Loading...
2010080216 Desk Itembowls of ITEM NO: ~ ~[J DESK ITEM #1 [, ~~ ios•s`Atos COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: August 2, 2010 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL PROM: GREG I,ARSON, TOWN MANAGER ~~ SUBJECT: DRAFT LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE DRAFT LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE RF,MARKS: This desk item contains the following three additional review materials for the Towu Council's General Plan consideration, including: • Table of Recommended Minor Changes to the draft 2020 General Plan • Letter from the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors • Discussion of the Draft 2020 General Plan Reformatting of Goals Table of Recommended Minor Changes to the Draft 2020 General Plan: Attachment I is a table of recommended minor changes to the draft 2020 General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions resulting from the individual Council and staff meetings. These are non-substantive changes that clarify a goal, policy, or action. The recommended changes are in strike-out for deleted text and underline for new text. Letter from the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors: Attachment 2 is a letter that was received subsequent to the distribution of the Council meeting agenda packet. The letter is from the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors (SILVAR) and is in regards to draft Environmental and Stistainability Element Action ENV-10.2. As the Council is aware, considerable discussion has ensued regarding this Action, and as noted in the General Comment Matrix, staff recommends modifying the Action. The Planning Commission also commented on SILVAR's concerns and recommended the following: Revise the Action to say: '`...study the feasibility of taking one or more of the following steps with the possibility that one or more of these ste 3~s would not be feasible." t;~~ PREPARED BY: Weudie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development xed by: r ~1 Assistant Town Manager ` "mown Attorney Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development N:\DEV\CNCLRP'rS\2010@02D General Plan SOiff 12eport Desk Rein No Ldoc Reformatted: 5/30/02 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: DRt1F"f 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND F,IR Azrgzrst 2, 2010 1 Requiring euer~y Ind water efficiencv ludits 1t time-of--sale For commerical and residential prouerties. b Requiring enet•gy efficiencv audits by a s~cified date or within a specified timeline. c Placin agn exuiration date ou the energy rating certificate so that homes would be required to have a re ug lai•Iy scheduled energy efficiency audit. d Requiring an energy efficiencv audit for major retrofits new electrical accounts reappraisals, or rental, lease or other transfers. e Developing a Residential Enemy Conservation Ordinance, which requires certain property owners to conduct prescribed energy aiid water efficiencv up rag des prior to sale of the property. f Retro-conunissionin~ for commercial buildings to reeularly test energy-consuming equipment based on building ape and buildin sg ize ~ Offering low-cost loans as allowed under AB 811. SILVAR is requesting to revise the Action as follows: "Study possible measures to improve energy and water efficiency in existing buildings as part of the development of a Climate Action Plan." Discussion of the Draft 2020 General Plan Reformatting of Goals: During the individual meetings with Council Members, staff became aware that some Council Members were concerned with the reformatting of Goals, Policies, and Actions that occurred with the Draft 2020 General Plan. The Draft 2020 General Plan contains 108 Goals. All but two existing goals were carried over from the previous 2000 General Plan, and a number of new goals were added. "1'he two goals that are not recommended to be carried over are S.G.1.1, which states, "To reduce the potential for injuries, damage to property, economic and social displacement, and loss of life resulting from earthquakes, and other various forms of geologic failures including mud flows and landslides"; and N.G.1.1, which states, "To preserve the quiet atmosphere of the Town." Both of these goals were redundant with other existing goals. However, through the redrafting of the 2020 General Plan, many of the goals, policies, and actions were reordered, combined with other goals, policies, or actions, and revised. The overall intent of these revisions was to ensure a logical and consistent relationship among the goals, and the policies and actions listed under the goals. Moreover, staff and the consultants evaluated the best location for the goals, based on the overall intent of each Element. For example, in the 2000 General Plan, the first Land Use Goal was L.G.1.1, which states "To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small town character and quality of life within Los Gatos." In the Draft 2020 General Plan this goal has been relocated to the Community Design Element and is listed as Goal CD-1. A Council Member expressed concern that the relocating of goals has changed the overall flow and tenor of the document and results in reprioritizing the community's goals or values. While this was not the intent of reorganizing the document, staff offers a number of suggestions to address the Council Member's concerns, including: PAGE3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: DRAFT 2020 GENERAL PLAN AND EIR Aargztst 2, 2010 • Renaming the Community Design Element to Community Character Element and have it serve as the lead or first Element in the Plan. • Make wording changes to the goals to better carry forward the 2000 General Plan flow and tenor. • Reorganizing the Goals to be more consistent with the 2000 General Plan presentation. These are only a few initial ideas and staff would recormnend that the Cotmcil discuss these and other ideas for addressing this concern. Attachments: 1. Staff Recommended Minor Changes to the Focus Area Elements 2. SILVAR Letter WR:ah N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS12010\2020General Plan Staff Report Desk No Ldoc THIS PAGE INTENTIpNALLY LEFT BLANK Staff Recommended Modifications (Focus Areas) Land Use: Page LU-19, University/Edelen Historic District: Bounded by Saratoga Avenue to the north, Main Sheet to the south, Los Gatos Creek to the east and the former Southern Pacific Raihoad brae~FS right-of--way to the west. Page LU-28 -Policy LU-7.2 (b): The c°~°°°~°~^° ^''^..,.:.,,. neighborhood serving coxmnercial land use pattern of areas north of Saratoga Avenue to Blossom Hill Road. Page LU-31 -Policy LU-9.6: Incorporate m^^°uss¢2a^isit multi-modal links from the North Forty area to the Vasona Light Rail station into the North Porty Specific Plan. (new) Page LU-31 -Action LU-9.1: Prior to development of the site, P rn •epare and adopt a specific plan for the North Forty area. (V.L7.2 -revised) Community llcsign: Page CD-24 -Policy CD-14.5: Staff should err on the side of requiring an Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration for projects in the hillside area to ensru~e adequate consideration of potential environmental impacts associated with projects, when appro rp iate. (L.I.8.15 -revised) Transportation: Page TRA-21 -Bullet 4: Caldwell Avenue from "r:~r-k~ Bella Vista Avenue to Los Gatos Boulevard TRA-24 -Policy TRA-2.2: r^°.,^:a°.... .,a^r.°.,.^ ^ ^i+°...,°.:. ° +,. „ ~^r,^a ,... +..^a:+:,...^n., Policy TRA-2.8: Consider using roundabouts as an alternative to signalized or traditionally controlled intersections to calm h•affic and increase the capacity of intersections. (T.L1.17 - revised) Page TRA-35 -Policy TRA-8.5: Encourage the use of the hansit system by requiring developers to provide bus shelters and on-going maintenance as part of their developments, when appropriate. (T.L4.7) 1 Attachment 1 TFIIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Onen Snace, Parlcs and Recreation: Page OSP-13 -Policy OSP-4.2 and 4.3: Policy OSP-4.2 Encourage the development of amenities and programs in parks and other recreational facilities that cater to a variety of ages and address the needs of families. (new) Environment and Sustainability: Page ENV-17 -ENV Policy-5.5: When a development is adjacent to a designated creek, the approval shall include a condition that the creek be dedicated to the Town in fee with a maintenance easement granted to Santa Clara Valley Water District. (L.P.8.7) Page ENV-27 -Goal ENV-7: To promote a sustainable community by~r ~~otin~g that protects environmental resources ~~~~''~^~~' ^^~~°°^m~°~°°'''° °'~~'~'• °A and the climate to prevent neeative impacts to future generations t^ --~^^`~eds. (L.G.8.2 -revised) _ Human Services: Page HS-11 3"~ paragraph: Los Gatos also has ~°~~~°'° '~F° °°°° °°°~'~`~ ^°"°a Los Gatos Meadows Life Cue Retirement, a private life care facility run by Episcopal Senior Communities, which has 170 units of studios, apartments and cottages that house approximately 200 residents. Page HS-15 -Policy HS-8.1: The Town shall coordinate with senior service providers who provide or support senior shuttle services so that seniors have convenient access to social services, commercial areas, medical services and h•ansportation. (new) 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ~ Silicon galley Assvciativnvf.F{GAL'fOli,S' July 3Q, 2010 Honorable Diane McNutt Mayor Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Mayor McNutt and Council Members, The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) is a trade association representing over 4,000 real estate professionals in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, including over 800 members who live and/or work in Los Gatos. Our association has historically been an advocate for homeowners and fair public policy. Our association was also the first REALTOR© association in the nation to become a certified green business and is supportive of several proactive sustainable policies currently being considered in Los Gatos and other Bay Area communities. We would like to comment regarding the "Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Update" that will be discussed at two upcoming Town Council meetings in August. We are concerned that the newly expanded language of Action ENV-10.2 (as directed by the planning commission) is too narrowly tailored to adequately address the current and future policy options available to the town worth studying to increase energy efficiency in existing buildings. There are hundreds of different types of policies, programs, and regulations being studied and utilized by municipalities and governments around the world on this subject (see attachment). Our association believes that any study conducted on ways to increase energy efficiency in existing buildings should be inclusive of all practical best practices, and not limited to only the five ideas that are included in Action ENV-10.2. The ideas proposed for study in this item are potentially the most burdensome on residents and businesses to impose, do not reflect the over 130 comments in opposition to the use of a time-of-sale trigger mechanisms (used in three of the proposals) the town has received, nor does it reflect imminent legislative and intellectual innovaflons on this subject. Unfortunately we cannot support Action ENV-10.2 at this time, but as we have done in previous correspondence to the Town on this subject, we would like to respectfully propose three potential language alternatives for consideration. As outlined in our June 23, 2010, letter to the planning commission we would like to suggest our first alternative language for Action ENV-10.2, which will work in concert with Action ENV-7.1: "Study uossible measures to improve enerQV and water efficiency in exisflne buildings as asrt of the develaument of a Climate Action Plan." In the town's current language it does not detail who will complete the study and how it will be paid for. Our alternative language clearly 193pa..fe~~cns Crsek a1vd., Su~c foa ~ Cuhcrtinn, GA 95614 FLonc Ap63p6:otinp .Sax; 4PN,?pn,bipr ~ wwwstlwvmrs Attachment 2 outlines that this study should be conducted during a plan the town is already planning to create, and we are assuming has already been budget for. In our letters to the Town dated April 13 and Tune 23, we suggested two additional language alternatives for Action ENV-10.2, from the Attorney General Office's document "Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change": 1. Study the feasibility of improving "energy- and water-efficient buildings and landscaping through ordinances, development fees, incentives, project timing prioritization, and other implementing tools." and 2. "Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers and/or other tenants." For future reference we would like to reiterate our position that local government mandates restricting or prohibiting the ability of owners of real property to sell their home or business are bad and inequitable public policy. Time of sale or point of sale mandates are inefficient, unfair, and add complications and expensive costs to a real estate transaction. We believe there are better alternatives available to the Town other than time of sale mandates, which will help the community meet its goals sooner, with less of a negative impact on homeowners. Time of Sale Mandates Are Inefficient -According to sales fiends in Los Gatos, the average sales turnover rate for residential real estate is just over 3 percent (five-year average) a year. While calculating for repeat sales, all of the homes in Los Gatos might not be impacted by the mandate unti12070 (60 years from now) at the earliest - 20 years after AB 32 calls for 20 percent reduction in the 19901evels of greenhouse gases. Reducing greenhouse gases is a major priority, as outlined in the Draft General Plan, but the strategy identified for existing buildings is the slowest and least effective. Time of Sale Mandates Are Unfair -According to the Town, climate change has and will impact the entire community. Under time of sale only a small segment of the population will be required to update the existing building stock to shoulder the burden of reducing greenhouse gases. Placing the burden of upgrading the existing building stock of the whole community on home buyers and sellers is inequitable. It is especially hard on current residents who unexpectedly need to move due to life change circumstances. Time of Sale Mandates Add Complications to Sales Transactions -Escrow is an extremely tune-sensitive process. Enacting jurisdiction over the sale of real estate through this mandate would add yet another step, compounding delays to the process, increasing costs and stress far residents, and increasing the likelihood of the transaction not being completed, resulting in no change to the property. Also, banks and lenders standards on approving mortgages are becoming extremely stricter and when there is doubt to a properties ability to reconvey (such as in local jurisdictions with restricfion requiring property compliance at the conveyance) it reduces a buyers ability to receive a loan. Time of Sale Mandates Create Another Expensive Cost -The cost of mandating retrofits and additional inspections can cause the home sale price to increase drastically, leaving the potential home buyer with an added unaffordable expense. For seniors who have lived in their home for a long time, these mandates would create a barrier if they decide to place their home on the market. There will also be new expensive costs on businesses, and government will be forced to implement and administer the pro~am. Lastly, it is important to note that Los Gatos has already begun the process of participating in the California-First initiative, utilizing statutory authority under AB 811. This program allows for municipalifies to provide funding for permanent energy efficiency and water efficiency improvements to existing buildings, which are paid back through property taxes. We believe this non-mandatory program to be the most effective approach currently available to increase the efficiency of existing buildings. Over the last few weeks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have throw up road blocks to the acceptability of these programs, but we are co~dent that legislative changes will be made by the end of the year that will allow for this program to continue. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Los Gatos 2020 Genera] Plan Update on behalf of the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®. Again, we respectfully request that one or all of the above alternative options be included in-lieu of the current Action ENV-10.2 language. S~i jnce~rely, Adam Montgomery Government Affairs Director Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® ocuments uthor Existing Buildings Strategies identified 2010 Clean Air Plan eay Area Air Quality Management District 7 AB 32 Scoping Plan California Air Resources Board 12 Assessment of Long-Term Electric Energy Efficiency Potential in California's Residential5ector Michael Rufo, Alan North 6 Best Practices Framework Version 6.0 Institute for Local Government, Climate Action Network 26 California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan California Public utilities Commission 11 Climate Action Template Alameda County Waste Management Authority 8 Climate Protection Manual For Cities Natural Capitalism Solutions 34 Final Complementary Policies White Paper West Climate Initiative 16 Housing Element Programs and Policies Addressing Climate Change California Department of Housing and Community Development 34 Is Efficiency Enough? Towards a New Framework for Carbon Savings in the California Residential Sector Mithra Maezzi, Rick Diamond 11 Model Policies For Green House Gases in General Plans California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association SO San Mateo Coun Energy Strategy 2012 City /County Association of Governments 15 Sustainablllt and General Plans California Attorney General's Offce 7