17 Staff Report - Specific Plan for the North Forty AreaCOUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 24, 1999
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER rt
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 12/6/99
ITEM NO,
/7
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NORTH FORTY AREA
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS. NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, AND A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-99-
0008. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council review the draft document, consider the Planning Commission's comments, consider the
public testimony, and direct the consultant to prepare a revised document for adoption at the Town Council meeting of
January 3, 2000.
BACKGROUND:
On November 17, 1997, the General Plan Committee forwarded a recommendation to Council for a Specific Plan for
the area north of Lark Avenue and west of Los Gatos Boulevard. This recommendation followed the Council's adoption
of the 1997 Los Gatos Boulevard Plan which the Committee had been working on since 1994 to implement the general
goals and policies for the Boulevard that are outlined in the General Plan. Council accepted the recommendation from
the Committee and directed staff to include the Specific Plan as a project for consideration in the Planning Department
1998-99 Budget .
Following this direction, in the Spring of 1998, the Planning Department solicited request for proposals for both the
North Forty Specific Plan and a comprehensive update of the General Plan. On May 26, 1998, as part of a contract
for the update of the General Plan, the Council authorized Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates (RBF) to prepare
a specific plan to comprehensively regulate development of the North Forty Area. The Specific Plan is intended to
implement the existing land use designations and policies for the area which are contained in the General Plan's Route
85Nasona Light Rail Element. This element was adopted by the Town in 1994 and is predicated on the earlier
recommendations of the 1991 Commercial Specific Plan Committee Report and a corresponding economic analysis
prepared by Economics Research Associates (ERA). In April 1999, at Council's request, ERA completed an update
of its 1991 analysis, and the resulting study affirmed its earlier recommendations.
PREPARED BY:
(Continued on Page 2)
PAUL L. CURTIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Q$' Attorney Finance Revised: 11/24/99 3:17 PM
Reformatted: 10/23/95
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NORTH FORTY AREA
November 24, 1999
In addition to implementing the General Plan land uses and policies, the North Forty Specific Plan also incorporates
land use concepts, standards, criteria, and policies from both the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Los Gatos Boulevard
Development Standards. Both the General Plan and the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan note that Los Gatos Boulevard will
be widened to six lanes north of Lark Avenue. The Town's agreement with Cal -Trans and the Transportation Authority
requires that Los Gatos Boulevard be widened to six lanes as mitigation for the traffic impacts associated with the
construction of Highway 85. Although the Specific Plan does not specifically address the required widening of Los
Gatos Boulevard, it is consistent with this requirement because it recognizes the widening as a basic element for the
background circulation for the Specific Plan area and its vicinity.
After Council authorized the preparation of the Specific Plan in May 1998, the Planning Department received two
development applications for projects in the Plan Area. One application was submitted by Bill Hirshman of Lexor
Builders and proposes the construction of two mixed -use retail/office buildings on six parcels along Bennet Way. The
other application submitted by a partnership of Eugene Gonzales, Bill Errico, and Rick Hirsch of Service Station
Properties, proposes the construction of a new gas station with a convenience market and car wash at the intersection
of Burton Road and Los Gatos Boulevard. Given the timing of these applications, the Planning Commission asked
Council for direction regarding the processing of applications received prior to adoption of a Specific Plan for the North
Forty Area.
In response to the Commission's request, on September 8, 1998, Council clarified that any new development
applications in the Specific Plan area shall be evaluated on the existing land use designations, zoning, and development
standards in place at the time of application until the adoption of the North Forty Specific Plan. The Council as part
of this action also directed the consultant to prepare the Specific Plan document "post-haste".
RBF completed its first administrative draft in February 1999, a second draft in May 1999, and a third draft in July
1999. The General Plan Committee considered these documents and specific issues associated with the plan during this
period. Additionally, the Committee amended the introduction section of document and included additional policies
from the Route 85Nasona Light Rail Element. On August 25, 1999, the General Plan Committee unanimously
recommend approval of the current version of the North Forty Specific Plan (the fourth draft) to the Planning
Commission and Town Council.
The Planning Commission held two public hearing to review the draft specific plan (October 13 and 27, 1999) and one
public hearing to receive additional public comments and review the recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration
(November 10, 1999). The Commission's task was to forward a recommendation to the Town Council regarding both
the specific plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Commission could not reach a consensus on a
recommendation for the draft specific plan and chose to forward it to Council with comments received at the public
hearings (see Minutes, Attachments #4, #7, and #9). Along with this action, the Commission recommended that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration be revised to incorporate the Town's adopted LOS policies.
DISCUSSION:
The direction from Council to staff since November 17, 1997 is to prepare a Specific Plan for the North Forty Area
consistent with the goals and policies of the Route 85Nasona Light Rail Element of the General Plan. The Council
affirmed this direction and its desire to proceed with a Specific Plan on May 26, 1998, September 8, 1998, November
2, 1998, and December 7, 1998, as it authorized the various consultant contracts required to prepare the Specific Plan,
and again on June 6, 1999, when it referred the ERA market study to the General Plan Committee and Planning
Commission.
The General Plan Committee recommended approval of the Specific Plan based on its consistency with the current
General Plan, the existing direction from Town Council, and the Committee's recognition that the Town has the ability
to modify the Specific Plan in the future if the General Plan is amended (See Attachment #11).
1
f
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NORTH FORTY AREA
November 24, 1999
The Planning Commission received extensive testimony on the North Forty Specific Plan from the public at three public
hearings. As part of its task to review the Specific Plan and forward a recommendation to Council, the Commission had
the following options: 1) Continue its review of the Specific Plan for more information/public input, 2) Forward the
Specific Plan to the Council and recommend that the Council amend the consultant's contract to revise the plan at the
General Plan/Planning Commission level, 3) Forward a recommendation for approval/denial, or 4) Forward the Specific
Plan to the Council with recommendations. The Commission could not reach a consensus regarding a formal
recommendation to Council, because it did not feel comfortable with different aspects of the document and the public
testimony; therefore, it chose to forward the Specific Plan to the Council with the comments received and a
recommendation that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be revised. This action is consistent with the last option
available to the Commission.
If Council feels that the Specific Plan should be sent back to the Planning Commission or General Plan Committee for
revisions, the consultant's contract must be revised to reflect this change and additional funding sources for a revised
scope of work must be identified.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the past direction from Council noted and the Town's adopted policy documents, staff recommends that the
Council review the draft document, consider the Planning Commission's comments, consider the public testimony, and
direct the consultant to prepare a revised document for adoption at the Council meeting of January 3, 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Is a project as defined under CEQA and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff anticipates that a revised contract for the consultant to prepare a draft for the General Plan Committee or Planning
Commission level would add approximately an additional $30,000 to the $60,000 budget for the project.
Attachments:
1. North Forty Specific Plan Draft
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration
3. Response to comments
4. Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes of November 10, 1999
5. November 10, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 4, 1999
with Exhibits D-K (Exhibit F, omitted, See Attachment #2)
6. November 10, 1999 Planning Commission Desk Item with Exhibits L-O.
7. Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 27, 1999
8. October 27, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 20, 1999
with Exhibit C.
9. Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 13, 1999
10. October 13, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 5, 1999
(Exhibit A omitted, See Attachment #1)
11. General Plan Committee minutes of August 25, 1999
PLC:EO:mdc
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\N40.TC I
Printed by: ? Monday, October 18, 1999 10:15:07 AM
Title: North Forty Page 2 of 2
community has been repeatedly told that the Specific Plan can not
contradict the Town General Plan. This is true.
However, it is not true that the community must either adopt the Specific
Plan or wait for a new General Plan. The General Plan may be amended. As
I understand it this can be done rather rapidly and with no prejudice to a
new General Plan. "A general plan is adopted or amended by resolution.
Unlike some other resolutions, these resolutions do not take effect until
the 30 day period for referendum passage has elapsed." Curtin's California
Land Use and Planning Law (1997), page 20.
The current General Plan contains some rather specific plans for the Vasona
Corridor. Some of these are said to preclude community development,
including the statement that "no residential development shall be allowed"
in the North Forty. These restrictions were themselves either adopted or
amended in April 1994.
The General Plan itself states that the "overarching principle guiding land
use" in the North Forth "is that development shall be community oriented,
transit oriented, and pedestrian oriented."
I urge Town officials to act with alacrity to promote fruitful planning for
the general area of the North Forty. We need a northern entry and
environment that favors people, families, recreation, access to
transportation, housing, and commerce that favors the overall community
environment. If we want residences, play fields, open space, community
facilities, then lets us plan for them.
There is no Catch 22. The Town can recognize its needs and desires and act
upon them. If a new General Plan can be set up in time to deal with the
specifics of the North Forty, fine. If not, then amend the General Plan.
General Plans were never intended to frustrate community will. To the
contrary, they are intended to foster sensible community development.
In closing, thank you for the hard work that you each do serving the
community. It is demanding work; Tots of time and effort. I wish you all
well in the effort to help Los Gatos and its neighbors to grow and flourish
in a good way.
Yours truly,
--- Internet Message Header Follows ---
Return-Path: <h@anawalt.com>
Received: from relay.ultimanet.com ([205.179.129.1]) by vval.com ;
Sat, 16 Oct 1999 18:47:12 GMT
Received: from [192.216.7.110] (01-051.015.popsite.net [192.216.6.51])
by relay.ultimanet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18815;
Sat, 16 Oct 1999 11:05:21 -0700
X-Sender: h@mail.anawalt.com
Message -Id: <103130301 b42e68ce34d8@[192.216.7.110]>
Mime -Version: 1.0
Content -Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:44:30 -0700
To: Howard Anawalt <LG Town_Clerk@Vval.com>
From: Howard Anawalt <h@anawalt.com>
Subject: North Forty
Cc: gjl@shell13.ba.best.com, jrodgers43@aol.com, Kyleg@best.com,
sue@anawalt.com, mark@northlosgatos.com
Date: November 4, 1999
For Agenda Of: November 10, 1999
Agenda Item: 2
REPORT TO: Planning Commission
FROM: General Plan Committee
LOCATION: North Forty Specific Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-99-0008
Public hearing to consider a Specific Plan for the North Forty Area of the
Town of Los Gatos. No significant environmental impacts have been
identified as a result of this project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
recommended.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
FINDINGS: • That the Specific plan is consistent with General Plan.
ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on
the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended,
EXHIBITS:
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY:
A. BACKGROUND:
A-C. Previously Submitted
D. October 13, 1999 Planning Commission meeting minutes
E. October 27, 1999 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes
F. Expanded Initial Study, Recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration,
and Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Previously Provided to Commissioners)
G. Draft Resolution
H. Letter from Commissioner Quintana with attached Negative Declaration
Notes and Comments, received October 14, 1999
I. Comment Letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, received November 1, 1999
J. Comment Letter from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority,
received November 2, 1999
K. Additional Public Comments
Recommendation to Town Council for approval of the Specific Plan and
adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan.
As noted in the October 13, 1999 Planning Commission report, the North Forty Specific Plan is intended
to facilitate the implementation of the existing land use designations and policies for this area which are
noted in the General Plan's Route 85Nasona Light Rail Element. In addition to implementing the
General Plan land uses and policies, the Specific Plan also incorporates land use concepts, standards,
criteria, and policies from both the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Los Gatos Boulevard Development
Standards.
Both the General Plan and the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan note that Los Gatos Boulevard will be widened
to six lanes north of Lark Avenue. The Town's agreement with Cal -Trans and the Transportation Authority
requires that Los Gatos Boulevard be widened to six lanes as mitigation for the traffic impacts associated
with the construction of Highway 85. Although the Specific Plan does not specifically address the required
widening of Los Gatos Boulevard, it is consistent with this requirement because it recognizes the widening
as a basic element for the background circulation for the Specific Plan area and its vicinity.
EXHIRIT s
The Planning Commission - P 2
North Forty Specific Plan/ND-5„-0008
November 10, 1999
The Council's direction to the consultant and staff is to prepare a Specific Plan for this area that is
consistent with the current General Plan. The consultant has completed this task. In conjunction with this
effort, RBF was tasked by Council to conduct the necessary environmental analyses and document. RBF
has prepared an Expanded Initial Study and a recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Specific Plan. The Commission's task is to review the Specific Plan and these environmental documents
and forward a recommendation to the Council.
B. REMARKS:
1. Public Comments on Specific Plan and Environmental Reviews
The public comments on the North Forty Specific Plan received at Planning Commission Public
Hearings held on October 13 and 27 and the recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
forwarded to the Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation in the form of meeting
minutes and exhibits from the corresponding Planning Commission reports. Copies of the previous
meeting minutes are attached as Exhibits D & E.
2. Environmental Reviews
RBF, the consultant, was tasked by the Council to prepare an Initial Study and determine the
potential environmental impacts of the Specific Plan over a 20 year time horizon. The consultant
conducted the mandated reviews and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be
adopted for the Specific Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the
Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative and Mitigation Monitoring Plan prepared by the
consultant. Attached as Exhibit F is a copy of the Expanded Initial Study, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. To date, staff has not received any significant
comments regarding the environmental review for the Specific Plan. Attached to this report are
comments from responsible agencies which have commented.
3. Recommendation Procedure
The scope of the Planning Commission's required action on the North Forty Specific Plan is to
forward a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the Specific Plan and the recommended
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The contract for the preparation of the North Forty Specific Plan
does not allocate funds for the consultant to prepare another revised draft (Le a 5th administrative
draft) at the Planning Commission level to incorporate any changes or revisions the Commission
may recommend. Any changes or revisions suggested by the Commission will be forwarded along
with the consultant's proposed draft as part of its recommendation to Council. The contract currently
funds only a revised draft at the Council level.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission take the following actions:
A. Make a finding that the North Forty Specific Plan is consistent with the Current General Plan;
B. Adopt the Draft Resolution;
C. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
D. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the North Forty Specific Plan.
Paul L. Curtis, Director o`fCommunity Development
Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner
PLC:EO:jd
N:1DEVIREPORTS1N40REP, PC3
Los .Gatos Planning Commission
etcber 13, 1999
r-a 4r
DRAFT;
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Commissioner Decker stated that she is concerned about having one foot cut off the top but, if the
measurement is taken seven feet from the grade, it would allow for consistency tluroughout.
Commissioner Quintana explained that anyone can argue "privacy" and perhaps a storage shed for equipment
would solve the security concerns. Ms. Quintana feels the intent of the Ordinance is privacy issues relating
to people and she does not see this as an extreme privacy issue. Commissioner Quintana questioned if there
was any kind of fence, other than the open rail fence, prior to the construction of the eight foot fence.
Chair Nachison re -opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Withers stated that there was nothing else there and this is why they had privacy and security
concerns.
Chair Nachison closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Morgan referred to the testimony regarding people staring over the fence and she feels this
is related to the privacy concerns outlined in the Ordinance.
Commissioner Bruno will support the motion because he believe the Town did not have all the evidence that
was presented tonight before making the determination regarding the height of the fence.
Carried 5-1-1. Commissioner Quintana voting no. Commissioner Pacheco absent.
Appeal rights recited by Mr. Korb.
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN/ND-99-0008. (00.03)
Public hearing to consider a Specific Plan for the North Forty Area of the Town of Los Gatos. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a Negative
Declaration is being prepared. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos.
Chair Nachison gave a complete overview of the purpose of the North Forty Specific Plan (NFSP). She
stated that there were no immediate applications pending and no specific development for the area was being
considered. She explained that the plan was a proposal, designed to control how development will, or will
not, proceed if the North Forty is developed. Ms. Nachison explained the procedure for tonight's hearing
which will include addressing each chapter individually, one at a time. She gave an extensive overview of
the document and stated that the document has four chapters which include 1)the introduction; 2)the overall
master plan; 3)development standards and guidelines; and, 4)implementation and process. Ms. Nachison
stated that she hopes the Planning Commission will be able to forward clear and concise direction to the
Consultant and Staff regarding the North Forty Specific Plan (NFSP).
4
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 13, 1999
DRAFT
The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter.
Ron Pflugrath, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, 14725 AIton Pkwy, Irvine, Ca. Consultant,
gave a background and historic presentation of the plan and presented overheads which depicted the
area. He explained, in detail, the circulation patterns; ingress/egress; zoning issues; freeway and light -
rail issues; existing structures; proposed parking areas; the three proposed "nodes"; the pedestrian
"alee" concept; the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan which included "gateways" for the Town and
architectural and design standards; parks and public open space; and, the inclusion of mixed
commercial use including retail and office use, as well as neighborhood commercial use. Mr.
Pflugrath referred to the projects that have been recently approved and stated that the NFSP will set
specific standards, rather than policy, for the area. He referred to the Vision Statement which stresses
commercial mixed uses to provide goods and services for Town residents, adjacent neighborhoods,
adjacent cities, and tourists as well as the desire to compliment the existing businesses in the
Downtown and other existing shopping areas. Mr. Pflugrath stressed the need for the NFSP to
conform to the Town's current General Plan and any future changes to the General Plan.
Commissioner Bruno clarified that any type of housing has been excluded from the NFSP because it will not
reflect the current General Plan and stated that modifications can be made to the NFSP if changes are made
in the Town's General Plan.
Commissioner Decker stated she is very concerned that there is no residential use proposed for the area. Ms.
Decker stated that the Negative Declaration dictates the circulation and other matters proposed for this
particular specific plan.
Commissioner Morgan clarified that the current General Plan does not allow housing in this area and
therefore it is impossible to include housing in the NFSP.
Mr. Curtis confirmed that if the General Plan is amended to add residential use in
the area, then the NFSP could also be amended to allow residential use.
Chair Nachison requested public testimony relating to the Chapter One: Introduction.
Joanne Rodgers, 15287 Top of the Hill Road, Los Gatos, questioned where the public can purchase
a copy of the Negative Declaration. Ms. Rodgers feels the Negative Declaration is in intricate part
of the NFSP.
Mr. Curtis stated that a reference copy is available in the Library and the Town
Clerk's Office and copies can be purchased for $11.00. He stated that the NFSP
can be purchased from the Planning Department for $16.80. He explained that the
Commission will receive the Negative Declaration at the November 10, 1999
meeting.
Mark Brodsky, 17306 Grosvenor Court, Monte Sereno, referred to the General Plan and the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan. Mr. Brodsky stated that the draft Boulevard Plan stated that there would be
housing sufficient to support transportation goals but this was removed because it did not fit the
General Plan. Mr. Brodsky feels the General Plan should be addressed first.
Susan Anawalt, 17510 Vineland Avenue, Monte Sereno, is concerned that the Town is working with
5
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 13, 1999
DRAFT
an outdated General Plan. She stated that tunes have changed and questioned why the hurry to put
the NFSP into effect before the new General Plan is adopted.
Chair Nachison requested public testimony relating to Chapter Two: Master Plan.
Michele Jehenson, 15192 Karl Avenue, Monte Sereno, feels the Vision Statement does not provide
specifically for children. Ms. Jehenson would like to see a sports facility and soccer fields and feels
that corporate sponsorship would support such a facility. She would also like to see the agricultural
and orchard area preserved. Ms. Jehenson reiterated that 90% of the NFSP is set aside for
commercial use and she would like to see a large area of the development dedicated to children.
Chair Nachison questioned if there was a concern regarding the order of the allowable land uses in the
document.
Ms. Jehenson reiterated that she would like to see public and civic uses given more
emphasis, specifically for children.
Linda Latasa, 15766 Poppy Lane, representing the Los Gatos Union School District, read a letter
from the Superintendent and stated that the elementary and middle schools are severely over crowded
now and the School District would like to see land, in the proposed area, set aside for a school site.
Chair Nachison clarified that Ms. Latasa was referring to the Vision Statement which refers to public and
civic uses and how the Town should consider the order.
Commissioner Decker stated that it is difficult to allocate a school site and questioned if the School District
was prepared to bring forth a proposal. Ms. Decker pointed out that the School District has sold property
in the past and now finds that they are in dire need of school facilities. Ms. Decker questioned if a study was
being prepared so the Town would know the precise impact. •
Ms. Latasa stated that a demographics study would be completed in December, 1999.
Jim Richards, 108 Kilmer Avenue, Campbell, representing the Cambrian Community Council, is
concerned that there will be no Environmental Impact Report prepared. Mr. Richards is concerned
about increased traffic, and specifically on Burton Road. He would like to see the safety issues
addressed, mitigation required, and the infrastructure considered. Mr. Richards would like specific
issues relating to traffic lights and safety issues considered,
Larry Arzie, 18000 Overlook Road, Los Gatos does not believe the vision statement is clear. He is
concerned about adopting the NFSP prior to amending the General Plan. Mr. Arzie would like the
vision statement to say "we want a low key and understated place" and simpler language that clearly
states that we want to work together. He does not believe there is anything left in the Downtown area
to "compete with" and would rather have language indicating protection for other retail areas in Town
because he feels these areas need protection from "big box operations". Mr. Arzie stated that the Los
Gatos Boulevard Plan clearly stated that the Town would like traditional, classic, design and the
vision statement of this plan indicates no particular design criteria. He would like to see the total
vision statement rewritten, specific direction included, and a "tough" stance presented. Mr. Arzie
stated emphatically, that the vision statement is too broad, all encompassing, out of dated, and should
6
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 13, 1999
DRAFT
include protection for the whole Town and not just the Downtown business district. He would like
to see any "protection" included in the goals and policy chapter and include every area of Town.
Kyle Lanza, 15276 Karl Avenue, Monte Sereno, stated that the Downtown area is attractive because
no one planned the area. Ms. Lanza feels Planned Developments fail and she would like to see
reference to "piece meal development" removed from the document. Ms. Lanza feels that the Town
should have a "sense of place" and not create nodes, view corridors, and intersections with traffic
lights. Ms. Lanza would like the Town to look at the demographics and know who they are serving.
She would also like to incorporate the existing orchards and include community fields. Ms. Lanza
suggested that Los Gatos residents vote for additional property tax or solicit corporate donations to
finance community fields.
Bill Hirshman, 101 Forester Court, Los Gatos, encouraged working with the owners of the small
parcels in the area in order to have continuity. Mr. Hirshman feels that alterations to the small homes
in the area should be discouraged because it will increase the value of the property and discourage
the ultimate goal of the comprehensive plan for the area. He would like to see a limit, or some kind
of requirement, that parcels smaller than 40,000 square feet, or parcels that can not be annexed or
made part of a larger existing development, not be developed. Mr. Hirshman feels this will eliminate
"piece meal" development. He reiterated that if the goal is to development the area, then it should not
be done in a piece meal fashion. Mr. Hirshman explained that a vision, specific to the area, using the
design of the Boulevard Plan, and specific guidelines and rules, can eliminate any "mall like"
appearance. He stated that underground parking, or parking structures are amenable because of the
topography and the fact that this type of design will allow for more open space or the inclusion of
community parks or playing fields. Mr. Hirshman explained that it is simpler and less expensive to
develop individual parcels, however, a 40,000 square foot parcel is an appropriate guideline or rule
for a Planned Development. He stated that the smallest, viable parcel for a project would require
18,000 - 20,000 square feet and a Planned Development would be more advantageous for the Town,
due to the review process which insures that all goals and policies are met. Mr. Hirshman feels that
a Planned Development gives the Town the ability to address issues that might not be addressed under
a straight zoning.
Mr. Curtis referred to Policy 2A relating to "piece meal" development and
explained that design guide lines and development standards were necessary
because there are forthcoming projects which need to be addressed. He explained
that there are infrastructure requirements, street improvements, and ingress/access
points that need to be considered. Mr. Curtis stated that Planned Developments
require 40,000 square feet under current development standards.
Commissioner Quintana questioned if the NFSP would take precedent over the current PD requirements
requiring 40,000 square feet.
Mr. Curtis stated that the NFSP would take precedent and, if the document
specifically stated 20,000 square feet, that footage would be required.
Chair Nachison explained that this document was encouraged by the Town Council to avoid a "catch 22"
situation relating to pending development in the area.
Mr. Curtis explained the process and progress oftheNFSP through the many Town
committees and Staff reviews and reiterated that the Town has been dealing with
7
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 13, 1999
DRAFT
potential development of the site without having any adopted specific plan for the
area.
Chair Nachison declared a recess at 9:50 p.m. Meeting resumed at 10:00 p.m.
Mark Brodsky, 17306 Grosvenor Couit, Monte Sereno, referred to the circulation and traffic transit
goals and stated that there is no provision in the NFSP for a regional transit center or a park and ride
lot. Mr. Brodsky feels that an aero bus (aerial tram -way) would facilitate these concerns and is
feasible. Mr. Brodsky presented pictures of an alternate architectural theme for the area and
requested that shuttles, to and from the major transit areas such as Hwy 17 and the Airport, be
considered
Patricia Connell, 16270 Burton Road, Los Gatos is concerned that the frontage road will run straight
through her existing home. Ms. Connell is also concerned about additional traffic being added to an
already congested traffic situation and feels the types of retail or commercial businesses that the plan
encourages which will generate additional traffic.
Mr. Korb explained that the document does not compel any action and would not
result in the "taking" of any properties. He explained that this was a planning
document which creates a vision for the area and does not compel a change in
existing uses or architecture.
Carol Joyal, 16131 Camino del Sol, Los Gatos is concerned about traffic and the dangerous
intersection. Ms. Joyal would like to see more attention given to current and future traffic issues and
suggested limiting any commercial use to operate between 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. She explained that the quality of life for her neighborhood will be greatly affected by large
Planned Developments.
Joanne Rodgers, 15287 Top of the Hill Road, Los Gatos, feels that a "lively dynamic place" is in
contrast to the rest of the vision statement which refers to "small Town character". Ms. Rodgers feels
that if the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan had been considered when the NFSP was written, then land use
would include open space and community recreation which she feels have not been included as a
priority in the Mission Statement. Ms. Rodgers does not feel that nodes will protect the vista of the
surrounding hills and she would like the NFSP to incorporate more of the Boulevard Plan concept
and more of the "phraseology" used in that Plan. Ms. Rodgers does not feel this concept is
"pedestrian friendly" and she believes the Downtown merchants are concerned about this area being
developed. Ms. Rodgers indicated that shopping centers may be a thing of the past because so many
people are now using the Internet for their shopping needs. She reiterated that the Vision Statement
of the NFSP needs to define "small Town character"; is ten years old; needs to include the Boulevard
Plan vision statement and concept; and, is not what Los Gatos needs today.
Commissioner Decker suggested that any graphics, which the public feels exemplifies Los Gatos and the
"small Town character", should be submitted to the Consultants so they can achieve a better feeling of what
the Town is looking for.
8
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 13, 1999
DRAFT
Mike Abkin, 127 El Olivar, Los Gatos, referred to his letter and stated that seven of the nine major issues have direct
relationship to Chapter 2 of the NFSP. Mr. Abkin feels that a lot of open space can be gained by building parking
structures and having the developer donate land for other uses such as community gardens or edible landscaping. He
would also like to see bicycle facilities; bike lanes; uses which are not allowed; the word "destination" used instead of
"regional"; an LOS-C used instead of the higher LOS-D; clearly stated land uses relating to "destination retail"; and,
greater use of the pedestrian allee included in the document. Mr. Abkin would like to see the document returned to the
General Plan Committee for significant revision because he feels that the testimony given tonight may require
reconsideration of the Negative Declaration and mitigation measures. Mr. Abkin stated that certain sections of the
document refer only to retail use and he would like to see additional consideration given to other uses. He would also
like to see the document indicate that "big box" gas stations, car washes, or auto oriented uses are not allowed in the
area. Mr. Abkin would like to see a hierarchy of uses that include public, civic, recreation.
Jan Blair -Olsen, 15189 Lester Lane, Los Gatos, stated that she was a participant in the design
Charette for the Boulevard and she does not feel any part of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan has been
included in the NFSP because it does not include all the recommendations made for community uses.
Ms. Olsen is also concerned about traffic, traffic patterns, and protecting the neighborhoods from cut
through traffic.
Jim Richards, 108 Kilmer Avenue, Campbell, stated that he does not see anything in the
implementation section to address contingencies. Mr. Richards feels that certain factors, such as
development of property adjacent to the Yuki property, may present an interim impact relating to
traffic and the infrastructure.
Commissioner Bruno stated that the Negative Declaration is a review of the overall, cumulative affects of
the project and, these concerns and mitigation treasures may be addressed in that document.
Joanne Talsfore, Hernandez Avenue, Los Gatos, would Iike to see wording that would leave areas
for further needs and civic development. Ms. Talsfore feels the comments tonight have been quite
strong and need to be included in the Vision Statement. Ms. Talsfore agreed that there is no ready
answer to financing open space or civic development until it becomes a community issue and either
developers and/or corporations donate or, are required to dedicate land for this purpose, and/or the
community is ready to be taxed for this purpose.
Commissioner Quintana questioned if the conceptual master plan can be designated to include some sites
where civic, open space, play fields, etc., could be located without saying they have to be included. Ms.
Quintana feel this would give a better conceptual idea that this concern is included, and would also meets
the legal requirements of a "non taking" of land.
Mr. Korb explained that conceptual uses or proposed concepts which are consistent
with the General Plan can be included but would not be mandatory. He stated that
these have to be consistent with the existing land uses because the NFSP does not
change the land uses. Mr. Korb stated that it would not imply "a taking" as long
as the document is properly written and is conceptual in form
Mr. Abkin stated that he does not believe this document should have specific suggestions
on how to finance civic use or open space. However, he suggested that a Community Land
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 13, 1999
DRAFT
Trust, non-profit organization, might be the mechanism for financing such ideas.
Lee Fagot, 845 Lilac Way, Los Gatos, pointed out that the Plan Implementation Policy does direct
that a way be found to implement civic use.
Larry Arzie, 18000 Overlook Road, Los Gatos, feels that Goal #1 is a vestige of the ten year old
plan. Mr. Arzie feels that regional destinations and community uses need to be reversed in the NFSP
or that "regional" destinations be struck from the document entirely. Mr. Arzie reiterated that
allowing parking structures is not "small Town character"
Commissioner Quintana stated that "destination retail" to her means something that isn't neighborhood
oriented. Ms. Quintana would like to see the word "destination" more clearly defined in the document.
Commissioner Decker would like to see "under grounding" included whenever parking is mentioned in the
document because it is not currently mentioned.
Commissioner Quintana would like to see a benefit to open space use included, if underground parking is
encouraged.
Motion by Chair Nachison, seconded by Commissioner Decker to continue this matter to
October 27,1999.
Carried unanimously. Commissioner Pacheco absent.
CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Nachison stated that there was no continued other business for tonight's agenda.
NEW OTHER BUSINESS
A. Sub -Committee Reports (00.04)
1. Chair Nachison reported on CDAC.
2. Commissioner Quintana reported on the General Plan Committee.
B. Commissioner Decker requested that the NFSP be put on transparencies so it can be viewed
by the public and Commission as discussion occurs.
10
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN/ND-99-0008. (00.01)
Public hearing to consider a Specific Plan for the North Forty Area of the Town of Los Gatos. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project, and a mitigated
negative Declaration is being prepared. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos. Continued from
October 13, 1999.
Chair Nachison gave a comprehensive overview and summary of the process for consideration of the North
Forty Specific Plan (NFSP). She reiterated that no specific development for the area was being considered
tonight. Ms. Nachison explained that it was not within the purview of the Town to consider setting aside
Iand for soccer fields or school use because the land is privately owned. Ms. Nachison stated that, within
the NFSP, there is reference to "public use" and the land use element of the NFSP was discussed at the prior
hearing regarding this matter. She stated that Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 would be the focus of tonight's
hearing.
Chair Nachison requested testimony relating to Chapter 3: Development Standards & Guidelines.
The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter.
Susan Anawalt, 17510 Vineland Avenue, Monte Sereno, read a prepared statement submitted by
12
EXHIBIT E.
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
Kyle Lanza. Ms. Anawalt pointed out that there were contradictory statements regarding the
recommendation that buildings not exceed 70,000 square feet and that building design should avoid
a "box like" appearance. Ms. Anawalt reiterated that a monolith appearance should not be allowed
and 70,000 square feet is a monolith and is contradictory. Ms. Anawalt feels that the type and kind
of buildings that exist downtown should be the bases for determining the size of retail in the NFSP.
Michele Jehenson, 15192 Karl Avenue, Monte Sereno, submitted a prepared statement and pointed
out that Chapter 3; (a) through (g) includes extensive reference to retail and no reference as to how,
where, or when public use would be designed. Ms. Jehenson would like wording included in Chapter
3, regarding public uses, and she thinks it would be appropriate to have small restaurants located close
to the public use area. She would also like to maintain some of the existing orchards.
Chair Nachison clarified that the concern was to have further specification regarding community use and
area.
Commissioner Decker suggested that Ms. Jehenson might volunteer to update the Town's 1993 "play fields"
report and relate any new and/or additional information back to the Commission.
Larry Arzie, 18000 Overlook Road, wants to be certain that guidelines are never relaxed and
adamantly adhered to. He would like reference to relaxed guidelines removed from the document all
together. Mr. Arzie stated that the document states "small Town character" so why allow for a 45'
parking structure. Mr. Arzie would like to see no, two story parking structures, allowed at all.
Susan Mueller, 135 Charles Street, would like to see underground parking included and feels that
two story parking structures can be integrated into the design standards and be attractive.
Commissioner Bruno stated that the Downtown Specific Plan does allow parking structures at or below grade
and questioned if this was appropriate for the NFSP.
Ms. Mueller reiterated that she feels that parking structures should not exceed 35' and can
be designed to fit with surrounding structures, neighborhoods, and topography.
Joanne Talesfore, 52 Hernandez, stated that page 320, Findings: "significantly" needs to be defined
and at this time, is too vague. Ms. Talesfore also does not want to encourage "additional height"
which is referenced throughout the document. She would like underground parking to be included
and gave examples of the types of underground parking that could be included. Ms. Talesfore would
like reference to "parking structures" removed and the use of "unless" removed from the document.
Ms. Talesfore feels the word "unless" gives the impression that alternatives are available. Ms.
Talesfore would also like "heavy stucco" buildings removed from the document because she feels it
will make Los Gatos look like every other Town. Ms. Talesfore would like things to be more specific.
Chair Nachison clarified that the approach of the document, for design purposes, should not have the loop-
hole type language which is characteristic throughout. Ms. Nachison stated that the document should be
"tightened" and say what is meant, in terms of design.
Commissioner Decker would like to see specific materials and architectural design elements outlined in the
document.
13
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
Chair Nachison clarified that more specific design, like what was included in the Los Gatos Boulevard
Design Standards, should be included. She reiterated that the design standards need to be tightened
considerably.
Joanne Rogers, 15287 Top of the Hill Road, referred to the term "land use and development
guidelines" which was in the rough draft of the document. Ms. Rogers pointed out that the draft
document had included Ianguage "avoid box like structures, with large flat wall planes" and this has
been omitted from the current document. She would like to see this phrase re-inserted, Ms. Rogers
questioned the set -back requirements for development of adjacent parcels and stated that she would
also like to see bicycle lanes encouraged. She would like to see the height of any building constructed
in the area restricted to 35' with no leeway allowed and questioned "canned" designs.
Mr. Curtis explained that land use was removed from the document because this
is not related to "land use". He pointed out that there are no set -backs in the
downtown area and individual buildings, with gaps in between, may not work
together. Therefore the idea is to encourage buildings that will be close together,
to be side by side, and different architectural styles applied. Mr. Curtis explained
where "no box like structures" was included in the document.
Chair Nachison suggested that the entire paragraph relating to findings (page 320) should be eliminated.
Commissioner Pacheco explained that "canned" designs are buildings which are designed in other parts of
the country without any respect for local conditions or concerns.
Commissioner Decker stated that she is worried about losing the ability to do some differential. Ms. Decker
would like to see some variation so that identity is created. She referred to the strip malls of the past, which
were all the same height, and difficult to articulate. Ms. Decker would not like to see only one building
height allowed because she believes this will result in one big "flat scape'.
Commissioner Pacheco stated that the 45' height limit was specifically designed for architectural features
and not specifically for main part of the buildings.
Milton Mintz, stated that he feels "pedestrian friendly" means that the buildings should be on the
property lines, with alleys in the rear, and a space between the building fronts every so often.
Kathleen Hewitt, 245 Alexander Avenue, stated that the graphics in the document are in contrast to
the feel of Los Gatos. Ms. Hewitt would like to see graphics that are local and consistent with the
local ambiance and she would also like to see the "nodes" eliminated. Ms. Hewitt referred to the 45'
height for design elements and stated that this might be reminiscent of the building located at Blossom
Hill and Los Gatos Boulevard and she does not believe this is what Los Gatos is looking for when
defining "small Town character".
Joanne Rogers, 15287 Top of the Hill Road, reiterated that variety can be accomplished with
different style roofs and it is not necessary to add height to a building to accomplish different designs.
Ms. Rogers would like to eliminate the nodes and see a green buffer that divides Los Gatos from the
rest of Silicon Valley .
Larry Arzie, stated that the document needs to be clear as to what square footage is allowable for
14
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
a retail entity. Mr. Arzie feels that 10,000 square feet would be an appropriate square footage for a
retail entity and would eliminate "box" retail. He explained that the average, National retailer would
like a minimum of 3,500 square feet. Mr. Arzie feels that "resident serving retail" such as a major
grocery store, which is needed at that end of Town, could be defined in the document and specific
square footage allowed for that type of use. He suggested that language such as "not to exceed
existing competitors" could be affective in limiting the size of potential resident serving retail.
Commissioner Bruno questioned if it was possible to say that single uses, in excess of 10,000 square feet,
in this area, must have a conditional use permit. Mr. Bruno feels this would require public hearings and, the
particular use can be addressed and parameters set. He suggested that a CUP can also add expiration limits
and address retail businesses that wish to exceed 10,000 square feet.
Mr. Curtis stated that it was possible to include this requirement in the NFSP.
Joe Rogers, 15287 Top of the Hill Road, stressed that 70,000 square feet should be removed from
the document because it is contradictory to what the document is trying to accomplish regarding
"retaining the small Town character".
Joanne Talesfore, questioned if the section regulating signs was consistent with the Town's sign
Ordinance.
Mr. Curtis explained that this is a specific plan and not a zoning ordinance and
should provide a little more flexibility. He suggested that if a CUP were required,
the CUP could apply to a master sign program as well as other issues.
Chair Nachison requested testimony relating to Chapter 4: Administration & Implementation.
Larry Arzie, is concerned about staff interpreting and approving any development within the NFSP.
Mr. Arzie would prefer that the Planning Commission and the Town Council, on appeal, interpret the
Plan. Mr. Arzie gave an example of a downtown business being classified as retail use, when in fact,
he does not believe it is. Therefore, he feels the application should have been heard by the Planning
Commission and not authorized or interpreted at the staff level. Mr. Arzie reiterated that he is very
concerned about the use that goes into any development that may be inconsistent with what the NFSP
ultimately allows.
Joanne Talesfore, would also like to see this wording changed so that any ambiguity that occurs is
heard by the Planning Commission. Ms. Talesfore questioned how amendments would be made and
what happens to the adjacent properties.
Mr. Curtis explained the procedure for amendments to the document.
Chair Nachison stated that the Boulevard Plan and current zoning would govern the adjacent properties. Ms.
Nachison explained that normally, classifying a land uses, is determined at the staff level.
Mr. Curtis stated that land uses will be specifically listed in the document and
questions to staff should be standard.
Joanne Rogers, is concerned about who "the deciding body" is. Ms. Rogers feels the deciding body
should be the Planning Commission and the Town Council.
15
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
Chair Nachison suggested that the document contain a Glossary of terms so the general public could
understand the process and terminology.
Chair Nachison requested testimony relating to any of the Chapters.
Sue Anawalt and Joanne Rogers, presented a version of a "Vision Statement" for the NFSP. Ms.
Anawalt read the preamble, the composite vision statement, and presented a copy for the record.
Chair Nachison thanked the group for their involvement in the process. Ms. Nachison explained that her
concern is the many tunes members of the community have to go outside of Los Gatos to find certain
services. Ms. Nachison feels that if the vision statement is limited or too narrow, it may eliminate resident
serving businesses.
Commissioner Decker questioned what the vision of the group was for the width of Los Gatos Boulevard.
Mr. Arzie stated that more lanes do not accomplish much and only induce vehicle traffic at a faster
rate. Mr. Arzie feels that five lanes of traffic is not conducive to the small Town atmosphere of Los
Gatos. Mr. Arzie reiterated that they do not want a massive, retail center in this area, and if the
allowable square footage was reduced to 10,000 square feet, then small service type businesses would
be attracted to the area.
Mr. Curtis explained the agreement the Town has with the Traffic Authority and
CalTrans regarding the width of Los Gatos Boulevard. He stated that there were
trade offs that were made in order to accommodate Los Gatos' concerns regarding
the different Hwy 85 ramps. He explained that the agreement stated that there
would be six lanes of traffic between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive. Mr.
Curtis stated that the General Plan Committee will be addressing this issue to see
if this requirement can be amended or modified.
Commissioner Bruno referred to the Grand Boulevard concept and suggested that this may accomplish or
satisfy the agreement requirements.
Commissioner Decker encouraged the authors of the vision statement, presented tonight, to look at the
Boulevard Plan because she feels the Boulevard Plan will make a difference to the ambiance of the Town.
Chair Nachison referred to the Initial Study and questioned the concerns.
Ms. Anawalt stated that the document says "no significant impact" and she believes that even with
mitigation, there will be significant impact. Ms. Anawalt feels that people traveling at high speed
down the Boulevard will not stop to shop or, even see the retail stores. She believes that slowing
traffic will help any retail stores that locate in this area.
Mr. Curtis explained that a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for
this project. He stated that public comment, on the Initial Study, will be
considered until November 9, 1999. Mr. Curtis explained that written comments
16
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
should be submitted to staff and these comments will be forwarded to the
Consultant for a response.
Commissioner Decker stated that this specific plan is designed, and based on the fact that Los Gatos
Boulevard will be six lanes with an additional 18,000 average daily trips. Ms. Decker explained that there
are now 30,000 daily trips and therefore this will be a 60% increase. She stated that most of the increase will
be governed by land use for the area.
Joanne Rogers, questioned the impact any public testimony would have regarding the Initial Study.
Chair Nachison explained the process and stated that if the Initial Study and mitigation measures are not
sufficient to offset any environmental impact, then findings can not be made to support the document.
Mr. Korb explained the rules of CEQA and the test relating to the sufficiency of
the Negative Declaration. He explained the process of "fair argument" relating to
significant, unmitigated, environmental impacts, that are in the Negative
Declaration. Mr. Korb stated that the Commission or Town Council will determine
if a "fair argument" has been made, based on substantial evidence. He explained
that the test for "substantial evidence" is not, under CEQUA, argument,
expressions of fear, or speculation. He stated that evidence must be based on facts
and, if a "fair argument" is made, the document must under go further study.
Joe Rogers, 15287 Top of the Hill Road, feels the area in question is already grid locked by traffic.
Commissioner Decker explained that the mitigation measures have been outlined and the public needs to
address how this is phased before the "use" is in place.
Mr. Korb reiterated that substantial, professional, evidence must be presented to
qualify as "substantial evidence" which would obligate the Commission or Town
Council to cause additional study.
POINT OF ORDER
Motion by Commissioner Decker, seconded by Chair Nachison to continue the meeting past 11:30 p.m.
Carried unanimously. Commissioners Lyon and Quintana absent.
Larry Arzie, suggested that by changing the use in the area, the environmental impact report would
be changed. He explained that a change in use would reduce the intensity of development.
Chair Nachison suggested that the public submit written comments on the Negative Declaration prior to
November 9, 1999.
17
Los Gatos Planning Commission
October 27, 1999
DRAFT
Carol Joyal, 16131 Camino Del Sol, an immediate neighbor to the North Forty, stated that whatever
is allowed in the area will drastically affect traffic. Ms. Joyal feels that there will also be a problem
with safe ingress/egress because unsafe conditions already exist.
Joanne Talesfore, stated that their vision statement would be leaving a legacy for future generations.
Ms. TaIesfore would like to see the Planning Commission write a letter to the Town Council and
indicate the concerns. Ms. Talesfore recommended that the Town's reserve for economic
uncertainties, or the monies from any budget savings, be used for Public acquisition to provide public
open space. She would also like to explore Public/Private development, a Bond issue, or a tax tied
to the school district, to provide public land.
Commissioner Bruno would like to see a "user fee" explored for the use of any public/private partnership
and/or the purchase of public land.
Joe Rogers, questioned if the NFSP was broad enough in scope to allow for play fields. Mr. Rogers
would like the Town to consider "what can be done with this land that would improve the quality of
life in Los Gatos". He feels that contributions from the Community would help provide the necessary
funding for play fields.
Chair Nachison explained that this type of use was contained in the document but concern have been voiced
that this type of use has not been emphasized as much as it should be. She explained that the document was
derived from an economic study and not from public opinion and now the NFSP needs to be realigned. Ms.
Nachison stated that there was nothing in this document, nothing in the present General Plan, nothing in the
present zoning ordinances, that precludes public use for this area.
Chair Nachison explained how the Town Council would be informed of the general comments and
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Chair Nachison stated that this item is continued to November 10, 1999. At this time a summary of
comments will be presented and the Planning Commission will consider the type of recommendation to
forward to the Town Council.
18
Expanded Initial Stti,, y
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Negative Declaration ND-99-0008
PLEASE NOTE:
Copies of the No. Forty Specific
Plan Initial Study were distributed
at the October 13, 1999 Planning
Commission meeting.
11:9 li.Aa.y.ti
Pe r ilfor:, .
Town of Los Gatos
Civic Center
,11OE. Main Street •
Lc s C~ Os, CA .95030 '`,
N( w
dr.. K.
,h.„:y.`
•fin -
October 5, 1999
Prepared by
Robert Bern, William Frostg Associates
226 Airport Parkway, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95110-3705
(408) 451-9260
ii 1 . F.
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE NORTH FORTY AREA OF THE TOWN.
WHEREAS, the Town has recognized the need to adopt regulations to guide the future
development of the North Forty Area of the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town commissioned the preparation of two economic studies in 1990 and
1999 to evaluate the viability of potential uses for the North Forty Area as well as the economic and
service needs of the Town and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the Commercial Specific Plan Committee Report recommended specific uses
for the North Forty Area; and
WHEREAS, the Town incorporated the recommendations of the Commercial Specific Plan
Committee Report for the North Forty Area in the 1994 Route 85/Vasona Light Rail Element of the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the North Forty Specific Plan was prepared to be consistent with the General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee recommended approval of the North Forty
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public input at public hearings held on
October 13, October 27, and November 10, 1999; and
EXHIBIT 3
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissions finds that the North Forty Specific Plan is
internally consistent with the General Plan and the provisions of Government Code Section 65450-
65457.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the North Forty Specific Plan is consistent
with the prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration and will not have a significant environmental
impact; and
NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends
of the North Forty Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit A to regulate the
development of the North Forty area.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the
day of , 1999, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: /s/ LAURA NACHISON
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR
ATTEST:
/s/ PAUL L. CURTIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\RESOS\N4OSP-PC.RES
2
October 14, 1999
TO: Los Gatos Planning Commission
FROM: Lee Quintant
SUBJECT: North Forty Specific Plan Draft
Please consider the following comments. I completed my list of comments and
recommendations prior to the Commission Meeting on October 13th. I have tried
to eliminate comments that were the same or largely paralleled those made my
Mike Abkin.
Page 1-1: Add to the last sentence of the last paragraph .."and that no
residential development shall be allowed."
Page 1-1: Add maps showing the following in the North 40 and the surrounding
vicinity: (a) existing land uses, (b) current zoning, (c) current General Plan
designationsin.
Page 1-1: Format suggestion(picky): Move the last sentence on the page "The
Yuke Family Trust owns approximately 75% of the 44 acres within the North
Forty area. " to be the last sentence of the preceeding paragraph. which
addresses the North 40 itself.
Page 1-1: Consider adding a sentence regarding the Yuki's current plans for the
their property -long term and short term.
Page 2-1: Add map showing parcels in Yuki Family ownership, and other parcels
in common ownership, or indicate this information on the existing land use map
suggested above.
Page 2-1: Last sentence of the first paragraph...."policy direction to preserve the
site's character." Expand this to incorporate the essence of the last sentence
under e, page 2-24.
Page 2-1: Modify the second sentence under B. Vision Statement as follows:
The variety of allowed land uses (e.g., "destination" retail, neighborhood
commercial, office, entertainment, recreation, restaurants, lodging, open space.
public and civic uses).
Page 2-2, Policy 1.B.: Modify as follows: Designiate the area for mixed use
commercial and allow "destination" retain, limited neighborhood commercial and
fai
`4
offices, entertainment, re.,,1 eation.lodging, open space, anu public/civic uses.
Medical offices and related uses, (if that is the intent)and housing shall not be
allowed.
General Comment: Use of the terms "destination" retail, sub -regional retail or
regional retail. The Plan refers to both regional and "destination" , The Negative
Declaration uses sub -regional. I think this introduces unnecessary ambiguity. I
suggest using only "destination" retail, however I think the general meaning of
"destination retail needs to be defined.
Page 2-2: Agree with Mike Abkins comment #5 regarding adding policy 2.D
Engourage parcel assembWv, however I'm not sure whether it is necessary to
include disallow subdivisions and lot splits. Instead consider establishing a
minimum lot size for the North 40.
Page 2-2. Policy 2.B; Consider requiring Planned Development approvals for all
new projects and a Conditional Use Permit for all changes in land use or all
businesses over a certain square footage, or for consolidation of spaces within a
building. This would give staff, commission and council greater ability to ensure
develops conforms with the Specific Plan.
Page 2-3: Policy 4.A. This policy appears to contridict Exhibit 2-1, which shows
entertainment uses located to the rear or interior of the Plan area. Assuming
that Exhibit 2-1 is correct delete "entertainment" in the first sentence of Policy
4.A
Page 2-4, Policy 1.A Change to match Town Traffic Policy as follows: Limit
development of the area to that which sustains an operational goal consistent
with the Town's traffic policy as follows: The LOS for intersections should not be
allowed to drop more than one level if it is at Level A. B. or C. and not allowed to
drop at all if it is at D or below.
Page 2-4, Policy 4.C.: Modify the first sentence as follows: Balance the need to
accommodate vehicle circulation with the needs of pedestrians and bicylists.
Page 2-4 Policy 2.D. Emphasis should be on providing convenient, efficient
parking and reducing the visual impacts of parking. Suggest replacing 2.D with
something like the following: "Provide convenient, efficient parking while
reducing the visual impacts of parking and reducing the amount of surface
paved parking in order to provide increased open space." For example this
could include encouraging parking structures encouraging parking structures
that provide underground parking only with landscaping/open space use at
grade, limiting the size of surface lots, encourage alternative parking solutions
such as the use of hydrolic lifts. (This might be considered a policy change , in
which case it would be a , ecommendation to the Town Luuncil rather than a text
change.).
Page 2-4, Policy 2.B: See comments below on Page 2-16, Exhibit 2-3.
Page 2-6 1.Land Use, first sentence: The intent needs to be clarified . As written
this could be interpreted to mean that the intent is for the Town to develop
500,000 square feet of commercial regardless how much of the site might be
developed as open space or public/civic uses. Or was the intent that 500,000
square feet is a maximum figure which would be lower depending on the
amount of open space and public/civic uses are developed?
Page 2-6, 1. Land Use: Clarify meaning of " This could include up to 100,000
square feet of office uses, (excluding medical related offices/ uses." As written
this could be interpreted to mean a) that medical uses would be allowed over
and above the 100,000 square feet (i.e., no limit to the amount of medical uses)
or b) that no medical related uses will be allowed. If b) is the intent clarify as
follows: "....up to 100,000 square feet of office uses, however, no medical
office/uses will be allowed. If a) is the intent also clarify.
Page 2-6, Policy 1.B: Consider modifying as follows: Provide alternative
strategies for infrastructure funding, and for funding open space and
public/civic uses.
Page 2-6: Consider adding policy to require that funding strategies for
infrastructure be in place prior to the development of any parcels not fronting
Los Gatos Blvd.
Page 2-8 1. Land Use: Consider adding maximum square footages for lodging
and theatre. uses.
Page 2-9, b. Land use destribution: Consider limiting Neighborhood uses to the
area along Los Gatos Blvd. where it would be most convenitent for nearby
residents.
Page 2-9, a. Allowed land uses: Clarify and define Destination retail.
Page 2-9, a. Allowed land uses: Add Open Space. If this is a policy issue include
Page 2-9: Add: Land uses not allowed
Page 2-9, b. Land use distribution. Add statement for potential school sites,
parks and playfields and add these uses to the Master Concept Development
Plan..
• „
i-'l c L C-S , r r
Page 2-11, Exhibit 2-1: Entertainment uses on the Master Concept Development
Plan indicate entertainment uses in the interior of the site. This is not reflected
in text on page 2-9,b,2 and it contridicts the statement on page 2-3, policy 4.A.
These should all be consistent.
Page 2-14, Exhibit 2-2: For visual continuity consider extending the pedestrian
allee around the corner on Lark, and possibly along the Samaritian Drive Access
road, to the the spine road.
Page 2-12, Exhibit 2-1: The Plan shows a road between Lark Ave and the Main
Access Road that goes from Los Gatos Blvd. west to the Freeway that is not
shown on Exhibit 2-3 (page 2-16). The road system of these two diagrams
should be the same.
Page 2-16, Exhibit 2-3. Show location of bike lanes or show on a separate
exhibit.
Page 2-16 General Comments regarding consistency between Exhibits 2-3
Circulation Concept Plan (p.2-16), Exhibit 2-1 Master Concept Development Plan
and between various terms used in the text. The text on page 2-26 clearly
defines three primary access points and access drives to the frontage road.
However there is no similar heiarchy done for "access roads" or for the other
roads in the circulation system. Although there is reference to Samaritan Drive
extension (access road) and the Lark Avenue Access road, only the main access
road is identified by name on Ex. 2-3. The Lark Ave. access road is referred to
on p. 3-6 as a secondary access road (but the intersection with Lark Ave is
identified as a primary access - note during public hearing the consultant also
refered to Lark Ave access as a secondary access). The continuation of
Samaritan Drive access road is shown as a seconary road on ex. 2-3, as the spine
road on Ex. 3-3 and is referred to in the text as the main street. In addition to
the access drives to the frontage road The Master Development Plan (Ex2-1)
shows a street that goes from Los Gatos Blvd through the site ending at the
freeway. This street is not shown on the Circulation Concept Plan (Ex. 2-3).
There are other examples. I would suggest that a hierarchy of access points,
access roads and cirulation roads be clearly identified in the beginning of E.
Circulation Concept Plan, that they clearly be identified on Exhibit 2-3 and that
all these terms be used consistently throughout the plan.
Pages 2-18 to 2-22, Exhibits 2-4 to 2-9: (picky) Format: For consistency
indicate plan view or cross section on all of these Exhibits, or none of them.
Page 2-21, Exhibit 2-8: Suggest separating the diagrams for Samaritian Drive
Extension and Lark Avenue Acess so the in and out movements can be shown.
Page 2-27. Suggest adding a section 3. Pedestrian Circualtion
Page 2-27, 2. Internal circulation.: This section includes a discussion of the
frontage road as part of the internal circulation system but does not identify the
other components of the internal circulation system. Expand this to identify
other components of the internal circulation. Suggest also including a discussion
here of internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation or seperating the dicussion
into two sections: 2. Internal vehicular circulation and 3. Pedestrian and
bicycling circulation.
Also see Page 3-10 below remommendations to Council.
Page 3-11,c.: This appears to conflict, at least in part, with the first sentence
under D. Site Planning Guidelines, 1. Site development - building location
(setbacks) on page 3.3.
Page 3-12,b. Modify as follows: Landscaping shall be used to remind one of the
agricultural heritage of the site; and to help define outdoor spaces; soften a
building's appearance; and to screen parking, loading, storage, and equipment
areas.
Page 3-20-21: I concur generally of Mike Abkins comments #32 to 34. although
I may not aggree with the specifics. I do agree we should relook at the height
limitations and exceptions, the average and maximum square footages for
various uses and that maximum square footages for uses should be
differenciated from maximum footage for structures.
Page 4.2, Correct the order on the development application process.
Some place within the document indicate that the North 40 is considered an infill
project and development is subject to the towns policies for infill and traffic.
I
Project History
In 1989, the Los Gatos T....,i Council appointed a' Commercial Spec..—c Plan Committee to study all
commercial districts and identify goals and implementation measures that would encourage commercial
growth and stability. In May 1991, the Committee submitted its report to the Town Council which
identified specific goals and implementation measures for each commercial district in Town. One of the
commercial districts (i.e., Area 12) studied by the Committee was a section of Los Gatos Boulevard
between the Route 85 interchange to the north and Lark Avenue to the south which included the Plan area.
The Commercial Specific_ -Plan Committee Report recommended the following goals for the Plan area:
encourage parcel consolidation andplanned development; cooperate vith major property owners to create
•
a phased"deveropment program that will balance the desires of the,property owners with the needs of the
community, and annex alli5roperty that is currently located in the County. The Report also recommended
the following implementation measures for the Plan area: immediately initiate annexation proceedings to
annex all property located in the County; create a redevelopment district; establish policy that incorporates
detailed development recommendations which include a "power center" and allow for a future hotel and
possibly office; and solicit power center and hotel developers to begin the development process so that at
least the power center will open when the Bascom/Route 85 Interchange is opened.
In 1996, the Town Council adopted to Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Guidelines which contain
short, medium and long range goals, policies and implementation measures for Los Gatos Boulevard
improvements. The goals presented by the Committee for the Los Gatos Boulevard study area were to
encourage automobile dealerships, develop a major commercial shopping center, provide clear direction
to potential developers and work with existing auto dealers, commercial property owners and merchants
to develop a marketing strategy specific to Los Gatos Boulevard. The proposed Specific Plan incorporated
the goals, policies and implementation measures from the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan, where applicable.
In February 1993, the Town adopted the Route 85/Vasona Light Rail Element of the General Plan. This
General Plan amendment changed the land use designation along both sides of Los Gatos Boulevard
between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive, including the Plan area, from residential and agricultural to
mixed use commercial. Additionally, the General Plan amendment stated that the area bordered by Routes
85 and 17 and Lark Avenue (i.e., the Plan area) should be developed with mixed use commercial,
comprised of destination retail with limited neighborhood commercial and other uses that would supplement
the primary use.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the North Forty Specific Plan is to .implementTown of Los Gatos' General Plan and
to be responsive to the tTown's':goal of encouraging commercial growth.ai d; stabihry by providing new
opportunities for mixed use commercial development within the Plan area. Theyintentof the Specific Plan
is to provide a plannin•g framework m which future deyelopment.ofsportioas-of the�arearcan.accur without
jeopardizing the full development potential, of the remaining .,area.. The Plan area currently includes
multiple land ownerships. The Specific Plan would comprehensively guide future development of the Plan
area to ensure that near -term development of individual parcels.would not have lasting adverse effects on
the long term development of the area:_ _The land use and development policies contained in the Specific
Plan apply to all new development, including additions and changes in use within the boundaries of the Plan
area.
The North Forty Specific Plan area is envisioned to be a com.re . - • 'vely planned and developed
commercial mixed use facility with destination retail of local and'subregional ' portance. The variety of
land uses allowable under the Town's General Plan and Zoning Or finance (e.g., retail commercial, office,
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bain, William Frost & Associates
2-4 Initial Study
H:\GRP301PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\ W P\DraftlN401S2. W PD
entertainment, restaurants, arid lodging) are proposed to work together to create a plac - .. t would provide
new services to residents of Los Gatos and attract customers from throughritt . ub • . The intensity /
of development would be lii d to that which can sustain an acceptable service on surrounding
roadways and intersections.7 �` fj "1�: Sditi
Y R o Oe
Project Characteristicsco. �'` ,)
The North Forty Specific Plan is proposed by the Town of Los Gatos through the authority granted by the 14' 1
•
65457
California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through }"
g a�;
(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 4.;:-
General PIan goals and policies. IY1 d f cce °1 j "
The Plan area consists of approximately 44acre which are currently 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 convert the existing Plan area land uses to accommodate approximately 500,000.
s_ ware feet of commercial mixed use develo ment. Under the Los Gatos General Plan, mixed use"
development can include destiiation'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. (See Exhibit 3 for
the proposed land use distribution in the Plan area.) 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 arcjiitect,ire)' 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.
• 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 (refer to Exhibit 4, Circulation Concept Plan). Secondary access along Los Gatos Boulevard
would be limited to two drives on either side of the primary entrance drive an w,p_u ivbe, turnin 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 of 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.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 2-5 Initial Study
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA1650o901NORTHFORIWPIDrafttN40-1S2.WPD
..ft.m1 • • • •6•1
3f1N3AY WM/
I
•
:
I \
: ; •
/ •
OMNI • mon• • • • I.
r
2
.4(
LL
0
0
Not to Scale.
TABLE 1
APPLICABILITY OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
" �f;Pirojec
}.nistr
yPeinp
'ye
r0n
pprov
_
*
Interior Tenant Improvements
Yes
Yes
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.)
Yes
Yes
Development of a new structure on a vacant site greater than
40,000 square feet in gross area
Yes
Development of a new structure on a vacant site less than
40,000 square feet in gross area
Yes
Building Additions
Any building addition that exceeds 50% of the existing
gross floor area of the building or that is larger than
5,000 square feet of gross floor area
Any Building addition that does not exceed 50% of the
existing gross floor area of the building, or is less than
5,000 square feet of gross floor area
Yes
Yes
�"`°"
L
Yes
- • -.,
Remodel
The removal of 50% or more of any exterior wall area
or removal of 50% or more of the supporting members
of a structure such as bearing walls, columns, beams, or
Yes
Yes
girders
Exterior building modification, including facade changes
that do not involve the removal of 50% or more of the
exterior wall area, including the replacement of doors
and windows
* The Planning Director may defer action and refer the application
to the Commission for review and decision.
Decisions of the director may be appealed to the Commission.
Source: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. 1999.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 2-9 Initial Study
Expanded Initial Study H:1GR730\PDATA1650090WORTHFORIWP1DrafiW40-152.WPD
SECTION 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL C}IECKLIE
The following Environmental Checklist Form is from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and
identifies environmental impacts which could occur if the proposed project was constructed. Information
sources for the responses are provided in parentheses following each question and are cited at the end of
the checklist. Where necessary, discussions supporting the conclusions follow the checklist. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply
does not apply to projects like the one involved.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONIVIENTALIMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. ILthere are , or one
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made an EIR is '
required:
•
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact:" The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less -than -significant level
(mitigation measures from Number 5, EARLIER ANALYSES, of this list may be cross-
referenced).
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-1 Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP301PDATA\650a9OlNORTHFORNWP\Draft\CHECKIST.WPD
ENVIRONMENTA SSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
•AESTHETICS ; Wou1dthe prbject .
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ..
vista? 3,5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
significant
Impact
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 0
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (2,3,5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and it's
surroundings? (2,3,5)
d) Create_a new,souree:Q.fsubstintial lig) t_cor
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (2,3,5)
0 ❑ 0 ❑
0 0 0
''*• r f, i .F -trtL 4f.:i•
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determming:whether impacts to agricuhural S
resources are si scant°envuonmental effects Iead encies• Qia 'refr to the California
Agricultural Lind Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997} prepared bythe t Li
,.' rj. ,
i
California Dept of Conservation as an optional model to'vsesin assessing unpacts n t4 z 4 w r o�'F.
agriculture"and familand._Wou1d tfie"proaect" t rr ;,tik _� f 4 ���� t
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
(1,2,3)
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 0 0 ❑ P1
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (1,2,3)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (1,2,3)
•
AIR QUALITY Where available; the significance criteria established by the applicable,
air quality managementpollution control district may be reliedjuponto make;tlil
following determinations Would the project.
0 ❑ 0 0
a) Confl Lwitl ,.or obstruct unp1ementationof'
`tt le applicable air quality plan? (7,8)
El
0
0
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-3 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIWP\Draft\CHECKLST. WPD
ENVIRONMENTh .ISSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ 0•' 0 0
Substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (7,8)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 La ❑ ❑
increase of any criteria pollutant for whichhthe
project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (7,8)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 0
pollutant concentrations? (7,8)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (1,2)
0 0 0 ❑
01. BU'I0tOGICARESOU" RCES Would the"proect
.454
.74
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,2,9)
0 0 0
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 0
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,2,9)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 ❑ [dd
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (1,2)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ 0 rd ❑
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (1,2)
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-4 Environmental Checklist
H AORP301PDATA16500901NORTH FORIWP1DraftICHECKLST. W PD
ENYLRONMENTA ASSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
3ignificant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Conflict withany.IocaLpolicies-zoryordfnances ❑ 0 0 0
protecting biological resources, sucl.,as_a; ree_
preservation policy or, ordinance? (1,2,3)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 0 ❑ 0 0
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? (1,2,3)
CULTURAL-RESOURCES.'VWould`,the=project: .
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in § 15064.5? (2,3)
❑ ❑ P1 ❑
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 ❑ P1 0
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5? (2,3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (2,3)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 0 P1
interred outside of formal cemeteries? (2)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (2,3)
OLOGY AND SOJEL& Would the p oJect s`'
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
❑ ❑ Cd ❑
0 0 21
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 ❑ iZ ❑
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication
42? (1,2,3,4)
ii)Strong seismic gro..,un
d shaking? (1,2,4) 0 0
iii) SeismiclreIadround-failure; ❑
including 0 ❑ m ❑
liquefaction? (1,2,4)
ivl Landslides? Li _2.41 pi 1-1
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-5 Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP30\PDATA16500901N0RTHF0R\WP\Draft1CHECKLST. WPD
ENVIRONMENTISSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ 0 0 0
topsoil? (1,2,4,6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit .or soil that is:. 0 Cd 0 0
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (1,2,4,6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (1,2,4,6)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting 0 ❑
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
(1,2,4,6)
❑ ❑
❑ t�
•
.-,5^.<t-1,,: L b._i..• ti.�t '� �{.r i� �.,.....: �n ..'S� �..�l..,K .., .� r:� f.'.yt[h'iaF .."?.f
"''I3AZARDS_AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .a Would tbe'poject p,
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (1,2)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ �d
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous ❑ ❑
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (1,2,3)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list 0 P1
of hazardous matenalssites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (1,2,19)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (1,2)
❑ lZ(
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
0 0
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ 0 0
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-6 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP30\PDATA1650090\NORTHFOR\WP1Draft\CHECK. W LSTPD
ENV RONMENTA _SSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
31gniticant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ 0 0
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (1,2)
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,2,3)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 0
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (1,2,3)
•
aPr
VIII r.,..AYDROLOGY�AND.WATER QUALITY Would the�poject:
a) Violate an water qualitys andards or waste 0
discharge requirements? (1,2,4)
❑ ❑
b) Substantially deplete roundwat_e supplies. or 0 0 0 0
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? (1,2,4)
c) Substantially alter exist ing drainage a 0 0 ❑ 0
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or.
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
(1,2,4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 ❑ ❑
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off -site?
(1,2,4)
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-7 Environmental Checklist
H :1 G RP3O\PD AT A16S0090lN O R TH FO R \ W P\D raft1 C H EC KLS T. W PD
ENVIRONMENTA . ISSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Create or contribute6runoff water which 0 PJ 0
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (1,2,4)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑
(1,2,4)
❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard 0 ❑ 0
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? (1,2,4)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 0
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows? (1,2,4)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 0
risk or loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam? (1,2,3)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ 0 0 Qi
(1,2,3)
ILAND`'IJSE'-AND PLANNING.'
7 i i1
ould``the project ru:
a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 • 0 P1
(1,2,3)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 0
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (1,2,3)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (1,2,3)
MINERAL'RESOURCES ,Would the projec
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (1,3)
❑ ❑ 0 0
❑ ❑ 0 VI
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-8 Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP301PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\WPDDraft1CHECKLST. WPD
ENVIRONMENT. ISSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ❑ 0 0
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (1,3)
NOISE.:Would the project result`an
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(1,2,4)
0
R1
❑ ❑
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 0 ❑ 0
excessive groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels? (1,2,4)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient ❑ ❑ P1 0
" 1 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project? (1,2,4)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase 0 0 VI ❑
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
(1,2,4)
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 ❑ 0
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? (2)
f) For.a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 p�
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (2)
,XiI OP.ULATION ANDJ1OUSING Would the'.projec
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 ❑ 0
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (1,2,10)
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-9 Environmental Checklist
H:IG RP301PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\ W P\DrafcICHECKLST. W PD
ENVIRONMENTA ISSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 0
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (1,2,10)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ 0 0 0
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (1,2,10)
XIII PUBLIC SERVICES:'t:
°(st
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection? (1,2)
Police protection? (1,2)
'. Schools? (1,2)
Parks? (1,2)
Other public facilities? (1,2)
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
O ,0 vj 0 0
O ❑ 0 Ql
❑ ❑ ❑
RECREATI(
a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ 0 0 0
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (1,2,3)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities ❑ 0 0 0
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(1,2,3)
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 3-10 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIWP\Draft1CHECKIST.WPD
ENVIRONMENTA SSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
a) Cause an increase in trafficzll4ch is
relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections? (2,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
El
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
level of service standard established by the
county westion.maog.ement agency for
designated roads or highways?
(2,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 0 0 0
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in -location that results in substantial
safety risks? (2,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ 0 0 Qr
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (1,2)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (1,2) 0 ❑ 0 pJ
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (1,2) 0 LZ1
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1,2)
❑ ❑
0 ❑ ❑ to
Uiu. ii r LM' LJ..SEi .vii SYSTEMS , Would the'°project ` �� y {_z <, y
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (1,2,4)
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (1,2,4)
❑ ❑ Qr ❑
0
❑
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-11 Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP301PDATA\65o090\NORTHFORIW P\Draft\CHECKLST. WPD
ENVIRONMENTA .SSUES
(see attachments for information sources)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signillnnt No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Require or result in the construction ofDew . ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(1,2,4)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 0 0 0 ❑
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (1,2,4)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 0 0 0 ❑
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing
commitments? (1,2,4)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 Ef 0
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (1,2,4)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (1,2,4)
❑ P1 ❑ ❑
XVII .'MANDATORY- FINDI GS' OF,SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 0 Ql ❑
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are ❑ 0 21 ❑
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects ❑ P1 0 0
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings. either directly or indirectly?
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
3-12 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIW P'Draft1CHECKIST.WPD
SECTION 4.0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL "IPACTS
The following discussions along with the information sources cited support the conclusions of the
Environmental Checklist and are numbered according to the Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS (La-d)
Background Setting
The visual character of the existing Plan area is composed of open space, agriculture and low intensity
uses. Surrounding hillsides are visible beyond the Plan area to the west and south. The Santa Cruz
Mountains provide a scenic resource in the background as viewed from southbound Highway 17. State
Highway 9, which is eligible to become a State Scenic Highway, is located south of the Plan area. The Plan
area is visible from surrounding roadways and land uses, which consist primarily of mixed use commercial
uses, neighborhood shopping centers, auto sales and repair uses, and office uses. Elevations in the Plan
area range frorr i29Oto 310-feet above mean sea level (ms1). Views of the northern portion of the Plan area
from the east are partially obstructed by mature trees located along the western boundary of the area.
Views of the Plan area from the south are available from Lark Avenue and the residential and commercial
uses located on the south side of Lark Avenue. Views of the Plan area from the west are available from
Route 17 and the Route 17 ramps from Lark Avenue, and are interrupted only by a chain link fence along
the western boundary of the area. Views of the Plan area from the north are available from the commercial
and residential uses located on the north side of Burton Road. An existing sound wall located along the
northwest portion of the Plan area substantially limits views of the area from viewpoints located further
north.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
During future construction and demolition activities in the Plan area, trucks, work crews, and
associated equipment may create a temporary negative aesthetic impact. However, intervening
topography and vegetation would greatly limit views of project construction activities. Because
future construction of site -specific projects would be temporary, and views of the Plan area would
be interrupted by intervening topography and vegetation, this impact would be considered less than
significant.
The Plan area is surrounded by two State Highways (i.e., Route 17 and Route 85), and two major
roadways (i.e., Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard) in the Town of Los Gatos. The Plan area
is visible from these roadways. The portion of Highway 17 which runs through the Town of Los
Gatos south of State Highway 9 is considered eligible to become a State Scenic Highway, although
it is not officially designated as such. Implementation of the Specific PIan would result in the
conversion of the existing PIan area land uses to accommodate approximately 500,000 square feet
of commercial and mixed use development, and would consequently modify views of the Plan area,
as well as views of the Santa Cruz Mountains from viewpoints located north and east of the Plan
area. In addition, piecemeal design and development of the Plan area would result in inconsistent
views of the Plan area. These would be considered potentially significant impacts unless mitigation
is incorporated.
Mitigation Measure 1: The following policies and urban design planning concepts shall be
implemented to reduce potential adverse impacts related to altered views
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-1 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\CRP301PDATA1650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Draft1CHECKLST.WPD
of the Plan area from adjacent roadways and land uses to a less than
significant level. These planning concPnts include:
Limit the height and bulk of new development in order to
maintain a low intensity feel for the overall site and to
preserve views from off -site to the surrounding hillsides;
Provide view corridors from strategic points within the
North Forty site (e.g., activity nodes, plazas, key open
space areas, etc.) to the surrounding hillsides;
❖ Preserve existing mature trees where appropriate;
coo cite--6
lv
•
•
ic,wn of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Preserve the on -site barn and other culturally significant
Incorporate "orchard -style" landscape designs within
parking areas, activity nodes, open spaces, and other
areas of high viability to enhance the agricultural
character of the site;
Freeway frontages should reflect appropriate design,
location, and orientation of the buildings parking areas,
loading facilities, utility services, landscaping and signs;
Buildings that are visible from the freeways (including
on- and off -ramps) should use care in achieving a visually
pleasing and high quality design and should provide
treatment to the facade which is commensurate with that
applied to the facade of the major entrance to the Plan
area. Attention to appropriate site planning, structure
design, and landscaping will be required by the Town for
new development in the Plan area; and
(The Town and property owners must assist Caltrans in
creating and maintaining landscape areas along freeway
corridors. Landscaping adjacent to the freeway right-of-
way should be similar in nature to the existing and
adjacent landscaping of the freeway.
Facilitate the assembly of parcels in order to avoid
piecemeal development of small parcels that may have
difficulty fitting into the larger comprehensive plan for
the area.
Reserve the highly visible street frontages long Los Gatos
Boulevard for retail, commercial, entertainment) and
restaurants. Other uses (e.g., to ging, office, etc.)
should be located to the rear or interior of the Plan area.
W µ YJY cT r0't
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-2 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIWP\Draft\CHECKLST. WPD
❖ Require that all new and existing utilities be placed
underground as develo ;nt occurs.
Avoid the appearance of large box -like buildings. Break
up Iarge, blank building facades with smaller shops,
interesting architectural features, horizontal and vertical
wall articulation, pedestrian amenities, etc.
The design of individual projects within the Plan area will
be required to consider existing conditions on- and off -
site, including: land use and site organization of
neighboring properties; architectural character/style of
neighboring structures; existing natural features (i.e.,
mature trees); opportunities to preserve or enhance views
of the surrounding hillsides; and privacy and sun
exposure of adjoining properties. Future project
applicants for individual projects within the Plan area
shall provide detailed visual analysis (e.g., using story
poles, photosimulations, etc.) which evaluate, minimize,
and avoid visual impacts associated with new
development.
Individual projects within the Plan area will comply with
the Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards where
appropriate.
❖ Designs should demonstrate a consistent use of colors,
materials, and detailing throughout all elevations of the
building. Full 360-degree architectural treatment is
required on all building facades open to public view.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce Plan impacts on scenic vistas to a less than
significant level.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Plan area includes mature walnut and fruit trees,
and the dilapidated barn building associated with the existing orchard property, as well as several
mature pine, eucalyptus and miscellaneous fruit trees located in the existing residential portions of
the Plan area. 'The barn building is current poor to moderate condition and would not be
considered. acen sc resource ' No rock outcroppings are located m the Plan area. Impacts and
mitigation related to the removal and replacement of existing trees in the Plan area are described
in Item IV.e, below. Although the Los Gatos General Plan designates Route 17 as a scenic street
south of Lark Avenue, Route 17 is not designated as such north of Lark Avenue, adjacent to the
Plan area. No other scenic streets, as designated in the Los Gatos General Plan, are located in the
vicinity of the Plan area. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not damage scenic resources visible
from a state scenic highway.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-3 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:IGRP30\PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\WP\Draf\CHECKLST.WPD
In addition, standard design features (e.g., downward -directed lights,
non -reflective glass, etc.) will be use minimize this impact.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce Plan impacts on light and glare to a less
than significant level.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (II.a-c)
Background Setting
Agricultural lands in the urban portions of the Town of Los Gatos are generally limited to orchard uses.
Williamson Act agricultural lands in the Town are exclusively located in hillside areas. Only
approximately 1.5 percent (221.2 acres) of the total land area of the Town is considered agricultural.
Portions of the Plan area have historically been and are currently in use as orchards. No other agricultural
resources are located in the vicinity of the Plan area.
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
NO IMPACT. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMMP) Santa Clara County Important Farmland 1998 Map (1999), the Plan
area is considered Urban and Built -Up Land. This classification includes most urban land uses,
as well as vacant and nonagricultural land which is surrounded on all sides by urban development
and is less than 40 acres in size. /The Plan area therefore does not include prime farmland,
farmland of statewide importance! unique farmland or farmland of local importance, and no
impacts on land designated as such would result.
trial Cw4-� rs of 11�"y.� ''°
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
NO IMPACT. In the February 1993 General Plan Amendment associated with the Route
85/Vasona Light Rail Element of the General Plan, the land use designation of the Plan area was
changed from residential and agricultural to mixed use commercial. The Plan does not involve any
changes to existing land uses in the area. Although portions of the Plan area are currently in use
as orchards, the area is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Plan would result in
no impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act
contracts.
c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Portions of the Specific Plan area are currently in use
as orchards. However, the Plan area is designated as mixed use commercial in the Town's General
Plan. The Plan does not propose any changes to existing land use designations. Therefore, the
Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impacts would
result.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-5 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIWP1Draft1CHEC Ct T.WPD
III. AIR QUALITY (III.a-e)
Background Setting
The County of Santa Clara is located within the Bay Area Air Basin. The Basin is characterized by varying
climatological and topographic conditions which results in variations in local air pollution dispersion and
quality. Climate conditions within the Santa Clara Valley subregion are typical of sheltered inland locations
within central California. The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the north and
by mountains to the east, south and west. At the southern end of the valley, maximum temperatures can
be in the low-90's during the summer and the high-40's during the winter, and minimum temperatures can
range from the high-60's in the summer to low-30's in the winter.
Winds in the Santa CIara Valley are greatly influenced by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow that
roughly parallels the valley's northwest -southeast axis. A north -northwesterly sea breeze flows through
the valley during the afternoon and early evening, and a light south -southeasterly drainage flow occurs
during the late evening and early morning. In the summer the southern end of the valley sometimes
becomes a "convergence zone," when air flowing from the Monterey Bay gets channeled northward into
the southern end of the valley and meets with the prevailing north -northwesterly winds.
The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and
the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and
dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The combined
effects of moderate ventilation, frequent inversions that restrict vertical dilution, and terrain that restricts
horizontal dilution, give the Santa Clara Valley subregion a relatively high atmospheric potential for
pollution compared to other parts of the San Francisco Bay Air Basin.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to
designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An
"Attainment" designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for
that pollutant in that area. A "Nonattainment" designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated
the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event,
as defined in the criteria. The San Francisco Bay Area is a State nonattainment area for ozone (03), and
fine particulate matter (PMto ). '
Pursuant to the CAA and subsequent amendments, the BAAQMD prepared the 1997 Bay Area Clean Air
Plan (CAP) for adoption by the Board on December 17, 1997. The main objective of the CAP is to attain
the State air quality standards for 03. The CAP represents a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions
from stationary, area and mobile sources. The CAP includes specific measures which encourage cities and
counties to develop and implement local plans, policies and programs to reduce auto use and improve air
quality. -Under the CCAA nonattainment classifications, the Bay Area is classified as a "serious" air basin
for 03. (The State classification system for nonattamment areas uses the designations moderate, serious,
severe, and extreme.) The Bay Area attained the State CO standard in 1993 and thus the Act's planning
requirements for CO nonattainment areas no longer apply to the Bay Area. According to CCAA
requirements for air basins designated as "serious" for 03 (§§40921.5, paragraph (a)(2), 40919), the CAP
must indicate that the District will attain the State 03 standard by the earliest practicable date, including:
1) additional control measures for existing stationary sources; 2) a permitting program that will result in
no net increases in emissions from new stationary sources; and, 3) provisions for indirect source controls.
Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more
susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-6 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\GRP3O\PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Drafr\CHECKLST.WPD
receptors) who are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses
considered sensitive receptr include residences, schools, playgrouny'- child care centers, hospitals,
clinics, rehabilitation center. , convalescent homes, and retirement hor. Numerous existing sensitive
receptors are located throughout the vicinity of the Plan area and include iesidences; a hospital, and a
convalescence hone
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency with jurisdiction of air
resources in the Bay Area Air Basin. The BAAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations within
the Basin. The monitoring station nearest to the Plan area is the Los Gatos Monitoring Station; however,
since this monitoring station does not provide information regarding most criteria pollutants, the nearest
monitoring station (i.e., the San Jose - 4th Street Monitoring Station) which provides complete data for all
criteria pollutants was selected. The data collected at this station is considered to be representative of the
air quality experienced in the PIan area. Air quality data from 1994 to 1998 was used as a worst case
scenario, since air quality has improved comparably with time. These data for the San Jose - 4th Street
Monitoring Station are provided in Table 2.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (April 1996) state
that cumulative air quality impacts would not result if a specific plan is consistent with the most
recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP), which is the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan prepared by the
BAAQMD and adopted December 17, 1997.
To establish consistency between the Specific Plan and the CAP, it must be demonstrated that the
Plan -generated population growth and VMT growth estimates are consistent with the CAP growth
assumptions. This is because the CAP accounts for incremental growth in the Town of Los Gatos,
based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections. The Speci ic, 1ai 'ould,
not directly generate new residents to, the Town or County, as no housing rs proposed as,part of..,
tfi Specific Plan. Since the CAP emission inventory assumes that population growth will occur
as .specified it the ABAG Projections, a growth rate of 0.17%, total year 2000 population of
35,400 and total year 2005 population of 35,700 (Hing Wong, Regional Planner, ABAG, August
30, 1999), is assumed in the CAP. The Specific Plan would not exceed population growth
projections assumed in the CAP. As noted above, for the Specific PIan to be determined to be
consistent with the CAP, the rate of increase in VMT for the Town must be equal to or lower than
the rate of increase in population. The proposed land uses under the Specific Plan (mixed use
commercial) were anticipated in the Town General Plan. Therefore, the PIan would not result in
an increase in VMT beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. Since these land uses are
anticipated in the General Plan, the Plan would not increase the rate of VMT growth in the Town
above the rate of Town population growth...;
The five TCMs included in the 1994 CAP, and the two additional TCMs, in the 1997 CAP, for
which the Town would be an implementing agency are described below. —Plan noncompliance with
the provisions of the 1997 TCMs would be considered a potentially significant impact unless
mitigation is incorporated.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-7 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\GRP3o\PDATA1650090\NORTHFOR\WP\Draft\CHECKLST.WPD
transportation Control Measure 2U:
Promote Traffic Calming Measures (new measure added to 1997 CAP)
Mitigation Measure 3:
;
y �.: rl w
y
NI, .i'i r ....et. (et e-$ \‘,i4e-Vii.,(4,1,-ii
. - '1- Of '7. ''''. i...:%.,':,':r
Include traffic calming strategies in the transportation and land
use elements of general and specific plans.
The following policies and site planning guidelines shall be implemented
to reduce potential adverse impacts related to Plan noncompliance with
CAP transportation control measures to a less than significant level.
These polices and guidelines are described below, with the CAP
TDM(s) with which they establish consistency noted parenthetically:
•:• Require employers to provide incentives to employees to use
modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles.
(TDM #1)
R�
Provide for bicycle paths and pedestrian walkway; as an
integral part of t` e mternal`ard emerrral siFculatiori systems.
(TDM #9)
❖ Balance the need to accommodate vehicle circulation_wjth the
needs of pedestrians. jThe provision of pedestrian amenities
_ .. r shall -have-a very hi h priority at all levels of the site planning —'
process. (TDM #9, #19)� ---- ----
❖ Each development project should be oriented to accommodate
pedestrian movement between adjacent sites. Each project will
be required to demonstrate a strong pedestrian orientation
through the incorporation of walkways, courtyards, plazas,
outdoor dining areas, water features, seating areas, and similar
amenities. (TDM #9, #19)
❖ Whenever possible, projects should create strong connections
to the off -site, public pedestrian circulation system. (TDM #9,
#19)
Take advantage of opportunities to link the Specific Plan area
to the Vasona Light Rail system and the Route 85 mass transit ,
line. Encourage shuttle bus service from these facilities to the
Plan area. (TDM #13)
•3 Provide facilities to accommodate transit vehicles (including
shuttle bus service) throughout the Plan area, and provide safe,
comfortable places for persons awaiting transit/shuttle service.
(TDM #13)
❖ Develop a pattern of land uses that facilitates pedestrian
activity and the elimination of internal automobile trips. (TDM
#15)
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-10 Environmental Checklist
H:\CRP30\PDATA1650090WORTHFORIWP\DrahICHECKLST. WPD
me uenerai Tian land use designations or the man area. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify
thresholds of signific•,nce for construction emissions. BAAQMP's approach to CEQA analyses
of construction imp. is to emphasize implementation of effe e and comprehensive control
measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions.
To reduce potentially significant'PM10 impacts related to any future grading and demolition
activities in the Plan area, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure 5: Future development projects in the Plan area shall implement the
following "Basic Control Measures" that would result in a less than
significant PMIO impact.
❖ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
❖ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials
or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
❖ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non -toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
After implementation of the t MP), future projects in the PIan area would not cause a violation of
ozone, PM10 or any other State or federal Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS) during
construction and/or demolition.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines (April 1996) state
that cumulative air quality impacts would not result if a specific plan is consistent with the most
recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP), which is the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan prepared by the
BAAQMD and adopted December 17, 1997. Plan noncompliance with the provisions of the 1997
TCMs would be considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. As
described in Item III.b, above, following implementation of mitigation measures 3 and 4, the
proposed Plan would be consistent with the CAP, and less than significant long term air quality
impacts would result.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The San Francisco Bay Area is a State nonattainment area for ozone (03), and fine particulate
matter (PM10 ). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines
(April 1996) state that cumulative air quality impacts would not result if a specific plan is consistent
with the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP), which is the Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-12 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:IGRP3o\PDATA1650090\NORTHFORIWPIDraft\CHECKLST.WPD
ill lcucx Love [pigeon] (Lolumba livial. Mammals which commonly occur within these developed
habitats are generally restricted to introduced species such as the house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway
rat (Rattus norvegicus), and gestic dogs and cats. No watercourses o. aociated habitat are located in
the Plan area. No Special Status Species are known to occur in the Plan area.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
NO IMPACT. According to the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) 1999
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Robust S ineflower'(Chorizanthe robusta
var robusta) ;a-Federalj listed endangered speciesexists in.. a,one mileLran,centered more than
'one mile southwest of the Plan area The Robust Spineflower is considered very threatened in the
state of California. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) considers this plant rare or
endangered in California and elsewhere. However, as this plant does not occur in the Plan area
it would not be impacted by the Plan. Less than significant impacts on this species would result.
According to the CDFG, the Plan area is located approximately 1'.25 miles northeast of the center
of a one mile range of the Hairless Popcorn_ flower (Plagiobothrys glaber). However, the
California Native Plant Society considers this species extinct. As this species has not been
identified in the Plan area, and may in fact be extinct, no impacts would occur.
The Western Pond Turtle (Clernmys marmorata) exists in a 0.4 mile range, centered approximately
—bne mile`sou east of the Plan area. Although this is both a federal and state Species of Special
Concern, its population is considered stable. The species is protected, as its population is
considered threatened. The range of the Western Pond Turtle identified by the CNDDB does not
include the Plan area. Therefore no impacts on this species would occur as a result of the project.
As described above, the Plan would not affect any Special Status Species, and no impacts would
result.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
NO IMPACT. Based on reconnaissance of the Plan area conducted by RBF staff on July 29,
1999, the PIan area includes no creeks or drainages that would be considered Waters of the United
States, and contains no apparent riparian or wetland habitat. Due to the exclusive presence of
developed and ruderal habitat in the Plan area, the proposed Plan would not affect any sensitive
natural community identified in local, regional, state and federal regulations related to riparian
habitat and other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by CDFG, USFWS or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Therefore, no
impacts related to sensitive natural communities would result from implementation of the proposed
Specific Plan.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-14 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDA'rA\6500901NORTHFORIWP1DmftICHECKLST.WPD
d)
Plan area. No such records were identified, and due to the distance between the Plan area and
water sources and 'lsides where cultural resources are t; ally found, the possibility of,
identifying previously unidentified prehistoric or historic cultural resources during implementation
of the Specific Plan would be low. The existing barn structure located in the Plan area is currently
in dim isre�airr. and would not be considered an historic resource`. Nevertheless, the Plan includes an
urban design planning guideline to "Preserve tne old red barn'` and other culturauy fsignij}cantt:
buildings as a way of linking the site's heritage with the new development." Therefore, this impact
would be considered less than significant
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Refer to the response to Item V.a., above.
Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Refer to the response to Item V.a., above. No unique
geologic features are located in the Plan area.
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The PIan area is not located -in the vicinity of a formal cemetery and no human remains are known
to occur in the Plan area. However, grading activities associated with future projects proposed in
the Plan area could potentially disturb previously unidentified locations of human remains. The
following mitigation measure will reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level:
Mitigation Measure 8: In the event of the incidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following
steps will be taken:
(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site
or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent
human remains until:
(A) The County Coroner of the county in which the remains
are discovered must be contacted to determine that no
investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) If the County Coroner determines the remains to be
Native American:
1. The County Coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. .
2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall
identify the person or persons it believes to be most
likely descended from the deceased Native American.
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-17 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIWP1Draft1CHECKLST. WPD
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The Plan area is located within close proximity to the
San Andreas fault, as well as several other faults that are considered less threatening to the Plan
area. The fault segments of the San Andreas that are closest to the Town of Los Gatos are the
Santa Cruz Mountains segment, and the Peninsula segment. Based on the estimated recurrence
intervals for the PPnLnsizla . gignap t the risk of an earthquake occurring in the next 50 to 100 years
is moderate to high:) The recurrence intervals estimated for the Santa Cruz Mountains fault
segment suggest at the risk of a large magnitude earthquake occurring on this segment in the next
50 to 100 years is low. There are no faults that trend directly through the Plan area. Additionally,
all but the southernmost portion of the Plan area is in a region of low fault rupture potential,
characterized by no evidence of widespread coseismic ground deformation. Given the Iocal
geologic conditions surrounding the Plan area, the proposed Specific PIan will not expose people
to any greater risks involving earthquake faults would other projects located in a geologically
similar setting. Therefore, potential Plan impacts related to rupture of an earthquake fault would
be considered less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The Plan area may experience intense seismic ground shaking during the next major earthquake
on the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Monte Vista or other regional fault systems. The
severity of seismic shaking at any given location, depends upon the distance from the earthquake
source and the size of the earthquake. Therefore, the San Andreas fault, which is associated with
the largest potential earthquakes in the area, and the Shannon -Monte Vista fault, which trends
directly through the Town would be the two faults most likely to produce intense seismic ground
shaking in the Plan area. The type of earthen materials underlying a site and the site topography
can have a profound impact on the severity of seismic ground shaking. The Plan area is located
in an area with the potential for rgqge,e, seismic shaking. Given the geologic conditions
surrounding the Plan area, the proposed Specific Plan would not expose people to any greater risks
involving seismic ground shaking than would other projects located in a geologically similar
setting. Nevertheless, the threat to structures and people posed by seismic ground shaking in the
vicinity would be considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. The
following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts related to seismic ground
shaking to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure 9:
Future individual projects in the Plan area shall adhere to the seismic
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Possible differences
in ground acceleration across the Plan area shall be identified and
accounted for in the foundation design of future structures in the Plan
area. Earthquake -resistant design of non-structural facilities and
installed equipment shall also be evaluated and implemented as
appropriate.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-19 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\GRP301PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\WPTraft1CHECKLST.WPD
anchors, tie downs, and/or hinge connectors to ensure structural
stability in future project design an( nstruction.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The Pleasanton gravelly loam soils in the Plan area are characterized by moderate_ shrink -swell. „
potential. Expansive soils can cause damage to buildings and paved areas. Soils with expansive
potential have clay minerals which expand when wet and shrink when dried. This expansion can
cause seasonal uplifting of foundations and roads which results in cracking. This would be
considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. The following
mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts related to expansive soil to a less than
significant level:
Mitigation Measure 11: Prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit, a qualified
geotechnical and/or soils engineer shall conduct a site -specific
determination of the expansion potential for any clayey materials,
utilizing the ASTMD- 4829, Standard Test Method for the Expansion
Index of Soils. The determination shall identify the locations of soil
areas of high potential for expansion. Site preparation activities shall
incorporate mitigation measures, as appropriate, such as pre -saturation
of soils that support concrete slabs -on -grade, removal of fill material in
areas proposed to support structures, chemical treatment of soils (e.g.,
with lime) to prevent soil expansion and/or implementation of deep
structural foundation systems which penetrate through clayey soils. In
addition, structural mitigation measures for future site -specific projects
shall be implemented as appropriate and may include incorporation of
wall bracing, mudsill anchors, tie downs, and/or hinge connectors to
ensure structural stability in future project design and construction.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
waste water?
NO IMPACT. The Pleasanton gravelly loam soils in the Plan area are characterized by severe
limitations for septic tank filter fields due to moderately slow permeability. However, future
individual projects in the Plan area would require connections to existing sanitary sewer facilities
adjacent to the Plan area, and would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would result.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (VII.a-h)
Background Setting
The State of California defines a hazardous material as a substance that is toxic, ignitable or flammable,
or reactive and/or corrosive. The Town of Los Gatos handles a very small amount of hazardous materials.
As of Summer 1998, there were 156 active Hazardous Materials permits within the Town, andµzero active
permits for acutely Hazardous Materials The Hazardous Materials Emergency Response `Team for Santa
Clara • County` 'operates out of the Seven Springs Fire Station in Cupertino. This station is located
approximately 5 miles away from the proposed Plan area. Engines from the fire stations located within
the Town would also respond to the incident (refer to the discussion of Item XIII, below).
Town of Los Gatos • Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-21 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:iGRP301PDATAl6500901NORTHFORIWPIDraft1CHECKLST.WPD
A search of applicable local, regional, state and local hazardous materials records databases for an area
encompassing a one mile radius around the Plan area was performed by VT"TA Information Solutions, Inc.
on June 29, 1999 (refer to A_ zdix A). The hazardous materials databa. earch indicated two hazardous
materials sites within the Plan area. These sites, the B.P. Service Station site and the Caltrans property;.
at 16321 Burton Road, each include one underground storage tank (UST) which contains leaded gas. No
release has been reported at these sites, and the presence of the intact UST is not a threat to the Plan area.
Additional hazardous materials sites are located within 1/8 mile of the Plan area, including five leaking
underground storage tank (LUST) sites, one additional UST site, and two small generator of hazardous
waste sites (GNRTR)." The five LUST sites include: Maximum Wood Life, located at 14814 Los Gatos
Boulevard, and the Geoffroy Property, located at 14814B Los Gatos Boulevard, both of which are located
across Los Gatos Boulevard from the Plan area; Los Gatos Nissan Volvo, located at 15166 Los Gatos
Boulevard; Rotten Robbie #1, located at 15299 Los Gatos Boulevard; and Classic Car Wash, located at
16500 Lark Avenue, across Lark Avenue from the Plan area. The Maximum Wood Life, Geoffroy
Property, Los Gatos Nissan Volvo, and Rotten Robbie LUST sites all involved releases of petroleum
products which affected soil only, and these LUST cases were closed in,October .1991, January 1996,
October 1991, and June 1998, respectively. The Classic Car Wash LUST site involved releases of gasoline
into groundwater on October 22, 1989 and March 26, 1992. Preliminary; site assessment is currently
underway for this site. The two GNRTR sites located ;.within 1/8 mile of the site (i.e., the Northern
California Heart Center site on 2585 Samaritan Drive and the Santa Clara Valley MRI site on 2585
Samaritan Drive) both generate more than 100 kilograms (kg)/month but Less than 1000 kg/month of non -
acutely hazardous waste. Three additional UST sites are located within 1/4 mile of the Plan area. No
additional hazardous materials sites were reported within 1 mile of the Plan area.
al Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The proposed Plan would not involve any transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No
site -specific development applications for parcels within the Plan area have been proposed.
However, uses allowable under the Plan area's General Plan designation of Mixed Use
Commercial may use and/or dispose of common household materials that would be considered
hazardous. This would be considered a potentially significant impact unless mitigation is
incorporated. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts related
to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials associated with future projects in
the Plan area to a level of less than significant:
Mitigation Measure 12: Future site -specific projects proposed in the Plan area shall comply with
all local, regional (e.g., RWQCB, etc.), state (e.g, Cal -OSHA, Cal -
EPA, etc.) and federal (e.g., USEPA Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC], etc.) regulations related to hazardous materials.
Following implementation of this mitigation measure, less than significant impacts related to the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would result from implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The proposed Plan would not involve the possibility of reasonably foreseeable upset or accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No site -specific
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-22 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA16500401NORTHFORIWP1DraftlCHECKLST.WPD
coverage on constituent parcels, and could therefore result in increased runoff. Existing
stormwater drainage facilities Iocated in the right-of-way of roe-lways adjacent to the Plan area,
as well as drainagL .cilities which were installed under the . .ate 17 to accommodate future
development of the Plan area, would be extended to the parcels located in the Plan area. The
expansion of these existing facilities to serve future development in the Plan area, in accordance
with General Plan land use designations, would not result in exceedances of the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems. However, runoff from graded surfaces_ .and, soil„
`accumulations in new driveways and;parking lots would uiz;zease se imentat• ior and-po11utants zn
storm water which ultimateIy,flows, to Los. Qatos Creek: This would be considered a potentially
significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. The following mitigation measure shall be
implemented to reduce impacts related to degradation of water quality to a less than significant
level:
Mitigation Measure I9: 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 PIan 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.).
Following implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed Plan would not result in
substantial degradation of water quality, and less than significant impacts would result.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
Intensified use of currently vacant or underutilized Iand within the Plan area would increase surface
runoff during and after future construction activities. This runoff could adversely affect water
quality. Runoff from graded surfaces and soil accumulations in new driveways and parking lots
would increase sedimentation in storm water. Petroleum derivatives from parked cars and asphalt
would contaminate surface runoff. Landscape maintenance activities would also result in potential
surface water contamination if pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers are used in the Plan
area and are allowed to come in contact with runoff. This would be considered a potentially
significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. The following mitigation measure shall be
implemented to reduce impacts related to degradation of water quality to a less than significant
level:
Mitigation Measure 20: Refer to Mitigation Measure 19.
Following implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed Plan would not result in
substantial degradation of water quality, and less than significant impacts would result.
Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Specific Plan would not involve the construction of housing
structures. In addition, according to the Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Plan maps, the
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-27 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H;\GRP3O\PDATA\6500901NORTHFOR\WP\Draft1CHECKLST.WPD
r�alr area uues nor tie witnm a riooa zone. Therefore, no impacts related to placement of housing
within a 100-year flood hazard area would occur.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
NO IMPACT. There are no waterways in the Plan area. According to the Town of Los Gatos
Safety Element Flood Plan maps, the Plan area does not lie within a flood zone. Therefore, any
future structures placed in the PIan area in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would not
impede or redirect flood flows and no impacts would result.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or Ioss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Plan area does not involve any levees or dams, nor is the Project
area located within the vicinity of any levee or dam. There are no waterways in the Plan area.
According to the Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Plan maps, the Plan area does not lie
within a flood zone. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam and no impacts would result.
j) Would the project be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Project is not in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
There is nb risk of innundation in the Plan area as a result of any such phenomena. Therefore, no
impacts would occur.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING (IX.a-c)
Background Setting
According to the Town of Los Gatos zoning map (updated July 20, 1998) the majority of the Plan area is
designated as Resource Conservation (RC). Single family residential uses (R-1:8) are designated along
Bennett Way and Burton Road, and in several areas along Los Gatos Boulevard. One parcel along Los
Gatos Boulevard is designated Multi -Family Residential 5 to 12 dwelling units (DU)/acre (RM: 5-12). One
parcel in the extreme southeastern portion of the Plan area is designated Restricted Highway Commercial.
The General Plan Land Use map designates the Plan area as Mixed Use Commercial. The Town of Los
Gatos General Plan designates the Plan area as mixed use commercial. Allowable land uses under this
designation include destination retail, neighborhood commercial (limited to a total of 100,000 square feet),
office (limited to a total of 100,000 square feet), entertainment and recreation, restaurants (sit-down only,
no drive -through facilities), lodging, public/civic, and transportation -related uses.
Existing land uses in the Plan area include a single-family unit with a dog boarding kennel, 5 additional
single-family residences, and 2 two-family units along Burton Road, 18 single-family residences along
Bennett Way, 10 sin le family residences, 4 two-family units and 5 strip -commercial lots along Los Gatos
Boulevard, an severa res of existing orchards.
Surrounding Land uses include Route 17 to the west, residential, commercial and office uses to the east
and south, and commercial uses and Route 85 to the north.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-28 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFOR\WP\Draft\CHECKLST.WPD
X. MINERAL RESOURCES (X.a-b)
a) Would the project ...,ult in the loss of availability of a knov,_ _ mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
NO IMPACT. There are no known mineral resources within the Town of Los Gatos. The
proposed Plan would not impact any resources of value to the region or the state. Therefore, no
impacts would occur.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
NO IMPACT. There are no locally -important mineral resource recovery sites located within the
Town of Los Gatos. Therefore, the proposed Plan would result in no impacts to such sites.
XI. NOISE (XI.a-f)
Background Setting
The Town of Los Gatos is characterized as a quiet residential community. No major stationary noise
sources are located within the Town. A City-wide community noise survey was conducted as part of the
ongoing General Plan Update process to characterize the existing noise environment in the Town. Sixteen
noise monitoring locations were selected as representative Town areas. Most noise measurements within
the Town were representative of duieturban .areas. ` Locations with higher noise levels were typically,
subject to vehicle noise on adjacent roadways; The highest noise levels are found on. State Routes 17 and
85, and along Blossom, Hill,Rvad,rLark_Ayenue, Los;Gatos: Boulevard, and W chaster Boulevard ,The'
'Plan area is located directly west of Los Gatos Boulevard, east of State Route 17, north of Lark Avenue,
and south of State Route 85. Existing traffic noise is the primary noise source that affects the Plan area.
The existing noise, measurement taken closest ,to. the Plan .area was taken at Camino,„del .Sol:betweer
National Avenue and Lester ;Lane,approximately:,,1J.8 .rileeast of: the )?1%ae, rLt�oise al this,locat,on
ranged from a muumuu of ,48.7 :dBA to 68:2, •dBA,-=:with an: average,(Leq) oft53.5. dBA. LDN noise
contours by roadway segment were calculated based on 1999 average daily traffic for several roadways
in the Town, including Route 85, Route 17, Lark Avenue, and Los Gatos Boulevard. These calculations
are shown in Table 3. An existing sound wall is located immediately adjacent to and northwest the Plan
area to shield existing uses from excessive noise from the Route 17/Route 85 interchange. ' 4,0‘,,
/n
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of, l t
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of ,
other agencies?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.-f
Construction activities are restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 4'
AM to 7:00 PM on weekends and holidays, per the Town Noise Ordinance. According to the ,.:
Ordinance, noise generation must also be limited to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 4`•
't`'^
feet from the property Iine. Sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the Plan area include
residences located adjacent to the Plan area to the north, east and south of the area, Good
Samaritan Hospital located approximately 1/4 mile east of the area, and the Los Gatos Oaks (..""
Convalescent Home located in the Southbound Route 17 off -ramp to Lark Avenue, approximately
1/4 mile east of the area. The demolition of existing structures in the Plan area, and the use of
backhoes and other machinery during construction of future projects in the Plan area would
temporarily increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. While increases in ambient noise
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-31 Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP3O\PDATA\650090\NORTH FO R\ W P\Draft\CHECKt.ST. W PD
TABLE 3
1999 AVERAGE D, .,Y TRAFFIC AND LDN NOISE CON... -IURS BY ROADWAY
SEGMENT'
- 44,r .e Ya r-.--, •£z&51.
K7r4
' „T( r'1 ! •.,, E �a =.
Is
-F Y c
.r,GONTOURz:.
.. iIIr
N s
'¢V'a' .�5��7`
tf6v
4�=° 0� z
Route 17
(Lark Avenue to Route 85)
120,000
507
235
109"R
Route 85
(Route 17 to Eastern City Limits)
105,000
184 .
100
100
Lark Avenue
(SR 17 Northbound Ramps to Los
Gatos Boulevard)
29,665
.
155
72
< 50
Los Gatos Boulevard (SR 85 Ramps
to Samaritan Drive)
28,955
188
87
<50
Los Gatos Boulevard
(Samaritan Drive to Camino del Sol)
23,760
165
77
<50
Los Gatos Boulevard (Camino del
Sol to Lark Avenue)
24,560
169
78
<50
Excerpted from the Town of Los Gatos General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report (RBF & Associates,
2 The distances are from roadway centerline and do not assume any reductions from noise barriers other than along
sound walls and berms. Where the noise contours extend less than 50 feet (<50 feet) from the roadway centerline,
specific noise modeling would be required to accurately quantify the distance.
]une',1999).
State
site -
levels could be perceived, they would be short-term and infrequent. In addition, future projects
in the Plan area would be required to comply with all provisions of the Town Noise Ordinance.
Therefore, construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant.
According to the Noise Contours maps of the Town of Los Gatos Noise Element of the General
Plan, traffic noise from Route 17, Route 85, and Los Gatos Boulevard would affect the Plan area.
Existing noise levels on the Plan area are estimated to range from 50 to 70 dBA Ldn, with the
highest noise levels generated in the southwestern portion of the area near the Route 17/Lark
Avenue interchange.
Noise criteria that apply to the project are included in the Town of Los Gatos General Plan, which
specifies a maximum long-range community outdoor noise goal of 70 dBA Leq for commercial
land uses. The proposed mixed use commercial development would not be considered a noise
sensitive receptor. While traffic noise levels are projected to extend into the Plan area, the existing
sound wall located northwest of the Plan area would shield the area from excessive traffic noise
from the Route 17/Route 85 interchange.
3?:,,��,,^,,4�
4ra`ffie.generated as a result of build -out of the Plan area would contribute rtoisealong existing
r 4a.dways in the vicinity. Future projects in the Plan area would be'required to undergo additional
environmental and design review as part of the Precise Development Plan process. This additional
review would require future projects to mitigate any noise impacts to a less than significant level.
To ;3 of Los Gatos
; P
" iNorth Forty Specific Plan
Ali, Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-32 Environmental Checklist
H:\G RP3O\PDATA\650090\NORTHFOR\W P1Dnft\CHEC KIST. W PD
a1 vvouia the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Refer to the response to Item Xl.a., above.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
NO IMPACT. The PIan area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
NO IMPACT. The Plan area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, therefore, no
impacts would occur.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING (X12.a-c)
Background Setting
According to the California State Department of Finance (Gage, Timothy B., May 1999), the population
of Santa Clara County increased approximately 2.1 percent between the years 1997 and 1998, from
1,654,800 and 1,689,900. The population of the Town of Los Gatos increased at a lower rate of
approximately 1.3 percent over the same time period, from 29,700 to 30,100. The Los Gatos population
accounted for only 1.78 percent of the total County population in 1998. According to ABAG Projections
`98, Town population is projected to increase at a rate of 0.17 % between the years of 2000 and 2005, from
35,400 to 35,700 individuals (Hing Wong, Regional Planner, ABAG, August 30, 1999).
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed Plan involves approximately 500,000
square feet of commercial mixed use development. No new homes are proposed in the Plan. The
Plan would not be considered growth -inducing, since the Plan area is surrounded by existing
development, and the Plan is considered by the Town to be an infill development. Roads and
utilities proposed to serve the Plan area would not be extended to any contiguous undeveloped
areas, and would not provide additional capacity to serve development beyond that anticipated in
the Specific Plan. The proposed commercial mixed use development would be expected to
generate approximately,.1,1,11Y0ployees and approximately 278 new residents in the County'.
`Tl�ierefote-,-tIie Plan would not induce substantial population growth in the area and less .. an
significant impacts would result.
!Employment estimates are based on the following assumptions for employment -generation by land uses
(Association of Bay Area Governments, 1991). The commercial mixed use development would be expected to
generate one employee for every 450 square feet of development. Therefore, the proposed 500,000-square-foot
commercial mixed use development would be expected to generate approximately 1,111 employees.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-34 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\GRP3o1PDATA\650090WORTHFOR\WP\Draft\CHECKLST.WPD
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replar--nent housing elsewhere?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The PIan area includes 34 single-family residential units
and -6'two=f nits, primarily along Bennett Way and Burton oad. These residential units
would be removed and converted to mixed use commercial development, in accordance with the
existing General Plan land use designation for the Plan area, to accommodate the proposed Plan.
The population and housing effects of conversion of these residential uses to mixed use commercial
land uses was previously analyzed in the March 1993 General Plan Amendment and Preliminary
Redevelopment Plan EIR, which considered the environmental impacts of eliminating 44 dwelling
units in portions of the Town and the creation of approximately 980 housing units elsewhere in the
Town. This previous EIR concluded that the conversion of residential units in the Plan area would
be offset by the creation of a substantially greater number of residential units in the Town,' as part
of the same redevelopment plan, and that impacts related to displacement of existing housing would
be considered ess than significant. Based on this previously prepared EIR analysis, the
displacement of existing housing in the PIan area would result in less than significant impacts.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Refer to the response to Item XII.b, above.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES (XIII.a)
Background Setting
Fire Protection
The Santa Clara County Fire District (SCCFD) provides fire protection service to eight municipalities
within the County of Santa Clara, including Los Gatos, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga, as well as unincorporated areas of the County. Three SCCFD
fire stations are located within the Town of Los Gatos, and include the Los Gatos Station at 306 University
Avenue, the Shannon Station at 16565 Shannon Road and the Winchester Station at 14850 Winchester
Boulevard. Of these stations, the Winchester Station would be located the closest to the Plan area
(approximately th mile from the area). The average response time from the Winchester Station to calls
within the Town of Los Gatos was 4.27 minutes in 1998. Each of the three stations is staffed with a
minimum of one captain, one firefighter, and one firefighter/paramedic; and each station is equipped with
basic rescue apparatus and provides emergency medical services. Three surrounding stations, Redwood
(unincorporated County), San Jose No. 17 (City of San Jose) and Sunny Oaks (City of Campbell), are also
equipped to provide emergency medical services to the Los Gatos area. Additional support for fire related
incidents within the Los Gatos area is available from nearby California Department of Forestry (CDF) fire
stations. In the event of an emergency requiring fire service over an extended period of time, available
engines from nearby core Santa Clara County Fire District stations are moved -up to fill the empty station
of the responding unit in Los Gatos. The "move -up" engine remains in the empty station until the incident
is resolved. The Santa Clara County Fire District maintains an automatic aid agreement with fire
departments of surrounding jurisdictions to provide fire protection service as needed.
The Santa Clara County Fire District responds to a variety of incident calls, including fires, vehicle
accidents, medical related incidents, and hazardous materials emergencies. For the 1997 calendar year,
the Santa Clara Fire District responded to approximately 12,273 calls, of which 2,042 were for incidents
within the Town of Los Gatos. Medical aid related incidents account for approximately half of the total
number of calls for both the Town of Los Gatos and the District as a whole.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-35 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:\GRP30\PDATA\550090\NORTHFOR\WP\Draft\CHECKLST.WPD
Police Protection
Police protection within the- _ own of Los Gatos is provided by the _ .s Gatos/Monte Sereno Police
Department, serving a population base of 31,600 residents. The Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police
Department is separated into two main branches: the Operations Division and Support Services Division.
The Operations Division oversees a Disaster Aid Response Team, the Traffic Bureau, as well as the
morning, day, and evening watches. The Support Services Division is responsible for the Detectives
Bureau, Recreation & Community, and Personnel & Community Services Bureau.
The organization of the Police Department includes an authorized staff of 42 sworn personnel and 31
civilian personnel, plus volunteers. Currently, the Police Department maintains a staff of 42 sworn
personnel, an average of 22.5 civilian personnel, and 148 volunteers. Approximately 66.5 total paid
positions are anticipated for 1999. On average, day and grave yard shift personnel includes three or four
officers and one sergeant. Swing shift personnel varies due to overlap in shifts, ranging from three to ten
officers, and one or two sergeants.
All calls received by the Police Department are categorized into three "priority" rankings, with Priority
One being the highest priority and calling for immediate assignment and dispatch of any available unit.
Response times within the Town vary depending on the priority of the call. The goal response time for
incidents within the Town of Los Gatos is 5 minutes for Priority One calls, 8 minutes for Priority Two,
and 20 minutes for Priority Three. In 1997, average response times for Priority One calls was 4.23
minutes, Priority Two was 7.67 minutes, and Priority Three was 17.77 minutes; each is within the goal
response time for the respective priority category.
Police related incidents are categorized into two types of crimes: Part 1 crimes and Part 2 crimes. Part 1
crimes include homicide, rape, assault, robbery, burglary, theft and grand theft auto. Part 2 crimes include
drunk driving, narcotics charges, weapons charges, forgery/checks, sex offenses, collisions, simple assault,
vandalism, disturbing the peace, drunk in public, other liquor violations, prowling/trespassing, tampering
with a vehicle, and all other felonies and misdemeanors. A majority of the crimes reported within the Los
Gatos area are categorized as Part 2 crimes (69.71 %). However, the crime type with the highest number
and percentage of reported incidents within the Los Gatos area in 1997 was theft (19.81 %), which is
considered a Part 1 crime. Homicide had the lowest number and percentage of reported occurrence in the
Town of Los Gatos (0.03 %).
Schools
Portions of the Plan area are located in the Cambrian Elementary School District (CESD), Campbell Union
High School District (CUHSD), Los Gatos Union School District (LGUSD) and the Los Gatos/Saratoga
High School District (LGSHSD). The LGUSD is currently operating at approximately 92 % of full
capacity. LGSHSD schools are also nearing full capacity. LGUSD's strategy when a school is near or
beyond capacity is to add portable classrooms and to eliminate all resource classrooms. LGSHSD's
strategy when a school is near or beyond capacity is to construct new facilities, and possibly use portables.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-36 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA1650090WORTHFOR\WP\Draft1CHECKLST.WPD
Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities
Existing pedestrian and facilities are provided along Lark Avewiz and Los Gatos Boulevard.
Sidewalks are located along the edges of most streets in the vicinity of the proposed project site.
Crosswalks are also provided at most major intersections.
Bike lanes are not currently provided along Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark Avenue or Samaritan Drive, in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. A bike route is provided along National Boulevard between Los
Gatos -Almaden Road and Los Gatos Boulevard, that would provide access to the project site. Future bike
lanes are proposed for Los Gatos Boulevard along adjacent to the project site in the Town General Plan.
Transit Service
Current transit service to the proposed project site is limited to buses. The existing Route 38 is a local
service that passes the proposed project site along Winchester Boulevard, Lark Avenue, Los Gatos
Boulevard and Samaritan Drive. The existing Route 62 extends north from SR-17 along Los Gatos
Boulevard, along the project siteand then tends north along Bascom Avenue into the Cities of Campbell
and San Jose.
Intersection Levels of Service
A total of 36 study intersections were selected for this study. Seventeen of the 36 intersections arelocated
"within the Town of Los Gatos boundaries. The remaining 20 study intersections ocated to the north and
east of the project 'tile "and fat within the jurisdictions of the City of an Jose, City of Campbell, and
unincorporated Santa Clara County. 'Thirteen of th„e'` 19 ;intersections are CMP_ intersection and._ are,
designated below by an asterisk*):
•
•
San Tomas Expressway/Hamilton AvenuciP
San Tomas Expressway/Campbell AvenuO
San Tomas Expressway/Budd Avenue
Winchester Boulevard/Hacienda Avenue
Winchester Boulevard/Knowles Drive
Winchester Boulevard/SR-85 WB Ramps
Winchester Boulevard/SR-85 Eastbound Ramps
Winchester Boulevard/Lark Avenue
Santa Cruz Avenue/Blossom Hill Road
Santa Cruz Avenue/Saratoga-Los Gatos
SR-17 SB Ramps/St Tomas Expressway
SR-17 NB Ramps/St Tomas Expresswae,
SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Avenue
SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Avenue
University Avenue/Blossom Hill Road
University Avenue/Saratoga Avenue -Los Gatos Roa d =!=
Bascom Avenue/Curtner Avenue
Bascom Avenue/Camden Avenue
Bascom Avenue/Woodard Road
Bascom Avenue/White Oak Aven
Bascom Avenue/SR-85 NB saLl
Los Gatos Boulevard -Bascom Avenue/SR-85 SB Ramp.
Los Gatos Boulevard -Bascom Avenue/Samaritan Driv)
Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue
Los Gatos Boulevard/Los Gatos -Almaden Road
9
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-40 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFOR\WP\Draft\CHECKLST.WPD
• Los Gatos Boulevard/Blossom Hill Road
• Los Gatos B ward/Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
• SR-85 EB Ramps/Samaritan Drive
• Union Avenue/Curtner Avenue
• Union Avenue/Camden Avenue
• Union Avenue/Charmeran Avenue
• Union Avenue/Cole Drive
• Union Avenue/SR-85 NB Ramps
• Union Avenue/Samaritan-SR-85 SB Ramps
• Union Avenue/Los Gatos -Almaden Road
• Union Avenue/Blossom Hill Road
Based on local and CMP guidelines for acceptable LOS, all study intersections are operating at an
acceptable LOS in the a.m. peak hour. In the p,m. peak_ hour seven of—the..3..6_ study —intersections, -are
forecast to operate at an unacceptable,.,,.1-QS,Si3O_E for local intersections-anci�j�Q � Rf9 zCIyIP_,
mtersectio_s).,, whichanclusle; .,..,
• San Tomas Expressway/Hamilton Avenue* (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• San Tomas Expressway/Campbell Avenue* (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• Winchester Boulevard/Knowles Drive (LOS E - p.m. peak)
• SR-17 SB Ramps/San Tomas Expressway* (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Avenue (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Avenue (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• Union Avenue/Blossom Hill Road (LOS F - p.m. peak) L
Refer to Table 4 for a summary of existing levels of service on the study intersections.
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
The background conditions scenario forecasts the intersection operations for the existing traffic
volumes plus volumes associated with approved, but not yet built projects in the Town of Los
Gatos and the Cities of San Jose and Campbell as of September 1, 1999. The approved trips for
background conditions are summarized in Table 5. Since the approved projects have not yet been
built, the volumes are not included in the existing intersection volumes. The approved projects are
forecast to be complete prior to the opening of the proposed project, which will result in an
increase in intersection volumes. The existing plus approved project analysis forecasts the
operating conditions of the intersections prior to opening of projects within the Plan area.
Based on peak hour intersection performance criteria for deficient intersections (LOS F for CMP
intersections and LOS E or worse for non-CMP intersections), all study intersections are forecast
to operate at an acceptable LOS in the a.m. peak hour (refer to Table 6). In the p.m. peak hour,
seven of the 36 intersections are forecast to operate deficiently. The following intersections are
forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour:
• San Tomas Expressway/Hamilton Avenue* (LOS F - p.m. peak hour)
• San Tomas Expressway/Campbell Avenue* (LOS F - p.m. peak hour)
• Winchester Boulevard/Knowles Drive (LOS E - p.m. peak hour)
• SR-17 SB Ramps/San Tomas Expressway* (LOS F - p.m. peak hour)
• SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Avenue (LOS F - p.m. peak hour)
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-41 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP30\PDATA16500901NORTHFOR\WP\Draft\CHECKLST.WPD
TABLE 4
EX 'U G CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SER ;E
Intersection
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
San Tomas Expwy/Hamilton Ave *
53.2
E
63.9
lw'
Tomas Expwy/Campbell Ave *
106.0
E
91.7
..,San
San Tomas Expwy/Budd Ave
12.1
B
11.2
B
Winchester Blvd/Hacienda Ave
14.6
B
16,1
C
Winchester Blvd/Knowles Dr
27.2
D
41.0
E
Winchester Blvd/SR-85 WB Ramps
5.7
B
5.4
B
Winchester Blvd/SR-85 EB Ramps
9.4
B
7.4
B
Winchester Blvd/Lark Ave
38.6
D
22.0
C
Santa Cruz Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
18.8
C
18.5
C
Winchester -Santa Cruz/Saratoga-Los Gatos
32.5
D
32.1
D
SR-17 SB Ramps/St Tomas Expwy *
35.4
D
71.0CID
SR-17 NB Ramps/St Tomas Expwy *
43.9
D
32.3
D
SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Ave
21.8
C
64.6
SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Ave
10.7
B
95.9
University Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
16.9
C
17.4
C
University Ave/Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd *
24.4
C
29.5
D
Bascom Ave/Curtner Ave *
18.2
C
16.5
C
Bascom Ave/Camden Ave *
44.0
E
39.7
D
Bascom Ave/Woodard Rd
10.0
B
10.0
B
Bascom Ave/White Oak Ave
24.6
C
22.6
C
Bascom Ave/SR-85 NB Ramps *
12.8
B
12.6
B
Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/SR-85 SB Ramps *
19.7
C
23.8
C
Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/Samaritan Dr *
24.5
C
28.1
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Lark Ave *
26.9
D
34.6
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos -Almaden Rd
16.3
C
19.1
C
Los Gatos Blvd/Blossom Hill Rd
23.1
C
26.3
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd *
22.6
C
20.9
C
SR-85 EB Ramps/Samaritan Dr
10.7
B
11.7
B
Union Ave/Curtner Ave
20.5
C
20.5
C
Union Ave/Camden Ave *
33.7
D
38.0
D
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-42 Environmental Checklist
H:\G RP301PDATA16500901NORTHFOR\WP\Dnft1CHECKLST, WPD
TABLE 4
EX.._ LING CONDITIONS LEVEL OF SER . ACE
Intersection
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Union Ave/Charmeran Ave
16.0
C
14.4
B
Union Ave/Cole Dr
11.7
B
11.6
B
Union Ave/SR-85 NB Ramps
10.5
B
12.1
B
Union Ave/Samaritan-SR-85 SB Ramps
14.5
B
14.6
B
Union Ave/Los Gatos -Almaden Rd
29.3
D
30.9
D
Union Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
12.6
B
116.5
Notes:
- Asterisk (*) denotes CMP Intersection
- Bold indicates intersections operating at a deficient LOS (LOS F for CMP, LOS E for non-CMP)
• SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Avenue (LOS F - p.m. peak hour)
• Union Avenue/Blossom Hill Road (LOS F - p.m. peak hour)
It should be noted that the addition of the approved project volumes do not result in a change in
operating conditions from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS at any of the study
intersections.
Therefore, seven study intersections are forecast to operate deficiently in the p.m. peak hour prior
the addition of the North Forty Specific Plan project -generated trips.
As shown in Table 7, 18,062 trips per day are forecast to be generated by the North Forty Specific
Plan project, which includes 923 a.m. peak hour trips and 1,759 p.m: peak hour trips. Note that
the p.m. peak hour project -generated trips are forecast to be twice that of the a.m. peak hour
project -generated trips. The primary reason for the difference in peak hour project -generated trips
is the inclusion of the movie theater land use, which is not forecast to generate trips in the a.m.
peak and is forecast to generate approximately 700 trips in the p.m. peak hour.,.
The ITE trip generation rates used for the project site assume that trips made to the site are for
each separate on -site land use and are totally unrelated to other on -site land uses. As such, they
do not account for trips that are likely to occur within the project site. It is reasonable to assume
that the number of trips entering the project site can be reduced to account for such internal trips.
For example, some of the restaurant generated trips will already be on -site, generated by the on -
site office or theater uses.
Additionally, the project site will be visible from two major freeways passing through the Town
of Los Gatos (SR-85 and SR-17). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a percent of the
generated trips will be a result of pass -by trips, or trips already on the roadway circulation system
surrounding the project site (refer to Table 8).
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-43 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA\65o09D1NORTHFORIWP1Draft1CHECKLST.WPD
• TABLE 6
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
San Tomas ExpwyfHamilton Ave *
53,2
E
63.9
San Tomas Expwy/Campbell Ave *
106.0
E
91.7
San Tomas Expwy/Budd Ave
12.1
B
11.2
B
Winchester Blvd/Hacienda Ave
14.6
B
16.1
C
Winchester Blvd/Knowles Dr
27.2
D
41.0
E
Winchester Blvd/SR-85 WB Ramps
5.7
B
5.4
B
Winchester Blvd/SR-85 EB Ramps
9.4
B
7.3
B
Winchester Blvd/Lark Ave
38.8
D
22.1
C
Santa Cruz Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
18.9
C
19.1
C
Winchester -Santa Cruz/Saratoga-Los Gatos
33.0 0
D
32.6
D
SR-17 SB Ramps/St Tomas Expwy *
35.7 CO
D
74.7
SR-17 NB Ramps/St Tomas Expwy *
44.9
D
33.3
E
SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Ave
21.8
C
65.3 0
SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Ave
10.7
B
lig,* 95.4
('"DUniversity
Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
17.1 6
C
17.7
C
University Ave/Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd *
25.1 0
D
32.9
D
Bascom Ave/Curtner Ave *
18.2
C
16.5
C
Bascom Ave/Camden Ave *
44.6 670
E
39.9
D
Bascom Ave/Woodard Rd
10.0
B
9.9
B
Bascom Ave/White Oak Ave
24.6
C
22.6
C
Bascom Ave/SR-85 NB Ramps *
12.8
B '
12.6
B
Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/SR-85 SB Ramps *
19.7
C
23.8
C
Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/Samaritan Dr *
24.6 '
C
28.1
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Lark Ave *
27.4 .
D
36.1
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos -Almaden Rd
16.3
C
19.4
C
Los Gatos Blvd/Blossom Hill Rd
23.1
C
26.4
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd *
22.7 el
C
20.9
C
SR-85 EB Ramps/Samaritan Dr
10.7
B
11.7
B
Union Ave/Curtner Ave
20.8 .
C
20.8
C
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-45 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP301PDATA1650090W ORTHFORIWP1Draf1CHECKLST. WPD
TABLE 6
BACK .OUND CONDITIONS LEVELS OF L .VICE
Intersection
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Union Ave/Camden Ave *
34.10
D
39.3 0
D
Union Ave/Charmeran Ave
16.0
C
14.4
B
Union Ave/Cole Dr
11.7
B
11.6
B
Union Ave/SR-85 NB Ramps
10.5
B
12.2'
B
Union Ave/Samaritan-SR-85 SB Ramps
14.7 ' ;
B
14.6
B
Union Ave/Los Gatos -Almaden Rd .
29.5 eJ
D
31.8 0
D
Union Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
12.7 V
B
127.9
Notes:
- Asterisk (*) denotes CMP Intersection :,-"""—:',,,,,
- Bold indicates intersections operating at a deficient LOS (LOS F CMP LOS E for non-CMP)
TABLE 7
FORECAST PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
AM Peak
PM Peak
Total
Inbound
Outbound
Total
Inbound
Outbound
ADT
Horne Furnishings
(90,000 sqft)
15
11
5
41
18
23
455
Building Materials
(60,000 sqft)
158
106
52
242
114
128
2,383
Grocery / Drugs
(10,000 sqft)
33
20
13
115
59
56
1,115
Specialty Retail
(:;0,000 sqft)
321
154
167
247
141
106
2,034
Restaurant
(35,000 sqft)
324
169
156
380
228
152
4,562
Movie Theater
(60,000 sqft)
0
0
0
658
329
329
6,580
General Office
(10,000 sqft)
16
14
3
15
3
12
110
Hotel
(100 rooms)
56
34
22
61
32
29
823
TOTAL
923
508
418
1,759
924
835
18,062
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-46 Environmental Checklist
H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORlWP\Draft1CHECKLST. WPD
The project conditions were calculated using the background conditions plus the adjusted
project -gene- `ed turning movement volumes and the sting intersection geometries.
Prior to add,. the adjusted project -generated volumes to ule background conditions, two
of the 36 study intersections were forecast to operate deficiently in the p.m. peak hour.
Table 9 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis for each of the 36 study intersections
for the project conditions. As shown in the table, one study intersection is forecast to
operate deficiently in the a e our,..an e„ffore_castto o erate deficient) m
"the p..m peak hour. ',The following intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS:
• St. Tomas Expressway/Hamilton Avenue* (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• St. Tomas Expressway/Campbell Avenue* (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• Winchester Boulevard/Knowles Drive (LOS E - p.m. peak)
• ste ,Boulevard/Lq eixenue....(, OS E - a.m. ea/s)
• SR-17 SB Ramps/St. Tomas Expressway* (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Avenue (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Avenue (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• Los Gatos Boulevard -Bascom Avenue/Samaritan (LOS F - p.m. peak)
• Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue (LOS F - pan. peak)
• Union Avenue/Blossom Hill Road (LOS F - p.m. peak)
rThe addition of project -generated trips to the background conditions resulted in a change
• in LOS from acceptable to unacceptable at one location in the a.m. peak hour (Winchester
Boulevard/Lark Avenue) and two locations in the p.m. peak hour (Los Gatos Boulevard -
Bascom Avenue/Samaritan Drive and Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue), as shown in
italics in the preceding list.
In addition to evaluating the significant impacts for intersections currently operating at an
acceptable LOS, deficient intersection thresholds of significance were used to determine
if the project significantly impacted study intersections currently operating at a deficient
LOS. According to deficient intersection thresholds of significance, both of the following
criteria must be met for the intersection to be significantly impacted by the proposed
project:
1. The addition of project traffic increases the average stopped delay for critical
movements by four seconds or more, and
2. The project traffic increases the V/C value by 0.01 or more.
ctssignalized intersections22Lid locally -b"gant y, mpacct d by the p p ledpro ect
• Winchester Boulevard/Lark Avenue
• SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Avenue
• SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Avenue
• Los Gatos Boulevard -Bascom Avenue/Samaritan Drive'°
• Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue
• Union Avenue/Blossom Hill Road
•
fjv
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
4-48
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP301PDATA165009o1NORTHFOR\W P1Draft\CHECKLST. WPD
TABLE 9
I )JECT CONDITIONS LEVELS OF S. VICE
Intersection
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
San Tomas Expwy/Hamilton Ave *
53.2
E
74.5
0
San Tomas Expwy/Campbell Ave *
106.0
E
9
112.4 ''
San Tomas Expwy/Budd Ave
12.1
B
11.1
B
Winchester Blvd/Hacienda Ave
14.8
B
16.3 /
C
Winchester Blvd/Knowles Dr
27.3
D
44.9 $
E
Winchester Blvd/SR-85 WB Ramps
5.8
B
5.4
B
Winchester Blvd/SR-85 EB Ramps
9.4 f
B
7.3
B
Winchester Blvd/Lark Ave
47.0
E
25.9 0
D .
Santa Cruz Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
19.3
C
21.5 d
C •
Winchester -Santa Cruz/Saratoga-Los Gatos
33.3
D
32.9 if
D
SR-17 SB Ramps/St Tomas Expwy *
35.7
D
76.2 a
,A0
SR-17 NB Ramps/St Tomas Expwy *
45.4
D
33.4 `'
E
SR-17 SB Ramps/Lark Ave
22.3
C
wail
69
SR-17 NB Ramps/Lark Ave
10.9
B
137.
er
University Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
17.1
C
17.9 IA
C
University Ave/Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd *
25.1
D
33.8 e
D
Bascom Ave/Curtner Ave *
18.2
C
16.4
C
Bascom Ave/Camden Ave *
45.0
E
40.8 '
' E
Bascom Ave/Woodard Rd
10.1
B
10.2 "
B
Bascom Ave/White Oak Ave
24.6
C
22.5
C
Bascom Ave/SR-85 NB Ramps *
12.9
B
12.8 'd
B
Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/SR-85 SB Ramps *
20.3
C
24.8 z,
C
Los Gatos -Bascom Ave/Samaritan Dr *
39.8,.
D
A.112A, t?,
(if" ,
Los Gatos Blvd/Lark Ave *
41.7
V E
77.1 `L,
19.5 :
0 A.
C
Los Gatos Blvd/Los Gatos -Almaden Rd
16.3
C
Los Gatos Blvd/Blossom Hill Rd
24.0
C
27.8 ,,.
D
Los Gatos Blvd/Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd *
23.3
C
22.0
C
SR-85 EB Ramps/Samaritan Dr
10.7
B
11.5
B
Union Ave/Curtner Ave
20.8
C
21.1
C
Union Ave/Camden Ave *
34.2
D
39.8
D
Town of Los Gatos
North Forty Specific Plan
Expanded Initial Study
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
4-49 Environmental Checklist
H:\GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIW P\Draft\CHECKLST. WPD
TABLE 9
PRO,' ",T CONDITIONS LEVELS OF SERV
Intersection
A.M. Peak
P.M. Peak
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Union Ave/Charmeran Ave
16.0
C
14.642
B
Union Ave/Cole Dr
11.7
B
11.5
B
Union Ave/SR-85 NB Ramps
10.5
B
12.2
B
Union Ave/Samaritan-SR-85 SB Ramps
15.3
B
15.60
' C
Union Ave/Los Gatos -Almaden Rd
29.8
D
35.2 0
D
Union Ave/Blossom Hill Rd
12.9
B
143.6
.,f.. )
Notes:
- Asterisk (*) denotes CMP Intersection
- Bold indicates intersections operating at a deficient LOS (LOS F for CMP, LOS E for non-CMP)
Santa Clara County VTA CMP guidelines require that mitigation measures be identified for each
of the significantly impacted intersections. Table 10 summarizes the proposed mitigation measures
for each of the significantly impacted intersections. tAs shown, all of the proposed mitigation
measures improve the intersection LOS rto a level better conditions It is
reco tl`d dat the No pr.typrolect contribute 4,1ai re`portion of the proposd
mitigation measures p� 1 ; ,0.J I " 614-- /
r kx a 1:
Following implementation of these mitigation measure, the proposed Plan would not result in an
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system, and less than significant impacts would result.
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
Refer to Item XV.a, above.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
NO IMPACT. The airport closest to the Town of Los Gatos is the San Jose International Airport,
which is Located approximately 11 miles north of the Town. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan
would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, and no such impacts would occur as a result of
Plan implementation.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
NO IMPACT. The proposed Specific Plan does not involve any design features which would be
considered dangerous. The land uses designated in the Plan area would be compatible with
surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed Plan would not substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature or incompatible use, and no impacts would result.
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-50 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA1650090WORTHFORIWP\Draft1CHECKLST.WPD
TABLE 10
PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES - P.M. PEAK HOUR
Impact
Mitigated?
w
>.
w
w
>4
w
w
>-
Mitigated Project
Conditions
Delay I LOS
y
o
a
0
.- .
V1
00
00
en _ ...
.1-v.,y
..
V1
�t
.-.
Proposed Mitigation
Measures
Add southbound right
turn overlap phase
Add westbound right
firm lane
6> 0
1..,+�
a" a)
a c
G s0 .1
� a.�
.4 c
N '
f 3 o
X,' `..l'.
E. E .
......
L f
LF
a a
.--
I 1
W raj^
m LE 'L3
C u0i
o oD
.0 0. •y
°E.) .c
•y yy0 CI.
•o. a. n.
•'• Increase signal
cycle from 100
seconds to 120 seconds
Add eastbound right
turn overlap phase
/Add eastbound through
lane•
Project Conditions
LOS
44
fr.,
Fx,
Lt1
Lx,
N
O
.-i
coo
o0
p
v
N
.-.
CO
co,
d
....,
.--:
.--,
S'
d
A
'a.
,0
N
M
a,
....
b
en
`r
Background Conditions
a
Mitigation Union Ave/ 127.9 1.094 F
Measure 28 Blossom Hill Rd
U
ON
o
0
0
co
0
as
-a
A-•
en
v1 :. '�.
h
o', .
r
Da;
N
146
en
Intersection
SR-17 SB Ramps/
Lark Ave b:
SR-17 NB Ramps/
Lark Ave
G
0
Uyt�
m
1,9 Q
VI 0 i
c0 •
0a
0 0
cn
Los Gatos Blvd/
Lark Ave *
Mitigation
Reference
Number
Mitigation
Measure 24
Mitigation
Measure 25
%.0
C N
o y
'a:. 1-.
ca
DI
t—
C N
O y
.t ...
9 n
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansie 1 existing facilities, the construction of ich could cause significant
environmental effects.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Implementation of the proposed Plan would require
connections to existing water and wastewater mains located in the right-of-way of roadways (i.e.,
Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Boulevard, Route 85, Route 17) adjacent to the Plan area. In addition,
future individual projects within the Plan area would require the relocation of existing water lines
which traverse the area. The specific locations of these connections, and the specific routes of the
connecting water and sewer lines, were not established in the proposed Specific Plan; but rather
would be established during the subsequent Planned Development Process for individual projects
proposed in the Plan area. During this subsequent review process, individual project applicants
would be required to construct connections to existing water and wastewater facilities in
accordance with the utility demands of future projects. Since the Specific Plan does not directly
involve the construction of new water or wastewater facilities or the expansion of existing facilities,
and since indirect Specific Plan impacts related to construction or expansion of such facilities for
site -specific projects would be evaluated and mitigated, if necessary, during subsequent
environmental and design review, the Plan would result in less than significant impacts.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION IS INCORPORATED.
Natural drainage within the Plan area primarily flows west, toward Route 17. At the,tinie Rqute
1.17 was constructed, drainage facilities were installed under the freeway to accommodate future
p Plan.
- development of the an, area. It is anticipated that new'stormwater drainage facilities would be
- constructed in the Plan area to convey runoff to the existing facilities in Route 17. The ,
construction of future connections to existing stormwater drainage facilities could potentially result
in exceedances of flow capacity in the storm drainage system. This would be considered a
potentially significant impact unless mitigation is incorporated. The following mitigation measure
shall be implemented to reduce impacts related to potential exceedances of storm drain capacity
to a less than significant level:
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.
Following implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed Plan would not result in
exceedances of storm drain capacity. Therefore, less than significant impacts would result.
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Implementation of the proposed Plan would increase
the demand for water from the SJWD. Water demand varies greatly among the allowable uses
in the Plan area under the area's General Plan designation of Mixed Use Commercial. For
example, a restaurant use would require far more water than would an office use. The SJWC does
Town of Los Gatos Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
North Forty Specific Plan 4-58 Environmental Checklist
Expanded Initial Study H:1GRP301PDATA16500901NORTHFORIWP1Draft1CHECKLST.WPD
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
411S. San Francisco Bay Region
Winston H. Hickox
Secretary for
'invironmentai
Protection
Mr. Bud N. Lortz
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Depaitment
110 East Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
Phone (510) 622-2300 • FAX (510) 622-2460
Date: OCT 2 9 1999
File No. 2188.05 (JRW)
RECEIVED
NOV 1 1999
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: North Forty Specific Plan (Los Gatos BIvd, 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
California Environmental Protection Agency
CI' Recycled Paper
2
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
0 Recycled Paper
•
San Francisco Bay Region
Winston H. Hickox Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov
Secretary jar 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
Environmental Phone (510) 622.2300 • FAX (510) 622-2460
Protection
• General Comments
Gray Davis
Governor
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 stormwater 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.
California Environmental Protection Agency
ZS 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 opportunities. 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. Army 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, reporting 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). The 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 determining 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 storm 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 to
nearby storm drains or creeks. Water quality degradation may occur after construction is complete, due
to discharges of petroleum hydrocarbons, oil, grease, and metals from vehicles, pesticides and fertilizers
from landscaping, and bacteria from pets and people. Runoff may be concentrated and storm 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-permittee
with a Municipal Storm 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 protectine storrn 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 Storm Water General Permit
(General Permit). The SWPPP should be consistent with the terns of the General Permit. the Manual of
Standards for Erosion & Sedimentation Control Measures by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(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 NTDES 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 andlor
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, worms.
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.
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
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.
a Store containers of paint, chemicals, solvents, and other hazardous materials stored in containers
under cover during rainy periods.
• Berm 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.
• CIean 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.
• Clean 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 pollutants that may be generated by the project
following construction. when the project is complete and occupied or in operation. These pollutants mav
include: 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 Iisted 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 Ca/iiorniL,
S•, --nr Barer Best Management Practice Handbooks: the Bay Area Preamble to the California Storm
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.
6
I ••..01 I • •- ,-• V�I� 1 J.C. 1 / 0 /
P. 2
Ail"
A N T A C L A R, A
rA ® Valley Transportation 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/MND. 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 Paverne tt Details and Attachment 1 for Figure 26, VTA Bus Stop
Pavement Details Technical Specifications, to help reduce pavement failures.
u;;
,� G fps s
3331 North First Street • San Jose, CA 95134-1906 • Administration 408.321.5555 • Customer Service 408.321.2300
-.e ."� J 1 J I D/ Cl /
P. 3
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 Parking
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 ISIMND 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 can 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.
••��• - . J. J '-' J JG 1 O / O /
P. d
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 acid tensities
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 Bobarlilla of my staff at (408) 321-5776.
Senior Environmental Analyst
RM:LGB:kh
cc: Derek Kantar, VTA Environmental Program Manager
r. 5
BUS STOP
SIGN POLE BENCH
6.
46 PULL,
BOX
BUS STOP.
SIGN POLE
50't
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
BUS STOP AND PASSENGER PAD
WITHOUT SHELTER
5'
i
SEE STUB UP DETAIL
CONDUrr
STUB UP
MODULE (TYP)
L
110NOITLHIC SIDEWALJC AND
PASSENGER PAD
SUS STOP PAVEWENr
> TB U0NOLZTRIC CURB
UONOLTTHZC STDEwALAC. PASSENGER
PAD AND SHELTER PAD
6'
0.5'
40'
FOC
s
50't
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
BUS STOP AND PASSENGER PAD
WITH SHELiti
1' CONDUIT
BUS STOP PAVE BENT
1RIiI MONOLTTEETC CURB
5'
J' CONDUIT
STUB UP
EDGE
2.6'
OF PAD
(6 PULL
BOX
STuEl UP DETAIL
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
BUS STOP CONFIGURATION
FIGURE 20
J
r�-'• `I' . niYML 1JIJ 4YJd .�L1 5/Li/
P. 6
VEHICII D1RECTION
VEHICLE DIRECTION
LESS THAN 20 MPH APPROACH SPEED
CORE AREAS, LOCAL STREETS
4
10'
a l •
50' M1N
T
I50' MIN
10 MPH MERCER
EXISTING FOC
(TYP )
-- NEW FOC
(TYP)
PCC PAVEMENT WITH MONOLITHIC CURB.
FOR DETAILS REFER TO FIGURE 28.
20 TO SO MPH APPROACH SPEED
MAJOR ARTERIALS
VEHICLE DIRECTION
a • d .
10' e • •
4 f
80' MIN
BO' MIN
J00' DESIREABL£ 100' DESIREABLE
30 TO 40 MPH APPROACH SPEED
EXPRESSWAYS
10'
a •, •
4
125' KIN
T
225' MIN
180' DESIREABLE FOR 20 MPH MERCER
PLAN VIEW
NOTE:
T (TANGENT LENGTH) = 55' REQUIRED FOR ONE BUS STOP.
55' * 70' (X-1). WHERE X = 0 OF BUSES
(USE AT MAJOR TRANSFER TERMINAL)
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
TYPICAL BUS DUCKOUT
FIGURE 22
r, /
F.O.C.
LIP/
SIDEWALX
A
C
C
U
'B
B C
U U
C
SAWCUT AND EXCAVATE EXISTING PAVEMENT.
INCLUDING CURB Ze GUTTER. REPLACE WITH
P.C.C. PAVEMENT SECTION AND IaoNOLLTHIC
CURE & CUTTER.
SIDEWALK
9�f4 DOWEL
AT IB' O.C.
(OPTIONAL)
PLAN VIEW
10' - 12' VARIES
MATCH EXISTING CURB & CUTTER -
US£ LOCAL CITY STANDARDS AS REQ'D
0
w
w
•WHEN PAD IS 75' OR LONGER, PLACE EXPANSION JOINT
AT 1/2 THE LENGTH OF THE P.C.C. PAD. IN LONG PADS.
EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED AT APPROXIMATELY
75-FOOT INTERVALS OR AS SPECIFIED BY THE ENGINEER.
INSTALL 3/4" WIDE FIBER FABRIC TO 1/2-
BELOW FINISHED SURFACE. FILL REMAINDER
VITJ1 APPROVED SEALING COMPOUND:
ROUND CORNERS TO 1/1- R.
P.C.C.
ACC. DAZE
8 J /2" CL A P.C.C.
W/POLYPROPYLENE
FIFERS
EXISTING
PAVEMENT
W GLASS 2 ACC
J41 BASE D52
COMPACTION
-------------------------
957E RELATIVE COMPACTIoN
ON NATIVE SOIL
SECTION A -A
CONCRETE PAD W/MONOIJTRIC
CURB le CUTTER
/9 DOWELS-18 LONG SMOOTH
BAR 0 I Ir O.C. LUBRICATE
BOTH ENDS OF DOWEL
xa BARS TO
STABILIZE / 9
DOWELS
f►EM
WANE
.T-,
DOUIE SUPPORTS
SECTION B-B
EXPANSION JOINT
NOTE: FOR TECNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REFER TO ATTACHMENT 1.
If BARS TO
STABIIJZE y 9
DOWELS
P.C.0
AOC. BASE
2- X I/4" WIDE SAWCUT CONTRACTION
JOINT. FILL WITH APPROVED WITH
APPROVED SEALING COMPOUND
M9 DOWELS -LW LONG SMOOTH
BAR in le O.C. LUBRICATE
BOTH ENDS OF DOWEL.
MIMI§
er
a`Lf
DOME SUPPORTS
SECTION C-C
CONTRACTION JOINT
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS
FIGURE 26
4U6 .3G1 n/o/
P. 8
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
1. P.C.C. 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 1/2 lbs/cy.
3. After spreading and compacting, P.C.C. shall be given a preliminary finish which shall be 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 appear. Curing compound shall be
applied at a nominal rate of one gallon per 150 square feet. At any point, the application rate shall be
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
III 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 at 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 - 61J - 01 or
approved equal.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
BUS STOP PAVEMENT DETAILS
ATTACHMENT 1 FOR FIGURE 26
LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
MARY ANN PARK, SUPERINTENDENT
15766 POPPY LANE ■ LOS GATOS a CALIFORNIA ■ 95030 >A TEL: (408) 395-5570 ■ FAX: (408) 395-6481
To:
From:
October 13, 1999
Los Gatos Town Planning Commission
Mary Ann Park, Superintendent
Los Gatos Union School District
Chairperson Nachison and Planning Commission Members,
The students in the Los Gatos Union School District and the citizens of Los Gatos deserve the
very best educational system possible. The District is experiencing severe overcrowding in its
elementary and middle schools. We have very nearly run out of space to house the students who
reside within our school boundaries. The District is currently in the process of planning for
remodeling and renovation of existing school sites which will not add additional classroom space.
Therefore, as the Planning Commission receives input about the development of the area known as
the North 40, the Los Gatos Union School District requests that you consider the following:
Because the North 40 is one of the only open spaces available, the Planning
Commission consider delegating an area within the North 40 as a possible
school site.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission through this letter.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
■ ANDREW FANELU
• DOROTHY ROUSE • THOMAS P. O'DONNELL
• STEVE GUCKMAN ■ STEPHEN PARSONS
VII
0
1 I al Lge=._, .'A 95032VD.
October 22, 1999
(408) 356-8111
WWFAW.X: (4M0008) R56
E
3-7107
VALUE. COM
Bud Lortz RFE
D
Senior Planner 0t, i 2 6 1999
Town of Los Gatos
TOWN OFi OS GATOS
110 E. Main St. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Los Gatos, Ca. 95032
Dear Bud,
On behalf of Auto Dealerships and other retail businesses on Los Gatos
Blvd, I am expressing my concern for one aspect of the "North 40" plan, that
I haven't read or heard any discussion. My concern relates to traffic and the
northern reaches of Los Gatos Blvd, from Lark Ave to Highway 85. As you
know, the 6 lane Blvd reduces to 4 lanes at Lark and then returns to 6 lanes
at Highway 85. I frequently drive this stretch of the boulevard, and find it
congested at most times of the day, certainly the worst during peak commute
hours.
I haven't read of any immediate plans to widen this stretch, but I certainly
hope that the plans exist and that they are executed sooner rather than later.
Since I both live and work in Los Gatos, I have to tolerate this congestion. I
am afraid that our customers who neither live or work in Los Gatos will not,
and will go elsewhere for their purchases and services, avoiding this
constricted thoroughfare. I recall that as a condition of the Town's receiving
an on and off ramp at Bascom and 85, that the State required the Town to
eventually widen this stretch of Los Gatos Blvd. to 6 lanes. Was there any
time limit imposed on this condition?
Sincerely yours,
John Moore
A Vision Statement
Preamble Note to Planning'Commisson: There should be no specific plan passed until the
new General Plan is passed or the current General Plan is amended to comply with a
Specific Plan which is completely acceptable to the outlines of the new General Plan.
Furthermore,the Boulevard Plan currently provides more adequate and updated direction
than the now proposed Specific Plan as created by the Southern California consultants.
The Boulevard Plan, in lieu of anything else, can act as a guideline for the Planning
Commission.
Vision Statement: the North forty should be viewed as a continuation of the town of Los
Gatos with emphasis on the historical base,architecturally and environmentally. The designs
will copy the best of the downtown area and its turn of the century styles. The landscape
designs will broadly retain and integrate the current orchard and its trees into the area.
Building/will sit in the current orchard like setting much like the main library in Saratoga.This will
be best accomplished by encouraging a diverse group of architects and landscapers
sensitive to Los Gatos designs.
The emphasis will be on people, not cars. Density of Ibuilding of any kind must be
based on not increasing traffic flow and congestion. Parking will be primarily underground.
To protect the view of the hills there will be nothing over 35 feet from grade. There will also
be public and civic buildings. The need for a new school has been stated and will fully be
considered for siting in the North Forty. Our community does not need intense retail
development and large retail or wholesale will be excluded from this area. While housing
may be in the plan, it will not be designed as a place for single family dwellings of a large
nature, but for senior citizens, small apartments above stores, and other possible on-c-e
To insure there will be a distinct feeling of entering Los Gatos, there will be a broad
buffer zone landscaped in line with the rural and agricultural history of this small town. To
avoid congestion of traffic circulation, the Los Gatos Boulevard will be kept to three lanes.
Additionally, there will be transit centers providing local shuttles to downtown, Vasona, and
LRT. There will also be stops planned for the Highway 17 express and airport jitneys.
Finally we need to instate locally controlled, long term redevelopment funding to
eliminategl the middle man developer. Let's move sensibly into the 21 st century.
Susan H. Anawalt
17510 Vineland Ave.
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
North Forty generE ` 3lan
Public use: Soccer facility
A need:
The facts: Here is how Los Gatos compares
with other communities
BENICIA
population 30,000
Children in the soccer program: 1,300
number of soccer fields: 9 (6 regulation size)
brand new soccer facility with 6 fields
Funded for most part by the developer (mandated
by the city to donate part of the land and
help build the fields) and in part by park dedication
LOS GATOS
population?
Children in the soccer program: 1,700
number of soccer fields :7 (2 regulation size)
The problems:
The facts : there are not enough fields for all the teams to practice on and play games.
The Los Gatos league has to have practices and games in the Union School district.
Neighbors are threatening to have the city ban early games ( kids are coming in at 7 o'clock for 8 o
'clock games). However , if all the kids are to play, it is necessary to have early games.
Kids are practicing without fields, without goals, without lines. Sometimes 6 teams to a soccer fields.
There would be no time for practice or games should there be more teams. SO far, there is a real drop in
soccer enrollment after age 14. However, it is conceivable that due to an increase in popularity, many of
the now 10 year old will play through high school.
What is needed
3 1/2 acres per field ( 4 acres with parking and rest room facilities)
cost: roughly 1 million dollars per high quality field (sand base so you can play in the winter)
Total of 16 acres
Funding:
Private funds ( corporate sponsorships or endowments)
Deal with the developer
Deal with property owner ( may possibly have tax break for the sale of the rest of the property if donates
Iand or sell below cost )
Bonds?
The fact is Los Gatos does not need more retail.
And with the event of e - commerce, it will be truer in ten years than it is now ( Think about how long it
took to find new tenants for Boston Market space. The space formerly owned by fresh choice is still
vacant.!
A company named The Beals Group consults with municipalities regarding sports facilities and also
designs sports facilities ( currently building a 3 soccer field, publicly funded park in Santa Clara)
Jay Beals
(408) 287 4202
Speak with Jay or Nicole (his publicist )