Loading...
Attachment 14 - Public commentsFrom: David W Tucker [mailto:dwt58@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 201611:58 AM To: Sally Zarnowitz Subject: North 40 Development Application Good Morning I wish to be on record strongly opposing the North 40 Development Application as currently written. The currently envisioned development is a disgrace to the feel and character of our town. My family and I did not move here 25 years ago to have this most precious piece of land become a boxy subdivision sticking out of the ground as monoliths to our industrial age. This is not what I want the entrance of our town to become, a massive project of concrete without depicting our small town character, let alone the impact on traffic and our most wonderful schools .. Please reconsider their proposal and send a clear message that this development must be redesigned to be the showcase of our community, depicting our small town character, our values and our environment. Our focus should be lower density with limited retail and office space, beautified with open spaces, unobstructed views and tree-lined streets, and designed to minimize impacts to town services and infrastructure. Sincerely, David Tucker 220 Arroyo Grande Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-691-9996 From: Diane Dreher [mailto:ddreher@scu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 1:02 PM To: Planning Subject: North 40 objective data Dear friends and neighbors on the Planning Council, . At last night's meeting I was concerned about the developer's threat of a lawsuit if any parts of their proposed plan was changed without "objective" data. I am grateful to Council member O'Donnell for exposing this. I also have a suggestion about getting "objective data": Conduct an online survey asking a representative sample of the Los Gatos population to: 1. View slides of current housing and buildings in Los Gatos (available from some of our neighbor's slides from last night), 2. View slides of developer's proposed plan plus slides from Sandy Decker 3 . For each of the slides in (2) answer this question: "this plan looks and feels like Los Gatos." on a Likert scale of !-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neither agree nor disagree, 4-agree, 5-strongly agree You could add questions about any other key areas of difference between the Specific Plan and the developer's plan, again using the Likert scale Online surveys by SurveyMonkey will analyze the data for you, prov iding "objective" evidence that you might need to address the developer's claims that our concerns are not "objective." And thanks for all you are doing to maintain the integrity of our town. Diane From: Wendy Riggs [mailto:wendy.riggs@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:43 PM To : Joel Paulson ; Planning; Laurel Prevetti; Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Marcia Jensen ; Steven Leonardis ; Rob Rennie Subject : North 40 -NOT opposed! Dear Planning Commission and Town Counci l, There is a lot of noise out there against the North 40 project. Although I understand the perspective of the 'Town not City' movement I am not in agreement with them. I feel .it is important that you also hear from those of us who underst and that the North 40 will be developed . I f ee l the owners of that land have a right to sell it and build upon it. It is my opinion these developers have been listening to the schoo ls and the citi zens throughout thi s 8 ? year long process. I attended a meeting four years ago at the new LG Po lice building on LG Blvd , called to enable residents and business owners to voice their wants, needs and concerns about this development. I have also met them through my work running the LGSUD Parcel Ta x campaign in 2013 . It is my opinion that they have listened and do not w ish to ru i n our town o r dow ntown. Please make your decision regarding this development based upon the merits of the application . Give as few concessions to the developer as reasonable . But DO NOT allow the vocal m inority with t h eir pitchforks and nimbyism to influence you . I believe this should be approved . Wendy Riggs Pres ident, CASA Los Gatos LGUSD Volunteer of the Year-2016 Past Chair Measure B Campaign (LGUSD Parcel Tax) Past Treasurer Blossom Hill HSC Past Board Member LGUSL From : Ron Piziali [mailto:ronaldpiziali@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 3:38 PM To: Joel Paulson; BSpector Subject: A city within a town Re : proposed development My wife and I are 40 year residents of Saratoga. We cannot believe that the town of Los Gatos would consider such a development. The traffic impact would be seriously detrimental to effective flow to an already impacted situation. In addition such a deve lopment is inconsistent with the nature, spirit and community that is Los Gatos. We strongly recommend that you reject this development Ron and Diane Piziali 13123 Regan Lane Saratoga From : Jennifer Sundquist [mailto:sunnyone@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 4:39 PM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Torben Rank ine Subject: READ for 7/13 Meeting: North 40 Project Feedback & Questions Marn i, I am writing to you about the North 40 project. My husband and I recently moved to Los Gatos because of the wonderful small community feel and the high quality schools. I grew up in the South Bay, lived in Los Gatos in 1999 and moved away, but always wanted to return. When my husband and I saw the polls go up for the North 40 project we were extremely dismayed. I read through the plan was amended to 270 residential housing units, which is still FAR too many. Our primary concerns with adding between 600-1000+ new residents to an area that is already extremely congested are the following: 1) Traffic-what infrastructure changes do you have planned to address this potential traffic nightmare? The current situation is already really bad during commute hours and the all weekend during the late spring and summer due to beach traffic). Adding that many more people means adding between 600 - 800 more cars on the road in an already congested area. 2) Schools-This development appears to be in the Louise Van Meter school district, which already has a relatively high student to teacher ratio. Based on the plan, there are no plans to open a new school. How does the town plan to address the overpopulation of one of the crown jewels of LG education? 3) Cultural Change -When you add high density housing developments to a town that is known for it's small town charm, you are going to change the very thing that makes Los Gatos unique in the Bay Area . We live in a place of sprawling, highly populated, congested cities that lack our special small community character. How can you possibly justify altering our most treasured commodity? 4) Removal of Green Space and the some of the Last Orchards-As someone who grew up in the South Bay, I have seen the d isappearance of nearly all of our once famous valley orchards. Did you know that Blossom Hill road used to be a road filled with blossoming fruit trees? Now open space is an endangered species in the Bay Area-with Los Gatos as the last hold out for preservation . Once it's gone, it's gone forever. How does the council justify more removal of green space for more traffic and congestion? Finally, I'd like to understand what is driving this development. Property ta xes are at all time highs and there for city revenues are also at all time highs. Why do you (the town council) need to ruin so much of what makes our town a unique and treasured jewel to accommodate this development????? Very disgruntled and dismayed residents, Jennifer Sundquist & Torben Rankine From : Shelley Smyers <stargazer9999@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2016 at 7:23:04 PM PDT To : <jpaulson@LosGatosCA.gov>, <planning@losgatosca.gov>, <bspector@losgatosca.gov>, <rrennie@ losgatosca .gov>, <sleonard is@ losgatosca .gov>, <m jensen@ losgatosca .gov>, <msayoc@ losgatosca .gov> Cc : Shelley Smyers <stargazer9999@gmail.com>, Scott Smyers <scott.smyers@me.com> Subject: NORTH 40 Concerns (Smyers) We appreciate the countless hours that each of you has worked on this project thus far. As local taxpayers, we feel both a right and a duty to voice our concerns. We have been residents of Los Gatos now for 17 years and are extremely opposed to the application put forth by Summerhill and their associates . 1. First, we would disagree that the process thus far, since its inception, has been transparent. While the public may have been invited to planning meetings in the past, there was nothing to reveal the scope of the project until the story poles went up. Certainly, there were no notices to discourage people from attending, but also none widely distributed to announce and highlight the scale of the work and changes being considered . The insinuation that the citizenry was lazy or remiss in getting involved sooner is inappropriate and offensive, and does not reveal the bigger truth of the circumstances. 2. We are struck by the fact that no one has mentioned that the traffic study used in this project is about 2 years old!! Two years ago, the Netflix complex was not yet finished, nor were all the new medical buildings on LG Blvd. between Nob Hill and Highway 85. The economy was slower and WAZE also did not exist to divert traffic in circuitous ways around the town. There were absurd and irresponsible claims in the past that other housing developments in town (Bluebird Lane and Heritage (near Fisher Middle School)) would create little to zero impact to traffic. How naive would we be to to believe that the North 40 development would also not bring about additional major traffic delays and congestion? It is interesting to hear that the developer is "willing" to inject over $10 million toward traffic solutions, but the claim that traffic would somehow be mitigated by 30% is a far-fetched and unfounded claim. Any claims about traffic abatement can only really be made after a new traffic study is conducted!!! 3. We have 2 children, one of whom is still a student in the LG school districts. We don't understand how the districts will absorb all the new students without significant strain to our already-strained resources. We can only think it was sneaky of the developer (and whoever in town was in cahoots with them) to cram the majority of housing units into the Lark District when the original plan, as we understood it, was to distribute the kids into the neighboring districts. In addition, at the Planning Commission Meeting in (we believe) April, the Summerhill representative admitted it had been challenging to identify a site for a new school, and hinted it could completely absolve itself of any responsibility to do so. While they may be legally able to drop this action item from their plan, doing so would spotlight even more clearly their singular interest in financial gain. 4 . We feel like we are being intentionally misled. Initially, we heard we were building low-income housing. Then, we heard there were would be senior housing. Now, we hear it is low-income senior housing. The appearance is that the builder is trying to kill two birds with one stone, with little regard for "how the dust will settle". As one speaker mentioned last night, there don't appear to be provisions for seniors who are downscaling or seniors who require service s. The p lan for senior housing ab ove the Marketplace is so ill-conceived, it is near laughable if it were not also sad . How is this plan in alignment with the true needs of seniors? As for low-income housing, I understand that we will only receive a small percentage of the state credit that was origi nally promoted at the beg inning of Summerhill's application process. How I w hy did this happen?! If we are mandated by the state to add the additional units before 2020(?), where doe s the town intend on b uilding them?!?! Letti ng this opportunity pass would be an irreversible mistake . 5. Aesthetically, there is nothing in the current design that is consistent with ma i ntai ning "the look and feel of Los Gatos". Any attempts at creating (as opposed to maintaining or reta ini ng!!) an agrarian fee l are nominal and become downright fodder given the dense, urban, blocky , recto-linear design of the proposed buildings and streets. We feel the developer has completely trivialized the tow n's documented goals in this area . Either that or the Planning Commission was inattentive and let the pla ns proceed in ways not consistent with these goals. 6. Why CAN 'T the citizens take a vote on this?! It seems that would be a very democratic idea and a logical course of action. Of course , there could never be a unan i mous vote, but moving forward w ith the current application would be irresponsible and a disgrace-an egregious example of a local government acting flagrantly against its constituents. Without a vote, our opinion is that the development plan needs to be scaled back significantly-lower density, with a greater setback from Hwy 17, have a more organic I looser grid layout, have more provisions for low-income and senior housing, and have provisions for a new school. With the current proposal, the North 40 cou ld never feel like an integral part of Los Gatos. It is so different (physically "shielded" by Lark Ave ., very densely laid out, comparatively large in size for a small town, non-conforming in style to and wildly different in architecture ), it would always fee l to us like an afterthought, a bastard part of town. Our out-of-town family and friends will forever inquire, "What happened there? Is that part of Los Gatos?" This is just a summary of our most major concerns at this time. We hope that you wi ll take them into true consideration and that you will pro ceed fairly, with due diligence, for the betterment of our town. Thank you . Scott & Shelley Smyers (128 Vista del Monte) On Jul14, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Cheryl R <crezos@hotmail.com> wrote: To the Los Gatos Town Council Members, Hope you are doing well. I was unable to attend the townhall mtgs this week as I broke my foot. But I just would like to kindly email that I would not be in favor of the North 40 Development project. The traffic at Lark is already very, very congested at peak times and it would create even worse traffic/pollution issues there . (Also , I've read it is not safe to build housing at the North 40 site as studies show living so close to a freeway causes long term health issues .) There are other reasons, but these are just a couple in my opinion. Thank you for your time and take care, Cher Los Gatos Resident On Jul14, 2016, at 4 :53 PM , Tessa Arguijo <tessaarguijo@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Councilmembers, We're going to keep this short & sweet ... Please uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the current development proposal, Architecture and Site Application S-13-090, for development of Phase 1 ofthe North Forty. Thank you, Tessa & Allen Arguijo On Jul14, 2016, at 4:56PM, btdodson@aol.com wrote: July 14, 2016 Members of the Los Gatos Town Council 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and Council Members Jensen, Leonardis, and Rennie: I encourage you to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the Phrase 1 application, and just have several comments in reaction to what was said at the July 12-13 Planning Commission meetings. GROSVENOR/SUMMERHILL/EDEN BUILDING DESIGNS ARE 7-OR 8-YEAR OLD DESIGNS THAT WERE CLEARLY NOT TAILORED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN . During the July 12 Planning Commission meeting, I was struck by the comments of the woman who described a brainstorming meeting with Grosvenor seven or eight years ago. You may recall that this woman told about how Grosvenor posted paper on the wall and asked participants to draw the kinds of buildings/housing they'd like to see on the North 40. Numerous pictures were submitted . A month later, Grosvenor came back with what they claimed were the results of the meeting. The pictures shown at that meeting were the very same pictures we are looking at today. Obviously, the buildings in the pictures that Grosvenor now claim encapsulate the look and feel of Los Gatos were created long before the Specific Plan came out. They were not created in response to the Specific Plan and fail to meet the Guiding Principles of the Specific Plan. They take no account of the need for hillside views . They show no particular relationship to the area surrounding the North 40 or to the look and feel of Los Gatos. They show no effort to mitigate impacts of schools or traffic .. It's likely the designs were developed for Anywhere, USA . I, too, recall seeing these pictures at several meetings hosted by the Los Gatos Community Alliance for Grosvenor long before the Specific Plan was written. STEPDOWN SENIOR HOUSING AND COTTAGE CLUSTERS . I find the idea that Grosvenor had to eliminate stepdown senior housing because the height limits went below (I believe they said) 55 feet i s ridiculous. Grosvenor could have offered a fresh design that responded to the actual wants and needs of the Town as expressed in the Specific Plan . There's not just one design for stepdown senior housing! The same goes for the cottage cluster housing. Grosvenor could have come up with a fresh design in keeping with the 20 units per acre dictum . Grosvenor appears simply to have not wanted to move away from its 7-or 8-year old Anywhere, USA plans. RHNA CREDIT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Despite what Staff and the town lawyer said about. RHNA credits, I'm still concerned that we may not get the credits we think we're getting. I just want to refer you to the source for my belief that we won't get RHNA credit for anything beyond the senior affordable housing. The quote below come s from a website of the Californ ia Department of Housing and Community Development ((http:/ /www.hcd .ca .gov/housing-policy-development/housing- element/hn_phn_regional.php). To credit units affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income households toward the RHNA, a jurisdiction must demonstrate the units are affordable based on at least one of the • subsidies, financing or other mechanisms that ensure affordability (e.g., MHP, HOME, or LIHTC financed projects, inclusionary units or RDA requirements); • actual rents; and • actual sales prices. Densities of housing developments do not describe affordability for the purposes of crediting units against the jurisdiction's RHNA. For projects approved but not yet built, the jurisdiction must demonstrate the units can be built within the remaining planning period and demonstrate affordability to very low-or low-income households ... (emphasis added) LACK OF PUBLIC GREEN SPACE. I hope that you will pay particular attention to Angelia Doerner's presentation and submitted materials about open space. She shows clearly that there is very little usable, shareable public open green space within Phase 1 and that a large amount of the green space the developer is claiming is either private space or along the periphery of the development. The plaza and other usable open spaces appear to be largely paved spaces, not green space. Good luck in your deliberations. You certainly have a challenging task. Sincerely, Barbara Dodson 239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos On Jul14, 2016, at 6:05 PM, w james sil va <wjsilvamd@gmail.com > wrote: As a 34 year LG resident well aware of the changes that have occurred in our town diminishing the quality of life attributable to oppressive traffic and overflowing schoo l s, I want to support the Planning Commissions denial ofthe North 40 project as currently designed. Please advocate for a project that supports the town, community and its values, not the profitability of the developers. Thanks w j silva md 100 stonybrook road los gaots From : KR Winkelman [ma i lto:kathy@seniorcareauthority.com} Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 12:07 PM To: Planning Subject : Traffic Hello we have lived off of Los Gatos Almaden Road 32 years it has now become almost impossib le to turn left 12 Los Gatos Almaden safely from gardenia because of the constant traffic I have changed my route to get onto Los Gatos Boulevard I am located in the North 40 I respectfully request a complete denia l of the plans as they stand for the UK property for very serious reasons our roads cannot handle safely the amount of traffic that has increased in the recent years due to high density building in our ar ea and an addition of many medical companies d ivision of Los Gatos is not for high density in our area I have been very involved with Los Gatos as a volunteer for 30 years thank you. From: Suzann Beglau [mailto :suzannbeglau@me.com] Sent : Friday, July 15, 2016 3:47 PM To : Joel Paulson ; BSpector Subject : North 40 development The proposed building on the "North 40" is atrocious. It will destroy t he character of Los Gatos forever. A bigger threat, and my concern , is the impact o f traffic on Lark Ave . There are times of the day when I have to wait through 3 lights to turn from Oka Road right onto Lark Ave . And then wait through the rotations of signals to turn r ight onto Winchester to access the freewa y. I have had to wait through three rotations of the signal at LG Blvd and Lark to turn left on Lark at 3:30 pm. (This does not include all the signals traveling north on the way t o Lar k) The line or traffic backs up as far as Nob Hill Grocery. Mid-afternoon!! A colleague of my husband had stated it takes him 20 minutes every we ekday to turn left onto Lark from LG Blvd . to access Hwy 17. He travels from LG Blvd at Kennedy Rd . Lark Ave . is overwhelmed. With the medical facilities on Los Gatos Blvd . on one side and the commuters to Net Fli x on Winchester, Lark Ave . becomes a parking lot. To make t hings worse, all freeway access is now directed to use Lark Ave . (Presumably to take traffic pressure from the "good part" of Town.) The residential streets that feed off Lar k Ave are inaccessible at certain t i me s of the day. Emergency personal may have long waits to get through. ~lease drive home via Lark some week day and see for yourselves. Thi s short stretch of road CANNOT absorb more traffic! Thank you, Suzann Beglau 16481 Mozart Ave. Los Gatos resident since 1977 From: AgroEcology@aol.com [mailto:AgroEcology@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 3:10 PM To: agroecology@aol.com Cc: Sylvie Roussel; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 community gardens suggestion Mary Vidovich on the list of supporters suggested North 40 community gardens be named for Jim Sugai. Here is a brief video of Jim ... a bit over a minute . https://vimeo.com/37880673 Jim and Kikue Sugai Jill and Larry Kroh Grace Kvamme Rich and Lucy Amico Chris Marselli Peter R Werp Sara Werp Tony Fiorentino Jim and Barbara Niles Rooz Nazari Jason Saroush Frances Burge Mary and Janie Vidovich Tom and Pauline Ferrito Jon and Julee Bode Les and Susan Kishler Kathy Morgan Tim and Judy Coughlin Richard and Vicki Wendell Marisa S. Gerston Alex and Janel Shultz Karen Ettinger Nanette Ettinger Carmen Rand Jan Segnitz Bryan Maghribi Biret Adden Sara Zebian Steve ad Eileen Werner Eve Hadley Sutton and Anne Roley Angelo Womack Dana, Cameron and Monica Bunker Brenda Hammond Ross Hanson Garri and Rosa Grossman Phil Rosenblum Elke Billingsley ~IECEIVED July 17, 2016 JUL 1 9 2016 Dear Mayor Spector, MAYOR 81 TOWN COUNCIL I am very concerned about the look of the row houses proposed by the developers of the NORTH 40 . I cannot imagine anyone who is currently living i n Los Gatos, and interested in "down sizing" moving into the proposed housing. I have enclosed a picture, from the newspaper, that is typical of what Los Gatos looks like, and much more inviting than the row houses . It would be nice if Grosvenor would dump the current architect and hire someone with some small town feeling. Obviously the current architect is stuck in the New York City Mode. Thank you for all you do for The Town . Sincerely, Carol Burt This Page Intentionally Left Blank From: Lucille Weidman [laweidman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 10:19 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis Subject : North 40 concerns Dear Mayor Spector, Vice-Mayor Sayoc, and Council Members, TO BE INCLUDED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR AGENDA ITEM NORTH 40 AT AUG . 9, 2016 TC MEETING . Our questions for the Council: 1. Are the housing areas in the North 40 designated as a Common Interest Development-(CID)? It is our understanding that the homes will be under the management of an HOA . At the July 13, 2016 Planning Commis sion meeting Wendi Baker, a Grosvenor associate , introduced the garden management supervisor to discuss the HOA elements pertaining to the various gardens he will be designing and maintaining. 2. Is the North 40 exclusive to the homeowners so that visitors are trespassers? 3. Can local residents who live outside the North 40 come in to use the common areas such as the fire- pit area for a gatheri ng, walk through the retail sites, and the neighborhood streets? 4. Is the North 40 an open area or a private area? Is there an exclusivity aspect that needs to be addressed by the Council so that residents understand the restrictions, if any, within the North 40? 5. How private is the North 40? How public is the North 407 We are asking these questions after testimony was given at the Planning Commission meetings which prompted our concerns for the North 40 being a part of Los Gatos or a community unto itself. We read many CA State property and housing laws and have realized many questionable and unsettling aspects in the Specific Plan that could leave Los Gatos residents out in the cold in their own town. Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns. We look forward to your rely. Respectfully, Sam and Lucille Weidman 215 Carlester Drive Los Gatos, 95032 On Jul20, 2016, at 11:15 PM , Mike Matthews <mike.matthews@power.com> wrote: Dear Ms Sayoc Though having never written to the council before, on this occasion I feel I must. Although I am all for the development of Los Gatos in general, I find the currently proposed North 40 development plans very concerning. The key concerns relate to the requirements you stipulated for the development-namely: 1. To "look and feel like Los Gatos" The phase 1 of 2 plans as submitted look to have buildings much too densely packed and boxy industrial type buildings. To me Los Gatos has the enviable reputation of one of the few Valley towns with a real old town charm which I feel is the "look and feel" of Los Gatos. I would be much happier if the proposed development had smaller low rise buildings with more open space around them to allow trees over time to disguise the development and keep the small town feel 2. To "embrace hillside views, tress and open space" It is difficult to see any open space in the proposed development as the buildings are too densely packed . I feel, to comply with this requirement, there would need to be lower rise buildings throughout and more open areas/small parks for trees to become established 3. Finally to "incorporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics" Again I believe more space for trees and open park areas would be needed to in any way reflect the agricultural characteristics-not a market place store I hope the above points meet with you understanding and agreement and that the council will see fit to reject the current proposal in order for the developers to take your requirements into closer consideration for a future proposal. Rgds David Matthews Resident Englewood Avenue Los Gato s From: Marice Sayoc Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4 :49 PM To: Mike Matthews Cc: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti Subject: Re: Concerned resident -North 40 Development Dear Mr. Matthews- Thank you for your email and sharing your concerns about the proposed application for the North 40. The town council will begin its public review of this application on August 9 and I am copying our town staff so that your concerns can be documented in the project file and the other council members can read your email too. I appreciate your taking the time to write. Marico From: Richard McCartney [mailto :rfm6@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 8:55 AM To : japulson@losgatosca .gov; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen Cc: jessie_lin1202@yahoo.com Subject : Please VOTE NO on New Development Hello, We just got home from our July vacation and found some information on hte proposed development off Rt 17 /Lark Ave {the one with the orange flagging). Please don't pass such a development for our small town atmosphere that we have in Los Gatos ... we have been in this town for a long time, and love this town for what it is and what it is not .... and certainly this huge development with tall structures goes against everyth ing that Los Gatos stands for and gives us. I know that we were not i n town to attend the July 12/13 meetings, so we don't know the outcome . Please feel free to contact us at the following address (our home): Jessie Lin 268 Las Miradas Dr Los Gatos Thanks you for you consideration. I trust that if you actually live here in this town, you know how terrilble this would be for this town. If possible, please let me know which direction this is going and if there is anything that I can do to express how against this kind of development we are. Rick McCartney and Jessie Lin 247 Kingston Hill Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 July 27, 2016 Commissioner Mary Badame 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Commissioner Badame, Thank you very much for your denial vote of the North 40 development. RECEIVED .IUL. 2 6 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLA!IJN!h'G D!V!SiON It is wonderful to know our Commissioners listen to and respect the opinions of their fellow citizens . Sincerely, • ~~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Christine Page < christinepage23@gmail.com > Friday, July 29, 2016 8:45 AM Planning Just Saying NO to the proposed 93K sq ft Office Building between Hwy 17 & Los Gatos Bl vd . 1 Sally Zarnowitz From: Sent: To: Subject: Tricia Blue <trb@bluesroof.com > Friday, July 29, 2016 12 :20 PM North40 Comment North 40 and the Los Gatos Blvd traffic I would like to strongly suggest that each of the members of the Town Council take a drive South bound on Los Gatos Blvd from White Oaks (okay it is Bascom there) all the way to Lark Ave on any evening, Monday thru Friday, between 4:30 and 6 :00. Then explain how the traffic is going to work on that road when you will be adding two cars per "new" house. Even if you add another lane it will be grid locked. Tricia Blue Corp. Sec . Blues Roofing Co 408-240-0695 11 Sally Za rn owitz From: Sent: To: Subject: TO <topreising@ yahoo.com > Frida y, Jul y 29 , 2016 12:41 PM North40 Comment Objection to North 40 project I live off of North Los Gatos Blvd , and the congestion and traffic from Lark south has grown to monumental proportions. The North 40 plan clearly shows that the project will accelerate the increase in congestion. I appreciate the goals of creating more affordable housing while retaining our small town feel. This proj ect is too b ig and too dense to achieve those goals. Please reject it. TO Preis ing Magneson Loop homeowner Sent from my iPhone 10 From: Laverne Nolan [mailto:lnolan12@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:54 PM To: Council Subject: North 40 Thank you for taking on this arduous task. It is our last hurrah for the Town and we need to make it an outstanding addition to our Town. The current proposal is typical developer cookie cutter. Cheapest construction possible and move onto the next gullible city. Every property owner should have the right to develop and make a profit; but not at the expense of the existing Town . Perhaps, the current developers should consult with creative planners and architects to present a more cohesive project. There are ways to make massive square footage less obtrusive; i.e. utilize underground space . Plan the entire 40 acres and build in phases; not just the first phase . By just presenting the plan for the first phase, it gives the appearance that the current developer may not be committed to the entire project. It is very unfortunate that this developer has chosen to present a plan that would work in a new development, rather than a plan that enhances our existing Town . Therefore, I request that you reject the current plan as presented . Thank you, Laverne Nolan Pinta Court From : Crumpton Family [mailto:crumpton3@verizon.net] Sent : Friday, July 29, 2016 11:22 PM To : Joel Paulson Subject : North Forty-terrible proposal Hello, We believe the proposed plans by the developers, is not consistent with our town character or vision statements and should be denied as proposed. The scale is too large and burdensome on our roads, schools and communities. Respectfully, Crumpton Family, Cathy & Tom & Will 124 Las Astas Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032-7680 crumpton3@verizon.net From: Jennifer E Liebthal <jliebthal @gmail.com > Date: July 30,2016 at 10:35:15 AM PDT To: <North40.comment@ lo sgato sca. gov>, <jpaulson@ lo sgat osca.gov>, "council@losgatosca.gov" <council @losgatosca .go v> Subject: North40 -please do not approve Dear Town Council, Let me start by saying that I appreciate your commitment to the town of Los Gatos by working on the Council. I know your job is not an easy one. I understand that the North40 project has been in the works for a long time and there has been a lot of time and effort by many people into this project. I have lived in Los Gatos for over 16 years. I am sadden to see all the issues that currently are affecting our town at the same time and building proposals that will change our town in a negative way forever. The North40 project is the turning point were if approved we will have "jumped the shark" for our town. I am hoping that the following suggestions can be implemented to make this project have less negative and more positive impact on our town. • REDUCTION in the sq . footages to be more in line with other similar high density housing • Redistribution of some units over North 40 Phase 2 & 3 and/or put some of this government required housing on the Alberto Way site • Add elevators and/or turning some of the proposed units into single story for seniors to fill the towns "unmet needs" .• Add more age restricted housing in the complex so we can support our local seniors. We have more residence wanting to down size as they get older and we do not have the housing to support them staying in LG . • Add underground parking to lower the heights and make more green space • Add more parking spaces per unit. Number of parking spaces per unit seems limited as well. Ifthere are multiple people ~n a unit each with a car where will the overflow go ? • The proposed complex is not fitting with the town look and feel. Make more bungalow style or more similar to downtown Los Gatos • Add mor~ green space I am very concerned about traffic but I do not know what the correct solutoin would be. Traffic is horrible in that area especially during commute times and this will make it substantially worse. If it is mostly senior living in the housing then maybe the impact will not be as great but.. The North 40 fits none of the below guiding principles from the Town's Specific Plan below: • The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos. • The North 40 will embrace hillside views , trees , and open space . • The North 40 will address the Town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs. • The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure , schools , and other community services. Please hold strong to the ideals that have made this town so great! We should not allow a square peg to be stuffed into a round hole. The damage is irreversible. Thank yoll for the continued service to our great town, Jennifer From : dani nedom [dnedom@comcast .net] Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 3 :05 PM To : BSpector Subject : North Forty Hearing, August 9, 2016 Mayor Barbara Spector and Town Council Re : North 40 Hearing on August 9, 2016 Dear Mayor Spector and Town Council, The following email, with some format and editing changes, was sent to the Town Plann i ng Commission for cons i deration before its July 12th, 2016, hearing on the North 40. I submit that the points I raise remain valid critiques of the developers' proposal for Phase 1 and hope you will consider them in your deliberations. The developers' proposal for Phase 1 is inconsistent with the North 40 Specific Plan for the following reasons, among others cited by the Planning Commission: 1. The intent of the Specific Plan, as clearly enunciated in the run-up to its adoption, is that housing will be spread over the entire North Forty area . The language of the Plan provides for this, prescribing housing in every district. See Specific Plan sections 2.3.1, 2.3 .2, 2.3 .3. In the prefatory language of section 2.3 LAND USE DISTRICTS, it is stated, "(T)he Specific Plan divides the North 40 into three districts based on site context and desired development characteristics." (emphasis added) Despite this the developers propose 320 units in Phasel. Phase 1 consists of less than half of the total project acreage. Including the density bonus the maximum number of units allowed is 364. There are 32 ex isting units on the larger northern portion of the acreage which leaves only 12 more to be developed . At the March 30, 2016 hearing before the Planning Commission , Commissioner O'Donnell asked Mr. Capobres why housing is concentrated in the Lark Section and not spread over the entire North 40. The pertinent portion of Mr. Capobres' response was, " ... the Specific Plan calls for the residential to be primarily located in the Lark District, and so we're implementing the guidelines found in the Specific Plan." This is a misrepresentation of the intent of the Plan and ignores the language of the Plan that describes the housing envisioned in each District. At the close of that lengthy meeting the developers' attorney summarized . In pertinent part she stated, "The Specific Plan does not have any requirement that the 20 units per acre be spread out over the site", but she failed to mention the language in the Specific Plan regarding "desired development characteristics" in each District. At the North 40 Study Group Meeting on June 16, in answer to the question as to whether all housing had to be built in the Lark Section, Mr. Paulson answered, "no". The developers' position that there are no "requirements" to spread the housing is cynical and disingenuous. I submit that, in deciding this issue , you are entitled to consider not only the sections cited above but also your legislative intent as expressed in pre-adoption discussions. Perhaps, to remove any doubt, the Specific Plan ought to be amended to incorporate the precise requirement that reflects your collective intent and which the developer seems to need for guidance. 2. The intensity of the proposed residential development in the lark Section is inconsistent with the Land Use and Development Standards of the Specific Plan . As stated on page 1 of that section, among the "overarching goals" are the commitment to ensure "compatibility with the surround ing area" and "contribute to the small town character of Los Gatos". Section 2.3 .1 applies these goals to t he Lark District. Because the Lark District is in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, lower intensity residential is envis ioned for this area . In addition, the third sentence of section 2.4 PERMITIED LAND USES, states, "(l)n general, lower intensity shops, offices, and residential land uses are envisioned in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area ". While the developers' proposal includes allowable housing types, its density is far g r eater than the lower intensity envisioned . The most graphic evidence for this are the story poles that present a numbing skyline when viewed from Highway 17 and along Lark Avenue . The proposed dens ity destroys the small town character of Los Gatos rather than contributing to it and has stirred the justified rage of residents. 3. A prominent concern about permitting any housing in the North Forty has been its potential effect on the schools. The efficacious solution was to limit housing to the Town's unmet needs, such as for millennials and seniors. Section 2.1 COUNCIL VISION, is followed by Guiding Pr inciples to achieve this vision . Included therein are the directives that the North 40 will address the Town's residential and/or commercial unmet needs, as well as the directive that the North 40 w ill minimize or mitigate impacts on Town infrastructure, schoo ls, and other commun ity services . Again, Policy LU10, under section 2.2 LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES, states, "(P)rovide and integrate a mix of resident ial product types designed to minimize impacts on schools while complying with SBSO, School Facilities Act, and serve the unmet housing needs within the Town of Los Gatos". And yet again, in Chapter 6 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PHASING AND ADMINISTRATION , the Residential Unit Size Mix Example states in part, "(T)he types and sizes are targeti ng the unmet needs of Los Gatos". Despite these clear and oft-repeated bedrock rules the developers propose 54 units with 3 bedrooms and 135 with 2 bedrooms in the Lark District. Many of the so-called "2 bedroom" units have a "den" that can easily be converted to a bedroom. These units will be magnets for families with school-age children thus subverting the specific directives for housing that meets the Town's unmet needs. The developers' rationale for 2 and 3 bedroom units is that focus groups commented that 1 bedroom units are less appealing. At the most recent Planning Commission Hearing the developers' spokeswoman also stated that loft, or 1 bedroom units, are unusual in other than urban developments. Thus, for economic reasons, the developers propose to ignore the Specific Plan directives. Interestingly, the developers' position on unit size also contradicts the findings in APPENDIX C of the Specific Plan . There, in summary, it states that "Gen Y" people are looking for "smaller household sizes ", "smaller units with some larger units featuring loft characteri stics", which include, "open floor plans, few, if any bedrooms ... ". (emphasis added) Here again it may be necessary for your Council to amend the Specific Plan to more precisely reflect your legis lative intent in the size of housing units you intended in order to serve the Town's "unmet needs". Finally, it must be noted that entering into a "Voluntary Contribution Agreement" with the Los Gatos Union Elementary School District does not excuse the developers from following the directives of the Specific Plan to provide residential product types designed to minimize impacts on schoo ls. Minimizing impact on schools is accomplished by offering units that don't appeal to families . The developers cannot trade a "Voluntary Agreement" outside the Specific Plan for a violation of clear and unequivocal directives within it. Respectfully submitted, Woody Nedom 16280 Azalea Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Kent Goheen [mailto :kent.goheen@gmail.com] Sent : Saturday, July 30, 2016 5 :18 PM To : ipaulson@lostatosca.gov; Planning ; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; miensen@losgatosca.gov Cc : bruce .mccombs@comcast.net; Mary Goheen Subject : North 40 Dear Planning Commission and Town Council Members, My wife and I have been proud residents of Los Gatos for twenty-nine years, raising our now 32 year old daughter here, availing of the outstanding schools as well as the healthy and positive environment. It' been an outstanding place in which to live and raise children. Occasionally we have discussed the possibility of moving elsewhere but have always come to the same conclusion -where else could we possibly live that could provide the same wonderful small town attributes as Los Gatos? We are extremely concerned over the proposed North 40 development project. We cannot understand why our town would allow a developer to proceed with such an "over the top", high density plan that cannot in any way relate to the character of the town. If it's because of potential town tax revenue, we would gladly pay higher local taxes just to keep the town "The Town" (and believe me, we're not in favor of higher taxes). We can't really think of any other reasons why this project would even be considered. Deny this project. If allowed to proceed as is, the developer(s) will leave with a bag of money never to be seen again, and we, the residents, will be left with a irreversible disaster! The attractiveness of our town will diminish, our property values will go down, we'll be grid locked with traffic, and we'll be just another extension of San Jose. Please keep Los Gatos unique and beautiful, Sincerely, Kent A Goheen 17200 Phillips Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 From : Darcie McNeil [mai lto :darciemcnei l16@gmail.com] Sent : Saturday, July 30, 2016 7:30 PM To : Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; BSpector; msavoc@lsogatosca.gov; Rob Rennie ; Steven Leonardis; meinsen@losgatosca.gov Subject: North 40 Hi! I am a 40 year res ident of Lo s Gatos. My grandparents attended Los Gatos High . My grandfather, Gene Rugani, owned and ran one of the first grocery stores in Los Gatos. Back then Los Gatos was a very small town with beautiful orchards and land everywhere . Now it seems every little piece of undeveloped land is being taken over and built up and our charm is disappearing. Please do not give in to developing the North 40. Our town is in dire need of soccer fields, dog parks, open space for our residents to all enjoy .... The proposed development will just crowd our town even more. It is already becoming a traffic n ightmare, our schools are already over crowded. Let us keep open land and breathe fresh air please. Thank you for listening. Darcie McNeil 105 Longmeadow Dr. Los Gatos Sa lly Zarn owitz From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Town Council- Daniel Sn yder <dan@danandann.com> Saturday, July 30, 2016 9:17 PM North40 Comment Comments regarding N40 Application I would like to add my comments for the application for the N40 development. I have lived in this town for the past 16 years . Prior to that, my wife and I grew up in smaller towns (<12,000 population suburbs) from outside CA . We also lived in large metropolitan areas for many years too. We chose los Gatos, and have stayed because of the great downtown and the good schools . Since we tend to walk around town, and to Daves Ave School, we know there is a wide variety of housing types and densities in our town. Some areas, like Town Terrace, off University, have very high density, but in a poorly laid out manner. What our town lacks, in my opinion, is affordable housing. This is why I strongly support the N40 specific pla -n. Having density, with a mix of services and retail/dining all within walking distance is a real need . I strongly believe the curre.nt application does a very good job of meeting the needs and goals of the Specific Plan. No application will be perfect, but I disagree with the Planning Commission 's determinatio n. Except for the view from a certain portion of HWY 17, there is almost no impact upon hillside views. Frankly, why do we prioritiz e the view from a highway anyway? If the land owner had planted trees li ke exist everywhere else all along HWY 17 (predominantly pines), no one could even see the story poles. I think the style of the proposed buildings look good, and are consistent with los Gatos. los Gatos has a wide variety of architectural styles, from Victorian to modern . Th e applica tion is consistent with that range, and looks better than any othe r apartment building in town . Where the application does fall down, is that it is consistent with the Town's zo ni ng requ irements for parking. The town has failed to have rational parking mandates, like 2 spots fo r each unit, plus o ne gue st spot per unit. Thanks, Daniel Snyder 6 ~ About us Blog T,erms of Service Careers Contact us Facebook TwUter Goo le+ Build your follower base on All Eve nts in City. When you create a new event, all your followers get instant notification about your event. 10 =~-·------~ 0 ---·---·------·, 5 Sa lly Zarn ow itz From: Sent : To: Subject: Town and Council Members Da ve Schoenw ald <d esignwa ld@hotma il.com > Monday, August 01, 201 6 9:38 AM North40 Comme nt; M ar cia Jensen ; BSp ector; Marice Sayo c; Ste ven Leonard is; Rob Rennie North 40 Development I am opposed to the North 40 development in it's current plan . The height of buildings and density of the plan is not appropriate for Los Gatos . Please reconsider your thoughts regarding this project to keep Los Gatos a great place to live . Regards; Dave Schoenwald 143 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos , Ca 95030 2 Sa lly Zarnowi t z Fr om: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: RE: THE NORTH 40 Laura Howard <laurgome@yahoo.com > Monday, August 01 , 2016 2:38 PM North40 Comment North 40 comment RE The North 40.doc It is the general opinion of most Los Gatos citizens and businesses that our town does itself a great disservice to approve the building of another town--with its own conditions and ordinances--within the boundaries of Los Gatos. Since it is only in the last couple of decades that our town has become a popular "destination" for tourists and out- of-town shoppers as well as a bedroom community for wealthy high-tech employees and execs, the infrastructure and character remains essenti.ally the same as it was before Highway 17 bisected Los Gatos . The small-town ambience is the town's appeal to those shoppers and tourists. They probably also shop at Santana Row and go to the opera and theatre in Mt. View or San Francisco. But they come to Los Gatos to use our trails, browse in our wonderful, little downtown shops, and dine in our many diverse restaurants . That being said, several needs of the residents still exist. One of those essentials is not a new high-density community within the boundaries of Los Gatos. We are short of parks and recreation facilities for the community. Where Highway 17 crossed through Main Street, we used to have a park and a municipal swimming pool. (The Los Gatos Foundation contributed to the remodeling of the high school's pool, but the hours allowed to the public are limited and inconvenient.) Many of us are still eager to have a dog park that includes an area to accommodate small dogs. Kids want a skateboard park as well as a safe place to gather and play. A component to a school 's curriculum or to a youth-oriented organization could be the maintenance of a small part of the present orchard. Most importantly Los Gatos really needs to provide its seniors and minimum-wage earners with abundant and suitable, low-income housing . The 40 acres of the North 40 can include all of these needs/requests and more without impacting the town's existing infrastructure. I urge the Town Counsel to deny the present application from the North 40 developers . Also I urge the counsel to find the funds from grants, loans, private donations, or a county partnership to acquire the North 40, to challenge any lawsuit brought by the present developers, and to initiate the process of providing a suitable development that will meet the real needs of our town. Laura Howard College Avenue Los Gatos 1 From: Laura Howard [mailto:laurgome@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 2:40 PM To : Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 RE: THE NORTH 40 It is the general opinion of most Los Gatos citizens and businesses that our town does itself a great disservice to approve the building of another town--with its own conditions and ordinances--within the boundaries of Los Gatos. Since it is only in the last couple of decades that our town has become a popular "destination" for tourists and out-of-town shoppers as well as a bedroom community for wealthy high-tech employees and execs, the infrastructure and character remains essentially the same as it was before Highway 17 bisected Los Gatos . The small-town ambience is the town's appeal to those shoppers and tourists. They probably also shop at Santana Row and go to the opera and theatre in Mt. View or San Francisco. But they come to Los Gatos to use our trails, browse in our wonderful, little downtown shops, and dine in our many diverse restaurants. That being said , several needs of the residents still exist. One of those essentials is not a new high-density community within the boundaries of Los Gatos. We are short of parks and recreation facilities for the community. Where Highway 17 crossed through Main Street, we used to have a park and a municipal swimming pool. (The Los Gatos Foundation contributed to the remodeling ofthe high school's pool, but the hours allowed to the public are limited and inconvenient.) Many of us are still eager to have a dog park that includes an area to accommodate small dogs. Kids want a skateboard park as well as a safe place to gather and play . A component to a school's curriculum or to a youth-oriented organization could be the maintenance of a small part of the present orchard . Most importantly Los Gatos really needs to provide its seniors and minimum-wage earners with abundant and suitable, low-income housing. The 40 acres of the North 40 can include all of these needs/requests and more without impacting the town's exist ing infrastructure. I urge the Town Counsel to deny the present application from the North 40 developers. Also I urge the counsel to find the funds from grants, loans, private donations, or a county partne rship to acquire the North 40, to challenge any lawsuit brought by the present developers, and to initiate the process of providing a suitable development that will meet the real ne e ds of our town. Laura Howard 35 College Avenue Los Gatos CA 95030 From: Mary Rose [mailto:mrose@ten90group .com] Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 3:52 PM To: Council Subject: Deny the current North 40 Application and Amend the Specific Plan It is horrible that our town feel is deteriorating. Lark and 17 is a mess lots ofthe time. It can take 30 minutes to drive 3 miles into town from Courtside area. The new medical buildings adjacent to the North 40 already generate so many more drivers on weekday. Netflix is not even done with construction and loading all their works in . The traffic diversions for beach traffic are only minimally effective. I was raised in this area and have always been happy to be on the outside edge of the over development of Silicon Valley. Now we are being crushed by overdevelopment in our own town. Please deny the current North 40 Application and Amend the Specific Plan to keep Los Gatos a town, not a city. --Mary Rose 507 Clearview Drive, Los Gatos 408-718-3302 From: Joseph Gemignani <josephtheweatherman@gmail.com> Date: August 1, 2016 at 5:06:18 PM PDT To: N40.comment@LosGatosca.gov Subject: North fo r ty s u rvey I participated in a c itywide survey regarding the north forty architecture back in the summer of 2011 . The results were sent to Suzanne Davis and the results were that Traditional or Mission style buildings were preferred over Modem buildings. These results were published in the Los Gatos times . I will bring a copy August 9th. I don't mind some of the Agrarian looking buildings but I don,t understand why no traditional or Mediterranean buildings are in the plans. This is 13 acres after all there should be some room for what the people prefer. Thanks, Joseph Sent from my iPad From : Joanne Benjamin <joanne.benjamin@verizon.net> Date: August 1, 2016 at 8 :31 :12 PM PDT To: <bspector@losgatosca.gov>, <msayoc@losgatosca .gov>, <mjensen@losgatosca .gov>, <sleonardis@losgatosca.gov>, <rrennie@losgatosca .gov> Cc: <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov> Subject: North 40 Proposed Development Project Dear Mayor Spector, Vice Mayor Sayoc, and Council members Jensen, Leonardis, and Rennie, I strongly urge you deny the North 40 Development Plan as proposed. My reasons for opposition include the points previously mentioned in my March 25 email to the Planning Commission, the general consensus of the public testimony before the plann ing commission both in March and on July 12 and 13, and the explicit findings made by the planning commission in their July 13 recommendation to you . By the way, I personally watched and listened to the nearly 10 hours of public testimony and deliberation at the special planning commission meetings, and also read the entire packet and . addendums. In doing so, I realized just how significant this project is to the Town's residents and how essential it is that "we get it right". I also became extremely proud of the Los Gatos community for their many emails, letters, and remarks during public testimony. The public's comments in nearly all instances showed a citizenry that was exceptionally knowledgeable, logical, sincere, and highly articulate in communicating the salient points of their opposition . Likewise, I applaud the planning commiss ion for their tremendous patience, stamina, sensitivity to the community and its needs, and their overall professionalism and thoroughness in deliberating this difficult matter. Finally, I am most disappointed that the developer did not appear to understand the Town's unmet need for Senior housing. When the Visioning phase of the Specific Plan was being conducted, most participants understood the need to be for senior style housing along the lines of the Los Gatos Commons, or faciliti es like the Terraces of Los Gatos, or Los Gatos Meadows which feature small units with open space and/or assisted living options, allowing seniors to "age in place". The goal was to provide housing for seniors who wished to remain Los Gatos but move to a smaller home. Studios and one bedroom units should be specifically encouraged. Regardless of unit size, the senior housing should feature adequate parking for residents and guests, plus plenty of open space and community rooms for meetings, recreation activities, socializing, and visiting with family . It should be noted that many families have an older parent, who has perhaps lost a partner and is getting on in age . These folks need to have a smaller home that is convenient and close to their Los Gatos families. Perhaps the Specific Plan needs to be revised to explicitly explain and elaborate on this important need? Very truly yours, Joanne and Jim Benjamin 109 Worcester Loop Los Gatos From : Pamela Warren [mailto:pwarren@Devcon-const.com] Sent: Tuesday, Augu st 02 , 2016 9:21AM To: Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally Zarnowitz; spector@losgatosca.gov; msavoc@losgatosca .gov; rrenn is@ losgatosca .gov; sleona rd ius@ losgatosca .gov; m iensen@ losgatosca .gov Subject : Proposed "north 40" project My husband Leonard Ruggieri and I have lived in Los Gatos for 20 +years. We are both Santa Clara County natives and were born at O'Connor Hospital and attended Cupertino and Monte Vista High School as well as San Jose State and UC Santa Cruz . Some thoughts on the proposed project HISTORY /CONTEXT 1-This is now a privately owned orchard and as such does not offer public access into its property (if we spread out a picnic blanket we'll probably get run over by a tractor) but that being said the orchard itself does add to the community environment by way of the benefit of the many trees A-trees mitigate climate change, clean the air, cool the atmosphere, and mark the seasons- 2-So this project should replace and increase the number of trees lost in the orchards 3-Sense of place in time and history-some portions of the orchard should remain intact so provide a link past to our Town history and ground this project into the fabric of our local culture-similar to what the Olsen cherry orchards do for the City of Sunnyvale. Maybe the theme of this project can incorporate the drying sheds and outbuildings found on local farms There is nothing presented that says anything II Los Gatos" at all. SIZE/SCALE 1-This is a massive project that overwhelms the site and neighborhood.-how can this be justified? Can the parking all be placed underground -as well as the first floor of the buildings to reduce the heights and allow for some open green belt areas that serve some actual purpose? Can the buildings have "green roofs" that are vegetated and add something back to the atmosphere and help cool the area to contrast against all the "hard" paved surfaces? Thus project should add to the community needs and become an asset not an eyesore-but taking pot shots is not constructive-some actual thought needs to occur as well as meaningful planning goals. Is there any requirement for LEED certification? ASSETS 1-What does Los Gatos obtain in a positive light from this development-what does Los Gatos really need? Housing is in need in every community-but to what cost? What is the burden on our infrastructure-power, roads, water, sewer, hospitals, parks, fire fighters and police departments-how does this problem address these? Why is the below market and senior housing so sparsely proposed and underserved? Is there any solar power generation? Treatment of rain runoff in bioswales? New fire house or police station, new schools or new parks or playing fields -community swimming pools? This projects begs more questions than answers and as Community Leaders the Town citizens look to you for solutions. Respectfully submitted. Pamela M. Warren, AlA Architect LEED Green Associate DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED 690 Gibraltar Drive Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone : (408) 942-8200 Direct : (408) 964-5739 Fax : (408} 262 -2342 License #399163 RECEIVED AUG 0 3 2016 MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL ~~ hJ-~ vi'?-LLL /L-~ :tr ltLrcL/fL ,J___,;n Ldt. L }!_.t_:tf:LA__.) Juc;f:, vVVL.-7! f!ft>yfLt.;h_A_; t!-nt_L./ vJL-fd.-~ J1: -t-<J c:tL _U-1-LbLxL~ ~ ~~-r--~ . . lt7.L/0J__{_ v. t~ &.L1 IL/n_j u---YY 1.--f---'L-Lll./<__. c:U~ ~ YLJ..L--tL& L t1/[& . I)~ \1---?---;c__'<i--' . Yk.~~J_ ~YrL-j}_u_tu~ILf( :frvnu vo. )U-hL· 1 ~{_, cft_..u _j_-Lf_ :io cf,f__.rJ_ M il.LuU V ~~a. &-ttJ b -w-;v c-/Lt!_L--..1;;-o 1Lt-u(U-LL dAL}_ &w!J!t~n ~. ~VLlf: ai<-U-a-:6~ Ukf~:~t:L ~~uL J tL--vuL~d.uf~ aLL r c/u_.tuf__ ~. ~~'--f!{d&L Begin forwarded message : From: Susan Kankel <susankankel@comcast.net:> Subject: North 40 Applicati on Date: August 2, 2016 4:08:49 PM PDT RECEIVED AUG 0 3 201£ MAYOR & TOW N COU NCIL To: bspector@ losgatosca.gov; sleonardis@ losgatosca.gov; mjensen@ losgatosca.gov; msayoc@losgatosca.gov; rrennie@losgatosca.gov Cc: jpaulson@losgatosca.gov August2,2016 To the Town Council : I will be out of town during the Council's hearings on this project, but I wish to make my opinions known . I recommend that you deny the present application for the North 40 because it does not fulfill several requirements of the North 40 Specific Plan (citied in parentheses). ·The look and feel of Los Gatos is not present. (p 1.1) The buildings are too massive, too dense, and too high, which in turn prevents it from meeting the requirement that it embrace hillside views (p. 11 ). The Specific Plan calls fro lower intensity residential and limited commercial/ office space for the Lark District , also called Phase 1, (pp.2-3) but the application gives us three-story buildings with six to eight units in each. ·The proposal does not provide open space as it is perceived in a small town: lawn areas like the front of Town Hall or all schools or the Town Plaza; hardscape may be deemed open space in metropolitan areas like San Francisco, it is not appropriate in a small town (p 11 ). ·The site's unique agricultural characteristics are not incorporated (3.2 .4); one would hope that this last vestige of our rural heritage would be acknowledged by more than one market which sells high-end products; there is a barn on the property and retaining it with an existing buffer area of land would make a great start in showing what Los Gatos used to be and incorporating the "Unique Farmland" as designated by the State Department of Conservation. • Move-down housing for seniors, one of the Town's unmet needs (p. 1.1 ), is not provided . The latest census of 2010 report states that there are 5,236 seniors in Los Gatos and 80% of those own their own homes. The original plan by this developer showed cottage clusters for seniors, yet the present application gives 49 apartments owned and run by Eden for very low income seniors/disabled. • Mitigation measures (p 1.1) are based on outdated or incomplete reports which do not include planned and incomplete projects in the area. The schools will be impacted because all 320 units are located in the Los Gatos Union School District even thought the Specific Plan states residences must be spread throughout the 40 acres. • The entire object of the Specific Plan is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach" (p1.1) yet this application covers only one piece of the property , thus not filling this requirement. These are only some of the reasons I support a denial of the present application; traffic, open space, look and feel of Los Gatos, impact on downtown's commercial viability and vitality are all additional reasons to deny. The developer has not shown us how this application is going to make our lives and our town better; Grosvenor has only shown us how it will leave a lasting negative impact on Los Gatos. When we, the community of residents and merchants, pushed back at what Grosvenor says we need instead of listening to what we want, as was stated in the Specific Plan, it simply threatened litigation. Bully tactics do not further cooperation or acceptance. I urge you to deny the present application because it does not fulfill the requirements of the Specific Plan. Respectfully, Susan Kankel 99 Reservoir Road From : Kay Maurer [mailto:kayathome@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:30 AM To : Council Subject: North 40 and traffic issues Kay Maurer from Los Gatos MainJust now Thank you for your decision to continue the closure of the SB access to highway 17 for the rest of the month. This is good news, but the same council has to decide what is going to happen with the North 40 and all the cars that will be added to the traffic mix in Los Gatos if the current proposal is approved . What on earth would warrant that to be approved in the face of the current traffic issues in town. It seems to me that this meeting last night will be repeated again and aga i n if high density housing projects are continued to be approved for the town. There is just not room for any more cars and people. The beach traffic is just the tip of the iceberg, it is seasonal. ... the traffic from the North 40 and other large projects will be permanent. Stop the madness before it is too late. Stop adding more and more houses to an already crowded town. From: edrathmann@comcast.net [mailto :edrathmann@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:03 AM To: Steve Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc Cc: Joel Paulson Subject: North 40 August meetings Town Council and Planning Department, The following are OBJECTIVE examples of how the Grosvenor plan does not conform to the Specific Plan. I am here focusing on the retail component of the plan. I am also focusing on the Market Study & Business Assessment by BAE Economics. To be clear this Market Study is part of the Specific Plan and is simply not followed by the Grosvenor proposal. I also want to stress that it does not matter if the proposed retail is 5000 square feet, 66,000 sf, or 400,000 sf. Either what is proposed conforms to the Specific Plan , or it doesn't. In this case, it does not! Also, I will cite further evidence of how this Market Study is, as described by Planning Commission," FLAWED" 1) Several times, the Market Study says that the only retail "leakage" to other communities (i.e. unmet needs) that is currently happening is in the category of " ... building materials and general merchandising stores, stand out for their substantial leakages ." p. 3. 61. 63. 116. There is nothing in the Grosvenor plan to meet this need. Only more of the same small retail and restaurants that is an already met need according to the study. 2) The study finds 10,000 sf or above spaces lacking in the Downtown. " ... Los Gatos SHOULD consider using the North 40 ... to establish new retail uses ... by permitting larger floor plate[s] ... " p. 5, 10, 76, 111, 116. Again there is nothing in the proposal to satisfy this finding. 3) The Market Study states" ... Los Gatos SHOULD encourage a mix of new office space at the North 40 ... " Also " ... pursue the concept of a Los Gatos innovation center" Later it finds" The Town Should consider a hotel use for the North 40 ... " (all on p. 11) Again the Grosvenor plan does not comply with the Market Study. None of these ideas are in the current proposal . 4) The Market Study states that retail in the North 40 should" establish a clear difference in the shopping experience between the Downtown and the North 40." p. 114. There is nothing in the Grosvenor proposal to address this important issue. The following highlights further flaws in the the Market Study. 5) The study discusses other developments in our area and mentions their square feet. Nowhere in this study does it mention the square feet ofthe Downtown core area. How can a rational analysis of whether the North 40 will negatively impact the Downtown be accomplished, if the study does not even mention or know the size of the Downtown? This is a serious flaw. 6) The Market Study sugge sted that the developer " ... identify new retail uses that will complement the Town's mix such as specialty foods (e.g., "market hall"). p. 10. What is Whole Foods and parts of Lunardis if not specialty foods? And both are right down Los Gatos Blvd. How could a Market Hall at the North 40 not compete with Whole Foods? The other problem w ith a market hall in the North 40 is that most are not farmers markets like Grosvenor is touting. Most are full of prepared foods, restaurants, and coffee bars . Take a look at The Shed in Healdsburg, the Ox Bo Market i n Napa, or the Ferry Building in San Francisco . Is there anything limiting what Grosvenor can put i n their Market Hall ? Restaurants, coffee bars, and specialty foods are a met need in town. As the Market Study says : there is not leakage in these categories! 7) Finally as the Planning Commission pointed out, there is absolutely no mention in this study comparing downtown parking to parking in the North 40. How can you discuss economic impacts if parking is not taken into account? Also, the Downtown requires Conditional Use Permits for much of their businesses . The North 40 does not. This has to impact the Downtown negatively and offers an unfair competitive advantage to the North 40. This Market Study does not address parking or the need for CUP's in the Downtown in contrast to the North 40. This again, is a serious flaw. These are numerous OBJECTIVE reasons to deny this proposal for the North 40. Please vote to deny. In addition, the Specific Plan, because of it's many flaws, needs to be reviewed and revised before any new project applications are accepted . Thank you, Ed Rathmann Managing Partner Main Street Burgers and Willow Street From : Yumi Hiroshima [mailto:yumi.hiroshima@gmail.com] Sent : Wednesday, August 03, 2016 6 :19 PM To: Council Subject: North 40 vote Dear Los Gatos Town Council member, I am writing to encourage a NO on the North 40 development from the Town Council. Thank you for your consideration . Best regards, Yumi Hiroshima North 40 Public Comments 8.4.16 From: Elke Billingsley [mailto:elke.billingslev@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 7:59AM To: Council Subject: North 40 vote on August 9 Good morning town council, Your vote about the "North 40" development at Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard is coming up next week. I realize the planning commission denied the plans as they are currently drawn . I hope you will do the same and deny the current proposal. My concerns are simi lar to our friends and neighbors in town (and neighboring Campbell and San Jose as well): * Traffic on town streets and entry/exit to Highways 17 and 85. This is a lready crowded around the property, especially heavy for hours each morning and evening during commute peaks. * Why does the residential all need to be built within the Los Gatos school district? Our family has students in the district now and we are out of room . We added 50+ students just last year to our school. I know school impact is not to be considered when building but that leaves out an important part of the impact. * The community is aging. Senior housing could be a great solution here: minimal traffic impact, no school impact, build retail that they can walk to on the property. * The look of Los Gatos is not in this development. It is about the developer maximizing profit. I realize something will be built on the property but this is too much. I hope some creativity can be used to make a development of which everyone can be proud. I am not able to attend the meeting, due to previous commitments. I hope the residents are heard. Thank you for your efforts -we appreciate it! -Elke Billingsley From: Chris Szeles [mailto:cszeles@ya hoo.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:38 AM To: BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie; Laurel Prevetti Subject: URGENT--North 40 Observations Mayor Spector, Town Manager, and Town Council, The North 40 proposal feels as if the town is morphing into San Jose, which is what I needed to move away from several years ago when I decided to relocate to Los Gatos. I grew up in the valley, and Los Gatos was always considered a *diamond* in the valley . When we change the dynamics of that small- town feel it will never be reversable and will truly have a negative effect on how the town is viewed and culture . I propose we keep Los Gatos feeling like a small town in the already-too-dense Silicon Valley. If we take emotion out of the equation, and view the proposal from a Civil Engineering perspective, our infrastructure is already under pressure and adding a development of this magnitude does not seem reasonable. As we increase infrastructure load, the quality of residents life will drop dramatically. A simple example of this equation: We are already seeing this issue during summer beach traffic months. The North 40 developers are not from our community, are not made up of our friends or neighbors, and have no sense of the town look/feel/community. It is obvious that they only care about money and it absolutely apparent in their proposal. I was in the library the other day and a woman from out of town was visiting, and saw the North 40 model near the front entrance. She asked me 'why the heck is the town going to allow this *monster* here?' This is the same question I ask you. Thank you for listing to my perspective, Chris Szeles 115 Amanda Ln Los Gatos, CA 95032 RECEIVED Mrs . Roland Campbell AUG 0 4 201~ 25 fJlmer Avenue G G l f . 0 MAYOR & TOWN COUNCIL Los atos. a i orma 9503 T6? l&~ ~~oiUCtL. dc!M( ~ \ Wr(p .f.-s~ ~' JJ l'(_t v/Jt/ {}-t(&,Mr ~<YI'f N ( C-/(tiJU~ [{ &P" CG;fft4{tfPrk-'r /H' 0/t. t//rc:t -r~ ~M' ~'W() o-~ ~t I(J;rCtrri/P(} vr~J&Prtt~ Jt?r fl,f-A~f ~d f /i-J.f6--d' 4 l#~ fr* f>r--rrvc._~' crt,os G-&'"Gr1 /~,IJCI'-t{ rr~v ;;~, cr ( MIA t; aM-1 ,v /JJ-! 0-A-?rP t r g t? 2o ( tv-li;()' r rc w&~ ~ /fht A-tAl( ~efftt?&;; Ctrf(tr~<r-­ (JUJ y-&u,(/ t 1 A/0'/t/. .A1r t<"r 4.tr--M"'tt~ (kltt:tfM ~t!f HtfJ' .LdCJ.rL.,' vA-l/ /lfk'-?B{. rtr-c>-- fMRCC///L_ tr.Yj ~ l!.4retoM T:f:r!~~ (¥{/!'# tetfo.( t((~f 4-f 7tY/-' L_ &Vb-""L/6-'(( If(~ Jr~ ( tft1vs /rr~.fffJJ -N . ( f(tfvl:-S/#( ~~ {} v( L?(M-( .s(2~ ()~ m"-{/(Ur(tr--lc ~ P'k!!JV ( (f;f-f/&-1.1. vu-d (A/ N ~~j /'f.bl;f..J'& /lLk>ffl>\ ---.... ( ~ :wA/cr &r ,. !I t;J -~o-~RJ ;;;~; tlJrf i:Mr cff~ ~-tu~ltt(!t'tfr gPCiflk~ ucvP &::4~ ( ~/ tfi~H-C:::O( { llfUfC M?J (h(_{&S ~(~c;r::;/ f/Wj# ~kff