N40 Phase 1 - Staff Report Exh.21From: Angelia Doerner [mailto:saveourhood@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 12:52 PM
To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonard is; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Matt Morley; Planning
Subject: Last Night -Agenda Item 11 -Rule 20A Credits
Just a quick thank-you to Marcia for clarifying the expected timeline and process
associated with this project. I had researched Rule 20A Credits a while back when I
kept seeing the unused credit amount in the financials growing. My understanding
of the process and potential timeline (many, many moons forward) was consistent
with Ma r cia's comments. However, the timeline expressed by Staff was 1.5 years
"admin" + 2 years design -then the project taking 3 years. Thinking linear
continuity of the process, it sounded to me like the project would commence 3.5
years from now. Hence, my question.
Notwithstanding this, with our thinking-caps on for three years from now, its likely
some level of construction will have commenced at the North 40 by then -and that
the first steps will be to place the utility infrastructure. Are there any preliminary
utility plans for the project indicating how/where they will be "connecting to" the
existing PGE network. Would they be "feeding into or out of'' the
transformers referred to at Chirco? Maybe there as well as others? Given that the
developers will be working with mostly "virgin land", I would imagine they would be
undergrounding all utilities.
Maybe this is already in process -but just some thoughts . Is it possible, if the Town
is a driving factor and .active participant, that the objectives of the Rule 20A District
could be achieved (and possibly accelerated) by piggy-backing the developers'
initiatives and not having to utilize some (or any) of our existing credits? Might it
be worthwhile to gain a thorough understanding of North 40 utility plans as to
where they "cross the borders" into the Town's existing utility network and
conceptualize how we may integrate utility upgrades, etc., to coincide with such
efforts -thereby piggy-backing developers' costs and benefiting the Town at lower
cost, if any?
The Town/Planning Commission addresses traffic mitigation efforts -do they do the
same with other "infrastructure" matters, e.g . utilities, sewers, storm drains?
Maybe not in the past (?) -but this is not just a new animal for the Town -its a
Beast! How do we, or to what extent CAN we, ensure that developers'
responsibilities include upgrades/mitigations/etc., addressi ng capacity issues of
the Town's existing infrastructure "just down the road" from wherever the North 40
"hooks in"?
Thanks for reading/listening. Also, please include this communication in Publ ic
Comments for the March 23 '16 PC meeting . Th.anks!
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, Laugh Often EXHIBIT 2 1
March 17, 2016
los Gatos Town Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: March 23, 2016 Agenda Item -North 40 Project
RECEI VED
1\i .. ~d 1 s 2u1 5
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVIS ION
I am writing to voice my concern about the proposed Phase I North 40 project. The introduction on the
Town's web page says the town is "dedicated to providing an exceptional quality of life and preserving
the character of the town." The 320 homes p r oposed are way too dense to fulfill that promise.
We all know the North 40 development will go forward. We also know the negative impact it is going to
have on traffic, schools, and quality of life. I applaud the inclusion of 50 residences for seniors.
However, our only hope for maintaining any "town character'' is to reduce t he density and include more
open space around the other 270 homes.
I would also like to hear an update on what the developers have done to help the school district. This
was something that was included in the Council's approval of the specific plan.
I have been a resident of los Gatos for a long time and i n my current home for 25 years. I have twice
viewed the Phase I model on display. It is frightening. In recent meetings the Commiss ion has denied
applicati ons for res i dential development citing, i n part, concerns over the density of the projects.
Please cons ider that per spective when deciding on this application.
Thank you,
fJ a:i dLtVtp
Pat Sharp
320 Harding Avenue
los Gatos, CA 95030
From: Pat Blair [mailto :patrblair@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 8:15AM
To: Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40
Look at the fight down in Morgan Hill to save PRECIOUS farmland and green space. I am
appalled at what we are doing here in Los Gatos. We do NOT need more business. We do NOT
need more traffic We DO need some truly affordable housing and we DO need to have thought
outside the box (Yes I did write in early on in this process) to preserve MUCH more green space
and orchards. I was truly heartsick to view he plan. Shame on us!!
Pat Blair
101 Lorain Pl.
Los Gatos
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Ri ano <jennifer.riano@gmail.com >
Monday, March 21, 2016 7:29 PM
Marni Moseley
Deny North 40
I'm writing regarding the proposed North 40 plans. Please deny them ALL. My family and I have lived here for 6 years
and love the town & the small population that comes with the town. We have negatively been impacted by the growing
medical facilities that we encounter on our daily commutes (National/Carlton/Lark/Los Gatos Blvd).
Adding more homes and stores to that area will further clog the traffic arteries, especially during beach traffic (Friday's
through Sunday's March-November). We are still suffering from the current challenges.
Listen to your tax paying constituents & keep Los Gatos a town; don't turn it into a city. No on North 40.
Jennifer Riano
100 Escobar Ave
1
M a rni M osel ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subj ect:
Marni,
TRI CIA L. CAPRI <tricia_ca pri@ya hoo.com >
Tue sd ay, Marc h 22, 2016 4 :41 PM
Marni Moseley
TRI CIA L. CAPRI
O pposition t o North 40
I'm writing to voice my opposition to the North 40 plan that is currently in
place. I'm not sure if I can attend the meeting on Weds , March 30th therefore I
want to be sure my sentiments are documented and recorded.
I saw the model downtown and I was appalled to see how many units are crammed
together, with very little open space. I also don 't see any "charm" to this model--
this is not representative of the TOWN of Los Gatos.
This is crazy .... we need more infrastructure for that many new homes---there will be
too many kids and way too many cars!!
Why not make it all low income SENIOR housing ?? NO KIDS, no additional burden on
already crowded schools?
I'm very concerned at the number of homes and the fact that MANY will have
children which will add to. the crowding of our schools.
When our school system starts to erode, that is a direct link to the value of my
home. I have huge concerns that the TOWN is not looking out for the interest
of the taxpayers it is paid to represent .
Where is the open space? Where are the trees? Each development seems to
take away from the aesthetics of a beautiful town --one that we all moved
here for. We are quickly losing the quaint, rustic feel of our town.
Where is the adherence to the PLAN that was approved for our town?
This plan seems awfully greedy to me. There seems to be no valid reason for the
development to be so crowded.
Also, for a TOWN the size of Los Gatos, it seems to me that an $8 .5 million police station
with no parking was too much. I still don't understand why we don't have combined
services to reduce overhead costs. Again -INFRASTRUCTURE (traffic, schools, police,
fire, etc.) will all be negatively impacted and I haven't seen any plans to r educe these
burdens. What is being done to offset these issues?
1
We cannot let this happen.
Tricia Capri
Homeowner and resident of Los Gatos since January 1989
255 Los Gatos Blvd.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
2
. . ..
March 21, 2016
To: Mami Moseley
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
:··, .-1 O F LOS G ATOS
;::L.A l <.·~ .. ,IG DIVIS ION
Regarding: North 40 Plan, traffic revision regarding Bennett Way left tum
•
Dear Ms. Moseley:
We are the owners for the individual condominium units for the buildings
15055 and 15075 Los Gatos Boulevard. \Ve and our Condominium Association
collectively oppose the Town's proposal to revise traffic flow to and from Bennett
Way and Los Gatos Boulevard. The remedy we seek is for a finding or
determination to be made to allow left turning vehicles into and out of Bennett
Way. In short, the Town should make no restrictions to the existing traffic pattern
on Los Gatos Boulevard at Bennett.
It has come to our attention that a traffic revision is under consideration by
the Town of Los Gatos, the effect of which is to not allow a left turn from Los
Gatos Boulevard onto Bennett Way, and to not allow a left tum from Bennett Way
onto Los Gatos Boulevard. Both would be changes to the existing pattern. We
believe that such a revision would unnecessarily restrict traffic flow to and from
our buildings with no demonstrable benefit.
Bennet Way is an access road runr1ing northwest from Los Gatos Boulevard.
It currently serves our two buildings and several private residences. Traffic can
currently tum left or right from Los Gatos Boulevard onto Bennett Way, and traffic
from Bennett \Vay c.an 1urn left 6r right onto Los Gatos Boulevard. The North t10
plan does not link our parking lot or Bennett to any new development. In fact le s s
traffic would take Bennett Way after the North 40 completion, because all the
priva te residences are proposed to be cordoned o ff from Bennett Way and obtain
acc e ss through the main development.
If restrictions are implemented, left-tumh1g tr affic coming to our bus ine sses
would have to go to intersections that are already congested. Traffic coming north
(either from Los Gatos or having come off Highway l 7 at the Lark A venue ramp)
will need to bypass our building and travel .4 mil es t o t he next legal U -tum at
Samaritan Drive, past the proposed entrance t o t he North 40 dev elopment. Then
this traffic would travel back for a right tum onto Bennett. The effect would be to
increase traffic pressure at the Los Gatos I Samaritan Drive intersection, which can
be very heavy at peak hours and midday. It would also force traffic to drive twice
past the proposed intersection between the North 40 and Los Gatos Boulevard and
then queue up with other traffic turning right onto Lark.
In contrast, the current traffic flows smoothly. Left-turning traffic does not
obstruct flow from southbound Los Gatos Boulevard onto Lark. When traffic is
light heading toward Lark, there is little problem turning left across those lanes.
When traffic is heavy and backs up at Lark, the left tum is also not a problem or
impediment because vehicles backed up with no immediate place to go simply
leave a gap for left turning traffic across those lanes . At some point after the
completion of our buildings, the Town realized this and required that barriers to
left turns in and out of Bennett be removed. Traffic has been moving well without
left tum restrictions since our buildings were divided into commercial
condominiums.
Imposing new restrictions is not in keeping with the spirit of the Town. Last
year the Town Council addressed an issue that arose about potentially restricting
existing uses of our property (as medical offices) or imposing stricter height
requirements. We believe their unanimous vote in favor of continued use --no new
restrictions--was supported by a sentiment that existing uses should not be
changed or restricted without good reason. There is no reason to believe that public
traffic accessing our buildings will unduly impede others. To the contrary, failing
to allow for left turns will divert traffic further and create more problems. In
summary, the Town should not impose new left tum restrictions at Bennett Way.
s~/1~ @ ~
his Gin~n wners
424-07-103
J orne H. · , iu, MD ; LG Boulevard Holdings LLC, owner
15 s Gatos Blvd Suite 250, APN 424-07-106
William Hirschman for Owner
15055 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 310, APN 424-07-108 Jj~ ~ <~ ( ,_
Jeehee Kim, MD, and Devon Groves for PQ{aris Navigation LLC, Owner
15055 Los Gat Bl d Suites 300, 320, APN 424-07-107
azaar, Lazaar, Owners
1 055 Los Gatos Blvd. Suite 350, APN 424-07-109
Piyush Kothary, ~ ~r t'l f Ko th""'7 FA,.,.; 11 T~t"/1"
15075 Los Gatos Blvd. Suite 100, 125, 150 APNs 424-07-110,424-07-111,424-07-112
Los Gatos Gateway
Business Center Association
15055 Los Gatos Blvd. #300
Los Gatos, CA 95032
22 March 2016
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
11 0 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: North 40, Phase I
RECEIVED
MAR 2 3 2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Ms. Moseley, Town Planning Commission and Town Council,
I expect each of you has seen the North 40 Phase 1 "story poles" as viewed from
southbound Highway 17. Never has the requirement for "story poles" been more
soundly vindicated; and never has the use of "story poles" presented a more graphic
portrayal of appalling and unacceptable density.
Cramming 320 residential units into the Southern Section of this development must be
rejected on multiple grounds:
• It has been reasonably expected that many of these units would be placed in the
Middle Section and especially the Northern Section of the North 40.
• The sheer density and mass of the current proposal is completely out of step with
the stated goal of preserving the rural character of the Town.
• This over-weighted Southern Section would create intolerable traffic no matter
what alleged mitigation measures are planned.
• The number of residential units will put an unfair and unequal burden on the Los
Gatos schools.
Let us not forget that, during the lengthy process of developing the North 40 Specific
Plan, there was a debate as to whether any housing ought to be included. It was decided
that, rather than create a commercial-only, nocturnal "ghost town", limited housing
would be appropriate, to wit, only housing to meet the Town's "unmet needs". The
"unmet needs" were defined as: senior housing, housing for millennials, and housing for
"empty-nesters". These categories were chosen specifically so as to limit the impact on
Los Gatos schools.
We now learn that ofthe 320 residential units proposed in Phase 1, there are to be 135
with 2 bedrooms and 54 with 3 bedrooms. (I do not know the bedroom count of the 1 0
rental units). I submit that to some extent 2 bedroom condos, and positively 3 bedroom
units, violate the intent of the Council in approving housing and will, in fact, act as
magnets for families with children. The developer's rationale for 2 and 3 bedroom units,
to wit, that, based upon focus group comments, 1 bedroom units may be harder to sell is
hard to credit, especially in thi s market and is, in all honesty, irrelevant.
After years of hard work by residents , governing bodies and the current Town staff to
"get this right" it fee ls as though we have slipped back to 2012 when the developer
presented to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Town Council a bloated
proposal that bore scant resemblance to the character of our town. While that plan was
summarily rejected and followed by years of honing a vision, the current proposal also
needs critical analysis and corrective surgery so that it will conform to that vision.
Respectfully submitted,
\~ ~~J). lt_Lv.-
Woody Nedbtn
16280 Azalea Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Bronco60@comcast.net
408 356-7956
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Moseley,
Judy Rucker <ljudyrucker@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 23, 2016 11:49 AM
Marni Moseley
North 40 development
I wish to go on record as opposing the North 40 development as proposed at this time. My objection is mainly
due to the increased traffic that this development will cause, especially on Lark A venue, which is currently
practically unnavigable at certain times of the day. As a resident on Arroyo Grande Way, I have no outlet
EXCEPT Lark Avenue and I've seen traffic increase exponentially due to other development in the area. I
would hate to see Lark A venue turned into an El Camino Real-type road, with multiple lanes and stop lights at
every comer.
I know the downtown area residents are concerned about the traffic from the freeway driving through their
neighborhoods when Highway 17 is crowded. Our neighborhood is just as concerned about the impact of traffic
in our area due to the high density nightmare that would be the North 40 .
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Judy Rucker
Sent from Gmail Mobile
1
M arni _ M oseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Laei.Sigal@ch2m .com
Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:12 PM
Marni Moseley
Open Space, Height Restriction s and More trees -Developer Application
The proposed application does not keep with the feel of Los Gatos. There is not enough open space . 360 housi ng units
in that amount of space without an open area .
Also I feel very strongly that the height restrictions a re not low enough and there are not enough trees. Just blocks up
we have wonderful sight lines of parks and green trees . This plan does not meeting these needs.
Los Gatos property owner.
Lael Sigal
1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carmen Villanueva <carmenv356@gmail.com>
Wednesday, March 23, 2016 7:59 PM
Marni Moseley
Town not a City
I have been a resident in Los Gatos for nearly 20 years. The development that is proposed for the North 40 is
going to destroy the quality of life in our town and destroy our public schools. Why are council members hell
bent on developing every square inch ofland in Los Gatos? The answer is simple ... greed. Isn't is interesting
that most of the homes will be built in Los Gatos School District? I wonder what kind of back-room deals
happened to make this come about. The town council should be ashamed of itself.
Sincerely,
Carmen Villanueva
1
M a r ni M ose l ey
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cathleen Bannon <cathleenbannon@gma i l.com >
Wednesda y, March 23 , 2016 8:33 PM
Marni Moseley
Grant Bannon
North 40 proposal
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.
The current proposal does not meet the approved specific plan in several areas .
1-The plan does not look and feel like Los Gatos. Any proposed development needs to focus on charm, green space ,
walkable neighborhoods, be set back from street, include dense large trees . The proposed p lan i s modeled after urban
developments with dense housing, tall buildings, narrow walkways, mass amount of retail. This intense number of
homes will generate so many cars that no one will feel safe to walk with their families in this area . The homes along Los
Gatos Blvd should be low larger homes, set back from the road (just as with the south side of the Blvd) to keep the
town's charm and look. There should be green belts surrounding all perimeters so when driving on 17 or down Lark you
see trees not concrete from a massive development that is do out of character for the town.
2-the proposed plan does not meet the specific plan's requirement of not impacting traffic and schools. Densely packed
320 homes on the south side next to the Lark 17 entrance will create a tremendous traffic bottle neck that the town will
not recover from. These homes could account for another 640 cars on our town streets. Unthinkable, especially onLG
Blvd which already sees tremendous traffic-can take 30 mins to get kids to schoo l in the morning ... such traffic quickly
changes a town to an urban city. This is NOT in keeping with the look and feel of LG . Secondly, LG schools are already
over impact by upwards of 500 kids . We do not have the infrastructure to bring in another 300-900 kids from a new
development. Let's not kid ourselves, parents are so desperate to get into our district, they will put a family of 4 in a 1
bedroom. This is TOO many homes, the school system can not handle it and our top ratings will fall. Additionally, there
should be NO reason that A LL homes in the development be placed on the land in the LG school district. That is the
greed of the developers to sell the homes with that distinction. If the Campbell district is not impacted then the homes
should be on that land . At the bare minimum, it should be shared with only 1/2 the homes in LG district.
Recommendations
-less homes ... reduce by 1/2 to 160 homes in total with no more than 80 of those in LG schoo l district.
-change the look from urban, dense, vertical living to small town vintage and varied homes, set back from street, wide,
child friendly walkways, less cars.
-more green space, green belt around perimeters so you see trees not stucco.
Thank you for listening to your town , we are counting on you to stand up for us to keep the look and feel of LG , and save
our schools.
Cathleen & Grant Bannon
16828 Kennedy Rd
Los a Gatos, Ca 95032
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
M arni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi there,
Linda Frolich <lindafrolich@gmail.com >
Wednesday, March 23 , 2016 11:05 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40 Resident comments
I'm a resident and homeowner in the neighborhood off of Garden Hill/Lark Ave . I'm hoping to attend the meeting on
March 30th, but I wanted to submit some comments and concerns directly.
1) I'm concerned about the major traffic impact this project will have in our part of town. I'm sure you are well aware of
the daily, heavy traffic congestion that occurs along Lark Ave. I can barely leave my home without dreading which way
will be bad or worse . I missed half of my son's first baseball game because I got stuck on Lark in ridiculous ly
slow/standstill traffic. And now, with the new Netflix buildings (and the new traffic coming with them), traffic is already
starting to grow worse on that end of Lark. I know there has been money set aside for traffic mitigation, but the problem
is already bad. It should be fixed to handle current traffic issues before drawing in additional traffic to be sure their plan
can truly work.
2) The story poles-I'm sick to my stomach when I realize that we'll be looking at walls of buildings instead of trees. I
can't believe that something more sensible can't be put in on Lark . I get it that we need to address a housing issue, but
there is more than one way to do it. Perhaps the high density housing should go over next to hwy 85 so that existing
residents don't have to look at it. How about single family homes (single story with basements) at the south end ofthe
North 40, commercial property located more centrally (so those of us who live nearby can walk to and enjoy the
offerings (which we thought could be pretty neat until we found out that they'll be the furthest away from us), and then
higher density housing at the north end of the property? Or, maybe just not 300+ homes in a tiny area .
3) I'm also concerned that all of the high density housing has been placed in the LGUSD boundaries. Really? I can't begin
to understand this decision. Couldn't it be split between us and Union or Cambrian districts? We have to take it all? And
I know this is supposed to be millennia I housing, but I think we all know that is simply not how this will really shake out.
We work so hard to raise money in an effort to maintain our school services and now this extra burden will be placed on
top of that? It seems terribly short sighted. And the children in this town will suffer because of it.
Who is really supposed to benefit from this project? I believe in the rights of property owners, but the transformation of
one piece of property, no matter how big or small, doesn't have the right to change the existing culture of the
surrounding community, does it?
I'm positive that I'm not the only tax paying resident of this town that feels this way . And, did you know there are still
many residents of Los Gatos that are not aware of this project or the scope of it? I don't believe due diligence has been
done to educate the greater community about this project. In fact, the only place I have seen anything publicly listed has
been on Facebook. Not everyone uses Facebook, and even those who do, still might not see these posts. I consider this
laziness on the part of those who are supporting this project. And them offering to meet for coffee at Starbucks during
hours when many of us work is simply not enough .
These are my honest feelings and I feel powerless to make a difference. Please know that the residents that are aware of
the project really don't feel there is anything that can be done . Is there? Thank you for your consideration of my
comments and concerns, and I hope to be at the meeting next Wednesday .
Linda Frolich
1
173 Ivy Hill Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
{408) 655-9675
Sent from my iPad
2
March 24, 2016
Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
SUBJECT: CONCERNS ABOUT PHASE 1 OF THE NORTH 40 DEVELOPMENT
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
1 have a number of concerns about the proposal for Phase 1 of the North 40 development. I hope you
will take these comments into consideration and ask the developer for major modifications to its
proposed development.
Residences should be spread throughout the 44 acres of the North 40 and not concentrated in the first
20 acres. The Specific Plan permits a maximum of 270 residential units plus 50 senior units and allows
for residential building through the 44 acres of the North 40. The developer has chosen to build ALL the
residential units on the first 20 acres of Phase 1. This has resulted in excessive density and an
environment that does not look and feel like Los Gatos (thus violating Guiding Principle 1 from the
Specific Plan: "The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos .") The number of residences in Phase 1
should be reduced at least by half so that residences can be spread throughout the development.
At least half the residences should be moved to later phases (and across the school boundary line) to
avoid impacting the schools. Although the developer claims that the residential units are aimed at
millennials and se niors, there are likely to be many familie s with children that will move into them. As a
result, the developer is violating guiding principle 4 from the Specific Plan : "The North 40 will minimize
or m itigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community services."
In general, the buildings in Phase 1 should be more spread out. The view of the story poles from
Highway 17 and the model indicate a too-heavy concentration of structures. In addition, the Specific
Plan , on p. 2-3 calls for "lower intensity residential" in this area. I believe that the original idea for the
North 40 was to have lower intensity building in the Lark area, with increasing intensity as the
development headed toward the 85 interchange. The idea here, I believe, was to di sco urage traffic in
the Lark area, with more of the traffic impact resulting from building in the northern area.
Senior housing should be integrated through the development and not just put all together over the
Marketplace. This may be a minority view, but I'm a senior and I would not like to live in a tight cluster
with other seniors over a market. I don't feel the rooftop open space "Senior Court" compensates for
the lack of green space for these units.
Buildings should mesh with structures in the surrounding areas. The developer appears to be
maximizing its u se of the space by making almost all the re sidences 35 feet high . This conforms to the
Specific Plan , but it creates hou sing that does not fit in with the buildings in nearby neighborhoods. The
Highland Oaks neighborhood, for example, consists of one-story ranch homes that are le ss than half the
height of the projected residence s. The developer should reduce the height of the residences to better
conform to th e neighborhood; a height of no more than 25 feet seems more appropriate than 35 feet.
Buildings make it impossible to see the hills. Following up on the previous note, the massing of the 35-
ft-tall units makes it impossible to see the hills from inside the development. Thi s is another reason why
the height and massing of the buildings should be reduced . Furthermore, the height and massing of the
buildings violates guiding principle 3 from the Specific Plan: "The North 40 will embrace hillside views,
trees, and open space."
The buildings should "celebrate our history" and "agricultural heritage," but many fail to do so. Many
buildings are massive and boxy. The architect seems to have aimed at an urban loft look rather than an
"agricultural heritage" look. See the illustrations of residences on pp. 72, 73, 133, and 170 as examples.
The residences on p. 73 look like they belong in an office complex. The flat facades and window
treatments lack charm. Hou sing that "celebrates our history" should look more welcoming and might
include porches and more interesting window, roof, and surface treatments. I know this is subjective,
but I find the general architectural approach very uninspi red.
The "Garden Cluster" residences were promoted as "cottage clusters." The term "cottage" suggests
charm and coziness. The "Garden Cluster" residences, far from being charming and cozy, are heavy
looking, 2-and 3-story structures. I feel I was sold a bill of goods here . The Garden Clusters look nothing
like the idyllic homes shown in Table 2-7 (page 2-27) as "Co ttage Cluster (Detached Product/Garden
Cluster (Attached Product) Lark District " in the Specific Plan. Furthermore, the Specific Plan on p. 2-3
describes cottage cluster housing as being "characterized by detached cottages oriented onto common
greens." This is not what we see in the "Garden Clusters ." Is it possible to have the developer come back
with true "cottages" -residences that are lower, cozier, and more charming and that are actually
"clustered around a common green"?
There are inadequate setbacks for the residences. The garden cluster homes, rowhomes, and
co ndominium cluster seem to have inadequate setbacks, much like we saw with the "II Vicinato"
proposal. The front doors appear very close to the sidewalk with very litt le green space separating the
buildings from the sidewalk. This gives the development a more city-like feeling than seems appropriate .
The community park seems too small. When I looked at the model, the community park did not f eel
adequate in relation to the many residences in the area . The view on page 191 confirms to me that this
park is insufficient. In addition, it is almost all hardscape. The park shoul d be larger and contain more
green areas.
The community garden also seems too small. There are supposedly 38 plots in th is garden, but it does
not seem like community members could plant much of anything in the propo se d garden. The
community garden should occupy a larger space.
The amount of green space does not seem adequate. I'm guessing that the developer has somehow
met the 30% open space, 20% green space requirement, but the model shows little green space at all.
I'm guessing that the 20% green space requirement is met through bits and pieces of green added
together to reach the 20%. Instead of this, we need actual concentrated swaths of green space within
this Pha se 1 area.
There should be more of a setback for the buildings along Lark. As I looked at the story poles while
driving along Lark before the Highway 85 entrance, I felt that the buildings were excessively close to the
roadway.
Is it necessary to design on a grid pattern? The design of streets on a grid gives the development a city-
like feeling. Is it possible to ask for streets/alleys that curve or loop in some places?
Can we move forward without knowing if the school will need 2.5 acres of the site for a new school?
Can we move forward without knowing what the historical preservation element will be?
Thank you for your hard work on this very difficult decision. After so many years of working on a
solution to the North 40, I hope that you will take the time and continue your efforts to get the
development right.
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank