Attachment 2This document was produced on recycled paper. N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN Final EIR SCH No. 2011122070 General Plan Amendment GP-14-001 Zoning Amendment Z-14-001 PREPARED FOR Town of Los Gatos Joel Paulson, Planning Manager 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel 408.354.6875 jpaulson@losgatosca.gov PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc. 301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C Monterey, CA 93940 Tel 831.649.1799 Fax 831.649.8399 james@emcplanning.com www.emcplanning.com July 18, 2014
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . T ABLE OF C ONTENTS 1.0 I NTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1-1 2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR ................................... 2-1 2.1 CEQA Requir ements ........................................................ 2-1 2.2 Comments Re ceived ......................................................... 2-1 2.3 Master Re sponses ............................................................. 2-6 3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY ...................................................... 3-1 3.1 CEQA Requir ements ........................................................ 3-1 3.2 Text of Revi sed Summary .................................................. 3-1 4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR ....................................... 4-1 4.1 CEQA Requir ements ........................................................ 4-1 4.2 Changes Made .................................................................. 4-1 5.0 M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM ... 5-1 5.1 Introduct ion ..................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Monitoring Program ......................................................... 5-1 5.3 Monitoring Progra m Procedur es ........................................ 5-2 Tables Table 1 Commenters and Topics .................................................................. 2-3 Table 2 Speakers and Topics ........................................................................ 2-5
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 1-1 1.0 I NTRODUCTION The Town of Los Gatos, acting as the lead age ncy, determined that the proposed North Forty Specific Plan (hereinafter “proposed project”) might result in significant adverse environmental effects, as defined by the California Environm ental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15064. Therefore, the Town of Los Gatos had a draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) prepared to evaluate the potentially significan t adverse environmental impacts of the project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between April 4, 2014 and May 19, 2014, and public comment was received. CEQA Guidelines section 15200 indicates that the purposes of the public review process include sharing expert ise, disclosing agency analysis, checking for accuracy, detecting omissions, discovering public concerns, and soliciting counter proposals. This Final EIR has been prepared to address comm ents received during the public review period and, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the complete North Forty Specific Plan EIR. This Final EIR is organized into the following sections: Section 1 contains an introduction to the Final EIR. Section 2 contains written comments on the Dra ft EIR, as well as the responses to those comments. Section 3 contains a revised summary of the Draft EIR, identifying the changes in the impacts and mitigation measures result ing from comments on the Draft EIR. Section 4 contains the revisions to the text of the Draft EIR resulting from comments on the Draft EIR. Section 5 contains the mitigation monitoring program.
1.0 I NTRODUCTION 1-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-1 2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines section 15132(c) requires th at the Final EIR contain a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that have commented on the Draft EIR. A list of the correspondence received during the public review period is presented below. CEQA Guidelines sections 15132(b) and 15132(d) require that the Final EIR contain the comments that raise significant environmental points in the review and consultation process, and written response to those comments. Based on the comments received and the responses to the comments, revisions have been made to the text of the Draft EIR where required. These revisions are included in Section 3.0, Revised Sum mary and in Section 4.0, Changes to the Draft EIR. 2.2 C OMMENTS R ECEIVED The following written correspondence was received during the 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR: Letter 1 Horton (April 5, 2014) Letter 2 Wojtkowski (April 5, 2014) Letter 3 Crumpton (April 7, 2014) Letter 4 Dallas (April 10, 2014) Letter 5 Davinci (April 13, 2014)
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Letter 6 Santa Clara County Parks Department (April 24, 2014) Letter 7 Walsh (April 28, 2014) Letter 8 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (May 8, 2014) Letter 9 Nedom (May 9, 2014) Letter 10 Arzie (May 14, 2014) Letter 11 Hudes (May 14, 2014) Letter 12 Robinson (May 14, 2014) Letter 13 Dodson (May 15, 2014) Letter 14 Grewal (May 15, 2014) Letter 15 Bell (May 19, 2014) Letter 16 Law Offices of Berliner Cohen (May 19, 2014) Letter 17 Buxton (May 19, 2014) Letter 18 Caltrans (May 19, 2014) Letter 19 Crowder (May 19, 2014) Letter 20 Field, D. (May 19, 2014) Letter 21 Field, K. (May 19, 2014) Letter 22 Fok (May 19, 2014) Letter 23 Law Offices of Tamara Gabel (May 19, 2014) Letter 24 Harlan (May 19, 2014) Letter 25 Landry (May 19, 2014) Letter 26 Loughridge (May 19, 2014) Letter 27 Mattes (May 19, 2014) Letter 28 Schneider (May 19, 2014) Letter 29 Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 19, 2014)
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-3 Letter 30 Shepardson (May 19, 2014) Letter 31 VanNada (May 19, 2014) Letter 32 Santa Clara Valley Transpor tation Authority (May 19, 2014) Letter 33 Murfeldt (May 20, 2014) Letter 34 Rathman (undated) Letter 35 Quintana (undated) A copy of each correspondence received during the public review period for the Draft EIR is presented on the following pages. Numbers along the left-hand margin of each comment letter identify individual comments to which a response is provided. Responses are presented immediately following each letter. Due to th e prevalence of comments on schools and transportation, a master response is provided for those topics, and presented immediately preceding the first letter. Table 1, Commenters and Topics summarizes the topics addressed in each of the letters. Table 1 Commenters and Topics Commenter Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment 1. Horton X X 2. Wojtkowski X X 3. Crumpton X 4. Dallas X X X 5. Davinci X 6. SCCo Parks X 7. Walsh X X
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Commenter Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment 8. SCCo DEH X 9. Nedom X X X 10. Arzie X X 11. Hudes X X X 12. Robinson X 13. Dodson X X X 14. Grewal X 15. Bell X 16. Berliner Cohen X X X X 17. Buxton X X X 18. Caltrans X 19. Crowder X X 20. Field, D. X X X 21. Field, K. X 22. Fok X X X 23. Gabel X 24. Harlan X X X 25. Landry X X X X 26. Loughridge X 27. Mattes X 28. Schneider X X X 29. SCVWD X X 30. Shepardson X
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-5 Commenter Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment 31. Van Nada X X X 32. VTA X 33. Murtfeldt X X X 34. Rathman X 35. Quintana X X X Source: EMC Planning Group 2014 Oral comments were received at the Planning Commission meeting on May 14, 2014. Table 2, Speakers and Topics presents a summary of topics addressed by each speaker. Table 2 Speakers and Topics Speaker Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment Van Nada X X Quintana X X X Wu X Despars X X X Hudes X
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Speaker Schools Transportation Noise Air Quality Agricultural Cultural Resources Economics / Urban Decay Public Facilities /Services Hazardous Materials Land Use Biological Resources CEQA Process / EIR Format Aesthetics Water/Hydrology Project Description Alternatives No Environmental Comment McBriarty X X Fok X X Harlan X X X Arzie X X Loughridge X Robinson X Oakley-Girvan X X X Nedom X X Farwell X Ventura X X Grewal X X Source: EMC Planning Group 2014 A transcript of the oral comments is presented la ter in this section. Numbers along the left-hand margin are provided for each comment to which a response is provided. Responses are presented immediately following the transcript. 2.3 M ASTER R ESPONSES Master Response on Schools Numerous comments on the Draft EIR concerned schools. The following Master Response provides a response to the most freque nt comments relating to schools. School Capacity. According to the Los Gatos Union School District’s Imagine 2022 District Facilities Master Plan , classrooms at the two Los Gatos Unified School District (District) schools to which
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-7 the proposed project would send students (F isher Middle School and Van Meter Elementary School) are utilized at 79 percent of capacity and 91 percent of capacity (Los Gatos Union School District 2012, page 23). However, with the District’s preferred class sizes and room allocations, both schools are at capacity. Some of the rooms at the schools are used for purposes other than classrooms in order to enrich the school environment – the Draft EIR considered school capacity under this preferred room assignment scenario. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the schools are crowded, but under state law (SB 50, 1998), the payment of fees is considered full mitigation of impacts. Student Generation. The Draft EIR estimates of student generation are based on the data used in the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Final EIR (June 2010). This data is based on the Draft 2010 Student Generation Rates Study , prepared by Jeanette C. Justus Associates in March 2010. The generation rates are broken out by housing type (single-family detached, attached, apartments, below market rate apartments, and mixed use) an d by grade level (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) to project student generation as accurately as possible. The use of specific project data from several recent projects would not provide a valid sample as compared to the larger data sample utilized in the Final EIR for the General Plan and in the Draft EIR for the proposed project. School Planning. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan considered for development of more than twice the number of residential units than are proposed in the Specific Plan. The District has taken the Town’s projected growth into acco unt in its long-range planning, so development of housing at one-half the density planned in the General Plan should be accommodated by District plans. The school facilities master plan includes growth scenarios where about half of the General Plan development occurs within the Plan Area and where full build-out occurs (Los Gatos Union School District 2012, pages 25-30). Ei ther of these growth scenarios would provide for adequate growth assumption upon which the District can plan for accommodating students from within the Plan Area. Master Response on Transportation Numerous comments on the Draft EIR concerned transportation. The following Master Response provides a response to the most frequent comments relating to transportation. Analysis and Mitigation. The transportation impact analysis was conducted to specifically address traffic generation from the proposed pr oject and the effects of that traffic on nearby streets and highways. The transportation analys is was conducted following guidelines of the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to ensure that it addresses the project’s impacts to the roadway system and meets CEQA standards. The Draft EIR evaluates full project build-out conditions, when all Specific Plan-related traffic is added to local streets. Therefore, the transportation analysis and the evaluation in the Draft EIR encompass impacts of interim phases. Suppl emental analyses may be completed for
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . development applications. The transportation an alysis includes new tr affic counts to reflect recent traffic volume increases. It also includes traffic estimates for full build out of approved and pending development projects to account for future traffic increases. The Draft EIR includes an estimate of the amount of traffic generated by the Specific Plan uses and evaluates the effects of the added traffic and the roadway improvements th at are included in the Specific Plan on the roadway system at key intersections and freeway segments. Mitigation me asures are identified for locations on the roadway system that are impacted by the added traffic. All surface street impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The only location that would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level is one segment of State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17. To present a conservative evaluati on of project impacts, the analysis focuses on the morning and evening commute periods, when traffic volume s on the surrounding roadways are highest. Traffic volumes are lower at other times of the day and therefore fewer impacts would occur. The effects of the mitigation measures on all stud ied intersection operations are shown in Draft EIR Appendix M. The level of service (LOS) results without and with mitigation for the Background plus Project conditions are shown in Table 23 of Draft EIR Appendix M (page 101). The LOS results without and with mitigation for the Cumulative plus Project scenario are shown in Table 31 of Draft EIR Appendix M (page 134). Lark Avenue. The analysis evaluates all of Lark Ave nue by evaluating intersections along its length, from Los Gatos Boulevard to Winchester Boulevard. Where tra ffic added by Specific Plan development was projected to create unacceptable operating conditions, mitigation measures were identified, as described in the Draft EIR and in Draft EIR Appendix M. The Specific Plan includes a separate bicycle path along Lark Avenue within the Plan Area, and the Town plans to construct bicycle lanes on Lark Ave nue in the future, but it is not required as a part of this project to mitigate impacts. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 26 from Loughridge regarding Lark Avenue at Highlands Drive. Safety. Collision information is presented on page 36 of Draft EIR Appendix M. The Project Implementation section of the traffic impact analysis describes circ ulation for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Vehicle safety improv ements include the restriction of left turns at certain locations and raised medians to separate traffic flows. Pedestrian safety improvements include the addition of landscaped buffers along the project frontage and crosswalks with pedestrian signals. Bicycle safety improvements include sharrows on the proposed A Street and creating a multi-use path within the project frontage along Lark Avenue. The Project Implementation section of traffic impact analys is contains a more detailed and comprehensive description of project safety and circul ation (Draft EIR Appendix M page 169).
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-9 Transportation Demand Management. The Specific Plan identifies several Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to reduce the number of vehicles entering and exiting the Specific Plan area. Examples in the Specif ic Plan include subsidized transit tickets, preferential parking for carpools, the addition of bicycle racks and lockers, locating general services (e.g., banks, childcare, convenience st ores, etc.) within walking distance, and showers for bicycle commuters. Additional potential tran sportation demand measures can be found on page 179 of the transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M). Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Policy TRA-3.13 requires that major developments, including the commercial uses developed within the Plan Area, implement tr ansportation demand measures. TDM measures will be addressed as conditions of approval at the development application stage. The transportation impact analysis did not consider the implementation of TDM measures, so their implementation will improve traffic conditions ov er what was projected in the transportation impact analysis.
From: bruce [mailto:brucehorton@comcast.net ] Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 4:35 PM To: Council Subject: FW: North 40 Los Gatos Town Counci l , I sent this along to the North 40 website after receiving a mailer today sent out to all Los Gatos residents apparently from the developer asking for comments……please do not sacrifice our great schools in this upcoming planning process! I am sure the developer is not going to be too concerned about my comments below. I have hopes that you will all make the right decisions to make Los Gatos bette,r not worse. Kind regards, Evy Horton North Forty developers, If you think couples with children will not be living in those upscale condos, think again. The school district is already at capacity and still will be after the opening of the renovated Lexington School. The residents of Los Gatos generously funded expansion of all our schools to accommodate the needs of our students. Unless you plan to purchase land and then fund a new school at 24 million dollars, be ready for questions from Los Gatos Union School district. Current district parents do not want to see their children housed in portable classrooms at our newly renovated schools due to overcrowding. We lived with substandard portable classrooms for years until bonds were passed and our schools expanded. It is not just the number of classrooms, but bathrooms, cafeterias, our playgrounds, etc. can only house and accommodate so many students. When schools are over capacity it becomes a safety issue. If you want to see what happened when Cupertino built upscale apartments and condos for young professionals give their school district a call. Those condos filled with families having their children share rooms in order to get their kids into Cupertino schools. If their residents did not raise the 2 million dollars needed to fund the new growth their class sizes were going to balloon to 30. Senior apartments are one thing but many young professionals are married with families......they are not all single! Traffic will be unbearable as in addition to your development, the traffic from the new Stanford Cancer Center, and Palo Alto Medical Foundation building now under construction along with the homes and retail being built at Blossom Hill and Los Gatos Blvd. will lead to traffic melt down. The idyllic community you call Los Gatos and what makes it so desirable will be a thing of the past. The $700,000 you say will go to the school district yearly is in no way enough money to purchase " non-existent land" and build a new school! I forgot to mention the traffic feeding off of Lark from the new Netflix development as well! Kind regards, Evy Horton Comment 1 Comment 2
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-11 Response to Letter 1 from Horton (April 5, 2014) 1. The Draft EIR does not make assumptions regar ding the type of residents living in the proposed residential units. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 2. Traffic from the three projects mentioned is accounted for in the existing, background, and/or cumulative scenarios. Netflix is refe rred to as "Albright Office Development" and Stanford Cancer Center is referred to as “50 Sa maritan Drive” in the TIA, and both are included in Background and Cumulative Conditions. Palo Alto Medical Foundation is referred to as “15400 Los Gatos Boulevard” in the TIA and included in Background and Cumulative Conditions. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation Issues.
1 From:Donna Wojtkowski <rdwojtkowski@gmail.com>Sent:Saturday, April 05, 2014 6:27 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 comment Thank you for allowing us to make comments regarding the North 40. I have attended a few meetings. My comment is about the orchard. I hope that you will preserve a few of the fruit trees since they are part of our agricultural history of that family, our city and county. Sunnyvale has an apricot orch a rd called the Heritage Orchard next to the Murphy House where I volunteer for a 3rd grade history program. I believe you are going to save some of the old barns. Hopefully, the fruit trees will be seen too. Donna Wojtkowski Comment 1
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-13 Response to Letter 2 from Wojtkowski (April 5, 2014) 1. The orchard was described in the historic re sources reports as an integral part of the setting for the potentially historic buildings. However, the orchard, although in that location for many years, has been replanted with various frui t and nut types over those years, and is but a remnant of the orchards formerly present in the region. From any location within the orchard, urban encroachment is visible and or audible. Al though the existing orchard trees would not be preserved, the Specific Plan calls for using orch ard-style plantings to memorialize past orchard uses on the site and in the region. Refer also to the responses to comments 11-13 in Letter 35 from Quintana.
1 From:Crumpton Family <crumpton3@verizon.net>Sent:Monday, April 07, 2014 9:53 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:EIR, North 40 I hate this project as proposed for what it will do to this town, and our lifestyles and health! The environmentally ‐superior alternative would be the “no project” alternative, because it would reduce impacts in all but three environmental topic areas, and would be similar to the proposed project in three others. Crumpt on, Tom 124 Las Astas Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032 ‐7680 crum pton3@ve rizon.net Comment 1
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-15 Response to Letter 3 from Crumpton (April 7, 2014) 1. Note that two similar letters were receiv ed. This comment concurs with the conclusions presented in Section 5.1 Evaluation of Alternatives.
1 From:Peggy Dallas <peggydallasarchitect@gmail.com>Sent:Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:02 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 project Hi Joel, I'm glad to hear the you are the go-to planner for the North 40 Phas e I. it is a challenging project that needs an experienced planner. As a tax paying Los Gatos citizen I'm concerned about the nature of the development of the North 40 site. My concerns are best st ated by a comment from Barbara Dodson... "I have questions about why there will be so many housing units given the traffic issues and overcrowded schools we currently face. I, also, would like to find out the projected revenues for the project. I know the Town needs revenue; I'm wondering if the project generates even more than we actually need at the expense of maintaining the kind of community we want to live in." I'd like to be reassured that the town is accounting for the added infrastructure and maintenance costs to the public.......not only the town government costs but other public institutions, such as schools, and the utility infrastructure that will be needed. It is my understanding that the tax revenue from housing is far less then commercial development, which when you consider the added demand on the schools caused by residential development may not pencil out....and certainly makes it a less favorable revenue option for the town. Residential development is clearly a quick profit for the developer....but they don't pay the taxes and they don't live here......something to remember. Thanks Joel......stay smart, Peggy Comment 1 Comment 2
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-17 Response to Letter 4 from Dallas (April 10, 2014) 1. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed project includes less housing than is contemplated in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan . The density of housing in the Specific Plan area would be less than half that considered in the General Plan. The General Plan and the General Plan EIR assumed that the Plan Area would include up to 750 residential units and development of up to 580,000 square feet of reta il or office space. The Specific Plan limits residential development to 364 units. The amount of housing provided in the proposed Specific Plan is an appropriate balance between the Town’s housing needs and the constraints of the Plan Area, including traffic and scho ol capacity. The Los Gatos Hous ing Element identifies several sites within the Town for meeting the Town’s affo rdable regional housing needs, as mandated by the California Housing and Community Development Department and the Association of Bay Area Governments. The Plan Area was initially considered as a potential Housing Element site, but not ultimately included, as more appropri ate sites were identified. However, although housing within the Plan Area is not necessary to meeting the regional housing needs assessment requirements, a portion of the housing would fall under the Town’s Below Market Rate program, and fulfill Housing Element needs. The Specific Plan balances the Town’s housing needs and the environmental constraints of the Plan Area. Also refer to the Master Response on Schools and the Master Response on Transportation. 2. Fiscal implications of the proposed pr oject are not an environmental issue – and therefore are not addressed in the EIR – unless th ey lead to a physical impact that is an environmental issue. However, on-site utility infrastructure and off-site utility upgrades, necessary to serve the proposed project, would be paid for by the developer(s). Developers of residential and commercial projects would pa y state-mandated school impact fees.
From: IRAJDAVINCIDESIGNERS [mailto:parravi35@gmail.com ] Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 7:10 AM To: Arlene Holmboe Subject: Re: Draft EIR Available for North 40 Specific Plan ARLENE HOLMBOE INREGARD TO NORTH 40 CITY OF LOS GATOS Sent from my MetroPCS 4G I HAVE TO THANK YOU FOR COSTANTLY STAYING INTOUCH ALSO COUNCEL & THE COMMISSION INWHICH THEY EXPRESSED DISMAY ON OCTOBER 15 TH 2013 THE LAST MEETING. I PRESENTED A ONE PAGE SUMMARY TO MR. JOEL PAULSON THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER WHO HAS GIVEN ATTENTION NOT ONLY TO SCHMATICS ALSO TO SENSETIVE ISSUES ( HOW CAN WE IGNORE THE ALLOCATION OF A GOOD PORTION OF RESIDENTIAL FOR TEACHERS SINGLE WOMEN WITH CHIL D REN & THOSE WITH SMALLER BUDGETS. My DESIGN IS NOT ABOUT A BUILDING IT IS LOOKING AT OUR SOCIAL ECONOMICAL &THE URGENT NEED OF THOSE WHO PUT THEIR CHILD THROUGH SCHOOL) WILL LOOK FORWARD ( TO BE COTINEOUD) IRAJDAVINCIDESIGNERS Wireless Phone Comment 1
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-19 Response to Letter 5 from Davinci (April 13, 2014) The comment relates to the provision of housing affordable to those with lower incomes. The Town’s Below Market Rate housing program requir es the provision of a ffordable housing equal to 20 percent of the number of market rate ho uses. The Below Market Rate program applies throughout the Town, including within the Plan Area.
Comment 1
Comment 1, cont.Comment 2 Comment 3
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 6 from San ta Clara County Parks Department (April 24, 2014) 1. County Regional Trails Route S4 (a portio n of the Los Gatos Creek Trail) is located about one-half mile to the west of the Plan Area. The trail connects Los Gatos to the Willow Glen neighborhood of San Jose. The trail is described on page 3-175 in Section 3.12 Population and Public Services and on page 3-200 in Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR’s analysis in the transportation section addresses the suitability of access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. The EIR also addresses Countywide Route 16B, which runs tangentially to the northeast corner of the Plan Area (Draft EIR page 3-228). As explained in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would allow up to 364 residential units in the Specific Plan area. This new housing is expected to result in an increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, including the nearby countywide trail routes. New residents of the Plan Area would represent only a small fraction of the existing population in the Town and the region, and the expected increase in use of recreational facili ties would be spread across the numerous parks and recreational opportunities in the area. The increa se in use of recreational facilities, including countywide trails, would be less than significant. 2. Increased park demands are primarily popu lation-related. The proposed project would add up to 364 new residential units to the regi on, or about 870 persons. The Draft EIR describes the regional trail route and the many parks avai lable for use in the vicinity of the Plan Area, including Lake Vasona County Park, the Los Ga tos Creek Trail, Los Gatos Creek Park, and parks operated by four additional agencies. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan would not have a significant effect on parks and recreation; since the proposed project would have fewer than half the number of residential units allowed by the General Pl an, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on parks and recreation. While some use by employees of new businesses in the Plan Area is possible, the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant increase in use of parks or recreational facilities by new employees. The distance from the Plan Area to parks and recreation facilities in the vicinity is likely too far to draw significant use by employees. Refer also to Comment 1, above. 3. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan lists bike lanes as a planned improvement on Lark Avenue between Los Gatos Boulevard an d Winchester Boulevard (pages TRA-17 and TRA-18). It has been determined that later de velopment of the Lark Avenue bike lanes was appropriate. A Class I multi-modal path to ac commodate bicycle and pedestrian circulation would be constructed within the Plan Area along Lark Avenue. Additionally, the right-of-way is sized to accommodate future bike lanes. An existi ng trail crossing over State Route 17 to the Los Gatos Creek Trail is located north of State Route 85 at Mozart Drive.
1 From:Julie Walsh <kittygem00@yahoo.com>Sent:Monday, April 28, 2014 5:49 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 Hi, I live on Venn Ave., been here 8+ years. I am VERY concerned about TRA FFIC and congestion on LG Blvd. and Lark. We already have a lot of congestion on these streets, mi dday, during non-rush hour traffic. I read the report. Adding more lanes may or may not work. How will people be able to park in the Trader Joe's/Petfood Express lot, or the Peet's/CVS lots when those lots are very full and midday? I do not support this project, and am very concerned about traffic on our streets. Also, I have a 3 year old, and I FULLY INTEND to send her to Carlton Elementary, which is 2 blocks away, after having paid, by the time she goes, well over $100,000 in prop taxes. This cannot be threatened. NO more kids at Carlton school! Or, at least, the new kids are last in line to attend. It is only fair. Thanks, Julie Walsh Comment 1 Comment 2
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 7 from Walsh (April 28, 2014) 1. Parking is provided at commercial shoppi ng centers, such as those along Los Gatos Boulevard near Lark Avenue, in accordance wi th the Town’s zoning requirements, which are intended to provide adequate parking to meet ty pical parking demands. While some increase in parking demand at various centers and locations in the area is likely, patronage of businesses in the vicinity of the Plan Area would be disperse d both geographically and in terms of time of demand based on need and preference for products and services. In addition, businesses and services within the Plan Area are intended to meet some needs of future Plan Area residents and employees, which will reduce parking demands outs ide of the Plan Area. Per the Town’s zoning code, adequate parking for all land uses must be provided in the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan requires that all parking provided in the Sp ecific Plan area shall adhere to the standards provided in Section 2.5.7, Parking Requirements in the Specific Plan. Therefore, the increase in parking demand created by the Specific Plan is expected to be less than significant. Also, refer to the Master Response on Transportation. 2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
1 From:Costa, Aaron <aaron.costa@deh.sccgov.org>Sent:Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:53 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:Draft EIR for North Forty Project - DEH Comments Mr. Paulson The Department of Environmental Health (DEH) has reviewed the Draft EIR for this project and has the following comments: 1.The DEH is currently overseeing an open fuel leak investigation at 16500 Lark Ave. which is across the street from the proposed project.2.Contamination has migrated from the subject site u nder Lark Ave. and on to the property of the proposed developmen t.3.A significant level of remediation is required to reduce the level of contamination both at 16500 Lark Ave. and the off ‐site property.4.The final remediation design as well as how long the remediation will last is currently unknown,but DE H estimates it to be 1 ‐2 years.5.The DEH requests consultation prior to any disturbance of soils on the proposed project site and surrounding areas as there is a potential that not all the contamination has been delineated.6.Appropriate protective measure such as a soil management plan (SMP ) should be prepared and presented to DEH prior to any soil disturbance.7.Additionally, the DEH notes that in addition to hazardous materials originating from the 16500 Lark Ave property, there is potential to encounter hazardous materials from other sources on the proposed project property. Prior land use (orchard) may have included th e use of chemic als such as pesticides and herbicides and those chemicals should also be tested for prior to any soil disturbance.If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Aaron Costa Hazardous Materials Specialist II Site Mi tigation Program County of Sa nta Clara Department of Environme n tal Health Hazardous Materials Compliance Division 1555 Berger Drive #300 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 918 ‐1954 www.EHinfo.org NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.Comment 1 Comment 2
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 8 from Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (May 8, 2014) 1. Contamination from the 16500 Lark Avenue leak is described in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (page 3-115) was developed in consultation with the County of Sa nta Clara Department of Environmental Health (DEH). DEH reviewed the mitigation measure pr ior to circulation of the Draft EIR and their comments were incorporated at that time. Th e mitigation measure is presented to protect workers and residents in the southern portion of the Plan Area (adjacent to Lark Avenue) from potential adverse effects of exposure to the co ntamination. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires developer consultation with DEH prior to issuance of permits for activities involving grading or excavation within the delineated contaminatio n area (Figure 17, Groundwater Contamination Plumes in the Draft EIR, page 3-109), and “imme diately adjacent areas”, therefore accounting for the possibility of contaminated soils beyond the delineated boundary. During the required consultation, and based either on soil testing or assumption of contamination, DEH will identify what they deem to be appropriate protective me asures, which may include preparation of a soil management plan. Therefore, Mitigation Meas ure HAZ-1 requires appropriate protective measures to mitigate the potential impacts. Th e bounds of groundwater contamination have been established through approximately 20 years of groundwater monitoring, so consultation on locations outside the boundaries indicated in monitoring reports is not necessary. The contamination source was removed in 1992, so although migration of the contaminated groundwater could continue, increasing contam ination levels are not likely. Furthermore, groundwater contamination, especially at the margins of the delineated area, is understood to be well below the anticipated depth of di sturbance for project construction. 2. Soil sample analysis indica tes that pesticide residues, while present, are below Regional Water Quality Control Board thresholds for resi dential uses (Draft EIR pages 3-107 and 3-114).
Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4
Comment 4, cont.Comment 5
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-31 Response to Letter 9 from Nedom (May 9, 2014) 1. The comment made in the letter suggests that the “Areas of Contro versy” identified in the summary section of the Draft EIR should al so include the density and number of housing units projected for the southern portion of the Specific Plan area. The comment expresses the opinion that the housing is too dense and the number of units would be too high, and not consistent with the General Plan’s vision for the Plan Area. The density of housing in the Specific Plan area would be less than half that considered in the General Plan. Refer to response the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. 2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 3. Pursuant to Section 65996(3)(h) of the California Government Code, payment of the state-mandated school impact fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, in volving but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in government organization or reorganization.” Therefore, with the payment of impact fees, the environmental impacts associated with new students generated by future redevelopment of th e Plan Area would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. In a scenario where all reside ntial development was within the southern school districts, the student generation within those di stricts would rise slightly, but the development impact fees would increase proportionally and the impact would remain less than significant. Distributing housing across a larger portion of the Plan Area (i.e. to the north into the Northern District) would reduce the number of students attending Los Gatos school districts, but would at the same time increase the number of students attending schools in the two northern school districts. The Specific Plan is intended to allow for th e development of an integrated local-serving neighborhood consistent with the General Plan and the North 40 vision. The Specific Plan allows for a mixture of land uses within the Plan Area, including multiple residential categories intended to satisfy the Town’s unmet housing need s. The district-based ap proach applied in the Specific Plan allows each district to establish its own distinctive character by tailoring a range of uses for each district intended to be compatible with surrounding future and existing land uses both within and outside the Plan Area. Distribution of land uses within the Plan Area is based on various factors including locating compatible land uses within proximity of each ot her. While the intent is to provide a mixed-use neighborhood within the Plan Area, it is desirabl e to concentrate certain land use types together instead of evenly distributing all land uses across the entire Plan Area. Housing is considered appropriate along Lark Avenue because of prox imity to the existing housing south of Lark Avenue, and lower trip generation from reside ntial uses on the short, but congested Lark
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Avenue frontage. Concentrating commercial uses within the Northern District provides a focused retail presence, which is better located along Los Gatos Boulevard, because access to a concentration of commercial uses along the shor ter Lark Avenue frontage would exacerbate already difficult traffic conditions along that street. The Specific Plan is intended to provide a range of housing options that is desirable to a range of future residents. It is not necessarily desirabl e to situate all housing options adjacent to, for instance, retail or office uses. This type of resi dential situation may be desirable to some people and housing in the Transition and Northern Dist ricts will provide such options. However, the majority of housing within the Plan Area is proposed within a predominately residential area that is within a short distance of retail and office uses, located both within and near the Plan Area. Housing in the Lark District, as well as th e Transition District will provide opportunities for more of a residential neighborhood feel while still putting residents in proximity to businesses and services. 4. The transportation impact analysis was conducted primarily using counts conducted in early 2013 when the analysis was started. The operations of the study intersections vary and some operate with moderate amounts of delay (LOS C and D), some are at capacity (LOS E), and some have excessive congestion (LOS F). Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation. The “significant and unavoidable” comment in th e beginning of the Traffic and Transportation section is in relation to the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR and the lack of available funding to construct all of the needed improvements, and not in relation to the North 40 Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure TR-4 and Mitigation Measure TR-5 refer to “working with” the transit agency because the Town does not have the author ity to make decisions regarding the provision of transit services. The Town and Valley Transportation Authority have a good working relationship, and both are interested in seeing im provements that would facilitate transit use. In addition to serving as Santa Clara County’s transit agency, in its letters regarding this project, the Valley Transportation Authority has stressed the importance of providing transit to the project site. Demonstrating its commitment to transit, the Town of Los Gatos includes a Vasona Light Rail element in its General Plan, as well as numerous General Plan and Sustainability Plan policies directed at provision of transit and accommodation of other means of transportation. These policies are cited on pages 3-202 through 3-209 of the Draft EIR. 5. The comment suggests that the General Plan should have kept the Plan Area in agricultural use. However, the General Plan identifies the Plan Area for development within certain parameters, and the Specific Plan ha s been developed in accordance with those parameters.
Comment 1 Comment 2
Comment 3
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-35 Response to Letter 10 from Arzie (May 14, 2014) 1. Assumptions about future lane geometries and mitigation measures for project impacts on Los Gatos Boulevard were developed in coll aboration with Town of Los Gatos staff. The ultimate widening of Los Gatos Boulevard is a long-term capital improvement for the Town of Los Gatos and is not necessary as a mitigation measure to reduce impacts for this project. Right-of-way has already been dedicated on the west side of the roadway. Widening Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark Avenue and Samaritan Drive may not be feasible in the near term because it requires land acquisition along the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard. Two lanes already exist in this area, and the additional ri ght-of-way would be utilized to provide a third travel lane, turn lanes, and to formalize the bike lane and sidewalks on the east side. As parcels on the east side of Los Gatos Boulevard are develo ped, additional right-of-way will be granted to the Town of Los Gatos to accommodate planned improvements. 2. Much of the Los Gatos Boulevard west side frontage is already developed making a ring road challenging to implement. Within the Plan Area, a ring road would function similarly to the proposed through road, distributing traffic wi thin the Plan Area. Additionally, a ring road would still need to have access points onto La rk Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. Therefore the effects on the surrounding roadways would no t be altered from what was addressed in the Draft EIR. 3. The comment that the North 40 has become the “North 20” is apparently in reference to approximately half the Plan Area being currently proposed for development. The Specific Plan provides a long-range plan for development of th e entire Plan Area, and phasing of development is anticipated. The Draft EIR considered build-out of the entire Plan Area over a 20-year period. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze the entire proj ect being proposed as early as possible in the planning process. CEQA does not allow projects to be segmented and reviewed in a “piecemeal” fashion. The Draft EIR did not analyze the appropriateness of focusing housing at any particular location within the Plan Area, but no significant impacts were identified that were specifically related to the concentration of housing at the south end of the Plan Area. From at least two standpoints, concentrating housing at the south end of the Plan Area has potential environmental benefits. The south end of the Plan Area is closer to the elementary and middle schools, so walking or bicycling to school are mo re feasible; and residential uses generate lower traffic volumes than commercial, so location of those uses near the traffic-constricted Lark Avenue could potentially result in fewer traffic impacts by generating fewer trip ends adjacent to that street. The Lark District is also less-affected by noise and air pollutants from traffic on State Route 17. Although portions of the Lark Dist rict are affected by groundwater contamination from the Lark Avenue Car Wash, that contamination is only known to occur well below the
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-36 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . surface soils, so is not a likely concern for future residents; in any case, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 imposes safety measures to ensure that groundwater or soils contamination is addressed prior to construction. See also response to Comment 3 in Letter 9 from Nedom.
North 40 EIR Comments For over two years, I have been urging the Town to perform an a nalysis of the economic impact of commercial de velopment of the North 40 in th e life cycle of commercial activities, starting with development application th rough planning and review approvals and through on‐going commercial activities, in cluding: 1.Potential economic activity that could be generated in the Nort h Forty 2.Potential economic activity, bot h positive (synergies) and nega tive, in adjacent and proximate areas, as a result of activity in the No rth Forty 3.Potential economic activity, both positive and negative, in the downtown, as a result of act ivity in the North Forty The response from Town staff has been that these concerns would be addressed in the Urban Decay Analysis incorpo rated in the EIR. As a member of the North 40 Advisory Committee, I took it on good faith that this analysis would be performed. In fact, these concern s were not addressed, although they could have been, as evidenced by other Urban Decay Analysis examples in the State o f California, that are easily obtained, including t he Sacramento Railyards report (forwarded to Town staff). My main comments about the Draft EIR, boil down to: 1.Numerous opinions and conclusions offered without foundatio n in fact. Some of the most extreme examples are in section 3.10 Land Use and Plan ning: “With the exception of the declining automotive sector, Los Gatos has a very strong retail sector.” “the continuing success of the downtown following the opening of Santana Row” Omitting the automotive sector, the data in the Draft EIR and Appendix K show a decrease in retail in the Downt own by 34%since 2000, despite a small recovery.“The sales estimates are equivalent to slightly less than 30 percent of estimated 2012 retail sales in Los Gatos” “The urban decay analysis indicates that urban decay is not likely to occur as a result of the proposed project.” Yet the data show that the North 40 Specific Plan will expand retail by $215 M or 29% of the Town’s 2012 retail commerce, and expand it by 52% compared to the Downtown. The Downtown is the m ore relevant comparison here, a s it is the only area that is primarily pe destrian‐accessed. Any reasonabl e and competent economic sensitivity analysis would show that adding more than 50% supply in a short time frame would have a significant impact. It would be an extremely rare economic ph enomenon that an enormous incre ase in supply would have no significant impact.Comment 1 Comment 2
2.The analysis of base case ret ail capacity was not performed . Despite numerous requests by residents, there has been no inclusion of square fo otage analysis of the existing retail areas in Town. If the residents’ concerns are founded, then the retail addition of the North 40’s 400,0 00 square feet is almost double the existing area in Downtown. That would suggest tha t the aforementioned projection of $215M or 52% increase in retail activity is extremely and severely under stated. The impact would be more destructive on economic activity in the Downtown than indicated in the report. 3.The analysis of adjacent and potentially impacting populations is flawed in two ways: a)The “ten minute” drive area c omparison is more like 25 to 3 5 minute drive time in reasonably likely comparisons. b)The type of business to be permitted in the Draft North 40 Specific Plan are meant to be “neighborhood serving” The result of these errors is th at the potential market to abso rb this enormous additional retail activity in th e North 40 is overstated in the report, and the impact would be more destructive on economic activity in the Downtown. 4.The Draft EIR lacks case studi es and comparisons; examples of such have provided to Town staff, and might include such developments pro ximate and adjacent to Downtowns that have occurred in: Sacramento, Railyards Walnut Creek Livermore Pleasanton Campbell San Luis Obispo Palo Alto (only cited in a minor way)Napa Bay Street, Emeryville Gateway, Salt Lake City Lake Oswego, OR It would be valuable to include relevant historical and represe ntative comparators in both the EIR and the Specific Plan. 5.The EIR fails to consider othe r credible, and in fact, like ly retail development alternatives such as, permitting larger retail outlets rather t han allowing many smaller spaces that will compete with downtown. The main point is that the data cited in the study have been in terpreted in a manner favorable to development. Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6
Additional Information: The inadequate consideration of economic impacts in an EIR has recently become a focus of attention and litigatio n. In an analysis of the decis ion (Cal. Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (No. C072033 Feb. 28, 2014), Benjamin Z. Rubin and Robert D. Thornton, express the following which could apply to the handling of the North 40 Urban Decay Analysis: The latest in a series of cases holding that local land use age ncies are required to evaluate and address potential urban decay impacts of "big box" and other retail centers outside of the town center, in this ca se the Court of Appeal found fault with the City 's mitigation of the urban deca y impacts on downtown Woodland. The Court of Appeal concluded tha t the following urban decay mi tigation measures were deficient: (1) req uiring the applicant to submit a market study and urban decay analysis at the time of future applicatio ns for site‐specific development; (2) requir ing the applicant to contribute funds toward the development of a Retail Strategic Plan prior to the issuanc e of building permits; (3) requiring the applic ant to contribute funds toward the preparation of an Implementation Strategy for the Downtown Spec ific Plan prior to the issuance of building permits; and (4) requiring th e City to coordinate with the current owner of the County Fair Mall to pr epare a strategic land use plan for the Mall to analyze potential viabl e land uses for the site. The Court of Appeal found that the market study mitigation meas ure failed to comply with CEQA, because it improperly ceded responsibility fo r studying an environmental impact to the developer, and it failed to requ ire any specific mitigation actions to alleviate urban decay. As to th e second point, the Court of Appeal explained tha t "the questions of whether mi tigation measures will be required, of wh at they might consist, and how effective they will be are left unanswered."ii i California “Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans” (http://ceres,ca.gov/planning/specific/) ii http://www.nossaman.com/Urba nDecayAndEnergyImpacts Comment 7
How did we get here? Fundamenta lly, the issue is that the EIR p rocess was performed sequentially after the work of the North 40 Advisory Committee was concluded. Despite concerns raised by the North 40 Advisory Co mmittee, despite initial response from Town staff that the EIR would be developed in parallel with the Advisory Committee work (whic h was later rescinded), and de spite guidance from the State of California tha t “the data, analyses, and stud ies for one, will likely be necessary for the other. For thi s reason, both documents shoul d be proceed concurrently because both docume nts require many of the same st udies and resulting information.”i In other words, this should be an iterative parallel process, not sequential. What should be done? Given that the North 40 Advisory Committe e has been disbanded and there is a severely flawed EIR now before the Pla nning Commission, the EIR should either be re‐scoped with input from the Planning Commission and re‐drafted, or it should be rejected by the Planning Commission as inadequate. Then, the Draft North 40 Specific Plan should be revised, as re commended by the State of California, in a manner that is iterative and parallel with the development of the EIR. I have included detailed comment s on the Draft EIR and Appendix K Urban Decay Analysis in an attachment. Regards, Matthew Hudes Comment 7 cont.
Comment 8 Summary of Comments on North 40 Draft EIR_MH Comments.pdf Page: S-20 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 2:45:17 PM CL: To which areas of LG Blvd does this requirement apply?
Comment 9 Comment 10 Page: S-26 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 2:56:53 PM DEF: Since the implementation is not defi ned, it is incorrect to conclude that there would be less-than-significant level of impacts. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 2:51:21 PM DEF: 'shall work with" is not specific. Are we requiring that the the developer provide for or pay for the cost of this shuttle service?
Comment 11 Comment 12 Comment 13 Page: 3-2 Author: mhudes Subject: Highl ight Date: 5/13/14 9:48:27 PM DEF: This statement lack s foundation and is factually incorrect. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 9:48:18 PM DEF: This statement lacks foundation and is factually incorrect. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 9:49:23 PM CL: What is their height?
Comment 14 Page: 3-20 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:04:38 PM DEF: This analysis is omitted
Comment 15 Page: 3-133 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:42:19 PM DEF: This report was not provided to the N4 0 Specific Plan committee nor to the public.
Comment 16 Page: 3-138 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:30:32 PM Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:30:26 PM Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:30:57 PM
Page: 3-147 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:18:23 PM Comment 17 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:17 PM DEF: What is the estimate of percent of the 2012 sale s in the Downtown. (Statement is to preserve vibrant downtown.) Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:19:21 PM DEF: Basis for this estimate are omitted. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:19:25 PM Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:34 PM Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:23 PM Comment 18 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:24:14 PM DEF: The relevant additional retail demand is not of the entire retail trade area, because the specific plan specifies neighborhood-serving. The relevant additional retail demand should only be of the neighborhood. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:21:17 PM Comment 19 Comment 20 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:26:13 PM DEF: One example is not a study. Furthermore, there was si gnificant negative impact to downtown Palo Alto for an extended period of time. And Palo Alto has retail demand from the preeminent university, and Los Gatos does not. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/19/14 3:20:02 PM DEF: No data is presented to support this assertion. Data in the report show a significant decline sine 2000. Approximately 34%. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:26:15 PM Comment 21 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:30:13 PM DEF: Lacks foundation and no factual basis for this assertion. Comment 22 Comment 23 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:30:50 PM DEF: In fact, the data in this report support the opposite conclusion. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:31:39 PM DEF: No factual basis for this statement. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:13:14 PM DEF: Factual basis for this statement. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 2:12:11 PM
N ORTH F OR TY S PE CIFIC P LAN EIR Comment 17 Comment 18 The urban decay analysis assumes a maximum bu ild-out of the Plan Area, with 400,000 square feet of commercial/retail floor ar ea and 250,000 square feet of hotel/office floor area. The Plan Area allows a maximum store size of 50,000 squa re feet, which effectiv ely eliminates certain types of retail uses that require larger spaces. The urban decay analysis assumes a mix of unspecified shopping center tenants, a supermarket/market hall use, and restaurants. The Proposed Project is estimated to achieve total annual retail sales of approximately $215 million annually, once fully established. The sales estima tes are equivalent to slightly less than 30 percent of estimated 2012 retail sales in Los Gatos, and about 2.7 percent of estimated 2012 retail sales in the retail trade area, but do not in clude sales from the health club or lodging uses (BAE Urban Economics 2013, pages 59-60). Projected population growth for the retail trade area would generate an additional $500 million or more in retail demand in the retail trad e area. At 2010 per capita spending rates, this population would support existing retail along with the additional retail from the proposed project. Because of the availability of larger spaces not present elsewhere in the Town, the proposed project’s retail mix is likely to have a stronger focus on formula retail in larger spaces with less emphasis on small independent retailers such as those in the downtown. Adding formula retail to the Town-wide inventory of retail properties could lead to Los Gatos capturing additional retail sales from Town residents who currently travel outside the Town to shop at formula retail outlets as well as from shoppers who would come from outside Los Gatos. While some market repositioning of existing retail in the Town may occur, there are several regional examples of downtowns/neighborhood shopping districts and large shopping complexes Comment 19 complementing each other with such differentiated shopping experiences, for example, downtown Palo Alto and the Stanford Shopping Center (BAE Urban Economics 2013, pages 62-63). Comment 20 Comment 21 Comment 22 With the exception of the declining automotive sector, Los Gatos has a very strong retail sector. The downtown, while impacted by regional an d national economic trends, has remained a strong retail destination, bringing in shoppers from outside the Town. The Town is unusual in that it also attracts shoppers fo r everyday items such as groceries, due in part to the location of supermarkets and drugstores near the edges of To wn and in part due to the lack of shopping in Monte Sereno, Saratoga and nearby unincorporated areas. The downtown occupies a unique market niche, driven by small locally-owned shops providing a shopping experience that will not be replicated by the proposed project. While so me adjustments may result from competition with the proposed project’s retail offerings, the continuing success of the downtown following the opening of Santana Row indicates that the downtown can evolve and withstand strong competition from large retailers in the region. The County has a typical vacancy rate for retail Comment 23 spaces. The Town has a lower retail vacancy rate and a short supply of retail spaces of 10,000 square feet or lager. The low vacancy rates are one indicator that vacant spaces (which are a regular part of the business cycle in retail real estate) are being filled (BAE Urban Economics EMC PL ANNI NG G R OU P I N C . 3-147
Comment 23 cont. Page: 3-148 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:32:10 PM DEF: No factual basis for this statement.
Comment 24 Page: 5-2 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/13/14 10:37:43 PM DEF: Other types of retail development were not consider ed, e.g., larger retail outlets rather than allowing many smaller spaces that will compete with downtown.
Comment 25 Summary of Comments on Appendix K_Economic_201404041348465887a-MH Comments.pdf Page: 4 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:17:51 PM DEF: Starting with the definitio n of trade area, this important step of the methodology misses the point of the demand, since t he N40 Specific Plan call for "neighborhood-serving" retail on the N40, not regional-serving retail. It also illustrates the direction of the staff and devel oper to create a regional shopping center, rather than a mixed use neighborhood.
Page: 5 Comment 26 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:19:52 PM DEF: While this narrow definition of urban decay in this repo rt focuses on building deterioration, a more reasonable approach i s to examine the economic impact on business--not only so severe that stores will close, but also to impact th eir ability to thrive, adding to the attrac tiveness and character of the Town.
5 Comment 27 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:48:05 PM DEF: The ten minute drive time in this analysis is deeply flawed. Drive time on this map is mo re like 25 minutes, thus overstat ing the retail population and understating the potential negative impact.
5 Page: 37 Comment 28 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:55:56 PM DEF: Incorrect statement. The way I read this chart is: Retail sales were at a high in 2000 and have been declining in a relati vely steady manner through 2008 and appear to have bottomed out at about 34% below that level, while the population has actual ly increased a bit. That is a loss of $200M in retail sales. Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:56:18 PM DEF: There is no data to support this conc lusion. Of the 34% drop in retail sales ov er the period, what can be attributed to th e motor vehicle sector? Is it $20M as shown on table ? if So, that would only represent a drop of 3%, ot 34% Certainly not the majority of that amount, becau se it only represents 18% of the total.
A DMINIS T R A T RI V E DR A FT – FOR IN T ERN A L RE V IEW ONL Y Comment 29 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 5:58:30 PM DEF: Why would we assume that the Apple store would remain dow ntown? Perfect example of regional serving business, not neighbor hood serving that might relocate to N40 if retail traffic decreases downtown.
A DMINIS T R A T RI V E DR A FT – FOR IN T ERN A L RE V IEW ONL Y 41 Comment 30 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:08:25 PM DEF: 52% of estimated 2012 retail sales in Downtown los Gatos. Why is it important to think about this comparison: N40 is a ped estrian-oriented area with a mix of small and larger spaces more comparable to Downtown than to the auto-oriented shopping on LG Blvd and in neighborhood sh opping centers.
Page: 62 Comment 31 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:10:48 PM DEF: In order to reach this conclusion, it is important to know the other proposed developme nt projects in the RTA
Page: 63 Comment 32 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:11:56 PM DEF; Not supported by facts in this report. The da ta suggests a drop of 34% over the last 13 years.
63 Page: 64 Comment 33 Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:13:47 PM CL: If this is the conclusion, then why not limit the N40 to Author: mhudes Subject: Highlight Date: 5/14/14 6:13:07 PM
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-60 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 11 from Hudes (May 14, 2014) 1. The two sentences in quotes are found in the Urban Decay Analysis (Draft EIR Appendix K), in the summary of findings on page 6 and then again on page 65. The first sentence refers to the overall retail climate in Town. As indicated in Figure 6 and Appendix D of the Urban Decay Analysis, calculation of long-t erm trends in taxable sales in Los Gatos are complicated by Netflix, which was placed in the “O ther Retail Stores” category prior to 2009. Due to re-categorization of many businesses, data from 2009 and later by category is not directly comparable from this data source, but motor ve hicle sales continued to decline, while overall taxable retail sales increased. If this category is taken out, Urban Decay Analysis Appendix D indicates that between 2000 and 2011, taxable re tail sales in the Town declined from $622 million to $400 million in 2008. Over the same period, motor vehicle sales declined by $208 million, thus accounting for nearly the entire decline in taxable sales over the period. It is not clear how the commenter calculates a 34 percent decline in retail sales in the Downtown area since 2000. It appears that the commenter may have included automotive, rather than omitting it as stated (208/600=0.34). Overall ta xable retail sales in the Downtown area were only presented for the 2008 through 2012 period for the entire Downtown, in Table 12 on page 42 of the Urban Decay Analysis. During this peri od, taxable retail sales Downtown increased. A more detailed analysis of taxable sales trends for the Downtown Core (not all of Downtown) is shown in Table 13 on page 43 of the Urban Decay Analysis. Overall Downtown Core taxable retail sales declined from $239 million in 2000 to $182 million in 2012, a decline of 24 percent, not 34 percent. Motor vehicle sales are not a large component of Downtown Core sales, but declined over the period. Excluding motor vehicl e sales, taxable retail sales in the Downtown Core declined by 15 percent over the 2000 through 2012 period. However, as noted in the Urban Decay Analysis, the changes in retail sales have been influenced more by macroeconomic trends than by factors such as the opening of Santan a Row, as discussed on pages 42 and 43 of the Urban Decay Analysis: Long-term trends in overall taxable sales in the Downtown Core from 2000 through 2012 are presented in Table 13. This period covers two major recessions and the opening in 2003 of Santana Row, a major perceived competitor for Downtown Lo s Gatos. As shown, in inflation-adjusted dollars, sales were higher in 2000 than in 2012. Sales declined from 2000 through 2003, but rebounded in 2004 even with Santana Row opening in 2003. Sales increased again in 2005, declined in 2006, increased to a post-2001 peak in 2007, and then declined as the recession took hold, reaching the low point of the decade in 2009. Since 2009, sales
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-61 have gradually increased each year. It appears that general macroeconomic regional trends were a greater factor influencing sales levels in the Core than the additional competition provided by Santana Row. Much of the long-term decline, however, was not in the major retail categories for the Core, but instead in auto-related retail (dealers and service stations) and non-retail outl ets (personal and business services). The key retail sectors combined showed smaller declines over the decade, and eating and drinking places showed much less variation over the 12 years. 2. It is not clear how the commenter has calculat ed that sales in the proposed project are 52 percent of Downtown’s. Downtown had taxable re tail sales of $243 million in 2012 (Table 12, page 42). However, this number excludes non-taxable sales, which are not excluded from the estimate for the proposed project, and thus the numbers are not directly comparable. Rather than Downtown sales, the Urban Decay Analysis uses sales for the Retail Trade Area as a more relevant comparison. The leakage analysis finds that Los Gatos is a net attractor of shoppers, indicating that it is a regional draw, due in part to its attractive Downtown. The proposed project will also attract shoppers to the Town. Furthermore, while the Downtown Core is a pedestrian-oriented environment, it is not primarily pedest rian-accessed, but provides parking for customers on the streets and in several lots. The Urban Deca y Analysis indicates that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant effect on Do wntown sales and the continued viability of the Downtown shopping district. 3. The existing retail capacity was measured th rough analysis of sales results, and a review of vacancy levels in the Town. The commenter appa rently assumes that all of the retail activity at the proposed project would be at the detr iment of Downtown. As noted in the previous comment, BAE is not able to determine how the 52 percent was calculated, and in fact the BAE report does not provide adequate data to make this comparison. In any case, as also noted in the previous comment response, the relevant benchm ark is the Retail Trade Area, which is much larger. The proposed project’s projected retail sales are less than three percent of sales for the Retail Trade Area. 4. It is important to note that the map in Figure 2 (page 10 of Urban Decay Analysis) shows an estimated 10-minute drive time, but the actual Retail Trade Area extends beyond that drive time, as discussed in the Urban Decay Analysis:
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-62 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . When analyzing the demand for new retail development, it is critical to identify the population that can re asonably be expected to use the development in question, rather than just the population living in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, for the purposes of an EIR, just as traffic, air quality, and other impacts can extend beyond the jurisdiction where the project is located, urban decay impacts can occur outside that jurisdiction. For most consumers, the decision ab out whether or not to shop at a certain retail outlet is determined in large part by travel time and whether or not there is a comparable outlet that can be reached in less time. Since the potential retail outlets to be located on the site are still unknown, BAE has chosen a Retail Trade Area (the “RTA”) that reflects that the site is likely to draw from beyond Los Gatos itself. Since the larger West Valley area contains an abundance of retail opportunities, as a starting point [emphasis added] a 10-minute drive time was used in delineating the retail trade area. However, as sh own in Figure 2, a geography based on drive time is highly irregular, skewed by the impact of freeways and geographic boundaries such as hillsides. BAE has thus translated drive time into a corresponding group of Zip Codes in order to create an area for which demographic and retail sales data can be derived. Note that while some Zip Codes grossly expand the boundaries of the RTA beyond the 10-minute threshold, they encompass sparsely developed hillsides in the Santa Cruz Mountains. While residents of these areas may live beyond a 10-minute drive time, Los Gatos and the more urbanized portions of the RTA represent the closest available shopping opportunities (P age 8 of Urban Decay Analysis). While rush hour traffic might result in longer drive times, most shopping occurs at other times. Furthermore, using MapQuest, BAE has confir med that the estimated 10-mile drive time boundary (which is not the same as the Re tail Trade Area boundary) is correct. A shopping location such as the Proposed Project can serve local residents and also function as a regional draw, much as Downtown Los Gatos does currently. This site, at the intersection of and with access to two major regional freeways will draw shoppers from a broad region because of its location. For instance, a “market hall” te nant would be both a neighborhood and regional attraction, much as Market Hall in Rockridge (Oakland) is. 5. It is likely that the kind of detailed an alysis the commenter seeks would not be possible for many of these areas, as it would be dependen t on obtaining retail sales data for subareas of
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-63 cities, and this is generally not possible unless the ju risdiction is the client for the particular study. Nevertheless, BAE provides the following qualitat ive observations regarding listed areas where the firm has some familiarity with the location: • Sacramento Railyards. This was a very larg e proposed project area adjacent to a much larger downtown than Los Gatos, and thus doe s not provide a relevant case study for Los Gatos. Furthermore, since this project has not been built, it cannot provide insights as a case study of actual urban decay impacts. • Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek has a thriving downtown area which includes both a “Main Street” as well as Broadway Plaza, which is a major upscale regional retail destination, with a Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, and many othe r retailers. This is not an area that has been afflicted with poor retail sale s, high vacancies, or urban decay. • Livermore. Livermore’s downtown is thriving, with a performing arts center, even though the city has a large amount of region-serving “b ig box” retail as well as a recently opened outlet mall. • Pleasanton. This is another city that ha s both a successful downtown and substantial region-serving retail, including a ma jor regional mall (Stoneridge). • San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo has both a large and successful downtown as well as other region-serving retail. • Palo Alto. The Urban Decay Analysis notes that downtown Palo Alto is currently thriving even as the city is also home to a major upscale regional mall. • Bay Street, Emeryville. Bay Street is a “lifestyle” center similar in concept to Santana Row, albeit somewhat smaller. The Urban Decay Anal ysis notes that nearby older retail districts (e.g., Elmwood/Rockridge along College Avenue in Berkeley and Oakland) have not shown a substantial decline since Bay Street’s opening, and continue to thrive. In summary, for cities listed with which BAE is familiar, none of them represent locales where urban decay has occurred; in fact, many of th em demonstrate how older “main street” retail districts compete successfully with other retailers nearby. 6. According to the Specific Plan, the only restriction on retail space size is a 50,000 square foot limit for any individual commercial tena nt. As noted on page 59 of the Urban Decay Analysis, “Because the project does not have an y disclosed, committed tenants at this time, urban decay impacts have been assessed for a gene ral mix of retail and other uses.” Aside from the 50,000 square foot cap, the Urban Decay Anal ysis makes no specific assumptions about the floorplates of individual tenants, but notes that floorplates of 10,000 square feet or more are in limited supply Downtown.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-64 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 7. The comment addressed how the CEQA proces s fits with the Specific Plan development process. Although specific plans and their EIRs are often prepared through an iterative process (the specific plan revised prior to public release based on an administrative draft of the EIR) CEQA does not require this process. This section refers to a recent court case (Cal. Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland ) where the Urban Decay Analysis was found to be deficient. The Hudes Letter comments that “the following which could apply to the handling of the Urban Decay Analysis.” The subsequent discussion is not relevant to the Urban Decay Analysis. The court found that the urban decay mitigation measures in the Woodland case were insufficient. Since the Draft EIR has a finding of no significant urban decay impacts, there are no mitigation measures discussed or required. 8. The requirement applies to any residential development within the Plan Area that is along Los Gatos Boulevard. 9. The State Route 85 high occupancy toll lanes have been studied and determined to improve level of service conditions on the target ed segments of the highway. Nonetheless, this impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable. 10. Refer to the response to Comment 4 in Letter 9 from Nedom. 11. Southbound State Route 17 is separated from the Plan Area by two lanes of northbound State Route 17 and the highway median. St ate Route 85 passes beneath Los Gatos Boulevard/South Bascom Avenue and State Route 17, and is below the elevation of the Plan Area. From the northbound State Route 17 to Southbound 85 connector ramp, the ground slopes up to the base of the sound wall that borders the Plan Area. 12. Except at two driveways from Los Gatos Boulevard, views of the orchard trees are obscured by street trees and a row of trees just inside the fence along Los Gatos Boulevard. 13. The exact height of the commercial building s has not been measured; however, based on review of photographs, the rear of these buildings stand at least 35 feet tall to the parapet, and slightly higher to r oof-top equipment. 14. The LESA analysis worksheets are presente d in Appendix C, which is referenced on DEIR page 3-17. 15. The Urban Decay Analysis was included in Appendix K. 16. The table is highlighted, but no comment is provided.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-65 17. Downtown accounts for approx imately half the Town’s taxable retail sales. Note that this does not include non-taxable sales such as mo st grocery items. The basis for the statement is cited at the end of the paragraph. 18. Regardless of the type of retail, this proj ect will attract shoppers from throughout the Retail Trade Area, in part due to its location adjacent to the intersection of two major region-serving freeways. 19. No assertion was made that this was a “study” of multiple downtowns. The Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix K provides anothe r example, as cited on pp 64-65: the Rockridge district in Oakland in competition with Bay Street in Emeryville. While Los Gatos has a different demand pool than Palo Alto, the Town has very strong demographics, including high income levels in the Town and surrounding communities. 20. The data to support this assertion is found in the Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix K (pages 42 and 43). Refer to the response to Comment 1. 21. The data to support this assertion is found in the Urban Decay Analysis in Appendix K, in the descriptive sections describing Downtown Los Gatos and analyzing its retail sales (pages 23-26). 22. Refer to the previous response citing di scussion of trends in taxable retail sales downtown on pages 42-43 of the Urban Decay Anal ysis. Los Gatos is a smaller municipality in a region with numerous large retailers nearby, and the downtown has survived and evolved in the face of this competition. 23. Supporting factors for this finding can be found in Appendix K in the Urban Decay Analysis, see pages 65-66 as follows: a. As noted above, the sales impacts relative to the total current retail sales in the RTA is estimated at less than three percent, ev en at maximum buildout of the allowable commercial space as retail. This estimate conservatively does not include any capture of retail leakages from the RTA. The population increase in the RTA alone over the next five years would generate demand at a level greater than the projected sales in the Plan Area. b. With the exception of the declining automotive sector, Los Gatos has a very strong retail sector. The Downtown, while impacted by regional and national economic trends, has remained a strong retail destin ation, bringing in shoppers from outside the Town. The Town is unusual in that it al so attracts shoppers for everyday items such as groceries, due in part to the locati on of supermarkets and drugstores near the edges of Town and in part due to the lack of shopping in Mo nte Sereno, Saratoga,
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-66 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . and nearby unincorporated areas. The Downtown occupies a unique market niche, driven by small locally owned shops providin g a shopping experience that will not be replicated by the proposed project. Furthe rmore, while some adjustments may result from competition with the proposed project’s retail offerings, the continuing success of the Downtown following the opening of Santana Row indicates that the Downtown can evolve and withstand strong competition from large retailers in the region. c. Vacancies in the RTA and the region ha ve been declining as the overall economy recovers, and are within normal ranges for the commercial/retail real estate market. Retail vacancies in Los Gatos itself are al so reportedly low relative to the County overall. d. The low vacancy rates are one indicator that vacant spaces (which are a regular part of the business cycle in retail real estate) ar e being filled. As noted previously in this analysis, there are numerous examples of re use of vacant retail properties in Los Gatos and throughout the RTA, including reuse of vacant auto dealer sites on Los Gatos Boulevard near the Proposed Project site and the renovation of the theater and the re-tenanting of Borders in Downtown Lo s Gatos. Elsewhere in the RTA, a closed Mervyns in Campbell has been taken over by Safeway; a Safeway space has been re-tenanted by a Walmart Neighborhood Ma rket at Westgate Mall; Sprouts has replaced previous tenants in two locati ons; Orchard Supply Hardware replaced a former Mervyns space in the Princeton Plaz a center in San Jose; and a former Home Depot Expo Design Center is now occupied by Walmart in the retail node at State Route 85 and Almaden Expressway. 24. The alternatives address a reasonable range of projects; since no significant impact was identified in relation to retail store size or adverse effects on the Downtown, that type of alternative was not considered. While the Specific Plan does not explicitly prohibit large retail stores, one condition the current Specific Plan places on commercial development is a maximum individual commercial tenant size of 50,000 square feet. This condition limits certain types of large retailers from locating in the Plan Area . Refer to Draft EIR Table 9, Average Store Size, which provides data on the average store size fo r representative chain stores and restaurants. Moreover, including large retail outlets would no t be consistent with the proposed project’s objectives or the Town’s vision for the Plan Ar ea. The Town’s vision for the Plan Area and the project objectives include providing a range of comm ercial uses (e.g., retail, restaurants, personal services, health club and entertainment, as well as office and/or hotel uses). Smaller, unique businesses support the intention for the Plan Area to look and feel like Los Gatos.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-67 Also, since commercial development is limited to a specified number of square feet, including large retail stores within the mix would reduce th e availability of buildable area for the provision of other types of commercial services, thus reducing the variability of business and services in the Plan Area. The following comments refer to the Urban De cay Analysis, presented in Appendix K. 25. Regardless of the type of retail, this proj ect will attract shoppers from throughout the Retail Trade Area, in part due to its location adjacent to the intersection of two major region-serving freeways. For instance, a “market hall” tenant would be both a neighborhood and regional attraction, much as Market Hall in th e Rockridge shopping district of Oakland is. 26. The definition of urban decay is dictated by case law related to CEQA. CEQA is an assessment of physical impacts on the environment; store closures and “ability to thrive” are not direct physical impacts on the environment. Two of the guiding court decisions with respect to urban decay are Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, Panama 99 Properties LLC, and Castle & Cooke Commercial-CA, Inc., and Anderson First Coalition et al. v. City of Anderson et al. and FHK Companies, et al. The Bakersfield case makes clear th at economic impacts alone are not a CEQA impact, stating that “the economic and so cial effects of proposed projects are outside CEQA’s purview.” Furthermore, only “if the forecasted economic or social effects of a proposed project directly or indirectly will lead to adve rse physical changes in the environment, then CEQA requires disclosure and analysis of these resulting physical impacts.” 27. It is important to note that the map sh ows an estimated 10-minute drive time, but the actual Retail Trade Area extends beyond that dr ive time, as discussed on page 8 of the Urban Decay Analysis: Since the larger West Valley area contains an abundance of retail opportunities, as a starting point [emphasis added] a 10-minute drive time was used in delineating the reta il trade area. However, as shown in Figure 2, a geography based on drive time is highly irregular, skewed by the impact of freeways and geographic boundaries such as hillsides. BAE has thus translated drive time into a corresponding group of Zip Codes in order to create an area for which demographic and retail sales data can be derived. Note that while some Zip Codes grossly expand the boundaries of the RTA beyond the 10-minute threshold, they encompass sparsely developed hillsides in the Santa Cruz Mountains. While residents of these areas may live beyond a 10-minute drive time, Los Gatos and the more urbanized portions of the RTA represent the closest available shopping opportunities.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-68 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . While rush hour traffic might result in longer driv e times, most shopping occurs at other times of day. Furthermore, using MapQuest, BAE has conf irmed that the estimated 10-mile drive time boundary (which is not the same as the RTA boundary) is correct. 28. The commenter appears to be stating that the sales drop cannot be attributed to the decline in motor vehicle sector sales. However, as shown in Appendix D to the Revised Draft Urban Decay Analysis (pp. 74-75), the actual dr op in motor vehicle sector sales over the 2000 through 2008 period is approximately $208 million on an inflation-adjusted basis, not $20 million as stated by the commenter. As shown in that appendix, factoring out motor vehicle sales and other retail (to avoid including Netflix), inflation-adjusted sales declined by less than five percent from 2000 (the peak of the dot-c om boom) to 2008 (when the recession was well underway) in the Town of Los Gatos. 29. The Urban Decay Analysis makes no assertion as to whether the Apple Store would remain downtown, and the findings are not dependent on such an assumption. Apple Stores are located in a variety of retail locations, and are frequently found in downtown or similar locations. In Berkeley, the Apple Store is on 4th Street, a retail environment of small stores along a walkable retail corridor, similar to Downtown Los Gatos. Apple has a store in downtown Palo Alto and in Stanford Shopping Center; concei vably, Los Gatos could have a store both Downtown and at the North 40. Another Apple Store can be found in downtown Burlingame. The Apple Store in Los Gatos also exemplifies how Downtown serves as a regional draw in addition to being local-serving. 30. The text does not make any statement comparing estimated North 40 retail sales to Downtown’s. It is not clear how the commenter ma de this calculation. Downtown taxable retail sales in 2012 are approximately $243 million (see Table 12), but since this excludes non-taxable sales such as grocery items, the two numbers are not directly comparable. While the North 40 development is proposed to offe r a mix of sizes of space, it is not directly comparable to Downtown. As noted in the Urban Decay Analysis (page 6) the “Specific Plan for the Proposed Project allows for retail store sizes of up to 50,000 square feet. Larger floorplates within this size range are in short supply in Los Gatos.” 31. Other proposed development projects in the RTA are considered in the cumulative impacts analysis (found on page 65 of the Urban Decay Analysis). These projects are listed in Appendix C beginning on page 70 of the Urban Decay Analysis. 32. The drop in sales is almost entirely due to the decline in the motor vehicle sector. See responses to Comments 1 and 29. 33. The comment is not complete.
Comments to the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan Planning Commission meeting on 5-14-14 I want to speak tonight regarding the impacts of building heights in the North 40 proposed development on the mountain views. Fact: 1)In the 2020 General Plan Overla y Designation (page LU-18 and LU-19),it states that the North Forty Specifi c Plan will be based on the following general guidelines: one of the guidelines is to preserve Town character and views. 2)In the North 40 Draft Specific Pl an under the Council Vision (section 2.1)one of the guiding principles to achie ve the Council’s vision of the North 40 development is to embrace hillsid e views, trees, and open space. 3)In the Draft EIR North 40 Specific Plan (Page 3-8 and 3-9), The North 40 Draft Specific Plan allows for a hotel at 45ft and all residential and non-residential buildi ngs can be up to 35ft tall with a height lim itation of 25ft on any building within 50ft of Lark Ave. A 10ft increase in height bonus up to 45ft for residential uses may be allowed in the Transition District but requires the development to be affordab le housing or that an additional 5% open space be provided on the property. Then it goes on to say that an unspecific increase in height may be allowed for the office or residential uses in the Transition District and offi ce uses in the Northern District. No minimum additional height is given for this exception and no additional open space is required for this exception. And an unspecified increase in height may be allowed for a hotel in the Transition District or Northern District. Again no minimum additional height is given for this exception. 4)In Draft EIR North 40 Specific Plan (Page 3-8) it states that building height exceptions cannot extend such th at they signi ficantly interfere with the views of the “ridgeline” and on (Page 3-9) it states that the Draft Specific Plan requires that building heights may not have a significant adverse effects on the “ridgeline” and the tops of build ings are expected to be below the “ridgeline.” It goes on to state that th e impact of building heights would be less than significant. So there are no minimum additional he ight exceptions for the Transition District and Northern District and bui ldings are expected to be below the “ridgeline.” page 1 Comment 1
Question: A)How does this preserve the hillsid es views when there is not a lim itation on how tall the buildi ngs can be and it only requires the building to not have an adverse effect on the “ridgeline” and the building are expected to be below ridgeline?B)What does me an to em brace or pres erve the hillsides views? If the hillsides are obscured 50% by the buildings, does that em brace or preserve the hillside views?Fact: 1)When looking at the photos of the visual simulations in the Appendices It only shows the maximu m height of the building at 45ft. The visual simulations are taken from 3 viewpoint s with 3 different angles from each viewpoint. By taping the 3 different a ngles from each viewpoint together, you get a better picture of what you w ill actually see when you drive south on 17 towards Santa Cruz. Question: A)If the Draft EIR North Forty Specifi c Plan states that there is a possibility of additional heights above 45ft., why isn’t that reflected in the visual simulations?B)How do you know that there is not a significant impact when you don’t know how high the buildings are going be and when you do not know where the buildings ar e going to be located?Comment: I believe preserving the hillside views is d i fferent than preserving the ridgeline. Anne Robinson 201 Charter Oaks Circle Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-410-5781 page 2 Comment 1, cont.Comment 2
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-71 Response to Letter 12 from Robinson (May 14, 2014) 1. The height limits and parameters presente d in the Draft EIR are taken from the Specific Plan. In addition to the specific height limits for residential and commercial buildings, the Specific Plan includes policies regarding protecti on of views, and all future development within the Plan Area is subject to Architectural and Site Review. The size of the Plan Area in conjunction with the non-residential square footage limit precludes the possibility that development would complete ly block views of the hillsides from State Route 17. Non-residential development is limited to 580,000 square feet of floor area (including the existing commercial buildings), which is about 13.3 acres. Assuming all non-residential development were located in the Transition and Northern Districts, there would be about 29.5 acres on which to situate development. If all comm ercial buildings were only one story in height, more than half of the area within the two districts would be open space (about 16.2 acres). If all commercial buildings were three stories in height (about 45 feet), more than 80 percent of the area within the two districts would be open space (about 25 acres). So even if several buildings were constructed higher than the 45-foot height limit, the open areas between buildings would allow ample views toward the hills. In addition, Sp ecific Plan policies re quire additional open space in exchange for additional height, thus resulting in additional gaps between buildings and less potential for blocking views. As stated on Draft EIR pages 3-9 and 3-10, a building near State Route 17 at a height of about 80 to 110 feet would reach to the ridgeline as viewed from State Route 17. A building near State Route 17 at a height of about 35 to 55 feet would reach to the top of the lower vegetation line when viewed from State Route 17. Therefore, buildings up to 55 feet in height would not significantly impact views of the ridgeline. At locations within the Plan Area that are farther from the highway, a higher building height woul d be necessary to reach these view thresholds. Buildings that are at or below the vegetation line would not block hillside views at all. Buildings that visually extend above the vegetation line would begin to encroach on hillside views. As demonstrated above, building heights in excess of 35 feet will result in large areas with no buildings at all, thus resulting in significant gaps between buildings; therefore, significant blockage of hillside views is not possible. The visual simulations are based on the Specific Plan’s stated height limit, without the exceptions. Some buildings could be built taller, but as explained, the gaps between buildings become increasingly sign ificant as the height increases. In no case would there be continuous building across the vi sible width of the Plan Area when viewed from State Route 17. As a result, ridgeline vi ews would not be significantly impacted. 2. The Draft EIR refers to the vegetation line and the ridgeline. The “hillside” is the area between the two. Building heights that reach the ri dgeline (as viewed) would obscure the hillside.
1 From:Barbara Dodson <btdodson@aol.com>Sent:Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:08 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:Questions about the North Forty DEIR Dear Mr. Paulson: Please include these questions in reference to the DEIR for the North Forty project. STATEMENTS OF FACT a.The project will generate revenues from residential development.QUESTIONS 1. How much revenue is projected for the residential developments?2. Where does this revenue come from? (Fees? Other?)3. How much of the revenue is ongoing?4. How much of the revenue is one-time only?5. Where does the revenue go? That is, how will this revenue be allocated within the Town?6. Specifically, how much revenue from residential developments will go to the Los Gatos schools per year?STATEMENTS OF FACT a. The project will generate revenues from non-residential development.QUESTIONS 7. How much revenue is projected for the nonresidential developments?8. Where does this revenue come from?9. How much of the revenue is ongoing?10.How much of the revenue is one-time only?11.Where does it go? That is, how will this revenue be allocated within the Town ?12.Specifically, how much revenue from nonresidential developments will go to the Los Gatos schools per year?STATEMENTS OF FACT a. The project will have 364 residential units.b. The DEIR does not state the volume of traffi c that these residential units will generate.QUESTIONS 13.What volume of traffic is expected to be generated by the 73 cottage clu s ter units?14.What volume of traffic is expect ed to be generated by the 73 apartments?15.What volume of traffic is expe cted to be gen erated by the 218 cond ominiu m/townhouse units?16.What formulas or calculations are used to determine these volumes?STATEMENTS OF FACT a.One aim of development of the North Forty is to raise revenues for the Town.QUESTIONS 17.What are the curren t total revenue s for Los Gatos?18.Ho w much more revenue is needed for the library?19.How much more revenue is needed for the schools?20.How mu ch more revenue is needed for road maintenance?21.How much more revenue is needed for police and fire protection?22.How much more revenue is needed for employees?23.How much more revenue is needed for other uses ?24.How much revenue is projected from ju st retail us e s of the No rth Forty?25.Are we overdeveloping the North Forty and generating more revenue than the Town really needs?STATEMENT OF FACT a. Most Los Gatos schools are over capacity.Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4
2 b. The Town has always had neighborhood schools.c. The Town would have students who are considered “over capacity” bused to Lexington School, where there would be capacity. d. The Town is risking the quality of its schools wi th its continued building of residential units that contain children for whom there is no space in neighborhood schools. QUESTIONS 26.How can the Town justify adding residentia l unit s that will add student s to already overwhelmed schools?27.Why is the Town willing to risk the quality of its schools?Since rely, Ba r bara Dodson 239 Marchmont Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Comment 4, cont.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-74 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 13 from Dodson (May 15, 2014) 1. Fiscal implications of the proposed proj ect are not an environmental issue unless they lead to a physical impact that is an environmental issue. 2. Traffic generation by project component is presented in Table 20 and Table 21 in the Draft EIR (pages 3-214 and 3-215). Traffic volumes are estimated based on data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition, 2008 3. Refer to the response to Comment 1. 4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
!! %%* 4&# %(% !"#!" !'%, !! !" && "! ' !:36:37569/
% 75) "# !'* ' !' "%'95! ,"('"' !! !" && "!"% '2&
"!' % '%" '0 &"%%,'"*!"(! !"% '0"#'" && "!* ."! !. "!&%)' )%" !' "!'"'"*!"(! * '%%'"'
% 75#"%' "!"' "%'95) "# !'0 &""#'''"*!"(! * !"' &%%'* &" "' !! !" && "! !0 %& !'"%'%
&0 !&'%3
% 3
"&'"& )0 &&% & & "!'%!"'% & "!* '!""!) !'"(%'"&'"#' !&! ',0" "'(! $('% -%&"!' &&'!"! &'%'"
% )!(% &' "*0 "!"' && &$(' ,%#%&!' !'&'( &#('"%'0&' !& "!& %+'% ,'"('( ,0•:! "%""&"
% * '"! ,"!*, !3"(')
% )!(0•8"'&! "%""&* '"('& ! - !'%&' "! ''" +'% ,(!& ''(%!&"('"' %! "%""&0• "&&'"=:"('%" !&'%0• % ') "# !'##%"),+ !'!) %"! !' ,&(#% "%# !1%" !0•;'% '&"!
% )!(4 &&'!6 "!0•""% !' "!"'% '&'*!' %!!"*!! &0•6< "%'"% #"!'"
% )!(% ''(%! &, %.!"'#%'"'& ! !'%&' "!0•
!
!
"•
#
$ "• ! )'% *'& ! !
"
! "o ) "#%*&& "('"!'%" "'&&'' "!''"%!%"
% 3
)0# ,*&'' ' &!"'! '"#(%&('"&' &"! , "* !'''"& &$(%" !'' !'%'%"&% !&' .&" '* &',* '"('!'' #''" !"%#"%'0 &* %'"! "%"'' ! *%
% !!"'* ! '*,'%"(!"! "%"&' "!
% )!(0•%*&'% &(#'"6<.#%)!' !' ,'(%!"!'"
)0•!%"(& %'6<"('3
% 3
"0•
)%#&&" !%"
)'"
% "*&% )%&'"# (#&#'"+&&"'&# '* '"('0•
''(%!%"
)"!'"
% (% !%(&"(%' &&)% ', &'"''%"(0• % !%''
!
% )!( &!"*" ! "%!%"(&&#"# %! ! !& !%" !&'%'"*%
)0(!*%"'"&'' #' !'" %0•
!(+
*' !
"Comment 1
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-76 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 14 from Grewal (May 15, 2014) 1. The comment describes traffic congestion at various locations within the Town, and provides a bullet list of concerns relating princi pally to Lark Avenue. The traffic impact analysis does not directly address each individual point listed in the comment letter, but considers the end result of the various factors that affect traffic, including existing conditions on roadways and at intersections that could potentially be affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the effects of all known development, existing or future, is accounted for in either the Existing, Background, Project, or Cumulative traffic analysis scenario. Providing direct on-ramps and off-ramps from Stat e Route 17 directly to the Plan Area would be difficult, and would require extensive negotiation with Caltrans. An off-ramp would need to branch off the State Route 85 connector ramp, and an on-ramp would need to merge onto the existing elevated Lark Avenue on-ramp near th e southwest corner of the Plan Area. Caltrans standard interchange spacing is one mile to allo w sufficient room for vehicles to merge on and off the freeway. Adding a State Route 17 entrance on the back side of the Plan Area would violate the spacing standard and introduce an in terchange very close to the Lark Avenue and State Route 85 interchanges, causing degradatio n to freeway operations. The transportation impact analysis did not identify the need for an additional on-ramp to State Route 17. A new freeway entrance was not considered for these reasons. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation.
1 From:K Bell <kjbell7@yahoo.com>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 3:05 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 Project Dear Mr. Paulson, I’m writing about the North 40 pr oject. I attended the meeting on May 14. I’m not as well versed in the project as the speakers at the meeting; howev er, as a resident, I would like to provide feedback as to the traffic situation in area. I’m against the project in general, I’ve grown up in the area and al ways loved the open, small town feel. Seeing yet another open space turned into more housing and stores is disappointing to say the least. I live off Los Gatos Almaden Rd and Camino De l Cerro. In the mo rnings to get to highway 17, I take LG Almaden to Los Gatos Boulevard to Lark. The line of traffic waiting in the left lane down LG Boulevard in order to make the left on Lark can be down as far as the stop light to enter into the Trader Joes complex. I tried to take Carlton Avenue to Gateway Drive to LG Boul evard, but you can sit at Gateway Drive quite awhile to get into the le ft turn lane to Lark. Thus, I’ve started taking Lester Lane to Cam Del Sol; then take a left on Bascom, and a right on Lark. I see a lot of cars cutting through this residential area each morning. I al so see a lot of vehicles drive straight on LG Boulevard and take the right turn lane to Cam Del Sol. As no right turn is allowed onto Cam Del Sol, they turn left, then left again on Bascom to get back to Lark. With the building of more housing and comme rcial buildings in the North 40, these residential streets will see more a nd more traffic cut through. In the evening, I’ve totally given up driving home on south bound 17 to exit Lark. Besides the heavy southbound traffic on 17, to make a left off the freeway on Lark is extremely dangerous. Several of t he drivers stay in the left tu rn lane (vs the right lane), as it’s usually shorter; then cut over into t he right lane as they near Los Gatos Blvd. On the weekends, driving northbound or s outhbound on LG Boulevard can take quite awhile between LG Almaden and Samaritan Drive. Also, making a left turn from National Avenue to Samaritan Drive is very challenging. I've witnessed drivers make a right turn on Samaritan Drive, go a fe w feet, then make a u-turn to get back up Samaritan Drive to Bascom. Even without the additional housi ng/commercial buildings, LG Boulevard, Lark Avenue, Bascom Avenue, National Avenue and Sama ritan Drive areas need to have some serious changes to deal with the already he avy traffic flows. Please consider not moving forward with the North 40 project. Thank you, Kimberly Bell Comment 1
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-78 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 15 from Bell (May 19, 2014) 1. The comment describes traffic congestion at various locations within the Town. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation.
ANDREW L FABER RALPH J.SWANSON PEGGY L SPRINGGAY JOSEPH E.DWORAK SAMUEL L.FARB ALAN }.PINNER LINDA A.GALLON JAMES P.CASHMAN STEVENJ CASAD NANCYJ JOHNSON JEROLD A REITON ROBERT L CHORTEK JONATHAN D.WOLF KATHLEEN K.SIPLE RETIRED SAMUEL J.COHEN ROBERT W.HUMPHREYS HUGH L [SOLA KEVIN F.KELLEY MARK MAKIEWICZ ROBERTA S.HAYASHI JEFFREYS.KAUFMAN JOLIE HOUSTON BRIAN L.SHETLER JOHN F.DOMINGUE HARRY A.LOPEZ CHARLES W VOLPE MICHAEL VIOIjVNTl CHRISTINE H LONG AARON M VALENTI CHRISTIAN E.PICONE BERLINER COHEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD ELEVENTH FLOOR SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95113-2233 TELEPHONE:(408)286-5800 FACSIMILE:(408)998-5388 www-berliner.com Branch Offices Merced,CA•Modesto,CA May19,2014 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S.MAIL Community Development Department Attn:Joel Paulson Town Hall 110 E.Main Street Los Gatos,CA 95030 jpaulson@losgatosca.gov THOMAS P MURPHY THOMAS D MORELL SETH J COHEN LAURA PALAZZOLO KARA L.ARGUELLO ANDREW J.GIORGIANNI EDALINA M.MENDONCA MAITHEW A.TAYLOR DAWN C.SWEATT KATHLEEN F.SHERMAN OF COUNSEL SANFORDA.BERLINER STEVEN L.HALLGRIMSON FRANKR UBHAUS ERIC WONG NANCY L BRANDT THOMAS ARMSTRONG SANDRA G.SEPULVEDA MASON L.BRAWLEY JENNIFER Y.LEUNG MAZARIN A VAKHARIA TYLER A SHEWEY VIVIAN F WANG H.SHfNNYLIU SARA L.POLLOCK BEAU C.CORREIA MARY E.LOUDEN JUDY A.JENSEN DORIS A.KAELIN SUSAN E.BISHOP LESLIE KALIM McHUGH ANTHONY D JOHNSTON Re:North Forty Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Our File No.:09247-065 Dear Mr.Paulson:On behalf of Grosvenor Americas and SummerHill Homes,we submit these comments regarding the Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR").We believe that the DEIR is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,butdohave several suggestions for clarifications and minor corrections tobe incorporated intothefinalEIR.Our comments areasfollows:Page S-18:The sound wall described on page S-18 extends much farther along Lark Avenue thanis shown inthe project related Acoustical Report,dated October 18,2013,Figures2and 3,and which also states on Page 8:"The project will extend the existing highway noise barrier south along SRI 7ata height of I4-feet above grade,stepping down in approximately 2-foot increments atthe comer of SRI 7and Lark Avenue.Thefinal height along Lark 4847-7603-5355v2 ALR09427065 Comment 1
Joel Paulson May19,2014 Avenue(asshowninFigures2and3below)willbe8-feetabovegrade."Seeourcomment to Page 3-158,below.PageS-24:TRl andTR2:Thereisno reimbursement agreement inplaceintheDraft Specific Plan or elsewhere for future developers topaytheir share.Itshouldbe noted that theTrafficImpactAnalysisstudiedtheadditionoftworightturnon-ramplanesonto NorthboundHighway17andtripleleftsfromLarkontoLosGatosBoulevardwhicharenot mitigationsmeasuresbutareinsteadTownCapitalImprovements.Page2-24:The DEIR states,"If increased height is permitted for buildings inthe Transition District(from35'to45'height),thenthegreenopenspacerequirementincreasesto25%for thatproperty".PerDraftSpecificPlansection 2.5.3.C,therequirementforadditionalgreen openspaceisfor5%of thesquarefootage of thebuildingfootprintthatexceedstheheight limit,notacomprehensiveincreasefrom20%to25%.Page2-24:IntheDraftSpecificPlan,boththeNon-Residential/MixedUsesectionandthe Residential section state that additional height (above 45feet)may be granted upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit;inthis section itis implied thatthisisonlytruein "non-residential"uses.Clarification should be provided that residential usesinthe Transition District can exceed 45 feet with a Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with the Draft Specific Plan Page2-24:Sidewalks,paseos,andplazascanbe10%of thePlanArea,butitshouldbe clarified whether theyarerequiredtobea minimum of 10%of thePlanArea.Page2-28:The DEIR discusses aplanforwater transmission linesfortheproject.Thesize,location,andlength of thewaterlinesare subject to change basedonfinal design and recommendations from the Santa Clara Valley Water District.In addition,a reimbursement agreement shouldbe established forthefirst developer to complete these improvements when future developers connect tothis new system.Page2-35:A reimbursement agreement shouldbe established fortheoffsitestorm drainage improvements.Page 2-35:The DEIR states:"A detention basin would be located within the Plan Area."Since itmaybe preferable touse multiple,small basins,instead of onelargeone,suggest rewording tostate:"One ormoreabove-or below-ground detention basinswouldbelocated within the Plan Area."Page 2-35:Under "Off-Site Changes,"reference is made toa median designed to prevent left turns at several intersections.It should benoted that with respect to one of these,Noddin Avenue,thefuture median may ormaynothavea break init.Itis currently listed asnot having aleftturn opportunity,butthis may change,depending onthe development proposal forthe Northern District.This comment also applies to page 3-216,where the same statement is made about the median.4847.7603-5355v2 .0_ALR09427065 Comment 1, cont.Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8 Comment 9
Joel Paulson May19,2014 Page2-37:Figure13-Thisfigurewillbesubjecttochangebasedonfinaldesign.Page 2-43:Project Objective #2 implies that20%ofthetotalnumberofunitsmustbe affordable.Theexampleonpage3-183suggeststhatitis20%of thenumberofmarketrate units that must be affordable,which is consistent with the Town's BMP program.We suggest re-wording and clarifying Project Objective #2tomakeit consistent withtheTown's BMP program.Page 3-8:Thispage states thatthereisnolimitontheheightof "architectural features"such astowers,cupolasandroofpitchesof8:12orgreater.Thisstatementisnotconsistentwith theDraftSpecificPlan,whichlimitsthe architectural featurestobeupto30%ofthelength of theparapetonanygiven fa9ade.(SpecificPlanpage2-25).Page3-13:Thefirstparagraphaddressingbuildingheightsisconftising.Itreferences buildingheightsthatare "similar,""taller,"and"lessthan"existingbuildings.Wesuggest clarifyingthelanguageinthisparagraph.Page3-14:UnderAES-1,theperimeterbufferisreferencedasavegetativebuffer.However,intheDraftSpecificPlan,theperimeterbufferisnotrequiredtobeavegetative buffer.The buffer's useisnotspecifiedotherthanthatnostructuresarepermitted,suchas residential or commercial structures.Pleasesee section 2.5.6 of DSP(p.2-15)thatstates"d.Nobuildingshallbelocatedwithin30feetofapropertylineadjacenttothefreeway."This doesnotprecluderoadways,paths,etc.,orrequirethistobeexclusivelyavegetativebuffer.Page3-43:TCMD-1 Bicycle Access-Therewillbea multi-modal pathonthe property frontageonLarkandabikelaneonthesouthside of LarkAvenueaspertheTrafficImpact Analysis.Afuturebikelanewillbebuiltasthe long-range visionforLosGatosBoulevard oncepropertiesontheeastside of LosGatosBoulevarddevelop.Inthemeantime,the propertyfrontagewillprovideamulti-modalpath.Page3-48:The delineations inFigure15 of theAQhealthriskareas appear tobebasedon thegraphpreparedbyIllingworthandRodkinintheappendix,but it's somewhatschematic.Wesuggesttheword "generally"beaddedtothesentencereferencingFigure15,soitwould read:"The location of health risksin excess of thresholds is identified generally on Figure 15,Health Risks."Pages3-158.3-159.and3-160 (Figures 20and21):The reference regarding thedistancethe soundwall extends alongLark Avenue is inconsistent withtheNoiseReport.Thiswall shouldonlyextend approximately 100feet;therefore.Figures 20and21arenot consistent with the Noise Report findings.Page3-163:Mitigation NOI-1:The recommended soundwall height shouldbetakenfrom thefuture roadway or grade elevation,asthe grades of the property arenot uniform.The height of thewallmay fluctuate slightly basedongrade.4847-7603-5355v2 .-l.ALR09427065 Comment 10 Comment 11 Comment 12 Comment 13 Comment 14 Comment 15 Comment 16 Comment 17 Comment 18
Joel Paulson May 19,2014 Page 3-168:Thefirstsub-bulletonthispagestates,"Noindividualpieceofequipmentshall produce anoise level exceeding eighty-five (85)dBAat twenty-five (25)feet."Table 16on thepage3-167indicatesthatcertainequipmentwillexceedthisnoiselevel.Thefirstsub-bulletonpage3-168 should bemade consistent with Table 16.Page3-170:The DEIR states,"Note thatthe closest public elementary schooltothePlan Area is the Union School District's Carlton School,located east of Los Gatos Boulevard about one-half mile from the Plan Area."A reference to the closest Los Gatos Union School District school should be added.Page 3-200:The DEIR states,"There are continuous sidewalks onthe west side of Los Gatos Boulevard andbothsides of Lark Avenue inthevicinity of thePlan Area."Infact,therearenot existing sidewalks onbothsides of Lark Avenue inthe vicinity of thePlan Area.Thereisonlyanexistingsub-standardpavedareaontheprojectfrontage.Page3-201:Pleasenotethat according totheVTAwebsite,the referenced Valley TransportationAuthorityPlan2040hasnotyetbeenadoptedandisexpectedtobeheardand possiblyadoptedinFall2014(notMarch2014,astheDEIRstates).Page3-216:TheTIAdoesnot actually saythatthe existing leftturnlaneontoHighland Oaks Drive istobe removed in favor of a left turn lane into the Plan area;there are a number of trafficconstraintsthatmaybefactorsinmodifyingmovementsatthisintersection.Page3-220:MitigationmeasureTR-1requiresthefirstprojectdeveloperwithinthe Northern District to widen Burton Road and make certain improvements attheLos Gatos Boulevard/Burton Road intersection.However,this mitigation reliesuponthe willingness of severalpropertyownerstomaketheirlandavailableforsuchimprovements.Thereare alternativeingress/egressoptionsalongLosGatosBoulevardthatcouldbestudied if the BurtonRoadwideningcannotoccur.Wesuggestthat(i)themitigationbetiedto development of theBurtonRoadarea,not just anywhereintheNorthernDistrict;(ii)thatin the event thatthe land cannot be made available,then future development inthe area would requiretheimplementation of suitablealternativemitigationalongtheLosGatosBoulevard frontage;and(iii)that there beputin place a reimbursement mechanism for this improvementifthisimprovementwereinfacttobedonebythefirstprojectdeveloperwithin the Northern District,since there are muhiple property owners inthis District.Page 3-230:The Street A cross-section reference is outdated and should be updated as per theTIA.ThissectiondoesnotapplytotheentireLarkDistrict.Also,the statement thatthe A-Street cross-section in the Transition District and Northern District cross section has two 11-to 13-foot travel lanes with sharrows is inaccurate.Page 3-231:Inthefirst paragraph addressing emergency access,we suggest allowing flexibilityfortheFire Department Any reference to specific widthsmaybe modified tostate 4847-7603-5355v2 .A_ALR09427065 Comment 19 Comment 20 Comment 21 Comment 22 Comment 23 Comment 24 Comment 25 Comment 26
Joel Paulson May 19,2014 thatthefinaldesign of roadwaywidthissubjecttotheSantaClaraCountyFireDepartment approval.Thesestandardschangeovertimeandshouldbeattheirdiscretion.Page3-239:AWSAwas prepared forthis project that indicates thereisanadequatewater supply.Yetthefinalparagraphonthispageimpliesashortfall.TheDEIRshouldbe consistent with the WSA.Page3-246:Thefirstparagraphunder"AdequateWastewaterTreatment"shouldread250 gallons (not70)and 236,000 gallons(not131,600).Page4-12:Theline below CUM-TR-2 statesthat "Traffic Impacts atthe National Avenue/Samaritan Drive intersection wouldremain significant and unavoidable,as described inSection3.13TransportationandTraffic."Section3.13,however,doesnotstate this.Rather,Section3.13includesMitigationMeasureTR-3whichrequiresthedeveloper of theNorthernDistricttopayapro-ratatrafficimpactfeetomitigatethisintersection,and theconclusionisthatthismitigationreducestheimpacttoalessthansignificantlevel.Presumably,thiswouldalsobetrueforthe cumulative impactatthissame intersection.Asstatedabove,none of these comments pointstoany inadequacy intheDEIR.If youhave anyquestionsorneedfurtherinputfromus,pleasedonothesitatetocall.Verytrulyyours,B^RLINER-eWEN "h ANDREW L.FABER E-Mail:andrew.faber@berliner.com ALF:tah cc:Don Capobres Wendi Baker 4847-7603-5355v2 .S-ALR09427065 Comment 26, cont.Comment 27 Comment 28 Comment 29
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-84 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 16 from Law Offices of Berliner Cohen (May 19, 2014) 1. Refer to the response to Comment 17. 2. Reimbursement agreements may be necessary for the roadway improvements described in TR-1 and TR-2 if various parties construct im provements to the benefit of other parties, as noted later in the comment letter for water and storm drainage improvements. If the Town constructs the improvements as part of the ca pital improvement plan, the developer(s) may or may not be required by the Town to reimburs e for those improvements. Refer also to the response to Comment 18. 3. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR is corrected to clarify the Specific Plan open space requirements regarding increased height. Additional open space is required in either case, and the environmental analysis is not affected. 4. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR is co rrected to clarify the Specific Plan allows increased heights for both residential and non-re sidential buildings. Additional open space is required in either case, and the envi ronmental analysis is not affected. 5. Paved open space areas are not required to be ten percent of the Specific Plan area. 6. The comment is noted. 7. The comment is noted. 8. The comment is noted. Multiple detentio n basins and/or percolation areas could be developed within the Plan Area, and multiple basins are more probable under current low impact development standards. The envi ronmental analysis is not affected. 9. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR relies on the information provided in the Specific Plan and traffic impact analysis. The Draft EIR states that the median along Los Gatos Boulevard would have one break for left turns midway between Burton Road and Lark Avenue. The Specific Plan does not state that there will be a break at this location, but does refer to this as a key access point. 10. Figure 13, Conceptual Backbone Stormwater Infrastructure, is understood to be preliminary and conceptual. 11. Under the Town’s Below Market Price affo rdable housing program, the correct method is 20 percent of the market rate homes, which works out to about 16.7 percent of the total. The Draft EIR is corrected to clarify that the requiremen t is to provide affordable units at the rate of 20 percent of the market rate units.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-85 12. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR is correct ed to clarify that architectural features in excess of the height limit may not exceed 30 percent of the length of the parapet on the given building façade. The environmen tal analysis is not affected. 13. The discussion on page 3-14 is intended to compare the height of proposed buildings within the Plan Area to the existing buildings in general terms. 14. Mitigation Measure AES-1 does not refer to a vegetative buffer. Vegetative buffers are described following the mitigation measure. 15. The comment relates to the discussion of Air Quality Plan Measure TCM-D-1. The discussion does not include a reference to the proposed multi-modal pathway along Lark Avenue, but the conclusion of consistency would not be affected. 16. Figure 15, Health Risks was prepared based on data points presented in the Illingworth and Rodkin report (Draft EIR Appendix D), and revised per comments received prior to preparation of the Draft EIR. The line is as accura te as possible for a map at the scale provided in the Draft EIR. 17. The Draft EIR calls for extending the wall about 100 feet farther to the east than does the noise report. The Draft EIR has been corrected and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 revised. The environmental analysis is not affected. 18. Since the reference point for measuring wall he ight is not specified, it is assumed to be measured from grade at the wall location. 19. The second sub-bullet point in Mitigation Measure NOI-8 allows equipment to operate in excess of 85 dBA as long as that level is not exceeded at the property line. 20. The locations of the Los Gatos Union School District’s schools that would serve the Plan Area are described in detail in the Draft EIR (pages 3-170 to 3-174). 21. The comment is noted. There is not a form al sidewalk along Lark Avenue beyond the gasoline station; however, there is a curb an d an area paved with asphalt for walking. 22. The Draft EIR was prepared for production in late March, before the adoption date for the Valley Transportation Authority Plan 2040 was revised. The Draft EIR has been revised to reflect an updated anticipated adoption date. 23. Transportation impact analysis Table ES-3 , page vii (Draft EIR Appendix M) proposes that the westbound approach be reconfigured to three through lanes and one right-turn lane. This will remove the existing left-turn lane on to Highland Oaks Drive from Lark Avenue.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-86 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 24. The comment is noted and Mitigation Me asure TR-1 has been revised to reflect alternative mitigation in the event that Burton Road widening cannot occur with initial development within the Northern District. In the event that the Burton Road widening cannot occur prior to initial development within the Northern District, it is possible that alternative and adequate ingress and egress can be provided at another location within the Plan Area. Supplemental analyses would need to be conduc ted for future development applications to demonstrate that adequate access can be provided by other routes. 25. The cross-section for Street A varies as it traverses the Plan Area, and its configuration is summarized in the Draft EIR. The Specific Plan pr ovides the full description of the street cross-sections. 26. The discussion is based on current stan dards adopted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The discussion cannot speculate on future changes to the standards. 27. The discussion relates to region-wide water supplies as cited in the Draft EIR. 28. The Draft EIR presented incorrect numbers re lating to wastewater generation on this page (page 3-246). The numbers cited in the lette r are included correctly elsewhere in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR has been corrected to state th at wastewater generation would be 250 gallons and 236,000 gallons rather than 70 gallons and 131,600 gallons. 29. The cumulative traffic section incorrectly refers to a significant and unavoidable project-level impact at this location. The Draft EIR has been corrected.
1 From:Robert Buxton <rabcars@yahoo.com>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 5:52 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:Comments on the DEIR for t he North 40 Specific Plan Dear Mr. Paulson, There is no sense restating the Mission Statement for the North 40 for those of us who are passionate about the planning of the project; we have it memorized. Is it being adhered to by the DEIR? The DEIR does not address in detail the following: Traffic/safety im pact s an d it does not provide specific mitigation for all of Lark Avenue nor does it address the cumulative traffic impact for the entire day. Impact on schools: it does not report and list known figures for the number of students from Bluebird, Laurel Mews, Blossom Hill/Los Gatos Blvd complex and the North 40. It does not address the downtown an d it 's impact i.e.how not to compete. It is time to once again go back to the drawing board and allow the citizens of the Town of Los Gatos to dictate our future, not the developers. Thank you for considering and passing along our concerns to the Planning Commission. Yours very truly, Bob and Susan Buxton (Residents of Los Gatos for 40 years) Sent from my iPad Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-88 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 17 from Buxton (May 19, 2014) 1. Refer to the Master Response on Transpor tation. The transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M) was prepared in accord ance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority guidelines. The analysis focuses on the time periods when the existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the proposed project would be highest and potential impacts would be most severe. This occurs during the morning and evening commute periods. 2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 3. The economic and urban decay studies found in Appendix K address impacts on the Downtown. This information is also summarized in Draft EIR section 3.10 Land Use and Planning. For example, see pages 8-10 in the Market Study & Business Opportunities Assessment, which discusses strategies for developing uses complementary to downtown. In the Urban Decay Analysis, see pages 6, 23-27, 41-43, 63-64, and 65-66.
Comment 1 Comment 2
Comment 2, cont.Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
Comment 5, cont.Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8
Comment 8, cont.Comment 9
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-93 Response to Letter 18 from Caltrans (May 19, 2014) 1. The transportation impact analysis was co nducted following guidelines of the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transporta tion Authority. The Valley Transportation Authority encourages all agencies within the Sant a Clara Valley to follow its TIA Guidelines for non-CMP facilities and directs the use of the TI A Guidelines for all CMP-designated facilities, including freeway segments. The Town sees re al benefit in following a traffic analysis methodology used by its sister agencies and VTA in the larger region, and therefore the Town exercised its discretion to follow VTA’s approach to assess the significan ce of impacts rather than the approach suggested by Caltrans. The traffic impact analysis included those freeway segments applicable to project trip distribution and these were studied in accordance with the referenced guidelines. According to these guidelines, freeway im pacts are addressed by comparing the amount of traffic added by the project to the existing freeway volumes. A project-related impact is identified when a) added project traffic would cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F, or b) when a project would add traffic equal to more than one percent of capacity to a freeway segment that is already operating at LOS F. 2. The transportation impact analysis evalua ted the freeway ramps that the project would most likely affect, based on proximity and like ly travel routes. For example, the northbound State Route 17/Lark Avenue diagonal on-ramp wa s evaluated and the results showed that the existing on-ramp storage area could accommoda te the added traffic. As indicated in the transportation impact analysis, the proposed proj ect is projected to add small amounts of traffic to the northbound State Route 85/Wincheste r Boulevard diagonal on-ramp and southbound State Route 17/Lark Avenue diagonal on-ramp, and therefore would not significantly impact operations at those locations. The comment regarding adjustments to metering rates is acknowledged. Changes have been made to the summary of the transportation impact analysis to better reflect the content within the body of the transportation impact analysis (Appendix M to the Draft EIR). The conclusion of the analysis in the transportation impact analysis is not affected. 3. The transportation impact analysis was co nducted following guidelines of the Town of Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. According to these guidelines, and consistent with CEQA, cumulative conditions include traffic from all reasonably foreseeable development projects, including approved (but not yet constructed) and pending projects. This is the same technical approach used for most impact analyses for development projects throughout Santa Clara County and therefore there is a preponde rance of support for it. It relies on actual identified proposed land use changes as opposed to speculative projections and therefore provides more certainty. As a result, the analys is adequately addresses the proposed project’s cumulative impacts.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-94 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 4. As lead agency, the Town of Los Gatos wi ll oversee the implementation of all mitigation measures, including timing and responsibility . A mitigation monitoring program has been prepared and will be adopted by the Town in conjunction with certification of the EIR. Some of the traffic mitigation measures call for improvements within the Plan Area, and are to be implemented by the initial developer. If the impr ovements benefit future development within the Plan Area, reimbursement agreements would be de veloped to equitably share the funding. The Town also has a traffic fee program that off-sets the cost of Town-wide st reet improvements that are identified within the Town’s capital improvement program. 5. The Specific Plan places both residential and commercial uses within the Plan Area, and provides a circulation system that allows for pe destrian, bicycle, and vehicle travel within the Plan Area. The land use arrangement and circulat ion system also provide access from within the Plan Area to the adjacent Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. The presence of a major state highway interchange (State Route 17 and State Route 85) precludes direct access to the future Vasona light rail station. The Specific Plan contains a menu of tr ansportation demand measures that, per Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Policy TRA-3.13, would be requir ed of commercial uses developed within the Plan Area (Draft EIR page 3-223). Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. The transportation improvements required by mitigation measures would not significantly reduce bicycle or pedestrian safety. Bicycle safe ty would be most affected along Lark Avenue, where two westbound right-turn lanes onto nort hbound State Route 17 would require bicyclists to cross two right-turn lanes to continue across the bridge over State Route 17. The VTA Bicycle Design Guidelines advise against this situatio n, but if unavoidable, recommend a minimum of 15 foot lane width for the lanes to allow side -by-side operation of bicycles and motorized vehicles, or the use of sharrows. 6. The Draft EIR cites a records search conduc ted for the Plan Area. The proposed project does not propose to construct improvements within a Caltrans right-of-way. 7. The Town’s traffic impact fee program is described on Draft EIR page 3-209. Specific fee requirements for development projects are not st ated because the Draft EIR is program level and the details of future development are not currently known. However, when development plans/building permits are processed by the Town , the traffic impact fees will be collected. 8. The comment does not specifically discuss im pacts or mitigation related to the proposed Specific Plan. The comment suggests that the Town participate in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s voluntary contributi on program. Such a payment could be used to partially mitigate the significant and unavoidable impact identified on State Route 85 segments.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-95 A mitigation measure has been added to at least partially mitigate those impacts by requiring a fee payment to off-set physical or operational improvements on segments of State Route 85 affected by the proposed project’s traffic. 9. The comment is noted.
1 From:Georgia Crowder <gcrowder12@yahoo.com>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 5:18 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:Environmental impact of North 40 project Mr. Paulson I've lived on Lilac Way for past 40 years & have been involved in many community efforts to keep " The Boulevard" a lovely place to live & raise a family. It seems to be the ugly step ‐child of downtown Los Gatos. We don't want or need more traffic congestion & over c rowded schools. We already have all the building at Paul Swanson ford. How will that impact us? We don't have an answer to that & you are already adding hundreds of housing units & more commercial buildings & all that comes with it. I think the Planning Commission should table this project & find solutions to the problems it will creat e , before going forward. Thank you Mrs Georgia Crowder 802 Lilac Way Sent from my iPhone Comment 1
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-97 Response to Letter 19 from Crowder (May 19, 2014) 1. The traffic impact analysis accounted for ex isting and projected trips from all existing and planned development. These trips are accounted for in the Existing and Background traffic scenarios, which are the basis for the Project and Cumulative scenarios. See Master Response on Schools and Master Response on Transportation.
1 From:David Field <dfield@stanford.edu>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 3:17 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 Hello, I live in Los Gatos on Lester Lane near its intersection with Carlton Avenue and I would like to share my thought on the North 40 project. I have several concerns about the project: 1)Such a major development will unalterably change the character of the current town of Los Gatos. Larg e, premi um retail/mixed use projects lend themselves to generic feeling “downtown” areas that will pull substantial business from the existing downtown area. Smaller, unique merchants, that help give a location real character, have a much more difficult time affording rent/lease in such high ‐end environments. It also entails great risk of the San Jose syndrome – San Jose declined to help Macy’s locate in downtown San Jose more than half a century ago. That decision led directly to the development of Valley Fair shopping center and the death of downtown San Jose as a livable community and shopping destination. This decision “killed” downtown San Jose as a des tination and it is just now starting to recover. Bifurcating Los Gatos with this project could easily produce similar results. 2)Traffic – general. The current traffic mitigations are wildly insufficient for this project. Surface streets (Lark Avenue, Los Gatos Blvd., National, Good Samaritan Drive, on/off ramps for Highway 17 and 85)are alrea d y heavily impacted. Adding a large mixed use community will increase that concentration immensely and create additional traffic issues for local residents evenings when the retail environment is at its height along with rush hour not to mention heavily impacting weekend traffic. 3)Traffic – event and pass through. As a Lester Lane resident, we already have a lot of traffic “cutting through” on Lester Lane to short cir cuit LG ‐Almaden traffic headed to LG Blvd. The spillover effect of this project will inevitably escalate the already busy (and sometimes dangerously speedy) use of this residential street. Addition ally, when the project i nevitably hosts special events, traffic will gridlock surround streets and our residential street parking will be in short supply as drivers flock to find event parking in surrounding neighborhoods. 4)The lack of school planning (we’ll just send the kids to a different district) is a little appalling. Although I do not have school age childre n, I always su pport our schools as wise investment in our society as a whole and in our local property values. Parents of children in the new development need to have “skin” in the game for the schools their children will be attending. Assuming th at the number of children will be relatively small and, consequently, not a big issue is fanciful at best unless you can guarantee the population of children will remain as low as estimated for at least the next 20 years. 5)Although not an objection to the project per se, the broch u re that was delivered to us several weeks ago was so completely NON ‐informative as to be misleading. As a community outreach and education piece, I found it highly disingenuous; a straight piece of fluff without substance. Such uninformative fluff leaves me suspicious of the purported merits of the project. In light of the s e problems, I will not support the project; it should be sent back to the drawing board for a fresh concept and thorough reconsideration. Sincerely, Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
2 David Field 178 Lester Lane
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-100 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 20 from Field, D. (May 19, 2014) 1. The example of downtown San Jose losing Macy’s to Valley Fair is of questionable relevance. First, San Jose has a much larger downtown, and larger downtowns throughout the U.S. suffered from the departure or loss of majo r department stores to malls in the 1960s and later. Downtown Los Gatos has never had or been a suitable location for such a large retailer. Furthermore, Los Gatos is part of the same regional retail landscape as San Jose; there are numerous malls, including Valley Fair, that are acce ssible to Los Gatos residents, but downtown Los Gatos has survived in the face of this competition. Downtown’s strength is the “smaller unique merchants that help give a location real character.” These merchants may be unlikely to move to the North 40, and thus the Downtown will preserve its character and attraction. Urban decay is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use an d Planning in the Draft EIR. See also responses to Comments for Letter 11 from Arzie. 2. The traffic impact analysis determined th at impacts to local streets and intersections would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M) was prepared in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority guidelines. The analysis focuses on the time period s when the existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the project would be highest and potential impacts would be most severe. This occurs during the weekday morning and evening commute periods. 3. Only a small amount of North 40 traffic would be added to Lester Lane – a portion of the 5 to 10 percent of project traffic going to and from the east on Los Gatos-Almaden Road. Lester Lane provides access to the project site via Camino Del Sol, which is one-way (eastbound) at Los Gatos Boulevard. Given the existing street grid, it is unlikely that outbound vehicles would travel via Lester Lane. It is estimated th at 1/3 of all inbound trips traveling from Los Gatos Almaden Road could use Lester Lane. Th erefore approximately 10 vehicles could be added to Lester Lane from the project during th e AM peak hour and 20 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Trip distribution is summarized on page 3-213 of the Draft EIR and presented graphically on Figure 7 in the transportation im pact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M). Special events are not planned to occur on a frequent ba sis and therefore were no t evaluated as part of the Draft EIR analysis. If special events did occur they would likely happen outside of the peak hours when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways are lower. Moreover, the impacts of special event traffic would be temporary and would not rise to the level of significance under CEQA. 4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 5. The comment is noted.
1 From:Dave and Karol Field <field.d@comcast.net>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 4:56 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 Development Dear Mr. Paulson: I was present at the Council Meeting on May 14 regarding the development of the North 40. I am NOT in favor of seeing this property built out as currently planned. I do hope the Council is listening – the traffic situation on Lark and Los Gatos Blvd is horrendous! We currently have new growth in the forms of the Stanford Cancer Center at the corner of Los Gatos Blvd and Branham Lane along with the new medical building on Los Gatos Blvd and Gateway Place. These two new structures alon e will bring additional traffic to the already bursting-at-the-seams Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Avenue road ways. We live on Lester Lane. To access Los Gatos Blvd, we have a few different choices depending on where we’re going: 1.Continue down Lester Lane and make a left on Camino del Sol. This takes you out to Los Gatos Blvd about a good sized block past Lark Avenue. In other words, it dumps you right in front of the proposed North 40 development. We typically travel this way to access 85 although if it’s “off commute” time, we may go th is way and take a left onto LG Blvd to access Lark Avenue. 2.Turn left onto Carlton Avenue and right onto Gateway. This puts us on LG Blvd right in front of the Union 76 gas station by Ace Hardwa re. Attempting to travel this way in the morning can be the cause of a long wait just to access LG Blvd. The line of cars waiting to get onto Lark Avenue is typically past this light and waiting on the other side. People waiting on Gatewa y who want to g et into the turn lane onto Lark will sit and wait until the y can clearl y g et into the turn lane before they turn out of Gateway onto LG Blvd. This holds up the line of traffic for the rest of the people who may want to go straight on LG Blvd. We’ve had numerous accidents at this intersection for people speeding through or sitting in the middle of the intersection because they don’t want to wait for the light…once again…so they can turn onto Lark. Also, you’ll notice a number of cars cutting through Ace’s parking lot in order to circumvent Gateway altogether. Typically, if we ’re headed towards Lark to access 17, we’ll go this way. 3.If we go out Lester Lane the opposite di rection to Los Gatos-Almaden Road, we can access LG Blvd at Nob Hill and is the typical path to go into downtown Los Gatos. The additional issue on Lester Lane is this: 1.National Avenue takes you from Los Gato s-Almaden Road to Branham Lane to LG Blvd.2.Lester Lane takes you from Los Gatos-Almaden Road to Camino del Sol to LG Blvd (right in front of the North 40 project). Comment 1
2 3.And the next direct path to LG Blvd from Los Gatos-Almaden Road is to go directly to LG Blvd from Los Gatos-Almaden Road. So, Lester Lane has become a great bypass road for commuters and other people who want to bypass going directly up to LG Blvd off Los Gatos-Almaden Road. Thankfully, the Town put in a stop sign on Lester Lane by Live Oak Manor Park which helps, but people still speed and people still travel Lester Lane for a “cut through.” My concern is that this North 40 project will add additional traffic on Lester Lane for people wanting to go to the North 40! We don’t need additional traffic on our street! Has the To wn and development company really taken into consideration the impact on the smaller streets around LG Blvd and Lark Avenue? We are a small town. We must address these traffic issues before complicating the situation by adding more housing, more retail, more traffic….and more traffic…and more traffic. Having a Los Gatos version of Santana Row in our backyard isn't appealing especially if it is at the cost of our smaller-town atmosphere and the pote ntial decline of downtown Los Gatos. It would have been nice to see downtown LG business owners at the Council Meeting to hear their opinions about placing a huge retail struct ure at the edge of town. Downtown Los Gatos is a small community place where families go, fr iends meet, businesses thrive... Please, let's keep it that way.... Say “NO” to the North 40 as it currently stands. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Karol Field 178 Lester Lane LG Comment 1, cont.Comment 2
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-103 Response to Letter 21 from Field, K. (May 19, 2014) 1. The comment describes traffic congestion at various locations within the Town, particularly on Lester Lane. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in the letter from Field D. 2. The comment is noted.
1 From:Janice Fok <jgdfok@gmail.com>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 12:28 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 DEIR Comments and Questions Hello Mr. Paulson, pls include these questions in reference to the DEIR for the North 40 project. Statement of Fact: In Section 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION, on page 2-2 "Project Vicinity Existing Conditions" states "To the nor thwest of the Plan Area lie the State Route 17 freeway, an orchard, a private school, a tennis/swim club, a small num ber of houses, apartments, a mobile home park, Los Gatos Creek, and the Los Gatos Creek recreation trail." Questions: 1.Why is the Addison-Penzak JCC of Silicon Valley referred to only as a "private school"? 2.How was the impact of the Yavneh Day School calculated?3.Was the true impact of the JCC calculated?4.Where is the reference to the fact t here are two large fitness/swim clubs on Oka Road (the JCC and LG Swim and Racquet)? Statement of Fact: Figure 6 in Section 2.0 "Project Vicinity Ex isting Conditions" spec ifically notes Yavneh Day School as a nearby school. Figure 6 al so shows Carlton Elementary as a nearby school. Questions: 5.Why are these schools selected for the map?6.Why is Carlton Elem listed, when no par t of the North 40 parcel is served by the Union Elem school district? Statement of Fact: In Section 3.0, item 3.12 P opulation, Housing, and Public Services, Carlton Elementary is listed as the nearest school. Questions: 7.What schools are closest to the project in the districts providing services (Los Gatos and Campbell)? 8.How far away are the project se rving schools away from the project?9.What are the traffic c onditions between the project si te and the district schools?10.What accommodations are being m ade for Safe Routes to School for students living on the project area? Statement of Fact: In Section 3.0, item 3.12 P opulation, Housing, and Public Services, page 3-173 states "Already approved new housing within the school distri ct (Guadalupe Mines, Riviera Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3
2 Terrace, South Bay Honda, Swanson Ford, and Thrash House) would add about 70 additional students, most in the relative near-term." Questions: 11.What are the actual student counts generated by each of these projects?12.Has the Town, Project Developer, or EMC Planning asked the impacted school districts for actual counts of st udents from each of these projects? 13.Since all these projects have been comple ted by the time this DEIR was written,why are estimates used ra ther than actual data? Statement of Fact: In Section 3.0, item 3.12 Population, Housing, and Publ ic Services, page 3-184 states "Although the Draft Specific Plan does not dictate the resi dential distribution within the Plan Area, almost all of the commercial devel opment is directed to the northern half of the Plan Area, and this analysis assumes that 80 percent of residential units would be developed within the southern portion of the Plan Area served by the Los Gatos Union School District and Los Gatos-Sarat oga Joint Union High School District." Questions: 14.Will there be any requirement that the S pecific Plan distribute the housing in this manner? 15.Where did this assumption come from?Statement of Fact: In Section 3.0, item 3.12 P opulation, Housing, and Public Services, page 3-184 states "The effects of student generation would be gradual, as new reside ntial development replaced undeveloped land, and residential or commercial re-development replaced existing residential uses over an expected period of about 20 years." Questions: 16.When has a new development in Los Ga tos not fed additional students into our school district for 20 years after construction? 17.Since recent new developments have been completed, can the DEIR include actual impacts and timing of those impac ts? (see questions 11-13 above) Statement of Fact: In Section 3.0, item 3.13 Tr ansportiation and Traffic, stat es "The transportation impact analysis studied 31 intersections. Table 18, Study Intersections Existing Levels of Service, presents the current AM and PM peak per iod delays and levels of service at these intersections." Questions: 18.What study was done on the mid-peak time of student pick up at our local schools? This occurs between 2pm and 3:30pm. Thank you, Janice Fok Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-106 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 22 from Fok (May 19, 2014) 1. The project vicinity setting is described in general terms, in compliance with CEQA. The impact of existing land uses is accounted for in that each existing land use currently contributes to the existing conditions. For example, automo bile trips from the Jewish Community Center are represented in the existing traffic counts for intersections near that use. Figure 6 shows land uses near the Plan Area, which includes Carlto n School. The public facilities map (Draft EIR Figure 22) attempts to show all existing nearby public services, such as schools, fire stations, and parks. It is possible that some of these features were not included, but those that are pertinent to the analysis within the Draft EIR are included. Pr ivate recreational facilities are not shown on the map. 2. The schools nearest the Plan Area are illustrated on Draft EIR Figure 22. The schools serving the Plan Area are not necessarily the closest. Each school serving the Plan Area, and the distance from the Plan Area, is described on Draft EIR pages 3-170 through 3-174. 3. The traffic impact analysis focuses on intersec tion operations. In gene ral, direct routes to the schools serving the Plan Area involve travel on Los Gatos Boulevard/South Bascom Avenue for a portion of the trip, and 14 intersections on this street between and including Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and Camden Avenue were included in the traffic impact analysis. Most of the intersections operate at an acceptable level of serv ice, but this street does carry a high volume of traffic. Safe Routes to School are discusse d on Draft EIR page 3-227 and Mitigation Measure TR-6 requires that the designs for residential development along Lark Avenue include direct access from the residential area to the corner of Lark Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard. From this intersection, a route along Los Gatos Boulevard leads to a series of residential streets, which connect with an existing Safe Route to School for the elementary and middle schools. 4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 5. The Specific Plan indicates that most housing is planned for the Lark District at the south end of the Plan Area. The Specific Plan doe s not mandate this distribution, but the mix of allowed uses within each of the three districts ma kes it likely that residential development would be concentrated to the south. The other two dist ricts allow residential uses, but residential uses are secondary to the commercial uses in those districts. 6. The comment appears to be mis-interpreting the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR assumes that development would take place over time, and theref ore, that student generation from within the Plan Area would increase over time as new housing units are completed and occupied.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-107 7. The Draft EIR compares impacts of the proposed project to the existing conditions at the time the NOP was released. The effects of all known development, existing or future, is accounted for in either the Existing, Background, Project, or Cumulative scenario. 8. The transportation impact analysis did no t include a mid-afternoon peak scenario. The transportation impact analysis was prepar ed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority guidelines, which do not require study of this scenario. The analysis focuses on the time periods when the existing tr affic volumes plus traffic generated by the project would be highest and potential im pacts would be most severe. This occurs during the morning and evening commute periods. Therefore no stud y was conducted during the mid-peak time of student pick up when overall volumes would be lo wer. Generally, school peak traffic impacts are concentrated during a 15-minute period immediately before and/or after school begins or ends.
Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3
Comment 3, cont.Comment 4
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-110 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 23 from Law Offic es of Tamara Gabel (May 19, 2014) 1. Figure 17 shows the presence of both co ntaminants and is intended to provide an overview of potentially contaminated soils or groundwater within the Plan Area. Detailed information on contamination is available fr om the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health (DEH), and consultation with DEH will be required for any work within potentially contaminated areas. Figure 3 in the February 2013 report prepared by Geocon for the Lark Avenue Car Wash contamination clean-up, cited in the Draft EIR, sh ows six or seven monitoring wells within the Plan Area (MW-5, MW-6, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, and MW-15. A seventh well (MW-4D) is symbolized as a co-extraction well, but given an MW designation. 2. The main area of groundwater contamination is nearer the source to the south of Lark Avenue. Groundwater contamination within the Plan Area is both less concentrated and at a greater depth. Nonetheless, the DEH requires me asures to address the contamination within the Plan Area. 3. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 will be carried out in consultation with DEH, which is very familiar with the history and location of contam inants at the site, and with appropriate safety standards. 4. The comment is noted. Refer to the response to Comment 2.
From: jeff harlan [mailto:jeff.harlan@yahoo.com ] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:24 AM To: Planning Subject: North 40 DEIR Feedback Thanks for the opportunity to speak last w eek. Here are my notes/estimates on the DEIR. *jeff harlan ** native los gatan ** family here since 1965 ** raising two children with my wife in the house where i grew up *amazing school system already over capacity ** people cheat and lie to get their kids into our schools ** full time employee to detec t fraud in school enrollment *estimates from developers on school impact have proven inaccura te ** bluebird lane est 30% - 20 units/6 students - actually 170% - 34 students ** north 40 est 26.6% - 364 units/97 students - likely 170% - 619 students ''DEIR flaws'' *significantly underestimated student population ** likely 522 more ** worst case each student will caus e an additional am and pm trip *traffic report ** estimated trips *** alt a - 685 am, 1526 pm - est 1200 am, 2050 pm *** alt b - 470 am, 1488 pm - est 1000 am, 2010 pm ** gaps in traffic sampling *** no samples on los gatos blvd between ro berts road and highway 9 - ''gridlock'' *** no samples on east main st - ''gridlock'' *** no samples on univertity ave between west main st and lark ave - ''gridlock'' regional housing needs allocation (RHNA ) - ''2x higher than current census'' association of bay area governments (ABAG) 10% apply more pressure to adjust in line with the department of finance (DOF) 5% north40 estimate $1.9 million for school s - $19,600 per student - likely $3069 per student national average for one student $8626 likely student scenario - ($5560) or ($3.44 million) net cost to our town Suggestion for a more reas onable use of this land: Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- build a new junior high and high school to accommodate state mandated growth - limit housing units to 50 Thank you, Jeff Comment 5, cont.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-113 Response to Letter 24 from Harlan (May 19, 2014) 1. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. Vehicular trips to schools are accounted for in the traffic generation rates. See also response to Comment 2 and the Master Response on Transportation. 2. The amount of traffic generated by the pr oposed project is estimated by applying rates published in the Institute of Transportation En gineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition, 2008 that are based on surveys of similar uses. This is in accordance with professional practice and with the TIA preparation guidelines publis hed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Au thority TIA guidelines call for the study of intersections. The traffic analysis includes the ev aluation of those intersections anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project. The study loca tions included in the traffic impact analysis were intersections identified as likely to be af fected by project vehicle traffic based on proximity to the project site, current intersection operations, and the amount of added project traffic. Specifically, intersections on East Main Street and on University Avenue south of Lark Avenue were not included in the analysis because substa ntial project-related traffic is not predicted to travel along these streets during peak hours. Duri ng the PM peak hour, the project is predicted to add between 20 and 25 northbound and 20 and 25 southbound vehicles to Los Gatos Boulevard between State Route 9 and Roberts Road. These vehicles are not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the intersections in between State Route 9 and Roberts Road. The study intersections were revi ewed and approved by Town staff and during the peer review process of the transportation impact analys is. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation. 3. The comment is noted. The proposed projec t would add up to 364 residential units, with affordable units under the Town’s Below Market Rate program equaling 20 percent of the market rate units, which would contribute toward s the Town meeting its regional housing needs allocation. 4. The Draft EIR considers environmental impa cts and does not address fiscal impacts. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools. 5. The Specific Plan identifies public and pr ivate schools as conditionally permitted uses. However, the school districts serving the Plan Ar ea have not planned for construction of a new school within the Plan Area at this time. Based on California Department of Education standards, a middle school would occupy approx imately one-quarter to one-third of the Plan Area and a high school would occupy approximatel y three-quarters to the entirely of the Plan Area. Therefore, placement of either type of sc hool within the Plan Area would preclude many
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-114 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . or all of the uses anticipated in the Specific Plan for the site and would not meet the objectives for the project. The Draft EIR studied a reasonable range of alternatives as required by CEQA. Also refer to response to Comment 1. Limiting the number of housing units to a total of 50 would not be consistent with the Town’s vision for the Plan Area, which identifies the Pl an Area as a location to “address the Town’s residential and/or commercial unmet needs.” Additionally, the project objectives include development of the Plan Area in a manner cons istent with the General Plan. The density of housing in the Specific Plan area would be less than half that considered in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan . The General Plan and the General Plan EIR assumed that the Plan Area would include up to 750 residential units, althou gh the General Plan acknowledges that this would be the maximum residential capacity and th e specific plan may be approved with lower densities (page LU-18 in the General Plan). Th erefore the housing density proposed in the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Pl an; reducing the total number of housing units would not be consistent with the project object ives or the General Plan. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
1RUWK'UDIW(,5 6SHFLILF3ODQ7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$408.644.6936 3DJHRI Environmental....Architect@yahoo.com 7R -RHO3DXOVRQ'DWH WK 0D\3ODQQLQJ0DQDJHU6HQW HPDLO7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$5( 1RUWK)RUW\3URSHUW\ 6SHFLILF3ODQ6XEM &RPPHQWVRQWKH'UDIW(QYLURQPHQW DO,PSDFW5HSRUW 'UDIW(,5 'HDU-RHO7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGGH GLFDWLRQWRWKLVSURMHFW,KDYHEHHQUHYLHZLQJWKH1RUWK6SHFLILF3ODQDQGWKH'UDIW(,5GRFXPHQWV7KHIROOR ZLQJFRPPHQWVDUHEHLQJSURYLGHGGXULQJWKH3XEOLF5HYLHZ3HULRG2YHUDOO&RPPHQWV&RQFHSWXDO%DFNERQH&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQ )LJXUHS %XUWRQ5RDGVKRXOG127EHDOORZHGWREHH[WHQGHGRUFRQQHFWHGW RWKHSURSRVHG¶$·6WWKDWWKHQFRQQHFWVWR/DUN$YH7KHLQWHUVHFWLRQDW/RV*DWRV /* %OYG6DPDULWDQ'ULYH %XUWRQ5GQHHGVWREHUHHYDOXDWHG7KH'(,5·V7UDIILF6WXG\G RHVQRWUHIOHFWWKHPDMRUSUREOHPVZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJFRQGLWLRQV••••7KHWUDIILFLPSDFWWRWKLVH[LVWL QJLQWHUVHFWLRQLVDOUHDG\DW/HYHO)DQGFDQEDUHO\KDQG OHWKHFXUUHQWWUDIILF••••7KHSURSRVHGFKDQJHRI%XUWRQ5GWREHFRPHD0DMRU9HKLFXODU&RUULGRUZLOOFUHDWHDQHYHQZRUVHVLWXDWLRQDQGZLOOGUDVWLFDOO\L PSDFWWUDIILFRQWKHVXUURXQGLQJFRPPXQLWLHVWKHLUURDGVDQGVWUHHWV••••&XUUHQWO\WKHH[LVWLQJ/*%OYG 6DPDULWDQLQWHUVHFWLRQL V6HYHUHO\,PSDFWHGE\FDUVWU\LQJWRSDUNLQWKHIURQWSDUNLQJORWRIWKH%XLOGLQJ RQWKHQRUWKFRUQHURIWKH6LWH:KHQMXVW FDUEDFNVXSRQ%XUWRQWKHHQWLUHLQ WHUVHFWLRQFRPHVWRDKDOW7KHJUDSKLFEHOR ZLVWDNHQIURP)LJLQWKH7UDIILF5HSRUW$V\RXFDQVHHWKH5HGFDUZDLWLQJWRJHWLQWRWKHSDUNLQJORWEORFNVDFFHVVWR%XUWRQ5G••••7KH/*6DPDULWDQ%XUWRQLVRQO\·IURP+Z\·VVRXWKERXQGRIIUDPSZKLFKGRHVQRWPHHW&DOWUDQV'HVLJQ*XLGHOLQHVIRUFRUQHUVLWHGLVWDQFHVDORQJ)UHHZD\V&LWDWLRQ &DOWUDQV7DEOH$&RUQHU6LJKW'LVWDQFH 6HFRQG&ULWHULD 'HVLJQ6SHHG PSK &RUQHU6LJKW'LVWDQFH IW &KDUW6WDWHVWKD WHYHQDWWKHVORZHVWVSHHGRIPSKWKHPLQLPXPGLVWDQFHComment 1
1RUWK'UDIW(,5 6SHFLILF3ODQ7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$3DJHRIEHWZHHQLQWHUVHFWLRQVLV IW $WPSKWKHGLVWDQFHLVIWDQGDWPSKWKHGLVWDQFHLVIWDQGDWPSKWKHGLVWDQFHLVIW••••:LWKDVSHHGOLPLWRIPSKWKHFORVHVWLQWHUVHFWLRQWRWKHV RXWKERXQGRIIUDPSQHHGVWREHPLQRIIWVRXWKRIWKHRIIUDPS••••%DVHGRQWKHDERYHLQI RUPDWLRQDQHZ&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQQHHGVWR EHGHYHORSHGDQGHYDOXDWHG /DUN$YH /*%OYG,QWHUVHFWLRQKDVQRWEHHQSURSHUO\HYDOXDWH GEHFDXVHWKHQRUWKZHVWFRUQHUZKHUHWKHJDVVWDWLRQLVORFDWHGUHVWULFWVWKHDELOLW\WRFUHDWHDQHZIUHHULJKWWUXQZKHQKHDGLQJVRXWKRQ/*%OYG••••)LJRIWKH7UDIILF6WXG\VK RZVDQHZIUHHULJKWWXUQODQHIRUWUDIILFKHDGLQJVRXWKERXQGRQ/*%OYGWXUQLQJULJKWRQWR/DUN$YH7KH ODQHWKHQWXUQVLQWRDQHZRQUDPSODQHIRUQRUWKERXQG+Z\••••$OOQHZLPSURYHPHQWVRIWKHRQUDPSVKDYHWREHUHYLHZHGDQGDS SURYHGE\&DOWUDQV:LWKRXWWKHLUDSSURYDOVFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHSU RSRVHG7UDIILF,PSURYHPHQWVFD QQRWRFFXU••••7KH5HSRUWGRHVQRWDGH TXDWHO\HYDOXDWHD3KDVHG6FHQDULRZKHU HWKH/DUN'LVWULFWLVEXLOWEHIRUHWKH+LJKZD\RQUDPSVDQGQHZODQHVF DQEHEXLOW7KLVLVFXUUHQWO\KDSSHQLQJ7KHGHYHOR SHUKDVVXEPLWWHGD9HVWLQJ7HQWDWLYH0DSVKRZLQJWKH /DUN'LVWULFWEXLOGRXWZLWKR XWWKHFUHDWLRQRIDVRXWKERXQGIUHHULJKWWXUQODQH••••%DVHGRQWKHDERYHLQI RUPDWLRQDQHZ&LUFXODWLRQ3ODQQHHGVWR EHGHYHORSHGDQGHYDOXDWHG /*%OYG·VSURSRVHGZLGWKRIVWUHHWLPSURYHPHQWVH[FHHGVWKHDFW XDOZLGWKRIWKHH[LWLQJVWUHHW52:DVVXFK WKH'(,5GRHVQRWDGHTXDWHO\HYDOXDWHWKH7UDIILF ,PSDFWVRID3KDVHG6FHQDULRZKHUHWKHHDVWVLGHRI/*%OYGLVQRWEXLOWRXWEHIR UHWKH6LWHLVGHYHORSHG••••7KHH[LWLQJ$310DSVVKRZWKDW/*%OYGKDV52:ZLGWKRIRQO\IW7KHUHLVIWWRWKHFHQWHUOLQHRQWKH6LWH·VVLGHRIWKHVWUHHW DQGRQO\IWRQWKHHDVWVL GH)LJRQSVKRZVDQURDGZD\ZLWKRI IW:KHUH·VWKHIWFRPLQJIURP"••••7KH6SHFLILF3ODQS,WHP/DUN$YHVWDWHGWKDWWK H52:ZLOOEHH[WHQGHGLQWRWKH6LWHEXWS)LJRQO\LGHQWLILHVWKHH [LVWLQJ52:OLQH7KHURDGZD\DQGSDWKZD\GHVLJQGRHVQRWZRUNZLWKRXWDQDGGLWLRQDOIW52:••••%DVHGRQWKHDERYHLQI RUPDWLRQDQHZ7UDIILF6WXG\WKDWDGGUHV VHVD3KDVHG6FHQDULRD QGD6FHQDULRZKHUHWKHURDGZD\LVQRWZLGHQHGQHHGVWREHGHYHORSHGDQGHYDOXDWHG6SHFLILF&RPPHQWVRQ'UDIW(,5IRU1RUWK6SHFLILF3ODQ7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV QRSDJHQXPEHU ••••$SSHQGL[1²8WLOLWLHVLV QRWOLVWHGLQWKH72&••••$SSHQGL[1LVRQWKH7RZQ·VZHEVLWHODEHOHG¶8WLOLWLHV·••••7KHWLWOHRIWKHGRFXPHQWRQOLQ HLV¶8SGDWHRQ6HZHU,PSDFW(YD OXDWLRQ·••••7KH)XOO8WLOLWLHV5HSRUWLVQRW LQFOXGHGRQWKH&LW\·VZHEVLWH QRUKDVLWEHHQDYDLODEOHDW3ODQQLQJ'HVN••••:KHUHLVWKLV)XOO$QDO\VLVRIWKH8WLOLWLHV"Comment 1, cont.Comment 2
1RUWK'UDIW(,5 6SHFLILF3ODQ7RZQRI/RV*DWRV&$3DJHRI7DEOH6a6LJQLILFDQW,PSDFWV 0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH6XPPDU\ S DJHV6WKUX6 3DJH6••••7KHSDJHLVLQFRPSOHWH7KH WH[WUXQVRIIWKHSDJH3DJH6••••%LRORJ\7UHH3URWHFWLRQ%,2 a/HVVWKDQVLJQLILFDQW••••:KDWLVWKH0LWLJDWLRQ5DWLRIRU UHSODFHPHQWRI3 URWHFWHG7UHHV WKDWPD\EHUHPRYHG"••••:LWKRXWWKHWRWDOQXPEHURIWUHHV WKDWZLOOEHUHPRYHGKRZFDQ WKLVEHFRQVLGHUHG¶/HVVWKDQ6LJQLILFDQW·"3DJH6••••+D]DUGVDQG+D]DUGRXV0DWHULDOV+$=aFXUUHQW O\OLVWHGDV¶/HVV7KDQ6LJQLILFDQW·••••7KLVVKRXOGEHFKDQJHG WR¶OHVVWKDQVLJQLIL FDQWLPSDFWZLWKPL WLJDWLRQ·••••$SSHQGL[,²+D]DUGVVWDWHVWKHU HLVDFRQWDPLQDWHGSOXPHWUDYH OLQJQRUWKRI/DUN$YHRQWRWKH6LWH••••7KHKD]DUGVUHSRUWVV WDWHVWKDWUHPHGLDWLRQLVQHHGHGSULRUWRGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHVLWH••••7KHUHTXLUHPHQWIRUUHPHGLDWL RQPDNHVWKH5HVLGXDO,PSDFWWRLQ FOXGH0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV3DJH6••••7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ7UDIILF75aF XUUHQWO\OLVWHGDV¶/HVV7KDQ6LJQLILFDQW·••••7KLVVKRXOGEHFKDQJHGWR¶6LJQLI LFDQWDQG8QDYRLGDEOH,PSDFW·3DJH6••••7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ7UDIILF&XPXODW LYH7UDIILF,PSDFWV&8075aGRHVQRWVXPPDUL]HWKH UHVLGXDO,PSDFWV••••6KRXOGQ·WWKLVEH¶6LJQLILFDQWDQG8QDYRLGDEOH,PSDFW·"6SHFLILF3ODQ&RPPHQWV 7KHSURSRVHGZLGWKRIRQO\IWIRUWKH0XOWL0RGDO3DWKDORQJ /DUN$YHLVLQDGHTXDWHWRDFFRPPRGDWHWKHKLJKGHPDQGWKHUHZLOOEHIRUWKLVSDWKZD\DQGGRHVQRWPHHW6WDWHVWDQGDUGVIRUWKLVW\SHRISDWKZD\••••3HUVWDWHVWDQGDUGVD&ODVV%LNH3DWKLVWREHDPLQRII WZLGHEXWIWLVSUHIH UUHGZLWKDGGLWLRQDOIWZLGHVKRXOGHUV7KHSUHIHUUH GZLGWKLVDPLQRIIW••••:K\GRHVQ·WWKHSDWKZD\FRQWLQXHDORQJ/*%OYGFUHDWLQJDFFHVV WRWKHQRUWKHUQGLVWULFW"3OHDVHUHVSRQGWRP\FRPPHQW VLQWKH)LQDO(,57KDQN\RXIRU\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQ6LQFHUHO\6XVDQ0/DQGU\(QYLURQPHQWDO$UFKLWHFW'HVLJQLQJ6SDFHV%HWZHHQ7KH1DWXUDO %XLOW(QYLURQPHQW WP Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-118 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 25 from Landry (May 19, 2014) 1. The Burton Road/Samaritan Drive/Los Gato s Boulevard intersection is an existing intersection. The proximity to the State Route 85 ramps was created when Caltrans constructed State Route 85. The traffic analysis shows that the intersection is currently operating at an overall LOS C; however, some approaches and turning movements operate at a worse LOS than the intersection as a whole. The eastbound and westbound approaches operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound le ft-turn movement operates at LOS D during both AM and PM peak hours, as does the sout hbound left-turn movement during the PM peak hour. With mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR, Burton Road will accommodate project traffic. The transportation impact analys is did not identify an issue in regard to the proximity of the intersection to the State Route 85 ramps. At the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersec tion, the additional right-turn lane can be added within the existing curb-to-curb width, as shown on the traffic impact analysis’ Figure 16 (Draft EIR Appendix M), and is therefore feasible. Los Gatos Boulevard would ultimate ly be widened on the east side (opposite the Plan Area). This improvement would not affect Caltrans’ freeway on-ramp. Note that a tentative map cannot be approved until the EIR is certified and the Specific Plan is approved. A tentative map will need to be found consistent with the Specific Plan and will be subject to implementation of applicable mitigation measures. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation. 2. Appendix N was inadvertently left off the Ta ble of Contents, but is referenced on Draft EIR page 3-233, and included within the appendices. Appendix N consists of only the report on the sewer system. The Table of Contents has been corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR. 3. A production error resulted in Mitigati on Measure AQ-4 in the Summary Table not wrapping correctly to the next page. The full wording of the missing text is provided on Draft EIR pages 3-47 and 3-48. This cell of the Summary Table has been corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR. 4. The Draft EIR assumes that all of the trees would be removed by the proposed project. The arborist reports account for all of the non-orch ard trees in the Plan Area that are subject to the tree protection ordinance. The orchard trees wi th trunks less than 18 inches in diameter are not subject to the tree protection ordinance. Tr ee replacement ratios are based on the Town of Los Gatos tree protection ordinance (Section 29.10.0985) which in most cases requires replacement by at least two trees for each tree re moved. Only one tree may be required if the canopy of the tree that is removed is less than 10 feet across. The tree removal and replacement would be in accordance with the Town’s ordinance.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-119 5. The fifth column in the Summary Table li sts the residual impact , after mitigation is applied, and correctly states Less than Signific ant. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 6. The Summary Table is correct as presented on page S-24. This impact is mitigated to a less-than-significant level. However, the Area of Concern column on the second row on page S-26 should be filled with “Tra nsportation/Traffic.” This cell of the Summary Table has been corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR. 7. Draft EIR page 4-11 indicates that the cumulative mitigation measures reduce this cumulative impact to a less-than-significant le vel. This cell of the Summary Table has been corrected. Refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR. 8. The Caltrans standard requires eight feet of pavement and an additional two-foot shoulder area to each side in addition to the stat ed width. The Specific Pl an design is consistent with these requirements. The pathway, as illustrate d in the Specific Plan, is intended to provide access only along Lark Avenue.
1 From:Jeff Loughridge <lokrij@comcast.net>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 4:59 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 Draft EIR Comments Joel, Here are my comments: North 40 Traffic By Jeff Loughridge The North 40 project has some elements that I believe Los Gatos is lacking right now. Specifically, the more diverse planned housing will provide much needed components to our town’s housing mix. I AM concerned that our current traffic situation, without the future effect of new developments, results in a very low Level of Service, or LOS. Leve l s Of Service at intersections across town are now on the edge of our lower LOS limit rating of D. But it is particularly significant in the North end of town since that is where both Albright and the North 40 are either approved or planned. The traffic portion of this Dra f t EIR, by itself is a whopping 1836 pages. It is filled primarily with traffic counts at various intersections that were chosen. Not all affected intersections were included. What was missing, until late this afternoon, was an illustration that shows the proposed traffic flow in and around the development, specifi c ally on both Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. This afternoon a new version of the Tentative Map Application was posted onto the North 40 website. There is traffic mitigation proposed, but in order to assess whether these suggested mitigations make sense, one would need to see how the traffic would flow both North and South on Los Gatos Blvd as well as East and West on Lark Ave. Of the intersections that were illustrated, the South Street entrance into the development would have a right turn in, a left turn in, across Lark traffic and a right turn out. Th is would block Highlan d Oak resident’s current left turn out. Highland Oaks would be a right turn in and right turn out only. Plus the right turn out from South Street onto Lark Ave, would require drivers to merge rapidly across two fast moving, freeway onramp lanes to be able to continu e West on Lark, across the bridge towards Winchester Blvd. Comment 1
2 Piecemeal residential and traffic development on Lark Avenue has resulted in nine separate intersections with traffic lights at six. Some are spaced so closely together that they do not meet the State’s standards. Since this is one of only four ways across town and will be hit with the majority of both Albright and North 40 traffic, automobile, pede st rian and bicycle safety concerns need to be addressed for the full length of Lark Avenue, not just the portion bordering the development. The proposed traffic flow will eliminate Bicycle paths on Lark. They propose both East and West bicycle movement on the north ‐side sidewalk bordering Lark, yet propose nothing once a Westbound bicyclist reaches the Lark Avenue b r idge over highway 17. The traffic mitigation outlined in this draft EIR is inadequate, short sighted, and skewed to the new North 40 residents at the expense of their existing neighbors. The North 40 should reflect the spe cial nature of our home town, but doesn’t. It should celebrates our history, agricultural heritage, hillside views, and small town character, but doesn’t. The North 40 should be seamlessly woven into the fabric of our community, complementing other Los Gatos residential and business neighborhoods, but isn’t. It should be respectful of precious comm uni ty resources and offer unique attributes that enrich the quality of life of all of our residents, but doesn’t. Guiding Principles to achieve this vision: •The North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos. How does this LOOK like Los Gatos?•The North 40 will em brace hillside views, trees, and open space. HOW does it EM BR ACE view, trees and open space while providing the opposite? •The North 40 will address the Town’s residential and/or commercial unmet needs. Yes, it will do this at the price of school impacts and more traffic. •The North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on town infrastru c ture, schools, and other community services. Please explain how this will happen. Jeff Jeff Loughri dge Office:+1 408 358 1470 | Cell: +1 408 781 2209 | Fax: +1 408 358 1642 lokrij@comcast.net
North 40 Traffic Mitigated?
D B B E B C C F F C C C F D F F E E C B Intersection Level of Service
D F F F C C C C C Lark Avenue
East end of Lark Avenue traffic flow around development Lark Avenue Lark Avenue Los Gatos Boulevard Choke point for Automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrians
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-126 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 26 from Loughridge (May 19, 2014) 1. With the project, Highland Oaks residents will only be allowed to make a right turn onto Lark Avenue from Highland Oaks Drive. Elim inating the left turn out for Highland Oaks residents will reduce potential conflicts and im prove intersection safety. Left turns out of Highland Oaks are currently not allowed from 4 PM to 7 PM on weekdays, a period which includes the PM peak hour analyzed in the Dra ft EIR. Under the current configuration, drivers making a right turn from Street A (from the Pl an Area) onto Lark Avenue will need to weave across one lane to the left to continue heading west on Lark Avenue since the nearest lane directs traffic in that lane onto State Ro ute 17 only. With project implementation, the reconfigured westbound departure lanes at Highland Oaks/Street A/Lark Avenue will be one through lane, one through/right-turn lane, and one right-turn lane. The reconfigured westbound approach at State Route 17 northbound Ramps/Lark Avenue will be two through lanes and two right turn lanes. Refer also to the Master Response on Transporta tion regarding other issues relating to Lark Avenue, and to the response to Comment 5 in Letter 18 from Caltrans.
Comment 1
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-130 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 27 from Mattes (May 19, 2014) 1. The letter asserts that notification of the av ailability of the EIR was not provided within the Plan Area. The Notice of Availability was distributed as required under CEQA. The Notice for the Draft EIR was sent to trustee agencies and members of the public who provided written and/or verbal comments as part of the EIR scoping process and to organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice. The Town also published legal notice in the Los Gatos Weekly-Times in the form of a 1/8-page le gal ad and a half-page display ad. Additionally, the Town sent the Notice to the North Forty Interested Citizen e-mail list.
1 From:Linda Robles <linrobles@gmail.com>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 10:33 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:Environmental Impact of North 40 project.Dear Mr. Paulson, I've owned a home near Blossom Hill School for the past 37 years and am very concerned about the traffic generating developments recently bui lt or planned for Los Gatos Blvd. Los Gatos Blvd. is already congested and some of the approv ed developments are not yet in place. Now with the proposed North 40 project there will be even more traffic, and demands on the schools, fire and police. Also, there are the 17 parcels that will be developed on the property owned by the Sisters of the Holy Name. Some of th at traffic will flow down Los Gatos Blvd. What will all of this mean to the residents who live in the vicinity of Los Gatos Blvd. and Blossom Hill Road? I strongly suggest delaying th e approval of new developments until the city can analyze the actual impact of developments already approved. Overdevelopment will destroy the small town charm of Los Gatos and will negatively impact the quality of life of area residents. Thank you, Linda Schneider 111 Fairmead Lane Comment 1
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-132 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 28 from Schneider (May 19, 2014) 1. The Draft EIR considered the cumulative effects of the proposed project and other planned or recently approved projects on traffi c, schools, and public services. Refer to the discussions in Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative traffic analysis was based on the transportation impact analysis prepared for th e proposed project. Cumulative traffic impacts were identified for two locations, but mitigation measures were presented to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Draft EIR considered the cumulative effect on schools, fire, and police services based on comparison of the proposed project to the development planned for the Plan Area in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, and on analysis in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR. Based on this analysis, the proposed project would resu lt in approximately half as many residential units as anticipated in the General Plan and reduce d impacts on schools, fire, and police services compared to those described in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR concluded that development impact fees would reduce school impacts to a less-than-s ignificant level. The General Plan EIR found significant effects on fire and police services, which would be mitigated through the provision of additional building spac e. Additional building space has been obtained since adoption of the General Plan, and therefore, there would be no cumulative impact on fire or police services.
Son~o Clara Volle~ 5750 Almaden Expressway , San Jose , CA 95118 -3614 I 14081 265 -2600 I www .valleywalerorg Waler DiSlricl 6 File: 25933 Almaden Valley Pipeline May 19, 2014 Mr . Joel Paulson Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: North Forty Specific Plan DEIR Dear Mr. Paulson : The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) has reviewed the North Forty Specific Plan DEIR received by the District on April 7, 2014 . Based on our review of the proposed project as shown on the above referenced plans we have the following comments : 1. Development of the plan area will include utility construction and improvements to Burton Road that will occur within the District's easement for Almaden Valley Pipeline, a 72-inch diameter raw water transmiss i on pipeline . Additionally, it is likely that road improvements will require modification of the pipeline's telemetry cable, similar to what was required for the road improvements made in conjunction with the development on the north side of the street. At such time that road improvement or other work, such as utility installation , occurs the project proponent will be required to obtain a District permit for all work within the District's easement or that may impact the pipeline. 2. The DEIR notes on page 3-36 state that this work will occur near riparian habitat , but will are not expected to disturb the habitat. The work, unless it can be done completely from within the existing pipe, will require work within the creek and the riparian habitat ; and therefore, may require regulatory permits in addition to the District permit. The DEIR should note that these additional permits may be required and include additional information regard i ng how this work will be performed in order to properly assess its potential impacts . 3. The DEIR notes in a number of places (pages 3-108,3-120 , 3-132) that the site is located outside of the dam inundation area for Lexington Reservoir as the inundation area is limited to the west side of Hwy 17 . Based on the District's inundation map for Lexington Reservoir a portion of the site would be subject to i nundation . The site would not be subject to inundation from Vasona Reservoir. 4 . Page 3-130 notes that the hydro-modification analysis assumed "90% impervious, which is a conservative assumption, given the requirement for 30% open space within the P l an Area. " Our mission i s to prov i de Silicon Volley safe, clean water for a healrhy l ife , environment, and economy . Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4
Mr. Joel Paulson Page 2 May 19, 2014 This statement should refer to the 20% green open space requirement, not the 30% total open space, which includes 10% hardscape since hardscape areas are impervious . 5. The analysis for development of the Plan Area indicates impacts to flooding and capacity of Los Gatos Creek are insignificant. Please note however, the District has raised concerns in the past regarding the adequacy of the flood study and mapping completed after construction of Highway 85, including associated channel improvement and mitigation, including the fact that the floodwall and levee upstream of Highway 85 are uncertified but appear to contain flows on the flood maps. We suggest the Town consider completing a study of this area of Los Gatos Creek in the future to determine the adequacy of the flood mapping. Also, previously the project proponent proposed increasing the floodwall height at the mobile home park by 1 foot to make it consistent with the adjacent levee on the Yuki property . Please indicate if this item of work is still proposed. 6. District records show 4 wells located on the project site. To protect groundwater quality and in accordance with District Ordinance 90-1, all existing wells affected by new or redevelopment need to be identified and properly registered with the District and either be maintained or destroyed in accordance with the District's standards. Destruction of any well and the construction of any new wells proposed, including monitoring wells, requires a permit from the District prior to construction. Property owners or their representative should contact the District Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660, for more information . Please forward a copy of the Final EIR when available . If you have any questions or need further information, you can reach me at (408) 630-2322. Si ~r v-Colleen Haggerty, P .E. Associate Civil Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: S. Tippets, C. Haggerty, M. Martin, File 25933_56793ch05-19 Comment 4, cont.Comment 5 Comment 6
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-135 Response to Letter 29 from Santa Clara Valley Water District (May 19, 2014) 1. The comment is noted. The location of Sa nta Clara Valley Water District pipelines and other facilities was presented in the Draft EI R (Figure 24 Santa Clara Valley Water District Facilities). 2. The work involves removing a cap from an existing drainage pipe, and installing a flap gate in its place. It is anticipated that the wo rk could be completed without working directly within the banks of the creek, and that a permit would not be required. 3. Both the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR (Figure 4.8-2) and the Association of Bay Area Government maps indicate that fl ooding from failure of the dam at Lexington Reservoir would not result in inundation within the Plan Area. However, mapping prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District contradict s this information, and the ABAG maps have been removed from their website since research for the Draft EIR was conducted. Therefore, the Draft EIR has been revised to acknowledge that th e Plan Area is within the inundation area of the Lexington Reservoir. Lenihan Dam was upgraded within the past five years to strengthen its seismic resistance, and dams are regularly inspecte d by the state to assure safety, so the impact would be less than significant. 4. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR has been revised to note that the Specific Plan requires 20 percent green space (pervious), rather than 30 percent open space. In either case, the 90 percent impervious assumption used in the hydrology report is conservative. 5. The comment is noted. An increase in the height of the flood wall at the Bonnie View Mobile Home Park adjacent to Los Gato s Creek will be required, if needed. 6. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR acknowledges the presence of the four monitoring wells (page 3-108). Removal of wells is subject to standard regulations.
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw@me.com ] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:47 PM To: Greg Larson Cc: Mike Wasserman; Rod Diridon Subject: DEIR No. 40 (20) Dear Greg:Please include the below comments in the DEIR for the No. 40. The rate of traffic increase should be factored in some fashion into the anticipated impacts. I also think we need to get as clear as picture as possible of whether the VTA light-rail line will be exte nde d to Los Gatos, and when.John Shepardson, Esq.59 N. Santa Cruz Ave., #Q Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 395-3701 http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_24486581/traffic-jams -para lyz ing-bay-area?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com Traffic jams paralyzing Bay Area By Gary Richards Comment 1
grichards@mercurynews.com Posted: 11/10/2013 12:01:00 AM PST Updated: 11/10/2013 05:42:31 PM PST Quoting from article: San Jose had the 13th worst congestion in the nation in 2010, but now ranks fifth, according to Inrix, which monitors traffic nationwide. "We are only experiencing the tip of t he Silicon Valley congestion iceberg," said Rod Diridon of the Mineta Transportation Institute. "Since what we knew of as full employment be fore the Great Recession, government has been unable to invest significantly in highway capacity expansion." (emphasis added)He says Silicon Valley will soon bump against "t erminal gridlock" like the kind that occurred in Beijing six years ago when commuters were trapped in their cars for days. (emphasis added) "The capital of China was nearly paralyzed for almost seven days while that massive traffic jam was cleared," Diridon said. "That crisis doesn't happen gradually. There is no quick fix."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San-Jose-Traffic-Doubles-Worst-Increase-In-Country-231481091.html San Jose Traffic Doubles; Worst Increase In Country California drivers spend 62 hours in traffic per year -- and it may be getting worse. By Chris Roberts | Monday, Nov 11, 2013 | Updated 6:25 PM PDT San Jose saw the biggest jump in traffic cong estion of any city in the United States over the past year, according to reports. Kris Sanchez reports. San Jose saw the biggest jump in traffic cong estion of any city in the United States over the past year, according to reports. Regular traffic jams throughout the South Bay are doubli ng drives and making San Jose the country's fifth-most congested city, up from 13th-most congested in 2010, according to the San Jose Mercury News. MORE: Bay Area Traffic Map An improving economy is putting more driver s behind the wheel to go to work -- and in San Jose, they have no choice but to drive, a ccording to transit experts -- and it's also putting more big rig trucks out on the roads to haul goods, according to the newspaper. Honolulu, Hawaii, is still the country's mo st-congested city, followed by Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland (considered one city for traffic purposes) and then San Jose, the newspaper reported. Drivers quoted by the newsp aper reported driving four miles in 35 minutes -- and considering it good -- and seeing regular evening rituals of hourslong slogs. TWITTER: Follow NBC Bay Area Traffic Guy Mike Inouye Even the experts marvel at San Jose's rapid rise.
"That's incredible, to have such a huge increase so quickly," said Jamie Holter of Inrix, the firm which crunched the numbers and quantif ied the time spent in traffic jams. http://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2059 The Dell Avenue development project in Campbe ll is just down Winchester outside of Los Gatos. There is linkage in traffic between Winchester, Lark and Los Gatos Blvd.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-142 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 30 from Sh epardson (May 19, 2014) 1. The Draft EIR includes a chapter on transporta tion and traffic, based on a traffic impact analysis that was prepared to estimate project-generated vehicle trips and their impacts on the road network. Draft EIR page 3-199 notes that the light rail extension and station is planned but that no timetable has been established for construc tion. No funding has been identified to extend the Winchester-Mountain View light rail line so uth to Los Gatos. The Supplemental EIR for the Vasona Corridor light rail extension, which wo uld extend light rail to the planned Hacienda Avenue and Vasona Junction, was certified by the VTA Board of Directors on March 6, 2014.
1 From:jak vannada <jvannada@gmail.com>Sent:Monday, May 19, 2014 3:42 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:Questions on the DEIR and Specific Plan for the North 40.Attachments:North 40 Specific Plan and DEIR Comments.docx Good afternoon Joel, pls include these questions in reference to the DEIR for the North 40 project. I don’t think there is enough time given to us to really go through roughly 2500 pages of DEIR and the Specific Plan and would like for the town to consider extendi ng the time to reply on this one in particular. Thanks, Jak
North 40 Specific Plan and DEIR Comments at the Planning Co mmission Meeting. In general, I am for the North 40 development. I will fo llow up this speech with the data that generates my comments and send to the Planning Commissi on. In 3 minutes, you can't comment on a DEIR and a Specific Plan that numbers ab out 2500 pages. I will say that I would like to see a more complete, more defined EIR and Specific Plan. There are too many loopholes. My 3 minutes tonight is only to express that the Albright and North 40 developments will remove the gray mist betw een the definition of a sma ll town and that of a small city. No small town that I call a small town has an 7-8 lane arte rial. Call us what makes you feel good, but we're no longer a small town and need to act more like a small city. These two huge developments wi thin .8 of a mile of one another, plus two new large medical buildings almost next door, will, in my non-professional opinion, give us gridlock during the commute hours. And for what, for tax dollars that will go to the schools and the town that will be eaten up as the cost of services increases while the property taxes inch upwards. It looks good on the front en d, but we're only looking at today and not looking at wh at our kids and grandkids will inherit in the future. If we have to be a small city, then I r ecommend that we soften the hard edges of heavy traffic with better planni ng for the vast number of pe ople who either live here or come here to bike, hike or wa lk. We have a plan to put a bike lane on Lark with this new development, but it, like so many things, is like vapo rware. It may or may not happen, and likely won't because they're ev idently putting in a wider than necessary median hoping that the bike lane will somehow come to fr uition later. Small towns have safe bike lanes; small cities have kamika ze lanes, or nothing at all - as is the case with the Lark plan. I find it disturbing that there are numerou s references to buildings with undefined heights (ref North Forty Specifi c Plan EIR, aka, NFSPEIR section 3.0 Pg 3.8) that can change with the topography or by CUP. The Specific Plan is very unspecific, leaving it open for more design as you go planning. A group of us has stuck with the developm ent process for the past few years feeling that the traffic and the school s would suffer with the increase in development. We are concerned that the town relie s on potentially bad data. For instance, we did our own survey on students that came from Laurel Mews vs the num ber of students that were Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4
projected by using formula numbers. The actu al students from those two projects were off by 100%. In other words, twice as many were generated as were predicted. If the North 40 is going to have as many as 327 units with at least 1000 sq. ft, there is a great potential to overwhelm th e schools. I raised two kids in 1100 sq. ft until they were of high school age. I don't think the parents th at are concerned about the number of students in class re alize the potential of the futu re increase of students per teacher. Most disturbingly, I don't think anyone is following up by matching the predictions vs the reality. I went to the town engineering office to obtain traffic counts on city streets. I was told that only old traffic counts were on line, bu t if I gave them some intersections, they would send me the data. I haven't received the data for 10 days. However, the same engineer told me that I did not need to be concerned as the projections were very conservative and there had been negligible traffic increases in the past 10 years. With that said, I asked him if anyone followed up the projections wi th an analysis of projected vs actual. The to wn does not do that. For two such critical number s, I would like to see the town quit using the data generated from manuals and adjust the studen t counts accordingly so that the schools can better plan their future. I would like to see the engin eering department do traffic counts a year after a project is occupied to see how the accurate the traffic engineers were with their projections. I simply do not believe wh at we're being told by the professionals anymore. Jak Van Nada Comment 4, cont.Comment 5 Comment 6 Comment 7
North 40 DEIR and Specific Plan Pg 14 - pass by reduction of 25% Does the traffic count take in to account the fact that the development could be a large destination draw to people outside of the immediate neighborhoods, similar to Santana Row? It seems that the ITE is based on averages across the United States, whereas, Santana Row is well above average as a draw and I would guess that the North 40 will be likewise. Pg - change the design on th e sound walls to more appealing look Can the sound walls have a more aestheti c look? Sound walls are becoming much more attractive than the ones I see in the rendering of the development Pg 44 - North Forty Specific Plan TIA - I don't understand how east boun d traffic on Lark will or even should be able to make a left turn onto "South A" str eet of the new develo pment. They will be crossing 3 lanes of traffic that will be genera ted by three left turn, northb ound lanes on LG Blvd. and 1 rt turn, southbound lane from LG Blvd, plus cars coming out of th e gas station and from the Office Depot building. Pg 3-188 "Significant and Unavoidable Traffic Congestion Impacts due to funding constraints............" Are we putting the cart before the horse ju st as they have done at Santana and the Westfield Malls? It is well over 10 years befo re the traffic congesti on was even worked upon. Why create a problem that has no fix? The Community Benefit of the tax revenues will be more th an offset by the costs of the le ngthened commute. This will be a high pollution area; people will add si gnificant time to th eir lives with the extraordinary confluence of traffi c in the area; and the town will lose what little is left of it's "small town feel" without a significant incr ease in pedestrian and bike friendly paths. Comment 8 Comment 9 Comment 10 Comment 11
Pg 3-9 Building Heights are allowed to 45 for affordable ho using. All living units should be limited to 35 feet. Additional He ight = additional traffic for which you do not have the funds to construct the proper size d roads in the first pl ace. Why make the residents of Los Gatos suffer when we have a problem without a solution? Because there is no solution, is this problem being passed off to th e next group(s) of Council people? Why is there no specified increa se of building heights for of fice, motel or residential in the Transition and Northern Dist ricts ? It's not right to leav e this large planning gap to be filled at a later date. Pg 3-43 - TCM D-1 Los Gatos is known for the peop le that hike, bike, walk and run. However, there is only a mention of a bike lane on Lark Avenue, and that for a very short distance. With the tw o huge developments at each end of Lark, and Los Gatos losing it's small town stature, to become a small city, the edges could be smoothed by embracing the environment an d building a more hike,bike, walk, run city. Not only would we like to see a designated, safe bike lane on Lark, but we would like for the town to consider using the combin ed Community Benefit funds from Albright and the North 40 to purchase a bike pathwa y connecting the two la rge developments. This would give road less access to the employ ees of Netflix as well as the residents of Charter Oaks and those living as far as Quito Road. It would be a fine way to tie the north end of town together to give them a similar identity such as the south end has. Jak Van Nada 165 Euclid Ave. Los Gatos, Ca. 95030 Comment 12 Comment 13 Comment 14
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-148 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 31 from VanNada (May 19, 2014) 1. Refer to the Master Response on Transpor tation. The transportation impact analysis (Draft EIR Appendix M) includes a cumulative tr affic analysis that considers the effects of approved and pending future projects near the Plan Area. 2. The Town determined that later development of the Lark Avenue bike lanes was appropriate. A Class I multi-modal path to ac commodate bicycle and pedestrian circulation would be constructed within the Plan Area alon g Lark Avenue concurrent with development of the Lark District. Additionally, the Lark Avenue ri ght-of-way adjacent to the Plan Area is sized to accommodate future bike lanes. 3. The Draft EIR cites the height standards presented in the Specific Plan. Also, refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 5. According to the Town’s Traffic Engineer, based on historical traffic counts, the actual traffic increases on Town streets have been lowe r than the estimated traffic increase in traffic impact analysis reports for past private development projects. 6. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 7. Refer to the response to Comment 5. 8. Traffic generation is based on standard ge neration factors that equate to the proposed development. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. 9. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires a desi gn or vegetative treatment to improve aesthetics. 10. The eastbound left-turn pocket at Highland Oaks Drive/Lark Avenue would be used by vehicles entering the residential potion of the pr oject site. Therefore most of the vehicles would be generated by residents who would be familiar wi th traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Plan Area and who would make adjustments to their travel routes based on ambient traffic conditions. The projected volumes are fewer than 50 vehicles during the AM peak hour and fewer than 100 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Gaps in westbo und traffic caused by the traffic signal at the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Bo ulevard are anticipated to accommodate these turning vehicles. The left-turn movement is forecast ed to operate at LOS C, an acceptable level, during both the AM and PM peak hours under future Cumulative + Project conditions.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-149 11. Refer to the Master Response on Tran sportation. The reference to “significant unavoidable traffic congestion impacts due to funding constraints” is from the General Plan EIR’s evaluation, not for the proposed project. 12. Given that the number of residential units is capped at 364 within the Plan Area, additional height will not lead to additional units and vehicle trips. Higher density housing has a lower trip generation rate per unit than low density housing. 13. Building height limits and exceptions cited in the Draft EIR are taken from the Specific Plan. Building height is a potential aesthetic issue discussed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR considered the potential aesthetic effects of the allowed buildings and determined these buildings would have a less-than-significant impact. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson regarding building heights in excess of 45 feet. 14. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan plans for a bicycle lane on Lark Avenue. A bridge over State Route 17 from the project site to the Los Gatos Creek Trail was considered but the Town determined that it was not feasible.
Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3
Comment 3, cont.Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6
Comment 6, cont.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-153 Response to Letter 32 from Santa Clar a Valley Transportation Authority (May 19, 2014) 1. The comment is noted. 2. The comment is noted. 3. The comment is noted. As noted in the comment, the project is a Specific Plan and does not have the detail of a development project. 4. The Draft EIR incorrectly characterizes the existing condition on this freeway segment (LOS E) as below acceptable standards. The Draft EIR has been corrected to indicate that LOS E is an acceptable level of service on this freeway segment. The Draft EIR identified one of the State Route 85 segments as experiencing sign ificant and unavoidable impacts for only one of the development scenarios; both scenarios are so affected. As requested by the commenter, the Draft EIR has been corrected to match the analysis in the TIA. 5. Refer to the response to Comment 5 in Le tter 18 from Caltrans and the Master Response on Transportation. 6. The comment is noted. The Specific Plan anticipates that the existing bus stops along Los Gatos Boulevard will be retained, and that the sidewalks serving those bus stops will be enhanced.
1 From:bmurtfeldt@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:14 PM To:Joel Paulson Subject:North 40 Project Dear LG Planning Commission, I am writing you today as a result of your recent hearing for the North 40 project. While I believe that Los Gatos can benefit from well-designed, high quality deve lopment projects in line with the City's building codes, I am concerned about the recent building trends in our community. Many new projects are seeking, and have received, multiple variances for lo t splitting, set-backs, roof-to-lot ratios and height restrictions that have resulted in the densification of our city. The North 40 project appears to be one of these. It adds 364 residences to our community. How will the City provide necessary municipal services to these additional 364 families? Is there a plan to add additional electrical, natural gas, water, sewage and telecommunications services to accommodate the increased demand, or should I expect more brownouts, lower water pres sures and more telecomm interruptions in the future? How will our already overcrowded school classrooms deal with an additiona l 7 - 800 children that this development may bring to our community and still maintain a top-notch r eputation for secondary education here? How can our town provide expanded thoroughfares and additional parking to handle 7 - 800 additional automobiles that will appear on our streets? In previous communities in which I've lived, real estate developers have been responsible for enhancing the infrastructure of a community to accommodate its new residents. I would suggest that the developers on the North 40 project be held responsible for more that just providing the City with an EIR. They should provide additional financial resources to the City in the form of escrows for sp ecific purposes - building new schools, treatment plants, expanded roadways and parking areas, etc. Thank you and sincerely, Robert Murtfeldt 226 Bella Vista Avenue Los Gatos Comment 1 Comment 2
Dear Planning Department, I attended the unofficial meeting held by the developer Grosnevor several weeks ago to better understand the North Forty development plans. I stayed the 3 1 /2 hours to hear the details. I also attended the Planning Department hearing about community comments on the North Forty Specific Plan. Clearly we and many in the community are very concerned about important shortcomings of the new plan. The increased students added to the public schools, major traffic issues on Lark and Los Gatos Blvd, and plans for new buildings that do not fit the current height restrictions are all red flags that need to be better addressed. Many also worry how new commercial development will affect the downtown businesses already paying premium rents to be in Los Gatos. While I think the developer is very respected and highly recommended, I believe the plan that has been developed by the group in the community is flawed. The EIR is a large document that most in Los Gatos will never read. What we like about the community is what needs to be preserved as this large parcel is developed. The recent developments that have been approved and built have started a wave of new development that is pushing new boundaries on what future development in Los Gatos looks like. The developer showed much taller buildings including plans for a five story empty nester building , multi unit buildings for young adults with one bedroom and senior housing with underground parking that includes 4 stories. These are not the kind of housing projects that currently make up the community. Does Los Gatos need a Santana Row type multi story development? The public schools are now at capacity. Plans in the EIR for schools do not address how the additional students will be safely handled. Sending students to Lexington should not be the answer to overcrowding of our local schools. Neighborhood schools are the draw that brings in new families to this community. The EIR formulas for projecting additional students to the district of this new specific plan are flawed. The school district should be asked to provide actual numbers of students that have been added to the district based on new developments like Bluebird Lane and the recent development on Los Gatos Blvd. The traffic studies in the EIR need to be updated to reflect the increased traffic that new development has already created. The intersection of Los Gatos Blvd and Blossom Hill Road now reflects how the additional traffic will look like in the future. When finding parking spaces at Walgreens or Whole Foods at anytime of the day now has become challenging, we know the population of Los Gatos is increasing. Development is important for Los Gatos. But why change the standards that have created the community that is so endeared to the Silicon Valley. We need to find developers that want to build projects that meet the current standards of height limits and density requirements. I have included the words from a Joni Mitchell song that remind me of the importance of careful development of the precious undeveloped farm land of the North Forty. Sincerely, Kathy & Bob Murtfeldt, 226 Bella Vista Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
"Big Yellow Taxi" They paved paradise And put up a parking lot With a pink hotel, a boutique And a swinging hot SPOT Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got 'Til it's gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot They took all the trees And put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people A dollar and a half just to see 'em Don't it always seem to go, That you don't know what you've got 'Til it's gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot Hey farmer, farmer Put away that DDT now Give me spots on my apples But LEAVE me the birds and the bees Please! Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got 'Til its gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot I said Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got 'Til it's gone They paved paradise And put up a parking lot They paved paradise And put up a parking lot They paved paradise And put up a parking lot
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-157 Response to Letter 33 from Murfeldt (May 20, 2014) 1. Electrical, natural gas, and telecommuni cations services are provided by private commercial entities, which fund capacity incr eases with service fees collected. Existing capacities are generally suitable for new develo pment, and expansions within already developed areas do not generally require extensive work that results in environmental impacts. The Draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts on publically provided water and wastewater. Refer to Draft EIR Section 3.12 Population and Public Services. 2. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. The comment appears to tie an increase of 700 to 800 new students to an increase of 700 to 800 new cars on the streets. The Draft EIR estimated a much lower student generation rate, and traffic associated with students is not a direct one-to-one correlation. Traffic associated with the new students is accounted for in the trip generation estimates, as a part of th e total per-unit trip generation factor. 3. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 4. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 5. According to the traffic consultant, traffic volumes from recent traffic counts conducted in the area are very similar to the volumes used in the Existing Conditio ns therefore reinforcing the Existing Conditions analysis. The transportation analysis includes traffic estimates for approved and pending development projects to a ccount for new development that occurs during the project planning and approval process.
I will focus my comments on the Urban Decay section of the huge EIR report. A report by the way that was funded by the proposed developer, Grovensner. That said, I have several points to make about the Urban Decay Analysis which concludes through a series of flawed assumptions that the downtown of Los Gatos will not be hurt by the North 40 developm ent. The yardstick for a successful downtown should be that our downtown exhibits an intense vitality not whether buildings are vacant which seems to be the yardstick used in the report. The measure should be: are the streets full of s hoppers and diners; are th e stores and re staurants prosperous, not are they just getting by. The report does not mention the square footage of the downtown, only the 400,000 square ft of retail in the North 40. The best guesses I have seen are that the core area of the downtown has around 2 30,000 sq ft. The North 40 the n is almost twice the size of the downtown, close to the size of Santana Row; it is projected to do $225 million in sales; it will have an undetermined amount of small retail and restaurants that will clearly compete with the downtown; it will be beautiful ly landscaped with attractive walking pathways; it will have ample parking in contrast to the downtown which clearly has a parking problem, and it is located conveniently right off the freeway; yet this report defies common sense and concludes that the No 40 will not ca use harm to the vitality of the downtown. How is that possible? The report continually referred to the la rge RTA, (retail trade area) as the source for all the new customers that will support the North 40 and somehow keep the downtown healthy. The RTA includes a large part of Santa Clara County. The mandate though for the Nort h 40 from the North 40 Draft Specifi c Plan of Aug 2, 2012 states clearly that the North 40 retail, eating and drinking establishments "... are intended to serve North 40 residents, adjacent neighborhoods and nearby employment centers" The North 40 is not intended to appeal to the massive RTA, bu t rather to the local neig hborh ood. The RTA should never have been used as the base of customers for this analysis. The North 40 has always been intended as a neighborhood center not a regional draw, yet somehow the urban decay report looked at it as a regional center. Wh o inst ru cted them to do that? The RTA used in the Urban Decay Report missed the point of the type of center the No 40 is supposed to be and clearly ignored the instruction of the Draft Specific Plan. Is it a regional center like Santana Row, or a small neighborhood center? There are potential uses for the North 40 that fit into the towns vision statement: "the north 40 will address the Town's residential and /or commercial unmet needs " First the report clearly states that the town is losing sales dollars to other cities because Los Gatos does not have large General Merchandise stores like a Targ et and does not have any large building materials store. This is clearly as the report states an unmet need. Small retail and restaurants which the developer wants to build is a met need by the downtown and other part s of Los Gato s. The developers desire to build small retail clearly contradicts the towns vision statement for the North 40, and the conclusions of the EIR concerning the type of sales we are losing to communities outside of Los Gatos.. Is the town’s vision statement for the North 40 to be ignored? Comment 1
The EIR was concluded before the developer has introduced their idea of a Phase 1 and Phase 2 of construction. Phase 1 is 66,000 ft of small retail and also housing. Phase 2 will be an additional 334,000 ft of retail and a hotel. Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve only Phase 1 leaving Phase 2 vague and for the future? How could the EIR have done an a ccur ate study of Urban Decay if they did not know if Phase 2 is big box stores or all small retail? The PC must consider both of these projects together. How can you approve Phase 1 if you do no t kn ow what Phase 2 is? In conclusion, the report concludes to the delight of the developer that the North 40 will not harm the downtown's economic vitality. But what if the report is wrong? The north 40 will risk destroying the signature fe ature of Los Gatos: it's bea u tiful, vibrant downtown. It is time to ask ourselves and especially those who are entrusted to lead us, why take that risk? Comment 1, cont.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-160 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 34 from Rathman (undated) 1. While there are different ways to measure the “success” of a retail center or district, the definition of urban decay is dictated by case law related to CEQA. CEQA is an assessment of physical impacts on the environment; store closures and “intense vitality” are not direct physical impacts on the environment. Two of the guiding court decisions with respect to urban decay are Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, Panama 99 Properties LLC, and Castle & Cooke Commercial-CA, Inc., and Anderson First Coalition et al. v. City of Anderson et al. and FHK Companies, et al. The Bakersfield case makes clear that economic impacts alone are not a CEQA impact, stating that “the economic and social e ffects of proposed projects are outside CEQA’s purview.” Furthermore, only “if the forecasted ec onomic or social effects of a proposed project directly or indirectly will lead to adverse ph ysical changes in the en vironment, then CEQA requires disclosure and analysis of these resulting physical impacts.” The Urban Decay Analysis, while considering these economic issues, only does so in the context of assessing the potential for physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, it should be noted that the Urban Decay Analysis estimate s retail sales at approximately $215 million annually, not $225 million. Regardless of the type of retail, the proposed project will attract shoppers from the new and existing adjacent neighborhoods and throughout the Retail Trade Area, in part due to its location adjacent to the intersection of two major region-serving freeways. The Draft EIR studied a Specific Plan for develo pment of the Plan Area over a period of 20 years, and phasing of development in some form is anticipated. For the Urban Decay Analysis, BAE used the best information available at the time of analysis, when specifics of phasing had not been proposed. BAE conservatively assumed the entire retail portion of the project would be open and operating under current market conditions. Any phasing would lessen any impacts, as the overall region grows. According to the Specific Plan, the only restriction on retail space size is a 50,000 square foot limit for any individual commercial tenant. As noted on page 59 of the Urban Decay Analysis, “Because the project does not have any disclosed, committed tenants at this time, urban decay impacts have been assessed for a general mix of retail and other uses.” Aside from the 50,000 square foot cap, the Urban Decay Analysis makes no specific assumptions about the floorplates of individual tenants, but notes that floorplates of 10,000 square feet or more are in limited supply downtown.
Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3
Comment 3, cont.Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8
Comment 8, cont.
Comment 8, cont.
Comment 9 Comment 10
Comment 11 Comment 12 Comment 13 Comment 14 Comment 15
Comment 16 Comment 17 Comment 18 Comment 19 Comment 20
Comment 21 Comment 22 Comment 23 Comment 24 Comment 25 Comment 26 Comment 27 Comment 28 Comment 29 Comment 30
Comment 31 Comment 32 Comment 33
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-172 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Response to Letter 35 from Quintana (undated) 1. The comment is noted. 2. CEQA Guidelines requires that effects be identified, along with mitigation to reduce the effects, but does not provide specific direction on how to word the effects. The wording in the summary table is taken from the impact statements presented in the body of the draft EIR. The summary table includes all of the mitigation measures presented in the body of the Draft EIR. 3. The Draft EIR sections are presented in the same order (alphabetically) as in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, with the exce ption that mineral resources are combined with geology and soils, and population, housing, and public services were combined into a single chapter. CEQA Guidelines do not include any requirements on the order that information is presented. 4. The Draft EIR traffic section distils the info rmation in the traffic impact analysis to a length and format that is intended to be easier for the general public to understand. The traffic impact tables, for example, exclud e those intersections where there is not a significant impact, so that attention can be focused on project impacts. 5. In determining the level of impact stated in the Draft EIR, the Town considered its typical practices in regard to historic resources in addition to the information in the historic technical reports. Based on public comments, and in an abundance of caution, the Town has determined to revise the Draft EIR in this particul ar case to characterize the effects on historic resources not only as signific ant (as identified in the Draft EIR), but unavoidable as well. 6. Typically, each appendix is cited at the initial reference within a section of the Draft EIR. 7. A significant number of references in the bibliography have web links, and a disc was provided to the Town with many of the references linked from an index. In general, if no link is provided, the document is not available on the internet. This is the case with many print published sources. Page references are listed at th e point of reference in the text, when applicable. Since there may be multiple references in the text for the same referenced document, it is not possible to list page references in the bibliography. 8. The historic reports were prepared to provide information and independent historic assessment of the structural and related reso urces within the Plan Area. The reports were considered in preparing the Draft EIR’s historic re sources section, along with Town policies and practices relating to historic resources. It was de termined that some of the resources identified as potentially historic in the report were not historic. None of the resources are officially considered historic; this determination requires that the process with the State Office of Historic
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-173 Preservation has been completed, although the lead agency effectively makes this determination when certifying an EIR within which significant impacts on historical resources are determined. In several cases, structures identified in the historic report were altered from the original condition and may have lost some historical integrity. 9. Refer to the responses to Comments 11-13 below. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2 from Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of the orchard. 10. Refer to the responses to Comments 5 and 8. 11. Aerial photographs, dating back to 1939, we re reviewed to assess the history of orchards in the Plan Area and adjacent areas. The 1939 ph otograph indicates that the present orchard was part of a large area of predominately (but not exclusively) orchards that extended beyond the Plan Area, all the way to Los Gatos Creek in th e area along Lark Avenue, and all the way to present-day Oka Road north of the barn and hous e. Not all of the Plan Area was planted in orchards as of 1939. Historic property records indicate a variety of ownerships over the Plan Area, and not all landowners planted orchards. In the 1939 photograph, the south central area, northward of present-day Bennett Way, and the areas near the present-day sheds and red barn do not appear to be planted in orchards. The undeveloped section of the Plan Area north of the house and barn appears to have been in non-or chard use from at least 1965 through 1999. The north-south road through the orchard first beco mes evident in the 1976 photograph. Based on review of these photographs, the Draft EIR conclu des that the configuration of the orchard has changed over the years. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2 from Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of the orchard, and to the responses to Comments 12 and 13 below. Four aerial photographs (1949 to 1981) are refere nced in the Carey historic report dated March 28, 2014 (page 39) included in Draft EIR Append ix G. These aerial photographs are listed as available at the San Jose Public Library. Additionally, the Ph ase 1 environmental assessment report, included in Draft EIR Appendix I includes copies of the historic maps and aerial photographs (1939 to 2006) referenced in that report. 12. Based on the historic photographic eviden ce that indicates changes over time in the extent of the Plan Area that was used as an orchard, and the current encroachment of freeways, roadways, commercial buildings, and residences, the it was concluded that the orchard did not qualify as a potentially historic resource. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2 from Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of th e orchard, and to the response to Comments 9, 11, and 13. 13. Orchards are replanted over time, and in the case of this orchard, evidence suggests that the type of trees may have changed over time, and portions of the Plan Area were used for other types of uses over time. Therefore, there is not a history of consistent uses of the orchard in the
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-174 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . location and configuration that exists today. The configuration referred to in the Draft EIR had to do with location of trees within the Plan Area and surrounding areas, rather than the layout of trees within the orchard. Refer also refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 2 from Wojtkowski in regard to historic value of the orchard, and to the responses to comments 9, 11, and 12. 14. Two historic reports were presented in the Draft EIR appendices, but based on other evidence available to the Town, as discussed ab ove in responses to comments 9, 11, 12, and 13, conclusions were reached that in some instances varied from the conclusions in the historic reports. 15. The environmental review focuses on effect s on public views, as permitted under CEQA. (See Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1337, quoting Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 586 [“obstruction of a few private views in a project's immediate vicini ty is not generally regarded as a significant environmental impact”]; see also Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 477, 492-494.) Because the analysis focuses on effects on public views, effects on on-site views are not addressed as potential environmental impacts. Specific layout of buildings within the Plan Area and preservation of views from within the Plan Area would be considered by the Town during Architecture and Site Review. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson regarding effects of height exceptions. 16. Findings would be required for all height ex emptions as stated in the Specific Plan. The Draft EIR has been revised to clarify the language about this requirement. 17. The comment is noted. The Draft EIR analyz ed a Specific Plan at a programmatic level rather than a development plan or site plans. Development projects in the Plan Area will undergo further visual review, if necessary, when they are proposed, and project-specific design information is available. Future development within the Plan Area is subject to Architecture and Site Review, which will include review of potential effects on views. 18. The comment appears to concur with the Draft EIR. 19. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 20. The comment is noted. 21. The comment refers to Specific Plan policies, and is not directed to the content of the Draft EIR. Refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-175 22. The analysis focuses on existing views from public locations. Refer to the response to Comment 15. 23. The Specific Plan establishes height regulations that vary from those of the General Plan. Refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 24. The discussion of significance is based on the Standards of Significance presented on Draft EIR pages 3-7 and 3-8. The thresholds of significance are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. 25. The State Route 17 viewpoint was selected as the most highly visible location and a location from which the Plan Area was locate d between the view point and the hills. Similar views would be visible from State Route 85, exce pt that a sound wall significantly obscures the view. Refer also to the response to Comment 15. 26. The vegetation below the ridgeline does frame the overall view of the hills, but does not constitute a part of the hills themselves. The Town ’s visual policies are not intended to prevent the construction of buildings, but to assure that the construction of buildings does not significantly block scenic views. The Draft EIR analysis indicates that the proposed project would not significantly block views of the hills. Refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 27. Figure 14, Plan Area View from State Route 17, is presented to illustrate reference points in the accompanying text, not to provide details as to the apparent height above the highway or Plan Area. In fact, perceived building heights, as seen from any given view point, will vary depending on distance from and viewing an gle towards the building. See also Draft EIR Appendix B Visual Simulation. 28. The simulations in Appendix B show the pr imary height limit of 45 feet. Buildings in excess of 45 feet are allowed only subject to findings that the buildings do not result in a significant visual impact. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson regarding the potential for buildings in excess of 35 feet or 45 feet to affect scenic views. 29. The comment refers to Specific Plan policies, and is not directed to the content of the Draft EIR. However, refer also to the response to Comment 15 and to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 30. The conclusion that potential aesthetic impacts would be miti gated to a less-than-significant level is supported by information presented in the Draft EIR. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson, regarding how increased building heights are off-set by increased open space, due both to limitations on total building square footage and
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-176 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . policies requiring additional open space in exch ange for additional height. The Draft EIR for the Specific Plan is a program-level document. Specific building designs will be reviewed as specific development projects are proposed. 31. Potential for degradation of visual character is addressed on Draft EIR pages 3-13 through 3-15. The Draft EIR conclusion of less than significant is based on the Specific Plan’s policies and consistency with the General Plan’s direction for the Plan Area. The Plan Area includes a mix of uses, of which the orchard occupies about two thirds of the total. A change in the type of land use at a project site is not by itself a significant aesthetic impact under CEQA. 32. The Draft EIR analyzed a Specific Plan at a programmatic level rather than a development plan or site plans. Conclusions are based on the Specific Plan’s policy guidance. 33. The letter correctly states that the General Pl an’s height limits range from 35 feet to 45 feet. The Draft EIR has been corrected. The principa l purpose of the height limits is to protect views, particularly of the hillsides. The Draft EIR concluded that, as mitigated, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on views. 34. The comment is noted. All of the requested information is provided within the Draft EIR and Draft EIR Appendix M. The commenter is requesting a different presentation of the information. 35. The comment is noted. 36. The Draft EIR is based on information in th e traffic impact analysis as well as other sources as cited in the Draft EIR. 37. Revisions were made to the transportation impact analysis to address comments from Town staff, and to address comments made in a peer review conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants. The final transp ortation impact analysis in the Draft EIR incorporates the input from these reviewers. 38. The transportation impact analysis eval uated potential impacts during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and weekday afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods. These are the periods when traffic volumes are typically hi ghest. Any school- and hospital-related trips made during the PM peak hour are reflected in the LOS results. 39. The trip generation for the hotel is based on typical hotel trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th edition, 2008, which assume meeting and convention facilities. 40. Project-related street network changes are unl ikely to result in a substantial amount of cut through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods. Ex isting left turns at Highland Oaks/Lark Avenue,
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-177 Los Gatos Boulevard/Camino del Sol, and Los Gatos Boulevard/Terreno de Flores would be redirected to other intersections, and cut thro ugh traffic would decrease in these locations. Traffic volumes onto and off of these the minor streets at these intersections can be found in the Existing Conditions section of Appendix M. Refe r also to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 20 from Field, D. 41. Non-signalized intersections are included in the list of study intersections. However, there is no set significance threshold for determining unacceptable operations as shown in Table 5 in Draft EIR Appendix M. 42. These are depicted on Figures 15 and 16 in Draft EIR Appendix M. 43. Refer to the response to Comment 5 in Letter 9 from Nedom. 44. The comment is not complete. A Street wi ll have a maximum design speed of 30 mph to ensure motorists are traveling at an appropriate speed when sharing the roadway with bicyclists. Sharrows used in conjunction with Bike May Us e Full Lane signs will let motorists know that bicyclists are allowed to use the full lane and di scourage unsafe passing by motorists. This will accommodate bicyclists if dedicated bicycle la nes are not included in the roadway design. 45. The different options are described on page s 3-221 and 3-222 of the Draft EIR. Graphics have not been prepared. 46. The comments are noted.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Margaret Smith, Chair Kendra Burch, Vice Chair Mary Badame Tom O’Donnell Marico Sayoc Joanne Talesfore Community Development Director Laurel Prevetti Planning Manager Joel Pauls on Town Attorney: Robert Schultz Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337 -1558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR SMITH: We will now move to the public portion of the public hearing and begin with Agenda Item 1, which is identified as the North Forty Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment GP-14 -001, Zoning Code Amendment Z-14 -001, and Environmental Impact Report EIR-10 -002. This is the Planning Commission hearing to accept public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for what is known as the North Forty Specific Plan. That comprises approximately 44 acres located at the northern extent of the Town bordered by Route 17, Route 85, Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act this public hearing is being held during the 45-day public notice period. The notice of availability for review of the Draft EIR was released on April 4 th with the 45-day review period ending on May 19, 2014. This public hearing is an opportunity for members of the public to provide verbal comments on the Draft EIR. Written comments will be accepted until the close of the public hearing on May 19 th .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Just to be certain that you understand, this public hearing is not where the Planning Commission is taking this matter under consideration. We are here this evening to accept your remarks. We ask when you step to the podium if you would please state your name and address and make all of your comments directly to the Commissioners. We’re here to liste n to you this evening. We will not be asking you questions nor will the Staff be doing so as well. At the end of the public hearing portion we will close the matter and then perhaps take a short break, we’re not sure, but just to give you an idea of what the evening is going to look like. Again, please keep in mind that the purpose of this meeting is to accept remarks. Anything else, Mr. Paulson? JOEL PAULSON: I believe potentially the Vice Chair has a statement. VICE CHAIR BURCH: I will need to recuse myself as I live within 500’ of the subject property. However, I’ll sit in the back and I will be ready for Item 2. CHAIR SMITH: All right, and we have promised the Commissioner that we will forget her back there. We will go and get her for Agenda Item 2. VICE CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR SMITH: Before we proceed, are there any questions of the Staff from any Commissioners? All right, seeing none, I will call up the speakers three at a time, and that means if you would just queue behind the speaker. Tha t way we can get through this evening in an orderly way and an expeditious way as well. The first person that is going to speak to us is Jak Van Nada. Could you step forward? He’s going to be followed by Lee Quintana and then by Andy Wu. JAK VAN NADA: Good evening, my name is Jak Van Nada; I live at 165 Euclid in Los Gatos. In general I am for the North Forty development. I will follow up this speech with data that generates my comments tonight and send it to you by the 19 th .The Netflix project, plus the North Forty, within eight -tenths of a mile of one another, plus two new large medical buildings almost next door, will give us gridlock during the commute hours. We are no longer a small town but rather a small city trying to convince ourselves that we’re a small town. If we have to be a small city, then I would recommend that we soften the sharp edges of heavy traffic with better planning for the vast number of people who either live here or come here to hike, bike or walk. Comment 1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Everything we design is for cars, and now that the VTA is trying to add more traffic to 85, when does it stop? This plan is also favoring the car. We have a plan to put a bike lane on Lark with this new development, but it, like so many other things, is like vaporware; it may or may not happen, and likely won’t, because they’re putting in a wider than necessary median, hoping that the bike lane will somehow come to fruition later. Why not do it now? A group of us has stuck with the development process for the past few years feeling that the traffic in the schools would suffer with the increase in development. We are concerned that the Town relies on potentially bad data. For instance, we did out own survey on students that came from Laurel Mews, Bluebird and Charter Oaks versus the number of students that were projected when using formula numbers. The actual students from those two projects were off by 100%. Rancho de Los Gatos, originally a senior adult complex, currently has 19 students going to Los Gatos schools. We have that data if you would like the proof. I went to the Town Engineering Department to obtain traffic counts on City streets. I was told that only old traffic counts were online, but if I gave them some Comment 2 Comment 3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intersections they would send me the data. Ten days later I still haven’t received it. However, that same engineer told me that I did not have to be concerned, as the projections were very conservative and there had been negligible traffic increases in the last ten years. With that said, I asked him if anyone ever followed up the projections with an analysis of the projected versus actual? The Town does not do that in the case of schools nor in the case of traffic. For two such critical numbers I would like to see the Town quit using the data generated from manuals and a djust the student counts accordingly so that the schools can better plan their future. I would like to see the Engineering Department do traffic counts a year after a project is occupied to see how accurate the traffic engineers were with their projections. We simply do not believe the data we’re getting now and don’t believe you should either. Thanks. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Van Nada. Ms. Quintana. LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue. I’m going to keep my comments relative to the Draft EIR itself. This is probably a rare EIR that I have found it easier to understand the project’s impacts and proposed Comment 3 cont.Comment 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mitigation by reading the technical reports with the technical data rather than the text of the EIR itself. I’m going to skip down to my primary subject, and then I’m going to go back and summarize some of the reasons that I made that statement, but my primary comments are on the Historic Resources, which is Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. The technical report, which is in Appendix G on the Histori c Resources, includes a Phase One Historic Evaluation and a Final Historic Resources Technical Report that are not accurately or even adequately summarized in the Draft EIR text itself, nor are the conclusions that are reached by the Draft EIR text supported by the technical reports in the appendices. I suggest that the EIR text be revised to accurately summarize the findings and conclusions of the Historic Resources evaluation, which is Phase One in Appendix G, to accurately summarize the Historic Resources Technical Report, which is the final report in Appendix G, and to explain and support by substantial evidence the differences between the findings and conclusions of significance in those reports and the conclusions reached in the DEIR. Comment 4 cont.Comment 5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I’m going to go back now to some of the comments that I have on the readability and understandability of the Draft EIR. The Summary, which is Section S-1, is a summary of impacts and mitigation measures; however, it does not adequately summarize the impact that the propo sed mitigation is intended to reduce. It is easier to understand the air quality and greenhouse gas impact mitigation reading the technical reports in Appendix D, because in Appendix D the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions assessment are integrated into a single topic. The greenhouse gas emissions, however, is separated from the air quality emissions in the Draft EIR text by three different sections. That leads to discontinuity and it’s hard to understand. Lastly, the Traffic and Transportation section does not provide adequate graphics to easily understand the existing road configurations or the configurations of the proposed mitigation. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Quintana. Following the next speaker will be Amy Despars and Matthew Hudes. Mr. Wu, can you state you name and address for the record? ANDY WU: Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Andy Wu; I live down the street from Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jak Van Nada. If you don't know my exact address, you really don’t need to, but it’s at 28. I w ant to go off topic. I really don’t want to talk about the DEIR because my predecessor, Lee Quintana, has basically stated everything that I would have stated as well, so let me just refer to that graphic and you’ll understand of what I speak. Sunday, 7 December 1941, 0655 hours. Three hundred and fifty three aircraft launch from (inaudible) of the Imperial Japanese Navy make their initial point turn. That’s the IP turn on their way to Pearl Harbor and various targets located within the naval base there. W ithin three hours the Pacific Fleet lies in ruins, all eight battleships, the major ships in port at the time, have been either heavily damaged or are sunk. Only the USS Nevada, having cleared its moorings and gotten under way under its own steam, but was beached by its captain for fear of blocking the harbor entrance. Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short were both relieved of their commands for dereliction of duty. February 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issues Executive Order 9066, which allows military commanders in the area to intern those persons they deem are a danger to national security. War relocation Comment 9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 camps are built all over the United States, however, before they are built 110,000 persons of Japanese heritage —including every single person of Japanese heritage living in California, 62% of which were national born Americans, because there was no naturalization law at that point —are ordered to internment camps. Before they can go to internment camps, however, the have to housed. So where did they house? You look at that map, you see a place like Tanforan, which is a mall now, Pamona, Santa Ana, those are all race tracks, so they had to live in the horse stalls for six months before they could be relocated. And I didn’t even know there were relocation camps in Arkansas, but as far away as Arkansas, as far north as the state of Montana. Now, during this period of time there’s a Yuki family. They own a large portion of the North Forty. Takio (phonetic) Yuki, who lived on that land was charged with treason. Now, he had to fight his way out of that charge and was allowed to rejoin his family. On 2 January 1945 his camp was closed, he’s allowed to return home, and he’s given this: $25 and a train ticket to return to the home that he no longer has. Fortunately for him, his business partner had maintained his farm, so he was allowed, so he could have the means to buy the North Forty. Comment 9 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, wouldn’t it be a great thing if we had some historical preservation on this plot? CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Amy Despars. AMY DESPARS: Hi, my name is Amy Despars, 267 Longridge Road. I am a parent, second generation Los Gatan, and also a teacher here in the community. I am going to start with I think it’s kind of ironic that this lovely brochure, flyer, whatever went out, states that, “The North Forty Draft Specific Plan has been designed to address needed commercial and housing opportunities in the less congested northeast corner of our town.” Less congested. Let’s see, for me to get from Los Gatos Boule vard to Winchester on Lark Avenue, less than one mile, it takes me up to 15 minutes sometimes. For me to get from Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue to 85 takes me up to 15, often. Often. So this to me is false advertising. There are also some other thing s that I’d like to quote in there. “SummerHill Homes and Eden Housing and Grosvenor, one of the world’s oldest real estate companies.” World’s oldest real estate. They don’t know Los Gatos. We are a community, a small town. Many of us grew up here; many of us standing here want to preserve it. Yes, we are growing, but we need to do it in the right way. Comment 1 0 Comment 9 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “Nearly $1.9 million annually for local schools.” That sounds great. The problem is our schools are overcrowded. That $1.9 million is nothing. That will pro vide nothing for our students. We don’t have schools to put these students in. Los Gatos High has no schools to put students in and they’re overcrowded. “Transportation improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists and well as public transit conn ections,” will not help the traffic problem. We’re in a society where people drive. Maybe some people will start to bike, but it’s not going to help the traffic. Here’s one I love. “Housing to fulfill unmet needs for young professionals, move-down locals and seniors while having a minimal impact on schools.” Right now I know families, for a fact, who are living in two bedroom apartments with two, three, four kids. You don’t think people are going to cram their families into these little places? I read it. There’s no minimum age on any of them, except for the one small section of senior. Do you want to put senior housing in there? I love that idea, but you really need to consider, people are cramming their kids into small apartments everywhere. I live off of Carlton; I see it, I know the families. Comment 1 0 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Also, whatever you choose, please no more pizza parlors, no more coffee, no more burrito. Give us something else. Please don’t approve it and really think about what you’re putting in across from Whole Foods and th at area too. I can’t believe what you guys have approved. So please consider all of us. We like to call it “Uptown.” Thank you. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Despars. Mr. Hudes, and then right behind the next speaker will be Terry McBriarty, and then Janice Fok. MATTHEW HUDES: I’m Matthew Hudes, 16631 Madrone Avenue. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about this. I have been a member of the committee looking at the North Forty over the last couple of years. I was on the east coast earlier thi s week. I’m flying out to San Diego this evening. I came back to talk to you about very serious concerns that I have about the Draft EIR. Some aspects of impacts can be mitigated and some of them I think have been raised in terms of traffic, even in terms of schools. The impact that I’d like to talk to you about is the downtown, which is, I think, one that is much less amenable to mitigate measures. Once the downtown starts to decline it will be very difficult to turn that around, and the kind of Comment 1 0 cont.Comment 1 1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 developm ent that’s envisioned in the North Forty I believe has a potentially very substantial negative impact on the heart of the downtown. I think the Draft EIR is very deficient in the way that it has looked at this aspect. Much of the data, or the analysis of the data… The report itself is well written and there’s actually quite a bit of good data that we haven’t seen before on retail activity. The analysis is flawed and it appears to be presented in a way that makes a case for building a new shopping center on the scale of Santana Row. For two years I’ve been urging the Town to look at an economic analysis of this project. The Urban Decay Appendix is a start, but it’s deficient, and I’d like to explain what my main comments are. There are numerous opinions an d conclusions in that report that are offered without basis in fact. For example, the comparison of the ten-minute drive area is not a ten -minute drive area by any means. It’s probably a 25 - or 30 -minute drive area. There are no case studies in that report, despite providing two Staff examples of other urban decay analyses that have case studies. Ones that I suggested that they look at are Sacramento, Walnut Creek, Livermore, Comment 1 1 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pleasanton, Campbell, San Luis Obispo and Napa. There are a few words about Palo Alto, but it’s very old and dated. The main point is that the data cited in the study has been interpreted in a manner favorable to development. When the conclusion is presented that there will be little impact because we have a vibrant downtown, the data does not support that. The data shows a 34% drop in retail since 2000 and that’s not what the conclusion of the report is, so I would urge us to examine that more carefully. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. The next speaker. Introduce yourself. TERRY McBRIARTY: Terry McBriarty, 15075 Garden Hill Drive. I have many concerns about the North Forty and have ever since the first plans went to the drawing board. I have two children in the Los Gatos school system; one is in first grade and one is a third grad er. I’ve seen our school grow from around 500 students to almost 700 students this year, and just more and more students showing up. Practically every month more students show up and there is nowhere to put them. So the idea that you could add all these units and they’re going to be for empty nesters or whatever this Comment 1 1 cont.Comment 1 2
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cute idea is and it’s not going to impact our schools is a joke, and it’s going to be the nail in the coffin that’s the public school system in Los Gatos and it breaks my heart. The main thing I want to talk about was Garden Hill, right off of Lark. I have to drive on Lark several times a day. Every morning, every afternoon, in the night, and the traffic on Lark has become a nightmare and it’s scary. A man lost his life there right around the corner from my house. If my husband had been waiting to go to work at that signal when that man lost control of his vehicle, my husband would be dead. Some of the changes that you’re talking about making seem to be eliminating the small buffer zone between the sidewalk on the bridge where I sometimes ride my bike with my child, where I had a bike accident about a year ago. If that buffer zone were eliminated when I had my bike accident with my child on my bike I probably would have been hit and killed when I fell off the sidewalk. You’re talking about expanding lanes and doing things that are called “improvements” in here, but to me they sound like things that are going to kill people. I see pedestrians ignoring the lights and doing things every day that e ndanger people and the changes Comment 1 2 cont.Comment 1 3 Comment 1 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you’re talking about making are going to endanger more people, such as increasing traffic on Lark while not addressing the issues with Classic Car Wash and the dangers that it causes with people stopping the flow of traffic. Lark is a nightmare that needs to be addressed right now, and adding all the traffic that will be added by these projects, I don't know that that can be fixed. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. Before Ms. Fok comes up, behind her will be Jeff Harlan and Larry Arzie, if you could queue up as well. JANICE FOK: Good evening, I’m Janice Fok. I have a few issues with the DEIR that I would like you to take a look at for the final draft. In Section 2, the Project Description, specifically the Project Vicinity Existing Conditions, page 2.2, states that a private school is located in proximity; that’s actually the JCC. The private school portion of the JCC is 154 students. The JCC is a huge cultural sports and community complex, so I don’t think that traffic has been addressed. Also on the map, called Figure 6, it calls out Carlton Elementary as the nearest elementary school. Carlton Elementary is in the Union School District; it’s Comment 1 4 cont.Comment 1 5 Comment 1 6
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not served by any portion of this parcel, so that’s a misleading figure. In Section 3.0, the Environmental Effects, 3.12, Population Housing and Public Services, it states that the cumulative student load from Guadalupe Mines, Riviera Terrace, South Bay Honda, Swanson Ford, and Thrash House, which is affectionately known as Bluebird, will be a total of 70 students. We don’t have to say will be. All these projects are built and our district should be able to provide us with the actual counts. This is important, because as other speakers have said, the schools are full and I would like you to use actual counts since they are available. Also in Section 3, page 184 states an 80/20 split between the Los Gatos and Campbell-Cambrian School District. That’s only valid if the specific plan is going to mandate such a split, and I don't know if th at’s within the purview of the specific plan. Finally, Section 3 again, page 184 states that the effects of student generation will take 20 years to hit the district. The Los Gatos Union School District did an Imagine 2022 Plan where they did a ten-year pr ojection, and I have some of that information here. Comment 1 6 cont.Comment 1 7 Comment 1 8 Comment 1 9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The 2022 Plan had four levels of impact. Projection A was no future development. Projection B was known and approved developments, those five I just listed. Projection C was all known future developments, which includes Oka and the North Forty, at moderate density, and Projection D was all known future developments at maximum density. So their nuclear option, if you will, is this Projection D. It’s a ten -year plan, and in Year Three we’re already ahead of it with no construction at the North Forty or Oka Road. I just wanted to say I’m dismayed that none of our paid administrators from the school are here to present this to you. I’m disappointed that none of our elected school board officials are bringing this to your attention, but their own projections are so far off in Year Two, Year Ten, when these projects actually come in, I can’t imagine are going to be any better. Thank you. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Fok. JEFF HARLAN: Hi, my name is Jeff Harlan. I live at 354 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos. Thank you for this opportunity. I am Los Gatan and my family has been here since 1965. We own three parcels and a condominium. I’m raising Comment 2 0
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two children with my wife in my home on Bella Vista in the house I g rew up in. We have an amazing school system, which is already well over capacity. People cheat and lie to get their children into our schools to the point where we have a full -time employee dedicated to detecting fraud. The estimates from the developers on the school impact have been proven inaccurate. My math is slightly more pessimistic than an earlier speaker. Bluebird Lane, which my property adjoins, estimated that 0.3, 30%, of the homes would add one child to the school. I believe that number is actually 34, so that would be 170% of the homes there are adding one student. If we apply that math to North Forty, they estimate at only 26.6%, or 97 students. If we apply the Bluebird Lane math, we end up with 619 additional students in the Los Gatos School District. So this leads to some significant flaws in the Draft Environmental Impact Plan. I estimate that it’s possible there will be 522 additional students on top of the 97 they’ve listed. Their traffic reports for both alternatives are low by that same factor. I’m assuming there would be 1,200 AM trips and 2,050 PM trips with Alternative A. Alternative B would provide 1,000 morning trips and 2,010 evening trips. Comment 2 1 Comment 2 2
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There are also significant gaps in the traffic sampling that they’ve done on the intersecti ons. There are no samples on Los Gatos Boulevard between Roberts Way and Highway 9, which is where I live. We are in gridlock every morning. It’s completely gridlocked. There are no samples on East Main Street, right out here. We’re in gridlock there too f rom the high school. There are no samples on University between West Main and Lark Avenue. Gridlock. Our Regional Housing Needs Allocation is actually two times higher than the current census. The Association of the Bay Area Governments is still using a 10% figure for our burden for this. The Department of Finance only has revised our estimate to 5%. CHAIR SMITH: Mr. Harlan, I’m going to have to stop you there, but if you have this in writing it would be very helpful to have you submit it. JEFF HARLAN: I would be happy to. CHAIR SMITH: All right, thank you very much. Right behind Mr. Arzie I’m going to call Jeff Loughridge and Anne Robinson, so if you can be ready as well to speak. Go ahead, Mr. Arzie. LARRY ARZIE: Larry Arzie. I live in town. Wow, isn ’t this is a group of amazing speakers? Sophisticated, Comment 2 2 cont.Comment 2 3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well read and knowledgeable. I’m going to stick with two subjects. First one, my question on traffic is why was the previous planned fifth lane for Lark Avenue to Samaritan not considered? That’s the lane that was proposed 20 years ago and that plan’s inside lane provided relief from congestive cars that can go in and out of the project. This lane would accommodate all North Forty oriented traffic and reduce congestion by creating a thoroughfare concept on Los Gatos Boulevard. This is a classic scenario in many European cities for controlling traffic and discussed in numerous community meetings. A wide tree-lined island with turnouts would obviously be incorporated. This was not brought up and I want t o know why. The second question on traffic: Why not a ring road around the North Forty? This circulation scenario is a success story used in so many cities. It can be incorporated into the fifth lane that I just discussed in front of the North Forty. It would circle the North Forty parameter, directing the bulk of the North Forty onsite traffic into specified entrances and exits, mitigating congestion. This was well discussed at previous community meetings. Why was that not included in the draft? Comment 2 4 Comment 2 5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I’m going to go on to housing, which is my last question with the EIR. Did the EIR weigh the possibility of a 20 -year build out? It has been suggested that possibly a second EIR should be done for the new Lark 20, because that’s what it’s going to be for the next 2 0 years, and a second EIR based on what’s being built for 20 years would an interesting concept to do, if not necessary. Now that the North Forty has become the North 20 I am surprised the DEIR did not comment on the overly intense concentration of housing in the Lark District. There is no guarantee that if or when the rest of the North Forty comes available that it will ever be built as promised. This entire project was developer-driven and I would not be surprised to find out that the last minute decisio n to delay the balance of the land sale by the property owner was not already known by the developer going in. So if there are ways to protect ourselves, I would highly recommend we take that road. Rearranging the housing so that more is built on the north side would be a good start. Thank you. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Arzie. Jeff Loughridge. Comment 2 6 Comment 2 7 Comment 2 8
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: Hi, my name is Jeff Loughridge; I live at 109 Paseo Laura right off of Lark and Oka. The North Forty project has some elements that I believe Los Gatos is lacking right now; specifically the more diverse planned housing will provide a much-needed component to our town’s housing mix. I am concerned, however, that our current traffic situation without the future effect of new developments results in a very low Level of Service, or LOS. Levels of Service at intersections across town are now on the edge of our lower LOS limit rating of D, but it is particularly significant in the north end of town since that is where both Albright and the North Forty are either approved or planned. The traffic portion of this Draft EIR by itself is a whopping 1,836 pages. It’s filled primarily with traffic counts at various intersections that were chosen. Not all affected intersections were included. What was missin g until late this afternoon was an illustration that showed the proposed traffic flow in and around the development, specifically on both Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. This afternoon a new version of the Tentative Map Application was posted onto the North Forty website, not onto our town’s website. There is traffic mitigation Comment 2 9 Comment 3 0
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed, but in order to assess whether these suggested mitigations make sense one would need to see how the traffic would flow both north and south on Los Gatos Boulevard as well as east and west on Lark Avenue. As an example, in one of the intersections that were illustrated the south street entrance into the development would have a right turn in, a left turn in across Lark traffic, and a right turn out. This would block Hig hland Oaks residents’ current left turn out. Highland Oaks would be a right turn in and right turn out only, plus the right turn out from the south street onto Lark Avenue would require drivers to merge rapidly across two fast-moving freeway on-ramp lanes to be able to continue west on Lark across the bridge towards Winchester. Piecemeal residential and traffic development on Lark Avenue has resulted in nine separate intersections with traffic lights at six. Some are spaced so closely together that they do not even meet the state standards. Since this is one of only four ways across our town and we will be hit with the majority of both Albright and North Forty traffic, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns need to be addressed for the full leng th of Lark Avenue, not just the portion bordering the development. Comment 3 0 cont.Comment 3 1 Comment 3 2
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The proposed traffic flow will eliminate bicycle paths on Lark. They propose both east and west bicycle movement on the north side sidewalk bordering Lark, yet propose nothing once a westbound cyclist reaches the Lark Avenue bridge over Highway 17. The traffic mitigation outlined in this Draft EIR is inadequate, shortsighted and skewed to the North Forty residents at the expense of their existing neighbors. Thank you. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Behind Ms. Robinson I have one last card, and that is Ingrid Oakley-Girvan. If there is anyone else that wishes to speak, they need to come forward with a card. All right, Ms. Robinson, please address us. ANNE ROBINSON: Anne Robinson, Charter Oaks. I want to speak tonight regarding the impacts of building heights in the North Forty proposed development on mountain views. In the North Forty Draft Specific Plan, under the Council Vision, Section 2.1, one of the guiding principles to achieve the Council ’s vision of the North Forty development is to embrace hillside views, trees and open space. In the General Plan it talks about preserving hillside views. Comment 3 3 Comment 3 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan, page 3 -8 and 3 -9, the North Forty Draft Specific Plan allows for a hotel at 45’ and all residential and non -residential buildings can be up to 35’ tall with a height limitation of 25’ on any building within 50’ of Lark Avenue. A 10’ increase in height bonus, up to 45’ for residential uses may be allowed in the Transition District but requires a development to be affordable housing or that an additional 5% open space be provided on the property. Then it goes on to say that a specific increase in height may be allowed for the office or residential uses in the Tra nsition District and offices uses in the Northern District. No minimum additional height is given for this exception and no additional open space is required for this exception. An unspecified increase in height may be allowed for a hotel in the Transition District or Northern District; again, no minimum additional height is given for this exception. In the Draft EIR North Forty Specific Plan, page 3 -8, it states that the building heights cannot extend such that they significantly interfere with the views or the ridgeline, and on page 3-9 it states that the Draft Specific Plan requires that building heights may not have a significant adverse effect on the ridgeline and the top of Comment 3 5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the buildings are expected to be below the ridgeline. It goes on to state that the impact of the building heights would be less than significant. So there are no minimum additional height exceptions for the Transition District and the Northern District and the buildings are expected to be below ridgeline. How does this preserve the hillside views when there is not a limitation on how tall the buildings can be and it only requires the building to not have an adverse effect on the ridgeline and the buildings are expected to be below ridgeline? What does it mean to embrace or preserve the hillside views? If the hillsides are obscured 50% by the buildings, does that embrace or preserve the hillside views? When looking at the photos of the visual simulations in the appendices it only shows the maximum height of a building at 45’. The vis ual simulations are taken from three viewpoints with three different angles from each viewpoint. By taping the three different angles from each viewpoint together you get a better picture of what you actually see when you drive south on Highway 17. If the EIR states that there is a possibility of additional heights above 45’, why isn’t that reflected in the simulations? How do you know that there is not a Comment 3 6 Comment 3 5 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 significant impact when you don’t know how high the buildings are going to be and when you do not know where the buildings are going to be located? Thank you. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you, Ms. Robinson. INGRID OAKLEY-GIRVAN: Hi. Ingrid Oakley-Girvan, again. I clearly live off Lark, and you’ve heard a lot about that. There are clearly dangerous hot spots and my soon to be 16 year old driver is appalled at the driving on Lark. We have a countdown before you go through a green light so that you are not hit by a car speeding through a red light. Happens every single day at every single intersection that we go to. S he will attest to that. Roundabouts on Lark? Absolutely something to think about. You heard something about European cities and how they structure things. We should take a clue and look at that. High congestion, high distribution of residents in small spac es; that’s what we’re heading towards in this environment. We absolutely need a buffer zone on Lark. To consider not having a buffer zone is crazy. I have ridden a bike across multiple times with many kids either in front or behind, and I have to say, I clutch my heart every Comment 3 9 Comment 3 8 Comment 3 7 Comment 3 6 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 single time we do that, when we go across Lark. It needs to be safe for kids, strollers and the elderly to cross. If the idea is to have retail in the North Forty area, I think that would be fabulous. Those of us who get in our car to drive to Campbell or Saratoga or downtown Los Gatos would prefer to keep our funds in Los Gatos and the tax dollars here. However, we’re just as easy to drive to Campbell or Saratoga at this point, so if we could walk over there and we had a quaint, aesth etically pleasing environment similar to what you have downtown, I think we would actually utilize it. Now, if there are no walking-strolling paths and things like that, we might not do that as much, so why wouldn’t we encourage it? As people are retiring and we have elderly communities they need these walkability pathways. Overcrowding in the schools. As a former LGF president last year I can absolutely attest to this. We went to San Carlos to talk to them about their STEM program. They cut enrollment in middle and elementaries at 400. Ours are 600 to 700. They cut enrollment at middle school and have already started to build a new one at 700. We have a middle school that’s almost topping 1,200. So we’re in a bad state of affairs in my opinion with the cur rent enrollment. Comment 41 Comment 4 0 Comment 3 9 cont.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, I know everyone says turnover, or people will stay, they’ll retire, the kids will go on and they’ll go off to college, no one else will take that house. But what you see in Los Gatos is because of the good schools the parents retire elsewhere, the kids take the house, or they slam into different size housing, three kids in a bedroom. It’s not bothering people and maybe again, that’s more of what they do in Europe and we have to think about that and not think about it from our perspective but from other perspectives. I don't know if you can apply limits on housing, the number of people in a unit size: five hundred feet, two people. Senior housing, that’s a good thing. Distributing the housing and the retail on both sides, I think that that’s something that would be great to think about. I’m not really sure why, but I’m very frustrated that the schools aren’t here commenting. I don't know if it’s political and they don’t want to sound like they have overcrowded schools. Well, they do have overcrowded schools. The schools are overcrowded. I mean we’re going to have 30 or 40 kids in a class. I don’t see that as a solution. Thank you. Comment 42 Comment 43
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you for your comments. The last card I have is Woody Nedom. Again, if there is anyone else that wishes to speak, they need to come forward. All right, Mr. Nedom. WOODY NEDOM: My name is Woody Nedom; I live on Azalea Way in Los Gatos. I just wanted to emphasize one point that I put into my written presentation to you folks, and that is I th ink the number of housing units, 364, all essentially jammed into this southern Lark Avenue portion is a horrible idea. That’s all in the Los Gatos School District. Apparently the government code says that the money that the Town gets from the developer fees, et cetera, is full mitigation, so that can’t be questioned. I think that’s what you call a legal fiction, so I think it is incumbent upon the Town to do its own mitigation in this regard, and that is this: If there are going to be 364 housing units —I hope there aren’t, but if there are going to be —spread them out all over the North Forty so that at least half of them or more are in the north section, which is Cambrian School District, not Los Gatos School District. In fact, their schools, at one meetin g we had probably a couple of years go, and I’ve attended virtually every meeting, it was said that they Comment 44
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would welcome new students. So why aren’t we spreading the housing out? We shouldn’t be here to please a developer; we should be here to serve the Town and the residents of this town. Thanks very much. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. Jason Farwell. JASON FARWELL: Good evening, Commissioners. Jason Farwell, 18 Park Avenue in Los Gatos. First and foremost I’d just like to say how thankful I am to have these citizens down here tonight voicing their concerns. I’ve been following this project for a long time; I’ve been at a lot of meetings. It’s fantastic to finally see some outspoken citizens on the impacts of this project. They’re going to be monstrous , they’re going to impact our schools, and they’re going to impact our downtown dramatically. I echo all of the concerns that have already been voiced tonight, but my major issue that I have with this Draft EIR relates to our downtown and the fact that we still don’t know the square footage of our downtown and how it compares to the proposed development. I’ve done my calculations; they’re rough calculations. I think it’s somewhere around approximately 230,000 square feet from Highway 9 to North Santa Cruz Comment 44 Comment 45 Comment 46
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Avenue. That’s just the Downtown District core there, and this is all ground floor. So that’s 230,000 square feet, and they’re proposing I think over 500,000 at the North Forty. For this Draft EIR to propose that there’s not going to be a disparate impact to our downtown I think is ridiculous. It will be dramatic. The parking issue in our downtown is terrible. It hasn’t been addressed. We need a new garage at a minimum. This parking that’s going on in the North Forty is going to be so accommodating that p eople are going to drive in there all day long, because they’re going to complain about going downtown and the parking downtown. Grosvener is a monster real estate company; they’re very good at what they do. This is going to be an absolutely beautiful project that going to impress not only Los Gatos but the entire Bay Area, and it is going to be a regional draw, it’s not going to be a Town draw, and our town will forever be changed. So I just ask you to view this project with open eyes and really sift through this 1,800 page Draft EIR. It’s a monster. I couldn’t look at it all; it was too much. Thank you. CHAIR SMITH: Thank you. Next is Brent Ventura. Comment 46 Comment 47
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BRENT VENTURA: Thank you, Commissioners, for this hearing. A couple of items. A lot of these issues have been hit on already. I don’t want to get repetitive here, but one of the issues I do want to speak to is the wildlife impact. If you go out to that site there it’s like going back in time 50 or 60 years of Los Gatos back when the Town was mostly orchard s. Because it’s been left undeveloped for so long, there is an incredible amount of wildlife there. I’ve had the opportunity to be there in the early mornings and late evenings and I personally have seen cougar, coyotes, fox, snakes. I can’t tell you if they’re garter or gopher snakes, but I believe one of them might be endangered. I’ve seen golden eagle out there. It seems the wildlife survey was completely inadequate in failing to identify any of these, and there was no relocation plan or any real plan identified in the EIR. What are we going to do with this precious last animal wildlife we have in town? Obviously they may not be compatible with the type of development that’s being discussed here, but that doesn’t mean they should just be bulldozed over. I think we’re enlightened enough, that we’ve learned enough over the past generations since this Comment 48
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 town has developed with the intensity it has, not to make those mistakes again, so I hope that would be corrected in the EIR revisions. The other two points I want to make is we’re looking at a lot of intense development here. I know there is a great need in this community for senior housing. I didn’t see a lot of discussion of that, the possibly of exploring that in the EIR. I’d like to see alternatives to dis cuss the viability of that and see if that could be incorporated. It certainly is a less intense traffic generator than some of the other uses being discussed. The other point was spreading the housing throughout the entire site. I personally disagree with the extrapolated attendance figures for the Elementary District and the High School District. It’s hard to believe with that many houses we’re going to generate 50 or 60 students; I just don’t believe that’s possible. I think we’re going to have severe impacts. The schools are already impacted. I have a child there right now and I can tell you the classes are getting awfully large. There’s another school district that serves the property and they’d probably love to have some additional students there. They sure would like to have some of the property tax revenue and that’s something we should look at as an alternative to the site. Thank you. Comment 49 Comment 5 0
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR SMITH: Thank you very much. The last card I have is Jennifer Grewal. JENNIFER GREWY: Hi, I’m Jennifer Grew al and I live at Charter Oaks in Los Gatos. I want to say thank you to the Planning Commission because previously you have been very attentive to the EIR, especially in the Albright Way project where your recommendation to the Town that the environmentally superior alternative was what should have been built. It was the conservative alternative and it would have been nice to have that lesser impact on that end of town. Our end of town has a history of very bad decisions. There are five neighborhoods off of Lark with only one way in and out. There is no access to southbound 85 from Winchester. Albright exceeded the environmentally superior plan, as the EIR recommended. There are six traffic lights in less than one mile on Lark Avenue. The coordination of tho se lights is between two agencies, Caltrans and the Town. Seventeen northbound off-ramp is a yield sign to Lark Avenue, not a stop sign, so you have merge issues in the morning at that intersection. There were traffic studies that were ordered as part of the Albright Way approval after it made it to the Town Council for approval, and those haven’t been completed Comment 51
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 yet. What I found out when we met with the developer the other night was that his Town mitigation only faces his portion of the property as it affects Los Gatos Boulevard, Bascom, and Lark Avenue, so there is no complete, cohesive guess as to how all of these pieces are going to fit together. I don’t think there was consideration of possibly doing an entrance to Highway 17 on the backside of this pr operty. We discussed with the developer whether or not the gas station was going to be purchased and he told us it was not economically feasible for him to attempt to purchase the gas station, but yet that gas station property is going to be a bottleneck in the traffic as you merge from Los Gatos Boulevard onto Lark Avenue. Evidently the setbacks are such that as he put it, he would only be able to build a sign on the corner of the property that would be left from the setbacks. But what’s going to happen b y not having those setbacks and having the gas station stay is going to be yet another narrow spot on Lark that then goes to a wide spot, but then crosses the bridge that then goes back to a narrow spot. Lark Avenue is a deadly accident again waiting to h appen, and it is just getting more and more so that that is our inevitable future. Today it took me three minutes to Comment 51 cont.Comment 52 Comment 53
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/14/2014 It em #1, North Forty Specific Plan 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 turn right to get out of Charter Oaks. I had a meeting at the Los Gatos Parks and Rec Department. It took me three minutes to make a right turn from Charter Oaks Drive onto Lark Avenue in order to make the left onto University at the light. That’s crazy. CHAIR SMITH: Your time is up. Thank you. If you have written remarks, please submit them to us. All right, we’re now going to close this portion of the meeting, and Mr. Paulson, do you want to state the statutory dates again so that the public hears them? JOEL PAULSON: Just for everyone’s reminder, the comment period ends on May 19 th , which is next Tues, at 5:00pm. If anyone wants to submit additional written comments via mail, email or dropping them off to the Community Development Department and/or Clerk’s Office, then we will accept those until 5:00pm on May 19 th .
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-217 Response to Oral Comments prov ided at Planning Commission 1. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 31 from VanNada. 2. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 31 from VanNada. 3. Traffic and student generation are based on data that is derived from large samples of built projects. A recent small sample may not pr ovide accurate data from which to project the results of the proposed project. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 4. The comment is noted. 5. Refer to the response to Comment 8 in Letter 35 from Quintana. 6. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 35 from Quintana. 7. The Draft EIR discussion includes separate discussions of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions because they address different topics . Note that the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist also separates these two topic areas. 8. Figure 23, Traffic Study Intersections provid es a map showing the location of each of the studied intersections. Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic is presented in the context of the entire Draft EIR, including Appendix M, which includ es the traffic impact analysis in its entirety. Section 2.0 Project Description pr esents numerous figures that portray the conditions in and near the Plan Area. 9. The comment relates history from World War II and the interment of the Japanese to the history of the Yuki family and its purchase of land within the Plan Area. The historic resources evaluation considered the potential fo r the Yuki family’s association with the Plan Area to provide a historical context for the Plan Area, but determined that this connection did not justify the Plan Area as a historic site. 10. The comment relates to a brochure produced by the applicant, and does not address the Draft EIR. 11. Refer to the response to Comments 17 to 32 in Letter 11 from Hudes. 12. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 13. The comment addresses specific locations where traffic conditions are described as congested, and where a fatal traffic collision occurred.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-218 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 14. The proposed project does not propose chan ges to the Lark Avenue bridge over State Route 17. That bridge has a narrow elevated side walk on each side, but no buffer zone. The addition of turn lanes onto State Route 17 wi ll make crossing from the Plan Area to the sidewalks on the Lark Avenue bridge more diff icult. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation. 15. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 22 from Fok. 16. Refer to the response to Comments 1 and 2 in Letter 22 from Fok. 17. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 18. The Specific Plan does not mandate any part icular split of housing within the Plan Area. However, based on the types of uses allowed with in each of the three districts established by the Specific Plan, an allocation of 80 percent of the housing to the southern half of the Plan Area is reasonable. The rationale for this assignme nt is presented on Draft EIR page 3-184. 19. The EIR assumes a 20-year build-out of re sidential units, consistent with the 20-year build-out of the Specific Plan. 20. Projection C assumes development of one-ha lf of the General Plan residential capacity for the Plan Area and Oka Road parcels, and best matches the proposed project, which calls for less than half the number of units that the General Plan considered within the Plan Area. 21. A student generation rate of 1.7 students per unit would be required for the proposed project to result in 619 new students. This rate is significantly above that of existing homes within the school district. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools. 22. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Lett er 24 from Harlan. Refer also to the Master Response on Transportation. 23. The Housing Element is referenced on Draft EIR page 3-170, but the Plan Area is not identified as a location within the Town wh ere the Regional Housing Needs Allocation is expected to be met. 24. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 10 from Arzie. 25. Refer to the response to Comment 2 in Letter 10 from Arzie. 26. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie. 27. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 2-219 28. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. 29. The existing conditions and background conditions scenarios in the traffic impact analysis represent current and near-future co nditions. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. 30. The Draft EIR and transportation impact an alysis study the Specific Plan, based on planned land uses and backbone transportation facilities. The tentative maps that have been submitted are consistent with the Specific Plan in terms of number of units and location of access points to Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Ave nue. Therefore, the transportation analysis presented in the Draft EIR is applicable to an d accurate for the submitted tentative map. 31. This intersection arrangement is consistent with the Specific Plan. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 26 from Loughridge. 32. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. 33. Refer to the responses to Comments 2 and 14. 34. Refer to the Master Response on Transportation. 35. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 36. Refer to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 12 from Robinson. 37. The comment refers to dangerous drivers, and does not comment on the Draft EIR. 38. Roundabouts can be an effective traffic co ntrol device under certain traffic volume and roadway configuration scenarios. However, the tr affic volumes on Lark Avenue are too high for roundabouts. 39. It is not clear if the commenter is spea king of a buffer zone along Lark Avenue or crossing Lark Avenue. Crossing of Lark Avenue (other than at Los Gatos Boulevard) would be prohibited with development of the proposed project. The proposed project includes a buffered two-way bicycle path along Lark Avenue within the Plan Area. 40. The Specific Plan includes walking paths within the Plan Area. 41. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 42. The comment does not address the Draft EIR. 43. Refer to the Master Response on Schools.
2.0 C OMMENTS ON THE D RAFT EIR 2-220 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 44. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools. The Draft EIR studied a reasonable range of alternatives. 45. Refer to the Master Response on Schools. 46. The exact square footage of Downtown retail is less important to the Urban Decay Analysis than the floorplate size, which affects th e types of retail stores that might be located within the Downtown and within the Plan Area. 47. The implication of the comment is that ample parking within the commercial developments in the Plan Area will provide a co mpetitive advantage over Downtown businesses. Ample parking is available in other shopping center s within the retail trade areas, as studied in the Urban Decay Analysis, but competition from these other shopping centers has not harmed Downtown businesses. See also response 1 in Letter 7 from Walsh. 48. The Plan Area was surveyed by the consulta nt’s biologists on six dates, both day and evening. The focus of biological surveys is on plant or animal species that are protected by federal or state law. Disturbance of habitat for non-protected species is not considered a significant environmental impact. Species expected to be seen within the Plan Area are listed on Draft EIR page 3-56. 49. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. 50. Refer to the response to Comment 3 in Letter 10 from Arzie and the response to Comment 1 in Letter 4 from Dallas. Refer also to the Master Response on Schools. 51. The comment cites traffic issues relating to the Albright Way project and Lark Avenue. The proposed project would construct improvements on the west side of Los Gatos Boulevard, adjacent to the Plan Area. Refer also to the response to Comment 1 in Letter 14 from Grewal. 52. The Specific Plan does not address whether the gas station remains or is replaced by other uses; however, the Specific Plan includ es the square footage of existing commercial buildings within the total allowed square footage. 53. The comment describes traffic conditions on Lark Avenue.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-1 3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires that an EIR contain a brief summary of the proposed project and its consequences. The summary must id entify each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would re duce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known to the lead agency; and issues to be reso lved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effect s. The Final EIR presents this revised summary as a concise overview of the EIR as revi sed through the public comment process. 3.2 T EXT OF R EVISED S UMMARY Beginning on the following page is a revised version of the summary from the Draft EIR. Additions to the text are shown with underlined text (underline) and deletions are shown with strikethrough text (strikethrough). Also refer to Section 4.0 Changes to the Draft EIR for other changes to the Draft EIR.
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . S UMMARY CEQA R EQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines section 15123 requires an EIR to contain a brief summary of the proposed project and its consequences. The summary identifi es each significant effect and the proposed mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid that effect; areas of controversy known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved , including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. P ROPOSED P ROJECT Location and Setting The Draft North Forty Specific Plan covers a pproximately 44 acres loca ted at the northern extent of the Town of Los Gatos, southeast of the junction of the State Route 17 and State Route 85 freeways. About 27 acres of the Plan Area are in agricultural use and about 17 acres of the Plan Area have been developed with a variety of urban uses. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan designates the Plan Area as Mixed Us e Commercial with a North Forty Specific Plan overlay. Project Description The proposed project is a specific plan for futu re development of the Plan Area. Development is expected to take place over a five to 20-year time period. The Draft Specific Plan provides a framework and development standards for the development of vacant parcels and re-development of the already-developed parcels. Th e Plan Area is divided into three districts (Lark, Transition, and Northern), within which a mix of commercial and residential uses is envisioned. The Draft Specific Plan limits total no n-residential floor area to 580,000 square feet
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-3 and residential development to 364 units (both in clusive of existing us es). Additionally, the following maximum development capacities are esta blished for each type of non-residential use: 250,000 square feet of office/hotel, and 400,000 sq uare feet of commercial (includes: restaurants, retail, specialty market, health club, personal services, and entertainment). A hotel with or without a conference center is also allowed, potentially providing for between 200 and 250 conference participants. The Draft Specific Plan re quires at least 30 percent (about 13.2 acres) of the Plan Area be retained in open space. The proposed project includes several changes to Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan guidance relating to Los Gatos Boulevard and the Plan Area. A zoning amendment would implement a specif ic plan overlay for the Plan Area. S UMMARY OF I MPACTS AND M ITIGATION M EASURES This draft EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental impacts in several areas as identified below. The impacts are presen ted in a summarized format in Table S-1, with the full text of the mitigation measure. The full text of the environmental setting, project analysis, and impacts and the mi tigation measures can be found in Section 3.0 Environmental Effects. A REAS OF C ONTROVERSY CEQA Guidelines section 15123(b)(2) requires an EIR summary to identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency including issues rais ed by agencies and the public. Based on comments on the NOP and other communications, the follo wing topic areas are considered potentially controversial: Aesthetics (development standards) Cultural Resources (removal of potentially historic buildings) Traffic (congested intersections and highways) Schools (student generation and traffic near schools) Economic impacts to downtown and other commercial areas
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Summary of Alternatives Project alternatives are presented, discusse d, analyzed, and compar ed in Section 5.0, Alternatives. The following project alternatives were analyzed: No Project Alternative – as required by CE QA Guidelines, this impact considers the consequences of not approving the proposed project. Increased Residential/Decreased Commercial Alternative – this alternative is intended to reduce traffic generation and associated air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, by increasing the number of residential units and decreasing the amount of commercial development. Historic Preservation Alternative – this alternative would create an historic conservation area into which potentially historic buildings from the Plan Area could be relocated, while preserving the development capaci ty of the proposed project. The environmentally-superior alternative would be the “no project” alternative, because it would reduce impacts in all but three environmental topi c areas, and would be similar to the proposed project in three others. The second environmenta lly-superior alternative would be the “Increased Residential/Reduced Commercial” alternative, wh ich, although it would result in increased potential for noise and toxic air contaminant impa cts, would reduce overall air quality impacts, and reduce impacts for greenhouse gasses, hydrology and water quality, and most significantly, transportation and traffic. The “Historic Pres ervation” alternative would decrease cultural resources impacts, but otherwise be si milar to the proposed project.
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-5 Table S-1 Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measure Summary Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Aesthetics Degradation of Visual Character AES-1 New development adjacent to residential uses existing at the time of Specific Plan adoption shall provide minimum five foot side and rear setbacks to those residential uses. Less than Significant Air Quality Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions – Consistency with 2010 Clean Air Plan AQ-1 Low NO X emitting heating systems shall be required for commercial, office, and hotel uses. Less than significant AQ-2 Parking lots shall provid e charging stations at a rate of no less than one percent of parking spaces. AQ-3 All commercial developments shall incorporate energy reduction measures, including cool pavement materials, cool roof materials, and/or renewable energy sources, such as on-site solar power, to partially off-set electricity needs within the Plan Area. Common areas within commercial, office, and hotel developments shall utilize solar-generated or other renewable source electricity, or provide facilities for contribution of a like amount of renewable electricity to the electric grid.
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Air Quality (continued) Pollutant Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors AQ-4 The developer(s) shall implement basic dust control measures at all on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place. The developer(s) shall implement additional dust control measures at all on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential properties. Basic Dust Control Measures: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be complete d as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; and Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-7 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact f. Post a publicly visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Additional Dust Measures g. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph; h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established; and i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. AQ-5 High efficiency filtration (MERV rating of 13 or greater) on ventilation systems shall be required in residential, hotel, and office units located in areas along State Route 17 iden tified in the EIR as having cancer risk in excess of 10 cases per million.
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact AQ-6 Ground-level outdoor residential yards that are not oriented to the Los Gatos Boulevard side of the Plan Area, shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-way prior to 2015, and, subject to air hazards modeling to confirm, no closer than 50 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-way thereafter (when diesel fuel and engine changes will reduce diesel emissions levels). Biology Special-Status Species BIO-1 If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if constr uction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas on the project site, and as feasible within 250 feet of the site boundary, to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance and/or construction activities. A report documenting the survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-9 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall determine and clearly delineate an appropriately sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits. To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist.
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-2 To avoid impacts to burrowing owls, a qualified biologist will conduct a two-visit (i.e. morning and evening) pre-construction presence/absence survey at all areas of suitable habitat on and within 300 feet of the construction site within 30 days prior to the start of construction. Surveys will be conducted according to methods described in the Revised Staff Report on Burrowing Ow l Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012). If pre-construction surveys are undertaken during the breeding season (February through August) and locate active nest burrows near construction zones, then these nests and a 200-meter (600-foot) exclusion zone will be delineated which must remain off-limits to ground-disturbing activities until the breeding season is over. The exclusion zone shall be clearly delineated/fenced, and work could proceed within the exclusion zone after the biologist has determined that fledglings were capable of independent flight and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has approved the
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-11 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact recommencement of work inside the exclusion zone, or has authorized physical relocation of the owls. Nesting owl pairs physically relocated (after consultation and approval from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) as a consequence of construction activities are typically provided a habitat replacement mitigation ratio of 6.5 acres per owl pair/territory relocated. The project developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-3 To avoid impacting active bat roosts, if present, any vacant buildings on the site proposed for removal that are boarded up prior to construction (dark in the daytime) shall be opened in the winter months (prior to mid-March) to allow in light, making these areas non-suitable for use as bat roosts. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-4 Mature trees removed due to project implementation shall be removed in two stages (with the limbs removed one day, and the main trunk removed on a subsequent day) to allow any
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact potentially present day-roosting bats the opportunity to relocate. If bat roosts are encountered during tree removal, a bat specialist shall be hired to assist in any relocation efforts. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Biology Tree Protection BIO-5 Prior to tr ee removal, a Tree Preservation Report or Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist, and a Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained stipulating exactly how many protected trees of each species will be removed and how many will then be required as replacement plantings, along with where they can be planted, and any applicable maintenance requirements. Retained trees shall be protected during construction according to the measures specified in the Tree Protection Ordinance (Town of Los Gatos 2003). The project developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-13 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Cultural Resources Adverse Change to Historical Resources and Conflict with Plan Adopted for Environmental Purposes CR-1 Prior to demolition of buildings within the Plan Area identified as potentially historic resources, the project sponsor shall prepare photographic documentation of the buildings meeting the documentation standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER), as presented in the North 40 Specific Plan Historic Resources Technical Report. The historic documentation shall be prepared at Level IV (sketch plan, digital photographs of exterior and interior views, and HABS/HAER inventory cards) for the potentially historic buildings. No hi storic documentation shall be required for the orchard, except as may be incidentally included in the documentation of the structures. The project sponsor shall prepare, or retain a qualified professional who meets the standards for architectural historian and/or historical architect set forth by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR 61) to prepare documentation of historic resources prior to any construction work associated with demolition or removal. The Town of Los Gatos shall identify appropriate repositories for housing the historical Less than significant Significant and Unavoidable
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact documentation at the time of the project-level analysis. An interpretive display shall be incorporated into the design of commercial development within the Plan Area. CR-2 For potentially historic buildings proposed for retention at existing locations, the project sponsor shall prepare a historic structure(s) report (HSR) for the historic resource as a guide to the rehabilitation. The HSR shall set forth the history of the resource, describe its existing condition, make recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, replacement, reconstruction, and other treatments based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HSR shall be prepared by a licensed architect who meets the qualifications for historical architect as set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards, published in the Federal Register, June 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 119).
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-15 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact The project sponsor shall retain the services of a historical architect as a member of the design team for the rehabilitation. The historical architect may be the same historical architect who prepared the HSR, without encountering a conflict of interest. The Town of Los Gatos shall review the rehabilitation plans prepared by the project architect for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HSR shall specify procedures for protecting historic resources and a monitoring method to be employed by the contractor while working near the affected resource. At a minimum, the plan shall address the operation of construction equipment near adjacent historical resources, storage of construction materials away from adjacent resources, and education/training of construction workers about the significance of the historical resources.
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Cultural Resources Potential Adverse Change to Archaeological Resources CR-3 For grading or excavation s deeper than four feet below the existing surface, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the excavations. The archaeologist shall be present on-site to observe a representative sample of deep grading or excavations in at least three areas within the Plan Area until satisfied that there is no longer a significant potential for finding buried resources. In the event that any potentially significant archaeological resources (i.e., potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources) are discovered, the project archaeologist shall designate a zone in which additional archaeological resources could be found and in which work shall be stopped. A plan for the evaluation of the resource shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. Evaluation normally takes the form of limited hand excavation and analysis of materials and information removed to determine if the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. In the event that significant paleontological, historic, and/or archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading in the Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-17 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact absence of an archaeological monitor, all work shall stop in the area of the subject property until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and, if necessary, develop an appropriate data recovery program. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this mitigation measure. Costs will be the responsibility of the developer(s). Cultural Resources Adverse Change to Paleontological Resources and Potentially Disturb Human Remains CR-4 If human remains are found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, Less than significant
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs will be the responsibility of the developer(s).
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-19 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials Project on a Hazardous Materials Site HAZ-1 Prior to issuance of permits for activities involving grading or excavation within Lark Avenue, the San Jose Water Company property, the south end of the Plan Area (within the contaminated area delineated on County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health records for the Lark Avenue Car Wash fuel leak case), or immediately adjacent areas, the developer shall consult with the Department of Environmental Health regarding the potential for disturbance of contaminated soils. The developer shall either conduct pre-excavation soil testing at an appropriate depth to the proposed work and review results with the Department of Environmental Health, or assume contamination of the soils and proceed with appropriate safeguards, established in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health. Unless pre-excavation soil testing shows no contamin ation, post-excavation soil testing shall be conducted. If testing shows soil contamination levels are in excess of acceptable levels, the developer shall implement appropriate protective measures in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health, including worker protocols and soil handling and disposal Less than significant
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact protocols. The presence of contamination may necessitate the use of workers who have been properly trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120. If soil testing shows acceptable contamination levels, no further soils measures may be required. If excavations reach free groundwater, the developer shall stop work and consult with the Department of Environmental Health. Hydrology and Water Quality Excess or Polluted Storm Water Run-off HAZ-1 See above. Less than significant Noise Noise in Excess of Standards NOI-1 A noise barrier shall be constructed commencing at the south end of the existing noise barrier along State Route 17, and continuing south to Lark Avenue and east along Lark Avenue for approximately 300 200 feet (or approximately 50 150 feet of west of Highland Oaks Drive). From the existing noise barrier to a point approximately 200 feet north of Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 14 feet tall; from that point to Lark Avenue, the noise barrier shall be 12 feet tall, and along Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 10 feet tall for a length of about 100 feet and 8 feet tall thereafter. The noise barrier shall have a decorative design Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-21 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact and/or include plantings or a planting buffer that would improve the appearance of the barrier from State Route 17 and Lark Avenue. NOI-2 Future development located on sites that are shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR as exceeding the normally acceptable noise level of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Town noise ordinance shall demonstrate that building designs and placement adequately reduce noise. If a study shows that actual noise (and projected noise levels at Specific Plan build-out) will exceed applicable Town noise standards, site and/or building plans shall identify measures to meet these standards. The developer(s) shall be responsible for preparing noise studies and implementing noise attenuation measures as conditions of project approval and construction. The developer(s) shall: Identify outdoor use spaces and building design or barrier walls to reduce environmental noise to 65 dBA Ldn or lower; Identify exterior-to-interior sound insulation measures, such as sound rated windows and doors, to reduce environmental noise to 45 dBA Ldn or lower indoors at residences and hotel guest rooms; and
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact As windows will need to be closed to meet the allowable interior noise level across the site, residences and hotel guest rooms shall incorporate ventilation or air-conditio ning systems to provide a habitable interior environment, consistent with California Building Code requirements. Systems must not compromise sound-insulation of the building shell. NOI-3 Future development projects shall be designed so that all podium buildings are oriented to shield outdoor courtyards from the adjacent roadways. Future development projects shall be designed so that residences along Los Gatos Boulevard incorporate noise barriers as needed to shield outdoor use spaces. Outdoor use areas (excluding outdoor areas that are principally landscaped areas, parking areas, or sidewalks) shall meet the 65 dBA Ldn or lower outdoor noise standard. The applicant for each development project shall submit building and site plans demonstrating compliance with this measure.
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-23 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact NOI-4 Future non-residential development on sites where the Ldn noise levels are 68 dBA or higher as shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, shall include site-specific noise attenuating building designs providing sound-rated construction that will reduce interior levels to the California Green Building Code requirement of Leq-1hr 50 dBA or lower. Alternatively, the developer(s) can demonstrate that exterior walls and roofs have been designed to have sound insulation ratings of STC 50 or higher, with minimum STC 40 windows. NOI-5 Future development shall provide building-specific designs to reduce stationary noise source noise generation to the Town Code standards, as described in The Los Gatos Town Code Sections 16.20.15 to 16.20.025 and General Plan Table NOI-2. These measures ar e expected to include equipment selection and orientation, noise barriers, roof screens and enclosures. Noise Ground-borne Vibration NOI-6 Future development projects that include vibration-sensitive facilities, or businesses with highly vibration-sensitive equipment shall quantify vibration levels and demonstrate project-specific building designs to reduce vibration to acceptable levels. Less than significant
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Noise Potential Project Vicinity Permanent Ambient Noise Increase NOI-7 Future development projects including or requiring roadway improvement projects along Burton Way in the northern portion of the Plan Area shall require a noise assessment prior to approval if existing residential uses wi ll remain adjacent to the roadway improvements . The assessment shall consider the orientation and width of the roadway; location and design of existing residences; and shall identify appropriate mitiga tion measures to reduce traffic noise to within the Town of Los Gatos noise standards. This is expected to consist of sound-rated windows and doors, and possible roadway noise barriers. Less than significant Noise Project Vicinity Temporary or Periodic Ambient Noise Increase NOI-8 Future development applications shall identify the location and types of sensitive receptors that may be affected by construction noise and/or vibration. Measures to control construction noise and address potential complaints shall be proposed and called out in site plans and/or building plans: Consistent with the Town Code, construction activities, which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-25 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact p.m. weekends and holidays if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: • No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. • The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. Locate stationary and mobile noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging areas shall not be located adjacent to sensitive receptors, such as residences. Conduct a pre-construction meeting with nearby sensitive receptors to outline the construction schedule and what types of noises with will hear. Post construction schedules outside the construction site. Designate a point of contact that will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. Develop a process to respond to and address complaints.
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-26 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact Submit a vibration study identifying the nearest sensitive receivers, construction activity, and mitigation measures as needed. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness –Streets Level of Service TR-1 The following intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection by the first project developer within the Northern District of the Plan Area. a. conversion of the existing eastbound lane on Burton Road to a through/left turn lane; b. addition of one dedicated eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound right turn lane on Burton Road at Los Gatos Boulevard (including widening Burton Road for about 200 feet west from Los Gatos Boulevard). In the event that the necessary right-of-way for Burton Road widening cannot be obtained prior to initial development within the Northern District, an alternative access street shall be completed and supplemental traffic analyses shall be conducted to demonstrate that adequate ingress and egress can be provided by other routes within the Plan Area. Less-than-Significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-27 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact TR-2 The following off-site intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection by the first project developer: a. addition of a third eastbound left turn lane on Lark Avenue; b. addition of third northbound left turn lane on Los Gatos Boulevard; c. addition of a third westbound lane on Lark Avenue from Los Gatos Boulevard to the intersection of State Route 17 northbound ramps to the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection, which will operate as a second right turn lane east of the State Route 17 northbound ramps/Lark Avenue intersection and to operate as a through-right lane east of the Highland Oaks Drive/Lark Avenue intersection; and d. modification and re-striping of intersection and restriction of parking as needed. TR-3 Applicants for development or redevelopment projects within the Northern District shall pay a pro-rata share of improvements at the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection or other
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-28 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact improvement related to relieving congestion at the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection. Improvements could include, but are not limited to, lane or traffic control improvements to the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection and/or signalization of the Samaritan Drive/Samaritan Court intersection. Pro-rata share shall be based on percent of project trips, per distribution patterns in the North 40 Transportation Impact Analysis, as a share of total trips within the intersection. Fees shall be paid to the City of San Jose prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay the pro-rata share of improvement as determined by the Town of Los Gatos and City of San Jose. If a specific improvement project has not been identified, the fee shall be based on pro-rata share of a traffic signal, and shall be proportionally refundable if a less expensive project is developed. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness –Highways Level of Service and Conflict with Congestion Management Program See note. Note: No project mitigation proposed. If the State Route 85 high occupancy/toll lanes are implemented, the proposed project’s impacts would be reduced to a less-than -significant level. Fee payment mitigation proposed would not reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significant and Unavoidable
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-29 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact TR-8 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the building applicant shall submit a transportation development impact fee to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the purpose of off-setting the cost of operational improvements on southbound State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17 (“affected segment”). The fee shall be negotiated between the developers and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, based on the number of project trips that exceed on e percent of project trips on the affected segment (the significance threshold), and based on the proportionate number of trips projected for the subject building(s) in accordance with the North Forty Traffic Impact Analysis. The project cost to which the share of responsibility shall be applied shall be determined by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the affected segment. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness – Transit TR-4 The developer(s) shall work with the Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority regarding the provision of a shuttle service or regularly scheduled direct bus route service to the Vasona light rail station, to be in service concurrent Less than significant
3.0 R EVISED S UMMARY 3-30 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact with commencement of revenue service on the Vasona light rail extension. TR-5 The developer(s) shall work with the Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and other agencies to ensure that the Plan Area is developed in a manner that takes full advantage of the transit opportunities afforded by the Vasona Light Rail. Transportation/ Traffic Conflict with Measure of Effectiveness – Bicycles and Pedestrians TR-6 Development within the Lark District near the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard shall provide a direct pedestrian/bicycle access between residential areas and the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. Less than significant Transportation/ Traffic Hazardous Design or Incompatibility TR-7 Either bicycle lanes or sharrows (shared lane markings) shall be provided on A Street between Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. The speed limit shall be no greater than 30 miles per hour, and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs (Caltrans sign R4-11) shall be placed on streets marked with sharrows. Less than significant Transportation/ Traffic Cumulative Traffic Impacts CUM-TR-1 Project developers shall pay a pro-rata share towards the construction of the following off-site Less than significant
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3-31 Area of Concern Significant Impact Mitigation Number Mitigation Measure Residual Impact intersection improvement at the Lark Avenue/southbound State Route 17 onramps intersection. a. Reconfiguration of the eastbound lanes on Lark Avenue to convert the existing right-turn only lane to a shared through/right turn lane, with the following final configuration: one left turn lane (onto State Route 17) two through lanes, and one shared through/right turn lane at Garden Hill Drive. CUM-TR-2 The following signal light adjustments shall be completed no later than the occupancy of 50 percent of the retail square footage. a. Increase cycle length and associated green time to accommodate the increase in traffic. Utilities New or Expanded Utilities Facilities See note. Note: This impact is mitigated through measures presented for air quality, hazardous materials, and noise. Less than significant Utilities Wasteful use of Fuel, Water, or Energy See note. None Note: This impact is mitigated through measures presented for air quality and transportation/traffic. Less than significant Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2014
N ORTH FORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR 3 -32 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . This side intentionally left blank.
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 4-1 4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR 4.1 CEQA R EQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines section 15132 requires that a Final EIR contain either the draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR. This Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR by reference and includes the revisions to the Draft EIR, as presented on the following pages. 4.2 C HANGES M ADE This section contains text, tables, and/or graphi cs from the Draft EIR with changes indicated. Additions to the text are shown with underlined text (underline) and deletions are shown with strikethrough text (strikethrough). Explanatory notes in italic text (italic ) precede each revision. Also refer to Section 4.0 Revised Summary for a summary of the Draft EIR that reflects changes made as a result of the public review process. The Table of Contents is corrected to include Appendix N Utilities. For changes to the Summary, refer to Section 3.0 Revised Summary. The Summary Table is corrected on page S-5 to capture text that overran the box. The Summary Table is revised on page S-11 to change the Residual Impact for Mi tigation Measure CR-1 to Significant and Unavoidable. The Summary Table is revised on page S-18 to reflec t changes to Mitigation Measure NOI-1, as noted below. The Summary Table is revised on page S-24 to reflect ch anges to Mitigation Measure TR-1, as noted below.
4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR 4-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . The Summary Table is corrected on page S-26 to add Transportation/Traffic to the Issue of Concern column. The Summary Table is revised on page S-26 to add Mitigation Measure TR-8. The Summary Table is corrected on page S-27 to list the Residual Impact for Mitigation Measure CUM-TR-1 and CUM-TR-2 as Less than Significant. Text on page 2-24 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify the Specific Plan open space requirements regarding increased height. The Draft Specific Plan requires at least 30 percent (about 13.2 acres) of the Plan Area be retained in open space, both as hardscaped op en space and landscaped open space. Hardscaped areas (sidewalks, paseos, plazas) are required to occupy at least 10 percent of the Plan Area (about 4.4 acres). Parking and roadways are no t counted toward the hardscaped open space requirement. Green open space is required to occu py at least 20 percent of the Plan Area (about 8.8 acres). If increased height is permitted for buildings in the Transition District (from 35-foot up to 45-foot height), then the green open space requirement for that property (or group of properties under a single Architecture and Site Review) increases to 25 by five percent of the building footprint that exceeds 35 feet for that property. Text on page 2-24 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify the Specific Plan allows increased heights for both residential and non-residential buildings The Draft Specific Plan includes additional detailed standards for non-residential and residential uses. The detailed non-residential standards pr ovide information on building height limits, limitations on retail store sizes, and the design of outdoor ancillary uses, such as storage or disposal. In general, non-residential buildings can be no higher than 35 feet (or up to 45 feet if additional open space is provided or the project is for affordable housing), but several exceptions allow for additional height, the limit to which is to be determined by the Town in issuing a conditional use permit and architecture and site review approval. Hotels are limited to 45 feet unless the Town grants a conditional use permit and architecture and site approval to allow additional height. Certain building elements are permitted to exceed the height limits. The detailed residential standards control setbacks and exceptions to setbacks, landscaping, and building height. In general, residential buildings are allowed to be up to 35 feet in height, but exceptions are allowed up to 45 feet, and in the Lark District, at least 15 percent of buildings must be no more than 25 feet high. In the Transitional zone, any building may exceed 45 feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 4-3 Text on pages 2-42 and 2-43 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify that the objective is to provide affordable units at the rate of 20 percent of the market rate units. 2. Provide a residential program that designates a variety of development intensities to help achieve the Town’s unmet needs, including the young working prof essionals and empty-nester move-down buyers, as well as compli es with the Town of Los Gatos Housing Element, with the number of units having sa les prices or rents for low income earners equal to a minimum of 20 percent of the market rate residential units having sales prices or rents for low income earners. Text on page 3-8 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarify th at architectural features in excess of the height limit may not exceed 30 percent of the length of the parapet on the given building façade. Architectural features (towers, cupolas, roof pi tches of 8:12 or greater, etc.) are allowed to exceed the height limit, but not by more than 30 percent of the length of the parapet on the given building facade. This exception provid es for both architectural enhancements and accommodation of mechanical equipment. The Draft Specific Plan does not provide a maximum additional height that is allowed for these features. As an example of the additional height that might be allowed, a 30-foot wide building with a 6:12 roof pitch could add 7.5 feet of height (.5 foot rise per foot of run times 15-foot span), for a maximum height of 42.5 feet (35 feet plus 7.5 feet for this height exception). Text on page 3-9 of the Draft EIR is revised to clarif y the description of approval requirements for height exceptions. Each of these exceptions requires Architecture and Site Review and is subject to required findings. The Planning Commission must also appr ove a conditional use permit for most height exceptions, subject to required findings. Such determinations are appealable to the Town Council. The effect of Plan Area buildings on scenic vistas cannot be precisely determined without specific building designs; however, the Dr aft Specific Plan requires that building height may not have significant adverse effects on the ridgeline, which must be confirmed through Planning Commission review and approval. The tops of buildings are expected to be below the ridgeline, as discussed below. Text on page 3-16 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect that the General Plan’s he ight limits range from 35 feet to 45 feet. Building Height. The effect of proposed building height limits on views and visual character is discussed earlier. The Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan establishes building height limits of 35 to 50 45 feet within the Town. The Draft Specific Plan, as a subset of, and an amendment to the General Plan, may establish a height limit within the boundaries of the Plan Area. If the Town Council adopts the Draft Specific Plan with the proposed height limits, the new height limits would be automatically consistent with the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan.
4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR 4-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . The impact statement on page 3-73 of the Draft EIR is re vised to change the significance determination. Less-than-Significant and Unavoidable Im pact with Mitigation: Adverse Change to Historical Resources Text on page 3-77 of the Draft EIR is revised in response to public comment in order to reflect the change to the determination in significance. This change in conclusion is not based upon new facts, but reflects the Town's reconsideration of this part of the EIR in light of the findings of the historical reports, as suggested in public comments. Neither the proposed project nor the subs tance of the impacts to existing historic resources has been changed. To reflect the historic and agricultural heritage of the Plan Area and the Town, the Draft Specific Plan incorporates architectural design requirem ents and orchard plantings along the Los Gatos Boulevard and/or Lark Avenue frontages. Despit e these Draft Specific Plan provisions, and the condition and historic integrity of some of the structures, removal of potentially historic resources would be a significant adverse environm ental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact but not to a less-than-significant level. Text on page 3-80 of the Draft EIR is revised concerning consistency with General Plan policies to reflect the change in determination in significance fo r loss of potentially historic resources. Less-than-Significant Impact with Miti gation: Conflict with Plan Adopted for Environmental Purposes Historic Structures (Policies OSP-9.2, CD-12.1, CD-12.2, CD-12.3, CD-12.4, CD-12.9). The Plan Area includes several buildings that have been identified as potentially historic. Refer to the prior discussion of historic resources. Mitigat ion Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would mitigate the impact to potentially significant buildings, but no t to a less-than-signific ant level. As mitigated, however, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with these Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan policies relating to historic resources and adopted to prevent environmental effects because these policies do not prohibit the demoliti on of historic structures or require that all historic structures in the Town must be retained. Text on page 3-132 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect that the Plan Area is within the dam failure inundation area, based on mapping prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. No Less-than-Significant Impact: Fl ooding, Seiche, Tsunami, Mudflow The Plan Area is not within a 100-year flood zone. The Plan Area is shown in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan EIR and on Federal Emergency Management Agency maps as being located within the 500-year flood zone (Draft EIR Figure 4.8-1; General Plan Figure SAF-4;
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 4-5 Federal Emergency Management Agency 2009), so flooding, if it were to occur, would be infrequent, and most likely minor. The Plan Area is outside of within a dam failure inundation areas (Draft EIR Figure 4.8-2; General Plan Figure SAF-5 Santa Clara Valley Water District 2014). The Plan Area is downstream of the Le nihan Dam at Lexington Reservoir on Los Gatos Creek, but the Plan Area is protected from and subj ect to flooding in the event of a dam failure. Flood waters are expected to remain on the west side of State Route 17 in the event of a dam failure. Lenihan Dam was seismically upgraded in the past five years, and the state inspects dams regularly to ensure safety; therefore, dam fa ilure is unlikely, and the impact is considered less than significant. The Plan Area is not located adjacent to a larg e body of water, so seiches and tsunamis are not possible. The Plan Area is essentially level, an d is surrounded by essentially level ground, so mudflows are not possible. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 on page 3-163 of the Draft EIR is revised for consistenc y with the noise report, revising “300 feet along Lark Avenue” to “200 feet” and “50 feet west of Highland Oaks Drive to “150 feet.” NOI-1. A noise barrier shall be constructed commencing at the south end of the existing noise barrier along State Route 17, and continuing south to Lark Aven ue and east along Lark Avenue for approximately 300 200 feet (or approximately 50 150 feet of west of Highland Oaks Drive). From the existing noise barrier to a point approximately 200 feet north of Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 14 feet tall; from that point to Lark Avenue, the noise barrier shall be 12 feet tall, and along Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 10 feet tall for a length of about 100 feet and 8 feet tall thereafter. The noise barrier shall have a decorative design and/or in clude plantings or a plan ting buffer that would improve the appearance of the barrier from State Route 17 and Lark Avenue. Text on page 3-201 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect a more current date for which the Valley Transportation Plan 2040 is scheduled for adoption, per the Valley Transportati on Plan 2040 Development Matrix, dated June 10, 2014. Valley Transportation Plan 2040 is scheduled for adoption in March August 2014, and has a similar list of projects in the vicinity of the Plan Area (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2013b). Mitigation Measure TR-1 on page 3-220 of the Draft EIR is revised to include alternative mitigation that could be applied in the event that the Burton Road widening cannot occur prior to initial development within the Northern District. TR-1. The following intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection by the first project developer within the Northern District of the Plan Area. a. conversion of the existing eastbound lane on Burton Road to a through/left turn lane;
4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR 4-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . b. addition of one dedicated eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound right turn lane on Burton Road at Los Gatos Boulevard (including wideni ng Burton Road for about 200 feet west from Los Gatos Boulevard). In the event that the necessary right-of-way for Bu rton Road widening cannot be obtained prior to initial development within the Nort hern District, an alternative access street shall be completed and supplemental traffic analyses shall be conducted to demonstrate that adequate ingress and egress can be provided by other routes within the Plan Area. Text on page 3-222 of the Draft EIR is revised to indicate that the existing LOS E is an acceptable level of service on this freeway segment. This text is also revised to indicate that a significant effect occurs under both development scenario A and B. Freeway Segments. The proposed project would contribute to regional increases in highway traffic, and increased delays on State Route 17 and State Route 85. Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Policy TRA-1.1 states that development shall not exceed transportation capacity. The transportation impact analysis includes evaluation of 14 freeway segments. With development scenario A, project-generated traf fic added to existing conditions would not degrade traffic flow from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, nor increase traffic by one percent or more of capacity on any of the studied segments. With both development scenarios B, project-generated traffic would exceed one percent of capacity on the southbound State Route 85 mixed flow lanes from Winchester Boulevard to State Route 17. This segment already currently operates at acceptable LOS F E. (Fehr and Peer s 2014, Table 15). This would be a significant environmental impact. The transportation impa ct analysis does not propose mitigation to address adverse freeway segment effects. A new mitigation measure is added on page 2-223 to partially reduce the effects of traffic on southbound State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17. Mitigation Measure TRA-8. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the building applicant shall submit a transportation development impact fee to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the purpose of off-setting the cost of operational improvements on southbound State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17 (“affected segment”). Th e fee shall be negotiated between the developers and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorit y, based on the number of project trips that exceed one percent of project trips on the affected se gment (the significance threshold), and based on the proportionate number of trips projected for the subject building(s) in accordance with the North Forty Traffic Impact Analysis. The project cost to which the share of responsibility shall be applied shall be determined by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the affected segment.
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 4-7 The mitigation measure would reduce impacts on State Route 85, but the payment of fees may not completely mitigate the impact, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The last paragraph on page 3-228 of the Draft EIR is revised to correct a grammatical error. Countywide Bicycle Route 16B. County wide route 16B passes through the Los Gatos Boulevard/Samaritan Drive intersection. San Jose Bike Plan 2020 proposes Class II bike lanes on Samaritan Drive. The proposed project would result in significant level of service impacts at this intersection, but the required street improvemen ts would not alter the existing geometry on Samaritan Drive, or effect affect the potential to develop bicycle facilities. Text on page 3-246 of the Draft EIR is corrected to st ate that wastewater generation would be 236,000 gallons rather than 131,600 gallons. Wastewater treatment would occur at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant located in Alviso. The treatment plant has a licensed capacity of 167 mgd and the flow rate in 2010 was below 110 mgd, which represented a drop of over 20 mgd since 2000. The treatment plant has a planned capacity of 450 mgd. The pr oposed project’s wastewater flow was estimated based on generation factors of 250 gallons per day per residence and 70 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet for commercial uses (RMC Water and Environment 2009). Plan Area build-out would result in the generation of approximately 131,600 236,000 gallons of wastewater per day. Text on page 4-12 of the Draft EIR is revised to corre ct the impact characterization from significant and unavoidable to mitigated to a less than significant level. Traffic impacts at the National Avenue/Samaritan Drive intersection would remain be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and unavoidable, as described in Section 3.13 Transportation and Traffic. Table 33 on page 5-17 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflec t a change in the determination of significance for Cultural Resources.
4.0 C HANGES TO THE D RAFT EIR 4-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . Table 33 Summary of Project Alternatives Effects Topic Proposed Project No Project Increased Residential Decreased Commercial Historic Preservation Aesthetics Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar Agricultural Res. Less than Sign ificant Reduced Similar Similar Air Quality Mitigated Reduced Reduced Similar Biological Resources Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar Cultural Resources Mitigated Significant Unavoidable Reduced Similar Reduced Geology and Soils Less than Sign ificant Similar Similar Similar Greenhouse Gasses Less than Significant Reduced Reduced Similar Hazardous Mat. Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar Hydro/Water Quality Mitigated Reduced Reduced Similar Land Use/Planning Mitigated Similar Similar Similar Noise Mitigated Reduced Increased Similar Public Services Less than Significant Reduced Similar Similar Transportation Sign ificant Unavoidable Reduced Reduced Similar Utilities Mitigated Reduced Similar Similar Rank 1 2 3 Source: EMC Planning Group 2013 Note: Environmental effects noted as decreased, similar to, of in creased compared with the unmitigated proposed project. Text on page 6-2 and 6-3 of the Draft EIR is revised to reflect the change in determination regarding loss of potentially historic buildings, and to correct an e rror regarding significant unavoidable impacts on State Route 85. Cultural Resources The proposed project would result in the removal of buildings within the Plan Area that have been identified as potentially historic, having as association with the area’s agricultural past. Six buildings (or groups of buildings on a single site) are listed in the historic resources evaluation as
N ORTH F ORTY S PECIFIC P LAN F INAL EIR EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 4-9 potentially eligible as state historic resources. The Plan Area appears to maintain a strong association with Santa Clara Valley’s peak er a of horticultural production from 1910-1929. During this period the area was known as “The Valley of Heart’s Delight,” and orchards covered the area surrounding Los Gatos, and the Santa Cl ara Valley in general. Mitigation Measures are included in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, th at would reduce the significance of the impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Transportation and Traffic The proposed project would add new trips amounting to more than one percent of the existing volume on a State Route 85 segment that currently operates at unacceptable levels of service. With under both development scenarios A, project-generated traffic added to existing conditions would not degrade traffic flow from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, nor increase traffic by one percent or more of capacity on any of the studied segments. With development scenario B, project-generated traffic would exceed one percent of capacity on the southbound State Route 85 mixed flow lanes from Winchester Boulevard to State Route 17. This segment already currently operates at LOS EF. (Fehr and Peers 2014, Table 15). This would be a significant environmental impact. The transp ortation impact analysis does not propose mitigation to address adverse freeway segment ef fects. Mitigation Measure TR-8 would require payment of a development impact fee, but this measure would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. VTA and Caltrans are currently planning a proj ect on State Route 85 that would convert the existing high occupancy vehicle lanes into high occupancy/toll lanes. If the State Route 85 high occupancy/toll lanes are implemented, the propos ed project’s impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In Appendix G, additional historic evaluation material is added (see end of this section). In Appendix M, page v of the transportation impact analysis is revised. SR 17 NB and Lark Avenue The on-ramp has two single-occupant vehicle (S OV) lanes which are metered during the AM peak hour at a minimum rate of 330 vehicles pe r hour per lane (vphpl) and a maximum rate of 900 vphpl. The ramps have a vehicle storage leng th of 700 feet per lane. Under Existing plus Project and Background plus Project conditions, both project alternatives are projected to add vehicle trips equal to more than one percent of capacity to the on-ramp during both the AM and PM peak hours. Analysis indicates that Tthe additional queue resulting from adding project traffic can be accommodated within the existing vehicle storage length and by adjusting the metering rate to appropriately meter traffic such that queues would not impact Lark Avenue, as shown in Table 16 and Table 26.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 5 *Resource Name or #: 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Los Gatos Date: 2012 T 8 S ; R 1W ; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard City: Los Gatos Zip: 95032 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: APN 424 -07 -086 Elevation: *P3a. Description: This one -story contemporary vernacular commercial structure is complex in plan and operates as a bar. The wood -frame building has a mix of stucco cladding and horizontal, vertical and diagonal wood siding. A false storefront at the entrance of the building has river rock at the base and a parapet just above the door clad in tile. River rock planters flank each side of the glazed entry door. The false front features a shed roof while the main structure has a cross gable roof. Rear additions have a flat roof. A variety of window types are found around the building – metal sliders and fixed wood. A corrugated sheet metal roof shelters a paneled side door. Two substantial square posts support this roof. Steps, with a metal railing, lead up to the side door. Several additions have been completed off the rear of the structure. Alterations to the building include window replacement, cladding replacement, the addition of the false front and other additions off the rear. The overall condition of the commercial structure is fair. *P3b. Resource Attributes: Single Family Property, HP2 ; Ancillary Building HP4 *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Front elevation, J une 23, 2014 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 19 33 *P7. Owner and Address: Robert Spinazze 19249 Citrus Lane Saratoga , CA 95 070 *P8. Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya /Elizabeth Graux Carey & Co., Inc. 460 Bush St., San Francisco, 94 108 *P9. Date Recorded: June 2014 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: none *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 5 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single -family residence B4. Present Use: Bar/tavern *B5. Architectural Style: Contemporary vernacular *B6. Construction History: Constructed circa 19 33; The buildin g has a new false front and additions to the rear of the original building. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Driveway and parking to the south and east. Rock garden in front yard. B9a. Architect: N/A b. Builder: unknown *B10. Significance: Theme: Santa Clara Valley Agriculture Area: Northern Los Gatos Period of Significance: c. 1940 Property Type: Single -family residence Applicable Criteria: N/A The small parcel at 1 5043 Los G atos Boulevard was once part of Mexican -era Rancho Rinconada de Los Gatos. The rancho was established by an 1840 grant made by Governor Juan Alvarado to Jose Maria Hernandez and Sebastian Fabian Peralta. The 6,631 -acre lan d grant included the present -day cities of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and portions of Campbell. Its major feature was Los Gatos Creek, which ran through the center of the property. See continuation sheet. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See continuation sheet B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Hisashi Sugaya /Elizabeth Grauz , Carey & Co., Inc. *Date of Evaluation: June 2014 (This space reserved for official comments.)
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 5 *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard *Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya /Elizabeth Graux , Carey & Co., Inc. *Date: June 2014 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95 ) *Required information B10. Significance: (Continued) By 1876, the land which included the subject property was listed as being owned by Robert Walker on a Thompson & West map. Robert Walker, a native of Canada, purchased property and moved to Los Gatos in 1871. Walker married Eliza Jane Parr, whose father owned 3,000 acres of land on both sides of the Los Gatos Creek. Robert and Eliza had three children, Leslie, Myrtle, a nd Vivian, between whom they subdivided much of their land holdings following Eliza’s death in 1893. Leslie Walker’s 54 acre parcel was located directly north of the Walker Tract Subdivision and south of Myrtle Walker Johnson’s 55 acre parcel.1 The subject parcel appears to have been within Leslie Walker’s former land holdings along Los Gatos Boulevard. Los Ga tos Boulevard was known as San Jose -Los Gatos Road from the late 1880s through to around 1950. This name derived simply because the road connected San Jose to Los Gatos. Around 1950 the road name was changed to South Bascom Avenue. By the early 1970s the r oad name was changed again to Los Gatos Boulevard. As the road continues north into the San Jose city limits and past Highway 85 the name remains South Bascom Avenue. The building does not appear to be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR under Criterion A/1. It did not play a significant role in the Agricultural growth of the Santa Clara Valley. Additionally, it does not appear to be eligible under NRHP/CRHR Criteria B/2, C/3, or D/4. No persons have been identified that appear to have made a sig nificant contribution to local, state, or national history. Constructed c.19 33 , the house does not appear to be a significant example of a n architectural type especially since it has been extensively modified so that the original design is obscured except for its gable roof form . Lastly, the house does not appear to possess the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, state, or the nation. The evaluation of historic significance is two step process with the first being an assessment of whether the property meets any of the four criteria for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. The second step is an evaluation of the property’s integrity. There are se ven aspects of intergty: location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling and association. For 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard, the above analysis of the criteria for listing concludes the property does not appear to be eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. In addition, the property has been subject to extensive changes that have affected its integrity of design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling and asso ciation, thus further precluding its eligibility for listing in either the NRHP or the CRHR. B12. References: (continued) “5 -Story Hotel Proposed at Lark/Hwy 17 .” Los Gatos Observer. June 13, 2007. Aerial photographs of the Los Gatos area on file at the California Room, San Jose Public Library. 1948, 1960, 1968, 1981 Arbuckle, Clyde. History of San Jose. San Jose, CA: South & McKay Printing Co., 1986. Archive s & Architecture. County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement. San Jose, CA: County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development, December 2004, revised February 2011. Bloomfield, Anne. Los Gatos Historic Resources Survey. San Francisco, CA: June 28, 1991. Brutz, George G. The History of Los Gatos, Gem of the Foothills. Santa Cruz, CA: Western Tanager Press, 1983. California Register and National Register: A Comparison , California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series, no. 6. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2006. California Register of Historical Resources: The Listing Process , California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series, no. 5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, n.d.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 5 *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard *Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya /Elizabeth Graux , Carey & Co., Inc. *Date: June 2014 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95 ) *Required information Conway, Peggy. Images of America, Los Gatos. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2004. ___. Images of America, Los Gatos. San Francisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2007. Dallas, Alastair. Los Gatos Observed: The Archi tecture & History of Los Gatos, California. Los Gatos, CA: Infospect Press, 1999. Directories of San Jose City and Santa Clara County. 1887 -1934. Gebhard, David, Roger Montgomery, Robert Winter, John Woodbridge, and Sally Woodbridge. A Guide to the Archi tecture of San Francisco and Northern California. Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1973. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation , National Register Bulletin, no. 15. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the I nterior, 1997. How to Complete the National Register Registration Form , National Register Bulletin, no. 16A. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, 1997. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA: California Off ice of Historic Preservation, 1995. Kyle, Douglas E. Historic Spots in California. Revised edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Los Gatos Building Permits. Various permits accessed through Citizen Portal https://permits.losgatosca.gov/Ci tizenAccess/Default.aspx (accessed February 2013). Los Gatos Directory. 1902, 1924, 1925 Los Gatos Telephone Directory. 1965, Los Gatos Library Local History Collection Clippings Files: Agriculture: Orchards/Crops Families: Yuki Family. Los Gatos Publ ic Library. Hooked on Los Gatos. http://historylosgatos.org/ (accessed March 2013). “Los Gatos’ Yuki Family Sells 32 Acres, Mixed -Use Planned.” Business Journal. July 11, 2010. Mathews, Stephanie Ross et al. Postcard History Series: Los Gatos. San Fran cisco, CA: Arcadia Publishing, 2009. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986. Mrs. Myrtle Johnson, Obituary. Los Gatos Time. October 24, 1941. Poppeliers, John C. et al. What Style is it? A Guide to American Architecture. Washington D. C.: The National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1983. Olmsted, Roger and T. H. Watkins. Here Today: San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1978.
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 5 *Resource Name or # 15043 Los Gatos Boulevard *Recorded by: Hisashi Sugaya /Elizabeth Graux , Carey & Co., Inc. *Date: June 2014 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95 ) *Required information Santa Clara County Building Inspecti ons Department. Various building permit records ranging from 1947 -1991. On file at the Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development. Santa Clara County Official Records. Various deeds on file at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk Reco rder. Santa Clara County Planning Department. Various planning files. On file at the Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development. Sawyer, Eugene T. History of Santa Clara County California. Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company, 1922. T aylor, Frank J. “The People Nobody Wants.” The Saturday Evening Post. May 9, 1942. United States Federal Census. http://www.ancestry.com (accessed March 2013) 1880 . California, Redwood Township. 1900 . California, Redwood Township. 1910 . California, Redwo od Township. 1920. California, Redwood Township. 1940. California, Redwood Township. User’s Guide to California Historical Resource Status Code & Historic Resources Inventory Directory . California State Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistanc e Bulletin, no. 8. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Parks and Recreation, November 2004. Photogrsaphs Continued
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-1 5.0 M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM 5.1 I NTRODUCTION CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration that includes mitigat ion measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project implementati on in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures th at mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate th e effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measur e's compliance. This mo nitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented. 5.2 M ONITORING P ROGRAM The basis for this monitoring program is the mi tigation measures included in the project EIR. These mitigation measures are de signed to eliminate or reduce significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mi tigation measures become conditions of project approval, which the project proponent is required to complete during and after implementation of the proposed project.
5.0 M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM 5-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . The attached monitoring program, which begins on the following page, is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigatio n measures. This monitoring program contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the environmental impact report. 5.3 M ONITORING P ROGRAM P ROCEDURES The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department is responsible for coordination of the monitoring program. Th e Community Development Depart ment should be responsible for completing the monitoring program and di stributing the monitoring program to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures. Each listed responsible individual or agency is responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures cont ained in the monitoring program have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring program with evidence of compliance to the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring program should not be returned to the Community Development Department. The Town of Los Gatos Community Developmen t Department will review the monitoring program to ensure that appropriate mitigation me asures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring program have been complied with at the appropriate time, e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Comp liance with mitigation me asures is required for project approvals. If a responsible individual or agency determines that non-compliance has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Community Development Department, de scribing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If no n-compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the Town of Los Gatos.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-3 3.1 Aesthetics AES-1. New development adjacent to residential uses existing at the time of Specific Plan adoption shall provide minimum five foot side and rear setbacks to those residential uses. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. 3.3 Air Quality AQ-1. Low NOX emitting heating systems shall be required for commercial, office, and hotel uses. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. AQ-2. Parking lots shall provide charging stations at a rate of no less than one percent of parking spaces. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. AQ-3. All commercial developments shall incorporate energy reduction measures, including cool pavement materials, cool roof materials, and/or renewable energy sources, such as on-site Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Director of Community Development. Ensure these Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . solar power, to partially off-set electricity needs within the Plan Area. Common areas within commercial, office, and hotel developments shall utilize solar-generated or other renewable source electricity, or provide facilities for contribution of a like amount of renewable electricity to the electric grid. Party: Applicant. measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. AQ-4. The developer(s) shall implement basic dust control measures at all on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place. The developer(s) shall implement additional dust control me asures at all on-site and off-site locations where grading or excavation takes place within 200 feet of residential properties. Basic Dust Control Measures: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be la id as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; and f. Post a publicly visible sign(s) with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring prior to and during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-5 respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Additional Dust Measures g. All excavation, gradin g, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph; h. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established; and i. Unpaved roads shall be treated with a three to six inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel . AQ-5. High efficiency filtration (MERV rating of 13 or greater) on ventilation systems shall be required in residential, hotel, and office units located in areas along State Route 17 identified in the EIR as having cancer risk in excess of 10 cases per million . Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. AQ-6. Ground-level outdoor residential yards that are not oriented to the Los Gatos Boulevard side of the Plan Area, shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-way prior to 2015, and, subject to air hazards modeling to confirm, no closer than 50 feet from the State Route 17 right-of-way thereafter (when diesel fuel and engine changes will reduce diesel emissions levels). Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 3.4 Biological Resources BIO-1. If noise generation, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or other construction activities begin during the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), or if construction activities are suspended for at least two weeks and recommence during the nesting bird season, then the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds. The survey shall be performed within suitable nesting habitat areas on the project site, and as feasible within 250 feet of the site boundary, to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed during project implementation. This survey shall be conducted no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of disturbance and/or construction activities. A report documenting the survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist and submitted to the Town of Los Gatos for review and approval prior to disturbance and/or construction activities. If no active bird nests are detected during the survey, then project activities can proceed as scheduled. However, if an active bird nest of a native species is detected during the survey, then a plan for active bird nest avoidance shall determine and clearly delineate an appropriately sized, temporary protective buffer area around each active nest, depending on the nesting bird species, existing site conditions, and type of proposed disturbance and/or construction activities. The protective buffer area around an active bird nest is typically 75-250 feet, determined at the discretion of the qualified biologist and in compliance with applicable project permits. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit – note seasonal requirement. Monitoring prior to and during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-7 To ensure that no inadvertent impacts to an active bird nest will occur, no disturbance and/or construction activities shall occur within the protective buffer area(s) until the juvenile birds have fledged (left the nest), and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, as determined by the qualified biologist. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-2. To avoid impacts to burrowing owls, a qualified biologist will conduct a two-visit (i.e. morning and evening) pre-construction presence/absence survey at all areas of suitable habitat on and within 300 feet of the construction site within 30 days prior to the start of construction. Surveys will be conducted according to methods described in the Revised Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012). If pre-construction surveys are undertaken during the breeding season (February through August) and locate active nest burrows near construction zones, then these nests and a 200-meter (600-foot) exclusion zone will be delineated which must remain off-limits to ground-disturbing activities until the breeding season is over. The exclusion zone shall be clearly delineated/fenced, and work could proceed within the exclusion zone after the biologist has determined that fledglings were capable of independent flight and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has approved the recommencement of work inside the exclusion zone, or has authorized physical relocation of the owls. Nesting owl pairs physically relocated (after consultation and Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit – note seasonal requirement. Monitoring prior to and during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . approval from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) as a consequence of construction activities are typically provided a habitat replacement mitigation ratio of 6.5 acres per owl pair/territory relocated. The project developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. BIO-3. To avoid impacting active bat roosts, if present, any vacant buildings on the site proposed for removal that are boarded up prior to construction (dark in the daytime) shall be opened in the winter months (prior to mid-March) to allow in light, making these areas non-suitable for use as bat roosts. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit - note seasonal requirement. Monitoring prior to and during construction. BIO-4. Mature trees removed due to project implementation shall be removed in two stages (with the limbs removed one day, and the main trunk removed on a subsequent day) to allow any potentially present day-roosting bats the opportunity to relocate. If bat roosts are encountered during tree removal, a bat specialist shall be hired to assist in any relocation efforts. The developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring prior to and during construction. BIO-5. Prior to tree removal, a Tree Preservation Report or Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared by a qualified arborist, and a Tree Removal Required as a Condition of Approval. Director of Community Development. Prior to issuance of any Grading
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-9 Permit shall be obtained stipulating exactly how many protected trees of each species will be removed and how many will then be required as replacement plantings, along with where they can be planted, and any applicable maintenance requirements. Retained trees shall be protected during construction according to the measures specified in the Tree Protection Ordinance (Town of Los Gatos 2003). The project developer(s) shall be responsible for the implementation of this mitigation measure, subject to monitoring by the Town of Los Gatos. Responsible Party: Applicant. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring prior to and during construction. 3.5 Cultural Resources CR-1. Prior to demolition of buildings within the Plan Area identified as potentially historic resources, the developer(s) shall prepare photographic documentation of the buildings meeting the documentation standards of the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER), as presented in the North 40 Specific Plan Historic Resources Technical Report. The historic documentation shall be prepared at Level IV (sketch plan, digital photographs of exterior and interior views, and HABS/HAER inventory cards) for the potentially historic buildings. No historic documentation shall be required for the orchard, except as may be incidentally included in the documentation of the structures. The developer(s) shall prepare, or retain a qualified professional who meets the standards for architectural historian and/or historical architect set forth by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, 36 CFR 61) to prepare documentation of historic resources prior to any construction work associated with demolition or removal. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Demolition Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . The Town of Los Gatos shall identify appropriate repositories for housing the historical documentation at the time of the project-level analysis. An interpretive display shall be incorporated into the design of commercial development within the Plan Area. CR-2. For potentially historic buildings proposed for retention at existing locations, the project sponsor shall prepare a historic structure(s) report (HSR) for the historic resource as a guide to the rehabilitation. The HSR shall set forth the history of the resource, describe its existing condition, make recommendations for repair, rehabilitation, replacement, reconstruction, and other treatments based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HSR shall be prepared by a licensed architect who meets the qualifications for historical architect as set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards, published in the Federal Register, June 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 119). The project sponsor shall retain the services of a historical architect as a member of the design team for the rehabilitation. The historical architect may be the same historical architect who prepared the HSR, without encountering a conflict of interest. The Town of Los Gatos shall review the rehabilitation plans prepared by the project architect for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. Monitoring prior to construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-11 Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HSR shall specify procedures for protecting historic resources and a monitoring method to be employed by the contractor while working near the affected resource. At a minimum, the plan shall address the operation of construction equipment near adjacent historical resources, storage of construction materials away from adjacent resources, and education/training of construction workers about the significance of the historical resources. CR-3. For grading or excavations deeper than four feet below the existing surface, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor the excavations. The archaeologist shall be present on-site to observe a representative sample of deep grading or excavations in at least three areas within the Plan Area until satisfied that there is no longer a significant potential for finding buried resources. In the event that any potentially significant archaeological resources (i.e., potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources) are discovered, the project archaeologist shall designate a zone in which additional archaeological resources could be found and in which work shall be stopped. A plan for the evaluation of the resource shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for approval. Evaluation normally takes the form of limited hand excavation and analysis of materials and information removed to determine if the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Encroach-ment Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring: during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . In the event that significant paleontological, historic, and/or archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading in the absence of an archaeological monitor, all work shall stop in the area of the subject property until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and, if necessary, develop an appropriate data recovery program. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this mitigation measure. Costs will be the responsibility of the developer(s). CR-4. If human remains are found during construction activities, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the archeological monitor and the coroner of Santa Clara County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Encroach-ment Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-13 identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. The Planning Division of the Community Development Department shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation of these mitigation measures. Costs will be the responsibility of the developer(s). 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of permits for activities involving grading or excavation within Lark Avenue, the San Jose Water Company property, the south end of the Plan Area (within the contaminated area delineat ed on County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health records for the Lark Avenue Car Wash fuel leak case), or immediately adjacent areas, the developer shall consult with the Department of Environmental Health regarding the potential for disturbance of contaminated soils. The developer shall either conduct pre-excavation soil testing at an appropriate depth to the proposed work and review results with the Department of Environmental Health, or assume contamination of the soils and proceed with appropriate safeguards, established in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health. Unless pre-excavation soil testing shows no contamination, post-excav ation soil testing shall be conducted. If testing shows soil contamination levels are in excess of acceptable levels, the developer shall implement appropriate protective Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Confirm consultation with DEH. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Encroach-ment Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring: Prior to and during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . measures in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health, including worker protocols and soil handling and disposal protocols. The presence of contamination may necessitate the use of workers who have been properly trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120. If soil testing shows acceptable contamination levels, no further soils measures may be required. If excavations reach free groundwater, the developer shall stop work and consult with the Department of Environmental Health. 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality HAZ-1. Prior to issuance of permits for activities involving grading or excavation within Lark Avenue, the San Jose Water Company property, the south end of the Plan Area (within the contaminated area delineat ed on County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health records for the Lark Avenue Car Wash fuel leak case), or immediately adjacent areas, the developer shall consult with the Department of Environmental Health regarding the potential for disturbance of contaminated soils. The developer shall either conduct pre-excavation soil testing at an appropriate depth to the proposed work and review results with the Department of Environmental Health, or assume contamination of the soils and proceed with appropriate safeguards, established in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health. Unless pre-excavation soil testing shows no contamination, post-excav ation soil testing shall be conducted. If testing shows soil contamination levels are in excess of acceptable levels, the developer shall implement appropriate protective measures in consultation with the Department of Environmental Health, including worker Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Confirm consultation with DEH. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Encroach-ment Permit, or Building Permit. Monitoring: prior to and during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-15 protocols and soil handling and disposal protocols. The presence of contamination may necessitate the use of workers who have been properly trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120. If soil testing shows acceptable contamination levels, no further soils measures may be required. If excavations reach free groundwater, the developer shall stop work and consult with the Department of Environmental Health. 3.11 Noise NOI-1. A noise barrier shall be constructed commencing at the south end of the existing noise barrier along State Route 17, and continuing south to Lark Avenue and east along Lark Avenue for approximately 200 feet (or approximately 150 feet of west of Highland Oaks Drive). From the existing noise barrier to a point approximately 200 feet north of Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 14 feet tall; from that point to Lark Avenue, the noise barrier shall be 12 feet tall, and along Lark Avenue the noise barrier shall be 10 feet tall for a length of about 100 feet and 8 feet tall thereafter. The noise barrier shall have a decorative design and/or include plantings or a planting buffer that would improve the appearance of the barrier from State Route 17 and Lark Avenue. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to occupancy of any new residential units or hotel units. NOI-2. Future development located on sites that are shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR as exceeding the normally a cceptable noise level of the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and Town noise ordinance shall demonstrate that building designs and placement adequately reduce noise. If a study shows that actual noise (and projected noise levels at Specific Plan build-out) will exceed applicable Town noise standards, site and/or building plans shall identify measures to Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . meet these standards. The developer(s) shall be responsible for preparing noise studies and implementing noise attenuation measures as conditions of project approval and construction. The developer(s) shall: Identify outdoor use spaces and building design or barrier walls to reduce environmental noise to 65 dBA Ldn or lower; Identify exterior-to-interior sound insulation measures, such as sound rated windows and doors, to reduce environmental noise to 45 dBA Ldn or lower indoors at residences and hotel guest rooms; and As windows will need to be closed to meet the allowable interior noise level across the site, residences and hotel guest rooms shall incorporate ventilation or air-conditioning systems to provide a habitable interior environment, consistent with California Building Code requirements. Systems must not compromise sound-insulation of the building shell. NOI-3. Future development projects shall be designed so that all podium buildings are oriented to shield outdoor courtyards from the adjacent roadways. Future development projects shall be designed so that residences along Los Gatos Boulevard incorporate noise barriers as needed to shield outdoor use spaces. Outdoor use areas (excluding outdoor areas that are principally landscaped areas, parking areas, or sidewalks) shall meet the 65 dBA Ldn or lower outdoor noise standard. The applicant for each development project shall submit building and site plans demonstrating compliance with this measure. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-17 NOI-4. Future non-residential development on sites where the Ldn noise levels are 68 dBA or higher as shown in the North 40 Specific Plan EIR, shall include site-specific noise attenuating building designs providing sound-rated construction that will reduce interior levels to the California Green Building Code requirement of Leq-1hr 50 dBA or lower. Alternatively, the developer(s) can demonstrate that exterior walls and roofs have been designed to have sound insulation ratings of STC 50 or higher, with minimum STC 40 windows. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. NOI-5. Future development shall provide building-specific designs to reduce stationary noise source noise generation to the Town Code standards, as described in The Los Gatos Town Code Sections 16.20.15 to 16.20.025 and General Plan Table NOI-2. These measures are expected to include equipment selection and orientation, noise barriers, roof screens and enclosures. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. NOI-6. Future development projects that include vibration-sensitive facilities or businesses with highly vibration-sensitive equipment shall quantify vibration levels and demonstrate project-specific building designs to reduce vibration to acceptable levels. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. NOI-7. Future development projects including or requiring roadway improvement projects along Burton Way in the northern portion of the Plan Area shall require a noise assessment prior to approval if existing residential uses will remain adjacent to the roadway improvements. The Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . assessment shall consider the orientation and width of the roadway; location and design of existing residences; and shall identify appropriate mitigation measures to re duce traffic noise to within the Town of Los Gatos noise standards. This is expected to consist of sound-rated windows and doors, and possible roadway noise barriers. into project plans and completed on time. NOI-8. Future development applications shall identify the location and types of sensitive receptors that may be affected by construction noise and/or vibration. Measures to control construction noise and address potential complaints shall be proposed and called out in site plans and/or building plans: Consistent with the Town Code, construction activities, which are authorized by a valid Town permit or as otherwise allowed by Town permit, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays if th ey meet at least one of the following noise limitations: • No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ei ghty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. • The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. Locate stationary and mobile noise generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging areas shall not be located adjacent to sensitive receptors, such as residences. Conduct a pre-construction meeting with nearby Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, Demolition Permit, or Building Permit. Field monitoring: prior to and during construction.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-19 sensitive receptors to outline the construction schedule and what types of noises with will hear. Post construction schedules outside the construction site. Designate a point of contact that will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. Develop a process to respond to and address complaints. Submit a vibration study identifying the nearest sensitive receivers, construction activity, and mitigation measures as needed. 3.13 Transportation and Traffic TR-1. The following intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/ Samaritan Drive/Burton Road intersection by the first project developer within the Northern District of the Plan Area. a. conversion of the existing eastbound lane on Burton Road to a through/left turn lane; b. addition of one dedicated eastbound left turn lane and one eastbound right turn lane on Burton Road at Los Gatos Boulevard (including widening Burton Road for about 200 feet west from Los Gatos Boulevard). In the event that the necessary right-of-way for Burton Road widening cannot be obtained prior to initial development within the Northern District, an alternative access street shall be completed and supplemental traffic analyses shall be conducted to demonstrate that adequate ingress and egress can be provided by other routes within the Plan Area. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to first Occupancy Permit for commercial development within the Northern District. TR-2. The following off-site intersection improvements shall be completed at the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection by the first project developer: Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Director of Community Development. Traffic Prior to issu-ance of first Occupancy Permit.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . a. addition of a third eastbound left turn lane on Lark Avenue; b. addition of third northbound left turn lane on Los Gatos Boulevard; c. addition of a third westbound lane on Lark Avenue from Los Gatos Boulevard to the intersection of State Route 17 northbound ramps to the Los Gatos Boulevard/Lark Avenue intersection, which will operate as a second right turn lane east of the State Route 17 northbound ramps/Lark Avenue intersection and to operate as a through-right lane east of the Highland Oaks Drive/Lark Avenue intersection; and d. modification and re-striping of intersection and restriction of parking as needed. Party: Applicant. Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. TR-3. Applicants for development or redevelopment projects within the Northern District shall pay a pro-rata share of improvements at the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection or other improvement related to relieving congestion at the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection. Improvements could include, but are not limited to, lane or traffic control improvements to the Samaritan Drive/National Avenue intersection and/or signalization of the Samaritan Drive/Samaritan Court intersection. Pro-rata share shall be based on percent of project trips, per distribution patterns in the North 40 Transportation Impact Analysis, as a share of total trips within the intersection. Fees shall be paid to the City of San Jose prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall pay the pro-rata share of improvement as determined by the Town of Los Gatos and City of San Jose. If a specific improvement project has not been identified, the fee shall be based on pro-rata share Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-21 of a traffic signal, and shall be proportionally refundable if a less expensive project is developed. TR-4. The developer(s) shall work with the Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority regarding the provision of a shuttle service or regularly scheduled direct bus route service to the Vasona light rail station, to be in service concurrent with commencement of revenue service on the Vasona light rail extension. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Parties: Applicant and Town. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Consultation with VTA. Prior to issuance of Tentative Maps. TR-5. The developer(s) shall work with the Town and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and other agencies to ensure that the Plan Area is developed in a manner that takes full advantage of the transit opportunities afforded by the Vasona Light Rail. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Parties: Applicant and Town. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Consultation with VTA. Prior to issuance of Improve-ment Plans. TR-6. Development within the Lark District near the intersection of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard shall provide a direct pedestrian/bicycle access between residential areas and the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Tentative Maps.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 5-22 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . TR-7. Either bicycle lanes or sharrows (shared lane markings) shall be provided on A Street between Los Gatos Boulevard and Lark Avenue. The speed limit shall be no greater than 30 miles per hour, and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs (Caltrans sign R4-11) shall be placed on streets marked with sharrows. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to issuance of Improve-ment Plans. Prior to acceptance of improve-ments. TR-8. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the building applicant shall submit a transportation development impact fee to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the purpose of off-setting the cost of operational improvements on southbound State Route 85 between Winchester Boulevard and State Route 17 (“affected segment”). The fee shall be negotiated between the developers and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, based on the number of project trips that exceed one percent of project trips on the affected segment (the significance threshold), and based on the proportionate number of trips projected for the subject building(s) in accordance with the North Forty Traffic Impact Analysis. The project cost to which the share of responsibility shall be applied shall be determined by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the affected segment. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Consultation with VTA and Caltrans. Prior to issuance of Building Permits. CUM-TR-1. Project developers shall pay a pro-rata share towards the construction of the following off-site intersection improvement at the Lark Avenue/southbound State Route 17 onramps intersection. Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Prior to issuance of Building Permits.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM DATE: July 18, 2014 PROJECT: North 40 Specific Plan PD-14-001, Z-14-001 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . 5-23 a. Reconfiguration of the eastbound lanes on Lark Avenue to convert the existing right-turn only lane to a shared through/right turn lane, with the following final configuration: one left turn lane (onto State Route 17) two through lanes, and one shared through/right turn lane at Garden Hill Drive. Applicant. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. CUM-TR-2. The following signal light adjustments shall be completed no later than the occupancy of 50 percent of the retail square footage. a. Increase cycle length and associated green time to accommodate the increase in traffic Required as a Condition of Approval. Responsible Party: Applicant. Director of Community Development. Traffic Engineer. Ensure these measures are incorporated into project plans and completed on time. Prior to occupancy of the first Building Permit exceeding 290,000 square feet of commercial floor area within the Plan Area.
5.0 M ITIGATION M ONITORING AND R EPORTING P ROGRAM 5-24 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC . This side intentionally left blank.