountainview
Environmental Organizations that support our recommendations to the General Plan(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/
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet https://www.acterra.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/
Factory Farm Awareness Coalition https://www.ffacoalition.org/
The following is a list of town residents who are requesting that you make our proposed
changes to the 2040 General Plan:
1.Lisa Wade
16363 Lilac Lane
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
2. Christopher Wade
16363 Lilac Lane
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
3. Karen Rubio
264 Calle Marguerita Apt. A
Los Gatos, California 95032
4. Fred Rubio
264 Calle Marguerita Apt. A
Los Gatos, California 95032
5.Kathleen Willey
135 Cardinal Lane
Los Gatos, California
95032
6. Mark Willey
135 Cardinal Lane
Los Gatos, California
95032
7.Debbie Parsons
16368 Shady View Lane
Los Gatos, California 95032
8. James Parsons
16368 Shady View Lane
Los Gatos, California 95032
9.Sevil Karavelioglu.
16405 Kennedy Road, LG 95032?
10.Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan
119 Cherry Blossom Lane
Los Gatos, 95032
11.Anita Bora
223 Escobar Ave.
Los Gatos, California
12.Sue Ann Lorig
132 Loma Alta Ave.
Los Gatos, California
13 Laura Montonye Reese
84 Bentley Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
14.Dirk Reese
84 Bentley Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca 95030
15.Tony White
115 Casitas Boulevar
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
16.Hilary White
115 Casitas Boulevar
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
17.Charles Wade
136 Mary Way
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
18 Caroline Dempsey
125 Stonybrook
Los Gatos, California
19.Dawn DeMaria
131 Ann Arbor Dr.
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
20.Prasenjit Sarkar119
Cherry Blossom Lan
Los Gatos, 95032
21. Pamela Wales
Montgomery Street Los Gatos, Ca 95030
According to Project Drawdown, the third- and fourth-best climate change solutions are reducing
food waste and eating a plant-rich diet. (The top two solutions aren't things the average person
can easily control: refrigerant management and onshore wind turbines.)
But wait, there's more! Researchers in a 2018 Oxford University study said, "A vegan diet is
probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse
gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use, and water use. . . . It is far bigger than
cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car, as these only cut greenhouse gas
emissions." https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-ms-green/what-most-effective-thing-individual-
can-do-help-earthhttps://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-ms-green/what-most-effective-thing-
individual-can-do-help-earth