Item 02 - N40 SP Amendments - Staff Report & Exhibits 1-3TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 15, 2016
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION :
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
jpaul so n@ lo sga to sca .gov
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
T he plan area comprises approximately 44 acres located at the
northern extent of the Town of Los Gatos, bordered by State Route 17
to the west, State Route 85 freeways to the north , Los Gatos Boulevard
to the east, and Lark Avenue to the south. APN 424-07-009,0 10,024
through 027 , 031 through 037, 052 through 054, 060, 063 through 065 ,
070, 081 through 086, 090, 094 through 096, 099, 100, 102 through
112 ,424-06-115 , 116, and 129.
PROJECT SUMMARY: Consider potential amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan
SPECIFIC PLAN: The North 40 Specific Plan, adopted June 17 , 2015, implements the
Town of Los Gatos General Plan and comprehensively plans for future
development in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area has a
maximum development capacity of up to 270 housing units and
501 ,000 square feet of no n-residential uses. Of the non-re si dential
uses, the maximum development capacities are up to 250,000 square
feet of office/hotel , and up to 400,000 square feet of other commercial
(such as retail , re staurants, specialty market, health clubs, personal
service, and entertainment). At least 30% of the area (approximately
13.2 acres) will be open space.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
PROP ERTY OWNERS: Yuki Farms, ETPH LP, Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill N40
LLC, Dodson, Hirschman, Mattes, Ventura Trustee, Moisenco, Los
Gatos Medical Office Center LLC , Los Gatos Gateway LLC, Mbk
Enterprise, Connell, Gin, John & Allison Diep LLC, Bernal, Lg
Boulevard Holdings LLC, Polaris Navigation , Ew Real Estate LLC,
Lazaar Enterprises LLC, Kothary, and Swenson Trustee.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider the General Plan Committee's discussion and provide
recommendations regarding the Town Council's s uggestions for
amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
December 15,2016
CEQA:
FINDINGS :
ACTION:
EXHIBITS:
BACKGROUND:
The Town Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the North
40 Specific Plan on January 20, 2015 (Resolution 20 15-002) and no
additional environmental review is necessary for the proposed
amendments.
• The Town Council certified an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
North 40 Specific Plan on January 20,2015 (Resolution 2015-002)
and no additional environmental review is necessary for the
proposed amendments.
• The Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed
amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan are consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan and its elements, if the
recommendation is for approval.
Make a recommendation to the Town Council on amendments to the
North 40 Specific Plan.
I. Location Map
2. Findings
3. October 27, 2016 General Plan Committee Memorandums and
attachments
4. October 27, 2016 General Plan Committee verbatim minutes
5. November 17, 2016 General Plan Committee Memorandums and
attachments
6. November 17 , 2016 General Plan Committee verbatim minutes
7. Potential amendments, based on General Plan Committee
discuss ion
8. Public comments received between 11 :0 I a.m. November 17 , 2016
and 11:00 a.m. December 8, 2016
On June 17, 2015, the Town Council adopted the North 40 Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
can be found at the following link: http://www .l osga tosca .gov/DocumentCcnter/View/15472.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for the Specific Plan in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On September 6, 2016, the Town Council denied the Phase 1 Architecture and Site and
Subdivision applications because they determined that the proposed project is not consistent
with the following General Plan and North 40 Specific Plan Policies:
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
December 15 , 2016
a. The proposed project overly concentrates all of the residential units that can be built
pursuant to the North 40 Specific Plan and the General Plan Housing Element on the
southern portion of the North 40 Specific Plan area and is therefore inconsistent with
Specific Plan Section 2.5; Standard 2.7.3; Policy 5.8.2; and the Residential Unit Size
Mix and Table set forth on page 6-14. This negatively affects the site layout and
disproportionately hurts the chances of better site design in the future.
b. The proposed project is inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan Section 2.3 .1 and its
requirements for lower intensity residential uses in the Lark District.
c. The proposed project buildings 18 through 27 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific
Plan policy requirement that the Lark District consist oflower intensity residential
development with office, retail , personal services, and restaurants along Los Gatos
Boulevard.
d. The proposed project buildings 24 and 25 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan
Section 4-2 as it eliminates "a fourth access point off of Los Gatos Boulevard closer
to the Lark A venue intersection ;" are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan page
3-1 , Section 3.1 Architectural and Site Character Goals and Policies, Policy DG5
Residential Siting that requires residential development to be located to minimize
traffic, noise, and air quality impacts; and are inconsistent with the Commercial
Design Guidelines beginning on page 3-2 which guide site plan development.
e. The proposed project is inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan Policy Section 2.4
and Appendix C of the Specific Plan as it does not address the unmet housing needs
for seniors and "Gen Y."
f. The proposed project is inconsistent the Residential Unit Size Mix and Table set forth
on page 6-14 ofthe Specific Plan and the Residential Unit Size Mix should have
smaller units to come closer to the income distribution of affordable housing
identified in the Town's certified General Plan Housing Element for 156 very low , 84
low , and 30 moderate income units .
g. The proposed project, specifically buildings 18 through 27 , would result in an
anomaly of residential uses within an existing commercial land use context.
h. The only promised Below Market Rate housing is the 49 units above Market Hall and
the remainder have home values estimated at $900,000 to $1 ,500,000 requiring a 20
percent down payment and income of approximately $130,000 to $200,000 per year.
Following the Town Council's denial of the Phase 1 applications, the Mayor requested that
a special Town Council meeting be set to identify potential amendments to the adopted
Specific Plan. This meeting provided an opportunity for the public and the Town Council
to identify specific amendments that would then be considered by the General Plan
Committee (GPC), Planning Commission, and Town Council.
On September 27, 2016 the Town Council conducted a special meeting and provided
suggestions for potential amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan. The GPC met on
October 27, 2016 (Exhibit 3) and November 17, 2016 (Exhibit 5) to discuss the Council
suggestions. Verbatim minutes for the GPC meetings are included in Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 6.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
December 15, 2016
Based on the GPC discussion, specific potential amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan
are provided in Exhibit 7 for the Commission's consideration. Please note that potential
amendments are not included in Exhibit 7 for the General/Other category of suggestions.
Staff will complete this category and the potential amendments will be provided on
Monday December 12, 2016.
CONCLUSION :
This opportunity to consider the Town Council's suggestions for amendments to the North 40
Specific Plan is not intended to be a rewrite of the entire Specific Plan. Additionally, staff
direction to the Town Council was that the suggested amendments should be specific and require
no additional environmental analysis or amendments to the Housing Element.
At its meeting on December 15 , 2016, the Planning Commission should take public testimony
and consider the GPC's discussion on the Town Council's suggestions for amendments to the
North 40 Specific Plan .
RECOMMENDATION:
When the Planning Commission has completed its consideration of the potential North 40
Specific Plan amendments, including public testimony, the Commission should forward a
recommendation to the Town Council to:
I . That the Town Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the North 40 Specific Plan on January 20, 2015
(Resolution 2015-002) and no additional environmental review is necessary for the
proposed amendments;
2. That the proposed amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan are consistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan and its elements, if the recommendation is for approval;
and
3. Adopt the recommended North 40 Specific Plan Amendments.
Prepared by:
Sally Zarnowitz, AlA, LEED AP
Planning Manager
N :\DEV\PC REPORTSI2016\N40 SP Amends Report .docx
pproved by:
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
North Forty Specific Plan Area
PLANNING COMMISSION – December 15, 2016
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
North 40 Specific Plan
Consider the General Plan Committee’s discussion and provide recommendations
regarding the Town Council’s suggestions for amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan.
APN 424-07-009, 010, 024 through 027, 031 through 037, 052 through 054, 060, 063
through 065, 070, 081 through 086, 090, 094 through 096, 099, 100, 102 through 112, 424-
06-115, 116, and 129.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Yuki Farms, ETPH LP, Grosvenor USA Limited, Summerhill
N40 LLC, Dodson, Hirschman, Mattes, Ventura Trustee, Moisenco, Los Gatos Medical
Office Center LLC, Los Gatos Gateway LLC, Mbk Enterprise, Connell, Gin, John &
Allison Diep LLC, Bernal, Lg Boulevard Holdings LLC, Polaris Navigation, Ew Real
Estate LLC, Lazaar Enterprises LLC, Kothary, and Swenson Trustee.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ That the Town Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the North 40 Specific Plan on January 20, 2015
(Resolution 2015-002) and no additional environmental review is necessary for the proposed
amendments.
Required Consistency with the Town’s General Plan:
■ That the proposed amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan are consistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan and its elements.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2016\N40SPAMENDMENTS.DOCX
N:\DEV\GPC\GPC-Memos\N40SPAmendment10-27.doc
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: General Plan Committee
From: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Subject: North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
Date: October 21, 2016
The overall purpose of the October 27, 2016, General Plan Committee (GPC) meeting is to review
the Town Council’s suggestions for amendments to the North 40 Specific Plan and to provide
recommendations regarding the suggestions to the Planning Commission.
On June 17, 2015, the Town Council adopted the North 40 Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
can be found at the following link: http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15472.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified for the Specific Plan in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
On September 6, 2016, the Town Council denied the Phase 1 Architecture and Site and
Subdivision applications because they determined that the proposed project is not consistent
with the following General Plan and North 40 Specific Plan Policies:
a.The proposed project overly concentrates all of the residential units that can be built
pursuant to the North 40 Specific Plan and the General Plan Housing Element on the
southern portion of the North 40 Specific Plan area and is therefore inconsistent with
Specific Plan Section 2.5; Standard 2.7.3; Policy 5.8.2; and the Residential Unit Size
Mix and Table set forth on page 6-14. This negatively affects the site layout and
disproportionately hurts the chances of better site design in the future. .
b. The proposed project is inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan Section 2.3.1 and its
requirements for lower intensity residential uses in the Lark District.
c.The proposed project buildings 18 through 27 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific
Plan policy requirement that the Lark District consist of lower intensity residential
development with office, retail, personal services, and restaurants along Los Gatos
Boulevard.
d. The proposed project buildings 24 and 25 are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan
Section 4-2 as it eliminates “a fourth access point off of Los Gatos Boulevard closer to
the Lark Avenue intersection;” are inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan page 3-1,
Section 3.1 Architectural and Site Character Goals and Policies, Policy DG5
Residential Siting that requires residential development to be located to minimize
traffic, noise, and air quality impacts; and are inconsistent with the Commercial
Design Guidelines beginning on page 3-2 which guide site plan development.
GPC 10-27-16
Item 3
N:\DEV\GPC\GPC-Memos\N40SPAmendment10-27.doc
e.The proposed project is inconsistent with North 40 Specific Plan Policy Section 2.4
and Appendix C of the Specific Plan as it does not address the unmet housing needs
for seniors and “Gen Y.”
f.The proposed project is inconsistent the Residential Unit Size Mix and Table set forth
on page 6-14 of the Specific Plan and the Residential Unit Size Mix should have
smaller units to come closer to the income distribution of affordable housing
identified in the Town’s certified General Plan Housing Element for 156 very low, 84
low, and 30 moderate income units.
g.The proposed project, specifically buildings 18 through 27, would result in an
anomaly of residential uses within an existing commercial land use context.
h. The only promised Below Market Rate housing is the 49 units above Market Hall and
the remainder have home values estimated at $900,000 to $1,500,000 requiring a 20
percent down payment and income of approximately $130,000 to $200,000 per year.
Following the Town Council’s denial of the Phase 1 applications, the Mayor requested that
a special Town Council meeting be set to identify potential amendments to the adopted
Specific Plan. This meeting provided an opportunity for the public and the Town Council
to identify specific amendments that would then be considered before the GPC, Planning
Commission, and Town Council.
On September 27, 2016 the Town Council conducted a special meeting and provided
suggestions for potential amendments to the adopted Specific Plan which are included in
Attachment 1. Staff organized the suggestions into categories and also references from the
Specific Plan for the Town Council suggestions as a starting point for the GPC’s discussion.
Following the GPC’s review and recommendation, staff will provide specific language to
the Planning Commission for their review and consideration.
This opportunity to review the Town council’s suggestions regarding potential amendments is not
intended to be a rewrite of the entire Specific Plan. Additionally, staff direction to the Town Council
was that the suggested amendments should be specific and require no additional environmental
analysis or amendments to the Housing Element.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Town Council Suggestions for North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
Town Council Suggestions for Potential Amendments to the Adopted North 40
Specific Plan with Annotations of Relevant Specific Plan Sections (in italics)
Residential
1. In the Lark perimeter area we should set a maximum density of eight units per acre.
This could be added to section 2.5. 7 on page 2-15 to address this suggestion.
2. Housing units should be spread across all three districts.
A minimum or maximum percentage or number of units could be added to section 2. 5. 1 on
page 2-10 to address this suggestion.
3. Make sure that you somehow have a vision of how you're spreading these units to make it fit
with the other uses and fit in the neighborhood idea.
4. Require smaller, more affordable units.
Language could be adde d to section 2. 7.3 on page 2-25 and 2-26 to address this suggestion.
Additionally, th e table on page 6-14 in th e D efinitions section could be modified.
5. Only allow smaller units from 900 to 1,500 square feet.
Language could be added to section 2. 7.3 on page 2-25 and 2-26 to address this suggestion.
Additionally, the table on page 6-14 in th e Definitions section could be modified.
6. Reduce the maximum size of some of the units to 1, 700 square feet maximum to e ncourage
less expensive units.
Language could be added to section 2. 7.3 on page 2-25 and 2-26 to address this suggestion.
Additionally, th e table on page 6-14 in the Definitions section could be modified.
7. Apply the Town's BMP Ordinance requirements.
This is r equired in Section 2. 7.3 c. on page 2-26.
8. Don't allow residential on Los Gatos Boulevard.
Language could b e added to section 2.5. 7 b. on page 2-15 to address this suggestion.
9. Provide senior housing at the ground level.
Language could be added to section 2. 7.3 on page 2 -26 to address this suggestion.
l 0. Consider the possibility of moving the houses away from Highway 17 and putting
commercial in that area.
Section 2.5. 7 on page 2-15 could be mod(fied to increase the buffer size and/or prohibit
residential uses in that area .
11. Remove the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for cottage clusters.
Table 2-1 on page 2-7 could be modified to address this suggestion.
12 . Increase the total number of residential units on the North 40.
Table 2-2 and section 2.5.1 on page 2-10 could be modified to address this suggestion.
ATTACHMENT 1
Suggestions
Page 2
13. Is it possible for the Town to allow a developer to have a densi ty bonus if the develo p e r
requests it, but not necessarily have those 13 .5 acres in a certain location, i.e., spread
throughout the property?
Commercial
1. The CUP requirements should be the same as downtown.
Table 2 -1 on page 2-7 could be modified to address this suggestion.
2. Only allow commercial or mi xed-use on Los Gatos Boulevard.
Language co uld be added to section 2.5. 7 b. on page 2-15 to address th is suggestion.
3. Explore commercial us es in the Lark Di strict.
Table 2-1 on page 2 -7 could be modified to address this s uggestion. Additionally, language
could be added to section 2.3.1 o n page 2-3 .
4 . Cons ider maximum square footages for commercial uses instead of CUP s.
Table 2-2 on page 2-1 0 co uld be modified to address this suggestion.
5. Consider a reduction in the amount of commercial square footage.
Table 2-2 and section 2.5.1 on page 2-10 could be modified to address th is suggestion.
6. Address the commercial needs that have been prev ious ly identified: gene r al merchandise,
building materials, and resident serving businesses defined as serving the north part of Los
Gatos and the North 40.
Th e Guiding Principles on page 1-1 could b e modified to address this suggestion.
Additionally, Policy L U4, LU6, a nd LUll on page 2-2 could b e modified.
7. Con s ider reducing the total amo unt of commercial square footage w ith the goal of a ddressing
o ur unmet n eed s .
Table 2-2 and section 2.5.1 on page 2-10 could be modified to address this suggestion.
8 . T he intent of the Specific Plan w as to protect downtown w hile providing neighborhood-
serving commercial and reducing retail sal es t ax leakage.
The Guiding Principles on page 1-1 could be modified to address this suggestion.
Additionally, Policy LU4, LU6, and L U ll on page 2-2 could be modified.
9. How do we make the commercial that's near residential b e trul y neighborhood serving and
not s hoe stores and handbag stores that draw people awa y from downtown, and then how do
w e get the o ther portion of it to be general m erchandiz ing, again , w itho ut creating a foo d
court and a bunch of small s tores with dress shops and so forth?
Section 2.6.6 co uld be modified t o address this . Additionally, P olicy LU4, LU6, and LUll
on page 2-2 co uld be modified.
Suggestions
Page 3
Open Space
1. The perimeter district should be larger.
Section 2.5. 7 on page 2-15 could be modified to increase the buffer size to address this
suggestion. Additionally, see Table 2-5 on page 2-18 and 2-19,
2. More open space should be required.
Section 2.5.4 on page 2-12 and Table 2-3 on page 2-12 could be mod(fied to address this
suggestion
3. Have real open space.
Section 2.5.4 on page 2-12 could be modified to address this suggestion
4. Public access easements shall be required for the open space.
Section 2.5.4 d. could be mod(fied to address this suggestion.
Parking
1. Underground parking should be exp lored.
Language could be added to section 2.5.8 on page 2-15, 3.2.3 on page 3-5, and/or section
4.12 on page 4-10 could be modified to address this suggestion.
Height
1. Increase the height to 45 feet, as long as there is more open space.
Section 2.5.2 on page 2-11 could be modified to address this suggestion.
2. Reduce the height of the residential to 25 feet.
Section 2.5.2 on page 2-11 could be modified to address this suggestion.
General/Other
1 . "Shall s " should replace "shoulds."
The Specific Plan could be modified to address this issue. However, staff would need to walk
through each instance and provide a recommendation on whether some of the "shoulds"
should be replaced with "shall. "
2. Confirm that the Guiding Principles in the Specific Plan is mandatory language rather than
permissive language.
3. Require a plan for the entire Specific Plan area.
Section 6.2 on page 6-1 could be modified to address this suggestion. However, with
multiple property owners in th e Specific Plan area it does no t appear to be feasible.
4 . Preserve ex isti ng li ve oak trees.
Lang uage could be added to address this s uggestion.
Suggestions
Page 4
5. Consider the widening Los Gatos Boulevard.
There is no nexus for the Town to require a developer to acquire the land to widen Los Gatos
Boulevard. The Town would need to acquire the property and install the roadway
improvements. Given the Town's limited resources for this type of action this suggestion
does not appear to befeasible.
6. Try to acquire some land for a park or community pool.
Given the Town's limited resources for this type of action this suggestion does not appear to
be feasible.
7. Consider making the Town Council the deciding body for applications.
Appendix E could be modified to address this suggestion
N:\DEV\N40SPAmendment\TC SuggestionsGPC.docx
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
GPC 10/27/16
ITEM3
ADDENDUM
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
General Plan Committee
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director 1 f
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
October 26 , 2016
Attachment 2 consists of public comments received between September 27 ,2016 and
October 6 , 20 16 , inadvertently omitted from the memorandum for thi s item.
Attachments:
1. Town Council Suggestions for North 40 Specific Plan Amendments, prev iousl y
Submitted with the October 21,2016 memorandum
2. Pub li c comments received between September 27,2016 and October 6, 2016
From: Mike Matthews [mailto :mike.matthews@power.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 4:54 PM
To: BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson;
Robert Schultz
Subject: North 40 Development -resident comment
Dear Los Gatos Council members
I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting but do hope you can reach agreement to amend the Specific
Plan for the North 40 development
Rgds
David M Matthews
Englewood Ave resident
ATTA CHM ENT 2
Cindie Gonzales
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
kcdugg i ns@ gmail.c om
Tu es d ay, Septembe r 27, 2016 5:19 PM
Jo el Paul son; Sally Za rnowitz; Cindie Gonzales
North 40
Dear City Counc il and Pl a nning Commi ssion :
M ay I propose a plan fo r th e North 40 th a t seems to m e to be somewhat o f a c ompro mi se to a ll p a rties. Wha t if we c a n
tu m m ost of the ho mes into a community like The V ill age s. If we have 55 and o ld e r gro up buy in g the homes it would
NOT affect our sch ools. S ince most of the p eopl e would be retire d o r semi re tired a nd not commuting at peak hours o ur
tra ffi c wou ldn 't be a s impacte d e ith e r We could still have some sto res that wo uld no t o n ly serve thi s a ge g ro up but
perhap s t he co mmunity a round it. A s ma ll po rtio n of th e condos could be lower inco me and set as ide for p o li ce, t eache rs
a nd fire ma n tha t serve thi s community.
We know tha t a t some po int thi s prope rty will be develo ped, but I be li eve my idea would give a n o pportunit y t o many
lo ng time Los Gatans who have li ved a nd ra ised the ir fa milies here, to s ta y in Los Gat os when the t ime c omes to
do wnsize. S ince we ha v e ne ither th e space nor the finances to build more schoo ls, this idea wo uld a t lea st li m it the
impact to our curre ntl y c rowded sch oo ls.
I ho p e yo u w ill do the ri ght t h ing by a ll of us and n o t g ive in to a d evelo p er t ha t does not li ve he re a nd onl y want s to line
hi s own pocke t s. I am no t o pposed to develpment a nd g ro wth (m y hu s band is a co ntrac tor), however, I do n 't wa nt to see
life in Los Gatos b e ing c h oked o ff b y all the increase o f traffic . It will only hurt u s in the lo ng run.
Thank you fo r a ll your ti me a nd con sidera ti on .
Kirste n D uggi n s
From: Mpmillen@aol.com [mail t o :Mpmillen@aol.com]
Sent : Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:20 AM
To : Council
Subject: North 40 specific plan meeting 09/27
Hi ,
I wanted to share a few thoughts about last nights meeting.
I wa s impressed by so many speakers and their comments. Almost all of the ideas suggested had merit,
and I am confident the council and staff can use the oral and written comments to make the Specific
Plan work for the town, and to make the future development smart and positive for the town.
I wanted to respond to Council Member Rennie's (i think) question about where to locate a market hall
downtown. I believe the old ferrari dealership next to town hall is a perfect spot.
The property ha s been languishin g empty for years, be cause the restrictive zoning blocks any beneficial
use. Selling cars, even expensive cars, in a small space in a small town is over-the space will remain
empty forever if the town does not act to change the zoning. It is unfair to citizens and the property
owner that this property remains a ghost town.
Underground parking, and a market hall would be a huge success. The town needs to abondone the
re strictive zoning at this property so it can g row someth ing beautiful for the town.
Sent from my iPhone
Joel Pa u lson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi
Sall y Za rn owitz
Monday, Oc t o be r 03, 20 16 11 :22 A M
Joel Pau ls on
Phone Ca ll re : N40
M r . Walker of Blo ss om Manor called me to convey his concerns about the Project and Spe cific Plan :
• Conc ern ed about density, height, lack of open spa ce
• Concern ed about comments by council members re: cutting trees to provide better v iews-if that is what was
sa i d
• Sr . units need to be at grade; no steps, sta irs , curbs, and wider doors -no second floors for disabled people
• Proje ct does not feel li ke Los Gato s
Thank you
Sally Zarnowit z, Al A, LEED AP
Planning Manager I Community Development Dep artment
Town o f Los Gatos I 110. E. Main St reet, Los Gatos, CA 95 030
408.354.6873 I szarnowit z@ losgatosca .gov
Pl a nning : 408.354.6874
Community Development Counter Hours : M onday -Friday, 8 :00a .m.-1:00 p.m .
Please note I will be out of the offi ce : October 5-18, 2016
Please note the upcoming Town closure: November 24 -2 5, 2016 -Tha nksg ivi ng
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robb Walker <rnwalker1@comcast.net>
Monday, October 03 , 2016 12:36 PM
Planning
Dr. Weismann 's suggestion at the last Town Council
Please forward this to Planning Commission
Dr. Weismann's suggestion at the last Town Council meeting to have the entire North 40 be for housing is too practical
to overlook. Probably too much water has gone under the bridge already. Under his plan, businesses would be
situated outside the North 40 where they currently exist on Los Gatos Blvd .. Another speaker questioned the
sustainability of businesses currently being looked at in the North 40 with all the ramifications this will bring forward.
As I drove throughout Los Gatos I observed homes with a convenience store "within driving distance." Some homes
farther away then others. Residents drive to do their shopping. Why is the No .40 any different or special ?
"Grosvenor was going to build a town for us when all we needed were homes." We already have a Town. People
would be very satisfied with a "charming" small home community in the North 40 just like you find all over Los Gatos .
Getting to a store from there is as easy as it is for all other Los Gatos residents.
The idea of developing a "home community" as Dr. Weizmann suggested is not so outlandish. It i s very practical. I only
wish this idea was presented at the first advisory committee meeting.
It accomplishes many things: it doesn't compete with downtown, provides for an attractive home sett i ng with winding,
meandering streets, the view of the hills is not an issue anymore with the lower height of the homes, senior hou sing is
easily woven into the neighborhoods. You can go on and on. This plan seems to counter each problem we have been
racking our brain s to fix .
We are only "kicking the can down the road" under current plans when the balance of homes will eventually need t o be
situated somewhere else in town to meet the state's mandate i.e. Los Gatos Lodge and elsewhere. It then becomes
someone else's problem . It's too bad that we are going to be compelled to let a good idea pass us by.
Dr. Weismann's plan most assuredly provides the look and feel of Los Gatos .
Robb Walker
Sent from my iPad
1
From: jan prinzivalli [ma ilto:j anprinzivalli@hotmai l.com ]
Sent: Tuesday , October 04, 2016 4 :53 PM
To: Council
Subject: North 40
Council-
Please consider and vote for a library annex as part of the North 40. This would
be convenient for schools and residents on the north side of town, but also reduce
crosstown traffic.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jan Prinzivalli
101 Charter Oaks Circle
Los Gatos
From: Bruce MacNaughton <b rucea macnaughto n@gmail.com>
Date: October 6, 2016 at 9:38:44 AM PDT
To: "Barbara Spector, Chair" <bs pecto r@ lo sg atosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen
<mjens en(@,los g atos c a.gov>, Marico Sayoc <m s avoc@los ga to sca.gov>, Rob Rennie
<nenni e@ losgatosca.gov>, Steve Leonardis <s leona rdi s@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Affordable and Senior Housing
I recently moved to Los Gato s from out of state.. I be lieve that I might recognize some potential
problems that someone closer to the situation might not see.
The people that you are creating affordable housing for are probably living here in Los Gatos .
When they move into the newly created housing, they are emptying where they cunently live
which will be immediately moved into by others.
The net result of the new affordable housing is to increase the popul ation density in Los Gatos
with the accompanying need for more schools, roads , services, etc. From what I have heard, this
is not what the people of Los Gato s want.
I believe that goals should be developed for the future of Los Gatos which, if and when they are
adopted , will make your jobs much easier.
In the past, I have been on the developer's side. I would strongly suggest that you require all the
so-called North 40 acreage to be permitted before anything is allowed to proceed. Developers
are persistent and they figure that they can and will wear down any oppos ition in time
BAM
GPC 10/27/16
ITEM3
DESK ITEM
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
General Plan Committee
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director 11
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments
October 27,2016
Attachment 3 consists of public comments received between October 7, 2016 and
October 27, 2016.
Attachments:
1. Town Council Suggestions for North 40 Specific Plan Amendments, previously submitted with
the October 21, 2016 memorandum
2. Public comments received between September 27, 2016 and October 6, 2016, previously
submitted with the October 26, 2016 Addendum
3. Public comments received between October 7, 2016 and October 27, 2016
Sally Zarnowitz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
General Plan Committee,
edrathmann @comcast.net
Wednesda y, October 26, 20 16 11:10 AM
Sally Za rnow itz
Joel Paulson
North 40 1 general pla n
I am in favor of amending the specific plan. I am concerned about the massive size of the retail
allowed at the North 40 under the current plan. At 400 ,000 sq ft it is almost the size of Santana
Row. I am worried that at its current size and the fact that there are very few restrictions on it ,
will seriously hurt our the downtown economy.
Its current potential size of over 400,000 sf is way too big and needs to be reduced substantially. In
addition there needs to be restrictions on the amount of small retail and the number
restaurants. Many new developments now like the new Main Street center in Cupertino are full of
restaurants with very little retail. That would certainly harm the downtown environment.
Also the Market Hall concept should not be allowed in the North 40. It is a great and popular concept ,
but it belongs downtown. It will be full of small retail and restaurants and will be a regional
draw. The work of the advisory committee was clear that the retail at the North 40 was supposed to
serve the ne ighborhood , not draw people from all over the valley . A Market Hall would be a regional
draw.
Finally CUP's should be required the at North 40 in the same way they are required downtown . Why
would the town want to give up that kind of control? It is unfair to the downtown to require them there
but not at the North 40.
Lets get away from the idea that every development needs to have small retail and restaurants in
it. The north 40 is appropriate for other uses like mid size stores, a hotel , even some
upscale offices. The retail at the North 40 can be nice addition to LG, without destroying our
downtown.
Thank you.
ATTACHMENT 3
1
WILLIS DEVELOPMENT
SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES
October 27 , 2016
VIA EMAIL ONLY to: jpaulson (n!losgatosc<uzov and sza rn ow it z(a!losgato sca.uov
Mr. Jo e l Paulson
Community Development Director
Town of Los Gatos
M s. Sally Zarnowitz
Planning Manager
Town of Los Gatos
Re: North 40 Specific Plan
Santa Clara County APN's 424-07-010, 424-07-054, 424-07-063 , 424-07-065
Dear Mr. Paulson and Ms. Zarnowitz:
Our company develops assisted living and memory care c01mnunities . We are considering a
proposed community on the referenced parcels in the Town of Los Gatos.
The purpose of thi s letter is to request approval and/or verification that a proposed use of assisted
living and memory care is a permitted use under the Town of Lo s Gatos North 40 Specific Plan.
If you have questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me at
corev(a 'willisdev.com or 559.246.0686.
Very Truly Yours,
Corey File
Managing Partner
Willis Development
1100 Alta Lorna Road I Suite 708 1 West Hollywood, CA 190069
wvvw. will isdev.com