N40 Phase 1 - Staff Report Exh.10-15TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR
OCTOBER 14, 2015, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 11 0
EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was ca1led to order at 4:30P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Absences:
Barbara Spector
Marcia Jensen Recused herself on item 2
Kendra Burch Recused herself on items 2 and 3
Mary Badarne
Thomas O 'Donnell
Staff Present: Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
Mami Moseley, Associate Planner
Applicant:
ITEM 1:
ITEM 2 :
Dan Rosenbaum, Nearon Enterprises (Item 2)
Jim Fulton, Arctec Inc. (Item 2)
Don Capobres, Gosvenor (Item 3)
Wendi Baker, Summerhill Homes (Item 3)
Andrea Osgoo d , Eden Homes (Item 3)
Approval of Minutes-None
475 and 485 Alberto Way
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-15-003
Requesting review of conceptual plans to merge two residentially (R-1 :20) zoned
properties with an existing O:PD, to demolish two existing res idences and construct a
new two story office building with additional parking and to modi fy the existing
Planned Development Ordinance to permit medical office uses . APNs 529-21-039,
042 , 043 , 044.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Alberto Way Holdings LLC
PROJECT PLANNER : Mami Moseley
The applicant team presented their pro posal.
CDAC C o mments and Questions:
This list is a high level summmy of th e issues raised and responses (in italics) provided by the
applicant.
EXHIBIT 1 0
Use
• Why medical office? It would allow additional options for tenants and expand the potential
rental pool for the site.
• The EIR completed for the General Plan concluded that there was no need for additional
medical office, whereas ther e is still a need for general office space.
Traffic
• The traffic study will need to be updated to include current data, the data used does not
account for existing and pending projects in the vicinity. The traffic study will be updated if
a project is pursued.
• The traffic flow and issues have changed significantly i n recent years and they impact the
Highway 9 and Highway 17 interchange differently now.
• The roadway is narrow and windy, additional traffic on this road is a concern.
• Concerned about cumulative traffi c issues in the vicinity.
• A lunch hour shuttle to the downtown could reduce unnecessary trips.
Heard out of order
ITEM 3 : Phase I North Fortv Specific Plan Area
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-15-005
Requesting review of conceptual plans to implement Phase 1 of the North 40 Specific
Plan. APNs: 424-07-024 through -027,-031 through -033,-035, -070,-83 through -086,-
090, and -100.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill N40 LLC ,
Thomas Yuki, Elizabeth Dodson, and William Hirschman
APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited
PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley
The applicant team presented their proposal.
CDAC Comments and Questions:
This list is a high level summary of the issues raised and responses (in italics) provided by the
applicant.
• How do the senior housing units comply with the Town's BMP Ordinance. Th e application
includes a BMP program that shows how the units comply with the Ordinance and the needs
of the Town and the areas where it does not (e.g . clustering of units, rental vs. ownership,
and comparability). Additionally, the units will be integrated similarly and connected to the
same public amenities as the market rate units.
• Will the proposed orchards retain any of the existing orchard trees. Several of the
Committee members expressed disappointment that the existing orchard trees would not be
integrated into the new plan. The intended integration of the orchard into the project
requires a mix of working orchard trees that can be harvested by the community. Th e
existing walnut trees would not be suitable for this inte nded use.
• How will the market hall vision be implemented, and will these uses survive the market?
Th ere are se veral ways to accomplish this type of us e, the first being a single owner operator
and the second being a sit e manager with individual tenant spaces. Either could work and
this will be refined as it gets closer to completion. This type of use has proven to be vety
successful in other locations.
o Where will the dog park be located? Along the western border of the site.
o How will the multimodal circulation work? The plans include several bike and multi modal
paths that run separately but also integrate with the vehicular and pedestrian network for the
site.
ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:55p.m. The next regular meeting of the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, November
II, 2015
Prepared by:
anner
cc: Planning Commissio hair
N :\DEV\CDAaCDAC M INUTES\20 15 \ I 0-14-15 .doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East M ain Street, L os Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR
NOVEMBER 11,2015, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110
EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Absences:
Barbara Spector
Marcia Jensen
MaryBadame
Thomas O 'Donnell
Kendra Burch
Staff Present: Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
Mami Moseley, Associate Planner
Applicants : Tony Jeans (Item 2)
Don Capobres, Grosvenor (Item 3)
Wendi Baker, Summerhill Homes (Item 3)
Andrea Osgood, Eden Homes (Item 3)
Tim Kelley, Keyser Marston (Jtem 3)
ITEM 1 : Approval of Minutes
e September9,2015
., October 14, 2015
Tom O 'Donnell moved to approve the September 9 and October 14, 2015 minutes. The motion
was seconded by Barbara Spector and approved unanimously.
ITEM 2:
Comments:
17076 Summit Way
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-15-004
Requesting review of conceptual plans regarding access to an existing lot zoned R-
1 :2 0 APN 424-30-088.
PROPERTY OWNER: James Sullivan
APPLICANT: Tony Jeans
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
o The clear short tenn solution is the Summit Way approach .
CDAC Agenda
November 11 , 2015
Page 3
• The Summit Way approach saves trees, reduces grading, and is more in keeping with the
scale and character of the neighborhood.
• When looking at this single lot only, not what could potentially happen on adjacent lots in
the future, the Summit Way approach is more appropriate given the Town's Standards
and Guidelines.
• If development is proposed in the future on the adjacent lot , the issues of that application
will be addressed based on that proposal.
• Would prefer the driveway be maintained as part of the property rather than an easement
over the adjacent property.
ITEM3:
Comments:
Phase I North Forty Specific Plan Area
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-15-005
Requesting review of conceptual plans and an economic study for Phase I of the
North 40 Specific Plan. APNs: 424-07-024 through -027, -031 through -033, -035,-
070, -83 through -086, -090, and -1 00.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill N40 LLC,
Thomas Yuki, Elizabeth Dodson, and William Hirschman
APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
• It 's unclear how the conclusions in the market analysis report were reached .
• There's a concern how the analysis would be affected if the market hall concept is not
utilized.
• The report is helpful even with the knowledge that retail as a use is changing.
• The analysis seems very subjective.
• No additional analysis needs to be provided unless there are changes to the proposed
commercial elements that the current analysis does not cover.
• The General Plan and Housing Element support removing obstacles to providing below
market housing particularly at lower income categories.
• While the Eden Housing model is desirable and provides an unrnet need in Town it would
be nice to see some traditional BMP units as well.
CDAC Agenda
November 11 , 2015
Page 3
ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:45p.m . The next regular meeting of the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, December
9,2015
Prepared by:
Marni Moseley, Asso\ te Planner
cc: Planning Commission Chair
N:\DEV\CDAC\C DAC MINUTESI201S\ll-ll-1 5.doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
GROSVENOR
Mr. Joel Paulson
Town of Los Gatos Planning Department
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, California 95031
Dear Joel:
~
EDEN SUMMERHILL HOMES -
H O USI N G COMMUN I T I ES Of D IST I NC T I ON
October 21, 2015
We appreciate the feedback that CDAC provided on October 14th. Unfortunately, due to time
constraints we were not able to have discussion on all of the issues that the Committee raised .
With that, we look forward to continuing the dialogue at the upcoming CDAC meeting . Members
of the Committee specifically raised the following issues for future discussion:
• The on-and off-site North 40 multimodal opportunities (see attached); and
• The relocation of the existing walnut trees or the planting of new walnut trees in the 30'
agrarian setback along Lark .
In addition we are hopeful to be able to distribute the Economic Impact Analysis at the next
meeting based on the scope that we vetted with the Committee on October 14th. Unfortunately,
it is not ready for distribution in the CDAC packet at this time.
Finally , there was significant discussion about our proposal on how to comply with the Town 's
BMP ordinance . Our attorney, Barbara Kautz, has prepared a separate letter regarding our
proposal , which we request be distributed to the CDAC members.
Thank you, and we look forward to the November 11th CDAC meeting.
Sincerely,
A . Don Capobres
Senior Vice Pre sident
Grosvenor
Linda Mandolini
President
Eden Housing
Wendi Baker
Vice President of Development
SummerHill Homes
:EXHIBIT 11
~CIOICIPt"""I'OJI ........ IoWaa_~, .... lMM:,..1'11
~L~IMW.~ .. NCJ ~~---l'Oia¥0 .
.,__ON'I'IIliWMOIU.MlW.,._~-OI'lA
~· -...... ...... _ -~-
LOS GATOS, CA
DAHLIN
PRIMARY BJ<E
ROUTE
ROUTE MARKERS
EMBRACING
THE OUTDOOR
UFESTYLIE
BIKE PATHS
& BICYCLE
AME NITIES
TOWN COUNCIL VISIOrJ
GUILDING PRI NCIPLES
The Norm 4ll1MII
: • Look andfee lltkeloi Gatos
Embracr hlllstde VIews, trees
and opfn space
Addruslh< Town's ,.srdennal
and/ or commerctal utvnet
no eds
• Mm1m1ze 01 mtbgatf' 1mpacrs
on thr TD'Nn 's mfrastructure,
school~ •nd othor community
SOf'VIC8S
REALIZING THE VISION
• PlWI\llyll&eRoulesalonglark.
lo' Gato.s BooleYa.d and A Snee1
• 8' W1de detached Sooth~onh
Multi-Modal Pad1 that COI"""ts
the d1sHncuve and ro~m-.entdiY
open space> tho oughoo t the
COfflmUI'llly
Unoque bocy<le amerlltK!<
odudlng repaw ~ machnes,
reptMt stttuons. tune 14' s1auons
a.ld aiJundant bocy<le parkrng
11
gold forb
I ipma n
attorneys
M David Kroot
lynn Hutchins
Koren M. Tiedemann
Thomas H. Webber
Dionne Jackson Mclean
Michelle D. Brewer
Jennifer K. Bell
Robert C. Mills
Isabel l. Brown
James T. Diamond, Jr.
Margaret F. Jung
Heather J. Gould
William F. DiCamillo
Amy DeVoudreuil
Barbaro E. Kautz
Erica Williams Orchorton
luis A. Rodriguez
Rafael Yoqulon
Celio W . lee
Dolores Bastian Dalton
Joshua J. Mason
Vincent l. Brown
Hano A. Hardy
Caroline Naselle
Eric S. Phillips
Elizabeth Klueck
Son Francisco
415 788-6336
los Angeles
213 627-6336
Son Diego
619 239-6336
Goldfarb & Lipman LLP
1300 Cloy Stree t, Eleventh Floor
Oakland, Ca li fornia 94612
51 0 836-6336
October 21,2015
Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
11 0 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed Below Market Price Housing Program-North Forty
Dear Town Manager Prevetti:
Via e-mail
This letter is written on behalf of Grosvenor Americas in relation to its application for
approval of a mixed-use development in the North Forty Specific Plan area containing
320 units (237 units allowed under the Specific Plan plus a density bonus of 83 units),
and in particular, in relation to its proposed plan for compliance with the Below Market
Price Housing Program (the "BMP Program") adopted by the Town of Los Gatos (the
"Town").
Attached is a revised BMP proposal clarifying the development team's proposed program
of BMP units and requested modifications to the BMP Program.
Most importantly, under a provision of State housing element law, the Town cannot
require that Grosvenor provide for-sale BMP units rather than rental BMP units. Rather,
Government Code Section 65589.8 provides that if a local government adopts a
requirement in its housing element that developments contain a percentage of affordable
units, as Los Gatos has done, the local government shall permit a developer to satisfy that
requirement by constructing rental housing at affordable monthly rents. This is precisely
what is being proposed by the development team: The Town requires that new
developments contain a percentage of affordable units, and the developer proposes to
satisfy the Town's BMP requirements by constructing rental housing at affordable
monthly rents. Consequently, the Town must allow the proposed rental affordable units
to replace for-sale affordable units.
The proposed senior rental affordable housing provides 25 percent more affordable units
(50 units rather than 40) at deeper affordability levels than required by the BMP Program,
as shown in the table below and further described in the attached description of the BMP
Program. It is not financially feasible for the development team to provide both the
proposed senior affordable housing and additional affordable for-sale affordable housing.
In a project conforming strictly to the BMP program, the senior affordable housing would
be replaced with market-rate rental housing, and the affordable housing would consist of
1588\03\ 1776/m.l
October 21,2015
Page2
scattered for-sale and re ntal housing. This would not provide any of the benefits d escribed in the
attached BMP Program.
Ve ry Low Low Median
I ncome I ncome Income TOTAL
·---
For-Sale 16 15 31
Units
Rental 9 9
Units*
Total 25 15 40
For-Sale
Units
Rental 49 1 50
Units*
Total 49 1 50
*Note that under the dec ision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles, the Town cannot actually
require any rental affordable hous ing in it s BMP Program.
If you have any questions regarding these requests or if you would like any additional information,
please feel free to contact me.
BARBARA E . KAUTZ
Partner
bkautz@goldfarblipman.com
cc: Rob Schultz, Town Attorney
Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
Don Capobres, Grosvenor Americas
Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes
Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing
1588\03\1776409.1
North 40-Proposed BMP Plan
(Revised October 21, 2015)
The Town's Below Market Price (BMP) Program promotes the development of affordable
housing units by providing standards and guidelines that require the creation of a certain number
of affordable units in a development project.
For the proposed North 40 development application , the development team has proposed the
following housing program:
• Ownership townhomes /garden cluster/courtyard condominiums.: 253 (SummerHill)
• Ownership garden cluster: 7 (Hirschman)
• Live/Work Condominiums: 2 (Grosvenor)
• Rental Apartments: 8 (Grosvenor)
• Affordable rental apartments for seniors: 50 (Eden)
As described in our letter of October 14, 2015 requesting the density bonu s allowed by state law,
the above numbers include the baseline number of units (237) plus the additional 35% density
bonus units (83), for a total proposed program of 320 residential units. The Town's BMP
program requirements are calculated using the baseline count (237), less the BMP units.
The affordable rental senior apartments are being proposed to satisfy the Town's BMP program
and will offer amenity-rich, high-quality apartment homes for seniors making up to 50% of the
area median income (very low income). The proposal helps to achieve many goals and policies
contained in the Town's General Plan; the 2015-2023 Housing Element; and the North Forty
· Specific Plan:
General Plan Policy LU-11.4 [North Forty}: Provide for a variety of residential housing
types, both rental and owner-occupied. A minimum of 20 percent of th e units shall be
affordable to households at the moderate income level or below.
Housing Element Goal HOU-1: Expand the c hoice of housing opportunities for all
economic segments of th e community by supporting the deve lopment of affordable
housing in a variety of types and sizes, including a mixture of ownership and rental
housing.
Housing Element Goal HOU-5: Retain and expand affordable housing opportunities for
seniors.
Housing Element Policy HOU-6.4: Support th e provision o.f permane nt, a.ffordable, and
accessible housing that allows persons with special needs to live independent
lives ... "[P}ersons with special needs" include extremely low incom e households [and}
the elderly ...
Nortlt Forty Specific Plan Policy LUJO: Provide and integrate a mix of residential
product types designed to minimize impacts on schools ... and serve the unmet housing
n eeds within the Town of Los Gatos [identified as young adults, seniors, and empty
nesters]..
Below we have detailed what is required under the BMP Program, what the team is proposing,
proposed BMP program modifications, the justification for these requested modifications, and
the advantages of this proposal.
Requirements of the BMP Program
• Number of Units
Per the Town's BMP, developments of 101 units or more are required to provide BMP units
equal to twenty percent of the number of market rate units, with smaller projects requiring
gradually fewer units based on a formula. The number of BMP units required under the
Program would be slightly different depending on whether the Town chooses to define the
combined application as one project or three:
r :~,~~:::~·•:,··••~·~•<~;1_-_: -=~~~~~2;~j ~-::::~ ---::~~;-],
I SumffierHin (baseline) 2~0-J-_ .. _?O% 1---3_~6 (37 4-·· ...... _.
I ~~~~t'" -1,3; l lQ% __ : · -I_ !6._8 (3?1 l ~ · --:~ _-----1
I_ _ J -fMP~nlts I 39 i ___ :_-______ '
; -~~~~~~: [ r ---~0% · 39 4~.~~ ------------
.~Q~-~~~~-~:_·-~~-~~::~~-:-=:_~--1 .. ~=~1 ~~;~~:;:5_~~~=~_:_~~~~~-~~1::=---~~~~-~~~=~~-:~=~
The development team views this proposal as a coordinated approach to create a truly
integrated and holistic neighborhood. Therefore we are assuming that for the purposes of
BMP calculation, the "project" includes the Phase I North 40 development as a whole. As
shown above, this approach also provides the benefit of one additional BMP unit above the
number that would be required if the units were calculated separately for th e Grosvenor,
Hirschman, and SummerHill components.
Affordability ofBMP Units
In addition to specifying the required number of units, the BMP Program further requires that
the units must at least be affordable to both median income households (those earning
2
between 80% and 100% of the area median income (AMI) and low income households (those
earning between 50% and 80% AMI). Half of the for-sale BMP units are required at least to
be affordable to low income households and the other half to median income households.
The rental units mus t at least be affordable to low income households. Given these
requirements, the 40 proposed BMP units would roughly be distributed as follows :
BMP Affordability as Required
Very Low Low Income Median Income Total
Income
For-sale units 0 16 15 31
Rental units 9 9
TOTAL 25 15 40
What is Being Proposed
The development team is proposing a 50 unit project consisting of forty-nine ( 49) one-
bedroom units for very low income seniors and one (1) two-bedroom median income
managers unit. Because Eden's development will be able to leverage additional fmancing for
a stand-alone affordable housing building, more affordable units will be provided than are
required, and the units will be more deeply affordable than is required, as follows:
• BMP Affordability as Proposed
Very Low Low Median Total
Income Income Income
Rental units 49 0 1 50
While the final income targeting will depend on the financing secured, the unit mix of a 9%
tax credit development would be roughly as follows :
Extremely Low Income Units @ 30% AMI
10
Very Low Income Units @ 45% AMI
9
Very Low Income Units @ 50% AMI
30
Median Income Unit @ 80% AMI (Manager's 1
Unit)
3
The affordable housing program will be most successful if fifty units are built, due to
economies of scale and more successful management of a building of this size. Because
Phase I is not proposing to construct all of the 270 baseline units but is proposing this surplus
of BMP units, we request that these additional 10 units count towards any future residential
development's BMP requirements on the remainder of the North 40 properties.
The affordable component will help meet the needs of low income seniors in Los Gatos with
safe, attractive, and affordable homes and on-site services that will help these individuals
thrive.
The project will include high quality amenities available in all Eden developments including
a community room, a computer center and library, and landscaped courtyards and furnished
lobbies for casual social interaction. The architecture and interiors will be designed in such a
way to provide a stimulating, spacious, and inviting environment for the seniors as they age
in place. Eden's service provider and affiliate, Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc., will
offer resident activities and programs specifically designed for seniors.
Proposed Modifications to the BMP Program Guidelines
The development team is requesting modifications to the BMP Program Guidelines regarding
the following specific requirements:
• Type of Units, Rental vs For-Sale: The BMP Program requires that the "BMP
units within a project that contains both rental and owner-occupied units shall also
be designated as both rental and as units for purchase, in a ratio similar to that of
the market-rate units." The development team is proposing that the affordable
units consist of rental housing rather than a mix of for-sale units and rentals.
Justification: The Town 's requirement that BMP units in for-sale projects must
also be for-sale units is inconsistent with the hou sing element statute. State law
requires that the Town permit a developer to satisfy its inclusionary requirements
by constructing rental housing at affordable monthly rents. (Gov't Code Section
65589.8.) The development team is therefore entitled to use the proposed rental
affordable units to satisfy the BMP Program's requirement that 20 percent of units
be affordable.
In addition, a requirement that the senior affordable units be for-sale units would
make the project infeasible because of its proposed tax credit financing, which
will not fund for-sale units. State Jaw does not allow a condition to be imposed
that renders a project infeasible because of its method of financing. (Gov't Code
Sections 65008(b)(2), (b)(3).)
• Location of Units: The BMP Program requires that th e "BMP units shall be
dispersed throughout the development, to the extent feasible, in all buildings, on
each floor, and in each project phase." (emphasis added) In this case, the
4
development team is proposing a single affordable senior housing component
which is located on the air rights above the Market Hall.
As discussed in detail in our density bonus application, housing designated for
seniors must be contained in a structure separated from all-ages housing . This
makes it infeasible to disperse the housing throughout the development in all
buildings and on each floor. A centralized location is key to the proposed
financing and Eden's ability to serve very low income seniors and to provide on-
site supportive services.
• Size of Units: The BMP Program requires that the "size and design of BMP
dwelling units shall be reasonably consistent with the market rate units in the
project." (emphasis added)
Because the proposed BMP units are designated for seniors, they are necessarily
smaller than the market-rate units; it would not be reasonable to expect seniors to
maintain units as large as the market-rate units, nor could units so large be
affordable to very low income households. The exterior design, however, as
discussed below, is fully consistent with and integrated into the design of the
project as a whole and the Market Hall, in particular.
Items Consistent with BMP Program Guidelines
• Building Exterior: The BMP Program requires that there "shall not be significant
identifiable differences between the BMP and market-rate units visible from the
exterior" and the "external appearance of BMP units should be indiscernible to
that of the market rate units in the project." The affordable senior housing will be
a part of the Market Hall, will not be identifiable as an affordable development,
and will have high quality architecture consistent with the rest of the development
and the other rental units in the development. Eden and Grosvenor are using the
same architect and contractor to design and build this building. The affordable
housing will not be distinguishable as affordable housing merely by architectural
treatments. As part of the separate Market Hall building, it will have its own style
in order to create visual interest and texture to .the neighborhood.
• Interior Finishes: The BMP Program requires that the "internal finish of BMP
units should be identical to that of the market rate units in the project, except that
the developer may request Town approval of substitutions for luxury interior
finishes, appliances , or fixtures, if such substitutions do not violate any Town
code requirement." Eden will have its own interior finish schedule based on its
preferred specifications and will request Town approval of the finishes. These
materials and appliances will meet all local, state and funding requirements .
• Project Facilities: The Program requires that "all project facilities and amenities,
including parking, must be available on the same basis to the BMP units as to the
market rate units in the project, to the extent feasible." (emphasis added) As
proposed, and as required by State law, the affordable housing will have its own
5
facilities and amenities -many of which will be above and beyo nd what is
provided in the market-rate components. For exampl e, the afford ab le senio r
community will include the following amenities: a community room, a computer
center and a library or exercise room . Additional fe es will not be charged fo r
parking, as with the market rate units. Res idents of the se nior housing wi ll have
the same access to the walks and parks on the site as other residents.
Major Benefits of the Proposed BMP Program
• Deeper affordability .
Proceeding with the development as proposed will a ll ow the development team to
provide up to 49 units targeted to extremely low and very low income seni ors, and
will enable the Town to s how production of these units in t he Regional Housing
Needs A ll ocati on (RHNA) process and its Annual R eport s on Housing Element
progress .
As shown in the Town 's recent history of affordable hous in g development, uni ts
at these affordability leve ls are the hardest to produce. The Eden affordab le senior
component will provide 49 unit s targeted to very low income and extremely low
income seniors, along with one median income managers unit.
Amenity-rich and service-enhanced housing for low income seniors.
In addition to making deeper affordabi l ity financially fe a sib le, providing a ll of the
affordable units in one central building a llows Eden to provide s upportive
services on-si te. These se rvice s provide wrap-around services that help lower
income residents thrive -and are not avai lable in typi cal disbursed BMP units.
For this development, Eden Ho us in g Re sident Services, In c. (EHRS I) will
provide reside nt services programming, ranging from information and referrals
via regularly upda ted resident services g uides . to comprehensive programming .
EHRSI's resident servi ces staff is available to offer important inform ation and
referral services and to deve lop key partnerships in our communities. EHRS I
works one-on-one with resid ents, coordina te s and fac ilitates gr oup educati onal
programming, devel op s comm unity building activities, and brings in outside
speakers to present on top ics of relevance a nd interest to our residents.
Eden has extensive experience working with a senior population. The primary
goal of our senior re s ident services is to allow our seniors to 'age in place' and
li ve independentl y in a dignified, healthy and productive way. To meet this goal,
we provide a range of programming t ailored to each individual resident. The
overall intention of ser vices programming for our seni or a nd specia l needs
residents is to:
• Reduce iso lati on by providing on-site programs and enco uraging resident-
led programs
6
•
•
•
•
•
Provide residents with access to resources via information and referral
Provide programming designed to enhance the quality of life of our
residents
Address health and wellness issues faced by our diverse commumtles
including depression, physical fitness, assistive technology , nutrition/diet
and personal safety
Monitor the ability of our residents to continue to live independently and
safely in our housing community
Build strong communities by facilitating community events, collaborating
with resident associations and encouraging volunteerism in the community
(internally/externally)
As a testament to our ability to provide housing and services allowing our
residents to age in place successfully, nearly one quarter of our residents in senior
developments are over the age of 80-with three residents over I 00 .
• High quality design
Eden is recognized in the industry for its creative development approach that
includes collaborating with local governments and development partners to create
well-designed properties that meet the needs of the residents and tailoring projects
to suit the locale. In the recent past, Eden has completed entitlements for projects
in Palo Alto, Lafayette, Dublin, Novato, Orinda, and Fremont --all of which
required excellent design as well as the development and execution of thoughtful
and comprehensive community outreach strategies.
In addition, Eden places a high value on design through the work of talented
designers, builders and other professionals and is committed to crafting high-
quality developments that give careful attention to the needs of residents and the
surrounding neighborhood. Indeed, Eden has won more than 60 awards for its
work, including the recent recognition of Foss Creek Court in Healdsburg, which
in 20 11 has received the prestigious national Charles L. Edson A ward for Tax
Credit Excellence, a Gold Nugget Award of Merit from the Pacific Coast
Builders' Conference, and won the Affordable Housing Finance Magazine
Readers' Choice Award for the best Rural project in the country.
Eden will bring this same commitment to excellence, along with the rest of the
development team to deliver a high-quality, vibrant neighborhood that offers a
variety of housing types and sizes for a range of incomes -all of which will be
places that people are excited and proud to call home.
7
8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JANUARY 27,2016 HELD IN THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 110 E MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 4 :00P.M. by Chair Bob Cowan.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Len Pacheco, Bob Cowan, Kathryn Janoff, Michael Kane, Tom O 'Donnell
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Joel Paulson, Interim COD Director
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
IT E M 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Tom 0 'Donnell moved to approve the minutes of December 9, 2015. The motion
was seconded by Michael Kane and approved 5-0.
ITEM 8 256 Bachman A venue (Heard out of order)
Historic Architecture and Site Application HS-16-005
Requesting approval of exterior modifications for a contributing single-family
residence in the Almond Grove Historic District on property zoned R-1 D :LHP.
APN 510-14-057.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Genevieve and Mitchell Wyman
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
MOTION: L en Pachec o moved to approve 1) restoring the original door and location; 2) to
configure the upper story window with consistent vertical proportions subject to
staff review; 3) restoring the multiple light windows on the rear addition; and 4)
the fixed skylight with a flat surface, where the finish shall match the roof color as
best as possible and the sk y light shall be no larger than 18 "x36'", but small er if
possible. The motion was seconded by Michae l Kan e and approved 4-0-1 , with
Bob Cowan recused.
E.XHIBIT 1 2.
Historic Preservation Committee
January 27,2016
Page 2 o.f5
ITEM2 North Forty-Phase 1
Architecture and Site Application S-13-090
Subdivision Application M-13-014
Requesting approval for the demolition of existing structures (eight pre-1941) and
improvements on multiple parcels located on 20.24 acres within the proposed
North Forty Specific Plan Area; construction of a new multi-use, multi-story
development consisting of 285 residential units , and 66,000 square feet of
commercial floor area including an 18,000 square foot market; and a vesting
tentative map. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed for the
North Forty Specific Plan and further environmental review will be completed as
needed , for the proposed project. APNs: 424-07-024 through 027, 031 through
033 through 035, 070, 083 through 086, 090, and 100
APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited
PROPERTY OWNERS: Thomas M. Yuki Trust Et. Al./Yuki Farms, Robert &
Georgianna Spinazze, Marianne Ezell, Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill
Homes, James F Dagostino Trustee, Elizabeth K. Dodson, William N. Fales,
William Hirshman
Don Capbres, the applicant, discussed the history of the project, as well as, the
timelines for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
The committee discussed the removal of the tress and if there were any possible
uses if they were kept. The Committee reviewed the agrarian feel ofte proposed
plans and determined that the agrarian history is effectively integrated in Phase I.
Additionally, retention of the Barn and the Adobe House on Phase 2 were
discussed in the context of commemorating the agrarian history of the property as
required in the Specific Plan.
Kathryn Janoff was unclear which structures specifically were being requested to
be demolished.
MOTION: Tom 0 Donnell moved to approve the demolition of the eight pre-1941 structures
within Phase 1. The motion was seconded by Michael Kane and approved 4-1,
with Kathryn Janoff-nay.
Historic Preservation Committee
January 27, 2016
Page 3 of5
ITEM 3 360 Bella Vista Avenue (Continued from 12/17/2015)
Subdivision Application M-15-005
Architecture and Site Applications S-15-053 (Lot #1) and S-15-054 (Lot #2)
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and second
unit, subdivide one lot into two lots, and construct two new si ngle-family
res idences on two properties zoned R-1 :8. APN 529-22-038 .
PROPERTY OWNER: John Brady
APPLICANT: Michael Black
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
The committee agreed that there were no findings to indicate the structure was
built pre-I 941 .
MOTION: Kathryn Janoff moved to remove the property from the Historic Resources
Inventory. The motion was seconded by Tom 0 'Donnell and approved 5-0.
ITEM4 94 Hernandez Avenue (Continued from 12/17/2015)
Requesting approval to remove the structure from the Historic Resources
Inventory on a property zoned R-1 :8. APN 510-20-024.
PROPERTY OWNER: Helen Cadiente
APPLICANT: Jaime P. Arafiles
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
Kath,yn Janoff stated that the structure does not meet the criteria to be removed
from the Historic R esources Inventory. And since the structure was built before
1941 , the applicant should really try to maintain the historic look and feel of it.
MOTION: Kathryn Janoff moved to deny the request to remove the structure from the
Historic Resources Inventory. The motion was seconded by Bob Cowan and
approved 4-0-1, with Len Pacheco recused .
ITEM 5 35 N. Santa Cruz Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-16-007
Requesting approval of exterior modifications to a pre-194 1 commercial building
on property zoned C-2. APN 510-44-032 .
PROPERTY OWNER: Kilkenny Properties, LLC
APPLICANT: Sean McLoughlin
PROJ ECT PLANNER: Erin Walters
Len Pach eco di scussed concerns with the color scheme. He s uggested that the
Historic Preservation Committee
January 27,2016
Page 4 of5
applicant consider ways to better integrate with the historic nature of the
downtown. He suggested providing more muted colors.
Kathryn Janoff and Bob Cowan agreed that alternative colors may work better
than the proposed colors.
MOTION: Bob Cowan moved to continue the item to a date uncertain. The motion was
seconded by Michael Kane and approved S-0.
ITEM6 16207 Short Road
Requesting approval to remove the structure from the Historic Resources
Inventory on a property zoned R-1 :20. 523-09-035.
PROPERTY OWNER: William and Barbara Mosley
APPLICANT: Lisa Murray, LKM Design
PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley
Lisa Murray (applicant) stated the structure was not listed on any historic lists
and was significantly altered in 2002.
Tom 0 'Donnell and Len Pacheco commented that the structure had so much
work done to it ; it no longer reflected its 1920's origin.
MOTION: Tom O 'Donnell moved to remove the structure from the Historic Resources
Inventory. The motion was seconded by Michael Kane and approved S-0.
ITEM 7 45 Broadway
Architecture and Site Application S-15-040
Requesting approval for relocating a contributing single-fami ly residence in the
Broadway Historic District and constructing a second story addition greater than
100 square feet on property zoned R-1D:LHP. APN 510-45-057.
PROPERTY OWNER: Lori Baker
APPLICANT: Jay Plett
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
Len Pacheco had concerns about having a fireplace outside. He questioned the
applicant to see if a terrace or patio was considered.
Michael Kane mentioned that this might detract from the original structure.
Jay Plett argued that almost every house on Glen Ridge has a side porch.
Historic Preservation Committee
January 27,2016
Page 5 of5
Kathryn Janoff expressed that she had an issue with the addition. The structure is
an iconic house and the addition would change the look of it.
MOTION: Tom 0 'Donnell moved to deny the request. The motion was seconded by
Kathryn Janoff and approved 4-1 , with Bob Cowan -nay.
ITEM 9 Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 24,
2016 at 4:00p.m.
Prepared by: Sylvie Roussel, Administrative Assistant
Approved by:
Marni Moseley, AI
Associate Planner
Bob Cowan
Chair
N:\DEV \H IS TO RIC PRESERVA TION\HPCm inut t..-s\2 0 16\HPCm inutes 1·27 ·16.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
December 18, 2015
Ms. Marni Moseley
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: North 40
Dear Marni:
I previously reviewed this project in July of last year. I have gone over the full set of drawing carefully and have previ-
ously visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Overall Site Plan
The site plan is much the same as when I reviewed it seventeen moths ago except for a major change in the westerly portion
of the Transition Zone where Rowhomes and Garden Cluster residential structures have replaced the earlier Move-Down
Condominiums. The currently proposed new site plan is shown below to provide context to my comments. Areas where I
have specific comments are highlighted on this site plan diagram.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
North 40
Design Review Comments
December 18, 2015 Page 2
Overall Evaluation
The applicants and their design teams have greatly refined the project since I last reviewed it over a year ago, and more draw-
ings have been provided to allow a fuller review of the streetscapes and details of the project. Overall, my feeling is that this
has the potential of being an outstanding example of a large scale mixed use development constucted in a relatively com-
pressed time period, but with a texture and character of a neighborhood that has evolved over a much longer time frame.
The success will lie in the final designs and details, but I feel that the applicant has adopted an approach to providing high
quality design with the detail and diversity necessary to give the overall development the “look and feel of Los Gatos”. For devel-
opment in other neighborhoods of Los Gatos, I would not be comfortable with the use of metal roofing and wall coverings, but
in the context of the North 40 Specific Plan and the resident market focus of the project, I am comfortable with the limited use
of those materials as currently shown on the elevation drawings.
Concerns and Recommendations
I found little to raise concerns regarding the site plan, open space structure and building designs. There are a few issues, how-
ever, that staff may wish to discuss further with the applicant.
1. Market and Senior Housing Parking Structure
Resident and residential guest parking access is only accessible by joining retail parking traffic through the first and
second levels of the parking structure to reach the residential parking on the upper level of the garage.
A second issue is that the upper level of the garage is also allocated for Retail Employees parking. Although this
parking will be assigned parking, that fact may not totally alleviate potential security issues for residents and their per-
sonal property.
Recommendation: Continue to explore alternatives to address this parking conflict. Consider below grade parking
for the second level of retail parking since a future down ramp is already planned to link the garage access to Phase
II of the project.
North 40
Design Review Comments
December 18, 2015 Page 3
2. Building A1
While all other facades of both the commercial and residential structures throughout the Phase I area are visually
interesting and rich in detail, the rear facade of the A1 building facing the parking lot is quite plain and lacking in buffer
landscaping between the parking lot and the pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to the building. This is of some special con-
cern since this is the front door access area for the residential units on the upper floor of the building.
Recommendation: Provide more design interest to the south facade of Building A1, and add landscaping along the
pedestrian walkway adjacent to the building.
3. Rowhome Alley Facades
A large portion of the residential neighborhood consists of 7 Plex
buildings facing Rowhomes across relatively long access alleys lined
with garage door facades at grade level. Some provision is made
for landscaping between the garage doors, but this will only soften
the alleys somewhat. While this is not a totally uncommon condi-
tion for development with these product types, efforts are usually
made to add more landscaping to alley areas or limit their lengths. A
consistent complication in this project is that the major private out-
door space for one of the units in each 7 Plex cluster faces onto the
alley, and while the alley facades of the 7 Plex building are rich with
articulation, the alley facing facades of the Rowhomes are relatively
flat and less visually interesting (See floor plans and alley elevations
on the following page).
North 40
Design Review Comments
December 18, 2015 Page 4
North 40
Design Review Comments
December 18, 2015 Page 5
Recommendation: Provide more facade articulation and design detail on the alley facades of the Rowhomes, and
enhance the landscaping as much as possible.. The illustration immediately below from the North 40 Specific Plan
shows one example and others from nearby Bay Area communities are also shown below. These illustrate some
common auto court techniques which include:
• Projecting bay windows.
• Awning or canopies over windows for visual texture and shadows.
• Recesses into the facades to allow larger trees.
• Significant recessed and projecting balconies.
• Planter boxes and pot shelves.
• Floor level recesses or projections.
• Deep recessed windows and garage doors.
• Landscaped trellises over garage doors.
Note: The examples shown are on traditional style structures, but the techniques are easily translated for use on more contemporary
structures.
North 40
Design Review Comments
December 18, 2015 Page 6
4. Finger Cluster Linkage to the Grand
Paseo
The cluster of units that extends into the area
with existing development east of South “A”
Street is not well linked to the Grand Paseo to
the south, as shown in the diagram below.
Recommendation: Improve the pedestrian
linkage between this building cluster and the
Grand Paseo.
5. Access to Units adjacent to Los Gatos Boulevard
Convenient access from and to Los Gatos Blvd. and the Grand Paseo is provided for eight of the ten residential units
adjacent to Los Gatos Blvd. However, two of the units have a somewhat tortured path along the auto access alley, as
shown in the diagram below.
Recommendation: Improve the pedestrian linkages between the unit entries and both Los Gatos Blvd. and the
Grand Paseo.
I have no other recommendations for changes.
Marni, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
February 8, 2016
Marni F. Moseley, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
RE: Cannon Design Group – Architectural Review Comments PROJECT No: 09039
Concerns and Recommendations –TEAM RESPONSES
Marni,
Thank you for providing the Cannon Design Groups comments of our October 14, 2015 set. We
have corrected our drawings as referenced in the bolded responses to the comments in the
December 18, 2015 letter.
1. Market and Senior Housing Parking Structure
Resident and residential guest parking access is only accessible by joining retail parking traffic
through the first and second levels of the parking structure to reach the residential parking on
the upper level of the garage.
A second issue is that the upper level of the garage is also allocated for Retail Employees
parking. Although this parking will be assigned parking, that fact may not totally alleviate
potential security issues for residents and their personal property.
Recommendation: Continue to explore alternatives to address this parking conflict. Consider
below grade parking for the second level of retail parking since a future down ramp is already
planned to link the garage access to Phase II of the project.
Response: The Phase I design does not incorporate a separate drive path for the residential
parking stalls. However, in the Phase II design we are planning an addition to this parking
structure we will review the traffic flow to investigate the possibilities for a separate route to
the Residential parking stalls. Please note we have added a below grade parking level to this
structure, see sheet 3.6.
To address security concerns we have incorporated a security gate on the Second Floor of the
garage to block public access to the third floor parking. This security gate would have a
electronic key pad for ease of access for the authorized user.
2. Building A1
While all other facades of both the commercial and residential structures throughout the Phase I
area are visually interesting and rich in detail, the rear facade of the A1 building facing the
parking lot is quite plain and lacking in buffer landscaping between the parking lot and the
Marni Moseley/09039
February 8, 2016
Page 2 of 3
pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to the building. This is of some special concern since this is the front door access area
for the residential units on the upper floor of the building.
Recommendation: Provide more design interest to the south facade of Building A1, and add landscaping along the
pedestrian walkway adjacent to the building.
Response: We have adjusted the Parking Lot A layout to add an additional foot to the walk that is adjacent to
the rear façade of Building A1. This allowed us to add a series of vine pockets that will enhance the building
facade and maintain adequate clearances for deliveries to the retail service doors along this walk.
3. Rowhome Alley Facades
A large portion of the residential neighborhood consists of 7 Plex buildings facing Rowhomes across relatively long
access alleys lined with garage door facades at grade level. Some provision is made for landscaping between the
garage doors, but this will only soften the alleys somewhat. While this is not a totally uncommon condition for
development with these product types, efforts are usually made to add more landscaping to alley areas or limit
their lengths. A consistent complication in this project is that the major private outdoor space for one of the units in
each 7 Plex cluster faces onto the alley, and while the alley facades of the 7 Plex building are rich with articulation,
the alley facing facades of the Rowhomes are relatively flat and less visually interesting.
Recommendation: Provide more facade articulation and design detail on the alley facades of the Rowhomes, and
enhance the landscaping as much as possible. The illustration immediately below from the North 40 Specific Plan
shows one example and others from nearby Bay Area communities are also shown below. These illustrate some
common auto court techniques which include:
• Projecting bay windows.
• Awning or canopies over windows for visual texture and shadows.
• Recesses into the facades to allow larger trees.
• Significant recessed and projecting balconies.
• Planter boxes and pot shelves.
• Floor level recesses or projections.
• Deep recessed windows and garage doors.
• Landscaped trellises over garage doors.
Note: The examples shown are on traditional style structures, but the techniques are easily translated for use on
more contemporary structures.
Response: Enhanced design elements have been added to the alley facades of the Rowhome building types. All
Rowhome facades have received an increase of material variety and color palette. The facades also include a
strong horizontal break and shadow line, with cantilevered floors over the garage level, as well as having all
garage doors located in deep recesses. At longer alleys, and alleys facing balconies at the Garden Cluster
building type, additional architectural detailing has been added in the form of window awnings and planter
boxes to create greater articulation and interest.
The project alleyways are also wider than standard, which allows for more light to enter them and their
adjacent units, enhances planting between the garage doors and increases the separation between units.
Additionally, the longer alleys are divided by paseo crossings that add articulation and interest by breaking up
long sections of paving and also provide enhanced areas for planting that include large canopy trees.
Marni Moseley/09039
February 8, 2016
Page 3 of 3
4. Finger Cluster Linkage to the Grand Paseo
The cluster of units that extends into the area with existing development east of South “A”
Street is not well linked to the Grand Paseo to the south, as shown in the diagram below.
Recommendation: Improve the pedestrian linkage between this building cluster and the Grand Paseo.
Response: The orientation of this cluster of buildings has been revised from the previous submittal. The 7-plex
Garden Cluster building has been reversed to face the east side of the property. A connection to the sidewalk,
adjacent to the head-in parking at Alley ‘G’, leads to alley crossings on both the east and west side of the
building that lead to the Grand Paseo. The previous two detached homes have been replaced with a Rowhouse
building that faces South ‘A’ Street. The entrances to the units of this building have access to the Grand Paseo
from the sidewalk along South ‘A’ Street.
5. Access to Units adjacent to Los Gatos Boulevard
Convenient access from and to Los Gatos Blvd. and the Grand Paseo is provided for eight of the ten residential units
adjacent to Los Gatos Blvd. However, two of the units have a somewhat tortured path along the auto access alley,
as shown in the diagram below.
Recommendation: Improve the pedestrian linkages between the unit entries and both Los Gatos Blvd and the Grand
Paseo.
Response: Improved pedestrian linkages have been added from street parking and the Grand Paseo to the
entries of the 1X units in the 5-plex Garden Cluster buildings. These include new connections to adjacent
sidewalks and enhanced paving across Alley ‘G’.
Sincerely,
Debra Lehtone
BAR Architects
415-293-7135
dlehtone@bararch.com
cc: Don Capobres; Wendi Baker; File
encl: None
path: \\srvfile01\documents\09039 Los Gatos North Forty\3 REGULATORY\3.12 Planning Department\151111_Planning Staff Review
Comments\FINAL LETTERS\North40_DraftResponse_LarryCannon.docx
March 21, 2016
Ms. Marni Moseley
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: North 40
Dear Marni:
I previously reviewed this project in July of 2014 and again last December. I have gone over the full set of new drawings
carefully and have previously visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Overall Site Plan
The site plan has remained much the same over the course of the reviews except for a major change in the westerly por-
tion of the Transition Zone where Rowhomes and Garden Cluster residential structures replaced the earlier Move-Down
Condominiums. The currently proposed new site plan is shown below, and illustrations of the proposed buildings and
landscape environment are included at the end of this letter.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
North 40
Design Review Comments
March 21, 2016 Page 2
Previous Concerns
The overall plan has remained consistent with the North 40 Specific Plan so comments in the previous reviews have
focused on smaller issues and refinements. Issues raised in previous reviews included the following:
1. Clarification and refinements to the Log Gatos Blvd. frontage.
2. Access to resident parking at the Senior Housing/Market Hall Mixed Use complex.
3. Refinement and expansion of the finger cluster development that extends into the existing residential neighbor-
hood which is not a part of this development.
4. Clarification of the circulation paths and termini along the major north-south Paseos.
5. Variation in areas where flat roofs were initially proposed.
6. Treatment of the long alley access to parking garages in the Lark District including refinements to the alley
facades of the Rowhome units.
7. Guest parking locations relative to some units.
8. Clarification and refinements to the distribution of the Contemporary and Traditional Style residential units.
9. Materials selection
10. Facade treatment to the parking side of Building A1.
Staff has worked with the applicant over the past 20 months to refine the project through changes or have satisfied
themselves that some of the issues raised are not of significant concern to warrant changes. I have no other recommen-
dations for further changes.
Marni, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
North 40
Design Review Comments
March 21, 2016 Page 3
MARKET HALL AND SENIOR HOUSING
MARKET HALL AND MIXED USE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
North 40
Design Review Comments
March 21, 2016 Page 4
MIXED USE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
SENIOR HOUSING AND MIXED USE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
North 40
Design Review Comments
March 21, 2016 Page 5
GARDEN CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL
ROWHOME RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL
North 40
Design Review Comments
March 21, 2016 Page 6
COMMUNITY PARKS AND GARDENS
GRAND PASEO