Item 03 - 15600 & 15650 LG Blvd - Staff Report and Exhibit 38TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 9, 2015
PREPARED BY: Jennifer L. Savage, Senior Planner
jsavage@ lo sgato sca.go v
APPLICATION NO: Planned Development Application PD-11-005
Negative Declaration ND-11-007
ITEM NO: 3
LOCATION: 15600 and 15650 Los Gatos Boulevard (northeast comer of Lo s
Gatos Boulevard and Los Gatos Almaden Road)
APPLICANT: BOOS Development West
CONTACT PERSON: Michael Mallard
PROPERTY OWNER: Longs Drug Stores California, LLC
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to change the zo ne from CH to CH:PD, to
demolish existing commercial buildings ( 18 ,052 square feet), to
construct new commercial buildings (28 ,763 square feet), and to
operate a super drugstore (CVS) with a drive through serv ice
window. No significant environmental impacts have been
identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended. APN s 424-14-028 and 036.
EXHIBITS: Previously received with the October 8, 20 14 StaffReport:
1. Location Map
2. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
September 2014
3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (nine pages)
4. Findings
5. June 9 and December 8, 2010 CDAC Minutes
6. Response to C DAC Comments (six pages), received March
27 ,2014
7. Letter of Justification (11 pages), received March 27, 2014
8. Architectural Consultant Report (eight pages), received
January 23 , 2012
9. Architectural Consultant Report (14 pages), received June
11 ,2013
10. Architectural Consultant Report (18 pages), received
January 6 , 201 4
11. Response to Architectural Recommendations (three pages),
received March 27 , 2014
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
15600 and 15650 Los Gatos Boulevard/PD-11-005/ND-11-007
September 9, 2015
12. Arborist Consultant Report (37 pages), received January 3 ,
2012
13. Arborist Consultant Report (14 pages), received August 21,
2013
14. Arborist Consultant Report (seven pages), received January
22 ,2014
15 . Parking Analysis (101 pages), received on November 20 ,
2013
16. Parking Analysis Peer Review (three pages)
17. Public Comments received September 26 , 2014 to October
2, 2014, 11:00 a.m. (two pages)
18 . Superseded Development Plans (18 pages), received
February 22, 2013
19. Superseded Development Plans (16 pages), received
November 20 , 2013
20. Planned Development Ordinance (28 pages) with Exhibit A
Rezone Area (one page) and Exhibit B Development Plans
(18 pages)
Previously received with October 8, 2014 Desk Item:
21. Public Comments received October 2 , 2014, 11 :01 a.m. to
Octob er 8, 2014 11:00 a.m. (two pages)
Previously received with the December 10,2014 Staff Report:
21 .b. Node Concept illustration (exhibit numbe r was duplicated)
22. Applicant's Los Gatos Boulevard Plan Compliance Letter
received on November 20 , 2013 (six pages)
23. Email Summarizing Changes Based on Neighborhood
Meeting (two pages), received December 2, 2014
24. Revised Development Plans Based on Neighborhood
Meeting (four sheets), received December 2, 2014
Previously received with December 10,2014 Desk Item:
25. Supplemental Information Summarizing Changes Based on
Neighborhood Meeting (six pages), received December 10,
2014
26. Public Comments received December 4 , 2014 to December
10, 2014, 11 :00 a.m.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
15600 and 15650 Los Gatos Boulevard/PD-11-005/ND-11-007
September 9 , 2015
REMARKS:
Previously received with the February 11, 2015 Staff Report:
27. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. December 10, 2014
to February 5, 2015 , 11:00 a.m.
Received with the April 8, 2015 StaffReport:
28. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. February 5, 2015 to
11 :00 a.m. April 2, 2015
Received with the August 26, 2015 Staff Report:
29. 2013 Initial Study and 2013 Mitigated Negative
Declaration
30. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (10 pages)
31. Findings
32. Applicant's Design Revisions Memo (two pages), received
July 28, 2015
33 . Arborist Consultant Tree Condition Report (11 pages),
received August 20 , 2015
34. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. April 2, 2015 to
11 :00 a.m. August 20, 2015
35. Vehicle Travel Paths (two pages), received August 21,
2015
36. Proposed Light Fixtures (one page), recei ved August 21,
2015
37. Planned Development Ordinance (29 pages) with Exhibit A
Rezone Area (one page) and Exhibit B Development Plans
(19 sheets)
Received with this Staff Report:
38. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. August 20, 2015 to
11 :00 a.m. September 3, 2015
This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting on August 26 , 2015. Due to
the late hour, the public portion of the public hearing and Planning Commission deliberation
were not finished. Additional public comments are included as Exhibit 38. The applicant did
not submit any new information.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 4
15600 and 15650 Los Gatos Boulevard/PD-11-005/ND-11-007
September 9, 2015
;}~¢-%~
nnifer L. Savage, AICP
Senior Planner
LRP:JLS:cg
Approved by:
Laurel Prevetti
Town Manager/Community Development
Director
cc: Michael Mallard, BOOS Development West, LLC, 711 4th Street, Davis, CA 95616
Architectural Dimensions, 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 375, Oakland, CA 94612
Longs Drugs Stores CA LLC, 1 CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI 02895
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2015\LGB15600 & 15650_9.9.15 .docx
Jennifer Savage
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jeffrey Fo x <jeffrey.fox@v asona .net >
Thursda y, August 27, 2015 8:18 PM
Jennifer Savage
Re: Planning Commission Agenda August 26
Thanks for the reply. Most of the people interested in the CVS project had a couple of hours to spend some quality time
together in the lobby.
I don't know if an email to you is the best way for me to comment prior to the Sept 9 meeting, but here goes :
RE : Mr. Moore's objection to the secondary build ing decreasing visibility of his car lot.
I am grateful to Mr Moore for pointing out the perspective from the front door of his business . But the town cannot
make long term plans based on the perceived needs of a current neighboring business . The car lot is not likely to remain
in operation forever. Many other car dealers in town have clo sed up shop, so the town must look beyond the present .
In any event, I strongly bel ieve that the proposed building's impact on Moore's business will be nil.
Drive-though:
Some folks don't like drive throughs. But CVS has been operating them successfully for a long time. There will likely be
no noise, trash or other negative consequences. It will help much more than hurt. This is a pharmacy, not a Jack-in-the -
box .
Color of the roof tiles:
This objection is too ridiculous to take seriously.
Traffic :
I trust that the changes proposed to the roadways and signals will easily handle the increased traffic. The small island
with the large oak will remain, which will greatly reduce any potential hazards to pedestrians and bikes that other types
of intersections may experience .
Secondary building:
The main building's plans look great. There is no "360 degree" problem. Utilities, trash areas have been treated
masterfully. The secondary building, though, is not well thought out. The design is mediocre, as is the positioning on
the site . The scale is too large. It is not inviting to pedestrians. I, for one, would not want my reta il store in a building
so designed and situated . CVS plans to sell the site. Boos wants to buy it. Is it possible to approve the main building,
but delay approval of the sec ondary, i.e. decouple the projects? If not, the developer may want to consider reducing the
scale of the building significantly, and even think about dividing the building into 2 or 3 smaller ones , separated by
plantings or pavement between them .
Regards,
Jeff Fo x
1
EXHIBIT 3 8
Sent from my iPad
>On Aug 27, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Jennifer Savage <jsavage@losgatosca.gov> w r ote:
>
>Hi Jeff,
>
>Thank you for your email. The Planning Commission chair apologized for incorrectly e stimating the time req uired for
the other items.
>
>The item was continued to the September 9, 2015. We appreciate your patience and participation and look fo rward to
see ing you on September 9.
>Si ncerely,
>
>Jennifer L. Savage, AICP
>Senior Planner
>Town of Los Gatos Community Developme nt Department
> phone: 408.399.5702
>website: www.lo sgatosca.gov/planning
>
> Public Counter Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 1:00 pm.
>
> Please note the upcoming Town closures :
>September 7, 2015 -Lab or Day
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey R. Fo x [mailto:jeffrey.fox@vaso na .net]
>Sent: Wednesday, Augu st 26, 2015 8 :18 PM
>To : Jennifer Savage
>Subject: Planning Commission Agenda Augu st 26
>
>
> I came to the Augu st 26 meeting becau se of my interest in the first item on the agenda, the CVS proposal.
>
>When the meeting began, item 1 was moved to item 4 , with no request for comment from the attendees.
>
>The attendees were told that the items would be brief. It is now 70 minutes into the p roceedings and the 1st item is
st ill in progress.
>
>Are last second agenda c hanges appropriate or fair without even asking attendees?
>
>The re-ordered agenda may result in attendee attrition.
>
>I will propose that as soon as the first item is done, the meeting take up the original 1st item, the CVS pro j e ct.
>
>Jeff Fox
>
>
>
>
2
Jennifer Savage
From: CRAMER, VICTORIA <victoria.cramer@hp.com >
Friday, August 28, 2015 6:51 PM Sent:
To: Jennifer Savage
Subject: Project: CVS -Addendum to oak tree information provided to the Planning
Commission meeting held on Aug 26
Hi Jennifer,
I have an addendum to the information I gave on Aug 26 to the Los Gatos Planning Commission about the estimated age
of the oak trees that are planned for removal.
I believed I stated that oak tree #7 was about 12yrs old. This is incorrect.
Oak tree #7 is about 32yrs old.
I used this information to estimate the age (see the link and 1. Thru 5. below) of the tree along with the diameter
information on DR -4-Tree Inventory I Removal Plan:
ht tp://ho me g ui des.sfgate .co m/estim ate-a ge-oak -tree-3 7563.htm l
1. Determine the species of oak in your backyard. Oaks generally fall into three categories or clades: red, white and
golden oaks . Look in tree identification resources online or in your local library.
2. Measure the circumference of the oak's trunk. Wrap the tape measure around the trunk at 54 inches above the
ground.
3 . Calculate the diameter of the oak. Use this formula: circumference (in inches) divided by pi, approximated at
3.14. For example, if your oak's trunk measures 314 inches around, its diameter would be 314 divided by 3.14,
or 100 inches .
4. Determine the growth factor for your oak. If it is a Shumard or pin oak, the growth factor is three; red oak, four;
white oak, five; and shingle oak, six. If you have a different variety of oak or were unable to identify the oak,
obtain a rough age estimate by using four.
5 . Multiply the oak's diameter in inches times the growth factor to get the approximate age of your oak. For
example, a Shumard oak with a trunk diameter of 20 inches is about 60 years old.
To recap the estimated ages of the oak tress listed on DR-4 -Tree Inventory I Removal Plan of the packet:
Oak tree# 6-over 80 years old = 22" diameter* 4
Oak tree #7-about 32 years old= 8" diameter* 4
Oak tree #21-about 40 years old = 10" diameter* 4
Oak tree# 22-about 40 years old = 10" diameter* 4
Per Arborist Report page 3 the Preservation Suitability for the following oak trees:
#6-Fair I Good
#7-Fail I Poor
#21-Fair
#22-Fair
I also want to remind the Planning Commission what I said about Protected Tree defined in the Town Code:
What is a Protected Tree?
Protected Trees are defined in the Town Code as any of the following:
5. All trees which have a 4 inch or greater diameter when removal relates to any development review.
I am requesting that all the oak trees-#6, #7, #21, #22 all be saved and NOT removed for the new CVS parking lot.
I believe that the CVS developers can come up with a creative solution so all the oak trees can be saved and there can
still be an 8' wall built between properties.
***NEW question about trees. I see o n the document DR -5 .2-Off-S ite Improvement Exhibit -item #20:
"Modify existing median island curb and widen for additional traffic lane. Restripe lanes as needed."
NEW Question:
I co uld not find in any information in the Arborist report of what impact, if any, will there be to the
current tree that is growing in
the median island when the median island is modified for an additional traffic lane ?
. Thank you v ery much for your time and help,
Vick i Cramer
2