The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff Report - Plan Future Development North 40MEETING DATE: 8/25/08 ITEM NO: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: August 21, 2008 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGE SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PROCESS TO PLAN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NORTH 40 RECOMMENDATION: Direct submission of a North 40 Master Plan with any Planned Development proposal submitted prior to completion of the North 40 Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The Town prepared a Draft Specific Plan for the North 40 area (the 40 acres of land bounded by Highways 17 and 85, Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue) during 1998 and 1999 (Attachment 1). After extensive public discussion, the Town Council tabled adoption of the Specific Plan in December 1999 pending adoption of an updated General Plan to allow some residential development in the North 40. Following adoption of the General Plan in July 2000, the Town Council has had several discussions about the North 40 Specific Plan (N4OSP). The revised General Plan (excerpted in Attachment 2) does allow for limited residential development to be included in the North 40 At its January 26, 2002 study session, Council discussed its vision for the use and purpose of the N4OSP, modifications that might be needed, and the need to proactively guide development of the North Forty area. Council again indicated support for completion of the plan and it was added to the list of high priority advanced planning projects to be included in the work program for Fiscal Years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Council adopted the Advanced Planning Work Program in September 2003. At that time completion of the N4OSP remained a high priority, but was ranked lower than four other key Continued on Page 2 B(KIK..9k, PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 AREA August 21, 2008 work items. The N4OSP remained a priority due to the importance of establishing clear planning' standards for this area to guide the development review process as incremental development projects are submitted to the Town. Three of the higher ranked projects have been completed (Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines, Personal Service Business regulations and Commercial Design Guidelines) and the fourth is nearly complete (Residential Design Guidelines). At its retreat in January 2005, Council discussed whether there was a need to complete the N4OSP. At the retreat, Council directed staff to schedule the N4OSP on a Council agenda for further discussion and to provide direction to staff and the General Plan Committee (GPC) on the scope and process for completion of the N4OSP. In April 2005, Council re -confirmed its interest in completing the North 40 Specific Plan and directed that the draft Specific Plan be used as the foundation for an updated Plan. The Council also specified that the areas of focus for the update would be the following: • Infrastructure • Design Standards • Land Use In early 2006, the General Plan Committee began the process of updating and completing the Specific Plan. Several GPC meeting were held in February through August 2006. The project was placed on hold due to staff constraints in late 2006. Attached are maps that were provided to GPC for background information (Attachment 3). The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee considered a proposal for a 10-acre portion of the North 40 Area in June 2007. At that time, the developer submitted two alternative proposals. The first alternative included a three to five -story, 150-room hotel and a three to four- story residential building. The second alternative was comprised of 13 two to three-story townhomes and a three to four-story residential building. At this point in time, without completion of the North 40 Specific Plan, the current General Plan designations and language likely control for any proposed development within the North 40 area, although rezoning actions would be required for consistency. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this Council Study Session is to provide direction to staff in light of prospective development proposals in the North 40 area. Specifically, the question is what process to follow to either complete the North 40 Specific Plan and/or to consider specific development proposals in advance of completion of the North 40 Specific Plan. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 AREA August 21, 2008 Current Proposal: Sand Hill Properties is pursuing the development of 10 acres of the Yuki family property located at the northeast corner of Highway 17 and Lark Avenue, outlined in red on Attachment 4. They have submitted two conceptual site plans for the overall site (Attachment 4). Staff has not had an opportunity to review either plan. One site plan titled "Los Gatos Gateway" was prepared some time ago by the Yuki family and the other site plan titled "Los Gatos North 40 Master Plan" was prepared by Sand Hill Properties: Development Los Gatos Gateway North 40 Master Plan Yuki Family Sand Hill Properties Residential 980 units 155 units Hotel uses 679 k sq ft 200 rooms Office 390ksgft 325ksgft Medical uses 245 k sq ft 140 k sq ft Retail 175 k sg ft 320 k sq ft* * includes "Destination Retail" Areas of Focus Staff has identified three areas of focus for future planning efforts in the North 40: Infrastructure, Design Standards, and Land Use. These are the same issues remaining from prior consideration of the North 40 and are best considered and resolved in the context of the entire North 40 area. 1. Infrastructure Given the size of the North 40 Area and its development potential, the N40SP or any specific development proposal should address the provision and location of public utilities such as storm drainage and sanitary sewer in detail. The anticipated street circulation framework requires review in light of recently approved development; however, the general location of the major access roads still appears to be feasible. The N40SP or any development proposal should specify the size, location, timing, and financing of future infrastructure improvements. The size and location of planned infrastructure improvements could allow for or limit future development, depending on the financing structures proposed and used. 2. Design Standards The Draft N40SP does contain design guidelines for future development. However, concerns were previously expressed that the design guidelines and images contained in the draft did not clearly reflect the character of Los Gatos. Further design direction and work will be required to ensure development with the North 40 area that is compatible with Los Gatos. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 AREA August 21, 2008 3. Land Use The Draft N40SP allows up to roughly 500,000 square feet of commercial mixed -use development, significantly less than proposed under either conceptual plan detailed above. In completing the N40SP or considering any specific North 40 development proposals, the Town will need to review the proposed land uses and confirm that the uses remain appropriate for the area in the context of General Plan 2000. The Highway 85 Element also encourages uses that serve Town residents such as office, retail, commercial, and open space in the North 40 area. Staff recommends that the following land use issues be considered and resolved in any future planning or development of the North 40 area. a) Allowed Land Uses: A wide variety of uses are allowed under the Draft N40SP including destination retail, lodging, neighborhood commercial, and office. This list of uses provides significant flexibility in considering future development applications. Although not included in the Draft N40SP, General Plan 2000 states that limited residential uses may be permitted if located over commercial development as part of a mixed -use project. The General Plan also specifies that residential will only be allowed with mitigation of environmental issues such as noise and air quality due to the fact that the site is surrounded by highways and major arterial streets. b) Size of Use: The previous Draft N4OSP policies on building scale limit the size of any single use to a maximum of 70,000 square feet and states the average size of retail uses and structures should not exceed 30,000 square feet. This policy precludes most large retail chains and limits the Town's flexibility to consider a larger retail use that may be appropriate in Los Gatos. An alternative may be to develop a policy or design criteria to ensure that all buildings are designed to be no larger than 70,000 square feet in appearance and avoid a "box -like" structure. c) Height of Buildings: The Draft N40SP establishes a maximum building height of 35 feet. It allows exceptions to be granted through the Planned Development process to permit building up to 45 feet. d) Auto Dealerships: The Draft N40SP does not specifically address auto dealerships, although the use can be considered destination retail. One approach could be to allow new or the Town's existing dealerships to relocate or expand into the North 40 Area. In turn, this may allow redevelopment of the existing dealerships located on Los Gatos Boulevard with other uses. 4. Review Process: Given the N40SP is not adopted and the Town has initiated an update of the General Plan, there are several alternate processes the Town could employ to review a specific fl PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 AREA August 21, 2008 development proposal in the North 40 Area. Staff has identified four alternative review processes which are summarized below. a) Complete Specific Plan: The Council could direct staff to expedite the process of completing the N4OSP working through the GPC, Planning Commission, and Town Council. This is the Town's typical approach in developing policy documents such as the Commercial Design Guidelines and Residential Design Guidelines. This approach would clarify the community's expectations and requirements for development on this site but would defer consideration of any specific development proposal for roughly 12 months. As an option, Council could modify this process and direct that a public charrette be held to obtain citizen input on development of the site. Based on the charrette, staff would prepare an updated draft North 40 Specific Plan for GPC, Commission, and Council consideration. b) Incorporate North 40 into General Plan Update: The Council could add the North 40 as a focus area for the General Plan Update. This approach would clarify the community's expectations and requirements for development on this site in the context of the entire General Plan, but would defer consideration of any specific development proposal for roughly 18-24 months. c) Require Master Plan with PD Application: To ensure the orderly development of the entire North 40 Area, the Town could require that the applicant for any Planned Development within the North 40 Area also prepare a master plan for the North 40 to be submitted with the Planned Development application. In lieu of site -specific Specific Plan or General Plan policies, the Town would evaluate the proposal based on existing General Plan and other Town policies and codes. d) Review PD Application: Council could proceed with review of a Planned Development application without requiring preparation of a master or specific plan and without site - specific General Plan policies. In lieu of site -specific Specific Plan or General Plan policies, the Town would evaluate the proposal based on existing General Plan and other Town policies and codes. This approach would make it difficult to ensure integration of the 10-acre development with the remainder of the North 40 Area and may present challenges to upgrading the infrastructure for the overall area. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends adoption of Process Alternatives A and C to ensure both timely completion of the North 40 Specific Plan and reasonable consideration of any specific development proposal in advance of completion of the Specific Plan. Further direction and action on the remaining North 40 issues will be scheduled and considered based on the Council's process direction above. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 AREA August 21, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Direction offered by Council regarding the North 40 Area is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required at this point. Any future development application or adopted plans will require environmental review as required under the CEQA. Attachments: 1. Draft North 40 Specific Plan 2. General Plan excerpts related to the North 40 3. Maps provided to GPC 4. Conceptual Site Plans Distribution: Peter Pau, Sand Hill Property Company, 30 East Fourth Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401 Tom Yuki, 15496 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Milt Mintz, 108 Amanda Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032 N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\20081N40 TC 082508SS.doc Town of Los Gatos North 40 Study Session August 25, 2008 - 6:00 p.m. Town Council Chambers Public Review Draft - September 1999 own of Los Gat Los Gatos Boulevard Frontage Read u) Ca 0 to 0 J O 0 I- q1OTB FORTY sptafi Lfln Public Review Draft - September 1999 u) O or 42 0 a)o J (13 Q 45 O CL 0 I— W CC to'° Y LU 9)D ad 17W Z p Z wa_ U) cc 132 W W QZ 22 C7 a Z zW J � w a �o 0w 2 Q 0 a4CC a C ci1CI(nOWLfD6Mf11TS (Staff to provide) 911nnl116 COMMISSIOI (Staff to provide) L O (Staff to provide) a) 0) its o m E c LJ L1=-- U Q >— CL 0 Lb- Cl- C 0 7N(NLC LC) e- e-Nco CO 0:) N N CV CV CV N N CV CV CV . . c • Q) . (6 . E . d U C U ' O u) "' •ac . : CL U • O . w. a C)'= • 0 U) ' c c ' U C 2 CO . U •Eme •a� o c a •. QC m cn u) . • O 'X U . . c 0 a Q `w U . sa a C Q d • •_c c o. (n U U N QJ O _ U : O c Q w. O Q O 'O O c CU Q c U O U U 2 : 0.2 w2 Q CU= V c CB U O c 0 CL O U CD 1- c.- c O'er- 0 N CO 1-0 -0 c �- O-0 c—��U O(n c �o QU "moo•. -` 1n 2 SI Ne • •4- en O Q O C cn .O 0 0 U - oT.ca-o-c(J N 2.•0 ca c Q o 2 a_ co QN 2 OW L =.N O �.cQ� mQ��QU a>OcLoOS Q MI r U <cJUOuiu_ U <ca00u u:(.5 Introduction hapt Chapter 3 - Land Use and Development Guidelines 7(";1Ncoa)co C7MMATN r)Cr) < as u.i u_ Chapter 4 - Administration and Implementation General Provisions cTOW11 Of 40s CIflTOS - September 1999 0 0 tC d r 1-4 r- c- N V r- N CO c- N f- �- N CO - N C) ■- N O CV N r CV N N CV N O CO N N- CO N N CO N CO C7 CO ( ) 1� co co co Orchard -Style Planting Design I 3-16 (1) H Regional Location l Local Vicinity Master Concept Development Plan Urban Design Concept Plan Circulation Concept Plan Primary Access Main Access Drive from Los Gatos Boulevard (Cross Section) Primary Access Main Access Drive from Los Gatos Boulevard (Plan View) Los Gatos Boulevard Frontage Road and Pedestrian Allee Los Gatos Boulevard Frontage Road and Pedestrian Allee Primary Access Samaritan Drive Extension and Lark Avenue Access Road Frontage Road Landscaping Existing Water Lines Existing Sewer Mains Existing Storm Drainage Main Access Road Setback Secondary Access Road Setback Building Setbacks Frontage Road Building Setbacks Exhibit No. r N [- N N N co N V N LO N CO N N- N 00 N 2-9 O N `- N N CVCO r- N Cr) C CO CO CO a) a) a_ ciOWf1 Of 4OS CJflTOS - September 1999 g1ORTt11ORTT SPfCIfIC Rflf1 0 ( 1991, the Committee 2 L 0 encourage economic U U a) a cn 0 4- C D (�4 U O U C 0 a) L O 0 a cn `) a) E L cn 0 .c a) L 0 0 U C a) a 0 0 a) L O a) 0) 0 .0 U a) c co (0 L 2 automobile O (0 U a) E O U a) (0 ID O (0 a) 0) a) 3 Y 3 'a cn C (0 a) a a) a) C • (0 a) (0 0 0 co • L E i 03 .n• ° u) E 0 >, c 0 as O (.0N L (0 O 0) L C O -oO O c a) > ,X L c Q E _cr,O o a) m -I1 O 0.) O c a) (0 c O a) U C 3 .0) C .� O a) ' 0 r -2'c a) ..-. • • 0 f0 O -0 > f0 .. 0) a) Cr)N c C dam') m r cu(.., O 0) , LLB - o 2 0 = a) i0 = m E 0 o _sois `4- LL -C a)J > E 0) E 'C (0 O 0 73 a) X E 0 a) a O ID a) a) L 0 0 cn (0 2 0 a) a) Q O J c (0 C a) a) a a N 0 N L U a) N a) L 0 .a 0 m a) E O • 0) -o O 0 o ' L O � a _� Ya) a) C CD 0 -C a.) 46 N O O E a) 4) a, .( U) E O Q o to a L.. U N CL O • L d U C C v- (0 CU U 03 : O V L • C L 0 �C U 0 0 o a) Z 'v) • t0 a) 1 Q U O O J EL o 171 O 0 (_I c o a) 3 V H E-- a) -o > O a a) L 3 C a) a O a) > a) (0 U a) E O U a) U) a a) .E- a) C t O a a 0 0 N c ID U U a) a O L O The intent L t L 0 C a) 0 a C a) a O a) a) 73 4- a) L 0) N "a `0 a O a) O L_ c_ L O 0) X a) >, C a) U 4 N Q 0 L w a 0) a) C 0 (0 m a E (0 m C 0 0) X m (0 C a) O a a) L c a) Ea O N a) N 4- a) O 0) O (0 a a) N a) a) a) C En 0 a) (0 L O U a) 1 0 a ID 0 C a) a O a) 15 ID (0 a) a) (0 a) L 0 (0 C a) O a a O 4) > a) a) 0) C 0 a) L_ 0 CD U a) a) O a) L 2 a 0 U (0 L a) > O Q 0 (I) C m .0) (0 0 U a) a 0) 0) L H development framework. (0 .` a) E 0 U 0 0 a) C O a a (0 U 0 U c 0 H 0) 0 0 (0 O 0 J a) L_ 0) co -a O 0 L measures O a) aE) a E (0 (0 0 a) a) a) co a (TOwn Of 4OS QflTOS - September 1999 TORN (FORT)" SPfCIfIC ?lflf1 2 0 ƒ t cts % 0 a) 0 0 / / 0 E @ 0) as J e e e E o¥ P 3 £ £ ._ RS « c ƒ / \ / Tti ° 2 r - e c g c a).50 E E $ 2 ( cc ra a) o k 2/ £ ¢ 2 F u) o 7 2 § o0.2 :2 % - co E 2 a) '.§ 0;£ as a. Vz ƒ ' k £ k >. 7 @k ® 7 0 § k u- " / k f @ Q E / ƒ e £ c 2 E •' \ c a) a)ƒ/ 3� E �£ E 2 E 2= £ @ § 3 f 2 U y § > E c E 7 \ E a)° c k± O o f 3 2 k 0) E 0 0 f 0 allowable densities 2 / 0 the built environment to proportional relationship of Zoning Regulations 2 E w ? o o 2 t k k 2 2 / J RS § .a. k Q a 2 0 § _c 0 ƒ o - a d ° -a. 0 as 2 = k ƒ 0 k . t/7� E \ � fuc o Na § a) 2 Ka E a)w .[ 2 _c 1- IT., 2 ai k 0 ❑❑❑ B. Applicability c c 3 a % a)/ as g '2 % •§ E E 2 k as >. CO - ° 2 o 2 / CC f_ _c § ® E -o o ® c / § / 2 $ m (13 CD � k ® k ra)2> o \ E ...- co 3 k ° "E'2 CL ° k / ° RS a 3 o E § / \ § 2 ƒ o 0 2 > Et ƒ 2 \ — 0 2 t © 6 \ E3 0- 2f C g C -t E 2 ° « 3 E £ U_.- k =§ o @ o t t k 3 "Cc) •/ 0 k D ° 0 0 0 e % § 3 @ k > \ 0 /$ 0 / 5 c o 0 Other Town 0 Relationship Planning Documents General Plan Plan is the fundamental Tts § 0 u / document of the Town of C§ c .) 0 2 E o = al .\ D > as k E k § % § c 2 a) c c k c c co - as k .2 / a) 0 K 3 o 4OWf1 Of 40S OTOS - September 1999 TORTt1 FORTY SPtCIfIC (KM 0 v 0 vo- O Plan where applicable. Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards c c O U O 1 (6 C 0) N a) 0 12 (0 > a) O m CD O N O J a) L F- -t a) a 0 O_ >+ .O a) (n 1_ O O a) C .) 0) c 0) .0) a) a) (.) c (0 (0 U a) L 2 (0 m a (0 cn c (0 N U a) L U (0 0) 11:5 c (0 O. u) C (0 .c U a) E en - (Ili 0 a) D a) c (0 (fl 1 (0 (0 (/) C 0) .N a) 0 (0 a) O m O 0 cn rei -J a) H O 0 .0 a) E O U i) U U a) Q 0) c (0 a) U C (0 0) 0) N a) a) O Q. 0 This Specific Plan cn a) cu 5 0) C 0) .0) a) a) C (0 �0 U a) L 2 (0 a) L_ 0) a) O O_ O U .£ from the Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos Strategic Plan lC) Town of Los Plan incorporates Specific Plan is a) L as N O 0) a) 0 O a) O a) O 0. L U c a) U O O H a) L a) a) 0 c (0 d U U a) O. (/) O .0 O O c a) a0) O" 0 O a) c 0 L c (0 CL U U a) 0 0 L C L O C O c O a) 0) c E O N . 0 N 0 0 L O ((0 a) c O U a) 0) a) L 0 a) a) Regulations). c a) O_ O a) a) L O L (0 (0 c O U c (0 3- U U a) 0 0) O LL L O Z a) L N c 0 (0 0) a) O c (0 ui a) c a) 0 0) C 0) 0 a) 0 C (0 0) c 0 0) 0)) a) c O 5 0) (0 0) O a) L 0 a) O a) L L a) 0 a) a) (0 O O L 0) O a) L cn a) a) L a L a) 0 a) N L U LE a) L_ C as as T L C a) a) a a) >. (0 E .c C (0 0 (0 c (0 E a) Q (0 L 0 c a) O Q. N (0 O 0 U N a) O N L c O 0) O E O 0 O a) c a) 7_ 0 a) L O a) O m c 0 •U a) CO co Los Gatos Boulevard Plan M O N O N• O c 5 Eo Q co C -0 Ts .4E f0 0 U C *0 as CL a "a as 0 > (0 O m N O ((0 0 0) J a) -0 H f0 (t) a) O 0) Gatos Boulevard. measures (u N (0 0 mentioned, the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan O L H (0 `) (0 t O LL L O Z a) L O 0) C O 'C O a O a) en cn (0 a O U C a) a) L co a) 0) (0 3- crown Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 TORN 4O12TT SPfCIfIC (KM 0 0 h— f 0 0 0 .b = a 2 /mo k 0 E 2 \ / § ui o 2 0 CL CC _ @ 7 2 0ai p J@ C 0 f E c >, >, @ f E _ a) / f f 2 @ :e § E § ® c 0 ) a) � al .o k � o a_ - @ • § & 0- / C E / c % co • ° w 2 Si) ¥ / o c� E cis= / R o / _ __ ¢ >, o o 5 % £ 2 c £ 7 _c o o 0) fa 2 E 2 Z o m m 2 c 6 c m as >, ® @ as E £ R = 2 E \ 7 0 ® @'( 2 ƒ t k a » 0 ° = % 0 0 7 2 2> u, £ § a)- o 20 2 0 $ t a 2)@ .> \( o H% .@ c ° 5 @ = 2 # a) o \ m = -t ƒ / n) f m k/ u_ c o 3 • .� W -0 0 U 0 —J ❑❑Lli D. Project Conditions - w 0 0 0 -J 0 . @ 40Wf1 Of 405 GflTOS - September 1999 $ D m a. 'IORTt! (fORTY SPfCIfIC 9Lflf 3 0 = e 14-1 ea L) Authority for the Specific Plan / .E 0 .2 fu E = E '� £d00 c 7kfT®/§ 0 U « U £ En ••- -.c C E i E0 c S 0 0 CO CO 0 @ c @ o- 00U) • 0 2 E § 0jo•Cr)as o c 0 m 0 .§//�§@E c o'5 Q 2 Tli /E0 m o k .N % E 0)( 0 � O §/=.C�'�c co o r- = as o- g § t k k 0 0.§ o ®U U o - § ? k £ �•" w 22moQ 0> E co E 2% - a).-a)ok k 0§ 0\ 3 [J ¥ 8 0 co CD 3 E established CEQA Compliance k o m D (aQ E _c2.c o \ o: k k E NI ® ® C� / o o £ _ To "c-k [ o 2 Q o p p( E c n n @ w•- k o E§ m d/ 7£ o ca o o a E m / \ ± .E n E o Iti \ E E / Z 0) R» o E E _-- 0 E c % 2 \ @ - 0- c•k @ @ £ £ 2 g 2 7 7£ E 03 r 7 c o o-0& m � § k §'§ 5o ° § o _c c_ as$ c 2_ g 6 3 E « \� °§®0 o Q o @ » £ L E ma- c n 7> E 2 ■ Q \ m f Fri 2 �' k 0 O 0 >.2-J 2§ 7 2 §_2 �2tW§2Ezk §£-c 7= k E o t E o ƒ o a' ) E ,\ 'E. w E L �� I a k § al EkF.E_ £ E E o-c§_ F c � ± 7 w._ . 2 0 7 . @ ° > > ¢ © k = _ - ® § o L ®b.$ 2 @ o gown Of 4OS GfTOS - September 1999 TORN 1ORTT SPfCIfIC ?LIT (flflDT[P 4 - ¢1flSTfR Pflfl Purpose and Applicability a destination. establishes the overall businesses in the Town. a) a U O t H a) U a) O 0 T.) a) a) Q a) U U (a C C O C U L its O D a) E 0) (a 0 a) a) L O a) D O Q a) a (a U O H (a a) (a t O u- t O Z 0 C a) a) O O a) a) site's character. a) > O Q a) a) O a) w m a) a) a1) U X a) C a 0) 9.2 a) C a) > O Q a) v- O a) U a) `) 73 c (a a) '17- C a) .( 7(3 C 0) a) 0 (a a) L (a Vision Statement m a) c O C a) 0) U (a Q 0 a) O C a) O .a a) a) L O C (a O a) .a a) CD - a) C a) .c O_ O U a) O 0 a) O N > C a) V) fa `) (a T LJ- L 0 a) a) H commercial mixed uses. a) C (a Q Town residents; • C O a) L_ a) O O O O L O to t a) a) Q) +� C U C (a (06 (a as O O c c 0) 7173 c L CC CC (NI M a) 0- gown Of 40s (1flTOS - September 1999 11O12Ttl FORTY SPfCIfIC PI fll1 >, 'Ca k o e / f E 2 o o 0 E b @ § R £ @ n ° 3 2 = / § k O. k 0 in _Q > \ 7 f £ a) co ( '§ � 'k / cm £ E 7 e ƒ § ƒ k U >' .0 0 o_ ❑❑❑ C. Goals and Policies businesses. relevant data 2 0 a 0. c P / 0 0 k § E / co •- a) E 0 ¢ 13 / c a 7 > k 0 _c } @ -D a 0ca 0 o E 0 » 0 § 7 F E 0 0 entire area. 3 c 3 £ 7 § & ¢ / ) / _0 \ a m : 6 E E § £ o o • ƒ a) 2 / Q k k E � 0 5 ° E 0-.)o E 0£ -o 2 @ 3 \� 0 / op _ .> ®a ƒ oƒ ° E 7 Q E a 2 a a o •- k / § E ? ° ƒ .a f a > � E % o A / S 2 m ? a) F L W £ @ 0. o -0 .d 2 0 E CO m k/ c o ,/ 2 @ o a m « c 0 & & & ci .2 0_ 0_ 0_ o E 0) /\ 2- w .g k t' q a = f . c 7 f N 2 f£ \ o % 0 p 2 E E\ 0 2 7 U •- a_j 2 . cm E [ ° 0.-' 2 2 ') 3 o E 2 E of 2_ 2 o E■ E 0 3 2 I ° § £ k 2 k -0 @ • @ 0 j E. E k k 2 -a £ k w R m k 2 2 a- E ._ e.43 T It @ k - . > E ° 0 o E• _ ° R 2 F E) t O.-0E •� 7 o c$ . ± % o 3 3% 3@ 0 o k§ 4 co 6 \ \ CD . o C 0 CL 0- —I n % 0 To a) 0 k 2 k 0 3 d q gOWn Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 g 0 � 1IOPTt14ORTY SPfCIfI( ?UM = Lon CN L) entertainment, commercial, � S 0 ID 2 q restaurants. Other office, etc.) should be located to the rear or interior of the site. E E k \ m __ to k @ 2 2 3 RCL f k \ : ) / CI » \ o § 0 £ 2 0 a k 0 E ® g \ $ & E = E o % § a)E o 0 k 3 2 o a} E o > cz @ c cn % 46 46 cn y >, >, 0 ƒ 7 E / } c k E and intersections. ID ) 46 % 0 0 0 \ m E G k 7 n 0 0 / E 0 0) $ -o 0) 0 £ § as § 2 .g \ \ m E T.3 § k / a) •§ ® 0 a)a)-.cn -0 a 0 CD o E o k % 0 2 .§ M 0 0 c as c a) o f/ a� _c§ £ ± 2 00 >, £ E o a) -o o > c - a 2 § f \ E 'O e £ U » 0 0 0_ ƒ E CO n c) 0 0_ levels of service. § 0 2 § 0. .� ai c 0 0 k 2 \ _o ^ 0) ƒ o c 9 @ % _ca) o 2 aCtS _ 03 k 5 E 0� 0 @ .> O ID C 0 0 0 ors k k > . CL k \ m ® £ c - -0 0 § / b aso 2 . of o� -0 0 U 0 0 « £ 0 0 E 2 § § e (76 / as k / impacts of new development. 0 0 0 0) k k 2 § ID as \ 4nWfl Of 4OS GOTOS - September 1999 41ORTtl 4ORTY SPfCIfIC plflfl 0 Traffic and circul N a) L L. > a) O m N O N 0 N 0 -J 0 (O a Ca a) O O U f0 a E a) L L a) co a) O tO O 0 0 O O a a) N .c a) L C3) O CO Cr) Y (O a a) Q) C as development on a) a) L c a) a) -o (O N L (O a a) U L Policy 2.0 Provide 0 a) J 4— O a) cis a U a) .CD 4 U a) 0 a) > a) J a) .0 E 0 E a) U E Uj O a) (1) cn CO 0 U (O a E 0 O O .5 a) L_ 0) c U 0 L) CD L (1) a) U a) 0 J level acceptable cn 0 a) (O a) (O O a) to a) L a) 0) (`O O U c a) O M (O O 0 0 c a) a) (O U C." a) U 4,71 a) c O O a) O a O 1- N (O O 0 ❑ a) O (O L a 3 0 (O L_ E a) N N c O (O O a rn C 0 O a) O E a) O _O 0) a) a) O a a) a) C C (O E c0 U .Q) O CO c c a) O E CO O U > U -c a) 0) c N other than 0 O a a) U .c O a) a (O X w L en a) N c fO O a) CI (O a 0 a) a) 0 CV > U_ O a a) L (O >. U (O (O a) a) a cn w (O U (O 9- gown Of 4OS COflTOS - September 1999 FORTH FORTY SPfCIfIC (PLflf1 = CN L) alternative infrastructure funding. 2 $ 9 § 0 a) CCS 2 .% 0 c ( c 0 Q 2 & cno G c = tc Cl) o @ / / > k •c o 0 £ ƒEm c ±o Q 7 CD 0 0) R E @ _ \-C>N7 > c E k m £ c R ro 03 Z >,c development % underground 2 0 \ cts -t 0 L f 2 -c / g as E 2 \ 0 Provide facilities to accommodate transit 0 a a a_ CL Character and compatibi bus service) § \ k a) E 0 0 0) a) 0 / 2 \ % 0 e small town character and c k a) ¢ £ c 0 £ 6 .c k § a_ a) @ = -t k us 2 'c E Z . % / ai. % Lc.-5 3 d 0 £ @ k on 7 2 \ > _cL \ c 0 (5 45 a) 7 §/ E .0) @ / $ o U) -a scp oLE E > 0 a 0 0 Infrastructure. cri infrastructure to _ 3 0 -o £ 0) ± 0— 2 o ƒ ƒ70 -0 0 o E 0 H \ 0 S 0 size of buildings / cts > 0 ± -t k 0 k k m 0 0 13 § � 0. 0 0) 2 £ Q / 0 2 k a) E 0 Tu a) § 0) 0) 0 k % .K 0 § E 0 f a) \ k 0) 0 0 / 2 / D "6 0 k E -D § m 0) (Town Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 TOPTtI cOPTT SPfCIfIC Tlflfl O O U N O a) L a) L f�D 0 U a) C N X a) a) O c a) `) a U a) 0 Q 4- a) O a) L 1- U U a) U a) O L 1) O N a) O O L N C 0) N a) Protect views of the Santa Cruz mountains 0 > U O d a) E 46 •O ID a O a) > O a) Q 0 a) a) c m a) L through the provision of view corridors. encourage ❑ GoaI2. To of large box -like N 0) 3 L Q) N `) a) c N Q 0 L a) O en facades with cD O w N c a) E a) .5 Q' ) 4- a 3 C as U C Q) .N v) ID O O a) architectural en a) a) E O C O a) a) ❑. U a) N a) c a) as (6 U) a) a) a O O O 3 O rn C Q O U u) (v O a) CID C CO 3 L O a) L_ a) 3 Q a) w > U_ 0 Q. O O (U a c CO 0 rn O U C a) a) Q a) > 2 a O O O L) O a) L c a) O O '2 a) > J a) O O m 0 O O J O (See Goal 3 (A O O a) 4- O 0 the otherwise a) O (Q `) O a) L O O L a) 3 O O Q) 5 L O O a) >, N 3 U a) L U O a) 4- a) iTs a) L a) co O gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 1IORTf crORTY SPtCIfIC PLflfl U) • C (� C U • O O (a O O c .0. Q) E a, w :.. U as E U N C .L.-• O (0 N L O N N > O a O Q) `J U C L C O _O N U O O Q- ) ( = (0 0 Q) N Q) > 0O L C a) ,� m 4.--12 • .E as as - C a - N N -o •C 0 O (6 C (B N O ▪ >+ Q) ,> E 8 O . 2'� Q) U▪ Ui a) Q) ▪ O 0 _C C= O O N j a -a a C7 3 C ' U _U U N "' O a' Q) as N p O O c L N N a) ? Q) cC O 22 C O Q) C r= O >' U J L 2O (s a U Q) E C Q Q) O O O w. co co Q) (0 C Y N 'C > fC0 N cpc N `� O 3 ,U U a 73 • C 2 • C N ?� Q) O (6 3 12 U Q O r C Q TA N a) (U a a U �' O O ID N 2 r`A Lcn m .O co G) c co a • E E N .4:2 a) O N a • .Q N C C +' • Q) O O • (� (6 O O N • N 7 Q) :� as L Q Q a 1- U O C (6 C N U Q) 1 a) 3 o X N O o o— a (a W .c a — a) H o Lux -_ was U 0) T Q M a U O U o 0 m ❑ a PIS a • Q o (d m o U it) a) (4 +' • (6 �. C J ($ N f6 w. O .O Q) (3 Q �+ O • C C C U N Q,) C Q) 7 C 2 Q C f13 J O C O V C �. (a O a a) O C C N co) N N • CO Q) N ' 6 2 Q) E - C O- N 3 • "O C C a .0. O C C C Q) z >, (0 Q) o > O L O O CO L O U , _ N N a) 00 N § C > a) • Q) a) • 1. a c L (a m a� crs w m c c 0 - 0 N c6 a) m vi o Q) C -a N N O • ii �. E N m as cca a- u) E 0 3 > rL a) O N L Q) • c N a) O` >, (a E (B �O C • U (6 • ru a a� .• o t J a) ._ 3 W U) O 0 0 (acu (• -) Q To O U 0 — O ❑ 0 and public art. museum, etc. Avenue and at Boulevard and Lark major access point to the North Forty area. 40Wf1 Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 41O1N11 FORTY SPfCIfIC Ton sai- Lon Planning Concepts N a) O U .w a) -0 U L a) a) fA fA L _ fd p O y "- U E 0 a) a) a) a) Z c o O (1) a lc O X O O O O L a) C O a E O U c o E 1E_ CL w_ N O N O ._ ? ° O .O O X U N a) > fa U O O a) C a) 3 a) to O �n w a) O O U 3 :_. 7 O c E E Q" OU a) O a) 'O C N a) O c L U O c — u) _ p V? C U fII O N o as Q U _ _ (6 13 ,� •C p II O v a) a) O_ c o c9 E vmi _•a E T .� O O -O C O¢ C �, f� ,� `�- +� O Q) O L (n N O L ... O c N OU ,0 E "° -p D '(a CO 00 (` ) L -, a) O O o C cC E .a) '.. C as u) p L a) co ca as a) a) O C a) L O° L O v O a) c (LO w (B as L I- E + ' to (B > _c O O C Q j O U 3 a) O H aa)) Cr C U Q •J _o O U L N a -o O (a E N `� O a) cm O U `8 N O a) "O O O (6 as U Q] O Q C Op O f0 (`d D E. 7:5u°) O '� a) O= a) a) O > O RS OU a) O O O a) ) a) X O J N • U• C LL H E 0 o _o a) m °) 7° co its E L > > •C (� O L a) ww U m a a) OL o cu •o a) O i a)75 s a) N !n 4- O t ca > '_ O O U O N = O (d L C a) a ._ ) O - a) (a L U as L O C O a) c Q O C � ca Q L O O OtLn O 0 > Oa N a C .� '+ •� O O O w 3 O C a) La ow O ,� a) -a a) 3 - U EO ` a) r� a) a O C O a a>> Nc E a f0 >a) '.' > fa CI 0 "O L 0 ct E-0 m 0 a >1 U U_ O O a_ a_ mix of uses. 0) O L 0 C C 1. N a) O a) >> ' coU a) O a) Cla) CCSJ a) (.. c v7 L -° O O 'N U a C U a) O C a)f0 O C U C N a) C a)N N ` � a) LE as 2 a) � c a— o_ o C `� O O a) Cr N` Q C _ O a 0 O C L ca >O O O 3 a) 11 a ? O o _c° a a) v O .7 a W 0 E) O fC ° Cn a) > (/� 5 c a) a N 30 N a) LIJ m 2 2 w IX Er. a 0 LLI a >, O U• O O a a O > m Lits t 2 as U U a) a 0) N O N a) U a) Q 0 4OWfl Of 405 GfTOS - September 1999 41ORT114ORTT SPtCIfIC (PLfln b. Land use distribution. c a) o) P I— C . O O CL O in as C Y a) a) 0. O N O 0 a)N c as `5O Y Q(n •— O c a) 0 U •c L � N - c c3 c 2 o `m r c � O L Y 0- .0 ro a) E . C X (n i•— W 'a L 0 C 0 0 (n C O O. O N C ca f4 f� a) V 0 > co (� ('j (� H O U N m w co cn (n — — O (o a) J a) J J T �' O w 67 O L 0) f4 L cB O C O O c 6 O N C a a) cn O C N O L 00 O CP (a a (p T Y N Q) _ 0 3 •c 3 c _°) 6 a) 0.0" (n L_ L _ (B a)cts as U O N O T Y a) a) 3 (n > U 00 , U L as p a) 3Lac 0 N 0 N a O Q 4- Oas a) p> N O U O 2 O a) O -p O i O U �0 a) ...C.' co m c� O ca 0)= 0 3 0 to L >, .« a CP 0 ts O 3 c a) L 0) cB cv c c E c •- 0CD 0 �- 3 0 Cu) m O 0 f4 c ai ° m v0i c� a) : - N 0 N �, L o (n L c c Er -a ;0 a 0 0 c0 E) kl 0 a) a) a) a) 0 to N :_ N =p N v O L 0 c.)0 a)a• () o E— a)O 0 O O a 0 5 L o m U m W m .> co Q (n 3 4. la U � CV L — O O .- 3 C (B J L L Y 0) C E .0 — aS O J coo p 0) a) C O-0> U C O d c Q) -0 a) L 91- C U a a) is O co D a) 4- L C I— a) LC) "=' O C a)c0 a). C 0^W�^'' f, ; O a) ,~ N > f� O ~ C O T .� L v � _ � - a) O 1-1-_U (- 0 N C vi 0- c c C U` N 0 a 0co .c N a'0 Yz 0 E c6 a) 'L .. _c N N -a Q N — Q) 4_ a) a) c N �: o O 4- N 6ca 0 a) 0 ca c 2 a) E a) U a) >+ ca To a) cn a) E c c 'c W a E a) co E E a o 0 v O O 6 < C a. Allowed land uses. The following categories of land uses are allowe Destination retail . C 0 0) ^ W > O c L 0) L cn c t4 7 co N a) CC Restaurants, quality -o U C � co a) O m O cc a) (n r-. O a) o E O w c O O .- a) O a) '0 f3 0 -O Ca To c U ca 2 o C O E a) U m 0) c _> • C F ` OQ U > T. U a) W a. F- .m Office — limited to a . . . . gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 I1ORTf1 (FORTY SPfCIfIC (Km = G- 1 = cN inc 1 73 .� 0 2 7 2 0 &> ' -- c £ @ E 0 2 o § c c c as / — ' >, _ = e )Tii E f @ k k § 0 0 £ a c tem § 2 _/ 3© 6 v E 7 P a o c 2 c — _ . ® - 0 0 >- c C a)> 32 0-3\ a la til Q -ato o k ° 0 0 E / . - o E / \ E E o 2 $ \ / (1) 2 / o U E k 2 7 E §as / /0 % 0 ■ ( k ° 2 ca 0) L ± 0 = D a) q 0 t o c ° 0- . o E 2 cn : 0 _o @ 3 _c 0 m § 0 @ a)% % m k 73 0 _ £ 2 D _1 2 0 0 = ° » k c) I 4) serve as many uses as possible. c. Relationships and linkages. 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 E o ® @ m m @ @ @ 0-6 £ 2 2 ƒ 2ii > e m @ 6 @ « k' k 2 N k 0C 0 e—@> E 3 7 E: @ m o£ ® a 2@@) q _ @ ■ _ w k 2 3 / 73 \ @ q = \ 0- > o - o. 0 \ 0 k @ 2 E 2 > £ a 2 2 0 o 0 L 0 c § 0 q 2 c 2 k )c E a\ z§ k .$ 0 2 o 0) c S £ a a= 0 E E R 0 o 2/ 2/ 2= E 0 •c -c /o § k ' c o £ o k CL ca k CL� § E E 2 w p £ 2 E o -.Er 0 a -c t> c I- 2@ [ 3 7¢ q o' 0 ©> 2[ \ E N k 0)15 0 2 a.§ 3 o o a_ o k§ -f CD 717) S 0 0 . o_0 x @ E 3.§ 13 $ o -a CU a k co § TD and parking lots. crown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 TORTtt crall SPfCIfIC pLflfl D H1GHV 0 " 3f1N3AY MtlYI LOS GATOS BO c co 3- 46 C a) E Q O r — CV — j la 0 L }' X a W O U C O 0 a) in' QOWn Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 1O12TH OPTT SPfCIfIC pall 0 0 L a m a) > a) a) a) L_ 1 O O 47,a f 0 0 0 X a) a) L H 0 O a) Q a) 0. O 0. a as a) L a) (a L `0 C a a) c a) a) a) a) 0 a C a) 0. a) a m cts O 0 O a) E— a) Y (a a C c L O C E a) L a) ca .a— > (6 a C (a O c 0 as a) (a Q O 0. Q c O (tea a) a) a E _O N C O O `) a) L_ a C ca L as .Fa- > a) (—a U a CV L t X w C (a EL- Cl a) U 0 0 C 03 N a) 0 C as L a) L H (a more in-depth discussion of Town gateways. meet and in areas of increased N > (a a (a O 1 O .— E c a) L as > (1) O Z 0 0 0-0 a) _a a) �j a) L GS as a 0) ft N a) L U N C _ C Nodes can be (Si (a 0- -0 T13- 0 a) 0. a C CO a 0. (a 0 co a) Ti; O .Ta a) 0. (a U 0) C U a) 0. co (a N a) Ira u) a) ca .) C a) m N a) a a) a 0) C U N a) C a) connections O N a) a a) a a C (a (a U 0. V) L) O a) Urban design. N 0 (�3 0 -J O C 0 H a) L O > (a N N a) c� E a (a O (a (a `) as a) L >+ t O LL L -t Z a) L a) 0 4 (a 0. O a) U a) N as L U .fl (a (a as O) C 0 O a) L N C a) a) a) a. Gateways. N 0 J a) 0 (a a CD L (a U) a) a) <a U N > 3 a) a) 0 H 0 a) > 0 (a as (a O _a C U > a) L_ C a) C (a a) cn O m 0 (a L c a) 0 a) co C a) O a) L H a 7 C a) Q Y O -J C 0 a) L O C (a C (a O LL L O Z a) a (a a) M0 W a) O U a) a N 0. (a > a) L N cn 0 J 0 C 0 a) L (a CD - co gOWn Of 4OS OflTOS - September 1999 41OPTtl 4ORTT SPfCIfIC �lflfl 173 incorporating plazas, courtyards, and even small parks. Three locations have been designated as activity nodes within the North Forty area: Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue, O L j 03 a) (a O. U U '2 Q N (fl O Ccr) C (a (1) O C "c O (6 .� > a) U O as .� -Q m N U Q O c D •U cs asL (a O ca a) a) • m 0 o U 3▪ ( U) cn _ _o E c • a) a) • U Ts' o N (a 2- ow 3 Li ��- a) O (1) O w- U O J c ▪ • c O as w O 7 .r fC f6 f6 O C O U -C j L (6 a) O (a U O • N 1 4- -- as .. 0 a) ccC j c (a U a) >. O a) `•- (U — — (13 -p U O ' X ._ Do U as c a)o • w 0 O 0_3 • OL. 0_• U- 0 c O L a) >, • Q O u) r r3 -t _ N O (� O C C O (0 Q .. p) Z • a) t Ll. U '� (o O a) C cn m J • H 3 a. i ate) - 0 c o 0 o > - 0 (i (Y) H Z Q Q F— O gown Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 1OPTfl cfORTT SRCIfIC Pori .„-- ,,,,, "-• , • ... • • roG r • • • / s / • Ver ee . • X - cc cT_ a) CV CN OC 1E a) x .(7) w 0 gown Of 40S OTOS - September 1999 (10RTt1 tORTT SPfCIfIC Plflfl = ■ = 173 Trash receptacles 2 a) "C) \ E E kc 77) 2 C 2 0 c. 2 e � 2 > U o_ § ƒ a) ca c / eL 0 ± R 2° 2 a 1' a) o o k k as d E k c. Streetscape. \ •c o ƒ ° & k -0 x .k w % a) E 2 5 o ƒ U u9 . @ k / § w D E o / @ a) 0 & £ 0 t 0. b a) % / 0 a) CL cn u) 0 / e e \ a) § 0 cn LE 0 k k The streetscape plan includes the following elements. d. Site furniture and lighting. Example of street furniture group goWf1 Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 TORTfl FORTY SPfCIfIC (Lflfl O HIGHWAY 85 .a W Circulation Concept Plan gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 'IOPT11 cfOPTT SPfCIfIC TM • N tki • • • • • a3 • -0co h ❑ O U a) O 0 > a) o o (1) (NI 0 U (a W E 'O J a O a) 0 N a) U • U C 2 gown Of 4OS C1flTOS - September 1999 41ORTt1 •fORTT SPfCIf lc pm 173 a) 0 L c ca N U tti N X O 0 E a• O a) .0 0 u) U) U U 2 gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 TORN crORTT SPfCIfIC TL111 fo CZI tti 0 a) a) • f6 N a) C.) 0 C6 f6 O N - 0 X W -12 L as a) O CO N O fII O J gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 clORT11 efORTT SPfCIfIC plflfl (flflPTf 2 - ¢IflSTfR PIfl1 8'S/OEWALK J 1 AMR 1.11110 :i. ie OA Ask II►! rativ /iW a) m cts .` U) 13 a ca 73 ca ti O N ;«• a) L :a X W O LL ca ca co 0 0 gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 11ORTf cfORTT SPfCIfIC (Plflfl J J i) NW 3 .Q N O O) t6 0- gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 1ORTIl (FORTY SPfCIfIC TN O gown Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 Tout' crORTT SPfCIfIC clflfi (BflPT[P 4 - ¢1flSTfR own Q) t3 a) c co . T C9 C Cam) C_ L _cc cn (O �U / co = -a us' C a)) "O .O. N O a) LE C (9 N ' E U co C co L co 4. C O O a) _ _ -c 2 0) Z "6 a) C (I) . L � a) N C 'C -Do.7 = a(p `..-O O _c U) ''E'C - aLOa • Q E E 2 .N a) a) a) 0 _c - L Q CO�co C tO a) •= 0 C V ,E O) C a) c9 "Jc }, co •- Q CI -co a) o _ C (O CO CO -0 L O - C — C 'N u) O O c9 _C .> C -O V)ca...r OL N a) .N a) C w a) X O a) a) a) O _c1- :� C-)w . 0 CO Information kiosk a) r O) O O .O a) C ) a) N c9 C a) Q _O a) a) a) O a) N N a) t design review process. gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 (11OI2T114ORTT SPfCIfIC Ton = G- CY ton 14-1 1 3) Preserve existing mature trees when appropriate. e. Preservation and enhancement of site character. .0 c ¢ 7 & o E « E 7 ® 2 © £ 0 & _ 0 3 g \ o cu P E .c architectural % 2 0/ 0 E/ 'c § g 7 3 C 4- CU • @ C ? a_ / '/ E ° a) t / § > $ k § § 0 - ._ . g 0 'a) E 2 25 'E -© e® 3 _ E o @ o) t 0 'to ® aCL C 0� 0 '- 3 3® c$ .-E .to El.? a o E> 0 @ G % ® @ _ E ) - £ E c ± E 2 .0 0 j k k@ . \ e ¥ £ 2 ¢ o > ) § k > ( \ @ a / 2\ c 2 4@ 22 @ 0 . E 0 k E k k 6 E 0 7 ) m k?° OD > 2 c £ R 3 / ® o& C E@_ C5 2a 2 a C@ 0 2 E 2� 0 o7 w u) m£ e(0@ o> o a Cruz mountains. ƒ 2 0. k Q 7 E 2 0 2 0 @ j 0 0 0 (0 0. 0) 0 > 4- \ as as t 0 � 0 2 @ 3 j U n (0 m m £ 0 7 (0 P j % a E 0 0. 0 a) mountains. gown Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 g1ORTt1 crORTT SPfCIfIC �lflf1 Views from the freeway. 9- and similar a) > Q) to >, a) j O -O N . 7 (c 'O c O Ta 3 0 C (c O O a O O_c Y C `~ N c C O Q a) O U -0 3 as "= - u) w N .r _ 2 c O Q .- asC U N +- V to 0) c (c 7 L L (c O E a c C as 1 f1D 2 >, O w a) C O) 9- (c O c O C a) O O (0 .. - C ' 4) O (c (c , c c c a) a N m ra) 5O (a L u) a) •> 2 a co -p(1) O u) (6 a) -p O (0 C O) .O- (c .O (c c c co c c (c as-O a) (�6 a 3 O O O 5 EL)u) 0a.) U O o_a) a c L a cc)w (c as as Example of orchard -style planting 40M Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 1O12Ttt 4OPTT SPfCIfIC (Km (flflPTf 2 - q4fisTf E k E 2 0 2 0 Tz tal 2 o k E 2 >, aƒ 0 _ / o 2 .§ _c 2 0 E 7 motorists southbound on Los Gatos Boulevard. No other median breaks shall be allowed between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive. 2 - - 0 - E @ CD 2 O m O 2 RI k k S § 3I E D CD r_a ° 2 o£—' _ 0) 0 , - CC§ $ 2 R M rao 0 ill-2 0 c >.o / o E 13 -0 a)a)k 2 J \ as 8 0 « c Jo c - E 2 . .> _J 2 c § O a minimum of Boulevard and a minimum of 300 feet from Highway 17 on -ramp. b. Frontage road access. - — c k ko a 2 § c 0 2 ƒ / Q .§ CL -o will 0 0 — t 2 o cts § c @ 43 m 0 £ § [ 0 \ c O 7 k cm c - « ƒ 3 in Exhibits 2-3 and 2-7. ❑❑❑ E. Circulation Concept Plan 2 § 2 \ a)k o 0_ :65= 2 o_ .o 2 o co 1—U) Q $ £c\i \ i 2 £ •E k k a) ./ 3 o @ asc E £ a ¢ crs cn § £ c a @ o E _c 0 ƒ c c - 0) E E e Q y a / g .[ Site access. a. Primary access. 2 .0 a 0 P _c -0 c .5 @ CL .0 0 _co 2 k R .� @ .2 0 0 0 6 k 0 -o as & ( a) 'o 0 0 £ 0 k 0 0 a 0 9 0 To (0 E U 0 0 0 k U Cr) R ¢ w 0 u g 0 5 _o -D KCU % � 4 6 0 § % as 0 0 § d intersection. -a § % % f Q -0 § k .c E 2 § 0 m 0 7 C 0 � D c k § § E 2 2 J 0 � minimum of @ @ m Gatos Boulevard u� 0 . CL 46 f � 0CL q c E A break in the 4OWf1 Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 I Q 1ORTt1 FORTY SPfCIfIC PLflfl CBBDT[I� 2 - 7flST[I PIflfl Internal circulation. o -1 c / / \ j k 2 0.\ 0 E®% R\ f 2 3 0 E f E( 2 S g ._ £ 'Q f 2 7 7&£ a) 2, $ p g% 2£ 3 9. c a / \ a = > .c a) / m / / E o \ o as i co- o 2 / ƒ @ 7 £ o 2 g g§§§ 03_ ± § a)® 2 .a,)f 4/2 m 9 E -.E' alU 7\ m 73 12 Q G§ 3 E @ 3 @ — - /- -D 0 S ƒ f $ � = 0 c E \ 7 / % ° 0 9 o £ • ET) o o A ® g 2 \ » E E § .� — o® EE' 2 2 2 n- o / k ° / �'§ * = D P ± £ 2 / ± E § I K ° 8 . o ® ° - 0 � ° k 0 co/// k 0 0= k 0ƒ Planning Guidelines.) \ § Q a3 -0 § 0 7 2 0 _c _c c § \ § / from the main site access road or from Samaritan Drive because of the volumes of traffic these roads must carry. \ - 0 ° / 4- f \ / / E \ D 7 _ —0 > a ƒ k • $ f§ o 0 2 k73 2 / ° 0) / % E 9 ? 73 _ ¥ 2 ƒ § / % % 1\ I = a- 2 / \ 2 \ $ 2 ' § % / _ > t = t > o § / D \ / 0 § ci o o m° 7 ° k a C / �' 8 -0 2 > % 2 § ƒ @ a)E 6 $ 2 § co vo % 0 o = o c c o c g D/ 2 • § / ./. SEC: = L' 0 0 — 0 d f 0 w = 0 I -0 § k "0 / ¢ c k k ± # .0 E / _ / Los Gatos Boulevard shall be limited to four - two on £ r �� 2 cz / $ ® f 7 k c §© : o \ C a3 o Da)k E o k\d > 10 0 = C/) \ _J E c c @ 2 Tics o a_ E 2 0. >4 / ± $ § k 7 / \ $ E 3 » o = ƒ > 0 > > 0 f -D a_ -a 2 % side of the main access drive. gown Of 4O5 OfJO5 - September 1999 TORTti 4ORTT SPtCIfIC Plflf1 0 Y C C a) C U CIS 0 C - a L n. • L a) a)0 N a) Q)cu c 25 Q Q Q.. T3 a O a a a) us c u) 1 C13i a Las (13 cn� y >+ �1T' W L a) w (0 O 1:50 0 .-- E a C U Q C. O c O a a >, c13 a CL 'o a) as � -o a ca a) a s Q) L) N 1) Q (S3 c as c N a) O c13 a) U C N Q Oco' as c i Ncn w C u) = C u) a a) Q) as 'C O 0 as co as co r O U Transportation linkage. om C a) 0) a Ea) .c 0— O �O L- w—,-L :-. C O cn U O c6 >, a0 >,: m m >,a) - •= a LLo N w a) cu a) a) ' C O Q) To >, C 2 a C .r = U C (6 = 5 as a �. a) O L V c0 LL c a a) z .-+ O a) > O a) U a O a) a) c _.o C a) 'C a) L O O E. —al Ea OU Z _ -0 L 1— O O L U_ a) (Q 2 f6 ct as +. V) L. C (6 '� u) -c u) as N C -c a) > as 0 as w- 0 A a)U 2 Q-c O u) N p O a) O O— Cl) O 04 c N LL ..CE a) O as -0 >, a) L I— -c L > �' > a) t E u) t O O a C O Q m O U a) _c O z • a) _c O C a) L j .Oc a) -C O O C (6 �O U N 0 0 O H O c z in C Ln z t 0 aa) ac) u 0 's r a a -ao •J 0 .c =) E c> cII a :' U O N u) c0 2 C O C L = O u) Q a cti (0 u) cn w and Landscape in Exhibit 2-1. gown Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 TORTt14ORTY SPf(IfIC (Plflf1 Q) C co c U a) c (f) CO >, a) 3 3 t 0) c .a) cu (7.5 a) (a E a) L_ Q r- > 0) 2 (a 0 4) To a) 0) (a C -o L O o Z L >+ O0 LL L (1) E Z 0 0 C r- O a) 3 c -0 fa O - E E O L 0 U N (a a) o c (a ca _C 0) ILL cn O O J O >. (a r 0) 2 0 a) N a) a) constructed from a) a) 0 as > (a a) r >. .c a) C c O 0) a) U U 0 d C co C O c U O N (.0 a) (7.5 c a) 0) c a) a) 0) (a as 2 a) is E 0 (a 0 (a O 0 c To- 0 O 0 a) c c 0• _ 0) CD CC (a O 0 a) 4- r-+ Landscaping. a) a) O 0 a) (a O N c a) is a) 0 (a U c (a a) "O Q) (n C a) 0 2"a) .0) a) O .� ( (1)a) cn > (1) 1:3(a Q) N O7 L k a) >. ca 44. CO A U 0 C (a L c O a co o, �- c co U E O t a) a • u) O 7 a) (a a) o cn a) C 0_ a) O (a ~ '2 0 - • a) Q -O a) C Oc C fa ..• co a) 0) c N • O as o c co = O O _ •c co L a) (a t O "-' • C O — N _cC c a) O — O • (a 0) *, C •" U a) O U (a 0) a) ._ 0 Q (a a) c 0) N a) 0 O) c (a a) 1 (a t U 0 Exhibit 3-5. C a) a) U a) .0 0 O) c C 7 (a O (a 0) 0 as U N c (a O a) O O a) L .O a) ❑. O a) a) D a) 3 (a `) as a) L L > a) N a) N C as U a) (a a) (a Infrastructure Concept Plan ,E - O -c C N N •X a)_ a) 25 x O L11 N C O L N 'co RS O -o E a) o H -0 40WI1 Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 1IORTii crORTT SPKIfIC Pfflfl CO .n- CO co I-II�IIr Go Exhibit 2-10 September 1999 0 0 et- N co TORN cORTT SPtCIfIC Plfln (llflPT[P 2 - ¢IBSTfR Ton 0 4 Fa CO t co 4OWn Of 4OS Jf TOS - September 1999 11OPTti crOPJT SPfCIfIC Ton [71 l {ice 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 gown OF 4OS OTOS - September 1999 c CD m r E o o a c CIS (D Oo E U fD O U (1) C Q. • O7 a) C c a) (D a) c v, o co U c co •a) U U Cl 0 Q. 0- CO -O T c L c a (/) CD (D - O O 0) 0 • L I- ca 1) cD T t O LL L 0 z O a) L (D U 0 0 (D a) (D L N a) Q U 0 c a) a Purpose and Applicability development a c a) N a a) L 1- O 0 O a) > a) a 4- a) 7 Cr) To 0) 0 c a) 5 0) a C cD N -o a (D N a) a) cD a) (D C O co U U c 0) a) -a C cD L 0) a) a) U) i) c a) a) L 0) U a) N O L) To a) a co O a (D a c (D N 0) a) a O 0 a) 0 cD L U N U a) infrastructure, _T Q. Q. (D a) 0 (D U U) L_ c N a) c a) 0 Q) a c 0 a (D a c (D a) Q. a) a) -a a) L In addition, the Q Q c� 0 N To O 0) a) 0) c O N 0) O its N 0 —J a) L O N C a) `) 0 C a) Q O a) a) a a) > O 0 O c 0 a) O -a c cD U U a) a L) a) -c N c O co N c a) - o_ co X a) 0 LL O a 0) O a O (7) a) 0) C_ c 0 N a) L O L a) O To N 0) 0 U -O 0 N Q = 0) a) as L O a O a) 5 (1) 0 00 N t; as a a) Q.ct N c) 'c L- c) Q- O c E Y c (D N Q (D m c E 0 Q) a) a L a a) O 40W11 Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 clORTt11ORTT SP[CIt1C pm 1:1 Overall Design Principles Standards and a) Q N C a) a O a) O en a) .09 N co a) (a a) U) ns .c a a) O1 c .� c (o N a) is `) U C L L c U U O U a) O a U (a a) cn is L_ a) O c a) 0 c as 0 a E ▪ T • fa U E CO 4_, ca (o C O a) C (p E C a U a) _O a) ca > a) ca 0) O c � Q) O O w > o Cll a— N O L) (a 0. - 2 a) 9- a) a) o L L c 0 0 '— L 0_ a a) U (a (n O a) H c open space (a cn 0) c 0 v) U a) LE L as a) L 0 73 a) D c a) i) (a a) c (T -0 O c 0 H Q) L > au) a) O U 0 U c (a a 0) c a a) a 0 a) a) c c a) O a) C 0 a) (a (a O O a O a s 0 L a) cn O (a O (o U a a ca rts 0 a U a (a 0 U a) a >+ O LL .c O Z 4- cn C a) �) 0 'L) a) U O a a) 4- N a) E c (a a) U (a (a L U a) (a U c) (a N O O a) 4- w 0 c O (a a) 0 c O 0 • (o a) (a influences of the > a) O E O as (i) a) •L c O U c c•- 0) .Ws a) 0 f° 0 (.0• _c as co U a) O a) a U fa7• 10 a) Q a 0) o o 0. a U ▪ Y (a a L - m 11 L • a) .L • U U a) a) x m E 0) a) (a a) 0 O N c O (a a) a) 73 C (13 N E 0 4- 0) "5 5 0 4- O c 0 CO 7 U_ The overall (IS a) c a) 0) O C a) (a Q .0 c (a N a) a O 0) co - a) c O O 0) c a) C O 0) .Q a) t 4— (a L a) (Lo O a) 0 0 ca N 0 c (a a) 0 (a u) C (a i) U a) LE U (a 0) c 0 H a) o _ a- 0 0) a) (a z a) 1- 3 O Q) ('3 a) Y (a N (a L 0) 0) a) architectural 0) O a) 0 U a) O a a) 0 cn— O a N a) L_ (a O N 0) 0) a) U O 0 aa)) .> a) c 0 C U 0 c (a a) N a) ..c O C O U O 0) 4— O U c C a) 73 c a) N a) •.0 —0 - 0. C a) a _O a] > a) the Town's 0 the context c C a) U 0 (o c O c a) a O a) N 13 a) 0 a O 0 O 0) N X a) O a) regulations, and design guidelines. 0 a) c a) O a) Ts— (0 0) as T O LL L t 0 Z a) r •t a) Q 0 (T a) 0 O c O (0 2 U O 4- a) -o N 0) a) N c a) a O a) a) -o (0 O (0 (0 a) t (0 0) a) O L by the proposed circulation routes. established a) a) .0 a) > (o L Y U (0 0 0) 0) O) C •D 5 c a) ,92 0 cn O E a) 0) >, 47-1 C O U U a) N O Q O n. a) L relationship to O a) 0 c O O > (o 0)) (00 rn C a) a) 0) 0 O a 0 a) as 0) O (0 U 0 O U) (0 c O U a) O N a) En a) L 0) c a) E Q a) > a) 0 E a) a) L 1- N 0 To 0 N O J 4- c a) C1 O3 N) d w O (0 a) a) a) 0 O _Q •L 0) 0 a) a) Q O Q Q (0 O c 0 47. 0) 0 C) C C •O (0 C a) a) a) O 0) U U (0 a) c a) C O U O C a) O 0) U a) 0 a 0) C Y cLEi c-0 a) C U (0 (0 0) (0 • N C a) a) 3 ▪ O_ • (0 Q. > 0) C t 2 a) _ L C a) a O (T a) O 4. Consideration a a) a) .O a) (ro- c a) L a) Q O U a) O O a) U c (0 a) Q c (0 a) (0 0) U CO a) Q _O a) > a) -o (0 a) a) U a) Q. (3 a) 0) c (0 a) (0 N a) .0 9- O C Cr) c 0 0) • O D O U O) c 0) X a) O O a) g U .0 a) Land use and development of neighboring properties; b) Architectural character/style of neighboring structures; c (0 C (0 0) a) 'a a• (1) a) Q as c a) o (0 O r-� 0 O a)(n +_ c E O O U o a) c a c 0 oo U d) Relationships to existing or proposed transit service; e) Existing natural features (i.e., mature trees); enhance views of the v0) CI) Q f0 O c O E a) C L o 0 •' c Qca Ow g) Privacy and sun exposure. gown Of 405 OTOS - September 1999 1ORT11 IOPTT SPRCIfIC PLflf1 View along frontage road. located a maximum of five feet from the back of the order to accommodate plazas/courtyards See Exhibit the general public. available to (Frontage Road Building Setbacks). 4OWn Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 0 N a) C) N E a) 0 a) O CO• 4.4 N a) 0. 0 d a) road (Area 2, Exhibit 3-3). no access shall a) O C Ua) CO CO• a) N a) O Y U (6 a) E O 4- a) N 0 main access road. O 0 —J O 4- Ty' a) O 4 O O a) U C co D O a) N a) Q. O (T a) a a a) a) 73 N a) H 2) Side and rear orientation. a) O 4) N 0 as L O N on D .5 0 C O (6 a) 1) a c o c U O '-' l_ (6 03 0 O Q E Q) C - a) O 03 N CD w c 0 o 0 O0 Q. (I) L 13 03 • a) c 0) O c -Op T — C_ O a) a fa O. (3 cn a.) cn Q. X a) a) O) (0 c'3 a) (a Y 0 (a L a) N 0 C L • (/) a) T t a) O_ O Q Building Code requirements. a) L O a) U (a O_ O a 0) 5 cr solar access, a) `) O) a) O (o co a) > 0 Q. -o 0 a) cn— a) D a) as 0 N Q) 5 architecture. overall streetscape. 4OWn Of 4OS 611TOS - September 1999 PORTf 4ORTT SPfCIfIC plfln }.._ ✓1 O LinJ 94=1, n E9L" 171 U L 03 a) (10 03 N 0 CO fx L U X W Q c6 0 U CD O N N O N "2 a) w 1- M 03 > o .o N U O X o c O L W co- en N N o O c o iii..+ U (7 c n) a en Y o ca ci o yz cu 0 _I'O tl) 2 - E 2 r0 N fQ (fi C >, 'D a) 0)N 03 O v- C '~o O a) W o u) _ C co r� _o O U L U a,w- •C_ C c (a (6 06 > Y - p C Q O N U C O (0 03 :2 en 'al(n 7 1.1.1 4OWf1 Of 4OS C1flTOS - September 1999 e- V V t."1 Ci 0 0 3nx3Aa )111Y1 a� 5ANAR\tP2 gOWn Of 405 C1iTos - September 1999 TORN (FORTY SP[CIfIC (mflfl 0 Exhibit 3-4 Frontage Road Building Setbacks gOWf Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 V ✓1 0 0 Pedestrian -oriented street N d O a) ro 0) N a) ._ O 4- a) •a (a (A N 4) Q O O d 0) Fri a) a a) (15 c O (a u) (a a) U (a Q a) 0) rn c Q a a) N (a a) U c co (a (N co — a) E �) . IF CO(aa) 0) a) co a)U (1) co_CKS O L Q Q a) a) 0 > O a O U .c increased areas c co cti CQ. C c 0 U O a) 0) a) Q ._ Q) 4- 0) O 0 N a) a) co c a) a a c CO _T U (o 0 (a a) (a a) L 0 back a minimum The setback area (O O a a C -0 O a) a (a U a c (o >+ _O a) Q L 0 a) O a) Q (a J development site. co O a) a co c CO r C d v co ca o M C a) L Q. W O tri d > a) Q ai ,L U co Q Q) Q) Q U U a) Q O c a (a O a) C_ Q.. N C a) a) c O O_ C_ co ca a) a) L O Q a) U x a) a a) U) (a N a) a) a) Q ca 0 c O U O 9- a) .0 C 0 O) C 0 c a) co_ a) a (o T (o a (o O a) C Q u) c'3 E N a) a) O 2 aQ(oU a)4)N a) O C O (a ca) O O LL O Z a) La) C )rn0)a) 0)ca) c O Nc a) area will create a C (O a) a a) Q Q) c (O a C co O c O co) C c O N O) .5 Q 0) 0 E access from it. 41ORTt1 IOPTT SP[CIfIC (plflfl Site development - pedestrian orientation. N of pedestrians. Pedestrian access to parking Water feature helps establish activity mode 0 s as Q N N w N ( 0 o O d �. asE U O J E — W.0 = (13 cn ea ea u C C m al 00. a, M d O s W O setback area shall include a minimum 50-foot wide 0 m CL 0 0 L O as W a) L a) u) (o O 0 a) cn a O a i) (o U) 0) 5 0 a) E a) L> D a) c O a CS- 0 a) its L c (9 E (o c a) a O a) L (B L u) a) 2) a) RS L u) 0) a) u) L N (0 N (U 0. c O 0) cS T 0 0 O 9- (a N (1 '0 a) CL 0 C u) 0 a) 0) c (d D (o a) (o 0 a) a) O a) N a) 0 (o a cn create strong (o L u) N 0 a) .o a a) .0 cn u) 0 a a) a) C a) L a) c O 0 O • (a .L. 0) a) a) a 0 .0 0. a) :N 0 a) L_ O 03 0 0 a) c O O c a) • c) E a c o 2 > • a) • L •0 2 1O - c c -2 cts Q O E . m >. (/) 0 0 ▪ (0 _O u) O a u) O (� c LE a) i--' ( (o c 0 a) U) a) O N (o a) 0. O Q) a) c C a) (6 � C 0 a) >' • a c E (a •N • O • c fo C � N U cn N O ` c`a � > u 0 a) ID • w J 0 areas on the site. O a) c a) •0 a) 0 (o (o a) a) 3 a) a) 0 c a) -• o a o ;? m co • o E O 0 0 (a u) a) N 0) c O .0 L 0) O a) a) a) 0 u) a) 0) co C m tri a) a) 0 ui a) a) L O O) O L a) 0. • 0 Q c 0) a) c (o t 0 a E aa)) (a N a) L L 0) O O c a) 0 c� w N a) a) a O) O L co a) 172 0 a�) ui a) 0) Y (B 0_ 0 N N a) cts 0 c as a) a) 0 gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 TOPTII cOPTT SPfCIfIC Ton = = 0 _ = , c-2 Sc. @ o 0_ k as c k @ t $ \ ± > > ° § $ a) 2 _c 0 2 cn / 0 % 2 f 73 c.)7 0 B 2 E by the deciding body. 6 4- E _c w a)@ o § a)c _� o 2 ° o — k ca ® m 00 c 0 £ 7 -a @ E co § E . _ c@ 6 f a 0_ 2 0 05 5 al £ ° _ a° E $ .� _§ .§ al 2 o _c § .3 � k O. m 7 m § 2£ k a 2 E e/ 0 2— / a3 c c c¥£ •_ c 2 cu co ca c & -.E-•% o a @ k k 4- - § & / %� o @ Tts a £ ( _ 0) § •- J Cr) o e c 0 k k c @ o-0 In c o/ 0 •� \ o15 « . 2 a = U)/ c W ti ui- as k To § 0 = R o .� u) o be used to 0 0 % 0 cc K k k@� k . 3 d Examples of street furniture gown Of 4OS GOTOS - September 1999 0 Pedestrian access through parking lot u) C a) E O) a) (13 CL Avenue, or the Boulevard, Lark N O site creates 0) L O a) O) (0 E t0 U a) L a C (0 0) Q. (0 U U a) 0)) 0) 0) L E O w 0 a) U (0 U an N C U 0) L 2 0) L N 0 (0 a) 0 (0 45 (0 0) L 0) L 0) U C 0) a a) U `) a a a) C a) 0) U N a C (0 a 0) Q (0 U C (0 0) L (0 L N O Gatos Zoning U O J O L O) O O 0) 0) 1- gOWn Of 40S CIOTOS - September 1999 1OPT11 FOPTT SPtCIfIC pall 0 L 0 a) L c0 0) .N a a) c 0) u) a) a) L (0 L N N O 0) R) a a) L N as > N N a) 0 0 (0 E 0) c 0 0 .c N C a) a) a) c O f0 0 0 0 O a) on Y (0 0 O N a) U 0 0 0 a) N co 0) c Q .0 c (0 0) c Y co a N a) 0 (0 0 N N 0 2 lan 9- a) 0 a as N a) (0 L N N (0 N 0) (0 0 0) five feet wide. a) L 1- as O a N a) U 0 (0 0) L (0 >, 0 a)) 0 N a) 0 (0 0 N N c0 `) (0 O N c O Q a) 0 X a) 0 0 Q (0 a (0 E T O L 0) c 0 a) m a) c a) 0) a) L O a) .> c L 0 C a) (0 (0 L_ N 0) 5 L 0 a) 0 L a gown Of 40S GOTOS - September 1999 9- V L= V Q Vl n- i 0 Itt- n- e 0 0 O C 4 0 L 0 L 113 0) C Y L N Cl 0 co co 4) U U Q ood •arkin• lot Iandscapin. 1, OWn Of 4OS C1flTOS - Se •tember 199. 1ORTfl 1OPTT SRO( p flfl 0 LIJ LI—I = .J 1 n g GL " [7 1 Prl q3rzt 4 o c m • N a) 0 c c CO Cl_ CD > a co t U i 0 gOWf1 Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 ui • a) E O7 C a) a) N w O L) O U a) U (0 a) L) co a) co M a) > O Q L U_ c a) U (0 (0 C (0 a) a (0 U O 4) `) L a) a) C a) N a) O a) .0 O U a) 0 O a) L as O 0 (o a) O (0 0 O) (0 .E 0 4) H a) (0 Q O d d co a) a) a) a) Y N a) ((0 C O as c a) O C (0 a) U N C (o a) a) a 4) Access ramps shall be located within the structure. a a) U a) 0 (0 L cn cn a) U C N c a) (0 U_ a) C (0 C (o • a) a) 0 a) O N U U (0 a) L 0 4..001 Looli O 0 a) a) 0 O (0 O) C (0 Q. C Lcn 0 U a) 71 v O )- >, c0 a) > Y 'O a) C U C IF; • m ca a) E a) c6 — t!) (� o - 0) a) l— c (0 co inQ Q) a) .0 U L O > — p) 0 f0 C - O O E •C • O N N C — (0 Q ((^, as 03 0_a O c0 front or sides C a) C a) CD (0 L O O 1 U L N v 1 ✓1 >— CY 0 cC 0 ene 0 ixtures illuminate large areas. L U U n 0 t 0 a a) O -a v a) a) w u)V) • C a) (0 U • n C • C c6 a)c0 15 a) p U L C U C N u) n N — a) u)a) O L n (0 'O a) U CI) N ti >I added later as an O C 11 a) C Q O 0 u) 73 (0 C (0 Q) L N (0 C O u) (0 70 O U 3olar access O be oriented (0 a) U C V) O Ua) (0 o_ n N us C U) a) a) • U 0 U - o • O f0 N u) NID) . C E 'x c0 C compatible material that architecture. .cL "a a) - m C ..c3 3 L a) c -toa) a) a • ° Z ▪ C C _n n - a) o C (0 L L as U O 0) O u) u) ` O a) . a. � c0 to O O O. N • = 2 C aJ C C Y O ▪ ny (0 c a) (0 x '«' ? L L 3 LLco RI a '> o Q) 3 o v; m W O O • L 0 73 - C C 0) C •U Q) p O O O 4) t0 a) .c > 2 E L C a " V C • U) m .Q E • u) 0) • u) (0 0.(0 a) O a) O L L C L -O •L -0 N-0 u) "J a) 4) — (0 c (0 0 > (0 C (▪ 0 t a) a) () _C U 'O 0_ N "L- � L" 'D 0) 0 f0 O V) L• O •a L (0 Z.L• O U n- rn • 3 (0 C (D (L4 O co• +C CD4 a) a) C a) L a) i) V O W y L < (0 u) LL J (a .0 4OWf1 Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 aD ) CL v) E N co a c co 0 0 a) 0) a) a) 0 a) >. 0 0 U co V) a) c (0 0 1 0 T.) N a) a) Q 0 Y 0 ca room within the (0 boxes) shall be located a) (0 L N c a) 0 a - a) >, a) C O a) L 0 c co N a) To > a) i.i a) a) L H a) N 0 0- N a) 0 a) a) N a) L w O c 0 ID 0 O a) L a) N O 0 co N c co U_ Q Q as f. Transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. Building Design ID N a) 0 u) C 0 1— ID L 9— O a) N O (o U a) L N O ID 0 N 0 —J O c 0 (1 L N O c a) m O C (0 L c a) (0 O as a) N `) Q m L town character." Refuse, storage, and equipment areas. O ID > 0 0 N co ID co c a) (0 0 O m L To L N 0 a) u) 0 O a) conditioners, cD mechanical u) O a) c a) 0) c a) 0 Cr a) O) C ID a) O (3) co a) L N Q Q Q 0 0) C y m L c O a) Q a) N O ID 0 c E O 0 a) Q 0 m (0 O C (o 0 a) E a[Wfl Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 9- Len Cie 0 0 0 a) L 0) cD (a 0 (a 0 ca O c O 0 U X a) (a 0) c O 0 Q (0 c 0 L 0) L To c 0 (a a) L 715 L_ (0 O > O L 0) .75 C U m N 0 0 (a (o a) s 0 3 a) Y U O .0 > (0 U c 0) N 0 C 0 O C as a) C O a) (a E (0 > O 0) c U a) a) L C O 0 (0 C mountains. of the following findings: make the use 0 0 ai m (a '2 .> o >+ c fa co • 0 O O U a) fo • > a (0 CO O U c)C o .•••• L a) co, - a) LE U O t (0 (0 o 0- 0 c L N U a) U a) C .0 0) L 0 C O (0 a) f- fo (o ca 0 0) C 0) N a) (0 U (a Q • a) (a > (0 0 (13 0) (a U a) Q O O 0 Y U 0 U Cr) a) Building height. Q O co a) 1E 2 (0 v7 N U C C O (a ;., • ` (0 O 2 a U co "= Q C 'C O tea) >. • 6 (0 O U _oQ c O 0) fn • a) a) • (a 0. c • O L 0) a) L 0) L N 0) 0) c c c c o co _• a co Q) a) cc.) M a) L (a O L) 0 U O > (0 O co L E 0 X (0 E a) L 1- a) L_ L 0) O O L_ c 0 Q a) U X a) 0 (a > O E > -0 O 0) C 0 U a) a a) L a. Structure types: N a) 47, U (a 4- 0) c 0) 0 O 0) L a) 0 dome, spire, etc.); and a) > L a) E a) 4) U (a N a) Q _> a) co Q > a) 0 c.)U -0 (a 0) c L 0 O 4 N c71 • gOWf1 Of 4OS QOTOS - September 1999 9- V d and 0 0 Building scale. (Ni O c0 O a) O) Q U L O c O E a) Q) ca J (0 areas shall be used to break 0) c 0) a) O_ O (0 CI) (0 t (/) 0 c a) as (0 U (0 0 N (0 N (0 Q ui C O c O N O U (0 c (0 cn a) L 0 V) N 0) U (0 c a) 10 (0 of any single use a) N (7) The maximum (0 a) (0 a t O LL 10 a) a) .0 a) a) (0 U a) C (1:5 0 N 0 L c (0 U 4= Q) appearance. cn a) c a) (0 u) O a) cn a) cn- a) a) cn (0 O a) u) a) L second floor E 0) -o (0 Cl)cn- (0 U co f0 O N U u) co CE -a 7 gown Of 4OS GI1TOS - September 1999 1ORTt1 FORTY SPfCIfIC put 0 s O C o (6 A O t a O O LL O Z a r o — O_ O Q. O N N a) �a U N O .S A N a) -a LE N Q achieve an Design theme and consistency. M a) aa)) L a) U) a) O a) c U a) L U f6 ID a) c E a) a) a) d O Z (6 0 c c a) U co 0 (6 O 0 -J a) D of architectural characteristics adds to the c a) c a) a) L u) 0) c c O N a) L r� L_ co U a) O Q a) c 0 > .0 N 0. 0 U c O 0 a) a) U) `) Q O .N �a O a) a) -c H 00 • Q (6 a) 'a 0 L O its scale and ambience. c� c a) E Q O U 0 c (6 E 0 a▪ ) a) N _O 0) 5 a) fl) a) (6 c a) i) U N O U O N w 0 O N 0 L cn O a) O 4— c6 U a) L U 9 ` a) U 6 ( 1 (6 t U O (6 O (6 c c as O a) N O a) U a) 0 a) (6 r a) (6 L co O c a) a) a) c .N a) (6 U a) L 2 rc-% a) 0. 0 c a) c6 O a) (6 U 9- avoided unless a) scaled shall a) 0 Y 0 0 co a) a) O U (6 a) a) .c 0 c (6 O c a) a) a) a) U) a) L H TOW Of 4OS 11flTOS - September 1999 Architectural elements. C a) .( a) 7 O c u) a) a 3 0) c a .5 L (0 O a a) a O O_ c ca O 0. c (a C 0) a) a a) a) a) a O O M 45 a) a) L a) a (a U as c 0 a a) C 0) .c a) a the architectural c co c co E u) O cn 0 J O a) 0) ca E character and small-town >, O U a) U a a) (0 -c 0) C a 5 L O O c a) C E a) L H L a) U 2 N a) 0 c O a To U (0 a) (a a) U O (0 O u) a a) N a and add vitality to the streetscape. Cruz mountains. d. Fenestration shall be consistent with the architectural Mirrored or opaque glass is not e. Individual storefronts within u) 7-6 C 0 m V) N a) - E E O • N c a) a) L u) L C 0) N a) Q) a o 17) c L • ca O c _aa) a) ° L H I_ that draws u) L_ L_ X a) O U O c O a) co u) a) a) L c 0) .O a) a c a) a O E (0 c E >' C 0 a) > 0) U a) a 0 c 0) a) L street shall not c a) 0. O N a) a m U (0 0) .5 L O a a) .5 0• 0) treatment is a) 0) • C 0 U) L- • tea) m i c c E -0 O a) N m > L O as -- c o • U C ▪ .� u) ,u) N O >cu -t U O E N co E : c ca 4- cn j • O `) a) f0 U U (0 i < N N U U O L a) L a) U O C 0) 0 a a) C 0) a) a a) L d. Structures shall a) L H ui O N uJ 0 —J O a) 0) (0 E c O (a N a ca a) ca L U a) w c a) C O U .c `) (0 a) L a) (0 a O a Q (a O a) (`a a) Q ca L 0 u) L c a a) "0 O a (a ) U C 0) O a) -o gown Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 c1ORTt1 FORTY SPfCIfIC PlflF1 0 au) _C C a> p c0 0!) 0) ow N O w L ` co p j E •� ,� co _ 0 0 vi a) 0 0 O E a .•. E a) w 0 0. '( -E 0 c o `� E C U .0 E ,, 2 ca Ti f%) .. Q c o U O w E c0 Q) = u p w U O 0 a) CL.) 0 ca W e v= u, 0 v, o a) U E Jo O N ' p O — c c c O N a) a -emu' 0 O "cc.) -a c b N — ca u, a) L o U 2 0 a) 0 w 0 'c 'o O_ 0_c V) U a) C U a Q ,� c E 0 0 .� 45 O> O 'cv O a) cu c U cLn 0 '0 m° 0 a Q- c° ` LO 0 c 45 (� c c .. L c� 0 '� L 2 a) L a) a `) 'a io L. vi N c aj O 0 0 0" c� c N cu c.O a a 0 0 0 L L 0 0 u) L w ° cv Q ~ a) a) o a° cn a .`� — O 0 a a 0 .� 0 N. o__ 0 0 co Q O O ` CO C C .. i fn 'O w O w O 0 -0 v L RS 3 w O Q a C c ID p0 n w E ca 3 L a co g al a) c`o •� u-� c t' fn o) Q a)a)•N L 0 La Q 2 a) = O .c 0) .H a. E m L ,�- o U •ci) a) cI a) c L c ... 0 =ifs 3 c� a s .c 0 a) u -0 C.) a-o E .00 .0 -I c) o c c o_ a) U c c _� C Q) c 2 3 2 O C u) O u) L c -0E CO- (BC co _ O c0 0) c , a >' a 0) individual tenants. Individual storefront within larger building a) 0) c`9 0 U c a) shielded to CO 4) u) 'c N O a a a) as _co _0) 0-0 L C f� to ate) a � ' 0) 0) 0 C J J a architectural gown Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 CV C7 co U V DC 0 oc 0 0 Building materials and colors. 0 a. False or decorative facade treatments, wherein one or 0, D L c0 c O U C a) Q a ca c0 0 a) c0 v `) O E shall be avoided. cn a) i0 E 73 a) (1) (0 E O a a) (0 C O U O Q a) (0 LL a) L_ O) O) 0 co co L cn co ) (0 E Veneers shall vi a) • Q) U 'd a) co a) 0 O C (0 X � Q) • C C C •O w (0 O N C • a) C N 0 E 0 N 0 J and other natural materials is strongly be subdued U 0 O U d. Exterior surface to which it is applied. Equipment screening. co O w a) a) a) U N a) a) Q E O a) L co L U a) a 6 a) O O co O_ (0 O) a) (o a) L (0 L N O) c a) a) U L N 0 a) C c O N 0 C c O E O O O C (o N (0 m) a) a) (0 U a) L O N `) a) L_ c a) C N C 0 a) a) a) cn U 0 >, C 0 a) C a) c a) a) a) a) co L) c (a co a) Q (o a) L O (0 (o L cn 4) U c C a) L_ a) O .c (0 O 4- O N c s a) O O -t 0 d Q N U O N 4) L N (o considered relative to N Q) gOWI1 Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 0 0 0 Design compatibility. RS _C 0 to L_ O O a) L 0 a) c O • 0 Q. a O L 0 0_ 0_ (� C N ti a) .0 U 0 N (6 0 cis0 O C 1 c) • A > O a) Q) r CD .c (o architectural a) L L 3 CD a) Tts— C a) U C 0) .Ts a) a) .c H N (moo a) O a) 0) .7) a) a) (Q L U U 0) C (D C a) a) cn E O C 0) C (0 c a) E a) 0. 0 U c (o a) as L to -c O 0) C c 0 O O 0_ 0 0. C O a) (o U U c (o c o a) a 0 a a) L C U a) N fo C tn a7 E m .c -0 A C.).L (II C 2' C •() a) a a) a) c (i) •L 0 L O co O U) O 0 C C (0 0 •i o a) L (o co U U a) (o U U 0 0 U O C a co a) a) O) 0 L cn O 0 a) 0 0_ >, C (o a) U E v7 0) N m C N a) cr 0 L. a) L_ O c a) 0 U vi c O (0 0) a) 0) •c O N U 0 0 0 0 0 O H a) 0 (c C 0) 'v) O > 0 0) C c O N O (o 0 O -J O 0 H a) w 0 u) C 0) C O 0) O a) U a) O N c co L N 0) O 0) U) co 0 (o O a a (o a) L H 4OWf1 Of 4OS ifTOS - September 1999 q O 'OC -o(a - ° L >, O= -0 >, O c4 c c> "O ij >,•m _ 5 a) in a) E O L O c O c6 S ate) > C r- es on •� a) . c OL _ 'C O a) cn us o a03 °) `� �- a O cCO va 2 °> 0 N° C as C 0-0 a) O N a) 7503 O O p t '� a) L a) `C ) a) c6 (6 Oci) a) L a) C — __ a) U ` U N O-c L .� (a O N O ? rn '� _ (6 t C O a) O) (a Y J c -c .. N >, c 0 .:- cp O O (fifa c6 .o w E >, c N c w c E a) O c .. O (a ° a) U U (6 co C U O '� i Q p E w- c6 2' ca O O -a p Ira o c L Q O O C O c L 15>, L O O0 0 c6 H C E co O E 'a c ° ° O E O n CL` Oc9 U U °> L0C 2 f6 O U CCI) O O c c a) .Cpa O co' a) N > O U •tnO O C D QO O as ci U C . ` p aU fnU> C as N a)N a) — ° c c cU2 a) c O as O'aa) 06O5 O U O U U A .0 _C E U «O- 70 ca (6 -c b. U a) w c O U) 0 0 U a) L a) a) n U L U 0 O U C Q) U) 0 CO C O C U as (6 •2' >, a) •- O 4) C 2 1L-' a) 06 w C,) as 0) f0J) O u) c N V) O) •- Q) t9 a)cz -o co Fp c co Q m �0)> N co 13 3 c a) a) 0 - O a) a) C E a) L -.c+- o O 1 U C C ,L 73 O CD (a 'p C 'L 'L f6 c 73 a) N 06 — c6 0 t 0 a) 6 asa Ca.) a) co (6 O O _ a) O a) a) 0 = U U 'E'cu p o O_ N E O c Uns a) :— _c O c C U O . N c E OO U o U cd N Colors shall be vi Q) O 0 communicate ideas Even the most 4OWf1 Of 4OS CIflTOS - September 1999 a) 0 U O O a) U co a a) 0 O L cn -o (a L a) a) J U a (o a) O more difficult C3) (0 c O C a) U co co c a) O E a) O a) u) An effective U (o a) -o (o a) 1 O 4) a) a) w a) cn cn O a) a) a) a) cn a) L O) c U t0 a co is a question of ti c (0 a) O E a U U O 0 c O L N N 1 a)) a) a) 2 (0 a) c a) CA CO 0) U C3) 0 a) C3) a) a) iE a) c O a) U c a) c (0 a) (3 Ty (o a c Q) N O .- 0 O a) U (0 a c a) cn O) O c (0 cn O 0 >, cn O a) a) L H A (0 0) cn a) c) _.) L a ca 0) 0 U a) CA O U C a) >, 0) O E O O a) a) c a) CA 0 co a) a) N (0 0) O O a) co (o v7 a) E a)) (0 U C ai N 0) c C3) .05 -E 3 a) L a) a) a) L H a) N a) L (0 L N a) C3) (0 N a) a) a 0 a) 0) 0 a) L O a) Q) (o cow a) U co (o 0 a) L >. U 0) O) c c O N 2 U a) .c O 0) (0 a) a) a) s u7 as (a t LL a) a) a) 'O a) 0 L 0) > 0 (o .n 0 a (0 E O O -o 0 CT 0 a) L 0) a) 0) O (o a) except that U 0) C •(0 a) a) a a) C O (0 a) O O E (o a) O a vi a) 0) cn a) c .N a) L O a) U a) C O a) L (a a) c c 0) N a) C a) 0 0 u 0 0 Pedestrian -oriented signs: Lettering size Intended Reading Distance (ft.) 0 O O 40 50 N CO Minimum Character Size (in.) O. if) O (f) O •- ,- N N CO Sign illumination. L illuminated must be CD m C >, cn o C _o .>.cogc0 a)E o 0u) a >o O co c o .c 3 jai c o o 3 ccc v, c o c0 c0 i 3 1- c c > tea) o CO E O cn U U ° cz5C ID E (0 E a C O en -D o Eva fn " U C a) c 8 "E U) �, c O C a. >, E o O L (1) a� = O ) O .0) .0 a) `� U O �, o i N N a) o- (0 a) °co a) U u) L Y '> U . O a) f0 (0 >. Eco L .�. = V1 "U 4) a) >. f (a a) 3i "O C a) (0 a) C on L D C E a C (0 ai in which a n cu (II O -co E >, CD CD .0,,,_ E �O L O a LonC 1— = 'C a) a0 C 3 = O V 0 co 0 Li—% C - a) (0 c +r Y 0 -0 -C Q�ca) �44—I o o o U I4_1 =co Op _. C E E O 0 E ° E E ,n5 x u' a — co L CD C <0 E O CeT _ Q L�1 _c a) _ c a) - L�Je [7, (TOM Of 4OS GflTOS - September 1999 TORT11 FORTT SPfCIfIC TM s 0) O a) 0 O v7 U > L a) (0 a) L c co U C (D) iTo a) L 9— c a) a) O C c a) L L > (6 N .u) cn L 0) O a co a) a) 0) a) c L a) a) _co a) L 0 co` a) 0. Q c O) cn L a) en U a) _co c O 4- C D t O Q N U 2 X t O) J m U a> co 0 cn 0) c L a) .0 CZ o -a L 7.7 N — U O) 4) = cn 92 C 3 t.") as N 2 a) U ,�O 2 L (n L c — — (9 O C O O 2 a) U t (n 2 a)j O •U O O O a a) a) 0) c _co) U 2 0 ai (D co co a) 9- O t (n 0 O) a) c C (o a) O U a) _co N c 0) U CD 0) (6 L CD 0 _ u C Q) .0) O 0 _c 5 0) O O C L a) N 0 L_ c c O fa U 0 cu cQ 0 . E o a) (0 U - O` c U U `) O O a) 2 (13 N `) X 0) c L 0) U a) a`) a) c a) } U a) -c a) 0) > a) 0 0 Q c a) (o a) .co L N `) U a) U cn CD c c� 0 o = a) 0 > C O) O 0) C 0) >+'O = CZ a) Q 3 U w a) EL 0 L > a) U co = = c c .c 73 a) 0_ cti- cn 0) en — 'et) a) D O cn a) L .0) U (6 L O a) cn a) c a) CD G) a) U 0 (B a) 0) C m O (4 U L) O O 77) (a c 0 > U 2 rn -c O Q `) a) L_ 2 U co L co cn c13 a) co U cn `) O U 1. c a) L O U a) L V TOWf1 Of 4OS CfflTOS - September 1999 co M a) 0) (o o_ = J 6,7 v n. >-- 1--- oc 0 LU- - CZt 0 L4-1= o 4OW11 Of 4OS OTOS - September 1999 Tagil (fOlgT SPfCIfIC 91.flfl O Q) c O H a) 0 0 0 N T 0 0 0 C 0 0. O Qui c C 5 c 0) c13 ET Er 0 0) c a O LOU A. General Provisions 1. Relationship to Zoning Regulations. o "- C c6 a) '0 C a) O 0 cn 'O - O 2 co L g C 0) L c L r C cn O a) a c0 •• C N 'N +� O +- . -. c0 co) U U) 0) Y U) a) aj '- •-• "- U) C) L > C a) C cv U) "O c0 O C O T U L ° P 0) p_ N O O U Z Q a cn Ts c- m U a) o c0 0 .0 a) a) wCD 0 0 O 0 o `� a) cn c cn N 0 0 0 U> 0 ° 0 L U) w c0 a) O C Q a) U) N °.0 L c cn o f a ° »- w o U U c p N T o 0 c C c O a) Q) = Q vi c0 w 'C -a O as C O O as a) E 0 c o 0 '� N a co c Eco w N a) = >o -E -a fu° o v a) cn 3 c 4) U a) Q 2 0 .U) a) 0> a) 2 a) Q C c C Cr).cn O a) m s p '_ U L c000 C (n .� (77 >Tu c0 c0 - p C E C Lco _- a) a) _c O C U) C 4 t0 0 C 12113 d a) p ... L 'O O O L p c0 `Q)4:5 O O c0 0 -0 .0 O c C> a �' (0 C O O 0 ._Ct t0 C O 0_ - 0 `� O m p N c + T U) U) a) O C C c0 O c0 c0 0) -0 c0 = C 0 o cu 6 0 U c 0 a) -3 c0to a `o) a 8 E Q a co o ° c ° o) v m a C7 =a a) c _0 0 0 CZ Ui 0 c a) > c� cn a) N o 0 E cn p a) N U O_ -0 E O 0 L C Q_ C a 0 f0 C "O . c O U a) �.. a . H a) cn as m a a) -0 -a M c!) c 0 0 O O) U) :E Q) c0 - C L C Q C O U O 46 o o �, c N o Li) a) 0 ' p v) 213 'c a)) 5 .-> C o:U.)3 - C o 0 O��Q��o as a) co 0 a O •c _c .o O _ca) cis o N C N O) U) C .- C_E co IX .-: U T a) Q. 'C ._c °) N :� O C N U a) L_ O L C 4) O ..co N Cn .> O 5 O-c N O O N O c0 C as u) c0 p .0 ca O •0 as V (0 a) U •(� U L O_ a) 0 C C a) Q 1— U) 2 c0 2 0 CC CO Definitions. (Ni c u) o a) 0 u) ate) o c —) o CD 0 T U a)U - 0a) c 1 cn Q cri c 0 0 .0 C cn o E f0 O a .-o tc5 c 0 f0 0 c0 O to :. as � - 0) L Q > Q U L � 0 ccn_n N Planned Development Zoning required. c'7 .0 .0 a) ca co c ` a) m m L U � 0 c ° N 4-c;) E Z Q O Q) a) c 0 3 a) C U) c0 U ca a O C N O c U 73 d O O _� c Q N c O N ->— a) -t U_ c 0 O a) L 4 0 c0 H L a) U c c0 Q 0 U a) 0) c0 a. IOWf1 Of 40S GflTOS - September 1999 1OPTII FORTY SPfCIfIC Plfln O Town Receives Development Application 0 z t a) E -0 a 0 • cr d O 0) c d c c 0 = N G. a) } Minor Architecture and a) 2 cc a a) t Q coE� a o > E a) o O U 0 a) cC 0 0 E a 0 T.) a) 0 Cn 0 c a) E E 0 U a) a) a) E E 0 U Town Council Approves J Building Permit Architecture and Site a) .> c O • co 0 U - E Q o Q a) 0 -o c a) E E 0 U a) a) a) E E 0 U a) Nm E E E O • 0 — U a) a) 0 Recommends c 0 .N u E c m E • E U E 0) o C E c c ca 0 Building Permit Architecture and Site cfOWfl Of 4OS GOTOS - September 1999 N a) ca a. 1ORTt1(FORTY SPfCIfIC win 0 I— c I— LJ er- LT J1. 0 0 CI O 0 Table 4-1 Type of Approval Required C U 3 c o c 1—o U Adopts Ordinance l* These may be referred to the Planning Commission on a case -by -case basis. Planning Commission A & S Approval Recommend to Town Council on PD Zoning A & S Approval A & S Approval E O C3 a - a C o O oo Q A & S Approval A & S on referral from DRC Development Review Committee Minor A & S Approval Recommend to PC Recommend to PC Minor A & S or may refer to PC Minor A & S or may refer to PC Exempt Building Permit Only Staff Admin. Approval Type of Project Interior tenant improvements Minor additions and alterations determined to be insignificant by the Director (e.g. very small additions, replacement of a window or door, addition of equipment screening devices, etc.) Development of a new structure on a vacant site less than 40,000 square feet in gross area. Development of a new structure on a vacant site greater than 40,000 square feet in gross area. Building additions Any building addition that exceeds 50 percent of the existing gross floor area of the building or that is larger than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Any building addition that does not exceed 50 percent of the existing gross floor area of the building, or is less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area.* Remodel The removal of 50 percent or more of any exterior wall area or removal of 50 percent or more of the supporting members of a structure such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or girders. Exterior building modifications, including facade changes that do not involve the removal of 50 percent or more of the exterior wall area, including the replacement of doors and windows.* op 4- a) m ca a. (1flTOS - September 1999 Tout' (FORTY SPfCIfIC PLflfl a) >, ca E c 0 U a) _v) O .E E O 0 0) C 'c (0 0 a) 1- O (0 a) a La-) U c 0 O 0 0 a) L O a) (0 a) a O_ (0 5. Amendments. a) co U) a) L_ >T L 0 a) c a) E ca a) L T (0 E (0 U U a) a (/) O L 1- c a) E C a) (a L U (0 W a a) 0 0 0 T (0 .c 0 N c� 3 (0 a) O a) U O a c c� a. U U a) a U) a) 0 N O t O a O N c 0 U a) cn (0 a) O U (0 L U a) .0 0 >, ns o E •N (L m E E E 0 0 c a) E a) (0 • c c Q t0 0 a) .0 (0 C L O U O a) 0 w Q 0 0 a) T (0 .0 L ) -CS (0 N += L c Amendments a) c 0 T t as a O a a) 0 the fee schedule O U a) U 0 0 c 0 H c O 0 L - a) a) a O O 0 Q (0 a) L 0) Interpretation of provisions and uses. The Director .O a) .o > O 0 T C a) •U co) 0 cn N (0 a) c 0 0 O a) 7 O N c c0 w 0 a) cn c N (0 a) U O a) w a) 0 O a) O N a) C O 5 0) the Director as O O a) N O E a) a O a) O 7 a) L O C �a L C 0 .N 5 O 0. 1— C O (0 0 T 4- O L (0 a) w a) (0 L (0 O O U a) 0 a) L ai O c (0 0 0 (0 C N a) O 7 a) (0 a) 0 O cis E .Fr) a) co O (0 U a) Ta a) a) L 0 C O O L O a) O O (1) L U) 0 L 0 U 0) C 0 N (0 O U CIS a U N D) C C 0 N T c (0 C a) 0 713 O) c C (0 c (0 L 0 - .( U 0 'O (0 a) C O 4- c O U L- a) L O C O 0) E O 0 O) c (6 c O a) L a) E (0 L N Commission Los Gatos General Plan 5.0 VASONA LIGHT RAIL AND ROUTE 85 ELEMENT 5.1 HISTORY This element of the General Plan replaces the Route 85 Element that was adopted as part of the 1985 General Plan and updates the Route 85 and Vasona Light Rail Element (VLR Element) that was adopted in 1994 after extensive public input. In October 1990 the Town Council approved several agreements with the State Department of Transportation and the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority regarding the design of Route 85. In summary, the agreements allow Cal Trans to construct a 6-lane freeway through the Town with the median of the freeway reserved for mass transit. In addition, the Vasona Light Rail is proposed to utilize the existing Southern Pacific Railroad Tracks located adjacent to Winchester Boulevard for a mass transit facility that would terminate in Los Gatos at Route 85 and would connect with the Cahill Street Station in San Jose. A Park and Ride facility is proposed to be located adjacent to Route 85 on Winchester Boulevard. Ultimately, the Vasona Light Rail will be extended southbound into the median of Route 85 toward San Jose and northbound following the existing Southern Pacific right-of-way toward Cupertino. This element of the General Plan is warranted because it is critical that the Town take advantage of the opportunities and respond to the challenges created by Route 85 and the Vasona Light Rail. The unique nature of these transportation facilities necessitates that the Town take a proactive role in planning for the future of the surrounding areas. The Vasona Light Rail and Route 85, as well as the land uses planned for the surrounding areas, will affect and benefit the entire community. Consequently, these issues have been addressed as a separate element to the General Plan in order to incorporate corresponding im pacts in other elements of the General Plan for internal consistency. 5.2 INTRODUCTION Construction of Route 85 has had a significant impact on traffic within the Town since it was opened in October 1994. Reductions of traffic volumes on some arterials and collector streets has occurred, while others have experienced increases. Route 85 is approaching capacity during the peak commute hours, but is still a desirable primary route for autos. The freeway provides for a future mass transit system and it is rational to assume that a portion of the existing commuting traffic that utilizes Route 85 and Town streets would utilize such a facility. In addition, the proposed Vasona Light Rail is closer than ever to being a reality, with plans to build the facility as far south as Campbell within the next few years. These systems would provide a much needed means of connecting Los Gatos with regional mass transit systems and through mass transit with the rest of Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. Since Route 85 and the Vasona Light Rail will have a significant impact on transportation within the Town, it is critical to determine what land uses will best take advantage of these transportation facilities as well as meet the needs of the Town. It is also critical that the Town determine when these land uses can be implemented. The Town has continually taken a proactive approach on this important issue and support's land uses that promote and take advantage of the transit opportunities afforded while also meeting the housing and commercial needs of the Town. July, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 Los Gatos General Plan As stated in the Housing Element, Los Gatos has a need for affordable housing, both for seniors and families. Areas adjacent to the Vasona Light Rail facility and Route 85 would be good locations for meeting these Town needs due to their proximity to mass transit and to commercial needs of the future residents. Los Gatos is a special place, and it is important to demarcate our boundaries when entering or leaving from/to other cities. Open space and gateways, including open space as gateways, are means of doing so. The Route 85 study area offers opportunities to preserve and use open space for this purpose. The VLR Element consists of general goals, policies and implementation measures that apply to the entire VLR Element area shown on the map included as figure 5.1. The area generally encompasses the area bounded by Capri Dr. and Winchester Blvd. on the west, Vasona Lake on the south, National Ave. on the east, and the northern Town limits. This area was defined based on the land use and circulation patterns and the proximity of property to existing and future transportation facilities. 5.3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES Throughout the process of preparing this element, several basic planning principles served as the foundation for designations for land use for the area. These guiding principles are repeated throughout the text of this element in one form or another. The overarching principle guiding land use planning for the area is that development shall be community oriented, pedestrian oriented, and transit oriented and designed and scaled to maintain a small-town character. This concept, more than any other, is exemplified in the guiding principles below and throughout this element, ensuring orderly development of the area and the Town. ROUTE 85 AND VASONA LIGHT RAIL ELEMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES ❑ DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY ❑ EXISTING ZONING OF LAND AROUND VASONA LIGHT RAIL SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL VASONA LIGHT RAIL IS PLANNED AND FUNDED O RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL FURTHER THE TOWN'S HOUSING GOALS, AS OUTLINED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT ❑ A MIXTURE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES THAT SERVE RESIDENTS NEEDS, MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF LOS GATOS, AND COMPLEMENT EXISTING AND PLANNED USES IS DESIRABLE O PUBLIC UTILITIES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND UPGRADED TO ACCOMMODATE BUILD -OUT ❑ MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS SHALL BE PROCESSED AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS In addition to general policies that apply throughout the area, specific goals, policies and implementation measures are identified for each of the four sub- areas. July, 2000 Page V-2 5.4 ;OALS, POLICIES, IMPLEMENTI, STRATEGIES M 7 i& Los Gatos General Plan ISSUE 1: The Vasona Light Rail and mass transit facilities to be installed in the median of Route 85 will link the Town with the rest of Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. The Town needs to address how it can take advantage of the mass transit opportunities presented by these connections. a oma e t scon5trucfiono Vas n-o-Ligh Rallans si as liti s I # e Route-85 median: Policies: V.P.1.1 Future development shall offer or contribute to transit services that link the Vasona Light Rail with the rest of Los Gatos. V.P.1.2 The Town shall continue to support and promote Route 85 as a multi - modal facility that includes a freeway with High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) lanes, mass transit uses in the median (light rail and/or express buses), and connections to the Vasona Light Rail facility. V.P.1.3 Circulation planning for the Town shall recognize the potential for mass transit connections via Route 85 and the Vasona Light Rail. V.P.1.4 Facilities developed for Vasona Light Rail station and Route 85 mass transit connections shall be safe, convenient, and attractive for bicycle and pedestrian use. Implementing Strategies: V.I.1.1 Mass transit: Cooperate and coordinate with all appropriate agencies to facilitate construction of mass transit. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning and Town Council V.I.1.2 Mass transit: Coordinate and proactively participate with other communities and agencies to ensure that the proposed mass transit facilities are acceptable to the Town. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning and Town Council V.I.1.3 Transportation Alternative: Development shall provide Transportation Alternative programs or facilities that help link development and mass transit. These programs may include providing bicycle racks, shower and locker facilities, transit passes to employees, etc. In -lieu fees or other funding mechanisms may be required to provide a shuttle for the area. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning and Deciding Body July, 2000 Page V-3 .2a, 2ae IPA mos //ram- I J V.I.1.4 Shuttle system: Work with the transportation agencies to determine the feasibility and means of financing a Town wide shuttle system. Time Frame: 2000 - 2005 Planning and Engineering Responsible Party: ISSUE 2: There are more large parcels of land that are suitable for residential development within the area than within any other area of the Town. The current uses of these parcels range from orchards to underutilized residential property to manufacturing. The commonality of all of these parcels is their proximity to future mass transit and their capability of helping the Town meet its housing goals, as outlined in the housing element. The issue is which types of housing needed by the Town are best suited for siting within the area, and where within the area they should be constructed. Policies: V.P.2.1 Residential development proposals within the area must demonstrate how they address the Town's unmet housing goals for affordable housing. V.P.2.2 Mixed use proposals within the area must address how the uses within the development are compatible and synergistic. V.P.2.3 Residential development proposals within the area must address how they take advantage of mass transit opportunities. Implementing Strategies: V.I.2.1 Residential Development applications will be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Applicant and Planning ISSUE 3: The area has easy access to both Route 85 and Highway 17, and includes connections to both major north -south arterials (Winchester and Los Gatos Blvd.) and one major east - west arterial (Lark Avenue). The area contains large underdeveloped parcels that may be suitable for commercial or recreational uses. Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page V-4 provide opportunity for land uses ;hat a dress the ecr•eational needs of the Town �oprovide opportunity for avariety of non residentia vitfin the area..r�.f��.�,�� Policies: V.P.3.1 Sites for recreational open space and playfields shall have convenient access and be designed with adequate buffers if adjacent to residential uses. V.P.3.2 Commercial development of any type (office, retail, research & development, etc.) shall be designed in keeping with the small town character of Los Gatos. V.P.3.3 Encourage a mix of commercial, office and light industrial and recreational uses within the area, especially in areas less suited to residential development due to noise. V.P.3.4 Encourage mixed use commercial in conjunction with affordable housing. Implementing Strategies: V.I.3.1 Non-residential Development applications shall be reviewed for compliance with the General Plan and must limit impacts on residential uses. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Applicant ISSUE 4: Residential and non-residential uses produce different impacts on the community. The impacts on traffic, noise, schools, open space and other quality of Life issues will vary, depending on the final mixture of residential and non-residential uses approved within the area. The overall planning for the area needs to limit the adverse impacts on the quality of life of all of the residents of Los Gatos and to provide for open space. l-:limit egg vers-smpacts1a To;encourage the best 'mix v Ebro theareaYwhieh achieve . 4h tial�art ik icy �'+rG Ienand nonresiden ial uses east impact on traffic, noise, Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page V-5 UGL(90LC /chYL Policies: V.P.4.1 Development shall not exceed transportation capacity. V.P.4.2 The siting scale and design of buildings in relationship to each other ( shall facilitate and encourage pedestrian gathering. V.P.4.3 Major development projects shall be processed as planned developments. V.P.4.4 The design of structures and open space shall be compatible with the small-town character of Los Gatos. V.P.4.5 Development shall facilitate the upgrading of utilities to that needed by the area when it is fully developed. Implementing Strategies: V.I.4.1 Design guidelines shall be adopted and used to review development applications within the area for issues unique to the area (gateway, scenic vistas, open space, etc.) Time Frame: 2000 - 2005 Responsible Party: Planning V.I.4.2 Project applicants must evaluate and provide appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts on urban services including schools, utilities, police and fire. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.4.3 Project applicants shall demonstrate how the project meets the specific goals and policies of this section. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.4.4 Require environmental audits (Phase I assessments) for all sites where property is suspected of containing any toxins. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Applicants 5.5 POLICIES FOR SPECIFIC AREAS Policies: V.P.5.1 No change in zoning shall be allowed until development of the Vasona Light Rail is planned and funded. V.P.5.2 Development in this area shall consist of housing that meets the affordable housing goals of the Town and neighborhood commercial uses that provide services to all residents of Los Gatos. V.P.5.3 Mixed use commercial/housing developments maybe considered in this sub -area. Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page V-6 Los Gatos General Plan P.5.4 The Town shall work with de )pers, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), ana other agencies to ensure that this sub -area is developed in a manner that takes full advantage of the transit opportunities afforded by the Vasona Light Rail and any mass transit provided in Route 85. V.P.5.5 Projects developed in this sub -area shall contribute to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek. V.P.5.6 Projects developed in this sub -area shall contribute and enhance the natural view corridor and landscape of the Los Gatos Trail. Implementing Strategies: V.I.5.1 Existing zoning and uses will be maintained until Vasona Light Rail is planned and funding is approved. Development may be phased with the completion of the Vasona Light Rail. In no case may development exceed transportation capacity. Time Frame: Dependant upon timing of Vasona Light Rail Responsible Party: Planning V.I.5.2 Process major development projects as planned developments. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.5.3 Evaluate whether development of air rights at the Vasona Light Rail station facility should be allowed or could feasibly be accomplished without creating visual congestion or violating the small-town character of Los Gatos. If allowable, coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and other agencies to allow development of appropriate uses (affordable housing and neighborhood commercial and businesses that cater to commuters). Time Frame: 2000 - 2005 Responsible Party: Planning V.I.5.4 Orient development to take advantage of the amenities of the Los Gatos Creek and the Creek Trail. Establish in -lieu fees for new projects that will fund a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek. Time Frame: 2000 - 2005 Responsible Party: Planning V.I.5.5 Develop a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek through development fees, grants, and other means available to the Town. Time Frame: Dependant upon development Responsible Party: Planning V.I.5.6 Evaluate projects as to how the built environment naturally blends into the surrounding landscape in such areas as scale, materials, hardscape, lights and landscape. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning July, 2000 Page V-7 7 )lea2 Oka R Aea 3 76,44 Policies: V.P.6.1 Development shall be designed to take advantage of the amenities c offered by Los Gatos Creek and to preserve watersheds, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. V,P,6.2 Development projects shall incorporate design features to buffer dwelling units from the visual and noise impacts of Highway 17 and Route 85. V.P.6.3 The maintenance road along the east side of Los Gatos Creek shall function for emergency access. V.P.6.4 Develop a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Los Gatos Creek and a continuous trail system along the east side of Los Gatos Creek from Lark Ave. to the northern Town limit in keeping with the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Implementing Strategies: V.I.6.1 Orient and site residential units to take advantage of the amenities of the Los Gatos Creek Trail system and to preserve watersheds, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.6.2 Require a noise study for development applications, identifying degrees of impact and noise attenuation measures, if necessary, to mitigate noise impacts on residential neighborhoods. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.6.3 Provide emergency access to Lark Ave. via the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance road for properties between Los Gatos Creek and Oka Road through conditions on development applications. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.6.4 Provide a trail connection for pedestrians and bicyclists along Los Gatos Creek adjacent to Bonnie View Mobile Home Park and the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance facility to complete the trail along the east side of Los Gatos Creek from Lark Ave. to the northern Town limits. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning Policies: V.P.7.1 The Town shall guide future development in the sub -area. V.P.7.2 The Town shall encourage uses that serve Town residents. These include, but are not limited to, open space/playfields, office, and retail and other commercial uses. Residential uses may be permitted when located over commercial as part of mixed -use development and only Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page V-8 with acceptable mitigation of ac se noise, air quality, and other environmental hazards. V.P.7.3 Encourage innovative designs, phased design schemes and mixes of uses that are consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards. V.P.7.4 Site plans shall be designed to minimize traffic impacts and to preserve sufficient open space. Implementing Strategies: V.I.7.1 Design standards: Prepare development standards that include criteria and provisions for comprehensive design review, recognizing the area as a "gateway" to Los Gatos. Time Frame: 2001 - 2002 Responsible Party: Planning V.I.7.2 Specific Plan: Prepare and adopt a specific plan for this sub -area. Time Frame: 2001 - 2002 Responsible Party: Planning V,I.7.3 Planned developments: Process major developments as planned developments. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.7.4 Proactive guiding role: Take a proactive role in defining desirable uses and site design by various means, including but not limited to: ❑ Exploring methods of financing infrastructure improvements. ❑ Working with property owners and prospective developers to facilitate orderly development. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.7.5 Project Review: Evaluate proposed uses and designs to ensure they are consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards. Developer's may be asked to provide surveys, market studies and other information deemed necessary to assure these objectives are met. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.7.6 Cut -through traffic: Ingress and egress shall be designed to minimize opportunities for traffic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page V-9 742 e ea 2674, gal/pi, Policies: V.P.8,1 Encourage mixed use development (office/medium-high density residential) north of Lark Ave. V.P.8.2 Encourage development of residential rental units. V.P.8.3 Development shall incorporate features to buffer dwelling units from noise and other impacts. V.P.8.4 Encourage parcel assembly to provide greater design flexibility and minimize driveways along Los Gatos Blvd. Implementing Strategies: V.I.8.1 Mixed use: Projects proposing all office or all residential will be evaluated to ensure that the Town's desire for mixed use is fulfilled. Shared parking for projects with mixed use will be allowed. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.8.2 Rental/ affordability preference: Evaluate proposals with residential uses to assure that the Town's housing goals are being furthered. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.8.3 Planned developments: Process major development proposals as planned developments. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.8.4 Adopted Plans: Evaluate proposed uses and designs to ensure they are consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards Plan. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.8.5 Noise: Applications for projects that front on Los Gatos Blvd and/or back up to property on National Ave. or Camino del Sol shall include a noise study proposing mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts on existing and future residents. Time Frame: On -going Responsible Party: Planning V.I.8.6 Mixed use design: Develop and adopt standards for mixed use design, to be used in the review process of all mixed use developments. Time Frame: 2001 - 2002 Responsible Party: Planning Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000 Page V-10 Page V-1 ] North 40 Specific Plan 0 0.25 0.5 ctl • • 1 Mile 10. Thomas tutu 18434 Bennett Way 6.534 s.f. Singh Family 11 ArLyuko Yukl 10428 Bennett Way 424-07-100 408,320 s.f Orchard 9. Myako Vold 18418 Bennett Way 0,534 s.1. 8 Herbert Yuki Single Family 16402 Bennett Way 424-07-032 Single Family 7. Thomas Yuld Bennett Way 0.534 s.f. 8. William Fates Vacant 16394 Bennett Way 6,534 51. Single Fanvly 4. WNliam Hirschman 10378 Bennett Way 0.534 s1. Single Family • 12 Myuko Yuki 164358ennett Way 16.988 sr Single Fannly 13. Peter 5,010 5 16425 Bennett Way 11,32E Stogie Famly 5. Myoko Vuki 16386 Bennett WSY_ 0.534 s.f. Single Family 3. Elizabeth Dodson 10370 Bennett Way .534 5.1. Single FFandy 2. Marianne Ezell 15133 La Gatos B1va. 10.890 5.f Single Family 1. Merton Short 15171 Los Galas Blvd. 13.504 s.1. Gas Station 16. Elizabeth Dodson 15055 Los Gatos Blva. 89,260 s . Office Recently Built (1098) 14. Thomas Yuld 16415 Bennett Way 7,405 sy Single Family 15. Thomas Vukl 16391 Bennet Way 11,32E s.f. Single Family 21. Etph Lp 14965 Los Gatos Blvd 150.430 O. Orchard • i". 22. Thomas Yrdd 14927 Las Gatos Blvd 241,322 s.L Orchard 17. Jo0co Properties 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. 39.640 5.. Medical OIfia1 Recently Built (2003) / 19. Oagosano Trust 15011 Los Gatos Blvd. 30.204 3.1. Cleaners/Car Rental 18. Robert Spinazze 15043 Las Gaos Blvd. 27,443 sf. Bar 20. Etph Lp 14975 Los Gatos Blvd. 58.80E s.. Orchard 23. Elph Lp 14917 Los Gatos Blvd. 140,263 f Orchard r i l I ( t ( 1 `r 33. Thomas YWd 10302 Burton Rd. 28,314 5I. Orchard 32. Patricia Carvell 10270 Burton Rd. 18.731 s 1. Single Family 31. MO. Yuki 1026o Burton Rd 18.731 al. Single Family 30- Herbert Yuki 16250 Burton Rd. 18,295 s.f. DM,* Family 29. Wiliam Mattes 16240 Burton Rd 10,890 s.f Single Fam➢y 8 Hans Mattes 16210 Burton Rd 10,890 s f Single Family 25. Pamela Swallow 14849 Los Gatos 8144, 40.948 s. . Single Family 24. Miyoko Vuki 14925 Los Gatos Blvd. 90.268 s.f Orchard 34. Clifford Swenson 16245 Burton Rd. 3.920 s.f. Single Family 35 Ch500d Swenson 16245 Burton Rd. 47.480 of Vacant - 26.Aleaande Maisenco 14823 Las Gatos Blvd. 18.988 s. Single Family 27. Hans Mattes 14831 Lo Gatos Blvd. 29,185 5. . Single Family r 36. Hoornan Sataadeh 14777 Los Gatos Blvd. 32.234 s. RelaislOffice Building Recently Bull (20061 North 40 Specific Plan 200 Parcel Data 400 Feet North 40 Specific Plan Zoning Map C-1 CH i CH:PD R-1:10 R-1:8 0 0 0 00000 0 0 00 1 2 3/4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 North 40 Specific Plan Project Photographs 0 68 sl A7E- t-1 OFFIC 71410-ok''" 411E11111181g111111111111111111111 #4'" I VOW ott 1040) ,A011100 BUILDING #2 29.050 SF/MR X 4 FI.85 116.030 SF 11111:111311111111111MIIIIP BUILDING #1 24.000 SF/FLR X 5 FLRS= 120,000 SF !Immo% .. =1 0 — 12I a . — • Kt ill =- in MN PM irA) UP .-..• n1 I il$,:, p1111111Di ilialiliA 500 ON- 634 GAMS Sr ( ,, 101111111IIIIIIIIIIIII111 11=1111Ittiglitd 111111211111trok, .• ris 2 .•••1.e - IfilliiiiiMiliiill :1 I 11RETAIL - I I PI rTIVRIETWHIC 111; tgapliP1111/1111111101 Lasuniumato LI romespipuipir; 2-STORY RESTAURANT x 2 FIRS-g'COOC LOS GATO OULEVARD SITE PLAN BUILDING #3 22.000 SF/FIR X 4 FIRS. 65.000 SF HOTEL PKG STRUCT. mac. afTICS: 110,CO2 54 X 6 STALL5/1000.10 STAUB Aka' Aft ...Neraffiskik,Akairish, Aii1111111111111.111;1111111111111111111 ' - N.17 01111111111r .1.1*/ "17 INIIIIii1111611011111104 50 ON -GRADE STALL Immesimummematii .,41-PPIPIFF1111- „Ala FLOORS 2S0 POWS) • 0 0 k L 0 RIPOIVATI! :Readr 'V 44 WIRIMIRIONOPPOIMPIIIMOMPINORNIPININOMP - - WIRINUPPINIFINI4111r mast ......;... .44W .0 40.4 w411N 044,044: 4.44W DESTINATION RETAIL 500 STALLS ON -GRADE BELOW 150,000 SF 3-STORY MED OFFICE rINS11101111.1111741111.0..11Mn 11111111rdellit r111911"11111ig P1011,PITIF 11, IV• Li e- 1143111111111111ki )2.5TORY RETAIL SCALE: 1=80. AREA PARKING ONF ENIER 10,000 SO 4-11111111111111iNEliliiISISF7, L111111111111111/1111Irdlik) 143 STALLS (E) 2sni.i • MEDICAL BLDG. X 2 ROOPS-;.7.1&C 0160.0. oence 2,400 SF x 6 110145/,0000,26 STALIS ALTA, 6.00 SF X 5 STALLS/10C0.22 STALLS ISO STALLS OFFICE CAMPUS 324.000 SF 1,124 STALLS (3.5/1000) (500 OPEN ON -GRADE) (634 GARAGE STALLS) OCCICCMOCOCCCICAMICCAMOOCCCOMEWIAM 250 PERIMETER STALLS OPEN iliiftuiliiidiililL n 4011111111:1IN 111:1111:111J 1-STORY RETAIL j111111196121111 2-STORY MED. OFFICE 1,000 SF 2 2 FIRS-24.0,0 SF 3-STORY MED.OFFICE 111111/11111110 41111111;iMilIF 311111811111 2-STORY MED OFFICE RITIIWC 1111111111-11 ) 11111111 11111111r 1m ,m-mme MALLS .6 WAGS STALLS ACROSS . — 441 211111111111111 1110-11101111•11111111.1 NIVEMIgiiIMIUMI111110111111111/101/5111111 IfiiintillnillniiIIIIMUITHISIMMA .41111.1111kii5o001.. AV .8,wo sr x 6 51415/ 000.176 6... L MEDICAL OFFICE RETAIL 161,400 SF 840 STALLS (6/1000) (350 OPEN ON -GRADE) (490 GARAGE STALLS) 148,900 SF 893 STALLS (6/1000) ▪ 1-STORY 1 RETAIL 05 HOUSING 53 uNrrs PER FLOOR X 6 FlooRs -Ta Sons HOL SING 13 UPWS PER X 6 MORS = I_Mii111511111MICH111 000011. 20.060 SF X 6 STALI-5/10.020 STALLS 141111., 11.000 20 56004 sF x gAtIS LOS GATOS BLVD. DEST. RETAIL 150,000 SF 750 STALLS (5/1000) (250 OPEN ON -GRADE) (500 BELOW RETAIL ON -GRADE) HOTEL 100,000 SF + 10,000 SF CONF. CENTER 200 ROOMS 200 GUEST STALLS (1/ROOM) 100 CONF CENTER STALLS (1/100 SF) HOUSING 81,000 SF 156 UNITS 312 STALLS (2/UNIT) (BELOW -GRADE) 60115/1000-66 S-Rus TOTAL 975,300 SF SITE: 1,761,419 SF (40.4 ACRES) FAR: 55% CHANG ARCHITECTURE Architecture Planning Interiors 156 Chopb Lam Budingona Caliromio 94010 Tat 650.340.9415 F. 650.310.9541 Vkb. ...hangardit..e.orn Rev. Date 041/08 STUDY SESSION Los Gatos North 40 Master Plan Drawing Title By Los Gatos, CA SITE PLAN Job# Date: Scale: Drawn By: Sheet: 08/21/08 AS NOTED Al Copyright 2008 by Chang Architecture, Inc. 1&STLSA1` 15 STCFR 3 �rq 2 OFFkkF `, MEDICAL 4:r: HOTEL a TOTAL - 980 UNITS TOTAL • 387,750 SF TOTAL — 2,44,000 SF TOTAL - 670,540 SF TOTAL - 177,342 SF 245 - STUDIO 1,650 PARKING 976 PARKING 1,296 PARKING 262 PARKING 490 -1 BEDROOM 245 - 2 BEDROOM 2 LEVELS PARKING 2 LEVELS PARKING 2 LEVELS PARKING 1 LEVEL PARKING W/ 1 LEVEL BELOW TRADE W11 LEVEL BELOW GRADE WI 2 LEVEL BELOW GRADE 3 LEVELS PARKING W/ 1 LEVEL BELOW GRADE 2A - 169,200 SF HOTEL - 627,040 SF 720 PARKING 1,296 PARKING CONVENTION -20,000 5F 213 - 414,000 SF 572 PARKING 400 PARKING RESTAURANT&CAFE —13,500 SF 55 PARKING RETAIL —10,000 SF 14 PARKING Nt t i f AVENUE < 14927 LOS GATOS BLVE SITE PLAN SCALE; I' 50' DATEI: 06/12/07 LOS GATOS, CA 95032 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AUGUST 25, 2008 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, August 25, 2008 at 6:00 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Barbara Spector, Vice Mayor Mike Wasserman, Council Member Steve Glickman, Council Member Diane McNutt, and Council Member Joe Pirzynski. Absent: None. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Three -minute time limit) Open Verbal Communications Mr. Mintz • Thanked the Town for their time and stated that they would like to move forward with the development of a portion of the North Forty. Closed Verbal Communications PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Barbara Spector led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. DISCUSSION OF NORTH FORTY A. BACKGROUND B. PRIOR DIRECTION C. NEXT STEPS Staff report made by Greg Larson, Town Manager and Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development. 1 North Forth Discussion — Continued Council Comments • Clarification on option #3 which would require the applicant to prepare a master plan and submit a Planned Development. Mr. Lortz • Clarified the differences between a master plan and a specific plan. Council Comments • Questioned what is needed to complete the current North Forty Specific plan. Mr. Lortz • Commented that the plan is generally complete, but could be updated and needs further direction regarding infrastructure, design, and land use. Council Comments • Requested clarification about the portion of the North Forty Specific Plan that suggests that all major projects be processed as a Planned Development. • Questioned the current market value of the North Forty. • Commented that the North Forty Specific Plan is 90% complete. • Questioned if a recreation element was included in the North Forty Plan. Mr. Lortz • Clarified that there could be a recreational Zink as a community benefit consideration. Council Comments • Questioned if roads and intersection congestion surrounding the North Forty are near capacity. Mr. Lortz • Commented about prior traffic studies and planned mitigation efforts as part of the North Forty Specific Plan. Council Comments • Questioned if the North Forty Specific Plan encourages pedestrian traffic. • Questioned the amount of retail verses office space included in the North Forty Specific Plan. 2 North Forty Discussion — Continued Council Comments • Requested clarification about incorporating a public charette during North Forty Specific Plan process. Mr. Lortz • Commented about adding a public charette to the process. Council Comments • Expressed concerns that the current North Forty Plan does not address sports fields, street maintenance, and public schools. Mr. Lortz • Clarified that the location may not be a prime location for sports fields and that it would be possible for a developer to purchase land off -site. • Commented that a benefit district is an option for maintaining the lights and roads. • Commented that school districts would need to evaluate proposed projects to determine potential impacts. Mr. Larson • Clarified how the North Forty Specific Plan should address recreation, sports fields and schools. Council Comments • Questioned if the General Plan Committee, Planning Commission, and staff could review the land use portion of the North Forty Specific Plan for recommendations on financing for the infrastructure. Mr. Lortz • Clarified that a CEQA report would need to be done. • Commented that entertainment and recreation is included in the North Forty Master Plan. Council Comments • Questioned the timeframe for completion of the CEQA report and design of the North Forty Specific plan. • Commented that sports use is included in the General Plan as well as the Specific Plan. • Commented that none of the maps from the 1999 specific plan include recreation areas. North Forty Discussion — Continued Mr. Lortz • Commented that sports use is a part of the North Forty Specific Plan and Master Plan and that the location of sports fields is a Council policy decision. Council Comments • Commented that residential growth may impact basic aide funding for schools. • Commented that the document should be reviewed given the passage of time. • Would like to make sure that the North Forty Plan does not compete with the downtown area. Mr. Lortz • Clarified the proposed potential uses for the North Forty. • Commented that downtown uses were not contemplated in the North Forty Plan. Council Comments • Questioned timing for completion of the North Forty Specific Plan. Mr. Lortz • Clarified the timing for completion and indicated that a plan should be in place before development plans are submitted. Council Comments • Questioned if the Town could process an application under the North Forty Specific Plan before the Plan is completed. • Indicated that a more significant sport component should be part the current North Forty Specific Plan. • Questioned if the Town could sell some of the Fannie Mae bonds and invest in a portion of the North Forty. 4 North Forty Discussion — Continued Mr. Lortz • Clarified that recreational use is part of the North Forty Specific Plan, but does not indicate a specific location. Council Comments • Questioned if the Town could consider an application for a portion of the North Forty with the current General Plan and North Forty Specific Plan. Mr. Larson • Commented that the General plan is adopted, but the North Forty Specific Plan is only a draft. • Commented that all development proposals would come to Council for approval and that the North Forty Specific Plan would guide Council decisions. Council Comments • Questioned the possibility of fast -tracking the Specific Plan and the need to be thorough on the final North Forty Specific Plan. Mr. Lortz • Commented that the CEQA report would have to be done, but information from the current report could be used to speed up the process. Council Discussion • Commented that shuttle services and Tight rail need to be addressed as part of the North Forty Specific Plan. • Commented that residential neighborhood needs be addressed as part of the North Forty Specific Plan. • Commented that "big box" retail should not be considered as part of the plan. 5 North Forty Discussion — Continued Council Discussion • Expressed concerns about the potential impact on schools, funding and maintaining the infrastructure, and addressing recreational needs. • Commented that high end retail that does not compete with the downtown may be appropriate for the area. • Suggested completing the specific plan as soon as possible. • Commented on the benefit of mixed use including neighborhoods, commercial, conference spaces and hotels. • Commented on unmet community needs such as high -end housing for seniors. • Commented that recreational use is a high priority for the Council and the community. • Would like to see two or three sports fields around Town instead of one within the North Forty. • Commented that the General Plan can guide the development of the North Forty Specific Plan. • Suggested sending the land use portion of the current North Forty Specific Plan back to the General Plan Committee for review. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to direct staff to expedite completion of the North Forty Specific Plan with recommendations from Council. Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski. Opened Public Comments Mr. Pau • Commented that the Yuki family owns a majority of the land, and has not been a part of the North Forty Specific plan process, and does not agree with the North Forty Specific Plan. • Commented that the Yuki family prefers using a master plan approach rather than a specific plan. • Would like to submit a master plan for Council consideration. Council Discussion • Commented that all parties need to come to some kind of agreement. Asked Mr. Pau if he has submitted a master plan. 6 North Forty Discussion — Continued Mr. Pau • Commented that the Town's North Forty Specific Plan and the developer's Master Plan are not consistent. • Commented that Mr. Yuki has a vision for the property and would like to work with the Town to identify alternative approaches. Closed Public Comments Council Discussion • Questioned if the master plan submitted by Mr. Pau is limited to the ten acres he is planning to purchase. • Commented that it is very important to move forward with the Town's North Forty Specific Plan. • Commented the Specific Plan would guide future developers about the possibilities and limitations for the North Forty. • Commented that the North Forty Specific Plan would be the overlay for the basis of discussion for developers. • Commented that the time to complete the Specific Plan may take over 12 months. • Expressed interest in a variety of uses for the North Forty and would like to receive community input. • Suggested including the Yuki family in the North Forty Specific Plan process. Mr. Lortz • Commented that the plan is a reflection of the Town's vision as memorialized by the General Plan. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Attest: Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator 7 Expanded Initial Study North Forty Specific Plan Los Gatos, California Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-99-0008 Response to Comments Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA. 95030 November 29, 1999 Prepared by: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates 226 Airport Parkway, Suite 600 San Jose, CA. 95110-3705 (408) 451-9260 AA ,Pi'.,aE:.v_f SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION In accordance with § 15088 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Town of Los Gatos (the Town), as the lead agency, has reviewed the comments received on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the North Forty Specific Plan and has prepared written responses to the comments received. On October 12, 1999, the Town of Los Gatos distributed to public agencies and the general public the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the North Forty Specific Plan. The North Forty Specific Plan is proposed by the Town of Los Gatos through the authority granted by the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457 (Specific Plans). Through these sections of the California Government Code, local jurisdictions such as the Town of Los Gatos are authorized to adopt Specific Plans as a comprehensive method of implementing General Plan goals and policies. The Plan area consists of approximately 44 acres which are predominantly in agricultural use. There are pockets of existing residential use in the Plan area primarily along Bennett Way, and Burton Road. The Plan would allow for future commercial mixed use development of up to approximately 500,000 square feet. Under the Los Gatos General Plan, mixed use development can include destination retail, neighborhood commercial (limited to a total of 100,000 square feet), lodging, restaurants (sit-down only, no drive -through facilities), office (limited to a total of 100,000 square feet), entertainment and recreation, public/civic, and transportation related uses. The proposed Plan calls for a distribution of land uses as follows: • Place smaller "pad" buildings along the Los Gatos Boulevard frontage to allow views into the Plan area and increase the amount of landscaping adjacent to the Boulevard. • Place office and lodging uses away from Los Gatos Boulevard and toward the adjacent freeways. In contrast to retail uses, these types of uses would not require visibility and access from Los Gatos Boulevard. Additionally, these types of uses usually occupy buildings that are architecturally detailed on all four sides (i.e., 360 degree architecture) and, therefore, would present a more aesthetically pleasing view from the freeway. • Use parking areas and landscaped building setbacks to provide separation of uses from the freeways. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND H:1G R P30\PDA TA \650090\N O RTH FOR\ W P\Rtc\Se ctio n l . wpd Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Comments November 29, 1999 • Provide a wide landscaped building setback area along Lark Avenue to buffer the adjacent neighborhood from the proposed North Forty commercial area. Primary access to the Plan area would be provided at three points along the perimeter of the Plan area through the proposed extension of Samaritan Drive, Los Gatos Boulevard main entrance, and Lark Avenue entrance. Secondary access along Los Gatos Boulevard would be limited to two drives on either side of the primary entrance drive and would be right turn in and out only. Internal circulation would include a "frontage" road adjacent, and parallel to, Los Gatos Boulevard. A precise architectural theme is not currently envisioned for the Plan area. However, the architectural style, juxtaposition of the structures, and extensive pedestrian amenities described in the Plan were defined to provide interest and excitement while providing high quality design that would be enduring and reflective of the small-town character of Los Gatos. The creation of a unique, pedestrian oriented "sense of place" is envisioned in the Plan. Open space would be provided primarily by building setback areas, buffer areas, and open areas provided in conjunction with gateways, nodes, and pedestrian amenities, such as plazas and courtyards. Landscaping would be provided at project entries, gateways, and nodes. The 30 day review period as mandated by State law ended November 10, 1999. All comments on the IS/MND, and the responses thereto, are presented in this volume. The following sections provide all written comments received by the Town on the IS/MND, and presents responses to significant environmental issues raised in the written comments (as required in the State CEQA Guidelines § 15132). Five comment letters were submitted regarding the IS/MND. The focus of the responses to comment is on the disposition of significant environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as specified by § 15088 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Detailed responses are not provided to comments on the merits of the proposed project. However, when a comment is not directed to significant environmental issues, the responses indicate that the comment has been noted and that no further response is necessary. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND H:\GRP30\PDATA1650090\NORTHFOR\W P\Rtc\Section l . wpd ii Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Comments November 29, 1999 SECTION 2 WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT IS/MND A list of all agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided written comments or verbal commentary on the IS/MND is provided below. The verbatim comment letters, and responses to environmental issues raised in those letters, are presented in the following section. LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED The following agencies, organizations and individuals provided written comments on the IS/MND: State Agencies: Individuals: ♦ Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR); State Clearinghouse ♦ California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); San Francisco Bay Region ♦ Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) • Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) • California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) • Commissioner Lee Quintana WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Index to Response to Comments All letters received during the public review period for the Draft IS/MND (October 12, 1999 through November 10, 1999) are listed in the table below, which provides an index to respondents. Each letter is reproduced in its entirety with the issues of concern numbered in the right margin. Correspondingly numbered responses to the lettered comments follow each letter. It should be noted that the written and verbal commentary provided by Commissioner Lee Quintana at the November 10, 1999 Planning Commission hearing on the North Forty Specific Plan are addressed in Section 3 of this document. Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 2-1 Response to Comments H:\GRP3O\PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\WP\Rte\Section2.wpd November 29, 1999 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND FOR THE NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT WRITTEN COMMENTS LETTER COMMENTOR DATE A State Clearinghouse, Terry Roberts, Senior Planner November 15, 1999 B California Regional Water Quality Control Board, John R. West, Environmental Specialist III, South Bay Watershed Division October 29, 1999 C Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Analyst November 2, 1999 D Santa Clara Valley Water District, Vincent Stephens, Associate Engineer. November 4, 1999 E California Department of Transportation, Harry Yahata, District Director November 10, 1999 PC-1 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission, Commissioner Lee Quintana November 10, 1999 Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 2-2 Response to Comments H:\GRP30\PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section2.wpd November 29, 1999 Gray Davis GUvt.I(NOR . I Al 1 OF C A L I F O R N 1 Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse STREET ADDRESS: mu TENTH STKI, 1' RC1C1yt 122 SACRAMI:NTO, CAI1F<,RNIA 9501 MAILIN(; ?.O. RhX 1n44 SAc:RAMENTO, CA 9181'-3Q44 916-441-ot`t1 FAX y16-;:3-30IS www_upr.ca.gov/clearinghousc.html November 15, 1999 Bud N. Lora City of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: North 40 Specific Plan SCHR: 99102034 Dear Bud N. Lortz: (L-44V) Loretta Lynch miter:rot( The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on November 10, 1999, and the. comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is nor in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's eight -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21 1 04(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise. of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwurdcd for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency A-1 A-2 November 10, 1999 Expanded Initial Study far the North Forty Specific Plan r? cc=i, ca A Stale Clearinghouse Document Details Rer State Clearinghouse Data ease SCH# 99102034 Project Title North 40 Spec Plan Lead Agency Los Gatos, City of Type neg Negative Declaration Description The Plan Area consists of approximately 40 acres which are currently predomirarttJy in agricultural use. There are pockets of existing residential use in the Plan area primarily along Bennett Way and Burton Road. The North Forty Specific Plan area is envisioned to be a comprehensively planned and developed commercial mixed use facility with destination retail of local subregienal importance. The Plan would allow the conversion of the existing Plan area land uses to accommodate approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial mixes use development. Lead Agency Contact Name Bud N. Lortz Agency City of Los Gatos Phone 408-354-6874 Fax email Address 110 E. Main Street City Los Gatos State CA Zip 95030 Project Location County Santa Clara City Los Gatos Region Cross Streets Lark Ave./ Los Gatos Blvd Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 17 & 85 Airports San Jose international Railways Southern Pacific Waterways Schools Land Use Mixed Use CommerciaV Resource Conservation, Residential, Highway Commercial. Project issues AestheticMsual; Agricultural Land; Alr Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Water Supply; Wildlife Reviewing Agencies Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Califomia Highway Patrol; Cattrans, District 4; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Native American Heritage Commission: State Lands Commission Date Received 10/12/1999 Start of Review 10/12/1999 End of Review 11/10/1 999 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. LETTER A - Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse, November 15, 1999. A-1 The comment is noted. The attached letter referred to by Ms. Roberts is included in this document as Letter E. A-2 The comment is noted. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND H:\GRP301PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\W P\Rtc\letters.wpd A-1 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Comments November 29, 1999 e California 12gional Water Qualit,, Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Winston H. Hickox Secretary for rnvfro nmenta1 Protection Mr. Bud N. Lortz Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 East Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Internet Address: httpi/www.swrcb.ca.gov 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612 Phone (510) 622-2300 • FAX (510) 622-2460 Date: OCT 29 1999 File No. 2188.05 (JRW) Re: North Forty Specific Plan (Los Gatos Blvd, Highway 17, Lark Ave, Highway 85, Los Gatos) SCH # 99102034 Dear Mr. Lortz: We have received the above referenced Negative Declaration and offer the following comments with which the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is concerned. The plan area consists of approximately 44 acres. The area is envisioned as a comprehensively planned and developed commercial mixed -use facility with destination retail of local and subregional importance. The Plan would allow the conversion of the existing Plan area land uses to accommodate approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial mixed -use development. The proposed development would disturb more than five acres of land during construction. The project must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit), as noted in the Negative Declaration. This can be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. The project sponsor must propose and implement control measures that are consistent with the General Permit and with the recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. Regional Board Staff are unable to offer more specific comment at this time. However, I have attached a copy of our General Comments, which discuss the Regional Board's area of responsibility, and which should help guide in the preparation of further CEQA documentation. Regional Board staff also encourage the project sponsor to obtain a copy of "Start at the Source," a design guidance manual for stormwater quality protection. The manual provides innovative design techniques for structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping. This manual may be obtained at most cities planning offices, or by calling the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association at 1-800-773-7247. Gray Davis Governor B-1 B-2 California Environmental Protection Agency If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-2438, or Jennifer Ackerman at (510) 622-2346. Sincerely, hn R. West nvironmental Specialist III South Bay Watershed Division cc (without attachment): State Clearinghouse California Environmental Protection Agency fd Recycled Paper San Francisco Bay Region Winston H. Hickox lnternet Address: htrp://www.swrtb.ca.gov Secretary Jar 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612 Environmental Phone (510) 622-2300 • FAX (510) 622-2460 Protection • General Comments The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board or RWQCB) is charged with the protection of the Waters of the State of California in the San Francisco Bay Region, including wetlands and storrtwatcr quality. The Regional Board is responsible for administering the regulations established by the Federal Clean Water Act. Additionally, the California Water Code establishes broad state authority for regulation of water quality. The San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) explains the Regional Board's strategy for regulating water quality. The Basin Plan also describes the range of responses available to the Regional Board with regard to actions and proposed actions that degrade or potentially degrade the beneficial uses of the Waters of the State of California. NPDES Water quality degradation is regulated by the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, established by the Clean Water Act, which controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and nonpoint discharges. In California, the program is administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The Regional Board issues NPDES permits for discharges to water bodies in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Municipal (area- or county -wide) Stormwater Discharge Permits. Projects disturbing more than five acres of land during construction must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for.Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). This can be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board. An NOI and the General Permit can be obtained from the Board at (510) 266-2300. The project sponsor must propose and implement control measures that are consistent with the General Permit and with the recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. Projects that include facilities with discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity must be covered under the State NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity. This may be accomplished by filing a Notice of Intent. The project sponsor must propose control measures that are consistent with this, and with recommendations and policies of the local agency and the RWQCB. In a few cases, the project sponsor may apply for (or the RWQCB may require) issuance of an individual (industry- or facility -specific) permit. The RWQCB's Urban Runoff Management Program requires Bay Area municipalities to develop and implement storm water management plans (SWMPs). The SWMPs must include a program for implementing new development and construction site storm water quality controls. The objective of this component is to ensure that appropriate measures to control pollutants from new development are: considered during the planning phase, before construction begins; implemented during the construction phase; and maintained after construction, throughout the life of the project. Gray Davis Governor B-3 B-4 California Environmental Protection Agency C� Recycled Paper • Impacts and Mitigation Measures Wetlands • Wetlands enhance water quality through such natural functions as flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of contaminants. Wetlands also provide critical habitats for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other wildlife, offer open space, and provide many recreational opporrunities. Water quality impacts occur in wetlands from construction of structures in waterways, dredging, filling, and altering drainage to wetlands. The Regional Board must certify that any permit issued by the U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (covering, dredging, or filling of Waters of the United States, including wetlands) complies with state water quality standards, or waive such certification. Section 401 Water Quality Certification is necessary for all 404 Nationwide permits, reponing and non - reporting. as well as individual permits. All projects must be evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and other Waters of the State. Destruction of or impact to these waters should be avoided. If the proposed project impacts wetlands or other -Waters of the State and the project applicant is unable to demonstrate that the project was unable to avoid those adverse impacts, water quality certification will most likely be denied. 401 Certification may also be denied based on significant adverse impacts to wetlands or other Waters of the State. In considering proposals to fill wetlands, the Regional Board has adopted the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (Executive Order W-59-93, signed August 23, 1993). Tne goals of the Policy include ensuring "no overall net loss and achieving a long-term net gain in the quantity. quality. and permanence of wetlands acreage and values." Under this Policy, the Regional Board also considers the potential post -construction impacts to wetlands and Waters of the State and evaluates the measures proposed to mitigate those impacts (see Storm Water Quality Control, below). The Regional Board has adopted U.S. EPA's Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredge or Fill Material," dated December 24, 1980, in the Board's Basin Plan for deternining the circumstances under which fill may be permitted. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines prohibit all discharges of fill material into regulated waters of the United States. unless a discharge, as proposed, constitutes the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative that will achieve the basic project purpose. For non -water dependent projects, the guidelines assume that there are less damaging alternatives, and the applicant must rebut that assumption. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sequence the order in which proposals should be approached. First, impacts to wetlands or Waters of the State must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Second, the remaining impacts must be minimized. Finally, the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands or Waters of the State must be mitigated. Mitigation will be preferably in -kind and on -site. with no net destruction of habitat value. A proportionately greater amount of mitigation is required for projects that are out -of -kind and/or off -site. Mitigation will preferably be completed prior to, or at least simultaneous to, the filling or other loss of existing wetlands. Successful mitigation projects are complex tasks and difficult to achieve. This issue will be strongly considered during agency review of any proposed wetland fill. Wetland features or ponds created as mitigation for the loss of existing jurisdictional wetlands or Waters of the United States cannot be used as store water treatment controls. In general, if a proposed project impacts wetlands or Waters of the State and the project applicant is unable to demonstrate that the project was unable to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands or Waters of the State, water quality certification will be denied. 401 Certification may also.be denied based on significant adverse impacts to wetlands or other Waters of the State. Storm Water Quality Control Storm water is the major source of fresh water to creeks and waterways. Storm water quality is affected by a variety of land uses and the pollutants generated by these activities. Development and construction activities cause both site -specific and cumulative water quality impacts. Water quality degradation may occur during construction due to discharges of sediment, chemicals. and w::stes :o nearby storm drains or creeks. Water quality degradation may occur after construction is complete, due to discharges of pen-oleum hydrocarbons, oil, grease, and metals from vehicles, pesticides and fertilizers from landscaping, and bacteria from pets and people. Runoff may be concentrated and storrn water flow increased by newly developed impervious surfaces, which will mobilize and transport pollutants deposited on these surfaces to storm drains and creeks. Changes in runoff quantity or velocity may cause erosion or siltation in streams. Cumulatively, these discharges will increase pollutant loads in creeks and wetlands within the local watershed, and ultimately in San Francisco Bay. To assist municipalities in the Bay Area with complying with an area -wide NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit or to develop a Baseline Urban Runoff Program (if they are not yet a co-petrninee with a Municipal Storrn Water Permit), the Regional Board distributed the Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Control for Storm Water Programs (Recommendations) in April 1994. The Recommendations describe the Regional Board's expectations of municipalities in protecting storm water quality from impacts due to new and redevelopment projects, including establishing policies and requirements to apply to development areas and projects; initiating appropriate planning. review. approval. and inspection procedures; and using best management practices (BMPs) during construction and post -construction. Project impacts should be minimized by developing and implementing a Storrn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP is required by the State Construction Storrn Water General Permit (General Permit). The SWPPP should be consistent with the terms of the General Permit. the Manual of Standards for Erosion &: Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG), policies and recommendations of the local urban runoff program (city and/or county), and the Recommendations of the RWQCB. SWPPPs should also be required for projects that may have impacts. but which are not required to obtain an NPDES permit. Preparation of a SWPPP should be a condition of development. Implementation of the SWPPP should be enforced during the construction period via appropriate options such as citations, stop work orders, or withholding occupancy permits. Impacts identified should be avoided and minimized by developing and implementing the types of controls listed below. Explanations of the controls are available in the Regional Board's construction Field Manual, available from Friends of the San Francisco Estuary at (510) 286-0924, in BASMAA's Start at the Source, and in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. 3 Site Planning The project should minimize impacts from project development by incorporating appropriate site planning concepts. This should be accomplished by designing and proposing site planning options as early in the project planning phases as possible. Appropriate site planning concepts to include, but are not limited to the following: • Phase construction to limit areas and periods of impact. • Minimize directly connected impervious areas. • Preserve natural topography, existing drainage courses and existing vegetation. • Locate construction and structures as far as possible from streams, wetlands, drainage areas, etc. • Provide undeveloped, vegetated buffer zones between development and streams, wetlands, drainage areas, etc. • Reduce paved area through cluster development, narrower streets, use of porous pavement andior retaining natural surfaces. • Minimize the use of gutters and curbs which concentrate and direct runoff to impermeable surfaces. • Use existing vegetation and create new vegetated areas to promote infiltration. • Design and lay out communities to reduce reliance on cars. • Include green areas for people to walk their pets, thereby reducing build-up of bacteria, Worrns. viruses, nutrients, etc. in impermeable areas, or institute ordinances requiring owners to collect pets excrement. • Incorporate low -maintenance landscaping. • Design and lay out streets and storm drain systems to facilitate easy maintenance and cleaning.. • Consider the need for runoff collection and treatment systems. • Label storm drains to discourage dumping of pollutants into them Erosion The project should minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction. This should be done by developing and implementing an erosion control plan. or equivalent plan. This plan should be included in the SWPPP. The plan should specify all control measures that will be used or which are anticipated to be used, including, but not limited to, the following: • Limit access routes and stabilize access points. • Stabilize denuded areas as soon as possible with seeding, mulching, or other effective methods. • Protect adjacent properties with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers, or other effective methods. • Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive areas, vegetation and drainage courses by marking them in the field. • Stabilize and prevent erosion from temporary conveyance channels and outlets. • Use sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering or collected on -site during construction. For large sites, stormwater settling basins will often be necessary. 4 Chemical and Waste Management The project should minimize impacts from chemicals and wastes used or generated during construction. This should be done by developing and implementing a plan or set of control measures. Tne plan or control measures should be included in the SWPPP. The plan should specify all control measures that will be used or which are anticipated to be used. including, but not Iimited to. the following: • Designate specific areas of the site, away from streams or storm drain inlets, for storage, preparation, and disposal of building materials, chemical products, and wastes. • Store stockpiled materials and wastes under a roof or plastic sheeting. • Store containers of paint, chemicals, solvents, and other hazardous materials stored in containers under cover during rainy periods. • Bern around storage areas to prevent contact with runoff. • Cover open Dumpsters securely with plastic sheeting, a tarp, or other cover during rainy periods. • Designate specific areas of the site, away from streams or storm drain inlets, for auto and equipment parking and for routine vehicle and equipment maintenance. • Routinely maintain all vehicles and heavy equipment to avoid leaks. • Perform major maintenance, repair, and vehicle and equipment washing. off -site. or in designated and controlled areas on -site. • Collect used motor oil. radiator coolant or other fluids with drip pans or drop cloths. • Store and label spent fluids carefully prior to recycling or proper disposal. • Sweep up spilled dry materials (cement, mortar, fertilizers, etc.) immediately --do not use water to wash them away. • Clean up liquid spills on paved or impermeable surfaces using "dry" cleanup methods (e.g.. absorbent materials, cat litter, rags) and dispose of cleanup materials properly. • CIean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of the soil. • Keep paint removal wastes. fresh concrete, cement mortars, cleared vegetation. and demolition wastes out of gutters, streams. and storm drains by using proper containment and disposal. Post -Construction The project should minimize impacts from poIIutants that may be venerated by the project construction. when the project is complete and occupied or in operation. These pollutants may include: following. sediment,' bacteria, metals, solvents, oil, grease, and pesticides, all of which are typically generated during the life of a residential, commercial, or industrial project after construction has ceased. This should be done by developing and implementing a plan and set of control measures. The plan or control measures should be included in the SWPPP. The plan should specify all control measures that will be used or which are anticipated to be used. including. but not limited to, the source controls and treatment controls listed in the Recommendations. Appropriate control measures are discussed in the Recommendations, in: • Table 2:. Summaryof residential post -construction BMP selection • Table 3: Summary of industrial post -construction BMP selection • Table 4: Summary of commercial post -construction BMP selection Additional sources of information that should be consulted for BMP selection include the CaIffori;f 1 )Vater Besr Management Practice Handbooks: the Bay Area Preamble to the Culijbr;iia Storm B-9 B-10 Water Best Management Practice Handbooks and New Development Recommendations; the BASMAA New Development Subcommittee meetings, minutes, and distributed information; and Regional Board staff. Regional Board staff also have fact sheets and other information available for a variety of structural stormwater treatment controls, such as grassy swales, porous pavement and extended detention ponds. B-10 Cont 6 LETTER B - John R. West, Environmental Specialist III, South Bay Watershed Division, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, October 29, 1999. B-1 It is noted that a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed and a State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit) must be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. B-2 The comment is noted. B-3 Please refer to the response to comment B-1, above. B-4 Mitigation Measure 30, identified in the Utilities Section of the IS/MND, was developed to address the potential impacts associated with the construction of new storm water drainage facilities in the Plan area to convey runoff to the existing facilities in Route 17. This measure states that future site -specific projects proposed in the North Forty Plan area shall comply with all policies of the Town of Los Gatos Storm Drain Master Plan. This Mitigation Measure is stated in full, below, for reference. Mitigation Measure 30: Future site -specific projects proposed in the Plan area shall comply with all policies of the Town of Los Gatos Storm Drain Master Plan and shall demonstrate to the Town of Los Gatos, through subsequent CEQA environmental review during the Precise Development Plan process, that any future project connections to existing storm drainage facilities or construction of new storm drainage facilities will not result in exceedances in storm drain capacity. B-5 As stated in the Biological Resources Section of the IS/MND, RBF staff conducted reconnaissance of the Plan area and determined that no wetlands are apparent on the site. Therefore, no impacts to wetlands would occur at the site, and no wetlands permits would be required. B-6 As stated in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the IS/MND, all future projects in the Plan area would be required to comply with the terms of the General Permit to discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity from the (SWRCB) prior to construction. Mitigation Measure 15 identified in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the IS/MND addresses this issue, and is re -stated in full, below, for reference. Mitigation Measure 15: All future projects proposed on sites greater than five (5) acres within the Plan area shall obtain approval of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to construction. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan IS/MND H:\GRP301PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\W P\Rtc\letters. wpd B-1 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Comments November 29, 1999 B-7 As stated in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the IS/MND, all future projects associated with the Precise Development Plan process would comply with all local, regional, state, and federal water quality requirements. Mitigation Measure 17, identified in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the IS/MND addresses potential impacts associated with water quality which could result from the implementation of Precise Development Plan process. This mitigation measure is re -stated in full, below, for reference. Mitigation Measure 17: Future site -specific projects proposed in the Plan area shall comply with all local, regional, state and federal regulations related to drainage and erosion, and shall demonstrate to the Town of Los Gatos, through subsequent CEQA environmental review during the Precise Development Plan process, that any such future projects will not result in substantial or erosion, siltation or flooding on- or off -site. B-8 The comment is noted. All construction related potential impacts, including those involving erosion would be addressed during the Precise Development Plan process. B-9 The comment is noted. All construction related potential impacts, including those involving chemical and waste management would be addressed during the Precise Development Plan process. B-10 Mitigation Measure 19, identified in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the IS/MND was developed to address this potential impact. However, as stated in the IS/MND, following implementation of this mitigation measure, potential impacts associated with pollutant discharge, sedimentation, and runoff would be less than significant. Mitigation Measured 19 identified in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the IS/MND is re -stated in full below, for reference. Mitigation Measure 19: Future site -specific projects proposed in the Plan area shall comply with all local, regional, state and federal regulations related to water quality, shall implement best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., regular dry sweeping of parking lots and streets, use of detention basins, etc.), and shall demonstrate to the Town of Los Gatos, through subsequent CEQA environmental review during the Precise Development Plan process, that any such future projects will not result in substantial degradation of water quality on -site or off -site (e.g., in adjacent drainages, Los Gatos Creek, etc.). Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan IS/MND B-2 Response to Comments H:\GRP301PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WP\RtcMetters.wpd November 29, 1999 N Arilir l/.....° . VS alAleyT* TransportClA RAation Authority November 2, 1999 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Subject: Negative Declaration ND-99-0008 / North Forty Specific Plan IS/ND Dear Sir or Madam: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the North Forty Specific Plan (Plan) for the development of approximately 40 acres at the southeast corner of State Highways 17. and 85 for commercial mixed -use developments. We have the following comments. This Plan offers a valuable alternative to conventional development by creating a mix of employment and retail opportunities within a setting that is walkable and connected to the region via transit. The Plan also does an excellent job of including transportation demand management (TDM) measures. VTA staff strongly support Transportation Control Measures 1, 9, 12, 13, 15, 19 and Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 described on Pages 4-9 through 4-11 of the IS/INEND. Implementation of these measures will work to reduce reliance on the car and foster a more coherent and transit/pedestrian-oriented community. Existing Transit Service VTA maintains two bus stops on Los Gatos Boulevard adjacent to the Plan area. The stops are served by Lines 38 and 62. Transit and Pedestrian Access Improvements To continue to provide safe and convenient access to the transit services in the area, VTA staff recommend that the Town of Los Gatos ensure that the two existing -bus stops are retained and that the following transit and pedestrian access improvements are included in the Plan: A minimum 22-foot curb lane on Los Gatos Boulevard adjacent to the bus stops or bus duckouts consistent with the attached Figure 22, VTA Typical Bus Duckout, to avoid conflicts between buses and other vehicles traveling on Los Gatos Boulevard. • With a curb lane of this width at the bus stop or bus duckouts, buses will have . sufficient space to safely service the stops while out of the flow of traffic. • PCC pavement pads at each bus stop, consistent with the attached Figure 26, VTA Bus Stop Pavement Details and Attachment 1 for Figure 26, VTA Bus Stop Pavement Details Technical Specifications, to help reduce pavement failures. loll . frICO lA 9i134.1906 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300 Town of Los Gatos November 2, 1999 Page 2 • Continuous sidewalks along all streets within and adjacent to the project site to provide safe and convenient access to the bus stops for pedestrians. • Sidewalks, a minimum of 8-feet wide, and shelter pads adjacent to the bus stops consistent with the attached Figure 20, VTA Bus Stop Configuration. • Wheelchair curb ramps, in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, at all driveways and intersections within and adjacent to the project site TIA Methodology and Proposed Mitigations VTA staff concur with the TIA methodology, findings and proposed mitigations. Bicycle Parldrjg VTA staff recommend that bicycle parking be sited early in the design processes for the development plans of specific projects within the Plan area VTA staff recognize that the Plan does not propose a specific development at this time and that many site design elements will be identified in future development plans. VTA's Bicycle Technical Guidelines provide guidance on supply estimation, siting, and design of bicycle parking facilities. For additional information or for a copy of the Guidelines, contact Chester Fung, VTA Transportation Planner, at (408) 321-5725. Encouraging Alternate -Mode Use VTA staff support the Plan's proposal for TDM programs, street -fronting orientation and pedestrian -oriented site design. These features encourage the use of alternate travel modes. Lark Avenue Setback VTA staff request that the Town of Los Gatos reconsider the 50-foot setback requirement for the portion of the site fronting Lark Avenue. Pedestrian -oriented design typically calls for buildings to have a short setback from the street. A short setback can offer visual interest and.natural surveillance for the pedestrian and strongly connects the buildings to the larger urban fabric of the area. Level of Service Requirement The IS/MND notes that development within the Plan area will be limited to that which allows roadway level of service (LOS) "D" to be maintained. VTA staff recognize the need to match growth and transportation capacity. This LOS requirement, however, necessitates several roadway improvements that cart negatively affect biking and walking environments. VTA staff ask the Town of Los Gatos to consider adopting an LOS policy that provides flexibility in design, such as that used in downtown San Jose. C-3 Cont. C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 Town of Los Gatos November 2, 1999 Page 3 For example, some streets would be allowed to experience a lower auto LOS to preserve a more pedestrian -oriented environment while other streets may be designated to provide enough capacity for auto traffic. This type of policy will help further the pedestrian -oriented aims of the Plan. Higher Densities and Intensities VTA staff also encourage the Town of Los Gatos to allow higher densities with increased floor area ratios and more intense uses in the Plan area Transit works best when densities and total mass are high. With up to 500,000 square feet of commercial mixed - used development planned on approximately 40 acres, the Plan's floor area ratio (FAR) is approximately 0.29. Increasing the density and intensity of development in the Plan area will help to support the use of transit. The higher densities together with shuttle bus services to link the Plan area to other areas of interest and to existing and future transit systems, including the Vasona Light Rail Corridor, will encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobariilla of my stiff at (408) 321-5776. Roy N olseed Senior Environmental Analyst • RM:LGB:kh cc: Derek Kantar, VTA Environmental Program Manager BUS STOP. SIGN POLE 6IDE'vALX (TYP) 5' 8'-12' I 1 i 05' BUS STOP ram- BENCH 40• xONoUTHIc SIDE'AIX AND PAsEENCER PAD ~ l Up } 15 PULL BOX BVs STOP_ SICK P01E 2' 50't .r- DIRECTION OF TRAVEL BUS STOP AND PASSENGER PAD WITHOUT SHELTER SEE STUH UP DETAIL COND UTT STAB UP 5 25' ---+-+ r— SlDLWA1Y (TYP) 0.5' 40' BVS STOP PAVE)1F.`NT V./TB lit ON01TTAIC CURB YONOLTTH1C SIDEWAL . PASSZNCER PAD AND SHELTER PAD 6' l8' L E- 5o't DIRECI70N OF TRAVEL BUS STOP AND PASSENGER PAD �Vi1ti SHELTER 1� caND[JTT BUS STOP PAVDI*i? 'WITH MONOLITHIC CURB 6' f CONDUIT STUB UP /5 PULL BOX LDGE OF PAD STU8 UP DETAIL SANTA CIARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP CONFIGURATION FIGURE 20 VEHICLE DIRECTION • VEHICLE DIRECTION LESS THAN 20 MPH APPROACH SPEED CORE AREAS, LOCAL STREETS 50' MIN 10' • • 50' MIN 10 MPH MERCER EXISTING FOC (rip) --NEW FOC (TYP) PCC PAVEMENT WITH MONOLITHIC CURB. FOR DETAILS REFER To FIGURE 20. 20 TO 30 MPH APPROACH SPEED MAJOR ARTERIALS VEHICLE DIRECTION 4 • d . 80' MIN low DESIREABLE d 10. • 44 T 1 00' MIN 100' DES1REABLE 3o TO 40 MPH APPROACH SPEED EXPRESSWAYS FOR 20 MPH MERGER NOTE: PLAN VIEW T (TANGENT LENGTH) = 55' REQUIRED FOR ONE BUS STOP. = 55' + 70' (X-1). 'WHERE X = 4 OF BUSES (USS AT MAJOR TRANSFER TERMINAL) SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TYPICAL BUS DUCKOUT FIGURE, 22 SIDEWALX L1P7 C C B C C 50'b TYP I0.* TYP SAWCUT AND EXCAVATE EXISTING PAVEMENT. INCLUDING CURB & GUTTER. REPLACE wrTH P.C.C. PAVE4ENT SECTION AND MONOLITHIC CURS & CUTTER. suIEWALX ➢'/1 DOWEL AT 18' O.C. (OPTIONAL) PLAN VIEW 10' - 12' VARIES •vHEN PAD IS 75' OR LONGER. PLACE EXPANSION JOINT AT 1/2 THE LENGTH OF THE P.C.C. PAD. IN LCNC PADS. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT APPP.OX1M,tTELY 75-TOOT INTERVALS OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. HATCH EXISTING CURB & CUTTER - USE LOCAL CITY STANDARDS AS REQ'D INSTALL 3/A' f1DE FIBER FABRIC TO 1/2' BELOW FINISHED SURFACE. FILL REMAINDER x)TH APPROVED SEALING COMPOUND: ROUND CORNERS TD I/1" R. P.C.C. ACC. BASE Dot31E SUPPORTS SECTION B—B EXPANSION JOINT SECTION A —A CONCRETE PAD W/MONOUTHIC CURB & GUTTER 19 DOWELS-18" LONG SMOOTH 8AR 0 la' O.C. LUBRICATE Rom ENDS OF DOWEL 1A BARS TO 77`` STABILIZE / 9 .DOxELS NOTE: FOR TECNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1. 0 I/2" CL A P.C.C. x/POLYPROPYLENE FIBERS E' CLASS 2 ACC. BASE - 9S+ Co P cT1ON+- ----- ...-. 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION ON NATIVE SOIL y1 BARS TO STABILIZE 1 9 DOWELS P.C.0 ACC. BASE DOME SUPPORTS EXISTING PAVEMENT 2" X 1/4 WIDE SAWCUT CONTRACTION JOINT. FILL xITH APPROVED WITH APPROVED SEALING COMPOUND { D. SECTION C—C Y9 DOWELS-18" LONG SMOOTH 8AR O 1a" 0,C. LUBRICATE BOTH ENDS OF DO1EL CONTRACTION JOINT SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS FIGURE 26 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1. P.C.G. pavement with monolithic curb and gutter shall conform to the provisions in Section 40, " PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT," and Section 90, " PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE" of the State Standard Specifications and these special provisions. 2. "P.C.C_ pavement shall be class A with a compressive strength of 4000 psi at the age of 28 days. Polypropylene fibers (Fibermesh or approved equal), length 1/2", shall be added to the concrete at a rate of 1 1/21bs/cy. 3. After spreading and compacting, P.C.C. shall be given a preliminary finish which shall bc smooth and true to grade. In advance of curing operations, the pavement shall be given a final rough broom finish with grooves having a depth of 1/8" perpendicular to the curb and gutter. 4. All newly - placed concrete shall be cured in accordance with the provisions in Section 90-7, "Curing Concrete," of the State Standard Specifications. Curing compound to be used shall be applied to the P.C.C. following the surface finishing operations immediately before the moisture sheen disappears from the surface and before any drying, shrinkage or craze cracks begin to appeer_ Curing compound shall be applied at a nominal rate of one gallon per 150 square feet. At any point, the application rate shall bc within +/- 50 square feet per gallon of the nominal rate specified. 5. Sawcutting of the contraction joints must be performed within 24 hours after concrete has received final surface finish. 6. Contractor shall protect P.C.C. pad as specified in Section 90-8.03, " Protecting Concrete Pavement." Where public traffic will be required to cross over new pavement, and if directed by the Engineer, Type 1Il Portland Cement shall be used in concrete. When Type III Portland Cement is used in concrete, and if permitted in writing by the Engineer, the pavement may be opened to traffic as soon as the concrete has developed a modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch. The modulus of rupture will be determined by California Test Method 523. No traffic or Contractor's equipment, except as hereinafter provided, will be permitted on the pavement before a period of ten (10) calendar days has elapsed after the concrete has been placed, nor before the concrete has developed a modulus of rupture of ar least 550 pounds per square inch. Concrete that fails to attain a modulus of rupture of 550 pounds per square inch within 10 days shall not be opened to traffic until directed by the Engineer. Equipment for sawing contraction joints (weakened plane joints) will be permitted on the pavement as specified in Section 40-1.08B, "Weakened Plane Joints," of the State Standard Specifications. 7. Contraction joints, expansion joints and gaps between the P.C.C. pad and the existing pavement section shall be cleaned and sealed prior to permitting traffic on the pad. Removable cap joint shall be placed around the perimeter of the concrete pad excluding curb and gutter. Joint sealing compound shall be type "A" joint seal and shall conform to the provisions of Section 51-1.12F of the State Standard Specifications. The Z component polyurethane sealant shall be State Specification 8030 - 611 - 01 or approved equal. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS ATTACHMENT 1 FOR FIGURE 26 LETTER C - Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Analyst, VTA, November 2, 1999. C-1 The comment is noted. C-2 The IS/MND identifies the two bus routes identified by VTA in the Transit Service Section of the Transportation/Traffic Section, page 4-40. C-3 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration prior to any action on the project. C-4 The comment is noted. C-5 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration prior to any action on the project. As stated by the commentor, specific plans have not yet been identified for the Plan area. C-6 The comment is noted. C-7 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration prior to any action on the project. C-8 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration prior to any action on the project. C-9 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration prior to any action on the project. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND H:\GRP30\PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\letters.wpd C-1 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Continents November 29, 1999 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 951 183686 TELEPHONE (408( 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408( 266-0271 www.scvwd.dst.ca. us AN ECUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER November 4, 1999 Mr. Bud Lortz Department of Planning Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mr. Lortz: Subject: Expanded Initial Study and Negative Declaration for North Forty Specific Plan —Town of Los Gatos The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the Town of Los Gatos' Negative Declaration for the North Forty Specific Plan submitted on October 12, 1999. The District owns and maintains a 72-inch high-pressure, welded -steel pipeline on the northern portion of the site. The pipe is located 6 to 8 feet below grade in Burton Road on an east -west alignment. A telemetry cable roughly parallels this pipeline at a depth of 3 feet below grade. The District can provide the following comments for consideration during a proposed project's environmental review process or the Public Development Application phase which were identified by the Initial Study of the Site Specific Plan: 1. For storm water quality purposes, it is recommended that on site treatment methods be incorporated into the proposed parking areas of the site. A useful reference is the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association "Start at the Source," a design guidance manual for storm water quality protection which was published earlier this year. 2. Because of the District's high-pressure pipeline on the site, any proposed utilities or road improvements in Burton Avenue will require a District permit prior to construction. Enclosed for your use is a District brochure on when a permit is needed and a copy of our Ordinance 83-2. Please reference District File No. 25933 on further correspondence regarding this project. D-1 D-2 Cs recycled paper Mr. Bud Lortz 2 November 4, 1999 If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2439. S4cos Vincent Stephens Associate Engineer Community Projects Review Unit Enclosure °Ve•o 6.a257a= c_ c Ci�aOOoa^7 co2° L o m00aaL7 `m'onaoa.o ° a a 0 « 57 c mE'CCa' D a y 0 9 C V N a oEL° 7OEwa3•ee aO E>�7� y(Zw3W2°O=ea�° a �7Tm °`e7o 7 2Ec" `$m—°°s'59— OL'aeeEco m137O717.a7C«=a mw-00L7gO e ae°OmCC?baaa>—c`° <`EYp�°ECZOE--cE;q3wa0.tad oov-ea.cma°v}E 4 c W • 2°°c.° „` a o i s—a° om 'o`o =�oE �.ce_ ^fie :: 103o0._aa 0a°2- ism C a ,� O O - a W >m 0 b . 1 C ! e lV W W O 6 7 a; a mco `o5 Q« p O c U c O 0. ° m O O= m 7 a H = w c° Y a I.:: ❑ p;° 3-❑ cc c.-o = 0 m j 21 a a,°, E m om 0 g— E o V c a a S' o °p y o= mE c a 3 g o c 7 0 C V O q 0 m^ c o m > ' m `n ° a 0°+ E> m a _ c o Ea° _° N.-o 0 07 ° amoci .= m E e o-° m o O T � a❑ 7 o a2 0 : a3 o p ° m 2 c `o o m«. Ili e o a E ;;1;;;i: E 7 a s p : O _0 OC a7— aE2c •„ 1° mr. oOG..1O 'om.y°.7 °u v e �° ao N N N N N $- Q QIY-y2W ❑ m - j Z W W 2 =❑VW,1•V R c iEccWWn¢cr=_ , cni 3'W WC«W W=r (V n YfC;LL;rwYOU �O UU�'mS © W - >¢QGw 2f.p O UJ Si2q,2a1Q5. CiS Z 7 0 ellzfe.0 z00 w 4121682302 a Q O 2 O Z g-2¢7l•• cc Q O 7�� W Q �m 6 O,oLox}-.J0- z z z2,>- _a Z25¢OmaW O ZoOo0Z2 a O Ow°¢ < N• n V_. Q 2 a FOR DEDICATIONS 0°° a° 2 2a a^- a v` a-: E °` y a -m 0 0 o t 1 T o° y Y c ri c°% Y 3 Q H a u m o'"To0cv "°c;Eo3uac-a2�v- a G g o C-°° L •O' ' D 2 5; v O V, C° O o 0 2e.0oo;;vo>•E,ea?o e2am 2>2am i ° C a.- C; _ T O'er 'a a tEa„3o°9oc q_ao'a 2gEE3 E•-.. c y o o e o a aLQoac ° ° u'v aE"• a 0 oc°�Coo�3jueao <> �° e s_ n g- ° o c E ° a a O C o 0 0 _ j•_ E > 0° o g O C c E L c Y `o o e` E o t a 0.5 6 0 g 7a a323..3 `o•430.0 `oS aa5° n '5 Y 0 0 c • w o 0 �0 0 e ° c > ., 0 ° • O ; L TO g e e e o o c o ; c 0 0 0 • 00 ooa E� na0 '-0 v C .0a ° o 5 c 11 L G O a T c ° e °° 3 -c0 > a GV e O o> O U a a w_ 3 4 a n F 2 m m W W W m Q • 2 6 C • c 0 C o a c � 0 _n 7 0 ° a E5 O c;a a E. sa Ol SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT SIG SANCHEZ, Chairmen Board of Directors o ? l • o a Ca a O • o ° L o- o � o - 0 O a o ° F. a c O 5 e C c a L L p n a 3 E 00V 0 L. • 0 0 `E.c _ O C L ` O <5. mg o • c w • c • - a. •g a ':I `e a 2 0... K 0. CO • et W- R i ° 4-7 - C . C'.7 til fC f O 3 T Ili a"0 0.1 O N b c gi .c 3 ( 3 E as X c •D F- = 0 0 "' 3 :J N L M LO L I S ♦+ R C ano U) D_ O_ U C O u i U _O • O OL m L Q1 R L h C V R � n, ,,, ^ C- N 3 c y -� ›. a) ' y 0 0 v O 0 3 w > _ -8 w ,. U L ll -N Gp N c O u 0 . s u 0 > O n a) p n a/ N > C n s, 4 c rn• R Cl.) 0 N V C u C ` Rig .. cs N E > d R R R Q C1 0 L N 3 •- R• 'L N a N O C as 0 N c) - a) 3 O L c E N O L i U _ m 0...- O R L o E 3 L o a) E O i A a_ c— n L `'• U,- �- cc L L. ?. ., c a, u1 E a) H O . Q1 - ' N a) O R v C 7 a) " v 0 R a� 0�!• ;r 3 O la %� a) A N E O C al Q >. L ': .y G: . C- .Y E y c V c -o -O o. L 0.0 L a) u d v e.. N v N si L ': I. L — R C1 c N '0 o a) v cil CU. L. Rqq� `- .� -U S. C/ R cCctin 1.P L. Q R 7 VMl a01 3 : kV C) R Q L y .i ul j .., C v) S. m cn C N L . _ 0. d• .. iU O ._ 0 a. O v $ c y v �+ L. �. , Q U ++ U u o, ., u R v E i d R N S a ;a L. as >. o v1• 1 o= .n tj 'Ci °) m b .L, O 3 _H v oa E w ar 3 " GJ - 3 �, A' v, c3 _ Q c c c o v n d m ,. W U d a) 1 17 L H 41) 3 E Ccs _ow O0 ,D .— L ` . O N - Q _0 N C so Z v` a o n 3 i v C C E = R ..c c E E u �� = •t C V N E y C •� N o Q N l•`1 .3 1)1 , V co L: N 7 R N • 0 v i 3 m 0 c • • a) L 411 R C f:y Q. 'r V N C CO U f� y v 0 = U. OL C U" 3 O L ou a) +' '�, a u c 3 y o E.• e E O E o O tsa a) g. a.) c• a, as V u s E E v. c— o. tu L. C v O. • �N a c — C N cl C. O. N LL Q O V L. • • �.o. ekoi �c a�JI! O •1 B 11S6 y3 •asor as "4.7.Gx3 uopvww OSLS Q pp1SQ )a1°M hallo j\ 0)01) oVoS F : 0i O U This includes: CO CU CL (0 C H v • C. L 3 O O C C 0 ro u CL X 0) C o EE N L a)su i ? v a N CL C .� u .O 0 N � 0 ' MS L ro J _In LETTER D - Vincent Stephens, Associate Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit, Santa Clara Valley Water District, November 4, 1999. D-1 The comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration prior to any action on the project. D-2 The IS/MND identifies the pipelines on the site in Exhibit 5. The IS/MND notes that water lines on the site present constraints to the construction process (page 4-53) and that some lines would require rerouting. The IS/MND also states that the specific locations of the water lines were not established as part of the Specific Plan project, but will be established during the subsequent Planned Development Process for individual projects on the site. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND H: \G RP30\PDATA \650090\NORTHFOR\W P\Rtc\letters. wpd D-1 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Comments November 29, 1999 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P oBJ?(27tel OAJQPND, CA 94 3- I® 'NC (51D) 2564144 Fel: ($ I 256.$11 lEC (5i q 206.4454 November 10, 1999 SCL-17-8.39 SC131199102034 File #SCL017192 Nil. Erwin Ordonez Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Min Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mr. Ordonez: Expanded Initial Study for the North Forty Specific Plan Thant you for including the California Departir;ent of Transpor'.ation (Cakrins) in the environmental review process for the North corty Specific Plan. We have examined the abo•ve- referenccd document and have the following comments to offer. The following intersections are currently operating al LOS F during the PM peak hour: Stub Route (SR) i7 southbound and northbound ramps at Lark Avenue and SR 17 southbound :arnps at San Tomas Expressway. The Plan claims that proposed mitigation measures 24 and 25 will alleviate this condition and increase the LOS :o E at the intersection of SR 17 and Lark Avenue. 13cr, ever, we did not find any calculations to support this conclusion. No mitigation measures were specified to alleviate congestion at the SR 17/San Torras Expressway intersection. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the Traffic Study for this Plan, .so we may ascertain any additional impacts to State transportation facilities. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Haiyan Mang of my staff at (510) 622-1641. Sinxrely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Dim -tor JEAN C, R. FINNEY District Branch Chief ]GR/CEQA c: State Clearicghouse E-1 E-2 LETTER E -Harry Yahata, District Director, California Department of Transportation, November 10, 1999. E-1 The commentor states that they were unable to identify calculations supporting Mitigation Measures 24 and 25 of the Transportation/Traffic Section of the IS/MND. The commentor is referred to the Traffic Impact Analysis for the North Forty Specific Plan, pages 4-22 and 4-27. The commentor also states that no mitigation measures were specified to alleviate congestion at the SR 17/San Tomas Expressway intersection. The commentor is referred to page 4-48 of the IS/MND, where a list of intersections forecast to be significantly impacted by the proposed project appears. The SR 17/San Tomas Expressway intersection does not appear on this List. As this intersection will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project, no mitigation measures have been identified for this intersection. E-2 A copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the North Forty Specific Plan has been delivered to the commentor. Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND H:\GRP3O\PDATA\6500901NORTH FOR\W P\Rtc\Ietters.wpd E-1 Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates Response to Comments November 29, 1999 SECTION 3 PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY ON THE DRAFT EIR 3.1 PLANNING COMMISSION TESTIMONY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Planning Commissioner (Commissioner Lee Quintana) raised environmental concerns regarding the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed North Forty Specific Plan prior to and during the Planning Commission hearing held on November 10, 1999 at Los Gatos Town Hall. The majority of these environmental concerns were presented to RBF in writing on November 9, 1999; however one additional comment (Comment P-8) was presented to RBF verbally. Responses to these comments were initially provided to Commissioner Quintana in a memorandum dated November 10, 1999. These comments and responses are reiterated herein, with additional clarification provided as a result of subsequent coordination with Town staff. The comments raised by Commissioner Quintana which raise an environmental concern and as such require a written response are included herein and are numbered sequentially (e.g. PC-1, PC-2, etc.). Correspondingly numbered responses to the oral comments immediately follow the public meeting comments included in this section of the document. Comment PC-1 Did either the analysis of Background or Project Traffic assume street widening? Response PC-1 No additional street improvement projects were identified by City staff for inclusion in the IS/MND beyond those anticipated in the General Plan (e.g. widening Los Gatos Boulevard between Samaritan Drive and Lark Avenue from four lanes to six lanes). Therefore, no street widenings were included in the traffic analysis. The intersection geometry used in the analysis for background and project conditions is consistent with the geometry that currently exists at each of the study intersections. Therefore, conditions analyzed in the IS/MND and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) represent a worst -case scenario relative to improved conditions. Comment PC-2 Los Gatos Traffic Policy states that intersections should not be allowed to drop below LOS D. Why wasn't this criteria used for all Los Gatos Intersections, not just those which aren't CMP intersections? The same question would apply to Campbell, San Jose, and the County if for CEQA purposes they also used LOS E or below as significant. Using LOS greater than D for significance would change the number of significant intersections for existing, background, and project conditions. It would also seem to conflict with the conclusion that the Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 3-1 Response to Comments H:\GRP30\PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section3.wpd November 29, 1999 Response PC-2 Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection would be reduced to a level of non - significance with the proposed mitigation. Based on the discussion in the Initial Study and Traffic Analysis, it appears that CMP's criteria (which is less stringent) supercedes local criteria if an intersection is both a local intersection and a CMP intersection. Commissioner Quintana is correct in noting that CMP intersections are to be evaluated based on CMP standards, and non-CMP (or local) intersections are evaluated against local standards. Accordingly, in the IS/MND and TIA, CMP standards were used for CMP intersections (e.g., San Tomas Expressway/ Hamilton Avenue, etc.), and standards for local municipalities were used for local intersections (e.g., Union Avenue/Blossom Hill Road, etc.). Since the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection is a CMP intersection, the appropriate threshold of significance for the intersection would be LOS E, as described in the TIA and IS/MND. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would improve the LOS at this intersection to LOS E, and would therefore result in less than significant impacts. As such, it is Town staff's belief that in order to mitigate this intersection (Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue) to the Town's level of service standard for critical intersections (LOS D), the land use "mix" for the Specific Plan Area could be modified as follows: • home ownership 90,000 ft2 (unchanged); • building materials 60,000 ft2 (unchanged); • grocery/drugs 5,000 ft2 (reduced form 10,000 ft2); • specialty retail 50,000 ft2 (unchanged); • restaurant 30,000 ft2 (reduced from 35,000 ft2); • hotel 75,000 ft2 (unchanged); • general office 10,000 ft2 (unchanged); and • movie theater (eliminated). If the overlap phase on the southbound approach is added (as identified in the IS/MND), combined with the elimination of a movie theater use and a reduction in the specialty retail use (grocery/drugs) and restaurant use, then an LOS D can be achieved as the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. Lastly, Planning Commissioner Quintana requested an analysis of all the intersections forecast to operate at worse than LOS D in either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours, and what it would take to mitigate Town of Los Gatos intersections Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 3-2 Response to Comments H:\GRP30\PDATA1650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section3.wpd November 29, 1999 Comment PC-3 Response PC-3 Comment PC-4 Response PC-4 (not currently mitigated to LOS D in the TIA) to a Level of Service D, (See Table 3.1). As indicated on Table 3.1, under the currently proposed Specific Plan, the only way to mitigate the impact at the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue in the p.m. peak hour (based on the existing description of the project site) is to add a second left turn land on the eastbound approach. The eastbound configuration would then include two exclusive left turn lanes and a shared left/through, (essentially a triple left turn). This would then require that Los Gatos Boulevard be widened to three lanes to the north of Lark Avenue to receive the triple left turn. Page 4-48 of the Initial Study list two criteria that must be met for an already deficient intersection to be considered significant. Are these CMP criteria or Los Gatos criteria? Since both criteria need to be met, shouldn't both seconds of delay and V/C value be included in the tables in the North Forty Plan? The significance criteria listed on Page 4-48 of the IS/MND are CMP requirements for intersections that are currently at a deficient LOS. Tables ES-1 and ES-2 of the TIA report summarized the change in both delay and volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. Page 4-48 lists six intersections which are forecasted to be significantly impacted by the North Forty. However, Table 10 does not include mitigation for the Winchester/Lark intersection. Why? Are only P.M. impacts mitigated? Two minor clerical errors were identified based on a review of Commissioner Quintana's comments. Commissioner Quintana notes that information (i.e., an a.m. peak hour mitigation measure and the freeway segment analysis) contained in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was omitted from the IS/MND. Two tables (Tables 4.14 and 4.15) were presented in the TIA which described mitigation measures (one for a.m. peak hour and one for p.m. peak hour conditions). In addition, the freeway segment analysis is included in the TIA as a requirement of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) CMP analysis. It was always the intent that the analysis presented in the TIA be included in the Draft IS/MND. However, due to a clerical error, the a.m. peak hour mitigation measure and freeway segment analyses were inadvertently omitted from the Draft Initial Study. However, since the TIA as a component of the Draft IS/MND was made available for public review concurrent with the Draft IS/MND review period, these omissions do not affect the integrity of the document. The document will be modified to correct these omissions prior to submission to the Town Council for review and consideration. Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 3-3 Response to Comments H:\GRP3O\PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section3.wpd November 29, 1999 TABLE 3.1 Project Conditions Levels of Service and Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation • None - CMP Intersection. Did not meet V/C & delay criteria for significant impact None - CMP Intersection. Did not meet V/C & delay criteria for significant impact None - Under Existing Conditions operates at LOS E, therefore project did not make deficient. Did not meet the V/C & delay criteria (set forth by VTA for CMP). To mitigate to LOS D, convert the southbound shared through/right turn lane to a through lane and widen approach to include an exclusive right turn lane. Add westbound right turn overlap phase. Mitigated to LOS D. None - CMP Intersection. Currently operating at LOS F. Did not meet V/C & delay criteria for significant impact. None - CMP Intersection. CMP acceptable LOS is E or better. No mitigation needed Add southbound right turn overlap phase. Mitigated to I LOS E. Intersection currently operating at LOS F. Therefore, mitigated to a condition better than existing. In order to mitigate to LOS D, the southbound ramp could be widened to provide two left turn lanes, one shared through/right turn lane and a dedicated right turn lane. al al G. T LOS c,. .: W C] ... c: w C A 'n ? — c, Cl. c� r1 r- . r, -t cn 4) cJ G. T_ ! LOS i, '± C.)�r� c'i r. O O M r- CJ C., '� n vim, C„- -* �n m N CAA Jurisdiction Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara Co. Los Gatos Los Gatos Santa Clara Co. Santa Clara Co. Los Gatos °" U x X y v. Intersection San Tomas Expwy/ Hamilton Ave * San Tomas Expwy/ Campbell Ave * Winchester Blvd/ Knowles Dr Winchester Blvd/ Lark Ave SR-17 SB Ramps/ San Tomas Expwy SR-17 NB Ramps/ San Tomas Expwy SR-17 SB Ramps/ Lark Ave TABLE 3.1 Project Conditions Levels of Service and Recommended Mitigation Measures 0 el at Add westbound right turn lane. Mitigated to LOS E. Intersection currently operating at LOS F. Therefore, mitigated to a condition better than existing. Modifications to signal timing and cycle length could result in LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. None - CMP Intersection. CMP acceptable LOS is E or better. No mitigation needed Reconfigure intersection on eastbound and westbound approach to include one left, one through and one right on each approach. Mitigated to LOS D. Add eastbound right turn overlap phase and improve signal timing. Currently operating at LOS D. Mitigated to LOS E. If a second eastbound left turn lane were added (resulting in two dedicated left turn lanes and a shared left/through lane on the eastbound approach), then intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D. This would require the intersection to be widened by a minimum of 12 feet on the eastbound approach and on the north leg of the intersection to receive the three left turn lanes. II 143.6 F Add eastbound through lane. Mitigated to LOS B. P.M. Peak LOS Gz. W L F.T. eke A - oo v co A.M. Peak LOS C] W L1 W Union Ave/ Los Gatos 12.9 B Blossom Hill Rd a v 11 a\ o o kn d' co rn M N -- V Jurisdiction Los Gatos San Jose Santa Clara Co. N O C O c• A. U X X X Intersection SR-17 NB Ramps/ Lark Ave Bascom Ave/ Camden Ave Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/ Samaritan Dr Los Gatos Blvd/ Lark Ave r, The recommended a.m. peak hour mitigation measure at the intersection of Lark Avenue and Winchester Boulevard (i.e., the addition of a westbound right turn overlap phase) will not involve the physical widening of the intersection. Table 10 on Page 4-51 of the IS/MND will be revised to reflect the information contained in the TIA. In addition, as noted in the TIA, impacts on three freeway segments (i.e., State Route 85 from Camden to Union, from Union to Bascom, and from Winchester to Saratoga, westbound in the p.m. peak hour) were identified. Mitigation of a fair share contribution toward improving westbound State Route 85, along the impacted segments, was included in the TIA to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level. It should be noted that freeways, including Route 85 and Route 17, are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans; local municipalities, including the Town of Los Gatos, do not maintain thresholds for evaluating freeways. The freeway segment analysis presented in the TIA was included to satisfy Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines for preparing traffic studies. Comment PC-5 Why was the Freeway Links analysis not included in the Initial Study? Response PC-5 Refer to Response PM-4. Comment PC-6 While the Initial Study on page 4-32 states that the project noise would contribute to existing noise along roadways in the vicinity, there is no information or data about the potential extent of the increase or how or if it would change the location of the noise contours. Without this information, it is not possible to determine whether the proposed mitigation is adequate (i.e., setbacks). Response PC-6 As described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), 18,062 average daily trips (ADT) are forecast to be generated by the North Forty Specific Plan land uses, including 35,870 vehicles per day (vpd) on Lark Avenue between the Route 17 Northbound Ramps and Los Gatos Boulevard, and 35,115 vpd on Los Gatos Boulevard between Samaritan Drive and Lark Avenue. This translates into an increase of 0.82 dB along Lark Avenue adjacent to the Plan area, and 1.55 dB along Los Gatos Boulevard adjacent to the Plan area. Note that a 3 dB or lower change in sound pressure level is considered a "just detectable" difference in most situations. This minimal increase in noise levels would not appreciably alter the noise contours presented in the IS/MND (Table 3). The recommended mitigation of 50 foot commercial building setbacks from Lark Avenue, and 100 foot setbacks Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 3-6 Response to Comments H:\GRP3O\PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section3.wpd November 29, 1999 Comment PC-7 Response PC-7 from adjacent freeways would ensure that commercial uses are located outside the 70 dBA LDN noise contour, and would therefore reduce project -conditions noise impacts to a less than significant level. If public/civic or open space uses could include outdoor recreational facilities, a discussion of how this relates to General Plan noise criteria should be added to the Initial Study. Allowable land uses under the General Plan designation of Mixed Use Commercial include public/civic uses and recreation uses to supplement the primary use. The Town of Los Gatos General Plan Noise Element includes a standard of 55 dB Leq for intensive (developed park) open space land uses and 50 dB Leq for passive (natural park) uses. The General Plan does not include a standard for noise levels at public or civic uses. As noted on Page 4-32 of the Draft IS/MND, future projects in the Plan area would be required to under additional environmental and design review as part of the Precise Developmen. .an process, and would be required to mitigate any noise impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 21, on Page 4-33 of the Draft IS/MND, has been expanded as follows, to provide additional protection for open space and recreation components of future Mixed Use Commercial development in the Plan area: Following second bullet item, add: " ❖ Open space uses on sites adjacent to Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Boulevard, Route 85, and/or Route 17 shall be required to maintain sufficient setbacks from adjacent roadways and/or incorporate design features (e.g., sound walls or other noise barriers, noise -rated walls and windows or other noise insulation, etc.) such that noise levels at the boundary of the open space site do not exceed 50 dB Leq for passive park uses, and do not exceed 55 dB Leq for developed park uses." As neither the Town of Los Gatos, nor the State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) maintain standards for noise levels at public/civic uses, the implementation of such uses in the Plan area would not result in violations of applicable noise standards. Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 3-7 Response to Comments H:\GRP30\PDATA16500901NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section3.wpd November 29, 1999 Comment PC-8 Response PC-8 Comment PC-8 Response PC-8 For those who find visual aids useful, is it possible to include a map of the noise contours? Please refer to the attached exhibit depicting existing noise contours from roadway noise adjacent to the Plan area. The relative traffic impacts of the proposed movie theater use and another commercial use that generates fewer trips should be evaluated with the goal of determining whether such a land use change would reduce traffic impacts on roadways adjacent to the Plan area. RBF re -calculated trip generation for a land use mix in the Plan area that replaces the movie theater component with a retail commercial use that would generate the fewest trips among commercial uses, according to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate manuals. A retail commercial use would reduce project conditions LOS to LOS E at the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue, as compared to LOS F under a movie theater component scenario. It should be noted that impacts on the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue would be mitigated to LOS E under the proposed Plan, which includes a movie theater component. Therefore, replacing the movie theater with a retail commercial use would improve the LOS under project conditions prior to mitigation, but would not result in a relative improvement in LOS sufficient to satisfy the Town's standard of LOS D. In addition, it should be noted that a movie theater use would result in additional trip sharing with the restaurant uses in the Plan area. Additionally, the movie theater use is not forecast to generate trips in the a.m. peak hour, and would therefore reduce impacts on a.m. peak hour operations at the study intersections, when compared to a retail commercial use. Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates North Forty Specific Plan Project IS/MND 3-8 Response to Comments H:\GRP3O\PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Rtc\Section3.wpd November 29, 1999