Item 2 - N40 Phase 1 - Desk Item Exh.35 - Part 2From: Carol Roedder [mailto :carol.roedder@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Subject: North 40 Deve lopment
Gentlepeople:
I have been a resident of Los Gatos Village for nine years.
I have read the summary of the planned development behind Starbucks and am opposed to it for
many reasons. I urge you to turn down this poorly placed, overly developed community. We
can handle neither the population nor the vehicles.
1. The traffic merging on I-85 and, to a certain extent I-17, is already beyond capacity and
creating a logjam. More vehicles poses an insurmountable problem of people hurrying, sitting
in on Los Gatos Boulevard or Lark A venue, polluting, and --God forbid --eventually heading
into road rage.
2 . I-85 is already bumper-to-bumper until well past 10 :00 A.M. each morning. There simply is
no more room for cars. (We cannot assume these would be commuters who already use I-85 .)
3 . A "Santana Row" type development will permanently change the character of Los Gatos,
pulling business from downtown, taking a lot of tourism with it. Do we want to see downtown go
under after a few years?
4. We have a huge hospital and many medical facilities at this intersection. The off ramps are
already dangerous with people in a hurry (how many of them run that No Turn on Red?), and
increased congestion would make emergency traffic impossible. (We can't just assume people
will take Union instead of Bascom for an exit--Union is also overcrowded.)
5. In a fast-paced world, Los Gatos is one of the few communities that has had the gumption to
use its brakes. This complex raises the height of allowable buildings in the town and changes the
character of the town irreversibly.
6. Look at the businesses next to any major freeway off-ramp. Not a pretty picture: Hamilton
and I-17 , El Camino and I-85, Almaden and I-85, etc., encourage panhandling and trash as well
as logjams.
Again , I urge you to turn down this proposal. It isn't us.
I plan to attend the Wednesday meeting.
Thank you for listening.
Carol Roedder
110 Milmar Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-712-0139
From: Joe Madden [mailto:joe@mobile-experts .net]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:45 AM
To: Joel Paulson; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Subject: North 40
Hi everyone,
As a Town resident, I'd like to exp ress my sympathy with you on a difficult choice with the North 40.
Personally I hold strong Libertarian beliefs, which means that it's not government's role to create a lot of
restrictions on private use of land . However, in the case of the North 40, I believe that the project
should be restricted because it would create a major infringement on the rights of existing Town
residents. Specific ally, street traffic is already getting crazy on the north end of town, and it would be
completely gridlocked with this plan.
If you allow the planned North 40 development, you will be allowing the developers to violate existing
Town requirements for "look and feel " and will absolutely not ~~minimize or mitigate impacts on town
infrastructure".
Please vote to reject this plan , and allow the landowner to come back with a plan that is consistent with
Town, not City.
Thank you ,
joe Madden
Mobile Experts
Silicon Valley, California
+1 408 540 7284 office
+1 408 499 8747 mobile
www.mobile-experts.net
From: captsteven@aol.com [mailto:captsteven@aol.com)
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:23 AM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis;
Marcia Jensen
Subject: North 40 proposed development
All ,
My name is Steven Werner, I have lived and worked in Los Gatos for over 35 years. I am writing to
express my dissatisfaction with proposed development of the North 40 . Below are a few bullet points
regarding my thoughts :
1. The development does not meet the towns specific plan. (In fact, it fails on many counts. Please refer
to p. 1.1 and 2.2.)
2. The developer is smart. He/She is placing all of the residential in Los Gatos. The residents enjoy all our
services and schools yet Los Gatos receives no commercial benefit/tax benefit. Los Gatos WILL be
burdened by residential services required. Additionally, this further e xacerbates our stretched public
services (i.e.,. police, fire, streets, schools etc.) The developer places most of the commercial (money
generators) in campbell and wins . Are we missing something here?
3 . The residential units are placed too close to the freeway on-ramp. Studies (and your reports) state that
these homes are subject to high levels of carcinogens generated from vehicles accelerating onto the
freeway. There should be more green space between the units and the on-ramps. Or, the commercial
should backup to the freeway.
I understand that this parcel will be developed. I understand that the current property owners and the
British development firm want to make as much money as possible. What I have a difficult time
understanding is we have to live with this gargantuan project after they have banked their profits. There is
no "look and feel like Los Gatos" (p.1.1 ). I am strongly to deny this present application. I am additionally
requesting that this development have more public input and the project be slowed down. Let's meet our
goals of the Specific Plan and have a development we all can agree upon .
Thank you,
Steven Werner
From: Lee Quintana [mailto:leeandpa ul @e arthlink .net]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11:33 AM
To: Sally Zarnowitz
Cc: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz
Subject: Desk Item North 40
Attached is a Desk Item for the North 4 0. I kn ow I missed todays deadline (was trying to locate information on the
amounts of o pen space prov ided by Phase I .
I wo uld like to request that Staff suppl y the Planning Commission/Town Council with a table containing the Plan's
obj ective standard, what Phase 1 proposes , does it meet or exceed the s ta nd a rds
I w ill send yo u an e -mail later today regarding what may o r may not be difference be tween o pe n space figur es
provided in your memo, information I obtain ed from the appl ican ts and the related condition of approva l for the
publicly accessib le area.
For now I am going to get back to my vacatio n and go out fo r a hike .
Thanks, Lee
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To : Planning Commission and Town Council
From : Lee Quintana
Re : Responses to the "A ity within a Town!" flyer
Since I am on vacation I had not planned to submit additional comments on the Phase
1 North 40 application . However, I feel to it is necessary to respond to this flyer. The
flyer is mi sleading, its conclusions appear to be based on incorrect or incomplete in-
formation , a partial understanding of the Plan itself and a lack of knowledge of the pe-
rimeters within which the Planning Commission and Town Council are able to act.
THIS FLYER NEEDS SERIOUS FACT CHECKING!!!
1. The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos"
a. The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style,
3-5 story buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of
Los Gatos.
RESPONSE l.a.
Lark District:
No building proposed by Phase 1 exceeds 3 5 feet or three stories, the maxi -
mum height standard for the Lark District.
There are two exceptions to the 35 foot maximum. Buildings located along Lark
Avenue and Los Gatos Blvd . are limited to a 25 feet . And 15% of the total
footprint within the Lark District is restricted to a 25 feet maximum.
Overall , 29% of the footprints of buildings in the Lark District meets the 25 foot
maximum. This ex ceeds the standard by almost 100%. (See March, 2016 Plan
Set)
Transition District:
The only building in Phase 1 with a four story element is the multi-use Market
Hall/Parking/ Affordable Senior Housing structure.
The Market Hall is one and two story, the garage is three stories above ground
levels and one below ground, and the Senior Housing portion is four stories.
The garage was originally proposed with three levels above ground . At the re -
quest of at Staff's the application was modified to include the below grade
level. (This change is reflected in the revised March 2016 Plan Set)
The garage is wrapped by the housing and commercial uses. This minimizes
the visibility of the garage and avoids the boxiness typical of stand alone ga-
rages .
The maximum height allowed in the Transition District is 35 feet . However, an
exception to 45 feet is allowed for affordable housing and hotels
A small portion of the Senior Housing exceeds the 45 feet maximum. This ex-
ception is consistent with the Town 's Housing Element and with State Hous-
ing Law
To be specific 5,005 sq ft of the structure exceeds 45 feet. This is .085% of the
building's footprint, and, 0055% of the 901 ,195 sq ft (20.6 acres) of the area
covered under the Phase 1 proposal
2. The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses
are envisioned .... "for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd) (pp. 2-3) The devel-
oper has instead proposed highly intense development-including massive 6, 7,
and 8-unit three-story row home complexes and commercial/residential space
up to 51 ft. high. (This is taller than the Albri ght buildings)
RESPONSE 2.
Statement 2 appears to incorrectly assume all of Phase 1 is located within the
Lark District. The existing medical office buildings along Los Gatos Blvd .
within the Lark District (approximately 60,000 sq ft) likely exceed 35 feet ,
however the existing buildings are not part of the Phase 1 proposal.
The commercial/residential space referred to in Statement 2 is located in the
Transition District.
Phase 1 proposes 197 new units in the Lark District. No new commercial is pro-
posed for the Lark District.
Phase 1 proposes 123 new units in the Transition District along with
approximately 60 ,000 sq ft of new commercial (Also see Other Issue 1 be-
low)
The statement that Phase 1 's commercial/garage/residential structure is taller
than all structures in the Albright/Netflix project is incorrect. All four office
buildings at Albright exceed 45 feet, with two at 50 feet and two at 65 feet
In contrast, the Phase 1 commercial/garage/residential building varies in
height from approximately 20' to approximately 51' (as noted above only a
small area of this structure exceeds 45 feet).
The flyer states correctly that Phase 1 proposes 6, 7 and 8 unit multi-family
residential structures . This does not conflict with "the look and feel of Los
Gatos" since similar multi-family structures are located throughout the
Town .
In addition the Specific Plan does not include a standard for the maximum
number of units allowed in a single building.
3. The proposed development must "embrace hillside views, trees and open space
(P.l.l)
a. The i ntensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views
and provides minimal open space.
RESPONSE 3. and 3 .a
Hillside Views/View Corridors
The North 40 Specific Plan does not require all hillside views to be preserved,
Nor does the Specific Plan does identify specific or general location for the
preservation of view corridors.
From within the Plan Area there are only limited views exist of hills to the East.
Most on-site views are blocked by existing development along Los Gatos
Blvd . or by the existing orchard trees. These observations were made on site
during a publicly noticed Planning Commission site visit .
Some views of the hillsides are blocked looking east from Highway 17 when one
is almost directly opposite the structures. This is similar to the situation
along most of Los Gatos Blvd and Winchester Blvd. and in the Downtown area
along Santa Cruz Avenue and Main Street. Hillside views are generally avail-
able only at street intersections or open areas such as the Town Plaza. Re-
cent and relatively recent development or redevelopment such as Albright/
Netflix, Netflix/ Aventino, Safeway, Bluebird Lane, and Swanson Ford block
views of the hillsides. Views are also blocked by many existingDowntown
buildings.
Open Space
The North 40 Specific Plan and Zoning set stricter open space standards than
the General Plan or the Zoning Code.
The Specific Plan is the first Town document to set standards for open space,
green open space or to defines what can and cannot be counted towards
open space requirements . For example , roadways and driveways are not
considered open space; landscaped areas of parking lots are included in the
calculation of green space .
The Specific Plan sets three new open space standards for the North 40. These
are in addition to existing Zoning Code standards for open space in common
area developments (ownership or rental), and the minimum 5% landscaping
standards for parking lots . The new open space standards are listed below:
o A minimum of 30% of the total area of the North 40 must be open space
o A minimum of 20% of the total area of the North 40 must be green open
space
o A minimum of 20% of the 30% (1st bullet above) is required to be acces-
sible to the general public. (note: A pubic access easemove over these
privately owned and maintained areas will be ensured by a public access
easement (See Condition of Approval)
Assuming the area of the Proposed Phase 1 is 20.7 acres (901,195 sq ft) the
minimum open space required for Phase 1 would be:
30% minimum open space 7.24 acres
20% minimal green space 4.14 acres
20% of 30% publicly accessible 1.49 acres
Trees -See comments under 4 .a. below
4. The proposed development must "incorporate the site's unique agricultural
characteri sties ." Pl.l
a. All walnut trees will be removed. The site will be planted with other trees,
mostly deciduous, that will take years to grow.
b. There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultu ral char-
acteristics". The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulfill this
requirement.
RESPONSE TO 4.a.
Phase 1 proposes to remove approximately 86 protected trees and to save 8-9
large protected trees (primarily native oaks). Orchard trees are generally not
protected by the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance, and no replacement
trees are required when orchard trees are removed.
The existing walnut trees are deciduous trees
Phase 1 proposes planting approx imately 500 fruit-producing deciduous or-
c h ard trees.
As the flyer notes many of the exist i ng walnut trees are beginning to decline.
Even assumi ng the walnut orchard were to remain , the ex isting walnut t rees
would be replaced by new decidious walnut trees, which would also take
time to mature.
In addition , between 1200 and 1300 trees, mostly evergreen, will be planted
throughout Phase 1. All trees proposed to be planted along Highway 17 will
be evergreen.
The number of replacement trees proposed by Phase 1 far exceed the replace-
ment trees required.
RESPONSE TO 4. AND 4.b .
It is difficult for me to understand the basis for these conclusions .
TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE PHASE 1 NORTH 40 APPLICATION IS THE FIRST PROJECT
SUBMITTED IN LOS GATOS WITH A SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM IN-
CORPORATED INTO ITS LANDSCAPE PLANS. I CANNOT THINK OF A BETTER
WAY TO HONOR THE NORTH 40 'S AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE OR TO INCOR-
PORATE THE SITES PAST AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER .
Phase 1 proposes the planting of+/-500 fruit bearing orchard trees, which,
while not walnuts, would reflect the agricultural heritage of the site as well
as the agricu ltural heritage of the valley.
Phase 1 also proposes a vineyard, a demonstration garden , a roof top garden
above a potential restaurant, and community gardens .
I think it is also safe to assume that the sustainable agriculture concept will be
carried over and incorporated into the development plans for the rest of the
North 40 Specific Plan Area .
OTHER ISSUES addressed i n the Flyer
ISSUE 1. All housing units a r e included in the proposed Phase 1 p l an
RESPONSE TO ISSUES 1.
This statement is not correct.
Phase 1 proposes 320 residential units of the possible 364 units. The 320 units
include the requested State Density Bonus for the provision of the affordable
senior housing located in the Transition District. The 320 units proposed by
Phase 1 are divided between the Lark District (197 units) and the Transition
District (123 units). The remaining 44 units of the 364 allowed units can be
carried over and built during the development of the Northern District. This
distribrution of the housing units is cons i stent with the Speific Plan.
This distributi on of uses within the plan area vary from the lower intensity uses
towards the south of the Plan Area (Lark District) to the most intensive uses
in the no rth (Northern District). This is consistent with the Specific Plan .
The largest number of units proposed in the Lark District is consistent with
stated primary emphasis of lower intensity uses in the Lark Dist r ict. Locating
the least number of units in the Northern District is consistent with that dis-
trict's entertainment and commercial emphasis, (Also see the discussion of
the factors affecting intensity in the Staff Report for the july 12 , 2016 Plan-
ning Commission Meeting).
The Specific Plan says "lower intensity" not "low density" . Residential is usually
considered a "lower intensity" use than commercial or entertainment.
ISSUE 2. The Specific Pl an includes maxi mums for housing, he i ght, and comme r -
cial space. The developer has chosen to use all these maximums even though at
least some lower build i ng would be appropr iate.
RESPONSE ISSUE 2 .
As can be seen in the illustration at the top of the Flye r , the buildings in Phase 1
vary in both height and mass. Not all buildings reach the maximum height
allowed.
For those that do reach the maximum height allowed, the heights of the roofline
vari es.
The Specific Plan does not set a standard for the distribution of housing or the
distribution of commercial or the% of a structure's footprint that can be built
to the maximum height. The Council chose to leave these things to the most
part flexible and did not set objective standa rds for these things.
ISSUE 3. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue for
residenti al properti es due to fumes and tox i ns from automobi le pollution.
RESPONSE ISSUE 3.
The potential health issues are addessed in the EIR that was prepared and certi-
fied for the North 40 Specific Plan . The EIR identified a potentially significant
air quality impact. However, with the incorporation of the miti gation the EIR
(See Conditions of Approval), the EIR found the would be reduced to a less
than significant level. The mitigation recommended by the EIR has been in-
corporated into the Phase 1 Conditions of Approval.
The air quality impacts were also addressed in the Initial Study for Phase 1.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To :
From :
Re :
Date:
Planning Commission and Town Council
Lee Quintana
Support of Phase 1 North 40 Specific Plan
July 12, 2016
The Town has received an impressive number criticizing the adopted North 40 Specific
Plan and recommending denial of the Phase 1 North 40 application. Few comments
have submitted to the Town in support of the Plan or the Phase 1 application .
I would like to focus on some of t he positive and unique aspects of the North 40 plan
and the Phase 1 application .
FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE
• The Specific Plan is the first Town Document that sets specific open space standards
by establ ishing minimum standards for total open space , green space and space
publically accessible. These are in addition to the open space reqirements for
common interest developments and for parking lot landscaping that are ound in the
Zoning Gode .
• The Specific Plan is the first t own document to define what can and cannot be
included in open space calculations.
• The Specific Plan is the first document that clearly excludes roadways and driveways
and the paved surfaces of parking lots from being counted as open space .
• The Specific Plan is the first document that includes a minimum requirement for
privately owned and maintained open space that will be accessibe to the general
public.
• Phase 1 is the only project that I am aware of that has provided air rights make that
make the const ruction of low and very low afforable units financially feasible .
• Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that incorporates sustainable
agricultur~ in its site and landscaping plans , and it is the first project to celebrate the
agriculture heritage of the Town and the Valley.
• Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that both distributes and connects
open spaces through the Phase 1 area. The human scale of the public open spaces ,
the amenities provided and the connections between these spaces are designed to
encourage social interactions.
• Phase 1 is the first application received by the Town that provides internal pedestrian
pathways and multi-modal pathway (bike ways) connect the residential uses w ith the
commercial uses within the site as well as connects to Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave.
• Phase 1 is the first multi-use application received by the Town that in affectively
integrates the different uses (recreation/open space, retail , and residential) instead of
developing the uses as essential seperate functions .
2
• Phase 1 applicants have worked cooperatively with staff to incorporate staff's
suggestions and requests even if not required , as well as to incorate additional
modifications on the ir own . All have been incorporated into the (onditions of approval)
• The applicants have :
-Actively tried to engage residents in discussion to identify issues has modified
plans based on response from residents. For example, discussion with the
residents in the Highlands neighborhood resulted in changes to the proposed
street circulation that will help prevent cut thru traffic in that neighborhood .
-Worked wi t h the bike colalition , Caltrans, and the Town to provide a bike lane on
Lark across the Freeway bridge to connect with the Creek Trail
-Worked with and reached an agreement with the LGUSD that address impacts on
schools beyond the limits imposed on the Town by State Law. (This agreement is
unprecedented)
-Provided replacement trees far in access of the numbers required.
• The Phase 1 application meets the (tectn ical) objective standards of the Specific Plan .
I could continue but I am running out of time to make the Desk Item deadline.
CONCLUSION :
The Phase 1 application meets the objective requirements of the Specific Plan , is
consistent with the General Plan , including the General Plan Housing Element, and is
consistent with State Law I ask the Planning Commission to consider a possitive
recommendation to the Council on Phase 1 of the Specific Plan . In addition it contains
many unique and positive elements .
I ask you to consider a recommendat ion to Council of Approval
Thank you ,
Lee Quintana
From: Diane Dreher [mailto:ddreher@scu .edu]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 1:57 PM
To: ppaulson @losgatos .gov; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz
Cc: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; sleonardis@lo sgatosca .gove; Mjensen@lostgatosca.gov
Subject: North 40 DevelopmentPian
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
I strongly recommend denial of the current North 40 plan.
Los Gatos is a historic town , not a commercial industrialized complex
I find the developer 's plan dishonest and disrespectful:
Dishonest because it repeatedly violates the town 's Specific Plan:
• Substituting high intense development instead of the required "lower intensity residential
and limited retail/office uses"
• And among other proposed abuses, removing all walnut trees and substituting a store instead
ofhonoring and incorporating "the site 's unique agricultural characteri stics."
I seriously wonder if we can trust these developers who repeatedly violate our town's
governance, tradition, and Specific Plan.
The developer 's plan is disrespectful because it proposes a dense set of industrial-style buildings
instead of respecting the unique character of our town with a harmonious plan that would "look
and feel like Los Gatos."
Please reject this proposed commercial industrialized complex at Lark A venue and Los Gatos
Boulevard because it would drastically increase traffic and industrializ ed sprawl, impede vital
access to Good Samaritan Hospita l , and undermine the safety of our children, the character of
our schools, and the quality of our lives.
Sincerely,
Diane Dreher
Diane Dreher
Professor of English
President, Faculty Senate
https://www.sc u.edu/taculty-se nate/
Past President, AAUP Chapter
http://www-relg-studi es.scu.edu/aaup-scu/
Santa Clara Univers ity
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara CA 95053
( 408) 554-4954
ddreher@scu.edu
http ://www.dia nedreher.co m
Check out my blogs:
http://www .p sycho logytod ay.com/blog/your-pe rso nal-renaissance
https://blogs.sc u.edu/write herewritenow/
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful , committed citizens can change the world. lndeed,
it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
From: Cathleen Bannon [mailto:cathleenbannon@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marice Sayee; Rob Rennie; Steven
Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Subject: North 40 development
Hello all -I am continuing to share our family's perspective on the proposed North 40 development and
hope the following will be taken in serious consideration during this week's discussions.
We are a family living on lower Kennedy Road with two children attending Van Meter elementary going
into grades 2 and 4 . We walk our kids daily to and from school, belong to LG Swim & Raquet and
frequently attend businesses both downtown and north to Lark.
With this daily perspective on both town infrastructure and school system, we are extremely against the
current proposal for North 40. The EIC is out ·dated and does not take into consideration the increase in
traffic issues that are dramatically negatively impacting our town over the last 2 years. Current LG
residents can no longer "pop out" to the store, quickly run over to the school, or get across town in a
timely manner. From Kennedy to Lark it can take upwards of 20+ minutes and from Lark to Kennedy
regularly take much longer. The proposed widening ofLG Blvd by Lark will NOT even help what we are
currently dealing with much less the impact of bringing in upwards to 400+ more cars. Currently VM
school and BH schools .are already impacted, in fact VM will be increasing to 5 first grade classes this
next year -this is without the impact of a new development. There is NO need for all the housing to be
put in phase I -that is ONLY a benefit to the developer that can advertise LGUSD boundary. The town
must demand that only a percentage of home be in Phase I as to spread out the educational impact. Also
the town must require that the new development be part of the Lexington Elementary school which is the
ONLY school that is under enrolled and actively looking for more students.
The proposed development does not align with the look & feel of Los Gatos ... it instead is trying to bring
an urban living development ofhigh rise living to our small town. Yes, there is a need of housing for the
young and old ... however, neither of these demographics are going to be able to afford the units.
With open retail in downtown, LG does not need more big box stores ... they will just run out more of the
locally owned stores through pricing and will create more traffic jams of people from out of area coming
to shop.
In summary, the N40 development is really the entire open space NOT just phase I. All that is proposed
for just Phase I should be spread out between all Phases as to spread out the impact. This is , of course,
NOT what the developer will want as they ONLY own Phase I , but the town MUST take the lead on what
is best for the town .... DO NOT approve the current proposal, you can still meet requirements by
spreading out the development to all phases -this will take the strain off of LGUSD and our t:oad s.
Please listen to your residents, we do not what this level of intense development that our town's
infrastructure can not handle.
Thank you for all the consideration going into this proposal
Cathleen Bannon
415.819.1239
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Clare and Marilyn Keeney <claremarilyn@sbcglobal.net >
Monday, July 11, 2016 3:15 PM
Marni Moseley
North 40
I picked up your card at the display of the North 40 at the Los Gatos library and hope to be able to convince you to do
your utmost to see that this terrible piece of development does not come to pass . I have lived in this town since 1962,
and I have loved it. One ofthe most attractive features of it was the insistence on keeping it a town, not a city. This
development is in complete opposition to that goal. In fact, it is in complete opposition to all the standards the town
ha s embraced for years.
This development is opposed by almost everyone in town. Why is the town bent on doing something that offends
nearly all of its citizens?
I am not sure I can make it to t~morrow night's meeting, but I will be there in thought and spirit. I urge you to veto this
whole plan . It is all wrong for Los Gatos.
Thank you.
Marilyn Keeney
16601 Ferris Avenue
Los Gatos CA 95032
1
-----Original Message-----
From : Clare and Marilyn Keeney [ma ilto:claremarilyn@s bcglo ba l.net]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:23 PM
To : Mike Weisz
Subject : North 40
I picked up your card at the Los Gatos library, at the display for the proposed North 40 development.
What a frightening prospect that is! Please, please , do all you can to see that this development does not
happen!
I have lived in Los Gatos since 1962 and have loved being here. The emphasis on being a small town, not
a city, is one ofthe most attractive features here. This development is completely at odds with that
perspective. Nearly everyone in town objects to this development. Why would the town want to
pursue something that offends nearly all of its citizens?
I am not sure I will be able to be at tomorrow night's meeting, but I do want to let my thoughts be
known .
This plan is all wrong. Do the right thing. Do your utmost to veto it.
Thank you.
Marilyn Keeney
16601 Ferris Avenue
Los Gatos CA 95032
From: Janette Judd
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 4:04PM
To: ristows@comcast.net
Cc: Joel Paulson; Sally Zarnowitz
Subject: FW: North 40 Phase One application comments
cc : Town Council
Town Manager
CDD Director J. Paulson
Planning Manager S . Zarnowitz
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Mayor, Town Council and Town Manager. We note
that your message was also directed to Community Development Department (CDD) staff.
Staff will include your comments in the North 40 project files and in future Town Council
meeting materials when Council convenes again in August. Should you have additional
questions or comments, Planning Manager Sally Zarnowitz can be reached by phone at ( 408)
354-6873 or e-mail, SZamowitz@LosGatosCA.gov .
Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments.
Best regards,
Janette Judd
Executive Assistant
Town Council and Town Manager's Office
(408) 354-6832
From: Maria Ristow [mailto:ristows@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:03 PM
To: Council; Planning ; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40 Phase One application comments
Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and Council Members Jensen, Rennie and
Leonardis,
I am sending you an article I have written for LGCA, in response to a flier opposing
the North 40 Phase 1 application . While reasonable people may disagree over facts,
this flier, distributed widely through Next Door, Facebook, email lists and in paper
form, contains a large number of inaccuracies.
LGCA strives to ask questions, search out facts and look for solutions . This flier
appears to embrace none of that.
Thank you for reading yet another email about the North 40 Phase One application.
SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
A flier as published on FB, Next Door and distributed in emails. LGCA finds this
document full of inaccuracies.
Comments and corrections below in italics.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULFILL THESE
REQillREMENTS, WHICH THE TOWN HAS MANDATED THROUGH ITS
SPECIFIC PLAN
The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gatos." P 1.1
The drawings for the Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style 3 -5 story
buildings that have nothing in common with the look and feel of Los Gatos
Whaaaaat????? There is NOTHING 5 stories in the Phase 1 proposal (I looked
again). The housing is permitted to only be 25 feet high in some parts of the Lark
District and up to 35 feet in parts of Lark District and elsewhere, up to 2-3 stories.
The affordable senior housing is located on the Market Hall and parking structure (in
the Transition, not Lark District), and it is ONE BUILDING in total, at 4 stories. If
people don't like the architectural style, that can be discussed in A&S, but the "3-5
stories" is a ludicrous and incorrect statement.
The Specific Plan says "Lower intensity residential and limited retaiVoffice uses are
envisioned ... " for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd.) (pp.2-3) The developer
has inste,ad proposed highly intense development-including massive 6-, 7-, and 8-
unit 3-story rowhome complexes and commerciaVresidential space up to 51 ft. high.
(This is taller than the Albright buildings.)
While everything proposed in the Lark district is a max of 25 feet tall along Lark and
Los Gatos Boulevard and 35 feet tall toward the center, only the affordable senior
housing located on top of the Market Hall and parking structure (in the Transition
District) is permitted to go to 45 feet, and I believe the elevator shaft goes to 51 feet.
For all who forgot, the Albright Buildings are SOLID RECTANGLES with two at 50
feet tall and two at 65 feet tall (exclusive of mechanical equipment). So how does one
feature on one 45-foot tall building make ,the housing "taller than the Albright
buildings" which also may be taller than their nominally stated heights?????
Seriously, I'm blown away by the 72% of this Town that voted for the Albright
buildings and now can't remember what they supported. The North 40 Phase One
application is not as tall, or intense, or traffic-generating as Albright.
The proposed development must "embrace hillside views, trees, and open space." P .
1.1
The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides
minimal open space.
The Phase One application meets the 30% required open space requirement. How is
this possibly MINIMAL? Compared to what? No Planned Development of even HALF
the density of the North 40 has one-fourth the open space. At least one of the public
open areas proposed on Phase 1 is as large as the Plaza downtown, plus there are
several more slightly smaller spaces. For reference, Santana Row has 1-2% open
space!
All solid buildings block hillside views. So do trees . Walk anywhere in town and look
around. Unless you are on top of a mountain, something will block your view at some
point. Clumping residential units together and stacking them provides MORE open
space, and the present application has more open space than any other development
in Los Gatos.
I attended the Planning Commission Special Meeting maybe two years ago where
commissioners and members of the public were allowed to walk through much of the
North 40. Ask anyone who was there--through all the trees, one could NOT see the
hillsides in the present state. We are certainly NOT going to deny trees for this, are
we?
Relocating some of the residential in the Lark District to the North would alleviate
some of the loss of views as would reducing the height and create more open space.
As to the distribution of housing among the districts, Phase 1 proposes 19 3 units in
the Lark District, and 127 units in the Transition District, which leaves 44 to carry
over to the Northern District. (270 units+ bonus units= 364). When taken together
with the location of the retail/garage/senior housing structure towards the north end
of the Transition District, the Phase I proposal is consistent with the Specific Plan,
which calls for a lower intensity of use (height, mass, traffic etc). Within the Lark
District there would be a primary emphasis on residential, in the Transition District
new development (residential and commercial), moving to greater intensity
commercial development in the Northern District. The reduced number of housing left
for the Northern District is consistent with the Specific Plan requirement that
commercial uses be located where they will have the least impact on residential uses.
Others may disagree, but at least understand how the Specific Plan calls out the
various types of uses and where it allows or encourages them.
Further, relocating some of the residential could then put more commercial in the
Transition district. That brings more traffic. How does this reduce intensity???
Residential is the least intensive from a traffic point of view. How does height get
reduced? Height restrictions are the tightest in the Lark District. And the housing
Element has zoned the N40 for 13.5 acres at 20 dwelling units/acre, so this is the
density the Town has set. Between the density the Town set and the max height limit of
35 feet (except for affordable or hotel), the cluster cottages (the only detached
housing permitted in the Spec Plan) likely impossible to build, as the density would
need to be increased further in other residences.
The proposed development must "incorporate the site's unique agricultural
characteristics." P. 1.1
All the walnut trees will be removed. The site will be planted with other trees, mostly
deciduous, that will take years to grow.
Please read the Phase 1 proposal for the trees. Drought tolerant plantings are
required in most places, and the periphery and inner ares will have orchard trees. The
application is proposing a variety of fruit trees, to reflect the agricultural roots of the
valley. Fruit trees can be planted closer together than walnut trees and ground-
covering natives like mustard and lavender can be planted beneath, but if the TC
prefers walnuts, then that will be the tree. Walnuts need to be spaced further and
undergrowth is not viable. But that is up to the Town and TC. If the fruit trees are
planted, the fruit will be gleaned and sold at the Market Hall, plus be available to
those in the senior affordable housing. This was covered at the CDA C hearing.
If you want to check anything, please see the EIR, Specific Plan, Housing Element,
Phase One application, and the Q&A from the Study Session. Don 't just believe what
ANY one person publishes! (Including me. I can make mistakes.) I see no point in
creating hysteria with half-truths and lies. I can accept that those armed with facts
may still dislike the proposal, but it helps if we all start from the same point.
The Specific Plan, as Council Member Marcia Jensen pointed out at least once, was
created to be a bit non-specific to give the Town Council room for discretion. Aspects
of the Proposal can be discussed and reviewed. But starting from a point where the
public is getting outright misinformation is not fruitful to this process.
There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics."
The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE, will fulfill this requirement.
The entire application is set into a functioning agricultural setting, and there are
proposed community gardens for residents and demonstration gardens for
commercial users. The orchard trees are not just there as eye candy.
The Specific Plan states the development should "address the Town's unmet needs." P
1.1
Move-down housing for the Town's seniors and millennia! housing is not provided.
As mentioned by at least one Council member, who says seniors can 't move into any
of the proposed housing? And of course the affordable housing is for seniors.
Only 49 very low income senior apartments are provided. No other affordable
housing will be built.
This is more affordable housing at the lowest level of affordability than has been built
in Los Gatos. And certainly a 1200-sf townhouse will be more affordable than the
4000-and up-sfhomes going up else where in this town . By zoning 13.5 acres of the
North 40 at 20 units/per acre, the Town planned for affordable housing, and that is
what we are required to do . Los Gatos do es NOT build housing and can not mandate
exactly how the affordability levels will be distributed. I learned a lot about this
sitting on the Housing Element Advisory Board.
The retail as proposed duplicates that provided elsewhere and competes with rather
than complements the downtown commercial space. P2.2
What does the Market Hall duplicate? Why can't there be a neighborhood
restaurant? Do we expect to build all this housing and then force the residents into
CARS for food and services?
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
Yet there is an unprecedented agreement with the developers and school district,
above and beyond SB50 to address school impacts. The schools will get more than
$6,000,000 with this agreement if the living units go into Phase 1 as requested by the
school district. If you put more students in the Northern District, Los Gatos tax
payers will likely pick up the cost of their education, and the other school districts will
get the state funds. Sound like a Catch 22? It is!
Mitigation measures are based on dated studies and do not sufficiently address
adjacent pending and incomplete developments .
The EIR (if you actually read it) covered all the recent and planned developments.
The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which
development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal
approach." P 1-1
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.
The entire point of a Specific Plan is to lay the ground rules so any number of
applications can come in and comply. The assumption of a Specific Plan is that there
are multiple owners and phases, so one set of guidelines is set for the entire property.
OTHER ISSUES
The Specific Plan calls for residential development throughout the North 40, not just
in this Phase. However, the developer includes all320 units in the first 20 of the 44
acres. All these homes would be within the Los Gatos School District.
The Los Gatos school district covers about 2/3 of the North 40.
The Specific Plan includes maximums for housing, height, and commercial space. The
developer has chosen to use all of these maximums even though at least some lower
buildings would be appropriate.
Most applications start at the max and ask for exceptions. This proposal complies.
The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential health and safety issue for residential
properties due to fumes and toxins from automobile pollution.
The EIR addressed this and requires mitigations.
A final comment:
The flier starts with the assertion that as proposed, the development will destroy
our Town's small-town character forever.
Really??? We KNOW more housing and 60kft of commercial will DESTROY our
small-town character? Seriously? There are people north of Blossom Hill Road
BEGGING for something they can walk to, other than the burrito/coffee/burger trio
that keep showing up at the strip malls. Possibly offering a Market Hall and another
sit-down restaurant (as Viva is the only one in Town north of Blossom Hill) might
actually allow more people a nice place to access by bike or foot. Talk to people on
Oka or Highland Oaks. And those moving into the new residences in the North 40 will
have something desirable nearby. How is planning a real neighborhood
DESTROYING OUR Town's small-town character forever? Those who can't walk to
downtown now, get in their cars and go to downtown Campbell, Santana Row, Valley
Fair, Pruneyard, Westgate, Oakridge, or Saratoga now. How is getting more
residents to leave their cars and stay in Los Gatos DESTROYING our town????
Thank you,
Maria Ristow
Los Gatos Community Alliance
-----Origina I Message-----
From : Lynn and George Rossmann [mailto:ross mannl@earthlink.net]
Sent : Monday, July 11, 2016 4:05 PM
To : BSpector; Marico Sayoc ; Rob Rennie ; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning
Subject: The North 40
I am unable to attend the July 12th and 13th meetings. In my judgment, the current application for
development reflects an appropriate set of compromises and merits your approval. The obstructionists
objections are weak and insufficient to justify denial.
George Rossmann
219 Rosalie Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
7.11.16
Eileen Werner <ewerner4@gmail.com >
Monday, July 11, 2016 4 :42 PM
Joel Paulson; Planning; szarnovitz@losgatosca.gov; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie;
Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
N. 40 Application
Att: Los Gatos Planning Commission Members
Los Gatos Town Council
Re: N. 40 Application
Dear Planning Commission Members and the Town Council,
I am writing to ask that the current application for theN. 40 be denied at your July 12, 2016 meeting.
The existing application in no way, shape or form, exemplifies the character of Los Gatos. The story poles on
site and the planned little city presently on display at the Los Gatos Library shows a creation that fails the goals
and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan:
a) The Specific Plan states "Lower intensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned." (p.2-3
of SP). However, the residential is too, too intense: I see housing squeezed into high density AND heights that
obscure any sense of" required to look and feel like Los Gatos." (p. 1.1 of SP). Additionally, the Specific
Plan states residential development should be built throughout theN. 40; the 20 acres should not have 320
homes/units built on it. (The logic behind the developer is coherent: by placing the myriad of homes on the first
20 acres, the developer receives the benefit from the Los Gatos School District vs the distribution and
placement of homes throughout the 40 acres and, within the Campbell School District. This is not a
development to wholly satisfy the developer at the total expense of a Town , its character and its citizens.)
b) The Specific Plan states development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure,
schools, and other community services." Presently, there is NO adequate infrastructure to support this
behemoth of a project. There is no transit plan. Mitigating by widening a portion of a road is no substitute for a
true transit plan. As the Commission and Council are aware, we now have a "new" normal in Los Gatos on our
roads. Gridlock. Los Gatos Blvd gridlock . Winchester gridlock. Lark Ave. gridlock. This is not seasonal
gridlock but a daily occurrence. How can we place this size of a development in theN. 40 without
implementing the obvious need for improved infrastructure? Additionally, there is no true linking of transit to
move people. No rapid buses (read: not VTA as we know it). No rapid connections to light rail in Campbell . No
plan. There is also no true linking of bicycle paths to move people throughout Town or through Town and into
Campbell, San Jose, Saratoga, etc.,. Where is the community benefit involved in the gridlock projected for the
future? We can no longer rely on studies done prior to 2016. Will community services be drained and forced to
patrol an untenable traffic pattern simply to move vehicles to and from gridlock?
The various iterations of theN. 40 over the years, including what is presented today, are obsolete in terms of
meeting the required definition of theN. 40 Specific Plan.
1
To date, I have not met one individual in Los Gatos that favors this scope of a development. I keep waiting to
hear a changing tune but it has not come. Please listen to your constituents: if your constituents do not value a
project of such magnitude, isn't it time to take reasonable action and deny the application?
I understand the Planning Commission and Council could quite easily have N. 40 fatigue . Please do not let this
discourage you from working or "throwing in the towel" so to speak because your stacks ofN. 40 documents
feels sky high. Work for that vision and the vision of our changing future in Los Gatos . Think (and remember if
you've visited) about Gaudi building the Sagrada Familia church in Barcelona, Spain, and your burden will be
eased.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Eileen Werner
Resident of Los Gatos
2
From: Andrew Burnham [mailto:andrew@manresabread.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Subject: North 40 letter
Dear Planning Commission and Town Counci l:
We supported the North 40 Specific Plan when it was ap proved last summer. We remain supportive of the applic ation that
is currently before you, which we believe is consistent with the Specific Plan . While we are working with Grosvenor to
help identify opportunities and plan for the market hall component, our support is not due to that relationship. That said,
our look into the project gives us a unique position to comment.
Los Gatos is a wonderful place. Clearly we believe in Los Gatos, as evidenced by our growing presence in the Town . It is ,
however, part of the larger Silicon Valley. It is important that we look forward while remembering what has made the
Town strong. This includes recognizing that the region is growing and changing and in response adapting policies and
encouraging projects tha t can help us grow in a managed way while keeping com petitive.
The retail program on the North 40 will at a minimum complement what Los Gatos already has to offer and likely enhance
it. It will serve residents in the North 40, surrounding neighborhoods, and the rest of town on a regular basis with goods
and services not yet found in Town. This includes access to the region 's best produce, protein, and dairy ... As di scussed at
length over the years , the s ize an d design of retail spaces provide opportunity for restaurants and retailers who might not
find the needed space downtown .
For these reason s we support the project and request th at you d o as well.
Regards,
Andrew Burnham
From: Joanne Justis [mailto:joannejustis@usa.net]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 6:24 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis;
Marcia Jensen
Subject: North 40 Project Will Destroy Los Gatos
Importance: High
Greetings,
I am a resident of Los Gatos, living on La Rinconada Drive. It
takes me 35 minutes NOW TO DRIVE from my home into town on
Winchester Blvd. What has become a major problem is the speed
limit of 30 MPH and then it drops down to 25 MPH close to Daves
Avenue School.
Daily I encounter cars riding my bumper because those two
speed limits are too slow for most people. People are running red
lights ... It's down right dangerous and now you want to burden
the town with the North 40 project that will add more restrictions
all around and for what reason? No doubt for GREED! I can
just imagine how many people are getting PAID to push this
project through.
My father purchased our house in 1956, so I've been a long-time
resident. As it is, we can hear the freeway . traffic noise from our
backyard. More traffic, no parking in town, and what happens
when bur schools cannot handle the overflow attendance? Are
you planning on busing our kids wherever YOV .C_HOQSE and
overriding the parents decision for what school they want their
children to attend???
This project is not progress ... ! guess the builder figures if they
add 49 low-income houses to the total houses built, they are
really doing our community a big favor. Originally, I heard that
the North 40 was for low-income housing but huge profits are at
stake here. What is being proposed is outrageous. What about
the potential health and safety issues -fumes, toxins and auto
pollution? And, what would this project due to property values
with an overcrowded town?
I don't know what it takes to squash this project but what you are
proposing is not right! As a resident, I am really upset over how
you can even consider destroying Los Gatos, so others can profit!
Joanne Justis
From: Tom Krulevitch <krulevitch@verizon.net>
Monday, July 11, 2016 9:17 PM Sent:
To: Planning
Subject: North 40 Proposal
I am a long time resident of Los Gatos and am writing to ask you to deny the current application for development of the
North 40.
I understand that the town has come a long way through development and there will continue to be select
development.
However, the current proposal for the North 40 is too severe and will change the character of our town
Specific concerns are listed below
Regards,
Tom Krulevitch
Los Gatos Resident
1. The proposed development doesn 't fulfill the requirement that the North 40 will "look and feel like Los
Gatos." P 1.1
a. The drawings forth~ Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, industrial style 3 -5 story buildings that have
nothing in common w ith the look and feel of Los Gatos
2. The Specific Plan states that for the Lark District (Lark/Los Gatos Blvd .) "Lower intensity residential & limited
retail/office uses are envisioned ... " p.2-3 The developer has instead proposed all residential be located in this
District with highly intense development.
3. The proposed development doesn't fulfill the requirement that "The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees
and open space ." P. 1.1
a. The intensity and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open
space.
b. Relocating some of the residential in the Lark District to the North would alleviate some of the loss of
views as would reducing the height and create more open space.
4. The proposed development doesn't fulfill the requirement that the North 40 will "incorporate the site's unique
agricultural character istics ." P. 1.1
a. All the Walnut trees will be removed, planted with other trees that will take years to grow
b. There is no amenity that "celebrates the site 's agricultural heritage" despite the developer stating the
large marketplace would be the focal point and a celebration.
5 . The Specific Plan approved by the Town of Los Gatos states that it will "address the Town's unmet needs." p 1.1
a. Move down housing for the Town 's seniors and millennia! housing are not provided.
b. Affordable housing is not provided; except 49 very low income senior apartments .
c. The retail as proposed duplicates that provided elsewhere and competes with rather than compliments
the downtown commercial space . P2 .2
6. The proposed development doesn't fu lfill the requirement that "The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts
on town infrastructure, schools & other community services." P 1.1
a. Schools, streets & other services will be adversely affected
1
b. M itigation measures are based on dated studies and do not sufficiently address adjacent pend ing &
incomplete developments or the Town's recent growth.
7 . The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur
in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach." P 1-1
a. As Phase I includes only a portion of the 44 acres the current application promotes a piecemeal
approach with Phase II.
8. The Spec ific Plan includes ma x imums for housing, height and commercial space, however these are ma x imum s;
not m inimums. The current appl ication fails the follow the Plan which states "lower intensity re sidential and
limited retail/office" in the Lark District. P 2-3
9. The proximity to Highway 17 is a potential heal t h and safety issue due to fumes and toxi ns from automobile
pollution.
a.
2
Begin forwar ded message:
From: Becky Yoder <becky 55@yahoo.com>
Date: July 11 , 2016 at 9:53:57 PM PDT
To: "jpaulson@losgatosca.gov " <jpaulson@los gatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40
Reply-To: Becky Yoder <becky 55 @yahoo .com >
You cannot possibly still think it will be okay took this horrible plan for the North 40
property. Los Gatos will lose any charm , character and desirable livability and people
will be flocking OUT of this town -living OR visiting. I can't even imagine what will
happen to our property values if this monstrosity is allowed to be built.
Becky Yoder
Los Gatos, CA
From: Grams, Paul R. (ARC-T) [mailto :paul.r.grams@nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 10:31 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz
Subject: North 40
July 10, 2016
Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
SUBJECT: THE NORTH 40 DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
You already know of the many concerns about Phase 1 ofthe North 40 development. We realize
urbanization is inevitable but the developer who will profit by tens of millions must reduce substantial
community impact that will last for decades.
Many of the mitigations below will need county and state involvement but the developer must
implement changes now that will reduce development community impact.
Please require developer to do modifications to proposed development listed below and
set aside land and assist with funding to :
Increase Lark-Highway 17 on ramp going north to 3 lanes; developer provides 12ft of land
Increase Lark an additional1 or 2 lanes from Los Gatos Blvd . to 17; developer provides 12 to 24
feet of land and assists with funding to purchaser 12ft from 76 gas station
Increase Los Gatos Blvd from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from Lark to Samaritan Drive, developer assists
with funding to purchase 25 ft of land from 11 remaining lots not already set back
Assist w ith funding to increase Lark-17 overpass an add itional1 or 2 lanes
Thank you,
Paul Grams
From: Joseph Gemignani [mailto:josephtheweatherman@qma il.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 11 :39 PM
To: Jocelyn Puga
Cc: Azhar .Khan
Subject: North 40 survey in 2011
Hi , I have attached an article about a survey the Town of Los Gatos conducted in 2011 asking for
various public input on the North 40 project.
There were 33 questions and Suzanne Davis (senior planner at the time) reported that everybody
wants a mix of Architectural styles. More specifically they want traditional or mission style
buildings.
I brought this up at the last Planning Commission meeting and posed the question "what ever
happened to the public input on the survey?.
The project has primarily only one style versus a mixture. Furthermore, it is not traditional or
mission looking.'
Why hand out a survey and ignore the results from the public?
Joseph
From: Robin Matlock [rmatlock@vmware.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:50 PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen
Cc: Eric Koch
Subject: ZERO support for North 40
Town Council,
I'm no activist. I barely have time to cook a meal for my family once in awhile, let alone write a
serious letter to the LG Town Council. I'm not one to get involved. I have other things in life to
focus on. You've never heard from me before . You don't know me. I'm just a stranger.
AND YET ... I have to get involved , because like all of my friends and neighbors, I am sick to my
stomach over what is about to happen to our town.
The current North 40 plan does not meet requirements that the town has mandated.
# 1 the proposed development does not look & feel like Los Gatos
#2 instead of lower intensity residential and limited retail and office use, we 're getting HIGHLY
intense development, including tall , massive 6-, 7-and 8-unit, 3 story rowhome complexes and
commercial/residential space .
#3 hillside views, trees and open space is destroyed, as the intensity, height and layout of the
buildings block hillside views and gobbles up open space
#4 there is nothing in the design that incorporates the site 's unique agricultural characteristics, as
outlined in your requirements
#5 not seeing how this development addresses the Town's unmet needs. What we need is to
keep downtown a healthy and vibrant commerce center, not create a new competitor to our down
town businesses.
#6 NOTHING about this plan "minimizes or mitigates impacts on town infrastructure, schools
and other community services." Quite the contrary. This is going to burden our town
infrastructure, schools and community services . Come on folks, really?
#7 We don 't know what we don 't know!! Only phase 1 of the plan has been provided. What
else is in store?
Be responsible. Do what is right. Do your part to, at a minimum, improve this plan so it doesn't
ruin our community.
Is this really the stamp you want to leave on Los Gatos? Will it be your legacy?
Thank you for listening,
Robin
408-356-2540 home
16678 Topping Way
Lost Gatos, CA 95032
Ro bin L. Matlock
Chief Marketing Office r
rmatlock@vmware.com
3401 Hillview Avenue , Pa lo Alto , CA 94304
650.427.1667 Offi ce
408 .718.4438 Mobi le
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Erin Kase nchak [mailto :ekase nchak@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday/ July 111 2016 11:45 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis;
Marcia Jensen
Subject: Fwd: North 40 concern
I am reiterating m y concern for th is project. Seeing the model in the library has made it hit home
even more! This d oes not feel like our town! It's sad th at not enough res idents were aware and
informed of this last year before our council approved the project but I hope the tremendous
di ssatisfaction by residents that has been voi ced over the past 6 months will influence the
planning commission to scale thi s project back. My concerns as noted b e low have not changed
and it scares me to think what phase II will contain.
Erin Ka senchak
B egin forwarded message:
From: Erin Ka senchak <eka senchak @yahoo.com>
Date: March 29, 2016 at 11:15:43 PM PDT
To: "MMo seley@ losgatosca.gov" <MMosele y@ los gato sca .gov >
Subject: North 40 concern
Reply-To: Erin Kasenchak <ekasenchak@ yahoo.com>
Dear Ms. Mosley,
I'm writing to voice my extreme concern and dissatisfaction over the North 40 project. I am unable to
attend tomorrow's meeting due to travel , but I feel it's important that all res idents express their thoughts
about this project for our town. 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 .
Now that the story poles have gone up , the true impact has become visual and is even worse than I
f eared . And this is just phase 1? The height of the project is something that will change the landscape of
our small , wonderful town. Additional ly the scope w ill greatly impact traffic in this already very congested
area . I don't see how, according to the Vision statement, the North 40 will minimize or mitigate the impact
to our infrastructure. I know that the North 40 plans to address traffic, but I adding another light onto LG
Blvd and an extra turn lane on Lark and LG will not make much difference . Lark and LG Blvd already
need extra lanes with our current traffic so adding an additional lane with the extra cars and traffic this
project is likely to bring does not feel sufficient. The traffic around 85 , Good Samaritan and LG Blvd is
also qu ite 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 s ituation will be like while the
construction will be taking place .
The Vis ion statement for North 40 states it will celebrate hillside views and our small town character, but
over 300 residential units and potentially 501 ,000 foot of commercial/retail space does not align with
"small town character". Additionally, the story poles showing the impact actually will block hillside views
and not celebrate them . I suppose those living at North 40 will like their hillside views, but the rest of Los
Gatos residents will lose views to buildings . I don't believe we have unmet residential needs that this
project needs to address.
My husband and I were born and raised in the Bay Area and moved specifically to Los Gatos over 20
years ago because of the charm and unique aspect this town had compared the hustle and bustle of the
rest of Silicon Valley. We knew this would be a wonderful place to raise our family in an amazing small
town feel with a great community. I'm very, very concerned that the size and scope of this project will
forever change the feel of Los Gatos from the wonderfu l sma ll 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 rev ise this design and lessen the proposed
intensity/scope of the project. If you 've read Town not City 's facebook page, you 'll see the overwhelming
comments and concerns from fellow citizens about this project. Please I urge you to keep our town just
that , a small town.
A very concerned citizen -
Erin Kasenchak
***********************
Erin Kasenchak
ek as en cha k@ya hoo.c om
From: Lori Moore [mailto :lori.moore@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:10 AM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally
Zarnowitz
Subject: North 40 plans
Dear Town Council , Planning Commission and related staff,
I am a Los Gatos resident and home owner. I have lived in this beatuiful town for 18 years. I
feel tremendously fortunate to call Los Gatos home. It is more than just the town I live it-Los
Gatos is in my heart. Considering the roles you all have , I would imagine you feel the same.
I currently live off of Lark Avenue and have fully accepted that the North 40 has been sold and
will be developed. I have reviewed the plans and have a major concern. We have been told all
along that the North 40 development would have a look and feel like Los Gatos. Our town is
eclectic and full of character. I see it as preserved Victorian style mixed with Spanish
architecture:
When the retail center at Blossom Hill and LG Blvd. went in, I thought it looked great because it
fit in with Los Gatos:
The plans for the North 40 have me scratching my head . I see nothing that looks like Lo s Gatos
here. Where is the commonality with our existing Victorian and /or Spanish
architecture? Additionally, there is no charm or character. This is just too generic and blah to be
acceptable for Los Gatos. Please consider having the architects try again. Please don't let this
happen to Los Gatos:
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lori Moore
115 Almond Hill Court
Los Gatos
-----Orig i nal Message-----
From: Patricia Hogan -Le Gear [mailto:hogalegear@yahoo.com]
Sent : Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7 :15AM
To : Laurel Prevetti
Subject : North 40
Please deny this application. Traffic in LG will become unbearable. Thank you. Patricia Hogan .
-----0 rigi na I Message -----
From: Wendy Holmes [ma i lto :wendyrn2@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7 :35AM
To : Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40
I am a nurse working on Samaritan Drive. Getting to and from work with current traffic conditions is a
challenge now, even at non peak hours . With the plans for the development, it will be a complete mess.
The impact will be irreversible.
Please minimize the size of this plan .
Adding ANY more traffic surrounding the north 40 is a terrible plan .
Wendy Holmes RN
From: Donna Teresi [mailto :djteresi @ix.netcom .com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:40 AM
To: Council; Town Manager
SUbject: North 40 Development
I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 45 years . And yes, I know that change is inevitable. That being
said, I have watched the quality of life in our town diminish over the years . You are proposing to add
320 housing un its and a mall to the North 40 property. Th is means, as you probably already know:
1. An influx of about 600 new residential cars to an area that is already congested . The access to
Highway 85 is already a morning and afternoon commute nightmare. This will dramatically
increase the current hour long morning commute to the Los Altos/Palo Alto area. It will also
dramatically increase the Highway 17 commute to San Jose, etc.
2. In addition those residential cars and the additional cars brought in by the mall will also
increasingly congest the Los Gatos Blvd traffic-which is already heavily trafficked .
3 . It seems like the only access to the housing portion of the plan is on Lark Avenue. The distance
between LG Blvd and Highway 17 is very short and already very congested most of the time. It
seems that the addition of another 600 cars going in and out of that road will create a
nightmarish backup for everyone involved.
I am sure that the above is nothing that you haven't heard before, but I feel it bears repeating. If you
would consider single family homes, the density and the resulting traffic nightmares would diminish
considerably. If I were the builder/owner, I would want the highest density possible . But you, as the
governing body of the Town of Los Gatos, have been elected/appointed to serve in the best interests
of the current residents of the Town . It seems that you are trying to force a high density project into an
area that is not even remotely equipped to handle it no matter how you look at it. This existing
North40 plan will definitely negatively impact the quality of life in Los Gatos especially for the
residents that live on the east side of town .
Thank you . Donna Teresi
PS-I wonder if you should not let the current taxpayers/voters decide on this high density solution. It
seems you listened to the residents re the LG Blvd/Kennedy road parcel.
From: Robin Matlock [mailto :rmatlock @vmwa re.com ]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:55PM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz
Cc: Eric Koch
Subject: North 40 -Fails to Meet Town Requirements
Planning Commission,
I'm no activist. I barely have time to cook a meal for my family once in awhile, let alone write a serious letter
to the LG Planning Commission. I'm not one to get involved. I have other things in life on which to
focus. You don't know me . I'm just a stranger.
AND YET... I have to get involved, because like all of my friends and neighbors, I am sick to my stomach over
what is about to happen to our town.
The current North 40 plan does not meet requirements that the town has mandated.
#1 the proposed development does not look & feel like Los Gatos
#2 instead of lower intensity residential and limited retail and office use, we're getting HIGHLY intense
development, including tall, massive 6-, 7-and 8-unit, 3 story rowhome complexes and
commercial/residential space
#3 hillside views, trees and open space is destroyed, as the intensity, height and layout of the buildings block
hillside views and gobbles up open space
#4 there is nothing in the design that incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics, as outlined in
your requirements
#5 not see ing how this development addresses the Town's unmet needs. What we need is to keep
downtown a healthy and vibrant commerce center, not create a new competitor to our down town
businesses .
#6 NOTHING about this plan "minimizes or mitigates impacts on town infrastructure, schools and other
community services ." Quite the contrary. This is going to burden our town infrastructure, schools and
community services. Come on folks, really?
#7 We don't know what we don't know!! Only phase 1 of the plan has been provided . What else is in
store?
Be responsible. Do what is right. Do your part, at a minimum, to improve this plan so it doesn't ruin our
community.
Is this really the stamp you want to leave on Los Gatos? Will it be your legacy?
I can't join your meeting on the 12th, but I am passionately against this development.
Thank you for listening,
Rob i n
408-356-2540 home
16678 Topping Way
Lost Gatos, CA 95032
Robin L. Matlock
Chief Marketing Officer rm at lock@ vmware.co m 3401 Hillvi ew Ave nu e, Palo Al to, CA 94304
650.427 .1667 Office 408.718.4438 Mobile
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wendy Holmes <wendyrn2@gmail.com >
Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:04 AM
Planning
Laurel Prevetti
North 40
I am a nurse working on Samaritan Drive . Getting to and from work with current traffic conditions is a challenge now,
even at non peak hours . With the plans for the development, it will be a complete mess. The impact will be irreversible .
Please minimize the size of this plan .
Adding ANY more traffic surrounding the north 40 is a terrible plan .
Wendy Holmes RN
Wendy
Wendy
1
From: jvannada @gmai l.com [m ail to :j va nnada @gma il.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:40AM
To: Town Manager
Subject: Plann ing Comm ission Desk Item for 7-12-16 meeting
Please see the attached .
7-12-16
A group of us started the Los Gatos Community Alliance about 4 to 5 years ago as we were
watching the town develop well past what we thought were sustainable development levels .
The schools were going to become overcrowded and the roads would become parking lots. It
was the first time most of us began to understand land use development.
We came to understand that there are property rights of land owners . Many of us exercise our
property rights when we remodel our homes, and we can remodel them as long as they fit
within our zoning restrictions of our neighborhood . We knew that the North 40 could be
developed, so we have sat in on North 40 development meetings for at least the last 4 years,
and some attended meetings well before that .
My major concerns were traffic/ overcrowding of schools and over-dens ification . I came to
understand that Los Gatos / l i ke about 90 % of the urbanized cities in the bay area , use the D
level of service as accepta~le . Though the LOS measurement is no longer to be used 1 that was
what was use when this developments study was conducted. A "0 11 level can mean waits at a
signal light of 35-55 second s i s acceptable. My theory is that we used to have a couple of those
intersections at aD or even an E level , but now we have many more D1 s, E's and even an For
two . The number of jobs and people driving cars have compounded the problem. We need to
make a major cultural shift from being car centric to mass transportation, or even better/ to a
b icycl e centric town.
The North 40 traffic is required to be mitigated such that it is not worse than before the
development is built. According to the studies, the developer is making improvements that will
take traffic back to the levels of 2012. The developer is contributing about $10MM-$12MM of
thei r money to improve the traffic flow. They are not required to do thi s/ but it makes good
business sense as .
Though some of us would l i ke to see the levels go back to the year 2000, to do that with the
jobs in Silicon Valley, we would need to car pool or use the bus . Not many of us are ready to
make that compromise, so 2012 level s is about as good as we're go ing to get.
My othe r concern was school s. The developer recognized that as a hot button with ou r
community. In my mind/ as well as the school boards mind, have done an excellent job of
mitigating the issue. They are only required to pay $976,000 by state law. Instead, this
developer is not only paying the state mandated amount, but they are also giving the school an
additional $6,368,500 or two acres of contiguous land if that can be found.
Those of you who want the housing spread around the 44 acres should first read and
understand the co sts of doing thi s-not to the deve lo per, but to us and to the school district .
It's substantial and you can read about it on our web site at http://lg-ca .c om/tough-deci sion s-
put-all-housing-in -the -los-gatos-school-d istrict-or-spread-the-housing-to-the-north -section-of-
the-development-too-there-are -consequences/
Something that was a third concern wa s the density and intensity of the development. The
Specific Plan call s for 30% ofthe land to be open space (about 7.25 acre s), and over 4 acres
must be "green " open space. 1.5 acres must be open to the public. No other development has
that percentage of space required .
As a wrap up, after 4 plus years of working with the town and the developer -and now reading
the mi sinformed, misleading flyers put out by a certain group of people, and a web site with
intentionally misleading pictures of how the site would look, I would trust the develope r lon g
before I would these so-ca lled citizens . That 's a sad state .
They are like Donald Trump in that they cast dispersions on a developer who has put forth more
effort than any other developer we've see n or worked with in the past five years. It's
unfortunate, but we 're living in a society of Trump sters who will say anything to get their point
ac ros s, regardles s, and in spite of the truth.
Jak Van Nada
Los Gatos Community Alliance
f
From: Amir Mashkoori [mailto :amashkoori @kovio.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:46 AM
To: Clerk
Cc: Council; Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40 Project
To whom it may concern,
Please distribute attached letter to Council Members and members of the Planning Commission
responsible for the North 40 project.
Thank you and best regards,
Amir Mashkoori
July 11, 2016
To: Los Gatos Planning Commission
CC: City Council Members
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
We wrote to the planning commission in 2014 in support of the North 40 project, and are delighted to
see the project reach another milestone in becoming a reality. As we previously outlined, we are active
members of our community and our family has volunteered and supported many activities that make
our town truly special. We've coached Los Gatos sports teams; volunteered in class and in important
programs such as Read Naturally; Chaired fund raisers such as the Blossom Hill School Jog-a-thon;
supported Los Gatos Youth Theater; and have been involved in several High School and teen related
projects including Community Against Substance Abuse (CASA), Under 21 Club, Safe Rides, CASA Fashion
show and Los Gatos High School Grad Night.
As the old saying goes, it takes a village and we've experienced that firsthand in ours. We're particularly
proud of the community that we live in and the commitment made by the families who live here to
watch out for each other, keep our kids close to home and make education a priority.
That is why we're excited about what the North 40 project can mean for our town.
We understand that the Planning Commission and Council are considering the developer's application at
their upcoming meetings and would like to re-iterate our support for the proposal :
We understand that the developers are proposing a project that satisfies all of the requirements
and restrictions of the plan that was approved in 2015
The plan reflects the values of Los Gatos that are so important to us for a project of its kind,
including significant open space
The proposal is well designed to minimize impact on our schools , maximize revenue to our town
and serve unmet hosing and retail needs
The project addresses our Town's practical and mandatory requirements for affordable housing
Traffic mitigation in the plan addresses existing as well as issues anticipated by the new
development
Thank you for your diligence on this. We look forward seeing the North 40 become a reality .
Sincerely,
Amir and Danette Mashkoori
130 Wooded View Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Terri Oppelt (T .O .) Prei sing <preising @stanford.edu >
Tuesday, July 12, 2016 8:56 AM
Joel Paulson; Plan n ing; Laurel Prevetti
Please put the bra kes on the North 40
This proposed development is just too much . The impact on traffic and on our schools will be tremendous and irreversible,
and I urge you to demand that this project be pared down to preserve our town's neighborhood, small town feel.
Best,
TO
Terri Oppelt ("TO") Preising, MaEd, JD
Assistant Director, Operations
Stanford Prevention Research Center Education Program (H4A and CHPR) and
Stanford Women & Sex Differences in Medicine Center (WSDM)
Medical School Office Building (MSOBL 1265 Welch Rd., X3C30, Stanford, CA 94305, MC
5411 Directions : http://goo.gl/9sv6nX
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attac hments:
Susan M. Landry <en vironmental.architect@yahoo.com >
Tuesday, Jul y 12, 2016 10:16 AM
Plann ing
N40 -Public Comments for Plann i ng Commission
N40-SML -L TR -Site-Layout-Problems -12Jul16.pdf; N40-SML -Attachments-12Jul16.pdf
A t tach e d are m y public comments o n this pro ject.
U nfo r tunately, I will not b e a ble to atten d the P lanning Co mmissi o n Mtg tonig h t,
Please giv~ m y letter to the Commissio n er s.
Su san J\L Landry
E nviro nmental A rch itect
D es ig ning Sp aces B et\veen th e Natural and B uilt E nv iro nment '"
T r ees wer e n o t co ns umed in th e tra nsmissio n o f thi s email. P lease try th is o n your en d too.
1
From: Jessica Richter [ma i lto:jessbricht@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10 :02 AM
Subject: Opposed to overcrowded overbuilt North 40 Plan
Dear Planning Commission and Town Coun c il Members,
I a m writing to express my opposition to a nd concern about the current North 40 plan proposed
by Gro sevnor Development. The p lan should benefit the town and residents of Los Gatos first, the owners
of the land second. and the developer third. While the North 40 Development will go forward in some
form , thi s is not the correct or appropriate development for the North 40.
I also want to add my disappointment that you would hold th is important meeting during J uly when many
fa milies w ith chil d ren in Los Gato s schoo ls (who a re committed to living in this to wn ft)r years to come)
arc out of town.
That sa id. I want to regi ster my opposition and express my concems:
1. The Grosvenor plan does not adhere to the s pirit or s pecifics of the criteria set forth b y the town. Why
have a set of criter ia if only to throw it out the ·window to benefit developers? This ha s already happened
in the Laurel Mews housing e tc. We are s ick of this and elected slower growt h officials because of thi s !
* Buildings are too tall , too boxy, and too massive (not lo o k and feel of Los Gatos)
*Inadequate open space, parks and agricul tura l ·'fee l.'' Open s pace, parks, and tree s provide thi s fee l, not
a store. Some orchard s hould be kept within the development.
* Bl ocks views of hills
* Inadequate senior ho u sing and lower market housing provided w hich is where real needs are
2. No rth 40 over-development of commercial retail and restaurant space wi ll compete with downtown Los
Gatos. This is made worse by the to w n s restrictive, short-sighted, li mit in g parking rules for restaurants
which has kept restaurants like Creperie , Pain Quotidian, and other healthy family friendly re staura nts out
of Los Gatos. We app rec iate W ill ow Street but it 's the on ly re staurant like it in Lo s Gatos! That's crazy!
3. All of the required residential housing is included in the first half being developed. which means it is
within the LG school district. While there may be agreement s between the school dis t rict and this
developer. the current p lan is NOT th e correct approach to getting resources for a new school. Some of
the required hous ing should be in the neighboring sc hool district.
4. What is the traffic pl an? The Nm1h 40 development without a CaiTran s sign on HWY 17 that
indicates t ha t LG is not open as a c ut through for beach tra ffic is a recipe for disaster. the
d eveloper s hould have to pay for a CalTr a ns Sign!
Please do not proceed with approval of this plan. Send the developers back to the drawing board w ith a
firm message to fo ll ow the town's criteria for the North 40.
Regards,
Jessica Richter
101 Hilow Court
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-858-3 74 0
From: Nilesh Parate [mailto:nparate@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:41 AM
To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti; Planning; Joycie at GMAIL Parate; nparate@hotmail.com
Subject: about North 40: please preserve the unique charm of Los Gatos!
To the Town Officials
Town of los Gatos
We have been a resident of los Gatos since 2003 .
We are convinced that the monstrous North 40 development will alter the character of the
town
There will be significant traffic impact, safety impact to school children and gridlock on
Blossom Hill road (regardless of what the developer's "traffic study" concludes).
The tall buildings will alter the mountain views and the loss of the Orchard will diminish the
gateway into the town .
This North 40 development change the character of this peaceful little oasis we have in Silicon
Valley.
We love this town and we are sure you all do too .
Please, as guardians of this City, do the right thing and do not allow this North 40 proposal to
proceed the way it is.
-Nilesh Parate & Joycie Bah I
16570 Shady View lane
los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Judy Dutil [mailto:seagirldrive@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:43 AM
To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis;
Rob Rennie
Subject: Please stop the North 40 development.
The Los Gatos mountain citizens are already threaten by loss of access to emergency, city
grocery stores and other necessities due to
over traffic population of our throughfares.
This has become more and more dangerous and visible with the need by Los Gatos to close off
its on and off ramps during peak summer, holiday and
maybe other times.
Saturation of our town and roadways has been reach!! Stop the insanity, please
Judy Dutil
Miller Hill Road
Los Gatos , CA