AddendumSpW M F
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/17/15
ITEM NO: 7
ADDENDUM
DATE: MARCH 16, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION U -12 -002 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR -13 -001. PROJECT LOCATION•
300 MARCHMONT DRIVE. PROPERTY OWNER: HILLBROOK SCHOOL
APPLICANT /APPELLANT: MARK SILVER. APPELLANT: PATRICIA
ELLIOT (AND OTHERS).
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION TO
INCREASE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND MODIFY OPERATIONS OF AN
EXISTING PRIVATE SCHOOL (HILLBROOK SCHOOL) ON PROPERTY
ZONED HR -1. APNS 532 -10 -001 AND 532 -11 -011.
REMARKS:
Additional public comments were received by 11:00 a.m. today and are attached as Attachment
37.
Attachments previously received under separate cover:
1. Public Comments received August 6, 2012, to November 21, 2012 (228 pages)
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (previously received February 7, 2014)
3. Public Comments received November 22, 2012 to August 19, 2014 (305 pages)
4. Final Environmental Impact Report/Comments and Responses
5. September 24, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report
6. September 24, 2014 Planning Commission Desk Item
7. September 30, 2014 Planning Commission Desk Item
8. October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report
9. October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Desk Item
10. Planning Commission approved CUP
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI
Assistant Town Manager /Co munity ev opment irector
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney N/A Finance
N:DEV\TC REPORTS\2015 \Mmhmont3o0_3.17.15_Addmdm.dmx Reformatted: 5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 300 MARCHMONT DRIVE/U- 12- 002/EIR -13 -001
March 16, 2015
11. Hillbrook Appeal
12. Elliot et al. Appeal (formerly identified as Neighbor Appeal)
13. Hillbrook consent to waive 56 -day Appeal hearing requirement
14. Elliot et al. consent to waive 56 -day Appeal hearing requirement (formerly identified as
Neighbor consent to waive 56 -day Appeal hearing requirement)
Attachments previously received with January 13 2015 Staff Report:
15. September 24, 2014 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
16. September 30, 2014 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
17. October 6, 2014 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
18. Hillbrook Supplemental Appeal Information
19. Elliot et al. Supplemental Appeal Information
20. Peak period outbound trip counts completed after the Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum
21. Resolution to deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve
the project (with Exhibit A)
22. Resolution to deny the appeals and modify the Planning Commission's decision to approve
the project
23. Resolution to grant one or more aspects of the appeal(s) and approve the project with a
modification(s) to the conditions of approval
24. Resolution to grant one or more aspects of the appeal(s) and deny the project
25. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. October 6, 2014 to 11:00 a.m. January 8, 2015
Attachments received with January 13 2015 Addendum:
26. Traffic consultant explanation of average versus maximum trip counts
27. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. January 8, 2015 to January 9, 2015 11:00 a.m.
Attachment received with January 13 2015 Addendum B:
28. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. January 9, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. January 12, 2015
Attachment received with January 13 2015 Desk Item:
29. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. January 12, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. January 13, 2015
Attachment received with the February 17,_2015 Staff Report:
30. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. January 13, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. February 12, 2015
Attachment received with the February 17 2015 Desk Item:
31. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. February 12, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. February 17, 2015
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 300 MARCHMONT DRIVE/U -12- 002 /EIR -13 -001
March 16, 2015
Attachment received with the March 17 2015 Staff Report:
32. Average and Highest Daily Traffic Volumes — September 2014 to February 2015
33. Estimated Daily Traffic Volumes For 99 Additional Students
34. Conditional Use Permit Template
35. Topics for Conditions of Approval
36. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. February 17, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. March 12, 2015
Attachment received with this Addendum:
37. Public Comments received 11:01 a.m. March 12, 2015 to 11:00 a.m. March 16, 2015
LRP:JS:ct
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
Jennifer Savage
To: Laurel Prevetti
Cc: Janette Judd
Subject: RE: Hillbrook
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: John Shepardson [mailto:shepardsonlaw @me.com]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 12:33 PM
To: Marcia Jensen; BSpector; Council; Laurel Prevetti
Subject: Hillbrook
Weekly Letter
1. HB is pushing for 3 votes. Mr. Rennie wasvleaning their way as indicated in last hearing. However, we have new
information.
2. They have presented an effective campaign, despite the fact they bring in virtually no financial benefit to the Town. I
understand over half the students are outside LG.
3. They want an additional $2,700,000 annually to become a top private school in country. Long way from little country
school up a one -way entrance through a quiet neighborhood.
4. They have parents with serious money to back candidates in political races.
5. The parents are nice, and enable the leadership violations. The parents are in a difficult position. They can't really
support on a moral level violations of the CUP, and yet if they don't support expansion, they may be seen as disloyal.
6. Traffic is down. Good. Great for Ms. Spector (and those that supported her) to insist on production of existing data
that was requested and deliberately withheld. The TC teetered on being allowed to being bullied itself. Not pretty and
bad precedent.
7. HB recently stopped exceeding the student cap after 11 years of violations. However, this recent adjustment shows
they can hit the student cap mark. They don't need 99 students because of questions about who will actually enroll
between March and September. Thus, they only need 72 to get the maximum educational (not money) benefit they
seek. 72 gives them 18 students per class and the 3 additional 6, 7 and 8 classes. Therefore, the educational debate
(again because the central push by HB is not money, it's educational experience) is really about 72 v. 0.
8. HB's silence about violating student cap is deafening.
9. There must be a student cap incentive to encourage compliance. If they comply, they can avoid a double tuition
penalty. With this in place, we can be reasonably confident HB will comply. However, a wealthy family may be willing to
pay double just for the education. HB should have no objection to an incentive because they have full control over their
enrollment. With no incentive, there is strong financial pressure to over enroll, irrespective of what they report to the
state. WE ARE DEALING WITH A REPEAT OFFENDER OF THE STUDENT CAP.
They disrespected the Town and the neighbors, and so in this respect HB leadership are bullies. They even complain
about the neighbors' legitimate complaints. Reward the bully and you encourage the behavior.
ATTACHMENT 37
10. 36 more students is a practical solution. It gives HB over $1,000,000 annual revenue and 2 more sections for 7 and 8.
It allows the Town to impose new conditions now, without another round of hearings. It limits vested rights. 12 students
per year are reasonable baby steps.
11. All this controversy has no doubt reduced the value of homes in the area. Certainly the issue must be in RE
disclosures.
In sum, you are dealing with a TIGER. It would be wise to act carefully with specific tight restraints. Otherwise, old
wounds will not heal because of continual new ones.
Gotta appreciate democracy when "crazies" like me can express and express when the issues are pressed and pressed
and in our local press...
JS:)
Sent from my Whone
Jennifer Savage
From:
Karen Aidi < karenaidi@gmail.com >
Sent:
Friday, March 13, 2015 7:08 PM
To:
Marcia Jensen; BSpector, Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; Rob Rennie; Laurel Prevetti;
Jennifer Savage
Cc:
Mo Aidi
Subject:
Hillbrook Traffic
Attachments:
Letter to Town.pdf
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and Rennie:
I am writing to you all to let you know about my feelings with the proposed Hillbrook CUP. Please see the attached letter in PDF. Eight of
my neighbors in the lower Marchmont area agree with me that the existing Hillbrook traffic is too much for our neighborhood and they have
signed the letter to you all that I've written. I took the time to get their "wet" signatures. I hope you take our feelings into consideration with
any Hillbrook decision that you make. I plan on being at the hearing this Tuesday.
Thank you.
Karen P. Aidi
(408) 781 -7834 (mobile)
hiip: / /www.linkedin.com/in/karenaidi
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis, Sayoc, and
Rennie,
I am a 1971 Los Gatos High graduate and I've lived on Marchmont Drive since 1992 (23
years). I've raised both of my grown children here. One of the reasons that I liked my
house and neighborhood so much was the peace and quiet. This has all been shattered
by a steady barrage of Hillbrook traffic in the morning and afternoon. Sometimes, I feel
as if I'm living on a freeway. I've already had one neighbor bitterly complain, sell her
house, and move from the neighborhood.
I've seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood. When I first moved in, there were five
widows in the immediate area: Mrs. Bertram, Mrs. Evans, Mrs. Nagy, Mrs. Alford, and
Mrs. Guiserian. Being residents in the Santa Clara County jurisdiction, none of us knew
of the deal to close the Ann Arbor Gate to the Hillbrook School, which effectively meant
that all Hillbrook traffic had to be routed on other roads, such as Englewood,
Marchmont, Hilow, and Stonybrook roads. This angers me the most about the whole
Hillbrook traffic situation.
I wish to express my gratitude for your support, time, and attention to our neighborhood
traffic issues including the many good ideas that have come up: the daily maximum
traffic cap, a focused study of Ann Arbor/Wollin for pedestrian, bike, and car traffic, real -
time posting of traffic counts accessible to the public, and other ideas that will help the
neighborhood's quality of life while the Hillbrook School is in operation.
At the same time, however, I'd like to take the time to voice my opposition to the
following Hillbrook CUP items:
• Third -party use: I look forward to the normal school vacation times such as spring
break, winter break, other school holidays, and the summer as a respite from the daily
dose of heavy traffic. If Hillbrook rents out its campus, it will probably do it during these
times. What incentive does Hillbrook have to monitor third -party traffic usage of its
facility?
• Enrollment Increase: the proposed Hillbrook 99- student increase. Please consider
how it is to live here on a daily basis and to have difficultly backing out of the driveway
in the mornings and again in the afternoons. More cars and daily trips increase our
neighborhood air pollution especially on those hot, spare the air days, of which there
are many.
Even though the neighborhood speed limit is 25 MPH, the Los Gatos Police and the
County Sheriff do not normally enforce the speed limits as they are seldom seen in the
neighborhood. Also, parents who are in a hurry, routinely speed and surpass this speed
limit.
Summer Traffic Limit: As I mentioned in my first paragraph, it used to be that the
neighbors could count on the summer for some much needed quiet time in the
neighborhood. Summer traffic conditions should return to what they were before 2009,
when Hillbrook improperly began allowing Third Party use of the campus. I think that a
summer traffic limit of 400 is too high.
Penalties for Violations. I believe the only way to get Hillbrook to take the neighbors
seriously is to impose penalties for non - compliance to their CUP. In my experience
unless Hillbrook is hit in the pocket they will have little incentive to mitigate the traffic in
the neighborhood or obey the CUP.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Karen and Mo Aidi
16734 Marchmont Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
hG C JJ aA C[VM �n 1 , m� uch
A� CA a 5013)
tp�7oo � a
>�sC - 3 —
Ternnr�cr iro (since 2013)
I6l6bh Maahmonk Dr,Je
LOS (*fur, CPf 95032
6�7
`L,ci to t -row
Y.
GD5 (,-s�C 932
� n VOY-1S �, r
IW J�0I40't Pr.
I4 i 6nfis f CA � ST, 3y
/6(0(9 M,arLaA ►aoaT DIL
Lod a- ,r�-s� an. • 2
t (c769 tNi��Re���no>ri �Z
� �Mn) ON-gq O3�
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
March 15, 2015 RECEIVED
Subject: An Average Cannot Logically Be Used As a Daily Cap MAR 16 2015
Dear Mayor Jensen and Town Council Members: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
The Town Council has the option, of course, to use any "baseline" it choses to determine a Hillbrook
School traffic limit. If it choses to use the 880 average traffic count from the 2011 TJKM traffic study,
then it cannot logically use 880 as a daily cap. To do so would be to commit an embarrassing error in
arithmetic, one that could certainly be successfully challenged.
As explained in the TJKM letter of January 7, 2015 from Chris Kinzel of TJKM to Town Traffic
Engineer Jessy Pu, it is best to use both an average and a daily limit. If only an average is used, then
there can be days when traffic spikes unacceptably high. If only a cap is used, and the cap is chosen
high enough to allow normally high count days, then the average under the cap will be too high which
in turn results in too heavy traffic volume under the cap. That is why an average of 880 and a daily cap
of perhaps 1100 is desirable (based on the TJKM recommendation that the cap be 25% above the
average). The average keeps the traffic volume low, while the daily cap prevents occasional "spikes"
in traffic.
The council may chose a low daily cap of 960 instead, based on the fact that Sensys counts show that
daily counts are clustered tightly around the average. With such a low cap, an 880 average will not be
exceeded. But there are bound to be some days that exceed the low daily cap, and a certain number of
"exceptions" should be allowed.
Even if Council choses the recently released Sensys counts as a baseline to determine limits for a 315
enrollment, the same logic applies. It should chose both an average and a daily cap limit determined
from the Sensys counts. If it choses only a cap, the same tight cluster of counts around the average
allows a cap within about 10% of the average. Again, Council will have to chose a number of
"exceptions" with such a low cap. Council must then determine to either require that any increase in
enrollment does not exceed the cap for a 315 enrollment, or it must allow increases in the cap
commensurate with an enrollment increase.
Joe Sordi Sr
RECEIVED
Joe Sordi Sr.
March 15, 2015 MAR 16 2015
Subject: Traffic Count Margin of Error Complicates Compliance TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Mayor Jensen and Town Council Members:
As noted in the Staff report, a 5 % variation between the tube counts taken by Baymetrics and the
Sensys counts taken during the March, 2013 TJKM traffic study is well within an acceptable range
considered by general traffic engineering practices. With a 5 % margin of error in counts, a compliance
condition that assumes a 0% margin of error is unreasonable. To find Hillbrook out of compliance for
just a single count overage is not compatible with the fact that there is a 5% margin of error. This is
f niber complicated by the fact that turn arounds at the gate and traffic from a neighbor's driveway will
be counted by the Sensys system.
A second problem relates to outages in the Sensys system, both planned and unplanned. Every system
like Sensys has planned down times, primarily for maintenance. In addition, there are bound to be
unplanned outages when the system simply fails. For this reason, it is important to have a back up
system in the form of a tube or video counter. To find Hillbrook out of compliance for an outage
resulting in a missed count day is the equivalent of finding a home owner out of compliance for a
PG &E power outage.
Joe Sordi Sr
March 15, 2015
Mayor Marcia Jensen and
Town of Los Gatos
130 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Members of the Town Council
RECEIVED
MAR 16 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Mayor Jensen, Vice Mayor Spector, and Council Members Leonardis,
Sayoc, and Rennie:
We are the Longmeadow neighbors of Hillbrook School. We agree with the letter
submitted by our Marchmont neighbors dated March 10. We have two additional
concerns that have not been addressed.
One of the proposals from the February 17`h Council meeting stated that
the applicant shall comply with all Town Code regulations for curfews and
amplified noise except to allow the applicant to exceed those noise
limitations of the town code for curfews and noise disturbances for a
maximum of 4 events per year.
The Planning Commission's Conditions of Approval #17 states "MUSIC:
Music from live bands shall not be amplified. One amplified DJ event is
permitted per year."
We agree with the Planning Commission and urge you, the Town Council,
to limit Hillbrook to 1 amplified event per ACADEMIC year and no
amplified events during the summer.
Allowing Hillbrook to have 4 amplified events per year is a significant
increase and would be a great disturbance to the surrounding
neighborhoods.
If after 6:OOPM, the amplified event needs to be included within the 10
nighttime events allowed during the academic year.
We request that the following be adopted:
CURFEW AND NOISE: The school shall comply with the Town Code for
curfew and noise issues, except that amplified noise may exceed noise
limitations a maximum of one (1) time per academic year.
2. Grounds and facilities maintenance was restricted to Monday — Friday by
the Planning Commission. The subject has not been addressed by the
Town Council and we agree with the Planning Commission's COA.
We request that the following be adopted.
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE. The School shall perform all outdoor grounds
maintenance Monday through Friday, year- round.
We thank you for taking the time and effort to listen to the issues and concerns of
all of the people affected by the Hillbrook CUP.
Esther and Bill Puterbaugh
Monica and Lofti Herzi
Pat and Steve Markman
Kathy and Bill Meleyco
Jill and Craig Fordyce
Jennifer Savage
To: Janette Judd
Subject: RE: Hillbrook Traffic and Shuttles
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Renee Hart [mailto:renee hart@vahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 4:56 PM
To: Council
Cc: Shannon Hart
Subject: Hillbrook Traffic and Shuttles
> Dear Council,
> Although our home on Old Blossom Hill Rd is a distance from Hillbrook School we feel the full impact of all students
that live south of Los Gatos and commute via Blossom Hill Rd - Short Rd - Shannon Rd. Our neighborhood gets no relief
from Hillbrook Shuttle with the stop being located at Blossom Hill Park.
> We would really like to see the shuttle stops moved further out of the neighborhoods to disperse the funneling effect
experienced when there is only one direct way to /from the stop as we have now. Shuttle stops should be located in
areas that provide multiple avenues for approach /departure, such as the Safeway plaza at intersection of Union Ave
and Los Gatos - Almaden Blvd, where traffic is not forced into funnel points. The Genentech and Google shuttle buses
utilize stops on Los Gatos Blvd. I would much rather have them use BH Park as shuttle stop vs Hillbrook as the vast
majority of people I see catching the work shuttles ride bicycles or walk to pickup point.
> Our kids walk to school (BH Elementary & Fisher Middle) every morning and the most dangerous portion is crossing
the street at the intersection of OBH & Short Rd. Our daughter (Fisher Middle) no longer uses Short Rd to meet her
friends on Shannon due to the amount of traffic on Short and lack of sidewalks on both Short Rd and Shannon near their
intersection.
> Please consider the full neighborhood impact of Hillbrook traffic and work to find a solution that does that not just
move or even increase the problem in areas further away.
> Thank you for your consideration,
> Shannon & Renee Hart
> 301 Old Blossom Hill Rd.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank