Loading...
Staff Report with Exhibits.Draft 2040 General Plan PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP Planning Manager Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 4/13/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: April 7, 2022 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council. RECOMMENDATION: Review and make recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the Town Council. BACKGROUND: On February 6, 2018, Town Council began the process of updating the 2020 General Plan with a discussion of the scope and process for the General Plan update. At that meeting, the Town Council indicated that the General Plan is serving the community well, and an update provides the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues. Over the following four years, the General Plan update process has included multiple community engagement opportunities, meetings with the Planning Commission and Town Council, and the following key milestones: • On April 17, 2018, the Town Council established the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) and identified initial guiding principles to support their wo rk. • On July 9, 2018, after approval by the Town Council, the Town Manager executed an agreement with Mintier Harnish Planning Consultants for preparation of the General Plan update and Draft EIR. • On October 30, 2018, the GPAC held its first meeting. • On March 15, 2019, the Background Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released. PAGE 2 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): • On June 20, 2019, the GPAC reviewed the Issues, Opportunities, and Constraints Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html). • On August 20, 2019, the Town Council adopted the General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html). • In December 2019, the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released. • On March 3, 2020, the GPAC started review and discussion of the initial drafts of individual elements of the General Plan. • On April 7, 2020, the Town Council approved the Preferred Land Use Alternatives Framework (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html). • On November 17, 2020, the Town Council discussed and provided direction on the Draft Land Use and Community Design Elements. • On May 6, 2021, the GPAC recommended approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html). • On June 18, 2021, the Draft 2040 General Plan was released for public review. • On July 31, 2021, the Draft EIR (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released for public review. The public comment period ended on September 13, 2021. • On September 20, 2021, the Town Council and Planning Commission held a Joint Study Session for discussion of the Draft 2040 General Plan. • On November 19, 2021, the revised Notice of Completion and Availability was reissued along with a revised Chapter 4.15, Transportation, and Executive Summary of the Draft EIR (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) for a reopened public review period which ended on January 8, 2022. • On December 7, 2021, the Town Council held a Study Session for discussion of housing growth options and related analyses for Planning Commission and Town Council consideration of the Draft 2040 General Plan. • On March 24, 2022, the Final EIR was published online (available here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html). Over the course of two and a half years and 35 meetings, the GPAC worked with staff and the consultant to create an updated General Plan. The GPAC reviewed each General Plan Element to ensure a forward-looking document that is consistent and accessible. Each Element was considered over multiple meetings (between two and five GPAC meetings per Element) with the GPAC providing comments to staff and the consultant, and then further review and direction on the implementation of those comments in a revised draft of each Element. The Draft 2040 General Plan (previously provided and referenced here as Exhibit 1) is the result of this extensive work and outreach. PAGE 3 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): Additional outreach activities conducted throughout the process have included: the Town’s website and weekly newsletter; social media posts; online engagement activities; newsletters; two in-person community workshops; numerous in-person and online community meetings; handouts and posters at the Library; information on the Town’s webpage; information in the email signature of Planning Division staff; a Town-wide mailer; and informational booths at the farmers market, the Library, Spring into Green, and Music in the Park. DISCUSSION: Through the General Plan update process, the GPAC has refined the goals of the update based on direction from Town Council at the start and at key points throughout the process. The initial direction from Town Council was that the 2020 General Plan was serving the Town well, and this update provides the opportunity for the Town to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues. These emerging trends, recent State laws, and new issues included: • Inclusivity: The need for inclusivity came to the forefront in 2020 and led to updates within every Element of the General Plan. • Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): The expected State requirement that the General Plan provide opportunities for the approximately 2,000 residential units for the next Housing Element update lead to discussions of where and how those units should be accommodated. The housing allocation for our region has now been approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), with an allocation for the Town of Los Gatos of 1,993 housing units. • Objective Standards: The need for objective standards, particularly for those areas of Town that are most likely to redevelop with new housing, became clear with new State laws limiting certain development project reviews to objective standards. • Safety Element and Fire Safety/Preparedness: A required review by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for areas in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones was required as part of this update. • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A requirement for environmental review to consider VMT instead of Level of Service also led to a shift in the plan to emphasize a reduction of VMT and increase in mobility of all mode types. • Sustainability: An ongoing interest in increasing sustainability efforts through Town actions, regulations, and coordination led to new and revised policies. The most substantial changes in the Draft 2040 General Plan are: • A new Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element; • Increased housing opportunities for mixed-use developments in commercial areas and missing middle housing in existing neighborhoods with design requirements; PAGE 4 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • New Community Commercial land use designation; • New Community Place Districts to provide more objective design standards and focus on community form (urban design) for all development; • Shift in focus of transportation policies to street design, connectivity, and mobility for all users (bicycles, pedestrians, vehicles, etc.) to reduce VMT; • New goals in the Environment and Sustainability Element; and • Expanded policies to prepare for wildfire, climate change, and community health threats. The increased housing opportunities are provided through changes in the maximum allowed densities and heights. The increases to the maximum allowed residential density are seen in most areas, excluding the hillsides, with a focus on the commercial, mixed-use, and medium/high density residential designations. This coincides with the location of the Community Place Districts, where the Draft 2040 General Plan also includes new design policies. The following table depicts the changes in density and height for all land use designations: Density Range (du/ac) Maximum Height Land Use Designations Existing General Plan Draft General Plan Existing General Plan Draft General Plan Hillside Residential 0 to 1 0 to 1 30 25 Low Density Residential 0 to 5 1 to 12 30 30 Medium Density Residential 5 to 12 14 to 24 30 35 High Density Residential 12 to 20 30 to 40 30 45 Mixed-Use 20 30 to 40 35 45 Neighborhood Commercial 20 10 to 20 35 35 Community Commercial NA 20 to 30 35 45 Central Business District 20 20 to 30 45 45 Office Professional 20 30 to 40 35 35 Service Commercial NA 20 to 30 35 35 Light Industrial NA None 35 35 Public NA None NA 35 Open Space NA None NA 30 Agriculture NA 0 to 1 NA 30 Albright Specific Plan See Specific Plan No Change See Specific Plan No Change North Forty Specific Plan See Specific Plan No Change See Specific Plan No Change The following sections step through additional suggested modifications, as well as topics where additional information has been requested. PAGE 5 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): A. GPAC Recommendation After the thorough work described above, on May 6, 2021, the GPAC recommended approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan. The discussion at this meeting also included a recommendation for some modifications to the Vision and Guiding Principles to better reflect the direction developed over the previous years’ work. These changes are shown in Exhibit 6 and summarized in Exhibit 7. B. Housing Units See information provided in the September 20, 2021 Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, available online here: https://www.losgatosca.gov/13/Agendas-Minutes. When discussing the number of housing units that may be developed under this General Plan, it is important to understand the context for the different numbers under discussion. In the Draft 2040 General Plan, on page 3-4, the General Plan Residential Buildout Table (3- 1) contains a calculation of how many units are projected to be developed over the 20-year timeframe of the Draft 2040 General Plan, if adopted without changes. The numbers in this table include: New Housing on Vacant and Redeveloped Land 2,763 units New Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (25 per year) 500 units Existing Projects 475 units Total 3,738 units These numbers are frequently referenced in the public comments received and compared to the RHNA allocation, now confirmed by ABAG to be 1,993 housing units for the Town of Los Gatos. This is the allocation that the Town will need to include in the update of the Housing Element for the next eight-year period (2023-2031). Unfortunately, this direct comparison can lead to confusion because of the following factors: • The General Plan Residential Buildout Table is an estimate based on a 20-year timeline; • The General Plan Residential Buildout Table includes 475 residential units from existing projects, where most will have building permits issued prior to the start of the next Housing Element cycle, and therefore won’t be counted toward the 1,993 unit requirement; PAGE 6 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • The General Plan Residential Buildout Table includes 25 ADUs per year, which resulted in 500 units for the 20-year timeline, but only 200 over the eight-year RHNA cycle; and • The Housing Element will likely need to include capacity for at least a 15 percent buffer, above the 1,993 housing units, for a total of 2,292 housing units, in order to be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). When the Draft 2040 General Plan numbers above are modified to better account for the points listed above, the following is the result: New Housing on Vacant & Redeveloped Land 2,763 units New Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (25 per year) 200 units Existing Projects 75 units Total 3,038 units This adjustment shows that thes projected development of 3,038 dwelling units can be compared to the required 1,993 housing units plus 15 percent buffer (2,292 units). The projected housing development under the 20-year General Plan is therefore 746 housing units greater than the expected need for the eight -year Housing Element need. As a result, the following information is provided for discussion and consideration for potential modifications that would reduce the development potential of the Draft 2040 General Plan, if desired. Potential reductions in housing development capacity: • Revert Low Density Housing designation housing density back to the existing 2020 General Plan level: 279 units; • Revert Medium Density Housing designation housing density back to the existing 2020 General Plan level: 327 units; • Remove housing from Office and Service Commercial designations: 313 units; • Revert properties in the new Community Commercial designation back to Neighborhood Commercial: 58 units; • Reduce the allowed density in the Mixed-Use designation from 40 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre: 255 units; • Reduce the allowed density in the High Density Residential designation from 40 dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre: 111 units. C. Community Engagement Much of the public meetings and engagement activities of this p rocess are listed in the Background section of this report. In response to a request from a Council Member, staff PAGE 7 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): has compiled some data to illustrate the efforts that the Town has employed to reach out to the community for input: • 110 newspaper ads published about the General Plan update; • 433 social media posts across five platforms; • 17,320 notice cards sent to all residents in Town for 2021 Community Meeting; • 26 pop-up tables at farmers market, library, or public events; • 7 presentations at community group meetings; • 369 sign-ups to receive email notifications about the General Plan update; • 538 unique searches for "Los Gatos General Plan Update" or closely related in Google; and • 29,343 unique visitors to the Los Gatos General Update website since June 2021. Of the unique visitors, 92 percent originated in the United States. D. Missing Middle Housing In the Draft 2040 General Plan the term Missing Middle Housing is defined as, “a term used to describe multiple units on a single parcel (whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes. Common housing types include: duplexes; triplexes; fourplexes; courtyard apartments; cottage courts; townhomes; triplex stacked (vertical); and live-work spaces.” In response to direction from Town Council, the following alternative definitions of Missing Middle Housing are provided for consideration: • Missing Middle Housing is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units - compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes - located in a walkable neighborhood. (missingmiddlehoususing.com) • “Missing middle housing” refers to small-scale multi-family housing that can range from duplexes to townhouses to smaller apartment buildings that are compatible with walkable neighborhoods. Dan Parolek of Opticos Design coined the term “missing middle” in 2010 and created this website (missingmiddlehousing.com) to explain the term, provide basics about the market, describe its characteristics, and provide guidance for creating middle housing. (abag.ca.gov) • Missing middle housing describes a range of multi-family or clustered housing types that are compatible in scale with single-family or transitional neighborhoods. Missing middle housing is intended to meet the demand for walkable neighborhoods, respond to changing demographics, and provide housing at different price points. The term "missing middle" is meant to describe housing types that were common in the pre-WWII United States such as duplexes, rowhomes, and courtyard apartments, but are now less common and, therefore, "missing." Rather than focusing on the number of units in a PAGE 8 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): structure, missing middle housing emphasizes scale and heights that are appropriate for single-family neighborhoods or transitional neighborhoods. After the introduction of the term in 2010, the concept has been applied in the United States, Canada, and Australia. (wikipedia.org) In addition to consideration of potential modifications to the definition of Missing Middle Housing, any discussion of reducing the housing density allowed in the Low Density Residential designations should include a discussion of the removal of this concept from the Draft 2040 General Plan, given that the density changes in these areas are the factor that would allow for potential Missing Middle Housing. E. Senate Bill 9 California Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) requires ministerial (staff-level) approval of certain housing development projects and lot splits on a single-family zoned parcel. SB 9 was passed by the California Legislature on September 1, 2021, signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, and took effect January 1, 2022. On December 21, 2021, Town Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance to implement SB 9 with local objective standards, and on February 1, 2022, Town Council adopted an extension of that Urgency Ordinance. A permanent ordinance will be adopted before the end of the year. While there is potential that the new residential units that will be created as a result of SB 9 can be counted toward meeting the required housing units, at the time of the preparation of this report, only one application has been received under the SB 9 regulations, and so there are no data at this time to support specific housing production under this program. F. Plan Timeframe The development of the Draft 2040 General Plan was based on a 20-year timeframe as stated in the consultant contract, approved by Town Council in June, 2018. However, th e Draft 2040 General Plan also includes Land Use Implementation Program J: Ten-year General Plan Review The Town shall conduct a thorough review of the General Plan every ten years from the date of final approval, and revise and update as necessary. This review can include the following: • Modify, add, or delete goals, policies, or programs to reflect notable changes in the Town over the previous period; PAGE 9 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): • Remove or modify programs that have been completed or require additional time; • Modify or add new goals, policies, or programs to reflect changing needs within the Town; and • Modify to reflect applicable changes in State law. Staff suggests an additional Implementation Program to review the Land Use Element every five years and include a fiscal analysis, as noted in Exhibit 7. G. Declining California Population In response to a request from a Council Member, staff has looked into recent news articles that state that California's population has estimated to have fallen over the last two years. Population estimates from the U.S. Census are in the following table: California Santa Clara County Year Population estimate Percent Change Year Population estimate Percent Change July 1, 2019 39,512,223 July 1, 2019 1,927,852 July 1, 2020 39,499,738 -0.316 July 1, 2020 1,930,598 +0.142 July 1, 2021 39,237,836 -0.665 July 1, 2021 1,885,508 -2.33 2022 Not available 2022 Not available When looking at changes over these three years, especially with ongoing changes in the status of the COVID-19 Pandemic, it is difficult to determine if these are indications of new trends or if the changes are temporary. H. Suggestions From Public Comments Many of the verbal and written comments received on this Draft 2040 General Plan have been supportive of the proposed changes especially on the following topics: • Environmental protection and sustainability, including plant-based eating; • Diverse housing types, including increased density, affordable housing, and Missing Middle Housing, so that people who work here can live here; • Racial equity and inclusivity; • Non-auto related mobility and decreases in VMT; and • Emergency preparedness, especially for wildfires. However, the Planning Commission may consider including changes as part of their recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan to Town Council. The Planning PAGE 10 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): Commission may consider changes recommended in this report , from public comments, and/or from its own review and deliberation. To assist in this discussion, the written public comments on the Draft 2040 General Plan received between 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, May 6, 2021 (final GPAC meeting) and 11:00 a.m. on Monday, September 20, 2021, were provided with the September 20, 2021 Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report materials, and are provided again here as Exhibit 9. Written comments received on the Draft EIR are included, with responses to comments, in the Final EIR, as noted above. All written public comments on the Draft 2040 General Plan received between 11:01 a.m. on Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2022, are included as Exhibit 10 to this staff report. The comments generally fall into numerous categories, including: • Policy on plant-based diets is not enough to ensure education on health and environmental benefits; • Objections to the number of new housing units, and why it is over the RHNA requirement; • Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts of additional housing; • Adequacy of utilities (water and electricity) for additional housing; • Impacts on schools from additional housing; • People won’t actually use alternative modes of transportation; • Safety in the case of wildfires, including impacts on evacuations; • Impacts on public safety from additional housing; • Lack of citizen input in this plan and in future development; • Air quality impacts from additional residents; • Impacts on local businesses from traffic congestion; • Impacts on quality of life of current residents; • Increased density in Low Density Residential areas to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes; • More housing will be built than is estimated in the buildout table; • Not enough housing will actually get built; • Plan is too vague and should be more detailed; • Lack of mass transit in Town; • Choice to not appeal RHNA number; • Protection of views of the hills; • Should Council make the decision, or should it be made by the voters; and • Allow more density and height and less parking to encourage affordable housing and mixed-use developments. PAGE 11 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): The specific suggestions received were so numerous that they have been compiled in Exhibit 7 and numbered with staff comments and recommendations for each shown in italics for ease of discussion and reference. I. Safety Element Review by Board of Forestry State Law requires that any General Plan or Housing Element update conducted after January 1, 2014, include review and update of the Safety Element to address the risk of fire for land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ’s) [Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(3)]. This review by CalFire must be conducted prior to adoption of those updated Elements. As a result, once the Draft 2040 General Plan was published for review in June 2021, CalFire staff reviewed the three Elements that contain applicable policies: the Community Design Element; the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element; and the Hazards and Safety Element. As a result of this review, modifications were required by CalFire. The changes are summarized in Exhibit 7 and the affected pages of these three Elements are included as Exhibit 8, with changes shown in strike through and underlined. California Board of Forestry reviewed the Draft 2040 General Plan with modification s recommended by CalFire staff and recommended approval on November 2, 2021. J. Additional Staff Recommended Changes In addition to the potential changes identified earlier in this report by the GPAC and staff, suggested by the public, and requested by CalFire, Town staff from the Parks and Public Works Department has several additional recommended changes for consideration before adoption of the 2040 General Plan. These are listed in Exhibit 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR (previously provided and referenced here as Exhibit 2) for the project was circulated for 45 days commencing on July 30, 2021, and concluding on September 13, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Written comments were received by the Community Development Department. A Planning Commission public hearing to receive oral comments was held during the review period on September 8, 2021. During the review of commentary and the preparation of the Final EIR, the Town became aware of a procedural error in the original Notice of Completion and Availability and also noted that Appendix C erroneously included a draft rather than a final Transportation Analysis. Additionally, Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the EIR was revised to elaborate on transit impacts and cumulative VMT impacts. Even though the content changes were minor, the Town PAGE 12 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (continued): believed to provide maximum clarity, it was important to recirculate the Transportation Analysis of the Draft EIR and its Appendix, as well as the Executive Summary which includes a summary of transportation impacts (previously provided and referenced here as Exhibit 3). Accordingly, the Town of Los Gatos reissued the Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR, and formally recirculated Chapter 4.15, Transportation and Appendix C, Transportation Analysis for the Draft EIR, as well as the Executive Summary. The reopened public review period ran from Friday, November 19, 2021, to at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 7, 2022. A public hearing to receive comments on the revised Draft EIR was held on December 8, 2021. During this additional 45-day public review period, written comments were received and are included, along with response to all comments from the initial comment period, in the Final EIR (previously provided and referenced here as Exhibit 3). The analysis of the Draft EIR identified significant and potentially significant impacts in the following environmental issue areas: • Air Quality; • Cultural Resources; • Geology and Soils; • Greenhouse Gas Emissions; • Noise; and • Transportation. Mitigation measures are proposed in all of these subject areas. Not all of the potential impacts could be mitigated to a less than significant level and therefore, the following topic areas were found to have significant unavoidable impacts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Transportation. When the Lead Agency finds that there are impacts that are significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires preparation of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit 5). The Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the Final EIR to the Town Council who is the deciding body on both the Final EIR and the Draft 2040 General Plan. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 2021, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, were provided with the written staff report materials fo r the September 20, 2021 Town Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session, and are provided again here as Exhibit 9. Written comments received on the Draft EIR are included, with responses to comments, in the Final EIR, as noted above. Written comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022, are included as Exhibit 10. PAGE 13 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 CONCLUSION: The 2040 Draft General Plan is a result of the Town Council’s direction to update the existing 2020 General Plan to address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues relevant to the Town. Over the course of two and a half years and 35 meetings, the GPAC worked with staff and the consultant to create an updated General Plan. The GPAC reviewed each General Plan Element to ensure a forward-looking document that is consistent and accessible. Each Element was considered over multiple meetings (between two and five GPAC meetings per Element) with the GPAC providing comments to staff and the consu ltant, and then further review and direction on the implementation of those comments in a revised draft of each Element. The Draft 2040 General Plan is the result of this extensive work and outreach. All additional comments received on the Draft 2040 General Plan are included as Exhibits 8 and 9. The Final EIR, which includes all comments received on the Draft EIR as well as the responses to the comments and any changes to the EIR is referenced as Exhibit 4. In conclusion, based on the GPAC's recommendation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission: • Received and consider public comments; • Complete the review of the Draft 2040 General Plan; • Consider the Final EIR; • Provide input on any additional recommended modifications to the Draft 2040 General Plan; and • Forward the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR to the Town Council with a recommendation to approve the Draft 2040 General Plan and certify the Final EIR. NEXT STEPS: The final step in the General Plan update process is consideration by Town Council of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR, including consideration of recommendations from the GPAC and Planning Commission, and additional comments from the public. EXHIBITS: Exhibits previously provided (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html): 1. Draft 2040 General Plan 2. Draft EIR 3. Revised NOA and Transportation section 4. Final EIR PAGE 14 OF 14 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 7, 2022 EXHIBITS (continued): Exhibits received with this report: 5. Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles 7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment 8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes 9. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 2021, and 11:00 a.m. Monday, September 20, 2021 10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2022 EXHIBIT 5 2040 General Plan Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared by Town of Los Gatos Planning Division, Department of Community Development 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, California 95030 Contact: Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 March 2022 Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations This page intentionally left blank. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 Introduction A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared for the 2040 General Plan (project), was made available for public review on July 30, 2021, and was distributed to local and State agencies. Copies of the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR were mailed to a list of interested parties, groups, and public agencies. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the Town’s website, and a paper copy was available for public review at the Los Gatos Public Library. The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was also posted at the office of the Santa Clara County Clerk. After the close of the first comment period on the Draft EIR, the Town became aware of a procedural error in the original Notice of Completion and Availability and noted that Appendix C erroneously included a draft rather than a final Transportation Analysis. The Town reopened the public comment period on the Draft EIR for an additional 45-day period and provided an updated Notice of Availability with the statutory language required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15087. As part of this reopened comment period, Chapter 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR was revised to elaborate on transit impacts and cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts. The Town recirculated the revised Transportation section and its Appendix, as well as the Executive Summary which includes a summary of transportation impacts. No other sections of the Draft EIR were revised. This second comment period extended from November 15, 2021, to January 7, 2022. After close of the Recirculated Draft EIR public review and comment period, a Final EIR consisting of responses to comments and changes to the Draft EIR was completed, which was released to the public on March_____________, 2022. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on ___________, 2022, and prepared a recommendation to the Town Council regarding certification of the Final EIR and action on the project, and the Town Council held a public hearing on _________ and determined to certify the Final EIR and to approve the project. The Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) presented herein address the environmental effects associated with the project that are described and analyzed within the Final EIR, reflecting the Council’s determinations about feasible mitigation measures, the adequacy of the Final EIR, and about the project. These Findings have been made pursuant to CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources code Section 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093. Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the Town of Los Gatos (Town) as the Lead Agency for this project, prepare written findings for any identified significant environmental effects along with a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Specific findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Further, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the Town as the decision- making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the Lead Agency must adopt a formal SOC. The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the project, but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Those effects were related to air quality (impacts related to construction air pollutants and odors), cultural and tribal cultural resources (potential for impacts on previously unidentified historical and archaeological resources), geology and soils (potential for a paleontological impacts), and noise (impacts related to project construction noise and vibration). A significant and unavoidable (unmitigable) cumulative impact associated with greenhouse gas emissions and transportation (impacts related to transit and VMT) were identified due to lack of feasible mitigation measures, and thus a SOC is required. 2 Project Description The 2040 General Plan is a comprehensive update of the Town’s 2020 General Plan and establishes the community’s vision for future development of the Town over the next 20 years. As part of the General Plan update process, the 2040 General Plan has been reorganized and reformatted, with updated goals and policies that reflect the community’s vision of Los Gatos. The Town’s General Plan Land Use Map has also been updated to reflect the community’s vision and three themes that thread through the 2040 General Plan: growth management; sustainability and resiliency; and community health and well-being. State law (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4) sets forth the requirement for each municipality to adopt and periodically update its General Plan and sets the requirement that a General Plan include the following eight mandatory subject areas, or “elements”: Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space; Conservation; Noise; Safety; and Environmental Justice. State law also allows for optional elements that can be organized or combined at the Town’s discretion. As described below, the 2040 General Plan has been organized into the following eight updated elements: Community Design; Environment and Sustainability; Hazards and Safety; Land Use; Mobility; Open Space, Parks, and Recreation; Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure; and Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice. Together, these elements, along with the 2015-2023 Housing Element, cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law, as described above. Each element describes the existing conditions and context for its related topic areas, followed by goals, policies, and implementation programs to guide the Town’s management and development through 2040. The 2040 General Plan would emphasize infill and reuse development within the Town limits with a focus on increasing opportunities for housing development in key areas of the Town through increased density and mixed-use projects where appropriate. New development would occur primarily where existing roads, water, and sewer are in place and in a manner that would minimize the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. The 2040 General Plan also provides the policy framework to guide future development toward land uses that support walking and biking. The 2040 General Plan places a greater emphasis on reestablishing more complete neighborhood areas that meet the daily needs of residents to be located within a one-mile distance. Focus areas for growth in Los Gatos, called Community Place Districts, include Pollard Road, Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Winchester Boulevard, Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Boulevard, Union Avenue, Harwood Road, North Santa Cruz Avenue, and Downtown. 3 Project Objectives The 2040 General Plan presents a vision for the future of Los Gatos and a set of guiding principles for how the Town will achieve that vision. This vision and guiding principles capture the Town’s key values and aspirations for the future. They reflect the collective ideas from community members and Town leaders that provided input to help shape the 2040 General Plan. Among the central objectives of the 2040 General Plan are to achieve the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of approximately 2,000 dwelling units developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments additional. Accordingly, Los Gatos used the RHNA numbers as a predictor of the housing needed to meet future demands. This focused the Town to reevaluate and plan for a more diverse housing mix for a changing population. Proactively planning for the anticipated land use changes and ensuring growth is sustainable over the next 20 years is a priority of this General Plan and the community. The 2040 General Plan vision for the future is as follows: The Town of Los Gatos is a welcoming, family‐oriented, and safe community nestled in the beautiful foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Town is a sustainable community that takes pride in its small‐town character and provides a range of housing opportunities, historic neighborhoods, local culture and arts, excellent schools, and a lively and accessible downtown. Los Gatos offers a choice of mobility options, superior public facilities and services, and an open and responsive local government that is fiscally sound. Los Gatos has a dynamic and thriving economy that includes a mix of businesses throughout Town that serves all residents, workers, and visitors. The 2040 General Plan guiding principles are contained in the 2040 General Plan Introduction and listed below: ▪ Community Vitality. Invigorate downtown Los Gatos as a special place for community gathering, commerce, and other activities for residents and visitors. Foster the economic vitality of all Los Gatos business locations. Preserve and enhance the Town's historic resources and character while guiding the community into the future. ▪ Diverse Neighborhoods. Foster appropriate investments to maintain and enhance diverse neighborhoods, housing opportunities, and infrastructure to meet the needs of all current and future residents. ▪ Fiscal Stability / Responsibility. Provide high quality municipal services to the Los Gatos community while sustaining the Town's long-term fiscal health. ▪ Government Transparency. Conduct governmental processes in an open manner and encourage public involvement in Town governance. ▪ Inclusivity. Recognize the importance of and promote ethnic, cultural, and socio‐economic diversity and equity to enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos. ▪ Mobility. Provide a well-connected transportation system that enables safe access for all transportation modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ▪ Promote Public Safety. Maintain and enhance Los Gatos as a safe community through preparation and planning, education, and community design that is responsive to the full range of potential natural and man‐made hazards and safety issues. ▪ Protect Natural Resources. Protect the natural resources and scenic assets that define Los Gatos, including open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides, and natural waterways. ▪ Sustainability. Manage, conserve, and preserve Los Gatos' natural environment for present and future generations. Identify and provide opportunities to enhance the Town' s sustainability policies and practices. These objectives have been considered in preparing the findings and statement of overriding considerations contained herein. 4 Findings of Fact Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Final EIR for this project, as well as the supporting administrative record, the Town of Los Gatos makes findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. 4.1 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the Final EIR, it was determined that the project would not result in potentially significant effects on the environment with respect to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. No further findings are required for these subject areas. 4.2 Findings for Significant but Mitigated Effects The following findings are hereby made by the Town of Los Gatos Town Council for the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR related to air quality (impacts related to construction air pollutants and odors), cultural resources (potential for impacts on previously unidentified historical and archaeological resources), geology and soils (potential for a paleontological impacts), and noise (impacts related to project construction noise and vibration). Air Quality Impact AQ-2: Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would result in the temporary generation of air pollutants during construction, which may contribute to existing air quality violations in the Basin. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reductions. New discretionary projects in the General Plan Area that exceed the construction screening criteria of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be conditioned to reduce construction emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) by implementing the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (described below) or equivalent, expanded, or modified measures based on project and site-specific conditions. Basic Construction Mitigation Measures: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, with priority given to the use of recycled water for this activity when feasible. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to require the BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures for all projects. Impact AQ-4: The light industrial development allowed in the 2040 General Plan may create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. Impacts related to odors would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AQ-2 AQ-2 Odor Reduction. Land Use Element Policy LU-11.5 Industrial Compatibility shall be updated in the 2040 General Plan to read: Require that industrial projects be designed to limit the impact of truck traffic, air, odor, and noise pollution on adjacent sensitive land uses. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 to update General Plan Policy LU-11.5 to include limitation of odors. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would have the potential to impact historical resources and unique archaeological resources. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. CR-1 Cultural Resources Study Implementation. If a project requires activities that have the potential to impact cultural resources, the Town shall require the project applicant or proponent to retain a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in archaeology and/or an architectural historian meeting the SOI PQS standards in architectural history to complete a Phase 1 cultural resources inventory of the project site (NPS 1983). A Phase 1 cultural resources inventory shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site and sufficient background archival research and field sampling to determine whether subsurface prehistoric or historic remains may be present. Archival research shall include a records search conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) and a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search conducted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The technical report documenting the Phase 1 cultural resources inventory shall include recommendations to avoid or reduce impacts to cultural resources. These recommendations shall be implemented and incorporated in the project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). The implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts to historical and unique archeological resources to a less than significant level by requiring cultural resource studies for projects within the Town and SOI and implementation of further requirements to avoid or reduce impacts to such resources on a project-by-project basis. Geology and Soils Impact GEO-5: Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan has the potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Studies. The Town shall require paleontological resource studies for projects that involve ground disturbance in project areas mapped as high paleontological sensitivity at the surface or subsurface determined through environmental review. Additionally, in the event that a paleontological resource is disclosed, construction activities in the area shall be suspended, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to examine the site, and protective measures shall be implemented to protect the paleontological resource. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Compliance with Mitigation Measure GEO-1 and the 2040 General Plan goals and policies would ensure that construction impacts related to paleontological resources and unique geologic features would be less than significant. Noise Impact N-1: Construction of individual projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would temporarily generate increased noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise- sensitive land uses. Provisions in the Los Gatos Town Code and 2040 General Plan policies would limit noise disturbance to the extent feasible. Construction noise may still exceed noise standards temporarily, but exceedances would not be substantial and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. N-1 Construction Noise Reduction. For projects involving construction equipment that are located within 25 feet of noise-sensitive receptors the following mitigation would be required: ▪ Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise- sensitive receptors. ▪ Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. ▪ Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction. ▪ Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. During the clearing, earth moving, grading, and foundation/conditioning phases of construction, temporary sound barriers shall be installed and maintained between the construction site and the sensitive receptors. Temporary sound barriers shall consist of sound blankets affixed Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to construction fencing or temporary solid walls along all sides of the construction site boundary facing potentially sensitive receptors. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). N-1 would reduce construction noise. Combined with Los Gatos Town Code requirements, which requires most construction noise to be below 85 dBA and occur during daytime, when most people are awake or away from residences at work, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Impact N-3: Construction of individual projects facilitated by the 2040 General Plan could temporarily generate groundborne vibration, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Compliance with the Los Gatos Town Code would limit vibration disturbance on residential receptors and hotels where sleeping receptors could be present. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. N-2 Construction Vibration Reduction. The Town shall include the following measures as standard conditions of approval for applicable projects involving construction to minimize exposure to construction vibration: 1. Avoid the use of vibratory rollers (i.e., compactors) within 50 feet of buildings that are susceptible to damage from vibration. 2. Schedule construction activities with the highest potential to produce vibration to hours with the least potential to affect nearby institutional, educational, and office uses that the Federal Transit Administration identifies as sensitive to daytime vibration (FTA 2006). 3. Notify neighbors of scheduled construction activities that would generate vibration. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (Section 15091(a)(1)). Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4.3 Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects Public Resources Code 21081and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require that the Town of Los Gatos balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining to approve a project. And if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations transportation (impacts related to transit and VMT) were identified for the project. The following findings and statement of overriding considerations outlines the specific reasons to support the Town of Los Gatos recommendation for approval of the project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact GHG-1: Implementation of 2040 General Plan would generate annual GHG emissions of approximately 323,446 MT of CO2e per year, or 5.29 MT of CO2e per service person per year, in 2040. This would exceed the 2040 efficiency threshold of 1.02 MT of CO2e per service person per year. Even with implementation of mitigation, GHG emissions would not be reduced to below the efficiency threshold. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure: GHG-1 Implement Community GHG Emissions Reduction Measures. Los Gatos shall implement the following GHG emissions reduction measures by sector: ENERGY (EN) ▪ Measure EN1: Adopt an ordinance requiring new commercial construction to be all-electric or otherwise operationally carbon neutral by 2025: Adopt a new building ordinance which bans the installation of natural gas in new commercial construction by 2025 and requires new commercial buildings to install all-electric equipment or otherwise be operationally carbon neutral. Support this action by conducting outreach and education to local developers about the benefits and resources associated with building carbon neutral buildings. ▪ Measure EN2: Identify and partner with stakeholders to conduct electrification outreach, promotion, and education: Leverage partnerships with stakeholders to conduct outreach, promotion, and education around new and existing building electrification. ▪ Measure EN3: Develop a Community-wide Existing Residential Building Electrification Plan (EBEP): Support community-wide existing building electrification through the development of an EBEP that addresses the feasibility, timeline, equity concerns, local stakeholder involvement, costs, funding pathways, and implementation for electrifying existing residential buildings in Los Gatos. ▪ Measure EN4: Electrify existing residential buildings beginning in 2023: Adopt an electrification ordinance for existing residential buildings to transition natural gas to electric in two phases, to be implemented through the building permit process: o Phase I: Limit expansion of natural gas lines in existing buildings by 2023. o Phase II: Require HVAC system replacements and hot water heaters replacements to be all-electric by 2023. ▪ Measure EN5: Identify and partner with stakeholders to develop resident-level funding pathways for implementing an electrification ordinance: Leverage partnerships with stakeholders and establish funding pathways to ease community members’ costs when complying with the electrification ordinance, including: o Pass a transfer tax ordinance and provide a rebate for electric panels and/or other upgrades; and o Partner with PG&E, SVCE, and/or other stakeholders to create or expand electrification/retrofit programs and incentives, especially for low-income residents. These could include the PACE program, PG&E’s low-income weatherization. program, tariffed on-bill financing, metered energy efficiency, or others. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ▪ Measure EN6: Decarbonize municipal buildings by 2040: Adopt a municipal building energy decarbonization plan to decarbonize municipal building energy operations by 2040. This plan would include a new building electrification policy as well as an existing building natural gas phase-out policy. ▪ Measure EN7: Coordinate with stakeholders to provide local energy generation support and incentives for the community: Partner with PG&E, SVCE, and/or other stakeholders to support and incentivize local on-site energy generation and storage resources within the community. ▪ Measure EN8: Develop an EV Readiness Plan to Support Installation of 794 Chargers by 2030: Develop an EV Readiness Plan that supports the installation of 794 chargers (at least 160 of which would be public chargers) and a 30 percent EV share of registered passenger vehicles in Los Gatos by 2030. This plan should establish a path forward to increase EV infrastructure within the Town, promote equitable mode shift to EVs, and identify funding for implementation of public charging infrastructure in key locations. In conjunction with an EV Readiness Plan, conduct a community EV Feasibility Study to assess infrastructure needs and challenges, particularly in frontline communities. • Measure EN9: Increase privately owned EV charging infrastructure: Amend the Town’s Building Code and Local Reach Code to require the following: o EV capable attached private garages for new single-family and duplex residential development; o 20 percent EV capable charging spaces and panel capacity for new multi-family residential development; o 20 percent EV capable charging spaces for new commercial development; and o At least 1 percent working chargers for all new development and major retrofits. • Measure EN10: Increase Town-owned and publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure: Work with public and private partners to ensure there are sufficient publicly accessible DCFC and Level 2 EV chargers around the Town by 2030, with a focus on providing access to low-income households and affordable housing. Install new publicly accessible EV chargers at Town-owned facilities. Develop and implement a fee for use of Town-owned chargers to encourage efficient use and turnover, especially for those without home charging capability. • Measure EN11: Identify and partner with stakeholders to develop EV-related rebates: Investigate partnerships with public and private partners for rebates on at-home electric circuits, panel upgrades, and Level 2 chargers, with a focus on supporting EV purchases for low-income households in frontline communities. • Measure EN12: Encourage EV adoption and infrastructure improvements: Conduct outreach, promotion, and education to encourage EV adoption and infrastructure improvements. This would include the following: o Providing education and outreach to the community on the benefits of ZEVs, availability of public charging, and relevant rebates and incentives available for businesses and residents; and o Working with major employers to provide EV charging for employees and encourage EV adoption among employees. TRANSPORTATION (TR) • Measure TR1: Implement Full Recommended Buildout of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP): Fully implement the BPMP and add 23.2 new miles of bike network by 2035 to achieve 6 percent bicycle mode share by 2035. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Measure TR2: Identify and partner with stakeholders to conduct outreach, promotion, and education: Leverage partnerships with stakeholders to conduct ongoing outreach, promotion, and education around active transportation in Los Gatos. This could include: o Establishing Town-wide events or programs that promote active transportation in the community; o Regularly updating the Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Map and sharing through Town and stakeholder partnership platforms; o Supporting local bike groups in hosting workshops and classes on bike riding, safety, and maintenance by certified instructors; o Instituting car-free days downtown, potentially coupled with other large and regular events; or o Consolidating a list of local employer-provided bicycle parking, lockers, showers, and incentives as a demonstration tool for other interested employers. • Measure TR3: Facilitate a bike share program: Conduct a bike share pilot program and facilitate full implementation of a bike share program within the Town. • Measure TR4: Establish parking meter rates and invest in transportation improvements: Establish parking meter rates, considering dynamic parking pricing in the downtown area. Allocate a designated portion of paid parking revenue to investing in TDM strategies that will ensure cost-effective downtown access by improving transit, bicycle facilities, and create incentives for people to avoid driving. • Measure TR5: Improve curbside management: Improve curbside management, including updating the municipal code to require active loading only, prohibit double parking, define locations for additional loading zones, and design loading zone signage. • Measure TR6: Require transportation system management for new construction: Draft and implement a Transportation System Management Plan (TSMP) ordinance for new construction to allow the Town to shift travel behavior away from single-occupancy vehicles. Ensure telecommuting is an optional trip reduction strategy. • Measure TR7: Eliminate parking minimums for developments: Remove parking minimums and establish parking maximums. WASTE (WS) • Measure WS1: Require residential and commercial organic waste collection consistent with SB 1383 requirements: Work with local waste haulers and other community partners to expand organic waste collection capacity. Pass an ordinance by 2022 requiring residential and commercial organics generators to subscribe to organics collection programs or alternatively report organics self-hauling and/or backhauling. Allow limited waivers and exemptions to generators for de minimis volumes and physical space constraints and maintain records for waivers/exemptions. • Measure WS2: Require edible food recovery consistent with SB 1383 requirements: Adopt an edible food recovery ordinance or similarly enforceable mechanism to ensure edible food generators, food recovery services, and food recovery organizations comply with requirements to increase recovery rates. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, mobility, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The goals, policies, and implementation measures in the 2040 General Plan are designed to reduce GHG in Los Gatos through infill development, higher-density and mixed-use development, and trip reduction measures. However, even with implementation of these GHG reduction measures would exceed the 2040 efficiency threshold of 1.02 MT of CO2e per service person per year. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact GHG-2: The proposed 2040 General Plan emissions during construction and operation would exceed the State and Town-derived GHG emission targets. Therefore, the proposed 2040 General Plan would conflict with the goals of the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, and EO B-55-18. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Mitigation Measure: See Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1 under Impact GHG-1. Finding: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, mobility, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The goals, policies, and implementation measures in the 2040 General Plan are designed to reduce GHG in Los Gatos through infill development, higher-density and mixed-use development, and trip reduction measures. However, the proposed 2040 General Plan would conflict with the goals of the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, and EO B-55-18. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available and. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. As mitigation would result in GHG emissions that exceed the 2030 and 2040 Los Gatos efficiency thresholds and, thus, State targets, the proposed 2040 General Plan would impede “substantial progress” toward meeting the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, and EO B-55-18 targets. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation, impacts related to the proposed 2040 General Plan consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation incorporated. Transportation Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact T-1: Development and growth envisioned in the 2040 General Plan would increase use and demand of existing transit facilities in Los Gatos. The 2040 General Plan includes goals and policies that would encourage transit use and bicycling and walking while also encouraging development or expansion of existing facilities to accommodate increased use. However, transit ridership and operations would be affected from congestion and sharing lanes with other vehicles. Therefore, impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures: There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects related to transit operations and ridership. Finding: Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Specific economic, legal, social, technological, mobility, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding: The goals, policies, and implementation measures in the 2040 General Plan are designed to reduce VMT in Los Gatos through infill development, higher-density and mixed-use development, and trip reduction measures. However, transit ridership and operations would be affected from congestion and sharing lanes with other vehicles. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available andimpacts would be significant and unavoidable. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact T-4: Development and population growth facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would increase VMT in Los Gatos. VMT per service population and population growth in 2040 would exceed applicable thresholds specific to the Town. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan would result in VMT-related impacts. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure: T-1 VMT Reduction Strategies. For projects that would generate VMT, one or more VMT reduction strategies included in the SB 743 Implementation Decisions for the Town of Los Gatos (July 2020) document shall be required to reduce VMT of the project. Examples of VMT reduction strategies that shall be implemented are provided below. The VMT reduction strategies are organized by their relative scale for implementation (i.e., individual site level, Town-wide level, and regional level). Individual Site Level ▪ Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules: This strategy relies on effective internet access and speeds to individual project sites/buildings to provide the opportunity for telecommuting. This strategy would reduce commute VMT but also result in a change in VMT for other travel purposes; thus, this strategy should consider the net change in the Town’s project- generated VMT. ▪ Provide Ride-Sharing Programs: This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling by project site/building tenants. ▪ Provide Local Shuttles: This strategy focuses on providing local shuttle service. The local shuttles would provide service to transit hubs, schools, commercial centers, and residential areas to improve transit connectivity and address the “first/last mile” problems. Alternatively, a demand responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting to private transportation network companies (TNCs) or taxi companies. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation. ▪ Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle: This strategy relies on employers purchasing or leasing vans or shuttles, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. Vanpools typically service employee’s commute to work, while shuttles service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Scheduling and rider charges, if any, are within the employer’s purview. Town-Wide Level ▪ Provide Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Improvements: This strategy focuses on creating a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network within the project and connecting to nearby destinations. Projects in Los Gatos tend to be smaller so the emphasis of this strategy would likely Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations be the construction of network improvements that connect the project site directly to nearby destinations. Alternatively, implementation could occur through an impact fee program or benefit/assessment district based on regional or local plans such as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Connect Los Gatos. ▪ Provide Traffic Calming Measures: This strategy combines the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) research focused on traffic calming with new research on providing a low-stress bicycle network. Traffic calming creates networks with low vehicle speeds and volumes that are more conducive to walking and bicycling. Building a low-stress bicycle network produces a similar outcome. One potential change in this strategy over time is that ebikes (and e- scooters) could extend the effective range of travel on the bicycle network, which could enhance the effectiveness of this strategy. ▪ Implement Car-Sharing Program: This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for those trips where vehicle use is essential. Examples include programs like ZipCar, Car2Go, and Gig. ▪ Limit Parking Supply: When combined with companion TDM measures, reduced parking supply discourages driving by limiting easy and convenient parking options. Implementation of this strategy may require reducing (or removing) minimum parking requirements and allowing developers to use shared parking strategies. ▪ Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost: Unbundling separates parking costs from property cost, for instance by not including a parking space in a residential unit’s rent, or by requiring employers to lease each parking space separately from the building owner. This strategy ensures that the user understands that the cost of driving includes parking and can encourage people to use an alternative mode to save money. ▪ Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street): This strategy focuses on implementing a pricing strategy for parking by pricing all on-street parking in central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Priced parking would encourage “park once” behavior and may also result in area-wide mode shifts. Regional Level ▪ Increase Density: This strategy focuses on increasing density of land uses, where allowed by the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance, to reduce distances people travel and provide more travel mode options. This strategy also provides a foundation for many other strategies. For example, densification increases transit ridership, which justifies enhanced transit service. ▪ Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments: This strategy focuses on inclusion of mixed uses within projects or in consideration of the surrounding area to minimize vehicle travel in terms of both the number of trips and the length of those trips. ▪ Increase Transit Accessibility: This strategy focuses on encouraging the use of transit by locating a project with high density near transit. A project with a residential/commercial center designed around a bus station is referred to as a transit-oriented development (TOD). ▪ Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing: This strategy provides greater opportunities for lower income families to live closer to job centers since income effects probability that a commute will take transit or walk to work. ▪ Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed: This strategy focuses on improving transit service convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving. Given existing land use density in Los Gatos, this strategy may be limited to traditional commuter transit where trips can be pooled at the start and end locations, or it may require new forms of demand-responsive transit service. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation, Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations substantial changes to current transit practices, and would not likely be applicable for individual development projects. ▪ Implement Area or Cordon Pricing: This strategy focuses on implementing a cordon (i.e., boundary) pricing scheme, where a cordon is set around a specific area to charge a toll to enter the area by vehicle. The cordon location is usually the boundary of an area with limited points of access. The cordon toll may be constant, applied during peak periods, or be variable, with higher prices during congestion peak periods. The toll can also be based on a fixed schedule or be dynamic, responding to real-time congestion levels. Note that implementation of this strategy requires alternative modes of travel that are available and reliable, such as high-quality transit infrastructure. Finding: The population and employment growth facilitated from development envisioned in the 2040 General Plan would generate new vehicle trips. Each of these trips would result in VMT. As described above on page 4.15-21, buildout of the 2040 General Plan would generate approximately 1,280 employment opportunities. The approximately 1,280 employment opportunities that would result from buildout of the 2040 General Plan would not exceed the 1,760 employment opportunities forecast for Los Gatos in Plan Bay Area 2040. However, as described in Section 2, Project Description, the projected household population would increase by 8,970 people compared to what is considered existing with buildout of the 2040 General Plan. Some of the population growth expected from buildout of the 2040 General Plan would occur regardless of its implementation, such as growth expected from dwelling units already planned or approved for construction in Los Gatos. Nonetheless, household population growth would exceed Plan Bay Area 2040 forecasts for household population. Therefore, in context with the Town’s adopted VMT threshold of significance, this VMT impact, which is cumulative, would be potentially significant. As described within Section 4.15, Transportation, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in VMT per service population that is approximately 19 percent greater than the applicable VMT threshold of 32.3. To reduce VMT per service population by 19 percent, VMT reduction strategies at the regional level would be required. However, implementation of regional strategies would require action on multiple agencies and municipalities in South San Francisco Bay and environs, such as cities of Campbell and San José or counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. The Town is unable to ensure that other municipalities would participate in the regional VMT reduction strategies outlined in Mitigation Measure T-1. Therefore, it is not certain that a 19 percent reduction in VMT would be achievable. Accordingly, VMT impacts of the 2040 General Plan would be significant and unavoidable, even after implementation of mitigation. 4.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As referenced above in the Findings, a MMRP has been prepared for the project and is to be adopted concurrently with these findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1). The MMRP is provided as Appendix D to the Final EIR that will be used by the Town of Los Gatos to track compliance with the project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period, which includes pre-construction coordination, construction, and post-construction documentation. 5 Project Alternatives Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding Specific economic, legal, social, technological, mobility, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Where the Town of Los Gatos has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures the project would still cause one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or lessened to below a level of significance, the Town of Los Gatos must determine if there is a project alternative that is both environmentally superior and feasible. An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the most basic project objectives identified within the EIR. Further, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project “based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at page 417; see also Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.Ap.4th at page 715). Alternative 1: Low Growth Alternative 1 is a low growth alternative. Under Alternative 1, the proposed 2040 General Plan would not include an increase in density ranges outside of Opportunity Areas, but would include a modest increase inside designated Opportunity Areas. Outside of Opportunity Areas, densities would remain within a range of four to 18 dwelling units per acre. Inside Opportunity Areas, density ranges would increase to 10 to 18 dwelling units per acre. Overall development and growth would be reduced compared to the 2040 General Plan. Alternative 1 would result in approximately 1,245,000 total daily VMT and a total VMT per service population of 22.65. Alternative 1, Low Growth, would result in fewer impacts in comparison to the 2040 General Plan. Under this alternative there would be no increase in density ranges outside Opportunity Areas and modest increases inside Opportunity Areas. Overall, Alternative 1 performs similar to the 2040 General Plan in a majority of the resource areas. However, this alternative performs better than the 2040 General Plan in the following key areas: ▪ Air Quality ▪ Greenhouse Gases Alternative 2: Medium Growth Alternative 2 is a medium growth alternative. Under Alternative 2, the proposed 2040 General Plan would result in a modest increase in density ranges outside of Opportunity Areas but would include additional increases inside designated Opportunity Areas. Outside of Opportunity Areas, densities would increase to be within a range of 10 to 26 dwelling units per acre. Inside Opportunity Areas, density ranges would increase to 14 to 26 dwelling units per acre. Overall development and growth would be reduced compared to the 2040 General Plan. Alternative 2 would result in approximately 1,259,000 total daily VMT and a total VMT per service population of 22.205. Alternative 2, Medium Growth would result in fewer impacts compared to the 2040 General Plan for many of the environmental resource impact areas. Under this alternative there would be modest increases in density ranges outside Opportunity Areas and additional increases inside Opportunity Areas. Overall, Alternative 2 performs better than the 2040 General Plan, in the following key areas: ▪ Air Quality ▪ Energy ▪ Greenhouse Gases ▪ Hydrology and Water Quality ▪ Population and Housing ▪ Public Services Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Alternative 3: High Growth Alternative 3 is a high-growth alternative that includes increased density ranges in all areas and additional increases that allow for higher-density development in Neighborhood Commercial and Mixed-Use Commercial designations outside Opportunity Areas. Typical densities are assumed to vary from 10 to 36 du/ac outside Opportunity Areas and 16 to 36 du/ac inside Opportunity Areas. Intensity varies from 0.75 FAR in LDR to 1.5 FAR in HDR and MU. When compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 3 would result in a three percent (600 to 750) increase in peak hour vehicle trips. Alternative 3 would generate the most traffic, primarily due to the addition of 3,170 new housing units. However, from a VMT efficiency perspective, Alternative 3 performs the best with an estimated 21.48 VMT per service population as compared with an estimated 22.65 VMT per service population in Alternative 1. While all four land use alternatives are actually very similar to one another, Alternative 3 would have the highest potential for internal trip making to occur and would see the highest shifts to non-vehicle transportation modes, like walking, biking, or taking transit. Alternative 3, High Growth, would generally result in similar impacts to the proposed 2040 General Plan for several issue areas impacts. This alternative would involve substantially denser growth and development overall, and therefore less impacts to resources such as GHG and traffic. This alternative performs similarly to the 2040 General Plan in most of the resource areas. However, Alternative 3 performs better than the 2040 General Plan, in the following key areas: ▪ Greenhouse Gases ▪ Energy ▪ Population and Housing Alternative 4: No Project Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a specific alternative of “no project” be evaluated in an EIR in order to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is not a land use/regulatory plan, such as a specific development on an identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that project is not processed (i.e., no development occurs). Alternative 4 represents the former alternative type of no project and assumes the continued implementation of the current 2020 General Plan. Alternative 4 is comprised of a land use pattern that reflects the land use identified in the existing 2020 General Plan. Under this alternative, the proposed 2040 General Plan would not be adopted and the existing General Plan, including the land use map and all of the General Plan goals and policies, would remain in place through the horizon year of 2040. Thus, any new development in Los Gatos would occur consistent with the existing land use designations and the allowed uses within each designation. Similarly, any new infrastructure in Los Gatos would occur as envisioned in the 2020 General Plan. Development under this alternative is anticipated to be less intensive and result in greater low-density residential development within the Town limits than under the 2040 General Plan. However, because this alternative would not include the higher density, higher height limits, and higher Floor Area Ratios (FAR) overall development and anticipated growth would be reduced compared to the 2040 General Plan. Overall, growth would be similar to that anticipated under the 2020 General Plan with approximately 13,730 dwelling units and a population of approximately 32,600 in the year 2040 (Town of Los Gatos, General Plan EIR 2020). This would be a reduction in overall development and growth compared to the 2040 Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations General Plan which anticipates the addition of approximately 3,738 dwelling units, for a total population of approximately 39,221 and a total of 17,468 dwelling units in 2040. Alternative 4, No Project Alternative, would not be considered environmentally superior overall because while it would involve less development and growth, it would result in a more dispersed ground disturbance than the 2040 General Plan. Further, this alternative does not place an emphasis on mixed- use and smart growth planning principles and the majority of growth and development under this alternative would occur outside of Opportunity Areas, resulting in less compact development. Although Alternative 4 would entail continued growth as dictated by the existing General Plan, new policies included in the 2040 General Plan, such as those in the Community Development Element, would not be adopted. Additionally, under Alternative 4, transportation improvements and GHG reduction strategies as part of the 2040 General Plan would not be implemented. Thus, daily VMT is anticipated to be greater under this alternative. Consequently, air contaminant and GHG emissions impacts and traffic impacts would be greater than for the proposed 2040 General Plan. Overall, Alternative 4 performs very similar to the 2040 General Plan and improves only in the following area: ▪ Aesthetics Facts in Support of Finding Alternative 1 and 3 perform slightly better than the 2040 General Plan in several impact areas. However, Alternative 2 was found to be superior to the 2040 General Plan in a reduction of impacts including air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, and public services. Nevertheless, Alternative 2 would not fully meet the objectives/guiding principles of the 2040 General Plan. This alternative would not be as effective in achieving some of the land use goals and objectives of the 2040 General Plan because it would not contribute substantially to a pattern of compact future development or allow for the 2,000 new dwelling unit target of Town Council. The slower growth model is less consistent with the goals and vision of the 2040 General Plan that promote the development of a smart growth model that favors a mix of land uses and encourages active living through the development of mixed-use and connected neighborhoods. For these reasons, none of the alternatives are more desirable than the 2040 General Plan in terms of meeting the Town’s guiding principles and objectives for the project, as outlined above under the Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR. For this reason and because none of the proposed alternatives would completely avoid the project’s significant impacts, none of the proposed alternatives are considered feasible. 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations Where there are significant and unavoidable impacts from a project, pursuant to Section 15093 of the California Code of Regulations, the Town of Los Gatos must “balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks, when determining whether to approve the project.” The record of those considerations shall include a written statement of overriding considerations that is supported by substantial evidence within the administrative record. A finding consistent with Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations consideration, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or project alternatives that would avoid or lessen this impact to below a level of significance. The Town finds and determines that, as proposed, the majority of the significant impacts of the project will be reduced to acceptable levels by implementation of mitigation measures recommended in these findings. However, the Town further finds that a cumulative impact to greenhouse gas emissions as well as impacts to transit and VMT, from the project that is significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation (Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Section 4.15, Transportation, of the Draft EIR). Collectively, reasonably foreseeable future development and growth in the Town of Los Gatos would generate greenhouse gas emissions and VMT, and affect transit ridership and operations beyond the capacity of the Town of Los Gatos. The proposed project would contribute to total greenhouse gas emissions, transit use and operation, and total VMT within the service area. The Town further finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less-than-significant level these environmental effects. After due consideration, and in light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings, General Plan 2040, and the record as a whole related to this project, the Town chooses to approve the project because, in its independent judgement, the benefits to the project as outlined below substantially outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Benefits of the Project: The Town finds that the project, as approved, will have the following economic, social, technological, and environmental benefits: ▪ The 2040 General Plan updates outdated policies in a manner that meets current legal requirements for General Plans. ▪ The 2040 General Plan provides a more user-friendly document that will make use of the General Plan easier for decision makers, staff, and the public. ▪ The 2040 General Plan reflects current community goals and preferences as identified during the public outreach process. ▪ The project would emphasize infill and reuse development within the Town limits with a focus on increasing opportunities for housing development in key areas of the Town through increased density and mixed-use projects where appropriate. ▪ The project would provide a well-connected transportation system that enables safe access for all transportation modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. ▪ The project would protect the natural resources and scenic assets that define Los Gatos, including open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides, and natural waterways. ▪ The project would manage, conserve, and preserve Los Gatos' natural environment for present and future generations and promotes sustainable uses of its resources. ▪ The project would recognize the importance of and promote ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic diversity and equity to enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos. ▪ The project would invigorate downtown Los Gatos as a special place for community gathering, commerce, and other activities for residents and visitors. ▪ The project would provide high quality municipal services to the Los Gatos community while sustaining the Town's long term fiscal health. Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ▪ The project would place a greater emphasis on reestablishing more complete neighborhood areas that meet the daily needs of residents to be located within a one-mile distance. ▪ The project meets the objectives of the State of California in promoting affordable housing. ▪ The project sets forth the values and objectives of the Town in providing a sense of community and inclusiveness of all residents while protecting the existing community assets and uniqueness that sets Los Gatos apart from other municipalities. In order to achieve these objectives, the 2040 General Plan focuses on improving how residents get around, meeting community needs with available services, providing a greater sense of identity, adding housing options by promoting higher-density development and infill, and preserving established residential neighborhoods. For most of the Town, the 2040 General Plan preserves the existing pattern of uses and establishes policies for protection and long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods. Generally, new development in accordance with the 2040 General Plan would result in re-use of properties, conversion of properties to different uses in response to market demand, and more intense use of land in defined areas. With limited opportunities for new development in Los Gatos, the 2040 General Plan emphasizes infill and reuse development within the Town limits, encourages higher-density and mixed-use projects where appropriate, and supports development that compliments the existing natural and built environment. New development would occur primarily where existing roads, water, and sewer are in place and in a manner that minimizes the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. Findings: For each and all of these reasons, the Town of Los Gatos finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effect related to greenhouse gas emissions, transit, and VMT. Therefore, the adverse significant and unavoidable effect is considered to be acceptable by the Town of Los Gatos Town Council, which is the decision-making body for the project, given the importance of this project to the Town of Los Gatos. 7 Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Section 15091(e) of the California Code of Regulation requires that the Town of Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency, specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision has been based. The following location is where review of the record may be performed: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, California 95030 The Town of Los Gatos has relied on all of the documents contained within the record of proceedings in reaching its decision on the project. GPAC Revised Vision and Guiding Principles May 2021 Page 1 of 2  Vision The Town of Los Gatos is a welcoming, family-oriented, and safe community nestled in the beautiful foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Town is a sustainable community that takes pride in its small-town character and provides a range of housing opportunities, historic neighborhoods, local culture and arts, excellent schools, and a lively and accessible downtown. The Town is pedestrian friendly andLos Gatos offers a choice of mobility options, housing opportunities, and superior public facilities and services, governed by and an open and responsive local government that is fiscally sound. Los Gatos has aA dynamic and thriving community, Los Gatos is committed to racial, social, and environmental justice and underscores its commitment to long- term well-being by embracing sustainability. economy that includes a mix of businesses throughout Town that serves all residents, workers, and visitors. Guiding Principles  Community Vitality Invigorate downtown Los Gatos as a special place for community gathering, commerce, and other activities for residents and visitors. Foster the economic vitality of all Los Gatos business locations. Preserve and enhance the Town's historic resources and character while guiding the community into the future.  Connectivity Emphasize the importance of connecting all facets of the Town to build a strong sense of community through building design, walkability, and safe streets.  Diverse Neighborhoods Foster appropriate investments to maintain and enhance diverse neighborhoods, housing opportunities, and infrastructure to meet the needs of all current and future residents.  Fiscal Stability / Responsibility Provide high quality municipal services to the Los Gatos community while sustaining the Town's long term fiscal healthwell-being.  Government Transparency Conduct governmental processes in an open manner and encourage public involvement in Town governance.  Inclusivity Recognize Value the importance of and promote ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic diversity and equity to enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos. EXHIBIT 65 GPAC Revised Vision and Guiding Principles May 2021 Page 2 of 2   Mobility Provide a well-connected transportation system that enables safe access for all transportation modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities.  Promote Public Safety Maintain and enhance Los Gatos as a safe community through preparation and planning, education, and community design that is responsive to the full range of potential natural and man-made hazards and safety issues.  Protect Natural ResourcesEnvironment Protect and enhance the natural resources environment and scenic assetsbiotic communities that define Los Gatos, including but not limited to open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides, and natural waterways.  Sustainability Manage, conserve, and preserve Los Gatos' natural environment for present and future generations. Identify and provide opportunities to enhance the Town' s sustainability policies and practices.   1 MODIFICATIONS INCLUDED IN STAFF REPORT AND OTHER EXHIBITS 1. GPAC recommended changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles, included in Exhibit 6 and summarized here: • Revise the Vision for added clarity and add a sentence about racial, social, and environmental justice; • Delete “downtown” from the Community Vitality Guiding Principle so that it applies throughout Town; • Add a new Guiding Principle titled “Connectivity” to state the importance of connecting all facets of the Town to build a strong sense of community through building design, walkability, and safe streets; • Delete “the Town’s” from the Fiscal Stability/Responsibility Guiding Principles; and • Replace the word “Recognize” with the word “Value” in the Inclusivity Guiding Principle. 2. Revisions as a result of review by the State Department of Forestry, included in Exhibit 8 and listed here: • Add reference to VHFHSZ’s in Policies CD-5.2 and CD-6.1. • New Policy PFS-1.7: “Water Supply for Fire Safety. Coordinate with local water providers to ensure and maintain the long-term sustainability of water supplies to meet current and anticipated future firefighting needs.” • Modified wording for Policies PFS-19.3 and PFS-20.1. • Modified wording for Policy HAZ-1.3. • Additional wording on page 9-4 to reference location of critical infrastructure listed in OAHMP. New Policy HAZ-2.6: “Vegetative Hazards. Reduce the wildfire risks to existing and newly developed transportation networks through regular clearance and maintenance of vegetation adjacent to public roadways to current State and/or locally adopted fire safety standards for vegetation clearance in SRA’s or VHFHSZ’s.” • New Policy HAZ-2.7: “Wildfire Response. Following a large and/or destructive fire in Los Gatos or the region, the Town shall reassess standards and other requirements for new development and redevelopment and revise these requirements to ensure a high level of community resilience to fire events.” • New Policy HAZ-2.8: “Community Fire Breaks. Establish and maintain community fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones, including public and private road clearance.” • New Policy HAZ-2.9: “Fire Safety Development Precautions. Establish that minimum requisite firefighting services and infrastructure are ubiquitous throughout its Town, including but not limited to: high-visibility street signage and house numbers, appropriate street widths and building clearances for firefighting equipment and vehicles, high water pressure at all fire hydrants, and driving signage indicating rights- of-way with no outlets.” • Modified wording for Policy HAZ-3.5. EXHIBIT 7 2 • New Policy HAZ-3.7: “Community Evacuation Trainings. Continue to conduct regular evacuation trainings with single-access community HOAs, residents, and the Wildfire Ad Hoc Committee; encourage residents in single-access communities to maintain emergency supplies for at least three days.” • Modified wording for Hazards and Safety Element Implementation Programs C, G, and H. 3. Staff recommends a new Implementation Program in the Land Use Element as discussed in Section F of the Staff Report: Five-year Land Use Element Review The Town shall conduct a review of the Land Use Element every five years from the date of final approval, and revise and update as necessary. This review can include the following: • Modify, add, or delete goals, policies, or programs to reflect notable changes in the Town over the previous period; • Remove or modify programs that have been completed or require additional time; • Modify or add new goals, policies, or programs to reflect changing needs within the Town; • Conduct a fiscal analysis; and • Modify to reflect applicable changes in State law. 4. Staff from Parks and Public Works Department recommended Figure 5-1 Bike Facilities should be revised in the following ways: • Shannon Road from Los Gatos Blvd to Cherry Blossom Lane should be revised from “Proposed Class I” to “Proposed Class II;” • Installation of Class IV bike lanes on Winchester from Blossom Hill Road to Wimbledon Drive should be updated to reflect recent improvements as “Existing Class IV;” and • Blossom Hill Road between Los Gatos Boulevard and Highway 17 should be revised from “Proposed Class I/IV” to “Existing Class IV.” 5. Staff from Parks and Public Works Department recommended 5-3 Roadway Classifications should be revised in the following ways: • Where the functional classification lines overlap Town Limits lines, make functional classification lines more visible; • Bachman should be extended to University as a Neighborhood Collector; • Bayview between Main and Pennsylvania should a Neighborhood Collector; • Netflix campus circulation (northeast of 85/Winchester) is shown as Arterial. It should be Local; • Hicks should extend south to Town Limits as a Hillside Collector; • Gateway should be a Neighborhood Collector; • Longmeadow and Twin Oaks should be a Hillside Collector; • South Kennedy should be extended to Kennedy as a Hillside Collector; and • Union should be an Arterial. 6. Staff from Parks and Public Works Department recommended a street classifications list, similar to that included as Appendix F of the 2020 General Plan EIR, should also be included in the 2040 General Plan in association with their representation in Figure 5-3. 3 7. For compliance with the Town’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan staff at the West Valley Clean Water Program and the Town’s Parks and Public Works Department recommend the following changes: • Policy PFS-3.2 Non-Point Source Control Programs Promote and implement Provide non-point source pollution source control programs to reduce and control the discharge of pollutants into the storm drain system, as required by the Town’s stormwater NPDES permit. Incorporate green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements, such as biotreatment or infiltration into private and public development to provide opportunities for stormwater collection and treatment, per the Town’s GSI Plan. • Add the following Implementation Programs to the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element: o Incorporate Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) elements, such as infiltration and biotreatment, into Town projects to provide opportunities for stormwater collection and treatment, per the Town’s GSI Plan. o Modify the Town’s Complete Streets Policy to include Green Stormwater Infrastructure. • Add the following underlined text to the introduction paragraph for Section 8.10 Hydrology and Water Quality: Maintaining water quality and availability is a high priority and a complex challenge that becomes more critical as supplies become more uncertain due to climate change and a growing population. Goals and policies in this section address the quality and reliability of the Town’s long-term water supply, including during periods of drought. To maintain water quality, surface water and groundwater must be protected from the impacts of past and future development using methods such as low-impact development requirements and the careful regulation of sub-surface dewatering. The Town supports the efforts of regulatory bodies, such as the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the agency that controls discharge to San Francisco Bay from stormwater and other sources. The San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) requires the Town of Los Gatos to implement programs that reduce urban runoff pollution. The MRP regulates stormwater discharges into local creeks and the San Francisco Bay to protect water quality. The Town participates in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), along with twelve other cities and towns, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to implement the requirements of the MRP. As required by the MRP, the Town has developed a Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan that describes how the Town will gradually transform its urban landscape and storm drainage systems from “gray” to “green”; that is, supplement traditional storm drain infrastructure, where stormwater runoff flows directly from impervious surfaces into storm drains and receiving waters, with a more resilient, sustainable system that reduces and slows runoff by dispersing it to vegetated areas, promotes infiltration and evapotranspiration, collects runoff for non- potable uses, and treats runoff using biotreatment and other GSI practices. The 4 control of wastewater and stormwater is discussed in more detail in the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element. • Revise Policy ENV-17.5 to state: Retain and use rainwater on municipal facility sites, to the extent possible. Encourage rainwater harvesting and irrigation use in commercial and residential uses. Ensure that all development projects in Los Gatos maximize opportunities to filter, infiltrate, store, and reuse or evaporate stormwater runoff onsite. MODIFICATIONS SUGGESTED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS (Staff comments/recommendations in italics) Introduction: 8. Revise the Protect Natural Resources Guiding Principle to say, “Protect and enhance the natural environment, scenic assets, and biotic communities that define Los Gatos, including but not limited to, open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides, and waterways.” (neutral) Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element: 9. Prioritize other topics by moving the Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element so that it is not first, or delete entire section. (neutral on order of Elements) 10. Inequities need to be discovered through looking at services through a more equitable lens in order to properly address them. Change Policy RSEJ-1.1 title from “Service Delivery” to “Identify Inequities.” (neutral) 11. Revise Policy RSEJ-1.4 to state, “Encourage development and improved access to affordable housing opportunities for all community members.” (neutral) 12. Revise Policy RSEJ-1.6 to include some data collection/analysis to measure the perceptions of residents, workers, and visitors by modifying to state, “PromoteImprove the perception score of Los Gatos as a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community regardless of age, ability status, and socio-economic status.” (not recommended) 13. In Policy RSEJ-1.7 use “increase” or “improve,” instead of “promote” in “Promote access to a quality living wage for all community members.” (neutral) 14. In Policy RSEJ-2.5 add recruiting/hiring from San Jose State University. (neutral) 15. Revise Policy RSEJ-2.7 to state, “Develop and i Implement and require cultural proficiency and anti-bias training for all Town employees and support similar training efforts undertaken by the business community.” (neutral) 16. Revise Policy RSEJ-2.8 to state, “Promote and encourage cultural proficiency and anti-bias training for all members of the community including residents, business owners, and local organizations.” (neutral) 17. In Policy RSEJ-6.2 clarify what it means and who is the target. (neutral) 18. Revise Policy RSEJ-6.3 to state, “Develop, provide, pPromote, and implement new and innovative approaches to facilitate communication between members of the community and Town elected officials and staff members.” (neutral) 5 19. Revise Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element Implementation Program N Tree Canopy Study to state, “Develop a study to measure tree canopy distribution throughout the Town and encourage the use of native plants when increasing green space. Consider habitat value in tree selection for the Town’s forest, and disallow the planting of invasive species.” (neutral) Land Use Element: 20. Modify the number of new housing units: a. No increase in housing levels. (not recommended) b. Reduce the number of new housing units to a lower less ambitious target. (neutral) c. Reduce the number of new housing units to 1,993. (not recommended) d. Reduce the number of new housing units to 1,993 plus a 15-20 percent buffer. (neutral) 21. Modify land use designation of the property at 15810 Los Gatos Boulevard, APN 523-01- 001, from Low Density Residential to Mixed-Use Commercial to be more in line with existing use. (recommended) 22. Build a high-rise condo on the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos-Almaden Road. (construction is not within the purview of the General Plan, but increased height limits in the Mixed Use Commercial land use designation could be considered) 23. Include Opportunity Areas in the General Plan as outlined in the Land Use Alternatives Report. (not recommended due to previous GPAC direction) 24. Maintain existing 2020 General Plan densities for Low Density Residential. (neutral) 25. Re-designate Hillside Residential “Fringe Areas” adjacent to San Jose for denser housing. (neutral) 26. Establish a new Low-Medium Density Residential land use category that allows for the development of duplexes and triplexes at a density range of between 6 and 13 dwelling units per acre. (neutral) 27. Utilize maximum FAR only for the non-residential components of mixed-use projects, because housing will be limited by maximum density. (neutral) 28. Change development rules to increase construction of diverse housing types, including greater density, higher height limits, lower parking requirements, more transit, and connection to light rail. (neutral) 29. Allow mixed-use developments in the High Density Residential designations. (neutral) 30. Increase maximum height limit on Los Gatos Boulevard from 45 to 55 or 65 feet to allow for the 4 over 1 product type (four stories of residential over one floor of retail or parking structure) or 5 over 1. (neutral) 31. Reduce the maximum allowed FAR in the Central Business District from 2.0 to 1.25. (neutral) 32. Table 3-1 should reflect an opportunity for additional new residential development on the North 40, if so desired by the Town. (not recommended as the Draft 2040 General Plan land use regulations do not include any change to the North 40 Specific Plan) 33. Modify Policy LU-3.2 to state, “Projects shall be evaluated and the Town shall apply appropriate mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval to reduce impacts on the 6 environment, urban services, and wildfire risk, including utilities, police, and fire.” (neutral) 34. Modify Goal LU-6 to state, “Ensure housing in the hillsides will not adversely affect the natural environment, migration and biological corridors, or endanger public health and safety.” (neutral) 35. Modify Section 3.6 Special Planning Areas to note 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.” (neutral) 36. Either remove the North 40 from the Los Gatos Boulevard Community Place District or provide clarity as to the hierarchy of competing rules between the General Plan and the Specific Plan. (not recommended, the changes in the Draft 2040 General Plan do not change the relationship between the General Plan and the North 40 Specific Plan) 37. Modify Policy LU-20.1 to state, “The Town shall facilitate opportunities for all residents, other local governments, and stakeholders to provide meaningful and effective input on proposed planning activities early on and continuously throughout development review and the public review process.” (neutral) 38. Include a statement in Section 3.10, Goal LU-21, and/or Policy LU-21.1 on how the Town will engage and coordinate with public agency stakeholders, such as Midpen, in Town planning and policy projects that may impact the lands or responsibilities of those local agencies. (neutral) 39. In Policy LU-20.4, to increase public participation, include the use of traditional forms of communication, such as flyers mailed to homes, local newspaper ads, posters around town and places of worship, and other gathering points, and inclusion in school-published bulletins sent to parents, etc. (neutral) 40. Add a policy or implementation program to support a modification of the North 40 Specific Plan to allow up to 40 dwelling units per acre to be consistent with the Mixed-Use land use designation on Los Gatos Boulevard. (neutral) Community Design Element: 41. Change the use of “Community Place District” to “Community Growth District” throughout document. (neutral) 42. To provide more flexibility in building style, consider deleting Policy CD-2.2: “Require multi-story buildings to incorporate step backs on upper floors to create a more humanscale and comfortable pedestrian environment.” (neutral) 43. Revise Policy CD-2.12 to state, “If feasible, require native, non-invasive, or non-fire-prone street trees to be installed for all new developments, to enhance neighborhood character and identity and to maximize shade coverage when mature.” (neutral) 44. Revise Policy CD-2.21 to state, “In high-density planning zones, the minimal amount of pedestrian-oriented lighting necessary should shall be provided in active pedestrian areas 7 and common areas for safety and security purposes.” (not recommended as the effect of these changes is a reversal of the policy’s intent) 45. Revise Policy CD-2.24 to state, “Encourage improvements to the public realm, including tree canopies, street furniture, paving, and landscaping, and lighting.” (neutral) 46. Include the dark-sky and/or the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance or reference section ENC-7.11 in Policy CD-2.30. (neutral) 47. Revise Policy CD-2.31 to state, “Provide clear limits for Encourage lighting in mixed-use and commercial developments, including the prohibition of uplighting, limiting the Correlated Color Temperature of lighting, and turning off lights after activity hours, in order to find the balance between friendly illumination and preventing unnecessary light at night. such as string lighting, pole mounted lighting, and tree-hanging lighting, to further illuminate the site during nighttime hours for safety and community.” (not recommended as the effect of these changes is a reversal of the policy’s intent) 48. Revise Policy CD-2.40 to state, “Ensure that public improvements and private development provide landscaped Town gateways that create visual connections between the natural hillsides and open space areas and the community of Los Gatos with native, non-invasive, or non-fire-prone plant species.” (neutral) 49. Add a new Policy CD-5.6 Preserve Sensitive Natural Communities. “Sensitive natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special status plants or their habitat.” (neutral) 50. Include the dark-sky and/or the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance or reference section ENC-7.11 in Policy CD-6.5. (neutral) 51. Revise Policy CD-6.5 to state, “Outdoor lighting shall be limited and shielded so as not to be viewable from non-hillside areas and shall be of low intensity and of the lowest Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) available, no more than 3000K.” (neutral) 52. Remove Policy CD-9.2, and instead widen, reduce traffic signals, and prohibit parking on Los Gatos Boulevard to increase travel capacity. (not recommended) 53. Revise Policy CD-9.9 to state, “To soften the appearance of hardscape, incorporate landscaped medians using drought tolerant, native, non-invasive, or non-fire-prone plants, landscape buffers, and street trees.” 54. Modify Policy CD-11.6 to note that new trail connections located on or open to Valley Water property must be open to the general public and permitted by Valley Water. (neutral) 55. Add Policy or Implementation Program to adopt the Mills Act. (neutral) Mobility Element: 56. Remove Policy MOB-9.5 and increase capacity of SR 17 and SR 85. (not recommended) 57. Rebuild railway between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz as a mixed freight and public transit project. (outside the purview of the Los Gatos General Plan) 58. Make downtown streets bike and pedestrian only. (not recommended) 59. Require that new homes, duplexes, and ADUs provide off-street parking. (not recommended) 8 60. Add on/off ramps from SR 85 to Winchester. (outside the purview of the Los Gatos General Plan) 61. Add a new policy or implementation measure to consider a Town-wide Transit Signal Priority (TSP) system, and pursue funding for TSP implementation from new development, either through individual project contributions or the Town’s Transportation Impact Fee program. (The Town is working on the installation of Smart Signal infrastructure) 62. Add a new policy to work with VTA to identify where queue jump treatments for busses at intersections would be possible and effective, and pursue funding for design and implementation of queue jump treatments from new development, either through individual project contributions or the Town’s Transportation Impact Fee program. (neutral) 63. Add a new policy to work with VTA to identify locations for and implementation of in-lane bus stopping at key locations with merge challenges. (neutral, where right-of-way allows) 64. Add a new policy to identify Winchester Boulevard as a corridor for Complete Streets improvements including: • Overall lane reduction and implementation of a Class IV separated bikeway; • Installation of bus boarding islands and improvements to address missing sidewalk gaps to make better connections to these bus stops; • Improvements to pedestrian crossings across Winchester Boulevard, including high visibility crosswalks and integration of crossings into VTA bus stops; and/or • Signal improvements, including Transit Signal Priority, at Blossom Hill and Winchester Boulevard. (could be considered as part of future update to Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan) 65. Add a new policy to identify Los Gatos Boulevard as a corridor for Complete Streets improvements and integration with the large bicycle network identified in the VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan. (could be considered as part of future update to Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan) 66. Add a policy in Section 5.7 to analyze and phase in on-street parking pricing to help improve the availability of on-street parking (through active monitoring of pricing and utilization), reduce congestion due to circling, lessen delay to transit vehicles, and reduce VMT. (Council is implementing the Parking Study including paid parking) 67. Add a definition of Traffic Impact Policy in the Glossary. (recommended) 68. Policy MOB-13.1 should include specific standards for shared parking that will be allowed in Town. (shared parking is addressed in other Town policies and codes) Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element: 69. Consider the following additions under Goal PFS-1: • Consider adopting the MWENDO. • Encourage non-potable reuse of water like graywater and rainwater/stormwater in new development and remodels. • Require dedicated landscape meters where applicable. 9 • Require installation of separate submeters to each unit in multi-family developments and individual spaces within commercial buildings to encourage efficient water use. (neutral) 70. In Section 6.3 of the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element clarify the second paragraph under Natural Drainage Systems. All creeks listed except Smith and San Tomas Aquino Creek flow to the Guadalupe River and the Guadalupe River is not within the Town limits. (recommended) 71. Revise Goal PFS-5 to state, “Conserve landfill space through composting, green waste, and chipping programs.” (not recommended, as the additional language limits the intent of the Goal) 72. On page 6-14 of the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element LGS Recreation should be mentioned as the childcare provider with four Clubhouse childcare sites on the LGUSD campuses. For completeness it should be mentioned LGS Rec publishes a brochure of program offerings three times per year and offers several thousand programs and services for all ages. (neutral) 73. On page 6-15 of the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element, move Figure 6- 1 “Recreation Locations” to the end of the section so it doesn't break up the discussion of recreation and social activities. (recommended) 74. Revise Policy PFS-13.4 to state, “Coordinate with local organizations, including LGS Recreation, to support intergenerational opportunities for seniors to safely interact with youth in Los Gatos.” (neutral) 75. Policies PFS-14.1 and PFS-14.3 describe Senior Services and indicates that the Town Manager connects seniors with resources in the community. This is the role of the LGS Rec along with other service providers. (neutral) 76. Revise Policy PFS-18.1 to state, “Emphasize Consider the use of CPTED principles in physical site planning as an effective potential means of reducing preventing crime. Open spaces, landscaping, parking lots, parks, play areas, and other public spaces shall be designed with maximum possible visual and aural exposure to community residents.” (neutral) 77. Revise Policy PFS-25.3 to state, “Encourage new or expanded public and private facilities or community center to host performing arts events.” (neutral) 78. Revise Policy PFS -25.4 to state, “Encourage private and public funding, development, and operation of cultural amenities, activities, and community centers.” (neutral) 79. Add more fruit trees throughout Los Gatos to increase supply of locally grown, fresh, healthy food, possibly under Section 6.13. (neutral) 80. Revise Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element Implementation Program L Outdoor Lighting Standards to state, “Establish outdoor lighting standards in the Town Code to address energy efficiency, dark sky conservation, and healthy ecosystems.” (neutral) Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element: 10 81. Revise Policy OSPR-2.1 to state, “Preserve the natural open space character of hillside lands, including natural topography, natural native vegetation, wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and viewsheds.” (neutral) 82. Revise Section 7.2 of the Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Element where it states that recreation services are provided on a full cost-recovery model. This does not accurately reflect the service model for recreation. (neutral) 83. Provide objective criteria, such as State Quimby Act guidelines, for open space dedication requirements in Policy OSP-4.6 and Implementation Program C. (neutral) 84. Modify Goal OSP-5 to state, “Preserve and enhance Los Gatos Creek, Los Gatos Creek Trail, and Ross Creek as open space amenities, which are critical to protecting biological resources.” (neutral) 85. Re-evaluate service model for offering recreation services to the community in order to continue Policies OSPR-6.3 and 6.4 and achieve financial stability. (neutral) 86. Plan for additional soccer fields. (neutral) 87. Add a policy prohibiting artificial turf, especially on Town-owned fields like Creekside Sports Park. (neutral) 88. Work with Schools to make school fields available for community sports. (neutral) Environmental and Sustainability Element: 89. Define the term “designated creek.” (recommended) 90. Revise the definition of “Ecosystem” in the Key Terms Section to state, “A community or group of living organisms that live in and interact with each other in a specific physical environment.” (neutral) 91. Modify Goal ENV-2 to state, “Maintain and enhance trees and significant natural features, especially native species and habitat.” (neutral) 92. Revise Policy ENV-2.3 to state, “Continue to update landscape design guidelines for development consistent with Biological Resources goals and policies. Landscape design should promote the implementation of locally native species, drought tolerant species, and fire-wise plants and designs, including in hillside areas and future planning areas.” (neutral) 93. Revise Policy ENV-4.2 to state that, “Maintain and support a network of open space preserves that protects the urban and natural forest and offers all residents access to nature while reserving some open space preserves for undisturbed habitat.” (neutral) 94. Revise Policy ENV-5.2 to state, “Require public and private projects to protect special- status native plant species and natural communities.” (neutral) 95. Change Policy ENV-7.6 to state, “Consider alternative methods prior to utilizing herbicides and pesticides on Town property as one tool within a comprehensive integrated pest management framework to minimize potential damage to native plants, birds, and other wildlife” and add “Integrated Pest Management (IPM)” to the list of key terms. (neutral) 96. Revise Policy ENV-7.7 to state, “Require that herbicides and pesticides used in areas adjacent to creeks and other water bodies are approved for use in aquatic habitats, ensuring minimized potential damage to public health, native plants, birds, and other wildlife.” (neutral) 11 97. Modify Policy ENV-7.10 to state, “Require that new development, remodels, and retrofits to increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building and architectural elements, and including bird safe and lighting design.” (neutral) 98. Modify Policy ENV-7.11 to state, “Require the design of building, street, landscape, and parking area lighting to improves safety, energy efficiency, protection of the night skies (dark sky protections), biological resources, and environmental soundness.” (neutral) 99. In Goal ENV-8 consider trade-offs between reduced carbon sequestration from reduced fuel load and emissions from prescribed fires that establish ecological resiliency in the face of wildfire, given the overwhelming benefits of reduced risks of catastrophic wildland fire on climate change. (neutral) 100. Modify Policy ENV-8.3 to state, “Require decreases to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or other noise and air quality impacts mitigation measures, whenever the environmental review document concludes that the traffic generated by a development project would result in adverse impacts from air and noise pollution. Decreases in VMT could be achived achieved through transportation demand management (TDM) programs.” (neutral) 101. Modify or remove Policy ENV-8.7 to state, “Require developments to incorporate site planning, and other techniques to that reduce exposure of people to the impacts of high air pollutants from adjacent roadways.” (neutral) 102. Consider modifying Policy ENV-9.14 to reduce potential impact of requirement to exceed Title 24 on feasibility of construction of new affordable housing. (not recommended) 103. Revise Goal ENV-10 to state, “Become a zero-waste Town through encouraging sustainable procurement, extended producer responsibility, and innovative strategies, composting, green waste, and chipping programs.” (neutral) 104. Revise “Groundwater Management” section on page 8-19 as follows: Valley Water manages the groundwater sub-basin with the primary objectives to recharge the basin, conserve water, increase water supply, and prevent waste or reduction of the water supply. Historically, over-extraction of the groundwater sub-basin has resulted in occurrences of subsidence in Santa Clara County. Subsidence occurs when underground water levels drop and clay layers compact, resulting in the sinking of the ground surface and a loss of aquifer capacity. To avoid any further subsidence and loss of aquifer capacity Valley Water works to maintain the sub-basin by augmenting natural percolation of rainfall and local stream runoff with via managed aquifer recharge using local and imported surface water. Valley Water’s managed supports a recharge program that includes 18 major recharge systems with in-stream and off-stream facilities. In addition to directly replenishing groundwater, Valley Water reduces the need for groundwater pumping through treated and untreated surface water deliveries, water conservation, and recycled water programs. Based on these efforts, permanent subsidence was effectively halted around 1970, and groundwater levels recovered to sustainable levels. In 2019, Valley Water’s Groundwater Management Plan was approved by the Department of Water Resources as an Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act compliance. While groundwater levels and storage decline during droughts, Valley 12 Water’s comprehensive groundwater management activities provide for subsequent recovery, and groundwater in the sub-basin is sustainably managed. Valley Water operates a treated groundwater recharge/surface water reinjection program that promotes treated groundwater reuse from the clean-up of contaminated sites and recharges groundwater from local and imported surface water. Based on these efforts, the groundwater elevation in the groundwater sub-basin has been rising steadily for the past 40 years. As stated in the 2017 Walley Water Annual Groundwater Management Report, the groundwater supply has reached a “normal” stage (stage 1) of the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan and indicates good water supply conditions. (neutral) 105. Revise second paragraph of the “Groundwater Quality” section on page 8-22 as follows: A few water quality problems have been detected in the sub-basin. High mineral salt concentrations have been identified in the upper aquifer zone along San Francisco Bay, the lower aquifer zone underlying Palo Alto, and the southeastern portion of the forebay area of the Santa Clara Valley sub-basin. Nitrate concentrations in the South County (Coyote and Llagas sub-basins) are e. Elevated and high nitrate concentrations are sporadically observed in the Santa Clara Valley Sub-basin. Monitoring continuously, installing physical barriers to runoff, and treating water properly are key activities used throughout the wastewater treatment and water conveyance system to maintain water quality standards. D However, drinking water standards are met at public water supply wells without the use of treatment methods beyond disinfection. Valley Water and public water suppliers conduct extensive monitoring of groundwater quality to understand conditions and trends and work with regulatory agencies to protect groundwater quality. (neutral) 106. Modify Policy ENV-16.4 to state, “Conserve existing creeks and avoid disturbances, including fencing, lighting, structures, hydrological barriers, and roads, to these areas.” (neutral) 107. Revise Policy ENV-16.3 to state, “Cooperate with Valley Water and other agencies to protect watersheds, groundwater, and riparian habitats from degradation.” (neutral) 108. Revise Policy ENV-17.8 to state, “Encourage Low-Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of impervious surface in new development and redevelopment to maintain or increase the retention, treatment, and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff from pre-development conditions. LID measures should also apply to major remodeling projects and to public and recreation projects where possible.” (neutral) 109. Clarify how Policy ENV-18.5 applies to mixed-use neighborhoods. (neutral) 110. Revise Policy ENV-19.1 to state, “Require all new noise-sensitive developments, and sound- or noise-generating uses near open space, to provide a noise study prepared by a licensed acoustician with recommendations for reducing noise impacts to the maximum allowed level in the Noise Ordinance.” (neutral) 111. Add a policy to add a habitat overlay zone or riparian buffer zone to ensure riparian setbacks are enforced and riparian corridors are protected. (not recommended as a standard buffer or setback would not reflect the varying character and sensitivity of the riparian areas in Town) 112. Add a policy for wastewater recycling, at least for use on landscaping. (neutral) 13 113. Add a policy to create a Town-wide wildlife corridor study that researches where movement corridors exist and what structures are already infringing upon or helping habitat and movement (e.g. fences, buildings, structures, culverts, roads, and lighting). (neutral) 114. Develop a new Implementation Program under Policy ENV-6.3 to develop a Town-wide riparian setback policy with specific development standards near riparian corridors. (not recommended as a standard buffer or setback would not reflect the varying character and sensitivity of the riparian areas in Town) 115. Revise Environment and Sustainability Element Implementation Program K Riparian Corridor Lighting to state, “Establish a lighting setback policy for riparian corridors to protect these sensitive ecological areas and to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor. No light should be placed in or directed towards the riparian corridor. Require careful lighting design in and near natural riparian corridors to direct light away and to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor.” (not recommended) 116. Addition of a new plant-based eating education program to Implementation Programs in Section 8.12: “Plant Based Education: Implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of shifting to a plant-based diet, which includes improved health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water.” (neutral) Hazards and Safety Element: 117. Explain within Section 9.2 of the Hazards and Safety Element that according to CALFIRE, 95 percent of all fires are caused by people (e.g., arson, escaped debris burns, and equipment use) and this is why “Fires that occur along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are much more of a hazard…” It is also important to note that a high fire hazard severity zone does not describe the risk of a fire start, but rather describes potential impacts to natural ecosystems, known as fire severity. (neutral) 118. Add mandate that overhead utilities be undergrounded to reduce fire risks, especially in the hillsides. (not recommended, undergrounding is included in other Town policies and regulations) 119. Revise the discussion regarding dam inundation in Section 9.4 – Flood and Inundation Hazards to note that the Town of Los Gatos is also within the inundation area of Vasona Dam. (neutral) Additional actions suggested in Public Comments: 120. Have a vote or poll of residents on the proposed changes in the Draft 2040 General Plan. (comment noted) 121. Request an exception to the RHNA requirement. (the deadline has passed) 122. Update Housing Element with the 2040 General Plan Land Use and Community Design Elements. (comment noted) 14 123. Conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis to estimate the fiscal impacts of full buildout of the 2040 General Plan. (on April 5, 2022, Town Council decided not to conduct additional fiscal impact analyses) Draft 2040 General Plan 4-18 Draft 2040 General Plan June 2021 Rural Atmosphere Preservation Minimize development and preserve and enhance the rural atmosphere and natural plant and wildlife habitats in the hillsides. Hillside Development Limitation Limit hillside development, specifically in VHFHSZ’s, to mitigate wildfire risk. Effective Visible Mass Reduce effective visible mass through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, following topographical contours, and limiting the height and mass of wall planes. Hillside Area Environmental Analysis Requirement Require thorough environmental analysis for projects in hillside areas to ensure appropriate consideration of potential environmental impacts associated with projects. Mountain and Hillside Viewshed Preservation Preserve and protect the natural state of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides by discouraging development on and near the hillsides that impacts viewsheds. Preserve the natural topography and ecosystems within the hillside area by regulating grading, site placement, fencing, landscaping, and lighting. Least Restrictive Development Areas All development, including those in VHFHSZ’s, is required to adhere to the Least Restrictive Development Areas (LRDA) to ensure minimal disturbance of the natural environment and to avoid wildfire and geological hazards. Ridge Line Grading Prohibition Protect the natural ridge lines as defined in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines by prohibiting any grading that would alter the natural ridge line. Natural Land Contours New construction shall be designed to follow natural land contours and avoid mass grading. When possible, flat pads should be avoided, and houses should be designed to conform to or step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. Grading large, flat yard areas should be avoided. Hillside Landscaping Design Hillside landscaping shall be designed to minimize formal landscaping and hardscapes and site them close to the residence, follow the natural topography, and preserve native trees, native plant and wildlife habitats, and migration corridors. Lighting Design in Hillside Areas Outdoor lighting shall be limited and shielded so as not to be viewable from non-hillside areas and shall be of low intensity. Hillside Fencing Design Fences in the hillsides should be of open design to allow passage of native wildlife. EXHIBIT 8 6. Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element   June 2021 Draft 2040 General Plan 6-5 Valley Water, the SJWC, and the Town of Los Gatos all have water conservation programs in place, including but not limited to the following:  Los Gatos provides online tools and resources for homeowners and business owners on the Town website, including information on rebates through Valley Water;  SJWC offers complimentary water check-ups, educational materials, and free low-flow devices; and  Valley Water hosts a variety of informational resources at watersavings.org, including video tutorials and a calendar of classes and workshops. The following goal and policies address the provision of water and water conservation efforts in Los Gatos. Ensure an adequate water supply for the Town’s human, wildlife, and plant populations. PFS-1.1 Water Conservation Requirements Require that landscaping and hardscaping for all development is designed to minimize water usage and enhance water conservation. PFS-1.2 Bay-Friendly Landscaping Require the use of the Bay-Friendly Landscaping Guidelines in addition to the landscaping standards in the GreenPoint Rated Building Guidelines for all new home construction and remodeled homes. PFS-1.3 Water-Saving Devices Require the use of water-saving devices in new developments and plumbing-related remodels and develop incentives to encourage their installation in existing development. PFS-1.4 Water-Efficient Irrigation Management Systems Require all new development to install water-efficient irrigation management systems and devices, such as evapotranspiration or soil moisture-based irrigation controls. PFS-1.5 Sustainable Water Use Encourage the Encourage the use of recycled and reclaimed water. PFS-1.6 Recycled Water Ensure proper provisions and conditions are in place for the use of recycled water in areas when this water becomes available. PFS-1.7 Water Supply for Fire Safety Coordinate with local water providers to ensure and maintain the long-term sustainability of water supplies to meet current and anticipated future firefighting needs. Draft 2040 General Plan    6-24 Draft 2040 General Plan June 2021 Community Wildfire Protection Plan In 2016, Santa Clara County led the development of a countywide strategic plan, the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), to assist in protecting human life and reducing property loss due to wildfire. The CWPP outlines countywide issues and strategies and provides detailed information and specific projects for each of the 14 at risk communities within the county. For the Los Gatos hillside area, the Annex 9 of the CWPP provides community and parcel-level risk assessment, identifies critical infrastructure and community values at risk, creates mitigation projects, and prioritizes to proactively address wildfire risk. The CWPP is maintained by SCCFD. Additional policies relating to wildfire risk, assessment, and mitigation are covered Section 9.2 (Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards) in the Hazards and Safety Element. The following goals and policies guide fire protection efforts in Los Gatos. Provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical response services to Town residents and businesses. PFS-19.1 First Response Travel Time Work with the SCCFD to ensure that first response travel time is maintained and enhanced where possible. PFS-19.2 Emergency Response Facilities and Personnel Work with the SCCFD to continue to increase the emergency response facilities and personnel necessary to meet residential and employment growth in the Town. PFS-19.3 Fire Safety Requirements for New Developments New development shall be required to incorporate and identify the location of the anticipated water supply, adequate emergency water flow, fire resistant design and materials, and evacuation routes. PFS-19.4 Emergency Vehicle Accessibility New development shall be accessible to emergency vehicles and shall not impede the ability of service providers to provide adequate emergency response. Promote coordination between land use planning and fire protection. PFS-20.1 Adequate Roadways for Fire-Fighting Apparatus Build and Rrequire that new, existing, and non-conforming roadways, specifically those in SRA and VHFHSZ areas that are adequate constructed and updated to reflect contemporary fire safe standards in terms of width, radius, and grade in compliance with SCCFD requirements. At a minimum, new and improved roadways shall to accommodate SCCFD fire-fighting apparatus, while maintaining Los Gatos’s neighborhoods and small-town character. PFS-20.2 Fire Hazard Mitigation in Project Review Identify and mitigate fire hazards during the project review and approval process. 9. Hazards and Safety Element   June 2021 Draft 2040 General Plan 9-3 Seismic Hazards, Primary. Primary seismic hazards are those that occur as a result of the slip of a fault line below the earth’s surface. Primary seismic hazards typically include ground shaking and motion, and surface rupture. Seismic Hazards, Secondary. Secondary seismic hazards are those that occur as a result of the primary ground shaking and surface rupture from an earthquake (primary seismic hazard). Secondary seismic hazards typically include landslides, rockslides, tsunamis, and liquefaction. Subsidence. The sinking or settling of the ground surface, typically related to the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater, natural gas, or oil). Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Areas where homes or other structures are built near or among lands prone to wildland fire. Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery All municipal governments are required to prepare for natural and manmade disasters. The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (OAHMP) assesses Countywide risk for natural hazards and establishes mitigation measures, funding, and plan implementation actions for Los Gatos. The Town of Los Gatos has adopted a comprehensive Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that is an all-hazards document describing the Town’s incident management organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes and other relevant guidelines, outlines whole community engagement, establishes a continuity of government focus, and identifies critical components of the incident management structure. The Town also participates in volunteer emergency response training programs and has volunteer coordination plans in place. The following goal and policies guide emergency preparedness, response, and recovery efforts by the Town of Los Gatos. HAZ-1 Ensure the community is prepared for health, natural, and human-caused hazards and can respond quickly and effectively. HAZ-1.1 Emergency Preparedness Planning Coordinate with regional agencies and incorporate emergency preparedness into appropriate Town planning efforts, including plans for preparation, communications, response, providing adequate access for emergency equipment, and evacuations in the case of an emergency. HAZ-1.2 Evacuation Routes Coordinate with Santa Clara County Fire and the Los Gatos – Monte Sereno Police Department and incorporate emergency access and evacuation planning into all planning efforts. HAZ-1.3 Community Information and Education Provide regular and redundant community emergency awareness information, training, and education about potential health, natural, and human-caused hazards in Los Gatos and how to responsibly prepare for or mitigate them. HAZ-1.4 Siting of Essential Facilities The Town shall not site essential facilities, public safety or emergency service facilities, special occupancy structures, or hazardous materials storage facilities on property subject to the following hazard designations, as defined in the Santa Clara County OAHMP, unless the Draft 2040 General Plan    9-4 Draft 2040 General Plan June 2021 structure is designed to mitigate the hazard or if no other viable option for siting is available to serve the need identified:  The 500-year flood zone;  Seismic hazard areas and fault zones;  Areas subject to liquefaction, landslide, or seiche hazards; and  Areas designated as a very high fire severity zone. HAZ-1.5 Identify Isolated Seniors Require the identification of isolated seniors who may need assistance in natural disasters such as fires, earthquakes, or floods. Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos, has a high potential for devastating wildland fires. As future climate change-related impacts increase, such as dry thunderstorms and droughts, there will be greater potential for more frequent and more intense wildfires, along with the potential for these fires to release significant quantities of Greenhouse Gases and particulate matter into the atmosphere. To comprehensively tackle urban and wildland fire prevention, strong land use policies and mitigation measures are necessary to protect the health and safety of residents, minimize the loss of life, and minimize property damage and damage to infrastructure. These efforts contribute to the community’s ability to be resilient and adapt to climate change effects, including more intense weather events. Wildfires are becoming an all too regular event in California, and both urban and wildland fires are a threat to the Town of Los Gatos. Wildfires that burn exclusively in uninhabited natural areas generally pose little risk to lives or property, although the smoke from such fires may cause respiratory problems for people nearby. Fires that occur along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are much more of a hazard, as they can spread into urbanized areas. Wildfire risk is dependent on several factors, including the amount and type of vegetation in the area, weather, and local topography. Factors such as narrow, winding roads and vegetation also slow response to fires, increasing the risk of spread. Based on the increased potential for devasting wildfires in Santa Clara County and the Town of Los Gatos, CAL FIRE developed and adopted “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” maps. These maps highlight that most of the County is located within the “high” fire severity zone, with smaller portions of the County within the “moderate” and “very high” fire severity zones. Figure 9-1 illustrates the fire hazard severity zones in the Los Gatos area. More than half of the southern portion of the Town is in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, with most of the areas to the south in the High or Moderate zones. The Town must therefore strongly incorporate fire hazard mitigation into its land use decisions and requirements to protect residents and property. The Santa Clara County OAHMP, the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), the Los Gatos Annex 9 of the CWPP, and the Los Gatos Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report all include techniques for reducing wildfire risk for Los Gatos through land use decisions, inter-agency coordination, community programs, and emergency response improvements. These plans work in coordination with the Los Gatos General Plan to provide a comprehensive framework for mitigating fire risk in Los Gatos and Santa Clara County. The OAHMP (page 45 of the OAHMP) also provides additional information on the location of critical infrastructure and facilities in SRA’s and VHFHSZ’s within the Town. The findings of the OAHMP note that the Town currently does not have gaps in services areas related to wildfire hazards. The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides emergency response services to the Town; further information on their services is available in the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element. Utilities in California have begun to address their contributions to wildfire risk by reducing vegetation near vulnerable powerlines, evaluating old infrastructure, and implementing Public Safety Power Shutoffs. These shutoffs are conducted by local energy providers such as PG&E when dry hot weather combined with strong erratic wind patterns leads to a 9. Hazards and Safety Element   June 2021 Draft 2040 General Plan 9-5 high probability of downed power lines inducing devasting fires. The power shutoffs are an attempt to minimize fires caused by downed power lines in communities across California. Local efforts are needed as well. The following goals and policies will guide the management of urban and wildland fire hazards. HAZ-2 Incorporate fire safety precautions as an integral consideration in planning development. HAZ-2.1 New Development in Fire Hazard Areas Require new development, including addtions to existing structures, located in or adjacent to fire hazard areas to minimize hazards to life and property, by using fire preventive site design, access, fire-safe landscaping, building materials, and incorporating defensible space and other fire suppression techniques. HAZ-2.2 Fire Safety Improvements Encourage fire safety improvements for existing homes and commercial buildings. HAZ-2.3 Adequate Water Storage for Fire Protection During the development review process, carefully consider the adequacy of water storage for fire protection. HAZ-2.4 Secondary Emergency Access Provide secondary emergency access as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Deparment. HAZ-2.5 Fire Buffer Zones Designate Fire Buffer Zones in collaboration with Santa Clara County Fire Department between urban areas in Town and the hillsides. HAZ-2.6 Vegetative Hazards Reduce the wildfire risks to existing and newly developed transportation networks through regular clearance and maintenance of vegetation adjacent to public roadways to current State and/or locally adopted fire safety standards for vegetation clearance in SRA’s or VHFHSZ’s. HAZ-2.7 Wildfire Response Following a large and/or destructive fire in Los Gatos or the region, the Town shall reassess standards and other requirements for new development and redevelopment and revise these requirements to ensure a high level of community resilience to fire events. HAZ-2.8 Community Fire Breaks Establish and maintain community fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones, including public and private road clearance. HAZ-2.9 Fire Safety Development Precautions Establish that minimum requisite firefighting services and infrastructure are ubiquitous throughout its Town, including but not limited to: high-visibility street signage and house numbers, appropriate street widths and building clearances for firefighting equipment and vehicles, high water pressure at all fire hydrants, and driving signage indicating rights-of-way with no outlets. Additional policies relating to fire protection, fire station information, and service standards are covered Section 6.8 (Fire Protection) Figure 6-2 (SCCFD Facilities) in the Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element. Draft 2040 General Plan    9-8 Draft 2040 General Plan June 2021 HAZ-3 Reduce the potential for injuries, damage to property, economic and social displacement, and loss of life resulting from fire hazards. HAZ-3.1 Fire Hazard Preparedness Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through proactive code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, quick and safe access for emergency equipment and evacuation, and emergency management preparation. HAZ-3.2 Neighborhood Fire Emergency Planning Coordinate neighborhood fire emergency planning for WUI areas. HAZ-3.3 Fire Emergency Water Supply Coordinate with emergency, fire, and medical services to ensure water supply is available for fire emergencies. HAZ-3.4 Development Restrictions Restrict development in areas with inadequate water flow or emergency access. HAZ-3.5 Flammable Vegetative Material Monitor and remove excessive buildup of flammable vegetative materials on Town properties and along critical public and private ingress/egress routes within the SRA and or the VHFHSZ’s.in the WUI. HAZ-3.6 Utility Access Ensure that utility providers have the ability to monitor, inspect, replace, and move equipment that may pose a fire hazard. HAZ-3.7 Community Evacuation Trainings Continue to conduct regular evacuation trainings with single-access community HOAs, residents, and the Wildfire Ad Hoc Committee; encourage residents in single-access communities to maintain emergency supplies for at least three days. Geological and Seismic Hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is in one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Los Gatos is near several active faults including the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults. Figure 9-2 shows faults, most of which are quaternary faults, within the Town Los Gatos, while Figure 9-3 shows the proximity of active major faults to Los Gatos. Ground shaking is the primary risk in an earthquake and can set off a chain reaction of secondary landslides and liquefaction, or loss of soil strength. As shown in Figure 9-4, most ground shaking risk in Los Gatos is in the northern half of the Town, with a higher risk area centered south of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and west of Highway 17. The region around the Lexington Reservoir also has higher risk of ground shaking should an earthquake occur. Figure 9-5 focusing on secondary seismic hazards, shows that landslides are a risk in most of the southern and eastern portions of the Town, and liquefaction risk is centered along Highway 17. Implementation of applicable building codes and geotechnical investigations will minimize potential loss of life and damage to property from primary and secondary seismic hazards and siting essential structures and services outside high-risk areas will enable faster emergency response after an earthquake. 9. Hazards and Safety Element   June 2021 Draft 2040 General Plan 9-19 and storage of these materials. Implementation Programs Programs Implements Which Policy(ies) Responsible Supporting Department(s) 2020 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing A Plan Review Annually review and refresh key staff on the contents of the Los Gatos Hazards and Safety Element, the Santa Clara OAHMP, and the Los Gatos HMP to ensure processes and procedures are streamlined and coordinated. HAZ-1.1 HAZ-1.2 HAZ-1.3 HAZ-1.4 HAZ-1.5 Town Manager Community Development Parks and Public Works Police Department SCC Fire Department  B Review Emergency Services Regularly review the adequacy of emergency services in the Town. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure and technology according to overall need and Town growth. HAZ-1.1 Town Manager Police Department SCC Fire Department  C Develop Evacuation ProtocolsRoutes and Planning Develop, evaluate, mMaintain, and update evacuation routes and protocols for high-risk fire hazard areas, SRA’s, and VHFHSZ’s that are consistent with AB 747 and local ordinances (Title 14, CCR, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 2 and 3 (commencing with section 1273.00)). As necessary prepare improvement plans that identify appropriate mitigation measures to further implementation of evacuation routes. HAZ-1.1 HAZ-1.2 HAZ-4.4 HAZ-5.1 HAZ-5.2 HAZ-5.3 Town Manager Police Department SCC Fire Department  D Emergency Drills Conduct emergency hazard drills with key stakeholder organizations, community groups and organizations, outside agencies, and local and County officials across the community to improve preparedness for known threats and hazards. HAZ-1.3 HAZ-1.4 Town Manager Police Department SCC Fire Department  Draft 2040 General Plan    9-20 Draft 2040 General Plan June 2021 Programs Implements Which Policy(ies) Responsible Supporting Department(s) 2020 – 2025 2026 – 2040 Annual Ongoing E Hazard Preparedness Coordinate with reginal agencies to update and distribute information on how to prepare for and lessen the potential impact of earthquakes, floods, fires, public health emergency, and other safety hazards. Help and encourage all households to prepare for two weeks of self-sufficiency HAZ-1.3 Town Manager Police Department SCC Fire Department  F Fire Safety Education Provide public education on fire safety, including wildland and structural fire prevention, evacuation protocols, and guidelines for defensible space and other hazards around structures. HAZ-1.4 HAZ-2.2 HAZ-3.2 HAZ-3.5 Town Manager Community Development Fire Department  G Wildfire Development ChecklistProtection Plan Create a checklist for applicants to complete and submit a fire protection plan to assess and mitigate fire risks for all new development within SRA’s and VHFHSZ’s. Fire protection plans shall include: 1. Risk analysis; 2. Fire response capabilities assessment; 3. Fire safety requirements (i.e., defensible space, infrastructure, and building ignition resistance); 4. Mitigation measures and design considerations for nonconforming fuel modification; 5. Wildfire education strategies; and 1.6. Plan maintenance and limitations. to ensure that wildfire mitigation standards are included. HAZ-2.1 SCC Fire Department Community Development  H Review of Fire Related Ordinances Update the Town’s development standards to either directly adopt or meet the minimum standards of title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 (commencing with section 1270) (SRA Fire Safe Regulations) and title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations) for SRAs and/or VHFHSZs. HAZ-2.1 HAZ-2.2 HAZ-2.9 Town Manager SCC Fire Department  This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 9 From: Ryan Rosenberg Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 7:10 PM To: Alexa Nolder; Jennifer Armer Cc: Melanie Hanssen Subject: My comments on the name "community place districts" There was a suggestion made today that we should submit comments on the name “community place districts” to be passed on to the planning commission when (and if) they consider this name. My comments follow… My suggestion is “Community Growth District”. Here is why. The definition in the plan is: “...Community Place Districts were identified based on the proximity of commercial services or employment to support additional development, easy access to transportation systems, and having access to infrastructure needed to support future development. These locations have the potential to facilitate mixed-use development and redevelopment at a variety of densities and intensities.” This definition makes it clear that a primary objective of these areas is to support the growth we want to see in the town and that we need to see in order to meet state mandates. Of course we don’t just want any growth — we want to manage and direct that growth in a positive direction. I did like the words “Community” and “District” because they capture the idea of a special area that brings people together and has a unique sense of identity. But I didn’t like the word “place”. The main reason is that it does not capture the concept of growth (a primary objective of these areas in the first place). But I also think people will not understand it means plus it overlaps to some degree with the word “community”. Ryan From: karen Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2021 7:01 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Please add education on plant-based diets to GP2040 Hi Jennifer, I am a resident of the Town of Los Gatos. I live at 264 Calle Marguerita, Apt A, Los Gatos 95032. I am writing because I am asking the Town to add a program to educate residents about the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet in the 2040 General Plan. I would like this program to be added to the Environmental section, specifically section 8.12 Implementation Programs. Thank you kindly. Best regards, Karen Rubio From: Debbie Parsons Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2021 11:33 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Dear Jennifer, I am a resident of the town of Los Gatos. I am writing to inform you that I strongly support including plant-based education in the town's 2040 general plan. Regards Debbie Parsons From: Danielle Hinsche Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 10:22 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: karenr; kristine Subject: Plant based Education Program Hello Jennifer, I am a resident of Los Gatos and live at 11 Kimble Avenue and I support the addition of a plant-based education program in the Town’s 2040 General Plan. My family eats meat, but we enjoy meatless meals as a regular part of our diet. Dani Hinsche From: Lynne Rovin Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 1:41 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant-based Education in Los Gatos General Plan Dear Jennifer, I am a resident of Los Gatos and I support including a plant-based education in the town General Plan. Thank you for considering the welfare of the people in this town (and the world) by considering the inclusion of plant-based education. Respectfully, Lynne Rovin From: Karla Albright Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 7:20 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: General Plan- Plant based education Hello Jennifer, My name is Karla Albright and I have been a long term proud resident of LG for the past 24 years. I am writing to encourage the town to include a plant-based education program in the Sustainability section of the 2040 General Plan. Plant based easting has a wide range of benefits for our health and the health of the planet. Education that moves the needle to get more people to embrace a plant based diet is good for everyone. Thank you for considering this. Karla Albright From: shailaja venkatsubramanyan Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 6:53 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: plant-based education program Hi Jennifer, I am a Los Gatos resident. Just want to let you know that I would like to see a plant-based education program included in the environmental section of the 2040 general plan. Thanks, Shai From: Lisa Wade Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:45 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Information for General Plan Meeting Tonight Hi Jennifer, Please would you add this to the record for tonight's meeting? Thanks! Lisa We are a group of residents of the Town of Los Gatos who would like to see the promotion of plant-based eating featured prominently in the 2040 General Plan for Los Gatos. Some of us are plant-based eaters and some are meat eaters but we all recognize the importance of meat reduction for climate mitigation, health, and racial justice. We’d like to see plant-based eating added to the Health and Environmental sections of the General Plan. Most importantly, we recommend that the town add a program to educate residents about the environmental and health benefits of a plant-based diet. Specifically, we’d like to see such a program added to section 8.12 Implementation Programs. Numerous studies have urged a planetary shift toward a plant-based diet including a 2018 Oxford University study stating that "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://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 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.) Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. Edited by Paul Hawken. Factory farms and slaughterhouses are situated predominantly near people of color and low- income residents who suffer from illnesses caused by pollutants these operations generate. Slaughterhouse workers are usually immigrants who have few other options for work and suffer from crowded, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions, which were exposed during the recent pandemic. Climate change, caused in large part by animal agriculture, is driving more frequent and intense storms and other extreme weather events such as drought, disproportionately impacting “frontline” communities comprised mainly of low-income and people of color. For these reasons, we would like the town to add a plant-based education program to section 8.12 Implementation Programs. Local Activist Groups Supporting This Request: TWW/Indivisible-Los Gatos https://www.twwlg.org/ Plant-Based Advocates of Los Gatos http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com/ Environmental/Health Organizations that support our recommendations to the General Plan(This is a working list more organizations will be added) 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/ A Well-Fed World https://awellfedworld.org/ PhARM (Physicians Against Red Meat) https://pharm.org/ List of Residents who Support Adding a Plant-Based Education Program to the General Plan 2040 (65 Residents so far more will be added.) 1.Peter Hertan, Vice President, Los Gatos- Saratoga Union High School District Board 2.Alicia Spargo, Outreach Coordinator, Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition 3.Karla Albright LG. 95032 4.Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan Los Gatos, 95032 5.Sue Ann Lorig Los Gatos, California 6.Lisa Wade Los Gatos, Ca 95032 7.Christopher Wade Los Gatos, Ca 95032 8.Karen Rubio Los Gatos, California 95032 9.Fred Rubio Los Gatos, California 95032 10.Kathleen Willey Los Gatos, California 95032 11.Mark Willey Los Gatos, California 95032 12.Debbie Parsons Los Gatos, California 95032 13.James Parsons Los Gatos, California 95032 14.Carolyn Kurlin Los Gatos 95032 15.Sevil Karavelioglu. LG 95032 16.Anita Bora Los Gatos, California 17.Laura Montonye Reese Los Gatos, Ca 95030 18.Dirk Reese Los Gatos, Ca 95030 19.Tony White Los Gatos, Ca 95032 20.Hilary White Los Gatos, Ca 95032 21.Charles Wade Los Gatos, Ca 95032 22.Caroline Dempsey Los Gatos, California 23.Dawn DeMaria Los Gatos, Ca 95032 24.Prasenjit Sarkar Los Gatos, 95032 25.Pamela Wales Los Gatos, Ca 95030 26.Rob Moore Los Gatos. 27.Mary Ann Bosworth Town of Los Gatos 28.Hanley Yosfee Town of Los Gatos 29.Rosilene Martins Los Gatos, Ca 95032 30.Sara Hojjat Los Gatos, CA 95030 31.Tamara Corini Los Gatos, 95032 32.Sandeep Madduri Town of Los Gatos 33.Gregg Kurlin Los Gatos, 95032 34.Glenn Lorig Los Gatos, California 35.Laura Sneddon Town of Los Gatos 36.Linda Juhl Los Gatos Main Town of Los Gatos 37.June O Toole Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos 38.Karen Aidi Los Gatos CA 95032 39.Suzanne Meinhardt Los Gatos 40.Roger Dickinson Los Gatos, Ca 95032 41.Manan Sardana Los Gatos Ca 95032 42.Sevgi Erdengiz Town of Los Gatos 43.Kevin Hiroshima Town of Los Gatos 44.Camille Lesko Los Gatos, California 45.Jeyendran Balakrishnan Los Gatos, CA 95032 46.Erik Rubio, Los Gatos, CA 95032 47.Wendy Arienzo Town of Los Gatos 48.Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan Los Gatos, 95032 49.Ilene Dickinson Los Gatos, Ca 95032 50.Reeta Gupta Los Gatos, CA 95032 51.Rupar Iyar Los Gatos, CA 95032 52.Danielle Hinsche, Los Gatos CA 95032 53.Stuart Rovin Los Gatos, CA 95032 54.Lynne Rovin Los Gatos, CA 95032 55.Tricia Niederauer Los Gatos CA 95032 56.Liz Tompkins, Los Gatos, CA 95032 57.John Parsons Los Gatos, Ca 95032 58.Daniel Parsons Los Gatos, Ca 95032 59.Jackie Parsons Los Gatos, Ca 95032 60.Stephen Wade Los Gatos, Ca 95032 61.Lucas Wade Los Gatos, CA 95032 62.Tim Evjenth Los Gatos, CA 95032 63.Gail Evjenth, Los Gatos, CA 95032 64.Lynette Garland Los Gatos CA 95032 65.Robin Streicker Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos. Cities with PB programs In 2019 New York City’s public schools adopted Meatless Mondays https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/new-york-city-schools-adopt-meatless-mondays •Los Angeles, California is part of the C-40 cities and are doing this: https://www.40.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. Cities with Green Monday Resolutions or Formal Programs Emeryville, Berkeley, and Mountainview. From: Lisa Wade Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 10:52 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: My speech for tonight My name is Lisa Wade and I am a resident of the town of Los Gatos. Tonight I am speaking on behalf of 65 residents of the town of Los Gatos. All 65 names have been sent to you with most addresses included. We expect this list to grow in the coming weeks. We want to thank you for your hard work on the General Plan. We also want to thank you for adding the words plant-based to 6.13 healthy community and ENV 9.7 employer incentive program At the last GPAC meeting, you mentioned that adding the words plant-based to these two sections would be a start and that you would do more. Tonight I have a simple request that would make us very happy. We would like you to add a plant-based education program to the Environmental section specifically section 8.12 Implementation programs. If you were to add such a section tonight our mission will be accomplished. If this can not be accomplished tonight we ask that you at least add the words plant-based to the Climate Change Education Program in the Implementation Programs section of the Environment and Sustainability Element. This request is not only supported by 65 residents of the town but it is also supported by local activist groups TWW Indivisible Los Gatos and Plant-Based Advocates of Los Gatos. We are also supported by environmental, hunger relief, and public health organizations such as A Well-Fed World https://awellfedworld.org/ The Center for Biological Diversity https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ and , Physicians Against Red Meat pharm.org/ A United Nations Report of 2019 found that if more of the world's population shifts towards plant-based diets and reduces their meat consumption, it could significantly boost the planet's ability to fight climate change.How Eating Less Meat Could Help Protect the Planet From Climate Change The meat industry is not only responsible for environmental destruction, but it commits human rights violations on a daily basis. Slaughterhouse workers are usually people of color with few other options. They suffer high rates of PTSD and they work in dangerous, unsanitary conditions in fact in 2020 the League of United Latin American Citizens called for a meat boycott in 2020.https://janeunchained.com/2020/05/14/workers-rights-group-launches-meat-boycott-to- protest-slaughterhouse-workers-deaths/ Again we'd like to see a plant-based education program included in the General Plan and at the very least we ask that you please add the words plant-based to section 8.12 Implementation Programs. Since you were able to easily add the words plant-based to two sections at the last meeting. We feel this should be a doable goal for the committee tonight. Of course, we would love you to add a separate plant-based education program tonight, but if that needs to happen later in the Summer or Fall please at least add the words plant-based to section 8.12 Implementation Programs specifically CC Climate Change Education. We would be very grateful if you would make that change tonight. Again thank you for your hard work and for the changes you have already made in support of our efforts. From: Sandeep Madduri Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:57 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Sustainability section of the 2040 General Plan - Plant-based education program Hi Jennifer, I am a resident of , Los Gatos, CA 95032 and wanted to let you know that I support including a plant-based education program in the sustainability section of the 2040 general plan. Thank you, Sandeep From: Camille Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 2:40 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant based education Hello Jennifer, I am a resident of Los Gatos, address . I support including a plant-based education program in the Town’s 2040 General Plan since I believe this will benefit the climate as well as the health of our residents. BR, Camille Lesko From: Phil Koen Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 7:55 AM To: Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz; Ramona Giwargis Subject: Staedler: Opportunity Housing should be decided on by a vote of the people - San José Spotlight I found this article to be very interesting and worthy of distribution. It raised this question for me: Shouldn’t the residents of LG have an opportunity to vote on the proposed land use changes in the draft General Plan 2040? Phil Koen https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsanjosespotlight.com%2Fstaedler -opportunity-housing-should-be-decided-on-by-a-vote-of-the- people%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clprevetti%40losgatosca.gov%7C72fb6b4761fc43ad025608d9408e0 413%7C6d38cb6747eb4d139e7c523cd7ccecd5%7C1%7C0%7C637611801429603679%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000& amp;sdata=VlJKY5kYV%2FmslJ%2BYVCqDlqzAs2tHcGPtrPK%2Fi8QY5GY%3D&amp;reserved=0 Sent from my iPhone From: Laura Sneddon Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 7:22 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant-based education program in 2040 General Plan Hi Jennifer, I’m writing to let you know as a Los Gatos resident, I support including a plant-based education program in the Sustainability section of Los Gatos’ 2040 General Plan. I believe it’s important to educate the town on how a plant based diet and lifestyle can help our health, environment, animal welfare, etc. Given the many benefits, I think such education has a rightful place in the upcoming general plan. Thanks ~Laura Sneddon From: Kyle Kelley Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2021 11:05 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Carolyn Kelley; Subject: Thank you I just read https://sanjosespotlight.com/this-silicon-valley-town-is-doubling-its-housing-residents-are- crying-foul/. Thank you for pushing for missing middle housing in Los Gatos. I've lived and worked in Los Gatos twice. My brother went to high school there. My kids went to Daves Elementary and we used to be regulars in town. Apparently, we were such regulars that we appear in promo pics for the library (this one was in Los Gatos Magazine): We would love to come back. Los Gatos could be a great inclusive environment that welcomes more families. Please let me know if I can provide testimony at any point. I'm just over the hill in Santa Cruz now and I'm happy to dial in remotely or show up in person. -- Kyle Kelley Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 3:51 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210716225120] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210716225120] Name: Cathleen Bannon Comments: These incredibly high dense housing goals do not align with the infrastructure of our town. While rezoning unused commercial space to high density housing makes sense, the number should be in the hundreds NOT thousands. Our surface streets cannot handle the increased cars on beach traffic days, much less thousands more who live in town. Our highway can’t handle the congestion either. We need balance with a strong reality check of what our small town can really handle. Please listen to the residents who are already struggling with traffic issues. Thank you Page title: General Plan Basics From: Fred Faltersack Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:51 AM To: Town Manager Subject: 2040 General Plan Laurel, I just had the opportunity to read some articles regarding the 2040 General Plan and wanted to share with you a section of the town which I think has been an overlooked and may have the opportunity to assist in accomplishing the higher density and more affordable unit goals of the Town. First and so that you do not start out on the defensive, I DO support the higher density goals shown in the 2040 General Plan. I support the many different variations of affordable dwelling units (ADU’s) within the traditional single family neighborhoods. I support the individual rights of property owners. I am against others (individuals or governments) trying to dictate to a property owner what they can and cannot do on and with their own land. Oh, and I have been a resident of the Town of Los Gatos since 1986. Now Based on where the 2040 General Plan is in it’s life-cycle, this is probably a bit late in the game to bring this up, but hear me out. I noticed that the HR zoning has been left untouched with respect to higher density for “wild-life” reasons. That being said, there are fringe areas of the HR zones that are not really situated in the steep hillside areas. I will focus on the East Los Gatos area and more specifically in the Harwood Road area which consists of HR-40, HR-20 zoning and for the most part borders the City of San Jose with subdivisions having parcel sizes of 6,000-8,000 square feet (let’s call these areas Hillside Residential "Fringe Areas"). There are many old ranch-style homes situated on 1/2 acre to 3 acre parcels of which the topography is flat or have insignificant slope. Re-zoning this area for higher density would create none of the parking or traffic issues that are of great concern with citizens along the higher density Highway 17 corridor, Highway 9, and downtown areas as there is ample room to design in off- street parking. I am sure there are other pockets of HR fringe areas within the Town that could also provide the same. Please feel free to reach out to me if you believe it warrants further discussion, or a quick visual tour of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Fred Faltersack Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 10:29 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210719172912] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210719172912] Name: Kent Kappen Comments: No increase in housing levels in the general plan! We cannot sustain the level of units suggested by the State let alone the number of units the town wants! With water, electric and school space shortages...Even before the North 40 comes online...We will face even more struggles to support these new "low-income residents" (114K is not low income by the way). Considering gridlock traffic during the summer, parking spaces taken away from the "parklets" and businesses shuttering for better lease options Los Gatos is becoming a less desirable destination. I have lived here for over 50 years and even teach at Blossom Hill School. Every day i see that the roadways cannot support the current level of traffic. That's the main reason why we had to open up the Police operations building right? PLEASE SHOW LIMITED OR NO GROWTH TO THE PLAN. WE JUST CANNOT SUPPORT IT!!! Page title: General Plan Basics Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 11:15 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210719181450] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210719181450] Name: Lynn Williams Comments: While I favor increased price diversity, I highly disagree with the plan for more housing than is required by the mandatory allocation. Our town is already suffers increased traffic, water, environmental and other issues due to the north 40 and other developments. At some point the quality of life in town will be so deteriorated that it will be unattractive to people moving to the area or upgrading. Page title: General Plan Basics Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 11:21 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210719182102] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210719182102] Name: Sondra Garcia Comments: As one who is from a Latino background, my family worked hard to afford the quality and character of Los Gatos. We strongly oppose this plan, which will DESTROY the character and quality of the neighborhoods, schools, and town we worked so hard to afford. Page title: General Plan Basics Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 2:47 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210719214725] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210719214725] Name: Tim Delaney Comments: Hello All, I live off H17 by summit store. And I own a home in Incline Village NV. Just so you all know I am totally against increasing housing density and moving away from single family homes. I also have a home in SJ that has all sorts of affordable housing nearby. I'll be blunt. My SJ home is nice but the surrounding area is really horrible. Way too many people. Plenty of crime. It is a filthy mess sometimes. My mail is ripped off regularly. And police pretty much don't want to bother with the situation. Everywhere they attempt this high density housing nonsense it turns into a disaster. Tahoe is a very good example as well. The hordes of people and tourists have totally destroyed the east shore beaches of Tahoe. Fact is people only care about themselves. And in this era they don't even care about themselves. You have a very nice town. Scrap the plan. Start over. Don't F up your town. It's fabulous. I am crystal clear on the matter. Sincerely, Tim Delaney Page title: General Plan Basics From: Michael Glow Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 6:39 PM To: Laurel Prevetti; LosGatos, Weekly Times; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Robert Schultz Subject: Shocked by stumbling on this news article regarding our little town, Los Gatos The altruistic goals are commendable, but way too radical and detrimental to our schools, traffic, and our uncontrollable limits on natural resources, specifically water. This calls for civic involvement, civic activism, and pushback on Town Council members, and mainly on the Town Manager, Laurel Prevetti. Please get involved. I got involved with the pushback on the hideous high density development we now see at the North 40 on Lark Avenue, across from the Classic Car Wash. It was a frustrating experience because the expended energy on the issue fell on deff ears, and the development proceeded unaltered by citizen input. It was obvious that we needed larger numbers, and the involvement of more of our high-profile citizens that may have exercised their political clout. Early involvement is essential, before things get too far down the road, and the invested interests get heard and entrenched. It may be premature, but a large public outcry for the resignation of Town Manager, Laurel Prevetti may be the best way of demonstrating that this time, the citizens of the Town are serious about their voices being heard. https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/This-Silicon-Valley-Town-Is-Doubling-Its-Housing- 16322529.php From: Aaron Eckhouse Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:11 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Planning Commission discussion of General Plan update Hello, I was excited to see coverage of proposed land use alternatives for the Los Gatos General Plan update that included missing middle housing & mixed use development of major corridors. Has the next Planning Commission discussion of the General Plan been scheduled? Also, what provision is there for remote participation in Planning Commission meetings? thank you, Aaron Eckhouse Regional Policy Manager, California YIMBY he/him/his Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 1:32 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210721203138] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210721203138] Name: Lori Ingle Comments: Please ask for an exemption, like Saratoga did. This is a radical change to long standing building policies in our community and will dramatically change LG as we know it! I would like to demand delay of acceptance of this proposed general plan to later in 2022, not November 2021, for full evaluation. Announcing the details of this plan publicly through SJ Spotlight in mid-July 2021 with a plan to have it accepted by November 2021 is unacceptable and unfair to the citizens of this town. Page title: Home Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 3:15 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210721221517] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210721221517] Name: Vivian Tan Comments: This is a radical change to our long standing building policies in our community and will dramatically change Los Gatos as we know it. I would highly request to deny the plan because our public resources will not be enough to sustain all the newly added living units. The traffic is already horrible and the public schools will not be able to handle all the new students. We need to have a detailed and reasonable plan to ask citizens who live in Los Gatos for approval. It is not fair to ask current Citizens to approve the plan in such a short notice. As a residents who just moved to Los Gatos, we are fond of living in our community because of it’s current building policies. If this plan gets approved, it will dramatically change our living experience here, and might dive us away from living in such a beautiful town. Page title: Home Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 11:05 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210723060502] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210723060502] Name: Charles Tripp Comments: High density housing? Is there water for that? I live on 1 & 1/4 acres near Lark, and to imagine 15 houses on my property, or one that size is horrible to think about. If I want high density housing like that, I'd move to Fremont, and brave all the traffic. I've lived in Los Gatos since 1961 because it's not high-density, it's peaceful and quiet. Now you want to ruin all that, reduce Los Gatos Blvd to 2 lanes, right when it will be overloaded from the N. 40? Makes a whole lot of sense. If someone were trying to destroy Los Gatos, I couldn't have even thought of something as dis-tasteful as this plan. Make Los Gatos crowded and with busy traffic like the North Bay? I think not. We need less housing, not more. There's no water for all this, anyway, and the traffic's already bad enough with the beach traffic. Page title: Home Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 5:02 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210725000155] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210725000155] Name: Stephen Brodsky Comments: I saw this article about doubling the housing capacity: https://www.ktvu.com/news/one-silicon-valley- town-plans-to-double-its-housing-capacity-but-residents-are-crying-foul Please do not add thousands of extra housing units into the town. We should be filing for the exceptions instead of adding thousands of units into the town. The residents of the town have been clear that this is the opposite of the wishes of the town residents. Page title: Home Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 7:33 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210725023254] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210725023254] Name: Ross Liebman Comments: Please limit the amount of new housing to the state mandate. Increasing beyond this limit is not fair to the current residents of Los Gatos. Building high density buildings next to single family homes is not fair to those homeowners who were buying into the suburban lifestyle. Any increase in housing development above the state mandate should be put to a vote of the people. Also, as all other cities are appealing the state mandate it seems we should as well or risk being inundated with developers who care more about making a buck then the beauty of Los Gatos. Page title: Home From: Phil Koen Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 10:19 PM To: Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc; Maria Ristow Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz; Lee Fagot; jvannada; GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: RHNA Dear Town Council, Please find attached the RHNA appeal filed by the City of Saratoga on July 9, 2021. All of the points detailed by the City of Saratoga would form the basis for similar appeal by the Town. Why didn’t the Town appeal our RHNA allocation? Did the Town Council ever discuss the option to appeal the RHNA allocation? What was the basis for the decision not to appeal? The residents of the Town deserve a detail explanation from the Town Council as to why the Town did not appeal given the incredible increase in allocation this cycle over the prior cycle. Thank you. Phil Koen https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2700/2021-City-of-Saratoga-RHNA-Appeal?bidId= Sent from my iPhone ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeal Request Form | Page 1 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Appeal Request Submit appeal requests and supporting documentation via DocuSign by 5:00 pm PST on July 9, 2021. Late submissions will not be accepted. Send questions to rhna@bayareametro.gov Jurisdiction Whose Allocation is Being Appealed: _____________________________________________________ Filing Party: { HCD { Jurisdiction: _______________________________________________________________ Contact Name: ______________________________________ Title: __________________________________________ Phone: _______________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ APPEAL AUTHORIZED BY: Name: ________________________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________ PLEASE SELECT BELOW: { Mayor { Chair, County Board of Supervisors { City Manager { Chief Administrative Officer { Other: ____________________________________ IDENTIFY ONE OR MORE BASES FOR APPEAL [Government Code Section 65584.5(b)] † ABAG failed to adequately consider information submitted in the Local Jurisdiction Survey regarding RHNA Factors (Government Code Section 65584.04(e)) and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (See Government Code Section 65584.04(b)(2) and 65584(d)(5)): † Existing and projected jobs and housing relationship. † Sewer or water infrastructure constraints for additional development due to laws, regulatory actions, or decisions made by a provider other than the local jurisdiction. † Availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use. † Lands protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs. † County policies to preserve prime agricultural land. † Distribution of household growth assumed for Plan Bay Area 2050. †County-city agreements to direct growth toward incorporated areas of county. † Loss of units contained in assisted housing developments. † Households paying more than 30% or 50% of their income in rent. † The rate of overcrowding. † Housing needs of farmworkers. † Housing needs generated by the presence of a university campus within a jurisdiction. † Housing needs of individuals and families experiencing homelessness. † Loss of units during a declared state of emergency from January 31, 2015 to February 5, 2020. † The region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets to be met by Plan Bay Area 2050. † Affirmatively furthering fair housing. † ABAG failed to determine the jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation in accordance with the Final RHNA Methodology and in a manner that furthers, and does not undermine the RHNA Objectives (see Government Code Section 65584(d) for the RHNA Objectives). † A significant and unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred in the local jurisdiction or jurisdictions that merits a revision of the information submitted in the Local Jurisdiction Survey (appeals based on change of circumstance can only be made by the jurisdiction or jurisdictions where the change occurred). 3'9-+22:)034)            Community Development Director  City of Saratoga    City of Saratoga      Debbie Pedro   dpedro@saratoga.ca.us   (408) 868-1231      Yan Zhao     7/8/2021  ABAG 2023-2031 RHNA Appeal Request Form | Page 2 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65584.05, appeals shall be based upon comparable data available for all affected jurisdictions and accepted planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation, and shall include a statement as to why the revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d). An appeal shall be consistent with, and not to the detriment of, the development pattern in the sustainable communities strategy (Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint). Number of units requested to be reduced or added to jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation: { Decrease Number of Units: ___________ { Increase Number of Units: __________ Brief description of appeal request and statement on why this revision is necessary to further the intent of the objectives listed in Government Code Section 65584(d) and how the revision is consistent with, and not to the detriment, of the development pattern in Plan Bay Area 2050. Please include supporting documentation for evidence as needed, and attach additional pages if you need more room. List of supporting documentation, by title and number of pages 1. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ The maximum file size is 25MB. To submit larger files, please contact rhna@bayareametro.gov. Click here to attach files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aratoga RHNA Appeal Letter July 7, 2021, 4 pages      Incorporated October 22, 1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mary-Lynne Bernald Kookie Fitzsimmons Rishi Kumar Tina Walia Yan Zhao July 7, 2021 Therese McMillan ABAG/MTC Executive Director Bay Area Metro Center 375 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: City of Saratoga Appeal of Draft 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Dear Ms. McMillan, On behalf of the Saratoga City Council and the Saratoga community, the City of Saratoga hereby submits an appeal to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) of the Draft 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation. The City of Saratoga is appealing on the grounds the ABAG failed to adequately consider information submitted in the Local Jurisdiction Survey regarding RHNA Factors, including existing and projected jobs and housing relationship, availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use; and the region’s greenhouse gas emissions targets to be met by Plan Bay Area 2050. Furthermore, we request a 50% reduction in the City of Saratoga RHNA from 1,712 new housing units to 856 new units. RHNA Total Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Draft 1,712 454 261 278 719 Proposed 856 227 131 139 360 3'9-+22:)034)          Nearly all of Saratoga land has been devoted to residential housing. Saratoga’s commercial space is already extremely limited, especially after 80,000 square feet of retail and office space was lost to a Senate Bill 35 project. The parcels in purple on the adjacent map represent commercial properties in the City that provide services and jobs to the community and represent areas for future mixed use higher density housing in the City of Saratoga. The City is being forced to consider reducing the limited commercial job producing development that it has to accommodate the new housing required by the State, leading to longer commutes and personal trips for current and future residents. This directly conflicts with the RHNA Methodology objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Saratoga is also incorrectly identified as being in a Transit-Rich Area (TRA), which would include cities with a bus stop with peak service frequency of 15 minutes or less. Currently, there are no bus routes within City limits with peak service frequency of 15 minutes or less. As you can see on the map displaying bus routes in Saratoga, public transportation options in Saratoga consist of only 5 bus lines that serve only a small part of the City. These routes offer varying service on weekdays, ranging from every 20 to 60 minutes. Clearly, Saratoga is far from any reasonable interpretation of Transit-Rich. With hardly any public transportation options in Saratoga, this forces residents into their cars, and that ultimately increases emissions and traffic. This is counterproductive to the City’s and ABAG’s efforts thus far and future goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3'9-+22:)034)          Roughly half of Saratoga is in the Wildland Urban Interface area and at high or very high risk for wildfires. The area in red on the map below shows the Wildland Urban Interface area in the City of Saratoga. Saratoga’s downtown business district, a location most cities plan for higher density mixed use housing, is in a Very High Fire Hazard Zone and Wildland Urban Interface area. Last year, the CZU August Lightning Complex burned nearly 87,000 acres of land and destroyed 7,000 buildings in the Santa Cruz Mountains just outside Santa Clara County and the City of Saratoga. Many roads in Saratoga are narrow and winding, serving as the only entry and exit point for hillside neighborhoods. The Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Environmental Impact Report, which helps shape the RHNA Allocation process, acknowledges that an increase in housing units in the San Francisco Bay Area will intensify the risk of wildland fires and mitigation measures, such as educating the public and enforcing defensible space requirements, will not minimize this threat. The significant increase in the City of Saratoga RHNA Allocation and State legislative penalties for failing to reach RHNA targets incentivize increasing housing development in areas like Wildland Urban Interface area that simply cannot sustain increased housing density. Conversely, planning for the addition of more than 1,700 new homes in other sections of Saratoga that are outside of the Wildland Urban Interface is simply impractical and unrealistic given the financial realities of residential construction. Further compounding this issue, Santa Clara Valley Water recently declared a water shortage emergency and instituted a mandatory 15% reduction in water use compared to 2019. Vegetation in our fire risk areas is extraordinarily dry and many of us fear what this and future fire seasons will look like, as it has become clear that drought conditions may be the new normal. As reported in the San Jose Mercury News, a recent study of this year’s runoff from the Sierra Mountains indicates that due to climate change, past hydrology models are no longer reliable. Santa Clara County is also extremely sensitive to drought conditions locally as well as elsewhere in the State. Approximately 50% of Santa Clara County’s water supply comes from outside the County. The Draft EIR for Plan Bay Area 2050 states that even after mitigation measures are implemented, water supplies will be insufficient to support the Bay Area’s projected population increases. It is clear that Saratoga simply cannot accommodate an increased demand for water that would result from the addition of more than 1,700 new homes. The proposed RHNA Allocation places an undue burden on the City of Saratoga with our limited commercial services, job base, access to public transportation, and over half 3'9-+22:)034)          of the City is in a Moderate to Very High Fire Severity Zones. For these reasons, we urge you to reduce the City of Saratoga 2023-2031 RHNA Allocation from 1,712 to 856 new units. This proposal from the City of Saratoga represents a far more realistic and feasible target. Sincerely, Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga YYYYaYaYYYYYYaYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYn Zhao Mayor 3'9-+22:)034)          July 27, 2021 Jennifer Armer, AICP, Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Draft 2040 General Plan Dear Ms. Armer, On behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen), we respectfully submit the following comments regarding the draft version of the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update (2040 General Plan Update or Project). Midpen is pleased to see the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update identified protecting natural resources, open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides and waterways as one of the document’s guiding principles. Midpen owns and manages nearly 65,000 acres of open space land in the Santa Cruz Mountains region. Our mission is: To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Midpen’s 26 Open Space Preserves include redwood, oak, and fir forests, chaparral-covered hillsides, riparian corridors, grasslands, coastal terraces along the Pacific Ocean, and wetlands along the San Francisco Bay. Ranging from 55 to over 18,000 acres, 24 of the 26 preserves are open to the public free of charge, 365 days a year. Midpen owns and manages three preserves adjacent to the town of Los Gatos: El Sereno, St. Joseph’s Hill, and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserves. The St. Joseph’s Hill and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserves are particularly significant recreation sites, with extensive trails available for public use. Given that St. Joseph’s Hill and Sierra Azul Open Space Preserves are within the town limits and in close proximity to the Opportunity Areas identified in the 2040 General Plan Update, Midpen would like to share the following suggestions for the draft general plan. Midpen is currently planning and developing wildlife and regional trail crossings of Highway 17 in the Town of Los Gatos Planning Area north of Lexington Reservoir. The regional trail crossing and its associated 6 to 9 miles of connecting trails includes connections to the Town managed Los Gatos Creek Trail and Novitiate Park, as well as Midpen’s trail systems in El Sereno, St. Joseph’s Hill, and Sierra Azul Preserves. This project represents a significant increase in regional trail connectivity in and adjacent to the Town Planning Area, including a critical link for approximately 50 miles of existing Bay Area Ridge Trail and approximately 22 miles of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. Consistent with General Plan Policy MOB-3.8, this project provides regional trail connections identified in the Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan that will be a significant benefit to Town residents. In accordance with Goal LU-21, Midpen looks forward to greater coordination with the Town of Los Gatos as a project stakeholder and partner and will continue to engage the Town on relevant project developments. Additional information can be found on the project website at https://www.openspace.org/our- work/projects/wildlife-crossing. Midpen staff reviewed the draft Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update and would like to share the following suggestions. Section LU-3.2 Reducing Project Impacts Projects shall be evaluated and the Town shall apply appropriate mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval to reduce impacts on urban services and wildfire risk, including utilities, police, and fire. Consider including a statement reducing project impacts on the environment. Section LU-20.1 Community Input The Town shall facilitate opportunities for all residents and stakeholders to provide meaningful and effective input on proposed planning activities early on and continuously throughout development review and the public review process. Suggest adding “other local governments,” after “all residents.” “The Town shall facilitate opportunities for all residents, other local governments, and stakeholders to provide meaningful and effective input on proposed planning activities early on and continuously throughout development review and the public review process.” Section 3.10, LU-21 and LU-21.1 3.10 Interagency Coordination Many local, regional, State, and Federal agencies have land use planning, permitting or development review authority in the Los Gatos Planning Area and surrounding region. Coordination among agencies ensures regulatory compliance, increases efficiency for development projects, and eliminates redundancies among agencies. The following goal and policies will provide guidance on interagency coordination. LU-21 Enhance interagency coordination to achieve mutually beneficial land use development and conservation. LU-21.1 Regional Planning Continue and expand Town participation in planning processes in neighboring jurisdictions, Santa Clara County, and regional agencies and organizations to develop innovative, effective, and coordinated land use, transportation, and hillside development plans and standards. Consider including a statement on how the Town will engage and coordinate with public agency stakeholders, such as Midpen, in Town planning and policy projects that may impact the lands or responsibilities of those local agencies. Section CD-2.12 Street Trees in New Development If feasible, require street trees to be installed for all new developments, to enhance neighborhood character and identity and to maximize shade coverage when mature. Consider including a requirement for native, non-invasive or non-fire-prone street tree species. Section CD-2.30 Street and Structure Lighting Require street and structure lighting to minimize its visual, health, and ecological impacts by preventing glare, limiting the amount of light that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky. Consider including the dark-sky and/or the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance or reference section ENC-7.11. The following link provides additional information on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance. https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/public-policy/mlo/ Section CD-2.40 Landscaped Gateways Ensure that public improvements and private development provide landscaped Town gateways that create visual connections between the natural hillsides and open space areas and the community of Los Gatos. Consider including a requirement for native, non-invasive or non-fire-prone plant species. Section CD-5 Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides. Under section CD-5 Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides, consider adding: CD-5.6 Preserve Sensitive Natural Communities. Sensitive natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special status plants or their habitat. Section CD-6.5 Lighting Design in Hillside Areas Outdoor lighting shall be limited and shielded so as not to be viewable from non-hillside areas and shall be of low intensity. Consider including the dark-sky and/or the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance or reference ENC-7.11 The following link provides additional information on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance. https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/public-policy/mlo/ Section CD-9.9 Landscaping To soften the appearance of hardscape, incorporate landscaped medians using drought tolerant plants, landscape buffers, and street trees. Consider including a requirement for native, non-invasive or non-fire-prone plant species. Section PFS-5 Conserve landfill space. Consider including composting, green waste and chipping programs. Section OSPR-2.1 Hillside Natural Open Space Character Preserve the natural open space character of hillside lands, including natural topography, natural vegetation, wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and viewsheds. Suggest changing the word “natural” vegetation to “native” vegetation. “Preserve the natural open space character of hillside lands, including natural topography, native vegetation, wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and viewsheds.” Key Terms Section Ecosystem. A community or group of living organisms that live in and interact with each other in a specific environment. Suggest adding the word “physical” after “specific” “Ecosystem. A community or group of living organisms that live in and interact with each other in a specific physical environment.” Section ENV-2.3 Landscape Design Continue to update landscape design guidelines for development consistent with Biological Resources goals and policies. Landscape design should promote the implementation of native species, drought tolerant species, and fire-wise plants and designs, including in hillside areas and future planning areas. Consider updating to “Santa Cruz Mountain” species or “locally” native species. Similar to section ENV 5.1. Section ENV-5.2 Special Status Native Plant Species Protection Require public and private projects to protect special-status native plant species. Consider adding “sensitive natural communities”. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife website provides additional information on sensitive natural communities. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#environmental%20review Section ENV-7.6 Minimize Use of Herbicides and Pesticides Consider changing to “utilizing herbicides and pesticides as one tool within a comprehensive integrated pest management framework” and adding “Integrated Pest Management (IPM)” to the list of key terms. Section ENV-8 Improve the air quality in Los Gatos. Consider trade-offs between reduced carbon sequestration from reduced fuel load and emissions from prescribed fires that establish ecological resiliency in the face of wildfire, given the overwhelming benefits of reduced risks of catastrophic wildland fire on climate change. Section ENV-10 Become a zero-waste Town through encouraging sustainable procurement, extended producer responsibility, and innovative strategies. Consider including composting, green waste and chipping programs. Section ENV-19.1 Noise-sensitive Developments Require all new noise-sensitive developments to provide a noise study prepared by a licensed acoustician with recommendations for reducing noise impacts to the maximum allowed level in the Noise Ordinance. Projects with proposed sound- or noise-generating uses near open space should undergo a noise level study to ensure there will be no negative impacts to wildlife or visitors. Figure 8-6 Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria show normal acceptable sounds from 55- 75 dB Ldn depending on the land use category. Rural or open space areas exposed to 55 dB Ldn noise levels may be more affected by these levels than an urban area where sounds are often masked by the typically higher level of background noise associated with an urban area. The perception of noise increases when the background noise is muted or nonexistent such as in a preserve. An example of a use that could cause noise impacts include amplified music from an event venue. Section 9.2 Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards Consider explaining that according to CALFIRE, 95% of all fires are caused by people (e.g., arson, escaped debris burns, and equipment use) and this is why “Fires that occur along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) are much more of a hazard…” It is also important to note that a high fire hazard severity zone does not describe the risk of a fire start, but rather describes potential impacts to natural ecosystems, known as fire severity. Additionally, due to the current need for remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic, Midpen requests to be kept informed of this project’s status via email. Updates can be sent to the two following staff: Jane Mark, Planning Manager, at jmark@openspace.org and Melissa Borgesi, Planner I, at mborgesi@openspace.org. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and participate in any further planning processes. Should you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at jmark@openspace.org or at (650) 691-1200. Sincerely, Jane Mark, AICP Planning Manager CC: Ana Ruiz, AICP, General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocacy Director, Green Foothills Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:45 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210727234526] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210727234526] Name: Scott Weinstein Comments: This plan is rather poorly conceived. The water and electricity needs of this community are not being served today. How will adding so many units - with updated state requirements for all electric kitchens - help reduce the load on the electric grid? Given that there is a constant need to reduce electricity between 5pm and 10pm - how will such dwellings be able to actually cook dinner? Why does the committee think it’s a good idea to entreat more people into an area that can’t support its current residents? Please revert with a sustainable and workable plan that doesn’t punish the current residents. Also, please ensure that “affordable” housing is offered to teachers and municipal workers as opposed to the progeny of wealthy people who qualify based upon “low income” even if they have substantial assets. Page title: Home Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 5:21 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210728002033] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210728002033] Name: Mark Brine Comments: The North part of Los Gatos has at least 254 housing units going in to the first half of the North Forty. The 2nd half of the North forty will be another dense addition of housing. The rest of Los Gatos is not contributing to dense housing. A small project on main/college was cancelled, a project on Blossom Hill is now a memory care facility. I do not want faster density growth in my neighborhood. North Los Gatos has stepped up. Stop the Density growth in North Los Gatos. Lark Avenue is congested, there is no transit and we need to drive to commerce. No housing density increases please. Page title: General From: Alexandra Sung Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:12 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Concern with 2040 General Plan Hello, I am writing to express my concern with the draft Los Gatos 2040 General Plan and EIR. While I support smart development, particularly development that enables more people of varied backgrounds and income levels to enjoy living in Los Gatos, I fear that the plan is not realistic in terms of traffic impacts and wildfire safety. Already our streets face considerable traffic during busy times, and with population growth, traffic will become a nightmare. With regard to the notion that more people will bike / walk / take a bus around town, could the Town conduct a survey of residents to see whether the interest for these modes of transportation truly exists? If people have little interest in these alternatives, then the Town should build out the infrastructure to support how people desire to move around. With electric vehicles becoming more and more common, the argument that cars are far worse for the environment weakens. I grew up in Portland, OR. I recall a couple decades ago Portland also wanted to “go green” with transportation. They built out the light rail and diverted funds away from highways and roads. Now, those modes of transportation are underutilized, and traffic is a nightmare. I fear Los Gatos is headed in the same direction. Lastly, imagine all of Los Gatos wanted to leave town at the same time right now. What do you think Los Gatos Blvd or University Ave or Hwy 9 would look like? Now, add in the proposed growth. Let’s say the reason everyone wanted to leave town was because a wildfire broke out dangerously close to the city with oppressive smoke and real risk of harm. Do you think people will hop on their bicycles to evacuate or wait for the bus to take them out of town? No. Everyone is taking a car and splitting up and taking both family cars if they can. Will our proposed infrastructure be able to handle such an event when life or death is at stake? We all know what happened in Paradise. Please do not allow the same thing happen here. Regards, Alexandra Sung From: Jeff Sung Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:43 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comments on the 2040 plan Dear Committee Members, Thank you for soliciting input regarding the 2040 general plan. While I agree that gradual growth, accounting for state mandates and expected population increases is important, I believe that the proposed 2040 General Plan is too ambitious and should be revised to a lower target that meets the aforementioned needs, but does not impose unnecessary risks and hardships to the Los Gatos population. Chief among my concerns is safety. With climate change and drought, the risk of fires in the Los Gatos area is accelerating. Not long ago, 85 people from Paradise, CA died as a result of the Camp Fire. One of the terrifying factors that contributed to the fatalities was the terrible traffic that people faced as they tried to flee the fire. People talked about burning to death in parking lots of traffic. The 2040 GP aspires that traffic will not be an issue by banking on people walking and bicycling. In the event of a fire, I'm going to pray that I can get my family into the car and drive them to safety. Thousands of other residents will be trying to do the same. We have learned that every small increase in cars on the road can lead to large increases in traffic. Increasing the population to the extent described in the plan without fixing traffic issues and expanding major roadways for cars will have deadly consequences in the event of a fire, and the General Plan has a responsibility to the residents of Los Gatos to be realistic and account for these rising risks. On the subject of traffic, I think that while the idea of having people walk and bicycle throughout the town is idyllic, the reality for a small town like Los Gatos is that the majority of residents probably work in a different part of the Bay Area and need to drive to work. More cars on the road going to and fro from work due to the ambitious housing targets will lead to more congested streets which will make it difficult on those businesses that are in town (thinking of the well publicized effects of beach traffic on those businesses), increase pollutants/greenhouse gases, while those cars sit idling, and add an unnecessary hardship to the residents of the town. Finally, I think the other largest issue is schools. I understand that the committee does not have planning authority for the schools. However, the committee needs to take schools into consideration and plan in conjunction with the school districts. North 40 is not finished yet, and the impacts of the development on the schools has not been seen, yet it seems clear that Los Gatos needs additional schools. Without the Town and School Districts working together to set aside land and money to build school buildings to accommodate the additional residents, the schools and most importantly, the children, will suffer. In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the 2040 GP, and make changes to account for these important issues. We the people of Los Gatos are depending on you to be realistic and prudent in your planning and decisions. Thank you for your time and service. Sincerely, Jeff Sung On Jul 30, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Fred Faltersack wrote: Town council Members, Periodically I’ll read an article on the 2040 General Plan and I stop long enough to put in my 2 cents. This is one of those moments having just read the latest on Patch.com. There are defiantly two very strong opinions by residents both for and against growth. I tend to be more middle of the road but leaning towards the pro-development side. I feel that if Los Gatos had been supporting a moderate to medium growth position over the past 30 years, then there would not be the need to pack so much growth into the next 20 years…So YES, we need to now address it. By way of this email, I am reaching out to you to share my opinion on portions within the Towns borders which I think have been overlooked and may have the opportunity to assist in accomplishing the higher density requirements and provide more affordable housing in Los Gatos. First, I DO support the higher density goals shown in the 2040 General Plan. I support the many different variations of affordable dwelling units (ADU’s) within the traditional single family neighborhoods. I support ADU’s in the HR Zoned areas. I support the individual rights of property owners. I am against others (individuals or governments) trying to dictate to a property owner what they can and cannot do on and with their own land. Oh, and I have been a resident of the Town of Los Gatos since 1986. Now Based on where the 2040 General Plan is in it’s forward progress, this is probably a bit late in the game to bring this up, but hear me out. I noticed that the HR zoning has been left untouched with respect to higher density for “wild-life” reasons. That being said, there are fringe areas of the HR zones that are not really situated in the steep hillside and largely open areas. I will focus on the East Los Gatos area and more specifically in the Harwood Road area (where I’ve lived the past 35 years) which consists of HR-40, HR-20 zoning and borders the City of San Jose with subdivisions having parcel sizes of 6,000- 8,000 square feet (let’s call these areas Hillside Residential "Fringe Areas"). There are many old ranch- style homes situated on 1/2 acre to 3 acre parcels of which the topography is flat or have insignificant slope. Re-zoning this area for higher density would create none of the parking or traffic issues that are of great concern with citizens along the higher density Highway 17 corridor, Highway 9, and downtown areas as there is ample room to design-in off-street parking. Plus let’s not forget, people don’t get politically charged over the goings-on of EAST Los Gatos! I am sure there are other pockets of HR fringe areas within the Town that could also provide the same. Please feel free to reach out to me if you believe it warrants further discussion and be sure to take a quick visual tour along the Harwood Road neighborhood some day. Sincerely, Fred Faltersack From: Jeff Sung Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2021 1:28 PM To: Marico Sayoc Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Jennifer Armer Subject: Re: General Plan Comments Thank you for your prompt reply Mayor Sayoc. I have read the environmental impact report available on the website, and the impacts on the environment and traffic will certainly be significant. I am glad that the Planning Commission will be holding hearings. However, attending these hearings is not necessarily easy with the responsibilities that many of us have woth work and busy families. If I could suggest one more thing, I would ask that the town leadership consider polling the residents to Los Gatos regarding priorities to consider in development to make sure that the priorities of our leaders are in line with the people they serve. Respectfully, Jeff Sung From: Margaret Yu Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 6:12 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Los Gatos General Plan 2040 Hello, I have been a Los Gatos resident since 2015. I moved to this city specifically for its smaller size, community feel, and family friendly environment. After moving, I was surprised to discover that Los Gatos suffers from disproportionately heavy traffic (particularly in the summertime), limited parking (I have spent >45 minutes trying to find a parking spot downtown Los Gatos), and outdated infrastructure (we are <1 mile from the Los Gatos High school and have limited options for internet and water). I am highly supportive of building additional housing but it must be balanced by a plan to address the increased traffic, parking, utilities, and demand for public resources (schools, fire safety, etc). The current LG General Plan 2040 will overdevelop Los Gatos in a short time frame without adequately addressing the impacts to other aspects of our community. I do NOT support the plan in its current form and have yet to meet anybody who does Please do NOT move forward with the current LG General Plan. Sincerely, Dr. Margaret Yu, MD Los Gatos resident since 2015 On Aug 2, 2021, at 11:04 PM, Kathy Anderson wrote: As a resident of Los Gatos since 1955, I have seen changes in our town. Most Councils adopted General Plans that provided some growth but had safe guards to prevent developments that would be detrimental to our town. Safe guards that would allow citizens to question and prevent developers from having a free hand to develop projects that did not align with our town. The new General Plan has not only increased the size of possible new residences without considering water, traffic, and other issues- it has removed the safe guards that allow citizens to object to most developments - height, density, etc. Please review this Plan with all the changes carefully. Please allow citizens to have input. Most citizens are just now learning of the changes that will drastically change Los Gatos. Please do not rush to pass . When reviewing what the Plan would allow think is it something that you would want next door to you. Would you want your neighbor’s single family home removed and a 4 plex built. Your decision will determine what will become of Los Gatos. Kathy Anderson On Aug 3, 2021, at 7:11 PM, Kathleen Barry wrote: Dear Mayor and Council Members, I am disappointed and sad as I review the General Plan. I was born and raised here. I grew up across from an orchard in much simpler times. We played in the orchard and our parent's would yell out to us to come home for dinner. Eventually, that orchard went away and multiple homes were built. I am saddened to think about what the General Plan could bring to our lovely, little "town". I would like to believe most of us live here because of the town and it's charm. However, sadly, the charm is changing and if we don't stop to analyze now what we want and what we envision, it won't be our charming little "Tree Town" any longer. Where I realize there has to be some growth, I think there needs to be a much deeper thought process without rushing into a decision. I think the citizens who live here need to be involved and be able to participate. These items should be explained so the general population is able to read and understand the consequences. If you take for example the North 40. It's not even built and traffic is a disaster. I can vouch for that the multiple days a week I drive down Los Gatos Boulevard to work. I tried to pull out of Lark Avenue Car Wash yesterday and narrowly missed being hit. The traffic flow there is insane. Not to mention, turning left onto Lark from Los Gatos Boulevard, it seems the majority of people can't figure out how to stay in their lane since they have been changed. I believe there should be much more consideration to the following to start: • Water shortage...where are we going to get it? • Energy crisis-conservation? • Infrastructure • Schools • Density • Poor air quality with more people • Parking • Quality of life It seems as if the General Plan would like to turn us into a "city". We are not a city, but, a town, smaller. Charming. With virtually no land left to develop. How on earth does anyone think this will work in the long term? You already can't get around town on a the weekends with beach traffic. How do we support our local business that are in need of our business? What if there is a fire or emergency? How do people get out when the roads are already clogged? This is just a brief snippet of thoughts I have on the initial plan. I will be following closely to see if our elected officials are listening to our residents. Sincerely, Kathleen Barry From: Cynthia Ptacek Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 6:21:18 PM To: Mary Badame Subject: General Plan 2040 - please amend Dear Ms. Badame, The draft of the General Plan 2040 for the next 20 years is frightening! I'm not sure why the town of Los Gatos didn't push back on the number of houses the state wanted us to fit into our little town, but we should have pushed back. The 3,378 new homes and the ability to build a duplex or a fourplex in what is a one-house lot are completely unacceptable. Our town cannot handle the water and traffic needs of that many additional houses. If people want to live in high-density housing then they can live in the North 40 or in another town like San Jose. We did not buy a house here to live in an overcrowded town. And speaking of the North 40, that end of Los Gatos is a nightmare! The traffic is already horrific and no one is living in those buildings yet. Please do not do more damage to our town than already done by allowing the North 40. Please do not allow the developers to ruin our cute town by building it up and crowding it so they can go live in Saratoga where they don't have this happening (because that town asked for a variance). The 1900 houses that the state wants us to build are too many. Push back! Considering the fire risks, the traffic on 17 and Los Gatos Boulevard, we are at capacity now. We have a diverse town, lots of people come here for the weekend to shop and eat at our restaurants, let's keep it desirable. Sincerely, Cynthia Ptacek Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 4:48 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210806234746] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210806234746] Name: kay maurer Comments: To continue on a path of adding more residences when the town is already crammed with cars and people is something I cannot understand. What about quality of life for those who do live here. Why would we want to plan for more units than required by state law. It makes no sense at all. Until the town can move electrical wires underground to prevent fires, and find a solution to weekend traffic, no further housing should be considered. You will ruin the small town feel in a misled path to be inclusive. Page title: Home From: Phil Koen Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 12:57 PM To: Laurel Prevetti; Arn Andrews Cc: Matthew Hudes; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Marico Sayoc Subject: Marketing hype vs factual update Dear Laurel, I just saw this notice on Nextdoor and immediately read the “newsletter” which was suppose to discuss “key proposed changes in this General Plan Update”. Boy, was I sadly disappointed. Let me remind everyone that the residents were initial told at the kickoff of the general plan update process the Council was happy with the existing General Plan 2020 and that the update would be “fine tuning”. This clearly is not even remotely the case. Given the magnitude of the changes being proposed, and the initial positioning of the update, the Town has a very real obligation obligation to be forthcoming about all of the changes being proposed, in a factual, non-spin manner. It is called the duty to adequately inform. This newsletter was extremely disappointing in-tone and substance. It was a marketing piece and not a thoughtful discussion of the “key changes”. Where was the discussion of why the draft general plan allows for a maximum possible buildout of 3,738 units, which exceeds the RHNA requirement (1,993) by 88%? Why is 3,738 units the correct number and 1,993 the wrong number? How many other cities in Santa Clara County are proposing 88% more housing than their RHNA requirement? Please name them. Where was the detail discussion of the impact on residential zoning densities and intensity as a result of this increase in housing? Why is this good policy and is it consistent with the objective of retaining the Town’s unique character? Where was the disclosure of how many of the 3,738 additional units would truly be “affordable” (i.e BMP vs MP) housing? Where was the discussion if the “missing middle” was built, what is the estimated MP for the smaller units being planned? Would these really be “affordable” (I.e spending 30% or less on housing) for a family of 4 making 100% of current AMI? How do we know the “missing middle” strategy will be successful? Where was a land use map which showed the land uses as is vs. proposed changes so the public could easily understand the location and magnitude of the proposed changes? I’ll stop here because you get the point. Please put forth a newsletter that fairly describes what is in the draft General Plan 2040 so residents can easily grasp what is being proposed. As Walter Cronkite said - “hold up the mirror and tell and show the public what has happened”. I am asking every Council Member to pledge that the Town will publish in plain English, a comprehensive and accurate analysis of the changes proposed in the draft General Plan 2040 so the residents are adequately informed and can participate in the process. It is impossible to participate if you aren’t aware and knowledgeable. The residents of this Town deserve nothing less. Respectfully, Phil Koen Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 8:53 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council; Chris & Lisa Wade Subject: Promoting plant-based foods in Los Gatos Dear Jennifer, This is to let you know how appreciative I and many of our fellow citizens are for the steps that the town has taken to encourage the adoption of plant based foods. I understand that the town is considering including a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan to support the promotion of meat and dairy reduction. I would like to add my support to this proposal as an important step forward in promoting this important goal. I have personally been involved in a program that will use technology to protect rhinos from poaching and certain extinction if the situation is not addressed. A major issue in achieving our goal as well as protecting multiple other threatened species is the encroachment of land on wilderness areas by cattle and other ranching activities. The only solution is to reduce or eliminate meat consumption and every small step helps. We have been residents of Los Gatos for 35 years and our address is: Los Gatos, CA 95032-1116 Sincerely, Antony G White Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 8:56 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council; Chris & Lisa Wade Subject: Promoting plant-based foods in Los Gatos Dear Jennifer, I understand that the town is considering including a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan to support the promotion of meat and dairy reduction. I would like to add my support to this proposal as an important step forward in promoting this worthy goal. We have been residents of Los Gatos for 35 years and our address is: Los Gatos, CA 95032-1116 Sincerely, Hilary B White From: Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 3:00 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Hello, I am a resident of the Town of Los Gatos. My address is , Los Gatos, CA 95032. I would like the town to include a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan. This would involve the promotion of plant-based diets in Los Gatos through talks, classes, cooking demos, flyers, banners, etc. Climate change is here, and we have to take all the steps to reverse its effects. Thank you so much for taking my input into consideration. I am sincerely grateful. Shai Shailaja Venkatsubramanyan, Ph.D. Associate Professor Emeritus School of Information Systems and Technology, San Jose State University From: Levine, Joshua Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 4:22 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Recommendation for plant based diet Hi Jennifer, I am resident of Los Gatos () and I’m writing to recommend that the city includes and funds the plant based education program in the 2040 General Plan. My family is vegetarian and enjoys the enormous health benefits that a plant based diet offers. Even our 11 year old son who plays on a top team for Los Gatos United, and is an all-star with Los Gatos Little League, has incredible of amounts of energy and focus in large part because of his diet and exercise regimen. Including the plant based program should have enormous benefits for the community Thank you for your consideration! Best Josh _________________________________________________ Joshua Levine | Senior Vice President – Financial Advisor RBC Wealth Management RBC Wealth Management does not accept buy, sell, or cancel orders by email, or any instructions by email that would require your signature. Please visit RBC Wealth Management Email Disclosures for material details about our products and accounts, as well as for other important information. Investment and insurance products offered through RBC Wealth Management are not insured by the FDIC or any other federal government agency, are not deposits or other obligations of, or guaranteed by, a bank or any bank affiliate, and are subject to investment risks, including possible loss of the principal amount invested. Disclosure information regarding potential conflicts of interest on the part of RBC Capital Markets, LLC in connection with companies that are the subject of any third-party research report included in this email message may be found at Third-Party Research Disclosures. RBC Wealth Management, a division of RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Member NYSE/FINRA/SIPC. From: Kevin Arroyo Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 10:54 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: 2040 General Plan - Plant-Based Education Program Hello Jennifer and Town of Los Gatos, I am a Los Gatos resident and support a plant-based education program in the Town’s 2040 General Plan. Due to the rapidly increasing effects of climate change, there needs to be a CO2 reduction through the reduction of eating animal products. It would help reduce water consumption and pollution so our children can live in a healthier environment. I am also assisting with the creation of the Pinehurst Community Garden and look forward to integrating these sustainable policies within our project. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thank you, Kevin Arroyo From: Joanne Benjamin Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 11:47 AM To: Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow Cc: Town Manager Subject: Our Comments on the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 Housing Element & Single Family Zoning Dear Mayor Sayoc, Please forward the attached letter to the Town Council regarding our comments on the Los Gatos 2040 Housing Element and Single Family Zoning. Thank you, Joanne Benjamin Town of LG Single Family Zoning.docx Los Gatos, CA 95030 August 26, 2021 Los Gatos Council Members We were surprised and stressed to learn that the Council is considering elimination of single-family zoning in Los Gatos. To us, this is ill advised for multiple reasons. First, people make major, long-term decisions when they choose to purchase a home and they naturally assume that the Town’s zoning ordinances will continue to protect their neighborhoods. Zoning is expected to be long term and consistent, with deviations allowed only on extraordinary basis. Second, changing the zoning for an existing neighborhood from single family to four-plex multi-family is very significant to the homeowner. Allowing a fourplex (plus ADUs) in an existing single-family neighborhood could significantly impact the quality of life and the living conditions for the residents. The greater density could negatively impact and intensify parking, traffic, privacy, noise, fire safety, viewshed, sun/shade, walkability, and other important elements. In addition, there is the subjective impact of converting even one home in a single-family neighborhood to a multi-unit property as it could permanently alter the neighborhood’s character. Until this latest update of the General Plan 2040, Los Gatos thoughtfully valued preserving its historic past, its hillsides, and the charm and character of its different neighborhoods and commercial districts. For example, the Town always seriously considered impacts to adjacent residents when issuing building permits, including relatively minor situations such as repositioning windows, constructing a room addition, adding a second story, or relocating a driveway. This thorough and respectful practice has balanced change against the status quo and has resulted in neighborhoods retaining their vibrancy and attractiveness while still growing and staying up to date. Third, enabling and even encouraging developers to purchase homes in a single-family neighborhood for the purpose of redeveloping to multiple units causes irreversible harm and damage. Once such conversions happen, there is no turning back as its essentially impossible to return to a previous state. Real estate development is relatively permanent with an assumed minimum lifetime of 40 years for most structures (and much, much longer when they are maintained such as homes in the Almond Grove!) Fourth, housing is an extremely important component of our General Plan. While we understand the demand for more homes and more affordable homes, we feel that higher density housing should be focused in existing multi-family zones, undeveloped regions, or rezoning of existing commercial, industrial, or office areas, but not in existing single-family neighborhoods. Although Los Gatos isn’t yet well served by public transit, the Town should plan for this eventuality and consider higher density housing along future transportation corridors. . Fifth, besides creating more (and more affordable) housing, our community as well as the state is facing many other critical challenges – water shortages; electricity reliability; sewage treatment and capacity; Town of LG Single Family Zoning.docx roads, highway, bicycle and pedestrian improvements; public transportation; wildfire prevention and containment; plus enhanced law enforcement and public safety. Increasing the housing supply without solving these other problems will exacerbate these problems and is simply irresponsible. Finally, we understand that the state requires Los Gatos to accommodate additional housing. Los Gatos should meet this requirement by approving greater density in areas other than the current single-family zones, and in areas adjacent to future transportation corridors. This is greatly preferred to blanketly allowing multifamily conversions in single family neighborhoods. And, if after considering all of the above, you are still intent on eliminating single-family zoning, then you should initiate a ballot measure and let the Town’s citizens advise on the matter. Please don’t destroy Los Gatos’ unique character, charm, and quality of life, that has been the precedent of our community and was carefully planned, implemented, respected, and enforced by prior Town Councils. Very truly yours, Joanne and Jim Benjamin 3 September 2021 Jennifer Armer, AICP, Senior Planner Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Draft 2040 General Plan Dear Ms. Armer, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) is one of the largest National Audubon Society chapters in California. SCVAS’ mission is to promote the enjoyment, understanding, and protection of birds and other wildlife by engaging people of all ages in birding, education, and conservation. Earlier this year we advocated for the inclusion of bird-safe design and dark sky policies in the General Plan 2040. The General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) supported these recommendations and included both goals and program measures in the draft General Plan Update. We write today in support of these draft policies and with additional comments and recommendations. Birds make people happy, are key indicators for healthy ecosystems, and are inherently valuable. At SCVAS, our bird conservation advocacy areas have focused on: endangered species, bird-safe buildings and architecture, and land use. Threats to local and migratory birds include: loss of habitat and migration rest areas, collisions with glass that kill an estimated hundreds of millions of birds each year in North America alone, collisions with other human-made structures, Artificial Light At Night (ALAN), climate change, depredation by outdoor cats, and poisoning from rodenticides and insecticides. The Los Gatos General Plan Update is a critical opportunity to address biodiversity and bird safety, and in doing so, protect open space and nature, for the benefit of both the community and natural environment. One focus of our advocacy has been on reducing ALAN. The impacts of night-time lighting are pervasive and affect biological function and behavior in almost all living things. A recent United Nations report highlights the many biological and ecological impacts of ALAN, and outlines guidelines to help preserve ecosystems, species and our night sky1. A scientific review draws together wide-ranging studies over the last decades that catalogue the effects of ALAN upon living species and their environment. Numerous examples are given of how widespread exposure to ALAN is perturbing many aspects of plant and animal behavior and survival: foraging, orientation, migration, seasonal reproduction and more2. 1 https://www.iau.org/static/publications/dqskies-book-29-12-20.pdf 2 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.602796/full Moreover, pervasive ALAN has been found to have a wide-ranging impact on human health. Cancer, sleep disorders, and a degradation of mental health have all been linked to pervasive ALAN3. Addressing ALAN and setting clear limits on lighting within the General Plan Update can have a great positive impact on our community. Reading through the draft General Plan Update, we appreciate the thoughtfulness and intentionality when including environmental goals and programs. Many standards and guidelines in the town already help to protect the environment, such as the lighting element within the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the inclusion of native plant species, and protection of wildlife movement. We hope these standards can be reinforced. Additionally, we hope you will take into consideration the following comments and recommendations specific to the draft General Plan Update. These comments pertain to the Guiding Principles, lighting, the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design program, habitat protections, and tree canopy. 1. Guiding Principle (pdf pg. 12) Draft Language: Protect Natural Resources “Protect the natural resources and scenic assets that define Los Gatos, including open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides, and natural waterways.” Proposed Language: Protect the Natural Environment “Protect and enhance the natural environment, scenic assets and biotic communities that define Los Gatos, including but not limited to open space preserves, recreational trails, surrounding hillsides, and waterways.” On April 1, 2021 we gave a public comment to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) asking the committee to consider changing the Guiding Principle for “Protect our Natural Resources” to “Protect the Natural Environment.” The GPAC agreed with the comment, however, since the Guiding Principles have already been approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council, this change must go through the formal approval process. The principle is meant to protect the environment, but by naming natural resources, it implies that nature is meant to be protected for the benefit of humans. Nevertheless, the environment has inherent value and should be protected regardless of its benefit to humans, which is why we recommend this change to the Guiding Principle. 2. Lighting CD-2.24 Public Realm Improvements (pdf pg. 77) Draft Language: “Encourage improvements to the public realm, including tree canopies, street furniture, paving, landscaping, and lighting.” 3 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cncr.33392; https://time.com/5033099/light- pollution-health/ Proposed Language: Encourage improvements to the public realm, including tree canopies, street furniture, paving, and landscaping. Please consider removing lighting from CD-2.24 Public Realm Improvements. In the past, improvements for lighting has usually meant expanded lighting. Lighting should not be expanded in Los Gatos. CD-2.30 Street and Structure Lighting (pdf pg. 79) We support CD-2.30 Street and Structure Lighting, preventing glare, light spillage, and light pollution. CD-2.31 Lighting (pdf pg. 79) Draft Language: “Encourage lighting for mixed-use and commercial developments such as string lighting, pole mounted lighting, and tree-hanging lighting, to further illuminate the site during nighttime hours for safety and community.” Proposed Language: Provide clear limits for lighting in mixed-use and commercial developments, including the prohibition of uplighting, limiting the Correlated Color Temperature of lighting, and turning off lights after activity hours, in order to find the balance between friendly illumination and preventing unnecessary light at night. We ask that you consider making policy CD-2.31 Lighting more explicit and restrictive. Decorative lighting should only be allowed in commercial areas, and only during activity hours. All lighting should be directed down since uplighting causes light pollution. The Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (85 of Draft General Plan, Page 6 of Chapter 6 of Standards) Chapter 6 Site Elements provides strong and sound requirements for outdoor lighting in the Hillside4. We highly recommend the General Plan Community Design Element 4.4 Hillside Development consider retaining and/or strengthening the lighting language found in its complementing Chapter 6 Site Elements. One way to complement this language would be to include a guideline for Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), such as, “Lighting within the Hillside should use the lowest CCT available.” CD-6.5 Lighting Design in Hillside Areas (pdf pg. 86) Draft Language: “Outdoor lighting shall be limited and shielded so as not to be viewable from non- hillside areas and shall be of low intensity.” 4 https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/172/Hillside-Standards-60-Site-Elements?bidId= 1. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Ordinance. 2. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for pedestrian safety, and shall be low level, directed downward, and shielded so that no bulb is visible, and no light or glare encroaches onto neighboring properties. 3. Unshaded or non-recessed spotlights are prohibited. 4. Lighting for purely decorative purposes is prohibited. Up-lighting of trees, lighting of facades and architectural features is prohibited. 5. Lighting for night use of outdoor game courts (e.g., tennis, paddle tennis, basketball, etc.) is prohibited. Proposed Language: Outdoor lighting shall be limited and shielded so as not to be viewable from non- hillside areas and shall be of low intensity and of the lowest Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) available, no more than 3000K. We support CD-6.5 Lighting Design in Hillside Areas to limit outdoor lighting and to be of low intensity. Mentioning CCT would emphasize the need for warmer light, especially in sensitive ecological areas such as the Hillside. Mobility Element program I Streetlighting Policy and Guidelines (pdf pg. 135) We support the Mobility Element program I Streetlighting Policy and Guidelines to update the town street lighting guidelines and for acknowledging the need for both adequate nighttime lighting and reducing light pollution. Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element program L Outdoor Lighting Standards (pdf pg. 174) Draft Language: “Establish outdoor lighting standards in the Town Code to address energy efficiency.” Proposed Language: Establish outdoor lighting standards in the Town Code to address energy efficiency, dark sky conservation, and healthy ecosystems. 3. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) CD-2.21 Adequate Pedestrian Lighting (pdf pg. 77) Draft Language: “Pedestrian-oriented lighting shall be provided in active pedestrian areas and common areas for safety and security.” Proposed Language: In high-density planning zones, the minimal amount of pedestrian-oriented lighting necessary should be provided in active pedestrian areas and common areas for safety and security purposes. More lighting does not necessarily mean more safety. A recent study in Tucson, Arizona found that dimming their city lights to 30% of capacity had no effect on rates of crime, accidents, or other safety measures. In fact, virtually no one noticed that the street lights had been dimmed5. We are concerned that allowing the expansion of lighting under safety programs will unnecessarily expand light into sensitive areas. All lighting facilities should have dimmers, motion sensors, and/or timers. If included, goal CD-2.21 needs to be more explicit in the amount and type of light used. PFS-18.1 CPTED Site Planning for Crime Prevention (pdf pg. 159) 5 https://www.darksky.org/nights-over-tucson/ Draft Language: “Emphasize the use CPTED principles in physical site planning as an effective means of preventing crime. Open spaces, landscaping, parking lots, parks, play areas, and other public spaces shall be designed with maximum possible visual and aural exposure to community residents.” Proposed Language: Consider the use of CPTED principles in physical site planning as a potential means of reducing crime. We request clarification on PFS-18.1 CPTED Site Planning for Crime Prevention. Open spaces, parks, landscaping, play areas, and even some parking lots are ecologically sensitive areas and light should be severely limited6. They should not be designed with maximum possible visual and aural exposure, rather with the minimum possible visual and aural exposure. There have been instances of other cities in the Bay Area expanding lighting into parks under the label of “public safety.” Expanded lighting in parks is not necessary because they are closed at night time, increases in lighting do not correlate with reductions in crime, and parks are ecologically sensitive areas in which more lighting will actually be causing more harm than good. 4. Habitat Protections CD-6.6 Hillside Fencing Design (pdf pg. 86) We support Goal CD-6, especially CD-6.6 Hillside Fencing Design to be of open design. Habitat connectivity for wildlife in ecological areas is crucial for species and biodiversity. OSPR-2.4 Uninterrupted Wildlife (pdf pg. 184) We support OSPR-2.4 to provide an “uninterrupted band of usable segments for wildlife corridors.” We ask you to consider adding a program for creating a wildlife corridor study to reinforce this goal. Without a relevant study to identify where primary and critical wildlife corridors are, enforcing development standards and making hillside development decisions can be challenging. ENV-7.7 Herbicides and Pesticides Adjacent to Aquatic Habitats (pdf pg. 199) Draft Language: “Require that herbicides and pesticides used in areas adjacent to creeks and other water bodies are approved for use in aquatic habitats.” Proposed Language: Require that herbicides and pesticides used in areas adjacent to creeks and other water bodies are approved for use in aquatic habitats, ensuring minimized potential damage to public health, native plants, birds, and other wildlife. The Los Gatos IPM plan should be updated to consider new information and guidelines regarding herbicides and pesticides. We recommend considering adding a program for ENV-7.7 to update the Los Gatos IPM plan. 6 https://www.darksky.org/values-centered-lighting-resolution/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e18a9f9f-e20c- 469d-9cea-fc43510d1c14 Herbicides and pesticide runoff is extremely detrimental to aquatic ecosystems7. For instance, the EPA identified Glyphosate, a common herbicide, as a potential risk to terrestrial and aquatic plants and birds, and as low toxicity to honeybees8. ENV-6 and OSPR-5 (pdf pgs. 199, 185) We support Goal ENV-6, Protect wetlands and riparian corridors, including intermittent and ephemeral streams. Additionally, we support OSPR-5 Preserve and enhance Los Gatos Creek, and Ross Creek as open space amenities. Specifically, we support restoring both creeks to a more natural state and reducing encroachment by structures and disturbances due to incompatible development and human activity. In 2007 Los Gatos signed a resolution to join the Water Resources Protection Collaborative through Valley Water9. Los Gatos should implement and improve upon these guidelines, including require minimum riparian setbacks and seek opportunities to expand and widen stream corridors. ENV-7.10 and ENV-7.11 (pdf pg. 200, 220) We support ENV-7.10 and ENV-7.11, Bird Safe Design and Dark Skies, along with the complementary programs to implement these policies. Creating ordinances for bird safe design and dark skies will help Los Gatos achieve its goal of protecting sensitive habitats and its environment. In April of this year, Cupertino passed a bird safety and dark sky ordinance, which controls lighting on all private properties in Cupertino. Additionally, the ordinance mandates bird safe design treatments to all glass surfaces in “bird-sensitive areas”. These include hillside areas as well as within 300 feet of water features and vegetated open space. Environment and Sustainability Element Program K Riparian Corridor Lighting (219) Draft Language: “Require careful lighting design in and near natural riparian corridors to direct light away and to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor.” Proposed Language: Establish a lighting setback policy for riparian corridors to protect these sensitive ecological areas and to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor. No light should be placed in or directed towards the riparian corridor. 5. Tree Canopy Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice element program N Tree Canopy Study (pdf pg. 31) Draft Language: “Develop a study to measure tree canopy distribution throughout the Town and encourage the use of native plants when increasing green space.” 7 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969703001414 https://www.raptorsarethesolution.org/ 8 https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate 9 https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing-businesses-with-the-district/permits-working-district-land-or- easement/water-resources-protection-collaborative https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/WRPC%20Los%20Gatos.pdf Proposed Language: Develop a study to measure tree canopy distribution throughout the Town and encourage the use of native plants. Consider habitat value in tree selection for the town’s forest, and disallow the planting of invasive species. A healthy, robust tree canopy is crucial for human health and well-being, social justice issues, and enhancing our urban ecosystem. Nonetheless, when considering trees for a tree canopy, we must consider benefits to overall ecosystem health. We are in the midst of a global insect apocalypse, and many native trees, such as oaks10 are critical to maintaining these habitats. Therefore, the tree canopy study should also measure the types of trees and their biodiversity and habitat value, so that we can have a better understanding of not just how many trees are distributed throughout the town, but how these trees sustain the lives of birds, insects, amphibians, and others. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Comment Letter In addition to our comments, we support the following comments from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District comment letter submitted on July 27, 2021 to Senior Planner Jennifer Armer: Section LU-3.2 Reducing Project Impacts Projects shall be evaluated and the Town shall apply appropriate mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval to reduce impacts on urban services and wildfire risk, including utilities, police, and fire. Consider including a statement reducing project impacts on the environment. Section CD-2.12 Street Trees in New Development If feasible, require street trees to be installed for all new developments, to enhance neighborhood character and identity and to maximize shade coverage when mature. Consider including a requirement for native, non-invasive or non-fire-prone street tree species. Section CD-2.30 Street and Structure Lighting Require street and structure lighting to minimize its visual, health, and ecological impacts by preventing glare, limiting the amount of light that falls on neighboring properties, and avoiding light pollution of the night sky. Consider including the dark-sky and/or the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance or reference section ENC-7.11. The following link provides additional information on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance. https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/public-policy/mlo/ Section CD-2.40 Landscaped Gateways 10 “Native oaks support over 300 species of vertebrate animals and provide food for more species of moths and butterflies than any other plant. Insects that live on oaks provide high-protein food for birds to feed their nestlings” http://ucanr.org/sites/oak_range by Rebecca Miller-Cripps, UC Cooperation 2. Download report by San Francisco Estuary Institute here: https://www.sfei,org/projects/integrated-planning-nature-building-resilience- across urban-and-rural-landscapes-silicon Ensure that public improvements and private development provide landscaped Town gateways that create visual connections between the natural hillsides and open space areas and the community of Los Gatos. Consider including a requirement for native, non-invasive or non-fire-prone plant species. Section CD-5 Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides. Under section CD-5 Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides, consider adding: CD-5.6 Preserve Sensitive Natural Communities. Sensitive natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special status plants or their habitat. Section CD-6.5 Lighting Design in Hillside Areas Outdoor lighting shall be limited and shielded so as not to be viewable from non-hillside areas and shall be of low intensity. Consider including the dark-sky and/or the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance or reference ENC-7.11 The following link provides additional information on the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Model Lighting Ordinance. https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/public-policy/mlo/ Section CD-9.9 Landscaping To soften the appearance of hardscape, incorporate landscaped medians using drought tolerant plants, landscape buffers, and street trees. Consider including a requirement for native, non-invasive or non-fire-prone plant species. Thank you for your consideration of these submitted comments. If you have any questions please contact Giulianna Pendleton at . Sincerely, Giulianna Pendleton Environmental Advocacy Assistant Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 5:54 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210904005346] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210904005346] Name: Jill VanHoesen Comments: The town should not almost double the number of housing units that the state is requiring. Without addressing infrastructure no plan should be approved. What about traffic, what about schools? More people may seem like a good idea but we don't have the ability to absorb these numbers. And changing neighborhoods from single family to multi family is a very bad idea. I live on a street that has both single family and multifamily but I chose that. I would hate to see single family homes removed so that multifamily units can be built in their place. We have a great town and I wouldn't want that to change by adding housing units that can't be supported by the infrastructure in place. Please reduce the numbers to the earlier plan as submitted. Page title: Home From: Lisa Wade Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 5:47 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Karen Rubio; Rob Moore Subject: Plant- Based Education Plan Proposal Hi Jennifer, I hope you had a great weekend! I am submitting our Plant-Based Education Program proposal attached below for your review. Our program has widespread support in Los Gatos. Close to 200 residents of Los Gatos have signed on to support our efforts so far. We also have the support of environmental and community groups. Additionally, prominent leaders (outside of Los Gatos) have reached out to offer their support. I am happy to share the document with you now, or I can send it when we have updated it and added additional supporters (as we hear from more residents and leaders.) We appreciate all your hard work. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Lisa Los Gatos Plant-Forward Diets Program Proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reverse environmental destruction Date:September, 2021 Organization:Plant-Based Advocates Climate change is the defining issue of our time.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which consists of more than 1,300 scientists from around the world, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. We are in a period of accelerated global warming that is already having devastating consequences such as drought,fires and hurricanes. Weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme. We now know that raising livestock is a primary cause of land depletion, global warming, water usage, deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss. According to World Watch, livestock is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions.“Livestock and Global Warming” (pdf), (World Watch, Nov/Dec 2009). The challenges we are facing are so vast and so serious we can’t afford to wait for small, incremental steps; we need to effect a sea change in how the U.S.views and operates its food system. Los Gatos-based advocacy group Plant-Based Advocates is proposing the following plant-forward diets and lifestyles program for the Town to incorporate into their 2040 General Plan. These programs, which have widespread community support, are targeted at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation and include an estimated cost range. Program: Marketing, Promotion, Education Estimated Cost 1)Monthly Film and Speaker Series: Organize film/speaker series on diet, environment and nutrition. These will be advertised by the Town and PB Advocates. Free to residents and the general public. a)Lectures by health professionals, nonprofits and environmental experts. b)These could be on zoom or in person. c)For in-person events provide plant-based food for people to try. Cost for Speakers: Many great speakers are available for free or honorarium of $100-300/speaker Higher profile speakers may cost more. Town venue: Free Other Venue: $200-$400 Cost for documentaries/films: Several good docs are license-free Others: License fee $100-$200 Town venue: Free Other Venue: $200-$400 Cost for health professionals, non-profits, and environmental experts presentation: Usually free; Possible honorarium: $100-$200. Town venue: Free Other Venue $200-$400 2)Monthly free plant-based cooking classes sponsored by the town. a)20 – 40 people per class b)Can be via Zoom or in person (in the future) 3)Monthly free food-tasting events for the public, held once/month. * Can be combined with speaker series or events. $300/class. Assume they could be held at a town venue with a kitchen and or via Zoom. Possible grant money reimbursement available if the Town takes the lead. *A small fee between $5-10 could possibly also be used to partially fund the event; and also ensure participants show up. Food for in person events: Approx $300 4)Monthly email newsletter and online survey program to keep track of residents who pledge to reduce animal consumption and also provide encouragement, support, tips etc. Residents can sign up online, or at any of the other events in this list (films, cooking classes, etc.).This will allow the town to quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction resulting from this program. ~$2000 for database setup, $100/month for IT and maintenance. Maybe less if town IT support is available. Prizes for survey. 5)Creation of custom branded marketing materials (brochures, etc.) for residents, explaining the importance of plant-based diet. Display at the chamber of commerce, library, town events, etc. $500 - $5000, depending on quantity and complexity. Potential for free/donated graphic design. 6)Incorporate plant-based food and lifestyle promotion into all Town sustainability material used around education and information. -In their websites/online channels -During town-organized events -Work with local school boards and PTAs to disseminate education about plant-based diets. Minimal. A huge database of information on sustainability, plant-based diets and lifestyle etc. is widely available. PB Advocates is also happy to support in terms of providing content and ideas. Program: Restaurants/Residents Initiatives/Promotional Events Estimated Cost 1)Encourage Los Gatos restaurants to offer: a)Plant-based specials b)Days of the week, promoting PB specials Minimal. Local non-profits can assist with this effort. c)Display promotional materials around PB options Town to provide stickers for restaurants. A friendly competition for restaurants - winner gets press etc. A week (every month/regular basis) celebrating “plant based”/restaurants participate and get featured. Town to provide an incentive or reward to restaurants. 2)Annual Plant-based Cooking competition (or even twice a year) for restaurants and residents, perhaps a “Chili Cook-off.” or Vegan Mac ‘n Cheese contest. Possibility of promoting other ethical businesses around the event. $2000 for venue, prizes, and advertising. $5000 for organization of the event. Local advocacy can help with volunteer and organization efforts. 3)Restaurants: Los Gatos restaurant competition where 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. Could be done in conjunction with the VegFest. $200 - $2000, depending on level of publicity 4)Residents: Creation of a volunteer citizen-based sustainability committee to develop and implement strategies and branding to promote a more plant-centric lifestyle in Los Gatos. Some coordination required. Advocacy groups can help/support. 5)Hold a Los Gatos Plant-based food festival, also known as a “VegFest.” VegFest features local restaurants and organizations, speakers, food samples, etc. Vegfest is a great way to bring consumers into Los Gatos. Similar events have been held in San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Seattle and many other cities. It is a great way to bring consumers into Los Gatos. 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. Total estimated cost of the program (annual)$25-30,000* USD Note: We are asking the Town of Los Gatos to dedicate approximately 30K to this program. As a precedent, the city of Mountain View has pledged $30,000 to educate residents about the benefits of a plant based lifestyle. This proposal has the support of a wide cross-section of Los Gatos community leaders, social organizations and residents. Additionally, many prominent leaders (outside of Los Gatos) have also reached out to offer their support. These names will be provided as an attached document additionally for reference. *Please also note that the town might need to consider a dedicated staffer to oversee and manage this program. The Plant Based Advocates group will support the Town to the best of its ability. Other ideas (minimal expenses) Have Los Gatos take the “Cool Food Pledge.” Encourage businesses in our town to take this pledge as well. Cool Food If the Town caters (or plans menus) for events or meetings the council will ensure that there are identified plant-based options. Better yet, the town will have a default veg menu which means animal products are absent unless specifically requested.https://defaultveg.com/ Advertising campaign to promote the initiative, including banners, print and radio ads. Potential to have donor match funds for the advertising campaign. $5000 - $15000, with potential for donated matching funds if the Town takes the lead. The need for education, promotion and advocacy for a plant based diet and lifestyle For over a decade the United Nations has warned governments to make fundamental changes to reduce animal products and increase plants in their food system to address runaway global warming. The message has fallen on deaf ears - until now. Trailblazing cities across the United States are starting to promote plant-forward policies among their residents as the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The following actions and resolutions are being taken by cities and organizations to fight global warming through diet change: ●Mountain View, CA has signed a 3-year Sustainability Plan which includes an initiative to dramatically reduce meat & dairy consumption by their residents. ●The City Council of Berkeley passed a resolution to slash the amount of animal products the city purchases by 50 percent by 2024, with progress on the goal to be reported to the Council by the City Manager by January 31, 2022. ●Emeryville passed a Green Monday Resolution 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 ●The Town of Los Gatos passed a Green Monday Resolution in Dec. 2019 ●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. ●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. ●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.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 nonprofits, the city, and restaurants. ●Many US cities, including San Jose, San Francisco,Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and numerous others have passed “Meatless Monday” resolutions. We are proposing for Los Gatos to be a part of this solution towards climate change by adopting these much-needed initiatives.The challenges we face are so vast and so serious we can’t afford to take small, incremental steps. We need fundamental, systemic change on a local level that recognizes and starts to address this crisis. In 2016, Los Gatos took a leadership position by signing the Mayor’s Climate Agreement, thereby pledging to address global warming. As residents and global citizens, it’s our duty to contribute as much as possible towards one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. Plant-Based Advocates calls upon our Town to implement plant-forward policies that will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and begin to reverse environmental destruction. From: Anita Bora Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 11:01 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Support for PB Education in the 2040 General Plan Hi Jennifer, I am resident of the town of Los Gatos, having moved here last year. I really enjoy the area and am discovering the joys of living here including the parks, library, downtown area amongst others. As someone who enjoys eating out and exploring various options, and following a compassionate lifestyle, I would also like to voice my support for adding programs and initiatives about the health and environmental benefits of a plant based diet and lifestyle in the 2040 General Plan. Though it is encouraging to see many restaurants, eateries and take outs offer options, I don't feel it's enough yet. Offering one token tem on the menu that does not have an animal part in it, in my mind is not doing enough. What we need is education at every level to make this gradual shift happen. The town can play an important role in making this shift. It does have the power and should definitely look at taking on more responsibility. As a concerned citizen, I feel that it's up to each of us to individually and collectively, to do whatever we can to mitigate the current climate and environmental disaster that we find ourselves in. Education rests on schools, social organizations and the the towns - and the town of Los Gatos should start recognizing this challenge and addressing it. A lot of people seem to think that food is personal. That might have been the case, but no longer applies in the current climate crisis we find ourselves in. Change starts with everyone and it starts with what we eat - this is something that everyone needs to understand. We do make a decision everyday about what we buy, what we cook and what we put in our stomach. I've found that there is interest, but not enough resources or education or encouragement for plant based options. There is also very low awareness about the ramifications about animal agriculture. https://www.kinderworld.org/videos/environment/the-devastating-consequences-of-animal- agriculture-on-earth/ Having learned that a plant based education program was approved by the town of Mountain View recently gives me hope. I feel it's the right time for everyone, including the Town of Los Gatos to start looking at this seriously. I would like to strongly advocate and request for such a program to be added to the town's plan, specifically the environmental section (8.12 Implementation Programs). I hope that the town will take this thoughtful and much needed decision so we can start proactively working towards a better world. Thank you! Anita ------------------------ Anita Bora Los Gatos 95032 Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 5:36 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210910003628] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210910003628] Name: Marc Caligiuri Comments: Dear Los Gatos City Council The current EIR should not be approved. The 2040 General Plan should plan on adding enough over the regional housing requirements to hit its requirements of 1,993. Please don’t ruin our Town!! Page title: Home Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:10 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210910030952] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210910030952] Name: Richard Katz Comments: Folks, let's call a spade a spade. This is about development and the almighty dollar. Each land owner will have incentive to convert to the maximum number of units, and those that do so will be either speculators or doing so as part of their own get out of town strategy. The ladder will end up simply moving to the nicer communities some of which are only nicer as a result of the downward turn that this change in regulation will bring upon our town. Seriously how is increasing density going to fix the abysmal beach traffic. As this will catapult change in this town, begs the question what are you all thinking Los Gatos will be in the future? We have held on to a somewhat sleepy natured small town with a good vibe and nice things to do. We have an excellent school system though it is already impacted. What will quadrupling our numbers do and how will that really benefit anyone? As our density then exceeds places like Willow Glen and Campbell Cambrian etc What is the vision? Page title: Home Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 8:58 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210910035808] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210910035808] Name: Lou Albert Comments: This EIR fails to predict the full buildout potential under this proposed GP. It is a lawsuit waiting to happen. EX: The EIR LDR buildout estimate is based on an assumption that only 5% of the potential 7,340 new dwellings allowed under this plan's increased LDR density limits will actually be built. The EIR's rational for this limit is basically “more than that hasn’t happened in the past, so it won’t happen in the future”. But higher buildout wasn’t really possible under past GPs and this EIR doesn't account for the increased economic incentive to redevelop under the 2040 GP. EX: A home on 1/2 acre could under this plan be redeveloped into a 6-plex that yields more than $1M in gains over its current market value. But such an incentive will drive buildout beyond 5% and significantly affect the EIR’s findings. The TC should reject this EIR and inform every LG residents on how this 2040 GP differs from State requirements by sending a flyer to every LG resident before approval is granted Page title: Home Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 8:35 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210910153453] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210910153453] Name: Eric Thune Comments: The current EIR should not be approved. The 2040 General Plan should plan on adding enough over the regional housing requirements to hit its requirements of 1,993. The city should be targeting about 2,400 units and not the 3,738 in the draft 2040 plan. This is what the state has asked for. The 3,738 units is not required by any State law. By over committing to an excessive number of units to add, the Town is making unnecessary and unneeded changes in density and zoning laws that will lead to more green house gas and terrible traffic issues. If Los Gatos is serious about building affordable housing, the 2040 GP needs to commit to a specific number of those units and not just allow too much growth all at market rate. The General Plan should be adopted by a majority vote of residents. Going from 4 houses per acre to 12 is entirely too high and isn’t needed to meet what the State is asking for and the environmental impact report says traffic will be minimized. Page title: Home Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 10:45 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210910174508] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210910174508] Name: Sacha Arts Comments: The 2040 General Plan should plan on adding enough over the regional housing requirements to hit its requirements of 1,993 new units. The city should be targeting about 2,400 units and not the 3,738 in the draft 2040 plan. This is what the state has asked for. The 3,738 units is not required by any State law. By over committing to an excessive number of units to add, the Town is making unnecessary and unneeded changes in density and zoning laws that will lead to more green house gas and terrible traffic issues. 12 units/acre in the LDR is also excessive and we need strong safeguards in place to keep the integrity of our neighborhoods. It is too hard to build in LG, but this plan goes way too far. Page title: Home Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 9:23 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210911162229] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210911162229] Name: Christina Jansson Comments: Make this plan more detailed and less vague. Page title: Home Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2021 4:01 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210911230126] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210911230126] Name: Christine Klesney Comments: The 2040 plan has population growth goals that are aggressive and exceed the infrastructure capacity. Roads are already too congested. Should a wildfire come through here the roads could never handle the traffic to allow a safe escape. Every warm weekend I limit my driving due to the beach traffic. How about we solve our existing problems before we make it exponentially worse? Page title: Home Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 4:26 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210912232609] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210912232609] Name: Felix and Lulu Sterling Comments: The Town is faced with two overarching challenges which are each exacerbated by increased density: (1) Wildfire risk and related insurance and land use complications, and (2) severe traffic congestion due to the Hwy 17 bottleneck and the North 40 project. These conditions would provide a very strong basis to appeal the RHNA allocation, but instead the Town failed to appeal voluntarily doubled it!? The RHNA+ commitment, combined with North 40 and rezoning for "missing middle" housing, would reduce defensible space after many residents have already had their fire insurance cancelled in recent years, and further congest already unacceptable traffic. The local infrastructure simply cannot accommodate higher density near downtown Los Gatos, and we believe that the vast majority of residents do not want it and particularly object to the character of single family neighborhoods altered with rezoning to retrofit "missing middle" multifamily structures into established neighborhoods. Page title: Home Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 6:19 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210913011909] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210913011909] Name: Jared Ajlouny Comments: I am saddened to read about what the town is considering for the 2040 general plan. Los Gatos is a beautiful town with so much charm and character. By changing the general plan to allow so much more housing density the town will be forever changed for the worse. The vast majority of residents of Los Gatos have worked hard and sacrificed much to be able to afford to live in this town. We did/do it because this town is so special. By changing the zoning rules to be like that of surrounding cities you will forever tarnish this place. Los Gatos is so special because of what it is. Please use your head when deciding on ruining thousands of peoples "home town". Page title: Home Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 7:00 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210913015958] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210913015958] Name: Emma A Ajlouny Comments: please don't change Los Gatos and the beautiful town that allows visitors from ALL over to enjoy all the charm it has to offer Page title: Home Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 9:51 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210913045043] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210913045043] Name: Mitzi Anderson Comments: The General Plan should not exceed the RENA numbers mandated by the state. By doing so, the GP proposes zoning changes that far exceed what is needed and what the town can support (water, traffic, schools, and VMT rating goes up as we export more people into the areas with jobs.) Also, the proposed growth changes for the town are undervalued. The zoning changes will create more growth then the numbers the GP is proposing this the EIR is not an adequate study of the real growth. The town was misled when we were told the GP 2050 would have minor changes to the existing plan. This proposed plan is a radical change for the direction and design of the town. The residents should have the final say if we want these changes to our town not a small committee of people and the Town Council. The changes are just too much to be thrust on the town. As a resident of Los Gatos, I do not support the zoning density, height or middle housing proposals. Page title: Home On Sep 12, 2021, at 9:32 PM, Kathleen Anderson wrote: Please do not rush to judgment concerning the 2040 General Plan. Give the citizens of Los Gatos time to input their thoughts on the Plan. You do not have to vote in November. The new General Plan will have a long lasting impact on our town. In my opinion a detrimental impact. I am concerned about The increased number of residential units without infrastructure in place to handle it. The traffic, lack of water, evacuation in an emergency, parking, the trend away from single family homes to multi housing, the impact it will have on climate change with the increased traffic fumes. Most new residents will not work here but will need to travel to their employment. There are other issues that make this new General Plan a negative for Los Gatos. I am extremely concerned about the housing element with increased density and height allowance. There are many issues that need further discussion before this Plan should be voted on by Council. Much of the work on this General Plan was done while we were in a pandemic. Most people were just trying to avoid getting the virus. They did not have the time to review the General Plan and especially the housing element. Give the citizens the time needed . Put off voting in November. Kathy Anderson Los Gatos Sent from my iPad From: Charles Wade Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 1:14 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council; Lisa Wade Subject: Plant based education program-2040General Plan Hello, Jennifer. I'd like to express my support for a plant based education program in the 2040 General Plan. I moved to Los Gatos at mid life and suddenly I've been here 41 years. As I've aged I've paid more attention to diet and as a chemist I could relate to changes recommended for longevity. In particular, the environmental and health impact of red meat is troublesome. Science is unequivical that red meat is a no no for health, and the environmental impact for hamburgers alone includes replacing forests with space for cattle at a rate that threatens the planet. I grew up a meat and potatoes kid on a small farm in the midwest, and I can hear my father turning in his grave when he hears I've left the diet from our cattle, that diet he felt would make me the healthiest kid in the county. But science shows otherwise, and I've gone that direction personally. Los Gatos should be a leader in health, so I'm asking the city to support these changes. Thanks. Charles Wade , Los Gaos, CA 95032 From: Lisa Wade Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:34 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Cc: Karen Rubio; Rob Moore Subject: Written Comments for General Plan Joint Study Session on 9/20/2021 Hi Jennifer, Mayor Sayoc, and Town Council members, We wanted to provide you with the following written comments to be included in the staff report for the Joint Study Session Meeting for the 2040 General Plan on Monday, September 20. Plant-Based Advocates would like to request the inclusion and funding of a Plant-Based Education program in the Environmental Section of the Town's 2040 General Plan. The City of Mountian View has included such a plan in the Environmental Element for the City. Mountain View has pledged $30,000 to support Plant-Based education for residents. We would like to request $30,000 to fund such a plan in Los Gatos. We have outlined an action plan attached below for your review. We have widespread community support for Plant-Based Education in Los Gatos. Residents are enthusiastic about learning the whys and hows of plant-based eating. So far we have the support of 216 residents of Los Gatos. We also have the support of 32 close neighbors (Monte Sereno, Cambrian area of San Jose, Campbell, etc.) Who expressed strong interest in signing since they spend time in Los Gatos. We also have the support of some prominent leaders from nearby areas such as Lucas Ramirez Vice Mayor of the City of Mountian View and Alison Hicks City Council member in Mountian view. In addition organizations including Environmental and Health NGOs are in strong support of our proposals. We are very proud that the Center for Biological Diversity included written testimony in support of our efforts. I have attached the testimony below. I have also attached our petition signatures for your review. We continue to receive support and we believe our list will continue to grow, but we wanted to submit this list in advance of the meeting on Monday. Thank you for your consideration. Lisa Wade , Los Gatos. Los Gatos Plant-Forward Diets Program Proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reverse environmental destruction Date:September, 2021 Organization:Plant-Based Advocates Climate change is the defining issue of our time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which consists of more than 1,300 scientists from around the world, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. We are in a period of accelerated global warming that is already having devastating consequences such as drought, fires and hurricanes. Weather events are becoming more frequent and more extreme. We now know that raising livestock is a primary cause of land depletion, global warming, water usage, deforestation, pollution, and biodiversity loss. According to World Watch, livestock is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions.“Livestock and Global Warming” (pdf), (World Watch, Nov/Dec 2009). The challenges we are facing are so vast and so serious we can’t afford to wait for small, incremental steps; we need to effect a sea change in how the U.S.views and operates its food system. Los Gatos-based advocacy group Plant-Based Advocates is proposing the following plant-forward diets and lifestyles program for the Town to incorporate into their 2040 General Plan. These programs, which have widespread community support, are targeted at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation and include an estimated cost range. Program: Marketing, Promotion, Education Estimated Cost 1)Monthly Film and Speaker Series: Organize film/speaker series on diet, environment and nutrition. These will be advertised by the Town and PB Advocates. Free to residents and the general public. a)Lectures by health professionals, nonprofits and environmental experts. b)These could be on zoom or in person. c)For in-person events provide plant-based food for people to try. Cost for Speakers: Many great speakers are available for free or honorarium of $100-300/speaker Higher profile speakers may cost more. Town venue: Free Other Venue: $200-$400 Cost for documentaries/films: Several good docs are license-free Others: License fee $100-$200 Town venue: Free Other Venue: $200-$400 Cost for health professionals, non-profits, and environmental experts presentation: Usually free; Possible honorarium: $100-$200. Town venue: Free Other Venue $200-$400 2)Monthly free plant-based cooking classes sponsored by the town. a)20 – 40 people per class b)Can be via Zoom or in person (in the future) 3)Monthly free food-tasting events for the public, held once/month. * Can be combined with speaker series or events. $300/class. Assume they could be held at a town venue with a kitchen and or via Zoom. Possible grant money reimbursement available if the Town takes the lead. *A small fee between $5-10 could possibly also be used to partially fund the event; and also ensure participants show up. Food for in person events: Approx $300 4)Monthly email newsletter and online survey program to keep track of residents who pledge to reduce animal consumption and also provide encouragement, support, tips etc. Residents can sign up online, or at any of the other events in this list (films, cooking classes, etc.).This will allow the town to quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction resulting from this program. ~$2000 for database setup, $100/month for IT and maintenance. Maybe less if town IT support is available. Prizes for survey. 5)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. Display at the chamber of commerce, library, town events, etc. 6)Incorporate plant-based food and lifestyle promotion into all Town sustainability material used around education and information. -In their websites/online channels -During town-organized events -Work with local school boards and PTAs to disseminate education about plant-based diets. Minimal. A huge database of information on sustainability, plant-based diets and lifestyle etc. is widely available. PB Advocates is also happy to support in terms of providing content and ideas. Program: Restaurants/Residents Initiatives/Promotional Events Estimated Cost 1)Encourage Los Gatos restaurants to offer: a)Plant-based specials b)Days of the week, promoting PB specials c)Display promotional materials around PB options Minimal. Local non-profits can assist with this effort. Town to provide stickers for restaurants. A friendly competition for restaurants - winner gets press etc. A week (every month/regular basis) celebrating “plant based”/restaurants participate and get featured. Town to provide an incentive or reward to restaurants. 2)Annual Plant-based Cooking competition (or even twice a year) for restaurants and residents, perhaps a “Chili Cook-off.” or Vegan Mac ‘n Cheese contest. Possibility of promoting other ethical businesses around the event. $2000 for venue, prizes, and advertising. $5000 for organization of the event. Local advocacy can help with volunteer and organization efforts. 3)Restaurants: Los Gatos restaurant competition where 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. Could be done in conjunction with the VegFest. $200 - $2000, depending on level of publicity 4)Residents: Creation of a volunteer citizen-based sustainability committee to develop and Some coordination required. Advocacy groups can help/support. implement strategies and branding to promote a more plant-centric lifestyle in Los Gatos. 5)Hold a Los Gatos Plant-based food festival, also known as a “VegFest.” VegFest features local restaurants and organizations, speakers, food samples, etc. Vegfest is a great way to bring consumers into Los Gatos. Similar events have been held in San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Seattle and many other cities. It is a great way to bring consumers into Los Gatos. 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. Total estimated cost of the program (annual)$25-30,000* USD Note: We are asking the Town of Los Gatos to dedicate approximately 30K to this program. As a precedent, the city of Mountain View has pledged $30,000 to educate residents about the benefits of a plant based lifestyle. This proposal has the support of a wide cross-section of Los Gatos community leaders, social organizations and residents. Additionally, many prominent leaders (outside of Los Gatos) have also reached out to offer their support. These names will be provided as an attached document additionally for reference. *Please also note that the town might need to consider a dedicated staffer to oversee and manage this program. The Plant Based Advocates group will support the Town to the best of its ability. Other ideas (minimal expenses) Have Los Gatos take the “Cool Food Pledge.” Encourage businesses in our town to take this pledge as well. Cool Food If the Town caters (or plans menus) for events or meetings the council will ensure that there are identified plant-based options. Better yet, the town will have a default veg menu which means animal products are absent unless specifically requested.https://defaultveg.com/ Advertising campaign to promote the initiative, including banners, print and radio ads. Potential to have donor match funds for the advertising campaign. $5000 - $15000, with potential for donated matching funds if the Town takes the lead. The need for education, promotion and advocacy for a plant based diet and lifestyle For over a decade the United Nations has warned governments to make fundamental changes to reduce animal products and increase plants in their food system to address runaway global warming. The message has fallen on deaf ears - until now. Trailblazing cities across the United States are starting to promote plant-forward policies among their residents as the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The following actions and resolutions are being taken by cities and organizations to fight global warming through diet change: ●Mountain View, CA has signed a 3-year Sustainability Plan which includes an initiative to dramatically reduce meat & dairy consumption by their residents. ●The City Council of Berkeley passed a resolution to slash the amount of animal products the city purchases by 50 percent by 2024, with progress on the goal to be reported to the Council by the City Manager by January 31, 2022. ●Emeryville passed a Green Monday Resolution 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 ●The Town of Los Gatos passed a Green Monday Resolution in Dec. 2019 ●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. ●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. ●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.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 nonprofits, the city, and restaurants. ●Many US cities, including San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and numerous others have passed “Meatless Monday” resolutions. Large Health Care Providers Promoting Plant-based Eating In 2013 Kaiser Permanente published a nutritional update for physicians, which advised doctors to recommend plant-based diets, “to all their patients, especially those with high blood pressure, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or obesity.” https://thrive.kaiserpermanente.org/care-near-you/southern-california/center-for-healthy-l iving/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2020/03/plant_based_diet_e.pdf ElCamino Health- Lifestyle Medicine promotes adopting a nutrient-dense, plant-predominant eating pattern. https://www.elcaminohealth.org/services/lifestyle-medicine Sutter Health offers plant-based eating classes (will include link.) We are proposing for Los Gatos to be a part of this solution towards climate change by adopting these much-needed initiatives.The challenges we face are so vast and so serious we can’t afford to take small, incremental steps. We need fundamental, systemic change on a local level that recognizes and starts to address this crisis. In 2016, Los Gatos took a leadership position by signing the Mayor’s Climate Agreement, thereby pledging to address global warming. As residents and global citizens, it’s our duty to contribute as much as possible towards one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. Plant-Based Advocates calls upon our Town to implement plant-forward policies that will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and begin to reverse environmental destruction. 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 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. Supporters of Adding Plant-Based Education to Los Gatos General Plan 2040 Name, Last Name, First Position / Affiliation Address / Town Area Letter to Jennifer Comments Community and Business Leaders of Los Gatos Albright Karla Together We Will/Indivisible Los Gatos Los Gatos x Arroyo Kevin Pinehurst Community Garden organizer Los Gatos x Great idea and I support this plan! Brown Elisabeth Educator Los Gatos I am a teacher in town. I’d love to incorporate any lessons into my curriculum. I also lead student council and would be willing to organize an assembly. Chan Wendy Business owner: Tai Zhan Plant-Based Microbakery Los Gatos Goetz Alicia Owner, Los Gatos Theatre Monte Sereno Hertan Peter Vice President, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Board Iyar Rupar Owner, Pura Wellness; philanthropist Los Gatos Montonye Reese Laura Agriculture Fairness Alliance; Vegan Justice League Los Gatos Moore Rob LG Anti-Racism Coalition; Plant-Based Advocates Los Gatos Owens Heidi Community leader Los Gatos Preville Bruce CERT Leader, Los Gatos Los Gatos Romano Andrea Owner, Centonove Restaurant Los Gatos Spargo Alicia Outreach Coordinator, Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition Los Gatos Residents of Los Gatos Aidi Karen Los Gatos x Anji Roberto Los Gatos x Arienzo Wendy Los Gatos Arroyo Frank Los Gatos Arroyo Susie Los Gatos Bagatelos Mary Ann Los Gatos Balijepalli Priya Los Gatos Balakrishnan Jeyendran Los Gatos Barden Ben Los Gatos Barden Sue Los Gatos Barnett Kaitlyn Los Gatos Bayne Daphne Los Gatos Bernholz Malte Los Gatos Biller Jason Physician Los Gatos Bolen JP Los Gatos Bolen Rachel Los Gatos Booth Sandra Bora Anita Los Gatos x Bosworth Mary Ann Los Gatos Boyd Sandy Los Gatos Brzak Lukas Los Gatos Burkhart Chris Los Gatos Bz Linda Los Gatos Cao Xuong Los Gatos Cappon-Javey Maureen Los Gatos Carol Amy Los Gatos Carpio Virginia Los Gatos 95032 I support putting into the General Plan a plant based education program. There are several benefits from such a program, including potentially better general health and a healthier air quality in our community from consuming less meat, i.e., raising fewer animals that contribute to the increase of methane gas. I think this program would be very good for our community and far beyond it. Chavez Vana Los Gatos Christensen Beverly Los Gatos Christensen John Cisneroz Diane Larson Los Gatos Clark Kylie Los Gatos Corini Tamara Los Gatos Dai Biller Jenny Physician Los Gatos Davies Tiffany Physician Los Gatos Davies Mark Physician Los Gatos De Cesare Anne Marie Los Gatos De Louraille Karen Los Gatos Czinski Laura Los Gatos Deak David Los Gatos Dempsey Caroline Los Gatos DeMaria Dawn Los Gatos Dickinson Ilene Los Gatos Dickinson Roger Los Gatos Dillehay Kristine Los Gatos Dreiger Jeannie Los Gatos Dreher Diane Los Gatos Erdengiz Sevgi Los Gatos Evjenth Gail Los Gatos Evjenth Tim Los Gatos Fletcher Lisa Los Gatos Fox Audrey Los Gatos Fox Larry Owner, Valet Custom Cabients Los Gatos Frager Bernadette Los Gatos Freedom Rea Los Gatos Pollution and waste in Factory Farms;, use of land for meat production, killing of wildlife and use acres of land to support livestock; nets in the ocean killing millions of sea creatures; all contribute to climate change. Reducing meat consumption is something we all can do. Please place plant based education in the general plan. It is the right thing to so. Garland Lynette Los Gatos x Gibbons Maria Eugenia Los Gatos Goldberg Kristine Los Gatos Goldberg Michael Los Gatos Griffin Julie Los Gatos Gupta Reeta Los Gatos Gummow Todd Los Gatos I support plant based diet education programs Hamilton Georgia Hamilton Scott Los Gatos Hassoun Joe Los Gatos Haylock Archna , Los Gatos Yes we need more options at school and at local restaurants. Hemmis Matt , Los Gatos Hendry Dan , Los Gatos Hendry Wendy , Los Gatos Hinsche Danielle , Los Gatos x I am a resident of Los Gatos and I support the addition of a plant-based education program in the Town’s 2040 General Plan. Hiroshima Kevin Los Gatos Hojjat Sara District Leader Volunteer- California Congressional District 18. Member of Plant-Based Advocates Los Gatos x Honorio Mia Los Gatos Houghton John , Los Gatos Howe Chelsea , Los Gatos Hsieh Cynthia ., Los gatos I would love to see a vegan, zero waste restaraunt in Los Gatos. Huang Jenny , Los Gatos Hussey Jacklyn , Los Gatos Anything that will help save our planet I will definitely support! Ingle Lori . Los Gatos Isaacs Varily , Los Gatos Iyer Harish Los Gatos Javey Shahram , Los Gatos Jog Chetan Los Gatos Johnson Karen , Los Gatos Johnston Jan Los Gatos Juhl Linda Los Gatos Thank you Kamali Kristine , Los Gatos Karavelioglu Sevil , Los Gatos Keating Kathleen Los Gatos I believe it is to the best interest of Los Gatos to establish a plant based education program at the high school and for the general public. I believe many of our children and others need to know that plant based eating is good for their bodies if done right. Please provide funding for an education for plant based eating. Please sponsor cooking classes as well. Keller Lisa Los Gatos, CA 95033 Love it. Yes!! Koch Charlene Foster Los Gatos I would LOVE to see this happen!! So very needed. Kollu Badrinath Los Gatos Kurlin Carolyn Los Gatos Kurlin Gregg Los Gatos Kurtz Karen Lasso Alberto Los Gatos Lawton Ann , Los Gatos YES! Lazzarino Dominic , Los Gatos Le Denise Los Gatos I’m not a vegan or vegetarian but I’d love to incorporate more plant based and less meat protein to my diet. Leeds Felice , Los Gatos Lesko Camille , Los Gatos x Cooking classes are a great idea! Levine Joshua Los Gatos x Levine Marni Los Gatos Lewis Jessica Los Gatos Education is key for this important information. Thanks to all involved in making this happen! Lammers Victoria Los Gatos Need more vegetarian places/options Liu Andre Los Gatos Liu Calista Los Gatos Liu Gabriela Los Gatos Lockman Juliana Los Gatos Lorig Glenn Los Gatos Lorig Sue Ann Los Gatos x Lowe Debbie Los Gatos McKinnon Skyler Los Gatos Madduri Sandeep Los Gatos Malhotra Priti Los Gatos Malhotra Neeraj Los Gatos Mandurrago Gloria Los Gatos A fantastic idea! Margolis Sonya Los Gatos McGill Alex Los Gatos Menhardt Trixi Los Gatos Mordaunt Joshua Los Gatos Newlin Kerry Los Gatos Mager Nan Los Gatos Mano Robin Los Gatos Martins Rosilene Los Gatos Meinhardt Suzanne Los Gatos Miramontes Emily Los Gatos Morley Eric Los Gatos Nguyen Kim Los Gatos Niederauer Tricia Los Gatos North Pamela Los Gatos x O'Connor Rebecca Los Gatos O'Toole June Los Gatos Park Monica Los Gatos Parker Dana Los Gatos Parsons Daniel Los Gatos Parsons Debbie Los Gatos x Parsons Jackie Los Gatos Parsons James Los Gatos Parsons John , Los Gatos Patel Minal Los Gatos Rai Vivek Los Gatos Yes, I am in for plant based projects. Raad Mona Los Gatos Raad Ellie Los Gatos Ramaswamy Vinay Los Gatos Ram Amrith Los Gatos Ramesh Mythri Los Gatos Made verbal comments at GPAC Reese Dirk Los Gatos Rennie Isabella , Los Gatos Reyna Melody Los Gatos Reyna Orlando Los Gatos Rhine Molly , Los Gatos Richter Jessica Los Gatos Riley Kate Los Gatos Rittenhouse Simone Los Gatos Rovin Lynne , Los Gatos Rovin Stuart , Los Gatos Rubio Karen CERT volunteer Los Gatos x Made verbal comments at Town council meeting for 2040 General plan Rubio Fred , Los Gatos Rubio Erik Los Gatos Rude Christina , Los Gatos Ry Regina Los Gatos Sand Gretchen , Los Gatos Sardana Manan Los Gatos Sarkar Prasenjit Los Gatos Sathyamurthy Shreelatha , Los Gatos I strongly support this initiative. Schirmer Lisa Los Gatos Schwartz Jan , Los Gatos Shah Swati , Los Gatos I support the local effort! Shoff Sue . Los Gatos 95032. Seshadri Sruba Los Gatos Smith Angie , Los Gatos Smith Rucy Climate Reality presenter and activist , Los Gatos Sneddon Laura , Los Gatos Snyder Stephen Los Gatos Srinivasan Kiran Los Gatos Starov Vladimir Los Gatos I fully support this worthy cause! Stillinger Kelsey Los Gatos Would love to see more emphasis on plant-based diet - through restaurants, education, community garden, etc. Streicker Robin Los Gatos Tompkins Liz Los Gatos Venkatesan Arun Los Gatos Venkatsubramanyan Shailaja Los Gatos x Made verbal comments at GPAC Von Luehrte Missy Los Gatos Vuckovich Melissa Los Gatos Wade Christopher Los Gatos Wade Lisa Los Gatos Gave verbal comments at GPAC Wade Lucas Los Gatos Wade Stephen Los Gatos Wade Charles Audobon Society Lifetime Achievement Award Los Gatos x Wales Pamela CERT; Animal search and rescue disaster response team; animal sanctuary volunteer Los Gatos Walker Kelsey Los Gatos Waters Michelle Los Gatos Wentzien Erin Los Gatos White Tony Los Gatos x White Hillary Los Gatos x Willey Kathleen Los Gatos Gave verbal comments at GPAC Willey Mark Los Gatos Willing Lara Los Gatos Plant based eating is part of a long term solution. Wilson Beth Los Gatos Yannoni Mike Los Gatos Yosfee Hanley Los Gatos Zilka Stephanie Los Gatos Let’s join the scientific community and educate people about the importance of plant based living!!! It’s vital to the survival of our planet and species!!! Supporting Organizations and Politicians Plant-Based Advocates of Los Gatos http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com/ TWW/Indivisible-Los Gatos https://www.twwlg.org/ Center for Biological Diversity https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/Provided Written testomony on behalf of our proposal Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet https://www.acterra.org/ Eat for the Earth (Based in Santa Cruz) https://www.eatfortheearth.org/ SAFE Worldwide https://www.safeworldwide.org/ (Based in Monte Sereno) Green Monday USA https://greenmondayus.org/ Factory Farm Awareness Coalition https://www.ffacoalition.org/ A Well-Fed World https://awellfedworld.org/ Physicians Against Red Meat https://pharm.org/ Other Community and Business Leaders Hicks Alison City Council Member of Mountain View Ramirez Lucas Vice Mayor of Mountain View and Council Member Brook Dan Professor at SJSU; author; environmentalist San Jose State University Gurunathan Mohan Environmentalist; designed Mountain View plant-based outreach program Mountain View, CA Love Beth Environmentalist; Founder of Eat for the Earth, a Santa Cruz-based group promoting plant-based diets for sustainability Santa Cruz, CA Mackey Mary Actress; Model; SAG BookPals program (reading to children in homeless shelters) and LIFE (Living in Freedom Everyday) Program, teaching life skills to inmates San Jose Middlesworth Linda Owner, V-Dog; health coach Sacramento, CA Sehgal Tony Documentary Filmmaker Saratoga, CA Support from Neighboring Residents Adalja Anish San Jose Anand Monico San Jose Balachandran Jackie San Jose As a vegetarian of 17 yrs and a registered nurse, I strongly support this plant-based education program because I believe it will help improve the health of members in our community. Berlinberg Jacqueline Monte Sereno Bengt Amanda San Jose 95124 Bevard Mariah Monte Sereno Castro Jennifer San Jose I support adding an education component to the Los Gatos 2040 plan which would educate citizens about plant-based foods. Chaykin Lori Monte Sereno Chugh Rahul San Jose Duguma Jemanesh Campbell East Rowena San Jose Emerson Ziba San Jose Good job. Giacomini-McDonald Cathy Monte Sereno Guh Teresa Monte Sereno Harrold Kat Campbell Thank you for this, I frequent Los Gatos so this would be great to see. Also I believe in the power of empowering our local farmers, and the more money we can get them, the better for everybody locally. Back to our roots! Better for the planet and better for everyone Isis Dawn Campbell Though I don't live IN Los Gatos, I hope my support will indicate interest in this important issue in the wider area, & that Los Gatos may become a model for addressing it. Jain Beena San Jose I support the educational program. Kinger Amit San Jose Lambert Jennifer Monte Sereno Lanzl Linda Monte Sereno Matar Elizabeth Monte Sereno Thank you! Yes!!! Matar Lisa Monte Sereno Thank you! I’m completely in for this!! Mesler Michelle San Jose Mulchandani Mukesh Campbell Moving to Los Gatos soon! Petroff Patrice Monte Sereno Ramirez Gustavo San Jose We need more plant based food options! The meat industry is cruel and unsustainable. Renson Kellee Campbell Yes need more veggie places to eat Shearer David San Jose I support this effort Stolberg Robb Environmental Education: Veggielution, Walden West San Jose Streicker Robin Monte Sereno Thakur Smita Saratoga I have been plant based for the last two years. It has made me healthier and it's the best thing for the planet. Would love to have more people join plant based way of life. Woodhouse Dori San Jose ATTACHMENT 6 From: vacarpio Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:27 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant Based Nutrition Education in the Town's 2040 General Plan Hello, Jennifer, I am a resident of Los Gatos and I am writing to express my support for funding a plant-based education program (including speakers, videos, vegfests, cooking and nutrition classes, etc,) in the Town's 2040 General Plan. I am 82 years old and a very healthy resident of Los Gatos since 1974. I am not a vegetarian or vegan but I do eat a lot of fruits and vegetables and consume far less meat than I used to. Why? It's because I concluded several years ago that obesity and malnutrition are all around me, not from lack of food but from lack of understanding what plant based nutrition is and therefore eating improperly, I see many overweight children and adults streaming out of MacDonald's and Costco munching on hot dogs and chips and practically begging for a stroke or heart attack. To their credit, both these food outlets began offering healthy salads and low carbohydrate selections several years ago; but I am sure that they sell far more french fries than salads. The other concern I have is connected to climate change and global warming partially resulting from raising so many livestock and using toxic chemicals to produce perfect produce. By being part of the overall effort to promote more plant based awareness, our residents will benefit with healthier eating preferences and, in turn, help our planet reduce its environmental damage. There are many lovely children growing up in my neighborhood and my wish for them is to become healthy adults; and to appreciate, as I do, their wonderful Town and the efforts of its leadership to support good health in our community. Thanks, Virginia Carpio On 9/18/21, 7:17 PM, "Sonny Stearns" wrote: Sent from my iPad. I imagine a general plan can be updated. Get beyond not wanting 17 widened in Los Gatos. If that were widened with another lane , for us who live in Los Gatos life would be improved on the weekends. Also, let’s quit with the WOKE banners, look ,listen, change , bla, bla. I’ll choose my own philosophy. Just put up Leo and Liona. These new ones are offensive. Fellow Stearns, DDS. From: Matthew Benson Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 7:53 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: consider restoration of santa cruz - los gatos railway Hello! I have reviewed the 2040 plan and have a suggestion. I have lived in Los Gatos since i was born in 1999, And over the past 2 decades I have seen a considerable increase in traffic generated from highway 17. A possible solution would be to rebuild the railway between los gatos and santa cruz as a mixed use freight and public transit project that will benefit all residents. If we actually care about the environment trains are the way to go. they are by far the most energy efficient terrestrial transportation method. asphault, tires, batteries, and lower electric car and truck lifespan will create greater pollution in the environment. everyday you can see 30+ year old gas cars still in use, compared to modern electric teslas which can't last 5 years because of impossible to service/expensive (and toxic) electronics totalling the vehicle. a typical train line can carry 50,000 people per hour compared to 2,500 people in a single freeway lane! train wheels and tracks are made of non-toxic steel compared to asphalt and tires. 1 train engine can replace hundreds of electric and gas vehicles, not only lowering manufacturing and running pollution, but also opening our local roads for more bikes and pedestrians. I look forward to seeing how our community develops over the next 2 decades! sincerely, Matt Benson From: tony alarcon Date: Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 8:44 PM To: Matthew Hudes Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of Los Gatos Mathew This direction and verbiage this council is using makes me wish I had run for council. Who chose these words??? Unbelievable. “In addition to the State-mandated elements, the Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan includes elements that address Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice, Mobility, Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure, Environment and Sustainability.” Taking the quote into deeper context it would mean racial justice, social justice, and environmental justice is being planned into the 2040 GP. That is NOT the roll of the council. This is the biggest batch of RACISM I’ve seen to date in our town. From a housing perspective the council should educate themselves on the demographics of home purchases over the last 8+ years. The historical demographics of Los Gatos are now the minority in acquiring real estate!!! Los Gatos has always been an affluent town. It is being ruined by lobbyists, CA State Legislators, and those with political aspirations sitting on our town council. The current town council has already proven their lack or vision and experience in the outcome of the Dittos Lane density and “Buy Right” designation given to the N40. The proposed 2X housing growth is a strategy to GIVE the developer of Phase II N40 the increased density, bait and switch, they are requesting. This is all disgusting and disheartening. Personal social agendas should have been left outside the chamber. From: Robert Ober Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 8:55 PM To: Matthew Hudes Cc: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Shaping the Future of Los Gatos Thank you so much Matthew I am chipping away at reading these documents. I have some feedback, but it will take well past Monday to read and understand. Top line ? I am not that happy with the rhetoric, and many of the goals in the document. I am certainly not happy that the state has quietly done what voters rejected, and now we've lost much of the control that makes Los Gatos special. Apologies that most of what I write so far is negative. I will say, a lot of what I have read is fundamentally good. General thoughts: • starting with " Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element” is not appropriate. Of the sections, that should be the least in prioritized order of the topics, for it should flow from resolving the others. o I would be happy to have a dialog on why this is inappropriate for a town council in the midst of a megapolis o How does the town council address East San Jose demographics, or Cupertino’s ? How about Oakland ? What about East LA ?  are whites citizens ? Americans or naturalized ? immigrants and tech workers ? do you care ? o I could not afford to buy in Los Gatos until I was 50 years old. Its the Bay Area, and its expensive  none the less - we rent a townhouse to people in Los Gatos for less than equal rate in San Jose  Why less ? People often live where they work, or live near family and friends  Worth pointing out that rental market in Los Gatos is soft right now - We'll probably sell it o I can not, will not take this “justice” element seriously when we do live in literally the most diverse place on the planet  Seriously. I travel the world and the country. How will you make our area more diverse ?  Do everything else right in running the town, and you will get equity and justice as a byproduct o We sold our house before moving to the bay area 30 yers ago, but could not afford anything but an apartment  after 5 years of saving, we bought a house in San Jose that we could afford (just)  after 5 more years we moved to a better house in San Jose  after 7 more years we bought a 2 bedroom town house in Los Gatos for the schools  after 5 more years we bought a decaying house in los gatos (then it was county), staying for the schools  and after 5 more years we tore that down and rebuilt  Why couldn’t I have owned a nice home in Los gatos 30 years ago? Thats not equitable, is it ? Not just ?  Bay area has been this way for 40 years, and Los Gatos is one of the nicer places.  People can afford where they can afford. They live close to work if they can. They sacrifice and live in dumps if they want to make tradeoffs for schools or town (we did). Or they don’t. Its their choice  My sister in law's family moved away rather than spend all their money on housing and high cost everything o Honestly - I don’t really want you helping the homeless  we used to live in the Rose Garden in San Jose, and many friends are still there. There are a lot of homeless, and its terrible  I tried helping, but it turned out 99% of them didn’t want my help  with them came drugs, drug dealing (we helped cops with several busts, some very bad people arrested), trash, petty crime, the occasional assault. Really. Why would you want to entice homeless to come to Los Gatos ? o How will you address clean and safe water, at the same time as you make housing for more people, but rely on San Jose Water ? These are in conflict unless you plan on getting more water resources • How will the state SB9 SB10 affect the Land Use / Density zoning. It seems to me it radically changes it o It seems as though missing middle housing can dramatically impact neighborhood noise, traffic, parking, etc.  I really worry about my street as gentrification happens o will you require fewer parking spots than housing units as is occurring around the bay area ? Some sections hint at that o if so - what will you do about public transportation ? and who will pay for it ? and how will it connect ? o Will limits to cutting trees still hold if someone builds one of these ? o how will limits to square foot vs land be equitably balanced for individual home owners ? o What about shadow rules ? view obstruction ? o Why do we want dense urban concepts in what is a beautiful suburban place with a tiny downtown ? (Pantheon Sorbonne University in Paris)  all my friends in Europe HATE the dense urban living they are forced to - the handful who can have moved to surrounding towns • “addressing climate change” at a town level seems ambitious o for good or bad, this is still largely a commuting community  but most things related to climate seem to be generally good  "ENV-8.3" sounds ominous, but is unclear to me what it means.  greenhouse and particulate emissions in california would have been better off focussing on forest management rather than car emissions  but here you are again focussed on it  "ENV-8.9" requires better walkways for kids, especially in areas that were unincorporated and have no sidewalk. Rob Ober, Shady View Ln. EXHIBIT 10 From: Phil Koen Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 8:53 AM To: Joel Paulson Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz Subject: Follow up question Joel, Thank you for your reply. Please see the question which is circled in red. I am not sure I understand your response. I understand that SB 9 places limitations of adding ADU’s on subdivided lots, however my question is what is the benefit of increasing the density of LDR zoned lots from 1-5 du/acre to 1-12 du/acre assuming SB 9 is law (which will allow sub-division by-right) and the existing ADU law which allows up 2 ADU’s on a LDR zoned property? What does the Town gain from the perspective of creating more opportunity to increase the supply of housing by increasing densities? Can you please be specific as to the impact on LDR land use. What type of housing could be built as a result of the LDR density increase (ignoring ADU’s). My second question is why is the 2040 GP being approved before the HE is updated? Other cities, such as Menlo Park, are updating the LUE, HE, safety, environmental justice, zoning ordinance and map simultaneously. In addition MP is submitting a preliminary HE to HCD to get early feedback on the HE draft. After all of that is completed, the DEIR process is started. It appears LG has bifurcated the process, and is seeking GP adoption before a new HE which creates a concern over internal consistency. For example, how can we adopt the 2040 GP before we are told exactly how many affordable housing are being planned for out of the 3,738 new units? I would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why the bifurcation of the HE is good process and the Staff’s thinking behind doing this. I’ll send you a copy of MP process so you have an understand how that city is updating their GP. Thank you. Phil Koen From: Phil Koen Sent: Sunday, September 5, 2021 9:18 AM To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti Cc: Robert Schultz Subject: Menlo Park -Housing-element-update - plan.pdf Joel, MP is pursuing a very different process in updating their 2040 GP. Why doesn’t the Town update the HE at the same time as the LUE so the public has a complete understanding of all proposed changes and impacts? Note that MP just launched their update process as of May 2021. Phil Koen Community Development City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org STAFF REPORT City Council Meeting Date: 5/25/2021 Staff Report Number: 21-115-CC Regular Business: Receive an overview of the housing element update project and provide feedback on the goals and objectives, roles and responsibilities of the various reviewing and decision-making bodies, and the community engagement and outreach plan Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council receive an overview of the housing element update project and provide feedback on the following: • Goals and objectives (Table 1), • Roles and responsibilities of the various reviewing and decision-making bodies (Table 2), and • Community engagement and outreach plan (Tables 3 and 4.) Policy Issues The components of the housing element update will consider a number of land use, environmental and housing policies. Background Under California law, every jurisdiction in the State is required to update the housing element every eight years and have it certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD.) The Housing Element is one of seven State-mandated components of the City’s General Plan, and requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. The City Council last adopted the housing element, which is included as Attachment A, in April 2014 and covers the planning period from 2015-2023. The next cycle’s deadline for jurisdictions in the Bay Area, which is set by HCD, is January 2023, and covers the planning period for 2023-2031. This is also known as the sixth housing element cycle. Recognizing the complexity, importance and time-intensive nature of the housing element process and its related work, the City Council unanimously supported the initiation of the housing element as one of its top five project priorities for fiscal year 2020-21 on August 18, 2020. The City Council has continued to express support for the housing element as a top priority, most recently during its discussion on goals and priorities April 20, 2021. The housing element must be consistent with the City’s general plan and updated for compliance with State law and include City policies, strategies, and actions to facilitate the construction of new housing and preservation of existing housing to meet the needs across all economic levels of the City. The City’s anticipated regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for the next planning period is approximately 3,000 units, which is a 358 percent increase from the last housing element cycle. Menlo Park is not alone in seeing a large increase in its housing allocation. The RHNA is still considered a draft, although staff does AGENDA ITEM N-1 Page N-1.1 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org not believe the numbers will substantially change with the final adoption by the Association of Bay Area Governments anticipated in late 2021. Analysis Project components and timeline On March 23, 2021, the City Council selected the M-Group to lead the City’s housing element update project over the course of the next 18 months. The project is complex and will consist of the following main components: • Implement a robust community outreach process that will be informed by the Community Engagement and Outreach Committee (CEOC); • Update the housing element, including addressing affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) and other State mandates, which will require the City to increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure and affordability level and take meaningful actions to combat discrimination and replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns; • Amend the land use element, the zoning ordinance and/or rezone property to demonstrate compliance with the City’s RHNA; • Develop an environmental justice element to advance equity and address potential environmental health risks in the City; • Update safety element to address climate adaptation for compliance with State law; and • Prepare a fiscal impact analysis (FIA) and environmental impact report (EIR) to inform the public and decision-makers of potential fiscal and environmental impacts of the project. Given the extent of the work and the mandated deadline, much of the work on the four different general plan elements will happen concurrently. The project will be fast-paced, but there will be multiple opportunities for public, Commission and City Council feedback and check-ins during the key milestones. Attachment A includes a graphic timeline that shows a general overview of the community workshops, activities and meetings during the process. Background and data collection, including stakeholder and focus group meetings, and broader community outreach and education will be happening in the coming weeks and months with the second half of the timeline more focused on the technical studies and refinement of the documents. There are a number of requirements that must be met in order for HCD to certify a housing element. One of the key components of the housing element update is the site inventory and analysis to demonstrate that the City can meet its RHNA. The City’s land use strategy is anticipated to involve both a mix of rezoning of sites as well as program changes such as zoning ordinance amendments that may modify existing land use regulations and/or create new zoning districts. Site selection for rezoning will require the City to take a holistic view and determine where additional housing can be accommodated throughout the City. There are a number of potential strategies to consider, from looking at existing development in the pipeline, to conversion of commercial zoning to mixed-use, to intensification of sites near transit and other services, to further incentivizing accessory dwelling unit production. The selected combination of strategies, however, will require the City to rezone land throughout the City. This will not only be necessary to create a balance of housing across the City, but also to comply with affirmatively furthering fair housing, which is a new requirement of housing elements. The City is aware of several potential opportunity sites, including the United States Geological Survey (345 Middlefield Road), SRI Campus (333 Ravenswood Avenue), former Flood School site (321 Sheridan Drive), and a small portion of the Veteran’s Affairs (795 Willow Road) site that will be explored, although the latter site would not be formally rezoned as a federally-owned property. During this summer, members of the public will have an opportunity to provide input on the land use Page N-1.2 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org strategy options. Both the Planning Commission and Housing Commission will have an opportunity provide feedback prior to the City Council providing direction on the preferred land use approach to be studied in the EIR and FIA. HCD plays a critical role in reviewing every local government’s housing element to determine whether it complies with state law and then submits findings back to each jurisdiction. HCD’s review is required before a local government can adopt its general plan. Staff is seeking HCD’s review of the draft before the release of the EIR and FIA. Therefore, the draft documents should be completed by late 2021 for review by the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. While this extra step compresses the timeline, it helps ensures the City is on the right path for certification. Project goals and objectives The housing element update process must be inclusive and reflect the values of the City. Staff and the consultant team, collectively referred to as the project team in this staff report, are proposing to approach the project with three overarching and interrelated goals as shown in Table 1. These goals will help achieve the objective of creating and adopting a housing element, environmental justice element, land use element, and safety element update that reflect the values of the community and create a place where all residents can enjoy a high quality of living. Table 1: Draft project goals Project goal Intent Create a balanced community Plan for the whole community in a sustainable, healthy and balanced way. Focus on affordability Focus on affordable housing given the difficulty of developing it as compared to market rate housing, and the demand for affordable housing options. Forward social justice Work with the community to help ensure participation and access to the process, and take intentional steps that improve equity for historically marginalized people and areas. All of these goals are with a given expectation that the process will include full disclosure. This means that all relevant information, including the environmental and fiscal impacts, will be shared with the community and decision-makers to provide informed feedback and actions. At its meeting on May 25, the City Council may wish to comment on or include additional goals for the project. Roles and responsibilities The project requires the involvement and dedication of many people beyond the project team. Table 2 identifies the general roles and responsibilities of elected, appointed and advisory bodies while the community engagement plan section below discusses the importance of community participation during the process. The City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Commission, City Council ad hoc subcommittee, and the CEOC will each have a formal role in the process. The latter two bodies are were specifically formed by the City Council to support this project and will disband following its completion. To help prepare for the meeting of May 25 meeting with the full City Council, the project team met with the City Council subcommittee, comprised of Mayor Combs and City Councilmember Wolosin, to provide a high-level overview of the concepts covered in this report. Page N-1.3 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 2: Housing element update roles and responsibilities Elected/appointed/advisory body Role Tasks and responsibilities City Council Final decision-making body To review and provide guidance on the overall project and key milestones, such as the selection of the preferred land use alternative, in order to successfully complete the project by December 2022. City Council meetings are typically conducted on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month and items will be scheduled on an agenda as needed. Information items may be provided to keep the City Council informed of the status of the project. City Council Housing Element Update Subcommittee (ad hoc, Mayor Combs and City Councilmember Wolosin) Advise on key topics areas:1) project objectives, 2) site selection, and 3) goals, policies and programs for the four different general plan elements, 4) liaising with other agencies/districts, and other topics as necessary where City Council feedback would be beneficial for maintaining the project schedule. To provide guidance to the project team on key topic areas as needed. Meetings will be scheduled as needed. Planning Commission Recommending body to the City Council on the housing element, environmental justice element and safety element and related components. To review and provide feedback on key project components, including the land use alternatives, draft documents, potential zoning ordinance amendments, as well as conducting meetings on the scope of and draft EIR. Planning Commission meetings are conducted typically on the second and fourth Mondays of each month and items will be scheduled on an agenda as needed. Housing Commission Recommending body to the City Council on the housing element. To review and provide feedback on the housing element, including the land use alternatives, policies and programs, and the draft housing element. Housing Commission meetings are conducted monthly on the first Wednesday of the month and items will be scheduled on an agenda as needed. Page N-1.4 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Community Engagement and Outreach Commission (CEOC) Assist the City in ensuring a broad and inclusive community outreach and engagement process, and help guide and provide feedback on the types and frequency of activities/events/meetings and the strategies and methods for communicating with the various stakeholders in the community. The primary responsibilities of the group would be to: • Serve as an ambassador of the project and encourage people to participate in the process; • Help guide and provide feedback on the community engagement plan; and • Serve as a community resource to provide information to and receive input from the community on matters related to community engagement and public outreach. The primary responsibilities of each member would be to: • Identify effective ways to inform and engage the various stakeholders about the project; • Commit to constructive dialogue, mutual respect and collaboration; and • Share local knowledge. Meetings are anticipated to be monthly on Thursday evenings between May 2021 and November 2021, with check-in meetings as needed afterward. Community engagement and outreach plan Given the strong emphasis on creating an inclusive process, the City will be providing many opportunities for the community to get involved. The City would like to engage a broad range of stakeholders that will inform key aspects of the project. The CEOC will be play an integral role in the project’s outreach and engagement effort, making sure that the activities and meetings are appropriate, inclusive, accessible and informative. Receiving input and learning about what is important to the community is just as important as the City providing learning opportunities for what the project is about and why it is important, so the lines of communication are two-way. Change can be difficult, but no change is not an option for successful completion of this particular project. Upon City Council appointments to the CEOC, scheduled for May 25, the CEOC is anticipated to convene May 27 to review the draft community engagement and outreach strategy for the project. A draft of the community engagement and outreach plan outline is included as Attachment B. The outline provides a high-level overview of the various outreach and engagement activities, including online tools, format, and exercises to broadcast and elicit ideas. Because not everyone learns the same way or has access to the same resources or time to dedicate to multiple meetings, the engagement plan offers a variety of opportunities to engage in the process. The purpose of the outreach is to include and involve as many community members as possible to ensure that all voices are heard and included in the decision -making process. For that reason, the engagement plan will likely evolve and respond to what has and hasn’t been effective and circumstances as the process moves forward. For example, currently meetings are to be conducted virtually, but they could evolve into a hybrid format when safe to do so or the proposed project gallery could be delayed or repurposed given in-person, indoor activities and facilities space may be limited in the near term due to COVID-19 restrictions or precautions. The project team is willing to adapt as needed, keeping in mind that preparation and advertisement of meetings will add some limitations to how much change can occur while trying to accomplish the bulk of site selection and policy work in the next 4-6 months. Table 3 summarizes the proposed types of activities and meetings that could occur as part of the outreach and engagement plan. Page N-1.5 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 3: Proposed Community engagement and outreach activities Activities and meetings Description Focus groups Meetings designed to garner comments to develop an understanding of local issues and concerns. The targeted groups include housing organizations service providers, renters, homeowners, businesses, and housing developers. Environmental justice and safety element outreach meetings Informational and public input meetings to inform the public about the purpose of these elements and receive feedback on areas of concerns. Individual (and/or group) interviews Series of meetings to concentrate on smaller groups such as seniors, veterans, people with disabilities. These meetings can be conducted on the phone or in-person. Partner with local non- profit community groups Partner with local non-profit community groups to help with the outreach program. General outreach meetings General meetings to keep the community informed about the project, to answer questions, and to receive specific comments. These meetings are intended to be interactive. A video on the topic of environmental justice and the safety element is planned. Pop-up events Informal way to meet people, share information and garner input (e.g. farmer’s markets.) Project gallery In-person display that allows people to access information other than on the computer. Community survey A method to seek information and feedback from the community on topics related to the project. Information gathered will be used to help inform policies and programs. Housing introduction seminar Seminar for community members who would like to understand the housing element components and process in more detail. Key milestone meetings Meetings during key milestones such as community vision, site selection, policies and draft documents. Page N-1.6 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 4 below provides a draft timeline of the key upcoming community engagement and outreach activities, pending feedback from the CEOC. The process will be intense, but it’s needed in order to prepare the EIR and FIA and meet our December 2022 adoption date. The proposed activities and meetings are expected to help create a project that reflects the community’s values. The City Council may wish to provide feedback on the types and frequency of activities and meetings before the project team meets with the CEOC to review the engagement and outreach plan. Table 4: Upcoming community engagement and outreach schedule Date Activities and meetings May 27, 2021 (tentative) CEOC meeting #1 June 2021 Housing introduction seminar June 2021 Individual/group interviews June 2021 Focus groups Summer 2021 Initial outreach on environmental justice and safety elements June/July 2021 CEOC meeting #2 Mid-summer 2021 Survey Late summer 2021 Housing Commission - Preliminary land use strategies Late summer 2021 Community visioning Fall 2022 Land use alternatives review The process for the next six months will be intensive and include gathering data and input, synthesizing information and preparing draft documents. To help meet timelines, the project team will need to stay focused. The City Council meeting of May 25 is an opportunity for the City Council to provide feedback to the project team on the following: • Goals and objectives (Table 1), • Roles and responsibilities of the various reviewing and decision-making bodies (Table 2), and • Community engagement and outreach plan (Tables 3 and 4.) As part of this feedback, the project team is seeking confirmation that the City Council is committed to this work plan. This will help advance the project team’s efforts. Impact on City Resources On November 10, 2020, the City Council authorized up to $1.69 million for the preparation of the housing element, including consultant services and partial funding for two full-time equivalents for the fiscal year 2020-21. On March 23, 2021, the City Council authorized the city manager to negotiate a scope of work and fee and execute an agreement with the M-Group for a fee, not to exceed $982,000. Environmental Review This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the Page N-1.7 Staff Report #: 21-115-CC City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org environment. As part of the housing element update process, an EIR will be prepared. Public Notice Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The City also sent a citywide mailer about the City’s housing element update project in early May. Attachments A. Hyperlink – Housing element (2015-2023): menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/4329/Adopted- Housing-Element-2015-2023?bidId= B. Community outreach and meetings schedule – Process graphic C. Draft community outreach and engagement outlinE Report prepared by: Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director Report reviewed by: Justin Murphy, Deputy City Manager Page N-1.8 VISIONING FRAME- WORK DRAFT PLAN FINAL PLAN / EIR PLAN ADOPTION CITY OF MENLO PARK HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COMMUNITY OUTREACH & MEETINGS SCHEDULE PROCESS GRAPHIC VERSION: MAY 2021 2021 2022 SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE ADOPTED EIR CERTIFIED!(NOV. 2022) StakeholderInterviews Partner with Local CBOs ElementFocus Groups HousingWorkshop Draft Policy Review Draft Plan Preview HousingIntro Seminar Project Gallery Pop-UpWorkshop Pop-UpWorkshop Pop-UpWorkshop HCD ReviewBegins HCD ReviewEnds EIR CirculationBegins EIR CirculationEndsPop-UpWorkshop Public Drafts: • Housing Element• Land Use Element• Environmental Justice Element• Safety Element• Zoning Ordinance and Map Final DraftsCommunitySurveyNotice ofPreparationGeneralOutreach HE UPDATEMENLO PARK HE UPDATEMENLO PARK HE UPDATEMENLO PARKHE UPDATEMENLO PARK City Council.LFN2΍ Draft EIRPlanning Commission/City Council Meetings Meetings will coincide with major phases and deliverables CEOCFormed and Training HE UPDATEMENLO PARK HE UPDATEMENLO PARK Meetings will begin monthly, then coincide with major phases HE UPDATEMENLO PARK HE UPDATEMENLO PARK Housing Commission Meetings Housing Commission Meetings will coincide with major phases and deliverables Vision and Outreach Summary Presentation HE UPDATEMENLO PARK HE UPDATEMENLO PARK Planning Commission: Final Draft of Elements and FEIR City Council: Final Draft of Elements and FEIR ATTACHMENT B Page N-1.9 08 Menlo Park Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Community Outreach and Engagement Outline May 21, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Menlo Park Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Community Outreach and Engagement Outline The following provides a high-level overview of the project community outreach and engagement activities. The purpose of the outreach is to include and involve as many community members as possible to ensure that all voices are heard and included in the decision-making process. Individual (and/or group) Interviews Purpose: The purpose of these interviews is to actively include various groups and individuals into the engagement process. The individual interviews will allow for traditional phone or in- person interviews with community members. This series of meetings will concentrate on smaller groups such as seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. These meetings will also include talking to people who may not have access to technology and would rather talk on the phone or in-person rather than join a video meeting. Result: These smaller interview meetings will result in key insights shared by key stakeholders. Housing Introduction Seminar Purpose: This meeting will provide information to the community about housing element topics. This meeting is intended to be a general informational meeting. M-Group will provide a Housing Introduction Seminar online for community members who want to understand housing issues in Menlo Park. This seminar would also outline the major themes of the housing element update including: •History of racial segregation in planning and housing •Housing Element Requirements •Housing Element Schedule •Community Involvement: Ways to provide comments and suggestions •Existing Conditions •Racial and Ethnic Equity Result: The housing introduction seminar will provide a foundation level of information so that interested community members have the necessary knowledge to participate fully in the planning process. Partner with Local Nonprofit Community Groups Purpose: The purpose these partnerships is to work closely with local nonprofits to ensure strong community involvement with the planning process. As part of the overall outreach approach, we will partner with local nonprofit community groups and seek to involve them in the outreach program. Result: Effective partnerships with community groups will insure a successful community engagement effort and more community acceptance of the planning effort. ATTACHMENT C Page N-1.10 Menlo Park Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Community Outreach and Engagement Outline May 21, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Focus Groups Purpose: The purpose of these focus groups is to gain insight from a wide variety of perspectives. We will ask about challenges, recommendations, and other concerns they would like to share. This information will be used to describe issues and concerns to address in the Housing Element. These meetings will be designed to garner comments to develop an understanding of local issues and concerns in various topic areas. The targeted groups will include Housing Organizations, Service Providers, Renters, Homeowners, Businesses, and Housing Developers. Result: These meetings will help identify pressing issues and community concerns. General Outreach Community Meetings Purpose: The purpose of these meetings is to obtain public comments and feedback on any portion of the Housing, Environmental Justice, and Safety Element update. These outreach meetings will be designed to be interactive meetings to answer questions and garner specific comments from residents. These meetings are intended for any resident to provide comments on any aspect of the Housing Element, Safety Element, Environmental Justice Element and Land Use Strategy. Quick poll questions will be asked during the meetings in order to keep participants engaged and interested. Attendees of these meetings will be given the link to the online survey and given the opportunity to provide dots on maps of where new housing should be planned for. The General Outreach meetings will be ongoing through the plan framework phase. Result: These community meetings will result in a shared basis of information and an opportunity for interested people to have their voices heard and questions answered. Project Gallery Purpose: The project gallery is intended to provide a low-tech forum where people can get information about the project without the need to rely on the internet or technology to obtain information. M-Group will work with City staff to prepare a gallery in a large conference room in the Library or other publicly accessible space (that is handicap accessible) or large room for the project. This would allow people to come and understand the project without internet access. This Gallery will have maps, a project website kiosk, a survey kiosk, comment box, posters, and project schedule. In addition, educational videos from the housing symposium can be provided. People would be able to come as go as is convenient for them during the hours of operation. Result: The project gallery will result in wider community outreach and engagement by providing real-world display that is more accessible than computer based methods. Written comments left by participants will be collected and shared with the public and decision makers. Page N-1.11 Menlo Park Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Community Outreach and Engagement Outline May 21, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Environmental Justice and Safety Elements Outreach Meetings Purpose: The purpose of these meetings is to get feedback from people on specific Environmental Justice/Safety Element topics. Meeting with people from disadvantaged communities. M-Group will hold informational meetings and public input meetings to inform the public of the nature of these elements and feedback on areas of concern from the community. We plan to have an integrated approach where safety and environmental justice will be discussed in conjunction with each other and the Housing Element. These meetings will include climate change, sea level rise, fire safety, local hazards, and creating more equity in land use and planning within the community. An introduction video will be provided to accompany the meetings. Result: Information gained from these meetings will utilized to identify and refine issues for inclusion in the Environmental and Safety Elements. Preliminary Land Use Strategies Descriptions with Housing Commission Purpose: The purpose of the meeting is to introduce land use strategies to the Housing Commission and the public. M-Group will provide an overview of site selection and specific strategies to implement the RHNA allocation. We will outline different type of site selection options. This purpose of this meeting is to inform the public and Housing Commission what site selection options can be utilized. Result: Provide defined housing strategies for the Housing Commission and General Public to consider as part of the site selection process Community Survey Purpose: The purpose of the community survey is to get feedback from a wide cross section of the community on a variety of issues and concerns. M-Group will develop a survey in coordination with City staff to gain information about the community, housing needs, housing related concerns, and issues that may not be readily evident. This survey will be provided in English and Spanish (with other languages upon request). Results of the survey will be available on the website. A gift card drawing will be provided to encourage people to fill out the survey. The survey will include questions that covers Housing Policy, Environmental Justice, Safety, racial equity, special housing needs, and other housing issues. The survey will be provided in both Spanish and English. Result: The community survey will provide detailed information on a city-wide scale that can help identify issues of concern and define policy choices for many of the housing, safety, and environmental issues under consideration. Pop-up Meetings Purpose: The purpose of these pop-up events is to reach out to individuals as they go about their daily lives into the engagement process. This will allow us to interact with people directly as they visit the booth during the farmers’ market. Page N-1.12 Menlo Park Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Community Outreach and Engagement Outline May 21, 2021 Page 4 of 5 These pop-ups will be designed to be an informal way to meet people where they are and garner comments in a relaxed setting from residents at events such as the farmers’ markets. These meetings are intended for people to provide comments or concerns on any aspect of the Housing Element, Safety Element, Environmental Justice Element and Land Use Strategy. Attendees of these meetings will be given the link to the online survey and given the opportunity to provide dots on maps of where housing should go. This information will help inform the selection of housing opportunity sites. M-Group staff will be available to answer questions from people who visit the pop-up tent. Result: These pop-ups will result in a wider selection of viewpoints to be heard as the participants are not self-selecting for participation. Housing Workshop (Housing Placement and Strategies) Purpose: The purpose of this meeting to receive direct community input on where housing should go. M-Group will develop and lead a housing meeting that will explain the parameters and policy requirements, including equity and Fair Housing principals, around planning for new housing. This will allow people to provide input on where new housing should be planned for within the city. This meeting will give people the opportunity to indicate preferences for housing units on the various sites with the strategies outlined at the Housing Commission meeting. We will summarize the comments at the end of the public workshop. Result: This meeting will provide for interested people to learn more about the opportunities and constraints facing the city. This meeting will also allow for questions and answers to make sure people are having their questions answered in real time. Participants will also be encouraged to participate in showing preferences for new housing locations. These results will also be shared at future public meetings. Vision and Outreach Summary Presentation Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to present our findings and draft vision based on the feedback provided by the community. At the end of the visioning phase, we will provide a vision summary presentation to the public. This will be a summary of the community outreach feedback. At this meeting, we will solicit additional comments and refinement suggestions for the vision. Result: This activity will provide a common understanding of the vision and goals for the housing, safety and environmental justice elements. Draft Policy Review Community Meeting Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to present our findings and draft policies based on the feedback provided by the community. At the end of the plan framework phase, we will present draft policies to the public for review. At this meeting, we will solicit additional comments and refinement suggestions for the policy framework. Result: This meeting will allow the project team to make refinements to goals and policies in response to feedback from community members. Page N-1.13 Menlo Park Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements Community Outreach and Engagement Outline May 21, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Draft Plan Review Community Meeting Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to present our draft plan based on the feedback provided by the community. At the end of the draft plan phase, we will present the draft plans (Housing, Safety and Environmental Justice Elements) to the public for review. At this meeting, we will solicit additional comments and refinement suggestions for the draft policy documents. Result: This meeting will allow the project team to make refinements to goals, policies and programs in response to feedback from community members. Draft Environmental Justice and Safety Elements to Planning Commission Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to present our draft documents to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. M-Group will present the preliminary draft Environmental Justice Element, Safety Element to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Result: This meeting will allow the project team to make refinements to goals, policies and programs in response to Planning Commission feedback. Draft Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Municipal Code Update to Planning Commission Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to present our draft documents to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. M-Group will present the preliminary draft Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Municipal Code Update to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Result: This meeting will allow the project team to make refinements to goals, policies and programs in response to the Planning Commission feedback. Draft Environmental Justice, Safety Element, Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Municipal Code Update to City Council Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to get feedback from the City Council. M-Group will present the preliminary draft Housing Element, Land Use Element, and Municipal Code Update to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Result: This meeting will allow the project team to make refinements to goals, policies and programs in response to City Council feedback. Page N-1.14 From: Phil Koen Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 2:33 PM To: Joel Paulson Cc: Laurel Prevetti Subject: VMT projected Hello Joel, Could you please explain the material increase in VMT per service population when comparing Alternative 3 (high growth) to the 2040 GP? The DEIR is reporting that the projected VMT per service population for the 2040 GP is 38.45, based on an additional 3,738 units and incremental population of 8,971. Alternative #3’s VMT per service population is 21.48, based on additional 3,176 units and incremental population of 7,622. The difference in housing units is a very modest 562 units or 17% where-as the increase in VMT per service population is 79%. The major difference between the two is Alternative #3 includes increased density ranges within identified Opportunity Areas. The 2040 GP does not have any Opportunity Areas. Given the material difference between the two, is it reasonable to conclude that the 2040 GP does not promote internal trip which results in a material shift to vehicle transportation modes which is increasing VMT per service population and GHG? What is the root cause for the massive increase in VMT per service population? Thank you, Phil Koen From: Phil Koen Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:48 AM To: Marico Sayoc; Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Jak Vannada; Rick Van Hoesen Subject: Agenda Item #1 - Study Session regarding Draft 2040 General Plan - September 20, 2021 Dear Council Members, Please find attached a comment paper from the Los Gatos Community Alliance regarding the draft 2040 General Plan. We look forward to having an opportunity to further discuss our thoughts with each of you. While the draft 2040 General Plan is a good starting point, we believe substantive changes are required before the 2040 General Plan can be adopted. Thank you for considering our suggestions. Los Gatos Community Alliance “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because and only when, they are created by everybody” – Jane Jacobs The General Plan is more than a legal underpinning for land use decisions; it reflects the community’s priorities and values, and it is a vision about how the community will grow in the context of those priorities and values. What makes Los Gatos special is its small-town atmosphere, unique physical setting, history, and vibrant community character that projects the Town as a safe, charming, and aesthetically pleasing place to call home. The desire to grow and expand the Town’s high quality of life is demonstrated by extensive citizen participation in many service groups and community issues. While residents may disagree over specific issues, they share a common vision of the future of Los Gatos. Residents are resolute in their desire to maintain a high quality of life, celebrating and preserving the character of the Town while embracing change that comes from future needs. This will require a balanced approach to planning for growth which is focused on keeping the Town unique, vibrant, and livable on the one hand, while addressing future development in a thoughtful way where residents can have access to affordable housing, employment, transit, and retail services that can meet their daily needs. It is with this overarching goal of seeking balance between our history and our future, in a Town that is almost fully developed, that we offer the following specific comments about the 2040 General Plan. 1. The 2040 General Plan growth needs to be revised downward to accommodate only the anticipated 6th cycle RHNA required growth of 1,993 units plus a 20% buffer. The 2040 General Plan therefore should reflect a potential buildout of 2,392 new units. The 2040 General Plan currently reflects 3,263 new units (excluding hillside development) being added over the next 20 years. This is not supported by any population forecast prepared by DOF or ABAG. The draft 2040 General Plan’s inclusion of this excessive proposed growth in housing has driven material, Town-wide changes in land use designations, zoning densities and lot coverage ratios that are not necessary and would not be required if planned growth was more reasonable and more targeted to produce affordable housing in particular locations that the Town can make attractive to development. We all agree that zoning plans must accommodate future growth and be sufficient to ensure redevelopment is financially feasible. The State of California plans new housing in 8-year cycles. The general plan should reflect this 8-year planning cycle (i.e., 2023-2031) and be amended every eight years when new information and future RHNA allocations become known. This thoughtful approach assumes that incremental change is best and is made only when new information is available. 2. The center point of the 2040 General Plan must be about creating policies and a mix of mandates and incentives to develop more AFFORDABLE housing in places attractive to development as opposed to simply more housing. When few sites are available and land costs are high, developers will develop land targeting housing at the higher end of the income spectrum. Our proposal calls for the development of 1,437 below market rate (BMR) housing units. This is 23% more than the 6th cycle RHNA allocation for BMR, with total housing exceeding the total RHNA allocation by a 20% buffer. By comparison the current draft 2040 General Plan does not commit to any level of BMR housing even though the total units being planned are 64% more than the total 6th cycle RHNA allocation. The Town’s historical performance in meeting the BMR RHNA allocation is very poor. For the 5th cycle, the Town so far (there are 2 years left) has achieved only 30% of the BMR target while achieving 84% of the above moderate income housing target. This substantiates the point that, faced with very high land costs and high material and labor costs to build, developers will build housing targeted to higher income levels. Please see the attached “Analysis Housing Units by Income Category” for our plan of housing units by income category. Affordability requirements and proper development incentives (such as inclusionary zoning and density bonuses) can deliver affordable, income restricted housing. 3. The 2040 General Plan should incorporate the concept of opportunity areas originally outlined in the Preferred Land Use Alternative and approved by the Town Council to concentrate future affordable development where residents can access employment, transit, and retail services within a “walkable distance” (i.e., ½ mile not 1 mile to a destination). We believe strongly that new housing should be built where it will best support economic, social, and environmental priorities. The 2040 General Plan abandons the Town Council’s previously adopted Preferred Land Use Alternative. Fundamental to this change was a significant increase in market rate housing over what was required by RHNA resulting in a shift of development from opportunity zones to a Town-wide redevelopment strategy. The DEIR showed that this change in redevelopment strategy, coupled with the lack of job growth in Town (new residents are driving to jobs outside of Town), increased VMT and GHG to unacceptable levels that cannot be mitigated. A focused development strategy around accessible opportunity areas will give the Town the best opportunity to meet the affordable housing goals and will also enable the Town to meet the State’s goals in reducing VMT and GHG over the next 20 years. A simple rule of thumb is to concentrate affordable housing in high opportunity areas where increased densities would be allowed and make sense. 4. The Housing Element must be prepared simultaneously with both the Land Use Element, and Community Design Element to ensure internal consistency of all the elements and provide residents with a complete understanding of the 2040 General Plan. Currently the draft 2040 General Plan does not include an updated Housing Element but rather incorporates an outdated 2015 Housing Element that was built on the 5th cycle RHNA allocation. There are no substantive changes being proposed to the Housing Element as part of the 2040 General Plan. This is a major failing. Given that the 2040 General Plan defines the policy framework by which the Town’s physical and economic resources are to be managed and used for the next 20 years, the General Plan must be complete with all elements updated to ensure internal consistency. Only then should the 2040 General Plan be adopted. It is simply too important a document to be developed piecemeal. Only the Housing Element needs to be approved by the State, and this is not due until 2023. There is sufficient time to prepare a complete, well-integrated 2040 General Plan. 5. A Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) needs to be prepared to estimate the fiscal impacts of full buildout of the 2040 General Plan. New development brings increased demands on local government services and infrastructure, but also generates new revenues for local government through additional taxes and fees. A fiscal impact analysis of these increased expenditures and revenues would help to evaluate whether the proposed development would generate sufficient new fiscal revenues to cover the fiscal costs associated with provision of public services over the 20-year planning horizon. This is also consistent with the General Plan’s guiding principles of fiscal stability/responsibility. Without completing a FIA, it cannot be known if the 2040 General Plan is fiscally stable. The 2040 General Plan should not be adopted until the full economic impacts of it are known and publicly disclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments on the 2040 General Plan. We want to also publicly acknowledge the countless hours and hard work that GPAC and Staff have spent on creating the current draft 2040 General Plan. It is a good starting point for sure, but we believe substantive changes are required. We look forward to having an opportunity to further discuss our thoughts with each Council Member and working constructively together to develop a 2040 General Plan that the Town’s residents will overwhelmingly support. Analysis Housing Units by Income Category (excludes Hillside Residential) AMI for Family 4 5th Cycle 6th Cycle 2040 GP LGCA 6th Cycle Surplus Income Category Threshhold 30% per month RHNA Actual % of RHNA RHNA Draft Draft 2040 GP LGCA Very Low - <50% of Area Median Income $82,850 $2,071 201 49 24%537 537 537 0 0 Low - 80% of Area Median Income $117,750 $2,944 112 3 3%310 310 310 0 0 Moderate - 120% of Area Median Income $181,560 $4,539 132 81 61%320 320 590 0 270 >> Subtotal Below Market Rate Housing Units 445 133 30%1,167 1,167 1,437 0 270 Above Moderate - above 120% of Area Median Income NA NA 174 146 84%826 2,096 955 1,270 129 >>Total Housing Units 619 279 45%1,993 3,263 2,392 1,270 399 Footnote: 2021 Area Mean Income - Family of 4 $151,300 From: Kathleen Willey Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:09 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes Subject: Public comment for September 20 meeting - Plant Based Diets Dear Los Gatos Town Council members, I have been a resident of Los Gatos since 2010. It is such a wonderful town to raise my family. However, I am saddened by the fear and panic that Covid has created. I wish the media would focus more on what we can all do to help our chances of becoming severely ill if we catch Covid. The well respected British Medical Journal came out with a recent study confirming that those who follow a plant based diet were up to 73% less likely to have a severe case of Covid. "plant-based diets are rich in nutrients, especially phytochemicals (polyphenols, carotenoids), vitamins and minerals, all of which are important for a healthy immune system, say the researchers." https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/plant-based-and-or-fish-diets-may-help-lessen-severity-of- covid-19-infection/ According to the CDC people with underlying health conditions such as Cancer, Diabetes, obesity, asthma, high blood pressure etc….. are much more likely to become severely ill or die from Covid than someone who is a healthy weight with no health conditions. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical- conditions.html The science is clear. Even the American Heart Association says "Whether you’re considering eating less meat or giving it up entirely, the benefits are clear: less risk of disease and improved health and well-being. Specifically, less meat decreases the risk of: • Heart disease • Stroke • Obesity • High blood pressure • High cholesterol • Type 2 diabetes • Many cancers" https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/nutrition-basics/how-does-plant- forward-eating-benefit-your-health Therefore, I would like to ask the Town to please promote Plant Based Eating in the next General Plan to keep our residents and our planet healthy. Thank you, Kathleen Willey http://www.plantbasedadvocates.com Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:51 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20210921035034] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20210921035034] Name: J L Comments: I'm a Los Gatos resident since 2014, I like this place, am raising family here and caring about this town's future. I listened today(9/20)'s meeting, heard voice of people, feel the same frustrations and share some of the same concerns. In addition, particularly I have to say, I'm very disappointed by commissioner Mr. Suzuki's comments, I don't think he has any intention to address the concerns raised by fellow townsman/townswoman. His logic is like that: "too many housing development"? There are already quite some existing, "budgeted" development, so it's "OK" for us to add more, just breakdown the numbers, then people will see "smaller" number; "traffic will be worse"? Jam is everywhere in the Valley, so don't "bother". Mr. Suzuki probably is a smart young man and I appreciate his volunteer works, however, I hope him, as well as commissioners and council members would really listen to the voice of Los Gatos people, acknowledge problems rather than covering them. Page title: Home From: Claudia Kenyon Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:15 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: The plan I intend to read all of it. So far I love the vision statement and the racial, social, and environmental justice ideas. I understand that many many people fear above all the increased traffic that might accompany justice, but I would hope that we could let justice and inclusivity drive the plan and then find solutions to the traffic. Good work! From: Carleen Schomberg Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:03 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Town General Plan To Town Planning Commission and City Council, Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in the zoom meeting regarding the general plan. However, I feel it’s necessary to make my feelings known. It is with great frustration I write again because it’s felt for some time like my concerns and those of others I know have been falling on deaf ears. As a fourth generation Los Gatos resident (whose great, great uncle owned the Los Gatos Soda Works) I have seen one of the most beautiful places anywhere go from a mecca for travelers and artists to a congested, unaffordable town that is now not even as desirable as nearby Campbell or Willow Glen. Where we once had flowering orchards that were beautiful beyond compare and not only produced food, but sheltered wildlife and helped clean the air, we now have overcrowded streets, unbelievable auto pollution, and our last orchard is now covered with over 250 homes and roughly (when occupied) 500 more cars to add to an already crowded street. It should be obvious to any thinking person by now that our biggest challenge is climate change. The notion of building on or paving over one more piece of open land, no matter how small, is just another nail in the coffin. I am begging you, for the sake of everyone’s grandchildren, to think about the repercussions of your actions on their future and that of the planet. I find it heartbreaking that my kids and grandkids can’t afford to live in the town where their ancestors lived. And, sadly, if we don’t change our priorities, it will become unlivable for anyone. Hoping someone hears this message and really considers how grave our situation is becoming. Carleen Ambrosini Schomberg From: Lisa Wade Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:22 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>; PlantBasedAdvocatesCore Subject: Plant-Based Education Implementation Program Hi Jennifer, Thank you for hearing our comments last night! I wanted to submit our specific reccommendation in writing for clarification. We would like a Plant-Based Education Implementation Program to be added to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element. Specifically, we would like such a program to be added to Section 8.12. This section has Implementation programs A-M listed. We would like Implementation Program N to be added. We'd like program N to be a Plant-Based Education program to educate residents about the environmental and health benefits of a Plant-Based Diet. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Lisa From: Levine, Joshua Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 4:10 PM To: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Plant Based Education Program Hi Jennifer, I have lived in Los Gatos for 3 years and have a son attending Fisher Middle School. I am writing to extend my support for the city incorporating a dedicated Plant Based Implementation Program added to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan (section 8.12). It would be great if Los Gatos become leaders in the environmental space and model for other townships to follow. Incorporating a plant based eating program could further this cause. Our family follows a plant based diet for better nutrition and to reduce our carbon footprint. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration Best Josh _________________________________________________ Joshua Levine | Senior Vice President – Financial Advisor RBC Wealth Management From: Mythri Ramesh Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2021 8:27 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant-based program for sustainability Hi Jennifer, Myself and my family lives in Los Gatos. We always thought that the Los Gatos city needs more education and awareness about Plant-based program for our health, animals and planet. It is simply not sustainable to breed billions of land animals every year, the land use, the deforestation, fresh water consumption, fossil fuels and Carbon emission. There is no way we can support that. We request that Los Gatos town include plant-based program in general plan 2040 under sustainability section. We look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Mythri From: Vinay Ramaswamy Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2021 9:30 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Vegan diet inclusion plan in general plan 2040 Hi Jennifer, We moved to Los Gatos last February, we like the some plant-based programs on lgs recreation. But I believe no one should pay to get education on plant-based nutrition. The world is inevitably changing and we need to grow along with it. I plead you to include my petition for plant-based education for general public. Thanks, Vinay Ramaswamy From: Laura Montonye Reese Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 6:51 PM To: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Please add a dedicated Plant-Based Education Program to the General Plan Hello Manager Armer and distinguished members of the Los Gatos City Council, I live at XX XXXXXXXXXXX, right next to the fire station on University Ave. I've lived here for over a year and would like to make a request: the addition of a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program added to Section 8.12 - Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. This program could include things like cooking classes, speaker series, a Vegfest, film screenings, etc. Here's why: Climate scientists stress that shifting toward plant-rich diets is essential if we are to avert climate catastrophe.[1] In the US, the EPA reports that methane emissions from livestock are on par with methane emissions from the entire fossil fuel sector.[2] Eating more plants and fewer animals is not only good for the planet, but it's also essential for preventing the leading causes of death. The National Institute of Health reports that insufficient dietary fiber intake is associated with many serious conditions and leading causes of death: cardiovascular disease, cancer, strokes, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, obesity, and high blood pressure. And yet, USDA experts report that 95% of Americans are deficient in dietary fiber intake, and on average, American adults consume only half the fiber they need.[3][4] Since the mapping of the gut microbiome in 2006, evidence is mounting of the crucial function of fiber in our health. Studies show that even small increases in dietary fiber can prevent these chronic diseases.[5] Given that dietary fiber is exclusively found in plant foods like legumes, grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds, it follows that we need to eat more fiber-rich plant foods. Los Gatos residents will greatly benefit from learning about the crucial link between plant-rich diets and planetary and human health. So I encourage you to add this sensible Plant-Based Education Implementation Program to Section 8.12 of the General Plan. Sincerely, Laura Reese References: 1. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-02/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021- chapter-5-agriculture.pdf#page=3 2. https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/plant-rich-diets 3. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietary-guidelines-online- materials/food-sources-select-nutrients 4. https://sites.tufts.edu/nutrition/winter-2019/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-fiber/ 5. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/181/2/83/2739206 From: Amy Nishide Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 2:22 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: general plan feedback 2040 general plan feedback 9/27/21 General: Change is inevitable. The general plan seems to do a good job of setting the direction to manage it in an equitable, purposeful, conscientious, environmentally sound way. The draft should be more easily navigable facilitate private citizen review/input Needs more concrete measurable metrics. Since there don’t seem to be many included, what is the process for turning the general plan into an actionable, measurable programs over the next 20 years? There are plans to make LG more inclusive through adding more affordable housing. Are there also plans for bringing in ethnic grocery stores, places of worship which aren’t Christian, a cultural center (w/ ESL classes), and other cultural amenities as well? If we really want to include people of different cultures, it’s not enough to just make physical space for them. RSEJ 1.1 Change to: Identify inequities, and direct town staff … Inequities need to be discovered through looking at services through a more equitable lens in order to properly address them 1.4 Replace encourage with encourage development and improved access. How can you encourage access to something that barely exists? 1.6 Some data collection/analysis needed to measure the perceptions of residents, workers, and visitors. Improve the perception score of LG as a welcoming… Promoting something that you want people to believe doesn’t make it true. 1.7 Increase or improve, not promote What are some of the ways the town can achieve this? Recruit higher paying business to operate in town? Such as start-ups, light manufacturing? 2.5 add recruiting/hiring from SJSU. It’s a diverse school filled with lots of Santa Clara County students. 2.7 Drop develop and add: implement, and require cultural… for Town staff. No need to reinvent the wheel. Plenty of DEI training exists already. 2.8 Drop promote, and add provide and encourage instead. 4.1 Good, it’s highly actionable 6.2 What does this mean? Specifically, who is the target? 6.3 Add develop and provide before promote Land Use Element LU 20.4 To increase public participation : Include the use of traditional forms of communication, such as flyers mailed to homes, local newspaper ads, posters around town and places of worship, and other gathering points, and inclusion in school-published bulletins sent to parents, etc. Hopefully, this will avoid future complaints about “not being part of the process: and avoid last minute demands. From: Georgia Hamilton Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 5:34 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: 2040 General Plan Dear Town Council Members, I live in the Town of Los Gatos and I'm writing to ask you to please include a dedicated Plant-Based education program in the Environmental section of the 2040 General Plan. It would be great to have programs such as cooking classes, talks, and events to teach people how to incorporate more plants into their diets. This would be healthy for people and the planet. Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely. Georgia Hamilton From: karenr Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 6:21 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Support for Plant-Based Education in Los Gatos Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. Please add this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Karen Rubio Los Gatos resident for 36 years From: Fred Rubio Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 6:28 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Please include Plant-Based Education programs into General Plan 2040 Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. Please add this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Climate change is the single biggest issue we are facing today, and reducing our intake of meat, dairy and eggs is a crucial part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We MUST take action now to ensure a livable planet for our children. Best regards, Fred Rubio II Los Gatos resident for 40 years From: Manan Sardana Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 6:57 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Support for Plant-Based Education in Los Gatos Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. I support adding this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Manan Sardana From: Kristine Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 7:13 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: FW: Can you ask your sister? Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. I support adding this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Kristine Goldberg From: Kristine Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 7:14 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant Based Education Program Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. I support adding this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Mike Goldberg From: Emily Miramontes Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:16 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Support for Plant-Based Education in Los Gatos Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. I support adding this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Emily Miramontes From: Erik Rubio Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:51 PM To: Council Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: Please include plant-based education in GP 2040 Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. Climate change is devastating our planet, and people need to learn more about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing or eliminating animal foods such as meat, dairy and eggs. Please add plant-based education to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Erik Rubio Los Gatos resident From: John Parsons Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 10:25 PM To: Council@losgatos.gov; Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant based education Dear Town Council, I am a resident of Los Gatos and a junior at San Jose State University. I am majoring in global and environmental studies. Through my education, I have developed a deep concern for the future of our planet and for humanity. I realize that we are currently in a very dire situation. However, I have learned that the simple act of changing the way we eat is a powerful way to combat climate change and keep warming under 1.5° C. For these reasons, I would like to see a Plant-Based Education program included in the Environmental section of the Town's 2040 General Plan in the Environmental section. I am proud to live in Los Gatos and would be proud to see us be a leader in a movement that can provide real hope for the future. Sincerely, John Parsons From: Michelle Waters Art Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 10:53 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Plant-based education program Dear Mayor Sayoc and Town council members, I live in Los Gatos and I would like to request that you add a Plant-Based Education program to section 8.12 of the 2040 General Plan. We urgently need to address climate change and plant- based eating is a very powerful way to protect our planet. I would love to see town-sponsored events such as a vegfest, cooking classes, and a speaker series. The city of Mountain View promotes plant-based eating as part of its sustainability element and I'd like to see a similar program here in Los Gatos. Sincerely, Michelle Waters Animal and Environmental Artist From: Priti Malhotra Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:35 AM To: Council Subject: Plant based education Hello I live in Los Gatos and would like to see a plant-based education program in the town. Being a plant based advocate I see the benefits and impact this kind of education would have. I support the development and funding to have a plant-based education program Thank you Priti Malhotra From: Christopher Wade Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 8:36 AM To: Jennifer Armer ; Council Subject: Please add Plant-Based Education to the General Plan To the Los Gatos Town Council, Thank you for your efforts in creating the General Plan for our Town. I have lived in Los Gatos for over 40 years. I love living in this town which is why I still live here. I attended Blossom Hill School, Fisher Middle School, and Los Gatos High School. I strongly support all efforts by the town to address climate change and GHG emissions. I feel that more emphasis should be put on the promotion of plant-based diets as a way to mitigate climate change and reduce GHG emissions. Eating plant-based is a powerful and cost-effective way to address climate change. I think the Climate Implementation section 8.12 could be greatly enhanced by the addition of a Plant-Based Education Implementation program. Such a program would enhance the health of residents, help address climate change, and foster community. Thank you for your consideration. Chris Wade From: Lisa Wade Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 10:34 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Cc: Karen Rubio ; Rob Moore Subject: My Comments for Meeting on October 6 My name is Lisa Wade and I am with Plant-based Advocates in Los Gatos. I have lived in Los Gatos for over 30 years. Thank you for your hard work on the General Plan. We appreciate your efforts. We also want to thank you for adding the words Plant-based to the Healthy Communities Section and also the Employer Incentives section. (6.13:Healthy Community and ENV 9.7 Employer Incentive Programs.) When the GPAC added the words plant-based to these 2 sections of the General Plan they also stated that they would do more because of the widespread public support for plant-based eating education and promotion in Los Gatos. Our specific ask is this. We would like to see Plant-Based Eating Education added to section 8.12 Environmental Sustainability Element Implementation Programs. Section 8.12 has Implementation Programs A-M. We are requesting that you add a Program N Plant- Based Eating Education. 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.) Making the transition to a plant-based diet may well be the most effective way an individual can stop climate change." page 40 Project Drawdown The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed TO Reverse Global Warming edited by Paul Hawken. Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies agree that plant-based eating is the most effective way for individuals to help the planet. For this reason, any plan to address climate and sustainability should include the promotion of plant-based eating. Please do not leave out this powerful, cost-effective solution and add a Plant-based education program to section 8.12. This section will not be complete without such a program. We understand that the General Plan is not a document that outlines details. For this reason, we request Implementation Program N with a simple heading Plant-Based Eating Education Program and a couple of sentences (just like the other implementation programs listed in section 8.12.) We have a petition with 220 signatures from residents of Los Gatos plus 32 signatures from nearby neighbors (bordering on Los Gatos) who frequent Los Gatos businesses. We also have the support of local activist groups Health and Environmental NGOs including The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Center for Biological Diversity. We also have the support of prominent citizens both in Los Gatos and neighboring cities such as Lucas Ramirez vice mayor of Mountian View and Alison Hicks city council member in Mountian View. Also, the planning commission and council have received numerous emails requesting a plant- based eating education program be added to the General Plan 2040. I am attaching our petition below. Thank you for your consideration! Lisa Wade From: Rob Moore Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 4:21 PM To: Council ; Jennifer Armer Cc: karenr; Lisa Wade Subject: Plant-Based Education in Los Gatos Hello Town Council, I want to write briefly to express my support of the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. As an active resident of Los Gatos, I see educating community members about the importance of plant-based as vital to ensuring community health and moreover, meaningfully addressing climate change. I have seen plant-based eating growing in popularity throughout our town and I think encouraging that behavior is an excellent, easy step we can take as a town to take action against climate change. Reducing consumption of meat and dairy is the single most impactful thing individuals can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change. Please add this very important item to the Environmental Section of the General Plan 2040. Thank you very much for your consideration and all that you do for the town. Take care, Rob Moore From: btdodson Sent: Saturday, October 2, 2021 4:13 PM To: Town Manager Subject: The 2040 Draft General Plan Dear Ms. Prevetti: Attached is a letter describing my feelings about the 2040 Draft General Plan. Sincerely, Barbara Dodson SUBJECT: THE 2040 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Dear Town Officials: I would like the following to happen as you review and revise the 2040 General Plan: • Demand that the Plan specify that the Town will NEVER allow any more homes to be built than the number specified by RHNA, which for the period 2023-2031 is 1,993. • Insist that the Housing Element be included in the General Plan. There is no reason to rush approval of the General Plan. Approval should be contingent upon inclusion of an acceptable Housing Element. (Without the Housing Element, the General Plan fails to provide a clear vision for the Town over the next 10-20 years. We need to know upfront where and in what volume new housing will be created. Near Pollard? Harwood? Los Gatos Boulevard?) • Make it impossible for developers to create high-end housing without first creating affordable housing. California needs more housing, but in the right places — near jobs, schools, parks, shopping centers, transportation. Los Gatos is already built out near its schools, parks, and shopping centers. It is not a job center—and doesn’t have the potential to become one--and does not have good transportation. Building more homes in Los Gatos will not change this. It will only create more traffic, more greenhouse gas emissions, and more demand for ever-decreasing water resources. If we must add 1,993 homes, let’s not go overboard and offer to build twice as many. Los Gatos continues to be largely a bedroom community. Netflix is an aberration, not a new standard. People commute to work from Los Gatos. They chose to live in a town like Los Gatos so that they can come home to a certain amount of living and breathing space. Please keep in mind that Los Gatos was built up and built out around old-fashioned ideas about suburbia. A town like this cannot turn around on a dime and become any of the following. • IT WILL NOT BE--A location for one or more transportation hubs around which high density housing can be created. (It seems clear that the VTA system will not be extended into Los Gatos.) • IT WILL NOT BE--A location for new businesses and industries that can create large numbers of jobs to which local people can then commute by bicycle or public transportation. (The Plan’s notion that we will reduce traffic emissions over the next 20 years by having people travel to work by bicycle or public transportation is just wishful thinking. What might really lower emission is the widespread use of electric vehicles—which might happen.) A General Plan based on the above two premises is completely unrealistic. These premises are popular with urban planners; they don’t reflect the realities of an already built-out suburban community like Los Gatos. Our Town planners seem to be getting on an urban-planning bandwagon that has absolutely no relevance to the Town of Los Gatos. Sincerely, Barbara Dodson From: jvannada Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2021 5:50 PM To: Rob Rennie; Maria Ladle Ristow; Marico Sayoc; Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame Cc: Shelley Neis Subject: General Plan Meeting 10/6/21 Dear Los Gatos Town Council, I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based consumption education program for Los Gatos. Reducing consumption of meat and dairy is the single most impactful thing individuals can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb our climate crisis. The source of this statement is the Oxford study noted at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and- dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth I urge you to add this very important plant-based consumption education program to the Environmental Section of the General Plan 2040. Jak VanNada From: awhite Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 6:06 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant- Based Initiative Hi Jenifer, My wife and I are long-term residents of the town of Los Gatos. We have lived here for 35 years. I am involved in a conservation program to save rhinos from poaching and extinction using technology. My involvement in this project has opened my eyes to the dire situation facing so many species. A very important step we can take to protect wildlife is to protect their habitat. Raising animals for food uses huge amounts of land and cuts into the habitat of wild animals. Meat and dairy reduction is a powerful way to conserve land and therefore endangered species as well. According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent. www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 Essentially we are replacing wild animals with livestock. I would like to believe that future generations will be able to enjoy the wildlife I have so appreciated throughout my life. I am in full support of a program to educate residents about plant-based eating. Reducing meat and dairy consumption is an important step in protecting our planet and its amazing wildlife. I support including a plant-based education program in the Town's General Plan. Thank you for the steps you have already taken in this regard. I look forward to seeing more programs to encourage healthy, environmentally friendly eating in Los Gatos. Sincerely, Antony G. White From: Susan Burnett Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 6:07 PM To: Clerk; Town Manager; Council Cc: Susan Burnett Subject: Housing unit increase Greetings, Based on all my readings, on the subject for reasons to double the housing numbers for Los Gatos, I find there are NO REASONS! Please tell me what are you are basing this increase in housing on? ABAG’s projection does not support the need, we have a lack of mass transportation, and how about the town’s Greenhouse Gas ratio?? No one from the GPAC knew how our town manager arrived at 3904 units, there were no votes! I am against this, the general plan should be amended every 8 years when new information and future RHNA allocations become known. Thank-you, Susan Burnett From: hwhite Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 6:12 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant- Based Initiative Hi Jennifer, My name is Hilary White, and I am a resident of the town of Los Gatos. I have lived here for 35 years. My address is 115 Casitas Boulevar, Los Gatos, 95032. I would like to express my enthusiastic support for plant-based community education. Many people are becoming aware of the problems with raising animals for food, and they are eager to make changes. However, they don't always know how to even begin. Programs that teach people how to incorporate more plants into their diets and encourage them to take steps in this direction would go a long way in helping them eat more sustainable diets. I enthusiastically support including a dedicated plant-based education program in the Environmental and Sustainability section of the general plan. Meat and dairy reduction is an easy, cost-effective, and very powerful way to help the environment. Thank you for your efforts! Sincerely, Hilary B. White Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 12:29 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211004192905] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211004192905] Name: Jeff Benjamin Comments: I STRONGLY disagree with this radical change to our town's long standing building policies . This change to our community will dramatically change LG as we know it! I strongly encourage the delay of acceptance of this proposed general plan to later in 2022, not November 2021, for full evaluation and consideration by community members. Page title: Home Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 12:58 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211004195827] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211004195827] Name: David Lombardi Comments: This is a radical change to long standing building policies in our community and will dramatically change LG as we know it! I would like to demand delay of acceptance of this proposed general plan to later in 2022, not November 2021, for full evaluation. Announcing the details of this plan publicly through SJ Spotlight in mid-July 2021 with a plan to have it accepted by November 2021 is unacceptable and unfair to the citizens of this town. Page title: Home From: Marco Rolandi Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 5:40 PM To: Matthew Hudes; GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update on the Future Dear Matthew, I am not sure whether I will be available to attend, my answers below. On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 5:22 PM Matthew Hudes <matthew@matthewhudes.com> wrote: Hi Marco A few weeks ago, I sent you a note about an opportunity to help shape the future of Los Gatos though our 2040 General Plan. There is another Community Meeting this Wednesday at 6:00PM. During the last meeting on September 20, it became apparent that many folks were not aware of the process or the recommendations of the Draft 2040 General Plan. (Can be viewed here: YouTube) As a Councilmember, I’d like to encourage you to participate in the process because this plan will set the direction of the Town for the next 20 years. And whether you agree or disagree with the recommendations, it is important that your voice is heard. Some of the points that were raised in that meeting and in conversations I’ve had around Town, include: • 1,993 or 3,904 units: Whether to meet the State-mandated housing requirement of 1,993 units or whether to plan for 3,904 units, including Hillside Residential (as is in the current draft of the General Plan) Even 1993 units are too many for Los Gatos. The issue is traffic, school, and fire danger. Every other town in the peninsula has pushed back on the mandate. Los Gatos should do the same. I grew up in a small coastal town in Italy whose beauty and nature was destroyed by developers in the 1970s. I would not want the same to happen to Los Gatos. Building more units in Los Gatos now will only result in three things: (1) quality of life of current residents will be negatively affected, (2) quality of life of new residents will be much worse than other areas in the Bay with more room to grow, and (3) will end up attracting same demographics w/o increase in diversity. We have geographical constraints, the hills and reservoir on one side and 85 on the other, there is simply no room to expand w/o causing more traffic jams and dangerous situations in case of fire or earthquake. If you increase density in the hillsides, people leaving in high fire dangers areas will not be able to evacuate. • SB9: If/how we should include in the count any housing that would be created under SB9, the recently enacted State law which made it easier to convert single-family homes into multi-family. Any additional unit should count with the goal of increasing the number of housing as little as possible. • Affordable Housing: How to get developers to commit to building affordable housing in Los Gatos Build better infrastructure first and fix the traffic issues, then you can build houses. Developers should be fined if housing is not affordable, I have yet to see a real affordable development in Los Gatos or Saratoga. All the new high density housing is selling for multiple of millions, affordable to whom? • Phase-in: Whether new development should be phased-in when improvements in infrastructure are completed, addressing issues such as traffic, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, wildfire prevention, water shortages, and public safety No new developments until more schools and parks are built, roads are fixed, appropriate evacuation plans are studied for hillside residential, and high fire danger areas, and the 17 traffic jam over the weekend is taken care of. • Guide: State the principles and values that the Town will use to identify areas around Town for increased housing Ensure that the quality of life of the residents and their kids improves. This sounds like a lot of discussion about housing and development, which is not surprising in a community such as Los Gatos, but the Draft General Plan 2040 is more than that—it is a "constitution” for all future growth and development. The General Plan is made up of a collection of “elements,” or chapters, of which nine are mandatory. They are: Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Environmental Justice, Circulation, Noise, Air Quality and Safety In addition to the State-mandated elements, the Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan includes elements that address Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice, Mobility, Public Facilities, Services and Infrastructure, Environment and Sustainability. We also received ideas about encouraging plant-based diets that could be incorporated into the Environment and Sustainability element. The documents can be found at: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html Becoming Part of the Conversation Your thoughts are vitally important as the 2040 General Plan emerges from a “Draft” to becoming the “Law of the Town,” and I (as well as all of your Town Council and Commissions) want to hear from you. Here are some opportunities: • Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:00PM: Community Meeting https://losgatosca- gov.zoom.us/j/82084075418?pwd=aENDOG5icmNlRU93S0diTm1QVVNqZz09 Password: 289135 • Fall 2021: Planning Commission meeting to review and approve the Draft 2040 General Plan as well as the Draft Environment Impact Report which covers the General Plan. • Later in 2021: Town Council meeting to review and approve the 2040 General Plan as well as the Final Environment Impact Report which covers the General Plan. • Late 2021 and throughout 2022: Ongoing public meetings of the Housing Element Advisory Board • Late 2022 and early 2023: Public meetings of the Planning Commission and Town Council to review the recommendations for the Housing Element. And for that matter, at any Council Meeting during “Verbal Communications.” Our next one is Tomorrow, Tuesday October 5, 2021 at 7:00PM Of course, if you would like to discuss the General Plan, or anything about the Town, I am always available. You can reach me by email at matthew@matthewhudes.com. The Town is accepting comments on the General Plan at gp2040@losgatosca.gov. Thanks for reading my lengthy email. Matthew Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 6:18 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211005011741] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211005011741] Name: Julia Lombardi Comments: This is a radical change to our long standing building policies in our community and will dramatically change Los Gatos as we know it. I would highly request to deny the plan because our public resources will not be enough to sustain all the newly added living units. The traffic is already horrible and the public schools will not be able to handle all the new students. We need to have a detailed and reasonable plan to ask citizens who live in Los Gatos for approval. It is not fair to ask current Citizens to approve the plan in such a short notice. Page title: Home From: Dirk Reese Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:20 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer Subject: Dedicated plant-based education program Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. I support adding this to the environmental section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Dirk Reese From: Babette Ito Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:25 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - Oct 6, 2021 - Pls consider lowering town's housing requirement -The Town Manager decided to increase the number of homes LG has to plan for by doubling the number from 1993 to 3854. She did this without consulting the Council nor getting a vote by her General Plan Advisory Committee. Does that make sense? - Los Gatos is a commuter community with some business, but is essentially a job exporter. The VTA will focus on transit in high density areas such as San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. Los Gatos has no mass transit in the 20 year VTA pipeline, yet we are expected to build out 3854 homes over the next 20 years? Does it make sense to double our housing with no expected lite- rail in Los Gatos at all in the next 20 or more years? Doesn’t look good where-in the 2040 VTA Plan, it already states they are “financially constrained” for the next 28 years. - Based on ABAG’s own forecast, the Town’s population is forecasted to increase from 30,836 (current DOF forecast) to 33,050 (ABAG’s forecast). Based on the 2.4 people per housing unit ratio, that means the Town only needs 923 new housing units to house the growth in population. But the latest number from the Town is 3,854 new units! Pls consider lowering the town's housing requirement. The state isn't requiring it and I feel it is unnecessary. I'm all for being all inclusive, but can't we walk before we run? Our infrastructure isn't set up for it. Babette Ito Los Gatos Resident From: gristconstruction Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:43 PM To: Town Manager; Arn Andrews ; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow Cc: Clerk@LosGatosCA.gov. Subject: Comments regarding the General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 October 4, 2021 To: Los Gatos Town Mayor, Council Members, Town Manager and Town Clerk Re: General Plan Community Meeting – October 6, 2021 The projected housing unit increases as proposed by the Town Manager, Laurel Prevetti, are completely out of line and impractical. How does a town manager, un-elected, get to make decisions as to the future of the town? Is there no oversight by the mayor and council? Who is listening to the citizens, residents, and taxpayers of Los Gatos? More dense population means more traffic, of which we have more than our share due to our location at the base of the mountains and along the highway 17 corridor. More traffic means more pollution and more congestion, and more delays. We already do not have enough water in the Santa Clara Valley to support the existing population, and more housing will put a bigger burden on what is available. The State mandates that all new housing must be 100% electric. The electric grid is already challenged to keep up with the demand. More housing will mean more PG&E rolling blackouts and higher electric costs. There is no mass transit available in Los Gatos except for a few VTA buses, and no plan for a mass transit hub in Los Gatos to help relieve the increase in traffic congestion caused by more housing development that will be caused by Ms. Prevetti’s plan. I have been a homeowner and resident of Los Gatos since 1978 (43 years) and a resident of Santa Clara County since 1956. I have seen Los Gatos grow and merge with other nearby areas (Campbell, Saratoga, and San Jose), and now there is no separation. Putting people on top of each other for the sake of the Town Manager’s “goal” is to ruin the quality of life in Los Gatos for longtime residents and newcomers alike. Endless growth is not the answer. Please reject the proposed 1993 new housing units, as other Town Managers have, and especially the 3954 that Ms. Prevetti has taken upon herself to propose before the Town of Los Gatos becomes the City of Los Gatos. Thank you, Dennis Grist From: Sutton Roley/USA Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:46 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Town Clerk, As a 40 year resident of the Town, I want to share my opinion regarding the Town Manager’s proposal to increase the planned housing over and above the State’s requirement. The Town Manager must be completely out of touch with our community. We love this town and it’s low density rural feel. None of us want to live in San Jose and we certainly do not want to change our Town to be like San Jose. All we hear about is the traffic congestion through town and the North 40 is not even occupied yet. This increase in population that will result from this proposal is too much too soon. It should happen organically and naturally over time. The State mandated requirement of 1,993 units is hard enough to accept without the Town volunteering to almost double that number. Please bring this to the Town residents’ attention, and you will hear a loud and clear message that this ill conceived proposal is unacceptable. Thank you! Sutton L. Roley Senior Director Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:48 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211005034811] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211005034811] Name: Joey Cheng Comments: The medium density zones in the downtown area of los gatos does seem like a recipe for traffic congestion. I would rather take a safer approach like having higher density near the 85 such as the north 40 project. See where that goes then bring the density down towards down town. While there probably should be some high density housing to house people that work in the service industry there I don't think it require as much as indicated by the plan. I do strongly believe that people working there should be able to live near by. Since I have some characters left let me add this. I am not as worried about the character of the town since from what I see character is imparted by someone caring enough to do something unique to their property. What I would start to worry is when apartments and other managed rental properties start spreading. Page title: Documents Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 8:53 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211005035249] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211005035249] Name: Joey Cheng Comments: The Vasona light rail station seems to be on an indefinite hold? I wonder if it is really a good idea to increase housing density given this. Don't get me wrong, I am not against higher density housing, just not very happy with it if there is no good way for people to move around. Page title: Documents Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:15 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211005041451] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211005041451] Name: Joey Cheng Comments: Recycling waste water even if it is just for landscaping use is probably going to be needed in the near future. I mean seriously I think we just barely got out of one drought to be thrown in another one. Is there a plan to create the infrastructure to have purple pipes supplying recycled water for landscaping of our commercial and other higher density areas? Pulling dedicated recycled water pipes to single family home is probably too expensive. Though if someone would build all this to my home I won't be opposed to using recycled water. Page title: Documents From: Anne Roley Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 9:27 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: RE: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Dear Town of Los Gatos The impact of additional housing from 1993 to 3854 is not in alignment with the small town character that sets apart Los Gatos from the higher density Silicon Valley. The residents live in Los Gatos for the quaint family like atmosphere with more space, less traffic, good schools, and a safe environment. Adding housing above the 1993 required amount by the state will negatively effect the community feel we all love in Los Gatos. Traffic will increase, density will increase, which most likely will increase crime, school are already at capacity and growing from the new housing on the North 40. The North 40, a huge development, is not finished and occupied by residents and businesses, so we haven’t seen the impact yet. Medical office complexes, which results in the largest traffic outcomes, continue to be built around Good Samaritan Hospital. Do Not Allow The Additional Housing Over The State Required Amount Of 1993 In The General Plan 2040!!! Thank you, Anne Robinson Roley From: Cathleen Bannon Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:17 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Grant Bannon Subject: General Plan Community Mtg 10/6 We are writing to share our outrage at practically doubling of the states required housing numbers from 1993 to 3854 in the proposed general plan. That can mean additional costs to administer; more cars on the road on limited roads; more Green House Gases; More students in school; about 9300 more residents; etc. We were ok doing our fair share of adding affordable homes in Los Gatos - but the town does not have the infrastructure to support doubling the number required by the state. Based on ABAG’s own forecast, the Town’s population is forecasted to increase from 30,836 (current DOF forecast) to 33,050 (ABAG’s forecast). Based on the 2.4 people per housing unit ratio, that means the Town only needs 923 new housing units to house the growth in population. But the latest number from the Town is 3,854 new units! That suggests a population growth of 9,250 which is 4.2x ABAG’s own forecast of population growth. The Town’s projections are not based on any supporting population forecast and need to be revised downward. We need to bring the 2040 General Plan housing number back to1993 and ensure that housing is zoned to make sure to flow with infrastructure limitations to promote ease of movement throughout town. Thank you for listening to your residents. Cathleen Bannon Grant Bannon From: John Mittelstet Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:31 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Regarding: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 I am concerned about the following: 1. The Town Manager has evidently decided not to appeal the 1993 housing units assigned to Los Gatos. Far more than needed for the forecasted growth anticipated by 2040. 27 other Town Managers or County managers did appeal. Los Gatos is the only Town that increased the planned number of homes that we can find. Under what authority was the Town Manager not appealing? Is the Town Council asleep at the wheel? 2. The Town Manager decided to increase the number of homes LG has to plan for by doubling the number from 1993 to 3854. She did this without consulting the Council nor getting a vote by her General Plan Advisory Committee. Why was the Town Manager allowed to make this unilateral decision? If this is true, the Town Council should immediately, without hesitation, release the Town Manger from her duties, and find a someone who is more in tune with the population of Los Gatos. 3. Los Gatos is a commuter community with some business, but is essentially a job exporter. The VTA will focus on transit in high density areas such as San Jose, Sunnyvale, etc. for years to come. Los Gatos has no mass transit in the 20 year VTA pipeline, yet we are expected to build out 3854 homes over the next 20 years? Does it make sense to double our housing with no expected lite-rail in Los Gatos at all in the next 20 or more years? How about 40 years? Doesn’t look good where-in the 2040 VTA Plan, it already states they are “financially constrained” for the next 28 years. This is just one more instance, among many, where the town is allowing for more traffic growth without thinking about how it is going to be handled. Our city streets are already too frequently congested to the point that someone who needs to get to a doctor must start a half hour earlier than normal driving time to not miss an appointment. It’s ridiculous to subject ourselves to this kind of unthinking planning. 4. Based on ABAG’s own forecast, the Town’s population is forecasted to increase from 30,836 (current DOF forecast) to 33,050 (ABAG’s forecast). Based on the 2.4 people per housing unit ratio, that means the Town only needs 923 new housing units to house the growth in population. But the latest number from the Town is 3,854 new units! That suggests a population growth of 9,250 which is 4.2x ABAG’s own forecast of population growth. The Town’s projections are not based on any supporting population forecast and need to be revised downward. Amen. Los Gatos proper is constrained by its geography at the base of the foothills from being able to support more housing than is necessary for the forecasted growth of population. 5. Are you aware that the Town’s Green House Gas (GHG) ratio goes from bad to worse? How will adding more housing improve our GHG? It will be bad enough with just the 1993 homes. How will they improve the ratio by doubling the number of houses without the support of mass transit? It appears we have a woke Town Manager taking unilateral action that certainly would not be supported at the polls by the citizens of our town. If our elected Town Council members cannot control this individual-on-a-mission by releasing her immediately from her duties, then they should expect to find themselves without a seat at the table come the next election. Sincerely, John Mittelstet Concerned Los Gatos Citizen of forty-three years From: Jamie Fumia Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 10:47 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021. I am writing to you in regards to the general plan meeting scheduled for October 6th. I was born and raised in Los Gatos and moved back here in 2013 to raise my family. I never expected life for my kids to be exactly the same as the one I was given growing up here because let’s face it times have changed BUT I did move back here for many reasons. I love Los Gatos. I love the community, the schools and the beauty of the town. I love the people and the parks and the little downtown where you always run into people you know. But lately I’m concerned about the direction the town is heading. The North 40 was a tough pill to swallow but I listened and tried to understand the reasons it was needed and accepted that there was no way around it. I do not, however, agree or accept this new idea that the town is adopting to add double the housing requirement in the next 20 years. Why? When is enough enough??? Have you tried to go downtown on a sunny Saturday? We live off of college and cannot leave our house on these days because our town doesn’t even have the Infrastructure to handle beach traffic let alone overcrowding it with more housing. I have heard that we are the only town okaying these numbers…why? We’ve lost a lot of people in this community in the past year who have just had enough and moved away. Enough of the traffic and enough of the overcrowding. Plan smart and plan accordingly, because obviously i get the need for new housing but please do not ruin the wonderful thing that is Los Gatos by pushing for more housing than we can possibly provide without exhausting all of the resources it takes to make this a wonderful place to live. Thank you Jamie fumia From: Kathy Anderson Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 7:21 AM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fwd: General Plan. Letter Council Meeting October 6, 2021 Begin forwarded message: From Kathy Anderson Subject: General Plan Council, Please do not rush to pass this flawed General Plan in November. Please care about the future of our town. Use common sense when viewing the Plan. Much of the work on the General Plan was done during a pandemic. Most people were concerned about survival and were unaware of the work being done on the Plan. The LG citizens are just now beginning to read and understand what is in the Plan and the detrimental impact it will have on them and the town. So please do not rush to pass. The Plan is flawed in so many ways. It does not address items mentioned in the EIR. It does not provide for the needed infrastructure for - traffic, water, safety, emergencies, etc . It is like building a house without a foundation. Increasing density and height allowance, the zoning is just for developers not for the citizens who live here and who elected you. We have always protected the view of our hills. Increasing the height allowance threatens that. To provide increased density you ruin neighborhoods. You will need to tear down established shopping centers for high rise apartment buildings. Thus forcing citizens to drive further distances to do their daily shopping. This just adds more fumes, more traffic. What about climate change? Just think in an emergency such as an evacuation more density means more cars trying to evacuate. More density means more students attending the schools. It over crowds and provides an inferior education just by sheer numbers . Increased density allows a single family home to be torn down and perhaps a 4 plex built . There are so many features in this General Plan that need to be addressed in order to save Los Gatos. I would like a town wide vote on the Plan. If that doesn’t happen it will be up to Council to use common sense, not political views, to address this General Plan. Think first of what this town stands for, the citizens who live here, to preserve not destroy a very special town. It will be up to you to decide what the future of our town is like. I hope you care ! Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:46 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211005154551] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211005154551] Name: Fernanda Tran Comments: Good morning, I am totally again the project of building more and more houses at Los Gatos. Traffic is already terrible. It will make the city lose the charme of Los Gatos!! We want the same Los Gatos! No a city w double if people. It sounds like the city just wants more taxes!! Let's make sure homeless are out of the city and our kids are save! No crating more homes and have a over population and making Los Gatos to a Los Gatos anymore. I love my Los Gatos!!! No for the project that wants to create an absurd number of houses in our beautiful town! Page title: Home From: roberto anji Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:55 AM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Suggestion for the General Plan Hi Jennifer, My name is Roberto Anji living at 120 Hill Top Dr., Los Gatos since 2011. I would like to add my voice to recommend a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program be added to Section 8 Environmental section of the General Plan. I travel around the world and notice that Veganism is growing in many places especially progressive locations like Berlin, London, Copenhagen etc and I also noticed that places like Bali and Chang Mai have many Vegan restaurants and tourists are flocking to them. I think Los Gatos can put itself on this map as well by encouraging and promoting Vegan options. I think you have already been made aware of the many benefits of switching fully or partially to a Vegan diet by some of my like minded friends :-) Thank you in advance for considering this proposal. - Roberto Anji From: Eric Fox Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:38 AM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: over-densification Dear Town Council, Clerk and Manager - Your efforts to ram more housing down the throats of the town's citizens is despicable. You have no plan to accommodate the people who live here or the people who would move here. I oppose your densification scheme on every level. You are accountable to the voters and citizens of the town. Your tenure in leadership in this community will come to a swift end if you continue to pursue this thoughtless goal and ignore the voices of the people. Best regards, Eric Fox From: Mark Jamieson Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:30 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Objection to raise in housing numbers As a 20 year citizen of Los Gatos, I disagree with the decision the Town Manager made to practically double the states required housing numbers from 1993 to 3854 in Los Gatos. That will mean additional costs to administer; more cars on the road; more Green House Gases; More students in school; about 9300 more residents; etc ! Please be more forthright in explaining your decision on this issue. I am fine with doing our fair share of adding affordable homes in Los Gatos - but I am not in alignment with doubling the number required by the state. Mark Jamieson, MD G2 Anesthesia Pediatric and Adult Anesthesiologist Medical Director Forest Surgery Center From: Tedd W Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:45 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Los Gatos Housing We are totally against your proposal of increasing the number of new houses in Los Gatos from 1993 to 3854. Isn't developing the North 40 enough. A person can hardly get home on HW17 in the afternoon as it is now. I distress to even think of the disaster waiting for us when that projects gets completed. Please do not add more to this increasing problem. From: Nancy Rollett Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:01 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Amendments to GP2040 Hi Jennifer, Thanks for our productive conversation last week. As suggested, I’ve summarized my recommendations to how the Agency is reflected in the GP2040 in the attached letter. Please advise next steps. Regards, Nancy Nancy Rollett Executive Director 208 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 207-4900 Building a Healthy Community Through Enrichment, Innovation and Fun! From: Sandra Livinghouse Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:09 PM To: Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow Cc: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021. October 5, 2021 Dear Town Council, I recognize that the town planning job is extremely complicated and at times a no win, as there is no way to make everyone happy. Nonetheless, the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 is an extreme miss and needs to be radically revised as it stands. I am also highly concerned about how transparent and ethical town operations are in the planning/town management department, which should also concern you as elected officials. Los Gatos needs to be preserved as well as developed. You have an obligation as elected officials to improve the livability for the citizens who live and pay taxes here, as well as to manage responsible growth and development. My asks: • There is no need for you to approve a General Plan by the end of the year that is not due to the State until January 2023. Please allow for community involvement and plan to finalize by mid next year timeframe, 2022. • Please reduce the housing element to the state’s request of 1993 units, not the almost 4,000 you have planned. • Please eliminate the new zoning proposals for the entire town and stick to our current zoning. • Please evaluate whether the current Town staff is truly representing our town. Los Gatos cannot accommodate your ambitious growth plans for the following reasons: • Traffic/Roads: Los Gatos long ago made the decision not to allow Caltrans to widen 17 or to allow a south-bound exit onto highway 85 at Winchester. Both of these factors contribute to making traffic in LG intolerable. Until you have the funds to pay for these improvements (since CalTrans now won’t), you cannot advocate for massive building of almost 4,000 units. In addition, VTA has no plans to extend light rail to LG-they are focusing on more centrally located commuter areas such as San Jose and Sunnyvale. • Schools: Young families move here for Los Gatos schools, and they are extremely important to our community. If you impact our school quality with too many residents, the entire community and town suffer. And if a new school is needed, who is going to pay for it? • Environmental: The environmental impacts of this plan are unconscionable. Where is the water and electricity coming from to accommodate all these new residents? The projected greenhouse gas emissions from additional vehicles will increase tremendously under your proposed plan. And why do you not make sure that new developments such as the North 40 are done in an environmentally sound way, with solar, grey water recycling and other needed green building practices? • Fire Safety: Los Gatos is a lower mountain town and largely in a high fire zone. And, our neighbors up 17 are also at high risk of fire. How will we evacuate safely if you overbuild the town and impact road access? On a safety basis alone, the LG General Plan 2040 is completely irresponsible. • Ongoing Costs to Service Residents: More residential buildings cost money, and the property taxes received do not cover the costs of fire, police, schools and other services. Who is going to pay for all these additional costs? Where is the fiscal plan that justifies all this building from a financial perspective? I am also highly concerned about your town management operations, and here are a few examples: • Non-transparency: LG residents were hunkered down during the Covid public health crisis and were not at all aware of the town’s plans for radically revising the town’s buildings policies. Having lived in the town for a long time, there is a precedent of slower growth and preservation I had come to assume. I personally was not aware of the town’s plans until the July 2021 SJ Spotlight interview appeared (after the deadline for appealing the State’s housing units demands). Although you keep pointing to meetings you had, around 11 people attended those meetings, including the developer it seems. That is hardly representative of LG’s 30K population. And, the town made no effort except for one mailing two years ago to alert citizens to the LG General Plan 2040. Where’s the communication and transparency? • Randomly Increasing Housing Numbers: How is it that the Town Manager randomly keeps increasing the housing numbers without the Town Council’s approval or even knowledge of the GPAC? Who is driving this change in numbers and under whose direction? And, was the Town Council aware that Los Gatos was not challenging the state's requested housing numbers in July 2021? • Insufficient Reporting for Public Meetings: Why are letters from the public that are prepared for town council and other meetings not being included in the public packets and posted on the website? I hope you find my observations useful and that you will change your transparency and operational approach for the LG General Plan 2040. Los Gatos growth and development for the next 20 years should not be decided by just a few people on the town council and staff. Please make citizen input, safety and livability a priority. Regards, Sandra Livinghouse From: Diane Dreher Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 1:50 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Diane Dreher Subject: for the October 6 General Plan Community Meeting: Please include this email in the packet for the October 6 General Plan Community Meeting: As a longtime Los Gatos resident, I’m concerned and confused about the proposed increase in housing in the General Plan from the original 1993 to 3854. My questions are: 1) What is the rationale for this increase? 2) We know that all of California needs to respond to the current housing crisis, but why is Los Gatos the only town that has exceeded its original housing allotment? And 3) how was this decision made without appropriate input from the Town Council? I strongly support returning to the original 1993 housing allotment. Our small town cannot handle the proposed increase without exceeding its carrying capacity. The proposed increase would exceed: 1. Our limited water resources. We are experiencing a record drought and asked to conserve water. Where would there be enough water for the additional population? 2. Our transportation system. How will people commute to work? Los Gatos has no mass transit planned in the 20-year VTA pipeline 3. Our limited sewage system, designed decades ago, 4. Our limited fire department and other services. For the future of our community, please return to the original 1993 housing allotment. Diane Dreher -- Diane Dreher, PhD Professor Emerita of English Associate Director, Applied Spirituality Institute Santa Clara University From: Lori Ingle Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 1:53 PM To: Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes ; Maria Ristow Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members, First, thank you for what you do! I greatly appreciate all your efforts. I have been a lifelong citizen of Los Gatos and love our town. I am usually up to speed with what is going on in Los Gatos. Somehow I think that I have been late to the party and missed the news about the Los Gatos Town General Plan outlining development through 2040. I strongly feel like the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 is an extreme miss and needs to be radically revised as it stands. I am also highly concerned about how transparent and ethical town operations are in the planning/town management department, which should also concern you as elected officials. My specific concerns are: · There is no need for you to approve a General Plan by the end of the year that is not due to the State until January 2023. Please allow for community involvement and plan to finalize by mid next year timeframe, 2022. · Please reduce the housing element to the state’s request of 1993 units, not the almost 4,000 you have planned. • No one has been able to clearly articulate why Los Gatos did not ask for an exemption like many other towns and cities around us did, and why Los Gatos proposed increasing the # of units. How is it that the Town Manager randomly keeps increasing the housing numbers without the Town Council’s approval or even knowledge of the GPAC? Who is driving this change in numbers and under whose direction? And, was the Town Council aware that Los Gatos was not challenging the state's requested housing numbers in July 2021? These are all questions we need answered. · Please eliminate the new zoning proposals for the entire town and stick to our current zoning. · Please evaluate whether the current Town staff is truly representing our town. The LG citizens are just now beginning to read and understand what is in the Plan and the detrimental impact it will have on them and the town. So please do not rush to pass. The Plan is flawed in so many ways. It does not address items mentioned in the EIR. It does not provide for the needed infrastructure for - traffic, water, safety, emergencies, etc... There are so many features in this General Plan that need to be addressed in order to save Los Gatos. I would like a town wide vote on the Plan. Please make citizen input, safety and livability a priority. Regards, Lori Ingle From: Molly Fumia Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 2:08 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: housing and soccer We would like to voice an objection to the housing numbers decided on by the town manager. Low cost housing is important, but the environmental footprint is equally important. Half that number seems doable, sensible and responsible. We would also like to ask about soccer fields. Do you all realize that Los Gatos United Soccer Club now has 900 players, doubled from 2 years ago when Shaun Tsakiris took over. The games bring out of towners every weekend, who eat at our restaurants and visit our shops. LG United has been widely praised for the coaches' work ethic, knowledge of soccer, complex training and most of all, positive relationships with the players. Their biggest problem is fields. Los Gatos High School fields are used by Liverpool, a shrinking soccer club. For Los Gatos United to be able to have just one space at the high school several days a week would be a wonderful benefit to the kids. One soccer field, Creekside, is not enough for a club with 900 players. Please find a space and build at least one more soccer field. Many communities now have soccer complexes to serve their soccer families and visiting players. Los Gatos United, easily one of the best youth soccer organizations in California, could not host a tournament--which fill hotels and restaurants, because they don't have the fields. Please put this concern, which is on the minds of many others, on one of your front burners. Los Gatos deserves better. Thank you, Chuck and Molly Fumia From: Susan Shyu Pinkel Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:55 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Meeting on General Plan Dear Los Gatos Town Clerk, We have lived in Los Gatos Main since 2012. We own three houses and an apartment complex. We have visited and/or owned a home in Los Gatos since 1992. When we first moved to Ellenwood Ave, our youngest son was not able to enrol in any of the elementary schools closest to our home (Daves, Van Meter or Blossom Hill). We were told that Daves, Van Meter and Blossom Hill were ALL impacted and that we had to send him up Highway 17 to Lexington Elementary. This, we found, was outrageous considering Daves and Van Meter were only about one mile away from where we live. In the end we had no choice but to send our sons to private schools. With this background, we would like to voice our strong objection to the General Plan that will increase the number of new homes in Los Gatos from 1993 to 3854. If back in 2012, when we couldn't enrol our son into the local elementary school, and when the housing stock in Los Gatos had not even been increased yet, why would increasing the housing from 1993 to 3854 now be a good idea? Further, Los Gatos already has huge traffic issues and without access to decent public transportation, how does the Town Manager envisage traffic to flow? Or does the Town Manager think that traffic will sort itself out or that the public will just get use to it? To sum up, we strongly object to Los Gatos Town's General Plan for the increased housing stock. We do not agree with the original housing increase let alone the new number of 3854. We objected to North 40 and the Town took no notice. We now object to the new housing stock number and respectfully ask that the Town Council do not accept the new General Plan regarding the increase in housing stock. Best regards, Susan Pinkel From: Amir Segev Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 3:28 PM To: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>; Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Town Clerk, It came to my attention that the Town Manager is proposing to increase the planned housing density way above the state’s requirement and as a long time Los Gatos resident I would like to express my dismay and confusion about this. First, I just cannot understand how can a Town Manager be so out of touch and completely oblivious to the will, the needs, and the very basic priorities of the community it serves. No other town in the Bay Area found it necessary to accept, not to mention exceed, the state mandates. No other town in the Bay Area showed such a blatant dismissal of the community interests. Increasing the housing density in Los Gatos the way it is being proposed by the Town Manager will change its character, the quality of living, and the entire meaning of being a Los Gatos resident. Our roads are already standing still, our air is already more polluted than ever, our infrastructure is already having hard time supporting the town’s needs, and our schools are already bursting at the seams. The proposed 2040 plan is not only irresponsible and unwarranted but also contradicting the Town Manager’s very clear mission, which is to “enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos…. and seek to meet the needs of the community”. Moving forward with the 2040 plan as stated will not meet the needs of the community, it will betray them. It will not enhance the quality of life in Los Gatos, it will jeopardize it. I cannot even begin to say how many people in the community are outraged and their voice will be heard as they send a very clear message – we came to Los Gatos for a very good reason and the ones who are entrusted with protecting this town cannot be those who end up undermining it. Thank you, Amir Segev From: Bill Walker Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:44 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Matthew Hudes Subject: 2040 General Plan Council Members and Town Manager: Do not continue to further destroy our small town environment by planning for more than the state- mandated housing requirements. Over the past 26 years we have lived in LG we have seen extremely worsening traffic exacerbated by out-of-control housing and population growth yet to be further exemplified by Phase 1 of the North 40 with Phase 2 yet to come. Secondly, while we accept minimal state-mandated low-income housing, it should be kept to the absolute minimal amount that is mandated not to be increased by those in the minority professing something more. We don’t need more crime and homelessness both of which receive minimal attention from our police force or town management. Thank you for listening. Bill Walker From: Mark Regoli Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2021 3:49 PM To: jak; Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc Subject: General Plan 2040 Town Council, clerk and Manager, Your efforts to increase the housing in Los Gatos above the state mandated amount is very disappointing. There is no plan to accommodate the people who live here or the people who would move here. This will have a tremendous impact on everything from schools to water consumption. A change like this needs to be studied with an EIR and CEQA impacts. I oppose this densification on every level. You need to address the impact on the citizens and get their approval prior to launching a program of such magnitude. Mark MARK REGOLI From: Jeff Loughridge Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 5:49 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Date: October 5, 2021 To: Los Gatos Town Clerk, Los Gatos Town Manager, and Los Gatos Town Council From: Jeff Loughridge I recently heard some very distressing news regarding our towns new ABAG numbers and how the town staff is handling them. I have previously been a member of the Town of Los Gatos Affordable Housing Advisory committee as well as the Housing Element Advisory Commission. What I heard was that our town manager, Laurel Prevetti, has suggested INCREASING the number of affordable housing units that Los Gatos is required to plan for, from 1993, up to 3854. This in no way representative of the what the Los Gatos residents want. This was also done without any input from either town residents or even the current Town Council. Laurel Prevetti needs to be reminded that she REPRESENTS Los Gatos and its residents and needs to stop her irresponsible reaction to the State of California’s new ABAG numbers. Its NOT OKAY for her ignore appealing the original requested numbers to lower the required housing units. Its NOT OKAY to increase these numbers without input from the town. AND… Its NOT OKAY for her to disregard the detrimental effect of the consequences of the possible increase in population and traffic. Believe me, having been on the two committees that had to deal with this exact problem for the previous Housing Element, this should not be happening. Laurel Prevetti sat in on most, if not all of those meetings and should have gotten the message LOUD AND CLEAR that the town has always wanted lower numbers, not higher ones. As Los Gatos residents, we cannot let this stand. Stop Laurel Prevetti from raising our towns ABAG numbers. Get input from Town Council and the public on this issue. If 1993 is the number from the state and we have already past the opportunity for an appeal of that number to lower it, then stop this insanity of increasing it. Jeff Loughridge From: Lisa Wade Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 5:59 PM To: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Karen Rubio Subject: Plant- Based Implementation Program for General Plan Hi Jennifer, We have come up with some wording for a Plant-Based Education Implementatoin Program that could be easily inserted into section 8.12 Implementation programs in the General Plan. Plant-Based Education Implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of shifting to a plant-based diet, which includes improved health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water. I will add this to my comments for the meeting tomorrow. Best, Lisa From: Kjirste Morrell Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 6:08 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Dear General Plan Committee, I would like to request that that the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 reflect a commitment to grow as a walkable and bike-friendly community. The walkable nature of the town and public access to outdoor space were part of the reason that my family moved here. I know, from observation of so many of us walking and riding around town, that our town values: • the ability to walk to businesses, services, and schools from many residential areas • streets and paths which encourage riding bikes both as transportation and for exercise • outdoor public spaces including paths and trails that can be used for exercise Considering these factors during future development would help our community grow in a way that we could enjoy every day. Thank you, Kjirste Morrell From: Sasha Braude Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:00 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Hello, I received an e-mail and postcard about the General Community meeting on Tuesday. I will attend via Zoom, but given the high interest, may not have the opportunity to speak. I wanted to voice my strong objection to the proposed housing portion of the 2040 General Plan. I understand that we need new housing, but to build up to 3853 units is extremely excessive. We already have terrible traffic not just on the main streets such as LG Blvd, Winchester, Santa Cruz, University, etc, but it's now spilling over to residential streets as people try to go around the traffic. And when it's school drop-off and pick up time, it's impossible to make it in or out of our neighborhood. Building double the number of homes that is required by the state is ridiculous, we simply do not have the infrastructure to support it. We already have a massive development at South 40, and are at a breaking point without those units being filled. As residents of the town, I know you care about our future, and I strongly urge you to reconsider the current proposal. Thank you, Sasha Braude Los Gatos, CA 95030 From: Susan Ward Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:34 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: The Town was never meant to become a Megatropolis The people who live in a Town shouldn’t need to fight our elected officials to maintain our status. The other neighboring cities have kept their charm and relative size as the constituents prefer. Who is making money while destroying Los Gatos’ charm? You know that Los Gatans do not want this change. It is not a necessity per the State. No other towns or cities are quadrupling. What’s up Leaders? Sent from my iPhon Sorry I omitted my name Susan Ward From: Susan Ward Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:48 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting Oct 6, 2021 I do not want my Town to grow much larger. I do not agree with the General Plan. Susan Ward Los Gatos Sent from my iPhone From: erafia Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:33 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Comments I am writing about the 2040 General Plan update. I disagree with the inclusion of this entire section into the general plan. First and foremost, this entire section does nothing to bring people together and is instead being pushed by those with an agenda to divide the community. It is filled with all the keywords meant to make it seem like it is well intentioned, but it will undoubtedly be weaponized against the town and cited in lawsuits, leading the town to waste valuable time and resources in the future. In addition to what it will be used for in the future, take a look at the long list of administrative overhead it creates for staff. It is completely unnecessary, and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Lastly, it is an overreach of the government's purpose. Take for example the provision RSEJ4, calling for town involvement in the coordination of allowing for acceptance of EBT cards at the local farmers market. First of all, why does an EBT card need to be used at a farmers market? That in and of itself is absurd. Secondly, what does this lead to - that no business license will be granted to any vendor not willing to adhere to this provision? I strongly encourage you to eliminate this section of the general plan in its entirety except for any provisions that may be required under any applicable California law, if any. In fact, most of what is referenced in here is already covered under California and Federal laws against discrimination, and a duty of fair dealing. I would also be curious if you questioned those who pushed for it, to better understand where they actually live and who they are funded by before even considering including any elements of this section in the town's general plan. Eric Rafia From: CHRISTINA JANSSON Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:54 AM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Subject: GENERAL PLAN COMMUNITY MEETING 10/6/2021 I have three questions, I would like answers to: 1) 3,500+ homes would be built, “if/when the infrastructure is improved on”. How? Light Rail? More roads? The latter seems unrealistic. 2) 1993 homes. That is still 1993 cars! Does that not require “improvement of the infrastructure”? Or, is it the usual “act first and think later”? 3) What dollar number constitutes affordable housing in Los Gatos? Pleas point out to me, where, and how many there are. Do I have to speak at the meeting, to have these questions answered? Or, can you answer them during the meeting? Regards, Christina J From: kay maurer Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:55 AM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: general plan Hello, I am writing to address an issue with the new proposed 2040 general plan. Specifically the below item, which if this is true, it is definitely way out of line. The Town Manager decided not to appeal the 1993 housing units assigned to Los Gatos. 27 other Town Managers or County managers did appeal. Los Gatos is the only Town that increased the planned number of homes that we can find. Why would our gridlocked town want more housing than is absolutely necessary? We don't have the infrastructure to support more homes, and have not even yet seen the impact of the housing in the north 40. Los Gatos officials need to work to improve the quality of life in our town, not pack it with cars and more people that it cannot adequately support. Things are out of control. We have no solution to the summer traffic issues, little to no improvement to infrastructure, and no viable plan to address overhead power wires that have started devastating fires in other areas of northern California. Please do not move forward with this unforgiving plan to overpopulate the town at this point in time. Perhaps it can be revisited in 2040 if other issues have been resolved, but definitely not now. Thank you for taking time to read my views. Sincerely Kay Maurer Los Gatos, cA From: Katie Hingle Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:25 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Feedback before General Plan review on Oct 7 In reference to the General Plan Community Meeting - I would like to provide this feedback. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katie Hingle Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:15 AM Subject: Feedback before General Plan review on Oct 7 Dear Town Council, I appreciate the outreach that the Town of Los Gatos has provided to ensure the community’s voice is heard in the process of finalizing our current General Plan. I have read much (not all) of the proposed General Plan for 2040, and there are many components I believe will add value to the Town and some that are of concern. The goal to make the Town more diverse by building more accessible housing that is also centrally located to walking/biking/alternative-to-car is a huge win. I am very excited by the points of the Plan that discuss increasing cycling and alternatives to cars, and maintaining expansion while managing our environmental impacts. My concerns center on the fact that the Town’s General Plan calls for practically doubling the amount of homes (3,738 new homes) required by the RHNA plan for Los Gatos (1,993). Although there are many good points in the General Plan to ensure that employers offer shuttles, and that we increase kids walking/cycling to schools, our Town is not set up for the population increase we would experience. From https://www.demos.org/research/move-thrive-public-transit-and-economic- opportunity-people-color “If we want everyone to participate fully in the American economy, we have to make sure that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity or class, has an efficient and affordable way to get to work, school, health care, and recreation.” Could the Town also do something to incent the workers to stay here in Los Gatos vs. commute far away? Not likely as we don’t have sizeable businesses here. The new residents will commute, like the vast majority of residents here do today, then we will need more buses and other public transportation. The fact that the Future Vasona Light Rail Extension is on hold indefinitely until there is funding from the VTA means that adding 1,000’s of more commuters will add 1,000’s of more cars on the road. And if we have more kids in our schools, and the parents are lower income and would need to commute by bus to get to their jobs, they will not be able to drop their kids off at school. We need school busses and/or other incentives for kids to walk/ride to schools, especially in bad weather or on days of bad air quality. Last, I see the point about requiring employers with 100 + employees to provide shuttle services. Does that mean companies like Adobe, Salesforce, Google, Apple will be required to shuttle their Los Gatos employees? If yes, how does the Town have any leverage over these companies? Or does that mean that companies in Los Gatos who have 100+ employees must provide shuttle service. Is that even a thing here in Los Gatos besides Netflix? I would suggest that the Town’s General Plan focuses on building housing to meet realistic population growth goals vs. overdoing it with development close to downtown, get cars off the road by focusing with continued focus and development of ways to cycle, walk, etc, and get the VTA and other public transportation to increase. Katie From: Sue Ann Lorig Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:30 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Comments to Los Gatos Planning Commission Hello Ms. Armer, As a heads up, these are the comments I will make by Zoom at the Planning Commission meeting this evening. Best, Sue Ann Comments to Los Gatos Planning Commission October 6, 2021 Hello. I’m Sue Ann Lorig. I’ve been a resident of Los Gatos for eight years. Thank you for this opportunity to speak and thank you to all the members of the Planning Commission for the work you do for our beautiful town. My request to you is this: Will you please add a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program to Section 8.12 of the Environmental and Sustainability element of the General Plan? I am asking this because I sincerely believe that we need to reduce our consumption of animal products if we are to have a real chance at reversing climate change. As noted in Forbes, “In what the Guardian called "the biggest analysis to date," researchers concluded that shifting away from meat and dairy is the single most effective way to regenerate our ecosystems and prevent its destruction. “ Additionally noted in the Forbes article: “Since livestock production is the single largest contributor of emissions around the globe (more than planes, trains and cars combined), removing it from our food system could allow the planet to regenerate.” Huge additional benefits from eating more plants and less meat include saving vast amounts of water, plus improving our health and reducing the strain on the the health care system. There are so many things a Plant-Based Education Implementation Program could do, such as having cooking classes to teach people how to easily prepare delicious, nutritious plant-based meals. We could have speakers on a range of topics including how to improve your health with whole food plant-based eating, how eating less meat and dairy benefits the planet and is necessary if we want to halt and reverse climate change, how to plan plant-based meals, and more. I would love it if we could have a VegFest with plant-based vendors, socialization, and fun activities. Film screenings would be wonderful, too. Thank you again for all you do. I urge you to help Los Gatos be part of the solution to climate change by adding a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program to Section 8.12 of the Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/06/12/save-the-planet/?sh=2a23f9bf3c81 From: Jared Ajlouny Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:41 PM To: Clerk; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Maria Ristow Cc: Town Manager Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 Hello Town Council, Los Gatos is a very special place. It has been developed and planned over the years to keep it a special place. While traveling I meet many people that have been to downtown Los Gatos and remark how beautiful it is. That is pretty remarkable for a small town. The reason for this is because of the town's special character. This includes the zoning rules that maintain the density of development in certain areas. While high density housing makes sense in certain areas (close to economical public transportation, work hubs, etc), downtown Los Gatos is none of that. I wanted to address some of the 2040 general plan items that are keeping me up at night. My wife and I live on College Ave. College Ave is arguably one of the most known residential streets in Los Gatos due to the proximity to the park and the winery. It is visited by thousands of people every week. On weekends it is almost impossible to find parking. If high density housing is allowed in this area it would make the traffic and parking a larger mess than it already is. During the summer beach traffic it takes about 30 minutes to get from highway 9 to College Ave. Imagine if there was a fire on a large multi family building that was newly built in a fire hazard zone. Per the towns own "Fire Hazard Map" https://losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/64/General-Plan--- Fire-Hazards-Map?bidId= , College Ave and the entire hillside is a fire hazard zone. Why would anyone consider high density housing in a fire hazard zone? Especially with what has been going on with the fires the last few years. Our parcel on College Ave has a shared driveway with three houses. The driveway is also very difficult to access from College Ave. If that driveway suddenly had 4 times the amount of vehicles on it, it would completely ruin the traffic up and down College Ave. It would also be a hazard with the pedestrians walking and biking up and down the road. Please put reasonable thought into this terrible plan. California is already losing more of its standard of living every year. Please don't add to that. Thank you. __________________________________ Jared Ajlouny From: Jeff Rippin Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 1:17 PM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General Plan Community Meeting - October 6, 2021 - bring the 2040 General Plan housing number back to 1993 Hi, I understand that the state requires Los Gatos to increase housing units by 1993 by the year 2040. But, the Los Gatos Town Manager wants to increase the states required housing numbers from 1993 to 3854? Please keep the number at 1993. I feel the city is busy enough with cars. Why do we need more than the state requires? Maybe I'm missing something? Take care, Jeff Rippin From: MARY PATTERSON Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 6:03 PM To: PublicComment <PublicComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 2040 General Plan Dear Council, I am totally against adding another 3,000+ homes to Los Gatos. Let's consider that proposal.....we have no water we've had to buy generators because we lose electricity the town traffic is congested and stressful we've had to add an area code when calling due to no lines there is no room in our schools and no land or money to build AND no one lives in the North Forty yet. Does this proposal make any sense???? NO!! Please leave Los Gatos the quaint little town that we know and love!!! Thank you, Mary M. Patterson From: KENNETH ARENDT Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:29 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Matthew Hudes; Neuner, Gary Subject: GP 2040 - ideologies that are not to be placed in the GP Hello, All of this plant based stuff is fine, on a personal basis. It has NO PLACE in the general plan for LG. If you were to allow this, it opens the door and sets a precedent for other ideologies of ANY nature, to burden the GP process. Ken Arendt NOTE: this email is being sent to thousands of Los Gatos residents From: KENNETH ARENDT Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 6:41 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Trouble here in Town - the General Plan and more To the GP2040 Planning Committee The below email and attachment was sent to the Town Council. Please do read my concerns. Thank you. Ken Arendt ---------- Original Message ---------- From: KENNETH ARENDT To: Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>, "rrennie@losgatosca.gov" <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>, "mbadame@losgatosca.gov" <mbadame@losgatosca.gov>, "mhudes@losgatosca.gov" <mhudes@losgatosca.gov>, "mristow@losgatosca.gov" <mristow@losgatosca.gov> Date: 10/04/2021 8:25 PM Subject: Trouble here in Town - the General Plan and more Hello TC members. This is a very difficult email for me to send, as I never thought that I would have to do this. I know most of you, and vice versa, and have been supportive of all you have done for the Town in the past. Several of you have had gone through a gauntlet of issues over the years, and it hasn't been easy. But now, the real issues facing us are at least two-fold, most likely more. One is definitely the growth and how to accomplish it without damaging the Town, its residents and character. The other issue is perhaps more serious. It is the blatant actions of the Town Manager to get us in this trouble in the first place. I know that some of you might be friendly towards her and her staff. And you rely on the Town employees to support you and not ignore you. So this is probably distasteful. But you must do your jobs and honor the oath of office that you took. Please read my attached paper to you. I do trust that you will take the right actions to bring us back on track. Thanks for all that you do. Ken Arendt LG 95032 October 4, 2021 LG Town Manager and Staff Topic: MIS-BEHAVIOR and BAD JUDGEMENT REFERENCE: TOWN COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL , 2-04, PAGE 8 Town Study Session of September 20, 2021 General Plan for 2040 After reading many of the Town Documents regarding Town code, RHNA requirements, General Plan, I am very concerned about the recent behavior of the Town Manager and staff. How did the Town land use element and Town’s housing needs get de-railed? Specifically, I am addressing not so much the resulting numbers that are being floated around, but the inappropriate process of getting to where we are. According to the TC Policy Manual referenced above, and other documents of the Town, it is clear that the Town Council establishes policy and direction for the Town and the TM and her staff are responsible for carrying out the directions set forth. It is NOT within the preview of the TM to establish policy and take actions that ignore TC approved directions. Nor is it proper for the TM to go public with local media about Town housing element numbers that have not been approved by the TC. That is called insubordination. I refer specifically to the TM’s specific change of General Plan Preferred Alternative numbers that were approved initially by the TC, at about 2800 units. In fact the TM set forth and disseminated to the public new arbitrary numbers which were made PRIOR to the State mandated RHNA numbers, which were substantially lower, at 1993 units. The TM created numbers almost doubled those RHNA numbers without TC approval. This action negatively impacts the charter of the Town as to the authority placed within the Town Council. Why wasn’t the TC notified and involved, especially along the way? As such, the following points are made: • The TM stepped outside her bounds of authority • Failure to properly notify the TC and/or the Mayor of dramatic changes to housing numbers • Did not notify the TC when appropriate as to when any appeals to the State could be made by the Town • Published newly created housing element numbers without TC authorization • When asked “why” she did this at the most recent study session, her answers were without merit; ie, lots of work, we were all busy, etc • It appears that her own personal agenda overrides decisions that are supposed to be in the best interests for the Town • Housing numbers that she proposes may have significant negative impacts on the Town – o Exceeding RHNA numbers opens the door to developers to do most anything they want o Water – we are in a drought; what is the plan to address this? o Traffic – we are already complaining about traffic all over; what is the plan? o Schools – what are the metrics regarding teacher/student acuity ratios? New schools? What is the plan? o Character of the Town as to what the residents bought into and what we want; we have all worked very hard to get here and be what we are! We do not want to change into something we are not! o Housing values and neighborhood impacts o Other unforeseen impacts • Impacts of this nature need to be studied, analyzed and voted upon and NOT arbitrarily set into place by the TM who has no authority to do so. Arbitrary action beyond authority levels in the TM’s position weakens the TC and its authorities. • Town Attorney – he should have advised the TM of her actions, but apparently did not, or did not know about it, or was ignored. Either way, the TA should have advised the TC as to this action as well as advised the TC about potential appeal dates and requirements. This did not happen. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The Mayor and the TC should take actions to address these bad judgment actions, review both the TM and TA performance and set forth consequences as appropriate. In regular corporate situations, a board of directors might even fire the position. Please do your job and take whatever actions are necessary to correct the problem. DESIRED OUTCOMES: • The TC needs to formally accept the State mandated RHNA numbers with further study done as to density issues and how to address them without damaging the Town further. • The TC needs to address the TM and her staff as to their limits of authority and determine why the TC was essentially ignored in the process. • The TC should evaluate these actions of the TM and determine if the job has grown beyond her level of competency to continue. • The TC needs to set forth its mandates to itself, the citizens of the Town and the Town management and staff, that although we see the need for diversity, inclusion, public safety, etc, we can and will do so while retaining the nature and character of the Town. We have many many citizens, current and long standing, who have worked very hard and have sacrificed much to reside here. Some were lucky, others worked two jobs. But we did what we did to be here and become part of this community. We do not want it changed. • Create studies to understand what impacts SB 9 and 10 will have on our community and create ways to accommodate those laws without damaging our Town. Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:22 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211007032212] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211007032212] Name: Cameron Tulee Comments: Regarding Fire safety: One way to help reduce the fire risk it to have the utilities buried. Overhead utilities have been the cause of multiple devastating CA state fires in recent years. I didn't see this mentioned in the general plan - Is this something we can push for as a Town government and in the general plan? Especially in the hillside areas which are much less accessible and could cause an out-of-control fire situation. Thanks, Cameron Tulee Page title: Home Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 9:56 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211007045548] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211007045548] Name: Cameron Tulee Comments: Regarding the housing target confusion: Perhaps it's worth updating the actual plan with the breakdown - the state's mandated target (for the first 8 years) + some buffer, then the next 12 years target is the difference, etc, etc.. Then with it all outlined in the plan folks wouldn't have to look elsewhere for an explanation of the numbers and it should reduce the confusion with this issue. With regards to the proposal to add vegan diet education: It's a good initiative but I feel it's miss- placed and that the Town general plan is not where this should be. An education campaign like this should start in the schools and the Town shouldn't be expected to be an educator for the residence for such issues as this. It's outside it's scope. Thanks, Cameron Tulee Page title: Home Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 11:07 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211007060704] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211007060704] Name: J R Comments: I'm a Los Gatos resident for years and listened to tonight's meeting, good to hear many voices from different perspectives. Thanks for organizing it! Here are my comments: 1. Overall I oppose the 2040 general plan. Fire safety issue, negative financial impacts in terms of residential housing price and town's budget, worse traffic, etc. They're valid concerns and real problems! I hope political interests should not be put over Los Gatos people's benefits. 2. Please make writing comments available to public. If privacy is the concern, can be anonymous and have an option to let people choose to opt out. Moreover, I suggest to have a survey/voting on this site. Those can help transparency of the process. 3. If I heard correctly, a lady suggested "if you like small town feel, go to Yosemite (or 17miles?)". How ironic and how dare she! Most exclusive words I've heard tonight! People live here have every right to preserve the small town image they like. Page title: Home From: Nick Struthers Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 3:51 PM To: Council; Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant - based Education Program for Los Gatos Dear Los Gatos Town Council, As a Los Gatos resident since 1999, I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated Plant Based Education Program. I support adding this to the environmental section of The General Plan 2040. sincerely Nicolas Struthers From: Julie Struthers Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 3:54 PM To: Council; Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant - based Education Program for Los Gatos Dear Los Gatos Town Council, As a Los Gatos resident since 1999, I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated Plant Based Education Program. I support adding this to the environmental section of The General Plan 2040. sincerely Julie Struthers From: Kavin Kankeshwar <kavinkankeshwar@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 9:06 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comments for consideration for Los Gatos 2040 Plan Hi, I am a Los Gatos resident in University-Edelen Historic District, I have few comments for the Town Council/Planning commission to consider as we work on the Los Gatos 2040 plan. 1. It's great to see in Los Gatos 2040 Plan sections LU-9.4, LU-15 and CD-3 to protect historic neighborhoods which everyone in the city benefits. But the City of Los Gatos has not adopted Mills Act, By not providing any financial incentives and having additional regulations for historic districts, it places an additional often unfair burden on owners of structures contributing to the historic district, Even though all residents of Los Gatos benefit from and enjoy how the historic neighborhoods looks and feels. Also more often historic properties go into a state of disrepair which reduces the desirability for dilapidated houses and its order of magnitude more expensive to fix those. I would strongly urge the City council to adopt Mills act and any other measures which can provide incentives to preserve Historic property or loosen the regulatory burden in historic districts. 2. Traffic on 17, This topic I'm sure has come up before. But I would really like the Town Council to raise the priority and make it the top of agenda item to work with County and State officials to escalate and make it priority #1. It is critical and urgent we solve this ASAP. Traffic on 17 will reduce the desirability of the area if the commute is horrible. We need to improve the Quality of life for the residents of Los gatos to move around without being stuck in traffic. 3. I support the Los Gatos 2040 plan for more houses, so it's critical to address the traffic which comes with existing and newer residents. Reducing the regulatory burden for developers or owners of property to build more housing is a good thing and a healthy sign for a growing community. But planning for growth is critical. I would encourage the City to do whatever to help reduce regulations, fast track applications and allow more construction. Anyways, construction in the bay area is very expensive because of the high cost of living for workers plus the amount of building regulations and long delays in permit applications/sign off. So whatever the city can do to reduce red tape on construction is a good thing, Because if any project takes years to get off the ground that delay costs will be passed on to consumers which just means the new houses won't be affordable for the middle class which won't benefit because their income is more than median income so they still cannot buy houses because it's expensive to build new houses. It is very important for the City to go into high gear to fix the traffic issue to support this growth. 4. Dedicated bike and pedestrian only streets in Downtown Los Gatos. I would recommend making Downtown Los Gatos and adjacent streets pedestrian only and also have a Class 4 dedicated bike lane on University Ave from Main street to Vasona lake and taking other measures to reduce/discourage traffic on collector roads like University ave, and promote bike/walking and other environmentally friendly way to get around town. It might also be a good idea to plan for parking structures so people can park there and walk downtown. Also if University Ave does have a Class 4 dedicated bike lane, there has to be some plan for permit parking for residents in the parking lots in between University and N Santa Cruz ave. Thanks for your time and consideration of these comments! I really appreciate the effort which everyone is taking to draft and plan the Los Gatos 2040 future. Regards, -- Kavin Kankeshwar From: karen Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 2:02 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Cc: 'Lisa Wade' Subject: Education Programs for Plant-Based Diets in General Plan Hi Jennifer and council members, I am grateful I was able to speak on October 6 at the General Planning meeting about our objective of including education about plant-based diets in Section 8.12 of the general plan. As I stated, the reduction of animal foods (meat, dairy and eggs) holds the promise of addressing the widespread problems we face today. Briefly: - Greenhouse gas emissions: Animal ag is a major source of greenhouse gases methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, that are rapidly warming our climate. This is making extreme weather, such as drought, fires, hurricanes, etc more frequent and more intense. - Pollution of air, water and land by enormous CAFOS (concentrated animal feeding operations); 80 billion land animals are killed worldwide every year - Deforestation: 90% of the Amazon that has been cut down is due to cattle and their feed crops - Water consumption: People who eat no animal foods require HALF the amount of water (National Geographic) - Inequality and suffering caused by our food system: converting plants to animal foods is inefficient; we can feed the world population plus more, on less land, by shifting to plant foods - Social injustice: Farm and slaughterhouse workers are often immigrants who are subject to dangerous workplace conditions. Many died from Covid because slaughterhouses continued operations under the Defense Procurement Act. - Health: Eating a plant-based diet is proven to help avoid illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, some types of cancers, and more These and the many other reasons for shifting to plant-based are the reason we feel that education is necessary. I’d like to address some of the concerns raised by other speakers at the General Plan meeting. 1. “I don’t want anyone forcing me to eat a plant-based diet.” No one is forcing any diet. We want to provide education so people can make informed choices. 2. “This isn’t the domain of local government.” We disagree. The Town already has programs and education for reducing water usage, implementing native landscaping, etc. Our plan follows the same guidelines, and in fact greatly helps with other efforts, such as saving water. 3. “This is a frill. We need basic services such as fire safety.” In fact, shifting to plant-based diets helps with issues such as fire safety. Animal agriculture is a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions, which is warming our climate and turning forests into tinder boxes – as evidenced by the major fires of the last few years. Switching to a plant-based diet is the single most impactful thing we can do to reduce GHG and start curbing global warming. Thank you for taking our ideas into consideration. As we stated, we have a very active group that is ready to help implement these programs, and we have widespread community support. Thank you for all your hard work on this Plan. Best regards, Karen Rubio Plant-Based Advocates From: ILENE DICKINSON Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 10:41 PM To: Council; Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant-Based Education Program for Los Gatos Dear Los Gatos Town Council: I support the efforts of Plant-Based Advocates to establish a dedicated plant-based education program for Los Gatos. Reducing consumption of meat and dairy is the single most impactful thing individuals can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb climate change. Please add this very important item to the Environmental Section of the General Plan 2040. Best regards, Ilene Dickinson From: Laura Douglas Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 10:58 AM To: Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: voicing objection to the housing development plans for the Town of Los Gatos. To Whom It May Concern, I object to adding additional housing units to Los Gatos. Many towns have appealed the addition of the minimum number of housing units assigned. Los Gatos should do the same or at least only meet the minimum number mandated rather than adding even more. Also, I strongly object to the development of multi-unit housing in areas that are zoned for single- family housing. This will destroy what makes Los Gatos unique and desirable. So while the multi-unit housing in the North 40 is unfortunately ugly, cheap-looking, and does not even attempt to match the character of the homes found in Los Gatos overall, at least it is out of established neighborhoods and on the edge of town thankfully where the impact is minimized. The addition of high-density housing should be done in large city centers next to large employers and centrally located mass transit lines, such as what Google is doing in downtown San Jose and in other cities bordering high tech clusters (like Sunnyvale). Overburdening Los Gatos with more housing units will further overburden our schools and services and bring even more traffic to a town that is paralyzed during school start/end and beach traffic times and highway 17/880 which is already at gridlock during commuter hours and is the corridor for the beach towns. There is also a shortage of sports fields for our kids. It would have been great to develop at least one full-sized sports field on the North 40 but that isn't in the plan last I looked. And please do not develop more of the hillsides as again that will destroy the charm of Los Gatos. Los Gatos is an exceptional place with families and retirees who actively take part in communities, beautiful homes and yards that are well-maintained and radiate pride in ownership, and people who generously support our downtown and schools. There is a community and relaxed vibe of a bedroom community rather than an urban center. Plopping down multi-unit housing in quaint neighborhoods or adding a large number anywhere will destroy all of that. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Douglas Los Gatos, CA 95030 From: Nancy Neipp Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:26 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan Community Meeting - Thank You! - NEIPP FEEDBACK ON GENERAL PLAN Hi Jennifer Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I am very concerned about the aggressive housing goals being proposed by the Town Manager. My concerns are related to the lack of a plan to deal with several issues - - Roads/transportation/parking – as a resident of Los Gatos for nearly 40 years, I am deeply concerned by the current traffic situation. I’ve experienced many days during the summer where we can’t run errands on the weekends without getting stuck in beach traffic. What is being done to mitigate the current situation, let alone the future impact of more residents? Is there a plan for alternative forms of transportation to address the parking problem around town? - Fire danger – after being a customer of Nationwide Insurance for 20+ years, I was cancelled this year due to the extreme fire hazard around my home. I live on Harding Ave, so I am not a mountain resident. How can we add more density when we can’t safely protect the existing homes? - Schools – our schools are already at capacity. What’s the plan to accommodate more students? Our award-winning school status will diminish with over-crowded classrooms. - Property values – adding high density housing alongside SFRs will diminish the character of our neighborhoods and thus, the value of our properties. HDH should be built along transportation corridors, not in existing neighborhoods. I fail to understand the logic of nearly doubling the minimum housing requirement, especially without any plans to deal with the consequences. This has caused many in the community to question the motivation of the town. Thanks Nancy and James Neipp From: Jak Van Nada Date: October 11, 2021 at 1:39:09 PM PDT To: Jak Van Nada Subject: Conflating the Allocation of up to 3904 Housing Units in the 2040 General Plan is the Wrong Decision The LGCA has received the question below from several concerned residents about the number of houses the Town wants in the General Plan. We thought we should share our reply with you. After reading this, if you agree that the Town needs to maintain the RHNA number of 1993, please email Sandra and ask her to put you on our list of supporters. We want the Town to grow incrementally, fully knowing that we can amend the number higher if needed when the “unknowns” become “knowns”. Question: The Town has stated that 3,904 units are necessary because the RHNA allocation cycle is every 8 years and the General Plan is a 20-year planning horizon. When comparing the current RHNA allocation of 1,993 units to the Town’s proposed 3,904 units, aren’t we just talking about different time horizons? Wouldn’t it make sense to plan for the most likely total RHNA allocations over 20 years? To just plan for one 8-year cycle would seem to ensure failure over the longer 20-year timeframe. Go here to see the Executive Summary and the Detail. 11OCT 2021 Allocation up to 3904 Housing Units in the 2040 General Plan is the Wrong Decision by Jak | posted in: 2040 Draft General Plan, 2040 General Plan DEIR, Finance Commission, Financial Impact Report, Financial Impact Report, General News That Affects Us, Housing Element, latest news, Our Town | 0 Executive Summary: Why does LGCA want the town to reduce the number of housing units in the Los Gatos General Plan 2040 to 1993, per State requirements, rather than up zone to the 3,904 units the town wants? • There is no need for the housing element of our general plan to exceed the 8- year housing planning cycle as directed by the State. This portion of the plan can be updated in 8 years as demand and State requirements become known. People are leaving California and remote work is growing. Let’s digest the State-required housing demand which is already sizeable at 1993 units. Let’s grow incrementally. The General Plan can easily be amended at any time. • In fact, our population forecast justifies only 619 units, so to assume a need for almost 4K units at this juncture is fatally flawed. • And most importantly: The town proposes to rezone the entire town to dramatically increase density by 2 or 3x for all residential land uses! Los Gatos will have to up zone to accommodate building almost 4K units. And worst of all, up zoning is permanent. Once the Town up-zones, California law will not permit it to down-zone. In short, if the LG 2040 General Plan is approved as proposed, our town will be permanently rezoned for massive development. LGCA Response: The Town is legally required to adopt a 2040 General Plan that includes an internally consistent Housing Element which designates and maintains an adequate supply of land for the development of housing. It also must be sufficient to meet the Town’s 6th cycle RHNA allocation for all income levels. The 6th cycle RHNA allocation is 1,993 units as proposed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). It is possible to approach long-range planning in the manner proposed by the Town, which is to double using the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. But we believe the far superior method is to plan on an incremental approach that includes only the current RHNA allocation. Later, the General Plan can be amended at any time as more information becomes known, such as the actual 7th cycle RHNA allocation. To put the 3,904 units in perspective, ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission have forecasted that over the next 20 years the Town needs to add only 619 units based on ABAG’s 2040 population forecast of 33,050. Using the 2040 General Plan’s planned housing number of 3,904 and the current 2.4 people per housing unit, the Town’s population could increase by nearly 9,300 people to more than 42,000 residents. This is 27% higher than the ABAG’s forecast! It is the State’s view that more of the regional housing needs should be allocated to the town because the Town is a “high opportunity area”. Therefore the State established the RHNA allocation from 619 to 1993. There are no population forecasts that provide underlying support for the development of 3904 housing units. It is also important to understand that the 3,904 new units is a “manufactured” number. It is based on an assumed redevelopment rate of lots (ranging from 5% to 20%) for all residential land uses designations Town-wide (excluding the Hillside.) Because an unreasonable number of new units are being planned, the development of 3,904 units can only be accomplished by radically increasing building densities for all residential land uses Town-wide. In the Town’s proposed plan, residential land uses have been “up-zoned” to allow increases in housing densities that are two to three times the current allowable land use densities. The “cost” of adopting an aggressive growth plan is the up-zoning of 100% of the residential land use densities. That is a massive change from the current 2020 General Plan and the implications of this change cannot be fully projected. Once the Town up- zones, California law will not permit it to down-zone. It is a one-way ratchet. So, there are massive ramifications to this action. If the actual redevelopment rates turn out to be higher than the currently assumed rates, the number of new units developed could be two to three times, or even more, than the 3,904 units. There is no objective evidence to support 3,904 units over the next 20 years to be correct as opposed to 6,000 or even 9,000. The number is simply the result of a redevelopment assumption without any objective evidence to support it. And who is to say that the 7th cycle will be anything close to 6th cycle since it hasn’t been developed? Interestingly the Town’s 5th cycle was 619 and at that time the 2020 General Plan was adopted, the Town only planned for 621 new units, 2 units above the RHNA allocation. Factor in that the populations of California and Los Gatos recently declined, SB9 and SB 10 were just signed into law, VTA is financially challenged for the next 28 years; cars are switching from gas to electric; Los Gatos has increased fire risks greater than Paradise and the State is facing extraordinary water shortages. It will be very hard to predict the 7th cycle RHNA allocation, so why “assume” it will be the same as the 6th cycle? Given this, why would the Town adopt such an aggressive growth strategy in housing that is clearly unsupported by ANY data? There is no objective evidence that supports planning for 3,906 units over the next 20 years. A more prudent approach, which LGCA is promoting, is to plan only for the “knowns” and amend the General Plan when new information becomes “known”. The 2040 General Plan specifically sets forth a policy to “implement and maintain the 2040 General Plan to reflect the changing needs of the community and remain consistent with State law”. This policy supports our proposed incremental approach to make only the required changes now and then review and update the General Plan every 8 to 10 years. It’s an approach based on data rather than an assumption as to future growth. No other City in the State that LGCA can find has adopted the Town’s approach. What is so wrong with planning for 1,993 units plus a slight buffer and then amend the General Plan in eight years when the 7th cycle RHNA allocation is known? If this incremental approach is used, the Town would not be forced to up-zone 100% of the Town’s land uses. A more focused approach to land redevelopment would be sufficient to deliver the affordable housing mandated by RHNA allocation. By concentrating on only those areas that can be appropriately developed at higher densities, affordable housing can be developed as opposed to $2m condos such as the ones recently developed in the North 40. This gets to the final point, which is, who should decide between the two planning approaches? Is it 3 people on the Council or should it be the citizens of Los Gatos by a vote? Given the massive impact of up-zoning to all residential land uses (excluding the Hillside) and the shift in the Council’s message from “we like the 2020 General Plan” and we only need to “fine tune it” to a massive and radical overhaul in the Land Use Element of 2040 GP, we believe the residents should decide. It is our elected official’s responsibility to make the compelling case to all residents to adopt their planning strategy and then let the voters decide. It should not be decided by 3 people on the Council. Based on what we now know, the current planning approach is not widely supported. Hopefully this explains why the LGCA believes an incremental approach to planning for growth for the next 20 years is the appropriate strategy for the Town. Contact Sandra and join our protest of this completely unreasonable increase of our housing over the next 20 years. LOS GATOS COMMUNITY ALLIANCE www.lgca.town From: Carleen Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 3:52 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: General plan Planning committee members, As a 3rd generation Los Gatos resident, I have to say that I have witnessed a steady and very sad decline in the quality of life for the residents of our town. Those who haven't lived here for the past 50+ years probably can't understand what I'm talking about. All our beautiful orchards are gone, as is most of our open space. Housing has become very dense and with that comes serious traffic congestion. It is more dangerous than ever, traffic wise, for children going to and from school. Now there is talk of further development in the hills, endangering animal species and views. Chain stores and greedy landlords are driving small business owners and unique shops from town. All in all, the beautiful, friendly town I grew up in has been handed over to the wealthy and powerful. Had I not bought my home in the 70's, I would have been forced to leave the town I love. I fervently hope decisions about the future can be made with consideration of the environment and the welfare of those of us who already live here and not about selling off the town for millionaire estates or to the highest bidding developers. Thank you for considering what i have said. Carleen Ambrosini Schomberg From: Lisa Wade Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:46 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Specific Ask Plant - Based Education General Plan Dear Jennifer and Planning Commission, Thank you for all your hard work on the General plan. I wanted to send a quick note with our specific ask. We would like you to please consider adding a Plant-Based Education Program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element. Specifically Section 8.12 Implementation Programs. Section 8.12 Implementation Programs Plant-Based Education Implement programs to educate and support residents about the benefits of shifting to a plant- based diet, which includes improved health, curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing biodiversity loss and deforestation, reducing water usage, and reversing pollution of our air, land, and water. Thank you for your consideration! Lisa Wade From: Karyn Meadows Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:38 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comment on the plan Hello, thank you for including me in this proposal. I will review all of the documents but my immediate concern is SB9 and what that will do to single family homes. We are against any planning that will convert a single family home to a multi-family home in our neighborhood since our lots are already small, 10K or less square foot ones. If homeowners or developers are allowed to convert the homes, privacy will be completely lost. And we will have to move. Out of LG which we have lived in for over 30 years. best, Karyn Meadows From: Barbara McInerney Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:34 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan Community Meeting - Thank You! Hello Town and Planning Committee, I have spoken my concerns at the meetings but would like to submit them in writing. My concern with the 2040 plan is that the population increase has not been well thought out with respect to our safety and our schools. The EIR states that the population increase with the amounts of new housing proposed will require and increase in police, fire personnel as well as either new schools or expanding our existing schools due to the increase in students (a conservative estimate of 2,617 new students). Even thought the EIR makes this statement, I have not seen any information to address the details of fulfilling these requirements. It seems to take a "wait-and-see" approach which is not good planning. Questions I have are • Where will we put the new schools in town (especially after we add more housing). Will we have the space? • Where will we add a new fire station? • How will we hire more police and where will we find them when older police are retiring early and younger folks are choosing not to go into policing due to a lack of support. These questions should be fully addressed and answered before moving forward with any new building. Additionally the EIR considers the town as a "low crime" area, however, based on recent events I don't believe this is true anymore and it seemed like most residents on the last zoom meeting agreed. So I believe we really need to think through addressing the requirement for an increase of our police staff before we start building any more housing. Thank you, Barbara McInerney From: Phil Koen Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 11:22 AM To: Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti; jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; Sandra Livinghouse ; Joanne Benjamin Subject: Letter from Mountain View Council Members, While MV did not appeal their RHNA allocation, they did submit this thoughtful letter which outlines a number of critical issues. It is unfortunate and questionable that Los Gatos did nothing to respond to our allocation. I thought you should be aware of these points, especially given the Town’s current direction of embracing policies to add housing which is 2x the RHNA allocation. Thank you. Los Gatos Community Alliance https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 07/Mountain_View_RHNA_Comment_Letter.pdf Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 9:45 AM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211016164434] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211016164434] Name: Lon Fenchel Comments: Please leave my beautiful Town of Los Gatos with the now population. We do not need to expand with more building sites upon building sites. The State mandate is still too high. Page title: Home Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2021 1:20 PM To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov> Subject: [#20211016201930] Comment from LosGatos2040 Website Los Gatos 2040 General Plan Update Ticket: [#20211016201930] Name: Leela Hann-Soden Comments: Hi! I am a resident of Los Gatos due to give birth to a new resident in November. I would like there to be more fruit trees throughout Los Gatos to secure our supply of locally grown fresh, healthy food. Los Gatos is in growing zone 10, so it can grow a wide variety of substantial fruit, such as: avocado, cherimoya, dragonfruit, durian, jackfruit, lychee, persimmons, plums, rambutan, sapote, etc. Growers in San Jose and the broader Bay Area, have experienced success growing these fruits. By growing locally, we can provide Los Gatos citizens resilient, environmentally-friendly resources. Thank you ���� Page title: Home From: Karl Shultz Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 9:25 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Ban Kathleen Subject: General plan zoning map update. and 15810 Los Gatos Blvd. Jennifer, Regarding the above-mentioned address, APN# 523-01-001, The lot, currently in the County of Santa Clara, is adjacent to The town of Los Gatos and borders Los Gatos Blvd. & Farely Road. The county of Santa Clara has this site zoned in the OA Administrative/Professional Office district classification which is appropriate as it is on a major commercial street and surrounded by like uses located in the town of Los Gatos. In the general plan for the Town of Los Gatos, I understand that the proposed zoning for this site is residential use as it is adjacent to other existing residential uses on the side and rear property lines. With the upcoming general plan update we would like the review board to consider changing the general plan zoning classification for this site to a classification that would be more in line with the existing use and able to accommodate our proposed project which is a 2 story building that will accommodate dental office and similar office type uses. We understand that we will be required to accommodate the existing adjacent residential uses as part of the approval process for our commercial office project. Please let me know it there's any additional information that you may need from us for this consideration. Regards, Karl Shultz Shultz & Associates 39111 Paseo Padre Pkwy. Suite 309 Fremont, CA 94538 Office: 510.796.7801 Cell: 510.326.4112 From: Phil Koen Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:51 AM To: Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson Cc: Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; jvannada, Rick Van Hoesen; Robert Schultz Subject: Land Use Alternative C and 2040 GP Hello Laurel and Joel, In reviewing the 2040 General Plan supporting documents, I am having difficulty reconciling the number of new units to be added for Land Use Alternative C. On page 8 of the attached September 20, 2021 staff memo for the joint TC and Planning Commission study session, it was stated that 2,303 additional housing units, including accessory dwelling units, were the total additional units for Alternative C. I have also attached the Preferred Land Use Alternative C and the Capacity at Buildout schedules taken from the Preferred Land Use Alternative report. If you look at the footnote on the Capacity Buildout schedule, it is noted that the 2,303 includes 475 pending and approved projects. There is no mention of ADU’s, but the assumption is they are included in the 2,303 number. Can you please confirm that the 2,303 does include 475 pending units AND the 500 ADU’s. Excluding the 475 pending units, but including the 500 ADU’s, the adjusted Alternative C would be 1,828 additional units. Since the Town will not get credit for pending projects, the analysis should exclude the 475 pending units. It should also be noted that the 2,303 number does not include any units from the CBD. Those units have been identified to be 136 units. If we add the 136 CBD units to the adjusted Alternative C 1,828 units, the total number of new units would be 1,964 which is very close to the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 1,993. In summary, the current draft of 2040 GP has gone from an adjusted Alternative C of 1,964 additional new units (including ADU’s and the CBD) , to the Adopted Preferred Land Use of 2,464 additional new units, to finally 3,429 additional new units as shown in the schedule on page 9 of the Staff memo. These increases reflect the changes made in land use densities as the 2040 General Plan moved away from targeted rezoning in Opportunity Areas to Town-wide rezoning for all land uses. The impact of these changes is to increase the number of new units by 75% or 1,465 units over the adjusted Alternative C Land use. I don’t believe that the Town Council or the Planning Commission is aware of the magnitude of the increase over the adjusted Land Use Alternative C when measured on a fully comparable basis. The more troubling issue is the draft 2040 GP does not disclose how many BMP units will be developed if the Town adds 3,429 additional units (which excludes 450 pending units). To determine that number I reviewed the housing affordability section of the Alternative Land Use report. Table 5-3 (which is attached) shows a comparison of housing types per Alternative. Under Alternative C the report estimates that out of the 2,303 new units (which includes the 475 pending units) a total of 293 BMP units would be developed. Under Alternative D, the number of BMP units increases to 464 units, which is 14.6% of all new units. The analysis states that “the average percentage of BMP units would be 15%, which is the mid-point between the high and low requirements depending on project size”. If we assume 20%, which is the requirement under the Town’s BMP program, the current draft of the 2040 GP would generate only 686 BMP units. The critical assumption here is that ALL new units would be part of a development project with more than 5 units. This obviously is a max case assumption, and extremely unlikely to occur. If it were to occur, the number of additional BMP units developed would be 689 units which is only 59% of the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for BMP units. That allocation is 1,167 units out of the total 1,993 RHNA allocation. Stated another way, the 2040 GP will develop 1,465 (3,429-1,964) incremental units over the adjusted Alternative Land Use C. Of these, only 440 units will be BMP units and the remaining 1,025 units will be MP. How is this consistent with the overall goal of developing affordable housing as mandated by ABAG and the State? This plan appears to strongly favor the development of MP housing over affordable housing, something developers will certainly cheer. Can you please confirm that the assumptions regarding BMP are consistent with the supporting documents? You may want to confirm with the TC that my analysis is correct. Thank you. Phil Koen LGCA Alternative C: Medium-High Growth C Land Use Designation Redevelopment Percent Outside OA Inside OA LDR 5%10% MDR 10%10% HDR 15%15% NC 10%15% MU 10%20% Net New Acreage Net New Housing Units Net New Population 0 2,303 5,527 Density and Intensity Alternative C is a medium-high growth alternative that includes modest increases in density ranges outside Opportunity Areas and larger increases inside Opportunity Areas, particularly in High-Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, and Mixed- Use Commercial. Typical densities are assumed to vary from ƺƹɲüçɲƻƿÀþȴ°¼çþü÷ÑÀÄ8ññçôüþãÑüēôÄ°÷°ãÀƺƽüçƼƿÀþȴ°¼Ñã÷ÑÀÄ Opportunity Areas. Intensity varies from 0.5 FAR in LDR to 1.25 FAR in HDR. Redevelopment Under Alternative C, redevelopment is projected to be between ķĐÄ°ãÀƺƾñÄô¼Äãüçþü÷ÑÀÄ8ññçôüþãÑüēôÄ°÷°ãÀƺƹ°ãÀƻƹ percent inside Opportunity Areas. Capacity At build-out of this Alternative, the Town could accommodate an additional 2,303 housing units and 5,527 residents. Capacity Redevelopment Land Use Designation Existing Density (du/ac) Density Range (du/ac)Typical Density (du/ac)Intensity (FAR)Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA LDR 0 to 5 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5 MDR 5 to 12 12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75 HDR 12 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25 NC 0 to 20 0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75 MU 0 to 20 0 to 20 30 to 40 18 26 1.0 Density and Intensity Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 18 PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP Interim Planning Manager Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS STUDY SESSION AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 09/20/2021 ITEM NO: 1 DATE: September 16, 2021 TO: Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Commission FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager SUBJECT: Joint Town Council and Planning Commission Study Session regarding the Draft 2040 General Plan RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the Draft 2040 General Plan. BACKGROUND: On February 6, 2018, Town Council began the process of updating the 2020 General Plan with a discussion of the scope and process for the General Plan update. At that meeting, the Town Council indicated that the General Plan is serving the community well, and an update provides the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent Stat e laws, and consider new issues. Over the following three and a half years, the General Plan update process has included multiple community engagement opportunities, meetings with the Planning Commission and Town Council, and the following key milestones:  On April 17, 2018, the Town Council established the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC) and identified initial guiding principles to support their work.  On July 9, 2018, after approval by the Town Council, the Town Manager executed an agreement with Mintier Harnish Planning consultants for preparation of the General Plan update and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  On October 30, 2018, the GPAC held its first meeting.  On March 15, 2019, the Background Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released.  On June 20, 2019, the GPAC reviewed the Issues, Opportunities, and Constraints Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html). Page 4 PAGE 2 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 BACKGROUND (continued):  On August 20, 2019, the Town Council adopted the General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).  In December 2019, the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released.  On March 3, 2020, the GPAC started review and discussion of the initial drafts of individual elements of the General Plan.  On April 7, 2020, the Town Council approved the Preferred Land Use Alternatives Framework (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).  On May 6, 2021, the GPAC recommended approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html).  On June 18, 2021, the Draft 2040 General Plan was released for public review.  On July 31, 2021, the Draft EIR (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) was released for public review. The public comment period ended on September 13, 2021. Over the course of two and a half years and 35 meetings, the GPAC has worked with staff and the consultant to create an updated General Plan. The GPAC reviewed each General Plan Element to ensure a forward-looking document that is consistent and accessible. Each Element was considered over multiple meetings (between two and five GPAC meetings per Element) with the GPAC providing comments to staff and the consultant, and then further review and direction on the implementation of those comments in a revised draft of each Element. The Draft 2040 General Plan (Attachment 1, previously provided) is the result of this extensive work and outreach. Additional outreach activities conducted throughout the process have included social media posts, online engagement activities, newsletters, two in-person community workshops, numerous in-person and online community meetings, informational booths at the farmers market, the library, Spring into Green, and Music in the Park. DISCUSSION: The joint study session is intended for a discussion by the Town Council and Planning Commission before the formal hearings for consideration, recommendation, and final decision on the 2040 General Plan and EIR. A. GPAC Recommendation After the thorough work described above, on May 6, 2021, the GPAC recommended approval of the Draft 2040 General Plan. The discussion at this meeting also included a recommendation for some modifications to the Vision and Guiding Principles to better Page 5 PAGE 3 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): reflect the direction developed over the previous years’ work. These changes are shown in Attachment 2 and summarized here:  Revise the Vision for added clarity and add a sentence about racial, social, and environmental justice;  Delete “downtown” from the Community Vitality Guiding Principle so that it applies throughout Town;  Add a new Guiding Principle titled “Connectivity” to state the importance of connecting all facets of the Town to build a strong sense of community through building design, walkability, and safe streets;  Delete “the Town’s” from the Fiscal Stability/Responsibility Guiding Principles; and  Replace the word “Recognize” with the word “Value” in the Inclusivity Guiding Principle. B. Summary of Proposed Changes Through the General Plan update process, the GPAC has refined the goals of the update based on direction from Town Council at the start and at key points throughout the process. The initial direction from Town Council was that the 2020 General Plan was serving the Town well, and this update provides the opportunity for the Town to refine t he General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues. The work that was done to fulfill this direction and provide opportunities for the approximately 2,000 residential units that were expected to be required by Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and the need for inclusivity that came to the forefront in 2020 , lead to updates within every Element of the General Plan. The most substantial changes are: • A new Racial, Social and Environmental Justice Element; • Increased housing opportunities for mixed-use developments in commercial areas and missing middle housing in neighborhoods with design requirements; • New Community Commercial land use designation; • New Community Place Districts to provide more objective design standards and focus on community form for all development; • Shift in focus of transportation policies to street design, connectivity, and mobility for all users (bicycles, pedestrians, vehicles, etc.) to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled; • New goals in the Environment and Sustainability Element; and • Expanded policies to prepare for wildfire, climate change, and community health threats. The increased housing opportunities are provided through changes in the maximum allowed densities and heights. The increases to the maximum allowed residential density are seen in most areas, excluding the hillsides, with a focus on the commercial, mixed -use, Page 6 PAGE 4 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): and medium/high density residential designations. This coincides with the location of the Community Place Districts, where the Plan also includes new design standards. The next section discusses the housing numbers in greater detail. The following table depicts the changes in density and height for all land use designations: Density Range (du/ac) Maximum Height Land Use Designations Existing General Plan Draft General Plan Existing General Plan Draft General Plan Hillside Residential 0 to 1 0 to 1 30 25 Low Density Residential 0 to 5 1 to 12 30 30 Medium Density Residential 5 to 12 14 to 24 30 35 High Density Residential 12 to 20 30 to 40 30 45 Mixed-Use NA 30 to 40 35 45 Neighborhood Commercial NA 10 to 20 35 35 Community Commercial NA 20 to 30 35 45 Central Business District NA 20 to 30 45 45 Office Professional NA 30 to 40 35 35 Service Commercial NA 20 to 30 35 35 Light Industrial NA None 35 35 Public NA None NA 35 Open Space NA None NA 30 Agriculture NA 0 to 1 NA 30 Albright Specific Plan See Specific Plan No Change See Specific Plan No Change North Forty Specific Plan See Specific Plan No Change See Specific Plan No Change C. Housing Units As described above, the modifications included in the Draft 2040 General Plan include increases to the maximum allowed residential density in most areas, excluding the hillsides, and with a focus on the commercial, mixed-use, and medium/high density residential designations. Throughout the process there has been an understanding that the updated General Plan would need to have sufficient capacity to allow, at a minimum, the Housing Element update to provide at least 2,000 dwelling units through vacant parcels, redevelopment capacity, and new programs. While the Housing Element update is conducted in a separate process from the General Plan update, and on an 8-year cycle rather than the General Plan’s 20-year cycle, the regulations and policies in the General Plan Page 7 PAGE 5 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): need to be consistent with the changes that will be needed to complete the Housing Element to accommodate the Town’s RHNA. The Town anticipated a high RHNA number of approximately 2,000 units for the next Housing Element cycle and the Town Council approved a Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework to accommodate the RHNA for the next Housing Element cycle. The following list lays out how the housing numbers evolved through the General Plan update process:  Land Use Alternative C in the Land Use Alternatives Report (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html): 2,303 housing units including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).  GPAC Recommended Preferred Alternative: 2,464 housing units including ADUs and downtown.  Town Council adopted Preferred Land Use Alternative Framework: 2,464 housing units including ADUs and downtown.  Staff and the consultant developed an implementation of the Framework: 2,950 housing units. This approximately 400-unit increase is primarily a result of an increase in the assumed typical density for the Mixed-Use Designation (previously 26 dwelling units per acre, currently proposed 36 dwelling units per acre), and inclusion of a new Community Commercial land use designation so that Neighborhood Commercial designated shopping centers like Pollard and Harwood could remain at a lower height and density.  GPAC added 313 housing units to Office Professional and Service Commercial: 3,263 housing units.  With the 475 existing/previously approved projects included: 3,738 housing units as shown in the General Plan Buildout table in the Draft 2040 General Plan. Staff has prepared the following table to present the information from the General Plan Buildout Table (Table 3-1 in the Land Use Element of the Draft 2040 General Plan) along with comparable information from the existing 2020 General Plan. Please note that Table 3-1 in the Draft 2040 General Plan represented changes to density and did not include the Hillside Residential units on vacant land. The table below includes those units and staff will be working with the consultants to clarify this in the Draft 2040 General Plan. Page 8 PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): Land Use Designation Density Range (du/ac) Typical Density (du/ac) Assumed Redevelop- ment (Redev) Existing General Plan Draft General Plan Existing General Plan Draft General Plan Existing General Plan Draft General Plan New Housing (Vacant Land) New Housing (Redev) New Housing (Vacant Land) New Housing (Redev) Hillside Residential 0 to 1 0 to 1 1 1 0% 116 - 166 - Low Density Residential 0 to 5 1 to 12 4 12 5% 75 13 283 84 Medium Density Residential 5 to 12 14 to 24 10 20 10% 107 133 224 343 High Density Residential 12 to 20 30 to 40 18 36 15% 53 111 110 268 Neighborhood Commercial 10 to 20 10 to 20 16 18 10% 11 39 26 91 Community Commercial 0 20 to 30 0 26 15% - - 156 Mixed-Use 10 to 20 30 to 40 16 36 20% 55 242 126 605 Central Business District 10 to 20 20 to 30 16 26 15% 12 46 21 113 Office Professional 0 30 to 40 0 36 15% - 4 255 Service Commercial 0 20 to 30 0 26 15% - 10 44 Subtotal 429 584 970 1,959 Housing Units, New and Redeveloped 1,013 2,929 Housing Units, ADUs 500 500 Subtotal 1,513 3,429 Housing Units, Existing Projects 475 475 TOTAL 1,988 3,904 Page 9 PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): The State is requiring jurisdictions to plan for housing and the GPAC, Planning Commission, and Town Council have chosen to do so on our terms through Goals and Policies in the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Additionally, the Town has begun an effort to create Objective Standards to provide additional requirements for new development to address the character of the Town. Planning for these State mandates provides the Town more control than if the General Plan did not to plan for them. However, as can be seen in the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (Attachment 3), the planned housing units do not always get built. A table showing the full RHNA allocation for all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County is available as Attachment 4. Many jurisdictions have appealed their RHNA allocations. The Town did not choose to file an appeal. Appeals are nearly always unsuccessful absent unique extenuating circumstances. For example, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is on a slightly different Housing Element cycle than the Bay Area and they have already concluded their appeals process which resulted in two jurisdictions receiving reductions in their RHNA of the 47 jurisdictions that filed appeals. Appeals also often provide false hope to residents that there will be a significant reduction in their RHNA as evidenced by the SCAG appeal process. D. Public Outreach As described in the background section of this report, in addition to the 35 public meetings held by the GPAC, the General Plan update process also included extensive public outreach. Since the GPAC’s final meeting on May 6, 2021, the Town has received public comments on the Draft 2040 General Plan, which are included as Attachment 5. Many of the public comments include concerns about the potential impact of the new housing that would be allowed under the Draft 2040 General Plan. As described under Environmental Assessment Section below, the Draft EIR has been prepared and includes analysis of many of the subjects of concern mentioned in the public comments including utilities, wildfires, and transportation. COORDINATION: This report has been coordinated with the Town Manager’s Office and Town Attorney’s Office. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed the Draft 2040 General Plan as required under State law. The Draft EIR evaluated a wide range of topics as listed on the next page. Page 10 PAGE 8 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (continued):  Aesthetics;  Agriculture and Forest Resources;  Air Quality;  Biological Resources;  Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources;  Energy;  Geology and Soils;  Greenhouse Gas Emissions;  Hazards and Hazardous Materials;  Hydrology and Water Quality;  Land Use and Planning;  Noise;  Population and Housing;  Public Services and Recreation;  Transportation;  Utilities and Service Systems; and  Wildfire. The Draft EIR found that the Draft 2040 General Plan would have the potential to cause significant and unavoidable impacts with Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. For a community without high quality public transit, it is common for there to be significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. The Draft EIR does show that while these emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would increase under the proposed Plan, the focus on infill development helps reduce the per person emission and VMT. The public, government agencies, and other organizations were given 45 days to comment on the environmental document. A Final EIR is currently being prepared with responses to comments received on the Draft EIR. CONCLUSION: The GPAC recommended Draft 2040 General Plan includes changes and updates, including increases in housing capacity to meet State requirements. To ensure that this is accomplished, there are multiple factors beyond the 1,993 housing units required by RHNA. These factors include a State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) recommendation for an additional 20 to 30 percent buffer in the number of housing units. It is also a best practice that a General Plan should have capacity for multiple different methods for meeting the Town’s RHNA in recognition of the fact that HCD may not certify a Housing Element if it disagrees with the assumptions, housing sites, or programs. A certified Housing Element is essential for the Page 11 PAGE 9 OF 9 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan DATE: September 16, 2021 CONCLUSION (continued): Town to receive State infrastructure dollars. The GPAC completed its work on the Draft 2040 General Plan by listening to the community and Town Council and by identifying goals, policies, and action items to protect the special character of Los Gatos, meet emerging needs, and plan proactively for State requirements. Staff looks forward to additional public input and the Town Council and Planning Commission discussion regarding the Draft 2040 General Plan. NEXT STEPS: The next steps in the General Plan update process include:  Community Meeting via teleconference at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 6, 2021.  Planning Commission review and recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR, pending completion of the responses to the EIR comments .  Town Council consideration of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments previously provided: 1. Draft 2040 General Plan (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html) Attachments received with this report: 2. GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles 3. Housing Element Annual Progress Report 4. Santa Clara County RHNA Allocations 5. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m. on September 16, 2021 Page 12 Figure 4-1: Capacity at Buildout by Alternative Category 2018 Alternative A* Alternative B* Alternative C* Alternative D* Population 30,250 33,024 34,788 35,777 37,872 Jobs 20,650 21,930 21,930 21,930 21,930 Housing Units 13,069 14,225 14,960 15,372 16,245 Net New Housing Units -1,156 1,891 2,303 3,176 Capacity at Buildout #NVGTPCVKXGVQVCNUKPENWFGTGUKFGPVULQDUCPFJQWUKPI WPKVUCUUWOGFVQDGETGCVGFD[RGPFKPICPFCRRTQXGFRTQLGEVU Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 20 Housing Units According to DOF, Los Gatos had a total inventory of about 13,300 housing units in 2018, which represented an increase of less than 300 housing units (0.2 percent CAGR) since 2010. The four land use alternatives project DGVYGGPCDQWV #NVGTPCVKXG# CPF #NVGTPCVKXGǾ& CFFKVKQPCN housing units, with the projected growth rates ranging from 0.4 to 1.0 percent annually. The General Plan land use alternatives would produce between 1,156 and 3,175 units. Out of all four land use alternatives, only Alternative B (Medium Growth) falls within the projected demand range with 1,891 units (Figure 5-2). Housing Affordability The mix of housing units in the land use alternatives affects the overall affordability of housing. As discussed in the market demand section (page 6), multi-family units are typically more affordable than single-family units. Market rate prices and rents are currently unaffordable to many households in Los Gatos and throughout the Bay Area. The Town has established a program to require Below Market Price (BMP) units to be included in JQWUKPIRTQLGEVUYKVJOQTGVJCPƒXGWPKVUKPQTFGTVQKPETGCUGVJGUWRRN[ of affordable units in Los Gatos. The requirement for BMP units ranges from 10 percent for small housing projects and up to 20 percent for larger housing projects. The housing units must be provided at two affordable KPEQOGNGXGNU/QFGTCVG+PEQOGYJKEJKUVQRGTEGPVQHVJGOGFKCP income, and Low Income, which is 50 to 80 percent of median income. For 2019, the household income levels that meet these thresholds are shown in Table 5-2. In the land use alternatives analysis, the average household size is assumed to be 2.4 persons. At the three-person household level, the estimated allowable housing sales prices would be approximately $390,000 for those meeting the Low-Income eligibility requirements and BMP rent would be approximately $2,300 per month. At the Moderate-Income level for a three-person household, the allowable housing sales price would be approximately $500,000. For comparison, the median sales price for homes in Los Gatos this past year exceeded $1.7 million. Figure 5-2: Market Demand Projections 3,5001,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 DOF PROJECTION 0.5% GROWTH 1,529 UNITS NEEDED ADE PROJECTION 0.7% GROWTH 1,954 UNITS NEEDED ALT. A: 1,156 UNITS ALT. B: 1,891 UNITS ALT. C: 2,303 UNITS ALT. D: 3,175 UNITS UNITS Table 5-2: Income Thresholds Household Size Low-Income Limit at (80% AMI) Median-Income Limit at (100% AMI) 1 person Not eligible Not eligible 2 people $75,600 $100,150 3 people $85,050 $112,700 4 people $94,450 $125,200 5 people $102,050 $135,200 6 people $109,600 $145,250 7 people $117,150 $155,250 December 2019 23 Table 5-2 shows the number of single-family and multi-family housing units in each alternative and the estimated number of BMP units that may be provided using the Town’s BMP requirements. The land use projections for the land use alternatives are PQVFGVCKNGFGPQWIJVQMPQYRTGEKUGN[JQYOCP[RTQLGEVUQHƒXGQTOQTGWPKVUOC[DG subject to the BMP ordinance. However, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all housing units developed at a density of 16 DU/AC or greater would be in projects large enough to be subject to providing BMPs. This would include most Medium- Density Residential (MDR) units which may be either single-family or multi-family housing units, but generally not Low Density single-family housing units. Furthermore, the analysis assumes the average percentage of BMP units would be 15 percent, which is the mid-point between the high and the low requirements depending on project size. On this basis, Alternative D provides not only the highest number of BMP units but also the highest percentage of BMP units. Alternative B provides the lowest percentage, but VJGFKHHGTGPEGKUPQVNCTIGDGVYGGPVJGƒTUVVJTGGCNVGTPCVKXGUCUUJQYPKP6CDNG Table 5-3: Comparison of Housing Units Type per Alternative Residential Units Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Total 1,156 1,891 2,303 3,175 Single Family 391 328 371 550 Multi-family 765 1,563 1,932 2,625 BMP Units 149 238 293 464 Percent of Total 12.9%12.6%12.7%14.6% Jobs All four land use alternatives assume no additional jobs beyond those created within the pending and approved development projects currently in the pipeline (see Section 2). 6JG6QYPJCUUGXGTCNQVJGTNCPFWUGFGUKIPCVKQPU KG1HƒEG2TQHGUUKQPCN%GPVTCN$WUKPGUU&KUVTKEV .KIJV+PFWUVTKCN2WDNKE5GTXKEG%QOOGTEKCNGVE VJCVJCXGVJGRQVGPVKCNHQTCFFKVKQPCNGORNQ[OGPV capacity. These additional land use designations will be analyzed for additional employment as part of the Environmental Impact Report after the selection of a Preferred Land Use Alternative. Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 24 12Egat a From: karen Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 3:27 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Cc: 'Lisa Wade' <lisawade444@gmail.com> Subject: Education about Plant-Based Diets Hello Jennifer and Town Council, Thank you so much for your hard work on getting the General Plan done. I appreciate the professional way you’ve handled collaboration and input from the community! As a Los Gatos resident of 36 years and member of Plant-Based Advocates, I’d like to ask you once again to include our Plant-Based Education Program in the 2040 General Plan so we can work together to provide education about the environmental benefits of eating more plants. Specifically, we are asking for: - A dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program added to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. This could go into Section 8.12. - This program could include things like cooking classes, speaker series, a Vegfest, film screenings, etc. - Our group has already been working together for two years (funded solely by our members) to accomplish actions such as meal outreach to homeless people, cooking classes, outreach to restaurants, and more. So we already have much of the work done, and we’re ready to hit the ground running! It’s absolutely essential that the human race work together to start abating greenhouse gas emissions. According to the United Nations, if meat consumption continues on its current trajectory, we cannot limit global warming to 2°C, the level necessary to avoid the potential collapse of human society. Oxford University study published in Science says, "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987 Together, we can change the trajectory we are on and ensure a habitable planet for our children. Thank you for your leadership and consideration! Plan can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1plEi8kQh1DIjSv79RfgqeK4Bb50cUZ-qK9qY0dZj_jY/edit Best, Karen Rubio Plant-Based Advocates CFO From: Sue Shoff Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:33 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant-Based Education Implementation Program Dear Ms. Jarmer, I am a Los Gatos resident and have lived in Los Gatos for over 30 years. I am writing in support of the proposal that a dedicated Plant-Based Education Implementation Program be added to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability Element of the General Plan. Specifically, I would like such a program to be added to Section 8.12. This program could include things like cooking classes, speaker series, a Vegfest, film screenings, etc. While there are many health and environmental benefits to a plant based diet, the overriding issue is that according to the United Nations, if meat consumption continues on its current trajectory, global warming will exceed the level necessary to avoid the potential collapse of human society. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please forward this email to the town Council. Sincerely, Susan Shoff From: vacarpio Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 7:00 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Please add a dedicated plant based education to the General Plan. Dear Jennifer, I have lived in Los Gatos since 1974 and have always taken an interest in the future of our great small town. One of the most important signals of our future is climate change, which does not purport well for the kind of future I want for Los Gatos. A plant based education program added to the General Plan, specifically to Section 8.12, would promote nutrition, speakers, and classes to educate the citizenry of how to depend less on meat in our diets and more on minimal to zero methane gas sources, i.e., plants. Thank you and may I request that you cc my message to each member of the Town Council? Sincerely, Virginia Carpio From: Sutton Roley/USA Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 9:50 PM To: GP2040 Subject: 2040 General Plan Housing Elements Town Council, As a concerned citizen of the Town, I am against the 3,904 affordable units. 1,993 are more than enough as a goal. I would like to know what the definition of affordable is when a single room studio ADU in my neighborhood rents for $2,000 per month? With land and construction costs so high today, it seems very unlikely that true affordable housing ca be built and delivered in our town. SB9 should be included in the number of units. The General Plan needs to be a plan with designated geographic areas close to services and public transportation. The Plan needs to identify how utilities like water will be delivered and how our schools will accommodate additional students. Only once additional infrastructure has been completed should these units be approved. The EIR should examine traffic and air quality. This General Plan should provide for additional affordable housing units gradually and organically to maintain our small town character. That is the reason many of us choose to live here. There is so much to be accomplished, the idea of doubling our affordable housing units is irresponsible. Thank you, Sutton L. Roley Senior Director CA License 00793235 300 Santana Row, Fifth Floor San Jose, CA 95128 | USA cushmanwakefield.com From: Anne Roley Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:54 PM To: GP2040 Subject: RE: Comments on the 2040 General Plan Please include my comments regarding the 2040 general plan. Thank you, Anne Roley Los Gatos, CA 95032 12/8/2021 RE: Comments on the 2040 General Plan The discussion on whether to increase the number of homes over the state required number of 1993 homes in the 2040 General Plan is perplexing and debatable. I would like my kids as well as workers, who support our infrastructure like teachers and town staff to be able to afford to live in Los Gatos. I also wish there was more diversity. But before we start deciding to increase housing numbers - let’s talk about what affordable means and ask some developers how realistic it is to build housing that is “affordable” for people who support our infrastructure. Land is very expensive in Los Gatos, construction costs have gone up in price as well as many other living expenses. What’s the goal by increasing our housing numbers past the 1993 state required number? Is the goal to provide Affordable housing? What’s does “affordable” mean - what is realistic? You can’t find a home for under a million dollars and rents are over $2,000 a month. What do developers say about developing affordable housing in LG? What does the most affordable housing look like? Where will you put the high density housing? What is the plan? Also, many residents moved to Los Gatos for its small town character, low density, quiet neighborhoods, and safe schools. How will you take the needs of those residents into consideration when making a decision? How will you alleviate the concerns of increased traffic, crowded schools, less safety, and more stress that comes with an increase in density? Do we have the resources and infrastructure in place to accommodate housing over the 1993 homes required by the state. I feel it is irresponsible to increase the number of homes over the 1993 required by the state before we have a clear plan and answer the above questions. Warmly, Anne Roley Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Pam Bond Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 4:12 PM To: Planning Comment Subject: verbal communications - non agenda item Dear Planning Commissioners, I don't think my comment fits with the EIR review for the General Plan but it is in reference to page 6-34 of the General Plan related to artificial turf. I would like to implore you to consider moving artificial turf up in the discussion to the soonest possible time frame in the plan. A group of concerned parents have been gathering evidence which we have been sending to LGUSD district staff and board cautioning against the use of artificial turf. LGUSD staff have recommended that artificial turf be installed in three elementary school courtyards (Van Meter, Daves and Blossom Hill) as well as a kindergarten yard (at Daves elementary) - decision to be made Dec. 14. The board will also decide whether Van Meter and Daves' fields will be converted to artificial turf, a decision to be made in the Spring. The courtyards will be installed this summer and the fields will be installed over the following two summers. We first became concerned when we saw Valley Water's recommendation against the use of artificial turf ( see attached pdf). This led us to organizations who have been fighting the installation of turf all over the country. We also learned about Millbrae's recent moratorium on installations in their city until more can be learned. There are so many issues with this material and so many unknown and known human and environmental concerns that it does not seem prudent to allow unrestricted use of this material in our town, particularly with our proximity to an important waterway or two. I am particularly worried about Creekside Sports Park which has crumb rubber. Two studies, by the EPA and by CalEPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are looking into toxicity and other concerns related to crumb rubber fields. It has already been shown that one chemical found in tire crumb is responsible for massive Coho Salmon decline in Puget Sound which doesn't bode well for the salmon in Los Gatos Creek. I read the MND for Creekside from 9 or 10 years ago and it looks like it was seriously lacking in runoff mitigation and concerns about tire and plastic blades getting into the environment and the creek. I wanted to just send a message to get this on your radar if it isn't already. I would like to share more if there is an avenue to do so. We also have many expert letters and other information in a website that we cobbled together for the purposes of compiling what we've learned or what has been shared with us about artificial turf. www.questionfakegrass.org I want to share with you this article linked below that has some big news in the artificial turf debate related to the presence of PFAS chemicals in the plastic blades and a great example of industry efforts at denial. Various experts including Dr. Graham Peaslee and The Ecology Center have tested artificial turf for the presence of PFAS chemicals using a testing method that has not been employed by the turf industry or its experts (like Dr. Green highlighted in the article for her false reporting and lies). The PFAS experts have found PFAS but the industry denied its presence, then admitted recently to a PFAS chemical called PVDF which they asserted to be inert. This article describes much more but reveals that Kristen Mello discovered a research paper wherein PVDF was shown to break apart in sunlight from its inert form into PFAS chemicals that are available to the environment and can wash off into our water supply. https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-linked-consultant-undercuts-agencys-pfas-concerns/ This alone should be a huge cause for concern. We have video testimony from Dr. Peaslee, Dr. Bennett and Kristen Mello on our website. There is so much I could share but what I'd like to mention is that UCSF's Pediatric Children's Health Department echoes concerns of Mt. Sinai Children's Environmental Health in saying that they do not recommend the use of artificial turf and they cannot say that it is safe, particularly for schools and children. The long term health effects are unknown and testing of the materials is imperfect. A recent report shows that there there is huge cause for concern related to the use of plastic. "There are thousands more chemicals in plastic than we thought" (link ot research paper in this article) https://www.fastcompany.com/90649480/there-are-thousands-more-toxic-chemicals-in-plastic-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 From: Defeo Home Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 12:02 PM To: Maria Ristow Subject: Town General Plan Hi Maria! I hope this message finds you well! First, thanks for your careful consideration regarding the 17200 Los Robles Way lot line discussion. Although it didn’t go the way we were hoping, I was impressed by the seriousness and attention which you and your colleagues took in making your decision, thanks! I am sending you a message today regarding the 2040 Town General Plan. I was not able to attend yesterday’s zoom call regarding the plan so I thought I would send you my thoughts here (feel free to share it with others collecting feedback on the plan). I (and my family) support the draft plan. Generally we are pleased with some of the aggressive growth targets specifically addressing the ‘missing middle housing’, and the increased emphasis on non-auto related mobility in town, as well as the racial equity components of the plan. We would love to see an even greater emphasis on affordable housing and racial equity but this is a great step in the right direction. Feel free to contact me in case you would like to discuss further. Good luck in your efforts to drive the adoption of the plan! Respectfully, The de Feo family (Gianfranco, Eileen, Arianna and Francesco) From: William Walker Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:32 PM To: GP2040 Subject: General Plan Feedback I strongly disagree with section MOB11 in the draft general plan. Instead, the town should insist that the state increase the capacity of SR17 at least to Bear Creek Road. This is required for both safety and quality of life. Cut-thru traffic and gridlock will only increase unless this is done. Nobody takes public transportation to the beach on Sunday. The town government is tone-deaf if they don’t understand how frustrated residents are with cut-thru induced gridlock. It is already a crisis, and will only get worse as the population increases. SR17 near the Cats is a disaster waiting to happen. A strong earthquake or a heavy winter storm could bring down the hillside killing motorists and isolating residents living above the town. Currently, chain link fences are holding back the hillside! In addition, the Town should insist that the state rebuild the route 9 to SR 17 intersection to address both capacity issues and safety of pedestrians and bicycles. A flyover overpass isolating pedestrians and bicycles from cars would be ideal. My wife and I have almost been struck by cars more than once while attempting to walk across the overpass because cars exiting the freeway apparently don’t realize that pedestrians have the right-of-way. In one case, we counted ten cars that refused to yield the right-of-way to us before we finally found a gap large enough for us to scramble across. The town should not have to pay for any of this. Make Sacramento pay, it’s their obsolete infrastucture! William Walker From: Terry Rinehart Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:42 PM To: Council Subject: General Plan I am against the General Plan doubling the number of homes to be built in LG. I think we should definitely stick to the number of 1993. I would also like to see the requirement of all new homes/duplexes/ADU’s to provide off street parking. If my neighbor decides to put 2 duplexes and 2 ADU’s on their property that could be 12 or more cars parked on the street and 12 or more trash cans that need to be put on the street. The duplexes should also be limited to 2 stories. I really hope that the town adopts a zoning area for these additional dwellings and not be mixed into the single family home areas. How about taking that huge lot on the corner of LG Blvd and LG Almaden Rd and build a high rise condo? It is close to transit and across from a grocery store. I know you have to find a buyer and builder, but can the town look into that? Thank you for your time, TL Rinehart From: William Walker Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 1:45 PM To: GP2040 Subject: General Plan Feedback I strongly disagree with section CD9.2. Reducing lanes and speed limits on Los Gatos Blvd. will reduce its capacity, consequently pushing traffic onto neighboring residential streets. I know this is already a problem as I have to admit that when I am in a hurry, I often take shortcuts through residential neighborhoods to get to my destination faster. Shame on me, but shame on LG for making LGB slower. A basic principle of main arterial roads design is they must be faster than secondary roads. CD9.2 contradicts this principle. Instead of reducing capacity of Los Gatos Blvd, the plan should increase capacity by, for example, eliminating unnecessary traffic lights such as the ill-advised one at the Trader Joes strip mall. In addition, eliminating street parking will improve flow and make LGB safer for bicycles. Currently, even with the recent improvements, LGB is not safe for bicycles — too many curb cut access points with bicycles hidden from view by parallel parked cars. From: William Walker Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:23 PM To: GP2040 Subject: General Plan Feedbavck Section MOB-9.5 is self-contradictory. Keeping traffic on SR 85 and SR 17 requires increasing capacity. My wife and I live in the Alta Vista neighborhood between Blossom Hill Rd. (BHR) and Los Gatos- Almaden Rd. (LGAR). Before SR 85 opened, both BHR and LGAR were grid-locked during rush hour. The day SR 85 opened, in spite of inadequate capacity from day 1, we felt like we could breathe again. We could actually access BHR during rush hour. Fast forward 25 years later, and BHR is beginning to look the way it did before SR 85 opened. The lack of capacity on SR-85 has caught up with population growth. When I need to get to South San Jose, I used to take SR 85 at all hours, now I need to take BHR or LGAR during rush hour. The solution is to add more capacity to SR-85. This will reduce LG cut-thru traffic, which improves the quality of life for our residents. The general plan should insist that the state increase capacity on both SR-85 and SR-17. From: William Walker Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:35 PM To: GP2040 Subject: General Plan Feedback - Mobility I couldn’t find any section addressing a fundamental error in the design of SR-85 access to Los Gatos, namely, the lack of on/off ramps from SR-85 south to Winchester Blvd. The result is gridlock on Lark Avenue. Netflix campus expansion and the north 40 build-out make this problem worse. The town should insist that the state correct the SR-85/Winchester access deficiency. It would greatly improve the quality of life for our residents by reducing gridlock on our streets. From: Pam Bond Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 8:43 PM To: GP2040 Subject: Draft EIR/green space input for General Plan To whom it may concern, I would like to highly recommend that the Town become a partner with the school districts to support school fields remaining green space for community sports use as well as for the school day uses. LGUSD is poised to convert 2 2-acre fields on elementary campuses to artificial turf (decision this Spring 2022) siting maintenance as one concern. Why can't the Town assist with maintenance since these fields are used the hardest by community sports teams? Support the community and keep this town green. Artificial turf off-gases methane and ethylene and creates heat islands. There are viable drought tolerant options for sports fields. The Sports Turf Managers Association is just one national organization with information on how to achieve sustainable grass fields. These fields have the potential to afford green space for students who are and will be coming from high density housing as Los Gatos Blvd area and other lands get built up. The school fields may be their only green space 160 days a year. This is an equity issue as well as an environmental health and justice issue. Sincerely, Pam Bond Louise Van Meter parent Garden program lead Green team member Girl Scout leader www.questionfakegrass.org From: Sylvie Hurat Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:43 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Support for Inclusive General Plan I support the creation of an inclusive General Plan focused on creating affordability, by increasing density, height, and mixed used developments. Keep on the good work and thank you for your service. -- Sylvie Hurat From: Jan Schwartz Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:46 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Housing Dear Town Council and Planning Commission, We need to make sure that Los Gatos offers affordable housing to create an inclusive community and make sure that the people who work here can afford to live here. I support efforts to get us close to meeting the state-wide housing requirements. Thank you, Jan Schwartz From: Joy Tani Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:47 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Housing Please, please, please, create an inclusive General Plan Focus on creating affordability Achieve this through greater density and below market rate housing SB9 does not address affordability- the Town Council should work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9 Fourplexes and mixed-used develops fit within the character of our Town Thank you, Joy From: Karla Albright Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:48 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Housing Dear wonderful council members, Thank you for your work supporting LG. I am writing in regards to the General plan and hope that we create an inclusive general plan which means increasing a broad range of housing types aimed at different people, single people, elderly, low income, multi generational etc. It is critical that we focus on affordability. Which means that we need greater density, higher height restrictions, less space saved for parking, more intra LG mass transit, connection with light rail. We need more mixed use plus duplexes, four-plexes, apartments I hope the Town Council will work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9. Best, Karla Albright From: Stephanie Brown Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:48 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Housing in Los Gatos - General Plan, Affordability Dear Town Council and Planning Commision: I request that Los Gatos: Create an inclusive General Plan Focus on creating affordability Achieve this through greater density and below market rate housing Also, SB9 does not address affordability - the Town Council should work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9. Fourplexes and mixed-used developments fit within the character of our Town. We want them. We need to provide housing for all the people who want to work and teach and police and fight fires here. My regards, Stephanie Brown From: Shannon Edwards Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:51 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Create an inclusive General Plan- housing matters! Dear Town Council members and Planning commission, Thank you for your service! I am writing tonight to let you know that it will be important for you to focus on creating affordable housing for Los Gatos. We can do this through greater density and below market rate housing. SB9 does not address affordability- the Town Council should work intentionally to create affordability while also implementing SB9. Fourplexes and mixed-used developments fit within the character of the Town of Los Gatos. $2,459 per month as an average rental cost is out of range for the working class who will be working in the town. Many thanks, Shannon Edwards, Los Gatos From: Bernadette Frager Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:54 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: Affordable Housing Dear All, I am writing to you after having been brought up to date on affordable housing requirements. I am aware the town of Los Gatos is quite behind in housing. I am in support of looking for solutions for housing as it raises the value of our community for everyone. I’m also hoping we can add some urgency to getting housing projects going that will improve our percentage of compliance in the different housing categories. SB9 does not address affordability. Part of the issue must include community engagement so that we can address the common NIMBY issues (Not In My Back Yard). And please, don’t only consider that areas of Los Gatos that are outside of the LGSD. There’s a tendency to keep low income housing away from Los Gatos school district. Thank you for all you do and the many challenges you have before you, Bernadette Bernadette Frager We spend precious hours fearing the inevitable. It would be wise to use that time adoring our families, cherishing our friends, and living our lives. —MAYA ANGELOU From: Rob Moore Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:57 PM To: Council Cc: Planning Subject: Housing Affordability Hello Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Staff, I hope you are all well and had some much-deserved R&R over the holidays. I am writing to you after having a great discussion with dozens of Los Gatans on housing in town. We discussed housing affordability, increasing density, and how excited we are for the future of the Town. While you all know my opinion on this, I want to emphasize how important I feel it is to create a General Plan that builds more housing and, additionally, incentivizes the construction of more Affordable housing. State laws like SB9 will continue heavy-handedly building housing that is not ideal for our town. The only way to keep the state from passing more SB9 type laws is to actually build the housing mandated from ABAG via RHNA. I live in a lovely fourplex on Carlton Avenue, right behind Trader Joe's. I am so very excited for more housing like this. My partner, Kylie Clark, and I will be hosting a "missing middle housing tour" of our fourplex and our neighborhood. This sort of housing allows for the creation of a beautiful little community. Thank you all for everything you do. In solidarity, Rob Moore (Town resident, not writing in any official capacity) From: rude tina Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 8:51 PM To: Council Subject: housing Dear LG Town Council and Planning Department: I am in favor of increasing affordable housing in our town. In order to convert our traditional single house neighborhoods, my suggestion is to allow/promote ADU, and then duplexes first, as people become accustomed to more "infill". Thank you, Christina Rude From: Rob Stump Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:41 PM To: GP2040 Subject: General Plan Considerations In and Around the Wildland Urban Interface 2040 General Plan Team, As the General Plan moves toward finalization, the Town Staff in particular cannot lose sight of the threat that Wildfire poses to the Town of Los Gatos. In one Wildfire study, the Town of Los Gatos was rated a higher threat for wildfire prior to the Camp Fire that destroyed the community of Paradise resulting in 89 deaths and billions of dollars in economic losses. The Town of Los Gatos is not exempt from the threat of wildfire so those working on the General Plan need to take this into account. Here is the link for "The Republic" study/article: https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona- wildfires/2019/07/22/wildfire-risks-more-than-500-spots-have-greater-hazard-than-paradise/1434502001/ The top strategic priority for the Town of Los Gatos is Public Safety. So, in the fall of 2020, the Town Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee to make specific recommendations to the Town Council to expedite our efforts surrounding preparation and prevention of wildfire. The Ad Hoc Committee members were: • Mayor Marcia Jensen • Vice Mayor Barbara Spector • Assistant Town Manager Arn Andrews • Director of Parks and Public Works Matt Morley • Assistant Santa Clara County Fire Chief Brian Glass • Resident member Rob Stump (Served as Chair) • Resident member Brad Gordon This Committee determined, the top priority for our work was to focus on saving lives. As a result, the top two priorities were emergency communication and evacuation. The final report is attached for your reference. From an emergency communications standpoint, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended installation of a siren system (more likely a Long Range Acoustical speaker system including sirens). This system will include installations throughout the WUI and surrounding areas. The goal of this system is to offer one more layer of emergency communication that can provide clear direction, not rely on the cellular network and SAVE lives. From an evacuation standpoint, the Town of Los Gatos has two major challenges. First, many streets that provide ingress/egress into the WUI, not including roadways within the WUI, do not meet California Vehicle Code or State Fire Code for street width. Streets are required to be 36 feet wide to accommodate parking on both sides of a street, and at least 28 feet wide to accommodate parking on one-side of the street. So any street that is less than 28 feet should not have on-street parking period! Anyone familiar with the roadways throughout the foothills of Los Gatos knows that we have many substandard streets from the standpoint of width. Proper street width/clearance in an emergency will save lives. The second evacuation issue is seasonal traffic impacts due to beach traffic. And as we have seen, this problem is not easily solved. What do the General Planners need to keep in mind regarding our General Plan? 1. Los Gatos is under serious threat of wildfire. Similar to the Tunnel Fire in the Oakland Hills in 1991 that resulted in the loss of over 3,000 homes in less than 48 hours, the Town of Los Gatos has eerie comparisons. We have just over 3,000 homes in the WUI with about the same amount of square mileage as the Oakland Hills. We live under the threat of wildfire from April thru December and our WUI has never had the massive amount of vegetation and forest in our history as a Town as it does today. 2. Before allowing additional development in the WUI or even outside of the WUI where residential streets are critical to evacuation, the Town needs to ensure our streets meet California Vehicle and State Fire Codes street width standards. To allow additional development along key evacuation routes out of the WUI would be irresponsible. The Town cannot overlook these requirements and still claim that Public Safety/Fire Protection is a top strategic priority. Serious wildfire mitigation measures, specifically those measures recommended by the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee need to be incorporated into the Town's General Plan in specific and tangible ways. We need to ensure our community is as safe as possible from the threat of wildfire. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Rob Stump PREPARED BY: Arn Andrews Assistant Town Manager Reviewed by: Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Director of Parks and Public Works 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 12/01/2020 ITEM NO: 11 DATE: November 20, 2020 TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager SUBJECT: Accept the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report and Direct Staff to Return to Council in One Year with an Action Item Progress Update RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report and direct staff to return to Council in one year with an action item progress report. BACKGROUND: On October 6, 2020, the Town Council approved the creation of a Town Council Ad Hoc Committee to study wildfire mitigation in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The Council confirmed that the Committee should study a broad variety of wildfire mitigation policy and project options to improve the Town’s wildfire resiliency and return to Council with a report of their findings. The Committee examined best practices of similar WUI communities, lessons learned from recent fires, and other relevant areas of wildfire science. The Committee was directed to complete the report in time for Council consideration on December 1, 2020 to align with the annual Strategic Priority and budget development process. The Committee was comprised of the following members: • Mayor Marcia Jensen • Vice Mayor Barbara Spector • Assistant Town Manager Arn Andrews • Director of Parks and Public Works Matt Morley • Assistant Santa Clara County Fire Chief Brian Glass • Resident member Rob Stump • Resident member Brad Gordon PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report DATE: November 19, 2020 BACKGROUND (Continued): The Ad Hoc Committee met on October 21, 2020, October 29, 2020, November 9, 2020, and November 16, 2020. The elements and findings of the report are described in the Discussion section below. DISCUSSION: The Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report (Attachment 1) is the culmination of peer reviewed best practices, lessons learned from recent statewide fires, mitigation characteristics unique to Los Gatos, and significant input from the Santa Clara County Assistant Fire Chief. The Committee Report is structured around five primary strategic goals accompanied by relevant action items. The identified goals in the report appear sequentially in their order of initial priority focus. Goal sequencing is not intended to reflect attainment of one goal prior to initiating another but rather a function of prioritizing protection of life followed by property and the environment. It should be noted that goals and many action items are anticipated to often be addressed concurrently. Following are the identified goals of the Committee: • Emergency Communication • Emergency Evacuation • Roadside Fuel Reduction • Open Space and Residential Land Management • Emergency Partnerships In addition to the sequencing of goals, action items have been individually ranked into either Priority 1 (within 2 years) or Priority 2 (within 3 to 5 years). The priority ranking of action items is a byproduct of establishing reasonable and attainable actions as opposed to signifying certain action items are less important then others. The report also establishes quantifiable metrics for each goal to measure progress of goal/action item attainment. And lastly, the report identifies additional action items for consideration which include potential for legislative engagement and potential mitigation funding strategies. CONCLUSION: The Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report establishes a roadmap for concrete action items that mitigate the risks associated with wildfire in the WUI and the community consequences associated with those risks. PAGE 3 OF 3 SUBJECT: Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report DATE: November 19, 2020 COORDINATION: This staff report was coordinated with the Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Director of Parks and Public Works. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact with acceptance of report ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. Attachment: 1. Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 Town of Los Gatos Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Report December 1, 2020 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared by Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee Coordinated with Santa Clara County Fire Department ATTACHMENT 1 2 Table of Contents Topic Page Title Page 1 Table of Contents 2 Committee Introduction and Goals 3 Key Terms 3 Los Gatos Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 4 Emergency Communication 6 Emergency Evacuation 7 Roadside Fuel Reduction 8 Open Space and Residential Land Management 10 Emergency Partnerships 12 Additional Action Items 14 Appendices - Maps 15 Los Gatos CERT Geographic Designations 16 Almond Grove/Downtown CERT 17 Civic Center CERT 18 Vista Del Monte CERT 19 Kennedy North CERT 20 Kennedy East CERT 21 Blossom Hill/Shannon CERT 22 Santa Rosa/Hicks CERT 23 Mid Pen El Sereno/St Joseph’s Hill Properties 24 Mid Pen Sierra Azul Properties 25 Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones 26 3 Committee Introduction and Goals Los Gatos is listed as a Community at Risk from wildfires on the Federal and the California Fire Alliance list of Communities at Risk in Santa Clara County. Wildfires occur in the vicinity of Los Gatos and present a significant danger to people and property within the Town. The Town of Los Gatos considers wildfire mitigation to be a top tier priority for the safety of its citizens and an economic imperative. Recognizing this significant risk, the Los Gatos Town Council convened an Ad Hoc Wildfire Committee to study a broad variety of wildfire mitigation policy and project options to improve the Town’s wildfire resiliency. The Committee consisted of Mayor Marcia Jensen, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Assistant Fire Chief Brian Glass, Community Member Rob Stump, Community Member Brad Gordon, Assistant Town Manager Arn Andrews, and Parks and Public Works Director Matt Morley. Mr. Stump chaired the Committee. The Committee’s goal was to identify a variety of mitigation strategies that could be implemented within the next two years and three to five-year timeframes, and collectively identify strategies that may assist in reducing wildfire risk while improving community preparedness in response to wildfire. The Committee examined best practices of similar communities within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), lessons learned from recent fires, and other relevant areas of wildfire science. The following report identifies areas for emphasis of future Council wildfire mitigation efforts. This report describes the Los Gatos WUI and then identifies specific mitigation topics. For each topic, goals, action items, and metrics are identified. Key Terms Defensible Space An area around the perimeter of structures in which vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels are treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the rate and intensity of potentially approaching wildfire or fire escaping from structures. Hillside Collector Streets A low-to-moderate-capacity road which serves to move traffic from local streets to arterial roads. Unlike arterials, collector streets are designed to provide access to residential properties. Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) A concept of the home ignition zone was developed by a retired USDA Forest Service fire scientist in the late 1990s, following some breakthrough experimental research into how homes ignite due to the effects of radiant heat. The HIZ is divided into three zones; immediate (0 to 5 feet), intermediate zone (5 to 30 feet), extended zone (30 to 100 feet). 4 Temporary Refuge Areas (TRAs) Pre-identified area(s) where firefighters and members of the public can immediately take refuge for temporary shelter and short-term relief in the event that access to an established safety zone is compromised. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) State law requires that all local jurisdictions identify Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within their jurisdictions. Inclusion within these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity. Wildland Fire Specialist Conducts inspections for residents living in the high fire hazard areas, providing information, advice, and assistance to property owners. Initiates defensible space surveys and develops and maintains a positive and productive dialog with the community. Identifies and coordinates hazard abatement projects to mitigate the effects of wildfire within the District. Los Gatos Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area is best described as an area that transitions from a natural condition (wildland) to a developed area (urban). Homes and other development in the WUI are at risk of catastrophic wildfire due to the presence of vegetation that could fuel a wildfire. The WUI creates an environment in which fire can move readily between structural and vegetative fuels, increasing the potential for wildland fire ignitions and the corresponding potential loss of life and property. The Los Gatos WUI planning area includes primarily Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas on the southern side of Los Gatos. The areas shaded in red in Figure 1 illustrate the extent of WUI lands within the Town. Approximately a quarter of the Town’s total residences are located within the WUI. Of an estimated 2018 Town total of 13,299 residences, the WUI contains approximately 3,091. In addition, at an estimated 2.2 residents per household the WUI is home to approximately 6,800 residents among a Town total of 30,250. The majority of the northern perimeter of the WUI tends be flatter terrain with higher concentrations of residences. To illustrate this residential concentration, 1,784 of the 3,091 residences in the WUI are located within a quarter mile of the northern boundary. Town currently utilizes preestablished areas for the maintenance and execution of its Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program. The CERT maps contained in the Appendix also provide a detailed mapping of the Town WUI area, as well as routes of ingress/egress within CERT boundaries. 5 Figure 1 6 Emergency Communication In the event of an emergency, it is an inherent responsibility of local government organizations to keep the public informed about natural, human-caused, and technological disasters. Studies show that people rarely act on a single warning message alone. To be effective, warnings should be delivered in various formats across multiple media platforms. The use of multiple platforms helps to increase the reliability of warning delivery, while also providing a sense of corroboration that will encourage recipients to take protective actions. In addition, many emergency subscription platforms are opt-in systems which leave non-adopters out of the information loop. In Los Gatos approximately only 23% of residents (6,942) have opted into the cell notification systems of Alert SCC and Nixle. As illustrated below many notification systems are dependent on functioning internet and cell service. As evidenced by conditions created by recent fires, neither cell service nor internet service may be relied upon during large scale events, particularly when such an event coincides with a planned Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS). GOAL: All residents should receive emergency communications in a timely manner. ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME Maximize the use of Nixle/AlertSCC and ensure that existing communication systems are fully utilized. Priority 1 – within 2 years 7 Emergency Evacuation The majority of the Town’s WUI neighborhoods are served by Hillside Collector Streets which serve properties located in hillside areas, carrying traffic to arterial streets and additional neighborhood collectors. Many of these roadways are designed as one-way routes. During emergency events, both emergency responders and evacuees will be attempting to use the same roadways, thereby hindering access for both groups. Due to the critical importance of providing ingress for emergency vehicles and equipment to the fire area while simultaneously allowing egress to residents attempting to evacuate, the Town will evaluate the existing width, grade, and turning radius on these critical routes in order to improve access. GOAL: To the greatest extent feasible, create and maintain conditions necessary for efficient and effective evacuations. Increase resident adoption of Town social media platforms and SCCFD Twitter feed Priority 1 – within 2 years Explore additional non-cell/internet reliant emergency communication systems e.g. siren system. Priority 1 – within 2 years Increase SCCFD Ready, Set, Go Programs in Town Priority 1 – within 2 years Explore adding electronic message boards in front of fire stations and possibly police station Priority 1 – within 2 years METRICS • Percentage of residents opting into Alert SCC and Nixle • Percentage of residents signing up for Town/SCCFD social media platforms • Number of Alert SCC/Nixle promotions per year • Percentage of residents with secondary means of receiving communications • Number of residents receiving Ready, Set, Go trainings in Town per year ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME Identify and explore the development of roadside and other Temporary Refuge Areas (TRAs) throughout the WUI. Priority 1 – within 2 years 8 Roadside Fuel Reduction Generally, roads are maintained to serve the transportation needs of the public; however, because roadsides are frequently the site of ignition for wildfires and evacuees may need to use the roadways to leave the area even if the vegetation on both sides of the road is on fire. Routes may also be blocked due to consequences associated with an incident including; fallen trees, spot fires, smoke, intense heat, long flame lengths, downed power lines, or vehicle accidents. The following map illustrates 31.09 miles of roadways of highest concern (colored red) for vegetation management. Assess and address evacuation feeder routes leading out of the WUI throughout Los Gatos. Examine elimination of on-street parking where appropriate Priority 1 – within 2 years Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Implement reflective home address signage throughout the WUI. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Study/identify and develop alternate evacuation routes throughout the WUI. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Identify potential road widening, turnout projects throughout the WUI. Develop a multi-year project to implement needed improvements. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Develop plan to practice annually simulated evacuations in WUI neighborhoods. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Leverage SCCFD Zone Haven GIS platform for the planning/implementation of evacuations. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years METRICS • TRAs developed within each of the 7 CERT zones in the WUI • Percentage of WUI roadways with 20 ft of clear width • Percentage of identified WUI roadway improvement projects completed • Number of reflective home signs deployed per year • Number of residents participating in simulated evacuations per year 9 Figure 2 10 GOAL: Vegetation along primary hillside roadways should be maintained to achieve a clearance of 20 feet horizontally and 13 feet six inches vertically above roadways, as well as clearance of non-fire-resistant vegetation within 10 feet of the roads. Open Space and Residential Land Management California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4291 mandates 100 feet of defensible space around structures in high fire severity zones, within which vegetation, debris, and other types of combustible fuels are treated, cleared, or reduced to slow the rate and intensity of potentially approaching wildfire or fire escaping from structures. The creation of reasonable and adequate Defensible Space focuses on measures to modify and break up hazards created by continuity of available fire fuels, both horizontal (across the ground) and vertical (from the ground up into the crowns of brush and trees). Fuels that exhibit a large degree of both vertical and horizontal continuity are the most hazardous; in particular, when they are on slopes. Thus, mitigation of these fuel sources through clearing and treatment, while simultaneously addressing environmental concerns such as protection of native habitats and the potential for erosion, is ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME Complete current 11-mile Fuel Reduction project by February 28, 2021. Priority 1 – within 2 years Develop a plan to ensure that the 31.09 miles of highest roadway concern identified in Exhibit 2 achieve a 6-year management cycle (5 miles per year). Priority 1 – within 2 years Identify/map all private roadways in the WUI. Priority 1 – within 2 years Work with residents to educate and implement vegetation management practices for these private properties. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years METRICS • Number of miles of new vegetation management performed per year • Number of continuous miles of vegetation management maintenance per year • Percentage of private roadways mapped • Percentage of private roadway residents contacted per year • Percentage of private roadway residents implementing vegetation management 11 particularly important. In addition to the Defensible Space requirements around structures in the WUI, the Town and other public/private agencies are stewards of large open spaces and undeveloped parkland. GOAL: Ensure that all public and private property owners are maintaining the mandated defensible spaces. ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME Conduct annual defensible space inspections and enforce compliance with state and local fire codes. • Develop strong neighborhood relationships to educate all property owners of their defensible space obligation. • Partner on a pilot Wildland Fire Specialist program to develop relationships with VHFHZ homeowners and drive compliance through education and inspection. • Educate residents about Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) inspection program. • Explore region partnership with SCCFD fuels crews (once developed) and defensible space inspectors. Priority 1 – within 2 years Priority 1 – within 2 years Priority 1 – within 2 years Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Explore SCCFD performing defensible space citation function. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Develop private driveway fuel reduction initiative Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Develop Eucalyptus eradication plan for Town property within the WUI. Priority 1 – within 2 years Develop incentive program (cost share) for residential Eucalyptus removal possibly utilizing tree replacement fund. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Develop policy for prohibition of highly flammable plants for new construction within the WUI. Priority 1 – within 2 years Develop Community chipping program Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years 12 Emergency Partnerships The nature of wildfire spread requires a regional approach to wildfire mitigation. A partial list of governmental and private entities with vegetation management responsibilities appears below. Additional regional partners which provide educational and other assistance in creating community resilience to wildfire are also listed. Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD): Santa Clara County Fire Department is an all-risk fire department and provides fire suppression inclusive of structure and vegetation/wildland fire mitigation, technical rescue operations, emergency medical services (EMS), hazardous materials (HazMat) mitigation, fire prevention, community education and risk reduction services (CERRS), disaster preparedness, community emergency preparedness and service responses. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E): PG&E provides electricity to the Town of Los Gatos, and controls rights-of-way necessary to maintain overhead transmission and distribution lines, many of which run through the WUI areas. The Town collaborates with PG&E to treat vegetation in the WUI along PG&E’s electric transmission line right-of-way to increase power reliability and reduce ignition potential and resulting wildland fire hazard. Santa Clara County Firesafe Council: The Town of Los Gatos supports and collaborates with the Santa Clara Firesafe Council. The Firesafe Council is a non-profit organization that provides resources to coordinate public and private landowners in Santa Clara County to reduce the threat of wildfire. Santa Clara County Parks: Periodically, the Parks Department makes use of prescribed burns to manage non-native vegetation, reduce fuel loading, promote METRICS • Number of residential contacts performed by WFS per year • Number of residential defensible space inspections coordinated by WFS per year • Percentage of vegetation on Town owned Open Space maintained • Percentage of WUI residents participating in HIZ trainings per year • Number of SCCFD fuel crews (once developed) deployed in LG per year • Number of SCCFD defensible space inspections conducted in LG per year • Number of private driveways implementing vegetation management per year • Number of Town Eucalyptus trees removed per year • Number of residential eucalyptus trees removed per year • Dollar amount of residential eucalyptus grants per year • Number of tons community chipping removed per year 13 biodiversity and native vegetation. The Department also provides training in conducting managed burns and in wildfire fighting techniques and principles. West Valley Cities: The West Valley cities of Monte Sereno and Saratoga share with Los Gatos a large number of Very High Fire Severity Zones within their borders (see appendices). Because wildfire extends across community borders, an incident in one jurisdiction can be expected to spread to neighboring jurisdictions. Communication between West Valley cities and coordination of wildfire prevention strategies is therefore critical to the prevention of wildfire. Mid-Peninsula Open Space District (Midpen): Midpen is an independent Special District that manages 26 Open Space Preserves, containing nearly 65,000 acres of public land. In Los Gatos, Midpen manages and maintains significant land holdings along the Town’s southern border (see Appendix). Wildland fire prevention, preparedness, and response are all critical components of Midpen’s ongoing land stewardship which is largely accomplished through the management of vegetation within its preserves in order to reduce the risk and severity of wildfire, with a focus on ecological health and wildland fire resilience. County Roads, Valley Water, and CalTrans: These regional governmental partners each have properties and rights-of-way within and/or adjacent to the Town of Los Gatos. These agencies must meet a shared specification for roadside fuel reduction and support safety in general. San Jose Water Company (SJW): San Jose Water is an investor-owned public utility, and is one of the largest urban water systems in the United States, serving over 1 million people in the greater San Jose metropolitan area. It maintains critical infrastructure in Town essential to fire suppression and manages watershed lands near Los Gatos. GOAL: Ensure all regional partners are implementing consistent land management practices to reduce wildfire risk on their properties and right-of ways. ACTION ITEMS PRIORITY TIMEFRAME Work with neighboring cities of Monte Sereno and Saratoga to coordinate mitigation efforts and jointly advocate for the continuation and increased vegetation management among Town partners. Priority 1 – within 2 years Ensure timely communications between the Town and these entities regarding activities that may affect another partner’s land management. Priority 1 – within 2 years 14 Additional Action Items Explore regional projects outlined in CWPP for possible grant funding. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years METRICS • Number of coordination meetings per year • $ amount of grants issued/received • Number of veg mgt miles performed by partner organizations per year ACTION ITEMS Priority Timeframe Homeowners Insurance Availability • Advocate for legislative efforts toward the continuation of homeowner’s insurance in the WUI. • Pursue Firewise Community status for WUI hillside neighborhoods to satisfy homeowners Insurance requirements. Priority 1 – within 2 years Priority 1 – within 2 years Address areas within the hillside that do not have public fire hydrant systems. Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Explore additional funding sources • Parcel Tax • Assessment Districts Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years Priority 2 – within 3 to 5 years 15 APPENDICES 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-wildfires/2019/07/22/wildfire-risks-more-than-500-spots-have-greater-hazard-than- paradise/1434502001/ From: Michelle Waters Art Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 5:27 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant-based education program Dear Ms. Armer, I'm a resident of Los Gatos, and am writing to ask the town to add a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the town's General Plan. I think it's quite important for the public to understand the great environmental benefits of foregoing meat, dairy and eggs in favor of a plant-based diet, as much as possible. Animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the number one user of freshwater in California, with 47% of freshwater in the state used by the meat, dairy and egg industries. With our state in a climate-induced drought, one crucial step we can all take to help our water situation is to eat a plant-based diet, but most people are unaware of this as there hasn't been much education on these issues. Thank you for your time, and for considering my request. Best regards, Michelle Waters Animal and Environmental Artist From: Debbie Parsons Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 11:52 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant - based education Dear Town Council, Thank you for your service to our beautiful town. I have lived in Los Gatos for 24 years. I would like to see a Plant-Based Education program included in the Environmental section of the Town's 2040 General Plan in the Environmental section. I grew up eating a meat-heavy diet like most Americans. However, when I learned about the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet I drastically shifted my eating patterns and I am now mostly plant-based. I know that a lot of people are not yet aware of the advantages such a diet can provide. A town-sponsored program to educate residents about the powerful health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet would be a very valuable and cost-effective step for the Town. Sincerely, James Parsons From: Mendoza, Clarissa Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 3:19 PM To: Planning Comment Cc: Francois, Matthew; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz Subject: Comments Regarding Proposed 2040 General Plan Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission: Attached please find written correspondence from Mr. Francois on behalf of Los Gatos Community Alliance, in regards to the above-referenced matter. Best, Clarissa Mendoza Legal Secretary 455 Market Street, Suite 1870 | San Francisco, CA 94105 O. (650) 263-7900 | D. (650) 320-1500 x7725 CMendoza@rutan.com | www.rutan.com _____________________________________________________ Privileged And Confidential Communication. This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited. Matthew D. Francois Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669 E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com March 22, 2022 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 455 Market Street, Suite 1870 San Francisco, CA 94105 | 650 -263-7900 | Fax 650 -263-7901 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com 2696/037011-0001 17552494.5 a03/22/22 VIA E-MAIL [PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov] Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Comments Regarding Proposed 2040 General Plan Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission: We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned citizens, in regard to the Proposed 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”).1 In previous correspondence to the Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”), LGCA expressed its significant concerns with the Proposed Plan’s major upzoning of every residential and commercial land use district in the Town, potentially resulting in up to 75,000 new housing units and 45 million square feet of new commercial development.2 We pointed out how such intensification violated the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as it was not studied in the environmental impact report (“EIR”) prepared by the Town for the Proposed Plan. We also explained that such intensification was entirely unnecessary to accommodate the 1,993 additional housing units needed per the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”). By January 2023, the Town Council must adopt a Housing Element which includes an inventory of sites suitable and available for residential development to meet the Town’s RHNA. Given the pending statutory deadline and in light of LGCA’s substantial concerns with the Proposed Plan, the Town should focus first on updating its Housing Element. The housing sites inventory will provide critical information to determine what area(s) of the Town, if any, need to be re-designated in the General Plan to meet the RHNA. Updating the General Plan prior to and apart from updating the Housing Element is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. 1 Members and/or supporters of LGCA include: former Mayor Joanne Benjamin, former Mayor Sandy Decker, former Mayor Tom Ferrito, former Mayor Steve Rice, former Mayor Barbara Spector, former County Superintendent of Schools Colleen Wilcox, Tim Lundell, Phil Koen, Don Livinghouse, Sandra Livinghouse, Lee Fagot, Ann Ravel, Rob Stump, Rick Van Hoesen, and Jak Vannada. 2 See September 13, 2021 and January 5, 2022 letters from Matthew Francois to Jennifer Armer. Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 2 2696/037011-0001 17552494.5 a03/22/22 1. Background. In terms of background, the current 2020 General Plan planned for 1,600 additional units to be constructed between 2009 and 2020. The majority of these units—some 1,423 units—were projected to be developed on the Housing Element opportunity sites and the North Forty Specific Plan area. We understand that of the 1,600 additional units projected, only approximately 500 have been built thus far. This leaves capacity for approximately 1,100 additional units with no changes whatsoever to existing residential densities. When the Town began the process of updating the 2020 General Plan, Staff acknowledged that “the existing General Plan is serving the community well,” and that the Proposed Plan “provides the opportunity to refine the General Plan, address emerging trends and recent State laws, and consider new issues.” (Staff Report to the Town Council, November 17, 2020, p. 5; see also General Plan Update, September 2019 [further noting that the General Plan update effort was “intended to be a fine-tuning of the existing General Plan, rather than a comprehensive overhaul of the document.”].) A December 2019 Land Use Alternatives Report prepared by Town Staff presented four growth alternatives (labeled A-D) with net new housing ranging from 1,156 to 3,176 units.3 At its April 7, 2020 meeting, the Town Council approved Land Use Alternative C. That alternative called for 2,303 additional housing units. At the November 17, 2020 Town Council meeting, Councilmembers indicated that new housing should be focused in Community Place Districts without increasing the allowed densities in Low Density Residential areas or changing the Downtown/Central Business District. The Draft EIR (“DEIR”) for the Proposed Plan states that one of the Proposed Plan’s “central objectives” is to achieve the RHNA figure assigned to the Town. (DEIR, pp. 2-7, 6-1.) The RHNA figure assigned to the Town is 1,993 units. Yet, the DEIR then proceeds to analyze 3,738 dwelling units—nearly double the assumed RHNA figure. In reality, the Proposed Plan, with its increased densities across almost all land use designations, could enable development of tens of thousands of new housing units. This growth was not acknowledged let alone factored into the DEIR, as legally required. In its December 2, 2021 report to the Town Council on the Proposed Plan, Staff noted that the Planning Commission had the authority to recommend a lower housing number than that studied and assumed in the DEIR, with commensurate changes to the Proposed Plan. Staff also indicated that the report to the Planning Commission would include an option for approximately 2,000 units with associated modifications needed to the Proposed Plan to achieve this lower housing capacity. 3 The Land Use Alternatives report also identified the range of likely market demand for new housing between 2020 and 2040 to be approximately 1,500-2,000 dwelling units. Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 3 2696/037011-0001 17552494.5 a03/22/22 In December 2021, the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) approved its final RHNA Plan for Bay Area cities. Under that Plan, the Town will need to identify housing sites for 1,993 units. As is typical, the Town’s allocation is separated into four income categories: Very Low: 537 units, Low: 310 units, Moderate: 320 units, and Above Moderate: 826 units. ABAG’s RHNA Plan was approved by the State Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) on January 12, 2022. 2. The Town Should Focus First On Updating Its Housing Element, Which Will Guide And Shape Any Other Updates To The General Plan. Unlike the General Plan update, the Town is under a statutory deadline to submit the updated Housing Element to HCD by January 2023. On June 15, 2021, the Town Council retained EMC Planning Group to prepare the Housing Element update. In its Scope of Services, EMC states that it will rely on the Town Council’s Preferred Land Use Alternative C, which proposes residential development of 2,303 additional units to be located primarily in Community Place Districts. By law, the Housing Element update must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the Town’s regional housing need by income level. (Gov. Code §§ 65583, 65583.2.) “Suitable” means the parcel is zoned appropriately for residential development and has available infrastructure and is not environmentally constrained. (Id.) “Available” means that the site has a likelihood for development during the Housing Element planning period. (Id.) If the housing sites inventory demonstrates that there are insufficient sites to accommodate the housing allocation for each income category, the inventory must identify potential sites for rezoning and a program to effectuate such rezoning early in the 2023-2031 planning period. Per the schedule included in its Scope of Services, EMC stated that the housing sites inventory would be completed by Winter 2021-2022. The Town must update the Housing Element by January 31, 2023 and submit it to HCD for certification. If the Town does not secure HCD certification of its Housing Element within that required timeframe, it could become ineligible for state and regional funding programs, be placed on an accelerated Housing Element cycle, and/or face legal challenges. (Gov. Code §§ 65585, 65588, and 65889.11.) The Town’s website devoted to the Housing Element update refers simply to the formation of the Housing Element Advisory Board, with no documents, information on meetings, or updates concerning a critical statutory deadline that is less than 12 months away.4 Other Bay Area cities have been laser-focused on updating their Housing Elements. For instance, since May 2021, the City of Palo Alto held over a dozen meetings on its Housing Element update, and the Palo Alto City Council recently provided feedback on the housing sites inventory. 4 https://www.losgatosca.gov/2711/Housing-Element-Advisory-Board Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 4 2696/037011-0001 17552494.5 a03/22/22 The Town should follow both common sense and the lead of other cities and focus now on updating its Housing Element. Doing so will guide and provide critical information for the Proposed Plan. Updating the General Plan prior to and apart from updating the Housing Element is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. 3. When Resumed, the Proposed Plan Should Be Modified to Reflect the Housing Element Update and Other Changes. Once the Housing Element update has been adopted by the Town Council and certified by the State, the Proposed Plan should be updated to reflect it. Other recommended changes to the Proposed Plan are detailed below. A. Restore Existing Low Density Residential Development Standards. For lands designated Low Density Residential, the current General Plan allows for single- family development at densities of up to 5 units per acre. The Proposed Plan would more than double the permitted densities, allowing for development of up to 12 units per acre. No change in land use designation or densities should be made to the Low Density Residential land use category. First, no such changes are needed to meet the Town’s RHNA figure. Higher density development is already provided for in other areas, such as Community Place Districts. Further, the densities proposed in Low Density Residential areas (up to 12 units per acre) would not count toward the Town’s fair share of affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B) [requiring densities of at least 20 units per acre to be deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households].) Second, state law has already added density to low density residential areas. Senate Bill 9, which took effect on January 1, 2022, allows for up to four units per single family residential lot. The Town has enacted an urgency ordinance to implement Senate Bill 9. Adding further density to single-family neighborhoods would not be appropriate as such areas are generally not in close proximity to public transit, employment, or commercial services. Local upzoning on top of state upzoning would also be contrary to policies in the Proposed Plan that emphasize maintaining and enhancing a sense of place in residential neighborhoods and requiring new construction to be compatible with existing neighborhoods. (See, e.g., Proposed Plan, Goals LU-5 and LU-17 and Policies LU-2.1, LU-4.1, and LU-5.8.) Third, given the relatively high land costs, much higher development densities are required to achieve the unit development economics to incentivize the production of duplexes and triplexes. The desired development would not likely ever materialize given the high land cost. The resulting housing would instead likely consist of denser, single-family detached housing that is market rate and not affordable. Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 5 2696/037011-0001 17552494.5 a03/22/22 B. Add Low-Medium Density Residential in Appropriate Locations. The Proposed Plan contains policies that encourage development of “missing middle” housing. (Cf. Proposed Plan, Policies LU-1.2, LU-3.5, and LU-5.1; see also Proposed Plan, pp. 3-5 to 3-6.) The Proposed Plan describes missing middle housing as “multiple units on a single parcel (whether attached or detached) that are compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes.” (Proposed Plan, p. 3-3.) The plan goes on to state that common missing middle housing types include, among others, duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. (Id.) To encourage the development of this type of housing, the Town should establish a new Low-Medium Density Residential land use category that allows for the development of duplexes and triplexes at a density range of between 6 and 13 dwelling units per acre. The City of Campbell has a similar land use designation in its General Plan, which it describes as consisting generally of duplexes, small apartment buildings, and small lot, single-family detached homes. This new land use designation would be between Low Density Residential, designed for single-family residential development, and Medium Density Residential, designed for multiple-family residential development. Staff could identify appropriate sites in Community Place Districts for this new land use designation. C. Amend Permitted Intensities Allowed in Central Business District. As currently written, the Proposed Plan would change the permitted floor area ratio (“FAR”) in the Central Business District (“CBD”) from 0.6 to 2.0 and allow for residential densities of 20-30 units per acre. This change would increase allowed intensities in Los Gatos’s unique and charming Downtown by over 200 percent. Such a change would conflict with policies emphasizing the small- scale retail development envisioned in the CBD district that is consistent with the Town’s identity, character, and style. (Cf. Proposed Plan, Policies LU-8.2, LU-8.3, LU-9.1, and LU-9.4.) Such high density development could threaten the commercial viability of the Downtown area. The City of Campbell limits FAR in its Central Commercial (“CC”) district to 1.25. Similar to Los Gatos’s CBD district, Campbell’s CC district is intended to promote retail commercial uses on the ground floor with office or other uses on upper floors. The Town should likewise limit FAR in the CBD to 1.25. D. Make Other Changes As Needed to Accommodate The Town’s Assigned RHNA. In addition to the above changes, the Town should modify land use designations and densities so that build-out under the Proposed Plan would accommodate no more than approximately 2,300 units. This figure reflects the Town’s RHNA of 1,993 units, plus a 15 percent buffer. It also reflects the economic demand and the City Council’s preferred land use alternative. By proceeding with Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 6 2696/037011-0001 17552494.5 a03/22/22 this reasonable growth figure, the Town could ensure that development is phased and does not outpace necessary infrastructure and service improvements. The current Proposed Plan allows for the development potential of nearly 75,000 housing units at maximum allowable densities. There is no need to maximize densities in each and every residential and commercial land use category to achieve the Town’s RHNA and doing so would fundamentally change the nature and character of the entire Town. This underscores why the Housing Element update and its critical housing sites inventory should precede any further work on the Proposed Plan. ******************** We respectfully ask the Town to focus first on the Housing Element update prior to considering the Proposed Plan or any other General Plan update. The Housing Element update will provide critical information on what area(s), if any, need to be re-designated in the General Plan to accommodate the Town’s projected housing growth. Once the Housing Element update has been finalized, the Proposed Plan should be revised to reflect it as well as the other recommended changes detailed above. Thank you for your consideration of LGCA’s views on these important matters. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions concerning this correspondence. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Matthew D. Francois cc (via e-mail): Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor, and Members of the Town Council Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Joel Paulson, Community Development Director Robert Schultz, Town Attorney From: Sonny Stearns Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 4:58 PM To: GP2040 Subject: Housing! Sent from my iPad. This whole WOKE, PC nonsense is sickening. Build the least amount of houses. People moved to Los Gatos to be in housing that IS NOT DENSE. Look at the mess you allowed on the Yuki property across from Lark Ave Carwash. It looks like a giant scoop of Daily City was plopped into Los Gatos——— what an eyesore, non- Los Gatos abomination! Town Council discussed this issue for years ,and, left us with this !!?!?! Also , Town Council, thanks for destroying traffic flow on Blossom Hill Road, Winchester , Los Gatos Blvd. if you are going to jam in houses we don’t want, can’t you see they will be ,for the most part in cars, not bikes! The town should fight for Los Gatos residents, and fight against the state mandates, but, you won’t! Fellow Stearns, DDS From: Mike Verga Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 7:36 PM To: GP2040 Subject: Housing I absolutely do not believe in “low income housing”. You can buy a house in Akron Ohio for less than 100K What right does anybody have to living in one of the most desirable places on the planet if you can’t afford it??? Move! We are ruining the make up of Los Gatos with absolutely no infrastructure to support (new roads, public transport etc…)the increase in population. Just more housing, more housing. Traffic thru town on a warm day, even during the week now is an absolute nightmare, yet we are going to pack in more people. It is absolute insanity! I am being taxed to death in California with ZERO improvement to my standard of living. The roads here are embarrassing, homeless (they are actually drug addicts and mentally ill, read San Fransicko if you want to know the truth) everywhere, and now we are going to pack even more into the area? Insane!! Air quality, traffic, water and safety will obviously be negatively affected by more housing, yet here we are trying to push thru more housing while I can only water my lawn twice a week. Insanity is winning. Mike Verga LG From: Joseph Gemignani Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 4:56 PM To: GP2040 Subject: Housing Hi, I prefer the least amount of housing as possible. I guess that means 1993 units. I would like to see traditional architecture such as Mediterranean or Craftsman. Anyway s pitched roof. Not modern, boxy buildings. Maybe areas of Los Gatos boulevard and/ or Winchester area. Thanks, Joseph (amateur weatherman) From: Varily Isaacs Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:51 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Please add Plant-based Education Program to General Plan My name is Varily Isaacs and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant- based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse has emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more. Varily Isaacs Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: John Parsons Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:51 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Plant Based Education Dear Jennifer, My name is John Parsons. I am a Junior at San Jose State and a Los Gatos resident. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, John Parsons From: Cynthia K Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:59 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: General Plan request Hello, My name is Cyndi and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant- based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. Appreciate your time. Best, Cyndi From: Kristine Goldberg Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 2:17 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant Based Education Hi Jennifer, My name is Kristine Goldberg and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. Thank you, Kristine From: Bhanik Shah Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:35 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Vegan food options in Los Gatos restaurants Hello Jennifer / Council of Los Gatos My name is Bhanik Shah and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. Thanks Bhanik From: Karen Aidi Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:48 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant-based Education component Hi Jennifer, My name is Karen Aidi and I’ve talked to you before at the Los Gatos Farmer’s Market about the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan. I have lived in Los Gatos since 1992. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to the Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability in the 2040 General Plan. I think that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. In the past five years I’ve gone completely plant-based (no meat, dairy, or fish). As a result, I lost 40 pounds and have been able to keep the weight off as well as getting off of blood pressure medication. Along the way, I’ve also learned that a plant-based diet is the best thing I can do as an individual to mitigate the effects of climate change, deforestation, habitat loss, animal extinction, and so on. But, I can’t do this all on my own. And, I despair of the way we are leaving our planet for the next generations. As you know, in our area, we are in a terrible drought, and suffering from constant wildfires. It’s not enough to just refuse a glass of water at a local restaurant. It’s not enough to drive an electrical car, either. We have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at the local level. We can do this by reducing meat consumption or going meatless. We need to do more as a town to educate our residents on what a shift to plant-based diet can do for our environment. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, Karen Aidi From: Suzanne Meinhardt Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:33 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant Based Diet Awareness My name is Suzanne Meinhardt and I live in the Almond Grove of Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that a plant-based education program be added to the Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. It is important that residents of Los Gatos are aware of the huge environmental/personal benefits of a plant-based diet. Town funding of education on this topic is key to success. Respectfully, Suzanne Meinhardt Los Gatos, 95030 Sent from my iPhone From: Kevin Arroyo Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 8:20 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant Based Education - Draft Plan Hello Jennifer, My name is Kevin and I live in Los Gatos, on Anne Way. Please include a plant-based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. It's important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. Thank you, Kevin Arroyo From: Cindy Walker Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 7:39 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Cc: Kevin Arroyo; Maria Ristow Subject: Plant Based Education Program for Los Gatos Hello: I am working w/ Kevin Arroyo on the Los Gatos Alamden Pollinator Garden. This is such an amazing project and I have had such a great experience working w/ Kevin. Please consider adding a Plant Based Education Program for Los Gatos – Section 8 - Environmental and Sustainability section to the Town General Plan – April 13th Meeting. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more. Thank you for all that you do to make our town the great place it is to live! Namaste, Cindy Walker B.A. eRYT CLC Mindful Movement Yoga & Life Coaching (408) 234-6430 www.mindfulmovementylc.com From: Kathleen Willey Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 7:48 AM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Support for Plant Based education in General Plan Hello my name is Kathleen Willey and I have lived in Los Gatos with my family for 10 years. Around 5 1/2 years ago our family became vegan for many reasons but mainly because of the devastating impact animal agriculture has on our environment. It saddens me how few people know this and how little effort our local schools make to educate the kids on this topic. We often dine outside of Los Gatos because there are very few options here. I am asking the Town to please include a plant based education program along with funding to section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section in the General Plan. Climate change is here, we need to face it and do something about it. Cutting back on fossil fuels is important but even if everyone drove an electric car, if we do not address our food system we will not avoid catastrophic rising temperatures on this planet. Shifting towards a plant based diet is one of the most impactful thing an individual can do to help. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html Please make the Town of Los Gatos a leader in the fight against climate change. Thank you! Kathleen Willey From: Tara Moseley Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 12:28 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan Hello Ms. Armer and Council Members; I’m writing to request that you consider including a plant-based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more. It would be wonderful if Los Gatos restaurants were required to include some plant based options on their menus, including deserts. We should be encouraging a plant based diet in our restaurant options in downtown Los Gatos. It is better for us and our planet. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Tara Moseley Los Gatos Resident 95032 From: Karla Albright Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 1:12 PM To: Council; Jennifer Armer Subject: plant based education To whom it may concern, I am a proud long term resident of LG for the past 27 years. I am writing to express my support for plant based education. I understand there is the option for town support in the general plan. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but I admire such people and aspire to embrace their values. A plant based diet is hugely beneficial for ones personal health and the health of our plant. Education is the key to making changes. We need to make support education for the general public to help make the cultural shift that is needed to help burb global warming and its negative repercussions. Thank you for your consideration. Karla Albright From: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:16 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: To: Jennifer Armer and Town Council re General Plan To: Jennifer Armer and Town Council Please include a plant based education program in the Town's general plan. Anything you and the residents of Los Gatos can do to help mitigate greenhouse gases is important. The photosynthetic activity of plants sequesters CO2 . Locally grown produce in our yards and community areas helps sequester carbon dioxide and reduces the need to transport food from long distances in trucks that produce greenhouse gas. Respectfully Les an Susan Kishler 50 year residents and taxpayers Los Gatos From: Ilene Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:02 AM To: Council; Jennifer Armer Subject: Re: support plant based education program My name is Ilene Dickinson and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant- based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic.” I wish I was educated on Plant base diets when I was younger! Thank you, Ilene Dickinson From: Smita Jain Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2022 1:38 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Plant Based food system education program Hi Jennifer, I live in Los Gatos and fully support efforts to combat climate change and a more eco friendly society. Please include a plant-based education program in Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant- based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more. Thanks, Smita Kanungo Los Gatos resident From: Mythri Ramesh Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:21 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: My support for Plant Based advocates Hi Jennifer, I am Mythri Ramesh and I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic Thanks, Mythri From: Gretchen Sand Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 9:38 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant-Based Eductation on Los Gatos Greetings Jennifer, My name is Gretchen Sand, I live in Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that our Los Gatos town leaders include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. It is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. There are benefits to our health as well as to the environment in plant-based eating. Our long term well- being and that of our planet depends on awareness of our diet's impact on not only ourselves but our planet. Just as I would not advocate use of pesticides to eliminate unwanted pests in my garden, I need to be aware of what I purchase for feeding myself and my family and of the impact of animal products and by-products has on the atmosphere, the waterways, the soil, and my personal health. I appreciate your support on this critical need. The well-being of generations to come depends on the actions we take today. Thank you, Gretchen Gretchen Sand From: Anna Lonyai Harbison Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:08 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Plant based education to Section 8 My name is Dr. Anna Harbison and I live in Monte Sereno. I am a pediatrician and pediatric cardiologist. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. In addition there are enormous health benefits of incorporating more plants into our diets. Thank you for your support, Dr. Harbison From: Peter Harbison Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:12 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Plant based education to Section 8 My name is Peter Harbison and I live in Monte Sereno. I work at Google & have seen the huge impact of going plant based over the past 3 years personally. I am writing to ask that we include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. In addition there are enormous health benefits of incorporating more plants into our diets. Thank you for your support, Peter Harbison From: Tony White Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:16 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Plant based foods Dear Jennifer and planning commission members, This is to let you know how appreciative I and many of our fellow citizens are for the steps that the town has taken to encourage the adoption of plant-based foods. I understand that the town is considering including a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan to support the promotion of meat and dairy reduction. I would like to add my support to this proposal as an important step forward in promoting this important goal. I have personally been involved in a program that will use technology to protect rhinos from poaching and certain extinction if the situation is not addressed. A major issue in achieving our goal as well as protecting multiple other threatened species is the encroachment of land on wilderness areas by cattle and other ranching activities. The only solution is to reduce or eliminate meat consumption and every small step helps. We have been residents of Los Gatos for 35 years and our address is: Sincerely, Antony G White From: H White Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:19 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Reduction of meat and dairy products Dear Jennifer, I understand that the town is considering including a plant-based education program in the 2040 General plan to support the promotion of meat and dairy reduction. I would like to add my support to this proposal as an important step forward in promoting this worthy goal. We have been residents of Los Gatos for 35 years and our address is: Sincerely, Hilary B White From: Laura Sneddon Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:53 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Adding a plant-based education program to Section 8 Dear Planning Commission, My name is Laura Sneddon and I’m a resident of Los Gatos. I am writing to ask that Los Gatos include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. I feel that it is important for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. As a vegan, Iwould frequent restaurants in LG more often if I knew they had vegan options on their menus. Serving vegan food is a win/win- it helps the environment and animals AND creates a business opportunity for local restaurants. Thanks for your consideration. best, Laura From: Karen Rubio Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 3:26 PM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Cc: Lisa Wade; Karen Rubio Subject: Please support plant-based education in Los Gatos Hello Jennifer, Los Gatos Town Council: My name is Karen Rubio and I live in Los Gatos. I am a co-founder of Plant-Based Advocates. I am writing to ask for your support to include a plant-based education program to Section 8 Environmental and Sustainability section of the General Plan. We feel that it is crucial for residents of Los Gatos to be aware of the huge environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I’d like to see the Town fund education on this topic. The world’s leading climate scientists agree that we have very few years to mitigate greenhouse has emissions before we experience catastrophic consequences, and animal agriculture is responsible for much of those climate-warming emissions. Shifting to a more plant-based food system is our best chance to curb global warming and address the other impacts of factory farming: pollution of our air, land and water, species extinction, deforestation, ocean depletion and dead zones, and more. The number one cause of biodiversity loss is our food system that is heavily dependent on animal agriculture. Shifting to a plant-based diet reduces food’s associated greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 73 percent and cuts in half the water needed to produce our food. These are critical facts that need to be shared with our residents so they can contribute toward ensuring our planet remains livable for us and future generations! I recently had an op-ed published in the Mercury News and East Bay Times that addresses the need for a shift to plant-based eating. In case the link doesn’t work, I’ve also attached it. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/03/31/opinion-its-time-for-californians-to-talk-about- the-cow-in-the-room/ Finally, many thanks to you all for your hard work in guiding the planning process for our Town’s future. Los Gatos is an amazing place to live, and I appreciate your work in preserving the beauty and viability of our precious Town. Sincerely, Karen Rubio Plant-Based Advocates By By KAREN RUBIOKAREN RUBIO | | PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: March 31, 2022 at 5:15 a.m.March 31, 2022 at 5:15 a.m. | UPDATED: | UPDATED: March 31, 2022 at 5:26 a.m.March 31, 2022 at 5:26 a.m. A rancher’s cattle relax at the new La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in LaA rancher ’s cattle relax at the new La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve in La Honda, California, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017. On Friday, the MidPeninsula RegionalHonda, California, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017. On Friday, the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, which purchased the land in 2006, will open six miles of trails forOpen Space District, which purchased the land in 2006, will open six miles of trails for hikers and horse riders through the former Driscoll Ranch, which it now calls the Lahikers and horse riders through the former Driscoll Ranch, which it now calls the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. (Patrick Tehan/Bay Area News Group)Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. (Patrick Tehan/Bay Area News Group) OPINIONOPINIONCOMMENTARYCOMMENTARY Opinion: It’s time for CaliforniansOpinion: It’s time for Californians to talk about the cow in the roomto talk about the cow in the room Few realize that meat and dairy production devour a fullFew realize that meat and dairy production devour a full 47% of the state's water47% of the state's water • • NewsNews No one can deny that we’re in the mother of all megadroughts.No one can deny that we’re in the mother of all megadroughts. The seven hottest years on record have happened in the last seven years. TheThe seven hottest years on record have happened in the last seven years. The U.S. Drought Monitor just reported that 93% of California, including the Bay Area,U.S. Drought Monitor just reported that 93% of California, including the Bay Area, is in severe drought and 35% is in extreme drought. Last year, dangerous heatis in severe drought and 35% is in extreme drought. Last year, dangerous heat killed hundreds of people in Oregon and Washington and nearly buckledkilled hundreds of people in Oregon and Washington and nearly buckled California’s power grid. Federal forecasters say that this year conditions willCalifornia’s power grid. Federal forecasters say that this year conditions will worsen in California and the West with hotter-than-normal temperatures andworsen in California and the West with hotter-than-normal temperatures and little chance of rain.little chance of rain. Gov. Gavin Newsom is urging Californians to cut water consumption, but isGov. Gavin Newsom is urging Californians to cut water consumption, but is reducing residential usage — taking shorter showers, pulling out lawns — reallyreducing residential usage — taking shorter showers, pulling out lawns — really an effective solution? As it turns out, not so much. According to Pacific Institute, aan effective solution? As it turns out, not so much. According to Pacific Institute, a leading nonprofit research and policy group based in Oakland, only 4% ofleading nonprofit research and policy group based in Oakland, only 4% of California’s water footprint goes to direct household water consumption.California’s water footprint goes to direct household water consumption. So, where is our water going? In the midst of the turmoil over our diminishingSo, where is our water going? In the midst of the turmoil over our diminishing water supply, an often-overlooked industry operates without scrutiny —water supply, an often-overlooked industry operates without scrutiny — consuming the lion’s share of California’s diminishing water, churning outconsuming the lion’s share of California’s diminishing water, churning out massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and polluting our environmentmassive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and polluting our environment with impunity.with impunity. Few realize that meat and dairy production devour a full 47% of California’sFew realize that meat and dairy production devour a full 47% of California’s water, their huge water footprints due to the amount of water-intensive feedwater, their huge water footprints due to the amount of water-intensive feed required to raise the animals. In fact, the largest water-consuming crop inrequired to raise the animals. In fact, the largest water-consuming crop in California is the alfalfa grown to feed animals. The third largest? Irrigated pastureCalifornia is the alfalfa grown to feed animals. The third largest? Irrigated pasture — again, for animals.— again, for animals. “Almonds are made out to be the villain in our drought story, but blaming“Almonds are made out to be the villain in our drought story, but blaming excessive water use on this crop is simply not true,” says Mohan Gurunathan, aexcessive water use on this crop is simply not true,” says Mohan Gurunathan, a local environmental activist. “In fact, the water used to grow just animal feed —local environmental activist. “In fact, the water used to grow just animal feed — not including water to grow and slaughter them — uses more than double thenot including water to grow and slaughter them — uses more than double the water used to grow almonds and pistachios.”water used to grow almonds and pistachios.” As California grapples with drought and a year-round fire season sparked by aAs California grapples with drought and a year-round fire season sparked by a rapidly-warming climate, the hefty costs of water usage, environmental harmrapidly-warming climate, the hefty costs of water usage, environmental harm and global warming from meat and dairy production have been largely ignoredand global warming from meat and dairy production have been largely ignored — until now.— until now. A new bill, AB-2764, sponsored by Assembly members Adrin Nazarian, D-VanA new bill, AB-2764, sponsored by Assembly members Adrin Nazarian, D-Van Nuys, and Alex Lee, D-Milpitas, would halt construction and expansion of factoryNuys, and Alex Lee, D-Milpitas, would halt construction and expansion of factory farms and slaughterhouses in California.farms and slaughterhouses in California. Why so long to take action? The meat and dairy industries typically fly under theWhy so long to take action? The meat and dairy industries typically fly under the radar, and regulations are often lax, says filmmaker Raven Deerbrook. Her recentradar, and regulations are often lax, says filmmaker Raven Deerbrook. Her recent investigation of “One World Beef”  (a major Costco supplier) in Brawly andinvestigation of “One World Beef”  (a major Costco supplier) in Brawly and resulting short documentary, “Imperial Dust,” found numerous violations of theresulting short documentary, “Imperial Dust,” found numerous violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, including routine misuse of electric prods onHumane Methods of Slaughter Act, including routine misuse of electric prods on “downed” (non-ambulatory) cows.“downed” (non-ambulatory) cows. Meat and dairy producers habitually disregard regulations in their quest forMeat and dairy producers habitually disregard regulations in their quest for profits. In fact, 96% of slaughterhouses in the United States are in violation ofprofits. In fact, 96% of slaughterhouses in the United States are in violation of waste water regulations; the EPA has been sued for failing to enforce effluentwaste water regulations; the EPA has been sued for failing to enforce effluent standards.standards. The livestock industry produces 35-40% of all human-caused methane emissions.The livestock industry produces 35-40% of all human-caused methane emissions. Because this key greenhouse gas accounts for 25% of global emissions and is 86Because this key greenhouse gas accounts for 25% of global emissions and is 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 20-year period,times more powerful than carbon dioxide at trapping heat over a 20-year period, reduction is essential. NASA has identified a large methane “hot spot” overreduction is essential. NASA has identified a large methane “hot spot” over California’s Central Valley, the second largest one in the United States.California’s Central Valley, the second largest one in the United States. Shifting to a plant-based diet reduces food’s associated greenhouse gasShifting to a plant-based diet reduces food’s associated greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 73% and cuts in half the water needed to produce ouremissions by as much as 73% and cuts in half the water needed to produce our food.food. We urgently need to make smart choices to ensure the habitability of our planet.We urgently need to make smart choices to ensure the habitability of our planet. So, by all means, tear out your lawn and take shorter showers. But if we reallySo, by all means, tear out your lawn and take shorter showers. But if we really want to make an impact, we need to put plants on our plates.want to make an impact, we need to put plants on our plates. Karen Rubio is a co-founder of Plant-Based Advocates, a Los Gatos group that isKaren Rubio is a co-founder of Plant-Based Advocates, a Los Gatos group that is working to address climate change, increase human health and alleviate animalworking to address climate change, increase human health and alleviate animal suffering by accelerating the shift to plant-based diets.suffering by accelerating the shift to plant-based diets. Report an errorReport an error Policies and StandardsPolicies and Standards Contact UsContact Us T A i lAilt lif i l i llifilil t G i NGiN SUBSCRIBE TODAY!SUBSCRIBE TODAY! ALL ACCESS DIGITAL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENTS!ALL ACCESS DIGITAL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENTS! Join the ConversationJoin the Conversation We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightfulWe invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right atconversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful,all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar,threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, andpornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, orto disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user whogovernment request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.abuses these conditions. Karen RubioKaren Rubio SPONSORED CONTENTSPONSORED CONTENT Let insights revealLet insights reveal new opportunitiesnew opportunities   By By KPMGKPMG Tags: Tags: AgricultureAgriculture,,california-legislaturecalifornia-legislature ,,Gavin NewsomGavin Newsom ,, WaterWater From: Rosilene Martins Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 9:09 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Council Subject: Request for a Plant-Based Education Program Dear Los Gatos Town Council Representatives: My name is Rosilene Martins and I have been a Los Gatos resident since 1994. I very much appreciate the health and environmental benefits of a plant-based diet, and I would like a Plant-Based Education Program added to Section 8 of the Environmental section of the General Plan. I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter, Rosilene Martins Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Georgia Hamilton Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 5:05 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Council Subject: Plant Based Solutions Dear Town Council members, II live in the Town of Los Gatos and I'm writing to ask you to please include a dedicated Plant-Based education program in the Environmental section of the 2040 General Plan. It would be great to have programs such as cooking classes, talks, and events to teach people how to incorporate more plants into their diets. This would be healthy for people and the planet. Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely. Georgia Hamilton