Desk Item C with attachment 27PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
C:\Users\slombardo\Downloads\N40_Desk_Item_-C.docx
MEETING DATE: 08/16/16
ITEM NO. 4
DESK ITEM C
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 12, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-13-090 AND VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION M-13-014. PROPERTY LOCATION:
SOUTHERLY PORTION OF THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,
LARK AVENUE TO SOUTH OF NODDIN AVENUE. APPLICANT:
GROSVENOR USA LIMITED. PROPERTY OWNERS: YUKI FARMS,
ETPH LP, GROSVENOR USA LIMITED, SUMMERHILL N40 LLC,
ELIZABETH K. DODSON, AND WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN.
CONSIDER A REQUEST 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; 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.
REMARKS:
Attachment 27 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 11, 2016 and
11:00 a.m. August 12, 2016.
Attachments (previously received under separate cover):
1. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-21)
2. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Addendum (includes Exhibits 22-23)
3. March 30, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 24-25)
4. April 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (no exhibits for this report)
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014
AUGUST 16, 2016
Attachments (Continued):
5. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 26-31)
6. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Addendum (includes Exhibits 32-33)
7. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 34-35)
8. July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibits 36-39)
9. July 12, 2016 Special Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes
10. July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes
Attachments (previously received with August 9, 2016 Staff Report):
11. Required Findings and Considerations
12. Draft Resolution to deny the applications
13. Draft Resolution to approve the applications (includes Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B,
Conditions of Approval)
14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. July 13, 2016 and 11:00 a.m. August 4, 2016
15. Additional information from the applicant, received July 29, 2016 (11 pages)
Attachments (previously received with the Addendum Report):
16. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 4, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 5, 2016
17. Applicant’s response to the Planning Commission recommendation on the applications,
received August 5, 2016
18. Updated Vesting Tentative Map Sheet 1.1
Attachments (previously received with Addendum B Report):
19. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 5, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 8, 2016
Attachments (previously received with the Desk Item Report):
20. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 8, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 9, 2016
21. Applicant’s response to the Town Council staff report, received August 8, 2016
22. Photos of high density projects
23. Revised Draft Resolution to approve the applications (includes Exhibit A, Findings and
Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval)
Attachments (previously received with Desk Item B Report):
24. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 9, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 11, 2016
25. Document referenced by Joseph Gemignani regarding survey results
26. Applicant’s response to questions from the August 9, 2016 meeting
Attachments received with this Desk Item Report:
27. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 11, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 12, 2016
From: P et er Dominick <pcminickra-gmaj_l.coru>
Date: August 8, 2016 at 5:49:36 PM PDT
To: BSpector <~cctorra,losga t osca .!.!ov>, Marcia Jensen <n.!iQ_nscn w,losgatosca.!.!<)\>, Marico Sayoc
<111,av<1c 'u lo<:uatosca .!.!ov >, <;lconardisfr1 los!!atosca.go\', R o b Re nnie <1Tcnnic·a lo<,_gatusca.!,!ov>
Cc: Rob Schultz <r<;clrnhw~J<)~~~2sca.l\.<:Y>
Subject: Request for denial of the North 40 proposal
Dear Los Gatos Town Counc il,
I am writing today to en co urage you to deny Architecture and Site Application S -1 3-090 and Vest ing
Tentati ve Map Application M-13-014, which ha ve been proposed for the North 40 pro perty.
I believe that these a pplications should be denied because they do not qua li fy for a density bonus as
d e fined by Gov't Code §65915(b)(l). I previous ly presented m y arguments against thi s proposal in an
email to the Planning Cornnli ss io n on Jul y 13 , 2016. Attorneys for Grosvenor and Summerhill responded
to these a rguments in their own Jetter to Robert Schultz date July 29 , 2016. I would like to resta te my
arguments a nd address those responses here:
• F irst, the applicant believes that they are entitled to a 35% density bonus because the ir project of
23 7 units includes 49 units for very low inco me househo ld s. However, the applicant has furt h er
c hosen to reserve these 49 units fo r senior citizens, which I believe disqualifies them fo r the
d ensity bonus. My contention is that the code states that very low income households as a
category is defined by Section 50105 of the Health a nd Safety Code, and Section 50105 states
that '"Very low income house ho ld s' mean s persons and families w ho se incomes do not exceed
the quali fyi ng limits for very low in come." The ke y words there are "persons and fa milies'·; th is
is a broad and open term and it in no way implies th at an age restriction is acceptable. In their
letter, the developer's attorneys contest my argument, statin g that if more than o ne pe rson
inhabits one o f their unit s-say, a senior married couple-then they have satisfied the
requirement for either "person s" or "familie s." My p o int, however, is th at because the units are
age restricted, then they cannot be eligible to persons and families of very low income. If a 35-y r
o ld person meeting the requirements for "very low income" attempted to li ve in o ne of the se
units, he or she would not b e considered. Therefore, the units fai l the test of Section 50 I 05 and
should not b e considered towards a v ery low income density bonus. (I would fu rther note that I
realize that the Fair Housing Act do es make it legal t o limit q ualifying hou s in g d evelopments to
·'senior only" status. However, that is an applicable standard fo r when a la nd owner freely d ecides
to designate a property as senior h ousing. Code 65915 requires the developer to make the units
available to applicants based so lely on income if they want to qualify for the density bonus. To
oth e rwise r estrict the m negates that qualification.)
• Second, I s ubnlit th at the base number of unit s of 237 proposed by this project is not valid
according to the code. The dens ity bonu s law states t hat "A c ity shall grant o ne den s ity bo nu s,
and incentives or concessions, when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to
construct a h ousing development, excluding any units permitted by th e dens it y bonus awarded
pursuant t o thi s section." The develo pers have not proposed a pl a n fo r 237 units that would be
compliant with our Specific Plan ; many of these 237 units, at the developer's admiss ion, can on ly
be built if they were granted waivers on our development standa rd s, therefore the units fail the
test of exclusion stated by the code. In re s ponse to thi s argument, t he developer's attorn eys have
claimed th at "the base dens ity over which the bonus is calculated is effec ti vely determine d by
looking at the maximum density permitted by the land use element of the general plan," a nd that
th ey have willfully lowered thi s number to 237 when it could in fact be larger. I respectfully
disagree with this line of reasoning. T o w it:
ATTACHMENT 2 7
o The dens ity bonus law states that '"den s ity bonus ' means a d ens ity increase over the
otherw ise maximum a llowable residential den s ity as of the date of application'·
(§659 15(f).) This does not say tha t the d ens ity bonus is calcul ated based on the ma xi mum
a llowable de n s it y. It states th at the density bonus is an in crease over the maximum
a ll owable density. Further examination of the code explains how the bonus is m eant to be
calcu la ted , and it depends entirely on the deve loper 's proposal.
o Secti o n §6591 S(t) further states, "The amount of den s ity bonus t o whi c h a n applicant is
e ntitl ed sha ll vary accord ing to the amount by which the percentage of affordable hou sing
units exceeds the percentage esta blish ed in s ubdivision (b)." The code then presents a
table with two column s, o ne labeled "Percentage Low-Income Units " and o ne lab eled
·'Percent age Dens ity Bonus.'· Because thi s section refers back to subdiv isio n (b), we
know t hat the ba se factor used for each percentage ca lc ul ation is th e tota l numbe r of units
proposed b y the develop e r (and agai n, thi s base number mu st pass the exclu sion test).
o Further evidence that the calculation is intended to be based on the d eve loper's proposa l
a nd not the m aximum allowable den s ity is section §659 l 5(t)(3), which states th at "For
housing developments meeting the c riteria of s ubparagraph (C) of paragraph (I) of
s ubdi v isio n (b ), the densit y bonus shall be 20 percent of the number of seni or hous in g
units." Thi s c learly indic ates a scen ari o where th e de nsity bonus is calcul ated on a
numbe r that is not the maximum allowable residential d e n sity , but rather just the number
of senior units in the developm ent. So, it mu st be accepted that the maximum a ll owable
densi ty is o nl y a reference point which the density bonus goes over , not that it is the ba se
number on which it is calculated. Hence, it matters how many units are proposed by the
appli cant , and it matters that said initial proposal is valid per existing development
st and a rds.
• Third, I b e li eve that thi s density bonus application is invalid b ecau se it in vo lves a partnership
between Grosvenor, S ununerhi ll and Eden Housing, when the law stat e s that it is applicable to a
s in g ul ar appli cant ("an ap pli cant"). The developer's attorn eys a rg ue that becau se the project
repre sents o ne conti g uo us si te and is therefore a s in g le "ho us in g development," the numbe r of
parti es on the a pplication is irrelevant. Still, section §65 91 S(b )(I) states, "A c ity sha ll grant o ne
densit y bonus, a nd incenti ves or con cessions, when an appli cant for a housing development seeks
a nd agrees to con st ruct a hous ing develo pment..." To be con s id e red for the housi ng deve lopme nt,
t he app l icant must con struct t he hous ing development. Sununerhi ll is constructing one part of the
North 40 and Eden Housing is constructing an other, w hi c h would indicate that they are two
differe nt housing deve lopments. I beli eve they therefore sh o uld be considered separately, per the
code.
I believe the appli catio n fai ls on a ll three of th ese arguments, but even if yo u find that it fai ls o n just o ne, l
h ope that yo u wi ll deny these applications.
Regard s,
Pete r Dominick
Blo ssom Hill Rd , Los Gato s
From: Jak VanNada [m ai lt u:jvann ad a(u .mnail.com]
Sent: Thursday, A ugus t 11, 20 16 2:33 PM
T o: Council
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: R E : Fo ll ow up o n data for Costs t o the LGU SD
One correction: the property t ax s hould b e cut in half as one half goes to LGUSD and the o th er
to LGSUHSD.
Thi s reduces the Cost to $11 ,563 ,000 for LGUSD, and $6,535 ,000 for LGSUHSD
From: Jak VanNada [rn ailto:jvannad a_(.L£gmai l.com]
Sent: Thursday, Aug ust 11 , 20 16 12:55 PM
To: 'council @ losgatosca.gov' <counc i l (a ,lo~g at o~ca.g(w>
Cc: 'townmanager@ losgatosca.gov' <tO\\ nmanagcrra, lose:at0 sc<L e:ov>
Subject: Foll ow up on data fo r Costs to the LGUSD
Whe n I spoke a t the meeting Tuesday addressing the placement of ho us ing in the north sectio n of
the North 40, I u sed broad brus h numbers as 3 minutes eliminates the details.
I h ave a ttached an Excel fil e that I think is mostly correct should th e LGUSD n ot be able t o get
the Campbe ll /Cambri an/San Jose di stricts changed over to the LGUSD in time for this proj ect to
b egin .
As you can see, in the sch ool life of a pre-hi gh school age child, the cost s/lost revenue to the
LGUSD i s significant at $14,620 ,000 sho uld 120 units b e placed in the north secti on.
Id eall y, I would hope that the districts co ul d move quickly to get the r e-di stri c ting accompli shed,
but it is m y underst a nding that old, overweight turtles move faster than th e sch ool r edi s tri ctin g
process.
Jak Van Nada
An examole of what it mav "cost" the school districts if students are olaced in the northern half but attend LG schools
For LGUSO
Construction Fee S2.2 9 oer sa. ft . = LGUSD oortian of a total $3 .36 s 3600
Grosvenor .. donation" This donation aoes to school s in the LGUSD only $ 23 500
Number of Kids .6 oer unit 12 kids for everv 20 units
Education Cost oer child oer year .6 children oer unit x 9360 • no inflation is estimated $ 5 616
Number of vears K throuah 8 9
Prooertv tax share for LGUSD $1 200 000 x 1% x 45% No Increases/decrease estimated $ 5400
First Year "Cost" ta LGUSD oer house I LGUSD loses const fee, donation.education cost, and orooertv taxes) $ 38,116
Subseauent costs f o r the next 8 vears/house Cost includes the cost of education olu s the orooertv tax s 88,128
TOT AL PER UNIT COSTS FOR 9 YEARS For one hou&1no unit with .6 kid oer unit s 1136195
For 20 unlts/9 years First vear costs Dius the next 8 vears for 12 kids in 20 units for 9 vears s 2436 750
If 120 units of the houslna """"to the other school district and succesafullv """"°"to ao to LG schoDis $ 14,620 498
THE ABOVE NUMBERS ARE FOR 9 YEARS, BUT THE COSTS, PLUS INFLATION, GO INTO PERPETUITY.
F o r L GSU HSD
Cont;truct ion f e<: S.91 1"' f t s 1.431
No Grosvenor ''dl')na1ion Added" 0
No of k:dsl unit { 61 for lack of information , I used t he same number a s LGUSD 0.6
Co·.t per child " 513.0UO h ttps://k12 .n ichc .comldnos-Q atos-sarot0Qa-1olnt-union-hinh-s chool-dist r S7,%0
Prnod in Years ·I
Pron~rtv tax per yc<u lunit (not adjusted f or In creases) s 5,t.00
Fir ~t Year Co st s 1 4,63 1
Subscoucnt 3 years $ ~9.600
Total Cost for 4 years per c hild F irst year plus next 3 su bseauent s 51.231
To ta l Cost for 20 unit s $ I M5,0t0
Total Cost for 160 unit~ s 8,360 083
THE ABOVE NUMBERS ARE FOR 4 YEARS, BUT THE COSTS, PLUS INFLATION, GO INTO PERPETUITY.
I
Assumptions :
"Cost" ls defined as an actual cost to the district {ea. education cost). or a loss of revenue lea. the $23,500 or orooertv taxes aoina to the other districts)
Beca use I don't have the information on child distribution, each district has the full 20 units at .6 students at the corresoondina aae ranae
If the houslna aoes to the northern district within the other schools boundaries, LGUSD loses the develnruor fees , Dt0""' rv tax and vet inc urs
the cost of educating the child at LGUSD exoense. -oer Diana Abatti
It Is h lahly likelv oarents i n the Camobell/Cambrlan school district will oetition
to get into the LGUSD ·and will s ucceed """Diana Abatti and Jim Russell)
Develooment Impact Fee $2.25 to LGUSD set bv the state· aoes to the oresldlna school district $2 .29 / sa ft
Develooment lmoact Fee S .91 to LGSUHSD 1 .11 /SQ ft
Grosvenor "donation'' Paid t o LGUSD if in their district fnothina to LGSUHSDI $23 500
Education Cost oer child oer year LGUSD loer Diana Abatti $9,630
Education Cost oer child oer vear LGSUHSD httos ://k12.niche.com/d/los-aatos-saratoaa·ioint-union-hiah·school·disll $13,000
Period In years L GUSD 9
Period In vears LGSUHSD 4
Prooenv tax per vear sellina orice of $1 ,200 000 • 1% • 45% !K-12 school's oortionl $ 5.400
All LGUSD students floured from K • 8 ( 9 vears
Assume the there are .6 students nenerated oer unit (from Abbati email to Joel Paulson 8/29/14)
1 572 sq ft was the average size of the hous ing unit
$1 ,200 000 averaae sellina orice oer unit I
20 units per acre t o keep the housing compliant with HCD
From: Tony Alarcon [mailto:alarcon.tonyaw.!.mail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, August 11 , 2016 4:14 PM
T o: Council
Subject: Specify Plan Violations
I will not be able to attend tonights meetings. I h ave attended every meeting except one when I
was out of town.
I'm currently at the library and had to comment base d on the monstrosity of th e mod e l and the
lack of a real park and open space. How we ended up with this after all thes e years behoves m e.
Why we did not properly address our unmet market rate senior housing or spread the 270 units
per the specific plan across the 40 acres is unimaginabl e. Why the de velope r not li sten or meet
the objective requirements of the Specific Plan?
FIGHT FOR OUR TOWN! PLEASE DENY THIS PROJECT.
Reason for denial
1. Original grade should be used in determining height restrictions. 2-5" of fi ll should
not be all owed to be brought in , nor transferred from the polluted area abutting Hwy 17
which has been identified to cause cancer. Say no to thi s exception!
2. Objectively no other project has this architecture in town. It doe s not have the look
and feel of Los Gatos as required in the specific pl an. It is simply a duplication cookie
cutter which Grosvenor has done across several other countries as proven.
3. Objectively no other market rate project of 280 units in the history of town has been
allowed to group 55 BLM units in one location versus di sports them throughout th e
project. These units should be disports across the project.
4. Objectively the project does not deliver 55+ senior market rate housing which is a
need for our community. Per the Specifi c plan he North 40 will address the Town's
res idential and/or commercial unmet needs
5. The project should have an additional 50+ units deed restricted for 55+ with unit
sizes equalling the same percentage allocation as the project. C urrent Lo s Gatos
residents ge tting preference to purchase si milar to the BLM formula.
6. The Town and Yuki should confirm the existing low income units which have
recently been discovered. This voids the density bonu s.
7. Objectively the developer is not a single development group but rather a
development partnership constructed to gain density bonuses.
8. The project in NO way embraces the hillside views. You cannot see the hills.
9. Objectively the model tree height abutting the Hwy17 N entrance shows a height
exceeding the building heights . That is simply NOT true as confirmed by the
developer.
10. Objectively it does not provide a large park to take advantage of hill side views or
multiple larger parks.
11. QUALITY large open space is non existent. They offer s mall strip s or 1Ox 1 O area.
There is n o place for children to play socc er or play.
12. Objectively the unit count in the Lark district, scale and mass, should be
dramatically reduced and allocated to the remaining 14 acres. This is a objective
vio lation of the specific plan.
13. NO bonus density would be awarded NOR any waivers or exceptions should be
given given to the developer.
14 . This project has not properly mitigated its impacts of traffic, down town impacts, or
unmet market rate senior only homes. The studies are outdated and flawed in utilizing
improper assumptions and comparison towns.
15 . The majority of speakers at meetings and town citizens are against the proposed
plan.
"Fun is one of the mo st important and underrated in gred ients in any successful venture."
Richard Branson
Tony Alarcon
Cell 408.460.4845
Planning
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear All :
Valerie Kelly <lgkellys@me.co m >
Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:43 PM
BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Joel Paulson;
Sally Zarnowitz; Planning ; Marni Moseley
North 40 Development Plea
Please see message below, which did not arrive in time for s ubmi ss ion prior to Tuesday 's meeting.
I understand tonight is the night for the developer re sponse.
As mentioned in my message below,
Although yo ur deci sion may deny Grosvenor's Board of Directors and
shareholders the profit anticipated when the property was considered for
development by them, this multi-national corporation should not be able to
capitalize on this development at an expense to be born by the town of Los Gatos
and its residents for many, many years to come. Grosvenor took that calculated
risk when it chose to try to develop a large high density development in a small
town like Lo s Gatos. I expect your town counsel staff has advised you similarly;
however, although Grosvenor ha s (directly or indirectly) threatened liti gation over
this deve lopment, please do not allow your team and this community to be
bullied. Grosvenor will have to thoughtfully consider risks inherent in litigation
and the associated drag on profits from this development before deciding to
proceed, which is not a deci sion that will be taken lightl y even by s uch a large
corporate entity.
And, thank yo u for your time and thoughtful consideration, I know it hasn't been easy.
Best,
Val Kelly
Begin forwarded message:
From: Valerie Kelly <lgkellys@me.co m>
Subject: North 40 Development Objection
Date: August 9 , 2016 at 11: 15 :43 AM PDT
To: bspector@losgatosca.gov, msavoc@losgatosca .gov,
rrenie@losgatosca.gov, sleonardis@losgatosca.gov,
miensen@losgatosca.gov, jpaulson@losgatosca .gov,
sza rnowitz@losgatosca.gov, pla nning@losgatosca.gov
Cc: Marni Moseley <mmoseley@ losgato sca.gov>, dsparrer@community-
newspapers.com, letters@ m e rcurvn ews .com
Dear Los Gato s Town Leaders:
I am forwa rd i ng this message a lon g w ith the original message I sent back in
March (below), which I submitted too late for con s ideratio n.
After attending the meeting and r eading materia ls about th e North 40
Development, I am sendin g this letter to support the Planning Com mi ssion 's
denial of the No rth 40 Dev elopment Plan (Plan) and urge the Town Coun c il to
similarl y deny the Pl an for the following reasons :
1) The Pl an does not "loo k and feel lik e Los Gatos." As a long time re s ide nt , I am
cannot reference any other develo pment in the area of Saratoga-MonteSere no-
LosGatos (or even Campbell for th at matter) th at lo oks or feels like the cu rrent
propo sed plan in scale o r densi ty. And , I cannot reference any residential
developments that mimic the massive industri a l s tyle. The Plan "looks a nd feels"
like hi gh d ensity apartment developments in San Jose.
2) We li ve in a lo w density community which is characterized b y an abundance of
s ingle story r anch style homes and lar ger lots . T h e Plan does not shadow s imilar
exi stin g density and building hei ghts considering the acreage to be develo ped -all
in the sam e a rea -and it does n ot have si mil ar ranch style characteristics.
3) The ta ll story poles covering th e (less than entirety of) prop erty s how that the
development does no t e mbrace hill side views, trees and open space. Although
there may be o th er taller commerci a l building in town, they are no t si d e-by-si d e
and co ll ected in low acreage area that so pervasively blocks hill side views.
4 ) The deve lopment d oes not have the open sp ace to incorporate the site's current
orchard characteristics . .Tree selection and a market should not be allowed to
meet the s pecific pl an requirements.
6) The Plan cannot p ossibly minimize or miti gate impacts o n infrastructure with
its cu rrent de nsi ty a nd scale. The reference to bike access unrealistic and , frankly,
di si ngenuous. The area s urrounding the proposed developm ent s ite is already
gridlo cked at commute times. When thinking of this s umme r 's beach traffic a nd
th e gridlock created by it , the res ult will be that vehicular traffic will be forced
find a way aro und that area during peak commute hours , which could pro ve
dead l y for people needing emergency services. There s imply is no reaso nabl e
miti gati o n . A nd , w ith Los Gatos High Sc hool 's in coming Freshman class
estimated at close to 600 stud ents, ap pro vi ng a plan w ithout carefull y and
thro ug hl y considering the impact on the school s i s reprehensi bl e a nd amounts to
blatant di sregard for s tudent education a nd safety .
7) Phase I and Phase II story poles sho uld be r eq uire d b efor e any development
can begin -the size and scale of th e entire site to b e deve loped must be considered
befo re any building b egins.
A ltho ugh yo ur dec is ion m ay den y Grosvenor's Board of Directors and
sh areho ld ers th e profit anti ci pated when the property was considered for
development b y th em, thi s multi-national corporatio n should not b e ab le to
2
capitalize on this d evelopment at an expense to be born by the town of Lo s Gatos
and its residents for many, many years to come. Grosvenor took that calculated
risk when it chose to try to develop a large high density development in a s mall
town like Los Gato s. I expect yo ur town counsel staff has advised you similarl y;
however , although Grosvenor has (directly or indirectly) threa tened litigation over
this de ve lopment, please do not allow your team and this community to be
bullied. Grosvenor will have to thoughtfully cons ider risks inherent in litigation
and the associated drag on profits from thi s development before deciding to
proceed , which is not a decision that will be taken lightly even by such a large
corporate entity.
Again, I beg of your team to please ensure that Grosvenor does not capitalize on
this deve lopment at the expe nse of th e town 's character and it s' residents -to
allow it to happen would be a monumental blow to our community.
I truly appreciate the time and effort and thoughtful consideration of the North 40
Development that your team has invested to date.
Thank yo u!
Val Kelly
Begin forwarded message:
From: Valerie Kelly <lgkellys@me.com>
Subject: North 40 Development Ridiculous!
Date: March 30, 2016 at 6 :40 :04 PM PDT
To: letters@mercurvnews .c om
Hi: I recei ved a message that yo u needed full name, address and phone number
and an y affi liation for letter below. My name is Val Kelly, 2 1 Fillmer Avenue,
Los Gatos, CA 95030, 408 -499-59 89, no affiliation. Thank you! Val
Begi n forwarded message:
From: Valerie Kelly <lgk ellys@me.co m>
Subject: North 40 Development Ridiculous!
Date: March 30, 2016 at 3:56:51 PM PDT
To: mmoseley@losgatosca.gov, dsparrer@community-newspapers.com,
lette rs@ m erc urynews.co m
Hi M s. Moseley:
I have been a home owner in Lo s Gatos for 12 years and was a re sident of
Saratoga prev iously (since 1979). I grew up here and returned after law schoo l.
I have seen the town and area grow over many years and understand th at growth
is necessary and stimulated b y our ever more populated valley. I understand that
the North 40 will be developed .
3
However, the story poles of the North 40 are a visual abomination. I cannot speak
to the other development features, but cannot imagine the impact on traffic and
the environment.
I am not only writing this message, but attending the meeting this evening. I am a
working mom and do not have time to participate in town issues, as a general
rule. However, I making the time to attend tonight's meeting and send this
message because I view this development as a critical issue and I feel compelled
to learn more and provide input to ensure that a responsible decision is made
about the development of Los Gatos.
See you there!
Best,
Val Kelly
4
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Richard Payne <rkpaynel@mac.com>
Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:00 PM
North40 Comment
BSpector; Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen ; Steven Leonardis
additional comment
Dear members of the Lo s Gatos Town Counci l,
The developer keep s insisting on "objective criteria." It is objectively the case (as far as I can tell) that
the Specific Pl a n did not specify whether any hi gh density housin g was to be co nti guo us or not. It is therefore
o bjectivel y the case that thi s is not determined . Given that it is not determined , the Town Council may
d etermine that the high den sity housing should be spread o ver th e entire 44 acres, not consolidated into a single
13 acre section.
thank yo u for y our work,
s incerel y
Ri chard and Bonnie Payne
16 2 16 Kenne dy Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408.358.3332
1
From: Penny Herman [mai l to:rll.aclvi~or(it;comcast.11i.:::t ]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 5:27 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40
Dear Planning Director Paulson,
As a resident of Los Gatos for 41 years, I thank you for your careful consideration of the North
40 project.
We have seen many changes in our town and find the proposed plan out of keeping with the rest
of the town.
Please support the denial of the current application as presented. Although a denial will cause
the project to take longer to be constructed , we in town support you with thi s effort.
Penny and Tristan Herman
South Kennedy Road
From: Bonnie Payne [mai lto:ho nnieapa vnc (it,com ca "t.nct ]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6: 17 PM
To: BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis ; Rob Rennie; Laurel Prevetti;
Joel Paulson
Subject: North 40; please find a way to deny
Dear Council Members,
I was at the meeting on August 9 , and I'm really impressed with how hard you are
working on the North 40 project. Thank you so much. I understand that there are many legal
difficulties in denying thi s project as is , but I'm hoping you can also understand that the project,
as currently proposed, is not right for Lo s Gatos.
One thing that I do not understand is how this portion of the North 40 can be used
for ALL the residences allowed. Isn't the proposal supposed to coordinate with other
phases of the North 40 plan?
I encourage you to please find a way to deny thi s way too dense proposal that will add
too many pupils to our school district and will squeeze all the housing into too small an area of
the North 40.
Thank you so much,
Bonnie Payne