Addendum BMEETING DATE: 02/03/15
iii
ITEM NO: /�
cos cA�as ADDENDUM B
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
ROBERT SCHULTZ, TOWN ATTORNEY 0, _ i
SUBJECT:
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 ADOPTION OF THE NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN.
B. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
C. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE EFFECTING A ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT.
D. ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
REMARKS:
The attached correspondence (Attachment 50) was received after distribution of the Addendum
on January 30, 2015.
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI
Assistant Town Manager /Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager f i own Attorney N/A Finance
N:\DEV \TC REPORTS\2015 \N40 TC 2- 3- 15.Addenduinldoc Refonnatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001 /Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
February 2, 2015
Attachment (Previously received on April 4, 2014):
1. Draft Environmental Impact Report ( http : / /www.losuatosca.gov /N40DEIR)
Attachments (Previously received on Julv 11, 2014):
2. Final Environmental Impact Report with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(http: / /www.los atg osca.gov /N40FEIR)
3. Public Hearing Draft North Forty Specific Plan (Note: The complete Specific Plan including
appendices is also available online at: http: / /www.los atg osea.gov /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 hnpact Report and Adoption of the 2020
General Plan (includes Exhibit A)
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN/GP- 14-00 1 /Z- 14-00 1 /EIR- 10-002
February 2, 2015
20. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, August 28, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, August 29, 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 (Previously received with September 16 2014 Staff 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.
Attachments (Previously received with September 16, 2014 Addendum
30. Letter from A. Don Capobres, Linda Mandolini, and Wendi Baker dated September 12, 2014
(7 pages)
31. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, September 11, 2014 through 11:00
a.m. Friday, September 12, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with September 16, 2014 Addendum #2
32. Public Comments received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, September 12, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, September 15, 2014
33. Highland Oaks Existing Traffic Calming
Attachment (Previously received with September 16 2014 Desk Item):
34. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, September 15, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Attachment (Previously received with September 16 2014 Desk Item #2):
35. Traffic analysis information
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN /GP -14- 001/Z -14- 001 /EIR -10 -002
February 2, 2015
Attachments (Previously received with December 16 2014 Staff Report):
36. Agricultural Resources information
37. Alternative to ITE Traffic Information Analysis by Fehr and Peers ( "Trip Generation Rate
Comparison ")
38. Additional Proposed Projects by Fehr and Peers ( "Additional Future Year Information ")
39. TJKM Peer Review of Fehr and Peers Reports contained in Attachments 37 and 38
40. Draft School District Demographic Study dated October 8, 2014
41. Additional Economic Analysis
42. Revised Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
43. Letter from Superintendent Diane Abbati dated December 8, 2014 with School District
Student Population Projections dated November 3, 2014
44. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Monday, September 16, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with December 16 2014 Desk Item):
45. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, December 11, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Attachments (Previously received with February 3 2015 Staff Report):
46. Updated Table of Planning Commission recommendations and proposed responses for
Council consideration
47. North 40 Specific Plan Area Property Ownership Map
48. Public Comment received from 11:01 a.m. Tuesday, December 16, 2014 through 11:00 a.m.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Attachments (Previously received with January 30 2015 Addendum):
49. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, January 29, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Attachments received with this Addendum B:
50. Correspondence received from 11:01 a.m. Friday, January 30, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, February 2, 2015
LRP:JSP:cg
Los Gatos Community Alliance
What we would like to see from the North 40 Development
LGCA Input for the Specific Plan
Overall
• Traffic and the quality of our schools are our major overriding considerations.
• We want any "holes" in the Specific Plan that would allow overdevelopment
closed.
• The Specific Plan needs less flexibility, requiring an amendment to change, and
an oversight committee to evaluate changes.
• First step would be clarify the vocabulary that we use throughout the Specific
Plan. The way that it stands now represents an interpretation nightmare.
• We need to determine how we designate things that are REQUIREMENTS
versus those that are just SUGGESTIONS. "Shalls" and "should" need to be
spelled out more clearly and understandably. Without this clarification,
implementation will be much harder and less efficient for staff to implement.
• We need to test this model to see what kind of development it allows.
• We need to know the maximum and minimum density that this plan would allow.
Open space
• We need a better definition of what is, exactly, open space and what is not.
Grass? Orchard? Streets? Patios? Sidewalks? Balconies? etc
• We don't consider streets, sidewalks, or parking lots "open space."
• Increase open space by putting more parking underground. 40% open space vs
the 30% proposed now, but with the same density as the 30% had required.
Los Gatos Community Alliance February 2015
• We would like to to have the underground parking maximized to give the
development more open space.
• NOT allow private decks or patios or roof tops to be counted as open space.
• Be specific as to how much space is designated as Orchard, and how much is
garden.
Orchard /Barn /History
• Preserve a reasonable amount of the historic aspects of the property.
• Encourage /require community gardens, but suggest a professional gardener
oversee the garden. If no public participation in the gardening project, perhaps
sub - leasing it to local restaurants.
• Spell out how the garden and orchard will be maintained in a clean and
sustainable manner.
• Retain one acre of the orchard. Locate the red barn in amongst those trees. The
red barn itself should be associated with the agricultural heritage of the site; a
neighborhood center or a restaurant.
Housing
• Designate the North 40 as a site for senior affordable housing.
• The residential units should be designed for empty nesters, millennials and with
an emphasis on seniors (reduced traffic).
• We would like to see more variety in housing types /sizes, with more units
changed to the 1 -2 bedroom units with less total square footage. We need to see
how the Specific Plan can regulate a future development, whether from
Grosvenor or other developer.
• We would like to see 364 homes, including the 60 senior affordable units, in the
North 40 to avoid minimize any AHOZ housing at the Los Gatos Lodge, Higgins,
Oak Rim, and Southbay sites.
• All residential housing located at the North 40 should be zoned 20 units per acre.
This would allow our Housing Element to take full credit for the North 40 housing.
• Require that move -down units have underground parking.
Building heights
• Most of us want more variation in the building heights to give the development
more of a village look as opposed to another variation of Silicon Valley Tilt ups.
We don't want the north 40 to have only awnings for articulation.
• Some of us are ok with some building heights to 55' as a maximum capped
height - and no higher - at the lowest elevation in the middle of the property,
using variable heights down to the 25' high buildings around the perimeter.
Los Gatos Community Alliance February 2015
Others of us prefer a cap of 35'. For building heights exceeding 35', we want a
hard limit on height (not specified in draft plan right now) of 55'. We would like to
see open space increased for heights over 35', and more for anything over 45'.
We are ok with using "finished grade" as the base of the measurement as long as
the finished grade is not more than 2 feet above the average grade before the
grading begins. We do not want to see a Mall -like development such as Santana
Row with two same height buildings on each side of the street. The Specific Plan
needs to address what, exactly, is the "finish grade."
• We request a 3D model be built to give a better idea of how the development
might look at the finish.
Retail /Commercial /Hotel
• Absolutely no medical buildings, and possibly no office at all. Medical centers,
medical buildings and hospitals are NOT an unmet need in Los Gatos and are
highest traffic generators (all day).
• Require the North 40 parking structures be wrapped by housing and retail.
• We would like a restaurant that reflects the agricultural nature of our area.
• Designate strict height limits for any hotel.
Downtown vs. North 40
• The Specific Plan needs to address how the North 40 will be complementary to
the Downtown and how the two will mutually succeed.
• The Downtown has an eclectic nature and a beautiful setting that cannot be
duplicated by the North 40. We know that the Downtown also has some
restrictions that may appear unfair with the advent of the North 40 and we're
open to changes that make both areas appealing to shoppers, as well as being
competitive.
• Our ideal situation would be enough of the smaller businesses to meet food and
entertainment unmet needs of the northsiders, but we also see the advantage of
mixing in the mid -box stores such as RE] and /or a jazz -type club or bowling alley.
• The North 40 needs to have all sizes of retail allowed and should not be
restricted. The Council should not be perceived as a protector of the Downtown
landlords.
• We do expect a few vacancies (over the average, and taking equal economic
conditions into account) to happen in the Downtown for a short period of time;
however, the Downtown has had a 20 year advance notice that the North 40 is
coming and more than enough time to make itself more competitive than the
North 40 for business. The Downtown has parking issues that neither the
Los Gatos Community Alliance February 2015
landlords nor the Council have addressed. The North 40 may stimulate them into
action.
• We want the North 40 to serve the residents in the north end of town and details
on how the Specific Plan can address that need.
• Competition is what has made this valley great. Stifling competition to protect
Downtown is akin to protecting an oligarchy. The landlords in the Downtown will
not have to lower their rents if the Council protects them from competition. Rents
will remain artificially high, which does NOT protect the businesses, just the
landlords. If the Council insists on protecting the Downtown landlords, then they
need to impose rent controls to balance the scale. Preventing the urban decay of
Downtown does not include protection or preventing competition. The North 40
retail zones don't need to replicate a downtown environment.
School
• No school should be placed on the North 40 site. There are better solutions.
• The school needs might be resolved by a combination of effectively using
Lexington and taking over the district office space offices at Fisher.
• The best use of the administrative land would be a new Grade 5 -6 school to
relieve the pressure at Fisher as well as the in -town elementary schools.
Traffic
• We are most concerned about the traffic studies, especially those by a company
that we have little confidence in. We see what the traffic is now and cannot
believe that another 30,000 vehicles will have no impact. The traffic level of D is
hypocrisy because the level is an average of the horrible commute direction
traffic and the traffic going the opposite direction which is very likely to be
comparatively light. It is a poor measure of gridlock.
• We also have grave concerns regarding the eastbound right -hand lane on Lark
Avenue, turning right onto Southbound Los Gatos Boulevard. With no mitigation
shown in the traffic plan, this will continue to be a major traffic problem,
especially if Highland Oaks is shut off.
Shuttle
• We think it wise to implement North 40- Downtown shuttles at the same time as
the first two phases of the North 40 are completed ( "completion" will need further
definition). We should not emulate the Santana Row interchange fiasco where
the interchange has still not been completed 11 years after Santana Row was
built.
Los Gatos Community Alliance February 2015
• We suggest a four -bus revolving shuttle, ideally supplied /subsidized to the town
by our largest employer- Netflix - for two years, just as Google has done for Mt.
View. This would help people park further from city center until multi - layered
parking could be built Downtown. This bus system, if done correctly, will draw
more residents and students than the present system does.
Connectivity
• We want multimodal connectivity between the North 40 and the rest of Town, and
specifically to the Los Gatos Creek Trail along Lark Avenue.
• We think it would be great to eventually connect between the trail and Netflix with
a multimodal path that would assist people who work at Netflix and /or need to get
to the eventual VTA connection.
• The Specific Plan should address the exact dimensions, construction and
dedication of multi -modal lanes along Los Gatos Blvd and Lark Ave.
• We would like to see a "landing" area reserved for a future bridge going between
the North 40 to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Grosvenor America has a counter
proposal using Lark for the multi -modal path, but we need to see how this would
work given the huge increase in road traffic. We're skeptical, but have an open
mind once we see either a model or an adequate scaled drawing.
Energy conservation
• The Specific Plan needs to specifically address the use of renewable energy and
the use of water saving measures and address incentives that would go beyond
the current state and federal standards.
Los Gatos Community Alliance February 2015
This Page
Intentionally
Left _Blank
To: Mayor Jensen and the Town Council
From: Lee Quintana
Re: Town Council Meeting 2/3/2015
Agenda Item #6 The North 40 Specific Plan.
Mayor and Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit additional comments on the North 40 Specific
Plan. I have covered these and other issues in more detail in previous letters submitted
for prior to Town Council and Planning Commission hearings as well as to the final
Advisory Committee meeting.
Please consider all comments and recommendations the Council has received from all
sources, determine which to incorporate, and approve the revised Plan as quickly as is
realistic.
Organization:
1. Modifications, Final Review, Re- organize, Re- format
2. Statements of Intent
3. Standards (mandatory) vs. guidelines (discretionary -not mandatory)
4. Land Use
5. Total Residential Development
6. Open Space
7. Maximum Heights Standards and Maximum Exceptions
8. Use of CUP for height exceptions
9. Site History
10. Sustainability
11. AHOZ
1I.Modifications, Final Review, Reorganize, Reformat:
• Modifications of Plan over time: Multiple changes have been incorporated into the
Draft Specific Plan, or recommended for consideration over several years time by the
Advisory Board and the Planing Commission and there are likely to be more changes
to the Plan incorporated by the Council.
Consider Final Review: Once changes have been finalized, but before final approval,
consider directing staff to reorganize, reformat and a final edit of the Plan
Goals of Review and Revision:
To improve a readers understanding of the Specific Plan
To ensure the established regulations allow some flexibility while allowing for
consistency and predictability of interpretation and outcome
To improve clarity
To reduce the length of the Plan by removing repetition of material
To simplify implementation
To check for inconsistencies, typos etc.
To revise both vision statement and guiding principles to be consistent with the
approved plan
To determine if additional Zoning Code or GP amendments will be required
To let the material dictate the organization and format.'
To group related information together.
2. Statements of Intent
• Summarize and clarify the intent of the Specific Plan in the Introduction.
• Clad whether an applicant can choose to file for a PD zoning and A &S or whether,
unless stated otherwise in the Plan, will the Plan be implemented only through the
A &S process?
• Start all chapters with an outline of its contents followed by a statement of intent
covering the chapter as a whole.
• Start each subsection within a chapter with a statement of intent specific to that
subsection.
3. Standards vs Guidelines - Mandatory vs Not Mandatory or Discretionary:
Page 1 -8 of the Specific Plan (1.5.1 Zoning Ordinance) states: "The Specific
Plan contains both development regulations and design guidelines. Mandatory
regulations are denoted by the use of the word "shall ". A guideline, which is
denoted by the use of the word "should ", is not mandatory but is encouraged with
some discretion by .......
Consider: Consider if the statement on page 1 -8 of the Draft provides too much
flexibility
Clarify: Most "shall "'s are found under in section for standards, most "should "s are
found under guidelines. However "should" is also found under standards and "shall"
under guidelines.
Majority: The majority of statements do not include shall or a should. There are at
least 20 other terms used that are not modified by "shall" or "should ", many of which
could be interpreted either way.
Conclusion: There is a great deal of "flexibility" in the determination if something is
mandatory or not mandatory.z
u est:
a. Either provide a list of equivalents for "shall" and "should" (no terms should be
listed under both) or
b. Use shall for all standards and should for all guidelines. 3
4. Land Uses
' Determine the sequence and content of chapters with the goal of bringing related
information together in one chapter rather than spread through the Plan.
New Medical Offices - Consider prohibiting new medical centers, offices and hospitals
are not unmet needs in Los Gatos. This is not an un -met in Los Gatos.
Consider not requiring a School Site - Work with School districts to help identify
alternative solutions and sites4
Consider deleting single family homes from permitted uses
Keep residential only above first floor in Norther District - rental housing is an un -met
need. Alternatively delete housing in Norther District because of potential noise
conflicts between entertainment and residential uses.
Insert a new table prior to Table 2 -2 ( p. 2 -10) based on 2.7.3.d Residential Units
(page 2 -28)
Insert a second new table establishing a size range for each housing type (information
is contained in Conceptual Model of Residential Sizes (p. 6 -10 Glossary)
Delete condominium as a housing type (3rd bullet 2.7.3.d (p. 2 -28). It is an ownership
type that can apply to all housing types.5
Delete 2.7.3.d.
5. Total Residential Development
• Delete Residential Land Uses from Table 2 -2 and insert a separate table for Maximum
Allowed Residential Development. Some information is available on p.28 3rd bullet
2.7.3.d but may need to be revised if "condominiums" are removed as a housing type.
• Establish a total maximum intensity for residential development ((Intensity = Density
(units per acre or total number of units) + Total square feet of units)) The size of the
units will affect how the intensity is perceived) for example:
• Establish a residential density
• Provide a table a total square foot maximum for residential uses. Could be Plan wide,
(similar to Table 2 -2 for non - residential uses) or District Wide
6. Maximum Height Limits and Exceptions
• Establish height limits consistent with General Plan Policy CD -3.7 (p. CD -5 2020
General Plan - include roof mounted mechanical equipment and screening as part of
the structure for height limitations)
• Amend the Zoning Code to be consistent with the General Plan.
4 Impacts from public school on the North 40:
• Increased morning and afternoon traffic congestion
• Increased development intensity on the rest of the North 40 with current suggestion to
not count any structural square footage towards the total allowed non - residential
development.
• Decrease open space over the rest of the North 40 if the school site were subtracted
from the 30% open space requirement as suggested. A four acre school site would
account for +/- 30% of all the required open space.
• Could affect the feasibility or retaining historic structures and /or setting aside land for a
small representative orchard or agriculture use.
5 Removal of condos as a use would be consistent with the AHOZ guidelines.
3
• Establish height limits for exceptions to the height standards
• Establish height limits that take into consideration elevation relative to Los Gatos Blvd
and impacts on public views from Highway 17 and other public streets.6
• Provide a table and /or a graph to illustrate height standards and allowed exceptions.
7. CUP's relate to uses. Exceptions to Development Standards are not uses.
Intent of a CUP is to regulate a specific use that might otherwise not be allowed in a
zoning district but that may be acceptable with conditions. When the use ceases the
CUP is no longer valid. The uses listed in Table 2 -1 are consistent with the intent of the
CUP. (Note height is not listed in the CUP table)
Use of a CUP for heigh exception is not consistent with intent of a CUP. Height is not a
use. It is a development standard. If the use for which a CUP was used to grantfor
height is discontinued It is highly unlikely that an owner could be required to reduce the
height of the building if the use under which the CUP was granted ceased. Here the
CUP is not being used to grant a use but rather as exception to a development
standard.
Suggest: Instead of requiring a CUP require specific findings be made that of an
approval of a height exception. The specific findings could be related to preventing
additional loss of public views in those areas of the Plan where existing public views will
be most impacted by even a 35' development, and an increase above 35' height would
result in an even greater loss. (most likely the Northern district)
8. Open Space
• Reduce the number of terms used to describe open space7.
• Clearly define (using simple sentences and definitions that do not overlap) all terms
used to describe open space and use the terms and definitions consistently through
out the Plan and clearly define common residential space from common non-
residential space.
• Clearly identify what is counted towards open space requirements and what isn't
• Consider grouping the related topics of open space, setbacks, and landscaping into its
own chapter.
• Protect off site public view of the hillsides.
9. Site History
• Add a summary of the planning history of the North 40 and surrounding area.
• Add a short summary of the 1999 Draft North 40 Specific Plan.
• Add short summary of the North 40`s historic resources and of the agricultural
history of the North 40 and surrounding area.
• Incorporate the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee
10. Sustainability
6 Hillside views will likely be most affected in the Transition District
7 Over 25 terms are used just in Chapter 2
Require more than minimum town, state, and federal requirements. Alternatively provide
an incentive for developments to provide more than established minimums.
11. AHOZ: Consider using the North 40 to meet RHNA Requirements
Thank you for your consideration,
Lee Quintana
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
February 2, 2015
KIrh:uinc 7.. I lamb \htsuo, 1isq.
kacharnufd'[ lacdr�Glasnn.com
Via Email (!\-[ vOt'. t l i[ accr(( Los( A,gO�.'
Mayor Marcia Jensen
Town Council Members
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: North Forty Historic Preservation /Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding
Consideration
Dear Mayor Jensen and Members of the Town Council:
On behalf of the Yuki Family we are writing to request that at your hearing on Tuesday, February 3, 2015,
you:
(i) adopt the proposed Findings of Facts and Statements of Overriding Consideration relating to
the potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Cultural Resources resulting from
development of the North 40 property,
(ii) adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (the "MMRP ") for the project, and
(iii) re ect the concept of a Historic District within the North 40 Property.
For the reasons set forth herein, we believe that MMRP Mitigation Measures CR -1 and CR -2 will not only
protect the potentially significant cultural resources located on the North 40, but through the North 40
Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan "), the "look and feel' of the North 40 property that this community, including
the Yuki family, desires will be preserved. The `look and feel" of the North 40 property, however, has nothing
to do with the era that the proposed Historic District is intended to preserve.
The Red Barn is not a "Historic District"
As you know, included in the December 10, 2014, Staff Report on the North 40 project, was a proposal to
create a historic district within the North 40 property, the purpose of which would be to preserve the historic
significance of the property, thereby avoiding the need to make the Statement of Overriding Consideration
relating to potential impacts on cultural resources. According to Carey and Co., Inc. ( "Carey "), the historic
district would be comprised of the Red Barn and the Yuki Residence at 14919 Los Gatos Blvd. (the "Adobe
House "), two agricultural structures (the "Sheds "), and a ten to twelve acre, or eight to ten acre, section of the
existing orchard surrounding the Red Barn, the Adobe House, and the Sheds (the "HD Property ", and
together with the Red Barn, Adobe House, and the Shed, the "Historic District "). There was nothing in the
Page I I
Staff Report regarding what period of history the proposed Historic District is intended preserve, but it is
reasonable to conclude based on the information contained in the North 40 Specific Plan Historic Resources
Technical Report, dated October 14, 2014 (the "2014 Report"), that the goal of such a historic district would
be to preserve the "properties associations with the peak era of horticultural production in the Santa Clara
Valley in the 1910's and 1920s.t" The facts set forth in the North 40 Specific Plan Reconnaissance Survey
Fhstorie Resources Evaluation Report, by Carey & Co., Inc., dated November 21, 2011 (the "2011 Report"),
the North 40 Specific Plan Historic Resources Technical Report, by Carey & Co., Inc., dated November 12,
2013 (the "2013 Report"), and the 2014 Report, as well as the information garnered directly from the Yuki
Family', however, do not support creating a Historic District within the North 40 Property:
1. The Existing Orchard did not exist in the 1910's and 1920's.
a. The 1939 aerial photograph of the North 40 property shows that some of the North 40
property was covered by an orchard, BUT this same photograph shows that the majority of
the proposed HD Property was not covered by an orchard. It is not clear whether the
proposed HD Property was fallow, or row crops or other farming operations were occurring
within the proposed HD Property, but it is clear the majority of the proposed HD Property
was not an orchard at that time.
b. Despite the assertion by Carey that the "Yuki family moved into existing structures and
maintained the existing walnut orchard created by previous owners" ', the Yuki family
maintains that there were no walnut trees on the property when they acquired it from the
Gianandres family in 1945. When the Yuki family acquired the property, the Gianandres
family was harvesting grapes from the vineyard located on the property. To the south of the
property there was an apricot orchard, and the property to the north was uncultivated. The
northern property was actually an active dairy operation. Not until after trying several other
crops on the proposed Historic District property did the Yuki family even plant the walnut
trees which are currently growing on the North 40 Property.
2. The Adobe House did not exist in the 1910's and 1920's.
a. According to the Yuki family, the Adobe House was built by the Gianandres family'
between two and three years prior to the Yuki family acquiring the proposed HD
Property in 1945. At the time the Yuki family acquired the property, the Adobe House had
never been lived in by the Gianandres family, but rather remained vacant until the Yuki family
occupied it.
b. The 2013 Report states that the house "appears to have been constructed by an early Italian
family "' which is consistent with the Yuki family's knowledge of the property.
c. The 2013 Report states that the "building does not appear to be individually eligible under the
NRHP /CRIIR Criteria B /2, C3 or d /4 "' and "Constructed c. 1925, the house does not
appear to be a significant example of an architectural type."'
1 2014 Report at page 16.
R Over the course of the past several years, several conversations were had with "Corn Yuki regarding the Yuki family ownership, use and
maintenance of the property. Throughout this Letter references to the Yuki Family are intended to reflect these conversation, It is important to
note that the 2014 Report on Page. 2 states that "interviews were conducted both in person and via email with Yuki family members," but none
of the Yuki family members involved with the operation and management of the property recall speaking to a Carey represcmativc or responding
to any correspondence regarding the history of the property.
" 2014 Report at Page 17.
a According to the Indenture recorded on October 10, 1921, in Book 539 at Page 312 of Deeds, in the Official Records of Santa Clara County,
Victor Gianandres, acquired the property from I high and Nora Moffitt on October 10, 1921.
2013 Report, State of California- The Resources Agency Department of Parks and Recreation Continuation Shect, Resource Name or #:
14919 Los Gatos Boulevard, at Page 6.
L Id. at page 6.
7 Id.
Page 1 2
3. The Sheds did not exist in the 1910's and 1920's.
a. The 2013 Report states that the sheds considered fox inclusion the Historic District "do not
appear to be eligible for listings... foremost because they were removed from their original
location and they do not appear to meet Criteria Consideration B which would allow a
structure to still be considered primarily for its architectural value, or if it is the surviving
structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event. The barns are typical
agricultural buildings and do not exemplify an architectural types"
b. The sheds, according to the Yuki family, were built well after they acquired the
proposed Historic District property in 1945 and moved when the Hwy. 85 interchange was
constructed.
The purpose of the foregoing is intended to demonstrate why the Adobe House, the Sheds, and the proposed
HD Property should not be considered a historic district. With the exception of the Red Barn, which is
addressed below, there is no solid evidence that any of the identified features of the proposed Historic District
existed in the 1910's and 1920's. Rather there is conflicting information in the Reports prepared by Carey
about the HD Property and the Adobe House, and direct information from the Yuk which directly
contradicts the information in the Reports. In other words, if the arbitrary ten to twelve acre, or even three
to four acre, proposed HD Property, the Adobe House and the Sheds are removed from the concept of the
proposed Historic District representing the 1910's and 1920's, there really is no historic district, but rather a
Red Barn.
There is no dispute that currently the North 40 property reminds this community of what Los Gatos once
was covered with orchards and
looked like. Until post World War I1, the majority of Santa Clara County
small farms. Agriculture was the norm while development of property for any purpose other than farming
m
was considered the exception. Over the past seventy years, however, Los Gatos, like the majority of Santa
Clara County, has been converted to primarily residential, retail, commercial, and industrial uses. The "look
and feel" of Santa Clara County has changed, but you have been given the means to protect the "look and
feel" of this community's agrarian heritage, to protect those cultural resources deserving of preservation, and
to allow for development of the North 40 property through the DZMRP and the Specific Plan (collectively,
the "Cultural Resources Protection Mechanisms ").
The Cultural Resources Protection Mechanisms contain the means to protect the "look and feel" of the
agrarian lifestyle that everyone desires to maintain on the North 40 property, in compliance with the federal,
State, and Local historic preservation laws (collectively, the "HP Laws "), while allowing re for development of
the North 40 property. The HP Laws, which will be enforced through the MlVIRI , require preservation of
certain structures IF the structures meet certain criteria. To date, the only two structures continually identified
for preservation are the Red Barn and the Adobe House. If the Red Barn and the Adobe House are
determined by the Town of Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee to meet the criteria
established by the HP Laws and if these structures can be safely rehabilitated, the MMRP would
require preservation of the structures 10.
and Recreation Continuatio
s 2013 Report, Siam of California -The Resources Agency Department of Parks n Shce[, Resource Name or #:
14917 Las Gatos Boulevard, at Page 5.
v Sec the 2014 Report, at Pages 1 3-1 G, which outlines both State Regulations and the Town of Los Gatos Regulations relating o the sponsor tton
of 1 fistonc Resources. locations, the project sponsor shall
10 Mitigation Measure CR 2 states, in pare, "For potentially historic buildings proposed for retention . existing 1
prepare a historic structure(s) report (HSR) for the historic resource as a guide to the rehabilitation". Page 3
As stated above, there are significant questions that need to be answered and issues to be addressed before a
conclusion can be reached regarding whether the Adobe House meets the criteria for preservation and can be
safely rehabilitated. However, the Yuki family would be in favor of and the facts do support preservation of
the Red Barn, although there may be questions on its integrity and the ability to safely rehabilitate it.
According to the Yuki Family, when they acquired the property in 1945 the Red Barn was located
where it currently sits, but there was no foundation under it. A foundation was later poured within the walls
of the Red Barn, but not under the walls of the Red Barn. Because of how the foundation was poured, one
can see under some of the walls and there is evident deterioration at the base of some boards. Thus,
rehabilitating the Red Barn may be difficult and extremely costly. Additionally, as stated in the 2013 Report
the "large one- and two- story barn... includes three single - family residential buildings... the front, east facade,
features a central modern roll-up garage door... some original windows have been replaced with modern
aluminum ones."" According to the Yuki family, the three single family residential buildings were added to
the Red Barn after they acquired the property, to house extended family. In other words, the additions to the
Red Barn were not constructed pre -1941.
Regardless of whether the HPC determines that the Red Barn and Adobe House should be
preserved, there is still the opportunity to protect the "look and feel" of the North 40 through
application of the required 30% Open Space design standards and the architectural standards set
forth in the North 40 Specific Plan. Rather than set aside a specific acreage of orchard to be preserved,
which is not supported by any factual evidence, we encourage you to review the agrarian concepts already
incorporated in the open space and architectural elements of the Specific Plan. Implementation of these
concepts which could and would be maintained and cared for by the occupants of the North 40 property, not
setting aside large areas of the existing orchard which would requ re extensive care likely by an independent
third party, are what will create the "look and feel" of the 1910's and 1920's.
We know you have an incredibly difficult task in front of you. We hope that the foregoing informat on
provides you with the information necessary to reach the decision to adopt (i) the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration for the potentially Significant and Unavoidable Impacts on Cultural
Resources, and (ii) the MMRP. It is our continued belief that through the process of approving the Specific
Plan you will protect the structures which qualify for preservation and create the "look and feel" we all desire
to see on the North 40 property.
Best regards,
Katharine Hardt - Mason, 73sq. Ed Morimoto
Land Use Counsel to the Yuki Family Yuki Family Representative
cc: Shelley Neis, Interim Clerk Administrator (C kri90 <�a�o�ctt,g >t)
Laurel Prevetti, Community Development Director (1Lrc c c ri,,t -1���t
Joel Paulson, Planning Manager (I>aiih�,t��i]��t� �ios< -a .)
Tom Yula (via hand delivery) �-
Nolan Kennedy (r l_cnrtedv_(t k; ala_i_.net)
n 2013 Report, see State of CaBfornia -'the Resources- Agency Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record for liesa
14917 Los Gatos Blvd. /Red Barn at Page 1.