Item 22 Staff Report Consider Adopting a Resolution Amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan Concerning Parking Structures. This Project is Consistent with the Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration Previously Adopted for the DowntoDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 21, 1999
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCI
TOWN MANAGER
i/
MEETING DATE: 07/6/99
ITEM NO.
CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION IV OF THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CONCERNING PARKING STRUCTURES. THIS PROJECT
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND
THE DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT, DSP-99-001. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Affirm the Planning Commission's finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the 1982
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan and the Negative Declaration/Initial
Study prepared for the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan Amendment/Parking Improvement Plan;
2. Find that the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, General Plan, and
Downtown Redevelopment Plan;
3. Adopt the resolution amending the Downtown Specific Plan concerning parking structures.
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 1999, the Town Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for review after the General Plan
Committee recommended that Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan be amended to allow parking structures on Lot
2 and 13. The Planning Commission considered the recommendation on April 14, 1999, but referred the matter back
to the General Plan Committee to include language in the draft amendment to address impacts to adjacent uses and ensure
compatibility with the Town's character.
The Committee revised the draft and recommended its approval on May 12, 1999. On May 26, 1999, the Planning
Commission reviewed the amendment and voted unanimously (6-0, Morgan absent) to recommend approval to the
Council. As part of its review, the Commission made a finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the 1982
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan and the Negative Declaration/Initial Study
prepared for the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan Amendment/Parking Improvement Plan, because it has more restrictive
limitations (i.e. allows only at or below grade structures downtown, and allows only one level above grade on Lot 13),
and implements a mitigation measure (i.e. amending the DTSP to "permit decking and allow a height of over four feet
at Site 13 {LOT 13}".
Continued on Page 2.
PREPARED BY: PAUL L. CURTIS �%
DI CTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Q(C Attorney Finance Revised: 6/21/99 2:20 PM
Reformatted: 10/23/95
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DSP-99-01
June 21, 1999
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendment allows the Town the flexibility to construct a parking structure on the Farwell Lot (formerly
Lot 13) that is one level above grade, as long as the structure exhibits excellence in design, minimizes impacts on
adjacent property, and is consistent with the Town's character. All other parking facilities (including the Royce
Street/Bachman Avenue lot, formerly Lot 2) are limited to at or below grade construction and must also address these
requirements. In addition to these more stringent requirements, the amendment also revises the names of the Town's
parking lots as follows:
FORMER PARKING LOT
DESIGNATION
NEW PARKING LOT
DESIGNATION
LOT 1
(1) BACHMAN AVE. /HWY. 9 LOT
LOT2
(2) ROYCEST./BACHMANLOT
LOT3
(3) GRAYS LN./ROYCEST. LOT
LOT 4
(4) ELM ST. /GRAYS LN. LOT
LOT 6
(5) STATION WAY LOT
LOT 13
(6) FARWELL LOT
LOT 9
(7) PARK AVE. LOT
LOT 15
(8) EAST MAIN ST. LOT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
This project is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration previously adopted for the
Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Improvement Program and will not have a significant
environmental impact.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution Amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan concerning parking structures.
2. March 24, 1999 Report to Planning Commission, dated March 18, 1999.
3. March 24, 1999 Planning Commission Desk Item.
4. March 24, 1999 Planning Commission meeting adopted minutes.
5. April 14, 1999 Report to Planning Commission, dated April 6, 1999.
6. April 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting adopted minutes.
7. May 26, 1999 Report to Planning Commission, dated May 21, 1999.
8. May 26, 1999 Planning Commission meeting adopted minutes
cc: Carol Braham, 151 Hernandez Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
N: \DEV\CNCLRPTSIDSP99-02.TC
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION IV OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN CONCERNING PARKING STRUCTURES
WHEREAS, the Town has completed Phase I of the construction of downtown parking
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee recommended amending Section IV of the
Downtown Specific Plan to allow an above grade parking structure on the Farwell Lot (formerly Lot
13); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee also recommended amending Section IV of the
Downtown Specific Plan to require all parking facilities to exhibit excellence in design, minimize
impacts on adjacent property, and be consistent with the Town's character; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Committee also recommended amending the Downtown
Specific Plan's list of Town Parking Lot designations in order to provide a more logical order and
clearly defined names for the lots; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the recommendation of the General Plan
Committee at public hearings on March 24, and April 14, and April 28, 1999 and received testimony
from the public; and
1
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the amendment is consistent with the
Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration previously adopted for the Downtown
Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Improvement Program and that the amendment will not
have a significant environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 1999 the Planning Commission concurred with the General Plan
Committee recommendations, and also recommended that the Town Council amend the Downtown
Specific Plan based on the General Plan Committee recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on July 6,1999, the Town Council held a public hearing affirming the Planning
Commissions findings that the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Downtown
Specific Plan, General Plan and Downtown Redevelopment Project Plan pursuant to the provisions
of Government Code Section 65353.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, that the proposed Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment DSP-99-1 is consistent with the Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration
previously adopted for the Downtown Specific Plan and the Downtown Parking Improvement
Program and will not have a significant environmental impact; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that Policy #9, on Page IV-2, of Section IV of the Downtown
Specific Plan shall be amended to read as follows:
9. Parking facilities in Downtown Los Gatos shall be at or below grade. A parking
structure on the Farwell Lot may be acceptable with one level above grade. All
parking facilities must exhibit excellence in design, minimize impacts on adjacent
property, and be consistent with the Towns character.
SM061RESOS\DSP-93-1.RES
2
FURTHER RESOLVED, that Policy #14 and #15, on Page IV-2, of Section IV of the
Downtown Specific Plan shall be deleted; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Phase I List of parking facilities, on Page IV-4, of
Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan be amended to read as follows:
(Grays Ln./Royce St. Parking Lot) Surface Lot
(Elm St./ Grays Ln. Parking Lot) Double Deck
(Park Ave. Parking Lot) Surface Lot
(East Main St. Parking Lot) Surface Lot ;and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Phase III list of parking facilities, on Page IV-4, of
Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan be amended to read as follows:
Any revenues collected in Phase II shall be used to help pay for the construction of the
following parking facilities:
1. Bachman Ave./ Hwy. 9 Parking Lot
2. Royce St. / Bachman Ave. Parking Lot
3. Grays Ln. / Royce St. Parking Lot
4. Elm St. / Grays Ln. Parking Lot
5. Station Way Parking Lot
6. Farwell Parking Lot
(Amended by Resolution 1999-XXXX, adopted 7 /6 /99); and
SMO61RESOS\DSP-93-1. RES
3
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the items g & h, of Page IV-4 and IV-5, of Section IV of the
Downtown Specific Plan be amended to read as follows:
f. In identifying potential improvements that could increase the number of parking
spaces with in the CBD/East Main Street areas, the following shall be considered:
(1) Make the best use of existing Town owned property.
(2) Parking should not replace existing development.
g. In support of the parking program, the Town shall:
(1) Donate Town -owned land for parking.
(2) Provide staff support for administrating the parking program.; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Los Gatos Downtown Parking Improvement District
Map, of Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan be amended to as noted in Exhibit A.
SMO61RESOSIDS P-93-1. RES
4
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 6th day
of July, 1999, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: /s/ Jan Hutchins
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
S M 061RES OS\DS P-93-1. RES
5
LOS GATOS DOWNTOWN
PARKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
District Boundary
Bachman/Hwy. 9
Royce/Bachman
Monte Grays/Royce
Sereno m Elm/Grays
i•
,
N N
•
0
Station Way
Farwell
Park Ave.
East Main St.
LOGH
HI 5LN
mmmmmmmm
mm
• in treat _
Crieir
CENTER
0
0
u
N
n
r IAC401PAWAGIA5h705l2.OMG OYd.n: 5/20/99 6r Dish Duarte0111,
EXHIDIT A
Date: March 18, 1999
For Agenda Of:
Agenda Item:
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Planning Director
LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-01
FINDINGS:
ACTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT:
EXHIBITS:
March 24, 1999
6
Public hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan
concerning parking structures.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
• The Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed
amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the General
Plan if their recommendation is for approval.
■ As required by the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the
Town.
Recommendation to Town Council.
No environmental reviews or assessments have been conducted for this project.
A. Draft Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
B. Excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan EIR
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY: Direction to staff and future recommendation to Town Council for approval.
A. DISCUSSION:
On March 10, 1999, the General Plan Committee reviewed the existing Downtown Specific Plan and compiled
the attached draft Downtown Specific Plan Amendment (See Exhibit A). The Committee recommended these
changes in anticipation of the Town Council's possible action on the proposed parking structures on Lot 2 and
Lot 13. The Council made the referral to the Planning Commission on March 15, 1999. No environmental
reviews or assessments have been conducted for this proposed amendment. A copy of excerpts from the
original Downtown Specific Plan EIR are attached for the Commission's reference as Exhibit B.
If the Planning Commission desires to recommend approval of the amendment or some revised version, staff
recommends that the matter be forwarded to the Town Council. The Council will decide whether to move
forward with the amendment and direct staff to proceed with any required environmental reviews. The
required level of environmental review is dependent on the specifics of the amendment.
No environmental assessments are required if the Planning Commission's recommendation is for denial.
Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director
Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner
LEB:EO
cc: Parking Commission
N:1DEVIREPORTS\DT-SP-PK. PC
ATTACHMENT 2
CO L O r0 N C .0 O
L.) r0 C a) 4-) •r
L C _NL o
N ro a) L r• Q)
a) -0 ro r L
CD 0 3 N 171 0_ra
C > -I-) O (L)N 4-3• r Q1 LiC L <_)Q)
3 4-3
s C O a)
�1 - N 0 QL) tED t-1
L (./)
L Q1 aJ Q1 QQ C
r0 c/1 C— C C N L -r
d a) •r i--1 r0 r0 O_ r0
N .- N a) i
L 4- L L
ro ro O r0 r0 Cr) +�
r0 01 O- N Q C Lnr
Q C 01 C Q rp - LLJ
.0 E O a--1 ro O
N _N a--� 'r +� a) 0 D_ co
C
o X C O 3
•r L C O C '0 a)
ro cm
CU
C � C L 41 QLJ CU _c
C 0 a) C N -p C
+� +�
U C
d 0 a-- r t
r 0 co N- L O +�
r- a--1 r0 X U ate) C
ro V1 Q) U a) L C O
VI
>a)
Ql O a) C U Q)
> L > O —
O F- +) 0 N N Q N
L
L r- r0 r0
+_J E ro N 0_ r0
�O .--i <--.)- > )- V) .--1 Q)
LLI
>' -0 a) C-
C
N 0
L r0 r 4-
o N O
p C 01
U O N a) C
L L ao -
4-) ro ro ro L
L a) r0
0 r L O_
O_ ra U
C 4-
Q1 C 0 0 O •
Q) 4-.) r0 C
-0 4-.)
+1 O
L N O 4--) U
D_ a) - O
0 S O L 4-jD v1 a
a--) L r0 +,
C N >
L
R p C 0 CO +•1
V C O C ro
4- 0 C
Z O d O-o U 0
�� U N U
r0 L a) .- L
�/ Q 01 r0 L QI
Li. E L C n L
< Q i. C N 0
G.,
C co a) 4-> 4- a) U
� � a0) 0 w r0 ~ a1
0 • - = a)
O r0 + 1
Q
C C -I-) -0 N
Cr) -I-)
O
• E j a) L x
,--I aJ inL O. M a)
•
w
H
activity downtown will
f a
Solutions are needed to meet downtown parking
• •
u
ro O
Q
L CL 4-)
ro O
L0 (L)
,C
4-3
-
O
C
0
+-)
C
0
a)
N
r0
a)
r0
L
N
+-1
0
1-
0
4-
+-) O a)
N .0 E
r0 4-3 -r
W -4-)
L 4--)
On Cr)
'p
a) N C
r0 4--) C
LWro OU
4- U r— r0
aJ r0 Qj
L E
Q r- +-1
a
4-) (0 r0 r0
n
CU in
E c O
p1 ro Q) 4-
r0 L
o O 0) -0
E Q 0 aJ
ro a)
Q1 E 0
0 - CT 01
Q 1 0 0
C L
iz,
r0 L L
0 O Q fl
0 •1--1
4- QJ 61
Q L C
iin
L
a)
4-
4-
ra
N M 'p
N
a)
U
ro
4-
a)
N
O
0_
ona--1
r C
L
v aJ
a
0
4-
O
ro
v E
0
0 4--'
7 �
a)
0
0
C Q1 Q) O L
C
3 +� a)
O a-' 4-
>) 4-
L
N 3 ro Q 3 0
C - O N
O -10 O O O
✓- N O -Op 4-4
-0 v 0 n
N -c 4 L a) O
n
ro Q) -C -0 a--' CO
01 4-) r L O C
• r V1 rD
L O L , r o
o >, O ro 4-3
a o Q > +- O
+� 0
r0 L.) 10
O E +-) 4-
L Q) N N r 4-1
X ro no •
N
4- 4- N 4--) a) d U a)
_ L X .ro
-0 Q N C ) >
a) L. O 0) a) O
r0 -C -r L C C
a)4-)
O N O Q1 N O_
Q) 61 a) C N }� (n .r r Q
1�— a) I- E .� ao. a1 (_ X O
Q +� C D Cr)
O r r d C
N 4-)
Q.) > U r a) L
ela) ro X Q) ro
N. a 4- 00 a) E Cs, 0_
EXUBLT A
-0 E •
CU 0 v)
3 C 4- CU
v CUE Lc) 0
.-
4-) 0 O_
ro 0- 0 E
C E - a)
L
o O
ro
U r- .CD
N
be made for bicycle parking in
0 O 0 � Q)rfl
+ N
014-
Q) U
+-) a) rp C
0- -0 3 ro +) 0 L ro
L
Q L 3 0 0 a) r- a-v
• _ O U 0_C o
+) a a) o
C O -0 - 4-- aU
CU d 4- L a-- a)
�O .r C 0 -0 0) ro .N CU
C7 r .0 0 ap-) - .E E N
N E L Q C
cn C r- v)
•c • CU ro ro a a) E ro
CT Cf) U .0 t +�--) O =
C V) a--)
L 0.) a) 1-L ro
v) CU E G..) w
ro_ CU 4- > (U ro N p LC
rp +-) L 0 v) +-3 0 -4-3O CO
VIvim) C L 0. ro VI
0 ro ro a) ro a) C
4- 0) CT Q) 4- L - C L C
o C L
L 0 3 N +--) gyp) CU +�--)
1 L a)
O N E O. F A _ 4-•3
L C -0 - a--) OU 0 C
O L 4--) p
0 CU=0 C ro ro C • 0 C
t 113
a. + 0_ a) CU I-- a) .0 a-)
0 4-)_0 0 0 a -0 a--) r0
ro CU _ = v)
-I) _0_ L CU L > 4.,-)a) U
0 L 0 • CU 0 • 0 0 . •L
f) E 0 -o -0 U r� U C1 a0 v) .(jr.
a)
a)
E
IMPLEMENTATION
'C
J.
L:.
L
rp'
V'.
a) O. :
4 :+,-?::
S.
=� a) >,-
Q
u 3 4-)tl 77:: tis<
L 4- a:>:.40'.
+.) v) O CU.' is Q
4-) a) - !0 '[A'.
r6 U ro •r!c: C.
0) C!) ro L - Q:
'E: . •::
v) L
_N[ 0 D ei :; ;
L J v) > .: QJ,
.
CO p ! 'C':'
Cl_ CU .0. CJP.
00 4--) 0 c '. i :
0) a)
M
O �: CO of
presented in
Parking Standards.
CBD Parking Program.
Parking Program for Other Commercial
Neighborhood Parking Program.
Bicycle Parking Program.
GU - L Cal L
v) ro ro •
0 k
Ur— U C �[
+-) Q O Q.) N
CU 0
+v7-) 4-) CU L 3 0 > a--)
r- 0
(U V) > L CU i-- U)
CU (1) (I) C _ C
_InC 0 O U o
E O c - u
N U
CU
MS -0 N
..0 C . N r
vt U . p U C
tG
4._ 3 d v) L Ca_C .^ Q.
yr 0_n
Q 4--
L 0 E N Q O
U .--- : a) 0, U CD
C .
O Q) rroo c -4-) QU) 7
4 r0 C °
a) N p .0 E U O
0 Cr) a) 4- 4- C rQ a)
O E
.� ,[ r CU ro CU
_ L
L
C
ro CU CT 4-) L CU L
-0 „ U o rQ 4-
Z C - rt)L ¢ 0 L v)
V) r 4.� C1
C v) a) a--) r 0
a) ro [1 ro L -0
o p N O O '--) a L
ri +-) Q Q O +-) I-' ro U
Q) E a) r0 4-) N 7C5 a)
a+-' t c E •_O N 4-)
4-'
0 4- r N L L 4-
4-3
C71 O N r0 O O
C
r C) Q.) V) > C
> r0 - V)a1 CD
L 0) N ate-' a-'
`0 - O a) CT N C E
O p .� r0 d r0 4- no L
La m +-� Y Y _C 0 Cn N
C> , ▪ • CO - r0 - O • 4 O C
a) Lo n n. _ - o °J„ Ln uo
7 -C L 3 0
Q a-' Q m CJ C 4) (1)
L U - O E O ▪ QJ 4)
CU - V) _C -0 03
L 4' N Q)
L C) �•r- o 4-) L-
EL>Oc
0 Q) L r0
U V) L N L L L 0 -c p, C
+C' c 4.-- X 4-- 4- 4- .
N
c
r0 N 0 a) o N a
U • ,--
o L 4) ▪ U Q) Q)
04-41 � OD ro 0 -
Q Q1 d O O N 0
+� �-' 0 4-3
V)E c
•r Q) 0 0 ro
• X L L C -
r0 aJ U a-' QJ
r0
U 0) 4)
L C r6
4--) _\L V▪ ]
N L
ro
0 Q. p
Q) Q)
C Q) 4-' Q) 73 0 a)
> 4-' L rr° L
a) L r- N E
L 4-' ro
N N +-) 4-) E ro cL, _
-0 xcvl
ijCrD r0 o vU E _NQ
4-) 0
> 0c
C) -0 0
C) a-' N +'
a-'
U C) U Q) r0 0
L Lo �L 0) (Li)
r- U 4- L O
• 0 U C r0 L N
U U 10 C) O_ d r0
(L) O C) O L Cr')
_C 4-3 _C O O V CO
+' J-) CO Q L
L L CJ
L a) a) d
C a LO C) U O O
Q U
C 4- ro 4J Q) cu
QJ CJ Q U U U
ro
-c rE0 N 000 (.� a) Q Q 0_CI01 V)V LT)
N N r0 �„)
C .a o) Q) CJ C C •C
U C ▪ O a) �L L .� '�
N 4- L r0 ,L �L Y
r - r0 C L L L
r0 N L C) 0_ CT r0 r0 r0
r0 C._
V) C. V)0 - N N
N N - Q) 0_ ro 4-) 4-)
r- c D c CD
c ro
c N= Q)
CO_,L .J C) V) O N O N O N O N
L
N C • 13
L O
p O� L
0 r- LC N ro
LO r0 O . a) _0 .--.
a 4- 3 L
L a) N > .. 4) .. O
C a) L 4-) r0 4-)
Q) r- r0 Le) C L C Q)
v) L C 4- (� r0 r0 r0 a-'
L L
3 N r0 m Qom) D L
4-) C N a) r 0 ro N ro ro
4- 0 a--) W `r+ C) Z a) N rt0
U 0 -0 O
O Lr) r- C
U 2] L U
r0 = • C O
W V) -
passes, etc.
4- N
O C) rro
r•-- O U O) _
C O
r0 v a) L
0) 0C Q)
CU C
C C
QJ O
E ,- ro
Q) 4_) C CL
CL E cf) L D 3
0
L Q. r0 CJ
O aJ f._
- n3 -
4C +� 4' 4-,CU L
Q > 03 40-
N O N - ▪ a,
N •a) a) N
rD L C
L r N
O_ r-- 0 r0 r0
U L 4-' ate)
a r0 a)4_,v) +
O 4 0r._ LLJ O
QJ 0) O ID
> CU r Op o
C) Y -. U a)
L p
r0 Q)
Q L ,-
}'
Q) r0
-0 4) - aJ , N
C)-a-0 c o) v
c v c
r0 L 4-)0) V) V)r0 ra Q Q) _ '0
Q) QJ �L C -0 r0
N - L • L L • r- a)
O r 0 V- 0 0
U .O _0 d QJ
C) - _C o
L QJ r U U O r0
v) 4) .0 c C) CU 4-
Cr) N V)CU
L -0
O) C _U V- im) 4-- r- C
p
r L N 0 } N >1
▪ 4-3
L CD 4-3 r0
V)C (0
n4-)rn E E o > >, o
N Ol L Q) r0 0 +' _
r6 C 0 L
Q)W •r-' 4- •,- a-' 13 L D
_NZ C C Q) O r0
- CO ro C2I 5- O CT CU al N
C U 0.-V L 4' '0 = - V)
n C v) r0 - r0 -C
Q) ▪ O Cr) = C -p CD +'
.4_, 4-)4- - r0 C N
C C O - N
r L Q a-' L
N, 0-m Q) rroo C
< O- U
.0 O H- - ▪ Y <
• EQJ CC) fcs L O
E L c) c
L E L C) CJ 3
E N +�' +�' 0
cO I-
C)
c a) a)
_cu
+-) 4-)r D
N 3 `o r-•1
-C X L.
C v) a)
CD E U Cr'4-
QJ ro C O +) 0
> CL 3 c
O O a)
L v1
a_r
E c p •_
r = a
_ C..-C V)
v p 4_,L v1 E
O CDa
cu
L QCD CCF
,C- >
C 3
C d Q)
•_ v O C
4- .Z N C cif
+- 1- O
= a) ro }— a)
a) v1 m
-0 ro
r a)
L vl
rC C rCw aJ
\ L
Q)
U
4-. O -C O
?' 0 4-) U
a) CD E t v 0 c L r 4-
r O
+' 4.) w ro a) a) +.) a) v ID
+, a L +-r E >, s
+) E a) +I c r c vi n c0
a O O aJ V) a) N ro a) N
L > r L a)
+� 4- C +-' C 4- c Q C) +-� v) C Cp U
O N 0 ro v) ro 0 J J ro Cl.) 3 C O Cl..) L.
L ro U a) v) V) a) : dC ro V1
-4- N L U >> >-, a) 4 -) C +� Cr)0 _C C +� +-) _C C CD
N r +-1 A ro no L v1 a) v7 Q a) 0 '3 J d U
v1 C N Q w L Cl
4- U Q1
rCD
O Q) > C r _=
v O > n. 0 r— a 4.) t_J
.V -ro
L O O ro L 4-' L4-
--
ro U
O 4-) a) U 4-- Cr)
co ro4-r rD = 4_
0 0
C L 4-
4- 4- 01 J Q) J J _C 0 j .O U d L
a) r C
0d L CD> Q) aQ+> C
c:,_.^cOr_, U ~a) L u
C C L >
O
t� E O O
te•0
0
w
«+ .0 a) O 4-) c c v �
w 0 c0 - ..)E a) .� aID o
Nr9 N < 4-1 V)w c Lc) 4Va-' +-) CZ) L v) S w
w U L 4-, V)
GI_OOU _I -Jv
E L Q
cn O a) - a) =
assessment
t
I
L
C
(0
E r, >
N N
QJ es
L Q)
L O L
O +-
4- N r6
CU ra
O
Q)
o
rCi
O Q N
O E O
a. 0 4--->
Q) 1 4- 4- E 4- N +-> L L r0 E N O '0
_ • CO CU L-
0 O 4- O 0 r0 O • o Q) a N QLJ 0 0_
in
Q (Co 0 •
d 'U rD .w r6 > r0 -C QLJ rp
L •r •r 4- 4- 4-) W
N .. C > N L +- N 0 4- • \ O ra C c `o o
Q) 0 _ N
L 0 N 0 C r0 u a-' E C- .� m O +� - C �-' 4-)Nr0
d - r QJ L •r 0 _ Q) U-0 C L L C a--) C
U X N a--> N LO . Q Q) Q) r0 Q) ) QLJ Q) rp
QJ O >> ro N '0 Q) L -0 0- +i r
4-4 C 4- .0 r- 0 ro C E ro +' O N r- r0 N 01 N 01
0 U L - I.
N E Q) ,L • - • ,�,, 0 +-' Q) r0 QJ L C
N U N L 0 Q) Q) r9 p C a") U C _C i •r
E r0 d +) 1--• N d 3 L a- L QJQJ Z Z
0 ••r C Q) L-0 4-
• Q) _O CO 'CD N 0
U N
r 4- > • no N C N Q)
(0 • ■ ■ ■ . "O 0 C L 00
C ro U 0 ro v) • ■
01 3 Q) - . L N • co QJ 0) 4- Q1
0
0- Q) L 4-) N 0) 0 QJ 0) +-> C 0 QJ C a-->
(0 .
Q) r-- ,L N
L C U Y L r-- L C .r L
0 Q) ro 1-
CD- 4•-4 ID '0 0 N ro CO
4- 0) 'r Q. N ) O_ +-> O d
C U L•
,-
0) •r O •() N C r0 Q E Y
c In L N C O Qom) O L O 0 rL0
V) N a aJ E r 0> ro 9 Q
o y_ Q) E O
a U ,- 0) O L 0 D1 QJ r0E L
4-4
4- •r C L Cr d +->
p N C v N 0 QJ QJ
0.
O C U L
N21 r L L C r0 E ,c r d a--> .. LO O
E N O O N �[ - N d C
0
Q) L L L +-) asCU
4-, 4- 4- 0 N U •r Q.) Cl.)0 _CQ) N7:3+�
0 a) C +-, 'r 4-)r0 Q.) 'Q r0 QJ
4- \ O L Q.) U L >
rl3 -0 a-) L 4- m rEo r0 a O P N 0 C N
0) r�C-• LO 0 0 U CZ)
Q) QJ (0 C L +) O_ •L Q) 0
0 Q a-) Q) L _0 L C -C r-
L 0- n C L N .-00) ro C Cl_ 0.0 o 4-)4-)+L �
+-) t
0
C Q) O +->
0) E C C 0 7 ro +) Q) N
QJ
3 -IL
L 0 L L r0 d ) 0- C QJ
Y 0 QJ a-> 4- N N a O-C
4rp
-
r0 C r0 0- 3 L r-i Q7 C p QJ a--> •Q�
O N
Q 3 N QJ F-- r0 U }) .0 U Q) N rD Q) i
O 0 .0 ^ N U aJ 3 ro > Q Q1
�"_ 4-) .� QJ Q) 17 L 0 w Q) QJ
a"'' a-, a-' 'D C a--> r C C EO a-CL) CI)->
4- Q) ix N U 7 p .N ra Q v C E U
0 Cl_L c N _U -0 L O QJ Q O>
}> C 0 'TO < 0 4 r 0 >'.0 n o'
L 0 L L • L V) .r U 4- +.4 0 O Q) 4� F'- 01
4-4 LI_0_ r 4 L C
_
a CZ)Cl_Cl_N O Q) C)QJ C +-> � r r0
4
N �L •E O L N r 3 Q CU U r
vrLO v `° 00 ..]L Q) O N V •C QJ al a '0 E .r r0
Q r0 O L 4- N ,n 0 L QJ a..; O O L
N Q Q) - N `0 ry `0 N-0 >O C N
+- (1) E v 01 Q) C L O
C +,.> rp 4- 4-) C o .� L 4L, a.J Q U aN.]
'E O 0 L (LC
O L N N E L C
F- J O OCU • O ro O U 4- ~ C CU L] r0 QJ
O- Cr) 0- d .L L 0 4) 0 0• 0
r0 C Q r0 +4 +, 0 _,L •- Q) 'r L
Q)•- N • L N U cc) 4- .0 O_
L r0 r0 v O 00 'r i-
d- r0 .0 r0 Q) E
r0 = L - 4- -0 0. Ln '7 N N >
LC)
Non-residents
■
rroo CU 00 o r9 -
L 4--) •r O 4-)
O C C L 0)
L CU O C c
a -0 L Q
L w _C 4-
N O 4- CT c
-c O N 'CU c
CI) (U
3 a c >
CI
r
m ro �O E CT r0 ro 4--) 4) V)
L _c v) L
p V)L) W= O
E 4-
-0 r0 v)(U ro
Q) L L L
0 O Cr'L as, a) p O
L
Ca cs a--' 4, a
v •
- ado E 6)
se
T 4O-) no0 .C_ N , X
7 c a� Cr) Lo
u0 ro Lo 1 a N
a Cl_
V) a r- a
W. E N m r ro ¢
s_ L C..J v) -p r
C w L
N a L 7 4U-
CD UO F- 3 a 4-1 v C1 F-
w
C C L O (U C CU a 0
r0 0 - — Q) i_ 4-3
Ci 4- 4-) i-> > -r r0
3 (U ( E 0
C
4-3 4�
( Cra)
Q 4-'
rD
C L V) C)
v)
C • r r0 r0
4 a 4-) ro rn CU Ci) No O
r ro Q- N C 4) CU v)
U
C r0 E 4- rL0
�C U ro r L 0) 0 +> QJ
rO N .. .ajr C 'r 4'
CU ,c (T v) CO 4-)
L L L C U C
r C O L O E
�• u o 0-) 0_ a a>)
O 4.>
U L (1J -0 r .c O CU E
4--) v7 _ c U +-) _c
a 4) (U O U c + O rc0
CU L r L _ L 4- 'r '-'
c0 0 0 • ,- O v) CO C ' O 0 4-)
U
O.r +� L ro � Q) 0 Q) N N
0 Cj r- rho 4--)Q- 0 Q CO O ro L Cr) CU Q
CS)CU a C _Cr- C (L)I--U
O C N 4� L .r, -C4-) �J O L L- 4- E N U ro L 4--)
�t a v 0 0
E .. L O c Q C o c Q
O C o a O o Uro C +->
p-0 Q CU 4-) •,__ r O 4L O U
a r c r0 r
> .> C 1- N U ..--
0.) v) 3 U L O r0 (..) ,L Q) >) 4-
CU L 10 U C
F-- -0 • • • m a, a 4-) a Q d m UO
L-0 C C-0 • L •0 C -0 3 r0 r0
O N 0 3 CU v> (0 0 ro c C1) C L O)
4- 4) 0 4-4 4) r 0 E ro ro -p 0
ro -0 F- v) c 0 L > C 4-5
1C c
r0 ro CU ro CU
L CT a.. •- 4-3 m = con E r0
no CU Q) 4-) v) ,v) L ..0 C C Q Cr)
a L QL) Q 01 'pp > CI) ) CU
-tD CUr C (U CU ro Q 4-) Q c
OO L -0 CU c r04--) _C r o 4-) O .0 (I) (U
4) 3 V) v) 0 4--) 0 O L 0 C C
E c a) L o 0 - a) v
O�J o CU t p c +-) > _ > I. c
4--) L .D - r0 CJ Q Q C CU C
CU O) L a> c c 3
O N p o 1] 0 c
L .E L 4- 'N c CU C C (lc)
O
CU a L v) C Q v) m CU -o O C (U
a u -o E a) co 3
O1 CU C 3 3 CU +I
r0 v) CU
U 0 L L 4- L r C 4-) Ep C Q)
C a 0 a 3 L . CU L O C
4- O QJ 3
Z� 4) 4.-) ro C (U 0 C 4-) CU
0 ro '� ,- D t CU= > c 4) N NCU Q
4-> O C (U
c u > ¢ro
> CU Q > Q 4))
-CI 4- C L 0 U r Q C¢ 4--) r Cr)
CU v1 CO O CU v) .� L o c!) Q) C W 3 = L CU
_ U CU E O O Q) 'O c (U
r0 'r r QJ a -c C -CC.)
v) C C 4-) r0 C > c
E CU 4._)r 4-) V- Q) u v> r CU c O (1) Q)
L L
U r > r0 ro > 'O CU L > C >
v a) 'N 4-)' u O c 3¢ m m =¢ UJ co coQ = Q
r0 d 4, r0
CU (1J v) (3 v) cn
0 ro
N CU S r CU CU a
CU
I- 44-4 CO .0 I-CL0 'r • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • •
Villa Avenue.
Jackson Street (south of East Main Street).
(south of East Main Street).
Alpine Avenue
quality levels. In addition, drivers and passengers who
are forced to wait in their cars create economic and energy
losses in terms of lost productivity and fuel expenditures.
The intersection of Santa Cruz Avenue with Saratoga Avenue
is a major point of downtown congestion, particularly
during the afternoon peak. Traffic on Santa Cruz Avenue is
expected to increase due to increased activity in the CSu,
from the diversion of through traffic in the Almond Grove
area, from the development of vacant parcel::., and from the
Towns "100Z build out rule" if it continues in effect.
Recommended improvements that will improve the flow of
traffic along Saratoga Avenue, through the Santa Cruz
intersection, and that remove turning vehicles from the
travel lines will all have beneficial impacts on the
community.
Q, The Downtown Plan recommends parking improvements including
soave new paved areas and decked parking structures to
provide additional ►C80 parking spaces.
A series of alternative recommendations have been developed
for the improvement of parking facilities within the
downtown area of the Town i of Los Gatos. i.=•at_:. alternative
presents two phases of recommendations. Phase I (near
term) improvements are intended to alleviate existing
parking shortages. Phase II recommendations are intended
to mitigate parking deficits resulting from increased
activity between 1980 and 1990. These parking alternatives
could provide up to 382 paved parking spaces. Under the
implementation section for parking, a parking committee is
to be formed to report: back to the Planning Commission with
specific recommendations for a parking plan.
All of the alternatives include paving of 'the existing SP
right-of-way from Elm to Grays Lane providing 139
additional parking spaces. (Thy.'.., improvement has already
been proposed in the Town budget)
While these parking improvements require the expenditure of
significant funds, resources and energy, the cumulative
impacts are beneficial in that they will provide the parki.g
necessary for the C80 to function in a sound manner, will
reduce existing parking deficiencies, and will remove the
"non --conforming" status of many existing downtown
properties. In this way, the proposed parking improvements
meet community goals and objectives.
Potentials exist for a parking structure to create visual
intrusions into the local Ci3D environment due to its mass
and appearance. For this reason the Specific Plan requires
EXHIBIT B
that the surfaca of the top level of any such structure
start no more than four feet above grade. Additional
mitigation measures should be required to keep the overall
height of parking structures to the lowest possible
dimension; to terrace and/or step back upper floors to
reduce visual impacts; to use buidling forms that provide a
small-scale appearance and prevent long straight-line
facades; to use forms, colors and materials consistent and
compatible with nearby buildings and the CBD; and that
integrate landscape elements to soften and mitigate the
appearance of these parking structures.
C. The Downtown Plan includes recommendations for community
design improvements, including street trees' lighting,
signs, plantings paving and other elements of street
furniture. Further' new mid -block pedestrian arcades
linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new parking
facilities along the SP right-of-way have been proposed.
The conmxni`.y design inProvements recznmxsnded in the
Downtown plan are seen as beneficial in that thev imnrnve
the image and the identity of downtown and offer residents
and visitors orientation and guidance as they move through
the downtown and/or to downtown destinations. These
improvements are also designed to improve the overall
appearance and attractiveness of the Town's downtown area.
The proposed pedestrian arcades are judged to be beneficial
as they will provide small-scale exclusively pedestrian
areas in the CBD, and will provide convenient links between
parking and downtown commercial activities.
D. The Downtown PIan contains a series of policies to prohibit
any additional conversions of existing residential uses to
commercial uses and to preserve the stock of affordable
housing and rental units now available. In addition, the
plan encourages the development of new affordable housing
within the downtown residential neighborhoods consistent
with existing neighborhood character' use and design.
In recognition of the regional context within which the
Town lies, the Downtown Plan provides for the potential
construction of additional housing units. The majority of
these would be designed for special use groups such as
senior citizens. As these special groups move to this new
housing, the larger units being vacated would then become
available to people with families and with other housing
needs. While the amount of available land for new housing
is severely limited' the plan designates those sites
appropriate for higher density housing as "High Density
Special Use 200U/acre" to help meet both the local and
regional needs.
E. The plan meets any concern over air pollution by limiting
traffic generation and encouraging the use of mass transit.
Date: March 24, 1999
For Agenda Of:
Agenda Item:
DESK ITEM
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Planning Director
LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-01
A. DISCUSSION:
March 24, 1999
6
Public hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan
concerning parking structures.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
The staff report prepared for this item did not reflect the official vote of the General Plan Committee in its
decision to recommend that Policy 9 of Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan be deleted. The committee
voted 5-2, with 2 abstentions, to recommend approval of the amendment. Committee members Decker and
Burke opposed the amendment because of perceptions that above ground parking structures would negatively
impact surrounding property owners and detract from small town character.
(2,
Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director
Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner
LEB:EO
cc: Parking Commission
N:1D EVIREPORTS\DT-SP-PK. PC2
�H
-� 3
R TT ,
Los Gatos Planning Commission
March 24, 1999
ADOPTED
Chair Nachison stated that she would like to continue Item #6: Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-0 1.
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT/DSP-99-01. (00.06)
Public hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan concerning parking
structures. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos.
Motion by Chair Nachison, seconded by Commissioner Decker to continued Downtown Specific
Plan Amendment/DSP-99-01 to April 14, 1999.
Carried 5-2. Commissioners Bruno and Lyon voting no.
21
ATTACKS/TNT
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
FINDINGS:
Cate: April 6. 1999
For Agenda Of:
Agenda Item:
April 14, 1999
The Planning Commission
The Planning Director
Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-01
Public hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan
concerning parking structures.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
• The Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed
amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the General
Plan if their recommendation is for approval.
• As required by the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the
Town.
ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: No environmental reviews or assessments have been conducted for this project.
EXHIBITS: A.-B. Previously submitted
C.
Letter in Comment from Carol Braham, received March 19. 1999
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY: Direction to staff and future recommendation to Town Council for approval.
A. DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission did not review this matter at its meeting of March 24, 1999 because of time
constraints and continued the public hearing on this application to its meeting of April 14, 1999. Additionally,
the following letter (Exhibit C) was received after the staff report was prepared.
f
Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director
Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner
LEB:EO
cc: Parking Commission
N:\DEV\R EPORTS\DT-SP-PK.PC3
ATTACHMENT 5
Carol Braham
151 'Hernandez Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
March 19, 1999
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
37:f'.1r,
MAR 1 9 1999
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
I am writing this letter to express my concern over the potential amendment to the Downtown
Specific Plan pertaining to parking. It is my understanding that the General Plan Committee is in
favor of eliminating the above ground constraint as stated in Section IV, Policy #9. While I know
that our town is currently dealing with a very complex and difficult parking problem, I do not
think that gaining the most possible parking spaces should be the overriding principal at the
expense of all else. As you know, Los Gatos is a unique and beautiful haven nestled in the
mountains. It is a place to be respected and protected which I believe is why Policy #9 was
adopted in the first place. Therefore, I ask you, is Los Gatos still not the quaint and charming
town that has attracted us all here and should we not continue to strive to maintain the ambiance
and landscape associated with it? Deleting the current height constraint will pave the way for
elevated parking structures which I believe is not in keeping with what Los Gatos is all about.
Policy #9 is just as important and applicable today as it was when it was written and approved.
Admittedly, the General Plan Committer would like to replace the above ground constraint with a
requirement that the parking structure design be in keeping with our sma11 town character. While
such language is meant to somehow try to reassure us that our town's character and charm will be
unchanged, it is too ambiguous, loosely written, and ineffective. Personally, I have never seen an
attractive parking structure nor do I see how it can not detract from the charm of our town.
Therefore, I ask that you seriously consider the ramifications of an amended plan allowing
elevated parking. This is a serious issue and once adopted, could literally change the face of Los
Gatos. Do we really have to alter our charter to help alleviate our parking problem? I believe
that we do not and that most importantly, we do not have to sacrifice the beauty and charm of our
town in favor of the "easier' solution to a difficult problem. As fellow residents and lovers of our
.town, I urge you to deny the proposed amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan concerning
elevated parking structures and request that we continue to deal with our parking problem with
respect for the history, charm, and landscape of our town.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Carol Braham
u
PfUIPIT C
y
Los Gatos Planning Commission
April 14, 1999
ADOPTED
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DIP-99-01. (00.06)
Public hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan concerning parking
structures. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos. continued from March 24,1999.
The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter.
Carol Braham, 151 Hernandez referred to her letter of March 19, 1999 and stated that she is very
concerned about changes to the Downtown Specific Plan to allow elevated parking structures. Ms.
Braham referred to the parking concerns and realizes that this is a difficult problem. However, she does
not want to see these concerns be the overriding principle for what is done in Town. Ms. Braham
requested that the Town consider the serious ramifications of amending the Plan to allow structures over
four feet above ground.
Chair Nachison clarified that Ms. Braham would like the current language to remain.
Ms. Braham stated that was correct. She believes the proposed language is to loose, open,
and subjective. Ms. Braham believes the current language is a safety devise and is
protecting the ambiance of the Town.
Commissioner Pacheco clarified that Ms. Braham had no objection to below grade parking.
Ms. Braham stated she has no objection to below grade parking.
Commissioner Quintana questioned, if a parking garage could be attractively designed, would this be a preference
to extensive "at grade" parking lots or street parking. Ms. Quintana stated that she has seen excellent examples
of this and feels this can be accomplished. Ms. Quintana is concerned that if the flexibility of the amendment
is not allowed, the Town will not have the opportunity to allow something better than an "at grade" parking lot.
Ms. Braham explained that the economics of this may not be possible and she understands
Ms. Quintana's concerns.
Commissioner Decker questioned if the concern was the Town ending up with a spine of two story structures
along the SP Right -of -Way and, with the intensification of retail, the Town may end up providing more high rise
space than presently exists. Ms. Decker pointed out that lot 4 is not completely "at grade" because of the
topography and, in the existing language there is a four foot differential which can be used.
Ms. Braham reiterated that she has no problem with going below grade but is very
concerned about anything above grade.
Commissioner Pacheco described different parking structures he has encountered which allows construction
slightly above grade or structures that are combined with retail on the street elevation.
Ms. Braham stated that she does not feel these alternatives are being considered because
of budget and immediate need for parking.
Chair Nachison clarified that the existing language was acceptable.
Barbara Spector, 121 Edelen Avenue, is also extremely concerned about above ground parking
23
ATTACHMENT 6
Los Gatos Planning Commission
April 14, 1999
ADOPTED
structures. Ms. Spector explained that she was a member of the Downtown Specific Plan Committee and
Planning Commission when the original language was adopted. Ms. Spector stated that the intent was
to recognize the need for parking but to discourage above grade parking structures and, therefore, the four
feet above grade had been a compromise. Ms. Spector explained the thought process of the Downtown
Specific Plan Committee at that time and their opposition to elevated structures. Ms. Spector stated that
she and the Committee had no problem with below grade structures and, feels the four feet height limit
should remain.
There was no one else in the audience to speak to this matter.
Chair Nachison closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Decker stated that she is concerned about writing General Plan language which might open the
door to the possibility of many above ground structures. Ms. Decker explained that she would like to be more
specific and, if we need language to address a specific structure, than this needs to be outlined. Ms. Decker feels
the SP Right -of -Way needs to remain at grade, or four feet above grade. Ms. Decker feels additional language
is necessary to reflect the comments that were made at the General Plan Committee meeting regarding changes
to the Downtown Specific Plan. Ms. Decker stated that the Committee had addressed aesthetic impact, residential
impact, and the EIR Ms. Decker would like to see additional language to section 9.
Chair Nachison clarified that additional language was needed to specify circumstances under which above grade
structures would be possible in specific, delineated, locations or areas.
Motion by Commissioner Decker, seconded by Commissioner Pacheco to return Downtown Specific
Plan Amendment DSP-99-01 to the General Plan Committee meeting of May 12, 1999 to consider the
following specifics:
1. The language should go forward if there is no viable alternative.
2. A Parking Structure is to meet the needs of existing uses in the area and will not be used to
increase the intensity of the use in the area.
3. The structure does not abut property that is zoned residential
4. The structure has no more than one deck above grade, preferably at four feet.
5. That an EIR be required for the projects and the cost of the EIR be an added cost of going above
ground and not a capital cost paid by the Town.
6. That wording be developed to include consideration of the viewscape, open space, pathways,
light impact, and the massing of above ground structures along the SP Right -of -Way.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
Chair Nachison stated that this action is to ask the General Plan Committee to reconsider it's vote in light of
further public testimony conceming the background and intent of the original language regarding the buffer along
the residential neighborhood and other such concerns.
Commissioner Morgan questioned the present locations being considered.
Mr. Bowman explained the alternatives presently being considered and the time lines
24
Los Gatos Planning Commission
April 14, 1999
ADOPTED
which has been set.
Commissioner Pacheco stated he is concerned about the viewscape, open space, and secondary pathways that
have been nurtured in these areas. Mr. Pacheco is also concemed about the light impact to the structures adjacent
to any above ground structure, and a long, continuous mass without articulation. Mr. Pacheco stated that he is
very uncomfortable about opening a doorway that lets everything in.
Commissioner Decker stated that the specifics she has outlined were concerns submitted to her by Michael Burke.
Ms. Decker explained that she and Mr. Burke were descending votes on the General Plan Committee because they
feel these concerns and specifics need to be addressed.
Carried unanimously. Commissioners Bruno and Lyon absent.
Motion by Chair Nachison, seconded by Commissioner Morgan to forward the minutes of this meeting
to the Town Council and to continue this matter to May 26, 1999.
Carried unanimously. Commissioners Bruno and Lyon absent.
25
Date Mav 21. 1999
For Agenda Of:
Agenda Item:
May 26. 1999
4
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: The Planning Director
LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-01
Public hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan
concerning parking structures.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
FINDINGS:
• The Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed
amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the General
Plan if their recommendation is for approval.
• As required by the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the
Town.
ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: No environmental reviews or assessments have been conducted for this project.
EXHIBITS: A.-C. Previously submitted
D. Draft General Plan Committee Meeting Minutes of May 12, 1999
E. 1982 Downtown Specific Plan EIR
F. 1987 Downtown Specific Plan Amendment/Parking Improvement Program
Negative Declaration and Initial Study.
G. Revised Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-01
H. Los Gatos Downtown Parking Improvement District Map (showing new
designations)
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY: Adopt Findings and Recommendation to Town Council for adoption.
A. DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission last considered this matter on April 14, 1999. The Commission continued the
public hearing on the matter to its meeting of May 26, 1999 and referred the matter back to the General
Plan Committee to consider the following:
1. The language should go forward if there is no viable alternative.
2. A parking structure is to meet the needs of existing uses in the area and will not be used to increase
the intensity of the use in the area.
3. The structure does not abut property that is zoned residential.
4. The structure has no more than one deck above grade, preferably at four feet.
5. That an EIR be required for the projects and the cost of the EIR be an added cost of going above
ground and not a capital cost paid by the Town.
6. That wording be developed to include consideration of the viewscape, open space, pathways, light
impact, and the massing of above ground structures along the SP (Southern -Pacific) Right-of-way.
ATTACHMENT 7
The Planning Commissio age 2
Downtown Specific Plan Amendment DSP-99-01
May 26, 1999
General Plan Committee Action:
The General Plan Committee considered the matter on April 28, 1999 and directed staff to provide a
revised version of the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) amendment for its May 12, 1999 meeting. At that
meeting, the General Plan Committee reviewed the Planning Commission's comments, received public
input from residents, amended the new text, and voted unanimously to recommend its approval (See
Exhibit D). Revised text for the DTSP amendment and a Parking Lot Reference Map based on the
language approved by the General Plan Committee are attached as Exhibits G & H, respectively.
Text and Map Revisions
Staff has prepared the revised amendment text in Exhibit G based on the General Plan Committee's
approved language and its direction to revise the Parking Lot Reference Map attached to the Downtown
Specific Plan. The current method of identifying the various public parking lots in the downtown does not
make sense! To improve the method of identifying public parking lots, staff amended the parking lot
references in the amendment as well as the numeric order of lots listed for Phase III of the Parking
Improvement Program (See Exhibit G, pages IV-2 & IV-4). A table is provided below showing the new
parking lot designations.
FORMER PARKING LOT
DESIGNATION
NEW PARKING LOT
DESIGNATION
LOT 1
(1) BACHMAN AVE. / HWY. 9 LOT
LOT 2
(2) ROYCE ST. / BACHMAN LOT
LOT 3
(3) GRAYS LN. / ROYCE ST. LOT
LOT 4
(4) ELM ST. / GRAYS LN. LOT
LOT 6
(5) STATION WAY LOT
LOT 13
(6) FARWELL LOT
LOT 9
(7) PARK AVE. LOT
LOT 15
(8) EAST MAIN ST. LOT
Environmental Review for DTSP Amendment:
No environmental review has been prepared by the Town for the recommended DTSP Amendment. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
environmental analyses for the 1982 Downtown Specific Plan EIR (Exhibit E) and 1987 DTSP
Amendment/Parking Improvement Program (PIP) Negative Declaration and Initial Study (Exhibit F). This
finding can be made because the parking facilities that can be constructed under the limitations of the
current amendment would have less impact than what is currently allowed under the existing DTSP and
PIP. Additionally, the amendment is consistent with the environmental review conducted for the 1987
PIP because the proposed text would implement the mitigation measure of amending the DTSP to allow
a parking structure on Lot 13 (Exhibit F, Page 42) .
The Planning Commissior 'age 3
Downtown Specific Plan Ariiendment DSP-99-01
May 26, 1999
Staff believes the impacts of parking facilities constructed under the limitations in the amendment would
be Tess than those under the existing DTSP because the amendment restricts all parking facilities (not
just structures), with the exception of Lot 13, to being constructed at grade or below grade. The
amendment would only allow a parking structure on Lot 13, if it is limited to only one level above grade.
As drafted, the amendment has stricter requirements for all parking facilities than the existing DTSP text
(i.e. not just parking structures), because it requires all facilities to "exhibit excellence in design, minimize
impacts on adjacent properties, and be consistent with the Town's character ".
The existing language in the DTSP and PIP arbitrarily limits the height of parking structures to four feet,
but would allow two additional structures on Lots 1 and 8 (See Exhibit F, Parking Improvement Plan Initial
Study -Pages 4,18-22, 25-29). The 1987 PIP Initial Study further notes that as a mitigation measure the
DTSP would have to be amended to "... permit decking and to allow a height of over four feet at Site 13
{Lot 13)." (Exhibit F, Page 42) This mitigation measure was not implemented by the Town since Phase
II (Collection of Fees/Generating Revenue) and Phase III (Construction of Parking Structures) of the PIP
have not yet been implemented. The adoption of the proposed amendment by the Town would
implement this mitigation measure.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows jurisdictions, to "Tier" environmental reviews,
by relying on earlier broad range analysis in documents such as the 1982 Downtown Specific Plan EIR
and 1987 DTSP Amendment/Parking Improvement Program Negative Declaration, and to limit future
environmental analysis to a scope or focus for specific impacts related to projects like individual parking
structures. If the Planning Commission finds that the DTSP amendment is consistent with the earlier
environmental analyses, the Town will require that any proposed parking structure be consistent with
these earlier environmental documents, and will require the preparation of an Initial Study which will
analyze specific impacts related to the project and provide detailed site specific mitigations addressing
any impacts noted.
B. RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission do the following:
1. Make a Finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the 1982 Environmental Impact
Report prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan and the Negative Declaration/Initial Study
prepared for the 1987 Downtown Specific Plan Amendment/Parking Improvement Plan, because
it has more restrictive limitations (i.e. allows only at or below grade structures downtown and allows
only one level above grade on Lot 13), and implements a mitigation measure (i.e. amending the
DTSP to "permit decking and allow a height of over four feet at Site 13 (LOT 13)").
2. Recommend that the Town Council find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the
General Plan.
3. Recommend that the Town Council adopt the proposed amendment.
L E. Bowman, Planning Director a-m�,
Prepared by: Erwin Ordonez. Associate Planner
LEB:EO:mdc
cc: Parking Commission
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE, OF THE TOWN OF LOS
GATOS FOR MAY 12, 1999 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST
MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 P.M. by Chair Burke.
ATTENDANCE
General Plan Committee
Members Present: Joe Pirzynski, Linda Lubeck, Sandy Decker, Michael Burke, Lee Quintana, Laura
Nachison, and Suzanne Muller
Members Excused:
Members Absent: Elizabeth Smith and Gary Ehlert
Staff Present: Lee E. Bowman - Planning Director; Bud Lortz - Assistant Planning Director:
Erwin Ordonez - Associate Planner
Others present: Paul Curtis - RBF, Jeff Kearns -Los Gatos Weekly, Carol Sraham, Shirley
Henderson. Eric Morley. and Larry Arzie
Verbal Communications
Carol Braham noted that she was a resident prepared to give comments regarding Item #3 DTSP Amendment
regarding parking structures.
Council Member Pirzynski questioned Paul Curtis and staff about the time line for the completion of the General
Plan Update and the progress made.
Paul Curtis noted that he expected an Administrative Draft General Plan by the end of August or early Fall.
reconstituting the General Plan Task Force II to provide comments on the Draft in October, and the
Environmental Impact Report for the document in the Spring of 2000.
ITEM 1: Approve minutes.
No minutes were available.
ITEM 2: Comments regarding General Plan Update.
Council Member Pirzynski presented printed copies of the City of Sunnyvale Web site
(www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/www2lindex.htm). He noted that this could serve as a model for the General Plan
Update and the Town's electronic outreach efforts. He questioned Paul Curtis and staff about what can be
done about getting information about the General Plan Update or the schedule on the Town's Web site since
the text of the draft was not yet available.
Paul Curtis responded that RBF has a web page and can put information about the Update on its own Web
site or provide links from the Town's web page to RBF's page. He stated that he would check with RBF's staff
about the specifics involved.
EXHIT 0
Chair Burke asked how much of the Draft Land Use Element is expected to be amended by the rewrite
committee and how much by RBF/Staff prior to the preparation of the Administrative Draft.
Council Member Lubeck questioned the process for the rewrite Committee to provide input.
Paul Curtis answered that he believes that some of the text will be shifted into other elements or sections with
some corresponding references from the Land Use Element and that he expects the rewrite committee to make
some changes. He further noted the input process and additional possible changes.
Commissioner Decker asked whether only the rewrite committee members are getting copies of the draft Land
Use Element at this time.
Assistant Planning Director Lortz noted that this was correct. He also noted the need for RBF to keep track
of issues that need to be addressed which are not in a specific section or are "outside the box issues" (i.e.
Union Avenue area neighbors who want the Town to change General Plan and Zoning designations from
Commercial to Residential for the former O'Shea's and adjacent properties). He further stated the need to have
this information included somewhere in the draft General Plan text and that his office phone number is available
for committee members to call 24-hours to discuss or leave a message regarding "outside the box" issues.
ITEM 3:
Discuss and recommend approval of a revised Downtown Specific Plan Amendment
DSP-99-01: Amending Section 1V of the Downtown Specific Plan concerning parking
structures.
Commissioner Decker noted that the Town Councii;ust held a parking study session on May 10. 1999 and that
perhaps one of the Council Members on the Committee would provide a summary.
Council Member Pirzynski volunteered to provide a summary. He noted that the Council and the public held
a study session with the Town's new parking consultant and that this consultant views parking structures as
buildings that can be designed within the context of the Town's character, rather than the utilitarian facilities
that are normally proposed. He gave his opinion that the general consensus from the study session was that
a parking structure at Station Way should be an "at grade" unit and that an above grade parking structure on
Lot 13 may be acceptable depending on its design and compatibility with small town character.
Council Member Lubeck affirmed this summary and noted that several members of the General Plan
Committee were in attendance. She also noted that she reviewed the attached Planning Commission minutes
and was clear about their intentions.
Council Member Pirzynski directed the Committee to review Policy #9 (Page IV-2 of Attachment 2).
Commissioner Decker noted that this language should be amended to be specific about parking structures
being at grade along the Southern -Pacific (SP) right-of-way.
The entire Committee spent several minutes discussing grammatical changes to the draft language in
Attachment 2.
Larry Arzie stated that he believed that the amended language from the Committee was too site specific and
does not allow the Town any flexibility for additional above grade structures should the resources or opportunity
ever arise for an acceptable site for an above ground structure (i.e. St. Luke's parking lot/Lundy Lane). He
further stated that if the intent is to prohibit two-story lots along the SP right-of-way, then it should say so.
Chair Burke questioned staff about the process to amend the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) if the suggested
language was adopted, and whether it was correct to assume that the "burden of proof" to change the plan
would fail on a developer if another parking garage was proposed for a private lot.
Planning Director Bowman noted that Chair Burke's analysis was correct, and that the issue of precluding more
parking structures with the language proposed really depends on rare "windows of opportunity" that arise from
lime to time. He referenced Mr. Arzie's comments, and noted that the Committee may want to decide whether
it wants to leave some flexibility for the Town to take advantage of these opportunities as they happen, or let
the Town revise the DTSP in response to proposals for more structures.
Carol Braham stated that she favors the draft text as amended by the Committee and felt that the language
proposed by Mr. Arzie is too liberal. She also asked where the existing 4 foot limitation in the DTSP came from.
Committee Member Muller attempted to address Ms. Braham's question.
Assistant Planning Director Lortz corrected the information he had previously provided to Committee Member
Muller, and noted the history behind the 4 foot limitation.
Council Member Lubeck commented that she was in agreement with Mr. Arzie's comments regarding retaining
the Town's flexibility for future opportunities for more parking and would like to see some Ianguage.that allowed
that.
Council Member Pirzynski stated that he likes the limitations in the amended draft and would like to see this
language move forward.
Assistant Planning Director Lortz suggested some changes based on the Committee's discussion.
Chair Burke noted that he had moved for a vote of this amended language as suggested by Assistant Planning
Director Lortz.
Commissioner Decker seconded Chair Burke's motion noting that she accepts the rewritten language and that
the Planning Commission did not want broader language. She welcomed opportunities for more parking, but
could not see within the foreseeable future examples as presented by Mr. Arzie of when and where the Town
could add more structures besides those already being discussed by the Council. She further noted that if an
opportunity for another structure comes up, then the Town should amend the DTSP at that time.
Mr. Arzie noted that he was of two minds with regards to parking structures and that a limit on structures will
minimize growth downtown, and he is in favor of that.
Council Member Pirzynski stated that he supports this amended language.
Chair Burke noted that he had moved for a vote and that it was seconded by Commissioner Decker.
The Committee voted unanimously, 7-0, 2 absent (Ehlert & Smith), to amend the downtown specific plan to
read:
"...Page IV-2 POLICY #9
Parking facilities in Downtown Los Gatos shall be at or below grade. A parking structure may be
acceptable on Lot 13 with one level above grade. All parking facilities must exhibit excellence in
design. minimize impacts on adjacent properties, and be consistent with the Town's Character."
Council Member Lubeck and Commissioner Decker noted that the language on Page IV-4 should also be
amended and that the corresponding map of referenced parking lots needs to be revised.
The Committee voted unanimously, 7-0, 2 absent (Ehlert & Smith), to revise the map and add the following
addition to the language approved earlier:
"...Page IV-4 Phase III
6. Parking Lot 3"
Mr. Arzie noted that the General Plan Task Force also was concerned about Page IV-3 Policy B. (1). ,"...A
unified parking district forte CBD/East Main Street.", that the Task Force wanted a moratorium on any further
new development until parking was fully addressed, and that this did not get noted in their official
recommendations.
Planning Director Bowman stated that the Town had already adopted moratoria based on both new
development and traffic in the Downtown and is precluded by existing laws from enacting additional moratoria
based on these issues.
Committee Members Muller and Nachison also noted that the agendized item before the Committee was only
regarding Section IV Parking Structures and that they could not take any action on Parking Districts.
A djo u rnment.
Chair Burke moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Seconded by Commissioners Decker, Nachison. and
Quintana. Approved unanimously 7-0, 2 absent (Ehlert & Smith).
Prepared by'
Erwin Ordonez, Associate Planner
cc: Planning Commission Chair
General Plan Committee
M C2-4\MINUTESGPC123. mm
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
INU_OE_LIIS_LATOS
QOWNIOWN_BEEIIIEIC_ELBN
Prepared by Town of Los Gatos Planning Department
Recommended to the Town Council for Certification
by the Town Planning Commission February 22, 1982
Certified by the Town Council May 18, 1982
EXHIBIT E
Dave Mora, Town Manager
Iawn_Eldnnins_Deearfinen
Lee E. Bowman, Director
Don Ross, Senior Planner
David Spaur, Planning Intern
I2wn_Eutl is _!a! Qrk a_Bee ar to en
J. F. Van Houten, Director
Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce
2/22/82
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENYIB NMENIGL ZME�CL�QBLEIR-S1-2
Q4 lISWd_SEE:IFIC PLad
Introduction
Scope of the EIR
Reference Sheet to Downtown Specific Plan
Description of Proposed Project
Description of Environmental Setting
Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Adverse Effects which cannot be avoided if
the project is implemented
Project Alternatives
Short Term vs. Long Term
Irreversible Environmental Changes
Growth -Inducing Impact
Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report
dated October 21, 1981 with Distribution List
Notice of Completion of Environmental Impact Report
dated October 30, 1981 with Distribution List
. Copy of Newsletter sent to all addresses and property
owners in Los Gatos and Urban Service Area
Summary List of comments received from Newsletter
Public Hearing before Planning Commission November 11, 1981
Proof of Publication
Verification of Posting
Copy of Notice of Hearing
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission November 12, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission November 17, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission November 18, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
2/22/82
1BLE OF CONTENTS
EWIRLdMENIAL IMUCI REPORT EIE1L2
DOWNTOWN 2EE:IFIC PLAN
Public Hearing before Planning Commission December 3, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission December 9, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission December 10, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission December 16, 1981
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission January 13, 1982
Proof of Publication
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning
Minutes of Hearing
Commission
Commission
January 20, 1982
February 3, 1982
Public Hearing before Planning Commission February 10, 1982
Minutes of Hearing
Public Hearing before Planning Commission February 22, 1982
Minutes of Hearing
Letters
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g•
h.
i.
J.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
P•
2/22/82
Responding to Project:
Los Gatos -Saratoga Board of Realtors dated November 3, 1981
Ben Griffin dated November 5, 1981
Alvin Spivak dated November 7, 1981
Robert Cowen dated November 8, 1981
H. Reed Searle dated November 9, 1981
Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce dated November 10, 1981
Tom Baer dated November 13,.1981
Dick Gaines dated November 16, 1981
Transportation Agency, Santa'Clara County, dated November 16,
1981
Robert Rice dated November 18, 1981
Los Gatos Community Services and Development Commission
dated November 18, 1981
Bob Cowen dated December 2, 1981
Los Gatos Park Commission dated December 2, 1981
Alice and Carl Thorsby dated December 2, 1981
Los Gatos -Saratoga Board of Realtors dated December 7, 1981
Dick Gaines dated December 16, 1981
q. Almond Grove Assn dated January 18, 1982
r. Dick Gaines dated anuary 19, 1982
s. Eric Carlson dated January 20, 1982
t. R. L. Coonce dated February 3, 1982
u. Roberta Treseder dated February 6, 1982
v. Kathleen Butler
w. Walter Jessen
x. Robert Witham
Y. Marian Witham
'z. Michael Silva
aa. Chamber of Commerce outline for parking proposal
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
I�o_CQlacil
Peter W. Siemens, Mayor
Brent N. Ventura
Thomas J. Ferrito
Ruth Cannon
Marlyn Rasmussen
Iawn_Elaaaias_CQmmiasiQa
Sam E. Laub, Chairman
Barbara Spector, Vice -Chairman
Thomas Baer
Eric D. Carlson
Lois Chapson
lradley Clifford
Richard Gaines
Dale Hill
Allen Slutman
IQwo_8duisQay_CQmmitee
K. Morgan, Chairman
B. Holding, Vice -Chairman
J. Aiello
K. Anderson
M. Bass
J. Benjamin
R. Burbank
J. Burland
H. Campbell
E. Carlson
B. Christensen
M. Cosgrove
K. Ettinger
2/22/82
L. Frey
A. Gherardi
J. Goodwin
J. Howell
J. Kjemtrup
D. O'Toole
G. Rugani
K. Steffan
B. Templeton
C. Thomas
J. Vanderlaan
M. Voelker
F. Young
EIR REFERENCE SHEET
Ifems_E ir_si_t ta.te auldelines Loca+iQa in_Dcwatawa_Elaa
Ease
I. Desc.Lieflza_al_Ezc .leed_Eradeaf
Detailed Maps
i, II-6, II-7
Technical Appendix
Statement of Goals I-1, II-2, III-1, IV-1,
V-1, VI-1, VII-1
Project Description i through iii
Technical Appendix
II. Desnriefinn_nf_EavirQnmea+al_Sef.iins
Introduction Technical Appendix
History Technical Appendix
Planning Background Technical Appendix
Circulation Technical Appendix
Parking Technical Appendix
Implementation Technical Appendix
III. EDwirQamea±al_imeaaf
Significant Environmental Impacts (See EIR)
Significant Environmental Impacts
Which Cannot Be Avoided if the
Project is Implemented
Mitigation Measures
Project Alternatives
Short Term vs. Long Term
Irreversible Environmental Changes
2/22/82
(See EIR)
(See EIR)
(See EIR)
(See EIR)
(See EIR)
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Los Gatos Downtown Specific Plan has been prepared during
the past ten months with significant citizen input through the Town
ldvisory Committee made up of local citizens, newsletters and a
town -wide meeting. The Plan is intended to serve Town policymakers as
they guide the future of the downtown area in a manner that will meet
community goals and objectives. The Plan is also intended to serve as
a statement describing the Town's policies concerning the downtown
area * to potential developers, and as a tool to evaluate future
development proposals.
Once adopted by the Planning Commission and Town Council, the Downtown
Specific Plan will require revisions to zoning and parking ordinances
as steps towards implementation of the Plan. This Environmental
Impact Report is intended to describe potential environmental impacts
(both positive and negative) that could result from Plan
implementation as required by CEGIA.
SCOPE OF THE EIR
This EIR is intended to be read in conjunction with the Final Draft
Town of Los Gatos Downtown Specific Plan, referred herein as "The
Downtown Plan". To avoid redundancy, most of the material discussed
in the Downtown Plan is not repeated in the EIR. The EIR primarily
discusses impacts, mitigation measures and possible project
altenatives. Taken together, this EIR and the Downtown Plan satisfy
all state requirements for EIRs.
2/22/82
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In response to the direction of the Town Advisory Committee, the
Downtown Plan is preservation oriented. In general, very few changes
have been recommended other than those related to the health, safety
and welfare of the public, and that improve its operation, appearance
and identity. As a consequence, very few adverse environmental
effects are expected. In essence, the Plan has had the benefit of
having its mitigation measures "built-in' during its development and
extensive citizen review period.
This EIR will focus on the significanct impacts related to
implementation programs contained in the Downtown Plan, as described
below. The implementation programs described in the Downtown Plan
fall into two major categories:
1. Eecammendgd__2Q].icital including zoning, land use, parking,
building conversions, housing and architectural design.
2. Becnmmeaded afaxaical_imaccNemea±al including circulation and
parking improvements (e.g. street widening, intersection
improvements, new surface parking lots, parking structures, etc.)
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
1. E LILIES:
A. The Downtown Plan recommends that "additional conversions
of residential buildings to commercial uses shall be
prohibited".
The community has expressed strong concerns about further
conversion of residential buildings to commercial uses in
downtown residential neighborhoods, and further diminishing
the housing stock of the Town. In addition, this action is
taken in response to the traffic and parking problems in
the area identified by the hearing process, and as a means
to preserve the character of the local neighborhood. As
such, this policy is judged to have a beneficial impact on
the community.
8. The Downtown Plan contains a policy to "rezone both sides
of University Avenue from Saratoga south to Mullen Avenue
from commercial to residential uses (including multi -family
housing)".
Significant community comments have been received related
to concerns over the conversion of residential buildings to
commercial uses in this area. University Avenue presently
contains many fine older homes which could be lost to
conversion to commercial uses. This policy is judged to be
beneficial as it meets the community's goal to preserve
downtown residential neighborhoods.
2/22/82
C. The Downtown F i recommends "a residential par: 3 program
on streets adjacent to the CBD to reduce the impact of
downtown parking on nearby residential areas". Several
variations of such a permit program are provided.
This is considered to be a beneficial impact as it will
remove the existing parking impacts of downtown shoppers
and employees from adjacent residential neighborhoods. The
preferential parking program would only be implemented
after additional parking improvements have been made in the
downtown area to accommodate shoppers and employees.
D. The Downtown Plan recommends policies regulating the types
of downtown commercial uses and their intensity.
Los Gatos, residents have complained about the loss of
visitor -serving stores and their replacement by specialty
shops (restaurants, bars, etc.) that generate high traffic,
parking and noise impacts on the commercial and residential
areas of the downtown. These policies are intended to
decrease these impacts and are performance oriented so that
proposed commercial establishments can be evaluated based
on trip, parking and noise generation impacts. The
proposed policies are therefore considered to be beneficial
to the Los Gatos community.
E. The Downtown Plan recommends that, upon the petition of
local residents, traffic diverters be considered, on a
trial basis, in adjacent residential areas.
This policy recommendation is considered to be beneficial
in that it meets community objectives to reduce "through
traffic" impacts on downtown residential neighborhoods.
The proposed traffic diverters, which would be located in
coordination with local residents, are designed to divert
and discourage through traffic short cuts through the
neighborhoods mentioned.
F. The Downtown Plan recommends that a consolidated parking
district or authority be established for the entire Central
Business District (CBD), and that all CBD parking areas be
used on a multi and joint use basis. Further, the Downtown
Plan recommends a change in parking requirements within the
CBD for existing parcels and new developments.
The proposals for a consolidated parking district or
authority in the CBD, and for changes in existing parking
requirements, are considered beneficial. This is based on
parking analyses which indicate that the direct application
of the Town's parking regulations to each individual parcel
significantly overstates CBD needs (present and future),
2/22/82
and, therefor-- would make unproductive and ur-manic use
of much of ne downtown area. These largE snnecessary
parking areas would also be unsightly in appearance. The
recommended parking policies apply joint use overlaps of
parking requirements for different activities during
different times of the day and/or night, thereby greatly
reducing the duplication of parking requirements. For
example, application of current Town parking requirements
to each individual parcel in the C80 results in the need
for approximately 4,800 parking spaces. Within this same
area approximately 2,100 private and public parking spaces
exist. This yields a net deficiency of 2,700 parking
spaces. In addition, property owners in the downtown area
who do not currently provide the required parking spaces
have had their properties declared "non -conforming and have
been required to meet the parking regulations in the near
future or face the possibility of having to terminate their
businesses if they fail to' do so. In addition, these
property owners cannot presently rebuild to existing areas
in the event of some disaster, (fire, etc.)". Applying the
concepts of joint use and the new parking standards
recommended in the Downtown Plan results in a current C8D
parking deficit of 260 parking spaces. In addition,
depending on downtown land use policies, an additional 300
- 360 spaces will be required during the next ten years.
The application of the proposed parking policies would also
remove the "non -conforming" status of most downtown
properties.
2. einICaL_IMEROVEMEESI
A. The Downtown Plan recommends improvements to the Town's
circulation system, including the widening of the south
side of Saratoga Avenue between Santa Cruz Avenue and
Massol Avenue to provide at least two travel lanes in the
eastbound direction. It also recommends that the Santa
Cruz and Saratoga intersection be upgraded by
rechannelizing this intersection to provide improved
turning lanes and by installing master coordination
equipment to synchronize lights along Saratoga for maximum
traffic flows.
The three lane section of Saratoga Avenue from Monterey
Avenue to the western Town limits is a severe restraint on
the capacity of the entire facility. This narrow section
has created a major congestion poblem in the downtown area,
and is responsible for many of the neighborhood intrusions
and C80 traffic problems caused by commuters who seek to
avoid Saratoga Avenue by "short -cutting" through local
streets. Further, traffic congestion and "bottlenecks"
along Saratoga Avenue deteriorate ambient noise and air
2/22/82
quality level' In addition, drivers and pa angers who
are forced to ‘,.ait in their cars create economic and energy
losses in terms of lost productivity and fuel expenditures.
The intersection of Santa Cruz Avenue with Saratoga Avenue
is a major point of downtown congestion, particularly
during the afternoon peak. Traffic on Santa Cruz Avenue is
expected to increase due to increased activity in the CBD,
from the diversion of through traffic in the Almond Grove
area, from the development of vacant parcels, and from the
Town's "l0O% build out rule" if it continues in effect.
Recommended improvements that will improve the flow of
traffic along Saratoga Avenue, through the Santa Cruz
intersection, and that remove turning vehicles from the
travel lanes will all have beneficial impacts on the
community.
B. The Downtown Plan recommends parking improvements including
some new paved areas and decked parking structures to
provide additional CBD parking spaces.
A series of alternative recommendations have been developed
for the improvement of parking facilities within the
downtown area of the Town of Los Gatos. Each alternative
presents two phases of recommendations. Phase I (near
term) improvements are intended to alleviate existing
parking shortages. Phase II recommendations are intended
to mitigate parking deficits resulting from increased
activity between 1980 and 1990. These parking alternatives
could provide up to 382 paved parking spaces. Under the
implementation section for parking, a parking committee is
to be formed to report back to the Planning Commission with
specific recommendations for a parking plan.
A11 of the alternatives include paving of the existing SP
right-of-way from Elm to Grays Lane providing 139
additional parking spaces. (This improvement has already
been proposed in the Town budget)
While these parking improvements require the expenditure of
significant funds, resources and energy, the cumulative
impacts are beneficial in that they will provide the parkig
necessary for the CBD to function in a sound manner, will
reduce existing parking deficiencies, and will remove the
"non -conforming" status of many existing downtown
properties. In this way, the proposed parking improvements
meet community goals and objectives.
Potentials exist for a parking structure to create visual
intrusions into the local CBD environment due to its mass
and appearance. For this reason the Specific Plan requires
2/22/82
that the surface of the top level of any such structure
start no more han four feet above grade. litional
mitigation measures should be required to keep the overall
height of parking structures to the lowest possible
dimension; to terrace and/or step back upper floors to
reduce visual imp -acts; to use buidling forms that provide a
small-scale appearance and prevent long straight-line
facades; to use forms, colors and materials consistent and
compatible with nearby buildings and the CBD; and that
integrate landscape elements to soften and mitigate the
appearance of these parking structures.
C. The Downtown Plan includes recommendations for community
design improvements, including street trees, lighting,
signs, planting, paving and other elements of street
furniture. Further, new mid -block pedestrian arcades
linking Santa Cruz Avenue with existing and new parking
facilities along the SP right-of-way have been proposed.
The community design improvements recommended in the
Downtown Plan are seen as beneficial in that they improve
the image and the identity of downtown and offer residents
and visitors orientation and guidance as they move through
the downtown and/or to downtown destinations. These
improvements are also designed to improve the overall
appearance and attractiveness of the Town's downtown area.
The proposed pedestrian arcades are judged to be beneficial
as they will provide small-scale exclusively pedestrian
areas in the CBD, and will provide convenient links between
parking and downtown commercial activities.
D. The Downtown Plan contains a series of policies to prohibit
any additional conversions of existing residential uses to
commercial uses and to preserve the stock of affordable
housing and rental units now available. In addition, the
plan encourages the development of new affordable housing
within the downtown residential neighborhoods consistent
with existing neighborhood character, use and design.
In recognition of the regional context within which the
Town lies, the Downtown Plan provides for the potential
construction of additional housing units. The majority of
these would be designed for special use groups such as
senior citizens. As these. special groups.move to this new
housing, the larger units being vacated would then become
available to people with families and with other housing
needs.- While the amount of available land for new housing
is severely limited, the plan designates those sites
appropriate for higher density housing as "High Density
Special Use 20+DU/acre" to help meet both the local_ and
regional needs.
E. The plan meets any concern over air pollution by limiting
traffic generation and encouraging the use of mass transit.
/22/82
ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CAN'arlT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS T"°LEMENTED
The Downtown Plan was developed to meet community needs and objectives
in close coordination with Town policymakers, citizens and staff. It
is intended to guide and coordinate downtown implementation programs
designed to resolve existing downtown issues and future needs. No
significant adverse environmental effects are expected to be caused by
the implementation of the Downtown Plan. The major issues related to
the Plan are concerned with the cost and appearance of circulation and
parking improvements and with an equitable method to form a
consolidated parking district or authority.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
1.
Ih2_1111o=Qro.ieril 3lternatj e is.urr2aLizeosisl
The "no -project" alternative would simply continue the present
activity patterns in downtown Los Gatos. These activities are
currently causing significant adverse impacts in terms of
disruption of downtown residential neighborhoods, traffic
bottlenecks, parking deficiencies, conversion of residential
buildings to commercial use, and to the image of the C80. In
addition, without the proposed Plan, man> downtown property
owners would remain in jeopardy of losing their businesses if
they cannot meet current parking requirements.
2. Maximum_ar b
An intensive growth alternative was studied for the downtown area
which included development of vacant downtown parcels and the
conversion and/or development of selected downtown parcels to
more intense uses. This alternative was strongly rejected by the
Town Advisory Committee in that it violated the community's goal
to preserve the character of the downtown area, and also because
it increased the Town's circulation and parking problem.
3. Con+rolled sCQW+h
A modified growth alternative was also studied which included the
development of the few remaining downtown vacant parcels to
commercial uses and the conversion of residential buildings to
commercial uses limited to those blocks where such conversion has
already occurred. This alternative was also rejected by the Town
Advisory Committee on the grounds that it also violated the
community's preservation goals -- particularly along University
Avenue -- and also increased current parking and circulation
problems.
4. tio_srosith
A no growth alternative was studied and found to be unrealistic
in terms of rights of owners of existing vacant parcels to
develop their properties within current guidelines, and with
2/22/82
f-
f f SHORT TERM VS. LONG TERM
The short term effects of the proposed Downtown Plan include
improvements designed to meet current and future needs — particularly
in the areas of circulation and parking. However, the long term
effects may be more significant in terms of establishing a policy
framework for the orderly development and management of the downtown
area in a manner that meets the community's preservation goals while
providing a sound mix of specialty and local -serving downtown
commercial activities.
market analyses whir', indicated strong demand for 4ditional
commercial and office 'ace in the downtown area.
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The proposed Downtown Plan does not envision any irreversible
environmental changes. The addition of additional paved parking
within the CBD may create some new visual scenes in the downtown area,
and the proposed circulation improvements will modify the appearance
of Saratoga Avenue and its intersection with Santa Cruz Avenue. There
are no •significant adverse impacts anticipated by any measures or
policies recommended by this Plan.
GRCW T H INDUCING IMPACT
The Downtown Plan, as proposed, will not in itself create new growth
in the downtown area as it has been designed to greatly limit CSC
growth. According to the Plan, approximately 156,000 square feet of
aet commercial space have been forecast which represent relatively
little increase in the amount of commercial space currently in the
downtown area. The Plan estimates that approximately 100 new housing
units will be built in the downtown .area by 1990, and that retail
sales growth anticipated in the downtown will lead to an increase in
sales tax revenues of about 3190,000 (in constant 1980 dollars)
between 1980 and 1990. Additional commercial employement in the
downtown area between 1980 - 1990 is expected to range between 820 -
920 employees to be added to the 3,580 employees who currently work in
the Town's downtown. These figures represent a modest increase over
existing activity patterns.
'92
GP-87-1/2
Initial Environmental Study
Page 2
The project requires the review of the Parking Commission, Planning Commission.
:end the Town Council.
Conies of the initial study used to make the above recommendation are on file and
available for public inspection during regular working hours at the Town Planning
Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California.
Date /
GP01(GP-87-1/ 2
i•
+ r
LEE E. BOWMAN, Planning Director
EEBUNE:21.E_Etial
EE lJFCT IIILE:
EILIIECLBQRRESS ;
P.BQJSCT c r?TION:
I E_LQE_fl TO;
0ECLSB6II
Town of Los Gatos
General Plan Amendment GP-87-1/2
Downtown Los Gatos (various locations)
1. Qenegal Plan ameridmen t GP-flZ-S
Consideration of amendments to the General Plan concerning the Downtown
Parking Improvement Program, Land Use Designations in the Downtown Area, and
minor corrections that reflect the status of the impleserit3tion measures
currently listed in the General Plan.
2. QQwntnwn_ Serific Plan (mffidmeflt GP-87-2 •
Consideration of amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan concerning the
Downtown Parking Improvement Program, Traffic/Roadway Capacity Review,
Neighborhood Parking Program, Land Use Designations in the Downtown Area and
minor corrections that reflect the status of the implementation measures
currently listed in the Downtown Specific Plan.
ENVIEtiialT L STUDY
PBEE9EEQ—BY :
ENVIRONMEUIBL
ASSESSMENT:
Planning Department, Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact upon
the environment.
WE
1. The project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan.
2. The project is consistent with surrounding land uses with the incorporation of
mitigation measures.
3. Mitigation measures described in the Initial Study have been incorporated into
the project.
4. The project relieves parking congestion in the Central Business District,
eliminates commercial parking in residential areas, reduces traffic, and
improves the appearance of unimproved parking areas.
EXHIBIT F
Downtown Parking Improvement Program - 1987
Mitigation Measures
LAND USE
Adjustment of the C-1 zoning district boundary to include all
of Site 15.
Design of the parking lots and structures
interfaces with adjoining uses.
Construction of concrete or masonry walls
lines of lots in a residential zone.
7ISVAL/A2ST8ZTIC
with appropriate
along the property
Design of the parking structures so that the upper surface is
at the lowest possible height aid no more than four feet
above the existing grade.
Use of building forms that provide a small-scale
and avoid long straight-line facades.
appearance
Use of parking structure forms, colors, and materials
consistent and compatible with nearby buildings and the
Central Business District.
• Integration of landscape elements to soften and screen
parking structures.
Design and location of the parking meters and signs
compatible with the downtown area.
the
be
• Review and approval of the final parking structure design,
meters, and signs by the Parking Commission, Planning
Commission, and Town Council.
TOPOGRAPEET
Design of the parking structures to blend with the adjacent
grades.
Use of retaining walls where necessary to avoid disruption'of
adjacent properties.
Contouring and landscaping of the sloped area of Site
provide a natural appearance.
9 to
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Preparation of a soils report for each site with attention to
identified potential hazards such as landslides at Site 11/12
and incorporation of the soils engineer's 'recommendations
into the protect.
BIOTA
Planting of new trees and landscaping on all of the sites.
Approval of tree removal permits for the removal of any
trees.
Retention of the existing trees within the State right-of-way
along State Route 17, adjacent to Site 9.
NO ISE/'vIBRATION/ CONSTRUCTION
Control of dust by requiring and enforcing measures such as
the use of .watering trucks in the grading contract
provisions.
Grading during the summer months to minimize the potential
for erosion during construction.
Regulation of equipment noise levels and operating hours.
Use of designated truck routes by hauling vehicles.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Public notice of the availability of parking in the lot north
of Saratoga Avenue during the construction period.
EOtSING/3USINNSS
Development of a relocation program to assist the displaced
residents and businesses in finding new locations in
accordance with State and local laws.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Reuse of the rocks within the existing stone wall along the
roadway that led to Memorial Park in some form within the
project, either as part of a retaining wall or as a landscape
feature.
INITIAL STUDY
DOWNTOWN PARKING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1987
for
'I W WN at LO$ GATO$
January 9, 1987
Mindigo & Associates Environmental Consultants
1984 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 554-6531
INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study was prepared by Mindigo & Associates for the
Town of Los Gatos. The report has been reviewed by the Planning
and Engineering Departments.
The study covers the Town of Los Gatos Downtown Parking
Improvements Program - 1987 that has been developed as part of
the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). General
Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance amendments
associated with the plan are also included. This study is based
on the Final Downtown Parking Improvement Program report,
information supplied by the Town staff, and current improvement
plans.
The DSP was adopted in May, 1982, after several years of
preparation and review. An Environmental Impact Report was
prepared and reviewed in conjunction with the DSP. The DSP and
EIR provide background information and the basis for the
project. The Downtown Parking Improvement Program is outlined in a
final report dated March 8, 1985, that was prepared by Wilbur
Smith and Associates (WSA) in conjunction with the Parking
Commission and the Town staff. The WSA report describes the
development of the program and examines alternatives. The DSP and
EIR and WSA reports are incorporated by reference. Information
from these reports is included or summarized in this document.
The original plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 1985.
During the Parking Commission's evaluation, it was determined that
development of all the sites was not feasible at that time due to
limited funds and lack of support from business owners within the
district. The project was, therefore, revised to the current
phased project. Phase One includes the improvement and
construction of Sites 3, 4, 9, and a new Site 15. Phase Two
i
includes the installation of parking meters and expansion of
residential permit parking. Phase Three includes the eventual
improvement and construction of Sites 1, 8,'\11/12, and 13.
The primary purpose of this Initial Study is to determine if the
project may have a significant effect on the environment. Other
purposes are to:
• Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis
for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration.
• Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify the project,
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby
enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration.
• Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be
significant,
Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
and
Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially
significant effects would not be significant.
• Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the
project.
• Provide documentation of the actual basis for the finding in
the negative declaration that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
• Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with
the project.
The following potential significant environmental effects were
identified in the review of the projects: land use,
visual/aesthetic, topography, geology and soils, biota,
noise/vibration/construction, traffic/circulation, housing/
business, and historic resources.
ii
With the incorporation of the mitigation measures listed in this
study, or similar measures, the project is not expected to have a
significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration
has been prepared for Phases One and Two for consideration by the
approving body. An updated Initial Study will be required for
Phase Three when improvements for the Phase Three sites are
proposed.
MITIGATION SUMMARY
The mitigation measures identified in the study are listed below
under their respective topic headings.
LAND USE
Approval of a general plan amendment to Central Business
District and rezoning to C-2 Downtown Commerical for a portion
of Site 11/12 (APN-592-29-8).
. Approval of a Downtown Specific Plan amendment to permit
decking and to allow a height of over four feet at Site 13.
. Adjustment of the C-1 zoning district boundary to include all
of Site 15.
. Design of the parking lots and structures with appropriate
interfaces with adjoining uses.
. Construction of concrete or masonry walls along the property
lines of lots in a residential zone.
iii
VISUAL/AESTHETIC
• Design of the parking structures so that the upper surface is
at the lowest possible height and no more than four feet above
the existing grade.
. Use of building forms that provide a small-scale appearance and
avoid long straight-line facades.
Use of parking structure forms, colors, and materials
consistent and compatible with nearby buildings and the Central
Business District.
. Integration of landscape elements to soften and screen the
parking structures.
. Design and location of the parking meters and signs to be
compatible with the downtown area.
• Review and approval of the final parking structure design,
meters, and signs by the Parking Commission, Planning
Commission, and Town Council.
TOPOGRAPHY
. Design of the parking structures to blend with the adjacent
grades.
. Use of retaining walls where necessary to avoid disruption of
adjacent properties.
. Contouring and landscaping of the sloped area of Site 9 to
provide a natural appearance.
iv
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
• Preparation of a soils report for each site with attention to
identified potential hazards such as landslides at Site 11/12
and incorporation of the soils engineer's recommendations into
the project.
BIOTA
. Planting of new trees and landscaping on all of the sites.
. Design of the parking structure to avoid impacts on the large
trees adjacent to Site .1.
. Replacement of any of the trees adjacent to Site 1 that are
impacted by the parking structure with new trees.
. Approval of tree removal permits for the removal of any trees.
. Retention of the existing trees within the State right-of-way
along State Route 17, adjacent to Site 9.
NOISE/VIBRATION/CONSTRUCTION
. Control of dust by requiring and enforcing measures such as the
use of watering trucks in the grading contract provisions.
. Grading during the summer months to minimize the potential for
erosion during construction.
. Regulation of equipment noise levels and operating hours.
. Use of designated truck routes by hauling vehicles.
v
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
. Public notice of the availability of parking in the lot north
of Saratoga Avenue during the construction period.
▪ Consideration of shuttle service between the downtown area and
available parking areas such as the lot north of Saratoga
Avenue during the construction of the parking structure on
Site 1.
HOUSING/BUSINESS
. Relocation of the apartment building on site 8 to another
location.within the Town.
Development of a relocation program to assist the displaced
residents and businesses in finding new locations in accordance
with State and local laws.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
• Reuse of the rocks within the existing stone wall along the
roadway that led to Memorial Park in some form within the
project, either as part of a retaining wall or as a landscape
feature.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
MITIGATION SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
BACKGROUND 3
NEW FACILITIES 3
PLAN AND ORDINANCE CHANGES 5
PARKING SPACES 27
METERS 28
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING 28
PHASING 28
FUNDING 29
BENEFITS 30
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND EIR 30
1. POLICIES 31
2." PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS 32
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING 33
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 35
III. IMPACTS 39
IV. MITIGATION 42
A. LAND USE 42
B. VISUAL / AES'i2t iIC 43
C. TOPOGRAPHY 44
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 44
E. BIOTA 45
F. NOISE / VIBRATION / CONSTRUCTION 46
G. TRAFFIC / CIRCULATION 47
H. HOUSING / BUSINESS 48
I. HISTORIC RESOURCES 48
APPENDIX
AUTHORS ANr 7ONSULTANTS
PERSONS AN 1GANIZATIONS CONSULTED
SOURCES Al- EFERENCES
TABLE I.
TABLE I I .
TABLE III.
PROJECT DATA
LIST OF TABLES
PARKING SPACES - PHASE ONE
PARKING SPACES - PHASE THREE
LIST OF FIGURES
4
27
27
REGIONAL MAP 2
LOCATION MAP 6
VIEW OF.SITE 3 8
SITE 3 PLAN 9
VIEW OF SITE 4 10
SITE 4 PLAN - UPPER LEVEL 11
SITE 4 PLAN - LOWER LEVEL 12
VIEW OF SITE 9 13
VIEW OF SITE 9 14
SITE 9 PLAN 15
VIEW OF `SITE 15 16
SITE 15 PLAN 17
VIEW OF SITE 1 19
SITE 1 CONCEPTUAL PLAN 20
VIEW OF SITE 8 21
SITE 8 CONCEPTUAL PLAN 22
VIEW OF SITE 11/12 23
SITE 11/12 CONCEPTUAL PLAN 24
VIEW OF SITE 13 25
SITE 13 CONCEPTUAL PLAN *26
Mindigo & Associates ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Parking Improvement Program- I987 Job No..:
SPONSOR:
Town of Los Gatos
Date: January 9. 1987
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1
Location: Central Business District (CBD)
Assessor's Parcel Number(s) : See following project description
Brief Description: Construction of surface parking_ lots, depressed parking with
deck structures, installation of meters, and increased residential permit parking
Processing Procedure: Assessment District
Start/Completion Dates:Phase One: Spring, '87-Fall, '88; Phase Two:Fall,'88- unktww
>' se oine unknown.
/LAND USE SUMMARY - See Attached Sheets
Site 15 requires partial rezoning.
Use, Zoning, General Plan: A portion of Site 11/12 requires a GPA and rezoning
Visual/Aesthetic: Structures have potential impacts,
Historic:
Airports:
Growth Inducing Effect:
NATURAL CONDITIONS
Topography:
Geology and -Soils:
Seismic Hazards:
Biotics:
Hydrology:
Air Quality:
Noise:
iI oration/Glare:
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Sanitary Sewers:
Water:
Norm Drainage:
Solid Waste:
Police:
Fire:
Schools:
Parks:
Traffic/Circulation:
Gas/Electric/Telephone:
Excavation and fill are required for the structures
Site 11/12-landslide potential
Several trees are to be removed
Temuorary construction noise
REMARKS: Two automobile husinesaea will be relocated by Site 4 in Phase One and the
occupants of a four unit apartment buildink will be relocated by Site $ in Phase Three.
1
Regional Map
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. MAPS
Los Gatos Quadrangle
2
I. PROJECT DE 1IPTION
The project is a program for new parking facility development and
parking management within the Central Business District and
adjacent areas of the Town of Los Gatos.
Background
It has been determined that parking availability and controls are
inadequate in and around the downtown area. Problems associated -
with the existing parking facilities are:
SHOPPERS - Lack of convenient parking spaces
MERCHANTS - Lack of adequate parking hurts business
RESIDENTS - Lack of downtown parking forces commercial parking
into residential areas
EMPLOYEES - Current parking facilities are inconvenient
TRAFFIC - Lack of adequate parking causes increased traffic as
drivers circle through downtown
APPEARANCE - Unimproved parking lots are unsightly
MANAGEMENT - Current utilization of parking facilities is
inefficient
New Facilities
After study of numerous alternatives, the sites listed in the
following table, which are designated on the Location Map that
also follows, were selected for improvement as part of this
project. Photographs of the sites and a Site and/or Conceptual
Plan for each site follow the map.
All of the sites in Phase One are owned by the Town of Los Gatos
with the exception of two small parcels in the northwesterly
corner of Site 4, which are in the process of being acquired.
3
TABLE I. PROJECT DATA
Site Improvements APN Owners
PHASE ON$
3 Surface lot 529-3-48 Town of Los Gatos
4 Depressed lot 529-3-52 Town of Los Gatos
with deck 529-3-33 Greco
529-3-34 L.G. Auto Electric
9 Surface lot on 529-1-16 Town of Los Gatos
imported fill
15 Surface lot None Town of Los Gatos
PHASE TWO - Installation of meters.
Expansion of residential permit parking.
PHASE THREE
1 Depressed lot 529-4-82 Town of Los Gatos
with dock
8 Surface lot 529-1-5* Gen. Telephone Co.
with deck 529-1-24* Gen. Telephone Co.
11/12 Surface lot 529-29-4* Puccinelli
529-29-8 Puccinelli
529-29-9* PG&E
13 Surface lot 510-44-37,39 Town of Los Gatos
with deck
APN - Assessor's Parcel Number, *Partial
4
Several parcels within Phase Th e also need to be acquired. Site
1 improvements will maintain the existing access to the businesses
along the westerly boundary. The lower level at Site 8 will have
access to Park Avenue, while access to the upper level will be
from Montebello Way. An easement from General Telephone Company
is required to provide the upper level access.
Plan and Ordinance Changes
In conjunction with the Downtown Parking Program there are General
Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordinance amendments that
are being proposed and are a part of this Initial Study. The
intent of these amendments is briefly described as follows:
General Plan Amendment GP-87-1
Consideration of amendments to the General Plan concerning the
Downtown Parking Improvement Program, Land Use Designations in the
Downtown Area, and minor corrections that reflect the status of
the implementation measures currently listed in the General Plan.
Downtown Specific Plan Amendment GP-87-2
Consideration of amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan
concerning the Downtown Parking Improvement Program,
Traffic/Roadway Capacity Review, Neighborhood Parking. Program,
Land Use Designations in the Downtown Area and minor corrections
that reflect the status of the implementation measures currently
listed in the Downtown Specific Plan.
Zonina Ordinance Amendment A-87-1
Consideration of amendments to the Town Zoning Ordinance
concerning rules for properties within a Parking Assessment
District, Parking Requirements for Downtown, Traffic in the
Downtown and regulations regarding public parking facilities.
5
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PHASE ONE SITES
PHASE THRES SITES
EXCLUSIONS
Location Map
6
PHASE ONE
Site 3 - Viewing northerly from the southerly end at Grays Lane.
Site 3 - Viewing southerly from the northerly end of Royce Street.
View of the Site
December 30, 1986
8
c
a
E.
0 OM
Site 4 - Viewing northerly from southerly end of Elm Strset.
Site 4 - Viewing southerly from the northerly end.of GraysLane.
View of the Site
December 3 0, 1986
1,1
T.
•
—J
10
Its
01 •
Intl ;
I1i 3 it
1
aI
0
i
1
1
C
a
N
11
\ I
s
si
if 1
IsIs
LOWE■ LC VEIL
1
P.'
i
1
c
a
c7
12
Site
- Viewing southerly along Park Avenue at the entrance driveway.
Site 9 - Viewing northerly along westerly boundary from Park Avenue.
View of the Site
December 30, 1986
13
Site 9 - Viewing northerly along the existing access driveway.
_ 'I-111111
Site 9 - Viewing southerly from the northerly boundary.
View of the Site
December 30, 1986
14
i
a
r
•
ifs
- 1
IMO
CO
OD
r
1
•
11
f
1
1
li i 1
CM.
=NW IS
rwr
Urn IS
ri
Anil h.
1
i
Site 15 - Viewing westerly from Main Street.
Site 15 - Viewing easterly from Main Street.
View of the Site
December 30, 1986
16
d
s;
1
I
\ �4
1
Iinnt'Jt
_'•'
1
J
1
i
Y
1 s
1
LOW 1• LAVOVE NAN
1
i
3
1
1
11
`1
tal
c
a
2
17
PHASE THREE
18
Site
- viewing southerly from the northerly end of Saratoga Avenue.
Site 1 - Viewing northerly from the southerly end at Bachman Avenue.
View of the Site
December 30, 1986
19
311N3AV'0O1r1Ivs
Y
W
W
a
a
w
I
IACPIMAN AV<NU$
LOWER LEVEL
OPTION C ELEVATION
20
Site 8 - Viewing southwesterly from the northeast Corner from Park
Avenue
Site 8 - Viewing southerly along easterly boundary from Park Avenue.
•View of the Site
December 30, AN
21
ENTRANCE TO UPPER LEVEL
ENTRANCE TO LOWER LEVEL
PARK AVENUE
OPTION C*ELEVATION
PARK AVENUE
80 SPACES
Site 8
Conceptual Plan
22
Site 11/12 - Viewing easterly from southeast corner of College Avenue.
Site 11/12 - Viewing easterly from College Avenue.
View of the Site
December 30, 1986
23
48 SPACES
Site 11/12
Conceptual Plan
24
Site 13- Viewing northwesterly from West Main Street.
Site 13- Viewing .northeasterly from West Main Street.
View of the Site
January 8, 1987
25
A Conceptual Site Plan has -not been
prepared for Site 13; however, the
proposal is for a deck structure
over the existing lot. The total
number of spaces would be
approximately 151 or a net gain
of 82 spaces.
SITE 13
26
Parking Spaces
Phase 0ne of the project will increase the number of improved
public spaces in the downtown area by 411 spaces. When
implemented, Phase Three will add an additional 304 spaces as
summarized in the following tables.
TABLE II. PARKING SPACES - PHASE ONE
Site Description Existing Spaces Project Net Gain
3 Surface lot 0* 50 50
4 Depressed lot 0* 31,6 316
with deck •
9 Surface lot 0* 30 30
15 Surface lot 11 _15
TOTALS 11 422 411
* These locations currently provide limited parking; however, they
are unimproved and do not meet Town standards.
TABLE III. PARKING SPACES - PHASE THREE
Site Description Existing Spaces Project Net Gain
1 Depressed lot 116 210 94
with deck
8. Surface lot 0 80 80
with deck
11/12 Surface lot 0 48 48
13 Surface lot 11
with deck
TOTALS 185 489 304
27
Meters
Meters will be installed at the sites. Some spaces will have
short time limits for prime customer parking, others will have
longer time limits. A number of spaces will be designated for
employee parking. At lots allowing all day parking, ticket
dispensers may be installed.
Residential Permit Parking
There is currently a residential permit parking program in
operation in the area west of Santa Cruz Avenue and north of Bean
Avenue. The program is designed to reduce infiltration of
downtown parkers who park in residential areas to avoid time
limits or parking costs. Approximately 250 on -street spaces are
currently "protected" by the existing program. The project adds
approximately 450 additional spaces. The new areas include
additional streets on the west side and new streets on the east
side of the downtown area.
Phasing
The project is planned to begin with the formation of the district
in the Spring of 1987, with construction beginning in the Summer
of 1987. Improvement plans are to be carried out in three phases.
Phase One consists of the construction of Sites 3, 4, 9, and 15.
The structure on Site 4 is expected to take 4 to 6 months to
build. Phase One should be completed by the Fall of 1988.
Phase Two involves generating revenues for the project. This
includes metering and issuing permits. This phase will be ongoing
to finance Phase Three, as discussed in the following section.
Phase Two is planned to begin after Phase One is completed'.
28
Phase Three consists of the eventual construction of Sites 1, 8,
11/12, and 13. The start of Phase Three will depend upon the
availability of revenues generated by Phase Two.
Site Improvements
Phase One - Assessment District 3 Surface lot
4 Parking structure
9 Surface lot
15 Surface lot
Phase Two - Town of Los Gatos
Installation of meters
Expansion of residential permit parking
Phase Three - Town of Los Gatos 1 Parking structure
8 Parking structure
11/12 Surface lot
13 Parking structure
Funding
Funding for Phase One of the project will be by an assessment
district with downtown property owners participating in proportion
to their general benefit, as determined by an assessment formula.
The. formula includes factors for parcel and building size, mix of
uses, distance from the proposed parking facility, extent of
participation in previous districts, and provision of on -site
parking. Net revenue generated from Phase Two is proposed to be
credited to the parking district on an annual basis to finance
Phase Three construction.
Phase One funding by the assessment district is limited to $2.0
million. Any additional funding required for Phase One is to be
provided by the Town of Los Gatos. All metering and issuing of
parking permits during Phase Two is to be done by the Town.
29
r
r-
Parking meters are
basic system for
generated by meter
include operations
Benefits
to be used within the parking facilities as the
collecting revenue. Revenue will also be
and permit enforcement. Projected expenditures
, maintenance, and enforcement costs.
Projected benefits associated with the parking program are
follows:
SHOPPERS
MERCHANTS
RESIDENTS
EMPLOYEES
TRAFFIC
APPEARANCE
MANAGEMENT
as
- Increase convenient parking facilities
- Increase business because of easier access
- Protect residential neighborhoods from commercial
. parking
- Simplify parking through designated spaces
- Decrease traffic congestion from drivers circling
through downtown area
- Improve appearance of downtown parking facilities
- Improve utilization of downtown parking facilities
Downtown Specific Plan and SIR
The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) was prepared with significant
citizen input through the Town Advisory Committee, newsletters,
and a town -wide meeting. The DSP is intended to serve Town
policymakers as they guide the future of the downtown area in a
manner that will meet community goals and objectives. The DSP is
also intended to serve as a statement describing the Town's
policies concerning the downtown area to potential developers, and
as a tool to evaluate future development proposals.
The DSP is preservation oriented, with few physical changes
except those related to the health, safety, and welfare of the
public, and that improve its operation, appearance, and identity.
30
Mitigation measures are essentially built into the plan.
Section IV of the DSP discusses parking and establishes the
following goal:
"To improve existing downtown parking for residents,
visitors, merchants, and employees, and reduce parking
impacts on nearby residential areas."
Sixteen parking policies are stated and five implementation areas
are established. The implementation areas are: 1) parking
standards, 2) CBD parking program, 3) parking program for other
commercial areas, 4) neighborhood parking program, and 5) bicycle
parking program. The project, which is in the CBD and
neighborhood implementation phases, complies with the established
policies.
The Downtown Specific Plan EIR focuses on the impacts of the
implementation program in the plan, which fall into two
categories: 1) policies, and 2) physical improvements. The
policies and improvements that relate to the Downtown Parking
Improvement Program are described below.
1. Policies
C. "The Downtown Plan recommends 'a residential parking
program on streets adjacent to the CBD to reduce the
Impact of downtown parking on nearby residential areas'.
Several variations of such a permit program are
provided."
31
F. "The Downtown Plan recommends that a consolidated
parking district or authority be established for the
entire Central Business District (CBD), and that all CBD
parking areas be used on a multi and joint use basis.
Further, the Downtown Plan recommends a change in
parking requirements within the CBD for existing parcels
and new developments."
Both of these policies were considered to have beneficial impacts.
The consolidated parking authority and multi and joint use of
facilities reduces the total amount of parking required in the
downtown. Applications of these policies will also remove the
"non -conforming" status of most downtown properties that do not
have the required parking under current standards.
2. Physical Improvements.
B. "The Downtown Plan recommends parking improvements
including some new paved areas and deck parking
structures to provide additional CBD parking spaces."
The DSP EIR concludes:
"While these parking improvements require the
expenditure of significant funds, resources, and energy,
the cumulative impacts are beneficial in that they will
provide the parking necessary for the CBD to
in a sound manner, will reduce existing
deficiencies, and will remove the
function
parking
"non -conforming"
status of many existing downtown properties.
way, the proposed parking improvements meet
goals and objectives."
32
In this
community
"Potentials exist for a parking structure to create
visual intrusions into the local CBD environment due to
its mass and appearance. For this reason the Specific
Plan requires that the surface of the top level of any
such structure start no more than four feet above grade.
Additional mitigation measures should be required to
keep the overall height of parking structures to the
lowest possible dimension; to terrace and/or step back
upper floors to reduce visual impacts; to use building
forms that provide a small-scale appearance and prevent
long straight-line facades; to use forms, colors, and
materials consistent and compatible with nearby
buildings and the CBD; and that integrate landscape
elements to soften and mitigate the appearance of these
parking structures."
General Plan and zoning
All of the sites are within the Downtown Specific Plan and are
designated Central Business District, except for the easterly half
of Site 11/12 (APN'529-29-8), which is designated Medium Density
Residential, and Site 15, which is designated Neighborhood
Commercial. A General Plan Amendment to Central Business District
is required for Site 11/12. The Downtown Specific Plan states
that the existing parking lot behind Mountain Charley's shall not
be decked for parking. This policy would have to be deleted for
Site 13 to be developed. In addition, because an above ground
structure without a depressed lower level appears to be more
feasible at Site 13, an amendment of the four foot height
restriction for the top level surface of a parking structure would
also be required.
33
The sites also all have the same C-2 Downtown Commercial zoning
except for the easterly half of Site 11/12, which is zoned RM:5-12
Multiple Family Residential, and Site 15, which is zoned C-1
Neighborhood Commercial and R-1D Single Family Residential,
Downtown. Site 11/12 must be rezoned to C-2.
The portion of Site 15 that is zoned R-1D is to be rezoned to C-1.
Public transportation facilities are allowed within the C-I zone.
34
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Los Gatos is located at the southerly end of San Francisco Bay in
the southwesterly section of the highly urbanized Santa Clara
Valley. The Town is also urbanized, particularly the Central
Business District where the project site is located. The area is
characterized by numerous commercial businesses and residential
structures. They are a mixture of older restored buildings and
homes, and newly constructed facilites.
Los Gatos Creek flows northerly through the project area. The
creek channel is 10 to 20 feet deep in this area and has adequate
capacity to handle the drainage for the area. Soils in the area
are identified as Pleasanton gravelly loam and have good drainage,
slight to moderate erosion potential, and Class II or III, prime
agricultural rating. Mineral resources in the area include
deeper sand and gravel deposits. The area is not identified as a
potential archaeological resource area; however, there are several
identified historic structures in the Downtown area.
PHASE ONE
Site 3
Site 3 is presently a vacant, unimproved dirt and gravel area that
is currently used for parking. An 8 inch diameter English walnut
tree is located on the southerly section of the site. There is an
existing parking lot to the west, and there are single family
residences along the easterly boundary.
Site 4
Site 4 is primarily a vacant unimproved dirt and gravel area that
is used for parking, except for the northwesterly corner, where
two automobile service facilities (Los Gatos Auto Electric and
Rolf's Foreign Car Repair) are located. A 14 inch diameter black
walnut tree is located next to the east side of the automobile
35
service building. There are commercial businesses along the
westerly boundary and single family residences and commercial
businesses along the easterly boundary. Several trees are located
adjacent to the easterly boundary. They include a 24 inch
diameter oak, a 24 inch diameter California pepper, and an 8 inch
diameter cypress.
Site 9
Site 9 is a section of Park Avenue and an existing paved asphalt
Town parking lot that is located on the east side of Park Avenue
adjacent to State Route 17. There is a narrow driveway to the
existing lot, which is about 15 to 20 feet below the level of Park
Avenue. The site is bordered by residential uses on the west side
of Park Avenue and by residential and commercial uses to the
north. There are 12 existing trees on the sloped bank between the
existing lot and Park Avenue, and a small stone wall at the base
of the slope.
The diameters and species of the trees include a 6 inch acacia,
three 15 inch acacias, a clump oak, a 24 inch oak, an 18 inch
pepper, a 6 inch sycamore, two 12 inch sycamores, and two 15 inch
sycamores.
Site 13
Sit. 15 is presently a landscaped median island on East Main
Street at Alpine Avenue. Four Canary Island pine trees, with
diameters of 8 to 11 inches, are located within the central
portion of the island. Large pyracantha, bottlebrush, and
oleander bushes fill in the area between the trees. A small holly
bush is located neer the central perimeter on the Alpine Avenue
side. Rosemary and juniper bushes act as groundcover along the
perimeter. All the existing plants and trees are in good
condition. A sidewalk'is located along the site's southeasterly
side. Surrounding land uses include commercial to the south and
southeast, and residential to the north, northeast, and west.
36
PHASE TWO
Installation of parking meters.
Expansion of residential permit parking.
PEASE THREE
Site 1
Site 1 is presently a one level paved asphalt parking lot. It is
bordered by commercial businesses on the west and a combination of
commercial businesses and single family residences on the east.
There are two oak trees with diameters approximately 24 and 40
inches respectively along the easterly boundary. There are also
several trees, including a eucalyptus, a California pepper, and an
oak, along the westerly boundary.
Site 8
The northerly half of Site 8 is an existing paved General
Telephone Company parking area that is under-utilized. The
southerly half is occupied by a single story, four unit apartment
building. Two oak trees, with diameters of 8 and 11 inches
respectively, are located on the northerly half, and in the
southwesterly corner there is a cluster of four acacia trees with
diameters of 8, 10, 12, and 14 inches. Land uses surrounding the
site include the General Telephone Company building to the west, a
vacant parcel to the north, public parking to the east, and multi-
family residential to the south.
Site 11/12
Site 11/12 is vacant, although there art several trees on the
site. They include two 24 inch diameter almonds, a 12 inch
diameter almond, an 18 inch diameter black walnut, a 12 inch
diameter black walnut, a 12 inch diameter multiple trunk acacia,
and two 4 inch diameter lemon trees.. Land uses surrounding the
site include residential and commercial (motel) to the north, a
37
single family house to the east, single family residential to the
south, and multi -family residential to the west. There is a brick
and stone wall on the east side of College Avenue that is a
designated historic site. A wooden structure is located between
the end of the wall and the project site.
Site 13
Site 13 is an existing paved Town parking lot. There are several
trees located throughout the lot. The site is bordered by
commercial uses to the east and south, multi -family residential
and a dance studio to the west, and a school to the north.
38
II.. IMPACTS
LAND USE
1. Use:
2. Jurisdiction:
3. Zoning:
4. General Plan:
5. Surrounding Uses:
North: See Site Discussions
South:
East:
West:
EXISTING
See Sice Discujsiors
PROPOSED
Parking_
Town of Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos
C-1, C-2, & RM: 5-12,R-ID C-I, C-2
Central 13usiness District
Medium Density Residential Central Business District
Neighborhood itmodtjiating Zl ei2hb rhood Commercial
6. Does the project result in substantial alteration of
the present or planned use of the area?
Visual/Aesthetic
7. Does the project obstruct or eliminate a scenic view?
8. Does the project create an aesthetically offensive
view?
9. Is the project site within or adjacent to a designated
scenic corridor?
Historic
10. Is the project site in an identified area of known or
potential archaeological resources?
11. Is the project site in an identified area of known or
potential paleontologic resources?
12. Is the project site a designated historic site?
13. Does the project affect an historic site?
14. Does the project affect a significant architectural
structure or a unique cultural feature?
Airports
15. Is the project located within the boundary of control
of the Airport Land Use Commission?
NATURAL CONDITIONS
Topography
16. Are there natural slopes greater than ten percent on
the project site?
17. Are there natural slopes greater than thirty percent
on the project site?
18. Does the project substantially change the natural
topography of the site?
19. Does the project require a substantial amount of
or export of natural material?
YES MAYBE NO
�L.
import
Geology and Soils
20. Are there any significant or unique geologic features
on the site?
21. Are there any identified potential soils hazards
(liquefaction, subsidence, etc.) on the site?
39
22. Is the project site located in an area of past or
potential landslides?
23. Does the project increase the potential for erosion
on or adjacent to the site?
Seismic Hazards
24. Are there any faults mapped or potentially located
on the project site?
25. Is the project site in a State -mandated Surface Rupture
Study Zone (Alquist-Priolo)?
Biotics
26. Does the project require the removal of any trees or a
significant amount of native plant cover?
27. Is the project site in an area where a known rare or
endangered plant or animal species is located?
28. Does the site contain a significant breeding, nesting
or feeding area for wildlife or fish?
Hydrology
29. Does the project site contain a natural drainage
channel or streambed?
30. Is the project site subject to inundation with the
occurrence of a one percent flood?
31. Does the project substantially affect the inundation
potential of any other properties?
32. Does the project substantially affect surface or
groundwater quantity or quality?
Air Quality
33. Does the project generate substantial air pollution
emissions that could violate State or Federal
Standards?
34. Does the project expose people to significant air
pollution levels?
YES MAYBE NO
Noise
35. Does the project substantiallincrease existing noise *
levels?
36. Does the project expose people to significant noise
levels?
Vibration/Glare
37. Does the project produce a noticeable change in
vibration or glare?
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Sanitary Sewers
38. Is sanitary sewer service available to serve the
project without a major offsite extension?
39. Is sanitary wastewater treatment plant capacity
available to serve the project?
40. Are septic tanks to be used for wastewater disposal?
41. Do soils on the site have a positive drainfield
suitability rating?
*Temporary
40
X
--
L
• L
L
Water
42. Is water service available to serve the project without
a major offsite extension?
Storm Drainage
43. Are storm drainage facilities available to serve the
project without a major offsite extension?
Solid Waste
44. Is there adequate capacity available for the disposal
of solid waste generated by the project?
YES MAYBE NO
X
Police
45. Are police services available to serve the project? X
46. Does the project have any unusual- police protection
requirements?
Fire
47. Is fire protection service available within
established response times?
48. Does the project have any unusual fire protection
requirements?
Schools
49. Does the project add students to a school that is
currently or projected to be over capacity?
Parks
50. Are existing public park facilities adequate to serve
the project?
51. Does the project eliminate an existing recreational
use at the site?
X
•
Traffic/Circ.:lation
52. Does the project site have access to public streets
with adequate capacity to serve the project? .�
53. Does the project generate traffic that reduces the
level of service on any streets or intersections in
the vicinity below the community's standard?
54. Are sufficient parking spaces included in the project? : L
Gas/Electric/Telephone
55. Are gas, electric, and telephone services available
to serve the project without major offsite extensions?
GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Growth Inducing Effect
56. Does the provision of public facilities (sewers, water,
streets, etc.) with the project open up additional
areas for early development?
AMMO
OMMIMMMI
N/A
X
X
HOUSING/BUSINESS
Housing/Business Effect
57. Does the roj7ect displace existing housing units
or businesses? X
*There will be temporary traffic impacts and a temporary loss of parking during
construction. 41
IV. MITIGATION
Following are discussions of potential environmental effects
identified in the preceding checklist. This section combines a
brief discussion of each impact with the mitigation. When the
effect is considered to be positive, or negligible, no mitigation
is suggested.
A. LAND USE
The project changes the land use on a portion of Site 8 from
residential to public parking. A small portion of Site 15 is
located in a residential zoning district. A "general plan
amendment and rezoning are required for a portion of Site 11/12,
and an adjustment in the zoning district boundary is proposed for
Site 15. The Downtown Specific Plan would have to be amended to
permit a deck at Site 13, and to allow a height of over four feet.
The amount of parking will be increased with the addition of
parking structures on Sites 1, 4, 8, and 13. Several of the sites
are adjacent to residential uses.
Mitigation Measures
Approval of a general plan amendment to Central Business
District and rezoning to C-2 Downtown Commercial for a portion
of Site 11/12 (APN 592-29-8).
. Approval of a Downtown Specific Plan amendment to permit
decking and to allow a height of over four feet at Site 13.
. Adjustment of the C-1 zoning district boundary to include all
of Site 15.
. Design of the parking lots and structures with appropriate
interfaces with adjoining uses.
42
. Construction of concrete or masonry walls along the property
lines of lots in a residential zone .
B. VISUAL / AES'rrsr lIC
The project changes the view of the sites to improved parking lots
and structures and adds parking meters and additional signs to the
area.
The project changes the view of Site 9 by the removal of the
existing trees and the construction of a street level parking lot.
State Route 17, which is adjacent to the project site, is shown as
a scenic highway in the General Plan; however, it ha's not yet been
designated as an official State Scenic Highway. There is a row of
existing trees and vegetation on the State right-of-way that
screens the project site from the freeway. All of this vegetation
is to remain. In addition, the slops of the new lot is to be
landscaped with tress and shrubs.
Mitigation Measures
• Design of the parking structures so that the upper surface is
at the lowest possible height and no more than four feet above
the existing grade.
. Use of building forms that provide a small-scale appearance and
avoid long straight-line facades.
Use of parking structure forms, colors, and materials
consistent and compatible with nearby buildings and the Central
Business District.
. Integration of landscape elements to soften and screen the
parking structures.
43
. Design and location of the parking meters and signs to be
compatible with the downtown area.
Review and approval of the final parking structure design,
meters, and signs by the Parking Commission, Planning
Commission, and Town Council.
C. TOPOGRAPHY
Excavation is required to build the parking structures on Sites 1
and 4. The maximum depth of the excavation is estimated to be 10
feet and approximately 20,500 cubic yards of material is expected
to be removed at each of the two sites.
Approximately 25 feet of fill is required to raise the level of
Site 9 to Park Avenue. The total amount of fill required is
estimated to be 5,500 cubic yards.
Mitigation Measures
. Design of the parking structures to blend with the adjacent
grades.
. Use of retaining walls where necessary to avoid disruption of
adjacent properties.
. Contouring and landscaping of the sloped area of Site 9 to
provide a natural appearance.
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Site 11/12 is in an area with a landslide potential as shown on
the Major Gaotechnical Haiard Map in the Town's General. Plan.
There is an improved roadway, Villa Avenue, along the southerly
boundary of Site 11/12. Portions of the roadway are at a higher
44
elevation than the site. The slopes increase in the hillside
south of Villa Avenue. Site 15 may be partially within a
designated area of landslide potential; however, the area is
improved and landslide activity is not anticipated. The remaining
sites are in moderate to minor geotechnical hazard areas.
Mitigation Measures
Preparation of a soils report for each site with attention to
identified potential hazards such as landslides at Site 11/12
and incorporation of the soils engineer's recommendations into
the project.
E. BIOTA
There are existing trees on and adjacent to several of the sites
as described in the Environmental Setting section. Most of the
trees on the sites are to be removed. Tree removal permits are
required for the removal of the trees. The structure on Site 4 is
set back from the easterly property line and should not affect the
trees on the adjacent property. The structure on Site 1 may
affect existing trees on adjacent properties due to the excavation
required along the property lines.
There are 12 existing trees on Site 9. Due to the amount of fill
required to raise the level of the site, all of the existing trees
are to be removed. Tree removal permits are also required for the
removal of these trees. All of the existing trees within the
State right-of-way along State Route 17 adjacent to the site's
easterly boundary are to remain.
45
Mitigation Measures
. Planting of new trees and landscaping on all of the sites.
. Design of the parking structure to avoid impacts on the large
trees adjacent to Site 1.
. Replacement of any of the trees adjacent to Site 1 that are
impacted by the parking structure with new trees.
. Approval of tree removal permits for the removal of any trees.
. Retention of the existing trees within the State right-of-way
along State Route 17, adjacent to Site 9.
F. NOISE / VIBRATION / CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the project causes several short-term impacts.
The grading operations create a visual impact and cause an
increase in noise and dust levels in the area. During
construction phases, short-term increases of 20 to 40 dBA along
the property lines can be created by construction equipment, and
grading and construction just prior to and during the rainy season
could cause minor increases in erosion.
Mitigation Measures
. Control of dust by requiring and enforcing measures such as the
use of watering trucks in the grading contract provisions.
. Grading during the summer months to minimize the potential for
erosion during construction.
. Regulation of equipment noise levels and operating hours.
46
. Use of designated truck routes by hauling vehicles.
G. TRAFFIC / CIRCULATION
The construction of the new lots and structures will temporarily
reduce the number of available parking spaces in the downtown
area. There is a large public parking lot that is also within
the old Southern Pacific right-of-way on the north side of
Saratoga Avenue. The northerly section of this lot is especially
under-utilized. The lot is across a busy four -lane throughfare
from the downtown, so it is not used by many people.
The plans for Sites 3, 4, and 9 will improve circulation and
traffic flow by providing orderly improved parking spaces, and
Site 9 will become much more accessible.
The improvements for Site 15 will eliminate two angular two-way
intersections at the easterly and westerly ends of the island and
provide an approximately 90 degree intersection with Alpine Avenue
and Main Street. The two-way section of the street on the south
side of the island will become a one-way street. These changes
should provide better circulation and safety due to less
conflicting movements and better sight distance.
Mitigation Measures
. Public notice of the availability of parking in the lot north
of Saratoga Avenue during the construction period.
• Consideration of shuttle service between the downtown area and
available parking areas such as the lot north of Saratoga
Avenue during the construction of the parking structure on
Site 1.
47
HOUSING / BUSINESS
Four apartment units and two automobile service businesses will be
relocated by the project.
Mitigation Measures
. Relocation of the apartment building on Site 8 to another
location within the Town.
Development of a relocation program to assist the displaced
residents and businesses in finding new locations in accordance
with State and local laws.
I. HISTORIC RESOURCES
The roadway leading off West Main Street to the existing Site 9
once led to the former Memorial Park. The Town's first park was
originally dedicated in 1897 as Bunker Hill Park. The name was
changed to Memorial Park in 1920 to commemorate the fallen heroes
of World War I. The park contained picnic tables, a refreshment
stand, a dance platform, a skating platform, and a swimming pool.
Memorial Park was eliminated to make way for State Route 17
through the Town in 1954.
A stone wall that once led to the park is located along the
existing roadway to Site 9. This wall is not a designated
historic structure, but it is the last physical remnant of the
park.
Site 13 is located behind the La Canada Building that is located
on the northwest corner of North Santa Cruz Avenue and West Main
Street.
48
Mitigation Measures
. Reuse of the rocks within the existing stone wall along the
.
roadway that led to Memorial Park in some form within the
project, either as part of a retaining wall or as a landscape
feature.
49
APPENDIX
Authors and Consultants
Mindigo & Associates
1984 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Richard P. Mindigo, P.E.
Environmental Consultant
Louanne Quilici
Darryl Boyd
Juliana Rebagliati
Mike Campbell
Laura Husak
Douglas J. McAdams
Landscape Architect
1231 Vicente #46
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Although Mindigo & Associates have used their best efforts to
prepare a complete and competent report, Mindigo & Associates
shall not be liable for cost or damage to any project due to
judicial or administrative action, whether or not such action is
based on the form or content of this report or portion prepared by
Mindigo & Associates. Any services of staff or subconsultants of
Mindigo & Associates required by any party in any litigation on
or related to this report shall be paid for by the party
requesting such services at the current, standard consulting rates
of Mindigo & Associates.
Persons and Organizations Consulted
Lee Bowman, Planning Director, Town of Los Gatos
Jim Van Houten, Former Parking Program Manager, Town of Los Gatos
Don Ross, Senior Planner, Planning Department, Town of Los Gatos
Ron Zapf, Town Engineer, Town of Los Gatos
Gary Wolfinger, Engineer, Town of Los Gatos
Bud Lortz, Planner, Town of Los Gatos
Bill Burrell, Parking Consultant, Wilbur Smith and Associates
John Iaquinto, Parks and Forestry Superintendent, Town of Los
Gatos
Sources and References
Wilbur Smith and Associates, Downtown Parking Improvement Program,
Town of Los Gatos. California, March 8, 1985
Town of Los Gatos, Downtown Specific Plan, May 18, 1982
Town of Los Gatos, Downtown Specific Plan, Environmental Impact
Review, May 18, 1982
United States Geological Survey, Los Gatos ouadrangle, 1980
California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Studies Zones
Maps. Los Gatos Ouadranale, January 1, 1976
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Blood Insurance Rate Maps,
Town of Los Gatos, California, January 17, 1979
Williams and Rogers, Relative Seismic Stability Map, Santa Clara
County, California, February, 1977
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Soils of Santa Clara County, 1968
Santa Clara County Planning Department, ? Plan for the
Conservation of Resources, November, 1977
Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, Santa Clara
County Haritaas Resource Inventory, October, 1975 w/Amendments
CO C 0 ate.) Lei •C .0 4- a�.l .L E
L ro 4.4
L •r
C
a N ro S.-r0 a Li.)
T r0 N m a L
4.-) CU = 3 Q _
Q) C
CU N a--) O U •r r t
•r a U 4--) L U in c
3 7 C O a U r0 4i 0 N
C ..0 + O 0 a a MS O
rL0 V)-0 0 L U r0 p
r N 4- L
_ U _ a
L - 01 a 05 - p C' C r0 a �' r
r0 N C C C N L .r r0 MSC_0(1)t E
0_ a a--) 'r r0 r0 0. r0 t _N .r _ •r
0 L.4- L L r r0
CU r0 0-10 0 0. a rD 05 U 0 4--) r0 r-•- r0 4 0.
>, O N ro 3 C p_ 0
Q1 Cl.) O .- r0 0 0 a N 4-)p C 4-.) Q) C r- rp -le 1-1-1 L' a--) E 4-) L- C7 C
4-) +; E 03 L 0. C a E C 0 .c a
N C 0. COr0 0 r0CT) Y 4"')
N .0 4(13 CM Q)
T 'X O a U co' N r0 N
r0 L r0 0
4-)a (00 N L a E L r0 a 0_ E
a C 0_ C a 0
CU 05 0 L 0) - L ro E 4' 0' E 0 4- E
4-) C O U C N -0 C 'r 4-- ro C O.
rc
0> ro N 0 0 .0 Q ,, 0) -lc •c a E
r_ L L .r .Ccu C L' Y I
Nr-N0x L ac 3To
fl.ro -v s_ U E C OU c) 3cc a +--) C. c +,
> L0 cu - > . 0 - ) L 4- L a O
o • F- 4.-) O N N Q N 0 CL Q L
0 0 L. r 3- p
0 a--) Q) E �O 0 0 0 0 U - L
. -
+� C ro -) C u- N N
E a N 0 +� a L.
aJ L
O r" L 0 c 0
N 0
ro r- {..0.-� 3 r- U F- > r W U +-) 4- CVC)� 0 0.
h-r
Cam? 0
rr 'd a I-
C N
L r0 4-
r0 v) O
r0 C 0'
L L 3
4-)r0 rpft, L 0
L -0 a r0 C
ro L Cl 3
0. v U 0
-1•-' 0 C O
a +, 03
L VI V C
r0 a 70 U 4-
4--)
Cl L a U O U
L -o r0
4-3
3 .0 O N >>
O r0
r0 a r0
C a
3 C N L r U
O ra a--) y, L .
CO a) N C U a v)
C C ..) a r0 E -p
4- O C L- a _
O 0
Q
^O -o 0 r0 U C
a--) CD U -r
..- L a) N L CU C
E L Q1 a L r Ea v)
Cr_L E r0 Y
O. a-) C N 0 L L rLa
a C 0.)4_1 4- a) U U 0.
.0 r0 > C
F- aa) _U I..)L I--0)- N
> 4- 0 a r0
O ra +-) a
O_ 0, vim) O N L
E_ U
r-t a LT) CV L 0_ CO a) '7 •r-
Solutions are needed to meet downtown parking
V)
a
Lc) C
3 3 C t 4) L
0 0 +) 4-
+"' • a--) Y 4-
3 v) 3 ro 0_ 3L. 0
0 4.) 0 0. 0
-0 C 4- N
a U O a
0 • a 4- >
4-N = 0 -0 L.
0 L c- 0.
t L.
CU -0 4- US._
C C _C 0.
e0 ar 4-) r0
C
N ra 4- L' 0
a v
L a L.r ro C
a_
o O y 3
O
4--' to
c E a-)
a N v)
U C
N = X rr r0 N
4- L .X 4-' U d U U
QaJ N C V) > a--)
L 0 a) 0, C
a) 0
ro _C LeiQ) C C a--)
L C4-) • U O C N D_
a 01 a) C ✓) V) 0_
- •a - E .a) a 05 L x o
0_ +-' C ( W
CI
_O 0_ C
L a r N .r-) Y
(J Q) ra X N L
�D 0 r� 4- w aJ E ' 0.
EXHIBIT G
CT L L E C
C O +) C) O N
• 1'. \ r F) L N
�[ C 4- C) C1
rn TD E N O MI
n. o C)-0 - -
4-) p a L.
4-10 Cl. p E no
Cn C E -0 a n
C
L
C in O in LJ
=L L �8��U
-U rU
c C N
N
O L
N r d O
Cf = L ro 4-
D_ C 4-) N LJ
Y O C C 3 ra
d O C) O E
C > N +' CU
p ad _0L) 4.,-)L Ln- L O r-
L) C R in r—
> far. 3
n Q) god C o -1-
N en
ro 3 C O QL1
L d N C
4 -) 4- C Q n r 0 0
o r Q ,� U O L
L LE) ro Q O a--, U 3
0_ 4-_c O
O in Q) o_ QCi -c
n_ CJ •Q • "0 C) 4)
O_ L-.-- CV 10 0 .o c")
ro U L ,--1 ro 4-3 +-> ,--4 _
) 4- C _C•O 4--) N L C
O N 4-3O r � C) C C) U n
4- 0 4-, C) ra C
0. -0 3 ro +-) O L R
N 3 0 C) ,- S.-
4) L)
t 0U r CI.. C L.
a n
C U ro
O C)ro 4-1
C C . 0 - 4- >, C) C .))
4-,CU .,- 4- Lp rLa N
L
C o �[ C
C) E r- Q . C
N 1—..0 r— N CO E r
C CJ ra ra .^) n_ jro
CD u 4, 4-,o
C rN N N a
.4-)UU cu �J 4-)
> L) o N
L QJ ar 4.-'' L ro
L N 4- 0 E N --) L) L.il
N • ra > C) ra N p n
,_ r N O m
no in
L O N 4, O +-� U
.0 N Q "Q r n. R
N ,—
N U •C E N r ro Q1 o
C
O ro R L) C my a i- y
. --� L }., C N .0
r X
3 N -ICL 0 O
o R` CT)
C.) 4-,4- 3
N C E O_ >> •C ra O
+� u
L O p^ 4- CD C L 4-) C CO
ra 1Z1 C C R MI C p
d - 0 C C _ 4--r
N ro Cl.) L) -r U
y Cl_ C) L > N LJ U
C L Cl.L) C O O = ,L L
U) E +� o u \ u n CO N o
r : Q):
N
0:
O: del'
O
C.7 3
4--r
N: U
04-3
C. N
3':
o)
3 c
p' L C)
ro
CL ro
ttr 4 Q.
Cr v
i-L U
-0
CU
RS cp.
ca: E
L:p
Q'
ra" 3
L
CT .0 u. 3
IMPLEMENTATION
N2 •
C
c?E (1)
L •
C
G1 C'
CT •N 0
r - C3
Parking Standards.
CBD Parking Program.
Parking Program for Other
0 U
0
O
O
ID
L-
W - >-, C) C) O
.0 ,- - a -) C_ 4--
N a a C 0
U U 3
(ll ro
- O � > LE)
C I >
W N > L 7=3 I 4-'
o rov a.) 0- (3) _ a)
C O ,.._ U
C) ra L rC
-
r- L E 0. VI
ro N ._
i i c, N -0
N V 'r B U C
ra = L - ra R
• L 3 QvOi n.o
CI) N 7 0_ R
d 4-)
+', CJ L 4- ro C
O
� 4- O r E N
_ ro
Cr)U C C) ro c y_.'
no
N 4--- r O r E v
C) N
-0 a) C) 4- 4_ Q1 0
L) �� 0.
-4--) .1C Lam) L _1C
LC) a 3 a II
a-
0 0 r
C N Lp rII
L) +
L) O ,--i O
- 4-,a n + . : +..,
CU Q) Q1 r0 4-) N a) VI r- QJ L - V)
c - c a a, r— a- 0 U C
4-) L 4-) = a) 0 N c •r U� C
4-)E .r C 3 C v
10 0 4- N L L 4- -
C 4-) CS) 0 ✓i ro
O 0
> C O N V) v)
rfl C V) > a) r•. a) a) a) a)
C CC N 4-) to > .r r
L c > a) to C O 4-) C a) • U
ro _ t0 aJ tC •r rn
Ltcm �i) } +�' N u E r0 ro 7 U
p r- ro - C c > no c E c _ro Q E n L U-0
- a celm Y Y 0 Q) vim) � 0 N 4--) 4- N-
c t/7 .� L) 4-) L L a,
O C' c C 4-' r cn
v _0 a) o a n - o I a Uo 0 m ro `� r�o-
L Q a1 3 c 4-) N O. • u
V) d fl. m 'r C 7 01 U L +� C L Q1
0C r0 CU
C v - c O E > o oU E U Q. O a
y, O L O C O r0 E
•L 7 U tN L V) L L L p .Q O- C j V) Q V)) a
O ro a OX O O a 4- E C a, +) a) a)
4-4 N r 4- CI) 4- 4- Cr) N 4•- a) O U L C L
4••)Cn o - ;D, ,� 4-) U a) a) a) L v) +) +-1 E -
r--I O N Cn r0 C .r ro N 'r .r U N
r Q N `-� ) v v d O O N O r c r0 L m N
CU r •v) 'O E ro ro U N .. 44) r o
C1 U X L 0 c > 0 7 +� Q)
C•
Q O r0 a) U d 4-) `a Q) p a) 4-) V) 4--)
0 U r C ra C U a) U C) r0 C
L - 4,•,) a) O L L —
3 to L V) L U 4-- L O• c!1
Cn h0- - -0 a-0 o U UU ac) n Q m
Bicycle Parking Program.
w
a) O C) O L CO
.c 4-) _= C) N v CO
4-) 4--) CO d L
L L CU
C_ a) CU Q
c CI o a) a) C . n
0_C 4- r0 a) a) aJ
a) a) Q U U U
E ro
ro v) r(00 N a) c.. ro rcs ro d
v) O_ a) V) V) V)
v) a) ro V) 01 4-
C _0 -O a-) C p) p) 01
U c a) a) ' a) C 0 c
Li
_ r0 C a) .aC L
� 4- L r0 C - L
17 r- N �C r0 O L L r0
r0 L C) d Q r0 rfl
.0 r0 L N a N V) n- V)
N V) 0) d r0 4-) 4-) a")
c Q c c a c d0.) c aa))
a) .a[ CDv) CD CV C) N O to C) to
C.-
V) C r0
c 0 cn _
L 0 L
cn r-
O r0 LO .0
N r0
aJ -0
CI. 4- 3 L
r0 v) > .. 4 .. .�
C a) L i r0 r--)
CU L r 0 N a) C L C a)
V) C
CU 3 ON 4- r0 _ �' L Q L r0
+) a) a) r U r0 col r0 r0
C a) 4--) r0 d- 4- N 0 N a) L
0
I- N 3 O Z m
U) 7
Q
L v) r- C
U . U 3
r0 O • C O
w V) r--)
f
•
•
•
4
•
passes, etc.
o a) ro
r- 0 U 0)
C O
a .•a) a
�
U
N CU
E.O a) L0
a) C d
E c/) L ro
_
C 0
L Q (0 a)
-10
0 a) C-
•- - o r0 -C
CU 4, 4-)
C L
r0 v7 a) N O
a rr > a- L) 4-
t/l NO V) 7
N CIJ QJ CD in
rfl •r LC
ram•-N
0- 0 0
U L 4-) a)
C. ra 0) v) 4-)
O
a) O' O
a) .r C m
C) L - L.)
r0 a)
G .0
r-
4) r0
• 0 0) 1
CU -0 C CT
Q C 0..) C
r0 L
a1
ro
r 0 N C
(0 0-• a)
..0 a) a) Y C
L L
Li-) ro r a)
a) Q C C
.0
.0 Q
',- a) r- .0 0 EO
CU ,- U U
ro
v) ,-) c a) a)
-� V) c.,-) iz,.0
4-- L
01 C U v) 4- r-
rr L C
0 v)
VI 01 7 D
r0 p a) a) a)
a -I-,E E L >
a) w -0 riz c `0 4--) O
�C C C a)
U CI_
CD
c cr U L
C V) r0
CU CO 0C C C
Q. 4--) 4_ _NZ ro L T r0
C O r0 ,n
L 01
NC r0
a C
t O 1- Q -
-0 i N cm L
E L U CZ
L EE L
- O 0J O • .0 L
r--) 4- E 4- CN 4
sr
t4 441
>t {..t:
C
pC: (.0 Lt.t GAS
[V:
c+7:
Cl a)
4- =
C0
V)
P
N L.)CU CO r1:3
N C L 4- L_
rp 4- 4- 01
4- 3 O" c-
O C .-- a
O
C — Q1
0 a--1 3 C
c 3
Vs C Q L c 3 0
00
d — 4 u_ OV }0-
tit
to •; E.
4--) r-": U rC:
C3 O L.L.t: Cl 0
TO
S
0
a)
C
al
+-) _= CU 01 a
L t .� r0-- U r0
N Q
N 3 ro •
V) -CX Cl
4-4
C N N CU
a) al
m C 4-
> ClO
O N 3 c
L Li)Q1
C O c103
N
co rD _c1" al
CE
a)O
O o rQ _cal
N a --
a--- L L O_ rC- >
a� no - - o
Ql E Mt CU cES
c c O 3 d c)
L 0
+-)
4- _CN C N
r 4-) C .--, 3
r-+ O N X
a) 1 i v I.-QJ
ro
L N
U
w y
L
C CU
m -0
70 U
N
4-0-0
01 V 4— U
N 0 J--) +) L r- 4-
al 3 c al ry r- O
.i--� i- ) E V) CU rII
C
C N VILc' O
N r0 CU
- O c .-, a:.,
V 4-4 N C O ---- V
ea N _� 0
4- 3 r0 C O Cl c._O
0 . Z ro +1i
Q1 aJ L C +-) +-i L C a)
C �J y"� O 0 Ca_0 .r.
3 J 0 4_,,
�G +-) C
4- V CI Q1 Cl �•
U V
L Q1 r0 OU R V
L ca
+� L. 4--
o
0 4- 4-en
4- rp 0 U 4- r-- C
r•- E C C O O
aJ ..cO > .O C U C L
L N 4- C) +-) 0 V) Q: C1
F- L V
> al CU a) C 01
0 .0 � Cl '� C
>
O
N E aJ O 3
•• 4- +
L -1' O
W O O +.., .--. C C U
C 1-4E •CJ O O
C L L 4-)C/) 4..) 4-) C) 0 4-
2 VU7 00 V) < 0 L < 1) al
4- r0 . L
O r• O
rC- EN
r- L 4-)
4N-) 0 ro C
= - a) E
O a) - a)
O 4./1 .. 0
Cr
= O N C
o -0 O
0 01
N 1- O
.0 >
4' 0 L r0
a
O O E O CU >
inC c
ra I- ro
L.
L r C
r0 r0
E r. >
r- v) i/ N
r0 a) Q)
L
L C L O (1)
r O 4�
L.
a) •ro
-IC4- V)L N
OU Q L 0 O
X 1-
ro
QO
+-) `'y a N
L a) 0 E a)
o ..= O O -
L.L 4--) 0 V 4--,
O1 3 O - ) L
Ccu • C 44-4 a) C) 4-
_Nt •r O
L c U
ro L •r C 4-J
Q O a)
C1r
U L
01 r O
U
C N CD L Le)4-
N N Q a)
rp 4- a)
UU CT N
a 3
r a,
O _le •,-- c
r c L
O N Q a C 0
V)r L L C r0
E ro
cu 4- `- E N 4-
4- Q) 0
O 4- O
C C
ro O
L
con a.,C O L ro
,C O 0 N 0_ C O L •r
4.) Q. --- •r r V)4-)N
X
r' - >,rQ) 0 o
4.
10 4-4 O r0 N E U a
V) a) N L O a) L )
CO E. = r0 Q .4-) f- in
r .r 0
a
= )
4- >
c) _= -CU a •
Parking time limits.
■ ■
N •
cu
N c
r0 •r
U -
L
N 01
4.) C
E
aL) O
L
0 0_
Cr
a) C
L •-
O) N
c a)
•r •r
Y 4-)
L
ro
0_ U
0 4-
O D
L
4-) 0
U E
E
■
Neighborhood Parking Program
O
N a)
+� CO) 4-
O Cl.) C7
a)
a) r- �L N _0 -
L r- L C L
+-' ro ro 0 V) r0
N L CI.•r V) r0
C V)
ro Q
Ora
O L O O
L •i••) r0 L L
E r0 C > r0 4- .
rII 3_
O L 4- L4-) CI)0. 4 O > O -C
(/) 4-) V) L._
CL .r 4--)
0) C U -C 4-
r C • 4'-) O O
RI
N .E L a
L •r a, rEl a)L r0 L
in _C noL. Q N L O
r0 4> > 0 L
4-) W r- 01 .
E p a) r0 0 4.) V)
rry +•) ro
a) U c L L CL L
-C r ,_ U
CA
O Cr)
L .r 0..)L C
4, Z C L
a) O O
L -0 .4_Z
MI N 0
C a)
E
< r0 U 0 ro VC) ■ ■
residential
a) L L L 4-.) U 0 0 -0 On a) -0 4) N -0 >)
_C 0 0 0 v) V a) aJ C Z C a) a..)C 4-4
• 0 ro S'_ 4--) 4-4 • r 4.) r0 Q) - ro a) •
W ro ro C r0 4- Y L r 4- >.,\ C L (L U L 4--) > (0
E ro dO 4__) "--)
4-)4- COE 0 O. 4-) a) V) 0 rroo N L
01 ro LO O O L) C) Q) O aJ rfl v 4-•) O_ a) O
LO O_ 0- 0) rro C 0 V) N d
Q 0 0 4CT)-4 C -0 'r 4..) rim . Q) l�
ate) N C 0 r L 4L Z L.) C a) 4_) -c O 4--'
0 C E C O O O r0 '�') C .r QJ N
�[ 0 4- L .0 N O N 3 M 2 ate) f1 CO -C
L i 4- L a) �' .-4 co C - 17 O 'J' J VI 0."r .6)
r0 0. 12 ) . 0) O - 4-, C N 4-4 .0
0 C+, 3 C
a) 0 N CL ^ N ~ 0 C) . U Q) N D a) ._ Q)
4L-� l0 aJ •r C 0 W N a) •� 0 0
C C L c C 4_�
4- - .c • • L O a) O > Co E O
0 r0 .> 4L O_ L C CV U -0 L cu a) Q >
4 C O 0 Q Q O , Z ONU 0
0 01 l 4-, U- L 4- C CT -0 C ro
Q V)
-0 O a) O a) C 4-) .- 4-) a)
N
0 - o a•e -c C)) 4-) E a) 0 4 v�
N .. Y ._ d 4-•) C Q) N 3 N Q r0 C 4") .-
^ L ^ E C LC Cl) 0 0 vim) c r0 L -O E 'r r0
.o 00 .� d MI 0 0 L '0 4- N v) -0 LLJ a) a) a) .0
i 4-4 r0 C r0 L C .4_,-' > 4- V)Lc)Q ro r0 \ r0 r C -0 O
4..) al in L O if)
C 44.) 4--) r0 4- 4--) C r L 4-- 0. U
4-1
• E a) O L U C a) L./) N E C
J E CU
N^ C O Lam) 1-C o f
G V) L) CL
0_ n. L L ON r 4'� U 0
ro C < ro 4_) 4-.) 0 s[ aJ 'r- L -
a)r N L N 'r V no 4- L CZ
L r0 r0 W 0 C C 'r L • ro L r0 Q) E
'Cr MSi _C4- •r .-. -0 G LC) '-) V) v) >
parking both
Non-residents are prohibited from
•
L)
(south of East Main Street).
Alpine Avenue
E -0r-73 ra CU
co QJ ra O t
L 4-3 •r 0 4-3
0) ro a--) L
0 C C L CP
L v O
Cl. W - .
CU 0 -0 o CD a' C
v
U L Cu E aaj
3 D C >
ra U r- _cO •r-
ro ro +J un
= _o LinCU L
O N = = O
E 4-
10 S.-
n17 `^ ro E
L
�
LO co aJ p 0
U O_ L .._ _a L
a cn 4-'Q
CU - - 0. ra E C
CU
ra c1 .0 QJ X
C C 0_ - 0) O rro
O a) fa rLo cU D v
D CL 4-1 _ O_
aJ E QCJ m CD - ra Q
CU LL.) 3 •+) -
L aJ 4- QJ +.J C ra
a C CU U
cn L C O L .,-
W , 0__c
O OU 3 L 0 CU
■ O—
during day and at night.
Non-residents
■
L C C -0 -
0 CU vl
4- +J O O w +-r
ra -0 f- u1 C
O aJ aJ r— a
r Q) D i
ra CU Q) i-) N N
O_ L 73 a--' QJ
0 a) L-
ea rCa L -0
+J - +-3 0)
3 Le)-
73 c E c L
J .
4-)- L4-J �
+J 0) L -C
E E v 4- •a)
LJ -4-J O_ L CU
QC
CM_
U -0 Eo QJ
4- 00 L -
nJ _c al +-)
ra N aJ O LO 4-
+J Q1:1 O. O
0 V' aJ +J
0 4-1 u)
E ..0aJ ra a,
MC 4- C +J Q
-0 0 4- C L
aJ C O
+4 cc) 00 QJ
+J CU r
E a) 4._.) U L . 4.,L 3
0 .4-3J
N a
CU CU 0 o
,= o a
- +-3 U
•
•
•
W
C C L CU CD C QJ - 0
U O L QJ C �-•�
i-J a--) > 'r' ra
C en 0 O c e m an _0 CU p ra C
3 L = ..- ro ,C co
a
ID
Cn `~ d ra W a`J rro 0
N
Li-
L U ra O QJ CP 0 +J Q-
+J .� C 'r U a)
Q i Y Ql V) r ra +-'
rn L L • C ij
O>CO
U +J• E U C >
L rLQ.1 0 V
QJ
.a E
C U,-
.0 Q 4-) co L C+'O 10 r0C
L •
L 4- .- ,—
CU O a m L L
C 1OOO )
> ✓i V'O L �;'-)QJ • QO 4-3 cr
vl CU
CU 10;
0 o no L .4.- - CY) CD
0 O) QJ D 0 L C CJ U D
+-I . a-J a-J C O L _IC O 4- E. U rLa Y i'
U E .. o_ O O aOJ C a
0_ C
0 •. ra L J.� r C U ra
C1 a d O 0 •r +-�
aJ 01 r-- cl L CU L)0 C .N a ^ 4--)
U r—
U �G y 4-
L QJ O ,r 0 ra CU C__-0U C
F- _CI -c ■ ■ • CC D_ ✓ -.--I,n ,0 v O
L -0 C -c 3
ra O no C aJ C
= - no
L II >
rL
O co 0J
m C m L
C
O_ aJ r6 Q C)
CDC Q
� O 0 L 0 -4-) C
a) C QJ C aJ
- CU -0 CU
tCo U Q> 3 >
Q
Ca 10 rCa C
O CUCJ 0 C
0 r., m CU C CU
Cr) CU c 3
+3J — 3
QJ +-J
cu
-c r- pi 3 - E
L r- CU c 4-)0
O_ L L 4- CJ QJ
CJ w QJ C QJ C C
+J "O C > C CU CU aJ
4_ U > CU ¢ CU > L a
0 v r Q c< +)
C QJ ra (./7 C. C v
0 r C C E 0 C CJ r-
4- r- CU U u7 • C CU CUC
• > ra ra ra > 77 CU
O C 3< m= =< L; m
0_
Lr) V)
co
CU CU 0.
L L C
F— ra
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
r9
en
0
J-i
r0
L
vi
-01
C
C
O
C
Q)
aJ
Jackson Street (south of East Main Street).
■ ■ ■
LOS GATOS DOWNTOWN
PARKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
District Boundary
Bachman/Hwy. 9
Royce/Bachman
Monte Grays/Royce
• Sereno Elm/Grays
a
•
Station Way
Farwell
Park Ave.
East Main St.
EXHIBIT i
0
0
It 1ACADI PAC& AGIAINT057l.OI.G LYv.n: 5/10/99 5r ,:rah ow fry40101,
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 26, 1999
ADOPTED
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DSP-99-01. (00.04)
Public Hearing to consider amending Section IV of the Downtown Specific Plan concerning parking
structures. APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos. continued from March 24 & April 14, 1999.
Chair Nachison gave a synopsis of the Staff report regarding this matter.
The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter.
Carol Brahaun, 151 Hernandez Avenue, is in favor of the revised language.
Sheri Lewis, 59-B N. Santa Cruz Avenue, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the
business community has been working with the Town Council and the Council had specifically
acknowledged and accepted, two parking structures, three levels, at each of the two lots under
consideration. Ms. Lewis stated that she is concerned because the Council has agreed to three levels
if the structures could not be below grade.
Commissioner Decker explained that the reason for the change was to guarantee that the SP right -of way
would stay at the same level as currently exists with the largest increase, above grade, of 4 feet. Ms. Decker
stated that this would maximize the number of cars at lot 2, with two levels, however, if water is encountered,
the wording will preclude doing a structural story above ground at lot 2. Ms Decker explained that this will
allow for the topography to continue through the center of Town. Ms. Decker explained that lot 13 could
exceed this.
Ms. Lewis feels this will be closing options that she heard at the Town Council meeting.
Commissioner Pacheco stated that the Comm ission has responded to adjacent residents who would be greatly
affected by above grade parking structures on lot #2. Mr. Pacheco explained that there is an obligation to
keep the small Town character and, the Planning Commission has gone on record by stating that this
particular structure on lot #2 should not go beyond four feet.
Ms. Lewis explained that the consultants have stated that the structure can be designed so
that it will not impact the adjacent neighborhood.
Chair Nachison explained the procedure regarding the Commission's recommendation to the Town Council.
Mr. Bowman explained that the Town Council had initiated the amendment and,
under State Law, the Town Council is free to do anything it wishes regardless of
what the Planning Commission recommends.
Bill Bacchi, 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, is concerned about the future of the Town and feels that the
SP right-of-way was purchased for the specific purpose of providing parking. Mr. Bacchi feels this
amendment is a "long term mistake" and there are other rules to protect the Town. Mr. Bacchi would
like to see all options remain open.
There was no one else in the aucience to speak to this matter.
13
ATTACHMENT 8
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 26, 1999
ADOPTED
Chair Nachison closed the Public Hearing.
Motion by Commissioner Quintana, seconded by Commissioner Lyon that the Planning
Commission recommend to the Town Council the adoption of the amended language for the
Downtown Specific Plan. The Commission makes the findings that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the 1982 Environmental Impact Report, prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan;
the Negative Declaration/Initial Study prepared for the 1997 Downtown Specific Plan
Amendment/Parking Improvement Plan; because it has more restrictive limitations and allows only
at or below grade structures downtown and allows only one level above grade on Lot #13, and,
implements a mitigation measure (i.e. amending the DTSP to "permit decking and allow a height of
over four feet at Site 13). In addition, it is recommended that the Town Council find that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
Carried unanimously. Commissioner Morgan absent.
Mr. Bowman stated that this matter would be readvertised for the Town
Council hearing.
14
INTERNAL TRACKING
DEPTMENT:
AGENDA ITEM: oZ
RE O%ORD NUMBER: / G9 //2
DATE
BY
CERTIFIED COPY TO PLANNING
1 /V$1.
�
PUBLISH IF REQUIRED - Date of Publication
ORDINANCES ONLY
WHEN SIGNATURE AND /s/ COPY (1 EACH) returned,
LIST ON SIGNATURE TRACKING & SEND TO MAYOR
1 �(
I UU
j ,2,
MAIL TO DISTRIBUTION LIST /
NO.of COPIES:
-�7`
/G'`
)71
PROOF OF MAILING PREPARED
SIGN BY CLERK/SEAL
ENTER INTO ECM ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION FILE
POSTED
FILE IN VAULT
CODIFICATION IF ORDINANCE !
clk:d20/ordres2
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
ORIGINATING DEPT: 4
COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: k/97
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: ,/� )6 .
SUBJECT: 1// Jf kLv/N,) /Zi /dv)-,1)
�. / . �4I
Number:
Date of Adopt:
RESOLUTION
/91—/4
COUNCIL ACTION:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ail
COUNCIL MEMBERS NAMES:
Number:
Date of Intro:
Date of Adopt:
ZONE CHANGE:
ORDINANCE
Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton, Linda Lubeck, Patrick O'Laughlin
Mayor(or. Chairman) RANDY ATTAWAY
ORDINANCES and RESOLUTIONS MUST BE RETURNED TO TOWN CLERK
BY WEDNESDAY AT 12 NOON.
ORDINANCES MUST BE READY FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
PROOF OF SERVICE
(by Mail)
I, MarLyn J. Rasmussen, declare:
1. I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and am employed in the County of Santa Clara at
110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, California, 95030.
2. I am readily familiar with the Town of Los Gatos' practice for collection and processing of correspondence
for mailing with the United States Postal Service and that correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service
that same day in the ordinary course of business.
3. On July 12, 1999 I mailed at Los Gatos, California a true copy of Town Resolution 1999-108 regarding
Parking Structures in Los Gatos, CA.to the following:
Carol Braham, 151 Hernandez Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
4. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
executed on July 12, 1999.
MarLy J. '' a nuns n, CMC
Executive Assistanf2Senior Deputy Clerk
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
c:lproof