Attachment 16 - Public Comments Addendum• • ... t,i;f:~t,~~ .....
'SILICON VALLEY -----BICYCLE . -----COALITION.r~
1 .. 1t ~ ....... ~... • ..... --•l•
96 N. Third Street. Swte 375
Po~t Office Box 1927
San Jose. CA 95109
Te l 408.28? 7259
FaK 408.213 7559
B OA RD OF DIRECTORS
H· f. · "Ci
G:~ry B~:-. Esq
X O.;w<J•
Po!E".t tngr n
A·)r J .lSf r
Sect! Lane
.James ....
Jim Park.~r
/\I} ·-P Kd
C r:;.t Rcgcns
_,, It ,j; i2't
Cr.cl)l S 1 h
St.JS!I'l T .vrnan Kroll, MD
ADVISORY B OARD
Andtl:'N J B:•
P•CSinM' >-tor; Region
s.~nc./1< Co! ~~r.x-.1 ,J:J
Carl Gutird 1 •
Pre~:uenr art:l CfO
Si'ICO'I 11.1 t.m Lea:.. far sh" Gi uo
E ::a F )9G:'S
P. 'Sreen! and CF.1.1
s·, Rwd fiA'E<ttea
R•ckWoJiacv
~sKk:runnd Cf.O
!\LA· ii'P::.Y>f
-cm 't.'c·rcr
P,~-;; 'Mt and CEO
Sv1P:),ye£ CO:].'
PR ESIDENT ~'I.N D
EXECUTIVE D I RECTOR
"llik•r Bull ro
SVOC i.; a 501 c :3.
r.O!'I·pt':..lfi! OI'Y'Jt J,~fic;.
fllv 1i·03~658
hrtpJ/blkosihconvallay.org
A ugust4,201 6
Los Gatos Town Cou n c il
11 0 E . Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: No rth 4 0 Devel opment A ppl ication
Dear M embers of the Town Council:
I am writing as Executive Director of Si licon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), a
membership-based nonprofit that works t o create a healthy community, environment,
and economy for people who li ve, work, or play in San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties. We are writin g in support of the extraordinary bicycling amenities included in
the North 40 Development proposal, as well as the extensive outreach conducted by
the North 40 development team.
O ur organization was first approach ed b y the applicant t eam over two years ago. They
w anted to know how to make their proposal more bike-fri endly , in order to both ease
potential traffic near the site and to make the development more attractive to young
professionals and seniors-two demographics th at, nationwide, a re in creasingly
loo ki ng for mobility solutions other than the personal automobi le.
To our surprise and delight, the t eam of Eden, S u mmerHill , and Grosvenor repeatedly
responded to o ur suggestions w ith interest and enthu siasm . We recommended a
connection to the Los Gatos C reek Trail , safer facilities on los Gatos Boulevard and
Lark Avenue. and the utilization of a design firm that specialized in b icycling . All these
suggestions and more were acted upon, and each iteration was brought to us for
vetting and further refinement. We believe the e n d result is a fine example of bicycle-
friendly design.
We were disappointed w ith the assertion m any have made : th at the applicants have
insufficiently engaged the comm unity. Our experi ence has been quite the contrary, and
represents only one aspect of the development process.
Bicycling is an excellent transportation option, parti cularly when combined with dense
housing and m ixed-use development T h e proposed North 40 development makes the
most of t his synergy. I u rge you to consider this when making your decision next
Tuesday.
S incerely ,
SL u /_, /Q;[! I
S hiloh Ballard
President and E x ecutive D irect o r
Cc: Laurel Prevetti , Town Manager
Rob Schultz, Town Attorn ey
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
From: Shannon Susick [mai lto :ss usi ck @co mcast.n et]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 1:51 PM
To: Matt Morley
Cc: Joel Paulson
Subject: additional traffic questions No 40
Good Afternoon,
I know how extremely busy you both are & appreciate any time you have or can take to answer our
questions. I have spent weeks going over the data online & evidently haven't found all the items below:
-Please confirm that the most current Traffic Study is the TIA document from March 2014
a. I find more recent memos from Fehr & Peers , the Town , Grosvenor and TJKM, but no
other studies or updates?
b. If there is a current study; could you provide the link? I know Comm i ssioner Hudes
requested this during the PC hearing in July?
-Please confirm that the additional projects in particular the Good Samaritan ER Expansion &
Samaritan Court Medical office as noted on p2 of the Fehr & Peers memo from 12/05/2014
shows the scope of those projects as Good Sam ER expansion to be 14,796 sf and 9 beds and the
Samaritan Court to be SO Samaritan Court and 64,500 sf of medical space .
c. If there was additional space or projects considered after 12/05/2014 could you please
confirm or provide the link?
d. The City of San Jose has records showing notice to our Town on 3/4/2014 and then on
6/24/2015 (with the expanded project of theirs). I am not able to located any studies
done after their last notice?
-Please advise if the most recent Town study of traffic for the beach o r road closures included
counters in the immediate area of the North 40 & if this study corroborated any of the
projections from the TIA from March 2014?
Thank you so much!
Sha nn on Sus ick
(qos) 316-9559
From: d.madse n @nm .com [mailto :d .ma dsen @n m.co m]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 2:47 PM
To: Council
Subject: Regarding the North 40 project
Dear council,
As a 10 year resident of Los Gatos, I am quite concerned about the impact of the No rth 40 if it goes
forward . Commuting to work daily at the Lark Ave entrance to Highway 17 is congested heavily every
day. Adding more cars to that would be tough .
Having one child now in the school district, with one more joining next year, I appreciate what a great
school system we have. But the classrooms are crowded as it is. If I understand , the school district
would absorb a large amount of additional students with the North 40. And some/all of the tax revenue
would go to san Jose, and not Los Gatos. In the yearly fundraisers for Blossom Hill School , they stres s
how we are very underfunded and need contributions from families. And this would only add to that
problem.
I hope you see your way to not approving this project for the good of our town and its residents.
Thank you
Dan Madsen
140 Mary way
Los Gatos 95032
Dan Madsen, CLU, CL TC, CHFC 1 Wealth Management Advisor
152 N. 3·' Street, Suite 755
San Jose, CA 95112
P: 408.535.5710 I F: 408 .604.8101 I C : 408 .691.6807
W : d .madsen@nm.com
LIC . #0831083
NoN h w estern
Mutuar
From: Mark Beaupre [mailto :markdbeaupre@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 6:08 PM
To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; mlensen@losgatosca .gov; Joel Paulson; Planning; Sally
Zarnowitz
Subject: North 40 Project Feedback
Hello ,
My apologies for the informality of email, but I will not b e able to attend the town council
meeting about the North 40 project.
I got a flyer today about the North 40 project. I am not sure that the development is as big of a
problem as it implies .
I live in Blossom Manor and drive b y the North 40 property quite often. The property is bounded
by two freeways on two sides, and the Good Sam hospital/medical complex on the other. The
size and type of development is consistent with the area.
It is my opinion that the character of the North 40 area is more like San Jose and Campbell than
it does with Almond Grove or Downtown.
I think that the main objection to the project is not about schools, or traffic , but I think that it is
more of a NIMBYism that has plagued Los Gatos (see Netflix), downtown merchants wanting to
limit competition, and the need to avoid attracting people from San Jose and Campbell from
coming into our town.
I do not have a problem with the development. The developer fees and any sales taxes generated
by the project should be used to improve Los Gatos Boulevard traffic control and traffic safety.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Very Respectfully,
Mark Beaupre
forwarded message:
From: <jandk356(ii),comcast.n et>
Date: August 4, 2016 at 8:29:32 PM PDT
To: <j paul son@lo sgatosca.gov>
Subject: North 40
To you and all the planning commissioners:
Please do not approve the North 40 project as it now stands . The developer did not
listen to the people of Los Gatos . They are just trying to maximize their profit at the
expense of the town. Kathie and Jeff Gaylord
Faith Lutheran
Church
Los Gatos
United
Methodist
Unitarian
Univ ersalist
Fellowship
Of Los Gatos
August 2, 2016
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE : North 40 Application
Dear Los Gatos Town Councilmembers,
RECEIVED
AUG 5 -2016
iOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DJVISlON
We are writing in support of the North 40 community proposed in the current
planning application. We strongly recommend you to approve this project. The
project provides many important benefits to the Town of Los Gatos, including
much needed housing , public open space , traffic improvements , and support
for local schools .
As leaders in the community, we know that our Town needs more housing
opportunities for all. We see this need directly and up close in our own
congregations and we hear stories of this need from residents across our Town
and the larger Silicon Valley region .
There is a dire lack of housing in our Town, especially housing that is affordable
for seniors. We believe that the proposed senior affordable housing at the North
40 will critically fulfill an unmet need in the Town for seniors . The housing will
allow senior residents of Los Gatos to continue living in their Town in housing
that is safe , high-quality, and affordable for the long term .
We also commend the wide-reaching and inclusive community engagement
and public process that has taken place around the North 40 . We believe that
the proposed project, as a walkable, diverse and sustainable neighborhood ,
responds appropriately and responsibly to the needs of Los Gatos .
Furthermore, the proposed North 40 community, conforms with the Housing
Element, Specific Plan, and General Plan designation for this site.
Your support of the North 40 community now w ill benefit the entire Town in the
long-run, including our residents , schools , businesses, parks, and streets.
Please consider the future of our Town and be a part of the solution to the
enormous housing crisis in our region by approving this much needed project.
StMary's
Catholic Church
St Luke's
Episcop a l
Church
Sincerely,
RcQ_QA \h~v(A a/lv~
\< L'\ ~b\ t\1\ ~,c.\;'\ I J<. A r()(\
,f(a JdiJ d~~~~~he Church of
Jesus Chri s t of
Latter Day
Saints, Lo s
Gatos Ward ~-W.q f-t<<,._..,(J~r
Los Gatos Clergy Group
CC: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager, Rob Schultz, Town Attorney, Joel Paulson ,
Community Development Director, Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager
CONGREGATION SH IR HADASH • 20 Cherry Blossom Lane • Los Gatos , CA 95032 • (408 ) 358-1751
From: Suzanne Cochran [mailto:smb.coch ran @qmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 9:52 AM
To: Council
Cc: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: DENY Current North 40 Application
Town Council members,
Walking into the library recentl y, I saw the model of the proposed first half of the North 40
development. All I could say was "OMG"! I was appalled as were all the others also looking at
it. This is NOT Los Gatos. The proposal as it is currently configured is way too dense, too high ,
generates too much traffic, hugely impacts the schools, and for what? Big profits for the
developer! The litany of faults with thi s proposal is included below. I'm sure by now you will
have read them many times, but the abso lute disregard for the look and feel of Los Gatos is
beyond words (polite ones anyway).
It can be said yo u get what you deserve and the residents of Los Gatos de serve MUCH better
than thi s proposal.
This sh ould NOT be the new look and feel of Los Gatos. DENY this plan.
REASONS FOR DENIAL: THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THE TOWN
HAS MANDATED THROUGH ITS SPECIFIC PLAN
1) The proposed development is required to "look and feel like Los Gato s." P 1.1 The drawings for the
Phase 1 proposal show boxy, massive, indu strial style 3 -5 story buildin gs that have nothing in common
with the look and feel of Los Gatos . It is designed as a separate city within the Town .
2) The Specific Plan says "Lower in tensity residential and limited retail/office uses are envisioned ... " for
the Lark District (Lark/Los Gato s Blvd.) (pp.2 -3 ) The deve loper has instead proposed highly dense
development, including massive 6-, 7-, and 8-unit 3-story row house complexes and
commercial/residential space up to 51 ft. high . (This is taller than the Albright buildings.) Is 3 stories the
new normal building height? I hope not.
3) The proposed development must "embrace h illside views, trees, and open space." P. 1.1 The intensity
and height and layout of the buildings block hillside views and provides minimal open space.
4) The proposed development must "inco rporate the site's unique agricultural characteristics." P. 1.1 All
the walnut trees will be removed. The si te will be planted with other trees, mostly deciduous, that will
take years to grow. There is no amenity that "incorporates the site's unique agricultural characteristics."
The developer claims the marketplace, A STORE , will fulfill this requirement . Really?
5) The Specific Plan state s the development shou ld "a ddress the Town's unmet needs ." P 1.1 Move-
down housing for the Town's seniors and millennia! housing is not provided. Only 49 very low income
se nior apartments are provided . No other afforda bl e hou sing will be built. Additionally, the retail as
proposed largely duplicates that already provided elsewhere in town and competes with rather than
com plements the downtown commercial space.
6) P2.2 The proposed development doesn't "minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure,
schools, and other community services." On the contrary, P 1.1 Schools , street, and other services will
be adversely affected. The initial traffic count was so grossly under estimated as to only be considered
as an error instead of a gross misrepresentation of realistic traffic estimates. Current tax payers should
not be forced to pay for the school and infrastructure improvements this project will require .
7) The Specific Plan states the intent is "to provide a comprehensive framework in which development
can occur in a planned, logical fashion rather than a piecemeal approach ." P 1-1 Phase I includes only a
portion of the 44 acres. The current application is just part of a piecemeal approach since no
information is provided about Phase II.
Change and growth are both part of our evolution. However, the full impact of both these phases, when
completed based on the current half proposal, will tragically end the consistent look and feel all Los
Gatos residents expected from the North 40 development. We will become the City of Los Gatos.
As our repre sentatives, do NOT let big developers , big lawyers , and big money ruin our Town.
Regards ,
Suzanne Cochran
60 Rogers Road
Los Gatos, CA
Resident of Los Gatos for 48 years