The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 5 - July 12, 2016 Staff Report & Exhibits 26-31TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 12, 2016 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSONS: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICATION SUMMARY: RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: Sally Zamowitz, Planning Manager szarnowitzga,losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-13-090 Vesting Tentative Map Application M-13-014 ITEM NO: 2 North 40 Specific Plan Phase 1 (southerly portion of the North 40 Specific Plan area, Lark Avenue to south of Noddin Avenue) Grosvenor USA Limited Don Capobres (Harmonie Park Development Co.) and Wendi Baker (Summerhill Homes) Yuki Farms, ETPH LP, Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill N40 LLC, Elizabeth K. Dodson, and William Hirschman Requesting approval for the construction of a new multi -use, multi -story development consisting of 320 residential units, which includes 50 affordable senior units; approximately 66,800 square feet of commercial floor area, which includes a market hall; on -site and off -site improvements; and a vesting tentative map. APNs: 424-07-024 through 027, 031 through 037, 070, 083 through 086, 090, and 100. Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council, subject to recommended conditions. General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Applicable PIans & Standards: Project Area: North 40 Specific Plan North 40 Specific Plan General Plan; North 40 Specific Plan 20.7 acres ATTACHMENT 5 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 CEQA: FINDINGS: CONSIDERATIONS: Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Agriculture, Commercial, and Residential North 40 Specific Plan (N40 SP) N40 SP East Commercial and Residential Mixed Use Commercial CH, R-1:8 South Commercial, Office and Residential Mixed Use Commercial, Low and Medium Density Residential CH, R-1:8, RD West Highway 17 N/A N/A An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for the North 40 Specific Plan on January 5, 2015. An Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the proposed Phase 1 development applications do not require additional environmental clearance beyond the certified EIR. • That an Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the project does not require additional environmental clearance beyond the certified EIR. • That the project is consistent with the General Plan. ■ That the project is consistent with the North 40 Specific Plan. • As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for demolitions. • As required by Table 2-6 of the North 40 Specific Plan for reduction of non-residential setbacks. • As required by Section 29.10.420 (a) of the Town Code if the Planning Commission denies the Density Bonus request. • As required by Government Code Section 65589.5 if the Planning Commission denies the Development Standard waivers. s As required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map for the Vesting Tentative Map application. • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 ACTION: EXHIBITS: Open the public hearing, take testimony, and forward a recommendation to the Town Council, subject to the recommended conditions. Previously received under separate cover: 1. Proposed Development Plans, received March 18, 2016 (242 pages) Previously received with the March 30, 2016 Staff Report: 2. Location Map (one page) 3. Initial Study (79 pages) 4. Findings and Considerations (three pages) 5. Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map (six pages) 6. Conditions of Approval for the Architecture and Site Application (27 pages) 7. Letter of Justification received March 23, 2016 (10 pages) 8. North 40 Narrative received February 8, 2016 (seven pages) 9. Economic study letter received November 6, 2015 (25 pages) 10. October 14 and November 11, 2015 CDAC Minutes (seven pages) 11. Response to CDAC comments received February 8, 2016 (13 pages) 12. January 27, 2016 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes (five pages) 13. Consulting Architect Report received December 18, 2015 (six pages) 14. Response to Consulting Architect Report received February 8, 2016 (three pages), 15. Consulting Architect Report received March 21, 2016 (six pages) 16. Consulting Arborist Report received October 14, 2013 (33 pages) 17. State Density Bonus Law - Government Code Section 65915- 65918 (14 pages) 18. Density Bonus Ordinance and Program Guidelines - Ordinance 2209 (21 pages) 19. Letter from Barbara Kautz, received March 10, 2016 (16 pages) 20. Town's BMP Program and Guidelines - Ordinance 2181 (19 pages) 21. Public comment received through 11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 24, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 Previously received with March 30, 2016 Addendum Report: 22. Updated letter from Barbara Kautz received March 25, 2016 (five pages) 23. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 24, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on March 28, 2016 Previously received with March 30, 2016 Desk Item Report: 24. Residential Density Exhibit (one page), received March 30, 2016 25. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 28, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on March 30, 2016 Received with this Staff Report: 26. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) prepared for North 40 Study Session (14 pages) 27. Verbatim minutes of the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission meeting (164 pages) 28. Verbatim minutes of the June 15, 2016 Study Session (143 pages) 29. Memo from Town Attorney regarding application deadlines (eight pages) 30. Items received at March 30, 2016 Planning Commission (four pages) 31. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 30, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on July 6, 2016 BACKGROUND: On June 17, 2015, the Town Council adopted the North 40 Specific Plan, providing more detailed land use and development guidance for the area than occurs in the General Plan. The approval of the North 40 Specific Plan also amended the zoning of the property to North 40 Specific Plan. While the Specific Plan was going through its extensive public process, Grosvenor USA submitted Architectural and Site (A&S) and Vesting Tentative Map applications for the portion of the Specific Plan area south ofNoddin Avenue (together called the Phase 1 applications). After the Specific Plan was approved, revised applications were submitted to the Town. On February 16, 2016, the Town Council approved a Story Pole Exception for the Phase 1 development applications to provide for a reduced time frame and other exceptions given the existing uses on the properties. On March 30, 2016, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the applications, took public testimony, and continued consideration of the applications to April 27, 2016. The Commission could not take an action because the story poles had not been completely installed in accordance with the approved Story Pole Exception. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 On April 19, 2016, the Town Council denied a subsequent request to modify the approved Story Pole Exception, and requested a joint study session with the Town Council, Planning Commission, and associated School District Boards. On April 27, 2016, the Planning Commission continued the applications to a date uncertain given the Council's action on April 19, 2016. On May 4, 2016, the story poles were certified as complete in accordance with the approved Story Pole Exception. The February motion for the exception allowed the poles to be installed for 60 days "sandwiched between Planning Commission meetings." The Study Session was held on June 15, 2016 and the verbatim minutes of that meeting are included in Exhibit 28. On June 29, 2016, the Town Council discussed the original Story Pole Exception and provided clarification that the primary story poles, except for those that are a detriment to tenants (e.g., along Los Gatos Boulevard), should be kept up through August 9, 2016, the first Town Council meeting scheduled to review the Phase I development applications. The March 30, 2016 staff report and attachments provide the technical review of the proposed Phase I development applications. The intent of this staff report is to continue to evaluate the proposed development as it relates to the North 40 Specific Plan requirements and address questions that have been received through public testimony and written correspondence. The majority of these questions and comments focus on housing, traffic, open space, consistency with the look and feel of Los Gatos, and schools. The school issues were addressed in the staff report for the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, information on all these topics has also been provided in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) (Attachment 26). After the Analysis section, the report suggests a sequence of issues as a framework for Planning Commission deliberation. The Chair has the discretion to modify the sequence at her discretion. ANALYSIS: The following topics are discussed based on public testimony and written communication: A. Housing B. Traffic and Additional Environmental Review C. Open Space D. Look and Feel of Los Gatos A. Housing The Town adopted and received State certification of its 2015-2023 Housing Element in May of 2015. This document was the result of more than 20 community and public hearing meetings between January 2014 and May 2015. The Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) met 15 times before providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Town Council. One of the most challenging issues was determining which properties should be zoned to meet the Town's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. The Council adopted the Housing Element with the North 40 Specific Plan area as one of planned locations for new Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 housing as well as other sites and measures. The potential rezoning of the North 40 Specific Plan area and other sites were determined to be consistent with the existing goals and policies of the General Plan. Following are responses to specific housing related questions or comments submitted by the community that may be helpful in the Planning Commission's deliberations. Are there examples of developments at 20 units/acre in Town, and how big are those units? The Phase l development proposes condominiums and rental units at a density of 20 to 21 DU/AC, with unit sizes ranging from 580 to 1,999 square feet (sq. ft.). The following provides information, based on available data from sample residential and mixed -use developments constructed in Los Gatos: Aventino Apartments: 46 units/acre (516 to 1,484 sq. ft.) Baytree Apartments: 21 units/acre (782 to 1,114 sq, ft.) Riviera Terrace (Vivere): 36 units/acre (639 to 1,035 sq. ft.) Lora Drive (condominiums): 21 and 23 units/acre (800 to 1,000 sq. ft.) Oak Rim Way/Oak Rim Court (condominiums and rentals) 20 units/acre (sq. ft. unknown) Can the developer include cellars and reduce the mass of the development while providing the density required within the Housing Element? While cellars could be included within the proposed development, the majority of the residential ground floor area provides the required parking in garages for the residential units. The applicant has indicated to staff that accessibility and cellar light well requirements make it difficult to create the Specific Plan's required pedestrian connections due to the grade changes, and that cellar light wells would encroach into the pedestrian realm. While larger subterranean parking garages could be included, these would limit the ability to provide private garages for the residential units and require larger, more connected structures. The development should include single-family detached residences and parks for kids. One of the primary goals ofthe North 40 Specific Plan was to address the unmet residential needs within the Town. According to the Town's 2020 General Plan (Table LU-1), approximately 60 percent ofthe land located in Town contains single-family residential uses, whereas only 6.5 percent contains multi -family residential uses, Residential land uses in the North 40 Specific Plan are focused on multi -family housing types, and single-family detached housing is not a permitted land use within the North 40 Specific Plan area. A variety of unit types and sizes are permitted within the Lark and Transition Districts of the North 40 Specific Plan area. Residential uses within the Northern District are restricted and only residential over commercial uses are allowed. Please see the discussion under Section C. Open Space below for a response to the comment on parks. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 North 40 Phase 1 /S-13-090/M- 13-01 4 July 12, 2016 Density and Intensity. Density is a proportional measurement of the number of residential units per acre, and is related to the intensity which covers elements such as floor area, height, massing. and setbacks both between units and from adjacent streets. The Housing Element (Action HOU 1.7) required the Town to rezone 13.5 acres within the North 40 Specific Plan Area to comply with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and established by -right development for these units (i.e. review based on objective standards). The intensity connects to what you see and how it integrates with existing development. The parameters provided within the Specific Plan regarding landscape buffers from Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard, and stepped -down heights along these streets provided direction as to the intensity of development that was anticipated within the Specific Plan area. The North 40 Specific Plan assumed that the intensity of development would increase towards the northern end of the site. The Specific Plan identified several different housing types that could meet the intent of the Plan. The Lark District was intended to be the least intense with primarily residential uses and limited commercial. The application proposes predominantly Garden Cluster (attached and semi -attached) units and more open space (42.5 percent) in the Lark District. The Transition District provides for neighborhood -serving commercial uses, office, and more intense residential development. The Northern District (not included in the current application) limits residential uses to a mixed -use context of residential above commercial uses. The Northern District was intended to provide for the majority of the commercial, office, or hotel uses that were anticipated within the Specific Plan area. B. Traffic and Additional Environmental Review The North 40 Specific Plan EIR included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which studied the traffic impacts from the full build out of the Specific Plan area on the existing roadways. The analysis concluded that the full build out would result in significant traffic impacts at several intersections, and identified mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. As noted in the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission staff report, the Phase I TIA included in the Initial Study for the Phase I applications (Appendix D of the Initial Study in Exhibit 3) studied the potential traffic impacts specific to the Phase I development applications, and found that the Phase I development applications would generate a portion of the North 40 Specific Plan build out traffic. As required by the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, the Phase I applications, if approved, are required to pay traffic impact mitigation fees and construct on -site and off -site improvements as part of the required mitigation. In other words, the Initial Study and the additional traffic analysis did not find new significant impacts and therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required. At the Study Session, the participants inquired as to the criteria that need to be met for further analysis. Pursuant to CEQA there are three types of additional analysis that can be required after Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 an EIR is certified: a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to an EIR, and an Addendum to a previous EIR. A Subsequent EIR can be prepared for projects that change substantially due to new information, a changed project description, or changed circumstances within which the project would take place. Generally, new information requiring a Subsequent EIR would pertain to significant effects that were not previously analyzed. In order to require a Subsequent EIR, the Town must determine, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: • Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; • Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or • New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows any of the following: o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or o Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. A Supplement to an EIR may be prepared for projects in which only minor changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A Supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous Draft or Final EIR, but the Supplement must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15163). An Addendum to a previous EIR is appropriate where that EIR adequately analyzed the project and if there are only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 9 North 40 Phase 1 /S-13-0901M-13-014 July 12, 2016 Since traffic is the key issue of concern and because additional analysis was completed that did not uncover new impacts, no further environmental clearance is necessary beyond the certified LIR which provides the mitigation measures that the Phase I applications would need to implement if approved. C. Open Space The North 40 Specific Plan open space requirements were designed to encourage integration of an interconnected system of open spaces, parks, and plazas within the area. Several of the responses provided in the FAQ (Attachment 26) provide information regarding how the proposed project and the North 40 Specific Plan open space requirements compare to other commercial and multi -family requirements throughout the Town. The Town does not have a minimum open space requirement for commercial developments, and the limited amount of common and private open space required for multi -family projects would be significantly less than the 30 percent required by the North 40 Specific Plan. The proposed Phase I development applications provide 38.9 percent of the total development area as open space (42.5 percent in the Lark District and 34.5 percent in the Transition District are included in the proposed application). The proposed application provides 22.8 percent of the total development area as green open space; the North 40 Specific Plan requires a minimum of 20 percent green open space, defined as: • Parks • Bioretention areas • Common or private residential green space • Planters of 50 square feet or greater • Landscape planting strips • Driveable turfblock • Parking lot landscaping The proposed application provides 16.1 percent of the total development area as hardscape open space. The North 40 Specific Plan defines this as private or common paved areas for pedestrian use, including: • Plazas • Courtyards • Pathways • Sidewalks • Pedestrian paseos D. Look and Feel of Los Gatos The North 40 Specific Plan provides specific direction for development through regulatory tools. The Land Use and Development Standards and Design Guidelines included in the document are Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 10 North 40 Phase 1 /S-13-090/M- 1 3-01 4 July 12, 2016 designed to reflect the Vision and Guiding Principles of the North 40 Specific Plan, including the notion of the "look and feel of Los Gatos"' and retention of its small town character. In addition to the specific open space, landscaping, and setback development standards, the North 40 Specific Plan incorporates relevant sections of existing Town documents (General Plan, Commercial Design Guidelines, Boulevard Specific Plan, and AHOZ Design Guidelines) in order to guide development that will be consistent with the look and feel of Los Gatos. Some specific examples listed in the Specific Plan that are included in the proposed development application and are also applied to other projects throughout Town are: • Providing visual interest and breaks, both vertical and horizontal, in two- and three-story wall planes • Providing pedestrian orientation and scale to proposed buildings • Maintaining continuity of design from all sides • Providing variation in color and texture of materials • Providing a variety of roof forms and building shapes The look and feel of Los Gatos varies throughout the Town depending on the location and housing product type present in a given neighborhood and high quality design is an important Town -wide element of a consistent look and feel of Los Gatos. The proposed application includes many high quality design details and the variety necessary to give the proposed development the look and feel of Los Gatos. In a related subject, the following question was submitted by a community member: Can the developer include underground parking? In the Transition District, the proposed development includes one level of below grade parking beneath the market hall/senior housing building. 130 spaces are proposed within the below grade level of the parking garage, which is comparable to the 150 at grade parking spaces provided throughout the commercial area of the Phase 1 development. The third floor of the parking garage also incorporates open space. SUGGESTED SEQUENCE OF ISSUES FOR COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Planning Commission's role with the North 40 applications is to make recommendations to the Town Council. The Commission must complete its work by its July 20, 2016 meeting to provide the Council the time it needs to complete decision -making by the September 7, 2016 Permit Streamlining deadline (see Exhibit 29). If the Commission does not have a recommendation, the default recommendation is denial. In its deliberations on the applications, the Commission has the discretion to consider the overall Vision and Guiding Principles of the North 40 Specific Plan as reflected in the Land Use and Development Standards as well as other elements of the North 40 Specific Plan. The Commission should identify specific facts associated with the application to support the needed findings. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 11 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 To assist the Commission in its deliberations, the Commission may wish to work through the fundamental issue of the number and geographic distribution of the housing units. The resolution/recommendations related to this issue may inform or provide direction for the Commission's other recommendations on the remaining issues. Below is a suggested sequence of the issues for the Commission's consideration. • Overall number and geographic distribution of housing units o If the Planning Commission determines that number and distribution are not consistent with the Specific Plan, then the Commission must give a rationale and identify a revised housing yield and/or distribution that would be consistent with. the Specific Plan. Specific facts must be articulated for the record. o Staff will assist the Commission through the related issues of density bonus and by -right development in this discussion. • Open space quantities and distribution • Building setbacks • Building heights • Commercial uses • Parking • Architecture CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis provided above, and the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission staff report and attachments, the proposed Phase I development applications meet the technical requirements of the North 40 Specific Plan, the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Town's Housing Element. The proposed traffic impacts will be mitigated by the required traffic impact mitigation fees and implementation of the proposed right-of-way improvements. The Commission should consider the recommended conditions of approval to ensure the proposal meets the North 40 Specific Plan zoning and other Town Codes, policies, and guidelines. Other specific comments and direction are welcome as part of the Commission's recommendation to the Town Council. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission take the following actions to forward a recommendation for approval of the Architecture and Site application and Vesting Tentative Map to the Town Council: 1. Make the required finding that an Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the project does not require additional environmental clearance beyond the certified EIR (Exhibit 4); and 2. Make the finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 4); and 3. Make the finding that the project is consistent with the North 40 Specific Plan (Exhibit 4); and 4. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for granting approval of demolitions (Exhibit 4); and Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 12 North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014 July 12, 2016 5. Make the findings as required by Table 2-6 of the North 40 Specific Plan for reduction of non-residential setbacks (Exhibit 4); and 6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 4); and 7. Make the required finding that none of the findings in Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act for the denial of the Vesting Tentative Map application could be made. 8. Recommend Approval of Architecture and Site application S-13-090 and Vesting Tentative Map application M-13-014 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibits 5 and 6 and the development plans (Exhibit 1). ALTERNATIVES: If the Commission has concerns with the application, it can: 1. Forward a recommendation for denial to the Town Council; or 2. Forward a recommendation for approval with direction and/or modified conditions of approval to the Town Council; or 3. Continue the matter to July 13, 2016 for further deliberations. Prepared by: Sally Zamowitz, AICP Planning Manager JP:SZ:cg N:1DEVIPC REPORTS120161North 40 Report-7-12-16.docx proved by: oel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director North 40 FAQs 1. What is a Specific Plan? Under California State law, each governing body (City/Town Council or Board of Supervisors) of a local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the municipality. A municipality may prepare and adopt a Specific Plan to help implement the municipality's General Plan for a particular geographic subarea of the community. A Specific Plan is incorporated into the General Plan and provides more detailed land use information and establishes the primary means of development guidance within the project area than occurs in the community's General Plan. By law, Specific Plans must include, among other items: • Explanation of the relationship to and consistency with the General Plan; • Location and distribution of land uses, including the amount of each type and the development densities and intensities; • Development standards and guidelines for each land use; • Transportation circulation, other infrastructure, and public facilities to support the planned level of development; and • Implementation strategies, including financing of infrastructure. Once a Specific Plan is adopted, development applications for the area are reviewed by the municipality for consistency with the Specific Plan as well as other applicable governing land use documents in the community. 2. What is the history of and public involvement for the North 40 Specific Plan process? A draft Specific Plan for the North 40 Area was prepared in 1999, but was not adopted. In 2010, the Town Council adopted the 2020 General Plan. The 2020 General Plan required the preparation of a Specific Plan for the North 40 Area and included goals, policies, general guidelines, and implementation strategies to inform the preparation of the Specific Plan. The North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee (N40 AC) was established by the Town Council on March 7, 2011. The goal of the N40 AC was to serve as an Advisory Committee to the Town Council and the Planning Commission through coordination with staff and interaction with the community. The N40 AC consisted of nine members from the General Plan Committee, and up to six members of the community from the General Plan Update Advisory Committee. The N40 AC began meeting in March of 2011 and concluded their work on October 15, 2013. All meetings were open to the public and community members provided input at the meetings and in writing. The N40 AC considered all public comments in its deliberations. The N40 AC meeting minutes and reports are available on the Town website: http://www.losgatosca.gov/1729/North-40-Specific-Plan-Area. An Environmental Impact report (EIR) for the Draft Specific Plan was prepared and circulated for public comment in early 2014. The document received 35 comments. The Planning Commission considered the Draft Specific Plan and EIR at two meetings in July and August of 2014 at which 25 people provided public testimony. The Commission also considered all written public comments as documented in the reports available on the North 40 website. The Planning Commission deliberated on all of the information and public comments, and forwarded its recommendations to the Town Council for the Council's consideration which occurred on August 13, 2014. The Town Council considered the Draft Specific Plan and EIR on eight occasions between September 2014 and June 2015. During these proceedings, the public had multiple opportunities to submit written comments and provide verbal testimony as documented on the North 40 website, Council videos, and written reports and summaries. The Final EIR was certified on January 5, 2015 and the North 40 Specific Plan was adopted on June 17, 2015, incorporating the modifications approved by the Council based on its deliberations, consideration of public testimony, Planning Commission recommendations, and all other information contained in the record. 3. What is the overall vision for the North 40 area? Based on the work of the North 40 Advisory Committee (N40 AC), Planning Commission, and Town Council, the adopted North 40 Specific Plan contains a Vision and Guiding Principles that provide overarching guidance for development of the North 40 Specific Plan area, as follows: Vision The North 40 reflects the special nature of our hometown. It celebrates our history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small town character. The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods. It is respectful of precious community resources and offers unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of all of our residents. Guiding Principles to Achieve this Vision • The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos. • The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees, and open space. • The North 40 will address the Town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs. • The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services. 4. What is the amount of development allowed under the North 40 Specific Plan? The approval of the North 40 Specific Plan amended the zoning of the property to the tailored designation of North 40 Specific Plan. The Specific Plan provides a maximum allowable development capacity for the entire Specific Plan area of 270 residential units and 501,000 square feet of commercial uses (additional details are provided on pages 2-6 thru 2- 10 of the Specific Plan). The Specific Plan also requires 30% open space, design elements to reflect the orchard heritage of the properties, new bicycle and pedestrian paths as well as roads to serve the development, and improvements to nearby streets (e.g., Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard) to accommodate increased traffic. The Council reduced the development amount from the recommended quantities by the North 40 Advisory Committee (364 housing units and 580,000 square feet of non-residential development). The Planning Commission and Town Council meeting minutes and reports are available on the Town website: http://www.losgatosca.gov/1729/North-40-Specific-Plan- Area. 5. Where can I find a copy of the adopted Specific Plan? http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15472 6. Where can I find the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan? Draft EIR: Insert Link: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8891 Draft EIR Appendices: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/413 Final EIR: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13398 7. What mitigation measures were required by Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan? The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program specifies the required mitigation measures that were included in the EIR for the specific Plan. Mitigation measures are required for aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities. These can be found on the Town website at: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16356 8. Where can I find the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Specific Plan? http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8929 9. What existing and proposed projects were included in the cumulative traffic analysis within the TIA? Future (pending and approved) development projects included in the Cumulative TIA within the Specific Plan EIR were: • Albright -Los Gatos Business Park • Sutter Health -Palo Alto Medical (15400 Los Gatos Boulevard) • Stanford Cancer Center (Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Samaritan Drive -San Jose) • CVS (15650 Los Gatos Boulevard) • Swanson Ford Mixed Use Development (Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Blossom Hill Road) • Dell Avenue Area Plan (Campbell) • Additional smaller pending or recently approved projects were also included The TIA analyzed the cumulative traffic impacts associated with the North 40 in the context of these pending or ongoing development applications. The TIA includes any mitigation measures that are proposed or required as a result of these projects and analyzed the required mitigation measures associated with the North 40 Specific Plan to reduce potential traffic impacts to a less than significant level pursuant to State law regarding environmental analysis, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 10. Does the Town need to have a Certified Housing Element? Yes, all California municipalities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code (Sections 65580-65590) to adopt housing elements as part of their general plans. Housing element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected regional housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The housing element law is the State's primary market -based strategy to increase housing supply, affordability, and choice. The law recognizes that in order for the private sector to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. By law, every jurisdiction must plan for its fair share of new housing for all income segments of the community The housing element process begins with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Department of Finance (DOF) identifying the total housing need for the San Francisco Bay Area for an eight -year period. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then distributes this need to local governments based on a methodology developed by representatives of the nine County Bay region and adopted by the ABAG Executive Board.. The methodology considered existing local General Plans, projected job growth, transit locations, and other factors. As a result, housing policy in the State rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. Housing element law also requires the HCD to review local housing elements for compliance with State law and to report its written findings to the local government. Los Gatos was required to plan for 619 housing units per State law. 11. Where does the Housing Element plan these new housing units to be located in Los Gatos? The Town Council appointed the General Plan Committee (consisting of Planning Commissioners, Town Council members, and appointed community representatives) and additional community representatives to a Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB). All of its meetings were open to the public with opportunities for verbal and written testimony. The HEAB considered multiple locations for the new housing as well as significant technical issues. After considering public input and a variety of issues, the HEAB recommended that one of the sites for new housing should be the North 40. The Planning Commission conducted its required public hearings on the draft Housing Element and also made its recommendations. The Town Council considered both sets of recommendations as well as additional public testimony when it made the final decision to adopt the housing element. The Council's final decision on planned locations for new housing included the North 40. All of the deliberations and materials regarding the Housing Element can be found: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/14782 12. Where can I find the Town's Housing Element? Housing Element: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/14782 Technical Appendices: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/14791 The meeting minutes and reports for the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) can be found on the Town website: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/412 13. What is the connection between the Housing Element and the Specific Plan? The Town's Housing Element required adoption of the North 40 Specific Plan with certain development assumptions in order to meet projected housing needs. The Housing Element (Action HOU 1.7) required the Town to rezone 13.5 acres within the North 40 Specific Plan Area to comply with a minimum density of 20 units per acre within three years of the Housing Element adoption and established by -right development for these units. The Housing Element was adopted by the Town Council in May 2015; adoption of the North 40 Specific Plan implemented the required zone change in June 2015. 14. Is the North 40 an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)? No, the North 40 Specific Plan Area was not designated as an AHOZ site within the Housing Element. The North 40 Specific Plan provided development standards and guidelines for both the commercial/mixed use and the residential development within the Specific Plan Area. 15. Can the Specific Plan be amended to reduce the density? In order to comply with the Town's certified Housing Element, the North 40 must include 13.5 acres of residential development at 20 units/acre. Reducing the density to less than 20 units/acre or reducing the number of acres to less than 13.5 would conflict with the Town's Housing Element and would require the Town to rezone other properties in Town at 20 units/acre. 16. Is the Specific Plan consistent with the Town's General Plan? Yes, by State law the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan. The Specific Plan provides more detailed design, development, and policy requirements than the General Plan. The Specific Plan implements the General Plan by providing more particular direction tailored to the North 40 Area. 17. What is by -right development? The housing element must include a detailed land inventory and analysis including a site specific inventory listing properties, zoning and general plan designation, size, and existing uses to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing needs. In response to the Town's draft housing element, the HCD determined that the Town did not demonstrate adequate sites, appropriately zoned to meet the jurisdictions share of the regional housing needs. In order to obtain certification of the Town's housing element from HCD, the Town had to designate sites including providing zoning that allows owner - occupied and rental multi -family uses "by -right" with minimum densities and development standards. The phrase "use by right" shall mean the local government's review of the owner occupied or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a "project" for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code [CEQA]. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act. A local ordinance may provide that "use by right" does not exempt the use from design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a "project" for purposes of [CEQA]. Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.25. The concept is to require the community to identify sites that are available for development with affordable housing without any discretionary review, 25 §65589.5(f) permits a local agency to require developments to comply with development standards consistent with meeting the quantified objectives and to impose fees to provide services and facilities. 18. Did the North 40 Specific Plan consider the existing traffic issues and anticipate additional traffic? Yes. The North 40 Specific Plan and EIR anticipated additional traffic as a result of development within the Specific Plan Area and required mitigation measures to appropriately reduce these impacts. The delays at all 31 studied intersections, along with impacts of the proposed project with and without the required mitigation measures are provided in the TIA. 19. What traffic mitigation measures are required by the Specific Plan? As required by the EIR, the Specific Plan requires roadway and intersection improvements to be completed within each phase of the Specific Plan implementation. Specific traffic mitigations can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Report on pages 3-220 through 3-230 (http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8891#page=310) and include: • Widening of Lark Avenue to accommodate additional traffic lanes, and • Modifications to Los Gatos Boulevard within the existing right-of-way, both south and north of Lark Avenue. Additionally, the Specific Plan required that each phase of proposed development provide a traffic analysis to determine that the traffic and impacts studied within the EIR are not intensified with a proposed project within the Plan Area. 20. Phasing: Why does the Specific Plan allow it and what does it mean'? The North 40 Specific Plan Area, when adopted, included 38 parcels and even more property owners. Given the size and complexity of the ownership, it is highly unusual that all 40 plus acres could be developed in one phase. This is because of existing businesses and residents, the need to build new infrastructure on the property, and other considerations. Phasing recognizes the property rights of existing land owners within the Plan Area and allows each development to adjust to current needs and improved design standards. 21. What role does the Specific Plan play in future development applications? The Specific Plan provides specific parameters for all new development proposals within the Plan Area. All development applications are required to comply with the standards, guidelines, and requirements of the Specific Plan. Current and future property owners are held to the same standards. 22. Why isn't a school included in the North 40? The North 40 Specific Plan included both private and public schools as permitted uses within the North 40 Specific Plan Area. Public schools are regulated by the State as to proximity to certain uses such as freeways and gas stations. Additionally, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts the ability of local agencies, such as the Town of Los Gatos, to deny land use approvals on the basis that public school facilities are inadequate. SB 50 authorizes school districts to levy developer fees to finance the construction or reconstruction of school facilities to address local school facility needs resulting from new development. SB 50 establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees for school impacts. In January 2016, the State Allocation Board (SAB) increased Level 1 Fees to $0.56 per square foot of enclosed and covered space in any commercial or industrial development, and $3.48 per square foot for residential development (SAB, 2010). Public school districts can, however, impose higher fees than those established by the SAB, provided they meet the conditions outlined in the act. Developers and School Boards can voluntarily consider additional arrangements. For the southern portion of the North 40 Area, the Los Gatos Union School District Board entered into an agreement with the prospective developers regarding school issues: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/ 16133 23. Why is there no school being planned for the development? See FAQ #22 24. Could Los Gatos voters consider a special vote to buy the North Forty property for the town and make it an orchard/park? Get commercial sponsors to help. The right of the government to obtain private land for public purposes is known as eminent domain, and this right derives from federal and state constitutions and related laws. The power of eminent domain allows the government to take private land for public purposes only if the government provides fair compensation to the property owner. The process through which the government acquires private property for public benefit is known as condemnation. Most condemnation proceedings turn on the value of the property at issue. How much a piece of property (or an interest in property) is worth depends on many factors. The zoning of the property and the value of surrounding properties provide useful guidance for the calculation. The many unique characteristics of a property often result in a different estimation of value between the property owner and the government. In addition to an appraiser and an attorney, each side may have additional experts, such as engineers and architects. Factors that are considered in property valuation include: its size, how it is zoned, what kinds of buildings and roads are on it, what it's currently being used for, what it could be used for, how accessible it is, what other businesses or land uses are adjacent or nearby, and whether there are tenants or other leaseholders involved. Given the value of the North 40 with the adopted Specific Plan and zoning, it is unlikely that the Town would have the resources to purchase the land for fair market value under these processes even with corporate donations and other tax revenue. 25. What is the minimum amount of notice provided in no-fault evictions? What is the amount of relocation assistance provided to tenants? Is additional assistance provided to elderly tenants or those with disabilities? How does the Town enforce this ordinance and what are the ramifications for those property owners who do not adhere? The Town of Los Gatos does not regulate no-fault eviction or relocation assistance. Under state law, eviction notice requirements are governed by the agreement between the landlord and tenant and there are relocation assistance laws that may or may not apply depending on each individual circumstance. The Town does work to improve and preserve the supply and quality of existing rental and ownership housing opportunities that are available for residents and employees of local businesses. When new developments are approved by the Town, the Below Market Price (BMP) Housing Ordinance adopted in 1979 requires developers to offer a minimum percentage of the units so they are affordable to lower and median income households. Hello Housing (www.hellohousing.org) is the administrator of the Town's Below Market Price (BMP) Housing Program. 26. Now that there is a Specific Plan, can we back out of what is in the Specific Plan and try to preserve the area? Or is it too late? See FAQ # 17 and response #24 above. 27. Table 2-2 specifies a "Maximum" 400,000 square feet of commercial. Does that mean the Council can approve less than 400,000 square feet? Can the Town approve any amount it wants? Yes, the Town can approve less than 400,000 square feet of commercial uses, consistent with the Specific Plan. All development applications are evaluated based on their conformance with the Specific Plan as well as other factors. 28. Table 2-1 requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Yoga Studio but not for a restaurant with a bar. What is the reasoning behind this need for a CUP for a yoga studio but not a restaurant with a bar? The CUP requirement in Table 2-1 is for a health club, and an individual Yoga Studio would not be considered a health club. For purposes of Town zoning, a Yoga Studio is considered Instruction/Classes and would require a CUP anywhere in the Town, including the North 40 Specific Plan Area. Under the Town Code outside of the Specific Plan area, all uses involving the service of alcohol require a CUP. Because the Specific Plan establishes zoning rules specific for the North 40 area, restaurants offering alcoholic beverage service do not require a CUP. In contrast, under the Specific Plan, a standalone bar requires a CUP. 29. Under the 400,000 maximum for commercial under Table 2-2: is there anything in there or anywhere in the Specific Plan to prevent a developer from leasing all 400,000 square feet to restaurants? Is there any limitation on the amount of restaurants at all? The Specific Plan does not contain a maximum amount of restaurant space; however, a proposed development needs to demonstrate its consistency with the Specific Plan to address unmet needs of the Town and create a vibrant neighborhood in the northern portion of Los Gatos. One type of commercial use for all 400,000 square feet (e.g., all restaurants) would not be consistent with Policy LU3 that states "for a mix and size of uses to promote the creation of a lively, walkable neighborhood" and Policy LU1 1 that states "proposed uses should complement the existing balance and diversity of businesses located along Los Gatos Boulevard and in Downtown Los Gatos." 30. Can the Town Council repeal the North 40 Specific Plan? Can the Council repeal it when an application to develop has already been submitted? The Planning Commission and Town Council would need to hold noticed public hearings with the express purpose of repealing the Specific Plan. To maintain an adequate Housing Element under State law, at those same hearings, the Town would need to identify and zone replacement site(s) for the 270 units that would be removed by such repeal. The Town Council can repeal or amend the North 40 Specific Plan. Chapter 6.5 in the Specific Plan specifically addresses the process for amendments. Any application that has been deem complete under the permitting streamlining act or subdivision map act would not be subject to the repeal or amendments that were made by Council. 31. Are there any contingencies related to the sale of the Yuki Farm Property and the surrounding properties that could impact the outcome of the North 40 development? The Town is not a party to the sale of property and cannot comment on any contingencies between private parties. Implementation of the Specific Plan is not dependent on a specific applicant. The Town evaluates applications based on their own merits and the requirements of the Town's governing land use documents (i.e., General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning, etc.). 32. In the development of the General Plan for Los Gatos Boulevard, residents always requested land be set aside for open space and community recreation. What happened to that request as plans for the North 40 were being presented for consideration? The Specific Plan requires a minimum of 30% open space within each application for development. This is greater than the current requirement for commercial or multi -family developments in Town at this time. Town Code does not currently contain a requirement for a minimum amount of Open Space for commercial developments. 33. How many additional police, fire, and public works personnel will be required and how will this impact the Town's yearly budget? Will there be a need for additional taxes and/or fees to residents and/or business owners? The EIR analyzed the impact on public services. Please see FAQ #6. 34. How did the recently built homes along Guadalupe Mines Road come to be included in the Los Gatos School District? School District boundaries typically do not follow Town boundaries. The properties along Guadalupe Mines Road are in the City of San Jose and within the Los Gatos Union School District. The District's boundaries were determined prior to the development of the homes. 35. Is there any way that we as a Town can push back against the State and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) requirements for new housing, including affordable housing? Clearly these requirements do not take into account local lack of infrastructure and local overcrowding in schools. See FAQ #'s 11, 19 and 22. 36. Is the private agreement between the developer and the Los Gatos Union School District legal? Specifically, what do the other school districts involved want and/or need? Why aren't the residential units spread across the entire property so that adjoining districts will share in the increased attendance? See FAQ #22. 37. Why is there only one Planner for this enormous project? And if only one is deemed enough, why is it not the Planning Manager? The Town typically has one Planner assigned to each application that is submitted. The Planner works collaboratively with other Town Departments and outside agencies in the evaluation of the application. In addition, the Planning Manager and/or the Community Development Director provide supervision, guidance, and other technical support in the evaluation of all Planning applications. The project Planner does not work in isolation. 38. Why and how was Grosvenor USA Limited allowed to be so embedded in the preparation of the Specific Plan? The Town entered into an Agreement with Grosvenor with the purpose of Grosvenor funding the public planning process for the preparation of the Specific Plan and related documents. With this funding, the Town led all of the Advisory Committee meetings, managed the consultant teams that wrote the Specific Plan and EIR respectively, wrote all staff reports, and handled all public hearings. Grosvenor's funding only provided the resources to prepare a Specific Plan. 39. Can the Specific Plan be used to revise or deny their current application? Yes, the Planning Commission will evaluate the pending applications in light of the Specific Plan and make recommendations to Town Council regarding the approval, modification, or denial of the applications. 40. Can the 320 residential units be spread throughout the entire 44 acres? See FAQ #10. 41. Can we delay any development until the entire property has been purchased so that it is not developed piecemeal? Both the State Subdivision Map Act and the Permit Streamlining Act have mandatory timeframes for development application decisions that must be complied with. Additionally, the Specific Plan anticipated phasing of the development given the fact that there are a number of property owners. 42. Please define "open space" and if we have input on how it is achieved. The Open Space requirements and guidelines are provided on pages 2-11 thru 2-14 of the Specific Plan. The public had opportunities to provide input in the preparation of the Specific Plan. The public will have the opportunity to comment at public hearings before the Planning Commission and Town Council regarding the proposed development applications' approach to providing open space. The Planning Commission and Town Council consider all public comments in their deliberations. 43. How will traffic be mitigated if the November VTA Ballot Measure does not pass? The right-of-way improvements required for the development of the North 40 are implemented by the applicant, and are not dependent on the VTA ballot measure. 44. If everything is not covered on June 15th can we please continue the Study Session in September when everyone has returned from summer vacations? I always find it frustrating that all of the important meetings dealing with major issues in the Town are always held during some type of holiday when people are not in Town. The Town appreciates the comment, however, because the development applications are complete, the Town is under tight timeframes to hold public hearings and make final decisions in early September. 45. Can minimum requirements for housing density be met instead of maximum? The Specific Plan identified a maximum number of 270 housing units and consistent with the Housing Element, the minimum density is 20 units per acre. Please see FAQ #10. 46. Doesn't the Town have to conform to Specific Plan requirements for the aesthetics of the application; such as cluster housing, view of hills, "look and feel like Los Gatos"? All applications for development within the Specific Plan Area will require compliance with all applicable elements of the Specific Plan. 47. Can the Town encourage secondary units and small condo development to fulfill the state low income rules? These could be spread all over Town. The Housing Element does identify other, additional opportunities to meet the Town's housing needs. The Town currently provides for non -discretionary review of new second units in Town. In addition, there are properties with multi -family zoning within the Town for new condominium or apartment developments. 48. Can three-story buildings be prohibited on the North 40 to save the hillside views? The Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and Town Council carefully considered building heights in the preparation of the Specific Plan. As a result, the adopted Specific Plan contains maximum heights in Section 2.5.2, which provides direction as to building height and reduces the permitted building heights along the existing street frontages on Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. 49. What should 30% open space look like, sidewalks or parks/trees? See FAQ #42. 50. What CUP regulations and licenses are planned for the North 40? The permitted uses and uses that require a CUP are listed in Table 2-1 on pages 2-7 thru 2-10 of the Specific Plan. 51. Does the Town have a study about the impact of the development on sewer, water, public safety, etc.? These elements were analyzed in the EIR for the Specific Plan. See FAQ #6. 52. Since the partial opening of Netflix has there been an updated EIR? No, however, the traffic analysis for the North 40 Specific Plan EIR included the future Netflix construction as well as other pending or approved projects. See FAQ #9. 53. If the Town were to reduce the project density of the North 40 site, where would you locate the certified 270 units, required by the Housing Element, if not on the North 40 site? To maintain an adequate Housing Element under State law, the Planning Commission would need to recommend and Town Council would need to zone replacement site(s) for the 270 units. During the preparation of the Housing Element, a community Advisory Board considered a variety of potential sites, which could potentially be re-examined as well as new locations. All of the Housing Element Advisory Board's deliberations and work is available at: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/412. 54. I would like a clear explanation of what we are being forced to do by the state. In particular, I am bothered by the rules about concessions and our having no choice about that. How is state law like Code Section 65915 affecting what you are approving and the acceptance of an obviously inadequate EIR. The EIR has been certified as being consistent with State law. The State law pertaining to concessions is complex and is related to an applicant's request for a density bonus. Under this law, if the application meets the affordability requirements, the Town must provide reasonable concessions. 55. Why was the Specific Plan made a part of the General Plan? (This is not normal practice and creates a trap for the Council and Planning Commission.) The Specific Plan is a stand-alone policy document, consistent with the Town's General Plan. Consistent with State law, the Town adopted amendments to the General Plan to reflect the major features of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan helps implement the General Plan. 56. What is a senior --Over 55? One half of a space?? Was this staff driven, developer driven, or State driven? The Specific Plan does not define a senior citizen, however, most senior housing developments in California are intended for persons 55 years and older. For purposes of a development application, the applicant has the discretion to define the population(s) it intends to serve. Parking is often reduced in affordable senior developments. 57. Does the North 40 Specific Plan supersede the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan totally or in part? The Specific Plan in Section 1.5.2 states that "the Specific Plan incorporates and/or complements the concepts and guidelines from the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan where applicable." The North 40 Specific Plan Area is not subject to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan, however, the community -based Advisory Committee considered the Boulevard Plan in the preparation of the Specific Plan. N:\DEV\North 40\Study Session 6-15-16\North 40 FAQs 1-57.docx Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: APPEARANCE S: Mary Badame, Chair D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch (Recused) Charles Erekson Melanie Hanssen Matthew Hudes Tom O'Donnell Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Town Attorney: Transcribed by: Joel Paulson Robert Schultz Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1558 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 1 PROCEEDINGS: CHAIR BADAME: We will move along to our continued Public hearing, which is Item 2. Item 2 is our North 40 Phase 1, Architecture and Site Application S-13- 090, Vesting Tentative Map M-13-014, requesting approval for the construction of a new multi -use, multi -story development consisting of 320 residential units, which includes 50 affordable senior units, approximately 66,800 square feet of commercial floor area, which includes a Market Hall, onsite and offsite improvements, and a vesting tentative map, APNs 424-07-024 through -027, -031 through - 037, -070, -083 through -086, -090, and -100. May I have a show of hands from Commissioners who have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from Commissioners? Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had incidental conversation when I went and did the site visit. Also, I served on several committees prior to this, including the North 40 Advisory Committee, General Plan Committee, and the Housing Advisory Committee. I'll try to put that out of my mind as we go into this next phase, but I wanted to disclose that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 2 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Commissioner Hudes. I had incidental contact with the Applicant during the site visit and prior town hall meetings. I also had coincidental with Mr. Capobres while walking my dog past his residence. Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Like Commissioner Hudes, I also had incidental contact with the Applicant when we did our walkthrough of the site. I did not serve on previous committees, however. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: Incidental contact means we talked to them and asked them questions? CHAIR BADAME: I'll ask the Town Attorney what his interpretation of that is. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Incidental contact, and your rules and regulations says it's incidental, minor talking with an applicant or other parties that in no way is not included in your Staff Report or in other documentation that is outside. So in other words, you do not receive any information that is not currently in your package or in any of the information that's been provided you. Any information that's outside of that and is not privy to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 3 anybody else is not incidental contact and should be declared. VICE CHAIR KANE: I'm going to presume I did not have incidental contact. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Vice Chair Kane. Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think the record should be clear that all of us were given the opportunity two, certainly three I guess would be max, to tour the property within the last week, which we did. We had one or two people walking with us to show us the story poles, and that to all of us I think was incidental. We just go to see what we've been reading about, but I think almost all us, if not all of us, did that. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Commissioner O'Donnell, for that clarification. In advance of Staff's presentation, I will emphasize that we have a large number of speakers present. We would like to take advantage of accommodating as many of you as possible tonight. We are here as a community to gather and process information. The Commissioners will take this into consideration with our preliminary questions of Staff and the Applicant. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 4 I'm looking for Ms. Moseley. Are you ready to provide us with a Staff Report? MARNI MOSELEY: I am. Good evening. As you all are aware, there's a lot of information in front of you, so there's a lot of stuff that we could talk about tonight. I'm going to keep to the big items and help frame that discussion for you tonight, and obviously we'll get into some questions that fall in between those pieces. The development of the North 40 has been a topic of discussion off and on for the last 20 years. A specific plan was drafted in 1999 and never adopted. The Town's 2020 General Plan included a requirement that a North 40 Specific Plan be drafted, and as a result the Council appointed the North 40 Advisory Committee in May 2011. The Committee's role was to provide direction and guidance to Town Staff and the Town's consultant in drafting the Specific plan. A specific plan is used by jurisdictions to implement their General Plan within a particular geographical area. A specific plan provides more detailed land use and development guidelines as it relates to that specific area. The Advisory Committee met 20 times between May 2011 and August 2013. Their work included interaction with LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 5 the community and Staff in preparing a draft that met the direction of the goals and policies within the General Plan. These documents were considered and revised in a dozen public hearing meetings by the Planning Commission and the Council between 2013 and 2015. The Specific Plan and the certified EIR for the North 40 Specific Plan set parameters and studied the impacts of the maximum development capacity contained within the Specific Plan. The Town's Housing Element, which is usually included in the adopted General Plan, was not completed until May 2015. The delay was due in part to difficulties in designating the necessary RHNA sites within the Town. The adopted Housing Element includes the assumption that 13.5 acres of the North 40 will be developed at 20 acres per unit. Anything less than that would require a revision to the Town's Housing Element, with additional sites designated at 20 units per acre to replace those units not provided within the North 40. So while the Specific Plan permits a maximum of 270 units, provision of all these units is required at 20 units per acre in order to comply with the Town's adopted Housing Element. Providing these units at a lower density, for example, spread throughout LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 6 the Specific Plan area, would not meet the requirements of the Town's adopted Housing Element. The Applicant's proposal tonight includes a density bonus request. The state's Density Bonus Law is one of several California statutes designed to implement an important state policy to promote the construction of low- income housing and to remove impediments to providing low- income housing. When the legislature adopted the state Density Bonus Law it's purpose was to address the housing shortage crisis and require local governments to provide the necessary increased housing stock by reducing local discretion that would impede this provision. The Density Bonus Law applies to all cities and towns. It requires cities and towns to adopt an ordinance that specifies how local compliance with the statute would be implemented. As such, the Town adopted a state -mandated Density Bonus Ordinance in 2012. The ordinance was intended to comply with the state's ordinance and its requirements. If requested, the ordinance requires that unless specific findings can be made to deny the density bonus, the bonus and up to three concessions must be granted. The proposed application includes 50 affordable senior rental units, 49 of which would be very low-, and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 7 extremely low-, income units, which is defined as 30-500 of the median income of Santa Clara County, as well as one manager unit that would be available to the moderate rate income category. The senior units would be constructed and operated by Eden Housing, which is a local provider that owns and/or manages more than a hundred in the San Francisco Bay Area. The proposed number of very low-income units is in excess of 11% of the base units, which qualifies the Applicant to a 35% density bonus, which would be an additional 83 units. The Commission must grant the density bonus unless the required findings for denial can be made. Along with the provision of up to three concessions, the Town is additionally precluded from imposing a development standard that would preclude the Applicant from developing the density or number of units permitted by the bonus. The Applicant has not requested any concessions, but has requested a waiver from two development standards included in the specific plan. One is the definition of height, which specifies that the height should be measured from existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower; and the second is the allowance for additional height for the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 8 mixed -use affordable building from 45' to approximately 51'. The Commission must grant these waivers unless the findings for denial can be made. The proposed applications before you tonight include an Architecture and Site Application for development of 320 residential units and 66,791 square feet of commercial area. Two hundred and fifty two of the residential units are proposed to be constructed by SummerHill Homes and would consist of three different types of units: traditional row homes, ranging from five to seven units per building; garden clusters, which range from five to eight units per cluster; and the condominium clusters, which each have 16 units. The units range in size from approximately 900 square feet to just under 2,000 square feet, and have from one to three bedrooms. The one -bedroom units are required to provide a minimum of one parking space per unit, while the two- and three -bedroom units are required to provide two parking spaces per unit. Additionally, the Specific Plan requires that each unit provide an additional half space for guests. Each of the units as proposed has a single or two -car garage, depending on the number of bedrooms proposed. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 9 The commercial component of the application includes 66,791 gross square feet of commercial area, and approximately 20,000 square feet of that space is intended to provide for Market Hall use, which is a grouping of artisan or specialty retailers that together function like a community grocery store, kind of like a continual farmers market. The Applicant will speak further to this and how they will be promoting local businesses through this use. The remaining space is split up between restaurant space and neighborhood -serving retail and service uses. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, which includes 113 lots with up to 320 residential condominiums. As many of you understand, the Specific Plan and the certified EIR has provided some assumptions that limit the purview of the decision makers on these applications. For example, the EIR studied the impact on local resources like water, schools, and parks, as well as services like fire and police, and concluded that the development assumed within the Specific Plan would not impact existing services and resources. Additionally, the EIR studied the traffic associated with the full build -out of the Specific Plan and determined that with the required mitigation measures in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 10 place at full build -out of the North 40 Specific Plan area, Town roadways and intersections would continue to operate within Town standards. As part of the Phase 1 review process, Staff facilitated the preparation of an initial study to determine compliance with the certified EIR. The traffic associated with the Phase 1 development is in compliance with the parameters studied and assumed within the Specific Plan and the certified EIR. While there continues to be a lot of discussion regarding traffic associated with the development, as proposed the traffic will not exceed the level studied and approved within the Specific Plan. While the density bonus is required by state law and must be granted unless the required findings can be made, the Commission can discuss reducing the base number of units on which the density bonus is granted with the understanding that the ramifications of that would require modification of the Town's Housing Element. As discussed earlier, the Housing Element assumed development at 20 units per acre. Below that threshold the development would no longer qualify for the assumptions included in the Housing Element. Additionally, the Commission could discuss the provision of the BMP units in regard to the Town's BMP LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 11 Ordinance and program guidelines, however, state law precludes the ability to provide senior designated units dispersed as traditionally required by the Town's BMP guidelines. So if the units were required to be dispersed, they would no longer be able to be designated for seniors, or be provided at very low-income, or extremely low-income, which are categories that the Town currently has very limited inventory of. The main areas for the Commission to discuss tonight are more subjective and relate to how the application accomplishes the look and feel of Los Gatos; how the agrarian feel and history of the site have been captured with the proposed plans; and additionally whether the open space and architectural styling meet the intent of the direction provided in the Specific Plan. Usually we would refer to the Town's Residential Design Guidelines or the Commercial Design Guidelines, but the relevant sections of these documents were used to frame the development standards included in the Specific Plan, and as such all comments and direction should be in relation to what is contained in the approved Specific Plan. The goal of the Commission this evening is to take public testimony on the proposed applications due to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 12 unexpected constraints with the existing access and use of several of the sites that were proposed to include story poles. Not all of the poles could be installed, and as a result the Town Council at next week's Council meeting will be considering a modification of the story pole exception that was granted in February. Based on this requirement, the Planning Commission cannot take an action at tonight's meeting. Staff recommends that the Commission accept public comments and continue the application to a date certain in order to complete their discussion and provide a recommendation to the Town Council. This complete Staff's report, but we are here for any questions. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Moseley. MARNI MOSELEY: Oh, actually, let me break in. Rob did have a couple of clarifications from the legal aspect of things. CHAIR BADAME: All right, the Town Attorney will speak. Mr. Schultz. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes, good evening, Chair and Commissioners. I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on some of the issues that might be raised tonight, and to give a little bit of clarification first. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 13 The first issue is on environmental issues. As Ms. Moseley said, the Town Council approved the final EIR for the North 40 Specific Plan. That EIR analyzed the environmental impacts for the North 40 Specific Plan. The EIR did include mitigation measures to address the potential impacts. I'm sure there are quite a few members of the public, as you heard from their comments already or their voices already, that might not agree with that, but that EIR was certified. The time to challenge that EIR has passed. As you move forward with your deliberations on this, it's your job to review that certified EIR, then review the Specific Plan, and determine whether those two documents are consistent or inconsistent with the application in front of you. The other issue I want to talk briefly about was school impact fees. State law known as SB50 is really the law of the land. It was enacted in 1998. It mandates that, "If a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB50, the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed. No mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools or due to inadequacy of school facilities." Therefore, SB50 limited your and Town Council's ability to consider the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 14 effects of the North 40 on the ability of schools to accommodate enrollment, to require mitigation, and deny the project because they have paid or agreed to pay the SB50 fees. I just want to caution you on those issues. In regard to the Housing Element, we have an approved certified Housing Element that states for the North 40, "13.5 acres of the site shall be developed with a density of 20 units per acre," and it is intended to accommodate 270 residences. The development is by right, that was required by state, that this area and other areas of the Town be by right, and what does that mean? By right means that if the application for this development is consistent with the Specific Plan and with the EIR, then the project must be approved. So that's really if you want to know what it is in a nutshell, and I'll use Commissioner Kane as an example. Many times when you have a development review in the hillside area, Mr. Kane will put his hand on the Hillside Guidelines and say, "This is the law. You must be consistent with the law." In this case really, what the law is is the Specific Plan and the EIR and those documents, and your job is to find out if the application, this document, is consistent with the Specific Plan. If you find it's consistent with the Specific Plan, then you can make LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 15 recommendations to Council. If you find it inconsistent, then we'll make findings to that extent. Any questions? CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: But I like the hillside law, and I have issues with this one as concerns traffic. I have, as I said earlier, read 210 letters with a 100 to go, and I don't think any of them failed to voice concern, fear, about children and existing gridlock. I have a binary question. If I don't like what the EIR, and particularly the initial study that comes from the EIR, it says the traffic is okay, if I don't feel that the traffic is okay, is there anything I can do about it? ROBERT SCHULTZ: Your job as a Commissioner is to apply the law. There are many laws that you might not like, not only within our ordinance structures. The role then is to try to change those laws, but in this case a specific plan has been adopted, it is the law for you to file, and it's your job to follow that law and determine if it's consistent or inconsistent. If the project is consistent with the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, then it must be approved. VICE CHAIR KANE: I'll take that as a no. The second question is can Town Council do anything about it? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 16 ROBERT SCHULTZ: Obviously it has the authority to change laws, so it could change the Specific Plan, it could change its Housing Element, it could change its General Plan, at any time. VICE CHAIR KANE: I understand SB50 is state law. ROBERT SCHULTZ: They can't change state law. VICE CHAIR KANE: And I'm stuck with that, and I'm not even going to bring it up. But the traffic thing and the number of letters I've received, and they're passionate, somehow that needs to be addressed, if not by us, then perhaps by Town Council. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Certainly what you would look at in this case is the EIR and the mitigation measures, and look how the testimony that you received from the public is inconsistent with that EIR, and determine if there's any other mitigation measures above and beyond the EIR that could be established to mitigate any traffic that you perceive as not being addressed. VICE CHAIR KANE: I just don't think 210 people can be wrong. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Vice Chair Kane. Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Since I'm kind of new to this and this is the first time I'm seeing a specific plan, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 17 should you clarify what prevails? We have a Specific Plan, there's a General Plan, and you also said that there are other housing guidelines that fed into those documents, but particularly, what is our job relative to the Specific Plan and the General Plan, which I understand is sort of the law of Los Gatos? ROBERT SCHULTZ: When we adopted a Specific Plan we also made amendments to the General Plan to make those two documents consistent, so they should remain consistent throughout both of them, but the Specific Plan is the document which is the law of the land that you need to look at to determine whether this is consistent or not. COMMISSIONER HUDES: And if there is an inconsistency between those documents, what prevails? ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Specific Plan should be the document that prevails in that case. CHAIR BADAME: Does that answer your question, Commissioner Hudes? Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your report, Marni; that was very helpful. I had a question about the density bonus. I sat on the Housing Element Advisory Board, and when we looked at the potential sites for affordable housing, which was required in the Housing Element, one of the things we did LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 18 in our exercises is looked at not only the amount of units, but what could happen in terms of total units because of the state density bonus. I do remember when we were having these discussions, and the original plan was for around 360 units, I don't know the exact number, but Town Council cut that back. My question is in the discussions done to arrive at the final 270 units, did they consider the impact of the density bonus? That's the real number to look at, because we don't have a choice about the state density bonus; it would be hard to fight against it. MARNI MOSELEY: Yes, as I understand it, the Council did basically backtrack the math to the 270. The EIR studied 364 units, which would assume a 35% density bonus for the full 270 units. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson. COMMISSIONER EREKSON: This is a question for Mr. Schultz. While I fully understand SB50, as you know, the fourth guiding principle in the Specific Plan says in part, "The North 40 will mitigate impacts on schools." I left out the other two (inaudible). What's the relationship between that guiding principle and the requirements of SB50? ROBERT SCHULTZ: Even though SB50 really just ties your hands on the ability to obtain full mitigation LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 19 from school districts, and going back to the history of SB50, it was basically enacted because many cities and towns were denying development based on school overcrowding, so it is the only mechanism we had to collect. But there was nothing restraining us from at least making that language to encourage and to require as much mitigation as possible, and one of the ways that occurred was the Applicant saw that language in the Specific Plan and negotiated directly with the school district for further mitigation above and beyond SB50, but we had no legal requirement to require anything more than SB50 fees. COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: With respect to this SB50 mitigation, you mentioned earlier it was a monetary association with school impact that responsible parties had to pay or... ROBERT SCHULTZ: It's a formula that's based on... VICE CHAIR KANE: And the intent for that was the mitigation could take the form of finding a site for an additional school, as necessary. My question is are responsible parties looking for such a site? ROBERT SCHULTZ: I don't know that. That would be the school district that would be looking for it, or the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 20 Applicant, but we're not a party to the agreement between the school district and the Applicant. VICE CHAIR KANE: If there's a school representative here tonight, would SB50 preclude me from later asking that question? ROBERT SCHULTZ: No. VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had a question about notification and story poles. Is the notification to residents, and are the story poles, in compliance with the Town's ordinance and the Council's direction? MARNI MOSELEY: To start with the story pole discussion, the Applicant requested an exception to the standard story pole requirements within our story pole policy based on existing use of various pieces of the overall project area. The Council approved that and the Applicant intended on implementing that. What wasn't anticipated was the level of guide wires and safety supports that were going to be required adjacent to some of the existing residential and commercial uses, so some of those story poles were not able to be fully completed. the Applicant is pursuing an additional LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 21 modification of that exception at next week's Council meeting. As far as the notification, we did the required newspaper postings, as well as notified above and beyond the 300'. I don't know how far it went; we established a boundary when we started the Specific Plan process, and I believe that includes somewhere between 500-1,000 notices. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is it fair to say that it's not in compliance now, but it will be in the future? MARNI MOSELEY: They will be required to comply with whatever Council determines at next week's meeting. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Will the public have an opportunity to speak about what they see when the story poles are fully compliant? MARNI MOSELEY: The Applicant is requesting that the Council consider what is in place at this time. If the Council requests additional poles be put in, then we would have to discuss what that looks like and whether it merits additional discussion. COMMISSIONER HUDES: One more question about story poles. Were there story poles erected as part of the development of the Specific Plan? In other words, was there an opportunity for the community to see what this Specific Plan might look like and express their views? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 22 MARNI MOSELEY: I don't know the answer to that. I believe the Applicant will be able to speak to that when they come up. CHAIR BADAME: The Town Attorney is shaking his head no. ROBERT SCHULTZ: There were no story poles required for the Specific Plan. There was no specific project. CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? All right, we will now open the public testimony portion of the public hearing and allow the Applicant and their team ten minutes to address the Commission. As you speak, please be sure to state your name for the record. WENDI BAKER: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners, community members, and Staff. I'm Wendi Baker with SummerHill Homes, and tonight myself, Andrea Osgood with Eden Housing, and Don Capobres with Grosvenor, will share our eight years of community engagement and progress. The North 40 has been a part of the Town process for nearly three decades. When the North 40 Specific Plan was approved last summer, the final planning phase began with our project application. The Town's vision has been clear and the process public and transparent. While we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 23 recognize that the draft Specific Plan's evolution would modify our proposal, we wanted to provide visual context for the public to see how the Specific Plan translated into a development proposal, so in 2013 we submitted an application. During this process we held over 100 community meetings. We significantly modified and resubmitted our Architecture and Site Review Application and Tentative Map based on both the community input from these meetings, as well as the changes in the approved Specific Plan. We have also participated in the Town's thorough process, including two Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meetings, the Historic Preservation Committee, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. We constructed story poles, created and built a scale model, hosted a community open house, and have made ourselves available to meet with anyone interested or who had questions. We recognize the challenges, which we have never shied away from; rather, we have focused on effective solutions. First, traffic. Not only will we resolve some of the existing deficiencies, but also equally important, we have designed to encourage people to get out of their cars. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 24 With the first phase of the North 40 project we will spend over $10 million in offsite improvements. This is unprecedented in Los Gatos and we proposed to construct these improvements first. This project not only meets the EIR's mitigation requirements, but also then goes many steps further to implement real functional lane changes along Lark, the Highway 17 onramp, and Los Gatos Boulevard. We are dedicating private property to enable many of these improvements. Going beyond the car. Connectivity to the Town through transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements is key and forward thinking as the Town develops its Master Bicycle Trails Plan. When challenged in the neighborhood meetings to resolve connectivity not only within, but outside our project boundaries, we worked with the Town engineering staff, VTA, Caltrans, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, and community members to design bicycle lanes from the North 40 to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, which will safely connect the North 40 to downtown, Netflix, and beyond the Town boundaries. We proposed multi -use paths along our property frontage, as well as throughout the project, and thanks to our partnership with downtown Summit Bicycles, we are also including bicycle tuning stations and part vending services. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 25 We designed our residential program to satisfy both the Town's Housing Element requirements and the residential unmet needs, as identified in the Specific Plan. The Fair Housing Act does not permit discrimination of any types, including families, so while we designed our residential program to meet the needs and tastes of seniors and millennials, a lingering question from the community about impact to schools always remained. After many years of conversations we entered into an unprecedented voluntary agreement with the school district to acquire or enable acquisition of land for facilities expansion. This is in addition to the legally mandated mitigation fees, and our significantly lower bedroom count and our design features intended to attract a millennial buyer. The North 40 also achieves the minimum density required to satisfy the Town's Housing Element. After lengthy public process the North 40 was chosen as a significant way to satisfy the state's requirements. Phase 1 will satisfy 237 of the 270 units identified to be developed on the North 40. Focus groups assisted our design process on what a millennial wants in a condominium. The For Sale program proposes agrarian architecture with three distinct product types, including 19 different floor plans starting at 900 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 26 square feet. We have addressed all architecture comments from Staff, the Town's outside consulting architect, and CDAC during our application process. ANDREA OSGOOD: Hello, Andrea Osgood. The senior affordable housing building represents Eden Housing's collaboration with Grosvenor and SummerHill homes to meet the requirements of the Town's BMP program. By delivering these units in a standalone building, we are able to restrict to households age 62 and older. As well, the standalone building allows us to put together a financing program that allows us to target these units at much deeper affordability levels than is required by the BMP program. Our building is located in the heart of the district above the Market Hall and will be an exciting and engaging location for our seniors. DON CAPOBRES: Don Capobres. I have really smart partners. People know I talk too much, so I'm going last, so I appreciate that. As required by the Specific Plan, we've commissioned an economic analysis of the impact of our retail proposal on downtown. This report was presented to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. Tim Kelly, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 27 President of Keyser Marston, is here tonight to address the report. The conclusion is that there is significant unmet retail and restaurant demand in the market area for the North 40 and for downtown, and this demand is expected to grow significantly through 2020. The North 40 is well positioned on the north end of town to service employment growth at Roku, Netflix, and Good Samaritan. The question is why let these unmet demands continue to be absorbed in Campbell or Willow Glen or other parts of south San Jose? Market Hall has been a part of Grosvenor's vision on the North 40 since about 2009 or 2010. One of the questions raised at Conceptual Development Advisory Committee was about the feasibility of Market Hall. We've done quite a bit of research on Market Hall. There are many directions that these can go. We've decided the focus of this particular Market Hall will be the celebration of the site's agricultural heritage and a showcase for some of the region's best growers. To help us program it, I'm very happy to announce that we are now working with the co -owners of downtown Los Gatos' Manresa, Manresa Bread, and the Bywater. Not only will they help us implement Market Hall correctly, but also they will ensure that it is a unique Los Gatos gem. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 28 Overall, a retail offering anchored by Market Hall is a jewel for the north end of town. In the interest of time, I'm not going to go through the entire program with you, but we'd be happy to do that during questions and answers. Onto the agrarian inspiration and open space. Meshing with our focus on the growers at Market Hall is our inspired open space program that ties the residential and commercial components of Phase 1 together. We are pleased that the Town's Historic Preservation Committee accepted our interpretation of the historical agrarian feel of the site. We have engaged the assistance of Zach Lewis of Garden to Table to help program over two acres of productive community gardens and orchard trees that can be used for resident enjoyment, restaurant use, or provision of healthy food for our seniors. The Historic Preservation Committee also raised a need to consider celebrating the history of the Yuki family. We will continue to work with the family on concepts to do this. They are immensely private, but we will find a way to pay tribute to this longtime Los Gatan family. Continuing on the comments that we got at Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, the concept of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 29 replacing our proposed orchard trees with walnut trees was also raised. Since then we've evaluated the pros and cons of this change. We conclude that our proposal is still probably the preferred option, but we would be happy to share the rationale for this conclusion with you during questions and answers. Finally, and to the folks in the room here, I would really like to conclude by thanking the many citizens of Los Gatos who have dedicated so much time to vet the many competing interests related to the North 40. We are proud to have been part of this conversation for the better part of a decade now, believe it or not. We do feel confident in our ability to deliver a uniquely Los Gatan neighborhood that we all can be proud of. We've had partnerships with agencies, other community partners that we're proud of and just being part of that conversation, and we look forward to continuing that conversation. We have quite a few members of our design team available to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. With that, I did pretty well. I ended with some time left, so thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Capobres. Thank you Ms. Osgood, and thank you, Ms. Baker. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 30 I'm going to look to the Commissioners to see if they have any questions for the Applicant? Commissioner O'Donnell. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I would just remind the Planning Commission that because of the number of public comments, you will have the ability to ask the Applicant any questions during the rebuttal time. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm just going to ask a question, because I know a number of people have raised this, so perhaps it might be a good time just to raise it, and that is some of the letters have said why don't you spread out the residential units? We all know, for example, that had some of the residential units been put at the other end of the property, they in fact would have been, as I understand it, in a different school district, a school which was agreeable to that. Perhaps if you could refresh all of our recollections as to why that didn't happen. DON CAPOBRES: A lot of this conversation happened over the last few years, and we're (inaudible) to implement the policies outlined in the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan calls for the residential to be primarily located in the Lark District and the Transition District, and so we're implementing the guidelines found in the Specific Plan. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 31 The other point to make, and why you have a Specific Plan in this case, is that there is not just one property owner on the North 40. At one point in time I think we've concluded that there were up 13 or 14 property owners on the North 40. The Specific Plan is put together to help those property owners work in a cohesive way as properties develop. We don't control all the property on the North 40 to be able to implement everything that we want to, so that's another reason. CHAIR BADAME: Mr. Capobres, can you explain the rationale for eliminating the walnut trees? DON CAPOBRES: I'm probably going to call on our landscape architect, Ashley Langworthy, to help me out on this. The rationale on the walnut trees, and going back to the slide, is two big issues, because we aren't trying to do just notional trees out there, we're actually trying to do production trees that can be harvested, and because of how walnut trees are harvested you have to spread them apart a little bit more. One of the down sides, especially on Lark Avenue, which is the main setback and the main interface between us and Highland Oaks, is you have less trees, because they would be spaced farther apart, so you LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 32 would go from 146 trees, which we propose along Lark Avenue, to 80 total trees. The second issue that I am kind of comfortable in speaking, and I'll ask Ashley to come up and fill in anything, is our understanding of what happens to the soil when you have walnut trees is there is some toxicity or chemical reaction that prohibits some of the undergrowth that we would have with other orchard trees, so you'd be limited in what you can plant under the trees. I've exhausted my knowledge of walnut trees, so I'm going to turn it to our landscape architect. WENDI BAKER: Just as one other side note, there are walnuts proposed within the application, but we wanted to focus on a diversity of choices. DON CAPOBRES: I think the conversation at CDAC was about really taking a snapshot at this current history or this current moment in time on the North 40. CHAIR BADAME: All right, thank you. You can go ahead. ASHLEY LANGWORTHY: I want to clarify, is the question why aren't the existing trees going to remain? CHAIR BADAME: The existing walnut trees. And if you could state your name for the record, as well. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 33 ASHLEY LANGWORTHY: Ashley Langworthy. The existing trees have been on the site for a long time and they're at the end of their life, so it would not make sense in terms of longevity to keep the existing trees. We did study planting new walnut trees to keep that walnut character that is loved by many in the Town, and as Don expressed, there are certain issues with having walnuts, and one of the big ones is the toxicity that walnut trees leave in the soil, so there are very few species that will survive under a walnut tree. Our intention is to have the orchard trees overhead and then have a planting underneath, possibly lavender or sage or some kind of herb planting, agrarian planting, underneath. Other reason is that walnuts have a longer period that they are bare, so just aesthetically a lot of the other orchard trees we're considering bloom earlier in the spring. Then as Don mentioned, they need to be spread farther apart than many of the other species. I think also as Don said, this is our preference from the design side, but I don't think it's a closed issue if that's a game changer. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for that explanation. Commissioner Hudes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 34 COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. I have many, many questions, but I really want to hear from the public before I frame those questions. I have really two kinds of big picture questions about the site itself. The first one is where is the school? If it's not on the site, what are the considerations about the plan itself that said it shouldn't be on the site? WENDI BAKER: A school is a land use that would be accepted with a Conditional Use Permit in the Specific Plan. There's no site identified within the Specific Plan for a school, however, obviously we have heard the comments about school sitings. It's very challenging on this property to place a school, because of its proximity to the freeway. This is actually a very real environmental issue. There's a 500' setback that must be obtained, and so pretty much the majority of the site is not buildable for a school, and then the places where it is constructable, there are existing office buildings, for example, along Los Gatos Boulevard, that were very recently built. Then the other area would be essentially the second project entrance. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 35 As far as the school, and I think the school district is here and can speak on it, but the way that this agreement was arrived at was essentially establishing the cost for acquisition of land, be it on the North 40 or beyond the North 40, so that the school district could ultimately expand its land, and therefore expand facilities. It was completely voluntary, but there was a basis behind it. I think that it wouldn't be very smart for me to talk about where we're looking at land. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, did you have a follow up to that? COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes. And I appreciate that. I understand the challenge with the school, but I also think that it's important to look at options of locating it on the property, and so I appreciate seeing this drawing and wonder if you would provide it to us so that we can consider that as we deliberate on this. WENDI BAKER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had another question about the site, but not the school. CHAIR BADAME: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HUDES: When I walked the site and I started looking at particularly the guiding principle that the North 40 will embrace hillside views, I was struck by LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 36 the layout and the grid pattern of the North 40, which I would characterize as north, south, east, west rectangular grid, and when I looked at the hillsides and I looked at El Sereno and El Sombroso, they did not fall north/south. Were you aware in laying this out of the location of these mountains that are very important to Los Gatos, and did you consider aligning the pattern of the site such that you could get hillside views? WENDI BAKER: There's a lot of history on this. This was looked at very early on. Essentially there are a couple of constraints on the property. They do wrap the property, so while you're speaking of two peaks, there are hillside views that are outside of just those two peaks. Ultimately there's an existing street grid network, Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark, 85, and 17, which happen to be quite lineal as well. Then there were locations that were pretty much set due to the existing street network of Highland Oaks, which was desired to make some sort of almost a four-way intersection with limited access behind you, and then there was a midway point, which is now Neighborhood Street on the plan. So there are the existing street networks. This has already been constructed right here and right here. You become constrained, and so we looked a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 37 flipping the site effectively 45-degrees, like what you're speaking of, so that those views could be going towards the mountains more directly. There are a lot of challenges with doing something like that, both from an infrastructure perspective and a site visibility perspective where the access points were proposed in the Specific Plan. The other thing is that when you flip a plan like that you ultimately end up with a lot of extra spaces, and reaching that density that's required for the Housing Element, which we could have used as open spaces but we chose to put them in different locations instead. So what we did was focused on view corridors. Again, it may not go directly to those peaks, but it does serve a view of the mountains from inside of the site. There's a 30' setback that's a perimeter buffer zone, and that in the Specific Plan is actually what is noted as being the primary view corridors, is on the actual perimeter of the site, which is why that 30' setback exists, and why there's an additional 20' where there is only 25' of height permitted, so the first 50' of the site you'll see is all two-story. That was drafted in the Specific Plan just for the reason that you're talking about, for those hillside views. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 38 Then when you follow this pattern, we have these streets and paseos throughout the property, so if you're at this open space, or you're at this open space, you have a clear shot through those paseos. If you're at the demonstration garden, you can be standing here at the edge of the community garden and see the hills, or in this garden, or here, or again, here going up. Sometimes your best view corridors end up being your green spaces, your paseos, and your right of ways. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I too want to hear all the comments from the public, but I did have one conceptual question about the market rate units. In one of the earlier versions, I think before the Specific Plan was adopted, there was a section of the development that was going to be not senior affordable housing, but senior step-down housing, and senior is a well -documented need in the Town of Los Gatos. When we looked at the Housing Element, the population has been aging in Los Gatos and there's a need for more options for seniors. My question is when you make your remarks earlier you talked about the market rate units, that you can't restrict them to one group or another because of the fair housing law, but in reading the justification letters there LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 39 was no mention of seniors, other than the senior affordable housing units, so I'd just like to understand how the market rate units could possibly serve the unmet need of senior step-down housing. WENDI BAKER: I can start with nowhere does it say that you have a defined percentage of unmet needs, right? And actually the millennials are the largest pool of population in the United States right now, so when you actually look at who is a big unmet need, that's a very large population. Some of the units, while they may not be designated as senior —because you can't really designate senior units throughout the property, you have to do it in one designated location, hence, our senior affordable proposal —you would have to walk up one flight of stairs, but we had shown there are actual flats within these condominiums where it's single -story living. Then there are ten market rate apartments that also have elevator access. So in addition to those 50 units that you see, there are 20 flats that are all one level living, and then ten apartments, so you have another 30 units on top of that that offer that single level living. We are trying to accommodate for that. We can't restrict people to only in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 40 that. I don't know if you want to talk about the other move -down building. DON CAPOBRES: I don't like rewinding history all that much, especially on this project, and there's been a lot of history, but at one point in time the draft Specific Plan allowed for a height of about 55' with additional open space. When that was in existence in the Specific Plan we had proposed a move -down housing program, and move -down housing is single -story, no stairs, service by elevator, no yards. We can't say this from a Fair Housing Act perspective —I guess I'm about to get in trouble —but we designed them for a move -down buyer and away from amenities that would typically attract families, so instead of a big yard, you'd have a big terrace. But because of utility the 55' height allowance in the draft Specific Plan did not make it through Town Council last summer, and ultimately it did kind of thwart our opportunity to build that product type. I can go through why that is, why you can't build it, but it was kind of a Specific Plan level conversation. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I want to return to something Ms. Baker said about schools on the property. You said we were restricted from building a school, and I think I've LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 41 learned that you're essentially correct, but I was wondering if the Town Attorney could give his erudite view of why in fact we couldn't do that? ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think Wendi didn't mention that under state law there are certain parameters where you can and cannot build, and one is, like you said, it has to be so many feet away from the freeway, it has to be so many feet away from the gas station, and the overhead that was put up there, you are limited to a certain area, and then within that certain area there are individual owners where there are buildings that are already built on, and so that's the diagram up there which leaves very little on the property you can. The Specific Plan does allow for a school to be built on there, but we didn't designate any specific area that would require a school to be built. VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you both. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to wrap it up and hear from the public? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Baker. We will now invite comments from members of the public. Due to the number of speaker cards, I'm going to call your names three at a time. You will have a full three minutes to make your comments. As you've noticed, a yellow warning light will come on, and that will tell you that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 42 you've got 30 seconds before the red light comes on, and then your time will be up. Commissioners may have questions for you at the conclusion of your remarks. Our first three speakers will be Anne Robinson, Kathleen Willey, and Ray Kearns. ANNE ROBINSON: Anne Robinson, 201 Charter Oaks Circle. I would like to compliment Grosvenor on the time and effort they have exhibited through this entitlement process and on the work that they have done with our community to address all of our concerns. I have three concerns regarding the current North 40 application. The first concern, consistency, is based on one of the Guiding Principles for the North 40. The principle is that the type, density, and intensity of the new land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. I do not see how the density of this proposal is consistent with the immediate neighborhood, which is Highland Oaks. Most of the Highland Oaks are ranch style homes with, at the most eight, homes per acre, and the North 40's residential density looks at least double the density of the immediate neighborhoods. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 43 Also, how does this proposal achieve the theme of the 2020 General Plan of preserving the existing small town character of Los Gatos? There is also one area on the plan along Los Gatos Boulevard between the gas station and the office buildings where the developer proposed housing units, and I was under the impression that the area along Los Gatos Boulevard was to be all commercial to be consistent with the existing office buildings. Please lower the density of this proposal by reducing the housing in the Lark District by at least 100 housing units, and use these 100 housing units in the northern district, still using the 20 units per acre density. By reducing the number of housing units, the proposed development will be more consistent with the existing neighborhoods, preserve the small town character of Los Gatos, and provide more open space so it reflects the rural and agricultural history of the site, and this will also decrease the impact on the Los Gatos School District. My second concern is the lack of integration of the commercial and residential components. Instead of having the Lark District all residential, and the northern district all commercial, integrate the commercial and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 44 residential components of this development, which will give rise to a more balanced development and mitigate some of the traffic and parking issues. I don't feel it is a good idea to give the developer of the first 20 acres of the development all the residential component of the Specific Plan. It would be best if there were a master plan for the entire 40 acres so that this project is not developed in a piecemeal fashion. My third concern is the several pending developments close to the North 40, such as the medical buildings on Samaritan Drive and Samaritan Court, which will provide a net increase of 364,726 square feet to the immediate area. At the end of Lark is the Albright development, which is only half completed, which will add an additional 242,500 square feet. Then coming in the future is the Dell Avenue plan, which calls for the development of over 2 million square feet. The impact of these nearby developments needs to be carefully considered when approving any development on the North 40. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Robinson. Kathleen Willey. KATHLEEN WILLEY: Good evening, Kathleen Willey, 135 Cardinal Lane. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 45 My husband and I moved into this charming town of Los Gatos five -and -a -half years ago with our young boys. We chose Los Gatos for the small town feel, being able to walk and bike to school, and to educate our children in excellent schools. Therefore, my biggest concerns about the North 40 development are how it will impact the safety of our children and how it will impact the schools. We currently walk or bike to Blossom Hill School every day. Our neighborhood, with no sidewalks or bike lanes, is already a cut -through for Los Gatos High School kids and for cars trying to avoid Los Gatos Boulevard. Safe Routes to School has been trying to get people out of their cars and onto their feet to avoid excessive traffic. With the added population and cars that 320 homes in the Los Gatos School District will bring, I fear people will be unwilling to do this, creating additional pollution and dangerous conditions around our schools. Additionally, getting to a Los Gatos trail at Vasona from east Los Gatos will become even more dangerous for bikers and walkers. Sadly, there was a fatality on Lark Avenue with a biker not too long ago. Lark and Blossom Hill are very narrow; I don't know how successful an additional bike lane would be there. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 46 I'm pleased to hear the developer say that they would like to encourage people to get out of their cars, so I propose that the developer build a pedestrian bridge to at least make it safer for people getting to the trails. Also, how can a proposal for 320 homes be approved when the current Los Gatos schools are so overcrowded already? I believe that there's still a discussion of including a school in the North 40. I would hope a school has precedence over a gas station. How can we move forward with any development until we know when or where this school might be built? The Specific Plan of the North 40 called for housing in all three districts. There is no reason to crowd all the housing into our school district. Furthermore, one project goal was to appeal just to seniors, young professionals, and empty nesters, thus avoiding school impacts. Now we find that out of 320 units planned, 135 will be two bedrooms and 54 will be three bedrooms. This violates the Specific Plan guidelines that the project should mitigate the impacts on schools. The North 40 should spread the 320 homes into additional phases in different school districts to avoid overly impacting our schools. As a mom and tax paying Los Gatos resident, I urge the Town to not let the greedy LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 47 developers compromise the safety and education of our children. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Willey. Our next speaker is Ray Kearns. Last call for Ray Kearns. All right, I'm going to call the next three speakers. Steven Ferla, Chris Chapman, and Eric Wade. STEVEN FERLA: My name is Steven Ferla; I live on Los Gatos Boulevard at 16345 Los Gatos Boulevard in the Villa de Los Gatos. I've watched several developments around that area in the last few years. I've shown up at meetings and opposed them. They've gone through anyway. One is on Caldwell Avenue, and without question that added to the traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard. The next one is on Los Gatos Boulevard between Mitchell and Roberts Road, a very high -density project, and that has immensely added to the traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard, as I live right next door to it. I don't believe a word that anybody would ever say; including an Environmental Impact Report that says traffic won't be a problem. Further, I'm looking at the Guiding Principles here. "The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos." Well, this is the first that I've actually seen a picture LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 48 of it on a screen, and it looked like a city to me. Didn't look like it was going to have the look and feel of Los Gatos. "The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees, and open space." Every day I drive down Los Gatos Boulevard towards Campbell, and I drive back home on Los Gatos Boulevard, and every single year the view of the hillsides gets less and less, because the buildings get taller and taller. "The North 40 will address the Town's residential and commercial unmet needs." I think that's spoken for. I don't believe that that will happen. "The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on Town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." I think it will make it worse. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Feria, for your comments. Next speaker. CHRIS CHAPMAN: Hello, my name is Chris Chapman; I live at 201 Mistletoe Road in Los Gatos. I'd like to talk about a backup plan. What happens when five years from now the Dell Avenue complex has been developed, the Netflix facility is fully up and running, and because there is no 85 south entrance ramp on LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 49 Winchester, that means all of that traffic is going to have to go south on Winchester, turning left on Lark, right past this new development. We have this problem, the Town, where there is no real solution to the beach traffic that we have in our town, and five years from now there's going to be no real alternative to the traffic that this environmental study didn't address. So I'd like to know —we talk about what's going to happen 20 years from now —what is our backup plan five years from now? Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Chapman. Eric Wade. ERIC WADE: Hi, Eric Wade, 17701 Bruce Avenue; I'm actually in Monte Sereno. I have a letter here I just wanted to pass out to the Commission. CHAIR BADAME: Yes. Did you wish to speak as well? ERIC WADE: I am actually the Chairperson for the Site and Architecture Commission over at the City of Monte Sereno. We don't get big crowds like this, but we review only residential projects. I'm also a design build contractor and a third generation in the Town of Los Gatos. All the things I've been hearing from everybody makes a lot of sense. I've just put a few of my thoughts down on a piece of paper there. Some of my numbers are off LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 50 a little bit in light of some of the new developments, but I also adjusted to Council members, who in fact you're not; b you're commissioners like myself. I was just bullet pointing some of the things I thought would be beneficial to the development. I think everybody understands that this most likely will be developed sometime in the future, but again, obviously to consider how it conforms to the development plan or a residential site plan that the Town of Los Gatos has. I was hoping for possibly a larger orchard section along Lark Avenue to commemorate the Yuki family orchard, which my father actually worked in back in the fifties, so maybe a greater setback, and just maybe bring the total height of the dwellings down to two-story maximum. The height of some of these structures seems excessive, and certainly not aligned with residential developments in Los Gatos. So I've just got those notes on my letter there, and hope you take them into consideration. Thanks for your time; I appreciate it. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Wade. Our next three speakers will be Sylvan Lepiane with Carl Lepiane, and combined they will have three minutes together. After that we'll have Kaye Little, and Cindy Schneider. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 51 SYLVAN LEPIANE: Good evening. Thank you very much for allowing us to talk with you this evening. I am here not to speak about the density, but about our community's safety. This is an issue, because I am an operating nurse at O'Connor Hospital. People are not discussing the facts that fire trucks, ambulances, doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, surgeons, any kind of person providing emergency healthcare, to manage the traffic to get to Good Samaritan Hospital is going to become a real nightmare. I hope none of you have a family member or a loved one at Good Samaritan Hospital needing emergency care, either in their emergency room or in their operating room, and have your physician or anesthesiologist trapped in traffic. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. I need to remind you again, no clapping, please. Mr. Lepiane, please. CARL LEPIANE: Carl Lepiane, 15890 Shannon Road, and a resident for 33 years in East Los Gatos, we call it. I heard there was a model on display out in the lobby here, and took one look at the model. There's no guessing about it, this project has too high a density. I agree with the previous gentleman. Cut it back to two stories maximum. It's too big a project even for 40 acres LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 52 worth of property. It's going to devastate the street. Too much density, and that's the end of my story. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. KAYE LITTLE: First I'd like to thank the Planning Commissioners for your service and for this opportunity to speak. 453 Monterey Avenue in Los Gatos; I've owned the home for 43 years. Like many Los Gatos residents, when I saw the story poles I was stunned at the height and density of the proposed development. Then the phone calls from my out of town friends, most of them over in Santa Cruz, began to come in and they said, "What is Los Gatos thinking?" and I didn't know what to say to them. I've looked at the model, and I have to say I have some real concerns. It does not look and feel like Los Gatos to me. I'm not a city planner, but one of things that bothered me is it's so square, it's so right angled instead of meandering, among other things. As a retired high school teacher, I have serious concerns about the impact so many new homes will have on our outstanding schools. I do not believe that the size of a home will discourage a family from purchasing a house in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 53 Los Gatos that would allow their children to attend schools here. Then the Town Attorney stated the impact on schools cannot be considered, but I had been told a couple of years ago that if the homes were in a certain area, the kids would go to Campbell schools, and Campbell wanted the students and has room for them, but if they were pushed to a different area they would go to Los Gatos schools, and we all know that that is the difference in the price you're going to get for the houses. I'm asking the developer to please make the development less massive, and with a little more Los Gatos charm. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, and can you also state your name for the record? KAYE LITTLE: Kaye Little. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Thank you very much. CINDY SCHNEIDER: Hi, Cindy Schneider, 233 Mattson Avenue, Los Gatos. Good evening, Commission. I would like to start by acknowledging the time and the effort that the Grosvenor company has put into this enormous project, however, it is obvious from the story poles and the model in the Town Chamber's lobby, that 320 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 54 homes and 66,000 square feet of commercial space is far too much for 22 acres of the 44 acres on this development site. The height blocks our views and creates a concrete barrier. Why isn't housing spread throughout the project? The first Guiding Principle of the Specific Plan for this project is that the North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos. This proposed development looks like every other freeway housing development on 85, 280, or 101: a 35' wall of concrete multi -story housing. This is not the Los Gatos I've lived in for 30 years. If the housing were spread on all 44 acres, this project could begin to have a feel of being seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community as the Vision Statement for the North 40 dictates. The Vision Statement also says that the North 40 should celebrate our agricultural heritage, our hillside views, and small town character. Well, I suggest we apply the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles this community approved for this project and them to start over. The open space in this configuration appears to be nonexistent. The open space requirement is 30%, but somehow they are being allowed to count hardscape, pathways, and sidewalks, so tiny strips of green are being LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 55 considered open green space. It's very sad, and not at all residential Los Gatos. Again, I suggest spreading this housing out over the total 44 acres, incorporating parks and expending real green, try articulating the heights of these block -like structures, possibly meandering the street so this ridged design becomes softer and more unique, because that's what Los Gatos is. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Schneider. Next three speakers are Jeffrey Aristide, Kim Vrijen, and Joseph Gemisnani. And I apologize for any mispronunciation here. JEFFREY ARISTIDE: Good evening, I'm Jeffrey Aristide, 102 Nobel Court. I've lived there for 12 years; I've got a wife and four children and they went through the school system. I agree, I don't want to rehash what was said. It's basically much too robust. It should be scaled back, and I agree, the housing should be spread through the whole property. Frankly, it looks somewhat industrial. I would say maybe about six years ago the character of this town did in fact change, because of all the excessive building, and the congestion and the impact to the school system is going to be horrific. I'm assuming there are going to be a few thousand people living there, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 56 and maybe a few more thousand going there, so we're talking thousands of cars. To say it's not going to have a massive impact is ludicrous, so I would vote to have it scaled back rather drastically, and spread the housing through the property. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Aristide. KIM VRIJEN: Hi, I'm Kim Vrijen from 268 Marchmont Drive in Los Gatos. Last year when the Town Council finalized their North 40 Specific Plan, I was pleased. Although it wasn't the orchard that many of us wish could stay untouched, it was well thought out and represented a plan that was at least bearable. I then attended several education events where the developer was present and seemingly engaged in the community. This made me optimistic that we could maybe create a new North 40 that was an asset to our community. So when I saw the proposal by the developer, I was appalled. It feels like they ignored the conversations they heard and went ahead with a vision that is not Los Gatos. There have been many people who have worked very hard to move the process forward, and instead of trying to minimize the impact on the community the proposal maximizes the developer revenue. The vision, in my opinion, was to spread LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 57 the housing, open space, and commercial space throughout the property. Instead, all the housing is in the first phase, right next to Lark and 85, which is already a traffic problem, and all the children will be part of the Los Gatos Unified School District. One of the requirements is that the development look and feels like Los Gatos. This is a senior housing development in the North 40. These are existing senior housing developments in Los Gatos. To show the scale, there are two stories, there is green space, there are meandering paths. This is a wall of building. This is shopping in the North 40. This is downtown Los Gatos. Quaint. This is a market in the North 40. This is what it would look like in historical Los Gatos. It's supposed to blend in with the community. These are all single-family homes. Here on the other side of the street is the North 40, where there are no single- family homes. I think that when the North 40 was coming up with their plan they went to the wrong location and copied Santana Row. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 58 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Joseph Gemisnani. JOSEPH GEMISNANI: When I looked at the plan, I was thinking it really doesn't look like Los Gatos either. Part of the problem, I think, is it's huge. It's 40 acres —I know they're only developing 22, but 40 acres — and when I look at it the architecture looks so similar, but it doesn't really look like Los Gatos. So if I'm driving down Los Gatos Boulevard, I'm looking at the left and going whoa, where's Los Gatos? We're entering Grosvenorville, in honor of the developer. It's going to be Grosvenorville and won't be Los Gatos. I think in a big development they should have a variation of architectural styles, because it's just too large of a tract. I think we need a variation, because Los Gatos is eclectic; it's not one style for 40 acres. There's Mediterranean, there's the Old Town Spanish Colonial, there's Victorian, there are all kinds of styles, but this is really modern. I know they're from England, but they're bringing their modern English architecture here, which I don't appreciate. We took a survey in 2011, and I took part in the survey, and that survey was talking about the North 40 project. You took it online, the Town of Los Gatos did LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 59 this, and the majority of people said they wanted traditional architecture. One of the options was traditional, modern, whatever. We wanted traditional. This is not traditional. So I want you to ask the developer what did they do with those survey results? Ask them. Also, what style people wanted? The majority of people want a Mediterranean style. I said this before, I love Mediterranean, Spanish Colonial, Italian, whatever, but ask them what happened to that? Why take a survey, ask the people to do a survey, and then the results are ignored? So please, a couple things. It's a big lot. Do a variation of styles so it doesn't look like one huge development, that it looks like it maybe it was built over time by different developers. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. Ted Richards, Barbara Dodson, and Kiersten Shum. TED RICHARDS: Los Gatos Commission, fellow townspeople, I'm Ted Richards; I live at 43 Fillmer Avenue in Los Gatos. I'd like to comment on the North 40 user experience. I'm a user experience designer. I design how you pay bills, sign up for memberships, apply for jobs, buy LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 60 things online, and of note, I designed the interactive kiosk for Walt Disney's Celebration community located in Disney Word, Orlando. The North 40 reminds me of Disney's Celebration community. As a UNIX and as a UX designer, I got to thinking about the North 40 user experience. It's an experience based in a walled enclave, much like a medieval castle, surrounded by a moat of congested roads and freeways. Inside are the subjects who will experience the walled community, but not the free and open Los Gatos. Yes, the paintings of ideal North 40 life promises peace, prosperity, and harmony, much like paintings I saw brought to me when I worked on the Disney project by a painter who emulated Norman Rockwell. But these are not the paintings of Los Gatos, a wonderful, organic town with a hundred years of eclectic variety of homes, shops, restaurants, schools, and of course our wonderful population of citizenry. I think we can do better by this open North 40 land. We can take down the walls and imagine how we would welcome this space in Los Gatos, and provide the Los Gatos user experience: family, work, volunteering, schools, celebrations, and parks, open and free. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 61 Real briefly, my cartoon. I'm also a cartoonist. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Richards. BARBARA DODSON: My name is Barbara Dodson, 239 Marchmont Drive in Los Gatos. I have a number of concerns about the proposal for Phase 1 of the North 40. I've listed these in a letter to you, so here I'd just like to emphasize two. I think the number one problem is the excessive density of buildings. The Specific Plan calls for homes in all three districts, yet the developer has jammed all the homes into the Lark area and maxed out the height of many of the residential buildings. The residences are too close together and too tall. The Specific Plan calls for lower density in the Lark District with increasing density as the development moves north. At least half the residents should be moved to other phases and across the school boundary line, and the buildings within the Lark District should be more spread out with larger spots of green space in between. Based on what I heard tonight, I hope the Town Council will revisit the land use requirement of 20 homes per acre. A second key issue is look and feel. The Specific Plan says the development should look and feel like Los LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 62 Gatos. This development in no way meets this goal. In the Los Gatos North 40 narrative the developer claims the architectural character in the Lark District combines, "the colors, materials, rooflines, and proportions of the historical agricultural heritage, while reducing the detailing of the style down to its roots. The result is a neighborhood based in tradition with a contemporary and clean aesthetic." This is just a justification for big, massive, dense, boxy buildings. The architect has reduced the detailing so much that it looks nothing like traditional Los Gatos. I think that when we talk about the North 40 looking and feeling like Los Gatos, we're talking about the Los Gatos of before the 1940s. We're not talking about the look and feel of the recently built townhomes on Blossom Hill Road, or ranch homes built after the 1960s, or boxy apartments from the 1980s. We're talking about homes from when the Town was surrounded by orchards. The so-called "contemporary and clean aesthetic" which results in massive, heavy boxes without architectural interest is not what we think of as Los Gatos. The North 40 designs completely lack the elements that give downtown Los Gatos homes charm, such as porches, shutters, paned windows, bay windows, setbacks, and front yards. We don't think of homes LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 63 that are higher than trees or that has two-story windows as being traditions in Los Gatos. This development should pay more than lip service to the notion of recalling our Town's agricultural past. The tiny vineyard should be enlarged, alleys should be widened, and extensive green space should be added. The cottage cluster idea that the developer touted but then entirely left out of the development should be used to reduce density and increase green space. Please require that the development celebrate our history in fact, and not just in words. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Dodson. KIERSTEN SHUM: Good evening, my name is Kiersten Shum and my address is 15595 El Gato Lane, Los Gatos. I first want to say thank you for everybody on the Planning Commission. You go to all these meetings, and that just takes so much patience. I know everybody is working very hard, and I know that people at Grosvenor are all working very hard. I'm a little bit nervous, but it's okay. My spouse —we're gay —and the only reason I'm saying this is because she is Asian and about 100 pounds, and she rides her bicycle every day. She works at Oracle. We live off of Los Gatos -Almaden, and she was really excited recently because she realized that instead of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 64 trying to cross 85 and go over to that pedestrian bridge to get over to the Los Gatos Creek Trail to work downtown for Oracle, she could go along Lark, and then Oka Road, and then get to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Safety is really, really important. I thought it was very striking, the woman who works as a nurse at Good Samaritan, she was talking about people being stuck in traffic. Safety and traffic go together. I didn't know about the recent fatality on Lark; that makes me feel very sad. I think that in terms of Los Gatos, it's just a great place. We have the beautiful Los Gatos library; that's the most amazing thing. I think that in terms of what different people have said, the eighth speaker was saying that her friends had notice from Santa Cruz, so when people drive by, that's what they're going to see, and that's not the sort of advertising that we really want for Los Gatos. We want people to come to Los Gatos. We do need tax dollars. We do need revenue for the Town of Los Gatos, but we need people to come and to feel like this is a relaxing place. We do need a place for housing. We do need step- down housing for seniors. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 65 As a teacher who has taught for 24 years, and I worked over on the east side, even in the east side people would come to our school, because it was one of the best in our school district, and they would do whatever they could, and people will do the same for Los Gatos. People really want to live here, and a lot of those employees from Netflix and different places like that, they're going to want to have their families here. So thank you for your time. I really truly from the depth of my heart appreciate all your time and all your patience, and I know you all love Los Gatos. And thank you for the library. I love the library. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: We appreciate your comments. Thank you so much. Han Shum, Jak Van Nada, and Don McKell. Mr. Shum? No? Jak Van Nada. No? Don McKell? Can they hear me outside? Yes, they can. Perhaps somebody could tell them that there's some room inside. There is some room in the benches if anybody would like to have a seat, or from the outside if they're listening. Okay, we're ready for you. DON McKELL: Good evening, my name is Don McKell; I live at 31 Mariposa in Los Gatos. I've actually lived there for coming on 44 years, the same address. My wife and I have raised a family, taken LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 66 advantage of the schools, the police and the fire departments and other civic services of the Town. We, and many of our neighbors, look with extreme skepticism upon the negative aspects of the commercial and residential development that this place represents. If I go home to where I live on Mariposa and I look at that neighborhood, which is composed of largely quarter -acre lots with front yards and individual trees owned by homeowners, if that place had been built with the same density as this proposed cancer that is being planned for the North 40, there would be no Los Gatos as we know it. What we have in this town is something special, and what this project seeks to do is ruin it, in my humble opinion. I don't think any development of the North 40 should be approved without the intelligent widening of, and improvements necessary to, Los Gatos Boulevard, at least between Lark and Samaritan. One only has to consider the abysmal impact to traffic on Winchester being brought about by the approval of the new Netflix facility that somehow put four separate traffic signals in a 400 yard space of asphalt, and Netflix hasn't even opened yet as far as the major traffic that's going to be going there. That's the end of my spiel. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 67 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Markene Smith, John Thatch, and Dominic Hugyik. MARKENE SMITH: Hi, Commission. My name is Markene Smith; I live at 201 Drakes Bay Avenue in Los Gatos, and that is off of National Avenue between Los Gatos -Almaden Road and Samaritan Drive. I mention that because it's complete gridlock since the four new medical centers and their associated parking lots have gone in; patients, staff, and everything. I want to point out that neither Gerald Grosvenor nor the marketing and developing people he's hired to promote the current North 40 application lives or works here. Those developers will never be affected by their project's homogeneity, urbanization, pollution, and gridlock. The Town of Los Gatos should require Grosvenor to modify its Phase 1 application in order to comply with the North 40 Specific Plan, which in my opinion it does not at this point. The application should include public streets, not private streets; wider pedestrian walkways; larger real greenbelt areas, not just sidewalks; public park and playground for the people who live there; and larger community garden areas with individual raised garden plot beds available to every unit that has no yard space to grow LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 68 food or other plants. We need some single-family detached homes there, and a community center. If this is a Planned Development without a community center, I don't know how they're ever going to have meetings or anything. I propose that to mitigate catastrophic traffic and transportation issues the Town should require developer Grosvenor to fund 100o of the traffic improvements, because Caltrans cannot provide matching funds due to greatly decreased gas tax revenues. This has changed since the EIR. The EIR is outdated, in my view, since the medical buildings have opened in our area right at that corner of Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive, the new Burton Way and... I don't know, that whole area, Samaritan, Lark, and Los Gatos Boulevard. Anyway, the developer should fund all the traffic equipment, because he's solely benefiting from this. Then the developer should also fund 100o of the VTA extension of the light rail to Vasona station, which we've been waiting more than a decade for. There could be an additional station besides the Vasona light rail at the Town -owned property at the southeast corner of Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue to serve the North 40 and surrounding neighborhoods, and that would take a lot of the car traffic out of the area, and also enliven our area. A LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 69 lot of millennials are now going to Campbell, because there is a light rail stop right in the center of the city, and they go there and come back, and they can go downtown from there or wherever they want. Los Gatos is one of Santa Clara County's oldest communities... I do want to just finish. The Town began in 1868 with just 100 acres of a Mexican ranchero that was selected as the town site. The Town's first 100 acres were gradually developed over a period of 150 years. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. I have to stop you. We have a lot of speakers. Thank you very much. Han Shum has arrived, so I'll allow him to go ahead of John Thatch and Dominic. Apparently not. All right. John Thatch. JOHN THATCH: Excuse me; I got in the wrong pile. I'm part of the Applicant's team. CHAIR BADAME: Okay, you did get in the wrong pile. Dominic Hugyik. DOMINIC HUGYIK: Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Dominic Hugyik. I'm here tonight as a volunteer with the Greenbelt Alliance. Greenbelt Alliance is dedicated to shaping how the Bay Area grows to preserve what's special about our region and make our communities even better places to live. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 70 The Greenbelt Alliance is proud to endorse the North 40 Phase 1 as an example of smart infill development, exactly the type of growth that Los Gatos needs to become an even more thriving, sustainable, and affordable place to live. One of the most important actions we can have in our communities is to use our limited land wisely to create great neighborhoods that meet the needs of today, as well as tomorrow. That means creating inviting places to live that use land efficiently; create walkable, verdant streets; and add new homes for residents across the income spectrum to help our pressing housing affordability crisis. That means encouraging a mix of homes near jobs and amenities with a rich array of transportation choices. The North 40 Phase 1 proposal is a prime example of this type of small infill development with a compact design architecture that enlivens the streetscape, homes for residents across the income spectrum, and a variety of transportation choices, also including integrated green spaces and high -quality green building features. We hope it helps set a precedent for how Los Gatos can become an even better place to live, so that today's teenagers can afford to continue to be a part of this community as they graduate, our older adults can find LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 71 an option to downsize when they no longer want to take care of a large house, and our workforce can live close to their jobs rather than face a long, grueling commute to the edge of the region. As the Planning Commission reviews the proposal we have three recommendations. That every opportunity be taken to create safe spaces for walking and biking, particularly to cross Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. That there is a commitment to provide free trans - passes for all residents and employees, and someone onsite committed to administering this program as part of a robust transportation demand management program. That's a technique that has proven significantly to increase transit use and reduce traffic and congestion. In addition, we recommend that the North 40 and other new developments like it in Los Gatos include more homes to better meet the needs of our region without turning to development on our open spaces at the edge of the Bay Area where over 320,000 acres are currently threatened by sprawl. In conclusion, by transforming this land into a walkable, well designed, mixed -use development the North 40 Phase 1 will help make Los Gatos and the Bay Area a better LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 72 place to live. We strongly support this proposal and encourage you to approve it. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Sir, don't go away. We have a question for you from Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and thank you for your letter. In looking at the proposal, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that it needs to be changed to allow safe crossing of Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark, or are you saying that as you've reviewed it, it is adequate? DOMINIC HUGYIK: Just make sure that those proposed changes are the right changes, that you review them again and just make sure that they're the most optimal. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I may, one other follow up. In terms of the Greenbelt Alliance and the housing, did you look at the distribution of the housing on this property in terms of it being concentrated in one area, and do you have an opinion about the development from that perspective? If the housing were spread over other areas, would that change your opinion of the development? DOMINIC HUGYIK: We just looked at the current proposal as it is right now at 20 units per acre. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 73 COMMISSIONER HUDES: But in one area? DOMINIC HUGYIK: No, we haven't. COMMISSIONER HUDES: You didn't look if it were spread out over the other areas, as well? DOMINIC HUGYIK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Susan Freiman, Roy Moses, and Ed Morimoto. SUSAN FREIMAN: Hi, my name is Susan Freiman, 17380 High Street. Mom of two kids in Van Meter. Same issues. I won't go over it. We all hate it. Brass tacks, from what I've read and what I've been looking at it. Thank you to Town not City for keeping us educated. RHNA; we're being sort of forced between a rock and a hard place. Our town wants to keep the way it is, and it sounds like Sacramento and the powers that be, SB50 and the RHNA numbers, are pushing us where we don't want to go, if I get this correct. It sounds like we're not the only town there. It seems to me that there are communities... I heard stories of Los Altos or Hillsborough writing the check and paying the fine. It sounds like we're all letting these developers frame the argument and push us. We have to build it. We have to meet these numbers. Who's saying we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 74 have to? And what are the backup plans? What are the alternatives? That's really all I have to say. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Mr. Moses. ROY MOSES: Roy Moses, 16529 La Croix Court in East Los Gatos. I was here at the last Planning Commission, and Commissioners and Chair, thank you for all the work that you do. As you know, this is a very serious issue; along with the last one we were here for a couple of weeks ago on Shannon and Los Gatos Boulevard. My comment to you was, and I'm saying it here again tonight, that I'm into beauty. I'm so fortunate, and our families and everybody here, to live in Los Gatos. Been here for 47 years, raised five children, and I know our grandchildren are not going to be able live here, and that's just the way progress goes. But fortunately we have a chance to save the beauty of this town, and we're counting on you to listen to all these comments. I'm very upset about the comments that were made by the attorney, because obviously some things are already in place that might make it very difficult for us to make some of the changes that we feel are very necessary. So I'd like to know from you, do you think that all of us here LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 75 tonight speaking have a chance of changing the progress that has been made to this point? Anybody? CHAIR BADAME: Are there any questions? ROY MOSES: I'll pose it to the attorney. ROBERT SCHULTZ: This is the public comment period. It isn't time for questions and answers. CHAIR BADAME: We do have a question for you from Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: We're only allowed to ask questions of the speakers. Did you know that there is a lot of water under the bridge, and what we did on Shannon was by a different set of rules than we have tonight? Tonight is a ten-year developed North 40 Specific Plan; that is the law. As the Town Attorney said earlier, I love the Hillside Standards law, and I need to learn to love this law; I don't have an attractive choice. A lot of this is a done deal, but not a lot of it. There are still things we can do. If you read the Staff Report, we have a narrow corridor, and when we finish the public hearing and the Applicant has had five minutes of rebuttal, then we will actually get into the case and discuss what we can and can't do on the legal, narrow corridor that they've given us. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 76 CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes has a question for you, as well. ROY MOSES: Is this cutting into my time? I do want to finish. CHAIR BADAME: No. ROY MOSES: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: He'll be given his full three minutes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. I wonder if you have some comments that could help us in terms of are there some ways that this application is not consistent with the General Plan or the applicable law that we have to apply there? That's really what I'm trying to listen for from every comment, and to recognize where there is some ground for us to look at the application versus the zoning, the Specific Plan, the General Plan, et cetera. ROY MOSES: No, because most of the public and this audience I don't think really have gone to meetings before. This has raised the hair on our backs about what's going on, and I already apologized to my kids, my grandkids, and all the other people that I was not here ten years ago, or eleven years ago, to see really what was going on, and to fight this thing tooth and nail. So our job right now is to take it from this point and do whatever LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 77 we can to mitigate and minimize what is going to take place. The Yukis have a right, and all the property owners have a right, to do what they like, but this is a community, and like I pointed out last time, it says the "Town" of Los Gatos. This is not a city, and we don't need this type of ugliness taking place. Now, you can drive through town... But you can't drive through town anymore. I've been here for 47 years. You cannot keep putting more people into a smaller box without killing us and suffocating us, and that's exactly what's taking place, so this project over here has to be minimized. It has to be minimized. You have to listen to the people of this community. It's unfortunate that things have already been done that kind of say it's too late, buddy, you showed up too late. So time is of the essence. This whole Bay Area right now is in congestion and it is in gridlock, and it's going to continue that way, because it's such a great place to live, and because we are the brains of the world and high-tech business, and we are all coming here, and everybody wants to live here, and they're paying the prices to buy real estate to do that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 78 One other comment I'll make, I just found out today that you can buy a house in the east part of Los Gatos that has Campbell Union schools, or Union Elementary School, and you cannot send your kids to Alta Vista grade school; it's been closed. You cannot send your kids to Union Middle School, because it has been closed. These people are moving into Los Gatos and they don't even know, because it's just coming about right now, they'll have to go and transfer their kids and travel farther distance to take their kids to school, which is going to cause more gridlock. Who in the hell is planning around here? Who is planning for the future? Nobody. CHAIR BADAME: Please allow Mr. Moses to finish up. He can't speak with the clapping going on. ROY MOSES: I'm not going to live long enough to see what's going to happen, but I'm going to do whatever I can do to make sure that this community tries to stay at least at the level that it is right now. We cannot continue on this path. And attorneys can do whatever they want to do, but listen, you better make sure that the public is aware. And I let the ball drop. I let the ball drop, because I did not come to those Council meetings, and I'm kicking myself and I will for the rest of my life. But you're going to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 79 hear from me in the future, and you're going to hear from the rest of these people. I thank you for all you do, but all these people are working behind our backs and not realizing what's going to take place; they're going to hear from us. CHAIR BADAME: Don't go away. We might have a question for you. Are there any further questions for Mr. Moses? There is none. Thank you so much. All right, Mr. Morimoto. ED MORIMOTO: Good evening, my name is Ed Morimoto and I live at 460 Monterey Avenue. I'm a long time resident, a proud graduate of both Fisher and Los Gatos High, and a homeowner for over 20 years. As some of you know, I am also a member of the Yuki family, one of the North 40 property owners. While I have more than a casual interest in this development, I also have had a front row seat to the North 40 public process, and certainly have attended more than my fair share of hearings in these chambers. Mine surely is but a fraction of the time and effort invested in the North 40 by dozens of consultants, Town Staff, elected and appointed officials, and thoughtful community members such as those here tonight. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 80 For those first made aware of this development by the orange netting, I imagine it's hard to fathom, let alone appreciate, the eight years invested in getting us to this point. Work put in not only by Town government and the developers, but by citizens of this community participating in committees to advise the Specific Plan or Housing Element, stepping up to join commissions such as this one, or by organizing community groups like the Los Gatos Community Alliance who stand for sensible Town policy. Even those of us close to this process have likely only experienced a fraction of the hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of public testimony, the reams of impact studies ranging from traffic, to schools, to downtown businesses, or the hours of debate on topics such as meeting regional housing needs, the placement of residences on the site, or the adequacy of traffic mitigations. Now, I mention this not to deter anyone from voicing their opinion tonight, for the first time or the fiftieth, for or against. I do so merely with the hope we can all appreciate the breadth and depth of the discussion that has gone into the future of my family's orchard, and perhaps be open to the idea that even if this plan doesn't align to one's wishes or beliefs, it is one whose LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 81 compromises are the product of thoughtful and earnest effort. As some may cry unequivocally that the North 40's density and scale are not consistent with the Los Gatos look and feel, I'd ask that they consider where our town might be if our forebearers had been as uncompromising. Many of us live in homes that were only farmland when my family first arrived just 75 years ago. And how vibrant would Los Gatos be without 17 and 85, roads carved out of our orchards to connect us to our jobs, and to bring customers to our businesses? As we face a genuine housing crisis, responsibility for which neither cause nor cure stops at our town limits, isn't it possible, just possible, considering thoughtful, selective use of higher -density over our traditional, sprawling, car -centric approach just might give us a better change at preserving our quality of life? But my time runs short, so I'd like to close by thanking you for the challenging task you are now undertaking, and express my faith in your ability to consider the full breadth of this eight -year journey, as well as input you are hearing here tonight. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 82 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Morimoto. You do have a question from Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I have to make this a question. Do you know that we thank you for attending, and we thank you for your family's contribution? ED MORIMOTO: Thank you for saying so. CHAIR BADAME: All right, we are on target to hear from all of you tonight, however, for now we are going to take a 15-minute break. (INTERMISSION) CHAIR BADAME: The next three speakers will be Olga Smith, Sivia Van Gundy, and Maryellen Burr. OLGA SMITH: Identity is very important to me. My full name is Olga Encisco Smith. Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you very much for your work for our town. I'm very nervous, because I haven't spoken in a long time in a place like this. The developers, I believe, are going to destroy the small town character of my community, which is Los Gatos. It's mi casa. I moved here in 1971, so that's about 43 years ago. In 1974 I opened a small folk art store in Old Town. Old Town kept that character, so there were small retailers there that made their things. Then Los Gatos changed. We LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 83 brought in chain stores, and ten years later I had to leave my beloved business and move it somewhere else. But I still live here. I live at 157 Holly Hill Way, which is a cul de sac from Garden Hill, which is two blocks from Lark Avenue. I've been in that house for 43 years. I love that area. I love the community. I love Vasona Park; I walk there every day. My son is lower down the hill; we had parties. I participate in the PTA at various schools: Van Meter, Los Gatos High. I did fundraising events for their Week of Mexico in downtown Los Gatos with the support of this beautiful town. For me it is very sad to see those orange things there. I wish I had participated before, but really, my life for the last 45 years has been very active, very full, running all over the place. This community came together when we had the earthquake, and we rebuild from there. My husband was injured in the quake of 1989, he broke his back; he was coming home from Berkeley. So I know what the community and how home is. We used to pick apricots down Oka Road. Those apricot trees are no longer there. My son lives here. He LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 84 said, "Mother, don't sell the house." My husband died two years ago. What am I going to do? I want to stay here. This massive development will be (inaudible) and cause serious injuries to our citizens. I have here a police report. The police report says traffic collision report. I was hit by a car that was speeding when I was walking here. It happened on December 21st of last year, just before Christmas. I was shopping at Trader Joe's and pushing my shopping cart, and a car is speeding and hit me. If I didn't scream he would have ran over me. Because I screamed he put his brakes on. I have a bad back. I am here since 6:00 o'clock. CHAIR BADAME: Ms. Smith, I'm sorry, your time ran out, but we appreciate your comments. OLGA SMITH: Thank you very much. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you so much. Sivia Van Gundy. SIVIA VAN GUNDY: Hi, I'm Sivia Van Gundy and I'm at 3 Kimble Avenue. Good evening, members of the Commission. I really appreciate the hard work that you've been going through, and being my fellow neighbors, I really appreciate that. You are all my neighbors here in the Town of Los Gatos. I'm not going to address the people behind me at all, but thank you, as well. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 85 It sounds like a lot of things have been done, and I've lived here for 15 years, so part of it is my bad for not participating in the development of the North 40 Plan. But I have a couple of suggestions. I agree with everybody about the size and scope of this development, and how it is totally out of character with the Town of Los Gatos. I live on the hill up here in an 1892 Victorian, and I've spent the better part of those 15 years restoring, with love, that Victorian and keeping it within the character of the community that was originally developed by the founding parents of the Town of Los Gatos. I would suggest to the Planning Commission, and Mr. Schultz, I'm not sure how to do this, that we go back and we investigate the EIR. The Environmental Impact Report, I don't know for sure when it was passed, but it sounds like it's out of date with the recent developments, and to say that there's going to be no effect on our schools and no effect on our traffic is ridiculous. Right now my son is at the Los Gatos High School, and we were told that it is so impacted that they are adding trailers, and trailers, and trailers. We also have been through two remodels of Van Meter Elementary School. I don't know where they're going to put these kids. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 86 To use the phrase that this is being built for millennials, well that's great. Yes, there was an accurate statement: Millennials are the single largest population cohort in the United States today, because while I was sitting here I looked it up at the U.S. Census. Millennials, by the way, are people born between 1982 and 2000. That means some of the millennials are 34 years old, and to say that they will not have children while they are living in this monstrosity and have to send their kids to school is an outright lie. They are 34 years old. That being said, I would like for us to figure out a way for the Planning Commission and the peoples of Los Gatos to go back to the Town Council and ask that they revisit the EIR. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Maryellen Burr. MARYELLEN BURR: My name is Maryellen Burr; I live at 85 Roberts Road, and I've lived in Los Gatos since 1985. I just wanted to restate my concerns about the impact on the schools, and I would like to see some discussion with the planning about which schools these students will go to, and how those schools will be able to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 87 accommodate those news students. I don't want that issue to be ignored. Thank you. Good-bye. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, and good-bye. Hello, Dick Glift, Anne Marie de Cesare, and Tom Thimot. I hope I'm pronouncing names correctly. ANNE MARIE De CESARE: Hello, my name is Anne Marie de Cesare, and my family and I just moved here from Campbell, specifically for the schools. We purchased new construction on Los Gatos Boulevard at 236 Los Gatos Boulevard, and it's a Craftsman style that fits in with the style of the avenue. I just want to read a letter that I sent —and missed the cutoff —so it can be added to the record. My family and I are in favor of a limited development and historic preservation of a large part of the currently undeveloped Los Gatos North 40 orchard and historic buildings, and we suggest at least half of the orchard and all the historic buildings are set aside as a public open space and child friendly museum. As I understand it, the original plan approved by the Los Gatos Council last year called for 270 housing units on 44 acres, and after plan approval the project was redesigned to compress 320 housing units onto 22 acres, and added low-rise, low-income housing and 435,000 square feet LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 88 of commercial space, and that the Los Gatos Town Council communicated the development Guiding Principles to look and feel like Los Gatos; to embrace the hillside views, trees and open space; address the Town's unmet residential and commercial; and mitigate impact on the Town infrastructure, schools, and community services. But these Guiding Principles were ignored in the development plan after approval. The look and feel of the 35' low-rise apartment complexes, and the 435,000 square foot mall, and the 320 high -density homes do not conform to any of the Los Gatos Town development Guiding Principles, and put a strain on the Los Gatos Union and Los Gatos Saratoga joint high school districts. Please do not approve the North 40 development project as it exists, but rather change it to something that would preserve the historic orchard and implement smaller scale development that would support rather than strain the Town infrastructure, schools, and community services. Specifically, my family and I are opposed to the current Los Gatos North 40 development plan for the following reasons: 1) Traffic is already very congested LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 89 after 3:00pm on 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard. 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard would be... Oops, I have to skip to my last two questions, because I'm running out of time. Here are some questions the Town should consider before moving forward with any project approval: Has the Town Council considered if the tax dollars collected from the new development would adequately offset the additional draw on Town resources? Would rental property owners contribute a share of tax dollars proportional to those homeowners to compensate for more students in the middle and high schools? Would the existing elementary schools even be able to accommodate such a large increase in enrollment? There's more, and I'd just like to submit the letter. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIR BADAME: And thank you, Ms. De Cesare. DICK GLIFT: Good evening, my name is Dick Glift; I live at 17670 Tourney Road in Los Gatos; been here for 37 years. Things have changed since we got here tonight, finding out that this plan doesn't look like it can be varied very much right now, so I'm just going to make general comments to the whole situation here in Los Gatos. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 90 Everything in this town is completely stressed out, from schools, to parking, to driving on the streets, and I don't see how you can justify putting another project in like this that is going to have an impact on everybody, and you can see most of the people in this town don't want it, period. I think you need to go back with your attorney and figure out a way to stop it. Bottom line: no more development. We've come to the limit in this town. You've got to start scaling back. We just can't live on every square inch of this town, and have a car on every square inch of the street. You can't park anywhere now. I know you guys are doing a good job. I don't mean to lay it on you guys, because you're trying to do a good job, but things need to change. CHAIR BADAME: You can lay it on us. We'll listen. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. TOM THIMOT: Hi, while I'm pulling up my talk here, could you put up slide 16 of Don Capobres presentation, please? Thank you. Tom Thimot; I live on Johnson Avenue. I also co- founded a group with my neighbor, Rod Teague, called Town not City. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 91 Like many of the people that have spoken here, I was asleep for nine of the last ten years. Got a lot of things going on. I ran a little thing called LGEF for a few years to raise money for the Town schools. I'm very involved in the community, sat on Parish Council at St. Mary's for a while. We all have lots of activities. I honor your contribution sitting on the Planning Commission. We all do certain things. Unfortunately, it's not until big story poles go up that we all realize whoa, hold on, what is this? And I get it. Since we started Town not City we now have 2,900 people on the site that are followers of it. When we make posts now, 50,000 people click on them and view them; those are Facebook's numbers. 20,000 share our posts. 20,000. It's geofence; we only allow people that are either from Los Gatos, live in Los Gatos, or are geofenced in Los Gatos, to have those on their phone and their newsfeed. When we did two SurveyMonkeys, 91%, over 1,000 people... When they poll people for the presidential elections, 1,000 out of 30,000 is considered a very viable sampling. Ninety-one percent say they don't want this. Do you know the number one reason they cite? Town character. They cite traffic and the schools and everything else. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 92 I realize that now we have the traffic and schools impact, thanks to a statement of overriding consideration, as Mr. Schultz will tell you, you really can't do anything about it. You hear the snickers in the crowd. Everybody knows it's a joke. We're going to have our schools overwhelmed. We're going to have our roads crowded, but you can't do anything. But like a jury, you're akin to a jury right now, there are subjective things in that 330 pages, or however many pages it is, there are subjective things like is this Los Gatos town character? Subjectively, you can say no, and that is your job as the Planning Commission. You can't override the EIR. You can't change the law, which is the Specific Plan that was passed by a 3-2: Sayoc, Rennie, and Marcia Jensen, those three, 3-2; that became law. But there are subjective parts of that. Stand on those, and say no to this. You have the ability on the subjective parts of this plan; Mr. Schultz can coach you on that. Say this is not Los Gatos, this is not San Jose, this is not Santana Row, and this is not what we all moved here for. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: We appreciate your comments. All right, Kelly Havens, Dr. Joan Oloff, and Susan Burnett along with Joanne Rodgers speaking together. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 93 DR. OLOFF: I'm Joan Oloff; I live with my family at 105 Sund Avenue in Los Gatos, and I work with my other family at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, where I'm managing partner for Los Gatos Medical Office Center. Development is inevitable. None of us like it. My request is to do things mindfully and thoughtfully. I have a very personal interest for myself and patients in our building, and that has to do with we have a left-hand turning lane into our building now, and when we developed our property, as some of you may remember 11 years ago, this was allowed to happen. Although it's been wonderful for us, it's actually had a secondary issue, and that's it decongests Los Gatos Boulevard to a degree, because as you probably know, because I deal with it every day, the congestion on Los Gatos Boulevard has been horrendous, and as was brought up earlier by one of the nurses, it becomes a real safety factor for us, for our patients. We have emergencies that happen in the building, it's just inevitable when you're dealing with patients. EMS comes in, and these guys can't get to the hospital if they can't access across Los Gatos Boulevard. I really would like to put it on record to say this is not just an issue for site development; it's not just an issue for visual impact. It has to do with the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 94 safety of our citizens, and it's something that needs to be dealt with not only for now, but long-term. There has been some suggestion that it's a short-term thing. It really should not be a short-term thing. If you go back and look at some of the environmental impact reports that were done, interestingly enough even the developer's own traffic reports recommended keeping it. Any changes that should be done to Los Gatos Boulevard should really wait until you have the access all the way down to Samaritan Drive, because if you piecemeal this it's just going to be a disaster. Right now it's already congested, and if we do these changes now and don't allow for this, the congestion is going to be horrific. Thanks. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Dr. Oloff. JOANNE RODGERS: Good evening, I'm Joanne Rodgers from 15287 Top of the Hill Court. SUSAN BURNETT: And good evening, I'm Susan Burnett, and I live at 85 Ellenwood. JOANNE RODGERS: This is a role-play of what we're dealing with in Los Gatos today. SUSAN BURNETT: Hi, Joanne. I haven't seen you for a while. Want to come over for a cup of coffee? We can discuss what's happening in Los Gatos. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 95 JOANNE RODGERS: Sure. What time would work for you to have me come by? SUSAN BURNETT: Oh, it would be best if you could get here by 10:00, because you'll have a problem getting to my house after that time. You know, they've been closing off Massol and Ridgecrest because of the traffic unless you live in the neighborhood, because 85 gets congested, so traffic uses Highway 9, and then they cut through my neighborhood to get to Highway 17. JOANNE RODGERS: Oh, but Susan, I can't come before 10:00am, because there's a line of traffic trying to turn left off of Kennedy Road and onto Los Gatos Boulevard, and when the light turns green the cars can't move, because it's so blocked up on Los Gatos Boulevard, and I can't turn right on Los Gatos Boulevard before, but if I could, I'd be stuck in the Van Meter traffic, and even worse, in the parents dropping off their kids at Fisher. SUSAN BURNETT: Gosh, Joanne. Well, if you can make it to Highway 9, but don't use North Santa Cruz Avenue, it's a parking lot, just make a U-turn and use the parking lot behind Hult's Restaurant, or try University Avenue, because the problem will be trying to cross North Santa Cruz Avenue to get up to Ellenwood. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 96 JOANNE RODGERS: I don't think this is going to work, Susan. I can't make it to your house without getting in a traffic jam, and we can't meet downtown, there's too much traffic and there's no parking. SUSAN BURNETT: Well, why don't we meet in Saratoga? Can you avoid the traffic to get to a Starbucks in Saratoga? JOANNE RODGERS: Well, let's see. If I take the back way down Kennedy Road to Shannon Road, I could cut over Short Road, then cut through Cherry Blossom to Los Gatos -Almaden, then I'd turn right on Los Gatos Boulevard. Well, I'd try to, and then I'd try to turn left on Lark, and then left on University onto Daves. The hard part will be crossing over. Oh, no. All of those roads are going to be overcrowded even before the North 40 and Dell and Oka are developed. Susan, Joe and I have lived here 43 years, and you've lived here most of your life. Have you ever seen such disregard for the citizens of Los Gatos and our families? SUSAN BURNETT: No, and I guess it makes you wonder why the story poles are incomplete. Did they not want us to see and visualize how large the Phase 1 project LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 97 is? What about Phase 2? And I understand there's actually a Phase 3. CHAIR BADAME: We've got to finish up real quick. JOANNE RODGERS: Okay. I think we need to change the logo up there. That shows a lot of green orchards leading up to our beautiful hills, and it has to be all covered with homes and condominiums and commercial. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Thank you, ladies. All right, I called Kelly Havens. Is she still around? No. All right, Jan Olsen, Amy Despars, and Wayne Scott. JAN OLSEN: Hello. Good evening, I'm Jan Olsen; I live at 15189 Lester Lane. I live directly behind the Office Depot, which is on Larkspur, which is directly across the street from the North 40. We moved here in 1994, and the Office Depot at that point was a Nissan dealership lot that was just nothing, because they had been out of business. Office Depot was looking to build there, and I became part of the charrette, which had ten or twelve teams of ten people looking to see how we envisioned Los Gatos Boulevard. We knew Los Gatos Boulevard was going to be a gateway coming off of 85, and at that point we were how are we thinking this to be? And all the way up Los Gatos Boulevard became the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 98 One of the things is it had to be pedestrian friendly. We really didn't want chains, but now look, our town is full of them. Maximum height of Office Depot was either 25' or 35', because we did not want it overbearing. It needed to be pedestrian friendly. Every team had a suggestion for the North 40, and none of them looked anything like this. They were all open spaces, or parks, or soccer fields, or little retail for the north people. I have to tell you, this is not what I'm seeing at all. This was in the works 20 years ago. I have been going to the meetings since the Committee and the Town Council and all that. I understand that you can't deviate from the Specific Plan, but I think what we need to do is go back to the Town Council and have them change the Specific Plan. We need to go back to that level and have them fix this. A couple of things. I think the model is very deceptive, and I've pointed this out. All the open spaces on the north end that show trees and open space is not going to be. That's all part of Phase 2. We do not know what Phase 2 is going to be. I suggested they mark those trees and open spaces with little cards labeled Phase 2, just like they have everything else labeled, but it still LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 99 hasn't been done, and it's not going to be what it looks like, folks. I would like to see and hear what Phase 2 entails, because that's the whole thing. The 400,000 square feet of commercial space, and the proposed hotel, and all the other. I want to see the whole thing, not just this all crammed area. I was told the senior move -down housing would have been three stories, but it was denied, and they can't put an elevator into two stories, so therefore they're not going to have senior housing. If they're going to doing neighborhood -serving businesses, they need to ask us what we want, because nobody has come to our neighborhood, and we are directly behind. We're closer than the people behind the Rotten Robbie. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Olsen. AMY DESPARS: Hi, my name is Amy Despars, 267 Longridge Road. I actually stood here a month ago in front of you, and I am truly sorry that you've had to deal with all of this, because this was ten years ago when most of you were not on the Planning Commission. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 100 I did hear someone say that it is water under the bridge, but when this started —unfortunately, I was not sleeping ten, twenty years ago —as Jan reminded us, there was that General Plan for the Los Gatos Boulevard that we all worked on. This didn't fit it. Ten years ago there wasn't the Gateway Medical Building, the Bluebird Lane, the Laurel Mews, Panera. Those are all the things that I've stood up here and talked about. Where is the growth? Where is the vision of our town? I've been standing up here through all these developments over the last 20 years since I've lived here. I'm wondering what happened to that General Plan for the Boulevard. Where's the General Plan that addressed traffic, housing, retail? Gateway, right where the new Stanford development was supposed to have some commercial retail space in it; it is medical. We did not want that in our neighborhood. So I'm standing here in front of you. I feel bad that you have to clean up these pieces, but we need to bring back the General Plan, and as Mr. Thimot says, speak with your attorney, figure out a way that we can make this work and fit our town. You are the stewards of our wonderful town. You hold the future of our charming town in the palms of your hands. You can either keep Los Gatos wonderful, charming, historic, family friendly, a true LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 101 community, a place where people want to come and retire, or come and raise their families because of the schools, the resources, the history, the supportive community we live in. Or, you can choose to turn it into a small town that resembles a developers dream come true, a mini -city with a lot of houses and buildings crammed into small lots just so the developer can fill his pockets at our expense, a place with lots of traffic, and an even more frustrated group of people who will want to move away because they are tired of it taking 30 minutes to get from one side of the town to the next. We voted for you to make decisions that will enhance our community, not jeopardize our town's infrastructure, schools, and community services. Please listen to the people of this unique town and do not feel you owe the developers anything. We live here. We love this town. We have a commitment to making it the best it can be, as do each of you. Just because the Applicant is asking for the maximum development standards does not mean you have to accept the application. I encourage you to use the minimum required standards. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 102 There is no specific timeline established for the North 40 Specific Plan, so I encourage you to take your time and look into every aspect of this project and make sure it will fully fit, and as it says, celebrate our history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small town character. It is respectful of precious community resources and offers unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of all of our residents. That is what the North 40 needs to represent; it's written right there. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Despars. WAYNE SCOTT: Hello, my name is Wayne Scott and I live at 108 Magneson Terrace in Los Gatos. This is the second time that I've spoken in front of this body of fine folks. It's been an education; each time I come here I learn more, and I appreciate now just this evening the constraints that you all had to deal with. Last weekend I was at a Persian celebration with a bunch of people who came from all around, and we got to talking about where do people go for dinner and things like that, and it's interesting that two of the couples there said, "We don't go to Los Gatos anymore," and I said, "Why not?" and they said, "Well, the traffic. It's just not a joy to go there, so we go to other places now, because it's LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 103 just to get there and to find a place to park." And I'm thinking, we haven't even added these additional homes on here. It's interesting that people are becoming aware of the issues we're having down here, and they're making some decisions about where they want to do business, and traffic is part of the equation for some of these folks. There have been so many things that were brought up tonight, it's hard to add anything to what has already been said, but one thing I have in particular is traffic. The traffic is just incredible going down Los Gatos Boulevard. I commute to go down the Los Gatos and try to get on 17; it takes me a couple of lights. Coming back is also a lot of fun. So I see the plan over here, and this A street. I mean all the residents are going to come in and out of that, off A Street onto Lark, and I'm thinking holy cow, how are people even going to get out of that place, because there's no light? Then we have all these people coming down, all getting to Lark, trying to get on 17. It just seems like they're not going to be able to get out, or something is going to happen. Then I was looking at this EIR report, and there's also something back here that's I guess is Exhibit 3. It says, "Conflict with the applicable congestion LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 104 management program," and then it says, "Less than significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated." This just doesn't make sense that that's the case with adding... Oh, in the report, something about, "3,819 average daily trips." Well, they're going to go someplace. This is just not correct. This EIR report just needs to be reviewed. CHAIR BADAME: Thirty seconds more. WAYNE SCOTT: Oh. I guess I have nothing else to offer, but the EIR report doesn't reflect reality. That intersection down there is just a terrible situation, and these houses are going to make it worse. I think a couple of suggestions. Spread the things out over Phase 1 and Phase 2. We need houses here, that's for sure, but boy, to put them all in that one location just seems like it's going to be a disaster for all of us. Thanks. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Rod Teague, Jim Bennette, and Diana Pleasant. ROD TEAGUE: Rod Teague, Johnson Avenue, and thank you for hearing us today. One of the things I want to point out here is earlier it was brought up by the developer that the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 105 Specific Plan wanted the housing in the Lark District. So here is your Specific Plan, and here, I'll read a couple of things. Lower intensity residential, it asks for cottage cluster housing, which is generally characterized by detached housing, which is probably the only housing that is semi in character with Los Gatos, but this plan doesn't have any cottage cluster housing. If you go to the other districts, you've got the Transition District, which I think there might be a little bit of housing on. I know there's not much, if any. It does call for residential, including condominiums, live/work flats, multi -family flats, multiplexes, and row housing. And then we get to the Northern District, which it also calls for housing. So this is our Specific Plan. This is the rule. This is the guideline that we made. What I want people to know here is that the Specific Plan is yours. It's not theirs, it's not the Council's; it belongs to us. It has maximum on there. It has maximum homes. We don't have to go to the maximum homes; it's kind of irrelevant. We need to accept a plan that fits in with the look and feel of the community. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 106 The Specific Plan did a horrible job defining what the look and feel of Los Gatos is, because I think most of us here would say the look and feel is probably like our historic area. If you go to the Northern District on Los Gatos Boulevard, you'll see a lot of tile roofs, you'll see a lot of Mediterranean style housing, so we're going to have this entire contrast. I think what everybody needs to realize is don't buy into the scare tactics. I hear the developers using things like RHNA, and we're going to get our municipality seized by the state. That's happened in one case, in Pleasanton, and that's because Pleasanton gave them the big what -know -what -I'm -talking -about. We're standing on the tracks right now. We're staring at a train coming down the tracks, and we can do something about this, but we have people telling us to look at the pretty meadow on the side, so I think it's time for all of us to step off the tracks and do something sensible and reasonable, so don't accept this current application, please. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Teague, for your comments. We have a question for you from Vice Chair Kane. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 107 VICE CHAIR KANE: You mentioned Pleasanton getting in trouble for what? Not abiding by the Housing Element? ROD TEAGUE: Yeah, they didn't... VICE CHAIR KANE: How did they get in trouble? ROD TEAGUE: Well, they basically told the state we're not going to provide low-cost housing. I don't think that's anything Los Gatos ever intended to do. We chip off our low-cost housing when we can, and I think if the state sees that you're making an effort there's no reason for the state to come after us. But this has been used as a scare tactic all the way through. We can do something sensible on the North 40. Put 100 units on the Los Gatos School District side, put another 100 units on the Campbell side, and we can make it high -density. Put 200,000 square feet of commercial in the middle to serve the community. We're not serving just the community by putting 501,000 square feet of commercial, we are serving the Valley, and we're turning it into a strip mall. You point your finger in any direction and you're going to see the same strip mall. VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Teague, I didn't mean to reopen your presentation. My concern is that I know of a municipality that told the state no, and runs the risk of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 108 losing state funding, and then they were successfully sued by a watchdog agency of civilians for not conforming with the Housing Element. California has to provide housing, and municipalities resist that sometimes, because the requirements are pretty severe, and in the case I'm familiar with, when they resisted, it wasn't the state that got them, it was a watchdog agency that successfully got them, because that's one of the Swords of Damocles over our head. That's the end of my question. ROD TEAGUE: Okay, thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Teague. Jim Bennette. JIM BENNETTE: Sick to my stomach. That's what I felt when I walked in here tonight and I saw that model. Sick to my stomach. My neighbor —I live on Johnson —spent two -and -a - half years extending his house from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet on a 9,000 square foot lot. And you let that go through. Sick to my stomach. I can't believe you'd let this go through. I look at you people and I see you've already made up your mind. I'm proud that our town has come out here to fight, but you've already made up your mind. And if you let this go through, this board will not go down as something great. I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 109 don't know what your motivations were for signing up to do this, but you'll go down as the people that destroyed my town. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: I have a question for you, sir. Actually, probably a statement. We have not made up our minds. We are here to listen to all of you. We are reading material. We writing copious notes. We have not made up our minds. JIM BENNETTE: Fair enough. CHAIR BADAME: I want you to know that. JIM BENNETTE: Fair enough, but that's my opinion. CHAIR BADAME: You're entitled to it. Thank you. All right, Diana Pleasant. DIANA PLEASANT: Diana Pleasant, 814 Bicknell, Los Gatos; a 44-year resident of Los Gatos. Taught at Los Gatos High School for 29 years, and I'm retired. I just have a simple point that I wish you not to overlook, and that is I heard the City Attorney and the Council and developers say that they've reached agreement with the Los Gatos School District, and that's wonderful, but no one has remembered that there's another school district, and that's the high school district. It would be nice if the benevolence of the developers took that into LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 110 consideration also. They're already overfull, so if you'd put that on your agenda, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Pleasant. We appreciate your comments. Jayne Sonnenschein, Roberta Goncalves, and Peter Dominick. JAYNE SONNENSCHEIN: Good evening. Actually, good night, I guess. I'm Jayne Sonnenschein; I live at 239 Plaza La Posada. I live in the west-northwest part of Los Gatos and I've been a taxpaying resident since 1991. I did participate in some of the activities about what was going to be the future of the North 40. It wasn't until I saw the story poles that I really understood this wasn't what I thought we were talking about. It reminds me of what's happening at Stevens Creek right now in our neighboring city. The difference is Stevens Creek isn't bound by freeways on two sides. As a resident in my community, Saratoga and Monte Sereno border me. I have to use Lark to get across and support the merchants on Los Gatos Boulevard, to use the medical care that's there and the hospitals, and they've all been used in the years I've lived here. The thing that's not being thought about with the traffic is there's no question that Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard will be unusable. Unfortunately, my access LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 111 to Highway 85 is on that route. It's also the same route that Netflix access is going to be, because there's a limit to what we can do on Winchester, can only go northbound. In order for me to use Highway 85, I have to use this thruway, which is the same access point that the houses are going to be using as well. The density here I think is appropriate for the full 40 acres, not for the part that's just being presented. I believe that there are some inaccuracies about the number of cars that will be used on the properties. I know millennials usually team up in housing, so a two - bedroom house could have four people living it in, and each of those has a car. I know a one -bedroom house certainly would have two cars. This is going to be a parking lot, and it's going to be the kind of parking lot that there really isn't enough parking. We've all experienced what happens at Whole Foods where someone races because that one spot is available. There are going to be issues with just the residents in the property trying to park their cars, because there won't be enough spaces for the number of cars and the density of the project. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 112 In addition, I am going to have to divert... There's a large neighborhood that I'm in. We're going to have to go down Winchester, down to North Santa Cruz, also Quito Road to Highway 9, which is already difficult; those roads can't really be widened much more. Daves Avenue had a big issue with traffic. But our traffic is going to have to go down there, because there are going to be times that the gridlock is so bad on Lark that we just can't go to Lark. I want to close with saying as far as open space and vegetation, I would hope no matter what the size of this project ends up being that California native plants are part of the plantation that's considered in terms of trees and shrubbery, and that easements are not open space. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you very much. Thank you. ROBERTA GONCALVES: My name is Robert Goncalves; I live at 16100 Jasmine Way in Los Gatos. My husband and I did sent an email today, but we didn't know about the 11:00am deadline, so I want to make sure we entered it on the record, and I just would like to read it. Thank you, Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners for your work. I think nobody would like to be in your shoes today or addressing this, but we are grateful that you are and you are taking this seriously. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 113 My husband and I live in Blossom Manor with our two young children and we are absolutely opposed to this development. We have both lived in Chicago before, and we both love a big city for what it is. We also enjoy Los Gatos for what it is, and it should never try to look and feel like a big city. One main reason we moved here is how beautiful and quaint this town is, the excellent schools it offers, and the look and feeling of small town living, while close enough to San Jose and San Francisco and all they have to offer, but without the challenges those cities face today. The last thing we need in our town is another Santana Row. We already have one; it is in San Jose. Los Gatos doesn't need to try to become San Jose. We can drive about seven minutes and be at Santana Row. Our town already cannot handle all the traffic going to Santa Cruz on weekends and throughout the summer with the current infrastructure and population. Adding the 320 residential units, plus the commercial development, and more families in town with that structure planned as is will only make it significantly worse. It will also make traffic around town and our schools worse than what it already is. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 114 This addition would require more roads and more schools at all levels, not just elementary school, but middle and high school. There are no such provisions being proposed, and frankly, just buying land does not pay teachers' salaries and administrators' salaries. The quality of life we all have chosen this town for, the great schools, decent amount of traffic, and the character and feel of the town is at stake if this project get approved as is. Again, we don't need another Santana Row. We don't need to become another "stop by the highway." We don't need more traffic. We don't need to overcrowd our already full schools. We ask you to please say no to this development, start from scratch, go back to the planning, and try to listen to the residents. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. PETER DOMINICK: Hello, Peter Dominick, Blossom Hill Road. If you're not familiar with Blossom Hill Road, that's the street that everyone speeds down after they get stuck in traffic on the Boulevard. I would like to reiterate what everyone else has said. I am very appreciative of having this forum. I'm very appreciative that you spend your time listening to what we have to say. I think many people said, on days like today LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 115 it almost seems like a thankless job, but we do thank you for giving us his opportunity. One thing that has been made clear tonight is that the Specific Plan is the law of the land. That was said many times it seemed like at the beginning, and we were reminded that there is water under the bridge, we have certain things we have to abide by, and all of us who have been coming here trying to tell you how we think you should interpret that Specific Plan. What was interesting though was that when the developer had their time at the microphone and they talked about the plan, they were challenged on their concept of what it meant to consider the hillside views. I think that's one of the four key tenets that are in the Specific Plan, and forgive me for paraphrasing here, but what I heard from the developer was kind of a shrug of the shoulders and said, "Well, we did what we could." It feels to me like things have gotten a little bit confused where the people of this community are being told this is the law of the land, you're going to have to live with it, but when the develops came up and were questioned about it, they kind of got away with saying, "Well, we did our best," and no one really pressed them on this. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 116 You know, they could pivot their design on a 45- degree angle to better compensate the views of the peaks, and maybe the would sacrifice some of the land and they wouldn't be able to put as many units on there, but is this about our community, or is it about their development? That's all I have to say, and thank you very much. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Rhodie Firth, David Lawler, and John Eichinger. RHODIE FIRTH: Rhodie Firth; I live at 15905 Orange Blossom Lane, which is in Blossom Hill Manor. I've lived there for 50 years. I've been fighting this proposed development since the beginning, and it hasn't helped. I haven't been to the Planning Commission a lot, but I've been to the Town Council, and written to the paper a lot. I had prepared remarks for tonight, but something the initial woman from the developers said made me think there's something more important I should say. Above five or six years ago the citizens of Los Gatos were invited to a meeting by the developers, and I don't know if it was SummerHill or Grosvenor, but there were women in charge of this, and they are almost always at the Town Council, but they're not here tonight, so I don't know if they're still employed by them or not. We had this LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 117 huge meeting with 50 or 75 citizens. They had big white pieces of paper that they glued on the wall and asked us for suggestions. They write down everything we said, and we were just dumfounded that a developer cared what the citizens thought. Then they invited us, about a month later, to come back to hear the results of what we had said. There wasn't one, single word in their proposal that we had advised. They said, "Some people wanted some of the orchard, so we've planted trees here and trees there," and they had pictures. I don't know if they were these exact pictures, but they had pictures of the development. So they knew when they asked us for our opinion that they didn't care about our opinion. I'm only saying that because I don't trust them. I can't trust them after that kind of behavior. I should also tell you that today I went to the Lark Avenue car wash to get my car washed, and I had to go twice, because the first time I couldn't get into the car wash with the traffic. So this afternoon I went, I got in, got my car washed, and then I couldn't come out. I mean the traffic on Lark Avenue is just... I thought well I'll just have to sleep at the car wash. Finally some good citizen saw the problem and let us out. When they say the traffic LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 118 is not going to be impacted by this project, that just can't be. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Firth. DAVID LAWLER: Hi, I'm David Lawler, 148 Potomac. Just three points. This is the Planning Commission, I guess, so it's Los Gatos planning and risk. First of all, you've heard a lot today about what Los Gatos is or isn't, and what it should be and what it shouldn't be. There's a character and a feel to town that you can get by living there. I don't consider myself a long-term resident; I've only lived here 22 years. My neighbor was born in Los Gatos; his parents grew up here. There are a lot of people who have lived here a long time. Now, that's going to change, I understand that. But the town is actually about the citizens and what they want, how they feel about the town, and this town basically has changed. We've seen the traffic going up. We've seen development, like Bluebird Lane, that has high density, and we've seen what that has done to our traffic. So if that's what Los Gatos is, it's not that. It's the town that we have, and we've seen these new developments coming in, and we've seen the negatives that come with them. The second thing is planning; this is what it's all about. There has to be a plan. There's the General LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 119 Plan, there's the Specific Plan, there's the North 40 Specific Plan. Then there's this plan. This plan is actually the South 22 Plan, not the North 40 Plan, because we don't know what the North 40 Plan is. This is a specific plan, but this isn't it. I don't know who was good enough to actually put up here what the three elements of the North 40 were supposed to be, but this doesn't meet that criteria. In case you need to vote on whether or not you're going to approve it, take that into account. But it actually isn't there. If you look at it, what we have is there's a recommendation for schooling, not a requirement, in the Specific Plan. The schools are overcrowded, there's no doubt, nobody will deny that, and they're getting worse. We just passed a bond measure that is going to go and expand the high school. It's expanded out the middle school, Fisher, twice, and we're going to have to do it again. We're going to pay. That leaves the third part, though, which is risk. There's Los Gatos, there's planning, and there's risk, and the risk here is asymmetrical. Asymmetrical, and (inaudible) the developer will take the profits. Figure $1 million dollars a unit, $250 million. Take the profits, $300 per square foot to develop, lots of money. They're LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 120 gone. They don't even live in the town. We will be stuck if their estimate of traffic is wrong. Do you know what their estimate was? I was here a month ago, and I said, "How many cars do you expect in this development?" the one right here. One hundred and three I think is the number. I may be off by a couple. One hundred. That's insane. I've got 30 seconds left, but their numbers are wrong. I know the EIR I'm told by the lawyer is set in stone, but it's not. The congestion is real. We have school density that is there. We're going to have to pay the risks. This town, these citizens, which is Los Gatos, plan or no plan; we need a plan so we don't have to get stuck with the bill when the developer is long gone. We'll have the traffic. We'll have the congested schools, and we'll have nothing to do about it, and the millions of dollars will be gone out of this town. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you so much for your comments. Do you have a question, Vice Chair Kane? Thank you, no questions. JOHN EICHINGER: Hi, my name is John Eichinger; I live at 637 San Benito Avenue, a 42 year resident of Los Gatos. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 121 I'm a real estate broker. Now, a lot of real estate agents and brokers would be salivating over 300 more units to sell, more inventory, but I'm not. I'm adamantly opposed to this project. My office is on Los Gatos Boulevard, at 455 Los Gatos Boulevard, directly across from the Valero gas station, near Van Meter School, and literally I sit with a picture window right next to me and Los Gatos Boulevard is 15' feet away. I joke with people that I sit on Los Gatos Boulevard. So I have a very intimate view every day of the traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard, and it's horrible. Everybody here knows it. Any Environmental Impact Report that was paid for by the developers —is that correct? —paid for by the developers, should be thrown in the trash. We should have an Environmental Impact Report that is unbiased, not paid for by the developers, that addresses the real issues, because I believe that any one of you up here, any one of you, will know that 300 more units is going to impact traffic, and any environmental report that says it won't should be thrown in the trash. The recommendations by Staff, I know you put a lot of work into this Staff Report, but on page 19 you say you can't make a decision tonight but you recommend that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 122 you should accept the certified EIR. You should not accept the certified EIR, because the developers paid for it. That's called a fox in the henhouse. We've all seen the model of Phase 1. We see the story poles of Phase 2. I'm sure the developers have sketches at least of what Phase 2 and Phase 3 look like. Let's see the story poles for Phase 2 and Phase 3 so that the Town can really understand the impact. Let's see the plans and the discussion for Phase 2 and Phase 3. I'm sure the developers have some plans and sketches with them already. Let's see them. That's it. I think the Specific Plan should be brought up on the ballet in November. Thank you very much for your service. I don't envy you one bit. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. I'm going to ask you all to please refrain from the clapping and cheering as we continue on. We've got Caroline Lee, Erik Eastland, and Jason Farwell. CAROLINE LEE: Hi there, my name is Caroline Lee. I have lived at 224 Creekside Village, and I've been a ten- year resident of Los Gatos; I guess that's not very long. I would like to make this my home. And I am not a millennial, or whatever that's called, so I'm a little older than that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 123 I want to talk about what high -density housing is and the impact it's had on me. Creekside Village is at the corner of 9 and 17. It's 72 homes that are within a very small area. It was the old mobile home park that got converted to single-family homes. I love living in Los Gatos, but this neighborhood is very much a developer - centric neighborhood. I have a home that if I do this (arms out straight) I can touch... Well, the fence will come to about here on the side, and if I do this one more time I can touch the other house, that's how close we are together. We have 22 parking spaces in our community for 72 homes. This doesn't work for us. People park outside of our neighborhood and onto the neighboring streets. I do feel bad for the residents. When I look at the North 40 and the density, and hear about the cars, a hundred cars; it's not going to be a hundred cars. Down here we all have a car. We have more than one car per home, and it gets really difficult. I don't believe that this is going to solve any problems. The other thing I'd like to say about the traffic is I work a lot, I come home, and I just want to have a place to relax. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 124 I have a situation where I every month I have to go get a blood test. I do this on a Saturday morning. I've gotten it down to the point where I know if I make an appointment I can get in and out of there. It takes me five minutes to get there, ten minutes to get my blood test, and 40 minutes to get home. It's a plan and an ordeal to do this, and it shouldn't have to be that way. It's the traffic that's difficult. I know I can change and ride my bike, but I'd like to be able to just drive my car to where I need to go, because it's a town I live in that affords me to do this. Then the final thing that I'd like you guys to also consider is I know we're under... I don't envy you for your job or your role. I appreciate that you've stepped up to plan our city, but I do wish to have you consider what you have been given, to please question them, to please challenge them, and to please start to..what you think are the right parameters for us, or for you in your role, and for us as citizens of Los Gatos. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Eastland. ERIK EASTLAND: Hi, my name is Erik Eastland; I live at 201 Charter Oaks Circle. I might be the youngest person at the podium. I do represent the millennial demographic that the developer LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 125 is aiming towards, and I will say that the proposed housing is attractive to me in my current situation, but as a resident of north Los Gatos and also a perspective teacher at Los Gatos High School, there are some concerns with regard to the traffic and the schools. I was at this podium last year with the Albright project, and I witnessed the Town and the developer come to a so-called compromise with that development, and I see this particular plan leading down a very similar path to that. Being a student teacher at Westmont, I've learned very quickly that if you give an inch, students will take a mile, and I see that the developers have used the language in the Specific Plan to take that mile with the language that people have cited and what has been brought to the board and in the foyer today. I ask that you as the Commission do the same, to use the language to your advantage to service the needs and the wants of the people of this town. I do think that we can come to some sort of compromise with housing. Housing is an issue in this town, with traffic and with the schools. I want to be able to live in this town without having to stay at the house that my mom has so graciously LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 126 kind of let me live in after she moved out with my step - dad. I'd like to be able to live here and be a part of the community, so I ask that you please keep all the perspectives in mind, all the middle-aged people who have lived here for 40 years, and the young millennials like me who want to stay here. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you so much for coming forward with your comments. Jason Farwell. JASON FARWELL: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Jason Farwell, 18 Park Avenue. I've been following this for a lot of years, and I've been fighting it from day one. My general concern that got me involved in this whole process was what this development was going to do to our downtown. Full disclosure, I'm a commercial property owner. My family owns a few parcels downtown, and I'm very concerned as to what the impact of this development will have on our downtown. Ed Rathmann and I —he's the owner of Willow Street and Main Street Burgers —have met time and time again over the years with our elected officials. We've expressed essentially every concern that's been raised here today, and they still certified it. They still certified the EIR. They still approved the Specific Plan. I don't know why. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 127 But they did, and to a certain extent our hands are tied at this point. I would just urge you, the public, to reach out to your elected officials and express your distain for what has occurred, and encourage them to take whatever action they can as the elected governing body of our town to take action and to hear your demands. We are owed that. This project will change the landscape of our community forever. It is going to devastate our downtown. There are some that will disagree with me, but I'm absolutely certain that the merchants downtown will be impacted tremendously. And I do know that the North 40 is encouraging certain business owners downtown to move out to their development. I know that there have been those hands extended to encourage that move, further drawing what I consider to be a very important aspect of our town, our downtown, and it will impact it. I will leave you with that. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your consideration, and thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Mr. Farwell, we have a question from Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you for your comments in this area, which we haven't heard a lot about tonight, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 128 and I think we haven't heard a lot about it because we've been talking about Phase 1, because that's the application that's in front of us today. I would appreciate any further insight into the Phase 1 retail proposal and the impact that that will have, including the Market Hall, the shops, the restaurants. Is that what you're most concerned about, or do you have specific concerns about Phase 1 that we should consider? JASON FARWELL: Sure. I think the Market Hall concept is a very attractive concept. The lure of the Market Hall I think will draw folks from our downtown to the Market Hall. I think the one complaint I've had from day one was kind of the unfairness between the North 40 and downtown. The Downtown District has a lot of regulations surrounding the particular uses that occur down there. Any food use, any use of alcohol, requires a Conditional Use Permit. Well, the North 40 has zero restrictions. There are no CUPs required for the North 40, so they pick and choose who goes in there, and the Town has no say. Literally no say. I don't know why. I don't know why they agreed to that. I expressed time and time again my concern on that point, but it was ignored. So it's really a fairness issue. We have a formula restriction on downtown where formula LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 129 stores can't come into downtown without a CUP. Well, that doesn't apply to the North 40. I just don't understand the unequal division here of the playing field. It seems really one sided. But again, you'll hear the Council, they're constantly championing the Mom and Pop storeowner of downtown, but this is the knife in their heart. I've done some rough calculations. Taking out the banks, downtown is roughly 240,000 square feet of retail space. The North 40 calls for over 500,000. It's nearly double what we have downtown. I think that speaks for itself. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Farwell. Patricia Ernstrom, Bryan Mekechuh, and Fiona Greenland. PATRICIA ERNSTROM: Patricia Ernstrom, Bachman Avenue. As others have mentioned tonight, I've been at a lot of the meetings, back to the first time when we were meeting over at the police department. Since that time, and in those early meetings, a lot of people have alluded to the fact that the plan is just different from all of the input that we gave, and somehow this project has just continued to be steamrolled ahead at every turn regardless LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 130 of the disastrous impacts that we all know —we're experiencing them now, and it's only going to get worse — regardless of what residents have been objecting to, and it is so disheartening and so discouraging, and I think we all feel here, what do we do? We need your help. I was born in Los Gatos. This is like a Daves Avenue reunion that we're having here tonight. We've heard from legal counsel what we can't do, and I guess the question is what can we do? People have talked about it's been going on a long time, and we've been part of that, and just because it's been going on a long time it's not too late, and it can't be too late, because as other people said, we are never going to get this back, it is going to be forever. We must take into account the other developments that have passed but have not yet been built. It is layer upon layer upon layer. In our household we refer to "traffic Armageddon." On a weekend I can't get to see my 88-year-old father, because I can't get from my house on Bachman Avenue to his house off of Winchester and get there and know that I can get home in 30 minutes, so I'm making decisions about... And the role-play that we heard earlier, we all kind of chucked, tongue in cheek, ha ha funny. That's reality, and that's what everybody is experiencing, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 131 and the developers are, again, going to take the money and be out of town. As we've heard tonight, this is only one parcel, and somebody mentioned, I think it was in the report, that it's 13 to 14 parcels, so the Grosvenor development is one part of that. Then there are all of those other independent pieces, and without seeing the whole thing, how do we possibly make a decision here tonight. When this doesn't work, when all of the impacts that we're experiencing now and all of the future impacts that we know are coming, what then? What do we as citizens of Los Gatos do? Who do we turn to? Please, please help us. BRYAN MEKECHUH: Hi, Bryan Mekechuh, 55 Roberts Road. I just want to make three quick points. The first one underscores what you've heard a lot tonight, which is taking an integrated approach to this development. If you're looking for certain areas where you can have a finding that doesn't support the acceptance of this, I think it's not knowing what the total impact is, and I really do think you have to look at the big picture of what's going on in the North 40. So that's my first point. My second point is throughout Los Gatos people are putting things underground, they're putting in LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 132 basements and that sort of thing. I didn't see anything underground here. It's all the lowest cost construction, put it above ground or at grade. You want to get rid of some height? Put it underground. My third point is when I looked at the model outside I thought wow, there's a lot of roof space there. I didn't see any solar on there. Trivial point, but there's a few kilowatts there. Anyway, so those are my three points. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. FIONA GREENLAND: My name is Fiona Greenland; I live at 16588 Oleander Avenue, Los Gatos. Dear Commissioners, first of all, thank you very much for your patience this evening, and for your time. The document that you see here I'm referring to comes from the North 40 proposal by the developer. You can see the page number; I've enlarged it there. I just wanted to contest the concept that this development is indeed for young professionals. If you're marketing for young professionals, it refers to the document that says of the floor plan that the dens on all units are noted as not just dens, but optional bedrooms. So if you look down this list, I'm sure you can see that many of these bedrooms are for two -plus -den, or one -plus -den. I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 133 would contest that that's not then being marketed for young professionals. This is saying that two plus bedroom units, there's going to be 189, and as you mentioned earlier, that's going to be 189 of the 260 proposed units. As all other high -density housing has shown in Los Gatos Union School Districts, families are going to purchase these units. The other point also proposed on the North 40— this is from the North 40 project summary and justification, and this is my drawing of the cars, I apologize —if you look through the plans, these are the drawings that they have for all the plans, and the idea is that they're assuming maybe young professionals are going to share with other young professionals. But the keys are going to be held in a communal area, and whichever car is there first you would take that car. Well, I know in my family we have one driveway, and I take my car and my husband takes his and that's how it works; we don't share the car. I mean we do share car, because we're a family. I don't think that young professionals are going to let their friends drive their cars; and I could be wrong. So to reiterate the two points that I'm really trying to make here at this late time in the evening is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 134 that if you really are marketing to young professionals, you don't need more than two bedrooms or tandem parking. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. All right, I will be calling our last three speaker cards. We've made it. I'm sorry, four. Lee Quintana, Superintendent Diana Abbati, and Ingrid Oakley-Girvan. LEE QUINTANA: There is just so much to say that I'm not going to have time for, so I'm going to try to be short, and I will sent you my other comments via letter. I forgot my name. Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue. Let me start by saying that as a child I lived for several years on my grandparents' walnut orchard, and it I was a wonderful time in my life. So I thank the Yukis for letting me see a walnut orchard practically every day of my life and relive my happy childhood from there. The other comment I wanted to make about walnuts as street trees or trees to be used in the North 40, is that they are extremely messy and they stain your clothes. They would stain sidewalks, et cetera, so that's a consideration. The other thing is I would like to add a little bit of history, and add the wording that my husband always LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 135 tells me, "Be careful what you wish for." Unintended consequences. I've been involved in this town for the last 25 years, eight as a Planning Commissioner. I voted against many of the projects that are now being cited as problems: the original Netflix, I can name several others. I was never considered a friend of the development community. I was concerned about keeping the character of Los Gatos. But life does change; we can't stand still. When I refer to history, I'm going all the way back to when the Town adopted their 85 element, and they worked with the state and the county on the 85 freeway. This town and its citizens did not want a full interchange at 85. The fact that we don't have that interchange has greatly affected the Town's ability to handle traffic. There is no longer any opportunity to have that interchange, because we built Albright on part of what could have been used as additional entrances to the freeway, and we built part of the original Netflix on property that was identified as a transit center for the community. I'm going to go back real fast to the history of the first draft on this project, on which I worked. It came to the Council. The citizens came out in droves saying we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 136 don't like that. That plan did not have any housing on it. That plan did not have any medical on it. It was 5,000 square feet of commercial and retail. What I'm trying to get at is we have been planning the North 40 for 40 years, and we've never really gotten there, and every time it gets postponed something happens on the North 40 that limits what you can do with it next. All the newer developments on the Boulevard prevent a better plan for the North 40 Specific Plan. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Quintana. Appreciate the comments. LEE QUINTANA: And you'll hear more from me. I was just going to say that, because I think there were lots of facts misstated that should be corrected. SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Good evening, Chair, Planning Commissioners, Town Staff, and the community members. I'm Diana Abbati, the Superintendent of the Los Gatos Union School District. With me this evening is one of our trustees from our Board of Trustees, Emi Eto, and we're here to speak on behalf of the Los Gatos Board of Trustees and answer any of your questions. So I'm going to turn it over to Emi Eto. EMI ETO: Thank you. We represent the needs of our students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 137 On behalf of the Los Gatos Union School District Board, I would like to update the Planning Commission on the School District's agreement with the North 40 developers. In the spring of 2015 the School District and the developers signed an unprecedented agreement to mitigate the effects of the student population growth as a result of housing construction in the North 40. The developers agreed to either provide a two -acre parcel of land, or work with the District to acquire land for a new school in Los Gatos, or pay additional mitigation fees above SB50 for every entitled market rate home in our boundaries. If you would like to read the agreement, it can be found on our website under the April 13, 2015 board meeting. In addition, the District is in regular communication with the developers, and we would like to thank the collaboration with the Planning Commission and the Town Council for the considerations of the needs of the students. We know how difficult this decision is. We will continue to work with all constituents to welcome all children to our schools. We appreciate everyone's support. Thank you. SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: I also just want to thank the Planning Commissioner for your public support. I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 138 know it's a volunteer position, so just thank you. We've had late night meetings. We've probably had the best collaboration we had in my five years here of service as the Superintendent of Los Gatos, and I just want to thank you for that. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: Ms. or Dr. Abbati? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: It's Dr. Abbati, but I'll take Diana; anything is fine. VICE CHAIR KANE: Are you satisfied with the agreement? Will it provide for the additional students, and how many additional students are projected? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Yes, we are very satisfied by the number of the student gen... We used a student generation rate, and we estimated somewhere between 100 and 120 students for this development, and it's based on our student generation rate, which is roughly about a .4, I think the last time I looked, or .8. So based on that, yes, we are very pleased working with the developers. We're into educating; they're into land development. If they could work with us and to help us secure that property, we'll make something work for us. VICE CHAIR KANE: If the property is secured, do you have the funds for the facility? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 139 SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: We do not have existing funds for this facility, but we have funds to purchase additional land, so if they were to help us find a parcel above two acres, we already have money set aside to pay or that or to finance that. We don't plan to build a new site probably for the next five to ten years, so at least we'd go into planning stages. We're trying to be very visionary and look to the future and not make the mistakes the District did years ago, so if we can secure public land or some private land to do that, we're planning for growth in five, ten, fifteen years. That's what we're trying to do. VICE CHAIR KANE: So the new facility is just five to ten years out? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: It would be if we needed to build. We're not planning it in the next five years. VICE CHAIR KANE: What would we do in the meantime? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: We've already mitigated for that; we've done a couple of things. We built Lexington School. Our demographic study shows that we won't have additional growth in our elementary, and it will take till 2022 to fill Lexington School. Just for that sake, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 140 that's why we built that. We've upscoped that school, so it has a capacity of about 300 students; it roughly has 160 right now. We've already mitigated for the middle school for this point, and we've also built a gym to facilitate the needs of that expanded growth. The gym project, which is called our sports complex, added four additional teaching spaces for us, freeing up four classrooms, so we were able to do that; that's why we call it our sports complex. It's not just a gym, it actually has some dance and fitness classrooms to make up for other classrooms that we need for math and science, so we think we're ready for that for the next five years too. VICE CHAIR KANE: Have similar arrangements been made for the high school? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: I can't speak for the high school; it's a different district than us. They have similar demographics than we do. It's the mobility rate, so as they increase in our school, they're going to increase in the high school, but we don't make recommendations or plan for them. VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you for attending, and thank you for being so patient with us at this late hour. SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: You're welcome. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 141 CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, again. Will the possible 120 students being going to Lexington School? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: No. You have to think about 120 students K-8, so they're going to be dispersed in all of our grades. We're not going to move 120. That could be roughly, depending on where the numbers are coming in, it could be 60 in the elementary and 60 in our middle school, so you just don't know where they are. They don't come in clean numbers. They don't come all kindergarten, so we really look at the census data. Currently the census data is showing this flattened growth for our kindergarten grade, but we're seeing a lot more mobility. What that means is seniors are moving out of their current homes, they're moving to other places, and a family is moving into there. We're getting kids from all different grades, so they wouldn't be just one school, one grade. We have space mostly at Lexington to do that, but it would be based on wherever else we do have (inaudible). COMMISSIONER HUDES: So some of them would go to Lexington? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 142 SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Some would go. The majority would go to Lexington, and they would go wherever else we have space. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. One other follow up. In terms of the space needed for a school, I know five years sounds like it's a long way, but times goes pretty quickly sometimes, and it's difficult to secure real estate. How many acres? What space do you think you would need? Is the two acres adequate? SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: We could build a school the size of Lexington, which is roughly 300 students on a two -acre parcel; there are schools that look like that. They are very different than Los Gatos schools. It doesn't have as much green space. Most of our elementary schools have anywhere between five and eight acres. Our middle school has 14 acres. But there are schools, given what's happened in California... You can see them; there are lots of things on the websites under the Department of State Architecture, you can find schools. It would be a school that looks kind of two stories flat up with a playground in front and parking in front of that. We would make that work. We would love more land, which is why we've put monies aside to do that if we could find a two -and -a -half, three -acre parcel, we'll make that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 143 work too. Any type of shared partnership, we would love to do that, too, especially if it were next to a park, something that the Town owned, too. But again, we're working with all the entities to try to get that to work. COMMISSIONER HUDES: I did a little research on it, and I know there's not a lot of good data available, but there's a publication called the Guide to School Site Analysis and Development from the California Department of Education, and it says that for a school of 450, the acres, according to the 2000 figures, was nine -point -six acres. That's pretty far from two acres. SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: They're recommended guidelines, so yes, they are guidelines, and they are not mandated. Think about schools in San Francisco. There are no schools that are nine -and -a -half acres. You're just thinking about a different type of school. A two -acre parcel will give you a blacktop and a parking space. It will not give you the green space and the soccer fields and the baseball fields that the other schools have. So to your point, we would love that if we could find it, but we could make a two -plus -acre parcel work. COMMISSIONER HUDES: But it would be significantly different than the schools in the District today. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 144 SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Yes, it would not be the feel of our Daves School, and Blossom Hill School, and our Van Meter, but land is very expensive. We will educate them. We will do what we can, and we'll make it work. Please note, there are schools that look like it, and they're not just commercial buildings that have been converted to schools. There are playground schools. These are schools that look like elementaries, I would say Lexington being the closest one that looks like a school, that has two stories. The K1-2 is on the ground floor, 3, 4, 5 in the upstairs, and a playground in front, with parking. They're very straight, kind of very square and boxy. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: You're welcome. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: You're welcome. DR. INGRID OAKLEY-GIRVAN: Hi, Dr. Ingrid Oakley- Girvan. I'm a parent of a high school senior, and an incoming graduating eighth grader coming to the middle school. I think what we're looking for are options to redirect the legacy for Los Gatos. Do we want this urban plan, or do we want our Town plan? I would put forth that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 145 there's a sustainable architectural lands conservation program. I've heard many of the Commissioners asking for options, and this one is a great one. It can be found at conservation.ca.gov. More than $40 million generated from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, specifically part of the division of land resources for protection programs to conserve California open space resources. So I'd like you guys to look at that, and to research that a little bit and think about it. Another option is the William Act. It was started in 1965. What you do is you establish a contract. It can be done by a board or a council, and what they determine is that the unique characteristic of the agricultural enterprise in the area calls for establishment of a preserve if it's consistent with the General Plan. This is a ten-year contract. I'd also request that you look into that. My question to legal is, I've heard a lot of we can't do this; we're forced into this. My perspective is all these people, and the ones who have been here the entire night, we all pay the salary for the Town Council legal team is my understanding, so I'd like to hear what solutions there might be to redirect this pathway, so that the legacy is not one, as Diana just mentioned, for an LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 146 urban elementary school. I don't really think that that's what we want. Who wants their kids running around on blacktop? Really? I don't think that's what Los Gatos wants. There's no discussion of whether the high school is impacted. I can tell you the middle school is impacted, and it's going to get more so. And the high school, there's no question of how are we going to build out in that space if you have more kids? It's just a numbers game; it's simple population. You have X number of parking spots, X number of cars, just like you have X number of kids and X number of seats. You cannot go further than that. I think it's really important that you all look at this holistically. I understand this is Phase 1, there's 2, 3, 4, who know how many more? What is the total impact, t he total aggregation? If you're looking at it from a health perspective, it's somebody's health, you don't just say what's you're diet like? You say what's your physical activity like? What's your stress like? What's your genetics like? You look at the whole picture. I'm asking you to do this for our town. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Shannon Susick, followed by John Shepardson, and if I don't get any more cards after that, we've gone through all the cards. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 147 SHANNON SUSICK: I'm really honored to speak again. Almost a bookend. But also just on behalf of some of the residents. I'm so happy that so many people came out, even though this is such a difficult issue. I'm not going to chastise anyone for not being here for ten years in all the meetings, because not everybody can do that, but God bless the people that have come out for the very first time, and have lived here for 40 years. I just think that that's amazing, and it's part of our process and it's one of the good things. I already thanked you, and in advance, because it's going to be a tough road ahead. But the most important thing that we can accomplish tonight and in the weeks and months, and it could be years, is to not only unite as a town and community, but to adhere to the vision and the purpose of our General Plan and the North 40 Specific Plan. While it likely won't happen, and I have been exploring on my own some other options. It would be great for a foundation to come, Mark Zuckerberg, buy that orchard and have it be a camp for kids to come from all over. I mean or it could be Hidden Villa, or Ardenwood Park in Fremont. There are so many amazing things that we could do LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 148 with that piece of land, and not sell it and bull doze it. Like Roy said, I think a lot of people are upset about it. But there are a couple of things I want to mention. It time, and it's late, and it's about the time. I think that this application, one of the largest that the Commission has ever seen, deserved at least one study session. That's a tremendous amount of material to go over. Not all the letters were in the packets. You guys were given things on Thursday or Friday before a holiday weekend. I think that the Commission and the Town deserve that. And we have heard things that we can't do, supposedly, but there are a lot of things that were not specified in the North 40 Plan that you have the discretion and authority to look at. There is no footprint. It does not have to be this way. There's a lot of leeway with where the housing can go, where the commercial can go. And again, they're maximums. Yes, the developer wants to build to the maximum, because that's how you make the maximum amount of money, but is that what the Town wants? Is that what we need? Is that what our infrastructure can take? Just as it's taken years for those walnut trees to grow and the Yuki family has had that, it could take that long for the Town to approve an application. Once the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 149 orchards are turned over and concrete is poured, this land is gone forever, as is the agriculture and the history, and we know that. So I'm hoping that the citizens that are here, and the Town Council next week, will demand that this be continued until all the story poles are up. We need to know the whole story. It can't just be part of it, can't be half the story poles and the height. (Timer sounds.) Oh, my last sentence was really good. CHAIR BADAME: Very quickly. Actually, Vice Chair Kane has a question for you, so maybe you can incorporate that. VICE CHAIR KANE: We have to ask questions. What was your last statement? CHAIR BADAME: I knew that was coming. SHANNON SUSICK: I was going to say there are so many good things that can be accomplished with this unprecedented site. Let's take our time. This needs to be done right, and good things take time. Thanks so much. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Our last speaker is John Shepardson. JOHN SHEPARDSON: John Shepardson, 120 Oak Rim. This has been in my home, and it's a board that I created with the Netflix project, and it states that 350,000 square feet of office space was the environmentally LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 150 superior alternative. The developer wanted 550,000, and the Town Council approved 485,000. We could have kept Netflix, and we could have had the best land use. We could have reduced the traffic impacts, we could have lowered the heights, and we could have done it at 350,000, and the Environmental Impact Report was telling us that. So we made a mistake, in my opinion. But we can learn from this, because that's history now. But what we can do... I just have a little graph here of the there main arteries into town. Highway 17, we know that's jammed up. We've got Netflix on Winchester Boulevard; that's going to get jammed up. And now we have this other last artery, Los Gatos Boulevard. If we aren't wise about this, that artery is also going to get clogged, and then it's just going to spread; it's going to be really bad. My solution is middle ground between the developer's proposal... By the way, I think they've been class acts in my dealings with them, and I'll state that on the record. So scale back the project. Mix single-family with high -density. That's what Los Gatos is already. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 151 School buses I think are a larger issue, but we should have school buses, and we could reduce 300 of the traffic in town. Safe Routes to School, protected bike lanes, smart traffic lights. Reduce traffic by 25%. The RHNA. We've got to have some of this high - density to deal with our RHNA requirements, and we spread the housing across the project, so we put it in Los Gatos School District some, and the Union School District. That to me is reflective of Los Gatos, and we don't take the whole brunt, and we mix it up and we reduce the scale, and we do it in a way, frankly, that the developer can make a profit. Because we live in homes that were made by developers, right? We need developers, and they're not necessarily an enemy. They have a profit motive. We have our interests. So lets see if we can find a middle ground here where we can work with each other. Lastly, I applaud your efforts, and I say bravo to the people that came here tonight to express their views. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Do we have one more speaker? I will need a speaker card from you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 152 PAT KEARNS: Thank you for indulging me, Madam Chairwoman. You have my speaker card. You called me out as Ray, but I'm Pat Kearns, 7 West Central; I was the third name. CHAIR BADAME: Oh, I'm so sorry. PAT KEARNS: I just didn't respond. CHAIR BADAME: Okay, well you can now. PAT KEARNS: When I filled it out, if you look at it, it said to give my city, state, and zip, not my town, so I corrected that. I was afraid that that was a fait acompli that we are changing the character of our Los Gatos. There has been a lot of wisdom in the room here tonight, and I have been moved by it. When I approach a problem and I involve an attorney, I want the attorney's opinion, and the want the opinion to help me to achieve my goals. I think we've heard a lot of comments about what the Town wants, and I don't believe the attorney does work for us. I think the attorney's fiduciary responsibility is to the Town, to the Commission, and to the Council, and I think that that's right. I think that the attorney can give the Council and the Commission his or her opinion, but I think the Town can also approach other solutions. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 153 And to let an Environmental Impact Report that everybody knows on its face is false, at least in terms of traffic, doesn't seem right, so I would suggest that we commission another Environmental Impact Report independent of the Council, independent of the Commission, the citizens of Los Gatos, and file it with the Commission or the Council and ask you to consider it, or perhaps even certify it. None of this may be possible, but it's logical that the citizens can voice their opinion with a purchased Environmental Impact Report, and I would volunteer. I'm not a community advocate, but would volunteer my email to focus the energy that's been discussed here tonight so that somebody could start to organize an approach to compromise, and I think that was the wisest thing that was said tonight, and that is info@protime.net. I will try to pass whatever comments come in along to a community leader and the Council and the Town, so that this energy could be focused on compromise. Thank you very much for hearing me. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. PAT KEARNS: Did you find my card? CHAIR BADAME: I did. Yes, you were third, just like you said. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 154 All right, I am closing the public comment period, with the exception of the Applicant. It's past 11:00, so I am looking to the Commissioners for a motion to continue past 11:30. Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: They have five minutes now, is that correct? CHAIR BADAME: They would have five minutes. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We can take that vote now, and obviously if we get close to that we can revote, if you think that's indicated, but I would certainly move that we extend our meeting to 11:30. CHAIR BADAME: Do we have a second? ROBERT SCHULTZ: Past 11:30. CHAIR BADAME: Okay, and that would be if we go past 11:30, not to 11:30. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, at this moment we're trying just to go to 11:30, and then we'll see where we are, so I don't need a motion is what you're tell me. Okay. CHAIR BADAME: We don't need a motion. All right, at this point in time I will be calling the Applicant and their team back up. They will have five minutes to address the Commission with further comments. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 155 DON CAPOBRES: All right, to rebut. I appreciate the time, Madam Chair. Because of the limited time that we have, there are a lot things we can go over. This will not be a popular move, I understand, but we're going to have Barbara Kautz, our attorney, provide some statements. BARBARA KAUTZ: Hello Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. I'm Barbara Kautz; I'm a partner at the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman, and I've representing Grosvenor and SummerHill. The state legislature has decided that housing is a matter of vital statewide importance, and there is increasing concern at the state legislature level about the critical housing shortage in the Bay Area, particularly in areas like the Silicon Valley, which have had huge job growth with employers like Netflix and Apple, while expressing great opposition to housing growth, and so there's a whole variety of state laws that are intended to essentially require cities to approve housing. One is the Housing Element, and as has already been said, the City promised to have on the North 40 site 270 units at 20 units per acre, by right, meaning all that can be a nondiscretionary approval where you only look at design guidelines. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 156 In addition, there is another statute entitled the Housing Accountability Act, and although much of that relates to affordable housing, there's a provision of that that applies to housing developments in general, and that states that when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable objective, General Plan and zoning standards, including design review standards, in effect at the time the housing development project's application is determined to be complete. A city cannot either reduce the density or deny the project unless it makes very specific findings that the project would have a specific adverse impact based on significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on object, identified, written public health or safety standards as they existed on the date that the application was deemed complete, and there's no way to mitigate those impacts. It's an extremely difficult finding to make, and frankly, I don't know any community that has been able to make that. So yes, it is correct that the Council could change the Specific Plan and could change the Housing Element, but those changes could not apply to his project, because it has already been found to be complete, and you LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 157 must look at this project based on the Housing Element, the General Plan, the zoning, which basically consists of the Specific Plan, in effect right now. The Specific Plan does not have any requirements that the 20 units per acre be spread out over the site. There is no requirement that a plan be submitted for the entire site. Actually, the Specific Plan was intended to take care of planning for the entire site, because there are many different property owners there. And you cannot make your decision based on subjective standards; you must make your decision based on objective standards that are contained there. A second point that was raised has to do with housing elements. There was a comment that Hillsborough and Los Altos had paid their way out of housing element conformance. That's not correct; they both have housing elements that have been approved by the state. In Pleasanton, which was an example, there was a voter adopted growth cap, and the city refused to do additional zoning that was required, like what's required in your housing element. Eventually, after many years of fighting the city ended up paying $2 million to the attorneys for the plaintiffs. In addition, they were required to do all the zoning under a lot of scrutiny from LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 158 the plaintiffs and various advocacy groups, and really ended up having much less control over the zoning than they would have if they had just done it themselves. Thirdly, there have been comments that the City does not need to approve the maximum number of homes being proposed. Density bonuses are not a discretionary approval. I recognize your ordinance has findings, but that's inconsistent with state law, because it would make the approval discretionary. And lastly, in terms of the EIR, the EIR did consider a lot of future development on the site. I'm sure we'll provide some additional information about that. I'm sorry, it considered future developer off the site. So with that, I think that's my five minutes. CHAIR BADAME: Can you also fill out a speaker card for us? BARBARA KAUTZ: Oh yes. I'm sorry. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This is not a question. This is directed to the Chair. It is apparent to me that we're going to have a substantial number of questions. If we were to adjourn at 11:30—that only gives us ten minutes — and it's been my experience that the longer we go, the less LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 159 active our minds go, so I would throw out as a suggestion that as I understand it we can close the public hearing, and nevertheless, when we have the next meeting, because we have to have a next meeting, because the Council has to act on April 5th before we can reach a final determination, but at that time, we will still be able to question the Applicant, notwithstanding that the public hearing is closed. That is based on the advice of Counsel, which we obtained, is that correct? ROBERT SCHULTZ: That is correct. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. So I mean we could do this for the next ten minutes, but I don't see any great virtue in that. And we've heard a lot of testimony tonight, which I would like to take into consideration and look further into it so we can focus our questioning, rather than be scatter shot. So I just throw out to my fellow commissioners the thought of perhaps at this time continuing the hearing to a date certain. ROBERT SCHULTZ: That's what I was going to say, a date certain. You'll need to pick. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I'll second that motion. CHAIR BADAME: All right, I will call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 160 ROBERT SCHULTZ: Now you need a date certain. CHAIR BADAME: All right, let's pick a date certain. VICE CHAIR KANE: Oh, why not April 20th? CHAIR BADAME: April 20th? COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could I just check (inaudible)? CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, is that something that might work for you? COMMISSIONER HUDES: No, I only have the scheduled dates available. I will not be available. I'll be in Japan on the 20th CHAIR BADAME: Do you have other dates you might be available? COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I won't be here either on the 20th. CHAIR BADAME: All right. I'm going to suggest we pick a different date. COMMISSIONER HUDES: What's the last one in April? VICE CHAIR KANE: It's a Plan Comm day. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We have the 27th is a regular Planning Commission day, as you say, right? VICE CHAIR KANE: The 27th, it's a Plan Comm Day. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 161 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The question, of course, and we direct this to Staff, we must already have agenda items, is that right? JOEL PAULSON: If the audience could please hold it down just a bit. We're still trying to wrap up the business with the date. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What's the agenda like on the 27th? JOEL PAULSON: The agenda on the 27th has a number of continued items that may be continued again. Those are the Highlands lots. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Perhaps we should poll and see if everybody's going to be here. I'm looking at my calendar. I will be here on the 27th, but that doesn't mean anybody else will. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I will. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson. COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Well, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, because I couldn't hear the conversation that went on about what dates people weren't available, so my question of the Staff was going to be about the 13th MARNI MOSELEY: The 13th is fairly booked. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 162 COMMISSIONER EREKSON: ...which is the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. JOEL PAULSON: The 13th has a number of items already currently on it. MARNI MOSELEY: That have already been noticed. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is the 27th a problem for the Commissioner? COMMISSIONER EREKSON: No, I just didn't know why we were ruling out the 13th. CHAIR BADAME: Probably because it's a Friday. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm sure we'll have a quorum. I'll be here on the 13th. I thought perhaps if we move it to the 27th, it would be less disrupting to our agenda, since the 13th is so close, but I'm available. VICE CHAIR KANE: I'll second that motion as well. CHAIR BADAME: Does that work for Staff? MARNI MOSELEY: What was the date? JOEL PAULSON: The 27th CHAIR BADAME: All right, I will call the question then. I'm sorry, Commissioner Erekson, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I just want to be sure everybody that's here tonight can be here on the 27th. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 163 CHAIR BADAME: Yes. COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay. CHAIR BADAME: I will call the question. All in favor? Passes... ROBERT SCHULTZ: Who made the motion to continue to the 27th, and the second? COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I did. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Okay. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016 Item #2, North 40 Phase 1 164 APPEARANCE S: Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Joel Paulson Director: Town Attorney: Robert Schultz Director of Public Works: Matt Morley Moderator: Dr. Shawn Spano Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1558 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 1 PROCEEDINGS: DR. SPANO: ...and I'll be your facilitator for the meeting tonight. I wear a couple different hats. One hat I wear is I'm on faculty at San Jose State University, and then I also do consulting, and have been doing consulting for 20 years doing these kinds of meetings for local governments primarily in the Bay Area. We're here for the North 40 Special Study Session, and for right now the one document that you should have —it was on the table out front —is the agenda for tonight's meeting, and we're at the point in the agenda right now where we're doing Welcome and Introductions, and I'll walk us through the Preview Purposes, Outcome and Format and get us ready for this evening's meeting. I want to acknowledge tonight that we have the Mayor and members of the Town Council. Los Gatos Mayor and Town Council are here tonight, as well as Planning Commission members are here, and also School Board members and superintendents from the four school districts are here: Los Gatos, Los Gatos -Saratoga Joint High School District, the Los Gatos Union School District, Cambrian School District, and the Campbell Union School District. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 2 I also want to acknowledge here the number of people that are in the room and the turnout tonight. In my experience it tells me when I see the number of people here —there are actually some people in the overflow outside —that this is a community that cares. I've done some work years ago in Los Gatos with the Town Council and the Planning Commission, and this is a community that cares. You're committed. You're invested in this community, and that's why you're here tonight. I also know that the North 40 is a very important, big issue in Los Gatos, and that's obviously the focus of our meeting tonight. It creates a lot of passion, it creates a lot of interest, it creates a lot of spirited discussion, and that's wonderful, that's part of democracy. So we'll work through the issues tonight around the North 40, and my job here is to help guide the conversation so that we maximize our time and that we're as efficient as possible. I'm moving on to the next agenda item. What are the purposes of tonight's meeting? Two purposes. One, provide information and fact sharing around the key documents leading into the North 40 development: the North 40 Specific Plan, the Housing Element, the EIR LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 3 and the Environmental Impact Report. We're using those documents to frame the foundation of tonight's meeting. The other purpose tonight is to provide an opportunity for you all to ask questions. I did not introduce Staff. We have Staff here at the table. We have Staff here, and Christina over here. Staff is available, utilizing their expertise to answer the questions tonight. As you look at the agenda you'll see Questions and Answers a couple of items down. The bulk of the meeting tonight is built around the questions and answers, and the questions and answers are probably going to fall into some main areas; we'll have an Other category. We're anticipating questions around school impacts. That why we invited them, and the superintendents and School Board members are here. We expect to have questions around housing issues, and we expect to have questions around traffic impacts. In addition, you might also have questions around those foundational documents: the EIR, the Housing Element and the Specific Plan. And any other questions you have about the North 40 as well. So we want to address those questions. This meeting is for you tonight. It's for the community so that there is a clear understanding about how the North 40 will be developed. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 4 What we're not doing tonight is we're not talking about specific development applications. There's a process for that, and as a matter of fact part of that process is described on the back of your agenda, where the Planning Commission will be holding meetings on development applications. There will be an opportunity for verbal input at those meetings. Obviously the Planning Commission will offer their advisory recommendations to Council. There are multiple Council meetings that will take up North 40 applications, and ultimately Council as the policy makers and decision makers will be making decisions around those applications. At every one of those Planning Commission and Council meetings there is opportunity for you to provide comment around those applications. Tonight is about understanding the groundwork that has been laid. Council, Planning Commission and Staff have put multiple years into the Specific Plan, EIR and the Housing Element, getting ready for development in the North 40. What those documents do is they provide a framework, a foundation, and the parameters around how development will proceed. That's the focus of our meeting tonight. What is that foundation? How will the development proceed in terms of the frameworks, the boundaries that have been established? Your Town Council has established LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 5 some of these, and others are mandated, and we'll hear about that a little bit from Staff in terms of State mandates and State regulations. So that's what the focus of the meeting here is tonight: understanding the groundwork, the frame work, the foundation for the North 40 development, and how those applications will be reviewed and ultimately evaluated. I hope we're okay with that in terms of the core focus and core purpose of the meeting tonight. I want to walk us through the format tonight, and how we'll be spending our time together. We have multiple hours to spend tonight. It says on the agenda 6:00 o'clock. We can go till 10:00 o'clock. If there are enough questions, we'll go to 10:00 o'clock. The idea here is that, again, this is your meeting, wanting to hear your questions, providing Staff answers, and we want to reserve as much time as possible for a broad range of questions. In just a moment Staff will give a relatively brief presentation around the foundation, as I mentioned, a little bit about the history of the Specific Plan, a little bit about the Specific Plan EIR, the Housing Element, et cetera. So we'll have a presentation, and that presentation will help provide a common starting point for us tonight, and common vocabulary for us tonight. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 6 We will then move into questions and answers. We can go ahead and pass those out, Christina. There is going to be one key card for the questions and answers, and that's this blue card here. So if you have a question that you want to ask tonight around anything about the North 40, traffic, housing, the foundational documents, put your questions on this card here. Here's an optional name on the back as well as an email address if you want to be on the list to receive information. When you fill out the card, please hand those to Christina. Christina will collect the cards, and then I'll be reading the questions to Staff, and then Staff will answer the questions. Part of the reason for having the question cards and me reading them is to have as much efficiency as possible in how we're utilizing our time tonight. One of the things that is likely to happen, we might get lots of questions around, say, just for example, housing issues, a lot of the same questions. We'll consolidate those together and maintain the integrity of the questions, but we'll have a series of questions around housing, and as I anticipate, other questions around traffic and other topics that might arise tonight. So please, you can fill out the blue card right now with questions that you have. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 7 If you don't have a question but you have a comment, yellow card. And that's a comment about anything related to the North 40 tonight, from the presentation or any other comments that you want to provide Planning Commission, Council and Staff on the yellow card. As we work through the agenda, you'll see the second to last item on the agenda is Verbal Communications, so there will be an opportunity at the end of the meeting tonight for you to provide verbal comments, and it's really an open forum. We anticipate questions around the North 40, but it's an open forum and you can make comments on other topics as well related to the Town. Here is the Verbal Communications card here; it's on the beige. If you want to speak at the end and provide verbal comments, it's the beige card there. As we're moving along here there might be some questions tonight that Staff is not prepared to answer, or they don't have the answer tonight and they have to go back and do some research and collect some additional information. We'll have a parking lot. Any of those questions tonight, they'll have a parking lot for those. The other aspect tonight is some guidelines for your questions. Please, stay focused on the informational and fact sharing purpose of the meeting tonight. Again, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 8 we're not dealing with the any specific applications in terms of development. In asking questions about the Specific Plan, the EIR, around the Housing Element, implications of that around traffic and schools, those are wonderful questions to ask tonight. Anything that you are focused on, not clear about, need some information, need some guidance from Staff in terms of how this all develops, those are great, great questions to ask. There are some refreshments, as you saw in the lobby, and we hope you enjoy those; and enjoying them in the lobby would be great, not really wanting to have food or drink in Council chambers. Make sure I captured everything here, and I did. Okay, so I think we're ready to move. As we're looking at our agenda here the next item on the agenda is the Presentation on Key Topics, so I'm going to turn it over to Staff and let them walk you through the PowerPoint slides. Was there a question? Did I see a question? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: The questions online. You want to take that, Laurel? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 9 LAUREL PREVETTI: Good evening, I'm Laurel Prevetti, the Town Manager for the Town of Los Gatos. Thank you all for taking your time to join us this evening. Many of you have submitted questions online. We have answered some of them. We know that there are other questions. We recently posted another 20 or so answers this afternoon, and we have another 10 or so that are not yet answered, but we have them and we will get getting those answers posted promptly. So thank you to those of you who have submitted questions. That's going to be a living document online at the North 40 website, and we encourage all of you to visit that. It's perfectly fine this evening if you wish to write a question that you also submitted in email form; we're happy to discuss those as well this evening. Thank you. DR. SPANO: Okay, so I think we're ready to move into the presentation, so Joel, you'll get us keyed up here. And then I did not introduce Staff. Laurel introduced herself, and Staff can introduce themselves as they get ready. JOEL PAULSON: Great. Good evening, I'm Joel Paulson, the Community Development Director. I'm going to go through a little bit of the background and history. The Town has gone through a somewhat lengthy process to get to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 10 the point of the Specific Plan adoption, so I'm going to go through some of that background information quickly. So generally what is a specific plan? A specific plan is used to help provide additional guidance for specific areas of town. In this case, we have the North 40 Specific Plan area. It gets incorporated into the General Plan, and then once it's adopted, as we currently have applications they are weighed against the adopted Specific Plan to make sure that it conforms with that. History goes way back. The Town actually drafted a Draft North 40 Specific Plan that was completed in 1999, but it was never adopted. The Town was getting ready to begin a comprehensive General Plan update, and so they tabled it from what I understand, and then didn't consider it any further. In 2010 the Council adopted the most recent General Plan update, which we call the 2020 General Plan. In that document there was reference to the North 40 Specific Plan. It set some parameters that were evaluated in the EIR for the General Plan, and those parameters were up to 580,000 square feet of commercial used and up to 750 residential units. Those were used to help frame the evaluation and the cumulative impact of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 11 One of the requirements of the 2020 General Plan was that a North 40 Specific Plan be prepared. That led to the more focused direction of drafting the plan. The Town hired a consultant to help us out with preparation of that Specific Plan. The Council also appointed an advisory committee, what we call the North 40 Advisory Committee. They began their work in 2011, and for approximately two -and -a -half years they completed that work and forwarded their recommendations on to the Planning Commission. Along the way at the North 40 Advisory Committee meetings, all of the Planning Commission, all the Council meetings, and obviously public input as provided, both written and verbal, depending on the meeting. For the Specific Plan we had to do an EIR, so a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated in early 2014. That EIR evaluated the project at the time, which was up to 580,000 square feet of commercial, and up to I want to say 364, but I can't remember the number off the top of my head; I will try to get that information. So that was circulated and then the draft document, both the Specific Plan and the EIR were submitted to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission performed their review over two meetings in July and August LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 12 of 2014, and from there they provided their recommendations to the Town Council, and then the Town Council evaluated that information and all of the public record. Obviously there are Planning Commission and Council members here with us this evening. The amount of information was lengthy and voluminous, and so there was a lot of input that was provided. The Council considered the Specific Plan and the EIR on a number of occasions and in June 2015 ultimately the Specific Plan was adopted. The Specific Plan contains a number of development parameters, but it also contains a Vision and then Guiding Principles to implement that Vision. Hopefully everyone has had a chance to look at the Specific Plan itself. It's online, and there you can walk through all of the specific parameters, but I just want to bring focus to both the Specific Plan Vision as outlined on the screen, and then the Guiding Principles to achieve that Vision. With that, I will give you a little bit more information on the development that is allowed. The maximum capacity ultimately in the adopted Specific Plan was up to 501,000 square feet of commercial uses, and up to 270 residential units. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 13 The Specific Plan also contains open space requirements. The minimum amount of open space that must be provided is 30%. It also speaks to design elements that reflect the orchard heritage that currently exists on the site. We'll add new bike and pedestrian paths. Also there will be improvements obviously that are required of the EIR to nearby streets. With that, I will pass it to the Town Attorney. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Good evening. My name is Robert Schultz; I'm your Town Attorney. I've been with the Town now for about two -and -a -half years. When I came along the Specific Plan Committee had already completed their work. The Specific Plan for the North 40 was in its draft, and as Joel told you, in 2014 and 2015 I was part of those hearings when it went to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the Town Council. As with the Housing Element I was with that process pretty much all the way through, and we did our update through 2014 and 2015. So I've been here for those processes, but I wasn't here for the early stages of the Draft Specific Plan. Tonight I'm kind of the bearer of bad news. I have two subjects that I want to talk about: school impacts, and the relationship between the Housing Element LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 14 and our Specific Plan. I guess I drew the short straw. I think they said, "You're an attorney. They hate you anyway, so you can cover these two subjects." I'm here to talk about school impacts. We've had just a tremendous amount of comments at all the hearings about school impacts, and we all I think understand how impacted the schools are with overcrowding and lack of facilities. The bad news is that the State has preempted us on this issue. The State has decided that it will regulate the impacts from schools, and not the local jurisdictions. It's been that way since the 1990s when SB50 was passed, and that basically says that the Town, or any city or county, can't prohibit a development based on any type of finding that says the schools are overcrowded or impacts. We just do not have that ability to make that finding in order to deny a project. SB50 does authorize the school districts to levy a fee on new development, and it establishes the amount in the State law, exactly what they're going to be able to levy on each new development and it's basically a formula, and that formula continues to rise. I would be of the opinion that it hasn't risen enough to keep up with the cost of real property and that there need to be some LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 15 changes made, but that has to be done at the State level; the Town doesn't have the ability to do that. Right now it's $0.56 per square footage for commercial and $3.48 for residential. The school districts do have the ability to try to raise that up. You can go from Level 1 to Level 2 and Level 3. They had to do an analysis and a study to raise those levels up above the 2 and the 3. They do that; the Town doesn't have the ability to do that. The different school districts have looked at possibly raising those levels up. So what can we do? Well, we did zone and allow for uses in the North 40 for public school. We can do that; we can use that as a use. We can't zone specific properties, because the problem with that is if we took three or four acres and said this will be a school, and then a school doesn't purchase it, it's basically then we've taken someone's property, because it can't be used for any other purpose. But we did allow for the use of a public school on the North 40 property; it's one of the approved uses. What else can we do? Well, we put in language specifically in the Specific Plan that says we encourage, we require, the applicants or the developers to work with LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 16 the school districts on overcrowding. That message I think went through because I think most of you know now that the actual applicant for the North 40 did meet with the Los Gatos Union School District and agreement was reached for additional money above what the State allows, and that's allowed under State law. The Town wasn't part of that agreement; we just encouraged them to try to work that out. That agreement is a public record; anybody can look at that and see what funding will be provided, and representatives from the School District are here that maybe can answer those questions, if there are questions, about that specific agreement. So really what the bottom line is on that is I know you're passionate about your school impacts. You're more than welcome to continue to comment about school impacts for each project, not just this and any others, but the hands of your local government officials are really tied. They don't have the ability to, like I said, deny or modify a project, any project, based on school impacts. What we really need to do is get the State to change the methodology that is allowed up there so that more money is coming into local governments from developers. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 17 The other issue is the Housing Element. The State has currently determined that there is a major and severe shortage of affordable housing and there is an immediate need to encourage the development of housing. This is continually going on. I'll talk a little bit later about Governor Brown's brand new proposal for even more legislation to take away local control. In order to meet these regional housing needs California law requires the Town to adopt a Housing Element. We adopted one from 2007 to 2014, and our next one was just updated recently. Every jurisdiction —we're not alone in this, we're all dealing with it —we all have to take care of our fair share and plan for the new housing of all income levels in the community. In order to comply with the State law, what did the Town do? It appointed a Housing Element Advisory Board to help assist with the update of the Housing Element. The HEAB, as we called it, consisted of the General Plan Committee and four members of the community. The General Plan Committee consists of Council members and Planning Commission members. In 2013 and 2014, when I first came on, I was part of numerous meetings that were held in the chambers LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 18 here and give public input on all the different ways that we could meet the State requirements and get a certified Housing Element. All housing elements have to be certified by the State. In June 2014 what HEAB decided to do was to satisfy all its numbers that were required by the State. What it did was it used its existing Affordable Housing Overlay Zone sites. That's what we have done in our previous version; we figured that would work and we'd be able to show we can meet all our numbers for affordable housing by what we did in the last one. This went in front of the Planning Commission and the Council in September of 2014. Then it was approved and we sent it on up to the HCD for their approval. Unfortunately the State said they're not going to certify it. They said that we weren't demonstrating that we had the ability to approve those sites for affordable housing. What we had done, we had put an AHOZ, and I'll just use an example. One of our AHOZ sites is the Lodge property, the Los Gatos Lodge, and we were saying that has the ability to produce X amount of units of affordable housing, but unfortunately that wasn't mandatory. So when an applicant came in and said they wanted to produce those X amount of units, the Council, the Town, had complete LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 19 discretion to deny that and say they still wanted it to remain commercial since it was just an overlay, and the State said you're just playing games with the numbers of the amount of units that you're able to build, because there is too much discretion allowed amongst the Council on whether to approve any of those projects for those AHOZ sites and that you really have to show that you're able to meet those numbers for affordable housing and allow for development to occur. So in order to obtain certification the HEAB got back together and met, and we went over all these different sites and tried to find out where we could meet our RHNA numbers. One of the ways they did that was by taking the North 40 Specific Plan and taking 13.5 acres at 20 units per acre, and that's how they were able to meet those numbers that were missing to be able to get it certified. What they also had to do was list that the development on the Specific Plan and the North 40 was going to be by right, and what that means is 13.5 acres at 20 units per acre has to be done by right. What means is that if an applicant comes in and wants to do that amount of units, then you don't have the ability to say we don't want those LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 20 units. We've already said you're able to do them by right, you've allowed for the development of those units. We were able to have some discretion of the design review, and we have to make certain that it still complies with the Specific Plan. What that means is we've heard many a time that the maximum is 270 units in the Specific Plan, and it does say maximum. So many people say well that's just a maximum, we can only allow 200 units. Not with what we did with our Housing Element. When we approved our Housing Element and said 270 units are by right, that basically means if an applicant comes in and wants to develop 270 units, the Council has to approve it at that number of units. Now, they do have discretion within that to make certain that it does comply still with the Specific Plan, but they can't simply say we don't like 270; we want 200. Because that's what we were doing before on other projects and the State said no, you're not actually carrying your weight to meet their RHNA numbers. Just as a final note, what I said before, Governor Brown has just proposed sweeping new regulations that this wouldn't just apply to our 619 RHNA numbers, or 270 where we set by right; it would apply across the board. If a project comes in and proposes I think it is 200 of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 21 affordable housing in a project, you have to allow it by right. You don't have the ability anymore to deny projects, and there will be very little CEQA review. I would strongly suggest you look up this law and talk to your legislators about it, because it takes away tremendous local control. Bills are being proposed to take away local control. I serve on a housing committee with the State, and we're continually trying to fight to keep that local control, but time and time again the State is trying to take it away for what they believe is a State purpose. With those two pieces of bad news on the Housing Element and the school impacts, I'll pass it over to Matt Morley. MATT MORLEY: Good evening, I'm Matt Morley, the Director of Parks and Public Works. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about traffic impacts and how the Town handles that. I'll start by talking about the standards the Town has set in place, and these standards are in place through the General Plan that both Joel and Rob have talked about a little bit. To set the standard the Town has identified six levels of service within the Town. We rate those on an A through F levels, and we do include E, not like your school grades. For the sake of identifying the traffic levels of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 22 service, Level D is considered acceptable in the General Plan. The level of service is measured in terms of delay in seconds. What this means when it comes down to it is that the Town looks at individual intersections and the amount of time and delay that you would expect or anticipate when you come to that intersection to wait for your opportunity to progress through. How does this translate to developments? In terms of intersections that are in the area of an A through C, they're allowed to drop one level, and this is in the General Plan as well. The standard is that those intersections within development can degrade by one level. The intersections cannot drop below a level of D. D is the lowest level of acceptable service for an intersection, so if it hits a D or below, there has to be some sort of mitigation to bring that intersection back up to a level of D. In addition, if an intersections drops more than one level, so if it were to drop two or more levels, then it needs to be brought back up and there needs to be a mitigation to address that as well. How do we go about figuring all this out? It starts with a traffic impact analysis, or TIA, and that's part of the Environmental Impact Report. For the Specific LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 23 Plan 31 existing intersections were analyzed, and then one new intersection that is created with the Specific Plan was added and analyzed as well. The analysis includes anticipated vehicle trips, so how many trips were going to be generated with the development, and that's all a standardized calculation based on industry standard. It also considers the type of development, so the residential versus the commercial. And it considers the time of day, so what happens in the worst impacted period of the day, the peak periods, and typically there's a peak period in the morning and a peak period in the evening, an AM peak and a PM peak. In Los Gatos' case we include an analysis of other anticipated developments. In many communities the anticipated developments are those that are already permitted. In Los Gatos, if we have it on the radar and we can identify the scope and scale of the project, it's included in the analysis. With that, there are several projects that were included in the analysis for the North 40 Specific Plan. These are the six projects that were included, and those were included based on the information that was in the Town's possession at the time that the EIR was completed. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 24 Once these impacts are identified and we know that the development is going to bring more traffic in, we have to figure out how to solve the impacts of the traffic increase. To do this we've looked at many different ways of reducing the level of service —again, it always goes back to the level of service and the calculations and the data —and bringing that back to the alignment with the Town Code, with the General Plan. In order to do that for the North 40 there are several areas that we've incorporated, including multi model improvements. There's a bike and pedestrian path that goes around the perimeter of the properties as well as through the center of the properties. There are Lark and Highway 17 intersection improvements. This is the northbound on -ramp to Lark and 17. There's an additional right turn lane to handle the additional capacity that's necessary. There are improvements at Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard to provide for left turns, both from Los Gatos Boulevard onto Lark Avenue and from Lark Avenue onto Los Gatos Boulevard. Those extra lanes will help to decrease the delay at that intersection. There is a new intersection at "Neighborhood Street" that will be a new signalized intersection. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 25 "Neighborhood Street" is in quotes on the screen, because it's not yet fully named, but the new intersection that I talked about was added to the analysis, and a new signalized intersection will help to provide access to the project and will help to alleviate traffic and congestion from vehicles going in and out of the area. Finally, there are improvements in the Specific Plan for Los Gatos Boulevard at Burton and Samaritan. In terms of traffic it's important to note that the General Plan acknowledges that there is an increase of traffic with developments and works hard to mitigate those impacts. The mitigation measures as I've listed here are efforts to accommodate that additional capacity need and address the traffic in that means. As I mentioned, there are ways for intersections not to get fully mitigated, so some intersections don't get fully mitigated back to the level. There is an allowance for a drop, but the General Plan does establish a standard, a minimum level of service at that D Level, and the documents ensure that that level of service is met. With that, that concludes the traffic impact section, and we'll turn it back to Shawn for the wrap up. DR. SPANO: This slide here is the same slide that you have on the back of our agenda, as I mentioned LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 26 earlier about the process going forward and opportunities for public input; just want to remind you. In July there will be Planning Commission public hearings regarding Phase 1 development. Expect multiple meetings on that aspect from the Planning Commission, and every one of those meetings is an opportunity for public input on those applications. Then the same thing with the Town Council public meetings. There will be multiple meetings and opportunities for public input and verbal comment at those meetings as well. We are being televised tonight on KCAT, and there will be a verbal transcription of the meeting here tonight as well. We are ready to move on to Questions and Answers. Christine is collecting questions —I've got three categories here —and Christina will collect your blue cards. So far I have three big categories. The two questions around the EIR and Specific Plan, we'll start there. There are several housing questions here, and several traffic. Let's take up housing after the EIR and Specific Plan question. Question: What agency or consulting firm performed the EIR? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 27 JOEL PAULSON: I'll take that. EMC Planning Group is the consultant that the Town used to prepare the EIR for the North 40 Specific Plan. DR. SPANO: Okay, excellent. And a question around the Specific Plan is: "Why is the North 40 Specific Plan not adhering to Town Council and resident concerns?" We'll take that question as it is. I might respond this way: In what ways did the Specific Plan respond to Town Council and resident concerns, and which ways did it not is another way of phrasing the question. Go ahead, Joel. JOEL PAULSON: I'd say, as I spoke of earlier, the Planning Commission, Council, North 40 Advisory Committee, there was a lengthy public process. Ultimately a policy document was adopted, which is the Specific Plan, taking into consideration all of the concerns that were raised, many of which are similar to many of the concerns we have been hearing recently. I believe those were all taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and then ultimately the Council before taking an action on that item. LAUREL PREVETTI: Let me just add a specific example. As Joel mentioned in the opening presentation, when the Advisory Committee was doing its work the plan was considering about 350 or so housing units. As the plan LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 28 worked through the process, ultimately the Council reduced the housing development capacity to 270, so I think that is one example of how the Council was in fact listening to some of the public comments that were coming forward during that time. There are other examples. We did an economic study to make sure that the North 40 Specific Plan would not compete with our precious and very unique downtown, and so the elements coming out of that study were also incorporated. And there are numerous other examples. Our Council and Planning Commission reads all of the correspondence, so as we move forward, again, we encourage you to continue to stay engaged and participate. DR. SPANO: Thank you. A question just came in, and this question is related to the Specific Plan, so I'm going to take that question now. You can see what I'm doing. I'm trying to take questions that fall together in the same category, since we're on that topic. This question asks, "Does the Specific Plan involve the City of Campbell as a joint municipality affected by the overall plan? Is there coordination between the two? How much additional..." Let me just hold on that second question. So, coordination with Campbell? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 29 JOEL PAULSON: I will turn this over to Mr. Morley. It's not a joint plan between Campbell and the Town. This is the Town's Specific Plan for this specific area. The traffic, through the environmental process, we do coordinate with not only Campbell, but also San Jose and other neighboring jurisdictions where there may be impacts that could be created by this proposal. MATT MORLEY: Thank you, Joel. Great question in terms of what the regional coordination looks like. There are two examples and they were on the list, and I'm going to flip back in the slides real quick. Two additional projects that were included in the analysis. The Dell Avenue plan, which is a Campbell plan, was incorporated into the traffic analysis, so that definitely has been considered, as well as the Samaritan area improvements that were on the books at the time, and those have been considered from the Council as well. DR. SPANO: Excellent. I have some other questions here around the Specific Plan. "Since the purpose of the North 40 Specific Plan was to develop the property with a cohesive, unified plan covering the entire 40 acres, how can we consider only Phase 1 in a vacuum without seeing how it fits into the whole? Why doesn't the Town require this comprehensive plan that covers the entire property?" LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 30 JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan, for those have read through that, does anticipate phasing. There are a number of different property owners across the North 40 Specific Plan area, and so to facilitate the development phasing was reviewed and taken into consideration and included in the Specific Plan itself. I don't know the total number currently of property owners out there, but there are still a number of property owners across the Specific Plan area, and the application that it's currently in is only for the first phase, because that's the property that they have control over. Then I would turn it to anyone else who wants to add anything additional. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think, as Joel mentioned, it is specifically in the Specific Plan. Section 6.2 addresses that issue and states that it will be implemented over time and in more than one phase. Each phase shall stand alone and shall be dependent on the improvements in that. So each phase does have to do its own public improvements that are necessary, but each phase was addressed, and that issue was brought up during all the hearings that were held. LAUREL PREVETTI: I would just add that because we are working through an application for the southern part it needs to anticipate the infrastructure needs for the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 31 entire plan area. You will see in the drawings stubbed out streets and other elements that indicate that in the future, when the northern portion is ready for private development, that we've anticipated the infrastructure needs accordingly, so while we don't know exactly the form or the shape of what the northern section would look like, the plan anticipates that it's going to happen over time. This is not uncommon for a large tract of land such as this one that's over 40 acres. It would be highly unusual for a single development proposal to happen in one fell swoop. Typically it does happen over time with multiple applications. ROBERT SCHULTZ: And although not part of the question, a lot of the questions that have been submitted so far that have talked about three phases. There are not three phases. There are three different districts, but there are only two phases of development. The first application that's in is dealing with the first two districts, and then the third district would be the second phase. There might be parts in that Northern District that could be broken into smaller phases, because there are multiple owners, so it's pretty much impossible in a project this size to get everybody to come in at the same LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 32 time, because there could be a property owner in the northern area that doesn't plan on developing their project consistent with the Specific Plan for ten or fifteen years even. DR. SPANO: Okay, are we good here? I have an EIR question: "Can the Town have another follow up EIR?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Town can always request additional environmental studies, a city or town, if it determines that an addendum is necessary or there are new facts and circumstances under CEQA. That's why I hesitated; there is specific language that allows for that to happen. We'd have to look at and see if that was a concern of the Planning Commission and Town Council when it goes further, that there are issues that they feel were not addressed in the original one, and there have been circumstances that have changed. Then we would have to look at that and see if we could make the findings to allow for additional environmental review. DR. SPANO: Along those same lines, "Can the Specific Plan be amended?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes. Chapter Six does specifically call out the administration of the plan and plan amendments, so at any time the document can be amended by Council. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 33 DR. SPANO: A Specific Plan question: "Are there any contingencies related to the sale of Yuki's property at all that could impact the outcome of the North 40 development?" Contingencies related to the Yuki property. JOEL PAULSON: The Town Attorney may jump into this as well. We don't get involved in the private land transaction, so we are not always privy to the specific contingencies, whether there are contingencies there or not. I know during the public hearing process there were discussions at the public hearings about the anticipated phasing, for one, and then two, some loose terms regarding some of the transaction issues moving forward, but that's not something the Town gets involved in. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Nor do we even have copies of those agreements between the property owner and the potential buyer. DR. SPANO: A Specific Plan question: "Since the Yuki family is now keeping 22 acres, how can the Specific Plan still be relevant?" JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan was prepared specifically because there are so many owners out there, and we want to be able to maintain the private property rights of the individual property owners, but they don't own the entire North 40 Specific Plan area. They do own a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 34 large chunk of the Specific Plan area, but they do not own all of the parcels. DR. SPANO: Another Specific Plan question: "Three districts that will work together as self sufficient neighbors, but self sufficiency must wait until a future phase. What happens if Phase 2 and beyond never gets built? Would we just have a lot more housing?" Does that question make sense? You want me to read that again? ROBERT SCHULTZ: No. There's always the potential of a property owner, as I mentioned, not wanting to do a project under the Specific Plan and leaving the land just the way it is right now with some of the outlying individual homes that you see out there, but any time when they come in they would have to file an application and comply with the Specific Plan at that particular time. There is the maximum of the 270 units, so if someone was to say that the 270 units had already been built out by previous applicants and someone came in and wanted to propose more housing units, it would require, as we discussed, a amendment to be able to do that, because it wouldn't be able to fit the Specific Plan requirements. DR. SPANO: Another Specific Plan question: "The plan dictates 270 units, but there is a bonus. How does the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 35 bonus apply, and what is the number of bonus units the total on the site would be?" JOEL PAULSON: I'll start, and if Ms. Prevetti or Mr. Schultz need to add anything in. The bonus is up to 35%. I know we're not here discussing the application that's currently before us, but they requested the 35% bonus, and so the total number, if I remember correctly, if you did the 35% density bonus across the 270, you end up with 364 units, so that is possible. Also note that any residential project in town can utilize the density bonus; they just have to request that. ROBERT SCHULTZ: As Joel mentioned, they have to request that, and again, that's a State law that we cannot circumvent. We can't say no, we're not going to allow you to have a density bonus. It's allowed if it's requested by the developer and he meets the requirements to obtain the density bonus, which is providing a certain amount of affordable housing, and depending on whether that's Very Low, Low or Moderate determines how much of a percentage, and as Joel mentioned, it's up to 35%. DR. SPANO: Here's a question: "Is it possible to purchase the property, or has the adoption of the Specific Plan precluded that?" LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 36 JOEL PAULSON: The adoption doesn't preclude any private land transaction. I'm sure the property could be purchased. Obviously there is a lot of work and time that's been invested, and so whether or not the parties that currently hold any rights to that property would be interested in having that conversation, that would be a private conversation that would need to take place. DR. SPANO: The follow up: "If purchase is possible, could a bond measure be proposed?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: The first question dealt with whether it could be purchased, and as Joel mentioned, that's a private transaction. We don't have the documents between the purchaser and the person that has that option right now to purchase it, so if a third party came in and wanted to also try to purchase it, there are all sorts of contracts that would have to be terminated and brought into. The second question is about issuing bonds, and I think that goes to the Town purchasing the property. Currently we would not want to get involved in a voluntary purchase of the property, because of the fact there's a transaction that's already pending and there could be all sorts of ramifications of interference with a contractual relationship that we wouldn't want to. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 37 But the Town does have the ability under eminent domain proceedings to take property for public use. That is always a possibility. I would say that's a very complicated procedure. We did give a very detailed answer in our questions that are online about the eminent domain and the experts that are hired and how you go through that process, but certainly at any time a purchase can be taken for public use through the eminent domain procedures. JOEL PAULSON: Just to follow on, for those of you who aren't aware, the Town does have an FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions, posted online, so please, if you haven't taken a look at that, take a look at that. We're evolving that and adding answers to questions as they come in. We actually just updated it again this afternoon with some additional information, so I'd encourage folks to take a look at that as well. LAUREL PREVETTI: I just want to moderate some expectations. While it's theoretically possible, it's highly unlikely, because if the Town were to get involved, not withstanding any contractual challenges that we might have, we would have to pay fair market value, and because there is a Specific Plan with the specific development capacities, that's going to be very expensive land for the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 38 Town to buy, so it's highly unlikely for not only practical reasons, but also legal reasons, that that would happen. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I was preferenced just from a legal Specific Plan, and there are all sorts of financial issues that would be involved, and the bond measure and timeframe that would take. I was just looking at it from a standpoint of yes, the Town has eminent domain ability under State law to take property for public use, but accomplishing that under these circumstances would be very, very difficult. DR. SPANO: There's a follow up question here that I'm not going to have Staff answer. It's about the developer's proposal and whether it meets the guidelines of the Specific Plan, and as you recall that's really not the focus of the meeting tonight. That will be taken up by Planning Commission and Town Council. We're staying on the Specific Plan EIR questions here. "If we have another EIR, how can the Town meet the deadline of the current application if there was another follow up EIR?" JOEL PAULSON: I'll start. I think it would be highly unusual. The circumstances haven't changed to the point where those thresholds probably are met. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 39 The other important piece to understand is that as other jurisdictions, other projects, come in, they all have to take into account the traffic that is proposed to be generated by the North 40 Specific Plan. They then will have to accommodate whatever impact their project is going to have in the cumulative analysis, also taking into account the North 40, the Dell Avenue plan, and many other projects. So they're required to go through their own environmental process and then make those determinations with this as background data included. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) the question was how do we for (inaudible)? JOEL PAULSON: That's something I think that we won't be able to answer right here, so the Town Attorney can maybe provide some additional input. ROBERT SCHULTZ: During the process, and that's one of the reasons why we're focusing on the Specific Plan as opposed to an individual application, because an applicant does have due process rights. That issue will certainly come up at the Planning Commission where there will be at least two hearings in July for the Planning Commission, and at least two hearings in front of the Council in August and September. So that would be the time LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 40 to ask for additional environmental review, at those hearings. There are many complicated issues that overlap with regard to the Permit Streamlining Act in regard to the Subdivision Act that we would have to work through if in fact that was a requirement, and we could make the findings. As I said earlier, there are strict findings to require additional environmental review, and until we get really into the meat of the project and hear the elected and appointed bodies is when those issues will arise. DR. SPANO: A question here about the Specific Plan: "The Vision Statement in the Specific Plan states that the 40 acres should not be developed piecemeal." There's no question, but I'm assuming the question that follows from that is related to the earlier question about developing in phases. So reiterate the same answer? Is there another way of answering that division plan statement in the Specific Plan states that the 40 acres should not be developed piecemeal? JOEL PAULSON: Bear with me. I'm just going to make sure I'm looking at the exact words. So looking at the Vision Statement, I don't see... DR. SPANO: Could you repeat that? It was under Purpose 1.1. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 41 LAUREL PREVETTI: The bottom paragraph on page 1.1 says, "The intent of the Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach," and that's really the whole purpose of the Specific Plan, that it brings together all of the properties under a common Vision, which is also articulated on that page, and a common set of design guidelines and rules and regulations. It is intended to be a comprehensive plan. I recognize that there's concern that we may have multiple applications, but the first application is for a fairly large portion of the total area, and so as a subset that's still considered a comprehensive plan that anticipates the future. So again, it is related to phasing. I know ideally we would all love to see what's it all going to look like ultimately, but it isn't uncommon for projects of this magnitude and this size to happen in segments. Essentially it's the plan that knits together those future applications to make sure that it is going to deliver an integrated neighborhood for our town. DR. SPANO: Thank you. A Specific Plan question: "The Vision of the Specific Plan paints a pretty picture for a conforming development, however, the maximum density LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 42 and intensity drastically conflict with the Vision. Can the Town amend the Specific Plan to be in compliance with itself?" JOEL PAULSON: Obviously the Planning Commission and Council, when they evaluate the Phase 1 applications that are currently going through the process, will be taking into consideration the Vision, the Guiding Principles and all of the elements of the Specific Plan document to make a determination for the Planning Commission, a recommendation to Council, and then ultimately the Council to take a final action on the project and to ensure that it complies with the Specific Plan. Those are important pieces that will continue to be discussed in July by the Planning Commission, and starting in August probably in front of the Town Council. Offer anything else? LAUREL PREVETTI: Just under State law we are required to make sure that all specific plans are internally consistent and that the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan. Those findings were made during the process of the Specific Plan preparation, so the document as approved is internally consistent. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 43 As mentioned earlier, there is a process for amending the plan, and that could be considered at a later date. DR. SPANO: "Does the Specific Plan protect the Downtown District? If so, how?" JOEL PAULSON: There are a number of policies and language in the Specific Plan, because that obviously was a large component of having the conversation of going through the development of the Specific Plan and not wanting to negatively impact the downtown that we have. There are a number of policies that were put in place specifically to try to limit that and really focus on complementing the downtown rather than competing with the downtown; that was a lot of the conversations originally when the Specific Plan was going through the process. I will thumb through and see if I can find any specific policies that relate to that. The Town did do an economic study as part of the Environmental Impact Report, and that study did look at the potential impact on downtown, and that impact was not evident based on what was proposed. LAUREL PREVETTI: I would also just add, there is a table called Table 2.2 that identifies the maximum development capacity and the maximum amount for different LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 44 uses, including retail, restaurants, et cetera, and those numbers were carefully considered in light of the entire economic segment of our community. In addition, there is a table of uses that identifies which uses need a Conditional Use Permit or some other development permit, and that's Table 2-1, and that was carefully considered by the Town Council, and I recall that there were some modifications along the way to make sure that we were complementing the downtown and not competing. And again, all these elements could be subject to future Specific Plan amendments if we find that additional changes are necessary. JOEL PAULSON: The other thing I'd point out for the commercial uses, the Specific Plan requires them to be presented to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, which is a body that's made up of two Council members and three Planning Commissioners. Then they are also required to do additional economic impact analysis, which is brought forward to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee before going through the process. Any future commercial or future phases will have to go through that same process, and that will be taken into consideration at that time too, and depending on the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 45 length of time may give you a similar or different economic story, but that evaluation will be provided with each application that comes forward. DR. SPANO: Specific Plan question: "Would it be accurate to say that if somehow the Town successfully reduced the density of the Specific Plan it would essentially just be kicking the can down the road and result in denser future redevelopments?" JOEL PAULSON: That is one possible outcome. Obviously if the 13.5 acres in the Specific Plan is not developed at 20 units per acre the Town has to identify additional sites that will accommodate 20 units per acre by right development, which Mr. Schultz has discussed at length, and that has to be done immediately following any action that would be taken to reduce the adequate sites inventory for the Specific Plan area. That was a big conversation throughout the process with the Advisory Committee and Housing Element Advisory Board. The challenge is the Town in the last cycle used Affordable Housing Overlay Zones to accomplish our RHNA numbers, and this time they chose to remove some of those, given some of the new requirements with by right and 20 unit per acre development to utilize the North 40 in that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 46 case. So anything that gets reduced on the North 40 will have to be accommodated elsewhere in town. DR. SPANO: Thank you, Joel. I checked with Laurel. I wasn't sure if this was an application question or not. "I'm proud of Town Council for rejecting Shannon Road/Los Gatos Boulevard development due to high -density application request. Why is North 40 application density not being rejected under the same pretense?" JOEL PAULSON: The Town took specific actions through our Housing Element and Specific Plan to accommodate our regional housing needs, and that was to say that we're going to have 13.5 acres of the North 40 area be developed at 20 units per acre on that site. I think the Shannon Road project was actually probably far less then 20 units per acre. It's just obviously a smaller site, and the determination was made that the proposed development wasn't appropriate and the project was ultimately denied. LAUREL PREVETTI: I think the context is also different, because that site was designated primarily for commercial use, so that was not a Housing Element site, it was not a site that we had identified for residential. The first question is really do we want housing at that Shannon Road and Los Gatos Boulevard location? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 47 Secondly, that project went through the entire process, so it went through all of the development evaluation. It went through Planning Commission and it went through Town Council, so it went through the whole process. With the North 40, with the application that's currently pending, we're still in that process. We don't know what the outcome of that is going to be, but as was mentioned on the slide that's up there, we do have Planning Commission hearings starting on July 12th, and we'll see what its recommendation will be and ultimately what the Council's decision will be in August or early September, so we're still in process. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I'll just add to that. It was a totally different scenario, because of the fact mentioned. It was commercial; an applicant is asking for it to be changed to residential. That's within the discretion of the Council whether to allow or not. It wasn't a site within our Housing Element. But more importantly, I'll go back to Governor Brown's proposal. If his law passes, that project would have to be approved by Council. They would not have had the discretion, because if it had that 20% affordable, which is 11 units, if there were 20% of those units, they would not have had any discretion, it would have had to be approved LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 48 without any CEQA allowed. That's how far the State is trying to go take away local control. DR. SPANO: Thank you. Still on the Specific Plan: "The Specific Plan states that 13.5 acres will have a density of 20 units. Do all 13.5 acres have to be in the Lark and Transition Districts, or can it be spread throughout the entire 40 acres?" JOEL PAULSON: It can be spread out, ultimately. That's a determination the Council will make on the application. There is obviously language, and as was discussed before the Specific Plan talks about three districts. This first application is taking up almost two of the districts, so if that's something that the Planning Commission through their recommendation and/or Council ultimately think it is appropriate, then that's something that they can consider. I think the challenge gets to be there are a lot of other areas, and I'll turn to the Town Attorney relating to density bonus requests and where our discretion lies there, as well as some of the by right concerns that were raised before. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I'll just come back to the Specific Plan, because that's really why we're here, and not the specific application. But under the Specific Plan LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 49 the 13.5 acres are not designated, it just says there will be 13.5 acres designated at 20 units per acre. That allows for it to be spread if the Council so desires. DR. SPANO: Okay, Specific Plan: "If there are so many property owners, which was known prior to approving the Specific Plan in January 2015, then why was the entire 44 included in the Specific Plan?" JOEL PAULSON: I think as Ms. Prevetti mentioned before, that's the whole point of creating a specific plan, when you have multiple owners, so that way everyone understands what the requirements are for the entire plan area, so that good planning can move forward, whether it's done all at once, whether it's done in multiple phases, or whether an individual property owner wants to just develop their specific piece of property, it provides that framework for the future applications to be tested against to make sure they comply with the Vision, Guiding Principles and developments parameters that reside in the Specific Plan. DR. SPANO: Follow up question to that: "Why not a North 20 Specific Plan?" JOEL PAULSON: A North 20 Specific Plan would have been doing a Specific Plan for only half of the site, and so we'd have the challenges that we have now, which LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 50 would be someone could come in with a development application for one acre or 20 acres. The area is bound pretty specifically by Highway 85, Highway 17, Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard, as everyone is aware, so that really actually makes sense to create Specific Plan for that entire area. But again, the Specific Plan really is a tool to help the planning efforts moving forward when there are multiple property owners to make sure everyone understands what the rules are, and you get to set the rules for that specific area. DR. SPANO: Joel, I think this next question falls in the same category: "Can the plan be amended to include only the current option to parcels?" JOEL PAULSON: The plan could always be amended. I think Mr. Schultz explained there are processes laid out in the Specific Plan for amendment. I will make a statement, and then the Town Attorney can correct me if I go astray, but generally the applications that are currently before the Town, they have to be acted upon given the parameters that are currently in place. Amending the Specific Plan may not have an impact on the current proposal, but there is a process for amending the Specific Plan and that is always possible. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 51 DR. SPANO: "Where in the Specific Plan does it state that all 270 units plus bonuses be located in the Lark District?" JOEL PAULSON: It does not say that. DR. SPANO: Next question: "How important are the Vision and Guiding Principles to land use decisions? In other words, if the Town determines most of the development is inconsistent with the important element of the Vision and Guiding Principles, but is otherwise compliant with the technical standards and guidelines, must the Town allow development to go forward? JOEL PAULSON: I think it's been mentioned before, that's obviously a big part of the evaluation. The Council ultimately will have to make the determination as to whether the first phase, or any subsequent application that comes before them, complies with the Specific Plan. That will be a specific finding that will have to be made, and so that's very important. We get this question a lot with the General Plan. If you read the General Plan, there are a lot of policies, goals, vision language in there, some of which, depending on the project, can be construed in multiple ways. So it's really taking a look at the application, taking a look at LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 52 the foundation of the Specific Plan, and then ultimately that determination is going to be made by the Town Council. DR. SPANO: "So invoking language from the Specific Plan, can the 'look and feel' of Los Gatos be interpreted to include the diversity of buildings, architecture, styles, et cetera, and not emphasize cookie cutter, which is scarcely found in Los Gatos?" So can the look and feel of Los Gatos be interpreted to include the diversity of buildings, architecture and styles? Is that what is meant by the look and feel of Los Gatos? JOEL PAULSON: Yes. DR. SPANO: Good. And as I understand the question, encouraging that diversity and not wanting the cooking cutter, and you're saying that yes, that's what the Specific Plan enables and allows? JOEL PAULSON: Correct. DR. SPANO: Excellent. "Was the Specific Plan changed when the size of the development was reduced by one-half?" JOEL PAULSON: I guess I can try to interpret what that question means. I'm assuming it means did we cut the Specific Plan in half because we were only looking at half of the first phase, only dealing with half of the application or the area? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 53 DR. SPANO: Or that the Specific Plan changed in some way when the area was reduced. JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan area was never reduced; it's always been the same size. The application that's currently in is a Phase 1 application, which is half, so there are no changes required to the Specific Plan because we have an application in for the first phase. DR. SPANO: This question then I think operates off the same premise about a reduction: "How many planned units were lost by the reduction in acreage?" What I'm hearing you say is there was no loss. JOEL PAULSON: There is no loss of acreage. The acreage that the Specific Plan governs has not changed. It provided the requirements for the entire North 40 area, even buildings that are intended to stay. DR. SPANO: "If the Specific Plan is discovered to be in conflict with the General Plan, must one of them be amended?" JOEL PAULSON: The General Plan was amended when the Specific Plan was adopted, and the Specific Plan was determined to be in compliance with the General Plan, and so from Staff's perspective there is not a conflict between the Specific Plan and General Plan, because it's not permitted. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 54 DR. SPANO: "What is the definition of 'open space' in the Specific Plan? How will it be achieved?" The questions are great. You're right on track with the questions and the guidelines, so you're doing great in terms of the guidelines. I'm taking some application questions; they're off in a separate pile, because again, we're not looking at applications and anything about any specific proposal. Joel. JOEL PAULSON: Open space is defined on pages 6- 13 of the Specific Plan, and I will go ahead and read it for the audience. "Open space means a ground plane open and generally unobstructed from the ground plane to the sky. Balconies, shade structures and roof eaves may extend over a portion of the open space. Open space includes green open space and hardscape, plazas, courtyards, pathways, sidewalks and pedestrian paseos. Plazas, courtyards and planters over podium parking or on roof decks also qualify as open space." So it is broadly interpreted across from hardscape to greenscape. There is also a requirement in the Specific Plan that a minimum of 20o of the required 30o open space be green open space. DR. SPANO: And then the second part of that is is it achievable, that definition of open space? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 55 JOEL PAULSON: Yes. DR. SPANO: Great. "Where in the Specific Plan does it say that housing units have to be spread out?" JOEL PAULSON: It does not say that either. I'll just offer that it does speak to where residential can be implemented, and that is across the entire Specific Plan area with the caveat that in the Northern District any residential that's proposed has to be above commercial, so you have to have a vertical mixed -use setting for any residential that is in the Northern District. DR. SPANO: Very good. Christina, how are we doing? Any other EIR Specific Plan questions? I think we're good. I think we've covered all the EIR Specific Plan questions, and I know they obviously feed off into traffic and density and so forth. Let's move over. I've got a couple of cards on schools here. And we can come back. If you still have questions about the Specific Plan, fill out a blue card and get it in. We don't need to stay all regimented; we can move around a little bit here. Schools: "Is a school considered a non- residential use, and if so, is it excluded by way of Table 2.2?" which I'm assuming is Table 2.2 in the Specific Plan. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 56 ROBERT SCHULTZ: Under Table 2.1, Permitted Land Uses, which is found on page 2.8, it says that public and private schools are allowed in all three of the districts with a CUP, so it's not considered a non-residential use, it's just a specific category that allows it anywhere within the North 40 plan. DR. SPANO: Thank you. Another school question: "Is the plan to divide the North 40 project to be received by several school districts? For example, is a portion of the development to be serviced by Campbell Union Elementary and High School District, and not serviced by Los Gatos Elementary and High School District? As a 34-year resident of Los Gatos, I live in the Old Adobe Road area serviced by Campbell. The Town of Los Gatos has never been inclusive of fringe areas. I would strongly state that two different schools districts is disjunctive." So the key question, is the plan to divide the North 40 project to be serviced by several school districts? LAUREL PREVETTI: A completely different process determines our school districts and their boundaries. As you know, we have many school districts that serve the residents and families here in our community and we're very fortunate for that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 57 The southern portion of the Specific Plan area is generally served by the Los Gatos Union School District; this is our elementary and middle school age group, and then for the high school it would be our Los Gatos -Saratoga Union High School District that serves that southern portion. To the north we have our Cambrian School District, and we again thank the participation, as well as the Campbell Union High School District that takes care of the northern portion. That's why we've invited four different school district boards and superintendents to be with us tonight. Those boundaries were predetermined long before the Specific Plan even came into fruition, but we look at school issues for all of our districts, and that's why it is identified specifically as a use within the Specific Plan area. DR. SPANO: "Can the School Board ask that the builder build a school on the property? How do they propose that we intake a large number of students in already impacted schools?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, the School District can't demand from a developer that they build a school. As I mentioned (inaudible) there's a formula for the levy and the fees, and that's all they can do is collect fees based LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 58 on the square footage of the development, so there isn't that ability to do that. In this case though the developer and the Los Gatos Union School District did voluntarily meet and discuss and enter into an agreement for additional money above and beyond the State requirements that I mentioned about the square footage. DR. SPANO: I have a question here for a school superintendent on supporting the Governor's proposal, and we're going to hold onto that, because the school superintendent is not answering questions here this evening. Okay, so we can move on. That's all I have on schools. Christina, we good? Any other schools questions? Okay, I've got traffic. Let's move over to traffic. Some other categories that are coming in —and again, don't feel bound by these categories —I have traffic, we'll move to housing after that, and then there are several questions on commercial as well. So I've got a handful of traffic questions here. "If intersection LOS levels can drop by one level each time there is a development, we could theoretically eventually land at D Level for all intersections. Is there LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 59 a minimally acceptable distribution of LOS levels, i.e. 25% of A, 25% of B, et cetera?" Matt. MATT MORLEY: Level D is the General Plan's determination for what is acceptable, so that's the lowest level that the intersection can go to within the Town. There is no distribution across that; that's been determined to be the level of service that is acceptable. DR. SPANO: Here's another traffic question, really comments. I think I can find question in here. "Three major concerns: Town's loss of identity as a special town; education, schools impact now; and then traffic. More cars, really?" As you said, I believe, Matt, that in the TIA it does say for more traffic, so just say a little bit more about that. MATT MORLEY: The Traffic Impact Analysis is exactly that, it's an analysis of the impacts from traffic. It acknowledges that a development will bring additional vehicles to the road and it looks for alternatives to mitigate those additional cars, those additional vehicle trips, and to reduce the impact of those trips on the community. As I mentioned in my opening, several projects around the development that accommodate these impacts and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 60 help to mitigate that and to keep the traffic flowing, so that when you reach an intersection your delay is managed and controlled. DR. SPANO: Thank you. Traffic: "Why can't a new traffic EIR be required before development is approved, because clearly traffic in Los Gatos has changed significantly since 2014 to now, 2016?" So the heart of the question: Can the EIR be required before development is approved to include the traffic? MATT MORLEY: I think the answer is consistent with your responses previously that the Council can look for additional EIR studies, and the TIA is a portion of that, and so that is a potential for the future. I would say that traffic analysis is a snapshot in time. The Traffic Impact Analysis captures the traffic at that time and the increases that the project brings, so it's very specific to the increase created by the project, regardless of when that traffic analysis is done. JOEL PAULSON: I just offer one other thing. I don't have the project or the files in front of me, but that is a question that we'll also answer online as it relates to the Phase 1 application to illustrate what traffic review has happened as part of that Phase 1. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 61 DR. SPANO: I have a couple of specific traffic questions coming up here. "Is the Town looking at the need to change the traffic flow on Winchester south of Lark for the two residents that will need to avoid Bascom Avenue and still need...still need the (inaudible) at Bascom?" Am I reading that right? I don't have a name on that. So, "Is the Town looking at the need to change the traffic flow on Winchester south of Lark for the two residents that will need to avoid Bascom Avenue?" Are we okay on that? Are you following that, or is this a parking lot and we need to follow up with a little bit more... (To audience member) Help clarify. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: Okay, thank you. MATT MORLEY: The intensity of Winchester and Lark specifically was addressed and it is in the TIA. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). MATT MORLEY: There is not a project, because the impact associated with that intersection did not change it so that it needed mitigation. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). MATT MORLEY: There are additional dollars set aside from the Netflix project to address that local area. One of the commitments we've made is to hold those dollars LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 62 until we see what the result of that full Netflix build -out and occupation is, and that will allow us some flexibility in using those dollars, so that's the potential for mitigation in the future. There were projects associated with Netflix that address the traffic in that area. I think as you see that area settle out a little bit it will allow us an opportunity to continue to do the assessments in there and identify where we need to program those dollars. DR. SPANO: Very good. Thank you for the clarifications, and the next time when that needs to happen I will repeat that for the people in the overflow so they can hear the follow up question. "Will there be any pedestrian or car access from Bennett Way?" MATT MORLEY: Bennett Way is a Phase 1 application question, I believe, although there is car access to Los Gatos Boulevard in the Specific Plan. What that looks like specifically will come out of the Phase 1 application. DR. SPANO: Thank you. And again, we're on very specific traffic questions here; so let's just do the best we can. MATT MORLEY: Let me just finish off with that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 63 DR. SPANO: Please, please. Yes. MATT MORLEY: There is significant pedestrian and bike access in the project in its entirety. There's a loop around the perimeter that is a very wide multi model path, as well as a requirement that there be a multi model paths through the project Specific Plan as well. The large amount of open space will also contribute to the ability for bikes and pedestrians to move about. DR. SPANO: "When turning right onto south Los Gatos Boulevard from Neighborhood Drive, will there be a No Right Turn on red? I believe this will help surrounding businesses get out of their driveways." MATT MORLEY: That as well will be addressed through the development of the Phase 1 application. DR. SPANO: "Lark and Winchester intersection is currently now a congestion problem. Shouldn't the EIR address this intersection too?" So that's Lark and Winchester. MATT MORLEY: As we mentioned previously, Lark and Winchester was addressed through the Traffic Impact Analysis. The study included that analysis and what the delays at that intersection were. What we'll do, I think we'll see if we can pull up the analysis on Lark and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 64 Winchester and get that up in a few minutes on the overhead. DR. SPANO: Okay. (To audience member) So the question was? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: So did the analysis and what actually happened, are they consistent with one another? So that was the question for the overflow audience. MATT MORLEY: The analysis considered the development of the project, of the North 40 Specific Plan, and ultimately an answer won't be known until the full development is in place. DR. SPANO: "Why wasn't the Oka Road/Lark intersection considered in the TIA?" MATT MORLEY: The Oka Road/Lark intersection is an intersection that has less load from the Oka Road feeding into that intersection, and it was determined not to be a significant intersection and without impacts, so it was not considered through the TIA. DR. SPANO: "Much of the current Lark traffic in the evenings is due to restricted capacity of Highway 17 and Highway 9. Why doesn't the Town allow Caltrans to widen 17 to 9?" LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 65 MATT MORLEY: The Council has a General Plan policy that prohibits the widening of...or identifies the widening of Highway 17 as not something that the Town is accepting of. DR. SPANO: "Los Gatos Boulevard from 85 to Lark is already overwhelmed due to only two lanes existing each way. Why won't the Town use eminent domain now to take the eight properties to widen the road so we don't have to wait 30 more years?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: That's certainly a possibility, and I would go on that question that will answer any type of eminent domain question where I've answered that about the process you have to go through, and I think as Laurel mentioned, it's a process that you do have to pay the fair market price for that property, so each property would be entitled to it if we were to pay for that. Normally the way we have done it is that we wait till that development comes through and it's part of the development. Then we're able to extract that as a nexus from the project's impacts so that we don't have to pay for that property. But certainly the eminent domain process does allow for that to happen. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 66 DR. SPANO: "Is it possible to have a new traffic study, a new TIA, that uses local standards versus the TIA formulas that aren't truly relevant?" MATT MORLEY: The Traffic Impact Analysis standards are identified in our Town's General Plan, so very specific to the Town, adopted by the Town, and even more stringent than, for instance, the VTA standards, which govern a little bit more broadly. So the Town has its own standards that it has adopted and follows. DR. SPANO: "Given that traffic has become significantly worse in years since the EIR, will a new EIR be done?" Let me just ask that. We've asked that question. "If traffic level of service is shown at D or F, will all future development be halted? How often will traffic EIRs be repeated?" Let's just take the levels of service is shown to be D or F. Will all future development be halted? MATT MORLEY: If an intersection is at E or F it needs to be brought back to a Level D, so the acceptable level of service; there are multiple ways to do that. The Town collects traffic impact fees that allow the Town to do projects along the way, and it also can be incorporated into a project development. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 67 DR. SPANO: "How often are traffic EIRs done?" This is requested. An EIR is requested, so it's done at the request of Council? MATT MORLEY: Yeah, the Town has triggers on where a Traffic Impact Analysis is done, and the threshold for us is 20 trips, so if the project generates 20 vehicle trips or more, then it's required. LAUREL PREVETTI: If I may? DR. SPANO: Please. LAUREL PREVETTI: If I could just add that typically the driver for when we do traffic analysis is when we have a private development proposal. It's unusual for us to just do a traffic study just on our own, but we typically do it when we have a specific proposal that is asking us to evaluate some new development. MATT MORLEY: It gets a little into the weeds, but I did want to talk a little bit about the question on Winchester Blvd and Lark Avenue, and if I can bring your attention to the screen. On this line where you see the arrow, Number 7, Winchester Blvd and Lark Avenue, identifies the traffic for both the AM and the PM peak periods, the time when it's most impacted. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 68 Under background, background is what was analyzed and seen as what existed. What's the existing situation? The most telling there, you see the letter grades; both of them are B at Winchester and Lark, so that's what the... AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). MATT MORLEY: Let me finish, and then we'll get to some questions. I'll run through the scenarios here. You can see that the delay was 17 seconds; that's the number right to the side of the B, so 17.4 in the AM and 17.7 in the PM. Two projects were analyzed; we called them Project A and Project B. When you add those projects you can see what happens to the delay; it increases by .7, or by roughly 3 seconds, to a B- and a C+. That's how the analysis is done, and that's really a little bit in the weeds on the details, but that's where the comparisons come from, and this level of analysis happens with all of the intersections. DR. SPANO: So the question is what year was this analysis done? MATT MORLEY: The analysis was done in March 2014. DR. SPANO: The question is traffic analysis since 2014? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 69 MATT MORLEY: The traffic analysis, as with the rest of the EIR, is a snapshot in time, so it has captured a particular point in time, and that's the information that's had when the decisions are made, and that's the information that goes forward. The information that we're dealing with is a comparison between the existing traffic and how the development will cause the traffic to increase, and so that snapshot in time identifies what that increase from the development will be, and the developer is required to mitigate that delta. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). MATT MORLEY: Based on the information, yes, the information at the time. But the capture is that delta in impact, and that's the mitigation that's required. DR. SPANO: Okay, and so I'm hearing very clearly the request here for an updated traffic analysis. MATT MORLEY: We'll provide a more detailed summary of the traffic analysis online in the Q&A, so that you'll have that for the future. DR. SPANO: Very good. Thank you. Christina, we okay on traffic questions? Any other traffic questions? AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 70 DR. SPANO: Thank you for your comment. And so we can record what you have, it would be great if you filled that out on the... Thank you very much for that. Thank you. I'm not hearing any other questions, seeing any other questions on traffic. A couple school questions came in, and we'll circle back to those. "The North 40 developer promotes on his Facebook page that it is working on an agreement with the Los Gatos Union School District. Why are they not talking to Cambrian School District who has unused schools in their ownership?" I'm not sure we're in a position to answer that question since it's a School District question. I've got one other school question: "If there is overcrowding in Los Gatos schools, what was the rationale to put the residential housing within Los Gatos School District boundaries and not Cambrian School District?" AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: They are here in a listening role tonight, not in a speaking role tonight, and they were told that they would be in a listening role and not in a speaking role tonight. So the rationale for residential housing in Los Gatos School District boundaries and not the Cambrian School District? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 71 JOEL PAULSON: I'll offer that obviously that was a topic that was discussed at length through the Specific Plan process and through the Environmental Impact Report process, and ultimately the determination was made to allow housing and to allow housing across the site, with the caveat that the Northern District would only allow residential that is above commercial. So that anticipation, the reduction over time of the number of units. The school districts did participate and wrote letters, the ones that were interested and concerned, and that documentation is in the Council and Planning Commission packets from when the Specific Plan went through the process. I'd also offer, I'm sure most if not all of you have already been to the Town's North 40 website. There is an abundance of information, and background material as well, to be pulled from that specifically, and I'd then point to Ms. Prevetti if she has anything additional to offer. LAUREL PREVETTI: I just want to add that one of the large topics that we talked about when we were going through the Planning Commission and Council meetings was what kind of community are we trying to create, and one of the Guiding Principles is that the North 40 should address LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 72 the Town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs. What that means is that we have a lot of family housing already within our community, but we know we have people who are choosing to age and continue to live in our community, which is great, so there is a need for senior housing, and then there's also a need for all of us who have kids who are graduating high school and going to college or whatever and starting to get jobs, and we would love for our youth to be able to come back into our community and live here as well. Those are some of the unmet needs that we're trying to address through the Specific Plan. It's kind of an indirect way to get to the school issue, but it was something that we debated pretty strenuously. DR. SPANO: "Please clarify. Did the TIA include the Netflix development and other proposed anticipated projects?" MATT MORLEY: Yes, it did. DR. SPANO: Very good. Thank you. Question was, "Only half of those buildings are now currently occupied." MATT MORLEY: The TIA considered the Netflix build -out for its entirety, not for what was currently occupied. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 73 MATT MORLEY: The question is the traffic now is only half of what it will be when it's currently occupied, and that is correct, and the analysis that was conducted for Netflix incorporated the full traffic study for full occupancy in Netflix, not what the current level was. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: The question was, and this is for our friends in the lobby, "Do you audit the results?" Matt. MATT MORLEY: Our traffic engineer reviews the traffic on a regulation basis, and although it's not an official audit per se, it is a review of the traffic levels within the Town, and you can see from traffic study to traffic study what the impacts are. It does become difficult to attribute the traffic, because there are many factors that contribute to traffic at a particular intersection. It's difficult to identify specifically where that traffic is coming from over time. LAUREL PREVETTI: Let me just add, as Director Morley said earlier, we have some funds that have been set aside, so that way after Netflix is completed we can do some analysis to determine what within that vicinity can the Town do to try and reduce the impacts further, and that may in terms of vehicles, but it also might be in terms of introducing other modes, such as bicycle and pedestrian LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 74 improvements. So there is more work to come, because we still haven't done those studies since Netflix is still under construction. DR. SPANO: This question here is about beach traffic, so we won't take that up. It's not North 40, but just so we air the question here. "The Town doesn't want to widen 17, however the struggling with beach traffic and Santa Cruz Avenue is not a solution." Okay, I'm going to jump around a little bit with another school question. "A payment to the School District. Agreement includes a provision whereby the District cannot contest any aspect of the development as the School District represents the Town residents. That in essence precludes a significant voice of the residents. How could the right of residents to contest or voice dissent be taken away? Is that provision legal?" How can the right of residents to contest of voice dissent be taken away? (Applause.) ROBERT SCHULTZ: I guess I heard clapping, but I'm not sure I understand the question. The voice of residents can still be heard. They come to the Planning Commission meeting and they come to Council. The School District, their fees that they collect from the developer are set by the State. That's the .56 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 75 per square foot and the 346, so it's set. They were able to negotiate additional amounts that will benefit the School District, and whether that was not enough, whether that was too much, that can be debated, but I'm not sure how that agreement that enabled them to obtain more than State law would allow them to obtain somehow took away the voice of the citizens of Los Gatos. Maybe they can go to the School District and say it wasn't enough, but any amount above and beyond is more than what was allowed under State law. DR. SPANO: And just maybe by way of clarification, the premise here: "The agreement included a provision whereby the District cannot contest any aspect of the development." So that's a premise that's leading to the question. ROBERT SCHULTZ: And that would just be the School District, and that's an agreement between the two parties. It still allows any of the citizens to contest the actual project. DR. SPANO: We're going to jump back to specific planning questions; I've got a couple here. "I appreciate the strenuous effort done with the Specific Plan regarding youth housing, but is it realistic under the current application if 274 proposed units are above market income rate?" Is that realistic for the youth housing? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 76 JOEL PAULSON: Again, Phase 1 application information, I don't know, because I don't know how much they're ultimately sold for. We can look to get some of that data. And obviously it's going to depend on the youth. Folks coming back to town, it's challenging for some of them to get into the market, because it is a good market here, and so I don't know that they're going to be on the order of magnitude where folks can come back and then they'll automatically have a spot. It will provide an additional type of housing, which is important for the unmet needs piece, but the specific circumstances would dictate whether or not certain individuals are going to be able to afford these types of units when they're constructed. DR. SPANO: This question here circles back to the unmet needs that we talked about: "Does the Town have any quantification of the unmet needs by market?" The preamble: The Specific Plan talks about unmet needs for residential. Appendix C talks about seniors. Does the Town have any quantification of the unmet need? LAUREL PREVETTI: I wasn't with the Town at the time that the Advisory Committee was doing all of its work, but I believe there were several market studies that were done to help inform the preparation of the Specific Plan. I LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 77 know the Housing Element has to do a demographic analysis to identify the needs across all income spectrums, so that analysis is definitely in the document. Typically the State focuses more on housing for older persons as opposed to our younger population, but I think here in Los Gatos we're really interested in making sure we can house all segments and all types of households within our community. We'll look a little bit deeper in our documents and put something up on the FAQ regarding that. DR. SPANO: Still Specific Plan: "Are there any other areas in Los Gatos that have 20 units per acre? If not, what is the largest?" JOEL PAULSON: There are areas of town that have 20 units per acre, and there are existing developments around town that exceed 20 units per acre. We can pull together some of those sites and get that information posted on the Frequently Asked Questions as well. DR. SPANO: The question from the audience was: "What's the definition of a unit?" JOEL PAULSON: It's an individual living unit, whether it's a single-family detached house, an apartment, condo or townhome, that is a unit. It could be a secondary dwelling unit. There are a number of different definitions LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 78 for what a unit is. The density is based on the number of units per acre of the site, and that's where the density is driven. DR. SPANO: "The Town used to have standards for open space and parking. Does the Specific Plan reduce this? That would be private and public open space." The Town used to have standards for open space and parking. Does the Specific Plan reduce that? And including both public and private open space. JOEL PAULSON: I'll speak to the parking first. There are some opportunities that are allowed by Town Code, but the Specific Plan explicitly allows them, whether that's shared use of parking, there's some allowance I believe for reduced numbers for a certain project or unit types, so with the parking, yes. Open space, we have required setbacks, so that's not necessarily open space, but we do have General Plan language that speaks to providing open space. I don't recall an actual specific number for either commercial or residential that is in place currently, and so if someone has reference to when that was in place or whether it was commercial and residential, or not, we can do some research on that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 79 DR. SPANO: We've had questions about amending the Specific Plan, et cetera. This one is: "Can the Specific Plan be amended while there is a pending application?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: It depends where in the planning process that pending application is. Under the Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act there is what is called being deemed complete, and once an application is deemed complete, that then locks in your rules, regulations and laws that are in effect at that time. For example, the application that is in right now has been deemed complete, so if any amendments were proposed and changed while that application is still pending and deemed complete, it wouldn't affect that application. DR. SPANO: "The hillside views are obliterated based on the orange story poles. Can you require that the buildings be lowered?" JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan sets maximum height. Those are maximum heights, however, again, getting back to the by right and the State density bonus provisions which allow concessions to any number of topics, they can request those exceptions as part of the density bonus project. So then it's whether or not we can make the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 80 findings, and I think it's a finding that has to be made, if we don't think that concession is appropriate. DR. SPANO: We'll go back to traffic: "Does the TIA conclude that the Winchester/Lark Avenue delay from current to the full development of the North 40 in the AM be only a 0.7 seconds?" The delay. MATT MORLEY: That is correct. DR. SPANO: Okay, very good. Thank you. This is for Staff: "Do you live in Town? If so, how can you recite these traffic findings with a straight face?" Okay, so I'm not (inaudible) that one. Not sure that question followed our guidelines in staying focused on the information and fact sharing aspect of our question asking tonight. Another traffic question: "How can you say that the plan won't impact downtown when traffic is currently preventing people from getting downtown now, and it will only get worse with the density of the North 40?" MATT MORLEY: I think I'll start by saying that the Council and Staff spend a significant amount of our time managing traffic, and we look for every opportunity to help to manage the traffic and to lower the impacts of traffic in the Town, so anything that we can do that achieves that is something that we would take on. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 81 We are limited by the standards that are set fourth through the Traffic Impact Analysis, and that guides us really on the analysis. Then the alignment of the impacts from the project really drives the direction of where the improvements can occur. This particular project has very high standards, higher standards than are regionally adopted, so the efforts continue to look for every opportunity to manage the traffic, but I think what the heart of the question is, is there an increase in traffic? And there ultimately is. It's been determined to be within the tolerable standards that the Town has set forth for itself. DR. SPANO: Very good. I have about five or six commercial questions, and I've got a big stack of housing questions here. I'm thinking it might be a good time to take a break. We're just about at the two-hour mark; so let's just take ten minutes. There are refreshments. If you keep those refreshments out in the lobby, that would be great. We'll take ten minutes, and we're going to reconvene here at five after, five after sharp. We'll do commercial questions, and then housing. (INTERMISSION) DR. SPANO: Let's get started for the second half. Please find your way back to your seat. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 82 We'll go ahead and get started here for the second half. Want to just remind you about the cards, and please fill out the blue card for questions, the yellow card if you have comments, and Staff will collect those comment cards. We won't be reading the comment cards tonight. Then the beige card if you do want to speak tonight in Verbal Communications. Also, if you do have a follow up question, fill out another blue card, and we'll get the blue card in here and we'll do the follow up question as well. We have had a couple questions about the School District, the Superintendent and School Board members that are here tonight. They are here tonight as the Town's invited guests, and just in the way that we designed the meeting, they were not told to be prepared with a presentation or to answer questions. I have talked to a couple superintendents, and they invite and encourage you to contact them directly if you have any questions related to their agreements or how they're handling North 40 issues within their school boards and districts. Okay, we're going to move forward. As I mentioned, we'll have some questions around the commercial development aspect, then there are lots of questions around housing, and then during the break a couple more Specific LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 83 Plan questions came in, so let's just tackle those before we move on to those other topics. "What process is available to revoke the Specific Plan? Not amend, to revoke the Specific Plan." Is there a process available, and what would that look like? ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Town Council is who approved the Specific Plan, so they can as part of an amendment actually revoke it and make those changes to it. As I stated though, if it was revoked tomorrow that wouldn't affect the current application that's in place, because it's been deemed complete. So that's the Town Council always has control over its own document. If the question is could the citizen do an initiative or referendum to revoke the Specific Plan, no, that's not available. The timeframe for when the Specific Plan could have been referendumed by the citizens has passed. DR. SPANO: "Since there has not been an application for Phase 2, can the Specific Plan be amended to state no development, retail or anything in Phase 2?" Can it be amended for Phase 2? ROBERT SCHULTZ: There has to be some potential to develop a piece of property, or then we go back to the whole argument of the taking of someone's property. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 84 Certainly the second phase could be amended. There is no application pending and changes could be made. It could result back into its original development potential, but even doing that at this point in time could be deemed to taking if you were down -zoning and then taking away, because we've allowed by approving the Specific Plan a certain type of development. People could say they've already relied on that passage of that Specific Plan, and if you were down -zone it to open space then the argument would be that would be a taking. DR. SPANO: "Does the Specific Plan allow for land to be set aside for open space and community recreation as set forth in the General Plan for Los Gatos Boulevard, or will all 44 acres be developed and cemented over?" JOEL PAULSON: As I mentioned before, there is an open space requirement and a minimum of 30o has to be open space, and a minimum of 200 of that 30o has to be green open space, so it will not be paved over completely. DR. SPANO: "Where did the follow up funding for the EIR come from? Who paid for the EIR?" JOEL PAULSON: As with every application process in town we receive funds from an applicant, and then we use our consultants and we are the overseers of the document, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 85 its preparation and its final release. The developer funds it, which is the same process we use for all of our projects and environmental documents. LAUREL PREVETTI: I would just add that if there is a concern with an EIR it's the Town that's the one that gets sued. The dollars just essentially allow the analysis to occur, but we are ultimately accountable for the information that's in the EIR, and the Town has a process for certifying that it does in fact meet State law. DR. SPANO: Very good, thank you. I have a couple of traffic questions: "TIA measurement by car does not reflect whole delay, seven seconds times number of cars. Why does Town oppose widening 17?" The first one, let me just find the question in there, "TIA measurement by car does not reflect whole delay, seven seconds times number of cars," if that makes sense, Matt? MATT MORLEY: I'll make the interpretation. I think the interpretation is that the number of cars coming out of the development would seem to equate to more than seven seconds, so I'll answer that as a question. As vehicles come out of the development they will go multiple directions, and the Traffic Impact Analysis considers that and identifies what vehicles will go to what intersections and what those vehicles at that particular LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 86 time will create in terms of a backup at that intersection; that equates to the delay. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: The question was: "How do you quantify that?" MATT MORLEY: So how do we quantify the delay to the flow of traffic at a particular intersection? If you think of yourself as an individual coming up to an intersection, what you can anticipate is the delay being to you as you approach that intersection, so it doesn't necessarily multiply. If there are five people coming to an intersection, it doesn't multiply that seven seconds times the five people, it simply identifies the impact to you specifically. DR. SPANO: Here's another traffic question: "There are 270 three- to four -bedroom, two- to three - bedroom, with a studio that can be converted into different units. An average of two cars per unit. Since the market price in Santa Clara the vast majority have to be dual -car households. How many cars are estimated in the plan?" How many cars are estimated in the plan by household is the question. MATT MORLEY: Whether it is household or commercial space or office space, the Traffic Impact LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 87 Analysis considers the number of trips. Not the number of vehicles, but the number of trips that are generated based on the industry standard for that particular use. It uses standards that are set for us, and those are the requirements that are set forward based on our complying with CEQA. DR. SPANO: "Has a comparison been made to other new high -density developments in town such as Bluebird Lane? Can one be done?" MATT MORLEY: The TIA looks at a much bigger picture than independent development, so it's a look holistically at how impacts in similar developments occur and not at a small cross-section or a smaller subset. DR. SPANO: So it can't be zeroed into a Bluebird Lane or any particular street in that way. "Does the developer have any liability if the traffic estimate in their plan is wrong?" MATT MORLEY: No. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). MATT MORLEY: The question is: "How many cars are in the plan?" and the follow up is, "Do we base it on the number of trips that are expected out of the development?" Yes. If you consider that a vehicle may or may not leave at a particular time, the analysis is based on LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 88 what can be anticipated on the trips generated out of a particular house. The example would be a residence that in the morning somebody may go to work and somebody may stay and work from home, and those average over the entire development across the sample sizes, the samples that are included that drive the standards that are used in the analysis, so it's a standard space analysis. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). MATT MORLEY: The question is, "Does density impact the number of trips?" Yes, the density does impact the number of trips. The density is important in that the trips are generated by unit. DR. SPANO: And it would be great to put those follow up questions on a blue card so we have those and they can put them into their question pool. I'm not sure if this is going to be answerable here: "What is the current status with Grosvenor regarding the schools? What has been offered and on the table?" Do we know that, or do we need to go to the schools for that? JOEL PAULSON: The only agreement we're aware of is the agreement that has been entered in with the elementary and middle school district, Los Gatos Union School District, and we're not aware of any other LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 89 agreements or negotiations between any other school district and applicant. LAUREL PREVETTI: That agreement is available through the North 40 website if someone is interested in seeing it. DR. SPANO: We're going to move over to about five or so commercial questions. "Table 2.1 requires a CUP for a yoga studio, but not a restaurant with a bar. What is the thinking behind that?" Table 2.1. CUP, Conditional Use Permit for a yoga studio, but not a restaurant and bar, so what was the thinking? JOEL PAULSON: This is one of the additional answers that we provided on the website today. I think the reference to a yoga club actually is really into health club, not a yoga studio. This was one of the main things that were considered, this table, throughout the North 40 Advisory Committee as well as Planning Commission and Council, as far as what uses should be permitted and what uses should require a Conditional Use Permit. When it went through that process that was discussed, this was the ultimate decision that was made by the Council for what uses would be permitted in the various districts and what uses would be required to get a Conditional Use Permit. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 90 DR. SPANO: "What makes the developer think any additional retail space is needed in town in light of lengthy vacancies of old?" and mentioning Blockbuster Video, Wolf Camera, the Hallmark shop. So is the developer doing an analysis that additional retail is needed? What are they basing that on? First, are they doing that, and if so, what are they basing that on? JOEL PAULSON: Ultimately there were a number of leakage studies showing what categories the Town is lacking and where folks that live in town have to leave the Town to get certain goods and services. That study did show that there was capacity from the leakage perspective to accommodate new retail and other commercial uses. DR. SPANO: "Table 2.2 specifies a maximum of 400,000 square feet of commercial. Does that mean the Council can approve less than 400,000 square feet, any amount it wants?" JOEL PAULSON: Generally, yes. Those are maximums, so the Council will have to consider whether or not they think whenever the commercial comes forward whether that's the appropriate number or whether it should be less. That will be evaluated during the planning process that we're currently going through, as well as any future applications that might come forward. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 91 DR. SPANO: "Is there anything in the Specific Plan that would prevent the developer from leasing all 400,000 square feet to restaurant use?" JOEL PAULSON: Generally, yes, there is, because it does talk about that all of the applications, again, are going to be considered, and it does speak to a mix of uses to help complement the rest of the Boulevard as well as downtown, so someone coming in with that amount of all restaurant is not only highly unlikely, but it also would be challenging to show that that actually conforms with the Specific Plan. DR. SPANO: "Is there any limitation around restaurants at all in the Specific Plan, the amount of restaurants?" JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that there is a specific limit, no. It's just part of the greater application review of where restaurants are anticipated, or as they move forward through the process. DR. SPANO: "If the Specific Plan was to be revoked, what happens to the land in the North 40?" If the Specific Plan was revoked? JOEL PAULSON: If the Specific Plan is revoked, then it would revert back to its former zoning designations or the zoning designation that complies with the General LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 92 Plan. So if it gets revoked, then I would guess that would be the likelihood, but I will look to the Town Attorney to see if he has any additional input. ROBERT SCHULTZ: We did make changes to our General Plan to make it consistent with the Specific Plan. I still look at it as an amendment. If in fact Council wanted to make changes, it isn't just a revocation of it; there has to be some discussion about what the underlying designation is going to be. It just wouldn't automatically go back to the previous, because that's already been amended and is no longer applicable, so a complete revocation would put it in a very precarious place, because there has to be some designation of what that land can and cannot do. DR. SPANO: "Can the original 750 homes and 586,000 square feet from 2010 take over if that was to be revoked?" JOEL PAULSON: As Mr. Schultz was explaining, there would be necessary Zoning Ordinance amendments as well as General Plan amendments if the plan was revoked. The previous General Plan designation, if I remember correctly, was mixed -use commercial, so that does allow up to 50o coverage for the site, and so you can take 20 acres times 50%. Theoretically that would kind of leave your LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 93 building envelope, which could be far in excess the 501 that's currently the maximum cap. I think it's important to point out that one of the previous questions, there is also an additional cap of commercial with the exclusion of office and hotel; I think office and hotel. That cap is actually 400,000 square feet for the other commercial uses, but I just wanted to offer that. DR. SPANO: Another commercial question, not directly related to the North 40, but we'll see if we have an answer here: "What is the total square footage of retail currently in downtown Los Gatos?" JOEL PAULSON: We will pull that information from the previous documents and add that to our FAQ. I do not recall off the top of my head. DR. SPANO: A couple Specific Plan questions before we move over to housing. "Will the sewer system of the North 40 be serviced by Campbell? If so, that system is antiquated and needs upgrades." This related back to our earlier question about coordination with Campbell. Will the sewer system be coordinated with Campbell? Will Campbell service it? MATT MORLEY: The sewer system is West Valley Sanitation and they will maintain that sewer system. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 94 DR. SPANO: And the comment, not a question, that that system is antiquated and needs upgrades, and somebody is going to have to pay for that. You want to comment on that, Matt? MATT MORLEY: Significant analysis has been done on the sewer system and its capacity for the site, and upgrades will account for all of the need associated with that sewer system. DR. SPANO: And then who would pay for that? MATT MORLEY: That's part of the development. The development creates the impact; the development pays for the improvements. DR. SPANO: This is a Specific Plan question: "Has Staff or anyone working for the Town examined the negative impacts on property values all the development will have with downslides, schools, traffic, et cetera? What is a homeowner's recourse?" Have the negative impacts been examined in terms of the impact on property values? JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that we looked specifically at property value impacts; that's not an evaluation that we typically do. I know that does come up quite often with even just a single-family home improvement where neighbors have concerns, and so that is brought up. I haven't seen that personally analyzed, and so we might be LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 95 able to say that we definitely have not analyzed that. I'm not sure if Mr. Schultz or Ms. Prevetti has anything additional. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Just with regard to the impact for property values. I know no case law that ever been undertaken where a homeowner has sued over a development project from the impact of that development project on their property value. Most of the legal challenges come from a CEQA challenge or a findings challenge, but not on the impacts from a property value. DR. SPANO: "Does the maximum commercial FT have the same bonus percentage as residential FT?" JOEL PAULSON: Generally the State Density Bonus Law only applies to residential; it does not apply to commercial. DR. SPANO: We're back to commercial. "Is the North 40 commercial element targeted the same as the Downtown District?" Is the North 40 commercial element targeted, treated the same way as the Downtown District? JOEL PAULSON: Ultimately the Specific Plan sets the parameters. There are provisions in the Specific Plan that have requirements that are less stringent than some of the downtown properties, so that clearly was set up when it went through the process. There are differences between how LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 96 downtown applications are provided for when compared to properties that are going to come forward in the Specific Plan. DR. SPANO: Good. "With the maximum commercial development, how many jobs are anticipated? Is that provided by planned housing adequate to support these jobs?" So if there has been a jobs analysis. JOEL PAULSON: That is evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report. I will pull that data as well, so that we can get that posted online. It does anticipate based on square footage, and they do anticipate a number of employees that will be generated by the various uses. DR. SPANO: "Why are CUPs, Conditional Use Permits, different for downtown and North 40? Why do developers get easier rules than downtown businesses on the North 40 side? JOEL PAULSON: That was a discussion along the way as well, obviously, with the concerns. So when it came forward and went through the process, ultimately given the additional detail and development standards that are being applied to the Specific Plan, I can't speak that there was actually anything specific that I recall that was stated other than typically in a development like this you are going to have... LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 97 It's important to understand where you are from a potential tenant perspective. I think some of that information was provided as well when it went through the process, and then ultimately it was determined that there probably is going to be, for instance, restaurants in the North 40, and so anticipating that, knowing that, analyzing the impact of some percentage of restaurants, it was determined that, for instance, that use where a CUP is required in downtown, it is not required in the North 40 Specific Plan. DR. SPANO: There's a question here asking, "Why is Los Gatos not joining with other California cities and towns to push back against State mandates," mentioning some of the State mandates here in terms of water supply and pollution report. I'm not sure if this relates directly to the North 40 or not. Was there a water analysis done? Was a pollution report? Was that related to the North 40, tied into the North 40? MATT MORLEY: The North 40 is required to comply with stormwater requirements within the State, and will do so. A large amount of that includes retention of stormwater onsite and ensuring that the stormwater that's released is cleaned and unpolluted, and that will certainly be a part of the project. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 98 DR. SPANO: And the question here is asking why Los Gatos isn't pushing back against those State mandates, joining with other cities and towns in California, pushing back against those mandates? MATT MORLEY: Los Gatos is part of a broader coalition of cities that provides input to the State on stormwater issues, and the Town provides their voice through that coalition and does provide input to State requirements as they come forward. The State requirements do get stricter and stricter over time, and we do work with our coalition to provide input that would help to manage the continued requirements. LAUREL PREVETTI: If I could just add that we did do a water supply assessment, so there was an analysis done and it's included in the Environmental Impact Report, and working with the Water District and the water retailer we found that there is adequate water supply. I want to just add that we know that we are still in a drought condition, and so we do have local ordinances that encourage and require more conservation than what the State is requiring, so I think, again, our environmental history here in the Town is continuing, and our legacy, and so we tend to be more proactive in making sure that we're protecting our environment, whether it's regarding LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 99 stormwater, drought, water supplies or other issues; it is something that we're very mindful of and this plan was intended to make sure that we continue with that pattern. DR. SPANO: Thank you. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I'll add one more. DR. SPANO: Please. ROBERT SCHULTZ: We do push back, if that's the word you want to use, against the State. As Matt mentioned, we participate in a coalition of what's called the League of California Cities. I serve on and was appointed by that League of California Cities to sit on a housing committee. We meet four times a year to discuss the various bills that are being proposed, to keep us informed, and we do vote on oppose or support for those bills. We are part of a coalition with many of our neighboring cities and keep track and inform Council of the different bills that the State is trying to impose on us to take away local control. DR. SPANO: Okay, we are moving over into housing now. "What is the definition of `affordable housing' as required by the State?" JOEL PAULSON: There are different levels of affordable housing. There is Moderate, Medium, Low, Very Low, and there's actually a new category, Extremely Low. Generally it's based on and starts at Moderate is up to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 100 1000, and so it's using the Santa Clara County average median income is what the basis is, so they evaluate that and then they look at which different categories they can go into. Our policy generally looks at having a mix between Low and Moderate units being what we start off with. If a development comes in and they're proposing a certain type of project, then we would ask that half of the required BMP units be of Low category and half be in the Moderate category, or Medium. LAUREL PREVETTI: And if I may just add some quantification to that. We follow the United States Housing and Urban Development Guidelines for determining affordability, and it's all based on our county median income, so we are a high -income community compared to other counties throughout California. By way of example, in 2014 if you are a household of four persons and you made essentially $100,000 a year, you would be right at that median, that's kind of the benchmark. To be Moderate, you would have to be $1200 of median, so if you're a family of four and you earned $120,000, that would be considered above Moderate. And then Extremely Low, just to kind of put the other side, that would be 30o of the area median income, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 101 and that would mean a family of four earning essentially $32,000 a year. So again, those numbers mean that you still are earning income, but you're essentially qualifying for affordable housing. And Very Low is 500, as Joel mentioned, and for a family of four that's essentially $54,000 a year. So working families are essentially considered affordable housing in this county. DR. SPANO: "How will the Garden Cluster homes look and feel like Los Gatos?" JOEL PAULSON: I'm assuming that's speaking specifically to the Phase 1 project that will be analyzed. That was one of the residential unit types that was spoken about in the Specific Plan itself, so there was some anticipation that there be some multi -family units to be produced onsite, and so that will be evaluated and that will part of the Planning Commission and Council purview as they move forward to determine whether or not that does look and feel like Los Gatos, the proposed project as it currently sits. DR. SPANO: You want to add anything to that, Rob? Are we good? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 102 When we were talking earlier about youth as an unmet need, the question here is: "Are you talking just about Los Gatos youth that went to our schools?" JOEL PAULSON: No. I can elaborate a little bit. We can't restrict housing in that fashion, and if the Town Attorney needs to add anything else, but generally we don't have the ability to make those kinds of restrictions. DR. SPANO: This question is related to the earlier question about pushing back against State mandates, ABAG, et cetera, mentioning Los Altos and Monte Sereno successfully legally circumvented those and why Los Gatos is not doing what the question asker says Los Altos and Monte Sereno are doing? ROBERT SCHULTZ: I'll have to research both of those, because I'm not aware that they were able to circumvent State law. There is an appeal process; Saratoga went through it. I know they lost. There is an appeal process when they come out with the RHNA numbers that you can appeal and provide factual evidence that the numbers that they have given you are too high. Sometimes those appeals are won. I'm trying to think of the number, Saratoga, they were giving I believe in the high-400s as opposed to ours; it was 600s. They wanted to try to lower it down to the 419 number, and they lost. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 103 So whomever the person is that knows Monte Sereno and the other community and how they circumvented the law, if they know more, I can certainly look into that and provide a more detailed answer, but anyone who has tried to circumvent the law has lost in any lawsuit that I'm aware of. LAUREL PREVETTI: And in fact just recently the Monte Sereno City Council had to zone a property for multi- family development. Of course it was very controversial there, but that was to implement its housing element. So again, they needed to show action to zone adequate site for affordable housing and so the Council did take that action. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: Okay, so the comment here is about using granny units and so forth, and Laurel, that's for people in the lobby. LAUREL PREVETTI: Right, thank you very much. So again, like many cities we use a combination of sites to try to meet our housing needs, and the Town of Los Gatos has a plan to expand its secondary housing unit provisions to also count towards our affordable housing needs. Because of the way Monte Sereno did it and reduced the density on the Hacienda site, they had to find LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 104 a replacement site. The replacement site was found, and so they are in compliance with their housing element. ROBERT SCHULTZ: So it wasn't to circumvent the law, they just found another. And this is the many meetings that were discussed on coming up with our RHNA numbers, and if you did not zone the North 40 to use our RHNA numbers, where else were you going to use that? There were a number of sites: the Knolls, the Lodge, Oka Road, and those are available that we can provide you with that they looked at very detailed in many meetings to determine which were the ones to use, and we are using some of our secondary units and are trying to expand that, so that we can use more of them. DR. SPANO: We had the earlier question about definition of affordable housing. This is: "Define Low Income and Very Low Income." LAUREL PREVETTI: I believe I just did the Very Low Income. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). LAUREL PREVETTI: Yeah, homeless. We do have working homeless in this county, so that is an issue, but like any affordable housing program, our BMP, someone would have to demonstrate that they qualify because of income, and ultimately it's the property owner that would decide LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 105 whether or not an individual qualifies, together with our housing program administrator. So it's theoretically possible, but again, we'd need to look to house all income segments of our community, and to the extent we have working homeless that are looking for permanent housing, that could be one population served. DR. SPANO: The question here was whether homeless for eligible for the affordable housing units. Here's just an interesting little question, sort of trivia question: "Is the Governor's bill AB 250, by our own Assemblyman Evan Low?" Does anybody know that? We can move on. ROBERT SCHULTZ: We can make certain. In my mind it's Governor Brown's bill, because it was trailer bill and it was tacked onto the budget as a gut and amend, so it didn't go through any committees whatsoever. I don't know the particular assemblyman or senator, but we can check on that and say who actually help sponsor it with the Governor's office. DR. SPANO: "If housing is spread into the Northern District, is it possible, given height limits and requirements of residential over commercial?" JOEL PAULSON: Can you repeat that? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 106 DR. SPANO: "...is it possible, given height limits and requirements of residential over commercial?" Can residential trump, supersede, over commercial? JOEL PAULSON: It is possible within the height limits to have a vertical mixed -use development, and the Specific Plan permits that, so that is a possibility. We would have to see it. I think the other challenge gets to be depending on how many acres still have to be at the 20 dwelling units per acre. I think it gets interesting from a site planning perspective to try to get that type of density above commercial, but I couldn't say it's not possible at all. We'd have to look at that. DR. SPANO: "What is the affect on the Los Gatos Union School District deal to obtain extra mitigation?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think we've addressed that. The agreement is online and you can look at exactly what their deal was and what they did get through that agreement. Again, the Town didn't participate in those negotiations. DR. SPANO: "Our Town Attorney has painted a bleak picture. Please state what the options are. It doesn't sound like the number of units can be reduced. It doesn't appear there will be another EIR. The Los Gatos LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 107 schools received the settlement. The question: Can the application be denied?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: That will all take place during the application process. The Applicant has due process rights. I'm not even a member that would be voting on this, it's the Planning Commission and the Council, and they'll weigh all the evidence and determine whether it is in compliance with the Specific Plan. I certainly said that yes, there are by rights for 270 units, but certainly they do still have to meet the design guidelines and the standards that are set forth in the Specific Plan, and so that's going to be the issue that they need to decide. What I think I tried to get across is I've heard quite a bit of let's reduce it, and that's a maximum of 270, but because of the Housing Element that is also on top of that Specific Plan they do have the by right of doing 270 units plus a density bonus. So, yes, that is bad news for the development, if you wanted to reduce the density, but there are many, many, many issues that are still on the table for the Planning Commission and Council to look at and decide, one being, I think it's been brought up, a unit is described in many different ways, and what is the size LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 108 of those units that fit within the parameters of the Specific Plan? DR. SPANO: "With Town opposition on density and intersection of North 40 application, and we know as a town we need a housing unit of 619, why not create a lottery of more in-law units?" JOEL PAULSON: I don't understand the lottery question, but maybe providing opportunities where they currently don't exist is the idea of a lottery. I know that there was a time period in the, I'm going to say mid - eighties, where we did grandfather a lot of second units in town. Then we actually are looking at modifying one of the General Plan or Housing Element action items to allow second units where we currently don't allow them, so we'll be doing a Zoning Code amendment for that and taking that through the process. It's not a lottery per se, but we are going to try to loosen up the restrictions that currently exist for certain properties, and that will make it easier, but we can't force people to apply to build these units, and they still need to meet some other parameters. LAUREL PREVETTI: The Housing Element identified 28 of the 619 units as being the share that would happen through secondary units. We could certainly exceed that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 109 That's, again, going to be up to the individual property owners in terms of whether or not they want to pursue the new opportunity to build more secondary units. DR. SPANO: "Why does North 40 housing not need to follow square foot ratio?" JOEL PAULSON: There are certain parameters where FAR applies. FAR applies to single- and two-family dwellings, and so those are going to be detached. Once you have three or more attached units, FAR doesn't actually apply in the Town Code either. Here, same thing: there isn't an FAR for multi -family units. DR. SPANO: This has to do with the distribution of housing in the North 40: "Why is it crunched into one small area of the total project area. Can Town Council require that the housing be equally divided among the 40 acres?" JOEL PAULSON: We answered that earlier. Any of that that is spread, or if they can't accomplish it in the Northern section, then we will have to find additional sites to accommodate that housing. DR. SPANO: "Why was the maximum number of units changed from 364 down to 270?" JOEL PAULSON: It was discussed during the hearings; I'm going way deep into my recollections. During LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 110 the process of the Specific Plan and the Housing Element there was some overlap, and so there was a conversation, because we did have a lot of conversations about these by right density bonus concerns that were raised just through the Housing Element. It works out that if someone were to take advantage of a density bonus on this site, then 270 is the number where if you apply 35% bonus you'd get back to the 364, so it's accommodating the up to 364, which was also the number of units that was analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report. DR. SPANO: "Is the North 40 subject to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan?" JOEL PAULSON: I believe we answered that in one of our FAQs. Let me take a look. I think the short answer is it is not applicable. The Specific Plan creates the development parameters for all of the properties within the Specific Plan area, but I will look and see if there is anything to add to that. DR. SPANO: "How will publicly accessible space be ensured in the future? What is considered defined as privately owned and maintained, and public access space?" JOEL PAULSON: We are still, again, working through the development application process. There is a significant amount of area that is going to be publicly LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 111 accessible, private open space, and we will be working through that with ultimately probably CC&Rs and other agreements, and there are conditions of approval that will deal with that to make sure that it remains publicly accessible. DR. SPANO: "Does the 13.5 in the North 40 that is by right 20 units an acre all have to be in the Southern District, Lark?" JOEL PAULSON: The answer is no, and we've added additional information on that in previous questions as well. LAUREL PREVETTI: We can go back to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan. The Specific Plan incorporates or complements the concepts and guidelines from the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan where applicable. Essentially, when the Advisory Committee and Planning Commission were working on the Specific Plan the Boulevard Plan was one of the inputs into that process, so strictly as we evaluate the development application we're going to be evaluating it against the Specific Plan, and not the Boulevard Plan. DR. SPANO: "As one of the many renters that will now be displaced by the North 40 development, what provision for relocation assistance and affordable housing will be provided for us?" LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 112 ROBERT SCHULTZ: We've also answered that one in the Frequently Asked Questions. The Town doesn't have any ordinances, rules or regulations that call for relocation expenses, so we don't address that. There are a number of state laws that can address those issues, one being the Ellis Act. I don't know the circumstances of each individual renter and what their agreement is. For example, the Ellis Act applies only for multi -dwellings, so I'm not sure of the situation. What we've done is we've tried to connect the renters with people with the county, with our Hello Housing, and with our mediation and arbitration service, because we do provide mediation and arbitration service for landlord/tenant issues, but we don't have any ordinance that we could enforce that requires that of a developer in this type of situation. DR. SPANO: "My analysis suggests that North 40 development is being done at maximum levels. Highest possible buildings that zoning allows, highest possible density as zoning allows, highest possible low-cost housing as zoning allows. Is this true, and why is Los Gatos taking that approach?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think, again, that's a specific application question, and I think those are great LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 113 comments. That's what needs to be analyzed by the Planning Commission and by Council as to what are those height issues, those setback issues, and whether they comply with the Specific Plan, and to look at and analyze those. It doesn't specifically address anything in the Specific Plan, so we'll wait for those questions and comments and for the deliberation by the Planning Commission and Council. DR. SPANO: "Why can't the Town require the height of the houses to be lower by requiring the developer to build basements instead of three to four story buildings?" JOEL PAULSON: Obviously we look at a development application when it comes in and we compare that to, in this case, the Specific Plan, Zoning Code or General Plan, those documents. The applicant could propose to do cellars to basements, but that would be for them to propose. I think it gets back to the same challenges with by right and density bonus concessions where we will be looking to see what, if any, options there are as they relate to that. DR. SPANO: This question is about affordable housing and State mandates, and the question is: "Is it really a State mandate or is it more of a suggestion? In other words, stating that housing is an issue although LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 114 nothing is mandated or enforced, only suggested? Is that true?" JOEL PAULSON: I'll go ahead and start. I think it really gets back to there is State law that says you have to have a Housing Element. I think the question that comes up often is that the Town is required to plan and show that we have adequate sites to accommodate that housing. We are not required to build it or to go knock on developers' doors to have them build housing, but we do have to show that the adequate sites are available in town to accommodate those affordable units. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think Joel addressed it by saying yes, there is a State mandate to have a Housing Element, State mandate to show that you have adequate sites to build your RHNA numbers. We don't have the ability to go do what the developer does. I did a memo about a year ago and I can repost that again, as to the litigation that has developed over towns and cities that either dragged their feet or failed to produce adequate sites that could be developed for affordable housing, and in each and every case they lost, they've had to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees, and they had to develop a Housing Element. It has even been very close to where the State has said they'll even take away your planning authority if LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 115 you don't. If you want an analogy, because I've worked in a lot of coastal cities, is every coastal town has to have a local coastal plan with the Coastal Commission; it's the same type of thing if you've got a State organization implementing themselves on and telling the town or city what to do and what they shouldn't do. Malibu was one that almost was in litigation for many years, because they refused to follow the State mandates of a coastal local plan, and they came very, very close to having their planning powers taken away. There are many other towns that have just said okay, we can't do this, we're going to turn over your planning powers. In many local coastal towns they don't have even a planning commission, because the State has taken it over through the Coastal Commission. Does the State have funding to do that? No. Do they have the funding to even file suit against the towns and the cities? That's not really where it's coming from. The lawsuits come from the building associations that will sue because you haven't complied with State law. It's not the State that has to sue you; any individual can sue you over the fact that you haven't complied with State law. DR. SPANO: "We know 20 homes per acre. What will the square footage of the homes be?" LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 116 JOEL PAULSON: The development plans for the Phase 1 application are online. I do not have that information. I know there is a range of sizes. We will try to pull some of that together and add that to the FAQs, or create some other document for the Phase 1 specifically. DR. SPANO: This might have been asked earlier. Let's see if there's something new here. "If we spread the housing over the 44 acres it would seem that we could reduce the height of commercial and create mixed use, commercial and housing, and include large open space. Does the Specific Plan allow for that?" JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan allows a number of alterations. Again, I'll go back to what we are doing is we're required to analyze any applications that come forward against the Specific Plan that's adopted. Is it possible to have lower buildings spread out? It's possible. I can't say that it's not possible. But you end up running into, depending on the types of units, trying to achieve the reduced heights and then also get to the 20 dwelling units per acre, that site plan exercise you have to work through. So that's something that is possible, but we again are evaluating the projects as they come through from an application perspective. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 117 ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I think if you turned to 2.7 of the tables, Permitted Land Uses, you would find in the Lark District, though that was primarily in the Specific Plan. Supposed to be residential and you'll find many retails uses aren't allowed; the formula retail businesses aren't. So there are different things that are not allowed in that Lark District, because it was supposed to be primarily residential. DR. SPANO: And Rob, I know you explained this in the PowerPoint, but if you'd add a little bit to that. "What is the concept of by right development as it applies to the North 40?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: By right development means that basically you have that right to develop that many units at that density. You don't have the ability to reduce that number of units if an applicant comes in. You're able to apply design review, and that's maybe the look and feel and how it orientates with the neighborhood. You're able to make sure it complies with all the Specific Plan standards, but you don't have the discretion. This where the State said that we had the discretion, for example, for the Lodge properties, to say, "Well, we said the maximum was 270 but we're only going to allow you to have 200 units," or, "We decided we want all commercial now and no residential," LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 118 because that truly would not allow for those RHNA numbers to be met. So the by right development is just as if you have your home and it's on an R-1 property. You can come in and build your one residential home on there. You have to meet all the standards, the setbacks, the height restrictions, but the Town can't say to you, "We don't want a home on that piece of property," and that's the same with the by right development. There are rights on this property to develop it with 270 units. DR. SPANO: "What specific latitude in the area of design review does the Planning Commission and Town Council have in regard to the upcoming application? Revisions, approval, not approval? Are there examples from other communities we could look to?" So the latitude of Commission and Council on design review? JOEL PAULSON: I don't have it with me, but March 30th was the first time the Phase 1 application had gone to the Planning Commission, and there is a Staff Report associated with that that did lay out and speak to some of that discretion. As it continues additional Staff Reports will be prepared for the upcoming July 12th meeting and then following meetings with the Planning Commission, and also with Council. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 119 ROBERT SCHULTZ: Didn't mean to grab the mic, but it reminded me that I needed to discuss deadlines. As Joel said, the application will be coming back for Planning Commission discussion on July 12th. That will be a public hearing, public comment will be open, and we welcome all your public comments. After all the public comment is taken, then the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission has to make a recommendation to the Council by August 31st per the Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act. Then the Council has to make a decision under the State law by September 7th. Those dates are very close together, so from a Staff standpoint what we plan to do is have the Planning Commission have the public comment period and everything that's need in July, even if there will be special meetings, and to have hearings in August in front of Council so that we can make those deadlines. It's very important to make those deadlines so the applicant doesn't have any argument that because we didn't act within the State law that their application is approved, so we need to comply with those deadlines so that by September 7th there will be a decision made. The Council LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 120 has the ability to approve, deny or modify the application that is in front of them, if they can make the findings that they need to in regard to the Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. DR. SPANO: Very good. I have three questions here that are about what we just heard in terms of why are the Planning Commission and Town Council meetings being scheduled for July and August, vacation time, obviously it's not conducive necessarily to public meetings, and so that's the reason why, because of the deadline that the Town is facing, and so we can answer those questions. ROBERT SCHULTZ: I did a memo to the Mayor and Council on May 24th and we'll put that online also for you. It explains all the dates under the Permit Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act that requires us to act within those timelines. DR. SPANO: "How much additional housing is planned for the additional phases of the project?" JOEL PAULSON: Until we have an application I can't tell you whether it is going to be none or the total amount that's left. I have to do a little math. I want to say in the range of probably 30 units, and I'll look to my left. In the 270 capacity, so there's capacity for the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 121 potential for up to 44 units on any future phase that comes forward. DR. SPANO: Very good. The next question, "They don't all need to be in Phase 1, right?" And so the answer then is right. Yeah, they don't need to all be in Phase 1. "If 270 units can be developed by right, can we use the Specific Plan to determine where they can be built in the 44 acres and how they will be designed?" JOEL PAULSON: I think that's been addressed quite a bit throughout the evening tonight. The units can be spread across the site, and then there will be design review as it relates to the Specific Plan guidelines and parameters that will be reviewed when it goes through Planning Commission and Council. DR. SPANO: "The estimated purchase price of the studios, a one -bedroom, a two- or three -bedroom?" Just a ballpark, if you have that. JOEL PAULSON: We do not have that. DR. SPANO: "What revenue is anticipated to be generated in property taxes?" JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that we've even done that calculation, frankly, so ultimately whatever transaction takes place the Town typically receives I want to say 9.6% of each dollar of property taxes. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 122 DR. SPANO: Right, and I think that's helpful for people... JOEL PAULSON: 9.6 cents on the dollar. DR. SPANO: On the dollar on property taxes. JOEL PAULSON: That would be entitled and come to the Town, as well as any portion of the sales tax that might be generated by the 60,000-70,000 square feet of commercial that is proposed in the first phase application. DR. SPANO: "How does the size of the Campbell side of the overall project..." Not clear. "How many residential units in Campbell? How much retail square footage in Campbell?" JOEL PAULSON: For Campbell, I think we just spoke about this as well, I think the line is pretty close to where the first phase line is, but I don't have that exactly, so it could be up to 44, but I think we can take a look at that piece and get that answer up as well. Then the Northern District, we talked about that would be predominantly commercial if the project that's currently before the Town is approved. LAUREL PREVETTI: And I would just clarify that none of the North 40 is in the City of Campbell, so when there's reference to Campbell in this response, it's really pertaining to the Campbell Union High School District that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 123 serves the northern portion of the area together with the Cambrian School District. DR. SPANO: I think we've answered this, but let me ask it just to make sure. "How does by right project apply when majority of the units are market rate, not affordable housing?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: We have to meet RHNA numbers of 619 across the entire board, not just for Low Income, not just for Very Low, but it's across the board of providing units across all the needs, so the 270 by our Housing Element has the by right for the entire 270, not just for affordable housing. DR. SPANO: "How does the Town plan to meet our 619 RHNA allocation? By my calculation we would need to build 3,669 to meet that number with a developer density bonus." LAUREL PREVETTI: Our Housing Element identified different ways to meet the need, and one of them was to include the North 40 Specific Plan, so that's 270 units. The other approach was the secondary units that we talked about; that was about 28 units. We also talked about doing an enhanced secondary unit program; that would bring another 27 units. We do include the South Bay site as another housing opportunity site in the Town with a yield LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 124 of about 148 units, and then we have other sites such as Oka Road, which is 99 units. We also were able to take credit for the recently approved Knolls development that was happening at the time that we were developing or preparing the Housing Element, so we actually got credit of 57 for approved units that the Town had done. So there are a variety of strategies that ultimately came into our Housing Element at a variety of densities. DR. SPANO: "Project seems dense. Buildings seem high. Why is there not park area or other public use space that would reduce the number of units?" JOEL PAULSON: I think we've answered this as well. We're still working with the 20 units per acre, and there is publicly accessible open space that will be part of the development. I would encourage folks to go online and/or attend the Planning Commission meeting on July 12th, and you can take a look and see what is proposed. DR. SPANO: "Can the Town force the developer to spread out the units across the property that is not part of an application?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think we've answered that. I don't like using the word "force." The Council has the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 125 ability to approve, deny or modify any project that comes in front of them. If an applicant doesn't want to do that, then they don't have a project. DR. SPANO: "Other than the numbers required by right in the Housing Element, does anything else require encouraging that maximums be reached or minimums be reached, heights, setbacks, open space?" Does anything else require encouraging that maximums be reached, minimums be reached? ROBERT SCHULTZ: No. But again, when we go through the project, when you ask for a density bonus, there are concessions and waivers that an applicant can ask for, and again, State law says we have to allow those. That's the push back we're going to look at when we're analyzing this with the density bonuses: What type of waivers and concessions is the applicant looking for? DR. SPANO: "Is it accurate to assume that part of the motivation for such a large, high -density project is at least partly to prevent any additional smaller sites scattered all over the city?" So if you concentrated the high -density, high height in one area, then it wouldn't be scattered across the city, but it would be localized in one area. Is that part of the motivation? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 126 JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if that's part of the motivation, but that was definitely part of the discussions as the Housing Element Advisory Board, and then ultimately the Planning Commission and Council, struggled with should the North 40 be used? Should we go back to the AHOZ opportunity? Should we look at other sites? Ultimately the decision was made to incorporate the 13.5 acres for up to 270 units at 20 dwelling units per acre in the Housing Element, and that was the strategy that moved forward. We've talked at length about options and opportunities if that number was changed, then we would be looking at a similar evaluation of going back through and finding sites to make up for whatever density in units have been lost. LAUREL PREVETTI: I would just add that overall the Town has a General Plan that identifies the appropriate uses throughout our community, and we really want to make sure that we put any new development in the right place, so as there are other development applications pending or in the future will be applied for, we would encourage all of you to be just as actively engaged as you are now. We do have pending subdivision applications, for example, that would increase housing in other sites that are not even in our Housing Element. I know there is a lot LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 127 of attention right now on the North 40, but this isn't the only application that's moving through the process. We do have a Pending Planning Projects portion of our website, so I would encourage all of you to become familiar with it. There's a map -based approach, so you can see what's happening, a What's Proposed in My Neighborhood, and then the project planner's name and contact is available. So you can take a look at those applications as they are pending, and definitely please participate in our process as those move forward as well. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). LAUREL PREVETTI: The question is, "If we approve North 40, does it prevent things like Laurel Mews in the future?" Really, all land use decisions are unique and they're considered on their own merits, determined by consistency with the General Plan, zoning and other applicable codes, and guidelines. We have a lot of properties here in town, and with the strong economy there are a lot of property owners who are trying to make sure that they get what is in their opinion the highest and best use, and those applications are going through a similar process. AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 128 LAUREL PREVETTI: Not necessarily. Again, ultimately our deciding bodies, Planning Commission and Council, make those decisions on their own merits. DR. SPANO: "If additional commercial development is allowed at this site or anywhere else in town, does that trigger more State mandated housing?" Additional commercial. JOEL PAULSON: I'm not familiar with the methodology and what goes into that. Maybe Ms. Prevetti can offer. LAUREL PREVETTI: No, it's essentially a separate discussion. We have our housing need numbers that were identified, and we've adequately planned for them, we've identified sites. If there is new commercial development that happens, there is not a housing requirement that follows. DR. SPANO: I think we've answered this, but just in case, "How are housing needs determined?" LAUREL PREVETTI: Housing needs are determined in a very complex way for purposes of our Housing Element. There is a strict methodology that is outlined in State law in terms of who makes the population projections for the State of California, and that's the Department of Finance. Then they give the number for the nine county Bay Area LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 129 region to the Association of Bay Area Governments, and then that regional agency sets forth a methodology to distribute all of that new population and the equivalent in terms of housing to all of our respective communities. So that's a very public process. The Town is able to participate and comment on those numbers before we then do our Housing Elements. For this county, in the next cycle for housing elements, we're considering doing our own methodology with our colleague cities within Santa Clara County so that we have even more local control of the distribution of that housing. That won't happen until 2020, but again, that will be a whole other process, and we are looking for how we can maintain the local control and have more of a voice, instead of a regional agency telling us how much housing we need to plan for. DR. SPANO: "Do other developments in Los Gatos have the same square footage, unit number, acre density?" JOEL PAULSON: The short answer is there are other projects that actually even exceed the density for what is being proposed on the North 40. I think earlier I had mentioned I would look to pull some of that information and get that posted, so that folks have an idea of what that looks like. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 130 But there are other projects in town that have more density. Now, with square footage and those things, we would have to look at that. This probably is the biggest combination the Specific Plan would allow, but you also have to take into account a lot of other factors of when some of these other projects may have been built, and what size the properties are, so we'll try to pull some of that information together and get some information posted on the website. DR. SPANO: "What is the current approved number of housing units and commercial space square footage not yet built out?" The number of housing units, commercial square footage not yet built out. JOEL PAULSON: We don't have that data, but that's something we can try to pull together. DR. SPANO: "You mentioned that Saratoga has lost its appeal to reduce RHNA number, yet we don't see orange monster development story poles in Saratoga. Why are we letting developers dictate what is best for RHNA needs? Granny units, please." So the question: "Why are we letting developer dictate what is best for RHNA needs?" JOEL PAULSON: This process was done through the Town, so this is the Town's document. The Town took this through the public process and we had a lot of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 131 conversations, some of them very similar to the conversations we're having this evening, and ultimately the decision was made to use the North 40 Specific Plan site as one of the components to meeting and achieving our regional housing needs for this Housing Element cycle. DR. SPANO: "Any plans for solar panels on roofs, greywater systems built into the residential and commercial structures, rainwater capture systems?" Any plans for any of those with North 40? JOEL PAULSON: Again, that's going to be part of the Phase 1, so we will take a look at that information, but there is green infrastructure that encourages it, if not requires it. Speaking to what Director Morley spoke about before, C-3 requirements now require a lot more treatment onsite, so typically some of those components get added in, but we will specifically pull that information up. LAUREL PREVETTI: And the Specific Plan does have sustainability guidelines. There are specific guidelines in Section 3.3.8 that promote a lot of the sustainability issues that were raised in the question. DR. SPANO: "You mentioned single-family home has to follow FAR requirements, but multi -units do not, yet the developer application is waiting to sell each unit as a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 132 single unit. Why the discrepancy? Should the Town reduce the intensity of the application to comply with other single unit FAR requirements?" JOEL PAULSON: Appreciate the question. The difference is the distinction of attached units. They're still single-family units that are being proposed, they're just attaching three or more, which for the Town makes that a multi -family dwelling unit. For discussion purposes, you have one building that has three units in it, but they're all sold to three different property owners. That's a multi -family development, and based on current Town Code those do not have FAR requirements. DR. SPANO: "Did the Town impose requirements on the construction phase? I can't imagine huge construction and materials trucks flowing from the site to Los Gatos Boulevard for years." So did the Town impose requirements on the construction phase, staging and that kind of thing? MATT MORLEY: That's specific to the first phase project, and that will come forward through the improvement and the conditions with that project. DR. SPANO: Okay, very good, and obviously opportunity for public comment around that. We are down to our last question card, and this really is about sort of ethics and the Brown Act. "What are LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 133 the policies, ethics and standards regarding Staff and Council interaction with developers and/or vendors? How is this monitored to ensure residents are protected from undue influence on Staff and Council?" ROBERT SCHULTZ: We have specific policies that address this issue. For the Planning Commission policy, they're allowed no contact. They're allowed what we call incidental contact. For any project they go out to, if they're going on someone's property they're able to at least say hello and maybe get oriented to where the facts are. But our Planning Commission is not allowed to have any of what is called "ex parte communications" with developers, with citizens, with no one. It's a very, very strict rule. I've brought it back a couple times for Council and Planning Commission to discuss, and both the Planning Commission and the Council wanted to keep that rule intact. For the Council, it's different in that they are allowed that ex parte communication, and we specifically even say the reasoning is that they're elected officials, they need to hear from the public, they need to hear from you as to the issues that are coming forward, so they're allowed to have that ex communication with you and with the applicant. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 134 It does require though that before any hearing where property rights are involved that they do have to disclose those ex parte communications, so when it comes in front of Council, and even when it comes in front of Planning Commission, we have the ex parte communications and that's why they'll say they did a site visit and they might have had incidental contact. But with Council they have to state who they've met with and whether they gained any other information that's not in the public record, because it's very important from a due process and Brown Act standpoint that any information they receive outside the hearing is brought into the hearing, so not only they know that, but the rest of the Council knows that, so everybody has the same information to make a decision. DR. SPANO: Thank you. Okay, so no other questions. We'll move to the public comment period of our meeting here, and this is the beige card. If you want to speak, you'll have three minutes, and just fill out one of these cards and you can hand that to Christina. We'll queue up over here for public comment, and I'm just going to hold the microphone while you make your comments, and Shelly will be keeping time over here. We're going to be pretty strict on the three -minute limit so that everybody gets the same amount of time. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 135 AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible). DR. SPANO: Okay, so the follow up is Staff interaction and how that plays into the ethics and Brown Act, et cetera. Thank you. ROBERT SCHULTZ: Under the Brown Act Staff isn't even a part of that. It applies to elected officials or appointed officials, so we don't even have any requirement of the Brown Act. For myself, I have an open door. Any time any member of the public wants to come in and talk to me about the Specific Plan, I'd be happy to do that. We also have meetings with developers to make sure we understand their proposal and how it does or does not apply, what our feelings are. They always want to know whether we're going to be supporting this project or not supporting it, and we have to take them through our analysis, just as we would for any member of the public, so we don't include developers and not include the public, or include the public and not include the developers. You're open to speak with any of us at any time. DR. SPANO: Thank you. Okay, public comment, verbal communication. Chris Chapman, please come over here. Roy Moses. We'll queue three at a time. And Bruce McCombs, LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 136 please. We'll start with Chris, and then go to Roy, and to Bruce. CHRIS CHAPMAN: My name is Chris Chapman; I live at 201 Mistletoe Road in Los Gatos. My concern is that I'm astonished that this plan is going to have two or more school districts service the development. I find that now is the time to address a consolidation of schools. You're approving a development to where kids on one side of the development will go to one school, and kids on another street will go to another school. I look at the School District members here, I look at the Town Council, and I heard a comment from the Town Council that said, "We have nothing to do with boundaries." I, as a resident of Los Gatos, look to the Town Council, the Planning Commission and the School Districts to work together to allow for one school district to service these 320 house. I finding it kind of amazing that we're talking about a bicycle path going around this development for our kids to ride their bikes on, but oh well, Johnny's going to go to Cambrian and so-and-so is going to another district. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 137 I implore everybody here to work together with the State to make it a consolidation of one school district serving this development. Thank you. DR. SPANO: Thank you, Chris. We have Roy up next if Roy Moses is here, and then Bruce will be after Roy. ROY MOSES: Thank you very much, and I want to thank all the Council members and the Planning Commissioners for getting this meeting together. You've got a big job to do. This is our town. I don't know how many of you that work for the Town are actually citizens of Los Gatos, but I've lived here for 48 years. It definitely has changed. I don't like the change, but change is inevitable; I mean we all know that. I'm in a second career; my kids will probably have three careers. When you're young you try to make some plans, and you have a family and you plan for your finances and you look ahead. The kids got to go to school. They're going to get out of school and hopefully they're not going to be dependent upon their parents, they're going to be out living on their own, which ours are, and all these things. So planning forward and looking ahead is very, very important, and sometimes cities kind of just look right here, because they're got obligations to the State, and they have obligations to this person and this LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 138 particular development, whatever. You have to look beyond and look to the future. You know what this community is going to look like in 25 years? Just imagine. I'm going to be dead, and my kids have to live here, and a lot of other people don't want to live here. Low-income people really cannot live in this town. You all know that. The State is crazy. Send Jerry Brown a copy of this meeting tonight, this video. Let him listen to the citizens of this small town. I'm sure the big cities are talking about the same thing. We have to start getting to the State and say you're full of bullshit. This has been going on for years. You cannot continue this. I mean this Town cannot hold more people. What are you going to do? Stack them on top of one another? You talk about road rage? There's going to be a lot of things happening as a result of this. You have a tremendous responsibility. You inherited most of this. All you people that are sitting here, the Commissioners, you inherited this, but we have to start mitigating some of these things. So I ask you, passionately ask you, there are ways of mitigating the density, all the other things that are going to impact traffic and local services, all the things that we talked about here tonight. You've given us a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 139 lot of good answers in all the things; you've done a lot of homework and all these other things. It still doesn't stop the fact that we have a problem, and every other community is going to have a problem. I think I've got 30 seconds. DR. SPANO: Continue on. ROY MOSES: I've been here before. So I want to thank you all, but I'm just telling you, we're going to be here, the citizens are going to be here. It's unfortunate it's going to be in the summertime again. All these big issues come up in the summertime. There are 40o of the people that are not here tonight, because they're gone with their kids enjoying someplace else. But they're going to come back and find out about all these things. We're going to be here, we're going to be guiding you, so please listen to us. Thank you very much. DR. SPANO: Thank you. So Bruce is up next, and then after Bruce, it will be John Hechinger. Bruce. Very good, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. So, John. Is John here? No, don't see John. How about Ted Halunen? Is Ted here? Nope. Joan. Is Joan Langhoff here? No, she's not here either. That's all the comment cards. Come on over. ROD TEAGUE: I have a question. DR. SPANO: We won't be responding to the verbal comments, but please, ask the question. That's okay. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 140 ROD TEAGUE: My question is regarding the density zoning. I had a conversation with a senior planner at ABAG, Gillian Adams, and I guess what I'm worried about is that the RHNA deductions are really worth their weight in gold. Of course we want to be sure that we're getting every single one of them, and if we based our plan on receiving all 270 units do we have any assurance from Housing and Community Development that we're going to get credit for them? Because I see in the Housing Element it shows that we're knocking most of these RHNA deductions out by Very Low Income, Low Income and Moderate Income, and we know that most of those units are just market rate. Is there any chance that down the line when we submit to HCD for our credit that they look at this and they say, "We don't base it on density, we base it on income and qualifying"? Only 50 of these units actually qualify for Low Income, so is it sort of futile and pointless, or do we have a guarantee from HCD that we're going to get credit for all 270 units? It would be a crime, because I don't know if people really understand the implications of how much housing he have to add to our pool of housing here, and if they came back and said, "No, we're only giving you a 50- unit credit," I mean we have to add somewhere in the range LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 141 of 4,000-5,000 new homes if we count on the developer to sponsor Low -Income housing. Did you get that? Thank you. DR. SPANO: Thank you. Excellent. As we move toward our wrapping up the meeting, again, on the back of your agenda you have the loose timeline and schedule for the upcoming Planning Commission and Town Council meetings. I'm hearing July 12th is the Planning Commission, is that correct? So that's been confirmed. July 12th will be the next opportunity for you to provide public input around the North 40, but then obviously they'll be taking up the developer application and you'll be able to comment on that as well. Laurel, do you want to wrap us up for the rest of the meeting? LAUREL PREVETTI: I just wanted, again, to really say thank you to all of you for participating. Thank you to the Staff who answered all these questions. Thank you to our Town Council, Planning Commission and School Board members and superintendents who joined us. Thank you to the community. I know there are a lot of people who are probably watching on either television or on the Internet, or will be watching in the future. We are doing verbatim minutes, so all of this transcript will be recorded, and we will continue to add to the FAQ, as mentioned. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 142 So again, thank you all very, very much. We look forward to your ongoing participation in the Planning Commission and upcoming Town Council meetings, as noted, and then as well as with other issues happening in our Town, so thank you all very much and we'll see you soon. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016 North 40 Special Study Session 143 TOWN OF LOS GATOS OFFICE OF THE: TOWN ATTORNE:1• MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & Council From: Robert Schultz, Town Attorney 011.) Date: May 24, 2016 Subject: North 40 Subdivision Map Act and Permit Streamlining Act Deadlines SumniarN My office has received numerous inquiries regarding the deadline for the Planning Commission and Town Council to make a decision on the North 40 Vesting Tentative Map and Architecture & Site (A&S) Application submitted by Grosvenor USA Limited and Summer! fill Homes ("Developer'"). This memorandum addresses those deadlines. On March 18, 2016, the Developer submitted a revised application for a Vesting Tentative Map and A&S approval. On April 18. 2016, Town Staff notified the Applicant that their application for the Vesting Tentative Map was deemed complete but determined that the A&S application was not deemed complete "until the story poles have been completed". Based upon the Subdivision Map Act and Permitting Streamlining Act. once a Vesting Tentative Map and A&S application is deemed complete, the Town has 80 days to make a decision on the Vesting Tentative Map and 60 days on an A&S application. In order to accommodate the Study Session requested by Town Council, the Developer and the Town have entered into a Time Extension Agreement that requires the Planning Commission to make recommendations to the Town Council on the Vesting Tentative Map Application and A&S Application by August 31,. 2016 and requires the Town Council to approve or disapprove the Developer's A&S Application and Vesting Tentative Map Application by September 7, 2016. The Time Extension Agreement is attached hereto. Legal Analvsis The Subdivision Map Act sets forth certain statutory time periods for reporting and acting upon maps. depending on which advisory agency is charged with approving the map. Within the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66452.1 provides as follows: (a) If the advisory agency is not authorized by local ordinance to approve. conditionally approve or disapprove the tentative map, it shall make its written report on the tentative map to the legislative body within 50 days after the filing thereof with its clerk.. EXHIBIT 2 9 Page 1 of 3 (b) If the advisory agency is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map, it shall take that action within 50 days after the filing thereof with its clerk and report its action to the subdivider. (c) The local agency shall comply with the time periods referred to in Section 21 151.5 of the Public Resources Code. The time periods specified in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall commence after certification of the environmental impact report. adoption of a negative declaration, or a determination by the local agency that the project is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Pursuant to Town Code Sec. 24.10.020, the Planning Commission is the advisory agency for the Town under the Subdivision Map Act and is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove all maps except vesting tentative maps. Therefore subsection (a) above is applicable and the date for which the Planning Commission would have to make a recommendation to the Town Council without the Time Extension Agreement is June 7, 2016. The Time Extension Agreement allows the Planning Commission to make its recommendations to the Town Council by August 31, 2016. Within the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66452.2 provides as follows: (a) If there is an advisory agency which is not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the tentative map, at the next regular meeting of the legislative body following the fling of the advisory agency's report with it. the legislative body shall fix the meeting date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within 30 days thereafter and the legislative body shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map within that 30-day period. Based upon the Subdivision Map Act, the Town Council has until July 7, 2016 to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the vesting tentative map ( 50 days + 30 days = 80 days) without the Extension Agreement. Based upon the Town Council's request for a study session and since Town Council is on recess in July, a Time Extension Agreement was necessary and allows the Town Council to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the vesting tentative map by September 7, 2016. In addition to the time limits contained in the Subdivision Map Act, there are time limits contained in the Permit Streamlining Act that also must be adhered to. The Permit Streamlining Act was enacted in order to expedite the processing of permits for development projects. The Permit Streamlining Act achieves this goal by (1) setting forth various time limits within which state and local government agencies must either approve or disapprove permits and (2) providing that these time limits may be extended once by agreement between the parties. Page 2 of 3 Within the Permitting Streamlining Act, Government Code Section § 65943, provides as follows: (a) Any public agency that is the lead agency for a development project shall approve or disapprove the project within whichever of the following periods is applicable: (4) Sixty days from the determination by the lead agency that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) if the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The Town and Developer have disagreed on when the 60 day period began. The Developer asserts that the A&S Application was complete as of April 18, 2016, the same date that the Vested Tentative Map was deemed complete, and therefore the Town has until June 17, 2016 to approve or disapprove the A&S Application. The Town's position is that the Developer must complete and certify that it is in compliance with the Town's story pole requirements before the Town can deem the A&S application complete and for the sixty day period timeline to begin. Since the Developer did not certify its compliance with the Town's story pole requirements until May 4, 20I6, the Town position is that the Town has until July 3, 2016 to approve or disapprove the A&S Application. The Subdivision Map Act and the Permit Streamlining Act timelines allow the above deadlines to be extended once upon mutual written agreement of the project applicant and the public agency for a period not to exceed 90 days from the date of the extension. The Permit Streamlining Act specifically states that no other extension, continuance, or waiver of these time limits either by the project applicant or the lead agency shall be permitted. Conclusion In order to resolve our disagreements on the timeline and to accommodate the Study Session and July recess, the Town and Developer have entered into an agreement to extend the deadlines to a date certain. The agreement entered into between the Town and the Developer is attached hereto and provides that the Town has until September 7, 2016 to take final action on the Vesting Tentative Map and A&S Application. Attachment: Time Extension Agreement Page 3 of 3 TIME EXTENSION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT AND SUBDIVISION MAP ACT This Extension Agreement ("Agreement") is made this f7 day of May, 2016, by and between the Town of Los Gatos, a California Municipal Corporation ("Town") on the one hand, and Grosvenor USA Limited and SummerHill Homes on the other hand, in order to extend certain time limits imposed by State law that apply to the Town's consideration of applications for the North Forty Phase 1 Development Project, all as more particularly detailed in the following recitals. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos ("Town Council") certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the North 40 Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") on January 5, 2015, and subsequently approved the Specific Plan itself on June 17, 2015; and WHEREAS, Grosvenor USA Limited is the developer of approximately 20.7 acres of real property within the Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, SummerHill Homes is the development partner of Grosvenor USA Limited with respect to the proposed development; and WHEREAS, for the sake of simplicity, both Grosvenor USA Limited and SummerHill Homes will be together referred to as "Developer" in the remainder of this agreement; and WHEREAS, Developer is seeking, through a vesting tentative subdivision map and Architecture and Site ("A&S") approval, authorization to develop within the North 40 Specific Plan area 20.7 acres as a multi -story development consisting of 320 residential units, which includes the following: 50 affordable senior units; approximately 66,800 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial floor area, including a market hall; and on - site and off -site improvements (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Developer's vesting tentative map and A&S applications apply to Assessor's Parcels Numbers ("APNs") 424-07-024 through 424-07-027, 424-07-031 through 424-07-037, 424-07-070, 424-07-083 through 424-07-086, 424-07-090, and 424- 07-100; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2016 Developer submitted a revised application for a vesting tentative map and A&S approval; and WHEREAS, on. April 18, 2016, Town staff by e-mail notified Developer of the completeness of its vesting tentative map application but asserted that the A&S i 4622-2125-444%7 NON-8C109427065 application was "not technically deemed complete...until the story poles have been completed"; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2016, attorney Andrew L. Faber of Berliner and Cohen LLP, on behalf of Developer, asserted Developer's contention that the Town must also treat the A&S application as complete as of April 18, 2016, as the Town had no legal authority for requiring the completion of the story pole process before accepting the A&S application as complete; and WHEREAS, the Town disagrees with Mr. Faber's contention that the A&S application was complete as of April 18, 2016, as the Town asserts that the Developer must complete and certify that it is compliance with the Town's story pole requirements before the Town can deem the A&S application complete; and WHEREAS, because the Developer did not certify that it is compliance with the Town's story pole requirements until May 4, 2016, the Town asserts that is date the A&S application was deemed complete; and WHEREAS, Developer does not agree with Town's assertion as to the date the A&S application should be deemed complete; and WHEREAS, Mr. Faber's letter also invoked a provision of the Subdivision Map Act ("SMA"), Government Code section 66452.1, which provides in subdivision (a) that an advisory agency not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove a tentative map shall make its written report to the legislative body within 50 days after the filing thereof with its clerk; and WHEREAS, subdivision (c) of Government Code section 66452.1 further provides, in pertinent part, that this 50-day period for action "commence[s] after certification of the [EIR] ... or a determination by the local agency that the project is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code" [that is, the California Environmental Quality Act or "CEQA" ]); and WHEREAS, subdivision (a) of Government Code section 66452.2 further provides that, if the advisory agency is not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove a tentative map, at the next regular meeting of the legislative body following the filing of the advisory agency's report, the legislative body shall fix the meeting date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within 30 days thereafter, and the legislative body shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the tentative map within that 30-day period; and. WHEREAS, subdivision (b) of Town Code Section 24.10.020 states that the Planning Commission will report to the Town Council on its recommendations regarding vesting 2 4822-2125.444 Bv7 NON-BC109427065 tentative maps but does not have authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove vesting tentative maps, and as a consequence the Planning Commission does not have authority to approve or disapprove the A & S application, which must be approved or disapproved by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, within the Permit Streamlining Act ("PSA"), Government Code section 65952.1, subdivision (b), provides that development projects consisting of proposed subdivisions also subject to the SMA shall comply with the timelines set forth in Government Code sections 66452.1 and 66452.2; and WHEREAS, as part of the PSA, Government Code section 65950, subdivision (a)(4), provides that agencies must approve or disapprove a development project they determine to be exempt from CEQA within 60 days of such a determination; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study commissioned by the Town regarding the Project concluded that all impacts were adequately analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, and no further CEQA analysis is necessary; and WHEREAS, Mr. Faber's letter further contended that, because the 50-day period under the SMA began to run on April 18, 2016, the period during which the Town's Planning Commission could make its written report to the legislative body on Developer's vesting tentative map application would end on June 7, 2016; and WHEREAS, Mr. Faber's letter also further contended that, because the 60-day time period under the PSA (Government Code section 65950, subdivision (a)(4)), for projects exempt from further CEQA review, also began to run on April 18, 2016, the parallel time period during which the Planning Commission must make its recommendation on the A&S application would end on June 17, 2016; and WHEREAS, while the Town disagrees with all of Mr. Faber's date calculations set forth above, the Town sees considerable value in reaching agreement with Developer as to the dates by which the Planning Commission and Town Council must take action to approve or disapprove the two pending applications; and WHEREAS, the Town, in order to facilitate an agreement with Developer, is therefore willing to use the dates calculated by Mr. Faber as the starting points for considering time extensions under both the SMA and the PSA with the exception of the date on which Developer contends the A&S application was complete; and WHEREAS, Developer, in order to facilitate an agreement with the Town, is willing for the purpose of this Agreement to use the Town's date of May 4, 2016, as the date on which the A&S application was deemed complete; and 3 4822-212544494 NON-B M9427065 WHEREAS, using May 4, 2016 as the date that the A&S application was deemed complete, the 60-day PSA time period under Government Code section 65950, subdivision (a)(4), for projects exempt from further CEQA review, also began to run on May 4, 2016, meaning that the time period during which the Planning Commission must make its recommendation on the A&S application would end on July 3, 2016; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66451.1 of the SMA allows extensions of SMA timelines for acting on proposed maps by mutual consent of the applicant(s) and the local agency advisory body or legislative body; and WHEREAS, a vesting tentative map application is a development project and is also subject to the provisions of the PSA, including Government Code section 65950; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 65957 of the PSA allows one-time extension by mutual written agreement for a maximum of 90 days of the time limits set forth in, among other statutes, Government Code section 65950, including the 60-day time period to approve or disapprove a project after determining that a proposed project is exempt from CEQA; and WHEREAS, the parties now intend to agree to an 85-day extension, commencing on June 7, 2016, and ending on August 31, 2016, for the Planning Commission to recommend to the Town Council that it approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the vesting tentative map application, pursuant to Government Code section 66451.1 of the SMA; and WHEREAS, the parties now intend to agree to a 66-day extension, commencing on July 3, 2016, and ending on September 7, 2016, for the Town Council to approve or disapprove the A&S application and the vesting tentative map application pursuant to Government Code section 65957 of the PSA; and WHEREAS, the Developer and the Town are willing to agree to these extensions in order to facilitate the most thorough possible consideration of the two pending applications by the Planning Commission and Town Council. Except for the extensions of time herein, this Agreement is not intended to modify in any other way the respective rights and obligations of Developer or the Town under the SMA or the PSA with respect to the two pending applications. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town of Los Gatos, Grosvenor USA Limited, and SurnrnerHill Homes, through their respective authorized representatives, agree on the following: All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are to be treated as part of this Extension Agreement. 4 4822-2125-4449v7 r+ON8C109427465 the ?laming Commission to make remnrnertdatiorm to tie. Tom Mukha to appover. ounditimolly approve, or disapprove Developei ,v amp application ja hereby extanded to and including Aug.tit 31 MI6 fi rum to t Cade section 66451.1; and 3. 'id dr a, r to Town Council to approve or d1■tp rove Developer A&S c isli `a s cnvesting tentative map application is hereby extendr41 to ndi iaeltak S�a *nb 7,10I6 pursuant to 00veumnent Cod seetilm 65957. 4. Mk Age may b: shod In countarparts. Each =cored duplicate hcreaf shall be =Isis SE 112 crigInal. Fib or on electronically in Pi2F firm mod copies ofsiguatIm &hall t» the Sae and effect se ;MOW sins. Dated: May ,, 2016 Imo: May 2016 Date& May__, 2016 C0LS B LEi II-ov '1140No ivisitle8c7 Perntt a 7/ Steve C7 Connell OPVCtvem7 - mon ging ©irectot. Investmei APPROVED AS TO FORM Odor Amite* Fes, Esq. Attorney for Onannmor USA Limited and Homes c; e,.0ce#l. a. Jt From- Anne Marie de Cesare adecesarei,.iinic Corr Subject: Objections and Alternatives to North 40 Development Plan Date: March 30, 2015 at 12:02 PM To: mmoseley@ lcsgatosca,gov Cc: council@losgatosca.gov, Josh de Cesare decesare@mac.com Dear Ms. Moseley, My family and I are in favor of limited development and historic preservation of a large part of the currently undeveloped Los Gatos North 40 orchard and historic buildings and we suggest at least half the orchard and all historic buildings are set aside as a public open space and child friendly museum. As I understand it, the original plan approved by the Los Gatos Town Council called for 270 housing units on 44 acres and after plan approval the project was redesigned to compress 320 housing units onto 22 acres and added in low rise low income housing and 435,000 square feet of commercial space. And that the Los Gatos Town Council communicated the development guiding principles: look and feel like Los Gatos, embrace hillside views, trees and open space, address town's unmet residential and commercial needs, mitigate impact on town infrastructure, schools and community services, but these guiding principles were ignored in the development plan altered after approval. The look and feel of 35 foot ow rise apartment complexes, the 435,000 square foot mall, and 320 high density homes do not conform to any of the Los Gatos Town development guiding principles and put a strain on the Los Gatos Union and Los Gatos Saratoga Joint High School Districts, Please do not approve the North 40 development project as it exists, but rather change it to something that would preserve the historic orchard and a implement smaller scale development that would support rather than strain the Town infrastructure, schools and community services. Specifically, my family and I are opposed to the current Los Gatos North 40 development plan for the following reasons: 1) Traffic is already very congested after 3:00 p m. on 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard. 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard would be as congested as 880 South is at rush hour every day with the addition of 320 additional high density housing units and 435,000 square feet of commercial space between Route 85 and Lark Avenue. For a shopping center that size to even be commercially viable it would have to pull in customers from all over the 85 corridor adding to existing traffic congestion. 2) A 435,000 square foot shopping mat does not conform in any way to the Los Gatos Town development guiding principles 3) There are already empty store fronts on Los Gatos Boulevard which would be more likely to stay empty with a 435,000 square foot mall down the street. Los Gatos should consider inviting investors to rejuvinate store fronts on Los Gatos Boulevard before considering building a new mall one third the size of Valley Fair Mall as a source of competition for local businesses, 4) The 320 additional housing units would increase the Fisher Middle and Los Gatos High School Classroom sizes. The classroom sizes are already pretty large Increasing classroom sizes would alter the middle and high school experience for all Los Gatos families and possibly lower the quality of education within the districts. 5) Before considering any development plan, Los Gatos should consider the historic relevance of one of the few remaining orchards in the Santa Clara Valley Los Gatos has a conscientious dedication to historic preservation and it would be tragic to pave over one of the last remaining orchards. And finally, here are some questions the Town should consider before moving forward with any project approval. Has the Town Council considered if the tax dollars collected from new development would adequately offset the additional draw on Town resources? Would rental property owners contribute a share of tax dollars proportional to those home owners to compensate for more students in the middle and high schools? Would the existing elementary schools even be able to accommodate such a large increase in enrollment? Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Anne Marie, Josh, Sarah and Josh II The de Cesare Family 236 Los Gatos Boulevard EXHIBIT 3 0 Possible adjustments to the North 40 application Council members, 3/24/2016 My name is Eric Wade. I am a third generation Los Gatos general contractor. My grandfather Jack Wade senior purchased property on Bonnie lane in 1947. My father, Jack Wade junior started his construction career by helping his father build their home in 1948. My Father attended Los Gatos middle school which was then located where Old Town is currently. One of his classmates' was a Yuki and he would on occasion during harvest help on the Yuki family orchard. My wife and I are currently raising our two children here in Monte Sereno and they are attending paves Avenue Elementary. I am the head chair on the Monte Sereno Site & Architecture commission. Both my wife and I are very involved in our community. I have had a chance to review the proposed development for the North 40 and would be very appreciative if you would spend a few moments reviewing my fallowing concerns, thoughts and possible adjustments to the application for development. • Reduce the height and mass of all structures. Consider a maximum of 2 stories for all residential structures. • Break condominium blocks into smaller number of units. • Reduce total number of housing units by 1/3 or a total of approx. 240 units • Divide the total number of housing (240 units) between the north and south districts or divide total number of housing units evenly between the Los Gatos & Campbell school districts. • Provide larger open space or garden areas in each district. • Increase the setback along Lark Ave. to 50' and plant a "Heritage Orchard" in this area. • Have the property taxes fund 1 additional police officer for the Town and the HOA fees cover the maintenance of the orchard. These are just a few of my ideas and hope you would take them into consideration. Thank You, Eric Wade coed- cL+ -3 /30/i c, c Roberta Goncalves Concerns about North 40 March 30, 2016 at 2:19 PM Chris Balough Dear Ms. Moseley, We live in Blossom Manor and are absolutely opposed to this development. We have both lived in Chicago and enjoy a big city for what it is. We also enjoy Los Gatos for what it is, and it should never try to look and feel Like a big city. One main reason we moved here is how beautiful and quaint this town is, the excellent schools it offers, and the look and feeling of small town living, while close enough to San Jose and San Francisco and all they have to offer, but without the challenges those cities face. The last thing we need in our town is another "Santana Row." We already have one. It is in. San Jose. Los Gatos doesn't need to try to become San Jose. We can drive 7 minutes and be at Santana Row. Our town already cannot handle all the Santa Cruz traffic with the current infrastructure, and population. Adding 320 residential units, and families to the town, will only make it worse, significantly worse. It will also make traffic around town, and our schools, worse than it already is. This addition would require more roads, more schools at all levels, not just Elementary, but Middle and High School as well. There are no such provisions being proposed. The quality of life we all have chosen this town for, the great schools, decent amount of traffic, the character and feel of the town, are at stake if this projects gets approved. We don't need another Santana Row. We don't need to become another "stop by the highway." We don't need more traffic. We don't need to overcrowd our already full schools. We don't need to add to the burden of emergency services serving our small communitty, from firefighters, to police, by adding a significant amount of commercial and residential areas to our town. Lastly, we urge the Town's Council to listen to residents, and not the developers focusing on profits. We need to support our existing businesses, many of which are Mom and Pop type places, family owned. These are choices that will impact generations in Los Gatos, and ought to be done taking resident's views and preserving the essence of this town: a town that was, and will continue to be charming, small, has manageable traffic, and offers great schools to its residents. Please vote NO for adding 270-320 housing units and 435,000 sf of new commercial space. We are not opposed to some form of development on that land, but it truly needs to reflect what this town is all about, and look and feel like it. This North 40 proposal does a terrible disservice to the Town and its residents. Sincerely, Roberta Goncalves and Chris Balough 16100 Jasmine Way Los Gatos CA 95032 *phone numbers for your use only, not to be publicly disclosed: *Roberta mobile: 650-215-3301 *Chris's mobile: 408-644-7249 Marni Moseley From: Johanes Swenberg <johanes_swenberg@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 6:11 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North forty Dear ms Moseley, I am writing concerning the north 40 project. My concerns with the project are with the inadequate attention to the added congestion the large project will place on traffic in an already busy area. Adding hundreds of new residences and commercial businesses will place additional unique strains for a critical traffic juncture into and out of the town. This area has also been growing with the expansion of the medical facilities and additional growth will make the area an urban gridlock. Johanes Swenberg 128 Mary way Los Gatos 1 69 Ellenwood Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 March 30, 2016 Subject: North 40 Phase 1---Item 2 on 3/30/2016 Planning Commission Agenda Dear Commissioners, We have studied the plans for development of the "North 40" and are opposed to approval of those plans for the following general reasons and many more specific ones: 1. Housing is too dense with entrances and garages too close to the street. Tandem garages are likely to cause traffic problems or use of half the garage for storage and parking of a second car elsewhere. Three story buildings are too high for a residential area and do not "look and feel like Los Gatos." 2. Parking is insufficient and poorly located. Some units have only one garage. That would often mean parking an extra car elsewhere. Senior housing allots onlyY2 space per unit when most people in the facility would have a car. 3. Open space is insufficient. The emphasis on dogs is incompatible with the closely packed design of the housing units. There is play space for dogs but not children. 4. We need affordable housing for residents like teachers and hospital/medical clinic staff. The proposed "affordable senior" housing facility does not provide the level of services/amenities needed by older/handicapped seniors. It appears that the senior option was chosen largely because it requires less parking. A percentage of regular units should be "affordable" for moderate income residents. 5. Density is too great for the traffic situation in that area of Los Gatos. Traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard is heavy already. An additional 500 or more cars adds to congestion and impedes access to Good Samaritan Hospital and other medical facilities in that area. Highway 85 is already overcrowded for long periods at the morning and evening commute hours. There are often long waits at the metering lights. The general concept of combining living space and neighborhood commercial is a good one. However, the execution of the concept in this case is too dense for Los Gatos. Please do not approve this plan. The number of units needs to be reduced. More parking and open space are needed. Affordable housing should be for everyone not just seniors. Sincerely, Peter Siemens Diane Siemens From: Jim Hori [ihori cE svb.comj Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:19 AM To: BSpector Cc: karihori@mac.coni Subject: North 40 Dear Mayor Spector, We are writing to you with hopes that the Town Council will not approve the currently proposed North 40 project. The future of Los Gatos and the direction that the Town will be taking hinges on this decision. You and the Town Council are at a crossroad for Los Gatos, and your decision on this project will impact Los Gatos for generations to come. Please consider the following: • Our town is already suffering for traffic congestion in a number of areas. Further congestion caused by this project (an estimated 20,000 visits per day) will impact citizens and businesses alike in an adverse way. Consumers driving Highway 17 to get to downtown Los Gatos will either tire of the traffic and go elsewhere or divert off Highway 17 and take surface streets. Our streets are already impacted by recent residential developments and beach traffic. Return visits to Los Gatos from out of town consumers will start to dwindle and downtown merchants will suffer. Residents of Los Gatos will Find it increasingly long to take short trips and this will have a negative impact on the overall feeling of the Town. • Our schools are already at maximum capacity. There is no clear strategy in how to handle the overcrowding in schools. The thought of more portables or more bond measures do not add up to a strategy, these are band -aids that are short term in nature. Until we know how to create class sizes that are optimal, any further developments should be tabled. We are long-time residents of Los Gatos and hope that our children will be the next generation of Los Gatos. You must maintain the quality of life that the Town has worked hard to establish. A development with the scope and nature of the North 40 does nothing to maintain the Los Gatos quality of life or culture. We urge you to vote no on this project. Sincerely, Jim and Kari Hari 16358 Roble Lane Los Gatos 95032 If you recently applied for credit or we are requesting additional information to process your credit request: Important disclosures for Equal Credit Opportunity Act and USA PATRIOT Act, please click here. Marni Moseley From: Robin Matlock <rmatlock@vmware.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:50 AM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Eric Koch Subject: North 40 - Make LG Better, Not More Congested Hello Ms. Moseley, Like many of my Los Gatos friends and family, I have grave concerns over the current application for utilization of the North 40. Traffic and parking aside...those are nuisance factors that are irritating, but can be tolerated. But compromising the quality of our education to our local children simply crosses the line. I have seen no data that would suggest our local schools can absorb the vast number of new houses proposed in this project. We are overflowing as it is. The plan, of course, puts ail the homes on the Los Gatos side of the North 40 to benefit from our fabulous schools. Of course the homes will generate more profit to the developers on that side of the border. But the rest of us are left with a flood of new families into an already bursting school system which continues to struggle to fund the every growing requirements of educating our growing community. Don't compromise our schools. Don't jam 320 more families into our school district. Don't prioritize profit for one project, over the quality of life of the current residents. DO the right thing, and reject this application. With a perspective, Robin Matlock Robin L. Matlock Chief Marketing Officer rmatiock(avmware.com 3401 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 650 427 1667 Office 408.713.4438 Mobile Marni Moseley From: Rich Sundquist <rich@rbsundquist.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:52 AM To: Marni Moseley; dsparrer©community-newspapers.com; letters@mercurynews.com Cc: amydespars@hotmail.com Subject: The TOWN is disappearing The TOWN is disappearing. The expansive growth of the past few years has forever changed our small community. Now we should refer to us as the City of Los Gatos. We refer to Los Gatos as The Town' and are proud of its' small nature. The planning commision, the town council all say we want to remain a small community. As projects are proposed, the various groups initially may counter a project with it is too tall' or "does not feel like Los Gatos' or `will create too much traffic'. However, in the end, the lure of additional tax dollars wins and we, the residents lose. Today our schools are full, our streets become grid locked daily. What happens when the North 40 is fully developed ? What happens when the Good Samariton medical building expansion is developed ? That may be in San Jose, but the impact will be on Los Gatos. Why do all new structures have more levels than the ones they replace, including the proposed downtown multi -level parking garage ? At what point does the expansion stop ? Or does it ? Do we continue down the path of packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces ? Or do we just call it progress ? The Mighty Dollar always seems to win in the end, and thus the end of the TOWN of Los Gatos. Sincerely, Rich & Barb Sundquist Los Gatos i On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Quyen Murphy <gtran5(dosn.com> wrote: This is a note to voice my concern for the upcoming North 40 project. I grew up in Campbell and moved to Austin, TX and fought to get my husband to get a job in order to move back to the Bay Area where we decided on Los Gatos. We chose this area because of the small town feel and where everyone knows everyone. We even increased what we were comfortable paying for a home to be able to get into Los Gatos for our children's future. We wanted to give them the opportunity to live in a safe and upscale community. I feel this project will open up our neighborhoods and our schools to utter chaos. My husband had an offer to move back to Austin, TX and I fought for us to stay because of the things I mentioned above, It would be so disappointing to experience such changes to the amazing community that I have enjoyed telling my friends and family about. I would hate to see projects such as this drive our community to change and encourage people that have been so fond of this area to leave. Marc & Quyen Murphy Marni Moseley From: Anne Marie de Cesare <adecesare@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:02 PM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Council; Josh de Cesare Subject: Objections and Alternatives to North 40 Development Plan Dear Ms. Moseley, My family and 1 are in favor of limited development and historic preservation of a large part of the currently undeveloped Los Gatos North 40 orchard and historic buildings and we suggest at least half the orchard and all historic buildings are set aside as a public open space and child friendly museum. As I understand it, the original plan approved by the Los Gatos Town Council called for 270 housing units on 44 acres and after plan approval the project was redesigned to compress 320 housing units onto 22 acres and added in low rise low income housing and 435,000 square feet of commercial space. And that the Los Gatos Town Council communicated the development guiding principles: look and feel like Los Gatos, embrace hillside views, trees and open space, address town's unmet residential and commercial needs, mitigate impact on town infrastructure, schools and community services, but these guiding principles were ignored in the development plan altered after approval. The look and feel of 35 foot low rise apartment complexes, the 435,000 square foot mall, and 320 high density homes do not conform to any of the Los Gatos Town development guiding principles and put a strain on the Los Gatos Union and Los Gatos Saratoga Joint High School Districts. Please do not approve the North 40 development project as it exists, but rather change it to something that would preserve the historic orchard and a implement smaller scale development that would support rather than strain the Town infrastructure, schools and community services. Specifically, my family and I are opposed to the current Los Gatos North 40 development plan for the following reasons: 1) Traffic is already very congested after 3:00 p.m. on 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard. 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard would be as congested as 880 South is at rush hour every day with the addition of 320 additional high density housing units and 435,000 square feet of commercial space between Route 85 and Lark Avenue. For a shopping center that size to even be commercially viable it would have to pull in customers from all over the 85 corridor adding to existing traffic congestion. 2) A 435,000 square foot shopping mall does not conform in any way to the Los Gatos Town development guiding principles. 3) There are already empty store fronts on Los Gatos Boulevard which would be more likely to stay empty with a 435,000 square foot mall down the street. Los Gatos should consider inviting investors to rejuvinate store fronts on Los Gatos Boulevard before considering building a new mall one third the size of Valley Fair Mall as a source of competition for local businesses. 4) The 320 additional housing units would increase the Fisher Middle and Los Gatos High School Classroom sizes. The classroom sizes are already pretty large. Increasing classroom sizes would alter the middle and high school experience for all Los Gatos families and possibly lower the quality of education within the districts. i 5) Before considering any development plan, Los Gatos should consider the historic relevance of one of the few remaining orchards in the Santa Clara Valley. Los Gatos has a conscientious dedication to historic preservation and it would be tragic to pave over one of the last remaining orchards. And finally, here are some questions the Town should consider before moving forward with any project approval. Has the Town Council considered if the tax dollars collected from new development would adequately offset the additional draw on Town resources? Would rental property owners contribute a share of tax dollars proportional to those home owners to compensate for more students in the middle and high schools? Would the existing elementary schools even be able to accommodate such a Large increase in enrollment? Thank you for your kind attention. Sincerely, Anne Marie, Josh, Sarah and Josh 11 The de Cesare Family 236 Los Gatos Boulevard 2 Marni Moseley From: Teresa Pacht <tpacht@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:13 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: The current north 40 development plan Marni, Hello. I am writing to ask you to recommend denial of the current North 40 plan. I'm a long time resident of Los Gatos and have owned a home here in the downtown area for over 20 years. The proposed development of the open acres at the north end of our town is too big and looks nothing like us. Please reject this plan and urge them to propose something on a smaller scale that maintains the charm and character of Los Gatos. With regard to the towns 4 guiding principles: 1. Their current plan definitely does not have the look and feel of Los Gatos. It looks more like Santana Row or the Pruneyard then it does Los Gatos. This will most certainly, and drastically change the feel and perception of this great old town to be more cookie cutter, leaving us looking more like a mall than a town. 2. Instead of embracing trees and open space it intends to replace a cherished old orchard with too many buildings and too much pavement. Instead of embracing the hillside views, its tall and expansive buildings will block out those beautiful views that we enjoy today and replace them with the stark cold look of a huge housing development. 3. If we were in need of overcrowding, more noise and light pollution or looking like every other apartment/housing complex being built all over the place then this project might be addressing the town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs. But, as we are not, it does not. 4. Adding this many streets, sidewalks, buildings, people and their cars in such a condensed manor will likely stress, strain and eventually overwhelm our current infrastructure. It needs to scale back. We're already experiencing more traffic congestion, more delays, and more gridlock from all the recent development in town. Does anyone remember last summers' beach traffic? This project will only serve to make our future summer traffic worse. Their current development plan pushes beyond what makes sense for that piece of Los Gatos land into how to make the most bucks off it. That is not what Los Gatos wants, needs or should be about. Sincerely, Teresa Pacht 1 Marni Moseley From: Daphne Bayne <daphnebayne@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:21 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 story poles Hello 1 imagine you are inundated with messages but we wish to record our concern on he subject of North 40 development. A lot of time went into approving the specific plan and although the orchard was lovely it is obviously prime for some sort of development. Our impression from the specific plan was that although some building would be seen from Lark Ave the bulkiest buildings would be in the middle and toward the North of the development in sync with the surrounding areas so as not to destroy the atmosphere of adjacent neighborhoods. These story poles do not appear to represent this idea. We are concerned that the developer is pushing for designs that were not as envisaged and hope that the council will be strong in sending this design back to the drawing board for considerable modification to comply with the guiding principles of the North 40 Specific Plan. Los Gatos councils have been strong in the past to create the beautiful surroundings in which we live and we hope the present members will appreciate that although development will happen it should be within the limits requested and expected by the citizens. Regards Daphne and Chris Bayne 16548 Oleander Ave Los Gatos, CA 95032 *Daphne Bayne daphnebayne@comcast.net 1 Marni Moseley From: Matt Price <matt@pricegroup.arg> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:21 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Project Ms. Moseley, Reviewing the proposal for the development of the North 40 project, I cannot help but be incredibly disappointed of prospects of this being approved. My wife and I have worked hard for years to be able to purchase our home in Los Gatos and did so after looking long and hard at bay area towns, schools and communities. After all of this searching we chose Los Gatos for those very reasons, great schools, a great community and a wonderful town. The only drawback we saw in making this move is the already dreadful traffic getting into and out of Los Gatos on 17 and the major surface streets (especially when the weather is nice on the weekends). What we've seen from the current proposal will most certainly negatively add to the traffic situation and negatively impact the community and the schools as well. While development in general is a good thing (My father is a developer, and I'm largely a supporter of development projects), this high density project just does not fit with the Los Gatos that we all love. Hopefully, there is enough feedback coming from the community to enable us as a community to take a step back and find a path forward that balances the needs of the community with the need for growth and expansion. Thank you for your consideration, Matt Price Los Gatos Resident i Marni Moseley From: eleni@malkos.net Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:29 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: NO on North 40 Hi, I'm a Los Gatos resident and a mother. I'm very opposed to the North 40 project. Our schools are greatly impacted and traffic is already an issue on Los Gatos streets. I'm also an educator for a local district and see the effects on students in schools that are impacted such a disservice to our children! Please leave the town the way it is!!! Thank you, Eleni Sent from my iPhone 1 Marni Moseley From: Bruce McCombs <bruce@pacificbedrooms.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 201E 1:30 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: A Note From Los Gatos Resident Bruce McCombs... Dear Marni, My name is Bruce McCombs and my wife and I are life-long residents of Los Gatos. I'm writing to you today regarding the proposed application for what I believe is being referred to as the "North 40 Project". Of course, I'm quite sure that you're as busy as can be with the proposed project and all that is involved, and with that in mind, I'll be as brief as possible. While my wife and 1 understand the need for developing this site in some form or fashion, we don't believe that the project that is being considered is in any way consistent with the look and feel of our Town, nor do we feel that the Town's current infrastructure can adequately support the substantial increase in vehicle traffic that such a development will add to our already congested streets and highways. Story Poles: l assume that you've visited the site, and now that the story poles have been erected, and have been able to get a sense for the magnitude of this project, it's clear to my wife and me, (as well as the many residents of our neighborhood with whom we've spoken), that this project is not at all consistent with the Town's commitment to our community, nor is it consistent with the look and feel of our Town. Just so that I can be sure that we're on the same page, and in order to get a true sense of the magnitude of this proposed project, if you've not done so already, I encourage you to drive southbound on Highway 17 from Camden Avenue, towards Los Gatos. We've found that this is the best way to view the incredible mass of this project, were our Town's leaders to allow this project to go forward as proposed. If approved and built, the proposed project will look like a small City, and with the backdrop of the Los Gatos foothills in the background, it's clear that this vision is, simply put, not at all appropriate for our Town. In short, this project belongs in a large, well -planned City, and is simply not appropriate for a relatively small Town like Los Gatos. Downtown Businesses: In addition to a substantial increase in vehicle trafic, and the impact that this will have on our residents, how much business will be taken away from our existing downtown merchants, including restaurants and shops? Traffic: The information that I've received during the past few weeks includes supporting data regarding the increase in vehicle traffic, and the number provided is truly incredible. According to the information I've reviewed, if this project were to be approved by the Town, once completed, the increase in local traffic is projected to be an astonishing 20,000 vehicle trips per day. Once again, if the information is accurate, there could be an increase of up to 20,000 vehicle trips per dav, which would be added to the existing number of vehicles that currently fill the streets near the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. How many thousands of additional cars will be traveling on our already crowded streets? How many cars will be driving through our normally peaceful neighborhoods, as they try to find a "shorcut" to get around the continuously grid -locked traffic jams? What effect will this increase in traffic have on southbound Highway 17, where traffic headed to Santa Cruz begins to back up by 2:00 pm on the weekdays, and before 10:00 am on the weekends? For those of us coming home from work and exiting at Lark Avenue, considering how congested the area is now, I can't imagine how the off -ramp and Lark Avenue will be able to handle the increased traffic. Unless my family is willing to leave home at 9:00 am, a trip to the beach on the weekend is completely out of the question, and the line of cars on Los Gatos Boulevard, many of which are trying to find a shortcut around the southbound traffic is truly maddening. Left -Hand Turn Lane from Los Gatos Boulevard Onto Lark Avenue: If you've ever tried to turn left from Los Gatos Boulevard onto Lark Avenue on a weekday between the hours of 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. The traffic in this area is already at maximum capacity, and I cannot imagine what it would be like if this project as proposed, were to somehow be approved. While I realize that we've developed most if not all of the land that we have left in Los Gatos, and taking into account that the Town is required to provide a certain number of additional homes, (both low-income and otherwise), I'm thoroughly convinced that there's a better way, and I believe that it's up to us as residents of our Town, in cooperation with the leaders of our Town, to develop something that works for everyone. Not just the developers and real estate agents who are no doubt hoping to cash in on what to them, is simply an incredible business opportunity, leaving the residents of our Town to deal with what the developer will most certainly leave behind: The once small Town of Los Gatos, a Town with incredible charm, character, and history, that has been rebuilt into a small "City", with too many residents, too many businesses, and far too much traffic. At that point, having realized our "mistake", there will be no way for us to recover. We'll be like any other small California "City", and I for one, cannot stand quietly by and allow this to happen, as I hope you understand. The neighbors I've spoken with appear to feel exactly the same way, and I truly hope that you'll recognize the passion, intensity, and commitment that I expect will be on display at this evening's meeting of the Planning Conunision. Speaking with the folks in our neighborhood, I can say that as a group, we're not at all angry about the land being properly developed, and we're certainly not opposed to our Town's changing with the times, when necessary and appropriate. Of course, we feel very blessed to be able to call Los Gatos home, and with that in mind, we're simply asking that our Town's officials please give this project the full and complete consideration that it deserves, regardless of the time required to accomplish this. Once that's been done, we ask that the Town require that the developer scale the project down to a size and scope that will accomplish the Town's objectives, and at the same time, minimize the impact that this project will have on the Town's residents and merchants. After a brief review of the available information, I believe that even a casual observer would agree that while this project might perhaps belong in a larg and growing City, but only if the infrastructure, (including sufficient and appropriately -located land, along with enough schools, as well as highways and streets), could adequately support such a project. Our Town's infrastructure simply cannot support a project of this magnitude, and if 2 it were to somehow be approved by the Town, the clearly negative effects on our daily lives would be permanent, and most certainly irreversible. That's not the legacy that I want to leave behind for future generations. First and foremost, we want what we believe is best for our Town, and we respectfully encourage our Town's leaders to take the same position. Once that's accomplished, leaving what's "best for business" can follow. 2 Videos & Additional Information: For your reference, I've included 2 very short videos at the end of this e-mail, along with a couple of pages of information that you might find interesting and hopefully, useful. In conclusion, please let me say that having lived in Los Gatos all of our lives, my wife and I worked over the years on a number of projects with the Town's Planning and Building Departments, as well as the Engineering Department, and have always felt that everyone involved in the managing of our Town, (including the Town Council, and Planning Commission), continue to be comitted first and foremost, in seeing to it that Los Gatos remains a model for other small Towns on how best to manage our resources and carefully and thoughtfully allow for development when necessary and appropriate. Our Town continues to be unique, well managed, and filled with interesting places to go and things to do. I've never visited a Town that I would prefer to live in, and we're simply asking our Town's leaders to please continue to protect this place that we call "home". Well, I think that's about all for now, Marni. Thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter, and I look forward to meeting you at this evening's meeting of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Ezace //LceCNtt ct Contact Into: Bruce & Jackie McCombs 16160 Kennedy Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 Cell: (408) 209-7045 Home: (408) 356-7045 VIDEOS: STORY POLE VIDEO: Running time: Less than 4 minutes: https://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=43sFSoeo_Ik&ebc—ANyPxKpt6X1u6JBi21 WeWXkRsWCpLcjfvlYtrz8pik P8-wNk5Al2p26iNIKc1kBYrUQ08EohLo _IN Zf-O5 I rD2htKuh-F5P3XQ TRAFFIC ANALYSIS VIDEO: Running time: 2 minutes & 20 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s125 V [j49zM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: BELOW: OVERHEAD VIEW OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 OF PROPOSED PROJECT: 3 Phase 1 20 Acres BELOW: VIEW FROM LARK AVENUE: STORY POLES DEPICTING PHASE 1 OF PROPOSED PROJECT: 4 BELOW: COMMITMENT TO "GUIDING PRINCIPLES" DRAFTED BY THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT: IN REVIEWING THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE TOWN MAY STILL HAVE A BIT OF WORK TO DO IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH THE "GUIDING PRINCIPLES" THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE TOWN'S LIST OF STATED OBJECTIVES REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AS SHOWN BELOW. 5 Guiding Principles to achieve vis The North 40 will look and feel like Los G. The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees, and open space. The North 40 will address the Towns resi i and/or commercial unmet needs The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, a 1 1 • 1 ' ! 11 11 1 • Marni Moseley From: Damon Kvamme <dkvamme@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:01 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 development Hello, I'm writing to express an opinion regarding the North 40 development since I will not be able to attend the planning commission meeting this evening. I have several concerns: 1. Schools. I do not believe that the current thinking on school impact is accurate. I've heard arguments that the potential tenants will not be adding significantly to the school population. This is wishful thinking. Our schools are already packed beyond capacity. Even without this development we have a situation at Van Meter elementary where the 5th grade might need to be moved off campus. Hundreds of more kids will only exacerbate the problem. If this is to go forward a new school should be built upon the North 40 site. The developers simply cannot be allowed to profit from this property and then leave the consequences to the community. 2. Traffic: Los Gatos Blvd is already a very crowded road at many times during the day. Hundreds of more units at this site is a prescription for gridlock. One of the guidelines for the developers is that the North 40 will retain the "look and feel" of Los Gatos. When we're sitting in bumper to bumper traffic from Hwy 85 to Lark (and beyond) we'll know that this requirement was violated. Let's not turn the streets of LG into those of Beijing. 3. Open Space: Where does it end? Are we to develop every piece of flat property? Can't we be more creative than adding more housing and commercial space. The coffers of the city might grow but the quality of life for those who live along the LG Blvd corridor diminishes. We are called the "Town" of Los Gatos and that implies something about our size and thoughtfulness of our development. At a minimum, the number of units should be reduced, the maximum height lowered, and the green space should be greatly increased. Let's take a long view and think about the town we want to be. These open spaces are precious and rare and should be handled accordingly. Thank you, Damon Kvamme 1 From: Lyles, Karen [klyles95Caaol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:11 PM To: BSpector Subject: North 40 Project March 30, 2016 Mayor Barbara Spec Honorable Mayor: I am a native Lifetime Los Gatos Citizen, born and raised here. I went through the Los Gatos Schools from Kindergarten through High School High. I live in the same block I was born in. I am married and raised five children here that also went through the Los Gatos Schools from Kindergarten through High School and on to College. I have 17 grandchildren several that have also gone through the school system here and one is now teaching at Los Gatos High School. We are so concerned for our youth and their future. They are our tomorrow. I do not think that what is happening to our town is in the best interest of our youth, their education, and that their well being is being taken into consideration. We are so disappointed that the town is even considering this project. The overwhelming increase in traffic congestion would be unbearable. This will only add to the problem that we already have. We have to go through back streets sometimes just to get to our home. Our schools are over -burdened now and are bursting at the seams with students. I can't believe that the town would allow an increase in more students with no new schools. This certainly is not thinking about the quality of the education of the students that we have now. The approval of this project would certainly and clearly reduce the quality of life that our Town residents most certainly deserve and we have enjoyed for generations. A project that would benefit our local residents and our children such as a Sports Complex or new School would certainly be something that is a need to better our future citizens. Sincerely yours, Glenn and Karen Lyles 16700 Shannon Road Los Gatos, CA Marni Moseley From: Barry & Elina Wong <bnewong@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:03 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 from Blossom Manor Resident Input Hello, We've been long term residents of the Blossom Manor neighborhood. Our kids have gone to Los Gatos schools. We've seen the huge increases in student enrollments, especially at Fisher and Los Gatos High in recent years. Those schools are bursting at the seams! We can't accommodate any more additional kids without losing the quality of the education. As the quality of the education is what draws people to Los Gatos schools, this continued uncontrolled enrollment is not sustainable. It will certainly detract from the main draw as well as impact housing value. Certainly important considerations to all of Los Gatos home owners. Please stop these new housing developments that also increase student enrollments! Furthermore, the new proposed development at North 40 will have a dramatic impact on already overcrowded middle and high schools. As you're well aware, there is only ONE middle school in town, and only ONE high school in town. I saw commentary on the North 40 website which mentions a potential addition of an elementary school to "mitigate" overcrowding. However, these huge numbers of new residential units will undoubtedly bring a large number of new students who will not only be elementary school students but middle and high school students as well. Whoever made those responses to provide an elementary school is woefully shortsighted with regard to middle and high school impact. Will the developer also pay for building and staffing another middle school and high school? If not, it's quite obvious that school overcrowding will become unbearable. The high school is already restricting access to courses due to lack of capacity. For example, AP Computer Science course used to be open to all comers, now it's restricted to juniors and seniors. I expect with continued enrollment and interest by Silicon Valley students/parents, additional classes will have enrollment impacts and restrictions. Morning traffic and afternoon pickup traffic to Los Gatos high is already quite a headache. Additional commuters from the North 40 development families will add to already congested Los Gatos Blvd/University/Main traffic. I see no mitigation plan nor additional ways to alleviate that type of additional traffic, given the existing lanes on the roads. Furthermore, Los Gatos Blvd is already a huge issue, especially going in to Blossom Hill during morning drop off and afternoon pickup. The section around Good Samaritan, by HWY 85, starting at around Lark is quite congested already in the morning and afternoon. Adding North 40 commuters, and not just a few, but an additional 300+ houses which potentially mean 600+ additional cars on top of retail traffic will just look like a huge grid lock. I don't see any mitigation that will truly address this issue in any of the developer's plans/comments. Finally, but equally important, we are concerned with the density and potential crime that will bring to our little town. We don't mind going to Santana Row as a shopper when the crowds are light, but I really don't think any of Los Gatos residents will be happy having to deal with the Santana Row/Valley Fair traffic on the weekend in addition to the beach traffic. Creating Santana Row part Ii here via North 40's proposed density and retail will truly take away from the look and feel of Los Gatos. Additional crowds also tend to bring with it the potential crime that's associated. We like our little town to keep its character. This density will make Los Gatos feel rather like Cupertino, and not Los Gatos anymore. The proposed height of the buildings will block our views of the hills, creating an urban environment in the middle of idyllic Los Gatos. 1 Please keep our Los Gatos the gem it is in the Valley instead of another overbuilt dense urban jungle. Thank you for giving serious consideration to our concerns. Elina & Barry Wong Marni Moseley From: Roberta Goncagves <chris_and_roberta@a yahoo.corn> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:19 PM To: Marni Mos&ey Cc: Chns Balough Subject: Concerns about North 40 Dear Ms. Moseley, We live in Blossom Manor and are absolutely opposed to this development. We have both lived in Chicago and enjoy a big city for what it is. We also enjoy Los Gatos for what it is, and it should never try to look and feel like a big city. One main reason we moved here is how beautiful and quaint this town is, the excellent schools it offers, and the look and feeling of small town living, while close enough to San Jose and San Francisco and all they have to offer, but without the challenges those cities face. The last thing we need in our town is another "Santana Row." We already have one. It is in San Jose. Los Gatos doesn't need to try to become San Jose. We can drive 7 minutes and be at Santana Row. Our town already cannot handle all the Santa Cruz traffic with the current infrastructure, and population. Adding 320 residential units, and families to the town, will only make it worse, significantly worse. it will also make traffic around town, and our schools, worse than it already is. This addition would require more roads, more schools at all levels, not just Elementary, but Middle and High School as well. There are no such provisions being proposed. The quality of life we all have chosen this town for, the great schools, decent amount of traffic, the character and feel of the town, are at stake if this projects gets approved. We don't need another Santana Row. We don't need to become another "stop by the highway." We don't need more traffic. We don't need to overcrowd our already full schools. We don't need to add to the burden of emergency services serving our small communitty, from firefighters, to police, by adding a significant amount of commercial and residential areas to our town. Lastly, we urge the Town's Council to listen to residents, and not the developers focusing on profits. We need to support our existing businesses, many of which are Mom and Pop type places, family owned. These are choices that will impact generations in Los Gatos, and ought to be done taking resident's views and preserving the essence of this town: a town that was, and will continue to be charming, small, has manageable traffic, and offers great schools to its residents. Please vote NO for adding 270-320 housing units and 435,000 sf of new commercial space. We are not opposed to some form of development on that land, but it truly needs to reflect what this town is all about, and look and feel like it. This North 40 proposal does a terrible disservice to the Town and its residents. Sincerely, Roberta Goncalves and Chris Balough 16100 Jasmine Way Los Gatos CA 95032 *Phone numbers for your use only, not to be publicly disclosed: *Roberta mobile: 650-215-3301 *Chris's mobile: 408-644-7249 Marni Moseley From: cecilia holmberg <ceciliashao2000Cyahoo.corrn> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:03 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 project - against current proposal Dear Ms. Moseley - My family has lived in Los Gatos for nearly 15 years now. I'm sure we feel as many, many others do, that Los Gatos is a jewel of a place to live, and that we are blessed to be in a convenient and beautiful location, with excellent schools, an excellent police department, and a friendly small-town atmosphere, to list just a few of the perks. While I miss the natural look of many of the lots in town that we've seen developed in our time here, we also enjoy some of the new stores and restaurants that have been added over the years, so it would be hypocritical to say that there should never be any development, but it needs to be DONE RIGHT. The North 40 is a critically important project, and if done wrong, could cripple and literally choke our lovely town, given its location at our gateway. From what my family has seen of the developer's proposed plan, this project is looking very, very wrong: - The mass represented by the story poles feels like an institutional eyesore. Due to the fact that the property itself is a bluff over the freeway, adding all those tall buildings right by the edge to loom over the freeway makes it seem like a giant prison block and will hugely detract from the natural beauty of the hills. It does not in any way look or feel like small-town, formerly agrarian/currently suburban Los Gatos. - Why is all the housing being concentrated on the end of the property that lies in the already overcrowded LG school district? And please, no developer -issued red herrings here, about how there will be hardly any added students due to the mix of seniors and millenials projected to move in. Let's be real: childless millenials are not looking to move to the 'burbs, they want to be in or close to San Francisco. For every one childless 20- something wanting to move in, there will be multiple young families looking for a foot in the door to Los Gatos schools. We need some realistic assumptions about how many students could be added to local schools, and if in doubt, we need to estimate high, not low. At the very Ieast, the housing should be spread across the property so that the impact is spread between LG and Cambrian districts, or even pushed to the northern end entirely so the burden is off LGUSD. There also needs to be serious consideration of the fact that more students means more vehicle trips in and out, so if the developer has assumed little to no added student population, then any traffic studies using this assumption are unsound. - Our local roads cannot handle the added volume of traffic that hundreds of units of housing, occupied by working adults with children, will generate. If the entire complex was affordable senior housing, then it might work, but not if the majority will all be hitting the roads at 7-9am and returning at 5-7pm, plus trips to drop off and pick up children because traffic on Lark and LG Blvd is too crowded and dangerous for kids to walk or bike to school. - If phase 1 is already looking like a crippling amount of traffic being added to Lark and LG Blvd, what will phase 2 do?? The developer's apparent gravitation toward big box stores is horrifying for Los Gatos. We do NOT want Lark and LG Blvd to become like Almaden Expwy in front of Walmart at 85. i This beautiful piece of historic land deserves to have something better done with it than to turn it into a giant knot of road rage. I feel that if a reasonable amount of affordable senior housing was built here, with some shops that would be very walkable for those seniors and employees/patients of the Good Sam medical complex nearby, that could be the best use of the land without bottlenecking the entire northern end of town. Perhaps there could be a transit hub where people could connect to a shuttle that goes downtown? I also would like any open space to be functional, not just patches of park strips: I'd love to see some of the walnut trees kept as a heritage orchard for all to enjoy and remember our agricultural roots, like the apricot orchard that Sunnyvale has, as well as community gardens for each yardless housing unit. We are completely against the developer's current proposal and hope that the town and residents can work together to craft something that adds to our town, rather than just to some foreign investor's pockets to the detriment of our wonderful community. Respectfully, Cecilia Shao 2 Marni Moseley From: Anne Sullivan <annesullivan3@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:07 PM To: Marni Moseley l am definitely against the huge building project in the North 40. The traffic on Los Gatos Blvd was extremely heavy before PAMF and now that it has opened there is much more traffic in the area. 1 can't imagine anything but gridlock when all those homes and businesses open. How are the schools going to manage? is that development going to build a school? I haven't heard anything about a new school. We already have beach traffic in my part of town, but that is limited to a few hours on the weekend. The North 40 will bring in traffic and congestion day in and day out. It will be unbearable. Once they have been built and the town realizes their mistake, then what ? Then it will be too late. Please do not allow this building to go ahead_ Thank you, Anne Sullivan 495 Wraight Ave Los Gatos, CA 95032 annesullivan3 @yahoo.com 1 Marni Moseley From: Michele Stefan <rnichelepstefan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:08 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Dear Marni Moseley, I am writing in regards to the North 40 development and the current proposal by the developer to build 320 homes within the Los Gatos school district boundaries . Nothing about the current proposal looks or feels like Los Gatos to me. The story poles that can be seen from Highway 17 look like an overbuilt, high density housing development. My son currently attends Blossom Hill school which has the largest number of students of all the elementary schools in the district. Why would the town want to add more students to a school that is already at full capacity? It doesn't seen fair to the residents to put all of the housing in the Los Gatos side of North 40. Also, traffic along los gatos boulevard is already terrible depending on the time of day and the Lark Exit starts to back up once traffic starts. I don't see how the town will be able to handle the increases in traffic. I think our town could use more sports fields and retail in the space where the developers are planning to build the massive housing development. It seems like the developers are proposing a plan which will mostly benefit them and will have terrible consequences for the town in terms of traffic, burden on schools, and changing the feel of Los Gatos. I strongly urge to deny the developers application. Sincerely, Michele Stefan i Marni Moseley From: Cheryl Lauren <towandah@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:12 PM To: Marni Moseley; DSparrer@community-newspaper.com; letters@mercurynews.com Subject: North 40 STOP11I II I d This is a mistake that once done cannot be undone. We are a town, not a city. I wake up every morning and fall asleep every night grateful that I live in Los Gatos. I have never felt good about the North 40. Now that I see the orange plastic as I drive by on Hwy. 17, I am upset. We have NetFlix to the right and the North 40 to the left on 17. Our town does not need this. Don't make a forever mistake. This is such a precious, special place. If you allow this, there is no turning back, Oops! We shouldn't have done this. No! No! No! No! No! Cheryl Lauren Los Gatos Resident Marni Moseley From: Barnaby James <bajames@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:23 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Feedback on the Phase 1 North 40 Plan To the planning commission, Understanding that the town is required to build additional housing units to comply with California State guidelines, I feel the proposed development at North 40 Phase 1 is not keeping within the guidelines of the town. Based on viewing the story poles, the development is at the maximum height for the zone (35 feet) and has a significant bulk. Similarly, from viewing the modelin the town council lobby, I don't feel the residential construction matches with existing development in Los Gatos. If the buildings could be lower or more broken up I think it would help ease the impact of the buildings on the surrounding vistas. I also have a concern about the impact of large number of new families will have on our existing Los Gatos schools and would like to see a conunitment for expanding School capacity before development is approved. From talking to neighbors and other people around town, I get the impression that the school impact is a large part of the concern people have about the project. Thanks, Barnaby James 16500 Grant Bishop Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032 1 Marni Moseley From: Rob Caruso <rcarusojr@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:40 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Los Gatos is a highly desired place to live because it is a small town with virtually all the amenities one could want. Let's keep it that way. You can't make a small town from a big town. You can't get a small town feeling back. Lark, 17 and the entire area are increasingly difficult to navigate and congested. North 40 will be devastating to that area and surrounding schools. I don't see how this would benefit anyone but the developers. I for one, as a resident and homeowner, do not see this adding to my enjoyment of living in Los Gatos. Please let me know how I can help stop this from moving forward? I have 2 small children who I look forward to raising in our great town. Further, I paid a significant premium to live in this town so I can be close to work and see my family as much as possible. The changes to our traffic patterns resulting from this type of plan will ruin our infrastructure and turn Los Gatos into a congested mini -metropolis. Sincerely, Rob Caruso 1 Marni Moseley From: Shraddha Parekh <sspzim@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3.44 PM To: mmosleley@losgatosca.gov Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 H i, am very concerned about north forty and the number of homes being built. 320 homes with two or more children mean at the very least there will be 620 kids hitting los Gatos schools. The school district which is already the lowest funded in the area cannot handle 5o many kids and maintain the level of education. Please do not approve the plan. Thank you Shraddha Parekh Marni Moseley From: Valerie Kelly <Igkellys@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:57 PM To: Marni Moseley; dsparrer@community-newspapers.corn; letters@mercurynews.com Subject: North 40 Development Ridiculous! Hi Ms. Moseley: I have been a home owner in Los Gatos for 12 years and was a resident of Saratoga previously (since 1979). I grew up here and returned after law school. I have seen the town and area grow over many years and understand that growth is necessary and stimulated by our ever more populated valley. I understand that the North 40 will be developed. However, the story poles of the North 40 are a visual abomination. I cannot speak to the other development features, but cannot imagine the impact on traffic and the environment. I am not only writing this message, but attending the meeting this evening. I am a working mom and do not have time to participate in town issues, as a general rule. However, I making the time to attend tonight's meeting and send this message because I view this development as a critical issue and l feel compelled to learn more and provide input to ensure that a responsible decision is made about the development of Los Gatos. See you there! Best, Val Kelly i Marni Moseley From: Imlampe@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:15 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: say NO to the North 40 plan Dear Ms. Moseley - I just drove down 17 south to my home in downtown Los Gatos and was able to really look at the story polls for the North 40 project. I am horrified that something of this magnitude would be considered for Los Gatos. I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 30 years and will be so sad to see the character, charm and ease of living destroyed by this project. This is more in character for something on the 880 corridor. I haven't even mentioned the traffic it will create yet. Where will all these residents exit? My husband works at Good Sam and he says the traffic in that area is already horrible. I hope you will reconsider this project and tone it down to something in character for Los Gatos. Sincerely, Linda Lampe 18 Walnut Avenue Los Gatos i Marni Moseley From: suemoses <susmos@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:28 PM To; Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Good Day Ms Moseley, Planning Commission and Town Council, PLEASE say NO to HIGH DENSITY at Lark and Los Gatos Blvd - AKA - north 40 Due to: Severely congested traffic in area Schools are impacted and overcrowded - school children are already being sent away from neighborhood schools TOO many homes and the ones proposed are TOO high - this project does not look or feel like Los Gatos, where is the open space? What about maintaining the town as a town? We do not want this area to have the feel of a big city - it is s000000 congested already. PLEASE look at minimizing the impact on the town, the infrastructure is crumbling Too much building in this area already, Please listen to the townspeople - not just the developers. Our voice should be heard We have lived here, paid our taxes and supported this town for 47 years and have loved it, but do not like what has been happening the last couple years and truly do not like this proposed project when so many more negative impacts would result. PLEASE look more closely at the proposed project and scale it down significantly. It would change the look and feel of Los Gatos as we have known and loved. Thank you for your consideration, Susan Moses 16529 La Croix Ct Los Gatos 95032 Marni Moseley From: Judy Holcomb <Igjudyh@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:29 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North40 I am against the present north 40 plan. So worried about how it may affect our town. Already terrible traffic that has gotten worse in the past year. Schools overcrowded, etc. Thank you for listening. 1 Marni Moseley From: Erica Barney <ericabarney@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:42 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Dear Ms Moseley and Town Council- As a resident of Los Gatos, I want to voice our family's concerns regarding the current proposal for phase 1 of the North 40 development, I am sure you have had enough emails flooding your inbox, so I will keep this short (-: As a local resident with children, I just had to write in and say that I understand the need and desire to develop the North 40, and everyone would like a win -win, aka compromise. I do hope that the area can have the same Los Gatos feel as the downtown and Almond Grove areas. We live near Worcester Loop and all pride our ridiculously overpriced homes for what we do get! An amazingly beautiful safe town to raise our families together. Of course we all have changes we would like made, I just hope the greenery, trees, quaint looking horses (not stacked together housing) to keep the entrance to LG what we are known for. Our town website boasts the beauty, the downtown square and all the amazing things people desire. I just hope the developers don't win, for their own pockets. I would imagine they don't live here either. Cathleen Bannon, a dear friend, sent in a great note (I coach her daughter in baseball!) and I echo her sentiments. Thank you for listening - reading that is - my email and 1 wish you the best of luck navigating the waters tonight and the weeks to come. I wish I could attend but cannot. Best, Erica and Justin Barney 105 Worcester Loop 1 Marni Moseley From: Carleen <carleen_schomberg@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:44 PM To: Marni Moseley; DSparrer@community-newspapers.com; letters@mercurynews.cm Subject: Los Gatos North 40 To All Interested Parties, As a native of Los Gatos and a third generation Los Gatos resident, I find myself, once again, feeling broken-hearted at the thought of losing another piece of precious and beautiful open space and orchard. My grandparents immigrated from Italy to Ellis Island and then straight to Los Gatos. Anyone who hasn't lived here for fifty or sixty years may not be able to fully appreciate what "The Valley of Hearts Delight" really meant. But, I can assure you that it was one of the most beautiful places you can imagine with the green hills surrounding blossoming orchards. Even when my children were small, they could still find open places to play within a short walk or bike ride from home. Now, I am extremely anxious every time my grandchildren get on their bikes. And, I feel as though we are approaching a time when kids will have to go to a museum to see what an orchard looked like. The proposed North 40 development will deprive us of one of, if not the only, remaining orchards and destroy the views of our hillsides as we approach town. And, with all the additional traffic, take away more of the scant little freedom our kids have to venture out on their own safely. The traffic is already so bad that it is dangerous. Furthermore, the idea that we need additional retail space is ridiculous. We have empty retail space for lease and I never go into a shop in town that is teeming with customers. Putting in more housing and more retail further erodes our quality of life. What we need is less. With increasing population, cars, pavement, etc. we get Less clean air, less water quality (run-off from the roads enters Los Gatos Creek at every storm drain outlet), Tess views of our hills, and, frankly, less quality of life. To paraphrase an old song, we quite literally are paving paradise to put in a parking lot and we won't know what we've got til it's gone. I urge the town to reconsider the North 40 because, once we lose that historic orchard, we can never get it back. We are taking away more and more of our children's inheritance. Carleen Ambrosini Schomberg i On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Robin Welch <robin@frobinsnest.me> wrote: Hi Marico— I hope this statement finds you well. I've been a Town resident since 1971, worked in this Town since 1991 and a Town business owner since 2003. I want to go on record voicing my outrage at the North 40 proposal. —Negative impact on our already congested roadways. Not a day goes by that I don't hear the majority of my customers complain about lack of parking and how difficult it is to get through town due to the high traffic volume. —There is not enough space in our schools to provide any sort of quality education for the proposed amount of housing in this North 40 project. —Parking.. there is already not enough to accommodate the vast retail shops. 1 understand the need for housing, affordable housing especially, as well as affordable senior living communities. This project appears to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. This proposal is ill -designed with no thought or care for first preparing the town through school expansion, roadway development, parking expansion, prioritizing our growing senior populations' needs, and giving considerable attention to affordable housing for median/low- income households and singles. Please here our plea for a new, well thought-out, greedless proposal! -Robin Welch 16468 Apple Blossom Lane Los Gatos, Ca 95032 408 656 2057 —Pat Welch (Los Gatos resident since 1971 / retired) 16468 Apple Blossom Lane Los Gatos, Ca 95032 408 356 6991 Marni Moseley From: Robin Welch <robin@a robinsnest.me> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:54 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Fwd: North 40 Project Hi Marni-- I hope this statement finds you well. I've been a Town resident since 1971, worked in this Town since 1991 and a Town business owner since 2003. I want to go on record voicing my outrage at the North 40 proposal. -Negative impact on our already congested roadways. Not a day goes by that I don't bear the majority of my customers complain about lack of parking and how difficult it is to get through town due to the high traffic volume. -There is not enough space in our schools to provide any sort of quality education for the proposed amount of housing in this North 40 project. -Parking.. there is already not enough to accommodate the vast retail shops. I understand the need for housing, affordable housing especially, as well as affordable senior living communities. This project appears to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. This proposal is ill - designed with no thought or care for first preparing the town through school expansion, roadway development, parking expansion, prioritizing our growing senior populations' needs, and giving considerable attention to affordable housing for median/low-income households and singles. Please here our plea for a new, well thought-out, greedless proposal! -Robin Welch 16468 Apple Blossom Lane Los Gatos, Ca 95032 408 656 2057 -Pat Welch (Los Gatos resident since 1971/ retired) 16468 Apple Blossom Lane Los Gatos, Ca 95032 408 356 6991 1 On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:08 PM, Don Gaab <dsgaab(c�;yahoo.com> wrote: Please consider all of the downsides of a yes vote on proposal of the north 40 property. School overcrowding, added traffic congestion and the impact on downtown businesses. We are at a loss as to the benefits verses the downsides. Don & Sue Gaab residents of Los Gatos. Sent from my iPad Marni Moseley From: Rex, Charlene Rex <cblissrex@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:09 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Fwd: North 40 development meeting tonight Forgive me, I used the wrong address in my previous email. Please see my email below. Charlene Bliss Rex Begin forwarded message: From: "Rex, Charlene Rex" <cblissrex@gmail.com> Subject: North 40 development meeting tonight Date: March 30, 2016 5:06:11 PM PDT To: Mmosely a(.Iosgatosca.gov I apologize for this late email (and hope you receive it in time for tonight's North 40 meeting); I had planned to be there, but a family situation is going to keep me from attending. As a resident of Los Gatos for 45 years, I could go on and on about my concerns about the current application for the North 40 development (horrific impact on quality of life and the future of our charming town- including traffic, open space, schools, existing small businesses, to name just a few),..but in the interest of your time and keeping it simple, I just want to say: PLEASE REJECT THE SUBMITTED APPLICATION, as it does NOT meet the criteria laid out in the North 40 Specific Plan that was approved by the Town Council last year. Surely, everyone involved can come up with a better application that respects, and adheres to, the unique character and charm of our town. It feels like this is our last chance to maintain any semblance of quality of life in the Los Gatos that we know and love. If this current application is allowed to pass, Los Gatos will be changed forever, and not for the best -- and there will be no turning back. We mustn't miss the opportunity to do the right thing - for now and for the future. Charlene Bliss Rex 408-354-2566 104 Spring St. LG, CA 95030 i Marni Moseley From: Susan Flach <sgf1950@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:14 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Los Gatos Dear Marni Moseley, My name is Susan Flach and i am a resident of Los Gatos at 102 Leotar Court. We purchased our property in 1983 and built our home in 1986 because we loved this community and Town. I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on March 30, 2016, however I would like to express my opinions re the application for development of the North 40. am very much against the current proposal or application for the development of the North 40 for these reasons: 1. I do NOT believe this proposal looks or feels like Los Gatos. This proposal is massive and dense unlike the Town we love. 2. This proposal does NOT embrace the hillside views, trees or open space, Views will be obstructed by the 35' wall of attached multi -unit housing. The developer's proposal for green space is not adequate. The story poles that have been erected tell a very sad tale of what could possibly occur in our lovely town if this proposal is approved. 3. We do NOT need more commercial or residential development at this time in our already over -crowded streets and town. Traffic is already a nightmare without the addition of these housing and commercial units. 4. Our schools have been impacted enough by recent developments along Los Gatos Blvd and other housing projects. They are bursting with too many students. Our roads are in terrible condition; we have waited years to have improvements to them all over Town. The additional traffic this proposal will create cannot be tolerated. Other services will be negatively impacted, as well. In conclusion, when the Town Council approved The North 40 Specific Plan, it set the maximum limits that can be built on the site. But I believe the developer of the current application has chosen what benefits him the most, definitely not what benefits our Town. I urge the Planning Commission NOT to approve this application as proposed. It is too dense and massive. It will have horribly negative impact on our Town. Further, I believe the phasing of this development should be in smaller parcels in order to control the impact on our community. As the impact of each parcel becomes apparent, further development can be adjusted or halted before it's too late and the whole 44 acres have been developed. Sincerely, Susan G. Flach 1 Marni Moseley From: Angie Smith <angiecolemansmith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:19 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Opposition to current North 40 proposal Dear Ms. Moseley, Please do NOT approve the North 40 development as currently planned. I am not opposed to growth, just opposed to massive growth like this plan proposes. As a Los Gatos resident with 3 children---2 at Fisher and 1 at Blossom Hill --I know our town's schools are excellent. But the enrollment increases each year are having a negative effect on the schools as classrooms become crowded, etc. Building the Maximum allowed number of houses on the North 40 without also building a new school will be terrible for the students and eventually for the town as a whole, as school quality diminishes. Please add more open space to the plan...50% would be lovely! Preserve some orchards for history...they would make a lovely park like setting. Please build the property in smaller phases to see how it is received....start with 25% of the total property being built. Please carefully envision the traffic that'll result from this development...our town is already overwhelmed by beach traffic when not overwhelmed by school traffic. You have the power to decide on a development that could be beautiful, and could even meet the needs of the town to provide more low-income housing, while also keeping with the character of a town....not a cookie -cutter city with numerous strip malls like so many Bay Area cities. Please keep the charming town of Los Gatos and it's current residents as your focus when deciding on this development. Please don't be swayed by a developer or others primarily interested in profit. 1 look forward to seeing how you and your fellow Town officials handle this subject at the meeting tonight. Thanks for your time, Angie Smith 1 Marni Moseley From: Sharon Elder <sharonelder[o ymail.com) Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:19 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Proposed Development Hi Marni, My name is Sharon Elder and I live at 205 Marchmont Drive Los Gatos. (1 am a town resident). 1 am contacting you to tell you that I strongly disagree with the proposed development on the North 40 site for the following reasons: l) the impact of developing such a huge residential area 320 units is too high on our schools, we are at breaking point right now and will not be able to absorb such a huge influx of students. 2) impact to our local hospitals. A family metnber works at Good Sam and has told me that they are straining under the current #'s let alone what this increase will do to patient care. 3) Traffic! Los Gatos Blvd is a parking lot right now at certain times of the day, especially the stretch between Hwy 9 and Shannon. With this proposed development we are only going to exacerbate this already dire situation. Please hear my voice as a resident of 10+ years and do not allow this huge residential proposal to pass, we do not have the infrastructure to handle this and it will severely impact the quality of life for your tax paying residents in our town. Yours faithfully, Sharon Elder 1 Marni Moseley From: Rosilene Martins <rosapersa@gmail.com> Sent Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:23 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: NO to the current North 40 application Dear Mrs. Moseley: I understand that you are currently leading the North 40 development project. I have taken the time to write you this message to express my opposition to the current application. I have lived in Los Gatos since 1994, 22 years now. The main reasons why I decided to grow my family here were its safety, and the high quality of its schools. I also love the fact that Los Gatos is off -the -path, and does not have much public transportation coming into town. This is great to keep the town to its residents, and discourage crime. As you are probably aware of, our schools have suffered from California's financial woos in recent years, as the education budget has been severely cut. Thankfully, many parents step in, making money donations or volunteering their time in order to maintain a rich level of extracurricular activities in our schools' programs, such as Music and Art. As a Los Gatos Art Docent, I volunteer my time to bring Art education to students from Kindergarten to 6th Grade. I believe the current application for North 40 will bring a huge influx of people to Los Gatos without any accountability as to its impact on our city and the level of education at our schools,. Los Gatos schools are already maxed out as is. This proposal does not work to preserve what makes our city great. I firmly oppose this application as is. I understand that I am not alone in my views, and hope that the Los Gatos Town Council will hear the voices of the many residents opposed to the current North 40 development application. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration, Rosilene Martins 933 Blossom Hill Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 358-6401 f From: Catrin Anckarman [catrinanckarman@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:29 PM To: BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonard's Subject: North 40 concerns Dear Mayor, Vice -Mayor and Council Members, Thank you for all the work you do for Los Gatos. I am taking a moment to write to you as I am, like many others, am concerned about the planning application for North 40. I am unable to attend tonights meeting and therefor want to add my points of concern regarding this project/application. They are as following: • An overwhelming increase in traffic congestion with so many homes being built in that specific area. • An increase in the number of students being added to the rolls of an already over -burdened the Los Gatos School District. As it stands today, the schools are struggling to pay for many of their programs for the current enrollment. • A definite and clearly measurable reduction in the quality of life that our Town's residents most certainly deserve and have enjoyed for generations. Look forward to hearing more about your and the towns opinon on this matter, Many Thanks Catrin and Jonas Anckarman 16170 Kennedy Road Marni Moseley From: Mark & Yasmin Bomann <bomann@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:38 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Comments/suggestions re: North 40 Dear Ms. Moseley, My heart sinks every time I drive by the story poles for the first phase of the North 40 development. The sheer size, height and density of this proposed development looks and feels like nothing else in Los Gatos, and this is one of the guiding principles the developer should be following. Another principle the developer should be following is that the North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees and open space. If I or anyone else stood between any of these massive two - and three-story condos we wouldn't be able to see any hillside views. In looking at the plan I see precious little open space and many multi -story housing units crammed together. In the Market Hall area it does appear to be more open, and that's good, but it's inexcusable how much housing is proposed to be built and how dense it is! The impact on traffic will be incredibly negative. Our elementary schools, middle school (LGUSD) and high school (LGSHS) are already overcrowded. They are also highly desirable. The developer may say they are marketing these housing units to young professionals, but let's get real — people will be very attracted to our school districts and will happily move into a condo that isn't marketed to their demographic just for the sake of our schools. Here's what I do like: the photos and plans for the Market Hall area look great. It looks very nicely landscaped and walkable. Our family lives in Blossom Manor and we would definitely enjoy shopping/browsing/enjoying a Market Hall area (but is there enough parking?). I like the proposed senior housing layouts and think it's a great idea to have some nice, high quality, affordable senior housing. (Plus, senior housing won't impact our schools — another bonus.) I also like that the developer will put in nice walking/biking paths and small neighborhood parks and garden areas throughout the development. Please remember that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make sure we don't overcrowd our schools, add terrible amounts of traffic and change the character of Los Gatos forever. The developer's goal is to build as much as possible on the site and make a good profit. Their needs are not the same as our town's needs. Please, please think of what's best for our lovely town's future and make sure the North 40 isn't massively overbuilt. We're the ones who will have to live here after the North 40 is built out and we don't want to say afterwards, "Gee, I wish we hadn't approved such a dense development." Thank you for your consideration, Yasmin Bomann 1 Marni Moseley From: Holcomb, Greg <Greg.Holcomb@hhs.sccgov.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:42 PM To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Marni Moseley Subject: PLEASE REJECT the North 40 It is both a surprise and a shame that the North 40 project is at the stage that it is. I wish I had more power to stop it, but this email will have to suffice. Each of you on this distribution list has/had the power to stop the travesty that is the North 40. l grew up in Los Gatos. I graduated from Los Gatos High School. I moved away for college and came right back. Los Gatos is my home and (hopefully) always will be. I have been neighbors with the Spectors since I was born in 1977 and accompanied my morn in congratulating Marico, also my neighbor, at her home on election night. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the rest of you though I hope all reading this have the best interests of the TOWN in mind. It is baffling to me how anyone with Los Gatos' best interests in mind — rather than their own — can think that the North 40 is wise. I don't know of anyone who doesn't stand to gain personally who is in favor of this project. I will stop myself before I begin to rant and rave, I will simply state that even the idea of a Santana Row — like development in Los Gatos is ludicrous and infuriating (I'm not the only one who thinks so). Is the "town, not city" mantra just for show or does our town leadership actually believe it and live it? Los Gatos is beyond its capacity and adding more to it just doesn't make sense. It routinely takes me 45 minutes to an hour to drive home 6 miles from work. It doesn't matter if I take 17, Bascom/LG Blvd, or Winchester. This is before adding the mess at Lark and Bascom. We are all aware of the beach traffic and traffic apps that divert traffic through our town. That is an issue that needs to be addressed separately but it is not unrelated to the North 40 as more residents and businesses in a relatively concentrated area will only make things worse. Though it's hard to believe it can get worse, it will. Those of us who live downtown understand that we cannot leave our homes on summer weekends or Christmas time with any reasonable expectation of being able to return without waiting in traffic, ...Etc. etc. ... so why add fuel to the fire? it's not a secret that Los Gatos is a wealthy town. We do not need outside developer money. We don't need folks who are new here to try to influence policy that goes completely against everything and anything that Los Gatos has stood for long before the dot corn boom. Certainly we are better than a money grab. Aren't we? Where is our integrity? Thank you for all that you do for us, and thanks for reading. I wholeheartedly and sincerely urge you all to reconsider the North 40 and leave those types of developments for cities like San Jose, and not our town that we hold so dear. Greg Holcomb' El HealthLink Application Coordinator HIM Deficiency Tracking, HIM Release of Information 1 T (408) 423-07541 greg.holcomb@ hhs.sccgov.org SCVHHS Information Services NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Holcomb, Greg <Greg.Holcombghhs.sccgov.org> wrote: It is both a surprise and a shame that the North 40 project is at the stage that it is. t wish I had more power to stop it, but this email will have to suffice. Each of you on this distribution list has/had the power to stop the travesty that is the North 40. I grew up in Los Gatos. I graduated from Los Gatos High School. I moved away for college and came right back. Los Gatos is my home and (hopefully) always will be. I have been neighbors with the Spectors since I was born in 1977 and accompanied my mom in congratulating Marico, also my neighbor, at her home on election night. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting the rest of you though I hope all reading this have the best interests of the TOWN in mind. It is baffling to me how anyone with Los Gatos' best interests in mind — rather than their own — can think that the North 40 is wise. I don't know of anyone who doesn't stand to gain personally who is in favor of this project. I will stop myself before 1 begin to rant and rave, I will simply state that even the idea of a Santana Row — like development in Los Gatos is ludicrous and infuriating (I'm not the only one who thinks so). Is the "town, not city" mantra just for show or does our town leadership actually believe it and live it? Los Gatos is beyond its capacity and adding more to it just doesn't make sense. It routinely takes me 45 minutes to an hour to drive home 6 miles from work. It doesn't matter if !take 17, Bascom/LG Blvd, or Winchester. This is before adding the mess at Lark and Bascom. We are all aware of the beach traffic and traffic apps that divert traffic through our town. That is an issue that needs to be addressed separately but it is not unrelated to the North 40 as more residents and businesses in a relatively concentrated area will only make things worse. Though it's hard to believe it can get worse, it will. Those of us who live downtown understand that we cannot leave our homes on summer weekends or Christmas time with any reasonable expectation of being able to return without waiting in traffic, ..,Etc. etc.... so why add fuel to the fire? It's not a secret that Los Gatos is a wealthy town. We do not need outside developer money. We don't need folks who are new here to try to influence policy that goes completely against everything and anything that Los Gatos has stood for long before the dot corn boom. Certainly we are better than a money grab. Aren't we? Where is our integrity? Thank you for all that you do for us, and thanks for reading. I wholeheartedly and sincerely urge you all to reconsider the North 40 and leave those types of developments for cities like San Jose, and not our town that we hold so dear. FOAM nAPIA Greg Holcomb I " "` HeatthLink Application Coordinator HIM Deficiency Tracking, HIM Release of Information I V (408) 423-07541 21preR.holcomb{c hhs.sccgov.org SCVHHS Information Services NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. Marni Moseley From: M West <marywest@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:42 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject North 40 Dear Ms. Moseley, I am concerned about overcrowding, traffic and the impact on our schools. As a long time resident of Los Gatos, 1 remember a time when dense -pack housing developments would never have been approved. I am NOT in favor of the North 40 development. This project will raise the population in Los Gatos and negatively impact the quality of life here. Let's not sell Los Gatos to the highest bidder. Please reduce the size and scope of this project or abandon it entirely. Thank you - Mary West i Marni Moseley From: Valerie Tamasi <vltamasi@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:49 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Opposed to North 40 current development plans! 1 am writing to express my concern on the current development plans on the "North 40". Please don't! It will change Los Gatos in a very negative way. We are already facing over -crowding in the schools and huge traffic delays. The current plans will only make it worse. Thank you for your time. Valerie Tamasi 1 Marni Moseley From: Kathleen Barry <kathleenabany7@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:55 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Fw: North 40 On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:52 PM, Kathleen Berry <kathleenabarry7@vahoo.com> wrote. Dear Ms. Moseley, I am sure my letter won't be the first or the last of its kind you receive in regards to the North 40 project. I was born and raised in this this town nestled at the base of the Sierra Azules. I grew up playing in an orchard across the street from my house. I have fond recollections of playing in that orchard and mom yelling to us to come home for dinner. That orchard is now gone, replaced with houses (big surprise). I love living here and hate what is happening to the sweet little town I grew up in and chose to come home to. Somehow, I think "town" has somehow been lost in translation in this project. So, just for clarity's sake, I looked up the definitions of town and city and here is what I found: According to Merriam -Webster, a town is "a place where people live that is larger than a village but smaller than a city." From the same source, you have "city": a place where people live that is larger or more important than a town : an area where many people live and work." In the town website, I found these interesting facts: "At the time the first General Plan was revised in 1971, the Town had grown to an area of 9 square miles with a population of 24,350. In 1984, Los Gatos covered approximately 10 square miles and had a population of 27,820 persons. Today, the Town population is estimated to be 30,391 in a 14 square_ mile area. While most of the growth through the 1970's was due to new development, most of the growth in the 1980's and 1990's was due to annexations, in -fill development and changing demographics." So, can you tell me what it is today? And, what will it be when the North 40 is completed if this project is allowed to be completed? Also, as stated at www.town.los-gatos.ca.us, it states, "Los Gatos is proud of it's status as a "Tree City USA". Trees and other plant life can prevent soil erosion, landslides, and flooding while ensuring a scenic buffer from the effects of development and providing wildlife habitats. Wildlife populations must be preserved as having intrinsic value that contributes to the quality of Town life, while keeping in mind the safety and well being of Town residents." The North 40 will not provide a "scenic buffer", but, decrease view of the surrounding mountains, to be blocked by tall buildings. Does building the North 40 uphold the above statement or is it a contraindication to what the "town" states it is looking to achieve for its residents? I do NOT think the North 40 will contribute to the quality of life of Los Gatos residents. It believe from neighborhood websites, flyers and discussions with neighbors ad community members, that I am not alone in this belief. What I do think is the North 40 is a detriment to our beloved town and community. Again, we are a town, not a city. If I wanted a Santana Row, I would live over there and shop over there. I desire my small TOWN feel, where I know the shopkeepers and they know me. In saying that, it is already difficult to get downtown to support your local businesses. Can you imagine with more housing and a small "Santana Row" like place on our busiest boulevard? Every artery going downtown is clogged -at multiple times of day. The impact on traffic, not to mention schools that are already busting at the seams. This is just simply, a bad plan. I could go on and on really with many more points. Points that I know friends, neighbors and townspeople will also contribute to. But, how can any of you think this is an appropriate suitable use of that space? With so many people against it, how can it be right? Ok, you have a few in support of it, but, I am sure the numbers against this project far outweigh those for it. You certainly have more data than I do. But, could so many people be wrong 2 Listen to the voices of the town you represent. Do we really have to build something on every last piece of available land. Has it all come down to money?? There has to be a better solution for that piece of property --for all of us. Please. Sincerely, Kathleen Barry 948 Cherrystone Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 TOWN OF LOS GA 2020 GENERAL ENVIR 2 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Los Gatos town leaders: Bill Highstreet (Y) <bill_highstreet@yahoo.com> Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:00 PM Marni Moseley North 40... too much! As we continue the quest to preserve the small community look and feel of Los Gatos that many of moved to find AND balance the reality of progress, we cannot help but wonder about the considerations made by the elected and appointed officials who serve as stewards of our community. Growth and change is reality, an exciting reality to be sure, but should not trump a sense of community and our small town identity. As we embrace change we often have the opportunity to look at things through many eyes and perspectives. In every perspective there is a nugget of truth or value that can be gleaned and should be considered. The right of the property owners to sell the land and enjoy the monetary fruits of their land is indisputable. We are happy for the owners to get the value for the Iand they have held for years and have embraced as members of the community. The resulting reality of the developers desire to maximize their relatively short-term investment at the expense of the Los Gatos community and surrounding areas is my concern. The town planners, commissioner, mayor and everyone else in the local government that actually has a say it what will transpire, need to look at the community priorities, NOT the priorities of an investment group or developer. Once those organizations have tapped out the land, resources and profits they will forget the Los Gatos that was, as well as the Los Gatos they have created. We will be left to deal with the fallout. The traffic, the stretched infrastructure, the over burdened schools, and the short and longterm maintenance that will be required. As we understand it, the plan for the whole parcel is being coordinated in two phases. One that is exclusively oriented towards the southern portion of the property which is in the Los Gatos School District and faces Lark Avenue directly. The second phase or the northern portion facing highway 85 and is in the Cambrian School District. The current approach enables the developer to extract the maximum benefit and return by building up the portion with the more sought after school boundary with no actual enforceable commitment to develop the other half. Why does this make sense? In all walks of life, we as citizens, have to earn the right to grow and develop, why is this not the case of this parcel and these developers? Why not force the development of the parcel in the North End and use the resulting realities of impact on traffic and schools and infrastructure as a proof points before they are allowed to build out the South End, the arguably more lucrative end due to the desirability of the Los Gatos Schools. This would allow the town and the stewards of the community to factually assess the impact of the development and growth on the infrastructure without condemning our local schools and community services (fire, police, hospitals) to figure it out. In addition, do we really not have enough high -end malls and mega -shopping centers to spend our money at? Do we really as a small town need 1/2 MILLION square feet of shopping, loitering and parking for any reason other than profits? Oh and whatever the traffic inconvenience is will be completely obliterated by the development that is proposed. We do not need more time in our car to get from one end of the town to the other. As regular users of the Bascom to 85 interchange we shudder at the thought of what the new reality will bring to our transportation patterns. Lastly, how do you possibly fathom our current school infrastructure and teacher availability handling the influx? Studies aside, spend time on the campuses and see what they are challenged with today and then add to that the impact of the proposed additional housing. Do not support Los Gatos being the first in the phased plan to figure this all out at the expense of our children education, families access to small town environment, and our conununity look and feel. When do we say enough is enough and this is too much!! What we ask is that the leaders of the community, listen to the community and approach this in a measured and long-term manner. Do so with controls in place to stop any remaining development at logical points to preserve the look, feel and sense of community that we have come to enjoy and expect of Los Gatos, while supporting the growth and revitalization that can accompany it. There is no single answer to please everyone, but if we take a longer term approach we can better, more gradually manage the impact on the town. In a more community oriented manner support the life we have all moved to or grown up with here in Los Gatos. 1 We do not want to have to relocate to find an alternate version of the wonderful community we have today..the vibrant community we are at risk of losing by placing profits and development over community. Sincerely, Los Gatans (for life?), Bill and Shirley Highstreet 2 Marni Moseley From: Ian Young <ian@yahphoto.biz> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 201E 6:09 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Future Traffic Woes - AKA The North 40 project Dear Ms. Moseley, am a relative newcomer to Los Gatos, but have had family here ail my life. What drew me to this town was how UNLIKE Los Gatos is to all the other bay area towns and cities; I was born in DC but raised in the UK, and Los Gatos shares a similar healthy downtown area, largely populated by independent local stores, and relatively small schools with high standards - which is what eventually drew us to buy a house here - we (my wife and I) have both kids in Lakeside Elementary, with a view to keeping them within the district for their primary educational careers. One of the very few banes of existence in Los Gatos, is its popularity - the traffic and parking are already passed capacity; my commute from Fremont normally takes less than 30 minutes with only a slight off -shift early - but this increases to a truly insane 90 minutes to get home during the summer months. am not opposed to development, and am used to living in high -density areas for half my life - but Los Gatos simply lacks the infrastructure to cope with an influx this large. The schools are relatively small - but at capacity. Highway 17 is also small, and well -beyond capacity most of the time - especially at the very site of the proposed development. Getting from Highway 85 past Lark often takes over 25 minutes as it is - this is only going to get worse by adding more traffic. The downtown parking and Highway 17 traffic issues must be addressed before adding this massive burden to existing residents; Los Gatos is long overdue some serious improvements to ease the overcrowding - this development will reduce the quality of life and property values for all the existing residents, and those further along the road to Santa Cruz. I hope it is not too late for my opinion to be heard, and to at least modify plans to include traffic and parking easements, and PLEASE - no big -box superstore chains! Let's keep Los Gatos as pretty much the only town in the area devoid of strip malls and cookie -cutter malls. Thank you for reading, lan Young. Los Gatos Resident. 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Oliver Flach <ocflach@gmail.corn> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:41 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Fwd: North 40 Los Gatos Good evening Marni, I'm Oliver Flach and I'm also a Los Gatos resident and live at 102 Leotar Court , 95032. I'm also Susan's husband. Like herself, I am definitely against the North 40 project for all the reasons listed in Susan's email as well as these additional ones. Traffic is an absolute nightmare on Los Gatos Blvd. when schools are starting up in the morning and ending in the afternoon. Our home is off Kennedy Road and trying to make a left turn or right turn onto Los Gatos Blvd. is terrible. The stop light allows 3 to 5 cars at a time and that's because the traffic on LG Blvd. is bumper to bumper so increasing the stop light time wouldn't eliminate the problem. As I'm sure you are aware, LG Blvd. narrows down to one lane going past Louise Van Meter Elementary School. Increasing it to two lanes may be hazardous to the school kids hence the problem in that area. To make traffic worse, there are 2 other schools one directly behind Van Meter and then the high school right down the street. On top of all the traffic jams during the week, there is no relief on summer days over holidays and weekends due to beach traffic. Pm told that are schools can't possibly handle the new enrollment from these massive residential projects that are being proposed at the North 40. A big part of these problems exist because of the many dense residential homes that have already been build in recent years. I'd like to suggest that you folks consider a five or ten year building moratorium in ALL of Los Gatos until the infrastructure can support it. Thanks for your consideration. Regards, Oliver Flach (408) 356-5405 Forwarded message ---------- From: Susan Hach <sgf1950@aol.com> Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM Subject: Fwd: North 40 Los Gatos To: ocflach@grnail.com Original Message ---- From: Susan Flach <sgf1950(n_aol,com> 1 To: Mmoseley <Mmoseley(c losgatosca.gov> Sent: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 5:13 pm Subject: North 40 Los Gatos Dear Marni Moseley, My name is Susan Flach and I am a resident of Los Gatos at 102 Leotar Court. We purchased our property in 1983 and built our home in 1986 because we loved this community and Town. am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on March 30, 2016, however I would like to express my opinions re the application for development of the North 40. I am very much against the current proposal or application for the development of the North 40 for these reasons: 1. I do NOT believe this proposal looks or feels like Los Gatos. This proposal is massive and dense unlike the Town we love. 2. This proposal does NOT embrace the hillside views, trees or open space. Views will be obstructed by the 35' wall of attached multi -unit housing. The developer's proposal for green space is not adequate. The story poles that have been erected tell a very sad tale of what could possibly occur in our lovely town if this proposal is approved. 3. We do NOT need more commercial or residential development at this time in our already over -crowded streets and town. Traffic is already a nightmare without the addition of these housing and commercial units. 4. Our schools have been impacted enough by recent developments along Los Gatos Blvd and other housing projects. They are bursting with too many students. Our roads are in terrible condition; we have waited years to have improvements to them all over Town. The additional traffic this proposal will create cannot be tolerated. Other services will be negatively impacted, as well. In conclusion, when the Town Council approved The North 40 Specific Plan, it set the maximum limits that can be built on the site. But I believe the developer of the current application has chosen what benefits him the most, definitely not what benefits our Town. I urge the Planning Commission NOT to approve this application as proposed. It is too dense and massive. It will have horribly negative impact on our Town. Further, I believe the phasing of this development should be in smaller parcels in order to control the impact on our community. As the impact of each parcel becomes apparent, further development can be adjusted or halted before it's too late and the whole 44 acres have been developed. Sincerely, Susan G. Flach 2 Marni Moseley From: William Blair <wblair101@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:44 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Development of the "North 40" Dear Ms. Moseley, The development of the "North 40" is a big mistake in three different ways: 1. This 435,000 sgfi of commercial development is not necessary and unwelcome. Just look at the struggle that the existing stores are having in "downtown" Los Gatos. This additional commercial development would make it even more difficult for these existing stores downtown. 2. This additional housing and commercial development would increase traffic by hundreds (maybe over a thousand) cars daily. The rush hour is already a traffic jam on Los Gatos Blvd., Lark, and Winchester. Adding hundreds of cars would make rush hour traffic a nightmare. 3. This development would be serious over -building for the Town of Los Gatos. Without question, it would be inconsistent and destructive to the "feel and character" of the Town of Los Gatos, as we know it today. This entire project is a huge mistake and should not be allowed. Please vote it down, if at all possible. William Blair 10l Lorain Place Los Gatos, CA 95032 1 Marni Moseley From: Akshay Mathur <akshaymathur156@gmaiLcom> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 7:04 PM To: Marni Moseley; Pooja Subject: Vote against "North 40 Los Gatos"' We have a small family of four that lives in an excellent Los Gatos neighborhood near Lark Avenue. We decided to purchase this Los Gatos house in March, 2014 because Los Gatos is a small and closely knighted community. Another motivation for raising our two children in Los Gatos was great school district. Our experience living in Los Gatos has been amazing and we are pleased that we made that decision to buy our current house in Los Gatos. That said we also had following realization after moving to the city: 1. Right after moving we realized that our Los Gatos home school was over -subscribed and our daughter will have to neighborhood over -flow school. 2. Rt. 17 (both direction), Lark exits, Los Gatos Bld gets very busy during business hours. Very often we have to spend a lot of time due to stop-n-go traffic on the road while dropping kids to school or commuting to work. 3. We moved -in with expectation of this being a green and quite neighborhood but we observed a lot of construction in our neighborhood e.g. Netflix etc. In -spite of some of these observations, we still love the Los Gatos community and would like to preserve the closely knighted community feeling and not dilute it by making it too dense and commercial. We feel "North 40 Los Gatos" is contrary the values of Los Gatos. The denseness of the "North 40 Los Gatos" design is far from simplicity of Los Gatos. We are also concerned about the un-manageable increase in traffic and potential increase in crime that this new venture could bring -in Our sincere concern and recommendation is to vote against this "North 40 Los Gatos" because it will cause Los Gatos to lose its core values and impact families like us in a very negative way. Thanks and Best Regards Akshay Mathur Pooja Mathur (856)-607-7323 163 La Canada Ct, 1 On Mar 30, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Robin Ronald <robinronald@rocketmail.com> wrote: To whom it may concern , The following needs to be counted "on the record " for disapproval of building on the North 40! I grew up in the town of Los Gatos. I felt so blessed to experience my childhood here. It was a beautiful, small, quaint town, filled with orchards. Getting from one end of town to the other took only minutes. Today all I see are ugly buildings or cookie cutter monster homes. They have covered what made Los Gatos special, the beautiful old orchards,buildings that were historical and meant something to the original Los Gatos residents. It seems that greed and the almighty dollar has ruined this once amazing little town. It now takes me 20 minutes to get from one side of town to the other!! I thought allowing Pamf to build a medical complex at the comer of Gateway and Los Gatos Blvd was insanity!! Building on the north 40 is just sheer stupidity. This town cannot handle anymore traffic!! Please think of the impact.. Sincerely, Robin Ronald (I"ve lived here for 44 years.) Sent from my iPhone Marni Moselez From: Marie-Ange Eyoum <meyoum@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:48 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 -Lark Ave resident concerns with traffic on Lark and density of LG schools Dear Marni Moseley, My name is Marie-Ange Tagne, and 1 am resident of Los Gatos living in 140 Oakmont Way, a block away from Lark Avenue where North 40 is planned to be built. As a parent of small children, I have raised concerns of heavy traffic on Lark Avenue, and density in the Los Gatos schools (especially for LGHS) when I first heard about this development project and through all the community meetings I and my husband have attended in the past few years. 1 heard today during the meeting that I could only attend the first 30min from the town attorney that there will be no issues with traffic and school with the North 40 project.But what I didn't heard was the specific on how these two issues/concerns raised by so many residents have been addressed by the North 40 project developer. Can you explain if and how these issues have been addressed? These two issues are main objection with the North 40 Development Project as a resident who dearly love the town of Los Gatos and would like to keep a safe and educationally healthy environment for families (as well as children) who live closed by Lark Avenue. Thanks for your service to the town, Marie-Ange Marni Mosele From: Amanda Caruso <algcaruso[a gmail,com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:34 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Dear Ms. Moseley, I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself, to voice our concerns regarding the North 40 project we've been hearing so much about lately. We recently moved into Los Gatos for three main reasons: the charming, small town feeling, the convenient commute to work, and the public schools. We purchased a home in Blossom Hill Manor last May. We adore our neighborhood and love the small town feel. However, we are very close to the North 40 project site and are quite concerned as to how it will affect our daily lives. My husband works at Netflix, and we are beyond grateful for his short commute. However, this will drastically change if traffic patterns threaten our area. He drives LG Blvd, Lark, and Winchester, which are all the main roads which will be primarily impacted. Lastly, our son will enter kindergarten next year at Blossom Hill. We do not want his schooling being affected by a ton of new residents flooding the district. The schools in town had not accounted for this, and I'm sure are therefore unprepared for such an influx of registrants. We moved to this area from Northern New Jersey about 2.5 years ago. My husband used to work in Manhattan, where he had a 90 minute commute to work each way! We moved across the country to accept an opportunity that would allow a better quality of life for him and our family of four. We do not want our wonderful neighborhood to be taken over by excessive traffic, congested housing developments and more shopping centers, and over -crowded schools. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Amanda Caruso i Marni Moseley From: Amy Nishide <aknishide@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:23 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 objection Dear Marni, I strongly object to the current North 40 development plan I see in the story poles. It look horrendous, like a jungle of buildings. I can't imagine how it would look with actual structures. The houses should be more spread out, rather than all clumped on such a small space. Regards, Amy Nishide Los Gatos resident t RECEIVED MAR a 1 2016 TOWN OF LOS G/ TOS PLANNING DIVISION ez.41_ ? ee444/14 "°e4r--t 74,4_ /W0/-4 77 7167 Zig/ ' C/75 4- / 74 i d ez-41-edei t-/ 7% z t ate, a /50 , ?!/-ram '7 ' re 4.s yed.Psi /tt'%` Z 2J rt 4 !r /4^rye C 4r-es c March 31, 2016 Mani Moseley Planner Town of Los Gatos RE: North 40 Development RECEIVED OR 31 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION This letter is to express opposition to the current pending development application. I have of concerns about the impact on our town; it's residents and local businesses. I had planned to attend the meeting last night but unfortunately could not. For over 20 years I have owned a home in Los Gatos. I also own/manage a service business located in Los Gatos. My husband is currently an owner of a Los Gatos restaurant. We are deeply committed to preserving the nature of the town, the very reason Los Gatos has continued to be a highly desirable and successful area for families, businesses and also particularly attractive to developers. We've seen many changes to this town. In my opinion some changes have enhanced and some have not, still the Town council has done a reasonable job of managing growth while maintaining Los Gatos's unique character. This new massive development I strongly believe to be the tipping point to that fragile balance. Every neighbor / business owner I have spoken with is ala.wied at the obviously significant increase in unit density, additional traffic and potential impact on the existing down town. The downtown has struggled periodically over the years with parking and traffic issues that in recent times has become greatly problematic. While my company doesn't require public parking, there are increasing vacancies from many small businesses relocating. The most desirable towns in Northern California protect what they value by enforcing strict development standards fitting Town goals, goals that do not mean maximum possible development. I sincerely ask that this current plan not be approved. I understand we are dependent on the planning commission and town council to work on our behalf towards a reasonable approach, not the most profitable one for a developer at tremendous cost to our residents. Please consider this input. Sincerely, Rochelle Stone 40 Filimer Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Marni Moseley From: Eric Rafia <eric@healthmedrealty.com> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8.31 AM To: Marni Moseley; Attorney; Town Manager; Council Subject: North 40 All, I attended the planning commission meeting last night RE the N40 development. Amongst the many things which were brought up in that meeting was since the EIR had been certified, that it was a foregone conclusion and that nothing could be done. From the developer's perspective, it may be correct that there is no obligation on their part to re -visit the EIR once it has been certified. However, the California code of regulations does provide a mechanism in which to revisit the EIR. 15162(a)(3), for instance, provides that if there are grounds for the preparation of a supplement to the EIR, then the lead agency responsible for the next phase of discretionary approvals may so order one prepared (15164). The final FIR for the North 40 is dated July 18, 2014, though certification may have happened after that. One thing that is significant, and which has changed is that Samaritan Medical Center (www.samplussi.com) has proposed a massive redevelopment of their project, which would yield several hundred thousand new square feet of medical office space, which is exactly the type of use which the Town of Los Gatos forbid outright from being included in the North 40 development out of concerns for traffic. That seems to me, to provide for significant reasoning by which a new EIR, or an addendum to the existing one, to be ordered and reviewed. Another is the actual traffic impact from the NetFlix development, which if anybody has been travelling on Winchester/Lark/Los Gatos Blvd lately, knows has been far worse than what was portrayed to us. The specific plan also provided that housing must be designed for move -up and millennial buyers. I'm not sure how 3 bedroom homes meet that need, and it was an insult to our intelligence for the developer stand up and pretend that it did. I would encourage a review of the above, and that the town staff do everything in their power to listen to the residents of the town, and find ways to realize a better project as the law does provide for discretion in these matters. I would also ask that you please forward this email to the planning commissioners as 1 could not find their email addresses on-line. Here's a reference to the two sections of the law I cited: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lea/Advisories/22/attach22.htm Regards, Eric Rafia HealthMed Realty 408 457-8808 direct 408 457-8803 fax Lie, 01383075 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Coby Bennette <cbennette2001@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 931 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marni Moseley Subject: The Town of Los Gatos Hello all, I would like to start out with saying thank you for your service and dedication for our great town of Los Gatos. It is a very sad time for Los Gatos. VERY SAD TIME! I am deeply concerned with the direction this town has gone in terms of building and development, especially as it relates to our schools, our schools for our children. Yes, I understand SB50 and I am saddened that the choice made was to increase developer fees vs, the suspension or repeal of such new developments. There were choices. In Dr. Abbati's April 2015.findings http://www.sccoe.org/supoffice/countycommittee/Pages/agmin/15/071515 LGUSD Noti ce of Findings.pdf the Los Gatos Union School District was overcrowded 324 students. This number has only gone up since last year. This is before any North 40 development? Is it a coincidence that all proposed housing is on the LGUSD? You decide. Check out the value of a home in LGUSD vs. Campbell Union School District and there you have it. Although the developers claim to aim at young buyers and seniors, a 2-3+ bedroom unit will certainly aim to young families. There are 100s of students in LGUSD that squeeze into apartments around town, in order to attend our great schools. The great schools that will become so over populated and unsafe. The forecasts for student enrollment for new developments around town, i.e. Bluebird Lane and Laurel Mews, were underestimated based on actual attending students. Certainly, the same will be true for North40. Ms. Moseley, please consider the distribution of homes beyond LGUSD. This sure feels like a cart before the horse scenario. Please put the horse first. Please put our children first. Although items are mitigated on paper, they certain are not mitigated in real life scenarios. I invite you to take a look for yourself. But please walk or ride your bike so you do not contribute to further traffic congestion. Come to Los Gatos Blvd between 7:55 and 8:20am each morning. Come to the intersection of Shannon Road and Los Gatos Blvd. from 2:45-2:55pm and see the overflow of Fisher kids onto the street because the sidewalks are full. Look these kids into their eyes and tell them their lives do not matter. If one of them is killed, don't hide behind the "well we were required to do so." I can appreciate the complicated nature of meeting state housing requirements, but why does it all need to be met in one area? Can't we work with the state to show our intent of meeting these housing needs, a bit at a time? More importantly, have a school in place (through school district bond measures) before all of this development occurs, Los Gatos Union School District does not have the luxury of Union Elementary School District to have overflow schools. Even if all North 40 students attend Lexington Elementary (which would help traffic on LGBIvd. ), there still is an overcrowding issue. And the SB50 choice that was made will not be enough to deal with the current and pending overcrowding. Help to put the horse first! Help to put our children, who are our future of the great town of Los Gatos, first! Warm regards, Coby 2 Marni Moseley From: Barbara McInerney <barbara_mcinerney@yahoo.corn> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 135 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Concerns Hi Marni, I was not able to attend the meeting last night so I wanted to voice my concern to you. In addition to my concerns about traffic, obstruction of views, changing the small-town feel of Los Gatos, my main concern is the impact on the schools. One reason why Los Gatos is such a desired place to live is because we have good schools. With the potential of having to incorporate 300+ new children into our school district, this will compromise the quality of ALL of our children's education. Lets make sure that whatever residential units go up in the North 40 are accompanied by the development of a new school to educate the new residents. Not doing so would be harmful and irresponsible to all children in Los Gatos and the town in general. Lets do the RIGHT thing for our kids and our community, not the most profitable thing. Barbara McInerney Daves Avenue mother 1 Marni Moseley From: June Lugovoy <jlugovoy@gmail.corn> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:52 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 not for Los Gatos Planner, As a 22 year resident of Los Gatos, I have watched the town grow in many ways. The plan for North 40 will change Los Gatos in a significant way losing the characteristics that make Los Gatos desirable. The infrastructure of Los Gatos is stretched as it is and adding over 300 homes will impact the roads as 600 cars pull out into Los Gatos Blvd and Lark each morning. To say nothing of the 300 or so cars that will be pulling in as worker at the commercial businesses pull in. It is already crowded with traffic. There will end up with traffic through the side street backed up into all directions Where will 300 -600 children go to school. People buy homes in Los Gatos to send their kids to school or else they can but a nicer house for less money in neighboring communities. So there will be at least 300 and more likely 600 new student to add to the bulging school system. This plan is not appropriate or adequate for the space and does not adequately and realistically take into account the impact of such high density housing compounded by high density commercial use. There is a way to develop the area for adequate housing for both young and old as well as low income people but this is not it. The Los Gatos Planning uneven handling of big developers compared to single individuals remodeling homes continues to be disturbing. On the one hand individuals need to meet every minimum and perplexing rule that the planner might decide to implement and yet the large developers continue to shove expensive new homes into previous tiny lots or cram hundreds of homes into such a space. Please envision a realistic community for the North 40. Thank you, June Lugovoy, MD 1 From: Lori Ingle {IrngleL sgi.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:17 PM To: BSpector Subject: North 40 Parcel Dear Barbara, Please reconsider the development of the North 40 parcel to a much more reasonable scale (Single- family detached homes, open space, school, community center, nature center, historic orchard). The height and density of the current development proposal is completely out of sync with our town. We are very concerned about any additional impact to our already overcrowded schools and local roads. We live on Newell Avenue off of Winchester Blvd. The traffic increase that we have seen in the last few years has been troubling. We do not support the proposed maximum development on the North 40 parcel because the density of the units will increase traffic substantially. Thank you for your time, Bruce and Lori Ingle From: Eric Carlson [mailto:ericinIg@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:38 PM To: Planning Subject: For the Planning Commission Please deliver the following letter to all members of the planning commission To The Los Gatos Planning Commission As was evidenced at Wednesday's (3/30) planning commission hearing, many of us in Los Gatos are distressed by the intense and ugly development being proposed for the North Forty. Over the past ten years the Planning Commission and Council have approved a series of development along Los Gatos Blvd which have greatly intensified the traffic and visually turned the Blvd. into San Jose's Bascom Avenue. As pointed out by numerous speakers at the Planning Commission meeting, the proposal for the North Forty is completely inconsistent with the North Forty Specific Plan in terms of: maintaining the character of Los Gatos and the agricultural heritage of the property, putting the entire impact an schools in Los Gatos, and creating a traffic nightmare along Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave. In looking at the renderings of this proposal it is hard to imagine any development that would be less consistent with what the North Forty Plan envisioned. The Planning Commission and Town Council need to reject this terrible proposal, and send the developer back to create a plan that does tit in Los Gatos. Here is one idea: for the east side of 17 put a high -end senior life -care facility that meanders through open space (like Vi in Palo Alto), plus a high end hotel (like Four Seasons) to replace the decrepit and almost defunct Los Gatos Lodge, and a small shopping center with restaurants and a high -end market (like Piazza's) to serve the folks in the new development and the neighborhood. For the west side of 17: build, single family homes and below market price townhouses plus space for a new elementary school. And forget the density bonus. in fact, the North Forth Plan needs to be revised to be more specific about what types of development the Town wants. The current plan was approved by Council 3-2, where the 3 council persons voting for it were the very same ones who approved the current intense uses replacing the auto dealers on Los Gatos Blvd. We need the current Town Council to weigh in, Finally, I was appalled at the Town Attorney and Planning Department representative's report on the proposed development which basically said that the Commission needed to approve the project because it was consistent with the North Forty Plan. In the days of Town Attorney (now Judge) Mary Jo Levinger and (now retired) Town Planning Directors Lee Bowman and Bud Lortz, the staff helped the Commission and Council find reason to turn down these big, ugly development proposals and to find ways around State ordinances designed for Fresno and Bakersfield not for Los Gatos. Eric Carlson Former Planning Commission, Town Council Member, and Mayor Marni Moseley From: Sharad Sharma <sharad_sharma@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:43 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Hi Marni, The people of Los Gatos had their voice heard at the Planning Commission meeting yesterday. We hope the town will consider the multiple negative impacts of the increased traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard. Winchester is chocked with Netflix, Quito is one lane traffic and getting worse, 17 has been a choked with through traffic. North 40 will close the last access to our town. All this directly impacts the quality of day to day living. hope the town of Los Gatos keeps all these factors in mind. Sincerely, Sharad Sharma 247 Prince St, # 408-910-9684 i This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw me.com> Subject: No. 40 (Basements) "Whereas the General Plan encourages use of basements and cellars to provide hidden square footage in lieu of above ground visible mass...." Date: March 31, 2016 at 6:39:50 PM PDT To: BSpector <BSpectorIosgatosca.gov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc(cr7�losgatosca.gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennie(a?losgatosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen <MJensen@losgatosca.gov>, Steven Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca.gov>, Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti(closgatosca.gov> Can we require basements as part of the project? Does the current GP encourage use of basements? Has the above resolution ever been rescinded? By using basements can we use the square footage for RHNA requirements? Would basements allows us to reduce heights and keep the views, more in keeping with Los Gatos. if the units dropped to 25 feet in height, wouldn't that satisfy many of the citizens' concerns about the look of the project? JS:) Quoting from http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/57 "We're special. We demand quality of life." "...we are victims of our vitality and risk losing the charm and feel that makes Los Gatos such a special place. Whether it is intensification of uses that make the parking situation increasingly difficult, the encroaching of mass and scale on our homes and views, or just the loss of peace and quiet, we are undeniably experiencing communal stress," Mayor Jan Hutchins January 1999 State of the Town Speech Can we require them as part of the project? By doing can this keep the square footage for RHNA requirements? Would basements allows us to reduce heights and keep the views, more in keeping with Los Gatos. If the units dropped to 25 feet in height, wouldn't that be dramatic? http://www.town.los- gatos.ca.us/documents/8/12/108/Los Gatos_Residential_Design Guidelines FINAL rev 03091 1.PDF Residential Design Guidelines for the Town of Los Gatos www.town.los-gatos.ca.us/...ILos Gatos_Residential_Design_Guidelines_... 2. Oct 6, 2008 - The Town of Los Gatos has a great diversity of neighborhoods and residential structures Basements are included in the al- Towable FAR ... 1. Cellar Policy - Los Gatos wwvv.town.los-gatos.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/428 WIEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos does not currently have any written codes or ... WHEREAS, the General Plan encourages use of basements and cellars to ... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd—ssl#q---B as ements+to+maximum+square+footage+for+hi gh+d ensity+units+Los+Gatos http://www.realtor.connlrealestateandhornes-searchlLos-Gatos CA/with basement http://www.town.los-gatos.ea,us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1 734 The North Forty Specific Pan will be based on the following general guidelines: Include a mixture of uses that will complement the Downtown and the rest of the community, 4) Be based on sustainable and "smart" development practices. LU-18 s Include public gathering spaces such as a plaza and park. • 4) Provide for a variety of residential housing types, both rental- and owner- occupied. A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable to households at the moderate income level or below. • 4) Include high -quality architecture and design that reflects the rural and ag- ricultural history of the site. • 4) Provide pedestrian -oriented buildings along the Los Gatos Boulevard frontage, with minimal parking oriented to the street. • 4) Take advantage of the grade change across the site. • ( Continue the "boulevard treatment" along Los Gatos Boulevard, with in- terconnections from one parcel's drive aisle to the next. • 4) Include connections to existing intersections along Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. • 4) Develop gateway or landmark features at Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue and at Los Gatos Boulevard and the Highway 85 off -ramp. • 4) Provide an easily accessible, fully connected street network that encour- ages walking. • 4) Provide a vegetative buffer and screening along Highways 17 and 85. • 4) Preserve Town character and views. Marni Moseley From: Christos Karamanolis <karamanolis@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:38 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Stop the North 40 development project Dear Ms Moseley, 1 am writing to express my strong opposition to the development plans for North 40, in Los Gatos. My wife and 1 have been residents of Los Gatos since 2001, soon after we moved to the Bay Area from Europe. The main reason we chose to buy a house and start a family in Los Gatos was the small town feel and the quiet, laid-back style of the town. I fear that the huge development plans for North 40 will be detrimental to the quality of life we enjoy in this town. Already, the traffic in Los Gatos is becoming intolerable. Just drive on Lark Avenue northbound (towards Winchester) one morning and you will see what I mean. And that is even before the new Netflix campus is fully occupied. Let alone the Santa Cruz traffic going through downtown during the weekends, especially in summer time. Honestly, I am getting very frustrated with the situation. A project like North 40 wilt be the last stroke. We will be looking for another town to set roots in. Sincerely, Christos Karamanolis 112 Ohlone Ct Los Gatos, CA 95032 1 Marni Moseley From: Prakash Mana <prakashmana@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 6:12 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 - Serious concerns Good Morning, We are writing you with respect to the North 40, unfortunately we will not be able to attend the Planning and Commission meeting but wanted to share our concerns with you. We are very much opposed to this plan and quite disappointed to see all these massive new constructions showing up in the neighbor hood. We recently bought our house on 104 Las Astas Drive (we moved from Cleveland OH and absolutely loved the Los Gatos community!) As you know, Los Gatos is a premium community and we had to beg borrow to get a house in the community, Since we have moved, Netflix started constructing a massive office that increased the traffic on Lark Ave in a huge way. And, now with North 40, traffic will only get worse! Our back yard is directly of Lark Ave, and we cannot explain how much noisy it had became since we bought the place little over 2 years ago. Few months ago, we also requested the Los Gatos planning department, if we can replace our back yard wall with a concrete wall (and eight feet high), for both kids safety (since they are 2 and 4 and often play in the back yard) and noise pollution perspective. Our request got rejected since it would 'not look good'. We request you that you please keep residents in mind as you approve these new plans. We also kindly request that you consider building a concrete wall and grow more tress by the lark ave. so the noise levels will not impact the local residents as much. I hope you understand our concerns, we worked really hard to get a house in this beautiful Log Gatos community. But the community is gradually loosing its charm and becoming 'Sunnyvale and Santa Clara'. We are happy to support the community in anyway. We also re - request that you consider either allowing resident to raise their back yard walls or the city build a concrete wall and grow more trees by the lark ave, so the noise levels will not impact the local residents as much. Thank you again so very much for keeping us in mind! Manisha and Prakash 1 RECEIVED APR it 2015 April 1, 2016 Dear Los Gatos Mayor, Los Gatos Town Manager, Town Attorney, Planning Director and Los Gatos Planning Commission - Discussion and Comments on North 40: TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Direct the Town Attorney to report on alternatives to the certification of the EIR- when and how can an FIR is de -certified due to a significant change in conditions. - In this light, bring into the discussion an updated analysis of the traffic impacts, noting other new development not included in the EIR and current level of service on adjoining roads. Bring to bear factual record of current and short-term projected traffic flows on Lark, Winchester and Los Gatos Blvd. Use of the current EIR is not a tenable position and should be discarded. In a Town noted for its environmental values, green ethics and principles, adopt findings and resolutions that as part of the planning approvals, direct the developers to include installation of on site solar as part of the project. As this project is configured as a mini -urban "new city", adopt findings and resolution that as part of the planning approvals require extensive residential and commercial underground parking-, which is a basic principle of new urbanism - efficient use of existing space and not an extension of a suburban mall. Bring to the fore the relevance of threat of fiscal need for projected North 40 revenue in the form of future tax dollars from development in the context of current and projected budget shortfalls - is the debate about the on -going cost of a stand- alone Police Department in fact a hidden elephant in the discussion and analysis on this project. An integrated analysis of the future of the town is required. Thank you for your attention to these recommendations. Sincerely, Rita Norton Los Gatos, CA On Apr I, 2016, at 6:10 AM, Jessica Bandy <jessicabandygOac.com> wrote: Dear Vice Mayor Sayoc, I am writing to express my disappointment at the North 40 Project. I moved my family of 6 to Los Gatos in August of 2015 because we loved the small town feel of Los Gatos. When my husband was transferred to the area for work, we had many options for residence. So many people suggested Los Gatos for it's quaint feel, good schools and easy commute to San Jose, we focused our search in this area. While finding a home wasn't an easy job, it made us realize how coveted this area is. We finally did buy a home on South Kennedy Rd. and while the property taxes alone are an enormous undertaking, we feel that living in Los Gatos is worth it! Below, I'm outlining the reasons I am concerned about the project and how it will affect our family. 1) SCHOOL OVERCROWDING: We have four boys in the LGUSD. The school district here was touted as amazing by everyone we talked to. While our children are happy, I can tell you the schools are busting at the seams. Fisher, a MIDDLE school, has over 1,200 students...this is approaching high school size and Lisa Fraser is working her tail off (and doing a wonderful job) maintaining a small school feel in this enormous middle school. These schools will have a difficult time handling all the influx. And while the residences are proposed for `young single professionals' and `retired' people, I can guarantee that young families will cram themselves into these residences JUST to get their kids into LGUSD. The schools cannot handle any more kids, let alone 320 residences worth! 2) INCREASED TRAFFIC: One of the things we love about Los Gatos is how easy it is to get around and access all the small businesses in the down town area. When we moved, I found myself rarely leaving Los Gatos, because it has everything I need. I could get anywhere in town in 10 minutes and while there were times of the day I would avoid certain areas, it is manageable. Adding 320 residences and 500,000 feet of retail space would overwhelm our roads to the point of frustration and damage to the existing roads. The easy access to San Jose is a huge reason people move here! The quality of our family life will tank if my husband has to sit in hours of traffic due to this project. 3) DETREMENT TO LOCAL BUSINESSES: As I mentioned, we love using the downtown businesses and I fear the additional retail space will kill these locally owned stores. We frequent them because we love the convenience and want to support having small shops. 500K feet of retail space will surely draw customers from Los Gatos, which will hurt the success of the local shops. This is what makes the town feel like a town. Please reconsider this project! As tax -paying residents of Los Gatos, I am vehemently opposed to the North 40 Project as proposed. Little consideration was paid to the `Guiding Principles' when considering these three items above. I would be more than happy to express these in person should you like to contact me. Kindly, Jessica Bandy 16520 S. Kennedy Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 jessica bandy I iessicabandy@rnac.com 1404.386.5823 Marni Moseley From: tom flageoilet <t.flageollet@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:57 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 project The intent of this email is to voice my concern regarding the North 40 project. My primary concerns are the impact to 1) traffic and 2) the overall ongoing infrastructure required by the Town to support the needs of this addition to our community. The traffic in the Winchester Blvd/Lark Ave/Los Gatos Blvd area is already problematic and unbearable at times. It is impossible not to see how a project of this scope will make this situation exponentially worse. Traffic and parking throughout the commercial districts of Los Gatos Blvd, Winchester Blvd, and Santa Cruz Ave appear to be at their max capacity. For example, parking in the downtown area mid week for lunch is consistently as bad as used to be for weekend Holiday periods only. It is impossible not to see how a project of this scope will make this situation exponentially worse. Many Los Gatos residents I know express their concern regarding the impact on the school district's capacity. While I live in Los Gatos Town limits, my address is not within the Los Gatos school district. Therefore, my school district concerns and support falls to the district in which I'm included. However, I am very sensitive and sympathetic to their plight. Again, it is impossible not to see how a project of this scope will make this situation worse. It certainly will not add any value to my school district while negatively impacting the Los Gatos community and quality of life. I would urge the Town Council and Planning Commission to consider a reduced project scope limiting the negative impacts (traffic, population density, project height, infrastructure support) on our wonderful community while adding more open green space with public accessibility. Regarding commercial space; I would urge the Town Council to consider unique options that match the unique personality of the Los Gatos community (we don't need more coffee chains or Apple stores). Thank you for representing our citizens and protecting our community. Torn & Patrice Flageollet Los Gatos residents since 1994 i Marni Moseley From: edrathmann©comcast.net Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 9;09 AM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Jason; whaien; Whalen, Jeffrey; millman Subject: North 40 Planning Commission, I am writhing this from the position of a business owner in downtown Los Gatos. I am also writing this with the shared assumption that a thriving downtown is part of what makes Los Gatos such an attractive community to live in. The downtown requires a critical mass of people to support the businesses that people come downtown to experience. Already the downtown suffers from parking problems , traffic congestion, and competition from Campbell and other retail centers. Now you have before you a proposal for another 60,000 sf of retail, and in later in phase 2 the potential for another 400,000 sf. Campbell which is clearly hurting downtown Los Gatos, has probably 60,000 or more in its thriving downtown. Santana row has 500,000 sf. The North 40 will have plenty of parking, and trendy shops and restaurants. It is halfway between Campbell and the downtown. How is it not going to draw shoppers away from the downtown? Originally Grovenor called the North 40 a " second downtown" on their website. They took that down when they realized it was bad marketing. The north side of town already has several shopping centers to serve that area. Imagine if the North 40 took 10 or 15% of shoppers away from the down town. What would happen? It would be devastating to the downtown economy, and it is very possible. Why would we risk it? You saw on Wednesday night that the citizens of Los Gatos overwhelmingly do not want the North 40. Talk to the town attorney; find a legal reason to deny this plan and vote against it. This will go before the town council. By voting against it you are giving them more ammunition to fight this. The three Council members who mistakingly voted for the specific plan will come to regret their vote and will look for reasons to vote against this proposal or try and find a reason to repeal the specific plan. Please do what you can to set the stage for that to happen. Fight this insane plan anyway you can. The North 40 will be a disaster for the downtown, not to mention all the other problems associated with it. Let's not allow this to happen. Ed Rathmann. i From: Rita Norton [maiito:ritanorton1@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 9:49 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Town Manager Subject: please forward to all parties --Mayor and Council, Planning Commission, Town Manager, Attorney, and Planning Director April 1, 2016 Dear Los Gatos Mayor, Los Gatos Town Manager, Town Attorney, Planning Director and Los Gatos Planning Commission - Discussion and Comments on North 40: Direct the Town Attorney to report on alternatives to the certification of the EIR- when and how can an EIR is de -certified due to a significant change in conditions. - In this light, bring into the discussion an updated analysis of the traffic impacts, noting other new development not included in the EIR and current level of service on adjoining roads. Bring to bear factual record of current and short-term projected traffic flows on Lark, Winchester and Los Gatos Blvd. Use of the current EIR is not a tenable position and should be discarded_ In a Town noted for its environmental values, green ethics and principles, adopt findings and resolutions that as part of the planning approvals, direct the developers to include installation of on site solar as part of the project. As this project is configured as a mini -urban "new city", adopt findings and resolution that as part of the planning approvals require extensive residential and commercial underground parking-, which is a basic principle of new urbanism- efficient use of existing space and not an extension of a suburban mall. Bring to the fore the relevance of threat of fiscal need for projected North 40 revenue in the form of future tax dollars from development in the context of current and projected budget shortfalls — is the debate about the on -going cost of a stand-alone Police Department in fact a hidden elephant in the discussion and analysis on this project. An integrated analysis of the future of the town is required. Thank you for your attention to these recommendations. Sincerely, Rita Norton Los Gatos, CA Marni Moseley From: MARTHIN DE BEER <mfdebeer@mac.com> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 10:56 AM To: BSpector; Marni Moseley Cc: Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie Subject: Please save Los Gatos! Dear Ms Spector, Moseley and council members Our family has been residents of Los Gatos for 20 years, and love living here. We have been active in the community and involved in great Los Gatos community projects for many years. The improvements the council made over the years, our town's unique character and the family friendly environment and people living here is why we chose Los Gatos. Unfortunately, those qualities are quickly eroding away, due to increasingly crowded schools, severe traffic congestion and increased crime. Commuting across town used to take minutes and is now often frustrating traffic jams. Residents can hardly manage to get to their homes heading up Alpine road due to high school students unable to find parking at school, parking on both sides of the street leaving no room for cars to pass each other. This is just a couple of examples of the untenable situation today. I am writing to implore you to not proceed with the North 40 Project. If you do, you will change Los Gatos forever and it will not be for good. I worked as a senior executive at Cisco, building infrastructure with service providers all over the world for 20 years. Our infrastructure will not scale to support this proposed project. This is abundantly clear to everyone living here. 1 chose to blind -copy many of our influential resident friends on this email, so they can express their views and experiences. Please consider this decision with great prudence. I believe this will be the most important town council decision in decades and will permanently impact the future of Los Gatos. Sincerely Marthin De Beer mfdebeer rlilmac.com (408) 656-5171 3 Marni Moseley From: Martha Geiszler <mgeiszler3@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 11:26 AM To: Marni Moseley; Jennifer.riano@gmail.com; Iindafrolich@gmail.com; cathleenbannon@gmail.com Subject: North 40 am writing regarding the proposed development of the North 40. I have lived in Los Gatos since 1974 and am so disgusted by the constant traffic throughout the day and weekends, over crowded schools, an increase in medical facilities and large homes crammed together on small lots. Small areas of land with high density housing is NOT what Los Gatos should be comprised of or approved by our Town. The North 40 Phase 1 story poles don't tell the entire story but alone are enough for any reasonable Town Official to stop and reconsider what the long term impact of this project will be on our Town. This project does not meet the specific plan's requirement of not impacting traffic and schools. Packing 270+ homes in this area will contribute over 600 cars or more on our streets daily and the potential for 300-900 children in our already overcrowded schools. I would be happy if low income and senior housing, parks, soccer fields, an additional school or some other useful benefit to the town be planned for the North 40. 35 foot tall homes crammed together on this land does not fit in with the surrounding area. This is a historic piece of land that has been orchards for decades. High density housing is not the right course for this land. I hope the Planning commission is not swayed by the developers heavy handed tactics. I appreciate your efforts on this project and hope the commission gives serious consideration to the thoughts and concerns of our current residents. Thank you, Martha Geiszler 16379 Kennedy Road 1 From: Tedi Uhrowczik rtediu@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:10 PM To: Rob Rennie; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc Subject: North 40: NO! Another NO on the North 40 development! There are so many reason this is a bad idea. The only reason to do it is money. Los Gatos is not poor, there are other ways to get money. As a 37 year resident of LG, I don't want to sell out to big money interests!! Protect the ambiance/culture of our town!! Please represent us as we elected you to do. Tedi Uhrowczik 50 Ellenwood Ave Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 Marni Moseley From: Tedi Uhrowczik <tediu@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 1:19 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40: NO!! Another NO on the North 40 development! There are so many reason this is a bad idea. The only reason to do it is money. Los Gatos is not poor, there are other ways to get money. As a 37 year resident of LG, l don't want to sell out to big money interests!! Protect the ambiance/culture of our town!! Please represent us as we elected you to do. Tedi Uhrowczik 50 Ellenwood Ave Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 i Marni Moseley From: Denise Strom <dmssbs@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 3:44 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Re: North 40 I want to let you know that I am not in support of North 40. I believe this development would dramatically change Los Gatos into a crowded, cramped town with lots of traffic. The only one who will benefit from this project will be greedy developers. If we allow North 40 to pass, we can kiss the LG we know and love goodbye. I urge you not to support this project. Denise Mohr Strom 150 Cardinal Lane Los Gatos CA 95032 Marni Moseley From: Bonnie Payne <bonnieapayne@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 7:32 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Dear Ms. Moseley, I am distressed that the town is considering the current development proposal for the North 40. I cannot see any way that it conforms to the Guiding Principles for this area, and I cannot see any way that it respects the concerns of the current citizens of our town. Already driving around town on a weekend is almost impossible due to 5outhbound 17 traffic. And if the story poles are any indication, the proposed development is incredibly dense. The proposed development may make a lot of money for developers, but our town would be very negatively impacted. I urge you to unequivocally reject this proposal. Thank you for your attention and for the energy you give to our town. Bonnie Payne 1 Marni Moseley From: Moses, Roy <rmoses@cbnorcal.com> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 12:34 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Good Day Ms Moseley, Planning Commission and Town Council, PLEASE say NO to HIGH DENSITY at Lark and Los Gatos Blvd - AKA - north 40 Due to: Severely congested traffic in area Schools are impacted and overcrowded - school children are already being sent away from neighborhood schools TOO many homes and the ones proposed are TOO high - this project does not look or feel like Los Gatos, where is the open space? What about maintaining the town as a town? We do not want this area to have the feel of a big city - it is s000000 congested already. PLEASE look at minimizing the impact on the town, the infrastructure is crumbling Too much building in this area already, Please listen to the townspeople - not just the developers. Our voice should be heard We have lived here, paid our taxes and supported this town for 47 years and have loved it, but do not like what has been happening the last couple years and truly do not like this proposed project when so many more negative impacts would result. PLEASE look more closely at the proposed project and scale it down significantly. It would change the look and feel of Los Gatos as we have known and loved. Thank you for your prompt consideration and co-operation in this regard. Roy Moses 16529 La Croix Ct Los Gatos 95032 The information in this electronic mail message is the senders confidential business and may be legally privileged. it is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this intemet 1 Marni Mosele From: Paul Tong <ptong173@gmaiicom> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 3:37 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Objection to North 40 development Dear Marni., I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development on the North 40 in Los Gatos. This plan is going to increase the population and traffic to our already over crowded town. I have lived in Los Gatos for over 20 years. I get on I-880 from Lark Ave. which is getting too crowded year after year. This project is going to push our town as busy as Cupertino and West San Jose. Thanks, -Paul Marni Moseley From: Karen Bean <losgatosbeans@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 6:03 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Opposed to the North 40 project Dear Marni, I have been a resident of Los Gatos for the past 10 years. I am strongly opposed to the North 40 project and how it is currently proposed. I would like to see more open space, a park, maybe a sports field for the children to use as we never have enough playing fields and less housing and Tess commercial property on the site. I feel the developers are only in it for their pocketbook, even though they are trying to work with the city and "say" all the things the town wants to hear. l am strongly opposed to the developers putting the housing units in the Los Gatos Unified District lines. I also feel the North 40 project is turing into the Santana Row of Los Gatos. I feel it is going to drastically hurt the downtown retailers and traffic will be a nightmare all around the development. It's already a very congested area. Thank you. Regards, Karen Bean LG Resident since 2005 April, 3rd, 2016 Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers, RECEIVED APR 4 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION While l have no problem with a property owner selling or attempting to develop their property (even as one who will benefit from this project by virtue of owning a commercial building nearby) I ask you as a life long resident of Los Gatos to consider (re -consider) any and all of your legal alternatives and rethink the mass, size, height, and scope of the general plan previously approved that will allow such a development on the North 40 that we now witness before us in the erected "story poles" . Add to that, we all know that this is only about half of the North 40, with another 400,000 square feet on the drawing board. At the planning commission meeting last week many of the town's residents spoke out against the project as submitted because of its scale and the attendant impact on our schools and surrounding surface traffic, creating more gridlock. gone reads the data (paid for by Grosvenor) it becomes very clear that this project will create many more than 3800 new car trips per day ( projected at only 170 to 200 from the 300+ houses on the south end of the development) not to mention many new children living in those houses who will be attending our already overcrowded schools . Last Wednesday night I was appalled by the developer verbally berating a much respected major local landlord in the lobby, after that upstanding (multi generational) citizen spoke before the planning commission about the impact the project will have on the downtown. Not to mention Grosvenor's legal wrangling's that night, it clearly proved to me Don's character and to what length this developer (or their henchmen) will go in order to get their project approved over the best interests and quality of life for us, the taxpayers and citizens. Clearly, this is a quality of life issue before us with the question being; will the town council stand up to yet another out of town developer who puts their interests above those of us who will be living here long after they are gone? Respectfully, J. M. Whalen This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Tina Lally <Tina.Lally@sli-systems.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:34 AM To: Marni Moseley; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 To Ms. Moseley & Whom it May Concern at the Town of Los Gatos, have lived in Los Gatos for 40 years and never have I been less proud and more disappointed with our very special town. I am not 100% clear (I plan to hear both arguments and become fully educated on this topic) but I believe the recent development plans of the North 40 and current development on the corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd. have mostly to do with the rights of land owners to build and develop and the need for lower income housing for teachers and service people to live in our town. I am sure the need is there. However, it is simply unacceptable that it can take 30 minutes to go 2.6 miles on a school day to drop my children off at St. Mary's School in Los Gatos, or worse 15 minutes to go 1 mile to Lark Ave. Highway 17 freeway entrance. The traffic in, out, around Los Gatos is absolutely an abomination. It isn't just Santa Cruz commuters or beach traffic on Highway 17. I too lived in the 70s, 80s, and 90s in Los Gatos- we always had beach traffic and our town was never gridlocked. This is daily traffic in the mornings and afternoons when our children are walking and biking to school or we are driving them to school and then getting ourselves to work (outside of Los Gatos) - it is simply overpopulation and local traffic. I currently live on the corner of Shannon Rd. and Hilow Rd. and have for 14 years. Shannon Rd is bumper to bumper at Sam and looks like Highway 85, not to mention the Google bus trying to avoid running kids over who are simply walking to school- believe me this is a broken town and adding more housing is NOT going to fix it. I personally plan and time when I leave my house, where I go and what I do based on the hour of the day and our traffic. I work in Downtown San Jose and leave after 9:30 to avoid Los Gatos gridlock. I avoid going downtown to shop and run errands and go outside of Los Gatos to avoid our horrible congestion. What are we doing about this? Is North 40 a sound idea, really? An extra lane on Highway 17 does not solve this problem. It is unsafe for my children to play on our street due to the amount of cross traffic zooming down Hilow to Topping, Marchmont, Englewood, and Kennedy trying to avoid Los Gatos Blvd. Adding 11 homes to barely 1 acre parcel seems ridiculous. Let alone hundreds of new homes on Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave./North 40. It takes 15 minutes to get through the light on Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd or the light on Kennedy and Los Gatos Blvd or the light at Los Gatos Blvd. and Lark... often with angry, road rage drivers trying to cut through Gem, Filmer and Harding nearly taking out precious young students and families making their way by foot to Van Meter and Fisher. Recently 1 had a man so angry that I had to merge into his lane that he followed me to my destination and I had to call the police in order to get out of my car!! I'm fairly confident that the two new large home developments on Los Gatos Blvd. and Roberts and Los Gatos Blvd. and Kennedy have had significant impact on our traffic. I don't know anything about the enrollment numbers at our local schools but have friends and family that are teachers or have/are students at our local schools - All whom complain about the over enrollment in our schools. I need to understand what is going on. I need to understand why that when I was the appointed Vice President and Board Member at Mariposa Montessori school on Ferris we were blocked from adding 9 students to our precious preschool by the Town of Los Gatos and how that the same body of elected officials could possibly approve this level of housing development. Why not put a new corporate business center at this location, two floors only with ample parking or a new sports facility for our children who have to play baseball at Union little league when our fields are too full, or a combination of homes on large lots, a sports facility and business? Why more condensed multi level housing and that much more people, students, traffic, congestion, etc.? How many people can realistically live in this town. What happens if there is a natural disaster and we all need to get out? What then? Something is terribly wrong and I have to understand the common sense logic behind it- not the town ordinances or number of affordable housing units we must have etc. I need the town to really understand the impact and come up with other solutions to meet the local, state, and federal town requirements and laws for land owners. Can't we look at existing structures and turn some of those into more affordable housing solutions vs building new ones on postage stamps in already heavily trafficked areas? I appreciate your time and for receiving my email. I hope to attend another council meeting. We absolutely expect EVERY story board to go up for this project, we need to see what a disaster this really is. Have you driven down highway 17 towards Los Gatos from Campbell lately, it is so sad. Sincerely, Tina Lally Long time 40 yr resident St. Mary's Parent St. Mary's PTG President 2012-2014 St. Mary's Country Fair Chair St. Mary's town permits Chair Concerned neighbor Tina A. Lally Director of Marketing Programs C: 408-888-1047 E: tina.lallysli-systems.com fi SLI SYSTEMS I CONNIRCI ACCCIIRAttD All the resources you need for e-commerce success Visit the SUJ Knowledge Bose > 2 Marni Moseley From: sarah@kensler.me Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 5:54 PM To: Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marni Moseley Cc: sarah@kensler.me Subject: Concerns re: North 40 development Dear Vice -Mayor and Council Members - As a Los Gatos resident I wanted to register my concerns about the North 40 development. The density and height of the development as evidenced by the story poles makes for something way too dense and structures far too high, thereby blocking off the magnificent views. The congestion in our town is at an all time high, and adding yet more buildings will add to the traffic and parking issues. In addition we will continue to see many of the local businesses fail as our once small-time town become the venue for commercial stores. In addition the plan does not include reference for addressing the school situation: as it is our schools are underfunded and over -extended; what is the plan for accommodating the additional children that will be part of our school district? As someone who has lived in Los Gatos for the past 22 years I strongly implore you to ensure that the North 40 project will follow the development guidelines set forth by Los Gatos to ensure the development conforms to the unique character of the town we love. I would like to see more open space (not less!), an investment in our schools and education, and a focus on improving the town's infrastructure, public transportation and community services. Regards, Sarah Sarah Kensler sarah1 ?a,kensler.me 408.406.6546 (mobile) r Marni Moseley From: Rhodie Firth <rhodab52@aol.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:57 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: worth Forty To the members of the Town Council recently read an article written by residents of Cupertino who are fighting a mega development to replace the Valico shopping center. They list five side effects of mega developments. These side effects are enormous traffic gridlock, worsening air quality, unprecedented strain on electrical, water, and sewage systems, hampered ability of first responders to deal with disasters, and students crammed into tin -can mobile units on every campus. There is no doubt that the proposed development for the North Forty will expose our community to all five of these side effects. How scary! l have great admiration for how hard most of you have worked to do the right thing for Los Gatos when these developers designed something that has nothing to do with the flavor of our community. They must be stopped or we will lose the Los Gatos that we all know and love. Wish I had called various conservation organizations when this all started. Maybe one of them could have purchased the land and saved it. I didn't think of doing that. Thanks for your time, Rhodie Firth - 15905 orange Blossom Ln. - Los Gatos Sent from my iPad 1 Marni Moseley From: Sara Fishersmith <sarafishersmith@gmail.com? Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:02 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40/Los Gatos The Planning Commissioners and the Town Council must be OUT OF YOUR MINDSI l l r What were you all thinking when you approved a plan to allow a developer to to build 320 housing units, 66,000 square feet of commercial space etc etc etc????????? The area from Hwy 85 south to Main Street, Los Gatos Blvd. to Quito Road CAN NOT TAKE ON ANY MORE TRAFFIC''''''' Have you tried to find a parking spot at noon within this town? At seven at night????? By ten in the morning the parking places are already at a premium. Did you travel from Hwy 9 south to Main street this past July and August?????? The town was grid locked with beach traffic. It took 30 to 45 minutes just to travel several blocks. Grid locked. Remember????????????????? ARE YOU MAD OUT OF YOUR HEADS???? What (besides revenue) were you thinking? Think —THINK —of the impact another 320 houses would add to the traffic that is already existing in Los Gatos. Let's see...320 houses adds 640 more cars. And what about the cars/traffic new businesses will bring? streets. There are only a few ways not and out of town. Everything funnels in and out of this town on just a hand full of And then there's the eye sore of the buildings. I see the orange netting perched upon poles. You are allowing the last piece of open space within this community to vanish once and forever. You may think I'm going to far, but that open space is not unlike an endangered species. Once it turns to concrete it will never be a walnut grove again. Other people will give better ideas for this space than 320 houses and commercial buldings. I'm just gonna say to you DO NOT RUIN —further ruin —Los Gatos by adding to the congestion that already is making a once wonderful town into someplace to crowded to enjoy. 1 Marni Moseley From: Camille <camille.lesko@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:17 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Hello, I am a resident/owner in Los Gatos. 972 Cherrystone Dr. I am concerned about the additional traffic that will result from all the new residences and businesses going in at the North 40 development. Without additional freeway entrance ramps, this will create a traffic nightmare. Please address this issue before proceeding with the development. Thank you, Camille Lesko 1 On Apr 5, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Kaye and Stephanie <airdale4us@aol.com> wrote: Vice -Mayor Sayoc, We are stunned at the development as currently proposed for the North 40. It is crowded, massive and, quite honestly, an eyesore. So much could be done to make it more attractive and to "look and feel like Los Gatos" as required by the Town. Some examples: a few curving streets, more walking paths, little green spaces and more 1 story, single-family homes. No three story box structures! We do not believe the Town Council will be proud that they voted to allow this development to be built as currently proposed. The Council has the power to ask for something better for Los Gatos. The Council was elected to represent the residents of the Town not to make the developer happy. This large development will impact the Town like no other in recent history. Please listen to those you represent and guide the developers to build something that will make us all proud to have as a part of our Town. Los Gatos is a very special place and it is okay to ask for something better, something more "Los Gatos." Kaye Little Stephanie Adcock 453 Monterey Ave Los Gatos, Ca 95030 Marni Moseley From: Trish@Sporlederorg Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 1:39 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 debacle Please add my name to the list of citizens against the present North 40 plan. [t surprised me to learn that the council okayed the developer's impact report. Surely they knew it was a conflict of interest? I, like so many am dismayed at the way the town is growing. I call our downtown area Westfield Los Gatos! If someone wants charm, they head for Campbell. I can't blame them. Sincerely, Patricia Sporleder 1 Planning 1 NW From: 13S Nissen <bsnissen@gmaiLcom> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 2:05 PM To: Planning Subject: proposed North Forty development Dear commissioners: My husband and I have lived in Los Gatos since 1963. Fifty three years. The growth and development in the past 10 years has been appalling. RECEIVED APR 13, 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION On the East side of Los Gatos the first mistake was Blue Bird Lane. Even worse came Laurel Muse at the Honda Agency site. On the other side of the freeway was the Netflix/Albright project that looks like a city when traveling along Highway 85 and it's not even completed as yet.. What are we thinking ? Are there any Planning Commission members who see this as wrong? The small town atmosphere and charm is gone. Traffic very often is at a standstill. Our schools are overcrowded. We need a moratorium on building for at. least 5 years until we can address the issues caused by this malignant growth that seems to be ok with some town officials. It was encouraging to me that the CVS project at Los Gatos Almaden Road/Los Gatos Blvd. and the housing debacle at Shannon/Los Gatos Blvd were voted down by the Planning Commission. Thank you. We are now facing the North Forty plan of adding over 300 more homes. This cannot be allowed to happen before the traffic and school issues facing us now are addressed. Why not build a soccer field, skate board park, green space for all to enjoy? There is also talk of homes being built on the site of the Los Gatos Lodge. It boggles my mind to think these new projects are even under consideration. Traffic is not going to fix itself. Our reputation for our schools is going to suffer. Please, as elected officials representing the town's population. listen to the outcry from people like us who have lived here so long and loved our small town. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Susan Nissen 103 Cardinal Lane Los Gatos 95032 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Sandra Livinghouse <sandra@atnpr.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:13 PM To: bspecgtor@losgatosca.gov; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; rrennie@Iostatosca.gov; Steven Leonardis Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: Overdevelopment in Los Gatos April 5,2016 Subject: North 40 and Overdevelopment of Los Gatos Dear LG Town Council members and Planning Commission, I am writing to voice my opposition to the North 40 project as it is currently conceived. It is far too dense a project to be appropriate for the town of Los Gatos. In addition, I am opposed to the ongoing dense development that is being approved for this town generally, such as Bluebird Lane and Laurel Mews Being a resident for three decades, I remember a time when Los Gatos was appropriately cautious about large dense developments. For example, developments such as Kennedy Meadows required large lots and a resident -walking trail. The recent trend toward approving huge homes on tiny lots and condo developments on main streets is negatively impacting the quality of life in Los Gatos. Your decisions and developer's greed are destroying the small-town atmosphere that we moved here for. Why are the current town council and planning commission leaders now reversing decades of established planning guidelines for Los Gatos? I am opposed to the North 40 project for the following reasons: • An overwhelming increase in traffic congestion: A projected increase of 20,000 vehicle visits per day. • An increase in the number of students being added to the rolls of an already over -burdened Los Gatos School District. • An increase in traffic further escalating the gridlock we experience all summer on weekends, with beach traffic on Highway 17. • A definite and clearly measurable reduction in the quality of life that our Town's residents most certainly deserve and have enjoyed for generations. I ask you to please immediately re-establish appropriate judgement in evaluating development plans. Single- family homes on larger lots, with built in facilities for walking trails, parks, schools, and senior accommodations is all that is appropriate. And, there should be no developments directly on major streets, including Los Gatos Blvd, Main Street, Santa Cruz Ave. and LG-SAR road. If this project is already in process (though I believe you can have the developer cut down the size of it considerably, which I expect you to do), I urge you to make the developer build a light -rail for beach goers across 17, that will also serve as the transportation for students attending Lexington School. At least that way, we will get some win out of this mess. Thanks, Sandra Livinghouse 16230 Brooke Acres Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-358-4709 2 Marni Moseley From: Eng, Duncan <Duncan.Eng@Ifg.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 0S, 2016 3:19 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North Forty [ am for this development. [ know people/ neighbors that will show up against this but there are plenty for us that believe this will be good for the town. Increase tax revenue to offset the loss of the car dealerships on Los Gatos Blvd. Just look at Campbell with what they can provide to their residents with commercial growth. People want to live there now. That was not always the true. Duncan Eng, Financial Planner Private Wealth Financial Partners Sagemark Consulting 2105 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 300 Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: 408-879-4217 Fax: 408-879-4297 E-mail: Duncan.Eng[cc%LFG.com CA Insurance License #01344076 www.PWFPartners.com ...We help define your future! Duncan Eng is a registered representative of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. Securities offered through Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a broker -dealer (member SIPC). Investment advisory services offered through Sagemark Consulting, a division of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a registered investment advisor. Insurance offered through Lincoln Marketing and Insurance Agency, LLC and Lincoln Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. and other fine companies. Private Wealth Financial Partners is not an affiliate of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. Please do not send any trading or transaction instructions through this email. They will not be executed. Please call the Lincoln Financial Advisors trade desk at 1-800-237-3815. If you do not wish to receive future e-mails from me, please call me at 408-879-4217, or e-mail me at Duncan.Eng@LFG.com . We will comply with your request within 30 days. Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp. and its representatives do not provide legal or tax advice. You may want to consult a legal or tax advisor regarding any legal or tax information as it relates to your personal circumstances. CRN1093557-010815 i Notice of Confidentiality: **This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Lincoln National Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Lincoln National Corporation family of companies. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the untended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. if you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. Thank You.** Marni Moseley From: Melissa Moses <slish528@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:15 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Hello, I am writing to express my concern about the North 40 project. I have lived in Los Gatos for 11 years, my husband his whole 42 year old life. We are extremely worried about the traffic increases we have seen in only the past few years, and what this will mean if so many more units are added. Please, lets keep Los Gatos the amazing small town we all love, and not ruin it with blight and overgrowth. Mark & Melissa Moses Escobar Avenue, Los Gatos i Marni Moseley From: Kimberly Keck <kimberlylincoln@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:34 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Please don't develop LG Please stop the north forty development project! I am a long time resident of Los Gatos and have young children in LG schools and pay the high taxes to live in our wonderful town. It already feels overcrowded and has changed so much. Please don't continue overdeveloping our town like so many of the Bay Area cities. It's a town! Keep it that way!! Kimberly Lincoln Keck 408-348-0766 mobile 1 I. Question Presented; Why does the Town of Los Gatos have $54M in employment -related liabilities, approx. $15M in unfunded road repairs, 20% of its streets presently in poor or very poor condition, need to raise taxes, can't afford a new senior center, can't subsidize and must charge our local recreation department, can't afford downtown garages and other things, and must approve large developments to fund town services? II. Executive Summary: The Town of Los Gatos has serious financial challenges because of the huge increase in employment benefits, large police budget, Great Recession and decline in Netflix sales tax revenue. In addition to ongoing cuts in important nonPD services, we are dependent on large property developments for tax revenues, which is in turn creating traffic, which the citizens are asserting the No. 1 problem in Los Gatos. By refusing to restructure our budget, and the longer we do so, we will continue to worsen our traffic problem. The citizenry can complain all the want about large developments and traffic, but if we don't engage in significant reform of our budget, the Town of Gatos as we know it will probably forever change. We will become the City of Los Gatos, at which point biking will become a greater necessity for getting around. There is significant financial pressure to approve a large No. 40 project because the Town desperately needs the increased property tax and sales tax revenue. A large project will then require more mandated housing by the state, which will further impact our already over -crowded schools. III. Long Answer: A. The Town of Los Gatos approved huge increases in employment benefits. Our unfunded employment -related liabilities are $54M. Our large police department is a key driver of this increase in liabilities. 1. Quoting from http://www.noozhawk.corniarticleilou cannon unfunded public pensio n liabilities san jose 20150810 In 1999, when the stock market was booming, the Legislature passed SB 400 at the behest of Democratic Gov, Gray Davis, reducing the retirement age for state workers to 55 from 6o with pensions paying 2 percent of salary for each year worked and basing pensions on the highest single year's salary rather than the previous average of three years. 1 The state standard was widely copied by local governments, which in many cases made benefits retroactive. (emphasis added) Small wonder that Crane calls SB 400 "the single -greatest issuance of debt in state history." In 2003, the unfunded liabilities of the 8o public pension systems in California totaled $6.3 billion. By 2004, with the new provisions in effect, it had reached $50.9 billion. By 2013, it had topped $198 billion. 2. Saratoga's unfunded employment liability is a small fraction of Los Gatos, in large part because it has a more efficient policing model with the Sheriff. Quoting from http://www.saratoga. .ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BIobID=9152 BUDGET PRIORITIES With the strength of the economy improving and Saratoga's growing financial stability, the City is in a position to take steps now to invest in the City's future success and fiscal solvency. This is best illustrated by the following priorities of the FY 2015/16 Budget: • • Improve Local Roads • • Address Financial Liabilities • • Enhance Community Engagement Notable Accomplishments in FY 2014/15 Unfunded Accrued Liability The City paid $3.3 million toward its $ / �7► .7 million pension liability. The decision will save the City $3.6 million in future interest payments, The City also established a plan to pay $500,000 a year for the next 15 years toward the remaining $4.4 million UAL instead of following Ca1PERS suggested 30-year payment plan. This accelerated payment plan will save the City another $3 to $4 million in interest payments. (emphasis added) 3. From Cupertino's 2015-2016 Annual Budget: Significant investment losses experienced by CalPERS during the great recession resulted in overall funded status of the retirement system dropping to 60.8%.1 Given the economic recovery, the funded status of the system has improved to 70%.2 However, the desired goal is 100% funded status, where assets on hand are equal to the desired level of assets needed to pay pension benefits. After a thorough analysis, CaIPERS actuaries determined the retirement system was at significant risk of falling to dangerously low funded status levels under existing actuarial policies. This prompted the Ca1PERS Board to adopt revised actuarial policies that aim to return the system to 100% funded level within 30 years. The new method includes changing the asset smoothing period from 15 years to 5 years and paying gains and losses over a fixed 30 year period with a 5-year ramp up at the beginning of the 30-year period and a 5-year ramp down at the end. The new method is expected to increase public agency retirement contributions beginning in FY 2015-16. (emphasis added) 2 B. Former temporary town manager Les White generated a report that stated that there would be no cost savings with the Sheriff. There are multiple data sources that suggest that Los Gatos could save millions every year. 1. Los Gatos Expenditure Budget: Police Dept. 42% http://www.town.los-gatos.ca.us/2242/Budget-at-a-Glance Community Development 11,4% 1. Non -Departmental 11.3°v Parks &Public Works. 18.0% Administrative Services 9.1% Library Services ,._Town Council 0.5°6 Town Attorney 0.8% \—.Police Department 42.0°0 2. Cupertino Expenditure Budget: Police Dept. 9% http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1222 fitted Positions by Depart it 3 3. Quoting from Cupertino`s 2014 Annual Financial Report: Because the City contracts out police services to the County Sheriff and because fire protection is handled by a special district. the City avoids the high pension, capital, and operating costs of a City -operated public safety function. The City caps its contributions to employee health insurance premiums and recently approved a three- year labor agreement with its bargaining units that benefit both the City and employees. A build-up of operating reserves from strong revenue years, such as 2013-14, along with a traditional under -spending of budgets, enables the City to withstand weak revenue years that occur periodically. such as in 2009-10. (emphasis added) 4. Saratoga states they save millions with the Sheriff. Quoting from http://www.saratoga. .ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobwD=9152 Public Safety Public safety continues to be a top priority for City Council members, residents, and the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff. The City has contracted with the Sheriffs office for public safety services since Saratoga was incorporated in 1956. This partnership has been rewarding for the City in multiple ways. (emphasis added) CITY OF SARATOGA INTRODUCTION SECTION The City saves millions of dollars a year by contracting with the Sheriff's Office instead of employing an in-house police department. Even with an 8.1% cost increase from the prior year - due to retroactive and current year wage increases under a new MOU, the Sheriff Contract accounts for just 26.70/0 of the City's General Fund budget. This compares favorably to other Santa Clara County municipalities that dedicated upwards of 40% or more of their General Fund budgets on police services. (emphasis added) 5. Former Los Gatos town manager David Knapp was not referenced in the White Report. Who has more actual experience with the LGPD and the Sheriff than Mr. Knapp? He managed both. Mr. White provided projections and estimates. Mr. Knapp actually worked with the different agencies. His opinion carries more weight. Quoting from http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/crime_fire_courts/switch-to- sheriff-s-department/article_ac2ab152-05e4-52ee-aaa8-cc7b3edd7879.html In Cupertino, however, City Manager Dave Knapp is a convert. He admits being skeptical when he first took the post and learned that the city was contracting its police services out to sheriffs deputies. But after several years at the city's helm, he says he can't see a single drawback. 4 "I have to say, it's a good price, and we get excellent service," he said. Cupertino's city manager said there were certain issues that he is glad that the city does not have to handle under the sheriffs department agreement. For instance, Knapp enjoys the luxury of not being responsible for contract negotiations, and the city has access to specialized services such as helicopter and a bomb -sniffing dog without additional expense. Knapp added that Gilroy would be shocked how much it could save if the sheriffs department handled its policing services, yet acknowledge that most cities would not want to cede local control. (emphasis added) C. Netflix sales tax revenue dropped form 40% to 8%. D. Loss of car dealership sales tax revenue. E. The Great Recession. IV. Consequences: 1. An ongoing cut in nonPD services by millions of dollars, increasing unfunded liabilities, lack of funds for parks, garages, additional staff to expedite residential approvals, bumpy roads (like Almond Grove), decline in property values, no smart traffic lights = so more traffic congestion, larger developments to raise revenues = so more traffic congestion. 2. When we don't have money to make timely repairs to roads, cost to repair roads dramatically increases. This chart is from Saratoga's Annual Budget: http://saratoga.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=9152 5 cMwit Wn1!/tlbtMostl.ekRz/d4bl-9 t s2 100 70 55 40 Standard PCI rating Kale Col Fair ECM 119121 Serious 75% of litaspan Stonificant Drop in Condition S1 for Rehabilitation Fevre 10 Smell ?: of Pavement Lhto 'Filed U'Uespan Pavement Condition Deterioration Curve 2015/16,. dedicated funding oar street resurraeinglresioration will increase by $375.000 lot a total Wi° Will Cost Ss to SS Here 3. Another recession will hit and we will be in a very serious financial bind. V. OPTIONS: 1. A third party review of the entire budget, with emphasis on the police department (Recommended court of action.). 2. Switch to the Sheriff. 3. Raise taxes.. 4. Cut services. 5. Internally look for ways to be more efficient with our revenues. 6. Do nothing. John Shepardson, Esq. 59 N. Santa Cruz Ave., No. Q Los Gatos, CA 95030 0 (408) 395-3701 C (408) 966-9709 6 From: vacarpio . [mailto:vacarpio@gmaiLcom] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:59 AM To: Council Subject: Concern regarding development of North Forty property We are opposed to the proposed development of this property. 1) The increased traffic will be horrendous along Los Gatos Blvd, Lark Avenue, and entrances onto, and exits from, Hwy 85. 2) The quality of Los Gatos as a community will be diminished as Los Gatos Blvd will look more and more like El Camino Real. 3) There may be an increase of revenue for the Town but its residents will be unhappy and the revenue from visitors could well be decreased as Los Gatos ceases to have the charm that attracts them. Surely there are uses that are more compatible with our Town residents and that will still bring in revenue. For example, why not consider a golf course or a park with entrance fees and concessions? Sincerely, Virginia Carpio William Walker 16383 Lilac Lane Los Gatos 95032 From: Kathy Cotton <khcotton grnail.com> Date: April 6, 2016 5:37:54 PM PDT To: <Mmosley@Iasgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 To: Ms Mosley and the Nanning Commission. I am writing this email in protest to the density of housing planned for the North 40. I understand the need for the owners and the developer to make a profit in this venture. However, must we lose the small town feeling of Los Gatos in the process? Wouldn't it be lovely if single family homes with a bit of space between them could be built instead of those towering buildings. And the traffic from all those occupants! And the impact on Los Gatos Schools! Please, is there anything that can be done to trim down the size of this development? I hate what's happening to my town. Kathy Cotton On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:04 PM, Martha Geiszler <mgeiszler3@gmail.coln> wrote: Dear Mayor Spector and Council members, I wanted to write & thank you for voting against the North 40 Specific plan story pole exception. I urge all of you to deny the applicant's request for another story pole exception and in particular those along Los Gatos Blvd. We citizens have the right to see the entire scope of the development. The current story poles are shocking as to how much the land will change. This is the gateway to Los Gatos! Is this what we want our town to look like? I support all your time and effort in reviewing the application in full and to ensure it complies with the Vision Statements in the North 40 Specific Plan. This is a huge task which needs to be looked at with the knowledge that whatever the decision is, it changes the look and feel of our town permanently, adds to traffic congestion and school overcrowding. I have lived here for over 40 years. My grandchildren are 4th generation here in Los Gatos. What this town is becoming is disheartening to our family and everyone we know here in town. I would appreciate complete transparency in all matters regarding the developer's application. Nothing should be omitted or left out which impacts our community. Please remember we are a town. Again, I appreciate all of your efforts. Thank you, Martha Geiszler mgeiszler3 @gmail.com 408.234.2176 On Apr 8, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Joanne Long <joanne94@a,hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Los Gatos Town Council members I am writing regarding the Story -Pole -Exception Request submitted by the Developer for North 40. I want to see the full extent of the proposed development plan, and am urging you to deny the Developer's exception request at the next meeting. After attending the Planning Commission meeting on March 30th, I was disappointed to learn the extent of the proposed scale and density of the North 40 Development. It is not at all consistent with the look and feel of the Town of Los Gatos as outlined in the Specific Plan. For some local residents 1 have spoken with, the story poles are their first exposure to the planned development. We should demand that the Developer show the full extent of their proposed plans. Sincerely, Joanne Long 16371 Oleander Ave, Los Gatos 408-656-4559 On Apr 9, 2016, at 8:08 AM, Tom Fandre <montevinaroad@gmail.corn> wrote: Please serve the people's will and stop the North 40 Development in Los Gatos. Rush hour traffic coming in to Los Gatos is much worse now than it was ten years ago, especially on Friday. With this development the Hwy 17 corridor, plus surface streets, will certainly become a nightmare. You have to see how disastrous this will be for Los Gatos. Bigger is not better! I thought that was the ethos of this town Tom Fandre Los Gatos Resident Sent from my iPad On Apr 9, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Nancy Moss <oosmoss@yahoo.com> wrote: You are being played. They are asking for exceptions to fool the town into thinking that this development is friendly and beneficial when in fact the outcome will be devastating. Please do not continue. Nancy Moss Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9. 2016, at 8:37 AM, iedouglas(ulgrnail.corn wrote: Hello, First, thank you for serving our town in your roles as council members. I am sad to see the N40 be developed. It would have been amazing for the town to have purchased the land to develop much needed sports fields for lacrosse, soccer and other sports. I would have donated generously to that effort as I know many others would have as well. Or to leave it as orchards so we remember the past history for generations to come. Were any of these considered? I understand it is too late for that but please do whatever you can to limit the scale and density of what is built and promote many large trees to hide as much as possible. Driving down hwy 17 into Los Gatos today is beautiful with trees and Been space on both sides. You immediately feel that you are corning into a beautiful and special community. I have seen the story poles near Lark and can see how this landscape will change for the worse with high density housing uncharacteristic to the town. It is sad. I have seen Facebook posts regarding the developer being from out of the country with no clue what this community is and why it is special, and asking for exceptions to putting up building poles. If true please do not grant exceptions. For the record, I completely oppose the N40 development. I typically do not write these types being an has request many exceptions to the normal process including Coming down hey The developer has requested a second exception to the town's Story Pole Policy. They do not want to complete all of the required Story Poles. They don't want you to see the full scope and INTENSITY of their Phase 1 layout proposal. Remember, the Story Poles you see off HWY 17 represent less than half of the N40 development. If you think it looks bad now, wait until Phase 2 and Phase 3 Story Poles go up. YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTH'N YET! (That's a double negative so you've seen plenty for sure). Please write your council members and urge them the deny the developers exception request. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 9, 2016, at 8:37 AM, ledouglas@gmail.com wrote: Hello, First, thank you for serving our town in your roles as council members. I am sad to see the N40 be developed. It would have been amazing for the community for the town to have purchased the land to develop much needed sports fields for lacrosse, soccer and other sports. I would have donated generously to that effort as I know many others would have as well. Or to leave it as orchards so we remember the past history for generations to come. Were any of these considered? I understand it is too late for that but please do whatever you can to limit the scale and density of what is built and promote many large trees to hide as much as possible. Driving down hwy 17 into Los Gatos today is beautiful with trees and green space on both sides. You immediately feel that you are coming into a beautiful and special community. I have seen the story poles near Lark and can see how this landscape will change for the worse with high density housing uncharacteristic to the town. It is sad. I have seen Facebook posts regarding the developer being from out of the country with no clue what this community is and why it is special, and asking for exceptions to putting up building poles. If true please do not grant exceptions. For the record, I completely oppose the N40 development. I typically do not write these types of letters. But pis pls pis do whatever is in your power to limit cookie cutter and big box development in Los Gatos. Thank you, Laura Douglas 156 Jackson Street Los Gatos Sent from my iPhone From: Lynlee Bischoff [lyn1ee365@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 9:29 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Development As a native of Los Gatos and a 14 year resident on the North 40 property 1 strongly urge the Town Council to require the developer put up ALL story poles NOW for all three phases of development. I make this request - even though doing so means there will be poles in my yard, poles in my garden, poles in my driveway. PLEASE - let the people of the town SEE the full extent of what is planned for this property. To do so piece meal, or to allow exemptions is a disservice to the people of this town, whom you are sworn to serve. "Be Like Water My Friend, Be Like Water". Bruce Lee Be well, Lynlee Bischoff (408) 761-1063 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: pe.losgatos@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 10:26 AM To: Rob Rennie; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marni Moseley Cc: Patricia Ernstrom Subject Fwd: DENY North Forty Exemptions and Plans Dear Council Members elected to represent the citizens of Los Gatos: I am traveling and unfortunately will be unable to attend the next meeting but appreciate your steadfast and unwavering representation of the best interests of all those that call this home! Please, please, please listen to your constituents. Your vote will be your legacy. Patricia From: Patricia Ernstrom [pernstrom@me.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:58 PM To: Marni Moseley; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: RE: DENY North Forty Exemptions and Plans Dear Members of the Los Gatos TOWN Council: Please accept my plea and those of my lifelong friends and family to DENY the Grosvenor application. Please DENY the story pole exception. I've attended and spoken at meetings for years, participated in planning sessions and have continued to BEG you to represent the will of Los Gatos — and not the will of a single family land-holder, their multi- million dollar partners and highly paid legal counsel. At last week's planning commission, the show of solidarity by those that love and care for Los Gatos and the legacy we hope to continue — was never stronger. My PLEA: No matter how many meetings I have attended, this project has continued to steamroll ahead at every turn — regardless of what residents have objected to. This is so incredibly DISHEARTENING. I am so discouraged, and 1 just don't know what to do when those elected to represent us — seem to care about developers more than they do their constituents. What do we do? We need your help. The idea that "this has been in development for a long time" is NOT a reason to approve. It is not too late to say NO. It can't be too late to say NO! EIR SERIOUSLY? How could COUNCIL have possibly certified an EIR (that we all disputed) where you stated that there would be no impact? EVERYONE who has testified has talked about how bad the traffic is TODAY, and that doesn't begin to tell the story about what is coming with the current approved projects (projects that the COUNCIL approved with great citizen opposition). 2 NOW — you've said this current proposal will not make an impact. It doesn't take a PhD or a lawyer to make the case about negative impacts. Just ASK a 5`h grader trying to get to school or someone trying to get to the hospital or even just trying home any day of the week — traffic is THE most IMPORTANT ISSUE IMPACTING DAILY QUALITY OF LIFE. Traffic today is already terrible and everyone but leadership clearly understands that with everything in the pipeline — it only get worse and worse and worse. Traffic Armageddon is what we call Los Gatos traffic NOW. Every day, every week, every weekend. All the time. I understand from the developer that this is only one parcel of the 13 or 14 parcels that will be developed in the North 40 area. Where is the demand for a REAL master plan? You can't begin to have a master plan unless you HAVE a master plan. I understand the State requirements to balance of jobs and housing. However — the leadership of Los Gatos has DONE this to the community without a sensible return or plan for the future. More development - oops...need more housing. For every job created by adding more retail -- Los Gatos will require more housing. This plan adds housing AND adds more retail which will require more housing. As I understand it — this cycle will always be flawed because our community will never catch up — so we must STOP and get a plan — a real plan before proceeding down an unattainable path. Town Managers and staff have "kicked the can down the road" in terms of keeping their pensions in -tact and "Los Gatos seemingly healthy" — not for the good of the Town, but for each of their own personal interests in keeping it whole — so they will benefit. Ultimately, the residents left holding the bag in every way -- instead of dealing with the fiscal challenges --- the mantra has been to grow rather than deal with structural deficits. Now what?. No more land. Traffic gridlock, Schools impacted. Property values reduced. And now staff is LONG gone and collecting pension benefits and where is the Council that approved this. Shameful. The Superintendent has clearly made a deal with the development company that is not interest of those that have a real vested interest in the health of our schools LONG TERM. She said just create "urban schools" or "drive or bus kids to Lexington". That is NOT a plan. The district "deal" with the developers smells bad. And hurts everyone's property values. How and why did it become a conversation at Town Council that Los Gatos has some obligation to solve "silicon Valley's housing imbalance"? We are a TOWN of 25,000 going on -- ?? who knows — with a proportionally small (once rural) footprint. We aren't a sprawling metropolis. Urban sprawl is not our issue. We are plagued with leadership who will cover every square inch until the community we know 3 and love has suffocated and choked and there is nowhere else to build and the property values have suffered irreparably. At last week's planning commission meeting — the LG City Attorney should have stood up and just said he represented the developer not the Town of Los Gatos, How sad it was to see a line-up of City staff that had their own and others' interests ahead of the scores of residents that have been speaking out and rising up. must admit — I ask myself why are the Council Members so oblivious to their constituents -- and the experience their constituents have each and every day? It HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE CLEAR that the developer has worked the system and at each turn, staff, council and others have not stood up to do what it takes to do the RIGHT THING for Los Gatos. When what you approve is realized exactly the way we know it will...When the devastation and resulting horrific results have ruined Los Gatos forever -- What then? Who do we turn to? Where do we find this Council and Staff for restitution to your constituents? PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US! THIS DECISION IS FOREVER AND THE "LAST NAIL", YOUR VOTE WILL FOREVER BE YOUR LEGACY. HELP. HELP. HELP. JUST SAY NO and go back to the drawing board. Thank you. 4 loerg M. Borchert, Ph.D. 116 Oak Park DR. Los Gatos, CA 95032 Dear Mrs. Moseley, RECEIVED APR 9 TOWN OF LOS G\.TOS PLANNING DIVISION Thank you very much for the opportunity of sharing information with the community of the town of Los Gatos at the March 30th Planning Commission Meeting at 110 E Main Street. It was very valuable to understand the plans and the pros and cons have been presented at the meeting. As a citizen of the town since 1998 I have seen significant changes to the better and to the worse. The development and density increased significantly in Los Gatos and I can understand that the town likes to raise more income to have a balanced budget. But the town cannot control certain factors. One is the traffic. As I am living in Highland Oaks neighbor hood, I observed that the traffic has significantly increased on Lark Avenue due to more traffic to and from Netflix. The second factor has been the beach traffic that shut down the town several weekends in 2015 to a total still stand. The same observation could be made during the "Fantasy of Lights" event in December. In both cases Los Gatos Boulevard becomes a parking lot. Admittedly the traffic got better controlled in 2015 in comparison to 2014 for the "Fantasy of Lights" event. Nevertheless Highland Oaks got impacted with more traffic over the year. The development of North 40 will add significantly traffic to the and from the freeway to the neighborhood. 270 0r 360 home units as planned for the first stage of the developments add between 540 and 720 cars. It has to be taken into consideration that noise and air pollution will increase. It was almost comical to hear that the EIR does not see a significant impact as we already have the overcrowding traffic in summer and during Christmas season The North 40 development shall look and feel like Los Gatos. The hearing convinced me to the contrary. We have in Highland Oaks single story or maximum two story homes. The North 40 development on the other side of Lark Avenue with the poles won't look and feel like Los Gatos. It is a three-story development in large parts with heights up to 51 feet as explained in the hearing. This plan creates more a Santana Row feeling. Therefore it blocks the hillside view. The multi level buildings also might impact the airflow from the mountains with the cooling air at night. This can have a potential impact on the microclimate in Los Gatos. The space for trees and open spaces include even the smallest green areas like little strips at Lark Avenue and between parking areas as shown in the model at the entrance of Town Council Chambers facility. It is a fact that density of the buildings and the height create a higher density than anywhere else in the town in a residential area. I cannot follow the argument that this development is by any means in line with the look and feel of Los Gatos with hillside view and rural areas. The school issue has been discussed in great detail and I have not seen a convincing plan that would mitigate the impact on the town of Los Gatos. The planning department did not allow me two years ago a second story in the Highland Oaks area but now let a developer present a plan that allows in 300 feet distance a multi story development. Is this a consistent plan? I like to propose with all descent respect that the plan needs to be drastically changed with single homes, winded streets and open space with a park feeling to reflect the neighborhood and the heritage of the last orchard in Los Gatos. I ask the town council and the planning to consider all the factors brought forward. You might call for a vote from the town citizens to allow a democratic decision about the plan. Best regards, Joerg M. Borchert On Apr 9, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Sara Fishersmith <sarafishersmithaa,gxnail.com> wrote: It is difficult to believe that the planning department has OK'd development on what is being called "L.G. 40". Adding three hundred housing units plus commercial to the north end of town is, only in my opinion, unconscionable. Seriously. If this plan actually goes through those who will live there and visit will not all stay at the north end of town. So that could mean —let's see —for every housing unit count two cars which equals over SIX HUNDRED ADDITIONAL CARS. Plus the looky-looz who visit the commercial establishments. How many cars would that add? Did any of you try traveling into the middle of town last summer? Along Los Gatos Boulevard? Along Highway 9? Along University Avenue? Main Street? Does anyone remember the BEACH TRAFFIC bottle necks? Does anyone remember the police putting up ROAD BLOCKS for the adjacent neighborhoods? The signs on Highway 17 that read now beach traffic. Does anyone from the Mayor's office, the vice mayor, any of the council members and the planning commission actually LIVE IN LOS GATOS???9??779999???? EVER DINE OR SHOP IN LOS GATOS??????????? Because if YOU DID you would know the town is already reaching maximum capacity for parking, etcetera —which is in direct correlation with people who live, work and visit here. If it is revenue you all are after, I would suggest that someone review how and where the revenue is being spent and cut out the wasteful. Because the revenue the town will get from this L. G. 40 project has the very serious prospect for turning the once "quaint" town of Los Gatos into a VERY REAL NIGHTMARE. 'Course, maybe 1 don't know what I'm talking about. Won't be the first time and it's not gonna be the last. But I can see the orange rick -rack from the freeway and I know something just ain't right. On Apr 9, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Emma Cohan <emmacohan(2email.arizona.edu> wrote: Hello, My name is Emma Cohan and I was born and raised in Los Gatos. I am now in college but it really breaks my heart seeing all these changes being made in my hometown. Los Gatos is supposed to be a friendly, family orientated town. NOT city. I would hate to come home and see how everything has changed. Traffic is already out of control and approving more of this plan will only make it 10x worse. I do not think developers who are from cities with no sense of towns like Los Gatos should come into our town and make these city changes. Los Gatos should be a place you feel safe in and want to raise a family. I want to raise my family there someday. Please listen to the people and do whats right for the residents. Not whats right for business. Thank you for listening, Emma Cohan On Apr 10, 2016, at 1:54 PM, BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov> wrote: Those interested in being placed on interest lists for residential units should contact: Market Rate Units: Summerhill Homes at asalum@shhousinggroup.com or call (925) 244-7536 Low Income Senior Units: Eden Housing at (510) 582-1460 Laurel, I just saw the above on the town website. I have never seen the town promote home sales for any developer. Is the Council aware of this? I would ask that you advise them as soon as possible. Thank you. On Apr 9, 2016, at 2:05 PM, gbameslaw@comcast.net wrote: The North Forty, A frighteningly horrifying plan: 1. Retail shops in Los Gatos, the REAL town, are already hurting. This will make it even harder to get in and out of there and win probably take more business from them. 2. This will be the final death knell to the "small town charm". 3. What was the point of the City Plan, which took about 10 years to formulate and was thoroughly thought through, since it is in no way being followed. 4. Occasionally one of the lights on Lark Avenue malfunctions, causing at least one of the intersections to become a 4-way stop. The other day traffic was snarled for about two hours. Wait until all the traffic from the North Forty and the rest ofNet#fix are added to the mix. It appears that EIR's are formulated by some mis-programmed robots. And if the most recent one is from 2010, it is NOT recent enough. 5. Right now it can take THREE changes of lights to get through the intersection at Samaritan Drive and Los Gatos Blvd. I can't believe how long it takes to get to appointments. And God Forbid anyone should have a medical emergency. 6. Have you actually LOOKED at those story poles, from ALL angles? How can you possibly even THINK about approving the project?! 7. And then there are the overcrowded schools. You need a crow bar to squeeze in another kid. A former Town Council member told me, "The schools' problems are the schools' problems. Our job is to "grow the town." I love that "Not my Problem" attitude, especially when it's directed toward our children. I thought when that mob was finally out of office maybe some sanity would be restored. I guess not. Another town council member of that same group once said, at a council meeting, that we should have (whatever they were discussing) so we could be more like Cupertino. REALLY? Does anyone actually want to be like Cupertino? Where's the downtown? Where's the small town feeling? Other than shopping centers, strip malls, traffic jammed streets and housing developments, what IS there in Cupertino and why would ANYONE want to strive to be like that megapolitan mess? For heaven's sake, Why are we putting up a fake "downtown" when we have a REAL one; one that we are treating quite badly by being irresponsible and non -supportive. Judy Marlin 108 Brocastle Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Ben Cortez <benedicto.cortez@igmail.com> wrote: Dear Vice Mayor Sayoc, I am writing to express some of my concerns regarding the North 40 plans. I acknowledge that there is a lot more at play than I understand, such as state regulations, prior commitments etc. However, I do feel that the plan proposed by the developers of North 40 go against the North 40 Vision Statement approved by the town council, and thus the plan should not go through as currently submitted. Below in bold I'm listing the "Guiding Principles" in the vision statement, and below each point I will briefly explain why the proposed plans run counter to this. • The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos I am a resident of Los Gatos. I have friends who grew up in, or around Los Gatos. We all agree that the look and feel of the town is akin to a blend of bucolic neighborhoods with memorable craftsman style homes, interspaced with shopping corridors. The proposed plan goes against that bucolic feel by having an undue amount of housing density in the Phase 1 portion. Furthermore, this density is further highlighted by the proposed height of the structures. No where else in Los Gatos would there be that many tall structures in such a small area. it certainly does NOT look and feel like the Los Gatos that exists today. • The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees and open space As stated in the density of the buildings goes against the very idea of trees and open space. The density and height in no way embraces hillside views. • The North 40 will address the town's residential andlor commercial unmet needs This may be true, but at what cost? If the town has state mandated new residential requirements, which as i understand are solely in terms of units/homes and not bedrooms then I think the developer should aim for the MINIMUM required to satisfy those requirements. And by that I mean not only pure numbers of units but that there should be no three bedroom units. Minimal two bedroom units (and no two bedroom plus den units because those will actually be three bedrooms in disguise). Studios and one bedrooms should be the vast majority of offered units. Furthermore, if senior housing counts towards the state requirements then expand the senior housing numbers and decrease the regular units available. As for unmet commercial needs, with the number of empty storefronts along Los Gatos Blvd and Santa Cruz Blvd, with more places being constructed, I don't think we have any unmet commercial needs. We still have areas (the old Chevrolet dealership) which should be redeveloped rather than the North 40 area to address commercial needs. • The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools and other community services. This is where the developer is most egregious in their violations. If they truly wanted to ininimi7e or mitigate their impact on town infrastructure the plan would be so broad. It can take half of my 25 minute commute just getting from Blossom Manor onto Highway 17. Adding a few hundred more commuters to the intersection of Lark and Los Gatos Blvd would make the commute even longer. As it stands it already is a bottleneck around commute times and it would only be worse with new residential and commercial traffic. The developers do not seem to be taking this into account enough, and are mainly trying to maximize profit. If they truly wanted to minimize or mitigate the impact on schools then they would divide the housing between the two school elementary school districts. Both districts will tell you that they are already filled. It makes no sense to unduly stress one district unless you're the developer, and want to maximize profit at our expense, They should build the minimum number of housing (again with no 3 bedrooms) as required by the state and spread them between the two school districts. Thank you for your tirne. Benedicto M. Cortez, MD Pediatric Intensivist Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center Marni Moseley From: ROBERT ROSS <ross3864@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 12:10 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North Forty Planned Development Any development which increases town population without providing for corresponding increases in town elementary, middle, and high school facilities and staffing is not in the best interests of Los Gatos and the Developers proposal should be denied. Bob Ross, resident. i tr opt, d5 P-Q • RECEWED TOWN OF LOS GATOS ZAPR 11 016 vAN r fr CLIME DEPAR iL RECEIVED TOWN OF LOS GATOS APR 11 2016 CLERK DEPARTMENT "VVQ.R bQ dor;--1- -ffnere. E71,-)6v)ci bQ it—fs' I r‘ (A)(& \Ai* roar trits\oR Fxer • " -.1: • • 7 •, ort i tofflitel.*044,. Nit tio"iz:4,44:.'**1611•Irclit - - RECEIVED Acfr 'TOWN OF LOS GATOS r‘ 45k ) L,"*7 .11-\ : (•\ c-xsek71,‘':, 4s C V\C CO GC: \ \ ecie\ (_ - V3A e c ccv: rok(=2 A 'AI -lc:, ‘t.A. ws'c7 . c, De C•sc-- Tc-)uor,,„ 11 \\\ APR 11 2016 CLERK DEPARTMENT kr)--)0 rQ e coLADdt-., (..L0A- c1,0,\ \r\st- \a.ces„TVic_. C, C%. v- Qat 'V 0 CP 03Q. dc,' e Q,k 1j,) NTh ') CI CC • c\ 01/4 L_C k\r.‘ \Q CAAiN Le cluz • - - - rq • y • \ ca1/43„ \\! 0_7.— c 0 or)e cts, 17) DV. \At& e. \en\s r\c) cc cJ‘07.cks', 103•A\oe 1,-VNQ clC¼ c: L.1 0 b\CC`\<_ Q0 v-• -\r -1\-- 'Le ‘ieck\ 0 Toc 1\-)1 -2) Conce\ Nork1-1 • 't. Marni Moseley From: WM L. REAGAN <reaganlg@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 1:03 PM To: Marico Sayoc: Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; BSpector; Steven Leonardis Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: north 40 Town Council Members and Planning Commission Welt here's another e-mail to you regarding the North 40. We live at 209 Belmont Ave. in Los Gatos and have had the pleasure of residing here for 42 years, We've seen lots of changes in the town and do not object to change per se. However, we feel strongly that the proposed North 40 development does not look or feel like it belongs in Los Gatos. It's too massive and dense, too modern in style, too square in design. The hillsides will be blocked from views, traffic will be incredibly impacted causing safety issues and the school solution proposed is ridiculous ( send the students to Lexington). Here's what we would like you to consider: - Work within the maximums and minimums of the Specific Plan and it's subjective areas - Development in the 22 acres should be phased in over time to see what the impact will be - The Developer should not be able to use the cheapest building design possible. Craftsman, Spanish or Victorian is consistent with the town as well as lots of trees and open space -The housing element should be spread over the entire 40 acres to reduce the impact on traffic and Los Gatos schools -There should be an updated EIR, taking into account all the traffic increases in the last year - The story poles and model should have been presented way before so many decisions were made by the Planning Commission, Council and committees; just as in requirements for individual homes. The planning process on large developments need to be changed The Town Council and Planning Commission should represent the people of the town and our town's integrity, not the Developer and the yuki family who just want to make a huge profit on this property. This is the way it was during the earthquake. We were very proud of the town then and want to continue to be proud. Thanks for reading this and for all your efforts on behalf of Los Gatos. William and Sally Reagan i Marni Moseley From: Lori Ingle <loriinglel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:38 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Proposed North 40 Parcel Dear Marni, Please reconsider the development of the North 40 parcel to a much more reasonable scale (Single-family detached homes, open space, school, community center, nature center, historic orchard). The height and density of the current development proposal is completely out of sync with our town. I am very concerned about any additional impact to our already overcrowded schools and local roads. I live on Newell Avenue off of Winchester Blvd. The traffic increase in the last few years has been troubling. I do not support the proposed maximum development on the North 40 parcel because I am very concerned that this new development will increase traffic substantially. Regards, Bruce Ingle 156 Newell Aveune Los Gatos 95032 1 Marni Moseley From: Susan Lee <susanlewlee@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:49 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marni Moseley Subject: North Forty Project Opposition To the Mayor, City Council and City Planners of Los Gatos, l am shocked with the high density of the North Forty project. Now that most of the story poles are up, it is a massive project that will change the feeling of our town of Los Gatos. It will add huge traffic problems both on Lark Ave, Los Gatos Blvd and Winchester, let alone the smaller streets that people will use for short cuts. Every morning we have to contend with the traffic mess on Lark and Winchester due to the influx of workers at Netflix. The additional two buildings on Netflix site and the proposed North Forty project will be overwhelming with the existing traffic lanes. Is it dangerous? You betcha. My husband and I use the Los Gatos Creek trail almost daily. We can barely get in and out of Charter Oaks Drive safely these days with the increase of traffic on Lark in both directions. And the city is planning to okay this huge project? I would like to see a 30% reduction in size, adding a park and greenery to keep with the feel of the town. Please think of the increase liability and impact to our community before accepting the builders final proposal. Best regards, Susan Lee 15284 Karl Ave Monte Sereno, CA 95030 1 Marni Moseley From: Michael Glow <glow.mike@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:08 PM Subject: Please help save our town from massive over development The photo below is of only of "Phase I " of this huge development. Phase 2 is the "Commercial/Retail/Business" portion, 400,000 square feet of it! Is additional retail development really needed or desired when retail spaces like where Blockbuster Video, Fioli's Hallmark Store, Wolfs Camera, to name a few, have remained vacant for years on end? This additional retail space of this over development is doomed to become a ghost town of tattered stores that typically take over struggling retail strip malls. The density of development will be unprecedented, and with it, unprecedented traffic, unprecedented impact on our schools, and totally disregards the drought and our current water crisis. The current Environmental Impact Report, paid for by the developer, is totally unrealistic, and citizens should demand it be disregarded, and a new one done with realistic impacts on traffic, schools, and water supply. As an example, there are going to be 320 residential units, and the EIR estimates around an additional 150 cars will be added to traffic on Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Blvd traffic. Realistically, there will be more than 320 additional cars since most households have more than one car. An additional 500 cars of residents, coming and going daily, in addition to the cars of shoppers, dinners, and delivery trucks coming and going to the commercial/retail area, would come to an estimate of 6000+ cars accessing the area per day is much more realistic. Speak out... insist that the developer is responsible for including the addition of a community school as part of the development. This is an open issue that needs a satisfactory resolution before the project commences. The best available alternative solution to this high priority community concern is to split the 320 residential units being developed between the Los Gatos schools, and Campbell schools. The North 40 is split, almost evenly, 50-50 between the two school districts. However, the plan currently has consolidated 100% of the residential units into the Los Gatos portion of the property, presumably to maximize profits, since Los Gatos properties command higher real estate prices. Write the San Jose Mercury News (letters@,mercurynews.com), the Los Gatos Weekly (lgwt(a,community- newspapers.corn) or (dsparreracornsnunity-newspaners,com), the Town Planner (Mmoseley@losgatosca.gov), the Town Manager (lprevetti�7a,losgatosca.gov), the Town Attorney (RSchultz@losgatosca.gov), the Mayor and Town Council members ( bspector@IosRatosca.gov;msavoc@lo atosca.gov;sleonardisPlosgatosca.gov;miensenCc losgatosca.eov;rrennie@losg atosca.gov), and attend the next Town Council meeting, Tuesday, April 19, 7:00 PM, at the Town Council Chambers in the Civic Center, and wear orange to show your opposition to the radically dense development of the "North 40". s 2 From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsoniaw@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:59 PM To; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Laurel Prevetti; Council Subject: N 40 (taking a huge risk with our quality of life) 1. On average over 200K cars pass thru 17/85 exchange each day. 2. Netflix buildout 485 sq ft. There is a reason for the multi -story garage. 3. Dell buildout. 4. Car wash cars. 5. Cancer center. 6. Expansion of Good Sam. 7. PAMF, 8. Swanson buildout. 9, Bay Club cars. 10. Weekend and summer holiday traffic. 11. San Jose worsening traffic. 12. Some people sitting in traffic will pull off the freeway and hang in the N. 40. 13. A defacto second downtown. 3 arterials, Winchester, can't widen, 17 limited widening, LG Blvd. limited widening. Each arterial is connected by one street, Lark. Lark has limited, if any, buildout. Lark clogs up, 3 arterials in turn clog. So yes, we have a state mandate for affordable housing. However, we are loading up 320 residential units and 67K retail in one of the most congested areas of town. Aren't we taking a HUGE RISK by putting all those units and commercial in a multi -bottleneck area? Santana Row has 3 lanes on each side of Steven Creek. We are betting the quality of life of Los Gatos that it will work now and 10-20 years from now. Isn't it more sensible and prudent to reduce the size and mass of the N. 40 and spread the affordable units in other areas? Balance. Don't clog the funnel points. is Sent from my iPhone On Apr 14, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Kerry Stivaletti <kerry.stivaletti@gmail.com> wrote: Good day - Please do something to stop the utter destruction and development in Los Gatos. We certainly cannot need new revenue in this town that much. Once done, we cannot undue this. Please reconsider or put some constraints in place. Come election time, many citizens will remember the votes cast for this development. Thank you , Ms. Kerry Stivaletti 103 Rio Vista Los Gatos, CA 95032 Marni Moseley From: Denise Carey <denise@carey-co.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12.58 PM To: bspecgtor@losgatosca.gov; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; rennie@losgatosca.gov; Steven Leonardis Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 and Overdevelopment of Los Gatos April 14, 2016 Subject: North 40 and Overdevelopment of Los Gatos Dear LG Town Council members and Planning Commission, I am writing to voice my opposition to the North 40 project as it is currently conceived. It is far too dense a project to be appropriate for the town of Los Gatos, In addition, I am opposed to the ongoing dense development that is being approved for this town generally, such as Bluebird Lane and Laurel Mews Being a resident for over two decades, I remember a time when Los Gatos was appropriately cautious about large dense developments. For example, developments such as Kennedy Meadows required large lots and a resident -walking trail, The recent trend toward approving huge homes on tiny Tots and condo developments on main streets is negatively impacting the quality of life in Los Gatos. Your decisions and developer's greed are destroying the small-town atmosphere that we moved here for. Why are the current town council and planning commission leaders now reversing decades of established planning guidelines for Los Gatos? I am opposed to the North 40 project for the following reasons: • An overwhelming increase in traffic (projected increase of 20,000 vehicle visits per day }beyond the already enormous increase due to the new commercial development on Winchester as well as the escalating gridlock we experience all summer on weekends, with beach traffic on Highway 17. • An overwhelming increase in problems with parking and access to already overburdened shopping areas. • An increase in the number of students being added to the rolls of an already over -burdened Los Gatos School District. • A definite and clearly measurable reduction in the quality of life that our Town's residents most certainly deserve and have enjoyed for generations. I ask you to please immediately re-establish appropriate judgement in evaluating development plans. Single-family homes on larger Tots, with built in facilities for walking trails, parks, schools, and senior accommodations is all that is appropriate. And, there should be no developments directly on major streets, including Los Gatos Blvd, Main Street, Santa Cruz Ave. and LG-SAR road. If this project is already in process (though I believe you can have the developer cut down the size of it considerably, which I expect you to do), I urge you to make the developer build a light -rail for beach goers across 17, that will also serve as the transportation for students attending Lexington School. At least that way, we will get some win out of this mess. Thank you, 1 Marni Moseley From: Shawna Rodgers <smrodgersl0@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:53 PM To: Mami Moseley Subject: North 40 Worries Hello Ms. Moseley, My name is Shawna Rodgers. I was born in Los Gatos Community hospital, 3 years after my older brother who was also born there. My family spent the early part of its life living in Redwood Estates, and moved down the hill after the 1898 Earthquake. went to school in San Diego, and it wasn't until then I began to appreciate the uniqueness and beauty that is Los Gatos. Seeing the North 40 story poles off Lark Avenue as I drive home from work every day breaks my heart. I realize this is a matter of far greater detail than I can hope to understand in this moment, but I implore you to consider the implications of your actions. You have a very unique position in this life to make a difference and to leave a positive mark on the town in which you reside and work. You've acquired a position of power through much effort and hard work. Your voice affects so many people. If you believe that North 40 is in the best humanitarian interests of the town- culture of Los Gatos, I encourage you to share your reasons with the public. I think, more than anything, the public desires honest commentary from its leaders. If, however, you may believe, even just for a moment, that this construction project is a mistake, 1 encourage you to follow your intuition, even if it may be the unpopular choice among your potential money -driven affiliates. I hope this message finds you in a place of open-heartedness to feedback from your community members. Best Wishes, Shawna Rodgers 1 Marni Moseley From: Cathleen Bannon <cathleenbannon@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:19 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Outrageous It is absolutely outrageous that The Town of Los Gatos has become an advertiser for the developers of the North 40 on our government website. Never have we seen a town or city advertising for the sale of housing in a private development and especially a development that has NOT BEEN APPROVED. The application/proposal has not been approved and does not comply with the Specific Plan, so why would our town supply sales information? Also, why is the developer marketing their development inside our Town Chambers Hall Thursdays between 11:30 and 12:30? Who is running the show? Remove these advertisements and to get the developer out of our Town Council Chambers for their marketing purposes. This is an outrageous conflict of interest and unethical! You are failing those you represent. Cathleen Bannon 26828 Kennedy rd 1 Marni Mosele From: Clay Wayman <cwayman8©gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:03 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 project As a new member of the Los gatos community I can tell you I moved here because this had the look and feel of a town with proximity to the hustle and bustle. I didn't move here to have our town develop into more of an attraction. It is clear the town is being bought off by this developer. I will not be voting for anyone who is currently holding office the next time around. Clay Wayman 650 823 2191 3 Marni Moseley From: Kavitha Hubbard <kavithamd@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:01 PM To: BSpector; Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 and Shannon Road Development Please stop the overdevelopment of Los Gatos. It"s wonderful having open space and less traffic compared to other cities in the area. Please keep Los Gatos a town!! Kavitha Hubbard, MD X Marni Moseley From: Kay Maurer <kayathome@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:29 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: north 40 Grosvenor's N40 development application does not comply with the Vision and Guiding Principles of the N40 Specific Plan. The monotonous wall of side -by -side condos crammed into a rigid grid of private streets and alleys does not: • look and feel like Los Gatos. • embrace hillside views, trees, and open space. • address Town's unmet residential and commercial needs. • minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Re: "mitigate impacts:" On a scale of A-F, the N40 Environmental Impact Report gives Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave "E" grades for traffic congestion (F is total gridlock.) Decision makers should deny the Phase I proposal, and require • less density • appropriate architecture • views, trees, and open -space greenbelt • affordable housing mixed throughout the development • Vasona and Hacienda Light Rail Stations extension to be complete before any N40 proposal can be approved The Los Gatos light rail extension will take hundreds of cars off our local streets and highways. This is real traffic mitigation. Light rail stations offer free parking, plus easy pedestrian and bicycle access. Hop on and be at Santa Clara Levi Stadium, in Mountain View, San Jose, or Cal -Train station in 20 minutes. Our Los Gatos Light Rail extension is designed, with completed E.I.R., and shovel -ready plans for one station near the new Netflix building— less than 1 mile from the N40—and another near Kaiser Campbell Medical Center However, due to reduced gas -tax revenue, VTA lacks the projected $175 million to complete this essential infrastructure project. Transit -oriented developments are a win -win for public health and private enterprise. If I were British billionaire landowner Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, I'd write a check. 1 Marni Moseley From: Susanne Moore <susannejmoore@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 11:02 AM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Laurel Prevetti; rschultz@Iosgaotsca.gov; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie Subject: North 40 and Shannon Road Developement We moved to Los Gatos 41 years ago, for the Schools and Quality of Life. We are very concerned about the development of the North 40 and the corner of Shannon Road and Los Gatos Blvd. Traffic has become a real issue, there are times during the day or week, that it is impossible to get uptown to the Library, Post Office, Doctors, Dentists and local stores. Please read again the letter in the April 8th Los Gatos Weekly from Eric Carlson and consider his suggestions for the North 40, including his suggestion of forgetting the density bonus. We are also in agreement with the concern about water. How can you approve these plans when we are all asked to conserve water? The story poles and the model of the proposed North 40, make it clear that this proposal clearly does not reflect the North 40 Vision Statement approved by the Los Gatos Town Council. Our Schools and Quality of Life are in jeopardy. We say NO to the North 40 as proposed. We say keep the zoning of the Shannon Road and Los Gatos Blvd. property as is, Commercial. Do not change it to Residential. Arnold and Susanne Moore 107 Wollin Way 1 Marra Mos&bey From: David Smith <dsmith@vormetric.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:35 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: To Marni Moseley, a resident of LG Importance: High Marni Moseley, I am responding North 40 project. As a current resident and tax payer, I am a bit concerned about what city council may or may not be doing in relations with the developers. I understand that the developers have a right to expand upon the property and provide an income to its investors. But please ensure that you are double checking the numbers on what is being provide to you by the developers and please ensure it's in accordance to the peoples expectations. For example, please expect ever condo/townhouse/house constructed will have at least 1 child (possible more) attending the public schools. Any mathematical "formula" less than this number is a mistake on the council part. School are a key factor to select L.G. for residence and thus paying a premium on the associated housing costs; don't be naive about what others outside of the current residence may tell you. On another note, currently the exit on Lark Ave has gotten worse. Any thoughts about expanding the lanes at this off ramp with the assistance of the developers. The new development will cause a backup of traffic near Lark and will need to get resolved, as this is the exit of choice for North 40. I would like to know your thoughts and if this has ever been addressed? Thank you for your time and response, Dave Smith 1 Planning From: Marcia Fariss <marcia@gizmology.com> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:13 PM To: Council; Planning Subject: North 40 development Dear Mayor Spector, Fellow City Council members and Planning Commission members, I have driven by the North 40 property multiple times and seen the story poles in place from various perspectives. I am appalled! This is a huge piece of property and and the current proposal for development of this area will destroy what was once a wonderful, charming town. My initial response was "Oh no, what are they thinking?" The current design is massive, dense, and not at all in keeping with the once cozy ambiance of Los Gatos. I remember the charm of Los Gatos when we lived there several years ago; I cannot help but shake my head in wonder with what has happened to it. There are already too many high density "stack n' pack" developments and adding another, massive one is unconscionable. Traffic, already a major stress inducer, will likely be gridlocked along Hwys 17 and 85, Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Blvd (as well as surrounding roads, with drivers attempting to avoid the major throughways) and not just during commute times. Other issues include: Over crowded classrooms, wear and tear on existing and new infrastructure, increased noise levels and a serious deterioration of Los Gatos' quality of life. And what about parks and/or open space? I saw none planned! Is Los Gatos so desperate for money that it needs such a massive and intense development? We used to love Los Gatos and it's small town charm; however, it is rapidly becoming just another city, with little or no charm, a sterile atmosphere with too much traffic congestion. Please do not approve this massive, intense, high density development as currently presented. At the very least, demand less intensity and a large open space. And, please don't allow another non-descript "Mediterranean architecture" development. Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my concerns about the North 40 project. Marcia Fariss Saratoga t 15 APRIL 2016 Marni Moseley Assistant Planner Town of Los Gatos Dear Ms. Moseley, I write to you this morning to express my dismay about the North 40 development plan currently under review. I have grave concerns that it will fundamentally alter our wonderful community and impact us negatively in a variety of ways. The housing density itself is unprecedented in this community, and 1 fear the crippling effects it would have on traffic and parking, especially at northeast end of town. As a physician who travels back and forth to Good Samaritan Hospital and El Camino Hospital (Los Gatos), my ability to get to and from these facilities efficiently and care for my patients will be compromised. Furthermore, I believe patients will suffer simply because ambulances will be delayed in transporting acutely ill individuals to both emergency departments. As a parent of small children 1 also fear the effects this proposal would have on our overburden schools. With class sizes rising and teachers already being stretched, we simply cannot afford to add this amount of housing density and expect our school districts to cope. Any reasonable person can see that North 40 is a thinly veiled attempt for developers to maximize profits by overdeveloping a beautiful piece of land in a manner that is no way consistent with our town or its culture. Sincerely, a concerned resident and community member Zachary Edmonds, MD, MBA 249 Vista Del Monte Los Gatos, CA 95030 zed mends@sta n ford.edu 650-722-1879 cc: Los Gatos Weekly San Jose Mercury News This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Mosele From: Las Astas <lasastas@grnail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 7:54 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Los Gatos Resident Concern - North40 Development Dear Marni, As a long time resident of Los Gatos, a parent to two children in the Los Gatos School district and active member of the community, I am writing the Los Gatos Town Planning Committee to express concern over the scale and impacts of the the proposed North 40 project and propose constructive considerations / solutions. My family resides in the Vasona neighborhood that is accessed through Lark Ave. Our street is filled with young families with kids who play in the neighborhood streets and attend Blossom Hill Elementary school. There are 3 areas of community concern over the proposed North40 development plan: 1. PUBLIC SAFETY. The size of the proposed North40 development will undoubtedly bring significant traffic to Lark Ave, a street that serves as the only accessible route to Hwy 17. In the past 8 years, we have witnessed frequent automobile accidents on Lark Ave., including several fatal collisions with bicyclists and other drivers. Lark Ave regularly deals with speeding problems due to downward slopes on both ends of the street which essentially makes vehicles travel even faster when passing the main roads in the middle of the avenue that contain many single family residences. With traffic and speed risk already creating incomprehensible delays and danger for residents, we would request more emphasis on: (1) creating more stop lights on streets that connect to Lark like Arroyo Grande to automate and more efficiently move traffic at safe speeds and (2) Reduction in scale of North 40 population density to maintain more reasonable impacts to the total amount of incremental traffic and reduction to safety risks of having so many incremental vehicles impacting the adjacent neighborhoods. 2. NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO ALREADY OVERLY CROWDED SCHOOLS. Schools are one of Los Gatos' most prized motivations for residents to join and stay a part of our wonderful community. As parents of young school age children, we are concerned over North40's impact and developers inadequate proposal to "mitigate" impacts to schools. Once a new high density construction is completed, the durable and long term impacts to our schools will permanently settle in for residents (long after developers have left). As residents of impacted schools like Blossom Hill Elementary, we already have to deal with incredible stress and complex filing procedures to ensure our kids can attend their nearest local school rather than being sent to another school in the district further away from our primary residences. In an ever demanding economy, we parents yearn to save every precious minute in the day to maximize our time with our children and families. North40 violates this fundamental principle by placing undue burdens on existing residents who would risk children having to attend a schools further away due to existing overcrowded (impacted) conditions diminishing the very fundamental convenience and family need to save time in order to do the everyday work of raising families that collectively contribute to our Los Gatos community. On behalf of residents, please implore the North40 development to: (1) redefine a long term viable schooling solution that helps solve a fundamental issue: impacted schools -- basic renovations to existing schools is insufficient and inadequate in size and scope as a solution when compared against the level of traffic of new students that North 40 will add. (2) Require the North40 to open a new school campus as a requirement before granting rights to develop phase 2. By sequencing and conditioning development of North40 with the development of a new school campus, both the town (representing its residents) and developers have aligned incentives and interests over a longer period of time -- with properly designed incentives both parties will have flexibility to assess, evaluate and adjust for 'earnings. For example, if phase 1 of North40 brings in more residents with school age children than was planned for the entirety of the project development in both Phases of construction, then the town can at least control/influence the use of space in the second phase of development (l.e, Zone for more commercial and not more residential property which would even further impact schools, or require larger renovations or building a new neighborhood school if necessary to address underestimated student traffic in phase 1) 3. PRESERVING OUR UNIQUE TOWN CHARACTER. When driving and walking past the construction flags and poles marking the North40 proposal, the height, scale and size of the north40 buildings proposed obstruct the beautiful greenery and hills that make this town's local small community character so unique. Adding more dense multi story housing and commercial property in a town where our Main Street and downtown are limited to 2 story complexes is grossly inconsistent with the town's practice of enforcing and preserving the "character" of the neighborhood in approving any new projects. I would request that the town remain and act consistently with its long established practice of preserving the small town character by mandating reductions to the height and density of North 40 plans. While I fully appreciate the realistic financial needs that a project like North 40 helps contribute to our town, my letter is intended to voice a common concern from many families in our adjacent Vasona neighborhood -- we understand North40 is an important development opportunity for Los Gatos, but we implore our town officials to serve as our voice to keep our neighborhoods safe, our schools great, and our town as charming as we all believe it can remain...starting with a reduction in size and a reevaluation of school solutions before approving final plans. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Regards, Andrew Sun (Los Gatos Resident) 2 From: Barry & Elina Wong <bnewong@uverizon.net> Date: April 17, 2016 at 2:26:56 PM PDT To: <bspector ci,losgatosca.gov>, <"rrennie "@losgatosca.gov>, <miensen rz,losgatosca.gov>, <sleonardis }a,Iosgatosca.gov>. <msayoc losgatosca.gov>, <1prevettiia�.losgatosca.gov>, <rschultz@losgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 Development Concerns/Comments Dear Los Gatos City Council and Planning Commission We've been long term residents of the Blossom Manor neighborhood. Our kids have gone to Los Gatos schools. We've seen the huge increases in student enrollments, especially at Fisher and Los Gatos High in recent years. Those schools are bursting at the seams! We can't accommodate any more additional kids without losing the quality of education. As the quality of the education is what draws people to Los Gatos schools, this continued uncontrolled enrollment is not sustainable. It will certainly detract from the main draw as well as impact housing value. Certainly important considerations to all of Los Gatos home owners. Please stop these new housing developments that also increase student enrollments! Furthermore, the new proposed development at North 40 will have a dramatic impact on already overcrowded middle and high schools. As you're well aware, there is only ONE middle school in town, and only ONE high school in town. I saw commentary on the North 40 website which mentions a potential addition of an elementary school to "mitigate" overcrowding. However, these huge numbers of new residential units will undoubtedly bring a large number of new students who will not only be elementary school students but middle and high school students as well. Whoever made those responses to provide an elementary school is woefully shortsighted with regard to middle and high school impact. Will the developer also pay for building and staffing another middle school and high school? If not, it's quite obvious that school overcrowding will become unbearable. The high school is already restricting access to courses due to lack of capacity. For example, AP Computer Science course used to be open to all comers, now it's restricted to juniors and seniors. I expect with continued enrollment and interest by Silicon Valley students/parents, additional classes will have enrollment impacts and restrictions. Morning traffic and afternoon pickup traffic to Los Gatos high is already quite a headache. Additional commuters from the North 40 development families will add to already congested Los Gatos Blvd/University/Main traffic. I see no mitigation plan nor additional ways to alleviate that type of additional traffic, given the existing lanes on the roads. Furthermore, Los Gatos Blvd is already a huge issue, especially going in to Blossom Hill during morning drop off and afternoon pickup. The section around Good Samaritan, by HWY 85, starting at around Lark is quite congested already in the morning and afternoon. Adding North 40 commuters, and not just a few, but an additional 300+ houses which potentially mean 600+ additional cars on top of retail traffic will just look like a huge grid lock. I don't see any mitigation that will truly address this issue in any of the developer's plans/comments. Finally, but equally important, we are concerned with the density and potential crime that will bring to our little town. We don't mind going to Santana Row as a shopper when the crowds are light, but I really don't think any of Los Gatos residents will be happy having to deal with the Santana RowNalley Fair traffic on the weekend in addition to the beach traffic. Creating Santana Row part II here via North 40's proposed density and retail will truly take away from the look and feel of Los Gatos. Additional crowds also tend to bring with it the potential crime that's associated. We like our little town to keep its character. This density will make Los Gatos feel rather like Cupertino, and not Los Gatos anymore. The proposed height of the buildings will block our views of the hills, creating an urban environment in the middle of idyllic Los Gatos. Please keep our Los Gatos the gem it is in the Valley instead of another overbuilt dense urban jungle. Thank you for giving serious consideration to our concerns. Elina & Barry Wong Cherry Blossom Lane Blossom Manor Los Gatos Marni Moseley From: Jenny Li <jenny712us@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 323 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Hi, If it's not too late, I'd like to oppose this project. Hope it maybe cancelled. It'll definitely make the traffic worse and lower the property values in Los Gatos. Thanks! - Jenny From: susail©comcast.net To: bspector©losgatosca.gov Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 3:57:20 PM Subject: Los Gatos is a town not a city As a citizen of 29 years in Los Gatos, I am shocked and saddened at recent decisions both by the planning department as well as the town council. I recognize the need for for more housing and expansion of the high school but am appalled at the lack of consideration for the towns residents. Due to sneaky and manipulating behaviors my home will now be part of the high school campus and parking lot with the addition of more traffic and the daily"enhancement" ringing of school bells. And now the North Forty! We do not need a "Santana Row" in L G nor can the area handle any more traffic. With this development and the new Netflix construction a already traffic problem will become a disaster . And where are at the children of 320 homes going to school? I do not understand why a plan for housing ( although needed) has to include more commercial spaces and create a "housing development" look associated with big cities. If I wanted to live in a city I would move to San Francisco. There are a already too many vacant buildings down town...what will "Santana Row" accomplish but to take away local shopping. And "il vicinato"...you have got to be kidding..11 homes? I love this town and I hope you will take a good look at what is happening and the disservice to the residents who live here. Sincerely, Susan Fairey..137 New York Ave Planning From: d.madsen@nm.com Sent: Monday, April 18. 2016 8:46 AM To: Planning Subject: thoughts on new houses and the north 40 Dear sir or madam — As a 10 year resident of Los gatos, I love our town. But it is concerning that the growth seems to be pushing the limits of what our town can absorb. Please do not approve Vicinato project for 11 new homes at Shannon and LG Blvd. As a parent who drives kids to Blossom Hill Elementary and to Green Hills preschool, the traffic is already crazy. 11 houses at the intersection would be a disaster. Not to mention the already overcrowded schools. And as a commuter who gets onto highway 17 at Lark Ave, the North 40 scares me. it is already dangerous and crowded the amount of cars who funnel into that area, at all hours, but mostly during commute hours. And if I understand, favoritism to businesses in the North 40 vs. residents is not acceptable. Exceptions should not be made for business vs. residents who already contribute so much to our wonderful town. Please do not approve these projects, The Town of Los Gatos is wonderful, let's not push it over the edge. Thank you. Dan Madsen 408-691-6807 Dan Madsen, CLU, CLTC, CHFC { Wealth Management Advisor 152 N. 3- Street, Suite 755 San Jose, CA 95112 P: 408.535.5710 I F. 408.604.8101 j C: 408.691.6807 W d.madsennm.com LIC. #0B31083 Northwestern Mutual' Northwestern Mutual is the marketing name for The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Milwaukee. WI (NM) (life and disability insurance, annuities and life insurance with long-term care benefits) and its subsidiaries. <WMA NAME> is an Insurance Agent of NM. Registered Representative of Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC (securities), a subsidiary of NM, broker - dealer, registered investment adviser, and member FINRA and SIPC. Representative of Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Company®, Milwaukee, WI (fiduciary and fee -based financial planning services), a subsidiary of NM and federal savings bank. There may be instances when this agent represents companies in addition to NM or its subsidiaries. While links to other websites are provided for convenience and information, please be advised that except for information related to Northwestern Mutual (NM), the inclusion of, or linking to. other websites does not imply NM endorsement of, nor responsibility for, those websites Please do not send orders for mutual funds or securities via email, as they cannot be processed. Your transmission of electronic mail to this address represents your consent to two-way communication by Internet email. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer on which it exists. Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and outgoing electronic mail for this e-mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance purposes. Please be advised that communications with {SECURE MESSAGE) in the subject line have been sent using a secure messaging system. Communications that do not have this tag may not be secure and could be observed by a third party_ If you prefer not to receive any e-mail communication from Northwestern Mutual or our Financial Representatives, please click the following link:"E-Mail Opt -out from Northwestern Mutual" In the event that you cannot click on the above link, the Northwestern Mutual E-Mail Opt -out form can be found at the following URL: https://service.mnfn.corn./chpeopt/EmailOptOutdo, Northwestern Mutual 720 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797. 2 Marni Moseley From: David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:04 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Impact Los Gatos Town Council, I request that your deliberations concerning the scope of the North 40 project consider the impact on close neighbors like myself. I live on Potomac Dr diagonally across from he proposed complex. I was shocked and amazed with extent of the story poles, which I understand are not fully descriptive of the extent of the project. I envision major traffic problems at the Lark exit, Lark/Los Gatos Boulevard, and LG Blvd/Gateway intersections., as well as a swelling of activity and contention for space. I also see no evidence of a strong commitment to additional parks, schools, and open space that should be associated with a project of this extent. Please separate the need for low-cost housing from an attempt to "fix" a number of desires or constraints in one big "Battlestar Gallactica". Please, Is a project this massive and impactful in keeping with the low scale, residential and small retail character of this neighborhood? Thank you, David and Margaret Klinger 141 Potomac Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032 Miami Moseley From: Karen <karenchase3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 6:40 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 As long time Los Gatos residents we have seen the increase in traffic and student numbers in our schools grow to unimaginable levels 35 years ago. To maintain the town environment and the quality of life we love here it is up to the council's decision on the North 40. There should NOT be a story pole exemption. As residents we should be able to envision the project as it is proposed. If residents would not get an exemption then developers should not either. Our school are so impacted at this point in time. Our small community Blossom Hill School has grown into a huge campus with multi -story classrooms already. As these children grow our middle school and high schools will out grow their property and space needs. The funds needed for staffing, supervision and materials also grows. The developer must be required to pay their fair share for an additional school and provide for increase student populations at our middle and high schools. What will you do to alleviate traffic on Lark Avenue and the Lark Avenue off ramp which are already impacted? Traffic congestion on Lark Ave at commute times is so heavy it forces drivers to use our neighborhoods as a back road. During the day it is even a long wait to get out of Office Depot now! It's difficult to imagine more cars at that intersection. Please consider the quality of life for those of us living in the town we love now, Preserve our small town image by adding limited growth that is well planned and fully funded. Thank you, Karen and Hal Chase 107 Ann Arbor Dr Los Gatos On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:52 PM, itisapigsty@comcastnet wrote: Dear Mayor and Council Members, I write to you to express my concern regarding the development of the North 40 parcel. My concerns are on two fronts. First, where on earth are all those potential new students going to be housed? Our schools have grown so much in the 26 years we have lived here, and not only are bursting at the seams already, but have lost the lovely community feel due to huge enrollment numbers. Secondly, I sincerely doubt that Los Gatos Blvd. can handle the massive traffic increases that the current proposal would ensure. I don't know if you ever have cause to be on the Boulevard anywhere near rush hour, but it is a bit of a nightmare. Are these concerns being considered? Thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns. Maxine Granadino This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Janette Judd Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:32 AM To: kj@khoslaventures.com Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: FIN: North 40 cc: Town Council Town Manager Community Development Director .T.Paulson Associate Planner M.Moseley Good morning, Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Town Council, Town Manager, and Planning staff. Unfortunately, your communication was received after the April 19 Town Council agenda was finalized and deadlines have passed for initial agenda material distribution, subsequent Addendums, and Desk Items. http: 7www.town.1os-gatos.ca. us/2 126/Public-Guide-to-Town-Council-Meetings. By copy of this message, the Manager's office is referring your comments to Community Development Department (CDD) Director Joel Paulson, and the staff liaison for the project, Associate Planner Marni Moseley. Additionally, your communication will be retained in the project file and included in public communications for any future Planning Commission and Town Council meetings. Should you have additional questions or comments, Marni can be reached at (408) 354-6879 or MMoseleytLosGatosCA.gov_ Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments. Best regards, Janette Judd Executive Assistant Town Council and Town Manager's Office (408) 354-6832 From: Keith Janosky [mailto:kjOkhoslaventures.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:15 AM To: BSpector; Council; Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Mayor Spector, Please ensure you hold Grosvenor to the same standards you expect of others that request permitting. There should be zero exceptions to the story pole mandates and the already granted exception for Section IIA that is allowing the poles to not be present during the entire period of when the appeal has ended be adjusted or enforced to ensure they are present before, during and after proposed changes to the plan are made. The builder is well versed in telling the story in a manner that presents themselves in the best possible light with a project that they proclaim will be great for the town. Their job is to make money and they are good at it. Their job is not to ensure they make the best possible use of land, that is your job. Please do not lose sight of this and do not allow yourself to be bullied by their lawyers that are interpreting laws in their favor. Laws need to be interpreted and challenged, do not just take their word for it. Hire the best lawyers we can find that have successfully challenged a proposal like this. Do not fall victim to their complaints of how much money they paid for the land, that's their problem to deal with. Regards, Keith Janosky 16515 South Kennedy Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 2 On Apr 19, 2016, at 12:54 PM, Bob Kirkendall <bobkirkenda1175�7a,gmail.com> wrote: Please scale down the project way to big and not enough open space Robert Kirkendall 80 year resident Marni Moseley From: Bonnie Hurwitz <bonniejhurwitz@yahoo.com> Sent Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:32 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: Los Gatos Hearing 4/19 Dear Ms. Moseley, 1 thought I'd be able to attend the Los Gatos Public Hearing tonight but find that I am now unable to do so. I am a resident of Los Gatos on Olive St. I wanted to voice my sentiments about the North 40 Planned Development and to let you know that I feel this proposed construction would put the town of Los Gatos at a tremendous disadvantage for potential traffic, school enrollment and hospital access, just to name a few. I originally moved here from the Boston area and also lived in a "town" which was one of the attractions for me in moving to LG. It's very hard to put a price on "charm" but that is one of the reasons that people live here and pay for that privilege. Thank you for reviewing my input. Regards, Bonnie Hurwitz i Dear Planning Commissioners Tonight l am bringing up an issue that I brought up last year. Now that we have a N40 application in process, I feel it is important to address it again. But first I want to review a couple of statements in the General Plan. In the General Plan it states that "Residents hold proposed development projects to a HIGHER STANDARD because what is approved in other communities may not be acceptable in Los Gatos. And the General plan states that Los Gatos "offers amenities, support, and a HIGH QUALITY of living to all residents" If these statements are true, then please do not allow a developer to put residential units in an area on the N40 that is a high cancer risk area according to the N40 EIR? Here is a picture from the N40 EIR showing the high cancer risk area. Putting residential units in a high cancer risk area of the N40 is irresponsible. How is this holding development to a Higher Standard? People may say other municipalities are building along the freeways, but is this what we want for our soon to be Los Gatos residents? The mitigation measure for this high cancer risk area in the N40 EIR is to use high efficiency filtration and ventilation systems. This mitigation measure works for office buildings with fixed windows, but does not work for residential units with windows that open and areas that kids can play in outdoors. When residents open their windows, they will be exposing themselves to levels of pollution that will put them at additional risk for health issues. Wouldn't it be more responsible and safer to put office buildings along the 17 freeway to buffer the residential units? My suggestion for the N40 is to Put office buildings along Hwy 17 Put Retail along Hwy 85 and Los Gatos Blvd. for the quick in and out needed for retail Spread out the residential units in the middle of the development through the Lark, Transition, and Northern districts. These residential units will be buffered by the Office and the Retail. Place multiple open space parks throughout the N40 for the residents, employees, and community — maybe one with a water feature that kids can play in. Each park could have a theme that would reflect the rural and agricultural history of the site. There is a diagram on the N40 in your packet with my suggestions. also want give you an example of a high density development in Los Gatos that I have driven by hundreds of times and rarely see issues with car ingress and egress and don't see a large parking area because the parking garage is underground. I am referring to the Netflix/Aventino development. The integration of the office and residential provides reversed commutes between residents and office employees and allows shared parking, which reduces parking requirements. In the packet handed you, there are details regarding this development. I do not have time to review them now, but think this type of development would work well on the N40. Please rethink this current N40 proposal — Protect our current and future residents — Keep them safe — that should be a priority of our Planning Commissioners. By Anne Robinson-Roley 4-20-16 Legend Project Boundary 1 400 feet 0 0o EiCancer Risk Over 10 per Million Fine Particulate Matter Concentrations over 0_3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter AK Point of Greatest Effect Source: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2013, Google Earth 2011 Figure 15 Health Risks North Forty Specific Plan EIR 1. S" • Netffix/Aventino — Facts 1) How may acres total - 12.2 acres 2) Square Footage of the office - approximately 1 60,000 square feet 3) Square Footage of the residential - approximately 290,000 square feet 4) Number of residential units - (studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms) — 290 total units 5) Number of parking spaces - Commercial space is 578 spaces and 52 spaces for the Residential units which includes 62 tandem spaces. 6) Density ratio floor/area - 19.8 dwelling units per acre 7) Height of the main building - the main roof line has a maximum height of 49 6" 8) Number of stories for the office and number of stories for the residential - both are up to 3 stories RECENED 8PR 21 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION From: noreply@civcplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.coml Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 12:04 PM To: Town Manager; Christina Gilmore Subject: (North 40) Online Form Submittal: Customer Feedback Form The following form was submitted via your website: Customer Feedback Form Name:: Bonnie Bates Address:: 16960 Cypress Way City:: Los Gatos State: : ca Zip:: 95030 Home Phone Number:: (408) 355-8480 Daytime Phone Number:: (408) 355-8480 Email Address:: bbbates@hotmail.com Please let us know how we are doing or what we can do for you!: Dear Town Council, Do you have the weekend beach traffic problem solved yet? How about the summer beach traffic? Still working on it and agreeing it's a huge challenge? Do you have any idea how many residents are unable to take care of routine business downtown (i.e. bank, pharmacy, grocery shopping, etc) after 10:00 a.m. because the gridlock is so bad it takes 45 minutes to get to a store? We're virtually prisoners in our homes between 10 and 4 on weekends. Summer weekdays isn't much better. So if you don't have a feasible plan for solving this problem, why do you think the residents want an additional "hundreds" of homes built for more people to add to the gridlock on Los Gatos Boulevard? If the existing traffic problem is an absolute SNAFU, how is it going to be after North 40? So the front page of Los Gatos Weekly states that a special study session will be held "to help the residents better understand the proposal". How arrogant! In other words, lets just spin the info on this project to make it acceptable for the unwashed masses. Actually, I think the residents understand the impact of this project better than the town council wished they would. Marni Mosele From: Jim Fox <jfox152@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 12:40 PM To: inspector@losgatos.gov; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie Cc: Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz Subject: North 40 Plan Importance: High Dear Mayor Spector & council, After reviewing this plan of the proposed North 40 Development, my wife & I strongly oppose it. The bottlenecks in Los Gatos are unacceptable as it is today. This proposed plan will increase the residency of Los Gatos by 3-5 % in a very confined area with limited access and will affect all residence in the south bay who use Freeways 17, 85, 280 & 101. For more than 50 years, Santa Clara County's water needs have exceeded locally available water supplies. As Santa Clara County has grown, our dependence on the State and Federal water has increased. The structural issue of the County's reliance on the Delta water supply is further challenged by the impacts of continued population growth, endangered species rulings, and multiyear droughts. https://www.sjwater.com/blog/current-water-supply-assessment Increasing the residents not only increases congestion, but the water & energy requirements of the Town. Before you even consider increasing the residential population here, start by first fixing the water problems, fixing the energy problems and fixing the congestion problems. After that, we can talk. Don't allow this insanity to continue. Sincerely, Jim and Missy Fox 1 From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlawOme.com] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 2:41 PM To: Laurel Prevetti Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: No. 40 Public Comment Subject: Traffic at No. 40 How bad is the traffic projected to be according to the experts for full build out for the N. 40? Is everyone on comfortable with the projected traffic increase based on the Specific Plan parameters? The Albright Superior EIR Alternative was 350K of space for about 21 acres. How can 1st phase be over 500K for about the same acreage and be any where near an environmentally superior alternative? Albright and the No. 40 are both on limited arterials and not far from each other. Is the EIR solid? Does the EIR include Dell, ER expansion, PAMF, Albright? Intuitively it just doesn't seem to make sense to have all this development and not have a significant and serious increase in traffic congestion....beyond what already exists. Cut & paste from https:f/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic bottleneck A traffic bottleneck is a localized disruption of vehicular traffic on a street, road, or highway. As opposed to a traffic jam, a bottleneck is a result of a specific physical condition, often the design of the road, badly tinned traffic lights, or sharp curves. They can also be caused by temporary situations, such as vehicular accidents. Stationary bottleneckieditl Consider a stretch of highway with two lanes in one direction. Suppose that the fundamental diagram is modeled as shown here. The highway has a peak capacity of Q vehicles per hour, corresponding to a density of kc vehicles per mile. The highway normally becomes jammed at / vehicles per mile. Before capacity is reached, traffic may flow at A vehicles per hour, or a higher B vehicles per hour. In either case, the speed of vehicles is of (or "free flow"), because the roadway is under capacity. Now, suppose that at a certain location x0, the highway narrows to one lane. The maximum capacity is now limited to D', or half of Q, since only one lane of the two is available. State D shares the same flow rate as state D', but its vehicular density is higher. 1 / /Delay betrveen dosed and actual tr apector) Vf / io vehFclas r ['Vf tl Queued Time CO vehicles at time t Using a time -space diagram, we may model the bottleneck event. Suppose that at time to, traffic begins to flow at rate B and speed v. After time t,, vehicles arrive at the lighter flowrate A. Before the first vehicles reach location x,, the traffic flow is unimpeded. However, downstream of x0,, the roadway narrows, reducing the capacity by half —and to below that of state B. Due to this, vehicles will begin queuing upstream of x;;. This is represented by high -density state D. The vehicle speed in this state is the slower vd, as taken from the fundamental diagram. Downstream of the bottleneck, vehicles transition to state D', where they again travel at free -flow speed v. Once vehicles arrive at rate A starting at time t,, the queue will begin to clear and eventually dissipate. State Ahas a flowrate below the one -lane capacity of states D and D'. On the time -space diagram, a sample vehicle trajectory is represented with a dotted arrow line. The diagram can readily represent vehicular delay and queue length. It's a simple matter of taking horizontal and vertical measurements within the region of state D. John Shepardson 1 Marni Moseley From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:09 PM To: Council; Laurel Prevetti Subject: No. 40--Fwd: Grosvenor ('Living Cities') For PC and TC. Begin forwarded message: From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Subject: Grosvenor ('Living Cities') Date: April 26, 2016 at 9:19:53 AM PDT To: BSpector <BSpector(Iosgatosca.gov>, msayoclosgatosca.gov, SLeonardis(losgatosca.gov, rrennie(Iosgatosca.gov, MJensenalosgatosca.gov, LPrevetti(closgatosca.gov, RSchuitz(a�Iosdatosca.gov, Mike.Wasserman cr bos.sccgov.orq, bloventhal©cityofmontesereno.orq, jlindsav(saratoga.ca.us, Carl Guardino <cguardino@a svlg.org>, citycouncil cr,cupertino.orq, ipeterson(community-newspapers.com, vicemavorchang(7a.gmail.com, hmillerc.77saratoga.ca.us, sconway(a�Iosgatosca.gov, barry4cupertino(gmail.com, rodsinks©gmail.com Grosvenor says its building 'living cities'. LG is a listed major project. Therefore, isn't Grosvenor building a living city in LG? Has ANY citizen in town stated that the project has the look and feel of Los Gatos? If it doesn't meet that standard set by the town, how can it be approved? Cut and paste from htto:l/www.grosvenor.com)news-views-research/news12016/good-international- performance/ Total return of 9% slightly ahead of what we predicted last year and in line with the long term average. • Indirect Investment helped to deliver revenue profit of £83.3m. • Lower returns and revenue profit expected over the next few years. • Continuing investment in a range of development projects in line with our 'Living cities' approach and timed to mature in the next cycle. (emphasis added) • Grosvenor Fund Management to become the fourth proprietary business; named `Grosvenor Europe'. • Several key internal promotions announced in Grosvenor Group and Grosvenor Britain & Ireland. i Grosvenor Americas received planning consent for 'Connaught', a mixed -use development in North Vancouver. Approval has also been given for the development in California of Los Gatos' last large undeveloped parcel of land, where Grosvenor Americas will be the primary developer. New developments commenced construction in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland; in the Capitol Riverfront District in Washington, DC; and in Ambleside, West Vancouver, where Grosvenor is infusing new life into this waterfront community and village shopping district. Pre -sales targets at `Grosvenor Ambleside' have been exceeded. The business established a new partnership to quadruple the scale of its mezzanine lending programme and expand the company's reach in Washington DC. (emphasis added) GROSVENOR AMERICAS • Established a new partnership to quadruple our mezzanine lending programme and expanded its reach to Washington, DC. • Received planning approval for Connaught, a mixed -use development in North Vancouver, BC, and adoption of the Specific Plan at The North 40 in Los Gatos, California. (emphasis added) • Started construction on three mixed -use developments, acquired three residential properties and sold two investment properties. • Exceeded pre -sales targets at Grosvenor Ambleside in Vancouver, BC, with over 83% of homes sold, representing over C$155m in revenue, • Promoted two senior managers, James Patillo and Steve O'Connell, to Managing Director roles. http.11www.grosvenor.com/our-businesses/ rosvenor-americasl Featured locations and properties At Grosvenor we help create vibrant buildings and neighbourhoods fit for tomorrow's urban communities: what we call `Living cities'. Read about some of our projects below. 2 Marni Moseley From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 110 PM To: Council; Laurel Prevetti Subject: N. 40 & Santana Row (Let's do the math based on reasonable assumptions: 75% of Santa Row Traffic) For PC and TC. Begin forwarded rnessage: From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlawrme.com> Subject: N. 40 & Santana Row (Let's do the math based on reasonable assumptions: 75% of Santa Row Traffic) Date: April 25, 2016 at 6:00:17 PM PDT To: BSpector <BSpector(c�Iosgatosca.cgov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc(c losgatosca.gov>, Steven Leonardis <SLeonardisIosgatosca.gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennieAlosgatosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen <MJensen(Iosgatosca.gov>, Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti(a7losgatosca.gov> Cut and paste from http://www.santanarow.com/concierge/about/ Santana Row is Silicon Valley's premier destination for shopping, dining, living working and playing. Offering 1.7 million square feet of retail, office, hotel and residential, Santana Row is located in Silicon Valley, California; the hub for high-tech innovation and development. Featuring 615 luxury rental homes, 219 privately owned condos, 350,000+ square feet of Class A Office space, over 70 shops, 20 restaurants, a boutique hotel and a movie theatre. (emphasis added) JS-- No. 40: Phase 1—approx. 550K square feet? Phase 2 approx. 500K square feet? 1.05M divided by 1.7M = 61 percent. Project will be in size 61% percent of Santa Row. The traffic draw will probably be greater because of the location, Los Gatos and its views and perceived safety. So, let's make a reasonable assumption that LG gets 75% of the traffic of Santa Row. Is that what we want? Is that sustainable? There are multiple lanes to address the traffic for Santa Row, which is not the case in LG. i Cut & paste from http://www.Iosgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/I862 Executive Summary Site Description and Location The North 40 site is a highly strategic location in the West Valleyfor new commercial development: • — The North 40 site is located at the intersection of Highways 85 and 17, making it a highly visible and desirable location for a variety of uses, particularly for retail, hotel, and meeting/conference facilities. • — The North 40's location at the crossroads of the West Valley's freeway system makes it easily accessible to many of the region's major hubs of activity, including major employers such as Apple Computer, Netflix, and cultural attractions in downtown San Jose. (emphasis added) Demographic and Economic Overview While Los Gatos itself is a small community, the Town and the Retail Trade Area (RTA) that it is situated in have a significant concentration of high -income households and high rates of homeownership that retailers and hotel operators will likely find attractive -despite modest f aure population and household growth: o — The Town of Los Gatos had a population of 29,413 in 2010 and experienced limited population or household growth in the last decade. o — Los Gatos is characterized by relatively small households, a high rate of home ownership, and high incomes. The median household size for Los Gatos was 2.35 persons per household in 2010 compared to the Bay Area average household size of 2.69. The Town's median annual household income is over $1 1 5,000, significantly higher than the $79,000 figure for the Bay Area. Approximately 63 percent of occupied housing units are owner -occupied, in contrast to just over 56 percent for the Bay Area. o — While not at the levels of the Town, the Retail Trade Area (RTA) with a 2010 population of 606,000 also has high incomes and high rates of home ownership. The median household income was just over $94,000 in 2010. The RTA's homeownership rate was 61 percent of occupied housing units. The RTA represents population and buying power within a 10 minute drive of the North 40 site. o — Both Los Gatos and the Retail Trade Area will experience modest population growth from 2010 to 2020. Based on the Town's recently adopted. General Plan, the Town is North Forty Specific Plan Market Study and Business Development Strategy Page 1 of 150 slated to add approximately 3,200 residents over the decade, based in part on the potential for new housing at the North 40 site. Future residential development opportunities in the Town and the RTA will largely be infill on sites such as the North 40. Despite a commute pattern of more residents commuting out of the RTA than others commuting in, there are nearly 100,000 workers commuting into the RTA every day who most likely patronize local retailers and service providers. The North 40 site benefits from the proximity of major employers in the adjacent Good Samaritan Hospital and other medical facilities -these employees may be target market for new retail: • — Los Gatos and the RTA function as a bedroom residential community in Silicon Valley with more residents commuting out every day for work (186,900) than commute in (98,300). 2 ▪ - Good Samaritan hospital is two minute drive from the North 40 site, employs 1,800 people and generates 88,000 patient days annually. (emphasis added) • — Columbia Health Care/Mission Oaks Hospital is a three minute drive from the North 40 and employ's 2,000 people. (emphasis added) Cut & paste from https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/45063 1. Comment A3: Traffic Impacts Caltrans is in the process of updating its Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (TIS Guide) for consistency with Senate Bill 743, but meanwhile we recommend using the Caltrans TIS Guide for determining which scenarios and methodologies to use in the analysis, available at: http://dot.ca.gove/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr_cega_files/tisguide.pdf. Santana Row Project 4 First Amendment to the Draft E!R City of San Jose July 2015 Regarding the DEIR and Traffic Impact Analysis (T1A): 1. The intersection analysis at Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard under the cumulative scenario shows a long queue along Stevens Creek Boulevard. This queue is impacting the upstream intersection of Interstate (I-) 880/Stevens Creek Boulevard at the off -ramp. This negative impact caused the by project on the state facility should be mitigated. (emphasis added) Response A3: The City does not have any adopted thresholds of significance for queuing. During the preparation of the traffic analysis for the project, the 1-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard off -ramp queuing was not analyzed because the 1-880 interchange project was under construction. Therefore, any collection of data and evaluation of traffic would be atypical of traditional traffic pattern established by normal commute as required in any traffic analysis. The I-880 interchange project was designed improve the ramp conditions and includes a separate ramp which carries vehicles from the I-880 ramp directly to Monroe St. and vehicles using this lane would not use Stevens Creek Boulevard at all, therefore reducing traffic along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The queuing information referenced in the Caltrans letter was part of LOS calculation to address the City's Level of Service Policy. For any project queuing analysis, traffic analysis software such as Sychro is used because the Traffix model queuing analysis provides an over -estimation of traffic. This is because the Traffix model does not consider the intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard are part of a coordinated system, but instead as isolated intersections operating independently. Recent field observations in the AM peak at the off -ramp and the westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard/Monroe Street intersection indicated queues of about three to five vehicles, which is shorter than the 10 vehicle queue 3 for existing volumes in the Traffix file referenced above. This overestimation of queuing is typical of Traffix software, necessitating the use of other more accurate methods of analysis. With the interchange currently under construction, it would be difficult to accurately project the queue at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Monroe Street intersection. The City, however, anticipates that once the I-880 interchange project is complete, the addition of the project traffic would not result in queuing capacity issues at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Monroe Street intersection. Comment A4: 2. The DEIR stated that the project would have a significant impact on mixed flow lanes, on two -directional freeway segments, and High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on one- directional freeway segments [sic] during at least one peak hour at: o • Northbound (NB) I-880, 1-280 to Stevens Creek Boulevard (Impact: AM Peak Hour) o • Southbound (SB) I-880, Bascom Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard (Impact: AM Peak Hour) o • Westbound (WB) 1-280 HOV, Meridian Ave to I-880 (Impact: AM Peak Hour) This project should provide mitigation measures (described below) for the impacts to these affected freeway segments. Response A4: The mitigation for freeway impacts is increased capacity in the form of additional mainline or auxiliary lanes. The cost of implementing a capacity enhancing Santana Row Project 5 First Amendment to the Draft FIR City of San Jose July 2015 improvement on a freeway segment is beyond the ability of any one development project to finance. At this time, Caltrans does not have an approved project with CEQA clearance and a funding mechanism that would add lanes to any of the aforementioned freeway segments. As a result, fair share fees would not be considered mitigation and cannot be required of the project. Because the project, by itself, could not implement physical improvements to the freeway system and no program exists to allow for fair share fees to fund improvements that would add capacity to mitigate project impacts, the impact cannot be mitigated and the DEIR concluded that impacts to freeway segments are significant and unavoidable. Comment A5: 3. Please provide the 95th percentile queuing analysis for the following intersections: o • Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard; o • I-880 SB off-ramp/Stevens Creek Boulevard; o • Saratoga Avenue/I-280 (north); o • Saratoga Avenue/I-280 (south); o • I-280 eastbound (EB) off-ramp/Moorpark Avenue; and o • NB I-880 ramps/Stevens Creek Boulevard (future) Project mitigation measures (described below) if the storage length is not adequate to accommodate the queue length. 4 Response A5: The traffic analysis includes projections of traffic patterns and geometric modifications for purposes of evaluating the intersection Level of Service impacts. For the first two intersections on the list, a queuing analysis performed during construction of the I- 880 interchange would not provide an accurate measurement of project queues since traffic pattern changes and excessive delay due to the interchange project would influence the results. The next four intersections were not analyzed because they are located further away from the project site and the traffic analysis did not indicate that the project would add measurable amounts of traffic to these intersections. Furthermore, queuing analysis is an operational issue and the City does not have any adopted thresholds of significance to evaluate queuing impacts. Please refer to Response A3 for a discussion of queuing around the I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard off -ramps. Comment A6: 4. The proposed project is likely to have impacts on the operations of the following metered freeway on -ramps: o • SB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard diagonal on -ramp; o • NB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard loop on -ramp; and o • NB I-280/Winchester Boulevard diagonal on -ramp. During the ramp metering hours, the existing on -ramp queues will likely be lengthened with the additional traffic demand by this project which may impeded onto the local streets and affect operations. Caltrans recommends the City consider providing additional storage on the on - Santana Row Project 6 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015 ramps/local streets for the freeway on -ramp traffic to avoid or minimize these impacts and consider other mitigation measures (described below). Response A6: There are no adopted thresholds of significance for freeway on -ramps in and of themselves. Backups on freeway ramps that result in increased delays at local intersections would be reflected in the LOS analysis. There is no nexus to require mitigation for traffic delays caused by increased on -ramp queues unless it would result in the degradation of LOS below acceptable City standards which did not happen in this case. It should also be noted, that additional lanes have already been added along Stevens Creek Boulevard that provide direct access to the SB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard diagonal on- ramp as a result of the interchange project. The NB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard loop on- ramp was recently reconstructed as part of the Caltrans interchange project and cannot be built out further. There is no right-of-way available to provide additional on -ramp or on- street storage for the NB I-280/Winchester Boulevard diagonal on -ramp as the on -ramp runs directly adjacent to a mobile home park and Winchester Boulevard runs adjacent to the mobile home park and a National Register Historic Structure (Winchester Mystery House), Comment A7: 5. Table 4.2-7 shows a large increase in generated AM (PM) net new trips at 739(789) vehicles per hour (vph). Also, the DEIR does not provide the year for Cumulative Conditions nor does it analyze potential traffic impacts under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Caltrans recommends the DEIR adopt 2035 as the year for Cumulative Conditions and provide turning movement traffic per study intersection under Project Only, 2035 Cumulative, and 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. 5 Response A7: The DE1R addresses the cumulative traffic impacts of the proposed project in Section 6.1.2.1. As clearly expressed on page 174 of the DEIR, Table 6.1-1 shows the results of the cumulative plus project conditions analysis. The analysis identified a cumulatively considerable project impact at the Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard Intersection. Turning movements are provided in the T1A (Appendix A of the DEIR). The analysis is based on a near -term cumulative scenario approximately five years out from the date of the TIA. Long-term cumulative traffic impacts were analyzed in the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan FEIR. Comment A8: 6. Collaborate with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on increasing headway time on existing bus service for VTA Bus Service Routes 23,60,25, and 323; consider new bus service, such as service to major transit centers such as the Diridon Station; and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction factors. The assumptions and methodologies used to develop this information should be detailed in the study, utilize the latest place -based research, and be supported with appropriate documentation. Caltrans recommends the DEIR reference the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan Plan Bay Area 2040 and the project's consistency with the RTP's greenhouse gas and particulate matter reduction targets, long-range integrated transportation, and land-use/housing strategy. Response A8: The City continues to coordinate with VTA staff on current and possible future transit options for the immediate project area. The Envision San Jose 2040 General Santana Row Project 7 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015 Plan, not the Plan Bay Area 2040, guides future development and transportation impacts in the City, The project, as proposed, will enhance the City's Urban Village concept in the General Plan. Urban Villages, like Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in Plan Bay Area, encourage development that places jobs, housing, and services near transit and within walking distance to each other to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. A complete greenhouse gas emissions analysis was completed for the project. As discussed in Section 4.4 of the DEIR, the full build out of Santana Row, including already built, entitled, and proposed development would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Greenhouse Gas Service Population threshold. Also, as noted in Section 4.4.3.1, page 87, a portion of the project site is located within a PDA as defined in Plan Bay Area. No additional analysis is required under CEQA. Comment A9: 7. Mitigation for any roadway sections or intersection with increasing VMT should be identified. Since no mitigation measures were provided for the significant impacts to the state facilities, Caltrans recommends that the developer make a major contribution to the State Highway Operation and Protection (SHOPP) Program; the Program from which funding for state highway improvement projects is obtained. Mitigation may also include contributions to the regional fee program as applicable (described below), and should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Also, the project should pay its fair share contribution to the VTA Corridor Study on 1-280. There are improvement projects that will be recommended as a result of the Corridor Study. Response A9: The City currently has no adopted thresholds of significance for increased VMT on roadway segments or through intersections. As a result, there is no nexus to require mitigation for increased VMT. It should be noted that the payment of fees for unidentified improvements or improvements that do not specifically address a project's impacts is not considered mitigation under CEQA and cannot be required. Furthermore, improvements to State highways would not reduce VMT. 6 The payment of fees toward the VTA Corridor Study on 1-280 would not be mitigation under CEQA because there is no guarantee that improvements identified would mitigate traffic impacts, there is no funding mechanism to ensure identified improvements would be constructed, and no CEQA clearance for the possible improvements. Comment A 10: Because of the location of the project, Caltrans recommends the City consider mitigation measure options which would allow the City to ensure that direct and indirect traffic impacts, as well as contribution to cumulative traffic impacts, from the project area mitigated to the extent feasible. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally, -binding instruments under the control of the City. Response A 10: The City agrees the mitigation measures that include requirements of other agencies can be enforceable. As stated above, however, the mitigation has to be fully designed, have a funding mechanism, and CEQA clearance. Santana Row Project 8 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015 Comment All: 8. Voluntary Contribution Program: Caltrans also encourages the City to participate in VTA's voluntary contribution program and plan for the impact of future growth on the regional transportation system. Contributions by the City funding regional transportation programs would improve the transportation system to less future traffic congestion, improve mobility by reducing time delays, and maintain reliability on major roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Reducing delays on State facilities will not only benefit the region, but also reduce any queuing on local roadways caused by highway congestion. Response All: This comment is acknowledged. Comment Al2: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The TDM measures should include fewer parking spaces to encourage patrons to take transit, rather than driving vehicles, in order to alleviate congestion. Also, allowing residents and retail business to share parking, free parking for condo buyers and renters, and unbundled parking for other structure costs would further alleviate congestion. Caltrans recommends that transit stops and names be included on the maps. Response Al2: Caltrans recommendations for TDM treasures are acknowledged. The project already proposes a shared parking arrangement between office and retail uses. With regard to transit stops on the maps, the City assumes the commenter is referring to Figure 4.2-1 in the EIR (Transit Services). The discussion of transit services in Section 4.2.1.3 of the EIR has been revised to reflect the Route 323 bus stop at Santana Row and Stevens Creek Boulevard (See Section 4.0 of the First Amendment to the Draft EIR, below). Comment A 13: Mitigation Reporting Guidelines The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of reporting or monitoring programs when public agencies include mitigation as a conditions of project approval. Reporting or monitoring takes place after project approval to ensure implementation of the project in accordance with mitigation adopted during the CEQA review process. Some of the information requirements detailed in the attached Guidelines for Submitting Transportation Information from a Reporting Program include the following: o • Name, address, and telephone number of the CEQA lead agency contact responsible for mitigation reporting; o • Type of mitigation, specific location, and implementation schedule for each transportation impact mitigation measure; and o • Certification section to be signed and dated by the lead agency certifying that the mitigation measures agreed upon and identified in the checklist have been implemented, and all other reporting requirements have been adhered to, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and 21081.7. Further information is available on the following website: http//www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/igr cega.html Santana Row Project 9 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015 Response A13: All required information regarding the project mitigation will be provided in the Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program consistent with CEQA requirements, Comment A14: Transportation Management Plan (TMP) If it is determined that traffic restrictions and detours are needed on or which may affect State highways, a TMP or construction TIA may be required for approval by Caltrans prior to construction. Traffic Management Plans must be prepared in accordance with Caltrans' TMP Guidelines. Further information is available for download at the following web address: http//www. dot. ca. gov/hq/traffops/trafingmt/tmp_1 cs/ind ex.htm Please ensure that such plans are also prepared in accordance with the TMP requirements of the corresponding jurisdictions. For further TMP assistance, please contact the Caltrans District 4 Office of Traffic Management Operations at (510) 286-4579. Response A14: If traffic restrictions and detours are needed that affect State highways, the City will require the applicant to comply with all applicable regulations of Caltrans and other responsible agencies. The applicant will be required to obtain a haul route permit from the City's Department of Transportation prior to issuance of grading permits. The haul route permit will include conditions and truck routes for construction traffic. Furthermore, City inspectors are responsible for overseeing construction practices to minimize impacts to surrounding areas. John Shepardson, Esq. 8 Marni Moseley From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 8:41 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis, Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen, Laurel Prevetti; Council; Robert Schultz; dabbati@lgusd.k12.ca.us; Wendi Baker Subject: N. 40 (Value of Homes in LG) Financial benefit to developers of homes in LG: 320 homes x $200,000/home equals $64,000,000; at $300,000/home equals $96,000,000. JS Sent from my iPhone 1 Marni Moseley From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:05 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Council Subject: Maximize housing worth the risk? What about maximizing senior housing? Do we run the risk of maximizing housing on a major arterial that has limited capacity to expand? 435 comrn got increased to 500K, worth the risk? I'm definitely for protected bike lanes, smart lights, Danville -like busing for students and shuttle buses like Stanford. Quoting from http://www.mercurynews.comlci 27g04644/los-gatos-school-board-will-consider-north-40 We have 619 units, and where are we going to put them?" Councilwoman Marico Sayoc asked. "If we can maximize housing on this site, which is the least traffic intensive use, I think that's what I would be in favor of." Developers who build low-income housing are eligible for a density bonus of up to 35 percent. With that in mind, council members voted 3-2 to permit 270 homes, leaving room for a 35 percent density bonus for a total of 364 homes. Sayoc and Councilman Rob Rennie voted no on that part of the plan. There will undoubtedly be offices at the North 40, the council voting unanimously to allow 435,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. No new medical facilities will be allowed. JS Sent from my iPhone 1 April 25, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Architectural and Site Application S-13-090 Dear Planning Commissioners, RECE VED MAY 5 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Collectively we represent the ownership of the medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard as well as the medical practices that occupy the building. Our businesses include Prospira Pain Care, Los Gatos Foot and Ankle Center, Physical Therapy of Los Gatos. and VIP Surgicare. We are writing to voice our objection to Application S-13-090 currently being considered by the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission for recommendation to the Town Council. We join the overwhelming majority of Los Gatos residences and business owners who have voiced their objections to the project as currently proposed. We are encouraged that Town Council has directed further study and hope that effective traffic mitigation measures will be incorporated into future plans for the North Forty. Without an effective plan for traffic circulation we urge you to recommend denial of the project. As currently proposed the Project will exacerbate existing traffic problems, limit access to our medical practices, and create safety issues related to ingress and egress to, and from, our property. Can you imagine the safety issue if there is no direct, convenient way to exit our property in the northerly direction? There are solutions to traffic circulation issues but as currently proposed these issues are not being addressed. Los Gatos Boulevard between Good Samaritan Drive and Lark Avenue needs to be widened to allow for improved traffic circulation, traffic flow and ingress/egress. A comprehensive circulation plan for the North Forty needs to include a street connection between Good Samaritan Drive and Lark Avenue. As currently proposed, traffic circulation is planned "piece meal" with no effective way to address issues that will affect our property and the general area. Please recommend denial of the project as currently proposed. [Signatures on Following Page] Very Truly Yours, Joan Oloff. DPM Managing Member Los Gatos Medical Office Center, LLC Los Gatos Foot and enter Peter A. Abaci, M. Member Los Gatos Medical Office Center, LLC Prospira Pain Care J E. .ssey, M.D. atos Medical Office Center. LLC spira Pain Care LGMOC/lwl O4-25 LGMOC Planning Lir Robert I. Naber, PT Member Los Gatos Medical Office Center, LLC Physical Therapy of Los Gatos 4 Kirk A. Churukian, M.D. Member Los Gatos Medical Office Center, LLC VIP Surgicare Marni Moseley From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 9:11 AM To: BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Laurel Prevetti; Council; Robert Schultz; Mike.Wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; hmiller@saratoga.ca.us; vicemayorchang@gmail.com; Carl Guardino; bloventhal@cityofmontesereno.org; jpeterson@community-newspapers.com; rodsinks@gmail.com; Wendi Baker; don@harmonieparkdevelopment.com; Marni Moseley Subject: Re: N. 40 Traffic --Comments 1. Is it reasonable to assume that traffic will be worse than ITE-based traffic projects? No less a "radical" than Tom O'Donnell seems to think so based on his public comments in a hearing on the N, 40. 2. Is traffic the biggest concern? If so, what is the most effective way to reduce it? Cut the commercial size. Why? Because supposedly commercial generates more traffic than residential, 3. Does the town have to allow the Specific Plan maximums? Nope. 4. Does the town fear that if it does allow the maximums that the developers will walk? Why does this fear exist? Are we afraid the infrastructure and mitigations will not be built? If so, why are we in this financial position? 5. Why not something like 200 residential units at N. 40, 100 Blossom Hill, 200 LG Lodge and the other 119 spread widely around town so traffic is dispersed and more people learn in a concrete way that more Netflix means more affordable. NIMBY power. John Shepardson Sent from my iPhone > On May 2, 2016, at 11:10 PM, John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> wrote: > In her 4/20/16 post on LGCA website, TC Member Marcia Jensen echoes concerns about the accuracy of traffic studies when the ITE manual is based on national data ("So, for example, an office use could be assigned x number of trips based on data collected for trips to and from an office complex in Iowa." Obviously, this is problematic, and is the root cause for much of the frustration - both on the part of Town residents and Town decision -makers - with any 'traffic analysis' done for a project."). > > > Here is citizen Jeff Loughridge's effective visual presentation about traffic levels that I found in reviewing the FIR. > > > > <IMG_0529.JPG> > 1 > <IMG_0530.JPG> > > <IMG 0531.JPG> > > > > <IMG 0532.JPG> > So if traffic studies are of questionable reliability for Los Gatos, where does that leave us? It seems to me the public's and town's experience with traffic must take on greater weight as compared with ITE-based projections. It appears to be a widely -held view that ITE-based projections routinely understate to a significant degree the actual traffic congestion. Therefore, based on past experience a reasonable course of action is to assume traffic congestion for the N. 40 will be significantly worse that the ITE-based projections. In turn, this means in terms of traffic, we would be wise and prudent to take a conservative approach in approving the size of the project, Of course, a factor for maximizing affordable units is to meet the state mandate and raise badly need monies for infrastructure and traffic mitigation. What is the priority? Traffic or affordable units? I suggest traffic given the existing traffic congestion, and limited ability for roadway expansion. If you make Tots of affordable units senior housing, you can allow more units with less increase in traffic. > > Yes, cutting units to say 200 will require units elsewhere in town and additional traffic there. Cutting commercial to the EIR Superior of 435K can be done without restriction from the state. Commercial does generate more traffic than residential. > John Shepardson > Sent from my iPhone 2 From: jackson faulkner [rnailto:jgf41904@att.net] Sent. Friday, May 06, 2016 7:31 PM To: Council Subject: North 40 project will be devasting to our town To all honorable Town Council have lived in Los Gatos all my life of 61 years. Growing up and playing in the walnut orchard of the proposed North 40, its such a shock to me that this project could be approved as massive as it is. There is not much I can add to the disapprovals & objections that have been published. Being a 3rd generation Los Gatos resident, I feel the council should know how many families(mine included ) are seeking moving to other communities that respect their town residents concerns. Try driving down Lark Ave. almost any time of day and tell me that the congestion & traffic is not & Will Not be a problem. Are the council members planning on living here short term & just basically just don't give a Hoot ? Because of recent Commercial & housing developments ( Netflix & added housing at the old FORD dealership) alone have changed our town forever. Look at the blanket of orange netting that hovers above the walnut orchard & convince this will be good for our community.PLEASE do something to STOP proceeding Phase 1 ! I talk with many town folk & have not found ONE person in favor of this disaster of a project. Thank You Jack Faulkner jgf41904Ratt.net From: Don Wolf [mailto:donwolf20@comcastnet] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:42 PM To: Council Subject: North 40 Don Wolf 15400 Winchester Blvd, Unit 36 Los Gatos, CA 95030 May 6, 2016 Open letter to the Los Gatos Town Council Dear Los Gatos Town Council, Here is what I understand about the North 40 dispute. The residential property is designed so that individuals selected by Town autocrats will be able to have their ownership subsidized by at least 50%. The units will be allocated by a Los Gatos committee. There will be deed restrictions so that once in, the owners may not sell for 25 years except with the approval of the Town committee and only to Town -approved applicants and at about 50% below market. Who pays for this incredible rip-off? Tax payers will pay for it through Federal, State and Local subsidies in addition to the current land owners who are being held hostage to this central planning scheme. My prediction is that, like Harlem in New York City, this will become the biggest slum in the county and will bring more crime and corruption into our midst. You call it Affordable Housing or Low Cost Housing; both are false. It is high cost housing subsidized by the tax payers for those who can only afford Z/2 the true cost of homeownership or rent in Los Gatos! Not only that, we will have to pay the salaries of the autocrats administrating this scam for the next 25 years. I believe if we want our teachers, town officials, janitors, maids, gardeners and etc. to live in town, we should pay them enough to be able to afford the cost of living here, if they so choose. Or allow low cost housing instead of subsidized housing. Allow 4 story dense apartments that cost half as much instead of subsidizing the ownership of high cost housing. That would provide the new residents the freedom to decide, and not trap them into a ghetto in the midst of a community in which their children's friend's parents make 2 to 10 times as much and can afford 4 times as much for allowances, bicycles, etc. A horrible existence! I know, having lived in the past in the midst of people with many times my income. And lastly, there is no way we can provide half the cost of homes in Los Gatos for all the people who want to have half their cost paid for by the tax payers. Thus the Town committee doling out this incredible goodie is eventually going to be corrupted by this power and the resulting divisiveness will destroy the Los Gatos we know and love. Stop this corrupt and corrupting project as now envisioned by the town. Don Wolf, Los Gatos Resident CC: Los Gatos Times Weekly From: Ann Altmann [mailta:aaltmann(averizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 11:23 AM To: Council Subject: Just one family's concern about the North 40 Hello, We are sure this is not the first time you will have read the sentiments written below. It started out as simple plea from locals but morphed into a detailed perspective. We are also sure that there are many complexities with regards to this project that we are not aware of but would have felt derelict in our duty as Los Gatos residents to not let our voices be heard in any way possible regarding the North 40 and other high density developments in our town. We cannot stress enough how concerned and sick we feel about the North 40 and we truly do not understand why such a monstrosity as planned would be allowed to be built here. We do not understand how the reports that state there will be little impact to our schools are being taken at face value. Saying that the housing types being proposed isn't built to "attract" families is beyond ridiculous. Will there be housing police to control who moves into what housing type? Will the 'senior' housing not allow children? There are plenty of 55 year olds with school age children. Why would someone chose to pay the premium to live in the LG school district unless they have children? Also I volunteered in the schools for many years and know that it is common practice that families with multiple children to cram in tiny units just to get into the schools. This will happen at the North 40 regardless of the house type the developers say won't 'attract' families. It is truly insulting that we are being sold this bill of goods. We do not understand why the North 40 development housing, and the many students that it will bring, cannot be spread out over the property and into different schools districts. Does the money that would come to our overcrowded landlocked schools really outweigh the long term, 'no going back' impact this project will have on the entire community? We agree that in a perfect world and if the local schools weren't already facing overcrowding, those $$ would be very welcome but that is just not the case. The $23.5k per unit amount the developer has promised to be seems like a small amount given the impact. Is there no way to negotiate an amount for the units build in other school districts? How about building the home type that don't 'attract' families outside of the LG district? Regarding petitions for transfer, if there is no more space at the school then the answer should be No. Why would it be any different than saying no to someone who lives on the 'wrong' side of Bicknell Rd or just a little too far down Blossom Hill Rd? People in the LG district do pay a premium to send their children to school at LG schools and should get priority over transfers period. What really baffles us is that it seems that people think the local schools can handle an infinite amount of students. We do not understand how reports that state there will be little impact to our already nightmare traffic and that it will be mitigated and that this development won't impact the vitality of our downtown businesses can be believed. The downtown is one of the reasons that people visit LG and spend money here. If it does remain viable, what about those tax dollars? We do not understand how it is seemingly ignored that the reason we have such a high property values is due to the great schools and quality of life here and that this development will change that in a negative way forever. We do not understand how this development meets some retail 'unmet need' of the community as we have not heard or read about a resident who feels positive about this development or minds traveling 10-15 minutes away to do some shopping but then can come home to this beautiful place. We do not understand why 'density' is not a dirty word and that it seems that every time a property is sold to a developer in town, they are allowed to build multiple dwellings literally feet from each other and apparently not required to pay appropriate mitigation fees for the traffic they generated. This has put us in a terrible position with regards to the affordable house needs as well as the environmental and traffic impact. We do not understand how developers seem to have such power to drive high density projects with what seems to be few speed bumps in the process. It feels like it is all driven by dollars and not sense. We do understand that the owners of the property have a right to sell/develop their property but we also expect our elected officials to do their duty to ensure that developments meets the town plan and character and that ALL impacts are mitigated appropriately and are based in reality which seems sadly lacking in the reports. We do understand that the town has to meet the state affordable housing requirements and we support affordable housing but why wasn't this addressed over the years when properties became available for development and instead of cramming multi -million dollar homes on every spec of land. Now overgrown and with little land left, we are between a rock and a hard place but there must be some better way to meet the affordable housing requirement than this current proposal. A couple of other points before closing.. let me say that we are not new homeowners worried solely about their property values. My family has lived in LG since the 1940's when my father built our family home. My husband's family has been here for over 45 years. Both my husband and I went through the local schools and our children do as well. My husband and I both moved away to go to college and then both worked very hard to be able to come back here to live and raise our children close to their grandparents. Our thought was to stay on after our last child graduates and enjoy the fruits of our labors but now are re -thinking our plans. It seems it is time to look for a place that is more sensitive to quality of life, excellent schools and the environment. You know this when your son gets cursed out and threaten by a local resident for parking on a public street (not Alpine BTVV) just trying to get to school, you already notice a decrease in school quality already ready due to class size, when you have to add an extra 15 minutes to get across town and plan your errands around traffic patterns, know that if there is a fender bender on 17 or it's a sunny summer day, you might not be able to get home or even out of your driveway... all this before the North 40 even begins. It is sad to see so many families making the same sad plans to leave. Please, please, please do not allow the North 40 to go through as planned. More open space is needed, Less density in housing and retail, housing spread across the site into other school districts and decisions made based on reality, transparency and what is truly best for this wonderful, special place. You have the opportunity to do the right thing and impact many, many people's lives in a positive way and not be held hostage by money now over the future of this wonderful community. Regards, The Altmann -Knauer Family RECEEWWD MAY 12 2016 MAYOR ri TOWN COUNCIL Dear Mayor Barbara Spector, (I recently penned this letter to our local paper, but realizing its length and not wishing to edit it , I have decided to send council members a copy as requested for input on the controversial development issue) Unintended Consequences Judging from the letters to our local paper and the overflow attendance at previous Los Gatos Council meetings, one doesn't have to be the mythological Cassandra to read the dissatisfaction reflected in these tea leaves; Los Gatos residents are fed up with the plethora of development projects that have descended upon what use to be our tranquil town and resulted in negative consequences affecting not only our quality of life but that of generations to come. The unparalleled growth of high density housing, rezoning of land use, revision of height covenants et al., fueled by the persistent mantra that "anything which makes it possible to add growth must be good," has only resulted in dangerous traffic congestion, infrastructure inadequacies, increased water consumption, and even crime. Frustrated drivers tired of sitting through backed up traffic on Los Gatos Blvd. et al. have developed strategies to deal with the contagion as they speed through surrounding neighborhoods ignoring the rash of "drive as if your children live here" placards, running stop signs...and what was the last time you saw the final car in the left turn lane stop when the arrow turns red. Other favorite gambits include purposefully driving along side cars waiting bumper to bumper in the turn lane as in the Lark freeway exit to Los Gatos Blvd. and then forcing their way in to make the turn or complaining when the queue won't honor their blinker so they can cut in. Flashing crosswalk lights and portable flags are popping up in an attempt to protect pedestrians in crosswalks as some drivers still ignore these safety measures or grudgingly grant passage. The schools can't adequately accommodate burgeoning enrollment numbers thereby resulting in pleas for never-ending parcel tax increments, as neighbors complain about their residential blocks be taken up by insufficient student parking. And finally in a state of 38.8 million, or more precisely, a doubling of the 15.7 million who lived here in 1960. _ .we learn that the data show any savings from per capita water consumption will be more than erased by population growth. Hence, it's time for council members and future prospective council candidates to share the epiphany that a majority of Los Gatos residents are now clamoring for- We want sustainability which can only happen through carefully controlled growth. Progress is not achieved by creating a canyon of multistory buildings blocking out our sylvan, coastal mountain view or reducing setbacks that allow developers to shoehorn more dwellings onto an existing site...would you wax euphoric over adding 10 lbs. to your weight each year?? But sustainability can be attained when existing homes or businesses that have become dated are refurbished and updated thus providing a continuing source of jobs, while infrastructure will not require constant expansion but merely maintenance. Contrary to the cries amounting to "tumbleweed mythology" by developers and those profiting from unrestrained growth, the town will flourish as residents patronize local businesses and Los Gatos will be beacon for those who don't wish to live in a megalopolis. I personally can't afford to live in Monterey's picturesquel 7 mile drive, affluent Atherton, or luxurious French Monaco et al, In fact, when the campground or hotel we wish to stay in is full, we don't stamp our feet and carry signs proclaiming unfairness but go on to find accommodations that have room. Hence. as voters it is our duty to elect "limited growth" candidates to counciland let our state legislators understand that in no uncertain terms will they continue to have our vote if they propose and support the utopian notion that we must accommodate whomever of the 7.2 billion inhabitants on the planet decide to reside here. Sincerely, ez Craig Steen 132 Whitney Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEJVKD TOWN OF LOS GATOS MAY 16 2016 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOSCATIWDEpARTimENT Dear Mayor and the Town Council: The appearance of the story poles at the gateway to Los Gatos has caused a groundswell of opposition to the North 40 project. If you fill in the blanks between the poles you begin to see the oppressive building mass that obstructs the hillside views and the mountain skyline that marks the gateway to our Town. This brutal intrusion into our visual environment has suddenly become a touchable reality chat, for more than ten years, has been buried in studies, meetings, plans, reports, developer's exhibits and promises. The visual degradation of our environment is only one of the defects of the proposed project. The proposed site plan reflects elements of an outmoded grid planning model that leads to a rigid, repetitive and unimaginative design. The resulting building placement and mass begin to look more Ike a computer circuit board or military barracks than a plan for a vibrant living environment. Grid design facilitates a very efficient way of packing in residential density, but so does packing sardines in a can. The architectural "style" and detailing of the project blatantly violates the Vision and Guiding Principles set forth in the Specific Plan. The design has nothing whatsoever in common with our Town, It appears that our award winning City Hall, Forbes Mill condos, Old Town, to name just a few, have never been visited by the out of town, out of touch design team. The computerized, "cardboard" architectural style residential building elevations look more like a Hollywood stage set or something that we might see at Santana Row, not in our Town. The developers come and go after they have sold or leased their last housing unit or square foot of commercial space. We, however, will be left with the irreversible damage that a badly conceived or executed development project will, inevitably, bring to our Town. The inescapable collateral damage resulting from a bad land use and planning will be irreversible. The systematic degradation of our environment and infrastructure, if unchecked, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the quality of life in our Town, as we know it. We can't tear down the sound wales and the buildings of a project that will, without a doubt, increase traffic, make our streets less safe, overcrowd our schools and keep our first responders and doctors from reaching their destinations in time to save lives or extinguish fires. Our hillsides east of Main Street and Los Gatos Boulevard are particularly vulnerable during the fire season, if the firefighters can't reach the fire, due to traffic jams that now inundate our city streets in both directions several times each day. With the access streets to our hillside homes blocked the residents will be trapped and exposed to danger. The Environmental Impact Report criteria for evaluating the existing and the projected traffic conditions are based on national averages. The charts of traffic counts, volumes, intensities and other variables are not the same for Los Gatos as they are for downtown Manhattan. If you look at the North 40 traffic analysis section you'll find the mantra "less than significant" repeated ad nauseam and the mitigating measures woefully inadequate. We can see this daily by having to live with the rapidly deteriorating traffic conditions. that attest to the defects of previously approved EJR'S. With each additional new housing unit that increases traffic and congestion in our Town we lose more and more of our freedom of movement and our ability to plan our lives. Our current traffic situation is such that we have to plan the activities of our daily lives around the traffic conditions on our streets. If we continue on this trajectory, we'll lose the identity of our Town and everything that makes our town very special, like the unique location, topography, climate, size and demographic profile. These are the very things that draw visitors, realtors, investors and developers to our Town like a magnet. In a free market economy it's perfectly ok to make money but it is not ok to make it at the expense of the communitys health, safety and welfare. This is where the Town elected officials have to come in and discharge their duty as stewards of the values and the tenets that identify and define our Town. A compelling case can be made that the approval of the North 40 project, as it stands, will be hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of our Town for the following reasons: HEALTH. Rapid increase in traffic volume, above already high levels, would inevitably result in additional traffic congestion that will cause more noise, more air potlution, more road rage and more stress. SAFETY. Current daily traffic congestion caused by commuters, schools. beach traffic and increased population has already made our streets less safe for bicyclists, pedestrians and our children. Increase in traffic volume generated by the proposed project will unquestionably increase the adverse effect of additional traffic on our streets. Most notably the ability of first responders to reach their destinations in time. It has become more and more difficult for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to reach their destinations unimpeded. Fire captains in several Town fire stations have told me that during !he past two years their emergency call volume has increased by more than 200 calls per year. The resulting increase in response time, due to traffic congestion, does not bode well for the continued safety and welfare of our Town and community in case of medical emergency, fire or earthquake. WELFARE. The level of well being, peace of mind, security, and general welfare, in our Town, is shaped and defined by our willingness and ability to improve, keep and not degrade the quality of life in our Town. We elect our leaders to safeguard our values and fight against those who challenge and ignore the collective voice, wisdom and common sense of the people of our Town. We elect our leaders and expect that they will listen and actually hear what we are saying. The time is now for you, the Town Council, to take a stand for the sake of the Health, Safety and Welfare of our Town. To approve the North 40 now, as it stands, would be unconscionable, given the fact that when Netflix, the currently approved commercial spaces, housing units and North 40 all come on line, the results will be irreversible, with disastrous effect upon traffic, schools and our way of life in our Town. Sincerely, Albins Martinskis, a permanent resident of Los Gatos for the past 46 years. "And to become a permanent resident is to lie in paradise, if such there be on this earth." (Sunset magazine 1915) Marni Moseley From: Tom Spilsbury <tspils@moinc.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 1:04 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: FW: 6/15 North 40 Specific Plan Study Session ,1140 COMFAC International Tom Spilsbury Lic. #00602715 MEACHAM/OPPENHEIMER, INC. CORFAC INTERNATIONAL 8 N. San Pedro St., Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 892-5212 Cell -Call Me Here NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or take any action in reliance upon this message and any attachments, and we request that you promptly notify the sender and immediately delete this message and any attachments as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message to an unintended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. Meacham/Oppenheimer Inc. is neither qualified nor authorized to give legal or tax advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own choosing. From: Tom Spilsbury Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 1:00 PM To: 'North40.comment@LosGatos.ca.gov.' Cc: 'Rob Rennie3'; 'Mario) Sayoc'; 'Marcia Jensen'; Barbara Spector Subject: FW: 6/15 North 40 Specific Plan Study Session I have several comments 1) this is the worst plan that I think I have ever seen , it does not include the widening of Los Gatos Blvd from Lark to Samaritan Drive , why , that is totally up surd to have that kind of traffic impact without that public improvement of the widening that portion of the Blvd. 2) the 8 to 10 acres at Lark Ave has to be retail much like the Center where Trader Joe's is on Los Gatos Blvd. it is ridiculous to have the retail in the middle of the block located at Lark this will lessen the traffic impact 3) having no medical office use's is crazy we are a aging population and the North 40 is adjacent to one of the premier medical centers in Northern California 4)not master planning the whole North Forty and not planning and building all the interior road system is a mistake that is unbelievably negligent,( "Real Estate la" build the roads —development follows roads) Burton must be addressed ,widened and connected to a interior street system that runs parallel with Los Gatos Blvd. and Hwy 17 with a right turn in right turn out at Lark , 5) the housing element should be on the northwest portion of the property not at Lark where the retail should go successful retailers want to be where they have visibility . This plan is a attempt stuff this poorly planned project down the throats of Los Gatos , the original developer is not building any portion of this project , he is just trying to get this project entitled and get out of town with some of his money back . Without the cooperation of the Yuki Family on the total 40 plus acres this is a nightmare of a development that will haunt Los Gatos Planning , Staff , Council and the residents for years to come when these three developers will be long gone!!! Do not approve this Plan it is a death nail in the coffin that will be the North Forty . I am available to talk about these issues , please do not approve this . Tom Spilsbury 1 1 1 4 021 CD1 Fi4C International Tom Spilsbury Lic. #00602715 MEACHAM/OPPENHEIMER, INC. C©RFAC INTERNATIONAL 8 N. San Pedro St., Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 892-5212 Cell -Call Me Here NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not permitted to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, use or take any action in reliance upon this message and any attachments, and we request that you promptly notify the sender and immediately delete this message and any attachments as well as any copies thereof. Delivery of this message to an unintended recipient is not intended to waive any right or privilege. Meacham/Oppenheimer Inc. is neither qualified nor authorized to give legal or tax advice, and any such advice should be obtained from an appropriate, qualified professional advisor of your own choosing. From: Cindie Gonzales[mailto:CGonzales@LosGatosCA.Gov] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 3:02 PM To: Cindie Gonzales Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz; Joel Paulson; Marni Moseley Subject: 6/15 North 40 Specific Plan Study Session NORTH FORTY INTERESTED CITIZENS TOWN OF LOS GATOS NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION The Town of Los Gatos will hold a Study Session with the Town Council, Planning Commission, and School Boards associated with the North 40 Specific Plan Area. The Study Session will occur on Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers at 110 E. Main Street. The Study Session is an opportunity to ask questions regarding the existing documents associated with the North 40 Specific Plan Area, including the 2020 General Plan, 2015 Housing Element, North 40 Specific Plan, and Environmental Impact Report for the North 40 Specific Plan. Questions and comments are welcome to be submitted prior to the Study Session. To the extent possible, responses will be posted in advance of the Study Session at www.LosGatosCA.gov/N4OSP. To submit questions about the North 40 Specific Plan, please email North40.question(cr�,LosGatosca.gov. To submit comments about the North 40 Specific Plan, please email North40.comment(uLosGatosca.gov. For more information please contact the Town Manager's Office at Managerte7a,losgatosca.gov or 408-354-6834 Cynthia 'COndze" Gonzales —Executive _Assistant Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos no E. Main St., Los Gatos, CA 95030 Bus: 408/354-6874 Fax: 408/354-7593 cgorizales_@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov Community Development Counter Hours: 8:ooAM -- i:oo PM, Monday - Friday Please note the upcoming Town closures: July 4 - Independence Day 2 Marni Moseley From: MAUREEN CAPPON-JAVEY <maureen.capponjavey@me.com> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 2.06 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: Suggested Usage of Proposed Open Space Good afternoon, t recently read in the LG Weekly's Opinion Column that the Specific Plan for the North 40 calls for 30 percent of open space! That's remarkable and very forward -thinking on everyone's part. As a Town resident and a member of the LG Art Commission, I'd like to recommend that a portion that 30 percent of open space be dedicated to Public Art. I (and my fellow Art Commissions) would be happy to meet and work with whomever on the development and planning side, to craft a more specific public art proposal for the North 40 community. I look forward to working with the Town Council, the North 40 Development group and other Town officials and stakeholders to ensure that public art plays a key role in maximizing the aesthetic beauty of this new community. Thank you. Maureen Cappon-Javey Marni Moseley From: Cathleen Bannon <cathleenbannon@gmail.com> Sent Thursday, June 02, 2016 9:25 AM To: North40 Question Subject: North 40 follow up questions/comments Thank you for taking the time to hear all of the questions/comments from the town as decisions are made regarding the North 40. While development will happen, and can be good for the town, the current proposal is not the right one. Everyone in town will agree that the traffic in already out of control in town. While the EIC stated that traffic would not be affected by the addition of the 300+ units, I believe that EIC is no longer valid. When was the EIC done? If not in the last year, then it need to be re -commissioned. The traffic in town has greatly changed in the last year and we are not equipped to take on a high density development. The EIC must be challenged. The EIC also said that the LGUSD would not be impacted. This takes into account that Lexington school has room. So ALL new students from the development MUST be placed at Lexington. With Van Meter already looking at 5 first grade classes, there is absolutely NO more room at this school for a high density development. Don't be fooled, it is only marketing from the developer, when they speak of young professionals with no kids that will move in to the project. There are no young professionals that could afford the condo on their own salary... it will be couples and families that want to get into the school district. Also there is NO reason that all homes need to be in Phase 1... that again is the developer's dream. The town must stand strong to insist that units are over the ENTIRE development to share the burden on both school districts. The developer will say this is impossible since they only own Phase 1...the town needs to look at the site as a whole and say that 50% of homes on Lark side and 50% in later phases. The developer needs to do a better job in designing the development more in line with the town... this can be a star for the town with the market hall and open spaces. Buildings must be lower, homes designed to blend in with the surrounding homes on LG Blvd to create a town look as you drive the street. Please, please, please stop this proposal... take the time to have them go back to the drawing board. The roads and schools can not handle the influx ALL in Phase 1. Divide the homes between the phases...re-commission the EIC to account for all the new traffic issues in the town. Thank you - Cathleen Bannon 16828 Kennedy Rd Los Gatos - all units in LG school district? > - why not spread out units throughout phase 2 and 3 > - how can you approve phase 1 without seeing 2 &3 > -how can you approve without communicating with school district in how it will mitigate- focusing on millennia's is ignorant as they too will have children. Can not assume someone else is taking care of it. > - how can you approve without share how to solve traffic flow in area- when you are bring hundreds in new cars into the area how can you say get people out of cars. > - why all multi unit buildings which are not in line with town look Cathleen Bannon 415.819.1239 1 From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 4:20 PM. To: Town Manager; Christina Gilmore Subject: Online Form Submittal: Customer Feedback Form The following form was submitted via your website: Customer Feedback Form Name:: Gerald Petak Address:: 16321 Roseleaf Ct City:: Los Gatos State: CA Zip:: 95032 Home Phone Number:: 408 356 2435 Daytime Phone Number:: 408 656 6817 Email Address:: geraldpetak@hotmail.com Please let us know how we are doing or what we can do for you!: Subject: North 40 Maybe this is too little too late, but recently I attended an outdoor faire that provided info about a new county/city park on Blossom Hill Road in South San Jose related to / donated by the Lester f?) Family or the Martial Cottle park. see link below. http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/martialcottlepk_revisionstoparkplan_rev2-01-11.pdf Los Gatos would not get a donation of the North 40, instead it would buy the property. It would be funded by a bond issue. It would be repaid with a parcel tax over 30 years. No development required. No new residences or business. No new traffic or new school issues. The town would own the property. The town could let the current property owners and other residents stay on the property and pay rent to cover annual property and school district taxes.. They would continue to earn income from growing, cultivating and maintaining the property. Distribution to be decided. Let's assume in would cost $60 million to purchase and finance over 30 years at 3%. Total cost with interest would be $91.066 million or $ 3,036 million annually. (I used my bank's home mortgage payment calculator) Spread over 14,000 parcels, that would be an annual parcel tax of approx. $216 per year. That's less than the LGUSD parcel tax. If there is a surplus from rent and farming income, it could gradually be used to convert the property into a Los Gatos Open Space. Maybe even a educational farm. Is there too much bureaucracy to do something like this. Remember when Clint Eastwood bought the mission ranch? From: teamdriven2012 . [mailto: mxk727_@ ornaiI.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:24 AM To: Town Manager Subject: RE: North 40 Public Safety To: Planning Department, From: Max Kern RE: North 40 Public Safety The plans for the North 40 cause a public safety issues and will bring more more traffic on Los Gatos Bvld/Bascom Ave, Lark Ave, Hwy 17 ramps (State Ramps) coming on and off Hwy 17 to Lark Ave will be more of a public safety issue. Winchester Bvld and Lark Ave will be an extreme public safety issue. Original plans for Hwy 85 and Winchester Bvld was fpr. FULL interchange. The North 40 plans will add more unwanted traffic to Lark Ave. Netflix has add more unwanted traffic and the Town of Los Gatos has refused to put a FULL interchange at Hwy 85 and Wichchester Bvld. The Town of Los Gatos needs to reject the North 40 Plans! If the Town of Los Gatos has not got a report from Cal -Trans regarding traffic report for the North 40 plans. Traffic comming off and unto Hwy 85 from Los Gatos Bvld/Bascom Ave, Traffic comming off and unto Hwy 17, Traffic comming off of Hwy 85 southbound unto Winchester Bvld. I demand that the Plans of the North 40 must be scrapped and NOT to be allowed to proceed. 1 live off of Lark Ave and having the North 40 project is a traffic hazard! Public Safety is a great concern. If the Town of Los Gatos proceed with the North 40 and when a pedrestrian get hit and hits and killed by a driver of a vehicle. The Town of Los Gatos will be liable for that accident that could have been prevented. Max Kern 147 Arroyo Grande Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Marro' Moseley From: Franks email <mfrank746@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:48 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: North 40 l am a 48 year resident of Los Gatos. 1 believe this development to be a disaster in the making. The only benefit I see is the tax revenue and a wealthier developer; but at what cost? The downside is added traffic congestion and an increase in crime. 1 feel there must be a hidden agenda to which residents of this wonderful town are not privy. Or, the council would not allow such a poorly conceived development. This will be a sad ending to the bucolic small town of Los Gatos. We will become a big city with all the attendant negatives that implies. And for what: more tax revenue? Come on, get your collective heads together and picture what this will create. A nightmare) For those in the proximity of the development; and, for the town folk in general, this will result in a reduced quality of living. Please deny this insane proposal. Regards Frank Mandarino 272 Casitas Bulevar Los Gatos, CA 95032 kipNDAYY_ if-chiling caps could make congestion -worse Se T.r it .il j Lje ; fruit e 0. larding10.,•'uns By lowLOWY tala*LiVIFS i,taS r IGTON — Self -- driving cars are expected to der in a new era of mobil- ity, safety and convenience. The problem, say transpor- tation researchers, is that people will use them too much. Experts foresee robot cars chauffeuring children to school, dance class and baseball practice, The dis- abled and elderly will have new mobility. Commuters will be able to work, sleep, eat or watch movies on the way to the office. People may stay home more be- cause they can send their ER1:q, E SSC TEDPR_SSAlo:+ A Google self -driving car goes on a test cinve its Mountain \hey/. While self -driving cars are expected to usher an a mu era of mobility and convenience, researchers say people wilt use them too much. Uber and Lyft without a driver — will result in dou- ble-digit increases in travel by people in two age groups: those over 65, and those 16 to 24. Vehicles traveled a re- cord 31 trillion miles in the U.S. last year. Increased autonomous "mobility -on- trips in autonomous cars by demand" services think those two age groups would :3r:3 .3 do Iiie zip c� z trlcn: or- dered Qn znEia believe th2 number of -ri Les err: -ea. % 1i skyrocket. It's less certain la/tether that will mean e surgecorresponding traffic oongesdon, but it's a clear sty. Gary Silberg, an auto industry expert at account- ing firm KPMG, compares it to the introduction of srnartphones. "It will be in- dispensable to your Iife," he Cars that can drive themselves under limited conditions are expected to be available within five to 10 years. Versions able to navi- gate under most conditions may take 10 to 20 years. Based on focus groups in Atlanta, Denver and Chicago, KPMG predicts boost miles traveled by an additional 2 trillion miles an- nually by 2050, KPMG cal- culated. If self -driving cars without passengers start rnunning errands, the in- crease could be double that. And if people in their muddle years, when driving is at its peak, also increase their travel, that yearly -This could mas- said- Driverless areX to irts- �'e: aWith per- Eyr respovade fir 90 cent of the `re ex- ed to sharF1'reduce .taci- driving down the cost of insurance and ; epalz- Btr the biggest ces of car travel is drivers' time, said Don MacKenzie, a University of Washington t o tat on researcher. That cost comes down can dra- matically when IMP use their travel time pro- ductively on other tasks. A study by MacKenzie and other researchers pub- lished. in the journal Trans- portation Research: Part A estimates that the vehicles can cut the cost of travel by as much as 80 percent. That in turn drives up miles trav- eled by 60 percent. lglI¢' ei Mae CO.V0-E7-11-Aid you dat.'I5:« you'd b peot people are ping a3 rk, mere of \fsrna-. ?s:;_ There's a fork. a.' ezd this driverless road. says a report by Lataren manager of transper tatsorl at w =�SP. Pawns Brinc.ke ro In the best tom, con- gestion is reduce because driverless cars n tracks are safer and can tray faster with reduced space between them. Ffighwny lanes can be narrower be- cause vehicles won't heed as much margin for error. There will be fewer acci- dents to tie up traffic. But those advantages Will be limited as long as driver- less cars share roads with conventional cars, likely for decades. • Texas 1 ins firm ceder crutiny piny in crash t killed 8 had been Clinton makes big, final push in Kentucky Sanders hopes to expend winning streak on Tuesday tests would give Clinton momentum heading into the primaries in California and New Jersey in early June. Oregon is likely to ao for Sanders. but Clin- Marni Moseley From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 9:23 AM To: Council; Marni Moseley Subject: N. 40 & Self -Driving Cars Attachments: IMG_0564JPG; ATT00001.txt Marni Moseley From: Judith <tbwinca@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:35 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: Underground parking Has underground parking been considered to allow for more green space? Judy Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tabs S Marra Moseley From: Laverne Nolan <Inolan12@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:23 AM To: North40 Comment Subject: density of housing/share the burden I realize it is monetarily advantageous to the developer to have the housing in the LG School District and that they are only submitting Phase I at this time with all of the housing concentrated in this Phase. Is it possible to require the developer to integrate the housing into the next Phase to better distribute the burden on our school district and on our congestion at Lark and LG Blvd. Can't believe that CALTRANS hasn't weighed in on the probable added backups onto Hwy 17. It just seems logical that the Town can work with the developer to provide a whole plan that will be a bit more fair to the community, not just a plan that is the most financially advantageous for the developer. Thank you, Laverne Nolan Pinta Court 1 From: David Sauter [dave_sauter@sigmadesigns.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 4:27 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie Subject: North 40 To Elected Officials of Los Gatos; I am a Los Gatos resident and I am writing this e-mail because every day coming and going to work I am forced to look at this eyesore, What we have here is a high rise complex (anything greater than 2 stories in LG is considered high rise to me), high density, low cost housing. This is what people call a problem. It is a problem now because no one wants it and it will be a problem later because you will always be dealing with all the issues this type of place brings with it. One current issue is traffic flow. You have this large complex going in at some of the busiest street sections in Los Gatos right now! There is no way you can widen streets and what I am told there is no plan to address traffic until Phase 2 which is down the road 2-3 years. Total lack of foresight! Another issue is water. The City just announced an urgent water ordinance stating water is an issue and you plan on putting in 320 residential units with landscapes? Unbelievable! I have been told by your planning commission that this is mandated by the state. Actually I don't think that is really the case and is very misleading. The state says that there is a priority to house people, but they are not forcing communities to put in high rise, dense, low cost housing. Many well run cities have rules and regulations that do not allow such things to happen within their city limits. I am sorry, but I am having a real hard time dealing with this. If I wanted to get into a community that has and allows high rise, dense, low cost housing I would have moved to another bay area city and spent a lot less money. If you do not deal with this, the City and all its residents will always have a problem. Now is the time to fix this mess. DUMP IT! Sincerely, Dave Sauter Marni Moseley From: Becky Yoder <becky_55@yahoo_com> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 9:07 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: questions regarding the North 40 over -development I would like to know how this project made it to just about the point of no return before the story poles went up. This certainly can't be the proper procedure. I'm shocked that the town seems okay using an outdated and obviously unrealistic Environmental Impact study for this project. Anyone with any sense knows the impact of the traffic in this area will be horrific - during construction and after construction is complete. Please use common sense and require a legitimate study to be done. Anyone who thinks this project will be a positive influence on our home values should think about this again. Los Gatos will be known as a congested, over -crowded, ordinary little city - in other words, a place to be avoided. This will not be the special and desirable town that Los Gatos once was. Becky Yoder 60 year Los Gatos resident. This Page Intentionally Left Blank COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016 The following are my comments on a comparison of the maximum development capacity of Santana Row entitlements and the North 40 Specific Plan. They are organized in three sections: I. Summary Comparison Santana Row v North 40 Specific Plan II. Graph of the Maximum Development Capacity of Area, Density, Units and Commercial Space for Santana Row and the North 40 Plan III. Table of information in the Graph with additional information Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Lee Quintana 5 Palm Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030 1 of 4 COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016 I. THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN VERSIS SANTANA ROW COMMON THEME:. A commonly heard statement at Town meetings and on social media is, 'We don't want the North 40 to be another Santana Row.' This statement assumes that development allowed by the North 40 Specific Plan will result in an intensity and density similar Santana Row. COMPARISON OF SANTANA ROW WITH THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN: Santana Row covers a slightly smaller area than the North 40 Specific Plan. However, the intensity and density of Santana Row is many times greater than is envisioned by the North 40 Specific Plan. This is true whether one compares commercial square footage, height, residential density, number of dwelling units, amount of open space (green or otherwise) or required parking. Area: • Santana Row - 42.5 acres: • North 40 Specific Plan Area -_approximately - 44 acres The residential density: • Santana Row's density is 350% greater than North 40's • (75+ units/acre Santana Row v 20 units/acre N 40 Plan) Maximum residential units: • Santana Row allows over 300% more dwelling units than the North 40 Plan • (1229 units Santana Row v 364 units N 40 Plan).' Maximum commercial space: • Santana Row maximum commercial SF is 300% greater than the North 40 Plan • (1,507,000 SF Santana Row v 501,000 SF N 40 Plan) Maximum height: • Santana Row's maximum allowed height is twice that allowed by the North 40 • (90' Santana Row v 45' N 40 Plan) 2 Open space: • Santana Row has no minimum requirements for open space or publicly accessible open space. Currently approximately 1 to 2% of Santana Row is publicly accessible. • The North 40 Plan requires a minimum of 20% green open space and a minimum 30% open space. 20% of the 30% open space requirement must be publicly accessibe. 4 Specific Plan identifies a 270 unit maximum. Use of the State Density Bonus Law allows 364 units. 2 N40 Plan 25' height along Los Gatos Blvd. and Lark Ave. Otherwise 35' max., with an exception to 45' for a hotel and/or senior affordable housing. 2 of 4 COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN vs. SANTANA ROW Land Area Residential Units Noll 4D Salton Row Commercial Square Footage .I Residential Density 3of4 COMMENTS ON N40 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR JUNE 15, 2016 JOINT STUDY SESSION FROM LEE QUINTANA 6/8/S2016 COMPARISON of the MAXIMUM CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT SANTANA ROW ENTITLEMENTS AND THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN SANTANA ROW PDC NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SIZE 42.5 ACRES 44 ACRES DENSITY 76+ UNITS/ACRE 20 UNITS/ACRE NUMBER OF UNITS 1229 UNITS 364 UNITS (1) TOTAL COMMERCIAL SPACE 1,507,000 SF retail/restaurant/office/hotel/ movie theater) (2) 501,000 SF retail/restaurant/office/hotel/ entertainment) (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT 90' 45' (3) MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIRED NO MINIMUM 30% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE 20% Minimum Green Space 20Q/0 of the 30% Open Space must be Publicly Accessible (4) (1) State Housing Law allows for exception to maximum height for affordable units. (2) 1,507,000 SF Commercial: up to 650,000 SF Retail/Restaurant and up to 857,000 SF Office (3) Up to 250,000 SQ Office/Hotel and up to 400,000 other commercial - Total not to exceed 501,000 including existing commercial. (4) Roadways and the paved areas of parking lots are not counted towards open space requirements. However, parking lot landscaped areas are counted. 4 of 4 Marni Moseley From: Erin <ekasenchak@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 11:00 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: Concerned citizens about north 40 I'm writing to voice my extreme concern and dissatisfaction over the North 40 project. I expressed my reservations and dissatisfaction with this project before it was approved and feel that I need to reiterate my concerns, as I was deeply disappointed that the council approved the plan last June. I do not feel that residents were adequately informed as most of my friends had never heard of the project back in 2015. Now that the story poles have gone up, the true impact has become visual and is even worse than I feared. And this is just phase 1? The height of the project is something that will change the landscape of our small, wonderful town. Additionally the scope will greatly impact traffic in this already very congested area. I don't see how, according to the Vision statement, the North 40 will minimize or mitigate the impact to our infrastructure. I know that the North 40 plans to address traffic, but I adding another light onto LG Blvd and an extra turn lane on Lark and LG will not make much difference. Lark and LG Blvd already need extra lanes with our current traffic so adding an additional lane with the extra cars and traffic this project is likely to bring does not feel sufficient. The traffic around 85, Good Samaritan and LG Blvd is also quite impacted. Again, this project will just add to it. Additionally, how long will these traffic improvements take from completion to end? I can't imagine what the situation will be like while the construction will be taking place. The Vision statement for North 40 states it will celebrate hillside views and our small town character, but over 300 residential units and potentially 501,000 foot of commercial/retail space does not align with "small town character". Additionally, the story poles showing the impact actually will block hillside views and not celebrate them. I suppose those living at North 40 will like their hillside views, but the rest of Los Gatos residents will lose views to buildings. I don't believe we have unmet residential needs that this project needs to address. My husband and I were born and raised in the Bay Area and moved specifically to Los Gatos over 20 years ago because of the charm and unique aspect this town had compared the hustle and bustle of the rest of Silicon Valley. We knew this would be a wonderful place to raise our family in an amazing small town feel with a great community. I'm very, very concerned that the size and scope of this project will forever change the feel of Los Gatos from the wonderful small town and community to just another Santana Row or big city feel. I firmly believe that what this town needs is open space, parks and sports fields for our youth and families, not additional housing. I understand that those do not generate revenue for a town but it's what we need. I urge you and all members of our town council to revise this design and lessen the proposed intensity/scope of the project. If you've read Town not City's facebook page, you'll see the overwhelming comments and concerns from fellow citizens about this project. Please I urge you to keep our town just that, a small town. i A very concerned citizen — Erin Kasenchak *********************** Erin Kasenchak easenchak@yahoo. com 2 Marni Moseley From: Karen Kurtz <kurtzk@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 11.01 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: Senior housing I am disappointed that there is not more senior housing being built in the first phase. How many Los Gatos senior residents are going to qualify for low income housing, especially if they own a home presently in Los Gatos? Most low income housing is going to go to people presently living outside of Los Gatos. I would like to think that our town where many of us have lived for so many years(49 years for me) should have some affordable senior housing available to them when they are ready to down size. k1cI'elA Marni Moseley► From: Martha Wills <mtswills@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 3 48 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: comments on North 40 development To whom it may concern: I am in favor of minimally developing this site so as to mitigate negative impacts on local traffic, schools and public services. I am also in favor of dividing the housing component between Los Gatos and Campbell so as to reduce the possibility of overcrowding at Los Gatos schools. Sincerely yours, Martha Wills 229 Vista del Monte, Los Gatos 1 Marni Moseley From: E Robillard <ericrawler@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 12.13 PM To: North40 Comment I live in Canada but discovered an article on Facebook about renters in your town being pushed out due to development. Development is necessary to accommodate a growing town population, of course. However, if forcing renters from their homes is necessary for your town to grow, them do so in a fair and humane way. If the article is correct and relocation assistance is something that can be enforced, then why would your town not do that? A community is only a community when it looks out for its neighbors, not shuns them. I do not understand why this is even being debated. Sent from my iPhone Marini Moseley From: Meagan Calahan <meaganvm@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:14 PM To: North40 Comment To whom it may concern, My husband and I have been residents of the North 40 for over 7 years. In that time, we have been active members of the Los Gatos community: we shop locally (and when we do we are greeted by store employees who know us), we have been regular participants in parks and recreation programs, we visit the local parks frequently with our dog... In short, we love living here. Unfortunately, we do not earn anywhere near the $200,000 median household income of Los Gatos residents, and have only been lucky enough to live in this community because of the rent control that the North 40 neighborhood has provided. We (along with roughly 30 other households) are now facing eviction, through no fault of our own, because of the North 40 development. We all understand that this development is a business transaction, and is going to happen one way or the other —so, I'm not writing in the hopes of stopping the project. What I would like, though, is for the Town Council to give as much consideration to the impact that the project will have on everyone currently living in the North 40 as they are giving to the traffic and Local schools. This is not a fancy neighborhood, and perhaps that's why we're not getting any attention. We understand that we don't have the status and power that many other Los Gatos residents have. Most of us who live here do so because we love the town, and can't afford to live here any other way. When we are evicted, those roughly 30 households (which include young children, retirees on fixed incomes, and small business owners) who have lived and worked and participated in this community for years and years will have to move to new towns, because the local rent is far out of our price range, and it is truly heartbreaking for us. We are aware that other towns have policies in place to help residents who face no-fault evictions due to redevelopment, and ask that the town consider putting a similar policy in place for North 40 residents and any future developments to help all of us to remain in the town that we love. Thank you for your consideration, Meagan Calahan 1 Marni Moseley From: Paul Marquis <pmarquis73@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 3:21 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: Renters Ordinance/ Protections I've been reading about the North 40 build, and other similar builds, for a while now. In 2005 my wife and I ourselves were evicted / "invited to purchase a property" that would be going up in place of the town home we were then renting. After a lengthy battle with the new owners / developers to get what they were legally obligated to compensate us (where Cupertino's mayor himself had to step in and remind the developers of their responsibilities), my wife and moved to a different location that was more expensive but still manageable. We were lucky. All of this is to say I'm familiar with the situation and have seen it happen many times. And the underlying attitude from developers seems to be ''we're switching you to a better home!" as if the new homes were being given away or offered as an equal trade. Another unspoken assumption is "this wouldn't happen if you'd just grow up and buy a home and stop renting." How many vital services are provided by people who can't earn enough to "just buy"? Teachers, nurses, bus drivers, custodians? How about "white collar" workers who still aren't making the cut, can't afford to "grow up"? Forget actual people, how many of these *professions* are going to dry up and run out of qualified candidates before the inevitable collapse? These are old arguments, but still valid. I understand; It's a tough situation, balancing the needs / rights of both owners and renters, but it seems from the article that so far the owners feelings are the only ones being weighed. Compensation is a bandaid, and a flimsy one at that. Our community relies on renters to function, and ignoring their needs / necessities invites disaster; please fix the laws or create new ones to correct the imbalance and allow people a reasonable chance to stay where they've built their lives. From: Ed Darnore <damoresix(rcomcast.net> Date: June 12, 2016 at 4:20:30 PM PDT To: North40 question <North40.question(d LosGatosca.gov> Cc: <RSchultz c@,losgatosca.gov>, <jprevetti(cr?losgatosca.gov>, <bspector[,losgatosca.gov>, <mjensenCklosgatosca.gov>, <sleonardis@losgatosca.gov>, <msayoc rr,losgatosca.gov>, <rrennie c@,tosgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 Dear Town Council (Notice how I said Town and NOT City), I think I am one of hundreds concerned citizens of LG. don't have a problem withe the development of the North 40 but on a smaller scale. Every developer wants to make the most money out of any project. When they are done, they leave and then we are stuck with the outcome. It is the Town Councils responsibility to be the Parent and set the guidelines. Question: 1. The North 40 vision statement says "The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community complimenting other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods". What measures are being taken by the Town to guarantee this & other portions of the statement are being followed? PLEASE BE THE PARENT AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR LG. DO YOU THINK LG BLD CAN HANDLE ANY MORE TRAFFIC??? I am a long term resident of LG and Saratoga and the reasons why I continue to live here are starting to fade away. Thanks, Ed Damore Marni Moseley From: Ed Damore <damoresix@ comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 4:21 PM To: North40 Question Cc: Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie Subject: North 40 Dear Town Council (Notice how I said Town and NOT City), l think I am one of hundreds concerned citizens of LG. I don't have a problem withe the development of the North 40 but on a smaller scale. Every developer wants to make the most money out of any project. When they are done, they leave and then we are stuck with the outcome. It is the Town Councils responsibility to be the Parent and set the guidelines. Question: . The North 40 vision statement says "The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community complimenting other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods". What measures are being taken by the Town to guarantee this & other portions of the statement are being followed? PLEASE BE THE PARENT AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR LG. DO YOU THINK LG BLD CAN HANDLE ANY MORE TRAFFIC??? I am a long term resident of LG and Saratoga and the reasons why I continue to live here are starting to fade away. Thanks, Ed Damore i Marni Moseley From: Bonnie Payne <bonnieapayne@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 4:33 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: Concerns I am a 40 year resident of Los Gatos, and I am concerned about the proposed development for the North 40. I cannot see how it conforms at all to the Town vision. I cannot see how it enhances our Town in any way. 1 cannot see how the proposal is consistent with current Town architecture. It blocks hillside views, the buildings are too high, too dense, do not allow for a feeling of open space, and it looks like there is not adequate parking. I am especially concerned about the traffic impact of this development, since it is almost impossible to drive through town on beach days as it is. How did this happen? How did this developer get the idea that this design in ANY way is consistent with the vision for the North 40? I truly hope that there is some way to stop this development before our town is no longer a desirable place to live. Bonnie Payne 1 Marni Moseley From: JoAnn Mannone <joannmannone@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 6:35 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: renters need help I have been keeping informed of the events of north 40. I would encourage the City Council to create an ordinance in favor of the renters. They are being uprooted and have nowhere else to move that is affordable. They need to be given a helping hand...iit is not there choice to move! Thank you JoAnn 1 Marni Moseley From: NONNA'S CREATIONS.COM <info@nonnascreations.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 6:43 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: relocation for renters would like to encourage City Council to create an ordinance in favor of the renters. These renters have no desire to move. Most have lived her a very long time. With the high rents, all around the area, they do not have much to choose from. They need help to relocate. We do not need any more people homeless. Marni Moseley From: Diane Siemens <siemedian@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:04 PM To: North40 Question Subject: Govt. Code Section 65915 and other laws effecting North40 I was upset at the Public Meeting about the North40 when the attorney for the developer told the Planning Commission they had no choice but to approve the development as presented. l would like a clear explanation of what we are being forced to do by the state. In particular, I am bothered by the rules about concessions and our having no choice about that. How is state law like Code Section 65915 effecting what you are approving and the acceptance of an obviously inadequate EIR. I am not against a combination of higher density housing and neighborhood commercial on this site. It is appropriate for the location. However, the density is too great and the parking is insufficient. Affordable housing for seniors seems like a way to stuff in more units with less parking. The need in this area is affordable housing for working people and families. Mitigations of adverse effects on traffic and schools need to be concrete and effective, not wishful thinking. Diane Siemens 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City of Los Gatos, Eryn Supple <eryn.supple@gmaiLtom> Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:34 AM North40 Question North 40 displaced renters I would like to request that the city of Los Gatos should create an ordinance in favor of the renters that are being displaced through no fault evictions at the North 40 site. It does not cost you, the city of Los Gatos, anything...you just need to create the law. Other cities around the state and country have already created similar laws, so what is being asked of you, is not unprecedented. I plead with you to help those that are being displaced and have no financial alternatives to move. I thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Eryn King Supple i Macni Moseley From: Amy Despars <amydespars@hotnmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:15 AM To: Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; North40 Question Subject: North 40 questions To the Town Council Members and Staff, Thank you for holding the North 40 Study Session. I have followed the North 40 Plan and the Los Gatos Blvd. Plan from their inception. Over the years it has been frustrating watching the various planning commissions, town council leaders, and staff not following the original plans_ Below are some questions I would like answered at the Study Session. 1. If everything is not covered on June 15th can we please continue the Study Session in September when everyone has returned from summer vacations? I always find it frustrating that all of the important meetings dealing with major issues in the town are always held during some type of holiday when people are not in town. 2. Can you please not accept the plan with everything from density to mass at their maximums? If we need to build 270 homes why can't they be one bedroom cottages? The application is deceiving because it says the homes are two bedrooms with a den which can be converted to a bedroom which we know everyone will do. These homes will house between 1-6 people. There are many families of four and five living in 2 bedroom apartments all over town. 3. Will there be time when the public can discuss specific amendments to the application? 4. In years past, the mayor and town attorney worked hard to prevent things like the North 40 from being built. You have seen, heard, and read all of the concerns about this project. What are you doing to think outside the box and be creative so that we can spread out the 270 homes that need to be built? Why do they all have to be put in one area? Are you considering all of the undeveloped lots? Will there be a new law to prevent people from building two and three homes on lots were one house once existed? Can we develop Dittos Lane to house some of the homes that need to be built? 5.The North 40 vision statement says "The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community complimenting other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods". What measures are being taken by the Town to guarantee this Et other portions of the statement are being followed? 6. Why is the developer requesting the project be developed in three phases? What are the plans for Phase II and Phase III? Will there be scale models of Phase II and Phase III available for public viewing to allow for public comment? It is essential that we know what the ENTIRE scope of the development planned for the North 40 is before each phase is approved. Can you imagine the what phase two will look like???? 270 more homes and more retail? It is ludicrous that anything should be approved before seeing the big picture. 7. Why aren't some of the homes(at least half) being built in the neighboring Campbell School District? 8. This project is too large for one person to be working on this alone. No offense to Marni but she needs other people advising her on this immense project. Is the Town able to provide an additional planner or two for this project? I look forward to hearing the answer to these questions Wednesday. Thank you for your time. Amy Despars 2 Marni Moseley From: Kelsey Stillinger <kelsey@stillinger.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 12:04 PM To: North40 Comment Subject: traffic & schools impact I pass by the orange net story poles on Lark & Los Gatos Blvd everyday knowing that this represents the tip of the iceberg of the project effects on Los Gatos. I remain concerned that Los Gatos is not following through on this project with the best interests of residents in mind. 1. The traffic on Lark Ave and Los Gatos Blvd is already very congested and becoming increasingly dangerous. It is hard to imagine adding any traffic to the area without completely redesigning the roads to account for the extra cars (and hopefully bikes). 2. As a lifelong resident of Los Gatos, I have always imagined sending my future children to the public schools (why I returned after college and bought a house here), but the overcrowding has me questioning this thinking. Personally, I believe any increase in housing is irresponsible without adding school(s) in our district, 3. With increased space for retail, I worry about the many local businesses and shops (a large part of our town's "charm") having too much competition from chain stores. I sincerely hope that the council, planning commission, etc take a moment to think about what our current residents need and want to help improve our town rather than degrade it one project at a time. (I've heard many wonderful ideas floating around including a dog park, new school, skate park, community garden, etc. etc.) Thank You, Kelsey Stillinger i SAN FRANCISCO SAN JOSE SANTA ROSA WALNUT CREEK June 13, 2016 Barbara Spector, Mayor Los Gatos City Council 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Endorsement of the North 40-Phase 1 Dear Mayor Spector and Councilmembers: RECEIVED JUN 14 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION GREENBELT ALLIANCE San Francisco Office 312 Sutter Street. Suite 510 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 543-6771 For over 50 years, Greenbelt Alliance has been the champion of the places that make the Bay Area special. We defend natural and agricultural landscapes from sprawl development and help create great cities and neighborhoods to make the Bay Area an even better place to live. Since the 1980s, we have provided an independent validation of outstanding infill development to help ensure that the right development happens in the right place. Our endorsements have helped improve more than 140 neighborhoods around the region. Greenbelt Alliance is pleased to endorse the proposed North 40-Phase 1 proposal. This plan for 320 new homes and a variety of commercial and recreational spaces has many laudable features. It will provide a walkable, vibrant community for residents across the income spectrum, support the local economy, relieve development pressure on the region's open spaces, and offer a host of other environmental and quality of life benefits. To make the proposal even stronger, we encourage the following: 1. Use every opportunity to create safe, comfortable walking and biking opportunities, particularly across Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. 2. To increase transit use and reduce traffic and congestion, provide free transit passes for residents and employees with an on -site administrator as part of a Transportation Demand Management program. In addition, we recommend that the North 40 and other new developments in Los Gatos include more compact homes to help meet the needs of our region without turning to development on our natural and agricultural lands at the edge of the Bay Area, where over 320,000 acres are currently threatened by sprawl. The North 40-Phase 1 is a smart step towards making Los Gatos —and the Bay Area —a better place to live. We hope that its approval will inspire communities around the region to redouble their efforts to grow smartly. Sincerely, i4009‘.Agt,, Matt Vander Sluis Program Director 312 Sutter Street. Suite 510 Sari Francisco, CA 94106 greenbelt.org Marni Moseley From: Anne Raley <anne@anne4pt.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:00 PM To: Nortb40 Comment; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie Subject: RE: HOUSING ALONG THE 17 FREEWAY Dear Town Council Members l just got back from Sacramento and while driving notice housing along 680 and 580. It looked horrible! PLEASE! Do not put housing along the 17 freeway! It is not healthy For the residents to be subjected to the air pollution from the gridlock traffic everyday along Hwy 17. And looking out their windows at bumper to bumper traffic! We can do better for our future Los Gatos residents! The development does not need to have housing along the freeway. There is a better way! Thank you for listening! Anne Robinson Roley 1 Marni Moseley From: bill99emt@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:30 PM To: North40 Question Subject: Questions for 6/15/16 study session Hello North 40 Study Session: I won't be able to attend tonight. Please consider/ answer the following: It is said that the state of CA mandates the Town of Los Gatos must provide a certain number of housing units. * What are the POSSIBLE penalties the state may impose if the Town does not meet the mandate? What penalties HAVE BEEN imposed by the state on communities that have not met the mandate? * Should not the Town consider the penalties as a lesser impact than allowing the building of many new housing units that will break our limited infrastructure with impacts like gridlock and overcrowded schools? What is the timeframe and what are the number of housing units the Town is obligated to provide? Why doesn't the developer offer a design of housing units typical of Los Gatos (ie, much lower density and lower height) rather than concentrate the units in buildings not typical of Los Gatos and retain space that they can push to develop later? Regards, Bill Kraus Los Gatos, CA Resident Marni Moseley From: Susie Vosky <susie.vosky@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:42 PM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Ms. Moseley, Our family came to Los Gatos for peace, tranquility, quality schools, open space, and the quaint downtown. We are strongly opposed to the proposed plan for the North 40. We are very skeptical of the process of selecting development. Who will profit from this over -building of our beautiful town? This development will diminish all that Los Gatos has to offer. We came from over -developed Sunnyvale and now Los Gatos is aspiring to the same over -development. How tragic! Please do not go forward with this proposal. GREEDY, GREEDY, GREEDY DEVELOPERS SHOULD NOT TAKE OVER BEAUTIFUL LOS GATOS. Some things are more important than money. Quality of life is why we chose to live here and saved every dime to do it! Thank you for your consideration. The Vosky Family Marni Moseley From: Gardner Jeanne<jgardneralternatives@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:17 PM To: North40 Question Subject: North 40 - Another Poorly Planned Los Gatos Development? Let's please have a beautiful development thoughtfully designed that Los Gatos can be proud of in keeping with the charm of the town unlike this monster house currently being constructed on Camino Del Cerro at the bridge at the edge of Ross Creek. How did that approval slip by my part of the neighborhood (Westchester Drive and Camino del Cerro area)? I just found out about it two days ago. An example of excellent, and carefully studied, recommendations for a housing development at the corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd. was recently presented by a gentleman whose name I don't recall nor do I any longer have access to the information but I hope he will be asked to submit recommendations for the North 40 also. His recommendations made a lot of sense! He showed how it could be reconfigured and more in harmony with structures in the area. Please approve a design that ail of us can be proud of. Thank you for your consideration Jeanne Gardner 125 Westchester Drive (408) 356-9907 1 Marni Moseley From: Linda <Isherry@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4.33 PM To: North40 Question Subject: North 40 questions What provisions are being made for traffic, schools and other resources belonging to our town? I are not seen anything specific outlining my concerns and the North 40 projrpect is too gigantic for these items to be an aftermath thought. Without the North 40 project even begun, the town is closing the exit to highway 17 at Wood Road. It does not take much to imagine what congestion will occur with the new residencies that are projected.. Please, do not make irreversible decisions for out special town.Los Gatos resident, Linda Sherry Sent from my iPad 1 From: Linda <Isherry@ aol.corn> Date: June 15, 2016 at 4:34:01 PM PDT To: "bspector@losgatosca.gov" <bspector cz,losgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 What provisions are being made for traffic, schools and other resources belonging to our town? I are not seen anything specific outlining my concerns and the North 40 projrpect is too gigantic for these items to be an aftermath thought. Without the North 40 project even begun, the town is closing the exit to highway 17 at Wood Road. It does not take much to imagine what congestion will occur with the new residencies that are projected.. Please, do not make irreversible decisions for out special town.Los Gatos resident, Linda Sherry Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad June 15,2016 To: Los Gatos Town Council and Others Attending the n 40 Study Session. Any plan for development of part or all of the the N40 should be based on the original vision statement. The current project fails to embrace any --- not even one --- of the guiding principles the town's citizens naively thought would protect their valued town from an onslaught of urbanization. North Forty Vision Statement The North 40 reflects the special nature of our hometown. It celebrates our history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small town character, The North 40 is seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods. It is respectful of precious community resources and offers unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of all of our residents. Guiding Principles to Achieve this Vision 0 The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos 0 The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees and open space i The North 40 will address the Town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs — restaurants and nail shops? Manresa Farmers Market = necessary? o The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services Los Gatos is a town not a city. It is comprised of low rise structures surrounded by green space. The planned proposal is a concrete monstrosity — a public housing project — completely lacking the amenities of town living. Sidewalks are considered "open space" and exchanges acres of tree with a few stick seedlings surrounded by concrete and asphalt. STOP There is still time to make the N 40 the Community that was originally envisioned — i.e. an Urban Village. The Urban Village Concept in the urban village people live, work, shop and play in the same radius. The first urban village in San Jose is a mixture of designer boutiques and upscale restaurants with a few expensive apartments build above the retail space. Half of the first floor of the several block complex, and all of the basement levels, is a parking garage. The entrances and exits to the two freeways that access the area are always jammed. This urban village is a net carbon polluter! Federal Realty concedes the businesses created in this urban village do not produce the high salary jobs that attract people to Silicon Valley or other large cities. You can read more about how New York City is doing what Los Gatos should be doing — creating integrated communities -- by clicking the link here http://www.reimagineamerica.org/urban- planning-can-cIean-soot-environment/ to read my entire blog and relating pieces. I appeal the Los Gatos Town Council. Stop the current project. Join with all the participants in the June 15 session and local academic institutions with strong Urban Planning Departments to create a multi- phase plan for the entire parcel. By spreading the project across the entire parcel — it is possible to get the density needed with a mixture of housing that more closely mirrors the Town of Los Gatos. Consider building a technology incubator to bring a better mix of jobs. Include community centers and community facilities that attract families and, perhaps, even provide more public recreation facilities. Recognize that there is NO ready access to public transportation to carry workers around the valley and no likelihood that will change in the foreseeable future. Then plan in the needed mitigation strategies. Last, even if you want to pursue the ill-conceived current project; it is hard to understand why Los Gatos must turn to an international, rather than local, builder. Robson built a very similar community (Penny Lane) on the corner of San Tomas and Hamilton last year. A local builder has a commitment to the community that the current N40 developers do not. As a matter of fact, Penny Lane will give every member of the study committee a clear preview of what the N40 project currently proposed will look like! This project can be a beacon of hope for other California cities or you can continue down the current path to becoming just another Cupertino or another Santana Row! Is that truly what you want your legacy to the Town of Los Gatos to be? Thank you for your consideration. Joyce Stoer Cordi, 16560 Garden Lane, Los Gatos 95032 Marni Moseley From: Robb Walker <rnwalkerl@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 7:20 AM To: North40 Question Subject: Schools With the keen interest shown by residents for the role of schools in the No.40 why are the Superintendents now allowed to answer residents questions on an individual basis rather than in a public forum either online or public meeting? I realize they weren't prepared to answer questions at the Study Session but now their answers will not be available for "public scrutiny." The online question forum was meant to include "all" No. 40 role players. With the looming deadlines approaching all information needs to be readily accessible either online or in a public meeting not by one person having to call the Superintendent for an answer. Sent from my iPad i Marni Moseley► From: Harold Crenetz <harc@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:57 PM To: North40 Question Subject: North 40 If after all is developed and the traffic on ail the intersections is as bad as many many people think it will be who will be responsible to mitigate the problems or if the problems can be fixed since the construction will be done and can't be undone. Will people just have to sit and fume in bad traffic knowing the EIR was old and really didn't figure this out correctly. Harold Crenetz 95033 resident but spends money and drives in Los Gatos 1 Marni Moseie From: msjulie33 <msjulie33@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:26 PM To: North40 Question Subject: public opinion Hello I know there will be a meeting in July but in all frankness I'm asking if there is a chance this will not be allowed ... my concern is that as a "new" resident of Los Gatos for only 5+ years, I have seen the traffic disaster on Los Gatos blvd as it goes towards Lark, not in small part due to the increased and tightly packed housing. I'm wondering how in good conscious this plan can even be considered when the traffic is already beyond capacity. And I need not remind anyone of the rush hour and weekend parking lot that many of the town roads turn into... Thanks for your time Julie This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Joel Paulson Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 4:13 PM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Sally Zarnowitz Subject: FW: Special Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2016 Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos (408) 354-6879 IMPORTANT NOTICES: Building and Planning Counter hours are from 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM Monday through Friday. The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message from your computer. Thank you From: dani [mailto:bronco60@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 3:47 PM To: Joel Paulson Subject: Special Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2016 TO: Los Gatos Planning Commission RE: July 12, 2016 Hearing on The North Forty Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission members, The following are ways in which the developers' proposal for Phase 1 are inconsistent with the North Forty Specific Plan 1. The intent of the Specific Plan, as clearly enunciated in the run-up to its adoption, is that housing will be spread over the entire North Forty area. The language of the Plan provides for this, prescribing housing in every district. See Specific Plan sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3. In the prefatory language of section 2.3 LAND USE DISTRICTS, it is stated, "(T)he Specific Plan divides the North 40 into three districts based on site context and desired development characteristics." (emphasis added). Despite this the developer proposes 320 units in Phase 1. Phase 1 consists of less than half of the total project acreage. Total allowable housing units, with the density bonus, comes to 364, and since there are 32 existing units on the site this leaves only 12 units to develop in the larger, northern half of the acreage. At the March 30, 2016 hearing before the Planning Commission. Commissioner O'Donnell specifically asked Mr. Capobres why housing is concentrated in the Lark Section and not spread over the entire North Forty. The i pertinent portion of Mr. Capobres' response was "...the Specific Plan calls for the residential to be primarily located in the Lark District, and so we're implementing the guidelines found in the Specific Plan." This is a misrepresentation of the intent of the Plan and ignores the language of the Plan that describes the housing envisioned in each District. At the end of that marathon meeting the developer's attorney summarized. In pertinent part she stated, "The Specific Plan does not have any requirements that the 20 units per acre be spread out over the site." She then added, "Actually, the Specific Plan was intended to take care of planning for the entire site...", but she failed to mention the language in the Specific Plan regarding the desired development characteristics in each District. At the North Forty Study Group Meeting on June 1 6th, in answer to the question as to whether all housing had to be built in the Lark Section, Mr, Paulson answered, "no". The developers' position that there are no "requirements" to spread the housing is cynical and disingenuous. In making your recommendation to the Town Council I submit that you are entitled to consider not only the sections cited above but also the legislative intent as expressed in pre -adoption discussions. Perhaps, to remove any doubt, the Specific Plan ought to be amended to incorporate the precise requirement that reflects the Council's original intent and which the developers seem to need for guidance. 2. The intensity of the proposed residential development in the Lark Section is inconsistent with the Land Use and Development Standards of the Specific Plan. As stated on page 1 of this section, among the "overarching goals" are the commitments to ensure "compatibility with the surrounding area" and "contribute to the small town character of Los Gatos". Section 2.3.1 applies these goals to the Lark District. Because the Lark District is in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, lower intensity residential is envisioned for this area. Again, the third sentence of section 2.4 PERMITTED LAND USES, states, "(I)n general, lower intensity shops, offices, and residential land uses are envisioned in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area." While the developers° proposal includes allowable housing types, its density is far greater than the lower intensity residential envisioned. The most graphic evidence for this are the story poles that present a numbing skyline when viewed from Highway 17 and along Lark Avenue. The proposed density destroys the small town character of Los Gatos rather than contributing to it and has stirred the justified rage of residents. 3. The primary concern about permitting any housing in the North Forty has been its potential effect on the schools. The efficacious solution limits housing to the Town's unmet needs, such as for millennials and seniors. Section 2.1 COUNCIL VISION is followed by Guiding Principles to achieve this vision. Included therein are the directives that the North 40 will address the town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs, as well as the directive that the North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Again, Policy LU 10, under section 2.2 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES, states, "(P)rovide and integrate a mix of residential product types designed to minimize impacts on schools while complying with SB50, School Facilities Act, and serve the unmet housing needs within the Town of Los Gatos." Again, in Chapter 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ,PHASING AND ADMINISTRATION, the Residential Unit Size Mix Example states in part, "(T)he types and sizes are targeting the unmet needs of Los Gatos." Despite these clear and oft -repeated bedrock rules the developers proposes 54 units with 3 bedrooms and 135 with 2 bedrooms in the Lark District. Many of the so-called "2 bedroom" units have a "den" that can easily be 2 converted to a bedroom. These units will be magnets for families with school age children and ought to be summarily disallowed as inconsistent with the Specific Plan. The developers' rationale for the 2 and 3 bedroom units is that focus group comments indicated that 1 bedroom units may be more difficult to sell. This is irrelevant in that it is not the job of the Town to help the developer sell units. But, in addition, it contradicts the findings in APPENDIX C of the Specific Plan. There, in summary, it states that "Gen Y" people are looking for "smaller household sizes", "smaller units with some larger units featuring loft characteristics", which include, "open floor plans, few, if any bedrooms...". (emphasis added). That the developers entered into a "Voluntary Contribution Agreement" with the Los Gatos Union Elementary School District does not excuse them from following the directives of the Specific Plan to provide residential product types designed to minimize impacts on schools. Three bedroom and potential three bedroom units violate this requirement. Minimizing impact an schools is accomplished by offering units that don't appeal to families. The developer cannot trade an agreement outside the Specific Plan for a violation of clear and unequivocal rules within it. Respectfully submitted, Woody Nedom 16280 Azalea Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 356-7956 3 On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Anne Roley <anne@anne4pt.com> wrote: Dear Town Council Members As you already know, I have been vey vocal about not putting housing along the 17 Freeway as is suggested in the current N40 development proposal. The EIR was done in 2014. The traffic has gotten much worse over the last 2 years along the 17 freeway leading to increased pollution than was previously studied in the EIR. Cars are gridlocked for hours at the Lark Ave and 17 Freeway during commute hours and on the weekends going to the beach. And there is a possibility of widening that area to 3 lanes. Below is information from the Sierra Club and other sources regarding the health risk of living along the freeways. When I searched the internet for studies regarding the health risks of living along a Freeway there were so many that I am not going to send them all. I know one of you mentioned that the developer was going to put a road between the homes and the freeway thinking that was going to make it better - I am not so sure about that - a road only allows more cars and more pollution closer to there housing units. I hope you seriously consider this research when you make your decision regarding the housing component on the N40. Thank you, Anne Robinson https://ehjournal.biormedcentral. cornlarticles/10.1186/ 1476-069X-6-23 http://now.tufts.edu/artic1es/big-road-blues-pollution-highways <report.pdf><Health-Hazard-of-Freeways.pdf'<Freeway.pdf> TOrvolkN ff,i2cD a^tn lw- 4, Pio; Quin] c_0 ,,,„. v4, 1 i s FROM : Robb Walker and Nancy Walker RE : North Forty Plan KIMVVED JUN 27 2016 7' " N OF LOS GATOS 13,,,NNING DIVISION The North Forty proposal before you will set you apart as a Commission that went the extra mile to see that our Town would be better off because of what you have done. I have made a point to sit in on resident groups that have covered and "uncovered" facts that you will be aware of soon. These are the knowledgeable people you must listen to very carefully. Contrary to the Town staff, they live in Los Gatos and have a stake in the future of our Town. Also, in my opinion, all their energies and expertise far outweigh that of the Town staff. 1 have attended group meetings recently where I was truly amazed at the dedication and clarity these residents have shown in gathering facts and arriving at "alternative decisions" to what staff has provided you. Staffs suggested approval of Via Vincinato would have been a disaster if gone along with. Staffs approval of the current North 40 plan with it's reliance on outdated traffic data along with faulty interpretation thereof calls for a certain amount of fact gathering and insight on your part as well as a dash of "healthy skepticism" on your part. Residents from these well -attended groups will be presenting their findings on the 12th. Please remember that a tremendous amount of time and energy will have led up to their presentations. You can trust me on that. Robb and Nancy Walker Los Gatos Beautification Committee "Working to make Los Gatos beautiful" SIERRA CLUB Explore, enjoy and protect the planet RECEIVED 'How highways and roads cause health problems in our communities —and what you can do about it. ±IiJi 1 ��'% 1 �1 IJ 1-1.4;12,•Vd_5' Acknowledgements This report was made possible through the hard work of many Sierra Club staff and interns including: Research, Writing, and Editing Brett Hulsey,Ed Hopkins,EricOlson,Enn Burg, and Michael Carlson. Field Research and Editorial Assistance Sam Atwood, Tony Cattenacci, Nancy Wagner,J.J Straight, Catherine Corkery, Glen Brand, Christine Sagsetter, Melanie Mayock, and Rosemary Wehnes. Design Brian Vanneman Cover Photography PhotoDisc A special thanks to The Environmental Law and Policy Center for assisting with and compiling research. Much gratitude to Professor Howard Wachtel and Associate Professor Tim Buckley for their technical input. This report is one of many reports the Sierra Club issues about sprawl. To read previous reports or for more information in our Challenge to Sprawl Campaign, please visit our web site at: www.sierraclub.org/sprawl. This report has been funded by The Sierra Club Foundation. Copyright 2004. SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 189Z Highway Health Hazards raffic presents a unique public health threat due to the toxicity of its emissions and its extensive integration into our lives and communities. The stakes are high including excess cancers and children's asthma rates occurring at epidemic proportions. This threat can no longer be ignored; it must be clearly understood and addressed." —ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR TIM BUCKLEY BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY A critical consequence of sprawling develop- ment and reliance on highways as a principal means of transportation is tailpipe pollution. Evidence is increasing that air pollution from vehi- cles increases a wide range of health risks. This report summarizes more than 24 peer -reviewed studies that document health hazards caused by pollution from cars, trucks, and other vehicles. It also describes current debates over major high- way projects occurring in more than ten commu- nities around the country. Key Findings from Scientific Studies: • A Johns Hopkins study shows association between traffic and curbside concentrations of cancer causing pollutants. • The Journal of the American Medical Association study links soot in diesel exhaust to lung cancer,car- diopulmonary disease and other causes of death. • A Denver study shows children living near busy roads are six to eight times more likely to develop leukemia and other forms of cancer. • A Journal of the American Medical Association study finds that increasing public transportation along with other traffic control measures during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics reduced acute asthma. • The California South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District did a Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study -II, the most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution, showing that vehicle exhaust is the source of cancer -causing air pollutants in Southern California. A significant body of scientific evidence is emerg- ing that links pollution from motor vehicles to a range of human health problems including asthma, lung cancer and premature death. Federal transportation policy has long focused on expanding the highway system as its principal goal. Approximately 80 percent of federal transportation funding is spent on highways. But by designing communities to reduce reliance on vehicles and giv- ing people more transportation choices like trains and dean buses, we can diminish the health risks associated with highway pollution. Crucial public policy changes must include a more balanced trans- portation policy, greater emphasis on public trans- portation systems and other options such as walk- ing and bicycling.ln addition, we need to limit devel- opment near new roadways. Sierra Club 2004 1 Health Effects froinn Highway Pollution don't think that they should build a school that lies along a freeway." —BARRY WALLERSTEIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Air pollution is a major risk to our health and safe- ty and is the contributing cause of nearly 100,000 premature deaths each year,' more than twice the number of deaths from car crashes.' In 2002, almost half of all. Americans - or 137 million people - lived in counties with unhealthy air laden with one or more criteria air pollutants, according to the American Lung Association' A major source of this air pollution is the exhaust from the tailpipes of trucks and cars. A variety of dangerous pollutants are released daily from the extensive networks of busy highways that border countless neighborhoods and businesses. These pollutants cause numerous adverse health effects including cancer, asthma, and heart attacks. In addi- tion, asthma, which is exacerbated by pollution from trucks and cars, is the leading serious chronic illness among children and the number one reason chil- dren miss school ° The main cancer -causing pollutants from trucks and cars are diesel particulate matter and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, 1,3- butadiene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In recent years the relationship between vehicle pollution and increased cancer risk has received considerable scientific attention. A Denver study shows that children who live within 250 yards of a road with 20,000 or more vehicles per day are eight times more likely to get leukemia and six times more likely to get other cancers. The authors of the study attribute most of this risk to the VOCs in motor vehicle exhausts As the graphic shows, roadways create a corridor of pol- lution for the drivers and residents nearby. Highway Air Pollution and Public Policy Bush Administration Transportation Policy: Fewer Transportation Choices and More Pollution Just as public transportation ridership is reaching record numbers,' the Bush administration is propos- ing to diminish investment in diverse transportation choices in America within the Senate Bill 1071 that has yet to be approved by the legislature' The administration is recommending greater incentives for highways than for cleaner public transportation projects. Under their plan communities would pay 50 percent of the cost for new public transportation projects. Completing only 20 percent of the new proposed road projects would put public trans- portation alternatives further out of their reach. In addition, the administration proposes spending less than one dollar on train transit projects for every four dollars spent on highways. The administration's transportation plan fails to adequately fund the Congestion Mitigation and Aar Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program that spurs transportation projects that improve a region's air quality. Demand for the CMAQ is expected to sky- rocket, as the number of regions with unhealthy air 2 Highway Health Hazards Traffic Growing Three Times Faster than Population 60% — Traffic Population 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1985 FIGURE 1 1990 1995 1999 will more than double in the next few years, but funding for this critical program is to Increase by less than 10 percent. Other Bush administration proposals would make it more difficult to ensure that pollution from trans- portation does not violate air quality standards. The administration also wants to reduce the frequency of check-ups from three to five years. These check- ups ensure that transportation plans conform with local air quality needs. In addition, the administra- tion proposes to ignore the long-term effects of new road construction on air quality. The administration suggests examining how road construction would affect air quality over a ten-year period instead of a twenty-year period,as is current practice. Long-term studies, like the current 20-year period, give us a better 'idea of the effects of road construction on air pollution. More Highways, More Sprawl, More Pollution Poorly designed, sprawling development requires building more roads. Increasingly, new develop- ments are scattered across the landscape with wide Busy Roads Create a Pollution Corridor for Those Nearby Elevated Pol tion CorridorWidth Street to Residence Weighting Distance FIGURE 2 streets and driveways, cuI-de-sacs, large parking lots, and single -use areas such as office parks or residen- tial sub -divisions with few sidewalks and few con- nections to other developments' By keeping the places we live independent of our workplace, the average length of our commute increased by over one-third (from 8.5 to 11.6 miles) between 1983 and 19959 Increased sprawl forces people to drive fur- ther each year, As the graph shows, between 1985 and 1999, traffic in the U.S. (measured as vehicle miles traveled (VMT)) increased three times faster than population because of a lack of transportation choices and sprawl." One Atlanta study showed that new highway con- struction on suburban land is the leading contributor to sprawling development." In another study, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) and Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) showed that a 10 percent increase in the size of a highway network is associated with a 5.3 percent increase in additional driving." The study also illustrated that longer car trips, aside from generating more pollution, are also the leading cause of traffic congestion, which in turn leads to even greater air pollution.' Normalized Air Pollution — Concentration — Courtesy Air and Waste Management Association Sierra Clu •OO4 3 Solutions: How We Can Reduce Health Risks from Vehicle Pollution he Bush administration, alohg with state and local governments, should promote smart growth, reduce sprawl, and increase transportation choices. By revitalizing existing communities and designing new developments that have bus, bike, or train service to reduce the reliance on cars, travel will be easier for people. Building better communities cuts traffic and reduces the distance that commuters have to travel. Increasing Transportation Choices Decreases Pollution We can do better. Providing transportation choic- es such as trains, buses, sidewalks, biking paths, and ridesharing are key aspects of healthy communities where residents can have the option not to drive. Taking these steps would reduce traffic, minimize air pollution, and protect our health, our families,and our future. A 2001 study published in the Journal of American Medical Associates showed that providing more transportation choices and other traffic control measures during the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996 reduced traffic 22 percent, air pollution by 28 percent, and asthma attacks by up to 44 percent in children." Better Community Design Cuts Traffic Efficient development brings houses, workplaces, and shopping areas closer together and reduces the distance of daily commuter travel. Mixed -use design allows integration of residential and commercial zones, making it possible to live near your place of work13 This efficient design can be accomplished through infill, transit -oriented development, zoning, and brownfields redevelopment. Transit -oriented development places new development within easy walking distance of a major transit center. Centering activities on a transit station and providing pedestri- an -friendly walkways makes transit a convenient. mode of transportation. It revitalizes neighborhoods and reduces traffic by up to 20 percent according to the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection (LUTRAQ) study from Portland, Oregon 16 4 Highway Health Hazards Changes in Federal Transportation Policy Can Cut Pollution and Provide More Transportation Choices • Federal and state transportation agencies should balance transportation investments between high- ways and alternative forms of transportation includ- ing public transit, bike paths, and sidewalks. • They should also support a "fix it first" mentality, which uses resources to maintain existing roads before building new ones. This spends fewer tax dollars for new car -only transportation projects. • In addition, the EPA and DOT should conduct health risk studies in its environmental review of new road projects with more than 150,000 vehicles per day and provide that information to the public as part of transportation decision -making processes. We Can Take Action in Our Communities for Clean Transportation • We can carpool, bus, or take the train to work whenever possible to reduce traffic and pollution; encourage local governments to use clean -burning buses and hybrid cars for public transportation sys- tems and government vehicles. • Ask our local governments and workplaces to offer more public transportation incentives. • Incentives might include "Commuter Choice Checks" that give workers a tax deduction for the money they spend using public transit to commute to work, tax credits for walking or biking, or a parking cash -out. Businesses, public space, and transportation co- exist on this downtown Denver street. Sierra Club 2004 5 Twenty -Four Scientific Studies Link Health Risks with Highway Pollution tudies suggest that children wo1ive near busy roads are more likely to get leukemia and other forms of cancer. It would be prudent to study such cancer risks near all busy roads where elevated. VOC levels are likely." —DR. HOWARD WACHTEL, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO The following peer -reviewed and published stud- ies concluded that there is a link between traffic - related air pollution and health risks. [he health risks include increased likelihood of asthma, cancer, pre- mature and low -birth weight babies, and a general- ly higher risk of death. Where possible, we put the researcher's contact information.` 1. Children Living Near Busy Roads MoreLikely to Develop Leukemia, Cancer A 2000 Denver study showed that children living within 250 yards of streets or highways with 20,000 vehicles per day are six times more likely to develop al) types of cancer and eight times more likely to get leukemia. The study looked at associ- ations between traffic density, power lines, and all childhood cancers with measurements obtained in 1979 and 1990. It found a weak association from power lines, but a strong association with highways. It suggested that Volatile Organic Compound pollution from traffic may be the can- cer promoter causing the problem. Pearson, Wachtel, Robert L. Pearson, and Kristie Ebie. (2000) Distance -weighted traffic density in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers. Journaa! ofAlt and Waste Management Association 50:175-180. Contact: Professor Howard Wachtel, Department of Electrical Engineering,4lniversity of Colorado. phone:(303) 492-7713,e-mail: wash telC cnloradoedu. 2. Road Traffic Contributes to the Origin of Childhood Leukemia A 2004 Italian study found that Childhood Leukemia is partially caused by roadside emissions in the Province of Varese. The authors conducted a population -based, case -controlled study in the Province of Varese,northern Italy, which was covered by a population -based cancer registry. Their study found that the risk of childhood leukemia was almost four times higher for heavily exposed chil- dren compared to children whose homes were not exposed to road traffic emissions of benzene. Children either inhale Benzene as a gas or particu- late matter which has absorbed benzene. Their model included traffic density divided into two groups —one greater and one less than 10,000 vehi- cles per day, distance, and weather conditions to estimate benzene concentration. The researcher's data suggests that motor vehicle traffic emissions are involved in the origin of childhood leukemia. "Childhood Leukemia and Road Traffic:A population -based Case - Control study."Crasignani P ;Tittarelli A; Borgini A; Codazzi T, ReVeldi A; Porro E, Contiero P, Bianchi N; Tagliabue G; Fissi R; Rossitto F; Berrino F international Journal of Cancer, 2004 , V108, N4 (FEB 10), P 596-599 2004-02-10 3. Increasing Public Transportation and Cutting Traffic Reduces Asthma Attacks This 2001 Journal of the American Medical Association study found that increasing public transportation along with other traffic control meas- ures during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics reduced 6 Highway Hs eatLh Hazards acute asthma attacks by up to 44 percent in children, reduced ozone concentrations by 28 percent, and morning peak traffic by 22.5 percent, These data pro- vide support for efforts to reduce air pollution and improve health via reductions in motor vehicle traffic. Friedman, Michael, Kenneth Powell MD; Lorw Hutwagner; Leroy Graham, Gerald Teague Impact of Changes in Transportation and Commuting Behaviors During the 1996 Summer Olympic Games rn Atlanta on Air Quality and Childhood Asthma, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001, 285 897-905, Contact Michael 5 Friedman, National Center for Environmental Health, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, email stiff?@cdc gov 4. Soot Particulate Matter Linked to Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality A recent study appearing in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that day-to- day exposure to soot or fine particulate matter, a major component of tailpipe pollution increased the risk of various adverse health effects. More specifical- ly the study shows that each 10 microgram/meter' elevation in fine particulate air pollution leads to an 8 percent increased risk of lung cancer deaths, a 6 percent increased risk of cardiopulmonary mortali- ty (heart attacks) and 4 percent increased risk of death from general causes. Pope, Clive Arden Ili, Richard P Burnett, et al Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to fine Particulate Air Pollution Journal of the American Medical Assuciarion, March 6 2002— Vol 287, No 92 Contact Clive Arden Pope, Brigham Young University, phone- (8011 422-215 7, e-mail cop3@erriail byu ed'u. 5. Truck Traffic Linked to Childhood Asthma Hospitalizations A study in Erie County, New York (excluding the city of Buffalo) found that children living in neigh- borhoods with heavy truck traffic within 220 yards of their homes had increased risks of asthma hospital- ization. The study examined hospital admission for asthma amongst children ages 0-14, and residential proximity to roads with heavy traffic. Lin, Shao, Jean Pierre Munsie; Syni-An Hwang, Edward Fitzgerald, and Michael R Cayo, (2002), Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Environmental Research, Section A, Vol 88, pp. 73-81 6. Pregnant Women Who Live Near High Traffic Areas More Likely to Have Premature and Low Birth Weight Babies Researchers observed an approximately 10-20 percent increase in the risk of premature birth and low birth weight for infants born to women living near high traffic areas in Los Angeles County. In particular, the researchers found that for each one part -per -million increase In annual average carbon monoxide concentrations where the women lived, there was a 19 percent and 11 percent increase in risk for low -birth weight and premature births, respectively. Wilhelm, Michelle and Beate Ritz (2002) Residential Proximity to Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles County, California, 1994-1996. Environmental Health Perspectives. doi. 101?89/ehp.5t 88. Contact Beate Rrtz, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health,11Cl A, phone. (310) 20n-7458, e-mail brttz@ucln.edu 7. Traffic Increased Cancer -Causing Pollution Levels at Tollbooth A 2003 study published in the Journal of Air & Over the last 50 years we have torn down communities to build highways. We need to rebuild our future with clean transportation and better community design. Sierra Club 2004 7 You do not need to be a public health official to know that it is dangerous to breathe diesel exhaust. Waste Management shows that there is a"significant association between vehicle traffic and curbside concentrations of the carcinogens benzene, 1,3- butadiene, and particle -bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)." The measurements, which were taken at the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel toll- booth, show that much of the daily pollutant vari- ability was explained by traffic volume, class and meteorology. The study provides a model for esti- mating curbside pollution levels associated with traffic that may be relevant to exposures in the urban environment. 5apkota,Amir and Buckley,Timothy J. The Mobile Source Effect on Curbside J,3-Butadiene, Benzene, and Particle -Bound Poiycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Assessed at a tollbooth Journal of Arr & Waste Management 53.7400748 Contact- Dr Timothy J Buckley, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. phone (4 t 0) 6 t 4-5750, e-rnar I ibockley@jhsph.edu. 8. Air Inside Cars Typically Contains More Dangerous Air Pollutants than Outside The results of 23 separate scientific studies shows that in -car air pollution levels frequently reach con- centrations that may threaten human health. The reports show that the air inside of cars typically con- tains more carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene, fine particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides than ambi- ent air at nearby monitoring stations. These pollu- tants are particularly dangerous for children, the eld- erly, and people with asthma or other respiratory conditions. Kimbrell, Andrew In -Car Air Pollution, The Hidden Threat to Automobile Drivers International Center for Technology Assessment July 2000 Contact Andrew Kimbrell, phone' (202) 547-9359, email. kimbreli@rcro org 9. People Who Live Near Freeways Exposed to 25 Times More Soot Particulate Pollution Studies conducted In the vicinity ui Interstates 405 and 710 in Southern California found that the number of ultra -fine soot particles in the air was approximate- ly 25 times more concentrated near the highways and that pollution levels gradually decrease back to normal (background) levels around 300 meters, or nearly 330 yards, downwind from the highway. The researchers note that motor vehicles are the most sig- nificant source of ultra -fine particles,which have been linked to increases in mortality and morbidity. Recent research concludes that ultra -fine soot particles are more toxic than larger particles with the same chemical composition. Moreover, the researchers. found considerably higher concentrations of car- bon monoxide pollution near the highways. Zhu, Ylfang, William C Hinds; Kim Seongheon, 5+ Shen, Constantinos Sioutas.Conrentrasron and size distribution of ultra - fine partrdes near a major highway Journal of the Air and Waste Managemenr Association September 2002 And, Study of ultra - fine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic Atmospheric Envirrnrmcn1 i'f20021,4323-4335. 10. Motor Vehicle Pollution Dominate Cancer Risk The most comprehensive study of urban toxic air pollution ever undertaker) shows that motor vehi- cles and other mobile sources of air pollution are the predominant source of cancer -causing air pollutants in Southern California, Overall, the study showed that motor vehicles and other mobile sources accounted for about 90 percent of the cancer risk from toxic air pollution, most of which is from diesel soot (70 percent of the cancer risk), Industries and 8 Highway Health Hazards other stationary sources accounted for the remain- ing 10 percent. The study showed that the highest risk is in urban areas where there is heavy traffic and high concentrations of population and industry, South Coast Air Quality Management District Multiple Au Toxics Exposure Study -II March 2000, Contact: Steve Baibosa, phone: (909) 395-21 ! sbarbosa@agrndgov. or Barbara Weller, California Air Resources Board, phone (916) 324-4816 11. Lung Function Reduced Among Children Living Near Truck Traffic A European study determined that exposure to traffic -related air pollution, "'in particular diesel exhaust particles," may lead to reduced lung func- tion in children living near major motorways, Brunekreef, B; N A. Janssen ,1 DeHartog; H Harssema ; M. Knape, P- Van Vliet (1997) 'Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways."Epidemiology 8(3):298-303 12. Traffic -Related Air Pollution Associated with Respiratory Symptoms in Two Year Old Children This cohort study in the Netherlands found that two year old children who are exposed to higher levels of traffic -related air pollution are more likely to have self -reported respiratory illnesses, including wheezing, ear/nose/throat infections, and reporting of physician -diagnosed asthma, flu or serious cold, Brauer, Dr Michael) et al (2002). Arr Pollution from Traffic and the Development of Respiratory Infections and Asthmatic and Allergic Symptoms in Children American Journal of Resprrarory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 166 pp 1092-1098. Contact Dr Michael Brauer, School of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Phone_ (604) 822-9585. e- ntait brauer,Iiinterchangeubc c3, 13. Asthma Symptoms Caused by Truck Exhaust A study was conducted in Munster, Germany to determine the relationship between truck traffic and asthma symptoms. In total, 3,703 German students, between the ages of 12-15 years, completed a writ- ten and video questionnaire in 1994-1995, Positive associations between both wheezing and allergic rhlnitis and truck traffic were found during a 12 month period. Potentially confounding variables, including indicators of socio-economic status, smok- ing,etc.,did not alter the associations substantially. Duhme, H S.K. Weiland, et al (1996). The association between self - reported symptoms of asthma and allergic thinitis and self -report- ed traffic density on street of residence in adolescents, Epidemiology 7(6)578-82 14. Proximity of a Child's Residence to Major Roads Linked to Hospital Admissions for Asthma A study in Birmingham, United Kingdom, deter- mined that living near major roads was associated with the risk of hospital admission for asthma in chil- dren younger than five years of age. The area of res- idence and traffic flow patterns were compared for children admitted to the hospital for asthma, chil- dren admitted for non -respiratory reasons, and a random sample of children from the community. Children admitted with an asthma diagnosis were significantly more likely to live in an area with high traffic flow (more than 24,000 vehicles/ 24 hrs) locat- ed along the nearest segment of main road. Edwards, J ; 5 Walters, et al (1994) Hospital admissions for asthma in preschool children, relationship to major roads in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Archives of Environmental Health 49(4). 223-7 15, Exposure to Cancer -Causing Benzene Higher for Children Living Near High Traffic Areas German researchers compared 48 children who lived in a central urban area with high traffic density Many schools are located near busy roads in addition to having diesel buses idling nearby. Sierra Club 2004 9 • 41. ip ,� ---� . �7„ Despite strong opposition prior to its construction, Salt Lake City's TRAX system is running strong. It carries over 20,000 riders every day —many of whom commuted in cars before switching to rail. with 72 children who lived in a small city with low traffic density. They found that the blood levels of benzene in children who lived in the high -traffic -den- sity area were 71 percent higher than those of chil- dren who lived 1n the low -traffic -density area. Blood levels of toluene and carboxyhemoglobin (formed after breathing carbon monoxide) were also signifi- cantly elevated (56 percent and 33 percent higher, respectively) among children regularly exposed to vehicle pollution. Aplastic anemia, a serious condiion in which bone marrow stops producing blood cells, and leukemia were associated with excessive expo- sure to benzene. lermann E, H Hajimiragha, A Brackhaus, I Free', U Ewers, A Roscovanu Exposure of children to benzene and other motor vehicle emissions Zentralblat, four Hygiene and llnowelrmedizin 1 B9.50-61, 19R9 16. Air Pollution from Busy Roads Linked to Shorter Life Spans for Nearby Residents Dutch researchers looked at the effects of long-term exposure to traffic -related air pollutants on 5,000 adults.They found that people who lived near a main road were almost twice as likely to die from heart or lung disease and 1.41 times as likely to die from any premature cause compared with those who lived in less -trafficked areas. The authors say traffic emissions contain many pollutants that might be responsible for the health risks, such as ultra -fine particles, diesel soot, and nitrogen oxides, which have been linked to car- diovascular and respiratory problems. Hoek, Brunekreet Goldbohn, Fischer, van den Brandt 0002), Association Between Mortality and Indicators of Trafric-related A' Pollution in the Netherlands A Cohurt Study tancer,360 (934 17. Asthma More Common for Children Living Near Highways A study of nearly 10,000 children in England found that wheezing illness, including asthma, was more likely with increasing proximity of a child's home to main roads. The risk was greatest for children living within 90 yards of the road. Venn et al (2001) Living Near A Main Road and the Risk of Wheezing Illness in Children_ American Journal of Respiratory and Cntical Care Medione Vol 164, pp 2177-2180. 18. Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) from Vehicles Exacerbates Asthma Attacks Researchers at St. Mary's Hospital in Portsmouth, England determined that while 80 percent of asthma attacks are initially caused by viral infections,exposure to traffic pollution can increase symptoms as much as 200 percent, The team measured the exposure of 114 asthmatic children between ayes eight -eleven from nonsmoking families over almost a whole year. They found a strong correlation between higher 1NO2 pol- lution and the severity of an attack. Chatihan, A! , et dI Personal exposure to nitrogen dioxide IN02) and the seveirly of virus -induced asthma in children Lancet Volume 361 Issue 3373 Page 1939, 10 Highway Health Hazards 19. A School's Proximity to Highways Associated with Asthma Prevalence A study of 1,498 children in 13 schools in the Province of South Holland found a positive relation- ship between school proximity to highways and asthma occurrence. Truck traffic intensity and the concentration of pollutants measured in schools were found to be significantly associated with chronic respiratory symptoms. Van Mier, P, M Knape. et al (1997), Motor vehicle exnaust and chron- ic respiratory symptoms rn chaldren living near freeways Environmental Research. 74(2).122-32 20. Five Times More Deaths Due to Air Pollution than Traffic Accidents This study analyzed the affect of traffic -related air pollution and traffic accidents on life expectancy in the area of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It esti- mated that almost five times more deaths in this region resulted from motor vehicle pollution than from traffic accidents, Szagun and Seidel (2000) Mortality due to road traffic in Baden- Aurlterrmberg Gesundheitswesen 62(4) 225-33 21. Cancer Risk Higher Near Major Sources of Air Pollution, Including Highways A 1991 English study found a cancer corridor within three miles of highways, airports, power plants, and other major polluters. The study examined children who died of leukemia or other cancers from the years 1953-1980, where they were born and where they died. It found that the greatest danger lies a few hundred yards from a highway or polluting facility and decreases as you get further away from the facility. Knox and Gilman (1997) Hazard proximities of childhood cancers (n Great Brrtam from 1953-1980. Journal of Epidemiology and Gontmunuy Health 51 151-159 22. Diesel Exhaust Linked to Asthma This study found that particulate matter from diesel trucks can act as an irritant in the airway caus- ing asthma. The authors show that diesel exhaust can trigger asthma attacks in individuals with no pre-existing asthmatic history. When a natural aller- gen, such as pollen, was added to the situation, the reaction was even more dramatic. Pandya, Robert, et al "Diesel Exhaust and Asthma' Hypothesis and Molecular Mechanisms of Action" Environmental Health Perspectives Supplements Volume 110, Number 1, February 2002. 23. Low Levels of Air Pollution Cause Asthma Attacks Exposure to miniscule amounts of ozone and soot particulate matter 2.5 pm or less (PM2.5) in air at lev- els above current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards is a risk factor for respiratory symptoms in children with asthma. Daily respiratory symptoms and medication use were examined prospectively for 271 children younger than 12 years with physician -diagnosed, active asthma residing in southern New England. Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone and PM 25 from April 1 through September 30, 2001, was assessed using ozone (peak 1-hour and 8-hour) and 24-hour PM 2.5. Logistic regression analyses using generalized estimating equations were performed separately for maintenance medication users (n = 130) and nonusers (n = 141), Associations between pollutants (adjusted for temperature, controlling for same- and previous -day levels) and respiratory symp- toms and use of rescue medication were evaluated. Mean (5D) levels were 59 (19) ppb (one -hour Don't inhale! In -car pollution contains more toxins than ambient air according to a California study. Sierra Club 2004 11 average) and 51 (16) ppb (8-hour average) for ozone and 13 (8) pg/m3 for PM2.5. In co -pollutant models, ozone level but not PM2.5 was significantly associat- ed with respiratory symptoms and rescue medica- tion use among children using maintenance med- ication; a 50-ppb increase in one -hour ozone was associated with increased likelihood of wheeze (by 35 percent) and chest tightness (by 47 percent).The highest levels of ozone (one -hour or eight -hour averages) were associated with increased shortness of breath and rescue medication use. No significant, exposure -dependent associations were observed for any outcome by any pollutant among children who did not use maintenance medication. Asthmatic children using maintenance medica- tion are particularly vulnerable to ozone, controlling for exposure to fine particles, at levels below EPA standards, Gent, Janneane PhD; Elizabeth W. ttiche, PhD, Theodore R Hotrod, PhD; Kathleen Belanger, PhD, Michael B. Bracken, PhD; William S Beckett, MD; Brian P Leaderer, PhD, Association of Low -Level Ozone and Fine Particles With Respiratory Symptoms in Children With Asthma, Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003; 290:1859- t 867 http-J/jamaamaassn org/cgr/content/abstracr/290/14/1859. One happy commuter! Lea loves Disney`s monorail, but wishes that she had more transportation choices sooner. 24. Motor Vehicle Air Toxins Cause High Pollution Levels Inside Homes An air pollution study was done as a part of the West Oakland Diesel Truck Emissions Reduction Initiative. Researchers measured diesel particulates near mobile and idling trucks at the West Oakland Port, An aethalometer was used to measure indoor toxins and a high level of diesel particulates was found. The people who lived in these homes were exposed indoors to five times the level of diesel particulates that people were exposed to outdoors in other areas of Oakland. W Buchan, M,D.and M Chan Jackson; Container Truck Traffic Assessment and Potential Mitigation Measures for the West Oakland Diesel Truck Emission Reduction Initiative, from "Clearing the Air, Reducing Diesel Pollution in West Oakland," a Report to Pacific Institute, 654 l3th Street. Preservation Park, Oakland, California 94612, by I IAX LLC, 1601 S De Anza Blvd., Suite 100, Cuperuno,California 9S014,Noventber,2003 The following technical reports are online at http.//www.pacrnv orgg/d+ese!/ 1 TIAX Diesel Truck Study (TIAX, 2003) 2 West Oakland Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inventory and Air Quality Monitoring Study (Pacific Institute (PI, 2003) 3 Summary of Studies (PI, 2003) 4 Data Gap Analysis (PI, 2003) 12 Highway Health Hazards he following stories highlight transportation -related air pollution issues from around the country. As metropolitan areas continue to sprawl and traffic congestion worsens, communities are facing important long- term decisions about transportation. The Sierra Club believes that widening and building new highways is not only poor transportation policy but also threatens public health. We realize that there are transportation chal- lenges around the country, but we believe that rea- sonable, alternative solutions exist that expand transportation choices, reduce congestion, and help to dean our air. We have included stories from California, Illinois, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Washington, D.C.and Wisconsin, California Challenge. Existing air pollution laws m Southern California set the maximum emission limits for toxic pollution from individual facilities, hut cumu- lative emissions of toxic pollutants are not regulated. Highways are an important contributor to the cumu- lative emissions of toxic air pollutants in a given area but are currently not regulated as individual facilities. Solution. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is developing a plan that would entail new public notification requirements for schools and home builders and make the region- al air pollution control agency more prominent in land use decisions. One proposal for the plan would require developers of new schools, hospitals, day care centers, and home builders to provide notice to their patrons of toxic emissions wdthln 1,000 feet. The presence of any freeway, or potentially busy boulevard, within 1,000 feet could trigger the notice. "I don't think that they should build a school that lies along a freeway." said Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.'' Contact: Sam Atwood, South Coast Air Quality Management District, phone: 909-396-3687, email: satwood aagmd.gov. or Tim Frank (510) 710-4563, email: rim,frank@sierraclub.org. Illinois Challenge. the Illinois Department of Trans- portation is planning to expand the Eisenhower Expressway through Oak Park, The Illinois Tollway Authority has proposed building tollways; Route 53 into Lake County north of Chicago and I-355 in Will County south of Chicago. These highways and toll - ways will create hundreds of thousands of added truck and car trips near neighborhoods, schools,and parks. Families with small children could be put at risk, but are unaware of the health consequences of larger roadways near their homes, Sierra Club 2004 13 t, Children design alternative transportation options.Why won't the Bush administration put more money into clean buses and trains? Solution. The Illinois DOT and Tollway author- ity should examine the cancer, asthma, and other health impacts on Focal neighborhoods, schools and children and invest more in public transportation to reduce traffic and pollution risks. Contact: Nancy Wagner, Environmental Law and Policy Center, phone: (312) 795-3726; Jack Darin, Sierra Club, (312) 251-1680, jack.darirh@sierraciub.org. Nevada Challenge. Public health and environmental advocates in Las Vegas support widening U.S. 95 from six to ten lanes. A Sierra Club supported inde- pendent study concluded that widening U.S, 95 would cause up to 1,400 more cancers per one mil- lion people over 70 years or more than 1000 times the EPA goal of one -in -a -million cancer risk. The Sierra Club is suing to stop the project, because the Bush Administration failed to consider health conse- quences and alternatives to highway construction as required by law. Solution. When alternatives to the project are assessed it wilt quickly become evident that less pol- luting options exist, such as clean diesel buses and Tight rail. In order to avoid significant increases in cancer causing emissions from trucks and cars, more highway lanes should not be considered a reason- able option. For more information see USA Today article by John Ritter titled "Lawsuit Pits Risks and Roads" USA Today, Friday, March 7, 2003 at www.usatoday.corn/news /nation/2003-03-06-vegas-highway-usat_x.htm. Contact:Tara Smith, Sierra Club, phone: (702) 732-7750, email tara.srnith@sierrctrlub.org New Hampshire Challenge. the US. EPA Region 1's office has accused the state of New Hampshire of failing to prepare for the environmental impact of the rapid population boom that is expected to follow the widening of Interstate-93,the main commuter high- way connecting the state to Boston, Massachusetts. This is one of the highways that the Bush adminis- tration has fast tracked for approval, which may not leave enough time to study the health implications of widening Interstate-93. New Hampshire plans to spend $18 million to ease the environmental impacts of the highway project, but that is far too lit- tle to address a likely population boom in more than 20 New Hampshire communities that would tax existing services and threaten open spaces, drinking water supplies, and wildlife. Solution. Robert Varney, head of the EPA for New England, called for a total of $52 million to be allocated to environmental protections and threat- ened delays in the highway project if the environ- mental concerns weren't adequately addressed. The state is counting on federal highway dollars to cover 80 percent of the cost of the $350 million project, meaning the EPA has significant say in the highways future. The EPA should focus on alternative trans- portation plans, such as dean buses and a rail sys- tem, which[ would protect public health and the environment. in addition, environmental leaders are looking for mitigation and technical assistance to pro- tect towns bordering the highway and teach them how to protect themselves. Contact: Catherine Corkery, Sierra Club, phone: (603) 224-8222, email: catherine.corkery@sierro- club.org 14 Highway Health Hazards Ohio Cincinnati Challenge. In the fall of 2003, after a two-year long study of increasing gridlock on 1-75 in SW Ohio, one of the nation's most con- gested interstate highway sections, a committee representing local regional governments and the Ohio Department of Transportation (COOT) rec- ommended building passenger train service from downtown Cincinnati to the northern suburbs along 1-75. However, the committee's recommendation also included a plan to widen the highway by one or two lanes, despite clear evidence from an inde- pendent consultant that high frequency passen- ger trains in this area are the "only solution to the congestion problem." The study's own expert consultants predict that widening I-75 by one lane would result in a 30% increase in region -wide traffic by 2030, and at no time would widening by one lane improve traffic congestion levels above "failing" levels as meas- ured by ODOT, Furthermore, a cost -benefit study, conducted by HLB Decision Economics of Maryland and directed by a panel of economists and transportation experts from Cincinnati -area businesses, universi- ties, and governments, found that "the benefits from highway expansion would be concentrated in the early years of the life cycle of the project and that these benefits erode over the years," whereas "the light rail train benefits grow over the years because commuters would divert to transit as congestion worsens in the corridor." Analysis of the proposed train route projected more than 5900 million in net benefits over the next 30 years, with an 8.5 percent rate of return on the investment. The economic benefits of train service include time savings, affordable mobility, and a decrease in arr pollution, among other' benefits_ Solution. Throughout the study local repre- sentatives from the public interest, land use, and aca- demic communities advocated that the public FIGURE 3 Highway Health Hazards Exposed population (<400 m from a highway) Intermediate area (400-1600 m from a highway) Unexposed population (>1600 m from a highway) Houses, recruited for allergy tests. This map shows the extensive coverage of highways in the Cincinnati metropolitan area, and the areas of highest risk for cancer. New or expanded highways will only increase these cancer corridors and put more of the population at risk. Map courtesy LADCO. health, environmental, and land use impacts of the each alternative solution be thoroughly examined, One of the most promising solutions raised by sev- eral members of the committee is to combine sev- eral smart growth land use planning in coordination with the passenger train service. Unfortunately, the committee refused to include these critical factors in the study. Because Cincinnati has long struggled with poor air quality and the SW Ohio and Northern Kentucky area currently fads to meet federal smog and soot health standards, the proposed highway expansion is likely to have long-term, negative public health impacts. The Sierra Club strongly supports the passenger train solution and calls for smarter land use practices to support it.We also continue to push for a full eval- Sierra Club 2004 15 UTM Zone 15 West -East Distance (km) uation of the impact on sprawl and air quality of the proposed highway project. The Lake Michigan Air Directors are currently assessing the health impacts of highways in the Cincinnati area. Columbus Challenge. According to a report released by the Ohio Environmental Council, more than a quarter million people in central Ohio live in a diesel hot spot, or an area with chronically elevated levels of toxic air pollutants from diesel engine exhaust. The people living in these areas are at greater risk of suffering from a variety of adverse health effects including asthma, cancer, and even premature death. The hot spots include corridors surrounding all of the Interstate Routes 70, 71, 270, and 670; the U.S. Routes 23, 33, and 36; and portions of State Routes 13,16, 31, 37, 79,104,161, and 315. Solution. The report recommends both local and state actions to rectify the problem, At the local Montgomery ot-mil-2cot Li Fort Bend 220 740 760 7W1 ZOO 320 UTM Zone 15 South -North Distance rkmi 1) FIGURE 4 Particulate Matter Concentrations, Houston Metro Area Annual Average Ambient Concentrations of Diesel PM in Houston, 1996, based on Dispersion Modeling Using Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3) model. level, all school and public transit buses should be retrofitted and switch to ultra -low sulfur diesel fuel. In addition, all vehicles owned or contracted by local governments (i.e. garbage trucks, construction equipment and other city services) should also be retrofitted and powered by cleaner fuel. At the state level, assistance programs should be developed to help localities fund their retrofitting and fuel switch- ing agenda, the state can also mandate that all pri- vately -owned vehicles must retrofit and use ultra - low diesel fuel to reduce pollution. Contact: Glen Brand, Midwest Representative, Sierra Club, phone: (513) 861-4001, email: gien.brand@sierraclub.org. Kurt Walzer, Ohio Environmenal Council, phone: (614) 487-7506. Texas Challenge. The Houston area has been at the center of much debate over major freeway expansions, most notably the Katy Freeway and the Grand Parkway. The Katy Freeway traverses the City of Houston, serving over 200,000 vehicles a day. Local transportation officials plan to enlarge the highway to more than 18 lanes, greatly increasing the number of vehicles traveling through some of the more densely populated areas of the city and surrounding areas. The Grand Parkway is a proposed series of high- way segments that would constitute the fourth "loop" around Houston. Built through or near many small towns, it is considered critical for major hous- ing and commercial developments in the city's sub- urbs that would be built near the Grand Parkway path, soon after the highway's construction. Portions of Grand Parkway have recently been included in both the 1-69 and Trans -Texas Corridor (T-TC)'NAFTA"trade route, which would drastically increase international truck traffic to the region- T-TC is designed to be a road -rail -utility corridor 1 mile wide, Solution. The current highway expansion plans will hurt neighboring cities and towns but will do little in the long-term to alleviate congestion and urban 16 Highway Health Hazards lc. • sprawl. Instead of continuing to build new lanes that will induce further sprawl and increase the number of cars on the roads, the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should focus on safer and more reasonable alternatives. For the Katy Freeway, transit alternatives such as expanded rail system and more bus routes should be pursued. A coalition of residents affected by the Katy Freeway expansion project has called upon TXDOT to halt their old and ineffective plan, and adopt an alternative plan which will improve mobil- ity without harming the health and livelihood of cit- izens. Their alternative plan for the freeway calls for a combination of depressing the road, adding rail and a dense planting of trees to protect schools and residential areas from dangerous fine particulates in freeway pollution. For the Grand Parkway, resources should be allo- cated on a "fix it first"approach. Before constructing new freeways to serve a projected population that would not exist without this new road, resources should be focused to more needy projects, For example, a number of existing and poorly main- tained highways should be fixed and improved to avoid flooding and relieve unnecessary congestion for existing towns and neighborhoods near portions of the proposed route. Contact: Christine Sagstetter, Sierra Club, phone: (713) 725-9421. email:christine.sagstetter@sierrociub.org Utah Challenge. Utah's Salt Lake City metro- politan area runs along the base of the 10,000 ft. Wasatch Mountains. During winter months low lying, high-pressure inversions trap air pol- lution from automobiles directly at the level people breathe. This problem causes cases of childhood asthma and respiratory illnesses of the public. In January, 2004 Utah began anoth- er winter inversion, filling hospitals with respi- ratory victims. The state is asking people not to drive and prohibiting wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Exacerbating the problem, Utah is undertak- ing three highway expansions. The State of Utah Is preparing for another expansion of 1-15 to the north, pushing through court the first phase of a new 125-mile bypass freeway ironi- cally named the Legacy Highway, and begin- ning an Environmental Impact Statement process for a second phase of Legacy in west- ern Salt Lake County re -named for political and legal reasons, the Mountain View Corridor. Each of these projects facilitates massive sprawling development and increases auto- mobile dependency. Legacy Highway would also act as a trucking bypass route, which would significantly increase the pollution from trucks in the metropolitan area. Solution. Utah should postpone new road building and change their priority to building a regional transit system first. This could be accom- plished by expanding upon the very popular and Air pollution obscuring downtown Salt Lake City is hard on eyes and harmful to children's lungs. Sierra Club 2O04 17 successful two existing light rail lines and adding commuter train and bus rapid transit construction to the mix. A regional transit sys- tem would encourage smarter development patterns that would reduce automobile use and protect public health from air pollution related illnesses. Contact: Marc Heileson, Sierra Club. phone: (801) 467-9294 email: marc.heifeson@sierradub.org Washington D.C. Metro Area ICC Challenge. In 2002, the Maryland Legislature passed a res- olution urging that a five year old study concerning the inter -County Connector (ICC) be restarted_The new Governor, Robert Ehrlich, favors re -starting the study and building the highway as quickly as possible. The Sierra Club has raised the health issue to the Legislature, to public officials,and to the public in various materials. Pro -highway advocates say the ICC will improve air quality and health by getting cars traveling at higher speeds, and thus emitting less pollution, However, data pre- viously highlighted in this report would suggest otherwise. Solution. Instead of adding a highway extremely close to communities throughout much of Maryland, the state should instead examine ways to implement realistic alternative forms of transportation. A train system is the option that holds the most promise. Wilson Bridge Challenge. The fate of this project was formally decided in 1997. But since then the Sierra Club has urged Maryland and Virginia to choose train, rather than High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, for the bridge. The Sierra Club has stressed the air quality benefits from less traffic and more public transit. Solution. Instead of expanding the bridge to hold more cars, the state should instead add a lane for commuter train. Mary of the driv- ers who utilize the Wilson Bridge are commuters traveling to the fairly concentrated downtown of the District of Columbia. As a result, Metrorail would be an effective method for transporting rnany of these workers. Beltway Challenge. Virginia Department of Transportation issued a DEIS in 2002 which proposed widening the Beltway from eight lanes to ten or twelve lanes. Sierra Club organized against the proposal with the message that widening the Beltway would worsen air quality and hurt public health. The Beltway already passes in close proximity to many communities surrounding the DC area. Further expansion would undoubtedly worsen air pollution and put more people at risk of cancer and other adverse health effects. onsiderable scientific evidence links higher rates of asthma and other respiratory problems with freeway proximity. Residents who live near freeways would clearly benefit from lower, not higher traffic volumes." —DR. SETH FOLDY, FORMER CITY OF MILWAUKEE IIEALTII COMMISSIONER Solution. The Beltway does not have a subway line that mirrors its path around the city. Before any lane expansion should even be considered, people should be given the option of traveling around the perimeter of the city on public transit and particularly on a new Metrorail line. Contact: Chris Carney, Sierra Club Mid -Atlantic Office, phone: 703-312-0533, email: chris.can rey@sierradub.org Wisconsin S.E. Challenge. Southeast Wisconsin road builders and developers proposed a massive highway expansion project for Hwy 1-94 and Hwy 45. The impact of highway expansion will be the greatest in Milwaukee County, where numerous schools are with- in a mile of highways.Milwaukee County is also home to minorities and lower income residents in metropol- itan Milwaukee. The plan is to increase the number of lanes of 1-94 and I Iwy-45 from six lanes to eight lanes of traffic. This plan would increase air pollution, encourage augmented traffic flow, and will put at risk Wisconsin residents' ability to breathe clean air. 18 Highway Health Hazards ) Solution. Since highly traveled road corridors are becoming hazardous to our health, then one log- ical alternative would be to utilize transportation investments to slow the growth of vehicle miles trav- eled on our roadways.The best example of that is the transportation improvements in Portland, Oregon that considered land use and air quality issues during the planning process. Milwaukee is an area of non- compliance for ground -level ozone pollution, Portland is not. Madison Challenge. The City of Madison and WI DOT are reconstructing East Washington Avenue to ease the flow of traffic, now at 55,000 vehi- cles per day. This route runs near East High School and several grade schools. Pollution monitors show high levels of soot or particulate pollution already. Wisconsin DOT is also expanding the Verona Road interchange located near many neighborhoods. Solution. The DOT should assess the cancer and smog risks to these schools, and nearby neigh- borhoods, and consider alternatives like streetcars, commuter trains, and dean buses that can cut traffic and pollution risks. Contact: Brett Hulsey, Senior Midwest Rep- resentative, Sierra Club, phone: (608) 257- 4994, email: brett.hufsey@sierraclub.ory or Rosemary Wehnes, SE Wisconsin Organizer at (414) 453-3127, email: rosemorywehnes@sierroclub.org, Sierra Club 2004 19 Appendix �,•-� Resources and Local Information Endnotes 1 Dockery and Pope "Respiratory Effects of Particulate- Air Pollution" Annual Review of Public Health 1994, 15 07-132 2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2002 National Assessment, Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatality and Injury Estimates for 2002, hrrp//www ord.nhtso.dor.gov/pdffnrd-3Q/NCSA/Rpts/2003/Assess028f1r:pdf 3 American Lung Association "Trends in Air Quality" 2002 hrtpj/www.iungusa.arq/dara/aqp/AQl.pdf 4 American Lung Assoclatinn`s"Asthma in Chicken" fact sheet. March 2003, available at htrp.//www.lungusaorginsrhma/ascpedfac99.hrml 5 Pearson et al "Distance -weighted traffic density rn proximity Pearson et al "Dstance-weighted traffic den- sity in proximity to a home is a risk factor for leukemia and other childhood cancers."Journal of Air and Waste Management Associarrpn 2000, 50175-180 6 American Public Transportation Association "Historical Ridership Trends" htrp //www apro com/research/scats/ndershp/nderrndcfm 7 The following desrnptinn is based on the Bush administration's proposal for reauthorizing the federal transportation program. Information on the proposal, which the Bush administration calls "SAFETEA" (Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 5 1072), can be found at htrai/wwwfhwa.dorgov/reouthonzarran/sofetea.htm 8 CPA Development, Community, and Environmental Division 0t8O8) "Our Burr and Natural Environments A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality." Washington, DC 20160 EPA publication number 231-R-01-002, January 2001, p 8 Available at http-//www>rnor tgrowth.oty/pile/bufit etaviror'men Vchaprer2pdf 9 Ibid p 21. 10 Bureau ofTransportatinn Statistics "Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000 "wwwbts gov/pubhm nons/transporranon_ star'sncsannual _report/2000/ 11 American Farmland Trust "Study Shows Policies Drive Development Out of Atlanta," 1999 htrp.//www farmland org/news/01 J599.htm 12 Surface Transportation Policy Protect "Why Are the Roans So Congested: An Analysis of the Texas Transportation Instrtute's Data Gn Metropolitan Congestion"Washington, DC, November 7,1999 Available at hrtpi/transact.rracorg.corn/repnrt.aspAd=G3 13 bid 14 Friedman et al "Impact of transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma "Journal of the American Medical Assocration. 2001,285(7).897-905 15 Ibid. pp. 59-60 16 1000 Friends of Oregon (1998) "Making the and Use, Transportation, Air Quality Connection " Portland Oregon hftp.//wwwfrrends.org/resources/!ut nurshell.hrml 17 Thanks to the staff of the Environmental Law and Policy Center )ELPC) for Helping to compile many of these studies For more infra matron, see wwwelpc nrg 18 Kelley,William J "Califoinaa Air Agency to Protect Schools,riosprtals"Env ironmental News Service February 27,2003 hrtp /ens -newt tom/ens/feb2Ot73/'003-02 27-p nsp 20 Highway Health Hazards J\ p ,J ' I1 r l J ;(.. f)".*LJI'r7) 1s1ri Jr�1� wwwsierraclub.org/sprawl is a comprehensive website with information on cutting traffic and air pollution Statistics on pedestrian safety, congestion, federal transportation spending, and household transportation expenditures can be found for each state and some smaller regions at: http:/ltransact.iracor p,com/states✓defauIt.asp Maps of local cancer -causing pollution can be found at:http.//www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/ To find local traffic or VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled), check your local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or find regional statistics on congestion, travel delay, fuel consumption and congestion cost at: http.//mobility.ramu.edu/ums/mobrlity_data/ Information on public transit spending, smog, and investment in transportation choices for our 50 largest cities can be found at: www.siierraclub.org/sprawl/report0I/charts.asp. Information on hazardous air pollution in your area can be found at the Environmental Defense website: http://wwwscorecard.org/env-releases/hap/ The 'State of the Air" report, released by the American Lung Association can be found at: http://lungac- tionorg/reportilstateofthealr2003.html Sierra Club 2004 21 S I E KRA LU 8S Second Street, Second Floor • San Francisco, CA 94105 • (415) 977 408 C Street NE • Washington, DC 20002 • (202)547-1141 www.sJerraclub.org Explore, enjoy and protect the planet Freeways are a Public Health Hazard 1, Studies show that the zone of increased pollution along a freeway corridor (compared to community wide concentrations) is approximately two miles wide. 2. People who live, work or travel within 165 feet downwind of a major freeway are exposed to the most dangerous part of air pollution, ultrafine particulate matter, at concentrations 25-30 times higher than the rest of the community. 3. For people who live near a freeway, the concentration of freeway generated pollution inside their homes is about 70% as high as outdoor air along the freeway corridor. For an average home, the indoor air exchanges completely with outdoor air every two hours. People living near a freeway are unquestionably breathing more pollution. 4. Wasatch Front air pollution is already a serious public health hazard. Our air pollution is sometimes the worst in the nation and typically we rank in the top ten worst cities in the country for acute spikes in air pollution. All of the health consequences of air pollution are found at even higher rates among people who live near freeways or other high traffic locations, including heart and lung diseases, strokes, shortened life spans, higher mortality rates, poor pregnancy outcomes, multiple types of cancer and even autism. Freeways are literally cancer and autism corridors. Thousands of studies confirm the health threat of freeway pollution. Below is a small samples of those studies. The rate of progression of hardening of the arteries, the cause of strokes, heart. attacks and generalized aging, is double for those living within 100 meters of a freeway. Kunzli N, Jerrett M, Garcia -Esteban R, Basagaila X, Beckermann B, et al (2010) Ambient Air Pollution and the Progression of Atherosclerosis in Adults. PLoS ONE 5(2) e9096. doi 10.1371 / journal.pone.0009096 Children who live within 500 meters of a major highway are not only more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory diseases, but their lung development may also be stunted permanently. Gauderman WJ, et al. "Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age a cohort study," The Lancet, Volume 368, February 2007. Living within 1,000 ft of a freeway doubles the risk of a child being born with autism. Volk HE, Hertz-Picciotto 1, Delwiche L, Lurmann F, McConnell R. Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):873-7 doi 10.1289/ehp.1002835. Epub 2010 Dec 13 Children growing up with more traffic pollution have significantly lower lOs and impaired memory. Suglia SF, et al. Association of Black Carbon with Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study Am J Epidemiology 2008 167:280-286 Pregnant mothers exposed to more air pollution, give birth to children with lower intelligence, and behavioral and attention deficit disorders, even if the children breathe clean air themselves. Frederica P. Perera, Deliang Tang, Shuang Wang, Julia Vishnevetsky, Bingzhi Zhang, Diurka Diaz, David Camann, Virginia Rauh, Prenatal Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Child Behavior at age 6-7. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012; DOI: 10 1289/ehp. 1104315 Edwards SC, Jedrychowski W, Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A. Mroz E, et al. 2010. Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Children's Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort Study in Poland. Environ Health Perspect :-. doi:10.1289/ehp.0901070 Pregnant women who lived close to high -traffic roadways during pregnancy were more likely to give birth prematurely or have a low -weight baby, putting the child at risk for multiple, life long chronic diseases Laurent 0, Wu J, Li L, Chung J, Bartell 5. Investigating the association between birth weight and complementary air pollution metrics: a cohort study. Environ Health. 2013 Feb 17;12(1):18. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-18. Wilhelm M, et al, Traffic -Related Air Toxics and Term Low Birth Weight in Los Angeles County, California. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 January; 120(1): 132-138. Published online 2011 August 11. doi: 10.1289/ ehp.1103408 Living within 100 meters of a freeway increases the risk of childhood leukemia 370%, living within 300 meters increases the risk 100%. Amigou A, et al. "Road traffic and childhood leukemia: The ESCALE study (SFCE) authors" Environ Health Pers 2010 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1002429. Pregnant mother breathing higher rates of air pollution give birth to children who have higher rates of several types of rare childhood cancers. Prenatal air pollution associated higher rates of retinoblastomas, ALL, and germ cell tumors. http:/I www.aacr.org/home/public—media/aacr-in-the-news.aspx?d=3062 Women exposed to more traffic -related air pollution have higher rates of breast cancer and decreased survival if they get breast cancer. Background Wasatch Front levels correlate with an increase of about 125%, living near a freeway increases that much more. Crouse DL, Goldberg MS, Ross NA, Chen H, Labreche F 2010_ Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Is Associated with Exposure to Traffic -Related Air Pollution in Montreal, Canada: A Case —Control Study. Environ Health Perspect 118.1578-1583. doi.10.1289/ehp.1002221 Chronic exposure to traffic air pollution increases the risk of lung cancer. Raaschou-Nielsen 0, Andersen Z, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Loft S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Lung Cancer Incidence and Long -Term Exposure to Air Pollution from Traffic, Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead of print] High traffic air pollution exposure more than doubles the rate of cervical and brain cancer, and increases the risk of prostate cancer and stomach cancer Raaschou-Nielsen 0, Andersen ZJ, Hvidberg M, Jensen SS, Ketzel M, Sorensen M, Hansen J, Lott S, Overvad K, Tjonneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence: a Danish cohort study. Environ Health. 2011 Jul 19;10:67. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-67. Parent ME, Goldberg MS, Crouse DL, Ross NA, Chen H, Valois MF, Liautaud A. Traffic -related air pollution and prostate cancer risk: a case -control study in Montreal, Canada. Occup Environ Med. 2013 Mar 26, [Epub ahead of print] People exposed to more traffic related air pollution have more DNA damage, a trigger for multiple chronic diseases including cancer. Huang HE, Lai CH, Chen GW, Lin YY, Jaakkola JJ, Liou SH, Wang SL. Traffic -related air pollution and DNA damage: a longitudinal study in Taiwanese traffic conductors. PLoS One 2012;7(5):e37412. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone,0037412. Epub 2012 May 21. Traffic related air pollution shortens telomeres (a critical part of chromosomes). Shortened telomeres are highly correlated with reduced life expectancy McCracken J, Baccarelli A, Hoxha M, Dioni L, Melly S, Coull B, Suh H, Vokonas P, Schwartz J. Annual ambient black carbon associated with shorter telomeres in elderly men: Veterans Affairs Normative Aging Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Nov;118(11):1564-70. Residential proximity to major roadways is associated with decreased kidney function. Lue S, Wellenius G, Wilker E, Mostofsky E, Mittleman M. Residential proximity to major roadways and renal function. J Epidemiol Community Health Published Online First: 13 May 2013 doi:10.11361 jech-2012-202307 Long term exposure to traffic -related air pollution is associated with insulin resistance in children and type II diabetes in adults Thiering E, Cyrys J, Kratzsch J. Meisinger C, Hoffmann B, Berdel D. von Berg A, Koletzko S, Bauer CP, Heinrich J. Long-term exposure to traffic -related air pollution and insulin resistance in children: results from the GlNlplus and LISApIus birth cohorts Diabetologia, DOI 10.1007/s00125-013-2925-x Chen H, Burnett RT, Kwong JC, Villeneuve PJ, Goldberg MS, Brook RD, van Donkelaar A, Jerrett M, Martin RV, Brook JR, Copes R. Risk of Incident Diabetes in Relation to Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter in Ontario, Canada, Environ Health Perspect ():.doi.10.1289fehp.1205958 Liu C. Ying Z, Harkema J. Sun Q, Rajagopalan S. Epidemiological and Experimental Links between Air Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes. Toxicoi Pathol. 2012 Oct 26 [Epub ahead of print] Compiled by the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment The Southern California Particle Center and Supersite (SCPCS) seeks to explore health and exposure issues related to mobile source pollution. With funding from the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board, investigators at the SCPCS work to better understand why airborne particulate matter emitted from cars and trucks causes adverse health outcomes. As part of our research, we have taken measurements on and near major freeways in Los Angeles in an effort to characterize the particles found there. These and other scientific studies have sparked media attention and community interest, generating many questions regarding where to buy property and whether health is affected by living in a particular location. It is impossible for us to answer individual questions about potential risks in specific locations. We can, however, offer some general guidance on what is currently known about exposure to pollution and the related health effects of living near busy roads and freeways. Numerous studies have linked traffic -related air pollution with respiratory problems such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. Studies have found decreased lung function, increased hospital visits for people with respiratory diseases, increased absenteeism from work and school, and increased morbidity (illnesses) and mortality (deaths) associated with exposure to particulate matter. All of these effects were observed at levels common in many U.S_ cities. (Pope) New studies show that long-term exposure to particulate matter has also been linked to increased illness and death rates from cardiovascular (heart -related) disease, and that sudden increases in air pollution may even cause more heart -related illnesses and deaths than is seen from lung disease. (Pope; Johnson) Some particles in air pollution, given their tiny size, are able to pass through the cellular tissue in die lungs and enter the circulation system. Their presence in the lungs may also induce a series of events that ultimately affect the heart_ (Utell) Of growing concern to the general public is whether living near a freeway is detrimental to health. The closer people are to the source of traffic emissions, the higher their exposure is to many of the constituents of exhaust. Compelling evidence suggests that people living, working and going to school near roads with heavy traffic may have an increased risk of adverse health effects associated with exposure to mobile source pollution. These "traffic density" studies have observed development and increased aggravation of asthma (Monin6mery), decreased lung function in children (Brunekreef), and low birth weight and premature births for mothers living near major roadways (Ritz). Taking this research into consideration, it is easy to see why new homebuyers are concerned with how close property is to a busy road or freeway. Unfortunately scientists cannot say exactly how close is "too close" at this point. European studies have shown increased respiratory health problems in children who live or go to school within 100 meters (-330 feet) of a busy roadway, with the greatest risks appearing in the first 50 meters (--165 feet). Studies conducted by SCPCS investigators here in LA show that carbon monoxide and ultrafine particles — the smallest portion of particulate matter emissions and potentially the most toxic — are extremely high on or near the freeway, dropping to about half that concentration 50-90 meters (-165-295 feet) from the freeway. After about 300 meters (--99'0 feet) the concentration of particulate matter reaches the "ambient" level — the normal level in the air without the influence of any nearby sources. In 2003 the California state legislature enacted a law that new schools must be built at least 500 feet from very busy roadways. Besides the actual distance from a roadway, there are a number of additional factors that influence exposure to mobile source pollution when at home: D Weather - temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed all affect the concentration of pollution; D Placement of the house - is it upwind or downwind of the major roadway? That is, does the wind blow pollutants from the cars and trucks toward the property? D Construction/design of the house — older houses may have greater air exchange between indoors and outdoors with more outside air getting inside and therefore potentially increasing exposure to pollutants; D Type of filtration system installed in the home - few homes have HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filters, but they have been shown to remove significant amounts of the particulate matter from the air. There are also a number of personal factors to consider when determining what your personal exposure may be, such as: i► Will 1 be at home during peak traffic times? > Will I spend much time outdoors during these times? D Will I open my windows or will I use central heating and cooling? D How much time do I spend on the freeway? [On -road studies are currently being conducted which may show that if you have a considerable commute, the exposure you receive during your time on the freeway may well overshadow your level of exposure at home.] Other resources for questions on partiele measurements and possible health effects: South Coast Air Quality Management District http://www.agmd.gov/ General phone number (800) CUT -SMOG (800-288-7664) California Air Resources Board htip://www.arb.ca.gov/ Community Health / Environmental Justice Section — (866) 397-5462 Air Pollution and Respiratory Health, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC http://www.cdc.gov/ncel>lairpollution/default.htm U.S. EPA — Air http://www.epa.goviebtpages/air.html For more detailed information about the topics presented above, please reference the following citations. Green RS, Smorodinsky S, Kim JJ, McLaughlin R, Ostro B. (2004) Proximity of California Public Schools to Busy Roads. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (1): 61-66. Pope CA III, Bates DV, Raizenne ME. (1995) Health Effects of Particulate Air Pollution: Time for Reassessment? Environmental Health Perspectives, 103 (5) Asthma — acute exacerbation and possible onset Delfino RJ. (2003) Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Taxies: Linkages between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110 (Sup 4): 573-589. McConnell R, Berhane K. Gilliland FD, London SJ, Vora H, Avol E. (1999) Air Pollution and Bronchitic Symptoms in Southern California Children with Asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives 107(9):757-760 Montnemery P, Bengtsson P, Elliot A, Lindholm L-H, Nyberg P, Lofdahl C-G. (2000) Prevalence of obstructive lung diseases and respiratory symptoms in relation to living enviromnenl and socio-economic group. Respiratory Medicine, 95: 744-752 Cardiovascular effects Dockery, DW. (2001) Epidemiologic Evidence of Cardiovascular Effects of Particulate Air Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl 4): 483-486. Johnson, RL. (2004) Relative Effects of Air Pollution an Lungs and Hearts. Circulation, 109:5-7. Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thurston GD, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Godleski H. (2004) Cardiovascular Mortality and Long -Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution. Circulation, 109:71-77. Utell MJ, Frampton MW. (2000) Acute Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution: the Ultrafine Particle Hypothesis. Journal of Aerosol Medicine, 13(4): 355-59. T ECENED JUN 3 0 2016 ► iAvOR a TOWN COUNCIL Los Gatos Town Council 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ladies and Gentlemen: Bruce A. MacNaughton Post Office Box 1227 Los Gatos, CA 95031-1227 June 27, 2016 T 408-356-3746 F 408-356-3769 brucearnacnaughton@gmail.com With the traffic disaster in all of Los Gatos this past weekend, I would strongly suggest that the Town Council find a solution to the Highway 17 traffic problem before contributing to the problem by approving more high density housing in town. Personally, I would like Los Gatos to retain its small town feel. There is really no reason to add more retail space when there is so much retail space currently vacant. I believe that new retail space should only be approved when there is a demonstrated need for it. The feel of the current downtown area with its park, post office, activities, etc. would be diluted if another major retail area were approved. Another aspect is that if there is limited retail space, the more desirable lessees will end up renting the available retail space The problems that accompany growth are not always desirable or worthwhile. Respectfully, cc: Mayor Barbara Spector Vice Mayor Marico Sayoc Council Member Marcia Jensen Council Member Steven Leonardis Council Member Rob Rennie From: Debora james [mailto:deborazurn nyahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:57 AM To: Clerk; Joel Paulson Cc: Bill Zurn; Debora Zurn Subject: Letter to council Dear Mayor Spector, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, In our many years as a resident of the Town, we have never seen such interest in a project as the North 40 property. Nor have we had any interest in submitting a letter to Council on a project - we trust my local government to do the right thing. All this attention makes sense...this is a really big piece of property on the gateway to the Town. That said, it is also on the border of the 10th largest city in the United States. Los Gatos is working hard to keep its "small-town charm" .... all as the 10th largest city in the US literally looks down on it from the new Cancer Center on Los Gatos Boulevard. We live in the middle of Silicon Valley. Small town charm must also be balanced with "growing up" in the Valley, not being completely left behind as others reinvent themselves to be competitive and draw tax dollars. Our Downtown is cherished and will always be a huge attraction, locally and regionally, due to the gorgeous foot -of -the -mountain setting and eclectic charm. We've heard all the arguments for and against the development. The opposition? The property owner just wants to make money, these out-of-town developer(s) don't care and are only in it for profit, the density and intensity are through the roof, and as a result of this development our view of the mountains will be blocked, the schools will suffer, the downtown will crumble, and the traffic will be paralyzed on Los Gatos Boulevard. Never have we seen one project be responsible for so much demise in our glorious town's future. Then there are the developer arguments: We need affordable housing. We are designing towards millennials. Student generation will be low, and yet an additional contribution to the schools has been inked. And, the State Housing Requirements will be met. Los Gatos and the surrounding area is retail/restaurant starved and desperately needs the services. Traffic will improve in key corridors. Never have we seen one project be responsible for so much good in our glorious town's future. What we residents would like you to consider are the following questions: Does the property have a right to be developed? YES. Has there been due process to determine what can be built on the property? YES. Is the application compliant with the Town's very own Specific Plan and Environmental Documents, which were just approved in 2015 (after we think about twenty plus years of review)? YES. Are the developers going above and beyond any actual Town or School District required mitigations (which seems pretty rare these days)? YES. Does the property owner have the right to sell and/or develop their land? YES. Do we have to like it? NO. But WILL we like it? Now that, that has yet to be determined. Because for all the people ranting on social media about how they will NEVER go to the market hall, we bet that once it is filled with cool products, flowers, and produce, we residents will find ourselves there, or enjoying the parks that the developer keeps talking about (and believe will pay for maintenance of) and walking through the new neighborhood where our new fellow Los Gatans will live...we bet we won't HATE it, in fact, many of us may downright LIKE it. Sure, it isn't an orchard anymore. But if you were walking on the orchard the last 60+ years...well, you were likely trespassing. And, of course, it is quite likely that your home and our very own downtown used to be on an orchard too. We implore our Planning Commission and Council to vote not based out of fear or the loudest voices, but to vote based on the policies in front of you, and for the many residents who have positive things to say but have been bullied out of the process by a group of individuals who will never be happy, irrespective of what is proposed. After weighing the good with the bad, the propaganda against propaganda, and looking into a crystal ball (of which we, nor anyone else in the Town is privy to), we would like to support the application, and hope that all the noise does not drown out proper process, quality use and design, and policy compliance. Sincerely, Bill and Debora Zurn Summit Rd. This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: John Shepardson [mail tsheparckonIaw(r me.com] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 7:35 PM To: Council Subject: N.40 Traffic: Highway 17 Traffic Increasing// Dell Avenue (112 acres of dense development//Good Sam Massive Overhaul and Perhaps Two 6-7 Story Buildings//Netflix Building Out//Cambrian Park//Stanford Traffic Management Program) What is the priority? Traffic? Schools? Downtown? Small town character? http:/'www,dot.cat.gov/distO5rplanning/sysplan does/tcr_fttctsheetcombo/ser_srI7tcris.pdi' 5,200 PkHr I� 1IGranite Creek Road PM 5 453 7.000 PkHt 5,700 AADT )isrardte Creek Road PM 5 453 I 0 0.5 1 Miles y .l,CRfJZ Santa CruclSanta Clara Couiity Line to -- Granite,Creak'Road,, - .. f State Route 17 Segment 2 Base Year 2013 SANTA CLARA COUNTY I Santa CruziSanta Clara l County Line PM 12.553 Horizon Year 2040 SANTA ;rs.1 CLARA COUNTY Santa Cruz/Santa Clara, County Line PM 12.553 Control Count Stations Profile Count Stations Low Congestion (WC c 0.74) - Moderate Congestion (0.74 <= VtC s= 0 90) High Congestion (0.90 = VIC 1.0) Demand Equals or Exceeds Capacity (VIC a, 1.0) CONCLt1SION In preparing this report, Caltrans has used traffic forecasts to determine the future levels of service on Route 17. Based on these forecasts and a qualitative analysis of alternatives, Caltrans identified concept levels of service for the route as well as recommended actions for maintaining acceptable operations. The land use patterns and development adjacent to the state facility have a substantial impact on LOS. Most alternative transportation modes and the land use changes are in the hands of the local agencies and are therefore up to them to implement and monitor. Caltrans District 5 will continue to work with regional and local agencies in planning and programming transportation projects to meet demand for safe and efficient travel through the Route 17 corridor. Additionally, in the interest of preserving the safety and operational integrity of the State Highway, the District's Development Review (IGR)/California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) program will continue to work with local agencies to identify and. evaluate transportation issues at an early stage of planning for new development. htlp:.....;www.ei.campbell.ca.us1492/Dell-Avenue-Area-PlanBegin forwarded message _i) - Nap r , Proposed VT,A Light ilmt Extens„.14% , I / •"'Proposed Hamada Awe VTA Ughl • f Rail Station 46. / hup:;.www.biziournals.com/satijose.print-edition.,20 1 6/04/22:gpod-samaritan-hospital-s-blueprint-for-health.html Good Samaritan Hospital's blueprint for health h t/t....drs up tor lacility upgDilcs, 10,.vers San Jose's Good Samaritan Hospital is preparing fora massi• ve overhaul that it expects to begin this summer — first moving ahead with plans to expand its emergency departtnent, and then upgrading labs and budding new operating rooms. (emphasis added) Enlarge r: r (i . ,o in Sari ;,. 4. It's also thinking further ahead. envisioning two entirely new six- or seven -floor towers on its San Jose campus before 2030. These will replace the hospital's existing seven -floor tower for housing patients. and the existing tower will then be converted to hospital office space. (emphasis added) hjj •9 a. m .icurc 1e.0Iip lbSAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY om.an ' Profil etive Pro'ect: Stabilized Pro'ect.• ast Pro'ect: ndustiial ro'ect Locations Active Projects THE GROVE, LOS GATOS rllrltict .00 Intp 'losatos,uranicus.coni MewV ewer,php''view id 1349&nleta inc:f+_li;Ililtp1i4 tT'!ib':"'V 11_10,2 .III. �a ,P.1<IA ,l#lo.et,lant,l„ `i;v 9 cl,tal ,,.� 1 �rrC- 1.r1 _�r�r1�,4ai tlat ith�� nl+„rf SAN JOSE CAPITAL OF SILICIH VALLEY Property Development Data Sheet Cambrian Park Plaza Shopping Center 14900 Camden Avenue, San Jose, CA Urban Village Data Acreage: 90 Location: See map on next page Planned Job Growth: 3,500 jobs Planned Housing Growth: 1,000 units Site Redevelopment Information Redevelopment of this site will require the following: Prezoning to the conforming CG Commercial General Zoning District or a PD Planned Development District. Annexation from the County of Santa Clara into the City of San Jose. The site is located within the Camden /Hillsdale Urban Village. Prior to the completion of an Urban Village Plan, the site can be developed consistent with the CG Commercial General Zoning District residential uses would not be permitted). Alternatively, the site can be developed as a mixed use residential " Signature Project," which may proceed within Urban Village areas in advance of the preparation of an Urban Village Plan through the " Signature Project" process. A " Signature Project" is defined in the San Jose 2040 General Plan under Implementation Policy IP- 5.10.Seethe next page for "Signature Project" development criteria. Camden /Hillsdale Urban Village Boundary Map 0 1.000 A 2.00F0eet Quoting frornhttu:/w/ w4-44.olercuiy ev,-,,coinrsar.Jose-neighborhoods=ci 25810813/residents-worry-carnbrian- Residents worry Cambrian center will be a new Santana Row By Carol Rosen Correspondent POSTE, nS 11l 12n i 4 Iqt ❑},S$PM PDTO COMMENTS Many Cambrian residents are unhappy about potential development at Cambrian Park Plaza. More than 70 people attended a Cambrian community council meeting May 12 to voice their misgivings about potentially larger buildings, fancy shops, residences and traffic congestion at the corner of Union and Camden avenues. At the meeting, Councilman Don Rocha, planning director Harry Freitas and planner Lesley Xavier explained what could happen with the 17-acre site, which came up for sale earlier this year. So far it has not been sold. A call to broker Jim Roessler from the Roessler Investment Group was not returned, but some potential buyers at the meeting suggested the sale could happen sooner rather than later. However, the process is likely to take a while. Before any new development starts, the city has to annex the land from the county. Once it's annexed, the Local Agency Formation Commission has to approve the annexation.LAFCOoverseestheboundariesofcitiesandspecialdistricts_ The next step is taking the proposal to the planning department, possibly the planning commission, and then to the city council. These steps could delay any permitting because the space has been designated as part of a potential urban village. Urban villages are included in the city's 2040 Envision Plan, which the council approved two years ago. These entities are part of a strategy to encourage more business, adding residential units above retail and commercial spaces. They are designed to improve city revenues, provide mass transportation and step up pedestrian and bike traffic to connect neighborhoods. One of the designated areas would include the 17 acres of Cambrian Park Plaza. The villages are planned in phases called "horizons." The Cambrian area is in the third horizon, with planning discussions scheduled sometime within the next eight years, although it could happen sooner. Most urban villages contain buildings with four or more stories, and also appear to be contained within particular boundaries. Housing units will require parking garages. The areas are supposed to be self— contained with restaurants, grocery stores, activities and events. If potential developers want to build an urban village prior to the city's adopting it, they can call it a signatureproperty,which isconsistent with thecity's use designation,according to Xavier. However, residents are objecting to the tall buildings and don't want to see expensive retail shops. They are concerned the project will turn the Cambrian shopping center into a Santana Row -type mall, further congesting Union and Camden avenues. Strip malls and other centers already exist on these streets, which residents said often make it hard to get to their homes, especially during rush hour. Another concern was that only 1.8 acres of open space would be allowed within the 17 acres, even though the city requires 3.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 people. Residents also want to see the results of studies for traffic and environmental impact. Mike Walsh, a senior vice president of construction and development at Simeon, said his firm had given a proposal to the sellers. He added that his company would revitalize and reconstruct the center. Freitas asked residents for their comments and concerns, but stressed there are no current plans for any construction. Rocha added that it's important to have residents' outreach so that their concerns can be shared with the planning department. http:/W/w W •e1•c'amphtll.ca.us /492/Dell-Avenue-Area-Plan WAA POWERPOINT http://%“n.mercury news.eom/business/ci 29829477/hav-area-traffic-ignites-hacklash- against-boom-new Bay Area traffic ignites backlash against boom, new poll suggests b'yGeorge ,Iualos, zavalos(abeivur anc«.sgruig,com htening, rush hour on Interstate 280, Feb. 10, 20.1 n, wetit of downtown San Jose, Calif. Marl Mondonll3ay Area News iruup) RELATED STORIES s 'bt;t% 3: (.r4.,t !n4 peasirnisrn Ara eioaurmv'. poll find,. • !'11a) 2: t )ne-ihmt of 13* Arc., u rc•Adent> hope tr" Icnae st a,. poll find:, 'w 29. 11,W 13•: •lira lrustratinn" spot% or 2!�: t3> \ ,. ie idents wary or tsi:w hewing diveiopmenl "'Beat L.A.'" is a familiar refrain in Bay Area sports, but it now appears Northern California is on its way to beinag a rival for Southern California in an unwelcome fashion: traffic jams. Residents in the Bay Area have become discouraged about the heavy traffic in the region. with a dramatically expanding number of them indicating that traffic is worse than a year ago amid a huge surge itt the local economy, a new poll released Friday by the Bay Area Council suggests. "13ay Area residents are frustrated about traffic," said Ruth Bernstein, senior principal with EMC Research, a turn that conducts market and opinion research. "It's harder for them to get around. We definitely are seeing a backlash against the economic boom." Yet the traffic itself is but a symptom of what is going on rather than a cause, said Christopher Thornberg, principal executive with Beacon Economics. "Traffic is a sign ofgrowth. it is not an impediment to growth," Thornberg said. "When you know the traffic is bad from point A to point B, you move away from point A in order to get to work at point B. You make sonic sacrifices in your lifestyle.'" Still, residents in the Bay Area appear to have become somewhat despondent about their transportation and traffic futures, according to the poll of 1.000 residents of the region. An estimated 83 percent of people in the Bay Area believe that traffic will not improve in the crowded nine -county region over the foreseeable future, the poll found. "It's harder to get around, and it is harder to find transportation access and also access to housing," Bernstein said. An estimated 54 percent of the respondents believe it is more difficult to get around the Bay Area than it was a year ago. the poll determined. That's up sharply from the 37 percent who felt that way in 2015 and more than double the 25 percent with that assessment in 2014. "For a lot of our whining, C have a fairly functional traffic system in the Bay Area," Thornherg said. "We are getting around. And now we have apps and phones and devices to help us. We just plan ahead more." In a reflection of the remarkable job boom in Silicon Valley, residents of Santa Clara County were found to be the most likely to say that traffic is worse than a year ago. The poll found that for 62 percent of Santa Clara County residents it is more difficult to travel around the Bay Area than a year ago. Residents of the North Bay were No. 2 in perceiving traffic woes, with 55 percent saying it is more difficult to get around. Residents in the highest -income brackets and people who drive alone were the most likely to say that traffic is getting worse in the Bay Area, the poll discovered. V W Heat map shows areas IN here poll respondents reported experiencing the nnost "traffic frustration" (Bay Area Council) About 60 percent of those who drive alone or never use mass transit said it is more difficult to get around the Bay Area, And 64 percent of people with household incomes of$125.000 or more said it is more difficult to get around. More people are driving by themselves. An estimated 79 percent of respondents are driving in a car alone, up from 74 percent a year ago. As for mass transit. 17 percent are taking buses or light rail, up from 16 percent in 2015: and 15 percent use BART, up from 14 percent a year ago. The poll measured modes of transportation used at least two or three Iirnes a week for any purpose, so it's possible for the combined results to exceed 1 00 percent. f n rr reflection of the rise of the Uber and Lyft technologies, 6 percent are using those ride -booking apps, up froth t percent a year ago. The No. 2 most popular way to get around: walking, favored by 41 percent of the respondents. "We're running out of adjectives to describe how bad Bay Area traffic is and the misery it's causing," said Jim Wundernran. president and CEO of the I3ay Area Council. "We understand residents' aggravation '. its traffic, but we're not giving up on the problem." Contact George Avalos at 408-859-5167. Follow him at Twitter.corngeorgeaval4)s. http:l/www.niercurvnews.cam/bay-area-news/ci 28416215/crashes-hii2hwa%-17-at-highest-lesel- decade Crashes on Highway 17 at highest level in a decade 13t. (ran. Riclurrd., With Fourth ofJuly around the corner and I lighway 17 a popular serpentine route for drivers heading to Central Coast beaches for the holiday, a warning is in order. Crashes on the stretch of from Los Gatos to Santa Cruz have reached their highest level in nearly a decade since safety officials began one of the most intensive and successful campaigns statewide to curb the carnage on the lour -lane highway. llthough state traffic officials have no firm data. they blame distracted driving for the uptick in collisions in 2014. They often see drivers textin!u, using smartphones to read email and tinkering with navigation systems while heisting through tight curves just feet away from scenic Redwood trees. absolutely agree." said motorcyclist Matt Petty, of Scotts Valley. "I see lots of people still on their phones while 1 split lanes. Lots? Make that a ton of people." I�rila_ tanlord.edu/groupipcecrcgi-linldocs/events,/2014/,Ramses-presentation.pdf Stanford Transportation Demand Management: Current and Future Sustainable Transportation Spring Seminar Series May 30th Ramses Madou Transportation Program Developer & Planner STANFORD UNIVERSITY P&TS Parking & Transportation Services Metrics: Parking Construction Avoided Group Drivers Employees Grad Students Postdocs Drive alone rates 2002 = 72.0% 2014 = 49.4% 2003 = 50.5% 2014 = 39.3% Estimated Delta in 3,022 539 2003=46%2014=33.5% 249 Parking spaces not constructed due to drop in parking demand 3,809 Construction cost avoided: 3,809 x $40,000/space = $152,372,120 John Shepardson July 5, 2016 To the Town My wife and I have lived in Los Gatos for over 40 years and raised our children here, Our kids went to the local schools. We enjoy the small town friendliness and a multitude of local activities and social life, in addition to the music events, proximity of restaurants, the library, and many businesses. I have been a member of several organizations including the chamber of commerce. I have owned and managed businesses in town. I have been active in town politics and have designed and built several commercial and residential properties in the area. I am a firm believer that Grosvenor, Eden Housing and Summerhiil Homes, the companies that represent the project we all know as the North Forty, have worked with our Town residents with patience and class. This project, which I have been following closely, has been vetted literally for decades. It is now time to move forward. The plan is well within the Town's guidelines, with less than half the residential units shown in the Town's general plan and fits the height and density for the area. The developers are proposing 320 units, which is not the maximum homes allowable, and will provide for seniors and low-income alike. It will also help us fulfill a strong part of the Housing Element mandated by law and I am very impressed by the voluntary agreement made with the school district - something I have never seen done before in or outside of Los Gatos. There has been too much misguided information about this project. The owners of the property have been waiting for the Town for nearly 40 years to move forward with their lives and developing their own property. It is time to allow the owners to move forward and make a great, quality, thoughtful project come to our great, quality and thoughtful Town. Sincerely, Dennis Byron 455 San Benito Ave. Los Gatos From: Michelle Fisk [mailto:mfisk1996@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:31 PM To: Joel Paulson; Clerk Cc: Council Subject: Letter to Town for North 40 Joel Paulson (Town of Los Gatos's Community Development Director), Please include this letter in the upcoming Planning Commission and Council packages: Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, We are writing today to support the North 40 application. It is probably less common to get a letter of support, but as residents of the Town of Los Gatos, we are encouraged by not only the process that has occurred (just going to the Town website and looking at all the meetings and documentation makes our heads spin!), but by the actual proposal itself. We have seen a lot of applications come through this Town, some approved, some denied, and the North 40 represents not only a very transparent process but also one that has involved a lot of thought and consideration on what is best for this very special piece of property. Now an application is before you, and we know there is a lot of grumbling going on. There is also excitement amongst many residents, because there is an opportunity for something really great (which is what the Town of Los Gatos is all about) and unique. How nice it will be to have additional places in Town for people to meet up! There are some people who don't want any change, ever, for our community. But Los Gatos also has residents who are excited for something new (and of course high quality) on the north side of town. We hear the concerns about height and blocked views...but we drive southbound on 17 every day and are quite certain we can still see the hillsides beyond the orange mesh. The story poles themselves actually proved to us that the hills will not be blocked, and for this we are really thankful for past decisions that kept the buildings shorter and our beautiful hills as the backdrop. Finally, it is about time that a developer comes in with something that isn't all craftsman or Spanish style architecture. There is definitely not a lack of these styles throughout Town (although last we checked Los Gatos Boulevard is plagued by some pretty blah-looking strip centers). The architecture, while probably not to everyone's taste, is a far cry from blah or cookie cutter and a refreshing change from yet another craftsman or s-tile roof. The time to make a decision is upon you. Thank you for your dedication to this Town, and all of its residents, including the ones who support this application. Sincerely, Gary and Michelle Fisk 25333 Hutchinson Road From: Michelle Fisk [mailto:mfisk1996,wgmail.com) Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 2:31 PM To: Joel Paulson; Clerk Cc: Council Subject: Letter to Town for North 40 Joel Paulson (Town of Los Gatos's Community Development Director), Please include this letter in the upcoming Planning Commission and Council packages: Honorable Mayor, Council Members, and Planning Commissioners, We are writing today to support the North 40 application, It is probably less common to get a letter of support, but as residents of the Town of Los Gatos, we are encouraged by not only the process that has occurred (just going to the Town website and looking at all the meetings and documentation makes our heads spin!), but by the actual proposal itself. We have seen a lot of applications come through this Town, some approved, some denied, and the North 40 represents not only a very transparent process but also one that has involved a lot of thought and consideration on what is best for this very special piece of property. Now an application is before you, and we know there is a lot of grumbling going on. There is also excitement amongst many residents, because there is an opportunity for something really great (which is what the Town of Los Gatos is all about) and unique. How nice it will be to have additional places in Town for people to meet up! There are some people who don't want any change, ever, for our community. But Los Gatos also has residents who are excited for something new (and of course high quality) on the north side of town. We hear the concerns about height and blocked views...but we drive southbound on 17 every day and are quite certain we can still see the hillsides beyond the orange mesh. The story poles themselves actually proved to us that the hills will not be blocked, and for this we are really thankful for past decisions that kept the buildings shorter and our beautiful hills as the backdrop. Finally, it is about time that a developer comes in with something that isn't all craftsman or Spanish style architecture. There is definitely not a lack of these styles throughout Town (although last we checked Los Gatos Boulevard is plagued by some pretty blah-looking strip centers). The architecture, while probably not to everyone's taste, is a far cry from blah or cookie cutter and a refreshing change from yet another craftsman or s-tile roof. The time to make a decision is upon you. Thank you for your dedication to this Town, and all of its residents, including the ones who support this application. Sincerely, Gary and Michelle Fisk 25333 Hutchinson Road Subject: 7/12/16 Meeting From: Barbara Frederickson Sent: Wed 7/6/2016 8:23 AM Re: North 40 Not ideal regarding density of plan, once built ,space can't be taken back so do it right the first time? All McMansions or some DelWeb type senior one story varieties included,Dog parks, open spaces? My suggestion is to re think uses of space left in Los Gatos. How wonderful Blossom Hill Park was once dreamed up. M/MFrederickson Sent from my iPad Planning From: Amy Despars <amydespars@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:14 AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Subject: North 40 Dear Los Gatos Town Staff, Planning Commission Members, and Town Council Members, Thank you for the time and consideration you have given to the North 40 Project. I am writing to you again to ask that you look at the proposal. It is very obvious it does not fulfill the requirements of the specific plan. I live very close to the development so I drive by it on a daily basis so I know for a fact it does not tit the plan. Even from the first time I received the brochure in the mail in regards to the North 40 I knew it was not going to be a good fit for our town. 1. It is required to look and feel like Los Gatos...I have been working retail downtown this summer and i know the model does not represent what downtown looks like or feels like. It looks like Santana Row with massive buildings that are 3-5 stories. The only buildings in Los Gatos taller than two stories is the Penthouse Apartments and the Toll House Hotel and they were built long before the town had a vision for growth. 2. The proposed development doesn't' 'minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services." P 1.1 Schools, street, and other services will be adversely affected 3 1.1 Introduction paragraph 4 states. "The intent of this Specific Plan is to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occoer in PLANNED, LOGICAL FASHION RATHER THAN A PIECEMEAL APPROACH. THIS IS AN IMPORTUNE ASPECT DUE TO THE MULTIPLE LAND OWNERSHIPS TAHT PRESENTLY EXIST WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. This comprehensive approach will help to create a unified new neighborhood for Los Gatos residents to enjoy and will better serve North Los Gatos residents, employees, and businesses. Phase I includes only a portion of the 44 acres. The current application is just part of a piecemeal approach since no information is provided about Phase II. 4. The North 40 will embrace hillside views, tees. and open space. We all know that this is not true. Just go stand amongst the orange mesh and look to the hills. You can not see them. The same thing happened when the Gateway/LG Blvd. medical building was put it in. We no longer have hillside views looking down our street or driving south on LG Blv. This also makes me wonder who is going to monitor what actually goes into the retail buildings. The Gateway/LG Blvd. project was to have space for retail when it was approved and the site was never intended to be filled with medical. Now it is all medical. 5.The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40, not just in this Phase. However, the developer includes all 320 units in the first 20 of the 44 acres. All these homes would be within the Los Gatos School District. 6. The application calls for shared parking spaces. Where in Los Gatos do we have that. I don't understand the EIR. 320 homes equals 320 cars. 640 cars if two people are residing and if you are like some families in town and you are living in a three bedroom with a family of four that could technically be 960 plus cars that will need to park and that wilt be driving in and out of the development. You can not assume people are going to work out of their homes and stay inside the development and not leave. And the bike path sounds great in theory but really? Is everyone going to stay inside the development and ride bikes around the development? Maybe I am naive but when I have listened to the developer and his attorney they say a lot of things that are not true and threaten lawsuits. Let's be real, they are planning on tearing down those walnut trees because they are all old and sick. Are they really harvesting them to sell? By the way, you don't need to til the soil in order to harvest the walnuts(fact from a local person who owns Almond and Walnut farms and sells to Blue Diamond). Funny how they said they could not put all of he story poles up but then when they 1 were required to they did it. .lust like at the last meeting when they said they could not really take some down and leave some up. I just can't stand the lies! I could go on and on but l will stop here. I know you all know there are a tot of other areas that do not follow the specific plan. I will not be at the meeting, but as I always say, "We have entrusted you with persevering our town. We live here and the developers do not. AS I listened to Don and Wendy speak the other night it was apparent that they are going to say whatever you want to hear but listen to us and do not "drink the developers juice" as other past council commission people have done. Once this decision is made there is not turning back. This development will change the feel of Los Gatos forever. Please deny the application. Gratefully„ Amy Despars In the past many of you have been thoughtful enough to reply to my emails, Please do not feel it is necessary this time. 2 From: Jennifer Croft Grewal [mailto:jennifer@grewals.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10:59 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz Subject: North 40 Comments Dear Town Council, Planning Commission and Town Staff, 1 hope to attend the meetings on 7/12 and 13. In case I cannot I am writing in advance to express my concern about the plan as proposed by the developer. The maximum buildout is not something this Town needs. As with the Albright development, these buildings obliterate our hillside views. They are massive and not keeping with our Town look or feel with another exception of our maximum height being requested by yet another builder. The residential all crowded to one section of the development was not in the specific plan - it states for them to be spread throughout the development. Additionally placing all of the residential along the main traffic corridor will be unhealthy for those residing there. Where is there adequate homage to the agricultural characteristics as the specific plan mandates. Where is the plan for phase two of this development? How can the entire project be built in harmony with itself and the surrounding areas if these two areas are not planned simultaneously? The current studies of this project are outdated and did not take into account all of the other development in our Town. Shouldn't these be updated so we have a full picture of what the building will do to our Town and what limitations within the Specific Plan should be placed on it. Please do the right thing and order new studies so that you can make art informed decision on the limit this plan should be approved under. Thank you, Jennifer Grewal Charter Oaks Resident This Page Intentionally Left Blank