Desk Item D with attachments 28-29PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
C:\Users\slombardo\Downloads\N40_DeskItem-D.docx
MEETING DATE: 08/16/16
ITEM NO. 4
DESK ITEM D
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 15, 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 28 contains public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 12, 2016 and
11:00 a.m. August 15, 2016. Attachment 29 contains a letter from the applicant’s attorney.
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 (previously received with Desk Item C Report):
27. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 11, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 12, 2016
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: N. 40 PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS/S-13-090 and M-13-014
AUGUST 16, 2016
Attachments received with this Desk Item D Report:
28. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m. August 12, 2016 and 11:00 a.m.
August 15, 2016
29. Letter from the applicant’s attorney, received August 12, 2016
From: David Weissman [ma i lto:gryllu,rD.:!.!.ma il.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11 ,2016 12:24 AM
To: Joel Paul son; Laurel Prevetti
Subject: North 40
I do have one concern about the 49 senior hous in g units: what happe ns when there is an
emergency and the folks on the 3rd floor can't u se the e le vator and h ave trouble with stairs?
What happens when the elevator is o ut of service? How are they to get out of the building in case
of a fire?
Dave Weissman
15431 Francis Oaks Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
H: (408) 358-3556
grvllu-;(({_gmail .com
fATIACHMENT 2 8
Subject: 081116 Staff Report Item 3
From: Angeli a On Wilder <':.1 ' g_ourho..Qih!_.vah(~9-<.:om>
To: Town Co uncil <c('Qnci JrqJ<~'g;)l<~"Iil·!;.(l!:>,Barbara Spector <hspcct,~r~h~gJlto ->q,g oy>,Marico
Sayoc <~l"i:Jyoc.£,.lo,.,lli!lr~."f<~..J!.<~>,Marcia Jensen <hl,!.cn-.;.:n'filll~~~·'<~L!l<>'>,Town Mayor-Steve
Leonard is <'.Lct)nar(,lb;a.Lo Gatos( Ag,O\>,Rob Rennie <RR c nni cfcll_<_'-'~Jto'ca.bol >
CC: Laurel Prevetti Town Manager <J .Prt-vctti '£.1 o ... (;ato ... CA.!:ov>
The entire second paragraph is erroneous as to the requirement of the law. As so me of the units
are occupied , the five -year period does not even apply!!! Also, your Initi al Study was obv iously
flawed -go count the units yourself-there are, and have been for a ve ry long time , a total of 19
detached , single-fam il y unit s.
Angelia Doerner
L ive Simply, Laugh Often
From: Ton y Alarcon <a larcon.tony@gmai l.com >
Thursday, August 11, 2016 4:14 PM
Council
Sent:
To:
Subject: Specify Plan Violations
1 wi ll not be able to attend tonights meetings. I have attended every meeting except one when 1 was ou t of town.
I'm cun·e ntly at the library and had to comment based on the mon stro s ity of the model and the lack of a real
park and open space. How we ended up with this after all these years behoves me. Why we did not properly
address our unmet market rate se nior housing or spread the 270 units per the specific plan across th e 40 acres is
unimaginable. Why the developer not li sten or meet the objective requirem ents of the Specific Plan?
FIGHT FOR OUR TOWN! PLEAS E DENY THIS PROJECT.
Reason for denial
I . Original grade should be used in determining height restrictions. 2-5 " of fill should not be a llo wed
to be brought in, nor transferred from the polluted area abutting Hwy 17 which ha s been id entifi ed to
ca use cancer. Say no to thi s exception!
2. Objectively no other project has this architecture in town. It does not have the look and feel of Los
Gatos as required in the specific plan. 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 th e project.
4. Objectively the project does not deliver 55+ senior market rate housing which is a need for our
community. Per the Specific plan he North 40 will address the Town's residential and/or commercial
unmet need s
5. The project should have an additional 50+ units deed restricted for 55+ with unit sizes equalling
the same percentage allocation as the project. Curr ent Los Gatos residents getting preference to
purchase simil ar 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 bonus.
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 Hwyl7 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 small strips or 1 Ox 10 area. There is no place
for children to pl ay soccer 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 objecti ve violati on of th e s pecific plan.
13. NO bonus density would be awarded NOR any waivers or exceptions should be given given to the
developer.
1
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 most important and und errated ingredients in any s uccessful venture."
Ri chard Branson
Tony Alarcon
Cell 408.460.4845
2
From:
Sent:
Angelia On Wilder <saveourhood@yahoo.com >
Friday, August 12, 2016 11:20 AM
To: Laurel Prevetti
Cc: Council ; Joel Paulson
Subject: Re: Zoning of the North 40
Thanks for clarification-my fupah-was looking for "zone" of specific 13.5 acreage. All tied together in my
head with this Application Date "position". I can't understand how an application can be deemed "filed" before
any zoning and land u se ordinances are effected. Think I need a nap.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply, La ugh Often
Laure l Prevetti <LPr cve tt i@los gatosca. gov > wrote:
Good morning Angelia, Mayor, and Town Council ,
The Council did rezone the entirety of th e North 40 area in 2015. Ordinance Number 2242 was introduced on June, 17,
2015, adopted on August 4, 20 15, and effective 30 days later on September 3, 2015. The Housing Element requ ires the
identifica t ion of a sched ule for eac h action item and this one was co mpleted w ithin the note d t imeframe.
Thank you,
Laurel
From: Angelia On Wilder [mailto:saveourhood@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Counci l; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Je nsen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Zoning of the North 40
I may have missed something, but as I understand it , no actua l zoning of the North 40 has occurred. Action
HO U-1.7 of the Housing El ement commi tted the Town to rezone 13.5 acres wi th in .3 years of Hous ing
Element Adoption at a den s it y of20 dwelling units per acre on the North 40. T he Housing E lement w as a dopted
on May 5 , 2015. Therefore, technically, nothing has to be rezoned until Ma y 201 8 !
At thi s point in time, on ly zone what we are ready to zone!
1
Also , if action was taken by the Council s ub sequent to the Housing Element concerning zo ning of the North 40,
please provide the reference for such action.
Thank yo u!
Angel ia Doerner
L h c S i m p ly , L augh Often
2
M r. and M rs . Patrick Gunning
14800 La Rinconada Drive
l os Gatos, CA 95032 I ' I •-
lhud A-w-;
thy££ /{Ur~ 17a.PU/J-/j.d ~,/Y'--<4tq-
J
RECEIVED
AUG 1 2 2016
@ 2:32 PY"r\
MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rob Gabel <rob@tubularlabs.com >
Friday, August 12, 2016 5:12 PM
Council
I support the North 40 ...
.. becaus e we need more sit down re staurants on Easts ide. We have one ... Viva. We should make Eas tside more
walkable and a well done north 40 can help with that.
Rob
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Connie Hamrah <cc hamrah @ao l.com >
Friday, August 12, 2016 5:36 PM
North40 Comment
Do not support North 40
Los Gatos is already congested and additional buildings proposed in North 40 will be very expensive and only add to our
town congestion. A developed green area is a better use of this property. Most of us experienced the horrible Santa Cruz
traffic over the Summer and I ask all concerned citizens to consider the following: a development the proposed size and
sca le of the north 40 will adversely affect our community in many ways . More high priced housing, more congestion,
affect of downtown bu sinesses and it will add nothing to the beauty of Los Gatos that has long been protected.
Vote no on North 40 as proposed !
A 40 year resident and home owner in Los Gatos.
Thank you ,
Connie Hamrah
Sent from my iPhone
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
mike mcdonough < mike.mcdonough.iii@gmail.com >
Friday, August 12, 2016 5:45 PM
Council
Kimberly McDonough
I don 't support North 40
I am a new resident to California and to Los Gatos, I am a resident for approx. 5 weeks ago. I have seen the
de struction of towns in NJ. The overbuilt and congestion is never fully documented in these studies.
After careful re v iew of the plans, we are just not rea dy to go with a "yes" vo te. Additional police, fire , school ,
challenges of widening of roads , food stores .... it just d oesn't represent itself of the se studie s.
Summer traffic headed to the Santa Cruz i s challenging enough, add thi s into the mix and you will be changing
th e land scape of this town forever.
Please vote "NO" to North 40
Michael McDonough
Lo s Gatos Resident formerly Randolph NJ
Available for discussion and coaching
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Eric Tak ahashi <exit_16w@ya hoo.co m >
Friday, August 12, 2016 7:31 PM
Council
North 40 Vote
I und e rstand that the C ity Council will vote on the North 40 project. I strongly urge yo u to vote again st th e
development proposal. In my opinion, the a rea i s ill-suited to handle the additional traffic, and I am concerned
about the impact to the quality of education offered b y our local schools.
Thank yo u for your time and consideration.
Eric Takahashi
135 Pinta C t.
Se nt hom Yahoo Mai l fo r iPad
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nate Jones <nathanpjones@gmail.com>
Friday, August 12, 2016 10:12 PM
Council
I support north 40!
I was born and raised in Los Gatos and recently moved back to Los Gatos after a stint in San Francisco. The incr ease d
supply in housing will be a great benefit to Los Gatos and eventually help bring down housing costs in the area. I'm an
economics major and economics 101 will tell you that adding supply will help bring down costs.
We need more housing in order to provide the opportunity for natives (like me} to return .
Nate
M:408.314.4186
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
carol kay < kaycd@comcast.net >
Saturday, August 13, 2016 10:09 AM
North40 Comment
Support of North 40
I support the development of the area for two reasons.
First I believe that the people who own the land have the right to see it developed and I believe that they have worked
hard to make it something positive for the city and area.
Secondly, We do need places for people to live. It does provide a place for seniors who may want to stay in the area and
downsize from a home they now own. Options are needed in the high priced real estate market of today and in the
future .
Sincerely,
Carol Kay
1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Leon Pappanastos < 19541eonpap@gmail.com>
Saturday, Augu st 13, 20 16 6:34 PM
Council
Noth 40
I'm ema iling to support the new NOrth 40. development. I have been a resident and practiced in Lo s Gatos for over 40
years .
Leon Pappanastos, DMD
1
From: "Jeffrey Aristide" <j ~JJc.~.Y.Il<!!:.L<>t idc~.P'l11<JlS\.ll~P
To: h"pt.x:t o r(f~ L\2" gatosl:a ,.g~).Y.
Cc: m:;avodc!)OS!..!.il l osca . !..!.OV , mjcnsc n ~tJ ios !..!alosca.gnv , [JWnnic(a)osgalPs.c<LgQ'·,
5I conaHlli2:Lios!..!a 1 <lSCa.t!:OV
Sent: Sunday, August 14,2016 8:16:52 PM
Subject: Denial Of The North 40 Development Proposa l...S-13-090
Dear Mayor Spector ... first , I want to th ank you for all your efforts that you and your s taff has ma d e in the
North 40 d evelopment and supporting town involvement. I s pent the fir st thirty (30) years of my life
li v ing in Boston, MA ... where our great country got it's s tart some two hundred a nd forty (240) years
ago. Now, like then ... town meetings and their specific acti o ns, are the very basis of our way of life. That
p ower flowed up ... not down from above. This is a town, where my wife, Engelina and I rai sed our four
( 4) children. I r eali ze full y that you a re very busy on the deliberation of the proposed proj ect... plus the
running of the town ... w hich you are doing a fine job. In brief:
I. I was contact ed by Steve Bus ter, Senior Vice President, D evelopment for Grosvenor, to discuss the
pro posed project. We met on Friday, August 5th ... for over an hour. Don Cap o bres, Project Manager for
this project, was a lso present. I found both, gentlemen to be friendly, fair and open. And, nic e guys
too. I opened the di scussion by saying that they have go tt e n the town real mad at them. Further, as
Benjamin Franklin said: there is no s uch thing as a s ma ll enemy. That Grosvenor should sell the
town ... and no t try to ram thi s proj ect though. In short:
I . They sa id they wanted to work with town, that they wanted to be part-of-it--that the tow n would
(should) be proud of the project... they w ant to stay in the town ... not, just "build a nd run".
2 . That they followed the direction of the town over several y ears ... maybe e ig ht (8) years ... or, at least
three (3) years ... and that is was normal for a projects of thi s s i ze ... to take-up thi s amount of time.
3. T h at once g iven the go ahea d , it would ta ke about three (3) years to conclude the Phase I... w it h the
firs t nine (9) months ... sh owing l ittle progress ... as they had to prep the s it e. T hey have som e thirteen ( 13)
owners to deal w ith .
4. When I told them, that do to "new a nd compelling informati on/data" .. .that..."they s hould have c ha nged
the plan ... they wer e mute". The design/plan is twenty-s even (27) m on ths o ld . I m y v iew ... muc h too o ld,
based of the facts-of-the-case. This s ho wed a la ck of willingness to "adapt to a n y or all public ... a nd
official town input". In my v iew, they lack--failed the spirit and intent of the proposal process ... especia ll y
when considering the huge impact this will have o n the town for years to come.
5. When asked a bout step-down h o us ing they said that the t own would not allow the need ed height fo r
this part of the project. And, it was mos t unfortuna te, as they would sell like ho t-cakes, as m a ny Los
Gatos homeowners want this to ha pp e n . Mr. Capobres stated ... t hat there was a huge pent-up d emand ,
even from the fifty-something coh o rt ... to d own-s ize housin g , buy n ew and stay in Los Gatos.
6. When a sked of st e p-in h o u s ing ... they stated they would love to build s ing le-detached h o us ing ... a s their
was alot more profit in it... but, tha t the town, "out-lawed it" (?). Further, they expect alot of bus iness
from Netflix ... as nine (9) bus lo ad s of employees tre k in fr om San Francisco each work day.
7. Whe n asked about step-up housing (entry leve l) ... th ey s ai d they thought they were w ell-covered. The
units started at $900K and went to $1.5M+.
8. I a sked about Phase II . They s howed littl e inte rest in it. Saying, that they had no plan s for it.
9. I will conclude thi s e-mail , as I'm s ure you don't want my forty plus (40+) points ... at least ri ght now.
I 0. I again r equest you to den y this d evelopme nt pl a n as s ubmitt ed ... and send them back to t he "drawing-
board ... for a much scaled-back version".
II. I know tha t we are in good h a nd s ... with you and your s taff...and would like to leave you with a
wonderful French saying : at th e p o int of decision, the gods of the univer se, will conspire to aid
you . Thank-you aga in for a ll your ha rd work .. .it i s greatl y appreciated. J effre y N. Aristide, 102 Nob le
Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032, cell #: 408-608-4642.
From: Angelia Doerner [ma il to :savco urh ood<Zlvahoo.com ]
Sent: Sunday, Augu s t 14,2016 11 :14 PM
To: Council ; BSpector; Marice Sayee; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardi s; Rob Rennie
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: North 40 -Notes Reg Green Open Space and Views
The following are some notes regarding Open Space-especially GREEN Open Space and views
from the site interior. In the last meeting (081116), there was related discussion from the
Applicant as well as during your deliberations-some of which was contrary to the fact s. I want
to make sure the following notes are on record and are considered should your future
deliberations include this topic.
• Open and Green Space must be looked at on an Application-wide basis. You should not
discuss the "wealth" of Green Open Space in the Lark District without con s idering the
"dearth" of Green space in the Transition District.
o Green Open Space in the Lark Di s trict 28.2 %
o Green Open Space in the Transition Di strict 16.2 %
• Application-wide Green Open Space 22.8 %
• Let's look at the primary elements comprising this Green Open Space.
o 27% of the Green Open Space is plantings (primarily trees) along the perimeter of
the site -for example, 9.5% are tree areas along Lark (three deep 'tween Lark and
first buildings) which will provide a great buffer from the traffic noi se, etc ., but is
not "useable" for recreational activities.
o 10% is the Community Park-5 % ofwhich are three "open areas " (2 @ about
2,200 Sqft and one @ 4,800 Sqft) but about 1/2 of those areas are shown as
"growing areas", the other half i s densel y planted with trees.
• Other than the bocci court, there are no truly "open" areas. Thankfully, the
buildings abutting the Park are only 25' tall (North and South), but one
end borders South A street and the other borders 35' high buildings acro ss
a regular width sidewalk.
• Also , the entire Park is in shade during the afternoons of the winter.
• Please see the attached photos of the views from the Community Park.
The Applicant showed a picture which she said was from the Community
Park -but she admitted to me that she was mistaken -that "view" was
actually from the area discussed in the next bullet.
o The Applicant referred to a "very large" tract of space to be utili zed for growing
all the vegetables, etc., for the market. Although not illustrated in the Plans, it
appears it is at the comer of the exi sting buildings' parking lots and Parking Lot
A.
• Something that has not been discussed is what type of fencing, etc., will be
used around these gardens. There are supposed to be garden plots in half
of the "open" space in the Community Park as well. Are there going to be
6-8' high chain link fences , as well as over the top , to protect from theft
and unintentional and , possibly, intentional contamination? These spaces
simply do not appear to be big enough to allow for the type of "security"
necessary for consumable products.
• The view shown by the Applicant was from this area. The "hillside ridge"
is what is visible looking over the existing medical buildings on LGB.
o The "Grand Paseo" goes from LGB to South A Street "through" the two buildings
by the Union 76. 5% of the site's Green Open Space is in this Paseo, but the
majority of the spaces are disjointed small spaces with the two largest spaces
being only 1,100 Sqft. The Paseo is a path through 2 rows of 35' high row h o uses -
and is 100% in the shade for approx. 1/2 of the year.
• In addition to the photos of views from the Community Park, I have attached a schedule
showing the various amenities from a sample of neighborhood parks around Los Gatos.
As can be seen, this Plan's "Green Open Spaces" are not compatible and not conducive to
the "neighborly" active and passive activities expected and enjoyed by Los Gatans .
• I have also attached a write-up concerning Open Spaces provided to the PC on 0713 16.
The write-up was requested by a PC member after my 3min presentation on 071216. It
did not get included in the Public Comments posted on 071316.
Angelia Doerner
Live Simply~ Laugh Often
I
OVerarching Goals -Co m patible with surrounding areas : Contritlut es to small town charm
2.5.3 -The Specific Pl.an Area SH All encourage outdoor activity.
2.5..5 -Throughout the Specific Plan Area ..... accommodate di fferen t !)'pes of activities
Oak Meadow )C X X
Ba lzer Fi e I d X • •
Bachman Park X X X
Howes Pl ay l et X
Oak HUI Pl ay l et lC
Cr eeks i de Sports Park X
Bt cssom H i U Park X ~ X )(
La Ri nconada Park • • M X X
Liv·e Oak Manor Park • M M • Be l Gatos Park lC )( ~
North 4 0 X X X X X
July 13, 2016
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Angelia Doerner-a Proud Resident of the Almond Grove
I am providing some narrative relating to my slide presentation last evening. In addition, I have additional points that
I would like you to consider in your deliberations on the North 40-some of which are spurred by the comments and
additional information heard this evening. Any observations not supported by fact are italicized as my opinions.
AND, I have an overriding concern about this Project. There are two populations of residents that you and our Town
Council are representing-those that currently live here AND those who will live here. I believe we need to address
every vision , every policy, and every standard as it relates to BOTH populations. As is, this development will create
two separate and disparate populations-and a devisiveness that will ruin, not only the true character of our Town,
but will make the management and governance process impossible to achieve effectively.
Narrative Relating to 071216 Presentation
Po licy 01-Protect Views
of Hills ides and scenic
resources ??????
Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
You have received a lot of testimony regarding
the impacts on our Hillside Views. The story
poles made it clear-but I would really like to
see renderings of our "as impacted" hillsides
from a number of viewing platforms.
• The Developer has not provided any
that I am aware of-failure to provide
evidentiary material to support their
claim of compliance alludes to-
evidence of failing to comply.
• Unfortunately, Staff has not provided
any pictures, or have had renderings
prepared on the Town's behalf, to
support their own conclusions
regarding compliance.
This is standard operating procedure on ANY
hillside development project. I understand the
North 40 is on "flatland"-but any reasonable
person would expect this information to be
provided as it is an integral component of the
Specific Plan.
Views are significantly hampered from various
viewing platforms outside the development.
As to "within the development" -none of
these pictures in the Developer's Plans can be
achieved. No evidentiary materials have been
provided concerning the "viewing corridors"
cited by the Developer (and Staff has not
pursued obtaining them in all these long
months of preparing for this point in time).
Given this-at this point in time, the
Page 1
Po lley 02-Lan d sca ped buffer around
perimeter.
2. 5. S.b -The buffer shoul d p r ovide an
opportunity to Incorporate walkin1 paths
and slttin& areas for p ~;tss iv e recreat ion.
1????
Perimeter buffers are very
narrow-with abutting
on-street parking-
opportuni ty not identified
Poll ey 0 3. Provide an open space network-
nelahborhood porks, paS5ive o pen $pace .
2.5.4 -"The Specific Plan provides incentives for
consolidation of parking ..... Mlnl mizlnJat·arade
~rkinj ...... "n
FIRST FLOOR:
living Space
Gara1e Space
Private Open
TOTAL:
Clusters 1&2; Garden Cluster 7-Piex A
Adjacent to Community Park
Angelia Do erner SaveOurHood@yahoo.co m
(sq ft)
3,468 44%
2 ,635 3 4%
1,754 22%
7,857
Developer has FAILED to comply with Policy
01.
The Perimeter Buffers are very narrow in
many places and has a "tight" network of
trees . The Buffer around the Transition Area
on Lark is vineyards. In addition, on-street
parking abuts all such buffers.
In the Plan's "Lot Coverage and Open Space
Tabulation"-100% of all perimeter buffers
are counted as Green Open Space (*)-
indicating NO hardscape for walking paths or
foundations for bench/seating placement that
Policy 02 states sh ould be provided .
Given this-at this point in time, the
Developer has FAILED to comply with Policy
02.
(*) Please see additional comments Reg Green
Open Space in the separate section below.
Should the developer claim Policy 02
compliance-then their Green Open Space
calculations must be reduced .
My comments concerning "neighborhood
parks and passive open space" are addressed
in subsequent slides. These comments relate
solely to " ... Minimizing at-grade parking".
This example is Garden Clusters 1&2-
selected specifically as they are adjacent to
the "Community Park" and can be used to
illustrate other factors of note. As can be seen
-based on the tabulations of First Floor
Square Footage-34% of this structural mass
is for garage space . Of the 7 Units, 2 have no
living space on the first floor; one has 108 SqFt
representing a laundry and stairs to the
Second Floor; all others range from 713 to 908
SqFt.
This garage space could be put underground;
starting a downward slope from the existing
garage door and extending forward "under the
existing living/private open space". I have
been led to believe that the sloped length
required for ease of access to such
underground parking doe s not need to exceed
one-half(?) car length; allowing the "existing
Page 2
An geli a Doerner SaveOurH ood@ya h oo.c om
first floors and private open space" to be
moved closer to the alley by maybe as high as
10'. Consequently, this would add an
additional 10' along 95 % of the length of the
Community Pa r k (both si des) potentially
adding 4,500+ SqFt of Open Space. These are
design considerations that fall beyond my
direct experience-other than having seen it
done elsewhere.
The reality of the current Plan is that NO
consideration was given to underground
parking. At-grade parking has NOT b een
minimized -it has been max imized ! I/ there
was o smaller "palette" of undeveloped lond,
o different developer would pursue these
design alternatives as it would still be
profitable to do so.
Given this-at this point in time, the
Developer has FAILED to comply with this
aspect of the Open Space Standards set forth
in Specific Pan 2.5.4.
Using the same Garden Cluster as the
preceding example-the Deve loper used an
as sumption that this Private Open Spa ce is
split 50/50 between Green and Hard scap e.
Visually, it appears that there is more
Hardscape than Green. Using the 50 %
assumption, the amount of Green Space is
10,182 SqFt-7% of the total Green Space for
the Lark District or 2% of the 28.2% Total
Green Space for t h is Di strict.
(*)Currently, th e Lark Dis trict has 28 .2%
Green Space-which is nece ssary to mitigate
the inadequate 16.2% Green Space in the
Tran si tion Distri ct-y ielding an application-
wide Green Space Percentage of 22.8%. Thi s
"Assumed " Private Green Space , even at
100%, would not be enough for the total
Green Space to fall below the required 20% as
it would be 20.8%. Ho wever, when combined
with the amou nt of Green Space that would
be "re pla ce d" with hardscape in order to
comply w ith Po li cy 02 (discussed) above-it is
re l atively assure d that the Appli ca tion-w ide
Green Space would fall below the r equired
20%.
Page 3
Community Park Enlargement Plan
85 ' /3 ' = 28.3 Yd~
/3 =
9 .4 Yds Each
Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
Disti nguish
Between
PUBUC
and
PRIVATE
= (AUEYB)
235 ' /l' =
78 Yds
This is the Community Park Enlargement Plan.
It is misleading-almost to the point of being
deceiving-as it does not delineate between
public and private space. The marked areas
are private space, one cluster of which was
used as an example in the previous two slides.
The dimensions of this Community Park are
235' by 85' (although one end is only 31' for
20-30'(?)). @ 235'x85' the Park is 19,975 SqFt,
or .46/ Acre . The shape is important in that,
lengthwise, it is generally sp lit into even thirds
(green space with trees, hardscape and
community gardens). This means that each of
these distinct areas is only 9.4Yds in Width!!
For example, that means a 9Yd wide stretch of
lawn with two lines of trees planted at
"hatchmark" #2.25 from each side (a ll owing
the crowns to span the whole area. Want to
toss a ball or Frisbee? I think not.
Keep that in mind when looking at the next
s lide which overlays the hardsc ape
components.
For visua l ization purposes, I have presented
the s ize and shape of the Park as it compares
to a football field.
Page 4
COMMUNITY PARK
Winter Solstice -Dec 21 l.l.Z(g) -Be designed or l ocated to
ensure that it is u sab le year-
round .....
9:00AM
3:00PM
Ange lia Doerner SaveOurHood@ya hoo.com
Can you imagine a ll of these features packed
into this space? In 9Yd width of sp ace -yo u
may be able to ge t t wo of the r aise d beds
depicted in the picture.
Also-who is re sponsib le fo r mainte nanc e,
insurance?
Consi dering all of the activity depicted on the
earlier slide-it is claimed that this Park will
also provide "passive space"-repose in a
hammock perhaps, sit on a quiet bench to
read a book or contemplate life? I th ink not.
A realistic t rue -t o-scale-drawing should be
requested for thi s area. The pictures are
deceiving as to the reality of user-ability of
this space. Th is drawing should also conside r
realistic ex pectations of maximum number of
people comfortably ac commoda t e d in this
space at any one time.
I ha ve co n ce rn s about the viability of trees ,
gardens and especially grass areas given th e
Shadow study. Shadow studies should be
expanded for this critical Plan element
accompanied by arborist and horticu ltu ra li st
opinions as to placement and continued
sustainability.
Pa ge 5
GRAND PAS EO -Entrance from LGB ; crosses Alley G and
Proceeds Thru 38' W ide (12 . 7 Yds) Tunnel To South A Street-
then a long way to Restaurant/Retail
2. 3 .1 Lark District -lower density
res idential.. ..... envisi oned in this
DEVELOPER -PG 12: "Moving from
the lower inten si ty residentiJI La1 k
Dis t rict to a range of uses ....... "
GRANDPASEO
GRAND PASEO
Winter Solstice -Dec 21 :u .2(&J -Be d esigne d or locat e d to
e nsure that it is u!.abl e year-
round .....
9:00AM
An geli a Do e rner SaveOurHood@yahoo.com
Note that Specific Plan 2.3.1 states that lower
density residential is envisioned in the Lark
district. On Page 12 of the Pla ns, when
d es cri bing the Grand Pas eo, the Developer
states "Moving from the lower intensity
residential lark District.. .. ". First off,
maximum density is being proposed in this
Plan . Al so, how can the Developer claim that
maximum density does not al so create high
intensity?
Also, the "Grand Paseo" is actually is a
"tunnel" 12.7 Yds wide going through three-
story buildings.
The dep iction in the Plans does look "Grand"-
until you visualize the total space in relation to
a football field. Also, as with the Community
Park depiction, the pictures shown have
ab so lutely no realism given the spa ce as
defined.
A realistic true-to-scale-drawing should be
requested for this area. This drawing shou ld
also consider rea li stic expectation s of
maximum number of people comfortably
accommodated in this spa ce at any one tim e.
Also -who is responsible for maintenance,
in surance?
I really have concerns about th e viability of
trees, gardens and especially grass areas given
the Shadow st udy. The Grand Pa se o will be
100% in the shade for at lea st 50% of the year.
Shadow studies should be expanded for this
critical Plan element accompanied by arborist
and horticulturalist opinions as to placement
and continued sustainability.
Page 6
Overarching Goals . Como atiol e with surrounding areas; Con t1 ibutes to small town charm
2 .5.3. Th~ Specific Plan Area SHAll encourage outdoor activity.
l.S.S • Throuehout th~ Specific Plan Ar~a ..... accommodate di ffer ~n t types of act ivities
SachmanPuk
Howes Playl ot
Oak Hll! Pla ylot
Creekside Sports Park
S loss om Hill Par k
La Rinconada Park
livE Oak Manor Pa rk
Sel Gatos Park
No rth .;.{)
II II
II )( ll;
)(
ll II
" 110
)( ll ll ll
ll X •
ll It •
It • )(
)( • lt •
We have Our
11Willoughby"
•
•
• • ll
K
•
)( l<
When assess i ng "compatabi lity" of open
space-you must consider it in relation to the
characteristics of other similar spaces within,
and supported by, the Town. Thi s is just a
sample of the Town's public Park areas. In this
light, the Plan 's proposed Open Space fails
miserably ! There are NO :
• Re strooms
• Facilities to promote a variety of
outdoor activities for adults and
children
o Sports -Other than a Bocce
Court, no half-court
basketball , no tenn is court, no
ba seball field , no space large
enough for a couple soccer
nets, etc
o Playground s-Thi s Town
prides itself on providing
facilitie s for children
• Passive space allowing private or
family picnics or lounging
For OUR new resi dents -
"What-Will-It-Be"????
Angelia Doerner SaveO urHood @ya h oo.com Page 7
ANDREW L. FABER
RALPH J. SWANSON
PEGGY l. SPRINGGAY
JOSEPH E. DWORAK
SAMUELL. f AR B
ALAN J. PINNER
LINDA A. CALLON
JAMES P. CASHMAN
STEVEN J. CASAD
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
JONATHAN D. WOLF
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
KEVIN f. KELLEY
RETIRED
SAMUEL J. COHEN
ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS
HUGH l.ISOLA
ROBERTL. CHORTEK
MARK MAKIEWICZ
JEffREY S. KAUfMAN
JOLIE HOUSTON
BRIAN L. SHETLER
JOHN f. DOM INGUE
HARRY A. LOPEZ
CHARLES W. VOLPE
MICHAEL VIOLANTI
CHRISTINE H. LONG
AARON M. VALENTI
CHRISTIAN E. PICONE
SUSAN E. BISHOP
SANDRA G. SEPULVEDA
8 BERLINER
\..,COHEN LLP
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 951 13-2233
TELEPHONE: ( 408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www .berliner.com
Branch Offices
Metced. CA • Modesto. CA
Au g u st 12, 20 16
THOMAS P. MURPHY
STACE Y A.IARTLER
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
LAURA PALAIIOLO
KIM BERLY G. FLORES
DAWN C . SWEAn
KATHLEEN F. SHERMAN
MICHAEl J. CHENG
JENNIFER Y .LEUNG
ERIC D. TETRAULT
TYLER A. SHEWEY
Of COUNSEL
SANFORD A. BERLINER
STEVEN l. HALLGRIMSON
FRANK R. UBHAUS
ERIC WONG
Hon. Barb ara Specto r a nd
Memb e rs of th e Tow n Co un c il
Town o f Los Gat os
VIA E-MAIL AN D U.S. MA IL
I I 0 E. Ma in S treet
Los Ga tos, CA 95 0 3 0
R.E: N o rth Fo rty Ph ase I
Architec ture and S it e A ppli cati o n S-13-09 0
Ves tin g Te nt ati ve Ma p Appli cati o n M-1 3 -0 14
Town Co un c il Mee tin g Aug ust 16 , 2016
Dear Ma yo r Specto r a nd Memb e rs o f th e Co un c il :
MEAGHAN A. SNYDER
H. SHINNY LIU
SARA L. POLLOCK
BEAU C. CORREIA
LAWRENCE LIN
DAVID A. BEUUMORI
JACQUES f. BARITOT
STEPHEN C. SCORDELIS
MICHAEL C . BRANSON
JUSTIN D. PRUEin
ANTHONY DeJAGER
M ICHAEl B. IJAMS
NANCY l. BRANDT
LESLIE KALIM McHUGH
Be low is a s umm a ry o f o ur lega l pos iti o n rega rdin g exactl y what t he Co un c il ca n a nd ca nn o t do
in dec idin g how to approve th e Pr oj ec t. Th e lega l bas is for a ll o f th es e state ments is a lread y in th e reco rd .
I ) T he Co un cil mu s t lega ll y do th e fo ll ow in g:
a. Approve th e requ ested numb e r o f uni ts a nd th e nei g hborh ood-serv in g comm e rc ia l squ a re
footage pro pose d.
b. A pprove th e VTM w ith o ut re mov in g a ny lots.
c. Grant the requ es ted d ens ity bonu s.
d. A pprove th e req ues ted wa ive rs of deve lo pm e nt sta ndard s.
2) T he Co un c il cannot lega ll v do th e fo ll owin g:
a. Redu ce unit co un t in th e ex pectati o n o f a ll ow in g th e unit s late r 111 a no th e r pa rt o f th e
N011h 4 0 Pl an a rea or fo r a ny oth e r reaso n.
b. Require a redu c ti o n in unit s ize.
c. Require mo re o pen s pace.
4814-4775 -1478v2
AL F\09427065
Mayo r Barbara Spector & Membe rs of the Town Counci l
Aug ust 12, 20 16
d. Mo d ify the g rad in g p lan.
e. App ly an y standard that phys ica ll y prec ludes deve lop me nt of t he Proj ect at t he den sit y
and in t he ma nn er a nd with the d esign and amenities proposed by th e App l icants.
f. Req uire addit io na l CEQA ana lys is of th e Proj ect.
3) T he Co unci l has lega l di s cre ti o n to do the fo ll ow in g:
a . Req uest changes to arc hi tecture that can be hand led m ini ste ri a ll y by staff an d do not
change t he basic mass in g, he ig ht s, locations of bu il dings .
b. Requ es t change s to landscap ing th at that ca n be ha nd led minister ia lly by staff.
We wo ul d be pl eased to prov ide any bac kup info rm atio n or legal resea rch tha t wou ld be he lpful.
CC :
City C lerk
Laure l Prevett i
J oe l Pa ulso n
Ro be rt Schultz, Esq.
Wend i Baker
Do n Capobres
Barbara Ka utz, Esq.
4814-4775-14 78v2
ALF\09427065
ANDREW L. FABER
EMA I L: A LF@ BERLI NE R.COM
-2-