Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 26 - Applicant’s response to questions from the August 9, 2016 meeting
GROSVENOR Mr. Joel Paulson Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 EDEN HOUSING SUMMERH[LL HOMES COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION RE: North Forty Phase 1 ("Project") Architecture and Site Application S-13-090 Vesting Tentative Map Application M-13-014 Response to Comments at Special Town Council Meeting August 9, 2016 August 11, 2016 Mr. Paulson: During the August 9, 2016 Town Council Public Hearing on our Architecture & Site Plan/Tentative Map Application for the North Forty, Vice Mayor Sayoc requested that we respond to questions raised during public testimony during our allotted rebuttal time. We will be pleased to do so, but believe it be helpful to have our responses in writing as well. We would be happy to respond to any further questions to these responses during the Town Council's deliberations. To facilitate our response, we have organized our responses into groups. Questions related to the Good Samaritan Medical Center Master Plan Project (Samaritan Project) and the North Forty Specific Plan EIR Response: The existence of that project, currently under review by San Jose, does not change the traffic analysis in the North Forty Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Specific Plan EIR). There are two primary reasons. First, the Specific Plan EIR properly incorporated into its cumulative analysis all other projects it was required to consider. The Samaritan Project does not alter the analysis in the Specific Plan EIR, nor does it create any of the conditions that could require additional analysis (under CEQA Guidelines 15162 or 15163). The Environmental Impact Report that is now in circulation for the Samaritan Project will similarly have to do its own traffic analysis, and that analysis will have to take into account traffic generated by buildout of the North 40 Specific Plan Area and will have to propose mitigations for any impacts caused by the Samaritan Project. 1 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMER.HILL HOMES ' COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Second, the Staff Report properly notes (page 12) that our applications are not technically subject to CEQA analysis, since our project is a "by right" development and not a "project" under CEQA. Thus, the question of additional analysis is not applicable. Questions Related to the Density Bonus Law, regarding the interpretation in Govt. C. 65915(c)(3)(a) Response: In relation to the issue raised regarding the need for replacement affordable housing to qualify for a density bonus, the project replaces 16 — 18 units of market -rate rental housing with 49 units of very low income rental housing. We have always proposed to provide much more affordable housing than currently exists on the site, and the project more than meets any replacement housing requirement. Additionally, the original project application was made in 2013. The statute specifically exempts applications made before January 1, 2015 from any replacement housing obligation. See Section 65915(c)(3)(C). Attached as Exhibit A are documents showing that the application was made on November 14, 2013 and that the Town commenced processing the application at that time (see letter from MacKay & Somps responding to Public Works comments). Questions related to civil engineering issues and need for waivers under the Density Bonus Law. Response: One speaker questioned various civil engineering issues, and particularly asked why much of the site was being filled by 1 to 5 feet, thus requiring the requested density bonus waiver. While designing the proposal, the goal was to achieve maximize compliance with the many objective standards within the Specific Plan. We found we could maximize compliance by providing the proposed 1 to 5 feet of fill. As just one example, Section 4.1 of the Specific Plan contains policies regarding circulation and connectivity for pedestrians (Policies C1, C4, C5, and C9). The Specific Plan also identifies Neighborhood Street as the primary entrance to the Transition District (Figure 4-1). The intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Neighborhood Street therefore became a set grade, and providing ADA-compliant access from the senior affordable building along Neighborhood Street to connect to the VTA Bus Stop on Los Gatos Boulevard was essential to satisfy the Specific Plan's circulation policies. Some fill was then required to meet ADA access standards. Additional fill was then required to ensure that the site would drain 2 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMER1:-IIILL HOMES ' COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION properly. In general, as the plan was developed in some detail, the project team found that it could best meet the Specific Plan's requirements by filling the site as shown. While we considered many other site planning designs, they all had challenges in satisfying the many, sometimes competing, objective standards within the Specific Plan and the affordable housing program. The project team was very successful in meeting the Specific Plan standards, even with a 35% density bonus, and was able to obviate the need for all but two waivers. The project would have been able to request unlimited waivers for many development standards including, but not limited to height, setback, open space, FAR, lot area coverage, and parking. As described in detail in our letters of March 10 and March 25, 2016, the team cannot achieve the density of 320 units unless waivers are granted to allow height to be measured from finish grade, rather than existing grade; and waivers necessary for the elevator and roof pitch for the senior building. (Note that the Project is requesting waivers of development standards, not concessions, as a part of the Density Bonus request. "Concessions" are provided to enhance the economic feasibility of the project. The Project is entitled to three concessions but has not requested any. The Town must grant "waivers" if its development standards would physically preclude construction of the project with 320 units. If these two waivers were not granted, it would trigger a request for other waivers, such as height, open space, and parking. Questions related to potential conflict between landscape plans and utilities: Response: A speaker questioned whether there were conflicts between the proposed landscaping and the location of utilities and bio-retention facilities on site. While composite drawings are not an application requirement, the consulting team works together, including weekly team calls and continuous communication between the civil engineers, architects, landscape architects, and joint trench consultants (dry utilities). While utilities can cause conflicts, the intent behind this communication is to minimize any challenges during the preparation of building and improvement plans. If conflicts are found, as can be the case as a project transitions from design development to working drawings and other agencies (water and sewer districts, for example) become further involved in the improvement plans, the Town staff and applicant's design team can make minor adjustments to the landscape plan as necessary. The landscape programming for the property was intentionally agrarian, and rather than simply propose the minimum 276 required trees to satisfy the requirements of the Town's tree ordinance, we have voluntarily proposed over 1,800 trees, including over 500 fruiting orchard 3 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMER.HILL HOMES" COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION trees. We are confident that the Construction Documents will be in substantial conformance with the trees reflected in the Architecture and Site Review application. SummerHill, Grosvenor, Eden Housing and Lexor Builders are committed to delivering design drawings that conform to the conceptual landscape drawings. If the Town would like to consider modifications to the landscape plans, including number of trees, this can be discussed during the remainder of the hearing. Questions related to architectural preference and comparison to other local projects developed at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre (The Terraces in particular). Response: The Specific Plan does not call out one style of architecture, building type, size, or elevation. For example, Section 3.3.1 of the Specific Plan cites thirteen residential design standards, of which none specify architectural types. Similarly, Section 3.2.4 Architectural Style (commercial) notes five guidelines, with the only reference to a specific architectural style under 3.2.4.b, which states "Proposals for commercials structures should be developed with the context of Los Gatos' heritage, and the historic and agricultural heritage of the site." (Page 3-6). We would like the opportunity to have our design team present its view of the "look and feel of Los Gatos" in response to this question. We would also like to correct a response that was made verbally in a response to a question from Town Council following our presentation. We were asked why we had designed to 20 units per acre. We would like to clarify our response to be that the Housing Element requires development of the site at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. As stated in HCD's July 28 email, the Town is responsible to ensure that the site is developed at the minimum density required by State law — 20 units per acre. We understood that this was a State requirement that was incorporated into the Town's Housing Element and certainly did not want to propose a plan inconsistent with State law and the Housing Element. It is our opinion that our implementation of a residential program at the required minimum 20 dwelling units per acre results in a less boxy and "project -like" neighborhood than others that we observe in Town. Our proposal features more variation in roof lines, shorter and more pedestrian- scale blocks that provide more view corridors and a more dynamic opens space plan. This is specifically true when compared to Aventino which has recently been suggested to us as a better model for a community at this density level. 4 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMER.HILL HOMES" COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION As a question was raised specifically about The Terraces, we researched the property and provide the composition of this project below: The Terraces (residential units, plus assisted care): • 9-acre site - Initial Buy -In is $186K - $548K plus monthly • 175 Independent living apartments, 45 Assisted Living Units, 16 Memory Loss Units, plus 59 hospital beds • Housing units range from Studios at 623 SF to 2 BR 2 BA + Den at 1300 SF • Monthly "Fees" (in addition to buy -in) $3000 - $6500 (depending on unit and number of individuals in unit) Questions as to whether the senior units qualify the project for the Very Low Income (VLI) bonus, and related to the application of the Town's BMP program. Response: We previously responded to this issue by letter dated July 29, 2016. Very low income housing must be occupied by very low income households. Very low income households include "persons and families" of very low income (Health & Safety Code §50105(a)). Very low income seniors who will reside in the proposed affordable housing are "persons and families" with very low incomes. "Persons" are single persons and unrelated persons who elect to live together as one household. "Families" are related persons who live together; in senior housing these are typically married couples. All of the seniors who will live in the proposed housing will be "households" with very low incomes. Consequently, the senior housing will be very low income housing, and the Project is entitled to a density bonus for providing very low income housing. The separate senior bonus is intended for market -rate senior housing, not affordable senior housing. Questions related to the 13.5 acres identified in the Housing Element for 270 units including does the requirement for objective standards applied yield only to the 270 units that are required on 13.5 acres; and the distribution of the units across the 13.5 acres; and the reason for designing to 20 units per acre. Response: The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5(i)) applies to the entire application. It provides that if the Town either denies or reduces the density of a project that complies with "applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design standards", it must make very specific public health and safety findings. The Project cannot be reduced in units or land area based on the speculative possibility that some time in 5 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMER.HILL HOMES" COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION the future the Town might approve another residential project somewhere else in the North 40 Plan Area. While the 13.5 acres that are to be zoned at a minimum of 20 units per acre do not have to be contiguous and thus in theory could be spread out over the whole North 40, the combination of the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Element and Density Bonus Law require approval of this particular project at the density proposed, as explained in our earlier correspondence. The Project cannot be reduced in units or land area based on the speculative possibility that some time in the future the Town might approve another residential project somewhere else in the North 40 Plan Area. Question of whether or not architecture and site plan review are discretionary Response: The architecture and site review is not discretionary. This is made clear in the Town's Housing Element which states that opportunities for affordable housing are "being facilitated by the North 40 Specific Plan and associated rezoning of 13.5 acres with a minimum density of 20 units per acre to yield 270 units (emphasis added). The Specific Plan would provide certainty regarding objective criteria in the form of development standards and design guidelines that would be implemented through "by right development" in the consideration of Architecture and Site applications. This process involves site and architectural review and if a proposal meets the objective criteria in the Design Guidelines, then the project is approved." Question related to landscaping feasibility in light of drought Response: Section 3.2.9 of the Specific Plan, entitled, Project Landscape and Hardscape discusses landscape design for the Specific Plan Area. Further, we are mandated by the State to comply with specific water use limitations (maximum applied water allowance). See attached Exhibit B. Note: edible gardens and orchards are exempt from the low water use ordinance. See page two of attachment. The landscape plan will comply with these requirements. We will submit to the Town of Los Gatos our planting & irrigation plans (at building permit stage) Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) review. The review is typically done by an outside plan checker (licensed landscape architect as per Specific Plan section 3.2.9.b.) who specializes in this task. 6 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMERHlLL HOMES ' COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION While we meet current standards we are willing to work with the Town to replace plants shown in the planting palette with more water -efficient plants that are equally attractive. Question on the adequacy of the Town's economic study. There have been 5 economic studies to date for reference: 1. BAE Urban Economics Market Study and Business Development Strategy dated August 12, 2011 2. BAE Urban Economics Urban Decay Analysis dated November 20, 2013 3. Retail Resilience in Downtown Los Gatos as attachment 41 to the Staff Report for the Town Council meeting dated December 16, 2014 4. Keyser Marston Associates North 40 Phase 1 Economic Report dated November, 2015 pursuant to Section 2.4.2 of the Specific Plan. 5. Keyser Marston Associates memorandum dated July 22, 2015 in response to Planning Commission findings on July 13th, 2016. It was not clear which study the speaker was referring to. To address the July 13th, 2016 Planning Commission finding that the November, 2015 study was flawed, Keyser Marston Associates submitted a response memorandum dated July 22, 2015 that considers the downtown Conditional Use Permit and parking requirements. The report concludes that neither Ordinance 2107 (CUP requirements for formula retail) nor Ordinance 2021 (CUP for restaurant uses in the C-2 zone) will have a significant negative economic impact on the comparison retail space in the Downtown Core vis-a-vis the North 40. Furthermore, the memorandum addresses parking as follows, "retailers would prefer the parking challenges of the Downtown Core to a location in a newly created retail project in Phase 1." As stated in the BAE Market Study, "larger retail uses should be configured on the north end of the site with any other large users (e.g., hotel), with smaller mixed -use, such as buildings containing specialty food or other smaller shops with office or residences above, could act as a buffer for more residential areas." The application is focused on the southern Lark district as well as the "buffer" transition district which the Specific Plan intended to contain "neighborhood serving stores, specialty market and mixed -use housing with residential units above retail" (Specific Plan 2.3.2). Opportunities to address the leakage category for building materials and general merchandising could be considered in the Northern District as stated above. 7 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMERHlLL HOMES ' COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Furthermore, the BAE Market Study states "despite the Town's profile, with high home ownership and income levels, the Town has limited specialty food retail, showing no sales in meat markets, fish, and seafood markets, and product markets. Given the Town's already -strong attraction as a food shopping destination, this may represent an opportunity to broaden the food retailing mix and enhance the Town's strong position for this retail category". This was reinforced in the BAE Urban Decay Study from November, 2013. This need is addressed with the proposed Market Hall concept in this application. Other issues raised by the Speaker: The application does not provide any spaces larger than 10,000 square feet Building A2 in the Transition District is proposed to be 10,412 square feet and Building B1 in the Transition District is proposed to be 22,700 square feet with market hall representing 16,380 square feet. The Market Study states that the Town should consider a mix of new office space at the North 40, pursue the concept of a Los Gatos innovation center, and the Town should consider a hotel use. The application does not comply with the Market Study. As stated in the Specific Plan: ■ The Lark District is envisioned for residential and "limited retail/office uses" ■ The Transition District provides a buffer between the Lark District and the active retail and entertainment emphasis of the Northern District. "The Transition District will accommodate a range of uses including neighborhood -serving stores, specialty market and mixed -use housing with residential units above commercial." It also says a hotel or hospitality use could be a part, but is not required. Office is permitted but not required. ■ The Northern District envisions hotel and office uses The Market Study states that retail in the North 40 should establish a clear difference in the shopping experience between the Downtown and the North 40. There is nothing in the proposal to address this issue. As stated in the BAE Urban Decay Study "despite the Town's profile, with high home ownership and income levels, the Town has limited specialty food retail, showing no sales in meat markets, fish, and seafood markets, produce markets, and bakeries, even though the [Retail Trade Area] 8 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMERHILL HOMES COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION appears to have strong sales in these categories. Given the Town's already -strong attraction as a good shopping destination, this may represent an opportunity to broaden the food retailing mix and enhance the Town's strong position for this retail category." The study does not address the size of the Downtown Core The November 2015 Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) study that was required for our application specifically evaluates retail sales figures specifically from the downtown core using data from the Town of Los Gatos. See page 8, Table 1 of the KMA Report. The report concludes that there is no negative impact on downtown. Specialty Foods competes with Whole Foods and Lunardi's From the Market Study: "two of the supermarkets, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, are niche supermarkets rather than more generic markets. Lunardi's is part of a smaller regional chain, and broker interviews and other sources indicate extremely strong sales." As mentioned above, the Town has limited specialty food retail, showing no sales in meat markets, fish, and seafood markets, produce markets, and bakeries. Question Regarding Income Required to Afford Homes in the North 40: Response: The for -sale units in our proposal are market rate units. We agree with the public testimony that incomes of at least $125,000 to $160,000 a year will be required to purchase the market -rate homes in the North 40. These incomes equal approximately 140% to 150% of median income in Santa Clara County and are about 25% higher than moderate income, which is set at 120% of median. Moderate income in Santa Clara County for a 2-person household is $102,800. The housing types that were identified in the Specific Plan and are proposed in this application result in lower prices (versus a single-family detached home in Los Gatos) that will not be a barrier to entry for employees seeking this type of housing at Netflix and Roku. Per payscale.com, a software engineer at Netflix has a salary ranging from $118,034 to $235,815. Overall, median salaries at Netflix are $180,000 (thedailymail.com — See attached Exhibit C from April 14, 2015). The North Forty will be an attractive alternative for local employees wishing to live close to work thereby reducing the necessity for long commutes. 9 GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING SUMMERHILL HOMES COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Question regarding erroneous statement the Project proposes three-story buildings near Lark Avenue. Response: The Specific Plan requires a 30' orchard setback along Lark Avenue. Further, the Perimeter Overlay Zone requires a 25' height limit within a 50' setback from Lark Avenue. Our application meets these objective standards by proposing heights from 11' to 25' in the Perimeter Overlay Zone with a setback of 50' — 65'. Three stories are not proposed on Lark Avenue or Los Gatos Boulevard. Question regarding explanation of school mitigation SB-50 is the required mitigation for development proposals in the State of California. Grosvenor and SummerHill Homes have entered into a Voluntary Contribution Agreement with LGUSD based on collaborative discussions that defined specific facilities challenges. Based on these determinations the value of this Voluntary Agreement was determined, and unanimously approved by the LGUSD Board of Trustees in 2015. Question related to intensity in Lark District Response: As stated in our August 5th, 2016 letter, the proposal complies with the Specific Plan's desire is lower intensity development in the Lark District. The Specific Plan requires that a minimum of 15% of the Lark District be two stories, and the proposal has approximately 29% of the plans at 25' or less. In contrast, the application does not propose any residential units at 25' within the Transition District. Building heights in the Lark District are 35' maximum, whereas the Transition District has the 45' affordable housing over Market Hall. The open space, particularly green open space, is also greater in the Lark District. The Lark District provides 4.79 acres of open space (42.5%) whereas the Transition district provides 3.43 acres (36.4%). The lot coverage area of the Lark District (29.4%) is both far lower than the allowable 50% lot coverage, but also lower than the Transition District (33.9%). Page 2-3 Section 2.3.1 is commonly referenced by speakers as the Lark District being "lower intensity residential..."; however, the types of residential identified as permitted in this district are proposed in this application. Further, when taken as a more holistic view, the Specific Plan states in Section 2.4 "In general, lower intensity shops, offices, and residential land uses are envisioned in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area. Moving northward, potential land uses transition to mixed use residential and potentially hospitality uses to provide a buffer between the primarily residential uses in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area and the entertainment, restaurant, and shopping uses envisioned in the 10 GROSVENOR rft EVEN HOUSING SUMMERHILL HOMES". COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION northern portion of the Specific Plan Area." The goal of decreasing intensity in the Lark District and increasing intensity in the Transition District has been met. Question Related to the amount of underground parking. Response: There is no specific percentage of underground parking required in the Specific Plan. However, of the 1039 parking spaces in the proposal, 322 are located in the underground/podium parking structure. This is 31% of the overall parking onsite. Within the parking structure, 130 are located in the basement/underground, 64 at -grade, 69 on the 2nd floor, and 59 on the roof floor. Question related to Transportation Demand Management. Response: A Transportation Demand Analysis is completed during the Final Map/Improvement Plan processing of the project. Section 4.10 of the Specific Plan and Condition of Approval number 115 identifies components of a TDM program that may be included, and can be further discussed: • Parking cash -out. • Financial incentives for taking alternative modes. • Transit Fare incentives such as Eco Pass and Commuter Checks • Preferentially located carpool parking. • Bicycle lockers and bicycle racks. • Showers and clothes lockers for bicycle commuters. • On -site or walk -accessible employee services (day-care, dry-cleaning, fitness, banking, and convenience store). • On -site and off -site shuttle services. Question Related to tandem parking. Response: Tandem parking is proposed in the for -sale component of the application, and only within private garages that are utilized by the residents of only one home. The speaker discussed "swapping keys" with a neighbor. This is not necessary. Rather, the residents of these homes typically have key -hooks next to their garage door entry, and the first person to leave takes the last car in the garage. SummerHill Homes has built many communities with tandem garages throughout the Bay Area. 11 G ROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING Adequacy of sustainability plan; relation to LEED. SUMMERHILL HOMES". COMMUNITIES OF DISTINCTION Response: LEED Silver (Commercial/Mixed-Use) and Build -it -Green (Townhomes, Garden Clusters, Condominium Clusters, Live -Work) are standards that we utilize. Comment that 15% of Los Gatos' population is senior (65+), therefore this application is not satisfying the unmet needs of the Town. Response: The application proposes 49 senior units, which is the 15.3% of the residences in the North 40 application. In addition to this, there are 8 market rate apartments that are elevator served. Town Council requested a copy of our PowerPoint presentation. Response: A copy of our PowerPoint is attached in Exhibit D. What are the hours of construction? Response: The Conditions of Approval 123 specifies the hours of hauling of soil to be from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and Conditions of Approval 124 specifies the hours of construction to be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Are we providing bike parking, interior/covered parking, and showers? Exterior guest and bicycle parking is found throughout the proposal. Interior bicycle storage is also available. For example, the for -sale condominiums will have a beam installed behind the drywall to structurally enable a bicycle rack to be mounted. What is the age of the trees depicted in the drawings? The drawings and renderings in our Architecture and Site Review Application are 5-10 years in maturity. 12 Exhibit A GROSVENOR EDEN HOUSING TRANSMITTAL: Joel Paulson, Principle Planner Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department - Planning Division 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Joel, SUMMERHILL HOMES COMMUN1T[ES OF DISTINCT[ON November 14, 2013 Grosvenor, SummerHill Homes, and Eden Housing are excited to submit for the North 40 Phase I Architectural and Site and Tentative Map applications. Please find the following enclosures related to this submittal: ✓ 1 copy of the completed application form ✓ 1 copy of the Letter of Justification / Written Description of the Proposed Project ✓ 1 copy of the Environmental Checklist ✓ 1 copy of the Hazardous Materials/Air Quality Checklist ✓ Deposit Check for Application Filing Fees ✓ 2 copies of current Title Reports — Verification of Property Ownership and Easments ✓ 1 copy of Build it Green checklists ✓ 1 copy of the Wells Questionnaire ✓ 1 copy of the C.3 Data Form ✓ 1 copy of existing photos of the property ✓ 16 copies of 24x36 of the Tentative Map package ✓ 6 copies of 24x36 sets of the Architecture and Site Review package ✓ 2 copies of 11x17 sets of the Architecture and Site Review package Best Regards, adore-1,-- A. Don Capobres Linda Mandolini Wendi Baker Senior Vice President President Vice President of Development Grosvenor Eden Housing SummerHill Homes 1588\03\1941297.1 8/10/2016 goldfarb Iipman attorneys M David Kroot Lynn Hutchins Karen M. Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber Dianne Jackson McLean Michelle D. Brewer Jennifer K. Bell Robert C. Mills Isabel L. Brown James T. Diamond, Jr. Margaret F. Jung Heather J. Gould William F. DiCamillo Amy DeVaudreuil Barbara E. Kautz Erica Williams Orcharton Luis A. Rodriguez Rafael Yaqui6n Celia W. Lee Dolores Bastian Dalton Joshua J. Mason Vincent L. Brown Nana A. Hardy Caroline Nosella Eric S. Phillips Elizabeth Klueck Daniel S. Maroon Justin D. Bigelow San Francisco 415 788-6336 Los Angeles 213 627-6336 San Diego 619 239-6336 Goldfarb & Lipman LLP 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, California 94612 510 836-6336 March 10, 2016 Hand -delivered Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Revised Density Bonus Program Application — North Forty Dear Town Manager Prevetti: This letter is written on behalf of the application of Grosvenor Americas for a density bonus and other waivers of development standards as required by California Government Code Section 65915; Sections 29.10.405 — 440 of the Town Code; and the Town of Los Gatos Density Bonus Program Guidelines. The modifications being requested are as follows: 1. A density bonus of 35 percent, increasing the permitted density from 237 units to 320 units. 2. Waivers of the development standards listed below that would physically preclude construction of the development with the density bonus: a. Measurement of building height from finished grade rather than existing grade; and b. Increase in permitted height of the affordable units from 45 feet to 48'8" at the top of the roof ridge and to 53 feet at the elevator enclosure over the stair to the roof. A description of the development's eligibility for each of these incentives is provided below and summarized in Exhibit A. This revised application removes the request for reduced on -site parking allowed under Government Code Section 65915(p). Additionally, a waiver of development standards is not needed to provide all of the affordable units within the proposed senior housing building because the Town's BMP Guidelines allow the BMP units to be clustered in one building where it is not feasible to disperse the housing. As described in detail in our October 14, 2015 letter, federal and state requirements applicable to senior housing do not allow housing intended for seniors 1588\03\1858179.2 March l0, 201( Page 2 la be dispersed l htiaughout a dovol aflm ant cir to ba integrated into cilhar l ui l ding s in the devollcipmaril. In a delved opmant that incilucas Ialh seriati and non-saniar housing, as is proposed hero, the savior units must to alear1}l separatac from non-seniiar housing in a separate' building designed far seniors with separala orilrances and facilities. Clearly ill 's infeasible to di sparse' sanior units througholl tho development, zind the BMP Guiadims allow the units to be contained in ono building where they gannet be feasibly dispersed. I. Proposed Density Bcnus. A Spoaifici F tan -compliant development on tho petition of the Nan h Fcirtbeing dovoloped would contain a totall of dwolling units. Ninetoon eiNislingl units would ramain on propartias :in the North Forty nal inch dac in lhis applicali.on. Cirlho total 2217 units parmitled undo] the Spocifici Plan, 45I units (20% contained in the senior hous'ng davelaflmenl to ba built by 12con Fausing wau:Id fa affordable to vary love inaamo households, as defined in election 50105 of the I]laallh & Safety Code. Afforc able rant would to as defined in Section 500521 cif 1ha Ilaalth & Safety Code, and tho units would ramain affordable for a `ICI -year pariod. L nder Government Cada Sections 659150; and I f)(2) ar d Saatkin ]I]II.A.1 of the Tlown's Guidelines, any davalopmant with at least 11 :I peraant vary law iriaamei housing is entitled 10 a 215 parcent density bonus. Bacausei the proposed dovelopment contains 20 percont very love income housing,it is ent'lled 1c a 21`I percent bonus, as fellows: Easa density: 237 units 21 ` % bcmus: Total 83 units (82.95 units; must be rcnindod rpi) 32(1 omits Ilha plans submitted to the Town aonlain thei 320 'mils flarmibleic bN state dansillN bonus law and the rllovun's Guideliinas. II. Proposed Waivers of Development Standards. Government Code Section (5ISIl_I(e)(1) and Town Cuic alines Section II]I.E provide that na 'flown davalopmant standard shall be' applied that will Iava the affect at physically precluding the acinstructian cal projoct al tho density perm'11ed. Tho fallowiingl two development :,landards will havo the effect of physicallN prec:Iud'ng the construction of the davaloflmiant with 32(I units 'finless m ad f ac as requested. C c v't Cce 1 ` (f, (5; . 1588\01 \ 1858179.2 March 10, 2CI1( Page 21 a. Nllcciiuremlent of Buila;irlg Height frcm Find.rhea Gtode RIcltiher Thar] Existing Grc1de. The attachoc Preliminary Finish C rac e Plxt ibit (Exhibit El shows ]h at the North Forty site will require both cut (O1cd; and fill (green). While there is a ten foot grade cihanga fiicim Ies Gatos Boulevard to 11 ei western portian of the plrapari , the interior grade of the sita itself is ielaiivcly flat, and to achiever prapleui engineorec surface drainage and the ifo:Ilawing cIljectives and requirements, the project proposas auts along lha sceullerrl poilion and fell in the recirltcirri portion of Phase I: 1. AUA Accessibi1it31. The grading minimizes steep silliaets and avoids iha need for hand ]ails and landings where feasiblle 1a moot ADA requirements and to make the site mow aaaess ib:lc. 2. Stormwater Quality. 5_I:lcipes are required to be designed 1a crain inta ]landscape- based improvements splroac ihrciughout the site to meet Low Impact De\clopment rocuiiiciments per the "Town's starmvvatelr permit. 3. Stormwater Hydromodification. Slopes aro also required to ba dasigned to lcruia tha drainage 11-iiciugh a 1-ydromodificalion starago vault 10 ensure that post-ccvelopmenl runoff rates match pra-davelopment aandiilion9s par the Town's stormwater plalimeit. 4. Storm ]]rain F1ocd Control. Thu finish elevations must provide illooc prolealion from a ]CICI.ycar storm evonl by routing drainage is tha existing storm drainpipe located at 11-o northeasterly portion of the 9eiiie, with cmergenay overlanc flow rollease toward the northerly end of the sita. llhi s requires that the! southern part o ['the site, whara fill i 9e propcised, be highar than l ha northern part of the 9eiite. 5. Existling Boundary Conditions. The osisting site is substantial IN ]owed than Los Gatos Blvd., and CPI istirng usage on ci11ar proper ias tui1ing the sila have a varielN of grades 10 aaaaunl far this. llha grading has been designed 10 conform to permanent eixi9eiing bouncarN conditions vuhiile minim:iaingl the need fbr retaining walls and steep s:lcipes, to impra\a overall] site damnation, aaaessibi:lity, anc appearance. 6. Consiructian Related FInvironmental Impacts. The grading has bean designac to minimize the off -haul cif dirt and to balance outs and fills to the extent feasible to minimize consiivalion-related anvironmental impaats assaaiatad with off iiiie lrnak trips. The approximate c eplh of cut and fi 11 is shown in the spot graders an the ITinish Grade IIxhil it, ranging from C1.11 faot to naarl y fe' a feat of fill, wilt most rasidenacis in the southarn part of the site constnualed over two to fitc1a feat of fill]. The proposac cc sign sucaessf Llly aahieves a XI unit par acre density (regi stied by the Housing Elarr ant) anc :120 units whan measured filoml finiished grade. 191818Iv03\I i118 179.2 M arch l 0, 201( Page 4 UIawevor, rr aasuril r Ig1 from existing grade wadi d physi cra] l N prucrl uc a 1 ha project from act i eying this darrsitl}1. Apflraximate y iI`I parcent oflthci prcposad residential tu:ilcings include a ihirc slor}1. Requiring the height of thasa Iuiildings to be measured abaua existling grada would affactivaly al i m nail a this third story in all cif the fill areas. Thraa sl oni es, evar r w tl h l owar than usual flacir 10 calling haights, can barely ba achiavcid if ithe Sflaclifla Alan's 215-foot haighl limit is measured abova finished grade, as shown an the attaclhad diagram (Exhibit C), anc cannot be achieved if lha building haight must to reduced furtlIor. Wa estimate that SiI units v<iou1d ba last. Sinae measuramant from existing glrado would physically praclude deluelloflment of lha 320 units allowed with a dorsitl)l bonus, lhel projaclt is entitled 1a a wailuor of this requirement. b. Height cuf the iSiuylaa1lile Ulfnit.. Tho attached Height Exhibit (Exhibit D re hats the' heights (Al the afforc at la Iuiilding. While this building's parapet is llcwerthan q_I flint from finished grader, to acd variety, an overall inaximum rooflhaighl of48'8" is proposed whicrh inaliidas 8:112 roof pitches. One crlevator/staiillcasa encrlosura in a ]im:ilad arcra off lher building is _` 3 feel above finished grade. Plecausa of building coda requirements related to elevator enclosures and the need for an oncrlosoc stairway access to the roafof the building, the additianal height for this equipment must be higher than the highest point oftho naafi (Nolo that foil buildings oulsic e the SIpecrific Plan area, the Town Cade exempts if cis(' appurtenant strucrlurcrs from the Tlawn's height limits.) III. Cansi! tenciy o11 Tow n Codci and Deny i ty Bonus G uideli nes with S11 a tti Law. Portions aft 1f o flown Cade anc Density Bonus C uidelines are not consiistant with State law. lln particular, Town Coda 9ocrlion 2 .1(1.420 anc Guideline's Sections III.0 anc IV.0 state that the Town may deny a density bonus or waiver flit makers certain lhincingls. None of those findings are consistent with SItlate law. Covern:meni Cade Section 63C 1_` (b) status that the low] "shall" prouiicer a cbonus for an digit ter projeal, zind %lotion ( 9:15 contains na findings f l at may ba m adei to c anN a density bonus to an digit la pncj act. if a c eIV dominant standarc Physically precludes the densiulNl allowed, a waivar may be denied only if the 'Dawn can make one o f the llincinglls containad in Sectiiari (`I9l 5(e)(1) relalad to unviranmorrtal impacts and violations aft stata and federal l aw.2 The B nvii ranmantl al Impact Report prapared for l t el North Forty showoc no impactls that v<iculd justify denial under those standards, and nano of the requested waivers vilolato sit ate a fedora law. Under Stale law, the density bonus and roc mod parking are m anc aitory, and waivers must be glrant ad if the lawn's development standards would physically praalude development aflthe project Guidelines Section III.E states Ihat an appliccnt rra}I recluivac to ptiout tlharl a waivwu is needed to rrake a cevelaplmert econamically feaisitle. The starlute IA as modiflec same years ago 10 uerniave the economic flea�sibility requirement. A wuivier must He gnanlec if it woulc physiaallyl preclude cevelaprmirt cif tNa project with the der lily hanus to which the pinojecil is entitled. 1588\0: A185817 .2 March 10, 2016 Page 5 with the density bonus. Any provisions of the Los Gatos Town Code and Guidelines to the contrary are not valid and cannot be used to deny the bonus, reduced parking, or waivers. The proposed Phase I development on the North Forty would provide the Town with much needed affordable housing and was identified as a site suitable for lower income housing in the Town's Housing Element. The development provides more than enough affordable housing to qualify for the density bonus and waivers requested. Therefore, on behalf of Grosvenor Americas, we respectfully request that the Town approve the above requests. If you have any questions regarding these requests or if you would like any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Barbara E. Kautz Partner bkautz@goldfarblipman.com Exhibits: A. Summary - - Density Bonus Program Requests. B. Preliminary Finish Grade Exhibit — Cut and Fill Map. C. Diagram Demonstrating Height of Three -Story Buildings above Finished Grade. D. Height Exhibit — Affordable Housing. 1588\03\1858179.2 EXHIBIT A Standard 237 units Request Tknsity Bonus 11% bonus; 32CI units Eligibility Deivalopment will include mara than 11 % Nay ow linaclmiei units, which cimlitlas c civelopment to a 33a/a density bonus. Standard 45-feat height limit for affordable Musing W aivers Request 481S" at lhei tall of the racif ridgy and _`13 foot aver the elevator ancilosura and staii ta the roof abavci finish grade Explanation A slallin l roof for the affordable hot sing neicessiiilatos a small incraasce in building height. Cac ci requiramieints for the el EN ator enclasura and sitairwiay ta the roof require that they 1• o higher if an the rust of 11' ei roof. Building 1. eight measured from existing grade Building teight miaasuroc from finished gra cc To achieve high quality design, minimize environmental impacts, and moat ADA anc slam -mailer requirements, grading is needed that includas both cut anc fill. llf t uilding height is mivasiireic from axisling grada in fill areas, fuildings will lc limitac to a height cif twit stories. Since 73 paraent of the prapased units era in three-story buildings, this wiaulc fill• ysioa l ly praalude davo] opm ent cif the 32I(I units wiith It density 1 anus, with an aslimatac loss cif 93 units. A-1 1VIM \03' 189E 119.2 goldfarb Iipman attorneys M David Kroot Lynn Hutchins Karen M. Tiedemann Thomas H. Webber Dianne Jackson McLean Michelle D. Brewer Jennifer K. Bell Robert C. Mills Isabel L. Brown James T. Diamond, Jr. Margaret F. Jung Heather J. Gould William F. DiCamillo Amy DeVaudreuil Barbara E. Kautz Erica Williams Orcharton Luis A. Rodriguez Rafael Yaquibn Celia W. Lee Dolores Bastian Dalton Joshua J. Mason Vincent L. Brown Nana A. Hardy Caroline Nasella Eric S. Phillips Elizabeth Klueck Daniel S. Maroon Justin D. Bigelow San Francisco 415 788-6336 Los Angeles 213 627-6336 San Diego 619 239-6336 Goldfarb & Lipman LLP 1300 Clay Street, Eleventh Floor Oakland, California 94612 510 836-6336 March 25, 2015 By e—mail Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Density Bonus Program Application — North Forty Dear Town Manager Prevetti: This letter is written on behalf of the application of Grosvenor Americas for a density bonus and other waivers of development standards as required by California Government Code Section 65915; Sections 29.10.405 — 440 of the Town Code; and the Town of Los Gatos Density Bonus Program Guidelines. It responds to additional questions raised by the Town and incorporates by reference our letter of March 10, 2016. As background, the modifications being requested for the North Forty are as follows: 1. A density bonus of 35 percent, increasing the permitted density from 237 units to 320 units. 2. Waivers of the development standards listed below that would physically preclude construction of the development with the density bonus: a. Measurement of building height from finished grade rather than existing grade; and b. Increase in permitted height of the affordable units from 45 feet to 48'8" at the top of the roof ridge and to 53 feet at the elevator enclosure over the stair to the roof. The questions that have been raised relate to: 1) the calculation of the permitted density bonus; and 2) the need to measure building height from finished grade rather than existing grade. 1588\03\1874132.2 M arch 26, 2C 1 f Page a I. IIroposeid DEinsity Bonus. A Icusing development akllHeal ion is entiillad to a density bonus aver the otherwise "mat imum allowable) residential density." (Gov't C ode Section (`CI1 `I(f).1) The 'ma, imum allowaf la residential density" is the density allowed uncur the land use element of tla general) plan and the zoning ordinance. (On the North Forty, the north 4C Spaaifa Plan serves as the zoning ordinance for the site.) HI a range of density is permitted, the "maximum allowable residential density" means the "maximum allowable density" applicable to the fraject under thu zoning orc i nance and land use elan -ant. (G c v'il Code Section E ` 9] `I (o)(2; .2; /IN density bonus is calaulaiad "as c flthe carte cif application by the air f)icant to the ['Town]." (Section 6191901'1.) Currently, the Land Ulse Element of the Town's General Alan and the 1\cu11h 40 Specific Plan prau i c a t l at the maximum res i c ant ial devel of In ant permitted on 1 he North Forty is 270 units. The Housing Elam ant states that 13._` acres of the site is intended ila aacommocate 27CI residences at a minimum density of aC units per acme. It is clear from the Specific Plan that the 21( units of housing are intended 1a to located primariIN in the Lark District and secondarily in the llransilion Distriat; the Northern District is described as a "day-ta-evenirl€1 entertainment area that offers shopping and restaurants far nearby residents as well as employment centers" anc allows only limited residential over commercial. The current application inaludes most clf the Lark and Transition Districts. 11he only limitation on density in the North Forty provided in the Town's Land Use Element and the Specific Alan is the 270-unit total. Therefore, the "max:imLrr allowable residential density" Ilwilhout a density bcnus) permitted for this appliciation is 270 Units, the maximum shown in the Land Use Llement and Specific Pian, less the nineteen aNistinj units located elsewhere in the North Forty. /If current application must be reviewed an its own terms, based on the maximum density aillowac by the "land Use Element anc Specific Allan. The "maximum allowable residential density" cannot fa reduced by modifying 1fa Land Use Element arc Specific Plan after the application was sullmitted is reallocate soma units to other stiles wig in the North Foiiiy not currently flannad for significant amounts of housing or to adc a phasing requirement that dons not currently exist) in de plan. A c c itiona ly, this change wot l d canf licit with numerous ether Specific! Alan policies, which anticipate That most cal the residences will be located in the Hark and Transition Districts and that 1la Northern District walk ha\e limited residential usas. Any reduction in density would also not enable the development 10 meet lla aC units per acre requiremard established in the Housing Filament A )though the f rojeclt could request that its density bonus be calculated over the maximum amount (270 units less the nineteen existing units), tla currant appliaatiian caluLlatas the cens irty bonus over a base density cf 2?I'a units, giver) nc1 residential acreage cif less than 1:1.1 acres, to I a 1 All ilcniiher relleirencu are Io the Govcrnni ini Code. 2 1`.18181\03' 18141:2.2 M iirc h 35, 201E Page 3 consistent with the Illausing Element. With a 35 percent bonus, the prajeat is en-lit:ee to 33( units, as shown in our Wallah l 0 :letter. II. Proposed Waivers of Development Standards. 1111a North Forty application includes requests fbr two waivers of development standards under it ci provisions cif Section f5SI15(e). llhis sealion praviices ilrat a city maN not apply a devclaplrrent standard "that will have the affaat aft phNsicially precluding the aonstrucllion of a develaplm ant [with affordable housing] at the densities...permilted t y this sactian." We understand that the 'Hawn is primarily conaerned about ire request to measure luilding heights from finished grade rather than from existing grade. Fi ni shec glplac ci may be C .1 to 5 feat (in limited areas) abovglraca. As described in our Narch 10 latter, this _limitec fill is required (acause of the need to provide ADA aceassibility, meet racuiirements for starmiwater quality, provide adecuale f ood control, ballanae auls arid Hills to 1he a)ilent faasilla, amc conform to existing be undary aonc itions. As a ecnsequence, three-storN units cannot be cianstructac in these areas of fill and moat the 35 foal height limit if l eight is measured fiam existing grade ((effaciivaly reducing ilia permittec height by 0.1 to 5 feat). A 1.irc s1clrN, even if measured from existing) grade, can rarely ba accommodated will' in the 3_ -foot height limit and is not possible if ilhe height is measured from existing grade. E acause 1_ peraant of the units have lhnaa stories, we estimate that 97 units will >va lost if ilhe heightsi are redueac 1a two slaiiies, "physical➢N precluding" a project' with ilhel 330 unit i that the project is entitled ta. Conformance with llhe Specific Plan. Llimit:ing most building heights to two stories would be irlcorsistent with the peeillie Plan's design guidelines and require further lequesls for waivers from those provisions. The specific Plan contemplates a mix of ilwo arid three scary residences in it a I\ arilh Forty. Sr ciaif ci l ly: • Policy LIL110 calls fbr a mix ail residential product Types. • Section 2.5.3(a;(iii) requires a minimhm of 15 percent of the uni181 to have two stories, with most located in the Perimeter Overlay zone, lu1 this clearly contemplates that most residences will have throe stories. • Sectia n 2.7.3 specifies that the t emiic ential units rangy in s:i2 a and states that it st aullc aciaamimacate a mix a:fresidential product types 10 climate the chanactar of an authentic neighborhood. `➢ha i11us1naltiva cramplla of unit size mix inaluded in the glossary shows units sizes ranging from 1,00CI to '3,35 CI sq. ft. for the market -rate units. • actions 3.3.6(b), (c) and (d) require a variet}I oil buildir g farms and variiationai in height and roof) shape. Section (h) discusses ac ding variety to second and third flaws. I :188` 031 18174132.2 March 3E., 2016 Fage 4 • Many of the graphic ci amples prav:idad cif Ilia deisired building forms show buildings of 1 hraa stories or rr aiici vsiith a height of at least 351 fe01 maa sured fiian finish grade. Tha proaoat that has teen stitmittad la lhci Town conforms with all of the detailed design guidelines included in the peoific Plan but cannot provico the vario1N and typos of housing aontamplatcid if tha site cannot ciantain lhrele-story buildings. In Wdidlilnler City oj' Let Aldo (1:1(I11) 193 Ca1.App.4t11 1329, 1ha City of Beirkeloy granlad waivers cif davalclprrant slandards as pail of a density bonus appl'ciat:ian. In xlarlieular, Berkellay approvad additional building height and reduced sialbacks to ocean rr Wale curtain pro'eol amanilies, inciluding an interior courtyard, a ciarnrrunity plaaa, 15I•••foot ceilings in the comaoroial spacie, and nine -foal ceilings in 11-a residences. Wollmor contended that Flcirkallay's usual development standards did not "pl-)sivally preci] ida" aonstructicln of the project with the donsiilN bonus beoausa na waivar woullc be raduiroc if 1ha dovalopor rerravod all of tha project amanities. Tha Court reijectac this argument, stating: [N]othing in 11-a slatute requires the applicant to strip the project cif amenities, such as an interior aaurtyard, that would require a waivar of cevelopment standards. Standards may Ia waived that physiioally precludo conslruotion cif a housing development mooting the radui raments for a donsii l y bonus, peiri od. Tho stall uto does not say that what mush be prooludad is a project with no an- critic's, or that amonilies rr a )! not be the rea son a waiver is noocac. I-llad the Cil)! failed 10 grart the wa'vor anc varianaos, such aotion vuoulc have had "the effect cif physicialllN prooludirg 11'o cionstruotion of a covolopment" meeting the cuiiteria of density bonus law. Id at 134 ( -47. Tho dovolaprrant l roposoc an tho Nord-� Forty is raquosting a waivar not to pravico additional err anitios but moroly to provide 1ha desigr varieilN and types of housing required l y 11-a Spcicifio Plan. Failure to grant this waiver would have the affect of "phNsicially preolucing" 11-a development r egn Area l)1 the Tlown's own Specific! Plan. Grounds fair Denial. A raquast for a waiver ciannot be canied because of aeslhatio impacts. 11 may ba canied an;IN if ill would bo aontrarN to slate or federal :law, have an adverse impact an praparl N listed in the California Rleg i star cif Historic Rasourcos, ail have a "spociifi o, a c verso impart, as defined in [C ovornn ant C ado Secilion ( flfI1I9.`I(d)(2)], upon I aalth, so foty or tho pl �siasll environment." (IG.C. Sectiian E15(e)(1).) Suction 655RS.5(d)(1]) cafines a "specific!, adverse i npaot" as "a signiflclod, quantifiablo, throat, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, :identified writton public health or safety standards, policios, or cionditions as thoN exi s1 ad on the data the appl ioa tion was deers od compl al e. InoonsistanaN with the zc ni ng ardiinanao or genera] plan land use designation shall not oanstilute a specific!, advclrsio :impact upon the public health or safa1N." An aeslhotia impact is not based an "public health oil safety" standards. 1588' OJ \ 1874132.: March 25, 2016 Page 5 The proposed Phase I development on the North Forty would provide the Town with much needed affordable housing. The development provides more than enough affordable housing to qualify for the density bonus and waivers requested and will provide a substantial portion of the Town's regional share of housing. Therefore, on behalf of Grosvenor Americas, we respectfully request that the Town approve the above requests. If you have any questions regarding these requests or if you would like any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Barbara E. Kautz Partner bkautz@goldfarblipman.com cc: Rob Schultz, Town Attorney Marni Moseley, Senior Planner 1588\03\1874132.2 Exhibit B The 2015 Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Guidance for California Local Agencies INTRODUCTION Governor Brown's Drought Executive Order of April 1, 2015 (EO B-29-15) directed DWR to update the State's Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised MWELO Ordinance on July 15, 2015. This fact sheet provides guidance to cities and counties (local agencies) in California, who are responsible for adopting and reporting on a water efficient landscape ordinance. The focus is on major changes in the MWELO which must be addressed when local agencies are revising their own local or regional ordinances. DEADLINES AND OPTIONS FOR LOCAL AGENCY ACTIONS (Section 490.1) Local agencies have until December 1, 2015 to adopt the MWELO or to adopt a Local Ordinance which must be at least as effective in conserving water as MWELO. Local agencies working together to develop a Regional Ordinance have until February 1, 2016 to adopt, but they are still subject to the December 2015 reporting requirements (see Reporting Requirements). A local agency will either integrate MWELO into an existing ordinance or establish a new, separate program. To comply, a local agency must perform one of the following actions: • Adopt by reference Sections 490-495, Chapter 2.7, Division 2, Title 23 in the California Code of Regulations • Adopt the MWELO in detail - Sections 490-495, Chapter 2.7, Division 2, Title 23 in the California Code of Regulations • Amend an existing or adopt a new Local Ordinance or Regional Ordinance to meet the requirements contained in the regulations • Take no action and allow the MWELO to go into effect by default A local agency may choose to allow MWELO to become effective by default and then adopt a Local or Regional Ordinance at a later time. Subsequent reporting must include the details of Local or Regional Ordinances. Local agencies are not limited to require only the levels of water conservation stipulated by MWELO. The Local or Regional Ordinance can require higher levels of water conservation, as determined appropriate by the local agency to address one of these local conditions: • climate • geology • topography • environmental conditions. However, in such situations where a more restrictive requirement is incorporated, the local agency must make express findings that the requirement is reasonably necessary for one or more of the above conditions. Like all ordinance adoption processes, the adoption must follow the applicable rules for a public process including a public comment period and formal public proceeding during adoption. 1 SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO MWELO Projects Subject to the Ordinance (Section 490.1) The size of landscapes subject to the ordinance has been lowered from 2500 sq. ft. to 500 sq. ft. The size threshold applies to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check or design review. To reduce the complexity and costs for the smaller landscapes now subject to ordinance, the revised MWELO has a prescriptive compliance approach (Appendix D) for landscapes between 500 and 2500 sq. ft. Landscapes within this size range can comply either through meeting the traditional MWELO approach or through the prescriptive approach in Appendix D. The size threshold for existing landscapes that are being rehabilitated has not changed, remaining at 2500 square feet. Only rehabilitated landscapes that are associated with a building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review are subject to the Ordinance. Definitions (Section 491) The definitions section of MWELO has been expanded to include new terms and concepts. Please see the strike -out version of MWELO at http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/ to review definition changes. Water Efficient Worksheet and Water Budget (Section 492.4) The maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) has been lowered from 70% of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) to 55% for residential landscape projects, and to 45% of ETo for non-residential projects. This water allowance reduces the landscape area that can be planted with high water use plants such as cool season turf. For typical residential projects, the reduction in the MAWA reduces the percentage of landscape area that can be planted to high water use plants from 33% to 25%. In typical non-residential landscapes, the reduction in MAWA limits the planting of high water use plants to special landscape areas. The revised MWELO still uses a water budget approach and larger areas of high water use plants can be installed if the water use is reduced in the other areas provided the overall landscape stays within the budget. The use of special landscape areas (SLA) was not changed in the revised MWELO. The SLA provides for an extra water allowance in non-residential areas for specific functional landscapes, such as recreation, areas for public assembly, and edible gardens or for areas irrigated with recycled water. The revised MWELO allows the irrigation efficiency to be entered for each area of the landscape. The site -wide irrigation efficiency of the previous ordinance (2010) was 0.71; for the purposes of estimating total water use, the revised MWELO defines the irrigation efficiency (IE) of drip irrigation as 0.81 and overhead irrigation and other technologies must meet a minimum IE of 0.75. The worksheets for Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) have been combined into one table. (See Appendix B, Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet). As explained above, rather than using a site -wide default IE, irrigation efficiency is calculated for each hydrozone. The revised ordinance also precludes the use of high water use plants in street median strips. Also because of the requirement to irrigate areas less than ten feet wide with subsurface irrigation or other means that produces no runoff or overspray, the use of cool season turf in parkways is limited. 2 Soil Management Report (Section 492.5) For multi -lot projects, the revised MWELO added clarification that soil testing should be completed using a soil sampling rate of approximately 1 in 7 lots or 15 percent. Landscape Design Plan (Section 492.6) The following changes were made to Landscape Design Plan section: Prior to planting, 4 yards of compost must be incorporated per 1000 sq. ft. of permeable area. Compacted soils must be transformed to a friable condition. The depth of mulch required was increased from 2 to 3 inches. Graywater and storm retention components must be indicated on the landscape plan. Irrigation Design Plan (Section 492.7) The following changes were made to the Irrigation Design section: Dedicated landscape water meters or submeters are required for residential landscapes over 5,000 square feet and non-residential landscapes over 1000 square feet. Dedicated meters or submeters may be either a meter supplied by the local water supplier or a privately owned submeter. Irrigation systems are required to have pressure regulation to ensure correct and efficient operation. All irrigation emission devices must meet the American National Standards Institute standard, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers'/International Code Council's 802-2014 "Landscape Irrigation Sprinkler and Emitter Standard". Flow sensors that detect and report high flow conditions due to broken pipes and/or popped sprinkler heads are required for landscape areas greater than 5,000 square feet. Master shut-off valves that prevent water waste in case of large failures of irrigation systems due to breakage or vandalism are required on all landscapes except where sprinklers can be individually controlled. The minimum width of areas that can be overhead irrigated was increased from 8 feet to 10 feet; areas less than 10 feet wide must be irrigated with subsurface drip or other technology that produces no over spray or runoff. The revised update requires the irrigation auditor to be a local agency auditor or third party auditor to reduce conflicts of interest. All landscape irrigation auditors must be certified by one of the U.S. EPA WaterSense labeled auditing programs. EPA WaterSense: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/outdoor/cert programs.html Graywater Systems (Section 492.15) The revised MWELO added a graywater section that specifies that landscapes less than 2,500 square feet that are irrigated entirely with graywater or captured rainwater are subject only to the irrigation system requirements of Appendix D, Prescriptive Compliance Option. Graywater is allowed throughout the state under the California Plumbing Code, Ch. 16. Applicants should consult with the local building authority regarding graywater systems. 3 Stormwater and Rainwater Retention (Section 492.16) A requirement was added that landscape area should have friable soil to maximize stormwater infiltration. Additional stormwater measures were recommended, but not required. Reporting (Section 495) Executive Order B-29-15 and the revised ordinance require that local agencies report on the implementation and enforcement of their single agency Local Ordinances to DWR by December 31, 2015. Local agencies developing a Regional Ordinance must report on adoption by March 1, 2016. Reporting for all agencies is due by January 31st of each year thereafter. The reporting requirement is a new addition to the MWELO. In the initial reporting, a local agency states whether they are adopting a single agency ordinance or a regional agency ordinance, and specifies the date of adoption or anticipated date of adoption. The following information is to be included in the first report by the local agency. Once stated, the information does not have to be repeated in subsequent reports unless the information changes. • State if using a locally modified Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Local or Regional Ordinance) or the MWELO. If using a Local or Regional Ordinance, how is it different than MWELO; is it at least as efficient as MWELO; and are there any exemptions specified? • State the entity responsible for implementing the ordinance. In subsequent years, all local agency reporting will be for the calendar year. For the initial reporting period after new ordinance adoption and each year thereafter, include the following information during each reporting period: • Number and types of projects subject to the ordinance • Total area (in square feet or acres) subject to the ordinance • Number of new housing starts, new commercial projects, and landscape retrofits For the initial reporting period after new ordinance adoption and each year thereafter, describe the following: • The procedure for review of projects subject to the ordinance • The actions taken to verify compliance- Is a plan check performed; if so, by what entity? Is a site inspection performed; if so, by what entity? Is a post -installation audit required; if so, by whom? • Enforcement measures • The challenges to implementing and enforcing the ordinance • The educational, training, and other needs to properly apply the ordinance Contact Information: Julie Saare-Edmonds, DWR Senior Environmental Scientist at Julie.Saare-Edmonds@water.ca.gov or (916) 651-9676 4 Exhibit C Click here to print Dailyfllaft Wednesday, Aug 10th 2016 5PM 68°F 8PM 55°F 5-Day Forecast '� rryF legx: 40‘,, Cy;' ir Netflix and Google among the highest-payir companies in the US where median salaried $140,000 (but you've got to be a top lawyer programmer to get hired) . Netflix offers median salary of $180,000 . Corporate law firm Skadden Arps came in on top with $182,000 median employees . Google, the by far the biggest employer, ranks 13th By Michael Zennie For Daily Mail Online Published: 12:49 EST, 14 April 2015 I Updated: 12:49 EST, 14 April 2015 The top -paying companies in America have been revealing - and film -streaming service Netflix pile, paying a median of $180,000 a year. The other boldface name in the group is Google, which comes in at no. 13 and pays an median o But to make it on to the payrolls of these top companies, workers needs to be highly educated, hi highly connected - sometimes all three. They fall into three categories - tech companies, law firms and consulting firms. ow Gin it on *� W ndo Fr AFP:Getty Images Netflix has come a long way from its days of mailing DVDs to subscribers across the country. Its 2,000 employees have a median salary of $180,000 now CONSULTING, TECH AND LAW LEAD TOP -PAYING COMPANIES IN AMERICA 1. Skadden Arps (law) - $182,000 2. Netflix (tech) - $180,000 3. Strategy& (consulting) - $162,000 4. McKinsey & Company (consulting) - $162,000 5. A.T. Kearney (consulting) - $162,000 6. Sidley Austin (law) - $160,000 7. Boston Consulting Group (consulting) - $158,000 8. Mozilla (tech) - $148,000 9. Good Technology (tech) - $148,000 10. Altera (tech) - $147,000 11. VMware - $145,000 12. Cadence Design Systems (tech) - $145,000 13. Google (tech) - $144,000 14. Synopsys (tech) - $143,000 15. TrueCar (tech) - $142,000 Nine of the top 15 companies are in the tech sector, according to salary data compiled by the reci Glassdoor.com. These firms are competing furiously to hire and retain the relatively small numb computer programmers who make Silicon Valley such a magnet for money. Consulting and law firms rely on relationships with clients and so once employees establish them become more and more valuable and command higher salaries. Wall Street law firm, Skadden, Arps, one of the largest and most prestigious law firms in the natio top of the list. The median compensation there there is $182,000. Sri i Mel r■ Get it on ■U Ind° ti Skadden has 4,500 employees - more than 1,800 of whom are high -grossing attorneys. Netflix, which has 2,000 employees, comes in second. • • Management consultants take the three spots - Strategy&, McKinsey & Company and A.T. Kearn $160,000 median salaries. Mozilla, the company that oversees the Firefox web browser and TureCar, which lists car sales, Other than Google, Netflix, Mozilla and TrueCar, most people have likely not heard of the compar paid list. The companies are also mostly small and midsize. Nearly all of them employ fewer than 5,000 p few hundred. Google, which has 53,000 employees, is by far the largest employer on the list. Oldest Best rated Worst rated View all w Comments (24) Share what you think ok97 Toronto, Canada, 1 year ago v�y �f7 va �'est�rl'N a better work environment over pay any day of the week. I could care less what others make in m" iiiarcC snore, but they work alot more hours. I work to live. I don't live to work. Click to rate , Los Angeles, United States, 1 year ago ht it was only the CEOs that were making lots of money, at least that's what liberals have been tell all9, Bronx , United States, 1 year ago ess them. Click to rate Click to rate 011111 mnatternow, Galt, United States, 1 year ago don't use these companies. They hire people from other countries. They are the cause of the inve JLd LCJ. Click to rate Itsamatternow, Galt, United States, 1 year ago Sigh time to give up my citizenship. The ignorance in America is disturbing and only getting worse. Click to rate Gubbals, Dogtown, United States, 1 year ago 64. s good , but after tax that salary will cover rent and pocket money in the Bay Area . Click to rate erGirl, Santa Cruz, United States, 1 year ago lanage apartments here and a lot of those H1-b visa holders are getting about $40k of their salarie, WIIIpdnies take the rest. Click to rate )rninpstar Hillsboro, United States, 1 year ago s great until you realize that many of those getting that kind of pay are not Americans. But are H1- Click to rate 2 of 3 replies I See all replies neone, Somewhere in Lone Star, 1 year ago Tell your child to get a practical degree in a field in science or math and stop whining. What are supposed to do, higher your kid with the post -feminism degree or pottery making or whatever it like that, but it should never be your major. And, if you can't find a job, I assume no surprise. Googlc „•{.. is. You k If there were enough educated and skilled Americans to do the job then you wouldn't need the H1-B vi Click to rate 2, London, United Kingdom, 1 year ago Click to rate e, seattle, United States, 1 year ago are some other positions in google and netflix that pay that much. Lots of IT positions that are not LI ICR IDuch in both companies(servers, security, R&D, etc). I have many friends working for google most rr;,t- year(one makes 155k). What they dont tell you is that they are kind of slave drivers when it comes to "go 60+ hrs a week. Click to rate 10, California, United States, 1 year ago ary doesn't make you happy. You can make a lot less and be happier than people who make a lot c Fortune Topeka, United States, 1 year ago It doesn't necessarily make you unhappy either. LI Ica. Click to rate Click to rate sElsa Ontario, Canada, 1 year ago 'at it says 'median' salary, which isn't the same as 'average'. You could have half the company earl Click to rate betterthanyou, Belarus, 1 year ago You're hired! Click to rate View all The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOr Who is this week's top commenter? Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038740/Netflix-Google-highest-paying-companies-media got -lawyer -programmer -hired. html Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group © Associated Newspapers Ltd �*1 EN Get it on ■U Windo Exhibit D North 40 Vesting Tentative Map and Architecture and Site Applications Don Capobres, Representing Grosvenor Americas Wendi Baker, SummerHill Homes Andrea Osgood, Eden Housing Bill Hirschman, Lexor Builders Exhaustive and Transparent Process Spanning Several Decades Decades of Public Meetings and Policy Documents 1999: Specific Plan for N40 drafted (and later abandoned) 2010: 2020 General Plan adopted that reflected 750 residential units and 600K SF of Commercial 2011 — 2014: Specific Plan Advisory Committee meets, forwards North 40 Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report to Planning Commission Dec 2014: Town Council approves EIR for Specific Plan May 2015: Town Council approves Housing Element that identified 270 of its 619 State Mandated Housing units to be placed on 13.5 Acres of N40 property July 2015: Town Council approves N40 Specific Plan permitting: - 270 residential units (365 with Density Bonus) - 501,000 SF of commercial Process has led to Decisions by Town, Laws & Policies Oct 2015 SummerHill, Grosvernor and Eden submit revised plans Dec 2015 Town Consulting Architect deems N40 Architecture & Site Application "has adopted an approach to providing high quality design with the detail and diversity necessary to give the overall development the "look and feel" of Los Gatos." Jan 2016 Town Historic Commission voted that "the agrarian feel of the proposed plans and determined that the agrarian history is effectively integrated in Phase I." Feb 2016 Town Design Review Committee reviews Economic Study and Application March 2016 Town Staff completed an Initial Study of the proposed project and concluded that Application fully complies with the Specific Plan EIR Process has led to Decisions by Town, Laws & Policies March 2016: Town Planning Staff recommends approval, concluding the proposed project application is consistent with the N40 Specific Plan and warrants no additional CEQA mandated mitigations April 2016: Town deems VTM and A&S applications complete May 2016: Story Poles fully certified July 2016: Planning Commission August 2016: Town Council ,OBJECTIVE STANDARDS MATRIX Mork AO • SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED `1'tt 014 Al AN 5FCt07ta Open 51pn Sr nguds 2.5A C] Sews 33%lull, I m ! 1501 1701e2.7 Dn+., se.er- Pub rely Aroessible G Pre 20% AATAIrounn 20% mrnik.. um 5S% 2i8G 25A Table 23 L5t coverage theadecitler 55%MpXlm..m 297: T431e33 L.t r.r,r.,rm. mmse4td/Mked-use: 58c Marlm..n' s 241,.7 landen,pc.p ,n perking atS 5b4•lnlmurs 4015 Come, IV Open Space/ Cnndtaea.iUrns 4+mntun Duet, 5Fate/Matti F.rn.11y. oll,er 170 SF Minims.. 2005F Mltrlm5m 462 5F-2825 SF 897 54. 2_72 2-72 unit 2-ST0itr ,_ark 0ntrut 15%48181. s 201 25.2.041 Count a.2 Unita n,1a1 [1nl51RNo h Permit? n. tag Pa 351) 279Mtp.irnern: 366 Maximum 237 32A Table 2rZ . -- •r:... rn Mes_ CaEac ipt 43 4ywsftrt.nim um 24.000G$F Table2.3 1 Sagan Custer (RWHhorpe 4182,500 ST Gres; N.4 Y96,725 G5r 2-7.3 flow CompCompelalpaca i LIV.-922e1, l Apt. 'Cttage Custer unit Area 300.000 5c tint Mau 2.200 5r M.n.nrnm 15%755 FIST r11 273 • Setb,tcte. Primary Froatege Selboclq .n. 8,-a.4lt ata! Seibert. Pn Lurk/ LAN 59' MIPlm um 65' 75h102.5 .I. nrrnmarcwl Se5bwks pn WM rr.,-a.i;':etbeckl .LFb AVM... tSatbark 50' Minimum 371'Minim Wm Mr Minimum SO' 30'•57' 3O' Setbacks Gatos Mwllrvael Set h0cgA 35' Mieimvm 30' [•bectedraltVCR1 at 52i ILce - RwiderNai kprRealtl/ 1,1t44.11Ae SetMlcR1 12'MI.19101 furiesper Tables. 27.4. 8,2.9 12' 7ab142.9 Table 2.7.2-14. 2-9 SelbesL• iRe.l0e9t421 North 40tnmpllr. 4uldlrs Weights - .5.1 ReHdentPl Mldg keerig11H.rm Ir ltil.F 2S' Merimurn 2B itao b,aetbarl.5 Commernat Ills? Mei5JRs cm L+26 kt um MIdgiWr ght Imlrmaf rdabl.1 25' Manlmura i5' floated rnacas _ 25.1 21' Manmum 15' maaicnum12.281.849014 ienaManl 1l5IL1 PS' M4ermum 45' 194,213 2.5_2 klarenumtltdd Ne 1 'per Geesrty 'tonal 45' Madnturn - _ 48.8'_51' 1.5.891 25.2 Ikewenikal Parkt3 579 spaces Fs ',AAA, — 581 spats _ _Tablel-4 49xu4rs T.501a7-d — Ml.ed•use I'M) tlesfdenlul!'aAing ICrmmeruat R91 Fer4tn6 2415 apace, 3119+papas 134 Compliance with Objective Standards Open Space (OS) OS Publicly Accessible Replacement Trees 2-Story Lark District Units (Baseline) Units (w/Density Bonus) New Commercial 25' Res Setback on Lark/LGB Height on Lark/LGB Residential Parking Mixed Use (TD) Parking Commercial (TD) Parking Specific Plan Proposed 30% min 20% min 276 min 15% min 270 max 365 max 435,000 max 50' min 25' max 579 m i n 69 min 285 min 39% 85% 1500 29% 237 320 66,000 65' 11'-25' 581 69 389 Residential Density Reduction on the North 40 since the 2000 General Plan 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 350 1,000 2000 General Plan Residential allocations at the North 40 (units) 263 750 2020 General Plan 194 555 95 270 2011 DEIR North 40 Specific 2015 North 40 Specific Plan Plan Sources: 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2000 Town of Los Gatos General Plan. 2. 2020 Town of Los Gatos General Plan 3. Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report. December 2011. 4. North 40 Specific Plan (includes available density bonus) Architecture and Site Review Discussions • Elevations, Materials and Colors for both the commercial and the residential, including the list in section 3.2.6 and 3.3.6.3 in the Specific Plan • Open Space Programming and Recreational Amenities • The Landscape palate, including the orchard trees utilized and the freeway perimeter trees • The materials of the paved/surface areas of the projects • Fencing types • Onsite bicycle facilities, such as design and distribution of bicycle parking Architecture and Site Review Vesting Tentative Map Application Multi -Modal & Pedestrian Pathways LARK AVENUE i CONNECTION TO NORTHSOLITH MULTI -MODAL PATH 8' WIDE, 2-WAY PATH PR AARY BIKE ROUTED °SHARRONS-ON A STREET SOUTH r 412 tar; PUBLIC PATHWAYS EAST/WEST MULTI -MODAL 8° WIDE, 2-WAY PATH CONNECTION TO LOS GATOS BLVD. IPRiMARY BIKE ROUTE ON MULTI- URPOSE TRARIIIUI I LOS GATOS BLVD. TO MARKET HALL ldllt all North 40 is a new agricultural neighborhood rooted in the Los Gatos agrarian past 2.7 ACRES AGRICULTURAL USE - ORCHARD/VINEYARDS: 2.2 ACRES - COMMUNITY GARDENS: 0.2 ACRES - MARKET HALL: 0.3 ACRES 1100 EXISTING TREES (APPROXIMATE) 544 PROPOSED ORCHARDTREES 1921 PROPOSED TREES TOTAL ORCHARDT PRESERVED OAN ORCHARD TREES VINEYARDS ° DAN PRESERVEDVINEYARDS ORCHARD TREES ORCHARD TREES The essence of the design is the theme of Locally Grown & Agrarian Roots: 544 proposed orchard trees, community gardens and vineyards comprising 2.7 acres of agricultural uses North 40 Varying heights reduce the massing and intensity Lark Avenue Alley 'B' Alley 'A' South `A' Street Community Park South 'A' Street `R2' 1st Street Alley B' Alley 'F' The look and feel of Los Gatos Resident entrances engage streets, paseos and parks View Along South A Street A Mix of Architectural Styles in Three Building Types Including Traditional, Farmhouse and Contemporary and 17 Unique Colors Schemes. Church Street North 40 Varying heights reduce the sense of massing and intensity Alley 'A' South `A' Street The look and feel of Los Gatos Community variety of architectural and landscape scales View Along South A Street — Residential entries, no garage doors — pedestrian and bike friendly Landscape screened garages separated from parks, plazas and neighborhood streets and walkways. Maggi Court Parks and Plazas Publicly Accessible Community Park iiu fr .��i Rr! 1.. d ....ijl i lirP �ntwa6.� " Over 22,000 sf Community Park with 4 public amenities such as bocce court, barbeque grills, outdoor dining areas, multiple fire pits, hammocks, outdoor lounge spaces, community gardens and fruiting orchards. The Community Park is comparable in size and scale of Town Plaza Park. North 40 Varying heights reduce the sense of massing and intensity South 'A' Street at Community Park ti s4 111111 7-1 Key The look and feel of Los Gatos Creative interplay of landscape and architecture View Along South A Street Tree lined corridors — South A Street Cuesta de Los Gatos Way North 40 design Varying heights reduce the "sense of project" 1 If all the buildings were squeezed to the same height, it would imply a "sense of project" and lose the variations found around Los Gatos. Caption Unprecedented Project Benefits Project Benefit - Senior Affordable Housing 49 very low income senior apartments and one moderate rate apartment PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY SCALE Attracts those of all ages who want to work, live, and socialize in a highly walkable neighborhood. BAR.rchI<, NORTH 40 I LOS GATOS, CA Project Benefits Traffic Improvements TAKING ON THE LION'S SHARE Since 2012, developments in Los Gatos have increased traffic by 13%. North 40 improvements will zero -out that impact. LOS GATOS APPROVED/PENDING DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2012 Riviera Terrace Expansion South Bay Honda Swanson Ford Mitchell Subdivision Winchester Medical Office Terraces of Los Gatos Blosoom Hill Road Development 154D0 Los Gatos Blvd 55 Los Gatos Saratoga Rd National Medical Office Placer Oal Valley Christian School San Jose Medical Office Sports Park Highlands of Los Gatos Winchester Office Netflix Office Development Bentley Silicon Valley Classic Community Hillbrook School Expansion Twin Oaks 146Gemini Court Moore Buick CVS Pharmacy TRAFFIC IMPACT congestion added since 2012 TRAFFIC UPGRADES to reduce traffic congestion since 2012 13% 0% North TRAFFIC IMPACT North 40 will add to congestion by REDUCED 2 6 0/ DELAY with North 40 traffic upgrades Project Benefits New Bicycle Lanes from the North 40 to the Los Gatos Creek Trail Lark Ar Current Looking East VIEW 3 Lark Ar Bike Lanes/ Multi•Use Path Looking fast 07.06.2016 Los Gatos North 40, California Mm — • Lark Ay Current Looking West VIEW 4 Lark. As Bike Lanes/ Meld-Ihe lath Looking West 07.06.7016 Las Gatos North 40, California Project Benefits Satisfies Town of Los Gatos Housing Element Southbay 1048 units Oka Road 99 units In-law 55 units Dinvelmrirmint Arilitiostsi Psiburribil Sites LIA Oar*0 Aisiairriffir0 Lei. to s Lodge. ifiQ fr! &r I041Sd P4104. Farley fiivart. Dries Lam+ LOG GAMS ElIy1 is on Meeting state requirements with decades of community input. os Project Benefits Improve School Facilities through Voluntary Contribution Beyond SB 50 Standing Up for Education The North 40 team is voluntarily working with the District to support the acquisition of two acres of land for LGUSD to expand its facilities. This is in addition to the school mitigation fees mandated by California SB 50. We are committed to the positive impact of The North 40 project on all aspects of the community of Los Gatos. LOS GATOS I'NiOV Sl ryllf 51 01, I Rll North HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION EDE N GROsvrNOk SLIMMERHIII I -It AlEt, Project Benefits ANNUAL FISCAL BENEFIT Phase One North 40 will contribute more than $3M in gross revenues annually to the Town of Los Gatos, in addition to the one-time fees. S748K ADDED TO THE LOS GATOS GENERAL FUND $797,823 5462K ADDED TO THE T` 6 2, 0 i 9 SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE 5719K ADDED T4 THE LOS GATOS-SARATOGA JOINT HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT $1,177,748 dplo s1.214 ADDED TO THE LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT North 40 Bedroom Count District Transition Transition Lark Lark Lark Lark Lark Lark Lark Lark Project Benefits Smaller Units, Low Bedroom Count Number of Total Average Product Type Bedrooms Units Bedrooms Bedrooms Apartment/Live Work 1 Apartment 2 Garden Garden Garden Rowtown Rowtown Condominium Cluster Condominium Cluster Condominium Cluster Transition Senior Affordable Transition Senior Affordable Total Number of 1 Bedrooms: Total Number of 2 Bedrooms: Total Number of 3 Bedrooms: 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 8 2 41 22 20 73 24 30 40 10 49 1 8 4 41 44 60 146 72 30 80 30 49 2 1.20 1.75 2.25 1.75 1_02 ITotals: 320 566 1.77 I 128 138 54 39% 42% 16M Residential Square Footage Averages: District Transition Transition Lark Average Number of Square Product Type Units Footage Move Down 10 905 Senior Affordable 50 557 Millennial 260 1572 320 1393 Project Benefits New Neighborhood Serving Retail and Market Hall MARKET HALL Celebrating food and those that produce it. BARirchr1 Project Benefits Over 14.5 Tons of Fruits and Vegetables Fruiting orchards along Lark Ave Restaurant demonstration garden along South A Street Project Benefits Going Above and Beyond the Specific Plan Open Space Open Space Publicly Accessible Replacement Trees 2-Story Lark District Units (Baseline) Units (w/Density Bonus) New Commercial 25' Res Setback on Lark/LGB Height on Lark/LGB Residential Parking Mixed Use (TD) Parking Commercial (TD) Parking Specific Plan Proposed 30% min 39% 20% min 85% 276 min 1500 15% min 29% 270 max 237 365 max 320 435,000 max 66,000 50' min 65' 25' max 11'-25' 579 min 581 69 min 69 285 min 389 July 12, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission Applicants: Don Capobres — Representing Grosvenor Wendi Baker — SummerHill Home Andrea Osgood — Eden Housing William Hirschman — Lexor Builders Agrarian: Zach Lewis — Garden 2 Table Architects: Paula Krugmeier — BAR Architects Debra Lehtone — BAR Architects John Thatch — Dahlin Group Landscape: Ashley Langworthy — SWA Melissa Willmann — VDA Economic: Civil: Timothy Kelly — Keyser Marston Associates Chris Ragan — MacKay and Somps Jacqueline Bays — MacKay and Somps Legal: Barbara Kautz — Goldfarb & Lipman Andrew Faber — Berliner Cohen Traffic: Katy Cole — Fehr & Peers Project Benefits • 49 very low income senior units and one moderate rate unit • Over $10 million of traffic related improvements (above & beyond EIR requirements) o Resulting in a 26% reduction in traffic delays at Lark/Los Gatos Boulevard o Bicycle Lanes from Project Frontage to Los Gatos Creek Trail • Compliance with State Approved Housing Element • Unprecedented Voluntary School Agreement • Over $2.7 million gross revenues annually to the Town of Los Gatos, including: $1.9 Million annually to LGUSD and LG-SJUSD $800K annually to the Los Gatos General Fund Plus: $462K annually to Santa Clara County Fire • Satisfies unmet housing needs in the Town with affordable apartments, multifamily rental and for sale housing o 84% of residences are 1 or 2 bedroom units, with an overall bedroom count of 1.77 bedrooms average o Residences range in size from approximately 550 sf to 1,950 sf o Average residence size 1,393 sf • New Neighborhood Serving Retail & Restaurants to serve new and existing residents on North Side of Town • 14.5 Tons of Diverse Fruits and Vegetables Produced honoring the "Valley of the Hearts Delight" • Over 6x the required replacement trees • High Quality execution of Town's Specific Plan with more open space and trees, less height, and greater setbacks