Attachment 10 - April 13, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report, with Exhibits 12-13PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/13/2022 ITEM NO: 3 DESK ITEM
DATE: April 13, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Make Recommendations on the Draft 2040 General Plan and
Final Environmental Impact Report to the Town Council.
REMARKS:
In response to a question from a Planning Commissioner, staff has calculated that if the
properties in the Central Business District designation were reverted to the housing density
allowed in the existing 2020 General Plan, the reduction in housing units from that change
would be 76 units.
Exhibit 12 contains Planning Commissioner comments.
Exhibit 13 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022, and
11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, plus one comment that was unintendedly omitted
from the Addendum Report.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibits previously provided (available online here: http://losgatos2040.com/documents.html):
1.Draft 2040 General Plan
2.Draft EIR
3.Revised NOA and Transportation section
4.Final EIR
Exhibits previously received with the April 13, 2022 Staff Report:
5.Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
6.GPAC Recommended Changes to the Vision and Guiding Principles
ATTACHMENT 10
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR DATE: April 13, 2022
EXHIBIT (continued):
7. Modifications Proposed in Public Comment
8. Board of Forestry Recommended Changes
9. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 2021, and 11:00 a.m.
Monday, September 20, 2021
10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, September 20, 2021, and 11:00
a.m. on Thursday, April 7, 2022
Exhibit previously received with the April 13, 2022 Addendum:
11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 7, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on
Monday, April 11, 2022
Exhibits received with this Desk Item:
12. Planning Commissioner Comments
13. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 11, 2022, and 11:00 a.m. on
Wednesday, April 13, 2022
Los Gatos Draft 2040 General Plan
Comments from Commissioner Clark
Below are some changes I would like to see made to the Draft 2040 General Plan in the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to Town Council, as well as some comments and topics for conversation. They are sorted as (A) Wording Changes; (B) Broader Changes; and (C) Topics for Discussion.
A.Wording Changes: Below are recommended wording changes. Some are more substantive
than others.
1.1-15 Cross-cutting Topic IconsItems marked with this icon are designed to identify goals and policies, policies, and
policies that affect and promote overall community health.
2.2-3 Key TermsEquality. The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. Equalopportunity, levels of support, and allocation of resources, regardless of different
circumstances.
Equity. Fairness or justice in the way people are treated. Differing allocation ofopportunities, levels of support, and resources based on each person or group’scircumstances and needs, thereby reaching an equal outcome.
3.2-4 RSEJ-2.7 Cultural Proficiency and Anti-Bias Training for Town Staff
Develop and implement engaging, substantive, and interactive cultural proficiency andanti-bias training for all Town employees and support similar training efforts undertakenby the business community.
4.2-7 RSEJ-6.6 Accessibility to Town Events
Schedule Town events using different days, times, and formats (i.e., virtual and digitalaccessibility) to encourage and facilitate participation among community members withwork, school, and other obligations that conflict with more traditionally scheduling.
5.2-8 2.4 Implementation Programs. H Career and Job Training
Coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, including localnonprofits, to organize an annual career and job fair with local employers to highlightlocal employment and employment training opportunities for Los Gatos residents.
6.3-35 LU Implementation Program M (Distribute Neighborhood Meeting Guidelines)
Prepare and distribute information describing guidelines for conducting neighborhoodmeetings and criteria for reporting the results of neighborhood meetings with projectapplications. A neighborhood meeting can take the form of an informal gatheringbetween neighbors to review and discuss a project, an open house put on by a property
owner or developer, or any convening of those who live in proximity to a proposed
project with the purpose of discussing the project.
EXHIBIT 12
7. 4-5 CD-1.4 Memorable Places Through Infill Development Promote infill development projects that create memorable places throughout the Town through high-quality architecture, pedestrian oriented streetscapes, and age-friendly
designed public spaces. Memorable places, while hard to define, are structures,
landscapes, amenities, and other features that stand out compared to sometimes monotonous streets, making these locations more “memorable.” 8. 8-17 ENV-13.8 Increase Historical and Cultural Awareness
Support a community sense of stewardship for historic and cultural resources both
through supporting talks, tours, and other programs that increase awareness and promote Los Gatos as a destination with historic cultural resources and through including Ohlone people in the conversation and planning.
9. 8-17 8.8 Tribal Cultural Resources
Los Gatos is in an area once occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people, which extends from the point where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers flow into the San Francisco Bay to Point Sur, with the interior Coastal Ranges most likely constituting the inland boundary. Before colonization outside contact, Ohlone lived in base camps of
tulereed houses and seasonal specialized camps. Ohlone ate food gained by hunting,
gathering, and fishing. Mussels were particularly important to their diet, as well as sea mammals and acorns. Seven Franciscan missions were built in Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all
members of the Ohlone group were eventually forced brought into the mission system.
After the establishment of the missions, the Ohlone population dwindled was decimated from roughly 10,000 people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814. In 1973, the population of people with Ohlone descent was estimated at fewer than 300 after what is widely cited as a genocide. The descendants of the Ohlone united in 1971 and have since arranged political
and cultural organizations to revitalize, maintain, and pass on aspects of their culture.
B. Broader Changes: Below are some changes I recommend that do not warrant specific wording changes at this time or are not wording-related changes.
1. 1-6 1.5 The Los Gatos Community
In the three-paragraph history and context of Los Gatos, the only mention of the Ohlone people is “The Ohlone lived sustainably in the area rich with fertile soils, abundant wildlife, and other natural resources.” Provide direction for staff and Council to include additional information about the Ohlone in relation to the land that the Town of Los
Gatos now occupies and the cultural history of the land, rather than only the
topographical history. 2. 2-9 Racial, Social, and Environmental Justice Element Implementation Programs Add an implementation program after Program K (Community Engagement) to Implement Policy RSEJ-4.1 Acceptance of Government Issued Vouchers. The program
should be implemented between 2020-2025 and include Cross-cutting Topic Icons EJ and
HC. 3. 4-2 Community Design Element Key Terms
Add a definition of “rafters” to the Key Terms. Rafters are referenced in the definition of “Eave” with no definition of rafters the reader can refer to. 4. 4.6 Implementation Programs. B Commercial Design Guidelines Update (and 4-10 CD-
2.26)
Include implementation of CD-2.26 (Climate Considerations in Site Design) to Implementation Program B and consider strengthening the language of CD-2.26. CD-2.26 plans to “Encourage applicants to consider the Mediterranean climate in Los Gatos and plan for sustainable site design to address adequate solar access, water conservation
and retention, and wind conditions.” This will increase the likelihood that this component
of the General Plan is implemented, as the policy will be considered during updates to the Commercial Design Guidelines. Additionally, consider strengthening the language of CD-2.26 by adding a formal incentive to encourage applicants or requiring applicants to take measures to accommodate the Town’s Mediterranean climate.
5. 5-9 Implementation Programs. D Community Shuttle System
Change the implementation timeline of Program D Community Shuttle System from 2026-2040 to 2020-2025. While this program may not be fully implemented before 2026, the Town should begin work on this during the period of 2020-2025. A community shuttle system is an important option to consider, particularly given current and
upcoming struggles with parking, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions. 6. 8-17 8.8 Tribal Cultural Resources In addition to the recommended wording changes listed above, add a third paragraph focusing on what Ohlone people do today. Many of the cultural practices referenced as
historical are still taking place, and Ohlone culture is still very much alive. Additionally,
work with Native people to ensure use of the term “Ohlone” is correct (rather than “Tamien,” for example).
C. Topics for Discussion: Below is one topic I think we should consider during our discussion
at the meeting.
1. (No page number) Clarification of “Encourage” a. The word “encourage” is used consistently throughout the document in descriptions of policies and how they will be implemented. While this is
necessary because this word can hold many definitions and varies between topics
and elements, it is also important to ensure we all understand what “encourage” means in the context of the General Plan. Because a very significant number of policies plan to “encourage” a course of action, we need to ensure this encouragement can/will have an impact and that there are tangible examples of
“encouragement.” The Commission should discuss this potential challenge and
determine whether there does appear to be a need for clarification.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 13
From: Laura Montonye Reese
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 8:54 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Council@LosGatosCA.gov
Hello Ms. Armer,
My name is Laura Reese and I live in Los Gatos near the University Avenue fire station.
I'm emailing you with a request: please include a plant-based education program in the Environmental
and Sustainability section of the General Plan (Section 8).
Los Gatos residents need to understand the enormous environmental impact of their food choices. They
need to know how choosing plant-based options three times a day can positively impact climate change,
water quality, and air quality, not to mention improving the lives of farmed animals.
Here is an excellent resource for exploring the environmental impacts of our food
choices: https://www.plantbaseddata.org/
I'll quickly add that education is only the beginning. The more we can make plant-based options the
defaults at restaurants and civic gatherings, the more impact we can have. I refer you to the Default Veg
website for ideas for nudging a population toward making plant-based
choices https://www.defaultveg.org
Thank you,
Laura Reese
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 6:33 AM
To: Jennifer Armer; Shelley Neis
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Francois, Matthew
Subject: Agenda Item #3 - Planning Commission Meeting
Hello Shelley and Jennifer,
Would you please include the email below in the Planning Commission’s package for the April 13
Planning Commission? Thank you.
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Attached please find a modified Table 3-1 “General Plan Residential Buildout” found in the draft 2040
General Plan. The only change to the table is the addition of the column labeled “Derived Draft GP Total
units”.
This column reflects the total new units (redeveloped) allowed by the proposed increases in allowable
densities for all land uses. The units shown were derived using the redevelopment percentage and the
redeveloped new units found in the table.
For example, given a 15% redevelopment percentage for high density residential and a total of 268 new
redeveloped units, the derived total new units at 100% redevelopment would be 1,787 units (e.g., 268
units = 15% x 1,787 units).
It is important to understand that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve increases in
zoning densities for all land use categories Town wide which will allow 14,618 additional new housing
units. This number is approximately equal to the total number of housing units currently available in Los
Gatos today. Stated another way, the changes in zoning densities made by the 2040 General Plan
would allow for the doubling of the current size of Los Gatos.
If the high end of the market demand for housing over the next 20 years as forecasted by ADE is 1,954,
and the minimum number of units the Town is required to plan based on the 6th cycle RHNA is 1,993,
why is it appropriate to double and triple land use zoning densities to allow for the redevelopment of
14,618 new units?
The answer is obvious – it is not warranted.
Changes to the current land use densities should be made only to the extent necessary to meet the 20-
year market demand for new housing in Los Gatos of 1,954 and to comply with the minimum housing
required by the 6th cycle RHNA of 1,993 plus 15% buffer (2,292). With that in mind, all the changes
outlined on page 6 of the Staff report make sense and should be adopted by the Planning Commission.
Please make these changes.
Thank you.
The Los Gatos Community Alliance
Land Use
Designation
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
Existing
General
Plan
Draft
General
Plan
Derived
Draft GP
Total Units
Assumed
Redevelp
%
New
Housing
(redev)
New
Housing
(vacant)
Low Density
Residential
0 to 5 1 to 12 4 12 1,680 5%84 283
Medium Density
Residential
5 to 12 14 to 24 10 20 3,430 10%343 224
High Density
Residential
12 to 20 30 to 40 18 36 1,787 15%268 110
Neighborhood
Commercial
10 to 20 10 to 20 16 18 910 10%91 26
Community
Commercial
0 20 to 30 0 26 1,040 15%156
Mixed-Use 10 to 20 30 to 40 16 36 3,025 20%605 126
Central Business
District
10 to 20 20 to 30 16 26 753 15%113 21
Office
Professional
0 30 to 40 0 36 1,700 15%255 4
Service
Commercial
0 20 to 30 0 26 293 15%44 10
Subtotal 14,618 1,959 804
2,763
500
3,263
475
3,738
Draft General
Plan
Housing Units, Existing Projects
Total
Housing Units, New and Redeveloped
Density Range
(du/ac)Typical Density
Redevelopment
Assumptions
Housing Units, ADUs
Subtotal
From: Mendoza, Clarissa
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:56 PM
To: Planning Comment
Cc: Francois, Matthew; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Laurel
Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
Subject: Comments Regarding Final EIR For Proposed 2040 General Plan; April 13, 2022 Planning
Commission Hearing, Agenda Item No. 3.
Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:
Attached please find written correspondence from Mr. Francois on behalf of the Los Gatos Community
Alliance, in regards to the above-referenced matter.
Best,
Clarissa Mendoza
Legal Secretary
455 Market Street, Suite 1870 | San Francisco, CA 94105
O. (650) 263-7900 | D. (650) 320-1500 x7725
CMendoza@rutan.com | www.rutan.com
_____________________________________________________
Privileged And Confidential Communication.
This electronic transmission, and any documents attached hereto, (a) are protected by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (18 USC §§ 2510-2521), (b) may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information, and (c) are for the sole use of the intended recipient named above. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please notify the sender and delete the electronic message. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of the information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Matthew D. Francois Direct Dial: (650) 798-5669 E-mail: mfrancois@rutan.com
April 12, 2022
Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 455 Market Street, Suite 1870
San Francisco, CA 94105 | 650-263-7900 | Fax 650-263-7901
Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | www.rutan.com 2696/037011-0001 17701620.3 a04/12/22
VIA E-MAIL [PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov]
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Comments Regarding Final EIR For Proposed 2040 General Plan; April 13,
2022 Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda Item No. 3.
Dear Chair Hanssen and Members of the Planning Commission:
We write on behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance (“LGCA”), a group of concerned citizens, in regard to the Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the 2040 General Plan (the “Proposed Plan”).1 In previous correspondence to the Town of Los Gatos (the “Town”),
LGCA expressed its significant concerns with the Proposed Plan’s major upzoning of every
residential and commercial land use district in the Town. We pointed out how such intensification was not studied in the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) as required by CEQA. We also explained that such intensification was entirely unnecessary to accommodate the 1,993 additional housing units needed per the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), which itself was a 222 percent increase over the Town’s last RHNA allocation. We further pointed out that if the Proposed Plan’s
upzoning were to be approved, the Town would generally be precluded from denying or reducing the density of any housing project that complied with those new density standards. As detailed in our previously submitted comments and additional comments below, summarized below, the EIR remains significantly flawed and cannot legally be relied upon to adopt
the Proposed Plan as currently proposed. Accordingly, we reiterate our request that the Town focus first on the Housing Element update. Once the Housing Element update has been finalized, the Proposed Plan should be revised to reflect it as well as the other recommended changes detailed in our March 22, 2022 letter, including restoring existing Low Density Residential densities and modifying other allowed densities so that build-out under the Proposed Plan would accommodate
approximately 2,300 units, including units that would qualify as affordable. This would meet the Proposed Plan’s dual objectives of satisfying market demand and the Town’s new RHNA number.
1 Members and/or supporters of LGCA include: former Mayor Joanne Benjamin, former Mayor Sandy Decker, former Mayor Tom Ferrito, former Mayor Steve Rice, former Mayor Barbara
Spector, former County Superintendent of Schools Colleen Wilcox, Tim Lundell, Phil Koen, Don
Livinghouse, Sandra Livinghouse, Lee Fagot, Ann Ravel, Rob Stump, Rick Van Hoesen, and Jak Vannada.
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 2
2696/037011-0001 17701620.3 a04/12/22
1. The EIR Fails To Analyze The Reasonably Foreseeable Consequences Of The
Proposed Plan.
The reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Proposed Plan is that growth above and beyond that studied in the EIR will occur in accordance with the increased densities and intensities permitted by the Proposed Plan. The FEIR claims the changed densities and intensities will not
result in much added growth because of “assumptions” about the percentages of already improved land that will be redeveloped. The FEIR cites to the small percentage of vacant land (which still totals nearly 700 acres) and assumed redevelopment rates ranging from 5-15 percent for existing developed land. The FEIR claims that these assumed redeveloped percentages are reasonable based on historic growth rates and the need to satisfy and comply with the mandated RHNA number.
(FEIR, p. 117.) There are several flaws with this explanation. First, it appears that the EIR simply studied the RHNA number plus a buffer as well as units in the pipeline and accessory dwelling units. As such, the EIR did not study the actual project—the Proposed Plan—that is up for consideration. There is no acknowledgment
whatsoever of the potentially significant impacts associated with the greatly increased densities and intensities in nearly every residential and commercial land use district. Second, the historic, old growth rates tied to existing allowed densities/intensities are irrelevant in light of the proposed new densities/intensities and the economic demand associated
with them. While the Town may have experienced growth of 40 units per year under current densities, the EIR needs to study what growth the Town may experience in light of the significantly higher densities allowed by the Proposed Plan.2 (FEIR, p. 150.) It is unreasonable and unjustified to assume that the existing growth rate is the anticipated growth rate.3 (FEIR, pp. 144.) Even if the historic growth rates were relevant, there is no explanation at all how the redevelopment rates
are correlated to the old growth rates. In other words, how does a 0.5 to 0.7 growth rate translate into an assumed redevelopment potential of 5-15 percent for residential lands and 10-15 percent for commercial lands?
2 While the table on page 4 of the Staff Report correctly shows existing and proposed densities for residentially-designated properties, it incorrectly portrays existing densities for commercial and office lands. No residential densities are specified for these lands in the current General Plan. 3 Contrary to the FEIR, the court in San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, did not sanction the approach used by the
EIR consultants here. Instead, the court there found that a housing element which did not modify land uses or increase heights or densities properly “compare[d] the changes in the housing element to the existing environment, including existing height limits and densities.” (26 Cal.App.5th at 902, 910.) The difference here is that the Proposed Plan significantly increases densities and intensities in nearly every land use district and the EIR ignores the impact of those changes. The
FEIR also cites another baseline case, Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air
Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, which is not relevant to the FEIR’s failure to consider the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the Proposed Plan.
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 3
2696/037011-0001 17701620.3 a04/12/22
Third, there is no correlation between the assumed redevelopment percentages and the acres of land to be redeveloped. For instance, the DEIR acknowledges that 4,460.93 acres are designated and developed as Low Density Residential. (DEIR, Table 4.11-1.) If five percent of these lands are assumed to be redeveloped at densities of 12 units per acre, this would produce 2,676 units. Yet, the EIR assumes only 84 new units will be produced. (DEIR, p. 4.11-2.) How
this number was derived and why it is reasonable to rely on is nowhere explained in the EIR. Additionally, why are only 804 units assumed to be developed on approximately 700 acres of vacant land.4 (DEIR, p. 4.11-2.) This resulting density of 1.1 units per acre does not match the permitted densities ranging from 12-40 units per acre.
Fourth, the FEIR acknowledges that it did not assume any additional commercial development beyond that which is already approved and pending. (FEIR, p. 118.) This ignores the Proposed Plan’s significant increase in allowed floor area ratios from 0.5 up to 3.0. It also ignores the potential for additional commercial development at these increased intensities on vacant lands.
Fifth, the deflated assumptions regarding redevelopment conflict with various goals and policies cited in the DEIR and FEIR. For instance, the DEIR states that the “Land Use Element promotes and emphasizes infill development and redevelopment of underutilized parcels.” (DEIR, pp. 2-9; accord, DEIR, pp. 2-1, 4.4-12, 4.4-16, 4.17-9 and Proposed Plan, Goal CD-7 and
Policies LU-5.1, CD-7.2, and MOB-7.1.) It states that development will occur primarily in already developed areas. (DEIR, p. 4.11-12 [“Unlike many communities where growth is primarily on vacant land, Los Gatos would see a higher percentage of change through redevelopment of lands that have development potential.”]; see also DEIR, pp. 4.1-15, 4.4-13, 4.4-18, 4.4-20, 4.1 and FEIR, pp. 119, 122.)
Sixth, the arbitrary nature of the assumptions and complete lack of consideration of the economic pressures caused by upzoning is evident in the Alternatives section where the growth alternatives vary depending on the seemingly random percentages of redevelopment assumed to occur inside and outside Opportunity Areas. (DEIR, pp. 6-4, 6-9, 6-15.)
Finally, only in response to comments on the DEIR does the Town explain how the assumed redevelopment rates were derived. Even then, the explanations are flawed and unsupported. There is no explanation whatsoever of the assumptions in the DEIR. An agency cannot wait until a Final EIR to provide critical information so as to immunize itself from public scrutiny and comment.
In short, the EIR still fails to analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the project. Although the Proposed Plan greatly increases densities and intensities in almost every land use designation, including Low Density Residential, the responses are that this growth will not
4 The assumed residential units on vacant land in Tables 4.11-2 (804) and Table 4.11-3 (504) do not match. Contrary to FEIR Response 9.49, Table 4.11-3 does not show acreage, it shows units.
Honorable Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 4
2696/037011-0001 17701620.3 a04/12/22
materialize based on the “percentages” of vacant land and “assumptions” about the amount of
developed land that will be redeveloped. This response is not supported by substantial evidence, as required, and thus is legally inadequate.
2. The FEIR Acknowledges The Use Of Inconsistent And Conflicting Baselines.
The FEIR states that the Town used future conditions as its baseline. “The Draft 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 on existing conditions and the potential for future development in this time period.” (FEIR, p. 117 [emphasis added].) 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. [emphasis added].) 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.) At minimum, it raises an issue of shifting and inconsistent baselines. For instance, while the FEIR says the baseline is future growth under 2040 conditions, the DEIR suggests it relied on an
existing conditions baseline, at least as to vehicle miles traveled and certain other resource categories. (DEIR, 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.)
3. The FEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Address Significant Transportation
Impacts. The RDEIR identifies a new significant unavoidable impact. Specifically, Impact T-1 now 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.5 The RDEIR acknowledges that transit
5 (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 Melanie Hanssen, Chair and
Members of the Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 5
2696/037011-0001 17701620.3 a04/12/22
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.) The EIR does not impose enforceable mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen a significant impact and defers 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.)
********************
In closing, the DEIR fails to analyze the environmental impacts of the Proposed Plan and thus fails to comply with CEQA. As such, the Town cannot legally rely on the EIR to adopt the Proposed Plan. LGCA reiterates its request that the Town focus first on the Housing Element update
prior to considering the Proposed Plan or any other General Plan update. If the Town nonetheless continues to proceed with the Proposed Plan, it should be based on Alternative 1 (Low Growth Alternative) and associated modifications made to the designations and densities currently set forth in the Proposed Plan to achieve this lower housing capacity.6
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 April 13, 2022 meeting on the Final EIR and Proposed Plan. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this correspondence.
Very truly yours,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Matthew D. Francois
cc (via e-mail): Honorable Rob Rennie, Mayor, and Members of the Town Council Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Joel Paulson, Community Development Director Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
6 Combined with the 1,100 units of additional capacity remaining capacity under the current General Plan, Alternative 1 could produce an additional 1,156 units for a total of 2,256 units.
From: Kathy Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 9:37 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Fwd: General Plan
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy Anderson
Date: April 12, 2022 at 7:03:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: General Plan
Planning Commission
I am asking you to vote no on the General Plan.
The housing element with zoning changes, density and height increases will drastically change Los Gatos
in a negative way.
Los Gatos will become another San Jose if the General Plan is approved.
Think about why you and others chose to move to Los Gatos.
I do not understand why Council would approve $50,000. for a study on marijuana dispensaries but
would not have a study on the financial impact of the General Plan.
I hope that the future of Los Gatos is not left in the hands of 5 Council members. Think the N40.
Any future dramatic changes to Los Gatos should be decided at the polls.
Once Los Gatos is gone - we can never get it back.
Kathy Anderson
Foster Rd. Los Gatos
On Apr 12, 2022, at 7:39 PM, Campbell Scott wrote:
Hello Marina,
Please pass this along to an appropriate person for consideration at the meeting on April 12th.
I find no mention of Reach Codes in the Los Gatos 2040 General Plan, draft of June 2021.
There is growing recognition in the public sector that local ordinances will play an important role in
meeting state and federal goals to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Examples include the
elimination of natural gas pipelines in new buildings, and encouraging the installation of electric vehicle
charging stations in apartment buildings.
Such measures have been enacted in nearby cities from San Jose to Half Moon Bay. They are an
important tool in the toolbox for limiting the worst effects of climate change, and given the urgency
stated by the IPCC, they must be enacted and implemented well before 2040.
I hope that you consider this proposal for inclusion in the Los Gatos 2040 Plan.
Sincerely
Campbell Scott
From: Julie Groves
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 8:08 PM
To: GP2040
Subject: LG general plan
Thank you for your work
Aside from the other issues regarding housing and building, I am most concerned with
keeping a view scape. The round tower on the south west corner Los Gatos Blvd and
Blossom Hill (the old video store) still offends me every time I pass it.
Why block a view of the hills?
Julie Groves
From: Phil Grasser
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:52 AM
To: GP2040
Cc: Matthew Hudes
Subject: Town Housing
Hello Matthew and Town,
Thanks again for another email update regarding planning and thoughts about it. My two cents…
1) 3,904 housing units; we (and all of California) need more housing units. Both rents and
purchases are out of reach for nearly all.
2) Affordable. We need younger people to be able to live here; they will be our future.
3) Spread around; we should not cluster in one area. That simply becomes a ghetto.
4) Walkability of new developments, bike lanes (already well along), small bus vehicles with in-town
only routes (like in Dana Point), low impact landscaping, stay out of the mountains.
5) Do not tie-in to infrastructure improvement--that easily becomes the excuse to do nothing.
6) I agree with upzoning. The homes along LG Blvd that Robson built several years ago are
beautiful, and I like the North 40 as well.
7) ADUs should be counted.
Phil Grasser
From: Anne Roley
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 7:06 AM
To: GP2040
Subject: RE: Comments for Planning Commission - General Plan 2040
Please include these comments in the Planning Commission Packet - Thank you!
Dear Planning Commission
I am hearing around town the discussion of the 2040 General Plan and more specifically the housing
elements. From what I have observed, two sides have developed. One side wants a lower number of
homes allowed and the other side wants a higher number of homes allowed. How do we come together
as a community and make a decision? I suggest putting all the needs on the table from both sides and
having a discussion with an openness to listen to each other without a right/wrong mentality and
without a desired outcome. From this type of connection and discussion, creative strategies can surface
and an outcome attending to all needs can manifest. What are the needs of the citizens that want a
lower number of houses approved for the General Plan? I am guessing they value - space, comfort,
balance, beauty, ease, peace/tranquility, sustainability, and order. What are the needs of the citizens
that want a higher number of houses approved for the General Plan? I am guessing they value -
inclusion, diversity, affordability, and growth. These values are Universal. - I can say for myself - I want
space, comfort, balance, beauty, ease, peace/tranquility, sustainability, order, inclusion, diversity,
affordability, and growth.. How can our values be shared, respected, heard, and considered without
jumping to judgement and criticism, which disconnects us, causes tension, resistance and leads to one
side against another. I long for a community where people listen to what is important to each other
with an open heart and mind and come to decisions that take into account all needs on the table. A
win/win outcome. A shared mutual reality. If one wins at the expense of the other, it usually comes at a
cost. Come together with an open mind and heart, sit down at the table with the needs and values,
listen to each other with empathy, build understanding and connection, be creative and strategize, and
allow a solution to surface. If people have a willingness and have the time, this type of compassionate
communication called Non Violent Communication or NVC works.
Anne Roley
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank