Your April 23 article on the Los Gatos Green project hearing reads more like a biased editorial than legitimate reporting. The petty tone directed at Commissioner Rob Stump is especially troubling.
The role of the Planning Commission is to ensure that development proposals comply with CEQA, State housing laws, Town codes and the General Plan. Asking developers tough questions—about traffic, parking and infrastructure—is not obstruction; it’s called due diligence. Commissioner Stump was doing exactly what his role requires.
Rather than engage with the substance of those questions, your article chose to mock Stump’s background and tone, while portraying the developer in glowing terms. The sarcastic comparisons and casual editorializing undermined what should have been a serious discussion about how 55 new units will impact the town.
Los Gatos residents expect the Planning Commission to be thorough and deliberate—not deferential to developers. The implication that questioning assumptions about transit or parking is somehow outdated or anti-housing is disingenuous.
The Los Gatan once again reveals itself as biased and dismissive of valid community concerns. There is a clear difference between journalism and advocacy, and this piece crossed the line.
If your paper wants to inform, not influence, it should treat public servants and the planning process with fairness and respect—regardless of whether their questions make a developer uncomfortable.
Jak Van Nada
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Again you missed the point in your latest critique of the Planning Commission, with your article about our April 23 meeting.
While trying to weaken Commissioner Stump’s points presented, and not addressing the real concerns of mine and Commission Stump, you do a huge disservice to the community.
The project was voted on unanimously only because of the attached amendment. That amendment was a recommendation to the Town Council to do a blanket “cumulative impact study” on all projects moving forward, including this project.
Things have changed drastically since the blanket EIR done for the 2040 General Plan. That EIR only looked at projects in the Sites Inventory. We wanted a new look at all the unforeseen impacts on our town that will be created.
My suggestions were actually heard and agreed to regarding following the suggestions of our town architect. It is sad to me that the rest of the story is never presented fairly.
Susan Burnett
Planning Commissioner
