N40 Desk Item Attachment 69From: Maria Ristow fmailto:ristows@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 3:21 PM
To: Council
Subject: N40 Spec Plan points of concern
Hardworking Town Council Members,
I know this is probably your 500th email today..... but I hope you will consider my points
before tomorrow night's meeting on the North Forty Specific Plan.
One of my biggest concerns is that, as each section of the Specific Plan is considered,
the whole overall project falls out of sight. I know you will try to keep a large vision of
what might be possible as you look at the details.
Residential -- Please retain all 364 residential units, possibly more (with density
bonus). Due to the need for housing in Los Gatos, the very generous agreement
between LGUSD and the developers to mitigate school impacts, and the lower traffic
impact of housing over commercial, I urge you to keep the housing at least at
364. Traffic and school mitigations are beyond that accomplished or promised by any
other projects previously built or likely to be built elsewhere in town. The varied types
of residences planned can fulfill many unmet residential needs. Decreasing the housing
here will then push it elsewhere, where there will NOT be the same mitigation
measures.
Commercial /Medical -- Minimize or eliminate. The developers may not like this, but
between PAMF, the new Stanford Cancer Center, and Albright, Los Gatos has created
a huge amount of new commercial and medical office space. These both attract outside
traffic and generate large numbers of car trips per sq. ft. of space. This will likely not
benefit Los Gatos nor fulfill unmet needs.
Retail -- All the retail to serve the N40 and nearby neighborhoods. This is beyond the
simple "coffee shop, pizza place, burrito bar, medical /vet" formula that seems to be
plopped in to the latest mixed use projects and strip malls near housing. I've talked to
residents in Charter Oaks, Blossom Hill, La Rinconada, Oka Road. They want to WALK
to a Market Hall, sit -down restaurants (more than one) with outdoors seating, retail
shops. They DON'T want to walk to big boxes and don't want regional draw
stores. Downtown LANDLORDS might not like this, but many downtown BUSINESS
owners favor retail at N40. Rents downtown might have to come down. This can only
help the local shops we claim to want to retain. (We've lost great local businesses over
the years to high rents or landlords preferring another business: House of Brass, Studio
42, Learning Game, Bells and Whistles, Domus to name my favorites.) Downtown has
had 20 years to prepare for this, and it is primarily the landlords, not the business
owners that oppose retail in the N40. Residents north of Blossom Hill Road largely head
more to Campbell than downtown LG, so retail and restaurants there appeal to a good
portion of our town population.
Hotel /conference Center -- Yes! Great location for this with proximity to hospital /large
ATTACHMENT 6 9
medical facilities and freeway /airport access. Good tax source
Height limitations: Retaining the 25' limit on the perimeter and keeping low heights in
the Lark district housing, I encourage variation in heights, including height exceptions in
the center and northern parts of the property. This gives visual interest, allows more
open space, tucks parking under structures, allows the affordable senior housing to
"pencil out ". The affordable housing is incredibly valuable and not easily obtained. I
don't believe other projects /AHOZ sites would build this level of affordability.
In summary: The N40 Spec Plan has been a long time in the making, and it has
evolved with various thoughts to fulfilling unmet needs (senior and young professional
housing, retail at northern part of town, hotel near freeways and hospital). Downtown
has had 20 years to prepare for this, and it is the landlords, not the business owners
that oppose retail in the N40. The other projects (PAMF and Albright) perhaps should
not have been approved as they were, and Albright did not pay the new traffic mitigation
fees on the first two buildings and is fighting not to on the next two buildings. While the
use of the Planned Development (PD) is under review, no more new PDs should be
approved (Shannon and LGB, Winchester and Shelbourne, etc.) until this issue is
resolved. The traffic and other mitigation fees that the N40 developers will pay are far
beyond what other projects have ever paid per acre. Town not City seems focused
solely on stopping the N40, without looking at all the other issues in town that also are
problems and have and will continue to impact schools and traffic and quality of life.
Please keep your focus on the best outcome for Los Gatos in the next 10 -50 years, and
look at this project and its merits in total context.
Respectfully,
Maria Ristow
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Edward Morimoto
460 Monterey Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
sugiman@stanfordalumni.org
April 13, 2015
Mayor Marcia Jensen
The Los Gatos Town Council
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear MayorJensen and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
First of all, let me thank this Council for its recent progress towards completing the North
40 Specific Plan. The recent progress gives me hope this seven -year journey is finally
coming close to completion. I appreciate what a challenging task it is to take such an
affirmative step in the face of vocal opposition and cries such as "We don't want another
Santana Row. "' I trust it is not lost on you that the thousands of hours spent on the Plan
by consultants, Town staff /elected officials and members of the public have proven that
the N40 question is far more complicated and nuanced than many people understand.
With a handful of significant Specific Plan issues still being debated in both chambers and
across our Town, I am hopeful that you can see that the facts support the draft Specific
Plan in front of you today, and I implore you to approve the Specific Plan without further
delay:
The Facts don't support Reduction of Commercial Space or a Small Unit
Size Restriction
There has been much discussion of reducing the amount of commercial space and /or
restricting the number of small spaces in the North 40 in the name of reducing traffic and
protecting our downtown. Even the best developers and planners would not claim to
have "crystal ball" clarity into commercial needs 5+ years out when the N40 will finally
be builtii and with limited factual support for the need for such restrictions, such
additional restriction would appear to unnecessarily risk underserving the residents of
North Los Gatos and the Town at large.
• Competition is not something to avoid —The phrase "avoid competition with downtown" gets
used a lot -- I hope this isn't what we mean. I would agree that unfair competition is to
be avoided, but fair competition keeps prices low, the quality of goods /services high,
and pushes businesses to always provide customers the best service. Competition makes
our community better. While we have often heard concerns from downtown landlords,
the fact that we seldom hear downtown merchants°' express concern about potential
N40 competition suggests to me that our downtown business owners don't fear
competition and are confident they can rise to the challenge.
Thefacts don't support the claim that N40 retail threatens downtown — Neither the economic
vitality study in the EIR nor the supplemental study commissioned by the town provide
evidence that N40 retail, on the scale identified in the Specific Plan, will harm our
downtown nor do they recommend reductions /restrictions like the ones discussed in
recent Town Council hearings. Empirically these conclusions are further supported by
other downtown districts like Palo Alto and Campbell, unsullied and, in fact, thriving
despite formidable, close commercial compeddon.iv Instead of limiting N40 retail, I
would like to see energy put towards affirmative policies that encourage uses at the N40
which are complimentary to the downtown thereby elevating all of the commercial
areas of our Town.
Studies show that the N40 can capture significant retail leakage — Both aforementioned studies
show that the N40 commercial plan can help capture in excess of $80m of spending
that currently leaves our town and contribute in excess of $ I m annually in sales tax
revenue to the Town's general fund. Closing this "retail gap" at the north end of our
Town would improve the quality of life for nearby residents and help mitigate a fiscal
environment where issues like improving downtown parking, addressing the overdue
repaving of the Almond Grove, and outsourcing the LG -MS Police force loom large.
Small space restriction creates a 'power center " — At a 5°/"/5% restriction for 0 -1500 sf and
1501 -3000 sf retail spaces (let alone a restriction to half those levels), the N40 becomes
what commercial developers call a "power center." For me, it's easier to understand
that this scenario might result in the N40 looking more like the Home Depot center on
101 in East Palo Alto or The Plant at Curtner and Monterey. As a former and future
part -time resident of North Los Gatos, I will say that this scenario isn't the vision I have
of the N40 nor does it appear to be the vision of others in the area"'.
364 residential units are appropriate for the N40
While there are many town residents who don't want any additional housing in Los
Gatos, reality is the Bay Area's economic prosperity most of us enjoy continues to create
the demand for more housing and Sacramento is taking this "housing crisis" very
seriously. Although the recent awareness that the state density bonus could ultimately
allow 491 residential units, I believe maintaining the residential unit count on the North
40 is the best alternative for our town.
Any development satisfying the Town's housing needs will be eligible for the density bonus — I
appreciate that in your position you are burdened with the question of "if not on the
N40, where ?" Most residents likely do not understand that the density bonus is an
option for any development, whether or not such development is identified in the
Housing Element. Most residents likely do not understand that the bonus units on the
North 40 are still subject to the same traffic mitigation fees and agreed upon school
benefits (the latter which wouldn't apply to any other development). And most
residents might not realize that taking advantage of the density bonus on the N40
would almost certainly come at the price of reduced commercial development leading
to a net reduction in things like traffic. In short, I would much rather have the density
bonus applied to the N40 under its well- vetted plan over alternatives such as increasing
170 units to 230 at the Los Gatos Lodge developed by -right.
Los Gatos 'gets more "from N40 residential —Compared to alternatives for satisfying our 619
unit RHNA requirement, the N40 is far superior. No other site will be as well studied.
No other development can provide critical mass for a live - work -shop mixed -use layout
that promotes fewer car trips. The per - student benefits to the school district and open
space requirements are unprecedented. With the N40 we get a development that
addresses unmet demographic needs for "move- down" seniors and millennials and a
developer who, voluntarily, brought in Eden Homes to accommodate 60 very low
income senior units — all things the town is unlikely to get from an AHOZ site taking
advantage of "by right" development.
We shouldn't impose tighter Height Restrictions
The current plan gives latitude to developers for additional height in the center of the
N40 to provide more architectural interest, a greater sense of "there," and, yes, improved
economics. Some have called for tighter restriction citing the Town's 35 ft general plan
restriction on height. However, if the N40 is our opportunity to satisfy "unmet needs,"
that goal is much harder to accomplish if we just dogmatically apply existing policy.
Although it has been a frustratingly painstaking process, I believe the Town wisely chose
to require a Specific Plan to give itself the opportunity to evaluate whether policies like
height might be approached differently on the North 40.
Height restrictions come at a price — It's undeniable that economics and profit play a big role
in development — economics that developers must balance against things like height,
density, architectural interest, and desirable elements like open space. Grosvenor's
desire to have limited opportunities to build to 55 ft. allows them to create a move -
down building that is appealing to its residents, beautiful to the public, and economical
to build and sell. It affords them costly elements like underground parking, ample
elevator coverage for older residents, airy interiors with high ceilings and aesthetically -
pleasing setbacks and roof articulation. Before we clamp down on height citing our 35ft
standard, I hope you will take one last look of nearby projects where height restrictions
seem to play a role in encouraging less - than- beautiful development."u
Height should be judged in context — I would agree with anyone that protecting our bucolic
views should be a priority and ten -story glass towers would not be in character with our
downtown. In that context, the town's standard height restriction is a useful, perhaps
necessary, tool to manage the load posed by dozens of development proposals each
year. But a project of the magnitude of the N40, whose entitlements have taken seven
years to date and has deviated from existing standards in other ways to benefit the
Town, warrants more careful consideration in context. The proposed zones for
increased height exist along the Hwy. 85 corridor where taller structures are
commonplace and across which there are few, if any, locations in town where the view
would be impacted. I" It is unclear to me what benefit we in Los Gatos get in return
for the cost of further height restrictions.
I hope the Council will consider these and all the facts that have led to a balanced and
thoughtful Specific Plan up for approval. I have been disappointed /saddened by recent
public comment fueled by the selective use of facts and degenerating into epithets riddled
with coarse language, racial /ethnic intonations and, in at least one case, outright threats.
Our Town and my family's home deserve better than this. I would be outraged — as I
think others who have invested so much in this Plan would be as well — if the Council
were to discount all the hard work put into this Plan and heed the claims that, after seven
years, the completion of the N40 Specific Plan is premature or should be put to additional
study. Similarly I would be highly concerned if key elements of the Plan were changed at
the eleventh hour using conveniently selective use of facts to justify bowing to personal
bias /preconception, ill - informed public outcry or the wants of "squeaky wheels" in the
face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
I implore the Council to approve the Specific Plan and allow for the development of the
N40 in accordance with a well thought out and debated Specific Plan. In the Town's
best interest, please do not expend more time and resources attempting to "gild the lily"
of this highly developed plan or squeeze a developer that has given more than its fair
share as such over - reaching will only come at the expense of what can be invested in the
N40.
As always, I thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely
L
Edward S. Morimoto
Los Gatos resident and member of the Yuki Family
Cc: Laurel Prevetti, Community Development Director
Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
Tom Yuki
Nolan Kennedy, counsel to the Yuki Family
Katharine Hardt- Mason, land use counsel to the Yuki Family
'Despite being roughly the same land size, with current entitlements of 1182 residential
units, 940,000 sf of commercial space (office/retail) and 214 hotel rooms (exclusive of
the commercial limit) and with an additional 510,000 of commercial currently under
proposal, Santana Row is hardly an apt comparison to the North 40. In fact, with
currently 644,000 sq. feet of commercial, 834 residential units and 212 hotel rooms built
out at heights up to 90' (with an extension to 150' requested for the new commercial),
"Half as dense, half as tall" would probably be a more accurate six -word moniker for the
N40 plan. Source: City of San Jose, PDC13 -050 Draft El R, March 18, 2015
" With the second phase of the Grosvenor project likely not breaking ground until 2020
or later, the entire Northern district and much of the Transition district which
encompasses the bulk of the retail/commercial development is unlikely to be available
until sometime after 2021
"' Although Messrs. Rathmann and Farwell have frequently commented, I can recall only
two non - landlord merchants (of which Mr. Rathmann is one) providing testimony /letters
opposing N40 retail as planned in the SP over my 3 1/2 years of nearly uninterrupted
attendance to N40 SPAC, Planning Commission and Town Council meetings regarding
the N40 — a trend that continues, as of this writing, for the April 14th hearing. This is
even more remarkable in light of a persistent rumor (which I have good reason to believe)
of pressure being applied by downtown landlords on their tenants to oppose N40 retail.
" Downtown Palo Alto is less than one mile from the Stanford Shopping Center and
California Avenue — the latter of which is currently enjoying a renaissance despite its
prosperous competitors to the north. Similarly, downtown Campbell thrives despite
competing with the Pruneyard 2500 ft. and Santana Row 2.2 miles (the same distance
from downtown to the N40, coincidentally) away.
" Such as imposing different parking rules and removing CUP requirements for formula
retail as suggested in Dr. McLaughlin's report. I don't think hobbling one commercial
area in the name of protecting another is sound policy, but only serves to make Los Gatos
more vulnerable to competition outside its borders (from municipalities & developers
who will likely care far less about our downtown's viability). I think there is merit to
"leveling the playing field" with the downtown, but any such actions should be
affirmative, not restrictive.
As evidenced by the nearly unanimous input from residents of the Highland Oaks
neighborhood who, located across Lark, are probably the most greatly impacted residents
— both positive & negative — by the North 40.
The phalanxes of boxlike townhouses under development on Wolfe Rd. bumping up to
Cupertino's 45 ft. restriction immediately come to mind.
""' The area seeking additional height stands in line along Hwy 85 flanked by the 65'
Stanford building across LG Blvd and the 50'/65' Albright buildings across Hwy 17. At
the northeast comer of the Town, there are few, if any, locations in the town limits whose
view would be impacted — any photographic representations I recall of impacted views
have come from the freeways. The most likely location for impact would be the
Oka/Charter Oaks area, but the trees alongside the freeway, given perspective, block any
view of structures 50'+ on the N40. While it is true freeway views may be impacted, I,
for one, would prefer those people keep their eyes on the road vs. the hills. Other height
regulation on the N40 imposes 25 ft limits along Lark and LG Blvd. and would allow
heights above 35' in only a small portion in the northern/central part of the site. While
residents/visitors to the N40 might experience impacts to their views, that is a tradeoff
choice they make with perfect foreknowledge.
From: Leslie Pickering [mailto:leskpickalyahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:38 PM
To: Council
Subject: Fwd: North Forty Special Meeting
Subject: North Forty Special Meeting
Marcia Jensen and other Council Members,
Thank you so much for scheduling a special meeting to discuss the North Forty development.
I have lived in Los Gatos ( Blossom Hill Manor) for 50 years and have supported all
movements aimed at keeping Los Gatos a charming town and protect it from too much
development. We citizens who are against overdevelopment usually lose - case in point is the
massive structures on the old Paul Swanson property now called Sandy Lane Shopping Center.
I recently returned from my annual two week trip to London. I enjoy everything about London
and, of course, there is no way to compare London and Los Gatos, but I was stunned by the
beauty of our natural scenery and especially the hills and mountains when I got home. We still
have most of our views, unlike most cities, but buildings are about to take those views from us.
Our town has the most beautiful backdrop available, and why do we allow developers to destroy
that?
The proposed development of The North Forty is a major mistake for all concerned (except for
the company wanting to build there!) and will be a tragedy for Los Gatos. I do not know a single
citizen who thinks it is a good idea. There is a pitch that those of us who live in this end of town
deserve more businesses. That is ridiculous. If we need one or two more pleasant restaurants, that
is easy to solve without all those tall buildings, a hotel, and a big box stores. Please don't approve
the beginning of the end of our wonderful town.
Rhode Firth
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
I' R * Mason a
April 13, 2015
K;vheriuc I_ I lmdt ldanon, If >q.
I�a� I i.�n: i c n l l enl [blaa m.cum
Via Email (�lum�n7ul cnGarosC.A dot, (:ounol!n;L�„(;arosC.A. n��', ;y- lanaecr[clos�ralost�A.�oc-1
Mayor Marcia Jensen
Town Council Members
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: North Forty Historic Preservation /Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding
Consideration
Dear Mayor Jensen and Members of the Town Council:
In furtherance of my letter to you dated February 2, 2015, and on behalf of the Yuki family, I am again
writing to request that at your hearing on Tuesday, April 14, 2015, you:
(i) adopt the proposed Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Consideration
relating to the potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Cultural Resources
resulting from development of the North 40 property, and
(ii) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (the "MMRP ") for the
project.
It remains our belief that through enforcement of the MMRP any impact to historically significant
buildings or elements located on the North 40 Property can and will be protected. The foregoing is
supported by not only the Historical Reports attached to the North 40 Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report and the recommendations of the Town's Historic Preservation Committee, but by the
information provided to you by me and Edward Morimoto on February 2, 2015, and the Carey & Co.
Inc. Memorandum dated April 6, 2015. What is not supported by the evidence in the record is creation
of a Historic District within the North 40 Property.
As you know, in December 2014, Carey & Co. Inc. presented the option of creating a Historic District
within the North 40 Property as a means of avoiding the need to adopt certain Findings of Facts and
Statements of Overriding Consideration resulting from potentially Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts to Cultural Resources. The volumes of information covering the potential historical
Ngc I I
significance of the North 40 Property, including the structures and elements located thereon, however,
provide more than sufficient evidence for one to conclude that a Historic District is not justified:
1. the "Adobe House" located at 14919 Los Gatos Blvd. is NOT a historical structure;
2. the walnut orchard currently located on a portion of the North 40 Property DID NOT
EXIST in the 1920s and WAS NEVER PART OF THE HORTICULTURAL
INDUSTRY that the proposed Historic District is attempted to preserve'-; and
3. the two sheds currently located on the North 40 Property are NOT historical structures, even
though they resemble sheds that may have existed on the North 40 Property in the 1920s'.
Of course, as suggested by Carey & Co., one could still create a Historic District containing the Red
Barn, some of the walnut orchard, and the sheds'. The question, however, is not whether a Historic
District can be created, thereby avoiding the need to adopt specific Findings of Facts and Statements
of Overriding Consideration relating to the potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to
Cultural Resources. The question that should be asked is whether creation of a Historic District is
justified in light of the information available.
The answer to this question based on the available information is no. Carey & Co., Inc., states
"Characteristically, there would be one main farmhouse for the land holders, and several smaller
residential structures for the workers. Various support structures might include barns, storage
buildings, garages or machine sheds. A few dirt roads would provide access around the property and
to the various structures.5" In the present situation, (i) the proposed Historic District would not
include a main farmhouse, we know that the Adobe House does not qualify for the Historic District,
(ii) the two sheds could be included within the District, but even Carey & Co., Inc. states that "their
retention or demolition would not affect the identified historic district "`, so why include them, and
(iii) some of the walnut orchard could be preserved, but it did not exist during the representative era
and in fact was never part of the area's horticultural industry. In other words, the only thing that really
reflects the representative era is the Red Barn.
Rather than create a Historic District to simply avoid having to make the Findings of Facts and
Statements of Overriding Consideration, we hope you will preserve the "look and feel" of the
North 40 Property through application of Mitigation Measure CR -2. The Red Barn, or elements
of the Red Barn, can be incorporated into development of the North 40 project, and portions of the
orchard, although not from the agricultural era of interest, can be retained or integrated into select
areas of the North 40 Property. As stated previously, the Yuki Family supports preservation of the
Red Barn or integration of elements of the Red Barn into the North 40 project and has no objection
to retaining or relocating some of the walnut trees presently located on the North 40 Property.
See Section 3 of the Memorandum dated April 6, 2015, to Richard James from Hisashi Sugaya, Principal of Carey & Co.,
Inc. (the "Memorandum ").
2 See Section 9 of the Memorandum which shows that walnut trees were not planted on the North 40 Property until after
1958 and wherein Mr. Sugaya acknowledges the Yuki Family's use of North 40 Property, "As the Los Gatos property was
purchased as a homestead for the family, not for commercial agricultural production, different crops were tried in an
attempt to limit the effort /equipment for cultivation and accommodate the relatively poor, rocky soil of the N40 site."
} See Section 5 of the Memorandum "The sheds are not identified as historic resources"
4 See Section 3 of the Memorandum wherein Mr. Sugaya suggests that the property evaluation proposes a "historic
district with "seven contributing resources." This reference appears to be to the Historic Resources Evaluation Report
dated November 12, 2013, which included potential historic resources outside of the proposed Historic District
identified in December 2014. The December 2014 proposal for a Historic District included only the Adobe House, the
Red Barn, the walnut orchard and the two sheds.
3 See Section 1 of the Memorandum.
Id.
RV 2
With all of the information before you, we sincerely hope that you will dismiss the concept of a
Historic District within the North 40 Property and adopt the Findings of Facts and Statements of
Overriding Consideration and the MMRP. The Town, through the planning process and
implementation of the MMRP, can preserve any historic structure or element that deserves protection
and create the "look and feel' that this community is seeking within the North 40 project.
Best regards,
1.�4rdlenr,1t6 17Z2.
Katharine Hardt- Mason, Esq.
Land Use Counsel to the Yuki Family
cc: Shelley Neis, Interim Clerk Administrator (Clerk(i. loshatosca. %)
Laurel Prevetti, Community Development Director (Iprevetti(allos atl oscj4m)
Joel Paulson, Planning Manager (jpaulson(a7os . tosca.gm )
Tom Yuki (via hand delivery)
Ed Morimoto (csm(i8morimotopropertics . com)
Nolan Kennedy (nkenncth t—ykaglaw. tic 0
Page 1 3
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road _
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 335 -2000 Phone • �r r
(408) 395 -6481 Fax
www.leusd.kl2.ca.us •
Dr. Diana G. Abbati, Superintendent
SENT VIA MAIL and EMAIL at ipaulson(allossatosca.gov
April 14, 2015
Town of Los Gatos
c/o Joel Paulson, Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: North 40 Specific Plan Area —Approval of the Voluntary Contribution Agreement between
the Los Gatos Union School District and North 40 Developers on April 13, 2015
Honorable Mayor, Town Council Members and Staff:
I am writing on behalf of the Los Gatos Union School District ( "District ") in support of the North 40
Specific Plan and Project ( "North 40 ") as currently envisioned. The District recognizes much effort and time
has been put into the North 40 and appreciates the collaboration with the Town and North 40 Developers to
address the proposed project's impact on our schools.
At the Monday, April 13, 2015 District Board meeting, the Board of Trustees unanimously approved the
Voluntary Agreement between the District and the North 40 Developers to address the need for the
expansion of school facilities. The Board of Trustees approved the agreement based on the following
principles:
• The North 40 Specific Plan is an appropriate way for the Town of Los Gatos to achieve its State
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirement, and with this agreement, accommodate
future impacts to school district enrollment.
• The District is based on the principle of community or neighborhood schools. The District believes
that dividing neighborhoods between school districts does not support this principle.
Should the Town Council decide to move forward with the North 40 Specific Plan, the District encourages
the Town to take action in an expeditious manner so the District can proceed with its long -term facilities
master plan for the expansion of school facilities.
If you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Diana G. Abbati
Diana G. Abbati, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Los Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees
Town of Los Gatos Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners
Board of Trustees • Scott Broomfield • Emi Etc • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Alex Potts • Peter Noymer
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK