Item 01 - N40 SP - Staff Report Exh.5 [Final EIR]
FINAL EIR
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN
SCH No. 2011122070
General Plan Amendment
GP-14-001
Zoning Amendment
Z-14-001
PREPARED FOR
Town of Los Gatos
July 18, 2014
This document was produced on recycled paper.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN
Final EIR
SCH No. 2011122070
General Plan Amendment
GP-14-001
Zoning Amendment
Z-14-001
PREPARED FOR
Town of Los Gatos
Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tel 408.354.6875
jpaulson@losgatosca.gov
PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
james@emcplanning.com
www.emcplanning.com
July 18, 2014
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1-1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR ................................... 2-1
2.1 CEQA Requirements ........................................................ 2-1
2.2 Comments Received ......................................................... 2-1
2.3 Master Responses ............................................................. 2-6
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY ...................................................... 3-1
3.1 CEQA Requirements ........................................................ 3-1
3.2 Text of Revised Summary .................................................. 3-1
4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR ....................................... 4-1
4.1 CEQA Requirements ........................................................ 4-1
4.2 Changes Made .................................................................. 4-1
5.0 M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM ... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Monitoring Program ......................................................... 5-1
5.3 Monitoring Program Procedures ........................................ 5-2
Tables
Table 1 Commenters and Topics .................................................................. 2-3
Table 2 Speakers and Topics ........................................................................ 2-5
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1-1
1.0
I NTRODUCTION
The Town of Los Gatos, acting as the lead agency, determined that the proposed North Forty
Specific Plan (hereinafter “proposed project”) might result in significant adverse environmental
effects, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section
15064. Therefore, the Town of Los Gatos had a draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR)
prepared to evaluate the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the project.
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between April 4, 2014 and May 19, 2014, and
public comment was received. CEQA Guidelines section 15200 indicates that the purposes of
the public review process include sharing expertise, disclosing agency analysis, checking for
accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter proposals.
This Final EIR has been prepared to address comments received during the public review period
and, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the complete North Forty Specific Plan EIR. This
Final EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 contains an introduction to the Final EIR.
Section 2 contains written comments on the Draft EIR, as well as the responses to those
comments.
Section 3 contains a revised summary of the Draft EIR, identifying the changes in the
impacts and mitigation measures resulting from comments on the Draft EIR.
Section 4 contains the revisions to the text of the Draft EIR resulting from comments on
the Draft EIR.
Section 5 contains the mitigation monitoring program.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-1
2.0
C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15132(c) requires that the Final EIR contain a list of persons,
organizations, and public agencies that have commented on the Draft EIR. A list of the
correspondence received during the public review period is presented below.
CEQA Guidelines sections 15132(b) and 15132(d) require that the Final EIR contain the
comments that raise significant environmental points in the review and consultation process, and
written response to those comments. Based on the comments received and the responses to the
comments, revisions have been made to the text of the Draft EIR where required. These
revisions are included in Section 3.0, Revised Summary and in Section 4.0, Changes to the Draft
EIR.
2.2 COMMENTS R ECEIVED
The following written correspondence was received during the 45-day public review period on
the Draft EIR:
Letter 1 Horton (April 5, 2014)
Letter 2 Wojtkowski (April 5, 2014)
Letter 3 Crumpton (April 7, 2014)
Letter 4 Dallas (April 10, 2014)
Letter 5 Davinci (April 13, 2014)
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Letter 6 Santa Clara County Parks Department (April 24, 2014)
Letter 7 Walsh (April 28, 2014)
Letter 8 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (May 8, 2014)
Letter 9 Nedom (May 9, 2014)
Letter 10 Arzie (May 14, 2014)
Letter 11 Hudes (May 14, 2014)
Letter 12 Robinson (May 14, 2014)
Letter 13 Dodson (May 15, 2014)
Letter 14 Grewal (May 15, 2014)
Letter 15 Bell (May 19, 2014)
Letter 16 Law Offices of Berliner Cohen (May 19, 2014)
Letter 17 Buxton (May 19, 2014)
Letter 18 Caltrans (May 19, 2014)
Letter 19 Crowder (May 19, 2014)
Letter 20 Field, D. (May 19, 2014)
Letter 21 Field, K. (May 19, 2014)
Letter 22 Fok (May 19, 2014)
Letter 23 Law Offices of Tamara Gabel (May 19, 2014)
Letter 24 Harlan (May 19, 2014)
Letter 25 Landry (May 19, 2014)
Letter 26 Loughridge (May 19, 2014)
Letter 27 Mattes (May 19, 2014)
Letter 28 Schneider (May 19, 2014)
Letter 29 Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 19, 2014)
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-3
Letter 30 Shepardson (May 19, 2014)
Letter 31 VanNada (May 19, 2014)
Letter 32 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (May 19, 2014)
Letter 33 Murfeldt (May 20, 2014)
Letter 34 Rathman (undated)
Letter 35 Quintana (undated)
A copy of each correspondence received during the public review period for the Draft EIR is
presented on the following pages. Numbers along the left-hand margin of each comment letter
identify individual comments to which a response is provided. Responses are presented
immediately following each letter. Due to the prevalence of comments on schools and
transportation, a master response is provided for those topics, and presented immediately
preceding the first letter.
Table 1, Commenters and Topics summarizes the topics addressed in each of the letters.
Table 1 Commenters and Topics
Commenter Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment 1. Horton X X
2. Wojtkowski X X
3. Crumpton X
4. Dallas X X X
5. Davinci X
6. SCCo Parks X
7. Walsh X X
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Commenter Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment 8. SCCo DEH X
9. Nedom X X X
10. Arzie X X
11. Hudes X X X
12. Robinson X
13. Dodson X X X
14. Grewal X
15. Bell X
16. Berliner Cohen X X X X
17. Buxton X X X
18. Caltrans X
19. Crowder X X
20. Field, D. X X X
21. Field, K. X
22. Fok X X X
23. Gabel X
24. Harlan X X X
25. Landry X X X X
26. Loughridge X
27. Mattes X
28. Schneider X X X
29. SCVWD X X
30. Shepardson X
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-5
Commenter Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment 31. Van Nada X X X
32. VTA X
33. Murtfeldt X X X
34. Rathman X
35. Quintana X X X
Source: EMC Planning Group 2014
Oral comments were received at the Planning Commission meeting on May 14, 2014. Table 2,
Speakers and Topics presents a summary of topics addressed by each speaker.
Table 2 Speakers and Topics
Speaker Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment Van Nada X X
Quintana X X X
Wu X
Despars X X X
Hudes X
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Speaker Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment McBriarty X X
Fok X X
Harlan X X X
Arzie X X
Loughridge X
Robinson X
Oakley-Girvan X X X
Nedom X X
Farwell X
Ventura X X
Grewal X X
Source: EMC Planning Group 2014
A transcript of the oral comments is presented later in this section. Numbers along the left-hand
margin are provided for each comment to which a response is provided. Responses are presented
immediately following the transcript.
2.3 MASTER R ESPONSES
Master Response on Schools
Numerous comments on the Draft EIR concerned schools. The following Master Response
provides a response to the most frequent comments relating to schools.
School Capacity. According to the Los Gatos Union School District’s Imagine 2022 District Facilities
Master Plan, classrooms at the two Los Gatos Unified School District (District) schools to which
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-7
the proposed project would send students (Fisher Middle School and Van Meter Elementary
School) are utilized at 79 percent of capacity and 91 percent of capacity (Los Gatos Union
School District 2012, page 23). However, with the District’s preferred class sizes and room
allocations, both schools are at capacity. Some of the rooms at the schools are used for purposes
other than classrooms in order to enrich the school environment – the Draft EIR considered
school capacity under this preferred room assignment scenario. The Draft EIR acknowledges
that the schools are crowded, but under state law (SB 50, 1998), the payment of fees is
considered full mitigation of impacts.
Student Generation. The Draft EIR estimates of student generation are based on the data used
in the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Final EIR (June 2010). This data is based on the Draft 2010
Student Generation Rates Study, prepared by Jeanette C. Justus Associates in March 2010. The
generation rates are broken out by housing type (single-family detached, attached, apartments,
below market rate apartments, and mixed use) and by grade level (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) to project
student generation as accurately as possible. The use of specific project data from several recent
projects would not provide a valid sample as compared to the larger data sample utilized in the
Final EIR for the General Plan and in the Draft EIR for the proposed project.
School Planning. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan considered for development of more
than twice the number of residential units than are proposed in the Specific Plan. The District
has taken the Town’s projected growth into account in its long-range planning, so development
of housing at one-half the density planned in the General Plan should be accommodated by
District plans. The school facilities master plan includes growth scenarios where about half of
the General Plan development occurs within the Plan Area and where full build-out occurs (Los
Gatos Union School District 2012, pages 25-30). Either of these growth scenarios would provide
for adequate growth assumption upon which the District can plan for accommodating students
from within the Plan Area.
Master Response on Transportation
Numerous comments on the Draft EIR concerned transportation. The following Master
Response provides a response to the most frequent comments relating to transportation.
Analysis and Mitigation. The transportation impact analysis was conducted to specifically
address traffic generation from the proposed project and the effects of that traffic on nearby
streets and highways. The transportation analysis was conducted following guidelines of the
Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to ensure that it
addresses the project’s impacts to the roadway system and meets CEQA standards. The Draft
EIR evaluates full project build-out conditions, when all Specific Plan-related traffic is added to
local streets. Therefore, the transportation analysis and the evaluation in the Draft EIR
encompass impacts of interim phases. Supplemental analyses may be completed for
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
development applications. The transportation analysis includes new traffic counts to reflect
recent traffic volume increases. It also includes traffic estimates for full build out of approved and
pending development projects to account for future traffic increases. The Draft EIR includes an
estimate of the amount of traffic generated by the Specific Plan uses and evaluates the effects of
the added traffic and the roadway improvements that are included in the Specific Plan on the
roadway system at key intersections and freeway segments. Mitigation measures are identified
for locations on the roadway system that are impacted by the added traffic. All surface street
impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The only location that would not be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level is one segment of State Route 85 between Winchester
Boulevard and State Route 17.
To present a conservative evaluation of project impacts, the analysis focuses on the morning and
evening commute periods, when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are highest.
Traffic volumes are lower at other times of the day and therefore fewer impacts would occur.
The effects of the mitigation measures on all studied intersection operations are shown in Draft
EIR Appendix M. The level of service (LOS) results without and with mitigation for the
Background plus Project conditions are shown in Table 23 of Draft EIR Appendix M (page 101).
The LOS results without and with mitigation for the Cumulative plus Project scenario are shown
in Table 31 of Draft EIR Appendix M (page 134).
Lark Avenue. The analysis evaluates all of Lark Avenue by evaluating intersections along its
length, from Los Gatos Boulevard to Winchester Boulevard. Where traffic added by Specific
Plan development was projected to create unacceptable operating conditions, mitigation
measures were identified, as described in the Draft EIR and in Draft EIR Appendix M. The
Specific Plan includes a separate bicycle path along Lark Avenue within the Plan Area, and the
Town plans to construct bicycle lanes on Lark Avenue in the future, but it is not required as a
part of this project to mitigate impacts.
Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 26 from Loughridge regarding Lark Avenue
at Highlands Drive.
Safety. Collision information is presented on page 36 of Draft EIR Appendix M. The Project
Implementation section of the traffic impact analysis describes circulation for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. Vehicle safety improvements include the restriction of left turns at
certain locations and raised medians to separate traffic flows. Pedestrian safety improvements
include the addition of landscaped buffers along the project frontage and crosswalks with
pedestrian signals. Bicycle safety improvements include sharrows on the proposed A Street and
creating a multi-use path within the project frontage along Lark Avenue. The Project
Implementation section of traffic impact analysis contains a more detailed and comprehensive
description of project safety and circulation (Draft EIR Appendix M page 169).
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-9
Transportation Demand Management. The Specific Plan identifies several Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) programs to reduce the number of vehicles entering and exiting
the Specific Plan area. Examples in the Specific Plan include subsidized transit tickets,
preferential parking for carpools, the addition of bicycle racks and lockers, locating general
services (e.g., banks, childcare, convenience stores, etc.) within walking distance, and showers
for bicycle commuters. Additional potential transportation demand measures can be found on
page 179 of the transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M). Town of Los Gatos 2020
General Plan Policy TRA-3.13 requires that major developments, including the commercial uses
developed within the Plan Area, implement transportation demand measures. TDM measures
will be addressed as conditions of approval at the development application stage. The
transportation impact analysis did not consider the implementation of TDM measures, so their
implementation will improve traffic conditions over what was projected in the transportation
impact analysis.
From: bruce [mailto:brucehorton@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 4:35 PM
To: Council
Subject: FW: North 40
Los Gatos Town Council,
I sent this along to the North 40 website after receiving a mailer today sent out to all Los
Gatos residents apparently from the developer asking for comments……please do not
sacrifice our great schools in this upcoming planning process! I am sure the developer
is not going to be too concerned about my comments below. I have hopes that you
will all make the right decisions to make Los Gatos bette,r not worse.
Kind regards,
Evy Horton
North Forty developers,
If you think couples with children will not be living in those upscale condos, think
again. The school district is already at capacity and still will be after the opening of the
renovated Lexington School. The residents of Los Gatos generously funded expansion
of all our schools to accommodate the needs of our students. Unless you plan to
purchase land and then fund a new school at 24 million dollars, be ready for questions
from Los Gatos Union School district. Current district parents do not want to see their
children housed in portable classrooms at our newly renovated schools due to
overcrowding. We lived with substandard portable classrooms for years until bonds
were passed and our schools expanded. It is not just the number of classrooms, but
bathrooms, cafeterias, our playgrounds, etc. can only house and accommodate so
many students. When schools are over capacity it becomes a safety issue. If you want
to see what happened when Cupertino built upscale apartments and condos for
young professionals give their school district a call. Those condos filled with families
having their children share rooms in order to get their kids into Cupertino schools. If their
residents did not raise the 2 million dollars needed to fund the new growth their class
sizes were going to balloon to 30. Senior apartments are one thing but many young
professionals are married with families......they are not all single!
Traffic will be unbearable as in addition to your development, the traffic from the new
Stanford Cancer Center, and Palo Alto Medical Foundation building now under
construction along with the homes and retail being built at Blossom Hill and Los Gatos
Blvd. will lead to traffic melt down. The idyllic community you call Los Gatos and what
makes it so desirable will be a thing of the past. The $700,000 you say will go to the
school district yearly is in no way enough money to purchase " non-existent land" and
build a new school!
I forgot to mention the traffic feeding off of Lark from the new Netflix development as
well!
Kind regards,
Evy Horton
Comment 1
Comment 2
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-11
Response to Letter 1 from Horton (April 5, 2014)
1. The Draft EIR does not make assumptions regarding the type of residents living in the
proposed residential units. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
2. Traffic from the three projects mentioned is accounted for in the existing, background,
and/or cumulative scenarios. Netflix is referred to as "Albright Office Development" and
Stanford Cancer Center is referred to as “50 Samaritan Drive” in the TIA, and both are included
in Background and Cumulative Conditions. Palo Alto Medical Foundation is referred to as
“15400 Los Gatos Boulevard” in the TIA and included in Background and Cumulative
Conditions.
Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation Issues.
1
From:Donna Wojtkowski <rdwojtkowski@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 05, 2014 6:27 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 comment
Thank you for allowing us to make comments regarding the North 40. I have attended a few meetings.
My comment is about the orchard. I hope that you will preserve a few of the fruit trees since they are
part of our agricultural history of that family, our city and county. Sunnyvale has an apricot orchard
called the Heritage Orchard next to the Murphy House where I volunteer for a 3rd grade history
program. I believe you are going to save some of the old barns. Hopefully, the fruit trees will be seen
too.
Donna Wojtkowski
Comment 1
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-13
Response to Letter 2 from Wojtkowski (April 5, 2014)
1. The orchard was described in the historic resources reports as an integral part of the
setting for the potentially historic buildings. However, the orchard, although in that location for
many years, has been replanted with various fruit and nut types over those years, and is but a
remnant of the orchards formerly present in the region. From any location within the orchard,
urban encroachment is visible and or audible. Although the existing orchard trees would not be
preserved, the Specific Plan calls for using orchard-style plantings to memorialize past orchard
uses on the site and in the region. Refer also to the responses to comments 11-13 in Letter 35
from Quintana.
1
From:Crumpton Family <crumpton3@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, April 07, 2014 9:53 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:EIR, North 40
I hate this project as proposed for what it will do to this town, and our lifestyles
and health!
The environmentally‐superior alternative would be the “no project” alternative,
because it would
reduce impacts in all but three environmental topic areas, and would be similar to
the proposed
project in three others.
Crumpton, Tom
124 Las Astas Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032‐7680
crumpton3@verizon.net
Comment 1
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-15
Response to Letter 3 from Crumpton (April 7, 2014)
1. Note that two similar letters were received. This comment concurs with the conclusions
presented in Section 5.1 Evaluation of Alternatives.
1
From:Peggy Dallas <peggydallasarchitect@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:02 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 project
Hi Joel,
I'm glad to hear the you are the go-to planner for the North 40 Phase I. it is a challenging project
that needs an experienced planner.
As a tax paying Los Gatos citizen I'm concerned about the nature of the development of the
North 40 site. My concerns are best stated by a comment from Barbara Dodson...
"I have questions about why there will be so many housing units given the traffic issues and overcrowded
schools we currently face. I, also, would like to find out the projected revenues for the project. I know the Town
needs revenue; I'm wondering if the project generates even more than we actually need at the expense of
maintaining the kind of community we want to live in."
I'd like to be reassured that the town is accounting for the added infrastructure and maintenance costs to the
public.......not only the town government costs but other public institutions, such as schools, and the utility
infrastructure that will be needed.
It is my understanding that the tax revenue from housing is far less then commercial development, which when
you consider the added demand on the schools caused by residential development may not pencil out....and
certainly makes it a less favorable revenue option for the town.
Residential development is clearly a quick profit for the developer....but they don't pay the taxes and they don't
live here......something to remember.
Thanks Joel......stay smart,
Peggy
Comment 1
Comment 2
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-17
Response to Letter 4 from Dallas (April 10, 2014)
1. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed project includes less housing than is
contemplated in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. The density of housing in the Specific
Plan area would be less than half that considered in the General Plan. The General Plan and the
General Plan EIR assumed that the Plan Area would include up to 750 residential units and
development of up to 580,000 square feet of retail or office space. The Specific Plan limits
residential development to 364 units. The amount of housing provided in the proposed Specific
Plan is an appropriate balance between the Town’s housing needs and the constraints of the Plan
Area, including traffic and school capacity. The Los Gatos Housing Element identifies several
sites within the Town for meeting the Town’s affordable regional housing needs, as mandated by
the California Housing and Community Development Department and the Association of Bay
Area Governments. The Plan Area was initially considered as a potential Housing Element site,
but not ultimately included, as more appropriate sites were identified. However, although
housing within the Plan Area is not necessary to meeting the regional housing needs assessment
requirements, a portion of the housing would fall under the Town’s Below Market Rate program,
and fulfill Housing Element needs. The Specific Plan balances the Town’s housing needs and the
environmental constraints of the Plan Area.
Also refer to the Master Response on Schools and the Master Response on Transportation.
2. Fiscal implications of the proposed project are not an environmental issue – and
therefore are not addressed in the EIR – unless they lead to a physical impact that is an
environmental issue. However, on-site utility infrastructure and off-site utility upgrades,
necessary to serve the proposed project, would be paid for by the developer(s). Developers of
residential and commercial projects would pay state-mandated school impact fees.
From: IRAJDAVINCIDESIGNERS [mailto:parravi35@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 7:10 AM
To: Arlene Holmboe
Subject: Re: Draft EIR Available for North 40 Specific Plan
ARLENE HOLMBOE INREGARD TO NORTH 40 CITY OF LOS GATOS
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G I HAVE TO THANK YOU FOR COSTANTLY STAYING INTOUCH ALSO
COUNCEL & THE COMMISSION INWHICH THEY EXPRESSED DISMAY ON OCTOBER 15 TH 2013 THE
LAST MEETING. I PRESENTED A ONE PAGE SUMMARY TO MR. JOEL PAULSON THE PRINCIPAL
PLANNER WHO HAS GIVEN ATTENTION NOT ONLY TO SCHMATICS ALSO TO SENSETIVE ISSUES (
HOW CAN WE IGNORE THE ALLOCATION OF A GOOD PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL FOR TEACHERS
SINGLE WOMEN WITH CHILDREN & THOSE WITH SMALLER BUDGETS. My DESIGN IS NOT ABOUT A
BUILDING IT IS LOOKING AT OUR SOCIAL ECONOMICAL &THE URGENT NEED OF THOSE WHO
PUT THEIR CHILD THROUGH SCHOOL) WILL LOOK FORWARD ( TO BE COTINEOUD)
IRAJDAVINCIDESIGNERS Wireless Phone
Comment 1
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-19
Response to Letter 5 from Davinci (April 13, 2014)
The comment relates to the provision of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. The
Town’s Below Market Rate housing program requires the provision of affordable housing equal
to 20 percent of the number of market rate houses. The Below Market Rate program applies
throughout the Town, including within the Plan Area.
Comment 1
Comment 1,
cont.
Comment 2
Comment 3
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 6 from Santa Clara County Parks Department
(April 24, 2014)
1. County Regional Trails Route S4 (a portion of the Los Gatos Creek Trail) is located
about one-half mile to the west of the Plan Area. The trail connects Los Gatos to the Willow
Glen neighborhood of San Jose. The trail is described on page 3-175 in Section 3.12 Population
and Public Services and on page 3-200 in Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic in the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR’s analysis in the transportation section addresses the suitability of access to
the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The EIR also addresses Countywide Route 16B, which runs
tangentially to the northeast corner of the Plan Area (Draft EIR page 3-228). As explained in the
Draft EIR, the proposed project would allow up to 364 residential units in the Specific Plan area.
This new housing is expected to result in an increase in the use of existing parks and recreational
facilities, including the nearby countywide trail routes. New residents of the Plan Area would
represent only a small fraction of the existing population in the Town and the region, and the
expected increase in use of recreational facilities would be spread across the numerous parks and
recreational opportunities in the area. The increase in use of recreational facilities, including
countywide trails, would be less than significant.
2. Increased park demands are primarily population-related. The proposed project would
add up to 364 new residential units to the region, or about 870 persons. The Draft EIR describes
the regional trail route and the many parks available for use in the vicinity of the Plan Area,
including Lake Vasona County Park, the Los Gatos Creek Trail, Los Gatos Creek Park, and
parks operated by four additional agencies. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR
concluded that buildout of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan would not have a significant
effect on parks and recreation; since the proposed project would have fewer than half the number
of residential units allowed by the General Plan, the proposed project would not have a
significant effect on parks and recreation. While some use by employees of new businesses in the
Plan Area is possible, the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant increase in
use of parks or recreational facilities by new employees. The distance from the Plan Area to
parks and recreation facilities in the vicinity is likely too far to draw significant use by employees.
Refer also to Comment 1, above.
3. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan lists bike lanes as a planned improvement on
Lark Avenue between Los Gatos Boulevard and Winchester Boulevard (pages TRA-17 and
TRA-18). It has been determined that later development of the Lark Avenue bike lanes was
appropriate. A Class I multi-modal path to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian circulation
would be constructed within the Plan Area along Lark Avenue. Additionally, the right-of-way is
sized to accommodate future bike lanes. An existing trail crossing over State Route 17 to the Los
Gatos Creek Trail is located north of State Route 85 at Mozart Drive.
1
From:Julie Walsh <kittygem00@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 28, 2014 5:49 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40
Hi,
I live on Venn Ave., been here 8+ years.
I am VERY concerned about TRAFFIC and congestion on LG Blvd. and Lark. We already have a lot
of congestion on these streets, midday, during non-rush hour traffic. I read the report. Adding more
lanes may or may not work. How will people be able to park in the Trader Joe's/Petfood Express lot,
or the Peet's/CVS lots when those lots are very full and midday?
I do not support this project, and am very concerned about traffic on our streets.
Also, I have a 3 year old, and I FULLY INTEND to send her to Carlton Elementary, which is
2 blocks away, after having paid, by the time she goes, well over $100,000 in prop taxes.
This cannot be threatened. NO more kids at Carlton school! Or, at least, the new kids are
last in line to attend. It is only fair.
Thanks,
Julie Walsh
Comment 1
Comment 2
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 7 from Walsh (April 28, 2014)
1. Parking is provided at commercial shopping centers, such as those along Los Gatos
Boulevard near Lark Avenue, in accordance with the Town’s zoning requirements, which are
intended to provide adequate parking to meet typical parking demands. While some increase in
parking demand at various centers and locations in the area is likely, patronage of businesses in
the vicinity of the Plan Area would be dispersed both geographically and in terms of time of
demand based on need and preference for products and services. In addition, businesses and
services within the Plan Area are intended to meet some needs of future Plan Area residents and
employees, which will reduce parking demands outside of the Plan Area. Per the Town’s zoning
code, adequate parking for all land uses must be provided in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific
Plan requires that all parking provided in the Specific Plan area shall adhere to the standards
provided in Section 2.5.7, Parking Requirements in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the increase in
parking demand created by the Specific Plan is expected to be less than significant.
Also, refer to the Master Response on Transportation.
2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
1
From:Costa, Aaron <aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org>
Sent:Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:53 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:Draft EIR for North Forty Project - DEH Comments
Mr. Paulson
The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Draft EIR for this project and has the
following comments:
1.The DEH is currently overseeing an open fuel leak investigation at 16500 Lark Ave. which is
across the street from the proposed project.
2.Contamination has migrated from the subject site under Lark Ave. and on to the property of the
proposed development.
3.A significant level of remediation is required to reduce the level of contamination both at 16500
Lark Ave. and the off‐site property.
4.The final remediation design as well as how long the remediation will last is currently unknown,
but DEH estimates it to be 1‐2 years.
5.The DEH requests consultation prior to any disturbance of soils on the proposed project site and
surrounding areas as there is a potential that not all the contamination has been delineated.
6.Appropriate protective measure such as a soil management plan (SMP) should be prepared and
presented to DEH prior to any soil disturbance.
7.Additionally, the DEH notes that in addition to hazardous materials originating from the 16500
Lark Ave property, there is potential to encounter hazardous materials from other sources on
the proposed project property. Prior land use (orchard) may have included the use of chemicals
such as pesticides and herbicides and those chemicals should also be tested for prior to any soil
disturbance.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Aaron Costa
Hazardous Materials Specialist II
Site Mitigation Program
County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental Health
Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
1555 Berger Drive #300
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 918‐1954
www.EHinfo.org
NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals
named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or
disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify
the sender by return email.
Comment 1
Comment 2
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 8 from Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health (May 8, 2014)
1. Contamination from the 16500 Lark Avenue leak is described in Section 3.8 Hazards
and Hazardous Materials in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (page 3-115) was
developed in consultation with the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health
(DEH). DEH reviewed the mitigation measure prior to circulation of the Draft EIR and their
comments were incorporated at that time. The mitigation measure is presented to protect
workers and residents in the southern portion of the Plan Area (adjacent to Lark Avenue) from
potential adverse effects of exposure to the contamination. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires
developer consultation with DEH prior to issuance of permits for activities involving grading or
excavation within the delineated contamination area (Figure 17, Groundwater Contamination
Plumes in the Draft EIR, page 3-109), and “immediately adjacent areas”, therefore accounting
for the possibility of contaminated soils beyond the delineated boundary. During the required
consultation, and based either on soil testing or assumption of contamination, DEH will identify
what they deem to be appropriate protective measures, which may include preparation of a soil
management plan. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires appropriate protective
measures to mitigate the potential impacts. The bounds of groundwater contamination have
been established through approximately 20 years of groundwater monitoring, so consultation on
locations outside the boundaries indicated in monitoring reports is not necessary. The
contamination source was removed in 1992, so although migration of the contaminated
groundwater could continue, increasing contamination levels are not likely. Furthermore,
groundwater contamination, especially at the margins of the delineated area, is understood to be
well below the anticipated depth of disturbance for project construction.
2. Soil sample analysis indicates that pesticide residues, while present, are below Regional
Water Quality Control Board thresholds for residential uses (Draft EIR pages 3-107 and 3-114).
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 4,
cont.
Comment 5
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-31
Response to Letter 9 from Nedom (May 9, 2014)
1. The comment made in the letter suggests that the “Areas of Controversy” identified in
the summary section of the Draft EIR should also include the density and number of housing
units projected for the southern portion of the Specific Plan area. The comment expresses the
opinion that the housing is too dense and the number of units would be too high, and not
consistent with the General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area. The density of housing in the
Specific Plan area would be less than half that considered in the General Plan. Refer to response
the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
3. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of the
state-mandated school impact fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of
any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited to, the planning, use, or
development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization.”
Therefore, with the payment of impact fees, the environmental impacts associated with new
students generated by future redevelopment of the Plan Area would be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level. In a scenario where all residential development was within the southern school
districts, the student generation within those districts would rise slightly, but the development
impact fees would increase proportionally and the impact would remain less than significant.
Distributing housing across a larger portion of the Plan Area (i.e. to the north into the Northern
District) would reduce the number of students attending Los Gatos school districts, but would at
the same time increase the number of students attending schools in the two northern school
districts.
The Specific Plan is intended to allow for the development of an integrated local-serving
neighborhood consistent with the General Plan and the North 40 vision. The Specific Plan
allows for a mixture of land uses within the Plan Area, including multiple residential categories
intended to satisfy the Town’s unmet housing needs. The district-based approach applied in the
Specific Plan allows each district to establish its own distinctive character by tailoring a range of
uses for each district intended to be compatible with surrounding future and existing land uses
both within and outside the Plan Area.
Distribution of land uses within the Plan Area is based on various factors including locating
compatible land uses within proximity of each other. While the intent is to provide a mixed-use
neighborhood within the Plan Area, it is desirable to concentrate certain land use types together
instead of evenly distributing all land uses across the entire Plan Area. Housing is considered
appropriate along Lark Avenue because of proximity to the existing housing south of Lark
Avenue, and lower trip generation from residential uses on the short, but congested Lark
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Avenue frontage. Concentrating commercial uses within the Northern District provides a
focused retail presence, which is better located along Los Gatos Boulevard, because access to a
concentration of commercial uses along the shorter Lark Avenue frontage would exacerbate
already difficult traffic conditions along that street.
The Specific Plan is intended to provide a range of housing options that is desirable to a range of
future residents. It is not necessarily desirable to situate all housing options adjacent to, for
instance, retail or office uses. This type of residential situation may be desirable to some people
and housing in the Transition and Northern Districts will provide such options. However, the
majority of housing within the Plan Area is proposed within a predominately residential area
that is within a short distance of retail and office uses, located both within and near the Plan
Area. Housing in the Lark District, as well as the Transition District will provide opportunities
for more of a residential neighborhood feel while still putting residents in proximity to businesses
and services.
4. The transportation impact analysis was conducted primarily using counts conducted in
early 2013 when the analysis was started. The operations of the study intersections vary and
some operate with moderate amounts of delay (LOS C and D), some are at capacity (LOS E),
and some have excessive congestion (LOS F). Refer also to the Master Response on
Transportation.
The “significant and unavoidable” comment in the beginning of the Traffic and Transportation
section is in relation to the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR and the lack of available
funding to construct all of the needed improvements, and not in relation to the North 40 Specific
Plan.
Mitigation Measure TR-4 and Mitigation Measure TR-5 refer to “working with” the transit
agency because the Town does not have the authority to make decisions regarding the provision
of transit services. The Town and Valley Transportation Authority have a good working
relationship, and both are interested in seeing improvements that would facilitate transit use. In
addition to serving as Santa Clara County’s transit agency, in its letters regarding this project, the
Valley Transportation Authority has stressed the importance of providing transit to the project
site. Demonstrating its commitment to transit, the Town of Los Gatos includes a Vasona Light
Rail element in its General Plan, as well as numerous General Plan and Sustainability Plan
policies directed at provision of transit and accommodation of other means of transportation.
These policies are cited on pages 3-202 through 3-209 of the Draft EIR.
5. The comment suggests that the General Plan should have kept the Plan Area in
agricultural use. However, the General Plan identifies the Plan Area for development within
certain parameters, and the Specific Plan has been developed in accordance with those
parameters.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-35
Response to Letter 10 from Arzie (May 14, 2014)
1. Assumptions about future lane geometries and mitigation measures for project impacts
on Los Gatos Boulevard were developed in collaboration with Town of Los Gatos staff. The
ultimate widening of Los Gatos Boulevard is a long-term capital improvement for the Town of
Los Gatos and is not necessary as a mitigation measure to reduce impacts for this project. Right-
of-way has already been dedicated on the west side of the roadway. Widening Los Gatos
Boulevard between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive may not be feasible in the near term
because it requires land acquisition along the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard. Two lanes
already exist in this area, and the additional right-of-way would be utilized to provide a third
travel lane, turn lanes, and to formalize the bike lane and sidewalks on the east side. As parcels
on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard are developed, additional right-of-way will be granted to
the Town of Los Gatos to accommodate planned improvements.
2. Much of the Los Gatos Boulevard west side frontage is already developed making a ring
road challenging to implement. Within the Plan Area, a ring road would function similarly to
the proposed through road, distributing traffic within the Plan Area. Additionally, a ring road
would still need to have access points onto Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. Therefore
the effects on the surrounding roadways would not be altered from what was addressed in the
Draft EIR.
3. The comment that the North 40 has become the “North 20” is apparently in reference to
approximately half the Plan Area being currently proposed for development. The Specific Plan
provides a long-range plan for development of the entire Plan Area, and phasing of development
is anticipated. The Draft EIR considered build-out of the entire Plan Area over a 20-year period.
CEQA requires that an EIR analyze the entire project being proposed as early as possible in the
planning process. CEQA does not allow projects to be segmented and reviewed in a “piecemeal”
fashion. The Draft EIR did not analyze the appropriateness of focusing housing at any particular
location within the Plan Area, but no significant impacts were identified that were specifically
related to the concentration of housing at the south end of the Plan Area. From at least two
standpoints, concentrating housing at the south end of the Plan Area has potential
environmental benefits. The south end of the Plan Area is closer to the elementary and middle
schools, so walking or bicycling to school are more feasible; and residential uses generate lower
traffic volumes than commercial, so location of those uses near the traffic-constricted Lark
Avenue could potentially result in fewer traffic impacts by generating fewer trip ends adjacent to
that street. The Lark District is also less-affected by noise and air pollutants from traffic on State
Route 17. Although portions of the Lark District are affected by groundwater contamination
from the Lark Avenue Car Wash, that contamination is only known to occur well below the
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-36 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
surface soils, so is not a likely concern for future residents; in any case, Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 imposes safety measures to ensure that groundwater or soils contamination is addressed
prior to construction.
See also response to Comment 3 in Letter 9 from Nedom.
North 40 EIR Comments
For over two years, I have been urging the Town to perform an analysis of the
economic impact of commercial development of the North 40 in the life cycle of
commercial activities, starting with development application through planning and
review approvals and through on‐going commercial activities, including:
1.Potential economic activity that could be generated in the North Forty
2.Potential economic activity, both positive (synergies) and negative, in
adjacent and proximate areas, as a result of activity in the North Forty
3.Potential economic activity, both positive and negative, in the
downtown, as a result of activity in the North Forty
The response from Town staff has been that these concerns would be addressed in
the Urban Decay Analysis incorporated in the EIR. As a member of the North 40
Advisory Committee, I took it on good faith that this analysis would be performed.
In fact, these concerns were not addressed, although they could have been, as
evidenced by other Urban Decay Analysis examples in the State of California, that
are easily obtained, including the Sacramento Railyards report (forwarded to Town
staff).
My main comments about the Draft EIR, boil down to:
1. Numerous opinions and conclusions offered without foundation in fact. Some of
the most extreme examples are in section 3.10 Land Use and Planning:
“With the exception of the declining automotive sector, Los Gatos has a very
strong retail sector.” “the continuing success of the downtown following the
opening of Santana Row” Omitting the automotive sector, the data in the
Draft EIR and Appendix K show a decrease in retail in the Downtown by 34%
since 2000, despite a small recovery.
“The sales estimates are equivalent to slightly less than 30 percent of estimated
2012 retail sales in Los Gatos” “The urban decay analysis indicates that urban
decay is not likely to occur as a result of the proposed project.” Yet the data
show that the North 40 Specific Plan will expand retail by $215M or 29% of
the Town’s 2012 retail commerce, and expand it by 52% compared to the
Downtown. The Downtown is the more relevant comparison here, as it is the
only area that is primarily pedestrian‐accessed. Any reasonable and
competent economic sensitivity analysis would show that adding more than
50% supply in a short time frame would have a significant impact. It would
be an extremely rare economic phenomenon that an enormous increase in
supply would have no significant impact.
Comment 1
Comment 2
2. The analysis of base case retail capacity was not performed. Despite numerous
requests by residents, there has been no inclusion of square footage analysis of the
existing retail areas in Town. If the residents’ concerns are founded, then the retail
addition of the North 40’s 400,000 square feet is almost double the existing area in
Downtown. That would suggest that the aforementioned projection of $215M or
52% increase in retail activity is extremely and severely understated. The impact
would be more destructive on economic activity in the Downtown than indicated in
the report.
3. The analysis of adjacent and potentially impacting populations is flawed in two
ways:
a) The “ten minute” drive area comparison is more like 25 to 35 minute
drive time in reasonably likely comparisons.
b) The type of business to be permitted in the Draft North 40 Specific Plan
are meant to be “neighborhood serving”
The result of these errors is that the potential market to absorb this enormous
additional retail activity in the North 40 is overstated in the report, and the impact
would be more destructive on economic activity in the Downtown.
4. The Draft EIR lacks case studies and comparisons; examples of such have
provided to Town staff, and might include such developments proximate and
adjacent to Downtowns that have occurred in:
Sacramento, Railyards
Walnut Creek
Livermore
Pleasanton
Campbell
San Luis Obispo
Palo Alto (only cited in a minor way)
Napa
Bay Street, Emeryville
Gateway, Salt Lake City
Lake Oswego, OR
It would be valuable to include relevant historical and representative comparators
in both the EIR and the Specific Plan.
5. The EIR fails to consider other credible, and in fact, likely retail development
alternatives such as, permitting larger retail outlets rather than allowing many
smaller spaces that will compete with downtown.
The main point is that the data cited in the study have been interpreted in a manner
favorable to development.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Additional Information:
The inadequate consideration of economic impacts in an EIR has recently become a
focus of attention and litigation. In an analysis of the decision (Cal. Clean Energy
Committee v. City of Woodland (No. C072033 Feb. 28, 2014), Benjamin Z. Rubin and
Robert D. Thornton, express the following which could apply to the handling of the
North 40 Urban Decay Analysis:
The latest in a series of cases holding that local land use agencies are
required to evaluate and address potential urban decay impacts of "big box"
and other retail centers outside of the town center, in this case the Court of
Appeal found fault with the City's mitigation of the urban decay impacts on
downtown Woodland.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the following urban decay mitigation
measures were deficient: (1) requiring the applicant to submit a market
study and urban decay analysis at the time of future applications for site‐
specific development; (2) requiring the applicant to contribute funds toward
the development of a Retail Strategic Plan prior to the issuance of building
permits; (3) requiring the applicant to contribute funds toward the
preparation of an Implementation Strategy for the Downtown Specific Plan
prior to the issuance of building permits; and (4) requiring the City to
coordinate with the current owner of the County Fair Mall to prepare a
strategic land use plan for the Mall to analyze potential viable land uses for
the site.
The Court of Appeal found that the market study mitigation measure failed to
comply with CEQA, because it improperly ceded responsibility for studying
an environmental impact to the developer, and it failed to require any
specific mitigation actions to alleviate urban decay. As to the second point,
the Court of Appeal explained that "the questions of whether mitigation
measures will be required, of what they might consist, and how effective they
will be are left unanswered."ii
i California “Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans” (http://ceres,ca.gov/planning/specific/)
ii http://www.nossaman.com/UrbanDecayAndEnergyImpacts
Comment 7
How did we get here? Fundamentally, the issue is that the EIR process was
performed sequentially after the work of the North 40 Advisory Committee was
concluded. Despite concerns raised by the North 40 Advisory Committee, despite
initial response from Town staff that the EIR would be developed in parallel with
the Advisory Committee work (which was later rescinded), and despite guidance
from the State of California that “the data, analyses, and studies for one, will likely be
necessary for the other. For this reason, both documents should be proceed
concurrently because both documents require many of the same studies and
resulting information.”i In other words, this should be an iterative parallel process,
not sequential.
What should be done? Given that the North 40 Advisory Committee has been
disbanded and there is a severely flawed EIR now before the Planning Commission,
the EIR should either be re‐scoped with input from the Planning Commission and
re‐drafted, or it should be rejected by the Planning Commission as inadequate.
Then, the Draft North 40 Specific Plan should be revised, as recommended by the
State of California, in a manner that is iterative and parallel with the development of
the EIR.
I have included detailed comments on the Draft EIR and Appendix K Urban Decay
Analysis in an attachment.
Regards,
Matthew Hudes
Comment 7
cont.
Comment 8
Summary of Comments on North 40 Draft
EIR_MH Comments.pdf
Page: S-20
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 2:45:17 PM
CL: To which areas of LG Blvd does this requirement apply?
Comment 9
Comment 10
Page: S-26
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 2:56:53 PM
DEF: Since the implementation is not defined, it is incorrect to conclude that there would be less-than-significant level
of impacts.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 2:51:21 PM
DEF: 'shall work with" is not specific. Are we requiring that the the developer provide for or pay for the cost of this
shuttle service?
Comment 11
Comment 12
Comment 13
Page: 3-2
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 9:48:27
PM DEF: This statement lacks foundation and is factually
incorrect.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 9:48:18 PM
DEF: This statement lacks foundation and is factually incorrect.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 9:49:23 PM
CL: What is their height?
Comment 14
Page: 3-20
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:04:38 PM
DEF: This analysis is omitted
Comment 15
Page: 3-133
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:42:19 PM
DEF: This report was not provided to the N40 Specific Plan committee nor to the public.
Comment 16
Page: 3-138
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:30:32 PM
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:30:26 PM
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:30:57 PM
Page: 3-147
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:18:23 PM
Comment 17 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:17 PM
DEF: What is the estimate of percent of the 2012 sales in the Downtown. (Statement is to preserve vibrant
downtown.)
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:19:21 PM
DEF: Basis for this estimate are omitted.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:19:25 PM
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:34 PM
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:23 PM
Comment 18 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:24:14 PM
DEF: The relevant additional retail demand is not of the entire retail trade area, because the specific plan specifies
neighborhood-serving. The relevant additional retail demand should only be of the neighborhood.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:17 PM
Comment 19
Comment 20
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:26:13 PM DEF: One example is not a study. Furthermore, there was significant negative impact to downtown Palo Alto for an
extended period of time. And Palo Alto has retail demand from the preeminent university, and Los Gatos does not.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/19/14 3:20:02 PM
DEF: No data is presented to support this assertion. Data in the report show a significant decline sine 2000.
Approximately 34%.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:26:15 PM
Comment 21 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:30:13 PM
DEF: Lacks foundation and no factual basis for this assertion.
Comment 22
Comment 23
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:30:50 PM
DEF: In fact, the data in this report support the opposite conclusion.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:31:39 PM DEF: No factual basis for this statement.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:13:14 PM DEF: Factual basis for this statement.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:12:11 PM
N ORTH F OR TY S PE CIFIC P LAN EIR
Comment 17
Comment 18
The urban decay analysis assumes a maximum build-out of the Plan Area, with 400,000 square
feet of commercial/retail floor area and 250,000 square feet of hotel/office floor area. The Plan
Area allows a maximum store size of 50,000 square feet, which effectively eliminates certain
types of retail uses that require larger spaces. The urban decay analysis assumes a mix of
unspecified shopping center tenants, a supermarket/market hall use, and restaurants. The
Proposed Project is estimated to achieve total annual retail sales of approximately $215 million
annually, once fully established. The sales estimates are equivalent to slightly less than 30
percent of estimated 2012 retail sales in Los Gatos, and about 2.7 percent of estimated 2012
retail sales in the retail trade area, but do not include sales from the health club or lodging uses
(BAE Urban Economics 2013, pages 59-60).
Projected population growth for the retail trade area would generate an additional $500 million
or more in retail demand in the retail trade area. At 2010 per capita spending rates, this
population would support existing retail along with the additional retail from the proposed
project. Because of the availability of larger spaces not present elsewhere in the Town, the
proposed project’s retail mix is likely to have a stronger focus on formula retail in larger spaces
with less emphasis on small independent retailers such as those in the downtown. Adding
formula retail to the Town-wide inventory of retail properties could lead to Los Gatos capturing
additional retail sales from Town residents who currently travel outside the Town to shop at
formula retail outlets as well as from shoppers who would come from outside Los Gatos. While
some market repositioning of existing retail in the Town may occur, there are several regional
examples of downtowns/neighborhood shopping districts and large shopping complexes
Comment 19 complementing each other with such differentiated shopping experiences, for example,
downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford Shopping Center (BAE Urban Economics 2013, pages
62-63).
Comment 20
Comment 21
Comment 22
With the exception of the declining automotive sector, Los Gatos has a very strong retail sector.
The downtown, while impacted by regional and national economic trends, has remained a
strong retail destination, bringing in shoppers from outside the Town. The Town is unusual in
that it also attracts shoppers for everyday items such as groceries, due in part to the location of
supermarkets and drugstores near the edges of Town and in part due to the lack of shopping in
Monte Sereno, Saratoga and nearby unincorporated areas. The downtown occupies a unique
market niche, driven by small locally-owned shops providing a shopping experience that will not
be replicated by the proposed project. While some adjustments may result from competition with
the proposed project’s retail offerings, the continuing success of the downtown following the
opening of Santana Row indicates that the downtown can evolve and withstand strong
competition from large retailers in the region. The County has a typical vacancy rate for retail
Comment 23 spaces. The Town has a lower retail vacancy rate and a short supply of retail spaces of 10,000
square feet or lager. The low vacancy rates are one indicator that vacant spaces (which are a
regular part of the business cycle in retail real estate) are being filled (BAE Urban Economics
EMC PL ANNI NG G R OU P I N C . 3-147
Comment 23
cont.
Page: 3-148
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:32:10 PM
DEF: No factual basis for this statement.
Comment 24
Page: 5-2
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:37:43 PM
DEF: Other types of retail development were not considered, e.g., larger retail outlets rather than allowing many
smaller spaces that will compete with downtown.
Comment 25
Summary of Comments on Appendix
K_Economic_201404041348465887a-MH Comments.pdf
Page: 4
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:17:51 PM
DEF: Starting with the definition of trade area, this important step of the methodology misses the point of the demand, since the N40 Specific Plan call for
"neighborhood-serving" retail on the N40, not regional-serving retail. It also illustrates the direction of the staff and developer to create a regional shopping
center, rather than a mixed use neighborhood.
Page: 5
Comment 26
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:19:52 PM
DEF: While this narrow definition of urban decay in this report focuses on building deterioration, a more reasonable approach is to examine the economic
impact on business--not only so severe that stores will close, but also to impact their ability to thrive, adding to the attractiveness and character of the Town.
5
Comment 27
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:48:05 PM
DEF: The ten minute drive time in this analysis is deeply flawed. Drive time on this map is more like 25 minutes, thus overstating the retail population and
understating the potential negative impact.
5
Page: 37
Comment 28
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:55:56 PM
DEF: Incorrect statement. The way I read this chart is: Retail sales were at a high in 2000 and have been declining in a relatively steady manner through
2008 and appear to have bottomed out at about 34% below that level, while the population has actually increased a bit. That is a loss of $200M in retail sales.
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:56:18 PM
DEF: There is no data to support this conclusion. Of the 34% drop in retail sales over the period, what can be attributed to the motor vehicle sector? Is it
$20M as shown on table ? if So, that would only represent a drop of 3%, ot 34% Certainly not the majority of that amount, because it only represents 18% of
the total.
ADMINISTRATRIVE DRAFT – FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
Comment 29
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:58:30 PM
DEF: Why would we assume that the Apple store would remain downtown? Perfect example of regional serving business, not neighborhood serving that
might relocate to N40 if retail traffic decreases downtown.
ADMINISTRATRIVE DRAFT – FOR INTERNAL REVIEW ONLY
41
Comment 30
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:08:25 PM
DEF: 52% of estimated 2012 retail sales in Downtown los Gatos. Why is it important to think about this comparison: N40 is a pedestrian-oriented area with a
mix of small and larger spaces more comparable to Downtown than to the auto-oriented shopping on LG Blvd and in neighborhood shopping centers.
Page: 62
Comment 31
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:10:48 PM
DEF: In order to reach this conclusion, it is important to know the other proposed development projects in the RTA
Page: 63
Comment 32
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:11:56 PM
DEF; Not supported by facts in this report. The data suggests a drop of 34% over the last 13 years.
63
Page: 64
Comment 33
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:13:47 PM
CL: If this is the conclusion, then why not limit the N40 to
Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:13:07 PM
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-60 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 11 from Hudes (May 14, 2014)
1. The two sentences in quotes are found in the Urban Decay Analysis (Draft EIR
Appendix K), in the summary of findings on page 6 and then again on page 65. The first
sentence refers to the overall retail climate in Town. As indicated in Figure 6 and Appendix D of
the Urban Decay Analysis, calculation of long-term trends in taxable sales in Los Gatos are
complicated by Netflix, which was placed in the “Other Retail Stores” category prior to 2009.
Due to re-categorization of many businesses, data from 2009 and later by category is not directly
comparable from this data source, but motor vehicle sales continued to decline, while overall
taxable retail sales increased. If this category is taken out, Urban Decay Analysis Appendix D
indicates that between 2000 and 2011, taxable retail sales in the Town declined from $622
million to $400 million in 2008. Over the same period, motor vehicle sales declined by $208
million, thus accounting for nearly the entire decline in taxable sales over the period.
It is not clear how the commenter calculates a 34 percent decline in retail sales in the Downtown
area since 2000. It appears that the commenter may have included automotive, rather than
omitting it as stated (208/600=0.34). Overall taxable retail sales in the Downtown area were
only presented for the 2008 through 2012 period for the entire Downtown, in Table 12 on page
42 of the Urban Decay Analysis. During this period, taxable retail sales Downtown increased.
A more detailed analysis of taxable sales trends for the Downtown Core (not all of Downtown)
is shown in Table 13 on page 43 of the Urban Decay Analysis. Overall Downtown Core taxable
retail sales declined from $239 million in 2000 to $182 million in 2012, a decline of 24 percent,
not 34 percent. Motor vehicle sales are not a large component of Downtown Core sales, but
declined over the period. Excluding motor vehicle sales, taxable retail sales in the Downtown
Core declined by 15 percent over the 2000 through 2012 period. However, as noted in the Urban
Decay Analysis, the changes in retail sales have been influenced more by macroeconomic trends
than by factors such as the opening of Santana Row, as discussed on pages 42 and 43 of the
Urban Decay Analysis:
Long-term trends in overall taxable sales in the Downtown Core from
2000 through 2012 are presented in Table 13. This period covers two
major recessions and the opening in 2003 of Santana Row, a major
perceived competitor for Downtown Los Gatos. As shown, in inflation-
adjusted dollars, sales were higher in 2000 than in 2012. Sales declined
from 2000 through 2003, but rebounded in 2004 even with Santana Row
opening in 2003. Sales increased again in 2005, declined in 2006,
increased to a post-2001 peak in 2007, and then declined as the recession
took hold, reaching the low point of the decade in 2009. Since 2009, sales
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-61
have gradually increased each year. It appears that general
macroeconomic regional trends were a greater factor influencing sales
levels in the Core than the additional competition provided by Santana
Row.
Much of the long-term decline, however, was not in the major retail
categories for the Core, but instead in auto-related retail (dealers and
service stations) and non-retail outlets (personal and business services).
The key retail sectors combined showed smaller declines over the decade,
and eating and drinking places showed much less variation over the 12
years.
2. It is not clear how the commenter has calculated that sales in the proposed project are 52
percent of Downtown’s. Downtown had taxable retail sales of $243 million in 2012 (Table 12,
page 42). However, this number excludes non-taxable sales, which are not excluded from the
estimate for the proposed project, and thus the numbers are not directly comparable. Rather than
Downtown sales, the Urban Decay Analysis uses sales for the Retail Trade Area as a more
relevant comparison. The leakage analysis finds that Los Gatos is a net attractor of shoppers,
indicating that it is a regional draw, due in part to its attractive Downtown. The proposed project
will also attract shoppers to the Town. Furthermore, while the Downtown Core is a pedestrian-
oriented environment, it is not primarily pedestrian-accessed, but provides parking for customers
on the streets and in several lots. The Urban Decay Analysis indicates that the proposed project
would have a less-than-significant effect on Downtown sales and the continued viability of the
Downtown shopping district.
3. The existing retail capacity was measured through analysis of sales results, and a review
of vacancy levels in the Town. The commenter apparently assumes that all of the retail activity
at the proposed project would be at the detriment of Downtown. As noted in the previous
comment, BAE is not able to determine how the 52 percent was calculated, and in fact the BAE
report does not provide adequate data to make this comparison. In any case, as also noted in the
previous comment response, the relevant benchmark is the Retail Trade Area, which is much
larger. The proposed project’s projected retail sales are less than three percent of sales for the
Retail Trade Area.
4. It is important to note that the map in Figure 2 (page 10 of Urban Decay Analysis)
shows an estimated 10-minute drive time, but the actual Retail Trade Area extends beyond that
drive time, as discussed in the Urban Decay Analysis:
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-62 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
When analyzing the demand for new retail development, it is critical to
identify the population that can reasonably be expected to use the
development in question, rather than just the population living in the
immediate vicinity. Furthermore, for the purposes of an EIR, just as
traffic, air quality, and other impacts can extend beyond the jurisdiction
where the project is located, urban decay impacts can occur outside that
jurisdiction.
For most consumers, the decision about whether or not to shop at a
certain retail outlet is determined in large part by travel time and whether
or not there is a comparable outlet that can be reached in less time. Since
the potential retail outlets to be located on the site are still unknown,
BAE has chosen a Retail Trade Area (the “RTA”) that reflects that the
site is likely to draw from beyond Los Gatos itself. Since the larger West
Valley area contains an abundance of retail opportunities, as a starting
point [emphasis added] a 10-minute drive time was used in delineating
the retail trade area. However, as shown in Figure 2, a geography based
on drive time is highly irregular, skewed by the impact of freeways and
geographic boundaries such as hillsides.
BAE has thus translated drive time into a corresponding group of Zip
Codes in order to create an area for which demographic and retail sales
data can be derived. Note that while some Zip Codes grossly expand the
boundaries of the RTA beyond the 10-minute threshold, they encompass
sparsely developed hillsides in the Santa Cruz Mountains. While
residents of these areas may live beyond a 10-minute drive time, Los
Gatos and the more urbanized portions of the RTA represent the closest
available shopping opportunities (Page 8 of Urban Decay Analysis).
While rush hour traffic might result in longer drive times, most shopping occurs at other times.
Furthermore, using MapQuest, BAE has confirmed that the estimated 10-mile drive time
boundary (which is not the same as the Retail Trade Area boundary) is correct.
A shopping location such as the Proposed Project can serve local residents and also function as a
regional draw, much as Downtown Los Gatos does currently. This site, at the intersection of
and with access to two major regional freeways will draw shoppers from a broad region because
of its location. For instance, a “market hall” tenant would be both a neighborhood and regional
attraction, much as Market Hall in Rockridge (Oakland) is.
5. It is likely that the kind of detailed analysis the commenter seeks would not be possible
for many of these areas, as it would be dependent on obtaining retail sales data for subareas of
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-63
cities, and this is generally not possible unless the jurisdiction is the client for the particular study.
Nevertheless, BAE provides the following qualitative observations regarding listed areas where
the firm has some familiarity with the location:
• Sacramento Railyards. This was a very large proposed project area adjacent to a much
larger downtown than Los Gatos, and thus does not provide a relevant case study for Los
Gatos. Furthermore, since this project has not been built, it cannot provide insights as a
case study of actual urban decay impacts.
• Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek has a thriving downtown area which includes both a “Main
Street” as well as Broadway Plaza, which is a major upscale regional retail destination,
with a Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and many other retailers. This is not an area that has
been afflicted with poor retail sales, high vacancies, or urban decay.
• Livermore. Livermore’s downtown is thriving, with a performing arts center, even though
the city has a large amount of region-serving “big box” retail as well as a recently opened
outlet mall.
• Pleasanton. This is another city that has both a successful downtown and substantial
region-serving retail, including a major regional mall (Stoneridge).
• San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo has both a large and successful downtown as well as
other region-serving retail.
• Palo Alto. The Urban Decay Analysis notes that downtown Palo Alto is currently thriving
even as the city is also home to a major upscale regional mall.
• Bay Street, Emeryville. Bay Street is a “lifestyle” center similar in concept to Santana Row,
albeit somewhat smaller. The Urban Decay Analysis notes that nearby older retail districts
(e.g., Elmwood/Rockridge along College Avenue in Berkeley and Oakland) have not
shown a substantial decline since Bay Street’s opening, and continue to thrive.
In summary, for cities listed with which BAE is familiar, none of them represent locales where
urban decay has occurred; in fact, many of them demonstrate how older “main street” retail
districts compete successfully with other retailers nearby.
6. According to the Specific Plan, the only restriction on retail space size is a 50,000 square
foot limit for any individual commercial tenant. As noted on page 59 of the Urban Decay
Analysis, “Because the project does not have any disclosed, committed tenants at this time,
urban decay impacts have been assessed for a general mix of retail and other uses.” Aside from
the 50,000 square foot cap, the Urban Decay Analysis makes no specific assumptions about the
floorplates of individual tenants, but notes that floorplates of 10,000 square feet or more are in
limited supply Downtown.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-64 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
7. The comment addressed how the CEQA process fits with the Specific Plan development
process. Although specific plans and their EIRs are often prepared through an iterative process
(the specific plan revised prior to public release based on an administrative draft of the EIR)
CEQA does not require this process.
This section refers to a recent court case (Cal. Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland) where
the Urban Decay Analysis was found to be deficient. The Hudes Letter comments that “the
following which could apply to the handling of the Urban Decay Analysis.” The subsequent
discussion is not relevant to the Urban Decay Analysis. The court found that the urban decay
mitigation measures in the Woodland case were insufficient. Since the Draft EIR has a finding
of no significant urban decay impacts, there are no mitigation measures discussed or required.
8. The requirement applies to any residential development within the Plan Area that is
along Los Gatos Boulevard.
9. The State Route 85 high occupancy toll lanes have been studied and determined to
improve level of service conditions on the targeted segments of the highway. Nonetheless, this
impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable.
10. Refer to the response to Comment 4 in Letter 9 from Nedom.
11. Southbound State Route 17 is separated from the Plan Area by two lanes of northbound
State Route 17 and the highway median. State Route 85 passes beneath Los Gatos
Boulevard/South Bascom Avenue and State Route 17, and is below the elevation of the Plan
Area. From the northbound State Route 17 to Southbound 85 connector ramp, the ground
slopes up to the base of the sound wall that borders the Plan Area.
12. Except at two driveways from Los Gatos Boulevard, views of the orchard trees are
obscured by street trees and a row of trees just inside the fence along Los Gatos Boulevard.
13. The exact height of the commercial buildings has not been measured; however, based on
review of photographs, the rear of these buildings stand at least 35 feet tall to the parapet, and
slightly higher to roof-top equipment.
14. The LESA analysis worksheets are presented in Appendix C, which is referenced on
DEIR page 3-17.
15. The Urban Decay Analysis was included in Appendix K.
16. The table is highlighted, but no comment is provided.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-65
17. Downtown accounts for approximately half the Town’s taxable retail sales. Note that
this does not include non-taxable sales such as most grocery items. The basis for the statement is
cited at the end of the paragraph.
18. Regardless of the type of retail, this project will attract shoppers from throughout the
Retail Trade Area, in part due to its location adjacent to the intersection of two major region-
serving freeways.
19. No assertion was made that this was a “study” of multiple downtowns. The Urban
Decay Analysis in Appendix K provides another example, as cited on pp 64-65: the Rockridge
district in Oakland in competition with Bay Street in Emeryville. While Los Gatos has a
different demand pool than Palo Alto, the Town has very strong demographics, including high
income levels in the Town and surrounding communities.
20. The data to support this assertion is found in the Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix K
(pages 42 and 43). Refer to the response to Comment 1.
21. The data to support this assertion is found in the Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix K,
in the descriptive sections describing Downtown Los Gatos and analyzing its retail sales (pages
23-26).
22. Refer to the previous response citing discussion of trends in taxable retail sales
downtown on pages 42-43 of the Urban Decay Analysis. Los Gatos is a smaller municipality in
a region with numerous large retailers nearby, and the downtown has survived and evolved in
the face of this competition.
23. Supporting factors for this finding can be found in Appendix K in the Urban Decay
Analysis, see pages 65-66 as follows:
a. As noted above, the sales impacts relative to the total current retail sales in the RTA
is estimated at less than three percent, even at maximum buildout of the allowable
commercial space as retail. This estimate conservatively does not include any capture
of retail leakages from the RTA. The population increase in the RTA alone over the
next five years would generate demand at a level greater than the projected sales in
the Plan Area.
b. With the exception of the declining automotive sector, Los Gatos has a very strong
retail sector. The Downtown, while impacted by regional and national economic
trends, has remained a strong retail destination, bringing in shoppers from outside
the Town. The Town is unusual in that it also attracts shoppers for everyday items
such as groceries, due in part to the location of supermarkets and drugstores near the
edges of Town and in part due to the lack of shopping in Monte Sereno, Saratoga,
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-66 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
and nearby unincorporated areas. The Downtown occupies a unique market niche,
driven by small locally owned shops providing a shopping experience that will not be
replicated by the proposed project. Furthermore, while some adjustments may result
from competition with the proposed project’s retail offerings, the continuing success
of the Downtown following the opening of Santana Row indicates that the
Downtown can evolve and withstand strong competition from large retailers in the
region.
c. Vacancies in the RTA and the region have been declining as the overall economy
recovers, and are within normal ranges for the commercial/retail real estate market.
Retail vacancies in Los Gatos itself are also reportedly low relative to the County
overall.
d. The low vacancy rates are one indicator that vacant spaces (which are a regular part
of the business cycle in retail real estate) are being filled. As noted previously in this
analysis, there are numerous examples of reuse of vacant retail properties in Los
Gatos and throughout the RTA, including reuse of vacant auto dealer sites on Los
Gatos Boulevard near the Proposed Project site and the renovation of the theater and
the re-tenanting of Borders in Downtown Los Gatos. Elsewhere in the RTA, a closed
Mervyns in Campbell has been taken over by Safeway; a Safeway space has been re-
tenanted by a Walmart Neighborhood Market at Westgate Mall; Sprouts has
replaced previous tenants in two locations; Orchard Supply Hardware replaced a
former Mervyns space in the Princeton Plaza center in San Jose; and a former Home
Depot Expo Design Center is now occupied by Walmart in the retail node at State
Route 85 and Almaden Expressway.
24. The alternatives address a reasonable range of projects; since no significant impact was
identified in relation to retail store size or adverse effects on the Downtown, that type of
alternative was not considered. While the Specific Plan does not explicitly prohibit large retail
stores, one condition the current Specific Plan places on commercial development is a maximum
individual commercial tenant size of 50,000 square feet. This condition limits certain types of
large retailers from locating in the Plan Area. Refer to Draft EIR Table 9, Average Store Size,
which provides data on the average store size for representative chain stores and restaurants.
Moreover, including large retail outlets would not be consistent with the proposed project’s
objectives or the Town’s vision for the Plan Area. The Town’s vision for the Plan Area and the
project objectives include providing a range of commercial uses (e.g., retail, restaurants, personal
services, health club and entertainment, as well as office and/or hotel uses). Smaller, unique
businesses support the intention for the Plan Area to look and feel like Los Gatos.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-67
Also, since commercial development is limited to a specified number of square feet, including
large retail stores within the mix would reduce the availability of buildable area for the provision
of other types of commercial services, thus reducing the variability of business and services in the
Plan Area.
The following comments refer to the Urban Decay Analysis, presented in Appendix K.
25. Regardless of the type of retail, this project will attract shoppers from throughout the
Retail Trade Area, in part due to its location adjacent to the intersection of two major region-
serving freeways. For instance, a “market hall” tenant would be both a neighborhood and
regional attraction, much as Market Hall in the Rockridge shopping district of Oakland is.
26. The definition of urban decay is dictated by case law related to CEQA. CEQA is an
assessment of physical impacts on the environment; store closures and “ability to thrive” are not
direct physical impacts on the environment. Two of the guiding court decisions with respect to
urban decay are Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, Panama 99 Properties LLC,
and Castle & Cooke Commercial-CA, Inc., and Anderson First Coalition et al. v. City of Anderson et al.
and FHK Companies, et al. The Bakersfield case makes clear that economic impacts alone are not
a CEQA impact, stating that “the economic and social effects of proposed projects are outside
CEQA’s purview.” Furthermore, only “if the forecasted economic or social effects of a proposed
project directly or indirectly will lead to adverse physical changes in the environment, then
CEQA requires disclosure and analysis of these resulting physical impacts.”
27. It is important to note that the map shows an estimated 10-minute drive time, but the
actual Retail Trade Area extends beyond that drive time, as discussed on page 8 of the Urban
Decay Analysis:
Since the larger West Valley area contains an abundance of retail
opportunities, as a starting point [emphasis added] a 10-minute drive
time was used in delineating the retail trade area. However, as shown in
Figure 2, a geography based on drive time is highly irregular, skewed by
the impact of freeways and geographic boundaries such as hillsides.
BAE has thus translated drive time into a corresponding group of Zip
Codes in order to create an area for which demographic and retail sales
data can be derived. Note that while some Zip Codes grossly expand the
boundaries of the RTA beyond the 10-minute threshold, they encompass
sparsely developed hillsides in the Santa Cruz Mountains. While
residents of these areas may live beyond a 10-minute drive time, Los
Gatos and the more urbanized portions of the RTA represent the closest
available shopping opportunities.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-68 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
While rush hour traffic might result in longer drive times, most shopping occurs at other times of
day. Furthermore, using MapQuest, BAE has confirmed that the estimated 10-mile drive time
boundary (which is not the same as the RTA boundary) is correct.
28. The commenter appears to be stating that the sales drop cannot be attributed to the
decline in motor vehicle sector sales. However, as shown in Appendix D to the Revised Draft
Urban Decay Analysis (pp. 74-75), the actual drop in motor vehicle sector sales over the 2000
through 2008 period is approximately $208 million on an inflation-adjusted basis, not $20
million as stated by the commenter. As shown in that appendix, factoring out motor vehicle
sales and other retail (to avoid including Netflix), inflation-adjusted sales declined by less than
five percent from 2000 (the peak of the dot-com boom) to 2008 (when the recession was well
underway) in the Town of Los Gatos.
29. The Urban Decay Analysis makes no assertion as to whether the Apple Store would
remain downtown, and the findings are not dependent on such an assumption. Apple Stores are
located in a variety of retail locations, and are frequently found in downtown or similar locations.
In Berkeley, the Apple Store is on 4th Street, a retail environment of small stores along a
walkable retail corridor, similar to Downtown Los Gatos. Apple has a store in downtown Palo
Alto and in Stanford Shopping Center; conceivably, Los Gatos could have a store both
Downtown and at the North 40. Another Apple Store can be found in downtown Burlingame.
The Apple Store in Los Gatos also exemplifies how Downtown serves as a regional draw in
addition to being local-serving.
30. The text does not make any statement comparing estimated North 40 retail sales to
Downtown’s. It is not clear how the commenter made this calculation. Downtown taxable retail
sales in 2012 are approximately $243 million (see Table 12), but since this excludes non-taxable
sales such as grocery items, the two numbers are not directly comparable.
While the North 40 development is proposed to offer a mix of sizes of space, it is not directly
comparable to Downtown. As noted in the Urban Decay Analysis (page 6) the “Specific Plan for
the Proposed Project allows for retail store sizes of up to 50,000 square feet. Larger floorplates
within this size range are in short supply in Los Gatos.”
31. Other proposed development projects in the RTA are considered in the cumulative
impacts analysis (found on page 65 of the Urban Decay Analysis). These projects are listed in
Appendix C beginning on page 70 of the Urban Decay Analysis.
32. The drop in sales is almost entirely due to the decline in the motor vehicle sector. See
responses to Comments 1 and 29.
33. The comment is not complete.
Comments to the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan
Planning Commission meeting on 5-14-14
I want to speak tonight regarding the impacts of building heights in the
North 40 proposed development on the mountain views.
Fact:
1) In the 2020 General Plan Overlay Designation (page LU-18 and LU-19),
it states that the North Forty Specific Plan will be based on the following
general guidelines: one of the guidelines is to preserve Town character and
views.
2) In the North 40 Draft Specific Plan under the Council Vision (section 2.1)
one of the guiding principles to achieve the Council’s vision of the North 40
development is to embrace hillside views, trees, and open space.
3) In the Draft EIR North 40 Specific Plan (Page 3-8 and 3-9), The North 40
Draft Specific Plan allows for a hotel at 45ft and all residential and non-
residential buildings can be up to 35ft tall with a height limitation of 25ft on
any building within 50ft of Lark Ave. A 10ft increase in height bonus up to
45ft for residential uses may be allowed in the Transition District but
requires the development to be affordable housing or that an additional 5%
open space be provided on the property. Then it goes on to say that an
unspecific increase in height may be allowed for the office or residential
uses in the Transition District and office uses in the Northern District. No
minimum additional height is given for this exception and no additional
open space is required for this exception. And an unspecified increase in
height may be allowed for a hotel in the Transition District or Northern
District. Again no minimum additional height is given for this exception.
4) In Draft EIR North 40 Specific Plan (Page 3-8) it states that building
height exceptions cannot extend such that they significantly interfere with
the views of the “ridgeline” and on (Page 3-9) it states that the Draft Specific
Plan requires that building heights may not have a significant adverse effects
on the “ridgeline” and the tops of buildings are expected to be below the
“ridgeline.” It goes on to state that the impact of building heights would be
less than significant.
So there are no minimum additional height exceptions for the Transition
District and Northern District and buildings are expected to be below the
“ridgeline.”
page 1
Comment 1
Question:
A)How does this preserve the hillsides views when there is not a
limitation on how tall the buildings can be and it only requires the
building to not have an adverse effect on the “ridgeline” and the
building are expected to be below ridgeline?
B)What does mean to embrace or preserve the hillsides views? If the
hillsides are obscured 50% by the buildings, does that embrace or
preserve the hillside views?
Fact:
1) When looking at the photos of the visual simulations in the Appendices
It only shows the maximum height of the building at 45ft. The visual
simulations are taken from 3 viewpoints with 3 different angles from each
viewpoint. By taping the 3 different angles from each viewpoint together,
you get a better picture of what you will actually see when you drive south
on 17 towards Santa Cruz.
Question:
A)If the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan states that there is a
possibility of additional heights above 45ft., why isn’t that reflected
in the visual simulations?
B)How do you know that there is not a significant impact when you
don’t know how high the buildings are going be and when you do not
know where the buildings are going to be located?
Comment:
I believe preserving the hillside views is different than preserving the
ridgeline.
Anne Robinson
201 Charter Oaks Circle
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408-410-5781
page 2
Comment 1,
cont.
Comment 2
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-71
Response to Letter 12 from Robinson (May 14, 2014)
1. The height limits and parameters presented in the Draft EIR are taken from the Specific
Plan. In addition to the specific height limits for residential and commercial buildings, the
Specific Plan includes policies regarding protection of views, and all future development within
the Plan Area is subject to Architectural and Site Review.
The size of the Plan Area in conjunction with the non-residential square footage limit precludes
the possibility that development would completely block views of the hillsides from State
Route 17. Non-residential development is limited to 580,000 square feet of floor area (including
the existing commercial buildings), which is about 13.3 acres. Assuming all non-residential
development were located in the Transition and Northern Districts, there would be about 29.5
acres on which to situate development. If all commercial buildings were only one story in height,
more than half of the area within the two districts would be open space (about 16.2 acres). If all
commercial buildings were three stories in height (about 45 feet), more than 80 percent of the
area within the two districts would be open space (about 25 acres). So even if several buildings
were constructed higher than the 45-foot height limit, the open areas between buildings would
allow ample views toward the hills. In addition, Specific Plan policies require additional open
space in exchange for additional height, thus resulting in additional gaps between buildings and
less potential for blocking views.
As stated on Draft EIR pages 3-9 and 3-10, a building near State Route 17 at a height of about 80
to 110 feet would reach to the ridgeline as viewed from State Route 17. A building near State
Route 17 at a height of about 35 to 55 feet would reach to the top of the lower vegetation line
when viewed from State Route 17. Therefore, buildings up to 55 feet in height would not
significantly impact views of the ridgeline. At locations within the Plan Area that are farther
from the highway, a higher building height would be necessary to reach these view thresholds.
Buildings that are at or below the vegetation line would not block hillside views at all. Buildings
that visually extend above the vegetation line would begin to encroach on hillside views. As
demonstrated above, building heights in excess of 35 feet will result in large areas with no
buildings at all, thus resulting in significant gaps between buildings; therefore, significant
blockage of hillside views is not possible. The visual simulations are based on the Specific Plan’s
stated height limit, without the exceptions. Some buildings could be built taller, but as explained,
the gaps between buildings become increasingly significant as the height increases. In no case
would there be continuous building across the visible width of the Plan Area when viewed from
State Route 17. As a result, ridgeline views would not be significantly impacted.
2. The Draft EIR refers to the vegetation line and the ridgeline. The “hillside” is the area
between the two. Building heights that reach the ridgeline (as viewed) would obscure the hillside.
1
From:Barbara Dodson <btdodson@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:08 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:Questions about the North Forty DEIR
Dear Mr. Paulson:
Please include these questions in reference to the DEIR for the North Forty project.
STATEMENTS OF FACT
a.The project will generate revenues from residential development.
QUESTIONS
1. How much revenue is projected for the residential developments?
2. Where does this revenue come from? (Fees? Other?)
3. How much of the revenue is ongoing?
4. How much of the revenue is one-time only?
5. Where does the revenue go? That is, how will this revenue be allocated within the Town?
6. Specifically, how much revenue from residential developments will go to the Los Gatos
schools per year?
STATEMENTS OF FACT
a. The project will generate revenues from non-residential development.
QUESTIONS
7. How much revenue is projected for the nonresidential developments?
8. Where does this revenue come from?
9. How much of the revenue is ongoing?
10.How much of the revenue is one-time only?
11.Where does it go? That is, how will this revenue be allocated within the Town?
12.Specifically, how much revenue from nonresidential developments will go to the Los Gatos
schools per year?
STATEMENTS OF FACT
a. The project will have 364 residential units.
b. The DEIR does not state the volume of traffic that these residential units will generate.
QUESTIONS
13.What volume of traffic is expected to be generated by the 73 cottage cluster units?
14.What volume of traffic is expected to be generated by the 73 apartments?
15.What volume of traffic is expected to be generated by the 218 condominium/townhouse
units?
16.What formulas or calculations are used to determine these volumes?
STATEMENTS OF FACT
a.One aim of development of the North Forty is to raise revenues for the Town.
QUESTIONS
17.What are the current total revenues for Los Gatos?
18.How much more revenue is needed for the library?
19.How much more revenue is needed for the schools?
20.How much more revenue is needed for road maintenance?
21.How much more revenue is needed for police and fire protection?
22.How much more revenue is needed for employees?
23.How much more revenue is needed for other uses?
24.How much revenue is projected from just retail uses of the North Forty?
25.Are we overdeveloping the North Forty and generating more revenue than the Town really
needs?
STATEMENT OF FACT
a. Most Los Gatos schools are over capacity.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
2
b. The Town has always had neighborhood schools.
c. The Town would have students who are considered “over capacity” bused to Lexington
School, where there would be capacity.
d. The Town is risking the quality of its schools with its continued building of residential units
that contain children for whom there is no space in neighborhood schools.
QUESTIONS
26.How can the Town justify adding residential units that will add students to already
overwhelmed schools?
27.Why is the Town willing to risk the quality of its schools?
Sincerely,
Barbara Dodson
239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Comment 4,
cont.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-74 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 13 from Dodson (May 15, 2014)
1. Fiscal implications of the proposed project are not an environmental issue unless they
lead to a physical impact that is an environmental issue.
2. Traffic generation by project component is presented in Table 20 and Table 21 in the
Draft EIR (pages 3-214 and 3-215). Traffic volumes are estimated based on data published in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition, 2008
3. Refer to the response to Comment 1.
4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
!! %%* 4&# %(% !"#!" !'%,
!! !" && "! ' !
:36:37569
/
% 75) "# !'* ' !' "%'95
! ,"('"' !! !" && "!"% '2&
"!' % '%" '0
&"%%,'"*!"(! !"% '0"#'" && "!* ."! !. "!&%)' )
%" !' "!'"'"*!"(! * '%%'"'
% 75#"%' "!"' "%'95) "# !'0
&""#'''"*!"(! * !"' &%%'* &" "' !! !" && "! !0
%& !'"%'%
&0 !&'%3
% 3
"&'"& )0 &&% & & "!'%
!"'% & "!* '!""!) !'"(%'"&'"#' !&! ',0
" "'(! $('% -%&"!' &&'!"! &'%'"
% )!(% &' "*0
"!"' && &$(' ,%#%&!' !'&'( &#('"%'0&' !& "!& %
+'% ,'"('( ,0
•:! "%""&"
% * '"! ,"!*, !3"(')
% )!(0
•8"'&! "%""&* '"('& ! - !'%&' "! ''" +'% ,(!& ''(%!&
"('"' %! "%""&0
• "&&'"=:"('%" !&'%0
• % ') "# !'##%"),+ !'!) %"! !' ,&(#% "%# !1
%" !0
•;'% '&"!
% )!(4 &&'!6 "!0
•""% !' "!"'% '&'*!' %!!"*!! &0
•6< "%'"% #"!'"
% )!(% ''(%! &, %.!"'#%'"'& !
!'%&' "!0
•
!
!
"
•
#
$
"
• ! )'% *'&
! !
"
!
"
o ) "#%*&& "('"!'%" "'&&'' "!''"%!%"
% 3
)0# ,
*&'' ' &!"'! '"#(%&('"&' &"! , "* !'''"&
&$(%" !'' !'%'%"&% !&' .&" '* &',* '"('!
'' #''" !"%#"%'0 &* %'"! "%"'' ! *%
% !!"'
* ! '*,'%"(!"! "%"&' "!
% )!(0
•%*&'% &(#'"6<.#%)!' !' ,'(%!"!'"
)0
•!%"(& %'6<"('3
% 3
"0
•
)%#&&" !%"
)'"
% "*&% )%&'"# (#&#'"+&&"'&# '
* '"('0
•
''(%!%"
)"!'"
% (% !%(&"(%' &&)% ', &'"''%"(0
• % !%''
!
% )!( &!"*" ! "%!%"(&&#"# %
! ! !& !%" !&'%'"*%
)0(!*%"'"&'' #' !'" %0
•
!(+
*' !
"
Comment 1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-76 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 14 from Grewal (May 15, 2014)
1. The comment describes traffic congestion at various locations within the Town, and
provides a bullet list of concerns relating principally to Lark Avenue. The traffic impact analysis
does not directly address each individual point listed in the comment letter, but considers the end
result of the various factors that affect traffic, including existing conditions on roadways and at
intersections that could potentially be affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the effects
of all known development, existing or future, is accounted for in either the Existing, Background,
Project, or Cumulative traffic analysis scenario.
Providing direct on-ramps and off-ramps from State Route 17 directly to the Plan Area would be
difficult, and would require extensive negotiation with Caltrans. An off-ramp would need to
branch off the State Route 85 connector ramp, and an on-ramp would need to merge onto the
existing elevated Lark Avenue on-ramp near the southwest corner of the Plan Area. Caltrans
standard interchange spacing is one mile to allow sufficient room for vehicles to merge on and
off the freeway. Adding a State Route 17 entrance on the back side of the Plan Area would
violate the spacing standard and introduce an interchange very close to the Lark Avenue and
State Route 85 interchanges, causing degradation to freeway operations. The transportation
impact analysis did not identify the need for an additional on-ramp to State Route 17. A new
freeway entrance was not considered for these reasons. Refer also to the Master Response on
Transportation.
1
From:K Bell <kjbell7@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 3:05 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 Project
Dear Mr. Paulson,
I’m writing about the North 40 project. I attended the meeting on May 14. I’m not as
well versed in the project as the speakers at the meeting; however, as a resident, I
would like to provide feedback as to the traffic situation in area. I’m against the project
in general, I’ve grown up in the area and always loved the open, small town feel.
Seeing yet another open space turned into more housing and stores is disappointing to
say the least.
I live off Los Gatos Almaden Rd and Camino Del Cerro. In the mornings to get to
highway 17, I take LG Almaden to Los Gatos Boulevard to Lark. The line of traffic
waiting in the left lane down LG Boulevard in order to make the left on Lark can be
down as far as the stop light to enter into the Trader Joes complex. I tried to take
Carlton Avenue to Gateway Drive to LG Boulevard, but you can sit at Gateway Drive
quite awhile to get into the left turn lane to Lark. Thus, I’ve started taking Lester Lane to
Cam Del Sol; then take a left on Bascom, and a right on Lark. I see a lot of cars cutting
through this residential area each morning. I also see a lot of vehicles drive straight on
LG Boulevard and take the right turn lane to Cam Del Sol. As no right turn is
allowed onto Cam Del Sol, they turn left, then left again on Bascom to get back to Lark.
With the building of more housing and commercial buildings in the North 40, these
residential streets will see more and more traffic cut through.
In the evening, I’ve totally given up driving home on south bound 17 to exit Lark.
Besides the heavy southbound traffic on 17, to make a left off the freeway on Lark is
extremely dangerous. Several of the drivers stay in the left turn lane (vs the right lane),
as it’s usually shorter; then cut over into the right lane as they near Los Gatos Blvd.
On the weekends, driving northbound or southbound on LG Boulevard can take quite
awhile between LG Almaden and Samaritan Drive. Also, making a left turn
from National Avenue to Samaritan Drive is very challenging. I've witnessed drivers
make a right turn on Samaritan Drive, go a few feet, then make a u-turn to get back up
Samaritan Drive to Bascom.
Even without the additional housing/commercial buildings, LG Boulevard, Lark Avenue,
Bascom Avenue, National Avenue and Samaritan Drive areas need to have some
serious changes to deal with the already heavy traffic flows. Please consider not
moving forward with the North 40 project.
Thank you,
Kimberly Bell
Comment 1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-78 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 15 from Bell (May 19, 2014)
1. The comment describes traffic congestion at various locations within the Town. Refer to
the Master Response on Transportation.
ANDREW L FABER
RALPH J.SWANSON
PEGGY L SPRINGGAY
JOSEPH E.DWORAK
SAMUEL L.FARB
ALAN }.PINNER
LINDA A.GALLON
JAMES P.CASHMAN
STEVENJ CASAD
NANCYJ JOHNSON
JEROLD A REITON
ROBERT L CHORTEK
JONATHAN D.WOLF
KATHLEEN K.SIPLE
RETIRED
SAMUEL J.COHEN
ROBERT W.HUMPHREYS
HUGH L [SOLA
KEVIN F.KELLEY
MARK MAKIEWICZ
ROBERTA S.HAYASHI
JEFFREYS.KAUFMAN
JOLIE HOUSTON
BRIAN L.SHETLER
JOHN F.DOMINGUE
HARRY A.LOPEZ
CHARLES W VOLPE
MICHAEL VIOIjVNTl
CHRISTINE H LONG
AARON M VALENTI
CHRISTIAN E.PICONE
BERLINER COHEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE:(408)286-5800
FACSIMILE:(408)998-5388
www-berliner.com
Branch Offices
Merced,CA •Modesto,CA
May 19, 2014
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S.MAIL
Community Development Department
Attn:Joel Paulson
Town Hall
110 E.Main Street
Los Gatos,CA 95030
jpaulson@losgatosca.gov
THOMAS P MURPHY
THOMAS D MORELL
SETH J COHEN
LAURA PALAZZOLO
KARA L.ARGUELLO
ANDREW J.GIORGIANNI
EDALINA M.MENDONCA
MAITHEW A.TAYLOR
DAWN C.SWEATT
KATHLEEN F.SHERMAN
OF COUNSEL
SANFORDA.BERLINER
STEVEN L.HALLGRIMSON
FRANKR UBHAUS
ERIC WONG
NANCY L BRANDT
THOMAS ARMSTRONG
SANDRA G.SEPULVEDA
MASON L.BRAWLEY
JENNIFER Y.LEUNG
MAZARIN A VAKHARIA
TYLER A SHEWEY
VIVIAN F WANG
H.SHfNNYLIU
SARA L.POLLOCK
BEAU C.CORREIA
MARY E.LOUDEN
JUDY A.JENSEN
DORIS A.KAELIN
SUSAN E.BISHOP
LESLIE KALIM McHUGH
ANTHONY D JOHNSTON
Re:North Forty Specific Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Our File No.:09247-065
Dear Mr.Paulson:
On behalf of Grosvenor Americas and SummerHill Homes,we submit these comments
regarding the Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
("DEIR").We believe that the DEIR is adequate and in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, but do have several suggestions for clarifications and minor corrections
to be incorporated into the final EIR. Our comments are as follows:
Page S-18:The sound wall described on page S-18 extends much farther along Lark Avenue
than is shown in the project related Acoustical Report, dated October 18, 2013, Figures 2 and
3, and which also states on Page 8:"The project will extend the existing highway noise
barrier south along SRI 7 at a height of I4-feet above grade,stepping down in approximately
2-foot increments at the comer of SRI 7 and Lark Avenue.The final height along Lark
4847-7603-5355v2
ALR09427065
Comment 1
Joel Paulson
May 19, 2014
Avenue(as shownin Figures2 and 3 below)will be 8-feetabovegrade." See our comment
to Page 3-158,below.
Page S-24:TRl and TR2: There is no reimbursement agreement in place in the Draft
Specific Plan or elsewhere for future developers to paytheir share.Itshouldbe noted that
the Traffic ImpactAnalysisstudiedthe additionof two rightturn on-ramplanes onto
NorthboundHighway 17and triple leftsfrom Larkonto LosGatosBoulevardwhichare not
mitigations measures but are instead Town Capital Improvements.
Page 2-24: The DEIR states,"If increased height is permitted for buildings in the Transition
District (from 35' to 45' height), then the green open space requirement increases to 25% for
that property". Per Draft Specific Plan section 2.5.3.C,the requirement for additional green
open space is for 5%of the square footage of the building footprint that exceeds the height
limit, not a comprehensive increase from 20% to 25%.
Page 2-24: In the Draft Specific Plan, both the Non-Residential/Mixed Use section and the
Residential section state that additional height (above 45 feet)may be granted upon approval
of a Conditional Use Permit;in this section it is implied that this is only true in "non-
residential"uses.Clarification should be provided that residential uses in the Transition
District can exceed 45 feet with a Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with the Draft
Specific Plan
Page 2-24: Sidewalks, paseos, and plazas can be 10%of the Plan Area, but it should be
clarified whether they are required to be a minimum of 10%of the Plan Area.
Page 2-28: The DEIR discusses a plan for water transmission lines for the project. The size,
location, and length of the water lines are subject to change based on final design and
recommendations from the Santa Clara Valley Water District.In addition,a reimbursement
agreement should be established for the first developer to complete these improvements
when future developers connect to this new system.
Page 2-35: A reimbursement agreement should be established for the offsite storm drainage
improvements.
Page 2-35:The DEIR states:"A detention basin would be located within the Plan Area."
Since it may be preferable to use multiple,small basins,instead of one large one,suggest
rewording to state:"One or more above- or below-ground detention basins would be located
within the Plan Area."
Page 2-35:Under "Off-Site Changes,"reference is made to a median designed to prevent
left turns at several intersections.It should be noted that with respect to one of these,Noddin
Avenue,the future median may or may not have a break in it. It is currently listed as not
having a left turn opportunity,but this may change,depending on the development proposal
for the Northern District.This comment also applies to page 3-216,where the same
statement is made about the median.
4847.7603-5355v2 .0_
ALR09427065
Comment 1,
cont.
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Comment 9
Joel Paulson
May 19,2014
Page2-37: Figure 13- This figurewill be subjectto changebased on finaldesign.
Page 2-43:Project Objective #2 implies that20%ofthetotalnumberofunitsmustbe
affordable.The exampleonpage 3-183suggeststhat it is 20%of the numberof marketrate
units that must be affordable,which is consistent with the Town's BMP program.We
suggest re-wording and clarifying Project Objective #2 to makeit consistent withtheTown's
BMP program.
Page 3-8:Thispage states thatthereisno limitontheheightof "architectural features"such
as towers,cupolasand roof pitchesof 8:12or greater. This statementisnot consistentwith
the DraftSpecificPlan, whichlimitsthe architectural featuresto be up to 30% of the length
of the parapet on any given fa9ade.(Specific Plan page 2-25).
Page 3-13: The first paragraph addressing building heights is conftising. It references
building heights that are "similar,""taller," and "less than" existing buildings. We suggest
clarifying the language in this paragraph.
Page 3-14: Under AES-1, the perimeter buffer is referenced as a vegetative buffer.
However,inthe DraftSpecificPlan,the perimeterbufferis notrequiredto be a vegetative
buffer. The buffer's use is not specified other than that no structures are permitted, such as
residential or commercial structures. Please see section 2.5.6 of DSP (p. 2-15) that states "d.
No buildingshallbe locatedwithin 30 feetof a propertyline adjacentto the freeway." This
does not preclude roadways, paths, etc., or require this to be exclusively a vegetative buffer.
Page 3-43: TCM D-1 Bicycle Access - There will be a multi-modal path on the property
frontage on Lark and a bike lane on the south side of Lark Avenue as per the Traffic Impact
Analysis. A futurebike lanewill be built as the long-range vision for LosGatosBoulevard
once properties on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard develop. In the meantime, the
property frontage will provide a multi-modal path.
Page 3-48: The delineations in Figure 15 of the AQ health risk areas appear to be based on
the graph prepared by Illingworth and Rodkin in the appendix, but it's somewhat schematic.
We suggest the word "generally"be added to the sentence referencing Figure 15,so it would
read:"The location of health risks in excess of thresholds is identified generally on Figure
15,Health Risks."
Pages 3-158. 3-159. and 3-160 (Figures 20 and 21): The reference regarding the distance the
sound wall extends along Lark Avenue is inconsistent with the Noise Report. This wall
should only extend approximately 100 feet;therefore.Figures 20 and 21 are not consistent
with the Noise Report findings.
Page 3-163:Mitigation NOI-1: The recommended sound wall height should be taken from
the future roadway or grade elevation,as the grades of the property are not uniform.The
height of the wall may fluctuate slightly based on grade.
4847-7603-5355v2 .-l.
ALR09427065
Comment 10
Comment 11
Comment 12
Comment 13
Comment 14
Comment 15
Comment 16
Comment 17
Comment 18
Joel Paulson
May 19,2014
Page 3-168:The first sub-bulleton this page states,"No individualpieceof equipmentshall
produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85)dBAat twenty-five (25)feet."Table 16on
the page 3-167indicatesthatcertainequipmentwill exceedthis noise level. The first sub-
bullet on page 3-168 should be made consistent with Table 16.
Page 3-170: The DEIR states,"Note that the closest public elementary school to the Plan
Area is the Union School District's Carlton School,located east of Los Gatos Boulevard
about one-half mile from the Plan Area."A reference to the closest Los Gatos Union School
District school should be added.
Page 3-200: The DEIR states,"There are continuous sidewalks on the west side of Los
Gatos Boulevard and both sides of Lark Avenue in the vicinity of the Plan Area."In fact,
there are not existing sidewalks on both sides of Lark Avenue in the vicinity of the Plan
Area. There is only an existing sub-standard paved area on the project frontage.
Page 3-201: Please note that according to the VTA website, the referenced Valley
TransportationAuthorityPlan 2040 hasnotyet been adoptedand is expectedto beheard and
possiblyadoptedin Fall 2014(not March2014, as the DEIRstates).
Page 3-216: The TIA does not actually say that the existing left turn lane onto Highland
Oaks Drive is to be removed in favor of a left turn lane into the Plan area;there are a number
of traffic constraints that may be factors in modifying movements at this intersection.
Page 3-220: Mitigation measure TR-1 requires the first project developer within the
Northern District to widen Burton Road and make certain improvements at the Los Gatos
Boulevard/Burton Road intersection.However,this mitigation relies upon the willingness of
several property owners to make their land available for such improvements. There are
alternative ingress/egress options along Los Gatos Boulevard that could be studied if the
Burton Road widening cannot occur. We suggest that (i) the mitigation be tied to
development of the Burton Road area, not just anywhere in the Northern District; (ii) that in
the event that the land cannot be made available,then future development in the area would
require the implementation of suitable alternative mitigation along the Los Gatos Boulevard
frontage;and (iii) that there be put in place a reimbursement mechanism for this
improvement if this improvement were in fact to be done by the first project developer within
the Northern District,since there are muhiple property owners in this District.
Page 3-230:The Street A cross-section reference is outdated and should be updated as per
the TIA. This section does not apply to the entire Lark District. Also, the statement that the
A-Street cross-section in the Transition District and Northern District cross section has two
11-to 13-foot travel lanes with sharrows is inaccurate.
Page 3-231: In the first paragraph addressing emergency access,we suggest allowing
flexibility for the Fire Department Any reference to specific widths may be modified to state
4847-7603-5355v2 .A_
ALR09427065
Comment 19
Comment 20
Comment 21
Comment 22
Comment 23
Comment 24
Comment 25
Comment 26
Joel Paulson
May 19,2014
that the final design of roadway width is subject to the Santa Clara County Fire Department
approval. These standards change over time and should be at their discretion.
Page 3-239: A WSA was prepared for this project that indicates there is an adequate water
supply. Yet the final paragraph on this page implies a shortfall. The DEIR should be
consistent with the WSA.
Page 3-246: The first paragraph under "Adequate Wastewater Treatment" should read 250
gallons (not 70) and 236,000 gallons (not 131,600).
Page 4-12: The line below CUM-TR-2 states that "Traffic Impacts at the National
Avenue/Samaritan Drive intersection would remain significant and unavoidable,as described
in Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic." Section 3.13, however, does not state
this. Rather, Section 3.13 includes Mitigation Measure TR-3 which requires the developer
of the Northern District to pay a pro-rata traffic impact fee to mitigate this intersection, and
the conclusion is that this mitigation reduces the impact to a less than significant level.
Presumably,this would also be true for the cumulative impact at this same intersection.
As stated above, none ofthese comments points to any inadequacy inthe DEIR.Ifyou have
any questions or need further input from us, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
B^RLINER-eWEN
"h
ANDREW L.FABER
E-Mail:andrew.faber@berliner.com
ALF:tah
cc:Don Capobres
Wendi Baker
4847-7603-5355v2 .S-
ALR09427065
Comment 26,
cont.
Comment 27
Comment 28
Comment 29
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-84 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 16 from Law Offices of Berliner Cohen (May 19, 2014)
1. Refer to the response to Comment 17.
2. Reimbursement agreements may be necessary for the roadway improvements described
in TR-1 and TR-2 if various parties construct improvements to the benefit of other parties, as
noted later in the comment letter for water and storm drainage improvements. If the Town
constructs the improvements as part of the capital improvement plan, the developer(s) may or
may not be required by the Town to reimburse for those improvements. Refer also to the
response to Comment 18.
3. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR is corrected to clarify the Specific Plan open space
requirements regarding increased height. Additional open space is required in either case, and
the environmental analysis is not affected.
4. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR is corrected to clarify the Specific Plan allows
increased heights for both residential and non-residential buildings. Additional open space is
required in either case, and the environmental analysis is not affected.
5. Paved open space areas are not required to be ten percent of the Specific Plan area.
6. The comment is noted.
7. The comment is noted.
8. The comment is noted. Multiple detention basins and/or percolation areas could be
developed within the Plan Area, and multiple basins are more probable under current low
impact development standards. The environmental analysis is not affected.
9. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR relies on the information provided in the Specific
Plan and traffic impact analysis. The Draft EIR states that the median along Los Gatos
Boulevard would have one break for left turns midway between Burton Road and Lark Avenue.
The Specific Plan does not state that there will be a break at this location, but does refer to this as
a key access point.
10. Figure 13, Conceptual Backbone Stormwater Infrastructure, is understood to be
preliminary and conceptual.
11. Under the Town’s Below Market Price affordable housing program, the correct method
is 20 percent of the market rate homes, which works out to about 16.7 percent of the total. The
Draft EIR is corrected to clarify that the requirement is to provide affordable units at the rate of
20 percent of the market rate units.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-85
12. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR is corrected to clarify that architectural features in
excess of the height limit may not exceed 30 percent of the length of the parapet on the given
building façade. The environmental analysis is not affected.
13. The discussion on page 3-14 is intended to compare the height of proposed buildings
within the Plan Area to the existing buildings in general terms.
14. Mitigation Measure AES-1 does not refer to a vegetative buffer. Vegetative buffers are
described following the mitigation measure.
15. The comment relates to the discussion of Air Quality Plan Measure TCM-D-1. The
discussion does not include a reference to the proposed multi-modal pathway along Lark
Avenue, but the conclusion of consistency would not be affected.
16. Figure 15, Health Risks was prepared based on data points presented in the Illingworth
and Rodkin report (Draft EIR Appendix D), and revised per comments received prior to
preparation of the Draft EIR. The line is as accurate as possible for a map at the scale provided
in the Draft EIR.
17. The Draft EIR calls for extending the wall about 100 feet farther to the east than does the
noise report. The Draft EIR has been corrected and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 revised. The
environmental analysis is not affected.
18. Since the reference point for measuring wall height is not specified, it is assumed to be
measured from grade at the wall location.
19. The second sub-bullet point in Mitigation Measure NOI-8 allows equipment to operate
in excess of 85 dBA as long as that level is not exceeded at the property line.
20. The locations of the Los Gatos Union School District’s schools that would serve the Plan
Area are described in detail in the Draft EIR (pages 3-170 to 3-174).
21. The comment is noted. There is not a formal sidewalk along Lark Avenue beyond the
gasoline station; however, there is a curb and an area paved with asphalt for walking.
22. The Draft EIR was prepared for production in late March, before the adoption date for
the Valley Transportation Authority Plan 2040 was revised. The Draft EIR has been revised to
reflect an updated anticipated adoption date.
23. Transportation impact analysis Table ES-3, page vii (Draft EIR Appendix M) proposes
that the westbound approach be reconfigured to three through lanes and one right-turn lane.
This will remove the existing left-turn lane onto Highland Oaks Drive from Lark Avenue.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-86 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
24. The comment is noted and Mitigation Measure TR-1 has been revised to reflect
alternative mitigation in the event that Burton Road widening cannot occur with initial
development within the Northern District. In the event that the Burton Road widening cannot
occur prior to initial development within the Northern District, it is possible that alternative and
adequate ingress and egress can be provided at another location within the Plan Area.
Supplemental analyses would need to be conducted for future development applications to
demonstrate that adequate access can be provided by other routes.
25. The cross-section for Street A varies as it traverses the Plan Area, and its configuration is
summarized in the Draft EIR. The Specific Plan provides the full description of the street cross-
sections.
26. The discussion is based on current standards adopted by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department. The discussion cannot speculate on future changes to the standards.
27. The discussion relates to region-wide water supplies as cited in the Draft EIR.
28. The Draft EIR presented incorrect numbers relating to wastewater generation on this
page (page 3-246). The numbers cited in the letter are included correctly elsewhere in the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR has been corrected to state that wastewater generation would be 250 gallons
and 236,000 gallons rather than 70 gallons and 131,600 gallons.
29. The cumulative traffic section incorrectly refers to a significant and unavoidable project-
level impact at this location. The Draft EIR has been corrected.
1
From:Robert Buxton <rabcars@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 5:52 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:Comments on the DEIR for the North 40 Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Paulson,
There is no sense restating the Mission Statement for the North 40 for those of us who are passionate
about the planning of the project; we have it memorized. Is it being adhered to by the DEIR?
The DEIR does not address in detail the following:
Traffic/safety impacts and it does not provide specific mitigation for all of Lark Avenue nor
does it address the cumulative traffic impact for the entire day.
Impact on schools: it does not report and list known figures for the number of students from
Bluebird, Laurel Mews, Blossom Hill/Los Gatos Blvd complex and the North 40.
It does not address the downtown and it's impact i.e.how not to compete.
It is time to once again go back to the drawing board and allow the citizens of the Town of Los Gatos to
dictate our future, not the developers.
Thank you for considering and passing along our concerns to the Planning Commission.
Yours very truly,
Bob and Susan Buxton
(Residents of Los Gatos for 40 years)
Sent from my iPad
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-88 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 17 from Buxton (May 19, 2014)
1. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. The transportation impact analysis
(Draft EIR Appendix M) was prepared in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority guidelines. The analysis focuses on the time periods when the existing traffic volumes
plus traffic generated by the proposed project would be highest and potential impacts would be
most severe. This occurs during the morning and evening commute periods.
2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
3. The economic and urban decay studies found in Appendix K address impacts on the
Downtown. This information is also summarized in Draft EIR section 3.10 Land Use and
Planning. For example, see pages 8-10 in the Market Study & Business Opportunities
Assessment, which discusses strategies for developing uses complementary to downtown. In the
Urban Decay Analysis, see pages 6, 23-27, 41-43, 63-64, and 65-66.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 2,
cont.
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 5,
cont.
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Comment 8,
cont.
Comment 9
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-93
Response to Letter 18 from Caltrans (May 19, 2014)
1. The transportation impact analysis was conducted following guidelines of the Town of
Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The Valley Transportation
Authority encourages all agencies within the Santa Clara Valley to follow its TIA Guidelines for
non-CMP facilities and directs the use of the TIA Guidelines for all CMP-designated facilities,
including freeway segments. The Town sees real benefit in following a traffic analysis
methodology used by its sister agencies and VTA in the larger region, and therefore the Town
exercised its discretion to follow VTA’s approach to assess the significance of impacts rather
than the approach suggested by Caltrans. The traffic impact analysis included those freeway
segments applicable to project trip distribution and these were studied in accordance with the
referenced guidelines. According to these guidelines, freeway impacts are addressed by
comparing the amount of traffic added by the project to the existing freeway volumes. A project-
related impact is identified when a) added project traffic would cause a freeway segment to
operate at LOS F, or b) when a project would add traffic equal to more than one percent of
capacity to a freeway segment that is already operating at LOS F.
2. The transportation impact analysis evaluated the freeway ramps that the project would
most likely affect, based on proximity and likely travel routes. For example, the northbound
State Route 17/Lark Avenue diagonal on-ramp was evaluated and the results showed that the
existing on-ramp storage area could accommodate the added traffic. As indicated in the
transportation impact analysis, the proposed project is projected to add small amounts of traffic
to the northbound State Route 85/Winchester Boulevard diagonal on-ramp and southbound
State Route 17/Lark Avenue diagonal on-ramp, and therefore would not significantly impact
operations at those locations.
The comment regarding adjustments to metering rates is acknowledged. Changes have been
made to the summary of the transportation impact analysis to better reflect the content within
the body of the transportation impact analysis (Appendix M to the Draft EIR). The conclusion
of the analysis in the transportation impact analysis is not affected.
3. The transportation impact analysis was conducted following guidelines of the Town of
Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. According to these guidelines,
and consistent with CEQA, cumulative conditions include traffic from all reasonably foreseeable
development projects, including approved (but not yet constructed) and pending projects. This is
the same technical approach used for most impact analyses for development projects throughout
Santa Clara County and therefore there is a preponderance of support for it. It relies on actual
identified proposed land use changes as opposed to speculative projections and therefore
provides more certainty. As a result, the analysis adequately addresses the proposed project’s
cumulative impacts.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-94 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
4. As lead agency, the Town of Los Gatos will oversee the implementation of all mitigation
measures, including timing and responsibility. A mitigation monitoring program has been
prepared and will be adopted by the Town in conjunction with certification of the EIR. Some of
the traffic mitigation measures call for improvements within the Plan Area, and are to be
implemented by the initial developer. If the improvements benefit future development within the
Plan Area, reimbursement agreements would be developed to equitably share the funding. The
Town also has a traffic fee program that off-sets the cost of Town-wide street improvements that
are identified within the Town’s capital improvement program.
5. The Specific Plan places both residential and commercial uses within the Plan Area, and
provides a circulation system that allows for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle travel within the
Plan Area. The land use arrangement and circulation system also provide access from within the
Plan Area to the adjacent Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. The presence of a major state
highway interchange (State Route 17 and State Route 85) precludes direct access to the future
Vasona light rail station.
The Specific Plan contains a menu of transportation demand measures that, per Town of Los
Gatos 2020 General Plan Policy TRA-3.13, would be required of commercial uses developed
within the Plan Area (Draft EIR page 3-223). Refer to the Master Response on Transportation.
The transportation improvements required by mitigation measures would not significantly
reduce bicycle or pedestrian safety. Bicycle safety would be most affected along Lark Avenue,
where two westbound right-turn lanes onto northbound State Route 17 would require bicyclists
to cross two right-turn lanes to continue across the bridge over State Route 17. The VTA Bicycle
Design Guidelines advise against this situation, but if unavoidable, recommend a minimum of
15 foot lane width for the lanes to allow side-by-side operation of bicycles and motorized
vehicles, or the use of sharrows.
6. The Draft EIR cites a records search conducted for the Plan Area. The proposed project
does not propose to construct improvements within a Caltrans right-of-way.
7. The Town’s traffic impact fee program is described on Draft EIR page 3-209. Specific fee
requirements for development projects are not stated because the Draft EIR is program level and
the details of future development are not currently known. However, when development
plans/building permits are processed by the Town, the traffic impact fees will be collected.
8. The comment does not specifically discuss impacts or mitigation related to the proposed
Specific Plan. The comment suggests that the Town participate in the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority’s voluntary contribution program. Such a payment could be used to
partially mitigate the significant and unavoidable impact identified on State Route 85 segments.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-95
A mitigation measure has been added to at least partially mitigate those impacts by requiring a
fee payment to off-set physical or operational improvements on segments of State Route 85
affected by the proposed project’s traffic.
9. The comment is noted.
1
From:Georgia Crowder <gcrowder12@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 5:18 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:Environmental impact of North 40 project
Mr. Paulson
I've lived on Lilac Way for past 40 years & have been involved in many community efforts to keep " The
Boulevard" a lovely place to live & raise a family. It seems to be the ugly step‐child of downtown Los
Gatos.
We don't want or need more traffic congestion & overcrowded schools. We already have all the
building at Paul Swanson ford. How will that impact us? We don't have an answer to that & you are
already adding hundreds of housing units & more commercial buildings & all that comes with it.
I think the Planning Commission should table this project & find solutions to the problems it will create,
before going forward.
Thank you
Mrs Georgia Crowder
802 Lilac Way
Sent from my iPhone
Comment 1
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-97
Response to Letter 19 from Crowder (May 19, 2014)
1. The traffic impact analysis accounted for existing and projected trips from all existing
and planned development. These trips are accounted for in the Existing and Background traffic
scenarios, which are the basis for the Project and Cumulative scenarios. See Master Response on
Schools and Master Response on Transportation.
1
From:David Field <dfield@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 3:17 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40
Hello,
I live in Los Gatos on Lester Lane near its intersection with Carlton Avenue and I would like to share my
thought on the North 40 project. I have several concerns about the project:
1) Such a major development will unalterably change the character of the current town of Los
Gatos. Large, premium retail/mixed use projects lend themselves to generic feeling “downtown” areas
that will pull substantial business from the existing downtown area. Smaller, unique merchants, that
help give a location real character, have a much more difficult time affording rent/lease in such high‐end
environments. It also entails great risk of the San Jose syndrome – San Jose declined to help Macy’s
locate in downtown San Jose more than half a century ago. That decision led directly to the
development of Valley Fair shopping center and the death of downtown San Jose as a livable community
and shopping destination. This decision “killed” downtown San Jose as a destination and it is just now
starting to recover. Bifurcating Los Gatos with this project could easily produce similar results.
2)Traffic – general. The current traffic mitigations are wildly insufficient for this project. Surface
streets (Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Blvd., National, Good Samaritan Drive, on/off ramps for Highway 17 and
85)are already heavily impacted. Adding a large mixed use community will increase that concentration
immensely and create additional traffic issues for local residents evenings when the retail environment
is at its height along with rush hour not to mention heavily impacting weekend traffic.
3)Traffic – event and pass through. As a Lester Lane resident, we already have a lot of traffic “cutting
through” on Lester Lane to short circuit LG‐Almaden traffic headed to LG Blvd. The spillover effect of
this project will inevitably escalate the already busy (and sometimes dangerously speedy) use of this
residential street. Additionally, when the project inevitably hosts special events, traffic will gridlock
surround streets and our residential street parking will be in short supply as drivers flock to find event
parking in surrounding neighborhoods.
4)The lack of school planning (we’ll just send the kids to a different district) is a little
appalling. Although I do not have school age children, I always support our schools as wise investment
in our society as a whole and in our local property values. Parents of children in the new development
need to have “skin” in the game for the schools their children will be attending. Assuming that the
number of children will be relatively small and, consequently, not a big issue is fanciful at best unless
you can guarantee the population of children will remain as low as estimated for at least the next 20
years.
5)Although not an objection to the project per se, the brochure that was delivered to us several weeks
ago was so completely NON‐informative as to be misleading. As a community outreach and education
piece, I found it highly disingenuous; a straight piece of fluff without substance. Such uninformative fluff
leaves me suspicious of the purported merits of the project.
In light of these problems, I will not support the project; it should be sent back to the drawing board for
a fresh concept and thorough reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
2
David Field
178 Lester Lane
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-100 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 20 from Field, D. (May 19, 2014)
1. The example of downtown San Jose losing Macy’s to Valley Fair is of questionable
relevance. First, San Jose has a much larger downtown, and larger downtowns throughout the
U.S. suffered from the departure or loss of major department stores to malls in the 1960s and
later. Downtown Los Gatos has never had or been a suitable location for such a large retailer.
Furthermore, Los Gatos is part of the same regional retail landscape as San Jose; there are
numerous malls, including Valley Fair, that are accessible to Los Gatos residents, but downtown
Los Gatos has survived in the face of this competition. Downtown’s strength is the “smaller
unique merchants that help give a location real character.” These merchants may be unlikely to
move to the North 40, and thus the Downtown will preserve its character and attraction. Urban
decay is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning in the Draft EIR. See also responses
to Comments for Letter 11 from Arzie.
2. The traffic impact analysis determined that impacts to local streets and intersections
would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR
Appendix M) was prepared in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
guidelines. The analysis focuses on the time periods when the existing traffic volumes plus traffic
generated by the project would be highest and potential impacts would be most severe. This
occurs during the weekday morning and evening commute periods.
3. Only a small amount of North 40 traffic would be added to Lester Lane – a portion of
the 5 to 10 percent of project traffic going to and from the east on Los Gatos-Almaden Road.
Lester Lane provides access to the project site via Camino Del Sol, which is one-way (eastbound)
at Los Gatos Boulevard. Given the existing street grid, it is unlikely that outbound vehicles
would travel via Lester Lane. It is estimated that 1/3 of all inbound trips traveling from Los
Gatos Almaden Road could use Lester Lane. Therefore approximately 10 vehicles could be
added to Lester Lane from the project during the AM peak hour and 20 vehicles during the PM
peak hour. Trip distribution is summarized on page 3-213 of the Draft EIR and presented
graphically on Figure 7 in the transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M). Special
events are not planned to occur on a frequent basis and therefore were not evaluated as part of
the Draft EIR analysis. If special events did occur they would likely happen outside of the peak
hours when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are lower. Moreover, the impacts of
special event traffic would be temporary and would not rise to the level of significance under
CEQA.
4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
5. The comment is noted.
1
From:Dave and Karol Field <field.d@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 4:56 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 Development
Dear Mr. Paulson:
I was present at the Council Meeting on May 14 regarding the development of the North 40. I
am NOT in favor of seeing this property built out as currently planned. I do hope the Council
is listening – the traffic situation on Lark and Los Gatos Blvd is horrendous!
We currently have new growth in the forms of the Stanford Cancer Center at the corner of Los
Gatos Blvd and Branham Lane along with the new medical building on Los Gatos Blvd and
Gateway Place. These two new structures alone will bring additional traffic to the already
bursting-at-the-seams Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Avenue road ways.
We live on Lester Lane. To access Los Gatos Blvd, we have a few different choices depending
on where we’re going:
1. Continue down Lester Lane and make a left on Camino del Sol. This takes you out to Los
Gatos Blvd about a good sized block past Lark Avenue. In other words, it dumps you right in
front of the proposed North 40 development. We typically travel this way to access 85
although if it’s “off commute” time, we may go this way and take a left onto LG Blvd to access
Lark Avenue.
2. Turn left onto Carlton Avenue and right onto Gateway. This puts us on LG Blvd right in
front of the Union 76 gas station by Ace Hardware. Attempting to travel this way in the
morning can be the cause of a long wait just to access LG Blvd. The line of cars waiting to get
onto Lark Avenue is typically past this light and waiting on the other side. People waiting on
Gateway who want to get into the turn lane onto Lark will sit and wait until they can clearly get
into the turn lane before they turn out of Gateway onto LG Blvd. This holds up the line of
traffic for the rest of the people who may want to go straight on LG Blvd. We’ve had numerous
accidents at this intersection for people speeding through or sitting in the middle of the
intersection because they don’t want to wait for the light…once again…so they can turn onto
Lark. Also, you’ll notice a number of cars cutting through Ace’s parking lot in order to
circumvent Gateway altogether. Typically, if we’re headed towards Lark to access 17, we’ll go
this way.
3. If we go out Lester Lane the opposite direction to Los Gatos-Almaden Road, we can access
LG Blvd at Nob Hill and is the typical path to go into downtown Los Gatos.
The additional issue on Lester Lane is this:
1. National Avenue takes you from Los Gatos-Almaden Road to Branham Lane to LG Blvd.
2.Lester Lane takes you from Los Gatos-Almaden Road to Camino del Sol to LG Blvd (right in
front of the North 40 project).
Comment 1
2
3. And the next direct path to LG Blvd from Los Gatos-Almaden Road is to go directly to LG
Blvd from Los Gatos-Almaden Road.
So, Lester Lane has become a great bypass road for commuters and other people who want to
bypass going directly up to LG Blvd off Los Gatos-Almaden Road. Thankfully, the Town put
in a stop sign on Lester Lane by Live Oak Manor Park which helps, but people still speed and
people still travel Lester Lane for a “cut through.” My concern is that this North 40 project will
add additional traffic on Lester Lane for people wanting to go to the North 40! We don’t need
additional traffic on our street! Has the Town and development company really taken into
consideration the impact on the smaller streets around LG Blvd and Lark Avenue?
We are a small town. We must address these traffic issues before complicating the situation by
adding more housing, more retail, more traffic….and more traffic…and more traffic. Having a
Los Gatos version of Santana Row in our backyard isn't appealing especially if it is at the cost of
our smaller-town atmosphere and the potential decline of downtown Los Gatos.
It would have been nice to see downtown LG business owners at the Council Meeting to hear
their opinions about placing a huge retail structure at the edge of town. Downtown Los Gatos
is a small community place where families go, friends meet, businesses thrive... Please, let's
keep it that way....
Say “NO” to the North 40 as it currently stands. Thank you for your time.
Thank you,
Karol Field
178 Lester Lane
LG
Comment 1,
cont.
Comment 2
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-103
Response to Letter 21 from Field, K. (May 19, 2014)
1. The comment describes traffic congestion at various locations within the Town,
particularly on Lester Lane. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in the letter from Field D.
2. The comment is noted.
1
From:Janice Fok <jgdfok@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 12:28 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 DEIR Comments and Questions
Hello Mr. Paulson,
pls include these questions in reference to the DEIR for the North 40 project.
Statement of Fact:
In Section 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION, on page 2-2 "Project Vicinity Existing
Conditions" states "To the northwest of the Plan Area lie the State Route 17 freeway, an
orchard, a private school, a tennis/swim club, a small number of houses, apartments, a
mobile home park, Los Gatos Creek, and the Los Gatos Creek recreation trail."
Questions:
1. Why is the Addison-Penzak JCC of Silicon Valley referred to only as a
"private school"?
2. How was the impact of the Yavneh Day School calculated?
3. Was the true impact of the JCC calculated?
4. Where is the reference to the fact there are two large fitness/swim clubs on Oka
Road (the JCC and LG Swim and Racquet)?
Statement of Fact:
Figure 6 in Section 2.0 "Project Vicinity Existing Conditions" specifically notes Yavneh
Day School as a nearby school. Figure 6 also shows Carlton Elementary as a nearby
school.
Questions:
5. Why are these schools selected for the map?
6. Why is Carlton Elem listed, when no part of the North 40 parcel is served by the
Union Elem school district?
Statement of Fact:
In Section 3.0, item 3.12 Population, Housing, and Public Services, Carlton Elementary
is listed as the nearest school.
Questions:
7. What schools are closest to the project in the districts providing services (Los Gatos
and Campbell)?
8. How far away are the project serving schools away from the project?
9. What are the traffic conditions between the project site and the district schools?
10. What accommodations are being made for Safe Routes to School for
students living on the project area?
Statement of Fact:
In Section 3.0, item 3.12 Population, Housing, and Public Services, page 3-173 states
"Already approved new housing within the school district (Guadalupe Mines, Riviera
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
2
Terrace, South Bay Honda, Swanson Ford, and Thrash House) would add about 70
additional students, most in the relative near-term."
Questions:
11. What are the actual student counts generated by each of these projects?
12. Has the Town, Project Developer, or EMC Planning asked the impacted school
districts for actual counts of students from each of these projects?
13. Since all these projects have been completed by the time this DEIR was written,
why are estimates used rather than actual data?
Statement of Fact:
In Section 3.0, item 3.12 Population, Housing, and Public Services, page 3-184 states
"Although the Draft Specific Plan does not dictate the residential distribution within the
Plan Area, almost all of the commercial development is directed to the northern half of
the Plan Area, and this analysis assumes that 80 percent of residential units would be
developed within the southern portion of the Plan Area served by the Los Gatos Union
School District and Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District."
Questions:
14. Will there be any requirement that the Specific Plan distribute the housing in this
manner?
15. Where did this assumption come from?
Statement of Fact:
In Section 3.0, item 3.12 Population, Housing, and Public Services, page 3-184 states
"The effects of student generation would be gradual, as new residential development
replaced undeveloped land, and residential or commercial re-development replaced
existing residential uses over an expected period of about 20 years."
Questions:
16. When has a new development in Los Gatos not fed additional students into our
school district for 20 years after construction?
17. Since recent new developments have been completed, can the DEIR include actual
impacts and timing of those impacts? (see questions 11-13 above)
Statement of Fact:
In Section 3.0, item 3.13 Transportiation and Traffic, states "The transportation impact
analysis studied 31 intersections. Table 18, Study Intersections Existing Levels of
Service, presents the current AM and PM peak period delays and levels of service at
these intersections."
Questions:
18. What study was done on the mid-peak time of student pick up at our local
schools? This occurs between 2pm and 3:30pm.
Thank you,
Janice Fok
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-106 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 22 from Fok (May 19, 2014)
1. The project vicinity setting is described in general terms, in compliance with CEQA. The
impact of existing land uses is accounted for in that each existing land use currently contributes
to the existing conditions. For example, automobile trips from the Jewish Community Center
are represented in the existing traffic counts for intersections near that use. Figure 6 shows land
uses near the Plan Area, which includes Carlton School. The public facilities map (Draft EIR
Figure 22) attempts to show all existing nearby public services, such as schools, fire stations, and
parks. It is possible that some of these features were not included, but those that are pertinent to
the analysis within the Draft EIR are included. Private recreational facilities are not shown on
the map.
2. The schools nearest the Plan Area are illustrated on Draft EIR Figure 22. The schools
serving the Plan Area are not necessarily the closest. Each school serving the Plan Area, and the
distance from the Plan Area, is described on Draft EIR pages 3-170 through 3-174.
3. The traffic impact analysis focuses on intersection operations. In general, direct routes to
the schools serving the Plan Area involve travel on Los Gatos Boulevard/South Bascom Avenue
for a portion of the trip, and 14 intersections on this street between and including Los Gatos-
Saratoga Road and Camden Avenue were included in the traffic impact analysis. Most of the
intersections operate at an acceptable level of service, but this street does carry a high volume of
traffic. Safe Routes to School are discussed on Draft EIR page 3-227 and Mitigation Measure
TR-6 requires that the designs for residential development along Lark Avenue include direct
access from the residential area to the corner of Lark Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard. From this
intersection, a route along Los Gatos Boulevard leads to a series of residential streets, which
connect with an existing Safe Route to School for the elementary and middle schools.
4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
5. The Specific Plan indicates that most housing is planned for the Lark District at the
south end of the Plan Area. The Specific Plan does not mandate this distribution, but the mix of
allowed uses within each of the three districts makes it likely that residential development would
be concentrated to the south. The other two districts allow residential uses, but residential uses
are secondary to the commercial uses in those districts.
6. The comment appears to be mis-interpreting the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR assumes that
development would take place over time, and therefore, that student generation from within the
Plan Area would increase over time as new housing units are completed and occupied.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-107
7. The Draft EIR compares impacts of the proposed project to the existing conditions at the
time the NOP was released. The effects of all known development, existing or future, is
accounted for in either the Existing, Background, Project, or Cumulative scenario.
8. The transportation impact analysis did not include a mid-afternoon peak scenario. The
transportation impact analysis was prepared in accordance with Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority guidelines, which do not require study of this scenario. The analysis
focuses on the time periods when the existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the project
would be highest and potential impacts would be most severe. This occurs during the morning
and evening commute periods. Therefore no study was conducted during the mid-peak time of
student pick up when overall volumes would be lower. Generally, school peak traffic impacts are
concentrated during a 15-minute period immediately before and/or after school begins or ends.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 3,
cont.
Comment 4
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-110 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 23 from Law Offices of Tamara Gabel (May 19, 2014)
1. Figure 17 shows the presence of both contaminants and is intended to provide an
overview of potentially contaminated soils or groundwater within the Plan Area. Detailed
information on contamination is available from the County of Santa Clara Department of
Environmental Health (DEH), and consultation with DEH will be required for any work within
potentially contaminated areas.
Figure 3 in the February 2013 report prepared by Geocon for the Lark Avenue Car Wash
contamination clean-up, cited in the Draft EIR, shows six or seven monitoring wells within the
Plan Area (MW-5, MW-6, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, and MW-15. A seventh well (MW-4D) is
symbolized as a co-extraction well, but given an MW designation.
2. The main area of groundwater contamination is nearer the source to the south of Lark
Avenue. Groundwater contamination within the Plan Area is both less concentrated and at a
greater depth. Nonetheless, the DEH requires measures to address the contamination within the
Plan Area.
3. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will be carried out in consultation with DEH, which is very
familiar with the history and location of contaminants at the site, and with appropriate safety
standards.
4. The comment is noted. Refer to the response to Comment 2.
From: jeff harlan [mailto:jeff.harlan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:24 AM
To: Planning
Subject: North 40 DEIR Feedback
Thanks for the opportunity to speak last week. Here are my notes/estimates on the
DEIR.
* jeff harlan
** native los gatan
** family here since 1965
** raising two children with my wife in the house where i grew up
* amazing school system already over capacity
** people cheat and lie to get their kids into our schools
** full time employee to detect fraud in school enrollment
*estimates from developers on school impact have proven inaccurate
** bluebird lane est 30% - 20 units/6 students - actually 170% - 34 students
** north 40 est 26.6% - 364 units/97 students - likely 170% - 619 students
''DEIR flaws''
* significantly underestimated student population
** likely 522 more
** worst case each student will cause an additional am and pm trip
* traffic report
** estimated trips
*** alt a - 685 am, 1526 pm - est 1200 am, 2050 pm
*** alt b - 470 am, 1488 pm - est 1000 am, 2010 pm
** gaps in traffic sampling
*** no samples on los gatos blvd between roberts road and highway 9 - ''gridlock''
*** no samples on east main st - ''gridlock''
*** no samples on univertity ave between west main st and lark ave - ''gridlock''
regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) - ''2x higher than current census''
association of bay area governments (ABAG) 10%
apply more pressure to adjust in line with the department of finance (DOF) 5%
north40 estimate $1.9 million for schools - $19,600 per student - likely $3069 per
student
national average for one student $8626
likely student scenario - ($5560) or ($3.44 million) net cost to our town
Suggestion for a more reasonable use of this land:
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
- build a new junior high and high school to accommodate state mandated growth
- limit housing units to 50
Thank you,
Jeff
Comment 5,
cont.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-113
Response to Letter 24 from Harlan (May 19, 2014)
1. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. Vehicular trips to schools are accounted for in
the traffic generation rates. See also response to Comment 2 and the Master Response on
Transportation.
2. The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project is estimated by applying rates
published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition, 2008
that are based on surveys of similar uses. This is in accordance with professional practice and
with the TIA preparation guidelines published by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority TIA guidelines call for the study of
intersections. The traffic analysis includes the evaluation of those intersections anticipated to be
impacted by the proposed project. The study locations included in the traffic impact analysis
were intersections identified as likely to be affected by project vehicle traffic based on proximity
to the project site, current intersection operations, and the amount of added project traffic.
Specifically, intersections on East Main Street and on University Avenue south of Lark Avenue
were not included in the analysis because substantial project-related traffic is not predicted to
travel along these streets during peak hours. During the PM peak hour, the project is predicted to
add between 20 and 25 northbound and 20 and 25 southbound vehicles to Los Gatos Boulevard
between State Route 9 and Roberts Road. These vehicles are not anticipated to have a
substantial effect on the intersections in between State Route 9 and Roberts Road.
The study intersections were reviewed and approved by Town staff and during the peer review
process of the transportation impact analysis. Refer also to the Master Response on
Transportation.
3. The comment is noted. The proposed project would add up to 364 residential units, with
affordable units under the Town’s Below Market Rate program equaling 20 percent of the
market rate units, which would contribute towards the Town meeting its regional housing needs
allocation.
4. The Draft EIR considers environmental impacts and does not address fiscal impacts.
Refer also to the Master Response on Schools.
5. The Specific Plan identifies public and private schools as conditionally permitted uses.
However, the school districts serving the Plan Area have not planned for construction of a new
school within the Plan Area at this time. Based on California Department of Education
standards, a middle school would occupy approximately one-quarter to one-third of the Plan
Area and a high school would occupy approximately three-quarters to the entirely of the Plan
Area. Therefore, placement of either type of school within the Plan Area would preclude many
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-114 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
or all of the uses anticipated in the Specific Plan for the site and would not meet the objectives
for the project. The Draft EIR studied a reasonable range of alternatives as required by CEQA.
Also refer to response to Comment 1.
Limiting the number of housing units to a total of 50 would not be consistent with the Town’s
vision for the Plan Area, which identifies the Plan Area as a location to “address the Town’s
residential and/or commercial unmet needs.” Additionally, the project objectives include
development of the Plan Area in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The density of
housing in the Specific Plan area would be less than half that considered in the Town of Los Gatos
2020 General Plan. The General Plan and the General Plan EIR assumed that the Plan Area
would include up to 750 residential units, although the General Plan acknowledges that this
would be the maximum residential capacity and the specific plan may be approved with lower
densities (page LU-18 in the General Plan). Therefore the housing density proposed in the
Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan; reducing the total number of housing units
would not be consistent with the project objectives or the General Plan. Refer also to the
response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
1RUWK'UDIW(,5 6SHFLILF3ODQ
7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$
408.644.6936
3DJHRI Environmental....Architect@yahoo.com
7R -RHO3DXOVRQ'DWH WK0D\
3ODQQLQJ0DQDJHU6HQW HPDLO
7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$
5( 1RUWK)RUW\3URSHUW\ 6SHFLILF3ODQ
6XEM &RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW 'UDIW(,5
'HDU-RHO
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGGHGLFDWLRQWRWKLVSURMHFW,KDYHEHHQUHYLHZLQJWKH1RUWK6SHFLILF3ODQDQGWKH
'UDIW(,5GRFXPHQWV7KHIROORZLQJFRPPHQWVDUHEHLQJSURYLGHGGXULQJWKH3XEOLF5HYLHZ3HULRG
2YHUDOO&RPPHQWV
&RQFHSWXDO%DFNERQH&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQ )LJXUHS
%XUWRQ5RDGVKRXOG127EHDOORZHGWREHH[WHQGHGRUFRQQHFWHGWRWKHSURSRVHG¶$·6WWKDW
WKHQFRQQHFWVWR/DUN$YH7KHLQWHUVHFWLRQDW/RV*DWRV /* %OYG6DPDULWDQ'ULYH
%XUWRQ5GQHHGVWREHUHHYDOXDWHG7KH'(,5·V7UDIILF6WXG\GRHVQRWUHIOHFWWKHPDMRU
SUREOHPVZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV
••••7KHWUDIILFLPSDFWWRWKLVH[LVWLQJLQWHUVHFWLRQLVDOUHDG\DW/HYHO)DQGFDQEDUHO\KDQGOHWKHFXUUHQWWUDIILF
••••7KHSURSRVHGFKDQJHRI%XUWRQ5GWREHFRPHD0DMRU9HKLFXODU&RUULGRUZLOOFUHDWHDQHYHQZRUVH
VLWXDWLRQDQGZLOOGUDVWLFDOO\LPSDFWWUDIILFRQWKHVXUURXQGLQJFRPPXQLWLHVWKHLUURDGVDQGVWUHHWV
••••&XUUHQWO\WKHH[LVWLQJ/*%OYG
6DPDULWDQLQWHUVHFWLRQLV6HYHUHO\,PSDFWHG
E\FDUVWU\LQJWRSDUNLQWKHIURQWSDUNLQJ
ORWRIWKH%XLOGLQJRQWKHQRUWKFRUQHURI
WKH6LWH:KHQMXVW FDUEDFNVXSRQ
%XUWRQWKHHQWLUHLQWHUVHFWLRQFRPHVWRD
KDOW7KHJUDSKLFEHORZLVWDNHQIURP)LJ
LQWKH7UDIILF5HSRUW$V\RXFDQVHHWKH
5HGFDUZDLWLQJWRJHWLQWRWKHSDUNLQJORW
EORFNVDFFHVVWR%XUWRQ5G
••••7KH/*6DPDULWDQ%XUWRQLVRQO\·
IURP+Z\·VVRXWKERXQGRIIUDPS
ZKLFKGRHVQRWPHHW&DOWUDQV'HVLJQ
*XLGHOLQHVIRUFRUQHUVLWHGLVWDQFHVDORQJ
)UHHZD\V
&LWDWLRQ &DOWUDQV7DEOH$&RUQHU
6LJKW'LVWDQFH 6HFRQG&ULWHULD
'HVLJQ6SHHG PSK &RUQHU6LJKW'LVWDQFH
IW &KDUW6WDWHVWKDWHYHQDWWKHVORZHVW
VSHHGRIPSKWKHPLQLPXPGLVWDQFH
Comment 1
1RUWK'UDIW(,5 6SHFLILF3ODQ
7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$
3DJHRI
EHWZHHQLQWHUVHFWLRQVLVIW$WPSKWKHGLVWDQFHLVIWDQGDWPSKWKHGLVWDQFHLVIWDQGDW
PSKWKHGLVWDQFHLVIW
••••:LWKDVSHHGOLPLWRIPSKWKHFORVHVWLQWHUVHFWLRQWRWKHVRXWKERXQGRIIUDPSQHHGVWREHPLQRIIW
VRXWKRIWKHRIIUDPS
••••%DVHGRQWKHDERYHLQIRUPDWLRQDQHZ&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQQHHGVWREHGHYHORSHGDQGHYDOXDWHG
/DUN$YH /*%OYG,QWHUVHFWLRQKDVQRWEHHQSURSHUO\HYDOXDWHGEHFDXVHWKHQRUWKZHVW
FRUQHUZKHUHWKHJDVVWDWLRQLVORFDWHGUHVWULFWVWKHDELOLW\WRFUHDWHDQHZIUHHULJKWWUXQZKHQ
KHDGLQJVRXWKRQ/*%OYG
••••)LJRIWKH7UDIILF6WXG\VKRZVDQHZIUHHULJKWWXUQODQHIRUWUDIILFKHDGLQJVRXWKERXQGRQ/*%OYG
WXUQLQJULJKWRQWR/DUN$YH7KHODQHWKHQWXUQVLQWRDQHZRQUDPSODQHIRUQRUWKERXQG+Z\
••••$OOQHZLPSURYHPHQWVRIWKHRQUDPSVKDYHWREHUHYLHZHGDQGDSSURYHGE\&DOWUDQV:LWKRXWWKHLU
DSSURYDOVFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHSURSRVHG7UDIILF,PSURYHPHQWVFDQQRWRFFXU
••••7KH5HSRUWGRHVQRWDGHTXDWHO\HYDOXDWHD3KDVHG6FHQDULRZKHUHWKH/DUN'LVWULFWLVEXLOWEHIRUHWKH
+LJKZD\RQUDPSVDQGQHZODQHVFDQEHEXLOW7KLVLVFXUUHQWO\KDSSHQLQJ7KHGHYHORSHUKDVVXEPLWWHGD
9HVWLQJ7HQWDWLYH0DSVKRZLQJWKH/DUN'LVWULFWEXLOGRXWZLWKRXWWKHFUHDWLRQRIDVRXWKERXQGIUHHULJKW
WXUQODQH
••••%DVHGRQWKHDERYHLQIRUPDWLRQDQHZ&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQQHHGVWREHGHYHORSHGDQGHYDOXDWHG
/*%OYG·VSURSRVHGZLGWKRIVWUHHWLPSURYHPHQWVH[FHHGVWKHDFWXDOZLGWKRIWKHH[LWLQJVWUHHW
52:DVVXFK WKH'(,5GRHVQRWDGHTXDWHO\HYDOXDWHWKH7UDIILF,PSDFWVRID3KDVHG
6FHQDULRZKHUHWKHHDVWVLGHRI/*%OYGLVQRWEXLOWRXWEHIRUHWKH6LWHLVGHYHORSHG
••••7KHH[LWLQJ$310DSVVKRZWKDW/*%OYGKDV52:ZLGWKRIRQO\IW7KHUHLVIWWRWKHFHQWHUOLQH
RQWKH6LWH·VVLGHRIWKHVWUHHWDQGRQO\IWRQWKHHDVWVLGH)LJRQSVKRZVDQURDGZD\ZLWKRI
IW:KHUH·VWKHIWFRPLQJIURP"
••••7KH6SHFLILF3ODQS,WHP/DUN$YHVWDWHGWKDWWKH52:ZLOOEHH[WHQGHGLQWRWKH6LWHEXWS
)LJRQO\LGHQWLILHVWKHH[LVWLQJ52:OLQH7KHURDGZD\DQGSDWKZD\GHVLJQGRHVQRWZRUNZLWKRXWDQ
DGGLWLRQDOIW52:
••••%DVHGRQWKHDERYHLQIRUPDWLRQDQHZ7UDIILF6WXG\WKDWDGGUHVVHVD3KDVHG6FHQDULRDQGD6FHQDULRZKHUH
WKHURDGZD\LVQRWZLGHQHGQHHGVWREHGHYHORSHGDQGHYDOXDWHG
6SHFLILF&RPPHQWVRQ'UDIW(,5IRU1RUWK6SHFLILF3ODQ
7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV QRSDJHQXPEHU
••••$SSHQGL[1²8WLOLWLHVLVQRWOLVWHGLQWKH72&
••••$SSHQGL[1LVRQWKH7RZQ·VZHEVLWHODEHOHG¶8WLOLWLHV·
••••7KHWLWOHRIWKHGRFXPHQWRQOLQHLV¶8SGDWHRQ6HZHU,PSDFW(YDOXDWLRQ·
••••7KH)XOO8WLOLWLHV5HSRUWLVQRWLQFOXGHGRQWKH&LW\·VZHEVLWHQRUKDVLWEHHQDYDLODEOHDW3ODQQLQJ'HVN
••••:KHUHLVWKLV)XOO$QDO\VLVRIWKH8WLOLWLHV"
Comment 1,
cont.
Comment 2
1RUWK'UDIW(,5 6SHFLILF3ODQ
7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$
3DJHRI
7DEOH6a6LJQLILFDQW,PSDFWV 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH6XPPDU\ SDJHV6WKUX6
3DJH6
••••7KHSDJHLVLQFRPSOHWH7KHWH[WUXQVRIIWKHSDJH
3DJH6
••••%LRORJ\7UHH3URWHFWLRQ%,2a/HVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQW
••••:KDWLVWKH0LWLJDWLRQ5DWLRIRUUHSODFHPHQWRI3URWHFWHG7UHHVWKDWPD\EHUHPRYHG"
••••:LWKRXWWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIWUHHVWKDWZLOOEHUHPRYHGKRZFDQWKLVEHFRQVLGHUHG¶/HVVWKDQ6LJQLILFDQW·"
3DJH6
••••+D]DUGVDQG+D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOV+$=aFXUUHQWO\OLVWHGDV¶/HVV7KDQ6LJQLILFDQW·
••••7KLVVKRXOGEHFKDQJHGWR¶OHVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWZLWKPLWLJDWLRQ·
••••$SSHQGL[,²+D]DUGVVWDWHVWKHUHLVDFRQWDPLQDWHGSOXPHWUDYHOLQJQRUWKRI/DUN$YHRQWRWKH6LWH
••••7KHKD]DUGVUHSRUWVVWDWHVWKDWUHPHGLDWLRQLVQHHGHGSULRUWRGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVLWH
••••7KHUHTXLUHPHQWIRUUHPHGLDWLRQPDNHVWKH5HVLGXDO,PSDFWWRLQFOXGH0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
3DJH6
••••7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ7UDIILF75aFXUUHQWO\OLVWHGDV¶/HVV7KDQ6LJQLILFDQW·
••••7KLVVKRXOGEHFKDQJHGWR¶6LJQLILFDQWDQG8QDYRLGDEOH,PSDFW·
3DJH6
••••7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ7UDIILF&XPXODWLYH7UDIILF,PSDFWV&8075aGRHVQRWVXPPDUL]HWKHUHVLGXDO,PSDFWV
••••6KRXOGQ·WWKLVEH¶6LJQLILFDQWDQG8QDYRLGDEOH,PSDFW·"
6SHFLILF3ODQ&RPPHQWV
7KHSURSRVHGZLGWKRIRQO\IWIRUWKH0XOWL0RGDO3DWKDORQJ/DUN$YHLVLQDGHTXDWHWR
DFFRPPRGDWHWKHKLJKGHPDQGWKHUHZLOOEHIRUWKLVSDWKZD\DQGGRHVQRWPHHW6WDWHVWDQGDUGV
IRUWKLVW\SHRISDWKZD\
••••3HUVWDWHVWDQGDUGVD&ODVV%LNH3DWKLVWREHDPLQRIIWZLGHEXWIWLVSUHIHUUHGZLWKDGGLWLRQDOIW
ZLGHVKRXOGHUV7KHSUHIHUUHGZLGWKLVDPLQRIIW
••••:K\GRHVQ·WWKHSDWKZD\FRQWLQXHDORQJ/*%OYGFUHDWLQJDFFHVVWRWKHQRUWKHUQGLVWULFW"
3OHDVHUHVSRQGWRP\FRPPHQWVLQWKH)LQDO(,5
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
6LQFHUHO\
6XVDQ0/DQGU\(QYLURQPHQWDO$UFKLWHFW
'HVLJQLQJ6SDFHV%HWZHHQ7KH1DWXUDO %XLOW(QYLURQPHQWWP
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-118 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 25 from Landry (May 19, 2014)
1. The Burton Road/Samaritan Drive/Los Gatos Boulevard intersection is an existing
intersection. The proximity to the State Route 85 ramps was created when Caltrans constructed
State Route 85. The traffic analysis shows that the intersection is currently operating at an
overall LOS C; however, some approaches and turning movements operate at a worse LOS than
the intersection as a whole. The eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS D during
the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound left-turn movement operates at LOS D during
both AM and PM peak hours, as does the southbound left-turn movement during the PM peak
hour. With mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR, Burton Road will accommodate
project traffic. The transportation impact analysis did not identify an issue in regard to the
proximity of the intersection to the State Route 85 ramps.
At the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection, the additional right-turn lane can be
added within the existing curb-to-curb width, as shown on the traffic impact analysis’ Figure 16
(Draft EIR Appendix M), and is therefore feasible.
Los Gatos Boulevard would ultimately be widened on the east side (opposite the Plan Area).
This improvement would not affect Caltrans’ freeway on-ramp. Note that a tentative map
cannot be approved until the EIR is certified and the Specific Plan is approved. A tentative map
will need to be found consistent with the Specific Plan and will be subject to implementation of
applicable mitigation measures. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation.
2. Appendix N was inadvertently left off the Table of Contents, but is referenced on Draft
EIR page 3-233, and included within the appendices. Appendix N consists of only the report on
the sewer system. The Table of Contents has been corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the
Draft EIR.
3. A production error resulted in Mitigation Measure AQ-4 in the Summary Table not
wrapping correctly to the next page. The full wording of the missing text is provided on Draft
EIR pages 3-47 and 3-48. This cell of the Summary Table has been corrected. Refer to Section
4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR.
4. The Draft EIR assumes that all of the trees would be removed by the proposed project.
The arborist reports account for all of the non-orchard trees in the Plan Area that are subject to
the tree protection ordinance. The orchard trees with trunks less than 18 inches in diameter are
not subject to the tree protection ordinance. Tree replacement ratios are based on the Town of
Los Gatos tree protection ordinance (Section 29.10.0985) which in most cases requires
replacement by at least two trees for each tree removed. Only one tree may be required if the
canopy of the tree that is removed is less than 10 feet across. The tree removal and replacement
would be in accordance with the Town’s ordinance.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-119
5. The fifth column in the Summary Table lists the residual impact, after mitigation is
applied, and correctly states Less than Significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
6. The Summary Table is correct as presented on page S-24. This impact is mitigated to a
less-than-significant level. However, the Area of Concern column on the second row on page
S-26 should be filled with “Transportation/Traffic.” This cell of the Summary Table has been
corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR.
7. Draft EIR page 4-11 indicates that the cumulative mitigation measures reduce this
cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. This cell of the Summary Table has been
corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR.
8. The Caltrans standard requires eight feet of pavement and an additional two-foot
shoulder area to each side in addition to the stated width. The Specific Plan design is consistent
with these requirements. The pathway, as illustrated in the Specific Plan, is intended to provide
access only along Lark Avenue.
1
From:Jeff Loughridge <lokrij@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 4:59 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 Draft EIR Comments
Joel,
Here are my comments:
North 40 Traffic
By Jeff Loughridge
The North 40 project has some elements that I believe Los Gatos is lacking right now. Specifically, the
more diverse planned housing will provide much needed components to our town’s housing mix.
I AM concerned that our current traffic situation, without the future effect of new developments, results
in a very low Level of Service, or LOS. Levels Of Service at intersections across town are now on the edge
of our lower LOS limit rating of D. But it is particularly significant in the North end of town since that is
where both Albright and the North 40 are either approved or planned.
The traffic portion of this Draft EIR, by itself is a whopping 1836 pages. It is filled primarily with traffic
counts at various intersections that were chosen. Not all affected intersections were included. What was
missing, until late this afternoon, was an illustration that shows the proposed traffic flow in and around
the development, specifically on both Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. This afternoon a new
version of the Tentative Map Application was posted onto the North 40 website. There is traffic
mitigation proposed, but in order to assess whether these suggested mitigations make sense, one would
need to see how the traffic would flow both North and South on Los Gatos Blvd as well as East and West
on Lark Ave.
Of the intersections that were illustrated, the South Street entrance into the development would have a
right turn in, a left turn in, across Lark traffic and a right turn out. This would block Highland Oak
resident’s current left turn out. Highland Oaks would be a right turn in and right turn out only. Plus the
right turn out from South Street onto Lark Ave, would require drivers to merge rapidly across two fast
moving, freeway onramp lanes to be able to continue West on Lark, across the bridge towards
Winchester Blvd.
Comment 1
2
Piecemeal residential and traffic development on Lark Avenue has resulted in nine separate
intersections with traffic lights at six. Some are spaced so closely together that they do not meet the
State’s standards. Since this is one of only four ways across town and will be hit with the majority of
both Albright and North 40 traffic, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns need to be
addressed for the full length of Lark Avenue, not just the portion bordering the development. The
proposed traffic flow will eliminate Bicycle paths on Lark. They propose both East and West bicycle
movement on the north‐side sidewalk bordering Lark, yet propose nothing once a Westbound bicyclist
reaches the Lark Avenue bridge over highway 17.
The traffic mitigation outlined in this draft EIR is inadequate, short sighted, and skewed to the new
North 40 residents at the expense of their existing neighbors.
The North 40 should reflect the special nature of our hometown, but doesn’t. It should celebrates our
history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small town character, but doesn’t. The North 40 should
be seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and
business neighborhoods, but isn’t. It should be respectful of precious community resources and offer
unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of all of our residents, but doesn’t.
Guiding Principles to achieve this vision:
•The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos. How does this LOOK like Los Gatos?
•The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees, and open space. HOW does it EMBRACE view, trees
and open space while providing the opposite?
•The North 40 will address the Town’s residential and/or commercial unmet needs. Yes, it will do this at
the price of school impacts and more traffic.
•The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastructure, schools, and other community
services. Please explain how this will happen.
Jeff
Jeff Loughridge
Office:+1 408 358 1470 | Cell: +1 408 781 2209 | Fax: +1 408 358 1642
lokrij@comcast.net
North 40 Traffic
Mitigated?
D
B
B
E
B
C
C
F
F C
C
C
F
D
F
F
E E
C
B
Intersection Level of Service
D
F
F
F
C
C
C
C
C
Lark Avenue
East end of Lark Avenue
traffic flow around
development
Lark Avenue Lark Avenue Los Gatos Boulevard Choke point for
Automobiles, bicyclists
and pedestrians
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-126 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 26 from Loughridge (May 19, 2014)
1. With the project, Highland Oaks residents will only be allowed to make a right turn onto
Lark Avenue from Highland Oaks Drive. Eliminating the left turn out for Highland Oaks
residents will reduce potential conflicts and improve intersection safety. Left turns out of
Highland Oaks are currently not allowed from 4 PM to 7 PM on weekdays, a period which
includes the PM peak hour analyzed in the Draft EIR. Under the current configuration, drivers
making a right turn from Street A (from the Plan Area) onto Lark Avenue will need to weave
across one lane to the left to continue heading west on Lark Avenue since the nearest lane
directs traffic in that lane onto State Route 17 only. With project implementation, the
reconfigured westbound departure lanes at Highland Oaks/Street A/Lark Avenue will be one
through lane, one through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. The reconfigured westbound
approach at State Route 17 northbound Ramps/Lark Avenue will be two through lanes and two
right turn lanes.
Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation regarding other issues relating to Lark
Avenue, and to the response to Comment 5 in Letter 18 from Caltrans.
Comment 1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-130 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 27 from Mattes (May 19, 2014)
1. The letter asserts that notification of the availability of the EIR was not provided within
the Plan Area. The Notice of Availability was distributed as required under CEQA. The Notice
for the Draft EIR was sent to trustee agencies and members of the public who provided written
and/or verbal comments as part of the EIR scoping process and to organizations and individuals
who have previously requested such notice. The Town also published legal notice in the Los
Gatos Weekly-Times in the form of a 1/8-page legal ad and a half-page display ad. Additionally,
the Town sent the Notice to the North Forty Interested Citizen e-mail list.
1
From:Linda Robles <linrobles@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 10:33 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:Environmental Impact of North 40 project.
Dear Mr. Paulson,
I've owned a home near Blossom Hill School for the past 37 years and am very concerned about
the traffic generating developments recently built or planned for Los Gatos Blvd. Los Gatos
Blvd. is already congested and some of the approved developments are not yet in place. Now
with the proposed North 40 project there will be even more traffic, and demands on the schools,
fire and police. Also, there are the 17 parcels that will be developed on the property owned by
the Sisters of the Holy Name. Some of that traffic will flow down Los Gatos Blvd.
What will all of this mean to the residents who live in the vicinity of Los Gatos Blvd. and
Blossom Hill Road? I strongly suggest delaying the approval of new developments until the city
can analyze the actual impact of developments already approved. Overdevelopment will
destroy the small town charm of Los Gatos and will negatively impact the quality of life of area
residents.
Thank you,
Linda Schneider
111 Fairmead Lane
Comment 1
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-132 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 28 from Schneider (May 19, 2014)
1. The Draft EIR considered the cumulative effects of the proposed project and other
planned or recently approved projects on traffic, schools, and public services. Refer to the
discussions in Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative traffic analysis was based on the
transportation impact analysis prepared for the proposed project. Cumulative traffic impacts
were identified for two locations, but mitigation measures were presented to reduce the impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
The Draft EIR considered the cumulative effect on schools, fire, and police services based on
comparison of the proposed project to the development planned for the Plan Area in the Town of
Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, and on analysis in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR. Based
on this analysis, the proposed project would result in approximately half as many residential
units as anticipated in the General Plan and reduced impacts on schools, fire, and police services
compared to those described in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR concluded that
development impact fees would reduce school impacts to a less-than-significant level. The
General Plan EIR found significant effects on fire and police services, which would be mitigated
through the provision of additional building space. Additional building space has been obtained
since adoption of the General Plan, and therefore, there would be no cumulative impact on fire
or police services.
Son~o Clara Volle~
5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose , CA 95118-3614 I 14081 265 -2600 I www.valleywalerorg Waler DiSlricl6
File: 25933
Almaden Valley Pipeline
May 19, 2014
Mr . Joel Paulson
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: North Forty Specific Plan DEIR
Dear Mr. Paulson :
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the North Forty Specific Plan DEIR
received by the District on April 7, 2014 .
Based on our review of the proposed project as shown on the above referenced plans we have
the following comments :
1. Development of the plan area will include utility construction and improvements to Burton
Road that will occur within the District's easement for Almaden Valley Pipeline, a 72-inch
diameter raw water transmiss ion pipeline . Additionally, it is likely that road improvements
will require modification of the pipeline's telemetry cable, similar to what was required for the
road improvements made in conjunction with the development on the north side of the
street. At such time that road improvement or other work, such as utility installation , occurs
the project proponent will be required to obtain a District permit for all work within the
District's easement or that may impact the pipeline.
2. The DEIR notes on page 3-36 state that this work will occur near riparian habitat , but will are
not expected to disturb the habitat. The work, unless it can be done completely from within
the existing pipe, will require work within the creek and the riparian habitat ; and therefore,
may require regulatory permits in addition to the District permit. The DEIR should note that
these additional permits may be required and include additional information regard ing how
this work will be performed in order to properly assess its potential impacts .
3. The DEIR notes in a number of places (pages 3-108,3-120 , 3-132) that the site is located
outside of the dam inundation area for Lexington Reservoir as the inundation area is limited
to the west side of Hwy 17 . Based on the District's inundation map for Lexington Reservoir
a portion of the site would be subject to inundation . The site would not be subject to
inundation from Vasona Reservoir.
4 . Page 3-130 notes that the hydro-modification analysis assumed "90% impervious, which is a
conservative assumption, given the requirement for 30% open space within the Plan Area. "
Our mission is to provi de Silicon Volley safe, clean water for a healrhy life , environment, and economy .
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Mr. Joel Paulson
Page 2
May 19, 2014
This statement should refer to the 20% green open space requirement, not the 30% total
open space, which includes 10% hardscape since hardscape areas are impervious .
5. The analysis for development of the Plan Area indicates impacts to flooding and capacity of
Los Gatos Creek are insignificant. Please note however, the District has raised concerns in
the past regarding the adequacy of the flood study and mapping completed after
construction of Highway 85, including associated channel improvement and mitigation,
including the fact that the floodwall and levee upstream of Highway 85 are uncertified but
appear to contain flows on the flood maps. We suggest the Town consider completing a
study of this area of Los Gatos Creek in the future to determine the adequacy of the flood
mapping. Also, previously the project proponent proposed increasing the floodwall height at
the mobile home park by 1 foot to make it consistent with the adjacent levee on the Yuki
property . Please indicate if this item of work is still proposed.
6. District records show 4 wells located on the project site. To protect groundwater quality and
in accordance with District Ordinance 90-1, all existing wells affected by new or
redevelopment need to be identified and properly registered with the District and either be
maintained or destroyed in accordance with the District's standards. Destruction of any well
and the construction of any new wells proposed, including monitoring wells, requires a
permit from the District prior to construction. Property owners or their representative should
contact the District Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660, for more
information .
Please forward a copy of the Final EIR when available . If you have any questions or need
further information, you can reach me at (408) 630-2322.
Si ~rv-
Colleen Haggerty, P .E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit
cc: S. Tippets, C. Haggerty, M. Martin, File
25933_56793ch05-19
Comment 4,
cont.
Comment 5
Comment 6
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-135
Response to Letter 29 from Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 19, 2014)
1. The comment is noted. The location of Santa Clara Valley Water District pipelines and
other facilities was presented in the Draft EIR (Figure 24 Santa Clara Valley Water District
Facilities).
2. The work involves removing a cap from an existing drainage pipe, and installing a flap
gate in its place. It is anticipated that the work could be completed without working directly
within the banks of the creek, and that a permit would not be required.
3. Both the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR (Figure 4.8-2) and the Association of
Bay Area Government maps indicate that flooding from failure of the dam at Lexington
Reservoir would not result in inundation within the Plan Area. However, mapping prepared by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District contradicts this information, and the ABAG maps have
been removed from their website since research for the Draft EIR was conducted. Therefore, the
Draft EIR has been revised to acknowledge that the Plan Area is within the inundation area of
the Lexington Reservoir. Lenihan Dam was upgraded within the past five years to strengthen its
seismic resistance, and dams are regularly inspected by the state to assure safety, so the impact
would be less than significant.
4. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR has been revised to note that the Specific Plan
requires 20 percent green space (pervious), rather than 30 percent open space. In either case, the
90 percent impervious assumption used in the hydrology report is conservative.
5. The comment is noted. An increase in the height of the flood wall at the Bonnie View
Mobile Home Park adjacent to Los Gatos Creek will be required, if needed.
6. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR acknowledges the presence of the four monitoring
wells (page 3-108). Removal of wells is subject to standard regulations.
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw@me.com]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:47 PM
To: Greg Larson
Cc: Mike Wasserman; Rod Diridon
Subject: DEIR No. 40 (20)
Dear Greg:
Please include the below comments in the DEIR for the No. 40. The rate
of traffic increase should be factored in some fashion into the anticipated
impacts. I also think we need to get as clear as picture as possible of whether the VTA
light-rail line will be extended to Los Gatos, and when.
John Shepardson, Esq.
59 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #Q
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408) 395-3701
http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_24486581/traffic-jams-paralyzing-bay-area?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-
www.mercurynews.com
Traffic jams paralyzing Bay Area
By Gary Richards
Comment 1
grichards@mercurynews.com
Posted: 11/10/2013 12:01:00 AM PST
Updated: 11/10/2013 05:42:31 PM PST
Quoting from article:
San Jose had the 13th worst congestion in the nation in 2010, but now ranks fifth,
according to Inrix, which monitors traffic nationwide.
"We are only experiencing the tip of the Silicon Valley congestion iceberg," said Rod Diridon of the Mineta
Transportation Institute. "Since what we knew of as full employment before the Great Recession,
government has been unable to invest significantly in highway capacity expansion." (emphasis added)
He says Silicon Valley will soon bump against "terminal gridlock" like the kind that occurred
in Beijing six years ago when commuters were trapped in their cars for days. (emphasis
added)
"The capital of China was nearly paralyzed for almost seven days while that massive traffic jam was
cleared," Diridon said. "That crisis doesn't happen gradually. There is no quick fix."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-
Jose-Traffic-Doubles-Worst-Increase-In-
Country-231481091.html
San Jose Traffic Doubles; Worst Increase In Country
California drivers spend 62 hours in traffic per year -- and it may be getting worse.
By Chris Roberts
| Monday, Nov 11, 2013 | Updated 6:25 PM PDT
San Jose saw the biggest jump in traffic congestion of any city in the United States over
the past year, according to reports. Kris Sanchez reports.
San Jose saw the biggest jump in traffic congestion of any city in the United States over
the past year, according to reports.
Regular traffic jams throughout the South Bay are doubling drives and making San Jose
the country's fifth-most congested city, up from 13th-most congested in 2010, according
to the San Jose Mercury News.
MORE: Bay Area Traffic Map
An improving economy is putting more drivers behind the wheel to go to work -- and in
San Jose, they have no choice but to drive, according to transit experts -- and it's also
putting more big rig trucks out on the roads to haul goods, according to the newspaper.
Honolulu, Hawaii, is still the country's most-congested city, followed by Los Angeles,
San Francisco-Oakland (considered one city for traffic purposes) and then San Jose,
the newspaper reported.
Drivers quoted by the newspaper reported driving four miles in 35 minutes -- and
considering it good -- and seeing regular evening rituals of hourslong slogs.
TWITTER: Follow NBC Bay Area Traffic Guy Mike Inouye
Even the experts marvel at San Jose's rapid rise.
"That's incredible, to have such a huge increase so quickly," said Jamie Holter of Inrix,
the firm which crunched the numbers and quantified the time spent in traffic jams.
http://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2059
The Dell Avenue development project in Campbell is just down Winchester outside of
Los Gatos. There is linkage in traffic between Winchester, Lark and Los Gatos Blvd.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-142 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 30 from Shepardson (May 19, 2014)
1. The Draft EIR includes a chapter on transportation and traffic, based on a traffic impact
analysis that was prepared to estimate project-generated vehicle trips and their impacts on the
road network. Draft EIR page 3-199 notes that the light rail extension and station is planned but
that no timetable has been established for construction. No funding has been identified to extend
the Winchester-Mountain View light rail line south to Los Gatos. The Supplemental EIR for the
Vasona Corridor light rail extension, which would extend light rail to the planned Hacienda
Avenue and Vasona Junction, was certified by the VTA Board of Directors on March 6, 2014.
1
From:jak vannada <jvannada@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 3:42 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:Questions on the DEIR and Specific Plan for the North 40.
Attachments:North 40 Specific Plan and DEIR Comments.docx
Good afternoon Joel,
pls include these questions in reference to the DEIR for the North 40 project. I don’t
think there is enough time given to us to really go through roughly 2500 pages of DEIR
and the Specific Plan and would like for the town to consider extending the time to reply
on this one in particular.
Thanks,
Jak
North 40 Specific Plan and DEIR Comments at the Planning Commission Meeting.
In general, I am for the North 40 development. I will follow up this speech with the
data that generates my comments and send to the Planning Commission. In 3 minutes,
you can't comment on a DEIR and a Specific Plan that numbers about 2500 pages. I
will say that I would like to see a more complete, more defined EIR and Specific Plan.
There are too many loopholes.
My 3 minutes tonight is only to express that the Albright and North 40 developments
will remove the gray mist between the definition of a small town and that of a small
city. No small town that I call a small town has an 7-8 lane arterial. Call us what
makes you feel good, but we're no longer a small town and need to act more like a
small city.
These two huge developments within .8 of a mile of one another, plus two new large
medical buildings almost next door, will, in my non-professional opinion, give us
gridlock during the commute hours. And for what, for tax dollars that will go to the
schools and the town that will be eaten up as the cost of services increases while the
property taxes inch upwards. It looks good on the front end, but we're only looking at
today and not looking at what our kids and grandkids will inherit in the future.
If we have to be a small city, then I recommend that we soften the hard edges of
heavy traffic with better planning for the vast number of people who either live here or
come here to bike, hike or walk. We have a plan to put a bike lane on Lark with this
new development, but it, like so many things, is like vaporware. It may or may not
happen, and likely won't because they're evidently putting in a wider than necessary
median hoping that the bike lane will somehow come to fruition later. Small towns
have safe bike lanes; small cities have kamikaze lanes, or nothing at all - as is the case
with the Lark plan.
I find it disturbing that there are numerous references to buildings with undefined
heights (ref North Forty Specific Plan EIR, aka, NFSPEIR section 3.0 Pg 3.8) that can
change with the topography or by CUP. The Specific Plan is very unspecific, leaving it
open for more design as you go planning.
A group of us has stuck with the development process for the past few years feeling
that the traffic and the schools would suffer with the increase in development. We are
concerned that the town relies on potentially bad data. For instance, we did our own
survey on students that came from Laurel Mews vs the number of students that were
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
projected by using formula numbers. The actual students from those two projects were
off by 100%. In other words, twice as many were generated as were predicted. If the
North 40 is going to have as many as 327 units with at least 1000 sq. ft, there is a
great potential to overwhelm the schools. I raised two kids in 1100 sq. ft until they
were of high school age. I don't think the parents that are concerned about the
number of students in class realize the potential of the future increase of students per
teacher. Most disturbingly, I don't think anyone is following up by matching the
predictions vs the reality.
I went to the town engineering office to obtain traffic counts on city streets. I was told
that only old traffic counts were on line, but if I gave them some intersections, they
would send me the data. I haven't received the data for 10 days. However, the same
engineer told me that I did not need to be concerned as the projections were very
conservative and there had been negligible traffic increases in the past 10 years. With
that said, I asked him if anyone followed up the projections with an analysis of
projected vs actual. The town does not do that.
For two such critical numbers, I would like to see the town quit using the data
generated from manuals and adjust the student counts accordingly so that the schools
can better plan their future. I would like to see the engineering department do traffic
counts a year after a project is occupied to see how the accurate the traffic engineers
were with their projections. I simply do not believe what we're being told by the
professionals anymore.
Jak Van Nada
Comment 4,
cont.
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
North 40 DEIR and Specific Plan
Pg 14 - pass by reduction of 25%
Does the traffic count take into account the fact that the development could be a large
destination draw to people outside of the immediate neighborhoods, similar to Santana
Row? It seems that the ITE is based on averages across the United States, whereas,
Santana Row is well above average as a draw and I would guess that the North 40 will
be likewise.
Pg - change the design on the sound walls to more appealing look
Can the sound walls have a more aesthetic look? Sound walls are becoming much
more attractive than the ones I see in the rendering of the development
Pg 44 - North Forty Specific Plan TIA -
I don't understand how east bound traffic on Lark will or even should be able to make a
left turn onto "South A" street of the new development. They will be crossing 3 lanes
of traffic that will be generated by three left turn, northbound lanes on LG Blvd. and 1
rt turn, southbound lane from LG Blvd, plus cars coming out of the gas station and from
the Office Depot building.
Pg 3-188 "Significant and Unavoidable Traffic Congestion Impacts due to
funding constraints............"
Are we putting the cart before the horse just as they have done at Santana and the
Westfield Malls? It is well over 10 years before the traffic congestion was even worked
upon. Why create a problem that has no fix? The Community Benefit of the tax
revenues will be more than offset by the costs of the lengthened commute. This will be
a high pollution area; people will add significant time to their lives with the
extraordinary confluence of traffic in the area; and the town will lose what little is left of
it's "small town feel" without a significant increase in pedestrian and bike friendly paths.
Comment 8
Comment 9
Comment 10
Comment 11
Pg 3-9 Building Heights are allowed to 45 for affordable housing. All living units
should be limited to 35 feet. Additional Height = additional traffic for which you do not
have the funds to construct the proper sized roads in the first place. Why make the
residents of Los Gatos suffer when we have a problem without a solution? Because
there is no solution, is this problem being passed off to the next group(s) of Council
people?
Why is there no specified increase of building heights for office, motel or residential in
the Transition and Northern Districts ? It's not right to leave this large planning gap to
be filled at a later date.
Pg 3-43 - TCM D-1 Los Gatos is known for the people that hike, bike, walk and run.
However, there is only a mention of a bike lane on Lark Avenue, and that for a very
short distance. With the two huge developments at each end of Lark, and Los Gatos
losing it's small town stature, to become a small city, the edges could be smoothed by
embracing the environment and building a more hike,bike, walk, run city.
Not only would we like to see a designated, safe bike lane on Lark, but we would like
for the town to consider using the combined Community Benefit funds from Albright
and the North 40 to purchase a bike pathway connecting the two large developments.
This would give road less access to the employees of Netflix as well as the residents of
Charter Oaks and those living as far as Quito Road. It would be a fine way to tie the
north end of town together to give them a similar identity such as the south end has.
Jak Van Nada
165 Euclid Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca. 95030
Comment 12
Comment 13
Comment 14
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-148 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 31 from VanNada (May 19, 2014)
1. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. The transportation impact analysis
(Draft EIR Appendix M) includes a cumulative traffic analysis that considers the effects of
approved and pending future projects near the Plan Area.
2. The Town determined that later development of the Lark Avenue bike lanes was
appropriate. A Class I multi-modal path to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian circulation
would be constructed within the Plan Area along Lark Avenue concurrent with development of
the Lark District. Additionally, the Lark Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the Plan Area is sized
to accommodate future bike lanes.
3. The Draft EIR cites the height standards presented in the Specific Plan. Also, refer to the
response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
5. According to the Town’s Traffic Engineer, based on historical traffic counts, the actual
traffic increases on Town streets have been lower than the estimated traffic increase in traffic
impact analysis reports for past private development projects.
6. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
7. Refer to the response to Comment 5.
8. Traffic generation is based on standard generation factors that equate to the proposed
development. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation.
9. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires a design or vegetative treatment to improve
aesthetics.
10. The eastbound left-turn pocket at Highland Oaks Drive/Lark Avenue would be used by
vehicles entering the residential potion of the project site. Therefore most of the vehicles would
be generated by residents who would be familiar with traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Plan
Area and who would make adjustments to their travel routes based on ambient traffic conditions.
The projected volumes are fewer than 50 vehicles during the AM peak hour and fewer than 100
vehicles during the PM peak hour. Gaps in westbound traffic caused by the traffic signal at the
intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard are anticipated to accommodate these
turning vehicles. The left-turn movement is forecasted to operate at LOS C, an acceptable level,
during both the AM and PM peak hours under future Cumulative + Project conditions.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-149
11. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. The reference to “significant
unavoidable traffic congestion impacts due to funding constraints” is from the General Plan
EIR’s evaluation, not for the proposed project.
12. Given that the number of residential units is capped at 364 within the Plan Area,
additional height will not lead to additional units and vehicle trips. Higher density housing has a
lower trip generation rate per unit than low density housing.
13. Building height limits and exceptions cited in the Draft EIR are taken from the Specific
Plan. Building height is a potential aesthetic issue discussed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR
considered the potential aesthetic effects of the allowed buildings and determined these buildings
would have a less-than-significant impact. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from
Robinson regarding building heights in excess of 45 feet.
14. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan plans for a bicycle lane on Lark Avenue. A
bridge over State Route 17 from the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail was considered but
the Town determined that it was not feasible.
Comment 1Comment 2Comment 3
Comment 3, cont.Comment 4Comment 5Comment 6
Comment 6, cont.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-153
Response to Letter 32 from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(May 19, 2014)
1. The comment is noted.
2. The comment is noted.
3. The comment is noted. As noted in the comment, the project is a Specific Plan and does
not have the detail of a development project.
4. The Draft EIR incorrectly characterizes the existing condition on this freeway segment
(LOS E) as below acceptable standards. The Draft EIR has been corrected to indicate that
LOS E is an acceptable level of service on this freeway segment. The Draft EIR identified one of
the State Route 85 segments as experiencing significant and unavoidable impacts for only one of
the development scenarios; both scenarios are so affected. As requested by the commenter, the
Draft EIR has been corrected to match the analysis in the TIA.
5. Refer to the response to Comment 5 in Letter 18 from Caltrans and the Master Response
on Transportation.
6. The comment is noted. The Specific Plan anticipates that the existing bus stops along
Los Gatos Boulevard will be retained, and that the sidewalks serving those bus stops will be
enhanced.
1
From:bmurtfeldt@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:14 PM
To:Joel Paulson
Subject:North 40 Project
Dear LG Planning Commission,
I am writing you today as a result of your recent hearing for the North 40 project. While I believe that Los
Gatos can benefit from well-designed, high quality development projects in line with the City's building
codes, I am concerned about the recent building trends in our community. Many new projects are
seeking, and have received, multiple variances for lot splitting, set-backs, roof-to-lot ratios and height
restrictions that have resulted in the densification of our city. The North 40 project appears to be one of
these. It adds 364 residences to our community. How will the City provide necessary municipal services
to these additional 364 families? Is there a plan to add additional electrical, natural gas, water, sewage
and telecommunications services to accommodate the increased demand, or should I expect more
brownouts, lower water pressures and more telecomm interruptions in the future? How will our already
overcrowded school classrooms deal with an additional 7 - 800 children that this development may bring
to our community and still maintain a top-notch reputation for secondary education here? How can our
town provide expanded thoroughfares and additional parking to handle 7 - 800 additional automobiles
that will appear on our streets?
In previous communities in which I've lived, real estate developers have been responsible for enhancing
the infrastructure of a community to accommodate its new residents. I would suggest that the developers
on the North 40 project be held responsible for more that just providing the City with an EIR. They should
provide additional financial resources to the City in the form of escrows for specific purposes - building
new schools, treatment plants, expanded roadways and parking areas, etc.
Thank you and sincerely,
Robert Murtfeldt
226 Bella Vista Avenue
Los Gatos
Comment 1
Comment 2
Dear Planning Department,
I attended the unofficial meeting held by the developer Grosnevor several weeks ago to better
understand the North Forty development plans. I stayed the 3 1 /2 hours to hear the details. I
also attended the Planning Department hearing about community comments on the North Forty
Specific Plan. Clearly we and many in the community are very concerned about important
shortcomings of the new plan. The increased students added to the public schools, major
traffic issues on Lark and Los Gatos Blvd, and plans for new buildings that do not fit the current
height restrictions are all red flags that need to be better addressed. Many also worry how new
commercial development will affect the downtown businesses already paying premium rents to
be in Los Gatos.
While I think the developer is very respected and highly recommended, I believe the plan that
has been developed by the group in the community is flawed.
The EIR is a large document that most in Los Gatos will never read. What we like about the
community is what needs to be preserved as this large parcel is developed.
The recent developments that have been approved and built have started a wave of new
development that is pushing new boundaries on what future development in Los Gatos looks
like. The developer showed much taller buildings including plans for a five story empty nester
building , multi unit buildings for young adults with one bedroom and senior housing with
underground parking that includes 4 stories. These are not the kind of housing projects that
currently make up the community. Does Los Gatos need a Santana Row type multi story
development?
The public schools are now at capacity. Plans in the EIR for schools do not address how the
additional students will be safely handled. Sending students to Lexington should not be the
answer to overcrowding of our local schools. Neighborhood schools are the draw that brings in
new families to this community. The EIR formulas for projecting additional students to the
district of this new specific plan are flawed. The school district should be asked to provide
actual numbers of students that have been added to the district based on new developments
like Bluebird Lane and the recent development on Los Gatos Blvd.
The traffic studies in the EIR need to be updated to reflect the increased traffic that new
development has already created. The intersection of Los Gatos Blvd and Blossom Hill Road
now reflects how the additional traffic will look like in the future. When finding parking spaces at
Walgreens or Whole Foods at anytime of the day now has become challenging, we know the
population of Los Gatos is increasing.
Development is important for Los Gatos. But why change the standards that have created the
community that is so endeared to the Silicon Valley. We need to find developers that want to
build projects that meet the current standards of height limits and density requirements.
I have included the words from a Joni Mitchell song that remind me of the importance of careful
development of the precious undeveloped farm land of the North Forty.
Sincerely,
Kathy & Bob Murtfeldt, 226 Bella Vista Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
"Big Yellow Taxi"
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
And a swinging hot SPOT
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
Then they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Hey farmer, farmer
Put away that DDT now
Give me spots on my apples
But LEAVE me the birds and the bees
Please!
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til its gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
I said
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
'Til it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-157
Response to Letter 33 from Murfeldt (May 20, 2014)
1. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services are provided by private
commercial entities, which fund capacity increases with service fees collected. Existing
capacities are generally suitable for new development, and expansions within already developed
areas do not generally require extensive work that results in environmental impacts. The Draft
EIR analyzed the potential impacts on publically provided water and wastewater. Refer to Draft
EIR Section 3.12 Population and Public Services.
2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. The comment appears to tie an increase of 700
to 800 new students to an increase of 700 to 800 new cars on the streets. The Draft EIR
estimated a much lower student generation rate, and traffic associated with students is not a
direct one-to-one correlation. Traffic associated with the new students is accounted for in the trip
generation estimates, as a part of the total per-unit trip generation factor.
3. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
5. According to the traffic consultant, traffic volumes from recent traffic counts conducted
in the area are very similar to the volumes used in the Existing Conditions therefore reinforcing
the Existing Conditions analysis. The transportation analysis includes traffic estimates for
approved and pending development projects to account for new development that occurs during
the project planning and approval process.
I will focus my comments on the Urban Decay section of the huge EIR report. A report by the way that
was funded by the proposed developer, Grovensner. That said, I have several points to make about the
Urban Decay Analysis which concludes through a series of flawed assumptions that the downtown of
Los Gatos will not be hurt by the North 40 development.
The yardstick for a successful downtown should be that our downtown exhibits an intense vitality not
whether buildings are vacant which seems to be the yardstick used in the report. The measure should
be: are the streets full of shoppers and diners; are the stores and restaurants prosperous, not are they
just getting by. The report does not mention the square footage of the downtown, only the 400,000
square ft of retail in the North 40. The best guesses I have seen are that the core area of the downtown
has around 230,000 sq ft. The North 40 then is almost twice the size of the downtown, close to the size
of Santana Row; it is projected to do $225 million in sales; it will have an undetermined amount of small
retail and restaurants that will clearly compete with the downtown; it will be beautifully landscaped
with attractive walking pathways; it will have ample parking in contrast to the downtown which clearly
has a parking problem, and it is located conveniently right off the freeway; yet this report defies
common sense and concludes that the No 40 will not cause harm to the vitality of the downtown. How
is that possible?
The report continually referred to the large RTA, (retail trade area) as the source for all the new
customers that will support the North 40 and somehow keep the downtown healthy. The RTA includes
a large part of Santa Clara County. The mandate though for the North 40 from the North 40 Draft
Specific Plan of Aug 2, 2012 states clearly that the North 40 retail, eating and drinking establishments
"... are intended to serve North 40 residents, adjacent neighborhoods and nearby employment centers"
The North 40 is not intended to appeal to the massive RTA, but rather to the local neighborhood. The
RTA should never have been used as the base of customers for this analysis. The North 40 has always
been intended as a neighborhood center not a regional draw, yet somehow the urban decay report
looked at it as a regional center. Who instructed them to do that? The RTA used in the Urban Decay
Report missed the point of the type of center the No 40 is supposed to be and clearly ignored the
instruction of the Draft Specific Plan. Is it a regional center like Santana Row, or a small neighborhood
center?
There are potential uses for the North 40 that fit into the towns vision statement: "the north 40 will
address the Town's residential and /or commercial unmet needs " First the report clearly states that the
town is losing sales dollars to other cities because Los Gatos does not have large General Merchandise
stores like a Target and does not have any large building materials store. This is clearly as the report
states an unmet need. Small retail and restaurants which the developer wants to build is a met need by
the downtown and other parts of Los Gatos. The developers desire to build small retail clearly
contradicts the towns vision statement for the North 40, and the conclusions of the EIR concerning the
type of sales we are losing to communities outside of Los Gatos.. Is the town’s vision statement for the
North 40 to be ignored?
Comment 1
The EIR was concluded before the developer has introduced their idea of a Phase 1 and Phase 2 of
construction. Phase 1 is 66,000 ft of small retail and also housing. Phase 2 will be an additional 334,000
ft of retail and a hotel. Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve only Phase 1 leaving Phase 2
vague and for the future? How could the EIR have done an accurate study of Urban Decay if they did
not know if Phase 2 is big box stores or all small retail? The PC must consider both of these projects
together. How can you approve Phase 1 if you do not know what Phase 2 is?
In conclusion, the report concludes to the delight of the developer that the North 40 will not harm the
downtown's economic vitality. But what if the report is wrong? The north 40 will risk destroying the
signature feature of Los Gatos: it's beautiful, vibrant downtown. It is time to ask ourselves and
especially those who are entrusted to lead us, why take that risk?
Comment 1,
cont.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-160 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 34 from Rathman (undated)
1. While there are different ways to measure the “success” of a retail center or district, the
definition of urban decay is dictated by case law related to CEQA. CEQA is an assessment of
physical impacts on the environment; store closures and “intense vitality” are not direct physical
impacts on the environment. Two of the guiding court decisions with respect to urban decay are
Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, Panama 99 Properties LLC, and Castle &
Cooke Commercial-CA, Inc., and Anderson First Coalition et al. v. City of Anderson et al. and FHK
Companies, et al. The Bakersfield case makes clear that economic impacts alone are not a CEQA
impact, stating that “the economic and social effects of proposed projects are outside CEQA’s
purview.” Furthermore, only “if the forecasted economic or social effects of a proposed project
directly or indirectly will lead to adverse physical changes in the environment, then CEQA
requires disclosure and analysis of these resulting physical impacts.”
The Urban Decay Analysis, while considering these economic issues, only does so in the context
of assessing the potential for physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, it should be
noted that the Urban Decay Analysis estimates retail sales at approximately $215 million
annually, not $225 million.
Regardless of the type of retail, the proposed project will attract shoppers from the new and
existing adjacent neighborhoods and throughout the Retail Trade Area, in part due to its
location adjacent to the intersection of two major region-serving freeways.
The Draft EIR studied a Specific Plan for development of the Plan Area over a period of 20
years, and phasing of development in some form is anticipated. For the Urban Decay Analysis,
BAE used the best information available at the time of analysis, when specifics of phasing had
not been proposed. BAE conservatively assumed the entire retail portion of the project would be
open and operating under current market conditions. Any phasing would lessen any impacts, as
the overall region grows. According to the Specific Plan, the only restriction on retail space size
is a 50,000 square foot limit for any individual commercial tenant. As noted on page 59 of the
Urban Decay Analysis, “Because the project does not have any disclosed, committed tenants at
this time, urban decay impacts have been assessed for a general mix of retail and other uses.”
Aside from the 50,000 square foot cap, the Urban Decay Analysis makes no specific
assumptions about the floorplates of individual tenants, but notes that floorplates of 10,000
square feet or more are in limited supply downtown.
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 3,
cont.
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Comment 8,
cont.
Comment 8,
cont.
Comment 9
Comment 10
Comment 11
Comment 12
Comment 13
Comment 14
Comment 15
Comment 16
Comment 17
Comment 18
Comment 19
Comment 20
Comment 21
Comment 22
Comment 23
Comment 24
Comment 25
Comment 26
Comment 27
Comment 28
Comment 29
Comment 30
Comment 31
Comment 32
Comment 33
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-172 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Response to Letter 35 from Quintana (undated)
1. The comment is noted.
2. CEQA Guidelines requires that effects be identified, along with mitigation to reduce the
effects, but does not provide specific direction on how to word the effects. The wording in the
summary table is taken from the impact statements presented in the body of the draft EIR. The
summary table includes all of the mitigation measures presented in the body of the Draft EIR.
3. The Draft EIR sections are presented in the same order (alphabetically) as in the CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G checklist, with the exception that mineral resources are combined with
geology and soils, and population, housing, and public services were combined into a single
chapter. CEQA Guidelines do not include any requirements on the order that information is
presented.
4. The Draft EIR traffic section distils the information in the traffic impact analysis to a
length and format that is intended to be easier for the general public to understand. The traffic
impact tables, for example, exclude those intersections where there is not a significant impact, so
that attention can be focused on project impacts.
5. In determining the level of impact stated in the Draft EIR, the Town considered its
typical practices in regard to historic resources in addition to the information in the historic
technical reports. Based on public comments, and in an abundance of caution, the Town has
determined to revise the Draft EIR in this particular case to characterize the effects on historic
resources not only as significant (as identified in the Draft EIR), but unavoidable as well.
6. Typically, each appendix is cited at the initial reference within a section of the Draft EIR.
7. A significant number of references in the bibliography have web links, and a disc was
provided to the Town with many of the references linked from an index. In general, if no link is
provided, the document is not available on the internet. This is the case with many print
published sources. Page references are listed at the point of reference in the text, when applicable.
Since there may be multiple references in the text for the same referenced document, it is not
possible to list page references in the bibliography.
8. The historic reports were prepared to provide information and independent historic
assessment of the structural and related resources within the Plan Area. The reports were
considered in preparing the Draft EIR’s historic resources section, along with Town policies and
practices relating to historic resources. It was determined that some of the resources identified as
potentially historic in the report were not historic. None of the resources are officially considered
historic; this determination requires that the process with the State Office of Historic
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-173
Preservation has been completed, although the lead agency effectively makes this determination
when certifying an EIR within which significant impacts on historical resources are determined.
In several cases, structures identified in the historic report were altered from the original
condition and may have lost some historical integrity.
9. Refer to the responses to Comments 11-13 below. Refer also to the response to
Comment 1 in Letter 2 from Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of the orchard.
10. Refer to the responses to Comments 5 and 8.
11. Aerial photographs, dating back to 1939, were reviewed to assess the history of orchards
in the Plan Area and adjacent areas. The 1939 photograph indicates that the present orchard was
part of a large area of predominately (but not exclusively) orchards that extended beyond the
Plan Area, all the way to Los Gatos Creek in the area along Lark Avenue, and all the way to
present-day Oka Road north of the barn and house. Not all of the Plan Area was planted in
orchards as of 1939. Historic property records indicate a variety of ownerships over the Plan
Area, and not all landowners planted orchards. In the 1939 photograph, the south central area,
northward of present-day Bennett Way, and the areas near the present-day sheds and red barn
do not appear to be planted in orchards. The undeveloped section of the Plan Area north of the
house and barn appears to have been in non-orchard use from at least 1965 through 1999. The
north-south road through the orchard first becomes evident in the 1976 photograph. Based on
review of these photographs, the Draft EIR concludes that the configuration of the orchard has
changed over the years. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2 from Wojtkowski in
regard to historic value of the orchard, and to the responses to Comments 12 and 13 below.
Four aerial photographs (1949 to 1981) are referenced in the Carey historic report dated March
28, 2014 (page 39) included in Draft EIR Appendix G. These aerial photographs are listed as
available at the San Jose Public Library. Additionally, the Phase 1 environmental assessment
report, included in Draft EIR Appendix I includes copies of the historic maps and aerial
photographs (1939 to 2006) referenced in that report.
12. Based on the historic photographic evidence that indicates changes over time in the
extent of the Plan Area that was used as an orchard, and the current encroachment of freeways,
roadways, commercial buildings, and residences, the it was concluded that the orchard did not
qualify as a potentially historic resource. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2
from Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of the orchard, and to the response to Comments 9,
11, and 13.
13. Orchards are replanted over time, and in the case of this orchard, evidence suggests that
the type of trees may have changed over time, and portions of the Plan Area were used for other
types of uses over time. Therefore, there is not a history of consistent uses of the orchard in the
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-174 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
location and configuration that exists today. The configuration referred to in the Draft EIR had
to do with location of trees within the Plan Area and surrounding areas, rather than the layout of
trees within the orchard. Refer also refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2 from
Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of the orchard, and to the responses to comments 9, 11,
and 12.
14. Two historic reports were presented in the Draft EIR appendices, but based on other
evidence available to the Town, as discussed above in responses to comments 9, 11, 12, and 13,
conclusions were reached that in some instances varied from the conclusions in the historic
reports.
15. The environmental review focuses on effects on public views, as permitted under CEQA.
(See Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th
1323, 1337, quoting Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 586 [“obstruction of
a few private views in a project's immediate vicinity is not generally regarded as a significant
environmental impact”]; see also Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.
App. 4th 477, 492-494.) Because the analysis focuses on effects on public views, effects on on-site
views are not addressed as potential environmental impacts. Specific layout of buildings within
the Plan Area and preservation of views from within the Plan Area would be considered by the
Town during Architecture and Site Review. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12
from Robinson regarding effects of height exceptions.
16. Findings would be required for all height exemptions as stated in the Specific Plan. The
Draft EIR has been revised to clarify the language about this requirement.
17. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR analyzed a Specific Plan at a programmatic level
rather than a development plan or site plans. Development projects in the Plan Area will
undergo further visual review, if necessary, when they are proposed, and project-specific design
information is available. Future development within the Plan Area is subject to Architecture and
Site Review, which will include review of potential effects on views.
18. The comment appears to concur with the Draft EIR.
19. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
20. The comment is noted.
21. The comment refers to Specific Plan policies, and is not directed to the content of the
Draft EIR. Refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment 1 in
Letter 12 from Robinson.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-175
22. The analysis focuses on existing views from public locations. Refer to the response to
Comment 15.
23. The Specific Plan establishes height regulations that vary from those of the General Plan.
Refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from
Robinson.
24. The discussion of significance is based on the Standards of Significance presented on
Draft EIR pages 3-7 and 3-8. The thresholds of significance are derived from Appendix G of the
CEQA Guidelines.
25. The State Route 17 viewpoint was selected as the most highly visible location and a
location from which the Plan Area was located between the view point and the hills. Similar
views would be visible from State Route 85, except that a sound wall significantly obscures the
view. Refer also to the response to Comment 15.
26. The vegetation below the ridgeline does frame the overall view of the hills, but does not
constitute a part of the hills themselves. The Town’s visual policies are not intended to prevent
the construction of buildings, but to assure that the construction of buildings does not
significantly block scenic views. The Draft EIR analysis indicates that the proposed project
would not significantly block views of the hills. Refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to
the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
27. Figure 14, Plan Area View from State Route 17, is presented to illustrate reference points
in the accompanying text, not to provide details as to the apparent height above the highway or
Plan Area. In fact, perceived building heights, as seen from any given view point, will vary
depending on distance from and viewing angle towards the building. See also Draft EIR
Appendix B Visual Simulation.
28. The simulations in Appendix B show the primary height limit of 45 feet. Buildings in
excess of 45 feet are allowed only subject to findings that the buildings do not result in a
significant visual impact. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson
regarding the potential for buildings in excess of 35 feet or 45 feet to affect scenic views.
29. The comment refers to Specific Plan policies, and is not directed to the content of the
Draft EIR. However, refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment
1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
30. The conclusion that potential aesthetic impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level is supported by information presented in the Draft EIR. Refer also to the
response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson, regarding how increased building heights
are off-set by increased open space, due both to limitations on total building square footage and
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-176 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
policies requiring additional open space in exchange for additional height. The Draft EIR for the
Specific Plan is a program-level document. Specific building designs will be reviewed as specific
development projects are proposed.
31. Potential for degradation of visual character is addressed on Draft EIR pages 3-13
through 3-15. The Draft EIR conclusion of less than significant is based on the Specific Plan’s
policies and consistency with the General Plan’s direction for the Plan Area. The Plan Area
includes a mix of uses, of which the orchard occupies about two thirds of the total. A change in
the type of land use at a project site is not by itself a significant aesthetic impact under CEQA.
32. The Draft EIR analyzed a Specific Plan at a programmatic level rather than a
development plan or site plans. Conclusions are based on the Specific Plan’s policy guidance.
33. The letter correctly states that the General Plan’s height limits range from 35 feet to 45
feet. The Draft EIR has been corrected. The principal purpose of the height limits is to protect
views, particularly of the hillsides. The Draft EIR concluded that, as mitigated, the proposed
project would have a less-than-significant impact on views.
34. The comment is noted. All of the requested information is provided within the Draft EIR
and Draft EIR Appendix M. The commenter is requesting a different presentation of the
information.
35. The comment is noted.
36. The Draft EIR is based on information in the traffic impact analysis as well as other
sources as cited in the Draft EIR.
37. Revisions were made to the transportation impact analysis to address comments from
Town staff, and to address comments made in a peer review conducted by TJKM
Transportation Consultants. The final transportation impact analysis in the Draft EIR
incorporates the input from these reviewers.
38. The transportation impact analysis evaluated potential impacts during the weekday
morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and weekday afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. These are
the periods when traffic volumes are typically highest. Any school- and hospital-related trips
made during the PM peak hour are reflected in the LOS results.
39. The trip generation for the hotel is based on typical hotel trip generation rates published
in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition, 2008, which
assume meeting and convention facilities.
40. Project-related street network changes are unlikely to result in a substantial amount of
cut through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods. Existing left turns at Highland Oaks/Lark Avenue,
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-177
Los Gatos Boulevard/Camino del Sol, and Los Gatos Boulevard/Terreno de Flores would be
redirected to other intersections, and cut through traffic would decrease in these locations.
Traffic volumes onto and off of these the minor streets at these intersections can be found in the
Existing Conditions section of Appendix M. Refer also to the response to Comment 3 in Letter
20 from Field, D.
41. Non-signalized intersections are included in the list of study intersections. However,
there is no set significance threshold for determining unacceptable operations as shown in
Table 5 in Draft EIR Appendix M.
42. These are depicted on Figures 15 and 16 in Draft EIR Appendix M.
43. Refer to the response to Comment 5 in Letter 9 from Nedom.
44. The comment is not complete. A Street will have a maximum design speed of 30 mph to
ensure motorists are traveling at an appropriate speed when sharing the roadway with bicyclists.
Sharrows used in conjunction with Bike May Use Full Lane signs will let motorists know that
bicyclists are allowed to use the full lane and discourage unsafe passing by motorists. This will
accommodate bicyclists if dedicated bicycle lanes are not included in the roadway design.
45. The different options are described on pages 3-221 and 3-222 of the Draft EIR. Graphics
have not been prepared.
46. The comments are noted.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Margaret Smith, Chair
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Tom O’Donnell
Marico Sayoc
Joanne Talesfore
Community Development
Director
Laurel Prevetti
Planning Manager Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR SMITH: We will now move to the public
portion of the public hearing and begin with Agenda Item 1,
which is identified as the North Forty Specific Plan,
General Plan Amendment GP-14-001, Zoning Code Amendment Z-
14-001, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-10-002.
This is the Planning Commission hearing to accept
public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
what is known as the North Forty Specific Plan. That
comprises approximately 44 acres located at the northern
extent of the Town bordered by Route 17, Route 85, Los
Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. As required by the
California Environmental Quality Act this public hearing is
being held during the 45-day public notice period. The
notice of availability for review of the Draft EIR was
released on April 4th with the 45-day review period ending
on May 19, 2014.
This public hearing is an opportunity for members
of the public to provide verbal comments on the Draft EIR.
Written comments will be accepted until the close of the
public hearing on May 19th.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Just to be certain that you understand, this
public hearing is not where the Planning Commission is
taking this matter under consideration. We are here this
evening to accept your remarks. We ask when you step to the
podium if you would please state your name and address and
make all of your comments directly to the Commissioners.
We’re here to listen to you this evening. We will not be
asking you questions nor will the Staff be doing so as
well.
At the end of the public hearing portion we will
close the matter and then perhaps take a short break, we’re
not sure, but just to give you an idea of what the evening
is going to look like. Again, please keep in mind that the
purpose of this meeting is to accept remarks.
Anything else, Mr. Paulson?
JOEL PAULSON: I believe potentially the Vice
Chair has a statement.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I will need to recuse myself
as I live within 500’ of the subject property. However,
I’ll sit in the back and I will be ready for Item 2.
CHAIR SMITH: All right, and we have promised the
Commissioner that we will forget her back there. We will go
and get her for Agenda Item 2.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR SMITH: Before we proceed, are there any
questions of the Staff from any Commissioners? All right,
seeing none, I will call up the speakers three at a time,
and that means if you would just queue behind the speaker.
That way we can get through this evening in an orderly way
and an expeditious way as well.
The first person that is going to speak to us is
Jak Van Nada. Could you step forward? He’s going to be
followed by Lee Quintana and then by Andy Wu.
JAK VAN NADA: Good evening, my name is Jak Van
Nada; I live at 165 Euclid in Los Gatos.
In general I am for the North Forty development.
I will follow up this speech with data that generates my
comments tonight and send it to you by the 19th.
The Netflix project, plus the North Forty, within
eight-tenths of a mile of one another, plus two new large
medical buildings almost next door, will give us gridlock
during the commute hours. We are no longer a small town but
rather a small city trying to convince ourselves that we’re
a small town. If we have to be a small city, then I would
recommend that we soften the sharp edges of heavy traffic
with better planning for the vast number of people who
either live here or come here to hike, bike or walk.
Comment 1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Everything we design is for cars, and now that
the VTA is trying to add more traffic to 85, when does it
stop? This plan is also favoring the car. We have a plan to
put a bike lane on Lark with this new development, but it,
like so many other things, is like vaporware; it may or may
not happen, and likely won’t, because they’re putting in a
wider than necessary median, hoping that the bike lane will
somehow come to fruition later. Why not do it now?
A group of us has stuck with the development
process for the past few years feeling that the traffic in
the schools would suffer with the increase in development.
We are concerned that the Town relies on potentially bad
data.
For instance, we did out own survey on students
that came from Laurel Mews, Bluebird and Charter Oaks
versus the number of students that were projected when
using formula numbers. The actual students from those two
projects were off by 100%. Rancho de Los Gatos, originally
a senior adult complex, currently has 19 students going to
Los Gatos schools. We have that data if you would like the
proof.
I went to the Town Engineering Department to
obtain traffic counts on City streets. I was told that only
old traffic counts were online, but if I gave them some
Comment 2
Comment 3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
intersections they would send me the data. Ten days later I
still haven’t received it. However, that same engineer told
me that I did not have to be concerned, as the projections
were very conservative and there had been negligible
traffic increases in the last ten years. With that said, I
asked him if anyone ever followed up the projections with
an analysis of the projected versus actual? The Town does
not do that in the case of schools nor in the case of
traffic.
For two such critical numbers I would like to see
the Town quit using the data generated from manuals and
adjust the student counts accordingly so that the schools
can better plan their future. I would like to see the
Engineering Department do traffic counts a year after a
project is occupied to see how accurate the traffic
engineers were with their projections. We simply do not
believe the data we’re getting now and don’t believe you
should either. Thanks.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Van Nada. Ms.
Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue. I’m
going to keep my comments relative to the Draft EIR itself.
This is probably a rare EIR that I have found it
easier to understand the project’s impacts and proposed
Comment 3
cont.
Comment 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mitigation by reading the technical reports with the
technical data rather than the text of the EIR itself.
I’m going to skip down to my primary subject, and
then I’m going to go back and summarize some of the reasons
that I made that statement, but my primary comments are on
the Historic Resources, which is Section 3.5 of the Draft
EIR.
The technical report, which is in Appendix G on
the Historic Resources, includes a Phase One Historic
Evaluation and a Final Historic Resources Technical Report
that are not accurately or even adequately summarized in
the Draft EIR text itself, nor are the conclusions that are
reached by the Draft EIR text supported by the technical
reports in the appendices.
I suggest that the EIR text be revised to
accurately summarize the findings and conclusions of the
Historic Resources evaluation, which is Phase One in
Appendix G, to accurately summarize the Historic Resources
Technical Report, which is the final report in Appendix G,
and to explain and support by substantial evidence the
differences between the findings and conclusions of
significance in those reports and the conclusions reached
in the DEIR.
Comment 4
cont.
Comment 5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m going to go back now to some of the comments
that I have on the readability and understandability of the
Draft EIR. The Summary, which is Section S-1, is a summary
of impacts and mitigation measures; however, it does not
adequately summarize the impact that the proposed
mitigation is intended to reduce. It is easier to
understand the air quality and greenhouse gas impact
mitigation reading the technical reports in Appendix D,
because in Appendix D the air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions assessment are integrated into a single topic.
The greenhouse gas emissions, however, is separated from
the air quality emissions in the Draft EIR text by three
different sections. That leads to discontinuity and it’s
hard to understand.
Lastly, the Traffic and Transportation section
does not provide adequate graphics to easily understand the
existing road configurations or the configurations of the
proposed mitigation.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Quintana. Following
the next speaker will be Amy Despars and Matthew Hudes. Mr.
Wu, can you state you name and address for the record?
ANDY WU: Good evening, members of the Planning
Commission. My name is Andy Wu; I live down the street from
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Jak Van Nada. If you don't know my exact address, you
really don’t need to, but it’s at 28.
I want to go off topic. I really don’t want to
talk about the DEIR because my predecessor, Lee Quintana,
has basically stated everything that I would have stated as
well, so let me just refer to that graphic and you’ll
understand of what I speak.
Sunday, 7 December 1941, 0655 hours. Three
hundred and fifty three aircraft launch from (inaudible) of
the Imperial Japanese Navy make their initial point turn.
That’s the IP turn on their way to Pearl Harbor and various
targets located within the naval base there.
Within three hours the Pacific Fleet lies in
ruins, all eight battleships, the major ships in port at
the time, have been either heavily damaged or are sunk.
Only the USS Nevada, having cleared its moorings and gotten
under way under its own steam, but was beached by its
captain for fear of blocking the harbor entrance. Admiral
Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were both relieved
of their commands for dereliction of duty.
February 1942, President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066, which allows
military commanders in the area to intern those persons
they deem are a danger to national security. War relocation
Comment 9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
camps are built all over the United States, however, before
they are built 110,000 persons of Japanese heritage—
including every single person of Japanese heritage living
in California, 62% of which were national born Americans,
because there was no naturalization law at that point—are
ordered to internment camps.
Before they can go to internment camps, however,
the have to housed. So where did they house? You look at
that map, you see a place like Tanforan, which is a mall
now, Pamona, Santa Ana, those are all race tracks, so they
had to live in the horse stalls for six months before they
could be relocated. And I didn’t even know there were
relocation camps in Arkansas, but as far away as Arkansas,
as far north as the state of Montana.
Now, during this period of time there’s a Yuki
family. They own a large portion of the North Forty. Takio
(phonetic) Yuki, who lived on that land was charged with
treason. Now, he had to fight his way out of that charge
and was allowed to rejoin his family. On 2 January 1945 his
camp was closed, he’s allowed to return home, and he’s
given this: $25 and a train ticket to return to the home
that he no longer has. Fortunately for him, his business
partner had maintained his farm, so he was allowed, so he
could have the means to buy the North Forty.
Comment 9
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, wouldn’t it be a great thing if we had some
historical preservation on this plot?
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Amy Despars.
AMY DESPARS: Hi, my name is Amy Despars, 267
Longridge Road. I am a parent, second generation Los Gatan,
and also a teacher here in the community.
I am going to start with I think it’s kind of
ironic that this lovely brochure, flyer, whatever went out,
states that, “The North Forty Draft Specific Plan has been
designed to address needed commercial and housing
opportunities in the less congested northeast corner of our
town.” Less congested. Let’s see, for me to get from Los
Gatos Boulevard to Winchester on Lark Avenue, less than one
mile, it takes me up to 15 minutes sometimes. For me to get
from Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue to 85 takes me up
to 15, often. Often. So this to me is false advertising.
There are also some other things that I’d like to
quote in there.
“SummerHill Homes and Eden Housing and Grosvenor,
one of the world’s oldest real estate companies.” World’s
oldest real estate. They don’t know Los Gatos. We are a
community, a small town. Many of us grew up here; many of
us standing here want to preserve it. Yes, we are growing,
but we need to do it in the right way.
Comment 10
Comment 9
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
“Nearly $1.9 million annually for local schools.”
That sounds great. The problem is our schools are
overcrowded. That $1.9 million is nothing. That will
provide nothing for our students. We don’t have schools to
put these students in. Los Gatos High has no schools to put
students in and they’re overcrowded.
“Transportation improvements for bicyclists,
pedestrians and motorists and well as public transit
connections,” will not help the traffic problem. We’re in a
society where people drive. Maybe some people will start to
bike, but it’s not going to help the traffic.
Here’s one I love. “Housing to fulfill unmet
needs for young professionals, move-down locals and seniors
while having a minimal impact on schools.” Right now I know
families, for a fact, who are living in two bedroom
apartments with two, three, four kids. You don’t think
people are going to cram their families into these little
places? I read it. There’s no minimum age on any of them,
except for the one small section of senior. Do you want to
put senior housing in there? I love that idea, but you
really need to consider, people are cramming their kids
into small apartments everywhere. I live off of Carlton; I
see it, I know the families.
Comment 10
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, whatever you choose, please no more pizza
parlors, no more coffee, no more burrito. Give us something
else. Please don’t approve it and really think about what
you’re putting in across from Whole Foods and that area
too. I can’t believe what you guys have approved.
So please consider all of us. We like to call it
“Uptown.” Thank you.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Despars. Mr. Hudes,
and then right behind the next speaker will be Terry
McBriarty, and then Janice Fok.
MATTHEW HUDES: I’m Matthew Hudes, 16631 Madrone
Avenue. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you
about this. I have been a member of the committee looking
at the North Forty over the last couple of years. I was on
the east coast earlier this week. I’m flying out to San
Diego this evening. I came back to talk to you about very
serious concerns that I have about the Draft EIR.
Some aspects of impacts can be mitigated and some
of them I think have been raised in terms of traffic, even
in terms of schools. The impact that I’d like to talk to
you about is the downtown, which is, I think, one that is
much less amenable to mitigate measures.
Once the downtown starts to decline it will be
very difficult to turn that around, and the kind of
Comment 10
cont.
Comment 11
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development that’s envisioned in the North Forty I believe
has a potentially very substantial negative impact on the
heart of the downtown.
I think the Draft EIR is very deficient in the
way that it has looked at this aspect. Much of the data, or
the analysis of the data… The report itself is well written
and there’s actually quite a bit of good data that we
haven’t seen before on retail activity. The analysis is
flawed and it appears to be presented in a way that makes a
case for building a new shopping center on the scale of
Santana Row.
For two years I’ve been urging the Town to look
at an economic analysis of this project. The Urban Decay
Appendix is a start, but it’s deficient, and I’d like to
explain what my main comments are.
There are numerous opinions and conclusions in
that report that are offered without basis in fact. For
example, the comparison of the ten-minute drive area is not
a ten-minute drive area by any means. It’s probably a 25-
or 30-minute drive area.
There are no case studies in that report, despite
providing two Staff examples of other urban decay analyses
that have case studies. Ones that I suggested that they
look at are Sacramento, Walnut Creek, Livermore,
Comment 11
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Pleasanton, Campbell, San Luis Obispo and Napa. There are a
few words about Palo Alto, but it’s very old and dated.
The main point is that the data cited in the
study has been interpreted in a manner favorable to
development. When the conclusion is presented that there
will be little impact because we have a vibrant downtown,
the data does not support that. The data shows a 34% drop
in retail since 2000 and that’s not what the conclusion of
the report is, so I would urge us to examine that more
carefully.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. The next
speaker. Introduce yourself.
TERRY McBRIARTY: Terry McBriarty, 15075 Garden
Hill Drive.
I have many concerns about the North Forty and
have ever since the first plans went to the drawing board.
I have two children in the Los Gatos school system; one is
in first grade and one is a third grader. I’ve seen our
school grow from around 500 students to almost 700 students
this year, and just more and more students showing up.
Practically every month more students show up and there is
nowhere to put them.
So the idea that you could add all these units
and they’re going to be for empty nesters or whatever this
Comment 11
cont.
Comment 12
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cute idea is and it’s not going to impact our schools is a
joke, and it’s going to be the nail in the coffin that’s
the public school system in Los Gatos and it breaks my
heart.
The main thing I want to talk about was Garden
Hill, right off of Lark. I have to drive on Lark several
times a day. Every morning, every afternoon, in the night,
and the traffic on Lark has become a nightmare and it’s
scary. A man lost his life there right around the corner
from my house. If my husband had been waiting to go to work
at that signal when that man lost control of his vehicle,
my husband would be dead.
Some of the changes that you’re talking about
making seem to be eliminating the small buffer zone between
the sidewalk on the bridge where I sometimes ride my bike
with my child, where I had a bike accident about a year
ago. If that buffer zone were eliminated when I had my bike
accident with my child on my bike I probably would have
been hit and killed when I fell off the sidewalk. You’re
talking about expanding lanes and doing things that are
called “improvements” in here, but to me they sound like
things that are going to kill people.
I see pedestrians ignoring the lights and doing
things every day that endanger people and the changes
Comment 12
cont.
Comment 13
Comment 14
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you’re talking about making are going to endanger more
people, such as increasing traffic on Lark while not
addressing the issues with Classic Car Wash and the dangers
that it causes with people stopping the flow of traffic.
Lark is a nightmare that needs to be addressed right now,
and adding all the traffic that will be added by these
projects, I don't know that that can be fixed.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. Before Ms. Fok
comes up, behind her will be Jeff Harlan and Larry Arzie,
if you could queue up as well.
JANICE FOK: Good evening, I’m Janice Fok. I have
a few issues with the DEIR that I would like you to take a
look at for the final draft.
In Section 2, the Project Description,
specifically the Project Vicinity Existing Conditions, page
2.2, states that a private school is located in proximity;
that’s actually the JCC. The private school portion of the
JCC is 154 students. The JCC is a huge cultural sports and
community complex, so I don’t think that traffic has been
addressed.
Also on the map, called Figure 6, it calls out
Carlton Elementary as the nearest elementary school.
Carlton Elementary is in the Union School District; it’s
Comment 14
cont.
Comment 15
Comment 16
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not served by any portion of this parcel, so that’s a
misleading figure.
In Section 3.0, the Environmental Effects, 3.12,
Population Housing and Public Services, it states that the
cumulative student load from Guadalupe Mines, Riviera
Terrace, South Bay Honda, Swanson Ford, and Thrash House,
which is affectionately known as Bluebird, will be a total
of 70 students. We don’t have to say will be. All these
projects are built and our district should be able to
provide us with the actual counts. This is important,
because as other speakers have said, the schools are full
and I would like you to use actual counts since they are
available.
Also in Section 3, page 184 states an 80/20 split
between the Los Gatos and Campbell-Cambrian School
District. That’s only valid if the specific plan is going
to mandate such a split, and I don't know if that’s within
the purview of the specific plan.
Finally, Section 3 again, page 184 states that
the effects of student generation will take 20 years to hit
the district. The Los Gatos Union School District did an
Imagine 2022 Plan where they did a ten-year projection, and
I have some of that information here.
Comment 16
cont.
Comment 17
Comment 18
Comment 19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The 2022 Plan had four levels of impact.
Projection A was no future development. Projection B was
known and approved developments, those five I just listed.
Projection C was all known future developments, which
includes Oka and the North Forty, at moderate density, and
Projection D was all known future developments at maximum
density. So their nuclear option, if you will, is this
Projection D. It’s a ten-year plan, and in Year Three we’re
already ahead of it with no construction at the North Forty
or Oka Road.
I just wanted to say I’m dismayed that none of
our paid administrators from the school are here to present
this to you. I’m disappointed that none of our elected
school board officials are bringing this to your attention,
but their own projections are so far off in Year Two, Year
Ten, when these projects actually come in, I can’t imagine
are going to be any better. Thank you.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Fok.
JEFF HARLAN: Hi, my name is Jeff Harlan. I live
at 354 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos. Thank you for this
opportunity.
I am Los Gatan and my family has been here since
1965. We own three parcels and a condominium. I’m raising
Comment 20
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two children with my wife in my home on Bella Vista in the
house I grew up in.
We have an amazing school system, which is
already well over capacity. People cheat and lie to get
their children into our schools to the point where we have
a full-time employee dedicated to detecting fraud.
The estimates from the developers on the school
impact have been proven inaccurate. My math is slightly
more pessimistic than an earlier speaker. Bluebird Lane,
which my property adjoins, estimated that 0.3, 30%, of the
homes would add one child to the school. I believe that
number is actually 34, so that would be 170% of the homes
there are adding one student. If we apply that math to
North Forty, they estimate at only 26.6%, or 97 students.
If we apply the Bluebird Lane math, we end up with 619
additional students in the Los Gatos School District.
So this leads to some significant flaws in the
Draft Environmental Impact Plan. I estimate that it’s
possible there will be 522 additional students on top of
the 97 they’ve listed. Their traffic reports for both
alternatives are low by that same factor. I’m assuming
there would be 1,200 AM trips and 2,050 PM trips with
Alternative A. Alternative B would provide 1,000 morning
trips and 2,010 evening trips.
Comment 21
Comment 22
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There are also significant gaps in the traffic
sampling that they’ve done on the intersections. There are
no samples on Los Gatos Boulevard between Roberts Way and
Highway 9, which is where I live. We are in gridlock every
morning. It’s completely gridlocked. There are no samples
on East Main Street, right out here. We’re in gridlock
there too from the high school. There are no samples on
University between West Main and Lark Avenue. Gridlock.
Our Regional Housing Needs Allocation is actually
two times higher than the current census. The Association
of the Bay Area Governments is still using a 10% figure for
our burden for this. The Department of Finance only has
revised our estimate to 5%.
CHAIR SMITH: Mr. Harlan, I’m going to have to
stop you there, but if you have this in writing it would be
very helpful to have you submit it.
JEFF HARLAN: I would be happy to.
CHAIR SMITH: All right, thank you very much.
Right behind Mr. Arzie I’m going to call Jeff Loughridge
and Anne Robinson, so if you can be ready as well to speak.
Go ahead, Mr. Arzie.
LARRY ARZIE: Larry Arzie. I live in town. Wow,
isn’t this is a group of amazing speakers? Sophisticated,
Comment 22
cont.
Comment 23
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
well read and knowledgeable. I’m going to stick with two
subjects.
First one, my question on traffic is why was the
previous planned fifth lane for Lark Avenue to Samaritan
not considered? That’s the lane that was proposed 20 years
ago and that plan’s inside lane provided relief from
congestive cars that can go in and out of the project. This
lane would accommodate all North Forty oriented traffic and
reduce congestion by creating a thoroughfare concept on Los
Gatos Boulevard. This is a classic scenario in many
European cities for controlling traffic and discussed in
numerous community meetings. A wide tree-lined island with
turnouts would obviously be incorporated. This was not
brought up and I want to know why.
The second question on traffic: Why not a ring
road around the North Forty? This circulation scenario is a
success story used in so many cities. It can be
incorporated into the fifth lane that I just discussed in
front of the North Forty. It would circle the North Forty
parameter, directing the bulk of the North Forty onsite
traffic into specified entrances and exits, mitigating
congestion. This was well discussed at previous community
meetings. Why was that not included in the draft?
Comment 24
Comment 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m going to go on to housing, which is my last
question with the EIR. Did the EIR weigh the possibility of
a 20-year build out? It has been suggested that possibly a
second EIR should be done for the new Lark 20, because
that’s what it’s going to be for the next 20 years, and a
second EIR based on what’s being built for 20 years would
an interesting concept to do, if not necessary.
Now that the North Forty has become the North 20
I am surprised the DEIR did not comment on the overly
intense concentration of housing in the Lark District.
There is no guarantee that if or when the rest of the North
Forty comes available that it will ever be built as
promised. This entire project was developer-driven and I
would not be surprised to find out that the last minute
decision to delay the balance of the land sale by the
property owner was not already known by the developer going
in.
So if there are ways to protect ourselves, I
would highly recommend we take that road. Rearranging the
housing so that more is built on the north side would be a
good start. Thank you.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Arzie. Jeff
Loughridge.
Comment 26
Comment 27
Comment 28
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: Hi, my name is Jeff Loughridge;
I live at 109 Paseo Laura right off of Lark and Oka.
The North Forty project has some elements that I
believe Los Gatos is lacking right now; specifically the
more diverse planned housing will provide a much-needed
component to our town’s housing mix.
I am concerned, however, that our current traffic
situation without the future effect of new developments
results in a very low Level of Service, or LOS. Levels of
Service at intersections across town are now on the edge of
our lower LOS limit rating of D, but it is particularly
significant in the north end of town since that is where
both Albright and the North Forty are either approved or
planned.
The traffic portion of this Draft EIR by itself
is a whopping 1,836 pages. It’s filled primarily with
traffic counts at various intersections that were chosen.
Not all affected intersections were included. What was
missing until late this afternoon was an illustration that
showed the proposed traffic flow in and around the
development, specifically on both Los Gatos Boulevard and
Lark Avenue. This afternoon a new version of the Tentative
Map Application was posted onto the North Forty website,
not onto our town’s website. There is traffic mitigation
Comment 29
Comment 30
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proposed, but in order to assess whether these suggested
mitigations make sense one would need to see how the
traffic would flow both north and south on Los Gatos
Boulevard as well as east and west on Lark Avenue.
As an example, in one of the intersections that
were illustrated the south street entrance into the
development would have a right turn in, a left turn in
across Lark traffic, and a right turn out. This would block
Highland Oaks residents’ current left turn out. Highland
Oaks would be a right turn in and right turn out only, plus
the right turn out from the south street onto Lark Avenue
would require drivers to merge rapidly across two fast-
moving freeway on-ramp lanes to be able to continue west on
Lark across the bridge towards Winchester.
Piecemeal residential and traffic development on
Lark Avenue has resulted in nine separate intersections
with traffic lights at six. Some are spaced so closely
together that they do not even meet the state standards.
Since this is one of only four ways across our town and we
will be hit with the majority of both Albright and North
Forty traffic, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle safety
concerns need to be addressed for the full length of Lark
Avenue, not just the portion bordering the development.
Comment 30
cont.
Comment 31
Comment 32
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The proposed traffic flow will eliminate bicycle
paths on Lark. They propose both east and west bicycle
movement on the north side sidewalk bordering Lark, yet
propose nothing once a westbound cyclist reaches the Lark
Avenue bridge over Highway 17.
The traffic mitigation outlined in this Draft EIR
is inadequate, shortsighted and skewed to the North Forty
residents at the expense of their existing neighbors. Thank
you.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Behind Ms. Robinson I
have one last card, and that is Ingrid Oakley-Girvan. If
there is anyone else that wishes to speak, they need to
come forward with a card. All right, Ms. Robinson, please
address us.
ANNE ROBINSON: Anne Robinson, Charter Oaks. I
want to speak tonight regarding the impacts of building
heights in the North Forty proposed development on mountain
views.
In the North Forty Draft Specific Plan, under the
Council Vision, Section 2.1, one of the guiding principles
to achieve the Council’s vision of the North Forty
development is to embrace hillside views, trees and open
space. In the General Plan it talks about preserving
hillside views.
Comment 33
Comment 34
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan, page
3-8 and 3-9, the North Forty Draft Specific Plan allows for
a hotel at 45’ and all residential and non-residential
buildings can be up to 35’ tall with a height limitation of
25’ on any building within 50’ of Lark Avenue. A 10’
increase in height bonus, up to 45’ for residential uses
may be allowed in the Transition District but requires a
development to be affordable housing or that an additional
5% open space be provided on the property.
Then it goes on to say that a specific increase
in height may be allowed for the office or residential uses
in the Transition District and offices uses in the Northern
District. No minimum additional height is given for this
exception and no additional open space is required for this
exception. An unspecified increase in height may be allowed
for a hotel in the Transition District or Northern
District; again, no minimum additional height is given for
this exception.
In the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan, page
3-8, it states that the building heights cannot extend such
that they significantly interfere with the views or the
ridgeline, and on page 3-9 it states that the Draft
Specific Plan requires that building heights may not have a
significant adverse effect on the ridgeline and the top of
Comment 35
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the buildings are expected to be below the ridgeline. It
goes on to state that the impact of the building heights
would be less than significant.
So there are no minimum additional height
exceptions for the Transition District and the Northern
District and the buildings are expected to be below
ridgeline. How does this preserve the hillside views when
there is not a limitation on how tall the buildings can be
and it only requires the building to not have an adverse
effect on the ridgeline and the buildings are expected to
be below ridgeline? What does it mean to embrace or
preserve the hillside views? If the hillsides are obscured
50% by the buildings, does that embrace or preserve the
hillside views?
When looking at the photos of the visual
simulations in the appendices it only shows the maximum
height of a building at 45’. The visual simulations are
taken from three viewpoints with three different angles
from each viewpoint. By taping the three different angles
from each viewpoint together you get a better picture of
what you actually see when you drive south on Highway 17.
If the EIR states that there is a possibility of additional
heights above 45’, why isn’t that reflected in the
simulations? How do you know that there is not a
Comment 36
Comment 35
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
significant impact when you don’t know how high the
buildings are going to be and when you do not know where
the buildings are going to be located? Thank you.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Robinson.
INGRID OAKLEY-GIRVAN: Hi. Ingrid Oakley-Girvan,
again. I clearly live off Lark, and you’ve heard a lot
about that.
There are clearly dangerous hot spots and my soon
to be 16 year old driver is appalled at the driving on
Lark. We have a countdown before you go through a green
light so that you are not hit by a car speeding through a
red light. Happens every single day at every single
intersection that we go to. She will attest to that.
Roundabouts on Lark? Absolutely something to
think about. You heard something about European cities and
how they structure things. We should take a clue and look
at that. High congestion, high distribution of residents in
small spaces; that’s what we’re heading towards in this
environment.
We absolutely need a buffer zone on Lark. To
consider not having a buffer zone is crazy. I have ridden a
bike across multiple times with many kids either in front
or behind, and I have to say, I clutch my heart every
Comment 39
Comment 38
Comment 37
Comment 36
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
single time we do that, when we go across Lark. It needs to
be safe for kids, strollers and the elderly to cross.
If the idea is to have retail in the North Forty
area, I think that would be fabulous. Those of us who get
in our car to drive to Campbell or Saratoga or downtown Los
Gatos would prefer to keep our funds in Los Gatos and the
tax dollars here. However, we’re just as easy to drive to
Campbell or Saratoga at this point, so if we could walk
over there and we had a quaint, aesthetically pleasing
environment similar to what you have downtown, I think we
would actually utilize it. Now, if there are no walking-
strolling paths and things like that, we might not do that
as much, so why wouldn’t we encourage it? As people are
retiring and we have elderly communities they need these
walkability pathways.
Overcrowding in the schools. As a former LGF
president last year I can absolutely attest to this. We
went to San Carlos to talk to them about their STEM
program. They cut enrollment in middle and elementaries at
400. Ours are 600 to 700. They cut enrollment at middle
school and have already started to build a new one at 700.
We have a middle school that’s almost topping 1,200. So
we’re in a bad state of affairs in my opinion with the
current enrollment.
Comment 41
Comment 40
Comment 39
cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, I know everyone says turnover, or people
will stay, they’ll retire, the kids will go on and they’ll
go off to college, no one else will take that house. But
what you see in Los Gatos is because of the good schools
the parents retire elsewhere, the kids take the house, or
they slam into different size housing, three kids in a
bedroom. It’s not bothering people and maybe again, that’s
more of what they do in Europe and we have to think about
that and not think about it from our perspective but from
other perspectives.
I don't know if you can apply limits on housing,
the number of people in a unit size: five hundred feet, two
people.
Senior housing, that’s a good thing. Distributing
the housing and the retail on both sides, I think that
that’s something that would be great to think about.
I’m not really sure why, but I’m very frustrated
that the schools aren’t here commenting. I don't know if
it’s political and they don’t want to sound like they have
overcrowded schools. Well, they do have overcrowded
schools. The schools are overcrowded. I mean we’re going to
have 30 or 40 kids in a class. I don’t see that as a
solution. Thank you.
Comment 42
Comment 43
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you for your comments. The
last card I have is Woody Nedom. Again, if there is anyone
else that wishes to speak, they need to come forward. All
right, Mr. Nedom.
WOODY NEDOM: My name is Woody Nedom; I live on
Azalea Way in Los Gatos.
I just wanted to emphasize one point that I put
into my written presentation to you folks, and that is I
think the number of housing units, 364, all essentially
jammed into this southern Lark Avenue portion is a horrible
idea. That’s all in the Los Gatos School District.
Apparently the government code says that the money that the
Town gets from the developer fees, et cetera, is full
mitigation, so that can’t be questioned.
I think that’s what you call a legal fiction, so
I think it is incumbent upon the Town to do its own
mitigation in this regard, and that is this: If there are
going to be 364 housing units—I hope there aren’t, but if
there are going to be—spread them out all over the North
Forty so that at least half of them or more are in the
north section, which is Cambrian School District, not Los
Gatos School District. In fact, their schools, at one
meeting we had probably a couple of years go, and I’ve
attended virtually every meeting, it was said that they
Comment 44
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would welcome new students. So why aren’t we spreading the
housing out?
We shouldn’t be here to please a developer; we
should be here to serve the Town and the residents of this
town. Thanks very much.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. Jason Farwell.
JASON FARWELL: Good evening, Commissioners.
Jason Farwell, 18 Park Avenue in Los Gatos.
First and foremost I’d just like to say how
thankful I am to have these citizens down here tonight
voicing their concerns. I’ve been following this project
for a long time; I’ve been at a lot of meetings. It’s
fantastic to finally see some outspoken citizens on the
impacts of this project. They’re going to be monstrous,
they’re going to impact our schools, and they’re going to
impact our downtown dramatically.
I echo all of the concerns that have already been
voiced tonight, but my major issue that I have with this
Draft EIR relates to our downtown and the fact that we
still don’t know the square footage of our downtown and how
it compares to the proposed development.
I’ve done my calculations; they’re rough
calculations. I think it’s somewhere around approximately
230,000 square feet from Highway 9 to North Santa Cruz
Comment 44
Comment 45
Comment 46
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Avenue. That’s just the Downtown District core there, and
this is all ground floor. So that’s 230,000 square feet,
and they’re proposing I think over 500,000 at the North
Forty. For this Draft EIR to propose that there’s not going
to be a disparate impact to our downtown I think is
ridiculous. It will be dramatic.
The parking issue in our downtown is terrible. It
hasn’t been addressed. We need a new garage at a minimum.
This parking that’s going on in the North Forty is going to
be so accommodating that people are going to drive in there
all day long, because they’re going to complain about going
downtown and the parking downtown.
Grosvener is a monster real estate company;
they’re very good at what they do. This is going to be an
absolutely beautiful project that going to impress not only
Los Gatos but the entire Bay Area, and it is going to be a
regional draw, it’s not going to be a Town draw, and our
town will forever be changed.
So I just ask you to view this project with open
eyes and really sift through this 1,800 page Draft EIR.
It’s a monster. I couldn’t look at it all; it was too much.
Thank you.
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Next is Brent Ventura.
Comment 46
Comment 47
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BRENT VENTURA: Thank you, Commissioners, for
this hearing.
A couple of items. A lot of these issues have
been hit on already. I don’t want to get repetitive here,
but one of the issues I do want to speak to is the wildlife
impact.
If you go out to that site there it’s like going
back in time 50 or 60 years of Los Gatos back when the Town
was mostly orchards. Because it’s been left undeveloped for
so long, there is an incredible amount of wildlife there.
I’ve had the opportunity to be there in the early mornings
and late evenings and I personally have seen cougar,
coyotes, fox, snakes. I can’t tell you if they’re garter or
gopher snakes, but I believe one of them might be
endangered. I’ve seen golden eagle out there.
It seems the wildlife survey was completely
inadequate in failing to identify any of these, and there
was no relocation plan or any real plan identified in the
EIR. What are we going to do with this precious last animal
wildlife we have in town? Obviously they may not be
compatible with the type of development that’s being
discussed here, but that doesn’t mean they should just be
bulldozed over. I think we’re enlightened enough, that
we’ve learned enough over the past generations since this
Comment 48
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
town has developed with the intensity it has, not to make
those mistakes again, so I hope that would be corrected in
the EIR revisions.
The other two points I want to make is we’re
looking at a lot of intense development here. I know there
is a great need in this community for senior housing. I
didn’t see a lot of discussion of that, the possibly of
exploring that in the EIR. I’d like to see alternatives to
discuss the viability of that and see if that could be
incorporated. It certainly is a less intense traffic
generator than some of the other uses being discussed.
The other point was spreading the housing
throughout the entire site. I personally disagree with the
extrapolated attendance figures for the Elementary District
and the High School District. It’s hard to believe with
that many houses we’re going to generate 50 or 60 students;
I just don’t believe that’s possible. I think we’re going
to have severe impacts. The schools are already impacted. I
have a child there right now and I can tell you the classes
are getting awfully large. There’s another school district
that serves the property and they’d probably love to have
some additional students there. They sure would like to
have some of the property tax revenue and that’s something
we should look at as an alternative to the site. Thank you.
Comment 49
Comment 50
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. The last card
I have is Jennifer Grewal.
JENNIFER GREWY: Hi, I’m Jennifer Grewal and I
live at Charter Oaks in Los Gatos. I want to say thank you
to the Planning Commission because previously you have been
very attentive to the EIR, especially in the Albright Way
project where your recommendation to the Town that the
environmentally superior alternative was what should have
been built. It was the conservative alternative and it
would have been nice to have that lesser impact on that end
of town.
Our end of town has a history of very bad
decisions. There are five neighborhoods off of Lark with
only one way in and out. There is no access to southbound
85 from Winchester. Albright exceeded the environmentally
superior plan, as the EIR recommended. There are six
traffic lights in less than one mile on Lark Avenue. The
coordination of those lights is between two agencies,
Caltrans and the Town. Seventeen northbound off-ramp is a
yield sign to Lark Avenue, not a stop sign, so you have
merge issues in the morning at that intersection.
There were traffic studies that were ordered as
part of the Albright Way approval after it made it to the
Town Council for approval, and those haven’t been completed
Comment 51
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yet. What I found out when we met with the developer the
other night was that his Town mitigation only faces his
portion of the property as it affects Los Gatos Boulevard,
Bascom, and Lark Avenue, so there is no complete, cohesive
guess as to how all of these pieces are going to fit
together. I don’t think there was consideration of possibly
doing an entrance to Highway 17 on the backside of this
property.
We discussed with the developer whether or not
the gas station was going to be purchased and he told us it
was not economically feasible for him to attempt to
purchase the gas station, but yet that gas station property
is going to be a bottleneck in the traffic as you merge
from Los Gatos Boulevard onto Lark Avenue. Evidently the
setbacks are such that as he put it, he would only be able
to build a sign on the corner of the property that would be
left from the setbacks. But what’s going to happen by not
having those setbacks and having the gas station stay is
going to be yet another narrow spot on Lark that then goes
to a wide spot, but then crosses the bridge that then goes
back to a narrow spot.
Lark Avenue is a deadly accident again waiting to
happen, and it is just getting more and more so that that
is our inevitable future. Today it took me three minutes to
Comment 51
cont.
Comment 52
Comment 53
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014
Item #1, North Forty Specific Plan
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
turn right to get out of Charter Oaks. I had a meeting at
the Los Gatos Parks and Rec Department. It took me three
minutes to make a right turn from Charter Oaks Drive onto
Lark Avenue in order to make the left onto University at
the light. That’s crazy.
CHAIR SMITH: Your time is up. Thank you. If you
have written remarks, please submit them to us.
All right, we’re now going to close this portion
of the meeting, and Mr. Paulson, do you want to state the
statutory dates again so that the public hears them?
JOEL PAULSON: Just for everyone’s reminder, the
comment period ends on May 19th, which is next Tues, at
5:00pm. If anyone wants to submit additional written
comments via mail, email or dropping them off to the
Community Development Department and/or Clerk’s Office,
then we will accept those until 5:00pm on May 19th.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-217
Response to Oral Comments provided at Planning Commission
1. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 31 from VanNada.
2. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 31 from VanNada.
3. Traffic and student generation are based on data that is derived from large samples of
built projects. A recent small sample may not provide accurate data from which to project the
results of the proposed project. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
4. The comment is noted.
5. Refer to the response to Comment 8 in Letter 35 from Quintana.
6. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 35 from Quintana.
7. The Draft EIR discussion includes separate discussions of air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions because they address different topics. Note that the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
checklist also separates these two topic areas.
8. Figure 23, Traffic Study Intersections provides a map showing the location of each of the
studied intersections. Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic is presented in the context of the
entire Draft EIR, including Appendix M, which includes the traffic impact analysis in its entirety.
Section 2.0 Project Description presents numerous figures that portray the conditions in and near
the Plan Area.
9. The comment relates history from World War II and the interment of the Japanese to
the history of the Yuki family and its purchase of land within the Plan Area. The historic
resources evaluation considered the potential for the Yuki family’s association with the Plan
Area to provide a historical context for the Plan Area, but determined that this connection did
not justify the Plan Area as a historic site.
10. The comment relates to a brochure produced by the applicant, and does not address the
Draft EIR.
11. Refer to the response to Comments 17 to 32 in Letter 11 from Hudes.
12. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
13. The comment addresses specific locations where traffic conditions are described as
congested, and where a fatal traffic collision occurred.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-218 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
14. The proposed project does not propose changes to the Lark Avenue bridge over State
Route 17. That bridge has a narrow elevated sidewalk on each side, but no buffer zone. The
addition of turn lanes onto State Route 17 will make crossing from the Plan Area to the
sidewalks on the Lark Avenue bridge more difficult. Refer also to the Master Response on
Transportation.
15. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 22 from Fok.
16. Refer to the response to Comments 1 and 2 in Letter 22 from Fok.
17. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
18. The Specific Plan does not mandate any particular split of housing within the Plan Area.
However, based on the types of uses allowed within each of the three districts established by the
Specific Plan, an allocation of 80 percent of the housing to the southern half of the Plan Area is
reasonable. The rationale for this assignment is presented on Draft EIR page 3-184.
19. The EIR assumes a 20-year build-out of residential units, consistent with the 20-year
build-out of the Specific Plan.
20. Projection C assumes development of one-half of the General Plan residential capacity
for the Plan Area and Oka Road parcels, and best matches the proposed project, which calls for
less than half the number of units that the General Plan considered within the Plan Area.
21. A student generation rate of 1.7 students per unit would be required for the proposed
project to result in 619 new students. This rate is significantly above that of existing homes
within the school district. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools.
22. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 24 from Harlan. Refer also to the Master
Response on Transportation.
23. The Housing Element is referenced on Draft EIR page 3-170, but the Plan Area is not
identified as a location within the Town where the Regional Housing Needs Allocation is
expected to be met.
24. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 10 from Arzie.
25. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 10 from Arzie.
26. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie.
27. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to
Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 2-219
28. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to
Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
29. The existing conditions and background conditions scenarios in the traffic impact
analysis represent current and near-future conditions. Refer to the Master Response on
Transportation.
30. The Draft EIR and transportation impact analysis study the Specific Plan, based on
planned land uses and backbone transportation facilities. The tentative maps that have been
submitted are consistent with the Specific Plan in terms of number of units and location of access
points to Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. Therefore, the transportation analysis
presented in the Draft EIR is applicable to and accurate for the submitted tentative map.
31. This intersection arrangement is consistent with the Specific Plan. Refer to the response
to Comment 1 in Letter 26 from Loughridge.
32. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation.
33. Refer to the responses to Comments 2 and 14.
34. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation.
35. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
36. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
37. The comment refers to dangerous drivers, and does not comment on the Draft EIR.
38. Roundabouts can be an effective traffic control device under certain traffic volume and
roadway configuration scenarios. However, the traffic volumes on Lark Avenue are too high for
roundabouts.
39. It is not clear if the commenter is speaking of a buffer zone along Lark Avenue or
crossing Lark Avenue. Crossing of Lark Avenue (other than at Los Gatos Boulevard) would be
prohibited with development of the proposed project. The proposed project includes a buffered
two-way bicycle path along Lark Avenue within the Plan Area.
40. The Specific Plan includes walking paths within the Plan Area.
41. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
42. The comment does not address the Draft EIR.
43. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR
2-220 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
44. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to
Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools. The Draft
EIR studied a reasonable range of alternatives.
45. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
46. The exact square footage of Downtown retail is less important to the Urban Decay
Analysis than the floorplate size, which affects the types of retail stores that might be located
within the Downtown and within the Plan Area.
47. The implication of the comment is that ample parking within the commercial
developments in the Plan Area will provide a competitive advantage over Downtown businesses.
Ample parking is available in other shopping centers within the retail trade areas, as studied in
the Urban Decay Analysis, but competition from these other shopping centers has not harmed
Downtown businesses. See also response 1 in Letter 7 from Walsh.
48. The Plan Area was surveyed by the consultant’s biologists on six dates, both day and
evening. The focus of biological surveys is on plant or animal species that are protected by
federal or state law. Disturbance of habitat for non-protected species is not considered a
significant environmental impact. Species expected to be seen within the Plan Area are listed on
Draft EIR page 3-56.
49. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to
Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
50. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to
Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools.
51. The comment cites traffic issues relating to the Albright Way project and Lark Avenue.
The proposed project would construct improvements on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard,
adjacent to the Plan Area. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 14 from Grewal.
52. The Specific Plan does not address whether the gas station remains or is replaced by
other uses; however, the Specific Plan includes the square footage of existing commercial
buildings within the total allowed square footage.
53. The comment describes traffic conditions on Lark Avenue.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-1
3.0
R EVISED S UMMARY
3.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires that an EIR contain a brief summary of the proposed
project and its consequences. The summary must identify each significant effect with proposed
mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy
known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and
whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. The Final EIR presents this revised summary
as a concise overview of the EIR as revised through the public comment process.
3.2 TEXT OF R EVISED S UMMARY
Beginning on the following page is a revised version of the summary from the Draft EIR.
Additions to the text are shown with underlined text (underline) and deletions are shown with
strikethrough text (strikethrough). Also refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR for other
changes to the Draft EIR.
3.0 REVISED S UMMARY
3-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
S UMMARY
CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires an EIR to contain a brief summary of the proposed
project and its consequences. The summary identifies each significant effect and the proposed
mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known
to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and
whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.
P ROPOSED P ROJECT
Location and Setting
The Draft North Forty Specific Plan covers approximately 44 acres located at the northern
extent of the Town of Los Gatos, southeast of the junction of the State Route 17 and State
Route 85 freeways. About 27 acres of the Plan Area are in agricultural use and about 17 acres of
the Plan Area have been developed with a variety of urban uses. The Town of Los Gatos 2020
General Plan designates the Plan Area as Mixed Use Commercial with a North Forty Specific
Plan overlay.
Project Description
The proposed project is a specific plan for future development of the Plan Area. Development is
expected to take place over a five to 20-year time period. The Draft Specific Plan provides a
framework and development standards for the development of vacant parcels and re-
development of the already-developed parcels. The Plan Area is divided into three districts
(Lark, Transition, and Northern), within which a mix of commercial and residential uses is
envisioned. The Draft Specific Plan limits total non-residential floor area to 580,000 square feet
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-3
and residential development to 364 units (both inclusive of existing uses). Additionally, the
following maximum development capacities are established for each type of non-residential use:
250,000 square feet of office/hotel, and 400,000 square feet of commercial (includes: restaurants,
retail, specialty market, health club, personal services, and entertainment). A hotel with or
without a conference center is also allowed, potentially providing for between 200 and 250
conference participants. The Draft Specific Plan requires at least 30 percent (about 13.2 acres) of
the Plan Area be retained in open space. The proposed project includes several changes to Town
of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan guidance relating to Los Gatos Boulevard and the Plan Area. A
zoning amendment would implement a specific plan overlay for the Plan Area.
S UMMARY OF I MPACTS AND M ITIGATION M EASURES
This draft EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental impacts in several
areas as identified below. The impacts are presented in a summarized format in Table S-1, with
the full text of the mitigation measure. The full text of the environmental setting, project
analysis, and impacts and the mitigation measures can be found in Section 3.0 Environmental
Effects.
A REAS OF C ONTROVERSY
CEQA Guidelines section 15123(b)(2) requires an EIR summary to identify areas of controversy
known to the lead agency including issues raised by agencies and the public. Based on comments
on the NOP and other communications, the following topic areas are considered potentially
controversial:
Aesthetics (development standards)
Cultural Resources (removal of potentially historic buildings)
Traffic (congested intersections and highways)
Schools (student generation and traffic near schools)
Economic impacts to downtown and other commercial areas
3.0 REVISED S UMMARY
3-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Summary of Alternatives
Project alternatives are presented, discussed, analyzed, and compared in Section 5.0,
Alternatives.
The following project alternatives were analyzed:
No Project Alternative – as required by CEQA Guidelines, this impact considers the
consequences of not approving the proposed project.
Increased Residential/Decreased Commercial Alternative – this alternative is intended to
reduce traffic generation and associated air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, by
increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of commercial
development.
Historic Preservation Alternative – this alternative would create an historic conservation
area into which potentially historic buildings from the Plan Area could be relocated, while
preserving the development capacity of the proposed project.
The environmentally-superior alternative would be the “no project” alternative, because it would
reduce impacts in all but three environmental topic areas, and would be similar to the proposed
project in three others. The second environmentally-superior alternative would be the “Increased
Residential/Reduced Commercial” alternative, which, although it would result in increased
potential for noise and toxic air contaminant impacts, would reduce overall air quality impacts,
and reduce impacts for greenhouse gasses, hydrology and water quality, and most significantly,
transportation and traffic. The “Historic Preservation” alternative would decrease cultural
resources impacts, but otherwise be similar to the proposed project.
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-5 Table S-1 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Summary Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Aesthetics Degradation of Visual Character AES-1 New development adjacent to residential uses existing at the time of Specific Plan adoption shall provide minimum five foot side and rear setbacks to those residential uses. Less than Significant Air Quality Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Consistency with 2010 Clean Air Plan AQ-1 Low NOX emitting heating systems shall be required for commercial, office, and hotel uses. Less than significant AQ-2 Parking lots shall provide charging stations at a rate of no less than one percent of parking spaces. AQ-3 All commercial developments shall incorporate energy reduction measures, including cool pavement materials, cool roof materials, and/or renewable energy sources, such as on-site solar power, to partially off-set electricity needs within the Plan Area. Common areas within commercial, office, and hotel developments shall utilize solar-generated or other renewable source electricity, or provide facilities for contribution of a like amount of renewable electricity to the electric grid.
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Air Quality (continued) Pollutant Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors AQ-4 The developer(s) shall implement basic dust control measures at all on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place. The developer(s) shall implement additional dust control measures at all on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential properties. Basic Dust Control Measures: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; and Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-7 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact f. Post a publicly visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Additional Dust Measures g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph; h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established; and i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. AQ-5 High efficiency filtration (MERV rating of 13 or greater) on ventilation systems shall be required in residential, hotel, and office units located in areas along State Route 17 identified in the EIR as having cancer risk in excess of 10 cases per million.
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact AQ-6 Ground-level outdoor residential yards that are not oriented to the Los Gatos Boulevard side of the Plan Area, shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-way prior to 2015, and, subject to air hazards modeling to confirm, no closer than 50 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-way thereafter (when diesel fuel and engine changes will reduce diesel emissions levels). Biology Special-Status Species BIO-1 If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas on the project site, and as feasible within 250 feet of the site boundary, to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance and/or construction activities. A report documenting the survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-9 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall determine and clearly delineate an appropriately sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist.
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-2 To avoid impacts to burrowing owls, a qualified biologist will conduct a two-visit (i.e. morning and evening) pre-construction presence/absence survey at all areas of suitable habitat on and within 300 feet of the construction site within 30 days prior to the start of construction. Surveys will be conducted according to methods described in the Revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012). If pre-construction surveys are undertaken during the breeding season (February through August) and locate active nest burrows near construction zones, then these nests and a 200-meter (600-foot) exclusion zone will be delineated which must remain off-limits to ground-disturbing activities until the breeding season is over. The exclusion zone shall be clearly delineated/fenced, and work could proceed within the exclusion zone after the biologist has determined that fledglings were capable of independent flight and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has approved the
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-11 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact recommencement of work inside the exclusion zone, or has authorized physical relocation of the owls. Nesting owl pairs physically relocated (after consultation and approval from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) as a consequence of construction activities are typically provided a habitat replacement mitigation ratio of 6.5 acres per owl pair/territory relocated. The project developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-3 To avoid impacting active bat roosts, if present, any vacant buildings on the site proposed for removal that are boarded up prior to construction (dark in the daytime) shall be opened in the winter months (prior to mid-March) to allow in light, making these areas non-suitable for use as bat roosts. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-4 Mature trees removed due to project implementation shall be removed in two stages (with the limbs removed one day, and the main trunk removed on a subsequent day) to allow any
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact potentially present day-roosting bats the opportunity to relocate. If bat roosts are encountered during tree removal, a bat specialist shall be hired to assist in any relocation efforts. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Biology Tree Protection BIO-5 Prior to tree removal, a Tree Preservation Report or Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist, and a Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained stipulating exactly how many protected trees of each species will be removed and how many will then be required as replacement plantings, along with where they can be planted, and any applicable maintenance requirements. Retained trees shall be protected during construction according to the measures specified in the Tree Protection Ordinance (Town of Los Gatos 2003). The project developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-13 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Cultural Resources Adverse Change to Historical Resources and Conflict with Plan Adopted for Environmental Purposes CR-1 Prior to demolition of buildings within the Plan Area identified as potentially historic resources, the project sponsor shall prepare photographic documentation of the buildings meeting the documentation standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER), as presented in the North 40 Specific Plan Historic Resources Technical Report. The historic documentation shall be prepared at Level IV (sketch plan, digital photographs of exterior and interior views, and HABS/HAER inventory cards) for the potentially historic buildings. No historic documentation shall be required for the orchard, except as may be incidentally included in the documentation of the structures. The project sponsor shall prepare, or retain a qualified professional who meets the standards for architectural historian and/or historical architect set forth by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR 61) to prepare documentation of historic resources prior to any construction work associated with demolition or removal. The Town of Los Gatos shall identify appropriate repositories for housing the historical Less than significant Significant and Unavoidable
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact documentation at the time of the project-level analysis. An interpretive display shall be incorporated into the design of commercial development within the Plan Area. CR-2 For potentially historic buildings proposed for retention at existing locations, the project sponsor shall prepare a historic structure(s) report (HSR) for the historic resource as a guide to the rehabilitation. The HSR shall set forth the history of the resource, describe its existing condition, make recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, replacement, reconstruction, and other treatments based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HSR shall be prepared by a licensed architect who meets the qualifications for historical architect as set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards, published in the Federal Register, June 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 119).
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-15 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact The project sponsor shall retain the services of a historical architect as a member of the design team for the rehabilitation. The historical architect may be the same historical architect who prepared the HSR, without encountering a conflict of interest. The Town of Los Gatos shall review the rehabilitation plans prepared by the project architect for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HSR shall specify procedures for protecting historic resources and a monitoring method to be employed by the contractor while working near the affected resource. At a minimum, the plan shall address the operation of construction equipment near adjacent historical resources, storage of construction materials away from adjacent resources, and education/training of construction workers about the significance of the historical resources.
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Cultural Resources Potential Adverse Change to Archaeological Resources CR-3 For grading or excavations deeper than four feet below the existing surface, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the excavations. The archaeologist shall be present on-site to observe a representative sample of deep grading or excavations in at least three areas within the Plan Area until satisfied that there is no longer a significant potential for finding buried resources. In the event that any potentially significant archaeological resources (i.e., potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources) are discovered, the project archaeologist shall designate a zone in which additional archaeological resources could be found and in which work shall be stopped. A plan for the evaluation of the resource shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. Evaluation normally takes the form of limited hand excavation and analysis of materials and information removed to determine if the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. In the event that significant paleontological, historic, and/or archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading in the Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-17 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact absence of an archaeological monitor, all work shall stop in the area of the subject property until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and, if necessary, develop an appropriate data recovery program. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this mitigation measure. Costs will be the responsibility of the developer(s). Cultural Resources Adverse Change to Paleontological Resources and Potentially Disturb Human Remains CR-4 If human remains are found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, Less than significant
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs will be the responsibility of the developer(s).
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-19 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project on a Hazardous Materials Site HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of permits for activities involving grading or excavation within Lark Avenue, the San Jose Water Company property, the south end of the Plan Area (within the contaminated area delineated on County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health records for the Lark Avenue Car Wash fuel leak case), or immediately adjacent areas, the developer shall consult with the Department of Environmental Health regarding the potential for disturbance of contaminated soils. The developer shall either conduct pre-excavation soil testing at an appropriate depth to the proposed work and review results with the Department of Environmental Health, or assume contamination of the soils and proceed with appropriate safeguards, established in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health. Unless pre-excavation soil testing shows no contamination, post-excavation soil testing shall be conducted. If testing shows soil contamination levels are in excess of acceptable levels, the developer shall implement appropriate protective measures in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health, including worker protocols and soil handling and disposal Less than significant
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact protocols. The presence of contamination may necessitate the use of workers who have been properly trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120. If soil testing shows acceptable contamination levels, no further soils measures may be required. If excavations reach free groundwater, the developer shall stop work and consult with the Department of Environmental Health. Hydrology and Water Quality Excess or Polluted Storm Water Run-off HAZ-1 See above. Less than significant Noise Noise in Excess of Standards NOI-1 A noise barrier shall be constructed commencing at the south end of the existing noise barrier along State Route 17, and continuing south to Lark Avenue and east along Lark Avenue for approximately 300 200 feet (or approximately 50 150 feet of west of Highland Oaks Drive). From the existing noise barrier to a point approximately 200 feet north of Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 14 feet tall; from that point to Lark Avenue, the noise barrier shall be 12 feet tall, and along Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 10 feet tall for a length of about 100 feet and 8 feet tall thereafter. The noise barrier shall have a decorative design Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-21 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact and/or include plantings or a planting buffer that would improve the appearance of the barrier from State Route 17 and Lark Avenue. NOI-2 Future development located on sites that are shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR as exceeding the normally acceptable noise level of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Town noise ordinance shall demonstrate that building designs and placement adequately reduce noise. If a study shows that actual noise (and projected noise levels at Specific Plan build-out) will exceed applicable Town noise standards, site and/or building plans shall identify measures to meet these standards. The developer(s) shall be responsible for preparing noise studies and implementing noise attenuation measures as conditions of project approval and construction. The developer(s) shall: Identify outdoor use spaces and building design or barrier walls to reduce environmental noise to 65 dBA Ldn or lower; Identify exterior-to-interior sound insulation measures, such as sound rated windows and doors, to reduce environmental noise to 45 dBA Ldn or lower indoors at residences and hotel guest rooms; and
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact As windows will need to be closed to meet the allowable interior noise level across the site, residences and hotel guest rooms shall incorporate ventilation or air-conditioning systems to provide a habitable interior environment, consistent with California Building Code requirements. Systems must not compromise sound-insulation of the building shell. NOI-3 Future development projects shall be designed so that all podium buildings are oriented to shield outdoor courtyards from the adjacent roadways. Future development projects shall be designed so that residences along Los Gatos Boulevard incorporate noise barriers as needed to shield outdoor use spaces. Outdoor use areas (excluding outdoor areas that are principally landscaped areas, parking areas, or sidewalks) shall meet the 65 dBA Ldn or lower outdoor noise standard. The applicant for each development project shall submit building and site plans demonstrating compliance with this measure.
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-23 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact NOI-4 Future non-residential development on sites where the Ldn noise levels are 68 dBA or higher as shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, shall include site-specific noise attenuating building designs providing sound-rated construction that will reduce interior levels to the California Green Building Code requirement of Leq-1hr 50 dBA or lower. Alternatively, the developer(s) can demonstrate that exterior walls and roofs have been designed to have sound insulation ratings of STC 50 or higher, with minimum STC 40 windows. NOI-5 Future development shall provide building-specific designs to reduce stationary noise source noise generation to the Town Code standards, as described in The Los Gatos Town Code Sections 16.20.15 to 16.20.025 and General Plan Table NOI-2. These measures are expected to include equipment selection and orientation, noise barriers, roof screens and enclosures. Noise Ground-borne Vibration NOI-6 Future development projects that include vibration-sensitive facilities, or businesses with highly vibration-sensitive equipment shall quantify vibration levels and demonstrate project-specific building designs to reduce vibration to acceptable levels. Less than significant
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Noise Potential Project Vicinity Permanent Ambient Noise Increase NOI-7 Future development projects including or requiring roadway improvement projects along Burton Way in the northern portion of the Plan Area shall require a noise assessment prior to approval if existing residential uses will remain adjacent to the roadway improvements . The assessment shall consider the orientation and width of the roadway; location and design of existing residences; and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise to within the Town of Los Gatos noise standards. This is expected to consist of sound-rated windows and doors, and possible roadway noise barriers. Less than significant Noise Project Vicinity Temporary or Periodic Ambient Noise Increase NOI-8 Future development applications shall identify the location and types of sensitive receptors that may be affected by construction noise and/or vibration. Measures to control construction noise and address potential complaints shall be proposed and called out in site plans and/or building plans: Consistent with the Town Code, construction activities, which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-25 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact p.m. weekends and holidays if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: • No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. • The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. Locate stationary and mobile noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging areas shall not be located adjacent to sensitive receptors, such as residences. Conduct a pre-construction meeting with nearby sensitive receptors to outline the construction schedule and what types of noises with will hear. Post construction schedules outside the construction site. Designate a point of contact that will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. Develop a process to respond to and address complaints.
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Submit a vibration study identifying the nearest sensitive receivers, construction activity, and mitigation measures as needed. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness –Streets Level of Service TR-1 The following intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection by the first project developer within the Northern District of the Plan Area. a. conversion of the existing eastbound lane on Burton Road to a through/left turn lane; b. addition of one dedicated eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound right turn lane on Burton Road at Los Gatos Boulevard (including widening Burton Road for about 200 feet west from Los Gatos Boulevard). In the event that the necessary right-of-way for Burton Road widening cannot be obtained prior to initial development within the Northern District, an alternative access street shall be completed and supplemental traffic analyses shall be conducted to demonstrate that adequate ingress and egress can be provided by other routes within the Plan Area. Less-than-Significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-27 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact TR-2 The following off-site intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection by the first project developer: a. addition of a third eastbound left turn lane on Lark Avenue; b. addition of third northbound left turn lane on Los Gatos Boulevard; c. addition of a third westbound lane on Lark Avenue from Los Gatos Boulevard to the intersection of State Route 17 northbound ramps to the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection, which will operate as a second right turn lane east of the State Route 17 northbound ramps/Lark Avenue intersection and to operate as a through-right lane east of the Highland Oaks Drive/Lark Avenue intersection; and d. modification and re-striping of intersection and restriction of parking as needed. TR-3 Applicants for development or redevelopment projects within the Northern District shall pay a pro-rata share of improvements at the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection or other
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact improvement related to relieving congestion at the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection. Improvements could include, but are not limited to, lane or traffic control improvements to the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection and/or signalization of the Samaritan Drive/Samaritan Court intersection. Pro-rata share shall be based on percent of project trips, per distribution patterns in the North 40 Transportation Impact Analysis, as a share of total trips within the intersection. Fees shall be paid to the City of San Jose prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay the pro-rata share of improvement as determined by the Town of Los Gatos and City of San Jose. If a specific improvement project has not been identified, the fee shall be based on pro-rata share of a traffic signal, and shall be proportionally refundable if a less expensive project is developed. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness –Highways Level of Service and Conflict with Congestion Management Program See note. Note: No project mitigation proposed. If the State Route 85 high occupancy/toll lanes are implemented, the proposed project’s impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Fee payment mitigation proposed would not reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significant and Unavoidable
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-29 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact TR-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the building applicant shall submit a transportation development impact fee to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the purpose of off-setting the cost of operational improvements on southbound State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17 (“affected segment”). The fee shall be negotiated between the developers and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, based on the number of project trips that exceed one percent of project trips on the affected segment (the significance threshold), and based on the proportionate number of trips projected for the subject building(s) in accordance with the North Forty Traffic Impact Analysis. The project cost to which the share of responsibility shall be applied shall be determined by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the affected segment. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness – Transit TR-4 The developer(s) shall work with the Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority regarding the provision of a shuttle service or regularly scheduled direct bus route service to the Vasona light rail station, to be in service concurrent Less than significant
3.0 REVISED SUMMARY 3-30 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact with commencement of revenue service on the Vasona light rail extension. TR-5 The developer(s) shall work with the Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and other agencies to ensure that the Plan Area is developed in a manner that takes full advantage of the transit opportunities afforded by the Vasona Light Rail. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness – Bicycles and Pedestrians TR-6 Development within the Lark District near the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard shall provide a direct pedestrian/bicycle access between residential areas and the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. Less than significant Transportation/ Traffic Hazardous Design or Incompatibility TR-7 Either bicycle lanes or sharrows (shared lane markings) shall be provided on A Street between Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. The speed limit shall be no greater than 30 miles per hour, and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs (Caltrans sign R4-11) shall be placed on streets marked with sharrows. Less than significant Transportation/ Traffic Cumulative Traffic Impacts CUM-TR-1 Project developers shall pay a pro-rata share towards the construction of the following off-site Less than significant
NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 3-31 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact intersection improvement at the Lark Avenue/southbound State Route 17 onramps intersection. a. Reconfiguration of the eastbound lanes on Lark Avenue to convert the existing right-turn only lane to a shared through/right turn lane, with the following final configuration: one left turn lane (onto State Route 17) two through lanes, and one shared through/right turn lane at Garden Hill Drive. CUM-TR-2 The following signal light adjustments shall be completed no later than the occupancy of 50 percent of the retail square footage. a. Increase cycle length and associated green time to accommodate the increase in traffic. Utilities New or Expanded Utilities Facilities See note. Note: This impact is mitigated through measures presented for air quality, hazardous materials, and noise. Less than significant Utilities Wasteful use of Fuel, Water, or Energy See note. None Note: This impact is mitigated through measures presented for air quality and transportation/traffic. Less than significant Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2014
NORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
3-32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-1
4.0
C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS
CEQA Guidelines section 15132 requires that a Final EIR contain either the draft EIR or a
revision of the Draft EIR. This Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR by reference and includes
the revisions to the Draft EIR, as presented on the following pages.
4.2 CHANGES M ADE
This section contains text, tables, and/or graphics from the Draft EIR with changes indicated.
Additions to the text are shown with underlined text (underline) and deletions are shown with
strikethrough text (strikethrough). Explanatory notes in italic text (italic) precede each revision.
Also refer to Section 4.0 Revised Summary for a summary of the Draft EIR that reflects changes
made as a result of the public review process.
The Table of Contents is corrected to include Appendix N Utilities.
For changes to the Summary, refer to Section 3.0 Revised Summary.
The Summary Table is corrected on page S-5 to capture text that overran the box.
The Summary Table is revised on page S-11 to change the Residual Impact for Mitigation Measure CR-1 to
Significant and Unavoidable.
The Summary Table is revised on page S-18 to reflect changes to Mitigation Measure NOI-1, as noted
below.
The Summary Table is revised on page S-24 to reflect changes to Mitigation Measure TR-1, as noted below.
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The Summary Table is corrected on page S-26 to add Transportation/Traffic to the Issue of Concern
column.
The Summary Table is revised on page S-26 to add Mitigation Measure TR-8.
The Summary Table is corrected on page S-27 to list the Residual Impact for Mitigation Measure CUM-
TR-1 and CUM-TR-2 as Less than Significant.
Text on page 2-24 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify the Specific Plan open space requirements regarding
increased height.
The Draft Specific Plan requires at least 30 percent (about 13.2 acres) of the Plan Area be
retained in open space, both as hardscaped open space and landscaped open space. Hardscaped
areas (sidewalks, paseos, plazas) are required to occupy at least 10 percent of the Plan Area
(about 4.4 acres). Parking and roadways are not counted toward the hardscaped open space
requirement. Green open space is required to occupy at least 20 percent of the Plan Area (about
8.8 acres). If increased height is permitted for buildings in the Transition District (from 35-foot
up to 45-foot height), then the green open space requirement for that property (or group of
properties under a single Architecture and Site Review) increases to 25 by five percent of the
building footprint that exceeds 35 feet for that property.
Text on page 2-24 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify the Specific Plan allows increased heights for both
residential and non-residential buildings
The Draft Specific Plan includes additional detailed standards for non-residential and residential
uses. The detailed non-residential standards provide information on building height limits,
limitations on retail store sizes, and the design of outdoor ancillary uses, such as storage or
disposal. In general, non-residential buildings can be no higher than 35 feet (or up to 45 feet if
additional open space is provided or the project is for affordable housing), but several exceptions
allow for additional height, the limit to which is to be determined by the Town in issuing a
conditional use permit and architecture and site review approval. Hotels are limited to 45 feet
unless the Town grants a conditional use permit and architecture and site approval to allow
additional height. Certain building elements are permitted to exceed the height limits. The
detailed residential standards control setbacks and exceptions to setbacks, landscaping, and
building height. In general, residential buildings are allowed to be up to 35 feet in height, but
exceptions are allowed up to 45 feet, and in the Lark District, at least 15 percent of buildings
must be no more than 25 feet high. In the Transitional zone, any building may exceed 45 feet
with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-3
Text on pages 2-42 and 2-43 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify that the objective is to provide affordable
units at the rate of 20 percent of the market rate units.
2. Provide a residential program that designates a variety of development intensities to help
achieve the Town’s unmet needs, including the young working professionals and empty-
nester move-down buyers, as well as complies with the Town of Los Gatos Housing
Element, with the number of units having sales prices or rents for low income earners
equal to a minimum of 20 percent of the market rate residential units having sales prices or
rents for low income earners.
Text on page 3-8 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify that architectural features in excess of the height limit
may not exceed 30 percent of the length of the parapet on the given building façade.
Architectural features (towers, cupolas, roof pitches of 8:12 or greater, etc.) are allowed to
exceed the height limit, but not by more than 30 percent of the length of the parapet on the
given building facade. This exception provides for both architectural enhancements and
accommodation of mechanical equipment. The Draft Specific Plan does not provide a
maximum additional height that is allowed for these features. As an example of the
additional height that might be allowed, a 30-foot wide building with a 6:12 roof pitch
could add 7.5 feet of height (.5 foot rise per foot of run times 15-foot span), for a maximum
height of 42.5 feet (35 feet plus 7.5 feet for this height exception).
Text on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify the description of approval requirements for height
exceptions.
Each of these exceptions requires Architecture and Site Review and is subject to required
findings. The Planning Commission must also approve a conditional use permit for most height
exceptions, subject to required findings. Such determinations are appealable to the Town
Council. The effect of Plan Area buildings on scenic vistas cannot be precisely determined
without specific building designs; however, the Draft Specific Plan requires that building height
may not have significant adverse effects on the ridgeline, which must be confirmed through
Planning Commission review and approval. The tops of buildings are expected to be below the
ridgeline, as discussed below.
Text on page 3-16 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect that the General Plan’s height limits range from 35
feet to 45 feet.
Building Height. The effect of proposed building height limits on views and visual character is
discussed earlier. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan establishes building height limits of 35
to 50 45 feet within the Town. The Draft Specific Plan, as a subset of, and an amendment to the
General Plan, may establish a height limit within the boundaries of the Plan Area. If the Town
Council adopts the Draft Specific Plan with the proposed height limits, the new height limits
would be automatically consistent with the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan.
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The impact statement on page 3-73 of the Draft EIR is revised to change the significance determination.
Less-than-Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation: Adverse Change
to Historical Resources
Text on page 3-77 of the Draft EIR is revised in response to public comment in order to reflect the change to
the determination in significance. This change in conclusion is not based upon new facts, but reflects the
Town's reconsideration of this part of the EIR in light of the findings of the historical reports, as suggested in
public comments. Neither the proposed project nor the substance of the impacts to existing historic resources
has been changed.
To reflect the historic and agricultural heritage of the Plan Area and the Town, the Draft Specific
Plan incorporates architectural design requirements and orchard plantings along the Los Gatos
Boulevard and/or Lark Avenue frontages. Despite these Draft Specific Plan provisions, and the
condition and historic integrity of some of the structures, removal of potentially historic
resources would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following
mitigation measures would reduce this impact but not to a less-than-significant level.
Text on page 3-80 of the Draft EIR is revised concerning consistency with General Plan policies to reflect the
change in determination in significance for loss of potentially historic resources.
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation: Conflict with Plan Adopted for
Environmental Purposes
Historic Structures (Policies OSP-9.2, CD-12.1, CD-12.2, CD-12.3, CD-12.4, CD-12.9). The
Plan Area includes several buildings that have been identified as potentially historic. Refer to the
prior discussion of historic resources. Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would mitigate the
impact to potentially significant buildings, but not to a less-than-significant level. As mitigated,
however, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with these Town of Los Gatos 2020
General Plan policies relating to historic resources and adopted to prevent environmental effects
because these policies do not prohibit the demolition of historic structures or require that all
historic structures in the Town must be retained.
Text on page 3-132 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect that the Plan Area is within the dam failure
inundation area, based on mapping prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
No Less-than-Significant Impact: Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow
The Plan Area is not within a 100-year flood zone. The Plan Area is shown in the Town of Los
Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR and on Federal Emergency Management Agency maps as being
located within the 500-year flood zone (Draft EIR Figure 4.8-1; General Plan Figure SAF-4;
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-5
Federal Emergency Management Agency 2009), so flooding, if it were to occur, would be
infrequent, and most likely minor. The Plan Area is outside of within a dam failure inundation
areas (Draft EIR Figure 4.8-2; General Plan Figure SAF-5 Santa Clara Valley Water District
2014). The Plan Area is downstream of the Lenihan Dam at Lexington Reservoir on Los Gatos
Creek, but the Plan Area is protected from and subject to flooding in the event of a dam failure.
Flood waters are expected to remain on the west side of State Route 17 in the event of a dam
failure. Lenihan Dam was seismically upgraded in the past five years, and the state inspects
dams regularly to ensure safety; therefore, dam failure is unlikely, and the impact is considered
less than significant.
The Plan Area is not located adjacent to a large body of water, so seiches and tsunamis are not
possible. The Plan Area is essentially level, and is surrounded by essentially level ground, so
mudflows are not possible.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 on page 3-163 of the Draft EIR is revised for consistency with the noise report,
revising “300 feet along Lark Avenue” to “200 feet” and “50 feet west of Highland Oaks Drive to “150 feet.”
NOI-1. A noise barrier shall be constructed commencing at the south end of the existing noise barrier along
State Route 17, and continuing south to Lark Avenue and east along Lark Avenue for approximately
300 200 feet (or approximately 50 150 feet of west of Highland Oaks Drive). From the existing noise
barrier to a point approximately 200 feet north of Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 14 feet tall;
from that point to Lark Avenue, the noise barrier shall be 12 feet tall, and along Lark Avenue the
noise barrier shall be 10 feet tall for a length of about 100 feet and 8 feet tall thereafter. The noise
barrier shall have a decorative design and/or include plantings or a planting buffer that would
improve the appearance of the barrier from State Route 17 and Lark Avenue.
Text on page 3-201 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect a more current date for which the Valley
Transportation Plan 2040 is scheduled for adoption, per the Valley Transportation Plan 2040 Development
Matrix, dated June 10, 2014.
Valley Transportation Plan 2040 is scheduled for adoption in March August 2014, and has a
similar list of projects in the vicinity of the Plan Area (Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority 2013b).
Mitigation Measure TR-1 on page 3-220 of the Draft EIR is revised to include alternative mitigation that
could be applied in the event that the Burton Road widening cannot occur prior to initial development
within the Northern District.
TR-1. The following intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan
Drive/Burton Road intersection by the first project developer within the Northern District of the Plan
Area.
a. conversion of the existing eastbound lane on Burton Road to a through/left turn lane;
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
b. addition of one dedicated eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound right turn lane on Burton
Road at Los Gatos Boulevard (including widening Burton Road for about 200 feet west from
Los Gatos Boulevard).
In the event that the necessary right-of-way for Burton Road widening cannot be obtained prior to
initial development within the Northern District, an alternative access street shall be completed and
supplemental traffic analyses shall be conducted to demonstrate that adequate ingress and egress can
be provided by other routes within the Plan Area.
Text on page 3-222 of the Draft EIR is revised to indicate that the existing LOS E is an acceptable level of
service on this freeway segment. This text is also revised to indicate that a significant effect occurs under both
development scenario A and B.
Freeway Segments. The proposed project would contribute to regional increases in highway
traffic, and increased delays on State Route 17 and State Route 85. Town of Los Gatos 2020
General Plan Policy TRA-1.1 states that development shall not exceed transportation capacity.
The transportation impact analysis includes evaluation of 14 freeway segments. With
development scenario A, project-generated traffic added to existing conditions would not
degrade traffic flow from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, nor increase traffic by one
percent or more of capacity on any of the studied segments. With both development scenarios B,
project-generated traffic would exceed one percent of capacity on the southbound State Route 85
mixed flow lanes from Winchester Boulevard to State Route 17. This segment already currently
operates at acceptable LOS F E. (Fehr and Peers 2014, Table 15). This would be a significant
environmental impact. The transportation impact analysis does not propose mitigation to
address adverse freeway segment effects.
A new mitigation measure is added on page 2-223 to partially reduce the effects of traffic on southbound
State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17.
Mitigation Measure
TRA-8. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the building applicant shall submit a transportation
development impact fee to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the purpose of off-
setting the cost of operational improvements on southbound State Route 85 between Winchester
Boulevard and State Route 17 (“affected segment”). The fee shall be negotiated between the developers
and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, based on the number of project trips that
exceed one percent of project trips on the affected segment (the significance threshold), and based on the
proportionate number of trips projected for the subject building(s) in accordance with the North Forty
Traffic Impact Analysis. The project cost to which the share of responsibility shall be applied shall be
determined by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the affected segment.
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-7
The mitigation measure would reduce impacts on State Route 85, but the payment of fees may
not completely mitigate the impact, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The last paragraph on page 3-228 of the Draft EIR is revised to correct a grammatical error.
Countywide Bicycle Route 16B. County wide route 16B passes through the Los Gatos
Boulevard/Samaritan Drive intersection. San Jose Bike Plan 2020 proposes Class II bike lanes on
Samaritan Drive. The proposed project would result in significant level of service impacts at this
intersection, but the required street improvements would not alter the existing geometry on
Samaritan Drive, or effect affect the potential to develop bicycle facilities.
Text on page 3-246 of the Draft EIR is corrected to state that wastewater generation would be 236,000
gallons rather than 131,600 gallons.
Wastewater treatment would occur at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant
located in Alviso. The treatment plant has a licensed capacity of 167 mgd and the flow rate in
2010 was below 110 mgd, which represented a drop of over 20 mgd since 2000. The treatment
plant has a planned capacity of 450 mgd. The proposed project’s wastewater flow was estimated
based on generation factors of 250 gallons per day per residence and 70 gallons per day per 1,000
square feet for commercial uses (RMC Water and Environment 2009). Plan Area build-out
would result in the generation of approximately 131,600 236,000 gallons of wastewater per day.
Text on page 4-12 of the Draft EIR is revised to correct the impact characterization from significant and
unavoidable to mitigated to a less than significant level.
Traffic impacts at the National Avenue/Samaritan Drive intersection would remain be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level and unavoidable, as described in Section 3.13 Transportation and
Traffic.
Table 33 on page 5-17 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect a change in the determination of significance for
Cultural Resources.
4.0 CHANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR
4-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Table 33 Summary of Project Alternatives Effects
Topic Proposed Project No Project Increased
Residential
Decreased
Commercial
Historic
Preservation
Aesthetics Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar
Agricultural Res. Less than Significant Reduced Similar Similar
Air Quality Mitigated Reduced Reduced Similar
Biological Resources Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar
Cultural Resources Mitigated
Significant Unavoidable
Reduced Similar Reduced
Geology and Soils Less than Significant Similar Similar Similar
Greenhouse Gasses Less than Significant Reduced Reduced Similar
Hazardous Mat. Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar
Hydro/Water Quality Mitigated Reduced Reduced Similar
Land Use/Planning Mitigated Similar Similar Similar
Noise Mitigated Reduced Increased Similar
Public Services Less than Significant Reduced Similar Similar
Transportation Significant Unavoidable Reduced Reduced Similar
Utilities Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar
Rank 1 2 3
Source: EMC Planning Group 2013
Note: Environmental effects noted as decreased, similar to, of increased compared with the unmitigated proposed project.
Text on page 6-2 and 6-3 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect the change in determination regarding loss of
potentially historic buildings, and to correct an error regarding significant unavoidable impacts on State
Route 85.
Cultural Resources
The proposed project would result in the removal of buildings within the Plan Area that have
been identified as potentially historic, having as association with the area’s agricultural past. Six
buildings (or groups of buildings on a single site) are listed in the historic resources evaluation as
NORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 4-9
potentially eligible as state historic resources. The Plan Area appears to maintain a strong
association with Santa Clara Valley’s peak era of horticultural production from 1910-1929.
During this period the area was known as “The Valley of Heart’s Delight,” and orchards covered
the area surrounding Los Gatos, and the Santa Clara Valley in general. Mitigation Measures are
included in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, that would reduce the significance of the impact,
but not to a less-than-significant level.
Transportation and Traffic
The proposed project would add new trips amounting to more than one percent of the existing
volume on a State Route 85 segment that currently operates at unacceptable levels of service.
With under both development scenarios A, project-generated traffic added to existing conditions
would not degrade traffic flow from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, nor increase
traffic by one percent or more of capacity on any of the studied segments. With development
scenario B, project-generated traffic would exceed one percent of capacity on the southbound
State Route 85 mixed flow lanes from Winchester Boulevard to State Route 17. This segment
already currently operates at LOS EF. (Fehr and Peers 2014, Table 15). This would be a
significant environmental impact. The transportation impact analysis does not propose
mitigation to address adverse freeway segment effects. Mitigation Measure TR-8 would require
payment of a development impact fee, but this measure would not reduce the impact to a less-
than-significant level.
VTA and Caltrans are currently planning a project on State Route 85 that would convert the
existing high occupancy vehicle lanes into high occupancy/toll lanes. If the State Route 85 high
occupancy/toll lanes are implemented, the proposed project’s impacts would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
In Appendix G, additional historic evaluation material is added (see end of this section).
In Appendix M, page v of the transportation impact analysis is revised.
SR 17 NB and Lark Avenue
The on-ramp has two single-occupant vehicle (SOV) lanes which are metered during the AM
peak hour at a minimum rate of 330 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) and a maximum rate of
900 vphpl. The ramps have a vehicle storage length of 700 feet per lane. Under Existing plus
Project and Background plus Project conditions, both project alternatives are projected to add
vehicle trips equal to more than one percent of capacity to the on-ramp during both the AM and
PM peak hours. Analysis indicates that Tthe additional queue resulting from adding project
traffic can be accommodated within the existing vehicle storage length and by adjusting the
metering rate to appropriately meter traffic such that queues would not impact Lark Avenue, as
shown in Table 16 and Table 26.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 5 *Resource Name or #: 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Los Gatos Date: 2012 T 8 S ; R 1W ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M.
c. Address: 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard City: Los Gatos Zip: 95032
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: APN 424-07-086 Elevation:
*P3a. Description:
This one-story contemporary vernacular commercial structure is complex in plan and operates as a bar. The wood-
frame building has a mix of stucco cladding and horizontal, vertical and diagonal wood siding. A false storefront at
the entrance of the building has river rock at the base and a parapet just above the door clad in tile. River rock
planters flank each side of the glazed entry door. The false front features a shed roof while the main structure has a
cross gable roof. Rear additions have a flat roof. A variety of window types are found around the building – metal
sliders and fixed wood. A corrugated sheet metal roof shelters a paneled side door. Two substantial square posts
support this roof. Steps, with a metal railing, lead up to the side door. Several additions have been completed off the
rear of the structure. Alterations to the building include window replacement, cladding replacement, the addition of
the false front and other additions off the rear. The overall condition of the commercial structure is fair.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: Single Family Property, HP2; Ancillary Building HP4
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Front elevation,
June 23, 2014
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1933
*P7. Owner and Address:
Robert Spinazze
19249 Citrus Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
*P8. Recorded by:
Hisashi Sugaya/Elizabeth Graux
Carey & Co., Inc.
460 Bush St., San Francisco, 94108
*P9. Date Recorded:
June 2014
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: none
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
Page 2 of 5 *NRHP Status Code 6Z
*Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Bar/tavern
*B5. Architectural Style: Contemporary vernacular
*B6. Construction History:
Constructed circa 1933; The building has a new false front and additions to the rear of the original building.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
Driveway and parking to the south and east. Rock garden in front yard.
B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme: Santa Clara Valley Agriculture Area: Northern Los Gatos
Period of Significance: c. 1940 Property Type: Single-family residence Applicable Criteria: N/A
The small parcel at 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard was once part of Mexican-era Rancho Rinconada de Los Gatos. The rancho was
established by an 1840 grant made by Governor Juan Alvarado to Jose Maria Hernandez and Sebastian Fabian Peralta. The 6,631-
acre land grant included the present-day cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and portions of Campbell. Its major feature was Los
Gatos Creek, which ran through the center of the property.
See continuation sheet.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
See continuation sheet
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Hisashi Sugaya/Elizabeth Grauz, Carey & Co., Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: June 2014
(This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 3 of 5 *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard
*Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya/Elizabeth Graux, Carey & Co., Inc. *Date: June 2014
Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Significance: (Continued)
By 1876, the land which included the subject property was listed as being owned by Robert Walker on a Thompson & West map.
Robert Walker, a native of Canada, purchased property and moved to Los Gatos in 1871. Walker married Eliza Jane Parr, whose
father owned 3,000 acres of land on both sides of the Los Gatos Creek. Robert and Eliza had three children, Leslie, Myrtle, and
Vivian, between whom they subdivided much of their land holdings following Eliza’s death in 1893. Leslie Walker’s 54 acre
parcel was located directly north of the Walker Tract Subdivision and south of Myrtle Walker Johnson’s 55 acre parcel.1 The
subject parcel appears to have been within Leslie Walker’s former land holdings along Los Gatos Boulevard.
Los Gatos Boulevard was known as San Jose-Los Gatos Road from the late 1880s through to around 1950. This name derived
simply because the road connected San Jose to Los Gatos. Around 1950 the road name was changed to South Bascom Avenue. By
the early 1970s the road name was changed again to Los Gatos Boulevard. As the road continues north into the San Jose city
limits and past Highway 85 the name remains South Bascom Avenue.
The building does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR under Criterion A/1. It did not play a significant
role in the Agricultural growth of the Santa Clara Valley. Additionally, it does not appear to be eligible under NRHP/CRHR
Criteria B/2, C/3, or D/4. No persons have been identified that appear to have made a significant contribution to local, state, or
national history. Constructed c.1933, the house does not appear to be a significant example of an architectural type especially
since it has been extensively modified so that the original design is obscured except for its gable roof form . Lastly, the house does
not appear to possess the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, state, or the nation.
The evaluation of historic significance is two step process with the first being an assessment of whether the property meets any of
the four criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. The second step is an evaluation of the property’s integrity. There are seven
aspects of intergty: location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling and association. For 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard, the
above analysis of the criteria for listing concludes the property does not appear to be eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. In
addition, the property has been subject to extensive changes that have affected its integrity of design, materials, workmanship,
setting, feeling and association, thus further precluding its eligibility for listing in either the NRHP or the CRHR.
B12. References: (continued)
“5-Story Hotel Proposed at Lark/Hwy 17.” Los Gatos Observer. June 13, 2007.
Aerial photographs of the Los Gatos area on file at the California Room, San Jose Public Library. 1948, 1960, 1968, 1981
Arbuckle, Clyde. History of San Jose. San Jose, CA: South & McKay Printing Co., 1986.
Archives & Architecture. County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement. San Jose, CA: County of Santa Clara Department of
Planning and Development, December 2004, revised February 2011.
Bloomfield, Anne. Los Gatos Historic Resources Survey. San Francisco, CA: June 28, 1991.
Brutz, George G. The History of Los Gatos, Gem of the Foothills. Santa Cruz, CA: Western Tanager Press, 1983.
California Register and National Register: A Comparison, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series,
no. 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2006.
California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process, California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance
Series, no. 5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 4 of 5 *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard
*Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya/Elizabeth Graux, Carey & Co., Inc. *Date: June 2014
Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Conway, Peggy. Images of America, Los Gatos. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
___. Images of America, Los Gatos. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2007.
Dallas, Alastair. Los Gatos Observed: The Architecture & History of Los Gatos, California. Los Gatos, CA: Infospect Press,
1999.
Directories of San Jose City and Santa Clara County. 1887-1934.
Gebhard, David, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge. A Guide to the Architecture of
San Francisco and Northern California. Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1973.
How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, no. 15.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1997.
How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, National Register Bulletin, no. 16A. Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of the Interior, 1997.
Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: California Office of Historic Preservation, 1995.
Kyle, Douglas E. Historic Spots in California. Revised edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Los Gatos Building Permits. Various permits accessed through Citizen Portal
https://permits.losgatosca.gov/CitizenAccess/Default.aspx (accessed February 2013).
Los Gatos Directory. 1902, 1924, 1925
Los Gatos Telephone Directory. 1965,
Los Gatos Library Local History Collection Clippings Files:
Agriculture: Orchards/Crops
Families: Yuki Family.
Los Gatos Public Library. Hooked on Los Gatos. http://historylosgatos.org/ (accessed March 2013).
“Los Gatos’ Yuki Family Sells 32 Acres, Mixed-Use Planned.” Business Journal. July 11, 2010.
Mathews, Stephanie Ross et al. Postcard History Series: Los Gatos. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2009.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.
Mrs. Myrtle Johnson, Obituary. Los Gatos Time. October 24, 1941.
Poppeliers, John C. et al. What Style is it? A Guide to American Architecture. Washington D. C.: The National Trust for Historic
Preservation, 1983.
Olmsted, Roger and T. H. Watkins. Here Today: San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1978.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 5 of 5 *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard
*Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya/Elizabeth Graux, Carey & Co., Inc. *Date: June 2014
Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
Santa Clara County Building Inspections Department. Various building permit records ranging from 1947-1991. On file at the
Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development.
Santa Clara County Official Records. Various deeds on file at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk Recorder.
Santa Clara County Planning Department. Various planning files. On file at the Santa Clara County Department of Planning and
Development.
Sawyer, Eugene T. History of Santa Clara County California. Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company, 1922.
Taylor, Frank J. “The People Nobody Wants.” The Saturday Evening Post. May 9, 1942.
United States Federal Census. http://www.ancestry.com (accessed March 2013)
1880. California, Redwood Township.
1900. California, Redwood Township.
1910. California, Redwood Township.
1920. California, Redwood Township.
1940. California, Redwood Township.
User’s Guide to California Historical Resource Status Code & Historic Resources Inventory Directory. California State Office of
Historic Preservation. Technical Assistance Bulletin, no. 8. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and
Recreation, November 2004.
Photogrsaphs Continued
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-1
5.0
M ITIGATION M ONITORING
AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
5.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring
programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative
declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.
The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of
project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse
environmental effects.
The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures
presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project
approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and
thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and
enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is
designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions
of project approval are implemented.
5.2 MONITORING P ROGRAM
The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project EIR.
These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental
effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures become conditions of project
approval, which the project proponent is required to complete during and after implementation
of the proposed project.
5.0 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
5-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The attached monitoring program, which begins on the following page, is proposed for
monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring program contains
all appropriate mitigation measures in the environmental impact report.
5.3 MONITORING P ROGRAM P ROCEDURES
The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department is responsible for coordination
of the monitoring program. The Community Development Department should be responsible
for completing the monitoring program and distributing the monitoring program to the
responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures.
Each listed responsible individual or agency is responsible for determining whether the
mitigation measures contained in the monitoring program have been complied with. Once all
mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should
submit a copy of the monitoring program with evidence of compliance to the Community
Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been
complied with, the monitoring program should not be returned to the Community Development
Department.
The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department will review the monitoring
program to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions of project
approval included in the monitoring program have been complied with at the appropriate time,
e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is required for
project approvals.
If a responsible individual or agency determines that non-compliance has occurred, a written
notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy
to the Community Development Department, describing the non-compliance and requiring
compliance within a specified period of time. If non-compliance still exists at the expiration of
the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the
discretion of the Town of Los Gatos.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-3
3.1 Aesthetics
AES-1. New development adjacent to residential
uses existing at the time of Specific Plan adoption
shall provide minimum five foot side and rear
setbacks to those residential uses.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
3.3 Air Quality
AQ-1. Low NOX emitting heating systems shall
be required for commercial, office, and hotel uses.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
AQ-2. Parking lots shall provide charging
stations at a rate of no less than one percent of
parking spaces.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
AQ-3. All commercial developments shall
incorporate energy reduction measures, including
cool pavement materials, cool roof materials,
and/or renewable energy sources, such as on-site
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
solar power, to partially off-set electricity needs
within the Plan Area. Common areas within
commercial, office, and hotel developments shall
utilize solar-generated or other renewable source
electricity, or provide facilities for contribution of
a like amount of renewable electricity to the
electric grid.
Party:
Applicant.
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
AQ-4. The developer(s) shall implement basic
dust control measures at all on-site and off-site
locations where grading or excavation takes
place. The developer(s) shall implement
additional dust control measures at all on-site and
off-site locations where grading or excavation
takes place within 200 feet of residential
properties.
Basic Dust Control Measures:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,
staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day;
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent
public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The
use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 mph;
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be
paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used; and
f. Post a publicly visible sign(s) with the telephone
number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints. This person shall
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit.
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-5
respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.
Additional Dust Measures
g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition
activities shall be suspended when average wind
speeds exceed 20 mph;
h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating
native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed
areas as soon as possible and watered
appropriately until vegetation is established; and
i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to
six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch,
or gravel.
AQ-5. High efficiency filtration (MERV rating of
13 or greater) on ventilation systems shall be
required in residential, hotel, and office units
located in areas along State Route 17 identified in
the EIR as having cancer risk in excess of 10 cases
per million.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
AQ-6. Ground-level outdoor residential yards
that are not oriented to the Los Gatos Boulevard
side of the Plan Area, shall be located no closer
than 100 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-
way prior to 2015, and, subject to air hazards
modeling to confirm, no closer than 50 feet from
the State Route 17 right-of-way thereafter (when
diesel fuel and engine changes will reduce diesel
emissions levels).
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
3.4 Biological Resources
BIO-1. If noise generation, ground disturbance,
vegetation removal, or other construction
activities begin during the nesting bird season
(February 1 to August 31), or if construction
activities are suspended for at least two weeks and
recommence during the nesting bird season, then
the project developer shall retain a qualified
biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for
nesting birds. The survey shall be performed
within suitable nesting habitat areas on the project
site, and as feasible within 250 feet of the site
boundary, to ensure that no active nests would be
disturbed during project implementation. This
survey shall be conducted no more than two
weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance and/or
construction activities. A report documenting the
survey results and plan for active bird nest
avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the
qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of
Los Gatos for review and approval prior to
disturbance and/or construction activities.
If no active bird nests are detected during the
survey, then project activities can proceed as
scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a
native species is detected during the survey, then
a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall
determine and clearly delineate an appropriately
sized, temporary protective buffer area around
each active nest, depending on the nesting bird
species, existing site conditions, and type of
proposed disturbance and/or construction
activities. The protective buffer area around an
active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet,
determined at the discretion of the qualified
biologist and in compliance with applicable
project permits.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit –
note
seasonal
requirement.
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-7
To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active
bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or
construction activities shall occur within the
protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds
have fledged (left the nest), and there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as
determined by the qualified biologist.
The developer(s) shall be responsible for the
implementation of this mitigation measure,
subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos.
BIO-2. To avoid impacts to burrowing owls, a
qualified biologist will conduct a two-visit (i.e.
morning and evening) pre-construction
presence/absence survey at all areas of suitable
habitat on and within 300 feet of the construction
site within 30 days prior to the start of
construction. Surveys will be conducted
according to methods described in the Revised
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
(California Department of Fish and Wildlife
2012).
If pre-construction surveys are undertaken during
the breeding season (February through August)
and locate active nest burrows near construction
zones, then these nests and a 200-meter (600-foot)
exclusion zone will be delineated which must
remain off-limits to ground-disturbing activities
until the breeding season is over. The exclusion
zone shall be clearly delineated/fenced, and work
could proceed within the exclusion zone after the
biologist has determined that fledglings were
capable of independent flight and the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife has approved
the recommencement of work inside the
exclusion zone, or has authorized physical
relocation of the owls. Nesting owl pairs
physically relocated (after consultation and
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit –
note
seasonal
requirement.
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
approval from the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife) as a consequence of construction
activities are typically provided a habitat
replacement mitigation ratio of 6.5 acres per owl
pair/territory relocated.
The project developer(s) shall be responsible for
the implementation of this mitigation measure,
subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos.
BIO-3. To avoid impacting active bat roosts, if
present, any vacant buildings on the site proposed
for removal that are boarded up prior to
construction (dark in the daytime) shall be opened
in the winter months (prior to mid-March) to
allow in light, making these areas non-suitable for
use as bat roosts.
The developer(s) shall be responsible for the
implementation of this mitigation measure,
subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit - note
seasonal
requirement.
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction.
BIO-4. Mature trees removed due to project
implementation shall be removed in two stages
(with the limbs removed one day, and the main
trunk removed on a subsequent day) to allow any
potentially present day-roosting bats the
opportunity to relocate. If bat roosts are
encountered during tree removal, a bat specialist
shall be hired to assist in any relocation efforts.
The developer(s) shall be responsible for the
implementation of this mitigation measure,
subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit.
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction.
BIO-5. Prior to tree removal, a Tree Preservation
Report or Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared
by a qualified arborist, and a Tree Removal
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Director of
Community
Development.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-9
Permit shall be obtained stipulating exactly how
many protected trees of each species will be
removed and how many will then be required as
replacement plantings, along with where they can
be planted, and any applicable maintenance
requirements. Retained trees shall be protected
during construction according to the measures
specified in the Tree Protection Ordinance (Town
of Los Gatos 2003).
The project developer(s) shall be responsible for
the implementation of this mitigation measure,
subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit.
Monitoring
prior to and
during
construction.
3.5 Cultural Resources
CR-1. Prior to demolition of buildings within the
Plan Area identified as potentially historic
resources, the developer(s) shall prepare
photographic documentation of the buildings
meeting the documentation standards of the
Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic
American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER),
as presented in the North 40 Specific Plan
Historic Resources Technical Report. The historic
documentation shall be prepared at Level IV
(sketch plan, digital photographs of exterior and
interior views, and HABS/HAER inventory
cards) for the potentially historic buildings. No
historic documentation shall be required for the
orchard, except as may be incidentally included in
the documentation of the structures.
The developer(s) shall prepare, or retain a
qualified professional who meets the standards for
architectural historian and/or historical architect
set forth by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards, 36 CFR 61) to prepare documentation
of historic resources prior to any construction
work associated with demolition or removal.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Demolition
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
The Town of Los Gatos shall identify appropriate
repositories for housing the historical
documentation at the time of the project-level
analysis. An interpretive display shall be
incorporated into the design of commercial
development within the Plan Area.
CR-2. For potentially historic buildings proposed
for retention at existing locations, the project
sponsor shall prepare a historic structure(s) report
(HSR) for the historic resource as a guide to the
rehabilitation. The HSR shall set forth the history
of the resource, describe its existing condition,
make recommendations for repair, rehabilitation,
replacement, reconstruction, and other treatments
based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings. The HSR shall be prepared by
a licensed architect who meets the qualifications
for historical architect as set forth in the Secretary
of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional
Qualification Standards, published in the Federal
Register, June 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number
119).
The project sponsor shall retain the services of a
historical architect as a member of the design
team for the rehabilitation. The historical
architect may be the same historical architect who
prepared the HSR, without encountering a
conflict of interest.
The Town of Los Gatos shall review the
rehabilitation plans prepared by the project
architect for compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
Monitoring
prior to
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-11
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
The HSR shall specify procedures for protecting
historic resources and a monitoring method to be
employed by the contractor while working near
the affected resource. At a minimum, the plan
shall address the operation of construction
equipment near adjacent historical resources,
storage of construction materials away from
adjacent resources, and education/training of
construction workers about the significance of the
historical resources.
CR-3. For grading or excavations deeper than
four feet below the existing surface, a qualified
archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the
excavations. The archaeologist shall be present
on-site to observe a representative sample of deep
grading or excavations in at least three areas
within the Plan Area until satisfied that there is
no longer a significant potential for finding buried
resources. In the event that any potentially
significant archaeological resources (i.e., potential
historical resources or unique archaeological
resources) are discovered, the project
archaeologist shall designate a zone in which
additional archaeological resources could be
found and in which work shall be stopped. A plan
for the evaluation of the resource shall be
submitted to the Community Development
Director for approval. Evaluation normally takes
the form of limited hand excavation and analysis
of materials and information removed to
determine if the resource is eligible for inclusion
on the California Register of Historic Resources.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Encroach-
ment Permit,
or Building
Permit.
Monitoring:
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
In the event that significant paleontological,
historic, and/or archaeological remains are
uncovered during excavation and/or grading in
the absence of an archaeological monitor, all
work shall stop in the area of the subject property
until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find
and, if necessary, develop an appropriate data
recovery program.
The Planning Division of the Community
Development Department shall be responsible for
ensuring the implementation of this mitigation
measure. Costs will be the responsibility of the
developer(s).
CR-4. If human remains are found during
construction activities, no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains until the archeological monitor and the
coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it
is determined that the remains are Native
American, the coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
The Native American Heritage Commission shall
identify the person or persons it believes to be the
most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased
Native American. The MLD may then make
recommendations to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work, for means of
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,
the human remains and associated grave goods as
provided in Public Resources Code section
5097.98. The landowner or his authorized
representative shall rebury the Native American
human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location
not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native
American Heritage Commission is unable to
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Encroach-
ment Permit,
or Building
Permit.
Monitoring
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-13
identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a
recommendation within 24 hours after being
notified by the commission; b) the descendent
identified fails to make a recommendation; or c)
the landowner or his authorized representative
rejects the recommendation of the descendent,
and the mediation by the Native American
Heritage Commission fails to provide measures
acceptable to the landowner.
The Planning Division of the Community
Development Department shall be responsible for
ensuring the implementation of these mitigation
measures. Costs will be the responsibility of the
developer(s).
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of permits for activities
involving grading or excavation within Lark
Avenue, the San Jose Water Company property,
the south end of the Plan Area (within the
contaminated area delineated on County of Santa
Clara Department of Environmental Health
records for the Lark Avenue Car Wash fuel leak
case), or immediately adjacent areas, the
developer shall consult with the Department of
Environmental Health regarding the potential for
disturbance of contaminated soils. The developer
shall either conduct pre-excavation soil testing at
an appropriate depth to the proposed work and
review results with the Department of
Environmental Health, or assume contamination
of the soils and proceed with appropriate
safeguards, established in consultation with the
Department of Environmental Health. Unless
pre-excavation soil testing shows no
contamination, post-excavation soil testing shall
be conducted. If testing shows soil contamination
levels are in excess of acceptable levels, the
developer shall implement appropriate protective
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Confirm
consultation
with DEH.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Encroach-
ment Permit,
or Building
Permit.
Monitoring:
Prior to and
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
measures in consultation with the Department of
Environmental Health, including worker
protocols and soil handling and disposal
protocols. The presence of contamination may
necessitate the use of workers who have been
properly trained in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.120. If soil testing shows acceptable
contamination levels, no further soils measures
may be required. If excavations reach free
groundwater, the developer shall stop work and
consult with the Department of Environmental
Health.
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of permits for activities
involving grading or excavation within Lark
Avenue, the San Jose Water Company property,
the south end of the Plan Area (within the
contaminated area delineated on County of Santa
Clara Department of Environmental Health
records for the Lark Avenue Car Wash fuel leak
case), or immediately adjacent areas, the
developer shall consult with the Department of
Environmental Health regarding the potential for
disturbance of contaminated soils. The developer
shall either conduct pre-excavation soil testing at
an appropriate depth to the proposed work and
review results with the Department of
Environmental Health, or assume contamination
of the soils and proceed with appropriate
safeguards, established in consultation with the
Department of Environmental Health. Unless
pre-excavation soil testing shows no
contamination, post-excavation soil testing shall
be conducted. If testing shows soil contamination
levels are in excess of acceptable levels, the
developer shall implement appropriate protective
measures in consultation with the Department of
Environmental Health, including worker
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Confirm
consultation
with DEH.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Encroach-
ment Permit,
or Building
Permit.
Monitoring:
prior to and
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-15
protocols and soil handling and disposal
protocols. The presence of contamination may
necessitate the use of workers who have been
properly trained in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.120. If soil testing shows acceptable
contamination levels, no further soils measures
may be required. If excavations reach free
groundwater, the developer shall stop work and
consult with the Department of Environmental
Health.
3.11 Noise
NOI-1. A noise barrier shall be constructed
commencing at the south end of the existing noise
barrier along State Route 17, and continuing
south to Lark Avenue and east along Lark
Avenue for approximately 200 feet (or
approximately 150 feet of west of Highland Oaks
Drive). From the existing noise barrier to a point
approximately 200 feet north of Lark Avenue the
noise barrier shall be 14 feet tall; from that point
to Lark Avenue, the noise barrier shall be 12 feet
tall, and along Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall
be 10 feet tall for a length of about 100 feet and 8
feet tall thereafter. The noise barrier shall have a
decorative design and/or include plantings or a
planting buffer that would improve the
appearance of the barrier from State Route 17 and
Lark Avenue.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
occupancy of
any new
residential
units or hotel
units.
NOI-2. Future development located on sites that
are shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR as
exceeding the normally acceptable noise level of
the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and
Town noise ordinance shall demonstrate that
building designs and placement adequately reduce
noise. If a study shows that actual noise (and
projected noise levels at Specific Plan build-out)
will exceed applicable Town noise standards, site
and/or building plans shall identify measures to
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
meet these standards. The developer(s) shall be
responsible for preparing noise studies and
implementing noise attenuation measures as
conditions of project approval and construction.
The developer(s) shall:
Identify outdoor use spaces and building design
or barrier walls to reduce environmental noise to
65 dBA Ldn or lower;
Identify exterior-to-interior sound insulation
measures, such as sound rated windows and
doors, to reduce environmental noise to 45 dBA
Ldn or lower indoors at residences and hotel
guest rooms; and
As windows will need to be closed to meet the
allowable interior noise level across the site,
residences and hotel guest rooms shall
incorporate ventilation or air-conditioning
systems to provide a habitable interior
environment, consistent with California Building
Code requirements. Systems must not
compromise sound-insulation of the building
shell.
NOI-3. Future development projects shall be
designed so that all podium buildings are oriented
to shield outdoor courtyards from the adjacent
roadways. Future development projects shall be
designed so that residences along Los Gatos
Boulevard incorporate noise barriers as needed to
shield outdoor use spaces. Outdoor use areas
(excluding outdoor areas that are principally
landscaped areas, parking areas, or sidewalks)
shall meet the 65 dBA Ldn or lower outdoor
noise standard. The applicant for each
development project shall submit building and
site plans demonstrating compliance with this
measure.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-17
NOI-4. Future non-residential development on
sites where the Ldn noise levels are 68 dBA or
higher as shown in the North 40 Specific Plan
EIR, shall include site-specific noise attenuating
building designs providing sound-rated
construction that will reduce interior levels to the
California Green Building Code requirement of
Leq-1hr 50 dBA or lower. Alternatively, the
developer(s) can demonstrate that exterior walls
and roofs have been designed to have sound
insulation ratings of STC 50 or higher, with
minimum STC 40 windows.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
NOI-5. Future development shall provide
building-specific designs to reduce stationary
noise source noise generation to the Town Code
standards, as described in The Los Gatos Town
Code Sections 16.20.15 to 16.20.025 and General
Plan Table NOI-2. These measures are expected
to include equipment selection and orientation,
noise barriers, roof screens and enclosures.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
NOI-6. Future development projects that include
vibration-sensitive facilities or businesses with
highly vibration-sensitive equipment shall
quantify vibration levels and demonstrate project-
specific building designs to reduce vibration to
acceptable levels.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
NOI-7. Future development projects including or
requiring roadway improvement projects along
Burton Way in the northern portion of the Plan
Area shall require a noise assessment prior to
approval if existing residential uses will remain
adjacent to the roadway improvements. The
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
assessment shall consider the orientation and
width of the roadway; location and design of
existing residences; and shall identify appropriate
mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise to
within the Town of Los Gatos noise standards.
This is expected to consist of sound-rated
windows and doors, and possible roadway noise
barriers.
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
NOI-8. Future development applications shall
identify the location and types of sensitive
receptors that may be affected by construction
noise and/or vibration. Measures to control
construction noise and address potential
complaints shall be proposed and called out in
site plans and/or building plans:
Consistent with the Town Code, construction
activities, which are authorized by a valid Town
permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit,
shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
weekends and holidays if they meet at least one of
the following noise limitations:
• No individual piece of equipment shall produce
a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at
twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located
within a structure on the property, the
measurement shall be made at distances as close
to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as
possible.
• The noise level at any point outside of the
property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85)
dBA.
Locate stationary and mobile noise generating
equipment as far as possible from sensitive
receptors. Staging areas shall not be located
adjacent to sensitive receptors, such as residences.
Conduct a pre-construction meeting with nearby
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Grading
Permit,
Demolition
Permit, or
Building
Permit.
Field
monitoring:
prior to and
during
construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-19
sensitive receptors to outline the construction
schedule and what types of noises with will hear.
Post construction schedules outside the
construction site.
Designate a point of contact that will be
responsible for responding to complaints about
noise during construction. Develop a process to
respond to and address complaints.
Submit a vibration study identifying the nearest
sensitive receivers, construction activity, and
mitigation measures as needed.
3.13 Transportation and Traffic
TR-1. The following intersection improvements
shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/
Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection by the
first project developer within the Northern
District of the Plan Area.
a. conversion of the existing eastbound lane on
Burton Road to a through/left turn lane;
b. addition of one dedicated eastbound left turn
lane and one eastbound right turn lane on Burton
Road at Los Gatos Boulevard (including
widening Burton Road for about 200 feet west
from Los Gatos Boulevard).
In the event that the necessary right-of-way for
Burton Road widening cannot be obtained prior
to initial development within the Northern
District, an alternative access street shall be
completed and supplemental traffic analyses shall
be conducted to demonstrate that adequate
ingress and egress can be provided by other routes
within the Plan Area.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to first
Occupancy
Permit for
commercial
development
within the
Northern
District.
TR-2. The following off-site intersection
improvements shall be completed at the Los
Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection by
the first project developer:
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Prior to issu-
ance of first
Occupancy
Permit.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
a. addition of a third eastbound left turn lane on
Lark Avenue;
b. addition of third northbound left turn lane on
Los Gatos Boulevard;
c. addition of a third westbound lane on Lark
Avenue from Los Gatos Boulevard to the
intersection of State Route 17 northbound ramps
to the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue
intersection, which will operate as a second right
turn lane east of the State Route 17 northbound
ramps/Lark Avenue intersection and to operate
as a through-right lane east of the Highland Oaks
Drive/Lark Avenue intersection; and
d. modification and re-striping of intersection and
restriction of parking as needed.
Party:
Applicant.
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
TR-3. Applicants for development or
redevelopment projects within the Northern
District shall pay a pro-rata share of
improvements at the Samaritan Drive/National
Avenue intersection or other improvement related
to relieving congestion at the Samaritan
Drive/National Avenue intersection.
Improvements could include, but are not limited
to, lane or traffic control improvements to the
Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection
and/or signalization of the Samaritan
Drive/Samaritan Court intersection. Pro-rata
share shall be based on percent of project trips,
per distribution patterns in the North 40
Transportation Impact Analysis, as a share of
total trips within the intersection. Fees shall be
paid to the City of San Jose prior to issuance of
building permits. The applicant shall pay the pro-
rata share of improvement as determined by the
Town of Los Gatos and City of San Jose. If a
specific improvement project has not been
identified, the fee shall be based on pro-rata share
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
any Building
Permit.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-21
of a traffic signal, and shall be proportionally
refundable if a less expensive project is developed.
TR-4. The developer(s) shall work with the
Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority regarding the provision of a shuttle
service or regularly scheduled direct bus route
service to the Vasona light rail station, to be in
service concurrent with commencement of
revenue service on the Vasona light rail extension.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Parties:
Applicant and
Town.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Consultation
with VTA.
Prior to
issuance of
Tentative
Maps.
TR-5. The developer(s) shall work with the
Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority, and other agencies to ensure that the
Plan Area is developed in a manner that takes full
advantage of the transit opportunities afforded by
the Vasona Light Rail.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Parties:
Applicant and
Town.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Consultation
with VTA.
Prior to
issuance of
Improve-
ment Plans.
TR-6. Development within the Lark District
near the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los
Gatos Boulevard shall provide a direct
pedestrian/bicycle access between residential
areas and the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard
and Lark Avenue.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Tentative
Maps.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
5-22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
TR-7. Either bicycle lanes or sharrows (shared
lane markings) shall be provided on A Street
between Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
The speed limit shall be no greater than 30 miles
per hour, and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs
(Caltrans sign R4-11) shall be placed on streets
marked with sharrows.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
issuance of
Improve-
ment Plans.
Prior to
acceptance
of improve-
ments.
TR-8. Prior to issuance of each building permit,
the building applicant shall submit a
transportation development impact fee to the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for
the purpose of off-setting the cost of operational
improvements on southbound State Route 85
between Winchester Boulevard and State Route
17 (“affected segment”). The fee shall be
negotiated between the developers and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, based on
the number of project trips that exceed one
percent of project trips on the affected segment
(the significance threshold), and based on the
proportionate number of trips projected for the
subject building(s) in accordance with the North
Forty Traffic Impact Analysis. The project cost to
which the share of responsibility shall be applied
shall be determined by the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority for the affected
segment.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Consultation
with VTA
and Caltrans.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
CUM-TR-1. Project developers shall pay a pro-
rata share towards the construction of the
following off-site intersection improvement at the
Lark Avenue/southbound State Route 17
onramps intersection.
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DATE: July 18, 2014
PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan
PD-14-001, Z-14-001
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 5-23
a. Reconfiguration of the eastbound lanes on Lark
Avenue to convert the existing right-turn only
lane to a shared through/right turn lane, with the
following final configuration: one left turn lane
(onto State Route 17) two through lanes, and one
shared through/right turn lane at Garden Hill
Drive.
Applicant. Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
CUM-TR-2. The following signal light
adjustments shall be completed no later than the
occupancy of 50 percent of the retail square
footage.
a. Increase cycle length and associated green time
to accommodate the increase in traffic
Required as a
Condition of
Approval.
Responsible
Party:
Applicant.
Director of
Community
Development.
Traffic
Engineer.
Ensure these
measures are
incorporated
into project
plans and
completed on
time.
Prior to
occupancy of
the first
Building
Permit
exceeding
290,000
square feet of
commercial
floor area
within the
Plan Area.
5.0 MITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM
5-24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.