North Forty Specific Plan Cont. (see 9/2/14 for previous documents)°wM nF MEETING DATE: 09/16/14
- ITEM NO:
��S cAt °S COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER (/
ROBERT SCHULTZ, TOWN ATTORNEYd(7x v &.p —b/ Q,S
SUBJECT: NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP -14-
001, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Z -14 -001, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT EIR -10 -002. PROJECT LOCATION: THE PLAN AREA
COMPRISES APPROXIMATELY 44 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHERN EXTENT OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, BORDERED BY
STATE ROUTE 17 AND STATE ROUTE 85 FREEWAYS TO THE WEST
AND NORTH, LOS GATOS BOULEVARD TO THE EAST AND LARK
AVENUE TO THE SOUTH. APN 424 -07 -009, 010 024 THROUGH 027 031
THROUGH 037, 052 THROUGH 054, 060 063 THROUGH 065 070 081
THROUGH 086, 090, 094 THROUGH 096, 099 100 424 -06 -115 116 AND
129. PROPERTY OWNERS: THOMAS & MIYOKO YUKI, HERBERT &
BARBARA YUKI, ETPH LP, WILLIAM MATTES PETER BRUTSCHE
WILLIAM FALES. WILLIAM HIRSCHMAN, ELIZABETH DODSON
PATRICIA CONNELL, HANS MATTES, TAK PETROLEUM DEWEY
VENTURA, ALEXANDER & BETTY MOISENCO, LUCY DAGOSTINO
ROBERT & GEORGIANNA SPINAZZE, MARIANNE EZELL LOS GATOS
MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER, LLC. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
A. CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
B. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN.
C. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
D. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT.
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETT`t4 t A"4WYW(
Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager N/A Town Attorney N/A Finance
\Ummn data\DEV\tc reports\2014\N40TC9- 16- 14.doc Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
September 10, 2014
BACKGROUND:
On September 2, 2014, the Town Council conducted a public hearing on the North Forty Specific
Plan and the associated General Plan Amendments, Zoning Code Amendment, and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). Following the closing of the public hearing the items were continued to the
September 16, 2014 Council meeting due to the lateness of the hour.
DISCUSSION:
The Council should continue their discussion and take action on the items (North Forty Specific
Plan, General Plan Amendments, Zoning Code Amendment, and EIR) as outlined in the staff
report for the September 2, 2014 Council meeting. The overarching issues raised by the
Planning Commission and public testimony are:
• Traffic
• Development Capacity and Density
• Building Heights
• Conditional Use Permits and Economic Vitality
• Phasing
• Schools
Based upon the public comments received at the Town Council meeting related to school
impacts and senior housing, staff along with the Town Attorney decided to further explain the
State's preemption in regard to impacts on school facilities and also further explain the ability of
the Town to impose Senior Housing requirements on a project.
A. School Impact Fees
The California Government Code § 65996(a) sets forth the "exclusive methods of considering
and mitigating impacts on school facilities" resulting from any Town development project.
Govt. Code. Section 65995(h) expressly provides that "[t]he payment or satisfaction of a fee,
charge, or other requirement levied or imposed... are hereby deemed to be full and complete
mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving but not limited
to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental
organization... on the provision of adequate school facilities." Therefore, California law severely
limits the ability of the Town to mitigate for school impacts — essentially providing that the
payment of these fees is the exclusive measure of such mitigation.
Furthermore, Sections 65995(b) and 65996(i) prohibit public agencies from using the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or "any other provision of state or local law" to deny
approval of a project on the basis of the project's impacts on school facilities or based upon a
project proponent's refusal to provide mitigation in excess of the statutory fees. In other words,
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z- 14- OOI/EIR -10 -002
September 10, 2014
the Town has no ability to require mitigation for school impacts over and above the payment of
the statutory fees by developers to the school district.
When it comes to arguments about the impact of a proposed development on existing school
facilities and their ability to accommodate more students, the CEQA process is essentially
ministerial. The Town must accept the fees mandated by Senate Bill 50 as the exclusive means
of considering and mitigating the impacts of the proposed development on school facilities.
Although municipalities have restrictions on environmental review and mitigation for school
impacts, Gov. Code, § 65996(e) states that "[n]othing in this section shall be interpreted to limit
or prohibit the ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of land use approvals other than
on the need for school facilities, as defined in this section." This leaves the Town free to reject a
project based on impacts other than the need for "school facilities."
In addition, as mentioned by one public speaker, Government Code Section 65998 preserves the
traditional power to use the general plan and zoning to identify opportunities for schools. The
Town may not ask a developer to donate land for a school site in exchange for a development
approval, however, the Town retains its general authority to designate and zone an area for a
school. To avoid a taking, local agencies often identify other allowed land uses for the area in
the event the school district is unable to purchase the property prior to the consideration of a
development application.
B. Senior Housing
Both federal and state law prohibit the Town from using its planning and zoning powers to deny
residency to, or make housing unavailable to, or discriminate against, families with children.
Planning or zoning restrictions that are adopted to discourage or prevent families with children
from living in the Town, such as zoning sites to permit only senior housing or limiting the
number of bedrooms in residences, would violate these provisions.
However, all of the fair housing statutes contain exceptions for senior housing. These sections
allow discrimination if the housing is built and designed to serve seniors. Housing in compliance
with these provisions must either require all residents to be 62 years of age or older; or comply
with more stringent design standards and require at least one member of each household to be 55
years of age or older.
According to our Housing Element, "The population of the Town is aging. The median age in
Los Gatos is currently 45 years, while in 1970 the median age was 30 years. Given Los Gatos'
aging population, senior housing is a significant issue for the Town. The California Department
of Finance projects that by 2030, Santa Clara County's senior population will continue to
increase, both from population growth and from the aging of the existing residents. Over
140,000 people are projected to be added to the county, and 60 percent of that growth will be
people 65 or older. By 2030, 1 in 4 adults (and one -fifth of the total population) in the county
will be 65 or older. Approximately 5,265 seniors reside in Los Gatos, according to 2010 U.S.
Census data, which represents approximately 18 percent of the population. About 80 percent of
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z- 14- 001/EIR -10 -002
September 10, 2014
existing senior households in Los Gatos are homeowners. Given Los Gatos' aging population,
senior housing is a significant issue for the Town. Based on national surveys, most seniors
would like to be able to remain in their current homes, or, if that is not possible, in their current
community."
Based upon the Housing Element, the Town could designate senior housing in the Specific Plan
at appropriate locations and densities in keeping with the goals and policies of the Housing
Element and General Plan. However, if there is any evidence that the provisions for senior
housing were adopted with the intent of excluding housing for families with children, the
Specific Plan could be found to be invalid. Therefore, the Town should not adopt Specific Plan
provisions for the North Forty with the intent of excluding or discouraging families with children
because of overcrowding of schools.
As an alternative to designating senior housing at set locations and densities, the Town could
provide incentives for senior housing in recognition of its unique characteristics: lower
automobile use, less traffic, and smaller household size. For instance, State density bonus law
permits all senior housing to receive a 20 percent density bonus whether or not it is affordable.
C. Attachments
Attachment 25 to this report is a copy of an exhibit that was displayed during public testimony
on September 2, 2014 by Mr. A. Don Caprobres of Grosvenor Americas. This report also
transmits correspondence received after the September 2 Council meeting (Attachments 26 and
27).
In addition, Attachment 28 contains a letter from the Town's traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers,
regarding the analysis of potential impacts on Highway 85. The Final EIR (Attachment 2)
identifies significant unavoidable impacts on Highway 85, specifically for the southbound
segment between Winchester Boulevard and Highway 17 in the evening peak hour. Another
segment of southbound Highway 85 (between Bascom Avenue and Union Avenue) is also
impacted in the evening peak hour as described in Attachment 28. Highway 85 has been
identified as having significant, unavoidable impacts and even with a proposed mitigation
measure of a transportation development impact fee payment to the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, the impacts to Highway 85 remain significant and unavoidable as
disclosed in the FEIR.
Lastly, to assist the Town Council in its consideration of the Planning Commission's
recommendations (Attachment 11), staff has taken the recommendations and placed them in a
table with proposed responses for Council consideration. The responses identify the need for
Council direction on specific policy issues, specific additional analyses, or specific text changes
to the Specific Plan with references to particular Attachments as appropriate.
Attachment (Previously received on April 4, 2014):
1. Draft Environmental hnpact Report (htto: / /www.los atg osca.gov/N40DEIR)
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
September 10, 2014
Attachments (Previously received on July 1 1.2014):
2. Final Environmental Impact Report with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(http://www.losgatosea.gov/N40FEIR)
3. Public Hearing Draft North Forty Specific Plan (Note: The complete Specific Plan including
appendices is also available online at: htt-o://www.losgatosea.tzov/N40SP)
Attachments (Previously received on August 22, 2014):
4. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014 (excluding Exhibits 5 &
6)
5. Desk Item Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014
6. Desk Item 2 Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of July 23, 2014
7. Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 13, 2014
8. Desk Item 3 Report to the Planning Commission for the meeting of August 13, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Staff Report on August 28 2014):
9. Verbatim minutes from the August 13, 2014 Planning Commission meeting (141 transcribed
pages)
10. Public Comment received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014
11. Detailed Planning Commission recommendations on the North Forty Specific Plan from their
August 13, 2014 meeting (six pages)
12. Draft findings (one page)
13. Memorandum from the Town Attorney (four pages)
14. Draft Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR -10 -002), adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopting the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, including Exhibit A.
15. Draft Resolution for the adoption of the North Forty Specific Plan
16. Draft Resolution adopting General Plan Amendments of the Town's General Plan (GP -14-
001), including Exhibit A.
17. Draft Ordinance effecting a Zoning Code Amendment of the Town Code (Z -14 -001),
including Exhibit A.
18. Planning Commission Recommendations for Text Changes to the North 40 Specific Plan
(four pages)
Attachments (Previously received with Addendum on August 29 2014):
19. Resolution 2010 -091: Resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos
Recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of the 2020
General Plan (includes Exhibit A)
20. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, August 29, 2014
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
September 10, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with Desk Item on September 2, 2014):
21. Map of the Los Gatos Union School District Boundary and school site options within the
North 40.
22. Letter from the Los Gatos Union School District received Friday, August 29, 2014 after
11:00 a.m.
23. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, August 29, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014.
24. Additional Limitations for Commercial (Exhibit 8 from the August 15, 2012 Advisory
Committee meeting.
Attachments received with this report:
25. Grosvenor exhibit displayed at the September 2, 2014 Town Council meeting.
26. Letter from the Los Gatos Union School District, dated September 5, 2014.
27. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, September 2, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, September 11, 2014.
28. Fehr & Peers letter dated September 10, 2014.
29. Table of Planning Commission recommendations and proposed responses for Council
consideration.
Distribution
cc: Grosvenor Americas, Attn: Steve O'Connell, I California St, Ste. 2500, San Francisco CA 94111
Summerhill Homes, Attn: Wendi E. Baker, 3000 Executive Pkwy, Ste. 450, San Ramon CA
94583
LRP:JSP:cg
d
Q
a
N
t
a
1
M
m
0
m
N
O
ci
O
J
C
� 56�
3S yII p4
g 3 S N
b s
L m
L�
�u e
4 4
8 S
C j
Ll
4
p�
W
psi
z
z®
� a
g�
a'
g
w�
_r®
F '
Y
CJ
d
6
n
IIIIeII
4
—
.9
u
__
5
1
f
O
�
n
O
G
[
;um
v
d
0
N
4IIIIIIS4S
�
Z
=�ISa6oH�
Z
C
F
7O
�1
W
O�
ATIACHWNT
2 5
C7
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 335 -2000 Phone
(408) 395 -6481 Fax
www.leusd.kl2.ca.us
Dr. Diana G. Abbati, Superintendent Pr'N
SENT VIA MAIL and EMAIL at ilarson(t4loseatosca.2ov
September 5, 2014
Greg Larson, Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mr. Larson:
We respectively ask that the following documents be resubmitted to the Town Council for
information in the September 16, 2014 agenda packet.
• August 29, 2014 letter sent to the Town regarding North 40 Specific Plan
• March 6, 2013 letter sent to the Town regarding Draft North 40 EIR
• April 26, 2010 letter to the Town regarding Draft 2020 General Plan EIR
Please let me know if the Town Council members would like additional information regarding
questions asked at the September 2, 2014 meeting.
Sincerely,
vmst4 ry. ' 4454u
Diana G. Abbati, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Los Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees at boardmembers(d;lgusd.kI2.ca.Lis
Town Council at council(Ii losaatosca.gov
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission at litg(aHosgatosca.gov
Don Capobres, Grosvenor at Don.Capobms(derosvenoncom
Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes at WBaker(iishhomes.com
Bob Mistele, Superintendent, Los Gatos - Saratoga Union High School District at bntistcic(d lgsuhsd.ora
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Eta • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi- Hartigan
ATTACHMENT 2 6
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 335 -2000 Phone
(408) 395 -6481 Fax
www.leusd. k I Ica. u.s
Dr. Diana G. Abbati, Superintendent n
SENT VIA MAIL and EMAIL at ,ipaulson a,losgatosca.gov
August 29, 2014
Town of Los Gatos
c/o Joel Paulson, Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor Leonardis, Town Council Members, Planning Commissioners and Staff:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the North Forty Specific Plan and
share the views of the Los Gatos Union School District as to the scope and content of the proposed
project's impact on the schools, pedestrian and bicycle impact, traffic and air quality.
As the plans to develop the North Forty are moving ahead with the Town of Los Gatos, change is
inevitable. If we can be certain of anything, we can learn from the past to understand the forces to
move one step ahead to improve and preserve this historic community for generations to come.
Who would have imagined that the Los Gatos Union School District would be at capacity today
given all the new housing developments approved since 2008 just as the last recession was taking
hold?
There is no doubt that the North Forty Specific Plan land use will contribute to the large number of
new units already approved in the Town of Los Gatos General Plan. As a residential, mixed -use,
and commercial development, the project will be profitable — in large part because of the excellence
of the school systems that serve the children of the Town. While we take deserved pride in those
schools, their ability to adequately serve our students will be challenged by the land use and
parameters contemplated in this plan.
Based on our current enrollment, we can extract data from the District's PowerSchool student
information system to accurately depict the most up -to -date student generation rate per household
for recently constructed developments. (See Table 1)
Table 1: Los Gatos Union School District Student Generation Rates
Development
Number of
Homes
District Enrollment
as of 8/27/14
Generation
Rate
Bluebird Lane
19
18
0.95
Brookside
89
40
0.45
Laurel Mews
22
13
0.59
Montecito
25
10
0.40
Average Student Generation Rates as of 8/27/14
1 0.60
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi- Hartigan
Page 2 — August 29, 2014
North Forty Specific Plan
Based on current projections, we estimate that the North Forty
Specific Plan, would add approximately 180 new students to our
schools, therefore impacting not only the capacity at our elementary and middle school sites, but
also have a dramatic affect on traffic, safety and air quality.
Even with the new construction of Lexington Elementary School, we know from undergoing an
extensive long -term facility master plan that the District will need a four -acre parcel to build a new
school site. Furthermore, the estimated cost to build one new classroom is approximately $800,000
today. Depending upon the scope and size of a new school, excluding land cost, the District has the
bonding capacity to plan accordingly.
Therefore, we urge the Town Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations to
the North Forty Specific Plan in regards to:
• Traffic impact and analysis to include new development and demographic information
consistent with the reality that the North Forty development will have on the already congested
traffic in Los Gatos and overcrowding of schools.
The unmet need of schools to include several policies to the North Forty Specific Plan
requiring:
• Developers to work closely with school districts to address school needs by reviewing
enrollment growth and current demographic studies to address traffic impact on
citizens, safe routes to school for children and overcrowding of Los Gatos schools.
• Provide an incentive for developers to partner with school districts for the identification
of school sites and funding strategies to address overcrowding in the Los Gatos schools
particularly as it relates to the development of the North Forty.
• Transportation and connectivity to include a policy to improve transit strategies to reduce
car and global warming emissions by connecting North Forty with schools, downtown, and
bicycle paths, lanes and trails with a focus on safe routes for citizens and families of Los Gatos.
The quantity and quality of many amenities and public services (i.e., fire and police
protection/safety, educational, transportation, and recreational opportunities) will be inadequate to
meet the needs of the residents of Los Gatos. A sustainable community recognizes the importance
of scale and capacity. It ensures that the community is not overdeveloped, overbuilt, overused, or
overpopulated. It recognizes the signs of tension that indicate when the community is overstressed
and is responsible to adjust for the demands on the environment, to avoid pollution, overcrowding,
and social disintegration.
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi- Hartigan
Page 3 — August 29, 2014
North Forty Specific Plan
Schools and families are a part of social networks, particulates and
currents are a part of air systems, and bike lanes and pedestrian
walkways are a part of transportation networks. The Town Council is entrusted with promoting and
implementing this truth through its policies whether by mitigating overcrowding of schools or
attracting economic development. The Town Council should not simply react to processes but takes
action to prevent risks to community well being and to maximize good opportunities for future
generations.
It is our sincere hope that the Town Council will keep our concerns in mind as you consider the
impact of this new project, so that we all can continue to maintain the strong sense of pride in the
educational opportunities our children have in the public education systems that serve the Town of
Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Diana G. Abbati, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Los Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees at boardmembers(d,,Igusd.kI2.ca.us
Town Council at council(ulosg tosca.gov
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission @ planning( %losgatosca.gov
Don Capobres, Grosvenor at Don.CapobresC&grosvenor.com
Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes at WBaker(Nshhomes.com.
Bob Mistele, Superintendent, Los Gatos - Saratoga Union High School District at bmistele( Igsuhsd.org
Board of Trustees • Kathy Bays • Scott Broomfield • Emi Etc • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Tina Orsi- Hartigan
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 335 -2000 Phone
(408) 395 -6481 Fax
www.lausd.kl2.ca.us
Dr. Diana G. Abbati, Superintendent SCHOOL
SENT VIA MAIL and EMAIL at ivaulson(a losgatosca.eov
March 6, 2013
Joel Paulson, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE. Draft North Forty Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Paulson:
I would like to provide comments on the Draft North Forty Specific Plan Environmental Impact
Report and the views of the Los Gatos Union School District as to the scope and content of the
proposed project's impact on the schools, pedestrian and bicycle impact, ftatTic and air quality.
The report contemplates the environmental impact of 364 new residential housing units, 400,000
square feet for commercial use, 125,000 square feet of office use, and 125,000 square feet for
hotel/conference center use being in the North 40 region. While we understand that multiple use of
this land is currently before the Town in various stages of review, the North Forty Specific Plan
land use as outlined in the project description will contribute to the large number of new units
already approved in the Town of Los Gatos General Plan.
We believe the development of the North 40 as a residential, mixed -use, and commercial
development is profitable — in large part because of the excellence of the school systems that serve
the Town. While we take deserved pride in those schools, their ability to adequately serve our
students will be challenged by the land use and study parameters contemplated in this plan.
Based on our current projections, 364 new units would add 104 additional students to our schools,
therefore impacting not only the capacity at our school sites but also impact traffic and air quality.
We are already exceeding the planned capacity of our schools. At Blossom Hill, the estimated
capacity at our current class sizes is 585, and the school is serving 690 students. Daves Avenue
Elementary School is serving 570 on a capacity of 535. Louise Van Meter Elementary has enrolled
645 in a school built for 495. We have eliminated the use of classrooms as computer labs, loaded
our 4`h and 5t° grade classrooms to capacity, and are tightly constrained with few degrees of
flexibility at each of our elementary sites. R.J. Fisher Middle School is now educating over 1,100
students and will grow significantly over the coming years as these elementary students move
through our system, and as new housing is added.
Page 2 — March 3, 2013
Draft North Forty Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
An equally important issue to us is the traffic impact on intersections that surround our schools.
The history of the district has left us with three schools near the Los Gatos Boulevard corridor.
Adding a significant number of students will have a great impact on the busiest intersections near
these schools. Because the Town and the parent community pride themselves on walking and
biking options for transportation, keeping these intersections safe is at the forefront of our concerns.
We are starting an effort to revisit our Safe Routes to Schools and Sustainability /Green Initiatives,
as designated by the Town, and look forward to collaborating on a review that includes the potential
impact of these additional housing units.
I hope the various governing bodies that oversee development within the Town of Los Gatos
boundaries will keep our concems in mind as you consider the impact of this new project, so that
we all can continue to maintain the strong sense of pride in the educational opportunities our
children have in the public education systems that serve the Town of Los Gatos.
In addition to the direct impact on our schools, the intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and
Blossom Hill Road is one of the most heavily traveled in Town during school hours and especially
busy during drop off and pick up times. We continue to have a concern about the safe travel of both
cars and children across this busy intersection as they make their way to school in the morning and
back home after school. We hope the Town has given ample consideration to the traffic impact
implicit in the site design of this project, and in the number of units and commercial development
that will generate more cars coming and going.
Please give full consideration to the needs of the Town's children and its schools as you consider
this project.
Sincerely,
" "�
?� 6 ,
Ah ci `.r
iana G. tati, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Greg Larson, Town Manager
Bob Mistele, Superintendent, Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District
Board of Trustees, Los Gatos Union School District
C (0is -V
April 26.2010
Greg Larson, Town Manager
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Mr. Larson:
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road
Los Gatos. CA 95032 -45 10
Phone: (408) 335-2000
Fax: (408)395 -6181
�%y_w ,I,,1 s1 IbU U.2.
J. Richard Whitmore, Superintendent
SCHOOL DISTRICT
1 would like to provide comments on the Draft 2020 General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
The report contemplates 1,600 new housing units by the year 2020 with the preponderance of those units
being in the "North 40" region. However, there are also multiple proposals currently before the Town in
various stages of review that will infill sites along the Los Gatos Boulevard corridor and in various nooks and
crannies of potential development, and these also contribute to the large number of new units.
We believe that residential development is attractive — and appears to be the highest and best use for most
parcels within the Town boundaries — in large part because of the excellence of the school systems that serve
the Town. While we take deserved pride in those schools, their ability to adequately serve our students will
be challenged by the pace of development contemplated in this Draft General Plan.
Based on our current expectations, 1,600 new units would add 537 students to our schools. This exceeds even
our most aggressive forecasts of new enrollment. In addition to the potential impact of this plan, we will also
be adding students from the Guadalupe Mines tract that is adding residential units in a San Jose address that is
at the outer edges of our school district.
Issue number one is school capacity. While we are planning to add capacity to serve 710 new units per our
demographic study, and are asking the voters of our district to approve a bond initiative to assist with the
capital required for those facilities, we have not contemplated the impact of almost 900 additional units. We
need to understand the entire scope of the location, timing, and specific student generation rates for all of this
additional housing.
We are already exceeding the planned capacity of our schools. At Blossom Hill, the estimated capacity at our
current class sizes is 585, and the school is serving 655 students. Daves Avenue Elementary School is serving
544 on a capacity of 535. Louise Van Meter Elementary has enrolled 553 in a school built for 495. We have
eliminated the use of classrooms as computer labs, loaded our 1X' and 5" grade classrooms to capacity. and are
tightly constrained with few degrees of flexibility at each of our elementary sites. R.J. Fisher Middle School
is now over 1,000 students and will grow significantly over the coming years as these elementary students
move through our system, and as new housing is added.
An equally important issue to us is the traffic impact on intersections that surround our schools. The history
of the district has left us with three schools near the Los Gatos Boulevard corridor. Adding a significant
BOARD OF I'RUSI'FF:S -Kathleen Bads -Phil F. Couchee •IAwg Halhcrl Wiwi, Miller • I'ina Onidlcv8gun
number of students will have a great impact on the busiest intersections near these schools. Because the
Town and the parent community pride themselves on walking and biking options for transportation, keeping
these intersections safe is at the forefront of our concerns. We are starting an effort to revisit our Safe Routes
to Schools, as designated by the Town. and look forward to collaboratit8g on a review that includes the
Ixncntial impact of these additional housing units.
I hope the various governing bodies that oversee development within the Town of Los Gatos boundaries will
keep our concerns in mind as you consider approving new development, so that we all can continue to
maintain the strong sense of pride in the educational opportunities our children have in the public education
systems that serve the Town of Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Richard Whitmore
c: Wendie Rooney, Town of Los Gatos
Joel Paulson, Town of Los Gatos
Cary Matsuoka, Superintendent, Los Gatos Saratoga Union High School District
Board of Trustees, Los Gatos Union School District
HOARD OF 'I RUSI EES •K:ehlecn Hales -Phil E. Couchce *Doug Helhert .01m, %filter •rill., Or'i- Ihuligan
From: Kim Simon [mailto:kimisimon(&yahoo com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:13 PM
To: Council
CC: Town Manager
Subject: North 40 Project
To the members of the Los Gatos Town Council:
My name is Kim Simon and, with my husband, Dave, and our 2 children, have lived in Los
Gatos for 7 years. We waited a very long time to decide where we would settle down to
raise our family and to enjoy our eventual retirement years- we fell in love with Los Gatos
and now can't imagine living anywhere else!
We have been absolutely thrilled with so many of the improvements and developments that
we have witnessed over these 7 years, and have paid close attention to the North 40
Specific Plan as well. We live on the more northern side of town and are appreciative of
local impact from any development or improvement project.
My letter is to express my support of the current plans for the North 40. I have been quite
impressed by the process with which the developers have used to create a plan that will fill
unmet needs for our community (unique housing offerings, retail, and the marketplace
concept) while enhancing and improving our town. Summerhill and Grovesnor have shown
themselves to be very thorough and thoughtful, soliciting input from the community as well
as business partners and the town. From what I have learned, they have made many
adjustments based on this input. This means a lot to me, and strengthens my trust in the
final outcome being something that will bring beauty, and more revenue, to our beloved Los
Gatos.
I hope that the Town Council will approve the Specific Plan and allow this project to finally
get going! I am excited to see what is to come.
Sincerely,
Kim Simon
15680 Winchester Blvd
Los Gatos, CA 95030
ATTAcHmENT 2 7
From: Manuela Marani [ mailto :manuela632002(a),vahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:27 AM
To: Council; Cindie Gonzales
Subject: Supporting the North 40 project
Dear Council Members,
Please find below a letter regarding the North 40 project. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best, Manuela Marani
Manuela Marani (408) 399 -9019, 107 Ceder Crest PI, Los Gatos, CA
Letter:
North 40 - Town of Los Gatos offers innovative solution addressing needs of baby boomers and
millenials
As a proud grandmother of children who attend Los Gatos Union District Schools, and long -time Los
Gatos resident, I could not be more proud of the time, effort and consideration the Town of Los Gatos has
invested in developing the North 40 specific plan.
The Town involved the community, schools, developers, transportation and environmental experts, and
even appointed a select Advisory Committee to put forth the most encompassing plan that meets our
town's needs and offers a welcome mix of diversity to our population.
While there are many elements of the plan I find appealing, what is most impressive is the Town's
innovative approach in accommodating the "bookend" generations — our parents, relatives and friends
who want to downsize, but still wish to live in town; and our older kids and young single professionals,
who strive to buy their fast apartment in a dynamic town.
The town's vision is backed by recent studies showing that baby boomers, such as myself, are no longer
interested in moving to retirement homes, but are opting for more active and intergenerational living that
is closer to family, friends and their extended community. Their housing needs are the same as millenials
- smaller accommodations that are close to dining, retail and public transportation.
Without the North 40, there are very limited local options for these generations, if any.
The North 40 specific plan has undergone years of discussion and deliberation, countless meetings and
extensive research. Every point and opinion has been vetted and considered. It is now time to move
forward — Town Council members, 1 urge you to vote "yes" and approve a plan we know will work for
Los Gatos.
Asking the Town to approve the North 40 project
With three children in LGUSD, I know we have a school district that is the envy of many in the Silicon
Valley area. What makes it great are involved parents, manageable class sizes and careful stewardship of
our school funds. And my pride in our school district is one of the main reasons that I am supporting the
North 40 development plan currently under consideration.
The Town of Los Gatos, Advisory Committee, two school districts and developers have put substantial
thought and research (more than six years) into a plan that makes sense for all of Los Gatos. Our schools
will benefit from increased revenue, but not at the expense of an influx of students. The type of housing
under consideration in the current plan does not lend itself to families — instead, the residents will likely
be either younger or older, providing a nice mix of diversity to our population, and a nice boost to our
coffers.
No one wants class sizes to grow, but everyone wants increased funding to schools. Typically these goals
are mutually exclusive. But with the current plan, I believe we can achieve both those goals
simultaneously— a win /win for our economy and our schools.
This master plan makes sense for a variety of reasons, and I believe we should support this cohesive
solution, rather than risk some patchwork approach over the coming years that might result from a
developer that hasn't put the same thought and research into creating something that works for all
members of the Los Gatos community.
-Tim Johnston
RECEIVED
SEP 10 2014
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
1
In consideration of Town Council of LosGatos and in regards to the North 40
Specific Plan.
As a business owner for over a decade, and resident in town, I would like to
state my opinion. My business is located within the North 40. This side of town
has been alienated for years. The North 40 Specific Plan is the perfect
complement to unite the Los gatos community together as a whole. Truly
bridging the gap between downtown and the North 40 area. Over the years
LosGatos has continued to grow. Even when other communities suffered
through tough economic times, LosGatos persevered. It wasn't easy, but
because of the diversity and bond between all of the businesses and residents
and locals and tourists, a standard was set! I understand people do not accept
change sometimes for various reasons, but over the years this town HAS
CHANGED and has evolved into a much stronger town because of its history,
and preserving that, yet also allowing growth, that is well thought out. The
Specific Plan has been scrutinized, as it should be, but it maximizes the full
possibility and potential of this important area.
Obvious objectors have been heard and should be. People worry about
schools and overcrowding and traffic congestion and competition, etc. On the
other hand there are many business owners and residents in the North 40 area
that want an influx of people to stimulate business and create jobs and beautify
this parcel of land, finally! The Specific Plan does this! And the residents on
this side of town want places to shop and dine and walk within steps of their
homes, now have a plan that finally addresses this.
The town should embrace any opportunity to attract people to visit LosGatos.
To reside here, to shop here, to go to downtown! To hike the trails. To enjoy
Vasona! If the plan doesn't happen, then businesses and diversity stay status
quo. If that's okay with people, then that isn't good enough! This is an
opportunity to bring diversity, and ideas, and new businesses, into this
wonderful town. For fellow business owners, you know that we all network
each other's business! Sending people across town to eat at different places!
To gather at different events! To shop at different places. Whether it's
downtown or at the North 40! This is a key component in our success. This
side of town needs this! And so does downtown. And yes there are valid
concerns. But, overall, for the future of the entire town, this plan solidifies and
merges and guarantees future success.
I am in full support of the North 40 Specific Plan. As with any change in great
z
towns such as ours I know there are advocates and also opposition. With the
new development I see growth as a whole for the entire town. The new jobs
created by the retail shops including mine will increase revenue not only for the
businesses in this area but also for downtown merchants. New small business
owners will bring in new products and diversity into this incredible town. The
plan focuses on beautifying this side of town. The landscaping plan brings in
new plants and trees and natural vegetation that will more than compensate for
the loss of the orchard. Downtown's historic charm is the mainstay of
LosGatos and will always be the centerpiece. The careful planning of new
residences will increase business in downtown and give the residences on this
side of town a reason to shop in all of Los Gatos instead of looking to other
nearby towns or retail outlets. For years different ideas have been proposed
for the North 40. And this is by far the ideal use of this parcel of land. Traffic is
going to be an issue whether or not this plan is utilized. It's a fact in any small
town or city, especially in Silicon Valley.
The proposed retail portion is non competitive with downtown retailers. In fact,
it will draw in non LosGatos residents to explore all that this town has to offer.
I applaud the patience and care that the Council has dedicated to this
important matter and know that this development is in the best interest in the
present and future of this amazing town.
With Regards, M. Ellenburg, resident, and business owner, town of Los Gatos.
FEHR7' PEERS
September 11, 2014
Trang Tu Nguyen, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
Town of Los Gatos
Subject: Revised Freeway Impact Analysis for North 40 Transportation Impact Analysis
DearTrang:
Please find attached the results of our revised Existing + Project freeway operations analysis for
the North 40 TIA. During a follow -up review of the North 40 TIA freeway operations analysis, one
additional freeway segment (SB State Route 85 from Bascom to Union for the PM Peak Hour) was
found to have a significant impact under Existing + Project A conditions. Please contact me or
Jane Bierstedt at 408 - 278 -1700 with any questions.
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS
Sarah Peters
Transportation Planner
Attachment:
Revised Freeway Impact Analysis
160 W Santa Clara Street I Suite 675 1 San Jose, CA 95113 1 (408) 278 -1700 1 Fax (408) 278 -1717 ATTACHMENT 2 8
www.fehrandpeers.com
Trang Tu Nguyen
September 11, 2014
Page 2 of 4
FREEWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Freeway impacts are evaluated by comparing the amount of traffic added by the project to
existing freeway volumes.
Project Alternative A
The amount of traffic contributed by Project Alternative A will deteriorate one freeway segment
from an acceptable LOS E to an unacceptable LOS F, and add more than 1% of capacity to one
freeway segment currently operating at LOS F, thereby producing a significant impact on two
freeway segments:
— Southbound SR 85 from Winchester Boulevard to SR 17 (PM peak hour mixed -flow lanes);
— Southbound SR 85 from Bascom Avenue to Union (PM peak hour mixed -flow lanes).
Project trips, resulting LOSS, segment capacities, and the amounts of added project traffic
expressed as a percent of the segment's capacity for Alternative A are presented in Table 1.
Project Alternative B
The amount of traffic contributed by Project Alternative B will add more than 1% of capacity to
one freeway segment currently operating at LOS F, thereby producing a significant impact:
— Southbound SR 85 from Winchester Boulevard to SR 17 (PM peak hour mixed -flow lanes);
Project trips, resulting LOSs, segment capacities, and the amounts of added project traffic
expressed as a percent of the segment's capacity for Alternative Bare presented in Table 2. It
should be noted that a reduction of three project trips on this freeway segment would result in a
less- than - significant impact.
Trang Tu Nguyen
September 11, 2014
Page 3 of 4
Notes: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, Cap = Capacity. 1. Mixed -flow and HOV lane capacities measured in passenger cars
per lane. 2. Percent determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. 3. Addition of project
trips increases segment density from 58 to 59. 4. Addition of project trips adds more than 1% of capacity to segment already
operating at LOS F. Bold text indicates significant impact, determined by increase to segment density. Segment Density = (Existing
flow . project trips) /( #lanes "speed)
Sources: 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA June 2013; Fehr & Peers 2014.
TABLE 1 - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT A FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Mixed Flow'
HOV'
Freeway From
To
Peak
-
Hour
Added
LOS Cap'
%'
Added
LOS Cap'
%2
Trips
Saratoga Los
Lark Avenue
AM
18
E
0.4%
Gatos Road
PM
22
C 4400
0.5%
N/A
NB SR 17
Lark Avenue
SR 85
AM
34
D
O.8%
PM
80
C 4400
1.8%
N/A
SR 85
San Tomas/
AM
34
D
0.5%
Camden Ave
PM
80
C 6900
12%
N/A
San Tomas/
SR 85
AM
51
C
Camden Ave
PM
61
C 6900
0.9%
N/A
SB SR 17
SR 85
Lark Avenue
AM
51
C
4400
1.2%
PM
61
D
1.4
N/A
Lark Avenue
Saratoga Los
AM
11
C
0.3%
Gatos Road
PM
28
E 4400
0.7%
N/A
Camden Avenue
Union Avenue
AM
46
F 4600
1.0/
8
E
0.5%
PM
55
D
12%
8
A
1650
0.5
Union Avenue
Bascom Avenue
AM
46
F 4fi00
1.0%
8
F
0.5%
PM
55
C
1.2%
8
A
1650
0.5
NB SR 85
Bascom Avenue
SR 17
AM
29
F 4600
0.6%
5
F
03%
PM
69
C
15%
11
A
1650
07%
SR 17
Winchester
AM
29
F
0.6%
5
F
0.3%
Boulevard
PM
68
C 4600
1.5%
12
B
1650
0.7
Winchester
Saratoga Avenue
AM
29
F 4600
0.5%
5
E
0.3%
Boulevard
PM
71
D
1.5%
9
A
1650
0.5%
Saratoga Avenue
Winchester
AM
43
C
0.9%
8
A
O.S%
Boulevard
PM
52
E 4600
11%
9
D
1650
0.6
Winchester
SR 17 n
AM
43
C
0.9%
8
0.5%
Boulevard
PM
52
F 4600
11%
9
C
1650
0.6
SB SR 85
SR 17
Bascom Avenue'
AM
0
B
4600
0.0%
0
A
0.0%
PM
0
F
0.0%
0
D
1650
0.0%
Bascom Avenue
Union Avenue'
AM
31
C
0.7%
5
A
03%
PM
71
4600
F
1.5%
12
D
1650
03%
Union Avenue
Camden Avenue
AM
32
C 4600
0.7%
4
A
0.2%
PM
71
E
1.5%
12
D
1650
0.7
Notes: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, Cap = Capacity. 1. Mixed -flow and HOV lane capacities measured in passenger cars
per lane. 2. Percent determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. 3. Addition of project
trips increases segment density from 58 to 59. 4. Addition of project trips adds more than 1% of capacity to segment already
operating at LOS F. Bold text indicates significant impact, determined by increase to segment density. Segment Density = (Existing
flow . project trips) /( #lanes "speed)
Sources: 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA June 2013; Fehr & Peers 2014.
Trang Tu Nguyen
September 11, 2014
Page 4 of 4
TABLE 2 - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT B FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Notes: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, Cap = Capacity. 1. Mixed -flow and HOV lane capacities measured in passenger cars
per lane. 2. Percent determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. Bold text indicates
significant impact, determined by increase to segment density. Segment Density = (Existing flow . project trips) /( #lanes' speed)
Sources: 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA June 2013; Fehr & Peers 2014.
Mixed Flow
HOV'
Peak
Freeway
From
TO
Hour
Added
LOS
a
Cap
z
%
Added
z
LOS Lap
]
%
Tri s
P
Trips
Saratoga Los
AM
7
E
4400
0.2%
N/A
Gatos Road
Lark Avenue
PM
21
C
O.S%
AM
28
D
4400
0.6%
N/A
NB SR 17
Lark Avenue
SR 85
PM
49
C
11%
San Tomas Expy/
AM
28
D
6900
04%
N/A
SR 85
Camden Avenue
PM
49
C
0.7%
San Tomas Expy/
AM
19
C
6900
0.3
N/A
Camden Avenue
SR 85
PM
57
C
0.8%
AM
19
C
4400
0.4%
N/A
SB SR 17
SR 85
Lark Avenue
PM
57
D
1.3 %
Saratoga Los
AM
10
C
4400
02%
N/A
Lark Avenue
Gatos Road
PM
18
E
0.4%
AM
17
F
4600
0.4 /
3
E
1650
02
Camden Avenue
Union Avenue
PM
51
D
1.1%
8
A
05%
AM
17
F
4600
0.4%
3
F
1650
0.2%
Union Avenue
Bascom Avenue
PM
52
C
1.1%
7
A
0A%
AM
24
F
4600
0.5%
4
F
1650
0.2%
NB SR 85
Bascom Avenue
SR 17
PM
42
C
0.9%
7
A
0.4%
Winchester
AM
24
F
4600
0.5%
4
F
1650
0.2%
SR 17
Boulevard
PM
42
C
0.9%
7
B
0.4%
Winchester
AM
24
F
4600
O.S%
4
E
1650
02%
Saratoga Avenue
PM
44
D
1.0%
5
A
0.3%
Boulevard
Winchester
AM
16
C
4600
0.4%
3
A
1650
02%
Saratoga Avenue
Boulevard
PM
48
E
1.04%
9
D
06%
Winchester
AM
16
C
4600
0.4/0
3
A
1650
0.2%
Boulevard
SR 17'
PM
48
F
1.04%
9
C
06%
AM
0
B
4600
0.0%
0
A
1650
0.0%
SB SR 85
SR 17
Bascom Avenue
PM
0
F
0.0%
0
D
0.0%
AM
26
C
0.6/
4
A
1650
0.2%
Bascom Avenue
Union Avenue
PM
42
F
4600
0.9%
8
D
0.5%
AM
27
C
4600
0.6%
3
A
1650
0.2%
Union Avenue
Camden Avenue
-
,1
na/.
R
D
0.5%
Notes: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, Cap = Capacity. 1. Mixed -flow and HOV lane capacities measured in passenger cars
per lane. 2. Percent determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. Bold text indicates
significant impact, determined by increase to segment density. Segment Density = (Existing flow . project trips) /( #lanes' speed)
Sources: 2012 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA June 2013; Fehr & Peers 2014.
Attachment 29
Planning Commission Recommendations and Proposed Responses
Recommendation
Response
Traffic
Update the traffic analysis to include the new
Key Policy Issue for Council
development capacity identified in the recently
consideration (see Staff Report for
released Notice of Preparation for the Dell Avenue
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 6 — 8)
Area Plan.
Update the traffic analysis to study the effects of
Key Policy Issue for Council
full interchanges at Winchester and Highway 85,
consideration (see Staff Report for
and Bascom and Highway 85.
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 6 — 8)
Analyze the reduction in traffic impacts with a
Key Policy Issue for Council
reduction in the overall development capacity of
consideration (see Staff Report for
the Specific Plan.
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 6 — 8)
.Transportation and Connective
Add a policy to the Specific Plan to preserve
Suggested Policy Language in
bicycle and pedestrian connection opportunities
Attachment 18, page 3
between the North 40 and the Los Gatos Creek
Trail and other places in Los Gatos, including a
potential bridge over Highway 17.
Require all bike lanes and sharrows to be painted
Suggested Policy Language in
green.
Attachment 18, page 4
Add a policy on page 4 -1 regarding transit
Suggested Policy Language in
strategies to connect North 40 with downtown,
Attachment 18, page 4
commercial centers, and other employment centers
via light rail transit, bus, bicycle paths, and trails.
Land Use
Guarantee senior housing by adding a requirement
Council may add a requirement
that a certain number or percentage of the
pursuant to the guidance from the
proposed housing must be senior housing.
Town Attorney contained in the
Addendum and Desk Issue for the
9 -2 -14 meeting and in the Staff
Report for the 9 -16 -14 meeting.
Increase the open space requirements, recognizing
The Council may choose to modify
that open space may be used for a future school.
the text of the Specific Plan with
specific parameters.
AITADI• Er4T 2 9
North 40 Specific Plan
Attachment 29
Page 2
Recommendation
Response
Consider lower densities for both residential and
Key Policy Issue for Council
non - residential uses.
consideration (see Staff Report for
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 7 and 8)
Retitle and modify Policy LU3 on page 2 -2 as
Suggested Policy Language in
follows: "Mix and Size of Uses: Provide a mix and
Attachment 18, page 1
size of uses in the Specific Plan Area to promote
the sfeatiwi a a lively, walkable neighborhood
that is complementary to other Los Gatos
residential neighborhoods and commercial centers
makeq AR NoAh 40 Speeifie Plan Axe and serves
as a resource to North 40 residents, business, and
adjacent neighborhoods."
Modify Policy LU4 on page 2 -2 as follows:
Suggested Policy Language in
"Commercial development... shall be
Attachment 18, page 1
complementary to Downtown, Los Gatos
Boulevard and the four neighborhood centers..."
Modify Policy LU7 on page 2 -2 as follows:
Suggested Policy Language in
"Eating and drinking establishments ... are intended
Attachment 18, page 1
to serve... and satisfy the unmet needs of the Town
of Los Gatos."
Modify Policy LU8 on page 2 -2 as follows: "A
Suggested Policy Language in
hotel facility development within the North 40
Attachment 18, page 1
Specific Plan Area is intended to serve an unmet
need of the Town and should include..."
Modify Policy LU10 on page 2 -2 as follows:
Suggested Policy Language in
"Provide and integrate a mix of residential product
Attachment 18, page 1
types to serve the unmet housing needs within the
Town of Los Gatos and to minimize impact on
schools, while complying with Senate Bill 50,
Schools Facilities Act."
Modify Policy LUl l on page 2 -2 as follows:
Suggested Policy Language in
"Proposed uses should complement the existing
Attachment 18, page 1
balance ... in downtown Los Gatos and in the four
neighborhood centers."
Modify the residential categories in sections 2.4
Suggested Policy Language in
and 2.7.1, table 2. 1, and table 2.2 so they are
Attachment 18, page 1
consistent.
North 40 Specific Plan
Attachment 29
Page 3
Recommendation
Response
Table 2 -1 Permitted Uses on page 2 -7: To provide
Suggested Policy Language in
more flexibility, delete the note saying
Attachment 18, page 2
"Residential only allowed in Northern District
when located above commercial."
Table 2 -2 Maximum Development Capacity on
Suggested Policy Language in
page 2 -10: Clarify that the 580,000 square feet of
Attachment 18, page 2
non - residential uses include day care, places of
worship, etc. but not schools.
Building Hei his and View Corridors
Consider a process to rescind a height exception
Key Policy Issue for Council
after a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been
consideration (see Staff Report for
granted.
9 -2 -14 meeting, page 8)
Ensure a 35 -foot building height limit as the "rule"
Key Policy Issue for Council
by making it very difficult to obtain an exception
consideration (see Staff Report for
with discretion by the Town Council.
9 -2 -14 meeting, page 8)
Increase the amount of additional open space
The Council may choose to modify
required beyond 5% proportional to the requested
the text of the Specific Plan with
height increase.
specific parameters.
Measure building height from finished grade.
Suggested Policy Language in
Attachment 18, page 3
North 40 Specific Plan
Attachment 29
Page 4
Recommendation
Response
Modify the height requirements in section 2.6.6
Suggested Policy Language in
Height (Non - Residential /Mixed Use) & 2.7.4
Attachment 18, page 2
Height (Residential) as follows:
Lark District
• Residential
■ Maximum of 35 feet
■ 15% of overall development limited
to two stories and 25 feet
• Non - residential or mixed -use residential
■ Maximum of 35 feet
Transition District
• Residential
• Maximum of 35 feet
• Up to 45 feet with additional open
space or affordable housing
development
• Non - residential or mixed use residential
• Maximum of 35 feet
• Up to 45 feet with additional open
space or affordable housing
development
Northern District
• Non - residential or mixed use residential
■ Maximum of 35 feet
■ Hotel: 45 feet
■ Up to 45 feet with additional open
space or affordable housing
development
■ Up to 55 feet with CUP
Establish the locations of view corridors.
The Council may choose to modify
the text of the Specific Plan with
specific parameters.
Explain "framed views" and specify a specific
The Council may choose to modify
amount of ridgelines or hillsides to be protected
the text of the Specific Plan with
for building heights above 35 feet.
specific parameters.
Considerations
-Design
Encourage mechanical equipment and ducting to
Suggested Policy Language in
be placed in a mechanical room or between floors
Attachment 18, page 3
instead of on the building roof.
North 40 Specific Plan
Attachment 29
Page 5
Recommendation
Response
Add the agrarian architectural style to the palette
for the North 40.
Suggested Policy Language in
Attachment 18, page 3
Add visuals to the Specific Plan that reflect the
agrarian elements of the Vision.
Suggested Policy Language in
Attachment 18, page 3
Remove the monument signs at Noddin and the
Neighborhood Street.
Suggested Policy Language in
Attachment 18, page 3
Economic Vitality
Convene a focus group to identify mechanisms
(other than the CUP process) to ensure that the
North 40 complements and does not compete with
downtown Los Gatos.
Key Policy Issue for Council
consideration (see Staff Report for
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 8 and 9)
Consider additional controls to protect downtown.
Key Policy Issue for Council
consideration (see Staff Report for
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 8 and 9)
Tighten the CUP provisions of the Specific Plan to
protect downtown and its vibrancy.
Key Policy Issue for Council
consideration (see Staff Report for
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 8 and 9)
Consider equity and fairness with downtown when
comparing the CUP requirements of downtown
and the North 40.
Key Policy Issue for Council
consideration (see Staff Report for
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 8 and 9)
Revisit the use of CUPS in the Specific Plan to
include a clear standard or set of criteria as to why
a CUP is required.
Key Policy Issue for Council
consideration (see Staff Report for
9 -2 -14 meeting, pages 8 and 9)
Limit tenant spaces of 3,000 square feet or less to
no more than ten percent of the total commercial
square footage.
Suggested Policy Language in
Attachment 18, page 2
Historic Preservation
Include the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Committee as a policy in the Specific
Plan.
Suggested Policy Language in
Attachment 18, pages 1 and 2
Require the set aside of acreage for an orchard.
The Council may choose to modify
the text of the Specific Plan with
specific parameters.
North 40 Specific Plan
Attachment 29
Page 6
Recommendation
Response
Schools
Add a policy to the Specific Plan regarding
Suggested Policy Language in
schools to encourage developers to collaborate
Attachment 18, page 4
with school districts to address school needs.
Add a policy to the Specific Plan in the
Suggested Policy Language in
Infrastructure and Public Facilities chapter to
Attachment 18, page 4
effect: "Developers shall work closely with school
districts to project enrollment growth and address
overcrowding by assisting with identifying
strategies for providing needed school facilities
and associated sources offunding. "
Create an opportunity for a school site through an
Suggested Policy Language in
incentive that required open space could be
Attachment 18, page 4
satisfied with school playgrounds.
Indicate the square footage needed for an
As discussed in the Desk Item for
elementary school building.
the 9 -2 -14 meeting, there are many
factors that affect school size.
Trees
Remove the Chinese Pistachio, London Plane, and
Suggested Policy Language in
Japanese Privet from the tree list.
Attachment 18, page 3
Ask the Town Arborist to review and recommend
Suggested Policy Language in
the appropriate use of Monterey Pine and
Attachment 18, page 3
Redwood.
Sustainabili
Modify Sustainability Guidelines on page 3 -18, as
Suggested Policy Language in
follows:
Attachment 18, page 3
"a. Promote Require use of native..."
"d. Non - structural Best Management
Practices... should be documented and
structural BMP's implemented and verified by
the Town."
"i. Include bicycle parking facilities... in major
non - residential development projects defined
as ..."
"1. EneeiiFage the integfatien e Inter
community gardens..."
N:\DEV\TC Rgiorts\2014W40 attachment 29.doc