Loading...
02 Staff Report - Amend Meeting Schedule North Forty Specific PlanDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 6/21/99 ITEM NO, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT June 16, 1999 MAYOR AND TOWN COUN TOWN MANAGER AMEND MEETING SCHEDULE - SCHEDULE JOINT MEETING/WORKSHOP WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE RE: NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Amend the Council Meeting Schedule and set a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and General Plan Committee for Monday, July 26, 1999 from 7:00 - 9:00 PM. BACKGROUND: The North Forty Specific Plan is being prepared by Robert Bein, Willian Frost & Associates (RBF) and is currently in review by the General Plan Committee. The Work Program specifies that upon completion of the Draft Specific Plan, a workshop will be held for presentation of the Plan by the consultant and discussion by the General Plan Committee, Planning Commission and Town Council. The Town Council recently adopted a Meeting Schedule for FY 1999-2000. It was not known at the time of adoption what date a joint workshop would be required. Therefore, it will be necessary to amend the Council's schedule and set a workshop date. DISCUSSION: An Administrative Draft of the Specific Plan has been distributed to the General Plan Committee and is being reviewed by staff. The Draft Specific Plan will be completed in early July. A Joint Workshop held on July 26 will allow the work on the Plan to continue with public hearings and adoption anticipated in early Fall 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Amending the Council's Meeting Schedule is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. FISCAL IMPACT: None PREPARED BY: Paul L. Curtis, Director of Community Development h; Reviewed by: Q' Attorneys. Finance i`�evised: 6/16/99 3:44 PM Reformatted: 10/23/95 1 TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SCHEDULE 1999-2000 FISCAL YEAR July 6 (Tuesday), 1999 July 19, 1999 August 2, 1999 August 16, 199 September 7 (Tuesday), 1999 September 20, 1999 October 4, 1999 October 18, 1999 November 1, 1999 November 15, 1999 December 6, 1999 December 20, 1999 January 3, 2000 January 18 (Tuesday), 2000 January 31, 2000 (6:00p.m.) February 7, 2000 February 21, 2000 February 26, 2000 (Saturday), (8:30 A.M.) March 6, 2000 March 20, 2000 April 3, 2000 April 17, 2000 May 1, 2000 May 15, 2000 May 22 , 2000 (6:00 P.M) June 5, 2000 June 19, 2000 Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Mccting Canceled Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Town Council Study Session (2000-2001 Goals, Strategic Plan) Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Joint Town Council/Redevelopment Agency Workshop/Study Sessions with Commissions/Boards/Committees Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting (Hearing to Consider Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 Community Development Block Grant [CDBG] Funds and Adoption of Resolution Allocating Fiscal Year 2000-2001 CDBG Funds) Regular Council/Agency Meeting (Hearing to Consider 2000-2005 Preliminary Capital Improvement Program) Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting (Adoption of Resolution Approving 2001- 2005 Capital Improvement Program) Council/Agency (Hearing to Consider 2000-2001 Preliminary Operating Budget) Regular Council/Agency Meeting Regular Council/Agency Meeting (Adoption of Resolution Approving 2000- 2001 Operating Budget) All Council Meetings Listed on this Meeting Schedule Are Regular Meetings as Defined in Municipal Code Section 2.20010 (Government Code Section 54954) MGRI52 A:ICNCLRPTSISCHEDULE.TC i Town Council Minutes May 17, 1999 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR/NORTH FORTY DISCUSSION (02.10) JOINT SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION & COUNCIL Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to continue to review the dates for this joint session. At this time at least one councilmember will not be able to attend on the dates which were proposed for the meeting. It was decided to pursue July 20th as an option with August 4th as a backup. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Attaway absent. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hutchins adjourned this evening's meeting at 12:33 a.m. ATTEST: Marian V. Cosgrove Town Clerk TC: D 11: MM062199 14 i Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Morgan is concerned about piles of soil, as recommended by the Town Engineer, washing away. Mr. Curtis explained the engineering process for erosion control that was being recommended by the Town Engineer. Carried unanimously. Commissioners Lyon and Quintana absent. Mr. Korb pointed out that the applicant can request a continuance if he is unable to meet the December 8, 1999 hearing. Chair Nachison declared a recess at 9:20 p.m. Meeting resumed at 9:30 p.m. 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 land 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 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 12 FXHIBIT 1 7 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 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. 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 13 considerably. Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 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 language "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 differentiating design. 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 were not articulated. 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 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 14 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 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 Ianguage 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. Chair Nachison suggested that the document contain a Glossary of terms so the general public could understand the process and terminology. 15 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 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 times 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 should be submitted to staff and these comments will be forwarded to the Consultant for a response. 16 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 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. 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. 17 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 27, 1999 Joanne Talesfore, stated that their vision statement would be leaving a legacy for future generations. Ms. Talesfore 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. CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS Chair Nachison stated that there was no continued other business. NEW OTHER BUSYNESS Hillside Regulations-Interpretations/Definitions (00.05) Dennis Omanoff, 300 Kennedy Road, would like to see a strong emphasis placed on neighborhood compatibility in hillside development. Mr. Omanoff feels that many of the homes do not meet the standards and he would like to see more structures conform to the hillside and be less visible. He reiterated that the neighborhood compatibility issue should outweigh other concerns. Chair Nachison explained that the concern is how hillside development affects the community as a whole. Ms. Nachison referred to the staff report and stated that the question is how broad the Hillside Standards should be. 18 4 Date: October 20, 1999 For Agenda Of: October 27, 1999 Agenda Item: 1 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 being prepared. 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 being prepared for this proposal. EXHIBITS: A.-B. Previously Submitted C. Correspondence from the public RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Recommendation to Town Council for approval A. REMARKS: The attached correspondence was received after the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1999. After reviewing Chapters 1-2 and receiving considerable public input, the Commission continued the review of Chapters 3-4, to its meeting of October 27, 1999. Paul L. Curtis, Director of Community Development Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner PLC:EO:mdc N:\DEV\REPORTS\N4OREP.PC2 Printed by: ? Title: North Forty Monuay, October 18, 1999 10:15:07 AM Page 1 of 2 E-MAIL COMMANDS MESSAGE THREAD UNREAD Saturday, October 16, 1999 10:44:30 AM Message From: 4 Howard Anawalt,h@anawalt.com,Internet-Vval.com Subject: North Forty To: Cc: Townof Los Gatos gjl@shel113,ba.best.com,Internet-Vval.com 31. jrodgers43@aol.com,Internet-Vval.com Kyleg@best.com,Internet-Vval.com 372. sue@anawalt.com,Internet-Vval.com mark@northlosgatos.com,Internet-VvaLcom ' O TOWN OF LOSGATOS Howard C. Anawalt 17510 Vineland Avenue Monte Sereno, CA 95030 (408) 395-0639 October 16, 1999 To the Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Commission 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 By Email to LG_Town_Clerk@Vval.com Re: The North Forty --Amend the General Plan if need be. `''I111999 1OWii GF LOS ;ATO.S PLANNING DEPARTIVf_Pt7- Ladies and Gentlemen: 1n recent months people from the Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and county communities have suggested a variety of interesting and valuable approaches to use of land in the North Forty. These suggestions do not correspond with the commercial juggernaut represented in the current Specific Plan. Please consider the following two points as you proceed with the matter of the North Forty. 1. Do not adopt the current Specific Plan or anything substantially similar to its current substance. The current plan will create an automobile dominated commercial box complex "relieved" by such things as "nodes," "pedestrian allees," (sic), and "view corridors." The plan at numerous places acknowledges that these things are necessary in order to mask the nature of the standard mall like appearance. For example: "Use landscaping and buffering techniques to help screen development and reduce the impact of large structures." (May 1999 draft, page 2-6.) At the October 13 Planning Commission meeting, the testimony Ms. Kyle Lanza demonstrated the emptiness of the current approach. The proposed plan will create a cement box commercial mall or shopping center with ersatz "amenities." In place of that, she and others urge that the town take advantage of the area to create a true community asset. Such an asset will benefit all, including property owners in the North Forty. It makes no sense to adopt a flawed Specific Plan. Furthermore, if the Town adopts a poor Specific Plan, inertia will favor its continuance. Developers will act upon it. A weary Town Council and community will likely follow the course it has suggested. Arguments will emerge that the new General Plan should allow what has been adopted in the Specific Plan. Other communications are providing useful suggestions to you on how to plan the North Forty. This note focuses on getting there. Unlike the punch line of an old mid -western joke --you can get there from here. 2. Take necessary steps, including amending the General Plan. The EXH ce 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; lots 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@maiianawalt.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 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 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 throughout. 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). The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter. 4 EXHIRIT 9 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 Ron Pflugrath, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, 14725 Alton 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 which dictates the circulation and other matters proposed for this particular specific plan has not been publicly reviewed. 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 an outdated General Plan. She stated that times have changed and questioned why the hurry to put the NFSP into effect before the new General Plan is adopted. 5 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 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 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. 6 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 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 of the NFSP through the many Town committees and Staff reviews and reiterated that the Town has been dealing with potential development of the site without having any adopted specific plan for the area. 7 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 Chair Nachison declared a recess at 9:50 p.m. Meeting resumed at 10:00 p.m. Mark Brodsky, 17306 Grosvenor Court, 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. 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 8 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 "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 measures may be addressed in that document. Joanne Talsfore, Hernandez Avenue, Los Gatos, would like 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 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. 9 Los Gatos Planning Commission October 13, 1999 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 Date: October 5. 1999 For Agenda Of: October 13, 1999 Agenda Item: 3 REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: General Plan Committee LOCATION: North Forty Specific Plan 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 Negative Declaration is being prepared. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos FINDINGS: is 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 being prepared for this proposal. EXHIBITS: A. Public Review Draft -September 1999 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Recommendation to Town Council for approval A. BACKGROUND: As part of an update of the General Plan, on May 26, 1999, the Town Council authorized Robert Bein, William Frost, and Associates (RBF) to prepare a specific plan for the comprehensive development of the approximately 40 acre area at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 17 and 85, and bounded by Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. 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. This element was adopted by the Town in 1994 and is predicated on earlier recommendations from the 1991 Commercial Specific Plan Committee Report and a corresponding economic analysis prepared by Economics Research Associates. 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 which were adopted in the Fall of 1997. After Council's authorization to proceed with the preparation of the Specific Plan, 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 these applications, the Planning Commission asked Council for direction regarding the processing of applications received prior to adoption of a Specific Plan. On September 8, 1998, the Council clarified for the Planning Commission that any new development applications in the specific plan area would 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 also directed the consultant to prepare the document "post-haste". RBF completed ti:�HI81T 10 The Planning Commission - Pa 2 North Forty Specific Plan/ND-95 .,008 October 13, 1999 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 draft during this period. Additionally, the Committee amended the introduction section of the 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 (See Exhibit A) to the Planning Commission and Town Council. B. REMARKS: 1. Adoption Process The early consensus of the General Plan Committee after the preparation of the first draft was for the consultant to prepare a regulatory rather than a simple policy/guide type of specific plan as allowed by California Law. Both the earlier Hillside Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan were policy documents adopted by the Town Council by simple resolution. The North Forty Specific Plan is also proposed for adoption by resolution but has more regulatory language and design standards included in its text. Additionally, in instances where the Zoning and the Specific Plan requirements may differ, the Plan will supercede the Zoning Ordinance. Staff did not include a draft resolution with this report because it anticipated the Commission wanting additional time to thoroughly review the document and receive public input. Staff will provide copies to the Planning Commission prior to it forwarding a recommendation to Council. 2. Environmental Reviews A Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for the Specific Plan. The official public review and comment period for the environmental documents is from October 8 through November 9 due to time constraints associated with mandated noticing and comment periods, newspaper deadlines, and the Planning Commission's regular meeting schedule. Staff did not attach a copy of the environmental documents with this report but will provide copies to the Planning Commission prior to it forwarding a recommendation to Council. Paul L. Curtis, Director of Community Development Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner PLC:EO:jd N:1DE1/1REPORTS1N4OREP.PC The Planning Commissior `age 3 North Forty Specific Plan/I\u-99-0008 October 13, 1999 CAMPBELL . r._ SAN i . . JOSE I NORTH FORTY ,_ ti . SPECIFIC PLAN AREA MONTE__ ONTE �` ^ /�/ SERENO • f' L. r.•'1 L1 SANTA iI CLARA rd .' I COUNTY SANTA 1 1 CLARA .._.. J COUNTY VICINITY MAP SPECIFIC PLAN AREA General Plan Committee Minutes Page 2 August 25, 1999 ITEM 2: General Plan Committee North 40 Specific Plan Draft recommendation. Council Member Lubeck moved to recommend approval of the draft and Committee Member Ehlert seconded the motion. Mr. Burke asked staff about the process for a minority opinion report. Mr. Bowman clarified that Committee members at the Planning Commission hearing could speak their views, but would have to announce that these were personal viewpoints and did not reflect the entire General Plan Committee. Ms. Decker expressed a reservation that the review of the document was not thorough enough and that maybe it was too fast. Debbie Tanner, a resident in the North Forty Area, noted that she and Mr. Mintz, Mr. Yuki's representative, have been at hearings/meetings on this issue for over five years and that this process could not be characterized as being "too fast". The Committee unanimously recommend approval of the revised draft document with the revision from past General Plan Committee meetings incorporated into the text (9-0). ITEM 3: General Plan Committee recommendation to study residential use in North 40 Specific Plan area as part of General Plan Update. Council Member Pirzynski noted the evolution of the residential use issue for trth 40 area (i.e. Council's existing directions to staff, General Plan Task Force, General Plan Committee member input, and residents' comments/opinions). He noted that this was an appropriate time to revisit the issue. Committee Member Ehlert reiterated that he is in favor of residential (mixed/multi-use) in the Specific Plan and emphasized that the Plan needs to incorporate the residents/citizens' issues. Mr. Ehlert asked staff how to "expeditiously change the plan to include residential uses". Commissioner Decker asked staff for a time line. Mr. Bowman stated that inclusion of the residential uses in the Specific Plan at this point would require amending the General Plan and would trigger additional environmental reviews and concerns (i.e. school district concerns regarding enrollment and noise impacts to the proposed residential uses) that are not part of the consultant's scope of work and would require amendment of the contract. He further stated that if the Town were to adopt the Specific Plan, and then as part of the General Plan Update process decided to include residential uses in the Specific Plan, the environmental reviews could be conducted as part of the environmental reviews required for the General Plan Update. Mr. Bowman also noted that this would also require amending the consultant's current contract, but would be the "same amount of time" in terms of processing the General Plan Update through the Town's public hearings/amendment process. Mr. Bowman noted that an Administrative Draft of the General Plan should be available by September and that revisions could be incorporated in the public hearings tentatively scheduled for Spring 2000. Committee Member Smith asked about the length of time to amend the North 40 Specific Plan once the General Plan is adopted. Mr. Bowman answered that in theory it could occur in two meetings pending the required environmental reviews (1 Planning Commission and 1 Town Council), but that his experience has been that "nothing is simple in Los Gatos". Mr. Burke asked Ms. Worthington -Forbes to comment on the processing time for the General Plan EIR and updating the North 40 Plan. Commissioner Nachison asked Mr. Bowman to give an overview of why residential was not included in the General Plan policies for this area. Mr. Bowman reiterated the master planing for the entire Route 85 area and the objections from the school districts to more residential uses beyond what was specified in the Route 85 Element of the General Plan. He also noted the Council's reasoning that this area was reasonably isolated because of two major arterial streets (Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue) and two major freeways (Highway 17 and Highway 85). EXHW1 II that the fore at San ose, California Kathy Wri • tson PROOF OF PUBL....iTION (2015.5 C.C.P.) State of California County of Santa Clara I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of 18 years, and not party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the: Los Gatos Weekly -Times, 245 Almendra Avenue, Los Gatos, California, 95031, a newspaper of genera circulation, printed every Wednesday in th City of San Jose, State of California, Count of Santa Clara, and which newspaper ha been adjudged a newspaper of genera circulation by the Superior Court of th County of Santa Clara, State of California Case Number 83631 dated May 27, 1952 tha the notice of which the annexed is a printe copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each regular and entire issue of said Newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wi : alq\ rtqA9) e y S e t d or declare) under penalty of perjury ue and correct. LP95. - 4.ww Ming Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE NORTH FORTY AREA OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS VICINITY MAP SPECIFIC P1AN AREA DATE OF NOTICE: September 20,1999 SUBJECT: North Forty Specific Plan 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 Negative Declaration is being prepared. APPUCANT: Town of Los Gatos LOCATION: Approximately 40 acre area located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State VICINITY MAP Highways 17 and 85, and bounded by Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. AFFECTED PARCELS: Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Numbers: 424-07- 009, -010, -024 thru -027, 031 thru -037, -051 thru - 054,-057,-060,-063thru - 065, -070, -081 thru -095, AND 424-06-047, -08Z - 115, -116, -120 SUMMARY: The Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers of the Los Gatos Civic Center at 110 E. Main Street, in the Town of Los Gatos, in Santa Clara County, California, to receive public input and consider a Specific Plan regulating development of the North Forty Area of the Town of Los Gatos. No sig- nificant environmental impacts have been identi- fied as a result of this pro- ject, and a Negative Declaration is being pre- pared. Individuals interested in commenting on the North Forty Specific Plan are encouraged to attend this meeting. The plan may be reviewed at the Town of Los Gatos Planning Department office during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of the plan may be purchased from the Planning Department for a fee. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the Town of Los Gatos Planning Department at (408) 354- 6874. (Pub LG 9/29/99) SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Ekowarb C. Anrwalt 17510 Vinelan5 AvcNue Monte Sereno, CA 95030 (40$) 395-0639 CG, October 16,1999 Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 By Email to LG_Town_Clerk@Vval.com Re: The North Forty --Amend the General Plan if need be. N OF OS TOS ICE OF TOWN CLERK Ladies and Gentlemen: In recent months people from the Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and county communities have suggested a variety of interesting and valuable approaches to use of land in the North Forty. These suggestions do not correspond with the commercial juggernaut represented in the current Specific Plan. Please consider the following two points as you proceed with the matter of the North Forty. 1. Do not adopt the current Specific Plan or anything substantially similar to its current substance. The current plan will create an automobile dominated commercial box complex "relieved" by such things as "nodes," "pedestrian allees," (sic), and "view corridors." The plan at numerous places acknowledges that these things are necessary in order to mask the nature of the standard mall like appearance. For example: "Use landscaping and buffering techniques to help screen development and reduce the impact of large structures." (May 1999 draft, page 2-6.) At the October 13 Planning Commission meeting, the testimony Ms. Kyle Lanza demonstrated the emptiness of the current approach. The proposed plan will create a cement box commercial mall or shopping center with ersatz "amenities." In place of that, she and others urge that the town take advantage of the area to create a true community asset. Such an asset will benefit all, including property owners in the North Forty. It makes no sense to adopt a flawed Specific Plan. Furthermore, if the Town adopts a poor Specific Plan, inertia will favor its continuance. Developers will act upon it. A weary Town Council and community will likely follow the course it has suggested. Arguments will emerge that the new General Plan should allow what has been adopted in the Specific Plan. Other communications are providing useful suggestions to you on how to plan the North Forty. This note focuses on getting there. Unlike the punch line of an old mid -western joke --you can get there from here. 2. Take necessary steps, including amending the General Plan. The community has been repeatedly told that the Specific Plan can not contradict the Town General Plan. This is true. ;AEI ro 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 Forty "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; lots 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. Town of Los Gatos regarding the North Forty October 16,1999 2 Printed by: ? Title: North Forty Monday, October 18, 1999 10:15:07 AM Page 1 of 2 f-HAIL COMMANDS MESSAGE THREAD UCHREAD ". Saturday, October 16, 1999 10:44:30 AM Message From: 4 Howard Anawalt,h@anawalt.com,Internet-Vval.com Subject: North Forty To: Townof Los Gatos Cc: Q gjl@she1113.ba.best.com,internet-Vval.com jrodgers43@aol.com,lnternet-Vval.com Kyleg@best.com,lnternet-Vval.com sue@anawalt.com,lnternet-Vval.com mark@northiosgatos.com,lnternet-Vval.com � o a TOWN p F� ATOS OFFICE COW Howard C. Anawalt 17510 Vineland Avenue Monte Sereno, CA 95030 (408) 395-0639 October 16, 1999 To the Mayor, Town Council, and Planning Commission 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 By Email to LG_Town_Clerk@Vval.com Re: The North Forty --Amend the General Plan if need be. Ladies and Gentlemen: In recent months people from the Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and county communities have suggested a variety of interesting and valuable approaches to use of land in the North Forty. These suggestions do not correspond with the commercial juggernaut represented in the current Specific Plan. Please consider the following two points as you proceed with the matter of the North Forty. 1. Do not adopt the current Specific Plan or anything substantially similar to its current substance. The current plan will create an automobile dominated commercial box complex "relieved" by such things as "nodes," "pedestrian allees," (sic), and "view corridors." The plan at numerous places acknowledges that these things are necessary in order to mask the nature of the standard mall like appearance. For example: "Use landscaping and buffering techniques to help screen development and reduce the impact of large structures." (May 1999 draft, page 2-6.) At the October 13 Planning Commission meeting, the testimony Ms. Kyle Lanza demonstrated the emptiness of the current approach. The proposed plan will create a cement box commercial mall or shopping center with ersatz "amenities." In place of that, she and others urge that the town take advantage of the area to create a true community asset. Such an asset will benefit all, including property owners in the North Forty. It makes no sense to adopt a flawed Specific Plan. Furthermore, if the Town adopts a poor Specific Plan, inertia will favor its continuance. Developers will act upon it. A weary Town Council and community will likely follow the course it has suggested. Arguments will emerge that the new General Plan should allow what has been adopted in the Specific Plan. Other communications are providing useful suggestions to you on how to plan the North Forty. This note focuses on getting there. Unlike the punch line of an old mid -western joke --you can get there from here. 2. Take necessary steps, including amending the General Plan. The TM PROOF OF PUBL,_„FlON (2015.5 C.C.P.) State of California County of Santa Clara I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of 18 years, and not party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the: Los Gatos Weekly -Times, Almendra Avenue, Los 245 Gatos, California, 95a31, a newspaper of general circulation, printed every Wednesday in the City of San Jose, State of California, County of Santa Clara, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, Case Number 83631 dated May 27, 1952 that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said Newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to Wit: fuci I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: -' cl. Xf I CM CI at San Jose, California 444,1 Kathy Mightson Fi:i„g Stamp PROOF OF PUBLICATION TOWN OF LOS GATOS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF L05 GATOS Boulevard in the Town 'of If anyone wishes to chal- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR- Los Gatos in Santa Clara lenge these matters in ING County. court, they may be limited NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN (Santa Clara County to raising only those that the Town Council of Assessor Parcel Numbers: issues they or anyone else the Town of Los Gatos has 424-07-009, -010, -024 raised in the public hear - scheduled a public hearing thru -027, -031 thru -037, - ing described in this for Monday, December 6, 051 thru -054, -057, -060, - notice, or in written corre- 1999, at 7:30 p.m. In the 063 thru -065, -070, -081 spondence delivered to Council Chambers, Civic thru -095, AND 424-06- the Town Clerk at, or prior Center, 110 East Main 047, -087, -115, -116, -120 to, the public hearing. Street, Los Gatos, to: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A complete record con - SUBJECT: AN INITIAL Berth,Forbtt cerning these tnatters is on STUDY AND MITIGATED Mitigated Negative file for public inspection in NEGATIVE DECLARATION Declaration ND-99-0008 the Office of the Town HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY Public hearing to consider Clerk at 110 East Main THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS a Specific Plan for the Street, Los Gatos. INTER - AND ARE ON FILE IN THE North Forty Area of the ESTED PERSONS are PLANNING DEPARTMENT Town of Los Gatos. No sig- encouraged to appear and AT 110 E. MAIN STREET. nificant environmental be heard at this public PROJECT LOCATION: impacts have been identi- hearing. Approximately 40 acre Pied as a result of this pro- TOWN OF LOS GATOS area located at the south- ject, and a Mitigated /s/ Marian V. Cosgrove/ east corner of the intersec- Negative Declaration is Town Clerk tion of State Highways 17 recommended. (Pub LG 11/24/99) and 85, and bounded by APPLICANT: Town of Los Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Gatos