Desk Item #1MEETING DATE: 09/16/14
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ER A
FROM: GREG CARBON, TOWN MANAGER G ,dc,
ROB SCHULTZ, TOWN ATTORNEY b'
SUBJECT: NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-14-
001, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Z-14-001, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT EIR-10-002. PROJECT LOCATION: THE PLAN AREA
COMPRISES APPROXIMATELY 44 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERN EXTENT OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, BORDERED BY
STATE ROUTE 17 AND STATE ROUTE 85 FREEWAYS TO THE WEST
AND NORTH, LOS GATOS BOULEVARD TO THE EAST, AND LARK
AVENUE TO THE SOUTH. APN 424-07-009, 010, 024 THROUGH 027, 031
THROUGH 037, 052 THROUGH 054, 060, 063 THROUGH 065, 070, 081
THROUGH 086, 090, 094 THROUGH 096, 099, 100, 424-06-115, 116, AND
129. PROPERTY OWNERS: THOMAS & MIYOKO YUKI, HERBERT &
BARBARA YUKI, ETPH WILLIAM MATTES, PETER BRUTSCHE,
WILLIAM FALES. WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN, ELIZABETH DODSON,
PATRICIA CONNELL, HANS MATTES, TAK PETROLEUM. DEWEY
VENTURA, ALEXANDER & BETTY MOISENCO, LUCY, DAGOSTINO,
ROBERT & GEORGIANNA SPINAZZE, MARIANNE EZELL, LOS GATOS
MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER, LLC. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
A. CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
B. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN.
C. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
D. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT.
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI
LRP
Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager W h; Town Attorney IA Finance
\\leonaldata\DEV\tc reports12014\North40 Desk Item 9-16-14.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN/GP-14-001/Z-14-001/EIR-10-002
September 16, 2014
DISCUSSION:
A. Correspondence
The attached correspondence (Attachment 34) was received after distribution of the second
addendum on Monday, September 15, 2014.
B. Schools
Although the Los Gatos Union School District's correspondence dated September 15, 2014
states that it "understands the legal limitations that exist with regard to requiring a developer to
mitigate school capacity impacts beyond school impact fees," further explanation is necessary to
fully understand the complex interplay between the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the school impact limitations enacted by the State as part of SB 50.
SB 50 implemented a state funding scheme for school facilities that allows school districts to
charge statutory square footage fees on new development. SB 50 also prevents local
governments from conditioning development approvals on the payment by developers of
amounts greater than the statutory fees enacted by the State.
Chawanakee Unified School Dist. v. County of Madera (2011) 196 Cal.App.4a' analyzed the
interplay between CEQA and SB 50. The Chawanakee case arose out of the approval by the
County of Madera of a large residential development that was anticipated to bring 3,200 new
students into the Chawanakee Unified School District. The School District lacked sufficient
school capacity to house the anticipated students, and school impact fees were insufficient to
provide the needed facilities. The Court held that SB 50 statutory fees are the "exclusive method
of considering and mitigating impacts" and that the inclusion of a description and analysis of
impacts on school facilities in the EIR was not required. As a result, the court rejected the
School District's claim that the EIR approved by the County violated CEQA because it lacked
any analysis of the environmental consequences for the existing school facilities that would be
forced to accommodate hundreds of students beyond current overcrowded conditions. However,
the Court also held that a project's indirect impacts on parts of the physical environment that are
not school facilities are not excused from being considered and mitigated. Therefore, impacts on
parts of the physical environment that are not school facilities (such as traffic, air quality, and
noise) are not excused from consideration and mitigation and must be included in the EIR.
Based upon SB 50 and the Chawanakee case, the Los Gatos Union School District's statement
that, "Those generation rates severely underestimate the number of students likely to reside in
the Plan area, and consequently, the degree of the impact is sorely understated" is irrelevant and
the Town may not consider the following items in an FIR:
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN/GP-14-001/Z-14-001/EIR-10-002
September 16, 2014
DISCUSSION (cont'd):
• Impacts on the physical structures at the school (on school grounds, school buildings,
etc.) related to the ability to accommodate enrollment;
• Mitigation measures above and beyond the school mitigation fee; and
• Other non -fee mitigation measures regarding the School District's ability to
accommodate enrollment.
When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school
facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially
ministerial. The Town must accept the fees mandated by SB 50 as the exclusive means of
considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities.
As mentioned in the District's correspondence, the Town does have the discretion to add the
following to the Specific Plan:
• To encourage all land developers to meet with affected school districts to better
understand project impacts and school needs with a goal of encouraging voluntary
mitigation plans;
• To meet directly with school districts to investigate opportunities for the development of
shared use facilities between the parties, such as parks and fields, which helps reduce the
amount of land needed for new schools under State standards;
• Pursuant to Government Code §65998, to reserve or designate real property for school
sites; and
• Pursuant to Government Code §65970 et. seq., where conditions of school overcrowding
exist, to enact ordinances requiring developers to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu thereof,
or both, for interim school facilities, thereby enabling school districts to have additional
time to plan and implement longer term solutions to overcrowding.
The first two of these suggestions were discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of August
13, 2014 and Attachment 18 contains proposed policy language that would facilitate future
discussions between the School District and prospective developers. The Council may wish to
modify the proposed language to more clearly articulate its intent with respect to schools.
Additionally, the Council may consider the other two options above with the guidance provided in
this report and the Staff Report for September 16, 2014.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN/GP-14-001/Z-14-001/EIR-10-002
September 16, 2014
DISCUSSION (cont'd):
C. Traffic and Transportation
In yesterday's Addendum #2, the remarks regarding the expansion of a hospital emergency room
expansion were incorrectly attributed to the Valley Medical Center. The hospital should have
been identified as Good Samaritan.
Attachment (Previously received on April 4, 2014):
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (http://www.losgatosca.gov/N40DEIR)
Attachments (Previously received on July 11, 2014):
2. Final Environmental Impact Report with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(http://www.losgatosca.gov/N4OFEIR)
3. Public Hearing Draft North Forty Specific Plan (Note: The complete Specific Plan including
appendices is also available online at: http://www.losgatosca.gov/N40SP)
Attachments (Previously received on August 22, 2014):
4. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014 (excluding Exhibits 5 &
6)
5. Desk Item Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting ofJuly 23, 2014
6. Desk Item 2 Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting ofJuly 23, 2014
7. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 13, 2014
8. Desk Item 3 Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 13, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Staff Report on August 28, 2014):
9. Verbatim minutes from the August 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting (141 transcribed
pages)
10. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014
11. Detailed Planning Commission recommendations on the North Forty Specific Plan from their
August 13, 2014 meeting (six pages)
12. Draft findings (one page)
13. Memorandum from the Town Attorney (four pages)
14. Draft Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR-10-002), adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, including Exhibit A.
15. Draft Resolution for the adoption of the North Forty Specific Plan
16. Draft Resolution adopting General Plan Amendments of the Town's General Plan (GP-14-
001), including Exhibit A.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN/GP-14-001/Z-14-001/EIR-10-002
September 16, 2014
17. Draft Ordinance effecting a Zoning Code Amendment of the Town Code (Z-14-001),
including Exhibit A.
18. Planning Commission Recommendations for Text Changes to the North 40 Specific Plan
(four pages)
Attachments (Previously received with Addendum on August 29, 2014):
19. Resolution 2010-091: Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos
Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of the 2020
General Plan (includes Exhibit A)
20. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Desk Item on September 2, 2014):
21. Map of the Los Gatos Union School District Boundary and school site options within the
North 40.
22. Letter from the Los Gatos Union School District received Friday, August 29, 2014 after
11:00 a.m.
23. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, August 29, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014.
24. Additional Limitations for Commercial (Exhibit 8 from the August 15, 2012 Advisory
Committee meeting.
Attachments (Previously received with Staff Report on September 11, 2014):
25. Grosvenor exhibit displayed at the September 2, 2014 Town Council meeting.
26. Letter from the Los Gatos Union School District, dated September 5, 2014.
27. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, September 2, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, September 11, 2014.
28. Fehr & Peers letter dated September 10, 2014.
29. Table of Planning Commission recommendations and proposed responses for Council
consideration.
Attachments (Previously received with Addendum on September 12, 2014):
30. Letter from A. Don Capobres, Linda Mandolini, and Wendi Baker dated September 12, 2014
(7 pages)
31. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, September 11, 2014 through 11:00
a.m. Friday, September 12, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Addendum #2 on September 15, 2014):
32. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, September 12, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, September 15, 2014
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN/GP-14-001/Z-14-001/EIR-10-002
September 16, 2014
33. Highland Oaks Existing Traffic Calming
Attachment 34 Received with this Desk Item:
34. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, September 15, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
LRP:JSP:cg
From: noreply@civicplus.com [mailto:noreply@civicplus.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Town Manager; Christina Gilmore
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Customer Feedback Form
The following form was submitted via your website: Customer Feedback Form
Name:: jeff harlan
Address:: 354 bella vista ave
City:: los gatos
State: : ca
Zip:: 95032
Home Phone Number:: 408-356-6261
Daytime Phone Number::
Email Address:: jeff.harlan@yahoo.com
Please let us know how we are doing or what we can do for you!:
stop the rampant residential development. our streets are in gridlock. our schools are beyond
capacity. the 364 high density housing units in the north 40 would be a complete disaster for our
town. say no to developers. the citizens of this town are horrified with the lack of stewardship
displayed.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/reject-the-current-north-40-development-specific
ATTACHMENT 3 4
From: jeff harlan <jeff.harlan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Council
Subject: reject the current north 40 plan
please consider the impact of this on our badly over -congested streets and schools.
the citizens of this town do not want more high density housing.
Reject the Current North 40 Development Specific Plan
Reject the Current North 4o Develop
ment Specific Plan
1 just visited www.ipetitions.com and signed an inn
portant petition1 really care, about this'eause and
hope you'll show your support for it.
View or: www.ipetitions.com Preview by Yahoo
thank you,
jeff
CELEBRATING i5o YEARS
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 335-2000 Phone
(408) 395-6481 Fax
www.lgusd.k12.ca.us
Dr. Diana G. Abbati, Superintendent
SENT VIA MAIL and EMAIL to Greg Larson glarson(&,Iosgatosca.gov
September 15, 2014
Greg Larson, Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Larson:
1
8
6
3
-fir ri
LOS GATOS
ati1ay% HOOLJlmtIar
I would like to provide additional comments regarding the North Forty ("North 40") Specific
Plan ("Plan") and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on behalf of the Los Gatos Union
School District ("District") and Board of Trustees.
Throughout this lengthy review process, the District has advised the Town staff of the serious
negative impact the North 40 will have on public education in the community if the District is
not able to relieve current school overcrowding that will worsen considerably with the
development of new homes in the North 40 area. To date these efforts have proved to have no
effect.
While we understand the legal limitations that exist with regard to requiring a developer to
mitigate school capacity impacts beyond school impact fees, we nevertheless have requested
good faith collaboration with the District to develop practical solutions to a serious problem.
We have asked at a minimum that the Town accept and incorporate the District's student
generation data into its environmental analysis, which at the very least would ensure that the
description of the Plan's impact on the District — and its concerns about the indirect impacts of
traffic, safe pedestrian routes, air quality and related items — is accurate as an informational
document for the community. Inexplicably, the Town has refused to accept the District's student
generation data, instead choosing to rely on a 2010 study. Those generation rates severely
underestimate the number of students likely to reside in the Plan area, and consequently, the
degree of the impact is sorely understated. The difference between those estimates equates to
half of an elementary school. Further, an updated independent demographics study for the
District will be available on October 14, 2014 that can be used to inform our future discussions.
9
0
1
3
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi-Hartigan
CELEBRATING 15o YEARS
Page 2 — September 15, 2014
North Forty Specific Plan
In addition, we share many of the concerns of the community as well
as the Town's own Planning Commission, that the final EIR is
deficient and should not be approved by the Town without modifications (see Memorandum
from Community Development Department to Greg Larson, dated August 15, 2014) That
Memorandum outlines forty-four (44) recommendations to the Town Council for changes to the
final EIR, Specific Plan, and/or the Town's land use policies and design standards in conjunction
with Plan approval, in order to address a myriad of concerns and impacts.
In fact, the Planning Commission did not certify the final EIR due to deficiencies in the
document. Some of those recommendations of the Planning Commission pertain directly to
schools, including such items as "encourage developers to collaborate with school districts to
address school needs, " and "create an opportunity for a school site through an incentive that
required open space could be satisfied with school playgrounds."
As mentioned, we know that revisions to Government Code section 65995 et. seq. through the
passage of Senate Bill No. 50 in 1998 changed the options that the Town has with regard to the
manner in which impacts on schools are addressed through the development process. However,
after conferring with our legal counsel, we are advised that the Town has the discretion to take
the following types of actions:
1
8
6
3
II
LOS GATOS
U IO 6CFOOLrflSTRiCT
• To encourage all land developers to meet with affected school districts to better
understand project impacts and school needs, with a goal of encouraging voluntary
mitigation plans;
• To meet directly with school districts to investigate opportunities for the development of
shared use facilities between the parties, such as parks and fields, which helps reduce the
amount of land needed for new schools under State standards;
• Pursuant to Government Code §65998, to reserve or designate real property for school
sites; and
• Pursuant to Government Code §65970 et. seq., where conditions of school overcrowding
exist, to enact ordinances requiring developers to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu thereof,
or both, for interim school facilities, thereby enabling school districts to have additional
time to plan and implement longer term solutions to overcrowding.
We are aware of the benefits of approving the North 40. However, we reiterate to you that the
realization of these benefits will depend on the ability of local agencies to adequately serve the
area. Due to a lack of available land for new schools and the current conditions of
overcrowding, the District has few options available to ensure it can serve future residents of the
North 40 consistent with the standards for which our District has become known statewide.
2
d
1
3
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi-Hartigan
CRLE13 ATI.NG 150 YEARS
Page 3 = September 15, 2014
North Forty Specific Plan
For all of these reasons, we ask that the Town take the following
specific actions:
art. } r 2
8
6
3 3
LOS GATOS
UNIT. 5:1lp4:. DNTRICT
1. Suspend all planned actions and approvals of the North 40 Project until the
deficiencies in the final EIR and Specific Plan identified by the Planning Commission
have been adequately addressed;
2. Attend the District Board of Trustees meeting on October 14, 2014; at which time we
will be presenting and discussing an updated independent demographics study that
can be used to further inform our discussions; and
3. Begin a substantive dialogue with the District about ways to work within the existing
legal framework to help identify interim and long-term school housing solutions,
including identification and dedication that the District could develop into a
combination elementary school/shared use community park for the benefit of all.
We look forward to meeting with you and working together to develop a feasible solution for the
North 40 and the Los Gatos community.
Sincerely,
?>ia#cer. 9, "Mate
Diana G. Abbati, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Enclosures (1) Memorandum from Community Development Department to Greg Larson,
dated August 15, 2014
cc: Los Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees at boardmembers cr,lgusd.k12.ca.us
Town Council at council ra,losgatosca.gov
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission at planninga losgatosca.gov
Don Capobres, Grosvenor at Don.Capobres(agrosvenor.com
Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes at WBaker(d2.shhomes.com
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi-Hartigan
To:
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Greg Larson, Town Manager
From: Laurel Prevetti, Difectorof Cp/y Development
leikt
Subject: North 40 — Planning Commission Recommendation to Town Council
Date:
August 15, 2014
On August 13, 2014, the Planning Commission completed its work on the North 40 Specific PIan
and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). They unanimously passed two motions (6-0-1, Burch
recused):
A. Recommend that the Town Council consider the North 40 Specific Plan in light of the
specific recommendations and possible amendments the Specific Plan accordingly (see
attachment for detailed recommendations), and
B. Forward the Final Environmental Impact Report to the TC without certification for the
reasons that the PC cannot make the overriding considerations and due to specific
deficiencies in the EIR:
• Update the traffic analysis to include the new development capacity identified in
the recently released Notice of Preparation for the Dell Avenue Area Plan.
• Update the traffic analysis to study the effects of full interchanges at Winchester
and Highway 85, and Bascom and Highway 85.
• Analyze the reduction in traffic impacts with a reduction in the overall
development capacity of the Specific Plan.
• Address the concern that the expert traffic opinion is inconsistent with the
perception and "hard facts of experience of Los Gatos traffic."
• Complete additional analysis on alternative circulation plans.
• Convene a focus group to identify mechanisms (other than the CUP process) to
ensure that the North 40 complements and does not compete with downtown Los
Gatos.
• Consider additional controls to protect downtown.
ATTACHMENT 1 1
PAGE 1 OF 2
In addition, the Planning Commission Chair acknowledged the value of all of the public
comments that the Commission received in testimony and in writing. She recognized the
important work completed by the citizens and she encouraged the Council to review all public
comments.
Attachment
Planning Commission detailed recommendations on the North 40 Specific Plan
N:1MOR\AdminWorkFiles12014 Items of Interest\ltems 8-15 N40 PC Recommendation to TC. CDD Memo.doc
PAGE 2 OF 2
Attachment
Detailed Planning Commission Recommendations on the
North 40 Specific Plan
Traffic
• Update the traffic analysis to include the new development capacity identified in the
recently released Notice of Preparation for the Dell Avenue Area Plan.
• Update the traffic analysis to study the effects of full interchanges at Winchester and
Highway 85, and Bascom and Highway 85.
• Analyze the reduction in traffic impacts with a reduction in the overall development
capacity of the Specific Plan.
Transportation and Connectivity
• Add a policy to the Specific Plan to preserve bicycle and pedestrian connection
opportunities between the North 40 and the Los Gatos Creek Trail and other places in
Los Gatos, including a potential bridge over Highway 17.
• Require all bike lanes and sharrows to be painted green.
• Add a policy on page 4-1 regarding transit strategies to connect North 40 with downtown,
commercial centers, and other employment centers via light rail transit, bus, bicycle
paths, and trails.
Land Use
• Guarantee senior housing by adding a requirement that a certain number or percentage of
the proposed housing must be senior housing.
• Increase the open space requirements, recognizing that open space may be used for a
future school.
• Consider lower densities for both residential and non-residential uses.
• Retitle and modify Policy LU3 on page 2-2 as follows: "Mix and Size of Uses: Provide a
mix and size of uses in the Specific Plan Area to promote the e..ea`ion of a lively,
walkable neighborhood that is complementary to other Los Gatos residential
neighborhoods and commercial centers and serves
as a resource to North 40 residents, business, and adjacent neighborhoods."
• Modify Policy LU4 on page 2-2 as follows: "Commercial development...shall be
complementary to Downtown, Los Gatos Boulevard. and the four neighborhood
centers..."
• Modify Policy LU7 on page 2-2 as follows: "Eating and drinking establishments...are
intended to serve...and satisfy the unmet needs of the Town of Los Gatos."
Detailed Recommendations
Page 2
• Modify Policy LU8 on page 2-2 as follows: "A hotel facility development within the
North 40 Specific Plan Area is intended to serve an unmet need of the Town and should
include ..."
• Modify Policy LU10 on page 2-2 as follows: "Provide and integrate a mix of residential
product types to serve the unmet housing needs within the Town of Los Gatos and to
minimize impact on schools, while complying with Senate Bill 50, Schools Facilities
Act."
• Modify Policy LU 11 on page 2-2 as follows: "Proposed uses should complement the
existing balance...in downtown Los Gatos and in the four neighborhood centers."
• Modify the residential categories in sections 2.4 and 2.7.1, table 2.1, and table 2.2 so they
are consistent.
• Table 2-1 Permitted Uses on page 2-7: To provide more flexibility, delete the note saying
"Residential only allowed in Northern District when located above commercial."
• Table 2-2 Maximum Development Capacity on page 2-10: Clarify that the 580,000
square feet of non-residential uses include day care, places of worship, etc. but not
schools.
Building Heights and View Corridors
• Consider a process to rescind a height exception after a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
has been granted.
• Ensure a 35-foot building height limit as the "rule" by making it very difficult to obtain
an exception with discretion by the Town Council.
• Increase the amount of additional open space required beyond 5% proportional to the
requested height increase.
• Measure building height from finished grade.
• Modify the height requirements in section 2.6.6 Height (Non-Residential/Mixed Use) &
2.7.4 Height (Residential) as follows:
Lark District
• Residential
• Maximum of 35 feet
• 15% of overall development limited to two stories and 25 feet
• Non-residential or mixed -use residential
• Maximum of 35 feet
Transition District
• Residential
F Maximum of 35 feet
Detailed Recommendations
Page 3
• Up to 45 feet with additional open space
• Non-residential or mixed use residential
• Maximum of 35 feet
• Up to 45 feet with additional open space
or affordable housing development
or affordable housing development
Northern District
• Non-residential or mixed use residential
■ Maximum of 35 feet
■ Hotel: 45 feet
• Up to 45 feet with additional open space or affordable housing development
• Up to 55 feet with CUP
• Establish the locations of view corridors.
• Explain "framed views" and specify a specific amount of ridgelines or hillsides to be
protected for building heights above 35 feet.
Design Considerations
• Encourage mechanical equipment and ducting to be placed in a mechanical room or
between floors instead of on the building roof.
• Add the agrarian architectural style to the palette for the North 40.
• Add visuals to the Specific Plan that reflect the agrarian elements of the Vision.
• Remove the monument signs at Noddin and the Neighborhood Street.
Economic Vitality
• Convene a focus group to identify mechanisms (other than the CUP process) to ensure
that the North 40 complements and does not compete with downtown Los Gatos.
• Consider additional controls to protect downtown.
• Tighten the CUP provisions of the Specific Plan to protect downtown and its vibrancy.
• Consider equity and fairness with downtown when comparing the CUP requirements of
downtown and the North 40.
• Revisit the use of CUPs in the Specific Plan to include a clear standard or set of criteria
as to why a CUP is required.
• Limit tenant spaces of 3,000 square feet or less to no more than ten percent of the total
commercial square footage.
Detailed Reco_ mmendations
Page 4
Historic Preservation
• Include the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Committee as a policy in the
Specific Plan.
• Require the set aside of acreage -for an orchard.
Schools
• Add a policy to the Specific Plan regarding schools to encourage developers to
collaborate with school districts to address school needs.
• Add a policy to the Specific Plan in the Infrastructure and Public Facilities chapter to
effect: "Developers shall work closely with school districts to project enrollment growth
and address overcrowding by assisting with identifying strategies for providing needed
school facilities and associated sources of funding."
• Create an opportunity for a school site through an incentive that required open space
could be satisfied with school playgrounds.
• Indicate the square footage needed for an elementary school building.
Trees
• Remove the Chinese Pistachio, London Plane, and Japanese Privet from the tree list.
• Ask the Town Arborist to review and recommend the appropriate use of Monterey Pine
and Redwood.
Sustainability
• Modify Sustainability Guidelines on page 3-18, as follows:
"a. Promote Require use of native..."
"d. Non-structural Best Management Practices...should be documented and structural
BMP's implemented and verified by the Town."
"i. Include bicycle parking facilities...in major non-residential development projects
defined as ..."
"1. Integrate community gardens..."
N:1DEV1ITEMS OF INTEREST120141N40 PC rec attachment.doc
Rev. 8-18-14
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Nick Goddard [nickjgoddard@gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 12:39 PM
To: BSpector
Subject: More mail on North 40
Council Member Spector, It would appear that your name has been put in the frame as being the
deciding vote on the above project, I believe mainly by the newly vocal "anti" vote.
Assuming that to be the case, I'm also going to assume that the correspondence you've received
has been overwhelmingly negative.
As you go to vote, I'd like to put one positive thought into the mix. For disclosure purposes, I am
a Commercial RE broker, but have no involvement with the project or commercial relations with
the developer.
My thought is this- The very public process has been ongoing for 6 years. In all of that time,
everyone had their chance for input, to go ballistic at this point is in my mind too late -
Particularly as its of the no offered alternative solutions type.
Sure, I personally would like to see a little less resi out there and ceiling heights in line with our
general plan, but on the whole I beleive the specific plan to be well considered after 6 years of
public input.
Let's not bow to the fury of the mob
Nick Goddard
From: Susan Kankel[mailto:susankankel@comcast.netj
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 3:28 PM
To: Council
Subject: North Forty Specific Plan
September 15, 2014
Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I would like to reiterate my request that the Council send the North Forty Specific Plan back to the
Planning Commission with any necessary funding.
Because of recent developments in the form of Planned Developments allowed by the Town, the set
date of the traffic studies must be moved forward; this would give a fairer traffic count based on actual
conditions, not projections made before the fact.
As an aside, all traffic counts of our streets should be based on actual, prevailing conditions. In August
of this year traffic counting cables were in place on Los Gatos Boulevard, roughly between the Highway
9 crossing and Van Meter School. These were removed right before schools opened for the new term,
thus giving an inaccurate count (unless the study was on vacation traffic) and is certainly not based on
reality. We saw this very same method used on Main Street by the bridge when the Dittos Property was
under consideration several years ago.
Because of the late (September 2, 2014) information finally provided to the Council by the Los Gatos
Unified School District, which was based on reality and not projections, this project's increased student
population must be reconsidered. Perhaps this will necessitate a decrease in the residential numbers
and a switch to more Senior housing, but it definitely necessitates additional study.
These are only two of the major areas which need to have additional study before a fair consideration of
the North Forty Project can be made.
Building heights, density, open space, downtown preservation, vistas: all of these items are spelled out
in the Town's General Plan and they must be reconsidered; the General Plan IS the "Constitution" of Los
Gatos, and it must be the guiding principle of the North Forty Project.
Respectfully,
Susan Kankel
99 Reservoir Road
From: Nancy Miner [nminer65gpmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:03 PM
To: BSpector
Subject: North 40
Dear Council Woman Spector,
We are concerned citizens and residents of Los Gatos for the past 30 years. Our children
attended school in Los Gatos and now our grandchildren are in Los Gatos Schools also.
We are deeply concerned about the proposed development of the North 40. We are asking the
council to send back this proposal to the Planning Commission and to address those issues
brought up in the proposal. They need to bring a proposal that will resolve the school
overcrowding. The residents of Los Gatos live in the town a great deal because of the schools
and to destroy this important part of the town would be to destroy the values we have all tried to
continue for future generations.
Allan Miner
alnan356/ci!verizon.net
Nancy Miner
Nancy Miner nminer65@9mail.com
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw@me.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:03 PM
To: Steven Leonard's; Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Joe Pirzynski; Diane McNutt; Council
Subject: No. 40 (Keep Historical Building(s)?)
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council:
Should we preserve a building or buildings for historic preservation purposes?
I think it would be a nice, historical touch, keeping with the small town feel of Los Gatos.
The preservation would be respectful to the Yuki family as well.
Respectfully,
John Shepardson
From: Don Capobres [mailto:Don.Capobres@grosvenor.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:45 AM
To: Laurel Prevetti
Subject: FW: Follow Up - Perimeter Planting
Laurel,
It was requested by Council Member Spector that this be provided to Town Council. Please let me know
if you have any difficulty with the images or attachments. Thank you.
A. Don Capobres
Senior Vice President - Development
Grosvenor Americas
Office + 202 777 1265
Mobile + 1 415 710 7640
Email don.capobres(a7grosvenor.com
www.grosvenor.com
From: Don Capobres
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:47 AM
To: Barbara L. Spector (bspector@losgatosca.gov)
Subject: Follow Up - Perimeter Planting
Barbara,
The following exhibits help paint a picture of what it may look like along the Hwy 17 perimeter.
The picture below was taken just south of the North 40 (South of Lark) as you further enter Los Gatos
on Freeway 17. It does have a very lush feeling. The perimeter planting proposed on the North 40 will
be even greater in depth. In addition, as discussed, we are working with Caltrans to allow planting (in
this case redwoods) along the sound wall. Attached are two exhibits prepared for discussion with
Caltrans which shows the depth of planting and the proposed redwoods on the exterior of the sound
wall.
Please note our research on the Sequoia sempervirens (redwood), which will be planted at the
perimeter near the fwy. We will plant either up to a 48" or 60" box tree, and the tree will be 16-20' the
year we plant it, and then it will grow 3-5' per year. At ten years out, the trees will be approximately 46-
70' tall, or averaging around 60'.
The second attachment is from the EIR (Figure 14) for reference when considering what we would be
proposing.
I hope this helps.
Don
A. Don Capobres
Senior Vice President - Development
Grosvenor Americas
Office + 202 777 1265
Mobile + 1 415 710 7640
Email don.capobres(aorosvenor.com
www.grosvenor.com
DISCLAIMER:
This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee and access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you have
received the message in error, please notify us immediately and delete it, as any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other use is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are
not the addressee, you must not disclose its contents to anyone, retain, copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it.
E-Mails are not secure and may contain software viruses which could damage your own computer systems. While Grosvenor has taken every reasonable precaution to
minimise this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of software viruses.
Grosvenor Group Limited - Registered in England No. 3219943 Wheatsheaf Investments Limited - Registered in England No. 3221116.
Registered office: 70 Grosvenor Street, London W1K 3JP, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7408 0988 and Fax: +44 (0) 20 7629 9115
The above comprise all subsidiaries including Grosvenor Limited (Registered in England and Wales No 2874626, Registered office as above) and Grosvenor Investment
Management Limited (GIML) (Registered in England and Wales No 2774291, Registered office as above). GIML is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority
to conduct investment business.
-II
9
:���-� -CROP I
SR 17
0
F SLOPE
TE
•
1
1
EXISTING GROUND
2:1 SLOPE OR FLATTER
EXISTING BENCH
APPROXIMATELY 10`WIDE
•
NOTES:
1. PROPOSED WALL OFFSET FROM RIGHT OF WAr MATCHES EXISTING SOUNDWALL ALONG SR 85
2. PERMITTEE IS WILLING TO MAINTAIN.SOUNpWALL AND NEWLY PLANTED TREES
OSOUNDWALL
SWA 7/9/14
1 /4"=1'-0"
PROPOSED
SEQUOIA SEMPERVIRENS
COAST REDWOOD
R.O.W. /
PROPERTY LINE
14' HIGH CONCRETE
SOUNDWALL
IRRIGATION SLEEVE
UNDER WALL
LATERAL LINE
DRIP TUBE AND EMITTER
- VALVE BOX
MAIN LINE TO CONTROLLER
AND WATER SOURCE
PILING
North Forty Specific Plan EIR
e
co
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank