Loading...
Attachment 79 correspondenceRECEIVED LAW OFFICES OF BRENT N. VENTURA MAY 18 2015 P.O. Box 320847 LOS OATOS, CA 95032 MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL (408)354 -6725 May 11, 2015 Mayor Jensen and Honorable Members of the Los Gatos Town Council 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: North Forty Specific Plan Dear Mayor Jensen and Honorable Council Members, This office represents the Dewey J. Ventura Trust and the other individual owners of the real property located at 14849 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, a parcel within the North Forty Specific Plan Study Area. While the Council in its deliberations is currently making allocations for the maximum build -out of various uses in the North Forty Specific Plan, (i.e. residential units, commercial office, and hotel square footage), to our knowledge the council has not yet addressed how the allocations will be distributed amongst the various parcels located within the North Forty Study Area. While approximately seventy -five percent (75 %) of the Study Area is subject to a single ownership, there are numerous small parcels which remain under separate, independent ownership. Most of the parcels have not undergone any development or redevelopment for 50 years or more. Any recent intentions to develop have been forestalled awaiting the parameters and policy decisions that will be contained in the North Forty Specific Plan. Since maximum build -out limitations will be contained in the Specific Plan, we believe it is necessary for the Council to also implement policies to ensure that the allocation for said maximum build -out of the permitted uses is equitably and proportionally allocated amongst all of the parcels within the Study Area. While one could assume that this is already the Council's intent, however absent specific Council policy directives within the Plan to Staff to equitably apportion the development permitted under the Specific Plan amongst the various parcels, it could result in a race to be the first to apply for development and seize all or most of the available build -out allocations. ATTACHMENT 7 9 While we doubt this is the Council's intent, clearly there is an issue here needing clarification. This is especially true if the Council would like to see a unified development throughout the Specific Plan Study Area, as a policy confirming the equitable, proportional distribution of the development allocation amongst all parcels within the Study Area would encourage cooperation and joint development among the owners. This is especially true as to the allocation of the residential build -out, as many parcels are not adequately configured to accommodate commercial uses. A worst -case scenario could result in the largest landowners rushing in to claim the entire build -out allocation for the Study Area, resulting in the smaller parcels having little or no build - out allocation remaining for them, which could result in inverse condemnation claims against the Town. A policy ensuring an equitable and proportional allocation of the build -out of uses amongst all of the parcels in the Study Area, especially housing, will also help implement a comprehensive, economical infrastructure system in the Study Area, again, as anticipated by the Town policy - makers. We understand the enormous burden on Council members in trying to render final decisions on such a massive project, but do believe this is an issue that requires Council attention as part of the policies recited within the final approved North Forty Specific Plan. I remain available if you have any questions or wish to discuss this issue further. Thank you for your courteous consideration of the matter. Very truly yours, 4 �/ ) vi:t: BRENT N. VENTURA BNV/bt May 19, 2015 To: Mayor Marcia Jensen Vice Mayor Barbara Spector Council Member Steven Leonardis Council Member Rob Rennie Council Member Marico Sayoc Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED MAY 2 1 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION RE: North Forty Plan amendments, Medical office use for existing structures Dear Mayor Jensen: I write to bring your attention to adverse effects of an amendment to the North Forty Plan, including zoning code, general plan, and North Forty Specific Plan, as of April 14, 2015. The amended Plan is now pending a final decision. It is not too late to correct the record and preserve the rights of property owners abutting Los Gatos Blvd. between Highway 85 and Lark Avenue (the so- called "66,000 Feet" area) of which I am one. The relief I am seeking is for my property to continue to have medical office use designated as a `legal conforming use" instead of a permitted "non- conforming use" status, which was proposed as an amendment on April 14, 2015. I am not asking for any new, special, or expanded property right that does not already exist. Please amend the Plan to designate medical office use as "legal conforming use" with respect to any 66,000 Feet property interest that has been previously established. A brief background of my ownership and investment in this property shows that I have relied on the legal status of medical office use as conforming. My condominium unit address is 15055 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 300. In 2012, prior to my purchase, the building owner divided the development into condominium units for conforming medical use, and concluded all required permits, studies, and fees. There is no dispute that this conforming medical use, from the time I purchased my unit up to the current day, was anything other than properly- granted, authorized, and legal. My LLC purchased this property in August 2012 as office space where medical use was among the conforming uses, in anticipation of having a medical tenant or tenants, or commercial tenants. Among my costs, besides the purchase, were the build -out of plumbing infrastructure, exam lanes, and reception spaces suitable for two medical offices, as well as increased sewer district use fees. My condominium unit has sufficient square footage and parking space allowance to warrant a further subdivision into two medical suites (300 and 320). I finalized this division shortly after my purchase. And currently my two separate addresses are registered with the Town of Los Gatos. My wife's ophthalmology practice is in Suite 300 with a long term lease of 10 years plus a 10 year option, and I have a medical tenant in Suite 320 under a shorter 3 year lease that expires in 2016. It is my right to rent to a medical professional or other commercial tenant as market conditions fluctuate, or to leave a unit vacant pending finding a proper tenant. It has always been my intent to have office space available for a family member to use (medically or commercially), or for charitable purposes from time to time. Yesterday I could rent to a commercial tenant or family member without fear of losing anything. Tomorrow if I rent to a commercial tenant or for non- medical use, I lose the right to subsequently rent to a medical tenant because the Town would have seized the ability to decline to reissue permits for such a non- conforming use. The North Forty amendments adversely impact my established use and enjoyment of my property, and may force me to turn away potential renters next year, when my short term lease expires. I am just one of the property owners adversely affected. Last month, three of the owners in my building including myself met with Laurel Prevetti and Joel Paulson to discuss these issues and possible solutions that could be written into the North 40 Plan. The building officials understood our concerns and indicated they would also bring this information to your attention. I feel I was invited into the Los Gatos community under fair and reasonable ground rules. I made a substantial and long -term investment in this community. To inadvertently change the rules after only 3 years is an injustice that hurts not just me and other 66,000 Feet owners, but also the reputation of Los Gatos. To preserve my rights I would have to maintain only medical tenants over the years, shutting out other valuable uses. As most of my neighbors are professionals who invested in their own medical office spaces, the amendment would likely have the opposite effect (if it is the Council's intent to generally reduce medical usage impact) of locking -in medical use rather than allowing fluctuation with changing community needs. The arbitrariness is punctuated by reliance on speculation. No study, finding of fact, or reliable data whatsoever shows how potentially ratcheting out a few medical offices over decades, if ever, has any beneficial impact on any other existing property interest. In sum, the amendment lacks justification, and is suddenly unfair and unreasonable. I surmise that the problem created by the recent amendment is an oversight, within the wider context of the new development. Clearly the development of the nearby orchards is a substantial project with a potential to affect the community. And the Plan amendment that currently recognizes non - conforming use for 66,000 Feet properties shows some intent to honor current or ongoing uses and expectations. But in the process of balancing rights and restrictions on the new larger development, I do not believe there is an equitable basis to divest a small property owner of pre- existing uses so that a larger developer can proceed. Conforming medical uses should continue under their current designation. I am happy to discuss this issue with you at any convenient time, either individually or in coordination with some of the other owners from my building. welcome a written response that the appropriate language has been adopted. Sincerely, a Devon Groves Managing Member, Polaris Navigation LLC 15055 Los Gatos Blvd. #300 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 - 438 -0289 cc: Los Gatos Gateway Business Center Assoc.; Laurel Prevetti This Page Intentionally Left Blank T'iyush d Sapana Kothary Joel Paulson Planning Manager 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 May 8, 2015 Dear Joel, We are writing this letter to inform the Town Council about our concerns with a motion passed during the April 14 Town Council meeting. It is our understanding that Council directed staff to make all medical uses within the North 40 acres legal non - conforming. We understand Council's desire to restrict the addition of more medical space within the N40 however, we feel that changing our zoning to legal non - conforming is probably an unintended consequence of Council's general direction. We request that Town Council keep our existing zoning intact. We purchased 4 units from Mr Hirschmann in 2012 when he converted the planned development at 15055/15075 Los Gatos Blvd into office condos. We were already occupying 15055 Los Gatos Blvd, Ste 240 as his tenants running a dental office since 2007. We also purchased 15075 Los Gatos Blvd, Ste 1001120/150 which together constitute the small —5000 sqft building of 15075 Los Gatos Blvd. Our intention from the beginning was to occupy the entire 15075 building with our dental offices. We started by building Kothary Dental Group in 15075 Ste 100 in 2012- We have since sold 15055 Los Gatos Blvd, Ste 240 to Dr Gin who is expanding her practice into the space and moved Los Gatos Dental Specialists to 15075 Los Gatos Blvd Ste 120. It is our intention to continue to provide service to the residents of Los Gatos, provide employment in the Town of Los Gatos and continue to invest in Los Gatos by eventually expanding in the remaining space in Ste 150. Our last expansion was completed in January 2015. It is shocking to us that we just invested so much money into building an office and to have it zoned legal non - conforming within 3 months of completion. We followed all the rules in getting Planning approval, paying numerous fees including to the water district, getting Building approval, numerous inspections, sign permits, etc. We don't understand why small business owners like us who provide a valuable service to the community should suffer because a large developer is asking the Town to make big changes to the community. We are in full agreement with the developer's right to ask to make changes and Council's right to approve /reject these changes but we don't think anybody should take away from our existing property rights (and hence the value of our property) because somebody else wants to develop their property. We understand Council has concerns with traffic with respect to medical uses but in our case, we have paid Traffic Impact fees, received all the necessary approvals and already have been operating medical offices on Los Gatos Blvd. Whatever impact our usage causes has already been 3036 0Civer Drive, San dose, CA 95135 0yush c, Sapana rothary occurring and will continue to occur for years as our buildings are fairly new. Once again, somebody else wanting to change the usage of their property should not be allowed to restrict my property rights and my usage and enjoyment of my property. Our understanding of the legal non - conforming zoning is that it could prevent Planning from allowing us to expand into the remaining space in Ste 150 at some future date. It would also prevent us from converting some of the space to retail /office and then back to medical uses. Furthermore, based on a meeting with Joel Paulson and Laurel Prevetti, it seems like there are some new height restrictions that could prevent reconstruction of our existing building if there was a catastrophic loss. This seems very unfair since Mr Hirschmann followed a long process to get our units reclassified for multiple uses including office, medical and retail in just 2012. We based our buying decision on having the flexibility of having all these different uses for the space. We believe we have come to the Town of Los Gatos in 2007 in good faith, followed all the rules and been good corporate citizens. We don't believe the Town actually intended to cause us damage in this motion. We believe that since we were not present at the meeting, Council was not given enough information about the potential effects of this motion. We request that Council directs staff to keep our existing legal conforming zoning for medical /office and retail uses. If we can be of any assistance, please call us at (408) 656 -7643. Yours truly, Piyush and Sapana Kothary 3036 Ofiver Dave, Sanlase, %A 95135 BERLINER COHENj, LLP ANDREW L. FABER KEVIN F. KELLEY THOMAS P MURPHY SANDRA G. SEPVI.VFDA RALPH) SWANSON MARK MAKIMICZ THOMA50 MORELL JENNIFER Y. LEUNG PEGGY L. SPRINGGAY )FFFRRYS. KAUFMAN TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD Sum COHFN ERICO. TLTRAULT )OSEPH E DWORAK JOVE HOUSTON ELEVENTH FLOOR EILEEN ?KENNEDY MAZARIN A. VAKHARIA SAMUEL L FARE BRIANL. SHETLER LAURA PAI LO a ER A. SIEIrEY TYLER ALAN) PMNF.R JOHN F. DOMINGUE SAN LOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -2233 KARA L. ARGUELLO VI VIAN F. RANG LINDA A CALLON HARRY A. LOPEZ ANDREW) GIORGIANNI If SHINNY LIU JANTESP CASHSAN CHARLES W. VOLPE TELEPHONE: (408) 286.5800 KIMBERLY FLORES SARA L. POLLOCK STEVEN)CASAD MICHAELVIOLANTI FACSIMILE: (408)998.5388 MATTHEWTAYLOR BEAU C. CORREIA NANCY JOHNSON CHRISTINE 11. LONG DAWN SWEATT MARYE LOUDEN JEROLD A. REITON AARON M. VALENTH W m.berliller.eorn KATHLGENF SHERMAN JACQUES F. BARITOT JONATHAN WOLF CHRISTIAN E. PICON. B'r OIE. MICHAEL). CHENG STEPIMNIC. SCOKDELIS KATIR.ERN K. SIPLE SUSAN E. BISHOP Merced. CA - MW.W. CA RETIRED SAAIUM 1. COHEN ROBERT W. HUAIPHREYS HUGH L. ISOLA ROBERT L. CHDRT EK May 27, 2015 Mayor Marcia Jensen and Members of the Town Council Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Agenda: June 2, 2015 Dear Mayor Jensen and Councilmembers: OF COUNSEL SANFORD A BERLINT:R MICHAEL B. UA.MS STEVENL. HALLGRNSON NANCYL BRANDT FRANK R UEIIIAIIS THOMAS ARMSTRONG ERIC WONG LESLIE KAIJM MMUGH On behalf of our clients, Grosvenor Americas and SummerHill Homes, we write to express concerns about several aspects of the discussion the Council has had so far regarding the North Forty Specific Plan and provisions of the Revised Specific Plan. In particular, we have serious questions as to (a) provisions regarding schools; (b) the public open space requirements for the project; and (c) the limitation on the size of private open space. This letter is from Andrew Faber as well as from attorney Barbara Kautz of Goldfarb & Lipman LLP. For the legally challenging reasons explained below, we ask that in adopting the North Forty Specific Plan, the Council: (1) eliminate new policies 19 and 110 related to schools; (2) not require that all open space in the Plan Area be open to the public, (3) not place any size limitation on private open space. 4812 - 6743 -0436v6 AL 119427065 Los Gatos Town Council May 27, 2015 Provisions Regarding Schools The Revised Draft Specific Plan has added two policies related to schools. Policy 19 provides that "Developers are encouraged to collaborate with School Districts to address school needs." Policy I10 states that: "Developers shall work closely with School Districts to project enrollment growth and address overcrowding by assisting with identifying strategies for providing needed school facilities and associated sources of funding." (emphasis added) The Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998 ( "SB 50 ") strictly limits the requirements that local agencies may place on developers in relation to school overcrowding. In particular, SB 50 provides: "A state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to Section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable." (Gov't Code § 65995(i).) In addition, payment of fees "shall be the exclusive method[] of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities," and "are ... deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation." (Gov't Code §§ 65996 (a) and (b).) In other words, school impact fees constitute adequate mitigation of school impacts, and a local agency cannot deny a project because the developer has not taken actions to address overcrowding in addition to payment of school fees. Policies I9 and I10 are inconsistent with SB 50. Both require developers to take actions to address overcrowding in addition to payment of school impact fees. This is especially ironic given the various provisions intended to reduce student generation to one -third of that expected from single - family homes, and the Specific Plan's statement that the number of students anticipated is "minimal." (p. 5 -15, Revised Draft.) We request that these policies be removed from the Plan. Public Open Snace Requirements With regard to requiring all open space to be accessible to the public, there was discussion at the April 14, 2015 Council meeting of possibly not counting certain hardscapes, podium green space, or areas not open to the public as open space. If these restrictions are adopted, then in our clients' opinion, it will not be feasible to develop a project consistent with the Specific Plan and with a density and an affordable component that satisfies the Town's Housing Element. In addition, any requirement that all open space areas must be accessible to the public would amount to an unconstitutional taking of private property, in violation of the Just Compensation 4512.6743 -0436v6 A1.r109427065 Los Gatos Town Council May 27, 2015 Clause of the United States and California Constitutions, as well as well - stablished federal and state Supreme Court decisions. See Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854. A requirement for provision of up blic open space cannot be justified unless it is needed to mitigate the impacts of private development. The standard of the Nollan, Dolan, and Ehrlich cases requires that there be an essential nexus to the impacts of the project, and that the requirement be roughly vr000rtional to those impacts. However, this nexus requirement is not satisfied in the North 40 Specific Plan. There is no impact on public open space due to the passage of the North 40 Specific Plan or the planned development on the Plan Area. The EIR identifies no such impact, and the Town has no ordinance requiring public open space in new developments, since there is already abundant public open space in the Town, including near to the Plan Area. Furthermore, in fact there will be extensive open space available to the public under the proposed plan and development, including landscaped setbacks, the orchard land required to be preserved, plazas, paseos, and trails and walkways. Requiring that all designed open space areas be open to the public would thus be unlawful. Private Open Space Size Limitations The May 2014 hearing draft and the Revised Draft of the North 40 Specific Plan propose in Section 2.7 .2 to limit the amount of private open space per unit to 200 square feet — the approximate size of a one -car parking space — a space too small for usual outdoor activities such as hosting friends or family for a barbecue and outdoor dining. The stated purpose of this limitation is to "encourage the residential product types targeted in the plats area," which "shall be limited" to housing that serves "seniors, empty nesters, and young adult demographics." (Section 2.7.1.) Policy 18 of the North 40 Specific Plan makes clear that this requirement is intended to discourage families with school -age children from living in the North 40. (p. 5 -1.) The January 2013 Administrative Draft included even more explicit language, specifying that open space was to be provided to support "adult" lifestyles while discouraging families with children from living in the North Forty. (pp. 2 -10, 2 -12, 3 -19, 3 -20.) Federal and state law forbid local governments from enacting or enforcing land -use laws that discriminate based on familial status (42 USC § 3604(b)), interfere with an owner's efforts to make housing available to families (42 USC § 3617), or impose different requirements on residential developments because of familial status (Gov't Code § 65008(d)(2); see also Gov't Code § 12955(1).) While a limitation on private open space may seem neutral on its face, outwardly neutral actions by a city that are motivated by an intent to discriminate violate fair housing laws. (See Budnick v. Town ofCarefive, 518 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2008).) A court does not need to find this was the sole reason that the Town adopted a limitation on private open space, only that this was the more likely motivation. (Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Gov't Code § 12955.8(a).) 4812- 6743 -0436v6 ALF109427065 Los Gatos Town Council May 27, 2015 Because the limitation on private open space is specifically intended to discourage families with children from living in the North 40, we request that this limitation be removed from the North 40 Specific Plan. We recognize that what is in front of the Town is the North Forty Specific Plan and not our clients' development project. However, the fact that the Town is considering a Specific Plan, and not giving entitlements to an actual project, does not change in any way the applicable standards for approval. Since a project will have to comply with the Specific Plan, if the Town puts invalid and unconstitutional requirements into the Plan, then in effect, the Town is saying that it will impose such improper requirements on the ensuing project as well. Very truly yours, BERLINER COHEN, LLP ANDRE L.FABER E -Mail: andrew.faber@berliner.com GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP -0�t qe( *4 Vu fj* BARBARA KAUTZ E -Mail: bkautz@goldfarblipman.com ALF:cem cc: Rob Schultz, Esq. Laurel Prevetti Wendi Baker, SummerHill Don Capobres, Grosvenor 4$12 - 6743- 0436v6 A11109427065 From: Matthew Hudes <mhudes(�70comcast.net> Date: May 27, 2015 at 5:09:01 PM PDT To: <Iprevetti cUlosgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 Comments and Suggestions I was an active member of the North 40 Advisory Committee, and have been an attentive observer of the process since the draft plan left the committee and the EIR was subsequently drafted. The Council has made significant progress at addressing shortcomings and challenges of the Specific Plan in areas of housing (although a square footage reduction has not accompanied the unit reduction), building height, traffic, and historical preservation. Yet, there is still one area that has had little attention: the economic impact of commercial development (particularly in Phase 2) that, as currently drafted, could create a quasi- Santana Row regional shopping center. At this point, I would like to ask that the Council make a more serious consideration of this aspect of the Plan that will impact the town in an enormous way. This has been a long process and I know that the Council is action - oriented and is getting ready to act in the best interests of the Town. I know there is frustration with how long this has taken, as it has been under serious consideration for three years or even five years. Please remember that the impact will be felt for at least five decades. And some of the impacts will be permanent. Three years is not such a long time in that context. Please consider taking the steps to get this right, including: 1) re- opening public comment, as there have been numerous substantive changes to the plan, 2) creating a community economic advisory group, 3) correcting serious flaws in the EIR, AND if there is an inclination to act now, 4) please consider postponing the final re- zoning of Phase 2 until a more tangible application is in sight. Regards, Matthew Hudes North 40 Specific Plan Economic Impact Comments and Suggestions Community input to the North 40 is a critical aspect of getting this right. As you know, the North 40 Advisory Committee concluded its work prior to the availability of the EIR and the Retail Resilience report. Unfortunately, other than the Council's brief public consideration, there has been no public dialogue and interchange on the Retail Resilience report and the impact on Downtown and other commercial centers in Los Gatos. I am not aware of any opportunities that were available for business - experienced residents to ask the consultant some questions. Data just recently presented at the April Council meeting, shows that the North 40 retail development would be roughly equivalent to Santana Row. Santana Row is only 17% larger than the proposed North 40. Previous EIR data shows that Santana Row's emergence from 2000 to 2014 coincides with a 34% decline in Downtown retail activity. Common sense says that adding another Santana Row right here in Town, adding almost 80% to the Downtown space, regardless of how you distribute floor plate size, will have a substantial impact, on business, on traffic, and ultimately on the vitality of the Town. This should not be about eliminating competition to Downtown; it should be about creating a level playing field such that the entire Town can thrive. Leveling the playing field includes two parts: 1. Implementing some controls in the North 40 Specific Plan. Very few controls currently exist in the draft document. This could include the following: a. Including a distribution matrix (with ranges) not just of the space sizes, but also of the business types, as originally proposed by the consultant and considered by the North 40 committee b. Limiting Phase 1 retail to 16 units and 67,000 sq. ft. c. Limiting Phase 2 to 32 units and 300,000 sq. ft. d. Including the requirement to objectively analyze the economic impacts of a specific application, not just the plan e. Including CUP requirements for a development application that has the potential of introducing retail that is substantially competitive to Downtown and to other areas 2. Creating synergies between the North 40 and Downtown, including: a. Transit (connections, shuttles, highway access) b. Revising or relaxing CUPS in downtown for business that could compete with North 40 retail c. Funding town -wide parking improvements d. Requiring the development of the North 40 to include a specific cross - marketing plan and funding of cross - marketing activities e. Forming a standing economic vitality advisory group to monitor the impacts of commercial development in the North 40 and recommend actions should they be appropriate With regard to this last point, I have strong confidence in this Town Council to appropriately set policy that will guide productive development in the best interests of the Town, and I don't think it is productive to cede that responsibility to another body. However, I believe that so far, an opportunity has been missed to tap into the business acumen and talent of Town residents to understand and drive the details of economic development that would be synergistic. A standing advisory group could go a long way toward bringing that expertise to the table. Over the weekend, I re -read the entire Specific Plan and EIR, and think that we should give the Planning Commission and Council some guideposts for considering the economic impacts of North 40 applications. We could greatly improve the outcome of this development by two relatively straightforward language changes: 1. Change language throughout the plan to specifically indicate the will and direction of the Town is that North 40 retail will be principally neighborhood serving, not just, as could currently be implied, possibly neighborhood serving. 2. Enhance the language of the Specific Plan, tying back to the vision, to reference the value of our downtown and the consequences of competition, both positive and negative, and to the intention of maintaining a level playing field and linking that to the importance and heritage of our rare and endangered downtown. I offer some suggested language, but consider it only a starting point for for consideration: DRAFT LANGUAGE: The development of the North 40 is expected to have significant impact on the infrastructure, services, resources, and commerce within the Town of Los Gatos, and beyond. (To some degree, analyzed in the CEQA - mandated Environmental Impact Report.) This impact will most likely bring both positive and negative effects which will be considered and addressed in this North 40 Specific Plan, and subsequent zoning ordinances, development applications, and permits. The critical balance that enables Los Gatos to have one of the few remaining and vibrant downtowns in Northern California is complex to maintain, and not easily amenable to mitigation. The Downtown is the heart of the Town, and a steady and unrecoverable decline, as has occurred in others downtowns, could be triggered by the type and scale of development envisioned in the North 40. Although competition to the Downtown from the new significant development in the North 40 will likely be a challenge, absolute protection from competition is not the only, nor the best, solution. In fact, there is evidence that increased competition could improve the vibrancy of the Downtown. The issue is the playing field on which the competition occurs. In the North 40, highly convenient and ample parking, the minimal utilization of the conditional use permit regulatory process, the openness to the marketing clout of formula retail, the lack of concentration of historical structures, the close proximity to mass transit, to highway access, and to greater population concentrations, and the 'clean slate" for development, tilt the playing field in the direction of the North 40. Therefore, it is important to consider measures, in concert with commercial development, to realize the Vision and Guiding Principles of the North 40.