Attachment 5 - July 12, 2016 Staff Report & Exhibits 26-31TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 12, 2016
PREPARED BY: Sall y Zarnowitz, Planning Manager
szamowi tz@losgatosca. gov
APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S-13 -090
Vesting Tentative Map Application M -13-014
ITEM NO: 2
LOCATION: North 40 Specific Plan Phase 1 (southerly portion of the North
40 Specific Plan area, Lark Avenue to south ofNoddin Avenue)
APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited
CONTACT PERSONS: Don Capobres (Harmonie Park Dev elopment Co.) and Wendi
Baker (Summerhill Homes)
PROPERTY OWNERS: Yuki Farms, ETPH LP , Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill
N40 LLC, Elizabeth K. Dodson, and William Hirschman
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval for the con struction o f a new multi-use,
multi-story development consisting of 320 re si dential units,
which includes 50 affordab le 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council,
subject to recommended conditions .
PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: North 40 Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: North 40 Specific Plan
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan;
North 40 Specific Plan
Project Area: 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 General Plan Zoning
Use
North Agriculture, North 40 Specific Plan N40 SP
Commercial , (N40 SP)
and Residential
East Commercial Mixed Use Commercial CH,
and Residential R-1 :8
South Commercial, Mixed Use Commercial, CH,
Office and Low and Medium R-1:8,
Residential Density Residential RD
West Highway 17 N I A N I A
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and
certified for the North 40 Specific Plan on Jan uary 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 Init ial 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
reduct ion of non-residential setbacks.
• As required by Section 29.10.420 (a) of the Town Code ifthe
Planning Commission denies the Density Bonus request.
• As required by Government Code Section 65589.5 if the
Planning Commission denies the Development Standard
waivers.
• 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-l3-014
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:
l. 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 Guide lines -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 l/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12, 2016
BACKGROUND:
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
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 I 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 I
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 pro vide 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 te stimony 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 l/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 I 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): 21and23 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 of the 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 of the 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 I /S-13-090/M-l 3-014
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 A venue 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 b e required after
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8
North 40 Phase l/S-13-090/M-l 3-014
July 12, 2016
an ElR is certified: a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to an ElR, and an Addendum to a previo us
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 fea sible 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 l/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12, 2016
Since traffic is the key issue of concern and because additional analysis was completed that did
not unco ve r new impacts, no further environmental clearance is necessary beyond the certified
EfR 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
a n interconnected system of open spaces, parks, and plazas within the area. Several of the
responses provided in the FAQ (Attachment 26) pro vide 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 doe s not have a minimum open
space requirement for commercial developments , and the limited amount of common and pri vate
open space required for multi-family projects would be significantly les s than the 30 percent
re quired 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:
• Pa rk s
• Bioretention areas
• Common or pri vate residential green space
• Planters of 50 square feet or greater
• Landscape planting strips
• Driveable turfblock
• Parki ng lot landscaping
The proposed application provides 16.1 percent of the total development area as hard scape open
space. The North 40 Specific Plan defines this as private or common pave d 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 a nd Design Guidelines included in the document are
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 1 O
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
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.
ln 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 l /S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12 , 2016
To as sist 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
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 LU11 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 COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
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:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
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
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
extremely low-, income units, which is defined as 30-50% 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
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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. Ferla, 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
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 100% 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 100% 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
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
School buses I think are a larger issue, but we
should have school buses, and we could reduce 30% 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
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
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
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
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
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 20% of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 20% of the required 30%
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
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 30% has to be open
space, and a minimum of 20% of that 30% 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
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 50% 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
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100%, 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 $120% 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 30% of the area median income,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 50%, 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
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 40% 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
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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.
(b) If the ad v isory agency is authorized by local ordinance to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map, it shall take that action
within 50 days after th e 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
21151 .5 of the Public Resources Code. The time periods specified in subdivisions
(a) and (b) shall commence after ce11ification 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. 2 4 . I 0.020, the Planning Commission is the advisory agency for the
Town under the Subdivision Map Act and is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprov e 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 fol lowing the filing 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 (I) setting forth various time limits within which
state and local government agencies must either approve or disapprov e permits and (2) providing
that these time limits may be extended once by agreement between the parties.
Page 2of3
Within the Pem1itting Streamlining Act, Government Code Section § 65943, provides a s 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, 2016 , 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 Pem1it
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 3of3
TIME EXTENSION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE
PERMIT STREAMLI NING ACT AND SUB DIVISI ON MAP ACT
#I
This Extension Agreement ("Agreement") is made this jJ_ 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 L imited 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 P lan area 20.7 acres as a multi-story development consisting of320 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 4 24-07-037, 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 th e
completeness of its vesting tentative map application but asserted that the A&S
4822 ·2125-4449v7
NON.SC\094 27065
1
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. l, 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. l 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) ofTown Code Section 24 .10.020 states that the Planning
Commission will report to the Town Council on its recommendations regarding vesting
4822-21254449v7
NON-BC\09427065
2
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.l, 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 . l 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 EJR, 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
4822-2125-4449v7
NON.SC\09427065
3
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. l 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 SummerHill
Homes, through their respective authorized representatives, agree on the following :
l. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are to be treated as part of
this Extension Agreement.
4ll22 ·212S-#49v7
NON<IC\09427065
4
From: Anne Marie de Cesare adecesare@me.com
Subject: Objections and Alternatives to North 40 Development Plan
Date: March 30, 2016 at 12:02 PM
To : mmoseley@losgatosca.gov
Cc: council@ losgatosca.gov, Josh de Cesare decesare@mac.com
Dear Ms. Moseley,
~e. cl e,ve._d. o.A "b/30 It (9
'? c tv\e,e., \-\ V'~
My family and I are in favor of li mited 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 h istoric 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 complex es, 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 congest ion.
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 s izes. 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
EXHHHT 3 0
"~•1:-Vt::O'\ cv1 ..!>/SO//C,
'Pc Moe.);~
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 Daves
Avenue Elementary. I am the head chair on the Monte Sereno Site & Architecture commission. Both my
w ife 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 housi ng units evenly between the Los Gatos & Campbell school d istricts .
• 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 hop_~ you would take them into consideration .
Thank You, c_cJ
Eric Wade
F 01 Roberta Goncalves .. hri$_ .. :;: ,c;r . ,~ ~ ·~·::: u'}.tnr,1
Sut.j . Concerns about North 40
0·1 c March 30, 2016 at 2 :19 PM
{1 , r :1nO~(-:.\~~,l/~i:oS~JC: tv,;c.?.gov
Ge . Chris Balo ugh c.i)C-l;iu9htft';1-:1100.1;o;n
Dear Ms. Moseley,
?-e.~ v-i e.J-OJ+-.3 /30 /l&
'\> C Me_e).\j
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 i t 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
popu lation. 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 si gnificant amount of commercial and r.esidential areas to
our town .
Lastly, we urge the Town's Council to listen to residents , and not the developers focusing on
p r ofits. We need to support our existing businesses, many of which ar e 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 .
Si ncerely,
Roberta Goncalves and Chris Ba lough
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
M a rni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
T o:
Subject:
Dea r ms Moseley,
Johanes Swen berg <johanes_swenberg@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, March 29, 2016 6:11 PM
Marni Moseley
North forty
I am w r iting concerning the north 40 project.
My concerns with the project are with the inadequate attention to the added congest ion the large project will place o n
traffic in an already busy area .
Add ing hundreds of new res idences and commercial businesses w i ll pl ace additional unique stra i ns for a critical traffic
juncture into and out of the town. This area has also been growing with the expansion of the medical faciliti es and
add itional growth will make the area an urban gridlock.
Johanes swenbe rg
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 only 1h 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 livi ng 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 fihori@svb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:19 AM
To: BSpector
Cc: karihor i@ mac.com
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 s uffer. 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 tenn 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 Lo s 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.
Sinc erely,
Jim and Kari Hori
16358 Robie Lane
Los Gatos 95032
If y ou r ecently applied for cred it or w e are r eques t ing additi onal i nformatio n to proces s y o u r cr edit
request: Impor ta n t disclosures for Equal Credit Opportunity Act a n d USA PA TR/OT Act, please click
her e.
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Rich Sundquist < rich@rbsundquist.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:52 AM
Marni Moseley; dsparrer@community-newspapers.com; letters@mercurynews.com
amydespars@hotmail .com
The TOWN is disappearing
The TOWN is disappearing. The expansive growth of the past few years has forever changed our small community. N ow 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 -le vel parking garage ?
At what point does the expansion stop ? Or does it? Do we continue down the path of packing more and m ore 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 T OWN of Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Rich & Barb Sundquist
Los Gatos
1
On Mar 30, 2016, at 11 :53 AM, Quyen Murphy <qtran5@msn.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 i n o r der to move bac k 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 amaz ing
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 th is area to leave .
Marc & Quyen Murphy
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Anne Marie de Cesare <adecesare@m e.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:02 PM
Marni Moseley
Council; Josh de Cesare
Objections and Alternatives to North 40 Development Plan
My family and I are in favor oflimited 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
add itional 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 w ith
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 wou ld increase the Fisher Middle and Los Gatos High School C las sroom
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.
1
5) Before considering any development plan, Los Gatos should consider the historic relevance of one of tlw 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 TI
The de Cesare Family
236 Los Gatos Boulevard
2
Marni Moseley
From: Teresa Pacht <tpacht@comcast.net>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:13 PM
Marni Moseley
Sent:
To:
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 looki ng like every other
apartment/housing complex be i ng built all over the place then th is 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 sca le 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello
Daphne Bayne <daphnebayne@comcast.net>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:21 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 story poles
I imagine you are inundated with messages but we wish to record our concern on he subject of North 40
development.
A lot oftime 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
Ooaphne Bayne
daphnebayne@comcast.net
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Moseley,
Matt Price <matt@pricegroup.org>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:21 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 Project
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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi,
eleni@malkos.net
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:29 PM
Marni Moseley
NO on North 40
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 i sl 11
Thank you,
Eleni
Sent from my iPhone
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Marni ,
Bruce Mccombs <bruce@pacificbedrooms.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 1:30 PM
Marni Moseley
A Note From Los Gatos Resident Bruce Mccombs ...
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 I understand the need for d eveloping this site in some fonn 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:
I 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 proj ect 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:
ln 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 infonnation that l'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
1
an increase of up to 20,000 vehicle trips per day, which would be added to the existing number of vehicles
that currently fill the streets near the intersection of Lark A venue 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 A venue 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 Tum Lane from Los Gatos Boulevard Onto Lark A venue:
If you've ever tried to turn left from Los Gatos Boulevard onto Lark Avenue on a weekday between the hours
of9:00 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 b e no way for us to recover. We'll be like
any other small California "City", and 1 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
Commision. 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 compl ete consideration that it deserves, regardl ess
of the ti me 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
pennanent, 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-mai l , 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 cornitted first and foremost , in seeing to i t 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 fo r 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.
Sinc ere ly,
g'~ ?lk~t'4-
Contact Info:
Bruce & Jackie McCombs
16160 Kenne dy Road
Los Gatos, CA 9 5032
Cell: ( 408) 209-7045
Home: (408) 356-7 045
VIDEOS:
STORY POLE V ID E O:
Running time: Less than 4 minutes:
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4 3sFSoeo lk&eb c=ANyPxKpt6Xlu6 JBi2 1 W e WXkR s W C pLc jfv lYtrz 8pik
P 8-wNk5 A l2 p26iNKc lkBY rU Q 08EohLq 1NZf-Q5 l r D 2htKuh-F5P3XQ
TRAF F IC ANALY SIS VID EO:
Running time: 2 minutes & 20 seconds:
https://www.youtu b e.com/watc h ?v=s 12 5V I j49zM
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
BE LOW: OVERHEAD VIEW OF PHASE 1 AND PHA SE 2 OF PROPOSED PROJECT :
3
BELOW: VIEW FROM LARK A VENUE: 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 HA VE
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
6
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Damon Kvamme <dkvamme@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:01 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 development
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. rve 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 tum 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 [klyles95 @aol.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 G _atos 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 overwhe1ming
increase in traffic congestion would be unbearable. This will only add to the problem that we
a1ready 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 th.is project would certainly and clearly reduce the quality oflife 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 certain! y be something that is a need to better our future citizens.
Sincerel y yours,
Glenn and Karen Lyles
16700 Shannon Road
Los Gatos, CA
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
T o:
Subject:
Hello,
Barry & Elina Wong <bnewong@verizon.net>
Wednesday, March 30 , 2016 2:03 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 from Blossom Manor Resident Input
We've been long term residents of the Blossom Mano r neighborhood . Our kids have gone to Los Gatos schools. We've
seen the huge increases in student enrollments, especially at Fishe r and Los Gatos High in r ecent years. Those schools
are bursti ng at the seams! We can't accommodate any more additional kids without lo sing 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
susta i nab le . It will certa inly 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 al ready 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 w ill undoubtedly bring a la rge number of new
students who will not only be el ementary school students but middle and high schoo l students as wel l.
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 Compute r Science course
used to be open to all comers, now it's restricted to juniors and seniors . I expect w it h continued enrollment and int erest
by Silicon Valley students/parents, add it ional classes will have enrollment impacts and restriction s.
Morni ng traffic and afternoon pickup traffic to Los Gatos high is already quite a headache . Additional commuters from
the North 40 devel opment families will add to already congested Los Gatos Blvd/Un iversi ty/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 al r eady 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 li ke 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 cr ime that will bring to our little town.
We don't mind goi ng to Santana Row as a shopper when the crowds ar e light, but I really don't think any of Los Gatos
residents will be happy having to dea l w i th the Santana Row/Valley Fair traffic on the weekend in addition to t he beach
traffic. Creating Santana Row part II here via North 40's proposed density and retail will t r uly 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 li ke our little
town to keep its character. Th is densit y will make Los Gatos f eel rather like Cupertino, and not Los Gatos anymore.
The p roposed he ight of the build ings w ill block ou r views of the hills, creating an urban environment i n the m iddle of
idyllic Los Gatos.
1
Please keep our Los Gatos the gem i t is in the Valley i nstead of another overbuilt dense urban jungle.
Thank you for giving seri ous consideration to our concerns.
Elina & Barry Wong
2
Marni Moseley
Fr om:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Mose ley,
Roberta Goncalve s <chri s_and_roberta@yahoo.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 2:19 PM
Marni Moseley
Chris Balough
Concerns about North 40
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 Hi gh
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 t he 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 wh ich are Mom and Pop type places, family owned. These
a re 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,
1
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
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley-
cecilia holmberg <ceciliashao2000@yahoo.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:03 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 project -against current proposal
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 s tores 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 least, 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 offLGUSD. 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 lo oking like a crippling amount of traffic being added to Lark and LG Blvd, what will
phase 2 do?? The devel oper'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 ofWalrnart at 85.
1
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? l 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:
Sent:
To:
Anne Sullivan <annesu llivan3@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:07 PM
Marni Moseley
I am definitely against the huge building project in the North 40. The traffic on Los Gatos Blvd was extremely heavy before
P AMF and now that it has opened there is much more traffic in the area.
I can't imagine anything but gridlock when all those homes and businesses open. How are the schools going to manage? Is that
devel opment 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@yaboo.com
l
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Marni Moseley,
Michele Stefan <michelepstefan@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:08 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
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 seem 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
1
Marni Mosel ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cheryl Lauren <towandah@hotmail.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:12 PM
Marni Moseley; DSparrer@community-newspaper.com; letters@mercurynews.com
North 40
STOP!!!!!!! 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 fe lt 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 40to the left on 17. Our town does not need this. Don't make a forever m istake. This is such a
precious, special p lace . If you allow th i s, there is no turning back . Oops! We shouldn't have done this. No! No!
No l No! No!
Cheryl Lauren
Los Gatos Resident
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To the planning commission,
Barnaby James <bajames@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:23 PM
Marni Moseley
Feedback on the Phase 1 North 40 Plan
Understanding that the town is required to build additiona] 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. Simil arly, from viewing the model in 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 commitment 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 J arnes
16500 Grant Bishop Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Rob Caruso <rcarusojr@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:40 PM
Marni Moseley
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:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi,
Shraddha Parekh <sspzim@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:44 PM
mmosleley@losgatosca.gov
Marni Moseley
North 40
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 so many kids and maintain the leve l of education.
Please do not approve the plan.
Thank you
Shraddha Parekh
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
T o:
Subject:
Hi Ms. Moseley:
Valerie Kelly <lgkellys@me.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:57 PM
Marni Moseley; dsparrer@community-newspapers.com; letters@mercurynews.com
North 40 Development Ridiculous!
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 visua l abomination. I cannot speak to the other development features,
but cannot imagi ne 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 thi s
message because I view this development as a critical issue and I 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms . Moseley-
lmlampe@comcast.net
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:15 PM
Marni Moseley
say NO to the North 40 plan
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 th is project and tone it down to someth ing in character for Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Linda Lampe
18 Wa lnut Avenue
Los Gatos
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
suemoses <susmos@comcast.net >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:28 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
Good Day Ms Moseley, Planning Commission and Town Counci l,
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 maintain ing the town as a town?
We do not want th is area to have the fee l of a big c ity -it is soooooo congested already.
PLEASE look at minimizing the impact on the town, the infrastructure is crumbling
Too much building in this area already, Please listen t o 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
l ike what has been happening the last couple years and truly do not like this proposed project when
so many more negative impacts would resu lt.
PLEASE look more closely at the proposed project and scale it down s ignificantly. It would
change the look and fee l of Los Gatos as we have known and loved .
T hank you fo r your consideratio n,
Susan Moses
16529 La Croix Ct
Los Gatos 95032
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Judy Holcomb <lgjudyh@comcast.net >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4 :29 PM
Marni Moseley
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:
Sent:
To:
Erica Barney <ericabarney@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:42 PM
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 bad enough emails flooding your inbox, so I will keep this short.(-:
As a local resident with children, I just bad 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 homes (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 I 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To All Interested Parties,
Carleen <carleen_schomberg@comcast.net >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:44 PM
Marni Moseley; DSparrer@community -newspapers.com; letters@mercurynews.cm
Los Gatos North 40
As a native of Los Gatos and a third generation Los Ga t os resident, I find myself, once again, fee ling broken-hearted at
the thought of losing another piece of precious and beautiful open space and orchard . My grandpa rents immigrated
from Italy to Ellis Island and then straight t o Los Gatos. Anyone who hasn't lived here for fifty or sixty years may not be
able to fully appreciate what "The Va lley of Hearts De l ight" 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 p laces to play within a short walk or bike ride from home. Now, I am extremely
anxi ous every time my grandchildren get on their bikes. And, I feel as though we ar e approachi ng a time when kids will
have to go to a museum to see what an orchard looked like.
The proposed North 40 development w ill deprive us of o n e o f, if not the only, re m aining orchar ds and dest roy the views
of ou r hillsides as we approach town. And, w ith all the additiona l traffic, take away more of the scant little freedom our
kids have to venture out on thei r own safely . The traffic is already so bad that it is dangerous.
Furthermore, t he idea that we need additi ona l reta i l space is r i diculous. We have empty reta i l space for lease and I
never go into a shop in town that is teeming with customers. Putting in more housing and more r et ail further erodes
ou r quality of life. W hat we need is less . Wit h increasing population, ca rs, pavement, et c . we ge t less clean air, less
water qua lity (r un-off fro m the r oads enter s Los Gatos Cr eek at every sto rm drai n outlet), less vi ew s of our hills, and,
frankly, less quality of life.
To pa raphrase an o ld song, we quite literally are paving pa r ad i se to put i n a parking lot and we won't know w h at we 've
got til it 's gone . I urge the town to reconsider the North 40 because, once w e lose that h i storic o r cha r d, w e can never
get i t back. We are ta ki ng away more and more of our children's inher itance.
Carleen Am brosi ni Schomberg
1
On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Robin Welch <robin@robinsnest.me> wrote:
Hi Marico-
1 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.
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 givi_ng 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Marni-
Robin Welch <robin@robinsnest.me>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:54 PM
Marni Moseley
Fwd : North 40 Project
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.
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 <d sgaab @ 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 v erses the downsides. Don & Sue Gaab residents of Los Gatos.
Sent from my iPad
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rex, Charlene Rex <cblissrex@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:09 PM
Marni Moseley
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@losgatosca.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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Dear Marni Moseley,
Susan Flach <s gfl950@aol.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:14 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 Los Gatos
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 .
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 ou r 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 th is application as proposed . It is too dense and
massive . It will have horribly negative impact on ou r Town .
Further, l 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 pa rcel 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:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Dear Ms . Moseley,
Angie Smith <angiecolemansmith@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:19 PM
Marni Moseley
Opposition to current North 40 proposal
Please do NOT approve the North 40 development as currently planned.
I am not opposed to growth, just opposed t o massive growth like this plan proposes.
As a Los Gatos resident with 3 children---2 at Fisher and 1 at Blossom Hill--1 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 be i ng 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.
I loo k 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Marni,
Sharon Elder <sharonelder@ymail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:19 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 Proposed Development
My name is Sharon Elder and I live at 205 Marcbmont Drive Los Gatos. (I am a town resident).
T am contacting you to tell you that I strongly disagree with the proposed development on the North 40 site for the following reasons:
1) 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 member 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mrs . Moseley:
Rosilene Martins <rosapersa@gmai l.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:23 PM
Marni Moseley
NO to the current North 40 application
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 bave 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 Lo s 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 v iews, 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
1
From: Catrin Anckarman [catrinanckarman@me.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:29 PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis
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 man y 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 congesti on 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 Anckannan
16170 Kennedy Road
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms . Moseley,
Mark & Yasmin Bomann <bomann@comcast.net>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:38 PM
Marni Moseley
Comments/suggestions re: North 40
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 thei r 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, sen ior 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
On Mar 30, 2016, at 5 :41 PM, H o lcomb , Greg <Gre g.H olcomb@hbs.sccgov.org> wrote :
It is both a surprise and a shame that the North 40 p r oject 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. I grew up in Los Gatos . I graduated from Los Gatos High
School. I moved away for coll ege and came right ba ck. Los Gatos is my home and (hopefully) always will
be. I have been neighbors with the Spectors since I was born in 1977 and accompani~d 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 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 t hat divert traffic through our town. That is an issue that needs to be
addressed separately but it is not u nrelated to the North 40 as more residents and busine sses 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 summ er wee kends
or Christmas time with any r easonable expectation of being able to return without waiti ng in
traffic, ... Etc. etc .... so why add fuel to the fire?
It's not a sec ret that Los Gatos is a w ealthy town. We do not need outsi de developer money. We don't
need folks who are new here to try to influence policy that goes comp letely aga inst everyth i ng and
anything that Los Gatos ha s stood for long before t he dot com boom . Certainly we are better t han a
money grab. Aren't we? Where is our integrity?
Thank you for all that you do for us, and thanks for read i ng . I wholeheartedly and sin ce r ely 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.
~
VAUEY --··---~
Gr eg Holcomb 11!!! Health link Application Coordinat or HIM Defic iency Tracking, HIM Release of
Informatio n I 'B (4 08) 423 -0754 I !81 greg.h o lco mb @hh s.scc gov.org
SCV HH S Information Se rvices
N OTICE: This email message and/or its attac hments
may contain information that is confidential or restri cted.
It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients
in the m essage . If you are NOT an authoriz ed recipie nt ,
you are prohibited from using , delivering , distributing ,
printing, copyin g, or d isclosing the m e ssage or content to
others and must delet e the mes s ag e fro m y our computer.
If y ou have received t his message in error, please notify
the sender by ret urn email.
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
M West <marywest@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:42 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
I am concerned about overcrowding, traffic and the impact on our schools. As a long time resident of Los
Gatos , I 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 populati on in Los Gatos and
negatively impact the quality of life here. Let's not sell Los Gatos to the highest bidder. Please reduce the s i ze
and scope of this project or abandon it entirely.
Thank you-
MaryWest
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Valerie Tamasi <vltamasi @yahoo.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:49 PM
Marni Moseley
Opposed to North 40 current development plans!
I 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kathleen Barry <kathleenabarry7@yahoo.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:55 PM
Marni Moseley
Fw : North 40
On Wednesday, March 30 , 2016 5:52 PM , Kathleen Barry <kathleenabarry7@yahoo.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 l 970's was due to new development, most
of the growth in the 1980's and l 990'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-gato s.c a.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
1
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. Ifl 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 .... ? 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 o f 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) <bil l_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 o ur small town identity. As we embrace change we often have the opportunity to look at things through many
eyes and perspectives. Jn every perspective there is a nugget of truth or va lue that can be gleaned and should be considered.
Tbe 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 land 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 long-tenn 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 de sirability 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 addi tion, 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 community look and feel. When do we say enough is enough and this is too much!!
What we ask is that th e leaders of the community, listen to the c01mnunity and approach this in a measured and Jong-term
manner. Do so with controls in place to stop any remaining development at logical points lo preserve the look, feel and sense of
community that we have come to enjoy and expect of Los Gatos, while supporting the growth and revita liz ation that can
accompany it.
There is no single answer to please everyone, but if we take a longer tenn approach we can better, more graduall y manage the
impact on the town. ln 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 ha ve today .. the vibrant
community we are at risk oflosing by placing profits and development over community.
Sincerely,
Los Gatans (for life?),
Bill and Shirley Highstreet
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Ian Young <ian@yahphoto.biz >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:09 PM
Marni Moseley
Future Traffic Woes -AKA The North 40 project
I am a relative newcomer to Los Gatos, but have had family here all 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 w ith high standards -which is what eventually drew us to buy a house here -we (my wife
and I) have both k ids 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 w ith only a slight off-sh ift early -but this increases to a
truly insane 90 minutes to get home during the summer months.
I 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 b ig-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,
Ian Young.
Los Gatos Resident.
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Oliver Flach <ocflach@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:41 PM
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 tum 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.
I'm 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 Flach <sgfl 950@aol.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:25 PM
Subject: Fwd: North 40 Los Gatos
To: ocflach@gmail.com
-----Original Message---
From: Susan Flach <sgf1950@aol.com>
1
To: Mmoseley <Mmoseley@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 res ident 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 .
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 v iews , t rees 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 wa ited 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,
Su san G. Flach
2
Marni Moseley
From: William Blair <wblairlOl@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:44 PM
Marni Moseley
Sent:
To:
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 sqft 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
101 Lorain Place
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Akshay Mathur <akshaymathur156@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 7:04 PM
Marni Moseley; Pooja
Vote against "North 40 Los Gatos"
We have a small family of four that lives in an excellent Los Gatos neighborhood near Lark A venue. 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 daught er
will have to neighborhood over-flow school.
2 . Rt. 17 (both direction), Lark exits, Los Gatos Bid 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 whi le 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 Pamfto 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 Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marie-Ange Eyoum < meyoum@gmail.com >
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:48 PM
Marni Moseley
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 I am resident of Los Gatos living in 140 Oakmont
Way, a block away from Lark A venue where North 40 is planned to be bui lt.
As a parent of small children, I have raised concerns of heavy traffic on Lark A venue, and density in the Los
Gatos schools (especially for LGHS) when I first beard about this development project and through all the
community meetings I and my husband have attended in the past few years.
I 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 A venue.
Thanks for your service to the town, Marie-Ange
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Amanda Caruso <algcaruso@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:34 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Dear Marni ,
Amy Nishide <aknishide@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:23 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 objection
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,
AmyNishide
Los Gatos resident
1
RECEIVED
MAR 3 1 2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
7\ PLANNING DIVISION
~~ M.Hose/e.':J 1 ~d?I~
C' !rnvm lS-S 1'6711 ...J~ l1 trn~
tikt<± fk 11 N07'7$ ./01 iy/' bJU:ny
~ d-stt~ te....__, ll?Z-//,; ~*'£:....
~ ~ ILA.L. ~Ket ~~L
~~~~~,
0 also /r~ ~ 6~ 7-k_
d~veltr~ fr e~ 6~~
//~ ~ ~If~ (~/JI< ~£_ 21~ /i~ f-_19 -;. fj•d"'S ,I'<> A.Jd,c~.
f/.u,6£. d~ AJ~i-a_{JJ'Y>Ot>G ~~
(),-~'6 Le-f /ll.M--I
5t'rn~ pa-nCA. //. ;/~
111 GleN'll'1d.ti>e ~ve_
~~ G !f-ft/5 I d.A
'/~P 30
March 31, 2016
Marni Moseley
Planner
Town of Los Gatos
RE: North 40 Development
REC EIV ED
MAR 31 2016
T OWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISI ON
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 L os Gatos 's unique character. This new massive development I
strongly believe to be the tipping point to that fragile balance. Every neighbor I business
owner I have spoken with is alarmed 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 Fillmer A venue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
M arn i Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Su bject:
All ,
Eric Rafia <eric@healthmedrealty.com >
Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:31 AM
Marni Moseley; Attorney; Town Manager; Council
North 40
I attended the planning commission meeting last night RE the N40 development. Amongst the many t h ings which were
brought up in that meeti ng was since the EIR had been certified, that it was a foregone conclusion and that nothing
could be done. From the develope r's perspective, it may be correct that there is no obligation on their part to re-vis it 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 fina l EIR for the North 40 is dated July 18, 2014, though certification may have happened after that. One thing that is
sign ificant, and which has changed is that Samaritan Medical Center (ww w.samplussj.com) has proposed a massive
redevelopment of their project, whi ch would yield severa l hundred t housand new square feet of medical office space,
which i s exactly the type of use whi ch t he Town of Los Ga t os forbi d outright from being included in the North 40
development out of concerns for traffic. That seems to me, to provide for significant reasoning by wh ich a new EtR, or an
addendum to the existing one, to be ordered and reviewed . Anothe r 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 wo r se
than what was portrayed to us .
The specific plan also provi ded that housing must be designed for move-up and millennial buyers. I'm not su r e how 3
bedroom homes meet that need, and it was an insult to our intelligence for t he developer stand up and pretend that i t
did. I would encourage a review of the above, and that the town staff do everything in their power to listen to the
res i dents 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 comm issioners as I could not find their email
addresses on-line .
He r e's a reference t o the two sections ofthe law I cited: http://www.cal re cycle.ca .gov/lea/Advisories/22/attach22 .htm
Regards,
Eric Rafia
HealthMed Realty
408 457-8808 direct
408 457 -8803 fax
Lic.01383075
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello all,
Coby Bennette <cbennette2001@yahoo.com>
Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:31 AM
BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marni Moseley
The Town of Los Gatos
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 SBSO 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/15/071615 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."
1
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 i n 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 LGBlvd. ), there still
is an overcrowding issue. And the SBSO choice that was made will not be enough to
deal with the current and pending overcrowd in g.
Help to put the ho rse 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:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Hi Marni,
Barbara Mcinerney <barbara_mcinerney@yahoo.com>
Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:35 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 Concerns
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 Mcinemey
Daves A venue mother
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Planner,
June Lugovoy <jlugovoy@gmail.com>
Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:52 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 not for Los Gatos
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 [linqle@sqi.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 4:17 PM
To: BSpector
Subject: North 40 Parcel
Dear Barbara,
Please reconside r 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 a'lready 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 ma ximum 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:ericinlq@qmail.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 (3130) 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 th e Planning Commission and
Council have approved a series of development along Los Gatos Blvd w hich have greatly intensified the traffic and visually
turned the Blvd . into San Jose's Bascom Avenue . As pointed ou t 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 on schools
in Los Gatos, and creating a traffic nightmare along Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave. In looking at th e 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 fit 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 representati ve's report on the proposed development
which basical ly 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 Levi nger 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:
Sent:
T o:
Subject:
Hi Marni,
Sharad Sharma <sharad_sharma@comcast.net>
Thursday, March 31, 2016 9:43 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
The people of Los Gatos had their voice hea rd at the Planning Comm ission meeting yesterday. We hope the
town will consider the multiple negative i mpacts of the increased traffic o n Los Gatos Boulevard. W incheste r is
chocked with Netflix, Quito is one lane traffic and getting worse, 17 has been a choked with through traffic.
North 40 w ill close the last access to our town . All this d irectly impacts the qua lity of day to day living.
I hope the town of Los Ga t os keeps all these factors in mind.
Sincerely,
Sharad Sharma
247 Pr i nce St,
# 408-910-9684
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Subject: No. 40 (Basements) "Whereas the Genera l Pla n e ncou rages use of
basements and cellars to provide hidden square footage in lieu of above ground
vis ib le mass .... "
Date: March 31, 2016 at 6:39:50 PM PDT
To: BSpecto r <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>, Marica Sayoc <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>,
Rob Rennie <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen <MJensen@losgatosca .gov>,
Steven Leonardis <S Leonardis@losgatosca .gov>, Laurel Prevetti
<LP revetti@losgatosca .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/DocumentC enter/View/5 7
"We're special. We demand quality oflife." " ... 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 o f the To wn 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 L os Gatos. If the units dropped to 25 feet in height, wouldn 't that be dramatic?
h ttp ://www . town. los-
gatos .c a. u s/ documents/8/l 2/ 10 8/Los Gat os R eside ntial Design G ui d e lines FIN AL rev 03091
1 .PDF
Resi denti a l Des ig n G uid e lin es for th e T own o f Los Gatos
1 .
2.
1 .
www.town .los-gatos.ca.us/ .. ./Los Gatos_Residential_Design_Guidelines_ ...
Oct 6, 2008 -The Town of Los Gatos has a great diversity of neighborhoods and
residentia l structures ..... Basements are included in the al-lowable FAR ...
Cellar Policy -Los Gatos
www.town.los-gatos.ca.us/DocumentCenterNiew/428
WIEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos does not current ly have any written codes or ...
WHEREAS , the General Plan encourages use of basements and
ce ll ars to ...
https://www.google.com/?gws rd=ssl#g =Basements+to+maximum+sguare+footage+for+high+d
ensity+units+ Los+Gatos
http://www.realtor.corn/realestateandhomes-search/Los-Gatos CA/with basement
http://www.town.los-gatos.ca. us/DocumentCenter/Home/View /1734
The North Forty Specific Pan will be based on the following general guidelines:
<I> Include a mixture of u ses that will complement the Downtown and the rest of the community.
<I> Be based on sustainable and "smart" development practices. LU -18
• <I> Include public gathering spaces such as a plaza and park.
• <I> 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.
• <I> Include high-quality architecture and design that reflects the rural and ag-ricultural history of the site.
• <I> Provide pedestrian-oriented buildings along the Lo s Gatos Boulevard frontage, with minimal parking
oriented to the street.
• <I> Take advantage of the grade change across the site.
• <I> Continue the "boulevard treatment" along Los Gatos Boulevard, with in-
terconnections from one parcel's d rive aisle to the next.
• <I> Include connections to existing intersections along Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
• <I> Develop gateway or landmark features at Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue and at Los Gatos
Boulevard and the Highway 85 off-ramp.
• <I> Provide an easily acces sible, full y connected street network that encour-ages walking.
• <I> Provide a vegetative buffer and screening along Highways 17 and 85.
• <I> Preserve Town character and views.
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms Moseley,
Christos Karaman o lis < karam a nolis@yahoo.co m >
Th u rsday, March 31, 2016 11:38 PM
Marni Moseley
Stop the North 40 development project
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the development plans for North 40, in Los Gatos.
My wife and I 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 will 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good Morning,
Prakash Mana <prakashmana@gmail.com>
Friday, Ap ril 01, 2016 6:12 AM
Marni Moseley
North 40 -Serious concerns
We are wrlting 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 Gato s 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 off Lark Ave, and we cannot explain how much noisy it had become 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 lcids 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 th e 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
April 1, 2016
RECEIVED
APR 1 2016
T OWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNIN G DIVIS ION
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-ce r tified due to a significant change in conditions. -
In this light, bring into the discussion an updated analysis of the traffi c 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 find ings and
resolution that as part of the planning approvals require extensive residential and
commercial underground parking-, which is a basic principle of new urbanis m-
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
r evenue in the form of future tax dollars from development in the context of current
and projected budget shortfall$ -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 require d.
Thank you for your attention to these recommendations.
Sincerely,
Rita Norton
Los Gatos, CA
On Apr 1, 2016, at 6 :10 AM, Jessica Bandy <jessicabandy@mac.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 of2015 because we loved the small town feel ofLos 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 co ncerned 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 d amage 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 hus band 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.
SOOK 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
L os Gatos, CA 95030
jessica bandy I je ssicabandy@mac.com I 404.386 .5823
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
tom flageollet <t.flageollet@comcast.net>
Friday, April 01 , 2016 7:57 AM
Marni Moseley
North 40 project
The intent of this email is to voice my concern regard ing the North 40 project.
My primary concerns are the impact to 1) traffic and 2) the overall ongoing infrastructure requi red 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 exponentia.lly 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 th is 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.
Tom & Patrice Flageollet
Los Gatos residents since 1994
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Planning Commission,
edrathmann@comcast.net
Friday, April 01 , 2016 9:09 AM
Marni Moseley
jason; whalen ; Whalen, Jeffrey; millman
North 40
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 1 O 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.
1
From: Rita Norton [rnailto:ritanortonl@grnail.com]
sent: Friday, Apr il 01, 2016 9 :49 AM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Town Manager
Subject: please forward to all partie s--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 BIR 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 d iscarded.
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:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MARTHIN DE BEER <rnfdebeer@rnac.com>
Friday, April 01, 2016 10:56 AM
BSpector, Marni Moseley
Marica Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
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. I 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
rnfdebeer@mac.com
(408) 656-5171
l
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Martha Geiszler <mgeiszler3@comcast.net>
Friday, April 01, 2016 11:26 AM
Marni Moseley; Jennifer.riano@gmail.com; lindafrolich@gmail.com;
cathleenbannon@gmail.com
North 40
I 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 t raffic and schools. Packing 270+ homes i n this area w i ll 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 [tediu@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 3 7
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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tedi Uhrowczik <tediu@comcast.net>
Friday, April 01, 2016 1:19 PM
Marni Moseley
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 getmoney. 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Denise Strom <dmssbs@yahoo.com >
Friday, April 01, 2016 3:44 PM
Marni Moseley
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
l
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Bonnie Payne <bonnieapayne@comcast.net>
Friday, April 01, 2016 7:32 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
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 Southbound 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Moses, Roy <rmoses@cbnorcal.com>
Saturday, April 02, 2016 12:34 PM
Marni Moseley
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 T OO 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 soooooo congested already.
PLEASE look at minimizing the impact on the town, the infrastructure is crumbl i ng
Too much building in this area already, Please listen to the townspeople -not just the
developers. Ou r 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 sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely fot the addressee(s). Access to this internet
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Marni,
Paul Tong <ptong173@gmail.com>
Saturday, April 02, 2016 3:37 PM
Marni Moseley
Objection to North 40 development
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 1-880 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
1
Marni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Su bject:
Dear Marni,
Karen Bean <losgatosbeans@gmail.com>
Saturday, April 02, 2016 6:03 PM
Marni Moseley
Opposed to the North 40 project
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 less commercial property on the site . I feel the developers are on ly in it
for their pocketbook, even though they are trying to work w ith the city and "say" all the things the town wants to hear. I
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 t u ring into the Santana Row of Los Gatos. I feel it is going to drastically hurt t he 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 Residen t since 2005
1
Ap r il, 3rd, 2016
Dear Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers,
RECE IV E D
AP R 4 2016
T OWN OF LOS GAT OS
P LANNI NG DIVI SION
While I 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. If one reads the data (pa id 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 ch ildren
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 o r der 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tina Lally <Tina .Lally@sli-systems .com >
Monday, April 04, 2016 10:34 AM
Marni Moseley; BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Rob Renn ie; Steven Leonardis ; Marcia Jensen
North 40
To Ms. Moseley & Whom it May Concern at the Town of Los Gatos,
I 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 avoi d 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 traffi c 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 I 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,
1
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 app r eciate 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 : 408-888-104 7
E: tina .lally@sli-systems.com
~ SLISYS TE MS
( COM '.1£RCE AC C''IRAJ<"O
All the resource s you n eed
for e-commerce success
Vlsll the SLI Knowledge Base >
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
sarah@kens ler.m e
Monday, April 04, 2016 5:54 PM
Marice Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marni Moseley
sarah@kensler.me
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
sarah@kensler.me
408.406.6546 (mobile)
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rhodie Firth <rhodab52@aol.com >
Monday, April 04, 2016 8:57 PM
Marni Moseley
North Forty
To the members of the Town Council
I recently read an article written by residents of Cupertino who are fighting a mega development to replace the Vallco
shopping center. They list five side effects of mega developments. These side effects are enormous traffic gridlock,
worsening air quality, unprecedented stra i n on electrica l, water, and sewage systems, hampered ability of first
responders to deal with disasters, and students crammed into t i n-can mobile un i ts 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 I
I have great admiration for how hard most of you have worked to do the right thi ng for Los Gatos when these
developers designed something that has nothing to do with the flavor of our commun ity. They must be stopped o r we
will lose the Los Gatos that we all know and love .
Wish I had ca lled va r ious conservation organizations when this all started. Maybe one of them could have purchased the
land and saved it. I d i dn't think of doing that .
Thanks for your time,
Rhod i e Firth -15905 orange Blossom Ln . -Los Gatos
Sent from my iPad
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Sara Fishersmith <sarafishersmith@gmail.com>
Monday, April 04, 2016 10:02 PM
Marn i Moseley
Subject: North 40/Los Gatos
The Planning Commissioners and the Town Council must be OUT OF YOUR MINDS!!!!!
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!!!!! I!
Have you tried to find a parki ng 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?
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
streets.
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 w ithin 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Camille <camille.lesko@gmail.com >
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 12:17 PM
Marni Moseley
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 :4 1 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 speci al 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Trish@Sporleder.org
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 1:39 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 debacle
P lease add my name to the list of citizens against the present North 40 plan.
It 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 Wesifie ld Los Gatos! If
someone wants charm, they head fo r Campbell. I can't blame them.
Sincerely,
P atricia Sporleder
1
Planning
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear commissioners:
BS Nissen <bsnissen@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 05 , 2016 2:05 PM
Planning
proposed North Forty development
My husband and I have li ved in Los Gatos since 1963. Fifty three years.
The growth and development in the past 10 years has been appalling.
RECEIVED
APR 1 3 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 Netfl ix/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?
T here 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 rep resenting the town's population, listen to the outcry from people like us who have I ived 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 >
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 3:13 PM Sent:
To:
Cc:
bspecgtor@losgatosca.gov; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; rrennie@lostatosca.gov;
Steven Leonardis
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,
l 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 oflife 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 oflife 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.
1
Thanks,
Sandra Livinghous e
16230 Brooke Acres Ct.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-358-4709
2
Marni Mose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Eng, Duncan <Duncan.Eng@lfg.com >
Tuesday, Apri l 05 , 2016 3:19 PM
Marni Moseley
Subject: North Forty
I run for this development.
1 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 Crunpbell 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 A venue, Suite 300
Catnpbell, CA 95008
Phone:408-879-4217
Fax: 408-879-4297
E-mail: Duncan. Eng@LFG.com
CA Insurance License #OB44076
www .PWPPartners.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
1
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 intended 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.**
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Melissa Moses <slish528@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, April OS, 2016 6:15 PM
Marni Moseley
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 hav e 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 A venue, Los Gatos
1
Marni M oseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kimberly Keck <kimberlylincoln@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:34 PM
Marni Moseley
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://vvW\\'.noozhawk.com/article/Jou cannon unfunded public pensio
n liabilities san jose 20150810
In 1999, when the stock market was booming, the Legislatur e passed SB 400 at
the behest of Democratic Gov . Gray Davis , reducing the retirement age for state
workers to 55 from 60 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 80 public pension systems
in California totaled $6.3 billion. By 2004, with the new provisions in effect, it
had reached $so.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/blobd load.aspx?BloblD=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 milliOil pension liability. The
decision wiU 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 y ears toward the remaining $4.4 million UAL instead of following
Cal PERS 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, Cal PERS actuaries determined the
retirement system was at significant risk of falling to dangerously low funded status levels
under existing actuarial policies.
This prompted the CalPERS Board to adopt revised actuarial policies that aim to return the
system to 1 00% 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
3 . Quoting from Cupertino's 2014 An nu al Financial Report :
Because the City co nt racts out police services to the County
Sheriff and because fire protection is hand led by a special district.
the City avoids the high pension, capital, and operating costs of a
City-operated pub1ic safety function. The City caps its
contributions to employee hea lth insurance pr em iums and recent ly approved a three-
year labor agreement wi t h its bargaining uni ts that benefit both the City and employees.
A build-up of operating reser\es from strong revenue years, such as 2013-14, along with
a traditiona l under-spending of budgets. enab les 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?BlobID=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. Thi s 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 Sheriffs Office instead of
employing an in-house police department. Evenwithan
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 26.7% 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_cour ts/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
skeptica l 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 sheriff's 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 Qike 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?BloblD=9152
5
From: vacarpio . [mai lto:vacarpio@g m ail.co m]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 20 16 10:59 AM
To: Council
Subject: Concern regarding development of North Forty property
We are opposed to the proposed development ofthis property.
1) The increased traffic will be horrendous along Los Gatos Blvd, Lark A venue, 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 EI 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@gmail.com>
Date: April 6, 2016 5:37:54 PM PDT
To: <Mmosley@losgatosca .gov>
Subject: North 40
To:
Ms Mosley and the Planning 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 Jose 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.com> 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! ls 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@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 .
Fo r some local residents I 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.com> 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 nightmar e . You have to see how disastrous this will be for Los Gatos. B igger is not better! I
thought that was the ethos of this town .....
TomFandre
Los Gatos Resident
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2016, at 8:22 AM, Nancy Moss <gosmoss@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, 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 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
being an has request many exceptions to the normal process including
Coming down bey
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 I 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 excepti on request.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 9, 2016, at 8:37 AM, ledouglas@gmaiJ.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 beauti ful 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 pls pis 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: Lyn.lee Bischoff Qvnlee365@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 na tive of Los Gatos and a 14 year resident on the North 40 property I 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 well,
Lynlee
Bischoff
(408) 76 1-1063
"Be Like Water My Friend, Be Like Water".
Bruce Lee
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
pe .losgatos@gmail .com
Saturday, April 09 , 2016 10:26 AM
Rob Rennie ; BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marni Moseley
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.
1
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 I 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 hel p.
The i dea that "this has been in development for a long time" is NOT a reason to approve.
It is not too l ate 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 -yo u've said this curr ent 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 th grader trying to get to school or someone trying to get t o 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 t i me .
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 maste r 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 i nterest 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 Counci l 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 rura l ) footprint. We aren't a sprawling metropolis. Urban sprawl is not our
issue. We are p lagued 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 bui ld and the property values have
suffered i rreparably.
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.
I 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
Joerg M . Borchert, Ph.D .
116 Oak Park DR.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Mrs. Moseley,
RECEIVED
APR 9 ?Oh
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Thank you ve r y 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 Ma in
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 si nce 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 ra i se more i ncome to have a ba lanced 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 La rk
Avenue due to more traffic to and from Netflix. The second factor has been the beach
traffic that shut down the town several wee kends in 2015 to a total still stand . The same
observation could be made dur ing the "Fantasy of Lights" event in December. In both
cases Los Gatos Bouleva r d 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 Or 360 home units as planned for the first stage o f the
developments add between 540 and 720 cars. It has to be taken into consideration that
noise and air pollution w ill increase. It was al most comi ca l 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 La rk 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 i n th e hearing. This plan creates more a Santana Row feel ing.
Therefore it blocks the hillside view. The multi level buildings also might i mpact 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 plann ing 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 <sarafishersmith@gmail.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 A venue? 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???????????????? 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 I 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@email.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 ch anged. Traffic is already out of control and approving more ofthis plan
will only make it 1 Ox 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@shhousinqgroup .com or call (925) 244-7536
Low Income Sen i or Units: Eden Housing at (510) 582-14 60
Laurel,
I just saw the above on the town website. I have never seen the town
promot e home sales for any developer. Is the Council aware of th is? I would
ask that you advise the m as soon as possible.
Thank yo u.
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 ther e and will 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 ofNetflix 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@grnail.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 "Guirung Principles" in the vision statement, and below each point I will briefly explain why
the proposed plans run counter to this.
•The North 40 wlll look and f eel like L os 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 t own's residential and/or 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 towa rds 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 minimize 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 rustricts. 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 time.
Benedicto M . Cortez, MD
Pediatric Intensivist
Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center
M arn i M os el ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subj ect:
ROBERT ROSS <ross3864@sbcglobal.net>
Sunday, April 10, 2016 12:10 AM
Marni Moseley
North Forty Planned Development
Any development which increases town population w ithout providing for corresponding increases in
town elementary, middle, and high school facilities and staffing is not in the best inte rests of Los
Gatos and the Developers proposal shou ld be denied. Bob Ross , reside nt.
1
' ~
l ~
.-
~
i
"'-'
::i::-do.-i+ ihll)t
~~shc~d\~
u: ~ 'J "'t("-e...,
~'l~l n~s::. acd,
~~fr'\
·~~ G-~.
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
APR 11 2016
. .
• : >o •• ,:0 •
~ . ..,.., . . .
..
. , v
-~ .•
.....
# .
I' • ... •
roWN~GAJ0°'i.~1
\ ~1 :o
APR 11 2016
CLERK DEPARTMENT -~_,Jo,.--.:\ \\\,::e. \IQ. idE::o.. o\;. y\t)-..\,h~ ;'YIOl'E:.. V<A-1\J;~31
I
-~ '.\-}.)~\ \ \a J.0 c rav-Jd.ec'-°' \-~c.. 'rta<:)\o:'{'\d <::>~he.\ '? \C1c.e&?J" Tn<::
,. _, 0 c \ \'"'e re o d °''e ~~ 1\~~"-\ \.o 1;.nb \~, \JJQ_ def\ I'\ e Q<.k ~o
o.c\ ~ "'\ ·'°'-:Tc:;' 1'he. \Jo'~ v t:J \.::eev, . ~<.\ c" -\\~a.\~
IJ\C('\" be ()..,f'\ j 1/Y\o C ()o..\\XC"'~ C'o'\ C: \,.,,\~\(;"''-to .Q \~ \ o:l'() ,
):~. o..Qco-..'..~ \~\.~\ oc..'.'-~ be~~\,C"'\ \o~"-.)-i'. w \ \\ be:-'co<ne.O\
(\; ~ S \({'\ '\. I 1..., 0 \ \ V\ \-e, c\_ 'fl \ 0-.C e.: \f\,::J'. '>.;_ '"'"'' v.J ·\\°'e..,('~ °"~ e_ \c;,), ':. o~
l \e_ es °'""<k'l.:\ov->~ \ $ li'-'"Ji.. \o 'r J'> ""-' :i9 l'O~ .b '"'"" "t fl'\ ~ '<'. rj
1 '-'o... °"' v:i \ \ \ \o~ '":> oo" ~ c N:'. • ~\~ 1..,-'> "" 0 \ «:. ~ ¢-'""' '\j d c e , \'"\ \ \. "'-
:\-~~ ~ d e . ( c N c . \ "' L1 c~. ' \1\ Q_., Cu ("\ ~\ f \;'C \ \ ·o {) ()) \. \ \
b\oc.'¥. ro~d-.s Qo\ °'-~on °l \-; rv-1 e. ~" pec'.?'\e L; • · ,,. .
l.o -\o.\:_~ o-\ax\~e_ \ ruv....\e -+'a v:J\o .... c..e.~.
[ \Je'\ \ ~C\.."-.q ~ -~ .1 o\ C
. \ \._) --(Y\ .°' ('\ Q ~ l [\ °' \ (,A J , ~ e· Cl \ ~ \ d. ~\' 'I '-') L -'-'-..'-.\ d 1 (:of'!'";;; o\e \ I ' ) \ l lC \.~q\\~. . ' .,
l 1.. " ,'"\\ • <~ €..'<"\~ · ) \ ' ( ,1. c c;4e\l~\'bv~ \ J.
v.:>a ·'~ .... . ·' ' t' \ ( \ e :i " o-.:\ '.j c:i c>-.... \ b e e: °'-I.J'S 12 0 ~ \J oA \') 4(
Marni M oseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
WM L. REAGAN <reaganlg@msn.com >
Monday, April 11, 2016 1:03 PM
Marice Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie ; BSpector; Steven Leonardis
Marni Moseley
north 40
Town Council Members and Planning Commission
Well 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 hills ides 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, Span i sh 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Marni,
Lori Ingle < loriinglel@gmail.com >
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:38 PM
Marni Moseley
Proposed North 40 Parcel
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 dev.elopment 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Susan Lee <susanlewlee@gmail.com>
Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:49 PM
BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marn i Moseley
North Forty Project Opposition
To the Mayor, City Council and City Planners of Los Gatos,
I 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 tha.t 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:
Sent:
Subject:
Michael Glow <glow.mike@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 13, 2016 3:08 PM
Please help save our town from massive over development
The photo below is of only of "Phase 1" 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 I SO cars
will be added to traffic on Lark A venue 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 Oetters@mercurynews.com), the Los Gatos Weekly Ogwt@community-
newspapers .com) or (dsparrer@community-newspapers .com), the Town Planner (Mmoseley@losgatosca.gov),
the Town Manager (lprevetti@losgatosca.gov), the Town Attorney (RSchultz@losgatosca.gov), the Mayor and
Town Council members
( bspector@losgatosca.gov:msayoc@losgatosca.gov;sleonardis@losgatosca.gov;mjensen@losgatosca.gov;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''.
l
2
From : John Shepardson [mailto :s hepardsonlaw @me .com ]
Sent : Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:59 PM
To : BSpector; Marko 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.
JS
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>
Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:58 PM Sent:
To:
Cc:
bspecgtor@losgatosca.gov; Marcia Jensen; Marice Sayoc; rennie@losgatosca .gov;
Steven Leonardis
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 current ly 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 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 (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 be ing 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 lots, with built in faciliti es 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Ms. Moseley,
Shawna Rodgers <smrodgerslO@gmai l.com >
Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:53 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 Worries
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.
I went to school in San D iego, 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 v ery 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 y ou b elieve that North 40 is in the best humanit arian interests of the town-
culture of Los Gatos, I encourage y ou 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 j ust for a moment, that this construction project is a mistake, I encourage
you to follow your intuition, even if it may be the unpopular choice among your potential money-driv en
affiliates. I hope this message finds you in a place of open-heartedness to feedback from your community
members.
Best Wishes,
Shawna Rodgers
l
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cathleen Bannon <cathleenbannon@gmail.com>
Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:19 PM
Marni Moseley
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 advertise.ments and to get the developer out of our Town Council Chambers for their marketing
purposes. This is an outrageous conflict of interest and unethi cal!
You are failing those you represent.
Cathleen Bannon
26828 Kennedy rd
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clay Wayman <cwayman8@gmail.com >
Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:03 PM
Marni Moseley
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 fo r anyone who is currently holding office
the next time around.
Clay Wayman
650 823 2191
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Kavitha Hubbard <kav ithamd@gmail.com >
Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:01 PM
BSpector; Marni Moseley
North 40 and Shannon Road Development
Please stop the overdevelopment of Los Gatos . It's wonderful having open space and le ss traffic compared to
other cities in the area. Please keep Los Gatos a town!!
Kavitha Hubbard, MD
l
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
Kay Maurer <kayathome@yahoo.com>
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 commun ity services .
Re : "mitigate impacts:" On a scale of A-F , the N40 Environmental Impact Report gives Los Gatos Bl vd 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 arch itecture
• 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 b icycle access . Hop on and be at Santa Clara Levi Stad ium ,
in Mountain View, San Jose, or Cal-Train station in 20 minutes .
Our Los Gatos Light Ra il extension is designed, with completed E .l.R., and shovel-ready plans for one station near the
new Netflix build ing-less than 1 mile from the N40-and another near Kaiser Campbell Medical Center.
However, due to reduced gas-tax revenu e, VT A 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 Britis h billionaire
landowner Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, I'd write a check.
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Susanne Moore <susannejmoore@gmai l.com>
Friday, April 15, 2016 11:02 AM
Marni Moseley
Laurel Prevetti; rschultz@losgaotsca.gov; BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Steven Leonardis;
Marcia Jensen ; Rob Rennie
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 gth 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
M arni M ose ley
From:
Sen t :
To :
Subject :
I mportance:
Marni Moseley,
David Smith <dsmith@vormetric .com >
Friday, April 15, 2016 12:35 PM
Marni Moseley
To Marni Moseley, a resident of LG
High
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 LG . for residence and thus paying a premium on the associated housing costs; don't be na'ive 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marcia Fariss <marcia@gizmology.com>
Friday, April 15, 2016 5:13 PM
Council; Planning
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 ofthis area will destroy what was
once a wonderful, channing 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 gridl ocked 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-de script "Mediterranean architecture"
development.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my concerns about the North 40 project.
Marcia Fariss
Saratoga
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Marni,
Las Astas <lasastas@gmail.com >
Saturday, April 16, 2016 7:54 AM
Marni Moseley
Los Gatos Resident Concern -North40 Development
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 i s accessed through Lark Ave . Our street is filled with young fam i lies
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 make s 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 populati on 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 adj acent
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 m i nute 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 conven ience and family need to save t i me 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 sc hool campus, both the town
(representing its residents) and developers have aligned incentives and interests over a longer period of time --with
1
properly des igned incentives both parties will have flexib ility to assess, evaluate and adjust for learnings. For example, if
phase 1 of North40 brings in more residents wit h school age child r en than was planned fo r the entirety of the project
development i n bot h Phases of construction, then the town ca n at least control/influence the use of space in the second
phase of development (I.e . Zone for more commercial and not more residential property which would even further
impact schools , o r require larger renovat ions or building a new neighborhood school if necessary to address
underesti mated 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 whe r e our Main Street
and downtown are limited to 2 story comple xes 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 establ is hed practice of preserving the small town
character by mandati ng reducti ons to the height and density of North 40 plans.
While I fully appreciate the realistic financi al needs that a project like North 40 helps contribute to our town, my letter is
i ntended to voice a common concern from many families i n 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 schoo l s great, an d 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 fina l plans .
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration .
Regards,
Andrew Sun
(Los Gatos Resident)
2
From: Barry & Elina Wong <bnewong@verizon.net>
Date: April 17 , 2016 at 2 :26:56 PM PDT
To: <bspector@losgatosca.gov>, <"rrennie "@losgatosca.gov>, <mjensen@losgatosca.gov>,
<sl eonardis@losgatosca .gov>, <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>, <lprevetti@los gatosca. 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
nwnbers 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 wilJ 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi ,
Jenny Li <jenny712us@yahoo.com >
Sunday, April 17, 2016 3:23 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
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
1
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 LG 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 "ii 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear sir or madam -
d .madsen@nm.com
Monday, April 18, 2016 8:46 AM
Planning
thoughts on new houses and the north 40
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 V icinato 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, CL TC, CHFC I Wealth Management Advisor
152 N . 3·· Street, Suite 755
San Jose, CA 95112
P: 408.535.5710 I F: 408.604.8101 I C: 408 .691 .6807
W : d .madsen@nm .com
LIC. #OB31083
~
Northwestern
Mutuar
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.
1
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.nmfn.com/cbpeopt/EmailOptOut.do.
Northwestern Mutual
720 East Wisconsin A venue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797.
2
Marni Moseley
From: David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, April 18, 2016 9:04 AM Sent:
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
1
Marni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Karen <karenchase3@gma il.com>
Monday, Apri l 18, 2016 6:40 PM
BSpector; Marice Sayoc ; Steven Leonard is; Marcia Jensen; Rob Renn ie
Marni Moseley
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 res i dents we should be able to envision the p r oject 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 f unds needed for staffing, supervi sion and materials also grows. The developer
must be r equired to pa y their fair share for an additional school and provide for increase student populations at our
middle and h igh schools.
What will you do to alleviate traffic on Lar k Ave nu e and the Lar k Avenue off ramp which are al ready impacted? Traffic
congest ion 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 t hat intersection.
Please consider the quality of life for those of us living in the town we love now.
Preserve our small town image by add ing 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@comcast.net 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 i s 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
Fr o m: Janette Judd
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:32 AM
kj@khoslaventures.com
Cc:
Subject:
cc: T o wn C ounc il
Town Manage r
Marni Moseley
FW : North 40
CollUUunity De velopment Director I .P aul so n
Associate Planne r M .Mose ley
Good morning,
Thank you for your e-mail , received by the Town Council , Town Manager, and Planning staff. Unfortunatel y,
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 [terns.
http ://www.town.los-gatos.ca.u s/21 26/Publ ic-Guide-to-Town-Co uncil -Meeting s.
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.
Additiona lly, your communication will be reta ined in the project file and included in public communications for
an y future Planning Commission and Town Council meetings. Should you have additional questions or
comments, Marni can be reached at (408) 354-6879 or MMosele y@l osG ato CA .gov.
Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments.
Best regards,
Jan ette Judd
Executive Assistant
Town Council and Town Manager's Office
(408) 354-6832
From: Keith Ja nosky [mailto:kj@khoslaventures.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
all owing 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.
1
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 b e 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 <bobkirkendall75 @gmail.com> wrote:
Please scale down the project way to big and not enough open space Robert Kirkendall 80
year resident
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent;
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Bonnie Hurwitz <bonniejhurwitz@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:32 PM
Marni Moseley
Los Gatos Hearing 4/19
I 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
1
Dear Planning Commissioners
Tonight I 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 the i r 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.
I 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 I
handed you, there are details regarding this development. I do not have time to review them now, but
I 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
Netflix/A ven tin o -Fact s
1) How may acres total -12.2 acres
2) Square Footage of the office -approximately 160,000 square feet
3) Square Footage of the resident ial -approximately 290,000 square feet
4) Number of residential units -(st udio, 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 space s.
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
RECEIVED
LlPR 21 2016
TO WN OF LO S GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
From : noreply@civicptus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplu s.c om]
Sent: Sunday, Ap ril 24, 2016 12 :04 PM
To : Town Manager; Ch r istina Gilmo r e
Subject: (North 40) Online Form Submittal : Customer Feedback Form
The following form was submitted via your website: Customer Feedbac k 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 Coun cil, Do you have the
weekend beach traffic problem solved yet? How about the summer beach traffic? St i ll 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 minute~ to get to a store? We're virtually p ri sone r s 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 solv i ng this problem, why do you think the residents want an
additional "hundreds" of homes built for more people to add to the gri dlock on Los Gatos Boulevard ? If
the existing traffic problem is an absolute SNAFU, how is it goi ng 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 t own council wished they would.
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc :
Subject:
Importance:
Jim Fo x <jfox152@comcast.net >
Sunday, April 24 , 2016 12:40 PM
bspector@losgatos.gov; Marica Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie
Marni Mose le y; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz
North 40 Pl an
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.c om/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
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw@me.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 SOOK for about the same acreage and be any whe re near
an environmentally superior altern ative?
Albright and the No. 40 are both on limited arterials and not far from each other.
ls the EIR solid? Does the EIR includ e Dell, ER expansion, PA.MF , 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 ://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/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 timed traffic lights , or sharp curves . They
can also be caused by temporary situations , such as vehicular accidents.
Stationary bottleneck[edit l
Before the first vehicles reach location Xo, the traffic flow is unimpeded. However,
downstream of Xo, the roadway narrows, reducing the capacity by half-and to below
that of state 8 . Due to this , vehicles will begin queuing upstream of Xo. 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 O', where they again travel at free-flow speed v,.
Once vehicles arrive at rate A starting at time f 1, 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
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:09 PM
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@losgatosca.gov>, msayoc@losgatosca.gov, Sleonardis@losgatosca .gov,
rrennie@losgatosca.gov, MJensen@losgatosca.gov, LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov,
RSchultz@losgatosca.gov, Mike.Wasserman@bos.sccgov.org, bloventhal@cityofmontesereno .org,
jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us, Carl Guardino <cguardino@svlg.org>, citycouncil@cupertino.org,
jpeterson@community-newspapers.com, vicemayorchang@gmail.com, hmiller@saratoga.ca .us,
sconway@losgatosca.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 http://www.grosvenor .com /news-views-research /news/2016/qood-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 proprieta ry business; named
'G ro sve nor E urope'.
• Several key internal promo t io n s announced in Grosvenor Group and Grosveno r
Britain & Ireland .
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)
G ROS V ENOR A M ERIC A S
• E s tablished a new partnership to quadruple our mezzanine lending programme and expanded
its reach to Washington , DC .
• Received planning approva l for Connaught , a mixed-use development in North Vancouver ,
B C , and adoption of the Specific Plan at The North 40 in
Los Gatos, California. (emphasis added)
• Started construction on three mixed-u s e 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
role s.
http ://www .grosvenor.com/our-businesses/qrosvenor-americas/
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:
Sen t:
To:
Subject:
For P C and TC.
Begin forwarded mes sage :
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com >
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:10 PM
Council ; Laurel Prevetti
N. 40 & Santana Row (Let's do the math based on reasonable assumptions: 75 % of
Santa Row Traffic)
From : John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Subject: N. 40 & Santana Row (Let's do t he math based on reasonable assumptions: 75% of
Santa Row Traffic)
Date: April 25, 2016 at 6:00:17 PM PDT
To: BSpector <BSpector@losgatosca .gov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatosca .gov>, Steven
Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca .gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennie@losgatosca .gov>, Marcia Jensen
<MJensen@losgatosca.gov>, Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca .gov>
Cut and paste from h ttp ://www.sant anarow .com/co nci erge/abo ut/
Santana Row is Silicon Valley's premier destination for shopp i ng, dining, living working and playing .
Offeri ng 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. SOOK square fee t?
1.0SM di v ided by l.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 per ceived safety.
So, let 's make a re ason abl e assumption that LG gets 75% of the traffic of Sant a Row . Is
that what we w ant? Is that sustainable? There are multiple lanes to
address the traffic for Santa R ow, which i s n ot the case in LG.
1
Cut & paste from http ://www.losgatos ca .gov/DocumentCenterNiew/1862
Executive Summary
Site Description and Location
Th e Nor th 40 site is a highly strategic location in th e West Valley for new commercial d evel opment:
•
•
-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. cemphasis added)
Demographic and Economic Overview
While Los Gatos itself is a small community, th e To wn and the Retail Trade Area (RTA) that it is situated in have
a s ignificant con centration of high-income households and high rates of homeowner ship that retailers and hotel
operators will like ly find attractive -despite mo d est future population and household growth :
o -The Town of Los Gatos had a population of29,413 in2010 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 20 l 0 compared to
the Bay Area average household size of2.69 . The Town 's median annual household income is over
$115,000, significantly higher than the $79,000 figure for the Bay Area . Approximately 63 percent of
occupied housing units are owner-oc cupied, 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 RT A '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 1of150
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 RT A will largely be infill on sites such as the North
40.
D espite a commute pattern of more re sidents commuting o ut of th e RTA than others commuting in , th e re are n early
I 00, 000 wo rkers commuting into the RTA every day wh o most likely patronize local retailers and service providers. Th e
No rth 40 s ite ben efits from the proximity of major employer s in th e adjacent Good Samaritan Hosp ital and other medical
facilities-these e mployees may be target market for new retail:
• -Los Gatos and the RT A function as a bedroom residential community in Silicon Valley with more residents
c ommuting out every day for work ( 186,900) than commute in (98,300).
2
• -Good Sa1naritan 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 employs
2,000 people. (emphasis added)
Cut & paste from https://www .sanjoseca.gov/Do cumentCenterNiew/45063
l. 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.go ve/hq /tpp/offices /ocp/igr ceqa files/tisguide .pd f.
Santana Row Project 4 First Amendment to the Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015
Regarding the DEIR and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA):
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 I-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 Cal trans 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) 1-880, 1-280 to Stevens Creek Boulevard (Impact: AM Peak Hour)
o • Southbound (SB) 1-880, Bascom A venue to Stevens Creek Boulevard (Impact: AM Peak
Hour)
o • Westbound (WB) 1-280 HOV, Meridian Ave to 1-880 (Impact: AM Peak Hour)
This project should provide mitigation measures (described below) for the impacts to these
affected freeway segments.
Respons e 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 EIR 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 proj ect, 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 AS : 3. Please provide the 95th percentile queuing analysis for the following intersections:
o • Monroe Street/Stevens Creek Boulevard;
o • 1-880 SB off-ramp/Stevens Creek Boulevard ;
o • Saratoga A venue/1-280 (north);
o • Saratoga A venue/1-280 (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
Respons e AS : The traffic analys is includes projections of traffi c 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 1-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard diagonal on-ramp;
o • NB I-880/Stevens Creek Boulevard loop on-ramp; and
o • NB 1-280/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. Cal trans recommends the City consider providing additional storage on the on-
Santana Row Project 6 Firs t 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 1-880/Stevens Creek
B oulevard diagonal on-ramp as a result of the interchange project. The NB 1-8 80/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 J-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 A 7: 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 t raffic per study
intersection under Project Only, 2035 Cumulative, and 2035 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
5
Response A 7: The DElR 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 TIA
(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 VT A 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 I-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 Al 0 : 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 pennit 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 Proj ect 8 First Amendment to th e Draft EIR City of San Jose July 2015
Comment Al 1: 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 A 11 : This comment is acknowledged.
Comment Al2: Transportation Demand Management (TOM)
The TOM 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 measures 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 .
7
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/hg /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 Al4: 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 /hg /traffops/trafrngmt/tmp 1 cs /index.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 Al4: 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <s hepardsonlaw@me.com >
Friday, April 29 , 2016 8 :41 AM
BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Laurel Prevetti;
Council; Robert Schultz; dabbati@lgusd.k12.ca.us; Wendi Baker
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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Friday, April 29, 2016 9:05 AM
BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Council
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 comm got increased to SOOK, 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 .com/ci 27904644/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
of364 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,
R ECE IV ED
MAY 5 -2016
T OWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Collectively we represent the ownership of the medical office building at 1504 7 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 overwhe lming 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 p lans 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 is sue 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 A venue 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 A venue. 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]
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Shepardson <shepard sonlaw@me.com >
Thursday, May 05 , 2016 9:11 AM
BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leona rdis; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Laurel Prevetti;
Council ; Robert Schultz; Mike.Wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; hmiller@sa ratoga.ca .us;
vicema yorchang@gma il.com; Carl Guardino; bloventhal @cityofmontesereno.org ;
jpeterson@community -newspapers.com; rodsinks@gmail.com; Wendi Baker;
don@harmonieparkdevelopment.com; Marn i Moseley
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 <shepard sonlaw@m e.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 pre sentation about traffic levels that I found in reviewing the EIR .
>
>
>
>
> <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 lots 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
residentia I.
>
>John Shepardson
>
> Sent from my iPhone
2
From: jackson faulkner [mailto: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
I 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 jgf41904@att.net
From: Don Wolf [mailto:donwolf20@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3 :42 PM
To: Council
Subject: North 40
Don Wolf
15400 Winchester Blvd, Unit 36
Los Gatos, CA 95030
May6, 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 b iggest 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 Y2 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 IO 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 [mailto:aal tmann @ve ri zon .n e t]
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 deta iled 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 rid iculous. Will there be housing police to control who moves into what
housing type? Will the 'sen ior' 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
d i strict 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 d ifferent 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 un it 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 d istricts? How about building the home type that don 't 'attract'
families outside of the LG district? Regarding petitions for t ransfer, 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 l ittle too far down Blossom Hill
Rd? People in the LG district do pay a prem ium to send their children to school at LG schoo ls
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 m itigated and that this development won 't impact the vitality
of our downtown businesses can be believed . The downtown is one of the reasons tha t people
visit LG and spend money here . If it does remain viable , what about those ta x dollars?
We do not understand how it i s 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 i n 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 res ident who feels positive about this
development or minds tra veling 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 BTW) 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
RECEIVED
MAY 1 2 2016
MAYOR 3 TO WN 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 li ve in Monterey's p ict uresque17 mi le drive , affluent Atherton , o r 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 dutv to elect "limited
growth" candidates to council and let ou r 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 .
132 Whitney Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
MAY 16 2016
AN OPEN LEITER TO THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS~DEPARDRNT
Dear Mayor and the Town Council:
The appearance of the story poles at the gateway to Los Gatos has caused a grou ndswell 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 in to our visual environment has suddenly become
a touchable reality that , 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 t he proposed project.
The proposed site plan reflects elements of an outmoded grid planning model that leads to a
rigid , repet itive and unimaginative design. The resu lting bu il d ing p lacement and mass beg in to
look more like 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 packi ng sardines in a can.
The architectural "style" and detail in g of the project blatantly violates the Visi on and G ui ding
Principles set forth in the Specifi c 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 vis ited 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 m ight 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 proj ect will, inevitably, bring to our Town .
The inescapable collateral damage resulting fro m a bad la nd use and plann i ng will be
irreversible. The systematic degradation o f our environment and infrastructure , if unchecked, will
in evitably lead to the destruction of the quality of life in our Town, as we know it. We can't tear
down the sound walls 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 the ir destinations in time to save lives or extinguish fires.
Our hillsides east of Main Street and Los Gatos Boulevard are particu l arly vu lnerable during the
fire season , if the firefighters can't reach the fire, due to traffic jams that now inundate our ci ty
streets in both directions several times each day. With the access streets to ou r hillside homes
blocked the residents will be trapped and exposed to dange r.
The Environmental Im pact Report criteria for evaluating the existing and the proj ected traffi c
conditions are based on nat ional averages. The charts of traffic counts, vo lumes, in tensities and
othe r 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 "l ess than significant" repeated ad
nauseam and the mitigating measures woefully ina dequate . We can see this daily by having to
li ve with the rapidly deteriorating traffic co nditions , that attest to t he defects of previously
approved EIR'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 abil ity to plan our lives . Ou r current traffic
situat ion 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 traj ectory, we'll lose the identity of our Town and everything that makes
our town very special , like the un ique 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 commun ity's 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 ou r Town . A compell ing 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 pollution , 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 the
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 fo r 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 li sten 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 un its and North
40 all come on line, the resu lts will be irreversible, with d isastrous effect upon traffic, schools
and our way of life in our Town .
Sincerely,
Albins Martinskis , a permanent res ident 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good afternoon,
MAUREEN CAPPON -JAVEY <maureen.capponJavey@me .com >
Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:06 PM
North40 Comment
Suggested Usage of Proposed Open Space
I 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 ded icated 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Cathleen Bannon <cathleenbannon@gmail.com>
Thursday, June 02, 2016 9:25 AM
North40 Question
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 wilJ 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 I ... 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 millennials is ignorant as
they too will have children. Can not assume someone else is taking care of it.
> -bow can you approve without share bow 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 @c iv icplus .co m [ma ilto:no reply@c iv icplu s.c om]
Sent : Wedne sday, June 01 , 2016 4 :20 PM
To: Town Manager; Ch r istina Gilmore
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Cust omer Feedback Form
The following form was submitted via yo u r website: Cu stomer 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 I donated by the Lester(?) Family or
the Martial Cottle park . see link below.
http://www.parks.ca.gov/page s/21299/files/martialcottlepk_revisionstoparkplan_rev2-01-ll.pdf'
Los Gatos would not get a donation of the North 40, instead it would buy the property.
It wou ld be funded by a bond issue . It would be repaid with a parcel ta x 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 re sidents 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 mainta ining 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 w ith
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 appro x. $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 bureaucra cy to do something like this . Remember when Cl int Eastwood bought the
mission ranch?
From: teamdriven2012 . [mailto :mxk727@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:24 AM
To: Town Manager
Subject: RE: North 40 Public Safety
To: Planning Department,
From: Max Kem
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 for. 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.
I 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
Marni Mosele y
From:
Sent:
T o:
Subject:
Frank 's email <mfrank746@sbcglobal.net >
Monday, May 23, 2016 3:48 PM
North40 Comment
North 40
I am a 48 year resident of Los Gatos. I 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 . I 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 n ightmare! 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com >
Monday, May 16, 2016 9:23 AM
Council; Marni Moseley
N. 40 & Self-Driving Cars
IMG_0564.J PG ; A TIOOOOl.txt
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To :
Subject:
Judith <tbwinca@comcast.net >
Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:35 PM
North40 Comment
Underground park ing
Has underground parking been considered to allow for more green space? Judy
Sen t from my Samsung Galaxy Tab® S
1
M arni Mose ley
From:
Sent :
To :
Subject:
Laverne Nolan <lnolan12@verizon.net>
Friday, May 13, 2016 11 :2 3 AM
North40 Comment
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; Marica 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 r ight 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 i s 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, den se, 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 th is, the City and all its residents will always have a problem . Now is the time to
fi x th is mess. DUMP IT !
Sincerely,
Dave Saute r
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Becky Yoder <becky_SS@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, June 07, 2016 9:07 PM
North40 Comment
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.
1
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
Ill. 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
1of4
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 SPECI FIC 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).1
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.
1 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
COMPARISON of the MAXIMUM CAPAC ITY DEVELOPMENT
SANTANA ROW ENTITLEMENTS AND THE NORTH 40 SPEC IFIC PLAN
SANTANA ROW PDC NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA SIZE 42.5ACRES 44ACRES
DENSITY 76+ UNITS/ACRE l20 UNITS/ACRE
NUMBER OF UNITS 1229 UNITS 364 UNITS (1)
TOTAL 1,507,000 SF 501 ,000 SF
COMMERCIAL SPACE retail/restauranVoffice/hotel/ ~eta i l/restaurant/office/hotel/
movie theater) (2) !entertainment) (3)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 90' 145 ' (3)
MINIMUM NO MINIMUM ~0% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE 20% Minimum Green Space
REQU IRED l20% 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 commerc ial -Total not to exceed 501 ,000
including existing commerc ial.
(4) Roadways and the paved areas of parking lots are not counted towards open space requ irements.
However, parking lot landscaped areas are counted.
4 of 4
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
T o :
Subject:
Erin <ekasenchak@yahoo.com >
Thursday, June 09, 2016 11:00 PM
North40 Comment
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 adequate! y 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 tum 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 fami ly in an amazing small town feel with a
great community. I'm very, very concerned that the size and scope ofthis 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, y ou '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.
1
A very concerned citi zen -
Erin Kasenchak
***********************
Erin Kasenchak
ekas enchak@ yahoo.com
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern:
Martha Wills < mtswills@gmail.com >
Saturday, June 11, 2016 3:48 PM
North40 Comment
comments on North 40 development
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:
Sent:
To:
E Robillard <ericrawler@gmail.com>
Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:13 PM
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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
To whom it may concern,
Meagan Calahan <meaganvm@gmail.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 12:14 PM
North40 Comment
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 i ncomes, 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Paul Marquis <pmarquis73@gmail.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 3:21 PM
North40 Comment
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 I "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 I developers to get what they were legally obligated to compensate us
(where Cupertino's mayor himself had to step i n and remind the developers of their responsibilities), my wife and I
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 l" 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 fee lings 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 I 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 .
1
From: Ed Damore <damoresix@comcast.net>
Date: June 12, 2016 at 4:20:30 PM PDT
To: North40 question <North40.guestion@LosGatosca.gov>
Cc: <RS chultz@losgatosca.gov>, <lprevetti@losga tosca.gov >, <bspector@losgatosca.gov>,
<mjensen@losgatosca.gov>, <sleonardis@losgatosca.gov>, <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>,
<rrennie@losgatosca.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.
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 :
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
M a r ni M osel ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ed Damore <damoresix@ comcast.net >
Su nday, June 12, 2016 4 :21 PM
North40 Question
Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leon a rdis; Marica
Sayoc; Ro b Rennie
North 40
Dear Town Council (Notice how I said Town and NOT City),
I th ink 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:
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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bonnie Payne <bonnieapayne@comcast.net >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 4:33 PM
North40 Comment
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. I 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 parki ng. 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
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
JoAnn Mannone <joannmannone@gmail.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 6:35 PM
North40 Comment
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 ... it is not there choice to move!
Thank you
JoAnn
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
NONNA'S CREATIONS .COM <info@nonnascreations.com >
Sunday, June 12, 2016 6:43 PM
North40 Comment
relocation for renters
I would l ike 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.
1
M a r ni M ose ley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Diane Siemens <siemedian@comcast.net>
Monday, June 13, 2016 10:04 PM
North40 Question
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. 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 effecting what you are approving and the acceptance of an obviously
inadequate EIR.
I am not against a comb ination of higher density housing and neighborhood commercia l on th is 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 worki ng 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@gmail.com >
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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Amy Despars <amydespars@hotmail.com>
Monday, June 13, 2016 10:15 AM
Robert Schultz; Laurel Prevetti; BSpector; Marcia Jensen ; Steven Leonardis; Marica
Sayoc; Rob Rennie; North40 Question
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 & 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 Ill? Will there be sca le models of Phase II and Phase Ill avaHable 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 worki ng on this alone. No offense to Marni but she
needs other peop le advising he r on thi s 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kelsey Stillinger <kelsey@stillinger.com>
Monday, June 13, 2016 12 :04 PM
North40 Comment
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 t he 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Town Council Members
Anne Roley <anne@anne4pt.com>
Tuesday, June 14, 2016 9:00 PM
North40 Comment; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob
Rennie
RE : HOUSING ALONG THE 17 FREEWAY
I 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:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Hello North 40 Study Session:
bill99cmt@aol.com
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:30 PM
North40 Question
Questions for 6/15/16 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 bu ilding of many new housing units
that will break our limited infrastructure with impacts like gridlock and over-crowded 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 typ ical of Los Gatos and retain space that they can push to develop
later?
Regards ,
Bill Kraus
Los Gatos, CA Resident
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms. Moseley,
Susie Vosky <susie .vosky@gmail.com >
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:42 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
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?
Tiris 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
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gardner Jeanne <jgardneralternatives@gmail.com >
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:17 PM
North40 Question
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
cha r m 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 deve lopment at the corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd . was recently presented by a gentl eman 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 all of us can be proud of.
Thank you fo r your cons ideration
Jeanne Gardner
125 Westchester Drive
(408) 356-9907
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Linda <lsherry@aol.com >
Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4:33 PM
North40 Question
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 <lsherrv@aol.com>
Date: June 15 , 2016 at 4 :34:01 PM PDT
To: "bspector@losgatosca.gov" <bspector@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
•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 -restaurants and
nail shops? Manresa Farmers Market= necessary?
•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-clean-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 I
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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robb Walker <rnwalkerl@comcast.net>
Friday, June 17, 2016 7:20 AM
North40 Question
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 on line 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
1
Marni M oseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Harold Crenetz < harc@comcast.net >
Saturday, June 18, 2016 7:57 PM
North40 Question
North 40
If after all is developed and the traffic on all 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 Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello
msjulie33 <msjulie33@gmai l.com >
Tuesday, June 21 , 2016 4:26 PM
North40 Question
public opinion
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
Jul ie
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From: Joel Paulson
Sent:
To:
Friday, June 24, 2016 4:13 PM
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 i n 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 he reb y 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. ln 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 J 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
1
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 J 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 I of thls section, among the "overarchlng
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 i s 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 A venue. 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 LUIO , 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 c an 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 on 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,
WoodyNedom
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 ofliving 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
theN40.
Thank you,
Anne Robinson
https ://eh journal. biomedcentral. corn/ articles/10.1186/14 7 6-069X-6-23
http ://now.tufts.edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-highways
<report.pdf.><Health-Hazard-of-Freeways.pdf.><Freeway.pdf.>
TO: YV\I\·~'( lSA'DAMCf° + PL_.~IJIJJ/J'} C.Ow.t.M l~SiD ftEeEIVED
FROM : Robb Walker and Nancy Walker
RE : North Forty Plan JUN 2 7 2016
T':'' '"'J OF LOS GATOS
t•l./,N NING 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. I 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"
don 't think that they
sh,b uld build a school that lies
alhng a freeway."
-BARRY WALLERSTEIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Air po llu tion is a major risk to our hea lt h and sa fe-
ty and is the cont rib uting cause of nea rl y 100,000
premature deaths each year,' more than twice the
numbe r of deaths from car crashes.2 In 2002, almost
halfof all Amer ic ans-or 137 mill ion pe ople -lived in
co unties with unhea lthy air lad en with one or more
criteria air po llut ant s, accord ing to the American
Lu ng Assoc ia t ion.3
A major source of t his air polluti on is t he exhaust
from the tailpipes of trucks and cars . A var iety of
dangerous pol lutants are rel eased daily from the
exte nsi ve networks of busy highways that bord er
co untles s neighborhoods and businesses . These
pollutants cause numerous adverse health effects
includmg cancer, asthma, and heart attacks . In addi-
tion, asthma, which is exacerbated by po ll utio n from
t ru cks and ca rs, 1s the leading serious chronic ill ness
among chi ld ren and the numb er one reason chil-
dren mi ss school.•
The main cancer-causing po llu tan ts from trucks
and car s are diesel parti cula te ma tter and Vo lati le
Organic Com pound s (VOCs) suc h as benzen e, 1,3-
butadien e, formaldehyde, and po lycyc li c aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
In recent )'ea rs th e relati onship bet ween veh icle
po ll ut ion and increased cancer risk has received
considerab le scientific attention . A Denver stud y
shows t ha t children who live withi n 250 ya rd s of a road
with 20,000 or more ve hicles per day are eight times
mo re likely to get leukemia and six ti mes more lik ely to
get other cance rs. The authors of the study attribute
mos t of thi s risk to the voes in motor ve hicle ex haust.5
As the graphic shows, roadways create a co rridor of pol -
lution for the drivers and res id ents nea rb y.
Highway Air Pollution and
Public Policy
Bush Administ ratio n Transpo rtation
Policy: Fewer Transpor tat ion Choic es
and Mo re Pollutio n
Just as pub lic tra nspo rtat ion rid ershi p is rea ching
re cord numbers,' the Bush adminis trati on is propos-
ing to diminish in vest me nt in dive rse transpo rtati on
choices in America wit hin t he Senate Bill 1071 th at
has yet to be approved by t he legis lature.7 The
admini stra tion is recomm en di ng greater incentives
fo r hig hways t han for cleaner pub lic transportat ion
pr ojects . Under thei r plan co mmun ities wou ld pay
50 perce nt of the cost fo r new publi c transportat io n
pr ojects. Com pleti ng on ly 20 percent of the new
pr opos ed road proj ects wou ld put pub lic trans -
portatio n alternat ives further out of thei r reach. In
addition, the adm inist ration proposes spending less
th an on e do llar on trai n transit projects for every
fou r dollars spen t on highway s.
The ad min istration's tra nsport at io n plan fails t o
adequately fund th e Co ng es t io n Mit igation and Air
Qua lity Improv emen t (C MA Q) program tha t spu rs
t ransportation projects tha t impro ve a region's ai r
quality. Dem and fo r the CM AQ is ex pected to sky-
rocket, as the number of regions w ith unhea lthy air
2 Highway Health Hazards
Bu sinesses, publi c spa ce,
and tr an sportation co -
exist on thi s downtown
~::=::c...Jl'._.:;::.'.:i:...Jl!&iiiiillil~'.::::.l~~~--===--~~---~-----~---~---=__J Den ve r st reet.
Changes in Federa l Transportation
Po licy Can Cut Pollution and Provide
More Transportation Choices
• Federal and state transportat ion agencies shou ld
ba lance transportation investments between high-
ways and alterna tive forms of transpo rtation includ-
ing pub lic transit, bike paths, an d si dewa lks.
• They shou ld also suppor t a "fix it first" menta lity,
which uses resources to maintain existing roads
before bu ilrling new ones. This spends fewer tax
do ll ars fo r new car-only transporta tion projects.
• In addition, the EPA and DOT shou ld conduct
health risk studies in its environmental rev iew of
new road projects with more than 150,000 vehicles
per day and provide that information to the public
as parr of transportation decision-making processes.
We Can Take Action in Our
Communities for Clean Transpo rtation
• We can carpoo l, bus, or take the train to work
wheneve r possible to reduce traffic and pollution;
encourage loca l governments to use clean-burning
buses and hybrid cars for pub lic transportation sys-
tems and government vehicles .
·Ask our loca l governments and workp laces to offer
more public transportation incentives.
· Incenti ves might in cl ude "Commuter Choice
Checks" that give workers a tax deduction for the
money they spend using pub lic transit to com mute
to work, tax credits for wa lking or biking, or a parking
cash-o ut.
acute as thma attac ks by up to 44 percent in children,
reduc ed ozone concentra tion s by 28 percent, and
morning peak traffi c by 22.5 percent. These data pro-
vide supp ort for effort s to redu ce air pollu ti on an d
improve health via reduction s in motor ve hicle tr affi c.
Friedman , Mi chael, Kenneth Powell MD; Lon Hutwagne1; Leroy
Graham, Gerald Trague Impact of Changes 1n Transportation and
Com mut ing Behaviors During the 1996 Summer OlymplC GJmes
in Atbnta on Au Qua lity and Chi ldhood Asthma, Journal of the
Ame11can Medical Assooat1on, 2001 , 285 ·897-905.
Contact Michael S Friedman, National Center for Env1ronmenlill
Health, Cen ter fo1 Dlse11se Control and Preven11on. cmJil
mf:1@cJc gov
4. Soot Particu l ate Matter
Linked to Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality
A re cent study appea rin g in the Journa l of the
Amer ica n Med ica l Assoc iat ion showed that day-to-
day exposure to soot or fine particulate matter, a
major component of tai lpipe pollution incr eased the
risk of va ri ous adve rse healt h effects . Mo re specifical-
ly th e study shows that ea ch 10 microgram/mete r'
elevation in fine particu late air poll ution lea ds to an 8
percent increased ri sk of lung cancer death s. a 6
percen t increased ri sk of ca rd iopul monary mor tali-
ty (heart att acks) and 4 percent in creased risk of
d eCJ th from genera l cau ses.
Pope, Clive Arden Ill, Richard P. Burnett. et al. Lu ng Cancer,
Card1opu lmo nclry Morta lity, and Long-term l xposure to Fine
Particulate Air Po lluuon Jou rn al of the Amencan Medical
ASSOCIQf/011, Ma1ch 6 2002 -Vol 287, No 92.
Contact Clive Arden Pope, Brigham Young University.phone (801)
422-21S7. e-mail cap3@emadbyu edu
5. Tru ck Traffic Linked to Chi ldhood
Asthma Hospitalizations
A study in [rie County, New York (exclu d ing the
city ot Buffalo) found that child ren living 1n neigh-
borhoods with heavy tru ck traffi c within 220 yards of
th eir homes had increased ri sks of asthma hospital-
izat ion. The stud y examined hospital admissi on for
as thm a amo ngs t children ages 0-1 4, and res ide nti al
proximi ty to roads wi th heavy traffic.
Lin, Shao. Jean Pie rre Munsie; Syni-An Hwang . Edward Fitzgerald;
and Michael R Cayo, (2 002 ). Childhood Asthma Hospitalization
and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Envi ronmenta l
Resea rch, Sec tion A, Vol 88, pp . 73-81.
6. Pregnant Women Who Live Near
High Traffic Areas More Likely t o
Have Premature and Low Birth
Weight Babies
Resea rchers observed an approximate ly 10-20
perce nt incre ase in the ri sk of premature birth and
low bir t h weight for infa nts born to women livi ng
near hig h traffic areas in Los Angel es County. In
partic ul ar, the researchers found that for eac h one
part-per-m ill ion increase in annual ave rage ca rbon
monoxide conc entrations where the women lived.
ther e wa s a 19 percent and 11 per cen t increase 111
risk for low-birth weigh t and prem ature birth s,
respec tive ly.
Wilhelm, Michelle and Se ate Rrtz (2002). Residentia l Proximity to
Traffic and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Lo s Angeles Count)',
Ca hforn1a, 1994-1996. Envlfonmenrol Healrh Perspewves. do1
1 o 1289/ehp 5688
Con tact Beate Ritz, Department of Ep1dem1ology, School of Publ c
Health, UCL A, phone (3 10) 20t-7458, e-m ail bmz@uclo.edu
7. Traffic Increased Cancer-Causing
Pollut ion Levels at Tollbooth
A 2003 stu dy publi shed in th e Journal of Air &
Over the last 50 year s we have
torn down communities to
build highways . We need to
rebuild our future with clean
transportation and better
comm uni ty design.
• .. ' 11 -• ,--,"1/lf _· . ' ....... .::_-.·.,. _;• ... -----i:.:~ -~~ . -• ' l.:. ~ ·.·.
You do not nee d
to be a public
health official to kno w
tha t it is dangerou s to
breathe di es el ex hau st.
' ...-• • --..-.. ----, .. -fl ' ·~ • . I ~-, ~-~ .,.,. -I _.,. --
Waste Managem ent shows th at the re is a "significant
assoc iatio n betwe en vehic le traffic and cu rbside
concentrations of the ca rcinogens benzene, 1,3-
butadi ene, and partic le-bound po lycycli c aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH)." The measurements, which
were taken at the Ba ltimore Harbor Tunnel to ll -
booth, show that much of the dai ly pollutant vari -
ability was explained by traffic vo lum e, cla ss and
meteoro logy. The study provides a mode l for esti-
matin g curb side pollution leve ls associated wi th
traffic that may be re leva nt to exposures in the
ur ban environment.
Sapkot a. Amir and Buck ley, Timothy J. The Mob ile Source Effect on
Curbside l.3 ·Butad 1ene, Benzene. and Pill ucle-Bound Polycyc lic
Aromatic Hydroca1bons Assessed ilt a lollbooth Journal o( A11 &
Waste Management 537400748
Comact· Dr Timothy J Buckley, Depa1 tmen t of Env11onmental
Healt h Sciences. Johns Hoµk1ns Bloomberg School of Public
Health; phone (410) 614-5750, e-mail tbuckley@jlJSph.edu.
8. Air Ins ide Cars Typica ll y Contains
More Dangerous Air Pollutants than
Outside
The results of 23 se parate scie ntific studies shows
that in -ca r air pollution leve ls frequently reach con-
ce nt rations t hat may thr eaten human hea lth. The
repo rts show that the ai r inside of ca rs typica ll y con-
tains more ca rb on monoxid e, benzene, to luen e, fine
particulate matter, and ni trog en oxides than ambi-
ent air at nearby monitoring stations. These po llu-
tant s are particula rl y dange rous for chi ldren , the eld-
er ly, and peo pl e with asthma or other respiratory
conditions.
Kimbre ll , And rew. In-Car Ai1 Pollution. The Hid den Threa t to
Au t omobile Drivers Intern ational Ce nte 1 for Technology
Assess rnenr Ju ly 2000 .
Con t act Andrew Kimbre l l. phone (202 ) 547-9359. emai l .
kimbre//@1cro org
9. People Who Live Near Freeways
Exposed to 25 Times More Soot
Particu late Po ll ution
Studies co nd ucted 1n the vicinity of Intersta tes 405
and 710 in Southern Ca li fornia found that the numb er
of ul tr a-fine soot partic les in the air was approximate-
ly 25 times mo re concent rat ed near the highways
and that po llu tion leve ls gradua ll y decrease back to
norm al (background) leve ls arou nd 300 mete rs, or
nea rl y 330 ya rds, downwin d from the highway. The
researche rs note that motor vehic les are the most sig-
nifi ca nt source of ultra-fine parti cle s, which have been
linked to increases in morta li ty and morb idity. Rece nt
resea rch conc ludes th at ultr a-fine soo t particles are
mor e toxic than larg er particles with the same
chemica l co mposi t io n. Moreover, the researche rs
found cons iderab ly highe r concentrat io ns of car-
bon monoxide pollution near the highways.
Zhu, Yifang. Wilham C Hinds, Kim Seong heon , 51 Shen.
Constantinos Sioutas Concentration and size d1str1but1on of ultr a-
f1ne parncle s near a ma1or hi ghway Journal o( rhe Alf and Wos re
Management As sooa tlon . September 2002 And, Study of ult ra-
fine pa 1ticlcs near a m.i1or highwJy wit h heavy-duty diesel traffic.
Atmospheri c Env 11 onment 36(2002). 4323-4335 .
10. Motor Vehicle Pollution
Dominate Cancer Risk
The most comprehe nsi ve study of urban toxic ai r
pollu tion ever undertaken shows that motor ve hi -
cl es and other mobile sources of air po ll ut io n are the
pr edominant source of cancer-ca using air po llu tants
in Southern Ca lifornia. Ove rall. the stud y showe d
tha t motor vehic les and othe r mobile sources
account ed for abo ut 90 percent of the ca ncer risk
from toxic air po llution , most of which is from diesel
soot (70 percent of the ca nce r risk). Industries and
8 Highway Health Hazards
othe r st at ionar y so urces acco unted fo r th e remain-
ing 10 pe rcent . Th e stu dy showe d th at th e highest
nsk is in urban are as where the re is heavy tra ffic an d
high co ncent rations of popula ti on and industry.
Sou th Coast Air Qual ity Management Distric L Multiple Air Toxics
Exposu re St udy-II March 2000 .
Contact Steve Barbosa. phone: (909) 396-2171.
sbarbosa@aqmd.gov. or Barbara We ll er, Califoin ra Air
Resources Board, phone (916) 324-4816
11. Lung Function Reduced Among
Ch il dren Liv in g Near Tru ck Traffic
A European stud y determined that expo sure to
tr affic -re lated air poll ut ion, '"in pa rticu lar diese l
exha ust part ic les," ma y lead to redu ced lu ng func-
ti on in child ren li vin g nea r maj or motorways .
Brunekreef, B; NA Janssen . J DeHartog ; H Harssema , M. Knape. P
Van Vliet (1997) "Air pollunon from truck traffrc and l ung funcrron
in children living near motorways: Epidemiology 8(3) 298 -303
12 . Traffic-Related Air Pollution
Associated with Respiratory
Symptoms in Two Yea r Old Ch il dren
This co hor t stu dy in t he Neth erl an ds fo und tha t
two yea r old chi ldren who are exp osed to higher
levels of t raffic-related air pollution are more like ly to
have se lf-report ed resp ir ator y illn es ses, inc ludin g
wheezing, ear/nose/th roat infectio ns, and reporting
of physicia n-diagnose d ast hma, nu or serious cold.
Brauer.Dr. Michael Jet al (2002) Air Poll ution from Traffic and the
Development of Respira tory Infect ions ano Asthmatic and All ergic
Symptoms in Children . Amer/Can Jo urnal of Resplfarory and
Cm1ca/Care Med1cme Vo l 166pp 1092-1098
Contact Dr Mi chael Brauer. Schoo l of Occupat1on~I and
[nv1ronment al H11giene. Unive rsity of Br1t1sh Columbia,
Vancouve·. Bnush Co lumbia. Canada Phone (604) 822-9585 . e-
mail b10ue1@m1erchange.ubc co
13. Asthma Symptoms Caused by
Truck Exhaust
/\ study was co nd uc ted in Munster, Ge rma ny to
determin e the relationship between tru ck traffic and
as t hma symptoms. In tota l, 3,703 German st11dems.
bE>tween the ages of 12-15 years. comp leted a wri t-
ten and video questionnaire in 1994-1995. Positive
associations betwee n bo th wheezing and allerg ic
rhinitis and tru ck traffic we re found du ring a 12
mont h pe ri od. Po tentia ll y co nfo unding va riab les,
inc ludi ng in dicat ors of soci o-eco nomic status, smok-
in g, etc., did not alte r the assoc iati ons su bstan tia lly.
Duhme. H.; SK Weiland, et al ( 1996).The assoc1at1on between se lf-
repo rted symptoms of asthma an d allergic rhinitis and se lf-rep ort-
ed t raffic density on st reet of residence 1n ado lescents.
Epidemio logy 7(6 )·578-82
14. Proximi t y of a Child's Res id ence
to Majo r Roads Linked to Hospita l
Adm issions for As th ma
A study in Bi rm ing ham, Unit ed King do m, dete r-
mi ned t hat livin g nea r majo r ro ads was assoc iat ed
with the ris k of hospi tal adm issio n for as th ma 1n chil-
dren yo unge r than five years of age. The area of res -
idence and traffic now pa tt erns we re compa red fo r
chi ldren adm itted to the hos pital fo r as thma, chi l-
dren ad mi tte d for non-res pi rato ry reaso ns. and a
random sample of chi ldren from th e co mmuni ty.
Chil dren admitted wit h an asth ma diagnos is we re
significa ntly mo re li ke ly to li ve in an area with hi gh
tra ffi c fl ow (mo re than 24,000 vehicles/ 24 hrs) locat-
ed along th e nearest segme nt of main road.
Edwards,J.;S Walters, et al (1994) Hosp ital admissions for ast hma
in preschool ch ildren. relat1onsh1p to major roads rn Birmin gham,
Uni ted Kingdom Archives of Env ironmenta l Health 49(4). 223-7
15. Exposure to Ca nce r-Ca using
Benzene Higher for Children Living
Near High Traffic Areas
Germa n resea rche rs compa red 48 children who
live d in a centra l ur ban area with high traffic de nsity
Many schools are
located near bus y
roads in addition to
ha vi ng di ese l buses
idling nearby.
·sierra Club 2004 9
~ LI ~ ---•
-.. ~ _-_,r::--' -ii/Iii~ ' .. -" \-~ .:f . ->, •• :_!!i ~~-~ -~ ...... ~ ' -y----~ -.-.... ----.. -.( ... ·~..:. ~~ '
Des pite stro ng oppos itio n
pri or to its const ru ction,
Sa lt La ke City 's TR AX
syst em is run ning strong .
It ca rries over 20,000
riders every day-many
of whom co mmuted in
ca rs befor e switch in g to
rai l.
with 72 chi ldren who lived in a sma ll city with low
traffic density. They found that the blood leve ls of
be nzene in chi ldren who lived in the high-traffic-den -
si ty area we re 71 perce nt highe r than those of chil-
dren who lived in the low-traffic-densi ty area. Bloo d
level s of to luene and ca rboxy hemoglobtn (formed
after breathing carbon monoxide) were also signifi-
can tly elevated (56 percent and 33 percent hig her,
respectively) among children regularly exposed to
vehic le po ll ution. Ap las t ic anemia, a serious condiion
in which bone marrow stops producing blood ce lls,
and leu kemia we re associa ted wit h excessive expo-
sure to benzene .
Jermann E. H. Haj1miragha. A Brockhaus. I Freier. U Ewers, A
Roscova'lu Exposure of children to benzene and other motor
vehicl e em1ss1ons Zenrralblatt fur Hygiene und Umweltmed1zin
189:50-6,. 1989
16. Air Pollution from Busy Roads
Linked to Shor t er Life Spans for
Nea rby Residents
Dutch researchers looked at th e effects of long -term
exposure to traffic-re lated ai r pollutan ts on 5,000
adu lts.They fou nd that people who lived near a main
road were almo st twice as li kely lo die from hea rt or
lung disease and l .tJ times as likely to die from any
premature cause com pared with th ose who live d 1n
less-trafficked areas. The au thors say traffic em1ss1ons
co ntain man y poll utants that might be responsible for
the health ri sks, such as ultra-fine parti cles, diesel soot,
and nit rogen oxides, whic h have been linked to car-
diovascu lar and respiratory problems.
Hoek. B1unekreef. Goldbohn, Fischer, van den Brandt (2002) Assooauon
Between Monality and Indicators ofTraffic-1elated Air Polluuon 1n the
Netheilands./\ Cohort Study Lancet.360 (9341) 1203·9
17 . Asthma More Common for
Childre n Living Near Highways
A study of near ly 10,000 children in Eng land found
that wheez ing illne ss, in cl uding asthma, was mo re
like ly with incre asing proximity of a chil d's home to
main roads . The risk was greatest for chi ldren living
within 90 yards of th e road.
Venn et al (200 1) L1v1ng Near A Main Road and the Risk of
Wheezing Illness 1n Children. Amencon Journal of Respiratory
and Cr/Cleo/ Care MedJCme Vol 164, pp 2177-2180 _
18. Exposure to Nitrogen Diox ide
{N0 2) fro m Veh icles Exacerbates
As t hma Attacks
Resear chers at St. Mary's Hospital 1n Portsmo ut h,
England determ ined that while 80 perce nt of asthma
anacks are initia lly caused by vi ral infections, exposure
to traffic poll ution can increase symptoms as muc h as
200 per ce nt_ The tea m measured the exposure of 114
as t hmati c chi ldren be tween ages eig ht-e leven from
nonsmoking fam ilies over almost a who le yea r. They
found a str ong cor relation between higher N0 2 pol-
lution and the sever ity of an attack.
ChauhJn. A ., et al Personal exposure to nl[rogen d1ox de {N02)
and 1he sevc11ty of v1•us·1nduced usthmo in childre n Lance1
Volume 361 bsue 9373 Page 193CJ
1 O Highway Health Hazards
19. A Schoo l's Proximity to Highways
Associated with Asthma Preva lence
A study of l ,498 ch ildren in 13 schools in the
Provi nce of South Ho ll and found a po sitive relation-
ship between sc hool proximity to highways and
asth ma occurre nce. Tru ck traffic intens ity and the
concen tr at ion of po llut ants meas ured in sc ho ols
were found to be signifi cant ly assoc iated with
chronic res pir atory sympt om s.
Vari Vliei.P, M Knape. er al (1997).Moror vehicl e exhaust and ch1on-
1C resp11atory symptoms in children living near freeways
[nv1ronmental Reseilrch 74(2) 122-32
20. Five Times More Deaths Due to
Air Pollut ion than Traffic Accidents
Thi s study analyzed th e affect of traffic-related air
pollution and traffic acc id ents on life expectancy in
the area of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It es ti-
mated th at almost five times more deaths in this
region resul ted from motor vehic le poll ution than
from traffic accidents.
Szagun and Se idel (2000) Mortillity due to road trJffic in Baden-
Aurllemberq Gesundhe1tswesen. 62(4) 225 -33
21 . Cancer Risk Higher Near Major
Sources of Ai r Pollution, Including
Highways
A 1997 English study found a ca ncer co rr ido r
wi thi n three mi les of highways, airports, power
plants, an d othe r major poll uters. The study
examined chi ldr en who died of leuk emia or othe r
ca ncers fr om the years 1953-1980, where th ey
were born and where they died . It found that th e
greates t danger lies a few hundred yards from a
highway or polluting faci lity and decreases as yo u
get fur th er away from the facility.
Knox and Gilman (1 997) Hazard prox1mnies of chi ld hood cancers
in Great Brita in from 1953-1980. Journal of Epidemiology and
CommunrryHealch 51 151-159
22 . Diesel Exhaust Linked to Asthma
Thi~ study found that particulate matter from
diese l trucks can act as an irri tant in the air way caus-
ing asthma. The authors show that diese l exhaus t
can trigger asthma attacks in indivi du als with no
pre-ex1st1ng astf1mat1c history. When a natural all er-
gen, such as po llen, was add ed to the situatio n, the
reaction was even more dramatic.
Pandya, Robert. et al "D ie sel Exhaust and Asthma · Hypothe111 and
Molecu l ar Mechan11ms of Action • Environmental Health
Pe1spectives Supplements Volume 110, Number 1, February 2002 .
23. Low Levels of Air Pollution Cause
Asthma Attacks
Exposure to miniscule amounts of ozone and soot
par tic ulate matter 2.5 µm or le ss (PM2.5} in air at lev-
els above current U.S. Environ men tal Protection
Agency (EPA} standa rds is a risk factor for re spi rato ry
sym ptoms in chi ldren with asthma.
Da il y respirato ry symptoms and medication use
were exam ine d prospectively fo r 271 children
younger than 12 years wit h ph ysician -d ia gnosed,
active as thma re sid ing in southern New England.
Expos ure to ambien t co nce ntration s of ozone an d PM
2.5 from /\pril 1 through Septemb er 30, 2001, was
assessed using ozone (peak 1-hour and 8-hour) and
24-ho ur PM 2.5. Logistic regres sio n analyses using
genera li zed estima ting equations were performed
sepa rate ly for ma in tenance med ication users (n =
130) and nonusers (n = 141). Associations between
pollutants (adjusted for tempera ture, contro ll ing for
same-and previous -day levels) and respi ratory symp-
toms an d use of rescue medication were evaluated.
Mean (SD} leve ls were 59 (19) pp b (one -hou r
~;J~~i Don 't inhale!
In-car pollution
contain s more toxins
than amb ient ai r
accordin g to a
J=;;~ California stud y.
Sierra Club 2004 11 -._ -.. ·
~ .. \ ~ ' -~~ ~ ---\---.._ ,...I• ' -~ ,.--•. ' ~-....... '1•·., ,
--*.;.. ~ -_..,: ~ .• ' -~-· . "\'" .... ~ ~· ---·· -...... -. -. ~ . ~ .:m--.---. "l::v:\ . --'·\. -
aver age) and 51 (16) ppb (8-hour ave rage) for ozo ne
an d 13 (8) µg/m3 for PM2.5. In co-po ll utan t mode ls,
ozo ne leve l but not PM2.5 was significant ly assoc iat-
ed w it h res pir ato ry sy mpto ms an d resc ue me dic a-
ti on us e am ong chil dre n usi ng mai nte nan ce med -
icat ion ; a 50 -ppb in crease in one-hour ozo ne was
assoc ia ted with inc reased likelihood of wheeze (by
35 pe rce nt) and chest ti ght ness (by 47 pe rcent). The
highest leve ls of ozone (one-hour or eigh t-ho ur
averages) we re as soc iated wit h increased short ness
of breath and resc ue medicatio n use. No sign ifican t,
exposu re-dependent associations we re obse rved
for any outcome by any po ll ut ant among chi ldren
who did not use mai ntenan ce medi cat ion.
Asth ma ti c chi ldren us in g mai ntenance medica-
tion are par t icul arl y vuln erab le to ozo ne, co ntroll ing
fo r exp os ure to fin e partic les, at leve ls be low EPA
standards .
Gent. Janneane PhD; Elizabe th W rric he. PhD, Theod ore R. Hol ford.
PhD, Kathleen Belang er. Pl1D. Mi chae l B Bracken. PhD; William S
Beckett, MD, Brian P Leaderer, PhD. AssocicJ tion of Low-Level Ozone
and Fine Particle s With Re spirator y Symptom s 1n Ch ildren Wi th
Asthma. Journal of the Amer1can Medical Assooanon. 2003;
290: 1859-1867
hrtpJ/]Oma.amaassn. org/cgVco nren c/abstracc/290114/1859.
One happy
commuter!
Le a lo ves Disney 's
monorail , bu t wishes
that she had more
transportation choices
sooner.
24. Motor Vehicle Air Toxins Cause
High Po llut ion Levels Inside Homes
An ai r po llu t ion study was done as a par t of the
West Oak land Diese l Tr uck Em iss ions Reduction
Initiative. Researchf'rs mea sured diesel partic u lates
near mobi le and id lin g trucks at t he We st Oak land
Po rt. An aetha lomete r wa s used to measu re indoor
toxins and a high level of diese l particu lates was
fo und. The peop le who lived in t hese ho mes were
ex posed indoors to five times the leve l of di esel
particu lates that peop le we re exposed to outdoo rs
in ot he r are as of Oak land.
W. Buc han, MD.an d M Chan Jackso n; Containe r Tr uck Traffic
Asse ss ment an d Po 1en 11al M111gnt1on Mea sures for the West
Oa kl an rl Dr esel Truck Emission Red ucti on ln1t1at1ve, from "Clearing
the /\1r, Reducing Diese l Po ll ution 1n West Oakland: a Report to
Pocif rc lnstrtute. 654 13th Street. Pre servation Paik, Oakland,
Cah fo rrna 9461 2, by llAX LLC. 1601 ) De Anza Blvd. Sui te 100.
Cupert ino. Californ ia 95014, November. 2003
The fol l owing tec h nica l reports iJre o nl ine at
hllµ:llwww pacrnst org!d1esell
1 TI AX Diesel lruck )tlldy (TIAX. 2003) 2 Wes t OalJand Dresel
Paru culate Matter Em1~~iom Inventory and Air Qualny Monitoring
Study (Pacific Instit ute (P l, 2003) 3 Summary of Studie s (Pl. 2003)
4 Data Gap Analysis (Pl. 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 transpo rtat ion policy but also
threatens public health.
lative emiss ions of toxic air pollutants in a given area
but are cu rren tl y not regu lated as 1ndiv1du al fac ilities.
So l ution. The Sou th Coast Air Quality
Management Di st rict is developing a plan that
wou ld entail new publi c notification re quirements
for schoo ls and home bui lders and ma ke th e region-
al air pollution contro l agency more promin ent in
land use decisions . One proposal for the plan would
require developers of new schoo ls, hospita ls, day
ca re cent ers, and hom e bui lders to pr ov ide notice to
their patr ons of toxic emis sions within 1,000 feet.
The presence of any fr eeway, or po t entially busy
boulevar d, withi n 1,000 fe et cou ld trigger the not ice.
"I don't t hin k that they sho uld bu ild a schoo l that lies
along a fr eeway." sa id Barry Wa ll erstein , Exec utive
Officer of the South Coas t Air Quality Management
Dis trict. •s
Co nta ct: Sam Atwood, Sou th Coas t Air Qua lity
We rea lize th at the re are trans por tation cha l-Management Dist rict, phone: 909-396-36 87, email:
lenges around th e country, but we believ e that rea -sa two od@a qm d.gov. or Tim Frank (510) 710-4 563 ,
sona bl e, alt ernative so luti ons exi st tha t expan d emai l: tim.frank@sierraclub .o rg.
transportation choi ces, redu ce con ges tion , and he lp
to clean our ai r. Illinois
We have includ ed stories from Ca liforn ia , Ill inois,
Nevada , New Hamp shire, Ohio, Texas , Ut ah , Cha ll enge. The Il lin ois Departme nt ofTrans-
Washingto n, D.C.and Wisconsin. portat ion is plann ing to expand t he Ei se nhower
Expres sway through Oak Park . The Illinoi s Tollway
Ca lifornia Authority has proposed b ui ld ing toll ways; Route 53
into Lake Co unt y north of Chicago and 1-355 in Wi ll
Ch a ll enge . Ex1st1ng ai r po ll ution laws in Co unty south of Chicago. These hig hway s and to ll -
Southern California se t the maximum emissio n limi ts ways wi ll crea te hundreds of th ousa nds of add ed
for toxic po ll ution from individ ual faci lit1Ps, bu t cu mu -tru ck and car trip s ne ar neig hb orhoo ds, schoo ls, and
lative emissions of rox1c pollutants are not regulated. parks. Familie~ with sma ll chi ldren cou ld be put at
Highways are an important cont ri bu tor to the cu mu-risk, but are unawa re of the hea lth conse qu ences of
larger roadways nea r their homes.
s~e rra :.~f~.b)ooi.-· · ~ - -_ --- _ . ~ 3 1
• ...._ T _....._ -• --• -----------~ ---
sprawl. Instead of continu ing to bui ld new lanes that
wil l induce fur ther spraw l an d increa se the number of
cars on the roads, the Texas De partment of
Transportat io n (TXDOT ) and Federa l Highway
Admin istration (FHWA) shou ld focus on safer and
more reasonab le alterna tives.
For t he Katy Freeway, transit alternatives such as
expanded rail system and more bus routes should
be pursued . A coa lition of residents affected by the
Katy Freeway ex pans io n project has ca lled upon
TXDOT to halt the ir old and ineffective plan, and
ado pt an alternative plan wh ich wi ll im prove mobil-
ity without harming the health and live li hood of cit -
izens. Their alternative plan for the freeway ca ll s fo r
a combi nation of depressing th e road, adding rail
and a dense p lan ting of trees to protect sch ool s and
residential areas from dangerous fin e parti culates in
freeway po ll ution.
For th e Grand Pa rk way, resource s should be all o-
ca ted on a "fix it first" approach. Befo re constr ucting
new freeways to serve a proje cted population that
wo uld not exis t withou t this ne w road , reso urces
shou ld be focused to more needy proj ects. For
examp le, a number of existing and poor ly main-
tain ed highways shou ld be fixed and improved to
avoid flooding and relieve unnecessary co ngestion
for ex isting towns and neighborhoods near portions
of the proposed route.
Contact: Christine Sagstetter, Sie rra Club, phone:
(713) 725-9421.
ema i I: chrisrine.sags tetter@sierraclub.org
Utah
Challenge. Utah's Sa lt Lake City metro-
politan area run s along t he base of the 10,000
ft. Wasatch Mountains. Du ri ng winter months
low lying, high-pressure inversion s tr ap air pol-
l ution from automobi les direct ly at the leve l
peop le bre at he. This prob l em causes cases o f
childhood as t hma and respirato ry ill nesses o f
t he publi c. In January, 2004 Utah b eg an anoth -
er winte r i nversion, fi llin g hospit als wi t h respi -
ra to ry vic tims. The state is asking peop le not to
drive and prohibiti ng wood bu rning stoves
and fi replaces.
Exace rbating the prob le m, Utah is undertak-
ing th ree highway expansions. The State of
Ut ah is p reparing for anothe r expansion of 1-15
to the no rth, pushing through court the first
phase of a new 125-mil e bypa ss freeway ironi-
ca l ly named the Lega cy Highway, and begin-
ning an Environme nt al Impact State ment
process fo r a second ph ase of Legacy in west-
ern Sa l t Lake Co unty re-named for po litica l
and leg al reasons, the Mounta i n View Corridor.
Each of these projects faci l itates massive
sprawl ing develop men t and increases auto -
mob i le dependency. Legacy Highway wou ld
also act as a tr ucki ng bypass route , which
would signifi cant ly incr ease the po ll u1io n from
trucks in the metropo litan area
Solution. Utah shou ld postpone new road
bui lding and change thei r priority to bui lding a
regiona l tra nsit syste m first. This cou ld be accom-
plished by expanding upon the very popu lar and
Air polluti on obscu ring
dow ntown Salt Lak e
City is har d on eye s
and harmful to
children's lung s.
Sferra Club '2oo4 17 . _ .. -... _ . -.
successfu l two existing lig ht rail lines and adding com muter train
and bus rapid transit co nstruc ti on to the mi x. A regiona l transit sys-
tem wo uld encourage smarter development patterns th at wou ld
redu ce automob il e use and prot ect pub li c hea lth from air pollution
re lated ill nesses.
Contact: Marc Hei leson, Sierr a Club. phone: (801) 467-9294 emai l:
marc.heileson@sie rra cl ub.org
Washington D.C. Metro Area
ICC Challenge. In 2002, the Maryland Leg islature passed a res -
olut 1on urging that a fi ve yea r old stu dy concerning the Inter-County
Co nned or (ICC) be re started. The new Governor, Robert Eh rl ich, favors
re-s tarting the study and building the highway as quickly as possi bl e.
The Sierra Cl ub ha s ra ise d the health issue to the Legis lature, to pub lic
officials, and to the public in various mat eria ls. Pro-highway advocates
say the ICC will im prove air quality and hea lth by getting cars tra ve ling
at higher speeds, and thus emitting less pollu tion. Howeve r, da ta pre-
vious ly hig hlight ed in thi s report wou ld sugges t oth erw ise.
So lut ion . In stead of adding a highway extreme ly cl ose to
com munities throughout much of Ma ryland, the state should
instead exam ine ways to im pl ement re alistic alternative fo rm s of
trans por tat ion. A train system 1s the optio n tha t ho ld s the most
promise.
Wil son Brid ge Challe nge. The fate of thi s projed was
forma ll y decided in 1997. But since then th e Sierra Cl ub has urg ed
Maryland and Virginia to choose train, rather than High Occupa ncy
Vehi cle la nes, for the bridge. The Sierra Club has stressed the air
qua lity benefits from less traffic and more public tran sit.
Solut ion . Instead of expa nding the bridge to hold more ca rs, th e
sta te shou ld in stead add a lane for commu ter tra in. Many of th e driv-
ers who uti lize the Wi lso n Bridge are comm ut ers travel in g to the fairly
concentrated downtown of the Distrid of Co lumbia. As a result,
Metrorai l wou ld be an effedive method for trans port in g many of these
wo rk ers.
Beltway Cha ll enge . Virginia Department of Transportation
issued a DEIS 111 2002 which proposed widening the Beltway from
eight l<mes to ten or twelve lanes. Sierra Club org<inized ugainst th e
prop osal with th e message that widening th e Beltway would worse n
air qua lity and hur t publJC health. The Beltway already passes in close
prox imity to many comm unitie s surrounding the DC area. Further
expansion wo ul d undo ubt ed ly wo rsen air po llutio n and put mo re
people at risk of cancer and other adverse health effec ts .
onsiderable scientific
evid nee Un ks higher rates of
asthma and other respiratory
prob l ems with f r eeway
proximity. Residents w ho live
nea r freeways woul d clearly
benefit from lowe r, no t hig her
traffic volumes ."
-DR . SETH FOLDY, FOR MER CITY OF
MILW/\UKEC 11[/\LTI I COMM ISS IONE.R
Solut ion. The Be ltway does not have a subway
li ne that mirrors its path aroun d the city. Before any
lane expansion shou ld even be considered, people
shou ld be given the opt ion of trave li ng around the
perimeter of the city on public transit and particu larly
on a new Metrorail line.
Contact: Chris Carney, Sierra Club Mid-Atlantic Office,
phone: 703-312-0533,ema il: chris.can1ey@sierraclub.org
Wisconsin
S.E . Cha ll enge . Sout heast Wiscon sin road
builders and deve lopers proposed a massive hig hway
expansion project for Hwy 1-94 and Hwy 45. The
impa ct of highway expans ion will be the greatest in
Mi lwa ukee Counry, where nu mer ous schools are with-
in a mile of hig hways.Mi lwa ukee County is also home
to minorities an ti lower income residents in metropol-
itan Milwaukee . The plan is to increase the number of
lane s of 1-94 and 1 lwy-115 from six lane s to eight la nes
of traffic. This plan would in crease air pol lu tion,
encourage augme nted 1 ratf1c flow, and wi ll put at ri sk
Wiscons in res idents' ability to breathe cl ea n air.
18 Highway Health Hazards
Solution . Since high ly traveled road corri dors
are becoming hazardous to our hea lth, then one log-
ica l alterna tive wou ld be to uti lize trans portation
investments to slow th e gro wt h of vehicl e miles trav-
eled on our roadways.The best example of th at is the
tran spo rtati on improvements in Portland, Oregon
that considered lan d use and air qua lity issues du ring
the plann in g process. Mi lwaukee is an area of non-
compliance for ground-leve l ozone pollution,
Port land is not.
Madison Cha ll enge . The City of Mad iso n
and WI DOT are reconstructing East Washington
Avenue to ease the flow of t raffic, now at 55,000 vehi-
cl es per day. This route runs nea r East Hig h Schoo l
and severa l grade schoo ls. Po ll ution monitors show
high levels of soot or part icu late poll ut io n al rea dy.
Wisconsi n DOT is also expan ding the Vero na Road
in terchange loca ted near many neighborhoods.
So lu tion. The DOT shou ld assess the can ce r
an d smog risks to these schoo ls, and nearby neigh-
borhoods, and consider alternatives lik e st reetcars,
commute r trains, and clean buses that can cut traffic
and pollution risks.
Contac t: Bre tt Hulsey, Senior Midwest Rep-
r esentative, Sierra Club, phone: (608} 257-
4994, email : breu.hulsey@s ierrac lu b.o rg or
Rosemary Wehnes, SE Wisco nsin Organizer at
(414} 453-3 127,
emai l: rosemary. wehnes@sierraclub.org.
sierra club 2004 , 9 · _....,:..
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 peop le 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 a ir 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 wo rst 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 l iterally cancer and autism
corr idors .
Thousands of studies confirm t he health t hreat of freeway pollution.
Below is a small samples of those st udies.
The rate of progression of harden ing of the arteries, the cause of strokes , heart
attacks and general ized aging , is double for those living with in 100 meters of a
freeway.
Kunz h N, Je rr ett M, Garcia-Esteban R, Basagana X, Bec kermann 8 , et al. (20 10) Ambient Air Pollut ion and
the Pro gression of Atherosclerosis in Adu lts . PLoS O NE 5(2) e9096. doi ·10.137 1/ 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 t raffi c on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age a
cohort study ," The Lancet. Vol ume 368 , February 2007 .
Liv ing within 1,000 ft of a freeway doubles the risk of a child be ing born with autism .
Vo lk HE , He rt z-Picci otto I, Delwiche L, Lu rma nn F. McConnell R. Resi dential prox im ity to freeways and
autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun ;11 9(6):873-7 doi 10 .1289/ehp.1002835.
Epub 2010 Dec 13
Chi ldren growing up w ith mo re traffic pollution have significantly lower IQs and
impaired memory .
Suglia SF , et al. Association of Black Carbon with Cognition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort
Study Am J Epidemio logy 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 childr en
breathe clean air themselves.
Frederica P. Perera, De liang Tang , Shuang Wang, Julia Vishnevetsky, Bingzhi Zhang, Diurka Diaz , David
Caman n , Virginia Rauh. Prenatal Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Exposure and Child Behavior at age
6-7. Environmental Health Perspectives , 2012; DOI: 10.1289/e hp. 1104315
Edwards SC , Jedrychowski W , Butscher M, Camann D, Kieltyka A, Mroz E. et al. 2010. Pre natal Exposure to
Airborne Polycyc lic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Chi ldren's Intelligence at Age 5 in a Prospective Cohort
Study in Po land. En vi ron 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 S. Investigating the association between birth weight and
comp lementary 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-R elated Air Toxics and Term Low Birth Weight in Los Angeles County, California.
Environ Health Pe rspect. 2012 January ; 120(1 ): 132-138. Published onl ine 2011 August 11 . doi : 10.1289/
ehp .1103408
Living within 100 meters of a freeway increases the risk of childhood leukemia
370%, liv ing within 300 meters increases the risk 100%.
Amigou A. et al. "Road traffic and chi ldhood leukemia : The ESCAL E study (SFCE) authors" Environ Health
Pers 201 O; 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 ce ll tumors. http://
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 wi t h Exposure to Traffic-Re lat ed Air Pollution in Montreal , Canada: A Case-Control Study.
Environ Health Perspect 118 1578-1583. doi 10 .1289/ehp.1002221
Chronic exposure to traff ic air pollution increas es the risk of lung cancer .
Raaschou-Nielsen 0, Andersen Z. Hvidberg M, Jensen SS , Ketzel M, Sorensen M , Loft S, Overvad K,
Tjonnel and A. Luny Cancer Incidence and Long-Te rm Exposure to Air Pollution tram Traffic . Environ Health
Perspect. 2011 Jan 12. [Epub ahead ot 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, Seirensen M, Hansen J, Loft S,
Overvad K , Tjeinneland A. Air pollution from traffic and cancer incidence : a Danish cohort study. Environ
Health . 2011Jul19;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 HB , 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, Diani 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 Hea lth 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 majo r roadways and
renal function. J Epidemiol Community Health Published Online First : 13 May 2013doi:10.1136/
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, Ko letzko S, Bauer CP,
Heinrich J . Lo ng-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and insulin resistance in children: results from
the GINlplus and LISAplus 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 : 10.1289/ehp.1205958
L iu C, Ying Z, Harkema J, Sun 0 , Rajagopalan S. Epidemiological and Experimental Links between Air
Pollution and Type 2 Diabetes. Toxicol Pathol. 2012 Oct 26. [E pub ahead o f pr int]
Compiled by the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment
The Southern Califomia Particle Ce11ler 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 question s 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 etfocts 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 studie s show that Jong-term exposure to particulate matter has also been Jinked to increased illne ss and death
rates from cardiovascular (heart-related) di sease, 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 the 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 li v ing 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 (Montnemery), decreased Jung
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 bow 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) ofa 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 (-990 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:
> Weather -temperature, humidity, wind dire ction and speed all affect the concentration of pollution;
~ 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?
) 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;
> Type of filtration system installed in the home -few homes have HEP A (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:
> Will I be at home during peak traffic times?
> Will I s pend much time outdoors during these times?
> Will I open my windows or will I use central heating and cooling?
> How much time do I spend on the freeway? [On-road s tudies 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 particle measurements and possible health effects:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
http://www .aqmd .gov/
General phone numb er -(800) CU T-SMOG (8 00-288-7664)
California Air Resources Board
http://www.arb.ca.go v/
Community Health I Environm ental Justice Section -(8 66) 397-5462
Air Pollution and Respiratory Health, National Center for Environmental Health, CDC
http ://www.cd c .gov/nc eh/airpolluti o n/d efault .htm
U .S. EPA -Air
http://www.epa .gov/e btpages/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. Environme ntal Health Perspectives, 112 (1): 61-66.
Pope CA Ill, Bates DV, Raizenne ME. ( 1995) Health Effects o f Particulate Air Pollution : Time for Reassessment?
Environmental Health Perspectives, 103 (5)
Asthma -acute exacerbation and possible onset
Delfino RJ. (2003) Epidemiologic Evidence for Astluna and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages between
Occupational , Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research . Environmental Health Perspectives, I 10 (Sup 4):
573 -5 89.
McConnell R , Berhane K , Gilliland FD, London SJ, Vora H , A vol E. (1999) Air Pollution and Bronchitic
Symptoms in Southern California Children with Astluna . 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 environment and socio-economic group. Respiratory
Medicine, 95 : 744-752
Cardiovascular effects
Dockery, OW. (2001) Epidemiologic E v idence of Cardiovascular Effects of Particulate Air Pollution.
Enviromnental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl 4): 483-4 86 .
Johnson, RL. (2004) Relative Effects of Air Pollution on Lungs and Hearts. Circu lation, 109:5-7.
Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thurston GD, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D , Godleski JJ. (2004) Cardiovascular
Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate Air Pollution . Circulation, l 09:7 1-77.
Utell MJ, Frampton MW. (2000) Acute Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution: the Ultrafine Particle Hypothesis.
Journal of Aerosol Medicine, 13(4): 355-59.
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 2016
MA VOi? & TOWN COUNC ~
Los Gatos Town Council
110 Ea st Main Street
Lo s Gatos, CA 95032
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Bruce A. M acNaughton
Post Office Box 1227
Los Gatos, CA 95031-1227
June 27, 2016
T 408-356-3746
F 408-356-3769
bruceamacnaughton@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
f eel 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.
cc : 'Mayor Barbara Spector
Vice Mayor Marice Sayoc
Council Member Marcia Jensen
Council Member Steven Leonardis
Council Member Rob Rennie
Respectfully,
From: Debora james [mailto:deborazurn @yahoo.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 millennia ls. 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
b.!m: WW\y.c i.campbell .ca.us/4 92;De l l-Aven ue-Arca -PlanBe!!in forwarded message
. j j I I 1 \ _--: / ;'I I
I I , . \\
I! c.~~--;:jl .'' , \
Pro11ued V1 / ;. I \
Lighl Rall Extens ";' _ \ 1
------c_ ---: J)
{I --i ~·-sc.-::-~-~·/-............~:_-.,.~~-. I
I , /1 , . ~"',..,.W -. , r. ......... i-.. , 1
1 --.>:~---1 / . Proposed '··-......_-
, ----;, Haelellda Ave ) / [__ /f // ~~~Won II
I·-I ·-I I I/ j/
!. I .. _,f'!t;:_::_: ..::::: !../ / .. / (!' ) I I . //' --:: ._;; ,,:'.
i ij ~/ 0 ;f;/j I
I /j ,/ /:1 j;I/ -{y I ,.;-I
/·" " /. . r\ -?/ ,r·t ;f I I '-~ '
'.'.I ~r,({ /1 I / I I
; ' , I I
---.ll . I j' ~-h~J I lj
_:k-,11
1
1
, j·
) -=:...:.-......... ;' I --. ..,~,__--..__;/
/,.;; ----
/ '(
r "
l.o5 Cree
~
De llA ve nu e~r:~
hlli): ·~\!.\'~'-bi zjg tJrnals .(;!'m/sanjo:>e/print-cd i tio n i) 0 l 6/04 !22 ig_Qg.Q_:samari tan-ho~pital+b l uq~ri nt-fo r -hea I th. hnn I
G oo d Sama r itan Hospital's b lueprint for health
~. U•h I k y hn ~pit aJ g1.:ars ur for foci]ity urgrades, HC\.\ patien t towers
',, 2·1 . 'I,: 1,_ ':1J() .111 i'IJ'I
Sa n Jose 's Good Samaritan H ospital is pre p ar ing fo r a ffiaSSl Ve OVefhaul that it expects to
begin this summe r -firs t m oving a hea d w ith p lans to exp and its e mergen cy d e partme nt, a nd the n upg r adin g labs
and b uil ding new· o p eratin g room s . (e mphas is a dded)
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 abo ut
potentially larger buildings, fancy shops, resi dences and traffic congestion at the comer of Union and
Camden avenu es.
At the meeting, Councilman Don Rocha, plruming director Harry Freitas and planner Lesley Xavier
explained what could happen with the 17-acre site, which came up for sale earl ier this year. So far it has
not been sold . A call to broker Jim Roessler from the Roessler In vestment 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.LAFCOoverseestheboundariesofcitiesandspecialdi stricts.
The next step is taking the proposal to the planning department, possibly the planning conunission, and
then to the city council. These steps could delay any permitting because the space h as been des ignated 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 res idential units above retail and
commercial spaces. They are designed to improve city revenues, provide ma ss transportation and step up
pedestrian and bike traffic to connect neighborhoods .
One of the de signated areas would include the 1 7 acres of Cambrian Park Plaza. The villages are planned
in phases call ed "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 fo ur o r 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 o ther centers already exi st on these streets, which
residents sa id 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 a ll owed 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 pres id ent of construction and development at Simeon, said his finn had given a
proposal to the sell ers. 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 .ei.campbell.ca.us /492/Dell-Avenue-Area-Plan
WAA
POWERPOINT
h ltp://ww~ .mercurynews.com/bus iness/ ci 298294 77 /bay-area-traffic-igni tcs-back lash-
against-boom-ncw
Bay Arca traffic ignites backlash against boom, new poll suggests
By George /I valos , gavalosmbavareu11eH-sgro11p. L o m
•
•
•
•
•
I· l'Cning ru ~h hour on ln tcr~tatc 280, Feb . 10, 2016, we st of downtown San Jose , Calif. (Karl Mon don/Bay Arca Ne ws
(1rour1
RELATED STORIES
'\f a) ~ .
(,,., ·' 111-:1 pc ... ,m1isin ahoul B=1~ J\rc,i c1:0 11omy. po ll li111.J.•
'1u ' 2:
Unl'-lhwl "1 H:t )' -\r..:.1 rc ,!dcnb hope !(I lca\'c '<H iil . po ll fi nJ .,
\pr 29 :
\!,1p 1:3,,, \;w1 dri1cr\' n~~ 't raffic Jru sumion' ~po t '
.\p r 28:
R h' l\1~-.11 c,id l.:nh 11ary n l nc"" hou~ing d c1ciop mc111
"Beat L.A." is a f'amiliar refrain in Bay Arca sport s , but it now appears No rth e rn Californ ia is on its way
to bci ng a rival for Southern Ca I iforni a in an unwe lc o m e fa s hion: traffic jams.
Residents in the Bay Area have become di sco uraged a bo ut th e heavy traffi c in th e regio n. with a
dramatically expanding number of them indicating that traffic is worse than a year ago a mid a huge s urge
in the local econ o m y, a new p o ll relea sed Friday b y the Bay Area Council s uggests.
"Bay Area residen ts are fru s tra ted abo ut t ra ffic ," said Ruth Bernstein. senior princ ipa l with EMC
Res earch, n !inn that c o nducts marke t and opini o n research. "l t's harder for them to get around . We
d e fini tely a rc seeing a backlash against the economic boom."
Yet. the traffi c its el f is but a symptom or w hat i s goin g o n rather than a cause. said Christ opher Tho rn berg,
principa l execut ive wit h Beacon Econom ics.
"Traffic is a sign of growth, it is not a n impediment to growth ," Thornberg s ai d . ''When you know t he
traffic is bad fr om point A lo po int B, you move away from point A in order t o get to work at point B .
You make s o me sacr ifices in yo ur lif esty le.''
bllu t 60 percent of those who dri ve a lone or never use ma ss trans it sa id it is more clir!icult to get arou nd
thc 13a y Area .. nd 64 percent of peopl e with household incomes of$125.000 or more said it is mor e
difficult to get around.
Mo re peop le are d ri\·ing by th emse lYe -. An ~stimated 79 perce nt of respond en ts are dri vin g in a ca r al one.
up lh>m 74 percent a year ago . As for mass tran sit. 17 pe rcent are ta kin g bu ses or li ght rai l, up from 16
percent in 20 15: and 15 percen t use BART, up from 14 percen t a year ago. T h e po ll measu red modes of
t.ran s po n at io n used at least two or th ree times a week for any purpose, so it's poss ibl e fo r th e comb ined
re sul ts lo exceed I 00 percent.
111 a rc tlcct ion of the rise of the Ube r and Ly rt te chnologi es, 6 pe rcent are usin g those rid e-b oo king a pp s,
up fr om ~ percent a ye ar ago.
Th t! No . 2 most popular wa y to get around: wa lking. favo red by 4 1 percent of the respond ent s.
"W e're running out of adjecti ves to descri be how bad Ba y Area traffic is and th e mi ery it's causing." said
Jim Wunderman. president and CEO of the Bay Area Counci l. "We unders tnnd res idems' aggra vation
with trnrtic , but we're nor gi ving up on th e problem."
Con tact George /\valos at 408 -859-5 167 . Fol low him at h\·itl cr.com gco rgcavaf o:,.
http ://www.mc·rcurvnews.com/bav-a re a-urws/ci 28416215/crashes-highwav-l 7-at-highcst-lr' cl -
d ccad e
Cra~b cs on Highway 17 at highest level in a decade
/fr ( T(I/"\,. f?icfllf /"d\·
With Fo urth o f Jul y around the corn er a nd Hi gh way 17 a pop ul ar serpentine ro ute for dri vers heading to
Central Cuas t beaches for the ho lid ay. a wa rnin g is in order .
Cni s hc s o n the s tretch o f fr om Lo s Ga tos Lo Santa Cru z have rea ched their hi ghe st le vel in nearly a decade
si nce sa t~t y officia ls began one of th e most intensive and succ ess ful campaigns sl<tt ewid e to CLU"b the
cam ag c on th e fo ur -la ne high wa y .
A lth o ugh state traffic official s have no linn data, the y bl ame di stracted driving for th e uptick in colli s io ns
111 2014 . Th ey otlen see dr ivers lex ting, us in g smartphones to read email and tinke rin g w ith na v igation
sy ·tems whi le twi sting t hro ugh tight c ur ves j ust fee t away from scenic Red wood tree s.
"I abso lute ly agree." said mot orcyc li st M<1tt Pett y, of Scotts Valley. ''l see lots of peop le still o n their
µhone :; whil e l spli t lane s. Lot s'? Make th a t a to n 0f peopk."
11.!t p~~ w~b .s ta n[ord.cd\,!~grounL.R cc.9.L9 gi-bi n/docs/c vcnl s/20 14/Rarn ses-presentat ion.pd 1·
Stanford Tran s port ation Demand Man agemen t: C urrent and ruture
Sustainable Transportation Spring Seminar Series May 30th
Ramses Madou Transportation Program D eveloper & Planner
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 Summerhill Homes, the companies that represent
the project we all know as the North Forty, have worked with our Town residents with patience and
class . Th i s project, which I have been following closely , has been vetted liter ally 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 w ith 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 A v e.
Los Gatos
From: Michelle Fisk [mailto :mfi sk1996 @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 cons i deration 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 Gato s
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 ors-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 @qmail.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 Uust 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 ors-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 bu ilt ,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:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Amy Despars <amydespars@hotmail.com >
Wednesday, July 06 , 2016 9:14 AM
Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven
Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
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 sol drive by it on a daily basis so I know for a fact it does not fit 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.
I . It is required to look and feel like Los Gatos .. .I have been working retail downtown this summer and [ know
the model does not represent what downtown 1ooks 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 FASH JON 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 s erve 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 thi s 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 Sctiool 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 will 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 bi kes around the development?
Maybe I am naive but when I ha ve 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. Just like at the last meeting when they said they could not really take some down and leave some up. J just
can't stand the lies!
I could go on and on but I will stop here. I know you all know there are a lot 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 Lo s 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 i t is necessary this time .
2
From: Jennifer Croft Grewal [mailto:jennifer@grewals.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10 :59 AM
To: BSpector; Marica Sayoc; Rob Renn ie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Plann ing ; Sally
Zarnowitz
Subject: North 40 Comments
Dear Town Counci l, Planning Commission and Town Staff,
1 hope to attend th e meetings on 7 /12 a nd 13. In case I cannot I am writing in advance to express
my concern a bout the plan as proposed by the developer.
The maximum buildout is not somethin g this Town needs. As wi th the Albright development,
these buildings obliterate our hillside views. T h ey are m assive and not keeping w ith o ur Town
look or feel with another exception of ou r maximum height b eing requested by yet another
builder.
The residential a ll crowd ed to one section of the development was not in the specific plan -i t
states for them to be spread throughout the development. Additi o na lly placing a ll of the
residential a lon g the main traffic corridor wi ll be unhealthy for those residing there.
Where i s the re adequate homage to the agricultural characteristics as the speci fie plan mandates.
Where is the plan for phase two of this development? How can the entire project be built in
hannony with itself and the surrounding areas if these two areas are not planned sim ult aneous ly?
The current studies of this project are outdated and did not take into account all of the other
development in our T own. Shouldn't these be updated so we have a full picture of what the
building w ill do to our Town and what limitations w ithin the Specific Plan should be placed on
it.
Please do the right thing and order new studies so that yo u can make an informed decision o n the
limit this plan should be approved und er.
Thank you ,
Jennifer Grewal
Charter Oaks Resident
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank