Loading...
Staff Report N40 and Attachments 7-9 PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON Community Development Director _______________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance _________________________________________________________________________ https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/attachment/9397/StoryPoleException__Staff_Rpt__V2.docx 4/15/2016 5:02 PM MM MEETING DATE: 04/19/16 ITEM NO: 6 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: APRIL 15, 2016 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPERTY LOCATION: NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: PHASE 1 CONSIDER A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE STORY POLE POLICY FOR THE PHASE 1 NORTH FORTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. APNS: 424-07-024 THROUGH 027, 031 THROUGH 037, 070, 083 THROUGH 086, 090, AND 100. RECOMMENDATION: Consider a request to modify a previous approval of an exception to the Story Pole Policy for the Phase 1 North Forty development proposal. BACKGROUND: The Town’s Story Pole Policy (Policy) was updated by the Town Council in 2013. This update added requirements for proposed development projects (e.g., Architecture and Site applications) that require story pole installation including: a story pole plan, additional on-site signage, and certification of the story poles for height and location by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. In addition, the update created a process for projects to request exceptions from the Policy for consideration by the Town Council. The Town’s Story Pole Policy provides for exceptions to the Policy where the poles would: (1) cause a threat to public health and safety; or (2) impair the use of existing structure(s) or the site to the extent it would not be able to be occupied and the business or residential use would be infeasible. The North Forty Phase 1 development application is subject to the Policy. The Town Council approved an exception on February 16, 2016 and began its consideration of a request to modify the originally approved exception on April 5, 2016. A staff report, addendum, and desk item were prepared and posted to the Town website for the April 5, 2016 Council meeting. The PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHASE 1 – STORY POLE EXCEPTION MODIFICATION APRIL 15, 2016 BACKGROUND CONTINUED: applicant provided a revised modification proposal at the meeting (Attachment 7). Following public testimony and consideration of the requested modification, the Council continued the matter to April 19, 2016. The Council gave the following direction to staff and the applicant:  For staff to come back with the reasons for each exception requested;  For the applicant to incorporate Council’s input; and  For staff and the applicant to conduct outreach with the existing tenants and business owners to determine impacts. The applicant has submitted another revised story pole plan (Attachment 9) that provides for more poles and netting than discussed at the April 5, 2016 Council meeting. The revised story pole plan still requires a modification to the previously approved exception to the Story Pole Policy. DISCUSSION: Pages 1 and 2 of Attachment 9 show the applicant’s intent to install more poles and netting or flags on Saturday, April 16, 2016. The new poles and netting/flag rope are intended to address the Council’s comments regarding a visual depiction of the proposed buildings along Los Gatos Boulevard. The applicant has informed staff that, if feasible, additional netting or poles may be installed beyond those displayed in Attachment 9 while maintaining safe use of and access to the existing residents and businesses. Specifically, the applicant is requesting an exception to use flag rope between some poles and have other poles with only flags on top of them instead of the traditional 24-inch orange netting. Staff visited the site to examine the potential conflicts between the proposed pole locations and existing buildings, driveways, and parking areas for the existing tenants and businesses. The revised proposal allows more poles to be installed than would be possible with traditional mesh because the traditional mesh requires additional guy wires that would impede safe access to occupied buildings with residents or businesses. The applicant has informed staff that he has spoken with each of the tenants within these conflict areas to better understand their concerns and the impact to the safe use and access of their residences and businesses. Staff walked the areas where the proposed modifications are requested and spoke to two of the residential tenants (15111 Los Gatos Boulevard) regarding the story poles. Staff learned that the tenants were concerned about the impact of the poles and flags because of the noise and hazards they create around their residences. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHASE 1 – STORY POLE EXCEPTION MODIFICATION APRIL 15, 2016 DISCUSSION CONTINUED: Staff also explored the possibility of adding more poles to conform to the original story pole exception and requested the applicant to consider temporary relocation of existing tenants to facilitate story pole installation. The specific areas of conflict are discussed below:  14975 Los Gatos Boulevard (page 4 of Attachment 9): This site has a driveway that requires a vehicle to be able to turn around on-site to exit onto Los Gatos Boulevard. Limiting this area would require the resident to back out onto Los Gatos Boulevard, the slope and existing screening in this area would increase the risk of this maneuver in this location. The poles were originally proposed to be installed throughout this driveway and vehicle access area. While the interior poles would not be installed, the applicant is proposing to install four poles that display the front of the proposed building, three poles along the rear of the proposed building, and one center pole to provide the location and height of the ridge of the proposed building. The applicant is proposing to use flag rope for this building rather than the traditional netting due to the span between the poles.  Storage Yard for Bartlett Tree Experts (page 4 of Attachment 9): Bartlett has agreed to store three of their large maintenance vehicles within the adjacent storage yard to provide additional room within their storage yard to facilitate additional pole installation (yellow dots shown on page 4 of attachment 9). Three of the four poles within this conflict area that cannot be installed are in direct conflict with the access to the storage yard. The fourth pole would require guy wires that would also block that access as well as a significant area of the storage yard (38-foot impact radius).  15133 and 15111 Los Gatos Boulevard (page 5 of Attachment 9): The applicant is proposing to provide all except four of the originally proposed poles within this conflict area. Both of these residences have driveways that require a vehicle to be able to turn around on-site to exit onto Los Gatos Boulevard. Restricting the existing vehicle maneuvering areas would require residents and visitors to back out onto Los Gatos Boulevard. Two of the poles that cannot be installed would directly conflict with the existing driveway and vehicle access for 15111 Los Gatos Boulevard. The two remaining poles that are not proposed to be installed are located within the terraced backyard of 15111 Los Gatos Boulevard and would impede safe access to the tenant’s detached office. Another issue that Council must decide is that the Story Pole Policy requires that story poles remain in place throughout the public hearing process. The Council previously approved an exception to this requirement, requiring the story poles to be in place for 60 days from the date the public hearing notices are issued for the Planning Commission meeting. The majority of the poles were installed prior to March 18, 2016 when the notices were issued for the March 30, PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHASE 1 – STORY POLE EXCEPTION MODIFICATION APRIL 15, 2016 DISCUSSION CONTINUED: 2016 Planning Commission meeting. However, as discussed above, the applicant has not completed the poles required by the previously approved exception and therefore is requesting a modification to the timeframe exception as well. The applicant is requesting that the poles installed within the conflict points shown in Attachment 9 have a further limited timeframe of ten days due to the additional burden and inconvenience for the existing tenants and businesses. Bartlett Tree Experts submitted a letter (included in Attachment 8) requesting that the poles installed in and around their facility be limited to one week due to the impact of the poles on their use of the site. Staff has considered the impacts to the businesses and due to the intensity of use in this area, staff recommends limiting the installation to 10 days for the poles that impede the use of and safe access to the storage yard. However staff believes safe use and access to the residential properties can be maintained with the modification proposal. Staff has requested an exhibit from the applicant to clearly reflect which poles would remain after the 10 days. This will be provided to the Council as an Addendum or a Desk Item prior to the meeting. In addition, staff recommends that the applicant take photographs of views of the story poles and provide them to the staff for posting on the North Forty website. For the remainder of the site, staff recommends that the previous exception granted which required the 60-day installation be enforced and that the 60 days commence from either:  The decision of the Town Council approving the modification (as installed), or  Completion of the story poles as directed by the Town Council. The applicant is required to maintain all poles and netting/ropes in good condition throughout the time period, and staff has informed the applicant of existing maintenance needs for the netting near Highway 17. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: Based on the revised proposal, site visits, outreach to tenants, and an evaluation of the conflict points on the site, staff recommends approval of the requested story pole exception modification as discussed above. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Town Council may:  Deny the requested story pole exception modification and require the applicant to implement the previously approved exception; or PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHASE 1 – STORY POLE EXCEPTION MODIFICATION APRIL 15, 2016 ALTERNATIVES CONTINUED:  Approve the story pole exception modification with additional requirements; or  Continue the matter to a date certain with direction. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Action on the requested modification does not constitute a “project” as defined by section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it is not an action which has a potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Attachments previously received with April 5, 2016 Staff Report: 1. Approved Story Pole Exception 2. Story Poles Not Installed 3. Letter from the applicant with the story pole exception modification request Attachment previously received with April 5, 2016 Addendum Report: 4. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2016 Attachments previously received with April 5, 2016 Desk Item Report: 5. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2016, and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2016 6. Story Pole conflict points, received April 5, 2016 (five pages) Attachments received with this Report: 7. Exhibits provided by applicant at April 5, 2016 Town Council Meeting 8. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2016, and 11:00 a.m. Thursday, April 14, 2016 9. Letter from the applicant with updated story pole modification information, received April 13, 2016 (five pages) Distribution: Grosvenor Americas, Don Capobres, 1 California Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA 94111 Summerhill Homes, Wendi Baker, 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450, San Ramon, CA 94583 INFLIC EXISTING, STRUGWR a1 ICI Los Gatos Boulevard GON FLIC EXISTING STRUCTURES _A* 'At - NORTH FORTY I LOS GATOS, CA GROSVENOR EDEN SI lIIMIR} 11! 1. 1OM CUMMIII.IIIFS O 1 BAR architects 49039 Story Pole Plan Alley G 01.04.16 $144,H.i •♦0 10 Los Gatos Boulevard BLDG B 1 NORTH FORTY I LOS GATOS, CA GROSVENOR SUM ERHILI. HOMES" BARarchitects 09039 Story Pole Plan Bldgs Al & B2 04.04.16 On Apr 9, 2016, at 8:37 AM, ledouglas@gmail.com wrote: Hello, First, thank you for serving our town in your roles as council members. I am sad to see the N40 be developed. It would have been amazing for the town to have purchased the land to develop much needed sports fields for lacrosse, soccer and other sports. I would have donated generously to that effort as I know many others would have as well. Or to leave it as orchards so we remember the past history for generations to come. Were any of these considered? I understand it is too late for that but please do whatever you can to limit the scale and density of what is built and promote many large trees to hide as much as possible. Driving down hwy 17 into Los Gatos today is beautiful with trees and green space on both sides. You immediately feel that you are coming into a beautiful and special community. I have seen the story poles near Lark and can see how this landscape will change for the worse with high density housing uncharacteristic to the town. It is sad. 1 have seen Facebook posts regarding the developer being from out of the country with no clue what this community is and why it is special, and asking for exceptions to putting up building poles. If true please do not grant exceptions. For the record, I completely oppose the N40 development. I typically do not write these types being an has request many exceptions to the normal process including Coming down hey The developer has requested a second exception to the town's Story Pole Policy. They do not want to complete all of the required Story Poles. They don't want you to see the full scope and INTENSITY of their Phase 1 layout proposal. Remember, the Story Poles you see ofHWY 17 represent less than half of the N40 development. If you think it looks bad now, wait until Phase 2 and Phase 3 Story Poles go up. YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTH'N YET! (That's a double negative so you've seen plenty for sure). Please write your council members and urge them the deny the developers exception request. Sent from my iPhone ATTACHMENT 8 On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Jeff Eisenbaum <jeff.eisenbaum@cbnorcal.com> wrote: North 40 Story Poles Dear Town Council Members, I am writing to urge you to deny the request for an exception to the story pole law for the North 40. For myself and others, it is troubling to see the extent of the story poles that have already been put up. To think that this is only phase 1 is even more troubling. I don't understand how it could be thought reasonable to NOT require that the story poles go up for the entire project all phases, so that we can see what kind of a mess we have got ourselves into. Many of the people that I have spoken with were under the impression that the story poles INCLUDED all phases. This is what the developers want. The story poles are a critical and necessary part of this project. Relaxing the requirement is good for the developers and bad for the town and the people that live here. Please do the right thing. Having lived in this town since 1975, it's been sad to see how much it's been developed and how much traffic and congestion has come with the increased density. I understand that with our elevated property values, some of this is unavoidable. As the gatekeepers of the town, we rely on you to stop irresponsible growth. Once it's ruined, it's ruined. The town is not the small town I moved to 40 years ago and I miss it. Let's not continue to make it worse. I don't know one person that is excited or happy about the North 40 development, except those that stand to profit from it. That profit will most definitely come at the expense of our quality of life in this town. We've elected you to keep Los Gatos a special place. Please do your best to be worthy of the trust we've put in you. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Regards, Jeff Marni Moseley From: Jeff Eisenbaum <jeff.eisenbaum@cbnorcal.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:29 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Email to Town Council Hi Marni, Thank you for your work on the Wine Depot property. 1 was happy to see the support against that proposed project and the manner in which the Planning Commission is dealing with it. Given the traffic, density, congestion, and over- crowding in our schools, more needs to be done to curb development if we want to keep Los Gatos a special place. In my opinion, we are losing the battle to those that wish to profit from development, while the townspeople are left to deal with the consequences. I sent the email below to the Town Council and ask that you share it with the others on the Planning Commission. We're relying on you all to help preserve our town. Otherwise, were will it end? It ends when it becomes so crowded, that it's only desirable to those that come from places that are even MORE crowded and overdeveloped. Dear Town Council Members, I am writing to urge you to deny the request for an exception to the story pole law for the North 40. For myself and others, it is troubling to see the extent of the story poles that have already been put up. To think that this is only phase 1 is even more troubling. I don't understand how it could be thought reasonable to NOT require that the story poles go up for the entire project all phases, so that we can see what kind of a mess we have got ourselves into. Many of the people that I have spoken with were under the impression that the story poles INCLUDED all phases. This is what the developers want. The story poles are a critical and necessary part of this project. Relaxing the requirement is good for the developers and bad for the town and the people that live here. Please do the right thing. Having lived in this town since 1975, it's been sad to see how much it's been developed and how much traffic and congestion has come with the increased density. I understand that with our elevated property values, some of this is unavoidable. As the gatekeepers of the town, we rely on you to stop irresponsible growth. Once it's ruined, it's ruined. The town is not the small town I moved to 40 years ago and I miss it. Let's not continue to make it worse. don't know one person that is excited or happy about the North 40 development, except those that stand to profit from it. That profit will most definitely come at the expense of our quality of life in this town. We've elected you to keep Los Gatos a special place. Please do your best to be worthy of the trust we've put in you. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Regards, Jeff i I l �".i�l'r�i►�tllrrrr eA;.=,,ck As :. tt • COLOwELL SAbJRIR ikE$ DENTlAL BROKERAGE i 10 N S,uzsd Crut A„trsuc, Lo; Lt,itcee, }5030 ".8.355.1 74 IC. 408 2I9.I 263 O. 4µe.355.1500 I E 4o€.355.1599 teftmcrtdxtutr f rbrtcic torn CtR€ M012926I0 flNA U5 Ol`ftiME. CAW,. The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this intemet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to he taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protecti ve and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Nothing in this email shall be deemed to create a binding contract to purchase/sell real estate. The sender of this email does not have the authority to bind a buyer or seller to a contract via written or verbal communications including, but not limited to, email communications. 2 BARTLETT TREE EXPERTS 15015 Los f.iatos Blvd., Suite A Ms. Marni Moseley Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Via Email: mmoseley@losgatosca.gov _os Gatos, CA 95032 + Telephone 408-358-788 April 13, 2016 Dear Ms. Moseley: am writing to represent the interests of Bartlett Tree Experts and our operations located at 15015 Los Gatos Boulevard. We have been operating at this location for 25 years. We have been in discussions with the development team for the North 40 about the installation of story poles at our location in support of their development application. We must voice our concern about the impact that these poles have on our operations. We have a right to quiet enjoyment of our leasehold property as outlined in our lease with Grosvenor and thus cannot be compelled to participate in this effort. Nonetheless, our company practice is to act as a good neighbor and we are voluntarily working with them. However, we also must balance this with our right and need to continue an operating business which employs 17 at this location. Shutting down operations for any amount of time is not an option. We utilize our large fleet of vehicles and finding a site for the relocation of our vehicles in a secured location in acceptable proximity to our current maintenance yard is nearly impossible. in a show of good faith, we have worked with our immediate neighbor to move some vehicles to their maintenance yard for a limited time. We have also given the developer permission to utilize our structures (including drilling through roofs) for support of poles to limit impact of guy wires. We must strongly request that some flexibility be given as to the ultimate number and location of these poles and the duration that they are in place for. We need the maintenance yard to be free of obstructions as much as possible and, if poles are constructed, we request that the duration that these poles are in place be limited to one week. The timing of implementation of this program could not have come at a worse time for me as l am working a large project with an end of month deadline. Thus, I will not be able to attend the April 19 hearing. I do hope, however, that our concerns are shared with Town Council and they are given strong consideration. Sincerely, a0,. Frank Bombardier, Local Manager 1111. I.A. I'rAR"l i E_3_.i. TREE EX1'E.R'i COMPANY so 11 N11fII- -I it1.1 CARE SINCE 1,}I1- 1,041.011AIk 1.11-1t I, hr+ I,r,? on ,'1•16,11111t1+, 1 41tNIt7it I T Al rlli 00,+^.:ii+ +• IF�I .101 I._trlxtr .,.m 1 hti. 24r, Muni Moseley From: Richardsons <richardson48cacomcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:43 AM To: Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Please forward to all planners? I am a 55 year resident of Los Gatos. I live near Lark Ave and Highway 85 in the La Rinconada neighborhood. I now see that the second phase of Netflix is well underway and cannot imagine the additional traffic I will have to endure. As to the North 40 planned development. Please do not cut corners / bend the rules for these out of town developers? The Town's story pole policy states WA) " The height poles & netting shall be installed prior to the public noticing of the matter and shall be kept in place until the project has been acted upon & the appeal period has ended. Please follow town zoning rules / policy as you would if I wanted to add on to my home? Lainey and Bruce Richardson 1 Marni Moseley From: Perez Family <robethperez@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:21 PM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz Subject: Los Gatos Development My husband and I have lived in Los Gatos well over 15 years. This town was the place we chose to raise a family because of safe streets, excellent schools and a small town community feel. The proposed North 40 is ruining the town"s appeal and potentially every aspect of what made Los Gatos the town it currently is. The impact of recent developments alone has created such grid lock; this new proposed development will make the town completely impassable.Additionally, the impact on our beloved schools is distressing. The reason we pay the high cost of living here is those schools who are already feeling growing pangs of a growing community. It has come to our attention that the proposed plan is not fully visible as the developer has not installed all story poles and is asking to be granted another exception; This is not acceptable! We deserve the right to have full view of ALL netting and poles to see how this HUGE project will impact our community. It is shameful that this development is under consideration. It is more shameful that a truthful view of the full plan is being hidden. Beth Perez 1 Marni Moseley From: Trish@Sporleder.org Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:46 PM To: BSpector; Marko Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis Cc: Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz Subject: North 40, Please Read!!❑ Ms. Mayor and council members: I look forward to the April 19th council meeting and watching how our council will vote on the North 40 story pole exemption. Surely, no one will vote to okay the exemption. Doing so may cause an uproar of those who already may think the council and planners have sold out. NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE TOWN TO BACK -PEDDLE and listen to the throngs of citizens against the proposed debacle. PLEASE, quit appeasing the developer! Most Sincerely, Patricia Sporleder, LG Resident 1 Marni Moseley From: Shannon Susick <ssusick@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 8:03 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz; Marni Moseley Subject: North 40 Story Pole Exemption Request Mayor Spector, Council & Staff I respectfully request that the exemption request by the developer for the North 40 Phase I application be denied or at a minimum modified. This developer has already received 1 exemption, which is 1 more than 99% of residents and other developers receive. The current request includes the most visible areas of the project; the impact of telling that story can't be ignored. The poles and full netting should at a minimum include the corners and street frontage on Los Gatos Boulevard. The interior areas, which were cited as a safety and income issue for the tenants are also critical but could be modified. The Town Story Pole Policy Purpose Statement (I) states: "Story poles enhance understanding of the project for Town residents, staff, advisory and decision making bodies." One of the speakers dismissed the support to deny the exemption request as "emotional" and "minor"; there is nothing minor about the request before you or the application before the Planning Commission or the North 40 development. Suggestions: 1. Review the current plan for the developer and mandate that the poles and flags or netting remain in place for the time agreed commencing when the plan is completely installed or if possible through the Planning Commission phase 2. Review the flags v. netting an the currently installed poles as they are difficult to see 3. Look at an agreement for Bartlett Trees to park their trucks on another unused portion of the North 40 4. Review the Town Story Pole Policy to provide some type of visual display for future specific plan developments (if any) ; prior to approval by Council and applications received by developers. Thank you so much for your time. Shannon Susick (408) 316-9559 1 Marni Moseley From: Nicole Dennon <ndennon@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:59 AM To: BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen, Rob Rennie Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: north 40 Dear Council, am writing to plead that you take the North 40 project through all the mandatory and regular steps required by our TOWN policies. The policies have been put in place for important reasons and should be followed in the most conservative manner for this very large and impactful development. No exceptions or shortcuts should be allowed. Full story polling should be required. Let the process do its work to protect the existing residence. Please fight for the people who elect you. Sincerely, Nicole Dennon 124 Greendale Drive LG, CA 95032 1 Planning From: Angelia Doerner <saveourhood@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:54 AM To: Council; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marcia Jensen; Steven Leonardis; Rob Rennie Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Planning Subject: North 40 Story Pole Fiasco - For Inclusion With Agenda Posting I want to thank you for your approach and diligence on Apr 05 '16 in dealing with this "incomplete story pole" fiasco. This should never have happened - on ANY project - and especially not on THIS project. There was contradictory Staff information concerning when they first became aware of the Developers' breach of Town policy. Initially, it was "the Friday before the 033016 meeting" (meaning 032416 - the date of the Developer's letter regarding such included in the 040516 Agenda packet). Then it was changed to "two Fridays before the 033016 meeting" (meaning 031816 - the date of Town Notice on "What's New" and Nextdoor and LG Weekly (NOT on "Local Bulletin" or other "large" or 1/2 page notice), only in "Legal Notices"). Personally, THIS resident, and the majority of people I have spoken with, would have preferred to hear "Sorry for "Putting the Horse Before the Cart", but the Meeting on March 30 Is Cancelled Due to the Developer Not Following the Rules!!!!" It would have at least established who is in control of this process - the TOWN NOT The DEVELOPER! However - we are where we are. You know me - I like to research/learn things before "spouting off". So, in trying to understand what, if any, other compelling factors contributed to this scenario, I found Ca Govt Code 66452.1(a), which I believe applies and which states: "If the advisory agency (PC) is not authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the (vested) tentative map, it shall make its written report to the legislative body (TC) within 50 days after the filing thereof with its clerk." Last night at the PC meeting, I confirmed with the Town Attorney that the clock is ticking.... starting with the filing of the Vested Tentative Map ("VTM") with our Clerk on Mar 18 `16. Had we truly known that the requirements of the story pole plan (as approved by you on Feb 16 '16) had not been fulfilled, could we have "denied" accepting the VTM to avoid initiation of the time constraint? That's a rhetorical question (maybe?)! But the REAL question is: Doesn't the Developer's Letter dated Mar 24 '16 regarding the need for additional story pole exceptions REEK of manipulation and outright subterfuge in "exhausting a substantial portion of the "50 day" timeline? Even if the PC can begin deliberations on Apr 27 '16 - 40 days will have elapsed!!!! Also - two Planning Commissioners are going to be out of the country - I don't know for how long - but will definitely not be present at the May 11 '16 PC meeting. How does that play into the Town's timeline going forward? i To my knowledge, a waiver of this time requirement has not yet been received from the Developer. I sincerely hope that at the Apr 19 TC meeting, you make a point of receiving that waiver, if not already done in writing, then verbally as a matter of Public Record. As to our Mar 30 '16 Public Hearing - you have my comments from last night's Verbal Communications. I firmly believe that the TC deliberations at the Apr 5116 and Apr 19 '16 meetings - and the Staff Reports, etc., must be an integral part of the Public Hearing. Irrespective of the TC decisions on Apr 19 '16 - make more changes to "what's currently up" OR determination that "what's currently up is all we get" - I believe the Mar 30 '16 Public Hearing needs to be considered inadequate as to Due Process!!!! I especially think the "Table/Schedule" specified by the Mayor and elaborated on by the Vice Mayor on Apr 5 '16 needs to be included in the evidentiary element of this matter. Now, Citizen Kane, opened, closed and reopened the Public Hearing at least once last night on Agenda Item 4. So, concerning proper noticing of a "New Public Hearing on the North 40" - IF DONE at the Apr 19 '16 TC meeting, concurrent posting on "What's New" and Nextdoor, inclusion as a 1/2 page notice in the Apr 22 '16 LG Weekly and in Legal Notices - wouldn't that be enough to allow the "Reopening" at the Apr 27 '16 meeting - with Public Testimony limited (legal?), or requested to be limited, to the new evidence? I may not agree with all that you do - but, so far, I trust the judgment of THIS Council. And, I feel, nay, I believe you will "do right" on behalf of all Los Gatos Citizens. Having a full understanding of what is NOT there is just as important as what IS there - whether you can mentally visualize it or not. I am talking about PHASE ONE. I am not talking about Phase 2 or 3 - although I believe something more than the meager, flat, only "from an eagle's eye" view that is currently available is really important!!! Thank you for listening - and for your service. Angelia Doerner SaveOurHood©yahoo.com Live Simply, Laugh Often 2 April 13, 2016 Mr. Joel Paulson Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, California 95031 RE: Request to Amend Approved Story Pole Plan – Architectural and Site Plan Application S-13-090 Dear Mr. Paulson: We have successfully installed 507 poles and, as an augmentation to the Story Pole Plan, constructed a full scale model which has been displayed at Town Hall since late February. As discussed at the April 5 hearing we had difficulty, however, completing the Story Pole Plan in three distinct areas due to conflict with existing residential units or operating businesses. Two of these areas are along Los Gatos Boulevard and would demonstrate the low height of our proposed buildings compared to buildings already allowed to be constructed. Town Council asked us to re-evaluate our proposed amendment to the Story Pole Plan and if we are not able to implement the entire approved plan, provide a rationale for why those poles/areas should be exempted. Since then, we have had additional conversations with impacted tenants to see what remaining options are available with the goal of constructing as many of the remaining poles and netting as possible. These tenants have specific rights under their leases and we are contractually bound not to impede the utilization of their leasehold. Nonetheless, the impacted tenants are voluntarily working with us by either agreeing to a temporary relocation or other lease concessions to mitigate any limitations to their enjoyment of their premises. Some are allowing us access to roofs or other structures that we can construct poles onto to minimize impact of the guy wires. With this last round of accommodations, we will be able to implement the majority of the remaining poles. Our revised proposed Story Pole Plan is attached as Exhibit A. The poles shown in gray were either installed or were exempt in the original plan. The only areas that are being requested to be reconsidered are shown in color. If netting or flag is not shown connecting poles, a singular flag at the top of the pole will be installed. This allows us to mark height of a building but alleviates tenants of the impact of guy wires which are required to stabilize poles that have lines of netting or flags due to resulting wind load. As noted on April 5, poles with netting require 3 to 6 guy wires creating an impact zone equivalent to the height of the pole plus approximately 3 feet. For example, a 35-foot pole will have an impact zone with a 38-foot radius. In addition to the modified Story Pole Plan, we are also requesting that the time the poles are erected in these heavily impacted zones be limited to 10-days from the time they are constructed. With this modified plan, an additional 45 poles will be installed for a total of 552 or 97.5 percent of those originally proposed. Only 14 poles would not have been constructed. We will attempt to 1588\03\1658075.1 construct some of the remaining poles or mesh while in the field this weekend and will report the outcome at the hearing on April 19. Those areas that we will not be able to construct poles in or the netting are generally driveways, maintenance yards, or areas needed for circulation and they would be impacted by guy wires. We illustrate these conflicts in Exhibit B. We believe we have met the intent of the Town’s story pole policy and have augmented our offering with a full scale model that has been on display at Town Hall. With the addition of these remaining poles, especially the ones that depict the height of our proposed buildings on Los Gatos Boulevard, stakeholders should have a very good understanding of the scale of our proposed project. Sincerely, A. Don Capobres Linda Mandolini Wendi Baker Principal President Vice President of Development Harmonie Park Development Eden Housing SummerHill Homes Representing Grosvenor Attachments: Exhibit A Updated Story Pole Plan Exhibit B Exception Rationale 0) 0) w 0) 3- E 0 cey o cc m • Q d 9-_ w d A 3 cp = I—. 1crl m 6 C 2 a� m1 z6 w 0_cc LL SDI ( i 3 Ea - EC o0 LIJ s 4 ti o cj cv 6 0 n o d cn CD o 0 1.13 z La- J w LG-RP-BLDGB 1:: LG-RP-B LD GB2:: LG-RP-BLD G 03 0 0 03 EC 0 C 0 0 0 th 0 0 0 th 9 0 m a a m ID 0 C7 0 0 9 cs 0 co th 40 3- cal 0 0 m 0 1— m LaLl co [ XREF FILE NAME!! :ACAD-AERIAL-FADED: :ACAD-AERIAL-NIONFADED 1' CONFLICT w/ EXISTING STRUCTURES iy t \1/4\ NORTH FORTY South 'A' Street A I\ Los Gatos Boulevard LOS GATOS, CA 'R2'-2rid Street EXISTING STRUCTURES ALONG BENNETT WAY Lark District CONFLICTw/ EXISTING STRUCTURES OR STRUCTURE ACCESS Lark District Transition > District South 'A' Street D Alley'K' BLDG Al Area A Los Gatos Boulevard Transition > District ,� ,AreaC '`Ili BLDG Cl • BLDG B1 Note: Due to access, safety, or other issues, the location of poles may be off by a horizontal tolerance of 1'-0" to 5'-0" resulting in the appearance of a larger building footprint. Vertical tolerance will remain within 1 '-0" Legend 0 Story Pole Location ■ ■ !F • - Line of Netting Between Story Poles Line of Hag Rope Between Story Poles Project Signage Location Line of Existing Structures Story Pole in Conflict with Structure or Structure Access - Not to be Constructed 0 Story Pole adjusted 4/14/16 0 New proposed Story Pole 4/14/16 Line of Netting Between Story Poles adjusted 4/14/16 F Line of Hag Rope Between Story Poles adjusted 4/14/16 �:� Previously Proposed Story pole in Conflict with Structure or Structure Access - Not to be Constructed Phase Updated Story Pole Plan GROSVENOR .lilt. IIII EDEN HOUSING COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION 1 09039 04.14.16 0 25 50 100 i 200 South 'A' Street Lt Gatos Boulevard NORTH FORTY I LOS GATOS, CA GR©SVENOR i[.n4ntl Ri 19l [ EDEN BARarchitects Story Pole Plan Bldgs Al & B2 04.14.16 liiiiietos Boulevard NORTH FORTY I LOS GATOS, CA GROSVENOR EDEN S1 Ik1111R111! 1110.+.1Ft- CI1MM41N111i1W [It}tin Gil+in i BAR arch itects 09039 Story Pole Plan Alley G 04.14.16