Joint Study SessionDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
BACKGROUND
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
December 16, 2011
MEETING DATE: 1/9/12
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL 9
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION FOR
THE NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE. TOPICS INCLUDE PROCESS
UPDATE, VISION, LAND USE, AND HEIGHT.
The North 40 Advisory Committee (N40AC) has been meeting for the past eight months and has
held six meetings. In addition, there has been one joint Town Council, Planning Commission, and
North 40AC study session; and one joint Town Council and Planning Commission study session.
The Town Council has been updated each month on the Committee's progress.
Prior to the August 4, 2011, N40AC meeting, the overall intent was to educate the committee on
guiding policies for the Specific Plan such as the General Plan policies (Attachment 4), 1999 Draft
North 40 Specific Plan, and key documents including the Los Gatos School District paper
(Attachment 5), the BAE Market Study, etc.
During the last three meetings that occurred on August 4, September 22, and November 3, 2011, the
Committee made significant progress in helping staff formulate the project description parameters
for the North 40 Specific Plan. This step is very important since once project description parameters
are defined, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) technical studies preparation can commence,
and RRM, the Town's Specific Plan consultants, can start outlining the chapters and contents for the
Specific Plan.
The Town's North 40 webpage contains background information regarding the N. 40 Specific
Plan. The webpage can be accessed using the following link:
http://www.losgatosea.gov/noi
BY : Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 5/20/2011 11 :44 AM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN
December 15, 2011
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the January 9, 2012, Town Council and Planning Commission Joint Study Session is
as follows:
• Receive an update on the Specific Plan process
• Review and discuss the vision
• Review and discuss height
• Review and discuss land use
This feedback will be used to refine the conceptual design and provide sufficient detail to begin
drafting the Specific Plan, standards and guidelines, which ,, A ill be presented to and reviewed by the
Advisory Committee. Additionally, it will be used to set study parameters so that the technical
studies necessary for the preparation of the FIR can be completed.
RRM Design Group, the specific plan consultants, will lead a presentation on the North 40. Key
Town staff will also be in attendance.
Attachments
1. Height discussion summary
2. Land Use discussion summary
3. Specific plan primer and specific plan alternatives memo
4. General Plan goals and policies memo
5. Los Gatos School District paper
6. Residential product type examples
Distribution
Debbie Rudd, RRM Design Group, 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Don Capobres, Grosvenor, 1 California St., Ste. 2500, San Francisco, CA 94111
Planning Commission
North Forty Advisory Committee
./:
N:IDEV\TC REPORTS\2012W40SP- JointSS.1- 9- 12.doc
Building Height
12.16.11
Summary of Discussion
The Advisory Committee (AC) discussed building height at the last two AC meetings (AC meetings #5 and
#6). Suggestions were received at AC meeting #5 and further refinements and solutions were presented
at AC meeting #6 on how to allow for the mix of uses, varied roof heights typical with high quality
architecture and building forms while still preserving views and controlling the overall building heights.
There was support for:
1. Providing view corridors within the site that will frame the surrounding hills
2. Providing a green /landscaped setback at the property perimeter
3. Locating taller buildings internally within site
4. 1 -2 Story buildings fronting Los Gatos Boulevard (25'- 35')
5. 2 Story buildings fronting Lark Avenue (25'- 35')
6. 2 -3 Story buildings fronting freeway side of site (25'- 45')
7. Office and Hotel buildings could be higher -
• Discussions ranged from 3 -5 stories
8. Want discretionary review process for taller buildings. Discussions ranged from:
• Requiring discretionary review for structures over 45'; to
• Allowing structures 45' - 60' (we did not have consensus on exact height) in the middle
zone (center) of the site
Staff and Consultant Team Recommendation
Staff and the consultant team would like to create height standards that will encourage more varied roof
lines, opportunities for tower elements and pitched roof forms while preserving hillside views and the
character of the community. Currently, the Town's height standards do not allow projections above the
height limit for habitable space. The standards should also direct a mix of building heights with the
lower buildings around the perimeter of the site and the taller buildings more centrally located
internally on the site. When discussing height on the North 40, consider:
• The site slopes down from Los Gatos Boulevard, so buildings will appear approximately 10 feet
lower within the site when viewed from Los Gatos Boulevard
• The Specific Plan will include design guidelines and standards to guide building massing and
articulation
• Pitched roofs, tower elements and varied roof lines are encouraged but will add to the height
• The centrally located wrapped parking structure (structure is wrapped with commercial and
residential) greatly reduces the need for large surface parking lots and helps encourage a
pedestrian oriented neighborhood, but needs a building height of at least 55' to accommodate
the residential units or office above the commercial
ATTACHMENT 1
Height Recommendation:
1. Write standards for the AC supported requirements 1 -6 above:
a. Provide view corridors within the site that will frame the surrounding hills
b. Provide a green /landscaped setback at the property perimeter
c. Locate taller buildings more internally within the site
d. 1 -2 story buildings fronting Los Gatos Boulevard (25'- 35')
e. 2 story buildings fronting Lark Avenue (25'- 35')
f. 2 -3 story buildings fronting freeway side of site (25'- 45')
2. 2 -3 story buildings internally within the site (25'- 45')
3. 2 -4 story buildings internally within the site (55' maximum) for office, hotel, wrapped parking
structure, multi - family, and theater buildings
4. Over 55' - discretionary approval required
Land Uses
12.16.11 Draft
Summary of Discussion
Allowable land uses were discussed by the Advisory Committee (AC) at the last three AC meetings (AC
meetings #4, #5 and #6). At meeting #4 the market analysis information was presented to the AC followed
by an interactive exercise where the AC worked in groups to locate land uses /building puzzle pieces onto a
blank site map. These maps were translated by the design team into a new conceptual site plan. At meeting
#5 the AC suggested some modifications to the land use table presented, including reducing the number of
residential units, and reducing the maximum size of a single anchor retail building from 125,000 sq. ft. as
shown in the table to 90,000 sq. ft. At AC meeting #6 there were further suggestions regarding the land use
table, confirmation on the types of residential uses allowed, and a discussion on whether a Conditional Use
Permit should be required for retail uses over a certain square footage threshold or for smaller format retail.
There was general support for:
1. A mix of land uses including residential, hotel, office, retail, and entertainment
2. A mix of residential types from single family, single family small lot, townhouse, multi - family, and
mixed -use
3. Uses that will help capture sales tax leakage
4. Neighborhood serving commercial to serve new residents and existing adjacent neighborhoods
5. Synergistic retail uses to support office and hotel uses
6. Public marketplace
7. Land uses that complement the Downtown
Staff and Consultant Team Recommendation
Staff and the consultant team worked with the design team on the revisions to the conceptual land use
summary table and support the table as it is now shown (see attachment A). Options for adding further
restrictions:
Large format retail -
• Require Conditional Use Permit for (single -use) retail buildings over 50,000 sq ft
or
• Require Conditional Use Permit for (single -use) retail buildings over 75,000 sq ft
Small format retail —
• Require Conditional Use Permit for small format retail buildings over the allotted amount on the land
use summary table
ATTACHMENT 2
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Entertainment
Entertainment (Theater / Health Club /Other) 74,000 SF 10%
Office
Office 100,000 SF 14% X
Office (Existing) 61,821 SF 9% N/A
Total Office Area: 161,821 SF 23%
Total Retail, Entertainment & Office Area: 580,000 SF
General Plan Allowance (Retail & Offices): 580,000 SF
Difference: 0 SF
Hotel /Conference
Hotel Conference 135,000 SF X
Hotel 125 -150 Rooms X
Total Hotel /Conference 135,000 SF 19%
Commercial Total:
Residential
Total Units Proposed
General Plan Allowance:
Difference:
General Development Statistics:
Open Space
715,000 SF 100%
555 Units
750 Units
195 Units
13 Acres 31%
Notes:
I Areas noted for individual uses are based on preliminary conceptual plans. Acceptable ranges for individual uses will
be determined by the Specific Plan and Environmental review process.
' Formula retail opportunity due to downtown regulations /size constraints
a Neighborhood Retail includes uses predominantly to service local residents including, but not limited to: hair and nail
salons, postal services, dry cleaner, flower and gift shop, locksmith /small hardware, and banking services.
" Food and beverage retail leaking due to employment center in close proximity to the North 40 leaving Los Gatos
ATTACEIVENT A
of Attachment 2
(land Use discussion summary)
North 40 - Conceptual Land Uses
December 16, 2011
SUMMARY''
Conceptual SF
% of Plan
Leakage
Retail Area:
Retail - Big Box (90,000 - 150,000 SF)
not allowed
X
Retail - Large Format
140,000
SF
20%
X
• 20,000- 49,999 SF /single -use
X
• 50,000- 89,999 SF /single -use
with CUP
X
Retail - Medium Format (4,000 - 19,000 SF)
49,190
SF
7%
X
Retail - Small Format (up to 3,999 SF)
41,000
SF
6%
Retail (Neighborhood)'
16,000
SF
2%
Specialty Foods (Marketplace)
_ - 25,000
SF
3%
X
Food and Beverage Service
68,000
SF
10%
X
Retail (Existing)
4,989
SF
1%
N/A
Total Retail Area:
344,179
SF
48%
Entertainment
Entertainment (Theater / Health Club /Other) 74,000 SF 10%
Office
Office 100,000 SF 14% X
Office (Existing) 61,821 SF 9% N/A
Total Office Area: 161,821 SF 23%
Total Retail, Entertainment & Office Area: 580,000 SF
General Plan Allowance (Retail & Offices): 580,000 SF
Difference: 0 SF
Hotel /Conference
Hotel Conference 135,000 SF X
Hotel 125 -150 Rooms X
Total Hotel /Conference 135,000 SF 19%
Commercial Total:
Residential
Total Units Proposed
General Plan Allowance:
Difference:
General Development Statistics:
Open Space
715,000 SF 100%
555 Units
750 Units
195 Units
13 Acres 31%
Notes:
I Areas noted for individual uses are based on preliminary conceptual plans. Acceptable ranges for individual uses will
be determined by the Specific Plan and Environmental review process.
' Formula retail opportunity due to downtown regulations /size constraints
a Neighborhood Retail includes uses predominantly to service local residents including, but not limited to: hair and nail
salons, postal services, dry cleaner, flower and gift shop, locksmith /small hardware, and banking services.
" Food and beverage retail leaking due to employment center in close proximity to the North 40 leaving Los Gatos
ATTACEIVENT A
of Attachment 2
(land Use discussion summary)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: North 40 Advisory Committee
From: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Subject: Transmittal of Specific Plan Primer and North 40 Specific Plan Alternative
Approaches
Date: October 27, 2011
Attached are two documents that we recommend you review before the November 3. 2011,
North 40 Advisory Committee Meeting. The first document, entitled "Specific Plan Primer." is
an excerpt from .4 Planner's Guide to Specific Plans, a paper prepared by the State of California
Office of Planning and Research. It provides a good foundation on the use of specific plans
attributes and disadvantages, and a sunmrary of the statutory requirements.
The second document is entitled "North 40 Specific Plan Alternative Approaches," and outlines
various approaches the Town can use in developing the North 40 Specific Plan. Please note that
although the document outlines three approaches, there are many forms between the two
bookends (High Level of Detail) and (General Level of Detail). Staff recommends the l4edium
Level of Detail approach since this type of plan would provide a good degree of specificity for
both the Town and the fi ture developer of the property, as well as maintain the Town's authority
over subsequent development review (Architecture and Site, Conditional Use Pennits, and
subdivisions) when projects are submitted. These approaches will be discussed at the November
3,
2011, Advisory Committee meeting.
Please feel fi to contact Joel Paulson or me if you have any questions. See you neat Thursday!
Attachments
I . Specific Plan Primer
1 North 40 Specific Plan .Alternative Approaches
Ni DEV .: k cndie Correspond:oce i. icmorandomi`.VOtth.IUAC 11-3-11 Mecling doc
ATTACISENT 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Specific Plan Primer
(Excerpts from the A Planner's Guide To Specific Plans)
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. It effectively
establishes a link between implementing policies of the general plan and the individual
development proposals in a defined area. A specific plan may be as general as setting forth broad
policy concepts, or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of development from the
type, location and intensity of uses to the design and capacity of infrastructure; from the
resources used to finance public improvements to the design guidelines of a subdivision.
A specific plan may encompass a very large area or as small as a single acre. A specific plan may
be developed in response to a single policy issue, or to address each applicable policy of the
general plan. It may also diverge from the issues contained in the general plan into other subjects
viewed by the community as being of relevance.
To an extent, the range of issues that is contained in a specific plan is left to the discretion of the
decision- makhtg body. However, all specific plans, whether prepared by a general law city or
county, must comply with Sections 65450 - 65457 of the Government Code. These provisions
require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted general plan of the jurisdiction within
which it is located. In turn, all subsequent subdivision and development, all public works
projects and zoning regulations must be consistent with the specific plan.
The initiation of the specific plan process may be motivated by any number of factors including
development issues or the efforts of private property ow =ners, elected officials, citizen groups, or
the local planning agency. As with a general plan, the authority for adoption of die specific plan
is vested with the local legislative body.
The adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act similar to adoption of a general plan or zoning
ordinance.
Specific Plan Attributes & Disadvantages
A thorough specific plan can enable communities to effectively implement selected long term
general plan objectives in a short time frame. The enabling statutes are flexible, alloxving public
agencies to create standards for the development of a Na ide range of projects or solutions to any
type of land use issues. The plan may present the land use and design regulations which guide
the development of a particular area or htcorporate land use and zoning regulations,
infrastructure plans, and development approval processes for the development for subsequent
projects. The plan may be organized into a concise set of development policies and include land
use regulations, a capital improvement program, or financing program within a single document.
Policies of the general plan which are specific to financing infrastructure improvements and
extensions, or cost recovery programs may be implemented by matching land uses with
supporting public facilities. This is done to assist engineering departments and developers avoid
ATTACnMEtTf 1
of October 27, 2011, Memo
ineffective or undersized streets, sewers, t+ater lines. and other necessary improvements. In
addition, it may directly impose exactions in association Nvith the general plans capital
improvement policies.
The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the general public, as well as residents
located within planting areas, to assist in the planning of their particular communities. Public
involvement helps define the community's vision of future growth and development.
Future development proposals may benefit from the foundation created by the specific plan. For
example, a Program EIR adopted to fulfill the plans CEQA obligation may streamline the
processing of subsequent discretionary projects by obviating the need for additional
environmental documentation.
The specific plan represents a good tool for developing a community "sense of place." A creative
and innovative specific plan may bridge- the -gap beheeen monotonous urban development and a
livable neighborhood.
The specific plan also has disadvantages. These include the time, cost, and obligation of staff
resources. To be effective, the plan requires the collection and analysis of significant amounts of
detailed data. Since most plating agencies do not have the staff to conunit to the preparation
process, most plans include the involvement and cost of outside consultants. Similarly, the
incorporation of the plan into the day to day planning processes may require the commitment of
additional staff time, particularly when the plan establishes regulations \,]ich are only applicable
to the area affected by the plan.
The adoption of a specific plan does not vest development by statute, but its entitlements may be
defined by development agreements and vesting tentative maps. Specific plans themselves are
dynamic documents and may be subject to change. There are no assurances to residents and
project proponents that the plan will not be subject to future revisions.
Statutory Requirements
Section 65161 of the Government Code mandates that a specific plan contain:
(a) A specific plan shall include a test and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the
following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location. and extent of the uses of land, including open space. within the
area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location. and extent and intensity of major components of public
and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other
essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to
support the land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the
conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works
projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the
general plan.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
X 끼 꼺 瀀ⵟ ᮾ⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F169.TXT X 낀 꼺 灘ⵟ ᮾ⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16A.LOC X 끾 꼺 炰ⵟ 䋉⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16A.TIF X 끿 꼺 焈ⵟ 䋉⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16A.TXT X 낃 꼺 煠ⵟ 槛⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16B.LOC X 낁 꼺 熸ⵟ 槛⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16B.TIF X 낂 꼺 爐ⵟ 槛⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16B.TXT X 낆 꼺 牨ⵟ 郴⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16C.LOC X 낄 꼺 狀ⵟ 郴⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16C.TIF X 낅 꼺 猘ⵟ 렃⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16C.TXT X 낉 꼺 獰ⵟ 렃⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16D.LOC X 낇 꼺 珈ⵟ �⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16D.TIF X 낈 꼺 琠ⵟ �⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16D.TXT X 낌 꼺 瑸ⵟ �⌙ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16E.LOC X 낊 꼺 瓐ⵟ ؟⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16E.TIF X 낋 꼺 用ⵟ ؟⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16E.TXT X 낏 꼺 疀ⵟ ⴵ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16F.LOC X 낍 꼺 痘ⵟ ⴵ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16F.TIF X 낎 꼺 瘰ⵟ ⴵ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F16F.TXT X 낒 꼺 皈ⵟ 呈⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F170.LOC X 낐 꼺 盠ⵟ 呈⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F170.TIF X 낑 꼺 眸ⵟ 筞⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F170.TXT X 낕 꼺 瞐ⵟ 筞⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F171.LOC X 낓 꼺 矨ⵟ ꉨ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F171.TIF X 낔 꼺 础ⵟ ꉨ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F171.TXT X 나 꼺 碘ⵟ 쨟⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F172.LOC X 낖 꼺 磰ⵟ 쨟⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F172.TIF X 낗 꼺 祈ⵟ 쨟⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F172.TXT X 낛 꼺 禠ⵟ ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F173.LOC X 낙 꼺 秸ⵟ ⌚ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F173.TIF X 낚 꼺 穐ⵟ ល⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F173.TXT X 낞 꼺 窨ⵟ ល⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F174.LOC X 난 꼺 笀ⵟ ល⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F174.TIF X 낝 꼺 筘ⵟ 㺭⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F174.TXT X 낡 꼺 箰ⵟ 㺭⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F175.LOC X 낟 꼺 簈ⵟ 斿⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F175.TIF X 날 꼺 籠ⵟ 斿⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F175.TXT X 낤 꼺 粸ⵟ 賑⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F176.LOC X 낢 꼺 紐ⵟ 賑⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F176.TIF X 낣 꼺 絨ⵟ 돣⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F176.TXT X 낧 꼺 緀ⵟ 돣⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F177.LOC X 낥 꼺 縘ⵟ 돣⌛ᚋǑȀ耀 <0016F177.TIF X 낦 꼺 繰ⵟ �⌛ᚋǑȀ
Advantages
• Comprehensively planned (more assurance that the vision and "sense of place" will be
implemented).
• Town and Council know what to expect.
• The Planning Commission and Council that conceived the plan would implement the plan
consistent with the intended vision.
• A developer knows what to expect.
• Studies the impacts through the EIR process, may not need additional environmental
analysis for each future application.
• The technical analysis thoroughly analyzes the ultimate development project; consequently,
the Town knows in advance the development project's potential impacts and necessary
mitigation.
• Allows for a detailed phasing plan.
Disadvantages
• Need a developer to control all /most land.
• Difficult to finance (a lot of time and budget for architecture before zoning is approved).
• More time intensive at the SP development process.
• Requires a SP amendment each time buildings change; however, the SP can include various
levels of review that correspond to the level of changes, e.g., a minor SP amendment (DRC
or Planning Commission review) and a major SP amendment with Planning Commission and
Town Council review.
2
Specific Plan with Medium Level of Detail
Includes the elements listed under standard Specific Plan above, as well as:
A. Vision
• Vision description, illustrations, images
B. Land uses:
• Ranges of number of residential units
• Ranges of square footages per use
• Height maximums (can customize per district, peruse, per location)
C. Development standards (can customize per district, peruse, per location)
D. Architectural design guidelines
E. Conceptual street designs and locations
Advantages
• Comprehensively planned (more assurance that the vision and "sense of place" will be
implemented).
• Gives Town and Council control for important aspects such as height and density.
• Gives future landowners and developers a defined framework for applications.
• Not too detailed, so does not have to be amended for each small building change.
• Studies the impacts through the EIR process and may not need additional environmental
analysis for each future application.
• Provides architecture guidance and heights parameters but allows for future review with
development submittals.
Disadvantages
• More time intensive at the SP development process. Need to set development parameters
now (height, setbacks, commercial square footage, density, number of residential units).
• May require a SP amendment each time buildings change; however, the SP can include
various levels of review that correspond to the level of changes, e.g., a minor SP
amendment (DRC or Planning Commission review) and a major SP amendment with
Planning Commission and Town Council review.
Specific Plan with General Level of Detail
Including:
A. Goals and policies
B. Vision statement
C. Land use map
D. Land use (max units and square footages allowed)
E. General design standards and guidelines
Advantages
• Faster and less expensive.
• Defers significant Town Council and community dialogues on the SP to future phases of
development or project application.
Disadvantages
• Piecemeal development may occur.
• Will require separate Planned Development applications for each subsequent phase of
development.
• Difficult to create "sense of place" due to piecemeal approach.
• May need to do supplemental environmental analysis on future development.
• Less teeth /control in the document (less assurance of end results).
• Less clarity forthe Town Council and Community at the front end.
• Less clarity for future developers.
• Due to the minimal amount of SP detail, full potential impacts (and required mitigation )
may not be known until each development phase is proposed.
• Limited ability to control phasing.
NAD"AWendie Coma a�ence \tAz omd s\Spuirx Phn Ahem lwe Appmachv.EOa
4
W" MEMORANDUM
°5 �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART
To: North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee
From: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Subject: North 40 Related 2020 General Plan Goals, Policies, Actions and Citations
Date: June 23, 2011
One of the topics for the June 29, 2011, North 40 Advisory Committee will be a discussion of
General Plan Goals, Policies and Actions as well as other General Plan or General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) citations that are relevant to the North 40 Specific Plan.
These provide both the vision and guidance for the development of the Specific Plan. Staff
requests that Committee Members review this material in preparation for a discussion at the
Advisory Committee meeting.
General Plan Land Use Element Overlay Designations
The North 40 Specific Plan Overlay is applied to the approximately 40 -acre property bounded by
Los Gatos Boulevard to the east, Highway 17 to the west, Lark Avenue to the south, and
Highway 85 to the North. This Overlay requires the preparation and adoption of a specific plan
that will determine the mix of uses, dimensional standards, architectural standards, phasing, and
infrastructure to support the development of the property prior to approval of any entitlements.
Drawing on the draft North 40 Specific Plan prepared in 1999, the General Plan Overlay
designation is intended to help guide the future development of this property. The 2020 General
Plan Environmental Impact Report assumed a maximum capacity of 750 mixed residential units
and 580,000 square feet of retail and offices uses for the purposes of assessing environmental
impacts associated with the development of the property. While this is the maximum
development capacity under this General Plan, the specific plan may be approved with lower
densities and square footage of residential and commercial uses, respectively. The North 40
Specific Pan will be based on the following general guidelines:
4 Include a mixture of uses that will complement the Downtown and the rest of the community.
i Be based on sustainable and "smart" development practices.
♦ Include public gathering spaces such as a plaza and park.
♦ Provide for a variety of residential housing types, both rental- and owner occupied.
♦ A minimum of 20 percent of the units shall be affordable to households at the moderate
income level or below.
♦ Include high - quality architecture and design that reflects the rural and agricultural history of
the site.
♦ Provide pedestrian- oriented buildings along the Los Gatos Boulevard frontage, with minimal
parking oriented to the street.
4 Take advantage of the grade change across the site.
ATTACINENT 4
N40SPAC— Related GP Goals, Policies, Actions and Citations
June 23, 2011
Page 2
♦ Continue the "boulevard treatment" along Los Gatos Boulevard, with interconnections from
one parcel's drive aisle to the next.
♦ Include connections to existing intersections along Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
♦ Develop gateway or landmark features at Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue and at Los
Gatos Boulevard and the Highway 85 off -ramp.
♦ Provide an easily accessible, fully connected street network that encourages walking.
♦ Provide a vegetative buffer and screening along Highways 17 and 85.
♦ Preserve Town character and views.
Relevant General Plan Goals Policies, Actions, and Citations (Goals are bolded and the
associated Policies and Actions follow each goal)
Goal LU4: To provide for well - planned, careful growth that reflects the Town's
existing character and infrastructure.
Policy LU -4.1: Integrate planning for the North 40 area, Los Gatos Boulevard, Vasona Light
Rail area, and Downtown so that development in each area takes into
consideration the Town as a whole.
Goal LU -11: To plan for development of a variety of uses in the North 40 area in a
coordinated and comprehensive way.
Policy LU -1 LI: Zoning shall be changed as part of development applications to provide
consistency with the Vasona Light Rail Element and other elements of this
General Plan and with any future specific plan prepared for this area.
Policy LU -11.2: The Town shall encourage uses that serve Town residents. These include, but
are not limited to, open space, playfields, office, retail, and other commercial
uses. Residential uses may be permitted as part of mixed -use development
and only with acceptable mitigation of adverse noise, air quality, and other
environmental hazards.
Policy LU -11.3: Provide coordinated infrastructure in the North 40 area.
Policy LU -11.4: Include a variety of regional destination and local - serving commercial uses in
the North 4D area, following a logical land use pattern that takes advantage of
the site opportunities while protecting adjacent uses.
Policy LU -11.5: Avoid negative effects on the long -term development potential of the area
surrounding the North 40 area.
Policy LU -11.6: Incorporate multi -modal links from the North 40 area to the Vasona Light Rail
station into the North 40 Specific Plan.
Action LU -11.1: Prepare and adopt a specific plan for the North 40 area prior to development
of the site.
N40SPAC— Related GP Goals, Policies, Actions and Citations
June 23, 2011
Page 3
Goal VLR -3: To encourage mixed -use developments that coordinate housing in
proximity to either neighborhood commercial uses or employment
centers.
Policy VLR -3.4: Encourage mixed -use development of commercial, office, and medium -high
density residential uses in the North 40 area and along East Los Gatos
Boulevard, north of Lark Avenue.
Goal VLR -9: To reduce traffic impacts of residential development within the Vasona
Light Rail area by talring advantage of mass transit opportunities.
Policy VLR -9.5: Promote the development of mass transit links between Los Gatos Boulevard,
particularly any development on the North 40 site, and the planned Vasona
Light Rail station.
2020 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) North 40 Overlay Citations
In the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan, the North 40 Specific Plan Area Overlay is designated
with the existing Mixed -Use Commercial land use designation, as well as with a tailored
"Specific Plan Area Overlay" designation. The North 40 Specific Plan will be developed under a
separate planning process. The North 40 Specific Plan will determine the mix of uses that will
occur on the approximately 44 -acre site within the limits identified in the proposed Draft 2020
General Plan. This Specific Plan will limit development to not more than 750 dwelling units of
mixed residential types. Non - residential uses for this Specific Plan are limited to a total of
580,000 square feet of retail and office development. The Specific Plan may also specify a hotel
on the site.
The North 40 area contains the largest remaining contiguous parcels in Los Gatos with the
potential for significant new development. The North 40 Specific Plan Area Overlay applies to
the group of parcels that will be developed in a cohesive manner that is consistent with the goals
of the proposed Draft 2020 General Plan. This Overlay designation requires that a Specific Plan
be developed and approved by the Town prior to any significant large -scale development in this
area. A Specific Plan is defined in the California Government Code (Section 65450 et seq) as a
legal tool for detailed design and implementation of a defined portion of the area covered by a
General Plan. A Specific Plan includes detailed regulations, conditions, programs and /or
proposed legislation that are needed to implement General Plan designations and policies on a
particular site. The intent of the North 40 Specific Plan Area Overlay is to provide a planning
framework for future development of the area. Without a comprehensive plan to guide future
development, individual parcels may not develop consistently with the broader community goals
of:
♦ Providing coordinated infrastructure,
t Including a variety of regional destination and local- serving commercial uses, following a
logical land use pattern that takes advantage of the site opportunities while protecting
adjacent uses, and
♦ Avoiding negative effects on the long -term development potential of the larger area.
N:InEVUdorth 40W40ACWorth 40 General Plan and M Background Materaials.doea
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
(#0 MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
To: North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee
From: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Subject: Los Gatos School District Mitigation Background
Date: June 23, 2011
Backf•ound
A recurring comment raised during the past few months of public outreach on the North 40 is the
concern of potential impacts that residential development may have on, predominately, the two
Los Gatos School Districts. This memo provides background information regarding the
extensive analysis that was conducted on student generation rates and projections during the
recent 2020 General Plan update. In particular, the discussion will focus on the projections
developed for the North 40 project. Finally, this memo also outlines state law limitations and
restrictions for funding school facilities through local development projects.
Student Generation Rates and 2020 General Plan Projections
In spring 2010, the Town collaborated with the six school districts that serve the Town residents
on the student generation rates and projections associated with the residential growth
assumptions in the 2020 General Pan. In particular, the Town worked closely with the
superintendents from the Los Gatos Union School District ( LGUSD) (K -8) and Los Gatos -
Saratoga Joint Union High School District (LGSJUSD) (9 -12) on the generation rates
methodology. Although the LGUSD expressed concern regarding school capacity over the 10-
year period covered in the 2020 General Plan, both superintendents were in agreement with the
Town on the student generation methodology. The methodology included three data sources
from Davis Demographics, a consultant to the high school district; Jeanette C. Justus Associates, a
consultant retained by all six districts and the Town; and Town staff calculating the actual number of
existing students by using the 2010 school enrollment list (addresses) and the Town's GIS database
of housing types.
Most new housing anticipated by 2020 will be different than is now typical in Los Gatos. Higher
density housing in the northern part of the Town around the future light rail station and targeted
high density infill sites account for as much as 90% of new housing. The number of students per
home from higher density units is almost always lower than in single - family neighborhoods.
Actual counts from nearby districts and districts with similar academic standing confirm fewer
students on average per new dwelling as density increases.
ATTACHMENT 5
N40SPAC — School Background
June 23, 2011
Page 2
Town staff used actual school enrollment data from LGUSD and LGSJUSD to calculate the
generation rates for condominiums and apartments. Single - family rates were obtained from the
Davis Demographic Study. However, based on the fact that the North 40, as well as the Town's
identified affordable housing sites, would be developed with housing products that were not
presently represented in the community, the Town and school districts contracted with Jeanette
C. Justus Associates to survey multi- family housing in similar high performing (using API scores)
school districts to obtain the generation rates for various types of multi - family units, including
mixed -use, attached (townhomes), and affordable apartments. Due to its very comparable API scores
and extensive inventory of the aforementioned housing types, the Irvine, California, school district
was surveyed for generation rates. Both Los Gatos School Districts accepted this methodology, and
these generation rates were used as the basis for the 2020 General Plan and Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) analysis.
The following tables provide the generation rates by housing type and student projections for the
North 40 project. These generation rates are grouped into three school grade sets (K -5, 6 -8, and 9-
12). It is important to note that the southern half of the North 40 is within the LGSJUSD and
LGUSD, and the northern half is within the Cambrian Elementary/Middle School District and
the Campbell Union High School District. The General Plan EIR assumed the following type
and number of units in the North 40:
North 40 (Northern)
Mixed Use: 240
Affordable Apartments (Below Market Price units): 60
North 40 (Southern)
Attached (condominium): 300
Apartments (Market rate): 60
Affordable Apartments: 90
Generation Rates for North 40 (Northern Half)
Dwelling Tyne K -5 6 -8 9 -12
Mixed Use .004 .008 .006
Affordable Apartment .182 .048 .076
Generation Rates for North 40 (Southern Half)
Dwelling Type
K -5
6 -8
9 -12
Affordable Apartment
.182
.048
.076
Attached (condominiums)
.081
.048
.055
Apartments
.086
.041
.075
N40SPAC — School Background
June 23, 2011
Page 3
Student Projections North 40 (Northern Half)
Dwelling Tyne/No of Units K -5 6 -8 9 -12 Total
Mixed Use /240 .96 1.92 1.44 4
Affordable Apartment /60 10.92 2.88 4.56 18
Total 22
Student Projections North 40 (Northern Hall)
Dwelling Type/No of Units K -5 6 -8 9 -12 Total
Affordable Apartment/90 16.4 4.3 6.8 28
Attached (condominiums) /300 24.3 14.4 16.5 55
Apartments /60 5.2 2.5 4.5 12
Total 95
In summary, based on the generation rates, housing types, and number of units, it is reasonable to
assume that once the North 40 is built out it would generate 95 students (K through 12) to
LGUSD and LGSJUSD, and 22 students (K through 12) to Cambrian and Campbell Union High
School Districts at any given time.
School Impact Fees and Miti gation
School districts have a variety of funding mechanisms available to them to pay for the financing
of school construction, including local general obligation bonds, local Mello -Roos bonds,
developer fees, property taxes, and state funding. School districts impose developer fees on new
residential and commercial construction to help offset the costs of the new school construction
necessitated by the development.
Prior to 1998, cities and school districts would negotiate with developers of large scale
residential projects on fees, land dedications, etc., to off -set the impacts of new students
generated by the development. However, in 1998, Senate Bill 50 (SB50) "Schools Facilities
Act" was adopted and imposed new limitations on the power of cities and counties to require
mitigation for school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development. SB50
authorized school districts to levy statutory developer fees for new development at a per square
foot rate established by the state.
As a result of establishing the impact fee for school facilities under SB50, the state legislature
determined that the impact fee is the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on
school facilities resulting from any state or local planning, use, or development of property.
Essentially, SB 50 restricts local government's ability to require any mitigation for school
impacts over and above the statutory fees paid by a developer to the school district. For
example, not only is a city prohibited from requiring a developer to pay a monetary contribution
for school facilities in exchange for a development approval, a city may not ask a developer for
donation of land for a school site either. (These restrictions are set forth in Government Code
Sections 65995 and 65996).
N40SPAC — School Background
June 23, 2011
Page 4
State law further prohibits public agencies from using the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) or any other provision of state or local law to deny approval of a legislative or
adjudicative act, or both, involving planning, use, or development of real property on the basis of
the proposed project's impacts on school facilities or based on a project applicant's refusal to
provide mitigation in excess of the state statutory fees.
Despite the state law restrictions, nothing in the law prohibits a developer from voluntarily
contributing either land or money to a school district to help offset overcrowding. The developer
would have to work directly with the school district to reach such an agreement.
Local Land Use Authori
In view of the restrictions on local government's ability to address funding of school facilities (as
set forth in the Government Code), the Town should be cautious about raising potential school
impacts (such as overcrowding) or funding for facilities as grounds for denial of a residential
project. Furthermore, the Town could not add conditions that specifically require contributions
for school facilities. As noted, the North 40 development will generate both impact fees from
residential and commercial construction, and the school districts will be allocated a percentage of
the annual property tax generated from the development. While the property tax allocation is not
known at this time, it could be fairly substantial annual revenue.
Based on SB 50, the 2020 General Plan EIR concluded that payment of these (impact) fees "is
deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or
both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any
change in government organization or reorganization. Therefore, there would be a less -than
significant impact related to the provision of school facilities under buildout of the proposed
Draft 2020 General Plan."
N:IDEVWorih 40W40AQSchool nackgmund Paper.docx
A) Woodmark at University Park - BAR Architects
325 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Multifamily Residential
3 -4 Stories
55' Building Height
ATTACHMENT 6
C) Single Family at University Park - BAR Architects
872 Waverly Street, Palo Alto, CA
Luxury Small Lot Single Family Homes
2 Stories + Basement
35' Building Height
'a
..
y Es t
l k
.F t jr
} t 4
:; X
c
Ii
r - I-TI
a
,
I3 / r l j
` i
Project List
A) Woodmark at University Park - BAR Architects D) The Hamilton - BAR Architects
325 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 555 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA
Multifamily Residential Multifamily Senior Residential
3 -4 Stories 1 -4 Stories
55' Building Height 55' Building Height
B) Weatherly at University Park - BAR Architects E) Small Lot Neighborhood 1
307 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 580 Front Lane, Mountain View, CA
Multifamily Residential Small Lot Single Family Residential
3 -4 Stories 3 Stories
55' Building Height 35' Building Height
C) Single Family at University Park
872 Waverly Street, Palo Alto, CA
Luxury Small Lot Residential
2 Stories
35' Building Height
F) Small Lot Neighborhood 2
133 Azalea Drive, Mountain View, CA
Small Lot Single Family Residential
3 Stories
35' Building Height
Palo Alto Map
a F
r °
H:Pkns��6
Geets4e Pik T a
C 4c
P e�C, R iffy' `2 y .
$ l 6 S Ile iT • o
�t td
G9.00.m �f� s a
;e a°9 PikS 11 r y
�sF C -; /Downtown
rr Palo Alto
Ile s
UMaM�'
t =1j � TMeaA e sCntr Cara - S
Camino ' B' a e
Pack
O aroam �S) $ • g NC
Caman A
� y: t � ` y�y� f Rcieswrce.
6 TOxnanO C �i
$MpptN CUCa. F 3, e
4e
Pab AItP'
d _ _ Hgn
F � 4
Mountain View Map
P AV 41�
d
� a
0 3
Jomv L.
cr,aea . Vag
s z
v ��' iw
1 8n.
Batty PV Rasa d
• B SUy
Vakro
2 Jatl i
Park o �
P ccmmwcy
Ra R,
Downtown `
Mountain View q1
It SW Cut ko•
tv81 n
d � r Y0
s a yr
.;P . r p ° T co.,
V .
o
O � f
u
c•
i vvM
1 Vlap
a
p Wkamar
^ SCrrod Park
,c
i
c se
Park
G
�R.
P FC�b;
Via.: