Loading...
Desk item and Attachments 11-13 PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON Community Development Director _______________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance _________________________________________________________________________ https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/attachment/9567/StoryPoleException_Mod-Cont__DESK__V1.docx 4/19/2016 2:50 PM MM MEETING DATE: 04/19/16 ITEM NO: 6 DESK ITEM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: APRIL 19, 2016 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: PROPERTY LOCATION: NORTH FORTY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA: PHASE 1 CONSIDER A REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE STORY POLE POLICY FOR THE PHASE 1 NORTH FORTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. APNS: 424-07-024 THROUGH 027, 031 THROUGH 037, 070, 083 THROUGH 086, 090, AND 100. REMARKS: The attached letters (Attachment 11) were received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 15, 2016 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 19, 2016. The applicant submitted a letter dated today with exhibits detailing the poles and netting or flag rope that were installed on Saturday, April 16, 2016 (Attachment 12). The letter identified where the installation deviated from the plans previously provided in Attachment 9, letter from the applicant received on April 13, 2016. Pictures of the installed poles and netting are provided in Attachment 13 and will be posted on the North 40 webpage of the Town website for future reference. Attachments previously received with April 5, 2016 Staff Report: 1. Approved Story Pole Exception 2. Story Poles Not Installed 3. Letter from the applicant with the story pole exception modification request Attachment previously received with April 5, 2016 Addendum Report: 4. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2016 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PHASE 1 – STORY POLE EXCEPTION MODIFICATION APRIL 19, 2016 Attachments previously received with April 5, 2016 Desk Item Report: 5. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2016, and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 5, 2016 6. Story Pole conflict points, received April 5, 2016 (five pages) Attachments received with April 19, 2016 Staff Report: 7. Exhibits provided by applicant at April 5, 2016 Town Council Meeting 8. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2016, and 11:00 a.m. Thursday, April 14, 2016 9. Letter from the applicant with updated story pole modification information, received April 13, 2016 (five pages) Attachments received with April 19, 2016 Addendum Report: 10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, April 14, 2016, and 11:00 a.m. Friday, April 15, 2016 Attachments received with April 19, 2016 Addendum Report: 11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 15, 2016, and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12. Letter from the applicant and installed story pole exhibits, received April 18, 2016 (20 pages) 13. Pictures of installed story poles (13 pages) -----Original Message----- From: Marcia Fariss [mailto:marcia@gizmology.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:13 PM To: Council; Planning Subject : North 40 development Dear Mayor Spector, Fellow City Council members and Planning Commission members, I have driven by the North 40 property multiple times and seen the story poles in place from various perspectives. I am appalled! This is a huge piece of property and and the current proposal for development of this area will destroy what was once a wonderful, charming town. My initial response was "Oh no, what are they thinking?" The current design is massive, dense, and not at all in keeping with the once cozy amb iance of Los Gatos. I remember the charm of Los Gatos when we lived there several years ago ; I cannot help but shake my head in wonder with what has happened to it. There are already too many high density "stack n ' pack" developments and adding another, massive one is unconscionable. Traffic, already a major stress inducer, will likely be gridlocked along Hwys 17 and 85, Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Blvd (as well as surrounding roads, with drivers attempting to avoid the major throughways) and not just during commute times. Other i ssues include: Over crowded classrooms, wear and tear on existing and new infrastructure, increased noise levels and a serious deterioration of Los Gatos' quality of life. And what about parks and/or open space? I saw none planned! Is Los Gatos so desperate for money that it needs such a massive and intense development? We used to love Los Gatos and it's small town charm; however, it is rapidly becoming just another city, with little or no charm, a sterile atmosphere with too much traffic congestion. Please do not approve this massive, intense, high density development as currently presented. At the very least, demand less intensity and a large open space. And , please don 't allo w another non-descript "Mediterranean architecture" development. Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider my concerns about the North 40 proje ct. Marcia Fariss Saratoga ATTACHMENT 1 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Marni, Todd Del Vecchio <del_creative@hotmail.com > Saturday, April 16, 2016 9:12 AM Marni Moseley North 40 I am a concerned LG resident and cannot believe what is happening with this North 40 project. I attended the special hearing at the planning commission a couple of weeks ago due to the shock at seeing the story poles going up . At the meeting we were told by the town's lawyer that it is too late to stop~the project. I hope the town takes the response of it's citizens seriously and considers ways to downscale (or eliminate) this project . It is just crazy to think that an environmental impact study that was done years ago still applies to this project when it says there will be no impact to traffic. With growth in the number of commuters from the Santa Cruz area and all of the other construction (Netflix) already going on, the congestion that the residents have to deal with is unsustainable. I can't even leave my house on Roberts Rd on the weekends due to beach traffic. I also understand that the Town is helping the developer to advertise and sell their North 40 project. Why would the Town do this? This is an incredible conflict of interest. I would like to know who I can talk to in order to understand why this is happening. Regards Todd Del Vecchio 57 Roberts Rd Los Gatos, CA 95032 1 From: Linda [lsherry@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 16 , 2016 4 :05 PM To: BSpector Subject: North 40 Mayor Spector, Why is it so difficult for the council to understand that the immense size of the Grosvenor project is completely unreasonable considering the size of the North 40 community? To make it perfectly clear for everyone, it is necessary that the council does not grant the developer anymore exceptions for the installation of poles and netting along Los Gatos Blvd. The fact that they are asking for the exception is in itself a giant clue of what they are trying to hide. Be fair to your citizens, represent them and do not allow yet another exception on Tuesday! Thank you, Linda Sherry Resident Sent from my iPad Marni Moseley From: Sent; To; Subject: Linda Aggarwal <aggarwalfamily@gmail.com> Sunday, April 17, 2016 5:49 PM BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz Project North 40 plan -Story Poles must meet criteria, no more exceptions! Dear Mayor Spector, Town Council, Planner, Town Manager and Town Attorney: I have been a fifteen-year resident of Live Oak Manor in Los Gatos (the closest major cross streets are Los Gatos Blvd and Los Gatos-Almaden). Firstly, I oppose to having a mini Santana Row built in our town as I feel it will ruin the "bedroom community" "quaint town" environment we chose for our family. But, as such, the land was sold to a developer, and I understand they must build the area. I urge you to ensure that the developer and Town make the necessary plans to widen more roads and access points (freeways) than what is written, and to create a development suitable for our Town. I am writing to you to: (1) Ensure that the developer displays all the story poles and netting as outlined in our Town's Policy, with no more exemptions. The residents of this Town have a right to see the netting and poles of the rooflines and all comer buildings. The story poles should be kept in place until the project has been acted upon. (2) Revisit all the surrounding freeway ramps (Hwy 17 North and South, Hwy 85 North and South) by an traffic engineer. Ensure that the developer finances improvements to widen the freeway exits and interchanges due to increased traffic. Already, these freeways and exits cannot handle the existing traffic. Also, an engineer should come out to synchronize the flow of traffic from Winchester to Lark to Los Gatos Blvd to avoid gridlock traffic. Can they also add a North 85 exit on Winchester? (3) Ask that the developer provide digital imagery and traffic simulation of Lark Avenue and Los Gatos Blv d widened. I would like to see BEFORE and AFTER photos of the streets widened. How will this impact sidewalks, bike lanes and traffic signals on Lark and Los Gatos Blvd. (4) Ensure that the public and residential parking be ample and the parking spaces wider than say the Whole Foods or Jamba Juice Parking lots. (5) Ensure the facade of the buildings and homes are warm and inviting. (6) Ensure there are wide bike lanes throughout. Hopefully, they can encourage more biking in this area than cars. (7) Ensure there are a few parks and fountains throughout the development. (8) Reevaluate the number of homes and the number of parking spaces per home. Can the homes be built so that they are more spread out throughout the 44 acres? Thank you for your time. 1 Regards, Linda Lee 134 Greendale Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 2 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Town Council members , BS Nissen <bsnissen@gmail.com> Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:23 PM BSpector; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marice Sayoc; Rob Rennie Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; rshultz@losgatosca .gov Asking for Another exemption to the Town's Story Pole rune and II vicinato at Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd. The request for exception to the Town's Story Pole rule must be denied. As more than 50 year residents of Los Gatos, we feel we've been duped. We have attended several North 40 meetings over the past couple of years . Always we give input as to our feeling about the development. We have submitted filled out questionnaires, submitted preferred architectural styles on internet queries obviously to deaf ears and blind eyes. We never received any form of acknowledgment from Summerhill Homes or Eden Housing Apparently we missed some deadlines here. The story poles needed to go up before any decisions were made. Clearly the poles stimulate a gut response from residents. Who made the exception to the Town's Story Pole policy that states (l lA) "The height poles and netting shall be installed prior to the public noticing of the matter and shall be kept in place until the project has been acted upon and the appeal period has ended." Apparently plans were approved as well as an EIR prior to the story poles being erected. Our Town Attorney, Mr. Schultz doesn't seem to be representing the majority of very concerned Los Gatos citizens. Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for an attorney who has our interest at heart and not that of a developer. The proposed construction of 11 homes at Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd is ludicrous. Please stop this malignant growth pattern we've witnessed in our Town. Thank you for your consideration .. Regards, Burr and Susan Nissen 103 Cardinal Lane Los Gatos 95032 1 ***some points to consider regarding the story pole exemption request 1. Grosvenor {the developer) has already received 1 story pole exception in February- which is 1 more than as residents we would be granted. a. Part of that exception was to place flags instead of netting in some areas and we would like to have that amended. The orange netting is the only way to get a true picture of the proposed development, many of the "flags" currently installed are not visible and an exception was also granted as to how long they remain in place (see #2 & #6 below) 2. The Town's story pole policy states (110) "At least 2 foot wide orange woven plastic sno w fencing must be erected to represent the rooflines of the proposed structures" 3. The current exception request if for one of the most visible and crucial areas, along Los Gatos Boulevard-it is critical that we see this portion of the project 4. The Town's story pole policy states {II C) "At a m ini mum, story poles shall be placed at all outside building corners of the building wall" 5. The Town's story pole policy states (llG) "If an exception is granted, the applicant shall provide digital imagery simulations, computer modeling, built to scale models & other visual techniques" a. None of these have been provided, except the model on display in the Town Chambers, which does n't show existing co mmerci al on LG Boul evard, nor are the trees to scale, nor is it visible to thousa nds of re sidents 6. Th e Town 's story pole policy states (llA) "The height polies & netting shall be installed prior to the public noticing of the matter and shall be kept in place until the project has been acted upon & the appeal period has ended. a. Unfortunately the council granted an exception to this and allowed the poles to remain for 4 weeks following the date when required public notices ar e sent. b. Please ask that the 4 week exception either be revisited or that it be from each modification for the subject's story pole plan or application. 7. If the request is denied and/or any modification required then the public hearing will be reopened giving everyone a chance to speak on this immensely important matter. 8. Regarding the Developer/Development at the corner of Shannon Road/Los Gatos Boulevard "ii Vicinato -you will have an opportunity to speak to the Town Council regarding your opinion -please note the zo ning is commercial on this corner, surrounding residential is Rl-8 or 8 homes per acre; with setbacks and access this would be 3-4 homes on that parcel not 11!!! Thank you so much ......... . See you next Tuesday night at 7 in orange! Marni Moseley From: ewerner4@gmail.com Sent: To: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:57 PM Marni Moseley Subject: N.40 April 18, 2016 Att: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Att: Los Gatos Town Council Members: Dear Council Members & Commissioners, I am writing to state there should be NO exceptions for story pole exemptions. ALL story poles should be installed. As residents of Los Gatos, we are not granted exceptions for story poles either for building new or remodeling. Why would a developer be allowed such an exemption from displaying all story poles for such a behemoth of a project? How would this serve the residents and community of Los Gatos? Perception as such would be considered an injustice to residents and the community of Los Gatos by allowing for such an exemption. Very Truly Yours, Eileen Werner Resident, Voter, Tax Payer, Homeowner of Los Gatos Sent from my iPhone 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sir/Madam, Jeremy Doig <jeremydo@gmail.com> Monday, April 18, 2016 8:05 PM BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen ; Rob Rennie Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz re: North40 Story Pole Exception I will not be able to attend the town meeting tomorrow evening, but I would like to lodge my strong opposition to the proposal to allow another story pole exception to the North 40 development. The entire purpose of Story Poles is to show local residents the impact of proposed development. If you remove this important indicator, you deny residents the opportunity to truly comprehend the impact of proposed development. Please do not allow this amendment. Thank You Jeremy Doig Resident since 2007 1 Planning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Planning Commission, Jessica Richter <jessbricht@gmail.com> Monday, April 18, 2016 10:22 PM Planning BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Je nsen; Rob Rennie; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz II Vicinato" 16212 Los Gatos Boulevard on the corner of Shannon Road I am a Los Gatos resident and live on the corner ofHilow Court and Shannon Rd, at 101 Hilow Court. I join many in the community with the concerns and objections below:. 1. I strongly object to the North 40 Plan as currently proposed. I am very concerned about the density of the North 40 proposal, the impact on schools, on traffic, and on the downtown Los Gatos businesses. It 's already almost impossible to drive downtown on a weekend. It's next to impossible to get on a freeway on a weekday morning, drop kids off at school, or get really anywhere in a reasonable amount of time during the day due to all of the traffic on LG Blvd. The North 40 development must be considered in light of a new traffic study and should be a less dense development, built in a greater number of stages. 2. And-I object strongly to the developer's request for an exemption to the Town's Story Pole rule to not install poles and netting along LG Blvd. That the developer would ask and the Town would even consider an exception to the story pole rule i s incredible, given the scope, impact, and community objections to the North 40 project. It's especially galling to those of us who have done even the most minor changes or improvements to our re sidential property, given the town 's many permitting rules, requirements and fees. Why would a huge developer have to do one iota le ss than any resident? The fact that is even being considered is really upsetting. 3. Closer to my neighborhood, the proposed "II Vicinito" on Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd, otherwise known as "II Conceivato," needs to be drastically reconsidered and maintained as a low traffic commercial development, or a residential development with with far fewer -4--homes. Eight HOMES IS STILL TOO DENSE FOR THIS LOCATION. a. We do NOT need another high density housing development literall y across the street from Laurel Mews (Laurel Too-Close-to-Yous). Even 8 homes in that location is far too dense. Adding a restaurant there in addition to the homes makes no sense and still creates an overly dense development with too much traffic added to that intersection. b.The current plan is overly dense, unattractive, provides inadequate green space from the street to the structures, and limits visibility. * Height of proposed plan is too high * only one below market "home" does not justify this development! c. We do NOT want the traffic, congestion, and extra pressure on our already crowded schools that even more high density resid ential housing wi ll create d. It is not fair to concentrate so much of this kind of housing between Shannon and Kennedy Rd. There 1 are already two similar developments on this corridor. That is enough! e. Increased traffic on LG Blvd increases cut through traffic in neighborhoods. Do residents want more of that?. f. ANY development on that comer MUST be accompanied by street improvements at the intersection and a clearly marked bike lane along Shannon Rd. to protect our students and other cyclists and pedestrians. The existing intersection is inefficient, and dangerous for cyclists. Most cyclists who cross LG Blvd at Shannon going East, ride on the wrong side of the road . No amount of "education" is going to get middle school kids to ride on the correct side of the road unless the intersection is changed . \Anyone making any decisions about this intersection should bike through it ! . I urge that this area should be zoned for a quiet commercial building such as a law office that minimizes impact on traffic and schools. Or, less dense housing for seniors. It is the wrong comer for dense family housing and should not be rezoned as residential. I hope to make the Town Council Meeting tomorrow, Tues April 19, but ifI am unable due to having a young child, I am hoping that this letter will show the extent of objection to this project from this resident. I know I am not alone. Best Regards, Jessica Richter 2 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Amy Despars <amydespars@hotmail.com> Tuesday, April 19, 2016 7:33 AM BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie; Robert Schultz; Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti Our Town To Los Gatos Town Council and Staff, As a lifelong resident, LGHS Alumni, teacher, parent(raising 3rd generation children here), and active citizen in Los Gatos I am begging you to not GRANT ANY EXCEPTIONS to the North 20 Development. I am saying North 20 because Grosvenor only knows what the plan will be for the second phase of the entire North 40 and I only hope you all will take careful considerations when the plans for that phase cross your desk. Just recently, my family along with another family where driving to a basketball tournament in Hayward . On the west side of 880 was a massive housing development and the first thing the two LGHS girls said was, "That is what Los Gatos is going to look like! That is horrible!" The three adults agreed and then told them that all of the story poles were not up. They were appalled. Upon returning to town the girls were more observant and made a comment about the little mini orange flags that they had not notice~ before because they are so hard to see if especially if you are drivingThose flags are deceiving. The developer should be required to use the orange netting throughout the entire project. Look at how tall Blossom Hill Elementary and Dave's Avenue Elementary Schools are. When we were remodeling those schools we were not granted exceptions and there was orange netting all along the tops of both of those buildings As I stated at the last Town Council meeting .... Exceptions to all of these mini-projects along Los Gatos Blvd. have caused nothing but turmoil, animosity, frustration, traffic, and more exceptions. What ever happened to the General Plan for the Los Gatos Blvd. Fifteen years ago a plan was worked on and the community had input. The plan is not being followed. Yet, another exception and now the spirit of our town is being affected. The people who live are feeling misrepresented, lied to, cheated, unheard, angry, frustrated .... etc. etc. etc. What is happening to our town's culture is all because of the little exceptions that have been made here and there all in the name of developers. YOU CAN NOT ALLOW ANYMORE EXCEPTIONS. To the Town Staff, I am asking you from here on out to fight for our town and listen to the residents and not the developers. Read the letter in the April Weekly ... Former Mayor weighs in on the North 40 plan . "In the days of town attorney( now judge) Mary Jo Levinger .... town planning directors Lee Bowman and Bud Lortz, the staff helped the commission and council find rea sons to turn down these big, ugly development proposals and to find ways around state ordinances designed for Fresno and Bake r sfield, not for Los Gatos." Please stop taking the easy way out and stop siding with the developers. In a few years the developers will be gone and their pockets will be filled with money and Los Gatos will no longer be the community it once was unless you take a stand and you do what is right for the town you work for. If you make do your job, working for the Town of Los Gatos, in ten years from now you will sleep better at night knowing you did your j ob with honesty and integrity. The current exception is being reque sted for on of the most visible and crucial areas along Los Gato s Blvd . We have an ide a of what the development will look like from the freeway but we have no idea what it will look like from Los Gatos Blvd . I am t r uly sorry that the Town Coun ci l is being blamed for this entire m ess. I am sure this is not w hat yo u sig ned up for when you ran for office . Please listen to our community. 1 Amy Despars 2 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mayor Spector and Council , Michelle Lalljie <lalljie@verizon.net > Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:53 AM BSpector; Marice Sayoc; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Rob Rennie Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Robert Schultz North 40 plans and status In the almost 50 years I've lived near or in Los Gatos, including the last 18 years in which we've owned a home here, I have never felt the need to write to the council regarding the ·development decisions that are being made in Los Gatos . That has now changed due to the story poles constructed at the North 40 location . Not only do they reflect the overdevelopment of that location, they start to reflect the more industrial development of Silicon Valley, similar to Santa Clara and Sunnyvale . It is an absolute shame that Los Gatos is prioritizing developers' desires and , perhaps, the desire of Los Gatos to have more tax revenues , over preserving the look and feel of Los Gatos that has made it the town t hat it is---an escape from the crowded Silicon Valley business-type sprawl. It is especially concerning that you , our Council , representatives of the people living in Los Gatos , are allowing developers to circumvent standard processes by giving exceptions to the developers w ith regards to the story poles construction , imagery simulations /computer modeling , and length of time story poles are in place . It is disappointing that the residents of Los Gatos have to spend such a large amount of time voicing our opinions around development issues (including , for instance, the overdevelopment of the "ii vicinato") to ensure the Council understands the stance of the commun ity. We ask that you stop giving exceptions to these large developers and focus on maintaining the town development to ensure we keep Los Gatos the great town it is . Don't even get me started on how this will affect schools , class size, the education our kids get and the associated increased traffic that the overdevelopment will cause . Regards, Michelle (and Andre') Lalljie 106 Hollycrest Dr Los Gatos , CA 95032 1 4/19/2016 TO: Mayor Spector and Council Members FROM: Lee Quintana North 40 Phase I -Story Poles: APR 1 9 201b TO\f>JN OF LO S C-1\T'JS PLAf-.Jl·~t NG D:\:'IS!ON 1 of 1 Council previously has granted an exemption to the Story Pole Policy. The applicant is now asking for modifications to the granted exemption for North 40 Phase I. Approximately 500 story poles will have been erected for North 40 Phase I whether or not the additional requested exemption is granted. This is a giant improvement compared to what was required for the two Netflix projects (first Netflix (Sobrato) or the second Netflix (Albright). (see Story Pole History below). Story Pole Past History -Some Past Proj ect (based on my memory) 1. Sobrato (Nextlix and Aventino): • No story poles required. Instead a small number of weather balloons were use to mark the corners of one proposed structure. • Netting was used. • The balloons were not up for the full time the application was under review by the Commission/Town Council 2 . Al bright (Netflix): • No story poles were required. • In place of story poles a limited number of cranes (approximately 7) were placed on the · corners of several of the proposed building . • No building had all four corners marked. • Netting was extended from the cranes but d id not cover the full perimeter on any building. • Cranes were not placed at all the building corners nor where they would interfere with remaining tenants. The cranes were not on site for the for the full t ime the application was under review by he Commission/Council. 3. Riv iera Terrace: • Not all story poles were required to be erected • Helium party balloons were used to mark structures located in the existing parking area. • The balloons were up only for a few days immediately before the hearing and for a limited number of hours per day 4. Corner of Shannon and Los Gatos Blvd .: • Granted an exemption fo r duration the story poles were required to remain up due to conflict with existing tenants. 5 . Swenson Ford: • Story Poles were not erected for all structures, 6. Guadalupe College: • Full story poles were not erected due to conflicts with existing buildings. 7. Shannon Road and Hicks Single Fam il y Development : • I do not think story poles were required for all he proposed houses 8. Bl ue Bi rd Lane, Laurel Mews or Safeway • Blue Bird Lane and Laurel Mews : ? May not have been required to put up story poles for all structures ·Safeway:? April 19, 2016 Mr. Joel Paulson Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, California 95031 RE: Update on Story Pole Installation Dear Mr. Paulson: As noted in our April 13, 2016 letter and at staff’s direction, we set out to improve upon our revised Story Pole Plan in coordination with eight tenants that have residences or operating businesses within the three impacted areas of the Plan. These areas are: 1) The corporate yard for Bartlett Tree Experts and associated vehicular circulation which impacts Enterprise Rental Car and other tenants at this location including a single family residence (Area A on our plan); 2) The residential unit on the northern portion of Los Gatos Boulevard (Area B on our plan); and 3) The two residential units on the southern portion of Los Gatos Boulevard (Alley G on our plan). On April 16, 2016 the story poles and netting/flag rope shown in the revised Story Pole Plan were installed (Exhibit A dated 4/18/16). While in the field with our contractor and key tenants, we were able to make decisions based on actual conditions encountered. The result is a combination of poles and netting/flag rope that communicate height and mass of the proposed buildings while minimizing the impact on these tenants. We were able to achieve this by employing different materials and construction techniques. For example, by utilizing the double flag rope that was already approved by Town Council for the Market Hall/Eden building, we were able to limit the number of intermediate poles and guy wires that would be otherwise be required if we had utilized full netting in Area A. As is shown in the plan, we now have the outline of the main portion of Building A1 constructed. On the Alley G residential area, as these buildings are low in height and the spans not as great, we were able to fully employ netting. The same is true for the entire frontage along the B2 building, where we were able to work with the tenant to add an additional pole to provide height depicted in mesh along the entire Los Gatos Boulevard frontage for that building. Remaining Poles and Netting The poles that were not constructed were either omitted as they were intermediate poles that were not necessary or the location of the poles were directly in drive aisles or parking areas needed by residences or business. The location of these remaining poles and the circulation and driveways in these areas are shown in Exhibit B. 1588\03\1658075.1 Although the poles were constructed with flags on top, neither netting nor flag rope was installed in the impacted tree line at the proposed live-work building in Area A. We had two tree trimming companies on site ready to trim limbs. The decision in the field was that simple trimming would not work and the utility of the netting would not be worth the damage to the trees during the application stage of a project. Duration We continue to advocate for reduced duration for the poles to remain on site on behalf of our tenants in these impacted areas. Each business and individual have specific concerns and we are able to share those with you during questions and answers if they have not shared those with you directly. Request We request a modification to our Story Pole Plan as outlined in the attached Revision (Exhibit A) and flexibility to handle duration of time poles remain installed on a case-by-case basis for each tenant and their specific needs. Conclusion With this plan, the project information signs, full scale model which has been on display at Council Chambers Lobby (which augments any deviation from standard policy), and the numerous elevations and renderings in our application, the purpose of the Story Pole Policy has been met. The Town stakeholders should have an understanding of the project and a we have clearly provided a visual notice to the community. We would like to thank Bartlett Tree Experts, Affinity Mortgage, Enterprise Rental Car, Serrano Tree Experts, Natural Bridges Landscaping and three the residential tenants for working voluntarily with us. Sincerely, A. Don Capobres Linda Mandolini Wendi Baker Principal President Vice President of Development Harmonie Park Development Eden Housing SummerHill Homes Representing Grosvenor Attachments: Exhibit A Story Pole Plan Exhibit B Conflict Areas Exhibit C Certification Exhibit D Elevations, Model and Story Poles Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Project Number: 19756.COM MEMORANDUM - SINCE 1953 - 5142 FRANKLIN DRIVE, SUITE B, PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-3368 PHONE: (925) 225-0690 FAX: (925) 225-0698 OFFICES: PLEASANTON ROSEVILLE www.msce.com P:\19756\PLN\Exh-P\Storypole\StorypoleReviewMemoFinal.doc Date: 04.18.2016 To: Marni Moseley Planning Department 110 East Main St. Los Gatos, CA 95030 MMoseley@losgatosca.gov From: Chris Ragan Subject: North 40 Phase 1 Storypole Review (Revised) North 40 Phase 1 story poles locations were staked per the attached exhibits, which were based on the story pole plan exhibits produced by Dahlin and BAR Architects. The exhibits include the original planned locations as well as the additional locations requested and agreed upon by Parks and Public Works staff. Pole locations were staked where possible to the best of the ability of the survey crew given existing obstructions. Those poles that could not be staked or constructed are listed on the attached spreadsheet. Survey crews completed an "As-Built" survey of the top of poles in order to verify the elevations. Based on the "as-built" survey elevations we have reviewed the pole heights in comparison to the design heights. All poles fell within 12" of design height. Best Regards, MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers, Inc. By: Chris Ragan cc: Jacquelyn Bays Wendi Baker Don Capobres North 40 Phase 1 Story Pole Survey Data 19756.COM 04.18.2016 1 of 4 Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev 20000 325.55 325.813 0.26 20068 331.63 331.796 0.17 20001 325.55 325.589 0.04 20069 320.55 320.831 0.28 20002 325.55 325.686 0.14 20070 335.13 335.399 0.27 20003 325.55 326.07 0.52 20071 335.13 335.334 0.20 20004 20072 335.13 335.439 0.31 20005 333.97 334.4 0.43 20073 325.13 325.077 0.05 20006 333.97 334.188 0.22 20074 331.63 331.899 0.27 20007 20075 330.63 331.389 0.76 20008 20076 331.63 332.066 0.44 20009 335.63 335.757 0.13 20077 320.55 320.713 0.16 20010 20078 333.47 334.058 0.59 20011 332.13 332.447 0.32 20079 333.47 334.014 0.54 20012 321.05 321.203 0.15 20080 332.13 332.333 0.20 20013 335.63 336.013 0.38 20081 332.13 332.344 0.21 20014 321.05 321.448 0.40 20082 332.13 332.08 0.05 20015 332.13 332.427 0.30 20083 332.13 332.425 0.30 20016 331.60 331.82 0.22 20084 324.30 324.374 0.07 20017 335.10 335.206 0.11 20085 324.30 324.439 0.14 20018 331.60 331.966 0.37 20086 321.55 321.756 0.21 20019 329.93 330.197 0.27 20087 321.80 321.814 0.01 20020 335.10 335.411 0.31 20088 323.30 323.94 0.64 20021 329.77 329.97 0.20 20089 321.55 321.82 0.27 20022 329.10 329.14 0.04 20090 330.70 330.874 0.17 20023 329.10 328.92 0.18 20091 334.20 334.198 0.00 20024 329.10 328.91 0.19 20092 330.70 331.078 0.38 20025 329.10 329.00 0.10 20093 329.03 329.008 0.02 20026 331.60 331.64 0.04 20094 334.20 334.467 0.27 20027 331.60 331.39 0.21 20095 328.87 329.214 0.34 20028 20096 330.70 330.588 0.11 20029 20097 334.20 334.377 0.18 20030 331.93 331.98 0.05 20098 330.70 330.69 0.01 20031 20099 331.75 331.8 0.05 20032 20100 330.75 330.904 0.15 20033 326.10 325.158 0.94 20101 332.75 332.689 0.06 20034 326.10 326.16 0.06 20102 20035 326.10 326.728 0.63 20103 332.75 332.672 0.08 20036 20104 332.75 332.662 0.09 20037 328.85 328.35 0.50 20105 331.75 331.808 0.06 20038 328.85 328.73 0.12 20106 330.75 330.609 0.14 20039 328.85 328.92 0.06 20107 330.70 330.73 0.03 20040 20108 334.00 333.977 0.02 20041 331.45 331.717 0.27 20109 330.70 330.353 0.35 20042 332.45 332.641 0.19 20110 328.87 328.901 0.03 20043 333.95 334.31 0.36 20111 334.20 333.939 0.26 20044 333.95 334.005 0.06 20112 329.03 328.923 0.11 20045 331.45 331.901 0.45 20113 329.03 328.934 0.10 20046 332.45 333.061 0.61 20114 334.20 334.091 0.11 20047 331.20 330.438 0.76 20115 329.03 328.92 0.11 20048 334.70 334.165 0.53 20116 330.70 330.259 0.44 20049 331.20 331.656 0.46 20117 334.20 334.216 0.02 20050 329.37 329.564 0.19 20118 330.70 330.737 0.04 20051 334.70 334.961 0.26 20119 320.05 320.371 0.32 20052 329.53 329.785 0.26 20120 320.05 320.243 0.19 20053 331.20 331.517 0.32 20121 331.13 331.316 0.19 20054 334.70 334.816 0.12 20122 334.63 334.491 0.14 20055 331.20 331.644 0.44 20123 331.13 331.036 0.09 20056 331.10 331.758 0.66 20124 330.13 330.335 0.21 20057 334.60 334.779 0.18 20125 334.63 334.877 0.25 20058 331.10 331.323 0.22 20126 330.13 330.301 0.17 20059 329.27 329.589 0.32 20127 331.13 331.179 0.05 20060 334.60 334.841 0.24 20128 334.63 334.55 0.08 20061 329.43 329.34 0.09 20129 331.13 331.27 0.14 20062 331.10 331.447 0.35 20130 324.63 324.824 0.19 20063 334.60 334.828 0.23 20131 20064 331.10 331.25 0.15 20132 331.63 331.708 0.08 20065 325.13 325.299 0.17 20133 331.63 331.321 0.31 20066 331.63 331.762 0.13 20134 331.63 331.498 0.13 20067 330.63 330.869 0.24 20135 331.63 331.849 0.22 20136 332.97 333.327 0.36 20137 332.97 333.154 0.18 Shot obstructed by foliage Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Staked Obstructed Obstructed DifferenceDesignStakedDesignDifference Shot obstructed by foliage Shot obstructed by foliage North 40 Phase 1 Story Pole Survey Data 19756.COM 04.18.2016 2 of 4 Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev 20207 333.33 333.356 0.03 20138 322.80 323.021 0.22 20208 330.92 331.036 0.12 20139 331.05 331.067 0.02 20209 329.00 328.968 0.03 20140 321.30 321.25 0.05 20210 333.33 333.394 0.06 20141 321.05 321.445 0.40 20211 329.75 329.772 0.02 20142 323.80 323.856 0.06 20212 329.75 329.731 0.02 20143 323.80 323.715 0.08 20213 333.33 333.463 0.13 20144 320.45 320.299 0.15 20214 329.00 329.168 0.17 20145 320.45 320.589 0.14 20215 329.00 328.85 0.15 20146 331.53 331.854 0.32 20216 332.50 332.603 0.10 20147 335.03 335.058 0.03 20217 328.83 329.014 0.18 20148 331.53 331.83 0.30 20218 328.83 329.017 0.19 20149 330.53 330.799 0.27 20219 328.83 328.969 0.14 20150 335.03 335.135 0.11 20220 328.83 328.873 0.04 20151 330.53 330.751 0.22 20221 332.50 332.611 0.11 20152 331.53 331.53 0.00 20222 329.00 329.153 0.15 20153 335.03 334.901 0.13 20223 329.00 329 0.00 20154 331.53 331.44 0.09 20224 333.33 333.409 0.08 20155 331.53 331.95 0.42 20225 329.75 329.6 0.15 20156 332.03 332.165 0.14 20226 329.75 329.812 0.06 20157 332.03 331.968 0.06 20227 333.33 333.334 0.00 20158 332.03 332.072 0.04 20228 329.00 329.027 0.03 20159 324.20 324.148 0.05 20229 330.92 330.935 0.01 20160 324.20 324.188 0.01 20230 333.33 333.303 0.03 20161 324.20 324.07 0.13 20231 328.83 328.939 0.11 20162 324.20 324.141 0.06 20232 328.53 328.685 0.16 20163 324.73 324.676 0.05 20233 333.03 333.251 0.22 20164 324.73 324.718 0.01 20234 330.62 330.76 0.14 20165 331.23 331.367 0.14 20235 329.45 329.669 0.22 20166 334.73 335.524 0.79 20236 333.03 333.16 0.13 20167 331.23 331.32 0.09 20237 328.70 328.896 0.20 20168 330.23 330.365 0.13 20238 329.45 329.542 0.09 20169 334.73 334.776 0.05 20239 333.03 333.137 0.11 20170 330.23 330.11 0.12 20240 328.70 328.876 0.18 20171 331.23 331.225 0.00 20241 328.70 328.856 0.16 20172 334.73 334.726 0.00 20242 332.20 332.186 0.01 20173 331.23 331.253 0.02 20243 328.53 328.773 0.24 20174 324.90 324.893 0.01 20244 328.53 328.623 0.09 20175 324.90 324.856 0.04 20245 328.53 328.641 0.11 20176 333.07 332.762 0.31 20246 328.53 328.818 0.29 20177 333.07 333.102 0.03 20247 332.20 331.39 0.81 20178 331.73 331.748 0.02 20248 328.70 328.841 0.14 20179 331.73 331.855 0.13 20249 328.70 328.944 0.24 20180 331.73 331.599 0.13 20250 333.03 333.143 0.11 20181 331.73 331.575 0.15 20251 329.45 329.732 0.28 20182 322.90 322.87 0.03 20252 328.70 328.747 0.05 20183 322.90 322.667 0.23 20253 333.03 333.259 0.23 20184 324.90 324.894 0.01 20254 329.45 329.677 0.23 20185 324.90 324.89 0.01 20255 330.62 330.68 0.06 20186 324.90 324.97 0.07 20256 333.03 333.028 0.00 20187 324.90 324.916 0.02 20257 328.53 328.518 0.01 20188 333.80 332.936 0.86 20258 327.73 327.648 0.08 20189 331.22 330.514 0.71 20259 332.23 332.212 0.02 20190 332.63 332.646 0.02 20260 329.82 329.816 0.00 20191 332.63 332.798 0.17 20261 327.90 327.98 0.08 20192 332.63 332.762 0.13 20262 332.23 332.079 0.15 20193 332.63 332.703 0.07 20263 328.65 328.698 0.05 20194 332.63 332.807 0.18 20264 328.65 328.756 0.11 20195 330.30 330.322 0.02 20265 332.23 332.054 0.18 20196 333.80 333.637 0.16 20266 327.90 327.831 0.07 20197 333.80 333.708 0.09 20267 327.90 327.92 0.02 20198 330.30 330.305 0.00 20268 331.40 331.508 0.11 20199 332.63 332.504 0.13 20269 327.73 327.606 0.12 20200 332.63 332.552 0.08 20270 327.73 327.649 0.08 20201 332.63 332.379 0.25 20271 327.73 327.756 0.03 20202 332.63 332.667 0.04 20272 327.73 327.866 0.14 20203 332.63 332.512 0.12 20273 331.40 331.763 0.36 20204 331.22 331.208 0.01 20274 327.90 327.863 0.04 20205 329.13 329.127 0.00 20275 327.90 327.983 0.08 20206 328.83 328.99 0.16 20276 332.23 332.364 0.13 Design Staked Difference Design Staked Difference North 40 Phase 1 Story Pole Survey Data 19756.COM 04.18.2016 3 of 4 Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev 20277 328.65 328.616 0.03 20345 321.80 321.779 0.02 20278 328.65 328.78 0.13 20346 321.80 321.941 0.14 20279 332.23 332.369 0.14 20347 321.80 321.871 0.07 20280 327.90 328.028 0.13 20348 321.80 321.922 0.12 20281 329.82 330.114 0.29 20349 321.80 321.921 0.12 20282 332.23 332.377 0.15 20350 325.10 325.564 0.46 20283 327.73 327.82 0.09 20351 325.10 325.325 0.22 20284 331.00 331.015 0.01 20352 330.10 330.232 0.13 20285 328.42 328.26 0.16 20353 330.10 330.587 0.49 20286 329.83 329.976 0.15 20354 321.20 321.408 0.21 20287 329.83 329.997 0.17 20355 321.20 321.405 0.20 20288 329.83 329.95 0.12 20356 321.20 321.04 0.16 20289 329.83 329.838 0.01 20357 20290 329.83 330.052 0.22 20358 321.20 321.08 0.12 20291 327.50 326.784 0.72 20359 321.20 321.412 0.21 20292 331.00 331.05 0.05 20360 321.20 321.42 0.22 20293 331.00 331.077 0.08 20361 321.20 321.445 0.25 20294 327.50 327.814 0.31 20362 321.20 321.77 0.57 20295 329.83 330.005 0.18 20363 328.70 328.75 0.05 20296 329.83 329.961 0.13 20364 328.70 328.78 0.08 20297 329.83 329.921 0.09 20365 328.70 328.75 0.05 20298 329.83 330.078 0.25 20366 328.70 329.09 0.39 20299 329.83 329.912 0.08 20367 20300 328.42 328.414 0.01 20368 20301 326.33 326.15 0.18 20369 20302 327.85 328.138 0.29 20370 332.20 331.75 0.45 20303 328.85 329.005 0.15 20371 322.20 321.87 0.33 20304 328.85 329.052 0.20 20372 322.20 322.39 0.19 20305 327.85 328.238 0.39 20373 20306 326.85 327.006 0.16 20374 20307 328.85 328.851 0.00 20375 322.20 322.16 0.04 20308 328.85 328.992 0.14 20376 328.70 328.77 0.07 20309 326.85 327.091 0.24 20377 20310 327.50 327.68 0.18 20378 20311 331.00 331.089 0.09 20379 20312 327.50 326.654 0.85 20380 20313 325.67 325.896 0.23 20381 20314 331.00 330.969 0.03 20382 20315 325.85 326.146 0.30 20383 311.40 311.51 0.11 20316 325.83 325.637 0.19 20384 311.40 311.47 0.07 20317 331.00 331.144 0.14 20385 311.40 311.7 0.30 20318 325.67 325.867 0.20 20386 20319 327.50 327.486 0.01 20387 20320 331.00 331.093 0.09 20388 20321 327.50 327.375 0.13 20389 20322 329.05 328.865 0.19 20390 324.40 324.26 0.14 20323 328.05 327.337 0.71 20391 20324 330.55 330.679 0.13 20392 20325 330.55 330.639 0.09 20393 20326 329.05 329.36 0.31 20394 20327 328.05 327.72 0.33 20395 314.60 314.78 0.18 20328 327.60 328.6 1.00 20395A 314.60 314.70 0.10 20329 331.10 331.005 0.10 20396 314.60 314.83 0.23 20330 327.60 327.803 0.20 20397 314.60 314.63 0.03 20331 325.93 326.408 0.48 20398 325.60 326.11 0.51 20332 331.10 331.364 0.26 20399 320.80 321.538 0.74 20333 325.77 325.806 0.04 20400 320.80 320.935 0.13 20334 327.60 327.825 0.22 20401 340.60 340.15 0.45 20335 331.10 331.141 0.04 20402 345.10 345.312 0.21 20336 327.60 327.43 0.17 20403 340.60 340.691 0.09 20337 322.80 323.49 0.69 20404 340.60 340.875 0.27 20338 322.80 323.061 0.26 20405 345.10 345.009 0.09 20339 322.80 322.945 0.14 20406 340.60 340.58 0.02 20340 330.10 330.189 0.09 20407 340.60 340.699 0.10 20341 322.80 323.097 0.30 20408 342.60 342.23 0.37 20342 325.10 325.183 0.08 20409 342.60 342.133 0.47 20343 325.10 325.121 0.02 20410 345.10 345.402 0.30 20344 321.80 321.968 0.17 20411 345.10 345.468 0.37 20412 345.10 345.421 0.32 Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Design Staked Difference Design Staked Difference Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed Obstructed North 40 Phase 1 Story Pole Survey Data 19756.COM 04.18.2016 4 of 4 Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev 20413 345.10 345.276 0.18 20414 342.60 342.905 0.30 20415 342.60 342.86 0.26 Point Number Elev Elev ∆ Elev 20416 342.60 342.59 0.01 20476 328.50 328.505 0.00 20417 342.60 343.432 0.83 20477 328.80 328.621 0.18 20418 347.60 347.553 0.05 20478 332.30 332.389 0.09 20419 342.60 342.81 0.21 20479 328.80 328.824 0.02 20420 342.60 342.669 0.07 20480 326.97 327.02 0.05 20421 342.60 343.004 0.40 20481 332.30 332.371 0.07 20422 347.60 347.804 0.20 20482 327.13 326.633 0.50 20423 341.60 341.7 0.10 20483 328.80 328.816 0.02 20424 341.60 342.026 0.43 20484 332.30 332.359 0.06 20425 341.60 341.939 0.34 20485 328.80 328.84 0.04 20426 341.60 341.62 0.02 20486 328.75 328.998 0.25 20427 341.60 341.811 0.21 20487 327.75 327.846 0.10 20428 341.60 341.999 0.40 20488 329.75 329.756 0.01 20429 340.60 340.418 0.18 20489 329.75 329.535 0.22 20430 340.60 340.879 0.28 20490 329.75 329.727 0.02 20431 331.50 331.619 0.12 20491 329.75 329.596 0.15 20432 331.50 331.736 0.24 20492 327.75 328.017 0.27 20433 331.50 331.443 0.06 20493 328.75 329.168 0.42 20434 328.30 328.292 0.01 20494 328.70 328.872 0.17 20435 331.20 331.43 0.23 20495 332.20 332.105 0.10 20436 321.30 321.31 0.01 20496 328.70 327.948 0.75 20437 321.30 321.427 0.13 20497 327.03 327.023 0.01 20438 321.30 321.318 0.02 20498 332.20 332.355 0.15 20439 321.30 321.515 0.21 20499 326.87 326.843 0.03 20440 321.30 321.439 0.14 20500 327.03 327.03 0.00 20441 319.20 319.05 0.15 20501 332.20 331.536 0.66 20442 319.20 309.19 10.01 20502 326.87 326.943 0.07 20443 331.20 331.15 0.05 20503 328.70 328.859 0.16 20444 331.20 331.38 0.18 20504 332.20 332.384 0.18 20445 328.30 328.23 0.07 20505 328.70 328.832 0.13 20446 328.30 328.33 0.03 20506 0.00 0 0.00 20447 331.50 331.43 0.07 20507 0.00 0 0.00 20448 331.50 331.39 0.11 20507B 0.00 0 0.00 20449 331.50 331.4 0.10 20450 331.50 331.796 0.30 20451 331.50 331.73 0.23 20452 325.60 325.793 0.19 20453 20454 20455 332.25 332.17 0.08 20456 332.25 332.486 0.24 20457 330.75 330.666 0.08 20458 329.75 329.778 0.03 20459 330.30 330.331 0.03 20460 333.80 333.832 0.03 20461 330.30 330.258 0.04 20462 328.63 328.687 0.06 20463 333.80 332.983 0.82 20464 328.47 328.43 0.04 20465 330.30 330.329 0.03 20466 333.80 333.901 0.10 20467 330.30 330.382 0.08 20468 328.50 328.617 0.12 20469 332.00 332.696 0.70 20470 328.50 328.475 0.03 20471 326.67 327.242 0.57 20472 332.00 331.915 0.09 20473 326.83 326.86 0.03 20474 328.50 328.473 0.03 20475 332.00 331.942 0.06 Obstructed Design Staked Difference Obstructed DifferenceStakedDesign LA R K A V E LOS GATOS BLVD HWY 1 7 04.18.2016 JDB19756.COM NOT DISPLAYING EXTENTS OF BOUNDARY STORYPOLE POINT MAP STORY POLE LEGEND Exhibit D Elevations, Model and Story Poles Residential on Los Gatos Boulevard Residential on Los Gatos Boulevard Residential on Los Gatos Boulevard Building B2 Restaurant on Los Gatos Blvd. Building A1 Neighborhood Retail . '