Attachment 25 - Public CommentMatthew D. Francois
June 17, 2022
Rutan & Tucker, LLP |
San Francisco, CA 94105 | |
Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | 2783/037011-0001
179457211 a06/17/22
VIA E-MAIL [council@losgatosca.gov]
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor
and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan; June 20, 2022 Town Council Hearing,
Agenda Item No. 1
Dear Mayor Rennie and Members of the Town Council:
We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned
citizens, in regard to the Proposed Draft 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”) and associated
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). The Proposed Plan significantly upzones the entire Town
for no apparent purpose. The EIR does not study the significant environmental impacts associated
with that upzoning. The EIR is legally inadequate and cannot be relied on to adopt the Proposed
Plan. We urge the Town Council to revise the Proposed Plan in the manner outlined in Section II
below, which would help to address some of the EIR’s key shortcomings.
I.The EIR Is Flawed And Cannot Legally Be Relied On To Approve the Proposed Plan.
In our September 13, 2021, January 5, 2022 and April 12, 2022 letters to the Town, we
detailed the myriad inadequacies in the EIR. The Final EIR (“FEIR”) does not adequately or
sufficiently respond to or address those concerns. We summarize some of the key issues below.
A.The EIR Fails To Analyze The Impacts Of The “Whole Of The Project,” As
Required By CEQA.
The EIR fails to analyze the impacts of the buildout potential allowed under the Proposed
and thus fails to comply with CEQA. Instead of the tens of thousands of additional housing units
and tens of millions square feet of new commercial development allowed by the changes to the land
use densities under the Proposed Plan, the EIR analyzes only a small fraction of this development.
This undermines the EIR’s analysis of every single environmental resource from Aesthetics to
Wildlife. CEQA does not allow or authorize an agency to greatly upzone every single residential
and commercial land use designation and then fail to consider the environmental impacts associated
with it. There is also no reason for such upzoning given the 1,993 units needed to satisfy the Town’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), which can readily be accommodated in the mixed-
use corridors designated as Community Place Districts.
ATTACHMENT 25
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022
Page 2
2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
At the Town Council’s December 7, 2021 study session, Town Staff claimed that it was
“standard” practice to assume only a fraction of the growth enabled by changes to a plan. In reality,
such an approach is directly contrary to the law, which mandates that an EIR analyze the “whole of
an action” that may result in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment. (See, e.g., Public Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15146(b), 15378;
Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376 [EIR
found inadequate for studying only a portion of a proposed laboratory/office development project];
Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300,
307 [in upholding the cumulative impact analysis of a project EIR that relied upon plan EIRs, the
court reasoned that the plan EIRs “necessarily addressed the cumulative impacts of buildout to the
maximum possible densities allowed by those plans” with mitigation measures proposed and any
overriding benefits of development noted]; accord, Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport
Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1228-1229 [upheld project EIR that relied on general plan EIR
because plan EIR assumed “worst case” conditions for development on, and access to, the project
site].)
At the December 7th study session, Staff also indicated that the Town would monitor growth,
and if it reached the maximum amount studied, the Town would conduct additional environmental
review. This too fundamentally and irreconcilably conflicts with CEQA. Courts have routinely
rejected similar claims to study environmental impacts after a project has been approved. (Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn., supra, 47 Cal.3d at 394 [“If postapproval environmental review were
allowed, EIR’s would likely become nothing more than post hoc rationalizations to support action
already taken.”]; accord, Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 138; see also
City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 533 [EIR should be prepared
as early in the planning process as possible to enable environmental considerations to influence
project, program, or design especially since general plan EIRs are used as foundation documents for
specific project EIRs].)
It is also important to keep in mind that if the densities under the Proposed Plan were to be
enacted, the Town would generally be prohibited from denying or reducing the density of any
housing project that complied with those new density standards under the State Housing
Accountability Act (“HAA”). (See Gov. Code § 65589.5; see also California Renters Legal
Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820 [First Appellate
District ruled that city violated HAA by denying a 10-unit project based on a non-objective design
guideline].)
B. The Final EIR Acknowledges The Use Of Inconsistent And Conflicting
Baselines.
The FEIR states that the EIR used future conditions as its baseline. For instance, on page
117, the FEIR states that the EIR “uses the potential growth the Town is likely to achieve by the year
2040 as its baseline for analysis of potential impacts. This is not a hypothetical number but based
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022
Page 3
2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
on existing conditions and the potential for future development in this time period.” The FEIR then
contradicts itself by saying “[t]he projected 3,738 dwelling units is comprised of multiple parts and
focuses on the total buildout for the Town, not just a 20-year horizon.” (Id.)
In reality, the baseline is the existing conditions, normally represented by conditions at the
time the notice of preparation was released. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125.) Here, that would represent
the Town’s existing residential and commercial development as of 2020. Reliance on a future
conditions baseline, at least without any substantial evidence to justify it, is yet another flaw in the
EIR. (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Auth. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439.)
Additionally, doing a plan-to-plan comparison is also invalid under CEQA. (Environmental
Planning & Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350.)
At minimum, the FEIR raises an issue of shifting and inconsistent baselines. For instance,
while the FEIR says the baseline is future growth under 2040 conditions, the Draft EIR (“DEIR”)
suggests it relied on an existing conditions baseline, at least as to vehicle miles traveled and certain
other resource categories. (Draft EIR, pp. 2-4, fn. 1, 4.9-14, 4.10-9, 4.15-23.) Among other courts,
the Sixth Appellate District has overturned an EIR that relied on conflicting baseline information.
(Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99.)
C. The EIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Address Significant Transportation
Impacts.
The Recirculated Draft EIR (“RDEIR”) identifies a new significant unavoidable impact.
Specifically, Impact T-1 acknowledges a significant unavoidable impact to transit vehicle operations
due to increased delays at intersections. The acknowledgment of this new significant impact requires
consideration of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen this
impact. The RDEIR does neither.
As to Impact T-1, the RDEIR states that “[t]here are no feasible mitigation measures to
reduce potentially significant effects related to transit operations and ridership.” (RDEIR,
p. 4.15- 25.) An EIR cannot simply declare an impact significant and unavoidable without
considering and imposing feasible mitigation measures.1 The RDEIR acknowledges that transit
operational improvements, such as signal coordination and transit vehicle preemption, could
potentially improve the overall reliability of transit in congested areas. (RDEIR, p. 4.15-25.)
Because these measures are “not likely to fully address” the impact, the RDEIR does not impose
them as mitigation. (Id.) The FEIR states the measures are not included because they are a separate
project that would be implemented later. (FEIR, p. 198.) As such, the EIR does not impose
enforceable mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen a significant impact and defers
1 (Public Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), 21081(a)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3);
California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 982; City of
Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 369.)
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022
Page 4
2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
mitigation to an unspecified future date. The EIR also fails to consider any alternatives to this newly
identified significant impact. In all these aspects, the FEIR fails to comply with CEQA. (Public
Resources Code §§ 21002, 21002.1(a), CEQA Guidelines §§ 15126.4, 15126.6; Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)
II. To Rectify The CEQA Infirmities, The Proposed Plan Must Be Revised.
The Proposed Plan must be revised to, at minimum, include the following revisions. If such
changes were to be made, they would go a long ways towards satisfying LGCA’s fundamental
concern that the Proposed Plan includes excessive density increases that have not been analyzed in
the EIR.
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.2 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
in Low Density Residential areas. As such, the desired development would not likely ever
2 We understand that the Planning Commission recommended that the maximum density be
reduced slightly to 10 units per acre. This is still double the current allowed maximum density.
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022
Page 5
2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
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.
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 actually 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
Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor and
Members of the Town Council
June 17, 2022
Page 6
2783/037011-0001
17945721 1 a06/17/22
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
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. Even using the Town’s deflated figures and assuming a less
than worst case scenario, the Proposed Plan may still result in the development of over 14,600 units.
The EIR wrongly assumes and studies only 25 percent of this growth. 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 Town.
********************
In closing, the EIR fails to analyze the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed
Plan. As such, the Town cannot legally rely on the EIR to adopt the Proposed Plan in its current
form. At minimum, the changes requested by LGCA in Section II are needed to rectify the
significant legal infirmities associated with the EIR.
Thank you for your consideration of LGCA’s views on these important matters.
Representatives of LGCA, including the undersigned, will be in attendance at your June 20th
hearing on this item. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions
concerning this correspondence.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Matthew D. Francois
cc (via e-mail):
Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
From: James Lyon
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 4:51 AM
To: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame
<MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: 2040 General Plan - DO NOT ADOPT Planning Commission Recommendation
EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Distinguished Council Members,
I write you with concerns of the recommendations from the Planning Commission on the Housing
Element and the 2040 General Plan.
1. The Housing Element as submitted is an “up zoning” of almost the entire Town – this is not
acceptable. The Town is already dealing with the State SB9 mandate – to add more housing on
top of this mandate is not realistic.
a. How do we deal with services – fire, police, schools, roads, parking, and traffic with this
increased density? These questions have not been adequately addressed – and need to
be mitigated PRIOR to adoption of such a General Plan.
b. We live as the Wildlife-Urban interface – where wildfires will devastate the
community. More density exacerbates this issue due to limited access, narrow roads
and higher density.
c. Do we have enough water supply or sewage capacity for the Town? We are already in a
drought situation again – it is now perpetual. What is the plan to have enough water to
support a 28% increase in Town population by 2040 based on the Plan?
2. The 2040 General Plan as drafted has population growth of 28% - three times higher than
historic growth. This is unreasonable to expect the Town to grow this fast (or to absorb this
many new residents).
a. How will safety and quality of life be maintained? Has the fiscal and physical
infrastructure impact been analyzed? The answer is “no”. It would be irresponsible to
adopt a Plan without understanding the impact and mitigations.
3. The Housing Element has nearly DOUBLE the State’s mandated Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) – WHY? There is no rational reasoning – Santa Clara County population has
been on the decline in recent years. I implore you to cut the 2040 Housing Element to the RHNA
level of 1993 units as mandated by the State – or better yet, appeal the State mandate.
a. SB9 growth should be within the Town’s RHNA target – recalculate the SB9 projections
to be included in the RHNA target.
b. Growth allowed should be phased so that services and infrastructure can keep pace and
be put in place ahead of growth. Meaning no more than 500 units every 5 years to
2040.
c. Reduce densities as follows:
4. Affordable Housing – certainly with will be expected with the growth of housing. But as we all
know, affordable housing is an oxymoron. There is no affordable housing in the Bay Area – so
let’s stop the charade.
a. Any affordable housing needs to preserve the character of the Town – just look to the
North 40 development – this was to have affordable housing – but the lowest prices are
more than $1.2MM – not affordable. This development Is massive and NOT in keeping
with the Town character. This uncontrolled massive development CANNOT happen in
the future.
b. Every affordable housing program in the Town for the last 25 years has failed – BMP
units, in-lieu fees, etc – none of these programs has achieved “affordable housing” in
Los Gatos – again, stop kidding ourselves.
c. There needs to be principles and values to select locations and design for affordable
housing to fit Town character. Without these, we will end of with another abomination
like the North 40.
As a former Planning Commissioner (1996 – 2002), I request that you take action to revamp and correct
the errors of the Planning Commission and NOT enact this General Plan as-is. It needs to be returned to
the Planning Commission and Staff with specific direction to:
1. Reduce housing to the State mandated levels, inclusive of SB9 and ADU created housing.
2. All services to be analyzed for impact (financial, physical) and mitigation measures defined,
with growth only allowed in stages IF services have scaled to meet in the increased demand.
3. Affordable housing guidelines to be developed that preserve the character of the
Town. Clearly define affordable housing as well principles and values for site selection and
allocation to the community.
4. Align the GP to the State’s and County’s actions – not promises. The County has never
implemented the Vasona Extension of Light Rail – at the time, this was used as a traffic
mitigation for the Netflix campus – it never happened. We need to have the infrastructure
PRIOR to growth, not a promise by the County or State that it will come. History shows that
the Town gets burned.
Thank you for your considerations and I urge you to return the 2040 General Plan to the Planning
Commission.
Regards,
Jim Lyon
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc
<MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame
<MBadame@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov>; Arn Andrews <aandrews@losgatosca.gov>; Joel
Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Shelley Neis <sneis@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: A Request to limit RHNA to 2292 homes
EXTERNAL SENDER
Tomorrow night you will hear the reasons given by the GPAC, PC and Staff as to why
~14,600 (or 12,065) additional homes is a good idea. We don't think the vast majority
of Los Gatans agree as expressed in our survey and confirmed again in the Town's
survey. Please listen to your residents.
Attached you will find what we think is a very simple solution to approve of the
2292. We do realize the number of hours put into the study by the GPAC, PC and Staff
will be very hard for them to let go. But the number of hours may have been spent
missing the forest because of the trees.
As we always try to do, we have found the data in the Town's publications so as to
remove our personal bias. You can vote for 2292 now, and up that number later. You
can't vote for 12,065 now and go back to anything less in the future.
We look forward to your meeting tomorrow evening.
-
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
Up zone the Entire Town or Simply Rezone for 877 Units?
When the 2040 General Plan first started, the Town Council (TC) told the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC) that they were happy with the 2020 General Plan and that
it only needed tweaking. We agreed with that comment and like most of you, we were
aghast when the GPAC recommended at least doubling all residential land use
densities Town wide (aka, up zoning) which increased the maximum potential housing
units allowed by more than 14,600 homes. This new zoning standard would double the
allowed homes in a town that is largely built out. While the Town is not responsible for
what ultimately gets built, the Town absolutely controls what is allowed to be built. And
this is the core issue.
The State of California Dept Of Finance (DOF) projected the most likely market demand
for housing in Los Gatos between 2020 and 2040 is 1,529 units. The Town’s own
consultant, ADE Projection, concluded a market demand of 1,954 units. And lastly, the
GPAC initially provided guidance that the Town should develop land use alternatives
that could provide space for the future development over the next 20 years for 2,000
residential units. This strongly indicates that the Town should make only those targeted
land use changes which will allow for the development of 2,292.
The Town is required by the State to properly zone enough residential land which would
enable the development of 1,993 units plus a 15% buffer over the next 8 years for a total
number of 2,292 units at various income levels. That is all that is required for the 6th
cycle.
By our calculations, and backed up by the Town’s own documents, after deducting from
2,292 units the projected 200 ADU’s and the 202 allowable units currently in the pipeline
(see Exhibit B, pg 289), the Town needs to properly zone enough sites that will allow for
the development of only 1,890 units. Under existing residential land use density, the
Town has estimated there is land capacity to build an additional 1,013 units, with no
zoning changes; see Exhibit A. This leaves the Town short a total of only 877 units
(1890-1013= 877).
877 units is the total number of additional units that must be planned to meet the 6th
cycle allocation. This would require increasing densities for a limited number of targeted
sites (less than 35 acres of land in all) to accommodate this incremental growth.
However, for some reason, the solution by the GPAC was to double the residential land
use density Town wide, which impacts over 2,465 acres and will allow, based on new
zoning laws, the development of over 14,600 units in the GPAC version or 12,065 as
modified by the PC (see Exhibit C as to how we speculated they did their calculations
since the Town never explained it).
Of the 877 units, we need 847 that qualify as low and very low housing. It is our feeling,
that most of that can and should be planned in the "opportunity” zones that are most
likely to be served by some form of mass-transit in the future. We also advocate having
some of the low/very low placed in the North Forty which is the single largest piece of
developable property in Los Gatos.
We cannot possibly speculate why the GPAC and the PC feel up zoning to a minimum
of 12,065 units is a good idea. It will increase development, traffic, green house gases,
water usage, and students in our schools. We and 64% of the population in two
different surveys disagree with the GPAC, the PC and the Town Manager. We
respectfully ask the Council to reject up zoning 2645 acres when we may only need 35
to meet our RHNA numbers. ABAG does not set RHNA numbers for 20 years, but it’s
likely that to speed development, they compressed 20 to 8. Los Gatos Commissions
should not be forecasting how many houses we’ll need for 20 years. It’s been done for
us by two independent entities who forecast 20 year growth at less than 1993. The
second paragraph above will show you that we do not need more than 2292 homes.
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 11:52 AM
To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame
<MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes
<MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Please Vote Against Building Plan on 6/20
EXTERNAL SENDER
June 19, 2022
Dear Town Council members,
I am writing in great concern for the safe livability of our town, especially in regards to fire danger.
In the June 20th Town Council meeting, please do not:
• Approve the recommendation for up-zoning our entire town, which would allow for almost
double the residential units we have (approximately 14,600 additional homes).
• Approve planning for almost 4,000 units, far in excess of the RHNA numbers required by the
State of CA.
Please do:
--Reject this proposal and plan to adopt the recommendation/requirements from the state ONLY, which
requires the town to zone enough residential land to enable the development of 1,993 units plus a 15%
buffer over the next 8 years for the 6th RHNA cycle. Los Gatos can then evaluate appropriately for the
next RHNA cycle later, a logical course that every other town is taking.
Please remember that what you do on 6/20 will change our town forever, and the repercussions of what
you do will affect your own political career and prospects for the future. As you well know, numerous
surveys have proven that the township does not agree with your “no-plan” (no plan for fire, no plan for
schools, no plan for greenhouse gasses, no plan for financial impact) ambitious building fiasco.
In closing, a final request:
• Please make every letter you have received from town residents on this matter PUBLIC as
you should have done long ago.
Best,
Sandra Livinghouse, ., Los Gatos
From: Cathleen Bannon
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 3:48 PM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: General plan 2040
EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m writing to voice my concerns regarding the general plan. After reviewing, while I see the need for
growth, I do not support the idea of building beyond the 1,993 required units (NOT the proposed 70-
90% above). Our town does not have the infrastructure needed to absorb current traffic needs. The
south side of town has limited narrow roads that cannot absorb converting older lots to multi unit
lots. The town must limit development to areas that have more space for increased
traffic/parking/etc. the town must find a way to preserve the look of the town, the ease of living, the
community focus.
Not every every residential area in Town be "upzoned" into more dense
neighborhoods?
Services and infrastructure can not keep pace with the safety and quality of life
that our residents expect.
We must do a better job of preserving the character of our community while
guiding the Town into the future.
Cathleen & Grant Bannon
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 5:07 PM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: housing
EXTERNAL SENDER
Sirs,
Before the town increase numbers I want a look at safety. Evacuation routes for fire primarily. We sit at
the interface of a massive potential fire as the heat and lack of rain increases danger. I would like to hear
from our fire department on the topic.
Parking? Where will each of the 4,000 new homes park their cars...that's 8,000 cars needing
parking. Don't fool yourself that public transit will solve that problem. WE are not Europe.
Water? Where will we get the water for that many homes, gardens, etc?
Next. Street safety. Already cars can barely move on weekends...there is no way I could evacuate from
Central Avenue. I doubt an ambulance could get in and out.
School: The high school traffic is an accident waiting to happen....increasing cars and walkers only
increases the likelihood of accident. Already, I have been told there is no money for a traffic light or a
crossing guard!!
Schools: New ones will be needed. Who will pay?
Why does the town want to double the already high number of housing we are expected to
accommodate? Who is benefiting? Profiting?
My neighbors are already so close, I can hear the toilet flush's and smell the dryer perfume blowing over
my deck and in my windows. I can hear their conversations and there are hard feelings over size of
trees, etc. (In fact, they are leaving Los Gatos for more space)
If the town counsel care about the quality of life and the residents at all, they must answer these
problems.
Sandy Moeckel
From:
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2022 8:13 PM
To: GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Pls vote to keep state's required housing allotment and no more
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi. Thank you for voting to stay at the estimated 1900 new housing units the state is requiring and no
more.
We also need the housing to be allotted as the Town grows to accommodate the density, not allow the
units to be built Day 1.
Thank you
Babette Ito
--
Yours,
Babette Ito
From:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 8:09 AM
To: PublicComment <PublicComment@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Public Comment Item #1
EXTERNAL SENDER
Attached is input the Town Council must consider as it prepares to adopt the Draft 2040 General Plan
including Land Use Designations and Development Standards for the Town.
Thank you for distributing my comments/input to the Council ahead of the meeting tomorrow evening.
Rob Stump
1
June 19, 2022
Town Councilmembers
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95030
Dear Councilmembers,
As a long-time Los Gatos resident, I am very concerned about the proposal to increase housing
density (Low, Medium, & High Density Residential) in a blanket manner across the Town of Los
Gatos. First, I do not believe there is any need to increase housing density across Los Gatos to
achieve whatever housing numbers the Town Council or the citizens of Los Gatos approve. I think
most community members would agree that applying a blanket and perhaps arbitrary approach
to housing density that cannot be reversed in the future is not a prudent action.
Second, a blanket approach to housing density is not prudent from a public safety standpoint.
Almost 3,100 homes in Los Gatos are located in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) designated
as the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). This entire area and even neighborhoods
outside of the WUI live with the real threat of wildfire. Who can forget the devastation of the
Tubbs Fire that decimated Coffey Park in Santa Rosa? Coffey Park was outside of the WUI. Fire
blew into this neighborhood, four dead and 1,200 homes destroyed.
So, how should Los Gatos think about or rethink housing density in our WUI? We should not
make any changes to housing density for any residential designation in the WUI. Residential
designations as documented in the 2020 General Plan should remain in-place in the WUI.
Residential Designations Standards, 2020 General Plan
LDR – Low Density Residential 0-5/acre
MDR – Medium Density Residential 5-12/acre
HDR – High Density Residential 12-20/acre
The Los Gatos WUI Map with identified parcels is attached for reference.1
If increased housing densities are approved in the WUI, there could be catastrophic impacts to
residents. Increasing housing density in the WUI flies in the face of public safety which is the top
strategic priority for the Town of Los Gatos.
One final point, I think many in Los Gatos believe that wildfire will never happen in this
community. Those that have been devastated by wildfire over the past several years know
better. One fact that needs to be driven home, the Town of Los Gatos is at risk for catastrophic
wildfire in our community. A well-known wildfire study, published by the The Arizona Republic,
rated Los Gatos a higher risk for wildfire prior to the wildfire that destroyed the Town of Paradise.
1 - Also attaching the “Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment” issued by the Town of Los Gatos on
October 10, 2019 as an additional reference.
2
Countless numbers of homes were destroyed in and around Paradise and dozens of lives were
lost.
Please ensure the real threat of wildfire in the Town of Los Gatos is carefully considered before
making housing density changes that we as a community may later regret. Wildfire is a significant
threat to Los Gatos. Let’s not move more people into harm’s way.
Best regards,
Rob Stump
5322304653223047
5322304853223049
53223050
5322305153223052
53223053
5322305553223057
53223066
5322306953223072
53223073
5322307653223077
53223080
5322308253223089
53223092
5322309353223094
53223095
5322309853223104
53223105
5322310653223107
53223108
5322310953223114
5322311553224002
53224003
5322400453224011
53224012
5322401353224015
53224016
5322401953224020
53224021
5322402253224026
53224027
5322402853224029
53225004
5322500953225010
53225023
5322502553225027
53225029
5322503353225038
53225041
5322504853225049
53225050
5322505153225054
5322505553226003
53226007
5322602753226045
53226049
5322605553226057
53226084
5322608553226090
53226091
53226099
53229008
53229009
5322901053229011
53229012
5322901353229014
5322901653229017
53229018
5322901953229020
53229021
5322902253229023
53229024
5322902553229026
53229027
5322902853229029
53229030
5322903153229032
53229033
5322903453229035
53229036
5322903753229038
53229039
5322904053229041
53229042
5322904353229044
53229045
5322904653229047
5322904853229049
53229055
5322905653229057
53229058
5322905953229060
53229061
5322906253229063
53229066
5322906853229069
53229070
5322907153229072
53229073
5322908053229081
53229082
5322908353229084
53229085
5322908653229087
53229089
5322909053229091
53229092
5322909353229094
5322909653229097
53229098
5322909953229100
53226100
53226109
5322611053226111
53226112
5322611353227009
5322701053227013
53228001
5322800253228003
53228004
5322800553228006
53228008
5322800953228010
53228011
5322801253228013
53228014
5322801553228016
53228017
5322801853228019
53228020
5322802153228022
53228023
5322802453228025
53228028
5322802953228030
5322803153228032
53228033
5322803553228036
53228037
5322803853228040
53228041
5322804453228048
53228049
5322805053228051
53228052
5322805353228054
53228055
5322805653228057
53228062
5322806353228064
53228065
5322806653228067
53228068
5322806953228070
53228071
5322807253228075
5322807653229001
53229002
5322900353229004
53229005
5322900653229007
53229103
53229104
5323000753230008
53230009
5323001053230011
53230012
5323001353230014
53230015
5323001653230021
53230022
5323002653230027
53230030
5323003153230032
53230034
5323003653230037
53230038
5323003953230040
53230041
5323004253230044
5323004653230047
53230048
5323004953230050
53230051
5323005253230053
53230054
5323005553230056
53230057
5323005853230059
53230060
5323006153230062
53230063
5323006453231014
53231018
5323101953231020
53231022
5323102453231025
53231026
5323102753232009
5323201053232011
53232012
5323201353232014
53232015
5323201653232017
53232018
5323201953232020
53232021
5323202253232023
53232024
5323202553232026
53232027
53232028
53232029
53232030
5323203153232032
53232033
5323203453232035
53232036
5323300153233002
53233003
5323300453233005
53233006
5323300753233008
53233009
5323301053233011
53233012
5323301353233014
53233015
5323301653233017
5323301853233019
53233020
5323302153233022
53233023
5323303953233040
53233041
5323304253233043
53233044
5323304553233046
53233047
5323304853233049
53233050
5323305153233052
53233053
5323305453233055
53233056
5323305753233058
53233069
5323400453234005
53234006
5323400753234008
5323400953234010
53234020
5323402153234022
53234023
5323402453234025
53234026
5323402753234028
53234029
5323403053234031
53234032
5323403353234034
53234035
53234041
53234042
53234043
5323404453234045
53234046
5323404753234048
53234049
5323405053234051
53234052
5323405353234054
53234055
5323405653234057
53234058
5323405953234061
53234062
5323406353234064
5323406553234069
53234070
5323407153234072
53236001
5323600253236003
53236004
5323600853236009
53236010
5323601153236012
53236013
5323601453236016
53236017
5323604253236049
53236053
5323605553236057
53236058
5323605953236061
53236067
5323606853236069
53236070
5323607153236072
5323607353236074
53236075
5323607653236077
53236078
5323608053236081
53237001
5323700253237022
53237023
5323702453237025
53237026
5323702953237030
53237031
5323703253237033
53237034
53237035
53237036
5323703753237038
53237039
5323704053237041
53237042
5323704353237049
53237050
5323705153237052
53237057
5323705853237065
53237066
5323706853237072
53237073
5323707453237076
53237077
5323707853237082
53237083
5323708453237085
53238001
5323800353238005
5323800653238008
53238009
5323801053238011
53239004
5323900653239009
53239010
5323901253239013
53239014
5323901553240001
53240004
5324000553240006
53240007
5324000853240009
53240010
5324001153240012
53240013
5324001453240015
53240017
5324001853240022
53240023
5324002453240025
5324002653240027
53240028
5324002953240030
53240031
5324003253240033
53240035
5324003753240038
53240039
5324004253240043
53240044
53240045
5324100153241002
53241003
5324100453241005
53241006
5324100753241008
53241009
5324101053241011
53241012
5324101353241014
53241015
5324101653241017
5324101853241019
53241020
5324202853242029
53242030
5324203153701004
53702006
5370200953702010
53702013
5370300753703012
53703015
5370301853703030
53703031
5370303253703033
53703036
5370303753703040
53703043
5370304453703045
53703047
5370305153703055
53703057
5370305853703060
5370306353703064
53703072
5370307353703076
53703077
5370307853703079
53703080
5370401253704013
53704019
5370402353704025
53704027
5370402853704029
53704030
5370403153704032
53704043
5370404453704054
53704055
53705002
53705016
53708026
5371100853711009
53711011
5371101553711017
5371103253711033
53711034
5371103653711037
53712004
5371200953712010
53713001
5371300553713009
53713010
5371301153714001
53714004
5371400553714008
53714009
5371500153715004
53715005
5371500653715007
53715008
5371502453715025
53715026
5371502753715028
53715029
5371602953717018
5371702053717021
53717024
5371702753717032
53717033
5371703453717035
53718003
5371800553719022
53720004
5372002153720025
53720031
5372003253720033
53720035
5372003653721001
53721002
5372100453721008
53721010
5372101153721012
53721014
5372101553721017
53721018
5372101953721020
5372102153721024
53722002
5372201153722012
52347027
52347028
5234702952347030
52347031
5234703252347033
52347034
5234703552347036
52347037
5234703852347039
52347040
5234704152347042
5234704352347044
52347045
5234704652347047
52347049
5234705052347051
52347053
5234705452347055
52347056
5234705752347058
52347059
5234706052701001
52701002
5270100352701004
52701005
5270100652701007
52701008
5270100952701011
52701012
5270101352701014
52702001
5270200252702005
5270200652702007
52702008
5270200952702010
52702011
5270201252703001
52703002
5270300352703004
52703005
5270300652703007
52703008
5270300952703010
52703012
5270400252704003
52704004
5270400852704009
52704010
5270401152704012
52705001
52705005
52712004
5271200552712006
52712007
5271200852712009
52712010
5271201152713003
52713004
5271300552713006
52713007
5271300852713009
52713010
5271400152714002
52714003
5271400452714005
52714006
5271400752714008
5271400952714010
52714011
5271500152715002
52715005
5271500652715008
52715009
5271501052715011
52716001
5271600252716003
52716004
5271600552716006
52716007
5271600852716009
52716010
5271601352716014
52716015
5271601652716019
52716020
5271700352717006
5271700852717009
52717010
5271800152718002
52718003
5271800452718005
52718007
5271800852718009
52718010
5271901452719015
52719016
5271901752719018
52719027
5271902852719029
52719030
5271903152719032
52705006
5270600952706010
52706011
5270601252706013
52706014
5270601652707003
52707004
5270700552707006
52707007
5270700952707010
52707011
5270701252707013
52707014
5270800152708002
5270800352708004
52708005
5270800652708007
52708008
5270800952708010
52708011
5270801252708013
52708015
5270801652708017
52708018
5270801952708020
52708021
5270900652709010
52709011
5270901252709013
52709014
5270901552709020
52709021
5270902252709023
52709024
5270902952709030
5270903152709032
52709033
5270903452709035
52709036
5270903752710001
52710002
5271000352710004
52710005
5271000652710010
52710011
5271001252711003
52711004
5271100652711007
52711008
5271100952712003
52719033
52719052
5271905352720002
52720003
5272101952721020
52722015
5272600352726004
5272600552726010
52726011
5274207052742071
52742072
5274207352742074
52742075
5274207652742077
52755001
5275500252755003
52755004
5275500552755006
52755007
5275500852755009
52755010
5275501152755012
52755013
5275501452755015
52755016
5275501752755018
52755019
5275502052755021
5275502252755023
52755024
5275502552755026
52755027
5275503452755035
52755036
5275503752755038
52755039
5275504052755041
52755042
5275504352755044
52755045
5275600152756002
52756003
5275600452756005
52756006
5275600752756008
52756009
5275601052756011
52756012
5275601352756014
5275601952756020
52756021
52756025
5275602652756027
52756028
5275602952756030
52756031
5275603252756033
5275603452757001
52757002
5275700352757004
52757005
5275700652757007
52757008
5275700952757010
52757011
5275800152758003
52901002
5290100652901013
52901015
5290101652901017
52901018
5290102052901021
52901022
5290102552901026
52901027
5290102852901032
5290103352901034
52901035
5290103652901037
52901038
5290104052901041
52901043
5290104452901045
52901046
5292601052926011
52926013
5292601452926015
52926016
5292602752927017
52928023
5292802452928025
52928037
5292900152929005
52929007
5292900952929012
52929015
5292901952929020
5292902152929033
52929035
5292904952929052
52929053
52929054
5292905552929056
52929057
5292905952929060
5292906252929063
52929064
5292906552929066
52929067
5292906852929069
52929070
5293000252930004
52930006
5293000752930008
52930009
5293001252930013
52930014
5293001552930016
52930017
5293001852930019
52930020
5293002152930022
52930023
5293002552930026
52930027
5293002852930029
5293003052930031
52930032
5293003352930034
52930035
5293003652930037
52930038
5293003952930040
52930041
5293004252930043
52930044
5293004552930046
52930047
5293004852930049
52930050
5293005152930052
52930053
5293005452930055
52930056
5293005752930062
52930063
5293006452930065
5293006952930070
52930071
5293007252930073
52931001
5293100252931003
52931004
5293100552931022
52931023
5293103752931038
52931039
5293104352931048
52931049
5293105052931051
5293105252931053
52931054
5293105552931056
52931058
5293106052931062
52931064
5293106552931072
52931077
5293107952931083
52931084
5293108552931086
52931087
5293108852931089
52931090
5293109152931092
52931093
5293109452931095
52931096
5293109752931098
5293109952931100
52931101
5293110252932001
52932002
5293200352932004
52932005
5293200652932007
52932008
5293200952932010
52932011
5293201252932016
52932017
5293201852932019
52932020
5293202252932023
52932024
5293202552932026
52932027
5293203052932031
52932032
5293203352932036
52932037
52932038
5293203952932040
5293204152932042
52932043
5293204452932045
52932046
5293204752932048
52932049
5293205052933001
52933004
5293300552933008
52933011
5293301252933013
52933014
5293301552933016
52933017
5293302252933024
52933025
5293302652933027
52933028
5293302952933030
52933031
5293303252933033
5293303452933035
52933037
5293304052933041
52933042
5293304352933044
52933045
5293304952933050
52933051
5293305252933053
52933054
5293305552933056
52933057
5293305852934018
52934020
5293402152934040
52934043
5293404552934046
52934047
5293404852934049
5293405152934052
52934053
5293405752934058
52934062
5293406352934065
52934066
5293407652934079
52934080
5293409252934095
52934098
5293409952934100
52934101
5293410252934103
52934104
5293410652934107
52934108
5293410952935001
52935002
5293500352935004
52935005
5293500652935009
52935010
5293501152935012
5293501452935015
52935017
5293501852935023
52935024
5293502552935026
52935028
5293502952935030
52935031
5293503252935033
52935034
5293503552935036
52935038
5293503952935040
52935043
5293504552935046
52935047
5293504852935049
52935050
5293505152935052
5293505352935054
52935055
5293505652935057
52935058
5293505952935060
52935061
5293506252935063
52935064
5293506552935066
52935067
5293506852936002
52936003
5293600452936005
52936006
5293600752936008
52936009
5293601052936011
52936012
5293601352936018
52936019
5293602452936025
5293602652936027
52936029
5293603052936031
52936032
5293603352936034
52936036
5293603752936038
52936039
5293604052936041
52936042
5293604352936044
52936045
5293604652936047
52937002
5293700652937007
52937008
5293701252937013
52937015
5293701652937024
52937025
5293702752937028
5293702952937030
52937031
5293703252937033
52937034
5293703552937036
52937037
5293703852937039
52937041
5293704252937043
52937044
5293800152938002
52938003
5293800452938005
52938006
5293800752938008
52938009
5293801052938014
52938015
5293801652938017
5293801852938019
52938020
5293802152938023
52938026
52938028
5293802952938030
52938031
5293803352938035
52938036
5293803852938039
52938040
5293804752938048
52938049
5293805052938051
52939001
5293900352939004
52939005
5293900652939009
52939011
5293901252939013
52939014
5293902352939024
52939040
5293904152939042
5293904352939044
52939045
5293904652939047
52939048
5293904952939053
52939054
5293905552939056
52939057
5293905852939059
52939060
5293906152939062
52939063
5293906752939068
52939069
5293907052939071
52939072
5294100152941002
52941003
5294100452941005
52941006
5294100752941008
5294100952941010
52941011
5294101252944003
52944004
5294400752944008
52944009
5294401052944011
52944012
5294401352944014
52944015
5294401652944017
52944018
5294401952944020
52944021
5294402252944023
52944024
5294402652951001
52951002
5295100352951004
52951005
5295900252959003
52959004
5295900552959006
52959007
5295900853201009
53201010
5320101153201012
5320101353201014
53201015
5320101653201017
53201018
5320101953201020
53201021
5320102253201023
53201024
5320102553201026
53201027
5320102853201029
53201030
5320103253201033
53201035
5320103653201037
53201038
5320104053201041
53201042
5320104353202014
53202015
5320202553202026
5320202753202029
53202030
5320203153202032
53202033
5320205153202053
53202054
5320206953202070
53202071
5320207253202073
53202074
5320801853208019
53208020
5320802153208022
53208023
5320802453208025
53208026
5320802753208028
53208029
5320803053208031
53208032
5320803353208034
53208049
5320805053208059
53208060
5320806153208062
53208064
5320806553210001
53210012
5321001353210014
5321001553210016
53210017
5321001853210019
53211011
5321200153212002
53212003
5321200453212005
53212006
5321200753212008
53212009
5321201053212011
53212012
5321201353212014
53212015
5321201653212017
53212018
5321300153213002
53213003
5321301153213012
5321301353213014
53213015
5321301653213017
53213018
5321302053213021
53213023
5321302453213025
53213026
5321302753213028
53213029
5321303053213031
53213032
5321303353213034
53213035
5321303653213037
5321303853213039
53213040
5321304153213042
53213043
5321304453213045
53213046
5321304953213051
53213052
5321305753213058
53213059
5321306053213061
53213062
5321306353213064
53213065
5321306653213067
53213068
5321306953214001
53214002
5321400353214004
5321400553214006
53214007
5321400853214009
53214010
5321401153214012
53214013
5321401453214015
53214016
5321401753214018
53214019
5321402053214021
53214022
5321402353214024
53214025
5321402653214027
53214028
5321402953214030
53214031
5321403253214033
53214034
5321403553214036
5321403753214038
53215002
5321500453215005
53215006
5321500753215008
53215009
5321501053215011
53215012
53215013
5321501653215017
53215018
5321501953215020
53215021
5321502253215023
53215024
5321502553215026
53215027
5321502853215032
53215033
5321503453216002
53216003
5321600553216006
53216007
5321600853216009
5321601053217001
53217010
5321701153217012
53217013
5321701453217015
53217016
5321701753217018
53217020
5321702153217022
53217023
5321702453217025
53217026
5321702753217028
53217031
5321703253217033
53217034
5321703553217037
53218006
5321801353218015
5321802153218022
53218023
5321802453218026
53218027
5321802953218034
53218036
5321803753218038
53218039
5321804053218041
53218043
5321804453218045
53218046
5321804753218048
53218049
5321805053218051
53218052
5321805353218054
53218055
5321805653218057
53218058
5321805953218060
53218061
5321806253218063
5321900353219005
53219008
5321900953219010
53219013
5321901453219015
53219016
5321901753219018
53219022
5321902353219028
53219029
5321903053219031
53219032
5322000153220002
53220004
5322000753220008
53220010
5322001153220012
53220013
5322001453221001
5322100253221004
53221007
5322101253221013
53221014
5322101553221016
53221017
5322101853221019
53222001
5322200353222011
53222012
5322201353222014
53222015
5322201653222017
53222018
5322300453223024
53223025
5322302953223030
53223031
5322303253223034
53223035
5322303653223037
5322304353223044
53223045
5372201553722016
53722017
5372201853722019
53723005
5372300753723010
53723011
5372301253723013
53723014
5372301553723017
53723019
5372302153723022
53723024
5372302553723026
53723027
5372302853723029
53723031
5372303753723038
53723040
5372304253723045
5372304653723049
53723054
5372305553723057
53723058
5372306153723062
53723063
5372306453723065
53723066
5372306753724013
53724014
5372401553724022
53724023
5372402453724025
53724029
5372403053724031
53724032
5372500553725009
53725018
5372502153725022
5372502453725026
53725027
5372502953725030
53725031
5372503253725033
53725034
5372503553725036
53726001
5372600453726009
53726012
5372601353726015
53726016
LGA 100 / LRA Very High FHSZ
LGA 100 / LRA Very High FHSZ
5372601753726018
5372601953726020
53726021
5372602253726026
53726027
5372603053726033
53726034
5372603553726038
53726039
5372604053726045
53726046
5372605353726054
53726061
5372606253726065
53726066
5372606753726068
53726069
5372607053726071
53726072
5372607353726074
5372700953727025
53727047
5372706553727066
53728001
5372800253728003
53728004
5372800553728006
53728007
5372800853728009
53729001
5372900253729003
53729004
5372900553729006
53729007
5372900853730002
53730003
5373000453730005
53730006
5373000753730008
53730010
5373001153730013
5373001453730015
53730016
5373001753730018
53730021
5373100153731002
53731003
5373100653731007
53731008
53731009
53731010
53731011
5373101253731013
53731014
5373101553731017
5373101853731019
53731020
5373102153731022
53731023
5373300153733002
53733003
5373300453733005
53733006
5373300753733008
53733009
5373301054401014
56719016
5671902756719028
56719029
5671903056719031
56719032
5671903356719036
56719037
5672300756723008
56723010
5672301256723013
5672302256723025
56723029
5672303756723038
56723039
5672304056723043
56723044
5672304556723046
56724010
5672401156724012
56724013
5672401456724015
56724016
5672401756724018
56724019
5672402056724021
56724022
5672402356724024
56724025
56724027
PREPARED BY: Arn Andrews
Assistant Town Manager
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Director of Parks and Public Works, Chief of Police and Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/15/2019
ITEM NO: 7
DATE: October 9, 2019
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Accept Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment Report.
BACKGROUND:
Los Gatos is identified as a Community at Risk from wildfires on the Federal and the California
Fire Alliance list of Communities at Risk in Santa Clara County. The Los Gatos Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI) planning area includes primarily Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone areas on
the southern side of Los Gatos. The WUI area is best described as an area that transitions from
a natural condition (wildland) to human settlements. 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 encompasses a wide variety of terrain, ranging from flat topography at the
edge of the valley floor to densely wooded hillsides. While the sharp contrast between the
valley floor and the hillsides is what makes the Town so picturesque, it also creates an
extremely difficult operational area in the event of a wildfire.
The intent of the Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment is to create a common point
of reference for Town residents, public safety officials, Town Council and staff, and other
regional emergency preparedness partners. The Assessment will help inform future regulatory
recommendations, advance the wildfire preparedness education of our hillside residents,
inform fuel reduction priorities, facilitate grant opportunities, and provide a baseline for the
ultimate development of an evacuation plan.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Accept Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment
DATE: October 10, 2019
DISCUSSION:
Safe and proper evacuation of people (residents, workers, and visitors), pets, and livestock is
often a very critical component of WUI fires. Confusing hillside road networks, narrow roads
that could inhibit two-way traffic, and dead-end roads all contribute to the complexities faced
by the public and responders during WUI fires. In addition, WUI fires often require immediate
“No Notice” evacuations, meaning little or no warning time exists between fire origin and the
need for evacuation. The situational awareness associated with the Wildland Urban Interface
Evacuation Assessment will help illustrate the critical shared responsibility of successful wildfire
mitigation and response. The Assessment reaffirmed the critical importance of enhanced
vegetation management along major ingress/egress road networks and Town-owned open
spaces, and the maintenance of defensible space around residences and other buildings.
CONCLUSION:
The Assessment will help inform future regulatory recommendations, advance the wildfire
preparedness education of our hillside residents, inform fuel reduction priorities, facilitate
grant opportunities, and provide a baseline for future Town emergency preparedness and
response activities.
COORDINATION:
This report has been coordinated with the County Office of Emergency Management, County
Fire, Town Attorney, Director of Parks and Public Works, Chief of Police, and other Town
Offices.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
Attachment:
1. Wildland Urban Interface Evacuation Assessment
From:
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes
<MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame
<MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Shelley Neis <sneis@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Rick Van Hoesen ;
Lee Fagot ; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Joel Paulson
<jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Catherine Somers ; 'Jim Foley'
Subject: Agenda Item #1 - Special Town Council Meeting June 20, 2022
EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members,
The Staff report (which is 1,278 pages) for the upcoming Town Council meeting contains a tremendous
amount of documentation as the Town Council begins to deliberate the draft 2040 General Plan and
FEIR. However, there are two documents that were not included that are critical to understanding how
the current draft of the Land Use Element came to be.
I have attached the two documents for the Council’s review and to provide complete transparency. The
two documents are : 1) minutes from the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020, where the
Council provided direction on the Draft Land Use and Community Design Elements, and 2) minutes from
the GPAC Meeting of November 19, 2020, where the GPAC formally acted on the direction provided by
the Town Council.
Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
At this meeting, agenda item #7 was devoted to the Town Council providing direction to the GPAC as
they discussed the Land Use Element and the Community Design Element. This agenda item came about
at the request of the GPAC, since they sought additional direction on drafting these two critical
elements of the 2040 General Plan. The minutes speak for themselves.
What needs to be emphasized is the Town Council gave clear feedback on the following points:
• If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without increasing the
allowed density in Low Density Residential areas, that would be preferred.
• If the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without changing the
downtown/central business district, that would be preferred.
• The General Plan should include policies that support low, very low and extremely low-income
housing, possible through increased minimum densities or smaller units
• The General Plan should encourage production of Missing Middle housing, especially when it
can provide housing for middle- and lower-income households. (Note: For a family of 4 these
income levels range from $84,250 to $168,500. See attached State Income limits)
• Production of Missing Middle housing should be focused in areas that are within walking
distance to commercial uses, such as the Opportunity Areas/Community Place Districts.
The minutes further reflect these were individual comments and there was no resolution or formal
action taken since the agenda item limited the Council to only a discussion and providing feedback.
GPAC Meeting of November 19, 2020
After the Town Council meeting of November 17, the GPAC held a working session on November 19 to
review and discuss the initial drafts of the Land Use Element and Community Design Element and to
discuss the direction provided by the Town Council. It is important to point out that the GPAC meeting
had a quorum of 8 members present, with 3 members absent, out of the 11-person committee.
Again, the minutes of the meeting speak for themselves. At the meeting, the Committee Chair called for
a formal vote of the GPAC on the following question – Does the Committee agree with the statement,
“if the Town can plan for the number of housing units required by RHNA without increasing the
allowed density in Low Density Residential areas, that would be preferred”.
A “yes” vote would result in a Land Use Element that would not increase the allowed density in Low
Density Residential Areas and a “no” vote would result in the allowed density in the Low-Density
Residential Area being increased from 1 – 5 DU per acre to 1 – 12 DU per acre.
A vote of the 8 members present resulted in 3 “yes” votes, 4 “no” votes and 1 abstention. The 4 “no”
votes resulted in an increase in density in Low Density Residential areas and the draft of the Land Use
Element was unchanged. To be clear only 4 people out of a committee of 11 voted for this question,
which is less than a majority of the Committee. It should also be pointed out that the Vice Mayor
Barbara Spector, who attended the November 17 Council meeting voted “yes”, supporting the Council’s
guidance given two days earlier. How this vote was allowed to stand is a complete mystery since a
majority of the GPAC did not vote “no”. Such an important vote should never have been taken without
the full committee being present and furthermore it is questionable whether the committee had the
authority to disregard the clear direction of the Council on such a consequential issue and draft the Land
Use Element based on the views of 4 committee members, 2 of whom were also current members of
the Planning Commission.
As a result, the GPAC rejected the guidance the Town Council had just provided and went on their
own path. Worse, based on the vote of only 4 people, the current draft of the land use element still
reflects a massive up zoning of 1,891 acres of low-density residential land which is not required to meet
the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. Only now, over 18 months later, is this issue finally back in front of the
Town Council for discussion. The LGCA believes the GPAC overstepped their authority and have drafted
and approved a Land Use Element that does not reflect the Council’s feedback, nor is it supported by a
majority of the residents of the Town and would urge the Council to restore the low-density residential
land use to the current 1-5 DU per acre.
Analysis of Land Use Changes required to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA allocation
The Staff report has a schedule that reflects one “potential housing” build- out scenario out of an
infinite number of possible outcomes. Based on one set of assumed redevelopment percentages (there
are an infinite number of potential housing build-out percentages for each land use) and the proposed
new density standards for the land uses, the analysis indicates that a total of 3,280 units could
potentially be developed over the next 20 years.
To place too much precision on the accuracy of one potential outcome of 3,280 units would be an error.
The Town cannot control what gets developed, but the Town absolutely does control what is legally
allowed to be built and the land uses through zoning laws. Based on staff data and using the adjusted
land use densities proposed by the Planning Commission, the LGCA has computed the increased
densities will allow a maximum development of approximately 12,000 units. This amount of
development was not evaluated by the EIR and reflects an almost doubling of the number of housing
units that currently exist today.
The Staff report also states that the Town must adequately plan for the potential development of 2,292
units over the next 8 years to comply with the 6th cycle RHNA allocation. This raises the obvious
question, assuming no changes in the existing land use densities, how many of the 2,292 units could
potentially be developed based on the 2020 General Plan?
Here is how we have calculated the answer:
Units required by 6th cycle RHNA 2,292
Less:
ADU’s developed over next 8 years 200
Eligible Pipeline Projects from HE Site inventory 202
Remaining balance RHNA 1,890
Units available for development under existing GP 1,013
“Gap units” 877
This analysis shows the Town only needs to identify land sites that can be properly zoned to
accommodate 877 additional units. The critical data element in this calculation is the available
development capacity based on current zoning and the 2020 General Plan. The 1,013 units was reported
in a September 16, 2021, staff report to the Town Council. We have attached the schedule (3904-unit
land use) for the reader’s review.
Since the Town also has the requirement to plan development of units for very low- and low-income
levels, the Town would zone these sites at a density of at least 30 DU per acre (the new default density)
to allow the units to count against the 847 very low and low-income units RHNA allocation. At 30 DU per
acre density, the Town would need to increase the density on approximately only 37 acres after taking
into consideration most likely achievable building density.
Instead, the 2040 General Plan up zones all residential land use Town wide, totaling over 2,465 acres, by
doubling the allowable density for low, medium, and high-density residential land uses. Clearly it makes
no sense to up zone 2,465 acres of residential land if only approximately 37 acres need to be properly
zoned to meet the 6th cycle RHNA allocation.
Relationship between the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 2,292 and the Proposed Potential Development
Scenario of 2,305 units
The Staff report also discusses the relationship of the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 2,292 (1,993 plus a
15% buffer) to one possible potential build out scenario of 2,305 units. This is done by starting with
2,305 units from the development scenario, and then adding units associated with the production of
ADU’s over the next 8 years, approved allowable development projects in the pipeline and units
potentially developed in Hillside Residential.
Here is the analysis comparing the 6th cycle RHNA allocation to an 8-year development cycle for ADU’s
and eligible pipeline projects:
Housing units potential development 2,305
Plus:
ADU’s built over 8 years 200
Eligible Pipeline projects 202
Hillside Residential 116
Total Units adjusted for ADU and Pipeline 2,823
Less:
6th Cycle RHNA and buffer 2,292
Excess units available 531
The Staff report also states in appendix 8, if the low-density housing designation reverted back to the
existing 2020 General Plan level, 279 units would be deducted from the excess units. If this was done,
there would be 252 excess units available (or an additional 12% buffer over RHNA) for potential
development during the 8-year cycle.
Since the original direction provided by the Town Council was, “If the Town can plan for the number
of housing units required by RHNA without increasing the allowed density in Low Density Residential
areas, that would be preferred” we urge the Council to keep the land use density for Low Density
Residential
land use at the existing 2020 General Plan level. There is simply no reason to up zone 1,891 acres of
Low-Density Residential Land Use if it is not required, coupled with the fact that SB 9 provides
additional development capacity for Low Density Residential land use that has not been included in
any of the above analysis.
Relationship of 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 2,292 units to market demand for housing over the next
20 years
The last point we would like to address concerns the mistaken argument we have heard a number of
Planning Commissioners and Members of the Town Council make regarding the need to plan for
multiple RHNA Allocation cycles beyond the 6th cycle allocation. This argument has been used to justify
up zoning all residential land uses Town wide in an effort to massively increase the maximum allowable
development potential under new land use rules. As stated above, based on the latest data provided by
Staff, the LGCA computes this maximum development potential to be approximately 12,000 units.
The Town published in the Land Use Alternative report two independent forecasts of the likely market
demand for housing in Los Gatos between 2020 and 2040. The first forecast prepared by the State’s
Department of Finance projected 1,529 units and the second forecast prepared by the Town’s
Consultants (ADE) projected 1,954. The Land Use Alternative Report concluded “we project an increase
of 4,446 people and 1,954 housing units between 2020 and 2040”.
Based on this, the GPAC provided guidance that the Town should develop land use alternatives that
could provide space for future development around 2,000 residential units. Since the State is requiring
the Town to have sufficient land zoned to allow for the potential development of 2,292 units, the State
requirement trumps the market demand forecasts. Therefore, the Town must plan for 2,292 units even
though this level exceeds all independent market demand forecasts. The important point is that there
is no legal requirement or any independent forecast that requires the Town to plan land use beyond
the development potential of 2,292 units.
We have heard a number of Planning Commissioners and Town Council members multiplying the 6th
cycle RHNA allocation of 1,993 by 2 and stating that this would indicate that the Town must plan for the
development potential of 3,904 units (see attached schedule) since the General Plan is for a 20- year
cycle and the RHNA allocations are on an eight- year cycle.
This approach is fundamentally flawed first and foremost because there are no market demand studies
that support this excessive level of growth and more importantly the RHNA allocation process was never
intended to be a forecasting tool for future market demand. To prove the latter point, the 4th cycle (562
units) and 5th cycle RHNA (619 units) allocations totaled 1,181 units covering which covered a 16- year
period. The 6th cycle allocation of 1,993 is almost 70% greater for only an 8 -year period. So why is this?
The answer is that the methodology to develop the 6th cycle RHNA allocation was built based on a state
policy decision to accelerate housing production. Stated another way, the State is requiring local
jurisdictions to properly zone enough residential land to allow for the development of housing that
normally would be developed over a 20- year period over an accelerated 8- year period. This was
intentionally done to address the acute housing shortage that exists today and to address chronic over-
crowding and improve vacancy rates to a healthier level.
Doubling the 6th cycle RHNA allocation as an indicator of future housing needs is deeply flawed and has
no merit in planning for smart growth in the Town.
Conclusion
The Town Council has received another letter for our attorney’s at Rutan and Tucker. The letter clearly
outlines the LGCA concerns and proposes a number of very sensible solutions. We urge the Council to
review the correspondence and embrace our recommendations. Given the limited time available during
the public comment period at tonight’s Special Council meeting, please accept this email and other
correspondence from our attorney and other LGCA members as our public comment on agenda item #1.
We will not be speaking during the meeting since our concerns and suggestions have been adequately
conveyed in writing to the Town Council.
Thank you.
Phil Koen
Los Gatos Community Alliance.
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: 3
Minutes of the Town Council Meeting
November 17, 2020
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a regular meeting via Teleconference via
COVID-19 Shelter in Place Guidelines on November 17, 2020, at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Marcia Jensen, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector, Council Member Rob Rennie,
Council Member Marico Sayoc. (All participating remotely).
Absent: None
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
The Town Council appointed applicants for the vacant positions on Town Boards, Commissions,
and Committees.
Arts and Culture Commission
o Richard Capatoso was not appointed.
o Jeffrey Janoff was not appointed.
o Michael Miller was appointed to a 3-year term.
o Pamela Murphy was appointed to a 2-year term.
o Heidi Owens was not appointed.
o Ellis Weeker was re-appointed for a 3-year term.
Building Board of Appeals
o Charles Holcomb was appointed to a 4-year term.
Community Health and Senior Services Commission
o Richard Konrad was appointed to a 3-year term.
Complete Streets and Transportation Committee
o Doug Brent withdrew his application and did not interview.
o Bill Ehlers was re-appointed to a 3-year term.
o Cheryl Ryan did not interview and was not appointed.
o Gillian Verga was re-appointed to a 3-year term.
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
DATE: November 24, 2020
Appointments - continued
General Plan Committee
o Gerard Abraham was not appointed.
o Joseph Mannina was appointed to a 4-year term.
o Heidi Owens was not appointed.
o Steve Piasecki was appointed to a 3-year term.
Historic Preservation Committee
o Barry Cheskin was appointed to a 4-year term.
o Timothy Lundell was appointed to a 2-year term.
o Jeffrey Siegel was not appointed.
Library Board
o Susan Buxton was appointed to a 2-year term.
o Richard Capatoso was appointed to a 3-year term.
o Sabiha Chunawala was re-appointed to a 3-year term.
o David Read did not interview and was not appointed.
o Cheryl Ryan did not interview and was not appointed.
Parks Commission
o Adriana Alves was appointed for a 2-year term.
o Richard Capatoso was not appointed.
o Alicia Shah did not interview and was not appointed.
Personnel Board
o Steven Bakota was appointed to a 5-year term.
Planning Commission
o Gerard Abraham was not appointed.
o Kathryn Janoff was re-appointed to a 4-year term.
o Anil Patel was not appointed.
o Jeffrey Siegel was not appointed.
COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Council Matters
- Council Member Rennie stated he attended Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Governance and Audit Committee and Board meetings, Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Authority (SVCEA) Board and Risk Oversight Committee meetings, Emergency Operating
Area Council meeting, and the Santa Clara County Cities Association Selection Committee
meeting with Council Member Sayoc.
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
DATE: November 24, 2020
Council Matters - continued
- Vice Mayor Spector stated she attended the West Valley Clean Water Authority (WVCWA)
Board meeting, West Valley Solid Waste Authority (WVSW) Board meeting, and two
meetings of the Town’s Wildfire Ad Hoc Committee.
- Council Member Sayoc stated she attended the Santa Clara County Cities Association
Selection Committee with Council Member Rennie and the League of California Cities
(LOCC) meeting.
- Mayor Jensen stated she attended the two meetings of the Town’s Wildfire Ad Hoc
Committee, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, and a VTA Policy Advisory
Committee meeting.
Manager Matters
- Announced free COVID-19 testing will be held on Monday November 30, 2020 at the Adult
Recreation Center. Walk-ins welcome and appointments are strongly encouraged.
- Announced that the tree in Plaza Park will be lit after Thanksgiving and that the Town is
installing the Chamber’s light exhibits for the holidays. No tree lighting ceremony will be
held due to COVID-19.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
- Robert Shultz, Town Attorney, stated Council met in closed session as duly noted on the
agenda and that there is no reportable action.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approve Draft Minutes of the November 3, 2020 Town Council Meeting.
2. Receive the First Quarter Investment Report (July through September 2020) for Fiscal Year
2020/21.)
3. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a First Amendment Agreement for Consultant
Services with Walter Levison for Arborist services.
4. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute Agreements for Environmental Consultant Services
with EMC Planning Group, Inc. and Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
5. Authorize the Town Manager to Execute an Agreement with Hello Housing for
Administration of the Town’s Below Market Price Affordable Housing Program.
Item #3 was pulled by David Weissman.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Sayoc to approve Consent Items 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Seconded by Council Member Rennie.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
DATE: November 24, 2020
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Alex Hult
- Thanked the Town for responding to COVID-19 with the parklet program; commented in
support of prioritizing the local business community through the winter months.
Jeff Suzuki
- Commented in support of independent Police oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers
and a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department.
Ali Miano
- Commented in support of independent Police oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers, a
freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department, and additional public
transportation to the Town including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART).
Lynel Gardner
- Read correspondence from Barak Obama, commented in support of a hiring freeze of
sworn officers and a freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department.
Russ
- Commented in support of BART and diversity within the Town.
Catherine Somers
- Thanked the Town for responding to COVID-19 with the parklet program and suggested the
Town consider the formation of a task force to continue to address COVID-19 concerns.
Matt Hemis
- Inquired what the next steps are for Police reform; commented in support of independent
oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers, and a freeze of additional discretionary
spending of the Police Department; and requested the Town consider utilizing Police
Department funding to train Officers in de-escalation techniques.
Alicia Spargo (Cinema Stereo)
- Commented in support of independent oversight, a hiring freeze of sworn officers, and a
freeze of additional discretionary spending of the Police Department; and requested the
Town consider utilizing Police Department funding to train Officers in de-escalation
techniques and that the Town consider additional avenues to assist the business
community during the winter months.
Kareem Syed
- Commented in support of additional oversight of Police funds, community engagement
Officers, and a task force to continue to address COVID-19 concerns.
-
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
DATE: November 24, 2020
OTHER BUSINESS
3. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a First Amendment Agreement for Consultant
Services with Walter Levison for Arborist services.
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.
Opened public comment.
David Weissman
- Commented in opposition of the first amendment agreement, unless staff revises the
consulting arborists report guidelines with uniform standards.
Closed public comment.
Council discussed the item.
MOTION: Motion by Mayor Jensen to authorize the Town Manager to execute a first
amendment agreement for consultant services with Walter Levison for arborist
services for arborist services as contained in Attachment 1 of the staff report.
Seconded by Council Member Rennie.
VOTE: Motion passed 3/1. Vice Mayor Spector voting no.
6. Adopt A Resolution Designating the Use of Vehicle Miles Traveled as the Metric for
Conducting Transportation Analyses Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
and Establishing the Thresholds of Significance to Comply with California Senate Bill 743.
RESOLUTION 2020-045
Ying Smith, Transportation and Mobility Manager, presented the staff report with Dan Rubins,
Consultant.
Opened public comment.
No one spoke.
Closed public comment.
Council discussed the item.
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of November 17, 2020
DATE: November 24, 2020
Other Business Item #7 - continued
The Town Council did express consensus on two items:
All references to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and other obsolete policies should be
eliminated.
The 2040 General Plan should be forward looking as Los Gatos implements policies and
actions to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and facilitates housing production for
all income levels in the right places. In other words, the Council is not expecting the
2040 Plan to be the same as the 2020 Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Submitted by:
_____________________________________
/s/ Jenna De Long, Deputy Clerk
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/07/2020
ITEM: 2
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 19, 2020
The General Plan Update Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular
Meeting on November 19, 2020, at 7:00 p.m., via teleconference.
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19
pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from
remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. In accordance with Executive
Order N-29-20, the public could only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Melanie Hanssen, Vice Chair Kathryn Janoff, Vice Mayor Barbara Spector,
Committee Member Kendra Burch, Committee Member Steven Piasecki, Committee Member
Ryan Rosenberg, Committee Member Lee Quintana, and Committee Member Carol Elias Zolla.
Absent: Mayor Marcia Jensen, Committee Member Susan Moore Brown, Committee Member
Todd Jarvis.
Staff present: Jennifer Armer, Joel Paulson, Laurel Prevetti, Sally Zarnowitz, and Lynne Lampros.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Working Session to Review and Discuss Additional Information Regarding the Initial
Draft of the Land Use Element and the Initial Draft of the Community Design Element.
Jennifer Armer, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
PAGE 4 OF 4
MINUTES OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NOVEMBER 19, 2020
N:\DEV\GPAC\GPAC Minutes\2020\11-19-20 DRAFT_ready for review.docx
passed unanimously. As a result, a maximum density of 30-40 dwelling units per acre,
to match the Mixed-Use designation will be added to the development standards for
the Office Professional designation.
Chair Hanssen asked the Committee to vote on whether they agree that residential
should be allowed over service commercial uses, with controls. The majority was in
favor, 6-0-1 with Committee Member Zolla abstaining. As a result, the Service
Commercial designation will allow residential in mixed use development, with certain
restrictions to protect service commercial uses.
The next GPAC meeting will be on Thursday, December 3, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
November 19, 2020 meeting as approved by the
General Plan Update Advisory Committee.
Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
May 13, 2022
MEMORANDUM FOR: Interested parties
FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
SUBJECT: State Income Limits for 2022
Attached are briefing materials and Revised State Income Limits for 2022 that are now in effect,
replacing the previous 2021 State Income Limits. Income limits reflect updated median income
and household income levels for acutely low -, extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-
income households for California’s 58 counties. The 2022 State Income Limits are on the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-federal-income-limits.shtml.
State Income Limits apply to designated programs, are used to determine applicant eligibility
(based on the level of household income), and may be used to calculate affordable housing
costs for applicable housing assistance programs. Use of State Income Limits are subject to a
particular program’s definition of income, family, family size, effective dates, and other factors. In
addition, definitions applicable to income categories, criteria, and geographic areas sometimes
differ depending on the funding source and program, resulting in some programs using other
income limits.
The attached briefing materials detail California’s 2022 Income Limits and were updated based
on: (1) changes to income limits the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
released on April 19, 2022, for its Public Housing, Section 8, Section 202 and Section 811
programs and (2) adjustments HCD made based on State statutory provisions and its 2013 Hold
Harmless (HH) Policy. Since 2013, HCD’s HH Policy has held State Income Limits harmless
from any decreases in household income limits and median income levels that HUD may apply
to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits. HUD determined its HH Policy was no longer
necessary due to federal law changes in 2008 (Public Law 110-98) prohibiting rent decreases in
federal or private activity bond funded projects.
For questions concerning State Income Limits, please see the Questions and Answers on page
5. You can also contact HCD staff at (916) 263-2911.
2022 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932
Page 2 of 5
Overview
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), pursuant to Health & Safety Code
Section 50093(c), must file updates to its State Income Limits with the Office of Administrative Law.
HCD annually updates these income limits based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) revisions to the Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits that HUD most
recently released on April 19, 2022.
HUD annually updates its Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits to reflect changes in median
family income levels for different size households and income limits for extremely low-, very low-, and
low-income households. HCD, pursuant to statutory provisions, makes the following additional revisions:
(1) if necessary, increase a county’s area median income to equal California’s non-metropolitan median
income, (2) adjusts area median income and household income category levels to not result in any
decrease for any year after 2009 pursuant to HCD’s February 2013 Hold Harmless (HH) Policy (HCD’s
HH Policy was implemented to replace HUD’s HH Policy, discontinued in 2009, to not decrease income
limits and area median income levels below a prior year’s highest level), and (3) determines income
limits for California’s acutely low-income and moderate-income category.
Following are brief summaries of technical methodologies used by HUD and HCD in updating income
limits for different household income categories. For additional information, please refer to HUD’s
briefing materials at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il//il22/IncomeLimitsMethodology-
FY22.pdf
HUD Methodology
HUD Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits begin with the production of median family incomes.
HUD uses the Section 8 program’s Fair Market Rent (FMR) area definitions in developing median
incomes, which means developing median incomes for each metropolitan area, parts of some
metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county. The 2022 FMR area definitions for California are
unchanged from last year. HUD calculates Income Limits for every FMR area with adjustments for
family size and for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing-cost-to-income
relationships.
Extremely Low-Income
In determining the extremely low-income limit, HUD uses the Federal Poverty Guidelines, published by
the Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty guidelines are a simplified version of the
federal poverty thresholds used for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial
eligibility for certain federal programs. HUD compares the appropriate poverty guideline with 60% of the
very low-income limit and chooses the greater of the two as the extremely low-income limit. The value
may not exceed the very low-income level.
Very Low-Income
The very low-income limits are the basis for the extremely low- and low-income limits. The very low-
income limit typically reflects 50 percent of median family income (MFI), and HUD's MFI figure generally
equals two times HUD's 4-person very low-income limit. However, HUD may adjust the very low-income
limit for an area or county to account for conditions that warrant special considerations. As such, the
very low-income limit may not always equal 50% MFI.
Low-Income
In general, most low-income limits represent the higher level of: (1) 80 percent of MFI or, (2) 80 percent
of state non-metropolitan median family income. However, due to adjustments that HUD sometimes
makes to the very low-income limit, strictly calculating low-income limits as 80 percent of MFI could
produce unintended anomalies inconsistent with statutory intent (e.g., very low-income limits being
2022 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932
Page 4 of 5
For households of more than eight persons, refer to the formula at the end of the table for 2022 Income
Limits. Due to the adjustments HUD can make to income limits in a given county, table data should be
the only method used to determine program eligibility. Arithmetic calculations are applicable only when a
household has more than eight members. Please refer to HUD’s briefing material for additional
information on family size adjustments.
HCD Methodology
State law (see, e.g., Health & Safety Code Section 50093) prescribes the methodology HCD uses to
update the State Income Limits. HCD utilizes HUD’s Public Housing and Section 8 Income Limits.
HCD’s methodology involves: (1) if necessary, increasing a county’s median income established by
HUD to equal California’s non-metropolitan county median income determined by HUD, (2) applying
HCD’s HH Policy, in effect since 2013, to not allow decreases in area median income levels and
household income category levels, (3) applying to the median income the same family size adjustments
HUD applies to the income limits, and (4) determining income limit levels applicable to California’s
moderate-income households defined by law as household income not exceeding 120 percent of county
area median income.
Area Median Income and Income Category Levels
HCD, pursuant to federal and State law, adjusts median income levels for all counties so they are not
less than the non-metropolitan county median income established by HUD ($80,300 for 2022). Next,
HCD applies its HH policy to ensure area median income and income limits for all household income
categories do not fall below any level achieved in the prior year. Health and Safety Code section 50093
requires HCD to adjust the AMI for family size in accordance with adjustment factors adopted by HUD
and illustrated on the previous page. This establishes that the MFI published by HUD equals the four-
person AMI for California counties.
Acutely low-Income Levels
Chapter 345, Statues of 2021 (Assembly Bill 1043) established California’s acutely low-income levels.
See Health & Safety Code, § 50063.5. After calculating the 4-person area median income (AMI) level as
previously described, HCD sets the maximum acutely low-income limit to equal 15 percent of the
county’s AMI, adjusted for family size.
Moderate-Income Levels
HCD is responsible for establishing California’s moderate-income limit levels. After calculating the 4-
person area median income (AMI) level as previously described, HCD sets the maximum moderate-
income limit to equal 120 percent of the county’s AMI, adjusted for family size.
Applicability of California’s Official State Income Limits
Applicability of the State Income Limits are subject to particular programs as program definitions of
factors such as income, family, and household size vary. Some programs, such as Multifamily Tax
Subsidy Projects (MTSPs), use different income limits. For MTSPs, separate income limits apply per
provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-289). Income
limits for MTSPs are used to determine qualification levels as well as set maximum rental rates for
projects funded with tax credits authorized under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). In
addition, MTSP income limits apply to projects financed with tax-exempt housing bonds issued to
provide qualified residential rental development under Section 142 of the Code. These income limits are
available at http://www.huduser.org/datasets/mtsp.html.
2022 State Income Limits Briefing Materials
California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932
Page 5 of 5
Questions and Answers
In Los Angeles, as well as several other counties in the state, why does the very low-income limit
not equal 50% of the AMI (or the low-income limit not equal 80% of the AMI)?
There are many exceptions to the arithmetic calculation of income limits. These include adjustments for
high housing cost relative to income, the application of state nonmetropolitan income limits in low-income
areas, and national maximums in high-income areas. In Los Angeles County, as well as several
others, the magnitude of these adjustments results in the low-income limit exceeding the AMI.
These exceptions are detailed in the FY 2022 Income Limits Methodology
Document, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il//il22/IncomeLimitsMethodology-FY22.pdf.
For further information on the exact adjustments made to an individual area of the country, please see
HUD’s FY 2022 Income Limits Documentation System. The documentation system is available
at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#2022 query. Once the area in question is selected, a
summary of the area’s median income, Very Low-Income, Extremely Low-Income, and Low-Income
Limits are displayed. Detailed calculations are obtained by selecting the relevant links.
Why don’t the income limits for my area reflect recent gains?
Although HUD uses the most recent data available concerning local area incomes, there is still a lag
between when the data are collected and when the data are available for use. For example, FY 2022
Income Limits are calculated using 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data, and one-
year 2019 data where possible. This is a three-year lag, so more current trends in median family income
levels are not available.
How does HUD calculate Median Family Income (MFI)?
HUD estimates Median Family Income (MFI) annually for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan
county. The basis for HUD’s median family incomes is data from the American Community Survey, table
B19113 - MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS. A Consumer Price Index (CPI)
forecast as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is used in the trend factor calculation to bring the
2018 ACS data forward to FY 2022.
For additional details concerning the use of the ACS in HUD’s calculations of MFI, please see HUD’s FY
2022 Median Family Income methodology document,
at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#2022 data.
Additionally, full documentation of all calculations for Median Family Incomes are available in the FY
2022 Median Family Income and the FY 2022 Income Limits Documentation System. These systems are
available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#2022 query.
Why didn’t the income limits for my county change from last year?
HCD’s Hold Harmless Policy likely prevented the income limits from decreasing from last year’s levels
and has maintained them despite a decrease in median income and/or income limits published by HUD.
Why do the income limits or area median income for my county not match what was published by
HUD?
HCD adjusts each county’s area median income to at least equal the state non-metropolitan county
median income, as published by HUD. Further, HCD’s Hold Harmless Policy prevents any decrease in
income limits or median family income published by HUD to be applied to State Income Limits.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: KENNETH ARENDT
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 10:29 AM
To: Ken Arendt ; Pat Arendt ; Barry Bakken
; Candy Bakken ; Annemone Barnett
Chris Bearden ;
Jeanette Bearden ; Amy and Dave Bowser ;
Rachel Brodie ; Brodie, Paul >; Hal Chase
>; Karen Chase >; Gary and Heidie Collins
>; Heidi Collins >; David Demaria
>; dawn demaria >; Bob and Nancy Derham
>; Jim Finkle >; Douglass G Heath
>; Bill Highstreet >; Shirley Highstreet
Brian Kaefer >; Kristen Kaefer
>; Jenannie and Kayvan Kimyai >; Zlata Kovac
>; Chris and Frank Lawrence >; lesliepennington
>; Patricia Madison >; Arnold and Suzanne Moore
>; Gary Neuner ; Gary & Rene NEUNER
>; rene neuner ; Richard Neuschaefer
Kathryn Parkman ; Phil Parkman
; Brad and Leslie Pennington Tom Pulley
; Tom and Karen Pulley ; jim tatsukawa
>; Hsiao-in Wang >; Romy Zeid
>
Cc: Matthew Hudes <matthew@matthewhudes.com>; GP2040 <GP2040@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Council Will Vote Soon on Housing and General Plan
EXTERNAL SENDER
HI all, please do take a minute or two to read this from Matt Hudes. What the TC will do
tonight will have an impact on us all.
FYI, as best I can determine, this high density movement by the town manager,
Provetti, exceeds her authority to establish policy for the town. And yet, there is no
documentation that the TC has extended that authority to her. Nor has any action been
taken, that I can determine, to correct that by the TC. We are in trouble.
Suggest you write to the TC to express your concerns.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Matthew Hudes <matthew@matthewhudes.com>
To: Kenneth Arendt
Date: 06/18/2022 2:23 PM
Subject: Council Will Vote Soon on Housing and General Plan
HI Kenneth,
On Monday night at 7:00 PM the Los Gatos Town Council will consider the Draft
2040 General Plan which includes as many as 3,904 additional homes in Los
Gatos. This is an opportunity, before a vote is taken, for your voice to be heard
regarding Housing, Neighborhood Character, and the Future of Our Town.
Town Council
7:00 PM June 20, 2022
https://losgatosca-
gov.zoom.us/j/88004227157?pwd=ZG1pc3pscTZwZXdCWjc2SkM3b2Nzdz0
Passcode: 320795.
In April, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft 2040 General Plan and
made some recommendations to the Council. I have had many conversations
with folks around Town, and I am summarizing three key areas and some
questions that remain:
1. Should virtually every residential area in Town be "upzoned" into more
dense neighborhoods?
2. Will services and infrastructure keep pace with the safety and quality of
life that our residents expect?
3. How can we preserve the character of our community while guiding the
Town into the future?
As always, please feel free to reach out to me at matthew@matthewhudes.com
and you can send your comments to the Town at gp2040@losgatosca.gov
Thanks for your engagement,
Matthew Hudes
Councilmember, Town of Los Gatos
_________________________________________
Key questions:
1. Density on top of Density
Increased density is when additional homes are built in spaces previously zoned
for fewer homes. The Draft 2040 General Plan and the Planning Commission
Recommendation call for increased density (also called "upzoning") in
virtually every residential area in Los Gatos. The State's SB9 mandate also
allows for additional density on top of the upzoning.
• Do we need that additional upzoned density? And can our town handle the
associated impacts of traffic, parking, water-use, and wildfire hazard?
• Why should any properties be upzoned in the Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zone, some of which are on narrow roads with flammable
vegetation?
• And what is the goal of this transformation of Los Gatos
neighborhoods—will increased density result in affordable housing or
just many large luxury residences on small lots?
2. Overall growth
As drafted, the 2040 General Plan, would allow Los Gatos to grow by at least
8,971 people or 28%, which is almost three times greater than the Town’s growth
rate in the last 20 years. Infrastructure and services will need to keep pace with
growth in order for safety and quality of life to be maintained. Town-wide
upzoning could result in even greater stress on our services and infrastructure,
yet the fiscal impact of this growth has not been analyzed in the Draft 2040
General Plan.
• Why would Los Gatos plan for nearly double the amount that the State
is mandating in its latest Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)?
(California’s and Santa Clara County's populations have decreased over
the last several years.)