Attachment 10 - July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Chair
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Tom O’Donnell
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BADAME: We will move to our public hearing,
which is continued from July 12, 2016, Item 2, North 40
Phase 1, Architecture and Site Application S-13-090,
Vesting Tentative Map M-13-014, requesting approval for the
construction of a new multi-use, multi-story development
consisting of 320 residential units, which include 50
affordable senior units; approximately 66,000 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.
May I have a show of hands from Commissioners who
have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from
Commissioners? Seeing none, Mr. Paulson, we are ready for
the Staff Report.
JOEL PAULSON: Tonight we’re here to continue the
Commission’s questions of the Applicant. As you mentioned
before, there is a report that contains items that were
received from the public either at last night’s meeting
and/or via email for comments, as well as a document from
Commissioner Hudes that relates to hillside views, which I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think was one of the topics that was still left to be
discussed.
CHAIR BADAME: At this time are there questions
of Staff related to process or procedure? Seeing none.
Again, the public comment portion of the hearing
was closed last night; this includes the Applicant’s
presentation. Due to time restrictions, Commissioners were
unable to complete their questioning of the Applicant, and
I believe we have more questions. I will look to the
Commissioners to see if this is true. Yes, I see nodding of
heads.
So, Applicants, you have been summoned. Please
step up to the podium. All right, I will look to the
Commissioners. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. I believe we have
a question that we started last night, and I would put it
in the category of housing. I also have some questions that
will follow about traffic and environmental, including the
economic report, open space, look and feel, those
categories, which are the ones that Chair Badame suggested
that we think about.
First of all I wanted to correct myself from when
I said that it looked like the height of Building A-1 was
58’ from existing grade. First of all, I think it’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Building B-1, and it looked to me like it was 48’8” plus
4.6’ of grade adjustments, so that would be 53’8”. Then
with the elevator portion, it would be a total… So it would
be 53’8” plus 4.6’, so it would be 57’ and some fraction.
That’s my understanding. Is that correct?
DON CAPOBRES: That would be reflected in the
grading plan. We do have our civil engineer here to
(inaudible).
COMMISSIONER HUDES: It was a combination of the
grading plan plus the elevation.
DON CAPOBRES: It does sound about right though,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This relates to this next
topic, which is about views. I think I started to ask last
night, how do you define view corridor? I think it’s used
in the justification letter.
DON CAPOBRES: It’s our position that we were to
use the Vision Statement, which talks about hillside views
and the look and feel of Los Gatos as a filter with which
to look at and view the objective standards of the Specific
Plan.
For example, look and feel and views of the
hillsides led to the 30% open space requirement, or the
height restrictions, or the setbacks. Again, we comply on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all fronts, because these are objective development
standards.
But to give you the perspective of a filter that
we use we have asked our architects to put together some
presentations to demonstrate how we looked at things, so
I’ll call up Paula Krugmeier.
Reflecting on the hearing last night, our answers
to some of your questions showed maybe some frustration
because the discussion was at a zoning level or Specific
Plan level. It’s at that stage that unit types and sizes,
et cetera, are discussed, and the Specific Plan was
approved last year along with the Housing Element, so some
of the frustration.
What we’d like, and what we would expect at this
stage of approval, is a discussion about architectural
style, materials, landscape pallets, et cetera. We have
worked with your consulting architect on that. Ultimately
Mr. Cannon rendered his opinion on our application, which
we shared with you last night.
But those are the types of comments we would
expect to be having at this stage, and we would expect to
not be discussing rewinding approvals on the objective
design standards. We would welcome talking about
architecture, about landscape palette, about those types of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues, and we’re willing to consider Conditions of
Approval that would approve the design. Again, we’ve worked
really hard with your consulting architect, and after five
submittals got, we think, a really good result out, but
those are the types of things we do want to discuss.
Paula will give you an idea of how we looked at
view corridors. She can probably touch on look and feel as
well.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’ll try to keep my
questions pretty specific, relating back to things that are
in documents that are part of the planning application.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: Good evening, Madam Chair,
Commissioners, and distinguished members of the public. I’m
Paula Krugmeier with BAR Architects. We wanted to cover the
topics of embracing views, as you have asked, as well as
the look and feel and the architecture.
First of all, I just wanted to acknowledge that
being here last night, in addition to many other hearings,
I have taken notes on every speaker’s points. I understand
this is a very important topic to everyone within the Town,
so it’s something that we as architects took very
seriously, as well as the look and feel, so we definitely
wanted to present our thoughts and share our vision with
you tonight.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
With that said, we have two parts of the
embracing views. One of them comes from the views from
Highway 17, which were studied in the EIR and later updated
in July for our latest application, which is lower than our
previous application in terms of height based on the
Specific Plan. We’ll start with from Highway 17, and then
we’ll move to examples within the Town, and then we’ll move
to views from within the site.
There are two views here. One is what was in the
EIR, and the other is updated as of July of this year.
Photos taken showing the heights of the buildings that are
proposed. So these are the buildings proposed.
We have four views here that are taken from the
EIR generated exhibits.
The second one here, there is a key plan. Can you
all see where the view was taken on the key plan? It’s
right there, and there. So this was when we had the move-
down buildings there. Then the lower image on the slide is
what the current proposal is, which is now 35’ instead of
45’.
This image here, the upper view is what we had at
45’, and the lower view is what we’re currently proposing,
what’s in your package up for approval now.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then, finally, this view is looking laterally,
and as I’ll show in the next slide, the hills are off to
the right here and the proposed buildings are basically not
in front of the hillside.
I think what these slides, which were created by
an impartial third party, demonstrate that the views of the
hills definitely continue to be embraced as one passes
through. As I recall from many of the Advisory Committee
meetings early on, Los Gatos is kind of a gateway to the
Santa Cruz Mountains and this view is very important.
We’ll continue on with other views within the
site.
What we did, the North 40 is at the top of the
image, and then we took two examples. We had many examples,
but given the limited time we’re going to show two tonight.
One is “D” for downtown, and the other is “N” for
neighborhood.
We’ll start with downtown. As we’re downtown,
what we see is that even one-story buildings occasionally
block the views of the hills, and where we do find view
corridors to the hillsides are straight down the axes of
the streets. This is a much more common pattern of
embracing the views of the Los Gatos community.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’ve done a lot of looking at hillside views. I
noticed in the look and feel slides we saw last night that
there were about 70 images of homes and about three of
those had views of the hills in them. I just want to make
sure we have the views of the hillsides in perspective. So
anyway, I looked at all 70 photos.
As we’re going down North Santa Cruz Avenue,
there are views of the hillsides if you’re in the center of
the street. For North Santa Cruz Avenue further north than
this the views of the hills are actually blocked by the
sycamore trees. So again, we found a lot of views of the
hillsides, but a lot of times they’re framed within the
axes of streets, so you have this interplay between
buildings and hillside views.
Moving on to the next example, what we did was we
chose a number of neighborhoods, and we’re showing the one
in which the streets, Benedict Lane and the streets near
there, are actually rotated towards the hills. Benedict
Lane has a lovely view of the hills that is directly down
the axis of the street, and there are parts of Benedict
Lane that have greater views of the hills, but those are
areas that are not landscaped at all. Again, a lot of times
the landscaping in addition to the buildings is what is
complementing and embracing the views of the hills.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Moving on, just near there, on Garden Lane, there
are hills back there that you can discern, but again, this
is an area where we feel like this very much is the look
and feel of Los Gatos, and hillside views in this case are
not necessarily embraced in favor of the landscaping in the
foreground.
Just to set the context, we did a lot of looking
at embracing of views, and what we’d like to show you here
are four views that show what the views will be from within
the site.
The first one is parallel to the freeway. Again,
we are farther from the hills than downtown, much farther,
a couple of miles farther from the hills, however, the
hills are there.
By the way, there is a key plan here, so you can
tell exactly where these photos are taken, and these photos
were all taken with the story poles up, so I know I’m not
looking through a building; in this case I’m actually
looking down a street. These are the key plan here, so
there is the first view there.
The second view is interesting in that when we’re
back in the Transition Zone we will have a view here of the
hillsides, but at the moment the walnut trees that are no
longer going to be there are blocking that view.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To the contrary, as we go south of South A Street
we no longer get a view of the hills, because the tall
landscape of Highland Oaks blocks the views of the hills
from that location. So again, there’s interplay between the
height of the landscape and the views. From this part of A
Street you will be able to see them; from the other part
you will not be able to see the hills.
The next view is taken from the Lark District,
right by the intersection between the Lark District and
Transition District, and it’s taken over the community
gardens. When you’re in the community gardens, this is the
view you will have. Our main impediments in this area are
the existing commercial buildings along Los Gatos
Boulevard, but to the extent that you can see the hills
over those buildings that are already there, we have
embraced the views of the ridgelines and hillsides there.
Finally, we have a diagonal street on the site,
which is right there. It’s North A Street, and as you come
down this street this will be a much more framed view. What
I did here was I drew the lines of the story poles on the
slide, so the story poles are here, and here, and here, and
we’re looking down at a two-story building, and just over
that two-story building you will be able to see the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ridgeline. That view corridor is a little bit more framed
by buildings, but again, it’s there.
So that is the presentation we had on the
embracing of hillside views, and we felt like it was very
comparable to what we’re seeing in other areas of Los
Gatos.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: As a follow up to that,
Example 1 that you showed next to the freeway, there’s a
sound wall there, isn’t there? You want to go back and show
us where that would be?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: The sound wall is along here,
and there is parking. There’s a setback. There’s the sound
wall, then there’s some landscape, then there’s some
parallel parking, then there’s a road, and then there’s
more landscape, and then there’s the building, so there’s
actually quite a bit of space here from which one will get
this view. The sound wall will be lower and off to the
right. The sound wall is typically lower than any
landscaping we’ll have.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had some questions about
the layout of the site, how it relates to the views, and
how the housing is organized on the site. I spent about an
hour-and-a-half on the site a week ago Friday on a second
visit, and with the exception of the diagonal street, I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
couldn’t find any interior location where I could see the
views, interior location meaning one that’s open to the
public.
So I walked down the area where the paseo is,
spent some time where the park will be, and because of the
arrangement of the buildings that are at an angle to that—
and I’ll illustrate that in a minute—it was not possible to
see the hillsides. I walked and I noted at 12 different
points, and as I said, there was only one, and that was at
the diagonal street where I could see it.
I’m sure there are other points, particularly as
you get to the exterior, but in the interior I had trouble.
If fact, not any point along the paseo, not any point
within the park, not any point in the service road, except
for the very end of it, the road that is adjacent to the
freeway, and that was being blocked.
I could not find another location actually in Los
Gatos of comparable size where the hillsides would be as
obscured as they are in this particular layout, and maybe I
could illustrate with we could look at Exhibit 38. A
question is coming here in a minute, but I want to just
relate that to my observations on the site.
I wish the public had been able to see the
interior, either with photographs or somehow to see the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
orientation of the story poles across the site and the
arrangement of the buildings I think is obscuring many,
many of the sites.
Could you go to the next slide, please? The
intersection of those lines is the middle of the North 40
plot, and the dominant hillsides here are El Sereno and El
Sombroso, and behind El Sombroso is Loma Prieta, and Mt.
Umunhum is actually in between those as well. It’s really
interesting, because they are about at a 45° angle from the
center of the site, each of those. The dash line represents
the general way that you can view from the site, given the
grid pattern.
Could you go to the next slide for me? This is
zooming in, with the solid lines representing the view of
the hillside, and the dash lines representing the grid
layout and the general direction of the views. What I’m
saying is that because of the way buildings are arranged on
that grid, it pretty much blocks those views, even as you
walk along the interior of it, until you get to the
exterior of it.
My question is—if you can go to the next slide—is
it possible to have the streets laid out in a fashion that
is 45° from what’s been proposed in a way that would, I
think, truly allow you to see the hillsides from many, many
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more sites? It’s a little dark, but you can see that in the
surrounding neighborhoods there are curved streets that
afford views as well. So my question is, is it possible to
lay out this so that more views from the interior of the
site could be achieved?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: It’s a very good question and a
very good demonstration. As I sought to demonstrate with
the views from Benedict Lane, which are even a little
closer, these hillside views, even with rotated streets,
will have basically a small view corridor down the center,
given that all of the streets will be lined with street
trees, as is the case in Los Gatos.
This is jumping ahead a little bit to our look
and feel conversation. I’ve been the master planner on this
project for eight years, and done master planning in a lot
of different places, and what we looked at here was that
the majority of neighborhoods in Los Gatos are oriented
parallel to the arterial streets that they’re next to, so
there are some curved streets. There are many curved
streets in the hillsides; many curved streets. We’re not in
the hillsides. Our streets, but not all, are more or less
parallel to the arterials that are near to ours, and our
views are very similar to the views of neighboring
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
residential districts and downtown that are similarly
oriented.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: My question is could even
some of the streets in Phase 1 be oriented along a 45° from
the way they’re currently oriented, or could some of them
be curved? Even in the drawings in the Specific Plan there
was a suggestion of curve, and I know that there was
testimony when the Specific Plan was being created; a
number of residents made the strong suggestion to have some
curved streets in there.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: All right, I’m going to go back
to a suggestion that was made in 2013. Back in 2013 we
received a suggested site plan that was rotated at 45° from
Los Gatos Boulevard, and when I get to the look and feel
part I’ll talk a little bit about walkability and block
sizes and the idea about the balance between softscape and
paving.
In theory, the suggestion is great. Yes, we can
have 45° angle streets. When you look at it practically on
a site, given that there are some very large missing teeth
from the Hirschman properties cut out of it, once you get
to the potential use of diagonal streets—I just have to say
it this way—you end up with a lot more paving and a lot
more green space, because it is less efficient, and when
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you have more paving and less green space, it didn’t seem
to us like the look and feel.
It’s a fairly simple geometric problem. In order
to overcome that we would have had to go to large mega-
blocks to get that green space within the mega-blocks, and
we felt that the block sizes that we have that are
comparable to the block sizes in the rest of Los Gatos and
that are parallel to the arterials, and given the big
missing teeth that we had on Los Gatos Boulevard, that we
were able to provide the most open space by the plan that
we had; and that where we created the community garden,
where we created the diagonal street, where we created
other axes, we were embracing hillside views. We were
balancing all these thing.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just one last question on
this. If you didn’t have as many homes, but you did have
them at the required density, at the required density,
would it be possible to incorporate other street layouts
such as we’ve discussed?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: I will answer in theory, and
then Don and Wendi can answer more specifically.
When I left here last night one of the members of
the public suggested that we could have a lot more green
space if we built a tower next to the freeway, and I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thought about that, and I said, “Yeah, that’s true, you can
have more green space.” There are different ways to gain
more green space, even though we already exceed the
quantity. Doing diagonal streets doesn’t necessarily
increase the amount of green space.
I’m sorry, Commissioner, could you please repeat
your question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I said in an attempt to
maximize and actually have views of the hillsides, would it
be possible to change the layout and configuration of the
streets, perhaps by reducing the number of homes but
keeping the required density?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: Well, if we reduce a number of
homes on the same amount of land, then we have
arithmetically reduced the density. Then going back to the
diagonal views again, going back to Benedict Lane, in
comparing the views that we have, the linear views that we
have to the hills, we have similar views to Benedict Lane,
which is rotated.
The hills, if we go back to my slide, there’s a
green line. The hills are on two-and-a-half sides of the
site. Even though it’s a little bit far away, they’re on
two-and-a-half sides of the site, so we can orient those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
streets to embrace hillside views with a variety of
directions and with open spaces like our community garden.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Would any of the other
Commissioners like to add to the line of questioning?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to ask a
question. It’s not related necessarily to hillside views,
but it relates to views as it pertains to the small town
character.
I know that a lot of the residents and friends of
residents have reacted badly to seeing massive 35’ tall
buildings from Highway 17 when they’re coming home,
including my own kids. But it did look like your position
is that landscaping, the trees that are going to be
planted, would be covering that up to a large extent. I
just wanted to understand if this was (inaudible) forward
as it was, what we could expect, or would it just be that
we’d have to stare at a wall of 35’ buildings?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: The landscaping shown in the
EIR was taken as trees after a certain number of years of
growth; in other words, it’s not just the first year. But
the trees will for the most part all be higher than 35’.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Some of the orchard trees… The landscape architect is here
and will be able to speak specifically about tree heights.
DON CAPOBRES: The EIR covered aesthetics and
views, and as we underscored already, the Specific Plan
EIR, which was approved and adopted by Town Council last
year, shows on the top that was the aesthetic that was
approved, so to speak. The proposal that we have in front
of you is less impactful from any objective standard, and
again, we do think we comply.
To answer Commissioner Hudes’ question directly,
the grid pattern has already started on the North 40 on the
south side of the property; it started probably in early
2000 with essentially the first phase of development on the
North 40 with the medical office buildings. What happens
now on that portion of the property, it kind of gets locked
in, because we do have a balancing act to do with
infrastructure and other things. So the answer is no on
being able to orient streets 45° and balance everything
else. We have to balance related to the objective standards
of the Specific Plan.
Having said that, as you move further north we do
start to introduce some diagonal streets. I’m not going to
jump ahead, but the thought of that diagonal street is that
it does plug in someplace, and there maybe will be future
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development where we do free up opportunity to introduce
streets that aren’t on the grid, but because development
was already allowed to start in the 2000s with three
relatively large buildings that are taller than any of the
buildings we are proposing on Los Gatos Boulevard, the grid
pattern has already begun, and we need to fit into that
from an infrastructure perspective.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I could just follow up
quickly. The buildings you’re referring to, those are the
ones that are placed and accessed along the Boulevard,
correct?
DON CAPOBRES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There are no internal
streets that address those?
DON CAPOBRES: The streets that access those, and
the entrance that access those buildings, all lead into the
interior of the site and have parking on the interior.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, but the access if
from Los Gatos… There’s no other street through the North
40 that’s accessing them, correct?
DON CAPOBRES: No.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And the opportunity for
diagonal that you were referring to, that’s in the Phase 2
application, or possible Phase 2 application?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DON CAPOBRES: Well, there could be multiple
phases to the North 40, because as we know and we’ve stated
multiple times, there are 14 property owners on the North
40. The fact that we have two phases to our transaction
with the Yuki family does not necessarily mean that’s the
only phase coming forward. Because we are forward thinking,
our planning is we intend to make this portion of the
property fit in to the rest of the North 40, which is why
you have a specific plan, so that as pieces develop
individually, they do so in a cohesive manner. Our plan is
to kind of continue on there, using that diagonal street.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I appreciate that, but my
understanding is that this Phase 1 application—I think
that’s what it’s called—has to stand on its own relative to
objective standards that are in the Specific Plan.
DON CAPOBRES: And we meet and exceed all of
those specific development standards, without question.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions from
Commissioners? Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Questions for Ms. Krugmeier.
Prior to February 2, 2016, I think the Town consulting
architect wrote a letter of his concerns about the project,
and there was a good response written on February 2, 2016.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It’s not signed, so I don't know who wrote it, but then he
writes back, and they write back, and he writes backs, and
there was a response from Debra Lehtone.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: Yeah, she’s present tonight.
She’s my colleague.
VICE CHAIR KANE: She’s with BAR, and you’re with
BAR.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: Yeah,
VICE CHAIR KANE: So I can assume the February 2nd
letter was written by her?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: It’s written by the team, yes.
We collaborated. This whole development is a team effort,
so yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So I’ll put the team on here.
CHAIR BADAME: Can you confirm which exhibit
you’re referring to?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Exhibit 8; I’m sorry.
CHAIR BADAME: Exhibit 8 for the Commissioners to
refer to.
VICE CHAIR KANE: In her response to Larry
Canon’s initial letters, she details what kind of tenant
design or modifications may be made by a tenant, and then
it occurred to me, I wondered, do you have an approximation
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of how many commercial tenants would be in and around the
marketplace?
DON CAPOBRES: That’s a great question, and
exciting question, actually. The marketplace is intended to
be one, single entity, which was what was discussed in the
Specific Plan. How we populate the space and program the
space, we’re still working on, frankly.
The direction we are going in is very exciting,
however, if you think of your typical grocery store
departments. So think of produce; think of protein, which
could be beef, chicken, fish; think of a bakery; some
sundries; and think of the best of the local market and the
local growers, and of populating each one of those
departments. So right now it could be between four, five,
six types of tenants within Market Hall.
We’ve done quite a bit of research on these
markets. At one point we thought they could be small little
kiosks with 100 square feet each, and there are examples of
that throughout the country that we’ve looked at. But we
are gravitating towards more of grocery store departments.
Not quite a grocery store, but a specialty market that has
individual vendors that celebrate the local growers and
celebrating the food locally.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That’s still a working model. We are working very
hard with partners who we have identified previously on
that, but that’s kind of where we’re at, and we’re excited
by it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So the commercial square
footage that’s been assigned to Phase 1 would contain
possibly four, possibly six, tenants?
DON CAPOBRES: Oh no, that was just for Market
Hall. I’m sorry, Commissioner.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Total number?
DON CAPOBRES: Yeah, and I’m happy to walk
through the retail program.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Rough total number?
DON CAPOBRES: I have to go through each
building.
The building on the immediate north as you enter
is intended to be a standalone restaurant; that’s Building
B-2.
Building A-2 is intended to be a standalone
retail building.
Again, these are all preliminary points.
Then you have Market Hall, which is B-2, which I
just spoke about.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Building C can be demised as a standalone
restaurant of about, say, 5,000 square feet, with an
additional 2,000 square feet of retail.
Then Building A-1 is all neighborhood serving,
kind of small shop space where you would find typical
neighborhood uses. Maybe there are some hair salons; maybe
there are other uses that you would find in a neighborhood
setting.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Would you be the leasing agent
or have a supervisory effect over the leasing agent?
DON CAPOBRES: Grosvenor typically hires local
leasing folks who have the best connections in the local
market. Grosvenor does not manage and lease directly; we
hire a third party generally.
VICE CHAIR KANE: In the many, many, many
meetings that have preceded this one, has there been any
discussion of a fair consideration for non-compete with the
downtown?
DON CAPOBRES: Yes, that has been discussed many,
many, many times.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Do you agree to that?
DON CAPOBRES: I do have some notes here so I get
it right. The question is about tenants downtown, and this
issue was debated for years, frankly, at the Specific Plan
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Advisory Committee process as well as Town Council
deliberations. We all remember them; they tended to be some
of the most interesting conversations that we had. After
all those deliberations, it is not a requirement under the
current Specific Plan, so the answer in short is no.
You’ve got numerous economic studies. You had one
in 2011 commissioned by the Town of Los Gatos that showed
$80 million leaking out of the Town of Los Gatos every
year. You had a second one, which is the Urban Decay Study
in the EIR. You had a third one to support the Specific
Plan last year by San Jose State.
All of them indicated that there is significant
unmet demand for comparison shopping in food and beverage,
and so this shouldn’t be an issue.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m sorry; could I ask you a
question? What does “comparative shopping” mean?
Competitive shopping?
DON CAPOBRES: No, comparative shopping. It could
be soft goods, clothing, things like that.
The final point is probably maybe the strongest
point. It could potentially hurt the viability of both the
downtown establishment as well as the retail program on the
North 40, and I’m starting with the assumption that we want
both to succeed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For example, this could cause a situation where a
downtown business that is not able to renegotiate a lease
downtown is forced out of Los Gatos to seek premises
outside to continue its operation. There are numerous
examples of downtown also, downtown establishments seeing
this unmet demand in the trade area, which we can talk
about, so examples of downtown establishments wanting a
second or third store or restaurant, or wanting to try a
new concept and staying within the trade area.
If you had a prohibition of them going to the
North 40, they would do what they’re doing now, frankly,
which is ending up in Campbell, or Willow Glen, or
someplace like that. You have multiple restaurants—and this
is the easiest example—that have both the presence within
downtown Los Gatos as well as within the exact trade area
that the North 40 would be serving, and they see this unmet
demand.
We can go through the numbers. Tim Kelly from
Keyser Marston is here to present the economic numbers, but
this was discussed ad infinitum, and that is why it’s not…
I think it would end up potentially hurting the downtown
operators as well as potentially the North 40.
VICE CHAIR KANE: What would?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DON CAPOBRES: Making requirements restricting
tenancies on the North 40 (inaudible) downtown.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Some kind of a non-competitive
clause would hurt both?
DON CAPOBRES: Could potentially hurt both.
VICE CHAIR KANE: May I?
CHAIR BADAME: Yes, you may.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We’ve heard a number of
speakers, town merchants, long-time well established, kind
of know their business; and maybe that’s foolish of me, but
I find that more persuasive than studies that say gee, it
may not be a problem. If the proprietor is telling us I may
go out of business, that’s the kind of thing I’m concerned
with on non-compete. A lot of analogies in the 610 letters
we’ve read talking about comparisons to downtown San Jose,
Saratoga, and that get’s my attention. I don’t have the
depth and the advisors that you do, but I need some
reassurance that there is an awareness of what the downtown
merchants are saying, and some kind of concern for them.
DON CAPOBRES: Absolutely.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Or I will so advise Town
Council that this needs to be worked on.
DON CAPOBRES: Absolutely. The first study in
2011 identified synergistic solutions, and this wasn’t our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
study, this was a study commissioned by the Town of Los
Gatos by the Economic Vitality Department. It showed
synergistic opportunities aware of the North 40 and
downtown, and don’t forget about the Boulevard, and
wineries. All of them could actually complement each other,
and I thought that those were very good suggestions in
terms of how that can happen. Co-branding and co-marketing,
was an example, working with, which we already have a
transportation kind of demand management responsibility
with the North 40, coordination with VTA on getting
shuttles and a back and forth.
We talked about marketing, and this is a
discussion we’ve had, frankly, Commissioner, for eight
years, and again, none of those policies that you talk
about ended up in the Specific Plan as a direct result of
the conversations and all the studies that we’ve had. But
there are things that we can do together, and there are
other businesses downtown that don’t share the opinion that
others share.
There are opportunities for folks. In Market
Hall, for example, my one example that I always give is if
someone makes pizza downtown and they want to sell pizza
sauce at Market Hall and say if you want us to make the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
full thing for you, come downtown. That’s a great example
of synergistic opportunities.
We think because there is such strong demand it
warrants going through the economic analysis here. Strong
demand in the marketplace that if you don’t capture it on
the North 40, it is just going to go across the border to
Campbell and South San Jose, so working together we can
increase the pie for Los Gatos instead of looking at who is
competing against whom within the Town boundaries.
Again, that was the conclusion of every report.
Report, after report, after report was commissioned to
evaluate this particular issue, and the last one was
probably the best one, because it did look specifically at
competitive advantages between downtown and the North 40,
and the conclusion was there should be no impact to
downtown.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Life is a bell curve, and there
may be those merchants who profit from the increased
residency on the North 40, and in the middle are going to
be merchants who want to be in both places, but at the
other it’s going to be the merchant who fears for their
livelihood and their business. All I’m asking is that keep
that in mind, have a medium, some forum, where those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerns could be expressed to you, and you would have that
sensitivity on the tenants to whom you lease.
DON CAPOBRES: We welcome that conversation. I
live downtown. We are here because of what downtown means,
and so we are ultra-sensitive to this issue. I’ve been
accused of trying to lure a lot of businesses to the North
40, but it’s just conversations. We understand, and we have
talked to businesses and restaurants downtown all
throughout the years. We’ve participated and had
conversations continuously, had a joint session with your
Chamber of Commerce; and I’m not saying they’re endorsing
the North 40, but we have participated in the business
community for years. We understand that, we are sensitive
to that. We would welcome that conversation, and to be a
part of that conversation, in terms of how we can work
together.
Ultimately, this phase of development is only
66,000 square feet however, and it is neighborhood-serving;
it is intended to be for folks on the north end of town and
to service the new residents on the North 40 and the
neighborhoods that are around.
CHAIR BADAME: Mr. Capobres, I’m going to stop
you right here. I do believe that the question was
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
answered, and what I do hear you say is that there is
awareness, but not a guarantee.
At the same time that Vice Chair Kane had his
hand up, Commissioner Hanssen had her hand up, and I know
Commissioner Hudes is waiting to speak. So Commissioner
Hanssen, did you still want to ask your question?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yes. One thing that struck
me in looking at the Phase 1 application and looking at the
Specific Plan is there are a lot of references in the
Specific Plan to all three districts needing to work
together so that it can be self-sufficient. This gets to
not having everything be adding traffic to the Boulevard
and stuff, so as many things that can be taken care of
inside of the North 40, and with the limited amount of
commercial in Phase 1, I worry about how much of that can
possibly be achieved, and then leading to the whole traffic
thing. So I was hoping to understand what…
You mentioned a little bit that in Building A-1
there would be some personal service ones, but I heard
(inaudible) like putting Patagonia in one of the buildings,
and that didn’t seem like something that was going to help
the problem I’m talking about, because permitted uses in
the plan include like banks and hair dressers and whatnot.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DON CAPOBRES: At this stage of the game we don’t
typically have tenants. It’s really hard to lease up space
without being able to kick the tires, but we have obviously
an anchor. Typically I would have a named anchor right now,
but this time we’re trying to do something special. We’re
trying to deliver to the Town this specialty market that we
call Market Hall. We don’t have to. The Specific Plan
doesn’t require us to do that, but we had said it over the
years, and we think it’s a good idea.
We think you have all of the grocery stores
already represented on the Boulevard, but you do need to
service the residents of the North 40 through some type of
food, so Market Hall is being designed as we speak for
folks who can go there four or five times a week to pick
something up. We’re looking at convenience of trying to get
in and out, so I assure you first and foremost on our minds
are servicing folks who are going to be there frequently.
It’s not a regional destination of any sort.
Sixty-six thousand square feet is about the size,
and maybe a little bit larger than some of your other… The
Trader Joe’s that Grosvenor used to own, Los Gatos Village
Square, the Whole Foods center, it’s in that scale, and so
you should be able to provide those neighborhood services
that we want people to walk to instead of having to drive
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to. That’s our goal. It’s kind of what drives us in terms
of our vision for the property. Just by the size of it, by
the nature of it, it is neighborhood serving and we are
programming it as such. It is not being programmed to be a
tourist attraction or anything like that from a regional
perspective.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. This has been an
area of concern for me for a long time, and I concur with
many of Commissioner Kane’s concerns that he raised, and
listen carefully to a number of the business folks in town.
I’m glad to see that there is a report in here,
and I have to apologize to my fellow commissioners, but I
would like to actually ask some questions about this
report, because this is the first time that it’s been seen
in a public setting, and I think it’s important, because I
also think that this is the type of thing that was
envisioned for this ongoing; even more retail comes in.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, have you got
the exhibit number?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m talking about the Keyser
Marston Associates economic report.
CHAIR BADAME: And the exhibit number is?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: It is Exhibit 9.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, Exhibit 9, Commissioners.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: From the March 30th packet.
I’ll try to keep it to just a few questions, because I
think this is very, very important, and I’m glad to see the
work done.
The first question is how is it possible to do
this analysis without having a floor plan of the retail
space and knowing what size there is within a building? I
don’t believe there is a floor plan within each of the
retail spaces.
TIM KELLY: Good evening, my name is Tim Kelly;
I’m with Keysor Marston Associates, and we prepared the
report.
That’s a fair question, and if you look at the
report, it’s generic. The types of tenants, they’re broken
up into three basic categories, which were the assumptions
behind it, which was the food hall for 20,000 square feet;
the food and beverage, which is essentially restaurants for
20,000 square feet; and specialty retail, which also
includes services like personal services, banks, things
like that for 26,000 square feet. There is no information
beyond that, and that was evaluated in a context of how
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would it affect the downtown, and would it have a negative
effect on the downtown?
Maybe I can stop there. Do you want me to keep
going?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Sure, because then I have
questions about the next step.
The estimate on the impact to downtown and other
areas, did it look at both potential declines in those
areas as a result of having the retail here, as well as the
possible synergies or increases?
TIM KELLY: Those are all really good questions.
When we wrote the scope up, what we were asked to do was
just evaluate whether Phase 1, which is 66,000 square feet,
not the 400,000 square feet that is the number that is
thrown around for the overall, but just the 66,000. Would
that have a negative impact on the core area of the
downtown, the Santa Cruz Avenue portion of the downtown? We
did not look at the other areas. We were not asked to look
at the other areas. I’m not sure if that answers your
question, but it was just related to the core.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: It answers my question, and
it raises a question for Staff.
TIM KELLY: Okay, fair enough.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: It looks to me like your
conclusion is that it will not negatively impact downtown.
TIM KELLY: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: How certain are you of that,
and how would you measure that going forward?
TIM KELLY: I feel highly confident it won’t have
a negative impact on the downtown. Let me just explain the
context.
Some of this information was confidential, so it
had to be put into a bulk set of numbers so we couldn’t
look at individual businesses, as you might have mentioned,
so we asked the Town Staff for the square footage in
downtown, the number of businesses in the downtown, and the
actual taxable sales in downtown, and by different
categories. One category is referred to as Soft Goods
Comparison; it’s sort of the specialty group. The other
group is Food and Beverage, which is the restaurants, and
then a third group, which is very limited, is Convenience.
Within downtown there is approximately 500,000
square feet of space, of which I think 350,000 is in
service and comparison goods. There’s a lot of space, and
172 businesses. Food and Beverage, there are 62 businesses
and approximately 160,000 square feet. So that 350,000 and
the 160,000, the downtown has a half a million square feet.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The annual taxable sales, I guess would be now
2014 or so, were almost $175 million. So downtown is a very
strong economic unit; it has been for a long time. It’s
obviously a model in the Bay Area of what other cities
would like to have; they very much would love to have your
downtown. It has survived the expansion of Valley Fair, it
survived Santana Row; it survived expansion. It’s a very
successful, healthy downtown.
Does that mean nothing should be done? Does that
mean you can rest on your laurels? No. Obviously markets
are dynamic; you always have to reevaluate. But in the
context of the North 40, if you take 20,000 square feet
that’s in a food hall, there’s no food hall downtown, so
there’s no impact there.
If you take the food and beverage, you’re talking
about 20,000 square feet. Food and beverage right now in
the whole southern Santa Clara County is a very big,
growing market. Restaurants are popping up everywhere. As
the Applicant has mentioned, restaurants are opening
multiple restaurants. It’s a very high growth area.
And the downtown has almost 80 million… We think
just the population growth and what’s going on in the
market, I think (inaudible) food and beverage as a whole
will not have an impact on downtown.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Finally, the last category, which is the 26,000
square feet, which can be service, it can be dentists, it
can be medical, it can financial, it can be exercise
studios, but it’s 26,000 square feet. If you took an
average of 2,600 square feet a tenant, which is not very
big, that’s ten tenants. It’s hard to say ten tenants would
have a negative impact on downtown.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Sure, I understand. One of
the concerns, and I didn’t see much about it in your
report, was the fact that there are certain constraints and
restrictions in the downtown, which there would not be in
the North 40, such as Conditional Use Permit, or difficulty
parking. Are those things that you thought about or
considered when you were making this recommendation?
TIM KELLY: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Actually, what I was
speaking about is the case of a restaurant that has to
comply with a Conditional Use Permit downtown, but there’s
not need for that in North 40.
TIM KELLY: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would suggest if you do
this in the future, perhaps consider looking at some of the
requirements that are elsewhere as well, because I think
they do have an impact.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My last question is, is this report and
methodology repeatable, in your opinion? Could you take
what you’ve done here and, for instance, look at the impact
of Phase 1 at a later time using this methodology, or could
it be applied to Phase 2 or something else?
TIM KELLY: It’s a yes with an asterisk, because
as you know, there are multiple variables that affect a lot
of things that go on, like you were mentioning parking
requirements. There are lots of variables that are out
there, but it certainly could be used as one of the tools
for sure, yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioners, any further
questions on the economic report? Seeing none, thank you,
sir.
TIM KELLY: You’re welcome.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I believe we have
further questions for the Applicant. Commissioner Hanssen,
if Ms. Baker and Mr. Capobres can step back up to the
podium. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had some questions about
the housing again. I know we talked about the Millennials
and seniors yesterday, but I wanted to just talk about—one
of the community members brought this up yesterday—I do
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recognize that in the Specific Plan it’s not required to
use all the housing types, but just for the sake of asking
a question, because it would be less intense, why were no
cottage cluster units included in the proposal?
WENDI BAKER: I think this is in your exhibit,
but I’ll put it up for the public to reference as well.
We asked our architect to take all of the
standards within the Specific Plan, such as setbacks, open
space requirements, parking requirements, and so forth, as
well as overlaying this with the cottage cluster
requirements which are drawn actually from a different
document, which was in your Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
document that originally contemplated the cottage cluster
unit at about 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, where again, some
of those regulations are the first floor; the second floor
can’t be more than 50% of the first floor space.
So we did a density study to establish what the
density would be, and it’s about 12-13 units per acre at
the most aggressive, most perfect square that we could
find, or in this case a rectangle, so we sort of maximize
those units. So with that, it brings down the density
substantially, and it’s not a product where utility is
compatible if you are being told at 20 units per acre.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m sure it was in one of
the tables that we saw, but that brought up a question that
I did have, which is of all the acreage where there is
residential, are all of those producing 20 units per acre?
WENDI BAKER: Yeah, I think that this exhibit
that Staff has up here reflects what you all… We worked
with Staff and HCD. I believe they worked through their
experience with HCD on how we could go to HCD with a
straight face and say we are delivering 20 units per acre.
Some areas you can remove, such as the main corridors, for
example streets, and so that exhibit is what is reflective
of how you get to 20 units per acre, both in each zones.
You have to look at it as in zones you are
getting there, and then overall you are getting there. In
this instance I believe there are four zones and then a
comprehensive density as well, and in each of the zones you
have to meet it, as well as comprehensively.
Again, this is a delicate balance where if you
move to this type of a product, perhaps in that area those
units may not be able to be counted towards your Housing
Element.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And then on the other side
of that, there are one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, and three-
bedrooms. There are no studios, and in the Specific Plan
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
under the Gen Y discussion, for better or for worse you can
argue that that might not be right, but it’s in the
Specific Plan. It says that the Millennials want studios,
and often no bedrooms, and loft units. There are a couple
of loft kind of work units, but even those aren’t studios,
so I wonder about that, because that would be another way
to bring down some of the intensity and also make things
more affordable.
WENDI BAKER: We do understand that. Now, this is
a for sale product, and the Specific Plan was not looking
at for sale or for rent. We do have the for rent affordable
units, but studio units, I did talk about the focus groups
we went to.
Folks in a suburban context are looking for more
space rather than being in a studio unit. The other
complexity with studio units can be I’ve never built a for
sale studio units, particularly in a suburban context. I
mean that is extraordinarily rare. Then, usually when you
can support these sorts of housing type, like micro-units,
you end up with a lot of transit opportunities in an urban
context. This is not an urban context, and so we do have to
look at balancing the market demands with the Specific
Plan, and nowhere in the Specific Plan were there a studio
requirements.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We did go as low as we felt we could market and
sell a unit, which is far below a typical for sale
condominium product, which was about 900 square feet, we
also have the 550 square foot senior unit to give a wide
range.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That brought me to another
question I wanted to ask, and I kind of knew the answer was
they’re all for sale, but why are all the units for sale
except for the senior affordable, which is being done by a
separate group, Eden Housing, versus a mix of that?
WENDI BAKER: That’s a really interesting
question, and it’s going to be a little bit subjective in
my answer.
SummerHill, we’ve very fortunate. We’ve built
everything from for rent to estate homes, so we’ve built
apartments in San Francisco, and we’ve built estate homes
right here in Los Gatos. So we have a wide portfolio to be
able to draw from experience.
Ultimately, when we were looking at unmet needs
and what that was, there are apartments that are available
for rent in Los Gatos. It is very rare to find a 900 square
foot for sale product, however. So when we were looking at
that, for someone that wants to enter into the marketplace
and not rent and wants to buy, what could they buy in that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
type of zone? Those products are extremely limited, not
only here in Los Gatos, but in the Bay Area as a whole.
Generally you are either for rent in this type of square
footage that we’re talking about, or you hop up to a higher
bedroom count and higher square footage.
In looking at this, to us, when we were trying to
establish all the different ways that we could land plan
and design and offer products that were meeting unmet
needs, we found that the for sale Millennials product is
absolutely an unmet need. There are Aventino Apartments,
and there are other examples of apartments in Los Gatos.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I have a question for
you, Ms. Baker. Which city did you resource your focus
groups in?
WENDI BAKER: I mentioned we had focus groups
right at Netflix, and those workers came from all over. I
don’t actually know where everyone resided from in the
first focus group, but it was about 20 individuals, and we
actually held it in the East Bay…
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, that’s helpful, but 20…
WENDI BAKER: …which we are drawing from a
variety of places where people might live right now and
commute into Los Gatos, but really want to live in Los
Gatos.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, so I heard you say 20 people
in one group. How many individuals were surveyed in
totality of the focus groups?
WENDI BAKER: As far as a survey, this was a very
large and expansive and extended dialogue, so I don’t want
to exclusively look at it as a survey where we just pushed
out a bunch of paper to folks. This was a dialogue of what
are you looking for? What are your needs? What kind of
housing types? Where do you live right now? It was a
conversation, and our architects were there and they took
all the notes.
Then we designed product after that point, we
designed our units, and then we decided ultimately at 20.
Since this process started, Netflix was approved, it’s
built the expansion, and we went into Netflix because that
is where we do see a lot of the Millennials that could want
to live here and are tired of that commute back and forth.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Further questions of
the Applicant? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Were you going to add
something to that?
DON CAPOBRES: I would just say on the multi-
family and the rental question, your General Plan allows
for 750 residential units. When we started the process on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Specific Plan, the Draft Specific Plan considered
heights in the 55’ range, and so our original view,
Commissioner Hanssen, was to provide more of a mix of
tenure for sale and for rent, and from the exhibit I saw
yesterday, a lot of the rental homes that you have in Los
Gatos are at a density well in excess of 20 units per acre.
Seven hundred and fifty residential units kind of fit our
program a little bit better, and we had planned quite a bit
of rental at that time.
In 2012, when Town Council called a time out
essentially and set Vision Statement and the Guiding
Principles—which have become our filter for everything—the
number of units that were contemplated on the North 40
decreased, and all of a sudden we ended up with lower
heights. That’s when we brought SummerHill on board to help
us design the homes that we have now, which is lower
intensity than had originally been contemplated, which
would have had a better mix of tenure.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: One of the residents did a
nice analysis yesterday. If you took even portions of the
property and built, say, an apartment building full of
studios, 500-1,000 square feet, you could overdo the
density there, and you could have less density somewhere
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
else on the property. I mean there are other ways to look
at it.
WENDI BAKER: You can do a thousand land plans;
you can have ten different people come in (inaudible) for
applications. Again, we’re looking at running this through
setbacks, open space, what the market demand is, and what
type of aesthetics we’re trying to draw. We have a certain—
as we’ve been referring to them—objective criteria, but
then we’re also trying to continue with some of these other
more subjective criteria so that we can achieve a balance.
That sort of concept, you can’t fault it, and I
can’t necessarily say that they’re incorrect, but
ultimately we have to sell these units. Building all 1,000
square foot units is neither a requirement, nor can we find
any example of you must stay within these exact lanes with
respect to bedroom count, units sizes and so forth, and so
we drew upon our experience with our conversations to
address what we felt was the target audience, while
satisfying the Specific Plan requirements.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: I would like to add to the
answer to that question about a hypothetical apartment
building. For one thing, the one apartment building that we
do have seems to be the most controversial element within
the plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Going back to the look and feel of Los Gatos, the
Lark District has much smaller scale development than the
Transition District. The Transition District has much
smaller scale development than places like Santana Row or
other developments that the North 40 has been compared to.
That said, if we were to build, for example, a
25-unit building instead of a 50-unit building with units
that were twice the size, about 1,000 square feet on
average, which would be typical for the South Bay, we would
have a building of the same scale as the affordable
housing, and we would have a parking garage that would be
much larger, because it would have to be parked at 1.5 per
dwelling unit rather than .5 per dwelling unit. So you
would start to get a big garage and a much more massive
building.
We had many alternates like that over the course
of the years where we fit parking in in ways which we don’t
think, based on the look and feel that we’re trying to do
in Los Gatos, would be accepted today. So as we have the
Lark District full of a lot of relatively small buildings
and blocks, this, to us, was a lot more along the lines of
the look and feel of Los Gatos.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for that, and I
understand what you’re saying. You made a comment that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lark District is less intense than the Transition District,
but I’m not sure what measure you’re using for that,
because there are lots of row homes. I mean, I see the same
housing types and clusters in both the Lark and the
Transition, and of course there’s quite a few more units.
Could you help me understand how…
PAULA KRUGMEIER: I was referring to the scale.
Behind the Commissioners here there is a figure ground plan
with yellow shown on the buildings, and the scale of those
footprints is quite varied within the SummerHill home
project area, and certainly much smaller than any 25-unit
apartment building would be, given that that larger
building would have to accommodate 30 cars.
The other advantage of this plan is that every
building in those units self parks, and so we don’t end up
with any large garages or anything like that.
If I can come back to the parking thing very
briefly, the only place where we have the super low parking
ratio, which is .5 per dwelling unit, is in the senior
housing that’s combined with the Market Hall. The tandem
parking that was discussed yesterday is only used where two
residents would be in the same unit. I just wanted to
clarify that confusion as well.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to get back to the
question I was going to ask about traffic. I think there’s
going to be quite a bit of discussion when we begin
deliberations on traffic, so I just wanted to get maybe one
more perspective on the 13%, 26% claim or position.
Also, I had a question about considering actual
traffic loads, but let’s get that one first.
WENDI BAKER: I did want to add on one other
thing about the Lark District versus the Transition
District. We have two-story homes in the Lark District, and
then the Transition District actually is three-story homes,
so there is a difference and step up.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Other than in the permit
overlay within the setback from Lark Avenue, if you move
away from those units, it’s basically the same, looks like
the same.
WENDI BAKER: There are two-story units that also
front the community park. We did that intentionally, so
that it was lower scale into the park, and you don’t have
that example in the Transition District.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thanks.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So my question was on
traffic.
WENDI BAKER: Yes, the 13% and 26%.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes, please.
WENDI BAKER: Thank you. Yes, we have our traffic
engineer here. She also has provided information to the
Town that is specific. The 26% is specific, as I mentioned,
to the Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard intersection. So 13% of
an increase in traffic can cause a more substantial delay
than just the 13%, because you’re putting more cars in an
already constrained environment, and Katie can speak about
this. This was specific to the Phase 1 build-out and the
traffic that the Phase 1 application will create. That 26%
reduction will happen, even with the Phase 1 inclusion.
KATIE COLE: Good evening, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. My name is Katie Cole; I’m with Fehr & Peers
Transportation Consultants. Our office is at 160 West Santa
Clara Street in downtown San Jose. I prepared the traffic
analysis for the EIR and then subsequent analysis for the
Phase 1 project.
I think this question is best answered by
stepping back and telling you a little bit about traffic
analysis, so that we can talk about where those two numbers
come from.
When we’re doing a traffic analysis the Town and
other jurisdictions, like Caltrans and VTA, have standards
for what we look at. We typically evaluate either level of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service or quality of service for transportation
facilities. For intersections specifically we look at peak
hours, so we look at the AM commute time and the PM commute
time. That typically corresponds to 7:00 to 9:00 in the
morning, and 4:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon.
What we do is we take traffic counts at locations
that could be affected and we evaluate how they’re
operating today, and we do that by using average delay. We
look at the intersection and we look at how much vehicle
traffic is there. We count bikes, we count pedestrians, we
got some computer models that help us evaluate average
delay at those intersections. It looks at every single
movement and approach and it figures out if you were to
approach that intersection, how long on average would you
be stuck there?
When we did the traffic analysis for the EIR we
looked at the full build-out of the project, and we did
counts at the very end of 2012 and 2013 at numerous
intersections around Los Gatos and Campbell and San Jose to
evaluate how they were operating at that timeframe.
We also then added in all of the traffic that
would be caused by projects that were either under
construction or already approved, for example, the Albright
project was included in that, and that’s called the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“background traffic.” It’s existing traffic, plus traffic
from all these other things that are happening, and that
gives us the background traffic.
When we were asked to do some subsequent analysis
for the Phase 1 project we were asked what happens now that
we are adding in Phase 1 on top of the background traffic?
So 2013 traffic, plus we added about 16 developments that
were in process, under construction, or approved, plus
Phase 1. Then the other things we added were all of the
improvements that were part of the Phase 1 project, for
example, at Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark there are
additional lane configurations, so an additional northbound
left turn lane and additional eastbound left turn lane, so
from Lark onto Los Gatos Boulevard. There are also a
variety of pedestrian improvements, crosswalk changes, and
things like that. At the intersection of SR 17 northbound
on Lark there is an additional right turn lane to get onto
the freeway. So we added all of that into our traffic
analysis.
Where those percentages come from is when you
look at just background traffic analysis with no lane
configuration improvements at those intersections, you get
a certain average delay. Then when you add in the North 40
Phase 1 project, you end those traffic improvements. What
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ends up happening is you actually decrease delay a little
bit, because you’ve added additional lanes, you’ve added
additional capacity. So that’s where those numbers come
from.
We did it at two intersections. For Phase 1
anyway we looked specifically at more contained and
adjacent to the site, because we already looked at build-
out for 20+ intersections. We were really trying to
understand the localized impacts of Phase 1 and make sure
that it is conforming with the EIR, so that’s where those
numbers came from.
If you compare background to background plus
Phase 1, plus the transportation improvements, you end up
with a 36% reduction in delay in the morning. So you go
from 51 seconds of average delay down to 32.7 seconds of
average delay, and that change is 36%.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you for doing that,
because I think we’re probably going to get into some
detail on that later. I did want to hear it, because this
is what I saw here.
The second question I had was about what’s
included in the TIA. I looked at Fact 9 in the Staff Report
that lists six future, I guess, significant pending
development projects. When I look at that list, five of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those six are complete now, and they’re all occupied, and I
believe one of them is only 50% occupied. To what extent
did you rely on projections on those five versus taking
counts after those five were in place?
KATIE COLE: The last time we took counts was
January and February of 2013, so we have not taken
additional traffic counts since then.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Do you believe that we
should take another look at those counts, given that those
are before those projects, or some of those projects, were
complete?
KATIE COLE: It’s always fine to take additional
traffic counts, that’s fine; I think you would get some
information from that. However, when we did the background
analysis for the EIR, we added in 16 approved and pending
developments at their full build-out on top of those
existing counts, so we have in essence accounted for what
those projects would be like at their full occupancy, and
so I feel confident that we have accounted for those other
things that are happening in the Town, and also in adjacent
towns.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Which raises two other
things.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One is did you in any way analyze the impact of
the WAZE Apple/Google situation in beach traffic?
KATIE COLE: You mean like where it’s routing
people?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, and the impact that
it’s having, the actual impact in town.
KATIE COLE: We didn’t look specifically,
although I do understand that particularly on weekends and
during holiday time periods there is diversion from the
freeway onto Los Gatos Boulevard. We specifically analyzed
per state of the practice and what’s required by standards,
the commute periods, which you don’t tend to get as much of
that diversion happening.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, and the last one was
something you mentioned a little bit, and that’s holiday
traffic. I’m sure that holiday traffic would be a much
bigger issue for Phase 2, but even Phase 1, do you
anticipate traffic entering and leaving at a much higher
rate around the holidays?
KATIE COLE: The project site or just Los Gatos
in general?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: No, the project site and the
adjacent Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATIE COLE: I think you’ll continue to have what
you have now, which is around holiday time you get busy
traffic conditions on weekends; it’s pretty common in
Silicon Valley. We don’t typically analyze for that
condition, because then you’re building roads for your
worst-case scenario. We can’t maintain and we can’t build
capacity to cover the worst-case scenarios that you have.
It’s just not a good use of funding, and it makes your
roads really, really big, and there are tradeoffs to that,
because the minute you start to expand the roads, you’ve
now made it less desirable for bicycling, you’ve made
crossing distances much longer for pedestrians, so there’s
a balance when you’re adding capacity to roadways.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So is anything in Phase 1 in
any way analogous to the traffic at, let’s say, Valley Fair
at the holiday season?
KATIE COLE: No, and we did not analyze it that
way. It’s a small, mostly neighborhood-serving, commercial
type of a use.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Since we have you, can you
help me think through an issue? There’s an additional left-
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
turn lane heading east on Lark that would turn left going
north…
KATIE COLE: Onto Los Gatos Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: …onto Los Gatos Boulevard,
which your analysis, and I respect the analysis and I
assume that it does, would reduce the wait time. Now, if I
understood you correctly, and my own review of the traffic
analysis earlier, there is no additional capacity added
going north on Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark and,
however you look at it, Good Samaritan and Burton,
depending on which side you want to call, so despite the
fact that there is a long-term build-out plan to expand Los
Gatos Boulevard and the plans of the Town, we don’t own all
the right-of-way and that kind of stuff at this point in
time.
Can you help me understand what the impact will
be, or the effect will be, of adding that additional turn
lane onto Los Gatos Boulevard headed north when you’re
providing the opportunity for a greater number of cars to
pass through, and not adding any capacity to accommodate
them in the stretch between Lark and Good Samaritan? So
help me understand how to think about that.
KATIE COLE: Just the physical design, so clearly
when you have a three, so you would have three left-turn
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lanes going from Lark onto northbound Los Gatos Boulevard.
You have to have receiving lanes to accept those cars. For
every lane that turns left, you have to have a lane for
those cars to enter, so what the physical design looks like
now and can be easily accommodated within the existing
space that is available on Los Gatos Boulevard is as a
merge lane. One of those three lanes that are turning left
will merge back, and then you would continue to have the
two northbound lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard.
The reason that that works is because as you
process traffic through a signal, let’s say that the left
turn gets 30 seconds of green time, so you process as many
cars as you can turning left in, say, 30 seconds. Then the
light turns red, stop says left turns, they have a chance
to merge in, spread out, and continue on their way through
the street.
CHAIR BADAME: Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Erekson? Did you have further comments?
KATIE COLE: Where you get bottlenecks from
merges is when you have a continual flow of traffic that
never gets paused. In a traffic signal situation, you’re
cycling through all of the movements of the traffic signal,
and so you’re getting little breaks. After you’ve processed
big platoons of traffic, you get a little break after every
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time the light turns red. It allows cars to continue on and
merge. We’ve got a lot of examples of this situation. It
could be at ramps, it could be at intersections in the
middle of town, in the middle of cities.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I don’t want to get off on
this too much, and I don’t want to pretend to be a traffic
engineer, because I’m not. So the other complication that
would occur would be the northbound traffic? The light will
change and the flow of northbound traffic will go north,
but you’re going to control that by the way you control the
light…
KATIE COLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: …because you wouldn’t
allow that to happen, you have let the turn… Okay, I got
it.
KATIE COLE: And I think another good point…
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: That’s fine; I got it.
KATIE COLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: And we have traffic
engineers for the Town that I can…
KATIE COLE: I also just want to mention that the
improvements that are being constructed at this
intersection are not to accommodate Phase 1 of the North 40
project. These are improvements that were part of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town’s Capital Improvement Program and are being
constructed as part of an improvement plan to help traffic
flow in general in that area. We looked at what would be
necessary for just Phase 1 of the project, and you would
not necessarily conform to the standards that the Town has;
we would not need to construct those improvements.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Along those lines, I think, of
the extent to which the offsite improvements are being
provided, and this may not be a question for you, and I may
follow up with Staff later, but in the original—it’s called
the original—March 30th Staff Report, there are 14 bullets
on projects that are going to happen to mitigate new
traffic, and as you just pointed out, existing traffic. I
was wondering how exactly that works. Ms. Baker, you had a
slide up yesterday that showed $10.5 million being
earmarked for these projects, the offsite improvements,
that didn’t include the onsite improvements.
WENDI BAKER: This is exclusively offsite.
Offsite there is about $1 million worth of traffic
mitigations that would be required per the EIR. However,
the Town has identified certain areas. We are out there
digging up utilities, putting in new pipes. It’s the right
time to go out and do the capital improvements that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town has as part of their long-term vision, as well as have
integrated as a community benefit for the Specific Plan.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I misunderstood. That $10.25
million is not for these offsite improvements?
WENDI BAKER: That is for the offsite. The onsite
improvements are exclusive from this number. This number is
only with relation to Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard
improvements.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s Item 2, and it’s the Staff
Report from March 30th, and it’s very ambitious. It’s the
clearest one I’ve seen on how much work is going to be done
to help us out, and you’re saying that’s what the $10.25
million is for?
WENDI BAKER: That is correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay. So how does that work? I
start building this, and you write checks to the Department
of Parks and Public Works, or they bill you?
WENDI BAKER: Typically it would be much more
efficient for a developer, because we’re already out there
doing, again, the pipes and so forth, to also do the work
here. We would obviously also bond for this, so that if
something happened and the developer did not finish, then
the Town could finish it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: So these funds are dedicated,
specifically marked, for these 15 or so projects? What if
there was an overrun? What if the $10.25 million wasn’t
enough? What have we done to ourselves?
WENDI BAKER: Then we’ll be paying for the
increase. This is on us, so we’ll be paying for the
increase. Costs go up, right? Cost of concrete goes up,
cost of asphalt goes up, cost of everything goes up,
construction, costs, labor, and so if costs have gone up
and this now becomes $11 million additional, then we’ve now
completed $11 million worth.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So you have a commitment with
the Town. We’re estimating $10.25 million, all these
improvements being put in to a large part for this project,
but if it goes over, you’ll cover the overage, not the
Town?
WENDI BAKER: That is correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Further questions? Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had one more area I wanted
to get into from my perspective, and that’s open space, and
I had a few questions about open space.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Is it correct that the park is less than half an
acre, and the orchard is about less than half an acre? And
related to that, if the rest of the open space is spread
across the site, why not consider concentrating more open
space in larger areas, as compared to having it spread as
much across the site?
WENDI BAKER: Do you have the slide from our
slideshow that shows the breakdown? Maybe that will be more
helpful than this, I think.
The community park includes the 39 garden plots,
and there are orchards throughout the entire Specific Plan,
so this application is not only a half an acre of orchard
plantings, but that community park is about the size of
Town Plaza, which is about 22,000 square feet, so that is
about half an acre.
When we are looking at this area right here, what
we’re very cautious of, we weren’t including some of these
paseos that run into there and so forth. There are other
areas that are open space. The idea was to have
interconnection, to have great paseos, and great pedestrian
connections, to have the setbacks on Lark and Los Gatos
Boulevard, and within the Specific Plan. It’s not
contemplating one large turf, one soccer field; the intent
in the Specific Plan is to spread out the open space.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: The two largest areas are
the park, and the orchard that fronts Lark Avenue?
WENDI BAKER: Well, no. I think we have here the
perimeter lot coverage is about 40,000 square feet. That
includes this area right here, and this area right here.
That’s about 11.2% of the total open space. Not 11.2% of
the 30%, that’s 11.2% of 100% of the 30%, if that makes any
sense. It get’s a little bit complicated.
So these areas, while significant, are not the
only areas within the Specific Plan. This area here is
about a 12,000 to 13,000 square foot open space; it’s about
the size of a large single-family lot without the home on
it, so that is a nice park area. We have other areas.
I’ll give an example. When you drive past the
recently completed Lester Lane—I don’t want to draw on any
previous developments as bad examples—but they have a small
park in there that’s about 5,000 square feet, which is
similar to some of these parks that you might be looking
at, and it actually has a sign on it that it’s for private
use only and that it’s only for residents and you had…
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR BADAME: I’m sorry, members of the
audience, I have to ask you to refrain from speaking.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WENDI BAKER: So if you drive back in that new
subdivision that was at the Swanson Ford site, there is a
park in there with that sign.
All of these spaces are open to the public, as we
mentioned last night, 85% of them open to the public. The
orchards I believe are 2.2 acres.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just maybe if you could get
to the other question, why focus on spreading out the open
space versus having it more concentrated and creating
larger areas of open space?
WENDI BAKER: I’m going to try to pull up the
information within the Specific Plan, and if you don’t
mind, it’s just going to take me a moment, because the
Specific Plan has certain sections that identify having
smaller, more neighborhood, if you want to call them
“pocket parks,” and then also having interconnectivity with
pedestrian ways.
CHAIR BADAME: While you research that, I believe
Vice Chair Kane has a question, if it’s a quick one. No?
All right.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I did have one more follow
up on open space when I get this answered, if you don’t
mind.
CHAIR BADAME: Certainly.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that has to do with some
of the things that were raised by Ms. Doerner yesterday
about the open space and what percentage is open green
versus hardscape? I know it’s all shown as green on here,
but what percentage is hardscape versus actual green?
WENDI BAKER: We have that calculation for this
area in its entirety, and that’s what you see when we have
to break… I think it’s in your Staff Report; 22+% of green
space versus the, I believe it was, 39% of overall, which
includes plazas, and it includes the multi-use trails,
which you cannot include as part of our green open space,
which we have both within the project as well as on the
perimeter of the project.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that does not include
hardscape?
WENDI BAKER: Again, the 39% does, but the 22+%
does not. She was specifically referring to a very small
portion of our plan where we do have some enclosed first
level spaces for private use, and we are referring to that
in our plan as private open space, and that is not within
the 85% of publicly assessable open space that we
(inaudible) yesterday.
The assumption is in those spaces that we would
have about 50% hardscape and 50% softscape, but even if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those private open spaces were 100% hardscape, we would
still have far above 20% of the green space that’s required
for the Specific Plan.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Perhaps I should reframe my
question. I was talking about the public open space. What
percentage of that is hardscape versus green?
WENDI BAKER: I don't know if we have that exact
calculation, but we have 22+% that’s green, and then 39%,
so you end up with… The idea was that you would get about
10% of sidewalks, multi-use paths, plazas and so forth,
minimum, and we end up with about 19% as those things. Some
of that is adapting 10’ wide multi-use paths to have great
pedestrian and bicycle connections, and you do not count
that towards your green space.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane, and then
Commissioner Hanssen.
WENDI BAKER: Okay, to get back to your original,
in Policy 03, Neighborhood Open Space Network, it says,
“Provide an open space network of neighborhood parks,
passive open space, plazas, pedestrian paseos, landscape
buffers, and/or common open space per Specific Plan open
space standards.” Then it goes on to discuss what might be
appropriate uses. No requirements, but what might be
appropriate uses.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: What number are you
referring to?
WENDI BAKER: That is Policy 03; it’s on 2-11 of
the Specific Plan.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I got it.
WENDI BAKER: The goal about that says, “To
integrate an interconnected system of open spaces, parks,
and plazas with the Specific Plan area,” and right before
that it says, “The Specific Plan area shall encourage
outdoor activity by integrating a variety of open spaces
such as pocket parks, parks and plazas, common gathering
areas, courtyards, pedestrian paseos, clubhouse and
barbeque areas, walkable streets lined with large shade
trees and active streetscape, landscape buffers, and ample
seating areas.”
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: You’re welcome.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane, followed by
Commissioner Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Last night at about 11:15 I
thought Commissioner Erekson asked an outstanding question,
and I think I remember you giving some outstanding answers,
but it was late. So what I actually did is I went back to
the tape during the day and found the segment, and came up
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with some additional issues. This concerns buildings for
Complex 24 and 25. I’m looking at page 1.0.
CHAIR BADAME: Of the application.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I had earlier talked about
Building 24 sort of sticking out and being right on top of
the garage and gas and concerns about distance from
gasoline, and Commissioner Erekson was talking about not
just Building 24, but Garden Cluster 25 as well. He didn’t
say this, but I’m saying it: They just kind of, sort of
stick out like sore thumbs, like they got squeezed in
there, and I may need to talk to Ms. Krugmeier about that.
Commissioner Erekson asked questions along the
line of is this excellence in planning and good long-term
planning? He made the point, and I remember the mantra:
“Commercial, commercial, housing, commercial,” and they
just stick out in the middle of that whole commercial row.
Larry Cannon had some concerns with…my
interpretation is the isolation of the two buildings, and
in his last letter asked that you do something about that,
and I think—and Ms. Krugmeier may know—the other architect
responded that they put in more lanes and more access and
more something, and I’m just saying I appreciate that, but
it tends of underscore their isolation that they would put
in more roads and lanes, and so the question I suppose is…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I heard your answers to Commissioner Erekson last
night. You’ve got these guys opening on Los Gatos
Boulevard, and you’ve got them in the middle of commercial,
and they just seem alienated. The question is have you
thought about trying to put them somewhere else? Move the
other thing to the east, and maybe have some open space
there?
Garden Cluster 24 is a building, and then it
calls itself a five-plex. So that means what, there are two
dwelling units in Building 24 itself, and then three
separate little tiny condos?
WENDI BAKER: The way that those buildings
function is they are three units in the front, and there is
sort of like a carriage unit above the garages, so you end
up with, I believe, five units in that area.
What our constraints were, which was what I was
speaking about yesterday, is that this is Los Gatos
Boulevard. You can confirm with Staff whether I made an
accurate assumption, but we were told pretty early on that
ingress and egress out of this area, given the right turn
lane, how people are starting to merge onto that right turn
lane, there’s a conflict of movements, so you ended up with
a… You have a 30’ orchard setback, you have a 20’ two-story
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
setback. Actually, our two-story goes to right about here,
so we don’t go to 35’ until beyond there.
You’re right, this is a constrained area, and
perhaps you could put open space in this area and instead
put more units to get to your 20 units per acre. In the
community park, for example, you starting shifting
buildings around, and we didn’t feel that ultimately
placing open space on the Boulevard was necessarily going
to be the most useful open space, nor is there a
requirement for us to not have these buildings on there; in
fact, they’re a permitted use.
So while I understand where your thought process
is with respect to continuity along the boulevard, long
range planning and so forth, these are permitted within the
Specific Plan.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m sure they’re permitted. It
doesn’t make them a good idea. I’m talking about those six
tiny, little units that open out onto Los Gatos Boulevard.
They’re children waving in the wind, and those six could be
relocated, whereas the Garden Cluster Buildings 24 and 25
have a huge setback right where they are, and it looks like
it was necessary to squeeze those guys in, and that just
doesn’t strike me as good design, especially when they’re
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surrounded by gasoline stations and large commercial
buildings.
WENDI BAKER: We obviously are constrained in
this area by the existing build-out in this area as well as
access. Ultimately, the buyer of these units will know that
these units are fronting onto Los Gatos Boulevard. We’re
not going to somehow shield Los Gatos Boulevard.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I think they’ll figure that
out. Even if they’re young Millennials, they’ll figure that
out. My opinion is—I’ve got to put this in the form of a
question—you may want to relocate those, because it doesn’t
seem to be the best design characteristic of other good
designs in the project, and I don’t think it goes to the
look and feel. It goes to the look and squeeze in.
WENDI BAKER: I do appreciate your comment, and
it’s something that we can continue.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I’m going to take that
as a did you know, and I’m going to move on to Commissioner
Hanssen.
CHAIR BADAME: I had a question about the parks
relating to Ms. Doerner’s presentation yesterday. Is it
true that none of the parks have any playground equip?
WENDI BAKER: There is not playground equip. If
you have feedback that you would like to have playground
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
equip, we would enjoy hearing that. But there is, again, no
requirement for playground equipment, and given who our
target buyer is that’s not necessarily what this audience
is interested in. But that is something that we would be
happy to discuss.
CHAIR BADAME: I don't know that we did or we
didn’t; I just wanted to understand, and given that I think
most people are assuming that with three-bedroom and four-
bedroom places that people with children will move in
there. At least when I raised my kids, we used to take them
to the park with the playground equipment.
WENDI BAKER: We do oftentimes when we’re
building communities integrate a tot lot. There are spaces
for a tot lot within this community. We’ve put in other
facilities like Bocce ball courts, fire pits, a dog park.
We’ve put in other types of amenities, again, to fill the
unmet needs of Los Gatos. So there is an opportunity. There
is a lovely park right nearby at Highland Oaks, and there
is a tot lot that’s there, and again, because you can find
this in other areas of town, and because we are running
everything through these unmet needs filter and the
“shalls” within the Specific Plan, we did not provide a tot
lot, but that’s something we’re open to talking about.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That’s fine, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: I’m going to take a moment to just
remind the audience to please refrain from any comments, or
any booing or hissing, and please respect the differences
in opinion that we all have. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Was your question answered? All right. Do we have
further questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: A couple of minor ones about
the plans. Maybe this was covered, but I might have missed
it. Who manages the community gardens and orchards? Is the
orchard parking considered open space? And are there walnut
trees that are being utilized in the plans?
WENDI BAKER: I can start with we do have our
agrarian consultant here, Zach Lewis. He’s helped us design
the varietals of the orchard trees. We’ve put a tremendous
amount of time and thought into how we maintain this.
Ultimately, this is owned and maintained and managed by the
HOA. There will be an operating plan in place, which Zach
can talk about.
There are some walnut trees integrated. They’re
in this region, I believe. There are also some vineyards
along here, so there are both in that area. We are open to
talking about different varietals, or more walnuts, as we
spoke of in the last Planning Commission meeting, but I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think Zach might want to talk about how we arrived at the
544 different orchard trees and species.
ZACH LEWIS: Good evening. Could you just
rephrase the question again?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Three questions: Who manages
the community gardens and orchards? Is the orchard parking
considered open space? And when and how are the walnut
trees being utilized?
ZACH LEWIS: In terms of how the orchard and the
gardens will be managed, that’s going to be a part of the
design process based on the perspective buyers and the
people that will inhabit the community. I’m putting forward
a package of recommendations and ideas on how to maintain
community gardens and the orchard. There are a variety of
examples.
Through the HOA and being able to pay for
somebody that’s going to manage that, you can have that
person manage the orchard entirely, and I’m giving an
entire packet on how to manage it.
Or if there is interest from the people that are
actually living there, they would have the opportunity to
maintain a role in that as well. That’s one way to go about
it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
With the community gardens, again, an individual
that runs the landscape could manage it, but the better way
to do it would be to integrate it and have people that are
actually living there manage the plots themselves and take
home and share in the produce. What was the second
question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is the orchard parking
considered open space.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: Regarding the open space
calculations, we used what were the dimensions and
specifications within the Specific Plan on every
calculation for open space, so the answer is that if there
are elements within the parking that I believe are 6’ or
greater wide, then they can be counted in open space. If
they are narrower than that, then they cannot be counted as
open space or green space.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I could direct your
attention to 2.2. There’s a picture on the bottom that says
“Orchard Parking,” and then right next to it is an area
that looks like that might be what we’re talking about. Is
that the orchard parking, and is that entire area
considered open space?
PAULA KRUGMEIER: No, it’s not. Just the part
that’s actually planted; a little strip where you plant the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tree is permitted to be counted as open space. The parking
lot is not open space. The paved area is not open space.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
PAULA KRUGMEIER: I would also like to add that
there has been a tremendous amount of thought put into the
open spaces here, not just in two dimensions, but the
experience in three dimensions. How one travels through
these spaces, where they get narrower, where they get
wider, where they open up, where you have this kind of
landscape environment or you have a different kind of
landscape environment; so as you travel through the North
40 you have a variety of experiences, as you have a variety
of experiences in the Town of Los Gatos.
The open space also accommodates a multi-model
path, and as we get into the Transition District the open
space embraces a pedestrian environment that’s a little bit
different than the Lark District.
There’s just been a tremendous amount of thought
going into the exact dimensions of these spaces. How the
tree canopies are, how the walkways are, how they relate to
stoops, how the fact that all the garage doors are facing
the back and not facing the streets. So anyway, there’s a
lot of layering that has gone on here, and that has gone
into the open space plan. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions for the
Applicant? Seeing none, the public testimony portion of the
public hearing is now closed, so you may have a seat, Ms.
Baker. Thank you very much. Yes, we will take a break. We
will come back in ten minutes.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR BADAME: If you could all please take a
seat, the ten minutes are up. Please take a seat. Thank
you, everybody.
We have a multi-faceted application, which
requires a thorough analysis, so before we evaluate the
items on page 5 of the Staff Report, do Commissioners have
any questions or comments? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a question, because
this is the first time since I’ve been on the Commission
that we’ve looked at a Vesting Tentative Map. It seemed to
me that the answer would be yes, but if you’re looking at
the Architecture and Site in the Vested Tentative Map,
could there be a scenario where you would say yes to one
and no to the other, because they’re kind of tied in to
each other? Does my question make sense?
JOEL PAULSON: It does make sense, and generally
they are locked together when you have the map in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Architecture and Site, because the map actually lays out
the footprints, so they are tied together and there are
separate findings for both the Map Application and the
Architecture and Site Application.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Right, and that’s why I
asked the question, because the findings were different,
but it seemed to me they kind of went hand-in-hand.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I have a couple of
questions for Staff. My guess is the first couple of
questions will be for Mr. Morley and his Staff and relate
to traffic and offsite improvements, and then my subsequent
question will be either for him or potentially for Mr.
Paulson or Mr. Schultz.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I just wondered if the Chair
wanted to structure this section of the discussion at all,
because we have the possibility of being in a lot of
different areas?
CHAIR BADAME: We do, and my hope was to walk
through the items on page 5 with Housing, and Open Space,
and View Corridors, moving to Traffic and Additional
Environmental Review, which Traffic would be second. Would
you mind holding off on that, Commissioner Erekson?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I serve at the pleasure of
the Council, and at meetings at the pleasure of the Chair.
CHAIR BADAME: I’m so glad. Thank you for your
understanding.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Before we begin that journey, I
have a question of Staff. The eventual motion on this
project is reasonably huge compared to other motions we
have had. Is the net result of that binary? In other words,
if we found compliance with 15 of the 16 requirements and
someone makes an issue on number 16, would that cause a
motion to fail? It’s not a motion though; it’s a
recommendation, isn’t it? We’re not voting to approve or
deny, we’re making a recommendation to Town Council, so if
one of us had an issue with certain planks in the 15
conditions and findings, what would that do to the motion
to recommend or not recommend?
JOEL PAULSON: That would be reflected in however
the Commissioner votes on the item in total. There could be
additional comments added to the record as far as I agree
with X, Y and Z, but not A.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So we don’t have to agree to
everything? Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This is a question I guess
maybe for the attorney. I read the letter from the
Applicant, the July 7th letter, and there was a lot of
discussion about objective and subjective standards. When I
go and I read the Specific Plan, which contains the
standards that are going to be applied, I don’t see
anywhere that says this is a subjective standard; the
following is an objective standard.
I take all the words seriously and I want to see
whether this is acceptable, so when I look at the words I
say it’s how do you apply the standards that are in there,
and some of those words can be supported or denied by
facts, and that is where I see something being objective.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I agree with that statement.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Where I can’t see something
supported by facts, then it falls in the subjective
category. Is that a fair way for me to operate?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That’s a fair way to operate,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, let’s get started. We will
start our discussion on page 5, under Analysis, with the
Housing topic, which was quite a hot ticket based on public
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
testimony and written communication. So would anybody like
to start the conversation as it relates to housing?
I have a question then, and this will be for
Staff. There was testimony we received last night about the
RHNA requirements. If this gets built, how many units
actually meet the requirements? Is it 50, is it 270/320?
What is it?
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll begin, and if the attorney
wants to jump in.
For the planning exercise of creating the housing
element, the Town is required to show how it can
accommodate the Town’s regional housing needs. Through that
exercise different sized jurisdictions have default
densities for what housing and community development allows
that jurisdiction for the Housing Element portion of the
planning exercise to count as affordable. The Town’s is 20
units per acre, and so that’s where we got these 20 units
per acre, the by right developments for the 13.5 acres for
the North 40.
We are simply with the Housing Element planning
and showing that we can accommodate that housing in the
Town. The Town ultimately isn’t building all of that
housing, so the market will come forward with applications,
which may or may not be on some of our housing sites for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the housing sites inventory, and then when those are built
they will be credited into the category for the
affordability level. That’s Staff’s understanding.
In this case we will have 50 of the units will be
in one of the affordable level categories, and the
remainder of the units will be in the Above Moderate
category, which is a category of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment. We will get credit for those units, but all of
those units above the 50 will not be credited as affordable
housing units, because they won’t be restricted. That is
Staff’s understanding, unless the Town Attorney has any
additional.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: What you have to remember is the
Housing Element is just a planning document. It’s just to
show the State, because the State has mandated us and every
other jurisdiction to come up with a plan to show what your
RHNA numbers are, and that you have the ability somewhere
out there to make these types of units available. Certainly
the Applicant could have come in with all of those
different categories, but we can’t require him, even though
our Housing Element says that that’s just a planning
document.
The application in front of you has the 50 Very
Low, which we’ll get credit for, and then we’ll get credit
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the above market rate, but they’re still part of our
total RHNA numbers of the 619. Then when we come back at
this in 2022, it will be reevaluated and we’ll have to show
where the numbers can be met, if not on this site still,
elsewhere.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I just wanted to also
check my understanding, and my understanding is that under
the Specific Plan and under various requirements on us,
including what started with the State, we are required to
take 13.5 acres of the North 40, which is more than the
first phase, and see that that has the 20+ units; not less
than that, but that many.
We have talked about the possibility of being
able to move those, but we’ve also talked about the fact
that we’ve heard from the Applicant the difficulty of
moving them, for example, on the northerly part it has to
be above retail and that makes it very difficult to achieve
20 units to the acre.
So I guess the question simply is, somewhere on
the North 40 there must be 13.5 acres with 20 units per
acre, so we don’t have any discretion on that. We may have
discretion, may have discretion, on moving it, but we don’t
have discretion on reducing it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Correct. Let’s say down the road
the entire North 40 area is built out and we are still in
our current planning period and we haven’t hit the 13.5-
acre threshold, then we would have to accommodate another
site that would provide 20 units per acre, and rezone it
for the buy right development. So really, there are some
factors that weigh in there as far as where are we at in
the Housing Element cycle and how long does that timeframe
take.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You said the next cycle
starts when?
JOEL PAULSON: 2023.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And we have no knowledge
of when the north portion, if at all, will develop?
JOEL PAULSON: We don’t, and we’re currently just
evaluating the Phase 1 applications.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just as a follow up to that,
this is something that although I’ve been involved in this
for a while, I’m not quite clear on. The 13.5 acres, do
they have to be contiguous?
JOEL PAULSON: There is nothing in there that
says that they have to be contiguous.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So how do you get to density
if you have, let’s say, 13.5 individual acres peppered
across that? How is density measured in that case?
JOEL PAULSON: The density is measured on the
dwelling units, so using your example, you could have 13
one-acre sites at 20 units per acre, and then another half
acre at 20 units per acre, so that would be 20 for each of
those acres and then ten for the half-acre that’s left
over. Typically that’s not how things would come forward,
and that’s not how development generally occurs, but I
don't know that there’s any restriction as to that being a
possibility. Obviously there’s a (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER HUDES: How is the site defined? I
said acres, but is it a parcel? What is a site? How does
that relate?
JOEL PAULSON: The example that they put up
earlier, and it’s on the back wall, is how they are
calculating, and that is Exhibit… So we’ll find the
exhibit, but how they’re calculating it is those blocks of
gray contain a certain number of acres, and then they are
looking at the number of units that are within those
blocks, and that gives you the dwelling units per acre.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen, followed by
Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a question about the
density bonus, because it came up in the letter from the
Applicant’s attorney, and it was in our packet as well. I
worked on the Housing Element part, so I had some
understanding of it, but this is fairly complex.
My understanding of the density bonus is that
what kicks in the density bonus is if you have the required
percentage of affordable units as a percentage of the total
units that are being requested, is that correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That is correct. There are varying
scales.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Right. So just
hypothetically, if it was 100 units and 20% of them or 40%
of them are affordable, you could get the density bonus,
whatever the table says?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct. Some percentage of
density bonus, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And as it stands right
now, not all of the potential units are being built out?
They could be built out anyway, so the density bonus that
they would get if this particular project were approved
wouldn’t be 100% of the bonus that they could get if they
built out the other 44 units?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Correct, and actually doing 237 in
the first phase is their base, so to get to the 270 there
are 33 units left that could be accommodated in a future
phase, and so that, coupled with the 33% bonus if they met
the particular criteria, I think it’s 2/44 or 2/45; there’s
a rounding question that’s there.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: It’s our understanding
that the statement that was made in the Applicant’s
attorney’s letter is not correct, that they can get the 35%
bonus on the amount of units they build, as long as they
meet the required affordable percentage?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Before I get to my
question I want to make sure I understood that last answer.
You say that is inconsistent with what their lawyer said?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: If I read the letter
correctly, and perhaps I read it incorrectly, it said that
if you don’t approve the current proposal we can’t get the
density bonus.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You won’t get the
density bonus unless you build something, right?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think it said the full
270 units.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You mean the 35% is
applied to the 270 units? I guess I’m not following the
question.
JOEL PAULSON: How I understood the question was
that if they get the density bonus that they have to be
approved at the current density that they’re proposing. Is
that the statement that you were looking at in the letter?
Or do you have it in front of you?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I probably should pull up
the exact wording.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: While she’s doing that…
I would like to go back to it when she gets there, because
it’s an important point.
Somewhat on the same line, the Applicant has said
look, we’re required to get 13.5 acres at the higher
density, and they said we’re doing it. Now, there’s been
discussion, and I’m going to pin this down, that there is a
piece of the Transitional area that is not before us
tonight, but there is a piece and nobody has told us the
acreage. Well, I guess it’s three or four acres, I don't
know. And then in addition to that Transition acreage,
which is not before us but apparently under the control of
Grosvenor, there’s the north 20 acres, or whatever it is.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m wondering, if an applicant comes in and says
you’re required to have 13.5 acres at higher density, and
they submit that, can they be denied on some basis like we
don’t want it within that geographical area? Yes, we want
it in the 40 acres, but we don’t necessarily want, for
example, all of it in the first phase, because that is what
the attorney said we could not do. What is our opinion on
that?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: If I understand the question
correctly, once the 13.5 acres have been developed out at
residential completely and you have the number of housing
at 345, then the Specific Plan is built out and it would
not allow any more residential units on the North 40 unless
an amendment was done.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But that’s not my
question.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My question is an
Applicant comes in and says here’s your Specific Plan. One
of the things that is in your Specific Plan is I’ve got to
develop 13.5 acres. Now, we could say to him you don’t have
to develop it, the 40 acres has to develop it.
So, as I read the attorney for the Applicant, the
attorney for the Applicant said look, we’ve submitted
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything “in their view” pursuant to your Specific Plan,
including the 13.5 acres, and, the letter goes on to say,
you don’t have the discretion to tell us to move some of
that high density acreage. So for example, say well, we’ll
take ten acres here and we’ll take 3.5 someplace else. She
has said no, you can’t do that.
So really what I’m asking is do we have a
position on that? Are we going to accept that as correct,
or do we think no, you could require it to move?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I’m going to allow the Planning
Commission to move those units for the discussion for this
evening. We’re still working through it and that comes down
to whether it’s an objective or subjective, but for you,
since it’s a recommendation, my opinion at this point in
time is you do have that ability to move units. That could
change when it gets to Council, but I’d rather give you the
ability to make those changes. But again, you have to at
least tie that somewhere between the objective standards
within the objective standards within the (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So I understand you to
say at the moment that’s true, but by the time it gets to
Council you have had sufficient time to have done more and
more legal analysis, and that’s fine, because it’s not
binding on that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(To Commissioner Hanssen) Did you find the
question you wanted?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I did. I think the
difference in what I asked and what is actually said in
here, it says, “Density Bonus Law requires the Town to
grant the density bonus and approve the 320 units the
project is entitled to. Density Bonus Law contains no
grounds in which a density bonus may be denied.”
My question was around the number of units, not
whether they would get the density bonus or not. What I’m
saying is if instead of 320 units, let’s say, I’m just
throwing out some number, it was 200, and 120 were deferred
to Phase 2. As long as they met the requirement for the
affordable housing, they would get the density bonus
against the 200 units?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And we wouldn’t question
that anyway, because we have a policy, an ordinance in Town
that says that yes, you get that?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: In the below market program,
I had a few questions about that, and I had some questions
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
last night referring to the Staff Report of March 30th, page
8, and the attorney’s letter of October 21st.
JOEL PAULSON: Can you please let us know what
the Exhibit letter is?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Exhibit 8, Attachment A,
isn’t it, October 21st? Yes, thank you. Let’s start with the
Staff Report, page 8, March 30th. Item B, “Is the
application in conformance with the Town’s BMP program?”
What are the consequences if it were not in compliance with
the BMP program?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: To drive it down a little bit
further, I think the question you’re asking is regarding
whether because our BMP says it has to be integrated within
and spread out throughout the project as opposed to being
on one site, does that make it a violation of our BMP?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Correct, and those are the
things that are in the attorney’s letter.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: What it does say in our BMP is
“where feasible,” and so when State law requires senior
housing to be located all together, to me, my opinion was
you can reach the opinion that yes, it’s not feasible to
spread it out in this scenario, because State and Federal
law does not allow you to do that. That’s the opinion I
rendered to the CDC when it was in front of them.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Because throughout all the talks with the
Specific Plan the senior housing was such a viable
component to the project, it’s very easy to make the
argument that it is in compliance with the BMP, because of
the fact that the Federal and State law do not allow you to
spread this out.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So despite the fact the
housing is concentrated in one area, and that it is
something that you can recognize as being separate, and
also has smaller square footage, those, I’m calling them
exceptions, are allowed, because that’s the only way that
this would be feasible?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: If you want senior housing.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: That’s the finding we have
to make.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Certainly the other part would
be to do away with senior housing and disperse the BMPs
throughout the entire project. They would not be senior
housing, because you’re not allowed to do that, so you
would lose senior housing in order to do the BMP. Finding
whether it’s in compliance or not is a whole different
product.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that’s the combination
of senior and BMP? It’s not senior in and of itself; it’s
that combination (inaudible).
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Senior in and of itself also has
to be even if it was senior without it being Low income, it
needs to be connected.
CHAIR BADAME: And senior would be considered one
of our unmet needs. Further comments on housing from
Commissioners? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Back to this issue about
where the units are located. The Specific Plan is silent
about how the units should be distributed. The guidance
that is given is that the amount of residential is mostly
in the Lark District, and then goes down as you go to the
Northern District, but residential is permitted in all
three districts, with the limitation especially in the
Northern District that it has to be over commercial.
We had discussed this yesterday, and in the case
of the Northern District, aside from the fact that it
looked like it might be difficult, it may not be
impossible, and also it might be the case that that’s
something that Millennials might want, which is one of the
potential unmet needs.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My question is since there isn’t really any
guidance about how this stuff should be distributed, then
there isn’t any guidance that you can’t distributed, then
there isn’t any guidance that you can’t distribute it, so
I’m trying to understand what latitude that we have,
because you can make an argument certainly that having the
housing distributed is going to be a significantly less
strain on resources by just having units in different
places, but the Specific Plan doesn’t tell you how many
could be where?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It does not, so that’s where on
the strain on resources you need to tie that to the
infrastructure or other objective standards that you can
find within the Specific Plan.
CHAIR BADAME: I would say you’re referring to
the un-specificity of the Specific Plan.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I am.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The only testimony we
have so far is that putting 20 units per acre on the
northern portion is not only impractical, but is impossible
under the height requirements and the requirement that it
be on the second floor.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As I understand it, the Town has not
independently tried to determine whether you could do 20
units per acre above retail. The testimony we received was
that you could not. So were we to find that do it anyway,
apparently we have nothing in the record to support that.
JOEL PAULSON: And I think what’s important is,
as I believe the Town Attorney said before, you need to tie
that stuff to evidence that’s in the record to support
those findings from the objective standards.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: In my mind, as an example,
the senior housing that’s currently in the Transition
District could be in the Northern District, for instance. I
think the statement I’ve seen is that you could not do all
270 at 20 units per acre in the Northern District; that’s
the testimony that I recall. I’m not even sure that we can
back that up, but that’s what I’ve seen; not that some
couldn’t be done in it.
JOEL PAULSON: I think the testimony that was
provided was for a 2.34-something acre site, so that was
the testimony that was provided by the Applicant that’s in
the record.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Could you repeat that?
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll get the exact. I think it’s
2.34 acre site is what their example was showing how it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would not work, because it came out to 13 or 14 dwelling
units per acre, even at that size of unit.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Taking that to a different
point, I don’t know what would happen if it went to the
logical conclusion, but I have to believe that when the
Specific Plan was created and the decision was made to put
residential only over commercial in the Northern District
that this particular issue that we’re in where you have to
have 20 units per acre wasn’t a consideration.
Because of the Housing Element, although it got
completed before the Specific Plan, it didn’t come to a
logical conclusion, and so I find it hard to think that
we’re in a situation where you can have literally all of
the units, other than the bonus units, have to be zoned at
20 units per acre, because 270 are allotted and 270 are
required. That basically says you can’t have housing in the
Northern District unless it’s with the bonus.
I don't know if the makers of the plan would have
intended it that way, or if it’s even valid that you can’t
possibly do it, but clearly the senior housing that’s in
the Transition District that’s proposed, as Commissioner
Hudes pointed out, has a waiver on the height restriction.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson, followed by
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I’m just going to comment
that my recollection of the testimony from the Applicants
with respect to whether or not one could meet the 20 units
per acre standard in the Northern District was a
combination of the limitation on the fact that it had to be
built over commercial, and the height limitation that is
imposed on that, and so the combination of those two made
it not possible to develop 20 units per acre; that’s my
recollection. I could be wrong, but that’s my recollection
of the testimony of the Applicants.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That is my recollection
too, but my point was that what I recall being presented to
us was that were this built out as proposed there would
still be 45 units for the Northern District. Now, that’s a
recollection, but I think that (inaudible).
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. So it isn’t that
there would be no units for the Northern District; under
this scenario there would be 45 units that could be built
on the northern portion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson, followed by
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Let me ask the Staff a
clarification of that. If I understand how the numbers
work, there are only 33 what I would call base market units
left of the 270, so that without qualifying for a density
bonus, the maximum number of the units that could be built
on the…remaining in subsequent phases, assuming this phase
were passed as proposed, there would be without a density
bonus only 33 units allowed, and at the maximum, if they
qualified, there’s either another 11 or 12, depending upon
whether you put in an Excel spreadsheet round up or round
down, so there’s a 33 to potential 44, 45 range that’s
possible, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could we try to get our
numbers straight, because they can’t both be correct. I
just said something diametrically opposed to that. I’d like
to think they could both be correct. Just give me the
numbers again. Forget the density bonus; I’m just
forgetting for the moment. How many units were to be put on
it? It was 750 or something, but it broke it down to a
lower number. What was that number?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: The maximum in the Specific Plan
is 270.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s for the whole 40,
or for the first phase?
JOEL PAULSON: For the whole Specific Plan,
however, the base dwelling units for this first phase are
237.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And that’s what the 35%
is applied (inaudible)?
JOEL PAULSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So 235 minus 270, it
gets down to what Commissioner Erekson (inaudible).
JOEL PAULSON: That’s 237 minus 270 is the 33
units base that are left, and then should someone apply for
a density bonus they could get up to an additional 12
units; that’s where the 45 number comes from and the range
that Commissioner Erekson was speaking of.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, did you want
to chime in?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I did want to
understand clearly whether Phase 1 equals Lark and
Transition 100%, or are there elements that are not part of
that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: There is a portion of the
Transition District that is not part of Phase 1.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And so if there were a
desire, there would not be the inability to have units
going into those areas, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct. There could be
units in the remainder of the Transition District in some
future phase.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that could be either in
the northeast corner or whatever direction that is on the
upper right, or potentially in the parking lot area behind
the buildings?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct. Generally, that kind of
chunk that’s cut out, and I think there’s a little bit more
as you come down to the Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So if there were
reconfiguration that caused things to shift, that same
number might be achieved in some of those areas in addition
to whatever might be achieved in the Northern District?
JOEL PAULSON: That is possible.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We had a number on, I
don't know what to call that, but it’s part of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
transition that is not before us, but does anybody have a
number for the acreage?
JOEL PAULSON: We do not have that number. We can
get that number.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We know the total
acreage of the property. We know the Northern area, and we
know what’s being developed.
JOEL PAULSON: We don’t have all the districts
broken down by acreage, and if we did, then I wouldn’t be
able to do that simple calculation for you. I can
definitely get that, or as part of the recommendation we
can carry that forward.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Just so we had some
orders of magnitude, does anybody have… Oh, here, this may
be it.
CHAIR BADAME: We may have some information
forthcoming.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It would be helpful to
us to have some idea.
JOEL PAULSON: Just for the record, this is a
document that the Applicant provided and they’re showing
4.8 acres, and we can put this up on the overhead if that
would be helpful.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Just for the purposes of
discussion, if we were to assume 4.8 acres.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There’s also a diagram that
shows a sliver of Transition District to the right of Phase
1 development. Does that exist, or is that an error?
JOEL PAULSON: That does exist. Why don’t we just
put this up on the board, so everyone can take a look at
it, and that way we’re all talking about what we’re…
CHAIR BADAME: That would be helpful.
Commissioners, does this help?
JOEL PAULSON: So that blue area is the notch,
and then as you can see to the right of the proposed Phase
1 there is a leg of additional Transition District, hence
4.8 acres, correct.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The numbers aren’t adding
up completely for me. It says the Northern District is 10.4
acres, and if I add the 10.4 to the 4.8, that’s like 15.2,
and I thought there are more like close to 20 left. Is it
that five acres that they have as a cutout?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t have the whole thing in
front of me, so I can’t tell you. Apparently we’re having
some technical difficulties.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The Northern is the
combination of the gray and the yellowish color?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That must be. If I’m doing
the math, it would have to be. Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But the only thing that
is not encumbered with the second story requirement, in
addition to what we’re going over, is that 4.8?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct, and so I guess to
Commissioner Hanssen’s, I wish I could read that far, but
the 10.4 and the 5 is the 15.4 that you mentioned, and
another 4.8 gets you up over 20 acres. You actually are
about half, so that is probably accurate.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So question to that is about
how many units at 20 units per acre could be in that 4.8?
You can’t just divide and come up with whatever it is, 96
or whatever, because you’ve got setbacks and other things,
streets and things like that.
JOEL PAULSON: But that’s the maximum; we would
look at the maximum. So the maximum that could be
accomplished there would be 96, based on 20 units per acre.
Now, whether or not that could be achieved from a site
planning and layout perspective, that’s an exercise that
would be for another application.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So is that a number that we
can work with as 96?
JOEL PAULSON: 4.8 acres times 20 units per acre
yields you 96 units, so that is the number you (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But we know that’s a
gross number.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And we don’t know how
much would have to be dedicated for streets and whatever
else, so it is a gross number.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Are there implications of us
using a gross number—and this may be for the attorney—
rather than an examined or planned number?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: You can go ahead and use any
number you would like.
JOEL PAULSON: I would say that using the gross
number, the implications potentially are that when someone
comes forward with an application that a) they’re not able
to accomplish 20 units per acre, or b) they don’t propose
any residential in that 4.8 acres, then you’re at zero, and
then you’re left with that moving forward to the Transition
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
District, which has the height and above commercial
restrictions previously discussed.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, but that application
could be denied though, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: Which application?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: That had no housing.
CHAIR BADAME: The potential one.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes. I mean you’d have to look at
the standards in the Specific Plan, so yes, someone could
come forward with all commercial and the Planning
Commission would make that determination.
CHAIR BADAME: Do we have further questions on
housing? Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Let me be sure that I
understand what the Chair’s pleasure is. Do you want
questions or comments at this point in time?
CHAIR BADAME: Actually, I want both. Because we
might have questions of Staff as we’re asking questions
now, but I would like the comments at the same time so that
we can do our analysis on housing, traffic, open space, and
look and feel. So to your pleasure, Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay, so I have a comment,
and I want to do a preface to the comment and say that I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fully understand that we cannot make decisions on housing
issues based on school impacts as a lead in to it.
But we’ve had a lot of public testimony about the
fact that a motivation—I’m not talking about a motivation
by the Commission, but an expressed motivation of the
public—would be to relocate housing in more northern and
across the school boundary lines in order to address
crowding in the schools. I want to suggest that that may or
may not be a smart strategy that would serve the residents
who are in the Los Gatos school districts well, just as a
matter of information so it’s on the record. Here’s some
information.
Property tax revenue is an important source of
review for the school districts, both the high school
district and the elementary school district; since they are
basic aid districts, they do not get funding from the State
on an average daily attendance, so to the extent that there
is property developed inside of the school district, they
get property tax for them.
The Los Gatos Union School District has also
entered into a voluntary agreement with the developers that
provides for them to be compensated, either in the form of
land or in the form of monetary compensation; I believe
that it’s $23,000, if my recollection is right, per
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
residential unit that is owned by the Applicant at the
point in time that they develop it and is in the school
district.
Let’s assume for the moment that this or some
other number of units were built in the side of the school
district, and let’s assume that some number of residential
units are built in the north part of the thing that are not
in the school districts here. It is highly likely that the
families that would live in that area will apply for inter-
district transfers, and the district will likely turn them
down, and those people are likely to appeal that to the
County Office of Education, and one of the important
criteria that the County Office of Education uses to
resolve those kind of appeals has to do with neighborhoods,
and we have been very public about the fact that this is a
neighborhood.
The risk is if in fact we push them more out of
our school districts—and I’m classifying the two Los Gatos
ones north—that in fact we will reduce both in perpetuity
the property tax revenue that goes to the school districts,
and we will reduce the short-term funding that comes to the
Union School District to address them, and if in effect
they were to grant the inter-district transfers, the school
districts would be burdened with the expense of educating
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those students with no revenue associated with it. That’s a
big risk to it.
That’s not a basis upon which we could make any
decision about it, but just for the record it may not be
the best strategy to reduce the number of residential units
if the unspoken motivation would be to try to address
crowding in the schools.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for those comments,
Commissioner Erekson. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I appreciate that. It’s very
helpful to understand that. For me, personally, I’m going
to stay totally away from that area in my deliberations. I
don’t have the comprehension of all of it that you do, and
so for me, my exploration about the movement and relocation
of units has to do more with could the layout of the site
be reconfigured in order to achieve some of the other
design standards that are in the plan? That’s why I was
pursuing the number that could be moved, and that type of
thing.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson, followed by
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I was going to say, the
reason why I said in the preface my understanding is we
cannot consider what I just said in our deliberations, so I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wouldn’t intend to either, but I felt the responsibility to
help educate the public. We’ve had a huge number of public,
verbally and in writing, help us, and in an effort to help
educate the public about if they think that’s a good
strategy, and if they were to criticize us for—and I’m not
saying we would or wouldn’t—to not have pushed them, and
that was their motivation, it would be helpful, I think,
for them to understand.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell, followed
by Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Again, our discussion
isn’t so much to ask Staff, at the moment at least. The
other thing that I am mindful of when we ask the Applicant
what would happen essentially if we removed some of the
housing from this project, and we didn’t talk about where
it would go, but they basically said if you do that then we
have to fill in whatever we can’t put housing on, and of
course we don’t know what that would mean, but it’s
obviously going to be non-residential.
Then we’ve had a lot of testimony about why the
first part is so heavily residential, but we can all
remember that. The only thing we don’t have any evidence on
is if you said let say instead of having 300+ units there,
let’s take 100 units or whatever, and move them wherever
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we’re going to move them; you’re going to move them to the
4.8 acres, or somehow move it so part of it would be on the
4.8 and part of it would be on the Northern District. All
I’m saying is if that were to occur, and if Gosvenor
nevertheless pursued this development—and I don't know
whether they would or they wouldn’t—we won’t know now what
that means for the project. I mean there will be a project,
and whether it will be Grosvenor or somebody else, there
will be a project and we couldn’t possibly know what the
fill-ins would be, so that’s just another uncertainty. Now,
some people may prefer the uncertainty to the certainty,
but that is something that I’m concerned about.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen next, and
then Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: While we’re not
considering the school districts in our deliberations, this
is simply a fact that when we were walking around the site
we were informed that the line for the school district is
actually at the Northern District boundary, so that if
there was some housing deferred to the rest of the
Transition District it would continue to be in Los Gatos
schools was my understanding.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for pointing that out.
Is that correct, Mr. Paulson?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I looked at the map on the
school’s website today for Los Gatos Union School District,
and that’s where it appears to be. We would have to go into
assessor’s records and those things to see; sometimes those
aren’t exact maps.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Maybe I could comment. I
looked at both school district maps, and they didn’t match
up.
JOEL PAULSON: They don’t match up.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, one of them had sort
of a big blurry line on it, and I couldn’t really tell.
But coming back to the comments about the fill-
in, I did listen very carefully to that, but also in
participating in the development of the Specific Plan it
was clear that these numbers were maximums, and the only
place where we seem to be hitting minimums is in the
housing and density and all of that. And again, we could go
to the specifics, but I don’t believe that there are
minimums that say they would have to fill in to achieve
only a 30% open space, for instance, if it were not
residential use.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m not suggesting that
they’re required to do that, I’m merely suggesting that
most developers I’ve ever dealt with do try to maximize
their profits, and if you take away five acres, let’s say,
of housing, they probably aren’t going to turn it into a
city park.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further comments on housing?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to talk about
some of the non-numerical what I consider objective
standards for this housing, and I’m referring to 2.4 in the
Specific Plan. It says, “Residential development shall be
focused,” and shall means we must do it, “on multi-family
and unmet needs.”
So the first part of that is multi-family,
meaning that single-family detached homes are not
encouraged or even permitted, other than the cottage
cluster type, which isn’t truly a single-family detached
home.
The second part of this is about the unmet needs,
and I just wanted to make the comment that I remain very
troubled that we would enter into any project to build over
300 units and not address the very most important and well-
documented unmet need that we have, which is the seniors
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that are living in our town right now that are looking for
step-down housing opportunities.
I heard all of the discussion from the Applicant
about why we can’t do it, but I can’t in good conscience
feel like we’re in compliance with the Specific Plan to go
forward with the plan of over 300 housing units that does
not address probably our most important unmet need.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Depending on your view
of seniors, and speaking as a senior, they have 167 one-
bedroom units, and I can tell you that that’s something
that a senior could definitely go into.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Do they have stairs?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me finish. And they
have 235 two-bedrooms, and some seniors even like two
bedrooms, like I do. Then they have 98 three-bedrooms. So
yes, you were going to tell me what it should have to
better appeal to seniors.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think one issue, and
even the Applicant mentioned it, is about not having
stairs, so having a single-story unit and not having to
climb up stairs.
The bottom line is the Applicant went and did a
whole focus group with the Millennials, but we have this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whole unmet need of seniors, and maybe it’s not clear
exactly what the requirements are, but it’s not clear that
this is going to meet the requirements.
If you look at the application, there are
actually no single-story units at all; it could be because
they have the ground floor garages, and then there is a
smaller percentage of two-story units, and other than the
senior affordable housing, which is a very specific market,
there isn’t any unit that doesn’t have stairs.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I just wanted to concur with
Commissioner Hanssen in that in looking at the
configuration of the units themselves it did not seem to me
that they were particularly senior-oriented, and it seemed
as though there was the opportunity to do that in more of a
flat type of an arrangement, but the developer chose not to
pursue flats, I think because they couldn’t get as many on
the lot, but for whatever reasons I think those were
conscious decisions that were made to have particular
housing types that were not necessarily appealing to that
demographic.
CHAIR BADAME: I would also concur with
Commissioner Hudes and Commissioner Hanssen, and I’m
looking at the square footage of the units. I don’t think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
seniors want to have big units; it’s more house to clean,
more personal belongings that you want to get rid of. And
Commissioner O'Donnell, I don't know what the square
footage of the units is over at Forbes Mill, but I would
venture to say that they might be under 1,200 square feet.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My unit is 1,600 square
feet.
CHAIR BADAME: So is mine, and I’m a senior, and
it’s too big. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had a question for Staff
on the requirements for denial, and there’s an Ordinance
2209, which is Exhibit 18, bottom of page 2, 29.10.420, and
I wanted to understand whether this was a ground for
denial. “The Town has adopted a Housing Element as part of
the General Plan, and the Town as met or exceeded its share
of the regional housing needs for the income category
proposed for the development project.”
I want to make sure, because I think that in the
letter from the Applicant’s attorney that was not one of
the conditions that was listed as grounds for denial. I
wanted to understand, number one, is it a condition? Does
2209 apply? And then the second part of that question is
has the Town met or exceeded its share of regional housing
needs as of right now?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I don’t think we need to get to
the first one and the legal issues attached to whether we
can or cannot, because we can’t meet the second one. We had
not met our regional needs for the affordable housing
that’s proposed.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: As of right now, not in the
future? Right. Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Further comments, questions on
housing? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to bring up
an issue, and I’m not sure what to do with it, but I’ve
seen all the resident reactions to the 35’ mass of
buildings, and I realize that it is permitted to go up to
35’ in the Specific Plan, but with all of our standards
it’s usually the number is a maximum, not a goal.
So I wondered about this 35’. There is the cutout
for the perimeter where they have to have it a two-story,
25’, but that’s just a portion of the edge in the perimeter
overlay, and then they did mentioned that there were a
couple of other units near the community garden that were
also two stories.
What I’m struggling with is I asked the question
of the architect, the Lark District was supposed to be
lower intensity, and so then I look at all these 35’
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
buildings and we walked the property, and I’m not seeing
that it’s lower intensity. I wondered what could be done to
make this more in compliance with the plan, but it doesn’t
seem to me to be lower intensity, and maybe I’m the only
one that sees it that way, but it’s clear that the Lark
District is supposed to be primarily residential, there’s
not doubt of that, that’s clear in the plan, but the lower
intensity, when you look at buildings that tall and you’re
walking through, and you can see with some of the paseos
and stuff that you’re going to be having 35’ buildings as
you’re walking down, I’m struggling with that being lower
intensity than the Transition District, so I wondered if
anybody had a thoughts on that?
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I guess when I found out
that the 13.5 acres had 20 units to the acre it occurred to
me that density would be high, and if the density was high
and there was open space, something has got to give. I
guess you’re right, it would be nice to have all smaller
buildings, but I’m not quite sure how you do that if you
have to get the density that they believe is required. You
give up one thing or another. If you got rid of all the
open space, maybe you could get lower buildings. If you
keep the open space, maybe part of the tradeoff is you get
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somewhat higher buildings. In a perfect world we wouldn’t
have this imposition on us, telling us we’ve got to have
13.5 acres at 20 units per acre.
That, to me, is the stumbling block that I don’t
think we have any discretion over, except to move it,
although the Applicant was credible insofar as they thought
that wasn’t a good idea. But when we say it’s too intense
or too dense, I think that’s probably true and I wish we
didn’t have to do that, but my understanding is we have no
discretion in that regard. Now, if you can figure out a way
to get 20 units per acre for 13.5 acres and have all single
stories, I’d go for that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Well, one of our residents
submitted a document to us with lower sized units, and so
it certainly is technically possible, but you’re correct. I
know the reason why that 35’ maximum was established in the
Specific Plan; it was anticipating the density issue. But
I’m troubled about it being such a big part of the Lark
District.
CHAIR BADAME: Another thought that I have is
that there could be some undergrounding done as well,
perhaps cellar space or underground parking, and that would
reduce the height and perhaps some of the intensity. I
don't know what comments other Commissioners might have on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that; I’d be interested in hearing them. Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I was going to agree with
that, and when we asked the Applicant about the possibility
of cellars or undergrounding it seemed to be more of an
economic issue than a real feasibility issue, so faced with
the possibility of not having that housing, potentially
they might think about other configurations than what has
been proposed.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell, followed
by Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My recollection of why
they said they didn’t have cellars was because they have
parking on the ground floor; that was the reason they
didn’t have cellars. Most of the towns require cellars;
they’re single-family homes usually where you don’t have
parking on the floor above the cellar, so that to me was
not an economic issue, that was a practical issue. I
suppose you could always say why don’t they have
underground parking? You could say anything, but the reason
that you said they didn’t have cellars was because of the
parking.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I believe they said that you
could have parking in one portion and residential in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
another portion. I don’t think the cellars would
necessarily take the full (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If you put a two-car
garage on a house this width, it would be interesting to
see how that would pencil out.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: They’re proposing some
interesting things, like tandem parking and others.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR BADAME: I’m sorry, sir, the public comment
is closed. We cannot hear from members of the audience.
Please respect us up here. Thank you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR BADAME: I’m going to ask you to leave if
you’re going to continue to interrupt us. Thank you.
Commissioner Erekson, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: My understanding is it was
a design issue, it wasn’t an economic issue; that was my
recollection of the testimony from the Applicant with
respect to that. You could hypothetically do it, but it
would take a more significant design change than some
simple design, so they’d have to redesign it, which is
fine.
My other conclusion from their testimony, and I
don't know whether this was my own analysis of what they
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said or that they said it, I don't remember that, is that
it would be challenging then, because I’ve got to create a
larger unit in order to not split the living areas, and so
if I do that, if I create larger units, then it might not
be possible for it to meet the 20 units per acre
requirement. So it would seem like to me one would need to
be sure one could do that with a cellar design issue, so
it’s not clear that that presents a solution which would
not be incompatible with the 20 units per acre.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, further comments,
questions, or evaluation on the Housing section of the
analysis? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to have a little
more discussion about the view aspect of the housing and in
the way the housing is oriented.
My opinion is that it blocks the views rather
than embraces the views, and while I understand that some
of the language about that is in the Vision Statement,
there are also some standards and policies, I believe,
about views that go beyond the Vision Statement.
My concern is that the current street grid
pattern, the way it’s oriented, prevents views from
occurring from the pedestrian paseos and the parks and
things like that, and so I have a hard time understanding
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
how the site layout meets the objective standards in the
plan there. In fact, as I said, I think that you could not
find a place that size where hillside views would be as
obstructed as the way that they’ve laid out currently, so
that troubles me.
CHAIR BADAME: Any other comments on the views?
Seeing none, we can move to Section B, which is Traffic and
Additional Environmental Review. Commissioner O'Donnell,
followed by Vice Chair Kane.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Just so we’ve got our
ground rules straight, my understanding is that once the
EIR was approved, we had to accept the EIR as being correct
unless we find sufficient facts as you change to
essentially attack the EIR, but to the extent that the EIR
is complete, finished, and accepted, that EIR has traffic
studies supporting it.
The only evidence we have at the moment is the
testimony that was presented tonight. To the extent that
some of us, and I’ve been in this position before,
scratches their head at the engineering reports, I don't
know how we go around that, because I have heard no
evidence which would contradict the traffic studies that
were a part of the completed and adopted EIR. I just throw
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that out, because I don't know how we go around that, and
maybe somebody could tell me how we do that.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane, followed by
Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Morley, is it correct that
the traffic study was done in 2013?
MATT MORLEY: Yeah, that’s correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So if I made the argument that
I think there have been substantial changes in the traffic
since that time, would that be a viable argument that there
are significant changes out there, and if it was a viable
argument, would I be jeopardizing the Town insofar as the
streamlining requirements? It’s going to take some time to
do another traffic study, if another traffic study is
warranted. To me that’s a tactic. What does it do to the
strategy of putting us in a situation of liability?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It’s not a substantial change
that’s out there that’s occurring, it’s a substantial
change from the project that was evaluated to now. If they
had come in with a substantial change in the project and
said I want to build 500 homes, I want to build a different
project than was analyzed, that’s a substantial change that
you’re looking at between the project; it’s not substantial
change in (inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: But that’s lawful definition,
that the substantial change has to be caused by them,
because there’s a heck of a substantial change out there.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That’s not a reason to do
another study.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This may be more for the
traffic engineer, but I understand that these things need
to be built on projections, and projections based on
projects that are in play, and then further projections are
done for the new development over the baseline. My question
is when do you stop building projections on top of
projections when you have real data? At what point do we
say okay, there’s been a lot that’s happened and that
potentially we ought to look at actual data at this point
to see whether the base projections are valid or not?
MATT MORLEY: There are, I think, several layers
to the conversation, to the question. The initial analysis
of the traffic study through CEQA identified with the size
of the project what the impacts were going to be, and what
the traffic levels were going to be. That all fell into the
Specific Plan and were identified there and approved as the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Specific Plan was approved. That CEQA and that traffic
study have been accepted at this point by the Town.
Subsequently, with the Phase 1 application, which
I think is what we’re looking at now, there is additional
analysis that the traffic consultant completed that looked
to compare the Phase 1 project with the previously approved
Specific Plan project, and the finding there was that Phase
1 falls within the scope of what was identified in the
Specific Plan, such that further analysis isn’t necessary
and the traffic is less than what was envisioned through
the Specific Plan.
It’s important to note that with any development
project you are bringing additional traffic; I don’t think
anybody would dispute that. The goals of the study is to
identify the mitigation measures and what you can do to
accommodate that traffic so that the impacts are mitigated
to the extent that’s set forward in our code, and that’s
all straightforward.
The difficulty with the traffic, I think, from a
non-engineering perspective like me and you is that it
seems like there’s an impact and the traffic is worse out
there. The numbers actually show something slightly
different, and the projections are used to get there, so
it’s a difficult thing to wrestle with. One of the things
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about engineering is it’s pretty matter of fact. You follow
the process, we have the standards set forward, and if you
comply with the standards, then by definition it’s
compliant.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But really my question is
the basis on which you make assumptions, and I appreciate
the rigor of the analysis that’s gone into all the traffic
studies, but it’s only as good as the assumptions.
I looked at the community input, because those
folks drive, and traffic was the number one issue; it was
not schools, as has been stated earlier. It was cited by
somewhere around 356 out of the 500 communications that we
received, and that includes last night as well; I updated
it tonight.
That, coupled with the fact that five of the six
development projects that were used we actually have the
opportunity to get actual data for, correct?
MATT MORLEY: Yes, some of those projects have
been completed and are online.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Five of the six have been
completed.
MATT MORLEY: I’m sure that number is correct,
yes. This particular project needs to mitigate the impacts
from this project and not from the other projects. Those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other projects are responsible for their mitigation, so
assuming that there is a baseline that grows with the
project, this project should have identified what the
impacts are there.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane, followed by
Commissioner Hanssen.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m just sort of playing with
you. Did you just say that the other projects didn’t
provide adequate mitigation?
MATT MORLEY: I did not.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay. Well, why does it not
seem like it was mitigated?
MATT MORLEY: Every project identifies what their
impact is going to be, and they make a list of projects
that they need to address with that particular project.
There are times an entity can find that those
impacts cannot be mitigated, and that could be the case in
some of the projects; I don't know what the specific
mitigation measures associated with these projects were.
I’ll say that the Specific Plan identifies and makes the
North 40 project responsible for a significant amount of
that mitigation, even to the extent that it is above and
beyond what the impact of the North 40 project is.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: I have Commissioner Hanssen,
followed by Commissioner Hudes, and then back to Vice Chair
Kane.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to ask exactly
about where you’re going. The Applicant stated that the $10
million that they’re spending was not a required
mitigation. Well, I mean it actually is in the EIR, but it
was something that was in the Capital Improvement Program
already. Could you help us understand how that… Are they
going above and beyond what they needed to do?
MATT MORLEY: That’s an easy question. The bike
lane across 17 is above and beyond what is required with
the project, so the answer to that is yes, they are doing
work that is above and beyond. The Specific Plan identifies
elements of improvements that are necessary for the
project, and it identifies who does those improvements, and
that includes things like the multi-model path around the
perimeter, and the bicycle paths and pedestrian paths
through the interior of the project as examples.
The project contributes to traffic along Lark and
Los Gatos Boulevard, and those mitigation measures are
required as a part of the project, and from Staff’s
perspective those are impacts that the project is creating
and mitigating. As I said earlier, the project doesn’t do
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all of the impact for those particular projects, but the
project is responsible for the mitigation.
In terms of where these projects are, the General
Plan has a list of projects that the Town has identified as
being necessary. They’re not necessarily in the CIP,
although a couple of the projects definitely were or are in
our five-year CIP, and we do continue to work towards
completion of that list of projects. That list of projects
is identified and we typically address it through traffic
impact fees, so the developments that are part responsible
for paying an impact fee where they can’t mitigate, and
those impact fees go towards completing those projects, so
the Town is collecting funds from developments, and as
those funds accrue we’re able to address some of the
projects that have been identified through the General Plan
and other sources for growth.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: To take it one step
further, if this project didn’t happen, there would still
be a need for these improvements, or there wouldn’t?
MATT MORLEY: Through the General Plan the Town
has identified that these will be areas that there will be
improvements, and then it’s just a matter of which project
triggers those improvements and when that project comes
along.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So this intersection was
on the list in the General Plan is what you were saying?
MATT MORLEY: It was.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And you have to find an
opportunity to address it?
MATT MORLEY: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There have been recent
traffic problems due to some things that are different. It
seems to me that there is a fundamental shift in what’s
causing traffic with regard to the WAZE, Apple Maps, and
whatever, so that the normal problem that we’ve had with
beach traffic has become not just a little bit worse, but
to the point where entire neighborhoods are gridlocked and
an entrance to a freeway had to be closed, which was
probably never closed before. Would you characterize that
traffic problem as a fundamental shift as compared to
something that you could calculate based on whatever you
looked at in 2012 or 2013?
MATT MORLEY: I’ve certainly experienced it, over
the last several weekends especially, and I don't know that
there’s anybody that…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: You didn’t take the traffic
engineers with you?
MATT MORLEY: We spent a lot of weekends, the
traffic engineer and I, out here observing traffic and
trying to become educated on what the dynamics are. It’s
certainly a very fluid situation, and the apps and the
dynamics in the Valley with the growth and the economy are
all contributing factors, and how they play off of each
other is, I don’t think, something that is identified.
In terms of how that factors into a project like
this, there are set methods for doing a traffic analysis.
Those are accepted methods, they’re a standard way of
bringing your project through the CEQA process, and it’s
important that those methods are adhered to and followed.
In a particular case like a project with the
North 40, where some of the mitigation measures are above
and beyond, that’s great. There are areas that are
improvements, and we heard about the delay time at
particular intersections. There are also areas where there
are degradations in that, and that’s where our standard
comes in where the Town accepts a D level of service, and
so what we’re targeting is a higher categorization at the D
level of service, and not looking necessarily at the time
delay at each particular movement of intersection.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just as a follow up, is
there any place in the TIA or the EIR where that
fundamental shift occurring from the WAZE and Apple Maps
problem that we’ve had in town, was that factored in any
way into the EIR or the TIA?
MATT MORLEY: We would not, because those would
not be trips that would be… As I see the app, for the
weekend WAZE issue that we face, I think I see that as a
regional issue where folks are coming from out of town,
trying to get from one point to the other and Los Gatos
happens to be right in the middle of that, and so they’re
looking for the quickest, most expeditious way through
town. Those trips probably would not be generated through a
North 40. I think maybe in an aggregate there would be
additional traffic from the North 40, but those trips are I
think above and beyond a different concept as a regional
issue of folks trying to move about the community.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But the effect of those
things on Los Gatos Boulevard could be measured if we
wanted to measure them, or I think we probably are
measuring them now.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: If we’re still on the CEQA
discussion, I think a fundamental issue that we’re not
addressing is that CEQA looks at a project and determines
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what the impacts are from that project. So let’s assume, as
Commissioner Kane was saying, that there’s way more traffic
out there, because of WAZE, because people love the beach
more, because for whatever reason the economy is doing so
well. That’s not the fault of this project. CEQA doesn’t
say it has to mitigate not only your project, but problems
caused by WAZE and problems caused by people wanting to go
to the beach and because the economy is doing so well.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I understand.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And only impacts. That’s why I
said unless you can find that the project has substantially
changed, you can’t redo CEQA because you now have more
traffic than you had before.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But it seems to me that the
baseline has fundamentally shifted.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Right, but it won’t change the
mitigations from the project.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I have one quick question
as a follow up to that, and then what will probably be a
less controversial and maybe even easier questions for you
to answer.
While I understand when Commissioner Hudes had
been talking about it would be better to have actual data
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
than projection data, it would just seem to me—and this is
a common sense thing and I’m going to test this—that it
would be challenging to attribute specific increases in
traffic to particular projects. Is that a reasonable
statement?
MATT MORLEY: That is reasonable.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: So I wouldn’t necessarily
mean that if I had a certain increase after Project A,
Project B, and Project C had been completed—A may be
Albright—that I could attribute an increase in traffic to
that particular project? I assume that’s an impractical
thing to do.
MATT MORLEY: Generally impractical if you think
about controlling for all other factors.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay, just as a
clarification, what I think are probably two easier,
simpler questions.
One is what’s the status of the multi-model path
over Highway 17? What’s the status of that?
MATT MORLEY: We refer to it as a bike lane over
17. The requirements the Town has placed on the Phase 1
project is an enhanced bike lane that goes across the
overcrossing and provides connectivity towards the Creek
Trail, and that is a condition of the project.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I understand that portion
of it. That will take work with Caltrans and so forth,
where those conversations with Caltrans are, et cetera. I
mean I assume it takes work with Caltrans, since it’s
passing over a highway.
MATT MORLEY: It absolutely takes work with
Caltrans. The initial conversations with Caltrans have
occurred. Caltrans has generally acknowledged that it’s a
desirable thing and they’re interested in participating.
Once we have a project, then that would be sort of the
trigger for the next step.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay, thank you. Then
here’s my next question. The property owners of the
existing medical office buildings that are located on the
Boulevard that are within the Specific Plan area, they’ve
given a letter to the Town and to the Commission that they
would prefer not to have the median that’s provided for as
an offsite improvements completed, so that it would
continue to allow left turns going north into their
property, and left turns going north out of their property.
Do you have some comment about their request, and some
recommend about how we would take that request into
consideration?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MATT MORLEY: I think Engineering has looked at
that extensively, and it’s a challenging location; there’s
a lot of traffic going both directions, so it becomes a
balance, like many things, where there are the sacrifices
in order to ensure that the traffic continues to flow
adequately and safety is considered within the process. I
think from the Town Staff’s perspective, having a left turn
in or a left out of the development is not something that
we’re recommending, and it’s something that is not included
in the project.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Now I want to go back to
the Boulevard, and going south on the Boulevard,
approaching the Los Gatos intersection with Lark. Both
Commission Kane and I have raised questions about Buildings
24 and 25 and that site, and about whether or not one
should look at that as being commercial property, et
cetera.
So I went to the site today, and if my walk-off
is correct, the third lane, the so-called right turn lane,
only starts at about one-third of the way from the south of
it, so about two-thirds to three-fourths of it is where
there are only two lanes, very similar to the properties
they’re adjacent to. I believe part of the Staff concern
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about not providing access from that direction had to do
with crossing the right turn lane. One arguably could put a
driveway on the very north part of that and still be a
considerable distance from where the third lane appears.
I’d like for you to comment on that, but I want to add one
other thing.
On Lark Avenue going east approaching Los Gatos
Boulevard, there is a dedicated right turn lane from
Highland Oaks all the way to Los Gatos Boulevard. There are
three pieces of property that enter there; one I believe is
the Water District edge that comes in there, and the
Classic Car Wash, and then the office building that’s on
that site also has one of its exits onto that, so we are
okay with those crossing there, entering into a right turn
lane, but we’re not okay with it on Los Gatos Boulevard
when it can be done where it’s not even into the right turn
lane? I’m just trying to understand your reluctance to
allow site access at that point.
MATT MORLEY: In discussions about this topic
today I think the Applicant’s recollection on previous
conversations, and Staff’s understanding of previous
conversations, may differ a little bit, however, generally
from an engineering perspective, we look with caution at
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
providing access at busy intersections, and it’s something
that has to be done with open eyes.
What I was trying to show on the screen was the
queuing diagram that shows what the lanes are going to do,
and it’s not focusing real well, but it shows the queues in
those lanes passing what would be residential properties.
There is some congestion there, and adding additional cars,
especially if you’re thinking that some of those may want
to go across a turn lane and try to go straight, or even
worse, go all the way across and turn left that could
provide some congestion, would be the concern.
There are also some grade differences between the
street level and the property level at that point that may
provide some potential challenges, and then more
importantly, I don’t think Staff has actually explored
that, nor has the traffic engineering really had a detailed
look at that. It’s been something that’s come up recently
from our perspective, and if it’s something that the
Applicant was going to consider, we’d need to do some
further evaluation on it.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: So would it be your Staff
recommendation for us that it would be the best path not to
pursue site access into that property?
MATT MORLEY: That is correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further comments from
Commissioners having to do with traffic and additional
environmental review before we move on to open space.
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to direct to the
March 30th Staff Report, page 12, a couple of quick
questions on that. I wanted to see whether there was
support for some statements that were made in there.
The Lark Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard to State
Route 17 northbound ramps, the second bullet, “Will the
tapering of lanes cause a new bottleneck, or should that
right turn lane just end there?”
MATT MORLEY: In what particular location are you
speaking?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Page 12, G, bullet, Lark
Avenue, second sub-bullet. The last sentence: “Westbound
lanes will taper from three lanes to four lanes starting
immediately of A Street,” and the question is, “Will the
tapering of lanes cause a new bottleneck, or should the
right turn lane just end there as well?”
MATT MORLEY: Maybe Jessy, you can help me with
this one?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JESSY PU: Jessy Pu, Town Traffic Engineer.
Westbound Lark Avenue is proposed to provide three
westbound lanes, and when they pass the A Street
intersection the curb lane, or the #3 lane, will start
opening up to another right turn lane, so there will be
four lanes approaching the northbound 17 intersection with
two through lanes and two right turn lanes. Basically, you
would taper from three lanes to four lanes between A Street
and the northbound 17 ramp.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And then the right lane as
you come around onto Lark, that lane ends, is that correct?
JESSY PU: There are two lanes on the on-ramp as
of today, so the two right lanes will feed into the two
existing on-ramp lanes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So that right turn lane that
turns on there, that lane ends, is that correct?
JESSY PU: There is the right turn lane for
entering A Street on the project site.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right.
JESSY PU: So there are actually three through
lanes and one right turn lane.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right. Will the ending of
that lane cause a bottleneck?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JESSY PU: No, it will not. That right turn lane
is a deceleration lane, right turn lane, for entering the
project site.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There will not be cars
trying to move over to the other lane there?
JESSY PU: No.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is there any separation of
that lane?
JESSY PU: This is a schematic drawing. It’s not
showing the physical right turn lane, which would be a
fourth lane.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. Just from the written
description it sounded like there was a possibility. Seeing
this has helped me to understand that it may not be the
case.
I had one more, which was on page 13, second
bullet, Lark Avenue at Highland Oaks. You may be able to
pull up the diagram here. My question was will the queuing
at this left turn be adequate, given the anticipated
seasonal traffic or additional traffic after Phase 2, or
will this need to be widened again with the development of
Phase 2?
JESSY PU: Yes, this left turn storage capacity
has been analyzed multiple times; including Phase 1 and the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ultimate build-out, and left turn lanes are adequate for
the ultimate build-out.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And have things like holiday
traffic patterns been looked at, given that there is
nothing to prevent someone from cutting through into the
traffic? I know we’re not looking at a Phase 2 application
here, but I don't know whether these improvements are meant
to take us through that or not.
JESSY PU: The Specific Plan requires traffic
calming measures along A Street, for purposes of
discouraging cut-through traffic.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So you’re confident that
with holiday traffic, that lane will be big enough to
accommodate, and we won’t have a backup onto Lark Avenue?
It looks short compared to other shopping centers where
there is a permitted left turn. I just want to make sure
that you really looked at that circumstance when that lane
was designed.
JESSY PU: Yes, the standard design guideline is
providing a 95% queue lanes storage, and this meets that
criteria.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that’s been looked at
for the circumstance where there’s a shopping center there,
and people are using that entrance to get there?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JESSY PU: Yes, it takes into account the traffic
calming measures to discourage cut-through traffic.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I have a two-part
question. My guess is that the first part of the question
you will defer to Mr. Schultz.
How much of the right-of-way on the east side of
Los Gatos Boulevard does the Town have under its control
from Lark to Good Samaritan? I believe that’s less than
100%, so what’s the process for acquiring the balance, and
in your judgment, if in fact the Town Council—without
causing Mr. Morley a cardiac arrest with respect to his CIP
budget—were to decide to help address traffic issues by
taking whatever measures it required to acquire the
additional right-of-way and do the full build-out of Los
Gatos Boulevard, how would that help the general traffic in
this area?
MATT MORLEY: I’ll start and we’ll fill in along
the way as we need to. The diagram that’s here, although it
wasn’t intended for this purpose, does a pretty good job of
showing the saw tooth pattern along Los Gatos Boulevard
where there is a right-of-way already, and then there are
areas where there are not, so there are significant areas
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that still need to be acquired. We’ve done no analysis on
what that might be or what it would cost.
In terms of capacity on Los Gatos Boulevard, the
traffic analysis shows that there is capacity along the
Boulevard to carry the traffic that will be generated
through the project.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Can you repeat what you
just said?
MATT MORLEY: In the current design, which is
identified through the Specific Plan, Los Gatos Boulevard
has the capacity to carry the traffic that will be
generated in the area, so there’s no degradation of service
along that area. The big concerns of traffic are at the
intersections, especially signalized intersections, and you
can see in the project, that’s where the focus on the
improvements are to carry through that.
It’s also why, for instance, where the merge
occurs on Los Gatos Boulevard, it’s less important that
it’s a merge midstream and more important that the traffic
is moved through the intersection. By moving traffic
through an intersection, you allow a lessening of green
time at that particular movement, and that by definition
allows for extension of green time elsewhere, and improves
the service level.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay, thank you very much.
That was very helpful.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Commissioners, are we
ready to move on to Open Space and the Look and Feel of Los
Gatos? All right, Mr. Morley and Mr. Pu, thank you very
much for your help.
I’m going to combine these two together, because
they are interrelated, and it’s starting to move on to the
eleventh hour of the evening and we still need to look at
the different components of the application. So I will look
to Commissioners for their comments on open space and look
and feel of Los Gatos. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: My comment on open space
was I didn’t have a lot of problem with it. The issues I
have are more related to other parts of the project than
the open space.
The look and feel was another matter, though. I
read and reread the Specific Plan, and although I could see
pictures of things that looked like they were in the plan
proposal, I was having trouble tying it to anything that I
could think of in Los Gatos. We don’t have a development
like this in Los Gatos. I know that we have some townhouses
that are 35’ or so in height, but I was struggling with
that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There is some language in the Specific Plan about
it complementing what we have and going to a new place, but
I’m still left with I couldn’t place it with anything else,
and especially when you consider this isn’t really a
neighborhood analysis thing, but if you looked at the
closest residential in Highland Oaks, and then also across
the street from Los Gatos Boulevard, there are single-story
houses, so I struggled with that. It isn’t clear in the
Specific Plan that it doesn’t comply, but there were some
pictures that… And there were some guidelines about how to
vary the roof forms and the walls, but it didn’t look like
anything else I know of in Los Gatos.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This is an area that to me
is very difficult, it gets very close to subjective
standards, and so I didn’t spend a lot of time on it. But
two things did occur to me that I want to mention, and
maybe get some reaction from other Commissioners.
One of them is the individual architectural
styles, and if an individual architectural style can’t be
found anywhere in Los Gatos, and that individual
architectural style is used frequently in the project, such
as a row house, then is it possible to for us to even make
a finding of fact that that architectural style is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consistent with the look and feel? Again, I’m trying to
just say are there facts that can lead me to conclude one
way or another?
The other point on this is, and I think as
Commissioner Hanssen pointed out, the assembly of buildings
in a grid pattern of this size. Again, is that something
that is consistent from a factual basis with Los Gatos? Can
it even be found anywhere that would allow us to make a
finding of fact that it is?
So I’m just kind of putting that out there. I’m
not advocating that these are necessarily objective, but
they are getting somewhat close to the line, in my opinion,
about what’s a fact.
CHAIR BADAME: I would agree with that. I found
that the architecture was a departure from what we want as
the rural history of the site, or even architecture that I
found throughout the Town. It’s modern urban design. Any
other Commissioners? Although I know the Town Architect put
his approval on it, but he’s an independent consultant.
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Just adding onto that, I
have great respect for the Town Architect, and he did bless
this, but I also remember that during the public testimony
yesterday some of the people that participated in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
survey had chosen the traditional and Mission style, and I
didn’t see any of that in this proposal, so I wonder what
happened between then and now? If I look it, a lot of it
looks similar to things you see in Santana Row, maybe not
as tall, but the look and feel of the buildings. I feel
like something happened in between, so I just wanted to add
that.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Architectural style from
my perspective is only one piece of the look and feel, so
what I’m going to say next is really only applicable to
architectural style.
What I’m trying to understand is architectural
style and how it’s consistent with the look and feel of Los
Gatos. I would suggest that Los Gatos has a rich collection
of architectural styles that reflect the historical
development of the Town during different periods of time.
That’s what we have in town. We don’t have a single style,
we don’t have a dominant style, we have a rich collection
of styles. That’s what makes the place, from my
perspective, as I came to appreciate when I served on the
Historic Preservation Committee.
When I evaluate a particular building or set of
buildings, I need to do that in the context of the time
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
period in which they were constructed. If I were to use the
historical neighborhoods of the downtown area as a standard
by which to evaluate the South Kennedy Road, the Aventino
Apartments, et cetera, I would not be using a proper kind
of standard to judge them by.
So I thought how do I then think about it, and
how do I pose the question to myself to understand whether
a style would be, so the question for me is, is this
architectural style that’s being proposed an appropriate
contemporary architectural interpretation that captures the
spirit and intent of the Vision Statement and the Guiding
Principles of the North 40 Specific Plan, and in particular
is it respectful and captures the history and agricultural
heritage of the site such that it makes a positive
contribution to the rich collection of architectural styles
that the Town has?
So I understand the question, and I feel not
particularly prepared, because I’m not an architect, to
answer the question. The only guidance that I have is the
guidance that the consulting architect has provided and the
Historic Preservation Committee has provided, and they
would suggest that it’s at least nodding in that direction.
That doesn’t necessarily convince me that it’s making a
positive contribution to the rich collection, but it also
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
doesn’t suggest to me that it is not consistent with the
look and feel of the Town. It’s a question which I’ve kind
of wondered about, contemplated about, that I don’t know
exactly how to answer, but I think the real question for me
is, is it an appropriate contemporary? Because these are
being built now; they’re not being built in the 1950s,
they’re not being built in the 1800s, they’re being built
now, so how do we think about it as a contemporary
architectural interpretation now?
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I also sit on the
Historic Preservation Committee, and it did come before us,
and ultimately it was approved. The Town Architect also
approved it.
I believe this guideline is subjective. If
there’s anything that’s subjective, I think this discussion
illustrates it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder almost
is the way this conversation is going. But if this is not
subjective, then we don’t have to worry about subjective,
because nothing is subjective. That will simplify what
we’re doing. But if it is subjective, then we don’t get to
deny a project based on a subjective guideline.
CHAIR BADAME: Understood.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The whole discussion, I’ve let
you go a while, but I’ll draw you back to my first one. We
need you to connect any of your statements with actual…
Whether it’s objective or any standards, I haven’t heard
anybody say…
I’ll give the cellar example. They should have
cellars. Well, tell me where in the Specific Plan it says
they should have cellars, because if you can’t find that,
then you’re not going to be able to connect that and
require cellars.
Same for the comment is, well, I don’t see row
houses anymore, so it doesn’t have the look and feel. Our
Specific Plan specifically says they can do row houses, so
you’re not going to be able to connect the dots there.
That’s what I’d like to see is you connecting the
dots as to the standards that are in our Specific Plan if
you would like to see changes made.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I can’t do that, and that’s
regrettable. The Specific Plan is telling me, the Town
Architect is telling me, the Staff Report is telling me,
that it has the look and feel, and I’d rather go to the
Supreme Court definition of pornography. “I don’t know what
it is, but I know it when I look at it.” It doesn’t look
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like anything that I’ve seen in Los Gatos, so how can that
have a look and feel? It can have a look and feel because
three authorities say so, and I can’t connect the dots
between the subjectivity and date, but it doesn’t look like
anything I’ve seen in Town.
If there is disagreement with that, tell me where
there is something comparable, and I’ll stand corrected.
I’m not saying it’s good or bad. I’m saying the first time
I saw that line, “To preserve the look and feel of Los
Gatos,” I just went, “Why did they put that on there? Just
do what you want?” because it doesn’t, and yet three
authorities say it’s acceptable.
So I’m answering your question. I can’t do it,
and that’s regrettable. That’s my opinion.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, we’ve heard Vice Chair
Kane’s opinion, and unless we have any other comments or
questions on those two items, we can move on to the
application for which we have five components to work
through, and we’re going to be approaching 11:30 before we
know it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Why don’t we see where
we are, because we can always make a motion to extend it at
11:25.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: I understand that. I’m trying to
move the conversation along is what I’m trying to do,
especially since two of you won’t be here on July 20th.
So back to the Open Space and Look and Feel, are
we done discussing that for now? All right, let’s get our
applications out, if we don’t mind.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Maybe I could comment on
that, because I had suggested that we go through this at
this point, and I’ve found I’ve been able to weave in my
individual comments on there, with the exception of a few
questions, that I don’t feel the need to go through it, at
least personally, to do that, because I’ve been moving
stuff from the plan page-by-page to the four topics as
we’ve been going through this.
So I have a few questions, but they’re almost
check the box kind of questions that I want to make sure
that we’re okay on, and I don't know if that would be okay
for me to go through those and just try to get a quick
answer.
CHAIR BADAME: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There’s a section called the
Illustrative Plan, and 3.13 uses that term, and a number of
others do in the plan. Is that an acceptable submission for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a project approval, to use illustrative rather than to use
actual elevations and things of that sort?
JOEL PAULSON: And you said 3.12?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: 3.13. It appears throughout.
There are a lot of these illustrative elevations.
JOEL PAULSON: I think if you look, there’s
illustrative and there are also the technical elevations,
so both are provided.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: They’re both?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So the technical is
required, and the illustrative is nice to have, maybe?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I want to just quickly, 315-
A, which deals with the height, and I want to make sure
that we understand this. What elements are permitted to go
beyond height limits of 35’ and 45’ per the General Plan?
JOEL PAULSON: I will pull out the Specific Plan.
I’ll have to pull out those exact areas.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m sorry, I meant specific.
JOEL PAULSON: Right, so I’ll pull those areas
specifically out, but it’s roof pitches over, I want to
say, 6/12, and then some other architectural features, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I will pull out the exact language as we go through the
further deliberations.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: My understanding is that
those elements are not permitted, except that they are
asking for a waiver in order to have those?
JOEL PAULSON: I’m sorry, I thought you meant
just in general for those, but they are requesting a
waiver, so those limits can be extended above.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This was about the square
footage, 321, the square footage of the senior affordable
units. We had testimony from the Applicant that 580 square
feet is fine. I think they said maybe 600 or something. I
wonder if Staff or anyone has verified as to whether 580
square feet is really adequate, and is it an average size
of senior affordable housing in the Bay Area? It looks
pretty small. It’s a little bigger than a typical garage.
JOEL PAULSON: Staff does not do that analysis.
We have technical experts from the Applicant’s side, but we
do not regulate the size of any of the units, regardless if
it’s senior or any of the other types of units, or how
those compare to other developments, either in town or
throughout the Bay Area.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right. The reason that I’m
asking is that I think this relates back to unmet need, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think there needs to be an unmet need for a dwelling unit
of this size, and so I was hoping that Staff would verify
we didn’t only have to take the word of the Applicant that
that’s adequate, given that it looks like a pretty small
number to me.
JOEL PAULSON: I think that things like that,
those are topics that, when the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation and it moves forward, we will be prepared to
handle as well with the Council.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to make a
comment that when we were on the Housing Element Advisory
Board I asked Laurel Prevetti for an introduction to Eden
Housing, because I wanted to get more information.
I spoke with the president of Eden Housing and we
did actually discuss this, and this size of unit is very
typical for the kind of projects that they do, and they do
a lot of this affordable housing—I think it was testified
last night—and typically over commercial. So I took comfort
in that. I don't know if that’s helpful, but that didn’t
come from the Applicant. Well, Eden Housing is part of the
Applicant, but they’re the ones that are going to own it
and manage it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Along that vein of trying to
trust and verify, on 322 there was a comment from the
consulting architect about providing below grade parking
for the senior affordable. Has that been provided, and is
there a security gate to segregate the senior affordable
from the other parking area?
JOEL PAULSON: There is an underground portion of
the parking garage. That is the lower level, obviously. I
believe the senior parking is above, in one of the upper
levels, and I will have to check on the security of that,
whether or not it’s gated.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Then along the lines, again,
we had testimony from the Applicant that one-half space per
unit is adequate. Has Staff looked into that, and do we
believe that that’s the case?
JOEL PAULSON: That meets the requirements of the
Specific Plan.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Then 6.3, the lot coverage.
There’s a lot coverage chart, and maybe I have the wrong
number. There are two 6.3s.
JOEL PAULSON: 6.5?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: No, 6.3, the one that says,
“Phase 1 lot coverage diagram.”
JOEL PAULSON: Mmm-hmm.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: That is lot coverage that is
consistent with the density, et cetera. How does that lot
coverage relate to other similar developments in town?
JOEL PAULSON: The lot coverage requirement for
the Specific Plan is a maximum of 50%. The lot coverage for
the proposed Phase 1 application is 31.4%, so they comply
with the requirement of the Specific Plan.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This one is a question about
open space and setbacks on 6.4. There are setbacks that are
also open space, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Particularly the orchard
along Lark. Are setbacks normally considered open space?
JOEL PAULSON: The Specific Plan requires those
areas to be landscape buffered, so the perimeter area was
considered to be that.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is that normally considered
then in other developments, or is that something that’s
unique?
JOEL PAULSON: Well, it’s not unique, because we
don’t have an open space component for commercial that’s a
requirement of any other development.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But what about for
residential?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: For residential you’d just have
the front setback, which typically is landscaping, but
there’s no open space requirement.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’ve seen it in some other
zoning land elsewhere.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct. We don’t have an open
space requirement.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. That’s the last of
mine.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions or comments
from Commissioners? Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER HUDES: 3.21.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Paulson, is it relevant
and/or within my purview to ask what are the anticipated
rents? None of these can be purchased, the seniors; they’re
all rentals, right?
JOEL PAULSON: These are all proposed to be
rentals.
VICE CHAIR KANE: And they’re supposed to be
below market.
JOEL PAULSON: They will be.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Do we know what that really is?
What would I pay for 580 square feet, do we know?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: It’s based on the income of the
individual, and then there is a percentage of that,
depending on the income level, so there’s a formula that
generally changes, I believe, every year and puts out
standards, and so rents follow that metric, but we don’t
have a number.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We can’t ballpark this?
JOEL PAULSON: I believe that the Applicant in
their testimony said $600 to $1,000.
VICE CHAIR KANE: For this one?
JOEL PAULSON: If I remember correctly.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So indeed, it would be
affordable, even though it’s Los Gatos, because sometimes
we do BMPs that can’t be afforded anyway, but this is
really a low rent for Los Gatos.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: And I think the BMP is all
spelled out in the March 30th Staff Report. I’ve seen the
complexity of it before, but I couldn’t translate it to a
number, and that seems to be a decent number. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further comments, questions,
entertain a motion, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Maybe I’ll start some
discussion that someone could challenge or add onto, but I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would move to deny the application, based on findings that
the project does not address identified unmet needs; that
the views are not addressed by the layout of the site as
required in not only the Vision Statement, but in Policy OS
Policy 01, page 2-11, the Commercial Design Guidelines,
page 3-2, and additional requirements for views on 3.2-
6.B.I, page 3-9 where are the requirements for views, and
that’s where I would just get things started.
CHAIR BADAME: We have a motion to deny.
Commissioner Erekson has his hand up. Did I see you had
your hand up? No, okay. Do we have a second? Commissioner
O'Donnell has a question.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: A question. There are
several matters before us. That’s a motion, but does it
deal with the Vesting Tentative Map? It isn’t clear to me
what the motion pertains to.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: That was actually a question
that we asked, I think, before, and I looked for some
advice from Staff about how far we have to go if denial is
each of the requirements.
JOEL PAULSON: The Vested Tentative Map has
specific findings. You would have to make one of those
specific findings to recommend denial of that. However,
without the Architecture and Site approval, and I look to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Town Attorney, if you’re recommending denial of the
Architecture and Site approval, that’s specifically tied to
the Vested Tentative Map, so the recommendation could be
for denial for both of them, but again, we want to make
sure we’re tying to the findings and providing the link to
those objective standards.
CHAIR BADAME: So can you repeat the motion and
see if we can get a second?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There are several parts to
this. Is it adequate to make a recommendation to deny the
Architecture and Site Application, which is described in S-
13090 in the Vested Tentative Map, and 13014, and to not
move forward to the density bonus, the waiver development
standards, and the subdivision, or do they need to be
considered together?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, if you make the
determination that the Vested Tentative Map and the
Architecture and Site is denied based on specific standards
in the Specific Plan, you don’t have to get to the bonus
issue and the other denials at this particular time.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So to clarify Commissioner
O'Donnell’s question, my motion would be to deny the
Architecture and Site Application S-13-090 and the Vested
Tentative Map M-13-014.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Based on the policies that you
stated a few minutes ago, and that’s a recommendation of
denial to Council, not an actual denial.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson, you kind of
had your hand up, or you don’t?
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Ultimately, if the motion
has a second and stands as a motion, I have a question of
clarification, but I’ll hold the question of clarification
until such second.
CHAIR BADAME: All right. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’ll second the motion.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, so we have a motion and
a second. Commissioner Erekson, we’re ready for discussion.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I would ask either Mr.
Hudes or the Staff to repeat the basis for the denial,
because it went real fast, and it seems to me it’s critical
to understand what the basis of the denial is before one
can vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’d be happy to expand
first, maybe. The basis for denial is that it is not
consistent with the North 40 Specific Plan; the views are
not consistent with regard to Policy 01, page 2-11, the
Commercial Design Guidelines, page 3-2, and Section 3.2-
6.B.I, page 3-9 that addresses the requirement for views.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, with regard to the unmet needs for senior housing, as
described in 2.4 for Residential Development, and those are
the two that I included in my motion.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Then I have a question for
Staff. Part of the motion is based on not meeting unmet
needs, so can you help me understand the language? Is the
obligation of an Applicant to meet all of the unmet needs
for the Town, or in fact if they meet some unmet needs, is
that adequate?
JOEL PAULSON: I will start, and then if the Town
Attorney has any additional. There’s nothing in the
Specific Plan that requires an Applicant to meet all the
unmet needs of the Town.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: So then, hypothetically—
I’m not saying that this would be the case—if in fact one
met one unmet need of the Town, that would be sufficient,
given the language of the Specific Plan, to be consistent
with meeting the unmet needs of the Town?
JOEL PAULSON: It could be, and that would be a
determination made by each individual planning
commissioner. You, as individual Commissioners, will decide
whether or not it meets the unmet needs requirement that
Mr. Hudes has pointed out. I’ve told you it doesn’t need to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meet all of them, but if it does meet one or more of them;
then it’s clearly meeting unmet needs. There’s no threshold
there that’s an objective standard that says you have to
meet the certain objective unmet needs.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I will not be supporting
the motion, but the good news is we’re not making the
decision, the Town Council is.
What I’m concerned with is that if there’s ever
been a project we’ve worked on that doesn’t have as strong
a possibility of litigation as this one does, I don’t
recall it, but I’m sure the Council will do a somewhat
different job in analyzing what they’re doing than we have
given it. As I understand it, the Town Attorney is in fact
getting some additional legal advice, and that I assume
will be helpful.
I can respect the motion and the reason for the
motion, but I don’t think this motion will be of much
assistance to the Town Council, but that may be okay, too.
I’m just very glad we don’t have the ultimate
responsibility.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell, was
there something you wanted to put in its place?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Not that would be
supported.
CHAIR BADAME: I will add a comment, in that the
intensity of this project is out of character for the Town,
and when I look at the Specific Plan, it relies on
hypothetical data and a glossary to characterize the
intensity of unit sizes; that’s hypothetical data.
Real data provided by the Town on page 6 of the
Staff Report provides documentation that high-density
housing in Los Gatos typically ranges from 516 square feet
to 1,484 square feet, so that is powerful to me. Scaling it
back with the intensity could have the effect of providing
more open space, greater building articulation, possibly
reduced building height, possibly reduced building
footprint, quite possibly greater affordability in unmet
housing needs, and it would protect hillside views, so I
will be supporting the motion.
Any further discussion? All right, we are coming
up to 11:30, so I will call the question very quickly. All
in favor? Opposed? All right, so it fails. We have a tie
vote.
I need a motion to go past 11:30. It’s 11:30.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So moved.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Commissioner O'Donnell
made the motion. Seconded by…
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll second it.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, all in favor? All
right. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I didn’t support the motion,
because I felt that unless one watched the tape much of
what we said and what we’re concerned about was not
reflected in the motion. I thought the motion would be like
14 points long. Am I off base?
One of the things I’d like in the motion is a
reflection of whereas I appreciated the economic analyst’s
report, and I appreciate the Applicant’s willingness to
have a dialogue with those merchants who are threatened, or
think they’re possibly threatened to go out of business,
I’d like that in the motion, as opposed to just in the
film, and other things that we talked about that were of
concern. So how detailed does this have to be?
JOEL PAULSON: I think we need another motion.
There have been instances where there’s a motion and a
second, and folks want to have things added to it, so they
request that of the maker and the seconder, but at this
point we will need a new motion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Just to verify, if we
have a tie vote, it doesn’t mean that it can’t go on to the
Council who will make the ultimate decision, it will just
fail, is that correct?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Correct, but I’m sure Council
would like you to at least deliberate a little bit further
to see if a motion gets a majority, if after a period of
time, like deliberations for a jury.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And that’s fine, it’s
just that Mr. Kane’s point is well taken. That is, if
anyone reviews the record they’ll see a lot of things that
were said that I’m not altogether sure necessarily has to
be in the motion.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Has to be in the motion,
correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But so many things were
said by the citizens and by us that I don’t care how long
the motion is, it’s not going to get the full flavor of
peoples’ concerns and why the majority of this Planning
Commission has made the motion they have. That is not to
say we shouldn’t go ahead and try; I just want everybody to
feel comfortable with what will happen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: To the maker of the former
motion, if you could repeat your motion and add the we’re
serious about the full flavor of whatever Commissioner
O'Donnell just said. You’ve been talking for a very long
time, and you’ve done a great deal of research, and I
thought the motion was almost myopic in terms of the stated
concerns that you’ve had, the other Commissioners, and I
didn’t know if they’re just going to read the executive
summary or listen to these two days of deliberation, not to
mention the 610 letters we’ve received.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just offer, before Mr.
Hudes jumps in, that the verbatim minutes will be prepared
for both the meetings and they’ll be submitted to the
Council. Everything that the Commission has received will
also be forwarded to the Council, so they’ll receive all
that information, plus any additional information that the
public wishes to submit prior to the Council meeting.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Consider remaking your motion,
and I’ll have more faith in the process.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I think what Council is really
going to be looking for though is those standards that you
felt it was not in compliance, like Commissioner Hudes
mentioned in the open space. Whether they’re subjective or
objective, I’ve left that open to any standards, so if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there are any other standards you want to point out in not
only that motion, or any that are added, I think that would
greatly help the recommendations to Council.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a question and a
comment. I thought your comments, Chair Badame, were very
good about the intensity. Did you have a specific section
of the Specific Plan that we could refer to on the
intensity?
CHAIR BADAME: I was dealing with unit sizes, and
that’s part of the unspecificity of the Specific Plan, so
all I could go off of was the hypothetical data that was
provided in the glossary, rather than real data, about what
type of intensity with square footages we might be looking
for for units of this size, with this particular density,
or with this acreage. I felt it was out of character for
what we have in Los Gatos with similar parcels.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Would that be an element of a
potential motion?
CHAIR BADAME: That was the element of why I
supported the motion.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We don’t have a motion now. I
just wanted you to put it in there.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If I understand it, you
can add things to the motion if the maker is willing to do
that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: But the motion was (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What I’m suggesting is
rather than go to that motion again, you can say the same
motion, you don’t have to repeat it, and then you can ask
for amendments to that. I’m just trying to save some time.
CHAIR BADAME: I’d be happy to make an amendment
if you want to start that motion again, then we’ll
hopefully get the second, and I will make my amendment with
the discussion that I had about why I supported the motion.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, I’m happy to do that.
I wanted to explore one additional area, and that’s the
economic impact to see whether there were some things that
Commissioner Kane might want to suggest as grounds for
denial with regard to that area.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It goes to the Mission
Statement or some of the LEED Statements in the North 40
Specific Plan, having a concern or preservation for the
downtown district, I don't know what the reference is right
now, but that’s my concern, that there’s not enough concern
spelled out where it could be a regulated part, and I just
want to protect the downtown.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So let me ask, then, there
was an inclusion of an inclusion of an economic report. How
does that tie back to the Specific Plan? That was a
required document, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Where is that tied in, if I
could? Because I don’t have the number.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I do.
JOEL PAULSON: I believe it’s on page 24, but let
me just check here.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s Exhibit 9. If we’re
looking for this document, it’s Exhibit 9.
JOEL PAULSON: He’s looking for the requirement
in the Specific Plan.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Could you point me to the
requirement?
JOEL PAULSON: I’m attempting to get there.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay.
JOEL PAULSON: I’m sorry, it’s on page 2.6, it’s
2.4.2, Commercial Uses, “Projects proposing new commercial
square footage must present the proposal to the CDAC.”
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, so I would suggest
that the economic impact study was flawed in that it did
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not consider the true circumstances of the downtown, where
the downtown has Conditional Use Permits. I believe the
consultant stated that he did not recognize or consider
that, and also analyzed the differences in the parking
ability in the downtown as well, so I would maybe suggest
that might be a way to address this economic issue, and
that is why I think, in my opinion, that the report is
flawed.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: So if we could get a motion on
the floor, and as I understand it, the motion right now
would be based on three that I’ve heard, so if we get a
motion that is based on the open space and the standards
that you mentioned in your first motion, it’s based on the
statements made by Chair Badame about the intensity of
development and that it does not meet the standards set
forth in the glossary for square footage requirements, and
then the third one is the economic study. So is there a
motion that we could put on the floor for that and get a
second? Then you can add anything else to it.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to make a
comment relative to Commissioner Hudes redoing the motion.
There was a question in the discussion of the original
motion about the unmet needs. In addition to Section 2.4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where it describes that the development shall be focused on
the unmet needs, Appendix C clearly outlines that there are
two major populations for unmet needs. Now, it would be up
to the Council to determine whether or not meeting the
needs of the Millennials will be sufficient, but it clearly
spells out in the second page of Appendix C that baby
boomers are an unmet need of the Town. It’s documented in
the Specific Plan, and it documents what their requirements
are, stacked flats, elimination of stairs and such. That
was the basis for my bringing it up to begin with, so if we
could add that to the evidence.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: As long as we get a motion and a
second.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: One second, just want to get
it all. Chair Badame, what section were you citing, please?
CHAIR BADAME: Mine had more to do with the
General Plan as it relates to the Specific Plan, and that
was with intensity relating to the character of the Town
and that the project as proposed is too intense, and that
reducing the intensity…
And again, the intensity is not spelled out in
the Specific Plan. There is a hypothetical chart in the
glossary that talks about unit sizes that is not based on
real data, whereas the Town on page 6 of the Staff Report
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has provided documentation that high-density housing in Los
Gatos with this particular 20 units per acre typically
ranges from 516 square feet to 1,484 square feet.
So this is a departure, it’s out of character for
what we have in Los Gatos. We’ve got units that range from
at least almost 2,000 square feet, so I’d like to see the
intensity scaled back, and doing so would provide more open
space, greater building articulation, reduce building
height, reduce building footprint, give greater
affordability for unmet housing needs, and protect hillside
views.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And the chart she’s talking
about is a conceptual model of residential sizes, which is
on 6-14.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for providing the page.
Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: In our Residential Design
Guidelines, Commissioner Hudes, there’s a requirement for
excellence in design, and what I can find similar to that
in the North 40 Specific Plan is on page 3.1, Design
Guidelines Under Architecture and Site, talking about
complementing the existing character of Los Gatos, and
under Design Guideline 6, Architecture, “Produce high
quality authentic design,” et cetera. I have concerns about
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those two units, 24 and 25. They really seem crammed in
there and I wish they were somewhere else, and certainly
not on Los Gatos Boulevard, so that’s my citing for…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Do you have a page number?
VICE CHAIR KANE: 3-1, Article 3.1.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to come back to
Chair Badame’s concern, the intensity concern, and I wanted
to ask the attorney about whether that is something that he
would support with regard to the requirements that we have
for certain kind of density of 20 units per acre, and are
those consistent?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I don't know. I wouldn’t know if
it’s even consistent with still being able to meet the
density requirement of 20 units per acre. Is that your
question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Correct.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And I don't know that. I’m
assuming when we went through that with the Specific Plan
that it would meet it, but I don't know that for a fact,
but certainly you can use that as one of your… At least
you’ve tied your reasoning to something within the Specific
Plan, which is where I’m trying to guide the discussion.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m a little concerned,
because this is an example with a hypothetical example
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rather than a requirement. I believe that’s what this table
says, so I’m a little concerned. Maybe we can have a little
more discussion about that.
CHAIR BADAME: Well, it’s not specified in the
Specific Plan what square footage units should or shouldn’t
be, so it’s left open ended. When I look at what is
characteristic of Los Gatos, I don’t want to use a
hypothetical chart. I don't know who made up those numbers
or where they came from. I want to look at hardcore data,
what is more typical for Los Gatos for this type of
density, and what I see, what’s been provided to me by
Staff, is on page 6 of the Staff Report, and they give five
examples of similar types of development at 20 units per
acre in town. Aventino Apartments, 516 square feet to 1,418
square feet. Bay Tree Apartments, 782 square feet to 1,114.
Riviera Terrace, 639 square feet to 1,035 square feet. Lora
Drive, 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet.
So if we’re going to be cramming a lot of units
in there, I want them smaller in size to reduce the
intensity, to have the effect that we want for a better
project for Los Gatos that gives us all those extra
benefits of open space, building articulation, reduced
building height, et cetera; I’ve gone through the list.
That’s what’s more characteristic of the Town of Los Gatos
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that I would like to see that celebrates our town. Does
that help?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: It does. I may ask you to
amend my motion with that specific part. So let me try
again.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Are you going to make it now?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah. I’m going to start
with the previous motion. So the project is not in
compliance with the applicable goals and objectives of the
General Plan; the project is not in compliance with the
North 40 Specific Plan with regard to views; not consistent
with the policies that I cited earlier; the pages that I’ve
cited earlier with regard to that; and with regard to the
unmet needs for senior housing as in Section 2.4 not
addressed. Then I would include the quality of architecture
as expressed in 3-13.1, in particular two units, 24 and 25,
not in compliance with that; and then I would also cite the
failure to meet the economic report in 2-4, “The
application submittal must include an economic impact study
to assess economic competitiveness,” and that that study is
flawed, as it didn’t consider certain elements of the
downtown, including the need for the restrictions in
downtown that include Conditional Use Permit and parking
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
restrictions were not considered in the preparation of that
report.
So that’s where I am. I would maybe stop there
and see if I can get a second, and then if Chair Badame
would like to add something about intensity. I wanted to
make sure I got that language correct. I think we need to
get a second before we can do that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll second it.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Vice Chair Kane and
Commissioner Hanssen seconded it at the same time, so I
don't know who to give the credit to. All right,
Commissioner Hanssen, since she seconded it the first time
around.
All right, so I would ask the maker of the motion
if they would add that the Specific Plan envisions lower
intensity residential for the Lark District. To me, the
lower intensity residential equates to smaller square
footage in unit size. Based upon that, I am referring to
what I think is real data as to what’s characteristic of
Los Gatos for low-intensity residential, and that would be
the information provided on page 6 of the Staff Report with
the examples given of similar development in Los Gatos.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So the intensity, the square footage of the unit
sizes, need to be less intense. Would the maker of the
motion add that?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would add that.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, does the seconder
accept that?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yes.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, any further discussion?
Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I have a request of the
Chair. I would like for the Staff to outline in writing all
of the bases, because this is both complicated and
important, to outline and put them up on the screen and
give us a five to ten minute break to figure out whether or
not we could—because I’ve lost track of them—kind of come
to grips with whether or not they provide an adequate basis
for supporting the motion, or not. That’s a request.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I would like to honor
that request; it seems reasonable.
JOEL PAULSON: At least ten minutes.
CHAIR BADAME: Ten minutes. We will take a ten-
minute break.
(INTERMISSION)
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: All right, Commissioners, per
Commissioner Erekson’s request, we have the motion on the
overhead.
JOEL PAULSON: I will go ahead and read it, and
then we would be looking for confirmation from Commissioner
Hudes and Commissioner Hanssen as to whether or not that
captures the essence of their motion.
The motion is to recommend denial of the
Architecture and Site Application and Vested Tentative Map
Application to the Town Council, based on findings that the
project is not consistent with the General Plan and North
40 Specific Plan; because it doesn’t meet the unmet needs,
as it doesn’t address unmet housing needs for senior
housing as outlined in Section 2.4 and Appendix C of the
North 40 Specific Plan in relation to views; as it doesn’t
incorporate views adequately in the layouts as called out
in Open Space Policy 01; and also as related to Design
Guidelines 3.2.1.D, and then relationship to the economic
study from Section 2.4.2 of the Specific Plan, that the
study was flawed because it did not consider the downtown
CUP requirements and parking requirements; in relationship
to intensity, that the North 40 Specific Plan envisions
lower intensity residential in the Lark District; and the
units should be smaller, typical of the examples cited in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Planning Commission Staff Report for July 12th on page
6, which stated examples of other developments in town; and
then from the Design Guidelines, Policy DG-6, that
Buildings 24 and 25 do not comply with this policy.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I think under views there
was an additional item, which is very long, 3.2.6.E.I., on
page 3-9. “Special care shall be taken to avoid obstructing
views to the surrounding hills.”
CHAIR BADAME: Are all the Commissioners able to
read the material that’s on the overhead? Yes? All right,
we have a motion on the table and second, so I am back to
any further discussion before I call the question?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had a comment. I
wondered what we should do with the discussion that we had
at the beginning about distributing the units differently
for any proposal that would go forward. It could pertain to
view and intensity. I don’t think it’s a ground for denial,
and I certainly the Council will get a transcript of our
discussion, but I thought it was important that we include
that in our recommendation. Maybe you guys don’t agree that
that should be part of the recommendation, but I’m going to
throw that out there.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: All right. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I just want to add that that
tied in with my thinking about views in that site
configuration could be adjusted from the application,
because there is some ability to move units within the site
and within the application area as well as within the
district, so that’s how it tied in. It’s not an additional
item; it’s just my thinking behind why it’s okay to look at
the views as an issue as well.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I think it’s an adequate
representation of what we said. It could help with the
motion being voted on. I’d just prefer that we know that
the actual text of the motion as from the verbatim minutes
is what in fact we said, just in case there’s some bad
grammar up there or whatever; what we said is what we said.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, any further discussion?
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just since I’m somewhat new
to this, is it possible to vote for and support the motion
without supporting every one of the points that are on
there?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Your motion will be taken as a
whole, and whether you’re for the motion, because it’s all
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 7/13/2016
Item #2, North 40 Phase 1
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parts, but you certainly can put on the record, say for
example, you’re going to support the motion, because
overall you’re in support of it, but you do have an issue
with one of them, to let Council know that maybe you didn’t
agree with that, but you can’t vote on part and not the
other.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, so again, I believe we
have a motion on the table, and we have a second by
Commissioner Hanssen. Is there any further discussion?
Seeing none, I will call the question. All in favor?
Opposed? Passes 4-2, with Commissioner O'Donnell and
Commissioner Erekson opposed.
Mr. Paulson, are there appeal rights of the
actions of the Commission on a recommendation to Town
Council?
JOEL PAULSON: There are not.