16 Staff Report - 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 03/15/04 ITEM NO. 1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT March 10,2004 DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER CONSIDER AN APPEAL
OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYINGA ZONE CHANGEREQUEST OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FROM CH TO CH:PD TO' CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE ANDARCIDTECTUREAND SITEAPPROVALTODEMOLISH
A SINGLE FYRESIDENCE. NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A NEGATNE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. PLANNED . DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
PD-04-2, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-04-5 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-04-1 PROPERTYLOCATION: 15047LOS GATOS BOULEVARDAPN424-07087 PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: JOSCO PROPERTIES APPLICANT:
JOHN LIEN, ARCHITECT RECOMMENDATION: A. Staffrecommends denial of the proposed project. If Council decides to deny the project it should deny Planned Development Application PD-04-2
and Architecture and Site . application. 1. Accept report in the form ofmeeting minutes from the Planning Commission regarding a Planned Development and Architecture and Site application
at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard (Attachment 4). 2. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony; 3. Close the public hearing; B. If the Council decides to approve the proposed project
the following actions are required: 1. Make the Negative Declaration (Exhibit I of Attachment 6); 2. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Attachment 2); PREPARED BY: (Continued on page
2) 'R-., .. BUD N. LORTZ0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Reviewed by: PS.,)Assistant Town Manager :=£Attomey __Clerk Finance __Community Development Revised:
3/10/04 3:22 pm Refonnatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD March 10, 2004 3. Approve Architecture and Site application S-04-5 and make the required findings
(Attachment 1); 4. Approve the Planned Development application PD-04-2 and make the required finding (Attachment 1) and move to waive the reading; 5. Direct the Clerk to reaq. the title;
6. Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 2) to effectuateDevelopment ApplicationPD-O1-2. BACKGROUND: On January 28, 2004, the Planning Commission denied the request for Architecture and
Site application (S-'04-5) to demolish a single-family home, recommended·denial of the zone change (pD-04-2) from CH (RestrictedHighwayCommercial) to CH:PD (RestrictedHighwayCommercial:
Planned Development), and recoinmended approval of Negative Declaration (ND-04-1) for the project. A majority ofthe Planning Conimission expressed concerns related to the interpretation
of issues regarding the proposeduse. The Commission discussed the appropriate mix ofmedical office versus retail in the context of the Draft North 40 Specific Plan. Please
refer to the verbatim minutes included as Attachment 4. After the failure to pass a motion supporting the project, the Commission recommended denial for the zone change. The Commission
also recommended denial ofthe Architecture and Site application because demolition ofthe single-family home is contingent upon the approval-of the PD application. Since only four Commissioners
were in attendance, the Commission recommended denial in order to expedite the project to the Council for its review. This option was chosen, rather than continuing the item to a future
meeting with mote Commissioners present. In accordance with the Planning Commission policies and procedures, a rriajority ofthe full commission is necessary to take action on a substantive
amendment to the zoning ordinance (policy 9.2C). The Commission did not make a recommendation as to whether the subsequent'Architecture and Site for the medical office should return
to them. or could be approved at the Development Review Committee (DRC) level as requested by the applicant. Draft North Forty Specific Plan The Draft North 40 Specific Plan (hereafter
referred to as Specific Plan) was completed for public review in September 1999. In December 1999, the Town Council decided to delay action, pending adoption ofthe General Plan in 2000.
Although the Specific Plan was never officially adopted, the intent ofthe document is to serve as a framework to guide future development. The Specific Plan was drafted in an effort
to "discourage piecemeal development through the preparation of a master concept development plan" (Policy 2.A). Another purpose ofthe Specific Plan at the time ofits initial drafting,
was to implement the General Plan. Please refer to the General Plan Policies specific to the North Forty, included as Attachment 5. The land use section ofthe Specific Plan calls for
"approximately 500,000 square feet ofcommercial mixed use development, including up to 100,000 square feet of neighborhood (convenience)
PAGE 3 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD March 10,2004 commercial uses and up to 100,000 square feet of office uses, excluding medical
related offices/uses". The land use master plan lists the following allowed land uses: • Destination retail • Neighborhood commercial-limited to a total of 100,000 square feet • Lodging
• Restaurants-high turnover (sit down) • Restaurants-quality • Office-limited to a total of 100,000 sq. ft. and excluding medical related offices/uses e Entertainment and recreation
• Public/civic • Transportation related development (e.g. shuttle bus facility) The land use master plan has the following goals and policies that are relevant to this application: Goal
1 PolicYl.B Policy4.A To promote a variety of regional destination and local serving commercial uses that are compatible with and compliment existing businesses in the Downtown (C-2
Zoning District) and other Town shopping areas. Designate the area for mixed use commercial and allow "destination" retflil, limited neighborhood commercial, entertainment,
lodging, and public/civic uses. Housing shall not be allowed. Reserve the highly visible street frontage along Los Gatos Boulevard for retail commercial, entertainment, and restaurants.
Other uses (e.g., lodging, office, etc.) should be located to the rear or interior ofthe site. To date, both staff and the Planning Commission have utilized the Specific Plan and past
"North Forty" land use decisions as a tool to guide development. The decisions are also based upon the goals and policies contained within the current general plan. As such, retail uses
on the ground floor have been consistently required, as in the new buildings immediately south ofthe subject property as well as the new building at the comer ofBurton Road and Los Gatos
Boulevard. Staff gave clear direction to the applicant early in the process and before an application was submitted. In addition, the applicant was given an opportunity to present their
proposal to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). The applicant decided to -proceed without CDAC input; however, staff gave the applicant the meeting minutes from the
previous application for the subject property. The CDAC emphasized that "token" retail was inappropriate for the previous application. The applicant decided to proceed without a retail
component to the project, asserting that the medical office use alone is important to the community. The applicant also asserts that a retail presence in the building would detract from
the image and quality the doctors desire to be associated with their respective praGtices. The applicantfurther asserts that the Specific Plan does not specifically require a retail
element in each building, and that the building is too small to sustain
PAGE 4 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD March 11, 2004 retail. Please refer to the applicant's project description and justification
letter attached as Exhibit C of Attachment 6. DISCUSSION: Project Summary The subject property is a .92 acre parcel located along the west side ofLos Gatos Boulevard, between Bennet
Way and Noddin Avenue. The applicant requests: 1) A zone change from CH (Restricted Highway Commercial) to CH:PD (Restricted Highway Commercial: Planned Development). 2) Architecture
and Site approval to demolish and existing single-family residence Planning Commission action and comments: On January 28, 2004, the PlanniIig Commission denied the request for Architecture
and Site application (S..04-5) to demolish a single-family home, recommended denial of the zone change (pD-04-2) from CH (RestrictedHighwayCommercial) to CH:PD (RestrictedHighwayCommercial:
Planned Development), and recommended approval of Negative Declaration (ND-04-1) for the project. Following is a summary ofthe Planning Commissions comments related to the policy issue
of uses related to the "North Forty": •••••••• Council needs to address this policy issue immediately so the ''North Forty" does not result in piece-meal development 1OO%dffice would
be bad urban planning, we need at minimum, the retail component as recommended by staff Need to establish the direction the Town desires to pursue in terms of architecture, consistent
with small town character If we support retail uses for the "North Forty", then perhaps medical office USes are not compatible Lacking clear policy as far as a retail requirement in
an office building, more inclined to total medical, need specific direction from Council Medical office use is not the appropriate use Project needs more landscape Retail is needed in
this area Please refer to the verbatim Planning Commission minutes for a comprehensive summary of all of the Commissioners' comments.
PAGES SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD March 11,2004 Appeal: As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission needed a majority of the
full commission in order to take action on a substantive amendment to the zoning ordinance. Since there were only four Commissioners present, and the initial vote to recommend approval
failed, the Commission voted to deny the project. This option was chosen, rather than continuing the item to a meeting with more Commissioners present. It was necessary for the applicant
to file an appeal for the Architecture and Site application for the demolition of the single-family home and to request the Town Council hearing for the PD application. Please refer
to the applicant's appeal (Attachment 8). Community Benefit Whena project will add more than five am or pm peak hour trips, the applicant must provide a community benefit. The applicant
asserts that the following benefits the community: ...2 .'.' The managing member of JOSCO, LLC, Dr. Joan Oloff, will offer $20,000 to initiate and ); maintain a leadership role in the
formation of a non-profit foundation. The foundation, to be "named in memory of Roger and Lark Chastain, will be formed to coordinate the fund raising acquisition and maintenance of
soccer facilities in Los Gatos. • The project will help retain and promote important medical services· in the Town • The project will enhance Los Gatos Boulevard by removing a deteriorating
structure that is unsafe for occupancy. • The project complements and will ultimately enhance the vision ofthe North Forty Specific Plan including automobile and pedestrian circulation
as well as mixed .and complimentary uses. • The project will support future retail uses within the North 40. CONCLUSION While the proposed proj ect conforms to the existing CHzoning
which allows medical offices, it does . not conform to the draft North Forty Specific Plan, noris it consistent with past decisi"ons regarding other development projects in the North
Forty. The Commission and Council have consistently required retail on the ground floor fronting on to Los Gatos Boulevard in the North Forty. This application gives the Council the
opportunity to reiterate its views or express new views related to the vision for the ''North Forty". ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this proj ect will not have
a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this proposal. FISCAL IMPACT: None
PAGE 6 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD March 11,2004 Attachments: 1. Required Findings. 2. Draft Planned Development Ordinance (including
vicinitymap and development plans received January 8, 2004). 3. Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 4. Excerpt·from the Planning Commission minutes ofJanuary 28, 2004. 5. Relevant General Plan
Goals and Policies 6. Report to the Planning Commission, dated January23 , 2004 for the meeting ofJanuary 28, 2004 7. Desk Item to Planning Commission report dated January 28,2004 8.
Letter from applicant appealing the Planning Commission decision and requesting aCouncil hearing, dated February 3,2004. Distribution: Joan Oloff, DBAJosco Properties, 105 Sund Avenue.
Los Gatos, CA 95030· BdldKrouscup, Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., 1960 The Alameda, Ste. 20, San Jose, CA 95126 John Lien, 196 College Avenue, Los Gatos, CA. 95030 N:\DEV\Jennifer\TC\oloff-15047
LGB.wpd
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Planned Development Application PD-04-2 Architecture and Site Application S-04-05 Negative Declaration ND-04-1 Requesting approval to demolish
a single family residence and to construct a two-story office building on property zoned CH. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result ofthis project and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 424-07-087. PROPERTY OWNER: Josco Properties APPLICANT: John Lien, Architect FINDINGS Required consistency with the Town's General
Plan: That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements. by Section 29.10.09030(e) ofthe Town Code for the demolition ofa
single family residence. In architecture and site approval proceedings, the deciding body shall consider: 1. Maintaining the Town's housing stock. 2. Preservatlon of historically or
architecturally significant buildings or structures. 3. Property owner's desire or capacity to maintain maintain the structure. 4. Economic utility ofthe building or structure. As required
by the Town's Infill Policyfor a community benefit. 1. In-fill projects should contribute to the further development ofthe surrounding neighborhood (i.e. improve circulation, contribute
to or provide neighborhood unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing quality of life). 2. An in-fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood
and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage placement, setbacks, density,
provide adequate circulation and on-street parking. In-fill development should blend rather than compete with the established character ofthe area. 3. Corridor lots may be considered
if it decreases the amount ofpublic street Page 1 of2 Attachment 1
and is consistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to surrounding properties is being provided. 4. The Planned Development process should only be used to
accomplish objects #1 and #2. The applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development through excellence in design. 5. Approval of an in-fill project shall demonstrate a
strong community benefit and findings ofbenefit shall be part ofthe record. Traffic Policy: The deciding body must make specific fmdings which demonstrate that the benefits of the project
outweighthe impact in order to approve the project. N:\DEV\Tennifer\PC\LGB\15047 Findings.wpd Page 2 of2
ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM CH TO CH TO CH:PD AT 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code ofthe Town ofLos Gatos is hereby amended to change the zoning at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard as shown on the map which is attached
hereto marked Exhibit A and is part ofthis Ordinance from CH (Restricted Commercial Highway) to CH:PD (Restricted Commercial Highway:Planned Development). SECTION II The amended
PD (planned Development Overlay) zone established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use ofimprovements: 1. Demolition ofthe existing single-family home. 2.
Construction ofa medical office building with retail on the ground floor with a gross building area up to 20, 000 square feet.. 3. Landscaping, parking, and other site improvements shown
and required on the Official Development Plan (Exhibit B); 4. Uses permitted are medical, dental, administrative and professional office uses with .retail on the ground floor and those
uses specified in tl:).e underlying CH (Restricted Highway Commercial) zone by Sections 29.70.220 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 (Table of Conditional Uses) ofthe Zoning Ordinance, as
those sections exist at the1 Attachment 2
time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future subject to anyrestrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this ordinance including, but
not limited to, the Official Development Plan. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance. 5. The medical office portion
ofthe building is limited to a maximum ofnine doctors. 6. Retail uses only are permitted on the ground floor that fronts on to Los Gatos Boulevard. The retail area shall constitute a
minimum of40% of the ground floor along the easterly side ofthe building fronting onto Los Gatos Boulevard. No office uses are permitted in the area designated to retail uses. This condition
supercedes the floor plans ofthe Official Development Plan. 7. A separate Architecture and Site application is required for the building. 8. The area indicated as storage on the plans
shall not be used for habitable space. SECTION ill COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development Plan specifically
shows otherwise. SECTIONN Architecture and Site Approval is required before any construction work for the project is performed, whether or not a permit is required for the work and before
any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be issued in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. 2
SECTION V The attached Exhibit A (Map) and Exhibit B (development plans received by the Town of Los Gatos on January 8,2004, 9 sheets), incorporated herein bythis reference, are part
ofthe Official Development Plan. The following must be complied with before issuance ofany grading, demolition or construction permits, unless otherwise stated: TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. ARCHITECTUREAND SITE APPROVALREQUIRED. A separate Architecture and Site Application and approval shall
be required for the medical/office building, parking areas and landscape improvements. This application may be approved by the Town's Development Review Committee with review by the
Consulting Architect. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Official Development Plans provided is conceptual in nature. Final footprints and building designs shall be determined during the
architecture and site approval process. BUILDING SIZE. The size of the retail/office building shall be up up to 20,000 gross floor area. COMMUNITY BENEFIT. The applicant shall enter
into an agreement with the Town for provision of the community benefits being offered with the project. The agreement shall include details on the timing and implementation ofeach item
and shall be approved by the Town Attorney and the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. LANDSCAPEPLAN. The final landscape plan
shall be reviewedbythe Consulting Arborist as part of the Architecture & Site approval process. All Tree Protection measures recommended by the Consulting Arborist shall be followed.
**CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE 4.8-1. Ifit is demonstrated that there are intact deposits ofsignificant archaeological materials, a plan for the mitigation"of impacts to these
resources shall be submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to resumption of construction activities in the area of identified deposits. If cultural or , archaeological
resources are uncovered during construction, all work must be halted within a50-foot radius of the find, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist
must be retained to examine the find, determine its significance and make appropriate recommendations. Project personnel shall not alter the materials or their context or collect cultural
resources. The cost ofthe Town retaining a qualified archaeologist shall be paid for by the property owner/developer. Ifhuman remains are discovered, the Los Gatos Police Department
and Santa Clara County Coroner shall immediately be notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains
are not subject to his or her authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would attempt to identify3
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 14. 15. descendants ofthe deceased Native American. TREEREMOVALPERMIT. A Tree Remoyal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building, Grading or Encroachment
Permit. RECYCLING. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminu:rp. materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company that will recycle the materials. Receipts
from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight ofmaterial, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town's demolition inspection. PARKING. The minimum parking
spaces required for the prpject is 75. Up to 3 parking spaces may be removed to accommodate the future ingress/egress easement. Any changes to the parking layout shall be first approved
by the Directors of Community Development and Parks & Public Works. ARCIDTECTURAL DETAILS. The applicant shall work with Planning staff and the Consulting Architect to refine the plans
through the Architecture & Site review process. STORAGE AREA: The applicant sha.ll file a, a, deed restriction stating the area designated as storage remain non-habitable space and unoccupied
by a tenant, **:BIOtOGICALRESOURCES MrTIGATION'MEAsURE: The project a.pplicant shall be required to implement the 22 recommendations made iI1 the Arbor Resources Report dated AugUst
23, 2003 \ **CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius ofthe find will be halted, the CommunityDevelopme
nt Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. . **CULTURALRESOURCES MITIGATIONMEASUREIfhuman remains are
discovered, the Santa Clara County:Coroner shall be notified. The CoronerwilI detennine whether or not the remains are Native American. Ifthe Coroner determiIles that tlie remams are
not subj ect to his' authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants ofthe deceased Native Americans. . **CULTURAL RESOURCES
MITIGATIONMEASURE A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a sigIlificant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The
final report will include background information 0 the completed work, a description and list .of identified resources, the disposition and curation ofthese resources, any testing, other
recovered'information, and conclusions. Building Division 16 PERMITS REQUIRED. A building permit application shall be required for each proposed structure. Separate Electrical/Mechanical/Plumbing
permit shall be required as necessary. 17. CONSTRUCTIONPLANS. The Conditions ofApproval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of the construction plan submitted for building permit.
18. SIZE OF PLANS. The maximum size ofconstruction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24 inches by 36 inches. 19. PLANS. The construction plans for this project shall be prepared
under direct supervision of a licensed architect or engineer (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538). 4
20. DEMOLITI9NREQUIREMENTS. Contact the BayArea Air QualityManagement District at (415) 771-6000 and complete their process as necessary before obtaining a demplition permit from the
Town Building Department. As part ofthe permit application process a site plan shall be provided that includes all existing structures and existing utility lines such as water, sewer,
and P.G.&E. No demolition work shall be done without fIrst obtaining a demolition permit from the Town. 21. SOILS REPORT. Two copies of a soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of
the Building OffIcial, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 22. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS. A pad certifIcate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project
building inspector upon foundation inspection. This certifIcate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specifIed in the soils report and the building pad elevation and
on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certifIedby a licensed surveyor or civi
l engineer for the following items: a. Pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation comer locations , 23:. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. California Title 24 Energy Compliance
forms CRIR and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans. 24. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY -COMMERCIAL-I. On-site parking facilities shall comply with the latest California Title 24
Accessibility Standards. Accessibility parking shall be provided for in both covered and uncovered parking areas. . 25. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY -COMMERCIAL-2. On-site general path of
travel shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Work shall include, but shall not be limited to, accessibility to building entrances from parking and
sidewalks. 26. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY -COMMERCIAL-3. The buildings shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Necessarywork shall be fIrst investigated
by the design architect then confIrmed by Town staff. 27. SPECIALINSPECTIONS. When a special inspection is required byDEC Section 1701, the architect or engineer ofrecord shall prepare
an inspection program that shall be submitted to theBuilding OffIcial for approval prior to issuance ofany building permits, in accordance with UBC Section 106.3.5. Please obtain Town
Special Inspection form from the Building Division Service Counter. The Town Special Inspection schedule shall be printed on the construction plans. 28. NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS.
The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specifIcation'sheet shall be part ofplan submittal. The specifIcation sheet is available at the Building
Division se:rvice counter. 29. ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED. The project requires the following agency approvals before issuance ofa building permit: . a. West Valley Sanitation
District 378-2407 b. Santa Clara County Fire Department: 378-4010 5
c. Campbell Union High School District: 371-0960 Note: Obtain the school district forms from the Town Building Department, after the Building Department has approved the building plans.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 30. 31. ,. 33. 34. 35. GRADING PERMIT. A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage.
The grading pelTIlit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Division ofthe Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The
plans shall include final grading,drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utiiitjes and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing
and proposedimpervious areas. Unless. specifically alloweq. bythe Director ofParks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading
permit is for work outsidethe building footprint(s). A separate building permit, permit,
issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. AGENCY APPROVALS. Letters from SJW, WVSD, andjoint trench occupants in the Los
Gatos Boulevard planting strip indicating plan review and approval shall be provided prior to issuance ofany permit. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed
by the developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful Performance
Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or the recordation ofa map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate
of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. a; Los Gatos Blvd. Curb and gutter, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, decorative paving, landscaping
and irrigation as required. Remove the existing driveway apron and replace curb and gutter at existing curb cut. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with
the Town for maintenance of all improvements (paving and landscape) within the Burton and Los Gatos Boulevard right-of·;ways prior toissuance of any permit. **TRAFFIC MITIGATION. A two-way
left-tum lane shall be installed on Los Gatos Boulevard to not only serve as a refuge lane, but also to provide storage for vehicles waiting to tUm left into the project driveway. The
two-way left-tum lane also would benefit vehicles turning left to or from the east side oflos Gatos Boulevard across the street from the project site. DEDICATIONS, The following shall
be dedicated by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued. a. Los Gatos Blvd. A public access easement encompassing the sidewalk located outside
of the public right of way shall be granted. A Town standard indemnity agreement shall also be required. The sidewalk and street trees will be privately maintained. b. Ingress-Ingress-egress
easement. A 25 foot wide ingress-egress easement, located between the eight foot wide planting strip and the back of Public access easements shall be6
36. 37. 38. 39. 4d; 41. 42. 43. provided over the front drive aisle to continue the "frontage road". Future work may be required to accommodate this easement. FUTUREEASEMENT DEDICATION.
The applicant shall record an agreement to dedicate a public access easement along the south drive aisle /automobile ramp and a public utility easement when and ifneeded to allow future
access and utility connections to the North 40 property. This agreement shall be recorded prior to issuance of any permit. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issuedbythe BuildingDepartment
at 110 E. Main Street, is required for all site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed, approved, or inspected by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during grading permit
review process. SOILS REPORT. One copy ofthe soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit application. soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing
site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" bythe engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section
6735 ofthe California Business and Professions Code. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance ofany permit, the applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to
ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant's soils
engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and grading
shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verifY that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level
geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing should be
documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the applicants soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. CERTIFICATE OF
LOTLINEADmSTMENT. A Certificate ofLot Line Adjustment shall be recorded. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE (COMMERCIAL). The developer shall pay a proportional to the project's share oftransportation
improvement needed to serve cumulative development within the Town ofLos Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council !esolution in effect at the time the building permit
applications is made. The fee shall be paid before the building permit is issued. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project, using the current fee schedule and the preliminary
plans is $85,200. The final fee shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of the building permit application, using a trip generation rate
based on medical office use. LARK/LOS GATOS TRAFFIC MITIGATION. The applicant shall contribute his fair share (proportional to the project impact) of the following intersection improvements
at the LarkILos Gatos Boulevard intersection: (1) The eastbound Lark Avenue approach shall be changed to provide three eastbound left-tum lanes (two exclusive left-tum lanes and one
shared left-through); and (2) the westbound receiving (departure) lanes onLark Avenue shall bere-striped to facilitate the merging ofthe left-turning vehicles (from the two northbound7
lanes) and the southbound right turning vehicles. . 44. GENERAL. All public improvements shall be made according to the latE!st adopted Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications.
All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear ofall job related dirt and debris at the end ofthe day. Dirt and debris
shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing ofgoods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The developer's
representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result inthe Town performing the
required maintenance at the developer's expense. 45. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. All' work in the public right-of-way will require a ConstructionEncroachlnent Permit. Allwork over$5,000 will
require construction security. 46. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS. The developer or his· · representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting
an work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Faill.lre to do so will result in rejection ow work that went on without
inspection. 47. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil ehgineerqualified to practice land sUrveying,
for the following items: c. Retaining wall--top ofwall elevations and locations d. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 48'. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall
be prepared and submitted. to. the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works A maximum oftWo weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizinglbuilding
on an area ifgrading is allowed during the rainyseason. Interim erosion controlIileasures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the [mal landscaping shall
be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are notlimited to: sflt fences, fiber rolls '(with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding
specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage,
and erosion control plans shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of Order 01:'024 bfthe amended Santa Clara CountyNPDES Permit.
49. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks and bio-swales. Direct'stonn drain conhections will be allowed if a mechanical filter device such as a storm
septor is constructed at each system outfall. 50. HYDROLOGY: The storm pipe and purhp station shall be designed to convey the 10-year storm (without surcharge) based on SarttaClara CountY,
calculation methods. The applicant shall provide evidence that the existing storm drainage system within Los Gatos Boulevard has adequate capa.city to convey project tunoff. 1:n the
event that sufficient capacity is not available, the applicant shall either upgrade the existing facilities to provide the necessary capacity, or provide on-site detention such that
project discharges do not cause offsite flooding. 51. EMERGENCYBACKUP POWERSOURCE. An emergency backup power source shall be8
52. 53. 54. 55. 56: 57. 58. 59. provided for both the storm drainage and sanitary sewer pump stations. FUTURE GRAVITY CONNECTIONS. Gravity storm drainage and sanitary sewer lines shall
be stubbed to the western property line for potential future connection to North 40 utility systems. SILT AND MI..!'D IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is the responsibility ofcontractor and
home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALLNOT be washed into the
Town's storm drains. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required. by
Town Code §27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
The developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not
limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal
to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all
Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
CURB AND GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged nowor during construction ofthis proj ect. New curb and gutter shall be
constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits ofcurb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase ofthe project. DRIVEWAY
APPROACH. The developer shall install 1 Town standard commercial driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. AS-BUILT PLANS. After completion
of the construction of all work, the original plans shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearlymarked. The "as-built" plans shall again be signed and "wet-stamped"
by the civil engineer who prepared the plans, attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" plans shall be review and approved the Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk
of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy Permit is released. The AutoCAD file shall include only the following
information and shall conform to the layernaming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; d) Swimming
Pool, Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS-COURT; f) Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOUR. All as"'-built digital files must be on the
same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by
West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town ofLos Gatos before they are used or reused. 9
\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ . \ __ \\\I \i i\.\ . i\ \ \ \ \. i \ L_ \. ----.>-------\ \ _-.l-.---_' \ \,/....---
\ TOWN OF LOS GATOSFrom: -CH---To: CH:PD Application No. PD-04-02 • A.P.N. # 424-07-087 Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance. W Zone Change D Prezonin
• Recommended Denial by Planning Commission Approved by Town Council Date: _ Town Clerk Ma or Date: 1/28/04 Ord: ----Exhibit A
PLAN· . .. . . .. . . PROJECT: 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Planned DevelopmentPD-04-2, Architecture and Site S-04-5, Negative Declaration ND-O.
IMPACT MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION RESPONSIBILITY The project applicant shall be required to implement the 22 Biological Resources recommendations made in the Arbor Resources Report
dated August 23, 2003 In the event that archaelogical traces are encountered, all constructi()n within a 50-meter radius ofthe find will behalted, Cultural Resources the Community Development
Director will be notified, and an archaeolgist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner
shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the ramins are Native American. lfthe Coroner Cultural Resources determines that the remains are not subjectto his authority,
he will notifiy the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americal)s, A final repOli shall be prepared when a find is determined
to be a significant archaeolgical site, and/or when Native American· remains are founqon the site. The final repOli will include .. Cultural Resources background information 0 the completed
work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. J Condition of Approval
Condition of .Approval Condition of Approval . Condition of . Approval Director of Community Development Director of COlllinunity Development Director of Community Development Director
of Community Development
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28, 2004 XMAX(1/1) Page 1 Page 3 ( 1) TOWN OF LOS GATOS (2) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (3) PUBLIC HEARING (4) ITEM 12 (5) 15047 LOS GATOS BLVD.
( 6) Town Council Chambers ( 7) 110 East Ha in Street (B) Los Gatos, California ( 9) Taken on (10) January 28, 2004 (11) #15222 (12) LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 01/28/2004 (13) (14)
(15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (1) PRO C E E DIN G S: (2) (3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: -04-1, requesting (4) approval to demolish a single family residence and (5) construct
a two-story office building on property (6) zoned CH. Is the applicant here? (7) Would you identify yourself for the (8) record, please, sir. (9) BRAD KROUSKUP: .Thank yciu Chairman
Dubois (10) and Commissioners. My name is Brad Krouskup. I (11) live at 150 Blueberry Hill Drive. I've had the (12) fortune ofliving in Los Gatos for the last 17 (13) years. (14) My
vocation, I'm the president of (15) Toeniskoetter and Breeding, Inc. Development and (16) have been in that position for the last 20 years, (17) and during that course have had the opportunity
to (18) invest in development over two million square feet (19) of commercial real estate, including office (20) buildings, retail projects, industrial projects, (21) medical office
buildings in the Santa Clara and (22) Santa Cruz Counties. (23) Roughly seven months ago, we applied to (24) the Town for a straight zoning approval in the CH (25) zone, and shortly
after that submittal, we were· .>:; Page 2 Page 4 . (1) advised correctly by Staff and the Director that a (2) planned development probably would be the best . (3) course to pursue for
this project. And quite (4) frankly, we couldn't agree ·more. (5) The planned development permitting process (6) allowed us some flexibility to address conditions (7) with the project
that were important to the Los (8) Gatos Boulevard Plan and certainly to the North 40. (9) Some of those include the flexibility to (10) work with some fairly difficult topography issues
(11) out out there. There's a siope out there I'm sure (12) you've all probably either seen the site or driven (13) by it thousands of times. And conforming with the (14) Los Gatos Boulevard
Plan had some obstacles and some (15) challenges, but we were able to accomplish that, and (16) we were able to accomplish vehicle and pedestrian (17) connections to the project just
to the south, an (18) important element of the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan.. (19) One of the things we were able to do, and (20) we think it's a real positive for this project, (21) because
it's visible from a distance, is there (22) you will find no rooftop mounted mechanical (23) equipment. It has all been located in a garage (24) underneath the building. There won't
be any roof (25) screening required, and we'll have some really Paul Dubois, Chair Hi chael Burke Lee Quintana Morris Trevithick --000--Bud N. Lortz ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES BY:
LISA A.GLANVILLE, CSR 9932 1083 Lincoln Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 (408) 920-0222 Orry Korb A PP E A RA N C C E S: ( 5) ( 6) ( 4) Transcribed by: (10) (11) Director of (7) Community Development:
Town Attorney: (1) ( 2) (3) Los Gatos Pl anning Comi ss i oners: ( 8) ( 9) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21J (22) (23) (24) (25) Attachment 4 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,
LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 1 to Page 4
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2· JANUARY 28,,2004 XMAX(2/2) PageS Page 7 (1) clean, I think, attractive roof lines as a result of (1) project. (2) that. (2) The architect, John Lien,
who is here (3) The PO also allowed us to provide for (3) tonight and will be able to offer any answers to (4) future cqnnections to the main arterial, which we (4) hopefully your questions
regarding the technical (5) all hope sometime will transfer cars from Los Gatos (5) aspects of the project, has done a great job in (6) Boulevard to Lark through the North 40, and we
are (6) addressing Larry Cannon's comments and really (7) providing the Town an easement at the rear of the (7) providing through the change to the PO process and (8) property to provide
that linkage. (B) through the reaction to Larry Cannon and Staff a (9) In making the change to the PO process, we (9) superior project from when we first submitted. (10) no way felt
that we wCluld circumvent the uses that (10) We believe the project provides (11) we might be able to pursue under the CH zone. (11) significant benefit to our community. And it is a
(12) Included in the CH zone is the ability to do a (12) project that we think will complement the ultimate (13) medical office bUilding,and really that's Why we're (13) intent of the
North 40 plan. It also complies, as I (14) ,here tonight. (14) previously stated, with the Los Gatos Boulevard (15) Dr. Joan Oloff has coordinated a very (15) Plan. (16) attentive group
of physicians,physicians that we (16) The North 40 is contemplated to be mixed (17) feel are importantto this C:Clmmun'ity al'ld win be (17) use, and we believe this is consistent with
that. (18) owners of this project and occupants ofthe project. (1 B) We also believe it will take projects like this to (19) As you might know from looking at a.draft (19) seat a population
in the North 40 -is that my (20) of the ordinance, one of the reqUirements in the (20) time? . (21) ordinance is there bea retail component of this (21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yes, sir. (22)
project. We're going to ask tonight that the (22) BRAD KROUSKUP: Woo. (23) Commission recommend the approval this project (23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Please wrap up quickly. (24) withqlJt
a retail component. It's not required by (24) BRAD KROUSKUP: Okay. I will wrap up very (25) the underlying' CH zoning, and it's not a requirement (25) quickly. Nowhere in the North 40
plan that we can PageS (1) of any individual building in the North 40 as a (2) result of the North 40 Specific Plan. (3) Let me read from the initial study that (4) was prepared from
-by the Town's consulting land (5) use consultant, Giuyer and Guyer... . (6) The project vicinity is comprised of a mix (7) of retail, residential, office, commercial and (B) agricultural
uses. Adjacent parcels to the north (9) and south of the project site also. fronting on Los (10) Gatos Boulevard are currently an offic:e and (11) commercial use. The proposed medical
office (12) building would be cOAsistent this mix of uses, (13) particularly with the adjacent office building to (14) the south. (15) In addition, since the project site and
(16) its Vicinity are designated by the General Plan to (17) redevelop with mixed of -with amix of cClmmercial (18) uses, the proposed office would be consistent with (19) the anticipated
use of this area. (20) We have gone to great means, since (21) submitting the application to the Town, to work with (22) Staff, and it has been a very copperative effort I (23) might
add, and to work with the Consulting Architect (24) to identify and satisfy any concerns that we've (25) heard. We believe we've been successful in that PageS (1) gather is
any specific building required. (2) We would urge you that the community benefit (3) associated with this project is superior to any (4) reqUirement, whether polic:y, unwritten, that
would (5) require retail. (6) The retail component of this project as (7) drafted in the ordinance would roughly force us to (8) provide a little less than 4,000 square feet of (9) retail
in the building. We cannot figure out-why (10) that wouldbe importantto this Town. (11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. (12) BRAD KROUSKUP: Thank you for your time. (13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Don't
go away. (14) BRAD KROUSKUP: I won't. (15) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Do we have questions (16) from the Commission? Commissioner Burke. (17) COMMISSIONER BURKE: The Staff Report, (18) have you
read I guess page 3 at the top, policy (19) 4.A-(20) BRAD KROUSKUP: Yes, I have. (21) COMMISSIONER BURKE: -where it talks (22) about the highly visible street frontage should be (23)
reserved for retail, commercial, entertainment and (24) restaurants with offices, lodging being located in (25) the back? Page 5 to Page 8 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES,
LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28, 2004 XMAX(3/3) Page 9 (1) BRAD KROUSKUP: Yeah. I think that policy (2) is part of the North 40 plan, I believe. And the (3) North 40 plan,
it's an important plan. It provides (4) a framework and hopefully a flexible framework for (5) the future of the North 40. The way we have (6) designed the project, it doesn't interfere
with the (7) future potential of retail in the North 40. (8) I think as the North 40 plan came (9) together, and I've tracked it for maybe 20 years, (10) since I was with'the Carlin
Swenson Company, there (11) are not -nodules going in at Noddin and other (12) points along Los Gatos Boulevard creating corners. (13) That's where the retail should be concentrated,
(14) there and along the freeway ultimately. (15) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Totally different (16) question. Are you the individual group responsible (17) for the story poles? (18) BRAD KROUSKUP:
Yes. (19) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Let me just state a (20) statement. I think those are the best looking story (21) poles I have ever seen, and I think they do show(22) and I don't know
if your architect had anything to (23) do with them, but I -I think that they show that a (24) large building can have nice sturdy safe story (25) PPles. Thank you very much. Page 10
(1) BRAD KROUSKUP: Thank you. It was a (2) concern of ours at the time of year and everything (3) they'd be up, and we wanted to make them safe and (4) reliable. Thank you. (5) CHAIRMAN
DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (6) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yes. Could you (7) discuss where the trash enclosures will be and also (8) the question of biohazard storage. (9) BRAD KROUSKUP:
Sure, I can. In the plans (10) behind you there's a trash enclosure located fairly' (11) well centered in the parking lot to the rear of the (12) building. And that's where the every
day, if you (13) will, paper type non-medical trash would be (14) contained. (15) There's some -there's several physicians (16) in the audience tonight -I'm I'll wait. If
(17) you raise your left hand, the center aisle of the (18) parking lot in the part up to the top of it, right (19) there. Okay? (20) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: What is the design (21) of
the enclosure? (22) BRAD KROUSKUP: It's plaster walls (23) around so you can't see into the enclosure at all. (24) I think you had a question on the medical side, (25) medical-Page 11
(1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Biohazard. (2) BRAD KROUSKUP: Biohazard. (3) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: The biohazard (4) waste. (5) BRAD KROUSKUP: Biohazard waste is (6) contracted for and removed
by -there's several (7) agencies with some of the larger disposal companies, (8) and it's regulated by the State and OSHA. And it's (9) removed from individual medical premises themselves
(10) off the site. Might every once in a while been in a (11) doctor's office, red bags, that's what they're put (12) in. (13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: So it's kept in (14) each individual
office? (15) BRAD KROUSKUP: Right. (16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Other questions? Okay. (17) Thank you. (18) BRAD KROUSKUP: Thank you. (19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: (Inaudible.) Okay. We (20) have a
number of cards on this application. I'm (21) gc;>ing to be calling them here. Looks like (22) Dr. Massey. And I'm going to ask the person who I (23) call next to come up to the front
row, and we're (24) just going to use both microphones here so that we (25) can get things moving. So you can start over there, Page 12 (1) Dr. Massey. I'm going to have Dr. -okay, I'm
(2) going to ruin this one -Churukian. You can .' (3) straighten it out for me when you get up here. (4) Dr. Massey. (5) DR. JOHN MASSEY: Thank you for letting me (6) speak. I'm born
and raised here. I was bom and (7) raised in Cupertino. Los Gatos Community Hospital (8) was my hospital as a child. I wanted to establish a (9) medical practice here and am committed
to this (10) community. My children go to school here in public (11) school. I live by Good Sam. (12) Peter Abaci and myself run a -kind of a (13) different medical practice. It's a
pain management (14) center. I'm not sure that you guys are all familiar (15) with what pain management is, but we take care of a (16) lot of people that nobody wants to take care of,
(17) really bad problems. Think about your family, (18) people with cancer, people who have lost limbs, (19) people who've had major people who've had (20) things
that have happened to them that are often you (21) would never want to think about. (22) Sorry. We currently have over 7,000 (23) patients in the community. Many of these are (24) seniors,
Medicare patients. We take what the (25) community gives us, we support the community. It ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 9 to Page 12
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2· JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(4/4) Page 13 (1) was serendipity tonight that Los Gatos Community (2) Hospital was here as well, we actually (3) started
there. We put together the pain (4) for Los.Gatos Community Hospital, as well as Good (5) Samaritan Hospital. (6) This particular site is very. important to (7) us, because
we've outgrown any medical space that we (8) could have. particular site.is between (9)bpth hospitals. It allows us to stay in one place (10) and serve the community equally.
It will work for (11) us for a long-term future goal of growth and to be (12) ableto bring physicians who qan actually (13) practice this kind of medicine into the community.
(14) And I wanted your support. (15). CHAIRfv1AN DUB0IS:Are t/Jereany questions (16) from the Commission? Thank you, Doctor, I (17) appreciate it. Okay.
(18) DR.I5IRK CHURUKIAN: Very gooc:f, thank you. (19) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: ){idJget,it right? (20) DR. KIRK CHURUKIAN:. Churukiao, right. (21) I'm actually a plastic and re--(22) CHAIRMAN
DUBOIS: Hol.d on a second. It's (23) going followed by Leo 9,imkin -Semkiw.. Okay. Go (24) ahSjd. (25) DB. KIRK CHURUKIAN: I'm actually a Page 14 (1) plastic and recl;mstructive surgeon,
and, you know,.1 (2) can't claim the lofty idea/sof our speaker, (3) but I think we do provide an important,role in the (4) qommunity. (5) We, in addition to sort of the cosmetic
(6) practice thC!twe have, we also have.a reconstructive (7) practice. I've been in the community (8) again started out near Community Hospital; and now (9) over
on National Avenue near Good Samaritan (10) Hospital. (11) I know you want retail for obvious (12) reasons. We -we do a little bit of retail, but (13) probably rl0t as much as
might desire. But we do (14) spend a lot of money in Los Gatos, business (15) supplies, .advertising. About hCllfof our staff live (16) in Los Gatos. And so I feel we do bring substantial
(17) improvement t.o the community. (18) We also,1 think, prOVide the basis for (19) some of the retail establishments in and (20) around the area. So while
I can't claim that we're (21) going to throw as much sales tax·revenue towards (22) you, I do think we would be good citizens, good (23) community people for the Towl1 of Gatos.
And (24) hopefully we can· get your support. Thank you very (25) much. Page 15 (1)' CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: One quick question for (2) you. Is there -you're on National Avenue now, (3) which
isn't too far away. (4) DR. KIRK CHURUKIAN: Yes. (5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: So the advantage to you (6) to moving over here from National is? (7) DR. KIRK CHURUKIAN: Well, our -our hope (8)
is to construct a surgery center, increase our (9) square footage, increase some of our retail (10) offerings in skin care supplieS, skin. care (11) management. And basically .sort of
take a step up. (12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, thank you. Dcrwe (13) have any other questions? Co.mmissioner Burke. (14) COMMISSIONER BURKE: This isn't meant to (15) be C!-S rhetorical
question as it's going to sound, (16) but I assume that people in yoyr office like drink (17) coffee and eat lunch and things like that, and I (18) the idea behind
mixed. use goes beyond (19) sales tax, It goes on -you know; I was at the (20) doc.tor em National Avenue this mornlng,a:nd the (21) receptionist was drinking coffee. So don't you (22)
thinkthat -you know, I'm going to ask the (23) question, that it woulct be convenient for your (24) people if there was a,small retail component there, (25) 'cause there Isn't really
anything within walking Page 16 . (1) distance, where they could get their Los Gatos (2) Coffee Roasting coffee or grab a sandwich at lunch (3) or something? (4) DR. KIRK CHURUKIAN:
. I think it would be (5) wonderfUl. I think it's tough, tho!.lgh, when YOU've (6) got enough physicians who want this space, because (7) it is so convenient to the hospital, it is so
(8) convenient for our patients coming on and off the (9) freeway. I. think it's -it's really hard, because (10) good medical office space, ones that we (11) can be
owners of, which is really the appeal of (12) this, we can be owner tenants, which I think, you (13) know, we're going to take care of it a lot better (14) than people you're renting
to. (15) I think that portion is -I think it's (16} hard to replace that. I think if we had a little (17) more room, it would be great. We'd love a (18) Starbuck's down on the main floor,
you know, a (19) sandwich shop. But, agC!-in, it's -it's hard to (20) give that space away when you don't have that much (21) of it to begin with. (22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions?
(23) Thank you very much, appreciate it, Doctor. Leo (24) Semkiw followed by -this is either Rob Nasser or (25) Naber, I can't tell if'it's an S or a B. B, okay. Page 13 to Page 16 (408)
920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28, 2004 XMAX(5I5) (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) Page
17 LEO SEMKIW: I'm Leo Semkiw. I'm an orthopaedic surgeon that's been practicing here for about three yearsJand I'm planning to be an occupant of the building. I just hope you support
the project. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Questions for Mr. Semkiw? Commissioner Quintana. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Where do you currently practice? LEO SEMKIW: On Samaritan Drive across the street
from Good Samaritan Hospital. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Apparently there's going to be a big exodus over to Los Gatos if we build this thingJhuh? Okay. Okay. Mr. Rob Naber-ROB NABER: Naber. CHAIRMAN
DUBOIS: NaberJfollowed by Peter Abaci. ROB NABER: My name is Rob Naber. I'ma physical therapist in this community. I was living in the community with my wife for nine years. I worked
at Good Samaritan HospitalJand I've been a physical therapist in this community for 20 years. My wife and I have two daughters who both . go to school at -in the Los Gatos public school
qi$trictJand I'd really like to stay in this (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) Page 19 Bill
George, and I work with Dr. Abaci anc:;! Dr. MasseYJ and 1-I'm here in the capacity as their CEO. I have been working with them for just over a year and watched their practice virtually
double in that period of time. And as Dr. Massey said Jpeople with pain aren't always the older population, but younger peopleJtoo, and this this organization's thriving. They're completely
out of space. And these doctors have roots in Los GatosJ and they want to stay here. And this project comes at a perfect time for them, and the opportunity for them to use, you knowJthis
space and the -the way the project's unfolding, I meanJyou have a wonderful, wonderful opportunity to take a blended group of great physicians and keep them here for a very long time,
as -as one doctor saidJthe tenant owners, and that is a great opportunity for you. And while a Starbuck's is a great idea as well, I think the l.eng-term commitment that these physicians
will have to your town might supercede that the benefit of the -of the frontage of retail. That's my opinion. So iJlike the rest of the people here tonight, hope you'll support the project.
Page 18 (1) community. (2) Currently my business, Physical Therapy of (3) Los GatosJis outgrowing its facility, and we're (4) looking for a new space, and this has come (5) available.
It's an ideal location to stay on the (6) east side of the highway. It's a great location for (7) our community. I'd really like your supportJand (8) I'd really like you to consider
this. (9) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Questions? I guess not. (10) Thank you very much, appreciate it. Peter Abaci, (11) followed by Bill George. (12) PETER ABACI: I'm Dr. Peter Abaci. And (13)
I'm in practice with Dr. Massey. And he already (14) told you a little bit about our pain management (15) practice. And we -we really have the only (16) integrated interdisciplinary
pain management (17) practice in -in Santa Clara County, and it happens (18) to be in Los GatosJand it's -I've been in private (19) practice for about seven years in Los Gatos. I live
(20) in Los Gatos. My kids go to Van Meter Elementary (21) School. That's our home. (22) CHAIRMAN DUBOiS: Any questions for (23) Dr. Abaci? Thank you, sir. Mr. GeorgeJfollowed by (24)
Joan Gloff. (25) BILL GEORGE: Good evening. My name is Page 20 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Questions? Commissioner (2) Trevithick. (3) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Could you give (4) me some idea
of the time table when you open your (5) office in the morning and it closes at nightJjust a (6) sample of oneJshould we say? (7) BILL GEORGE: Today the office operates (8) from 8:30
until 5:30. We see patients from 8:30 to (9) 5:30. (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Questions? Thank you (11) very much. Joan Oloff followed by Matthew Mingrone. (12) JOAN OLOFF: I'm the troublemaker
behind (13) this project, and in -in 1988, I purchased land (14) that I built my home on in Los GatosJand despite (15) the pain of that process like chiidbirthJhere I am (16) again.
(17) But I have my three children here to (18) witness the democratic processJso I urge that you (19) be gentle. You knowJbasically if you look at that (20) property, and I hope you've
gone by and looked at (21) it, YOU'll see no sign there. And basically if-(22) if I were a developer coming in to develop this (23) spaceJyou would see a sign there. But the reason (24)
there's no sign, there's -it's very simple. (25) I've been in practice in Los GatosJI've ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 17 to Page 20
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 . XMAX(6/6) Page 21 (1) had my office here since 1985. I've seen tremendous (2) increases in overhead, in rents throughout that (3) time,
I've -I had a.friend who was practicing in (4) the bUilding next door to me, owned by the same (5) developer, who actually gave up pr?ctice and moved (6) out of the area because of the
increasing overhead . (7) costs, (8) It's a sad reality in what we live in, (9) We're people who are local to this community, and we (10) wa,.nt to stay here. We have our kids here.
We -we (11) go to school here. We -we have our kids in (12) soccer. We coach socc;er: And we support the (13) community in eVery way that we can. And this is (14) just another extension
of that. (15) It's just -as I see it, a small business (16) owner. If I was looking at it strictly asa (17) business person coming In, I think Starbuck's would (18) be a great idea.
But I'm -but 1'f!1 not. I'm (19) looking at it to basically do a non-speculative (20) venture, to -with a group of doctors who I know (21) and trust. (22) Dr. Churukian is a plastic
surgeon, .but (23) he's a little too modest. He actually worked With (24) me, with a physician's mother, who was scheduled to (25) have-her leg amputated, and because of his work, we
Page 22· (1) were able -she's still walking today. So these (2) people are -are exceptional p€lople that I've grown (3) tp know over this past several years, and that's why (4) they're
here. (5) And I just -f just hope that you (6) would -I understand the Town's needs. I support (7) the Town's needs. If I could -I was a developer (8) and buying more land, I'd put the
Starbuck's, I'd (9) put the retail, but this is just a very small plot (10) of land that's a very narrow long piece of property, (11) and I just think it works bE!st for our use. (12)
So I hope you'll support that. (13) DUBOIS: Any questions? Seeing (14) none,1 thank you very much, appreciate your time. (15) Matthew Mingrone. And I have no other cards.
If (16) there's anybody else who wishes to speak on this, (17) please give me a card. (18) MATTHEW MINGRONE: I'd like to thank the (19) Commission for th€l opportunity. /, as well, am
a (20) physician in the community and as well as a (21) resident, and I was actually born at Good Samaritan (22) Hospital when the paintwas still drying on the (23) walls. (24) I've
been fortunate enough to come back (25) into the community about four years ago. I have Page 23 (1) seen the P9sitive Impact that many of the physicians (2) contribute to the Town of
Los Gatos, both Community (3) Hospital otLos Gatos, as well as this project. (4) I think that the location, which is ideal, (5) as has been mentioned, between two hospitals. Also, (6)
very conveniently located between two surgical (7) ambulatory surgical facilities. And that is a very (8) positive aspect for a physician who's running around (9) lots of times. (10)
Personally, "m not -although I (11) understand the Town's requirement, but the (12) recommendation for retail space, I think is very (13) hard oftentimes to mixmedical and retail is
my (14) personal opinion. So I would like to.lJrge you to (15) support the project as it is proposed. Thank you. (16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I have a question for (17) you. There is some medical
retail, such as sells (18) prosthesis and all those kinds of things. Would (19) that not be an appropriate retail mix? (20) MATTHEW MINGRONE: I think, again, some of (21) the retail
is very limited as to what I think fits (22) in the medica) world. (23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Any other (24) questions? Commissioner Quintana. (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Where do you
Page 24 (1) currently practice? , (2) MATTHEW MINGRONE:" currently am ?t 555 (3) Knowles Drive in Los Gatos. (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: And you'll relocate over (5) to-(6) MATTHEW MINGRONE:
If I was involved in (7) the project, I would. (8) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I see, okay. Okay. Are (9) there any other people in the that would (10) like to speak to this application?
If not, I will (11) call applicant for rebuttals, any closing (12) comments and some additional questions from the (13) Commission. (14) BRAD KROUSKUP: Mr. Chair, I
don't think (15) there's any rebuttals. Thank you for taking the (16) time to listen to those gentlemen and to Joan. (17) We think it's a strong project. We think (18) it's 13.proj!3ct
that should go forward. (19) UnfortL!nately,th€lre's many €lxamples of ground floor (20) retail with unsucc'essful offices above them, and I (21) don't be.lieve this project can be pursued
ifretail (22) n€leds to be a ground floor component of it. (23) We have taken some -some considerable (24) measures, we think, to plan the project where it (25) will -will functionally
work within the North 40 Page 21 to Page 24 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(717} Page 25 (1) area. This plan is from the North 40 master plan, (2) and I had John Lien overlay the project site (3) on to the
North 40 plan, which the -the (4) property -it's a little hard to see, but the (5) property sits right here, and I think the important (6) thing is -and the darker spot is the building.
(7) I think the important thing is is with the (8) PO permitting process, the access easements and the (9) circulation we've provided, it fits very nicely into (10) the North 40 automobile
and pedestrian circulation (11) on Los Gatos Boulevard. (12) We think, again, that it provides -the (13) project provides significant benefit to the (14) . community. I enjoy being in
a community with so (15) many class physicians, and I hope as you consider (16) the ordinance, you'll consider revisions to section (17) two, item two, retain -pertaining to the retail
(18) component in section four, five and eliminating (19) paragraph six of section two. (20) One other change is we would hope that (21) we'd have the benefit of having 12 physicians.
(22) That's what the parking supports if there is not a .(23) retail component. Other than that, we fully accept (24) all the other conditions, and it's been a good (25) c90perative
project working with Staff. Thank you .;., :;:, Page 26 (1) very much. We hope for yo.ur recommendation. (2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner (3) Trevithick. (4) COMMISSIONER TREYITHICK:
(Inaudible) and (5). I wonder if J we could ask the architect who is with . (6) you tonight the distinction between form and (7) function and whether or not the sense of the retail (8)
would be incidental or complementary in the design. (9) And if it would be one or the other, would that (10) . dictate a different kind of design on the ground (11) floor to represent
the kind of retail -(12) JOHN LIEN: I'll ask your -John Lien. (13) I'll ask your -answer your last question first (14) and -the retail on the ground floor certainly (15) would be incidental.
It -it would not be (16) specifically targeted towards any particular type of (17) retail use. It would simply be available to any (18) tenant who might be willing to take it. And it
is (19) our opinion that it's not a desirable place for (20) retail use, and it would be difficult to get a (21) tenant to lease that space. (22) COMMiSSIONER TREVITHICK: Thank you.
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: This is a question (25) about the landscaping in the front of the building. Page 27 (1) JOHN LIEN: In the front
specifically? (2) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yes. (3) JOHN LIEN: Go ahead. (4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. The Town's (5) Consulting Architect requested that there be more (6) landscaping
in the front of the building, and two (7) trees have been added, however, there is no (8) landscaping between the pedestrian walkway in front (9) of the building and the building itself.
Could you (10) please-(11) JOHN LIEN: Well, except for the two (12) trees-(13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: --elaborate on (14) that. (15) JOHN LIEN: -that we have added, and (16) we -at Staff's
request, we added those two trees, (17) which resulted in the loss of one parking space, (18) which we are allowed, because we're asking for PO (19) zoning. But that is the only landscaping
between (20) the parked cars and the building. (21) What is different, though, we have (22) replicated the pattern of landscape and hardscape (23) that was used on the building immediately
to the (24) south of us, with the exception that that landscape (25) strip along Los Gatos Boulevard at the bUilding to Page 28 (1) the south 9f us is entirely hardscape from the (2)
street curb at Los Gatos Boulevard back to the (3) parking spaces directly behind. (4) In our -it's about a 17 foot wide swath. (5) In the case of our building, we are going to (6) replicate
the same sidewalk pattern and paving (7) pattern and pattern of trees, but rather than have (8)" hardscape around those trees and 'hardscape (9) essentially for the entire 17 foot width,
we are (10) proposing only to put a six foot hardscape sidewalk (11) through that space with landscaping on each side to (12) fill the 17 foot wide swath of land between the (13) Boulevard
and the parking. (14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: So it's not going (15) to match the existing pattern. (16) JOHN LIEN: Well, as I say, the -the (17) sidewalk pattern, the paving pattern
will match, be (18) essentially undistinguishable. And the pattern-(19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Could you-(20) JOHN LIEN: -of trees will be the same. (21) COMMISSiONER QUINTANA: Excuse
me. Could (22) you put a plan up on the projector and walk me (23) through that again, because I'm not sure I totally (24) understand. (25) JOHN LIEN: I'm looking at Sheet A-2. At ADVANTAGE
REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 25 to Page 28
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(8/8) Page 29 (1) the top of the sheet you'll see the street level (2) plan. (3) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Could you use the (4) landscaping
plan. (5) JOHN liEN: lean do that. I'm not sure (6) that's in focus as well as it can be, but by looking (7) at this and referring to your plan, I think you'll (8) be able to follow
along. (9) I'm referring to this strip of land right (10) here between the parking lot and the street, and you (11) see the diamond pattern in the white area down the (12) center o.f
that strip of land is the hardscape. And (13) to each side of it are ground covers and shrubs and (14) trees. (15) Now, in the project immediately to the (16) south of us, that's all
hardscape with what they (17) call tree grates. It has the trees, but it doesn't (18) have. the land -the -the grouhd cover or the (19) shrubs that we're proposing. (20) So essentially,
we're using only one-'third . (21) of that strip of land for hardscape and (22) for landscape, which is different from what's south (23) of us. But asl say, the
hardscape pattern and (24) paving materials will be the same, and the pattern (25) . of will be the same, and where the property to (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) Page 31 for the zone, and the required landscaping is either three or five or ten percent, and I don't remember.
MR. LORTZ: Yes, I think you're there in terms of the landscaping. I think It -you know, It's certainly possible with some potted plants and above grade planters to soften the building,
if that's the Commissioner's intent. And that would be a question for the applicant as to Whether they'd be willing to do that, but we have used that successfully. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
Yeah, I thinkMR. LORTZ: The problenlis you.do have a beloW grade parking structure, so we'd have to work through that issue. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. cdMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
Thank you. you. COMMISSIONER BURKE: This is actuaUyjust a follow-up to the question about exceeding the landscaping required by the zone. The fact that this isa PDas part of this approval,
We could require more landscaping; Is that a correct statement? MR. LORTZ: You can certainly require more landscaping. I think you've got a physical limitation. If you look at the plans
for the Page 30 (1) the sputhof us uses hardscape for the full width of (2) that strip ofland, we're proposing two-thirds would (3) actually be in landscaping. (4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
And could you (5) I'm still hot understanding, because when I went out (6) there, it didn't look to me like that was all (7) hardscape on the adjacent property. (8) JOHN LIEN: On the
property to the south (9) of us? (10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah. (11) JOHN LIEN: Well, in fact, they have-(12) and it's also in this dialT)ond pattern, as I recall, (13) if I'm npt
mistaken, the only landscape they have on (14) that strip of land are the trees themselves. (15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: That-I believe (16) that's incorrect. There is -(17) JOHN LIEN:
Okay. Well,1 may be-(18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: ;... in the-(19) JOHN LIEN: -incorrect about that. I am (20) certain that we have less hardscape than they do. (21) COMMISSiONER QUINTANA:
Okay. Thank you (22) for that information, but I'd still like to knoW why (23) no landscaping to soften the building. (24) JOHN LIEN: "II ask Bud Lortz this (25) question.·1 know we
exceed the required landscape Page 32 (1) parking garage, you'll note that the parking garage, (2) Sheet A-2, extends towards tl:1e street, so on the (3) northside of the building, we'd
haVe some physical (4) limitations. So that would have to be above grade. (5) On the southerly portion of the building, (6) there may be sorTIe potential to be inground adjacent (7)
to the bUilding. (8) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other Commissioners' (9) questions? Commissioner Trevithick. (10) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Can youtell us (11) anything about any geological
survey you might have (12) done in connection with the foundations? (13) JOHN LIEN: We have a complete geological (14) survey, and there are no hazards present. It's a(15) it's a fairly
straightforward engineering. (16) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Thank you. (17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have another-(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
Again, when I went (20) out to the site, the variation in the setback (21) between the adjacent building and your bUilding (22) appeared to be a lot greater than the -than the (23) two
feet that are mentioned in the Staff Report and (24) shown from the adjacent building, and since there's (25) no -my question is which is correct? I believe Page 29 to Page 32 (408)
920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(9/9) Page 33 (1) the Staff Report says that there's only a two foot (2) difference between -(3) JOHN LIEN: I noticed that as well,
but (4) I -I would say that the story poles on the (5) property are very accurate. Those -location of (6) those poles were designated by our -our civil (7) engineer based on surveying
techniques. (8) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Then -but (9) we don't have any drawings that show the relative (10) difference, because it's the draWings that would be (11) used for future
reference. (12) JOHN LIEN: If you look at both sheet A-1 (13) and A-2, it shows the adjacent building on the (14) property to the south of us. (15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: So what is
that (16) setback? (17) JOHN LIEN: Pardon me? Say again. (18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: What is the -the (19) setback distance? (20) JOHNLIEN: It's -it's about -we're-(21) we're approximately
ten feet closer to Los Gatos (22) Boulevard than the building to the south of us. (23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you.· (24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Trevithick. (25)':COMMISSIONER
TREVITHICK: I have a Page 34 (1) question again. In the Cannon Design Group report (2) of the design, can I read a sentence from it that (3) connects with circulation. It says vehicular
(4) linkages are convenient along the building (5) frontages, but the placement of the ramp down to the (6) parking at the rear of the building provides a (7) significant blockage to
direct pedestrian movement. (8) Please, could you comment a bit on that. (9) JOHN LIEN: Sure. And that -he reviewed (10) the plan at the point in time when we were (11) actually had
a design that didn't require PO (12) approval. PO zoning I should say. And as architect (13) Cannon pointed out, if we were to raise the ground (14) level and raise the building, we
would be able to (15) make both the pedestrian and the vehicular (16) connection to the property to the south of us, and (17) that's what we did, and what that did in effect, (18) although
the building wall surface is the same (19) height as what we originally proposed, because we're (20) building up the land underneath to allow the (21) pedestrian and vehicular access
and the method that (22) the Town uses to measure the height of the building, (23) we actually exceed what would be allowed by the zone (24) simply because we built up the site to allow
that (25) connection to the property to the south of us. Page 35 (1) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: So you would -(2) JOHN LIEN: We have revised the plans as a (3) result of that comment.
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (5) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'm haVing trOUble (6) finding Mr. Cannon's letter, but I think there was (7) reference in his letter to the effect
that this (8) design will force the design of buildings sub -(9) excuse me -subsequently to the north, and that's (10) one question. (11) And then the other question -maybe I (12) should
ask that one first, because it relates to (13) . what was just asked. What does the -what is the (14) consequence of what you've done to the connection (15) between the building to the
south have in relation (16) to potential building to the north? (17) JOHN LIEN: And we looked at that (18) extensively. In fact, even used that as an argument (19) against making this
connection, but the fact of the (20) matter is, upon further study, engineering practices (21) limit the amount that we can tip a parking lot from (22) end to end just because it can't
be too steep, but (23) we are able to lower our parking lot level at the (24) north side of the property as compared to the south (25) side. Page 36 (1) So in effect, we're sloping down
towards (2) the Boulevard tavern to the north of us, and at the (3) same time, the existing grade is flattening out. So (4) the connection, vehicular and pedestrian connection. (5) to
an eventual bUilding to the south of us will face (6) a similar problem as we have, but in fact it is not (7) as severe in terms of the vertical separation (8) between existing grade
and what we will propose as (9) the parking lot level. (10) So in my opinion, we probably are (11) addressing the worst case scenario in terins of being (12) able to connect to a neighboring
property, and as we (13) move further north on Los Gatos Boulevard, the (14) allowed slope across the parking lot and the (15) existing slope of the ground, those two levels will (16)
gradually converge with each other, and the problem (17) diminishes as you move towards Highway 85. (18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you. (19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Other questions? Seeing
(20) no other I thank you very much. And at (21) this point I'm going to close the pUblic hearing, (22) return -oops, wait a minute, I'm not going to (23) close
the public hearing. Commissioner Quintana's (24) got one last one to sneak in. (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: One last question. ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 33
to Page 36
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2-JANUARY 28, 2()04 XMAX(l 0/1 0) Page 37 (1) On community. benefits -(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: And who is this going to (3) be directed to? (4) COMMISSIONER
QUINTANA: 1-(5) CHAIRMAN
DUBOIS: Whomever? (6) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: -don't know who (7) it should be directed to. Could you give me a (B) little bit more specifics on the community benefit (9) that you're
offering? (10) BRAD KROUSKUP: Did you have anyone in (11) mind, or do you want me to go through the list of (12) community benefits? And Iasked Joan to step to the (13) microphone -(14)
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. I'm . (15) particularly interested in the. last one. (16) BRAD KROUSKUP: Okay. That's why I asked (17) Joan to step up and tell you ;guys when I met Joan
(lB) about five years ago when shew.ascoaching myson's (19) competitive soccer team, and It'salove of hers. (20) So l'II'let her talk abo.utthis a little bit. (21) JOAN OLOFF: Briefly
in tryill9 to educate (22) myself through this process, I have been witnessing ((23) several previous Planning Commission meetings and (24) Council meetings and was able to
see some of (25) the dilemmas going on in the soccer community. And Page 38 (1) I thought it was somewhat serendipitous that I'm (2) going through this at this time, because I've had
(3) some very strong connections to the soccer community (4) locally, as well as nationally. (5) I was fortunate enough to work, you know, (6) with the women's professional team when
it was in (7) San Jose, the. San Jose Cyber Rays. Through that (B) connection, I've actually gotten to know and (9) befriend a lot of the players, and fortunately for (10) me, unfortunately
for her at that time, Brandy (11) Chastain had a lot of foot injuries. (12) Brandy has become like a sister to me (13) through this process. Her mom was like a (14) grandmother to my
children, and was in fact staying (15) with one of my sons when the rest of us Were having (16) a good time at the New York Open, the U.S. Open, in (17) New York, watching tennis. (lB)
Two days after we came home, Brandy's mom (19) died in her house in her sleep and could have very (20) easily been in my house. When Brandy heard about (21) the dilemma of the soccer
team, she expressed her (22) concern and her support for that. At the same time, (23) you know, I've been asked to come up with a (24) community benefit in addition to the -all the (25)
things we're trying to do, and we've instructed Page 39 (1) everybody working on this project to do everything (2) possible to make this work for this community. (3) And it was my intent,rather
than to make (4) a donation towards a building structllrt;l, whether (5) curbs or beaUtification of a particular street, the (6) obvious benefit would be Los Gatos BOUlevard, since (7)
thafs where my office would be, rather I wanted to (B) make a donation towa,rds the people in the soccer (9) community in the Town.' (10) So what I proposed doing was to see thata (11)
foundation for the development of soccer fields and (12) maintenance of soccer fields, fields, and I have some (13) specific ideas on how to do that, but probably (14) wouldn't be appropriat€!here
to discuss that, but I (15) think there's some things we can do to really help (16) this community and its problems with soccer fields. (17) CQMMISSI.ONER QUINTANA: ActuallY,lwould (18)
like you to be more specific, becC;iJse tQt=l-the (19) benefit as written in our Staff fairly (20) nebuloiJ:S. ang would -I'd like. what (21)
the concrete reality of this benefit would be -(22) JOAN OLOFF: C.oncrete in terms of (23) action-(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: --in the (25) short-term. Page 40 (1) JOAN OLOFF: In terms
of action or dollar (2) amount? What would you like? (3) COMMISSIONE;R QUINTANA:, Both. (4) JOANOLOFF: Okay, well -(5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: One of the findings we (6) are required to make
is whatis the community (7) benefit, how does it weigh -outweigh. So be -be (8) as specific as you can. (9) JOAN OLOFF: Okay. Basically the dollar (10) amount is $20,000 that this project
would put (11) towards opening and creating this foundatio.n. From (12) there, what I've proposed to qo would be to -to (13) create a weekend of fundraising next year (14) encompassing
s.ome of the players from the U.S. (15) national team to come to Los Gatos and work in (16) conjunction with local Los Gatos and soccer (17) players with a weekend of
clinics, lunches, and (lB) ultimately a dinner and a game. (19) And there are some specific lands that I (20) know of that -that I'd like to help the Town to (21) secure for building,
and then ultimately maintaining (22) additional soccer fields. (23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions? (24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: (Inaudible.) (25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you very
much. Page 37 to Page 40 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION· ITEM #2· JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(11/11) Page 41 (1) Are there any other -any other questions from the (2) Commission? Seeing none, I will now close the (3) pUblic
hearing, return this to the Commission for (4) questions of Staff, comments or a motion. (5) Commissioner Burke. (6) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Mr. Lortz, could you (7) give us some idea of
what type of retail would be (8) allowed. I know it goes in -it references another (9) document on the type of retail that would be allowed (10) in the retail area as proposed by the
Staff for this (11) project. (12) MR. LORTZ: Well, certainly the first (13) thing we discussed with the applicant, and I want to (14) mention that, you know, I was glad to see that John
(15) Lien was involved in this project. I think we all (16) owe John a lot of debt for the building that he (17) built on Highway 9 there. Thank you very much, (18) John. (19) But the
-the issue pretty much from the (20) offset of this project has been that retail issue, (21) and one that we had suggested was a medical related, (22) along the lines of Commissioner
Dubois, prosthesis, (23) perhaps a pharmacy. You see those quite often in (24) these kinds of bUildings. Certainly would be an (25) dption. Page 42 (1) Restaurant would be an option.
Soccer (2) equipment would be an option. So, you know, there (3) is a wide variety, unlimited variety of retail uses (4) that would be allowed in that location. (5) COMMISSIONER BURKE:
Okay. And I wante,d (9) to state for the record to my best of my (7) knowledge, I don't think I used the term Starbuck's (8). as recommending. I think I used a more local coffee (9)
establishment, but I -(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Los Gatos Coffee (11) Roasting. Lee. (12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I laughed, and I (13) think I forgot what I was going to ask. One of the
(14) things I was going to ask Staff is a question of the (15) size of the retail. As long as it fronts along the (16) Boulevard, is there any room for negotiation there? (17) MR. LORTZ:
Well, you know, it's it's difficult (18) to plan for an area when we really don't have a plan (19) that's been adopted. What we have to work off of as (20) Staff is past actions of the
Council, the Planning (21) Commission, the draft North 40 plan, particularly (22) those aspects of it that were not questioned when (23) the Council considered the North 40 plan several
(24) years back. (25) The -just for your information, the -Page 43 (1) the issues that were of concern to the Council, and (2) the reason why it was tabled, was there was some (3) discussion
about a residential component on the (4) North 40. There were some palm trees and some (5) illustrations that were undesirable. And there was (6) also an issue of certain minor design
elements that (7) needed to be addressed. (8) So the -the retail was not particularly (9) an issue of concern from the broader perspective, (10) but what we do -so we have to rely off
of these (11) past actions. What we did in the conditions of the (12) PO was mimiced the actions of Council on the planned (13) development to the south in terms of the retail (14) component
that was located on the ground floor (15) facing Los Gatos Boulevard. And what the Council (16) allowed in that particular project was some office (17) use towards the west side of the
building, but a -(18) enough of a component of retail on that ground floor (19) that that applicant argued waS sufficient to create (20) enough of a space that could support retail use.
(21) And so we calculated that, and that's how we came up (22) with the 40 percent. (23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Two other (24) questions. One is in relation to retail. Having (25) two
retail-two buildings with retail adjacent to Page 44 (1) each other, is that more likely to create a node of (2) retail and make it more viable? (3) MR. LORTZ: Well, certainly you're
(4) starting to get some economic mass there. YOLrknow, (5) some would question whether that's enough. You (6) know, I think you have to kind of back up on the (7) whole concept of retail
on the North 40 and and -and (8) without an adopted plan, it's hard to say, but (9) retail as the prominent fixture, and office would be (10) certainly the secondary feature. And so
one would (11) then say well, maybe the whole building should be (12) retail. It could cause enough of a draw that, you (13) know, maybe it would be a destination. For example, (14)
a sporting goods store. But clearly, there is an (15) allowance for some office use, and so what we were (16) trying to do is strike a balance. (17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: My other question
(18) relates to the North 40 plan, and what wasn't (19) controversial at the time the plan came forward, if (20) I remember correctly, please correct me, was there (21) any discussion
about the -the provision that (22) medical offices would not be included? (23) MR. LORTZ: No. Not that I recall. There (24) was actually one discussion way early on where it (25) was
going to be all medical, but that was cast aside ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 41 to Page 44
eSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY28, 2004 XMAX(12/12) (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) Page45
' for more destination retail uses, which is the direction that the Council at that point went. And I want to say that, you know, we certainly respected the applicant's approach to this
project all the way through. We respect the doctors that are in the audience here, that are members of the community, but the issue for us is really the vision for that area. And the
applicant and Staff discussed the possibility of as -o.f a horizontal mixed use versus a vertical mixed use, and perhaps one building that was medical preclude us from
haVing retail elsewhere in the North 40, but the concern tt'!at we have is a full medical office bUilding is to some extent different than what we certainly approved in the past. So
we have to -Staff was working off. of the that's been given by Council on prior ' CHAIRMAN DUBOfs: Commissioner Burke. GbMMISSIONEF:lBURKE: I'm
going to just make a statement here so the other Commissioners know the way I'm leaning on. this. Having suffered through pain of the North 40 plan, and lUckily I. c;lidn't have to refer
to my health as a patient to one of these doctors, I think (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) Page
47 Boulevard is, in my opinion,approximately the correct mix. CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I just wanted to verify with Staff that this bUilding is
not creating additional problems with transition for buildings further to the north. MR. LORTZ: No. We looked at that very carefully. We had to work through some issues, because I think
the engineering on the bUilding to the south forced some challenges onto property. And I think, as Mr. Lien pointed out, we worked . through those issues so the. building to
the north of. thiswill have far less of a challenge than what we did on this one. COMMISSIONER 9UINTANA: Okay. And also regarding the landscaping, is there no way to provide more landscaping.
other than in pots in the fronp-MR., LORTZ: On the north side of the building there is not, the parking garage underneath, EMthere is possibility to the.
southerly portion of the building facade that could have some inground. So if the Commission wFlnted to consider a condition maximizing the amount of Page 46 (1) it would be a shame
to haVe a project come and (2) and while I recognize their need to put in a hundred (3) percent medical building, I think the Town's need to (4) follow the plan, even though it's not
adopted in (5) spirit,is really important. I.f we don't haVe (6) retail in this bUilding, we'll have to have a (7) greater component in retail of otherbuildings, (8) which may be unfair
to them. (9) The other thing is this building's on the (10) plan now,. it goes in with the retail component that (11) 11) does build the economic mass, and starts to (12)
make that area a little more self -reliant is (13) (inaudible) wrong word, but I'm good friends with my (14) next door neighbor who;s a doctor, and I know that (15) their staff's always,
you know, driving out (16) somewhere for lunch, driving out somewhere to get (17) coffee, and the thought tnat we have -start haVing (18) buildings there where people have
to do that, (19) they walk downstairs, they walk to the building next (20) door to get their sandwich, to get their coffee to (21) me is proper smart urban planning. And it goes (22)
beyond anyone use. (23) So it would be my intent not to support (24) the concept of eliminating the retail, and I think (25) that the 40 percent of the ground floor facing the (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) Page 48 landscaping, prOViding we meet ADA acqess fqr that sidewalk along
the front, and also providing we can ,. I' , work around that parking garage issue. VVecan still do some above grade planters on the northerly portion above the garage. On the southerly
portion, we have some other options. So we could work through COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. This building extends quite a bit beyond the adjacent southern bUilding
in the rear and further up in the front. What is the difference in site coveragE! and -and/or FAR for this building compared to the two Hirschman buildings? MR. LORTZ: Boy, 1-you.know,
I think I'd be reluctant to offer a guess) although I it's similar. The building does sit alittle bit forward, but we don't see that as being necessarily a problem. In fact,
I'd offer that it might offer some interest, as long as it doesn't create some new transition where we're pushing the buildings forward. COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I agree with you, My concern
was that there was only two feet, which wasn't visible, but this does raise a question in my mind about the intensity of this development, Page 45 to Page 48 (40B) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE
REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
8SA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(13113) Page 49 (1) because we're pushing the parking beyond the (2) footprint of the building, which is then' having an (3) effect
on the landscapirg that we can install. (4) MR. LORTZ: The only thing I would offer (5) along those lines is I know some issues on the (6) southerly building that were dictated by some
(7) parking issues, and I believe that this building is (8) very similar, if -well, very similar in terms of (9) the coverage. (10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I agree. But (11) my -I guess
what I'm questioning is did we -I'm (12) not supposed to question past judgments, but I -we (13) do have to look at what we've done before to decide (14) whether we can improve. Did
we provide enough (15) landscaping on the Hirschman project? Do we need to (16) provide more because each project we approve here (17) will influence what goes on in the next project?
(18) MR. LORTZ: Well, I think your comment (19) about landscaping along the front of the building (20) probably does soften the building to some (21) so, you know, that's
one area where I think we were (22) a little weak. We were weak on -on the bUilding (23) on the south. I think we were also weak in terms of (24) some design elements where the driveway
goes to the (25) back, which we addressed on this project. So I Page 50 (1) think we actually picked up strategic areas of (2) landscaping that we missed on the first bUilding. (3) CHAIRMAN
DUBOIS: Commissioner Trevithick. (4) COMMISSIONER TREYITHICK: Mr. Lortz, I (5) understand that this -the interest of the planning (6) in terms of North 40 having mixed use. On the other
(7) hand, this particular site is so well located from (8) an office point of view, I wonder to what degree it (9) is medical office driven, and in one of the comments (10) earlier on
from Mr. Lien, he referred to retail as (11) being incidental. So the question is the difference (12) between incidental and 40 percent, and I wonder if (13) you have any comment on
that. (14) MR. LORTZ: Well,the-theBoulevard (15) frontage bUildings, you know, can probably be (16) treated a little bit differently, and I don't see (17) that over the long-term thwarting
our ability to be (18) able to create the type of long-term vision for that (19) area that we've been searching for and would work (20) very well in terms of a complementary use. The(21)
and it doesn't preclude full retail buildings in (22) other locations. (23) I think the mix is advantageous. I -I . (24) am concerned about a full medical building use as a (25) precedent,
and also a direction. Page 51 (1) COMMISSIONER TREYITHICK: Even though (2) there-(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Your mike's off. (4) COMMISSIONER TREYITHICK: At this time, as (5) evidenced by
the audience tonight. (6) MR. LORTZ: The medical, yes. And but the (7) only thing that I would counter on that comment is (8) there are so many locations in Los Gatos where full (9)
medical is allowed, and this is one area where we're (10) really trying to push that destination retail type (11) of use. (12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. (13) COMMISSIONER
BURKE: I'm honestly, (14) Mr. Lortz, not trying to be difficult here, but I do (15) have a question for you as I was reviewing the (16) findings. Can you explain to me Why we need to
make (17) findings for demolition of a house and findings for (18) infill? It was my belief that infill was a property (19) that had never been developed before. (20) MR. LORTZ: Well,
you do have to make (21) findings for the .demolition of the house. That's (22) that's pretty standard practice. Your point is well (23) taken. What we've been doing is just anticipating
(24) that the Commission would consider this an infill (25) project, but I'll state for the record that, you Page 52 (1) know, that was a topic of discussion when the (2) Council adopted
the infill policy. I looked at the (3) minutes of that meeting, and that was the Planning (4) Director at that time, Lee Bowman, who offered to . (5) the Council that infill was really
a vacant lot that (6) 6) was being developed, not a site that is being (7) redeveloped. (8) Now, we need to clarify. That's a policy (9) issue for Council. But some would say that such
an (10) insignificant useon such a large parcel could be (11) considered an infill, but in any respect, when it (12) comes to the community benefit side of things, it is (13) dictated
by the traffic policy in this particular (14) instance, regardless of the infill. (15) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (16) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have a concern (17) about
the change in the pattern of the sidewalk tree (18) configuration along Los Gatos Boulevard. There was (19) a lot of discussion about that during the (20) development of the office building
to the south, and (21) that was to be somewhat the model to be continued. (22) along the entire frontage of Los Gatos Boulevard. (23) MR. LORTZ: Well -(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Or
could you (25) clarify what the diffeiences are and whether in fact ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 49 to Page 52
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION. ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28, 2004 XMAX(14/14) Page 53 (1) that building does not have landscaping between the (2) trees, as I think I saw. (3) MR. LORTZ: I can't speak
exactly to the (4) differences. You could by condition require it to (5) be identical with very limited adjustments to add (6) interest, or it could be just identical. That could (7)
be done. (8) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: In width and (9)" everything so that it matches? (10) MR. LORTZ:'; ; Yes. Essentially the (11) condition would say match the pattern to the south.
(12) COMMISSIONERQUINTANA: Okay. And I have (13) another question. I'm having difficulty with -(14) with hoW we proceed with this, because I perceive (15) that there are many policy
issues here, and to make (16) a recommendation ... I mean, there's some big policy (17) issues here. The inedical 'office, the amount of (18) retail, and do ... you know, do we make
a (19) recommendation that is an if then, if.you -you (20) know, if rnedical use is okay, and retail use is ((21) okay, then this is our recornrnendation. !f medical (22) uses aren't
okay, but retail is okay, then this is (23) our recommendation, and, you know, various different (24) possibilities. (25) MR. LORTZ: Well, I think -I think there Page 54 (1) should be
a consensus, you know, certainly in a (2) motion, that forwards this project to the CounCil, (3) and then any comments from the Commission can be (4) offered, It's going to be a verbatim
transcript. (5) You want to, bycohsensus; offer a recommendation (6) with regard to perhaps retail, and you're correct (7) that it is a policy matter. . (8) COMMISSIONEI1 QUINTANA: But
my question is (9) that we have to make a motion as to whether to (10) recommend approval or not recommehd approval, and (11) that's difficult to do when we don't knowWtlat the (12)
resolution of the policy issues is. (13) MR. LORTZ: Well, I think you're as bound, (14) as certainly Staff has been, in terms of the past (15) practice and past decisions and the North
40 plan, (16) even though though it's not adopted, is -is a framework (17) for decision-making. (18) So one offer I would give you is that you (19) would recommend a project with whatever
conditions (20) you want to impose recon -with subsequent comments (21) about the rationale behind your -your motion so (22) thatthe end deciSions ... and your' recommendations (23)
so that the Council has the benefit of that logic (24) and wisdom. (25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Page 55 (1) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA': Thank you. (2) MR. LORTZ: Because what you're (3) essentially
doing is interpreting policy, (4) interpreting sections of the General Plan, and (5) and I think the COuncil Would certainly value (6) your -your comments and your wisdom on that. (7)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. (8) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'll take a stab at a (9) motion, if YOU'd like. (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'd like to make a (11) comment first before you take
a stab. I'rn the only (12) one that hasn't said anything up here. (13) This is the second time that we have faced (14) an office issue COining on in thiS part of the (15) community with
a requirement for retail. Kind of (16) reminds me of the prince running around with (17) Cinderella's shoe trying to find the right fit for (18) the retail, and it bothers me a lot.
(19) And the problein that I really see, and I (20) think the Council needs to address is we need a (21) specific plan in the North 40. If we're goingtb (22) have a requirement for retail,
then let's build (23) retail, not office. Not try to shoe retail into (24) office. I think that this is potentially a good (25) use, and Ithink there is -can be a good mixture Page 56
(1) of office and really destination retail there. (2) The -you know, the other kinds of stores that will (3) actually draw people arid the adjacent restaurants, (4) and I think there
can be! agood rnix. (5) The problem is I don't think it's (6) defined. We don't have a specific plan. We have (7) this General' Plan. And I wish the Council would (8) would
take that on as -as aprbjeCt and straighten (9) it out for uS so that we don't piecemeal in these (10) kinds 'of offices. (11) And What I'm concerned is if we set aside (12) specific
space of'specific percentage for retail in (13) this building, we don't know it's going to be. (14) You know, what would work in there? There's some (15) indications that potentially,
you know, a (16) restaurant. But would a restaurant survive in (17) there? Is there -is it going to be survivable? (18) Just because we want a retail element (19) doesn'tnecessarily
mean it's going to be (20) survivable. If we want retail to succeed out there, (21) we need retail designed structLJres that are retail (22) oriented. (23) So I would tend -my -my leanings
would (24) be tending to approve this as an all medical (25) building, which would be actually going against Page 53 to Page 56 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(15115) Page 57 (1) policy, at least the direction that we've been (2) going, just to give Council some grist to chew on (3) here
and start looking at perhaps changing or (4) looking at, you know, developing a more clarified (5) North 40 plan and something that is consistent, we (6) can say this is a retail zone,
so we don't have (7) developers coming to us with future office (8) buildings. (9) MR. LORTZ: A couple of comments. One is (10) a procedural issue that the Town Attorney pointed (11)
out to me, which is important. The other is (12) certainly the lines of what you're talking (13) about. The North 40 plan is scheduled for, you (14) know, initiation, in '04,
'OS. So that is something (15) that is on our workload, and the Council recognizes (16) the importance of it. (17) The-the other is a procedural issue in (18) terms of the vote that's
necessary on -based on (19) your rules, your procedural rules, and in this (20) particular case, you're going to need four votes (21) whatever direction you're going to do. So you're
(22) going to need all of you to agree. (23) MR. KORB: And just to elaborate on (24) Mr. Lortz's point, that -the reason is because (25) th,.is is a planned development application,
which is Page 58 (1) a zone change, and the zone change requires a (2) majority of the whole Commission, and that is, of (3) course, your four votes tonight. (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Just
the zone change (5) element of it? (6) MR. KORB: That's correct. (7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Now you can take (8) a stab at that. (9) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Well, based on the (10) comments
I've heard, question for Mr. Lortz. Being (11) that we have to have four votes for the PO zone (12) change, can I make a motion for that alone? (13) MR. LORTZ: Yes. In the form of a
(14) recommendation. (15) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. I make a (16) motion -how do I word this? I move that we make a (17) recommendation to approve Planned Development (18) Application
PD-04-2. We make the -a a motion to (19) recommend that to the Council for approval as (20) written by the Staff, including the 4,000 feet-(21) square feet of retail on the ground level
facing Los (22) Gatos Boulevard. (23) And I'm going to stop there and see if I'm (24) going to get a second before I go on to get (25) findings. Page 59 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Motion on
the floor. Do . (2) we have a second? Commissioner Trevithick. (3) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: (Inaudible.) (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Put your -put your (5) mike on, please. (6) COMMISSIONER
TREVITHICK: I would consider (7) it if the motion maker would say up to 4,000, (8) because we are not in a position to examine economic (9) alternatives. We can't do the work for a developer.
(10) MR. LORTZ: The -the way it's written in (11) the PO, just for clarification, is the retail area (12) shall constitute a minimum of 40 percent of the (13) ground floor along the
easterly side of the bUilding (14) fronting on the Los Gatos Boulevard. And the reason (15) it was written that way is because it could be that (16) as they talk to potential lessees,
it may have to (17) grow a little bit to create a space that is (18) functional, so it gave some flexibility to that. (19) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: So if we (20) write -if we say.40
percent, we're -(21) MR. LORTZ: That's about 4,000 square (22) feet. (23) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: That's (24) (inaudible). (25) COMMISSIONER BURKE: My concern is we say Page 60 (1)
up to 4,009 square feet based upon what the . (2) applicant wants to do, we're going to get zero, (3) 'cause that's up to 4,000
square feet. So I would (4) say 40 percent, but if the motion -the seconder (5) requires an up to 4,000 feet, I will-and there's (6) no other second, I guess I will withdraw the motion.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: It would die for lack of (8) a second. (9) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: (Inaudible.) (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Turn your mike on. (11) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I will support
(12) you if you're going to 4,000 square feet. But it's (13) only for discussion purposes. (14) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Well, this is a (15) recommendation, and the 4,000 square feet is
based (16) on approximately 40 percent of the ground floor on (17) the Boulevard facing, and the feet can, I guess, you (18) know, vary there. (19) MR. LORTZ: Exactly. It was building
some (20) flexibility. And what -what essentially you're(21) you're asking is -I believe you're offering here (22) is the PO as written and included in your Staff (23) Report. And the
way that read says a minimum of 40 (24) percent. What that calculates to is 4,000 square (25) feet on a 10,000 sq uare foot first floor. ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222
Page 57 to Page 60
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(16/16) Page 61 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We have a motion (2) with a second on the floor. Commissioner Quintana. (3) COMMISSIONER
QUINTANA: How -let me (4) start and see where I get. (5) M,R. KORB: Can I stop you for just a (6) minute? (7) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Sure. (8) MR. KORB: Let me -I just want to make a
(9) suggestion, or at least something to keep in mind as (10) you're discussing this and contemplating a vote on (11) the motion. Given the voting requirement in order (12) to move.the
application along, if it is yqur '(13) inclinatior;! as a group to approve the project; and (14) your only question is what to do about the retail, (15) element as proposed inthe ordinance
before you (16) tonight, you do have the option of voting to -(17) voting on the motiqn as a majority, and if any (18) member has a concern about the retail issue and (19) wishes to
insert comments in the record to be (20) considered by Council on that policy question, you (21) ,can do so. (22) As you know, thfa reality is the Council (23) gets a tra.nscript, a
verbatim transcript of your (24) and as a consequence, whatever thoughts (25) and concerns you have about that issue will get to Page 62 (1) Council no matter,what
your vote is. So theY would (2) get the application: and they would get the value of (3) your concerns, .comments or whateveron that (4) question. So it's just something that will allow
(5) you to move this project along, if that is yol,lr (6) inclination. (7) COMMISSiONER TREVITHICK: Thank you. (8) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. That is the (9) procedural way to do it,
however, I, dq have a (10) problem w,ith voting in favor a (11) that in fact I might not really be in fCivor of. And (12) that's where I have the problems
witMhis (13) particular thing. (14) I have many problems, and we haven't even (15) touched on one of them, which was an issue that was (16) raised by the Town's Consulting Architect
regarding (17) the architectural design of the building, what is (18) the direction that the Town wants to go in? Do we (19) want to continue to go in th€l direction of the more (20)
commercial office type building, or. do we want to be (21) consistent with the Vasona Corridor Plan and the Los (22) Gatos Boulevard Plan, which calls for commercial (23) development
ofany type shall be designed in keeping (24) with the small town character of Los Gatos? Does (25) that mean a more residential that's up? Page 63 (1) There -there are a. number of different
(2) policies in the Los Gatos General Plan under the (3) Vasona Corridor, non-r!3sidentialland uses, and (4) under the North 40 Itself that would question me(5) brings a question as
to whethe.r I could ,sYPport the (6) use that's being proposed, as Mr. Lortz said, based (7) on past-(8) (End of CD-t.) (9) (Beginning of CD-2.) (10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: One -one
(11) question I have is the question of compatibility. (12) If in fact we support retail, which I happen to do, (13) we have an applicant wh_o says retail .is not (14) compatible with
this medical building. It's not a (15) compatible land use, then. (16) Also I questic;m whether it really supports (17) the long-term goals of the North 40 plan, and even (1B) if we
don't have a specific North 40 plan il)place, (19) we have enough policies in the General Plan and in (20) the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan to make that kind, of a (21) determination. So
I'm going to be voting no. I . (22) guess that's the bottom line. I hate that I'm (23) , always on the negative side! but-(24) MR. LORTZ: If -if you all want to vote (25) no, it will
still go forward to the Council. Page 64 (1) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I prefer that. (2) MR. LORTZ: You know, it sounds like (3) you -unless you can get a consensus of all of you, (4)
then you have two options. You either continue it (5) to the next meeting so you have ,a full Commission or (6) a bigger, larger Commission, or you recommend (7) denial, and it will
be forwarded to the Councilwith (B) all of your comments and wisdOm include9 in the (9) transcript. (10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: We don't have to (11) say specifically for the record,
because it's all (12) going to be on the transcript, right? (13) MR. LORTZ: It's all on the record. (14) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We still have a (15) motion on the floor, then. The motion
is to approve (16) PO application das,h 04-02, correct? (17) Okay. I'm going to call the question. (1B) All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying (19) aye. (20) (Ayes.) (21)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed? (22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No. (23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Quintana and Dubois in (24) opposition. So that means nothing. So -(25) MR. KORB: Clearly a tie vote is
no -Page 61 to Page 64 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 XMAX(17/17} Page 65 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: No action. (2) MR. KORB: -no action, so -(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. I'm -(4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
So we can -(5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'm going to -(6) Commissioners, you know, we're going to have to (7) fight our way through this thing, but I -I think (8) the most justice that we can
give this project, I (9) think perhaps because it is, as Commissioner (10) Quintana has pointed out, and as I've expressed (11) concern, as has Commissioner Burke has expressed (12)
concern, there's a lot of policy issue here. A-(13) perhaps we can give justice to this applicant by (14) giving a denial here so that this moves forward to (15) Council. (16) COMMISSIONER
QUINTANA: I would move to (17) deny -unless you want to. (18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Go ahead. (19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I move to -I (20) move to recommend denial of application PD-04-02
(21) with -that's all. And -and then I'd just like (22) everybody to put on record the reasons why they're (23) voting against it. (24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. I'm going to (25) seibond
the motion, and I'm going to state for the.. Page 66 (1) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Do we need to do (2) the rest of the -(3) MR. KORB: Well, my suggestion is for (4) clarity that you
do, if it's your inclination, (5) . address all three applications -or, excuse me, the (6) two applications at the same time. (7) I would ask if you have any comments (8) regarding the
Negative Declaration that you make (9) those separately so that this Council have their -(10) the value of those comments. But at least that way (11) you dispense with all the pending
applications. (12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Do we just (13) make a recommendation on the Negative Declaration? (14) MR. KORB: Yeah. I think your motion (15) would be a recommendation
on the Negative (16) Declaration, a recommendation of denial on the PO (17) application, and a denial on the architecture and (18) site application. We'll ferret out the appeal (19)
rights on the A and S. But, of course, it all (20) hinges on the PD. (21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. I'm going (22) to withdraw my motion and let Commissioner Dubois. (23) CHAIRMAN
DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. (24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'm just going to (25) make a statement. I will go along with a denial Page6? (1) motion, but I don't know if we're doing -if that
(2) is necessarily the best interest in everybody's (3) concern, because if we do, like previous projects, (4) we're taking ourselves completely out of the loop. (5) If we continue this
to a meeting when we have a full (6) Commission, we will at least be able to provide (7) reasonable input to the Council, rather than just a (8) denial. (9) Yes, we will have verbatim
minutes, but I (10) don't -you know, I don't know if that will be as (11) significant as having input from all seven (12) Commissioners. (13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: . I'm willing to poll the
(14) Commission on that question. Commissioner Quintana. (15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I think we (16) expressed a a range of opinions tonight, and I think (17) the applicant -I would
assume the applicant would (18) prefer that we just take an action on this and pass (19) it on to the Council, rather than delaying it. So I (20) would say do that now, make an action
tonight. (21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Trevithick. (22) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: (Inaudible.) (23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mike. (24) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I recommend we (25) deny
It tonight. Page 68 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Okay, then I'm. (2) going to make a motion to. deny Planned Development (3) Application PD-04-2 and site and architecture (4) application
dash S-04-05, with comments that this (5) Commissioner has stated previously, his feeling (6)· there's a lacking of clear policy as far as (7) requirement for a retail element in a -in
an (8) office building. I'm not sure that it is an (9) appropriate fit and would -would be more inclined· (10) to the total medical office proposal. (11) I do, however, feel that, as
I stated (12) earlier, policy needs to be -we need to come down (13) on some specific direction as to future (14) developments. You know, there should be (15) retail-retail if this is
going to be a retail area. (16) So from that standpoint, I'm going to-(17) I'm going to make this motion. Do I have a second (18) for the motion? (19) COMMISSIONER TREViTHICK: I wouid
second (20) that. (21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Motion on the (22) floor. All those in favor? I will take care of the (23) Negative Dec in a second here. All those in favor, (24) signify
by saying aye. You have a question? (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'd just like to ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (40B) 920-0222 Page 65 to Page 68
8SA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28, 2004 XMAX(18/18) Page 69 Page 71 (1) specifically state the reasons that -(1) unanimously. (2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Oh, I'm sorry, go (2) Okay.
I'm going to propose a motion to (3) ahead: I should have allowed you all to do that: (3) recommend approval of Negative DElclaration ND-04-1. (4) Please. (4) Dol have a second? (5)
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you. (5) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'll second that. (6) Specifically voting for the denial because I (6) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Call the (7) believe that the
medical office use is not the (7) question. All those in favor of the motion, signify (8) appropriate use. I agree with Commissioner Dubois (8) by saying aye. (9) about the direction
with respect to retail in this (9) (Ayes.) (10) area. I believe that the -the project .needs to' (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed? Motion carries (11) have a greater extent of landscaping,
and that the (11) unanimously. Appeal. (12) allees, as referred to in the Los Gatos Boulevard (12) MR. KORB: Well, on the PO, this is a (13) Plan, should be matching with the propertY
to the (13) recommended decision to the To\Vn Council. A request (14) south. (14) for hearing normally by the applicant must be filed (15) And I had one other thing that I -I (15) with
the Town Council, and I believe it's within (16) don'tremember what it was, so I guess I'm not going (16) either -I think it's five days after certificatipn (17) to say it. (17) of the
minutes report to the Counqil, but (18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. (18) because I don't have those rules in.front ofme, I (19) COMMISSiONER QUINTANA: Oh, yes. The (19)
wiU check on them and ask that the applicant (20) architectural The question of the policy (20) contact my office or Mr. Lortz, arid we'll give you (21) direction on the
architeCtural style for the (21) very specific advice regarding how to go about '(22) building,whether we want diversity, or we want them (22) making the request for the hearing. But
we (23) to follow the same pattern. Those are all concerns (23) recommend that you do so. ' (24) thatJ have and are reasons why I could not vote for (24) With regard to the architecture
and site (25) the (25) application, again. that decision is final with the Page 70 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. (2) COMMISSIoNER BURKE: It's my belief that
a (3) hundred perc::ent office medical building in this (4) lobation Would be bad urban planning.lthink it (5) would u(ldermine our ability to truly fulfill the (6) North 40 and the
Boulevard plan as a whole. And I (7) really think it's important that at a m'inimul11 we (8) have the retail component specified -or (9) recommended by Staff on this. (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS:
Great. Commissioner (11) Trevithick. (12) coMMISSIONER TREYITHICK: I recommend (13) denial of this project, but I do'concede that there (14) is need for what has been called incidental
retail (15) space within this bUilding. So I feel this should (16) be called a medical office building. It has that (17) sort of envelope already, and I think it would (18) perform efficiently
like that, and there's plenty of (19) space for retail elsewhere. (20) COMMISSiONER QUINTANA: 1-(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. I'm going to call (22) the question. All thOse in favor of
the motion, (23) signify by saying aye. (24) (Ayes.) (25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed? Motion carries' Page 72 (1) unless appealed to Council. The appeal (2) must be
filed within ten days. It must be filed (3) upstairs in the Clerk's office, and there is a fee (4) for filing that appeal. (5) And I think that's it. (6) (End of Item 2.) (7) (8) -000(9)
(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Page 69 to Page 72 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA TAPE TRANSCRIPTION -ITEM #2 -JANUARY 28,2004 Page 73 XMAX(19/19) (1 ) (2) I, LISA A. GLANVILLE, C.S.R. #9932, a (3) Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of (4) California,
do hereby certify: (5) That the preceding tape transcription was (6) taken down by me in shorthand to the best of my (7) ability and thereafter reduced to computerized (8) transcription
under my direction and supervision, (9) and I hereby certify the foregoing transcript is a (10) fUll, true and correct transcript of my shorthand (11) notes so taken. (12) I further
certify that I am neither (13) counsel for nor related to any party to said action (14) nor interested in the outcome of this action. (15) Witness my hand this day of (16) March,2004.
(17) (18) (19) LISA A. GLANVILLE CSR No. 9932 (20) State of California (21) (22) (23) ;f; (24) ';' (25) :Z ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 73 to Page 73
V.P.5.5 Projects developed in this sub-area shall contribute to a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek. V.P.5.6 Projects developed in this sub-area shall contr.ibute and enhance
the natural view corridor and landscape of the Los Gatos Trail. Implementing Strategies: V.1.5.1 Existing zoning and uses will be maintained until Vasona Light Rail is planned and funding
'is approved. Development may be phased with the completion of the Vasona Light Rail. In no case may development exceed transportation capacity. Time Frame: Responsible Party: Dependant
upon timing of Vasona Light Rail Planning V.1.5.2 Process major development projects as planned developments.. Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.1.5.3 Evaluate whether
development of air rights at the Vasona Light Rail· station facility should be allowed or CQuid feasibly be accomplished without creating visual congestion or violating the small-town
character of Los Gatos. If allowable, coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Transportation Authority (VTA) and other agencies to allow development of appropriate uses
(affordable housing and neighborhood commercial and businesses that cater to commuters). Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2000 -2005 Planning V.I.5.4 Orient development to take advantage
of the amenities of the Los Gatos Creek and the Creek Trail. Establish in-lieu fees for new projects that will fund a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek. . Time Frame: Responsible
Party: 2000 -2005 Planning V.I.5.5 Develop a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Los Gatos Creek, through development fees, grants, and other means available to the Town. Time Frame: . Responsible
Party: Dependant upon development Planning V.I.5.6 Evaluate projects as to how the built environment naturally blends into the surrounding landscape in such areas as: scale, materials,
hardscape, lights and landscape. Policies: Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.P .6.1 Development shall be designed to take advantage of the amenities offered by Los Gatos
Creek and to preserve watersheds, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. Vasona Light Rail and Route 85 Town of Los Gatos General Plan Attachment 5 July, 2000 Page V-7
V.P.6.2 Development projects shall incorporate design features to buffer dwelling units from the visual and noise impacts of Highway 17 and Route 85. V.P.6.3 The· maintenance road along
the east side of Los Gatos Creek shall function for emergency access. V.P.6.4 Develop a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across Los Gatos Creek and a continuous trail system along the east
side of Los Gatos Creek from Lark AI/e, to the northern Town limit in keeping with the Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. Implementing Strategies: V.I.6.1 Orient and site residential units
to take advantage of the amenities of the Los Gatos Creek Trail system and to preserve watersheds, riparian habitats and wildlife corridors. Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning
V.I.6.2 Require a noise study for development applications. iden·tifying degrees of impact and noise attenuation measures, if necessary, to mitigate noise impacts on residential neighborhoods.
Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.I.6.3 Provide emergency access to to Lark Ave. via the Santa Clara Valley Water .District maintenance road for properties between Los
Gatos Creek and Oka Road through conditions on development applications. Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-goihg Planning V.I.6.4 Provide a trail· connection for pedestrians and bicyclists
along Los Gatos Creek adjacent to Bonnie View Mobile Home Park and the Santa Clara VafleyWater District maintenance facility to complete the trail along the east side of Los Gatos Creek
from Lark Ave. to the northern Town limits. Policies: Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.P.7.1 The Town shall guide future development in the sub-area. V.P.7.2 The Town
shall encourage uses that serve. Town residents. These include, but are not limited to, open space/playfields. office, and retail and other commercii::d uses. Residential uses may be
permitted when located over commercial as part of mixed-use development and only with acceptable mitigation of adverse noise. air quality. and other environmental hazards. V.P.7.3 7.3
Encourage innovative designs, phased design schemes and mixes of uses that are consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards. Vasona Light Rail and Route 85 Town
of Los Gatos Genera/Plan July, 2000 Page v-a
V.P.7.4 Site plans shall be designed to minimize traffic impacts and to preserve sufficient·open space. Implementing Strategies: V.I.7.1 Design standards: Prepare development standards
that include criteria and provisions for comprehensive design review, recognizing the area as a "gateway" to Los Gatos. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2001 -2002 Planning V.I.7.2 Specific
Plan: Prepare and adopt a specific plan for this sub-area. Time Frame: Responsible Party: 2001 -2002 Planning V.I.7.3 Planned developments: Process major developments as planned developments.
Time Frame: Responsible Party: Planning V.I.7.4 Proactive guiding role: Take a proactive role in defining desiraple uses and site design by various means, including
but not limited to: o Exploring methods of financing infrastructure improvements. o Working with property owners and prospective developers to facilitate orderly development. . Time
Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.I.7.5 Project Review: Evaluate proposed uses and designs to ensure they are consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards.
Developer's may be asked to provide surveys, market studies and other information deemed necessary to assure these objectives are met. Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning
V.I.7.6 Cut-through traffic: Ingress and egress shall be designed to minimize opportunities for traffic impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. Policies: Time Frame: Responsible
Party: On-going Planning. V.P.8.1 Encourage mixed use development (offic:e/medium-high d.ensity residential) north of Lark Ave. . V.P.8.2 Encourage development of residential rental
units. V.P.8.3 Development shall incorporate features to buffer dwelling units from noise and other impacts. Vasona Light Rail and Route 85 Town of Los Gatos General Plan July, 2000
Page V-9
V.P.8.4 Encourage P?lfcel assembly to provide greater design flexibility and minimize driveways along Los Gatos Blvd. Implementing Strategies: V.L8.1 Mixed use: Projects proposing all
office or all residential will be evaluated to ensure that the Town's desire for mixed use is fulfilled. Shared parking for projects with mixed use will be allowed. Time Frame: Responsible
Party: On-going Planning V.L8.2 Rentallaffordability preference: Evaluate proposals with residential uses to assure that the Town's housing goals are being furthered. Time Frame:
Party: On-going Planning V.L8.3 Planned developments: Process major development proposals as planned developments. Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.L8.4 Adopted
Plans: Evaluate proposed uses and designs to ensure they are consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and Design Standards Plan. Time Frame: . Responsible. Party: On-going Planning
V.L8.S Noise: Applications for projects that front on Los Gatos Blvd and/or back up to propertyon National Ave. or Camino del Sol shall include anoise study proposing mitigation measures
to reduce noise impacts on existing and future residents. Time Frame: Responsible Party: On-going Planning V.I.8.6 Mixed use design: Develop and adopt standards for mixed use design,
to be used in the review process of all mixed use developments. Time Frame: Responsible Party: Vasona Light Rail and Route 85 Town ofLos Gatos General Plan 2001 -2002 Planning July,
2000 Page V-tO
REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date: For Agenda Of: January 28, 2004 Agenda Item: --'2:::....-__---:-_ The
Planning Commission The Development Review Committee 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Planned Development Application PD-04-2 Architecture and Site Application S-04-05 Negative Declaration ND-04-1
Requesting approval to demolish a single family residence and to construct a two-story office building on property zoned CH. No significant environmental impacts have been identified
as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration is APN 424-07-087. PROPERTY OWNER: Josco Properties APPLICANT: John Lien, Architect DEEMED COMPLETE: January
13,2004 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION FOR A&S: July 13,2004 Re-zoning applications are legislative acts and are therefore not governed by the Permit Streamlining Act. FlNDINGS: •••• The
Planning Commission must find that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan if the recommendation is for approval. As required by Section 29.1O.09030(e) of the Town Code for
the demolition of a single family residence. The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) requires a finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the project's' associated
traffic impacts. As required by·the Town's In Fill Policy for a community benefit. ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project could have significant
impacts on the environment. However, if all mitigation measures listed in the initial study of this report are included in the project, the project impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant
levels. Consequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. EXHIBITS: A. B. C. Required Findings (two pages) Draft Planned Development Ordinance (13 pages) with zone change
map and development plans attached (9 sheets) Applicant's project description and justification (six pages), received January 22,2004 Attachment 6
The Plaririing Commission -Page 2 15407 Los Gatos Boulevard1PD-04-2,S-04-5,ND-04-1 January 28, 2004 D. Letters of support (four letters) E Structural Condition Report F. Traffic Study
Introduction and Summary (one page) G. Traffic Study ConClusions (one page) H. Initial Study 1. Mitigated NegatiVe Declaration J. Mitigation Monitoring Plan K. Consulting Architect's
Comments (four pages) A. BACKGROUND: In December 2001, the Planning Commission approved a lot line adjustment and recommended approval of a zone change application to theTown Council
for the subject property. The approved lot line adjustment yielded a 40,001 square foot project parcel. This action enabled the current property owner to request a Planned Development
(PD). In February 2002, the Council approved thf zone change from RC (Resource Conservation) to CH (Restricted Highway Commercial). .:. Bi DISCUSSION: Project Summary , The subject property
is a .92 acre parcel located along the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, betweenBennet Way and Noddin Avenue. The applicant requests: I) a zone change from CH(RestrictedHighway Commercial)
to CH:PD (Restricted Highway ,Commercial: Planned Development). 2) Architecture and Site approval to demolish and existing single-family residence In addition, the applicailt requests
the Planning Corrunission make a recommendation for the subsequent Architecture and Site (A&S) application be reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC), with input from the
Town's Consulting Architect. The request is later in this report. North 40 Specific Plan! Planned Development The proposed project conforms to the, existing CH zoning,
which allows medical offices. However, the draft North Forty Specific Plan, which has not yet been adopted encourages destination retail uses. Specifically, the land use section of the
North Forty Specific Plan calls for "approxirnately 500,000 Square feet of commercial mixed use development, including up to 100,000 square feet of neighborhood (conveniencefdommercial
uses and up to 100,000 square feet of Office uses, excluding medical related offices/uses". The land use master plan has the following goals and policies:
The Planning Commission -Page 3 15407 Los Gatos BoulevardJPD-04-2·, S-04-5 ND-04-l January 28, 2004· Goal 1 To promote a variety of regional destination and local serving commercial
uses that are compatible with and compliment existing businesses in the Downtown (C-2 Zoning District) and other Town shopping areas. Policyl.B Designate the area for mixed use commercial
and allow "destination" retail, limited neighborhood cornmercial,offices, entertainment, lodging, and public/civic uses. Housing shall not be allowed. Policy 4.A Reserve the highly visible
street frontage along Los Gatos Boulevard for retail commercial, entertainment, and restaurants. Otheruses (e.g., lodging, office, etc.) should be located to the rear or interior of
the site. Even before the an application was submitted, staff has encouraged the applicant to incorporate a retail element on the ground floor fronting onto Los Gatos Boulevard. Retail
use was required on the ground floor of the new buildings immediately to the south of the subject parcel and was incorporated into the approval for the building at the corner of Burton
Road and Los Gatos I{oulevard. The
applicant asserts that the medical office use alone should be important to the community and that a retail presence in the building would detract from the image and quality the doctors
want associated with their respective practices. The applicant further asserts that the North Forty Specific Plan does not specifically require a retail element in each building. Finally
the applicant asserts that the building is too small to sustain retail. Please refer to the applicant's project description and justification letter attached as Exhibit C. Condition
6 of the Planned Development Ordinance requires a minimum of 40% of the ground floor to be retail use. The Planning . Commission should discuss this issue and provide the Town Council
with comments as part of its recommendation. Architecture and Site The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-familyresidence. A structural condition report supports the demolition
and is attached as Exhibit C. The demolition of the home is necessary to construct the proposed office building. The applicant is required to apply for Architecture
and Site'(A&S) approval for the new building. Since the architecture has been evolved to a high level of detail, the applicant requests the Planning Commission direct staff to review
the subsequent A&S at theDRC level. The approval would be contingent upon approval of the PD from the Town Council. The s consulting architect has reviewed the proposal and
the applicant has incorporated the suggested changes into the plans. Please refer to Exhibit L. Refinements to the design of the project could be made by the DRC based on any direction
offered by the Planning Commission or Town Council.
The Planning Commission -Page 4 ' 1540TLos Gatos Boulevard/PD-04-2, S-04-5 ND-04,.1 January 28, 2004 Surrounding Land Uses and Compatibility The subject site is bounci on the east by
Los Gatos BoulevaJ;'d and on the west by an orchard. The parcel to the north is developed with a 2103 +/-square foot, one-story building, occupied by the Boulevard Tavern. The parcel
to the SOl\th is developed with office/retail buildings. Los Gatos Boulevard Ddsign Standards The design of the proposed project complies with the Los Gatos Boulevard Design Standards
as described 'below: . LGB Design Standard Project Design Solution Parking in " Majority of parking below grade/tear lot Staggering of buildings Proposed setbacks vary slightly
from office buildings to south " Articulation of facades to minimizes Facade articulated similar to office building mass to the south rather than blocking
Does not block scenic views views Design to fit site's natural condition Project conforms to site's site's natural downslope condition elements in parking areas Project
includes landscape elements Defined pedestrian paths Provided Parking Considerations In accordance with Town Code Section 29.10.150, medical office uses are required to provide ,one
parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area, or six parking spaces per doctor, whichever is more restrictive. With a total gross floor area of 20,000 'square feet, 80
off-street parking spaces are required for the project. The applicant is providing 75 spaces, 3 of which will be deleted once the property to the west is developed. Flexibility in parking
requirements is allowed as part of the PD zone. The applicant initially provided 76 spaces, but staff recommended deleting one space in the front of the proposed bullding to provide
more landscaping. Please note the Initial Study reflects 76 parking spaces, since the study was performed prior to the revision. The parking
The Planning Commission -Page 5 15407 Los Gatos BoulevardJPD-04-2, S-04-5 ND-04-1 January 28, 2004 lot is configured so the majority of the parking is not visible from Los Gatos Boulevard.
Eight spaces would be located in the front of the, proposed building, 35 spaces would be located in the garage and 32 would be in the rear parking lot behind the proposed building: The
applicant's letter of justification (Exhibit C) discusses how the parking that is being provided will be more than adequate to serve the demand. However, if retail use is required on
the ground floor as discussed previously in this report, a total of 17 parking spaces will be needed to serve this use. Consequently, the number of doctors permitted in Condition 5 of
the Planned Development Ordinance has been reduced from twelve doctors to nine doctors. Trees & Landscaping The Town's Consulting Arborist conducted a tree inventory and reviewed impacts
of the proposal on the site. This report is attached to the initial study, included as Exhibit Exhibit I. Most of the trees on site are apple, walnut or almond trees. There are seven
Coast Live Oaks. Mitigation measures in accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance have been added as conditions of approval. Community Benefit The Town's Traffic Impact Policy
requires that projects that generate more than fi,:,e peak hour trips provide community benefit to override the traffic impacts. The applicant asserts that the following benefits the
community: -The project will help retain and promote important medical services in the Town -Tneproject will enhance Los Gatos Boulevard by removing a deteriorating structure that is
unsafe for occupancy. -The project compliments and will ultimately enhance the vision of the North Forty Specific Plan including automobile and pedestrian circulation as well as mixed
and complimentary uses. -The project will support future retail uses within the North 40 -The managing member of JOSCO, LLC, Dr. Joan Oloft, will initiate and maintain a leadership role
in the formation of a non-profit foundation. The foundation, to be named in memory of Roger and Lark Chastain, will be formed to coordinate the fund raising acquisition and maintenance
of soccer facilities in Los Gatos. Site Access and Circulation The subject parcel currently has one driveway that serves the existing residence. This driveway is located in the center
ofthesite's street frontage on Los Gatos Boulevard. The access driveway to the proposed building would be relocated approximately 40 feet to the north. The proposed realignment would
be widened and provide access to the front parking lot and the auto ramp which would serve the underground and rear parking lots.
The Planning Commission -Page 6 15407 Los Gatos BpulevardJPD-04-2, S-04-5 ND-04-1 January 28, 2004 The applicant has provided a two-way ingress/egress drive connection to the property
to the south. The property owner is responsible for' any additional improvements associated with the ingress/egress connection. In addition, a condition of approval requires the property
owner to record an. ingress/egress easement to access the property to the north prior to the issuance of any permits. The applicant has also provided' a pedestrian connection to Los
Gaios13oulevard arid a pedestrian connectionto the adjacent building to the south. Finally,the applicant has provided an ingress/egress easement to allowfor a future connection to the
west, 'Once the "North Forty" continuesto develop. Traffic and External Circulation As required by Town Council Resolution 1991::174, a Traffic Impact Study was prepared for this project.
The introduction and surnmary sheet is attached as Exhibit F and the conclusion sheet is attached attached a Exhibit G. The proposed developrnent is expected to generate 45 a.rn peale
trips and 68 p.m peak trips. A condition of approval is included requiring the applicant to pay a traffic impact fee. -..,. All intersections analyzed in the traffic
stlidy operated at acceptable levels under all future scenarios except for LarkAvenuelLos GatosBoulevaid, which is expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service due to the
cumulative impacts of this project and other pending projects. A condition of approval has been added to require installation of a two-way left-turn lane on Los Gatos Boulevard. This
will allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service. In addition, it will serve asa refuge lane, and provide storage for vehicles waitin.g to turri left into the
project driveway. The two-way left-turn lane also would benefit vehicles turning left to or from the east side ofLos Gatos Boulevard across· the street from the project site. Site Drainage
Because of the the topography of the site, storm drainage had to be carefully analyzed. The building and the front parking areas will gravity drain to the existing stOrIn drainage system
on Los Gatos Boulevard. The parking area behind the building will drain to a sump with a pump, which will pump the storm water to the on-site system at the front of the building. It
will then enter the gravity system. A back-up generator would be provided in case of a power failure. If rainfall exceeds the capacity of the sump pump, the release would be directed
to the orchard area along the Westerly property line where no houses would be impacted. It is important to note that this is an interim solution for storm drainage. When the "North Forty"
area is developed, drainage from this site and mOst of the westerly side of Los Gatos Boulevard will be connected to the storm drain line under Highway 17, which will discharge into
Los Gatos Creek.
The Planning Commission -Page 7 15407 Los Gatos BoulevardJPD-04-2, S-04-5 ND-04-1 January 28, 2004 The applicant will pre-install storm and sewer lines to westerly properly line. This
will provide a gravity connection without necessitating excavation of the parking lot. A condition of approval has been including that requires the applicant to provide evidence that
the existing storm drainage system within Los Gatos Boulevard has adequate capacity to convey project runoff. In the event that sufficient capacity is not available, the applicant would
be required to either upgrade the existing facilities to provide the necessary capacity, or provide on-site detention such that project discharges do not cause offsite flooding. The
PD includes a condition that the property owner will be required to participate in whatever mechanism is developed to provide future storm drain improvements for the "North 40" Environmental
Review The Town's environmental consultant, Geier & Geier Consulting, prepared an initial study for the proposed project. The environmental review determined that, with mitigation measures,
the project impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Consequently, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and mitigation measures are included as conditions of
approval. . Consistency with General Plan Goal L.G.S.1 To provide residents with adequate commercial and industrial services L.P.5.2 Encourage a mix of retail, office and professional
uses in commercial areas, except in the Central Business District where retail should be emphasized. c. .RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission is satisfied with the current proposal,
it should take the following action: A. Recommend thatthe Town Council make the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit I) and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit J). B. Make
the required findings (Exhibit A). C. Recommend that the Town Council approve the zone change request, incorporating the preliminary development plan as part of the Planned Development
Ordinance (B). D. Forward the zone change request to Town Council. E. Recommend the A&S be approved by the DRC , with input from the Consulting Architect
The Planning Commission -Page 8 15407 Los Gatos BoulevardJPD-04-2, S-04-5 ND-04-1 January 28, 2004 ity Development Prepared by: Jennifer Castillo, Planner BNL:JC cc: Joan Oloff, DBA
losco Properties, 105 Sund Los Gatos, CA 9?030 Brad Krouscup, Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc., 1960 The Alameda, Ste. 20, San Jose, CA 95126 ). John Lien, 196 College Avenue,
Los Gatos, CA. 95030 .\ N:\DEV\Jennifer\PC\LGB\OlafMedical.wpd
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. .Planned Development Application PD-04-2 Architecture and Site Application S-04-05 Negative Declaration ND-04-1 Requesting approval to demolish
a single family residence and to construct a two-story office building on property zoned CR. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result ofthis project and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 424-07-087. PROPERTY OWNER: Josco Properties APPLICANT: John Lien, Architect FINDINGS Required consistency with the Town's General
Plan: Tg.at the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements. As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) ofthe Town Codefor the demolition ofa single family residence.
In architecture and site approval proceedings, the deciding body shall consider: 1. Maintaining the Town's housing stock. 2. Preservation of historically or architecturally significant
buildings or structures.. 3. Property owner's desire or capacity maintain the structure. 4. Economic utility of the building or structure. As required by the Town 's Infill Policy
for a community benefit. 1. In-fill projects should contribute to the further development of the surrounding neighborhood (i.e. improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood
unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing quality oflife). 2. An in-fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with
respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding structures, provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation
and on-street parking. In-fill development should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. 3. Corridor lots may be considered if it decreases the amount
ofpublic street Page 1 of2 EXHIBIT A
and is consistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to surrounding properties is being provided. 4. The Planned Development process should only be used to
accomplish objects #1 and #2. The applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development through excellence in design. 5. Approval of an in-fill project shall demonstrate a
strong conununity benefit and findings of benefit shall be part ofthe record. Trafficfolicy: . , '. I The deciding body must make specific findings which demonstrate that the benefits
of the project outweigh the impact in order to approve the project. N:\DEWennifer\PC\LGB\15047 Findings.wpd Page 2 of2
ORDINANCE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM CH TO CHTO CH:PD AT 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD THE TOWN COUNClL OF THE TOWN OF
LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The Town Code of the Town ofLos Gatos is hereby amended to.change the zoning at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard as shown on the map which is attached
hereto marked Exhibit A and is part ot this Ordinance from CH (Restricted Commercial Highway) to CH:PD (Restricted Commercial Development). SECTIONll The
amended PD (planned Development Overlay) zone· established by this Ordinance authorizes the following construction and use of improvements: 1. DemolitiQn of the existing single-family
home. 2. Construction of a medical office building with retail on the ground floor with a gross building area up to 20, 000 square feet. 3. Landscaping, parking, and other site improvements
shown and required on the Official Development Plan (Exhibit B); 4. Uses permitted are medical, dental, administrative and professional office uses with retail on the ground floor and
those uses specified in the underlying CH (Restricted Highway Commercial) zone by Sections 29.70.220 (Permitted Uses) and 29.20.185 (Table of Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance,
as those sections exist at theI EXHIBIT B
time of the adoption of this Ordinance, or as they may be amended in the future subject to any restrictions or other requirements specified elsewhere in this ordinance including, but
not limited to, the Official Development Plan. However, no use listed in Section 29.20.185 is allowed unless specifically authorized by this Ordinance. 5. The medical office portion
of the building is limited to a maximum of nine doctors. 6. Retail uses only are permitted on the ground floor that fronts on to Los Gatos Boulevard. The retail area shall constitute
a minimum of 40% of the ground floor along the easterly side of the building fronting onto Los Gatos Boulevard. No office uses are permitted in the area designated to retail uses. This
condition supercedes the floor plans of the Official Development Plan. 7. A separate Architecture and Site application is requited for the building. 8. The area indicated as storage
on the plans shall not be used for habitable space. SECTION ill COMPLIANCE WITH OTHERDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS All provisions of the Town Code apply, except when the Official Development
Plan specifically shows otherwise. SECTION IV Architecture and Site Approval is required before any construction work for the project is performed, whether or not a permit is required
for the wOrk and before any permit for construction is issued. Construction permits shall only be issued in a manner complying with Section 29.80.130 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2
SECTION V The attached A (Map) and Exhibit B (development plans received by the Town of Los Gatos on January 8, 2004, 9 sheets), incorporated herein by this reference,
are part ofthe Official DevelopmentPlan. The following must be complied with before issuance ofany grading, demolition or construction permits, unless otherwise stated: TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division· 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. ARCHITECTUREAND SITE APPROVALREQUIRED. A separate Architecture and Site Application and approval shall be
required for the medical/office building, parking areas and landscape improvements. This application may be approved by the Town's Development Review Committee with review by the Consulting
Architect. OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Official Development Plans provided is conceptual in nature. Final footprints and building designs shall be determined during the architecture
and site approval process. BUILDING SIZE. The size of the retail/office building shall be up up to 20,000 gross floor area. COMMUNITY BENEFIT. The applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the Town for provision of the community benefits being offered with the project. The agreement shall include details on the timing and implementation of each item and shall be approved
by the Town Attorney and the ,Director of Community Development prior to issuance of any building permits for the project. LANDSCAPEPLAN. The fmallandscape plan shall be reviewed by
the Consulting Arborist as part of the Architecture & Site approval process. All Tree Protection measures recommended by the Consulting Arborist shall be followed. **CULTURAL RESOURCES
MmGATION MEASURE 4.8-1. If it is demonstrated that there are intact deposits of significant archaeological materials, a plan for the mitigation of impacts to these resources shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for approval prior to resumption of construction activities in the area of identified deposits. If cultural or archaeological resources are uncovered
during construction, all work must be halted within a 50-foot radius of the find, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist must be retained
to examine the find, determine its significance and make appropriate recommendations. Project personnel shall not alter the materials or their context or collect cultural resources.
The cost oftheTown retaining a qualified archaeologist shall be paid for by the property owner/developer. Ifhuman remains are discovered, the Los Gatos Police Department and Santa Clara
County Coroner shall immediately be notified. The Coroner would determine whether or not the remains were Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject
to his or her authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who would attempt to identify3
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. IJ. .. -J-; 14. 15. descendants of the deceased Native American. TREEREMOVALPERMIT. ATree Removal Permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a Building,
Grading or Encroachment Fermit. RECYCLING. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure, shall be deposited toa company that will recycle the
materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting type and weight of material, shall be submitted to. the Town prior to the Towtiisdem.6lition inspection. . PARKING.
The minimum parking spaces required for the project is 75. Up to 3 parking spaces may be removed to accommodate the 'future'irigress/egress easement. Any changes to the parking layout
shall be first approved by the Directors of Community Development and Parks & PllhlicW6rks. . ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. The applicant shall work with Planning staff and the Consulting Architect
to refine the plans through the Archite<;:ture & Site review process. STORAGE AREA: The The applicantshallfJ.le a deed restriction stating the area designated as storage remain non-habitable
space and unoccupied bya tenant. **BIOLOGICALRESOURCES MITIGATIONMEASURE: The projeetapplicant shall be required to implement the 22 recommendations made in the Arbor Resources Report
dated August 23, 2003 **CULTURALRESOURCES MITIGATION MEASURE Itithe event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted,
the COtIlmunity Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. **CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
MEASURlFfhumantemainsarediscovered, the Santa ClaraCounty Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determi,ne whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner deterniines·that
the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, Who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. . ...
**CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION MEASUREA final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, andlor when Native American remains are found
on the' site. The final report will include background 0 the completed work, a description and list' 'of identified resources, the disposition and curation of
these resources,· arty testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. Building Division 16 PERMITS REQUIEED. A building perniit application shall be required for each proposed
structure. Separate Electrical1MechanicallPlumbing' permit shall be required as necessary. 17. CONSTRUCTIONPLANS, The Conditions of Approval shaUbe stated in full bn the cover sheet
ofthe construction plan submitted for building permit. . 18. SIZE OFPLANS. The maximum size of construction plans subniitted for building permits shall be 24 inches by 36 inches. 19.
PLANS. The construction plans for this project shall be prepared under direct supervision of a licensed architect otengineer (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538). 4
20. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS. Contact the BayArea Air QualityManagement District at (415) 771-6000 and complete their process as necessary before obtaining a demolition permit from the
Town Building Department. As part of the permit application process a site plan shall be provided that includes all existing structures and existing utility lines such as water, sewer,
and P.G.&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a demolition permit from the Town. 2!. SOILS REPORT. Two copies of a soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of
the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 22. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS. A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project
building inspector upon foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the the recommendations as specified in the soils report and the building pad elevation
and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall beset and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered
civil engineer for the following items: a. . Pad elevation b. -Finish floor elevation c. Foundation comer locations .. 23. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE. California Title 24 Energy Compliance
forms CRIR and MF-IR shall be printed on the construction plans. 24. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY -COMMERCIAL-I. On-site parking facilities shall comply with the latest California Title 24
Accessibility Standards. Accessibility parking shall be provided for in both covered and uncovered parking areas_ 25. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY -COMMERCIAL-2. On-site general path of travel
shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Work shall include, but shall not be limited to, accessibility to building entrances from parking and sidewalks.
26. TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY -COMMERCIAL-3. The buildings shall comply with the latest California Title 24 Accessibility Standards. Necessary work shall be first investigated by the-design
architect then confirmed by Town staff. 27. SPECIALINSPECTIONS. When a special inspection is required byUBC Section 1701, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection
program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of any building permits, in accordance with UBC Section 1 Please obtain Town Special
Inspection form from the Building Division Service Counter. The Town Special Inspection schedule shall be printed on the construction plans. 28. NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS.
The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan submittal. The specification sheet is available at the Building
Division service counter. 29. ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED. The project requires the following agency approvals before issuance of a building permit: a. West Valley Sanitation
District 378-2407 b. Santa Clara County Fire Department: 378-4010 5
c. Campbell Union High Sch60lDistrict: 371,-0960 Note: Obtain the school district forms from the'Town Building Department, after the Building Departmenthds approved the building plans.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PunLIC WORKS: (Engineering Division) 30. GRADING PERMIT. A grading perrnit'is required for site grading and drainage. The gradingpermit
application (with grading plans) shall bemade to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The. gradIng plans shall include fiNal gradil1g,drainage,
retainingwalilocation, driveway, utilities and interim erosion cOntrol. Grading plans shall list earthwork.qU(lIltities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless
specifically allowed bythe Director apd Public ¥Iorks, the grading permit will beissued concurrently the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the
building footprint(s).Aseparate by the Building Department on E. Mmn street is needed for grading within the building,footprint. 31. AGENCY
APPROVALS. Letters from SJW, WVSD, andjoint trench occupants in the Los Gatos Boulevard planting strip indicating plan review and approvaI ,shall be provided prior to issuance of any
permit. I 32. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The following improvements shall be installed by the .i:: developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil
engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, ,and guaranteed by cbntract, Faithful .PetfonIlance Security aIld Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building permit or
the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building canbe issued. " a., Los Gatos Blvd. Curb
and gutter, tie-in paving, signing, striping, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, decorative paving, landscaping and irrigation as required. Remove the eXisting driveway apron and replace
curb and gutter at existing curb cut. 33. MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Town for maintenance of all improvements (paving and landscape) within the Burton and Los Gatos Boulevard right-of-ways
prior to issuance of any permit, 34. **TRA.FFIC MITIGATION. A two-way left-turn lane shall be installed OI} Los Gatos Boulevard to not only serve a.s a refuge lane, but also to provide
storage for vehicles waiting to turn, leftinto the project driveway. The two-way left-turn lane also would benefit vehicles turning left to or from the east side of los Gatos Boulevard
across the street from the project site. 35. DEDICATIONS. The following shall be dedicated by separate instrument. The dedication shall be recorded before any permits are issued. a.
Los Gatos Blvd. A public access easement encompassing the sidewalk located outside of the publlcright of way shall be. granted. A Town standard indemnity agreement shall also be required.
The sidewalk and street trees will be privately maintained. ' b. Ingress-egress easement. A 25 fObt wide ingress-egress easement, located between the eight foot wide planting strip and
the back of Public access easements shall be6
provided over the front drive aisle to continue the "frontage road". Future work may be required to accommodate this easement. 36. FUTUREEASEMENTDEDICATION. The applicant shall record
an agreement to dedicate a public access easement along the south drive aisle /automobile ramp and a public utility easement when and if needed to allow future access and,utility connections
to the North 40 property. This agreement shall be recorded prior to issuance of any permit. 37. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issuedby the Building Department at 110E. Main Street,
is required for all site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed, approved, or inspected by the. Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during grading permit review process.
38. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils report shall be submitted with the grading permit application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading,
drainage, pavement design, retaining waIl design and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" bythe engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the
California Business and Professions Code. 39. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure
that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant's soils engineer's
approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 4b. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and grading shall
be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical
report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessarY. The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in
an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the applicants soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy' permit is granted. 41. . CERTIFICATE OFLOTLINE
ADJUSTMENT. A Certificate ofLot Line Adjustment shall be recorded. 42. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE (COMMERCIAL). The developer shall pay a proportional to the project's share oftransportation
improvement needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit
applications is made. The fee shall be paid before the building permit is issued. The traffic impact mitigation fee for this project, using the current fee schedule and the preliminary
plans is $85,200. The final fee shall be calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time of the building permit application, using a trip generation rate
based on medical office use. 43. LARKILOS GATOS TRAFFIC MITIGATION. The applicant shall contribute his fair share (proportional to the project impact) of thd following intersection improvements
at the LarkILos Gatos Boulevard intersection: (1) The eastbound Lark Avenue approach shall be . changed to provide three eastbound left-tum lanes (two exclusive left-tum lanes and one
shared left-through); and (2) the westbound receiving (departure) lanes on Lark Avenue shall be re-striped to facilitate the merging of the left-turning vehicles (from the two northbound7
44. 45. 46. 47. p 4&. 49. 50. 51. lanes) and the southbound right turning vehicles. GENERAL. All public improverhents'sha.ll be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Drawings
and the Town'Standard Specifications. All work shaH conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris
at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing ofgoods and materials On the sidewalk-and/or the street will not be allowed unless
a special permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job,site during all working'hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this
condition ma.y result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. , ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. Allwork in the public right-of-way. will require a Construction
Encroachment Permit. All work over$5,000 will reqUire consiru'ction security. PUBLICWORKS The developer or his notify the
Engineering Inspector atleast twenty-four (24) hours before'staiting an work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure
to do so will result in rejectioil ow work thatwenf on without inspection. SURVEYING CONTROLS. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed· surveyor or
registered civil engineer qulllified to practice land 'surveying, for the following items:' c. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations d. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
EROSION CONTROL. Interiin and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and subIilitted to the Engineering Division of the ParkS & PUblic Works Department. A maximum of two weeks.is
allowed between clearing of an area and stablliiing!building on an area ifgrading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction
and before installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control methodshallinclude, but are not liIIlited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and
details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seedipg specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basihs, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream
water quality during winter months. The.grading, drainage, and erosion control plans shall, ''be in comi>1iance with "applicable measures contained iIi the amended
and C.14 of Order01-024 of the amended Santa Clara County NPDES Permit. SITE DRAINAGE. Rainwater leaders shall be dischargedto splash blocks and bio-swales. Direct storm drain connections
will be allowed if a mechanical filter device such as a storm septor is constructed at each system outfall. HYDROLOGY. The storm pipe and pump station shall be designed to convey the
lO-year . storm (without surcharge) based on Santa Clara County calculation methods. The applicant shall provide evidence that the existing storm drainage system within Los Gatds Boulevard
has adequate capacity to convey project runoff. In the event thatsllfficient capacity is not availa.ble, the applicant shall either upgrade the existing facilities to provide the necessary
capacity, or provide on-site detention such that project discharges do not cause offsite flooding. EMERGENCYBACKUPPOWER SOURCE. An emergency backup power source shall be8
provided fOl: both the storm drainage and sanitary sewer pump stations. 52. FUTURE GRAVITY CONNECTIONS. Gravity storm drainage and sanitary sewer lines shall be stubbed to the western
property line for potential future connection to North 40 utility systems. 53. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. It is tl:Ie responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure
that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALLNOT be washed into the Town's storm drains.
54. UTILITIES. The developer shall install all utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b).
All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. 55. RESTORATION OFPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. The developer shall repair
or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition· equal to or better than
the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled
Access provisions. Developer shall. request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction , Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 56. CURB AND
GUTTER. The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction ofthis project. New curb and gutter . shall be constructed
per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. 57. DRIVEWAY
APPROACH. The developer shall install 1 Town standard commercial driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 58. AS-BUILT PLANS. After
completion of the construction of all work, the original plans shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked. The "as-built" plans shall again be signed and
"wet-stamped" by the civil engineer who prepared the plans, attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" plans shall be review and approved the Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and
AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy Permit is released. The AutoCAD file shall include only
the following information and shall conform to the layernaming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING
WALL; d) Swimming Pool, Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS-COURT; f) Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOUR. All as-built digital files
must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher. 59. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL. Sanitary sewer laterals
are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. 9
Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-ollt at the property line. 60. CONSTRUCTIONNOISE. Beiweenthehours of8:00 a.m. to 8:00p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Weekends andholidays,
construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. 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. 61. ASSESSMENTDISTRICT. The applicant and/or successor property owners shall participate iri a future
assessment district when and if formed to II1itigate "North Forty" infrastructure impacts. TO THE SATISFACTIONOF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTYFIRE DEPARTlVIENT: 62. 63. 64. r-66.
67. 68. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW. Required fire flow is 3,750 GPM at 20 psi. residual pressure. AUTOMATIC AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000
GPM shall be equipped with an approved automatic fire sprirlkJ.er system, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards #13. FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONIDENTIFIER.
Prior to final inspection, a "blue" dot shall be placed in the roadway near each fire hydrant, as directed by the Fire Department. FIRE HYDRANT REQUIRED. Provide 1 off-site fire hydrant
on Los Gatos Boulevard and lon-site fire hydrant installed perNPFA std #24, at location to be detennined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250 feet, with a II1immum
acceptable flow of 1,OOOgpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The applicant should consult with the San Jose Water Company a.t their earliest opportUnity. TIMINGOFREQUIRED INSTALLAnONS. The
required fire services, fire hydrants shall be tested and' accepted by the Fire Department prior to the start offra.II1ing: Bulk . construction materials shall not be delivered to the
site until the hydrants and; roadway have been accepted. Clearance for building permits will not 'be given until such time as this requirement is addressed by the developer, to the satisfaction
of the Fire Department. FIREAPPARATUS ACCESS ROADS REQUIRED. Provide access roadways with a paved weather surface, a II1inimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13
feet 6 inches,' II1inimutri. circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximuin slope of 15%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard
Details ans Specifications sheet A-I. ON-SITE PRIVATE FIRE SERVICE MAINSIHYDRANTS.Installation of private fire service mains and/or fire hydrants shall conform to NFPA standard #24 and
Fire Department Standard Details and Specification Ifthe supply piping is "combined" (spriIlkler system and hydrants) a D.L approved 4-way FDC shall be provided. A Separate
Installation permit from the fire department is required. 10
SECTION VI This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting ofthe Town Council of the Town ofLos Gatos on , 2004, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los
Gatos at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is adopted. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA ' ATTEST: CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA N:\DEV\lenniferlPClLGB\l5047 Los G.toS Sklv Onl.wpd 11
To: CH:PD Date: Ord:---From: -CH---15047 Los Gatos Boulevard TOWN OF Ll,. S GATOS Application No. PD-04-02 • A.P.N. # 424-07-087 Change of zoning map amending the Town Zoning Ordinance.
[Xl Zone Change .. Prezonin . by Planning Commission Approved by Town Council Date: _ Town Clerk Ma or •
Toeniskoetter&...Breeding, Inc. Real Estate Investment Partnerships January 22, 2004 Town ofLos Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 DEVELOPMENT RE: Letter of Justification
-(revised with additional and supplemental material) 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, CA. Planned Development (PD) Application Exhibits to be Referenced: Exhibit A -.. Draft Initial
Study, prepared by Greier & Greier Consulting, Inc. -November 2003 Exhibit B -Recommended Negative Declaration, prepared by Town ofLos Gatos Community Development Department, November
2003 Exhibit C -Traffic Impact Study, prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants October 24,2003 Exhibit D -; Architectural Comments and Recommendations, prepared by Cannon Design Group
-October 21,2003 Exhibit E -Structural Evaluation of existing structure, prepared by A. S. AssociatesSeptember 25,2003 Attn: Town Council and Planning Commission On behalf of Joan Oloff-Solomon
D.P.M., F.A.C.F.S. we have submitted an application for a Planned (PD) permit requesting the Town's approval to build a medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos
Boulevard. In May of2003 Dr. Oloffpurchased the 40,000 square foot property to pursue the development of a 20,000 square foot building that will be fully occupied and owned by Los Gatos
physicians. The proposed building is not speculative; its occupants are identified and its use is specific. Dr. Oloff's Los Gatos Foot and Ankle Center (3,000) is one of several local
medical practices that will relocate to and participate in the ownership of the building. Dr. John Massey and Dr. Peter Abaci's Pain Management pra<;:tice (9,000 square feet), Dr. Matthew
Mingrone's Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery practice (2,000 square feet), Dr. Theresa Colosi's Orthopedic practice (2,000 square feet) and Physical Therapy of Los Gatos
(3,000 square feet) are among those who will own and occupy the building. The building will be 100% owned and occupied by Los Gatos physicians. 1960 The Alameda, Suite 20, San Jose,
California 95126 • (408) 246-3691 • fAX (. EXHIBIT C
Building Architecture and Technical Feasibility The project consists of a two story medical office building with seventy-five (75) parking stalls. Thirty-five (35) parking stalls are
located in structured parking below the building, and forty (40) parking stalls are at grade. All but eight parking spaces are located behind the building screening the majority of the
parking from Los Gatos Boulevard. The gross building(ifea totals 20,000 square feet of which approximately 16,346 square feet will be usable area. the loc(j.tion of the building and
parking are a result of site topography, and (more importantly) our complying with Los Gatos Boulevard design standards. Item B.2. (building location) of the Standards states "buildings,
not parking lots, should be seen along Los Gatos Boulevard whenever possible." The parking that is being provided will be adequate to serve physicians, S,tcrlf, patients
and visitors to the building. The underlying CH zoning would have required 80 parking stalls. However, unique to the building is a 678 square foot area dedicated for IIlediC?al record
storage, and a 517 square foot area to house mechanical equipment normally located on building roofs. When reducing the gross building size to accolfnt for these unoccupi(j.ble areas
the parking standard would be reduced to 75 stalls. The PD permit is designed to accommodate these types of amenities. A survey of similar fully occupied medical office buildings provides
us with actual parking requirements in comparison to parking proposed for the OloffMediqtl Bpilding. O'Connor Health Center Campbell Gateway OloffMedical Building San Jose, CA Campbell,
CA Los Gatos, CA Gross Building area 52,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft . Parking required By zoning: 221 (1/235) 85 (1/235) 80/75 (11250) .Parking provided Under PD Zoning:
210 (11248) 81 (1/247) 75 (1/267 -11250) Actual Parking Average daily use: 124 (11419) 52 (1/385) 50-70 (est.) During the past six (6) moriths the project has been carefuI1y reviewed
by Town Staff: Larry Cannon Design Group, Greier & Greier Consulting, Inc., TJKM Transportation Consultants, and the project architect -John Lien. The cooperative effort between Staff,
the Towri.'s consultants and our architectural and engineering team has resulted in a project design that is acceptable to Staff, the Town's consulting architect a.nd, .as demonstratedhy
the initial study, has no adverse impacts. Land Use and Planning· The proposed project is consistent with the ToWn's land use· policies and compatible with surrounding properties. Evidence
of land use consistency and compatibility can be found in the 2
Negative Declaration prepared for the project which states "The project vicinity is comprised of a mix of residential, office, commercial and agricultural uses. Adjacent parcels to the
north and south of the project site (also fronting on Los Gatos Boulevard) are currently in office and commercial use. The proposed medical office building would be consistent with this
mix of uses, particularly with the adjacent office buildings to the south. In addition, since the project site and its vicinity (the area bounded by Highway 17, Los Gatos Boulevard,
Lark Avenue, and Highway 85) are designated by the General Plan to redevelop with a mix of commercial uses, the proposed office use would be consistent with the anticipated use of this
area." (Exhibit B -page 6, paragraph 9) Further evidence of the projects' compliance with the Town's land use policies is found in the Draft Initial Study prepared by Greir & Greir Consulting.
The Initial Study asks the question -"Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,
but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of building or mitigating an environmental effect? -with the conclusion
that there is "less than significant impact". (Exhibit A -page 12, paragraph IX) Building Use (retail as a condition of approval) . Town staff intends to include a condition in the PD
permit that requires approximately 5,000 square feet of the building's ground floor to be dedicated to retail uses. We do not feel this condition is appropriate for the following reasons:
. 1) Medical office uses are allowed within the underlying CH zone. 2) There is no requirement within the CH zone, or the unadopted/draft of the North 40 Specific Plan that requires
a project to dedicate space for retail uses. 3) By virtue of its status as a draft plan, the North 40 Specific Plan should continue to evolve as appropriate projects are presented to
the the Town.· 4) The proposed project is consistent with the purpose and intent of the unadopted/draft North 40 Plan which encourages economic stability and mixed use development. 5)
The intent of the unadopted/draft North 40 Plan "is to provide a planning framework in which future development of the area can occur without jeopardizing the full development potential
of the remaining area." The proposed project in no way jeopardizes the development potential of the North 40. Rather, it provides an ancillary, supportive use to future potential development.
6) One (1) preceding project in the North 40 has been required to provide retail. The result has been unsuccessful and the space remains unoccupied. 7) The proposed project is not speculative;
there is an identified need for the building. 8) Carving out a portion of the Building for retail uses will adversely affect the professional image ofthe Building, and will create unacceptable
financial risk. 3
Community Benefit The proposed project will provide bur community with significant benefits. d The Project will help retain and promote important medical services in our town. tJ The
Project will enhance Los Gatos Boulevard removing a deteriorating structure unsafe for occupancy. CI The Project will provide a well-designed building with pedestrian and automobile
circulation consistent with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan. CI The Project compliments and will ultimately enhance the North Forty Specific Plan's vision of automobile and pedestrian circulation.
CI The Project will support future retail within the North 40. CI The managing member of JOSCO,' LLC, Dr. Joan Oloff will initiate and maintain a leadership. role in the formation of
a non-profit foundation. The foundation, to be named in memory of Roger and Lark Chastain, will be formed to coordinate the fund raising, acquisition and maintenance of soccer facilities
in Los Gatos. Beginning with the 1993 General Plan Amendment which changed land uses along Los Gatos Boulevard front residential to cbmmercial, the "North Forty" has been looked lipOIi
as an opportunity to encourage economic stability with mixed-use development. We have carefully planned the proposed project to assure that it can co-exist within the framework of the
North Forty Specific Plan. Our project is not a speculative venture. It addresses a specific need that will benefit our community and supplement the primary use envisioned by the North
Forty Plan. As a proponent of.this project and as a Los Gatos resident I hope for your support. Thank you for your COtlSidrj,rafon. , ruly o/s, 4
Joan Oloff-Solomon D.P.M., F.A.C.F.S. Kelly Nix D.P.M. -Los Gatos Foot & Ankle Center Town ofLos Gatos, Planning Commission c/o Marian V. Cosgrove, CMC Town Clerk 110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030 e-mail: clerk@town.los-Q:atos.ca.us Attn: Paul DuBois, Chairman RE: 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard (OloffMedical Building) Architecture and site application 5-04-05 Negative
Declaration NDO-04-01 Dear Commissioners: On January 28, 2004 the Planning Commission will be evaluating the proposed medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard. I encourage
you to recommend the project for approval by the Town Council. I purchased this property and have partnered with a select group of physicians in Los Gatos to . own and fully occupy the
building once completed.. Over the past twenty years I have been saddened to watch good physicians in our community be forced to either retire prematurely or leave our community due
to increasing overhead costs and decreasing insurance reimbursements. Ownership enables us to continue to practice in this community without this fear. Asa Los Gatos resident I have
read and am supportive of the mixed used concept of the unadopted North 40 plan. I understand the town's desire to increase sales tax revenue through future retail development. However,
requiring this small project to be artificially divided is not, in my opinion, the way to promote future retail development. Rather, our building will help to generate the foot traffic
to support future nearby retail development. As experience helps the . evolution ofthe North40 plan, Iwould hope that, you will encourage the supportive relationship of the professional
and retail communities, so that we can all thrive. Any arbitrary division, whether by building level, or frontage will condemh us to failure. I have personally exhausted all possible
supportive retail components to our building. I have been consistently told the same answer: "The building is too small to sustain retail involvement." 14601 So. Bascom Avenue. Suite
740· Los Gatos. CA 95037 0 (408) 356-2774· Fax: (408) 356-2140
In summary, r am fortunate to live and work in this amazing community. I like to that I have also provided some benefit back to this community. I urge you to support this
mutually beneficial project. Reklly yours, FAC.F.S. cc: Bud Lortz, e-mail: planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us Jennifer Castillo
Town ofLos Gatos, Planning Commission c/o Marian V. Cosgrove, CMC Town Clerk 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 e-mail: clerk@town.los-gatos.ca.us Attn: Paul DuBois, Chairman RE:
15047 Los Gatos Boulevard (OloffMedical Building) Architecture and site application 5-04-05 • . Negative Declaration NDO-04-01 Dear Commissioners: RECE1VEO JAN 21 2004. . OF LOS GJ\TOS
ONIS\ON On January 28, 2004 the Planning Commission will be evaluating the proposed medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard. I encourage you to recommend the
project for approval by the Town Council. I purchased this property and have partnered with a select group of physicians in Los Gatos to own and fully occupy the building once completed.
Over the past twenty years I have been saddened to watch good physicians in our community be forced to either retire prematurely or leave our community due to increasing overhead costs
and decreasing insurance reimbursements. Ownership enables us to continue to practice in this community without this fear. As a Los Gatos resident I have read and am supportive of the
mixed used concept of the . unadopted North 40 plan. I understand the town's desire to increase sales tax revenue through future retail development. However, requiring this small project
to be artificially divided is not, in my opinion, the way to promote future retail development.
Rather, our building will help to generate the foot traffic to support future nearby retail development. As experience helps the evolution ofthe North 40 plan, I would hope that you
will encourage the supportive relationship of the professional and retail communities, so that we can all thrive. Any arbitrary division, whether by building level, or frontage will
condemn us to failure. I have personally exhausted all possible supportive retail components to our building. I have been consistently told the same answer: "The building is too small
to sustain retail involvement." EXHIBIT D
In summary, I am fortunate to live and work in this amazing community. I like to believe that I have also provided some benefit back to this community. I urge you to support this mutually
beneficial project. Respectfully yours, Joan Oloff-Solomon D.P.M., F.A.C.F.S. cc: Bud Lortz, e-mail: planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us Jennifer Castillo
.BAY AREA PAIN CENTER Town ofLos Gatos, Planning Commission C/O Marian V. Cosgrove, CMC Town Clerk 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 E-mail: clerk@town.los-gatos.ca.us
Attn: PaUl Dtillois, .ChairIIlan·· RE':· 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard (OloffMedical Building) Architecture and site application 5-04-05 Negative Declaration NDO-04-01 Dear Commissioners:
. .RECEIVED JAN· 21 2004 .TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Thursday, January 15,2004 On January 28, 2004 the Planning Commission will be evaluating the proposed medical office . building
at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard. I am writing to strongly urge you to recommend the project for approval by the Town Council. When the building is completed our medical practice, specializing
in pain management, will own and occupy a portion of the completely full building. Our job, as medical providers, is to help return injured workers to the job market and our enthusiasm
for this project cannot be overstated. This project gives us the opportunity to establish long-term roots in Los Gatos and continually expand our practice' and our commitment to the
Town. , ., . We sincerely hope you share our vision. Bringing a partnership to the Town that will last decades is what a project like this provides. Nowis the time to mutually commit
to each other. Thank you .in advance for your support. We look forward to working in 'earnest to bring worldclass medical services to our community. cc: Bud Lortz, e-mail: planning@town.los-gatos.ca.
us Jennifer Castillo 555 Knowles Drive. Suite 116 e Los Gatos, CA 95032 <& (T) 408-364-6799 GIl (F)
Amy Gonsier; MD., F.A.C.s. General Surgery Diplomate American Boord of Surgery January 14, 2004 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission C/O Marian V. Cosgrove, CMC . Town Clerk 110 East
Main Street Los Gatos,CA 95030 Attn: Paul DuBois, Chairman RE: 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. (Oloff Medical Building) Architecture and site 5-4-05 Negative Declaration
NDO-04-01 Dear Commissioners: On January 28,2004 the Planning Commission will be evaluating the proposed medical office hUilding at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard. I encourage you to recommend
the project for approval by the Town Council., I am a physician in private practice of General Surgery working primarily at Gooq Samaritan and2 outpatient surgical centers nearby. My
office is currently in San' Jose although I did previously have an office in Los Gatos for 11 years and I wish to relocate my office back to that Many of my patients. reside
in. L()s Gatos. When the building is completed, I will own and occupy the project with several other other medical Together we will own and occupy one hundred percent
of the bUilding. Our interest is "toprovide 'quality medical care in a first class' . project in a convenient location for our patients. I really that the Commission will support
this project. Thank you for your consideration and support. ( Amy onSler, M.D. FACS 2025 FOI-est Avenue, Suite 8, San Jose, CA 95128 408 0 275 0 65')0 fa.x ocl08 o 2.75 0 1679 dl-gonsier@sbcglobal.ne
t
Jennifer Castillo -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard project -1/28/04 planning commission meeting From: To: Date: Subject: cc: Administrator <Administrator@aestheticcafe.com> lIIc1erk(E)town.los-gatos.ca.us'
" <c1erk@town.los-gatos.ca.us> 01/20/20046:01 PM 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard project -1/28/04 planning commission meeting '" planning@town.los-gatos.ca.usltl < planning@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Town of Los Gatos, Planning Commission C/o Marian V. Cosgrove, CMe Town Clerk . 110 East Main Street· Los Gatos, CA 95030 . Attn: Paul Dubois, Chairman RE: 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard,
Architecture and Site Application 5-04-05, Negative Declaration NDO-04-01 Dear Commissioners: This letter is in support of the proposed medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard,
which you will be evaluating on January 28, 2004. I am writing to encourage you to recommend the Town Council approve the project. I currently have amedical practice specializing in
plastic and reconstructive surgery that has been in Los Gatos for over 8 years. years. During that time we have employed people who reside, shop, and attend schools primarily in the
Los Gatos area. We purchase goods and services from the nearby merchants on Los Gatos Boulevard to help us run' our practice. My practice involves both cosmetic as well as reconstructive
surgery. We offer a wide range of retail cosmetic skin care products and services to complement our cosmetic practice. My medical practice will own a portion of the building as well
as lease space in the building. My practice has been actively seeking an ownership stake in an office for many months. We would prefer to remain in the Los Gatos area and the proposed
project would fit our needs quite well. It would provide a good location, an attractive work environment, and allow us to continue to support the Town of Los Gatos through our patronage
of local merchants. We hope that the Commission will support the project as it brings employment and significant support to the local Los Gatos economy. Sincerely, Kirk A. Churukian,
M.D., F.A.C.S. 14911 National Avenue
01/'n!Jn04.
Page 2 of2 Suite 2 Los Gatos, CA 408-358-7000 Cc: Bud Lortz Jennifer Castillo file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settll}gs\jcastillo\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00003.H... 01/22/2004
·)ohn Lien, Architect 1:1' 395-4560 ll1IgI30i03 C95:19PM D3I5 FROM :A.S.ASSOCIATES r FAX NO. :408+376 0183 Exhibit E Sep. 30 200304:32PM P2 Jolm Lielt, architect 196 COLLEGEAVE. LOS,
GATOS. CA. 95030 25 Scpo 2003 FOUO: 030281Jolm Lien! evaluation RE: STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OFA RESIDENCE LOCATED AT: 15047 LOS GATOS, BLVD. LOS GATOS, CA. DEAR MR. JOHNMILLER...-) . .
WE AREteLEASED lJ2.P-RrSENT THIS REPORTSUMMARIZING TIlE RESULTS OF OUR STRUCTURAL EVALuIfflOiv OF THE ABOVE NOTED RESlDENTJALSTRUCTURE. THE SCOPE OF OUR WORK. ASREQUESTED BY YOU. CONSISTS
OF; a) WALK THROUGH OBSERVATJONOF THE BUILDING. b) b) REVIEWEXISTING BUILDING DOCUMENTS, IFANY c) PREPARATION OFA STRUCTURAL EVALUATION REPORTSUMMAIUZING OUR FINDINGS. AND·.. d) PROVIDE
OUR CONCLUS10NS. On Sept 24 we visited the building in question, our findings l1re as follows: 1.0 THE STRUCTUkAL.SYSTEM OF THE EXISTINGRESIDENCE. THIS TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
UNITIS A WOOD FRAME STRUCTURE WHICH COMPRISeS AN OPEN ENTRYPORCH, A FAMILY ROOM, A COMBiNATiON OFUViNG AND DINiNG AREA, A KlTCHEN, THREE BEDROOMS. TWO BATH ROOMS. A SMALL UTILITY ROOM
AND ANADDiTIONAl. SLEEPING QUARTERS IN THE 'I'D FLOOR. THE ENTRY LEVEL IS ON RATSED FLOOR SYSTEM. THE jiD FLOOR IS If PARTlAl.t1DDlTTON OVER THE MAIN LEVEL THE MAIN AND j1D FLOOR ROOF
CONFIGU/?ATfONS ARF.CIWSS/NG GABLES. A MAKE SHlri' OVERHANG COVERS THE REAR PATIO ARb"A. THE EXTERIOR COVER IS WOOD SiDING. THE PERIMETER FOUNDATIONS CONSISTS OF PERIMETER SPREAD FOOT/NO
CONSTRUCTION. INTERIOR FOUNDATIONS ARE OF IRREGULARLY PI..ACED PLINTH FOUNDATTONS. THIS STRUCTURE IS NOTA HISTORICAL BUILDING NOR ITDISPLAYS If PARTICULAR ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER. VISUAL
SURVEY INDICATES (GUESSTiMATED) CONSTRUCTION P£fUOD OF LATE 1950s FOR 11-!£ OlUGlNAL STRUCTURE. EVlDENTL YSEVERAL ADDITIONSAND MODIFICATIONS HA VE BEENMADE TO tHE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
ADDJTrONS, MAINLY, CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE t JP FLOOR, liND ROOM ADDiTIONS TO THE LEFTELEVATION. STRUCTURAL CONCERNS: THE LA TERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM FOR THIS STRUCTURE
SHOULD CONSIST OF ITS ROOF DIAPHRAGM. tHE PERIMETER SHEAR WALtS. AND FRAMING CONNECTION TO THE FOUNDATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO VIABLE ROOF DIAPHRAGMS OR SHEAR WAUS TO EXHIBIT E
John Lien, .Architect. 'If 395-4560 lti!9/30103 <95:20 PM D4I5 FROM :R.S.ASSOCIRTES FRX NO. :408+376 121183 Sep. 3121 21211213 04:33PM P3 TRANSFER LATERAL FORCES TO THE FOUNDATIONS.
THE EXTERIOR WALLS ARE NOT TrED TO THE FOUNDATIONS BY MEANS OF MECHANICAL FASTENERS. THIS TYPE OF CONStRUCTION COMPROMISES tHE LATERAL STAl1/L1TI'OF THE STRUCTURE. A MODERATE TO A SEVER
SEISMlC ACTIVITYMAY CAUSE SUCH A STRUCTURAl. TO COLLAPSE AND RESUl.TINlNJURIES. ' VISUAL INSPECTION INDICATES THATTHfS STRUCTURE lIAS SUSTAlNED EARTHQUAKE DAMAGB. THE STRUCTURAL DAMAGeSARE
REMEDIED BYREPAIRING THE INTERIOR DRYWALLS. HOWEVER SUCH REPAIR WORKS DO NOTENSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRiTY OF THIS BUILD/NG. . ITSHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE UP KIP OF THis BWI.DING HAS
BEEN NEGLF.·CTED FOR A LONG PEnrOD OF TIME. TliERE IS SUBSTANTIAL WOOD DECAYWITHIN THE i,EVEL OF THE FOUNDA110NS. A NUMBER OF INTERIOR SPREAD FOOTINGS REQUIRE IMMEDiATE CORRECTIVE WORK.
THE EXTERIOR SiDiNG HAS THE i'LJ FLOQRSEWER DISCHARGE LINE (pLACED ATTHEEXTERJORFAC80F TJ{E REAR ELl::VATfiJ/y)FRI;ELY LEAKS AT THE TOP STEPS OF THE
REAR STOOP. TiffS IS A SERIOUS HEAl.TH HAZARD THAT MUSTBE ADDRESSED IMMEDfATELY. THe SLAB LOCATED AT TIiH BACK YARD POSES TRlPPlNG HAZARD. THE EXTERIOR GRADE IS SLOPING TOWARD THE PER1MWFER
OF THE BUILDING AND lNSOME LOCATION THE EXTERIOR SIDING AND THE SILLPLATES ARE IN CONTACT WITH TOP StJfL, . SEISMIC DAMAGES: ALTHOUGHA TWO STORY WOOD STRUCTURE, THEBUlLDJNGATTEsTStOS1'RUCTURAL
DAMAGES CAUSED BY seISMIC FORCES. COVERED UP TRACES OF CONTINUOUS CRACKS ATTHE FLATCE1LINGAREAS,ANDAROUND THE WINDOW AND DOORWA YOPENINGS COVERED BYPLASTSJ? AND PAINT CAN BE DETECTED
_THESE CRACKS INDICATE THE SEISMIC FORCE·RESISTING EI.EMrmrs OF THIS BUILDiNG DO NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY STRUCTURAL STRENGTHAND CONNECTIONS NEEDED TO RESISTSEiSMIC FORCES AND TRANSMiT
THESE FORCES iO THf: FOUNDA TloNS. IN CASE OFSEVERE OR MODERATE GROUND SHAKiNG. CERTAINPARTS OF THE eXISTING BUILDING MAYSLIDE o.FF ITS FOUNDATIONAND CAUSE SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING
STRUC7'URE. STRUCTURAL DETERIORATIONS A GREATPORTION OF THESILL PLATESATTHE F9UNDATIONLEVEL ARE GENERALLY . DETERIORATED AND DO NOT HAVE THE STRuCfUkAL
THE FRAMiNG SYSTEM SUCH SIU PLATES SHOULD BE kEMOVED AND REPLACF-DAND SHOULD BE CONNECTED TO A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED FOUNDATIONBYMEANS OFANCHOR BOLTSANDloR TiE DOwN FASTENERS; THE EXTERIOR
wOOD SlDJNGCONCEALS THE DAMAGED FRAMING, OlIllNorHE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THE STRUCTURE IS [NGOOD CONDITION. RECOMMENDATIONS UNLESS A COMPREHENSIVE /{ETROFITPROGRAM IS IMPLEMENTED, TIflS
STI?UCTURE MAY BE CONSIDERED NOTSUITABLE FOR OCCUPANCYATTHE l1ME OFA SEVERE OR MODERATE EARTHQUAKE. THE .MAJOR CORRECTIVE WORK WlLL CONSIST OFCORRECTINO OR REPLACING FRAMlNG MEMBERS
SUPPORTING GRA V1IT LOADS THATHAVE DETERloRATED AT THE FOUNDATION LE'VEL. AND THE TOTAL RECONSTRUC110N OF THE LATERAL FORCE·RES/STlNOELEMENTS (BRACED WALLS OR tHE SHEAR WALLSAND THEROOF
DIAPHRAGM AND CONNECTIONS THEREOF).. SUCH EXTENSIVE CORRECTIVE WORK ANI) STRUCTURAf..(1PGRADE MAYBRING TillS BUlLDING NEAR TO CODE PROVISIONSAND PROJI/DEA HAB/TABLE STRUCTURE.
John Uen, Architect 1: 395-4560 Q'ij9/30/03 @5:21 PM D5I5 FROM :A.S.ASSOCIATES FAX NO. :408+376 0183 Sep. 30 2003 04:33PM P4 2.0..CONCLUDINGREMARKS: AS NOTED HEREIN, THIS EXISTING BUILDING,
IN GENERAL, DOES NOT /lAVE VIABLE LATERAL FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEMS. THEREFORE, A COMPREHENSIVE RETROFIT PROGRAM WOULD BEREQUIRED TO PROVIDERESISTANCE TO SEISMIC & WIND FORCES. SUClJ RETROFIT
MAYBIUNG TRE STA1J1UTYOF TRIS BUILDINGS TO NEAR CODE, AND MAKEIT TO COMPLY WITH THE LIFE SAFETY PROVISIONS OJ.' THE CURRENT CODE. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF TYE OPINION TIIAT THE COST OF UPGRADING
TO NEAR CODE UFE SAFETYPROVISIONS, INCLUDING THE COST OF REPAIRINGDETERIORATED AND DAMAGED ELEMENTS, AND THE ANTICIPATED SITE RE-GRADING OR PROJlJDfNG PROPER DRAINAGE SYSTEM, MAYFAR
EX:CEED Tl1E COSTOFDEMOLISllINGAND REPLACING THE BUILDING WITH A NEWSTRUCTURE. 3.0 ASSESSMENTPROCEDURE: ... FOR THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING THE STRUCTURAL CONDITION OF THfS BUILDING. WE
HAVE EMBRACED THE CURRENT V8C BUILDfNG SAFETY PROVISIONS.': OUR REPORT]SBASED ON THE REVIEWOF THE BUILD1NG CODES, SITE INSPECTlON. PRELIMINARY FlNDINGS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. 1..0 LIMITATIONS:
. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT WE MAKE NO WARRANTY, EfTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO OUR FINDINGS. RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PROFESSlONAL ADVICE, EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE. THIS REPORT OF OUR lNVESTTGATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. UPON yOUR REQUEST, TO EVALUATE THE EXISTTNG STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF THIS BUILDiNG. WE TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITYFOR
THE CONFORMANCE OF THE AS-BUILTSTRUCTURE WITH THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS. WE HAVE MADE REASONAIJLE EFFORTS 1'0 ASSURE THIS REPORT IS ACCURATE. HOWEVER. WE CANNOTASSUMr: ANYLJABILJrY
FOR DAMAGES THAT MA YRESULT FROM IT, OR ANY CONDITiON THAT THIS REPORTMfGHT FAIL .!9J21S-C.LOSE,. _'. . i . NO RELIANCE O/y--TII1S REPORTSHALL BE MADE BYANYONE OTHER Tl1AN THE CLIENT]
.._ WHOSE_N,tJMl?APPEARS ABOVE. .. . _ PLEASE CALL US WITH ANYQUESTIONS THAT YOU MA YHAVE. OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS TllfS REPORTlN, MORE DETAIL. . VERY VERY TRULY YOURS,
ARMENSHAMAMIAN, PE. PP
1] INTRODUCTION AND SUMlYIARY IntI:oduction This report presents the results of TJKM's traffic impact analysis for the proposed Gloff Medical Office Building at 15047 Loli Gatos Boulevard,
between Bennett Way and Noddin Avenue on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard in the Town of Los Gatos. The Oloff Medical Office Building is proposed to replace a single-family home.
Figure 1 illustrates the project location and its vicinity. The size of the medical office building is 13 square feet (= fIrst floor (9,494 square feet} + second floor (9,319
square feet)). The project site is proposed to have one driveway (at the northeast corner) on Los Gatos Boulevard and an auto ramp to access the underground garage. Figure 2 represents
the proposed site plan. This study presents estimated trip generation of the proposed development and addresses the potential traffic impacts. Summary The proposed development is expected
to generateapproximately 670 daily trips in the vicinity of the project site, with 45 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 68 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour... Currently,
the intersections of i) Lark Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Southbound Ramps, 2) Lark Avenue/SR 17 Northbound Ramps, and 4) Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive operate at acceptable levels
of service. With the proposed OloffMedical Building, all ofthese three intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably under all future scenarios analyzed. The intersection
of 3) Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard is expected to operate at acceptable service level .under the Existing Conditions, Existing plus Approved, Existing plus Approved plus Project conditions;
but is expected to operate unacceptably Under Existing pLus Approved plus Project plus Pending scenario. The recommended mitigation is provided in this report. Oloff Medical Building
Traffic Impact Study TJKM Transportation Consultants EXHIBIT F
''IT.'..t.': CONCLUSIONS In summary, TJKM has reached the following conclusions regarding the proposed Oloff Medical Building in the Town of Los Gatos: • The intersections ofl)
Lark Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Southbound Ramps, 2) Lark Avenue/SR 17 Northbound Ramps, and 4) Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive, all currently operate at acceptable levels of service
and are expected to continue to operate acceptably under all future scenarios analyzed. • The intersection of Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard is expected to operate at an acceptable
level of service under Existing Conditions, Existing plus Approved (Background) Conditions, and Background plus Project Conditions. Under the Background plus Project plus Pending Conditions,
the intersection ofLark Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard is expected to operate unacceptably during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The recommended mitigation includes the modification
of eastbound Lark Avenue to have three eastbound left turn lanes (with one shared left-through), which would require reducing the raised median on Lark Avenue. Also, the westbound receiving
lanes on Lark Avenue should be restriped, to facilitate the merging of the turning vehicles (from the two northbound lanes) and southbound right' turning vehicles. • The proposed
project is responsible for its fair share to fund the recommended mitigation, which is approximately $12,245 for the Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard improvements. • The proposed 76 off-street
parking spaces are expected to adequately accommodate peak weekday demand. e A two-way left-tum lane should be installed on Los Gatos Boulevard to facilitate left-turns into and out
ofthe site. The project is not expected to have a significaritimpact on the residential neighborhood east of Los Gatos Boulevard. Oloff Medical Building Traffic Impact StUdy TJKM
Transportation Consultants Oc EXHIBIT G
Initial Study 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Oloff Medical Office Building Los Gatos, California Architecture and Site Application 5-04-05 Negative Declaration ND-04-1 Prepared for Town of
Los Gatos Community Development Department· 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 December 2003 Prepared by Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705-5054 510/644-2535
EXHIBIT H
1. Project Title: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Environmental Checklist Form 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Architecture and Site Application S-04-05 Negative Declaration
ND-04-1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jennifer Castillo,
408/354-6875 4. Project Location: 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard (Figure 1) 5. Property Owner: Joan Oloff, Jasco Properties 105 Sund Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Project Applicant's Name and
Address: John Lien, Architect 196 College Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 6. General Plan Designation: CR, Mixed Use Commercial 7. Zoning: CH, Restricted Highway Commercial 8. Description
of Project: The project applicant is requesting Architecture and Site approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a two-story office building on a 40,001 square-foot
parcel. The proposed 20,000 square-foot (gross) building would provide 18,762 net square feet of medical office space on two floors with a garage level below. The garage level would
have 35 parking spaces, while an additional 41 spaces would be provided in surface parking lots located in front of and behind the proposed building, for a total of 76 spaces (one space
per 248 square feet of habitable area). The project site currently has one driveway that serves the existing residence. This driveway is located in the center of the site's street frontage
on Los Gatos Boulevard. The access driveway to the proposed office building would be relocated approximately 40 feet northward and widened from its existing 16 feet to 30 feet. This
ingress/egress driveway would provide access to the . project's front parking lot and auto ramp. This ramp would extend along the southern boundary and provide access to the building's
parking garage and rear surface parking lot. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is comprised of approximately 0.92 acre (40,001 square feet) located on the west side
side of Los Gatos Boulevard between Bennett Way and Noddin Avenue. The project parcel is currently developed with a two-story, single-family residence located in the center of the parcel
with the western and southern portion of the property (west and south of the residence) in orchard use. Access to the property is provided by one driveway located on Los Gatos Boulevard.
The site is bounded on the east by Los Gatos Boulevard and on the west by orchard use. On the parcel to the north, the eastern portion (fronting on Los Gatos Boulevard) is currently
developed December, 2003 1
Project Location Figure 1 Ql Ql :c>: :c>: "0 '" '" Ql 0 c: '0:'t": J5047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, California 41 Source: ..<--'->--- \..:.1 Geier & Geier Consulting,
Inc. (2001) (I) Project Site 'No Scale
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard with a 2,103 square-foot, one-story building (occupied by The Boulevard Tavern, a drinking establishment) and 22 off-street parking spaces provided
on paved areas adjacent to and west of the building. The western portion of the parcel to the north is undeveloped (unpaved) and is used for equipment storage; a storage container occupies
the northwest corner of this parcel. The parcel to the south is developed with two, two-story office buildings. These office buildings are similar to the proposed project, with front
and rear parking lots, and the southerly building has a garage level below the two stories of office space. Across Los Gatos Boulevard from the site are one-story, single-family residences
to the east and a two-story office building to the northeast. 9. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreements): West Valley
Sanitation District and San Jose Water Company. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality X Biological Resources
X Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials HydrologylWater Quality Land UselPlanning Mineral Resources Noise PopulationIHousing PUblic Services Recreation X Transportation/Traff
ic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: (to be Completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: y p I find that the proposed
project COULD NOThave a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL Th1PACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed
project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
'an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significarit effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec;h nothing further is required. .
":I "I I:: ).! . ". /1 I /, " I. r---, I • • '-"-""-\) l ( . I A '. 1'1 \ \. /LY /0) • ! 1« .' 'V Bud N. Lortz,
Director of Comrhunit Develo .ment -l Date I I December, 2003 3
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard , Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Issues: Potentially Potentially Significant Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant
No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact. Impact I. Aesthetics -Would the project: .' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? . X b)
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ' X c) Substantially degrade the
existing vismii character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? " d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area? ••••From Los Gatos Boulevard, the proposed buildings would be two· stories and a maximum of approximately 25.5 feet (30 feet at roofpeak). The rear (west) wall.of theproposetl
building would have a maximum height of 34.5 feet (40 feet at roof peak). From Los Gatos Boulevard, the proposed building's height would be similar to the twc> office buildings to the
south, ,which are 32 to35 feet high at peak of the roof. The proposed building would be taller than the building immediately north (The Boulevard Tavern), whieh is 20 feet high, but
similar to the next building to the north (15015 Los Gatos Boulevard, 30 feet high). There is one offiee building across Los Gatos Boulevard to the northeast that is similar in height
to the proposed building. The proposed buildings would contrast visually (e.g., building mass and architectural design) fr(lIn one-stat)! single-family residences (approximately 15 feet
high) located to the east across Los Gatos Boulevard. Since the project site and its ;vicinity (the area bounded by Highway 17, Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark Avenue, and Highway 85) are
designated by the General Plan to redevelop with a mix of commercial uses, the project design and scale of proposed buildings would likely be consistent with future commercial development.
The Los Gatos Boulevard Plan Design Standards emphasize the following: Location ofparking in the rear and location of buildings adjacent to the street (so that buildings, not parking
lots, are seen along Los Gatos Boulevard). Staggering of buildings along the Los Gatos Boulevard frontage to avoid a tunnel effect. Articulation offacades to minimize building mass.
Framing rather than blocking scenic views. Designing a development to fit a site's natural conditiOns. Provision of landscape elements in parking aJ'eas. Location of loading and service
areas away from the street. Provision of defined pedestrian paths through large parking areas and pedestrian entries from the front as well as the rear sides which face the parking lot.
•••• The proposed building would generally conform to these Design Standards. Although nine parking spaces are proposed in front of the building, almost 90 percent of the parking would
be under or Decem.ber, 2003 4
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard behind the proposed building. The small front parking lot would be similar in design to the small parking lots located in front of the two office
buildings to the south. The building's fa<;ade would be .articulated similar to the office buildings to the south. Proposed setbacks of 58 and 63 feet from the curb would vary slightly
from the building to the south (setback approximately 60 to 65 feet from the curb). Scenic views of Santa Cruz Mountains are generally to the south, and the project would not block any
available scenic views to the south. The project conforms to the site's natural downslope condition and there are landscape elements in parking areas. Loading and service areas are not
indicated on project plans. Pedestrian walkways would be proVided on the east, south and west sides of the building, providing exterior pedestrian access to front and rear parking lots
as well as front and rear of the building. The streetscape design (sidewalk and landscape design) along Los Gatos Boulevard would be similar to the streetscape design in front of the
office buildings to the south. The proposed building would introduce a new source of nighttime lighting. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the project
will need to satisfy Town
Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlight onto any area outside the project boundary). Potentially Significant
Potentially Impact Unless . Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. Agriculture Resources -Would
the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X Monitoring
Program of the California Resources . Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? ... ... c) Involve other
changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The O.9-acre project site is currently
developed with one single-family residence and approximately 60 percent of the site is in orchard use. Development of the proposed office building would eliminate this orchard use, which
is part of a much larger orchard to the west. However, conversion of approximately one-half acre of orchard to non-agricultural use would be less than significant due to the small size
of the area affected. Site development would not adversely affect the viability of the larger, adjacent orchard to the west. ill. Air Quality -Would the project: a) Conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ·X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for precursors)? December, 2003 5
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard --Potentially Potentially Significant Impact Unless Less Than (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant
No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to su;bstantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people?
The proposed office project would generate approximately 670 daily trips, with 45 AM_peak hour trips and 68 PM peak hour trips. Air emissions increases associated with the proposed project
would be considered less than significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold levels for potential
significance. I The BAAQMD threshold levels for potential significance. are approximately 2,000 vehicle trips per day or approximately 110,000 square feet of medical Qffice space.. At
or above this size, traffic generated by a project could produce air quality problems, and. and. an air quality impact assessment would need to . be prepared and submitted to the BAAQMD
for review. Construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions.
The BAAQMD does not require _ quantification ofconstruction emissions, but considers any project' sconstructioh-related impacts to be less than significant if required dust-control measures
are implemented. The 'fown's stand.ard construction notes that are included with all projects require the contractor to "meet or exceed the requirements of the appropriate air quality
management agencies..." Therefore, standard Town requirements wOl,lld require implementation 'of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (which are requited on sites of three acres
or less), which wouid mitigate the project's construc:tionrelated air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. IV. Biological Resources -Would the project: a) Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a, candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local Or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife S.ervice? ' b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X ot· other sensitiVe
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the· California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial
adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological· interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish 01" wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? December, 2003 6
Initial Study. -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Impact Incoroorated Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan? Policies 11 and 12 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasize preservation of public and private landscaping. For any project
application under consideration by the Planning Commission, the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that one or more replacement trees of a species and size designated by the
Parks and Public Works Department may be required for tree removals. The Los Gatos Landscaping Policy states that any tree over 12 inches in circumference that is removed by a project
shall be replaced with a minimum of three 15-gallon trees. When it is not possible to replace trees removed at a 3:1 ratio, the new trees planted are required to be larger in size than
15 gallons to adequately mitigate for those trees removed; this policy satisfies the Town Tree Protection Ordinance and Town Landscaping Policies. An arboricultural survey was completed
for the proposed project. This survey was completed by Arbor Resources in August 2003,2 and a copy of this study is on file with the Los Gatos Community Development Department. This
survey evaluated potential impacts on trees that could be affected by the project. Arbor Resources identified 54 Protected Trees (trees with a trunk diameter of four inches or greater)
that would be removed or could be damaged as a result of project implementation. Of the 54 trees, 47 trees are located on the site and would be removed. Two of these are olive trees
(#51 and 53) and would be transplanted beneath the canopy of Tree #39. This would adversely affect Tree #39 and should not occur. It is recommended that these two trees be transplanted
elsewhere on the site or or replaced. ,,'.. The remaining seven trees (#5, 27, 34-37, and 39) are located on adjacent properties, but could be damaged by proposed grading. Tree #5 is
a coast redwood and it is in overall good condition. Project plans indicate that proposed grading could significantly affect this tree and it is recommended that no grading occur within
20 feet of its trunk and aeration tubes be installed. It is also recommended that no trenching or grading occur within the planter area beneath canopies of the other six trees (#27,
34-37, and 39). At present, there are 47 trees on the site and most of them are apple, walnut, or almond trees. There are seven coast live oaks, ranging in size from 16 to 44 inches
in trunk circumference. Of these 45 would be removed and two would be transplanted. Arbor Resources indicates that removal of 17 of these trees would be significant and mitigation should
be provided.. In accordance with the Tree Protection Ordinance, Arbor Resources recommends replacement of these 17 trees with 34 to 38 trees, all of 24-, 36-, or 48-inch box size. The
landscape plan indicates planting of 38 trees, but 15gallon and 24-inch box sizes are proposed. Larger trees will need to be planted to comply with the Tree Protection Ordinance. The
Town will require implementation of the following measures to reduce impacts on trees to be retained and adequately replace trees to be removed: 1. All of the 22 recommendations made
by Arbor Resources (August 23, 2003) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize the construction-related impacts on the trees proposed to be retained or transplanted. Recommendations
are listed under the following topics: tree protection fencing, revision of the Sheet L2, Existing Tree Survey, in project plans, Tree #5, Tree #39, Additional Root Zone Protection,
Supplemental Watering, Pruning and Removals, Tree Replacements. Recommendations are included as Attachment 1. December, 2003 7
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard 2. No trenching or grading should occur within the planter area beneath canopies of the Trees #27, 34, 35, 36,· and 37, all located off-site.
Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Suppohing Information Sources) Significant Mitigation SIgnificant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. Cu.ltural
Reso. urces -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse changeinthe significance of . X a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change. in
.the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleoI1tological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb
any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Project implementation would result in demolition of the existing residence on the project site. A structural
evaluation of this residence was completed by Ks. Associates in September 20033 and a copy of this study is on file with the Los Gatos Community Development Department. ACCOrding to
the AS. Associates, the wood frame residence is two stories. Based on a visual survey by A.S. Associates, the residence was constructed in the 1950's, with· several subsequent additions
and Since the residence appears to· have been cOiistructed after 1941 and is not hiStorically significant, no significant impacts on historic resources would
result from the proposed demolition. The project site is already developed and surface soils were disturbed during construction of existing development the subject property. Although
the site is not. located adjacent to Los Gatos Creek, the potential for encountering cultural resources cannot be completely eliminated due to the site's proximity.to the creek and relatively
level topography. In addition, the project would inyolve excavation for construction of the garage parking level. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be required: 3. In
In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radifJ.s of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified,
and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendatiOns. 4. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The
Coroner will determiru! whetheror not the remains are Ndtive American. If the Coroner determines thatthe remains are hot subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. 5. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant
resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying
descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. If the site is found to be a significant archaeological
site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Appendix
K of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. Afinal report will be prepared when. a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American. remains are found on the
site. The final report will include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the December, 2003 8
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact
Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project expose people
or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. b} Strong seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Landslides? X e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? . .. h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are riot available for the
disposal of waste water? A review of the Town's hazards maps4 indicates that the project site has a moderate potential, low potential for liquefaction, low potential
for fault rupture, and moderate potential for.· seismic shaking. Due to the site's relatively level topography, no erosion, slope stability, or debris flow hazards were identified for
the site. The Town's Fault Map indicates that there are no .\mown faults traversing the site.5 The project site is located just north of the. Shannon Fault zone, At a minimum; the proposed
building would be expected to be subject to strong groundshaking during its design life, particularly given its proximity to an identified fault. However, it should be noted that most
of the Bay Area as well as surrounding development are subject to groundshaking hazards. As a standard condition of Architecture and Site approval, the Town will require preparation
of a soil engineering report; this report will address any soil engineering constraints and specify criteria and standards in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for site
grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, erosion control, and foundation design. Compliance with applicable UBC requirements would be adequate to address regional seismic
safety concerns such as groundshaking. Assuming all recommendations of the required report are incorporated into the project design, no significant impacts from soil engineering constraints
would be anticipated. December, 2003 9
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials? . b) Create a significant hazard to the pa,blic or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed School? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites cornpiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within tWo
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent tourbani?-ed areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites
There is one existing structure that i.s proposed to be demolished· as part of the project. If this building contains asbestos or lead-based paint, demolition could result in airborne
release of hazardous building materials, such as asbestoS fibers or lead dust. Proposed demolition would be required to comply with state and federal regulittic)l1s fot inspection and
removal of hazardous building materials, including asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing substances. If found to be present in building materials to be removed, asbestos
and/of lead abatement practices such as containment and removal would be required prior to demolition or renovation. In addition, the applicant of this project will be required to obtain
clearance for asbestos removal from the Bay Area Air Q!Iality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Therefore, due to existing regulations, the potential for
public health hazards associated with the release of airborne asbestos fibers or lead dust at the project site would be considered less-than-significant. December, 2003 10
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIll. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the .' X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed X the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a lOO-year
flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures,
X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. According to the Los Gatos General Plan, the project site is located outside mapped IOO-year flood hazard
areas. Approximately three percent of the O.84-acre project parcel is covered by the existing residence. Project development would result in approximately 8S percent of the O.9-acre
site being covered by driveways, parking, sidewalks, or building. Although this would result in an incremental increase in peak surface flows from the project site, the increase in runoff
volumes would not be considered significant due to the small size of the affected area. Based on project plans, rtinoff collected off the roofs of proposed buildings and parking areas
to the east of the buildings would flow to a catch basin located at the eastern project boundary. From this basin, it would be conveyed by gravity flow to the storm drain in Los Gatos
Boulevard. Project plans indicate that runoff generated west and south of the project building (at elevations lower than Los Gatos Boulevard) would collect in a catch basin equipped
with a sump pump. From this basin, runoff December, 2003 11
Initial Study . 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard would be pumped to the stonndrain in Los Gatos Boulevard. In the event of a power failure, collected stormwatet runoff could not be pumped to
Los Gatos Boulevard and the Town will require an emergency backup power supply for this pump. The Town will require on-site storm drains to be sized for a ten-year storm. Runoff in excess
of the ten-year storm would flow via a storm drain tdan overland release located in the northwest corner of the site. S,uch overflows would the existing
orchard use located downstream of the site. However, if and when this orchard is . redeveloped in the future, upstream storm drain overflows will need to be accommodated in future storm
drain facilities. The Town requires that runoff from the site not.be collected into a pipe system or concentrated, and encourages use of bio-swales. However, the Town will allow on-site
drainage systems if they include mechanical filtration devices in catch basins. Filtration devices in catch basins are not indicated on proposed plans and will be required by the Town.
The design of storm drainage facilities WQuid be subject to approval by the ToWn, and the'applicant will be required to demonstrate there is sufficient downstream capacity to accornmodate
project-generated'runoff. If there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm drain in Los Gatos Boulevard, the. project will be allowed to connect without additional improvements.
If there is insufficient in storm drain, the. applicant Will be required to either upgrade the off-site system or provide on-site detention. Town approval would
mitigate potential impacts on existing downstream storm drainage facilities to a less-than-significant level. New, more stringent water regulations of the Clean Water
Act have recently been triggered because the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks
and the South San Francisco Bay, as evidenced by such observations as violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of tmdc substances, and fish consumption health·
advisories. These new regulations. require that the T.Qtal Maximum Daily Loads (TMPLs) of sediment, heavy metals, exotic species, pesticides, and other pollutants are to be calculated.
for discharges to South San Francisco Bay. It is likely that the South Sari Francisco Bay has been identified as an impaired water body and TMDLs for these pollutap.ts' will establish
load allocations for discharges, which may affect not only direct discharges to the. BAY but also those to the creeks and tributaries that flowirito the Bay. The project site is located
within the Los Gatos Creek watershed and runoff from the site discharges to piped systems that discharge into this creek and eventually into the Bay. Project construction would involve
placement of approximately 1,500 cubic yards of fill, with no cut or removal of site soils; such filling activities could result in erosion and downstreamsedirrientation.· After project
completion, surface runoff fr9m the site Would be expected to carry typical urban pollutants generated by parking lots, building surfaces, and landscape areas. Asa condition of project
approval, the Town will require preparation and implernentation of interim arid final erosiOn control plans as well as non-point source pollution prevention measures such as installation
of filtration devices oruse of bio-swales. Implementation of:such measures would reduce potential waterqualityirnpacts to a less-than-significant level. . Potentially 'Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supportin.g Information Sources) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the
a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? December, 2003
12
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
. Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Existing uses on the project site include a residence
and orchard. However, the project parcel is currently designated by the existing General Plan as "CH, Mixed Use Commercial," while the site is zoned "CH, Restricted Highway Commercial."
The CH General Plan designation allows for "a mixture of retail, office, residential in a mixed use setting, along with lodging, service, auto related businesses, non-manufacturing industrial
uses, recreational uses and restaurants." The CH zone allows retailing, office, service business, and limited manufacturing uses. Although Town Code does not specify medical uses in
this zone, the Town allows medical uses in this zone. The project applicant proposes to add a PD zone (CH:PD). The project vicinity is comprised of a mix of residential, office, commercial
and agricultural uses. Adjacent parcels to the north and south of the project site (also fronting on Los Gatos Boulevard) are currently in office and commercial use. The proposed medical
office building would ,be consistent with this mix of uses, particularly with the adjacent office buildings to the south. In addition, since the project site and its vicinity (the area
bounded by Highway 17, Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark Avenue, and Highway 85) are designated by the General Plan to redevelop with a mix of commercial uses, the proposed office use would
be consistent with the anticipated use of this area. In 1999, the Town completed the draft North Forty Specific Plan, but this plan has notyet been finalized or adopted. The Plan provides
development guidelines for the Specific Plan area, which includes the project site. The draft Plan's Circulation Concept Plan calls for developing a frontage road parallel to Los Gatos
Boulevard and limiting access to the North Forty area (between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive) to one main access drive and four or five secondary access points from' Los Gatos Boulevard.
The proposed design of the front parking lot would generally be consistent with the draft Plan's frontage road and pedestrian allee design (Exhibit 2-7 of the Plan). The parking .' lot
would connect to the parking lot to the south and also extends to the northern project boundary, where it could connect to a future development to the north. The Town will require
provisions for possible future connection to the secondary road designated by the Plan to be located west of the site. X. Mineral Resources -Would the project: a) Result in the loss
of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-important mineral
resources on the project site or in its vicinity. . XI. Noise -Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X . excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundbome noise
levels? December, 2003 13
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinityabove levels existing withoutthe project? , d) A substantial temporary
01' periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? :" e). For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? f) For a. project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project expbse people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Project construction would res1J,lt in temporary short-:term noise increases due to the of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 76 t085 dBA
at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment with slightly higherJevels of about 88 to 91 dI3A at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls
are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be redu,ced by 1 to 16 dBA, dependil1g on the type of equipment. The potential for construction-related noise increases
to adversely affect nearby residential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors. . The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts
construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends anQ holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA
at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Adjacent uses are limited to an office building to tp.e south and The Boulevard to the north. The proposed building would be located
approximately 40 feet north of the existing office building and 25 feet south of 'the tavern. to the north. The closest residential uses are located approximately 200 feet east of the
proposed building, across Los Gatos Boulevard. At 40 feet, the ordinance noise limit would result in maximum noise levels of 81 dBA at the adjacent building to the south. Maximum interior
noise levels would reach 61 dBA at 40 feet with the windows closed. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech . . interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds
45 to 60 dBA.7 Noise· peaks of 61 dBA could periodically result in speech interference effects, but is not expected to cause speech interference effects most of the tirne,"minimizing
the potential for business disruption. At 25 feet, noise levels could reach 85 dBA at the adjacent building to the north and maximum interior noise levels would reach 65 dBA at 25 feet
with the windows closed. Since construction activities would occur primarily on weekdays during the daytime hours, construction noise is not expected to intefere. with peak demand times
at the adjacent tavern. Given the limited sensitivity of adjacent uses, enforcement of time restrictions and noise level sta.ndards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance would be adequate
to minimize construction noise to a less-than-significant level. xn. Population and Housing -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X . directly
(for example, by proposing neW homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? December, 2003 14
III Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would not result
in an increase in local population. The proposed project would displace one residential unit located on the site. The loss of one residential unit would have a lessthan-significant impact
on existing housing supply. The project would not be considered growthinducing, since the project would involve redevelopment of an existing developed parcel and the project would not
extend roads or infrastructure to any adjacent properties. The General Plan encourages redevelopment of the project area since it designates the project site and surrounding properties
as "mixed use commercial." The project helps to fulfill the Town's desire for redevelopment of this area as indicated by the General Plan. xm. Public Services -a) Would the project result
in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant . environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities?' X Services are already provided to the residence on the project site as well as
to adjacent commercial and office uses. No significant increase in demand on public services are expected to be required for the proposed building since services are already provided
to the residence on the site. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposed Plan for site access and water supply, and the project will be required to meet Department
requirements for minimum fire flow, automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant spacing/location, building access requirements, etc.8 The project will be required to install an automatic fire
sprinkler system, one off-site fire hydrant, and one on-site fire hydrant. Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided, which includes pavement width,
a minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15 percent. The proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes. XIV. Recreation -a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? December, 2003 15
Initial Study -15047 Los qatos Boulevard The proposed project' would not add new population to the area, and therefore would not increase the demand for recreational services. Potentially
Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Issues (and Supporting Information SOllrc:es) Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact-XV. Transportation/Traffic·
Woulcl.the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X , relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the , street system (Le., result in a substantial
in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or. congestion at intersections)? . b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of X service standard established by the county congestion management for rqads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either X i an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? . d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature --X (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ; e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict
with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., blJ,s turnol,lts, bicycle racks)? The Town'8 Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) reqllires
preparation of a detailed traffic study for any project with the potential. to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips. A detailed traffic study was completed by TJKM
TransportationConsuitants in October 2003 ahd this study on file at the Town Community Development This traffic study evaluated the project's impact on the following
illtersectiop,s: Lark Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Southbound Ramps, Lark Avenue/SR 17 Northbound and Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive. Intersection Service Level Operation.
The Lark Avenue/SR 17 SouthboundRamps, Lark Avenue/SR 17 Northbound Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels
of service (LOS B to D during the AM and PM peak periods). When traffic generated by. approyedprojects is added to existing volumes, the average delay would increase at most inters-ections.
However, all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better). The proposed project is estimated to generate 670 trips per day, with 45
tripsoccutring during the AM peak hour and 68 trips occun-ing during the PM peak ,hour. The traffic study found that average delay at some of the study intersections wouid increase slightly
with the proposed project, but all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better). Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Accessibility.
At present, there are no bike lanes along Los Gatos Boulevard in the project vicinity. There is an existing sidewalk along the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard at the site and in its
vicinity. There are tWo transit bus lines, operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, that provide direct service to the project site (Line 62, Los Gatos -Piedmont December,
2003 16
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Hills, and Line 38, Los Gatos -Monterey/Senter). Other bus lines can be accessed via these lines. There are bus stops on both sides of Los Gatos
Boulevard in the site vicinity, facilitating travel in both northbound and southbound directions. Site Access and Intemal Circulation. Access to the site is proposed to be provided by
one driveway on Los Gatos Boulevard and a connection to the parking lot for the adjacent building to the south (15055 Los Gatos Boulevard). An auto ramp would provide access to the rear
surface parking lot and underground parking garage. During AM and PM peak hours, approximately 22 and 23 vehicles, respectively, are expected to tum left from northbound Los Gatos Boulevard.
Provision of a "refuge lane" on Los Gatos Boulevard would allow these left-turners to cross one direction of Los Gatos Boulevard traffic at a time. The following measures shall be required
to reduce identified traffic access safety concerns to a less-than significant level: 7. A two-way, left-tum lane shall be installed on Los Gatos Boulevard to not only serve as a refuge
lane, but also to provide storage for vehicles waiting to turn left into the project driveway. The two-way left-turn lane also would benefit vehicles turning left to or from the east
side ofLos Gatos Boulevard across the street from the project site. Parking. A total of 76 parking spaces would be provided on-site (41 spaces in surface parking lots and 35 spaces in
the underground parking garage). It is estimated that the proposed medical office building could generate a peak parking demand of 68 spaces on a typical weekday. Therefore, the" proposed
76 spaces are expected to adequately accommodate the project's peak" parking demand. In addition, on-street parking is available along the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard in the site
vicinity. Cumulative Traffic Increases. Development of the proposed project, approved projects as well as pending projects could result in cumulative impacts on intersection service
level operation. With cumulative traffic increases, all study intersections are expected to continue to operate acceptably except the Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard intersection. The
Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E+ during both the AM and PM peak hours and this increased delay is attributable to the increase
in the number of turning vehicles. Currently, the eastbound Lark Avenue approach to this intersection has one exclusive left-turn lane, one shared through-left lane, and one exclusive
right-turn lane. The following measure will be required to to reduce cumulative impacts on this intersection to a less-than-significant level. 8. The project applicant will be required
to contribute its fair share (proportional to its impact) of the following intersection improvements at the Lark Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard intersection: (1) the Lark Avenue approach
lanes shall be changed to have three eastbound left-turn lanes (two exclusive left-turn lanes and one shared left-through lane), which would require narrowing the raised median on Lark
Avenue; and (2) the westbound receiving (departure) lanes on Lark Avenue shall be re-striped to facilitate the merging of the left-turning vehicles (from the two northbound lanes) and
southbound right-turning. vehicles. With these improvements, the 95th percentile eastbound queue on Lark Avenue between SR 17 and Los Gatos Boulevard is expected to be 325 feet long
per lane. Since there is approximately 340 feet of storage between SR 17 and Los Gatos Boulevard, it is anticipated there would be sufficient . available storage length to accommodate
the expected queue under future traffic conditions. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supportin.g Information
Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. Utilities and Service Systems -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicaple Regional Water Quality
Control Board? December, 2003 17
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources)
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constructioIl. of
which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities , the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) }lave sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlellJ.ents and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? . e) Result in a determination by the wasteWater treatment . X \ provider, which serves or may serve the project that it .has adequate capacity to serve
the projects projected demand ill. addition to', the providers existing commitments? f)Be served by by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate the projects solid
waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? There is an existing septtc system on the site and the Town will require
this system to be removed .in accordance with the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department standards. Utilities are currently provided to the existing residence except for
wastewater .. The proposed building will be required to connect to the municipal sewer, which is located approximately 300Jeet from the site. The Town will require provision
of a sanitary sewer pump station with an emergency backup power supply. .In addition, a maintenance agreement withthe West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) will be required for maintenance
of the sewer force main within Los Gatos Boulevard. The WVSD will also require the applicant (including fUMe successors) to participate in the' cost of future gravity facilities in Los
Gatos Gatos Boulevard. Project development would also include construction of storm drainage facilities (see Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality). The Fire Department will also
require provision of an approved, automatic fire sprinkler system in the proposed building as well as installation of two public fire hydrants (one on-site and. one off-site). Other
utilities (electrical, gas, telephone, cable TV facilities) will be upgraded as necessary. x:v:n:. Mandatory Findings of Significance -a) Does the project have the potential to. degrade
the X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or Wildlife species, cause a fish or· wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the numberbr restrict the range ofa rare or endangered plaht or ariimalor eliminate important . examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? ., b) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does
the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? December, 2003 18
Initial Study -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard LIST OF SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES (Indicated as endnotes under specific issues of Initial Study) I Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. December. 2 Arbor Resources, 2003. A Tree Inventory and Review of the Proposed Development for the Olof! Medical Building, 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los
Gatos, California. August 23. 3 A.S. Associates, 2003. Structural Evaluation of a Residence, 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, CA. September 23. 4 Nolan Associates, 1999. Draft Erosion
Potential Map, Shrink-Swell Potential of Soils, Slope Stability Hazard Map, Debris Flow Hazard Map, Liquefaction Hazard Zones Map, Seismic Shaking Hazards Map, Geologic Map, Fault Rupture
Hazard Zones Map for the Town oj Los Gatos General Plan Update. January 17. . 5 Nolan Associates, 1999. Draft Fault, Lineament & Coseismic Deformation Map for the Town ofLos Gatos General
Plan Update. January 17. 6 Town of Los Gatos Development Application Supplement, Hazardous Wastes and Substances Statement for 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, August 15, 2001.
7 In indoor noise environments, the highest noise level that permits relaxed conversation with 100% intelligibility throughout the room 45 dBA. Speech interference is considered
to become intolerable when normal conversation is precluded at 3 feet, which occurs when background noise levels exceed 60 dBA CU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Information on Levels
of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margirl_iof Safety (Condensed Version, 1974). "c_ 8 Santa Clara County Fire Department, 2003..
Development Review Comments. August 6. 9 TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2003. Traffic Impact Study for the Olojf Medical Building on -Los Gatos Boulevard in the Town of Los Gatos (Final).
October 24. December, 2003 19
Attachment 1 Tree Protection Recommendations By Arbor Resources
ARBOR RESOURCES A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPlV1ENT FOR THE OLOFF MEDICAL BUILDING 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNER: JASCO PROPERTIES
APPLICANT: JOHN LIEN, ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-04-05 APN: 424-07-087 Submitted to: Jennifer Castillo Community Development Department Town ofLos Gatos 110 East Main
Street Los Gatos, CA 95031. Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A Plans Received: August 4, 2003 Site Inspected: August 12,
13 and 14, 2003 Report Submitted: August 23,2003 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 " Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 <l Fax: 650.654.3352 €l Licensed
Contractor #796763
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist SUMlVlARY The proposed project exposes 54 Protected Trees1 to damage or removal. August 23, 2003 Based on the proposed plan design, 47
trees are. in conflict and will be removed. Mitigation is recommended for only 17 of these, and shall include either replacement trees specified in the Recommeridatiolls section of this
report, or. paying the removed tree's appraised value to the Town Fund. The seven trees planned for retention are located on adj acent properties. Mitigation measures
for minimizing damage to these trees are presented in this report. Revisions to the proposed amount ofplant material are suggested. INTRODUCTION The Town of Los Gatos Community Development
Department has requested I review the proposed plans, in the context tree and landscape related issues, for developing a medical building at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos. This
report presents my findings; recommends mitigation for Protected Trees that will be either damaged or removed; identifies each tree; s· conditioJ;l, species, size and suitability for
preservation; and assigns appraisal values to trees planned for retention as well as those recommended for replacement. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the spreadsheet
attached to this report. Each inventoried tree's number and approximate location are shown on an attached copy of the Preliminary Existing Tree Survey (sheet L-2, 7/29/03, Hala Landscape
Architecture, San Jose, CA). The canopy perimeters of trees planned for retention, as well as tree protection fencing locations are also shown on this plan. Trees #17, 33 and 47 were
adeted to the plan and should not be construed as being professionally surveyed. For identification purposes, numbered metal tags were attached to each inventoried tree. 1 Trees with
a trunk diameter offourinches or greater. The OloffMedical Building, 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos Town ofLos Gatos Community Development Department Page 1 of6
DavidL. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist FINDINGS August 23. 2003 There are 54 trees of 12 various species inventoried and evaluated for this report. These trees and their associated
numbers are presented below. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME TREE NUMBERS COUNT Almond Prunus dulcis 23,24,25,26,27,34, 45,46 8 Australian Willow Geijera parviflora 1,2,3 3 Blackberry Tree
18 1 Bronze Loquat Eriobotrya deflexa 19, 54 2 California Black Walnut Juglans nigra 20,47,48,49 4 -California Pepper Tree Schinus molle 1, 17 2 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 4,8,9,10,33,39,44,
8 50 Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens 5 1 6, 7, 11, 12,14,15, English Walnut Juglans regia 16, 22, 28-32, 35-38, 21 40-43 Japanese Persimmon Oiospyros kaki 51 1 Olive Tree Olea europaea
52,53 2 Sweet Bay Laurus nobilis 12 1 The overall condition oftrees is good to fair. By implementing the proposed design, all. trees located on the subject property will be removed.
Two of these trees, #52 and 53, are proposed for transplant beneath tree #39's canopy. However, this would adversely affect tree #39 and should not occur. As such, I recommend they are
planned for another location or replaced. The seven trees planned for retention include #5, 27, 34-37 and 39. They are located on neighboring properties and were inventoried as they
are exposed to potential impacts. The OloffMedical Building. 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos Town o[Los Gatos Community Development Department Page 2 0[6
DavidL. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 23, 2003 Tree #5 is a Coast Redwood in overall good condition. According to the available plans, it appears impacts may be significant
(Ilote to fully determine impacts to this tree, the grading plans will require review). To minimize impacts, I suggest no grading cuts occur within 20 feet of its trunk, and aeration
tubes are installed as described in the next section. To promote thelongevity oftrees #27,34-37 and 39, no trenching or grading should occur within the planter area proposed beneath
their canopies. All recommendations presented below are based on plans reviewed and are intended to mitigate foreseeable damage. If revisions to the plans
occur, the recommendations will .require modification. Tree Protection Fencing 1. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to commencing development activities· (i.e. demolition,
surface scraping, grubbing, grading, etc.) and heavy equipment arriving on site, and shall remain in place and maintained throughout the construction process until final landscaping
is necessary. It shall be comprised of five to six feet high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12
feet apart. Its location shall closely resemble thai shown on the attached plan and be placed no further than two feet from the proposed parking lot curb. 2. Within the fenced areas,
motorized equipment and vehicles should not operate or park (even after fencing has been removed), and the storage and dumping of materials must not occur. To allow foot
traffic into fencing sUrrounding tree #5, I suggest a gate is installed. 3. Prior to permits being issued, the applicant or contractor shall submit a written statement to the building
department confirming the tree protection fencing has been established as recotmnended in the arborist report. "Existing Tree Survey" Revision 4. Sheet L2 (Existing Tree Survey) should
be revised to include informatio-9-shown on the attached plan. This includes the assigned numbers, added trees, and modified canopy dimensions for tree #35, 36, 37 and 39. In addition,
the existing tree suryey table information should be modified to reflect information presented on the attached spreadsheet. . Tree #5,' 5. No grading cuts are recommended within 20 feet
of tree #5's trunk. This will include establishing the proposed retaining wall or curb using a pier and beam design, with the spans placed on top of existing grade. The OloffMedical
Building, 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos Town ofLos Gatos Community Development Department Page 3 of6
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 23, 2003 6. Aeration tubes (four-inch diameter) wrapped in landscape fabric and filled with a porous material (such as clean drain
rock) should be installed every four feet where more than 12 inches of soil fill is proposed within 20 feet of tree #5's trunk. The tubes should be installed vertically, with the bottom
established on existing soil grade, and the top at new soil grade. If soil fill is between 6 and 12 inches deep, simply dig twoinch wide holes every four feet and backfill with a material
such as osmocote, .vermiculite, perlite, and/or peat moss. Tree #39 7. No more than 20-percent beneath tree #39's outer canopy area should contain groundcover or other plant material.
The plant material must be of low water use. 8. The Olives proposed for transplant beneath tree #39's canopy should either be planned for an alternate location and approved by the Town,
or not transplanted at all. 9. Prior to grading, a four-inch layer of coarse wood chips should be spread on existing soil grade beneath tree #39's
canopy. . 10. Digging or placing soil beneath tree #39's canopy (outside the designated protection fencing) must be done by using hand tools. Motorized wheeled equipment or vehicles
must not operate or park on exposed soil beneath canopies of retained trees. Additional Roqt Zone Protection 11. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline)
is prohibited beneath canopies of retained trees, or anywhere on site which allows drainage within driplines. .. 12. No irrigation, utility, drainage, or other trenches shall be dug
into existing soil grade beneath canopies of retained trees. Where this is not feasible, the Town shall be consulted for alternative installation methods. 13 . No grading cuts or surface
scraping shall occur within the proposed planter areas beneath canopies ofretained trees. 14. Roots two inches and greater in diameter that require severance should be cut clean near
the soil line with a handsaw or loppers. As soon as as severance occurs, cover or wrap the root end with a plastic bag, and secure with tape or a rubber band. 15. Alterations to the
natural grade must ensure water drains away from rather than towards the trees' trunks. Supplemental Watering 16. Supplemental water must be supplied to trees #5 and 39 at the start
of grading activities, and continue throughout the construction process during the dry summer and fall months (a dry month can be described as receiving less than one inch of rainfall).
TIle suggested rate is 10 gallons of water per'inch of trunk diameter applied every two The Olof!Medical Building, 15047 Los Gatos Boule:vard, Los Gatos Town ofLos Gatos Community Developrnent
Department Page 4 of6
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist August 23, 2003 weeks. The water should be· using soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface within
one-foot' from the protection fencing or midcanopy (whichever is closer). Pruning and Removals 17. All pruning must be performed under supervision of an-ISA Certified. Arborist and according
to standards established by the Western Chapter of the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by calling the. _ Chapter ISA at 530/892-1118,
or by referring to the followingwebsite:http://www.isaarbor.com/arborists/arbsearch.html.· . I 18. Trees #4,25, 26, 33,38,40 and 43,must be cut at existing soil grade, and in a manner
which does not damage surrounding for. This should be performed prior to establishing protection fencing. The stumps muSt also be ground
as opposed to being pushed over with large equipment. Tree Replacements 19. I believe appropriate mitigation-for this site includes replacements only for trees #1-4, 2 . . . 8-10, 13,
17, 20, 21, 33, 43, 44, 50, 52 and 53. In accordance to the Tree Protection Ordinance currently under review and anticipated for Town adoption, I suggest the following replacement sizes
and amounts for each of these trees removed: a. Trees #1, 2, 3 and 9: two 24-inch box sized trees per tree (total of eight). b. Trees #4, 8, 10, 17, 33, 43, 44, 50 and 53: three 24-inch
box sized trees per tree (total of 27) or two 36-inch box sized trees per tree (18 total). c. Trees #13, 21 and 52: four 24-inch box sized trees per tree (total of 12) or two 48inch
box sized trees per tree (total of 6). d. Tree #?-O: Six 24-inch box sized trees, or two 36-inCl1 box size and two 48-inch box sized trees. 20. The trunks of new trees should be planted
outside from beneath canopies of trees #5and 39. 21. Where tree replacements cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, the value ofthe removed removed
tree shall be paid to the Town Forestry Fund. The appraised tree values are presented on the attached spreadsheet. These values were established in accordance to the Guide for Plant
Appraisal, 9th Edition, authored by the Council of Landscape Appraisers, 2000. 22. Replacement trees shown on the landscape plan are appropriate. Additional trees shall be derived from
the Town of Los Gatos tree list and shown on appropriate landscaping plans. 2 Should trees #52 and 53, or other trees being removed, be transplanted to a feasible and approved location,
replacement ofthese trees is not necessary. The OtojfMedical Building, 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos Town ojLos Gatos Community Development Department Page50j6
----1_..-._: ., .:r SCALE -1" =16' NORlH BAR SCALE Prepared By: ARBOR RESOURCES of,I.'IIJl.sJ & .....11.1., 6-!J'UII e.... P.O. Boo< mil • SOIl MIlco, CA • 94401 _ (6l(Jj
iSHlll • Em>iI: -""""cs@w1hIlnLnd )( 22 x30 X,31 .45K 10 42)( ( ") » 32X. = 5 5 a· .J 29 X X 28 )(41 ;';40U IZ Map identifJcs oro;nUlee.siud Ind. Canopy dimrosions and tree
loatioru aR approxJmllc.. M.p is reduced from Ju otlsinaJ ,iU and II noUo 1Ct1e. LEGEND ___TREE PROTECTION FENCING X38 .,-39_e _Jr '-cX44 --- lS0,n 1M Galas Boulevard.
Lo, o.tol Town arLos GatOJ Community Development DepvtmClll 8 -:--.. 25 "24 .·...__,*-_
Lead Agency: Project Title and Location:· NOTICE Town of Los Gatos Environmental Impact Review Recommended Negative Declaration Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110
East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 15047 Los .Gatos Boulevard Architecture and Site Application S-04-05 Negative Declaration ND-04-1 RECEiVt:.D JAN 08 2M TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLA!'JI'!ING
fb--rJ+-L DLt-S Project Description: The project applicant is requesting Architecture and Site approval to demolish an existing single-family
residence and construct a two-story office building on a 40,001 square-foot parcel. The proposed 20,000 square-foot (gross) building would provide 18,762 net square feet of medical office
space on two floors with a garage level below. The garage level would have 35 parking spaces, while an additional 41 spaces would be provided in surface parking lots located in front
of and behind the proposed building, for a total of 76 spaces (one space per ,248 square feet of habitable area). The project site currently has one driveway that serves the existing
residence. This driveway is located in the center of the site's street frontage on Los Gatos Boulevard. The access drive.way to the proposed office building would be relocated approximately
40 feet northward and widened from its existing 16 feet to 30 feet. This ingress/egress driveway would provide access to the project's. front parking lot and auto ramp. This ramp would
extend along the southern. boundary and provide access to the building's parking garage and rear surface parking lot. Determination: Although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, . there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed below have been added to the project, mitigating potential impacts
to a less-than-significant. level. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Statement of Reasons to Support Finding: 1. Aesthetics: From Los Gatos Boulevard, the proposed
buildings would be two stories and a maximum of approximately 25.5 feet (30 feet at roof peak). The rear (west) wall of the proposed building would have a maximum height of 34.5 feet
(40 feet at roof peak). From Los Gatos Boulevard, the proposed building's height would be similar to the two office buildings to the south, which are 32 to 35 feet high at peak of the
roof. The proposed building would be taller than the building immediately north (The Boulevard Tavern), which is 20 feet high, but similar to the next building to the north (15015 Los
Gatos Boulevard, 30 feet high). There is one office building across Los Gatos Boulevard to the northeast that is similar in height to the proposed building. The proposed buildings would
contrast visually (e.g., building mass and architectural design) from one-story singlefamily residences (approximately 15 feet high) located to the east across Los Gatos Boulevard. Since
the project site and its vicinity (the area bounded by Highway 17, Los Gatos Boulevard, Lark Avenue, and Highway 85) are designated by the General Plan to redevelop with a mix of commercial
uses, the project design and scale of proposed buildings would likely be consistent with future commercial development. . The Los Gatos Boulevard Plan Design Standards emphasize the
following: Location of parking in the rear and location of buildings adjacent to. the street (so that buildings, not parking lots, are seen along Los Gatos Boulevard). December, 2003
1 EXHIBIT I
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard ••••••• Staggering of buildings along the Los Gatos Boulevard frontage to avoid a tunnel effect. Articulation offacades to minimize building
mass. Framing rather than blocking views. Designinga development to fit a site's natural conditions. Provision of landscape elements in parking areas. Location of loading
and service areas away from the street. Provision of defined pedestrian paths through large parking areas and pedestrian entries from the front as well as the rear sides which face the
parking lot. The proposed building would generally conform to these Design Standards. Although nine parking spaces are proposed in front of the building, almost 90 percent of the parking·
would be under or behind the proposed building. The small front parking lot would be similar in design to the small parking lots located in front of the two office buildings to the south.
The building's fac;:ade would be articulated similar to the office buildings to the south. Proposed setbacks of 58 and 63 feet from the curb would vary slightly from the building to
the sou.th (setback approximately 60 to 65 feet from the curb). Scenic views of Santa Cruz Mountains are generally to the south, and the project would not block any available scenic
views to the south. The project conforms to the site's natural downslope condition and there are landscape elements in parking areas. Loading and service areas are not indicated on project
phms. Pedestrian walkways would be provided on the east, south and west sides of the building, providing exterior pedestrian access to front and rear parking lots as wen as front and
rear of the building. The streetscape design (sidewalk and landscape design) along Los Gatos Boulevard would be similar to the streetscape design in front of the office buildings to
the south. The proposed building would introduce a new source of nighttime lighting. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the project will need to satisfy
Town Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or:: reflected glare (such as that produced by floodlight onto any area outside the project boundary). 2. Agriculture
Resources: The 0.9-acreproject site is currently developed with one single-fariiily residence and approximately 60 percent .of. the site is in orchard use. Development of the proposed
office building would eliminate this orchard use, is part ofa much larger orchard to the west. However, conversion of approximately one-half acre of orchard to non-agricultural
use would be less than significant due to the small size of the area affected. Site development would not adversely affect the viability of the larger, adjacent orchard to the west.
3. Air Quality: The proposed office project would. generate approximately 670 daily trips, with 45 AM peak hour trips and 68 PM peak hour trips. Air emissions increases associated with
the proposed project would be considered less than significant since the size of the proposed project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold
levels for potential significance. The BAAQMD threshold levels for·potential significance are approximately 2,000 vehicle trips per day or approximately 110,000 square feet of medical
office space. At or above this size, traffic generated by a project could produce air quality. pf()blems, and an air quality impact assessment would need to be prepared and submitted
to the BAAQMD for'review. Construction activities would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspe.nded and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust
emissions. The BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions, but considers any project's construction-related impacts to be less than significant if required dust-control
measures are implemented. The Town's standard construction notes that are included with all projects require the contractor to "meet or exceed the requirements of the appropriate air
quality management agencies...". Therefore, standard Town requirements would require implementation of the BAAQMD's standard dust control measures (which are required on sites of three
acres or less), which would mitigate the project's constructionrelated air quality impacts to a less-than-significant leveL December, 2003 2
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard 4. Biological Resources: Policies 11 and 12 of the Open Space Element of the Los Gatos General Plan emphasize preservation of public and
private landscaping. For any project application under consideration by the Planning Commission, the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that one ·or more replacement trees of
a species and size designated by the Parks and Public Works Department may be required for tree removals. The Los Gatos Landscaping Policy states that any tree over 12 inches in circumference
that is removed by a project shall be replaced with a minimum of three 15-gallon trees. When it is not possible to replace trees removed at a 3: 1 ratio, the new trees planted are required
to be larger in size than 15 gallons to adequately mitigate for those trees removed; this policy satisfies the Town Tree Protection Ordinance and Town Landscaping Policies. An arboricultural
survey was completed for the proposed project. This survey was completed by Arbor Resources in August 2003, and a copy of this study is on file with the Los Gatos Community Development
Department. This survey evaluated potential impacts on trees that could be affected by the project. Arbor Resources identified 54 Protected Trees (trees with a trunk diameter of ·four
inches or greater) that would be removed or could be damaged as a result of project implementation. Of the 54 trees, 47 trees are located on the site and would be removed. Two of these
are olive trees (#51 and 53) and would be transplanted beneath the canopy of Tree #39. This would adversely affect Tree #39 and should not occur. It is recommended that these two trees
be transplanted elsewhere on the site or replaced. The remaining seven trees (#5, 27, 34-37, and 39) are located on adjacent properties, but could be damaged by proposed grading. Tree
#5 is a coast redwood and it is in overall good condition. Project plans indicate that proposed grading could significantly affect this tree and it is recommended that no grading occur
within 20 feet of its trunk and aeration tubes be installed. It is also recommended that no trenching or grading occur within the planter area beneath canopies of the other six trees
(#27, 34-37, and 39). At present, there are 47 trees on the site and most of them are apple, walnut, or almond trees. There are seven coast live oaks, ranging in size from 16 to 44 inches
in trunk circumference. Of these 45 would be removed and two would be transplanted. Arbor Resources indicates that removal of 17 df these trees would be significant and mitigation should
be provided. In accordance with the Protection Ordinance, Arbor Resources recommends replacement of these 17 trees with 34 to 3 8 trees, all of 24-,36-, or 48-inch box size.
The landscape plan indicates planting of 38 trees, but 15gallon and 24-inch box sizes are proposed. Larger trees will need to be planted to comply with the Tree Protection Ordinance.
The Town will require implementation of the following measures to reduce impacts on trees to be retained and adequately replace trees to be removed: Mitigation: All of the 22 recommendations
made by Arbor Resources (August 23, 2003) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize the construction-related impacts on the trees proposed to be retained or transplanted. Recommendations
are listed under the following topics: tree protection fencing, revision of the Sheet L2, Existing Tree Survey, in project plans, Tree #5, Tree #39, Additional Root Zone Protection,
Supplemental Watering, Pruning and Removals, Tree Replacements. Recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. Mitigation: No trenching or grading should occur within
the planter area beneath canopies of the Trees #27, 34, 35, 36, and 37, all located off-site. Mitigation Monitoring: The Parks Division of the Parks and Public' Works Department will
be responsible for ensuring that all tree protection measures are properly implemented during construction. 5. Cultural Resources: Project implementation would result in demolition of
the existing residence on the project site. A structural evaluation of this residence was completed by A.S. Associates in September 2003 and'a copy of this study is on file with the
Los Gatos Community Development Department. According to the A.S. Associates, the wood frame residence is two stories. Based on a visual survey by A.S. Associates, the residence was
constructed in the 1950's, with several subsequent additions and modifications. Since the residence appears to have been constructed after 1941 and is December, 2003 3
Negative Declaration. -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard hot historically significant, no significant impacts on historic resources would result from the proposed demolition. The project site
is already developed and sUlface soils were disturbed during construction of existing developrnent on the subject property. Although the site is not located adjacent to Los Gatos Creek,
the potential for encountering cultural resources cannot be completely eliminated due to the site',s proximity to the creek and relatively level topography. In addition, the project
would involve excavation for construction of the garage parking level. Therefore, the following mitigation measures will be required: Mitigation: In the event that archaeological traces
are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be haIted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine
the find and make appropriate recommendations. Mitigation: If human remains are discovered, the the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner' will determine whether or
not the, remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt
to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Mitigation: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is, not a significalltresource, work will
resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after P1'Ovisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for idehtifying descendants
of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site,
a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the C01I1.D1unity Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Appendix K
of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation: A final report will be prepared 'when' a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are founcion
the site. The ,final report will include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources,
any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. . Mitigation Monitoring: The Planning and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department will be responsible for
ensuring that these measures are implemented appropriately during construction as the need arises. 6. Geology and Soils: A review of the Town's hazards maps indicates that the project
site has a moderate shrink-swell potential, loW potential for liquefaction, low potential for fault rupture, and moderate' potential for seismic shaking. Due to the site's relatively
level topography, no erosion, slope stability, or debris flow hazards were identified for the site. The Town's Fault Fault Map indicates that there are no known faults traversing the
site. The project site is located just north of the Shannon Fault zone, At a minimum, the proposed building would be expected to be subject to strong groundshaking during its design
life, particularly given its proximity to an identified fault. However, it should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding development are subject to groundshaking hazards.
As a standard condition of Architecture and Site approval; the Town will require preparation of a soil engineering report; this report will address any soil engineering constraints and
specify criteria and standards in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, erosion control, and foundation
design. Compliance with applicable UBC requirements would be adequate to address regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking. Assuming all recommendations of the required
report are incorporated into the project design, no significant impacts from soil engineering constraints would be anticipated. December, 2003 4
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List. There is one existing
structure that is proposed to be demolished as part of the project. If this building contains asbestos or lead-based paint, demolition could result in airborne release of hazardous building
materials, such as asbestos fibers or lead dust. Proposed demolition would be required to comply with state and federal regulations for inspection and removal of hazardous building materials,
including asbestos-containing materials and lead-containing substances. If found to be present in building materials to be removed, asbestos and/or lead abatement practices such as containment
and removal would be required prior to demolition or renovation. In addition, the applicant of this project will be required to obtain clearance for asbestos removal from the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit. permit. Therefore, due to existing regulations, the potential for public health hazards associated with the
release of airborne asbestos fibers or lead dust at the project site would be considered less-than-significant. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality: According to the Los Gatos General Plan,
the project site is located outside mapped lOO-year flood hazard areas. Approximately three percent of the O.84-acre project parcel is covered by . the existing residence. Project development
would result in approximately 85 percent of the O.9-acre site being covered by driveways, parking, sidewalks, or building. Although this would result in an incremental increase in peak
surface flows from the project site, the increase in runoff volumes would not be considered significant due to the small size of the affected area. Based on project plans, runoff collected
off the roofs of proposed buildings and parking areas to the east of the buildings would flow to a catch basin located at the eastern project boundary. From this basin, it would be conveyed
by gravity flow to the storm drain in Los Gatos Boulevard. Project plans indicate that runoff generated west and south of the project building (at elevations lower than Los Gatos Boulevard)
would collect in a catch basin equipped with a' sump pump. From this basin, runoff would be pumped to the storm drain in Los Gatos Boulevard. In the event of a power failure, collected
stormwater runoff could not be pumped to Los Gatos Boulevard and the Town will require an emergency backup power supply for this pump. The Town will require on-site storm drains to be
sized for a ten-year storm. Runoff in excess of the ten-year storm would flow via a storm drain to an overland release located in the northwest corner of the site. Such overflows would
not adversely affect the existing orchard use located downstream of the site. However, if and when this orchard is redeveloped in the future, upstream storm drain overflows will need
to be accommodated in future storm drain facilities. . The Town requires that runoff from the site not be collected into a pipe system or concentrated, and encourages use of bio-swales.
However, the Town will allow on-site drainage systems if they include mechanical filtration devices in catch basins. Filtration devices in catch basins are not indicated on proposed
plans and will be required by the Town. The design of storm drainage facilities would be subject to approval by the Town, and the applicant will be required to demonstrate there is sufficient
downstream capacity to accommodate project-generated runoff. If there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm drain in Los Gatos Boulevard, the project will be allowed to connect
without additional improvements. If there is insufficient capacity in this storm drain, the applicant will be required to either upgrade the off-site system or provide on-site detention.
Town approval would mitigate potential impacts on existing downstream storm drainage facilities to a less-than-significant level. New, more stringent water quality regulations of the
Clean Water Act have recently been triggered because the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's
creeks and the South San Francisco Bay, as evidenced by such observations as violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances, and fish consumption
health advisories. These new regulations require that the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of sediment, heavy metals, exotic species, pesticides, and other pollutants are to be calculated
for discharges to South San Francisco Bay. It is likely that the South San Francisco Bay has been identified as an impaired water body and TMDLs for these pollutants will establish load
allocations for discharges, which may affect not only direct discharges to the Bay but also those to the creeks and tributaries that flow into the Bay. December, 2003 5
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard . The project site is lbcated within the Los Gatos Creek watershed and runoff from. the site discharges to piped systems that discharge
into this creek and eventually into the Bay. Project construction would involve placement of 1,542 cubic yards of fill, with no cut or removal of site soils; such filling activities
could result in erosion and downstream, sedimentation. After project completion, surface runoff from the site would be expected to carry typical ,urban pollutants generated by parking
lots, building surfaces, and landscape areas. As a condition of project approval, the, Town will require preparation and implementation of interim and .final erosion control plans as
well as non-poirit source pollution prevention measures such as installation of filtration. devices or use of bio-swales. Implementation of such measures would reduce potential
quality impacts to a less-thansignificantlevel.' 9. Land Use and Planning: Existing uses on the project site include a residence and orchard. However, the project parcel is currently
designated by the existing General Plan as "CII, Use Commercial," while the site is zoned "CH, Restricted Highway Commercial." The CH General Plan designation . allows, for
"a mi)(ture, '. of retail, office, residential in a mixed use, setting, along 'with lodging, service, a.jJto related businesses, non-manufacturing industrial uses, recreational, ,,!lses
and restaurants." The CH zone ,allows retailing, office, service business, and limited ,manufacturing uses. Although Town Code does not specify medical uses in this zone, the Town allows
medical uses in this zone. The project applicant proposes to add a PD zone (CH:PD). '
. The project vicinity is comprised of a mix of residential, and agricultural uses. Adjacent parcels to the north and south of the project site (also
fronting on Los Gatos Boulevard) are currently in office and commercial use. The. proposed medical office builciing would be. . with this mix of uses, particularly
with the adjacent office buildings to the south. In addition, since the project site and its vicinity (the area bounded by Highway 17, LosGatos Boulevard, Lark Avenue! .and Highway 85)
are designated by the General Plan to redevelop with a mix of uses, the proposed office use would be consistent with the anticipated use of this area. . .' . In
1999, the Town completed the draft North Forty Specific Plan, but this plan has not 'yet been finalized or adopted. .The Plan provides development guidelines for the Specific Plan area,
which includes the project site.. The draft Plan's Circulation Concept Plan calls for developing a frontage road para.lleL to Los Gatos Boulevard and limiting access to the, North Forty.
area (between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive) to one main access drive and four or five secondary access points' ftom Los Gatos Boulevard. The proposed design of the front parking lot
would generally be consistent with the draft Plan's froIltage road allee design (Exhibit 2-7 of the Plan). The parking lot would connect to the parking lot
,to the south and also extends to the northern project bounda.ry, where it could connect to a future development to the north. The Town will require provisions for possible future connection
to the secondary road designated by the Plan to be located west 6f the site. 10. Mineral Resources: T.he Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locallyimportant mineral
resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 11. Noise: Project construction WeQuid result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction
noise sources range from about 76 to 85 dBA at 50 feet for most types of construction equipment with slightly higher levels of about 88 to 91 dBA at 50 feet for certain types of earthmoving
and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced by 1 to 16 dBA, depending on the type of equipment. Tl1.e potential
for construction-related .noise increases to adversely, affeCt nearby resiciential receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors.
The Town Noise, Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This
ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Adjacent uses are limited to an office building to the south and The Boulevard Tavern t.o
the north. The proposed building would be located approximately 40 feet north of the existing office building and 25 feet south of the tavern to the north. The closest residential uses
are located approximately 200 feet east of the proposed building, across Los Gatos Boulevard. At 40 feet, the ordinance noise limit would result in December, 2003 6
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard maximum noise levels of 81 dBA at the adjacent building to the south. Maximum interior noise levels would reach 61 dBA at 40 feet with
the windows. closed. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. Noise peaks of 61 dBAcould periodically
result in speech interference effects, but is not expected to cause speech interference effects most of the time, minimizing the potential for business disruption. At 25 feet, noise
levels could reach 85 dBA at the adjacent building to the north and maximum interior noise levels would reach 65 dBA at 25 feet with the windows closed. Since construction activities
would occur primarily on weekdays during the daytime hours, construction noise is not expected to intefere with peak demand times at the adjacent tavern. Given the limited sensitivity
of adjacent uses, enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Town Noise Ordinance would be adequate to minimize construction noise to a less-than-significant
level. 12. Population and Housing: The proposed project would not result in an increase in local population. The proposed project would displace one residential unit located on the site.
The 'loss of one residential unit would have a less-than-significant impact on existing housing supply. The project would not be considered growth-inducing, since the project would involve
redevelopment of an existing developed parcel and the project would not extend roads or infrastructure to any adjacent properties. The General Plan encourages redevelopment of the project
area since it designates the . project site and surrounding properties as "mixed use commercial." The project helps to fulfill the Town's desire for redevelopment of this area as indicated
by General Plan. 13. Public Services: Services are already provided to the residence on the project site as well as to adjacent commercial and office uses. No significant increase
in demand on public services are expected to be required for the proposed building since services are already provided to the residence on the site. The Santa Clara County Fire Department
has reviewed the proposed Plan for site access and water supply, and the project wilf be required to meet Department requirements for minimum fire flow, automatic fire sprinklers, hydrant
spacingllocation, building access requirements, etc. The project will be required to install an automatic fire sprinkler system, one off-site fire hydrant; and one on-site fire hydrant.
Adequate fire apparatus (engine) access will need to be provided, which includes 20-foot pavement width, a minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum
slope of 15 percent. The proposed plan will be subject to formal plan review by the Santa Clara County Fire Department to determine compliance with adopted model codes. .. 14. Recreation:
The proposed project would not add new population to the area, and therefore would not increase the demand for recreational services. 15. Transportation and Traffic:. The Town's Traffic
Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) requires preparation of a detailed traffic study for any project with the potential to generate 20 or more additional AM or PM peak hour trips. A
detailed traffic study was completed by TJKM Transportation Consultants in October 2003 and this study on fIle at the Town Community Development Department. This traffic study evaluated
the project's impact on the following intersections: Lark Avenue/State Route (SR) 17 Southbound Ramps, Lark Avenue/SR 17 Northbound Ramps, and Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive. Intersection
Service Level Operation. The Lark Avenue/SR 17 Southbound Ramps, Lark Avenue/SR 17 Northbound Ramps, and Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive intersections are currently operating at
acceptable levels of service (LOS B to D during the AM and PM peak periods). When traffic generated by approved projects is added to existing volumes, the average delay would increase
at most intersections. However, all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable levels (LOS D or better). The proposed project is estimated to generate 670
trips per day, with 45 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 68 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. The traffic study found that average delay at some of the study intersections
would increase slightly with the proposed project, but all study intersections are expected to continue to operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better). December, 2003 7
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Pedestrian. BicyCle. and Transit Accessibility. At present, there.areno bike lanes along Los Gatos Boulevard in the project vicinity.
There is :an existing sidewalk along the westside of Los Gatos Boulevard at the site and in its vicinity. There are two transit bus lines, operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transit
Authority, that provide direct service to the project site (Line 62, Los Gatos -Piedmont Hills, and Line 38, Los Gatos -Monterey/Senter). Other bus lines can be accessed via these lines.
There are bus stops on both sides of Los Gatos Boulevard in the .site vicinity, facilitating travel in both notthbound and southbound directions . . Site Access and Intemal Circulation.
Access to the site is proposed to be provided by one driveway on Los Gatos Boulevard and a connection to the parking lot for the adjacent building t.o the sOl,lth (15055 Los Gatos Boulevard).
An auto ramp would provide access to the rear surface parking lot and underground parking garage. During AM and PM peak hours, approximately 22 and 23 vehicles, respectively, are expected
to tum left from northbound Los Gatos Boulevard. Provision of a "refuge lane" bl1Los Gatos Boulevard would anow these left-tllrners to one direction ofr"os ·Gatos Boulevard
traffic at a time. The following measures shall be required to reduce identified traffic access safety concerns to a .less-than significant level: Mitigation: A two-way, left-tum lane
shall be installed on Los Gatos Boulevard to npt only serve as a refuge lane, but also to provide storage for vehicles waiting to tum leff into the projectdriveway. The two-way left-turn
lane also would benefit vehicles turning left to or from the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard across the street from the project site. Mitigation Monitoring: The Engineering Division
of the Parks and Public Works Department will ensure that this improvement is incorporated into project plans. Parking. A total of 76 parking spaces would be provided
(41 spaces in surface parking lots and 35 spaces in the underground parking garage). It is estimated that the proposed medical office building could generate a peak parking demand of
68 spaces on a typical weekday, Therefore, the proposed 76 spaces are expected to adequately accommodate the project's peak parking demand. In addition, on.-street parking is available
along the west side .of Los Gatos BOlllevard in the site vicinity. Cumulative Traffic Increases. Development of the proposed project, approved projects as well as pending projects could
result in cumulative impacts on intersections.ervice level operation. With cumulative traffic increases, all study intersections are expected. to. continue to operate accept'l-bly except
the Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard intersection. The Lark AvenuelLos Gatos Boulevard intersection is projected to operate unacceptably at LOS E+ during both the AM and. PM peak hours
and this increased delay is attributable to the "increase in the numper of tUl'ping vehicles. Currently, Currently, the eastbound Lark Avenue approach to this intersection has one exclusive
left-tum lane, one shared through-left lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The. following measure \\@be required to to reduce cumulative impacts on this intersection to a less-than-significant
leveL Mitigation: The project applicant will be required to contribute its fair share (proportional to its impact) of the following intersection improvements at the Lark AvenuelLos Gatos
Boulevard intersection: (1) the Lark Avenue appro8.chlanes shall be changed to have three eastbound left7' turn lanes (two exclusive left-turn lanes and one shared left-through lane),
which would require narrowing the raised median on Lark Avenue; and (2) the westbound receiving (departure) lanes on Lark Avenue shall be re-striped to facilitate the merging of the
left-turning vehicles (from the tWo northbound lanes) and southbound right-turning vehicles. Mitigation Monitoring: The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
will will . ensure that appropriate fees are collected prior to issuance of the building permit. With these improvements, the 95th percentile eastbound queue .on Lark Avenue between
SR 17 and Los Gatos Boulevard is expected to be 325 feet long per lane. Since there i.s approximately 340 feet of storage between SR 17 and Los Gatos Boulevard, it is anticipated there
would be sufficient available storage length to accommodate the expected queue under future traffic conditions. December, 2003 8
Negative Declaration -15047 Los Gatos Boulevard 16. Utilities and Service Systems: There is an existing septic system on the site and the Town will require this system to be removed
in accordance with the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department standards. Utilities are currently provided to the existing residence except for wastewater service. The proposed
building will be required to connect to the municipal sewer, which is located approximately 300 feet from the site. The Town will require provision of a sanitary sewer pump station with
an emergency backup power supply. In addition, a maintenance agreement with the West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) will be required for mairitenance of the sewer force main . within
Los Gatos Boulevard. The WVSD will also require the applicant (including future successors) to participate in the cost of future gravity facilities in Los Gatos Boulevard. Project development
would also include construction of storm drainage facilities (see Section vrn, Hydrology Hydrology and Water Quality). The Fire Department will also require provision of an approved,
automatic fire sprinkler system in the proposed building as well as installation of two public fire hydrants (one on-site and one off-site). Other utilities (electrical, gas, telephone,
cable TV facilities) will be upgraded as necessary. Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above· recommendation are on file and available for public inspection during regular
business hours at the Town Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California. Date December, 2003 Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development 9
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN PROJECT: 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Plmmed DevelopmentPD-04-2, Architecture and Site S-04-5, Negative Declaration ND-O, IMPACT MITIGATION MONITORING ACTION
RESPONSIBILITY The project applicant shall be required to implement the 22 Biological Resources recommendations made in the Arbor Resources Report dated August 23, 2003 In the event
that archaelogical traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find will be halted, Cultural Resources the Conmmnity Development Director will be notified,
and an archaeolgist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. .-". ,'-.... --.. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall
be notified. The Coroner will detel111ine whether or not the ramins are Native American. If the Coroner Cultural Resources determines that the remains are not subject to his authority,
he will notifiy the Native American Heritage Commission, who will attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. A-final report shall be prepared when a find is determined
to be a significant archaeolgical site, and/or when Native American -remains are foun40n the site. The final repmi willincIude-Cultural Resources background information 0 the completed
work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions.. Condition of Approval
Condition of Approval Condition of Approval Condition ofApproval Director of Comniunity Development Director of Community Development Director of Community Development Director of Community
Development , c, ,_'----. --, --------,------1
Director of Public Geology and Soil .The residence shaH be located a minimu of five feet away from Con<:lition of Works and Director of the faoult trace Approval Community Development
Footings shall be embeddeda minimudepth of 12 inches into Condition of Director ofParks and Geology and Soil the the bedrock or to a depth at which there is a minimu five-fot Approval
Public Works horizonatal separation If the CommunityDevelopment Director finds that the archaaelogical find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of
a preliminary archaelogical reeport and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying decendants DirectorQfParks and Geology and Soil
of a decesasedNative American and for reburial will follow the Condition of Public Works and protocolset forth in Appendix K of the CEQA Guidlines. If the Approval Director of ComnllU1ity
site is foundJo be a.significant archaeological site, a mitigation Development ... program will beptepared and submitted to the Community Development Director ofCoinmunity Development
for. consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set in Appendix K:ofthe CEQA Guidelines. A two-way, left tum lane shall beinstalled on Los Gatos Condition
of Director of Parks and Traffic Boulevard to not only seve as a refuge lane, but also to provid Approval Public Works . estorage for vehicles
October 21.2003 Ms. Jennifer Castillo Community Development Department Town ofLos Gatos 110 E. Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Dear Jennifer: I
visited the site and reviewed the drawings. I also reviewed the Public Review Draft of the North Forty Specific Plan for use in evaluating the proposal. Mycomments and recommendations
are as follows: Site Plan 1. The siting options for this project are very restricted. because of the design and placement of structures to the south of this parcel. While it might be
desirable to relate this building more strongly to the existing buildings from a pedestrian circulation standpoint, the large number of side facade windows planned for this riew structure
makes that difficult. One should recognize, however, that the pattern that is emerging keeps pushing structures to the northern edge ofeach parcel to provide suffi.· cient light and
air into side facade windows. 2. Given the strong emphasis in the North Forty Spe-Adjacent project to the south cific Plan, better pedestrian linkages to adjacent buildings should be
provided. Vehicular linkages are convenient along the building frontages, but the placement of the ramp downto the parking at the rear of the building provides a significant blockage
to direct pedestrian movements. This is similar to the condition for the project to the south (see photo on the site plan comments illustration on the next page), but it should not be
repeated here if the Specific Plan is to be taken seriously. A relocation of the ramp westward to allow for a continuation of the sidewalk circulation between this building and those
adjacent on the south is recommended. 3. Pedestrian linkages between the building entry and the street sidewalk are also of some concern. Although a pedestrian linkage is not shown on
all drawings, one is shown on the landscape plan, and is located at the north end of the parcel. That does provide some access, but a linkage more directly related to the building entry
would be desirable ifit can be accommodated. TEL: 41).33l.3m FAX: -415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE.SUrn: 219, SAl.:SAUTO,C.....94')6'5 EXBIBIT K
15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Design Review Comments October 21, 2003 Page 2 4. I that bnecould make a strong argument that this project and the one already constructed to the
south do not have sufficient landscaping between the building and street frontage to meet the intent of the North Forth Specific Plan. This relates specifically to the placement oftrees
within the eighteen feet of frontage area that is designated as "parking or landscaping" in the Specific Plan. The concept appears to be for a much stronger landscape statement along
Los Gatos Blvd. within the 82 ft. setback area. In the case of this proposal, there is one tree in the parking zone at the north end of the property and one adjacent to the auto ramp
at the south end. Additional tree planting in this zone is recommended if at all possible. Otherwise. the concept for the distinctive character of the frontage toad'along the west side
of Los Gatos Blvd. will be quickly compromised. 5. A minor point and probably one that would have been been carried out in the fmal design anyway, is the treatment of the stair edge
along the stair next to the vehicular ramp. The addition of stepping to provide areas for landscaoinl!' in a manner similar to the new buildinl!'ll to the south is recommended. " Move
ramp to the west10 aJlow better pedestrIan connection between buirdings CANNON DE>lGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SlJITE :z19. SAUSAliTO. CA94965
15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Design Review Comments October 21. 2003 Page 3 Architecture 1. The design of the project is pretty straight forward, and similar to the two new structures on the
parcel to the south. This structure has perhaps a more balanced and calm appearance since there are no tower elements proposed. I think that is a positive approach. 2. There are really
two ways at looking at the proposed architectural design of this proposal. On the one hand, the design is consistent with the two new structures to the south and would provide some visual
continuity to this portion of Los Gatos Blvd. The issue, however, is that the design probably is not consistent with the North Forty Specific Plan which makes several references to "small
town character", and to the "historic flavor" of Los Gatos. The guidelines in the plan also strongly encourages "simple building forms derived from and complimentary to classic residential
building elements and the architectural character of Los Gatos' residential areas", and strongly encourages the use of wood, brick, stonework and other natural materials. There are several
styles of architecture along Los Gatos Blvd. Some are small in scale and might be called "small town" in character as shown in the photos below, while others are more typical ofcommer-.
cial development along urban arterial streets and tend to be larger in scale. The existing project to the south of this proposed project falls, I believe. into this latter category.
While it is well designed, it has begun to establish a character along the street that may be at odds with the intent of the Specific Plan.. Whatever is decided in the case of this specific
application, the issue of desired architectural scale and character along the remainder of Los Gatos Blvd. should be considered again and addressed in the upcoming commercial design
guidelines for the Boulevard. Residential scale shopping center on Los Gatos Blvd. Residential scale office building on Los Gatos Blvd. CAI'i"NON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SLTIE
SLTIE 219. SAUSAliTO. c....94965
15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Design Review Comments October 21, 2003 Page 4 . 3. With respect to the proposed design, I would recommend removing the artificial keystone above the entry arch.
It makes the area above the arch appear too crowded, and since none were provided qn the adjacent buildings to the south, there are no issues of relating to details on those structures.
4. While the proposed design is well done, there do not appear to be many opportunities on the Los Gatos Blvd. elevation for signa.ge without covering important architectural details
or crowding signs into relatively small surface areas. Prior to design approval, project signage should be reviewed for compatibility. Jennifer, please let me know ifyou have any questions
or if there are other issues which need to be addressed. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP President DESIGN GROUP 160 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE
219. SAUSALITO. CA'.M96'5
REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: EXHIBITS: REMARKS: Date:_' -=-J=an=u=ary=.<-.=2=8.>-" For Agenda Of: January 28.2004 Agenda Item: -'2=--_ DESK ITEM The Planning Commission The
Director of Community Development 15047 Los Gatos Blvd. Planned Development Application PD-04-2 Architecture and Site Application S-04-05 Negative Declaration ND-04-1 Requesting approval
to demolish a single family residence and to construct a two-story office building on property zoned CH. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this
project and a Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 424-07-087. PROPERTY OWNER: Josco Properties APPLICANT: John Lien, Architect A-K Previously submitted L. Letter of support from
Robert Naber, P.T., O.C.S., A.T., C The attached letter of support was submitted after the report was completed. Bud N. Lortz, Director of Co Prepared by: Jennifer Castillo, Planner
BNL:JC N:\O EVVenniferlPClLGB\deskitemwpd Attachment 7
. ! Physical Therapy of Los Gatos 15899 Los Gatos-Almaden Road, Suite I Los Gatos. California 95032 (408) 358-6505 FAX (408) 358-6404 . ......y-. On January 28.2004 the Planning Commission
will be evaluating the proposed medical office building at 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard. I request your support of this project and recommendation for approval to the Town Council. Town
of Los Gatos. Planning Commission c/o Marian V. Cosgrove, CMC Town Clerk .110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Attn: Paul DuBois, Chairman RE: 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard (Oloff Medical
Building) Architecture and site application 5-04-05 Negative Declaration NDO-04-01 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2004 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION· IIt !,,Ii fI I am owner
of Physical Therapy of Los Gatos and a resident of Los Gatos with two children in our public schools. My wife and I enjoy living and working here and . would like to remain here as long
as possible. However medical office space is rare in the Town of Los Gatos. When the 15047 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard building is completed our physical therapy practice will own and
occupy the building with several other medical providers. Together we will own and occupy one hundred percent of the building. I believe the medical services we provide are an important
service to the Town and its community. Our desire is to provide the highest quality medical care in a first class building for the people of our community.. . I hope the Commission will
support the project and our efforts to provide medical services to our community. . Thank you for your consideration and support. Sincerely, Robert 1. Naber, P.T., O.C.S., AT, C. Board
Certified Orthopedic Physical Therapy Specialist Exhibit L . !
cc: Mr. Bud Lortz _page2j1
Toeniskoetter&..Breeding, Inc. Real Estate Investment rarrnerships Town of Los Gatos clo Marian V. Cosgrove, CMC Town Clerk ' 110 East Main Street . Los Gatos, CA 95032 RE: Appeal ofPlanning
Commission Decision, Architectural & Site Application S-04-05, 15047 Los Gatos Boulevard Dear Ms. Cosgrove, DEVELOPMENT Hand Delivered February 3, 2004 Pursuant to Section 29.20.580
of the Los Gatos Town Code, I have attached the completed filing form and a checkin the amount of $250.00 to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to deny the above referenced Architectural
and Site Application (S-04-05) for the demolition of a residential building. In conjunction with this appeal we also. ask that Town Council hear our application for a Planned Development
(pD-04-02). The Planning Commission decision to deny S-04-05 was preceded by a three (3) to one (1) vote in favor of the Planned Development ordinance. With only four Commissioners in
attendance the vote recommending approval of the ordinance died. The Commissioner's discussion and the transcript of the meeting will show that the Commission's interest is to have the
Town Council hear Architectural and Site Application S-04-05 as well as PD-04-02. It is my understanding that our appeal has been scheduled for the March 15, 2004 Town Council hearing.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation. If you have any questions please call me at (408) 246-369-1-:-. //Veryzzrulours,! /{/]:(1 -S¥BTTER & BREEDING INC., DEVELOPMENT Y II(
':B.-.r.ad---W. Krouskup President Cc: Bud N. Lortz(hand delivered) Jennifer Castillo (hand delivered) Attachment Attachment 8
FILING FEES $250.00 Residential $1000 per Commercial, Multifamily or Tentative Map Appeal Town of Los Gatos Office of the Town Clerk 110 E. Main. St., Los Gatos CA 95030 APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION ADDRESS LOCATION: I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION: Wednesday,
January 28, 2004 PROJECT /APPLICATION NO: . A & S Application S-04-05 15047 Los Gatos Blvd Pursuant to the Town Code, the To'Ml Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission
decision in most matters if the Council fmds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Councilmembers. Therefore, please specify how
one of those reasons exist in the appeal: I. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because ------------------------------------;OR 2. There is new information that
was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is ________________________(please attach the new information if possible): OR The Planning Commission
did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town . Council: Architectural & Site Application was heard by the. four Commissioners
present at the 1/28/04 meeting and was ultimately denied in order to facilitate Town Council's action on the Architectural & Site Application and related Planned Development. IF MORE
SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS. IMPORTANT: 1. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing
fee. Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 10th day following the decision. If the 10th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it may be filed on the workday immediately following the
loth day, usually a Monday. .-, /2. The To'Ml Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning (Town Ordinance No. 1967)..
//.1 /j ,'/J. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must the time limitspecified in the Zoning or Code,
as applicable, which is.different from other appeals';//\ !//4. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Counct!. /\/)//5. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt
of new information, the applicatiQrt be returned to the Planning Corrunission for reconsideration. . ///.... /I'" PRlNTNAME: Brad W. Krouskup SIGNATURE:l:'
'. r DATE: February 2, 2004 ADDRESS: 1. > 1960 The Alameda PHONE: (408) 246-3691 San Jose, CA 95126 *** OFFICIAL USE ONLY *** ')ATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Pending Planning Department
Confirmation DATE TO SE0iD PUBLlCATlON: _ CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date: _ TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY: DATE OF PUBLfCATION:
--------.----_.. .-.-.-15047LQS GATOS BOULEYARD . LAND·USE PLAN ZONING MAP TABULATION PROJECT INFO SHEET
INDEX REVISIONS VIS/Of\PLOFF MEDICAL BUILDING /\ ]4 NOV. '03 L CANNON COMMENTS 18DEC '03: REVISED PUBLIC SJDEWALI(@NORTHP.L.ADDED lMPERVlOUSSURFACE PERCENT. TOWN OF �
� PLANNING BUIlDINGSON ADJACENTPROPEJITIES'REC FLOORAREAg MEDICAL OFFlC&S, FIRST FLOORC:9,494SF SECOl\.lD FLOOR '" 9,311SF TOTAL = l8,8DSSF ",47% FAR STORAGE
6785F ELECTRlC/HV.'CEQUIPMENT=S17SF GROSS FLOOR AREA -20,000 . = lO,62OSF" PARKING SURFACE P.A.RKlNG". 38STANDARD+ 2 A<;:CFSSlBLE c 40 GARAGE 33SfANDAIID +2ACCESSlBLE
=35 TarAL PARKING = 75 -1/251SF OFHABITAaLE AREA LANDU$EAREAS GROSSLar A$A",40,OOl5F"" 100% BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 9,85OSF =25% SIDEWALI<S= 4,239SF '" 10% LANDSCAPING", 6,398SF <: ,i6%
PARKrNG & DRIVEWAYS", 19.5145F '" 49% TOTALlMPERVIOUS AR1iA a 25 + 10+ 49 =,84% 408.395.3525 JOHN LIEN ARCHITECT 196 COLLEGE AVENUE LOS GATOS CAUFORNIA 9 503 0 PROJECT DAT A i UNDSCAPE
AREA PAftKINGANDDRlVEWAYS AI LAND USE1PLAN, ZONING MAP,TABULATION, PROjECf INFO A2 TENTATIVE·SITEPLAN A2.1 FLOOR PLANS C1 TOPOGRAPHIC & UTlLlTY SURVEY C2 PRELlMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE
PLAN A3 SCHMATIC·ELEVATIONS, BUILDING SECTIONS A &B A4 STREETPROFILES, SITE SECTIONS &SHADOWSTUDY L1 PRE!lMINARYL>\NDSCAPE PLAN L2 EX1STING TREE SURVEY SHEETJNDEX APN 424-07-087 15047
LOS GATOSBOULEVARD GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION = MLA'ED USE COM,\1ERCIAL ZONING = 'elf -RESTRICTED HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL NOTE: TInS BUILDlNG SHALL BE EQUlPPEDWITHAN APPROVED,AUTOMATICFIRE
SPRINKLER SYSIEM, HYDRAUUCALLY DESIGNED PER NFPA STAI'lDARD #13. ONE OFFSITE A1'<1l ONE oNSITE FlREHYDRANf INSTALLED PER NFPA STANDARD #24 AT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY
II..A.. c..., DRIVEWAYCONNECTIONTO' ]5055 OSGATOSBOULEVARD ........ so I I I I I I I -u---. : . ." ':_".: .' " ••:....• :..., ',.=. ' • -','." . /....:..,..,.
,......,. -';":":::';:" ".:.. " . 15055LGB ,". ;".' •• :. -. • ••.•. f. : • :/••• .,..' •••.. '-'':'. -.•:.:....... : --o 8 16' LAND USE PLAN 3 ,'-,." ........
:'\ : .
TENTATIVE SITE PLAN ISM7LOS·GATOS BOULEVARD LOS GATOS" CAUFORNlA 408.395.3525 JOHN LIEN ARCHITECT 196 COLLEGE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA 9 5 030 REVISI9NSOLOFF MEDICAL BUILDING /\ 14
NOV. '03 LCANNON coMMEl\'TS A lSDEC.. '03: REVISED PUBUC SIDE\VAU<@No"RTHP.L oo.., Q A 0: 3 <: :>-.'.", ::l 0'" 0f-< <: 0.., ;,::.!
••':.:: .1: :: .: .'.::" ..{ :' '., ••••.;., ,'. .• ,'.' •• ', ;. -.:!;: ..•.:..... ,---+--EDESTRlAN
cONNEcrlONTo LOS ATOSBOULEVARD 0 I +-+---FOR LAl';DSCAPE SEESHEET L1 I OR GRADING SEt; SHEEl' C2 I . .... .... ..... ····fEDESJ"RlANC01'.'NECTJONTO 15055
+-..J---f;WAYDRIVElVA.Y.CONNECfrONTO I ' I [ I SDRIMoo347.43 1 '--, !' I ", I I " ' IIE1TOmf9.99
I ' I I I I I I ,.t,':'-' ; .:. ,'" .': •.••• ;.,••, •.. ••::_. .... ...... ,..•••• ;,",',,,' 162'-6" -'. ,' ..•• : -'.:' ,':.:. J '..
'" ._: ', :,.f .......•. '.•...•.: ': .;.''-,'. ",:: •.. .. '. "w ••••••;:' ,/,_/:, -.": ,-l.•
;,:>:;.,;:;.:."--, .:••::•••. :';. ;.,._ •• "';' .... ,.... ! f 1\ ! 11\ 18 It U\ \\
A9-9 /\
17A . n\ /I: \I / Ii /TENTATIVE SITE PLAN /STREET LEVEL TENT A TIVE SITE PLAN /GARAGE LEVEL w-, o 8 16-' 33 -----.•.-.....:.: <.-... ..\ . ,.:.;, '.'
.. ' .. .' ',.. CJ
FLOOR PLANS JOHN LIEN ARCHITECT , 'GEAVENUE CALIFORNIA 9,5 03 0 408"395.3525 OLOFF MEDICAL BUILDI: 15047LOS tOSGATOS J:( IIJ lIII I IIII
""II I I ,I ... .... ! _ ',WALL MOUNTED i • dARAGE CEILING j """l'" !1 I iii 'h"""'" ' II 112'·6" -......-. 'y}Ac:t=ertt UghtinlJ --KBR • WALKWAYBOLLARDS ; I II f 1 II i I II j j uI6'-<)"
nq; II II II i III Ihhhhhhh II ' " " I h'" "'h" "t'II 1I SECOND FLOOR •r1 II II j" iII rIII h'h'h8" I IIIII .... I ! I I Ii I I II I I I'II IL_I I " ""'1' II! CRAWl.
SPACE II II I I 1 [II 17 ELECfRlC& HVACEQT I; I, "" '" '" ,I,',h'" ""r"" I 1 , I Ii 0 I I IIII ..................?..... I1 I 'hh"l"I ...:: ..... 162'-6"
' ,, .,,. .:,. .I,'!. ';':1J' ' '1,', I i L_-rt-TI I II II ! I II I' I ! i! II Ii I! 118 111\ i I I, II I II Ii IU! II U! 'I L .,) 0\, /\ , .-'
\\ I, ,,11II III ""I ". '.-:.: . .:" 'r! I! ' t! II II I! !I il II U srORAGE 112'-6" GARAGE LEVEL 0 .-
.',..', o " _"-,,,., ." .. .... . -" . ".,' . ,.... RST FLOOR F I AREA,I5[.9,494 FLOOR 8'-0" II I6 UNTED HIGHCUT-FF CEILING MO , UGHrFOO!URES , ':Y
I nq II II I t I I, Ii I II ",,' "'" ""h' """",'!' I ! ' i I I I I I! .I I,""tI rI"""""""""i"h"ill"h ..................... ' . 11--+:::t::'FI ! II (\
.:.. :. J .'-'" . ....,.1' .• ..... ,........ ....••••• LOTI .......-:. oTV ---'O! or A @orO LEGEND : .... PROPERTY LINE CE!''TERtJNE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE EASEMENT
GIY MONL'MEI'.'T BACKOFCURB FND.STANDARD BOlTOM ELECTROLIER BUlWING FIRE HYDRANT . CCAABTLCEHTB.VA.SIN .U.MTAINLHIDO'LPOELE CONCRETB VALVE DROPINlET CATCH BASIN • A!ID ELECTRICALBOX
"r SiGN EOGEoFPAVEMEN POST,BOLLARD lJIYMARKERS ""'" FACEOF CURB UNDERGROUNDlITllEVATION FACE OF WALL __ FIRE HYDRANT SPOT ElEVATION
--------:_____ coNTOUR = . GROUND CURB & GUITER L:: . INVERT ELEVATION = IRRIGATION CONCRETE LIPOFGUITER PRAEVINEFMOERNCTED CONCEJ'EANPIPoEur SAlNlITARYSEWER
lTARYSEV\'ER:.mOLE STORM DRAIN SAN SEWER WATER srORMD GAS STREETUGIIT, CABLETV mpOFCURB mpOF WALL . WATI,ffiMETER .. . [ : .. ABBREVlAnONS
PV RCP SSCO SSMH SDMH SIB TC TW WM wv AC Be BOT BL,BLDG crv CB CONe Dl EB, EBOX El' PC FW FH FL GRN 3. NOTES: . " ",doftope!,","'.• . 1. BasiseIB.anng. 'RM530, Crusle<!
Benchmark: Del Soll:lnd . Elevation; 296.13 FlOO<\Zoo.Note' .
2. possible, datedAugus Panel No.06 . LOT2 )
-------------------_._--------_. 0 ----_._._---._. _ .._---_._----------------_._-----i I I . EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT: 595± CB. YeS. FILL: 2028± CB. YeS.
IMPORT:. 1433± CB. YeS. EXPORT: 0.0 ca 'tOS. FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY oi20 40 Scale , .. = 20 ft '60 i2 PROGRESS M. BARRY SCHMITI EXP. 12-31-2004 THESE PROGRESS PRINTS ARE SUBMI.nED
FOR PLAN CHECK ONLY 'NITHOUT SIGNATURE PER AMENDMENTS (EFFECTlVE JANUARY " 200'1.) TO S.ECTlDNS 6735. 6735.3. AND 6735.4 OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT PROHIBITING IN:rERIM' OR DRAFT
DOCUMENTS fROM CONTAINING THE ENGINEER'S SIGNATURE. OArr JI\N. 7, 2004 SCALE AS SHOWN DESICNER GA DRAFTER SV JOB AOJl44 .OF 1 SHEETS ,': -,' '.. . . ; •••• ;
•• j .. •••• ,;. ....;.-...... ,:.' .J.' .-,': > . .::. .... . ",' ..... : . topo C-S1TE. C-GRAO USER:svelasquez l:\dwg\A03144\PLA.NNING\PRE-(;RAO\C1-GR.AD.dwg
JANUARY 07, 2004 1:50 PM ",.11.:: .
408.395.3525 JOHN LIEN ARCHITECT 196 COLLEGE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA. 9 5 03 0 REVISIONS SOUTH 'II , I A IPL II .•................... WEST EAST -LOS GATOS ELEV
ATIONS -MATERIALS: WALLS-SMOOTIiFINlSHPLASTER,DARKTAN WINDOWS = BRONZE ANODIZED ALUMlNUM ROOF =COMFOSmON SHINGLES, BROWN OLOFF MEDICAL BUILDING
LOS GATOS ,,·CAJ.IFORNJA ELEVATIONS B-UILDING .SECTIONS 16' --BUILDING SECTION B -B EXISTINGGRADE PROPERTY UNE@ -o 8 16' OFFlCE FF""
308.5 OFFICE FF ... 320.8 II' GAR..c...GEFF "" 297,5 -298.67 rNOROOFfOPEQUlPMENT BUILDING SECTION A-A --------------------------!B II .:.... :.;", ....... ' ..,". ": ..,: .-
.:.. ..:.-: :, .. :" ':-":'-..:'.:.:. : : -"'.:'.:.. . ;,. ":-'.;,.. •. :. '.'
-------------------------------------._------------_._------15075 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD -WEST BENNETT WAY 15055 i: Property line j -15047 -NEW MEDICAL OmCE5 15043 Property Line 15015 JDHNLIEN
ARCHITECT 196.COLLEGE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA 95 03 0 408.395.3525 15000 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD -EAST STREET PROFILES 15050 15060 15070 15080 iiiiij .-o 5 10 zP' jjjj YUKIFAro"lS ii
I -i PROPERTY LINE i SITE SECTION! A-A -15047 -NEW MEDICAL OmCES iij PROPERTY tINE@LGBOUlEVARD Iii LOS GATOS BOULEVARD 15070 3PM DEC 21 REV1SIONS NOONDEC 21 15043 ji
Property I1Ile ii 15047 -NEW MJiDICAL OFFICES Property Line I -------+-J-1Ii=9F'='iF-=-=-=-i=,=-==-==-=-=-=- i 15055 -.-o 10 20'
SITE SECTION B-B ------------------------
_._----_._-------_.._.._-----_.-----.._._----------._._-------.--------------------------------"'--._-_._-----'----_._..-._-----------_._---_.__.-----------_._---------------.....
__._ ..__ ... Email: oIfice@halaLcom Web:www.halai.com UCENSENUMBER.1847 LANDSCAPj; AROIITECTURE 967WestHcxldingSt.SWte110 San:Jose. CA95l26-U16 Phone: (408) 260-8808
Fax: (408) 260-8607 ll/.t A&l1,rE FINI!li-ED ">RACE: 2 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ----l<o.JGH REDWOQO SET Gl<ot.N I 1/2"
SOlL RINGo AT ROOT OALL FtNI5I-£O GRPGE. FERTILIZER T .AeLET5 (SEE SPEClFICATIQN5) ROOT 6AU. SCARIFY SIDES BACK FILL (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) 1 TREE PLANTING
DETAIL P\..ACE 5TAKE5 PERPENDJCLLAR TO THE PREVAILlN5 WlN05 PRELIMINARY PLANTING DETAILS I RI!MARI<S W/ROOTBARRll!R SfA..1'>IDARDR>RM MULnSTI!MK)RM srANDARDJIOR."-f. STANDARDFORM. SIRP.el'1REB
W/JlOl:!1'BAARIER TAANSPLANTJ.OOSnNC STANDARDJQR."4 SE'CG6"'O.c. SlrrOU"'O.c. SETOIB'O.C SE!ott'O.c. SBTCtTO.C. CAN SIZE 15GAllON lSGALtoN 15CAU.ON
,","BOX ON"" lSCALLON SCALlON' ,GAllON .". SCALlON lGAu.oN 12 SGAll.ON '" IiGAL10 5GAt.LON )UMBOPACI<S lCAllON lCAllON PLAl5 PLAl5 6/1S SI> >5/' ].5ns '" >/. H/W IN.FEET llYSI!ASON YEUDWCAZA-1\J.lA
DWARFlM!.RGRIi£."'lDAYULY SO.."""""" DWARFRCl5a'o/lARY COMMON NAME GIl!}l!RAPARVOOUA At5'IRAL1ANWJLLO\'i' 15/15 P.RUNUS5.KIVANZA."I FLOW£Rll\'CCHERRY 151m PRUNUSCEJV.SlFERA'lCRAUTBRVESlMO\J5'
PLOWERJNC PLUM. l'.lSTAClACHINI!NSl5 CHlNesEPISI'ACH£ "", QUl!RCl5SlJBER CORKOAK ,,'" 0IJiA"""""'-'NA OlJ\ll!TREE ,,'" 'IRlSrANJALAURINA't:U!CANT SWA.\WM'I'RTI.E "'/15 ARBUTUSUNEDO'COMPACTA'
PWARfSlRAW8ElUtYllOSH ECISSC1tAISU""D""N"'"IA_ ORCHID""""""" 4'"/6 ""-'LlONIA ",. !!SCAUONIA 'NEW !'OBT DWAllP PWAltPI!SC.ALLONIA. 1.AVANDUlA/I..'MUNSIl!AIJ DWAJUl ENClJSH1.AVENDml:
'W"I.> l'HOJU..tlUM T1lNAX 'SUNtOWNER' DWARFPHOlU.UUM .". :RAPHIOLEPJSINDK:I\'JIAU.ER!NA' 2/2 ANNUAL"""'" GAZAmAH1<B_ HEMEllOCAIlJS '5l1Iu.A OBLORA'
ntACHE1.OSPERMl]ASMJh'OIDI!S lt0SMAJtNlNT.50.PRC6TRA.TOM PLANT LIST n12 nTo 1S G1 Q'" '" '" ..S..3 "'" IIVJNIlS II KEY BOTANlCALNAME SHEEI'TITLE PreliminaryLandscape Plan
SHEETNUMBER L1 REvrsIONS Rrf OArr D£SCRIPTJON f1::J.rr/uJW . of. 2 sHEErs .,.' i '2' ..C1 - NORTH BARSCALE
FORnmlOWN. • AlLIRRIGAnoNEQUIPMENT·SHAllBESCRE!!NEDFROMVJ£W: ·1RRlGAnoNlU!ADSSHAlL BS LOW ANGtJi., LOW PREaP. FOF·UP SP.RA\'HP.ADS FORGROUND
COVERBEDS. • BUBBLBR JRRJGAnoNSHAU..BSUlUJZEDFOKTlmtEEESANDSHRUBS. PREUMINARY IRRJGA1lON NOTES • JRJI.lGATION PIPING: nuacAl10NSUPPLYlJNEll2D!SOiEDUU! 40 PVC PIPE18"COVER lRRIGA'nON
Sl'RImlERUNE U20/CLASS 2lXI Pvc PIPElrCOVER (J ..•r.• ::.. ......
...:': ..:: : _..:-- , :', ' :.. ": ; .. ...••{'
•.. "0 ,.: ., •••" ••.•••• •• .. ·d ..·.;,... ._•. "'.';"_•• , •.•• ..
LICEN'SE NUMBER 1847 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 967West HeddingSt. Suite 110 SanJose, CA 95126-1216 Phone: (408) 260-8808 Fax: (408)260-8807 ' Ema.il: officeli'halai.com Wcb:"""W1o'.-.halaLC
otn .L2 of 2 SHEETS REVISIONS DATE: DfSCRfPT/ON SHEET TITLE SHEETNUMBER Existing' Tree Survey f) NORTIi BAR SCALE EXISTING TREE SURVEY LEGEND , i PROPOSED ACTION )( --£XISJlNGTREETOBBRBMOVED
I '1 II TRUNK j I i TREE # i TREE SPECIES I COMMON NAME INi DBH IN INCHES SAVE I REMOVE 1 ! :"' . Quercus agrlfolia -ICoa!iU'''iiiOak
, -1-12 -x;--2 Almond. Almond Tree! ---+ ,. 6 ! X 3 Almond Almond Tree -_. 25 I 8 I X 4 Walnut Walnut"Tree 75 I 24 X .-5 Walnut Walnut Tree 75 24 I -r----{-;:'/6",
.' Quercus agrifo.lia Coas.t; l::iviiOaK: I 19 6 II "7 Malus. So. Apple Tree +-25 8 i X "6 .: IOlea Eu oaee blVle" .! 47 15 f---i=f-; 9 Olea Eupoaea oMei 44 14 10 EriohatNs de.flexa
ISronze LOQuat 19 I 6 Gerera parviftora Australian Willow 13 I 4 I 11 , X 12 IMalus. SP. A Ie Tree I 19 6 X I NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS 13 !Malus. S . A Ie Tree 13 4 X , CONTRACTOR SHALL
!'IOHFY .. SERViCE ALERT) AT 14 Malus.S. A Ie Tree 31 I 10 X 15 Malus. S . Ie Tree 19 ! 6 I X I-OOO-221-2WO A MINIMuM Of·.,e·;louRS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK
16 Malus. S . !eTree I 25 6 X FOR VERIFICATION OF THE lOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 17' Gei"era srviftora Australian Willow 19 I 6 X 18 Malus. S . I 38
12 I X 19 lMalus.. S . Apple Tree 38 I 12 -+-, X 20 Eriobotr a deflexa Bronze Loquat 25 8 X 21 Pear PearTree 13 I 4 I X 22 ISchinus molle ·Californla PepoerTree i 82 I 28 i X 23 Quercus
agrlfolia ICoast Live Oak 31 10 X 24 IQuercus Barifolia CoastUve Oak 25 6 X 25 Malus. S . A leTree 18.84 I 6 X 26 Walnut WalnulTree I 131.88 ! 42 i X 27 Malus.S . Apple Tree 9.42 3 X
28 iMalus.S. Apple Tree 25.12 I . 6 X 29 Malus. 5 '. Apple Tree 12.56 , 4 X 30 Malus. S . App'le Tree 18.:84 6 X 31 Malus. 3 . Apple Tree I 12.56 4 X 32 IAPpie Tree , 18.84
6 , X 33 Apple Tree I 18.84 6. X 34 Malus. Sp. A laTree , 25.12 ! 8 I X 35 Malus. SP. Apple Tree I 12:66 4 ·X 36 Malus. 3D. Apple Tree I 26.12 I '8 1 X 37 Malus;:S
. Apple Tree , 18.84 6 ! X 38 Almond Almond Tree 18.84 I 6 i X 39 Almond Almond Tree 31.4 10 X 40 .. fAimond Almond Tree , 18.84 ! 6 X 41 Almond Almond Tree I 31.4 10 X .42 Laurus
Nobilis sa ,'. i 131.88 I 42 I X 43. IQuercus ·aaritolla IGQ... ' ! 43.96 14 44 Gerera parviflora Australian Willow 12,56 4 X 45 Quercus aQrifolia
CoastUve Oak 15.7 5 I 0 -YI 46 iQuercus sarifolia Coast Live Oak i 18.84 6 II 47 Walnut jWalnut Tree ! 50.24 16 I 303D4' Ji .J )0"4 )(5 \i!"S" [X
3 II '; i :-::7 10 '.....8 )fu .. «Vl ""'= K f-- 16 i"---- )(12 )(13 )(15 -1:!5 ,f' 17 -17 ( L:J 1 '--I) ---1:!5 R )( 18 )(19 , [JK
5 5. )( 21 V ,;" )(24 12 "" ''''' )(26 V 27 X2S ==-I )(30 ,;x I I I I I I I I ) 1[. 'J) EII:I)l EII:I)l EII:I)l X) 44 )(32 )(33 ><M T O'\<R
HP DO V" "";'. )( 37 /" 35 36 /-" , , 42 )0"39 V40 ......41 .)) I 303.114' V II I II ADJACENT BUILDING I, SCALE - 16' l/O' 16' ;;2' 6-4'
j , I .... ;.: .. .-.,:...} .... :. . ,F:.· • :..' :. : .' ....... ...., ..,...