Item 1 - Addendum and Attachment 3To:
GPC 11117/16
ITEM1
ADDENDUM
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
General Plan Committee
From: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director 1!
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments Subject:
Date: November 16, 2016
Attachment 3 consists of public comments received between November 11 ,2016 and
November 16 ,2016.
A General Plan Committee (GPC) member asked a question regarding the list of uses permitted
in the North 40 Specific Plan from page one of the November 17, 2016 GPC Memorandum. The
question was which commercial areas require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for those uses?
The zoning districts that require a CUP for the permitted uses in the North 40 Specific Plan are
included below:
• Formula Retail (Downtown and C-1 , CH, LM when over 6,000 square feet)
• Market Hall/Specialty Market (Downtown, C-1 , and CH)
• Restaurant with or without alcohol service (Downtown, C-1, CH, LM, and CM)
• Super Drugstore (Downtown, C-1 , and CH)
• Supermarket (Downtown, C-1 , and CH)
• Personal Service (Downtown only)
• Hotel (Downtown and CH)
• Financial Institution (Downtown, C-1 , and CH)
• Park, Plaz a, Playground (Downtown, 0 , C-1, CH, LM , and CM)
• Public Building (Downtown, 0 , C-1, CH, LM, and CM)
• Public Transportation and Parking Facilities (Downtown, 0, C-1 , CH, LM, and CM)
• Alternating U se/Shared Parking of Off-Street Parking Spaces (Downtown, 0, C-1 , CH ,
LM, and CM)
• Botanical Nursery (Downtown and 0 , C-1 , CH, LM, and CM)
Additionally, a GPC member asked if minutes of the la st meeting will be provided. Action
minutes are not yet completed for the last GPC meeting given other minutes that have needed to
be prepared. Verbatim minutes will be prepared and provided to the Planning Commission and
the Town Council prior to the consideration of this matter before the Planning Commission.
General Plan Committee
North 40 Specific Plan Amendments/November 17, 2016
Page 2 of2
On Thursday the GPC will continue their discussion with the following section of suggestions
from the Town Council which is where we left off at the last meeting:
General/Other
1. "Shalls" should replace "shoulds."
The Spec!fic Plan could be modifled to address this issue . However, staff would need to walk
through each instance and provide a recommendation on whether some of the "shoulds"
should be replaced with "shall. "
2. Confirm that the Guiding Principles in the Specific Plan is mandatory language rather than
permissive language.
3. Require a plan for the entire Specific Plan area.
Section 6.2 on page 6-1 could be modifled to address this suggestion. However, with
multiple property owne rs in the Speciflc Plan area it does not appear to be feasible .
4. Preserve existing live oak trees.
Language could be added to address this suggestion.
5. Consider the widening Los Gatos Boulevard ..
There is no nexus for the Town to require a developer to acquire the land to wide n Los Gatos
Boulevard. The Town would need to acquire the property and install the roadway
improvements. Given the Town 's limited resources for this type ofaction this suggestion
does not appear to be f easible.
6. Try to acquire some land for a park or community pool.
Given the Town 's limited resources/or this type of action this suggestion does not appear to
b e feasible .
7. Consider making the Town Council the deciding body for applications.
Appendix E could be modifled to address this suggestion
Additionally, the GPC will have an opportunity to discuss other suggestions from GPC members
or the public.
The video of the last GPC meeting is available at the following link:
http://lo sgatos.granicus.com/MediaP!ayer.php?clip id = 159 7
Attachments (previous ly received with November 17 , 2016 Memorandum):
1. Public comments received between October 27,2016 and November 11 , 2016
2. Conditional Use Permit Table
Attachments received with this Addendum:
3 . Public comments received between November 11,2016 and November 16,2016
From: Mohammad Javanbakht [mailto :mj@avestadev.com]
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 3:14PM
To: Sally Zarnowitz
Cc: Joel Paulson; Erin M. Walters; Mason, Brian (SJC); Walewski, Andre' (SJC)
Subject: Re: Burton Rd. and Los Gatos Blvd.
Hi Sally,
Following ou r conversation the other day, I would like to formally request that the General Plan
Committee of the City of Los Gatos con sider inclusion of the Senior Housing use, specifically, Senior
Apartments, Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care, in the Specific Plan amendment for
the North Forty District. In particular we would like to be able to develop a senior housing development
on a 2.5 acre property at the corner of Burton Rd . and Los Gatos Blvd .
Senior housing communities offer a fully amenities, service enriched, and much needed housing option
to our senior citizens, while providing a complementary and low impact housing addition to the
neighborhood. These communities provide a high-quality, culturally rich, and social living environment
for aging residents to be able to remain active and able to stay in their neighborhood, among their
family and friends. The communities also offer a low-impact economic engine; while facilitating new
investment in aging homes as well as creating many direct and indirect local lobs, they are a low impact
housing option in the neighborhood. The senior communities will have extremely low traffic, due to the
fact that most residents do not operate vehicles. The communities also have a minimal use of city
resources/infrastructure, due to the fact that the buildings include many amenities needed for the
residents' daily lifestyle.
Furthermore, the senior apartments, independent living and sometimes even assisted living residents
are considered doweling units, due to the fact that they include kitchenettes or full kitchens, bathrooms
and living areas, and therefore, will satisfy the City's housing requirements .
Below is a description of various types of residences:
Senior Apartments and Independent living Residences: Each senior residence would constitute an
individual"dwelling unit". Specifically, each residence would constitute individual living quarters that
include areas for living, eating, and sleeping, plus a kitchen and at least one bathroom . The residences
would be "high end," with top-quality fixtures and surfaces, and designed to appeal to sophisticated and
discerning individuals.
The occupants of the residences would be offered a menu of services as part of their monthly rent such
as meals, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, social and recreational activities as well as observation
of the resident for changes in condition. Residents will also be offered personal care services such as
assistance with dressing, bathing, grooming, toileting and medication management on an as -needed, a
Ia carte basis . From a practical perspective, the senior residences within the Project would function in
exactly the same manner as residences within any other multi-family building, with additional support
for the occupants on an "as-needed" basis.
Assisted living Residences: Assisted Living residences are similar to independent living re sidences with a
higher degree of service s and care provided . It is anticipated that these residents may require assi stance
with activities of daily living such as ambulation, toileting, bathing, dressing and grooming .
.ATTACHMENT 3
Memory Care Residences: The memory care residences would be individual private or shared
residences that would house seniors who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer's or some other form of
memory impairment. Memory Care Residents would be offered meals , housekeeping, laundry,
transportation, social and recreational act ivities as part of their monthly rent as well as assistance with
services such as dressing, bathing, grooming, toileting and medication management as needed. Memory
Care residents would also receive specialized personal care tailored to people with memory
impairments provided by trained staff members.
Assisted Living and Memory Care residences can be also considered a commercial use due to the
intensity of services that are provided.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions .
Best Regards,
Moha m mad Java nbak ht
Ma n aging Partn er
• lO w. li<T
T : 9 2 5-899 -89 81 I F: 41 5-80 0-6063 I E: mj@avestadev.co m
1 3922 Qui t o Rd., Sa r atoga, CA 95070 I w_\N.\1\,',g'!g?J:~<:I~Y.~Qm
Sally Zarnowitz
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Susan Freiman <srfreiman@gmail.com >
Wednesday, November 16, 2016 9:11 AM
Sally Zarnowitz; Joel Paulson
Marsh
North 40 comments
Hello and Thank You for all your hard work,
We have been actively attending and speaking out at Town mtgs since the first Town Not City protest in
2014. A s 20 year residents of High St, we feel that we must add our voice to pres erve the character of our town.
Specific comments :
1) The obvious "Gaming the s ystem" of the developer to put 100% ofthe homes in the LG s chool di strict was
alarming to us . If it i s at all1egal, the future plan should do its best to prevent the next application from abusing
our rules to maximi ze their profit.
2) As a family that is hoping to demo and build a new home some day, we drew up plans that include
significant underground excavation to minimiz e our impact on our neighborhood while giving us more room in
which to live. Plea se seek to, at a minimum, place all of the new development's parking underground to
minimize the impact of these new structures on our lovely views . A lowered guideline on maximum height
would also be most desirable.
My children and I are looking forward to attending tomorrow night's meeting.
Thank you again,
-Susan & Marshall Freiman
High Street
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
November 17, 2016 General Plan Committee Meeting
To:
Meeting:
Re:
From :
General Plan Committee
November 17, 2016
Potential Amendments to the Specific Plan
Lee Quintana
I would like to submit the following comments for the Committee's consideration. I have
followed the suggestion made by Commissioner Erekson at your last meeting by
identifying a problem and following the problem with a potential solution(s) (amendment)
to address the problem.
Problem 1:
Specific Plan , as adopted , is not consistent with the revised Housing Element of the
General Plan
• The Specific Plan was adopted subsequent to the adoption of the revised Housing
Element. However, the Plan was not modified to reflect the changes in the Housing
Element specifically applicable to the North 40 Specific Plan. For example :
-The Housing Element requires a minimum of 13.5 acres at a density of 20 units/
acre to be zoned within the Specific Plan area.
-The Housing Element includes by-right development and
-The Housing Element limits A&S review to objective design criteria.
• The Plan also lacks a discussion of applicable portions of state and federal laws
relating to housing, such as the State Density Bonus.
· These are major deficiencies . Without the context of the Specific Plan in relationship
to the Housing Element it is impossible to understand the Plan, nor is it possible to
assess whether a proposed application is in conformance with the Specific Plan, the
Housing Element, the General Plan and/or applicable state laws .
Solution 1:
Amend the SP to include the following :
• Requirement to zone 13.5 acres at a density of 20 units/acre
• Discussion of the relationship between the Specific Plan, the Housing Element and
other applicable State and Federal Laws
• Discussion of by-right development and objective design criteria
• Discussion of the State Density Bonus Law including accommodations and waivers .
• Add a list of applicable goals and policies from the Housing Element
Problem 2:
There appears to be a disconnect between the Plan 's stated maximum allowed
development capacity for both non-residential and what is actual possible based on
requirements of the plan .
Solution 2 :
Do a reality check and reduce the maximum development capacity of the Plan
accordingly.
1
November 17, 2016 General Plan Committee Meeting
Problem 3:
It is not always clear when a standard or guideline is mandatory or is not mandatory.
In addition, the Plan includes a limited number of "objective design criteria"
Solu tion 3:
• Amend the Plan to expand the definition of mandatory to include terms other then
"shall".
• Amend the Plan to expand the definition of not mandatory to include terms other than
"should ".
• Amend the Pan to add additional objective design criteria that provide some flexibility.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Lee Quintana
5 Palm Ave.
2