Item 2 - N40 Phase 1 - Staff Report & Exhibits 26-30TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: July 12, 2016
PREPARED BY: Sall y Zarnowitz, Planning Manager
szamowi tz@losgatosca. gov
APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Application S-13 -090
Vesting Tentative Map Application M -13-014
ITEM NO: 2
LOCATION: North 40 Specific Plan Phase 1 (southerly portion of the North
40 Specific Plan area, Lark Avenue to south ofNoddin Avenue)
APPLICANT: Grosvenor USA Limited
CONTACT PERSONS: Don Capobres (Harmonie Park Dev elopment Co.) and Wendi
Baker (Summerhill Homes)
PROPERTY OWNERS: Yuki Farms, ETPH LP , Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill
N40 LLC, Elizabeth K. Dodson, and William Hirschman
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval for the con struction o f a new multi-use,
multi-story development consisting of 320 re si dential units,
which includes 50 affordab le senior units ; approximately 66,800
square feet of commercial floor area, which includes a market
hall; on-site and off-site improvements ; and a vesting tentative
map. APNs: 424-07-024 through 027 , 031 through 037 , 070,
083 through 086, 090, and 100.
RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council,
subject to recommended conditions .
PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: North 40 Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: North 40 Specific Plan
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan;
North 40 Specific Plan
Project Area: 20.7 acres
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
North 40 Phase 1 /S-13 -090/M -13-0 14
J uly 12,2016
CEQA:
FIN DING S:
CONSIDERATIONS:
Surro unding Area:
Existing Land General Plan Zoning
Use
North Agriculture, North 40 Specific Plan N40 SP
Commercial , (N40 SP)
and Resi dential
East Commercial Mixed Use Commercial C H,
and Res idential R-1 :8
South Commercial , Mixed Use Commercial, C H,
Office and Low and Medium R-1:8 ,
Residential Density Residential RD
West Highway 17 N I A N I A
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and
certified for the North 40 Specific Plan on J anuary 5, 2015 . A n
Initia l Study has been prepared and co ncludes that the pro po sed
Phase 1 development applications do not require additional
e nviro nmental clearance beyond the certified E IR.
• T hat an Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that
the project does not require additional environmental
clearance beyond the certified EIR.
• That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
• That the proj ect is consistent with the North 40 Specific Pl an.
• As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) ofthe Town Code for
demolitions.
• As required by Table 2-6 of the North 40 Specific Plan for
reduction of non-resid ential setbacks.
• As required by Section 29.10.420 (a) of the Town Code if the
Planning Commission denies the De nsi ty Bonus requ est.
• As required b y Government Cod e Section 65589.5 ifthe
Planning Commi ssion denies the Development Standard
waivers.
• As required b y Section 66474 of the Subdiv ision Map for the
Ve sti n g Tentative Map application .
• As require d b y Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 3
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12, 2016
ACTION:
EXHIBITS:
Open the public hearing, take testimony, and forward a
recommendation to the Town Council, subject to the
recommended conditions.
Previously received under separate cover:
l. Proposed Development Plans, received March 18, 2016 (242
pages)
Previously received with the March 30, 2016 Staff Report:
2. Location Map (one page)
3. Initial Study (79 pages)
4. Findings and Considerations (three pages)
5. Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Map (six
pages)
6. Conditions of Approval for the Architecture and Site
Application (27 pages)
7. Letter of Justification received March 23 ,2016 (10 pages)
8. North 40 Narrative received February 8, 2016 (seven pages)
9. Economic study letter received November 6, 2015 (25 pages)
10. October 14 and November 11 ,2015 CDAC Minutes (seven
pages)
11. Response to CDAC comments received February 8, 2016 (13
pages)
12. January 27, 2016 Historic Preservation Committee Minutes
(five pages)
13 . Consulting Architect Report received December 18, 2015
(six pages)
14. Response to Consulting Architect Report received February
8 , 2016 (three pages),
15. Consulting Architect Report received March 21, 2016 (six
pages)
16. Consulting Arborist Report received October 14, 2013 (33
pages)
17 . State Density Bonus Law -Government Code Section 65915-
65918 (14 pages)
18. Density Bonus Ordinance and Program Guidelines -
Ordinance 2209 (21 pages)
19 . Letter from Barbara Kautz , received March 10, 2016 (16
pages)
20. Town's BMP Program and Guidelines-Ordinance 2181 (19
pages)
21. Public comment received through 11:00 a.m., Thursday,
March 24,2016
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12, 2016
BACKGROUND:
Previously received with March 30, 2016 Addendum Report:
22. Updated letter from Barbara Kautz received March 25 ,2016
(five pages)
23. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 24, 2016 to
11:00 a.m. on March 28,2016
Previously received with March 30, 2016 Desk Item Report:
24. Residential Density Exhibit (one page), received March 30,
2016
25. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on March 28,2016 to
11 :00 a.m . on March 30, 2016
Received with this Staff Report:
26. Frequently Asked Questions (F AQ) prepared for North 40
Study Session (14 pages)
27. Verbatim minutes of the March 30,2016 Planning
Commission meeting ( 164 pages)
28. Verbatim minutes of the June 15, 2016 Study Session (143
pages)
29. Memo from Town Attorney regarding application deadlines
(eight pages)
30. Items received at March 30, 2016 Planning Commission
(four pages)
31. Comments received from 11 :01 a.m. on March 30, 2016 to
11:00 a.m . on July 6 , 2016
On June 17 , 2015, the Town Council adopted the North 40 Specific Plan, providing more
detailed land use and development guidance for the area than occurs in the General Plan. The
approval of the North 40 Specific Plan also amended the zoning of the property to North 40
Specific Plan.
While the Specific Plan was going through its extensive public process, Grosvenor USA
submitted Architectural and Site (A&S) and Vesting Tentative Map applications for the portion
of the Specific Plan area south ofNoddin Avenue (together called the Phase I applications).
After the Specific Plan was approved, revised applications were submitted to the Town.
On February 16, 2016, the Town Council approved a Story Pole Exception for the Phase I
development applications to provide for a reduced time frame and other exceptions given the
existing uses on the properties. On March 30,2016, the Planning Commission opened the public
hearing on the applications, took public testimony, and continued consideration of the
applications to April 27, 2016. The Commission could not take an action because the story poles
had not been completely installed in accordance with the approved Story Pole Exception.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 5
North 40 Phase 1 /S-13 -090/M -13-0 14
July 12 , 2016
On April19, 2016, the Town Council denied a subsequent request to modify the approved Story
Pole Exception, and requested a joint study session with the Town Council, Planning
Commission, and associated School District Boards. On April 27, 2016, the Planning
Commission continued the applications to a date uncertain given the Council's action on April
19 , 2016. On May 4, 2016, the story poles were certified as complete in accordance with the
approved Story Pole Exception. The February motion for the exception allowed the poles to be
installed for 60 days "sandwiched between Planning Commission meetings." The Study Session
was held on June 15, 2016 and the verbatim minutes of that meeting are included in Exhibit 28.
On June 29, 2016, the Town Council discussed the original Story Pole Exception and provided
clarification that the primary story poles, except for those that are a detriment to tenants (e.g.,
along Los Gatos Boulevard), should be kept up through August 9, 2016, the first Town Council
meeting scheduled to review the Phase I development applications.
The March 30,2016 staff report and attachments provide the technical review of the proposed
Phase I development applications . The intent of this staff report is to continue to evaluate the
proposed development as it relates to the North 40 Specific Plan requirements and address
questions that have been received through public testimony and written correspondence. The
majority of these questions and comments focus on housing, traffic , open space, consistency with
the look and feel of Los Gatos, and schools. The school issues were addressed in the staff report
for the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. In addition, information on all these
topics has also been provided in the Frequently Asked Questions (F AQ) (Attachment 26).
After the Analysis section, the report suggests a sequence of issues as a framework for Planning
Commission deliberation. The Chair has the discretion to modify the sequence at her discretion.
ANALYSIS:
The following topics are discussed based on public testimony and written communication:
A. Housing
B. Traffic and Additional Environmental Review
C. Open Space
D. Look and Feel of Los Gatos
A. Housing
The Town adopted and received State certification of its 2015-2023 Housing Element in May of
2015. This document was the result of more than 20 community and public hearing meetings
between January 2014 and May 2015. The Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) met 15
times before providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Town Council. One
of the most challenging issues was determining which properties should be zoned to meet the
Town 's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. The Council adopted the
Housing Element with the North 40 Specific Plan area as one of planned locations for new
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 6
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12, 2016
housing as well as other sites and measures. The potential rezoning of the North 40 Specific
Plan area and other sites were determined to be consistent with the existing goals and policies of
the General Plan.
Following are responses to specific housing related questions or comments submitted by the
community that may be helpful in the Planning Commission's deliberations .
Are there examples of developments at 20 units/acre in Town, and how big are those units?
The Phase I development proposes condominiums and rental units at a density of 20 to 21
DU/ AC, with unit sizes ranging from 580 to 1,999 square feet (sq. ft .). The following provides
information, based on available data from sample residential and mixed-use developments
constructed in Los Gatos :
Aventino Apartments: 46 units/acre (516 to 1,484 sq. ft .)
Baytree Apartments: 21 units/acre (782 to 1,114 sq. ft .)
Riviera Terrace (Vivere): 36 units/acre (639 to 1,035 sq. ft.)
Lora Drive (condominiums): 21 and 23 units/acre (800 to 1,000 sq. ft.)
Oak Rim Way/Oak Rim Court (condominiums and rentals) 20 units/acre (sq. ft. unknown)
Can the developer include cellars and reduce the mass of the development while providing
the density required within the Housing Element? While cellars could be included within the
proposed development, the majority of the residential ground floor area provides the required
parking in garages for the residential units. The applicant has indicated to staff that accessibility
and cellar light well requirements make it difficult to create the Specific Plan 's required
pedestrian connections due to the grade changes, and that cellar light wells would encroach into
the pedestrian realm. While larger subterranean parking garages could be included, these would
limit the ability to provide private garages for the residential units and require larger, more
connected structures.
The development should include single-family detached residences and parks for kids. One
of the primary goals of the North 40 Specific Plan was to address the unmet residential needs
within the Town. According to the Town's 2020 General Plan (Table LU-1), approximately 60
percent of the land located in Town contains single-family residential uses, whereas only 6 .5
percent contains multi-family residential uses . Residential land uses in the North 40 Specific
Plan are focused on multi-family housing types, and single-family detached housing is not a
permitted land use within the North 40 Specific Plan area. A variety of unit types and sizes are
permitted within the Lark and Transition Districts of the North 40 Specific Plan area.
Residential uses within the Northern District are restricted and only residential over commercial
uses are allowed.
Please see the discussion under Section C . Open Space below for a response to the comment on
parks.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12,2016
Density and Intensity. Density is a proportional measurement of the number of residential units
per acre, and is related to the intensity which covers elements such as floor area , height, massing,
and setbacks both between units and from adjacent streets. The Hou sing Element (Action HO U
1.7) required the Town to rezone 13.5 acres within the North 40 Specific Plan Area to comply
with a minimum density of20 units per acre and established by-right development for these units
(i.e. review based on objective standards).
The intensity connects to what you see and how it integrates with existing development. The
parameters provided within the Specific Plan regarding landscape buffers from Lark A venue and
Los Gatos Boulevard, and stepped-down heights along these streets provided direction as to the
intensity of development that was anticipated within the Specific Plan area.
The North 40 Specific Plan assumed that the intensity of development would increase towards
the northern end of the site. The Specific Plan identified several different housing types that
could meet the intent of the Plan. The Lark District was intended to be the least intense with
primarily residential uses and limited commercial. The application proposes predominantly
Garden Cluster (attached and semi-attached) units and more open space (42.5 percent) in the
Lark District. The Transition District provides for neighborhood-serving commercial use s,
office, and more intense residential development. The Northern District (not included in the
current application) limits residential uses to a mixed-use context of residential above
commercial uses. The Northern District was intended to provide for the majority of the
commercial, office, or hotel uses that were anticipated within the Specific Plan area.
B. Traffic and Additional Environmental Review
The North 40 Specific Plan EIR included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which studied the
traffic impacts from the full build out of the Specific Plan area on the existing roadways. The
analysis concluded that the full build out would result in significant traffic impacts at several
inters ections, and identified mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less than significant
level.
As noted in the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission staff report, the Phase I TIA included in
the Initial Study for the Phase I applications (Appendix D of the Initial Study in Exhibit 3)
studied the potential traffic impacts specific to the Phase I development applications, and found
that the Phase I development applications would generate a portion of the North 40 Specific Plan
build out traffic. As required by the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, the Phase I applications, if
approved, are required to pay traffic impact mitigation fees and construct on-site and off-site
improvements as part of the required mitigation. In other words , the Initial Study and the
additional traffic analysis did not find new significant impacts and therefore, no additional
mitigation measures are required.
At the Study Session, the participants inquired as to the criteria that need to be met for further
analysis. Pursuant to CEQA there are three types of additional analysis that can be required after
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12 , 2016
an EIR is certified: a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to an EIR, and an Addendum to a previous
EIR.
A Subsequent EIR can be prepared for projects that change substantially due to new information,
a changed project description , or changed circumstances within which the project would take
place. Generally, new information requiring a Subsequent EIR would pertain to significant
effects that were not previously analyzed. In order to require a Subsequent EIR , the Town must
determine, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, based on substantial evidence in the
light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
• Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of th e
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
• Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
• New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified, shows any of the following:
o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
EIR;
o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be fea sible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
o Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from tho se
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
A Supplement to an EIR may be prepared for projects in which only minor changes would be
necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revi sed. A Supplement to an EIR
may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous Draft or Final EIR, but the
Supplement must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15163 ).
An Addendum to a previous EIR is appropriate where that EIR adequately analyzed the project
and if there are only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have
occurred (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164).
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 9
North 40 Phase 1/S -13-090/M-13-014
July 12,20 16
Since traffic is the key issue of concern and because add itional analysis was completed that did
not uncover new impacts, no further environmental clearance is necessary beyond the certified
E IR which provides the mitigation measures that the Phase I applications would need to
implement if approved .
C. Open Space
The North 40 Specific Plan open space requirements were designed to encourage integration of
an interconnected system of open s paces, parks, and plazas within the area. Several of the
responses provided in the F AQ {Attachment 26) provide information regarding h ow the proposed
project and the North 40 Specific Plan open space requirements compare to other commercial
and multi-family requirements throughout the Town. The Town does not have a minimum open
space requirement for commercial developments, and the limited amount of common and pri v ate
open space required for multi-family project s would be significantl y less than the 30 percent
required by the North 40 Specific Plan. The proposed Phase I development applications provide
38.9 percent of the total development area as open space (42.5 percent in the Lark District and
34.5 percent in the Transition District are included in the proposed application).
T he proposed application provides 22.8 percent of the total development area as green o pen
space; the North 40 Specific Plan requires a minimum of 20 percent green open space, defined
as:
• Park s
• Bioretention areas
• Common or private residential green space
• Planters of 50 square feet or gr eater
• Landscape planting strips
• Driveable turfblock
• Pa rking lot land scaping
The proposed application provides 16.1 percent of the total development area as hardscape open
space. The North 40 Specific Plan defines this as private or common paved areas for pedestrian
use, including:
• Plazas
• Courtyards
• Pathways
• Sidewalk s
• P ed estri a n paseos
D. Look and Feel of Los Gatos
The North 40 Specific Plan provides specific d irection for development throu gh regu latory tool s.
The Land Use and Development Standards and Design Guidelines included in the document are
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 10
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12 ,2016
designed to reflect the Vision and Guiding Principles of the North 40 Specific Plan, including the
notion of the "look and feel of Los Gatos " and retention of its small town character.
In addition to the specific open space, landscaping, and setback development standards, the
North 40 Specific Plan incorporates relevant sections of existing Town documents (General Plan,
Commercial Design Guidelines, Boulevard Specific Plan, and AHOZ Design Guidelines) in
order to guide development that will be consistent with the look and feel of Los Gatos. Some
specific examples listed in the Specific Plan that are included in the proposed development
application and are also applied to other projects throughout Town are:
• Providing visual interest and breaks, both vertical and horizontal , in two-and three-story
wall planes
• Providing pedestrian orientation and scale to proposed buildings
• Maintaining continuity of design from all sides
• Pro viding variation in co lor and texture of materials
• Providing a variety of roof forms and building shapes
The look and feel of Los Gatos varies throughout the Town depending on the location and
housing product type present in a given neighborhood and high quality design is an important
Town-wide element of a consistent look and feel of Los Gatos. The proposed application
includes many high quality de sign details and the variety necessary to give the proposed
development the look and feel of Los Gatos.
In a related subject , the following question was submitted by a community member:
Can the developer include underground parking? In the Transition District, the proposed
development includes one l eve l of below grade parking beneath the market hall /senior hous ing
building. 130 spaces are proposed within the be low grade level of the parking garage, which is
comparable to the 150 at grade parking spaces provided throughout the commercial area of the
Phase I development. The third floor of the parking garage also incorporates open space.
SUGGESTED SEQUENCE OF ISSUES FOR COMMISSION DELIBERATION :
The Planning Commission 's role with the North 40 applications is to make recommendations to
the Town Council. T he Commission must complete its work by its Jul y 20, 2016 meeting to
provide the Council the time it needs to complete decision-making by the September 7, 20 16
Permit Streamlining deadline (see Exhibit 29). If the Commission does not have a
recommendation, the default recommendation is denial.
In its deliberations on the applications, the Commission has the discretion to consider the overall
Vision and Guiding Principles of the North 40 Specific Plan as reflected in the Land Use and
Development Standards as well as other elements of the North 40 Specific Plan. The
Commission should identify specific facts associated with the app li cation to support the needed
findings.
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 11
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12 , 2016
To assist the Commission in its deliberations , the Commission may wish to work through the
fundamental issue of the number and geographic distribution of the housing units. The
re solution/recommendations related to this issue may inform or provide direction for the
Commission 's other recommendations on the remaining issues. Below is a suggested sequence
of the issues for the Commission's consideration.
• Overall number and geographic distribution of housing units
o If the Planning Commission determines that number and distribution are not
consistent with the Specific Plan, then the Commission must give a rationale and
identify a revised housing yield and/or distribution that would be con s istent with
the Specific Plan. Specific facts must be articulated for the record.
o Staff will assist the Commission through the related issues of density bonus and
by-right development in this discussion.
• Open space quantities and distribution
• Building setbacks
• Building heights
• Commercial uses
• Parking
• Architecture
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis provided above, and the March 30, 2016 Planning Commission staff report
and attachments, the proposed Phase I development applications meet the technical requirements
ofthe North 40 Specific Plan, the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Town's
Housing Element. The proposed traffic impacts will be mitigated by the required traffic impact
mitigation fees and implementation of the proposed right-of-way improvements. The
Commission should consider the recommended conditions of approval to ensure the proposal
meets the North 40 Specific Plan zoning and other Town Codes, policies, and guidelines. Other
specific comments and direction are welcome as part of the Commission 's recommendation to
the Town Council.
Therefore, staff recommends the Commission take the following actions to forward a
recommendation for approval of the Architecture and Site application and Vesting Tentative
Map to the Town Council:
1. Make the required finding that an Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the
project does not require additional environmental clearance beyond the certified EIR
(Exhibit 4); and
2. Make the finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 4); and
3. Make the finding that the project is consistent with the North 40 Specific Plan (Exhibit 4);
and
4. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) ofthe Town Code for granting
approval of demolitions (Exhibit 4); and
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 12
North 40 Phase 1/S-13-090/M-13-014
July 12 ,2016
5 . Make the findings as required by Table 2-6 of the North 40 Specific Plan for reduction of
non-residential setbacks (Exhibit 4); and
6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 4); and
7. Make the required finding that none of the findings in Section 66474 of the Subdivision
Map Act for the denial of the Vesting Tentative Map application could be made.
8. Recommend Approval of Architecture and Site application S-13-090 and Vesting Tentative
Map application M-13-0 14 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibits 5 and 6 and the
development plans (Exhibit 1 ).
ALTERNATIVES:
If the Commission has concerns with the application , it can:
1. Forward a recommendation for denial to the Town Council; or
2. Forward a recommendation for approval with direction and/or modified conditions of
approval to the Town Council; or
3. Continue the matter to July 13 , 2016 for further deliberations .
..
Prepared by:
Sally Zamowitz, AICP
Planning Manager
JP :SZ:cg
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS \20 16\North 40 Report-7-12-16.docx
proved by:
oel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
North 40 FAQs
1. What is a Specific Plan?
Under California State law, each governing body (City/Town Council or Board of
Supervisors) of a local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long-
term general plan for the physical development of the municipality. A municipality may
prepare and adopt a Specific Plan to help implement the municipality’s General Plan for a
particular geographic subarea of the community. A Specific Plan is incorporated into the
General Plan and provides more detailed land use information and establishes the primary
means of development guidance within the project area than occurs in the community’s
General Plan. By law, Specific Plans must include, among other items:
• Explanation of the relationship to and consistency with the General Plan;
• Location and distribution of land uses, including the amount of each type and the
development densities and intensities;
• Development standards and guidelines for each land use;
• Transportation circulation, other infrastructure, and public facilities to support the
planned level of development; and
• Implementation strategies, including financing of infrastructure.
Once a Specific Plan is adopted, development applications for the area are reviewed by the
municipality for consistency with the Specific Plan as well as other applicable governing
land use documents in the community.
2. What is the history of and public involvement for the North 40 Specific Plan process?
A draft Specific Plan for the North 40 Area was prepared in 1999, but was not adopted. In
2010, the Town Council adopted the 2020 General Plan. The 2020 General Plan required the
preparation of a Specific Plan for the North 40 Area and included goals, policies, general
guidelines, and implementation strategies to inform the preparation of the Specific Plan.
The North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee (N40 AC) was established by the Town
Council on March 7, 2011. The goal of the N40 AC was to serve as an Advisory Committee
to the Town Council and the Planning Commission through coordination with staff and
interaction with the community. The N40 AC consisted of nine members from the General
Plan Committee, and up to six members of the community from the General Plan Update
Advisory Committee. The N40 AC began meeting in March of 2011 and concluded their
work on October 15, 2013. All meetings were open to the public and community members
provided input at the meetings and in writing. The N40 AC considered all public comments
in its deliberations. The N40 AC meeting minutes and reports are available on the Town
website: http://www.losgatosca.gov/1729/North-40-Specific-Plan-Area.
An Environmental Impact report (EIR) for the Draft Specific Plan was prepared and
circulated for public comment in early 2014. The document received 35 comments. The
Planning Commission considered the Draft Specific Plan and EIR at two meetings in July
and August of 2014 at which 25 people provided public testimony. The Commission also
considered all written public comments as documented in the reports available on the North
40 website. The Planning Commission deliberated on all of the information and public
comments, and forwarded its recommendations to the Town Council for the Council’s
consideration which occurred on August 13, 2014.
The Town Council considered the Draft Specific Plan and EIR on eight occasions between
September 2014 and June 2015. During these proceedings, the public had multiple
opportunities to submit written comments and provide verbal testimony as documented on
the North 40 website, Council videos, and written reports and summaries. The Final EIR was
certified on January 5, 2015 and the North 40 Specific Plan was adopted on June 17, 2015,
incorporating the modifications approved by the Council based on its deliberations,
consideration of public testimony, Planning Commission recommendations, and all other
information contained in the record.
3. What is the overall vision for the North 40 area?
Based on the work of the North 40 Advisory Committee (N40 AC), Planning Commission,
and Town Council, the adopted North 40 Specific Plan contains a Vision and Guiding
Principles that provide overarching guidance for development of the North 40 Specific Plan
area, as follows:
Vision
The North 40 reflects the special nature of our hometown. It celebrates our history,
agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small town character. The North 40 is seamlessly
woven into the fabric of our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and
business neighborhoods. It is respectful of precious community resources and offers unique
attributes that enrich the quality of life of all of our residents.
Guiding Principles to Achieve this Vision
• The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos.
• The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees, and open space.
• The North 40 will address the Town’s residential and/or commercial unmet needs.
• The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and
other community services.
4. What is the amount of development allowed under the North 40 Specific Plan?
The approval of the North 40 Specific Plan amended the zoning of the property to the
tailored designation of North 40 Specific Plan. The Specific Plan provides a maximum
allowable development capacity for the entire Specific Plan area of 270 residential units and
501,000 square feet of commercial uses (additional details are provided on pages 2-6 thru 2-
10 of the Specific Plan). The Specific Plan also requires 30% open space, design elements to
reflect the orchard heritage of the properties, new bicycle and pedestrian paths as well as
roads to serve the development, and improvements to nearby streets (e.g., Lark Avenue and
Los Gatos Boulevard) to accommodate increased traffic.
The Council reduced the development amount from the recommended quantities by the
North 40 Advisory Committee (364 housing units and 580,000 square feet of non-residential
development). The Planning Commission and Town Council meeting minutes and reports
are available on the Town website: http://www.losgatosca.gov/1729/North-40-Specific-Plan-
Area.
5. Where can I find a copy of the adopted Specific Plan?
http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15472
6. Where can I find the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan?
Draft EIR: Insert Link: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8891
Draft EIR Appendices: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/413
Final EIR: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13398
7. What mitigation measures were required by Environmental Impact Report for the
Specific Plan?
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program specifies the required mitigation
measures that were included in the EIR for the specific Plan. Mitigation measures are
required for aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous
materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities. These
can be found on the Town website at:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16356
8. Where can I find the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Specific Plan?
http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8929
9. What existing and proposed projects were included in the cumulative traffic analysis
within the TIA?
Future (pending and approved) development projects included in the Cumulative TIA within
the Specific Plan EIR were:
• Albright-Los Gatos Business Park
• Sutter Health-Palo Alto Medical (15400 Los Gatos Boulevard)
• Stanford Cancer Center (Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Samaritan Drive-San Jose)
• CVS (15650 Los Gatos Boulevard)
• Swanson Ford Mixed Use Development (Corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Blossom
Hill Road)
• Dell Avenue Area Plan (Campbell)
• Additional smaller pending or recently approved projects were also included
The TIA analyzed the cumulative traffic impacts associated with the North 40 in the context
of these pending or ongoing development applications. The TIA includes any mitigation
measures that are proposed or required as a result of these projects and analyzed the required
mitigation measures associated with the North 40 Specific Plan to reduce potential traffic
impacts to a less than significant level pursuant to State law regarding environmental
analysis, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
10. Does the Town need to have a Certified Housing Element?
Yes, all California municipalities are required by Article 10.6 of the Government Code
(Sections 65580-65590) to adopt housing elements as part of their general plans. Housing
element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the
existing and projected regional housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
The housing element law is the State’s primary market-based strategy to increase housing
supply, affordability, and choice. The law recognizes that in order for the private sector to
adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans
and regulatory schemes that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing
development. By law, every jurisdiction must plan for its fair share of new housing for all
income segments of the community.
The housing element process begins with the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and Department of Finance (DOF) identifying the total
housing need for the San Francisco Bay Area for an eight-year period. The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) then distributes this need to local governments based on a
methodology developed by representatives of the nine County Bay region and adopted by the
ABAG Executive Board.. The methodology considered existing local General Plans,
projected job growth, transit locations, and other factors. As a result, housing policy in the
State rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular,
local housing elements. Housing element law also requires the HCD to review local housing
elements for compliance with State law and to report its written findings to the local
government.
Los Gatos was required to plan for 619 housing units per State law.
11. Where does the Housing Element plan these new housing units to be located in Los
Gatos?
The Town Council appointed the General Plan Committee (consisting of Planning
Commissioners, Town Council members, and appointed community representatives) and
additional community representatives to a Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB). All of
its meetings were open to the public with opportunities for verbal and written testimony. The
HEAB considered multiple locations for the new housing as well as significant technical
issues. After considering public input and a variety of issues, the HEAB recommended that
one of the sites for new housing should be the North 40.
The Planning Commission conducted its required public hearings on the draft Housing
Element and also made its recommendations. The Town Council considered both sets of
recommendations as well as additional public testimony when it made the final decision to
adopt the housing element. The Council’s final decision on planned locations for new
housing included the North 40. All of the deliberations and materials regarding the Housing
Element can be found: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/14782
12. Where can I find the Town’s Housing Element?
Housing Element: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/14782
Technical Appendices: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/14791
The meeting minutes and reports for the Housing Element Advisory Board (HEAB) can be
found on the Town website: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/412
13. What is the connection between the Housing Element and the Specific Plan?
The Town’s Housing Element required adoption of the North 40 Specific Plan with certain
development assumptions in order to meet projected housing needs. The Housing Element
(Action HOU 1.7) required the Town to rezone 13.5 acres within the North 40 Specific Plan
Area to comply with a minimum density of 20 units per acre within three years of the
Housing Element adoption and established by-right development for these units. The
Housing Element was adopted by the Town Council in May 2015; adoption of the North 40
Specific Plan implemented the required zone change in June 2015.
14. Is the North 40 an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ)?
No, the North 40 Specific Plan Area was not designated as an AHOZ site within the Housing
Element. The North 40 Specific Plan provided development standards and guidelines for
both the commercial/mixed use and the residential development within the Specific Plan
Area.
15. Can the Specific Plan be amended to reduce the density?
In order to comply with the Town’s certified Housing Element, the North 40 must include
13.5 acres of residential development at 20 units/acre. Reducing the density to less than 20
units/acre or reducing the number of acres to less than 13.5 would conflict with the Town’s
Housing Element and would require the Town to rezone other properties in Town at 20
units/acre.
16. Is the Specific Plan consistent with the Town’s General Plan?
Yes, by State law the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan. The Specific
Plan provides more detailed design, development, and policy requirements than the General
Plan. The Specific Plan implements the General Plan by providing more particular direction
tailored to the North 40 Area.
17. What is by-right development?
The housing element must include a detailed land inventory and analysis including a site
specific inventory listing properties, zoning and general plan designation, size, and existing
uses to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing needs.
In response to the Town’s draft housing element, the HCD determined that the Town did not
demonstrate adequate sites, appropriately zoned to meet the jurisdictions share of the
regional housing needs. In order to obtain certification of the Town’s housing element from
HCD, the Town had to designate sites including providing zoning that allows owner-
occupied and rental multi-family uses “by-right” with minimum densities and development
standards.
The phrase "use by right” shall mean the local government's review of the owner occupied
or multifamily residential use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit
development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would
constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code [CEQA]. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws,
including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision
Map Act. A local ordinance may provide that “use by right” does not exempt the use from
design review. However, that design review shall not constitute a “project” for purposes of
[CEQA]. Use by right for all rental multifamily residential housing shall be provided in
accordance with subdivision (f) of Section 65589.5.25. The concept is to require the
community to identify sites that are available for development with affordable housing
without any discretionary review, 25 §65589.5(f) permits a local agency to require
developments to comply with development standards consistent with meeting the quantified
objectives and to impose fees to provide services and facilities.
18. Did the North 40 Specific Plan consider the existing traffic issues and anticipate
additional traffic?
Yes. The North 40 Specific Plan and EIR anticipated additional traffic as a result of
development within the Specific Plan Area and required mitigation measures to appropriately
reduce these impacts. The delays at all 31 studied intersections, along with impacts of the
proposed project with and without the required mitigation measures are provided in the TIA.
19. What traffic mitigation measures are required by the Specific Plan?
As required by the EIR, the Specific Plan requires roadway and intersection improvements to
be completed within each phase of the Specific Plan implementation. Specific traffic
mitigations can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Report on pages 3-220 through
3-230 (http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8891#page=310) and include:
• Widening of Lark Avenue to accommodate additional traffic lanes, and
• Modifications to Los Gatos Boulevard within the existing right-of-way, both south and
north of Lark Avenue.
Additionally, the Specific Plan required that each phase of proposed development provide a
traffic analysis to determine that the traffic and impacts studied within the EIR are not
intensified with a proposed project within the Plan Area.
20. Phasing: Why does the Specific Plan allow it and what does it mean?
The North 40 Specific Plan Area, when adopted, included 38 parcels and even more property
owners. Given the size and complexity of the ownership, it is highly unusual that all 40 plus
acres could be developed in one phase. This is because of existing businesses and residents,
the need to build new infrastructure on the property, and other considerations. Phasing
recognizes the property rights of existing land owners within the Plan Area and allows each
development to adjust to current needs and improved design standards.
21. What role does the Specific Plan play in future development applications?
The Specific Plan provides specific parameters for all new development proposals within the
Plan Area. All development applications are required to comply with the standards,
guidelines, and requirements of the Specific Plan. Current and future property owners are
held to the same standards.
22. Why isn’t a school included in the North 40?
The North 40 Specific Plan included both private and public schools as permitted uses within
the North 40 Specific Plan Area. Public schools are regulated by the State as to proximity to
certain uses such as freeways and gas stations. Additionally, the Leroy F. Greene School
Facilities Act of 1998, or Senate Bill 50 (SB 50), restricts the ability of local agencies, such
as the Town of Los Gatos, to deny land use approvals on the basis that public school facilities
are inadequate. SB 50 authorizes school districts to levy developer fees to finance the
construction or reconstruction of school facilities to address local school facility needs
resulting from new development. SB 50 establishes the base amount of allowable developer
fees for school impacts. In January 2016, the State Allocation Board (SAB) increased Level
1 Fees to $0.56 per square foot of enclosed and covered space in any commercial or
industrial development, and $3.48 per square foot for residential development (SAB, 2010).
Public school districts can, however, impose higher fees than those established by the SAB,
provided they meet the conditions outlined in the act.
Developers and School Boards can voluntarily consider additional arrangements. For the
southern portion of the North 40 Area, the Los Gatos Union School District Board entered
into an agreement with the prospective developers regarding school issues:
http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16133
23. Why is there no school being planned for the development?
See FAQ #22
24. Could Los Gatos voters consider a special vote to buy the North Forty property for the
town and make it an orchard/park? Get commercial sponsors to help.
The right of the government to obtain private land for public purposes is known as eminent
domain, and this right derives from federal and state constitutions and related laws. The
power of eminent domain allows the government to take private land for public purposes
only if the government provides fair compensation to the property owner.
The process through which the government acquires private property for public benefit is
known as condemnation. Most condemnation proceedings turn on the value of the property
at issue. How much a piece of property (or an interest in property) is worth depends on many
factors. The zoning of the property and the value of surrounding properties provide useful
guidance for the calculation. The many unique characteristics of a property often result in a
different estimation of value between the property owner and the government. In addition to
an appraiser and an attorney, each side may have additional experts, such as engineers and
architects. Factors that are considered in property valuation include: its size, how it is zoned,
what kinds of buildings and roads are on it, what it's currently being used for, what it could
be used for, how accessible it is, what other businesses or land uses are adjacent or nearby,
and whether there are tenants or other leaseholders involved.
Given the value of the North 40 with the adopted Specific Plan and zoning, it is unlikely that
the Town would have the resources to purchase the land for fair market value under these
processes even with corporate donations and other tax revenue.
25. What is the minimum amount of notice provided in no-fault evictions? What is the
amount of relocation assistance provided to tenants? Is additional assistance provided
to elderly tenants or those with disabilities? How does the Town enforce this ordinance
and what are the ramifications for those property owners who do not adhere?
The Town of Los Gatos does not regulate no-fault eviction or relocation assistance. Under
state law, eviction notice requirements are governed by the agreement between the landlord
and tenant and there are relocation assistance laws that may or may not apply depending on
each individual circumstance. The Town does work to improve and preserve the supply and
quality of existing rental and ownership housing opportunities that are available for residents
and employees of local businesses. When new developments are approved by the Town, the
Below Market Price (BMP) Housing Ordinance adopted in 1979 requires developers to offer
a minimum percentage of the units so they are affordable to lower and median income
households. Hello Housing (www.hellohousing.org) is the administrator of the Town's Below
Market Price (BMP) Housing Program.
26. Now that there is a Specific Plan, can we back out of what is in the Specific Plan and try
to preserve the area? Or is it too late?
See FAQ # 17 and response #24 above.
27. Table 2-2 specifies a "Maximum" 400,000 square feet of commercial. Does that mean
the Council can approve less than 400,000 square feet? Can the Town approve any
amount it wants?
Yes, the Town can approve less than 400,000 square feet of commercial uses, consistent with
the Specific Plan. All development applications are evaluated based on their conformance
with the Specific Plan as well as other factors.
28. Table 2-1 requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Yoga Studio but not for a
restaurant with a bar. What is the reasoning behind this need for a CUP for a yoga
studio but not a restaurant with a bar?
The CUP requirement in Table 2-1 is for a health club, and an individual Yoga Studio would
not be considered a health club. For purposes of Town zoning, a Yoga Studio is considered
Instruction/Classes and would require a CUP anywhere in the Town, including the North 40
Specific Plan Area.
Under the Town Code outside of the Specific Plan area, all uses involving the service of
alcohol require a CUP. Because the Specific Plan establishes zoning rules specific for the
North 40 area, restaurants offering alcoholic beverage service do not require a CUP. In
contrast, under the Specific Plan, a standalone bar requires a CUP.
29. Under the 400,000 maximum for commercial under Table 2-2: is there anything in
there or anywhere in the Specific Plan to prevent a developer from leasing all 400,000
square feet to restaurants? Is there any limitation on the amount of restaurants at all?
The Specific Plan does not contain a maximum amount of restaurant space; however, a
proposed development needs to demonstrate its consistency with the Specific Plan to address
unmet needs of the Town and create a vibrant neighborhood in the northern portion of Los
Gatos. One type of commercial use for all 400,000 square feet (e.g., all restaurants) would
not be consistent with Policy LU3 that states “for a mix and size of uses to promote the
creation of a lively, walkable neighborhood” and Policy LU11 that states “proposed uses
should complement the existing balance and diversity of businesses located along Los Gatos
Boulevard and in Downtown Los Gatos.”
30. Can the Town Council repeal the North 40 Specific Plan? Can the Council repeal it
when an application to develop has already been submitted?
The Planning Commission and Town Council would need to hold noticed public hearings
with the express purpose of repealing the Specific Plan. To maintain an adequate Housing
Element under State law, at those same hearings, the Town would need to identify and zone
replacement site(s) for the 270 units that would be removed by such repeal.
The Town Council can repeal or amend the North 40 Specific Plan. Chapter 6.5 in the
Specific Plan specifically addresses the process for amendments. Any application that has
been deem complete under the permitting streamlining act or subdivision map act would not
be subject to the repeal or amendments that were made by Council.
31. Are there any contingencies related to the sale of the Yuki Farm Property and the
surrounding properties that could impact the outcome of the North 40 development?
The Town is not a party to the sale of property and cannot comment on any contingencies
between private parties. Implementation of the Specific Plan is not dependent on a specific
applicant. The Town evaluates applications based on their own merits and the requirements
of the Town’s governing land use documents (i.e., General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning, etc.).
32. In the development of the General Plan for Los Gatos Boulevard, residents always
requested land be set aside for open space and community recreation. What happened
to that request as plans for the North 40 were being presented for consideration?
The Specific Plan requires a minimum of 30% open space within each application for
development. This is greater than the current requirement for commercial or multi-family
developments in Town at this time. Town Code does not currently contain a requirement for
a minimum amount of Open Space for commercial developments.
33. How many additional police, fire, and public works personnel will be required and how
will this impact the Town’s yearly budget? Will there be a need for additional taxes
and/or fees to residents and/or business owners?
The EIR analyzed the impact on public services. Please see FAQ #6.
34. How did the recently built homes along Guadalupe Mines Road come to be included in
the Los Gatos School District?
School District boundaries typically do not follow Town boundaries. The properties along
Guadalupe Mines Road are in the City of San Jose and within the Los Gatos Union School
District. The District’s boundaries were determined prior to the development of the homes.
35. Is there any way that we as a Town can push back against the State and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) requirements for new housing, including affordable
housing? Clearly these requirements do not take into account local lack of
infrastructure and local overcrowding in schools.
See FAQ #’s 11, 19 and 22.
36. Is the private agreement between the developer and the Los Gatos Union School
District legal? Specifically, what do the other school districts involved want and/or
need? Why aren't the residential units spread across the entire property so that
adjoining districts will share in the increased attendance?
See FAQ #22.
37. Why is there only one Planner for this enormous project? And if only one is deemed
enough, why is it not the Planning Manager?
The Town typically has one Planner assigned to each application that is submitted. The
Planner works collaboratively with other Town Departments and outside agencies in the
evaluation of the application. In addition, the Planning Manager and/or the Community
Development Director provide supervision, guidance, and other technical support in the
evaluation of all Planning applications. The project Planner does not work in isolation.
38. Why and how was Grosvenor USA Limited allowed to be so embedded in the
preparation of the Specific Plan?
The Town entered into an Agreement with Grosvenor with the purpose of Grosvenor funding
the public planning process for the preparation of the Specific Plan and related documents.
With this funding, the Town led all of the Advisory Committee meetings, managed the
consultant teams that wrote the Specific Plan and EIR respectively, wrote all staff reports,
and handled all public hearings. Grosvenor’s funding only provided the resources to prepare
a Specific Plan.
39. Can the Specific Plan be used to revise or deny their current application?
Yes, the Planning Commission will evaluate the pending applications in light of the Specific
Plan and make recommendations to Town Council regarding the approval, modification, or
denial of the applications.
40. Can the 320 residential units be spread throughout the entire 44 acres?
See FAQ #10.
41. Can we delay any development until the entire property has been purchased so that it is
not developed piecemeal?
Both the State Subdivision Map Act and the Permit Streamlining Act have mandatory
timeframes for development application decisions that must be complied with. Additionally,
the Specific Plan anticipated phasing of the development given the fact that there are a
number of property owners.
42. Please define "open space" and if we have input on how it is achieved.
The Open Space requirements and guidelines are provided on pages 2-11 thru 2-14 of the
Specific Plan. The public had opportunities to provide input in the preparation of the
Specific Plan. The public will have the opportunity to comment at public hearings before the
Planning Commission and Town Council regarding the proposed development applications’
approach to providing open space. The Planning Commission and Town Council consider all
public comments in their deliberations.
43. How will traffic be mitigated if the November VTA Ballot Measure does not pass?
The right-of-way improvements required for the development of the North 40 are
implemented by the applicant, and are not dependent on the VTA ballot measure.
44. If everything is not covered on June 15th can we please continue the Study Session in
September when everyone has returned from summer vacations? I always find it
frustrating that all of the important meetings dealing with major issues in the Town are
always held during some type of holiday when people are not in Town.
The Town appreciates the comment, however, because the development applications are
complete, the Town is under tight timeframes to hold public hearings and make final
decisions in early September.
45. Can minimum requirements for housing density be met instead of maximum?
The Specific Plan identified a maximum number of 270 housing units and consistent with the
Housing Element, the minimum density is 20 units per acre. Please see FAQ #10.
46. Doesn't the Town have to conform to Specific Plan requirements for the aesthetics of
the application; such as cluster housing, view of hills, "look and feel like Los Gatos"?
All applications for development within the Specific Plan Area will require compliance with
all applicable elements of the Specific Plan.
47. Can the Town encourage secondary units and small condo development to fulfill the
state low income rules? These could be spread all over Town.
The Housing Element does identify other, additional opportunities to meet the Town’s
housing needs.
The Town currently provides for non-discretionary review of new second units in Town. In
addition, there are properties with multi-family zoning within the Town for new
condominium or apartment developments.
48. Can three-story buildings be prohibited on the North 40 to save the hillside views?
The Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and Town Council carefully considered
building heights in the preparation of the Specific Plan. As a result, the adopted Specific
Plan contains maximum heights in Section 2.5.2, which provides direction as to building
height and reduces the permitted building heights along the existing street frontages on Lark
Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard.
49. What should 30% open space look like, sidewalks or parks/trees?
See FAQ #42.
50. What CUP regulations and licenses are planned for the North 40?
The permitted uses and uses that require a CUP are listed in Table 2-1 on pages 2-7 thru 2-10
of the Specific Plan.
51. Does the Town have a study about the impact of the development on sewer, water,
public safety, etc.?
These elements were analyzed in the EIR for the Specific Plan. See FAQ #6.
52. Since the partial opening of Netflix has there been an updated EIR?
No, however, the traffic analysis for the North 40 Specific Plan EIR included the future
Netflix construction as well as other pending or approved projects. See FAQ #9.
53. If the Town were to reduce the project density of the North 40 site, where would you
locate the certified 270 units, required by the Housing Element, if not on the North 40
site?
To maintain an adequate Housing Element under State law, the Planning Commission would
need to recommend and Town Council would need to zone replacement site(s) for the 270
units. During the preparation of the Housing Element, a community Advisory Board
considered a variety of potential sites, which could potentially be re-examined as well as new
locations. All of the Housing Element Advisory Board’s deliberations and work is available
at: http://ca-losgatos2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Index/412.
54. I would like a clear explanation of what we are being forced to do by the state. In
particular, I am bothered by the rules about concessions and our having no choice
about that. How is state law like Code Section 65915 affecting what you are approving
and the acceptance of an obviously inadequate EIR.
The EIR has been certified as being consistent with State law. The State law pertaining to
concessions is complex and is related to an applicant’s request for a density bonus. Under
this law, if the application meets the affordability requirements, the Town must provide
reasonable concessions.
55. Why was the Specific Plan made a part of the General Plan? (This is not normal
practice and creates a trap for the Council and Planning Commission.)
The Specific Plan is a stand-alone policy document, consistent with the Town’s General
Plan. Consistent with State law, the Town adopted amendments to the General Plan to
reflect the major features of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan helps implement the
General Plan.
56. What is a senior--Over 55? One half of a space?? Was this staff driven, developer
driven, or State driven?
The Specific Plan does not define a senior citizen, however, most senior housing
developments in California are intended for persons 55 years and older. For purposes of a
development application, the applicant has the discretion to define the population(s) it
intends to serve. Parking is often reduced in affordable senior developments.
57. Does the North 40 Specific Plan supersede the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan totally or in
part?
The Specific Plan in Section 1.5.2 states that “the Specific Plan incorporates and/or
complements the concepts and guidelines from the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan where
applicable.” The North 40 Specific Plan Area is not subject to the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan,
however, the community-based Advisory Committee considered the Boulevard Plan in the
preparation of the Specific Plan.
N:\DEV\North 40\Study Session 6-15-16\North 40 FAQs 1-57.docx
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Chair
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Kendra Burch (Recused)
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Tom O’Donnell
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BADAME: We will move along to our
continued Public hearing, which is Item 2. Item 2 is our
North 40 Phase 1, Architecture and Site Application S-13—
090, Vesting Tentative Map M-13-014, requesting approval
for the construction of a new multi-use, multi-story
development consisting of 320 residential units, which
includes 50 affordable senior units, approximately 66,800
square feet of commercial floor area, which includes a
Market Hall, onsite and offsite improvements, and a vesting
tentative map, APNs 424-07-024 through -027, -031 through -
037, -070, -083 through -086, -090, and -100.
May I have a show of hands from Commissioners who
have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from
Commissioners? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had incidental
conversation when I went and did the site visit. Also, I
served on several committees prior to this, including the
North 40 Advisory Committee, General Plan Committee, and
the Housing Advisory Committee. I’ll try to put that out of
my mind as we go into this next phase, but I wanted to
disclose that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Commissioner Hudes.
I had incidental contact with the Applicant
during the site visit and prior town hall meetings. I also
had coincidental with Mr. Capobres while walking my dog
past his residence.
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Like Commissioner Hudes, I
also had incidental contact with the Applicant when we did
our walkthrough of the site. I did not serve on previous
committees, however.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Incidental contact means we
talked to them and asked them questions?
CHAIR BADAME: I’ll ask the Town Attorney what
his interpretation of that is.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Incidental contact, and your
rules and regulations says it’s incidental, minor talking
with an applicant or other parties that in no way is not
included in your Staff Report or in other documentation
that is outside. So in other words, you do not receive any
information that is not currently in your package or in any
of the information that’s been provided you. Any
information that’s outside of that and is not privy to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anybody else is not incidental contact and should be
declared.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m going to presume I did not
have incidental contact.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Vice Chair Kane.
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think the record
should be clear that all of us were given the opportunity
two, certainly three I guess would be max, to tour the
property within the last week, which we did. We had one or
two people walking with us to show us the story poles, and
that to all of us I think was incidental. We just go to see
what we’ve been reading about, but I think almost all us,
if not all of us, did that.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Commissioner O'Donnell,
for that clarification.
In advance of Staff’s presentation, I will
emphasize that we have a large number of speakers present.
We would like to take advantage of accommodating as many of
you as possible tonight. We are here as a community to
gather and process information. The Commissioners will take
this into consideration with our preliminary questions of
Staff and the Applicant.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m looking for Ms. Moseley. Are you ready to
provide us with a Staff Report?
MARNI MOSELEY: I am. Good evening. As you all
are aware, there’s a lot of information in front of you, so
there’s a lot of stuff that we could talk about tonight.
I’m going to keep to the big items and help frame that
discussion for you tonight, and obviously we’ll get into
some questions that fall in between those pieces.
The development of the North 40 has been a topic
of discussion off and on for the last 20 years. A specific
plan was drafted in 1999 and never adopted. The Town’s 2020
General Plan included a requirement that a North 40
Specific Plan be drafted, and as a result the Council
appointed the North 40 Advisory Committee in May 2011. The
Committee’s role was to provide direction and guidance to
Town Staff and the Town’s consultant in drafting the
Specific plan.
A specific plan is used by jurisdictions to
implement their General Plan within a particular
geographical area. A specific plan provides more detailed
land use and development guidelines as it relates to that
specific area.
The Advisory Committee met 20 times between May
2011 and August 2013. Their work included interaction with
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the community and Staff in preparing a draft that met the
direction of the goals and policies within the General
Plan.
These documents were considered and revised in a
dozen public hearing meetings by the Planning Commission
and the Council between 2013 and 2015. The Specific Plan
and the certified EIR for the North 40 Specific Plan set
parameters and studied the impacts of the maximum
development capacity contained within the Specific Plan.
The Town’s Housing Element, which is usually included in
the adopted General Plan, was not completed until May 2015.
The delay was due in part to difficulties in
designating the necessary RHNA sites within the Town. The
adopted Housing Element includes the assumption that 13.5
acres of the North 40 will be developed at 20 acres per
unit. Anything less than that would require a revision to
the Town’s Housing Element, with additional sites
designated at 20 units per acre to replace those units not
provided within the North 40. So while the Specific Plan
permits a maximum of 270 units, provision of all these
units is required at 20 units per acre in order to comply
with the Town’s adopted Housing Element. Providing these
units at a lower density, for example, spread throughout
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Specific Plan area, would not meet the requirements of
the Town’s adopted Housing Element.
The Applicant’s proposal tonight includes a
density bonus request. The state’s Density Bonus Law is one
of several California statutes designed to implement an
important state policy to promote the construction of low-
income housing and to remove impediments to providing low-
income housing.
When the legislature adopted the state Density
Bonus Law it’s purpose was to address the housing shortage
crisis and require local governments to provide the
necessary increased housing stock by reducing local
discretion that would impede this provision. The Density
Bonus Law applies to all cities and towns. It requires
cities and towns to adopt an ordinance that specifies how
local compliance with the statute would be implemented.
As such, the Town adopted a state-mandated
Density Bonus Ordinance in 2012. The ordinance was intended
to comply with the state’s ordinance and its requirements.
If requested, the ordinance requires that unless specific
findings can be made to deny the density bonus, the bonus
and up to three concessions must be granted.
The proposed application includes 50 affordable
senior rental units, 49 of which would be very low-, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
extremely low-, income units, which is defined as 30-50% of
the median income of Santa Clara County, as well as one
manager unit that would be available to the moderate rate
income category.
The senior units would be constructed and
operated by Eden Housing, which is a local provider that
owns and/or manages more than a hundred in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
The proposed number of very low-income units is
in excess of 11% of the base units, which qualifies the
Applicant to a 35% density bonus, which would be an
additional 83 units. The Commission must grant the density
bonus unless the required findings for denial can be made.
Along with the provision of up to three
concessions, the Town is additionally precluded from
imposing a development standard that would preclude the
Applicant from developing the density or number of units
permitted by the bonus.
The Applicant has not requested any concessions,
but has requested a waiver from two development standards
included in the specific plan. One is the definition of
height, which specifies that the height should be measured
from existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower; and
the second is the allowance for additional height for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mixed-use affordable building from 45’ to approximately
51’. The Commission must grant these waivers unless the
findings for denial can be made.
The proposed applications before you tonight
include an Architecture and Site Application for
development of 320 residential units and 66,791 square feet
of commercial area.
Two hundred and fifty two of the residential
units are proposed to be constructed by SummerHill Homes
and would consist of three different types of units:
traditional row homes, ranging from five to seven units per
building; garden clusters, which range from five to eight
units per cluster; and the condominium clusters, which each
have 16 units. The units range in size from approximately
900 square feet to just under 2,000 square feet, and have
from one to three bedrooms.
The one-bedroom units are required to provide a
minimum of one parking space per unit, while the two- and
three-bedroom units are required to provide two parking
spaces per unit. Additionally, the Specific Plan requires
that each unit provide an additional half space for guests.
Each of the units as proposed has a single or two-car
garage, depending on the number of bedrooms proposed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The commercial component of the application
includes 66,791 gross square feet of commercial area, and
approximately 20,000 square feet of that space is intended
to provide for Market Hall use, which is a grouping of
artisan or specialty retailers that together function like
a community grocery store, kind of like a continual farmers
market. The Applicant will speak further to this and how
they will be promoting local businesses through this use.
The remaining space is split up between
restaurant space and neighborhood-serving retail and
service uses. The Applicant is also requesting approval of
a Vesting Tentative Map, which includes 113 lots with up to
320 residential condominiums.
As many of you understand, the Specific Plan and
the certified EIR has provided some assumptions that limit
the purview of the decision makers on these applications.
For example, the EIR studied the impact on local resources
like water, schools, and parks, as well as services like
fire and police, and concluded that the development assumed
within the Specific Plan would not impact existing services
and resources.
Additionally, the EIR studied the traffic
associated with the full build-out of the Specific Plan and
determined that with the required mitigation measures in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
place at full build-out of the North 40 Specific Plan area,
Town roadways and intersections would continue to operate
within Town standards. As part of the Phase 1 review
process, Staff facilitated the preparation of an initial
study to determine compliance with the certified EIR. The
traffic associated with the Phase 1 development is in
compliance with the parameters studied and assumed within
the Specific Plan and the certified EIR. While there
continues to be a lot of discussion regarding traffic
associated with the development, as proposed the traffic
will not exceed the level studied and approved within the
Specific Plan.
While the density bonus is required by state law
and must be granted unless the required findings can be
made, the Commission can discuss reducing the base number
of units on which the density bonus is granted with the
understanding that the ramifications of that would require
modification of the Town’s Housing Element. As discussed
earlier, the Housing Element assumed development at 20
units per acre. Below that threshold the development would
no longer qualify for the assumptions included in the
Housing Element.
Additionally, the Commission could discuss the
provision of the BMP units in regard to the Town’s BMP
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ordinance and program guidelines, however, state law
precludes the ability to provide senior designated units
dispersed as traditionally required by the Town’s BMP
guidelines. So if the units were required to be dispersed,
they would no longer be able to be designated for seniors,
or be provided at very low-income, or extremely low-income,
which are categories that the Town currently has very
limited inventory of.
The main areas for the Commission to discuss
tonight are more subjective and relate to how the
application accomplishes the look and feel of Los Gatos;
how the agrarian feel and history of the site have been
captured with the proposed plans; and additionally whether
the open space and architectural styling meet the intent of
the direction provided in the Specific Plan.
Usually we would refer to the Town’s Residential
Design Guidelines or the Commercial Design Guidelines, but
the relevant sections of these documents were used to frame
the development standards included in the Specific Plan,
and as such all comments and direction should be in
relation to what is contained in the approved Specific
Plan.
The goal of the Commission this evening is to
take public testimony on the proposed applications due to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unexpected constraints with the existing access and use of
several of the sites that were proposed to include story
poles. Not all of the poles could be installed, and as a
result the Town Council at next week’s Council meeting will
be considering a modification of the story pole exception
that was granted in February. Based on this requirement,
the Planning Commission cannot take an action at tonight’s
meeting.
Staff recommends that the Commission accept
public comments and continue the application to a date
certain in order to complete their discussion and provide a
recommendation to the Town Council.
This complete Staff’s report, but we are here for
any questions.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Moseley.
MARNI MOSELEY: Oh, actually, let me break in.
Rob did have a couple of clarifications from the legal
aspect of things.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, the Town Attorney will
speak. Mr. Schultz.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes, good evening, Chair and
Commissioners. I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on
some of the issues that might be raised tonight, and to
give a little bit of clarification first.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The first issue is on environmental issues. As
Ms. Moseley said, the Town Council approved the final EIR
for the North 40 Specific Plan. That EIR analyzed the
environmental impacts for the North 40 Specific Plan. The
EIR did include mitigation measures to address the
potential impacts. I’m sure there are quite a few members
of the public, as you heard from their comments already or
their voices already, that might not agree with that, but
that EIR was certified. The time to challenge that EIR has
passed.
As you move forward with your deliberations on
this, it’s your job to review that certified EIR, then
review the Specific Plan, and determine whether those two
documents are consistent or inconsistent with the
application in front of you.
The other issue I want to talk briefly about was
school impact fees. State law known as SB50 is really the
law of the land. It was enacted in 1998. It mandates that,
“If a developer agrees to pay the fees established by SB50,
the impacts on school facilities may not be analyzed. No
mitigation for impacts on school facilities may be required
and the project may not be denied due to impacts on schools
or due to inadequacy of school facilities.” Therefore, SB50
limited your and Town Council’s ability to consider the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
effects of the North 40 on the ability of schools to
accommodate enrollment, to require mitigation, and deny the
project because they have paid or agreed to pay the SB50
fees. I just want to caution you on those issues.
In regard to the Housing Element, we have an
approved certified Housing Element that states for the
North 40, “13.5 acres of the site shall be developed with a
density of 20 units per acre,” and it is intended to
accommodate 270 residences. The development is by right,
that was required by state, that this area and other areas
of the Town be by right, and what does that mean? By right
means that if the application for this development is
consistent with the Specific Plan and with the EIR, then
the project must be approved.
So that’s really if you want to know what it is
in a nutshell, and I’ll use Commissioner Kane as an
example. Many times when you have a development review in
the hillside area, Mr. Kane will put his hand on the
Hillside Guidelines and say, “This is the law. You must be
consistent with the law.” In this case really, what the law
is is the Specific Plan and the EIR and those documents,
and your job is to find out if the application, this
document, is consistent with the Specific Plan. If you find
it’s consistent with the Specific Plan, then you can make
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recommendations to Council. If you find it inconsistent,
then we’ll make findings to that extent. Any questions?
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Vice Chair
Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: But I like the hillside law,
and I have issues with this one as concerns traffic. I
have, as I said earlier, read 210 letters with a 100 to go,
and I don’t think any of them failed to voice concern,
fear, about children and existing gridlock. I have a binary
question. If I don’t like what the EIR, and particularly
the initial study that comes from the EIR, it says the
traffic is okay, if I don’t feel that the traffic is okay,
is there anything I can do about it?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Your job as a Commissioner is to
apply the law. There are many laws that you might not like,
not only within our ordinance structures. The role then is
to try to change those laws, but in this case a specific
plan has been adopted, it is the law for you to file, and
it’s your job to follow that law and determine if it’s
consistent or inconsistent. If the project is consistent
with the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures set
forth in the EIR, then it must be approved.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll take that as a no. The
second question is can Town Council do anything about it?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Obviously it has the authority
to change laws, so it could change the Specific Plan, it
could change its Housing Element, it could change its
General Plan, at any time.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I understand SB50 is state law.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: They can’t change state law.
VICE CHAIR KANE: And I’m stuck with that, and
I’m not even going to bring it up. But the traffic thing
and the number of letters I’ve received, and they’re
passionate, somehow that needs to be addressed, if not by
us, then perhaps by Town Council.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Certainly what you would look at
in this case is the EIR and the mitigation measures, and
look how the testimony that you received from the public is
inconsistent with that EIR, and determine if there’s any
other mitigation measures above and beyond the EIR that
could be established to mitigate any traffic that you
perceive as not being addressed.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I just don’t think 210 people
can be wrong.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Vice Chair Kane.
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Since I’m kind of new to
this and this is the first time I’m seeing a specific plan,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should you clarify what prevails? We have a Specific Plan,
there’s a General Plan, and you also said that there are
other housing guidelines that fed into those documents, but
particularly, what is our job relative to the Specific Plan
and the General Plan, which I understand is sort of the law
of Los Gatos?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: When we adopted a Specific Plan
we also made amendments to the General Plan to make those
two documents consistent, so they should remain consistent
throughout both of them, but the Specific Plan is the
document which is the law of the land that you need to look
at to determine whether this is consistent or not.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And if there is an
inconsistency between those documents, what prevails?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Specific Plan should be the
document that prevails in that case.
CHAIR BADAME: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Hudes? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your report,
Marni; that was very helpful.
I had a question about the density bonus. I sat
on the Housing Element Advisory Board, and when we looked
at the potential sites for affordable housing, which was
required in the Housing Element, one of the things we did
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in our exercises is looked at not only the amount of units,
but what could happen in terms of total units because of
the state density bonus. I do remember when we were having
these discussions, and the original plan was for around 360
units, I don't know the exact number, but Town Council cut
that back. My question is in the discussions done to arrive
at the final 270 units, did they consider the impact of the
density bonus? That’s the real number to look at, because
we don’t have a choice about the state density bonus; it
would be hard to fight against it.
MARNI MOSELEY: Yes, as I understand it, the
Council did basically backtrack the math to the 270. The
EIR studied 364 units, which would assume a 35% density
bonus for the full 270 units.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: This is a question for Mr.
Schultz.
While I fully understand SB50, as you know, the
fourth guiding principle in the Specific Plan says in part,
“The North 40 will mitigate impacts on schools.” I left out
the other two (inaudible). What’s the relationship between
that guiding principle and the requirements of SB50?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Even though SB50 really just
ties your hands on the ability to obtain full mitigation
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from school districts, and going back to the history of
SB50, it was basically enacted because many cities and
towns were denying development based on school
overcrowding, so it is the only mechanism we had to
collect. But there was nothing restraining us from at least
making that language to encourage and to require as much
mitigation as possible, and one of the ways that occurred
was the Applicant saw that language in the Specific Plan
and negotiated directly with the school district for
further mitigation above and beyond SB50, but we had no
legal requirement to require anything more than SB50 fees.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: With respect to this SB50
mitigation, you mentioned earlier it was a monetary
association with school impact that responsible parties had
to pay or…
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It’s a formula that’s based on…
VICE CHAIR KANE: And the intent for that was the
mitigation could take the form of finding a site for an
additional school, as necessary. My question is are
responsible parties looking for such a site?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I don't know that. That would be
the school district that would be looking for it, or the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Applicant, but we’re not a party to the agreement between
the school district and the Applicant.
VICE CHAIR KANE: If there’s a school
representative here tonight, would SB50 preclude me from
later asking that question?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had a question about
notification and story poles. Is the notification to
residents, and are the story poles, in compliance with the
Town’s ordinance and the Council’s direction?
MARNI MOSELEY: To start with the story pole
discussion, the Applicant requested an exception to the
standard story pole requirements within our story pole
policy based on existing use of various pieces of the
overall project area. The Council approved that and the
Applicant intended on implementing that.
What wasn’t anticipated was the level of guide
wires and safety supports that were going to be required
adjacent to some of the existing residential and commercial
uses, so some of those story poles were not able to be
fully completed. the Applicant is pursuing an additional
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modification of that exception at next week’s Council
meeting.
As far as the notification, we did the required
newspaper postings, as well as notified above and beyond
the 300’. I don't know how far it went; we established a
boundary when we started the Specific Plan process, and I
believe that includes somewhere between 500-1,000 notices.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is it fair to say that it’s
not in compliance now, but it will be in the future?
MARNI MOSELEY: They will be required to comply
with whatever Council determines at next week’s meeting.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Will the public have an
opportunity to speak about what they see when the story
poles are fully compliant?
MARNI MOSELEY: The Applicant is requesting that
the Council consider what is in place at this time. If the
Council requests additional poles be put in, then we would
have to discuss what that looks like and whether it merits
additional discussion.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: One more question about
story poles. Were there story poles erected as part of the
development of the Specific Plan? In other words, was there
an opportunity for the community to see what this Specific
Plan might look like and express their views?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MARNI MOSELEY: I don't know the answer to that.
I believe the Applicant will be able to speak to that when
they come up.
CHAIR BADAME: The Town Attorney is shaking his
head no.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: There were no story poles
required for the Specific Plan. There was no specific
project.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? All right,
we will now open the public testimony portion of the public
hearing and allow the Applicant and their team ten minutes
to address the Commission. As you speak, please be sure to
state your name for the record.
WENDI BAKER: Good evening, Madam Chair and
Commissioners, community members, and Staff. I’m Wendi
Baker with SummerHill Homes, and tonight myself, Andrea
Osgood with Eden Housing, and Don Capobres with Grosvenor,
will share our eight years of community engagement and
progress.
The North 40 has been a part of the Town process
for nearly three decades. When the North 40 Specific Plan
was approved last summer, the final planning phase began
with our project application. The Town’s vision has been
clear and the process public and transparent. While we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recognize that the draft Specific Plan’s evolution would
modify our proposal, we wanted to provide visual context
for the public to see how the Specific Plan translated into
a development proposal, so in 2013 we submitted an
application.
During this process we held over 100 community
meetings. We significantly modified and resubmitted our
Architecture and Site Review Application and Tentative Map
based on both the community input from these meetings, as
well as the changes in the approved Specific Plan.
We have also participated in the Town’s thorough
process, including two Conceptual Development Advisory
Committee meetings, the Historic Preservation Committee,
and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. We
constructed story poles, created and built a scale model,
hosted a community open house, and have made ourselves
available to meet with anyone interested or who had
questions. We recognize the challenges, which we have never
shied away from; rather, we have focused on effective
solutions.
First, traffic. Not only will we resolve some of
the existing deficiencies, but also equally important, we
have designed to encourage people to get out of their cars.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
With the first phase of the North 40 project we
will spend over $10 million in offsite improvements. This
is unprecedented in Los Gatos and we proposed to construct
these improvements first. This project not only meets the
EIR’s mitigation requirements, but also then goes many
steps further to implement real functional lane changes
along Lark, the Highway 17 onramp, and Los Gatos Boulevard.
We are dedicating private property to enable many of these
improvements.
Going beyond the car. Connectivity to the Town
through transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements is
key and forward thinking as the Town develops its Master
Bicycle Trails Plan. When challenged in the neighborhood
meetings to resolve connectivity not only within, but
outside our project boundaries, we worked with the Town
engineering staff, VTA, Caltrans, Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition, and community members to design bicycle lanes
from the North 40 to the Los Gatos Creek Trail, which will
safely connect the North 40 to downtown, Netflix, and
beyond the Town boundaries. We proposed multi-use paths
along our property frontage, as well as throughout the
project, and thanks to our partnership with downtown Summit
Bicycles, we are also including bicycle tuning stations and
part vending services.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We designed our residential program to satisfy
both the Town’s Housing Element requirements and the
residential unmet needs, as identified in the Specific
Plan. The Fair Housing Act does not permit discrimination
of any types, including families, so while we designed our
residential program to meet the needs and tastes of seniors
and millennials, a lingering question from the community
about impact to schools always remained. After many years
of conversations we entered into an unprecedented voluntary
agreement with the school district to acquire or enable
acquisition of land for facilities expansion. This is in
addition to the legally mandated mitigation fees, and our
significantly lower bedroom count and our design features
intended to attract a millennial buyer.
The North 40 also achieves the minimum density
required to satisfy the Town’s Housing Element. After
lengthy public process the North 40 was chosen as a
significant way to satisfy the state’s requirements. Phase
1 will satisfy 237 of the 270 units identified to be
developed on the North 40.
Focus groups assisted our design process on what
a millennial wants in a condominium. The For Sale program
proposes agrarian architecture with three distinct product
types, including 19 different floor plans starting at 900
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
square feet. We have addressed all architecture comments
from Staff, the Town’s outside consulting architect, and
CDAC during our application process.
ANDREA OSGOOD: Hello, Andrea Osgood.
The senior affordable housing building represents
Eden Housing’s collaboration with Grosvenor and SummerHill
homes to meet the requirements of the Town’s BMP program.
By delivering these units in a standalone building, we are
able to restrict to households age 62 and older. As well,
the standalone building allows us to put together a
financing program that allows us to target these units at
much deeper affordability levels than is required by the
BMP program.
Our building is located in the heart of the
district above the Market Hall and will be an exciting and
engaging location for our seniors.
DON CAPOBRES: Don Capobres. I have really smart
partners. People know I talk too much, so I’m going last,
so I appreciate that.
As required by the Specific Plan, we’ve
commissioned an economic analysis of the impact of our
retail proposal on downtown. This report was presented to
the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. Tim Kelly,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
President of Keyser Marston, is here tonight to address the
report.
The conclusion is that there is significant unmet
retail and restaurant demand in the market area for the
North 40 and for downtown, and this demand is expected to
grow significantly through 2020. The North 40 is well
positioned on the north end of town to service employment
growth at Roku, Netflix, and Good Samaritan. The question
is why let these unmet demands continue to be absorbed in
Campbell or Willow Glen or other parts of south San Jose?
Market Hall has been a part of Grosvenor’s vision
on the North 40 since about 2009 or 2010. One of the
questions raised at Conceptual Development Advisory
Committee was about the feasibility of Market Hall. We’ve
done quite a bit of research on Market Hall. There are many
directions that these can go. We’ve decided the focus of
this particular Market Hall will be the celebration of the
site’s agricultural heritage and a showcase for some of the
region’s best growers.
To help us program it, I’m very happy to announce
that we are now working with the co-owners of downtown Los
Gatos’ Manresa, Manresa Bread, and the Bywater. Not only
will they help us implement Market Hall correctly, but also
they will ensure that it is a unique Los Gatos gem.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Overall, a retail offering anchored by Market
Hall is a jewel for the north end of town. In the interest
of time, I’m not going to go through the entire program
with you, but we’d be happy to do that during questions and
answers.
Onto the agrarian inspiration and open space.
Meshing with our focus on the growers at Market Hall is our
inspired open space program that ties the residential and
commercial components of Phase 1 together. We are pleased
that the Town’s Historic Preservation Committee accepted
our interpretation of the historical agrarian feel of the
site. We have engaged the assistance of Zach Lewis of
Garden to Table to help program over two acres of
productive community gardens and orchard trees that can be
used for resident enjoyment, restaurant use, or provision
of healthy food for our seniors.
The Historic Preservation Committee also raised a
need to consider celebrating the history of the Yuki
family. We will continue to work with the family on
concepts to do this. They are immensely private, but we
will find a way to pay tribute to this longtime Los Gatan
family.
Continuing on the comments that we got at
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, the concept of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
replacing our proposed orchard trees with walnut trees was
also raised. Since then we’ve evaluated the pros and cons
of this change. We conclude that our proposal is still
probably the preferred option, but we would be happy to
share the rationale for this conclusion with you during
questions and answers.
Finally, and to the folks in the room here, I
would really like to conclude by thanking the many citizens
of Los Gatos who have dedicated so much time to vet the
many competing interests related to the North 40. We are
proud to have been part of this conversation for the better
part of a decade now, believe it or not.
We do feel confident in our ability to deliver a
uniquely Los Gatan neighborhood that we all can be proud
of. We’ve had partnerships with agencies, other community
partners that we’re proud of and just being part of that
conversation, and we look forward to continuing that
conversation.
We have quite a few members of our design team
available to answer any questions that the Planning
Commission may have. With that, I did pretty well. I ended
with some time left, so thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Capobres. Thank you
Ms. Osgood, and thank you, Ms. Baker.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m going to look to the Commissioners to see if
they have any questions for the Applicant? Commissioner
O'Donnell.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I would just remind the Planning
Commission that because of the number of public comments,
you will have the ability to ask the Applicant any
questions during the rebuttal time.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m just going to ask a
question, because I know a number of people have raised
this, so perhaps it might be a good time just to raise it,
and that is some of the letters have said why don’t you
spread out the residential units? We all know, for example,
that had some of the residential units been put at the
other end of the property, they in fact would have been, as
I understand it, in a different school district, a school
which was agreeable to that. Perhaps if you could refresh
all of our recollections as to why that didn’t happen.
DON CAPOBRES: A lot of this conversation
happened over the last few years, and we’re (inaudible) to
implement the policies outlined in the Specific Plan, and
the Specific Plan calls for the residential to be primarily
located in the Lark District and the Transition District,
and so we’re implementing the guidelines found in the
Specific Plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The other point to make, and why you have a
Specific Plan in this case, is that there is not just one
property owner on the North 40. At one point in time I
think we’ve concluded that there were up 13 or 14 property
owners on the North 40. The Specific Plan is put together
to help those property owners work in a cohesive way as
properties develop. We don’t control all the property on
the North 40 to be able to implement everything that we
want to, so that’s another reason.
CHAIR BADAME: Mr. Capobres, can you explain the
rationale for eliminating the walnut trees?
DON CAPOBRES: I’m probably going to call on our
landscape architect, Ashley Langworthy, to help me out on
this.
The rationale on the walnut trees, and going back
to the slide, is two big issues, because we aren’t trying
to do just notional trees out there, we’re actually trying
to do production trees that can be harvested, and because
of how walnut trees are harvested you have to spread them
apart a little bit more. One of the down sides, especially
on Lark Avenue, which is the main setback and the main
interface between us and Highland Oaks, is you have less
trees, because they would be spaced farther apart, so you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would go from 146 trees, which we propose along Lark
Avenue, to 80 total trees.
The second issue that I am kind of comfortable in
speaking, and I’ll ask Ashley to come up and fill in
anything, is our understanding of what happens to the soil
when you have walnut trees is there is some toxicity or
chemical reaction that prohibits some of the undergrowth
that we would have with other orchard trees, so you’d be
limited in what you can plant under the trees.
I’ve exhausted my knowledge of walnut trees, so
I’m going to turn it to our landscape architect.
WENDI BAKER: Just as one other side note, there
are walnuts proposed within the application, but we wanted
to focus on a diversity of choices.
DON CAPOBRES: I think the conversation at CDAC
was about really taking a snapshot at this current history
or this current moment in time on the North 40.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, thank you. You can go
ahead.
ASHLEY LANGWORTHY: I want to clarify, is the
question why aren’t the existing trees going to remain?
CHAIR BADAME: The existing walnut trees. And if
you could state your name for the record, as well.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ASHLEY LANGWORTHY: Ashley Langworthy. The
existing trees have been on the site for a long time and
they’re at the end of their life, so it would not make
sense in terms of longevity to keep the existing trees. We
did study planting new walnut trees to keep that walnut
character that is loved by many in the Town, and as Don
expressed, there are certain issues with having walnuts,
and one of the big ones is the toxicity that walnut trees
leave in the soil, so there are very few species that will
survive under a walnut tree. Our intention is to have the
orchard trees overhead and then have a planting underneath,
possibly lavender or sage or some kind of herb planting,
agrarian planting, underneath.
Other reason is that walnuts have a longer period
that they are bare, so just aesthetically a lot of the
other orchard trees we’re considering bloom earlier in the
spring.
Then as Don mentioned, they need to be spread
farther apart than many of the other species.
I think also as Don said, this is our preference
from the design side, but I don’t think it’s a closed issue
if that’s a game changer.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for that explanation.
Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and thank you for
the presentation. I have many, many questions, but I really
want to hear from the public before I frame those
questions. I have really two kinds of big picture questions
about the site itself.
The first one is where is the school? If it’s not
on the site, what are the considerations about the plan
itself that said it shouldn’t be on the site?
WENDI BAKER: A school is a land use that would
be accepted with a Conditional Use Permit in the Specific
Plan. There’s no site identified within the Specific Plan
for a school, however, obviously we have heard the comments
about school sitings. It’s very challenging on this
property to place a school, because of its proximity to the
freeway.
This is actually a very real environmental issue.
There’s a 500’ setback that must be obtained, and so pretty
much the majority of the site is not buildable for a
school, and then the places where it is constructable,
there are existing office buildings, for example, along Los
Gatos Boulevard, that were very recently built. Then the
other area would be essentially the second project
entrance.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As far as the school, and I think the school
district is here and can speak on it, but the way that this
agreement was arrived at was essentially establishing the
cost for acquisition of land, be it on the North 40 or
beyond the North 40, so that the school district could
ultimately expand its land, and therefore expand
facilities. It was completely voluntary, but there was a
basis behind it. I think that it wouldn’t be very smart for
me to talk about where we’re looking at land.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, did you have a
follow up to that?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes. And I appreciate that.
I understand the challenge with the school, but I also
think that it’s important to look at options of locating it
on the property, and so I appreciate seeing this drawing
and wonder if you would provide it to us so that we can
consider that as we deliberate on this.
WENDI BAKER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had another question about
the site, but not the school.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: When I walked the site and I
started looking at particularly the guiding principle that
the North 40 will embrace hillside views, I was struck by
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the layout and the grid pattern of the North 40, which I
would characterize as north, south, east, west rectangular
grid, and when I looked at the hillsides and I looked at El
Sereno and El Sombroso, they did not fall north/south. Were
you aware in laying this out of the location of these
mountains that are very important to Los Gatos, and did you
consider aligning the pattern of the site such that you
could get hillside views?
WENDI BAKER: There’s a lot of history on this.
This was looked at very early on. Essentially there are a
couple of constraints on the property. They do wrap the
property, so while you’re speaking of two peaks, there are
hillside views that are outside of just those two peaks.
Ultimately there’s an existing street grid
network, Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark, 85, and 17, which
happen to be quite lineal as well. Then there were
locations that were pretty much set due to the existing
street network of Highland Oaks, which was desired to make
some sort of almost a four-way intersection with limited
access behind you, and then there was a midway point, which
is now Neighborhood Street on the plan. So there are the
existing street networks.
This has already been constructed right here and
right here. You become constrained, and so we looked a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flipping the site effectively 45-degrees, like what you’re
speaking of, so that those views could be going towards the
mountains more directly. There are a lot of challenges with
doing something like that, both from an infrastructure
perspective and a site visibility perspective where the
access points were proposed in the Specific Plan.
The other thing is that when you flip a plan like
that you ultimately end up with a lot of extra spaces, and
reaching that density that’s required for the Housing
Element, which we could have used as open spaces but we
chose to put them in different locations instead. So what
we did was focused on view corridors. Again, it may not go
directly to those peaks, but it does serve a view of the
mountains from inside of the site.
There’s a 30’ setback that’s a perimeter buffer
zone, and that in the Specific Plan is actually what is
noted as being the primary view corridors, is on the actual
perimeter of the site, which is why that 30’ setback
exists, and why there’s an additional 20’ where there is
only 25’ of height permitted, so the first 50’ of the site
you’ll see is all two-story. That was drafted in the
Specific Plan just for the reason that you’re talking
about, for those hillside views.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then when you follow this pattern, we have these
streets and paseos throughout the property, so if you’re at
this open space, or you’re at this open space, you have a
clear shot through those paseos. If you’re at the
demonstration garden, you can be standing here at the edge
of the community garden and see the hills, or in this
garden, or here, or again, here going up. Sometimes your
best view corridors end up being your green spaces, your
paseos, and your right of ways.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I too want to hear all the
comments from the public, but I did have one conceptual
question about the market rate units. In one of the earlier
versions, I think before the Specific Plan was adopted,
there was a section of the development that was going to be
not senior affordable housing, but senior step-down
housing, and senior is a well-documented need in the Town
of Los Gatos. When we looked at the Housing Element, the
population has been aging in Los Gatos and there’s a need
for more options for seniors.
My question is when you make your remarks earlier
you talked about the market rate units, that you can’t
restrict them to one group or another because of the fair
housing law, but in reading the justification letters there
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was no mention of seniors, other than the senior affordable
housing units, so I’d just like to understand how the
market rate units could possibly serve the unmet need of
senior step-down housing.
WENDI BAKER: I can start with nowhere does it
say that you have a defined percentage of unmet needs,
right? And actually the millennials are the largest pool of
population in the United States right now, so when you
actually look at who is a big unmet need, that’s a very
large population.
Some of the units, while they may not be
designated as senior—because you can’t really designate
senior units throughout the property, you have to do it in
one designated location, hence, our senior affordable
proposal—you would have to walk up one flight of stairs,
but we had shown there are actual flats within these
condominiums where it’s single-story living. Then there are
ten market rate apartments that also have elevator access.
So in addition to those 50 units that you see, there are 20
flats that are all one level living, and then ten
apartments, so you have another 30 units on top of that
that offer that single level living. We are trying to
accommodate for that. We can’t restrict people to only in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that. I don't know if you want to talk about the other
move-down building.
DON CAPOBRES: I don’t like rewinding history all
that much, especially on this project, and there’s been a
lot of history, but at one point in time the draft Specific
Plan allowed for a height of about 55’ with additional open
space. When that was in existence in the Specific Plan we
had proposed a move-down housing program, and move-down
housing is single-story, no stairs, service by elevator, no
yards. We can’t say this from a Fair Housing Act
perspective—I guess I’m about to get in trouble—but we
designed them for a move-down buyer and away from amenities
that would typically attract families, so instead of a big
yard, you’d have a big terrace.
But because of utility the 55’ height allowance
in the draft Specific Plan did not make it through Town
Council last summer, and ultimately it did kind of thwart
our opportunity to build that product type. I can go
through why that is, why you can’t build it, but it was
kind of a Specific Plan level conversation.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I want to return to something
Ms. Baker said about schools on the property. You said we
were restricted from building a school, and I think I’ve
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
learned that you’re essentially correct, but I was
wondering if the Town Attorney could give his erudite view
of why in fact we couldn’t do that?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think Wendi didn’t mention
that under state law there are certain parameters where you
can and cannot build, and one is, like you said, it has to
be so many feet away from the freeway, it has to be so many
feet away from the gas station, and the overhead that was
put up there, you are limited to a certain area, and then
within that certain area there are individual owners where
there are buildings that are already built on, and so
that’s the diagram up there which leaves very little on the
property you can. The Specific Plan does allow for a school
to be built on there, but we didn’t designate any specific
area that would require a school to be built.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you both.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioners, are we
ready to wrap it up and hear from the public? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Baker.
We will now invite comments from members of the
public. Due to the number of speaker cards, I’m going to
call your names three at a time. You will have a full three
minutes to make your comments. As you’ve noticed, a yellow
warning light will come on, and that will tell you that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you’ve got 30 seconds before the red light comes on, and
then your time will be up. Commissioners may have questions
for you at the conclusion of your remarks.
Our first three speakers will be Anne Robinson,
Kathleen Willey, and Ray Kearns.
ANNE ROBINSON: Anne Robinson, 201 Charter Oaks
Circle.
I would like to compliment Grosvenor on the time
and effort they have exhibited through this entitlement
process and on the work that they have done with our
community to address all of our concerns. I have three
concerns regarding the current North 40 application.
The first concern, consistency, is based on one
of the Guiding Principles for the North 40. The principle
is that the type, density, and intensity of the new land
use shall be consistent with that of the immediate
neighborhood. I do not see how the density of this proposal
is consistent with the immediate neighborhood, which is
Highland Oaks.
Most of the Highland Oaks are ranch style homes
with, at the most eight, homes per acre, and the North 40’s
residential density looks at least double the density of
the immediate neighborhoods.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, how does this proposal achieve the theme of
the 2020 General Plan of preserving the existing small town
character of Los Gatos?
There is also one area on the plan along Los
Gatos Boulevard between the gas station and the office
buildings where the developer proposed housing units, and I
was under the impression that the area along Los Gatos
Boulevard was to be all commercial to be consistent with
the existing office buildings.
Please lower the density of this proposal by
reducing the housing in the Lark District by at least 100
housing units, and use these 100 housing units in the
northern district, still using the 20 units per acre
density. By reducing the number of housing units, the
proposed development will be more consistent with the
existing neighborhoods, preserve the small town character
of Los Gatos, and provide more open space so it reflects
the rural and agricultural history of the site, and this
will also decrease the impact on the Los Gatos School
District.
My second concern is the lack of integration of
the commercial and residential components. Instead of
having the Lark District all residential, and the northern
district all commercial, integrate the commercial and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
residential components of this development, which will give
rise to a more balanced development and mitigate some of
the traffic and parking issues. I don’t feel it is a good
idea to give the developer of the first 20 acres of the
development all the residential component of the Specific
Plan. It would be best if there were a master plan for the
entire 40 acres so that this project is not developed in a
piecemeal fashion.
My third concern is the several pending
developments close to the North 40, such as the medical
buildings on Samaritan Drive and Samaritan Court, which
will provide a net increase of 364,726 square feet to the
immediate area. At the end of Lark is the Albright
development, which is only half completed, which will add
an additional 242,500 square feet. Then coming in the
future is the Dell Avenue plan, which calls for the
development of over 2 million square feet. The impact of
these nearby developments needs to be carefully considered
when approving any development on the North 40. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Robinson. Kathleen
Willey.
KATHLEEN WILLEY: Good evening, Kathleen Willey,
135 Cardinal Lane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My husband and I moved into this charming town of
Los Gatos five-and-a-half years ago with our young boys. We
chose Los Gatos for the small town feel, being able to walk
and bike to school, and to educate our children in
excellent schools. Therefore, my biggest concerns about the
North 40 development are how it will impact the safety of
our children and how it will impact the schools.
We currently walk or bike to Blossom Hill School
every day. Our neighborhood, with no sidewalks or bike
lanes, is already a cut-through for Los Gatos High School
kids and for cars trying to avoid Los Gatos Boulevard.
Safe Routes to School has been trying to get
people out of their cars and onto their feet to avoid
excessive traffic. With the added population and cars that
320 homes in the Los Gatos School District will bring, I
fear people will be unwilling to do this, creating
additional pollution and dangerous conditions around our
schools.
Additionally, getting to a Los Gatos trail at
Vasona from east Los Gatos will become even more dangerous
for bikers and walkers. Sadly, there was a fatality on Lark
Avenue with a biker not too long ago. Lark and Blossom Hill
are very narrow; I don't know how successful an additional
bike lane would be there.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m pleased to hear the developer say that they
would like to encourage people to get out of their cars, so
I propose that the developer build a pedestrian bridge to
at least make it safer for people getting to the trails.
Also, how can a proposal for 320 homes be
approved when the current Los Gatos schools are so
overcrowded already? I believe that there’s still a
discussion of including a school in the North 40. I would
hope a school has precedence over a gas station. How can we
move forward with any development until we know when or
where this school might be built?
The Specific Plan of the North 40 called for
housing in all three districts. There is no reason to crowd
all the housing into our school district.
Furthermore, one project goal was to appeal just
to seniors, young professionals, and empty nesters, thus
avoiding school impacts. Now we find that out of 320 units
planned, 135 will be two bedrooms and 54 will be three
bedrooms. This violates the Specific Plan guidelines that
the project should mitigate the impacts on schools.
The North 40 should spread the 320 homes into
additional phases in different school districts to avoid
overly impacting our schools. As a mom and tax paying Los
Gatos resident, I urge the Town to not let the greedy
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
developers compromise the safety and education of our
children. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Willey. Our next
speaker is Ray Kearns. Last call for Ray Kearns. All right,
I’m going to call the next three speakers. Steven Ferla,
Chris Chapman, and Eric Wade.
STEVEN FERLA: My name is Steven Ferla; I live on
Los Gatos Boulevard at 16345 Los Gatos Boulevard in the
Villa de Los Gatos.
I’ve watched several developments around that
area in the last few years. I’ve shown up at meetings and
opposed them. They’ve gone through anyway. One is on
Caldwell Avenue, and without question that added to the
traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard. The next one is on Los
Gatos Boulevard between Mitchell and Roberts Road, a very
high-density project, and that has immensely added to the
traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard, as I live right next door
to it.
I don’t believe a word that anybody would ever
say; including an Environmental Impact Report that says
traffic won’t be a problem.
Further, I’m looking at the Guiding Principles
here. “The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos.”
Well, this is the first that I’ve actually seen a picture
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of it on a screen, and it looked like a city to me. Didn’t
look like it was going to have the look and feel of Los
Gatos.
“The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees,
and open space.” Every day I drive down Los Gatos Boulevard
towards Campbell, and I drive back home on Los Gatos
Boulevard, and every single year the view of the hillsides
gets less and less, because the buildings get taller and
taller.
“The North 40 will address the Town’s residential
and commercial unmet needs.” I think that’s spoken for. I
don’t believe that that will happen.
“The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts
on Town infrastructure, schools, and other community
services.” I think it will make it worse. That’s all I have
to say. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Ferla, for your
comments. Next speaker.
CHRIS CHAPMAN: Hello, my name is Chris Chapman;
I live at 201 Mistletoe Road in Los Gatos.
I’d like to talk about a backup plan. What
happens when five years from now the Dell Avenue complex
has been developed, the Netflix facility is fully up and
running, and because there is no 85 south entrance ramp on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Winchester, that means all of that traffic is going to have
to go south on Winchester, turning left on Lark, right past
this new development. We have this problem, the Town, where
there is no real solution to the beach traffic that we have
in our town, and five years from now there’s going to be no
real alternative to the traffic that this environmental
study didn’t address.
So I’d like to know—we talk about what’s going to
happen 20 years from now—what is our backup plan five years
from now? Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Chapman. Eric Wade.
ERIC WADE: Hi, Eric Wade, 17701 Bruce Avenue;
I’m actually in Monte Sereno. I have a letter here I just
wanted to pass out to the Commission.
CHAIR BADAME: Yes. Did you wish to speak as
well?
ERIC WADE: I am actually the Chairperson for the
Site and Architecture Commission over at the City of Monte
Sereno. We don’t get big crowds like this, but we review
only residential projects. I’m also a design build
contractor and a third generation in the Town of Los Gatos.
All the things I’ve been hearing from everybody
makes a lot of sense. I’ve just put a few of my thoughts
down on a piece of paper there. Some of my numbers are off
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a little bit in light of some of the new developments, but
I also adjusted to Council members, who in fact you’re not;
b you’re commissioners like myself.
I was just bullet pointing some of the things I
thought would be beneficial to the development. I think
everybody understands that this most likely will be
developed sometime in the future, but again, obviously to
consider how it conforms to the development plan or a
residential site plan that the Town of Los Gatos has.
I was hoping for possibly a larger orchard
section along Lark Avenue to commemorate the Yuki family
orchard, which my father actually worked in back in the
fifties, so maybe a greater setback, and just maybe bring
the total height of the dwellings down to two-story
maximum. The height of some of these structures seems
excessive, and certainly not aligned with residential
developments in Los Gatos.
So I’ve just got those notes on my letter there,
and hope you take them into consideration. Thanks for your
time; I appreciate it.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Wade. Our next
three speakers will be Sylvan Lepiane with Carl Lepiane,
and combined they will have three minutes together. After
that we’ll have Kaye Little, and Cindy Schneider.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SYLVAN LEPIANE: Good evening. Thank you very
much for allowing us to talk with you this evening.
I am here not to speak about the density, but
about our community’s safety. This is an issue, because I
am an operating nurse at O’Connor Hospital. People are not
discussing the facts that fire trucks, ambulances, doctors,
nurses, anesthesiologists, surgeons, any kind of person
providing emergency healthcare, to manage the traffic to
get to Good Samaritan Hospital is going to become a real
nightmare. I hope none of you have a family member or a
loved one at Good Samaritan Hospital needing emergency
care, either in their emergency room or in their operating
room, and have your physician or anesthesiologist trapped
in traffic. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. I need to remind you
again, no clapping, please. Mr. Lepiane, please.
CARL LEPIANE: Carl Lepiane, 15890 Shannon Road,
and a resident for 33 years in East Los Gatos, we call it.
I heard there was a model on display out in the
lobby here, and took one look at the model. There’s no
guessing about it, this project has too high a density. I
agree with the previous gentleman. Cut it back to two
stories maximum. It’s too big a project even for 40 acres
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
worth of property. It’s going to devastate the street. Too
much density, and that’s the end of my story. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Next
speaker.
KAYE LITTLE: First I’d like to thank the
Planning Commissioners for your service and for this
opportunity to speak. 453 Monterey Avenue in Los Gatos;
I’ve owned the home for 43 years.
Like many Los Gatos residents, when I saw the
story poles I was stunned at the height and density of the
proposed development. Then the phone calls from my out of
town friends, most of them over in Santa Cruz, began to
come in and they said, “What is Los Gatos thinking?” and I
didn’t know what to say to them.
I’ve looked at the model, and I have to say I
have some real concerns. It does not look and feel like Los
Gatos to me. I’m not a city planner, but one of things that
bothered me is it’s so square, it’s so right angled instead
of meandering, among other things.
As a retired high school teacher, I have serious
concerns about the impact so many new homes will have on
our outstanding schools. I do not believe that the size of
a home will discourage a family from purchasing a house in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Los Gatos that would allow their children to attend schools
here.
Then the Town Attorney stated the impact on
schools cannot be considered, but I had been told a couple
of years ago that if the homes were in a certain area, the
kids would go to Campbell schools, and Campbell wanted the
students and has room for them, but if they were pushed to
a different area they would go to Los Gatos schools, and we
all know that that is the difference in the price you’re
going to get for the houses.
I’m asking the developer to please make the
development less massive, and with a little more Los Gatos
charm. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, and can you also state
your name for the record?
KAYE LITTLE: Kaye Little.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Thank you very much.
CINDY SCHNEIDER: Hi, Cindy Schneider, 233
Mattson Avenue, Los Gatos. Good evening, Commission.
I would like to start by acknowledging the time
and the effort that the Grosvenor company has put into this
enormous project, however, it is obvious from the story
poles and the model in the Town Chamber’s lobby, that 320
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
homes and 66,000 square feet of commercial space is far too
much for 22 acres of the 44 acres on this development site.
The height blocks our views and creates a
concrete barrier. Why isn’t housing spread throughout the
project? The first Guiding Principle of the Specific Plan
for this project is that the North 40 will look and feel
like Los Gatos. This proposed development looks like every
other freeway housing development on 85, 280, or 101: a 35’
wall of concrete multi-story housing. This is not the Los
Gatos I’ve lived in for 30 years.
If the housing were spread on all 44 acres, this
project could begin to have a feel of being seamlessly
woven into the fabric of our community as the Vision
Statement for the North 40 dictates. The Vision Statement
also says that the North 40 should celebrate our
agricultural heritage, our hillside views, and small town
character. Well, I suggest we apply the Vision Statement
and Guiding Principles this community approved for this
project and them to start over.
The open space in this configuration appears to
be nonexistent. The open space requirement is 30%, but
somehow they are being allowed to count hardscape,
pathways, and sidewalks, so tiny strips of green are being
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
considered open green space. It’s very sad, and not at all
residential Los Gatos.
Again, I suggest spreading this housing out over
the total 44 acres, incorporating parks and expending real
green, try articulating the heights of these block-like
structures, possibly meandering the street so this ridged
design becomes softer and more unique, because that’s what
Los Gatos is. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Schneider. Next
three speakers are Jeffrey Aristide, Kim Vrijen, and Joseph
Gemisnani. And I apologize for any mispronunciation here.
JEFFREY ARISTIDE: Good evening, I’m Jeffrey
Aristide, 102 Nobel Court. I’ve lived there for 12 years;
I’ve got a wife and four children and they went through the
school system.
I agree, I don’t want to rehash what was said.
It’s basically much too robust. It should be scaled back,
and I agree, the housing should be spread through the whole
property. Frankly, it looks somewhat industrial.
I would say maybe about six years ago the
character of this town did in fact change, because of all
the excessive building, and the congestion and the impact
to the school system is going to be horrific. I’m assuming
there are going to be a few thousand people living there,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and maybe a few more thousand going there, so we’re talking
thousands of cars. To say it’s not going to have a massive
impact is ludicrous, so I would vote to have it scaled back
rather drastically, and spread the housing through the
property. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Aristide.
KIM VRIJEN: Hi, I’m Kim Vrijen from 268 Marchmont
Drive in Los Gatos.
Last year when the Town Council finalized their
North 40 Specific Plan, I was pleased. Although it wasn’t
the orchard that many of us wish could stay untouched, it
was well thought out and represented a plan that was at
least bearable. I then attended several education events
where the developer was present and seemingly engaged in
the community. This made me optimistic that we could maybe
create a new North 40 that was an asset to our community.
So when I saw the proposal by the developer, I was
appalled.
It feels like they ignored the conversations they
heard and went ahead with a vision that is not Los Gatos.
There have been many people who have worked very hard to
move the process forward, and instead of trying to minimize
the impact on the community the proposal maximizes the
developer revenue. The vision, in my opinion, was to spread
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the housing, open space, and commercial space throughout
the property. Instead, all the housing is in the first
phase, right next to Lark and 85, which is already a
traffic problem, and all the children will be part of the
Los Gatos Unified School District.
One of the requirements is that the development
look and feels like Los Gatos.
This is a senior housing development in the North
40. These are existing senior housing developments in Los
Gatos. To show the scale, there are two stories, there is
green space, there are meandering paths. This is a wall of
building.
This is shopping in the North 40. This is
downtown Los Gatos. Quaint.
This is a market in the North 40. This is what it
would look like in historical Los Gatos.
It’s supposed to blend in with the community.
These are all single-family homes. Here on the other side
of the street is the North 40, where there are no single-
family homes.
I think that when the North 40 was coming up with
their plan they went to the wrong location and copied
Santana Row. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments.
Joseph Gemisnani.
JOSEPH GEMISNANI: When I looked at the plan, I
was thinking it really doesn’t look like Los Gatos either.
Part of the problem, I think, is it’s huge. It’s
40 acres—I know they’re only developing 22, but 40 acres—
and when I look at it the architecture looks so similar,
but it doesn’t really look like Los Gatos. So if I’m
driving down Los Gatos Boulevard, I’m looking at the left
and going whoa, where’s Los Gatos? We’re entering
Grosvenorville, in honor of the developer. It’s going to be
Grosvenorville and won’t be Los Gatos.
I think in a big development they should have a
variation of architectural styles, because it’s just too
large of a tract. I think we need a variation, because Los
Gatos is eclectic; it’s not one style for 40 acres. There’s
Mediterranean, there’s the Old Town Spanish Colonial,
there’s Victorian, there are all kinds of styles, but this
is really modern. I know they’re from England, but they’re
bringing their modern English architecture here, which I
don’t appreciate.
We took a survey in 2011, and I took part in the
survey, and that survey was talking about the North 40
project. You took it online, the Town of Los Gatos did
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this, and the majority of people said they wanted
traditional architecture. One of the options was
traditional, modern, whatever. We wanted traditional. This
is not traditional. So I want you to ask the developer what
did they do with those survey results? Ask them.
Also, what style people wanted? The majority of
people want a Mediterranean style. I said this before, I
love Mediterranean, Spanish Colonial, Italian, whatever,
but ask them what happened to that? Why take a survey, ask
the people to do a survey, and then the results are
ignored?
So please, a couple things. It’s a big lot. Do a
variation of styles so it doesn’t look like one huge
development, that it looks like it maybe it was built over
time by different developers. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments.
Appreciate it. Ted Richards, Barbara Dodson, and Kiersten
Shum.
TED RICHARDS: Los Gatos Commission, fellow
townspeople, I’m Ted Richards; I live at 43 Fillmer Avenue
in Los Gatos.
I’d like to comment on the North 40 user
experience. I’m a user experience designer. I design how
you pay bills, sign up for memberships, apply for jobs, buy
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things online, and of note, I designed the interactive
kiosk for Walt Disney’s Celebration community located in
Disney Word, Orlando.
The North 40 reminds me of Disney’s Celebration
community. As a UNIX and as a UX designer, I got to
thinking about the North 40 user experience. It’s an
experience based in a walled enclave, much like a medieval
castle, surrounded by a moat of congested roads and
freeways. Inside are the subjects who will experience the
walled community, but not the free and open Los Gatos.
Yes, the paintings of ideal North 40 life
promises peace, prosperity, and harmony, much like
paintings I saw brought to me when I worked on the Disney
project by a painter who emulated Norman Rockwell. But
these are not the paintings of Los Gatos, a wonderful,
organic town with a hundred years of eclectic variety of
homes, shops, restaurants, schools, and of course our
wonderful population of citizenry.
I think we can do better by this open North 40
land. We can take down the walls and imagine how we would
welcome this space in Los Gatos, and provide the Los Gatos
user experience: family, work, volunteering, schools,
celebrations, and parks, open and free.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Real briefly, my cartoon. I’m also a cartoonist.
Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Richards.
BARBARA DODSON: My name is Barbara Dodson, 239
Marchmont Drive in Los Gatos.
I have a number of concerns about the proposal
for Phase 1 of the North 40. I’ve listed these in a letter
to you, so here I’d just like to emphasize two.
I think the number one problem is the excessive
density of buildings. The Specific Plan calls for homes in
all three districts, yet the developer has jammed all the
homes into the Lark area and maxed out the height of many
of the residential buildings. The residences are too close
together and too tall. The Specific Plan calls for lower
density in the Lark District with increasing density as the
development moves north. At least half the residents should
be moved to other phases and across the school boundary
line, and the buildings within the Lark District should be
more spread out with larger spots of green space in
between. Based on what I heard tonight, I hope the Town
Council will revisit the land use requirement of 20 homes
per acre.
A second key issue is look and feel. The Specific
Plan says the development should look and feel like Los
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gatos. This development in no way meets this goal. In the
Los Gatos North 40 narrative the developer claims the
architectural character in the Lark District combines, “the
colors, materials, rooflines, and proportions of the
historical agricultural heritage, while reducing the
detailing of the style down to its roots. The result is a
neighborhood based in tradition with a contemporary and
clean aesthetic.” This is just a justification for big,
massive, dense, boxy buildings. The architect has reduced
the detailing so much that it looks nothing like
traditional Los Gatos.
I think that when we talk about the North 40
looking and feeling like Los Gatos, we’re talking about the
Los Gatos of before the 1940s. We’re not talking about the
look and feel of the recently built townhomes on Blossom
Hill Road, or ranch homes built after the 1960s, or boxy
apartments from the 1980s. We’re talking about homes from
when the Town was surrounded by orchards. The so-called
“contemporary and clean aesthetic” which results in
massive, heavy boxes without architectural interest is not
what we think of as Los Gatos. The North 40 designs
completely lack the elements that give downtown Los Gatos
homes charm, such as porches, shutters, paned windows, bay
windows, setbacks, and front yards. We don’t think of homes
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that are higher than trees or that has two-story windows as
being traditions in Los Gatos.
This development should pay more than lip
service to the notion of recalling our Town’s agricultural
past. The tiny vineyard should be enlarged, alleys should
be widened, and extensive green space should be added. The
cottage cluster idea that the developer touted but then
entirely left out of the development should be used to
reduce density and increase green space.
Please require that the development celebrate our
history in fact, and not just in words. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Dodson.
KIERSTEN SHUM: Good evening, my name is Kiersten
Shum and my address is 15595 El Gato Lane, Los Gatos. I
first want to say thank you for everybody on the Planning
Commission. You go to all these meetings, and that just
takes so much patience. I know everybody is working very
hard, and I know that people at Grosvenor are all working
very hard. I’m a little bit nervous, but it’s okay.
My spouse—we’re gay—and the only reason I’m
saying this is because she is Asian and about 100 pounds,
and she rides her bicycle every day. She works at Oracle.
We live off of Los Gatos-Almaden, and she was really
excited recently because she realized that instead of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trying to cross 85 and go over to that pedestrian bridge to
get over to the Los Gatos Creek Trail to work downtown for
Oracle, she could go along Lark, and then Oka Road, and
then get to the Los Gatos Creek Trail.
Safety is really, really important. I thought it
was very striking, the woman who works as a nurse at Good
Samaritan, she was talking about people being stuck in
traffic. Safety and traffic go together. I didn’t know
about the recent fatality on Lark; that makes me feel very
sad.
I think that in terms of Los Gatos, it’s just a
great place. We have the beautiful Los Gatos library;
that’s the most amazing thing.
I think that in terms of what different people
have said, the eighth speaker was saying that her friends
had notice from Santa Cruz, so when people drive by, that’s
what they’re going to see, and that’s not the sort of
advertising that we really want for Los Gatos. We want
people to come to Los Gatos. We do need tax dollars. We do
need revenue for the Town of Los Gatos, but we need people
to come and to feel like this is a relaxing place.
We do need a place for housing. We do need step-
down housing for seniors.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As a teacher who has taught for 24 years, and I
worked over on the east side, even in the east side people
would come to our school, because it was one of the best in
our school district, and they would do whatever they could,
and people will do the same for Los Gatos. People really
want to live here, and a lot of those employees from
Netflix and different places like that, they’re going to
want to have their families here.
So thank you for your time. I really truly from
the depth of my heart appreciate all your time and all your
patience, and I know you all love Los Gatos. And thank you
for the library. I love the library. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: We appreciate your comments. Thank
you so much. Han Shum, Jak Van Nada, and Don McKell. Mr.
Shum? No? Jak Van Nada. No? Don McKell?
Can they hear me outside? Yes, they can. Perhaps
somebody could tell them that there’s some room inside.
There is some room in the benches if anybody would like to
have a seat, or from the outside if they’re listening.
Okay, we’re ready for you.
DON McKELL: Good evening, my name is Don McKell;
I live at 31 Mariposa in Los Gatos.
I’ve actually lived there for coming on 44 years,
the same address. My wife and I have raised a family, taken
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
advantage of the schools, the police and the fire
departments and other civic services of the Town. We, and
many of our neighbors, look with extreme skepticism upon
the negative aspects of the commercial and residential
development that this place represents.
If I go home to where I live on Mariposa and I
look at that neighborhood, which is composed of largely
quarter-acre lots with front yards and individual trees
owned by homeowners, if that place had been built with the
same density as this proposed cancer that is being planned
for the North 40, there would be no Los Gatos as we know
it. What we have in this town is something special, and
what this project seeks to do is ruin it, in my humble
opinion.
I don’t think any development of the North 40
should be approved without the intelligent widening of, and
improvements necessary to, Los Gatos Boulevard, at least
between Lark and Samaritan. One only has to consider the
abysmal impact to traffic on Winchester being brought about
by the approval of the new Netflix facility that somehow
put four separate traffic signals in a 400 yard space of
asphalt, and Netflix hasn’t even opened yet as far as the
major traffic that’s going to be going there.
That’s the end of my spiel. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Markene Smith, John
Thatch, and Dominic Hugyik.
MARKENE SMITH: Hi, Commission. My name is
Markene Smith; I live at 201 Drakes Bay Avenue in Los
Gatos, and that is off of National Avenue between Los
Gatos-Almaden Road and Samaritan Drive. I mention that
because it’s complete gridlock since the four new medical
centers and their associated parking lots have gone in;
patients, staff, and everything.
I want to point out that neither Gerald Grosvenor
nor the marketing and developing people he’s hired to
promote the current North 40 application lives or works
here. Those developers will never be affected by their
project’s homogeneity, urbanization, pollution, and
gridlock.
The Town of Los Gatos should require Grosvenor to
modify its Phase 1 application in order to comply with the
North 40 Specific Plan, which in my opinion it does not at
this point. The application should include public streets,
not private streets; wider pedestrian walkways; larger real
greenbelt areas, not just sidewalks; public park and
playground for the people who live there; and larger
community garden areas with individual raised garden plot
beds available to every unit that has no yard space to grow
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
food or other plants. We need some single-family detached
homes there, and a community center. If this is a Planned
Development without a community center, I don't know how
they’re ever going to have meetings or anything.
I propose that to mitigate catastrophic traffic
and transportation issues the Town should require developer
Grosvenor to fund 100% of the traffic improvements, because
Caltrans cannot provide matching funds due to greatly
decreased gas tax revenues.
This has changed since the EIR. The EIR is
outdated, in my view, since the medical buildings have
opened in our area right at that corner of Lark Avenue and
Samaritan Drive, the new Burton Way and… I don't know, that
whole area, Samaritan, Lark, and Los Gatos Boulevard.
Anyway, the developer should fund all the traffic
equipment, because he’s solely benefiting from this.
Then the developer should also fund 100% of the
VTA extension of the light rail to Vasona station, which
we’ve been waiting more than a decade for. There could be
an additional station besides the Vasona light rail at the
Town-owned property at the southeast corner of Winchester
Boulevard and Lark Avenue to serve the North 40 and
surrounding neighborhoods, and that would take a lot of the
car traffic out of the area, and also enliven our area. A
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot of millennials are now going to Campbell, because there
is a light rail stop right in the center of the city, and
they go there and come back, and they can go downtown from
there or wherever they want.
Los Gatos is one of Santa Clara County’s oldest
communities… I do want to just finish. The Town began in
1868 with just 100 acres of a Mexican ranchero that was
selected as the town site. The Town’s first 100 acres were
gradually developed over a period of 150 years.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. I have to stop you. We
have a lot of speakers. Thank you very much. Han Shum has
arrived, so I’ll allow him to go ahead of John Thatch and
Dominic. Apparently not. All right. John Thatch.
JOHN THATCH: Excuse me; I got in the wrong pile.
I’m part of the Applicant’s team.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, you did get in the wrong
pile. Dominic Hugyik.
DOMINIC HUGYIK: Good evening, Chair and
Commissioners. My name is Dominic Hugyik. I’m here tonight
as a volunteer with the Greenbelt Alliance.
Greenbelt Alliance is dedicated to shaping how
the Bay Area grows to preserve what’s special about our
region and make our communities even better places to live.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Greenbelt Alliance is proud to endorse the
North 40 Phase 1 as an example of smart infill development,
exactly the type of growth that Los Gatos needs to become
an even more thriving, sustainable, and affordable place to
live.
One of the most important actions we can have in
our communities is to use our limited land wisely to create
great neighborhoods that meet the needs of today, as well
as tomorrow. That means creating inviting places to live
that use land efficiently; create walkable, verdant
streets; and add new homes for residents across the income
spectrum to help our pressing housing affordability crisis.
That means encouraging a mix of homes near jobs and
amenities with a rich array of transportation choices.
The North 40 Phase 1 proposal is a prime example
of this type of small infill development with a compact
design architecture that enlivens the streetscape, homes
for residents across the income spectrum, and a variety of
transportation choices, also including integrated green
spaces and high-quality green building features.
We hope it helps set a precedent for how Los
Gatos can become an even better place to live, so that
today’s teenagers can afford to continue to be a part of
this community as they graduate, our older adults can find
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an option to downsize when they no longer want to take care
of a large house, and our workforce can live close to their
jobs rather than face a long, grueling commute to the edge
of the region.
As the Planning Commission reviews the proposal
we have three recommendations.
That every opportunity be taken to create safe
spaces for walking and biking, particularly to cross Los
Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
That there is a commitment to provide free trans-
passes for all residents and employees, and someone onsite
committed to administering this program as part of a robust
transportation demand management program. That’s a
technique that has proven significantly to increase transit
use and reduce traffic and congestion.
In addition, we recommend that the North 40 and
other new developments like it in Los Gatos include more
homes to better meet the needs of our region without
turning to development on our open spaces at the edge of
the Bay Area where over 320,000 acres are currently
threatened by sprawl.
In conclusion, by transforming this land into a
walkable, well designed, mixed-use development the North 40
Phase 1 will help make Los Gatos and the Bay Area a better
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
place to live. We strongly support this proposal and
encourage you to approve it. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Sir, don’t go away. We have a
question for you from Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and thank you for
your letter.
In looking at the proposal, I’m a little
confused. Are you saying that it needs to be changed to
allow safe crossing of Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark, or are
you saying that as you’ve reviewed it, it is adequate?
DOMINIC HUGYIK: Just make sure that those
proposed changes are the right changes, that you review
them again and just make sure that they’re the most
optimal.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I may, one other follow
up. In terms of the Greenbelt Alliance and the housing, did
you look at the distribution of the housing on this
property in terms of it being concentrated in one area, and
do you have an opinion about the development from that
perspective? If the housing were spread over other areas,
would that change your opinion of the development?
DOMINIC HUGYIK: We just looked at the current
proposal as it is right now at 20 units per acre.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But in one area?
DOMINIC HUGYIK: No, we haven’t.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: You didn’t look if it were
spread out over the other areas, as well?
DOMINIC HUGYIK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Susan Freiman, Roy
Moses, and Ed Morimoto.
SUSAN FREIMAN: Hi, my name is Susan Freiman,
17380 High Street. Mom of two kids in Van Meter.
Same issues. I won’t go over it. We all hate it.
Brass tacks, from what I’ve read and what I’ve been looking
at it. Thank you to Town not City for keeping us educated.
RHNA; we’re being sort of forced between a rock
and a hard place. Our town wants to keep the way it is, and
it sounds like Sacramento and the powers that be, SB50 and
the RHNA numbers, are pushing us where we don’t want to go,
if I get this correct. It sounds like we’re not the only
town there. It seems to me that there are communities… I
heard stories of Los Altos or Hillsborough writing the
check and paying the fine. It sounds like we’re all letting
these developers frame the argument and push us. We have to
build it. We have to meet these numbers. Who’s saying we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to? And what are the backup plans? What are the
alternatives? That’s really all I have to say.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Mr. Moses.
ROY MOSES: Roy Moses, 16529 La Croix Court in
East Los Gatos.
I was here at the last Planning Commission, and
Commissioners and Chair, thank you for all the work that
you do. As you know, this is a very serious issue; along
with the last one we were here for a couple of weeks ago on
Shannon and Los Gatos Boulevard.
My comment to you was, and I’m saying it here
again tonight, that I’m into beauty. I’m so fortunate, and
our families and everybody here, to live in Los Gatos. Been
here for 47 years, raised five children, and I know our
grandchildren are not going to be able live here, and
that’s just the way progress goes. But fortunately we have
a chance to save the beauty of this town, and we’re
counting on you to listen to all these comments.
I’m very upset about the comments that were made
by the attorney, because obviously some things are already
in place that might make it very difficult for us to make
some of the changes that we feel are very necessary. So I’d
like to know from you, do you think that all of us here
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tonight speaking have a chance of changing the progress
that has been made to this point? Anybody?
CHAIR BADAME: Are there any questions?
ROY MOSES: I’ll pose it to the attorney.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: This is the public comment
period. It isn’t time for questions and answers.
CHAIR BADAME: We do have a question for you from
Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We’re only allowed to ask
questions of the speakers. Did you know that there is a lot
of water under the bridge, and what we did on Shannon was
by a different set of rules than we have tonight? Tonight
is a ten-year developed North 40 Specific Plan; that is the
law. As the Town Attorney said earlier, I love the Hillside
Standards law, and I need to learn to love this law; I
don’t have an attractive choice.
A lot of this is a done deal, but not a lot of
it. There are still things we can do. If you read the Staff
Report, we have a narrow corridor, and when we finish the
public hearing and the Applicant has had five minutes of
rebuttal, then we will actually get into the case and
discuss what we can and can’t do on the legal, narrow
corridor that they’ve given us. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes has a question
for you, as well.
ROY MOSES: Is this cutting into my time? I do
want to finish.
CHAIR BADAME: No.
ROY MOSES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: He’ll be given his full three
minutes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. I wonder if you
have some comments that could help us in terms of are there
some ways that this application is not consistent with the
General Plan or the applicable law that we have to apply
there? That’s really what I’m trying to listen for from
every comment, and to recognize where there is some ground
for us to look at the application versus the zoning, the
Specific Plan, the General Plan, et cetera.
ROY MOSES: No, because most of the public and
this audience I don’t think really have gone to meetings
before. This has raised the hair on our backs about what’s
going on, and I already apologized to my kids, my
grandkids, and all the other people that I was not here ten
years ago, or eleven years ago, to see really what was
going on, and to fight this thing tooth and nail. So our
job right now is to take it from this point and do whatever
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we can to mitigate and minimize what is going to take
place.
The Yukis have a right, and all the property
owners have a right, to do what they like, but this is a
community, and like I pointed out last time, it says the
“Town” of Los Gatos. This is not a city, and we don’t need
this type of ugliness taking place.
Now, you can drive through town… But you can’t
drive through town anymore. I’ve been here for 47 years.
You cannot keep putting more people into a smaller box
without killing us and suffocating us, and that’s exactly
what’s taking place, so this project over here has to be
minimized. It has to be minimized. You have to listen to
the people of this community.
It’s unfortunate that things have already been
done that kind of say it’s too late, buddy, you showed up
too late. So time is of the essence. This whole Bay Area
right now is in congestion and it is in gridlock, and it’s
going to continue that way, because it’s such a great place
to live, and because we are the brains of the world and
high-tech business, and we are all coming here, and
everybody wants to live here, and they’re paying the prices
to buy real estate to do that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One other comment I’ll make, I just found out
today that you can buy a house in the east part of Los
Gatos that has Campbell Union schools, or Union Elementary
School, and you cannot send your kids to Alta Vista grade
school; it’s been closed. You cannot send your kids to
Union Middle School, because it has been closed.
These people are moving into Los Gatos and they
don’t even know, because it’s just coming about right now,
they’ll have to go and transfer their kids and travel
farther distance to take their kids to school, which is
going to cause more gridlock. Who in the hell is planning
around here? Who is planning for the future? Nobody.
CHAIR BADAME: Please allow Mr. Moses to finish
up. He can’t speak with the clapping going on.
ROY MOSES: I’m not going to live long enough to
see what’s going to happen, but I’m going to do whatever I
can do to make sure that this community tries to stay at
least at the level that it is right now. We cannot continue
on this path.
And attorneys can do whatever they want to do,
but listen, you better make sure that the public is aware.
And I let the ball drop. I let the ball drop, because I did
not come to those Council meetings, and I’m kicking myself
and I will for the rest of my life. But you’re going to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hear from me in the future, and you’re going to hear from
the rest of these people.
I thank you for all you do, but all these people
are working behind our backs and not realizing what’s going
to take place; they’re going to hear from us.
CHAIR BADAME: Don’t go away. We might have a
question for you. Are there any further questions for Mr.
Moses? There is none. Thank you so much. All right, Mr.
Morimoto.
ED MORIMOTO: Good evening, my name is Ed
Morimoto and I live at 460 Monterey Avenue. I’m a long time
resident, a proud graduate of both Fisher and Los Gatos
High, and a homeowner for over 20 years. As some of you
know, I am also a member of the Yuki family, one of the
North 40 property owners.
While I have more than a casual interest in this
development, I also have had a front row seat to the North
40 public process, and certainly have attended more than my
fair share of hearings in these chambers. Mine surely is
but a fraction of the time and effort invested in the North
40 by dozens of consultants, Town Staff, elected and
appointed officials, and thoughtful community members such
as those here tonight.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For those first made aware of this development by
the orange netting, I imagine it’s hard to fathom, let
alone appreciate, the eight years invested in getting us to
this point. Work put in not only by Town government and the
developers, but by citizens of this community participating
in committees to advise the Specific Plan or Housing
Element, stepping up to join commissions such as this one,
or by organizing community groups like the Los Gatos
Community Alliance who stand for sensible Town policy.
Even those of us close to this process have
likely only experienced a fraction of the hundreds, if not
thousands, of pieces of public testimony, the reams of
impact studies ranging from traffic, to schools, to
downtown businesses, or the hours of debate on topics such
as meeting regional housing needs, the placement of
residences on the site, or the adequacy of traffic
mitigations.
Now, I mention this not to deter anyone from
voicing their opinion tonight, for the first time or the
fiftieth, for or against. I do so merely with the hope we
can all appreciate the breadth and depth of the discussion
that has gone into the future of my family’s orchard, and
perhaps be open to the idea that even if this plan doesn’t
align to one’s wishes or beliefs, it is one whose
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
compromises are the product of thoughtful and earnest
effort.
As some may cry unequivocally that the North 40’s
density and scale are not consistent with the Los Gatos
look and feel, I’d ask that they consider where our town
might be if our forebearers had been as uncompromising.
Many of us live in homes that were only farmland when my
family first arrived just 75 years ago. And how vibrant
would Los Gatos be without 17 and 85, roads carved out of
our orchards to connect us to our jobs, and to bring
customers to our businesses?
As we face a genuine housing crisis,
responsibility for which neither cause nor cure stops at
our town limits, isn’t it possible, just possible,
considering thoughtful, selective use of higher-density
over our traditional, sprawling, car-centric approach just
might give us a better change at preserving our quality of
life?
But my time runs short, so I’d like to close by
thanking you for the challenging task you are now
undertaking, and express my faith in your ability to
consider the full breadth of this eight-year journey, as
well as input you are hearing here tonight. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments, Mr.
Morimoto. You do have a question from Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I have to make this a question.
Do you know that we thank you for attending, and we thank
you for your family’s contribution?
ED MORIMOTO: Thank you for saying so.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, we are on target to
hear from all of you tonight, however, for now we are going
to take a 15-minute break.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR BADAME: The next three speakers will be
Olga Smith, Sivia Van Gundy, and Maryellen Burr.
OLGA SMITH: Identity is very important to me. My
full name is Olga Encisco Smith. Madam Chair,
Commissioners, thank you very much for your work for our
town. I’m very nervous, because I haven’t spoken in a long
time in a place like this.
The developers, I believe, are going to destroy
the small town character of my community, which is Los
Gatos. It’s mi casa.
I moved here in 1971, so that’s about 43 years
ago. In 1974 I opened a small folk art store in Old Town.
Old Town kept that character, so there were small retailers
there that made their things. Then Los Gatos changed. We
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
brought in chain stores, and ten years later I had to leave
my beloved business and move it somewhere else. But I still
live here.
I live at 157 Holly Hill Way, which is a cul de
sac from Garden Hill, which is two blocks from Lark Avenue.
I’ve been in that house for 43 years. I love that area. I
love the community. I love Vasona Park; I walk there every
day. My son is lower down the hill; we had parties. I
participate in the PTA at various schools: Van Meter, Los
Gatos High. I did fundraising events for their Week of
Mexico in downtown Los Gatos with the support of this
beautiful town.
For me it is very sad to see those orange things
there. I wish I had participated before, but really, my
life for the last 45 years has been very active, very full,
running all over the place.
This community came together when we had the
earthquake, and we rebuild from there. My husband was
injured in the quake of 1989, he broke his back; he was
coming home from Berkeley. So I know what the community and
how home is.
We used to pick apricots down Oka Road. Those
apricot trees are no longer there. My son lives here. He
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said, “Mother, don’t sell the house.” My husband died two
years ago. What am I going to do? I want to stay here.
This massive development will be (inaudible) and
cause serious injuries to our citizens. I have here a
police report. The police report says traffic collision
report. I was hit by a car that was speeding when I was
walking here. It happened on December 21st of last year,
just before Christmas. I was shopping at Trader Joe’s and
pushing my shopping cart, and a car is speeding and hit me.
If I didn’t scream he would have ran over me. Because I
screamed he put his brakes on. I have a bad back. I am here
since 6:00 o’clock.
CHAIR BADAME: Ms. Smith, I’m sorry, your time
ran out, but we appreciate your comments.
OLGA SMITH: Thank you very much.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you so much. Sivia Van
Gundy.
SIVIA VAN GUNDY: Hi, I’m Sivia Van Gundy and I’m
at 3 Kimble Avenue. Good evening, members of the
Commission. I really appreciate the hard work that you’ve
been going through, and being my fellow neighbors, I really
appreciate that. You are all my neighbors here in the Town
of Los Gatos. I’m not going to address the people behind me
at all, but thank you, as well.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It sounds like a lot of things have been done,
and I’ve lived here for 15 years, so part of it is my bad
for not participating in the development of the North 40
Plan. But I have a couple of suggestions.
I agree with everybody about the size and scope
of this development, and how it is totally out of character
with the Town of Los Gatos. I live on the hill up here in
an 1892 Victorian, and I’ve spent the better part of those
15 years restoring, with love, that Victorian and keeping
it within the character of the community that was
originally developed by the founding parents of the Town of
Los Gatos.
I would suggest to the Planning Commission, and
Mr. Schultz, I’m not sure how to do this, that we go back
and we investigate the EIR. The Environmental Impact
Report, I don't know for sure when it was passed, but it
sounds like it’s out of date with the recent developments,
and to say that there’s going to be no effect on our
schools and no effect on our traffic is ridiculous.
Right now my son is at the Los Gatos High School,
and we were told that it is so impacted that they are
adding trailers, and trailers, and trailers. We also have
been through two remodels of Van Meter Elementary School. I
don't know where they’re going to put these kids.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To use the phrase that this is being built for
millennials, well that’s great. Yes, there was an accurate
statement: Millennials are the single largest population
cohort in the United States today, because while I was
sitting here I looked it up at the U.S. Census.
Millennials, by the way, are people born between 1982 and
2000. That means some of the millennials are 34 years old,
and to say that they will not have children while they are
living in this monstrosity and have to send their kids to
school is an outright lie. They are 34 years old.
That being said, I would like for us to figure
out a way for the Planning Commission and the peoples of
Los Gatos to go back to the Town Council and ask that they
revisit the EIR. Thank you very much for your time and
consideration.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments.
Maryellen Burr.
MARYELLEN BURR: My name is Maryellen Burr; I
live at 85 Roberts Road, and I’ve lived in Los Gatos since
1985.
I just wanted to restate my concerns about the
impact on the schools, and I would like to see some
discussion with the planning about which schools these
students will go to, and how those schools will be able to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accommodate those news students. I don’t want that issue to
be ignored. Thank you. Good-bye.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, and good-bye. Hello,
Dick Glift, Anne Marie de Cesare, and Tom Thimot. I hope
I’m pronouncing names correctly.
ANNE MARIE De CESARE: Hello, my name is Anne
Marie de Cesare, and my family and I just moved here from
Campbell, specifically for the schools. We purchased new
construction on Los Gatos Boulevard at 236 Los Gatos
Boulevard, and it’s a Craftsman style that fits in with the
style of the avenue.
I just want to read a letter that I sent—and
missed the cutoff—so it can be added to the record.
My family and I are in favor of a limited
development and historic preservation of a large part of
the currently undeveloped Los Gatos North 40 orchard and
historic buildings, and we suggest at least half of the
orchard and all the historic buildings are set aside as a
public open space and child friendly museum.
As I understand it, the original plan approved by
the Los Gatos Council last year called for 270 housing
units on 44 acres, and after plan approval the project was
redesigned to compress 320 housing units onto 22 acres, and
added low-rise, low-income housing and 435,000 square feet
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of commercial space, and that the Los Gatos Town Council
communicated the development Guiding Principles to look and
feel like Los Gatos; to embrace the hillside views, trees
and open space; address the Town’s unmet residential and
commercial; and mitigate impact on the Town infrastructure,
schools, and community services. But these Guiding
Principles were ignored in the development plan after
approval.
The look and feel of the 35’ low-rise apartment
complexes, and the 435,000 square foot mall, and the 320
high-density homes do not conform to any of the Los Gatos
Town development Guiding Principles, and put a strain on
the Los Gatos Union and Los Gatos Saratoga joint high
school districts.
Please do not approve the North 40 development
project as it exists, but rather change it to something
that would preserve the historic orchard and implement
smaller scale development that would support rather than
strain the Town infrastructure, schools, and community
services.
Specifically, my family and I are opposed to the
current Los Gatos North 40 development plan for the
following reasons: 1) Traffic is already very congested
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
after 3:00pm on 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard. 17 South
and Los Gatos Boulevard would be…
Oops, I have to skip to my last two questions,
because I’m running out of time.
Here are some questions the Town should consider
before moving forward with any project approval: Has the
Town Council considered if the tax dollars collected from
the new development would adequately offset the additional
draw on Town resources? Would rental property owners
contribute a share of tax dollars proportional to those
homeowners to compensate for more students in the middle
and high schools? Would the existing elementary schools
even be able to accommodate such a large increase in
enrollment?
There’s more, and I’d just like to submit the
letter. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIR BADAME: And thank you, Ms. De Cesare.
DICK GLIFT: Good evening, my name is Dick Glift;
I live at 17670 Tourney Road in Los Gatos; been here for 37
years.
Things have changed since we got here tonight,
finding out that this plan doesn’t look like it can be
varied very much right now, so I’m just going to make
general comments to the whole situation here in Los Gatos.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Everything in this town is completely stressed
out, from schools, to parking, to driving on the streets,
and I don’t see how you can justify putting another project
in like this that is going to have an impact on everybody,
and you can see most of the people in this town don’t want
it, period. I think you need to go back with your attorney
and figure out a way to stop it.
Bottom line: no more development. We’ve come to
the limit in this town. You’ve got to start scaling back.
We just can’t live on every square inch of this town, and
have a car on every square inch of the street. You can’t
park anywhere now.
I know you guys are doing a good job. I don’t
mean to lay it on you guys, because you’re trying to do a
good job, but things need to change.
CHAIR BADAME: You can lay it on us. We’ll
listen. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.
TOM THIMOT: Hi, while I’m pulling up my talk
here, could you put up slide 16 of Don Capobres
presentation, please? Thank you.
Tom Thimot; I live on Johnson Avenue. I also co-
founded a group with my neighbor, Rod Teague, called Town
not City.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Like many of the people that have spoken here, I
was asleep for nine of the last ten years. Got a lot of
things going on. I ran a little thing called LGEF for a few
years to raise money for the Town schools. I’m very
involved in the community, sat on Parish Council at St.
Mary’s for a while. We all have lots of activities. I honor
your contribution sitting on the Planning Commission. We
all do certain things.
Unfortunately, it’s not until big story poles go
up that we all realize whoa, hold on, what is this? And I
get it. Since we started Town not City we now have 2,900
people on the site that are followers of it. When we make
posts now, 50,000 people click on them and view them; those
are Facebook’s numbers. 20,000 share our posts. 20,000.
It’s geofence; we only allow people that are either from
Los Gatos, live in Los Gatos, or are geofenced in Los
Gatos, to have those on their phone and their newsfeed.
When we did two SurveyMonkeys, 91%, over 1,000
people… When they poll people for the presidential
elections, 1,000 out of 30,000 is considered a very viable
sampling. Ninety-one percent say they don’t want this. Do
you know the number one reason they cite? Town character.
They cite traffic and the schools and everything else.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I realize that now we have the traffic and
schools impact, thanks to a statement of overriding
consideration, as Mr. Schultz will tell you, you really
can’t do anything about it. You hear the snickers in the
crowd. Everybody knows it’s a joke. We’re going to have our
schools overwhelmed. We’re going to have our roads crowded,
but you can’t do anything.
But like a jury, you’re akin to a jury right now,
there are subjective things in that 330 pages, or however
many pages it is, there are subjective things like is this
Los Gatos town character? Subjectively, you can say no, and
that is your job as the Planning Commission. You can’t
override the EIR. You can’t change the law, which is the
Specific Plan that was passed by a 3-2: Sayoc, Rennie, and
Marcia Jensen, those three, 3-2; that became law.
But there are subjective parts of that. Stand on
those, and say no to this. You have the ability on the
subjective parts of this plan; Mr. Schultz can coach you on
that. Say this is not Los Gatos, this is not San Jose, this
is not Santana Row, and this is not what we all moved here
for. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: We appreciate your comments. All
right, Kelly Havens, Dr. Joan Oloff, and Susan Burnett
along with Joanne Rodgers speaking together.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. OLOFF: I’m Joan Oloff; I live with my family
at 105 Sund Avenue in Los Gatos, and I work with my other
family at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, where I’m managing
partner for Los Gatos Medical Office Center.
Development is inevitable. None of us like it. My
request is to do things mindfully and thoughtfully.
I have a very personal interest for myself and
patients in our building, and that has to do with we have a
left-hand turning lane into our building now, and when we
developed our property, as some of you may remember 11
years ago, this was allowed to happen. Although it’s been
wonderful for us, it’s actually had a secondary issue, and
that’s it decongests Los Gatos Boulevard to a degree,
because as you probably know, because I deal with it every
day, the congestion on Los Gatos Boulevard has been
horrendous, and as was brought up earlier by one of the
nurses, it becomes a real safety factor for us, for our
patients. We have emergencies that happen in the building,
it’s just inevitable when you’re dealing with patients. EMS
comes in, and these guys can’t get to the hospital if they
can’t access across Los Gatos Boulevard.
I really would like to put it on record to say
this is not just an issue for site development; it’s not
just an issue for visual impact. It has to do with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
safety of our citizens, and it’s something that needs to be
dealt with not only for now, but long-term. There has been
some suggestion that it’s a short-term thing. It really
should not be a short-term thing.
If you go back and look at some of the
environmental impact reports that were done, interestingly
enough even the developer’s own traffic reports recommended
keeping it. Any changes that should be done to Los Gatos
Boulevard should really wait until you have the access all
the way down to Samaritan Drive, because if you piecemeal
this it’s just going to be a disaster. Right now it’s
already congested, and if we do these changes now and don’t
allow for this, the congestion is going to be horrific.
Thanks.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Dr. Oloff.
JOANNE RODGERS: Good evening, I’m Joanne Rodgers
from 15287 Top of the Hill Court.
SUSAN BURNETT: And good evening, I’m Susan
Burnett, and I live at 85 Ellenwood.
JOANNE RODGERS: This is a role-play of what
we’re dealing with in Los Gatos today.
SUSAN BURNETT: Hi, Joanne. I haven’t seen you
for a while. Want to come over for a cup of coffee? We can
discuss what’s happening in Los Gatos.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOANNE RODGERS: Sure. What time would work for
you to have me come by?
SUSAN BURNETT: Oh, it would be best if you could
get here by 10:00, because you’ll have a problem getting to
my house after that time. You know, they’ve been closing
off Massol and Ridgecrest because of the traffic unless you
live in the neighborhood, because 85 gets congested, so
traffic uses Highway 9, and then they cut through my
neighborhood to get to Highway 17.
JOANNE RODGERS: Oh, but Susan, I can’t come
before 10:00am, because there’s a line of traffic trying to
turn left off of Kennedy Road and onto Los Gatos Boulevard,
and when the light turns green the cars can’t move, because
it’s so blocked up on Los Gatos Boulevard, and I can’t turn
right on Los Gatos Boulevard before, but if I could, I’d be
stuck in the Van Meter traffic, and even worse, in the
parents dropping off their kids at Fisher.
SUSAN BURNETT: Gosh, Joanne. Well, if you can
make it to Highway 9, but don’t use North Santa Cruz
Avenue, it’s a parking lot, just make a U-turn and use the
parking lot behind Hult’s Restaurant, or try University
Avenue, because the problem will be trying to cross North
Santa Cruz Avenue to get up to Ellenwood.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOANNE RODGERS: I don’t think this is going to
work, Susan. I can’t make it to your house without getting
in a traffic jam, and we can’t meet downtown, there’s too
much traffic and there’s no parking.
SUSAN BURNETT: Well, why don’t we meet in
Saratoga? Can you avoid the traffic to get to a Starbucks
in Saratoga?
JOANNE RODGERS: Well, let’s see. If I take the
back way down Kennedy Road to Shannon Road, I could cut
over Short Road, then cut through Cherry Blossom to Los
Gatos-Almaden, then I’d turn right on Los Gatos Boulevard.
Well, I’d try to, and then I’d try to turn left on Lark,
and then left on University onto Daves. The hard part will
be crossing over. Oh, no. All of those roads are going to
be overcrowded even before the North 40 and Dell and Oka
are developed.
Susan, Joe and I have lived here 43 years, and
you’ve lived here most of your life. Have you ever seen
such disregard for the citizens of Los Gatos and our
families?
SUSAN BURNETT: No, and I guess it makes you
wonder why the story poles are incomplete. Did they not
want us to see and visualize how large the Phase 1 project
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is? What about Phase 2? And I understand there’s actually a
Phase 3.
CHAIR BADAME: We’ve got to finish up real quick.
JOANNE RODGERS: Okay. I think we need to change
the logo up there. That shows a lot of green orchards
leading up to our beautiful hills, and it has to be all
covered with homes and condominiums and commercial.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Thank you, ladies. All
right, I called Kelly Havens. Is she still around? No. All
right, Jan Olsen, Amy Despars, and Wayne Scott.
JAN OLSEN: Hello. Good evening, I’m Jan Olsen; I
live at 15189 Lester Lane. I live directly behind the
Office Depot, which is on Larkspur, which is directly
across the street from the North 40.
We moved here in 1994, and the Office Depot at
that point was a Nissan dealership lot that was just
nothing, because they had been out of business. Office
Depot was looking to build there, and I became part of the
charrette, which had ten or twelve teams of ten people
looking to see how we envisioned Los Gatos Boulevard. We
knew Los Gatos Boulevard was going to be a gateway coming
off of 85, and at that point we were how are we thinking
this to be? And all the way up Los Gatos Boulevard became
the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One of the things is it had to be pedestrian
friendly. We really didn’t want chains, but now look, our
town is full of them. Maximum height of Office Depot was
either 25’ or 35’, because we did not want it overbearing.
It needed to be pedestrian friendly. Every team had a
suggestion for the North 40, and none of them looked
anything like this. They were all open spaces, or parks, or
soccer fields, or little retail for the north people.
I have to tell you, this is not what I’m seeing
at all. This was in the works 20 years ago. I have been
going to the meetings since the Committee and the Town
Council and all that. I understand that you can’t deviate
from the Specific Plan, but I think what we need to do is
go back to the Town Council and have them change the
Specific Plan. We need to go back to that level and have
them fix this.
A couple of things. I think the model is very
deceptive, and I’ve pointed this out. All the open spaces
on the north end that show trees and open space is not
going to be. That’s all part of Phase 2. We do not know
what Phase 2 is going to be. I suggested they mark those
trees and open spaces with little cards labeled Phase 2,
just like they have everything else labeled, but it still
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hasn’t been done, and it’s not going to be what it looks
like, folks.
I would like to see and hear what Phase 2
entails, because that’s the whole thing. The 400,000 square
feet of commercial space, and the proposed hotel, and all
the other. I want to see the whole thing, not just this all
crammed area.
I was told the senior move-down housing would
have been three stories, but it was denied, and they can’t
put an elevator into two stories, so therefore they’re not
going to have senior housing.
If they’re going to doing neighborhood-serving
businesses, they need to ask us what we want, because
nobody has come to our neighborhood, and we are directly
behind. We’re closer than the people behind the Rotten
Robbie.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Olsen.
AMY DESPARS: Hi, my name is Amy Despars, 267
Longridge Road.
I actually stood here a month ago in front of
you, and I am truly sorry that you’ve had to deal with all
of this, because this was ten years ago when most of you
were not on the Planning Commission.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I did hear someone say that it is water under the
bridge, but when this started—unfortunately, I was not
sleeping ten, twenty years ago—as Jan reminded us, there
was that General Plan for the Los Gatos Boulevard that we
all worked on. This didn’t fit it. Ten years ago there
wasn’t the Gateway Medical Building, the Bluebird Lane, the
Laurel Mews, Panera. Those are all the things that I’ve
stood up here and talked about. Where is the growth? Where
is the vision of our town? I’ve been standing up here
through all these developments over the last 20 years since
I’ve lived here. I’m wondering what happened to that
General Plan for the Boulevard. Where’s the General Plan
that addressed traffic, housing, retail? Gateway, right
where the new Stanford development was supposed to have
some commercial retail space in it; it is medical. We did
not want that in our neighborhood.
So I’m standing here in front of you. I feel bad
that you have to clean up these pieces, but we need to
bring back the General Plan, and as Mr. Thimot says, speak
with your attorney, figure out a way that we can make this
work and fit our town. You are the stewards of our
wonderful town. You hold the future of our charming town in
the palms of your hands. You can either keep Los Gatos
wonderful, charming, historic, family friendly, a true
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
community, a place where people want to come and retire, or
come and raise their families because of the schools, the
resources, the history, the supportive community we live
in.
Or, you can choose to turn it into a small town
that resembles a developers dream come true, a mini-city
with a lot of houses and buildings crammed into small lots
just so the developer can fill his pockets at our expense,
a place with lots of traffic, and an even more frustrated
group of people who will want to move away because they are
tired of it taking 30 minutes to get from one side of the
town to the next.
We voted for you to make decisions that will
enhance our community, not jeopardize our town’s
infrastructure, schools, and community services. Please
listen to the people of this unique town and do not feel
you owe the developers anything. We live here. We love this
town. We have a commitment to making it the best it can be,
as do each of you.
Just because the Applicant is asking for the
maximum development standards does not mean you have to
accept the application. I encourage you to use the minimum
required standards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There is no specific timeline established for the
North 40 Specific Plan, so I encourage you to take your
time and look into every aspect of this project and make
sure it will fully fit, and as it says, celebrate our
history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small
town character. It is respectful of precious community
resources and offers unique attributes that enrich the
quality of life of all of our residents. That is what the
North 40 needs to represent; it’s written right there.
Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Despars.
WAYNE SCOTT: Hello, my name is Wayne Scott and I
live at 108 Magneson Terrace in Los Gatos.
This is the second time that I’ve spoken in front
of this body of fine folks. It’s been an education; each
time I come here I learn more, and I appreciate now just
this evening the constraints that you all had to deal with.
Last weekend I was at a Persian celebration with
a bunch of people who came from all around, and we got to
talking about where do people go for dinner and things like
that, and it’s interesting that two of the couples there
said, “We don’t go to Los Gatos anymore,” and I said, “Why
not?” and they said, “Well, the traffic. It’s just not a
joy to go there, so we go to other places now, because it’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just to get there and to find a place to park.” And I’m
thinking, we haven’t even added these additional homes on
here. It’s interesting that people are becoming aware of
the issues we’re having down here, and they’re making some
decisions about where they want to do business, and traffic
is part of the equation for some of these folks.
There have been so many things that were brought
up tonight, it’s hard to add anything to what has already
been said, but one thing I have in particular is traffic.
The traffic is just incredible going down Los Gatos
Boulevard. I commute to go down the Los Gatos and try to
get on 17; it takes me a couple of lights. Coming back is
also a lot of fun.
So I see the plan over here, and this A street. I
mean all the residents are going to come in and out of
that, off A Street onto Lark, and I’m thinking holy cow,
how are people even going to get out of that place, because
there’s no light? Then we have all these people coming
down, all getting to Lark, trying to get on 17. It just
seems like they’re not going to be able to get out, or
something is going to happen.
Then I was looking at this EIR report, and
there’s also something back here that’s I guess is Exhibit
3. It says, “Conflict with the applicable congestion
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
management program,” and then it says, “Less than
significant impact with mitigation measures incorporated.”
This just doesn’t make sense that that’s the case with
adding…
Oh, in the report, something about, “3,819
average daily trips.” Well, they’re going to go someplace.
This is just not correct. This EIR report just needs to be
reviewed.
CHAIR BADAME: Thirty seconds more.
WAYNE SCOTT: Oh. I guess I have nothing else to
offer, but the EIR report doesn’t reflect reality. That
intersection down there is just a terrible situation, and
these houses are going to make it worse.
I think a couple of suggestions. Spread the
things out over Phase 1 and Phase 2. We need houses here,
that’s for sure, but boy, to put them all in that one
location just seems like it’s going to be a disaster for
all of us. Thanks.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments. Rod
Teague, Jim Bennette, and Diana Pleasant.
ROD TEAGUE: Rod Teague, Johnson Avenue, and
thank you for hearing us today.
One of the things I want to point out here is
earlier it was brought up by the developer that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Specific Plan wanted the housing in the Lark District. So
here is your Specific Plan, and here, I’ll read a couple of
things.
Lower intensity residential, it asks for cottage
cluster housing, which is generally characterized by
detached housing, which is probably the only housing that
is semi in character with Los Gatos, but this plan doesn’t
have any cottage cluster housing.
If you go to the other districts, you’ve got the
Transition District, which I think there might be a little
bit of housing on. I know there’s not much, if any. It does
call for residential, including condominiums, live/work
flats, multi-family flats, multiplexes, and row housing.
And then we get to the Northern District, which
it also calls for housing.
So this is our Specific Plan. This is the rule.
This is the guideline that we made. What I want people to
know here is that the Specific Plan is yours. It’s not
theirs, it’s not the Council’s; it belongs to us. It has
maximum on there. It has maximum homes. We don’t have to go
to the maximum homes; it’s kind of irrelevant. We need to
accept a plan that fits in with the look and feel of the
community.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Specific Plan did a horrible job defining
what the look and feel of Los Gatos is, because I think
most of us here would say the look and feel is probably
like our historic area. If you go to the Northern District
on Los Gatos Boulevard, you’ll see a lot of tile roofs,
you’ll see a lot of Mediterranean style housing, so we’re
going to have this entire contrast.
I think what everybody needs to realize is don’t
buy into the scare tactics. I hear the developers using
things like RHNA, and we’re going to get our municipality
seized by the state. That’s happened in one case, in
Pleasanton, and that’s because Pleasanton gave them the big
what-know-what-I’m-talking-about.
We’re standing on the tracks right now. We’re
staring at a train coming down the tracks, and we can do
something about this, but we have people telling us to look
at the pretty meadow on the side, so I think it’s time for
all of us to step off the tracks and do something sensible
and reasonable, so don’t accept this current application,
please.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Teague, for your
comments. We have a question for you from Vice Chair Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: You mentioned Pleasanton
getting in trouble for what? Not abiding by the Housing
Element?
ROD TEAGUE: Yeah, they didn’t…
VICE CHAIR KANE: How did they get in trouble?
ROD TEAGUE: Well, they basically told the state
we’re not going to provide low-cost housing. I don’t think
that’s anything Los Gatos ever intended to do. We chip off
our low-cost housing when we can, and I think if the state
sees that you’re making an effort there’s no reason for the
state to come after us. But this has been used as a scare
tactic all the way through.
We can do something sensible on the North 40. Put
100 units on the Los Gatos School District side, put
another 100 units on the Campbell side, and we can make it
high-density. Put 200,000 square feet of commercial in the
middle to serve the community. We’re not serving just the
community by putting 501,000 square feet of commercial, we
are serving the Valley, and we’re turning it into a strip
mall. You point your finger in any direction and you’re
going to see the same strip mall.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Teague, I didn’t mean to
reopen your presentation. My concern is that I know of a
municipality that told the state no, and runs the risk of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
losing state funding, and then they were successfully sued
by a watchdog agency of civilians for not conforming with
the Housing Element. California has to provide housing, and
municipalities resist that sometimes, because the
requirements are pretty severe, and in the case I’m
familiar with, when they resisted, it wasn’t the state that
got them, it was a watchdog agency that successfully got
them, because that’s one of the Swords of Damocles over our
head. That’s the end of my question.
ROD TEAGUE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Teague. Jim
Bennette.
JIM BENNETTE: Sick to my stomach. That’s what I
felt when I walked in here tonight and I saw that model.
Sick to my stomach.
My neighbor—I live on Johnson—spent two-and-a-
half years extending his house from 1,000 to 2,000 square
feet on a 9,000 square foot lot. And you let that go
through. Sick to my stomach.
I can’t believe you’d let this go through. I look
at you people and I see you’ve already made up your mind.
I’m proud that our town has come out here to fight, but
you’ve already made up your mind. And if you let this go
through, this board will not go down as something great. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don’t know what your motivations were for signing up to do
this, but you’ll go down as the people that destroyed my
town. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: I have a question for you, sir.
Actually, probably a statement.
We have not made up our minds. We are here to
listen to all of you. We are reading material. We writing
copious notes. We have not made up our minds.
JIM BENNETTE: Fair enough.
CHAIR BADAME: I want you to know that.
JIM BENNETTE: Fair enough, but that’s my
opinion.
CHAIR BADAME: You’re entitled to it. Thank you.
All right, Diana Pleasant.
DIANA PLEASANT: Diana Pleasant, 814 Bicknell,
Los Gatos; a 44-year resident of Los Gatos. Taught at Los
Gatos High School for 29 years, and I’m retired.
I just have a simple point that I wish you not to
overlook, and that is I heard the City Attorney and the
Council and developers say that they’ve reached agreement
with the Los Gatos School District, and that’s wonderful,
but no one has remembered that there’s another school
district, and that’s the high school district. It would be
nice if the benevolence of the developers took that into
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consideration also. They’re already overfull, so if you’d
put that on your agenda, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Pleasant. We
appreciate your comments. Jayne Sonnenschein, Roberta
Goncalves, and Peter Dominick.
JAYNE SONNENSCHEIN: Good evening. Actually, good
night, I guess. I’m Jayne Sonnenschein; I live at 239 Plaza
La Posada. I live in the west-northwest part of Los Gatos
and I’ve been a taxpaying resident since 1991.
I did participate in some of the activities about
what was going to be the future of the North 40. It wasn’t
until I saw the story poles that I really understood this
wasn’t what I thought we were talking about. It reminds me
of what’s happening at Stevens Creek right now in our
neighboring city. The difference is Stevens Creek isn’t
bound by freeways on two sides.
As a resident in my community, Saratoga and Monte
Sereno border me. I have to use Lark to get across and
support the merchants on Los Gatos Boulevard, to use the
medical care that’s there and the hospitals, and they’ve
all been used in the years I’ve lived here.
The thing that’s not being thought about with the
traffic is there’s no question that Lark Avenue and Los
Gatos Boulevard will be unusable. Unfortunately, my access
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Highway 85 is on that route. It’s also the same route
that Netflix access is going to be, because there’s a limit
to what we can do on Winchester, can only go northbound. In
order for me to use Highway 85, I have to use this thruway,
which is the same access point that the houses are going to
be using as well.
The density here I think is appropriate for the
full 40 acres, not for the part that’s just being
presented.
I believe that there are some inaccuracies about
the number of cars that will be used on the properties. I
know millennials usually team up in housing, so a two-
bedroom house could have four people living it in, and each
of those has a car. I know a one-bedroom house certainly
would have two cars.
This is going to be a parking lot, and it’s going
to be the kind of parking lot that there really isn’t
enough parking. We’ve all experienced what happens at Whole
Foods where someone races because that one spot is
available. There are going to be issues with just the
residents in the property trying to park their cars,
because there won’t be enough spaces for the number of cars
and the density of the project.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In addition, I am going to have to divert…
There’s a large neighborhood that I’m in. We’re going to
have to go down Winchester, down to North Santa Cruz, also
Quito Road to Highway 9, which is already difficult; those
roads can’t really be widened much more. Daves Avenue had a
big issue with traffic. But our traffic is going to have to
go down there, because there are going to be times that the
gridlock is so bad on Lark that we just can’t go to Lark.
I want to close with saying as far as open space
and vegetation, I would hope no matter what the size of
this project ends up being that California native plants
are part of the plantation that’s considered in terms of
trees and shrubbery, and that easements are not open space.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you very much. Thank you.
ROBERTA GONCALVES: My name is Robert Goncalves;
I live at 16100 Jasmine Way in Los Gatos. My husband and I
did sent an email today, but we didn’t know about the
11:00am deadline, so I want to make sure we entered it on
the record, and I just would like to read it.
Thank you, Planning Commission Chair and
Commissioners for your work. I think nobody would like to
be in your shoes today or addressing this, but we are
grateful that you are and you are taking this seriously.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My husband and I live in Blossom Manor with our
two young children and we are absolutely opposed to this
development. We have both lived in Chicago before, and we
both love a big city for what it is. We also enjoy Los
Gatos for what it is, and it should never try to look and
feel like a big city. One main reason we moved here is how
beautiful and quaint this town is, the excellent schools it
offers, and the look and feeling of small town living,
while close enough to San Jose and San Francisco and all
they have to offer, but without the challenges those cities
face today.
The last thing we need in our town is another
Santana Row. We already have one; it is in San Jose. Los
Gatos doesn’t need to try to become San Jose. We can drive
about seven minutes and be at Santana Row.
Our town already cannot handle all the traffic
going to Santa Cruz on weekends and throughout the summer
with the current infrastructure and population. Adding the
320 residential units, plus the commercial development, and
more families in town with that structure planned as is
will only make it significantly worse. It will also make
traffic around town and our schools worse than what it
already is.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This addition would require more roads and more
schools at all levels, not just elementary school, but
middle and high school. There are no such provisions being
proposed, and frankly, just buying land does not pay
teachers’ salaries and administrators’ salaries.
The quality of life we all have chosen this town
for, the great schools, decent amount of traffic, and the
character and feel of the town is at stake if this project
get approved as is. Again, we don’t need another Santana
Row. We don’t need to become another “stop by the highway.”
We don’t need more traffic. We don’t need to overcrowd our
already full schools.
We ask you to please say no to this development,
start from scratch, go back to the planning, and try to
listen to the residents. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
PETER DOMINICK: Hello, Peter Dominick, Blossom
Hill Road. If you’re not familiar with Blossom Hill Road,
that’s the street that everyone speeds down after they get
stuck in traffic on the Boulevard.
I would like to reiterate what everyone else has
said. I am very appreciative of having this forum. I’m very
appreciative that you spend your time listening to what we
have to say. I think many people said, on days like today
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it almost seems like a thankless job, but we do thank you
for giving us his opportunity.
One thing that has been made clear tonight is
that the Specific Plan is the law of the land. That was
said many times it seemed like at the beginning, and we
were reminded that there is water under the bridge, we have
certain things we have to abide by, and all of us who have
been coming here trying to tell you how we think you should
interpret that Specific Plan.
What was interesting though was that when the
developer had their time at the microphone and they talked
about the plan, they were challenged on their concept of
what it meant to consider the hillside views. I think
that’s one of the four key tenets that are in the Specific
Plan, and forgive me for paraphrasing here, but what I
heard from the developer was kind of a shrug of the
shoulders and said, “Well, we did what we could.”
It feels to me like things have gotten a little
bit confused where the people of this community are being
told this is the law of the land, you’re going to have to
live with it, but when the develops came up and were
questioned about it, they kind of got away with saying,
“Well, we did our best,” and no one really pressed them on
this.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You know, they could pivot their design on a 45-
degree angle to better compensate the views of the peaks,
and maybe the would sacrifice some of the land and they
wouldn’t be able to put as many units on there, but is this
about our community, or is it about their development?
That’s all I have to say, and thank you very much.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Rhodie Firth, David
Lawler, and John Eichinger.
RHODIE FIRTH: Rhodie Firth; I live at 15905
Orange Blossom Lane, which is in Blossom Hill Manor. I’ve
lived there for 50 years.
I’ve been fighting this proposed development
since the beginning, and it hasn’t helped. I haven’t been
to the Planning Commission a lot, but I’ve been to the Town
Council, and written to the paper a lot. I had prepared
remarks for tonight, but something the initial woman from
the developers said made me think there’s something more
important I should say.
Above five or six years ago the citizens of Los
Gatos were invited to a meeting by the developers, and I
don't know if it was SummerHill or Grosvenor, but there
were women in charge of this, and they are almost always at
the Town Council, but they’re not here tonight, so I don't
know if they’re still employed by them or not. We had this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
huge meeting with 50 or 75 citizens. They had big white
pieces of paper that they glued on the wall and asked us
for suggestions. They write down everything we said, and we
were just dumfounded that a developer cared what the
citizens thought.
Then they invited us, about a month later, to
come back to hear the results of what we had said. There
wasn’t one, single word in their proposal that we had
advised. They said, “Some people wanted some of the
orchard, so we’ve planted trees here and trees there,” and
they had pictures. I don't know if they were these exact
pictures, but they had pictures of the development.
So they knew when they asked us for our opinion
that they didn’t care about our opinion. I’m only saying
that because I don’t trust them. I can’t trust them after
that kind of behavior.
I should also tell you that today I went to the
Lark Avenue car wash to get my car washed, and I had to go
twice, because the first time I couldn’t get into the car
wash with the traffic. So this afternoon I went, I got in,
got my car washed, and then I couldn’t come out. I mean the
traffic on Lark Avenue is just… I thought well I’ll just
have to sleep at the car wash. Finally some good citizen
saw the problem and let us out. When they say the traffic
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is not going to be impacted by this project, that just
can’t be. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Firth.
DAVID LAWLER: Hi, I’m David Lawler, 148 Potomac.
Just three points. This is the Planning
Commission, I guess, so it’s Los Gatos planning and risk.
First of all, you’ve heard a lot today about what
Los Gatos is or isn’t, and what it should be and what it
shouldn’t be. There’s a character and a feel to town that
you can get by living there. I don’t consider myself a
long-term resident; I’ve only lived here 22 years. My
neighbor was born in Los Gatos; his parents grew up here.
There are a lot of people who have lived here a long time.
Now, that’s going to change, I understand that.
But the town is actually about the citizens and what they
want, how they feel about the town, and this town basically
has changed. We’ve seen the traffic going up. We’ve seen
development, like Bluebird Lane, that has high density, and
we’ve seen what that has done to our traffic. So if that’s
what Los Gatos is, it’s not that. It’s the town that we
have, and we’ve seen these new developments coming in, and
we’ve seen the negatives that come with them.
The second thing is planning; this is what it’s
all about. There has to be a plan. There’s the General
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plan, there’s the Specific Plan, there’s the North 40
Specific Plan. Then there’s this plan. This plan is
actually the South 22 Plan, not the North 40 Plan, because
we don’t know what the North 40 Plan is. This is a specific
plan, but this isn’t it. I don't know who was good enough
to actually put up here what the three elements of the
North 40 were supposed to be, but this doesn’t meet that
criteria. In case you need to vote on whether or not you’re
going to approve it, take that into account. But it
actually isn’t there.
If you look at it, what we have is there’s a
recommendation for schooling, not a requirement, in the
Specific Plan. The schools are overcrowded, there’s no
doubt, nobody will deny that, and they’re getting worse. We
just passed a bond measure that is going to go and expand
the high school. It’s expanded out the middle school,
Fisher, twice, and we’re going to have to do it again.
We’re going to pay.
That leaves the third part, though, which is
risk. There’s Los Gatos, there’s planning, and there’s
risk, and the risk here is asymmetrical. Asymmetrical, and
(inaudible) the developer will take the profits. Figure $1
million dollars a unit, $250 million. Take the profits,
$300 per square foot to develop, lots of money. They’re
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gone. They don’t even live in the town. We will be stuck if
their estimate of traffic is wrong.
Do you know what their estimate was? I was here a
month ago, and I said, “How many cars do you expect in this
development?” the one right here. One hundred and three I
think is the number. I may be off by a couple. One hundred.
That’s insane. I’ve got 30 seconds left, but their numbers
are wrong.
I know the EIR I’m told by the lawyer is set in
stone, but it’s not. The congestion is real. We have school
density that is there. We’re going to have to pay the
risks. This town, these citizens, which is Los Gatos, plan
or no plan; we need a plan so we don’t have to get stuck
with the bill when the developer is long gone. We’ll have
the traffic. We’ll have the congested schools, and we’ll
have nothing to do about it, and the millions of dollars
will be gone out of this town. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you so much for your
comments. Do you have a question, Vice Chair Kane? Thank
you, no questions.
JOHN EICHINGER: Hi, my name is John Eichinger; I
live at 637 San Benito Avenue, a 42 year resident of Los
Gatos.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m a real estate broker. Now, a lot of real
estate agents and brokers would be salivating over 300 more
units to sell, more inventory, but I’m not. I’m adamantly
opposed to this project.
My office is on Los Gatos Boulevard, at 455 Los
Gatos Boulevard, directly across from the Valero gas
station, near Van Meter School, and literally I sit with a
picture window right next to me and Los Gatos Boulevard is
15’ feet away. I joke with people that I sit on Los Gatos
Boulevard. So I have a very intimate view every day of the
traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard, and it’s horrible.
Everybody here knows it.
Any Environmental Impact Report that was paid for
by the developers—is that correct?—paid for by the
developers, should be thrown in the trash. We should have
an Environmental Impact Report that is unbiased, not paid
for by the developers, that addresses the real issues,
because I believe that any one of you up here, any one of
you, will know that 300 more units is going to impact
traffic, and any environmental report that says it won’t
should be thrown in the trash.
The recommendations by Staff, I know you put a
lot of work into this Staff Report, but on page 19 you say
you can’t make a decision tonight but you recommend that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you should accept the certified EIR. You should not accept
the certified EIR, because the developers paid for it.
That’s called a fox in the henhouse.
We’ve all seen the model of Phase 1. We see the
story poles of Phase 2. I’m sure the developers have
sketches at least of what Phase 2 and Phase 3 look like.
Let’s see the story poles for Phase 2 and Phase 3 so that
the Town can really understand the impact. Let’s see the
plans and the discussion for Phase 2 and Phase 3. I’m sure
the developers have some plans and sketches with them
already. Let’s see them.
That’s it. I think the Specific Plan should be
brought up on the ballet in November. Thank you very much
for your service. I don’t envy you one bit.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. I’m going to ask you
all to please refrain from the clapping and cheering as we
continue on. We’ve got Caroline Lee, Erik Eastland, and
Jason Farwell.
CAROLINE LEE: Hi there, my name is Caroline Lee.
I have lived at 224 Creekside Village, and I’ve been a ten-
year resident of Los Gatos; I guess that’s not very long. I
would like to make this my home. And I am not a millennial,
or whatever that’s called, so I’m a little older than that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I want to talk about what high-density housing is
and the impact it’s had on me. Creekside Village is at the
corner of 9 and 17. It’s 72 homes that are within a very
small area. It was the old mobile home park that got
converted to single-family homes. I love living in Los
Gatos, but this neighborhood is very much a developer-
centric neighborhood. I have a home that if I do this (arms
out straight) I can touch… Well, the fence will come to
about here on the side, and if I do this one more time I
can touch the other house, that’s how close we are
together.
We have 22 parking spaces in our community for 72
homes. This doesn’t work for us. People park outside of our
neighborhood and onto the neighboring streets. I do feel
bad for the residents.
When I look at the North 40 and the density, and
hear about the cars, a hundred cars; it’s not going to be a
hundred cars. Down here we all have a car. We have more
than one car per home, and it gets really difficult. I
don’t believe that this is going to solve any problems.
The other thing I’d like to say about the traffic
is I work a lot, I come home, and I just want to have a
place to relax.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I have a situation where I every month I have to
go get a blood test. I do this on a Saturday morning. I’ve
gotten it down to the point where I know if I make an
appointment I can get in and out of there. It takes me five
minutes to get there, ten minutes to get my blood test, and
40 minutes to get home. It’s a plan and an ordeal to do
this, and it shouldn’t have to be that way. It’s the
traffic that’s difficult.
I know I can change and ride my bike, but I’d
like to be able to just drive my car to where I need to go,
because it’s a town I live in that affords me to do this.
Then the final thing that I’d like you guys to
also consider is I know we’re under… I don’t envy you for
your job or your role. I appreciate that you’ve stepped up
to plan our city, but I do wish to have you consider what
you have been given, to please question them, to please
challenge them, and to please start to..what you think are
the right parameters for us, or for you in your role, and
for us as citizens of Los Gatos. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Eastland.
ERIK EASTLAND: Hi, my name is Erik Eastland; I
live at 201 Charter Oaks Circle.
I might be the youngest person at the podium. I
do represent the millennial demographic that the developer
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is aiming towards, and I will say that the proposed housing
is attractive to me in my current situation, but as a
resident of north Los Gatos and also a perspective teacher
at Los Gatos High School, there are some concerns with
regard to the traffic and the schools.
I was at this podium last year with the Albright
project, and I witnessed the Town and the developer come to
a so-called compromise with that development, and I see
this particular plan leading down a very similar path to
that.
Being a student teacher at Westmont, I’ve learned
very quickly that if you give an inch, students will take a
mile, and I see that the developers have used the language
in the Specific Plan to take that mile with the language
that people have cited and what has been brought to the
board and in the foyer today.
I ask that you as the Commission do the same, to
use the language to your advantage to service the needs and
the wants of the people of this town. I do think that we
can come to some sort of compromise with housing. Housing
is an issue in this town, with traffic and with the
schools.
I want to be able to live in this town without
having to stay at the house that my mom has so graciously
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
kind of let me live in after she moved out with my step-
dad. I’d like to be able to live here and be a part of the
community, so I ask that you please keep all the
perspectives in mind, all the middle-aged people who have
lived here for 40 years, and the young millennials like me
who want to stay here. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you so much for coming
forward with your comments. Jason Farwell.
JASON FARWELL: Good evening, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. Jason Farwell, 18 Park Avenue.
I’ve been following this for a lot of years, and
I’ve been fighting it from day one. My general concern that
got me involved in this whole process was what this
development was going to do to our downtown. Full
disclosure, I’m a commercial property owner. My family owns
a few parcels downtown, and I’m very concerned as to what
the impact of this development will have on our downtown.
Ed Rathmann and I—he’s the owner of Willow Street
and Main Street Burgers—have met time and time again over
the years with our elected officials. We’ve expressed
essentially every concern that’s been raised here today,
and they still certified it. They still certified the EIR.
They still approved the Specific Plan. I don't know why.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But they did, and to a certain extent our hands are tied at
this point.
I would just urge you, the public, to reach out
to your elected officials and express your distain for what
has occurred, and encourage them to take whatever action
they can as the elected governing body of our town to take
action and to hear your demands. We are owed that.
This project will change the landscape of our
community forever. It is going to devastate our downtown.
There are some that will disagree with me, but I’m
absolutely certain that the merchants downtown will be
impacted tremendously.
And I do know that the North 40 is encouraging
certain business owners downtown to move out to their
development. I know that there have been those hands
extended to encourage that move, further drawing what I
consider to be a very important aspect of our town, our
downtown, and it will impact it.
I will leave you with that. I appreciate your
time. I appreciate your consideration, and thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Mr. Farwell, we have a question
from Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you for your comments
in this area, which we haven’t heard a lot about tonight,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I think we haven’t heard a lot about it because we’ve
been talking about Phase 1, because that’s the application
that’s in front of us today. I would appreciate any further
insight into the Phase 1 retail proposal and the impact
that that will have, including the Market Hall, the shops,
the restaurants. Is that what you’re most concerned about,
or do you have specific concerns about Phase 1 that we
should consider?
JASON FARWELL: Sure. I think the Market Hall
concept is a very attractive concept. The lure of the
Market Hall I think will draw folks from our downtown to
the Market Hall.
I think the one complaint I’ve had from day one
was kind of the unfairness between the North 40 and
downtown. The Downtown District has a lot of regulations
surrounding the particular uses that occur down there. Any
food use, any use of alcohol, requires a Conditional Use
Permit. Well, the North 40 has zero restrictions. There are
no CUPs required for the North 40, so they pick and choose
who goes in there, and the Town has no say. Literally no
say. I don't know why. I don't know why they agreed to
that. I expressed time and time again my concern on that
point, but it was ignored. So it’s really a fairness issue.
We have a formula restriction on downtown where formula
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stores can’t come into downtown without a CUP. Well, that
doesn’t apply to the North 40. I just don’t understand the
unequal division here of the playing field. It seems really
one sided.
But again, you’ll hear the Council, they’re
constantly championing the Mom and Pop storeowner of
downtown, but this is the knife in their heart.
I’ve done some rough calculations. Taking out the
banks, downtown is roughly 240,000 square feet of retail
space. The North 40 calls for over 500,000. It’s nearly
double what we have downtown. I think that speaks for
itself.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Farwell. Patricia
Ernstrom, Bryan Mekechuh, and Fiona Greenland.
PATRICIA ERNSTROM: Patricia Ernstrom, Bachman
Avenue.
As others have mentioned tonight, I’ve been at a
lot of the meetings, back to the first time when we were
meeting over at the police department. Since that time, and
in those early meetings, a lot of people have alluded to
the fact that the plan is just different from all of the
input that we gave, and somehow this project has just
continued to be steamrolled ahead at every turn regardless
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the disastrous impacts that we all know—we’re
experiencing them now, and it’s only going to get worse—
regardless of what residents have been objecting to, and it
is so disheartening and so discouraging, and I think we all
feel here, what do we do? We need your help.
I was born in Los Gatos. This is like a Daves
Avenue reunion that we’re having here tonight.
We’ve heard from legal counsel what we can’t do,
and I guess the question is what can we do? People have
talked about it’s been going on a long time, and we’ve been
part of that, and just because it’s been going on a long
time it’s not too late, and it can’t be too late, because
as other people said, we are never going to get this back,
it is going to be forever.
We must take into account the other developments
that have passed but have not yet been built. It is layer
upon layer upon layer. In our household we refer to
“traffic Armageddon.” On a weekend I can’t get to see my
88-year-old father, because I can’t get from my house on
Bachman Avenue to his house off of Winchester and get there
and know that I can get home in 30 minutes, so I’m making
decisions about… And the role-play that we heard earlier,
we all kind of chucked, tongue in cheek, ha ha funny.
That’s reality, and that’s what everybody is experiencing,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the developers are, again, going to take the money and
be out of town.
As we’ve heard tonight, this is only one parcel,
and somebody mentioned, I think it was in the report, that
it’s 13 to 14 parcels, so the Grosvenor development is one
part of that. Then there are all of those other independent
pieces, and without seeing the whole thing, how do we
possibly make a decision here tonight.
When this doesn’t work, when all of the impacts
that we’re experiencing now and all of the future impacts
that we know are coming, what then? What do we as citizens
of Los Gatos do? Who do we turn to? Please, please help us.
BRYAN MEKECHUH: Hi, Bryan Mekechuh, 55 Roberts
Road. I just want to make three quick points.
The first one underscores what you’ve heard a lot
tonight, which is taking an integrated approach to this
development. If you’re looking for certain areas where you
can have a finding that doesn’t support the acceptance of
this, I think it’s not knowing what the total impact is,
and I really do think you have to look at the big picture
of what’s going on in the North 40. So that’s my first
point.
My second point is throughout Los Gatos people
are putting things underground, they’re putting in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
basements and that sort of thing. I didn’t see anything
underground here. It’s all the lowest cost construction,
put it above ground or at grade. You want to get rid of
some height? Put it underground.
My third point is when I looked at the model
outside I thought wow, there’s a lot of roof space there. I
didn’t see any solar on there. Trivial point, but there’s a
few kilowatts there.
Anyway, so those are my three points. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
FIONA GREENLAND: My name is Fiona Greenland; I
live at 16588 Oleander Avenue, Los Gatos. Dear
Commissioners, first of all, thank you very much for your
patience this evening, and for your time.
The document that you see here I’m referring to
comes from the North 40 proposal by the developer. You can
see the page number; I’ve enlarged it there.
I just wanted to contest the concept that this
development is indeed for young professionals. If you’re
marketing for young professionals, it refers to the
document that says of the floor plan that the dens on all
units are noted as not just dens, but optional bedrooms. So
if you look down this list, I’m sure you can see that many
of these bedrooms are for two-plus-den, or one-plus-den. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would contest that that’s not then being marketed for young
professionals.
This is saying that two plus bedroom units,
there’s going to be 189, and as you mentioned earlier,
that’s going to be 189 of the 260 proposed units. As all
other high-density housing has shown in Los Gatos Union
School Districts, families are going to purchase these
units.
The other point also proposed on the North 40—
this is from the North 40 project summary and
justification, and this is my drawing of the cars, I
apologize—if you look through the plans, these are the
drawings that they have for all the plans, and the idea is
that they’re assuming maybe young professionals are going
to share with other young professionals. But the keys are
going to be held in a communal area, and whichever car is
there first you would take that car. Well, I know in my
family we have one driveway, and I take my car and my
husband takes his and that’s how it works; we don’t share
the car. I mean we do share car, because we’re a family. I
don’t think that young professionals are going to let their
friends drive their cars; and I could be wrong.
So to reiterate the two points that I’m really
trying to make here at this late time in the evening is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that if you really are marketing to young professionals,
you don’t need more than two bedrooms or tandem parking.
Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. All right, I will be
calling our last three speaker cards. We’ve made it. I’m
sorry, four. Lee Quintana, Superintendent Diana Abbati, and
Ingrid Oakley-Girvan.
LEE QUINTANA: There is just so much to say that
I’m not going to have time for, so I’m going to try to be
short, and I will sent you my other comments via letter. I
forgot my name. Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue.
Let me start by saying that as a child I lived
for several years on my grandparents’ walnut orchard, and
it I was a wonderful time in my life. So I thank the Yukis
for letting me see a walnut orchard practically every day
of my life and relive my happy childhood from there.
The other comment I wanted to make about walnuts
as street trees or trees to be used in the North 40, is
that they are extremely messy and they stain your clothes.
They would stain sidewalks, et cetera, so that’s a
consideration.
The other thing is I would like to add a little
bit of history, and add the wording that my husband always
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tells me, “Be careful what you wish for.” Unintended
consequences.
I’ve been involved in this town for the last 25
years, eight as a Planning Commissioner. I voted against
many of the projects that are now being cited as problems:
the original Netflix, I can name several others. I was
never considered a friend of the development community. I
was concerned about keeping the character of Los Gatos. But
life does change; we can’t stand still.
When I refer to history, I’m going all the way
back to when the Town adopted their 85 element, and they
worked with the state and the county on the 85 freeway.
This town and its citizens did not want a full interchange
at 85. The fact that we don’t have that interchange has
greatly affected the Town’s ability to handle traffic.
There is no longer any opportunity to have that
interchange, because we built Albright on part of what
could have been used as additional entrances to the
freeway, and we built part of the original Netflix on
property that was identified as a transit center for the
community.
I’m going to go back real fast to the history of
the first draft on this project, on which I worked. It came
to the Council. The citizens came out in droves saying we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don’t like that. That plan did not have any housing on it.
That plan did not have any medical on it. It was 5,000
square feet of commercial and retail.
What I’m trying to get at is we have been
planning the North 40 for 40 years, and we’ve never really
gotten there, and every time it gets postponed something
happens on the North 40 that limits what you can do with it
next. All the newer developments on the Boulevard prevent a
better plan for the North 40 Specific Plan.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Quintana.
Appreciate the comments.
LEE QUINTANA: And you’ll hear more from me. I
was just going to say that, because I think there were lots
of facts misstated that should be corrected.
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Good evening,
Chair, Planning Commissioners, Town Staff, and the
community members. I’m Diana Abbati, the Superintendent of
the Los Gatos Union School District. With me this evening
is one of our trustees from our Board of Trustees, Emi Eto,
and we’re here to speak on behalf of the Los Gatos Board of
Trustees and answer any of your questions. So I’m going to
turn it over to Emi Eto.
EMI ETO: Thank you. We represent the needs of
our students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On behalf of the Los Gatos Union School District Board, I
would like to update the Planning Commission on the School
District’s agreement with the North 40 developers.
In the spring of 2015 the School District and the
developers signed an unprecedented agreement to mitigate
the effects of the student population growth as a result of
housing construction in the North 40. The developers agreed
to either provide a two-acre parcel of land, or work with
the District to acquire land for a new school in Los Gatos,
or pay additional mitigation fees above SB50 for every
entitled market rate home in our boundaries.
If you would like to read the agreement, it can
be found on our website under the April 13, 2015 board
meeting.
In addition, the District is in regular
communication with the developers, and we would like to
thank the collaboration with the Planning Commission and
the Town Council for the considerations of the needs of the
students. We know how difficult this decision is. We will
continue to work with all constituents to welcome all
children to our schools. We appreciate everyone’s support.
Thank you.
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: I also just want to
thank the Planning Commissioner for your public support. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know it’s a volunteer position, so just thank you. We’ve
had late night meetings. We’ve probably had the best
collaboration we had in my five years here of service as
the Superintendent of Los Gatos, and I just want to thank
you for that.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Ms. or Dr. Abbati?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: It’s Dr. Abbati,
but I’ll take Diana; anything is fine.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Are you satisfied with the
agreement? Will it provide for the additional students, and
how many additional students are projected?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Yes, we are very
satisfied by the number of the student gen… We used a
student generation rate, and we estimated somewhere between
100 and 120 students for this development, and it’s based
on our student generation rate, which is roughly about a
.4, I think the last time I looked, or .8. So based on
that, yes, we are very pleased working with the developers.
We’re into educating; they’re into land development. If
they could work with us and to help us secure that
property, we’ll make something work for us.
VICE CHAIR KANE: If the property is secured, do
you have the funds for the facility?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: We do not have
existing funds for this facility, but we have funds to
purchase additional land, so if they were to help us find a
parcel above two acres, we already have money set aside to
pay or that or to finance that. We don’t plan to build a
new site probably for the next five to ten years, so at
least we’d go into planning stages. We’re trying to be very
visionary and look to the future and not make the mistakes
the District did years ago, so if we can secure public land
or some private land to do that, we’re planning for growth
in five, ten, fifteen years. That’s what we’re trying to
do.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So the new facility is just
five to ten years out?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: It would be if we
needed to build. We’re not planning it in the next five
years.
VICE CHAIR KANE: What would we do in the
meantime?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: We’ve already
mitigated for that; we’ve done a couple of things. We built
Lexington School. Our demographic study shows that we won’t
have additional growth in our elementary, and it will take
till 2022 to fill Lexington School. Just for that sake,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that’s why we built that. We’ve upscoped that school, so it
has a capacity of about 300 students; it roughly has 160
right now.
We’ve already mitigated for the middle school for
this point, and we’ve also built a gym to facilitate the
needs of that expanded growth. The gym project, which is
called our sports complex, added four additional teaching
spaces for us, freeing up four classrooms, so we were able
to do that; that’s why we call it our sports complex. It’s
not just a gym, it actually has some dance and fitness
classrooms to make up for other classrooms that we need for
math and science, so we think we’re ready for that for the
next five years too.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Have similar arrangements been
made for the high school?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: I can’t speak for
the high school; it’s a different district than us. They
have similar demographics than we do. It’s the mobility
rate, so as they increase in our school, they’re going to
increase in the high school, but we don’t make
recommendations or plan for them.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you for attending, and
thank you for being so patient with us at this late hour.
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: You’re welcome.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, again. Will the
possible 120 students being going to Lexington School?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: No. You have to
think about 120 students K-8, so they’re going to be
dispersed in all of our grades. We’re not going to move
120. That could be roughly, depending on where the numbers
are coming in, it could be 60 in the elementary and 60 in
our middle school, so you just don’t know where they are.
They don’t come in clean numbers.
They don’t come all kindergarten, so we really
look at the census data. Currently the census data is
showing this flattened growth for our kindergarten grade,
but we’re seeing a lot more mobility. What that means is
seniors are moving out of their current homes, they’re
moving to other places, and a family is moving into there.
We’re getting kids from all different grades, so they
wouldn’t be just one school, one grade. We have space
mostly at Lexington to do that, but it would be based on
wherever else we do have (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So some of them would go to
Lexington?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Some would go. The
majority would go to Lexington, and they would go wherever
else we have space.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. One other follow up.
In terms of the space needed for a school, I know five
years sounds like it’s a long way, but times goes pretty
quickly sometimes, and it’s difficult to secure real
estate. How many acres? What space do you think you would
need? Is the two acres adequate?
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: We could build a
school the size of Lexington, which is roughly 300 students
on a two-acre parcel; there are schools that look like
that. They are very different than Los Gatos schools. It
doesn’t have as much green space. Most of our elementary
schools have anywhere between five and eight acres. Our
middle school has 14 acres. But there are schools, given
what’s happened in California… You can see them; there are
lots of things on the websites under the Department of
State Architecture, you can find schools. It would be a
school that looks kind of two stories flat up with a
playground in front and parking in front of that.
We would make that work. We would love more land,
which is why we’ve put monies aside to do that if we could
find a two-and-a-half, three-acre parcel, we’ll make that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
work too. Any type of shared partnership, we would love to
do that, too, especially if it were next to a park,
something that the Town owned, too. But again, we’re
working with all the entities to try to get that to work.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I did a little research on
it, and I know there’s not a lot of good data available,
but there’s a publication called the Guide to School Site
Analysis and Development from the California Department of
Education, and it says that for a school of 450, the acres,
according to the 2000 figures, was nine-point-six acres.
That’s pretty far from two acres.
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: They’re recommended
guidelines, so yes, they are guidelines, and they are not
mandated. Think about schools in San Francisco. There are
no schools that are nine-and-a-half acres. You’re just
thinking about a different type of school. A two-acre
parcel will give you a blacktop and a parking space. It
will not give you the green space and the soccer fields and
the baseball fields that the other schools have. So to your
point, we would love that if we could find it, but we could
make a two-plus-acre parcel work.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But it would be
significantly different than the schools in the District
today.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: Yes, it would not
be the feel of our Daves School, and Blossom Hill School,
and our Van Meter, but land is very expensive. We will
educate them. We will do what we can, and we’ll make it
work. Please note, there are schools that look like it, and
they’re not just commercial buildings that have been
converted to schools. There are playground schools. These
are schools that look like elementaries, I would say
Lexington being the closest one that looks like a school,
that has two stories. The K1-2 is on the ground floor, 3,
4, 5 in the upstairs, and a playground in front, with
parking. They’re very straight, kind of very square and
boxy.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: You’re welcome.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
SUPERINTENDENT DIANA ABBATI: You’re welcome.
DR. INGRID OAKLEY-GIRVAN: Hi, Dr. Ingrid Oakley-
Girvan. I’m a parent of a high school senior, and an
incoming graduating eighth grader coming to the middle
school.
I think what we’re looking for are options to
redirect the legacy for Los Gatos. Do we want this urban
plan, or do we want our Town plan? I would put forth that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there’s a sustainable architectural lands conservation
program. I’ve heard many of the Commissioners asking for
options, and this one is a great one. It can be found at
conservation.ca.gov. More than $40 million generated from
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, specifically part of the
division of land resources for protection programs to
conserve California open space resources. So I’d like you
guys to look at that, and to research that a little bit and
think about it.
Another option is the William Act. It was started
in 1965. What you do is you establish a contract. It can be
done by a board or a council, and what they determine is
that the unique characteristic of the agricultural
enterprise in the area calls for establishment of a
preserve if it’s consistent with the General Plan. This is
a ten-year contract. I’d also request that you look into
that.
My question to legal is, I’ve heard a lot of we
can’t do this; we’re forced into this. My perspective is
all these people, and the ones who have been here the
entire night, we all pay the salary for the Town Council
legal team is my understanding, so I’d like to hear what
solutions there might be to redirect this pathway, so that
the legacy is not one, as Diana just mentioned, for an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
urban elementary school. I don’t really think that that’s
what we want. Who wants their kids running around on
blacktop? Really? I don’t think that’s what Los Gatos
wants.
There’s no discussion of whether the high school
is impacted. I can tell you the middle school is impacted,
and it’s going to get more so. And the high school, there’s
no question of how are we going to build out in that space
if you have more kids? It’s just a numbers game; it’s
simple population. You have X number of parking spots, X
number of cars, just like you have X number of kids and X
number of seats. You cannot go further than that.
I think it’s really important that you all look
at this holistically. I understand this is Phase 1, there’s
2, 3, 4, who know how many more? What is the total impact,
t he total aggregation? If you’re looking at it from a
health perspective, it’s somebody’s health, you don’t just
say what’s you’re diet like? You say what’s your physical
activity like? What’s your stress like? What’s your
genetics like? You look at the whole picture. I’m asking
you to do this for our town. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Shannon Susick,
followed by John Shepardson, and if I don’t get any more
cards after that, we’ve gone through all the cards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHANNON SUSICK: I’m really honored to speak
again. Almost a bookend. But also just on behalf of some of
the residents. I’m so happy that so many people came out,
even though this is such a difficult issue.
I’m not going to chastise anyone for not being
here for ten years in all the meetings, because not
everybody can do that, but God bless the people that have
come out for the very first time, and have lived here for
40 years. I just think that that’s amazing, and it’s part
of our process and it’s one of the good things.
I already thanked you, and in advance, because
it’s going to be a tough road ahead.
But the most important thing that we can
accomplish tonight and in the weeks and months, and it
could be years, is to not only unite as a town and
community, but to adhere to the vision and the purpose of
our General Plan and the North 40 Specific Plan.
While it likely won’t happen, and I have been
exploring on my own some other options. It would be great
for a foundation to come, Mark Zuckerberg, buy that orchard
and have it be a camp for kids to come from all over. I
mean or it could be Hidden Villa, or Ardenwood Park in
Fremont. There are so many amazing things that we could do
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with that piece of land, and not sell it and bull doze it.
Like Roy said, I think a lot of people are upset about it.
But there are a couple of things I want to
mention. It time, and it’s late, and it’s about the time. I
think that this application, one of the largest that the
Commission has ever seen, deserved at least one study
session. That’s a tremendous amount of material to go over.
Not all the letters were in the packets. You guys were
given things on Thursday or Friday before a holiday
weekend. I think that the Commission and the Town deserve
that.
And we have heard things that we can’t do,
supposedly, but there are a lot of things that were not
specified in the North 40 Plan that you have the discretion
and authority to look at. There is no footprint. It does
not have to be this way. There’s a lot of leeway with where
the housing can go, where the commercial can go. And again,
they’re maximums. Yes, the developer wants to build to the
maximum, because that’s how you make the maximum amount of
money, but is that what the Town wants? Is that what we
need? Is that what our infrastructure can take?
Just as it’s taken years for those walnut trees
to grow and the Yuki family has had that, it could take
that long for the Town to approve an application. Once the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
orchards are turned over and concrete is poured, this land
is gone forever, as is the agriculture and the history, and
we know that. So I’m hoping that the citizens that are
here, and the Town Council next week, will demand that this
be continued until all the story poles are up. We need to
know the whole story. It can’t just be part of it, can’t be
half the story poles and the height. (Timer sounds.) Oh, my
last sentence was really good.
CHAIR BADAME: Very quickly. Actually, Vice Chair
Kane has a question for you, so maybe you can incorporate
that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We have to ask questions. What
was your last statement?
CHAIR BADAME: I knew that was coming.
SHANNON SUSICK: I was going to say there are so
many good things that can be accomplished with this
unprecedented site. Let’s take our time. This needs to be
done right, and good things take time. Thanks so much.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Our last speaker is
John Shepardson.
JOHN SHEPARDSON: John Shepardson, 120 Oak Rim.
This has been in my home, and it’s a board that I
created with the Netflix project, and it states that
350,000 square feet of office space was the environmentally
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
superior alternative. The developer wanted 550,000, and the
Town Council approved 485,000. We could have kept Netflix,
and we could have had the best land use. We could have
reduced the traffic impacts, we could have lowered the
heights, and we could have done it at 350,000, and the
Environmental Impact Report was telling us that. So we made
a mistake, in my opinion. But we can learn from this,
because that’s history now.
But what we can do… I just have a little graph
here of the there main arteries into town. Highway 17, we
know that’s jammed up. We’ve got Netflix on Winchester
Boulevard; that’s going to get jammed up. And now we have
this other last artery, Los Gatos Boulevard. If we aren’t
wise about this, that artery is also going to get clogged,
and then it’s just going to spread; it’s going to be really
bad.
My solution is middle ground between the
developer’s proposal…
By the way, I think they’ve been class acts in my
dealings with them, and I’ll state that on the record.
So scale back the project. Mix single-family with
high-density. That’s what Los Gatos is already.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
School buses I think are a larger issue, but we
should have school buses, and we could reduce 30% of the
traffic in town.
Safe Routes to School, protected bike lanes,
smart traffic lights. Reduce traffic by 25%.
The RHNA. We’ve got to have some of this high-
density to deal with our RHNA requirements, and we spread
the housing across the project, so we put it in Los Gatos
School District some, and the Union School District. That
to me is reflective of Los Gatos, and we don’t take the
whole brunt, and we mix it up and we reduce the scale, and
we do it in a way, frankly, that the developer can make a
profit.
Because we live in homes that were made by
developers, right? We need developers, and they’re not
necessarily an enemy. They have a profit motive. We have
our interests. So lets see if we can find a middle ground
here where we can work with each other.
Lastly, I applaud your efforts, and I say bravo
to the people that came here tonight to express their
views. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Do we have one more
speaker? I will need a speaker card from you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PAT KEARNS: Thank you for indulging me, Madam
Chairwoman. You have my speaker card. You called me out as
Ray, but I’m Pat Kearns, 7 West Central; I was the third
name.
CHAIR BADAME: Oh, I’m so sorry.
PAT KEARNS: I just didn’t respond.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, well you can now.
PAT KEARNS: When I filled it out, if you look at
it, it said to give my city, state, and zip, not my town,
so I corrected that. I was afraid that that was a fait
acompli that we are changing the character of our Los
Gatos.
There has been a lot of wisdom in the room here
tonight, and I have been moved by it. When I approach a
problem and I involve an attorney, I want the attorney’s
opinion, and the want the opinion to help me to achieve my
goals. I think we’ve heard a lot of comments about what the
Town wants, and I don’t believe the attorney does work for
us. I think the attorney’s fiduciary responsibility is to
the Town, to the Commission, and to the Council, and I
think that that’s right. I think that the attorney can give
the Council and the Commission his or her opinion, but I
think the Town can also approach other solutions.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And to let an Environmental Impact Report that
everybody knows on its face is false, at least in terms of
traffic, doesn’t seem right, so I would suggest that we
commission another Environmental Impact Report independent
of the Council, independent of the Commission, the citizens
of Los Gatos, and file it with the Commission or the
Council and ask you to consider it, or perhaps even certify
it. None of this may be possible, but it’s logical that the
citizens can voice their opinion with a purchased
Environmental Impact Report, and I would volunteer.
I’m not a community advocate, but would volunteer
my email to focus the energy that’s been discussed here
tonight so that somebody could start to organize an
approach to compromise, and I think that was the wisest
thing that was said tonight, and that is info@protime.net.
I will try to pass whatever comments come in along to a
community leader and the Council and the Town, so that this
energy could be focused on compromise. Thank you very much
for hearing me.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
PAT KEARNS: Did you find my card?
CHAIR BADAME: I did. Yes, you were third, just
like you said.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
All right, I am closing the public comment
period, with the exception of the Applicant.
It’s past 11:00, so I am looking to the
Commissioners for a motion to continue past 11:30.
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: They have five minutes
now, is that correct?
CHAIR BADAME: They would have five minutes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We can take that vote
now, and obviously if we get close to that we can revote,
if you think that’s indicated, but I would certainly move
that we extend our meeting to 11:30.
CHAIR BADAME: Do we have a second?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Past 11:30.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, and that would be if we go
past 11:30, not to 11:30.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, at this moment
we’re trying just to go to 11:30, and then we’ll see where
we are, so I don’t need a motion is what you’re tell me.
Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: We don’t need a motion. All right,
at this point in time I will be calling the Applicant and
their team back up. They will have five minutes to address
the Commission with further comments.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DON CAPOBRES: All right, to rebut. I appreciate
the time, Madam Chair. Because of the limited time that we
have, there are a lot things we can go over. This will not
be a popular move, I understand, but we’re going to have
Barbara Kautz, our attorney, provide some statements.
BARBARA KAUTZ: Hello Chair and Members of the
Planning Commission. I’m Barbara Kautz; I’m a partner at
the law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman, and I’ve representing
Grosvenor and SummerHill.
The state legislature has decided that housing is
a matter of vital statewide importance, and there is
increasing concern at the state legislature level about the
critical housing shortage in the Bay Area, particularly in
areas like the Silicon Valley, which have had huge job
growth with employers like Netflix and Apple, while
expressing great opposition to housing growth, and so
there’s a whole variety of state laws that are intended to
essentially require cities to approve housing.
One is the Housing Element, and as has already
been said, the City promised to have on the North 40 site
270 units at 20 units per acre, by right, meaning all that
can be a nondiscretionary approval where you only look at
design guidelines.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In addition, there is another statute entitled
the Housing Accountability Act, and although much of that
relates to affordable housing, there’s a provision of that
that applies to housing developments in general, and that
states that when a proposed housing development project
complies with applicable objective, General Plan and zoning
standards, including design review standards, in effect at
the time the housing development project’s application is
determined to be complete.
A city cannot either reduce the density or deny
the project unless it makes very specific findings that the
project would have a specific adverse impact based on
significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact
based on object, identified, written public health or
safety standards as they existed on the date that the
application was deemed complete, and there’s no way to
mitigate those impacts.
It’s an extremely difficult finding to make, and
frankly, I don't know any community that has been able to
make that.
So yes, it is correct that the Council could
change the Specific Plan and could change the Housing
Element, but those changes could not apply to his project,
because it has already been found to be complete, and you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
must look at this project based on the Housing Element, the
General Plan, the zoning, which basically consists of the
Specific Plan, in effect right now.
The Specific Plan does not have any requirements
that the 20 units per acre be spread out over the site.
There is no requirement that a plan be submitted for the
entire site. Actually, the Specific Plan was intended to
take care of planning for the entire site, because there
are many different property owners there.
And you cannot make your decision based on
subjective standards; you must make your decision based on
objective standards that are contained there.
A second point that was raised has to do with
housing elements. There was a comment that Hillsborough and
Los Altos had paid their way out of housing element
conformance. That’s not correct; they both have housing
elements that have been approved by the state.
In Pleasanton, which was an example, there was a
voter adopted growth cap, and the city refused to do
additional zoning that was required, like what’s required
in your housing element. Eventually, after many years of
fighting the city ended up paying $2 million to the
attorneys for the plaintiffs. In addition, they were
required to do all the zoning under a lot of scrutiny from
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the plaintiffs and various advocacy groups, and really
ended up having much less control over the zoning than they
would have if they had just done it themselves.
Thirdly, there have been comments that the City
does not need to approve the maximum number of homes being
proposed. Density bonuses are not a discretionary approval.
I recognize your ordinance has findings, but that’s
inconsistent with state law, because it would make the
approval discretionary.
And lastly, in terms of the EIR, the EIR did
consider a lot of future development on the site. I’m sure
we’ll provide some additional information about that. I’m
sorry, it considered future developer off the site. So with
that, I think that’s my five minutes.
CHAIR BADAME: Can you also fill out a speaker
card for us?
BARBARA KAUTZ: Oh yes. I’m sorry.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Questions? Commissioner
O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This is not a question.
This is directed to the Chair. It is apparent to me that
we’re going to have a substantial number of questions. If
we were to adjourn at 11:30—that only gives us ten minutes—
and it’s been my experience that the longer we go, the less
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
active our minds go, so I would throw out as a suggestion
that as I understand it we can close the public hearing,
and nevertheless, when we have the next meeting, because we
have to have a next meeting, because the Council has to act
on April 5th before we can reach a final determination, but
at that time, we will still be able to question the
Applicant, notwithstanding that the public hearing is
closed. That is based on the advice of Counsel, which we
obtained, is that correct?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. So I mean we could
do this for the next ten minutes, but I don’t see any great
virtue in that. And we’ve heard a lot of testimony tonight,
which I would like to take into consideration and look
further into it so we can focus our questioning, rather
than be scatter shot. So I just throw out to my fellow
commissioners the thought of perhaps at this time
continuing the hearing to a date certain.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That’s what I was going to say,
a date certain. You’ll need to pick.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll second that motion.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I will call the
question. All in favor? Passes unanimously.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Now you need a date certain.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, let’s pick a date
certain.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Oh, why not April 20th?
CHAIR BADAME: April 20th?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could I just check
(inaudible)?
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, is that
something that might work for you?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: No, I only have the
scheduled dates available. I will not be available. I’ll be
in Japan on the 20th.
CHAIR BADAME: Do you have other dates you might
be available?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I won’t be here either
on the 20th.
CHAIR BADAME: All right. I’m going to suggest we
pick a different date.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: What’s the last one in
April?
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s a Plan Comm day.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We have the 27th is a
regular Planning Commission day, as you say, right?
VICE CHAIR KANE: The 27th, it’s a Plan Comm Day.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The question, of course,
and we direct this to Staff, we must already have agenda
items, is that right?
JOEL PAULSON: If the audience could please hold
it down just a bit. We’re still trying to wrap up the
business with the date.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What’s the agenda like
on the 27th?
JOEL PAULSON: The agenda on the 27th has a number
of continued items that may be continued again. Those are
the Highlands lots.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Perhaps we should poll
and see if everybody’s going to be here. I’m looking at my
calendar. I will be here on the 27th, but that doesn’t mean
anybody else will.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I will.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Well, I’m at a bit of a
disadvantage, because I couldn’t hear the conversation that
went on about what dates people weren’t available, so my
question of the Staff was going to be about the 13th…
MARNI MOSELEY: The 13th is fairly booked.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: …which is the next
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
JOEL PAULSON: The 13th has a number of items
already currently on it.
MARNI MOSELEY: That have already been noticed.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is the 27th a problem for
the Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: No, I just didn’t know why
we were ruling out the 13th.
CHAIR BADAME: Probably because it’s a Friday.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m sure we’ll have a
quorum. I’ll be here on the 13th. I thought perhaps if we
move it to the 27th, it would be less disrupting to our
agenda, since the 13th is so close, but I’m available.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll second that motion as
well.
CHAIR BADAME: Does that work for Staff?
MARNI MOSELEY: What was the date?
JOEL PAULSON: The 27th.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I will call the
question then. I’m sorry, Commissioner Erekson, did you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I just want to be sure
everybody that’s here tonight can be here on the 27th.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/30/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Yes.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: I will call the question. All in
favor? Passes…
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Who made the motion to continue
to the 27th, and the second?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I did.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Okay.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Director of Public Works: Matt Morley
Moderator: Dr. Shawn Spano
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
DR. SPANO: …and I’ll be your facilitator for the
meeting tonight. I wear a couple different hats. One hat I
wear is I’m on faculty at San Jose State University, and
then I also do consulting, and have been doing consulting
for 20 years doing these kinds of meetings for local
governments primarily in the Bay Area.
We’re here for the North 40 Special Study
Session, and for right now the one document that you should
have—it was on the table out front—is the agenda for
tonight’s meeting, and we’re at the point in the agenda
right now where we’re doing Welcome and Introductions, and
I’ll walk us through the Preview Purposes, Outcome and
Format and get us ready for this evening’s meeting.
I want to acknowledge tonight that we have the
Mayor and members of the Town Council. Los Gatos Mayor and
Town Council are here tonight, as well as Planning
Commission members are here, and also School Board members
and superintendents from the four school districts are
here: Los Gatos, Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint High School
District, the Los Gatos Union School District, Cambrian
School District, and the Campbell Union School District.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I also want to acknowledge here the number of
people that are in the room and the turnout tonight. In my
experience it tells me when I see the number of people
here—there are actually some people in the overflow
outside—that this is a community that cares. I’ve done some
work years ago in Los Gatos with the Town Council and the
Planning Commission, and this is a community that cares.
You’re committed. You’re invested in this community, and
that’s why you’re here tonight.
I also know that the North 40 is a very
important, big issue in Los Gatos, and that’s obviously the
focus of our meeting tonight. It creates a lot of passion,
it creates a lot of interest, it creates a lot of spirited
discussion, and that’s wonderful, that’s part of democracy.
So we’ll work through the issues tonight around the North
40, and my job here is to help guide the conversation so
that we maximize our time and that we’re as efficient as
possible.
I’m moving on to the next agenda item. What are
the purposes of tonight’s meeting? Two purposes.
One, provide information and fact sharing around
the key documents leading into the North 40 development:
the North 40 Specific Plan, the Housing Element, the EIR
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the Environmental Impact Report. We’re using those
documents to frame the foundation of tonight’s meeting.
The other purpose tonight is to provide an
opportunity for you all to ask questions. I did not
introduce Staff. We have Staff here at the table. We have
Staff here, and Christina over here. Staff is available,
utilizing their expertise to answer the questions tonight.
As you look at the agenda you’ll see Questions
and Answers a couple of items down. The bulk of the meeting
tonight is built around the questions and answers, and the
questions and answers are probably going to fall into some
main areas; we’ll have an Other category.
We’re anticipating questions around school
impacts. That why we invited them, and the superintendents
and School Board members are here. We expect to have
questions around housing issues, and we expect to have
questions around traffic impacts. In addition, you might
also have questions around those foundational documents:
the EIR, the Housing Element and the Specific Plan. And any
other questions you have about the North 40 as well.
So we want to address those questions. This
meeting is for you tonight. It’s for the community so that
there is a clear understanding about how the North 40 will
be developed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What we’re not doing tonight is we’re not talking
about specific development applications. There’s a process
for that, and as a matter of fact part of that process is
described on the back of your agenda, where the Planning
Commission will be holding meetings on development
applications. There will be an opportunity for verbal input
at those meetings. Obviously the Planning Commission will
offer their advisory recommendations to Council. There are
multiple Council meetings that will take up North 40
applications, and ultimately Council as the policy makers
and decision makers will be making decisions around those
applications. At every one of those Planning Commission and
Council meetings there is opportunity for you to provide
comment around those applications.
Tonight is about understanding the groundwork
that has been laid. Council, Planning Commission and Staff
have put multiple years into the Specific Plan, EIR and the
Housing Element, getting ready for development in the North
40. What those documents do is they provide a framework, a
foundation, and the parameters around how development will
proceed. That’s the focus of our meeting tonight.
What is that foundation? How will the development
proceed in terms of the frameworks, the boundaries that
have been established? Your Town Council has established
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of these, and others are mandated, and we’ll hear
about that a little bit from Staff in terms of State
mandates and State regulations.
So that’s what the focus of the meeting here is
tonight: understanding the groundwork, the frame work, the
foundation for the North 40 development, and how those
applications will be reviewed and ultimately evaluated. I
hope we’re okay with that in terms of the core focus and
core purpose of the meeting tonight.
I want to walk us through the format tonight, and
how we’ll be spending our time together. We have multiple
hours to spend tonight. It says on the agenda 6:00 o’clock.
We can go till 10:00 o’clock. If there are enough
questions, we’ll go to 10:00 o’clock. The idea here is
that, again, this is your meeting, wanting to hear your
questions, providing Staff answers, and we want to reserve
as much time as possible for a broad range of questions.
In just a moment Staff will give a relatively
brief presentation around the foundation, as I mentioned, a
little bit about the history of the Specific Plan, a little
bit about the Specific Plan EIR, the Housing Element, et
cetera. So we’ll have a presentation, and that presentation
will help provide a common starting point for us tonight,
and common vocabulary for us tonight.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We will then move into questions and answers. We
can go ahead and pass those out, Christina. There is going
to be one key card for the questions and answers, and
that’s this blue card here. So if you have a question that
you want to ask tonight around anything about the North 40,
traffic, housing, the foundational documents, put your
questions on this card here. Here’s an optional name on the
back as well as an email address if you want to be on the
list to receive information. When you fill out the card,
please hand those to Christina. Christina will collect the
cards, and then I’ll be reading the questions to Staff, and
then Staff will answer the questions.
Part of the reason for having the question cards
and me reading them is to have as much efficiency as
possible in how we’re utilizing our time tonight. One of
the things that is likely to happen, we might get lots of
questions around, say, just for example, housing issues, a
lot of the same questions. We’ll consolidate those together
and maintain the integrity of the questions, but we’ll have
a series of questions around housing, and as I anticipate,
other questions around traffic and other topics that might
arise tonight. So please, you can fill out the blue card
right now with questions that you have.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If you don’t have a question but you have a
comment, yellow card. And that’s a comment about anything
related to the North 40 tonight, from the presentation or
any other comments that you want to provide Planning
Commission, Council and Staff on the yellow card.
As we work through the agenda, you’ll see the
second to last item on the agenda is Verbal Communications,
so there will be an opportunity at the end of the meeting
tonight for you to provide verbal comments, and it’s really
an open forum. We anticipate questions around the North 40,
but it’s an open forum and you can make comments on other
topics as well related to the Town. Here is the Verbal
Communications card here; it’s on the beige. If you want to
speak at the end and provide verbal comments, it’s the
beige card there.
As we’re moving along here there might be some
questions tonight that Staff is not prepared to answer, or
they don’t have the answer tonight and they have to go back
and do some research and collect some additional
information. We’ll have a parking lot. Any of those
questions tonight, they’ll have a parking lot for those.
The other aspect tonight is some guidelines for
your questions. Please, stay focused on the informational
and fact sharing purpose of the meeting tonight. Again,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we’re not dealing with the any specific applications in
terms of development. In asking questions about the
Specific Plan, the EIR, around the Housing Element,
implications of that around traffic and schools, those are
wonderful questions to ask tonight. Anything that you are
focused on, not clear about, need some information, need
some guidance from Staff in terms of how this all develops,
those are great, great questions to ask.
There are some refreshments, as you saw in the
lobby, and we hope you enjoy those; and enjoying them in
the lobby would be great, not really wanting to have food
or drink in Council chambers.
Make sure I captured everything here, and I did.
Okay, so I think we’re ready to move.
As we’re looking at our agenda here the next item
on the agenda is the Presentation on Key Topics, so I’m
going to turn it over to Staff and let them walk you
through the PowerPoint slides. Was there a question? Did I
see a question?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: The questions online. You want to
take that, Laurel?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAUREL PREVETTI: Good evening, I’m Laurel
Prevetti, the Town Manager for the Town of Los Gatos. Thank
you all for taking your time to join us this evening.
Many of you have submitted questions online. We
have answered some of them. We know that there are other
questions. We recently posted another 20 or so answers this
afternoon, and we have another 10 or so that are not yet
answered, but we have them and we will get getting those
answers posted promptly.
So thank you to those of you who have submitted
questions. That’s going to be a living document online at
the North 40 website, and we encourage all of you to visit
that. It’s perfectly fine this evening if you wish to write
a question that you also submitted in email form; we’re
happy to discuss those as well this evening. Thank you.
DR. SPANO: Okay, so I think we’re ready to move
into the presentation, so Joel, you’ll get us keyed up
here. And then I did not introduce Staff. Laurel introduced
herself, and Staff can introduce themselves as they get
ready.
JOEL PAULSON: Great. Good evening, I’m Joel
Paulson, the Community Development Director. I’m going to
go through a little bit of the background and history. The
Town has gone through a somewhat lengthy process to get to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the point of the Specific Plan adoption, so I’m going to go
through some of that background information quickly.
So generally what is a specific plan? A specific
plan is used to help provide additional guidance for
specific areas of town. In this case, we have the North 40
Specific Plan area. It gets incorporated into the General
Plan, and then once it’s adopted, as we currently have
applications they are weighed against the adopted Specific
Plan to make sure that it conforms with that.
History goes way back. The Town actually drafted
a Draft North 40 Specific Plan that was completed in 1999,
but it was never adopted. The Town was getting ready to
begin a comprehensive General Plan update, and so they
tabled it from what I understand, and then didn’t consider
it any further.
In 2010 the Council adopted the most recent
General Plan update, which we call the 2020 General Plan.
In that document there was reference to the North 40
Specific Plan. It set some parameters that were evaluated
in the EIR for the General Plan, and those parameters were
up to 580,000 square feet of commercial used and up to 750
residential units. Those were used to help frame the
evaluation and the cumulative impact of the Environmental
Impact Report for the General Plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One of the requirements of the 2020 General Plan
was that a North 40 Specific Plan be prepared. That led to
the more focused direction of drafting the plan. The Town
hired a consultant to help us out with preparation of that
Specific Plan.
The Council also appointed an advisory committee,
what we call the North 40 Advisory Committee. They began
their work in 2011, and for approximately two-and-a-half
years they completed that work and forwarded their
recommendations on to the Planning Commission.
Along the way at the North 40 Advisory Committee
meetings, all of the Planning Commission, all the Council
meetings, and obviously public input as provided, both
written and verbal, depending on the meeting.
For the Specific Plan we had to do an EIR, so a
Draft EIR was prepared and circulated in early 2014. That
EIR evaluated the project at the time, which was up to
580,000 square feet of commercial, and up to I want to say
364, but I can’t remember the number off the top of my
head; I will try to get that information.
So that was circulated and then the draft
document, both the Specific Plan and the EIR were submitted
to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
performed their review over two meetings in July and August
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of 2014, and from there they provided their recommendations
to the Town Council, and then the Town Council evaluated
that information and all of the public record.
Obviously there are Planning Commission and
Council members here with us this evening. The amount of
information was lengthy and voluminous, and so there was a
lot of input that was provided.
The Council considered the Specific Plan and the
EIR on a number of occasions and in June 2015 ultimately
the Specific Plan was adopted.
The Specific Plan contains a number of
development parameters, but it also contains a Vision and
then Guiding Principles to implement that Vision. Hopefully
everyone has had a chance to look at the Specific Plan
itself. It’s online, and there you can walk through all of
the specific parameters, but I just want to bring focus to
both the Specific Plan Vision as outlined on the screen,
and then the Guiding Principles to achieve that Vision.
With that, I will give you a little bit more
information on the development that is allowed. The maximum
capacity ultimately in the adopted Specific Plan was up to
501,000 square feet of commercial uses, and up to 270
residential units.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Specific Plan also contains open space
requirements. The minimum amount of open space that must be
provided is 30%. It also speaks to design elements that
reflect the orchard heritage that currently exists on the
site. We’ll add new bike and pedestrian paths. Also there
will be improvements obviously that are required of the EIR
to nearby streets.
With that, I will pass it to the Town Attorney.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Good evening. My name is Robert
Schultz; I’m your Town Attorney. I’ve been with the Town
now for about two-and-a-half years.
When I came along the Specific Plan Committee had
already completed their work. The Specific Plan for the
North 40 was in its draft, and as Joel told you, in 2014
and 2015 I was part of those hearings when it went to the
Planning Commission and ultimately to the Town Council.
As with the Housing Element I was with that
process pretty much all the way through, and we did our
update through 2014 and 2015. So I’ve been here for those
processes, but I wasn’t here for the early stages of the
Draft Specific Plan.
Tonight I’m kind of the bearer of bad news. I
have two subjects that I want to talk about: school
impacts, and the relationship between the Housing Element
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and our Specific Plan. I guess I drew the short straw. I
think they said, “You’re an attorney. They hate you anyway,
so you can cover these two subjects.”
I’m here to talk about school impacts. We’ve had
just a tremendous amount of comments at all the hearings
about school impacts, and we all I think understand how
impacted the schools are with overcrowding and lack of
facilities.
The bad news is that the State has preempted us
on this issue. The State has decided that it will regulate
the impacts from schools, and not the local jurisdictions.
It’s been that way since the 1990s when SB50 was passed,
and that basically says that the Town, or any city or
county, can’t prohibit a development based on any type of
finding that says the schools are overcrowded or impacts.
We just do not have that ability to make that finding in
order to deny a project.
SB50 does authorize the school districts to levy
a fee on new development, and it establishes the amount in
the State law, exactly what they’re going to be able to
levy on each new development and it’s basically a formula,
and that formula continues to rise. I would be of the
opinion that it hasn’t risen enough to keep up with the
cost of real property and that there need to be some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
changes made, but that has to be done at the State level;
the Town doesn’t have the ability to do that. Right now
it’s $0.56 per square footage for commercial and $3.48 for
residential.
The school districts do have the ability to try
to raise that up. You can go from Level 1 to Level 2 and
Level 3. They had to do an analysis and a study to raise
those levels up above the 2 and the 3. They do that; the
Town doesn’t have the ability to do that. The different
school districts have looked at possibly raising those
levels up.
So what can we do? Well, we did zone and allow
for uses in the North 40 for public school. We can do that;
we can use that as a use. We can’t zone specific
properties, because the problem with that is if we took
three or four acres and said this will be a school, and
then a school doesn’t purchase it, it’s basically then
we’ve taken someone’s property, because it can’t be used
for any other purpose. But we did allow for the use of a
public school on the North 40 property; it’s one of the
approved uses.
What else can we do? Well, we put in language
specifically in the Specific Plan that says we encourage,
we require, the applicants or the developers to work with
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the school districts on overcrowding. That message I think
went through because I think most of you know now that the
actual applicant for the North 40 did meet with the Los
Gatos Union School District and agreement was reached for
additional money above what the State allows, and that’s
allowed under State law. The Town wasn’t part of that
agreement; we just encouraged them to try to work that out.
That agreement is a public record; anybody can look at that
and see what funding will be provided, and representatives
from the School District are here that maybe can answer
those questions, if there are questions, about that
specific agreement.
So really what the bottom line is on that is I
know you’re passionate about your school impacts. You’re
more than welcome to continue to comment about school
impacts for each project, not just this and any others, but
the hands of your local government officials are really
tied. They don’t have the ability to, like I said, deny or
modify a project, any project, based on school impacts.
What we really need to do is get the State to
change the methodology that is allowed up there so that
more money is coming into local governments from
developers.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The other issue is the Housing Element. The State
has currently determined that there is a major and severe
shortage of affordable housing and there is an immediate
need to encourage the development of housing. This is
continually going on. I’ll talk a little bit later about
Governor Brown’s brand new proposal for even more
legislation to take away local control.
In order to meet these regional housing needs
California law requires the Town to adopt a Housing
Element. We adopted one from 2007 to 2014, and our next one
was just updated recently.
Every jurisdiction—we’re not alone in this, we’re
all dealing with it—we all have to take care of our fair
share and plan for the new housing of all income levels in
the community.
In order to comply with the State law, what did
the Town do? It appointed a Housing Element Advisory Board
to help assist with the update of the Housing Element. The
HEAB, as we called it, consisted of the General Plan
Committee and four members of the community. The General
Plan Committee consists of Council members and Planning
Commission members.
In 2013 and 2014, when I first came on, I was
part of numerous meetings that were held in the chambers
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
here and give public input on all the different ways that
we could meet the State requirements and get a certified
Housing Element. All housing elements have to be certified
by the State.
In June 2014 what HEAB decided to do was to
satisfy all its numbers that were required by the State.
What it did was it used its existing Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone sites. That’s what we have done in our
previous version; we figured that would work and we’d be
able to show we can meet all our numbers for affordable
housing by what we did in the last one.
This went in front of the Planning Commission and
the Council in September of 2014. Then it was approved and
we sent it on up to the HCD for their approval.
Unfortunately the State said they’re not going to certify
it. They said that we weren’t demonstrating that we had the
ability to approve those sites for affordable housing.
What we had done, we had put an AHOZ, and I’ll
just use an example. One of our AHOZ sites is the Lodge
property, the Los Gatos Lodge, and we were saying that has
the ability to produce X amount of units of affordable
housing, but unfortunately that wasn’t mandatory. So when
an applicant came in and said they wanted to produce those
X amount of units, the Council, the Town, had complete
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discretion to deny that and say they still wanted it to
remain commercial since it was just an overlay, and the
State said you’re just playing games with the numbers of
the amount of units that you’re able to build, because
there is too much discretion allowed amongst the Council on
whether to approve any of those projects for those AHOZ
sites and that you really have to show that you’re able to
meet those numbers for affordable housing and allow for
development to occur.
So in order to obtain certification the HEAB got
back together and met, and we went over all these different
sites and tried to find out where we could meet our RHNA
numbers.
One of the ways they did that was by taking the
North 40 Specific Plan and taking 13.5 acres at 20 units
per acre, and that’s how they were able to meet those
numbers that were missing to be able to get it certified.
What they also had to do was list that the development on
the Specific Plan and the North 40 was going to be by
right, and what that means is 13.5 acres at 20 units per
acre has to be done by right. What means is that if an
applicant comes in and wants to do that amount of units,
then you don’t have the ability to say we don’t want those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
units. We’ve already said you’re able to do them by right,
you’ve allowed for the development of those units.
We were able to have some discretion of the
design review, and we have to make certain that it still
complies with the Specific Plan. What that means is we’ve
heard many a time that the maximum is 270 units in the
Specific Plan, and it does say maximum. So many people say
well that’s just a maximum, we can only allow 200 units.
Not with what we did with our Housing Element. When we
approved our Housing Element and said 270 units are by
right, that basically means if an applicant comes in and
wants to develop 270 units, the Council has to approve it
at that number of units.
Now, they do have discretion within that to make
certain that it does comply still with the Specific Plan,
but they can’t simply say we don’t like 270; we want 200.
Because that’s what we were doing before on other projects
and the State said no, you’re not actually carrying your
weight to meet their RHNA numbers.
Just as a final note, what I said before,
Governor Brown has just proposed sweeping new regulations
that this wouldn’t just apply to our 619 RHNA numbers, or
270 where we set by right; it would apply across the board.
If a project comes in and proposes I think it is 20% of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
affordable housing in a project, you have to allow it by
right. You don’t have the ability anymore to deny projects,
and there will be very little CEQA review.
I would strongly suggest you look up this law and
talk to your legislators about it, because it takes away
tremendous local control. Bills are being proposed to take
away local control. I serve on a housing committee with the
State, and we’re continually trying to fight to keep that
local control, but time and time again the State is trying
to take it away for what they believe is a State purpose.
With those two pieces of bad news on the Housing
Element and the school impacts, I’ll pass it over to Matt
Morley.
MATT MORLEY: Good evening, I’m Matt Morley, the
Director of Parks and Public Works. I’m going to talk to
you a little bit about traffic impacts and how the Town
handles that. I’ll start by talking about the standards the
Town has set in place, and these standards are in place
through the General Plan that both Joel and Rob have talked
about a little bit.
To set the standard the Town has identified six
levels of service within the Town. We rate those on an A
through F levels, and we do include E, not like your school
grades. For the sake of identifying the traffic levels of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service, Level D is considered acceptable in the General
Plan.
The level of service is measured in terms of
delay in seconds. What this means when it comes down to it
is that the Town looks at individual intersections and the
amount of time and delay that you would expect or
anticipate when you come to that intersection to wait for
your opportunity to progress through.
How does this translate to developments? In terms
of intersections that are in the area of an A through C,
they’re allowed to drop one level, and this is in the
General Plan as well. The standard is that those
intersections within development can degrade by one level.
The intersections cannot drop below a level of D. D is the
lowest level of acceptable service for an intersection, so
if it hits a D or below, there has to be some sort of
mitigation to bring that intersection back up to a level of
D. In addition, if an intersections drops more than one
level, so if it were to drop two or more levels, then it
needs to be brought back up and there needs to be a
mitigation to address that as well.
How do we go about figuring all this out? It
starts with a traffic impact analysis, or TIA, and that’s
part of the Environmental Impact Report. For the Specific
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plan 31 existing intersections were analyzed, and then one
new intersection that is created with the Specific Plan was
added and analyzed as well.
The analysis includes anticipated vehicle trips,
so how many trips were going to be generated with the
development, and that’s all a standardized calculation
based on industry standard. It also considers the type of
development, so the residential versus the commercial. And
it considers the time of day, so what happens in the worst
impacted period of the day, the peak periods, and typically
there’s a peak period in the morning and a peak period in
the evening, an AM peak and a PM peak.
In Los Gatos’ case we include an analysis of
other anticipated developments. In many communities the
anticipated developments are those that are already
permitted. In Los Gatos, if we have it on the radar and we
can identify the scope and scale of the project, it’s
included in the analysis.
With that, there are several projects that were
included in the analysis for the North 40 Specific Plan.
These are the six projects that were included, and those
were included based on the information that was in the
Town’s possession at the time that the EIR was completed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Once these impacts are identified and we know
that the development is going to bring more traffic in, we
have to figure out how to solve the impacts of the traffic
increase. To do this we’ve looked at many different ways of
reducing the level of service—again, it always goes back to
the level of service and the calculations and the data—and
bringing that back to the alignment with the Town Code,
with the General Plan.
In order to do that for the North 40 there are
several areas that we’ve incorporated, including multi
model improvements. There’s a bike and pedestrian path that
goes around the perimeter of the properties as well as
through the center of the properties.
There are Lark and Highway 17 intersection
improvements. This is the northbound on-ramp to Lark and
17. There’s an additional right turn lane to handle the
additional capacity that’s necessary.
There are improvements at Lark and Los Gatos
Boulevard to provide for left turns, both from Los Gatos
Boulevard onto Lark Avenue and from Lark Avenue onto Los
Gatos Boulevard. Those extra lanes will help to decrease
the delay at that intersection.
There is a new intersection at “Neighborhood
Street” that will be a new signalized intersection.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“Neighborhood Street” is in quotes on the screen, because
it’s not yet fully named, but the new intersection that I
talked about was added to the analysis, and a new
signalized intersection will help to provide access to the
project and will help to alleviate traffic and congestion
from vehicles going in and out of the area.
Finally, there are improvements in the Specific
Plan for Los Gatos Boulevard at Burton and Samaritan.
In terms of traffic it’s important to note that
the General Plan acknowledges that there is an increase of
traffic with developments and works hard to mitigate those
impacts. The mitigation measures as I’ve listed here are
efforts to accommodate that additional capacity need and
address the traffic in that means.
As I mentioned, there are ways for intersections
not to get fully mitigated, so some intersections don’t get
fully mitigated back to the level. There is an allowance
for a drop, but the General Plan does establish a standard,
a minimum level of service at that D Level, and the
documents ensure that that level of service is met.
With that, that concludes the traffic impact
section, and we’ll turn it back to Shawn for the wrap up.
DR. SPANO: This slide here is the same slide
that you have on the back of our agenda, as I mentioned
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
earlier about the process going forward and opportunities
for public input; just want to remind you.
In July there will be Planning Commission public
hearings regarding Phase 1 development. Expect multiple
meetings on that aspect from the Planning Commission, and
every one of those meetings is an opportunity for public
input on those applications.
Then the same thing with the Town Council public
meetings. There will be multiple meetings and opportunities
for public input and verbal comment at those meetings as
well.
We are being televised tonight on KCAT, and there
will be a verbal transcription of the meeting here tonight
as well.
We are ready to move on to Questions and Answers.
Christine is collecting questions—I’ve got three categories
here—and Christina will collect your blue cards.
So far I have three big categories. The two
questions around the EIR and Specific Plan, we’ll start
there. There are several housing questions here, and
several traffic. Let’s take up housing after the EIR and
Specific Plan question.
Question: What agency or consulting firm
performed the EIR?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll take that. EMC Planning Group
is the consultant that the Town used to prepare the EIR for
the North 40 Specific Plan.
DR. SPANO: Okay, excellent. And a question
around the Specific Plan is: “Why is the North 40 Specific
Plan not adhering to Town Council and resident concerns?”
We’ll take that question as it is. I might respond this
way: In what ways did the Specific Plan respond to Town
Council and resident concerns, and which ways did it not is
another way of phrasing the question. Go ahead, Joel.
JOEL PAULSON: I’d say, as I spoke of earlier,
the Planning Commission, Council, North 40 Advisory
Committee, there was a lengthy public process. Ultimately a
policy document was adopted, which is the Specific Plan,
taking into consideration all of the concerns that were
raised, many of which are similar to many of the concerns
we have been hearing recently. I believe those were all
taken into consideration by the Planning Commission and
then ultimately the Council before taking an action on that
item.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Let me just add a specific
example. As Joel mentioned in the opening presentation,
when the Advisory Committee was doing its work the plan was
considering about 350 or so housing units. As the plan
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
worked through the process, ultimately the Council reduced
the housing development capacity to 270, so I think that is
one example of how the Council was in fact listening to
some of the public comments that were coming forward during
that time.
There are other examples. We did an economic
study to make sure that the North 40 Specific Plan would
not compete with our precious and very unique downtown, and
so the elements coming out of that study were also
incorporated.
And there are numerous other examples. Our
Council and Planning Commission reads all of the
correspondence, so as we move forward, again, we encourage
you to continue to stay engaged and participate.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. A question just came in,
and this question is related to the Specific Plan, so I’m
going to take that question now. You can see what I’m
doing. I’m trying to take questions that fall together in
the same category, since we’re on that topic.
This question asks, “Does the Specific Plan
involve the City of Campbell as a joint municipality
affected by the overall plan? Is there coordination between
the two? How much additional…” Let me just hold on that
second question. So, coordination with Campbell?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I will turn this over to Mr.
Morley. It’s not a joint plan between Campbell and the
Town. This is the Town’s Specific Plan for this specific
area. The traffic, through the environmental process, we do
coordinate with not only Campbell, but also San Jose and
other neighboring jurisdictions where there may be impacts
that could be created by this proposal.
MATT MORLEY: Thank you, Joel. Great question in
terms of what the regional coordination looks like. There
are two examples and they were on the list, and I’m going
to flip back in the slides real quick.
Two additional projects that were included in the
analysis. The Dell Avenue plan, which is a Campbell plan,
was incorporated into the traffic analysis, so that
definitely has been considered, as well as the Samaritan
area improvements that were on the books at the time, and
those have been considered from the Council as well.
DR. SPANO: Excellent. I have some other
questions here around the Specific Plan. “Since the purpose
of the North 40 Specific Plan was to develop the property
with a cohesive, unified plan covering the entire 40 acres,
how can we consider only Phase 1 in a vacuum without seeing
how it fits into the whole? Why doesn’t the Town require
this comprehensive plan that covers the entire property?”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan, for those have
read through that, does anticipate phasing. There are a
number of different property owners across the North 40
Specific Plan area, and so to facilitate the development
phasing was reviewed and taken into consideration and
included in the Specific Plan itself. I don't know the
total number currently of property owners out there, but
there are still a number of property owners across the
Specific Plan area, and the application that it’s currently
in is only for the first phase, because that’s the property
that they have control over.
Then I would turn it to anyone else who wants to
add anything additional.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think, as Joel mentioned, it
is specifically in the Specific Plan. Section 6.2 addresses
that issue and states that it will be implemented over time
and in more than one phase. Each phase shall stand alone
and shall be dependent on the improvements in that. So each
phase does have to do its own public improvements that are
necessary, but each phase was addressed, and that issue was
brought up during all the hearings that were held.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I would just add that because
we are working through an application for the southern part
it needs to anticipate the infrastructure needs for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
entire plan area. You will see in the drawings stubbed out
streets and other elements that indicate that in the
future, when the northern portion is ready for private
development, that we’ve anticipated the infrastructure
needs accordingly, so while we don’t know exactly the form
or the shape of what the northern section would look like,
the plan anticipates that it’s going to happen over time.
This is not uncommon for a large tract of land
such as this one that’s over 40 acres. It would be highly
unusual for a single development proposal to happen in one
fell swoop. Typically it does happen over time with
multiple applications.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And although not part of the
question, a lot of the questions that have been submitted
so far that have talked about three phases. There are not
three phases. There are three different districts, but
there are only two phases of development. The first
application that’s in is dealing with the first two
districts, and then the third district would be the second
phase.
There might be parts in that Northern District
that could be broken into smaller phases, because there are
multiple owners, so it’s pretty much impossible in a
project this size to get everybody to come in at the same
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time, because there could be a property owner in the
northern area that doesn’t plan on developing their project
consistent with the Specific Plan for ten or fifteen years
even.
DR. SPANO: Okay, are we good here? I have an EIR
question: “Can the Town have another follow up EIR?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Town can always request
additional environmental studies, a city or town, if it
determines that an addendum is necessary or there are new
facts and circumstances under CEQA. That’s why I hesitated;
there is specific language that allows for that to happen.
We’d have to look at and see if that was a concern of the
Planning Commission and Town Council when it goes further,
that there are issues that they feel were not addressed in
the original one, and there have been circumstances that
have changed. Then we would have to look at that and see if
we could make the findings to allow for additional
environmental review.
DR. SPANO: Along those same lines, “Can the
Specific Plan be amended?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes. Chapter Six does
specifically call out the administration of the plan and
plan amendments, so at any time the document can be amended
by Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: A Specific Plan question: “Are there
any contingencies related to the sale of Yuki’s property at
all that could impact the outcome of the North 40
development?” Contingencies related to the Yuki property.
JOEL PAULSON: The Town Attorney may jump into
this as well. We don’t get involved in the private land
transaction, so we are not always privy to the specific
contingencies, whether there are contingencies there or
not. I know during the public hearing process there were
discussions at the public hearings about the anticipated
phasing, for one, and then two, some loose terms regarding
some of the transaction issues moving forward, but that’s
not something the Town gets involved in.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Nor do we even have copies of
those agreements between the property owner and the
potential buyer.
DR. SPANO: A Specific Plan question: “Since the
Yuki family is now keeping 22 acres, how can the Specific
Plan still be relevant?”
JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan was prepared
specifically because there are so many owners out there,
and we want to be able to maintain the private property
rights of the individual property owners, but they don’t
own the entire North 40 Specific Plan area. They do own a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
large chunk of the Specific Plan area, but they do not own
all of the parcels.
DR. SPANO: Another Specific Plan question:
“Three districts that will work together as self sufficient
neighbors, but self sufficiency must wait until a future
phase. What happens if Phase 2 and beyond never gets built?
Would we just have a lot more housing?” Does that question
make sense? You want me to read that again?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No. There’s always the potential
of a property owner, as I mentioned, not wanting to do a
project under the Specific Plan and leaving the land just
the way it is right now with some of the outlying
individual homes that you see out there, but any time when
they come in they would have to file an application and
comply with the Specific Plan at that particular time.
There is the maximum of the 270 units, so if someone was to
say that the 270 units had already been built out by
previous applicants and someone came in and wanted to
propose more housing units, it would require, as we
discussed, a amendment to be able to do that, because it
wouldn’t be able to fit the Specific Plan requirements.
DR. SPANO: Another Specific Plan question: “The
plan dictates 270 units, but there is a bonus. How does the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bonus apply, and what is the number of bonus units the
total on the site would be?”
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll start, and if Ms. Prevetti or
Mr. Schultz need to add anything in. The bonus is up to
35%. I know we’re not here discussing the application
that’s currently before us, but they requested the 35%
bonus, and so the total number, if I remember correctly, if
you did the 35% density bonus across the 270, you end up
with 364 units, so that is possible.
Also note that any residential project in town
can utilize the density bonus; they just have to request
that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: As Joel mentioned, they have to
request that, and again, that’s a State law that we cannot
circumvent. We can’t say no, we’re not going to allow you
to have a density bonus. It’s allowed if it’s requested by
the developer and he meets the requirements to obtain the
density bonus, which is providing a certain amount of
affordable housing, and depending on whether that’s Very
Low, Low or Moderate determines how much of a percentage,
and as Joel mentioned, it’s up to 35%.
DR. SPANO: Here’s a question: “Is it possible to
purchase the property, or has the adoption of the Specific
Plan precluded that?”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: The adoption doesn’t preclude any
private land transaction. I’m sure the property could be
purchased. Obviously there is a lot of work and time that’s
been invested, and so whether or not the parties that
currently hold any rights to that property would be
interested in having that conversation, that would be a
private conversation that would need to take place.
DR. SPANO: The follow up: “If purchase is
possible, could a bond measure be proposed?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The first question dealt with
whether it could be purchased, and as Joel mentioned,
that’s a private transaction. We don’t have the documents
between the purchaser and the person that has that option
right now to purchase it, so if a third party came in and
wanted to also try to purchase it, there are all sorts of
contracts that would have to be terminated and brought
into.
The second question is about issuing bonds, and I
think that goes to the Town purchasing the property.
Currently we would not want to get involved in a voluntary
purchase of the property, because of the fact there’s a
transaction that’s already pending and there could be all
sorts of ramifications of interference with a contractual
relationship that we wouldn’t want to.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But the Town does have the ability under eminent
domain proceedings to take property for public use. That is
always a possibility. I would say that’s a very complicated
procedure. We did give a very detailed answer in our
questions that are online about the eminent domain and the
experts that are hired and how you go through that process,
but certainly at any time a purchase can be taken for
public use through the eminent domain procedures.
JOEL PAULSON: Just to follow on, for those of
you who aren’t aware, the Town does have an FAQ, Frequently
Asked Questions, posted online, so please, if you haven’t
taken a look at that, take a look at that. We’re evolving
that and adding answers to questions as they come in. We
actually just updated it again this afternoon with some
additional information, so I’d encourage folks to take a
look at that as well.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I just want to moderate some
expectations. While it’s theoretically possible, it’s
highly unlikely, because if the Town were to get involved,
not withstanding any contractual challenges that we might
have, we would have to pay fair market value, and because
there is a Specific Plan with the specific development
capacities, that’s going to be very expensive land for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town to buy, so it’s highly unlikely for not only practical
reasons, but also legal reasons, that that would happen.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I was preferenced just from a
legal Specific Plan, and there are all sorts of financial
issues that would be involved, and the bond measure and
timeframe that would take. I was just looking at it from a
standpoint of yes, the Town has eminent domain ability
under State law to take property for public use, but
accomplishing that under these circumstances would be very,
very difficult.
DR. SPANO: There’s a follow up question here
that I’m not going to have Staff answer. It’s about the
developer’s proposal and whether it meets the guidelines of
the Specific Plan, and as you recall that’s really not the
focus of the meeting tonight. That will be taken up by
Planning Commission and Town Council.
We’re staying on the Specific Plan EIR questions
here. “If we have another EIR, how can the Town meet the
deadline of the current application if there was another
follow up EIR?”
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll start. I think it would be
highly unusual. The circumstances haven’t changed to the
point where those thresholds probably are met.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The other important piece to understand is that
as other jurisdictions, other projects, come in, they all
have to take into account the traffic that is proposed to
be generated by the North 40 Specific Plan. They then will
have to accommodate whatever impact their project is going
to have in the cumulative analysis, also taking into
account the North 40, the Dell Avenue plan, and many other
projects. So they’re required to go through their own
environmental process and then make those determinations
with this as background data included.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) the question was
how do we for (inaudible)?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s something I think that we
won’t be able to answer right here, so the Town Attorney
can maybe provide some additional input.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: During the process, and that’s
one of the reasons why we’re focusing on the Specific Plan
as opposed to an individual application, because an
applicant does have due process rights. That issue will
certainly come up at the Planning Commission where there
will be at least two hearings in July for the Planning
Commission, and at least two hearings in front of the
Council in August and September. So that would be the time
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to ask for additional environmental review, at those
hearings.
There are many complicated issues that overlap
with regard to the Permit Streamlining Act in regard to the
Subdivision Act that we would have to work through if in
fact that was a requirement, and we could make the
findings. As I said earlier, there are strict findings to
require additional environmental review, and until we get
really into the meat of the project and hear the elected
and appointed bodies is when those issues will arise.
DR. SPANO: A question here about the Specific
Plan: “The Vision Statement in the Specific Plan states
that the 40 acres should not be developed piecemeal.”
There’s no question, but I’m assuming the question that
follows from that is related to the earlier question about
developing in phases. So reiterate the same answer? Is
there another way of answering that division plan statement
in the Specific Plan states that the 40 acres should not be
developed piecemeal?
JOEL PAULSON: Bear with me. I’m just going to
make sure I’m looking at the exact words. So looking at the
Vision Statement, I don’t see…
DR. SPANO: Could you repeat that? It was under
Purpose 1.1. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAUREL PREVETTI: The bottom paragraph on page
1.1 says, “The intent of the Specific Plan is to provide a
comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a
planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach,”
and that’s really the whole purpose of the Specific Plan,
that it brings together all of the properties under a
common Vision, which is also articulated on that page, and
a common set of design guidelines and rules and
regulations. It is intended to be a comprehensive plan.
I recognize that there’s concern that we may have
multiple applications, but the first application is for a
fairly large portion of the total area, and so as a subset
that’s still considered a comprehensive plan that
anticipates the future.
So again, it is related to phasing. I know
ideally we would all love to see what’s it all going to
look like ultimately, but it isn’t uncommon for projects of
this magnitude and this size to happen in segments.
Essentially it’s the plan that knits together those future
applications to make sure that it is going to deliver an
integrated neighborhood for our town.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. A Specific Plan question:
“The Vision of the Specific Plan paints a pretty picture
for a conforming development, however, the maximum density
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and intensity drastically conflict with the Vision. Can the
Town amend the Specific Plan to be in compliance with
itself?”
JOEL PAULSON: Obviously the Planning Commission
and Council, when they evaluate the Phase 1 applications
that are currently going through the process, will be
taking into consideration the Vision, the Guiding
Principles and all of the elements of the Specific Plan
document to make a determination for the Planning
Commission, a recommendation to Council, and then
ultimately the Council to take a final action on the
project and to ensure that it complies with the Specific
Plan.
Those are important pieces that will continue to
be discussed in July by the Planning Commission, and
starting in August probably in front of the Town Council.
Offer anything else?
LAUREL PREVETTI: Just under State law we are
required to make sure that all specific plans are
internally consistent and that the Specific Plan is
consistent with the General Plan. Those findings were made
during the process of the Specific Plan preparation, so the
document as approved is internally consistent.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As mentioned earlier, there is a process for
amending the plan, and that could be considered at a later
date.
DR. SPANO: “Does the Specific Plan protect the
Downtown District? If so, how?”
JOEL PAULSON: There are a number of policies and
language in the Specific Plan, because that obviously was a
large component of having the conversation of going through
the development of the Specific Plan and not wanting to
negatively impact the downtown that we have.
There are a number of policies that were put in
place specifically to try to limit that and really focus on
complementing the downtown rather than competing with the
downtown; that was a lot of the conversations originally
when the Specific Plan was going through the process.
I will thumb through and see if I can find any
specific policies that relate to that. The Town did do an
economic study as part of the Environmental Impact Report,
and that study did look at the potential impact on
downtown, and that impact was not evident based on what was
proposed.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I would also just add, there is
a table called Table 2.2 that identifies the maximum
development capacity and the maximum amount for different
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
uses, including retail, restaurants, et cetera, and those
numbers were carefully considered in light of the entire
economic segment of our community.
In addition, there is a table of uses that
identifies which uses need a Conditional Use Permit or some
other development permit, and that’s Table 2-1, and that
was carefully considered by the Town Council, and I recall
that there were some modifications along the way to make
sure that we were complementing the downtown and not
competing.
And again, all these elements could be subject to
future Specific Plan amendments if we find that additional
changes are necessary.
JOEL PAULSON: The other thing I’d point out for
the commercial uses, the Specific Plan requires them to be
presented to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee,
which is a body that’s made up of two Council members and
three Planning Commissioners. Then they are also required
to do additional economic impact analysis, which is brought
forward to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
before going through the process.
Any future commercial or future phases will have
to go through that same process, and that will be taken
into consideration at that time too, and depending on the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
length of time may give you a similar or different economic
story, but that evaluation will be provided with each
application that comes forward.
DR. SPANO: Specific Plan question: “Would it be
accurate to say that if somehow the Town successfully
reduced the density of the Specific Plan it would
essentially just be kicking the can down the road and
result in denser future redevelopments?”
JOEL PAULSON: That is one possible outcome.
Obviously if the 13.5 acres in the Specific Plan is not
developed at 20 units per acre the Town has to identify
additional sites that will accommodate 20 units per acre by
right development, which Mr. Schultz has discussed at
length, and that has to be done immediately following any
action that would be taken to reduce the adequate sites
inventory for the Specific Plan area. That was a big
conversation throughout the process with the Advisory
Committee and Housing Element Advisory Board.
The challenge is the Town in the last cycle used
Affordable Housing Overlay Zones to accomplish our RHNA
numbers, and this time they chose to remove some of those,
given some of the new requirements with by right and 20
unit per acre development to utilize the North 40 in that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
case. So anything that gets reduced on the North 40 will
have to be accommodated elsewhere in town.
DR. SPANO: Thank you, Joel. I checked with
Laurel. I wasn’t sure if this was an application question
or not. “I’m proud of Town Council for rejecting Shannon
Road/Los Gatos Boulevard development due to high-density
application request. Why is North 40 application density
not being rejected under the same pretense?”
JOEL PAULSON: The Town took specific actions
through our Housing Element and Specific Plan to
accommodate our regional housing needs, and that was to say
that we’re going to have 13.5 acres of the North 40 area be
developed at 20 units per acre on that site.
I think the Shannon Road project was actually
probably far less then 20 units per acre. It’s just
obviously a smaller site, and the determination was made
that the proposed development wasn’t appropriate and the
project was ultimately denied.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I think the context is also
different, because that site was designated primarily for
commercial use, so that was not a Housing Element site, it
was not a site that we had identified for residential.
The first question is really do we want housing
at that Shannon Road and Los Gatos Boulevard location?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Secondly, that project went through the entire
process, so it went through all of the development
evaluation. It went through Planning Commission and it went
through Town Council, so it went through the whole process.
With the North 40, with the application that’s
currently pending, we’re still in that process. We don’t
know what the outcome of that is going to be, but as was
mentioned on the slide that’s up there, we do have Planning
Commission hearings starting on July 12th, and we’ll see
what its recommendation will be and ultimately what the
Council’s decision will be in August or early September, so
we’re still in process.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’ll just add to that. It was a
totally different scenario, because of the fact mentioned.
It was commercial; an applicant is asking for it to be
changed to residential. That’s within the discretion of the
Council whether to allow or not. It wasn’t a site within
our Housing Element.
But more importantly, I’ll go back to Governor
Brown’s proposal. If his law passes, that project would
have to be approved by Council. They would not have had the
discretion, because if it had that 20% affordable, which is
11 units, if there were 20% of those units, they would not
have had any discretion, it would have had to be approved
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
without any CEQA allowed. That’s how far the State is
trying to go take away local control.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. Still on the Specific
Plan: “The Specific Plan states that 13.5 acres will have a
density of 20 units. Do all 13.5 acres have to be in the
Lark and Transition Districts, or can it be spread
throughout the entire 40 acres?”
JOEL PAULSON: It can be spread out, ultimately.
That’s a determination the Council will make on the
application. There is obviously language, and as was
discussed before the Specific Plan talks about three
districts. This first application is taking up almost two
of the districts, so if that’s something that the Planning
Commission through their recommendation and/or Council
ultimately think it is appropriate, then that’s something
that they can consider.
I think the challenge gets to be there are a lot
of other areas, and I’ll turn to the Town Attorney relating
to density bonus requests and where our discretion lies
there, as well as some of the by right concerns that were
raised before.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’ll just come back to the
Specific Plan, because that’s really why we’re here, and
not the specific application. But under the Specific Plan
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the 13.5 acres are not designated, it just says there will
be 13.5 acres designated at 20 units per acre. That allows
for it to be spread if the Council so desires.
DR. SPANO: Okay, Specific Plan: “If there are so
many property owners, which was known prior to approving
the Specific Plan in January 2015, then why was the entire
44 included in the Specific Plan?”
JOEL PAULSON: I think as Ms. Prevetti mentioned
before, that’s the whole point of creating a specific plan,
when you have multiple owners, so that way everyone
understands what the requirements are for the entire plan
area, so that good planning can move forward, whether it’s
done all at once, whether it’s done in multiple phases, or
whether an individual property owner wants to just develop
their specific piece of property, it provides that
framework for the future applications to be tested against
to make sure they comply with the Vision, Guiding
Principles and developments parameters that reside in the
Specific Plan.
DR. SPANO: Follow up question to that: “Why not
a North 20 Specific Plan?”
JOEL PAULSON: A North 20 Specific Plan would
have been doing a Specific Plan for only half of the site,
and so we’d have the challenges that we have now, which
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be someone could come in with a development
application for one acre or 20 acres. The area is bound
pretty specifically by Highway 85, Highway 17, Lark and Los
Gatos Boulevard, as everyone is aware, so that really
actually makes sense to create Specific Plan for that
entire area.
But again, the Specific Plan really is a tool to
help the planning efforts moving forward when there are
multiple property owners to make sure everyone understands
what the rules are, and you get to set the rules for that
specific area.
DR. SPANO: Joel, I think this next question
falls in the same category: “Can the plan be amended to
include only the current option to parcels?”
JOEL PAULSON: The plan could always be amended.
I think Mr. Schultz explained there are processes laid out
in the Specific Plan for amendment. I will make a
statement, and then the Town Attorney can correct me if I
go astray, but generally the applications that are
currently before the Town, they have to be acted upon given
the parameters that are currently in place. Amending the
Specific Plan may not have an impact on the current
proposal, but there is a process for amending the Specific
Plan and that is always possible.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “Where in the Specific Plan does it
state that all 270 units plus bonuses be located in the
Lark District?”
JOEL PAULSON: It does not say that.
DR. SPANO: Next question: “How important are the
Vision and Guiding Principles to land use decisions? In
other words, if the Town determines most of the development
is inconsistent with the important element of the Vision
and Guiding Principles, but is otherwise compliant with the
technical standards and guidelines, must the Town allow
development to go forward?
JOEL PAULSON: I think it’s been mentioned before,
that’s obviously a big part of the evaluation. The Council
ultimately will have to make the determination as to
whether the first phase, or any subsequent application that
comes before them, complies with the Specific Plan. That
will be a specific finding that will have to be made, and
so that’s very important.
We get this question a lot with the General Plan.
If you read the General Plan, there are a lot of policies,
goals, vision language in there, some of which, depending
on the project, can be construed in multiple ways. So it’s
really taking a look at the application, taking a look at
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the foundation of the Specific Plan, and then ultimately
that determination is going to be made by the Town Council.
DR. SPANO: “So invoking language from the
Specific Plan, can the ‘look and feel’ of Los Gatos be
interpreted to include the diversity of buildings,
architecture, styles, et cetera, and not emphasize cookie
cutter, which is scarcely found in Los Gatos?” So can the
look and feel of Los Gatos be interpreted to include the
diversity of buildings, architecture and styles? Is that
what is meant by the look and feel of Los Gatos?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
DR. SPANO: Good. And as I understand the
question, encouraging that diversity and not wanting the
cooking cutter, and you’re saying that yes, that’s what the
Specific Plan enables and allows?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
DR. SPANO: Excellent. “Was the Specific Plan
changed when the size of the development was reduced by
one-half?”
JOEL PAULSON: I guess I can try to interpret
what that question means. I’m assuming it means did we cut
the Specific Plan in half because we were only looking at
half of the first phase, only dealing with half of the
application or the area?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: Or that the Specific Plan changed in
some way when the area was reduced.
JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan area was never
reduced; it’s always been the same size. The application
that’s currently in is a Phase 1 application, which is
half, so there are no changes required to the Specific Plan
because we have an application in for the first phase.
DR. SPANO: This question then I think operates
off the same premise about a reduction: “How many planned
units were lost by the reduction in acreage?” What I’m
hearing you say is there was no loss.
JOEL PAULSON: There is no loss of acreage. The
acreage that the Specific Plan governs has not changed. It
provided the requirements for the entire North 40 area,
even buildings that are intended to stay.
DR. SPANO: “If the Specific Plan is discovered
to be in conflict with the General Plan, must one of them
be amended?”
JOEL PAULSON: The General Plan was amended when
the Specific Plan was adopted, and the Specific Plan was
determined to be in compliance with the General Plan, and
so from Staff’s perspective there is not a conflict between
the Specific Plan and General Plan, because it’s not
permitted.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “What is the definition of ‘open
space’ in the Specific Plan? How will it be achieved?”
The questions are great. You’re right on track
with the questions and the guidelines, so you’re doing
great in terms of the guidelines. I’m taking some
application questions; they’re off in a separate pile,
because again, we’re not looking at applications and
anything about any specific proposal. Joel.
JOEL PAULSON: Open space is defined on pages 6-
13 of the Specific Plan, and I will go ahead and read it
for the audience. “Open space means a ground plane open and
generally unobstructed from the ground plane to the sky.
Balconies, shade structures and roof eaves may extend over
a portion of the open space. Open space includes green open
space and hardscape, plazas, courtyards, pathways,
sidewalks and pedestrian paseos. Plazas, courtyards and
planters over podium parking or on roof decks also qualify
as open space.”
So it is broadly interpreted across from
hardscape to greenscape. There is also a requirement in the
Specific Plan that a minimum of 20% of the required 30%
open space be green open space.
DR. SPANO: And then the second part of that is
is it achievable, that definition of open space?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
DR. SPANO: Great. “Where in the Specific Plan
does it say that housing units have to be spread out?”
JOEL PAULSON: It does not say that either. I’ll
just offer that it does speak to where residential can be
implemented, and that is across the entire Specific Plan
area with the caveat that in the Northern District any
residential that’s proposed has to be above commercial, so
you have to have a vertical mixed-use setting for any
residential that is in the Northern District.
DR. SPANO: Very good. Christina, how are we
doing? Any other EIR Specific Plan questions? I think we’re
good. I think we’ve covered all the EIR Specific Plan
questions, and I know they obviously feed off into traffic
and density and so forth.
Let’s move over. I’ve got a couple of cards on
schools here.
And we can come back. If you still have questions
about the Specific Plan, fill out a blue card and get it
in. We don’t need to stay all regimented; we can move
around a little bit here.
Schools: “Is a school considered a non-
residential use, and if so, is it excluded by way of Table
2.2?” which I’m assuming is Table 2.2 in the Specific Plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Under Table 2.1, Permitted Land
Uses, which is found on page 2.8, it says that public and
private schools are allowed in all three of the districts
with a CUP, so it’s not considered a non-residential use,
it’s just a specific category that allows it anywhere
within the North 40 plan.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. Another school question:
“Is the plan to divide the North 40 project to be received
by several school districts? For example, is a portion of
the development to be serviced by Campbell Union Elementary
and High School District, and not serviced by Los Gatos
Elementary and High School District? As a 34-year resident
of Los Gatos, I live in the Old Adobe Road area serviced by
Campbell. The Town of Los Gatos has never been inclusive of
fringe areas. I would strongly state that two different
schools districts is disjunctive.” So the key question, is
the plan to divide the North 40 project to be serviced by
several school districts?
LAUREL PREVETTI: A completely different process
determines our school districts and their boundaries. As
you know, we have many school districts that serve the
residents and families here in our community and we’re very
fortunate for that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The southern portion of the Specific Plan area is
generally served by the Los Gatos Union School District;
this is our elementary and middle school age group, and
then for the high school it would be our Los Gatos-Saratoga
Union High School District that serves that southern
portion. To the north we have our Cambrian School District,
and we again thank the participation, as well as the
Campbell Union High School District that takes care of the
northern portion. That’s why we’ve invited four different
school district boards and superintendents to be with us
tonight.
Those boundaries were predetermined long before
the Specific Plan even came into fruition, but we look at
school issues for all of our districts, and that’s why it
is identified specifically as a use within the Specific
Plan area.
DR. SPANO: “Can the School Board ask that the
builder build a school on the property? How do they propose
that we intake a large number of students in already
impacted schools?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, the School District can’t
demand from a developer that they build a school. As I
mentioned (inaudible) there’s a formula for the levy and
the fees, and that’s all they can do is collect fees based
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the square footage of the development, so there isn’t
that ability to do that.
In this case though the developer and the Los
Gatos Union School District did voluntarily meet and
discuss and enter into an agreement for additional money
above and beyond the State requirements that I mentioned
about the square footage.
DR. SPANO: I have a question here for a school
superintendent on supporting the Governor’s proposal, and
we’re going to hold onto that, because the school
superintendent is not answering questions here this
evening.
Okay, so we can move on. That’s all I have on
schools. Christina, we good? Any other schools questions?
Okay, I’ve got traffic. Let’s move over to
traffic. Some other categories that are coming in—and
again, don’t feel bound by these categories—I have traffic,
we’ll move to housing after that, and then there are
several questions on commercial as well. So I’ve got a
handful of traffic questions here.
“If intersection LOS levels can drop by one level
each time there is a development, we could theoretically
eventually land at D Level for all intersections. Is there
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a minimally acceptable distribution of LOS levels, i.e. 25%
of A, 25% of B, et cetera?” Matt.
MATT MORLEY: Level D is the General Plan’s
determination for what is acceptable, so that’s the lowest
level that the intersection can go to within the Town.
There is no distribution across that; that’s been
determined to be the level of service that is acceptable.
DR. SPANO: Here’s another traffic question,
really comments. I think I can find question in here.
“Three major concerns: Town’s loss of identity as a special
town; education, schools impact now; and then traffic. More
cars, really?”
As you said, I believe, Matt, that in the TIA it
does say for more traffic, so just say a little bit more
about that.
MATT MORLEY: The Traffic Impact Analysis is
exactly that, it’s an analysis of the impacts from traffic.
It acknowledges that a development will bring additional
vehicles to the road and it looks for alternatives to
mitigate those additional cars, those additional vehicle
trips, and to reduce the impact of those trips on the
community.
As I mentioned in my opening, several projects
around the development that accommodate these impacts and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
help to mitigate that and to keep the traffic flowing, so
that when you reach an intersection your delay is managed
and controlled.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. Traffic: “Why can’t a new
traffic EIR be required before development is approved,
because clearly traffic in Los Gatos has changed
significantly since 2014 to now, 2016?”
So the heart of the question: Can the EIR be
required before development is approved to include the
traffic?
MATT MORLEY: I think the answer is consistent
with your responses previously that the Council can look
for additional EIR studies, and the TIA is a portion of
that, and so that is a potential for the future.
I would say that traffic analysis is a snapshot
in time. The Traffic Impact Analysis captures the traffic
at that time and the increases that the project brings, so
it’s very specific to the increase created by the project,
regardless of when that traffic analysis is done.
JOEL PAULSON: I just offer one other thing. I
don’t have the project or the files in front of me, but
that is a question that we’ll also answer online as it
relates to the Phase 1 application to illustrate what
traffic review has happened as part of that Phase 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: I have a couple of specific traffic
questions coming up here. “Is the Town looking at the need
to change the traffic flow on Winchester south of Lark for
the two residents that will need to avoid Bascom Avenue and
still need…still need the (inaudible) at Bascom?” Am I
reading that right? I don’t have a name on that. So, “Is
the Town looking at the need to change the traffic flow on
Winchester south of Lark for the two residents that will
need to avoid Bascom Avenue?”
Are we okay on that? Are you following that, or
is this a parking lot and we need to follow up with a
little bit more… (To audience member) Help clarify.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: Okay, thank you.
MATT MORLEY: The intensity of Winchester and
Lark specifically was addressed and it is in the TIA.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MATT MORLEY: There is not a project, because the
impact associated with that intersection did not change it
so that it needed mitigation.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MATT MORLEY: There are additional dollars set
aside from the Netflix project to address that local area.
One of the commitments we’ve made is to hold those dollars
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
until we see what the result of that full Netflix build-out
and occupation is, and that will allow us some flexibility
in using those dollars, so that’s the potential for
mitigation in the future.
There were projects associated with Netflix that
address the traffic in that area. I think as you see that
area settle out a little bit it will allow us an
opportunity to continue to do the assessments in there and
identify where we need to program those dollars.
DR. SPANO: Very good. Thank you for the
clarifications, and the next time when that needs to happen
I will repeat that for the people in the overflow so they
can hear the follow up question.
“Will there be any pedestrian or car access from
Bennett Way?”
MATT MORLEY: Bennett Way is a Phase 1
application question, I believe, although there is car
access to Los Gatos Boulevard in the Specific Plan. What
that looks like specifically will come out of the Phase 1
application.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. And again, we’re on very
specific traffic questions here; so let’s just do the best
we can.
MATT MORLEY: Let me just finish off with that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: Please, please. Yes.
MATT MORLEY: There is significant pedestrian and
bike access in the project in its entirety. There’s a loop
around the perimeter that is a very wide multi model path,
as well as a requirement that there be a multi model paths
through the project Specific Plan as well. The large amount
of open space will also contribute to the ability for bikes
and pedestrians to move about.
DR. SPANO: “When turning right onto south Los
Gatos Boulevard from Neighborhood Drive, will there be a No
Right Turn on red? I believe this will help surrounding
businesses get out of their driveways.”
MATT MORLEY: That as well will be addressed
through the development of the Phase 1 application.
DR. SPANO: “Lark and Winchester intersection is
currently now a congestion problem. Shouldn’t the EIR
address this intersection too?” So that’s Lark and
Winchester.
MATT MORLEY: As we mentioned previously, Lark
and Winchester was addressed through the Traffic Impact
Analysis. The study included that analysis and what the
delays at that intersection were. What we’ll do, I think
we’ll see if we can pull up the analysis on Lark and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Winchester and get that up in a few minutes on the
overhead.
DR. SPANO: Okay. (To audience member) So the
question was?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: So did the analysis and what actually
happened, are they consistent with one another? So that was
the question for the overflow audience.
MATT MORLEY: The analysis considered the
development of the project, of the North 40 Specific Plan,
and ultimately an answer won’t be known until the full
development is in place.
DR. SPANO: “Why wasn’t the Oka Road/Lark
intersection considered in the TIA?”
MATT MORLEY: The Oka Road/Lark intersection is
an intersection that has less load from the Oka Road
feeding into that intersection, and it was determined not
to be a significant intersection and without impacts, so it
was not considered through the TIA.
DR. SPANO: “Much of the current Lark traffic in
the evenings is due to restricted capacity of Highway 17
and Highway 9. Why doesn’t the Town allow Caltrans to widen
17 to 9?”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MATT MORLEY: The Council has a General Plan
policy that prohibits the widening of…or identifies the
widening of Highway 17 as not something that the Town is
accepting of.
DR. SPANO: “Los Gatos Boulevard from 85 to Lark
is already overwhelmed due to only two lanes existing each
way. Why won’t the Town use eminent domain now to take the
eight properties to widen the road so we don’t have to wait
30 more years?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That’s certainly a possibility,
and I would go on that question that will answer any type
of eminent domain question where I’ve answered that about
the process you have to go through, and I think as Laurel
mentioned, it’s a process that you do have to pay the fair
market price for that property, so each property would be
entitled to it if we were to pay for that.
Normally the way we have done it is that we wait
till that development comes through and it’s part of the
development. Then we’re able to extract that as a nexus
from the project’s impacts so that we don’t have to pay for
that property. But certainly the eminent domain process
does allow for that to happen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “Is it possible to have a new traffic
study, a new TIA, that uses local standards versus the TIA
formulas that aren’t truly relevant?”
MATT MORLEY: The Traffic Impact Analysis
standards are identified in our Town’s General Plan, so
very specific to the Town, adopted by the Town, and even
more stringent than, for instance, the VTA standards, which
govern a little bit more broadly. So the Town has its own
standards that it has adopted and follows.
DR. SPANO: “Given that traffic has become
significantly worse in years since the EIR, will a new EIR
be done?” Let me just ask that. We’ve asked that question.
“If traffic level of service is shown at D or F,
will all future development be halted? How often will
traffic EIRs be repeated?” Let’s just take the levels of
service is shown to be D or F. Will all future development
be halted?
MATT MORLEY: If an intersection is at E or F it
needs to be brought back to a Level D, so the acceptable
level of service; there are multiple ways to do that. The
Town collects traffic impact fees that allow the Town to do
projects along the way, and it also can be incorporated
into a project development.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “How often are traffic EIRs done?”
This is requested. An EIR is requested, so it’s done at the
request of Council?
MATT MORLEY: Yeah, the Town has triggers on
where a Traffic Impact Analysis is done, and the threshold
for us is 20 trips, so if the project generates 20 vehicle
trips or more, then it’s required.
LAUREL PREVETTI: If I may?
DR. SPANO: Please.
LAUREL PREVETTI: If I could just add that
typically the driver for when we do traffic analysis is
when we have a private development proposal. It’s unusual
for us to just do a traffic study just on our own, but we
typically do it when we have a specific proposal that is
asking us to evaluate some new development.
MATT MORLEY: It gets a little into the weeds,
but I did want to talk a little bit about the question on
Winchester Blvd and Lark Avenue, and if I can bring your
attention to the screen.
On this line where you see the arrow, Number 7,
Winchester Blvd and Lark Avenue, identifies the traffic for
both the AM and the PM peak periods, the time when it’s
most impacted.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Under background, background is what was analyzed
and seen as what existed. What’s the existing situation?
The most telling there, you see the letter grades; both of
them are B at Winchester and Lark, so that’s what the…
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MATT MORLEY: Let me finish, and then we’ll get
to some questions. I’ll run through the scenarios here.
You can see that the delay was 17 seconds; that’s
the number right to the side of the B, so 17.4 in the AM
and 17.7 in the PM.
Two projects were analyzed; we called them
Project A and Project B. When you add those projects you
can see what happens to the delay; it increases by .7, or
by roughly 3 seconds, to a B- and a C+.
That’s how the analysis is done, and that’s
really a little bit in the weeds on the details, but that’s
where the comparisons come from, and this level of analysis
happens with all of the intersections.
DR. SPANO: So the question is what year was this
analysis done?
MATT MORLEY: The analysis was done in March
2014.
DR. SPANO: The question is traffic analysis
since 2014?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MATT MORLEY: The traffic analysis, as with the
rest of the EIR, is a snapshot in time, so it has captured
a particular point in time, and that’s the information
that’s had when the decisions are made, and that’s the
information that goes forward.
The information that we’re dealing with is a
comparison between the existing traffic and how the
development will cause the traffic to increase, and so that
snapshot in time identifies what that increase from the
development will be, and the developer is required to
mitigate that delta.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MATT MORLEY: Based on the information, yes, the
information at the time. But the capture is that delta in
impact, and that’s the mitigation that’s required.
DR. SPANO: Okay, and so I’m hearing very clearly
the request here for an updated traffic analysis.
MATT MORLEY: We’ll provide a more detailed
summary of the traffic analysis online in the Q&A, so that
you’ll have that for the future.
DR. SPANO: Very good. Thank you. Christina, we
okay on traffic questions? Any other traffic questions?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: Thank you for your comment. And so we
can record what you have, it would be great if you filled
that out on the… Thank you very much for that. Thank you.
I’m not hearing any other questions, seeing any
other questions on traffic. A couple school questions came
in, and we’ll circle back to those.
“The North 40 developer promotes on his Facebook
page that it is working on an agreement with the Los Gatos
Union School District. Why are they not talking to Cambrian
School District who has unused schools in their ownership?”
I’m not sure we’re in a position to answer that question
since it’s a School District question.
I’ve got one other school question: “If there is
overcrowding in Los Gatos schools, what was the rationale
to put the residential housing within Los Gatos School
District boundaries and not Cambrian School District?”
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: They are here in a listening role
tonight, not in a speaking role tonight, and they were told
that they would be in a listening role and not in a
speaking role tonight.
So the rationale for residential housing in Los
Gatos School District boundaries and not the Cambrian
School District?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll offer that obviously that was
a topic that was discussed at length through the Specific
Plan process and through the Environmental Impact Report
process, and ultimately the determination was made to allow
housing and to allow housing across the site, with the
caveat that the Northern District would only allow
residential that is above commercial. So that anticipation,
the reduction over time of the number of units.
The school districts did participate and wrote
letters, the ones that were interested and concerned, and
that documentation is in the Council and Planning
Commission packets from when the Specific Plan went through
the process.
I’d also offer, I’m sure most if not all of you
have already been to the Town’s North 40 website. There is
an abundance of information, and background material as
well, to be pulled from that specifically, and I’d then
point to Ms. Prevetti if she has anything additional to
offer.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I just want to add that one of
the large topics that we talked about when we were going
through the Planning Commission and Council meetings was
what kind of community are we trying to create, and one of
the Guiding Principles is that the North 40 should address
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Town’s residential and/or commercial unmet needs. What
that means is that we have a lot of family housing already
within our community, but we know we have people who are
choosing to age and continue to live in our community,
which is great, so there is a need for senior housing, and
then there’s also a need for all of us who have kids who
are graduating high school and going to college or whatever
and starting to get jobs, and we would love for our youth
to be able to come back into our community and live here as
well.
Those are some of the unmet needs that we’re
trying to address through the Specific Plan. It’s kind of
an indirect way to get to the school issue, but it was
something that we debated pretty strenuously.
DR. SPANO: “Please clarify. Did the TIA include
the Netflix development and other proposed anticipated
projects?”
MATT MORLEY: Yes, it did.
DR. SPANO: Very good. Thank you. Question was,
“Only half of those buildings are now currently occupied.”
MATT MORLEY: The TIA considered the Netflix
build-out for its entirety, not for what was currently
occupied.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MATT MORLEY: The question is the traffic now is
only half of what it will be when it’s currently occupied,
and that is correct, and the analysis that was conducted
for Netflix incorporated the full traffic study for full
occupancy in Netflix, not what the current level was.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: The question was, and this is for our
friends in the lobby, “Do you audit the results?” Matt.
MATT MORLEY: Our traffic engineer reviews the
traffic on a regulation basis, and although it’s not an
official audit per se, it is a review of the traffic levels
within the Town, and you can see from traffic study to
traffic study what the impacts are. It does become
difficult to attribute the traffic, because there are many
factors that contribute to traffic at a particular
intersection. It’s difficult to identify specifically where
that traffic is coming from over time.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Let me just add, as Director
Morley said earlier, we have some funds that have been set
aside, so that way after Netflix is completed we can do
some analysis to determine what within that vicinity can
the Town do to try and reduce the impacts further, and that
may in terms of vehicles, but it also might be in terms of
introducing other modes, such as bicycle and pedestrian
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
improvements. So there is more work to come, because we
still haven’t done those studies since Netflix is still
under construction.
DR. SPANO: This question here is about beach
traffic, so we won’t take that up. It’s not North 40, but
just so we air the question here. “The Town doesn’t want to
widen 17, however the struggling with beach traffic and
Santa Cruz Avenue is not a solution.”
Okay, I’m going to jump around a little bit with
another school question. “A payment to the School District.
Agreement includes a provision whereby the District cannot
contest any aspect of the development as the School
District represents the Town residents. That in essence
precludes a significant voice of the residents. How could
the right of residents to contest or voice dissent be taken
away? Is that provision legal?” How can the right of
residents to contest of voice dissent be taken away?
(Applause.)
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I guess I heard clapping, but
I’m not sure I understand the question. The voice of
residents can still be heard. They come to the Planning
Commission meeting and they come to Council.
The School District, their fees that they collect
from the developer are set by the State. That’s the .56¢
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
per square foot and the 346, so it’s set. They were able to
negotiate additional amounts that will benefit the School
District, and whether that was not enough, whether that was
too much, that can be debated, but I’m not sure how that
agreement that enabled them to obtain more than State law
would allow them to obtain somehow took away the voice of
the citizens of Los Gatos. Maybe they can go to the School
District and say it wasn’t enough, but any amount above and
beyond is more than what was allowed under State law.
DR. SPANO: And just maybe by way of
clarification, the premise here: “The agreement included a
provision whereby the District cannot contest any aspect of
the development.” So that’s a premise that’s leading to the
question.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And that would just be the
School District, and that’s an agreement between the two
parties. It still allows any of the citizens to contest the
actual project.
DR. SPANO: We’re going to jump back to specific
planning questions; I’ve got a couple here. “I appreciate
the strenuous effort done with the Specific Plan regarding
youth housing, but is it realistic under the current
application if 274 proposed units are above market income
rate?” Is that realistic for the youth housing?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Again, Phase 1 application
information, I don't know, because I don't know how much
they’re ultimately sold for. We can look to get some of
that data. And obviously it’s going to depend on the youth.
Folks coming back to town, it’s challenging for some of
them to get into the market, because it is a good market
here, and so I don't know that they’re going to be on the
order of magnitude where folks can come back and then
they’ll automatically have a spot. It will provide an
additional type of housing, which is important for the
unmet needs piece, but the specific circumstances would
dictate whether or not certain individuals are going to be
able to afford these types of units when they’re
constructed.
DR. SPANO: This question here circles back to
the unmet needs that we talked about: “Does the Town have
any quantification of the unmet needs by market?” The
preamble: The Specific Plan talks about unmet needs for
residential. Appendix C talks about seniors. Does the Town
have any quantification of the unmet need?
LAUREL PREVETTI: I wasn’t with the Town at the
time that the Advisory Committee was doing all of its work,
but I believe there were several market studies that were
done to help inform the preparation of the Specific Plan. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know the Housing Element has to do a demographic analysis
to identify the needs across all income spectrums, so that
analysis is definitely in the document.
Typically the State focuses more on housing for
older persons as opposed to our younger population, but I
think here in Los Gatos we’re really interested in making
sure we can house all segments and all types of households
within our community.
We’ll look a little bit deeper in our documents
and put something up on the FAQ regarding that.
DR. SPANO: Still Specific Plan: “Are there any
other areas in Los Gatos that have 20 units per acre? If
not, what is the largest?”
JOEL PAULSON: There are areas of town that have
20 units per acre, and there are existing developments
around town that exceed 20 units per acre. We can pull
together some of those sites and get that information
posted on the Frequently Asked Questions as well.
DR. SPANO: The question from the audience was:
“What’s the definition of a unit?”
JOEL PAULSON: It’s an individual living unit,
whether it’s a single-family detached house, an apartment,
condo or townhome, that is a unit. It could be a secondary
dwelling unit. There are a number of different definitions
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for what a unit is. The density is based on the number of
units per acre of the site, and that’s where the density is
driven.
DR. SPANO: “The Town used to have standards for
open space and parking. Does the Specific Plan reduce this?
That would be private and public open space.” The Town used
to have standards for open space and parking. Does the
Specific Plan reduce that? And including both public and
private open space.
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll speak to the parking first.
There are some opportunities that are allowed by Town Code,
but the Specific Plan explicitly allows them, whether
that’s shared use of parking, there’s some allowance I
believe for reduced numbers for a certain project or unit
types, so with the parking, yes.
Open space, we have required setbacks, so that’s
not necessarily open space, but we do have General Plan
language that speaks to providing open space. I don’t
recall an actual specific number for either commercial or
residential that is in place currently, and so if someone
has reference to when that was in place or whether it was
commercial and residential, or not, we can do some research
on that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: We’ve had questions about amending
the Specific Plan, et cetera. This one is: “Can the
Specific Plan be amended while there is a pending
application?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It depends where in the planning
process that pending application is. Under the Permit
Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act there is what
is called being deemed complete, and once an application is
deemed complete, that then locks in your rules, regulations
and laws that are in effect at that time.
For example, the application that is in right now
has been deemed complete, so if any amendments were
proposed and changed while that application is still
pending and deemed complete, it wouldn’t affect that
application.
DR. SPANO: “The hillside views are obliterated
based on the orange story poles. Can you require that the
buildings be lowered?”
JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan sets maximum
height. Those are maximum heights, however, again, getting
back to the by right and the State density bonus provisions
which allow concessions to any number of topics, they can
request those exceptions as part of the density bonus
project. So then it’s whether or not we can make the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
findings, and I think it’s a finding that has to be made,
if we don’t think that concession is appropriate.
DR. SPANO: We’ll go back to traffic: “Does the
TIA conclude that the Winchester/Lark Avenue delay from
current to the full development of the North 40 in the AM
be only a 0.7 seconds?” The delay.
MATT MORLEY: That is correct.
DR. SPANO: Okay, very good. Thank you. This is
for Staff: “Do you live in Town? If so, how can you recite
these traffic findings with a straight face?” Okay, so I’m
not (inaudible) that one. Not sure that question followed
our guidelines in staying focused on the information and
fact sharing aspect of our question asking tonight.
Another traffic question: “How can you say that
the plan won’t impact downtown when traffic is currently
preventing people from getting downtown now, and it will
only get worse with the density of the North 40?”
MATT MORLEY: I think I’ll start by saying that
the Council and Staff spend a significant amount of our
time managing traffic, and we look for every opportunity to
help to manage the traffic and to lower the impacts of
traffic in the Town, so anything that we can do that
achieves that is something that we would take on.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We are limited by the standards that are set
fourth through the Traffic Impact Analysis, and that guides
us really on the analysis. Then the alignment of the
impacts from the project really drives the direction of
where the improvements can occur.
This particular project has very high standards,
higher standards than are regionally adopted, so the
efforts continue to look for every opportunity to manage
the traffic, but I think what the heart of the question is,
is there an increase in traffic? And there ultimately is.
It’s been determined to be within the tolerable standards
that the Town has set forth for itself.
DR. SPANO: Very good. I have about five or six
commercial questions, and I’ve got a big stack of housing
questions here. I’m thinking it might be a good time to
take a break. We’re just about at the two-hour mark; so
let’s just take ten minutes. There are refreshments. If you
keep those refreshments out in the lobby, that would be
great. We’ll take ten minutes, and we’re going to reconvene
here at five after, five after sharp. We’ll do commercial
questions, and then housing.
(INTERMISSION)
DR. SPANO: Let’s get started for the second
half. Please find your way back to your seat.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We’ll go ahead and get started here for the
second half. Want to just remind you about the cards, and
please fill out the blue card for questions, the yellow
card if you have comments, and Staff will collect those
comment cards. We won’t be reading the comment cards
tonight. Then the beige card if you do want to speak
tonight in Verbal Communications.
Also, if you do have a follow up question, fill
out another blue card, and we’ll get the blue card in here
and we’ll do the follow up question as well.
We have had a couple questions about the School
District, the Superintendent and School Board members that
are here tonight. They are here tonight as the Town’s
invited guests, and just in the way that we designed the
meeting, they were not told to be prepared with a
presentation or to answer questions. I have talked to a
couple superintendents, and they invite and encourage you
to contact them directly if you have any questions related
to their agreements or how they’re handling North 40 issues
within their school boards and districts.
Okay, we’re going to move forward. As I
mentioned, we’ll have some questions around the commercial
development aspect, then there are lots of questions around
housing, and then during the break a couple more Specific
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plan questions came in, so let’s just tackle those before
we move on to those other topics.
“What process is available to revoke the Specific
Plan? Not amend, to revoke the Specific Plan.” Is there a
process available, and what would that look like?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The Town Council is who approved
the Specific Plan, so they can as part of an amendment
actually revoke it and make those changes to it. As I
stated though, if it was revoked tomorrow that wouldn’t
affect the current application that’s in place, because
it’s been deemed complete.
So that’s the Town Council always has control
over its own document. If the question is could the citizen
do an initiative or referendum to revoke the Specific Plan,
no, that’s not available. The timeframe for when the
Specific Plan could have been referendumed by the citizens
has passed.
DR. SPANO: “Since there has not been an
application for Phase 2, can the Specific Plan be amended
to state no development, retail or anything in Phase 2?”
Can it be amended for Phase 2?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: There has to be some potential
to develop a piece of property, or then we go back to the
whole argument of the taking of someone’s property.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Certainly the second phase could be amended. There is no
application pending and changes could be made. It could
result back into its original development potential, but
even doing that at this point in time could be deemed to
taking if you were down-zoning and then taking away,
because we’ve allowed by approving the Specific Plan a
certain type of development. People could say they’ve
already relied on that passage of that Specific Plan, and
if you were down-zone it to open space then the argument
would be that would be a taking.
DR. SPANO: “Does the Specific Plan allow for
land to be set aside for open space and community
recreation as set forth in the General Plan for Los Gatos
Boulevard, or will all 44 acres be developed and cemented
over?”
JOEL PAULSON: As I mentioned before, there is an
open space requirement and a minimum of 30% has to be open
space, and a minimum of 20% of that 30% has to be green
open space, so it will not be paved over completely.
DR. SPANO: “Where did the follow up funding for
the EIR come from? Who paid for the EIR?”
JOEL PAULSON: As with every application process
in town we receive funds from an applicant, and then we use
our consultants and we are the overseers of the document,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
its preparation and its final release. The developer funds
it, which is the same process we use for all of our
projects and environmental documents.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I would just add that if there
is a concern with an EIR it’s the Town that’s the one that
gets sued. The dollars just essentially allow the analysis
to occur, but we are ultimately accountable for the
information that’s in the EIR, and the Town has a process
for certifying that it does in fact meet State law.
DR. SPANO: Very good, thank you. I have a couple
of traffic questions: “TIA measurement by car does not
reflect whole delay, seven seconds times number of cars.
Why does Town oppose widening 17?” The first one, let me
just find the question in there, “TIA measurement by car
does not reflect whole delay, seven seconds times number of
cars,” if that makes sense, Matt?
MATT MORLEY: I’ll make the interpretation. I
think the interpretation is that the number of cars coming
out of the development would seem to equate to more than
seven seconds, so I’ll answer that as a question.
As vehicles come out of the development they will
go multiple directions, and the Traffic Impact Analysis
considers that and identifies what vehicles will go to what
intersections and what those vehicles at that particular
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time will create in terms of a backup at that intersection;
that equates to the delay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: The question was: “How do you
quantify that?”
MATT MORLEY: So how do we quantify the delay to
the flow of traffic at a particular intersection? If you
think of yourself as an individual coming up to an
intersection, what you can anticipate is the delay being to
you as you approach that intersection, so it doesn’t
necessarily multiply. If there are five people coming to an
intersection, it doesn’t multiply that seven seconds times
the five people, it simply identifies the impact to you
specifically.
DR. SPANO: Here’s another traffic question:
“There are 270 three- to four-bedroom, two- to three-
bedroom, with a studio that can be converted into different
units. An average of two cars per unit. Since the market
price in Santa Clara the vast majority have to be dual-car
households. How many cars are estimated in the plan?” How
many cars are estimated in the plan by household is the
question.
MATT MORLEY: Whether it is household or
commercial space or office space, the Traffic Impact
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Analysis considers the number of trips. Not the number of
vehicles, but the number of trips that are generated based
on the industry standard for that particular use. It uses
standards that are set for us, and those are the
requirements that are set forward based on our complying
with CEQA.
DR. SPANO: “Has a comparison been made to other
new high-density developments in town such as Bluebird
Lane? Can one be done?”
MATT MORLEY: The TIA looks at a much bigger
picture than independent development, so it’s a look
holistically at how impacts in similar developments occur
and not at a small cross-section or a smaller subset.
DR. SPANO: So it can’t be zeroed into a Bluebird
Lane or any particular street in that way.
“Does the developer have any liability if the
traffic estimate in their plan is wrong?”
MATT MORLEY: No.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MATT MORLEY: The question is: “How many cars are
in the plan?” and the follow up is, “Do we base it on the
number of trips that are expected out of the development?”
Yes. If you consider that a vehicle may or may
not leave at a particular time, the analysis is based on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what can be anticipated on the trips generated out of a
particular house. The example would be a residence that in
the morning somebody may go to work and somebody may stay
and work from home, and those average over the entire
development across the sample sizes, the samples that are
included that drive the standards that are used in the
analysis, so it’s a standard space analysis.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MATT MORLEY: The question is, “Does density
impact the number of trips?” Yes, the density does impact
the number of trips. The density is important in that the
trips are generated by unit.
DR. SPANO: And it would be great to put those
follow up questions on a blue card so we have those and
they can put them into their question pool.
I’m not sure if this is going to be answerable
here: “What is the current status with Grosvenor regarding
the schools? What has been offered and on the table?” Do we
know that, or do we need to go to the schools for that?
JOEL PAULSON: The only agreement we’re aware of
is the agreement that has been entered in with the
elementary and middle school district, Los Gatos Union
School District, and we’re not aware of any other
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agreements or negotiations between any other school
district and applicant.
LAUREL PREVETTI: That agreement is available
through the North 40 website if someone is interested in
seeing it.
DR. SPANO: We’re going to move over to about
five or so commercial questions. “Table 2.1 requires a CUP
for a yoga studio, but not a restaurant with a bar. What is
the thinking behind that?” Table 2.1. CUP, Conditional Use
Permit for a yoga studio, but not a restaurant and bar, so
what was the thinking?
JOEL PAULSON: This is one of the additional
answers that we provided on the website today. I think the
reference to a yoga club actually is really into health
club, not a yoga studio. This was one of the main things
that were considered, this table, throughout the North 40
Advisory Committee as well as Planning Commission and
Council, as far as what uses should be permitted and what
uses should require a Conditional Use Permit.
When it went through that process that was
discussed, this was the ultimate decision that was made by
the Council for what uses would be permitted in the various
districts and what uses would be required to get a
Conditional Use Permit.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “What makes the developer think any
additional retail space is needed in town in light of
lengthy vacancies of old?” and mentioning Blockbuster
Video, Wolf Camera, the Hallmark shop. So is the developer
doing an analysis that additional retail is needed? What
are they basing that on? First, are they doing that, and if
so, what are they basing that on?
JOEL PAULSON: Ultimately there were a number of
leakage studies showing what categories the Town is lacking
and where folks that live in town have to leave the Town to
get certain goods and services. That study did show that
there was capacity from the leakage perspective to
accommodate new retail and other commercial uses.
DR. SPANO: “Table 2.2 specifies a maximum of
400,000 square feet of commercial. Does that mean the
Council can approve less than 400,000 square feet, any
amount it wants?”
JOEL PAULSON: Generally, yes. Those are
maximums, so the Council will have to consider whether or
not they think whenever the commercial comes forward
whether that’s the appropriate number or whether it should
be less. That will be evaluated during the planning process
that we’re currently going through, as well as any future
applications that might come forward.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “Is there anything in the Specific
Plan that would prevent the developer from leasing all
400,000 square feet to restaurant use?”
JOEL PAULSON: Generally, yes, there is, because
it does talk about that all of the applications, again, are
going to be considered, and it does speak to a mix of uses
to help complement the rest of the Boulevard as well as
downtown, so someone coming in with that amount of all
restaurant is not only highly unlikely, but it also would
be challenging to show that that actually conforms with the
Specific Plan.
DR. SPANO: “Is there any limitation around
restaurants at all in the Specific Plan, the amount of
restaurants?”
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that there is a
specific limit, no. It’s just part of the greater
application review of where restaurants are anticipated, or
as they move forward through the process.
DR. SPANO: “If the Specific Plan was to be
revoked, what happens to the land in the North 40?” If the
Specific Plan was revoked?
JOEL PAULSON: If the Specific Plan is revoked,
then it would revert back to its former zoning designations
or the zoning designation that complies with the General
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plan. So if it gets revoked, then I would guess that would
be the likelihood, but I will look to the Town Attorney to
see if he has any additional input.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We did make changes to our
General Plan to make it consistent with the Specific Plan.
I still look at it as an amendment. If in fact Council
wanted to make changes, it isn’t just a revocation of it;
there has to be some discussion about what the underlying
designation is going to be. It just wouldn’t automatically
go back to the previous, because that’s already been
amended and is no longer applicable, so a complete
revocation would put it in a very precarious place, because
there has to be some designation of what that land can and
cannot do.
DR. SPANO: “Can the original 750 homes and
586,000 square feet from 2010 take over if that was to be
revoked?”
JOEL PAULSON: As Mr. Schultz was explaining,
there would be necessary Zoning Ordinance amendments as
well as General Plan amendments if the plan was revoked.
The previous General Plan designation, if I remember
correctly, was mixed-use commercial, so that does allow up
to 50% coverage for the site, and so you can take 20 acres
times 50%. Theoretically that would kind of leave your
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building envelope, which could be far in excess the 501
that’s currently the maximum cap.
I think it’s important to point out that one of
the previous questions, there is also an additional cap of
commercial with the exclusion of office and hotel; I think
office and hotel. That cap is actually 400,000 square feet
for the other commercial uses, but I just wanted to offer
that.
DR. SPANO: Another commercial question, not
directly related to the North 40, but we’ll see if we have
an answer here: “What is the total square footage of retail
currently in downtown Los Gatos?”
JOEL PAULSON: We will pull that information from
the previous documents and add that to our FAQ. I do not
recall off the top of my head.
DR. SPANO: A couple Specific Plan questions
before we move over to housing. “Will the sewer system of
the North 40 be serviced by Campbell? If so, that system is
antiquated and needs upgrades.” This related back to our
earlier question about coordination with Campbell. Will the
sewer system be coordinated with Campbell? Will Campbell
service it?
MATT MORLEY: The sewer system is West Valley
Sanitation and they will maintain that sewer system.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: And the comment, not a question, that
that system is antiquated and needs upgrades, and somebody
is going to have to pay for that. You want to comment on
that, Matt?
MATT MORLEY: Significant analysis has been done
on the sewer system and its capacity for the site, and
upgrades will account for all of the need associated with
that sewer system.
DR. SPANO: And then who would pay for that?
MATT MORLEY: That’s part of the development. The
development creates the impact; the development pays for
the improvements.
DR. SPANO: This is a Specific Plan question:
“Has Staff or anyone working for the Town examined the
negative impacts on property values all the development
will have with downslides, schools, traffic, et cetera?
What is a homeowner’s recourse?” Have the negative impacts
been examined in terms of the impact on property values?
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that we looked
specifically at property value impacts; that’s not an
evaluation that we typically do. I know that does come up
quite often with even just a single-family home improvement
where neighbors have concerns, and so that is brought up. I
haven’t seen that personally analyzed, and so we might be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
able to say that we definitely have not analyzed that. I’m
not sure if Mr. Schultz or Ms. Prevetti has anything
additional.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Just with regard to the impact
for property values. I know no case law that ever been
undertaken where a homeowner has sued over a development
project from the impact of that development project on
their property value. Most of the legal challenges come
from a CEQA challenge or a findings challenge, but not on
the impacts from a property value.
DR. SPANO: “Does the maximum commercial FT have
the same bonus percentage as residential FT?”
JOEL PAULSON: Generally the State Density Bonus
Law only applies to residential; it does not apply to
commercial.
DR. SPANO: We’re back to commercial. “Is the
North 40 commercial element targeted the same as the
Downtown District?” Is the North 40 commercial element
targeted, treated the same way as the Downtown District?
JOEL PAULSON: Ultimately the Specific Plan sets
the parameters. There are provisions in the Specific Plan
that have requirements that are less stringent than some of
the downtown properties, so that clearly was set up when it
went through the process. There are differences between how
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
downtown applications are provided for when compared to
properties that are going to come forward in the Specific
Plan.
DR. SPANO: Good. “With the maximum commercial
development, how many jobs are anticipated? Is that
provided by planned housing adequate to support these
jobs?” So if there has been a jobs analysis.
JOEL PAULSON: That is evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Report. I will pull that data as well,
so that we can get that posted online. It does anticipate
based on square footage, and they do anticipate a number of
employees that will be generated by the various uses.
DR. SPANO: “Why are CUPs, Conditional Use
Permits, different for downtown and North 40? Why do
developers get easier rules than downtown businesses on the
North 40 side?
JOEL PAULSON: That was a discussion along the
way as well, obviously, with the concerns. So when it came
forward and went through the process, ultimately given the
additional detail and development standards that are being
applied to the Specific Plan, I can’t speak that there was
actually anything specific that I recall that was stated
other than typically in a development like this you are
going to have…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It’s important to understand where you are from a
potential tenant perspective. I think some of that
information was provided as well when it went through the
process, and then ultimately it was determined that there
probably is going to be, for instance, restaurants in the
North 40, and so anticipating that, knowing that, analyzing
the impact of some percentage of restaurants, it was
determined that, for instance, that use where a CUP is
required in downtown, it is not required in the North 40
Specific Plan.
DR. SPANO: There’s a question here asking, “Why
is Los Gatos not joining with other California cities and
towns to push back against State mandates,” mentioning some
of the State mandates here in terms of water supply and
pollution report. I’m not sure if this relates directly to
the North 40 or not. Was there a water analysis done? Was a
pollution report? Was that related to the North 40, tied
into the North 40?
MATT MORLEY: The North 40 is required to comply
with stormwater requirements within the State, and will do
so. A large amount of that includes retention of stormwater
onsite and ensuring that the stormwater that’s released is
cleaned and unpolluted, and that will certainly be a part
of the project.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: And the question here is asking why
Los Gatos isn’t pushing back against those State mandates,
joining with other cities and towns in California, pushing
back against those mandates?
MATT MORLEY: Los Gatos is part of a broader
coalition of cities that provides input to the State on
stormwater issues, and the Town provides their voice
through that coalition and does provide input to State
requirements as they come forward. The State requirements
do get stricter and stricter over time, and we do work with
our coalition to provide input that would help to manage
the continued requirements.
LAUREL PREVETTI: If I could just add that we did
do a water supply assessment, so there was an analysis done
and it’s included in the Environmental Impact Report, and
working with the Water District and the water retailer we
found that there is adequate water supply.
I want to just add that we know that we are still
in a drought condition, and so we do have local ordinances
that encourage and require more conservation than what the
State is requiring, so I think, again, our environmental
history here in the Town is continuing, and our legacy, and
so we tend to be more proactive in making sure that we’re
protecting our environment, whether it’s regarding
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stormwater, drought, water supplies or other issues; it is
something that we’re very mindful of and this plan was
intended to make sure that we continue with that pattern.
DR. SPANO: Thank you.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’ll add one more.
DR. SPANO: Please.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We do push back, if that’s the
word you want to use, against the State. As Matt mentioned,
we participate in a coalition of what’s called the League
of California Cities. I serve on and was appointed by that
League of California Cities to sit on a housing committee.
We meet four times a year to discuss the various bills that
are being proposed, to keep us informed, and we do vote on
oppose or support for those bills. We are part of a
coalition with many of our neighboring cities and keep
track and inform Council of the different bills that the
State is trying to impose on us to take away local control.
DR. SPANO: Okay, we are moving over into housing
now. “What is the definition of ‘affordable housing’ as
required by the State?”
JOEL PAULSON: There are different levels of
affordable housing. There is Moderate, Medium, Low, Very
Low, and there’s actually a new category, Extremely Low.
Generally it’s based on and starts at Moderate is up to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100%, and so it’s using the Santa Clara County average
median income is what the basis is, so they evaluate that
and then they look at which different categories they can
go into.
Our policy generally looks at having a mix
between Low and Moderate units being what we start off
with. If a development comes in and they’re proposing a
certain type of project, then we would ask that half of the
required BMP units be of Low category and half be in the
Moderate category, or Medium.
LAUREL PREVETTI: And if I may just add some
quantification to that. We follow the United States Housing
and Urban Development Guidelines for determining
affordability, and it’s all based on our county median
income, so we are a high-income community compared to other
counties throughout California.
By way of example, in 2014 if you are a household
of four persons and you made essentially $100,000 a year,
you would be right at that median, that’s kind of the
benchmark. To be Moderate, you would have to be $120% of
median, so if you’re a family of four and you earned
$120,000, that would be considered above Moderate.
And then Extremely Low, just to kind of put the
other side, that would be 30% of the area median income,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and that would mean a family of four earning essentially
$32,000 a year. So again, those numbers mean that you still
are earning income, but you’re essentially qualifying for
affordable housing.
And Very Low is 50%, as Joel mentioned, and for a
family of four that’s essentially $54,000 a year.
So working families are essentially considered
affordable housing in this county.
DR. SPANO: “How will the Garden Cluster homes
look and feel like Los Gatos?”
JOEL PAULSON: I’m assuming that’s speaking
specifically to the Phase 1 project that will be analyzed.
That was one of the residential unit types that was spoken
about in the Specific Plan itself, so there was some
anticipation that there be some multi-family units to be
produced onsite, and so that will be evaluated and that
will part of the Planning Commission and Council purview as
they move forward to determine whether or not that does
look and feel like Los Gatos, the proposed project as it
currently sits.
DR. SPANO: You want to add anything to that,
Rob? Are we good?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
When we were talking earlier about youth as an
unmet need, the question here is: “Are you talking just
about Los Gatos youth that went to our schools?”
JOEL PAULSON: No. I can elaborate a little bit.
We can’t restrict housing in that fashion, and if the Town
Attorney needs to add anything else, but generally we don’t
have the ability to make those kinds of restrictions.
DR. SPANO: This question is related to the
earlier question about pushing back against State mandates,
ABAG, et cetera, mentioning Los Altos and Monte Sereno
successfully legally circumvented those and why Los Gatos
is not doing what the question asker says Los Altos and
Monte Sereno are doing?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’ll have to research both of
those, because I’m not aware that they were able to
circumvent State law. There is an appeal process; Saratoga
went through it. I know they lost. There is an appeal
process when they come out with the RHNA numbers that you
can appeal and provide factual evidence that the numbers
that they have given you are too high. Sometimes those
appeals are won. I’m trying to think of the number,
Saratoga, they were giving I believe in the high-400s as
opposed to ours; it was 600s. They wanted to try to lower
it down to the 419 number, and they lost.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So whomever the person is that knows Monte Sereno
and the other community and how they circumvented the law,
if they know more, I can certainly look into that and
provide a more detailed answer, but anyone who has tried to
circumvent the law has lost in any lawsuit that I’m aware
of.
LAUREL PREVETTI: And in fact just recently the
Monte Sereno City Council had to zone a property for multi-
family development. Of course it was very controversial
there, but that was to implement its housing element. So
again, they needed to show action to zone adequate site for
affordable housing and so the Council did take that action.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: Okay, so the comment here is about
using granny units and so forth, and Laurel, that’s for
people in the lobby.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Right, thank you very much. So
again, like many cities we use a combination of sites to
try to meet our housing needs, and the Town of Los Gatos
has a plan to expand its secondary housing unit provisions
to also count towards our affordable housing needs.
Because of the way Monte Sereno did it and
reduced the density on the Hacienda site, they had to find
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a replacement site. The replacement site was found, and so
they are in compliance with their housing element.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: So it wasn’t to circumvent the
law, they just found another.
And this is the many meetings that were discussed
on coming up with our RHNA numbers, and if you did not zone
the North 40 to use our RHNA numbers, where else were you
going to use that? There were a number of sites: the
Knolls, the Lodge, Oka Road, and those are available that
we can provide you with that they looked at very detailed
in many meetings to determine which were the ones to use,
and we are using some of our secondary units and are trying
to expand that, so that we can use more of them.
DR. SPANO: We had the earlier question about
definition of affordable housing. This is: “Define Low
Income and Very Low Income.”
LAUREL PREVETTI: I believe I just did the Very
Low Income.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
LAUREL PREVETTI: Yeah, homeless. We do have
working homeless in this county, so that is an issue, but
like any affordable housing program, our BMP, someone would
have to demonstrate that they qualify because of income,
and ultimately it’s the property owner that would decide
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether or not an individual qualifies, together with our
housing program administrator.
So it’s theoretically possible, but again, we’d
need to look to house all income segments of our community,
and to the extent we have working homeless that are looking
for permanent housing, that could be one population served.
DR. SPANO: The question here was whether
homeless for eligible for the affordable housing units.
Here’s just an interesting little question, sort
of trivia question: “Is the Governor’s bill AB 250, by our
own Assemblyman Evan Low?” Does anybody know that? We can
move on.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We can make certain. In my mind
it’s Governor Brown’s bill, because it was trailer bill and
it was tacked onto the budget as a gut and amend, so it
didn’t go through any committees whatsoever. I don’t know
the particular assemblyman or senator, but we can check on
that and say who actually help sponsor it with the
Governor’s office.
DR. SPANO: “If housing is spread into the
Northern District, is it possible, given height limits and
requirements of residential over commercial?”
JOEL PAULSON: Can you repeat that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: “…is it possible, given height limits
and requirements of residential over commercial?” Can
residential trump, supersede, over commercial?
JOEL PAULSON: It is possible within the height
limits to have a vertical mixed-use development, and the
Specific Plan permits that, so that is a possibility. We
would have to see it.
I think the other challenge gets to be depending
on how many acres still have to be at the 20 dwelling units
per acre. I think it gets interesting from a site planning
perspective to try to get that type of density above
commercial, but I couldn’t say it’s not possible at all.
We’d have to look at that.
DR. SPANO: “What is the affect on the Los Gatos
Union School District deal to obtain extra mitigation?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think we’ve addressed that.
The agreement is online and you can look at exactly what
their deal was and what they did get through that
agreement. Again, the Town didn’t participate in those
negotiations.
DR. SPANO: “Our Town Attorney has painted a
bleak picture. Please state what the options are. It
doesn’t sound like the number of units can be reduced. It
doesn’t appear there will be another EIR. The Los Gatos
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
schools received the settlement. The question: Can the
application be denied?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That will all take place during
the application process. The Applicant has due process
rights. I’m not even a member that would be voting on this,
it’s the Planning Commission and the Council, and they’ll
weigh all the evidence and determine whether it is in
compliance with the Specific Plan.
I certainly said that yes, there are by rights
for 270 units, but certainly they do still have to meet the
design guidelines and the standards that are set forth in
the Specific Plan, and so that’s going to be the issue that
they need to decide.
What I think I tried to get across is I’ve heard
quite a bit of let’s reduce it, and that’s a maximum of
270, but because of the Housing Element that is also on top
of that Specific Plan they do have the by right of doing
270 units plus a density bonus. So, yes, that is bad news
for the development, if you wanted to reduce the density,
but there are many, many, many issues that are still on the
table for the Planning Commission and Council to look at
and decide, one being, I think it’s been brought up, a unit
is described in many different ways, and what is the size
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of those units that fit within the parameters of the
Specific Plan?
DR. SPANO: “With Town opposition on density and
intersection of North 40 application, and we know as a town
we need a housing unit of 619, why not create a lottery of
more in-law units?”
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t understand the lottery
question, but maybe providing opportunities where they
currently don’t exist is the idea of a lottery. I know that
there was a time period in the, I’m going to say mid-
eighties, where we did grandfather a lot of second units in
town.
Then we actually are looking at modifying one of
the General Plan or Housing Element action items to allow
second units where we currently don’t allow them, so we’ll
be doing a Zoning Code amendment for that and taking that
through the process. It’s not a lottery per se, but we are
going to try to loosen up the restrictions that currently
exist for certain properties, and that will make it easier,
but we can’t force people to apply to build these units,
and they still need to meet some other parameters.
LAUREL PREVETTI: The Housing Element identified
28 of the 619 units as being the share that would happen
through secondary units. We could certainly exceed that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That’s, again, going to be up to the individual property
owners in terms of whether or not they want to pursue the
new opportunity to build more secondary units.
DR. SPANO: “Why does North 40 housing not need
to follow square foot ratio?”
JOEL PAULSON: There are certain parameters where
FAR applies. FAR applies to single- and two-family
dwellings, and so those are going to be detached. Once you
have three or more attached units, FAR doesn’t actually
apply in the Town Code either. Here, same thing: there
isn’t an FAR for multi-family units.
DR. SPANO: This has to do with the distribution
of housing in the North 40: “Why is it crunched into one
small area of the total project area. Can Town Council
require that the housing be equally divided among the 40
acres?”
JOEL PAULSON: We answered that earlier. Any of
that that is spread, or if they can’t accomplish it in the
Northern section, then we will have to find additional
sites to accommodate that housing.
DR. SPANO: “Why was the maximum number of units
changed from 364 down to 270?”
JOEL PAULSON: It was discussed during the
hearings; I’m going way deep into my recollections. During
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the process of the Specific Plan and the Housing Element
there was some overlap, and so there was a conversation,
because we did have a lot of conversations about these by
right density bonus concerns that were raised just through
the Housing Element. It works out that if someone were to
take advantage of a density bonus on this site, then 270 is
the number where if you apply 35% bonus you’d get back to
the 364, so it’s accommodating the up to 364, which was
also the number of units that was analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report.
DR. SPANO: “Is the North 40 subject to the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan?”
JOEL PAULSON: I believe we answered that in one
of our FAQs. Let me take a look. I think the short answer
is it is not applicable. The Specific Plan creates the
development parameters for all of the properties within the
Specific Plan area, but I will look and see if there is
anything to add to that.
DR. SPANO: “How will publicly accessible space
be ensured in the future? What is considered defined as
privately owned and maintained, and public access space?”
JOEL PAULSON: We are still, again, working
through the development application process. There is a
significant amount of area that is going to be publicly
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accessible, private open space, and we will be working
through that with ultimately probably CC&Rs and other
agreements, and there are conditions of approval that will
deal with that to make sure that it remains publicly
accessible.
DR. SPANO: “Does the 13.5 in the North 40 that
is by right 20 units an acre all have to be in the Southern
District, Lark?”
JOEL PAULSON: The answer is no, and we’ve added
additional information on that in previous questions as
well.
LAUREL PREVETTI: We can go back to the Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan. The Specific Plan incorporates or
complements the concepts and guidelines from the Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan where applicable. Essentially, when the
Advisory Committee and Planning Commission were working on
the Specific Plan the Boulevard Plan was one of the inputs
into that process, so strictly as we evaluate the
development application we’re going to be evaluating it
against the Specific Plan, and not the Boulevard Plan.
DR. SPANO: “As one of the many renters that will
now be displaced by the North 40 development, what
provision for relocation assistance and affordable housing
will be provided for us?”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We’ve also answered that one in
the Frequently Asked Questions. The Town doesn’t have any
ordinances, rules or regulations that call for relocation
expenses, so we don’t address that. There are a number of
state laws that can address those issues, one being the
Ellis Act. I don't know the circumstances of each
individual renter and what their agreement is. For example,
the Ellis Act applies only for multi-dwellings, so I’m not
sure of the situation.
What we’ve done is we’ve tried to connect the
renters with people with the county, with our Hello
Housing, and with our mediation and arbitration service,
because we do provide mediation and arbitration service for
landlord/tenant issues, but we don’t have any ordinance
that we could enforce that requires that of a developer in
this type of situation.
DR. SPANO: “My analysis suggests that North 40
development is being done at maximum levels. Highest
possible buildings that zoning allows, highest possible
density as zoning allows, highest possible low-cost housing
as zoning allows. Is this true, and why is Los Gatos taking
that approach?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think, again, that’s a
specific application question, and I think those are great
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments. That’s what needs to be analyzed by the Planning
Commission and by Council as to what are those height
issues, those setback issues, and whether they comply with
the Specific Plan, and to look at and analyze those. It
doesn’t specifically address anything in the Specific Plan,
so we’ll wait for those questions and comments and for the
deliberation by the Planning Commission and Council.
DR. SPANO: “Why can’t the Town require the
height of the houses to be lower by requiring the developer
to build basements instead of three to four story
buildings?”
JOEL PAULSON: Obviously we look at a development
application when it comes in and we compare that to, in
this case, the Specific Plan, Zoning Code or General Plan,
those documents. The applicant could propose to do cellars
to basements, but that would be for them to propose. I
think it gets back to the same challenges with by right and
density bonus concessions where we will be looking to see
what, if any, options there are as they relate to that.
DR. SPANO: This question is about affordable
housing and State mandates, and the question is: “Is it
really a State mandate or is it more of a suggestion? In
other words, stating that housing is an issue although
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
nothing is mandated or enforced, only suggested? Is that
true?”
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll go ahead and start. I think
it really gets back to there is State law that says you
have to have a Housing Element. I think the question that
comes up often is that the Town is required to plan and
show that we have adequate sites to accommodate that
housing. We are not required to build it or to go knock on
developers’ doors to have them build housing, but we do
have to show that the adequate sites are available in town
to accommodate those affordable units.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think Joel addressed it by
saying yes, there is a State mandate to have a Housing
Element, State mandate to show that you have adequate sites
to build your RHNA numbers. We don’t have the ability to go
do what the developer does. I did a memo about a year ago
and I can repost that again, as to the litigation that has
developed over towns and cities that either dragged their
feet or failed to produce adequate sites that could be
developed for affordable housing, and in each and every
case they lost, they’ve had to pay hundreds of thousands in
legal fees, and they had to develop a Housing Element.
It has even been very close to where the State
has said they’ll even take away your planning authority if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you don’t. If you want an analogy, because I’ve worked in a
lot of coastal cities, is every coastal town has to have a
local coastal plan with the Coastal Commission; it’s the
same type of thing if you’ve got a State organization
implementing themselves on and telling the town or city
what to do and what they shouldn’t do.
Malibu was one that almost was in litigation for
many years, because they refused to follow the State
mandates of a coastal local plan, and they came very, very
close to having their planning powers taken away. There are
many other towns that have just said okay, we can’t do
this, we’re going to turn over your planning powers. In
many local coastal towns they don’t have even a planning
commission, because the State has taken it over through the
Coastal Commission.
Does the State have funding to do that? No. Do
they have the funding to even file suit against the towns
and the cities? That’s not really where it’s coming from.
The lawsuits come from the building associations that will
sue because you haven’t complied with State law. It’s not
the State that has to sue you; any individual can sue you
over the fact that you haven’t complied with State law.
DR. SPANO: “We know 20 homes per acre. What will
the square footage of the homes be?”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: The development plans for the
Phase 1 application are online. I do not have that
information. I know there is a range of sizes. We will try
to pull some of that together and add that to the FAQs, or
create some other document for the Phase 1 specifically.
DR. SPANO: This might have been asked earlier.
Let’s see if there’s something new here. “If we spread the
housing over the 44 acres it would seem that we could
reduce the height of commercial and create mixed use,
commercial and housing, and include large open space. Does
the Specific Plan allow for that?”
JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan allows a number
of alterations. Again, I’ll go back to what we are doing is
we’re required to analyze any applications that come
forward against the Specific Plan that’s adopted. Is it
possible to have lower buildings spread out? It’s possible.
I can’t say that it’s not possible. But you end up running
into, depending on the types of units, trying to achieve
the reduced heights and then also get to the 20 dwelling
units per acre, that site plan exercise you have to work
through. So that’s something that is possible, but we again
are evaluating the projects as they come through from an
application perspective.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I think if you turned to 2.7
of the tables, Permitted Land Uses, you would find in the
Lark District, though that was primarily in the Specific
Plan. Supposed to be residential and you’ll find many
retails uses aren’t allowed; the formula retail businesses
aren’t. So there are different things that are not allowed
in that Lark District, because it was supposed to be
primarily residential.
DR. SPANO: And Rob, I know you explained this in
the PowerPoint, but if you’d add a little bit to that.
“What is the concept of by right development as it applies
to the North 40?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: By right development means that
basically you have that right to develop that many units at
that density. You don’t have the ability to reduce that
number of units if an applicant comes in. You’re able to
apply design review, and that’s maybe the look and feel and
how it orientates with the neighborhood. You’re able to
make sure it complies with all the Specific Plan standards,
but you don’t have the discretion. This where the State
said that we had the discretion, for example, for the Lodge
properties, to say, “Well, we said the maximum was 270 but
we’re only going to allow you to have 200 units,” or, “We
decided we want all commercial now and no residential,”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because that truly would not allow for those RHNA numbers
to be met.
So the by right development is just as if you
have your home and it’s on an R-1 property. You can come in
and build your one residential home on there. You have to
meet all the standards, the setbacks, the height
restrictions, but the Town can’t say to you, “We don’t want
a home on that piece of property,” and that’s the same with
the by right development. There are rights on this property
to develop it with 270 units.
DR. SPANO: “What specific latitude in the area
of design review does the Planning Commission and Town
Council have in regard to the upcoming application?
Revisions, approval, not approval? Are there examples from
other communities we could look to?” So the latitude of
Commission and Council on design review?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t have it with me, but March
30th was the first time the Phase 1 application had gone to
the Planning Commission, and there is a Staff Report
associated with that that did lay out and speak to some of
that discretion. As it continues additional Staff Reports
will be prepared for the upcoming July 12th meeting and then
following meetings with the Planning Commission, and also
with Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Didn’t mean to grab the mic, but
it reminded me that I needed to discuss deadlines.
As Joel said, the application will be coming back
for Planning Commission discussion on July 12th. That will
be a public hearing, public comment will be open, and we
welcome all your public comments. After all the public
comment is taken, then the Planning Commission will make a
recommendation to the Council.
The Planning Commission has to make a
recommendation to the Council by August 31st per the Permit
Streamlining Act and the Subdivision Map Act. Then the
Council has to make a decision under the State law by
September 7th.
Those dates are very close together, so from a
Staff standpoint what we plan to do is have the Planning
Commission have the public comment period and everything
that’s need in July, even if there will be special
meetings, and to have hearings in August in front of
Council so that we can make those deadlines.
It’s very important to make those deadlines so
the applicant doesn’t have any argument that because we
didn’t act within the State law that their application is
approved, so we need to comply with those deadlines so that
by September 7th there will be a decision made. The Council
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has the ability to approve, deny or modify the application
that is in front of them, if they can make the findings
that they need to in regard to the Specific Plan and the
Environmental Impact Report.
DR. SPANO: Very good. I have three questions
here that are about what we just heard in terms of why are
the Planning Commission and Town Council meetings being
scheduled for July and August, vacation time, obviously
it’s not conducive necessarily to public meetings, and so
that’s the reason why, because of the deadline that the
Town is facing, and so we can answer those questions.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I did a memo to the Mayor and
Council on May 24th and we’ll put that online also for you.
It explains all the dates under the Permit Streamlining Act
and the Subdivision Map Act that requires us to act within
those timelines.
DR. SPANO: “How much additional housing is
planned for the additional phases of the project?”
JOEL PAULSON: Until we have an application I
can’t tell you whether it is going to be none or the total
amount that’s left. I have to do a little math. I want to
say in the range of probably 30 units, and I’ll look to my
left. In the 270 capacity, so there’s capacity for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
potential for up to 44 units on any future phase that comes
forward.
DR. SPANO: Very good. The next question, “They
don’t all need to be in Phase 1, right?” And so the answer
then is right. Yeah, they don’t need to all be in Phase 1.
“If 270 units can be developed by right, can we
use the Specific Plan to determine where they can be built
in the 44 acres and how they will be designed?”
JOEL PAULSON: I think that’s been addressed
quite a bit throughout the evening tonight. The units can
be spread across the site, and then there will be design
review as it relates to the Specific Plan guidelines and
parameters that will be reviewed when it goes through
Planning Commission and Council.
DR. SPANO: “The estimated purchase price of the
studios, a one-bedroom, a two- or three-bedroom?” Just a
ballpark, if you have that.
JOEL PAULSON: We do not have that.
DR. SPANO: “What revenue is anticipated to be
generated in property taxes?”
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that we’ve even done
that calculation, frankly, so ultimately whatever
transaction takes place the Town typically receives I want
to say 9.6% of each dollar of property taxes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DR. SPANO: Right, and I think that’s helpful for
people…
JOEL PAULSON: 9.6 cents on the dollar.
DR. SPANO: On the dollar on property taxes.
JOEL PAULSON: That would be entitled and come to
the Town, as well as any portion of the sales tax that
might be generated by the 60,000-70,000 square feet of
commercial that is proposed in the first phase application.
DR. SPANO: “How does the size of the Campbell
side of the overall project…” Not clear. “How many
residential units in Campbell? How much retail square
footage in Campbell?”
JOEL PAULSON: For Campbell, I think we just
spoke about this as well, I think the line is pretty close
to where the first phase line is, but I don’t have that
exactly, so it could be up to 44, but I think we can take a
look at that piece and get that answer up as well.
Then the Northern District, we talked about that
would be predominantly commercial if the project that’s
currently before the Town is approved.
LAUREL PREVETTI: And I would just clarify that
none of the North 40 is in the City of Campbell, so when
there’s reference to Campbell in this response, it’s really
pertaining to the Campbell Union High School District that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
serves the northern portion of the area together with the
Cambrian School District.
DR. SPANO: I think we’ve answered this, but let
me ask it just to make sure. “How does by right project
apply when majority of the units are market rate, not
affordable housing?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We have to meet RHNA numbers of
619 across the entire board, not just for Low Income, not
just for Very Low, but it’s across the board of providing
units across all the needs, so the 270 by our Housing
Element has the by right for the entire 270, not just for
affordable housing.
DR. SPANO: “How does the Town plan to meet our
619 RHNA allocation? By my calculation we would need to
build 3,669 to meet that number with a developer density
bonus.”
LAUREL PREVETTI: Our Housing Element identified
different ways to meet the need, and one of them was to
include the North 40 Specific Plan, so that’s 270 units.
The other approach was the secondary units that we talked
about; that was about 28 units. We also talked about doing
an enhanced secondary unit program; that would bring
another 27 units. We do include the South Bay site as
another housing opportunity site in the Town with a yield
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of about 148 units, and then we have other sites such as
Oka Road, which is 99 units.
We also were able to take credit for the recently
approved Knolls development that was happening at the time
that we were developing or preparing the Housing Element,
so we actually got credit of 57 for approved units that the
Town had done.
So there are a variety of strategies that
ultimately came into our Housing Element at a variety of
densities.
DR. SPANO: “Project seems dense. Buildings seem
high. Why is there not park area or other public use space
that would reduce the number of units?”
JOEL PAULSON: I think we’ve answered this as
well. We’re still working with the 20 units per acre, and
there is publicly accessible open space that will be part
of the development. I would encourage folks to go online
and/or attend the Planning Commission meeting on July 12th,
and you can take a look and see what is proposed.
DR. SPANO: “Can the Town force the developer to
spread out the units across the property that is not part
of an application?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think we’ve answered that. I
don’t like using the word “force.” The Council has the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ability to approve, deny or modify any project that comes
in front of them. If an applicant doesn’t want to do that,
then they don’t have a project.
DR. SPANO: “Other than the numbers required by
right in the Housing Element, does anything else require
encouraging that maximums be reached or minimums be
reached, heights, setbacks, open space?” Does anything else
require encouraging that maximums be reached, minimums be
reached?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No. But again, when we go
through the project, when you ask for a density bonus,
there are concessions and waivers that an applicant can ask
for, and again, State law says we have to allow those.
That’s the push back we’re going to look at when we’re
analyzing this with the density bonuses: What type of
waivers and concessions is the applicant looking for?
DR. SPANO: “Is it accurate to assume that part
of the motivation for such a large, high-density project is
at least partly to prevent any additional smaller sites
scattered all over the city?” So if you concentrated the
high-density, high height in one area, then it wouldn’t be
scattered across the city, but it would be localized in one
area. Is that part of the motivation?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if that’s part of the
motivation, but that was definitely part of the discussions
as the Housing Element Advisory Board, and then ultimately
the Planning Commission and Council, struggled with should
the North 40 be used? Should we go back to the AHOZ
opportunity? Should we look at other sites? Ultimately the
decision was made to incorporate the 13.5 acres for up to
270 units at 20 dwelling units per acre in the Housing
Element, and that was the strategy that moved forward.
We’ve talked at length about options and
opportunities if that number was changed, then we would be
looking at a similar evaluation of going back through and
finding sites to make up for whatever density in units have
been lost.
LAUREL PREVETTI: I would just add that overall
the Town has a General Plan that identifies the appropriate
uses throughout our community, and we really want to make
sure that we put any new development in the right place, so
as there are other development applications pending or in
the future will be applied for, we would encourage all of
you to be just as actively engaged as you are now.
We do have pending subdivision applications, for
example, that would increase housing in other sites that
are not even in our Housing Element. I know there is a lot
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of attention right now on the North 40, but this isn’t the
only application that’s moving through the process.
We do have a Pending Planning Projects portion of
our website, so I would encourage all of you to become
familiar with it. There’s a map-based approach, so you can
see what’s happening, a What’s Proposed in My Neighborhood,
and then the project planner’s name and contact is
available. So you can take a look at those applications as
they are pending, and definitely please participate in our
process as those move forward as well.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
LAUREL PREVETTI: The question is, “If we approve
North 40, does it prevent things like Laurel Mews in the
future?”
Really, all land use decisions are unique and
they’re considered on their own merits, determined by
consistency with the General Plan, zoning and other
applicable codes, and guidelines. We have a lot of
properties here in town, and with the strong economy there
are a lot of property owners who are trying to make sure
that they get what is in their opinion the highest and best
use, and those applications are going through a similar
process.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LAUREL PREVETTI: Not necessarily. Again,
ultimately our deciding bodies, Planning Commission and
Council, make those decisions on their own merits.
DR. SPANO: “If additional commercial development
is allowed at this site or anywhere else in town, does that
trigger more State mandated housing?” Additional
commercial.
JOEL PAULSON: I’m not familiar with the
methodology and what goes into that. Maybe Ms. Prevetti can
offer.
LAUREL PREVETTI: No, it’s essentially a separate
discussion. We have our housing need numbers that were
identified, and we’ve adequately planned for them, we’ve
identified sites. If there is new commercial development
that happens, there is not a housing requirement that
follows.
DR. SPANO: I think we’ve answered this, but just
in case, “How are housing needs determined?”
LAUREL PREVETTI: Housing needs are determined in
a very complex way for purposes of our Housing Element.
There is a strict methodology that is outlined in State law
in terms of who makes the population projections for the
State of California, and that’s the Department of Finance.
Then they give the number for the nine county Bay Area
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
region to the Association of Bay Area Governments, and then
that regional agency sets forth a methodology to distribute
all of that new population and the equivalent in terms of
housing to all of our respective communities. So that’s a
very public process. The Town is able to participate and
comment on those numbers before we then do our Housing
Elements.
For this county, in the next cycle for housing
elements, we’re considering doing our own methodology with
our colleague cities within Santa Clara County so that we
have even more local control of the distribution of that
housing. That won’t happen until 2020, but again, that will
be a whole other process, and we are looking for how we can
maintain the local control and have more of a voice,
instead of a regional agency telling us how much housing we
need to plan for.
DR. SPANO: “Do other developments in Los Gatos
have the same square footage, unit number, acre density?”
JOEL PAULSON: The short answer is there are
other projects that actually even exceed the density for
what is being proposed on the North 40. I think earlier I
had mentioned I would look to pull some of that information
and get that posted, so that folks have an idea of what
that looks like.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But there are other projects in town that have
more density. Now, with square footage and those things, we
would have to look at that. This probably is the biggest
combination the Specific Plan would allow, but you also
have to take into account a lot of other factors of when
some of these other projects may have been built, and what
size the properties are, so we’ll try to pull some of that
information together and get some information posted on the
website.
DR. SPANO: “What is the current approved number
of housing units and commercial space square footage not
yet built out?” The number of housing units, commercial
square footage not yet built out.
JOEL PAULSON: We don’t have that data, but
that’s something we can try to pull together.
DR. SPANO: “You mentioned that Saratoga has lost
its appeal to reduce RHNA number, yet we don’t see orange
monster development story poles in Saratoga. Why are we
letting developers dictate what is best for RHNA needs?
Granny units, please.” So the question: “Why are we letting
developer dictate what is best for RHNA needs?”
JOEL PAULSON: This process was done through the
Town, so this is the Town’s document. The Town took this
through the public process and we had a lot of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conversations, some of them very similar to the
conversations we’re having this evening, and ultimately the
decision was made to use the North 40 Specific Plan site as
one of the components to meeting and achieving our regional
housing needs for this Housing Element cycle.
DR. SPANO: “Any plans for solar panels on roofs,
greywater systems built into the residential and commercial
structures, rainwater capture systems?” Any plans for any
of those with North 40?
JOEL PAULSON: Again, that’s going to be part of
the Phase 1, so we will take a look at that information,
but there is green infrastructure that encourages it, if
not requires it.
Speaking to what Director Morley spoke about
before, C-3 requirements now require a lot more treatment
onsite, so typically some of those components get added in,
but we will specifically pull that information up.
LAUREL PREVETTI: And the Specific Plan does have
sustainability guidelines. There are specific guidelines in
Section 3.3.8 that promote a lot of the sustainability
issues that were raised in the question.
DR. SPANO: “You mentioned single-family home has
to follow FAR requirements, but multi-units do not, yet the
developer application is waiting to sell each unit as a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
single unit. Why the discrepancy? Should the Town reduce
the intensity of the application to comply with other
single unit FAR requirements?”
JOEL PAULSON: Appreciate the question. The
difference is the distinction of attached units. They’re
still single-family units that are being proposed, they’re
just attaching three or more, which for the Town makes that
a multi-family dwelling unit. For discussion purposes, you
have one building that has three units in it, but they’re
all sold to three different property owners. That’s a
multi-family development, and based on current Town Code
those do not have FAR requirements.
DR. SPANO: “Did the Town impose requirements on
the construction phase? I can’t imagine huge construction
and materials trucks flowing from the site to Los Gatos
Boulevard for years.” So did the Town impose requirements
on the construction phase, staging and that kind of thing?
MATT MORLEY: That’s specific to the first phase
project, and that will come forward through the improvement
and the conditions with that project.
DR. SPANO: Okay, very good, and obviously
opportunity for public comment around that.
We are down to our last question card, and this
really is about sort of ethics and the Brown Act. “What are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the policies, ethics and standards regarding Staff and
Council interaction with developers and/or vendors? How is
this monitored to ensure residents are protected from undue
influence on Staff and Council?”
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We have specific policies that
address this issue.
For the Planning Commission policy, they’re
allowed no contact. They’re allowed what we call incidental
contact. For any project they go out to, if they’re going
on someone’s property they’re able to at least say hello
and maybe get oriented to where the facts are. But our
Planning Commission is not allowed to have any of what is
called “ex parte communications” with developers, with
citizens, with no one. It’s a very, very strict rule. I’ve
brought it back a couple times for Council and Planning
Commission to discuss, and both the Planning Commission and
the Council wanted to keep that rule intact.
For the Council, it’s different in that they are
allowed that ex parte communication, and we specifically
even say the reasoning is that they’re elected officials,
they need to hear from the public, they need to hear from
you as to the issues that are coming forward, so they’re
allowed to have that ex communication with you and with the
applicant.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It does require though that before any hearing
where property rights are involved that they do have to
disclose those ex parte communications, so when it comes in
front of Council, and even when it comes in front of
Planning Commission, we have the ex parte communications
and that’s why they’ll say they did a site visit and they
might have had incidental contact. But with Council they
have to state who they’ve met with and whether they gained
any other information that’s not in the public record,
because it’s very important from a due process and Brown
Act standpoint that any information they receive outside
the hearing is brought into the hearing, so not only they
know that, but the rest of the Council knows that, so
everybody has the same information to make a decision.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. Okay, so no other
questions. We’ll move to the public comment period of our
meeting here, and this is the beige card. If you want to
speak, you’ll have three minutes, and just fill out one of
these cards and you can hand that to Christina. We’ll queue
up over here for public comment, and I’m just going to hold
the microphone while you make your comments, and Shelly
will be keeping time over here. We’re going to be pretty
strict on the three-minute limit so that everybody gets the
same amount of time.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
DR. SPANO: Okay, so the follow up is Staff
interaction and how that plays into the ethics and Brown
Act, et cetera. Thank you.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Under the Brown Act Staff isn’t
even a part of that. It applies to elected officials or
appointed officials, so we don’t even have any requirement
of the Brown Act.
For myself, I have an open door. Any time any
member of the public wants to come in and talk to me about
the Specific Plan, I’d be happy to do that. We also have
meetings with developers to make sure we understand their
proposal and how it does or does not apply, what our
feelings are. They always want to know whether we’re going
to be supporting this project or not supporting it, and we
have to take them through our analysis, just as we would
for any member of the public, so we don’t include
developers and not include the public, or include the
public and not include the developers. You’re open to speak
with any of us at any time.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. Okay, public comment,
verbal communication. Chris Chapman, please come over here.
Roy Moses. We’ll queue three at a time. And Bruce McCombs,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
please. We’ll start with Chris, and then go to Roy, and to
Bruce.
CHRIS CHAPMAN: My name is Chris Chapman; I live
at 201 Mistletoe Road in Los Gatos.
My concern is that I’m astonished that this plan
is going to have two or more school districts service the
development. I find that now is the time to address a
consolidation of schools. You’re approving a development to
where kids on one side of the development will go to one
school, and kids on another street will go to another
school.
I look at the School District members here, I
look at the Town Council, and I heard a comment from the
Town Council that said, “We have nothing to do with
boundaries.” I, as a resident of Los Gatos, look to the
Town Council, the Planning Commission and the School
Districts to work together to allow for one school district
to service these 320 house. I finding it kind of amazing
that we’re talking about a bicycle path going around this
development for our kids to ride their bikes on, but oh
well, Johnny’s going to go to Cambrian and so-and-so is
going to another district.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I implore everybody here to work together with
the State to make it a consolidation of one school district
serving this development. Thank you.
DR. SPANO: Thank you, Chris. We have Roy up next
if Roy Moses is here, and then Bruce will be after Roy.
ROY MOSES: Thank you very much, and I want to
thank all the Council members and the Planning
Commissioners for getting this meeting together.
You’ve got a big job to do. This is our town. I
don't know how many of you that work for the Town are
actually citizens of Los Gatos, but I’ve lived here for 48
years. It definitely has changed. I don’t like the change,
but change is inevitable; I mean we all know that.
I’m in a second career; my kids will probably
have three careers. When you’re young you try to make some
plans, and you have a family and you plan for your finances
and you look ahead. The kids got to go to school. They’re
going to get out of school and hopefully they’re not going
to be dependent upon their parents, they’re going to be out
living on their own, which ours are, and all these things.
So planning forward and looking ahead is very,
very important, and sometimes cities kind of just look
right here, because they’re got obligations to the State,
and they have obligations to this person and this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particular development, whatever. You have to look beyond
and look to the future. You know what this community is
going to look like in 25 years? Just imagine. I’m going to
be dead, and my kids have to live here, and a lot of other
people don’t want to live here.
Low-income people really cannot live in this
town. You all know that. The State is crazy. Send Jerry
Brown a copy of this meeting tonight, this video. Let him
listen to the citizens of this small town. I’m sure the big
cities are talking about the same thing. We have to start
getting to the State and say you’re full of bullshit. This
has been going on for years. You cannot continue this. I
mean this Town cannot hold more people. What are you going
to do? Stack them on top of one another? You talk about
road rage? There’s going to be a lot of things happening as
a result of this.
You have a tremendous responsibility. You
inherited most of this. All you people that are sitting
here, the Commissioners, you inherited this, but we have to
start mitigating some of these things.
So I ask you, passionately ask you, there are
ways of mitigating the density, all the other things that
are going to impact traffic and local services, all the
things that we talked about here tonight. You’ve given us a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot of good answers in all the things; you’ve done a lot of
homework and all these other things. It still doesn’t stop
the fact that we have a problem, and every other community
is going to have a problem. I think I’ve got 30 seconds.
DR. SPANO: Continue on.
ROY MOSES: I’ve been here before. So I want to
thank you all, but I’m just telling you, we’re going to be
here, the citizens are going to be here. It’s unfortunate
it’s going to be in the summertime again. All these big
issues come up in the summertime. There are 40% of the
people that are not here tonight, because they’re gone with
their kids enjoying someplace else. But they’re going to
come back and find out about all these things. We’re going
to be here, we’re going to be guiding you, so please listen
to us. Thank you very much.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. So Bruce is up next, and
then after Bruce, it will be John Hechinger. Bruce. Very
good, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Bruce. So, John. Is John
here? No, don’t see John. How about Ted Halunen? Is Ted
here? Nope. Joan. Is Joan Langhoff here? No, she’s not here
either. That’s all the comment cards. Come on over.
ROD TEAGUE: I have a question.
DR. SPANO: We won’t be responding to the verbal
comments, but please, ask the question. That’s okay.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROD TEAGUE: My question is regarding the density
zoning. I had a conversation with a senior planner at ABAG,
Gillian Adams, and I guess what I’m worried about is that
the RHNA deductions are really worth their weight in gold.
Of course we want to be sure that we’re getting every
single one of them, and if we based our plan on receiving
all 270 units do we have any assurance from Housing and
Community Development that we’re going to get credit for
them? Because I see in the Housing Element it shows that
we’re knocking most of these RHNA deductions out by Very
Low Income, Low Income and Moderate Income, and we know
that most of those units are just market rate.
Is there any chance that down the line when we
submit to HCD for our credit that they look at this and
they say, “We don’t base it on density, we base it on
income and qualifying”? Only 50 of these units actually
qualify for Low Income, so is it sort of futile and
pointless, or do we have a guarantee from HCD that we’re
going to get credit for all 270 units?
It would be a crime, because I don't know if
people really understand the implications of how much
housing he have to add to our pool of housing here, and if
they came back and said, “No, we’re only giving you a 50-
unit credit,” I mean we have to add somewhere in the range
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of 4,000-5,000 new homes if we count on the developer to
sponsor Low-Income housing. Did you get that? Thank you.
DR. SPANO: Thank you. Excellent. As we move
toward our wrapping up the meeting, again, on the back of
your agenda you have the loose timeline and schedule for
the upcoming Planning Commission and Town Council meetings.
I’m hearing July 12th is the Planning Commission, is that
correct? So that’s been confirmed. July 12th will be the
next opportunity for you to provide public input around the
North 40, but then obviously they’ll be taking up the
developer application and you’ll be able to comment on that
as well.
Laurel, do you want to wrap us up for the rest of
the meeting?
LAUREL PREVETTI: I just wanted, again, to really
say thank you to all of you for participating. Thank you to
the Staff who answered all these questions. Thank you to
our Town Council, Planning Commission and School Board
members and superintendents who joined us. Thank you to the
community. I know there are a lot of people who are
probably watching on either television or on the Internet,
or will be watching in the future. We are doing verbatim
minutes, so all of this transcript will be recorded, and we
will continue to add to the FAQ, as mentioned.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/15/2016
North 40 Special Study Session
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So again, thank you all very, very much. We look
forward to your ongoing participation in the Planning
Commission and upcoming Town Council meetings, as noted,
and then as well as with other issues happening in our
Town, so thank you all very much and we’ll see you soon.
Thank you.
To:
From:
Date:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
Mayor & Council y
Robert Schultz, Town Attorn ey j2..vJ
May 24,2016
Subject: North 40 Subdivision Map Act and Pennit Streamlining Act Deadlines
Summary
My office ha s received numerous inquiries regarding the deadline for the Planning Commission
and Town Council to make a decision on the North 40 Vesting Tentati ve Map and Architec t ure
& Site (A&S) Application submitted by Grosvenor USA Limited and SummerHill Ho mes
( .. Deve loper .. ). This memorandum addresses those deadlines.
On March 18 , 2016, the Developer s ubmitted a revi sed application for a Vesting Tentative Map
and A&S approval. On April 18 , 2016, Town Staff notified the Applicant that their application
for the Ves ting Tentative Map was deemed complete but detennined that the A&S a pplicatio n
was not dee med complete ··until the story poles ha ve been completed'·.
Based upon the Subdivision Map Act and Pennitting Streamlining Ac t, once a Ves ting Tent a tive
Map and A&S application is deemed complete, the Town has 80 days to make a deci s ion on th e
Vesting Tenta ti ve Map and 60 days o n an A&S application. In order to accommo date the S tud y
Session requested by Town Co uncil , the Deve lop e r and the Town have e ntered into a Time
Extension Agreement that requires the Planning Commi ssion to make recommenda tions to th e
Town Council o n the Vesting Tentative Map Application and A&S Appli cation by August 31 ,
2016 and requires the Town Counci l to approve or di sapprove the D eveloper's A&S A ppli ca ti o n
and Vesting Tentative Map Appli ca tion b y September 7, 2016. The Time Ex tension Ag r eement
is attached hereto .
Legal Analvsis
The Subdi vis io n Map Act sets forth certain statutory time periods for repo rting and acting upon
maps , depending on which advisory agency is charged wi th approving the m ap. Within the
Subdivision Ma p Act, Governme nt Code Section 66452.1 provides as follo ws:
(a) If the advi sory agency is not authorized by local ordinance to approve,
conditionally approve or di sapprove the tentati v e map, it shall make its written
rep o rt o n the tentati ve map to the leg islati ve body within 50 d ays after the ti lin g
th ereof w ith it s c le rk.
EXHIBIT 2 9
P age I of3
(b) If the advisory agency is authorized by local ordinance to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map, it shall take that action
within 50 days after the filing thereof with its clerk and report its action to the
subdivider.
(c) The local agency shall comply with the time periods referred to in Section
21151.5 ofthe Public Resources Code. The time periods specified in subdivisions
(a) and (b) shall commence after certification of the environmental impact report,
adoption of a negative declaration, or a detennination by the local agency that the
project is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21 000) of the Public Resources Code.
Pursuant to Town Code Sec. 24 .1 0 .020, the Planning Commission is the advisory agency for the
Town under the Subdivision Map Act and is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove all maps except vesting tentative maps. Therefore subsection (a) above is
applicable and the date for which the Planning Commission would have to make a
recommendation to the Town Council without the Time Extension Agreement is June 7, 2016.
The Time Extension Agreement allows the Planning Commission to make its recommendations
to the Town Council by August 31 , 2016.
Within the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66452.2 provides as follows:
(a) If there is an advisory agency which is not authorized by local ordinance to
approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the tentative map, at the next
regular meeting of the legislative body following the filing of the advisory
agency 's report with it, the legislative 'body shall fix the meeting date at which the
tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within 30 days
thereafter and the legislative body shall approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the tentative map within that 30-day period.
Based upon the Subdivision Map Act , the Town Council has until July 7, 2 016 to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the vesting tentative map ( 50 days + 30 days = 80 days)
without the Extension Agreement. Based upon the Town Council 's request for a study session
and since Town Council is on recess in July, a Time Extension Agreement was necessary and
allows the Town Council to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the vesting tentative
map by September 7, 2016.
In addition to the time limits contained in the Subdivision Map Act, there are time limits
contained in the Permit Streamlining Act that also must be adhered to. The Permit Streamlining
Act was enacted in order to expedite the processing of permits for development projects. The
Permit Streamlining Act achieves this goal by (I) setting forth various time limits within which
s tate and local government agencies must either approve or disapprove permits and (2) providing
that the se time limits may be extended once by agreement between the parties .
Page 2 of3
Within the Permitting Streamlining Act, Govemment Code Section § 65943 , provides a s follows:
(a) Any public agency that is the lead agency for a development project shall
approve or disapprove the project within whichever of the following periods is
applicable:
(4) Sixty days from the determination by the lead agency that the project is
exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
(commencing with Section 21 000) of the Public Resources Code) if the project is
exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act.
The Town and Developer have disagreed on when the 60 day period began. The Developer
asserts that the A&S Application was complete as of April 18 , 2016, the same date that the
Vested Tentative Map was deemed complete, and therefore the Town has until June 17 , 2016 to
approve or disapprove the A&S Application . The Town 's position is that the Developer must
complete and certify that it is in compliance with the Town's story pole requirements before the
Town can deem the A&S application complete and for the sixty day period timeline to begin.
Since the Developer did not certify its compliance with the Town's story pole requirements until
May 4, 2016 , the Town position is that the Town has until July 3, 2016 to approve or disapprove
the A&S Application.
The Subdivision Map Act and the Permit Streamlining Act timelines allow the above deadlines
to be extended once upon mutual written agreement of the project applicant and th e public
agency for a period not to exceed 90 days from the date of the extension. The Pem1it
Streamlining Act specifically states that no other extension, continuance, or waiver of these time
limits either by the project applicant or the lead agency shall be permitted.
Conclusion
In order to resolve our disagreements on the timeline and to accommodate the Study Session and
July recess, the Town and Developer have entered into an agreement to extend the deadlines to a
date certain. The agreement entered into between the Town and the Developer is attached hereto
and provides that the Town has until September 7, 2016 to take final action on the Vesting
Tentative Map and A&S Application .
Attachment :
Time Exten sion Agreement
Page 3 of3
TIME EXTENSION AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO THE
PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT AND SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
"" This Extension Agreement ("Agreement") is made this jJ_ day of May, 20 16, by
and between the Town of Los Gatos, a California Municipal Corporation ("Town") on
the one hand, and Grosvenor USA Limited and SummerHill Homes on the other hand, in
order to extend certain time limits imposed by State law that apply to the Town's
consideration of applications for the North Forty Phase 1 Development Project, all as
more particularly detailed in the following recitals.
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos ("Town Council") certified the
Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the North 40 Specific Plan ("Specific
Plan") on January 5, 2015, and subsequently approved the Specific Plan itself on June 17,
2015;and
WHEREAS, Grosvenor USA Limited is the developer of approximately 20 .7 acres of
real property within the Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, SummerHill Homes is the development partner of Grosvenor USA Limited
with respect to the proposed development; and
WHEREAS, for the sake of simplicity, both Grosvenor USA Limited and SummerHill
Homes will be together referred to as "Developer" in the remainder of this agreement;
and
WHEREAS, Developer is seeking, through a vesting tentative subdivision map and
Architecture and Site ("A&S") approval, authorization to develop within the North 40
Specific Plan area 20.7 acres as a multi-story development consisting of320 residential
units, which includes the following: 50 affordable senior units; approximately 66,800
gross square feet of neighborhood commercial floor area, including a market hall; and on-
site and off-site improvements (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, Developer's vesting tentative map and A&S applications apply to
Assessor's Parcels Numbers ("APNs") 424-07-024 through 424-07-027,424-07-031
through 424-07-037,424-07-070, 424-07-083 through 424-07-086, 424-07-090, and 424-
07-100; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 20 16 Developer submitted a revised application for a vesting
tentative map and A&S approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 18, 2016, Town staff by e-mail notified Developer of the
completeness of its vesting tentative map application but asserted that the A&S
4822 ·2125-4449v7
NON-8009427065
1
application was "not technically deemed complete ... until the story poles have been
completed"; and
WHEREAS, on April 26,2016, attorney Andrew L. Faber of Berliner and Cohen LLP,
on behalf of Developer, asserted Developer's contention that the Town must also treat the
A&S application as complete as of April 18, 2016, as the Town had no legal authority for
requiring the completion of the story pole process before accepting the A&S application
as complete; and
WHEREAS, the Town disagrees with Mr. Faber's contention that the A&S application
was complete as of April 18, 2016, as the Town asserts that the Developer must complete
and certify that it is compliance with the Town's story pole requirements before the Town
can deem the A&S application complete; and
WHEREAS, because the Developer did not certify that it is compliance with the Town's
story pole requirements until May 4, 2016, the Town asserts that is date the A&S
application was deemed complete; and
WHEREAS, Developer does not agree with Town's assertion as to the date the A&S
application should be deemed complete; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Faber's letter also invoked a provision of the Subdivision Map Act
("SMA"), Government Code section 66452.1, which provides in subdivision (a) that an
advisory agency not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove a tentative map shall make its written report to the legislative body within 50
days after the filing thereof with its clerk; and
WHEREAS, subdivision (c) of Government Code section 66452.1 further provides, in
pertinent part, that this 50-day period for action "commence[s] after certification of the
[EIR] ... or a determination by the local agency that the project is exempt from the
requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21 000) of the Public Resources
Code" [that is, the California Environmental Quality Act or "CEQA"]); and
WHEREAS, subdivision (a) of Government Code section 66452.2 further provides that,
if the advisory agency is not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally
approve or disapprove a tentative map, at the next regular meeting of the legislative body
following the filing of the advisory agency's report, the legislative body shall fix the
meeting date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be
within 30 days thereafter, and the legislative body shall approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove the tentative map within that 30-day period; and
WHEREAS, subdivision (b) ofTown Code Section 24.10.020 states that the Planning
Commission will report to the Town Council on its recommendations regarding vesting
4822·2125-4449v7
NON.SC\09427065
2
tentative maps but does not have authority to approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove vesting tentative maps, and as a consequence the Planning Commission does
not have authority to approve or disapprove the A & S application, which must be
approved or disapproved by the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, within the Permit Streamlining Act ("PSA"), Government Code section
65952.1, subdivision (b), provides that development projects consisting of proposed
subdivisions also subject to the SMA shall comply with the timelines set forth in
Government Code sections 66452 .1 and 66452.2; and
WHEREAS, as part of the PSA, Government Code section 65950, subdivision (a)(4),
provides that agencies must approve or disapprove a development project they determine
to be exempt from CEQA within 60 days of such a determination; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study commissioned by the Town regarding the Project
concluded that all impacts were adequately analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, and no
further CEQA analysis is necessary; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Faber's letter further contended that, because the 50-day period under
the SMA began to run on April 18,2016, the period during which the Town's Planning
Commission could make its written report to the legislative body on Developer's vesting
tentative map application would end on June 7, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Faber's letter also further contended that, because the 60-day time
period under the PSA (Government Code section 65950, subdivision (a)(4)), for projects
exempt from further CEQA review, also began to run on April 18, 2016, the parallel time
period during which the Planning Commission must make its recommendation on the
A&S application would end on June 17, 20 16; and
WHEREAS, while the Town disagrees with all ofMr. Faber's date calculations set forth
above, the Town sees considerable value in reaching agreement with Developer as to the
dates by which the Planning Commission and Town Council must take action to approve
or disapprove the two pending applications; and
WHEREAS, the Town, in order to facilitate an agreement with Developer, is therefore
willing to use the dates calculated by Mr. Faber as the starting points for considering time
extensions under both the SMA and the PSA with the exception of the date on which
Developer contends the A&S application was complete; and
WHEREAS, Developer, in order to facilitate an agreement with the Town, is willing for
the purpose of this Agreement to use the Town's date of May 4, 2016, as the date on
which the A&S application was deemed complete; and
4822-2125-4449v7
NON.SC\09427065
3
WHEREAS, using May 4, 2016 as the date that the A&S application was deemed
complete, the 60-day PSA time period under Government Code section 65950,
subdivision (a)(4), for projects exempt from further CEQA review, also began to run on
May 4, 2016, meaning that the time period during which the Planning Commission must
make its recommendation on the A&S application would end on July 3, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 66451.1 of the SMA allows extensions of SMA
timelines for acting on proposed maps by mutual consent of the applicant(s) and the local
agency advisory body or legislative body; and
WHEREAS, a vesting tentative map application is a development project and is also
subject to the provisions of the PSA, including Government Code section 65950; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65957 of the PSA allows one-time extension by
mutual written agreement for a maximum of90 days ofthe time limits set forth in,
among other statutes, Government Code section 65950, including the 60-day time period
to approve or disapprove a project after determining that a proposed project is exempt
from CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the parties now intend to agree to an 85-day extension, commencing on
June 7, 2016, and ending on August 31, 2016, for the Planning Commission to
recommend to the Town Council that it approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the
vesting tentative map application, pursuant to Government Code section 66451.1 of the
SMA; and
WHEREAS, the parties now intend to agree to a 66-day extension, commencing on July
3, 2016, and ending on September 7, 2016, for the Town Council to approve or
disapprove the A&S application and the vesting tentative map application pursuant to
Government Code section 65957 of the PSA; and
WHEREAS, the Developer and the Town are willing to agree to these extensions in order
to facilitate the most thorough possible consideration of the two pending applications by
the Planning Commission and Town Council. Except for the extensions of time herein,
this Agreement is not intended to modify in any other way the respective rights and
obligations of Developer or the Town under the SMA or the PSA with respect to the two
pending applications.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Town of Los Gatos, Grosvenor USA Limited, and SummerHill
Homes, through their respective authorized representatives, agree on the following:
I . All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and are to be treated as part of
this Extension Agreement.
4ll22 ·2125-4449v7
NON~C\09427065
4
2 1b &..tr t th.e P~ C~!Dmissicm to r.!.W ~~om to ~ Tuvm
c~~u em co q:pr~ amdh1CI!Ully cpprcm. o: dl"l'JPPUW Dovc!DJ='r
~ tm!ttiv1: ~9 cr:p!i~an Js hmeby cztcmted tD o includins A.ugust S 1,
2il 16 p~ to Gov mmtmt Code cet'ltfan 6MS I .l; and
3. Tit~ d!ite f~ t!1e 'fo Comu.U to cJlFDvcor dlslpprovt. O:velapcr'' A&S
cypUt • nn :: ~ lcnmti\ . mey QJJllctilun is ~)I ext~ to I1Dd
f:lei.Ld!nC S~~~ 7~ 201 6 ~-umt to C~'ttllment Cde s ·etlan 6S 957.
4. Tcl! Ael=mmt m!l)1 b: ignetl [D GOl!DtQptm. &ch excottted dup Usme btftof
!1W1 ~ ~sicb.red ~ tm ~ F~le ur ~on elceb'On!cdly
tmrnnr~ doc: m PTlF f010 n C~Q! of AgncJuro wu 1mre t:M 11m!
fc..~ w effect 81 orit;irulJ ~·
~:Msy ~20 1 6
D~ l\ :y -J 2016
.Arl!cw F~, &q.
omn~ Aftmlley for Gft1C"-.rcmar USA Limi~ tutd
~rHilJ Ho~
From: Anne Marie de Cesare adecesare@me.com
Su bject: Objections and Alternatives to North 40 Development Plan
Date: March 30, 2016 at 12:02 PM
To: mmoseley@losgatosca.gov
Cc: council@lo sgatosca.gov, Josh de Cesare decesare@ mac.com
Dear Ms. Moseley,
~~ cl €.AJe..el. o .. :\· ?::./30 /t ~
7 G 1"\e .. eJ~ VI~
My family and I are in favor of limited development and historic preservation of a large part of the currently undeveloped Los Gatos North 40
orchard and h istoric buildings and we suggest at least half the orchard and all historic buildings are set aside as a public open space and child
friendly museum.
As I understand it, the original plan approved by the Los Gatos Town Council called for 270 housing units on 44 acres and after plan approval
the project was redesigned to compress 320 housing units onto 22 acres and added in low rise low income housing and 435,000 square feet
of commercial space. And that the Los Gatos Town Council communicated the development guiding principles: look and feel like Los Gatos,
embrace hillside views, trees and open space, address town's unmet residential and commercial needs, mitigate impact on town
infrastructure, schools and community services, but these guiding principles were ignored in the development plan altered after approval. The
look and feel of 35 foot low rise apartment complexes, the 435,000 square foot mall, and 320 high density homes do not conform to any of the
Los Gatos Town development guiding principles and put a strain on the Los Gatos Union and Los Gatos Saratoga Joint High School Districts.
Please do not approve the North 40 development project as it exists, but rather change it to something that would preserve the historic orchard
and a implement smaller scale development that would support rather than strain the Town infrastructure, schools and community services.
Specifically, my family and I are opposed to the current Los Gatos North 40 development plan for the following reasons:
1) Traffic is already very congested after 3 :00 p.m . on 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard. 17 South and Los Gatos Boulevard would be as
congested as 880 South is at rush hour every day with the addition of 320 additional high density housing units and 435,000 square feet of
commercial space between Route 85 and Lark Avenue. For a shopping center that size to even be commercially viable it would have to pull in
customers from all over the 85 corridor adding to existing traffic congestion.
2) A 435,000 square foot shopping mall does not conform in any way to the Los Gatos Town development guiding principles.
3) There are already empty store fronts on Los Gatos Boulevard which would be more likely to stay empty with a 435,000 square foot mall
down the street. Los Gatos should consider inviting investors to rejuvinate store fronts on Los Gatos Boulevard before considering building a
new mall one third the size of Valley Fair Mall as a source of competition for local businesses.
4) The 320 additional housing units would increase the Fisher Middle and Los Gatos High School Classroom sizes. The classroom sizes are
already p retty large. Increasing classroom sizes would alter the m iddle and high school experience for all Los Gatos families and possibly
lower the quality of education within the districts.
5) Before considering any development plan , Los Gatos should consider the historic relevance of one of the few remaining orchards in the
Santa Clara Valley. Los Gatos has a conscientious dedication to historic preservation and it would be tragic to pave over one of the last
remaining orchards.
And finally, here are some questions the Town should consider before moving forward with any project approval. Has the Town Council
considered if the tax dollars collected from new development would adequately offset the additional draw on Town resources? Would rental
property owners contribute a share of tax dollars proportional to those home owners to compensate for more students in the middle and high
schools? Would the existing elementary schools even be able to accommodate such a large inc rease in enrollment?
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerely,
Anne Marie, Josh, Sarah and Josh II
The de Cesare Family
236 Los Gatos Boulevard
f.Xlii.l:H T 3 0
I' <:.J<:O I CAl~ 0" o-..;1 ..::, I~ I I (p
1' (_ f./1~·""
Possible adjustments to the North 40 application
Council members, 3/24/2016
My name is Eric Wade. I am a third generation Los Gatos general contractor. My grandfather Jack Wade
senior purchased property on Bonnie lane in 1947. My father, Jack Wade junior started his construction
career by helping his father build their home in 1948. My Father attended Los Gatos middle school
which was then located where Old Town is currently. One of his classmates' was a Yuki and he would on
occasion during harvest help on the Yuk i family orchard.
My wife and I are currently raising our two children here in Monte Sereno and they are attending Daves
Avenue Elementary. I am the head chair on the Monte Sereno Site & Architecture commission. Both my
wife and I are very involved in our community.
I have had a chance to review the proposed development for the North 40 and would be very
appreciative if you would spend a few moments reviewing my fallowing concerns, thoughts and possible
adjustments to the application for development.
• Reduce the height and mass of all structures. Consider a maximum of 2 stories for all residential
structures.
• Break condominium blocks into smaller number of units.
• Reduce total number of housing units by 1/3 or a total of approx. 240 units
• Divide the total number of housing (240 units) between the north and south districts or divide
total number of housi ng units evenly between the Los Gatos & campbell school districts.
• Provi de larger open space or garden areas in each district.
• Increase the setback along Lark Ave. to 50' and plant a "Heritage Orchard" in this area.
• Have the property taxes fund 1 additional police officer for the Town and the HOA fees cover
the maintenance of the orchard.
These are just a few of my ideas and hop.~ you would take them into consideration .
Thank You , ~cJ
Eric Wade
F 01 • Roberta Goncalves .:·h r;~_ ,.c; ,c,~:; '~ \: ~·r.· u?.<.;"nl
Suoj.. : Concerns about North 40
Do~·"": March 30, 2016 at 2 :19PM
u: r.;,,n O~< .. !.a y'fyl osy<lC."-:C.?.£;0"
t~c : Chri s Ba lough elY '~'U\JI1t',;;,-~I100.t;o o n
Dear Ms. Moseley,
1e.0\w Jw1-:3/w/t&
'l' c 1""\e_eA..\~
We live in Blossom Manor and are absolutely opposed to this development. We have both lived
in Chicago and enjoy a big city for what it is. We also enjoy Los Gatos for what it is, and it
should never try to look and feel like a big city.
One main reason we moved here is how beautiful and quaint this town is, the excellent schools
it offers, and the look and feeling of small town living, while close enough to San Jose and San
Francisco and all they have to offer, but without the challenges those cities face.
The last thing we need in our town is another "Santana Row." We already have one. It is in
San Jose. Los Gatos doesn't need to try to become San Jose. We can drive 7 minutes and be
at Santana Row.
Our town already cannot handle all the Santa Cruz traffic with the current infrastructure, and
population. Adding 320 residential units, and families to the town, will only make it worse,
significantly worse. It will also make traffic around town, and our schools, worse than it
already is .
This addition would require more roads, more schools at all levels, not just Elementary, but
Middle and High School as well. There are no such provisions being proposed.
The quality of life we all have chosen this town for, the great schools, decent amount of traffic,
the character and feel of the town, are at stake if this projects gets approved.
We don 't need another Santana Row. We don't need to become another "stop by the
highway." We don't need more traffic. We don't need to overcrowd our already full schools.
We don't need to add to the burden of emergency services serving our small communitty, from
firefighters, to police, by adding a significant amount of commercial and r.esidential areas to
our town.
Lastly, we urge the Town's Council to listen to residents , and not the developers focusing on
profits. We need to support our existing businesses, many of which are Mom and Pop type
places, family owned. These are choices that will impact generations in Los Gatos, and ought
to be done taking resident's views and preserving the essence of this town: a town that was ,
and will continue to be charming, small, has manageable traffic, and offers great schools to its
residents.
Please vote NO for adding 270-320 housing units and 435,000 sf of new commercial space.
We are not opposed to some form of development on that land, but it truly needs to reflect
what this town is all about, and look and feel like it. This North 40 proposal does a terrible
disservice to the Town and its residents .
Sincerely,
Roberta Goncalves and Chris Balough
161 00 Jasmine Way
Los Gatos CA 95032
*Phone numbers for your use only, not to be publicly disclosed :
*Roberta mobile:
*Chris 's mobile: