Loading...
1. Verbal Communications12/7/2021 Dear Planning Commission The discussion on whether to increase the number of homes over the state required number of 1993 homes in the 2040 General Plan is perplexing and debatable. I would like my kids as well as workers, who support our infrastructure like teachers and town staff to be able to afford to live in Los Gatos. I also wish there was more diversity. But before we start deciding to increase housing numbers - let’s talk about what affordable means and ask some developers how realistic it is to build housing that is “affordable” for people who support our infrastructure. Land is very expensive in Los Gatos, construction costs have gone up in price as well as many other living expenses. What’s the goal by increasing our housing numbers past the 1993 state required number? Is the goal to provide Affordable housing? What’s does “affordable” mean - what is realistic? You can’t find a home for under a million dollars and rents are over $2,000 a month. What do developers say about developing affordable housing in LG? What does the most affordable housing look like? Where will you put the high density housing? What is the plan? Also, many residents moved to Los Gatos for its small town character, low density, quiet neighborhoods, and safe schools. How will you take the needs of those residents into consideration when making a decision? How will you alleviate the concerns of increased traffic, crowded schools, less safety, and more stress that comes with an increase in density? Do we have the resources and infrastructure in place to accommodate housing over the 1993 homes required by the state. I feel it is irresponsible to increase the number of homes over the 1993 required by the state before we have a clear plan and answer the above questions. Warmly, Anne Roley VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Pam Bond Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:12 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: verbal communications - non agenda item Dear Planning Commissioners, I don't think my comment fits with the EIR review for the General Plan but it is in reference to page 6-34 of the General Plan related to artificial turf. I would like to implore you to consider moving artificial turf up in the discussion to the soonest possible time frame in the plan. A group of concerned parents have been gathering evidence which we have been sending to LGUSD district staff and board cautioning against the use of artificial turf. LGUSD staff have recommended that artificial turf be installed in three elementary school courtyards (Van Meter, Daves and Blossom Hill) as well as a kindergarten yard (at Daves elementary) - decision to be made Dec. 14. The board will also decide whether Van Meter and Daves' fields will be converted to artificial turf, a decision to be made in the Spring. The courtyards will be installed this summer and the fields will be installed over the following two summers. We first became concerned when we saw Valley Water's recommendation against the use of artificial turf ( see attached pdf). This led us to organizations who have been fighting the installation of turf all over the country. We also learned about Millbrae's recent moratorium on installations in their city until more can be learned. There are so many issues with this material and so many unknown and known human and environmental concerns that it does not seem prudent to allow unrestricted use of this material in our town, particularly with our proximity to an important waterway or two. I am particularly worried about Creekside Sports Park which has crumb rubber. Two studies, by the EPA and by CalEPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are looking into toxicity and other concerns related to crumb rubber fields. It has already been shown that one chemical found in tire crumb is responsible for massive Coho Salmon decline in Puget Sound which doesn't bode well for the salmon in Los Gatos Creek. I read the MND for Creekside from 9 or 10 years ago and it looks like it was seriously lacking in runoff mitigation and concerns about tire and plastic blades getting into the environment and the creek. I wanted to just send a message to get this on your radar if it isn't already. I would like to share more if there is an avenue to do so. We also have many expert letters and other information in a website that we cobbled together for the purposes of compiling what we've learned or what has been shared with us about artificial turf. www.questionfakegrass.org I want to share with you this article linked below that has some big news in the artificial turf debate related to the presence of PFAS chemicals in the plastic blades and a great example of industry efforts at denial. Various experts including Dr. Graham Peaslee and The Ecology Center have tested artificial turf for the presence of PFAS chemicals using a testing method that has not been employed by the turf industry or its experts (like Dr. Green highlighted in the article for her false reporting and lies). The PFAS experts have found PFAS but the industry denied its presence, then admitted recently to a PFAS chemical called PVDF which they asserted to be inert. This article describes much more but reveals that Kristen Mello discovered a research paper wherein PVDF was shown to break apart in sunlight from its inert form into PFAS chemicals that are available to the environment and can wash off into our water supply. https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-linked-consultant-undercuts-agencys-pfas-concerns/ This alone should be a huge cause for concern. We have video testimony from Dr. Peaslee, Dr. Bennett and Kristen Mello on our website. There is so much I could share but what I'd like to mention is that UCSF's Pediatric Children's Health Department echoes concerns of Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health in saying that they do not recommend the use of artificial turf and they cannot say that it is safe, particularly for schools and children. The long term health effects are unknown and testing of the materials is imperfect. A recent report shows that there there is huge cause for concern related to the use of plastic. "There are thousands more chemicals in plastic than we thought" (link ot research paper in this article) https://www.fastcompany.com/90649480/there-are-thousands-more-toxic-chemicals-in-plastic-than- we-thought Thank you for considering and if you have time, we have a lot of information compiled on our website. Sincerely, Pam Bond Los Gatos, CA Louise Van Meter Elementary Parent Girl Scout Leader Home and School Club garden program lead Water Conservation Fact Sheet Artificial Turf Through the Landscape Rebate Program, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is helping to promote water conservation while at the same time encouraging the installation of healthy, sustainable landscapes that will enhance our local environment. The district is not only responsible for safe, clean drinking water, we are also stewards of our entire watershed and have designed our program to go beyond simply saving water. While artificial turf requires less water than a natural turf lawn, there are healthier and more ecologically sound alternatives that we would like to promote with our Landscape Rebate Program. For the following reasons, artificial turf is not included in our Landscape Rebate Program. Artificial turf is not a living landscape and does not: • Increase biodiversity of plant, animal and insect populations; • Provide habitat for local fauna; • Foster healthy soils (healthy soils increase moisture holding capacity, support healthy microbes and insects, filter pollutants and improve water quality); • Cool surrounding air temperatures (artificial turf can get significantly hotter than surrounding air temperatures, contributing to the heat island effect by increasing air temperatures in urban settings); • Sequester carbon or produce oxygen like living plant material can. Artificial turf is not water free • For sanitation purposes, water is needed to periodically clean the turf. Chemicals may also be needed occasionally. • Because artificial turf can get very hot in direct sunlight, water is sometimes needed to cool the turf before it can be used comfortably. Artificial turf has potential environmental concerns • Runoff from artificial turf may contain pollutants like heavy metals and chemicals that can reach surface water or groundwater. Results may vary for different artificial turf products, but more scientific research is needed (See report from Environmental and Human Health, Inc: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/turf/ and the district’s report on artificial turf fields at: http://valleywater.org/Programs/ conservationannualreports.aspx). • Artificial turf is a synthetic material with a relatively short lifespan ranging from 10-20 years that may eventually end up in landfills. Fortunately, the Landscape Rebate Program allows many beautiful, low water using options that result in more sustainable and beneficial landscapes. For additional information about the Landscape Rebate Program or our extensive Qualifying Plant List, please call the Water Conservation Hotline at 408-630-2554 or visit www.valleywater.org. An example of a front yard lawn conversion that reduces water use while also creating a sustainable landscape. For more information, contact the Water Conservation Hotline at (408) 630-2554, email conservation@valleywater.org, or visit our website at valleywater.org and use our Access Valley Water customer request and information system. With three easy steps, you can use this service to find out the latest information on district projects or to submit questions, complaints or compliments directly to a district staff person. CONTACT US Follow us on: /scvwd /valleywater /valleywater To get eNews, email info@valleywater.org For water saving tips, go to: SAVE WATER.SAVE WATER. IT’S TIME. IT’S TIME. Save Water. Save Money. Save Water. Save Money. For water saving rebate programs, go to: © 2014 Santa Clara Valley Water District • PUB 503 • 03/06/14 BA