4Q
,
DATE:
TO
FROM:
MEETING DATE: 10/21/13
ITEM NO. L,I
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
October 11, 2013
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL /
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: INFORMATION REPORT — POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO TOWN
POLICIES REGARDING COMMUNITY BENEFIT
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss the Community Benefit Policy and provide direction to staff to make changes to Town
policies regarding Community Benefit.
BACKGROUND:
A joint study session with the Town Council and Planning Commission was held on August 22,
2011, to discuss potential amendments to the Town's In -Fill and Traffic Policies regarding
community benefit (Attachments 1 and 2). The basis for the study session was to discuss several
issues that the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Town staff had identified relative to
the Town's use of community benefit. Following is a summary of directions suggested from the
study session:
Community Benefit should be replaced with a revised fee structure that is directly related
to the impacts of the project.
Planned Developments should be required to have community benefits /amenities.
Consider eliminating the term "community benefit."
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to action item CD- IS. 1 of the General Plan, the Town Code is to be amended to include
a definition of Community Benefit that clearly differentiates it from exactions. In order to
implement the General Plan action and the directions suggested from the joint study session
summarized above, staff is proposing the following for Council consideration:
Amend the Traffic Impact Policy and study traffic impact fee increase - The Town's first
policy related to traffic impacts was the Town -Wide Critical Intersection Impact Policy
PREPARED BY: Sandy L. Baily, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: fS JAssistant Town Manager aTown Attorney Finance
N: \DEV\TC REPORTS\ 2013 \CommunityBenefit.10- 21- 13.doe
Refmmaned: 5 /30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Community Benefit
October 11, 2013
which was adopted in 1986. The intent of this policy was to require developers whose
projects impacted one or more critical intersections in Los Gatos to participate in the cost
of constructing improvements to increase the capacity of the impacted intersections. This
policy was subsequently amended to the Traffic Impact Policy which requires developers
whose projects generate additional traffic in Los Gatos to identify the community benefits
that would result from the project and to participate in the cost of constructing capacity -
enhancing and transit improvements to reduce traffic congestion. This has been
accomplished by requiring the payment of an in -lieu traffic impact mitigation fee and, if a
major project (20 or more peak hour trips), payment of both the traffic impact mitigation
fee and a proportionate share or construction of intersection and/or roadway
improvements within a specified distance from the development.
In regards to traffic impact mitigation fees, the Town has not updated the traffic impact
fee since 1994 and therefore, the fee is likely undervalued and not consistent with the cost
of improvements identified in the 2020 General Plan. Currently, any shortfalls are made
whole through other revenue sources, such as grants or general fund dollars allocated to
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). To meet the original intent of the Policy of
requiring a traffic impact fee and transportation improvements that are directly related to
the project, it is recommended that all traffic impacts associated with a development be
mitigated by the construction of capacity - enhancing and transit improvements and/or a
traffic impact fee. This mitigation will provide a direct nexus to the development as
opposed to the offering of a community benefit which typically has not provided a direct
nexus to the traffic impacts associated with a development as discussed in Attachment 1.
Parks and Public Works is reconsidering the last traffic impact fee analysis presented to
Council in 2010, and will return to Council in 2014 with recommendations and
alternatives.
• Require community benefit/amenities for Planned Developments — The Planned
Development Overlay Zone (PD) section of the Town Code is recommended to be
amended to require all PD's to provide community benefits or amenities to offset any
deviation from Town development standards. The types of community
benefits /amenities should be consistent with Town priorities and the General Plan. Since
these goals and priorities could change over rime, Council may want to consider adopting
a list of examples of community benefits/amenities by resolution and establish a time
period on how often the list should be reviewed and updated. This prior direction will be
held pending Council discussion and direction on PD's in general later this year.
• Eliminate the term "Community Benefit" — This can be accomplished by implementing
the two bullets above and requiring PD's to provide amenities as opposed to a community
benefit. The intent of the action item of the General Plan identified earlier in this report
would be met by these implementations. In addition, the Community Benefit Policy
would need to be rescinded and the In -Fill policy would need to be amended to eliminate
references to community benefit.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Community Benefit
October 11, 2013
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information provided in this report, staff requests that the Town Council provide
direction regarding modifications to the existing Community Benefit process and policies.
Council direction will be implemented when the Traffic Mitigation Impact Fee is brought back to
Council in 2014 and with any other changes related to Planned Development following Council
direction later this year.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This action is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no fiscal impacts related to discussion of policy changes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Town Council Study Session Report for the meeting of August 22, 2011
2. Excerpt of the Town Council/Planning Commission Study Session minutes of August 22,
2011
SLB:ct
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
owN o MEETING DATE: 08/22/11
JOINT STUDY SESSION
1 ITEM NO. 2
cos GA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 18, 2011
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: INFORMATION REPORT — TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING
COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION ON POTENTIAL AMEMDENTS
TO THE TOWN'S IN -FILL AND TRAFFIC POLICIES REGARDING
COMMUNITY BENEFIT.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council and Planning Commission discuss the existing In -Fill,
Traffic and Planned Development Policies relative to community benefit contributions and direct
Town staff to make changes to the policies, draft new policies, and implement traffic mitigation
fee.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the joint study session is to provide the decision makers with a description of the
issues relative to the Town's Community Benefit Program and to obtain direction in amending
the existing policies that require community benefit contributions.
BACKGROUND:
In 1991 and 1993, the Town Council approved Resolutions 1991 -174 (Traffic Impact Policy) and
1993 -62 (Development Policy for In -Fill Projects) (Attachments 1 and 2, respectively) requiring
community benefit offerings on projects that are deemed in -fill development and projects that
generate five (5) or more A.M. or P.M. peak trips. In both resolutions, the project is required to
demonstrate how it will "benefit the community."
In November 2002, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2002 -175, which further clarified the
community benefit offerings required through General Plan Implementing Section L.I.1.8. This
section states, "Community Benefit: Amend the Town Code to include a definition of
`Community Benefit' that clearly differentiates from exactions." This Implementing Measure
PREPARED BY: '\tendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: ,Assistant Town Manager4Town Attorney Finance
Reformatted: 5/30/02
Revised: 5/202011 11:44 AM
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
was carried over into the 2020 General Plan as Action CD -18.1 Resolution 2002 -175 provides
guidance for both in -fill and projects that generate more than five (5) A.M. or P.M. peak trips
(Attachment 3).
Resolution 2002 -175 was intended to clarify the community benefit offering requirements by
developing an implementing policy. The overall intent of the policy is:
[T]o provide the Town a means to support projects that are beneficial and desirable to the
community, but may have certain negative impacts. These impacts are generally
unavoidable or unintended consequences of new development, such as traffic, that cannot
be entirely avoided through standard conditions of approval. Negative impacts may be
overridden by benefits offered to the Town by the applicant.
The policy further states that the community benefit offering must add to the merits of the
project, and it is not intended to be used to transform undesirable projects into projects that
appear to be desirable due to their offering. Most importantly, a community benefit offering
shall be something that otherwise would not have been required by law or a condition of
approval of the project, and the Town cannot compel a specific community benefit offering; it
must be proposed by the applicant in addition to the standard conditions of approval and any
required mitigation measures for the project. Mitigation measures such as fees, dedications, or
easements required by the Town do not quality as a community benefit.
The policy defines community benefit as,
An offering of benefit to the Town proposed by the applicant, in addition to the standard
mitigation measures required by the Town, that overrides certain negative impacl *.
resulting from an in -fill project or a project that generates more than five (5) peak hour_
trips.
Finally, the policy includes a partial list of examples that an applicant can draw upon when
seeking to create a community benefit for a project. The list includes:
• Additional BMP units or equally affordable housing units
• Improved traffic circulation or reduction in traffic
Street or neighborhood improvements
• . Historic preservation or restoration
• Public art
• Open space, conservation, or scenic easements and other dedications
• Bike /walking trails
Mitigation or elimination of an existing problem
Restoration of a riparian habitat or water course
• A demonstrated unique or desirable use for the Town
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
Attachment 4 contains the list of 31 approved projects that have made community benefit
offerings. This list is based on the staffs best knowledge of the projects and the contributions
since the program's inception.
ISSUES:
Based on communications with the Planning Commission, Town Council. and Town staff, the
following issues have been identified relative to the Town's use of community benefit:
1. The Town does not have clear or objective criteria that can be used to determine if a
community benefit offering provides an equivalent offset for impacts from in -fill projects and
projects that generate more than five (5) A.M. or P.M. peaks trips. Should the community
benefit requirement be replaced with impact fees that demonstrate a clear nexus between the
impact and the mitigation?
2. The terms "community benefit" or "benefit to the community" have been used
interchangeably in various contexts. The Town needs a better definition of community
benefit, and references that are related to describing an "overall benefit to the community" in
Town documents should be replaced with other language to avoid confusion. Pursuant to
Action CD -18.1 the Town Code will need to be amended to include a definition of
"community benefit" that clearly differentiates it from exactions.
3. Should community benefit requirements continue to apply to in -fill development? Many
communities require applicants that are seeking modifications to development, use or
dimensional standards, such as a PD, to provide internal (within the development) and/or
external amenities to offset the impact of the project. Should the Town adopt such a process
in place of the in -fill community benefit requirement?
Each of these issues is addressed in the following "Discussion Section" along with a variety of
alternatives for resolving the issues.
DISCUSSION:
1. The Town does not have clear or objective criteria that can be used to determine if a
community benefit offering provides an equivalent offset for impacts from in -fill projects and
projects that generate more than five (5) A.M. or P.M. peaks trips. Should the community
benefit requirement be replaced with impact fees that have demonstrated a clear nexus
between the impact and the mitigation?
The Traffic Impact Policy, which is attached to Resolution 1991 -174, clearly outlines the
process for mitigating traffic impacts from new development. The level of mitigation
corresponds to the amount of trips generated. Throughout the policy, the phrases "establish
community benefits that would result" and "benefits of the project to the Town" are used to
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
frame the requirements of development that would exceed prescribed peak hour trips. The
policy further states that:
Where benefits to the Town are required to be shown, applicants shall submit a letter of
justification which clearly states housing or economic benefits and/or specific sections of
the General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan which show that the type of project will
benefit the community (See Section 2.5.6 of the General Plan). The burden of proof of
community benefit is on the applicant.
Section 2.5.6 of the 1983 General Plan states:
If there is a traffic impact at all, the applicant shall cite specific sections of the General
Plan and demonstrate a benefit to the community which outweighs the traffic impact and
the deciding body must make findings of that benefit in order to approve the project.
Resolution 1991 -174 further states that the intention of the Traffic Impact Policy is to require
projects that generate additional traffic to participate in the cost of constructing capacity -
enhancing and transit improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion through the
contribution of community benefit. In Section C, the policy states that, "traffic mitigation
shall be in the form of an in -lieu traffic impact mitigation fee. The mitigation for the projects
with major traffic impacts will be the required payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee and
a proportionate share or construction of intersection and/or roadway improvements within a
specified distance from the project."
It appears that the original intent of the Traffic Impact Policy was to mitigate the specific
impacts of the project through payment of an in -lieu fee or construction of capacity
enhancing projects (i.e., signals, street widening, etc.). . The policy states that the
improvements should be consistent with "the Capital Improvement Program and transit
improvement projects that are identified by the Town as a means of reducing traffic
congestion." Requiring impact fees, as well as validation of a project's consistency with
General Plan Goals and Policies, is consistent with the intent of a traffic mitigation fee and
how most jurisdictions that use impact fees address traffic mitigation from new development.
In 2002, with the adoption of Resolution 2002 -175, which clarified the Town's Community
Benefit Policy, the type of mitigation shifted from imposing a fee or improvements to
requiring amenities that were beyond and not necessarily related to the mitigation of the
traffic impacts through the fee or constructing improvements. The General Policy states that:
1. The applicant shall propose the community benefit offering, and is responsible for
demonstrating that the community benefit being offered is appropriate to offset a
project's impacts.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
2. The community benefit shall be offered in addition to the standard mitigation
measures required in the conditions of approval and in excess of any Town's codes
and regulations...
3. The community benefit offering does not need to correlate directly with the project or
with the project impacts. The benefit may be off -site or unrelated to the project.
5. The deciding body shall weigh the value of the proposed community benefit based on
the desirability of the benefit at the time the project is being proposed based on
perceived future value or need.
The policy further cites examples of community benefit that an applicant may draw upon
when seeking to provide an offering (please see Background Section above for list).
Based on the review of the legislative history, it appears that the intent of traffic mitigation
shifted from a traditional fee- or improvement -based mitigation to one that requires project
amenities (either on- or off -site) that assist in providing support for the project. There are
some options that can address the concerns expressed with the present approach to traffic
impact mitigation - related community benefit.
The Town could develop a requirement that the community benefit contribution be based on
a percentage of the cost of the project or project improvements and use that as criterion for
evaluating a contribution. This concept would be similar to how the Town addresses the in-
lieu fee for BMPs. The BMP fee is based on 6% of the construction cost of the market rate
units. A similar formula could be developed for traffic impact mitigation- related community
benefit. If this option is considered, the Town would want to fully analyze an implementing
policy from a legal perspective.
Another option for the Town to secure some of the amenities included in the Community
Benefit Policy would be to develop new fee programs for amenities such as public art,
historic preservation, trails, etc. The fees would need to be based on a nexus analysis and
would be imposed on all new development that would meet the specified applicability. In
this case, staff would recommend that this apply to new commercial, industrial, and certain
sized residential development. When considering this option, the Town may need to consider
and/or 218.
whether community support (votes) is necessary to pass new fees pursuant to Propositions er
A variation of a fee program would be to implement requirements for public art, historic
preservation, trails, open space, etc., in certain development projects. For example, the Town
of San Juan Capistrano requires that all new commercial, larger scale residential and
industrial projects integrate the city's "Historic Depiction Program" (HDP) within the
project. The HDP requires the construction of public art in the form of murals, fountains,
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
interpretive displays, etc, that illustrates the community's history.. _Many jurisdictions have
also implemented requirements for public art to be incorporated into new development as
means for beautifying the community.
Alternatively, based on the fact that the original intent of the Traffic Impact Policy was to
require projects that generate additional traffic to participate in the cost of constructing
capacity- enhancing and transit improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion, staff would
recommend that the Town implement a traffic mitigation fee that is based on a nexus study
and would meet the cost of capacity- enhancing traffic and transit improvements that are
contained in the 2020 General Plan Transportation Element. Due to the fact that the Town
has not updated the fee since 1994, and, therefore, is considerably undervalued, staff would
recommend increasing the fee over the next five years until it is consistent with the cost of
improvements identified in the 2020 General Plan. A phased implementation would be less
impacting on new development, while over time meeting the General Plan Transportation
Element improvements. The fee study was completed in 2010 would meet the nexus
requirements for traffic mitigation impact fees. It is interesting to note that although the
original intent of the Traffic Mitigation Policy was to address traffic impacts, of the 31
projects that have made community benefit contributions, approximately 11 have provided
offerings that are directly related to traffic mitigation or improvements.
2. The terms "community benefit" or "benefit to the community" have been used
interchangeably in various contexts. The Town needs a better definition of community
benefit, and references that are related to describing an "overall benefit to the community" in
Town documents should be replaced with other language to avoid confusion.
As noted, in Resolution 2002 -175; the Town has adopted a, definition of community benefit
as follows:
An offering of benefit to the Town proposed by the applicant, in addition to the standard
mitigation measures required by the Town, that overrides certain negative impacts
resulting from an in -fill project or a project that generates more than five (5) peak hour
trips.
The definition of community benefit would be modified based on the Town Council's
direction on Issue No. 1. Regardless of the decision on whether to utilize impact fees or
other programs as an alternative to the current Community Benefit Policy, staff recommends
reviewing and modifying all adopted policies with revised language or removing the
reference to community benefit entirely. For example, the Alcoholic Beverage Policy
currently contains the phrase "the applicant must show a clear benefit to the community,"
and staff is recommending deleting this section. Based on direction and pursuant to Action
CD -18.1, staff will need to amend the Town Code to include a definition of "community
benefit" that clearly differentiates it from project required mitigation and impact fees.
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
3. Should community benefit requirements continue to apply to in -fill development? Many
communities require applicants that are seeking modifications to development, use, or
dimensional standards, such as a PD, provide internal (within the development) and/or
external amenities to offset the impact of the project. Should the Town adopt a similar
process in place of the in -fill community benefit requirement?
The communiity benefit requirement for in -fill development originated with Resolution 1993-
62 (Development Policy for In -Fill Projects) and was later incorporated in full into
Resolution 2020 -175. The In -Fill Policy contains six requirements that generally address
that new in -fill development should be compatible with surrounding development and
contribute to the overall neighborhood. Requirement No. 5 addresses community benefit and
states, "Approval of an in -fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit, and
findings of benefit shall be part of the record." Based on inclusion of in -fill development in
the Community Benefit Policy, the Town has required community benefit for properties that
are within an existing developed neighborhood and are either redeveloped or were vacant.
However, it is important to note that the community benefit contribution is generally based
on the trips that the use would generate rather than the fact that it is considered in -fill
development.
While staff agrees with ensuring that new development or redevelopment is compatible and
contributes to the neighborhood, the imposition of community benefit is rather
counterintuitive to that purpose, since one of the Town's land use goals should be to
complete neighborhoods and avoid unimproved or under improved sections that tend to occur
with vacant or underutilized properties. Under improved or underutilized properties
generally do not provide the necessary infrastructure such as sidewalks, full -width streets,
curbs and gutters, extension of utilities, fire hydrants, etc. Consequently, the Town may not
want to disincentivize the appropriate development or redevelopment of these properties by
imposing additional requirements that would be beyond what a "green field" developer
would be required to provide. Therefore, staff would recommend that the community benefit
requirement imposed on in -fill development be removed. Again, it is important to remember
that in the case of medium to larger in -fill development, community benefit would be
required based on traffic impacts.
Staff, however, recommends that the Town consider additional requirements on Planned
Development (PD) applications, which are often used for in -fill development projects.
Many communities that allow PDs require that the development provide amenities that offset
the advantages that the PD conveys in terms of reduction of various development or
dimensional standards, flexibility in uses, and modification to standards. Many communities
require that PDs provide a higher standard of amenities than projects that are required to
comply with all standards and base zone district requirements, and that the amenities
provided are proportional to the exceptions requested. Attachment 5 provides an example of
a Santa Clara County city's approach to requiring amenities beyond those that are required
through standard conditions of approval, fees, dedications, or easements, and any required
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
mitigation measures for the project. Another Bay Area city that has an amenity program for
PDs requires the following examples of residential and commercial amenities:
Residential:
• Preservation of open space
• Parks, trails, or playgrounds
• Clustering to provide usable open space
Affordable housing
• Public neighborhood amenities
• Diversification of building types and sizes
• Public features not generally available in the area
Commercial:
• Increased landscaping
• Increased landscaping setback
• Provision of open space
• Pedestrian areas, outdoor benches, fountains
• Extraordinary architecture
• Employee facilities, such as day care, locker rooms
The type of amenities that would be accepted would be consistent with Town priorities and the
General Plan, and, consequently, could change over time consistent with Town goals.
Staff is providing this list and exhibit for illustrative purposes only, and if the Town Council
agrees with the concept, staff would develop the amenities that are consistent with the Town's
development goals. Finally, for clarification purposes, please note that the term PUD referenced
in Attachment 5 is synonymous with PD.
While the imposition of an amenity program is permissible, staff would further recommend
implementing an additional requirement to secure the amenities through written agreements with
the PD applicant. While an amenity program can achieve the objectives of securing the
enhancements, an agreement could provide a greater level of specificity on timing, cost, etc. The
agreement can be a standard format and similar to a housing agreement or operational agreement
that Town requires for other types of projects.
CONCLUSION:
The goal of the Town Council/Planning Commission joint study session is to facilitate a
discussion that clearly articulates Town Council direction on modification or clarifications to the
Town's current Community Benefit Program and its implementation. Based on the analysis
provided in this report, Staff requests the Town Council provide direction regarding any
modification to the existing Community Benefit Program, scheduling further consideration of
new or increased impact fees, and scheduling further discussion of developing a PD Amenity
Program.
PAGE 9
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
August 18, 2011
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 1991 -174 (Traffic Impact Policy), includes Exhibit A
2. Resolution 1993 -62 (Development Policy for In -Fill Projects)
3. Resolution 2002 -175 (Community Benefit Policy)
4. List of Approved Community Benefit Offerings
5. Example of a PUD Amen Policy
DISTRIBUTION:
Planning Commission
NADEV\TC REPORTS\201 AS 22 TC PC Study Session Community Benefit Report.doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
J RESOLUTION 1991 -174
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COLNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CONCERNING THE TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos to
amend the policy requiring developers whose projects are shown to generate additional
traffic in the Town of Los Gatos to establish the community benefits that would result from
the project and to participate in the cost of constructing capacity enhancing and transit
improvement projects to reduce traffic congestion.
RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does hereby adopt
the Policy Statement as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" as the Town of Los Gatos
Traffic Impact Polio.
FURTHER RESOLVED, this Resolution rescinds Resolution No. 1990 -147.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos at a
regular meeting held this 5th day of August 1991, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton, Mayor Brent N.
Ventura
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Eric D. Carlson
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Brent N. Ventura
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
'LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove.
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
> C9�H15C�TMFFTQt
J
Attachment 1
of the SS 8/22/11
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
A. POLICY STATEME�TI
1. The deciding body may approve a project with a minor traffic impact (one or
more and less than five additional AM or PM peak hour trips) subject to
payment of a traffic mitigation fee
2. The deciding body may approve a project with a traffic impact of five to
nineteen additional A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips only if it is determined that
the benefits of the project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased
traffic and subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee
3. The deciding body may approve a project with twenty or more additional
A.M. or P.M. peak hour trips only if it is determined that the benefits of the
.project to the Town outweigh the impact of increased traffic and subject to:
a. preparation of a comprehensive traffic report.
b. Payment of a traffic mitigation fee
C. Payment of a proportionate share of the cost of the construction of
circulation improvements in the immediate area.
4. Where benefits to the Town are required to be shown, applicants shall submit
a letter of justification which clearly states housing or economic benefits
and /or specific sections of the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan
which show that the type of project will benefit the community (See Section
2.5.6 of the General Plan). The burden of proof of community benefit is on
the applicant.
5. In order to determine if a project will generate additional traffic, the Town
will use composite trip generation rates derived from the following sources
and updated from time to time:
■ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
® San Diego Association of Governments (San DAG)
■ California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
® Other Municipalities such as the City of San Jose
J
TRAFFIC IlvdPACT POLICY
The specific mitigation measure(s) required would be based on the magnitude of the
project's traffic impact which would also establish the procedure for processing the
project as set forth below.
REVIEW PROCESS
1. Staff will initially determine whether a proposed project generates a net
increase in traffic. If the project does not generate a net increase in traffic,
the traffic policy does not apply. Therefore, the project will be recommended
for approval or denial based on the merits of the project.
2. If there is a net increase in traffic, staff will review the applicant's proposal
and determine if the project will create minor traffic impacts or major traffic
impacts.
(<a
4.
CSkMI5CITeUFFIC.I
a..; Minor traffic.impact,s defined. as. ,one or- and.less than. twenty... ,.
additional AM or PM peak hour trips.
b.. Major traffic impact is defined as twenty or more additional Allyf.or PM
peak hour trips.
C. The determination of whether a project has a minor or major traffic
impact is based on a traffic analysis prepared by the Town Engineerin,
Department based on standardized trip generation rates.
If a project is determined to have a major traffic impact, a traffic report shall
be prepared by a private consultant, hired by the Town at the applicant's
expense. The report will include an analysis of generated trips and any linked
trips. If an applicant does not agree with the results of the Town's traffic
analysis, or the traffic report prepared by the Town's consultant, the applicant
may have an independent traffic report prepared at the applicant's expense.
Projects that generate additional traffic of five or more peak hour trips may
only be recommended for approval if the project's benefits to the community
override the traffic impacts as determined by specific sections of the General
Plan and /or any Specific Plan. If a project generates additional traffic of five
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
or more peak hour trips the burden is on the applicant to cite economic or
housing benefits to the Town and /or specific sections of the General Plan and
any applicable Specific Plan that demonstrate the project's benefit to the
Community which outweighs the traffic impact. The deciding body must make
specific findings which demonstrate that the benefit(s) of the project outweigh
the impact in order to approve the project.
3. If a project is determined to have a major traffic impact, a traffic report shall
be prepared by a private consultant, hired by the Town at the applicant's
expense. The report will include an analysis of generated trips and any linked
trips.
C. MITIGATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
If a project with a traffic impact is recommended for approval by staff and /or
subsequently. approved by the Planning Commission and /or Town Council, traffic
mitigation measures shall be imposed. The traffic mitigation shall be in the form
of an in -lieu traffic impact mitigation fee. The mitigation for projects with major
traffic impacts will be the required payment of a traffic impact mitigation fee and
a proportionate share or construction of intersection and /or roadway improvements
within a specified distance from the project.
D. FEES
Based on a traffic analysis required in A above, any project which is found to cause
a net increase in traffic shall pay a traffic impact mitigation fee, as established by
separate resolution.
The traffic impact mitigation fee and any proportionate share of intersection
improvements shall be due prior to Final Map approval, issuance of a Building
Permit, or occupancy permit as applicable. The traffic impact mitigation fee shall
C9 NMI SC \TNAFFI C.6 3
TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY
be used to construct capacity enhancing projects (i.e., signals, street widening, etc.)
that are listed in the Capital Improvement Program and transit improvement projects
that are identified by the Town as a means of reducing traffic congestion.
E. RIGHT TO DEVELOP NOT GUARANTEED
Compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Impact Polio is not to be construed
to be a right.of development. The Town specifically retains the right of review and
approval (or denial) of each project based on its merits.
O3 MISC %TUFFIC.a 4
l�
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
C
RESOLUTION 1994 -55
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING TRAFFIC FACT MITIGATION FEES AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 1990 =144 AND 1993 -134
RESOLWED, the ro.;T Cotmcl hereby establishes a traffic impact fee payable.
Pursuant to. Chapter 37 of the Town Code m follows:
A. The fee for residential uses shall be calculated at $600 per Average Daily Trip
(ADT), except that a secondary dwelling unit with a floor area of six hundred .
(600) square feet or less shall be exempt from this fee.
B. The fee for medical office use shall be calculated at $600 per ADT for the
first ten (10) trips and 5120 Pei ADT thereafter.
C. The fee for all other uses shall be calculated at $600 per ADT for the first .
ten (10) trips and S60 per ADT thereafter.
D. The Town Council may exempt housing developments for very low, low and
moderate income residents. (as defined by Town Ordinance, General Plan, or
.statute) from all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fee upon making
a finding that the development provides a significant community. benefit by
meeting current needs for affordable housing. The exempted fees will be
made up from other sources of revenue. Traffic mitigation fees paid by other
developers will not be used to subsidize the exempted projects. Each year the
Town will identify how .much money is to be allocated in the Capital
Improvement Program for traffic improvement projects. Additional revenue
sources will be identified to cover exempted.fees.
E. Walk -in, impulse businesses, such as juice bars, yogurt shops and donut shops,
which do not serve meals, shall be considered Specialty Retail for purposes
of traffic impacts only.
N: \0ev \Trish \Traffic.Aso
F. Traffic credit may be granted for an existing or former use. When applicable,
existing or former use traffic (ADT) shall be subtracted from the project
traffic prior to calculating the fee. The first ten trips of the difference will
be charged at the higher $600 per trip rate.
G. ADT is defined as the number of average daily trips associated with an
identified land use as determined or derived from the most recent edition of
Trio Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers or a Town
sponsored traffic study - .whichever is less. The Town approved traffic study
will be paid for by the applicant.
FURTHER RESOLVED, this Resolution rescinds Resolution No. 1990 -144 and
Resolution No. 1993 -134.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetin of the Town Council of the Town
of Los Gatos, California, held on the 0h day of April, 1994, by the following vote.
TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton, Linda Lubec':, Patrick O'Laughlin, and
Mayor Randy Attaway.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Randy Attaway
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
N: \Dev \Trish \Trarfic.Ase
RESOLUTION 1993 -62
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT OPMENT OL C�S A IN -FILL PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the Town is primarily built out and the balance of undeveloped land
consists predominantly of in -fill parcels; and
WHEREAS, it is important that these in -fill parcels are development compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
RESOLVED; the Town Council 'hereby adopts 'a development policy for in -fill
Projects attached to this resolution as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the
3rd day of May, 1993, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Linda Lubeck, Patrick O'Laughlin, .
.,Mayor Joanne Benjamin
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: /s/ Joanne Benjamin
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
/s/ Marian V. Cosgrove
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
,wJ C73�gE50S \!N -FILL
Attachment 2
of the SS 8/22/11
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
K
DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR IN -FILL. PROJECTS
1. In -fill projects should contribute to the further development of the surrounding
neighborhood (i.e. improve circulation, contribute to orprovide neighborhood unity,
eliminate a.blighted area, not detract from the existing quality of life),
2. An in -fill project should be designed in context with the neighborhood and
surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of surrounding
structures, provide comparable lot sizes and open space, consider garage
Placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation and on- street parking.
of fill development should blend rather than compete with the established character
of the area.
3. Corridor lots may be considered if it decreases the amount of public street and is
consistent with objects #1 and #2. It must be demonstrated that a benefit to
surrounding properties is being provided.
4. The Planned Development process should only be used to accomplish objects #1
and #2. The applicant shall demonstrate the benefit of a Planned Development
through excellence in design.
5. Approval of an in -fill project shall demonstrate a strong community benefit and
findings of benefit shall be part of the.record.
6. Recommend that any new development proposal be reviewed by the Conceptual J
Development Advisory Committee.
c32VaSC %L? -FILL
EMIT A
EXHIBIT A
of Attachment 2
of the SS 8/22/11
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
�> RESOLUTION 2002 -175
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING THE TOWN'S COMMUNITY BENEFIT POLICY
WHEREAS, that the Town of Los Gatos Town Council has determined that a written policy
clarifying the requirement for a community benefit offering is necessary (General Plan Implementing
Section L.11.8); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos does not currently have a written policy clarifying the
Town Resolution 1991 -174 and Resolution 1993 -62, requirements for a community benefit offering,
and .
WHEREAS, the Resolution 1991 -174 (Traffic Impact Policy) and Resolution 1993 -62
(Development Policy for Infill Projects) require a community benefit offering for certain projects;
and
WHEREAS, adoption of such policies will help provide clear direction to developers
Processing development applications (General Plan Implementing Section L.I.1.8); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft Community
Benefit Policy on September 25, 2002; and
r �
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: the Town Council of the TOWN OF LOS GATOS
does hereby adopt the Community Benefit Policy Attached hereto as Exhibits A.
Attachment 3
of the SS 8/22/11
1
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council held on the 4`s day
of November 2002, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
2
WN !OF OS GATOS
Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor RandyAttaway
Steve Glickman
None
None SIGNED:
MAYOR OF TO
LOS GATOS, CALIF ORN
TOWN COUNCIL POLICY
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Subject: Community Benefit Policy Enabling Action:
2002-175
Page 1 of 3
Approved: Effective
Recommended By Planning Commission Date: November 4, 2002
on 9/25/02
Ii177i1
The intent of the Community Benefit Policy is to provide the Town a means to support projects that
are beneficial and desirable to the community, but may have certain negative impacts. These impacts
are generally unavoidable or unintended consequences of new development, such as traffic, that
cannot be entirely avoided through standard conditions of approval. Negative impacts may be
overridden by benefits offered to the Town by an applicant.
_ A community benefit offering is intended to add to the merits of a project It is not intended to create
a means for applicants to transform undesirable projects into projects that appear to be desirable due
to their community benefit. Rather, it is intended to provide applicants, who are already proposing
projects that are generally beneficial to the Town, a means of offsetting the negative impacts of these
projects.
A community benefit offering shall be something that otherwise would not have been required by
law or as a condition of approval for a project. A specific' community benefit offering cannot be
compelled by the Town. It must be proposed by the applicant in addition to the standard conditions
of approval and any required mitigation measures for a project. Mitigation measures such as fees,
dedications, or easements required by the Town do not qualify as a community benefit.
The following policy shall be used by the deciding body when reviewing any application that: (1)
causes an increase of 5 peak hour trips per Resolution 1991 -174; or (2) is considered an infill project
per Resolution 1993 -62.
GENERAL POLICY:
1. The applicant shall propose the community benefit offering, and is responsible for
demonstrating that the community benefit being offered is appropriate to offset a project's
impacts. The applicant shall submit a letter of justification and any other supporting
documentation necessary to clearly outline the proposed community benefit..
r-,
1
Subject: Draft Community Benefit Policy
September 25, 2002
Page2 of 3
2. The community benefit shall be offered in addition to the standard mitigation measures
required in the conditions of approval and in excess of any Town's codes and regulations
including California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, a specific community
benefit cannot be compelled by the Town.
3. The conunuuity benefit offering does not need to correlate directly with the project or with
the project's impacts. The benefit may be off -site or unrelated to the project.
4. The deciding body shall determine whether or not the community benefit being offered
sufficiently outweighs the cumulative impacts caused by the project. Both tangible impacts
(quantitative) and the intangible impacts (non - quantitative) will be considered.
5. The deciding body shall weigh the value of the proposed community benefit based on the
desirability of the benefit at the time the project is being proposed or based on perceived
future value or need.
6. The Town's values, economy, and character may change over time, therefore a previously
accepted community benefit does not set a precedence or guarantee that the same community
benefit will be accepted in the future. A previously accepted benefit may be drawn upon as
an example, but might not be accepted as a benefit in the future if the Town determines that
the benefit is no longer necessary, valuable, or desirable. Applicants should refer to the
Town's official needs assessment list or to a list of previously accepted community benefits.
(Please see attached lists)
Tax revenue generation resulting from the proposed project cannot be used as the project's
sole community benefit. Tax revenue generation may be used as a community benefit in
addition to another proposed benefit. It may also be used in the context of increasing the
overall value of the project to the Town if it contributes to the Town's long term financial
stability.
SPECIFIC POLICY:
The following is a partial list of examples that an applicant may draw upon when seeking to create
community benefit for a project:
• additional BMP units or equally affordable housing units
• improved traffic circulation or reduction of traffic
• street or neighborhood improvements
• historic preservation or restoration
• public art
• open space, conservation, or scenic easements and other dedications
1
Subject: Draft Community Benefit policy
September 25, 2002
Page3 of 3
• bike/walking trails
• mitigation or elimination of an existing problem
• restoration of a riparian habitat or water course
• a demonstrated unique or desirable use for the Town
DEFLNMON:
Community Benefit: An offering of benefit to the Town proposed by an applicant, in addition to
the standard mitigation measures required by the Town, that overrides certain negative impacts
resulting from an infill project or a project that generates more than five (5) peak hour trips.
s:wwneozow.axz.wpa
W1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
a
w
n
m
Attachment 4
of the SS 8/22/11
m
W
mY
O
C
f
Y
W
d
a
w
m
Ol
N
n
1
N
N <
th
M
O
4i
Ci
a
w
3
m
m
=
m m
o
� a
W
C O
O
U
W
E
W W a
m O J
G
C ^ 7
�
E
o y E
L
°- c v °m
w
b
m U a -
m m
a
V
°
m
O
w
m
�
W
L
d
8
O
E'
CO
0
E
c
1O Oc;w
m
U)
N
t
2
a
Z
a c y m
E
c
c
c
o >
J
c
d
°
$
m
Z.
m
J •� 'O-
°'
'�
U
m
m e
E
W
J
c_
tf!
-on
W
O
A
.N.
ill ai
n
�' U
W
w0
a m
W
CIF
0
c
C
0
00
E
LCC�d
3 0-- o'w WUw
"`o3
C —rte
m Smn
E
W c
h O c
t° m
W .¢
y w
E
m
O
a
m>
E
m
a�i
a E
cy
as
a c m es ., F m `o `o
Uo
uz
2
.mw
>,�
-ts
E 0-
c
O
c
C m w10
'c
C c
J
o
w
a
n
wa0
M
Ww._ c 3 cyy
C— O L O U
'- =?
.w.
w
cLJ
G w
o¢
y C
J
LL
a E
m�
c c
L
c D
8
o w .` c
a
Z
m� 0
0 o
E
W
0
o w d
9 C L 'C
c U
O y
o= m
w>
W
$w
c
8 0
J
aci
E
c
m
C—
b
c m J 3 c w E o c
m O' d
°p-
c
W
c
m
E E m
m C
x
W
o
a
oW
IF
wl :.m
o. c w
J:W
C
w -Ed
w 0
E
J
O
W
as
c c
Eo
E
aEL°
U—
C
C
EE
'C
°'- Garda w=
w N C W 6 d F
W
aa"ryo„
w
W
w
We
=c- °3
U r� N C
no =o
m f:
0
W
@�mn
° =m
w0 ii=Fy�
EJ�SO
0
yy
rq m'-.2
wwco
a'c
o
C5 t5
08cm
80
a
JlewcBi
m?`mF
m
Ea� as w=
o -c W oELLW
W
E_L�w:° -m-
'�3m
oWC�am
ca
o W
ec
uo
`m m'.
'co
�"
a
cc
maE
a
w
c
m Ew
a�i
awa
'tc gc,c_°i0o °alms
w._._ W c
'' coo m,3_rEIM
w` W c�
o'v
or
-anac
o Wmo
Emmc,vo
mmo
a"
o
W•_
JE,�.�WO
W
�Ww
3
>0>°�'�m=
m
Edwomc
n -woaim
om'° cv0
w0c�38'
-0
$d.q
c_a
moa
°o
m$
oo $ro``
y
n
°oin
'm
am ay
8mono
i0
O
m
Wtr W� W
��
fe0'oo
O
O Um09
00
pop
0—
d
E
p
='7
�
O S m
N
yN W
O
h
N
jN
NIE
0 W
JvjL
NOO
22N
�.m.m
w �• O J L O w
m
m
y N U 9 0
C
i iO
N
Q�
Q
t0
b
V
w
m
N
m
m
> c
LL
w
W
w
i
v
>
U)
c
10
m
m
m
m
m�
WW
<
Ix
oU
c
0
o
o
N
L)
0
t
m
m
g
a
a
0
C C
e W
m
dm
O
J
J
J C�OU
W
mU
Y
N
O W
d
U
—CM
J
Z
C' O
O
Z
' y
d
A
O
M
=A
POv
w
O
0 Yn
,
Y
a.
m
0
Z
O
NMNNv
M
r
p
Q
O N
Attachment 4
of the SS 8/22/11
CL
�
|
)
2
C
\
�
!
-
\
�
7
E
-
ƒ
)
—
k
.{
_
_
!y 2!
§
|
f§ ®f$|
c
|
£ ■§G : ;�
,
\k( \\�
�!{f §mot
\_
E
\kk
|
!
/) /F!J
Ȥ.
@
{
/
.0
0
§
2
_
-
2
0
!
Draft September 15, 2008
Statement of Intent
Properly designed Planned Unit Development projects can benefit the City by allowing efficient land
development and creative project design. To ensure a good design, the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Combining District Statement of Intent (Zoning Ordinance section 26.10) requires projects
within PUDs to provide a higher standard of amenities than projects outside of PUDs. The Zoning
Ordinance requires these amenities to off -set the flexibility with City standards — including reduced
lot sizes, private streets, and maximized density—that PUDs allow. This policy intends to set
standards to guide site design and the provision of on -site project amenities and off -site community
amenities. All residential projects located in Planned Unit Developments shall provide amenities in
accordance with this policy. Amenities provided must be proportional to exceptions requested.
Development of Residential PUDs
All PUD developments must provide the following three components to receive City approval:
minimum PUD design requirements; on -site project amenities; and community amenities. The City
will evaluate a project's compliance with these components as set forth below.
Component #I: Minimum PUD Design Requirements
All PUD projects must provide an appropriate mix of the following design elements. While an
individual project does not need to incorporate all of these elements, design elements provided must
be proportional to the zoning exceptions requested. Design elements not listed may also be
considered, subject to City approval. The following design elements are not necessarily equal;
therefore, the City will assess the value of the design element proposed based on the number of units
constructed, and the quantity and quality of the proposed design element.
D Colored/Stamped concrete (100 square feet per unit minimum)
D Decorative or permeable pavers /pavement (100 square feet per unit minimum)
D Enhanced landscape (excluding front yard landscaping) or handscape features/ statues/ murals/
artwork/ fountains
Picnic tables/ barbecue facilities/ Play Areas/ half sport court
D Park/ Usable Open Space
v Preservation of Mature Trees/Open Space
ATTACHMENT 5
of the SS 8/22/aa
PUD Amenity Policy
9/15/08
Component #2: Project Amenities Required
All PUD projects must provide an appropriate mix of the following project amenities. While an
individual project does not need to incorporate all of these amenities, project amenities provided must
be proportional to zoning exceptions requested. Amenities not listed may also be considered, subject
to City approval. The following project amenities are not necessarily equal; therefore, the City will
assess the value of the amenity proposed based on the number of units constructed, and the quantity
and quality of the proposed amenity.
D Special architectural features above and beyond those required by current planning practice
D Energy -effi' r_ient Building Design/Desiaans that Use or Generate Alternative Enerapv
(must exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 10 %)
> Tennis Court/ Full basketball Court/ other full sport court
Clubhouse/ indoor recreational facility
D Pool
Affordable homes beyond minimum City requirements (affordable to households with
incomes up to 80% of Santa Clara County Median Income and subject to City resale
restrictions, in accordance with City policy).
Increased parking (above and beyond the Zoning ordinance requirements). Tandem parking
stalls may be counted if the development already meets minimum parking requirements
without counting the tandem stalls.
Developers that cannot provide "project amenities" on -site may provide additional off -site
"community amenities." However, developers must exhaust the possibility of placing
amenities on site before utilizing this option. If a developer utilizes this option, he or she will
be required to provide community amenities above and beyond those required below.
Component #3: Community Amenities Required
All PUD projects must provide an appropriate mix of the following community amenities. While an
individual project does not need to incorporate all of these amenities, community amenities provided
must be proportional to exceptions requested. Amenities not listed may also be considered, subject to
City approval. All PUD developers shall enter into a "Community Amenities Performance
Agreement" with the City to ensure implementation of the approved community amenity. The
following community amenities are not necessarily equal; therefore, the City will assess the value of
the amenity proposed based on the number of units constructed, and the quantity and quality of the
proposed amenity.
Equipment for City parks adequate to serve the recreational needs of the development (subject
to staff approval)
D Public art projects recommended by the Public Arts Committee
D Capital Improvements consistent with the General Plan and /or City master plans
PUD Amenity Policy 3 9/15/08
Capital Improvement Benefits consistent with implementation actions of the Parks &
Recreation Master Plan or the Trails Master Plan
D Construction of public benefit improvements identified in the Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan
Construction of capital improvements identified in the Sidewalk Repair Reserve Fund,
Pavement Management - Street Maintenance Fund
D Contribution to Community Block Grant Fund, Public Facilities Fund, Water Development
Fund, Traffic Impact Fund, and/or Sewer Development Fund
D Preservation & Dedication of Open Space (may include preservation of agricultural or habitat
land)
Fire, EMS, and/or Police Improvements
Monetary or in -kind assistance to Gilroy Unified School District to fund educational programs,
augmentation of employee compensation, landscaping costs, or other educational costs
unrelated to development of school facilities
Any other Community Benefit proposed by the applicant and /or City which is both sufficient
and accepted by the City Council
Notes
1. PUD developments that request reduced lot sizes shall provide on -site recreational amenities,
unless the City finds that provision of the recreational amenities is either: a. Infeasible; b.
Impractical; or c. Unnecessary due to close proximity to City recreational facilities. Close
proximity is defined as within 0.17 miles of a park, measured along public streets.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
JOINT TOWN OF LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION - ACTION MINUTES
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
110 E. MAIN STREET
MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2011
The Town Council and the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos
conducted a Special Meeting on Monday, August 22, 2011 at 6:00 P.M.
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Joe Pirzynski
ROLL CALL
Council Members present: Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Vice Mayor Steve Rice, Steve
Leonardis, Diane McNutt, Barbara Spector
Planning Commissioners present: Chair Marico Sayoc, John Bourgeois, Tom
O'Donnell, Margaret Smith, Joanne Talesfore, Charles Erekson, Marcia Jensen
Staff present: Greg Larson, Town Manager; Pamela Jacobs, Assistant Town
Manager; Judith Propp, Town Attorney; Wendie Rooney, Director of Community
Development; Sandy Bally, Planning Manager; Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner;
Heather Bradley, Contract Planner; Jessica von Borck, Economic Vitality
Manager; Todd Capurso, Director of Parks & Public Works; Kevin Rohani,
Assistant Director of Parks & Public Works; Scott Seaman, Police Chief
Public present: Peter Carter, Kim Karloff, Larry Lenhart, Luke Lenhart, Lee
Quintana, Gail Randolph, Maria Risto, Michael Verga
VERBAL
Gail Randolph, 42 Br dw
her neighborhood. Sh
of establishments obtain
events. Examples of issu(
alcohol service separate fr
service bar. Maximization
historic street needs to be
(Three- minute time limit)
commented on the Toll House and how it affects
lived Downtown since 1971 and has seen a number
)hol licenses, leading to an increase of special
include an indoor bar and restaurant that allows
o�the restaurant, and a family restaurant with a full
g the corridor seems to be the theme. The
Kim Karloff, 30 Broadway, comment d that the Broadway and Clifton
neighborhood is asking for support a protection from bar businesses. Los
Gatos is becoming known as a bar des ' ation. The Toll House operations have
recently been better. Disturbance from tN Los Gatos Bar & Grille occurred just
this weekend. The Los Gatos bar busines 's a detriment to the neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT 2
e Pirzynski recommended that everyone take a look at the Campbell definition
of tertainment, it is quite "entertaining ". There is an extraordinary selection of
rest rants and bars in the Town. 98% of venues are serving the community in a
way th is appropriate. He appreciates the focus of the Police in evaluating and
providin ecommendations on business operations. There are a few individuals
and propri ors that are not handling situations appropriately. He would like any
individual to Nel safe in the Downtown at any time of day or night, regardless of
age. The prim ry issues are not occurring in most establishments in Town. The
specific venues %rb problems are occurring should be isolated and attended
to. The nuances ssues associated with a wine bar are very interesting. We
need to attend to olems and is sues and not eliminate businesses that are
good for the commu
John Bourgeois comment that the Planning Commission has been concerned
with restaurants have been ming in with "food service counters" as they could
become essentially a stand -alo a bar.
Diane McNutt commented that sh would be interested in moving the 1:00 am
policy back to midnight.
Steve Rice commented that the two a bars that have come through the
process have limited seating and could of function strictly as a bar. He would
also like to have a discussion on a vision tatement.
Steve Leonardis commented that a wine I
is a different type of establishment than a
specifically excluded.
Marcia Jensen commented that the policy is fairly 1
administered for a one time event versus recurring
event be a factor.
serving wine and beer, and it
.e of hard liquor should be
How will permits be
, and should the type of
Marico Sayoc commented that noise is a concern. When n application comes
before the Commission, she would like to know what the p per radius is for
noise evaluations.
Margaret Smith commented that for frequent visits by the Police, a fine could be
established.
Joanne Talesfore commented that recovering public safety costs is
2. Community Benefit
Wendie Rooney explained the legislative history from 1991 to 2002 when the
current community benefit policy was adopted. The following issues need to be
addressed:
• Objective criteria
• Using terms interchangeably
• Continue to apply to infill projects
• PD amenity program
If the intent of the community benefit policy is to mitigate traffic impacts, perhaps
the traffic fees should be emphasis on fees to address those impacts.
Joe Pirzynski commented that everything associated with community benefit has
been vague. He would like to work through what direction should be traveled.
Diane McNutt commented that she is hopeful that the term "community benefit"
can be eliminated. She asked if the traffic impact mitigation could include routine
maintenance rather than improvements. For example, repairing the streets in the
Almond Grove could be looked at as an enhancement. Judith Propp clarified that
impact fees could not be used for this maintenance. Greg Larson commented
that staff is evaluating street maintenance through other means.
Marcia Jensen asked about a PD adding residential units, and therefore traffic, to
the street system, and whether that would qualify for payment of impact or
maintenance fees.
Tom O'Donnell commented that it takes good projections to establish appropriate
fees. Wendie Rooney noted that often fees that are being collected are not
sufficient to cover needed improvements and the Town ends up backfilling with
general fund monies to cover the cost of capital improvements.
Tom O'Donnell suggested requiring an amount to be paid that is tied to the
construction index, and could be adjusted annually.
John Bourgeois commented that the evolution of the community benefit policy
resulted in offerings being required to be something that is above and beyond
what is required. Can a project in an of itself be a community benefit; applications
have been decided differently with regards to the benefit of the use during his six
years on the Commission.
Joe Pirzynski commented that project impact is defined differently in the new
versus former policy.
Charles Erekson commented that there are a lot of land use mysteries, one of
which is the community benefit policy. The purpose seems to be saying that in
order to approve a project that has impacts that cannot be fully mitigated, the
project in and of itself is not worthwhile without community benefits. It appears to
be a way of making decision makers feel good about approving the project. If
impacts cannot be mitigated and we aren't willing to live with that, the project
should not be approved.
Steve Leonardis commented that he agrees with the comments that the
community benefit policy should be rethought. He suggested use of an
infrastructure impact fee based on a percentage of assessed value of the project
when it is done, with the fees going toward improvements in the vicinity of the
project.
Tom O'Donnell commented that whatever the history is, it probably is not very
important. If a project is good enough, why does it need to include community
benefit. There should be a direct nexus with traffic impact and collection of fees.
Margaret Smith asked if a project was not properly handled 10 years ago, is that
a deficiency.
Todd Capurso commented that when a pro rata share is collected for projects,
the improvements may never be made unless 100% of the cost is collected.
It is difficult to determine the appropriate contribution when a project affects a
number of intersections in Town.
Joe Pirzynski summarized that a number of comments have been made that
community benefit should be replaced with revised fee structure that is directly
related to the impacts of the project.
Diane McNutt commented that dropping community benefit it would eliminate a
business having to add a "benefit" that is not really tied to the project impacts. It
does not mean that the applicant cannot propose an offering of benefit(s) to
offset an impact.
Wendie Rooney commented that a list of community benefits can be established
that an applicant can select from.
Steve Leonardis commented that amenities should be required with all PD's.
Marcia Jensen commented that infill projects could be a PD and visa versa.
There should not be an exemption for infill PD projects.
Wendie Rooney commented that oftentimes an infill project is a PD, but that is
not always the case. Staff advocates eliminating it from the policy when not a
PD.